[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69026-69034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22170]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

19 CFR Parts 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 24, 54, 101, 102, 103, 113, 132, 
133, 134, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 151, 152, 158, 159, 
161, 162, 163, 173, 174, 176, and 181

[USCBP-2016-0075; CBP Dec. 23-12]
RIN 1651-AB02


Regulatory Implementation of the Centers of Excellence and 
Expertise

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document adopts as final, without change, interim 
amendments made to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 
regulations by CBP Decision 16-26, as modified by a subsequent 
technical correction, CBP Decision 19-11. The interim amendments 
established the Centers of Excellence and Expertise (Centers) as a 
permanent organizational component of the agency. The interim 
amendments shifted certain trade functions to the Centers and 
identified other trade functions jointly carried out by port directors 
and Center directors. The interim amendments provided broad, 
centralized decision-making authority to the Centers to enable the 
Centers to facilitate trade, reduce transaction costs, increase 
compliance with applicable import laws, and achieve uniformity of 
treatment at ports of entry for identified industries.

DATES: This final rule is effective November 6, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori Whitehurst, Office of Field 
Operations, Cargo and Conveyance Security, Trade Operations Division, 
at (202) 344-2536, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background and Summary
    A. Purpose of the Centers of Excellence and Expertise (Centers)
    B. Test Program Developing the Centers
    C. Interim Final Rule
    D. Technical Correction
II. Discussion of Comments
    A. Overview
    B. Responses to Comments
III. Conclusion
IV. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    A. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
Signing Authority
Amendments to CBP Regulations

I. Background and Summary

A. Purpose of the Centers of Excellence and Expertise (Centers)

    Prior to the implementation of the Centers of Excellence and 
Expertise (Centers), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) processed 
imports on a port-by-port basis. Due to CBP's port-by-port trade 
processing authority, importers claimed disparate processing treatment 
for similar goods entered at different ports of entry, causing trade 
disruptions, increased transaction costs, and information lapses. In 
response, CBP established 10 Centers with broad, centralized decision-
making authority to facilitate trade, reduce transaction costs, 
increase compliance with applicable

[[Page 69027]]

import laws, and achieve uniformity of treatment at the ports of entry 
for identified industry sectors. The Centers focus on nationwide entry 
summary processing and other trade oversight on a per-importer account 
basis through a single assigned Center, replacing traditional post-
summary processing for each entry at each port of entry. The port 
directors continue to retain sole authority over the control, movement, 
and release of cargo.
    The Centers are managed from strategic locations around the 
country, permitting CBP to focus its trade expertise on industry-
specific issues and provide tailored support for importers. The Centers 
and the cities wherein each management office is located are as 
follows: (1) Agriculture & Prepared Products, Miami, Florida; (2) 
Apparel, Footwear & Textiles, San Francisco, California; (3) Automotive 
& Aerospace, Detroit, Michigan; (4) Base Metals, Chicago, Illinois; (5) 
Consumer Products & Mass Merchandising, Atlanta, Georgia; (6) 
Electronics, Long Beach, California; (7) Industrial & Manufacturing 
Materials, Buffalo, New York; (8) Machinery, Laredo, Texas; (9) 
Petroleum, Natural Gas & Minerals, Houston, Texas; and (10) 
Pharmaceuticals, Health & Chemicals, New York, New York. For a more 
detailed discussion of the scope of industries covered by each Center, 
please refer to the Interim Final Rule discussed in further detail in 
Sec. I.C below.

B. Test Program Developing the Centers

    The Centers concept developed as a result of discussions between 
CBP and the Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC), 
which advises the Commissioner of CBP, the Secretary of the Department 
of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Secretary of the Department of the 
Treasury (Treasury) on the commercial operations of CBP and related DHS 
and Treasury functions. See Section 109, Public Law 114-125, 130 Stat. 
122 (Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (TFTEA)).
    In 2012, CBP developed a test to incrementally transition the 
operational trade functions that traditionally resided with port 
directors to the Centers. The purpose of the test was to broaden the 
ability of the Centers to make decisions by waiving certain identified 
regulations to the extent necessary to provide the Center directors, 
who manage the Centers, with the authority to make the decisions 
normally reserved for the port directors. On August 28, 2012, CBP 
published the first of three General Notices in the Federal Register 
(Announcement of Test Providing Centralized Decision-Making Authority 
for Four CBP Centers of Excellence and Expertise, 77 FR 52048) 
announcing a general test (the Centers test) open to participants from 
industries covered by the Electronics Center, the Pharmaceuticals, 
Health & Chemicals Center, the Automotive & Aerospace Center, and the 
Petroleum, Natural Gas & Minerals Center. CBP modified the Centers test 
in two subsequent Federal Register notices published on April 4, 2013 
(Modification and Expansion of CBP Centers of Excellence and Expertise 
Test to Include Six Additional Centers, 78 FR 20345) and March 10, 2014 
(Centers of Excellence and Expertise Test; Modifications, 79 FR 13322).
    Over the course of the Centers test, the decision-making authority 
of the Center directors was incrementally broadened. On September 11, 
2014, the then-serving Commissioner of CBP, R. Gil Kerlikowske, signed 
Delegation Order 14-004, which expanded the Center directors' decision-
making authority by delegating to the Center directors all functions, 
authorities, rights, privileges, powers, and duties vested in port 
directors by law, regulation, or otherwise. The delegation enabled 
these functions, authorities, rights, privileges, powers, and duties to 
be exercised concurrently by port directors and Center directors.

