2874 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

19 CFR Parts 113 and 123 

[Docket No. USCBP–2024–0030] 

RIN 1651–AB52 

Automated Commercial Environment 

(ACE) Electronic Export Manifest for 

Rail Cargo 

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document proposes a 

new regulation pursuant to the Trade 

Act of 2002 requiring the submission of 

export manifest data electronically to 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) in the Automated Commercial 

Environment (ACE) for cargo 

transported by rail for any train 

departing the United States. The 

proposed regulation would mandate the 

electronic transmission of rail export 

manifest information, identify the 

parties eligible to transmit information, 

and describe the time frames prior to 

departure of the train in which the 

information is due. This rule would 

enable CBP to address important cargo 

security concerns while providing 

efficiencies to the trade. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

March 14, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Please submit comments, 

identified by docket number, by the 

following method: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

via docket number USCBP–2024–0030. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this rulemaking. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read the plain language summary, 

background documents or comments 

received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Garcia, Program Manager, 

Outbound Enforcement and Policy 

Branch, Office of Field Operations, CBP, 

via email at cbpexportmanifest@

cbp.dhs.gov, or by telephone, (202) 344– 

3277. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Participation 

Interested persons are invited to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written data, views, or 

arguments on all aspects of the notice of 

proposed rulemaking. U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) also invites 

comments that relate to any economic, 

environmental or federalism effects that 

might result from this proposal. 

Comments that will provide the most 

assistance to CBP in developing these 

procedures will reference a specific 

portion of the proposed rule, explain the 

reason for any recommended change, 

and include data, information, or 

authority that support such 

recommended change. 

II. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of the Automated 

Commercial Environment (ACE) 

Electronic Export Manifest for Rail 

Cargo 

1. Need for the Regulatory Action 

Current regulations are insufficient to 

adequately capture cargo data for rail 

shipments leaving the United States. 

CBP is proposing this rule to reduce the 

data gaps existing under current 

regulations, and to address important 

cargo security concerns resulting from 

incomplete data. This proposed rule 

will apply to all rail cargo exports and 

provide efficiencies to the trade. CBP 

does not presently require the predeparture electronic submission of data 

for all exported cargo as it does for 

imported cargo. This can result in a 

threat to cargo and broader U.S. national 

security because CBP has no regulation 

prescribing any method or means of 

review for cargo being exported by rail. 

The electronically transmitted cargo 

data that is submitted prior to departing 

the United States by rail is limited 

significantly in its scope. Currently, 19 

CFR 192.14 requires a U.S. Principal 

Party in Interest (USPPI), the USPPI’s 

agent, or the authorized filing agent of 

a Foreign Principal Party in Interest 

(FPPI) to transmit Electronic Export 

Information (EEI) to CBP through the 

Automated Commercial Environment 

(ACE). While this pre-departure data is 

helpful, EEI is generally only required 

by the Bureau of Census regulations on 

shipments that exceed $2,500 per 

Schedule B number and is not generally 

required for shipments to Canada, 

unless certain controlled items are 

involved or the shipment is being 

transshipped to another destination. 15 

CFR parts 30 and 758. Because of these 

limitations, there is a significant lack of 

electronic manifest data which inhibits 

the enforcement efforts by CBP for such 

exports because of the gaps in 

information. The proposed regulation 

would create an integrated predeparture electronic export manifest 

which includes receiving advance 

information for risk assessment 

purposes from the source most likely to 

have correct information about the 

cargo. This proposed regulation closes 

the gap which currently exists and 

requires all information to be 

manifested which enhances the security 

of the rail cargo and aligns the security 

of exported rail cargo with the 

regulations that are required of rail 

cargo imported into the United States. 

2. Statement of Legal Authority 

CBP is authorized to promulgate 

regulations providing for the mandatory 

transmission of electronic cargo 

information by way of a CBP-authorized 

electronic data interchange (EDI) system 

before the cargo arrives or departs the 

United States by any mode of 

commercial transportation (sea, air, rail, 

or truck). Section 343(a) of the Trade 

Act of 2002, as amended (Trade Act) (19 

U.S.C. 1415). The required cargo 

information is reasonably necessary to 

enable CBP to identify high-risk 

shipments for purposes of ensuring 

cargo safety and security, including 

compliance with export controls; 

preventing smuggling; and commercial 

risk assessment targeting, pursuant to 

the laws enforced and administered by 

CBP. 19 U.S.C. 1415(a)(3)(F). CBP needs 

to obtain timely and sufficient data prior 

to cargo arriving or departing the United 

States via any mode of commercial 

transportation in order to review and 

conduct risk assessment to identify 

high-risk shipments and inspect cargo 

effectively. 

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of 

ACE EEM for Rail Cargo 

This proposed rule would mandate 

the transmission of EEM data in 

addition to the EEI data required under 

15 CFR part 30 for all cargo prior to 

departing the United States for Canada 

and Mexico in the rail environment in 

lieu of paper submissions. The new 

regulation that CBP is seeking to 

promulgate is proposed 19 CFR 123.93 

which would mandate the electronic 

transmission of rail export manifest 

information, identify the parties eligible 

to transmit information, describe the 

time frames prior to departure of the 

train in which the information is due, 

and identify an initial filing that must 

occur 24 hours prior to departure from 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2875 

1 In the Regulatory Impact Analysis for this 

NPRM, CBP also discusses and provides estimates 

for the costs, cost savings and benefits compared to 

the baseline (prior to the introduction of the rail 

EEM test) during both the rail EEM test pilot period 

(2016–2025) and for the regulatory period (2026– 

2030). 

the port of export while requiring the 

remaining data to be transmitted at least 

two hours prior to such departure. The 

proposed regulation designates 

information as transportation data, cargo 

data, or empty container data, and lists 

the data elements to be transmitted 

while calling them out as mandatory, 

conditional, or optional. The data 

elements that are identified as 

mandatory must be submitted, while 

elements identified as conditional shall 

be submitted if available, and optional 

elements may be provided at the 

discretion of the filers. These elements 

allow for CBP to inspect cargo 

effectively, ensure compliance with U.S. 

export control laws and regulations and 

identify high-risk shipments for 

purposes of ensuring cargo safety and 

security. 

CBP proposes adding 19 CFR 

123.93(c) which identifies the parties 

that can file the cargo and conveyance 

data. The outbound carrier is 

responsible for transmitting the export 

manifest transportation data and empty 

container data. If no other party elects 

to transmit the initial filing data and the 

export manifest cargo data, then the 

outbound carrier must transmit this 

data. If another eligible party elects to 

transmit either the initial filing data or 

export manifest cargo data, the 

outbound carrier may also choose to, 

but is not required to transmit such 

data. Other eligible parties include 

USPPI and FPPI, as defined by the 

provisions of section 30.1 of the FTR of 

the Department of Commerce, Bureau of 

the Census (15 CFR 30.1), or its 

authorized agent. Other eligible filers 

also include any other party with direct 

knowledge of the export information, 

such as a customs broker, Automated 

Broker Interface (ABI) filer, NVOCC as 

defined by 19 CFR 4.7(b)(3)(ii), or a 

freight forwarder as defined in 19 CFR 

112.1. If another party does not transmit 

advance export information, the party 

that arranges for and/or delivers the 

cargo to the outbound carrier must fully 

disclose and present to the outbound 

carrier the data elements for the initial 

filing. 

Proposed 19 CFR 123.93(d) requires a 

mandatory initial filing of seven data 

elements identified below to be 

submitted 24 hours prior to departure to 

a foreign port, by either the carrier, 

USPPI, or other qualified parties or their 

authorized agents. The results of the test 

have shown that some rail carriers 

would have the export manifest data 

available days in advance prior to 

departure and therefore would have all 

the necessary information to submit the 

initial filing data to CBP and all other 

export manifest data well in advance of 

the 24-hour prior to departure 

deadlines. Except for the initial data 

elements, CBP would require electronic 

export manifest information in sections 

123.93(e), and (f) to be transmitted two 

hours prior to train departure to a 

foreign port from the final U.S. port. 

Proposed 19 CFR 123.93(g) provides 

for two types of referrals that may be 

issued by CBP after a risk assessment of 

an outbound export manifest data 

transmission. Should any rail cargo be 

identified by CBP as requiring review, 

the cargo will be held until required 

additional information related to the 

shipment is submitted or some other 

appropriate action is taken, as specified 

by CBP. Once the cargo is cleared for 

loading, a release message will be 

generated and transmitted to the filer. In 

addition to holds, 19 CFR 123.93(h) 

would provide for procedures for when 

a CBP officer determines during the 

review that cargo or a rail car may 

contain a potential threat to the train 

and its vicinity, so that a Do-Not-Load 

(DNL) instruction can be issued, which 

prohibits the rail carrier from 

transporting that cargo or rail car so that 

further examination can be conducted. 

These examinations allow for CBP to 

secure the cargo, conduct risk 

assessment, and inspect cargo 

effectively. 

As an enforcement tool, CBP is also 

proposing changes to the relevant bond 

provisions in 19 CFR 113.62 (basic 

importation and entry bond), 19 CFR 

113.63 (basic custodial bond), and 19 

CFR 113.64 (International carrier bond) 

to provide CBP with authority to impose 

liquidated damages on parties that do 

not provide the mandatory EEM data in 

the manner and in the time frame 

required. Specifically, CBP proposes to 

amend 19 CFR 113.62 to add new 

paragraph (k)(3), amend 19 CFR 113.63 

and 19 CFR 113.64, in order to address 

electronically provided outbound 

information in the time frame required 

as they currently address electronic 

transmissions for merchandise or cargo 

which is inbound. With each of these 

regulations, CBP may assess liquidated 

damages if a violation occurs. CBP’s 

primary goal is compliance and CBP 

seeks to work alongside rail carriers and 

other parties to ensure that the proper 

data is provided in a timely manner, for 

CBP to properly review the data, 

conduct risk assessment of high-risk 

shipments, and enforce U.S. export laws 

and regulations on U.S. rail exports. 

For CBP, the proposed requirement to 

submit an electronic export manifest 

will enhance cargo security in that it 

would allow for improvements in risk 

assessment capabilities by allowing CBP 

to use its Automated Targeting System 

(ATS) to screen all of the data 

submitted. Port operations will enjoy 

considerable efficiencies through the 

elimination of paper manifests. Storage 

space currently reserved for manifest 

documents will be freed. Coordination 

and information exchange among CBP, 

the Department of Commerce, and other 

Government agencies with export 

jurisdiction will improve. Carriers, 

USPPIs, non-vessel operating common 

carriers (NVOCC), and other interested 

parties who transmit information will 

receive better and more rapid 

examination decisions from CBP and 

improved communication between CBP 

and trade members. The trade will 

benefit further through the ease of 

making information corrections and 

additions electronically in contradiction 

to the process that is required with 

paper submissions which is more time 

consuming to manually complete, 

distribute, edit and transmit in addition 

to the storage required for paper 

submissions. These benefits, including 

targeting which is necessary for security 

purposes, outweigh the flexibility of 

allowing parties to file submissions 

either by paper or electronically. 

C. Costs and Benefits 

CBP anticipates that during the time 

period of analysis including the test 

period and the regulatory period (2016– 

2030), this proposed rule would result 

in costs, cost savings and benefits to 

CBP and trade members engaging in 

exporting merchandise out of the United 

States in the rail environment.1 CBP 

estimates present value total costs to 

CBP and trade members would be 

around $9.3 million using a two percent 

discount rate, or $0.7 million 

annualized. CBP identified some other 

potential costs from this proposed rule, 

but CBP was unable to monetize these 

costs, including time burdens to CBP 

officers if the proposed rule results in 

additional cargo examinations and trade 

members participating in the rail EEM 

would also need to adjust business 

practices, be required to hold or obtain 

a qualifying bond, be required to have 

staff available 24 hours a day 7 days a 

week to respond to CBP questions and 

pay liquidated damages for any 

violations. Present value total cost 

savings to CBP and trade members are 

expected to be around $59.1 million 

using a two percent discount rate, or 

$4.6 million annualized. CBP expects 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2876 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

2 In the economic analysis for this proposed rule, 

CBP used a 2% discount rate for estimated future 

quantified and monetized costs, costs savings and 

benefits based on guidance from OMB Circular A– 

4 (https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2023/11/CircularA-4.pdf). 

that there would be additional cost 

savings to trade members that CBP was 

unable to monetize such as reduced 

paper, printing and storage costs related 

to paper forms, and reducing or 

eliminating instances where trains need 

to be deconstructed in order for CBP to 

examine cargo would typically results 

in a delay of up to 2 hours and results 

in around $3,000 in freight movement 

costs. CBP anticipates that benefits from 

this proposed rule would include 

improving CBP’s security efforts by 

using ATS to conduct risk assessment 

on all rail exports, improving 

communication between Federal 

Agencies with export jurisdiction and 

improving efficiencies to participating 

trade members from transitioning from 

a paper to an electronic process. 

