69026 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

• Replacing the term Airport/Facility 

Directory with Chart Supplement in the 

descriptions of Class D airspace and 

Class E Surface airspace. 

This action is an administrative 

change and does not affect the airspace 

boundaries or operating requirements; 

therefore, notice and public procedure 

under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary. 

Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

The FAA has determined that this 

regulation only involves an established 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and routine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current. It, therefore: (1) is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a 

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) 

does not warrant preparation of a 

Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated 

impact is so minimal. Since this is a 

routine matter that will only affect air 

traffic procedures and air navigation, it 

is certified that this proposed rule, 

when promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

Environmental Review 

The FAA has determined that this 

action qualifies for categorical exclusion 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act in accordance with FAA 

Order 1050.1F, ‘‘Environmental 

Impacts: Policies and Procedures,’’ 

paragraph 5–6.5.a. This airspace action 

is not expected to cause any potentially 

significant environmental impacts, and 

no extraordinary circumstances exist 

that warrant preparation of an 

environmental assessment. 

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 71 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 

40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 

1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation 

Administration Order JO 7400.11H, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 19, 2023, and 

effective September 15, 2023, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. 

* * * * * 

AEA PA D Philadelphia, PA [Amended] 

Northeast Philadelphia Airport, PA 

(Lat. 40°04′55′′ N, long. 75°00′38′′ W) 

That airspace extending upward from the 

surface to and including 2,600 feet MSL 

within a 5.6-mile radius of the Northeast 

Philadelphia Airport. This Class D airspace 

area is effective during the specific dates and 

times established in advance by a Notice to 

Air Missions. The effective date and time 

will thereafter be continuously published in 

the Chart Supplement. 

* * * * * 

Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Airspace. 

* * * * * 

AEA PA E2 Philadelphia, PA [Amended] 

Northeast Philadelphia Airport, PA 

(Lat. 40°04′55′′ N, long. 75°00′38′′ W) 

That airspace extending upward from the 

surface within a 5.6-mile radius of the 

Northeast Philadelphia Airport. This Class E 

airspace area is effective during the specific 

dates and times established in advance by a 

Notice to Air Missions. The effective date 

and time will thereafter be continuously 

published in the Chart Supplement. 

* * * * * 

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on 

September 26, 2023. 

Lisa E. Burrows, 

Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team North, 

Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic 

Organization. 

[FR Doc. 2023–22162 Filed 10–4–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

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, 

lori.j.whitehurst@cbp.dhs.gov. 

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-byport 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 69027 

1See 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. 

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

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), § 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 § 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69028 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

2Eight 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. 

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. 

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 decisionmaking 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 industryspecific 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; 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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 industryspecific 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 industryspecific 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69030 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

3See 81 FR 92978, 92983–93003 (December 20, 

2016) and 84 FR 46676, 46677 (September 5, 2019), 

for a detailed list of trade function transitions. 

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. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 69031 

4Source: CBP’s Office of Field Operations, 

February 18, 2020. 5The 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 § 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. 

6Source: CBP’s Office of Field Operations, 

February 18, 2020. 

7Source: CBP’s Office of Field Operations, 

February 18, 2020. 

8Source: CBP’s Office of Field Operations, 

January 15, 2015. 

9This 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. 

10Source: CBP’s Office of Field Operations, 

February 18, 2020. 

11CBP 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 

Continued 

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

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

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 traderelated 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69032 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

12The 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. 

13The 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). 

16Based 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. 

17Source: 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. 

18Source: 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. 

19The 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. 

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. 

Certain trade members, particularly 

CBP-accredited laboratories and CBPapproved 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 CBPapproved 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 CBPapproved gaugers will continue to not 

introduce any costs to these parties.16

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 traderelated 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 69033 

20Source: CBP’s Office of Field Operations, 

February 18, 2020, and October 26, 2022. 

21Source: Teleconference with CBP’s 

Pharmaceuticals, Health & Chemicals Center test 

participant on December 19, 2013. 

22Source: Teleconference with CBP’s Electronics 

Center on December 3, 2013. 

23See 81 FR 92978, 92983–93003 (December 20, 

2016) and 84 FR 46676, 46677 (September 5, 2019), 

for a detailed list of trade function transitions. 

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. 

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 postrelease 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. 

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. 

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-forprofit 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69034 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

24See 13 CFR 121.101–121.201. 

25Source: CBP Report: Importer SBA Analysis 

2022, dated May 11, 2022. 

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

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 CBPaccredited laboratories and CBPapproved 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 CBPaccredited 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 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Parts 3, 162 and 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2023–0811] 

Coast Guard Sector Juneau; Sector 

Name Conforming Amendment 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule makes nonsubstantive changes to Coast Guard 

regulations in association with a change 

in the Coast Guard’s internal 

organization. The purpose of this rule is 

to reflect that U.S. Coast Guard Sector 

Juneau has been renamed U.S. Coast 

Guard Sector Southeast Alaska. This 

rule will have no substantive effect on 

the regulated public. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1