C. Interim Final Rule (IFR)

    Section 110 of TFTEA required the development and implementation of 
the Centers. Accordingly, on December 20, 2016, CBP published an 
interim final rule, CBP Decision (CBP Dec.) 16-26 (Centers IFR), in the 
Federal Register (Regulatory Implementation of the Centers of 
Excellence and Expertise, 81 FR 92978), amending title 19 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (19 CFR) and establishing the Centers as a 
permanent organizational component of the agency. Furthering the 
Centers' trade enhancement goals, the Centers IFR implemented the 
Centers' broad decision-making authority by amending parts of title 19 
of the CFR to: (1) define the Centers and the Center directors; (2) 
modify the definition of the term ``port director'' in order to 
distinguish the port directors' functions from the Center directors' 
functions; (3) identify the Center management offices; (4) explain the 
process by which importers are assigned to the Centers based on the 
predominant Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 
tariff classification of the importer's goods; (5) establish an appeals 
process that allows an importer to contest its assignment to a specific 
Center; (6) identify the regulatory functions that have been 
transitioned from the port directors to the Center directors and those 
functions that the port directors and the Center directors carry out 
jointly; (7) clarify that certain payments and documents may continue 
to be submitted at the ports of entry and electronically; and (8) 
provide a list of industries covered by each of the Centers. A limited 
number of responsibilities and authorities that had been provided to 
the Center directors under the Centers test were not transitioned to 
the Centers as part of the interim amendments.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 81 FR 92978 (December 20, 2016) for a detailed list of 
responsibilities and authorities that had been previously provided 
to the Center directors as part of the Centers test but were not 
transitioned to the Centers as part of the interim amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Technical Correction

    On September 5, 2019, CBP published a technical correction, CBP 
Dec. 19-11, (Technical Correction), in the Federal Register (84 FR 
46676) to correct discrepancies in 19 CFR 12.73(j) and 141.113(b) to 
properly reflect the authority of the Center directors. Following the 
publication of an unrelated final rule in the Federal Register on 
December 27, 2016 (81 FR 94974), Sec.  12.73(j) contained an 
inconsistency that was corrected to reflect that both the Center 
directors and port directors have the authority to collect certain U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declarations, and the Center 
directors, rather than the port directors, have the authority to extend 
the submission deadline for such EPA declarations. Additionally, an 
inadvertent omission in the amendatory instructions to Sec.  141.113(b) 
was corrected to replace the word ``port director'' with the word 
``Center director.''

II. Discussion of Comments

A. Overview

    Pursuant to the agency management or personnel exemption in 5 
U.S.C. 553(a)(2), the agency organization, procedure, and practice 
exemption in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), and the good cause exemption in 5 
U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the interim regulatory amendments were promulgated 
without prior public notice and comment procedures. However, the 
Centers IFR provided for the submission of public comments that would 
be considered before adopting the interim amendments as a final rule. 
The prescribed 30-day public comment period closed on January 19, 2017.

[[Page 69028]]

    One of the comments that CBP received during the initial 30-day 
public comment period requested a 60-day extension of the 30-day public 
comment period. In response to the comment and to allow for as much 
public participation as possible in the formulation of the final rule, 
on January 27, 2017, CBP extended the initial 30-day public comment 
period for another 60 days until March 20, 2017 (82 FR 8588). During 
the public comment period, CBP received eight comments, six of which 
were within the scope of the Centers IFR.\2\ CBP has carefully 
considered all comments submitted in response to the Centers IFR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Eight public comments were submitted to the docket for the 
Centers IFR; however, two comments were not posted to 
www.regulations.gov as they were deemed out of scope. Neither of the 
two comments addressed the Centers and both comments were directed 
to other agencies regarding other programs. Accordingly, these two 
comments are not considered in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All comments were supportive of the implementation of the Centers 
as a permanent organizational component of the agency. Nonetheless, 
several commenters had concerns or questions about specific aspects of 
the Centers' organization and operations. A description of these 
comments, together with CBP's analysis, is set forth below.

B. Responses to Comments

    Comment: Two commenters expressed general approval of the Centers, 
with one commenter, a law firm, stating that the Centers constitute a 
vast improvement over the disjointed and inconsistent treatment of 
entries that resulted from the administration of imports on a port-by-
port basis, reflecting the goals of increased administrative 
efficiencies noted in the Centers IFR cost-benefit analysis. The 
commenter especially highlighted its positive experience in working 
with various Centers.
    Response: The Centers represent a new approach to trade processing 
that is more in line with the trade community's current business 
practices, and CBP is pleased to know that the trade community shares 
the view that the Centers enhance compliance, collaboration, and 
efficiency.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concerns regarding coordination 
between the Centers and ports, as well as the procedures pertaining to 
the assignment of importers to the Centers. According to the commenter, 
the lack of procedures and policies that govern how the Centers and 
ports coordinate with each other creates difficulties in determining 
which component serves as the primary decision-maker and/or point of 
contact regarding these matters. While the commenter acknowledged that 
the assignment of importers to the Centers may provide clarification as 
to which component serves as the primary decision-maker and/or point of 
contact, the commenter also raised additional concerns and questions 
regarding the assignment of importers to the Centers.
    First, the commenter noted that the assignment of importers to the 
Centers on an account basis rather than based on the predominant 
commodities of each entry constitutes a reversal of a policy that CBP 
announced in 2016 for entries requiring review, such that an importer 
could end up dealing with multiple Centers, for different entries. 
Second, the commenter inquired whether CBP is prepared to properly 
allocate importers to the Centers based on their account activity and 
business model. Specifically, the commenter inquired about the process 
by which CBP assigns importers with minimal account activity throughout 
the year to the Centers, and how the Centers coordinate with each other 
when an importer was assigned to one Center on an account level but 
enters a small number of shipments with predominant HTSUS tariff 
classifications covered by a different Center.
    Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter's assertion that a lack 
of coordination in the concurrent decision-making authority of port 
directors and Center directors creates uncertainty as to which 
component serves as the point of contact and primary decision-maker. 
Either the amended regulations or the corresponding CBP Form specifies 
which component should be contacted regarding these matters. In order 
to better enable the Centers to accomplish their trade mission (that 
is, to strategically enforce commercial import laws while also 
facilitating the flow of legitimate trade), the regulatory, permanent 
implementation of the Centers required CBP to make minor adjustments to 
the Centers' authorities and responsibilities, and CBP's internal 
policies and procedures. For example, in order to achieve full end-to-
end processing of import activity, CBP updated its internal policies 
and procedures to provide for the required level of coordination and 
collaboration between the Centers and the ports, including creating 
instances of concurrent decision-making authority between the Center 
directors and port directors during the Centers implementation process. 
Additionally, the Centers IFR included minor modifications to the 
Centers' responsibilities and authorities, and the process by which 
importers are assigned to the Centers. Therefore, CBP recognizes that 
the regulatory implementation of the Centers as a permanent 
organizational component of the agency has required an adjustment 
period during which the trade community must become acquainted with the 
modified processes, including which component serves as the primary 
decision-maker for certain trade functions and the process by which 
importers are assigned to the Centers. CBP appreciates the comment as 
it provided CBP with an opportunity to guide the trade community 
through the adjustment process.
    The Centers centralize and consolidate post-release activities of 
importers on an account basis. Generally, each importer is assigned to 
a Center based on the predominant HTSUS tariff classification of the 
importer's imported goods. Once an importer has been assigned to a 
specific Center, that Center will process all of the importer's entry 
summaries, regardless of the predominant HTSUS tariff classification of 
a specific entry. For example, an importer whose imports are 75 percent 
footwear and 25 percent miscellaneous items will be assigned to the 
Center for Apparel, Footwear and Textiles. Once the importer has been 
assigned to the Center for Apparel, Footwear and Textiles, all of the 
importer's activities will be processed by that Center, regardless of 
whether the predominant HTSUS tariff classification of a specific entry 
relates to a different industry sector.
    The processing of trade activity on an account basis does not 
prevent the Centers from providing tailored support to importers and 
handling industry-specific issues. When it is necessary to leverage 
another Center's expertise, the Centers coordinate with each other, and 
CBP has streamlined the coordination process over time. However, over 
time, the Centers have developed a more proficient level of knowledge 
of their accounts and import activities, which has enabled the Centers 
to administer trade activity more independently.
    In order to ensure that an importer is assigned to the Center that 
corresponds with the importer's business model, the assignment process 
differs slightly in a limited number of circumstances. For example, CBP 
may assign an importer to a Center other than the Center reflecting the 
predominant HTSUS tariff classification of the importer's goods, if 
such deviation from the regular assignment process is supported by 
information such as: (1) the importer's associated business practice 
within an industry; (2) the intended use of the predominant number of 
goods imported;