However, CBP was unable to monetize 

the expected benefits from this 

proposed rule. Present value total net 

costs from the implementation of this 

final rule would be around $49.8 

million using a two percent discount 

rate, or approximately $3.9 million 

annualized.2 Table 1 displays CBP’s 

estimates for future annualized costs, 

costs savings, benefits, and net costs 

from this proposed rule using a two 

percent discount rate over the period of 

analysis (2016–2030). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13JA25.003</GPH>

Table 1. Estimated Annualized Cost, Cost Savings, Benefits using 2% Discount 

Rate (2016-2030) (thousands U.S. dollars) 

Costs 

Annualized monetized costs $726,156 

Annualized quantified, but non- None 

monetized costs 

If additional cargo examinations occur estimated cost to CBP 

would be around $101.44 per additional exam. 

Rail carriers and voluntary participants may have to adjust 

business practices when moving from a paper to electronic 

Qualitative (non-quantified) costs process.3 

Bond required to participate. 

Rail carriers and voluntary participants must have someone 

available 24 hours a day 7 days a week to respond to CBP 

questions about data transmitted. 

Liquidated damages, $5,000 for each violation up to max of 

$100,000 per departure. 

Cost Savings 

Annualized monetized cost savings $4,601,091 

Annualize quantified, but non- None 

monetized cost savings 

Reduce paper, printing and storage costs related to paper 

forms. 

Qualitative (non-quantified) cost Rail carriers may avoid instances where trains need to be 

savings deconstructed in order for CBP to examine cargo, resulting in 

delays (1-2 hours) and freight movement costs ($3,000 per 

occurrence). 

Benefits 

Annualized monetized benefits None 

Annualized quantified, but non- None 

monetized benefits 

Improve CBP's security efforts on rail exports, electronic data 

transmissions will allow CBP to use its A TS system to 

conduct risk assessment on all rail exports.4 

Qualitative (non-quantified) benefits Gained efficiencies from trade by switching from paper to 

electronic data transmission. 

Improved communication among Federal Agencies with 

export iurisdiction. 

Net Costs 

$3,874,935 
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2877 

3These costs to participants are discussed in 

further detail in the Regulatory Period Costs section 

in the Regulatory Impact Analysis below. 

4 Details on how CBP conducts targeting and risk 

assessment prior to this proposed rule using paper 

forms is discussed in the ‘Baseline’ section of the 

regulatory impact analysis for this proposed rule. 

5The USPPI is defined in the Bureau of the 

Census FTR as the person or legal entity in the 

United States that receives the primary benefit, 

monetary or otherwise, from the export transaction. 

Generally, that person or entity is the U.S. seller, 

manufacturer, or order party, or the foreign entity 

while in the United States when purchasing or 

obtaining the goods for export. 15 CFR 30.1. 

III. Statutory Authority 

Section 343(a) of the Trade Act of 

2002, as amended (Trade Act) (19 U.S.C. 

1415), authorizes CBP to promulgate 

regulations providing for the mandatory 

transmission of electronic cargo 

information by way of a CBP-authorized 

electronic data interchange (EDI) system 

before the cargo is brought into or 

departs the United States by any mode 

of commercial transportation (sea, air, 

rail, or truck). The required cargo 

information is reasonably necessary to 

enable CBP to identify high-risk 

shipments for purposes of ensuring 

cargo safety and security, preventing 

smuggling, and commercial risk 

assessment targeting, pursuant to the 

laws enforced and administered by CBP. 

19 U.S.C. 1415(a)(3)(F). 

CBP consulted with carriers 

throughout the process of developing 

the proposed regulation and during the 

course of the ACE Export Manifest for 

Rail Cargo Test (see Section IV.B below) 

that has been administered since 2015. 

19 U.S.C. 1415(a)(3)(A). As the statute 

requires, the proposed regulation 

imposes requirements on the party most 

likely to have direct knowledge of 

information to be provided. When 

requiring information from the party 

with direct knowledge of that 

information is not practicable, the 

regulations take into account how, 

under ordinary commercial practices, 

information is acquired by the party on 

which the requirement is imposed, and 

whether and how such party is able to 

verify the information. Where 

information is not reasonably verifiable 

by the party on which a requirement is 

imposed, the regulations shall permit 

that party to transmit information on the 

basis of what it reasonably believes to be 

true. 19 U.S.C. 1415(a)(3)(B). The 

proposed regulation that CBP is seeking 

to promulgate would require the 

submission of the export manifest data 

electronically in ACE for cargo 

transported by rail, pursuant to section 

343(a), of the Trade Act of 2002, as 

amended. 19 U.S.C. 1415(a)(3)(E). The 

proposed regulation specifically avoids 

imposing requirements that are 

redundant with one another or that are 

redundant with requirements in other 

provisions of law, as seen below in 

Section VII.C. 19 U.S.C. 1415(a)(3)(I). 

IV. Background 

A. Current Regulations 

Under the existing regulations, rail 

carriers are not required to submit a 

paper or electronic manifest for cargo 

exported from the United States by rail. 

CBP does have regulations which 

support the transmission of electronic 

export information (EEI) required by the 

Bureau of the Census Foreign Trade 

Regulations (FTR) or the Bureau of 

Industry and Security’s Export 

Administration Regulations (EAR). 

Section 192.14 of title 19 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (19 CFR 192.14) 

implements the requirements of the 

Trade Act regarding cargo departing the 

United States. Under 19 CFR 192.14, the 

U.S. Principal Party in Interest (USPPI) 

or its authorized agent or the authorized 

filing agent of the Foreign Principal 

Party in Interest (FPPI) is required to 

submit certain advance information to 

CBP for export cargo leaving the United 

States by rail.5

Under 19 CFR 192.14, the USPPI or its 

authorized agent must transmit and 

verify system acceptance of this EEI, 

generally no later than two hours prior 

to the arrival of the train at the border. 

See 19 CFR 192.14(b)(1)(iv). A rail 

carrier may not load cargo without first 

receiving from the USPPI or its 

authorized agent either the related EEI 

filing citation, covering all cargo for 

which the EEI is required, or exemption 

legends, covering cargo for which EEI 

need not be filed. See 19 CFR 

192.14(c)(4)(i). While the rail carrier is 

not required to submit a rail cargo 

export manifest to CBP, the outbound 

rail carrier must annotate the carrier’s 

outward manifest, waybill, or other 

export documentation with the 

applicable Automated Export System 

(AES) proof of filing, post departure, 

downtime, exclusion, or exemption 

citations, conforming to the approved 

data formats found in the Bureau of the 

Census FTR. See 15 CFR part 30. 

The current regulations found in 19 

CFR 192.14 also require the USPPI, the 

USPPI’s authorized agent, or the 

authorized filing agent of the FPPI to 

electronically transmit to CBP through 

AES certain EEI. This information 

supports statistical gathering; however, 

it falls short of addressing important 

cargo security considerations to include 

almost all shipments with a value less 

than $2,500.00 per Schedule B number 

and shipments directed to Canada, other 

than those containing certain items 

controlled under the EAR or intended 

for transshipment through Canada, 

creating a gap in security which the 

proposed regulation seeks to resolve by 

requiring information on all exports for 

rail cargo. CBP seeks to require the 

submission of manifest information 

providing CBP the opportunity to 

review and examine cargo such that 

high risk shipments such as narcotics, 

weapons or ammunition, including any 

that may not be subject to EEI filing 

requirements under the FTR or EAR, 

have a means of being discovered and 

withheld thereby enhancing the security 

of the United States. This proposed 

regulation will close that security gap by 

requiring compliance with the 

regulation in order to export the cargo 

as parties will have to provide 

electronic manifest information which 

CBP can screen and inspect for the 

safety of the United States and its 

neighboring countries. This proposed 

regulation also aligns with the 

regulation for rail cargo imported into 

the United States. 

The transmission of EEI is a Bureau of 

the Census filing regulated by 15 CFR 

part 30 and, with few exceptions, only 

submitted when the value of 

merchandise is above $2,500.00 per 

Schedule B number. The requirement 

also does not apply to rail shipments 

bound for Canada unless such 

shipments contain certain exportcontrolled items or are destined for 

transshipment to third countries. This 

regulatory gap leaves many shipments 

outside of CBP security review. The lack 

of pre-departure information, which 

includes commodity information 

submitted by rail carriers into CBP 

targeting systems, hinders CBP’s ability 

to conduct risk assessment and inspect 

cargo effectively to ensure compliance 

with U.S. export control laws and 

regulations. The proposed regulation 

would create an integrated predeparture electronic export manifest 

which includes receiving advance 

information for risk assessment 

purposes from the source most likely to 

have correct information about the 

cargo. 

Currently, for exporting purposes, 

each carrier submits a train consist in a 

format it develops and with the data 

elements that it believes should be 

reported. The train consist identifies 

what is on the train, the order of the 

train, and what the train is consisted of 

as it prepares to depart the country. 

These data elements provide export 

information similar to that required by 

the provisions of 19 CFR 123.91, which 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2878 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

describes electronic information for rail 

cargo required in advance of arrival, and 

19 CFR 123.6, which includes a train 

sheet for arriving railroad trains. 

B. The ACE Export Manifest for Rail 

Cargo Test 

On September 9, 2015, CBP published 

a general notice in the Federal Register 

(80 FR 54305) announcing the National 

Customs Automation Program (NCAP) 

Test for the transmission through ACE 

of Electronic Export Manifest (EEM) 

information for rail shipments, the 

Automated Commercial Environment 

(ACE) Export Manifest for Rail Cargo 

Test (‘‘Test’’), which was limited to nine 

rail carriers. 

1. The National Customs Automation 

Program 

The NCAP was established in Subtitle 

B of Title VI—Customs Modernization, 

in the North American Free Trade 

Agreement Implementation Act, Public 

Law 103–182, 107 Stat. 2057, 2188 

(1993) (Customs Modernization Act) (19 

U.S.C. 1411–14). Through NCAP, the 

initial thrust of customs modernization 

was on trade compliance and the 

development of ACE, the planned 

successor to the Automated Commercial 

System (ACS). ACE is an automated and 

electronic system for commercial trade 

processing which is intended to 

streamline business processes, facilitate 

growth in trade, ensure cargo security, 

and foster participation in global 

commerce, while ensuring compliance 

with U.S. laws and regulations and 

reducing costs for CBP and its 

communities of interest. The ability to 

meet these objectives depends on 

successfully modernizing CBP’s 

business functions and the information 

technology that supports those 

functions. CBP’s modernization efforts 

are accomplished through phased 

releases of ACE component 

functionality. 

In part, the Test has been used in 

furtherance of International Trade Data 

System (ITDS) key initiatives, set forth 

in section 405 of the Security and 

Accountability for Every Port Act of 

2006, Public Law 109–347, 120 Stat. 

1884, 1929–1931 (SAFE Port Act) (19 

U.S.C. 1411(d)) and Executive Order 

13659, Streamlining the Export/Import 

Process for America’s Businesses, 79 FR 

10655 (February 25, 2014). The purpose 

of ITDS, as stated in section 405, 

§ 411(d)(1)(B) of the SAFE Port Act (19 

U.S.C. 1411(d)(1)(B)), is to eliminate 

redundant information requirements, 

efficiently regulate the flow of 

commerce, and effectively enforce laws 

and regulations relating to international 

trade, by establishing a single portal 

system operated by CBP for the 

collection and distribution of standard 

electronic import and export data 

required by all participating Federal 

agencies. ACE was developed by CBP as 

the ‘‘single window’’ for the trade 

community to comply with the ITDS 

requirement established by the SAFE 

Port Act. See sec. 405, § 411(d)(1)(B) (19 

U.S.C. 1411(d)(1)(B)). 

2. Data Elements in the Test 

The data elements as set forth in the 

original Test have been mandatory 

unless otherwise indicated below. The 

Test has required that five conditional 

data elements must be transmitted to 

CBP only if the particular information 

pertains to the shipment or cargo. The 

data elements are required to be 

submitted at the lowest bill level. The 

data elements in the Test for all 

shipments, including empty rail cars, 

consist of: 

(1) Mode of Transportation 

(containerized rail cargo or noncontainerized rail cargo) 

(2) Port of Departure from the United 

States 

(3) Date of Departure 

(4) Manifest Number 

(5) Train Number 

(6) Rail Car Order 

(7) Car Locator Message 

(8) Hazmat Indicator (Yes/No) 

(9) 6-character Hazmat Code 

(conditional) (If the hazmat indicator 

is yes, then UN (for United Nations 

Number) or NA (North American 

Number) and the corresponding 4- 

digit identification number assigned 

to the hazardous material must be 

provided.) 