[[Page 69029]]

and (3) the high relative value of the imported goods. Additionally, 
since the business practices of brokers do not align within a 
particular industry sector, the import activities of brokers acting as 
Importers of Record (IORs) are processed on an entry-by-entry basis, 
meaning that each entry summary will be assigned to a specific Center 
based on the entry summary's predominant HTSUS tariff classification. 
Import activities of importers with minimal account activity throughout 
the year who have not yet been assigned to a specific Center are 
processed similarly. Furthermore, importers are permitted to appeal the 
assignment to a Center at any time and can seek re-assignment to a 
different Center. See 19 CFR 101.10(c). As a result, CBP finds that the 
current assignment process properly allocates importers to Centers 
based on the importers' account activity and business models.
    Comment: One commenter requested that CBP assign entries filed by 
express courier brokers to the Centers on the basis of the overall 
post-release account activity of the ship-to party, or in the 
alternative, create a separate Center for express courier brokers. 
According to the commenter, the exclusion of express courier brokers 
from participation in the Centers model is anathema to the purpose of 
the Centers--that is, to focus CBP's trade expertise on industry-
specific issues and tailored support for importers. The commenter 
explained that, although express courier brokers serve as IORs on 
entries, the predominant tariff classification of the entries is not 
driven by the express courier broker's business model but the business 
model of the ship-to party (formerly known as consignee), who serves as 
the party causing the importation and often serves as an IOR itself on 
other (unrelated) entries. Accordingly, the commenter requested that 
CBP assign entries filed by express courier brokers to the Centers on 
the basis of the overall post-release account activity of the ship-to 
party, instead of the post-release account activity of the importer of 
record (that is, the express courier broker), or in the alternative, 
create a separate Center for express courier brokers.
    Response: CBP appreciates the comment as it underscores the 
importance of the roles of filers and brokers in the importation 
process and agrees that express courier brokers do not squarely fit 
within one of the ten defined industry sectors because their business 
practices cross all industry sectors. Nonetheless, CBP finds that the 
Centers are well equipped to handle the activities of express courier 
brokers as they fit within the trade community's overall business 
practices.
    The Centers process trade activity from a national perspective, at 
the IOR and ultimate consignee level, and, therefore, have full 
visibility into the trade community's normal business practices, 
including the activities of express courier brokers. Like the trade 
activities of other brokers acting as IORs, the import activities of 
express courier brokers are also processed on an entry-by-entry basis, 
meaning that each entry summary will be assigned to a specific Center 
based on the entry summary's predominant HTSUS tariff classification. 
As such, it is CBP's position that the Centers are well equipped to 
handle the activities of express courier brokers because the Centers' 
current operating model accounts for the fact that express courier 
brokers enter merchandise across all industry sectors.
    Express courier brokers are not excluded from participation in the 
Centers model, as the commenter suggested. To the contrary, the Centers 
have gained experience on industry-specific issues, which has led to an 
improved level of service to express courier brokers. This includes the 
creation of cross-educational opportunities that will serve to inform 
express courier brokers on compliance issues and CBP on the trade 
community's current business practices, including the express courier 
brokers' processes. CBP is committed to ensuring that the business 
processes of all members of the trade community are accounted for in 
the Centers' operational approach and continues to strengthen 
relationships in a coordinated effort to secure the U.S. economy 
through lawful trade and travel.
    Comment: One commenter commended CBP on the creation of the Centers 
but suggested several minor technical revisions to the language of the 
CBP regulations pertaining to the Centers (Centers regulations). For 
example, the commenter noted that several provisions of the Centers 
regulations provide that certain documents or payments may be filed 
with CBP, ``either at the port of entry or electronically.'' The 
commenter explained that the phrase ``either at the port of entry or 
electronically'' implies that the Centers only accept electronic 
submissions of these types of documents or payments. The commenter also 
noted that, in the context of paragraph (b) of section 174.12, the 
phrase conflicts with the regulatory language in paragraph (d), which 
permits but does not require electronic filing.
    Additionally, the commenter pointed out that the fact that protests 
filed with the Centers can cover entries filed at multiple ports of 
entry constitutes a major change to CBP's protest procedures, and as 
such, should be highlighted in the regulatory text. Therefore, the 
commenter requested that CBP amend paragraph (d) of section 174.12 by 
adding the following sentence: ``A protest filed with the Center 
director may include entries filed at multiple ports of entry.''
    Response: CBP understands that the implementation of the Centers 
led to an initial adjustment period during which members of the trade 
community had to become acquainted with the Centers' processes, 
including the submission process for documents and payments. While CBP 
believes that any uncertainty as to the submission process was resolved 
as part of the initial adjustment period, CBP appreciates the comment 
as it provides CBP with an opportunity to clear up any potentially 
remaining uncertainty.
    The use of the phrase ``either at the port of entry or 
electronically'' does not imply that the Centers only accept electronic 
submissions of certain documents and payments, as suggested by the 
commenter. As part of the transition of certain trade functions from 
the ports of entry to the Centers, the Centers IFR shifted certain 
staff positions from the port directors' chain of command to the Center 
directors' chain of command. While the reallocated personnel now report 
to a Center director rather than a port director, the reallocated 
personnel continue to handle the same trade functions. In order to 
remain accessible to the trade community and to assist with enforcement 
and compliance issues as they arise, the reallocated personnel remain 
in their previous locations--primarily, at the ports of entry. The 
realignment was merely virtual. Thus, in the phrase ``either at the 
port of entry or electronically,'' the use of the preposition ``at'' 
(rather than ``with'') establishes that hard copies of the documents or 
payments can be filed at the ports of entry (with staff of either the 
port of entry or the Centers). Like electronic submissions, the 
submissions will then be forwarded to and processed by the Center 
assigned to that particular submission.
    Additionally, CBP disagrees that it is necessary to amend paragraph 
(d) of section 174.12 to further clarify that a single protest can now 
pertain to multiple entries filed at multiple ports of entry. CBP finds 
that the regulatory

[[Page 69030]]

language in paragraph (b) of section 174.13 sufficiently establishes 
that a single protest can now pertain to multiple entries filed at 
multiple ports of entry.

III. Conclusion

    Based on the analysis of the comments and further consideration, 
CBP adopts as final the interim rule (Centers IFR), CBP Dec. 16-26, 
published in the Federal Register (81 FR 92978) on December 20, 2016, 
as modified by the Technical Correction, CBP Dec. 19-11, published in 
the Federal Register (84 FR 46676) on September 5, 2019, without 
changes.

IV. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866

    Executive Orders 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) 
and 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended by Executive 
Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review), direct agencies to assess 
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, and if 
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public 
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive 
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and 
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. 
This rule has not been designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' 
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive 
Order 14094. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB).
1. Purpose of the Rule
    Prior to the launch of the Centers test, CBP port directors 
overseeing imports were solely responsible for facilitating lawful 
importation; protecting U.S. revenue by assessing and collecting 
customs duties, taxes, and fees; and detecting, interdicting, and 
investigating illegal international trafficking in arms, munitions, 
counterfeit goods, currency, and acts of terrorism at their U.S. port 
of entry. Before the implementation of the Centers, when a shipment 
reached the United States, the IOR (i.e., the owner, purchaser, or 
licensed customs broker designated by the owner, purchaser, or 
consignee) would file entry documents and a bond for the imported goods 
with the director of the port where the merchandise was entered. If 
necessary, CBP staff working under the port director would then hold or 
examine the shipment or validate the entry documents to ensure the 
merchandise's safety, security, and customs compliance with U.S. 
importing guidelines, or its general admissibility. The port director 
would release the shipment from CBP's custody if no legal or regulatory 
violations occurred, allowing post-cargo release (hereafter, post-
release) processing to commence. Within 10 working days of the 
merchandise's entry at a designated customhouse, CBP would require the 
importer to file entry summary documentation consisting of the entry 
package returned to the importer, broker, or authorized agent by CBP at 
the time the merchandise was released and an entry summary (CBP Form 
7501), and to deposit any estimated duties on the shipment. In some 
cases, CBP would send a formal request for other invoices and documents 
(via CBP Form 28: Request for Information) to the importer to assess 
duties, collect statistics, or determine that import requirements have 
been satisfied prior to processing the entry summary. Before completing 
the importation process, CBP Import Specialists and Entry Specialists 
working under the port director would review and process all entry 
summary and related documentation; classify and appraise the 
merchandise; collect final duties, taxes, and fees on the goods 
entered; and liquidate entry summaries. If necessary, the CBP trade 
personnel would also review and process protests, perform importer 
interviews, and initiate monetary trade penalties and liquidated 
damages cases.
    Due to CBP's port-by-port trade processing authority and scope, 
elements of the cargo entry and release process, such as holds, exams, 
document submission requirements, and final determinations regarding 
admissibility, varied widely among ports of entry and resulted in the 
length of the process varying greatly as well. Importers often claimed 
to receive disparate processing treatment for similar goods entered at 
different ports of entry, causing trade disruptions, increased 
transaction costs, and information lapses for not only the importer but 
also CBP. With an intent to facilitate trade, provide consistent import 
processing treatment, reduce transaction costs, and strengthen the 
agency's trade knowledge and enforcement posture, CBP began testing an 
organizational concept in 2011 that grouped agency trade expertise and 
operational responsibilities by industry and related import accounts 
into designated Centers.
    Since the commencement of the Centers test, the Centers have 
successfully met their trade enhancement goals. Based on the Centers 
test's success, CBP published the Centers IFR in the Federal Register 
(81 FR 92978) on December 20, 2016, which discontinued the Centers test 
and established the Centers as permanent organizational components of 
CBP through regulatory amendments. The Centers regulations were later 
modified by the Technical Correction published in the Federal Register 
(84 FR 46676) on September 5, 2019.
    This rule adopts the Centers IFR, as modified by the Technical 
Correction, as a final rule, without changes, and finalizes the 
transition of certain trade enforcement responsibilities and the 
majority of post-release trade functions from the purview of port 
directors to Center directors.\3\ Port directors continue to retain 
singular authority over matters pertaining to the control, movement, 
examination, and release of cargo. The Centers focus on nationwide 
entry summary processing and other trade oversight on a per-importer 
account basis through virtual means, which replaces traditional post-
release import processing per entry at each port of entry with 
processing by a single assigned Center according to the importer 
account. To conduct such national, industry-focused processing, CBP has 
permanently staffed the Centers with personnel specializing in trade 
matters through an internal realignment, which imposed no costs on CBP. 
Centers personnel have generally remained at their previous locations, 
primarily at ports of entry, to stay accessible to the trade community 
and continue to assist with enforcement and compliance issues that 
arise at ports of entry with the physical importation of cargo. CBP 
remotely manages Centers employees through multidisciplinary teams 
located across the nation, thereby enabling CBP to extend the Centers' 
hours of service to trade members, maintain a high level of industry 
expertise in major port cities, and staff the Centers with industry 
experts from across the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 81 FR 92978, 92983-93003 (December 20, 2016) and 84 FR 
46676, 46677 (September 5, 2019), for a detailed list of trade 
function transitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Costs and Benefits of Rule
    Since CBP received no comments critical of the economic impact 
analysis on the interim final rule, and one positive comment generally 
reflecting the analysis, and because CBP is not