(10) Marks and Numbers 

(11) SCAC (Standard Carrier Alpha 

Code) for exporting carrier 

(12) Shipper name and address (For 

empty rail cars, the shipper may be 

the railroad from whom the rail 

carrier received the empty rail car to 

transport.) 

(13) Consignee name and address (For 

empty rail cars, the consignee may be 

the railroad to whom the rail carrier 

is transporting the empty rail car.) 

(14) Place where the rail carrier takes 

possession of the cargo shipment or 

empty rail car 

(15) Port of Unlading 

(16) Country of Ultimate Destination 

(17) Equipment Type Code 

(18) Container Number(s) (for 

containerized shipments) or Rail Car 

Number(s) (for all other shipments) 

(19) Empty Indicator (Yes/No) 

If the empty indicator is no, then the 

following data elements must also be 

provided, as applicable: 

(20) Bill of Lading Numbers (Master and 

House) 

(21) Bill of Lading Type (Master, House, 

Simple or Sub) 

(22) Number of House Bills of Lading 

(23) Notify Party name and address 

(conditional) 

(24) AES Internal Transaction Number 

or AES Exemption Statement (per 

shipment) 

(25) Cargo Description 

(26) Weight of Cargo (may be expressed 

in either pounds or kilograms) 

(27) Quantity of Cargo and Unit of 

Measure 

(28) Seal Number 

(29) Split Shipment Indicator (Yes/No) 

(30) Portion of split shipment (e.g., 1 of 

10, 4 of 10, 5 of 10—Final, etc.) 

(conditional) 

(31) In-bond Number (conditional) 

(32) Mexican Pedimento Number (only 

for shipments for export to Mexico) 

(conditional) 

3. Test Expansion, Extension, 

Modification and Second Extension 

On August 14, 2017, CBP extended 

the Test for an additional two-year 

period (82 FR 37893). At the same time, 

the Test began accepting additional 

applications for all parties that met the 

eligibility requirements of the original 

nine stakeholders composed of rail 

carriers. CBP consulted with the 

Commercial Customs Operations 

Advisory Committee (COAC) to address 

issues concerning the quality, 

accessibility, and timeliness of export 

manifest data received during the Test. 

One issue of concern was the 

availability of certain data elements 

required under the Test two hours prior 

to loading of the cargo on the train in 

preparation for departure from the 

United States. COAC urged CBP to 

change the filing condition of those data 

elements. 

After evaluating the initial phase of 

the Test and considering COAC’s 

comments, CBP determined that, to 

better test the functionality and 

feasibility of submitting the specified 

export data two hours prior to loading 

of the cargo on the train, the filing 

condition for nine of the data elements 

should be changed. The modified filing 

conditions enabled CBP to better 

determine the appropriate reporting 

requirements for each data element. 

Data elements which are ‘‘mandatory’’ 

must be provided to CBP for every 

shipment. Data elements which are 

‘‘conditional’’ must be provided to CBP 

only if the particular information 

pertains to the cargo. Data elements 

which are ‘‘optional’’ may be provided 

to CBP but are not required. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2879 

CBP modified the Test to change the 

following eight mandatory or 

conditional data elements to optional: 

• Mode of Transportation 

(containerized rail cargo or noncontainerized rail cargo) (Data 

Element #1) 

• Place where the carrier took 

possession (Data Element #14) 

• Country of Ultimate Destination (Data 

Element #16) 

• Equipment Type Code (Data Element 

#17) 

• Number of House Bills of Lading 

(Data Element #22) 

• Split Shipment Indicator (Data 

Element #29) 

• Portion of Split Shipment (Data 

Element #30) 

• Mexican Pedimento Number (Data 

Element #32) 

CBP also modified the Test to change 

Data Element #10, Marks and Numbers, 

from mandatory to conditional. 

The remaining data elements under 

the extended Test continued to be 

mandatory, conditional, or optional as 

provided in the September 9, 2015, 

notice, and as detailed in Section IV.B.2. 

above. 

CBP identified in the expansion and 

modification of the Test that it would 

reevaluate the filing conditions for each 

data element to determine the feasibility 

of requiring that data element to be filed 

electronically in ACE within a specified 

time before the cargo is loaded on the 

train should CBP decide to conduct 

rulemaking. Accordingly, as discussed 

in more detail below, the proposed 

regulation changes the timing of 

presentation of most electronic export 

manifest data from two hours prior to 

loading on the train to two hours prior 

to departure of the train to a foreign 

port. 

On April 27, 2022, CBP extended the 

Test for an additional two years. (87 FR 

25037.) 

V. Results of the Test, Modification, 

Expansion and Extensions 

Since its inception, the Test has 

assessed the feasibility of requiring rail 

carriers to file export manifest data for 

which CBP did not have regulations 

established for specific data elements 

and obtained train consists in the format 

and manner in which the rail carriers 

chose to provide such elements. In 

addition, the Test has assessed the 

functionality regarding the filing of 

export manifest data for rail cargo 

electronically to ACE in furtherance of 

the ITDS initiatives described above. 

CBP also re-engineered AES to move it 

to the ACE platform. The re-engineering 

and incorporation of AES into ACE 

resulted in the creation of a single 

automated export processing platform 

for certain export manifest, commodity, 

licensing, export control, and export 

targeting transactions. This reduces 

costs for CBP, partner government 

agencies, and the trade community, and 

improves facilitation of export 

shipments through the supply chain. 

Additionally, the Test has examined 

the feasibility of requiring the rail 

carrier to submit manifest information 

electronically in ACE generally within a 

specified time before the cargo has been 

loaded on the train. Test participants 

were and are required to submit export 

manifest data electronically to ACE at 

least two hours prior to loading of the 

cargo or, for empty rail cars, upon 

assembly of the train. This time frame 

has enabled CBP to link the EEI 

submitted by the USPPI with the export 

manifest information. Much of that 

success has resulted from the fact that 

a high percentage of information is 

being transmitted well before the twohour prior to departure deadline. Upon 

a random review of data identifying 

compliance with time frame 

submission, CBP found that nearly 94% 

of data transmissions occurred more 

than 24 hours prior to conveyance 

departure. 

The success of the Test has allowed 

CBP to determine that the electronic 

submission of manifests provides 

improvements in capabilities at the 

departure level. As a result of these 

improvements, CBP is now seeking to 

end the Test and codify this program by 

proposing new regulations in this 

document. 

VI. Purpose and Need of the Rule 

CBP proposes a new regulatory 

requirement because it does not 

currently have regulations in place 

requiring the submission of an 

electronic export manifest for cargo 

transported by rail to assess cargo 

security. The proposed regulatory 

changes are the culmination of CBP’s 

efforts with the Test described above. 

The proposed regulation will leverage 

the data elements and train consist 

requirements in advance of departure to 

Mexico and Canada. The data elements 

are already included in the current Test, 

which has been operational since 

September 9, 2015. 80 FR 54305. The 

proposed regulation identifies the 

mandatory, conditional, and optional 

data elements and who would be 

required to submit the data. The 

proposed regulation also would add an 

initial filing for seven data elements to 

be presented 24 hours prior to departure 

of the train. 

For CBP, the proposed requirement to 

submit an electronic export manifest 

will enhance cargo security in that it 

would allow for improvements in risk 

assessment capabilities at the port level. 

Port operations will enjoy considerable 

efficiencies through the elimination of 

paper manifests. Storage space currently 

reserved for manifest documents will be 

freed. Coordination and information 

exchange among CBP, the Department of 

Commerce, and other Government 

agencies with export jurisdiction will 

improve. Carriers, USPPIs, non-vessel 

operating common carriers (NVOCC), 

and other interested parties who 

transmit information will receive better 

and more rapid examination decisions 

from CBP. The trade will benefit 

through the ease of making information 

corrections and additions electronically, 

a process that requires cumbersome 

manifest discrepancy reporting in a 

paper world. 

The ACE Export Manifest data 

submission is used to conduct risk 

assessment to identify high-risk rail 

cargo includes but is not limited to 

weapons, ammunition, currency or 

narcotics. High risk shipments are based 

on the totality of the review which 

includes party name, country of 

destination, cargo description, and/or a 

combination of data elements. Data 

supports a conclusion that Test 

participants have access to the manifest 

data early in the planning stages of an 

export rail cargo transaction and will be 

able to comply with these time frames. 

As stated, CBP anticipates that these 

timeframes will provide adequate time 

to perform proper risk assessment and 

identification of shipments to be 

inspected early enough in the supply 

chain to enhance security while 

minimizing disruption to the flow of 

goods. At present, regulations do not 

provide for any method to screen or 

secure rail cargo exports which this 

proposed regulation seeks to address. 

ACE Export Manifest data submission 

allows CBP to use its Automated 

Targeting System (ATS) to screen all of 

the data submitted which allows CBP to 

make better examination decisions 

while also reducing the time required to 

make such decisions. Although CBP 

will aim to identify shipments for 

inspection prior to loading, inspections 

could potentially happen at any time 

before the train departs the United 

States. 

Any rail cargo identified by CBP as 

requiring review will be held until 

required additional information related 

to the shipment is submitted to clarify 

non-descriptive, inaccurate, or 

insufficient information, a physical 

inspection is performed, or some other 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2880 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

appropriate action is taken, as specified 

by CBP. Once the cargo is cleared for 

loading, a release message will be 

generated and transmitted to the filer. 

VII. Proposed Requirements 

CBP is seeking to promulgate a new 

regulation, proposed 19 CFR 123.93, 

requiring the submission of export 

manifest data electronically in ACE for 

cargo transported by rail, pursuant to 

section 343(a), of the Trade Act of 2002, 

as amended. The proposed regulation 

would mandate the electronic 

transmission of rail export manifest 

information, identify the parties eligible 

to transmit information, describe the 

time frames prior to departure of the 

train in which the information is due, 

and identify an initial filing that must 

occur 24 hours prior to departure from 

the port of export while requiring the 

remaining data to be transmitted at least 

two hours prior to such departure. 

Further, to comply with Section 343 

of the Trade Act of 2002, as amended 

(19 U.S.C. 1415), new 19 CFR 123.93 

would require parties with the most 

direct knowledge to provide certain 

information to CBP. In furtherance of 

that goal, the proposed regulatory 

language sets forth differences between 

transportation data (always required of 

the carrier and carrier only) and cargo 

data, which can be provided by the 

party with direct knowledge of that 

information. 

Consistent with the provisions of 19 

U.S.C. 1415(a)(3)(B), when requiring 

information from the party with direct 

knowledge of the information is not 

practicable, the proposed regulation 

would take into account how, under 

ordinary commercial practices, 

information is acquired by the party on 

which the requirement is imposed and 

whether and how such party is able to 

verify the information. Where 

information is not reasonably verifiable 

by the party, the proposed regulation 

would permit the party to transmit 

information on the basis of what it 

reasonably believes to be true. 

The proposed regulation designates 

information as transportation data, cargo 

data, or empty container data, and lists 

the data elements to be transmitted 

while calling them out as mandatory, 

conditional, or optional. The data 

elements that are identified as 

mandatory must be submitted. These 

elements are necessary for CBP to 

inspect cargo effectively, ensure 

compliance with U.S. export control 

laws and regulations and identify highrisk shipments for purposes of ensuring 

cargo safety and security. Data elements 

that are identified as conditional must 

be provided if available. Data elements 

identified as optional provide additional 

information for purposes of clarity and 

may facilitate the clearance process but 

are not required to be submitted. 

The proposed regulation provides for 

direction regarding enforcement 

referrals, Do-Not-Load messages, and 

Hold messages. Any rail cargo identified 

by CBP as requiring review would be 

held until required additional 

information related to the shipment is 

submitted to clarify non-descriptive, 

inaccurate, or insufficient information, a 

physical inspection is performed, or 

some other appropriate action is taken, 

as specified by CBP. If the cargo is 

cleared for loading, a release message 

would be generated and transmitted to 

the filer. If a potential high-risk cargo is 

identified, then a CBP officer would 

conduct an examination. The rail 

carriers would be notified of these holds 

through the integrated system and if a 

mandatory examination of the cargo 

and/or freight car is required or if CBP 

needs to conduct further review of the 

data transmitted. In addition to holds, if 

a CBP officer determines during review 

that cargo or a rail car may contain a 

potential threat to the train and its 

vicinity, a Do-Not-Load (DNL) 

instruction would be issued, which 

prohibits the rail carrier from 

transporting that cargo or railcar. The 

rail carrier should not transport any 

cargo or rail car with a DNL. The 

advance transmission of EEM data 

would help CBP review and issue holds 

before cargo is loaded or before a train 

reaches the U.S. port of export, thus 

facilitating a more efficient export 

process. 