[[Page 69031]]

making any changes in the final rule, CBP largely adopts the Centers 
IFR's economic analysis, with updated data. CBP also made minor changes 
to the analysis to better reflect how the rule was implemented in 
practice. In this regulatory impact analysis, CBP discusses the costs 
and benefits that CBP and trade members experience with the regulatory 
implementation of the Centers in qualitative and, when possible, 
quantitative or monetary terms. CBP incurred sunk costs related to 
travel, equipment, and supplies and materials, as well as some other 
costs during the Centers test phase, related to establishing and 
transitioning to Centers, totaling approximately $760,000 from 2012 to 
February of 2014. The document ``Program Assessment of the Centers of 
Excellence and Expertise,'' available in the docket, assesses the 
impacts of the Centers test phase in more detail. As in the analysis 
for the interim final rule, we do not include these costs as costs of 
the rule. We report them here to give the reader a more complete 
understanding of the costs for the entire lifecycle of the Centers, 
including the test period.
    For the purpose of this analysis, the complete Centers rulemaking 
effort, including the Regulatory Implementation of the Centers of 
Excellence and Expertise interim final rule, the Technical Correction 
to Centers of Excellence and Expertise Regulations, and this final 
rule, are collectively referred to as ``the Centers rule'' or ``this 
rule.''
a. Costs
    This rule introduces minimal costs to CBP and the trade community 
because it largely meets its objectives through low- to no-cost 
internal organization changes. The transition of post-release import 
processing and trade-related responsibilities from ports of entry to 
the Centers neither affects the duties, taxes, and fees payment and 
entry summary submission processes for importers, nor does it adversely 
affect other post-release activities (e.g., processing duty refund 
claims, reviewing protests). Even with the Centers, importers may 
continue to file payments and paper entry summary documentation with 
CBP either at the port of entry or electronically. All payments from 
the trade community, whether submitted to a Center, at a port of entry, 
or electronically, continue to go directly to CBP's Office of Finance. 
If trade enforcement or post-release processing issues emerge, CBP 
continues to maintain its formal importer notification and remedy 
processes. Upholding these administrative processes generates no 
related costs to the agency.
    At the time the Centers IFR was published, CBP anticipated that if 
an importer or broker submitted paper entry summary documentation at a 
port of entry without an appropriate Center representative on site, CBP 
staff at the port would reroute the documents internally by electronic 
means to the Center assigned to manage the importer's account. In 
practice, electronic rerouting has been found to be unnecessary due to 
the implementation of the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE); 
therefore, CBP incurs no cost for document rerouting as predicted in 
the Centers IFR.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Source: CBP's Office of Field Operations, February 18, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBP does experience costs from processing (i.e., reviewing and 
making a determination on) Center assignment appeals. Generally, CBP 
assigns each importer to a specific Center based on the HTSUS tariff 
classification and industry sector corresponding to the predominant 
number of goods the importer imports.\5\ An importer that is displeased 
with its Center assignment may appeal the assignment at any time by 
submitting a written appeal to CBP by mail or email. Appeals must 
include the following information: (1) current Center assignment; (2) 
preferred Center assignment; (3) all affected IOR numbers and 
associated bond numbers; (4) written justification for the change in 
Center assignment; and (5) import data, as described in the 
``Finalization of the Centers of Excellence and Expertise Test'' 
section of the Centers IFR. CBP data shows that importers file 
significantly fewer Center assignment appeals than what was predicted 
in the Centers IFR. CBP receives two Center assignment appeals each 
year compared to the 60 that was predicted in the Centers IFR.\6\ Each 
appeal takes 30 minutes (0.5 hours), on average, for CBP Headquarters 
staff to process, which is half has long as predicted in the Centers 
IFR.\7\ CBP generally notifies trade members of its Center appeal 
decisions by electronic means, thus imposing no additional cost on the 
agency.\8\ Based on the number of Center appeals submitted annually and 
CBP's time burden to manage each appeal, CBP sustains an annual cost of 
$96.61 from the Centers rule's Center assignment appeals process.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The list of HTSUS numbers that will be used by CBP for the 
importer's placement in a Center is the same list of HTSUS numbers 
that is referenced in the definition for Centers (see Sec.  101.1). 
Factors that may cause CBP to place an importer in a Center not 
based on the HTSUS tariff classification of the predominant number 
of goods imported include the importer's associated business 
practices within an industry, the intended use of the predominant 
number of goods imported, or the high relative value of goods 
imported.
    \6\ Source: CBP's Office of Field Operations, February 18, 2020.
    \7\ Source: CBP's Office of Field Operations, February 18, 2020.
    \8\ Source: CBP's Office of Field Operations, January 15, 2015.
    \9\ This cost is monetized by multiplying one hour by the fully-
loaded wage of a CBP Officer ($96.61). CBP bases this wage on the FY 
2022 salary and benefits of the national average of CBP Agriculture 
Specialist positions, which is equal to a GS-12, Step 5. Source: 
CBP's Office of Finance, June 27, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As outlined in this final rule, the responsibilities of the trade 
community remain largely unchanged with the Centers' regulatory 
implementation. Importers may continue to file cargo release 
documentation and payments where their merchandise is entered. 
Importers and brokers who file electronically can continue to use CBP's 
automated systems, such as the Automated Broker Interface, to submit 
required import data and payments to CBP. Meanwhile, CBP continues to 
maintain a consistent formal notification and remedy process regarding 
post-release and other trade-related issues with the Centers' 
establishment. Trade members only incur costs from this rule when 
appealing a Center assignment.
    Importers may choose to appeal their Center assignment for a number 
of reasons, including the expectation of better service or product 
knowledge at another Center. As previously discussed, if an importer 
chooses to appeal its Center assignment, it must submit a written 
appeal to CBP by mail or email that includes information about its 
current and preferred Center assignments (see ``Finalization of the 
Centers of Excellence and Expertise Test'' section of the Centers IFR 
for specific appeal requirements). CBP estimates that each appeal takes 
45 minutes (0.75 hours) for an importer to complete.\10\ The 
opportunity cost estimate is equal to the median hourly wage of an 
importer ($34.81) multiplied by the hourly time burden for an importer 
to complete and submit a Center assignment appeal (0.75 hour), and then 
rounded.\11\ This results in an