Specifically, CBP is proposing to 

require seven data elements, 

characterized as an initial filing, to be 

transmitted no less than 24 hours prior 

to train departure. The seven data 

elements chosen for mandatory 

transmission 24 hours prior to departure 

would be those data elements that 

would provide CBP with the cargo 

information it needs to perform the 

appropriate security analysis, including: 

Bill of Lading Number, Total Quantity, 

Total Weight, Cargo Description, 

Shipper’s Name and Address, Consignee 

Name and Address, and Automated 

Export System (AES) Exemption 

Statement, as applicable. The proposed 

rule provides for the submission of 

transportation, conveyance, and empty 

container information two hours prior to 

departure of the train rather than two 

hours prior to loading (or on assembly 

of the train in the case of information 

pertinent to empty rail cars). This 

change in transmission timing for all 

other data elements would combine 

with the initial transmission to afford 

CBP the ability to better assess risk and 

effectively target and inspect shipments 

prior to the cargo departing the United 

States to ensure compliance with all 

U.S. export laws. 

A. Initial Data Elements 

Different from the Test’s time periods 

for data presentation, proposed 19 CFR 

123.93 requires a mandatory initial 

filing of seven data elements identified 

below to be submitted 24 hours prior to 

departure to a foreign port, by either the 

carrier, USPPI, or other qualified parties 

or their authorized agents. In proposed 

19 CFR 123.93(b)(1), CBP has 

determined that requiring this initial 

filing in a time frame even earlier than 

prescribed in the Test is necessary to 

allow for complete vetting of cargo and 

transportation information for security 

purposes. The high percentage of data 

available for transmission 24 hours prior 

to departure supports the feasibility of 

requiring this initial filing. In further 

support of this proposal, some 

validations would be relaxed until the 

carrier links the master bill and house 

bill to allow for the submission of 

advance data. Upon receipt of the initial 

filing submission, CBP would validate 

and notify the filer of the master bill and 

house bill data, if any data is required, 

or if the house bill has been placed on 

hold pending the updating of the bill. 

Under the proposed regulation, the 

carrier would have the ultimate 

responsibility to load, hold, or not load 

the cargo. The carrier, USPPIs and other 

parties qualified to transmit data (or 

their authorized agent) would be eligible 

to submit the initial data filing as 

discussed below. 

CBP proposes adding 19 CFR 

123.93(c) which identifies the parties 

that can file the cargo and conveyance 

data. The outbound carrier is 

responsible for transmitting export 

manifest transportation data and empty 

container data. The outbound carrier 

must also transmit the initial filing data 

and the export manifest cargo data if no 

other eligible party elects to do so. If 

another eligible party elects to transmit 

either the initial filing data or export 

manifest cargo data, the outbound 

carrier may also choose to, but is not 

required to, transmit such data. Other 

eligible parties include USPPI and FPPI, 

as defined by the provisions of section 

30.1 of the FTR of the Department of 

Commerce, Bureau of the Census (15 

CFR 30.1), or its authorized agent. Other 

eligible filers also include any other 

party with direct knowledge of the 

export information, such as a customs 

broker, Automated Broker Interface 

(ABI) filer, NVOCC as defined by 19 

CFR 4.7(b)(3)(ii), or a freight forwarder 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2881 

as defined in 19 CFR 112.1. If another 

party does not transmit advance export 

information, the party that arranges for 

and/or delivers the cargo to the 

outbound carrier must fully disclose 

and present to the outbound carrier the 

data elements for the initial filing. Any 

party transmitting any of the data 

described in this subsection must be in 

possession of either a CBP Basic 

Importation and Entry Bond containing 

the provisions found in 19 CFR 113.62, 

a Basic Custodial Bond containing the 

provisions found in 19 CFR 113.63, or 

an International Carrier Bond containing 

the provisions found in 19 CFR 113.64. 

CBP also proposes adding 19 CFR 

123.93(d) which identifies the seven 

data elements from the Test that are 

required in the mandatory initial filing. 

Descriptions of those data elements 

have been revised in the proposed rule 

to clarify the kind and character of data 

that is required. The revised data 

elements in the proposed rule for the 

initial filing and the Test data elements 

to which they correspond are as follows: 

(1) Bill of lading number, which is 

necessary to link the transmission to the 

cargo throughout the entire electronic 

manifest process; 

(2) The numbers and quantities of the 

cargo laden aboard the train as 

contained in the carrier’s bill of lading, 

either master or house, as applicable 

(this means the quantity of the lowest 

external packaging unit; numbers or 

quantities of containers and pallets do 

not constitute acceptable information; 

for example, a container holding 10 

pallets with 200 cartons should be 

described as 200 cartons) [Test data 

element of Quantity of Cargo and Unit 

of Measure]; 

(3) Total weight of cargo expressed in 

pounds or kilograms [Test data element 

of Weight of Cargo (may be expressed in 

either pounds or kilograms)]; 

(4) A precise cargo description (or the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS) 

number(s) to the 6-digit level under 

which the cargo is classified if that 

information is received from the shipper 

and weight of the cargo; or for a sealed 

container, the shipper’s declared 

description and weight of the cargo 

(generic descriptions, specifically those 

such as ‘‘FAK’’ (‘‘freight of all kinds’’), 

‘‘general cargo’’, and ‘‘STC’’ (‘‘said to 

contain’’) are not acceptable) [Test data 

element of Cargo Description]; 

(5) The shipper’s complete name and 

address, or identification number, from 

the bills of lading (for each house bill in 

a consolidated shipment) [Test data 

element of Shipper name and address]; 

(6) The consignee’s complete name 

and address, or identification number, 

from the bill(s) of lading. (The consignee 

is the party to whom the cargo will be 

delivered to in a foreign country. 

However, in the case of cargo shipped 

‘‘to order of [a named party],’’ the ‘‘to 

order’’ party must be named as the 

consignee; and if there is any other 

commercial party listed in the bill of 

lading for delivery or contact purposes, 

the carrier must also report this other 

commercial party’s identity and contact 

information including address in the 

‘‘Notify party’’ field.) [Test data element 

of Consignee name and address]; and 

(7) The Automated Export System 

(AES) Exemption Statement, as 

applicable [Test data element of AES 

Exemption Statement (per shipment)]. 

Except for these seven data elements 

re-described or re-formatted above, CBP 

would require electronic export 

manifest information in sections 

123.93(e), and (f) to be transmitted two 

hours prior to train departure to a 

foreign port. That data comprises all 

additional data elements to be described 

as export manifest transportation data, 

cargo data, and empty container data. 

While 32 data elements are described in 

the Test, experience has shown that 

some are no longer necessary for 

inclusion in the proposed rule. 

B. Transportation Data Elements 

Proposed 19 CFR 123.93(e)(1) 

establishes the obligation on the carrier 

or its agent to supply transportation 

data. The transportation data elements 

carried forward from the Test to the 

proposed rule include the following: 

(1) Port of Departure from the United 

States (mandatory); 

(2) Date of Departure (mandatory); 

(3) Mode of Transportation 

(containerized rail cargo or noncontainerized rail cargo) (optional); 

(4) Equipment Type Code (optional); 

(5) Place where the rail carrier takes 

possession of the cargo shipment or 

empty rail car (optional); 

(6) Carrier-assigned conveyance name, 

equipment number and trip number 

(mandatory); 

(7) 6-character Hazmat Code. If the 

Hazmat Code is provided, then UN (for 

United Nations Number) or NA (North 

American Number) and the 

corresponding 4-digit identification 

number assigned to the hazardous 

material must be provided.) 

(conditional); 

(8) Marks and Numbers (conditional); 

(9) SCAC (Standard Carrier Alpha 

Code) for the exporting carrier 

(mandatory); 

(10) Container or Equipment Numbers 

(for containerized shipments) or Rail 

Car Numbers (for all other shipments) 

(mandatory); 

A transportation data element carried 

over from the Test to the proposed 19 

CFR 123.3(e) with an expanded 

definition is as follows: 

Seal Number (conditional, only 

required if container was sealed). The 

seal numbers for all seals affixed to 

containers and/or rail cars to the extent 

that CBP’s data system can accept this 

information (for example, if a container 

has more than two seals, and only two 

seal numbers can be accepted through 

the system per container, electronic 

presentation of two of these seal 

numbers for the container would be 

considered as constituting full 

compliance with this data element). 

In proposed 19 CFR 123.3(e), CBP is 

adding the transportation data element 

of ‘‘Estimated Time of Departure’’ 

(mandatory) to be supplied by the 

carrier or its agent that was not required 

in the Test but provides important 

information to CBP. 

Proposed 19 CFR 123.3(e) also adds 

the transportation data element of 

‘‘Train Consist’’ (mandatory) to be 

supplied by the carrier or its agent. The 

Train Consist provides CBP with what 

is on the train from the engine through 

the last car and how the cargo is lined 

up for departure from the United States. 

The Train Consist is composed of the 

following data elements that were 

required in the Test: 

(1) Manifest Number 

(2) Train Number 

(3) Rail car order 

(4) Empty containers. 

C. Cargo Data Elements 

Proposed 19 CFR 123.93(f) establishes 

the obligation on the party with 

knowledge of the facts or its agent to 

supply manifest cargo data. The cargo 

data elements carried forward from the 

Test to the proposed rule in addition to 

the seven data elements forming the 

Initial Data Filing include the 17 data 

elements listed below. CBP recognizes 

that some cargo data elements would 

already be requested in the initial data 

elements; those data elements would 

not need to be transmitted again unless 

there are updates or changes made. The 

proposed cargo data elements are as 

follows: 

(1) Shipper name and address (for 

empty rail cars, the shipper may be the 

railroad from whom the rail carrier 

received the empty rail car to transport) 

(mandatory); 

(2) Consignee name and address (for 

empty rail cars, the consignee may be 

the railroad to whom the rail carrier is 

transporting the empty rail car) 

(mandatory); 

(3) Port of Lading (mandatory); 

(4) Port of Unlading (mandatory); 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2882 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

6Although split shipment and portion of split 

shipment were data elements identified in the Test, 

CBP decided it was unnecessary to carry them into 

the proposed rule because they are elements 

required, to the extent necessary, by 15 CFR 30.28. 

(5) Bill of Lading Type (Master, 

House, Simple or Sub) (mandatory); 

(6) Bill of Lading Numbers (Master, 

House, Simple or Sub) (mandatory); 

(7) AES Internal Transaction Number 

or In-bond Number (per shipment) 

(mandatory); 

(8) Cargo description (mandatory); 

(9) Weight of cargo (may be expressed 

in either pounds or kilograms) 

(mandatory); 

(10) Quantity of cargo and unit of 

measure (mandatory); 

(11) In-bond type (conditional); 

(12) Notify party name and address 

(conditional); 

(13) Secondary notify party name and 

address (conditional); 

(14) Mexican Pedimento Number 

(only for shipments for export to 

Mexico) (optional); 

(15) Secondary notify party SCAC 

(optional); 

(16) Country of ultimate destination 

(optional); and 

(17) Number of house bills of lading 

(optional). 

CBP has determined that the 

collection of the following data 

elements required in the Test were 

found to be problematic or superfluous 

or are addressed by other regulations 

and will not be carried forward in the 

proposed rule: 

(1) Car Locator Message; 

(2) Empty Indicator (yes/no); 

(3) Hazmat Indicator; 

(4) Split Shipment Indicator (Yes/ 

No) 6; and 

(5) Portion of split shipment (e.g., 1 of 

10, 4 of 10, 5 of 10—Final, etc.) 

D. Examination Referrals 

Proposed 19 CFR 123.93(g) provides 

for two types of referrals that may be 

issued by CBP after a risk assessment of 

an outbound export manifest data 

transmission. A referral for information 

will be delivered to the rail carrier or its 

agent if the information provided fails to 

appropriately describe the cargo or if the 

information provided is inaccurate or 

insufficient. The data transmitter must 

then add or correct the information 

prior to the departure of the train from 

the United States. A referral for 

screening will be issued if the potential 

risk of the cargo is deemed high enough 

to warrant enhanced screening. In this 

instance, the rail carrier is notified of 

these holds and the notification lets the 

rail carrier know that a mandatory 

examination of the cargo and or freight 

car is required or if CBP needs to 

conduct further review of the data 

transmitted. 

E. Do-Not-Load (DNL)/Hold Instructions 

CBP is also proposing to add 19 CFR 

123.93(h) to provide for procedures for 

when a CBP officer determines during 

the review that cargo or a rail car may 

contain a potential threat to the train 

and its vicinity, so that a Do-Not-Load 

(DNL) instruction can be issued, which 

prohibits the rail carrier from 

transporting that cargo or rail car. The 

rail carrier should not transport any 

cargo or rail car with a DNL. A Hold 

instruction will be issued, even after 

loading, if further examination is 

required. In order to address such 

issues, data transmitters must provide a 

telephone number and email address 

that is monitored 24 hours a day/seven 

days a week. Data transmitters must 

respond and fully cooperate when such 

an instruction or hold is issued. 

F. Other Technical Amendments to Part 

123 

By adding new subpart J, CBP is 

revising the scope provision (19 CFR 

123.0) to reflect that customs procedures 

at the Canadian and Mexican borders 

would include electronic information 

for cargo in advance of departure which 

is not presently addressed in the 

regulation. 

G. Proposed Amendments to CBP Bond 

Conditions 

As an enforcement tool, CBP is also 

proposing changes to the relevant bond 

provisions in 19 CFR 113.62 (basic 

importation and entry bond), in 19 CFR 

113.63 (basic custodial bond), and 19 

CFR 113.64 (International carrier bond) 

to provide CBP with authority to impose 

liquidated damages on parties that do 

not provide the mandatory EEM data in 

the manner and in the time frame 

required. Specifically, CBP proposes to 

amend 19 CFR 113.62 to add new 

paragraph (k)(3) to address 

electronically provided outbound 

information. Section 113.62(k) currently 

addresses electronic transmissions for 

merchandise or cargo which is inbound. 

CBP also proposes to amend 19 CFR 

113.63 to include advance outbound 

information provided to CBP 

electronically and in the manner and in 

the time period required under 19 CFR 

123.93. CBP is also seeking to amend 19 

CFR 113.64 to include outbound 

information provided electronically by 

international carriers in the manner and 

time period required under 19 CFR 

123.93. With each of these regulations, 

CBP may assess liquidated damages if a 

violation occurs. Any party that violates 

the bond conditions for outbound data 

transmission as described above in this 

proposed rule agrees to pay liquidated 

damages of $5,000 for each violation 

and up to a maximum of $100,000 per 

departure. Compliance is CBP’s goal and 

CBP aspires to work alongside rail 

carriers and other parties to ensure that 

trade members provide the proper data 

in a timely manner, so that CBP can 

properly review the data, conduct risk 

assessment of high-risk shipments, and 

enforce U.S. export laws and regulations 

on U.S. rail exports. 

VIII. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

(Regulatory Planning and Review) 

Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review), as amended by 

Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing 

Regulatory Review), and 13563 

(Improving Regulation and 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 costs and benefits, reducing 

costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting 

flexibility. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has designated this rule a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as 

defined under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, 

as amended by Executive Order 14094. 

Accordingly, OMB has reviewed this 

rule. 

In summary, CBP expects that this 

proposed rule would result in a present 

value total combined net cost savings of 

$49.8 million using a two percent 

discount rate, or approximately $3.8 

million annualized (2023 U.S. dollars) 

to CBP, outbound rail carriers and other 

related parties during the period of 

analysis (2016 to 2030). CBP anticipates 

that this proposed rule would also 

provide added benefits from enhanced 

cargo security measures by improving 

compliance and the enforcement of U.S. 

export laws and regulations on U.S. rail 

exports, while also improving the 

facilitation of the export process. The 

following is the economic analysis of 

the potential impacts from this 

proposed rule. 

Purpose and Background 

CBP’s mission includes ensuring 

cargo security and preventing 

smuggling, while enforcing U.S. trade 

laws and regulations. CBP needs to 

obtain timely and sufficient data prior to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2883 

7See 19 CFR 192.14. 

8See 15 CFR part 30. 

9See 15 CFR 30.36. 

10This information is submitted by rail carriers 

for trains transporting cargo out of the United States 

and is provided regardless of whether an EEI 

submission is required. 

11See 15 CFR part 30. 

12 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, 

subject matter expert on February 25, 2022. 

13A train consist is document that generally 

refers to the contents of a train including the 

position of the locomotives and cars, as well as both 

non-hazardous and hazardous freight within those 

cars. 14 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, 

subject matter expert on June 21, 2022. 15 In the baseline scenario CBP is not able use 

ATS for risk assessment on export data submitted 

on paper forms (or via email) and paper forms 

cannot be automatically uploaded or submitted to 

ATS for risk assessment. A primary benefit of this 

proposed rule would be allowing CBP to 

automatically use ATS for risk assessment on all 

rail EEM data provided. 

cargo arriving or departing the United 

States via any mode of commercial 

transportation in order to review and 

conduct risk assessment to identify 

high-risk shipments and inspect cargo 

effectively. According to Section 343(a) 

of the Trade Act of 2002, as amended 

(Trade Act) (19 U.S.C. 1415), CBP is 

authorized to establish regulations that 

provide for the mandatory electronic 

transmission of data by way of a CBPapproved electronic data interchange 

before cargo arrives or departs the 

United States in all environments (sea, 

air, rail, and truck). Transmitting export 

manifest data electronically, instead of 

on paper or via email, allows CBP to use 

its Automated Targeting System (ATS) 

to screen all of the data submitted. This 

allows CBP to make better examination 

decisions while also reducing the time 

required to make such decisions. Trade 

members also experience efficiencies 

through quicker CBP examination 

decisions and improved communication 

between CBP and trade members. The 

requirement to submit manifest data 

through an electronic data interchange 

(ACE) which is the same system through 

which data is incorporated from AES is 

also important to help facilitate a more 

efficient trade process for all federal 

agencies and trade members involved. 

Submitting electronic manifest data 

(specifically pre-arrival or predeparture) significantly increases CBP’s 

ability to conduct risk assessment and 

identify high-risk cargo to ensure cargo 

security and to prevent smuggling. The 

electronic environment would improve 

and expedite communications between 

CBP and trade members in resolving 

examinations where additional or 

corrected information of the 

transmission is required. 

Baseline 

In the rail environment, CBP currently 

requires the advance electronic 

submission of data for all cargo being 

brought into the United States, but CBP 

does not require the pre-departure 

electronic submission of data for all 

exported cargo. CBP requires some 

electronically transmitted cargo data 

prior to departing the United States by 

rail but this data is significantly limited 

in scope. Current regulations 7 require 

the U.S. Principal Party in Interest 

(USPPI), the USPPI’s agent, or the 

authorized filing agent of the Foreign 

Principal Party in Interest (FPPI) to 

transmit Electronic Export Information 

(EEI) to CBP through the Automated 

Commercial Environment (ACE), no 

later than two hours prior to the arrival 

of the train at the border. Although this 

pre-departure data is helpful, the 

information provided by EEI falls short 

of what CBP requires for proper 

enforcement. 

The required transmission of EEI is 

subject to certain exemptions, as 

established by the Bureau of the Census 

regulations,8 which generally only 

require EEI transmission on shipments 

greater than $2,500 and do not require 

the transmission of EEI for shipments 

destined for Canada, unless the 

shipment contains certain controlled 

items or is being transshipped to 

another destination.9 Therefore, 

numerous low dollar value shipments 

and/or Canadian-bound shipments of 

merchandise departing the United 

States by rail do not have EEI 

transmitted for CBP to review. The lack 

of detailed electronic manifest data for 

some shipments and the unavailability 

of electronic cargo data on lower value 

merchandise shipments impedes CBP’s 

enforcement efforts on rail exports. 

Although CBP receives limited predeparture electronic data for rail 

exports, CBP usually receives additional 

pre-departure data from rail carriers or 

their agents. This information, however, 

is submitted via attachments to an 

email, which is not the most efficient or 

effective method to obtain such data and 

perform risk assessment.10 During the 

export cargo process, the rail carrier 

may not load cargo without first 

receiving from the USPPI or its 

authorized agent either the related EEI 

filing citation, covering all cargo for 

which the EEI is required, or exemption 

legends, covering cargo for which EEI 

need not be filed. While the rail carrier 

is not required to submit a rail cargo 

export manifest to CBP, the outbound 

rail carrier must annotate the carrier’s 

outward manifest, waybill, or other 

export documentation with the 

applicable Automated Export System 

(AES) proof of filing, post departure, 

downtime, exclusion, or exemption 

citations, conforming to the approved 

data formats found in the Bureau of the 

Census Foreign Trade Regulations.11

In the baseline rail carriers or their 

agents submit finalized train consists to 

CBP in a format of the rail carrier’s 

choosing before a train is granted 

permission to depart from the U.S. port 

of export.12 13 Rail carriers or their 

agents can provide this data via email 

prior to a train’s arrival at the U.S. port 

of export (pre-departure) or present this 

data to a CBP officer at departure when 

the train arrives at the U.S. port of 

export (at departure). The submission of 

such data pre-departure via email is not 

mandatory, nor is there a required time 

frame for submitting such information. 

However, rail carriers have the incentive 

to provide this information predeparture so that CBP has time to 

review the information before the train 

reaches the U.S. port of export, 

expediting the export process and 

usually rail carriers send this 

information to CBP at least two hours 

prior to a train’s arrival at the United 

States border.14 If rail carriers or agents 

choose not to provide this data predeparture, they must present the 

finalized train consists to CBP upon 

arrival at the U.S. port of export at 

which point CBP officers must complete 

the review of the train consists while 

the train is at the U.S. port of export, 

resulting in a delay in the train’s 

departure. 

Once this information is received by 

CBP (either via email or in person at the 

port of export) CBP officers will then 

conduct a review of the export 

information, which includes manually 

reviewing the finalized train consist 

(paper version or emailed) and address 

any issues. CBP officers must then also 

compare this data with any EEI 

information electronically submitted for 

that train along with any other 

documents. To ensure proper cargo 

security, during this review CBP officers 

must also conduct their targeting, risk 

assessment measures and determine if 

any cargo needs to be examined before 

a train departs the United States. In the 

baseline scenario, CBP is not able to 

automatically use ATS for risk 

assessment on the export information 

contained on the train consists provided 

by rail carriers to CBP.15 Although CBP 

officers can manually query ATS with 

information provided on the finalized 

train consists, CBP notes this is a 

cumbersome and time-consuming 

process and is not a frequent 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2884 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

16Unfortunately, CBP does not track how often 

manual examinations occur on average each year as 

these examinations are not entered into a system of 

record. 

17 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, on 

June 21, 2022. 

18CBP notes that although the Test requested 

export manifest data to be provided within certain 

deadlines, participants were not required to provide 

data within these time frames. Participants were 

given flexibility to provide the data to CBP 

electronically and were not penalized if export 

manifest data was not submitted within the time 

frames of the Test. However, CBP experienced high 

levels of compliance with submitting EEM data 

transmissions with 94 percent of all data 

transmissions were submitted greater than 24 hours 

prior to the departure time. 

occurrence. If during CBP’s review of 

this information, prior to the train’s 

arrival at the U.S. port of export, CBP 

officers find any discrepancies or 

missing data, CBP communicates via 

email to the rail carrier that submitted 

the data, requesting updates or 

corrections to the data provided. The 

CBP review process, including 

communications between CBP and rail 

carriers about discrepancies discovered 

while reviewing train consist 

information, can be unnecessarily 

cumbersome and time consuming 

because this data is provided via email 

attachments and the formats can be 

inconsistent across rail carriers. If CBP 

is not provided the pre-departure data 

or is not provided the data in a time 

frame that allows for CBP to properly 

review, request, and receive updates 

from rail carriers, and conduct proper 

risk assessment or manually examine 

high-risk cargo or shipment, then a CBP 

officer must resolve these issues at the 

U.S. port of export. This usually results 

in a delay to the train’s departure. 

CBP does not track how often rail 

carriers provide this pre-departure data 

nor to what extent CBP officers are able 

to conduct some or all of their manual 

review of the data prior to the train’s 

arrival to the U.S. port of export. 

Sometimes CBP identifies a high-risk 

cargo or shipment during manual 

review at the U.S. port of export or 

while reviewing pre-departure data but 

does not have time to adjudicate the 

shipment prior to a train’s arrival at the 

U.S. port of export. In this situation, the 

CBP officer holds the train until one or 

more freight car(s) can be removed from 

the already constructed train for 

examination, which can cause delays 

and can be costly to rail carriers.16

This proposed rule would establish a 

requirement for the electronic 

transmission of export manifest data 

pre-departure from the United States for 

all cargo in the rail environment. CBP 

defines the process described above as 

the regulatory baseline and the analysis 

of this proposed rule attempts to 

measure any incremental costs, cost 

savings or benefits compared to the 

baseline scenario. 

The ACE Export Manifest for Rail Cargo 

Test 

CBP has been working toward 

developing a new process to require the 

transmission of electronic export 

manifest (EEM) data for all cargo 

departing the United States by rail to 

enhance CBP’s efforts to ensure cargo 

security while also preventing 

smuggling, and to be compliant with the 

Trade Act. CBP expects that the 

transmission of pre-departure EEM data 

would help CBP obtain all the necessary 

data to successfully review and conduct 

risk assessment measures before trains 

reach the U.S. port of export, thereby 

limiting the number of issues that CBP 

must address at the U.S. port of export 

and reducing potential delays. Rail 

carriers have also acknowledged that the 

baseline process of sending forms of rail 

export data by email is unnecessarily 

costly, time burdensome and 

inconsistent with the process for 

providing data on cargo entering the 

United States.17 As such, rail carriers 

have been supportive of CBP’s efforts to 

provide a more efficient process by 

allowing for the transmission of rail 

EEM data. 