[[Page 69032]]

opportunity cost of $26.11 for a single appeal. Due to the relative 
affordability of submitting a Center assignment appeal via email rather 
than mail, CBP believes that the vast majority of importers file 
appeals electronically. Therefore, CBP does not consider the printing 
or mailing costs for an importer to submit a Center assignment appeal 
in this analysis. By applying the cost for importers to complete and 
submit a Center assignment appeal to the expected number of Center 
assignment appeals filed annually, CBP finds that this rule's appeals 
process generates $52.22 in yearly costs to the trade community.\12\ 
This cost is lower than the Centers IFR estimated annual cost to the 
trade community of $1,803 largely due to the difference in projected 
(60) and actual (2) Center appeals received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Source: CBP's Office of Field Operations, February 18, 
2020.
    \11\ CBP calculated this loaded wage rate by first multiplying 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) 2021 median hourly wage rate 
for Cargo and Freight Agents ($22.55), which CBP assumes best 
represents the wage for importers, by the ratio of BLS' average 2021 
total compensation to wages and salaries for Office and 
Administrative Support occupations (1.4819), the assumed 
occupational group for importers, to account for non-salary employee 
benefits. This figure is in 2021 U.S. dollars and CBP assumes an 
annual growth rate of 4.15 percent based on the prior year's change 
in the implicit price deflator, published by the Bureau of Economic 
Analysis. Source of median wage rate: U.S. Bureau of Labor 
Statistics. Occupational Employment Statistics, ``May 2021 National 
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United States.'' Updated 
March 31, 2022. Available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm. Accessed May 25, 2022. The total compensation to wages 
and salaries ratio is equal to the calculated average of the 2021 
quarterly estimates (shown under Q01, Q02, Q03, Q04) of the total 
compensation cost per hour worked for Office and Administrative 
Support occupations ($29.6125) divided by the calculated average of 
the 2021 quarterly estimates (shown under Q01, Q02, Q03, Q04) of 
wages and salaries cost per hour worked for the same occupation 
category ($19.9825). Source of total compensation to wages and 
salaries ratio data: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employer Costs 
for Employee Compensation. ``ECEC Civilian Workers--2004 to 
Present.'' March 2022. Available at https://www.bls.gov/web/ecec.supp.toc.htm. Accessed May 25, 2022.
    \12\ The annual opportunity cost to the trade industry is equal 
to the median hourly wage of an importer ($34.81) multiplied by the 
hourly time burden for an importer to complete and submit a Center 
assignment appeal (0.75 hours), multiplied by the number of Center 
assignment appeals (2), and then rounded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain trade members, particularly CBP-accredited laboratories and 
CBP-approved gaugers, may incur added costs with this rule's amendments 
to their obligations outlined in 19 CFR 151.12(c)(5) and (6), and 19 
CFR 151.13(b)(5) and (6).\13\ As amended, CBP requires CBP-accredited 
laboratories to notify an additional CBP representative, the Center 
director, of ``any circumstance which might affect the accuracy of work 
performed as an accredited laboratory, . . . their consequences, and 
any corrective action taken or that needs to be taken'' and ``of any 
attempt to impede, influence, or coerce laboratory personnel in the 
performance of their duties, or of any decision to terminate laboratory 
operations or accredited status.'' \14\ Similarly, CBP requires CBP-
approved gaugers to notify an additional CBP representative, the Center 
director, of ``any circumstance which might affect the accuracy of work 
performed as an approved gauger, . . . their consequences, and any 
corrective action taken or that needs to be taken'' and ``of any 
attempt to impede, influence, or coerce gauger personnel in the 
performance of their duties, or of any decision to terminate gauger 
operations or approval status.'' \15\ Under previous, pre-Centers 
regulations, CBP mandated CBP-accredited laboratories and CBP-approved 
gaugers to contact the port director and Executive Director, 
Laboratories and Scientific Services, on the matters described above. 
Given that CBP did not receive any notifications previously required 
under 19 CFR 151.12(c)(5) and (6) and 19 CFR 151.13(b)(5) and (6) in 
the past 20 years prior, CBP assumes that this rule's additional CBP 
notification step for CBP-accredited laboratories and CBP-approved 
gaugers will continue to not introduce any costs to these parties.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The text of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13 still refers to 
CBP as Customs.
    \14\ 19 CFR 151.12(c)(5) and 151.12(c)(6).
    \15\ 19 CFR 151.13(b)(5) and 151.13(b)(6).
    \16\ Based on the number of notifications received by CBP's 
Laboratories and Scientific Services as of February 2020. Source: 
CBP's Office of Field Operations, February 18, 2020, and October 26, 
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In all, the Centers rule introduces annual costs of $96.61 to CBP 
and $52.22 to trade members for a total of $148.83.
b. Benefits
    The Centers rule produces valuable benefits to CBP and the trade 
community. This section of the analysis largely discusses the benefits 
of the rule qualitatively due to quantitative data limitations. Based 
on the success of the Centers test and public comments on the Centers 
IFR, CBP believes that, as permanent organizational components, the 
Centers continue to provide uniform post-release processing and trade-
related decision-making, strengthen critical agency knowledge of 
industry practices and products, heighten CBP's trade enforcement 
skills, and improve trade communication. CBP also believes this occurs 
on a much grander scale than observed during the test phase because CBP 
has since assigned all current eligible importers to a Center. CBP 
continues to assign new importers to Centers, if eligible, once the 
Center alignment can be determined based on their import history.
    The Centers allow CBP to conduct uniform entry summary processing 
and trade-related decision-making nationwide on an industry-specific, 
importer account basis by transitioning the post-release processing of 
an importer's goods from a transactional level at each port of entry to 
one assigned Center. Public comments support this assessment. One 
comment from a law firm explained that their clients have seen 
benefits, including increased efficiency, consistency, and more 
accurate treatment in their interactions with Centers compared to the 
``disjointed and inconsistent treatment that resulted from having to 
deal with individual Ports of Entry.''
    As permanent CBP components, the Centers require fewer information 
requests and conduct better informed trade compliance actions than in 
the pre-Centers environment, leading to time and cost savings to CBP 
and trade members. Prior to the implementation of the Centers, when an 
importer entered similar merchandise at different U.S. ports of entry 
that required supplemental information for entry summary processing, 
CBP personnel at each port of entry generally submitted a CBP Form 28: 
Request for Information to the importer. In that case, the importer 
responded to each request, even if the responses were identical, and 
CBP personnel at each port of entry reviewed the duplicative 
information received from the importer. With the Centers, the importer 
receives only one CBP Form 28 for the merchandise's entry summary 
processing, requiring CBP personnel to review the importer's 
supplemental information only once. For each avoidance of a CBP Form 
28, CBP saves 10 minutes (0.17 hours) of time in issuing the request 
and reviewing the requested information.\17\ Importers save an 
estimated 120 minutes (2.0 hours) in preparation time for each avoided 
CBP Form 28 response \18\ and $69.62 in averted opportunity costs.\19\ 
Internal CBP data shows that there has been more than a 61 percent 
(14,958 submissions) decrease in CBP Form 28