In September of 2015, CBP introduced 

a two-year pilot test program, referred to 

in this analysis as the ACE Export 

Manifest for Rail Cargo Test (the Test), 

to determine the feasibility for rail 

carriers or their agents to provide predeparture EEM data for rail exports to 

CBP via ACE within a specified time 

before cargo departs the United States. 

To test the functionality of this new 

process, CBP initially limited 

participation in the Test to nine rail 

carriers. During this initial phase of the 

Test, CBP worked with rail carriers who 

agreed to participate and submit EEM 

data to CBP via ACE in addition to 

providing paper forms. The participants 

were large rail companies, similar in 

most respects to those that did not 

participate. As such, CBP believes their 

experience with the test is informative 

for analyzing the effects of the rule. CBP 

requests comment on any meaningful 

differences between the participants and 

the non-participants that would affect 

the analysis. CBP requested that 

participants continue to submit data in 

paper forms as they did before the Test 

so that CBP could capture any 

inconsistencies or issues with the 

electronic transmission of rail export 

manifest data to CBP. In the Test, CBP 

requested that participants provide rail 

EEM data to CBP at least two hours 

prior to loading the cargo onto the train, 

or in the case of empty rail cars upon 

assembly of the train.18 Because the 

ACE system would conduct a majority 

of the risk assessment and review of 

electronically transmitted data, CBP 

anticipated that this two-hour window 

would provide enough time for CBP to 

review pre-departure EEM data prior to 

the cargo being loaded onto trains and 

before the trains have been assembled. 

The two-hour time frame also provided 

CBP the opportunity to notify rail 

carriers or agents to revise and correct 

export manifest data where necessary 

before the cargo is loaded. This 

increased the chance that CBP could 

conduct cargo inspections before cargo 

is loaded and trains are assembled, 

avoiding costly time burdens if issues 

were to be addressed after the train has 

been constructed. The required deadline 

for EEM data also provided CBP an 

opportunity to compare any EEI 

submitted by the USPPI with the export 

manifest data to properly conduct safety 

and security screening for cargo 

departing the United States on rail. 

One major improvement of the Test is 

that rail carriers can provide and revise 

export manifest data electronically on a 

flow basis when the export data 

becomes available during the export 

process. Typically, rail carriers provide 

export manifest data in documents 

known as bills of lading (bills), which 

act as a receipt and contract of 

transporting cargo and goods. These 

bills can come from a number of sources 

depending on which party is privy to 

the information and the timing of when 

the information is provided. A house 

bill contains cargo details and is issued 

directly by a party such as a Non-Vessel 

Operating Common Carrier (NVOCC) or 

freight forwarder. This bill acts as the 

receipt of exported goods and provides 

export manifest data at its lowest level. 

Carriers issue a master bill which 

includes all other export manifest 

information such as transportation 

details for the transporting train 

covering any number of house bills that 

are included on that train. Additionally, 

in the case where a NVOCC or freight 

forwarder is not involved in the 

shipment transaction and the carrier has 

the specific cargo data available, the 

carrier can issue a ‘‘simple bill,’’ which 

is similar to a house bill and contains 

cargo details at the lowest bill level of 

export manifest data. In the rail 

environment, house bills and master 

bills are not typically issued because 

rail carriers usually issue simple bills 

for all cargo and then submit finalized 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2885 

19CBP officers can also issue 1H Enforcement 

holds during manual review of electronic export 

manifest data transmitted. 

20Limited to those parties able to electronically 

transmit manifest data in the identified acceptable 

format. Prospective ACE Export Manifest for Rail 

Cargo Test participants must have the technical 

capability to electronically submit data to CBP and 

receive response message sets via Cargo-ANSI X12 

(also known as ‘‘Rail X12’’) or Unified XML and 

must successfully complete certification testing 

with their client representative. Once parties have 

applied to participate, they must complete a test 

phase to determine if the data transmission is in the 

required readable format. Applicants will be 

notified once they have successfully completed 

testing and are permitted to participate fully in the 

test. In selecting participants, CBP takes into 

consideration the order in which the applications 

are received. 

train consists to CBP. These consists 

include the simple bills associated with 

all the cargo on the train and any other 

transportation data for the train prior to 

departure from the U.S. port of export. 

The Test allows participants to transmit 

these simple bills on a flow basis when 

the information becomes available. This 

differs from the baseline scenario where 

rail carriers typically waited for simple 

bills to be finalized before sending the 

export manifest data in the finalized 

train consist in a paper format to CBP 

for review. The transmission of EEM 

data, via ACE, allows for the integrated 

system to conduct a large portion of the 

review process using data validations, 

checks and risk assessment measures 

prior to the rail carriers loading cargo 

onto freight cars or constructing the 

train. Additionally, upon transmission 

of the pre-departure EEM data, CBP can 

review data on a flow basis while rail 

carriers provide updated data 

throughout the export process. 

The integrated system will generate 

two types of holds when rail carriers 

transmit bills: 2H Documentation holds, 

which notifies the rail carriers or their 

agents in the integrated system of 

outstanding issues with the data 

provided, and 1H Enforcement holds, 

which result from risk assessment. In 

the instance of a 2H Documentation 

hold, the rail carrier or agent must add 

or revise the missing or incorrect 

reference data in order to release the 

hold on the cargo prior to departure 

from the United States. The 2H 

Documentation holds automatically 

generated by ACE do not require any 

action or response from CBP or CBP 

officers and only affect rail carriers or 

their agents. The integrated system 

assists CBP in its risk assessment efforts 

and the identification of high-risk cargo. 

If during the integrated systems risk 

assessment, a potential high-risk cargo 

is identified, then a 1H Enforcement 

hold is generated which requires a CBP 

officer to conduct a review of the export 

manifest data submitted.19 The rail 

carriers are notified of these holds 

through the integrated system which 

lets them know if a mandatory 

examination of the cargo and or freight 

car is required or if CBP needs to 

conduct further review of the data 

transmitted. These holds can be issued 

and addressed even after rail carriers 

load the cargo. If a 1H Enforcement hold 

is issued to a rail carrier after loading 

the cargo and CBP requests to inspect 

the cargo, the rail carrier must provide 

CBP with a location where CBP can 

conduct a proper examination. In 

addition to holds, if a CBP officer 

determines during review that cargo or 

a rail car may contain a potential threat 

to the train and its vicinity, a Do-NotLoad (DNL) instruction is issued, which 

prohibits the rail carrier from 

transporting that cargo or rail car. The 

rail carrier should not transport any 

cargo or rail car with a DNL. The 

transmission of EEM data in advance 

would help CBP review and issue holds 

before cargo is loaded or before a train 

reaches the U.S. port of export. This 

transmission facilitates a more efficient 

export process by reducing the 

likelihood of a freight car or cargo being 

removed from a constructed train and 

the resulting delays when departing the 

U.S. port of export. 

Rail carriers participating in the Test 

provide a number of mandatory and 

conditional data elements electronically 

to CBP via ACE. CBP determined that 

the selected data elements (listed below) 

would provide the information 

necessary to conduct proper cargo 

security enforcement. Rail carriers were 

already providing these data elements 

by the time of departure from the U.S. 

port of export to CBP prior to the Test 

but in paper form within the finalized 

train consists. The Test also required 

participating rail carriers to submit 

these data elements at the lowest bill 

level possible. The necessary data 

elements CBP selected during this 

initial phase of the Test, including 

empty rail cars, consisted of the 

following: 

(1) Mode of Transportation 

(containerized rail cargo or noncontainerized rail cargo) 

(2) Port of Departure from the United 

States 

(3) Date of Departure 

(4) Manifest Number 

(5) Train Number 

(6) Rail Car Order 

(7) Car Locator Message 

(8) Hazmat Indicator (Yes/No) 

(9) 6-character Hazmat Code 

(conditional) (If the hazmat indicator 

is yes, then UN (for United Nations 

Number) or NA (North American 

Number) and the corresponding 4- 

digit identification number assigned 

to the hazardous material must be 

provided.) 

(10) Marks and Numbers 

(11) SCAC (Standard Carrier Alpha 

Code) for exporting carrier 

(12) Shipper name and address (For 

empty rail cars, the shipper may be 

the railroad from whom the rail 

carrier received the empty rail car to 

transport.) 

(13) Consignee name and address (For 

empty rail cars, the consignee may be 

the railroad to whom the rail carrier 

is transporting the empty rail car.) 

(14) Place where the rail carrier takes 

possession of the cargo shipment or 

empty rail car 

(15) Port of Unlading 

(16) Country of Ultimate Destination 

(17) Equipment Type Code 

(18) Container Number(s) (for 

containerized shipments) or Rail Car 

Number(s) (for all other shipments) 

(19) Empty Indicator (Yes/No) 

Additionally, if the rail carrier 

identified that the rail car is not empty 

(empty indicator is no), then CBP also 

required information for the following 

data elements for non-empty rail cars, as 

applicable: 

(20) Bill of Lading Numbers (Master and 

House) 

(21) Bill of Lading Type (Master, House, 

Simple or Sub) 

(22) Number of house bills of lading 

(23) Notify Party name and address 

(conditional) 

(24) AES Internal Transaction Number 

or AES Exemption Statement (per 

shipment) 

(25) Cargo Description 

(26) Weight of Cargo (may be expressed 

in either pounds or kilograms) 

(27) Quantity of Cargo and Unit of 

Measure 

(28) Seal Number 

(29) Split Shipment Indicator (Yes/No) 

(30) Portion of split shipment (e.g., 1 of 

10, 4 of 10, 5 of 10—Final, etc.) 

(conditional) 

(31) In-bond Number (conditional) 

(32) Mexican Pedimento Number (only 

for shipments for export to Mexico) 

(conditional) 

After the initial two-year period, CBP 

determined that the initial phase of the 

Test had been feasible and functional 

for participating rail carriers to provide 

EEM data and therefore CBP extended 

the test in 2017. At that time, CBP 

expanded the Test and made it available 

to all rail carriers and other trade 

members (beyond the initial nine rail 

carrier limit) which met the eligibility 

criteria.20 After the first two years of the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2886 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

21 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, on 

June 21, 2022. 22CBP obtained feedback and information from 

Trade members on when in the export transaction 

process, the export manifest data is typically 

available for them to submit to CBP. Information 

obtained in February 2023. 23CBP obtained feedback and information from 

Trade members on when in the export transaction 

process, the export manifest data is typically 

available for them to submit to CBP. Information 

obtained in February 2023. 24 Information provided during discussion with 

some Trade members in regard to the timeline for 

when export manifest data is available to provide 

to CBP and challenges to providing pre-departure 

data well in advance. Data obtained in February 

2023. 

25 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, on 

August 2, 2022. 

Test, CBP received feedback from rail 

carriers from the Commercial Customs 

Operations Advisory Committee 

(COAC), which stressed that rail carriers 

may not have access to certain export 

manifest data elements requested by 

CBP two hours prior to loading of cargo. 

Therefore, CBP determined to change 

the filing condition for nine of the predeparture export manifest data elements 

for the Test moving forward. As part of 

the Test extension, CBP separated EEM 

data elements into three categories, 

mandatory, conditional, and optional 

data, and requested this information for 

all cargo and empty rail cars, at least 

two hours prior to loading of the cargo. 

CBP changed the following predeparture EEM data elements (which 

were originally mandatory) to optional 

for the Test extension. 

• Mode of Transportation 

(containerized rail cargo or noncontainerized rail cargo) (Original 

Data Element #1) 

• Place where the carrier took 

possession (Original Data Element 

#14) 

• Country of Ultimate Destination 

(Original Data Element #16) 

• Equipment Type Code (Original Data 

Element #17) 

• Number of house bills of lading 

(Original Data Element #22) 

• Split Shipment Indicator (Original 

Data Element #29) 

• Portion of split shipment (Original 

Data Element #30) 

• Mexican Pedimento Number (Original 

Data Element #32) 

CBP also modified the Test by 

changing the following data element 

from mandatory to conditional: 

• Marks and Numbers (Data Element 

#10) 

CBP has continuously extended or 

renewed the Test to gauge the 

functionality and feasibility of 

implementing the requirement of 

providing EEM data to CBP prior to a 

train’s departure. CBP believes that the 

Test has been successful and CBP is 

proposing to make the transmission of 

pre-departure EEM data mandatory for 

all cargo departing the United States in 

the rail environment. 

The ACE Export Manifest for Rail Cargo 

Program 

This proposed rule would mandate 

the transmission of EEM data for all 

cargo prior to departing the United 

States in the rail environment in lieu of 

paper submissions, see Section VII 

‘Proposed Requirements’ above for 

discussion on the regulatory 

requirements of this proposed rule. CBP 

anticipates that providing this 

requirement for the transmission of predeparture EEM data would significantly 

improve CBP’s ability to conduct proper 

cargo security, prevent smuggling, and 

aid in facilitating a more effective and 

efficient trade process. Under this 

proposed rule, the parties most likely to 

have the correct data on rail export 

cargo would be able to provide it to CBP 

through ACE. The experience and 

knowledge CBP gained during the Test 

influenced CBP to change some of the 

requirements for providing EEM data in 

this proposed rule. 

CBP evaluated the time frames for 

electronic manifest data transmission 

during the Test, the most important data 

elements needed for risk assessment and 

screening cargo, and the unavailability 

to rail carriers of certain data elements 

at given time frames and decided to 

group the rail EEM data elements based 

on the deadlines for submission of data 

and on which party likely has the 

correct information to provide the 

export manifest data. The proposed rule 

would allow rail carriers, carrier’s 

agents, NVOCCs, freight forwarders, 

customhouse brokers (CHB), or anyone 

with direct knowledge of the export 

manifest data to provide specific predeparture export manifest data to CBP, 

using CBP’s ACE as a data transmission 

portal. The proposed rule mandates that 

a party transmitting any specific EEM 

data must have a bond on file with CBP. 

Additionally, the party that transmits 

any EEM data electronically to CBP is 

also the responsible party for addressing 

any questions, issues, instructions or 

holds resulting from CBP’s review of 

that specific data. Therefore, CBP would 

require that any party transmitting EEM 

data to CBP provide a telephone number 

and email address that the party 

monitors 24 hours per day and seven 

days a week to quickly address any 

instructions or holds that CBP issues. 

To improve CBP’s risk assessment and 

screening efforts using pre-departure 

EEM data, this proposed rule would 

require an initial filing of seven 

mandatory data elements, which must 

be transmitted to CBP by any eligible 

party at least 24 hours prior to the 

departure from the U.S. port of export. 

The rail carrier is responsible for 

providing the initial filing data elements 

to CBP if no other eligible party elects 

to transmit the data. Eligible parties 

should transmit all other pre-departure 

EEM data elements to CBP no later than 

two hours prior to departure from the 

U.S. port of export, except for data on 

empty containers which would be 

required upon assembly of the train. 

From CBP’s experience during the Test, 

CBP does not anticipate that changing 

the time frames for data transmission in 

this proposed rule would cause any data 

transmission issues for parties 

submitting the information.21

Depending on the party providing the 

EEM data, the required export data may 

be available at different points in time 

during the export rail transaction 

process. Some rail carriers would have 

the export manifest data available days 

in advance prior to departure and 

therefore would have all the necessary 

information to submit the initial filing 

data to CBP and all other export 

manifest data well in advance of the 24- 

hour and 2-hour prior to departure 

deadlines.22 CBP anticipates that all rail 

carriers would likely obtain the 

necessary export data elements to 

provide the required transportation and 

cargo EEM data within the two-hour 

prior to departure deadline.23 However, 

for some rail carriers acquiring the 

necessary data for the initial filing 24 

hours prior to departure may require a 

change in business practices and 

additional coordination with other trade 

members or parties that have the 

required export manifest data. CBP does 

not believe that in such instances the 

export manifest data does not exist 

rather, the other trade members have not 

yet provided this information to the rail 

carrier.24 CBP expects that in such 

instances the costs to rail carriers to 

obtain this information from other trade 

members a few hours earlier would be 

minimal. Additionally, if other trade 

members are reluctant to provide this 

information to rail carriers within the 

24-hour prior to departure deadlines, 

the other trade members would be able 

to provide this data to CBP directly as 

participant in the rail EEM process. 

CBP notes that during the Test, 

participants were already providing 

most of the data required in the initial 

filing well in advance of departure and 

within the 24 hours prior to departure 

time frame.25 CBP expects that rail 

carriers and other trade members would 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2887 

26 If applicable, empty container rail car data 

would be included in the Train Consist data 

element of the mandatory data elements for 

transportation data. Empty containers are listed in 

the train consist and do not require any additional 

data to be provided as per this proposed rule. 

27The seal numbers for all seals affixed to 

containers and/or rail cars to the extent that CBP’s 

data system can accept this information (for 

example, if a container has more than two seals, 

and only two seal numbers can be accepted through 

the system per container, electronic presentation of 

two of these seal numbers for the container would 

be considered as constituting full compliance with 

this data element). 

28 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, on 

June 21, 2022. 

have access to most export manifest data 

early in the planning stages of an export 

rail cargo transaction and would be able 

to comply with these time frames. 

Additionally, participating parties 

would be able to transmit EEM data to 

CBP on a flow basis whenever it 

becomes available to help facilitate 

CBP’s review of the export data and the 

overall export process. CBP anticipates 

that these time frames would provide 

CBP adequate time to perform proper 

risk assessment and identify any cargo 

CBP should examine, early enough in 

the supply chain to enhance security 

while minimizing disruption to the flow 

of goods. Upon submission of the initial 

filing, CBP would validate or notify the 

responsible party of any holds or DNLs. 

The party that transmits the data is 

responsible for providing answers and 

updates on the data to CBP but the 

ultimate responsibility to load, hold, or 

not load cargo falls on the rail carrier. 

The seven data elements CBP selected 

for the initial filing were mandatory 

data elements in the Test; however, CBP 

revised the descriptions of these 

elements in this proposed rule to 

provide additional clarity on the data 

required. The initial filing data elements 

required in this proposed rule include 

the following, listed as well are the data 

elements’ corresponding descriptions 

during the Test: 

(1) Bill of lading number, 

(2) The numbers and quantities of the 

cargo laden aboard the train as 

contained in the carrier’s bill of lading, 

either master or house, as applicable 

(this means the quantity of the lowest 

external packaging unit; the numbers or 

quantities of containers and pallets do 

not constitute acceptable information; 

for example, a container holding 10 

pallets with 200 cartons should be 

described as 200 cartons [Test data 

element of Quantity of Cargo and Unit 

of Measure], 

(3) Total weight of cargo expressed in 

pounds or kilograms [Test data element 

of Weight of Cargo (may be expressed in 

either pounds or kilograms)], 

(4) A precise cargo description (or the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS) 

number(s) to the 6-digit level under 

which the cargo is classified if that 

information is received from the shipper 

and weight of the cargo); or for a sealed 

container, the shipper’s declared 

description and weight of the cargo 

(generic descriptions, specifically those 

such as ‘‘FAK’’ [‘‘freight of all kinds’’], 

‘‘general cargo’’, and ‘‘STC’’ [‘‘said to 

contain’’] are not acceptable) [Test data 

element of Cargo Description], 

(5) The shipper’s complete name and 

address, or identification number, from 

the bills of lading (for each house bill in 

a consolidated shipment) [Test data 

element of Shipper name and address], 

(6) The consignee’s complete name 

and address, or identification number, 

from the bill(s) of lading (The consignee 

is the party to whom the cargo will be 

delivered in a foreign country. However, 

in the case of cargo shipped ‘‘to order 

of [a named party],’’ the ‘‘to order’’ party 

must be named as the consignee; and if 

there is any other commercial party 

listed in the bill of lading for delivery 

or contact purposes, the carrier must 

also report this other commercial party’s 

identity and contact information 

including address in the ‘‘Notify party’’ 

field.) [Test data element of Consignee 

name and address], and 

(7) AES Exemption Statement, as 

applicable [Test data element AES 

Exemption Statement (per shipment)]. 

In this proposed rule, CBP groups the 

remaining rail EEM data elements based 

on CBP’s understanding of which 

parties may have the best knowledge of 

the export manifest data elements. CBP 

categorizes these remaining data 

elements as export manifest 

transportation data, export manifest 

cargo data, and empty container data. 

According to this proposed rule, the rail 

carrier or its agent is responsible for 

transmitting to CBP the EEM data on 

any empty container rail cars.26 This 

data must be submitted electronically 

no later than the time of assembly of the 

train. For EEM transportation data, the 

rail carrier or its agent must also 

transmit this data at least two hours 

prior to departure from the U.S. port of 

export. The rail carrier or its agent is 

responsible for providing the following 

EEM transportation data elements to 

CBP in this proposed rule: 

Mandatory Elements 

(1) Port of departure from the United 

States 

(2) Date of departure 

(3) Estimated time of departure 

(4) Carrier-assigned conveyance name, 

equipment number and trip number 

(5) Train Consist, which includes: (A) 

manifest number, (B) train number, 

(C) rail car order, and (D) empty 

containers (if applicable) 

(6) The rail carrier identification SCAC 

code (the unique Standard Carrier 

Alpha Code assigned for each carrier 

by the National Motor Freight Traffic 

Association; see § 4.7a(c)(2)(iii) of this 

chapter) 

(7) Container or equipment numbers (for 

containerized shipments) or Rail Car 

Numbers (for all other shipments) 

Conditional Elements 

(1) 6-character Hazmat Code. (If the 

Hazmat indicator is yes, then UN (for 

United Nations Number) or NA (North 

American Number) and the 

corresponding 4-digit identification 

number assigned to the hazardous 

material must be provided) 

(2) Marks and numbers 

(3) Seal number (only required if 

container was sealed.) 27

Optional Elements 

(1) Mode of transportation 

(containerized rail cargo or noncontainerized rail cargo) 

(2) Equipment type code 

(3) Place where the rail carrier takes 

possession of the cargo shipment or 

empty rail car 

CBP provides additional flexibility in 

this proposed rule by allowing any 

eligible party with the most direct 

information to provide EEM cargo data 

to CBP two hours prior to departure 

from the U.S. port of export. However, 

the rail carrier or its agent may also elect 

to transmit the mandatory EEM cargo 

data and in the case that no other party 

elects to provide the required EEM cargo 

data, it is the rail carrier’s responsibility 

to provide this EEM cargo data to CBP.28

The following data elements comprise 

the CBP-requested EEM cargo data for 

rail EEM in this proposed rule. CBP 

notes that if the data was provided 

during the initial filing it does not need 

to be transmitted again unless there 

were updates or changes made to the 

data. 

Mandatory Elements 

(1) Shipper name and address (For 

empty rail cars, the shipper may be 

the railroad from whom the rail 

carrier received the empty rail car to 

transport.) 

(2) Consignee name and address (For 

empty rail cars, the consignee may be 

the railroad to whom the rail carrier 

is transporting the empty rail car.) 

(3) Port of lading 

(4) Port of unlading 

(5) Bill of lading type (Master, House, 

Simple or Sub) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2888 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

29 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, on 

November 8, 2022. 

30 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, on 

June 21, 2022. 

31CBP anticipates that the Test would still be 

active until fiscal year 2026 when the proposed rule 

would be finalized; however, at the time this 

analysis was written CBP only had actual data up 

through fiscal year 2023. Therefore, CBP provides 

estimates, not actual data, for the fiscal years 2024 

and 2025 in this analysis. CBP compares the costs, 

cost savings and benefits during the Test to the 

baseline scenario, CBP assumes these effects to be 

sunk and are not incremental to this rule. 

(6) Bill of lading numbers (Master, 

House, Simple or Sub) 

(7) AES Internal Transaction Number or 

In-bond number (per shipment) 

(8) Cargo description 

(9) Weight of cargo (may be expressed 

in either pounds or kilograms) 

(10) Quantity of cargo and unit of 

measure 

Conditional Elements 

(1) In-bond type 

(2) Notify party name and address 

(3) Secondary notify party name and 

address 

Optional Elements 

(1) Mexican Pedimento Number (only 

for shipments for export to Mexico) 

(2) Secondary notify party SCAC 

(3) Country of ultimate destination 

(4) Number of house bills of lading 

After participants transmit the EEM 

cargo and transportation data to CBP via 

ACE, CBP would validate or notify the 

responsible party of any holds. 

Additionally, a CBP officer would 

review the finalized train consist prior 

to the train’s departure from the U.S. 

port of export. CBP anticipates that 

obtaining this data through the 

integrated system would help CBP work 

with rail carriers and other parties to 

address almost all issues identified 

during the CBP review before the train 

reaches the U.S. port of export and 

possibly some before loading of the 

cargo. This would significantly reduce 

any delays at the U.S. port of exports 

from instances where CBP officers 

conduct review and address issues 

while the train is at the U.S. port of 

export. CBP anticipates that through the 

obtaining of pre-departure rail EEM 

data, CBP officers would be able to 

conduct the appropriate risk assessment 

and screening and complete their 

review of all export manifest data prior 

to a train’s arrival at the U.S. port of 

export.29

In the initial Test, CBP requested that 

32 data elements be submitted two 

hours prior to the cargo loading. The 

experience gained during the Test has 

allowed CBP to revise which data 

elements should be mandatory, 

conditional, optional, and unnecessary. 

Of the original 32 data elements put 

forth in the initial Test, five data 

elements were determined by CBP to be 

unnecessary and CBP no longer requests 

these EEM data elements in this 

proposed rule. CBP lists these below. 