[[Page 69033]]

submissions for 2022 compared to 2014 and more than a 55 percent 
(11,977 submissions) decrease since the Centers IFR was implemented in 
2016.\20\ However, due to regulatory changes the trade industry has 
seen since the Centers IFR, the limitations of CBP systems, trade 
remedies, and the fact that several importers still have not been 
assigned to a Center, it is not possible to determine how much the drop 
in CBP Form 28 submissions can be attributed to this rule. CBP and some 
importers may experience additional printing and mailing cost savings 
through reduced CBP Form 28 submissions, though the extent of these 
savings is unknown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Source: U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs. RegInfo.gov. ``Supporting 
Statement Request for Information 1651-0023.'' February 28, 2022. 
Available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202112-1651-008. Accessed October 28, 2022.
    \18\ Source: U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs. RegInfo.gov. ``Supporting 
Statement Request for Information 1651-0023.'' February 28, 2022. 
Available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202112-1651-008. Accessed October 28, 2022.
    \19\ The opportunity cost estimate is equal to the assumed 
median hourly wage of an importer ($34.81) multiplied by the hourly 
time burden for an importer to complete a CBP Form 28 response (2.0 
hours), and then rounded.
    \20\ Source: CBP's Office of Field Operations, February 18, 
2020, and October 26, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With a single Center conducting all post-release processing for a 
particular importer, determinations on protests, marking, and 
classification matters are now consistent rather than sometimes 
inconsistent as in the pre-Centers environment. In the pre-Centers 
environment, importers occasionally received different determinations 
on similar trade compliance issues depending on the port of entry where 
their merchandise was processed, which sometimes required duplicative 
action on behalf of CBP and the importer. The Centers' consistency may 
enhance importers' awareness of CBP's positions on trade compliance 
issues, possibly leading to improved compliance and an unknown amount 
of subsequent savings to both parties in the future. To the extent that 
the Centers' uniform processing and determinations also decrease post-
summary corrections, exams, hold times, and other trade obstacles, the 
benefits of this rule will be higher.
    In addition to creating uniform post-release processing and 
determinations, the Centers strengthen CBP trade personnel's industry 
knowledge by concentrating their expertise into a specific import 
industry set as opposed to the entire range of import industries. 
According to outreach conducted for this rule, such focused expertise 
has already enriched CBP relations with the trade community, as 
demonstrated through a Centers test participant's claim that Center 
account managers are very knowledgeable of their industry and are now 
more familiar with their imports and trade issues.\21\ Several public 
commenters on the Centers IFR also expressed positive experiences with 
the Centers. Increasing Centers staff awareness of importers and their 
merchandise may also contribute to a decline in requests for 
information, exams, or holds, which provides time and cost savings to 
CBP and trade members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Source: Teleconference with CBP's Pharmaceuticals, Health & 
Chemicals Center test participant on December 19, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Centers' industry focus has also enriched trade enforcement. 
Using knowledge gathered through processing solely entry summaries for 
the electronics industry, Electronics Center employees uncovered a 
counterfeit electronic adapter import operation. Since discovering the 
counterfeiting operation, the Electronics Center has worked with the 
rights holder to add a trademark onto its electronic device to prevent 
future intellectual property rights (IPR) violations and subsequent 
economic losses.\22\ Based on the benefits of enhanced industry 
knowledge gained during the Centers test phase and since the Centers 
IFR went into effect, CBP believes the permanent establishment of the 
Centers enhances CBP relations with the trade community, facilitates 
trade, and results in an improved ability to identify high-risk 
commercial importations that could enhance import safety, increase 
revenue protection, and reduce economic losses associated with trade 
violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Source: Teleconference with CBP's Electronics Center on 
December 3, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Centers streamline communication between CBP and 
the trade community by replacing communication with each port of entry 
with communication with one Center. The Centers serve as a single 
source of information and point of contact for trade members regarding 
importing requirements, IPR infringement or other trade violations, 
merchandise holds, and Partner Government Agencies (PGA) issues, 
eliminating the need for trade members to contact multiple CBP 
employees and for multiple CBP employees to share duplicative 
information with members of the trade. Such a decrease in redundant 
information requests and sharing produces time and cost savings to the 
trade community and CBP. The Centers also allow for enhanced 
communication with importers by offering extended hours of service 
compared to port of entry service hours, which may expedite trade. 
Without information on the amount of duplicative communication 
eliminated with the emergence of the Centers or the volume of trade 
expedited through the Centers' extended hours of service, the overall 
value of these communication benefits is unknown.
c. Net Impact of Rule
    In summary, the Centers rule introduces both costs and benefits. 
CBP sustains $96.61 in added costs each year from reviewing Center 
assignment appeals, while trade members bear an annual cost of $52.22 
attributable to Center assignment appeals. CBP and trade members also 
experience benefits from this rule's decreased import costs and time 
burdens, streamlined trade processing, broadened industry and trade 
compliance knowledge, enhanced trade enforcement posture, and improved 
communication, though the overall value of these benefits is unknown. 
Although not quantified, CBP believes this rule's benefits to CBP and 
the trade community are considerable, while its costs to these parties 
are relatively negligible. For these reasons, CBP asserts that the 
benefits of this rule outweigh its costs, thus providing an overall net 
benefit to the agency and members of the trade community.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.), as amended 
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
requires agencies to assess the impact of regulations on small 
entities. A small entity may be a small business (defined as any 
independently owned and operated business not dominant in its field 
that qualifies as a small business concern per the Small Business Act); 
a small not-for-profit organization; or a small governmental 
jurisdiction (locality with fewer than 50,000 people). CBP initially 
issued the Centers rule as an interim final rule under the agency 
management and personnel and procedural rule exceptions of the 
Administrative Procedure Act. Thus, a Regulatory Flexibility Act 
analysis was not required. See 5 U.S.C. 553. Nonetheless, CBP 
considered the economic impact of the Centers IFR on small entities. 
Since CBP did not receive any comments on the Centers IFR relating to 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, CBP adopts the Centers IFR's 
Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis with updated data, as presented 
next.
    Through the Centers final rule, CBP finalizes the transition of 
certain trade enforcement responsibilities and the majority of post-
release trade functions from the purview of port directors to Center 
directors.\23\ Port directors continue to retain singular authority 
over regulations pertaining to the control, movement, examination, and

[[Page 69034]]

release of cargo. Because the Centers introduce a new post-release 
processing method for all U.S. imports, this rule's regulatory changes 
affect all importers and brokers who enter goods into the United 
States, including those considered ``small'' under the Small Business 
Administration's (SBA) size standards.\24\ Since the vast majority of 
importers are small businesses, this rule impacts a substantial number 
of small entities.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See 81 FR 92978, 92983-93003 (December 20, 2016) and 84 FR 
46676, 46677 (September 5, 2019), for a detailed list of trade 
function transitions.
    \24\ See 13 CFR 121.101-121.201.
    \25\ Source: CBP Report: Importer SBA Analysis 2022, dated May 
11, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule generates costs and benefits to importers and related 
members of the trade. As outlined throughout this rule, the 
responsibilities of the trade community remain largely unchanged due to 
the Centers rule. However, trade members experience costs when filing a 
Center assignment appeal and when notifying a Center under the 
requirements of amended 19 CFR 151.12(c)(5) and (6), and 19 CFR 
151.13(b)(5) and (6).
    As previously mentioned in the ``Executive Orders 13563 and 12866'' 
section, importers incur an opportunity cost of $26.11 per Center 
assignment appeal. With two appeals expected each year, the annual cost 
of Center assignment appeals to the entire trade community equals 
$52.22. It is likely that some small entities file Center assignment 
appeals, though the exact number is unknown. Regardless of the number 
of small entities impacted by this requirement, CBP does not believe 
that a cost of $26.11 to file a Center assignment appeal amounts to a 
``significant'' level to these entities.
    Under previous, pre-Centers regulations, CBP mandated CBP-
accredited laboratories and CBP-approved gaugers to contact the port 
director and Executive Director of Laboratories and Scientific Services 
on the matters previously described in 19 CFR 151.12(c)(5) and (6), and 
19 CFR 151.13(b)(5) and (6). Given that CBP did not receive any such 
notifications in the past 20 years, CBP assumes that this rule's added 
requirement to contact a Center director per amended 19 CFR 
151.12(c)(5) and (6), and 19 CFR 151.13(b)(5) and (6), will continue to 
not impact a substantial number of small entities. In the event that a 
CBP-accredited laboratory or CBP-approved gauger considered ``small'' 
has to notify an additional CBP representative according to these 
regulatory changes, CBP does not believe that requiring one more 
telephone call, letter, or email will have a significant economic 
impact on the entity.
    Besides costs, importers and brokers experience benefits from this 
rule, though the value of these benefits is unknown due to data 
limitations. The trade community likely benefits from the Centers 
rule's uniform post-release processing and decision-making, increased 
agency knowledge of industry practices and products, and improved 
communication with CBP, based on observations from the Centers test and 
Centers IFR. CBP expects the Centers' uniform post-release processing 
and trade-related determinations to decrease administrative burdens on 
the trade, resulting in time and cost savings. This uniformity may also 
enhance the trade community's awareness of CBP's position on trade 
compliance issues, which may improve compliance and generate an unknown 
amount of subsequent savings to trade members in the future. The 
Centers' strengthened industry focus likely enhances CBP relations with 
the trade community, facilitates trade, and results in an improved 
ability to identify high-risk commercial importations that could 
increase import safety, increase revenue protection, and reduce 
economic loss associated with trade violations. By replacing port-by-
port communication with communication with one Center, the Centers 
serve as a single source of information for trade members regarding 
such subjects as importing requirements, IPR or other trade violation 
reports, merchandise holds, and PGA issues. This sole communication 
source eliminates the need for members of the trade community to 
contact multiple CBP resources, potentially producing additional time 
and cost savings. The Centers also allow for enhanced communication 
between CBP and the trade community by offering extended hours of 
service compared to port of entry service hours, which may expedite 
trade. Despite their unknown value, CBP notes that the economic impact 
of these changes on small entities, if any, is entirely beneficial. 
Although this rule affects a substantial number of small entities, CBP 
does not believe that the economic impact of this rule on small 
entities is significant. Accordingly, CBP certifies that this 
regulation does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that CBP consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. As this document does not 
involve any collections of information under the Act, the provisions of 
the Act are inapplicable.

Signing Authority

    This document is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.2(a), 
which provides that the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury with 
respect to CBP regulations that are not related to customs revenue 
functions was transferred to the Secretary of DHS pursuant to section 
403(1) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 
2178, 6 U.S.C. 203(1)). Accordingly, this final rule adopting the 
interim amendments to such regulations as final may be signed by the 
Secretary of DHS (or his delegate).

Amendments to the CBP Regulations

    For the reasons given above, the Centers IFR amending parts 4, 7, 
10, 11, 12, 24, 54, 101, 102, 103, 113, 132, 133, 134, 141, 142, 143, 
144, 145, 146, 147, 151, 152, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163, 173, 174, 176, 
and 181 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR parts 4, 
7, 10-12, 24, 54, 101-103, 113, 132-134, 141-147, 151, 152, 158, 159, 
161-163, 173, 174, 176, and 181), which was published in the Federal 
Register at 81 FR 92978 on December 20, 2016 (CBP Dec. 16-26), as 
amended by the technical correction published in the Federal Register 
at 84 FR 46676 on September 5, 2019 (CBP Dec. 19-11), is adopted as a 
final rule, without change.

Alejandro N. Mayorkas,
Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2023-22170 Filed 10-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P