(1) Car Locator Message 

(2) Empty Indicator (yes/no) 

(3) Hazmat Indicator 

(4) Split Shipment Indicator (Yes/No) 

(5) Portion of split shipment (e.g., 1 of 

10, 4 of 10, 5 of 10—Final, etc.) 

As an enforcement tool, this proposed 

rule provides CBP with authority to 

impose liquidated damages on parties 

that do not provide the mandatory EEM 

data in the manner and in the time 

frame required. CBP retains the 

enforcement discretion to assess 

liquidated damages when a violation 

occurs. Any party that violates the 

requirements for data transmission as 

described above in this proposed rule is 

subject to pay liquidated damages of 

$5,000 for each violation and up to a 

maximum of $100,000 per departure. 

Although there is the possibility for 

liquidated damages, compliance is 

CBP’s goal and CBP aspires to work 

alongside rail carriers and other parties 

to ensure that trade members provide 

the proper data in a timely manner, so 

that CBP can properly review the data, 

conduct risk assessment of high-risk 

shipments, and enforce U.S. export laws 

and regulations on U.S. rail exports.30

Time Periods of Analysis 

This analysis primarily focuses on the 

potential impacts of this proposed rule 

after it would be in effect, but it also 

includes a discussion of the impacts 

during the Test that is in place before 

the proposed rule is finalized. The costs, 

cost savings and benefits of the Test are 

sunk (already incurred and cannot be 

recovered) for the purposes of deciding 

whether to proceed with the proposed 

rule, but they are important for 

understanding the full costs and 

benefits of implementing the rail EEM 

as a whole. To give the reader a full 

view of the effects of CBP’s requiring 

rail EEM data through the entire span of 

time, CBP analyzes the effects of 

implementing rail EEM collection over 

two time periods comparing each time 

period to the baseline scenario that 

existed prior to the rail EEM test. First, 

CBP analyzes the effects from Test used 

for the collection of pre-departure 

manifest data on rail exports during the 

pilot period, fiscal years 2016–2025.31

Second, CBP analyzes the effects of the 

proposed rule when CBP assumes it 

would be implemented as a final rule 

which would mandate the transmission 

of EEM data in the rail environment 

during the five-year regulatory period, 

beginning in fiscal year 2026 and ending 

in fiscal year 2030 For the regulatory 

period, CBP estimates, to the extent data 

is available, the additional total 

projected costs, cost savings and 

benefits to the Federal Government, rail 

carriers and other trade members as a 

result of requiring the transmission of 

EEM data for trains departing the United 

States, compared to the baseline 

scenario. In the analysis for this 

proposed rule, CBP defines the pilot 

period as fiscal years 2016–2025 and the 

regulatory period as fiscal years 2026– 

2030. At the conclusion of the analysis, 

CBP includes tables showing the effects 

of the proposed rule across both 

periods—effectively showing the full 

results of the pilot and the proposed 

rule against the baseline (the world 

without the rail EEM test). While CBP 

provides information about the two time 

periods separately for full transparency 

and to make clear which costs are sunk 

and which are incremental to this 

proposed rule, CBP also sums the two 

time periods for a full accounting of the 

effects of the rail EEM program as a 

whole. Additionally, all references to 

years are for fiscal years unless 

otherwise noted. 

Population Affected by Rule 

CBP expects that this proposed rule 

would affect a number of different 

parties. During the regulatory period, as 

the transmitting of EEM data expands, 

CBP expects broader effects on rail 

carriers, other trade members (such as 

USPPIs, FPPIs, NVOCCs, freight 

forwarders, Customhouse Brokers 

(CHB), or other parties with knowledge 

of manifest data elements), CBP, and 

other government agencies that oversee 

U.S. exports. CBP expects that this 

proposed rule would affect all seven rail 

carrier companies currently exporting 

cargo from the United States by rail. 

Although CBP does not have the 

necessary data to provide an exact 

estimate for how many other trade 

members this proposed rule would 

affect, CBP acknowledges that this 

proposed rule could result in some 

minor effects to a large number of other 

trade members, specifically in case they 

elect to provide EEM cargo data directly 

to CBP via ACE. CBP expects that this 

proposed rule would also improve the 

facilitation of the export process at 

around 68 U.S. ports of export, currently 

conducting the exportation of goods 

from the United States in the rail 

environment. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2889 

32 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, 

subject matter expert on December 6, 2022, and 

May 10, 2024. Data obtained from CBP’s ACE. 

33CBP excluded 2016 from the average for export 

manifest data transmissions due to lack of 

participation in that year. CBP used only three years 

of data 2021–2023 for the electronic train consists 

transmitted, because these were the only full years 

of data during the pilot period when all train 

consists were actually transmitted by participating 

rail carriers in the Test. 

34This number represents the total number of 

electronic transmissions sent to CBP by rail EEM 

test participants (export manifest data transmissions 

+ electronic train consists). 

35 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, 

subject matter expert on June 21, 2022. CBP used 

car volume instead of train volume because import 

volumes by train would be inaccurate since they 

tracked by rail car fee payments which are capped 

per year. 

Because the Test was limited in 

scope, the effects were largely 

experienced by a few rail carriers, 

possibly some other trade members and 

CBP during the pilot period. Although 

CBP only made the initial Test available 

to nine carriers, CBP then extended the 

test to all eligible parties; however, only 

two rail carriers actively participated in 

the Test. The two rail carriers 

participating in the rail EEM test have 

similar business characteristics to the 

remaining rail carriers that would be 

affected by this proposed rule. All are 

large carriers that operate 

internationally. Therefore, CBP 

anticipates that the effects on the rail 

carriers participating in the rail EEM 

Test accurately represents the effects 

that the remaining rail carriers would 

experience from this proposed rule. CBP 

requests comment on this matter. 

Rail EEM Test Data and Export Rail 

Projections 

CBP was able to identify the number 

of export manifest data transmissions 

and train consists transmitted 

electronically by participating rail 

carriers during the Test from 2016– 

2023. Because CBP’s pilot period 

includes future years, CBP does not 

have actual Test data available for 2024 

and 2025. To address this issue CBP had 

to provide estimates the final two years 

of the pilot period. These estimates are 

based on actual data in previous years. 

From 2016–2023 rail EEM test 

participants provided a total of 

1,563,694 export manifest data 

transmissions and 10,308 train consists 

electronically to CBP via ACE.32 To 

estimate the number of export manifest 

data transmissions that would occur 

during the final two years of the pilot 

period CBP used the average number of 

rail EEM data transmissions from 2017– 

2023 (211,225) and the average number 

of train consists submitted 

electronically to CBP from 2021–2023 

(2,911).33 According to CBP’s 

projections for the final two years of the 

pilot period and the actual data 

obtained (2016–2023), CBP expects that 

during the entire pilot period rail EEM 

test participants would submit around 

1,986,143 export manifest data 

transmissions and 16,129 electronic 

train consists. Total electronic data 

transmissions to CBP from participants 

in the rail EEM test would be 2,002,276 

during the pilot period.34 Table 2 below 

displays CBP’s actual and estimated 

number of export manifest data 

transmissions and train consists 

submitted electronically to CBP during 

the pilot period. 

Unfortunately, outside of the limited 

EEM data provided by Test participants, 

all other export rail data (excluding data 

for EEI requirements) submitted by rail 

carriers was on paper forms and 

therefore CBP was unable to obtain 

actual rail export volumes (by train or 

by train car). Therefore, CBP used train 

import volume data as a proxy for train 

export volume data to calculate the 

possible number of EEM data 

transmissions as a result from this 

proposed rule during the regulatory 

period. CBP anticipates that the number 

of train cars entering the United States 

with rail imports is likely comparable to 

the number of train cars exiting the 

United States for rail exports.35 CBP 

used existing internal data on inbound 

train cars to project the volume of 

outbound train cars during the final two 

years of the pilot period and the 

regulatory period. Inbound train car 

volumes have been largely consistent 

from 2017–2023 and CBP anticipates 

that on average, rail volume should 

remain relatively constant in future 

years as compared to the volumes 

recorded over the past seven years. 

CBP estimates that from 2016–2023 

there were a total of around 35.6 million 

train cars departing the United States, or 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13JA25.004</GPH>

Table 2. Rail EEM Test Data and Pilot Period Estimates 

Pilot Period EEM Data EEM Train Consists Total Data 

Transmissions Submitted Transmissions 

2016 85,122 - 85,122 

2017 218,235 308 218,543 

2018 224,518 - 224,518 

2019 219,413 159 219,572 

2020 183,070 1,109 184,179 

2021 200,963 2,601 203,564 

2022 223,793 2,912 226,705 

2023 208,580 3,219 211,799 

2024* 211,225 2,911 214,137 

2025* 211,225 2,911 214,137 

Total 1,986,143 16,129 2,002,276 

*Pilot period years with estimated not actual values. 
2890 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

36 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, 

subject matter expert on December 6, 2022, and 

May 9, 2024. Data obtained from CBP’s Borderstat 

and OMR databases on inbound rail statistics from 

FY 2017–FY 2023. 

37 Inbound rail volume decreased significantly 

between 2016 to 2017 and volume remained 

relatively the same between 2017–2023. Therefore, 

CBP omitted the 2016 inbound rail volumes for the 

estimate for the regulatory period volume because 

CBP believes this would have skewed the annual 

volume upward. 

38 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, 

subject matter expert on December 6, 2022, and 

May 10, 2024. Data obtained from CBP’s ACE. CBP 

used only three years of data 2021–2023, because 

these were the only full years of data during the 

pilot period when all train consists were actually 

transmitted by participating rail carriers in the Test. 

Additionally, CBP notes that most of the time the 

ratio of a simple bill to train car is 1 to 1, however 

a simple bill could be submitted for multiple train 

cars or vice versa. Because CBP only knows the 

number of simple bills transmitted during the Test 

and not the number of train cars, CBP assumes in 

this analysis that the ratio of a simple bill to train 

car is 1 to 1, essentially the number of simple bills 

represents the number of train cars. 

on average 4.4 million each year.36

Because CBP anticipates that the 

outbound train volume will remain 

relatively constant during future years, 

CBP used the average number of 

estimated outbound train cars during 

2017–2023 (4.19 million) for the number 

of expected outbound train cars for each 

future year.37 Although CBP has data 

available on the number of train cars, 

CBP does not know how many actual 

trains would engage in exporting goods 

in the rail environment during the 

regulatory period. Therefore, CBP does 

not know exactly how many train 

consists rail carriers would submit 

requiring a CBP officer to review each 

year during the regulatory period. To 

provide an estimate for how many train 

departures would likely be involved in 

exporting goods in the rail environment 

during the regulatory period, CBP used 

2021, 2022 and 2023 Test data on the 

number of simple bills transmitted 

compared to the number of train 

consists transmitted. Over the course of 

these three years a total of 633,336 

simple bills and 8,732 train consists 

were electronically transmitted to CBP 

as part of the Test, or on average 

approximately 72.5 simple bills per 

train consist.38 CBP used this ratio of 

simple bills (train cars) to train consists 

(trains) and the expected outbound train 

cars to estimate the total number of 

trains that would transmit electronic 

train consists when exporting goods 

from the United States during future 

years. 

CBP anticipates that each year during 

the regulatory period, approximately 

4,191,807 train cars and 57,794 trains 

would depart the United States with 

export goods requiring the transmission 

of export manifest data. In total CBP 

expects that during the regulatory 

period, rail EEM participants would 

transmit approximately 21,248,006 data 

transmissions to CBP or around 

4,249,601 annually. Table 3 below 

displays CBP’s estimate for total 

outbound train cars and trains during 

2016–2023 and projected outbound 

train cars and trains for the final two 

years of the pilot period and the 

regulatory period, and the estimated 

total EEM data transmissions during the 

regulatory period. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13JA25.005</GPH>

Table 3. Estimated Outbound Rail Volume and Regulatory Period Rail EEM Data 

Transmissions39 

Year Total Cars Estimated Cars per Estimated Train Regulatory Period 

Train Departures Data Transmissions 

Pi lot Period 

2016 5,776,802 72.5 79,647 

2017 4,061,164 72.5 55,993 

2018 4,189,839 72.5 57,767 

2019 4,423,305 72.5 60,986 

2020 4,026,695 72.5 55,518 

2021 4,217,447 72.5 58,148 

2022 4,304,395 72.5 59,346 

2023 4,119,807 72.5 56,801 

2024* 4,191,807 72.5 57,794 

2025* 4,191,807 72.5 57,794 

Total 43,503,069 599,793 

Regulatory Period 

2026 4,191,807 72.5 57,794 4,249,601 

2027 4,191,807 72.5 57,794 4,249,601 

2028 4,191,807 72.5 57,794 4,249,601 

2029 4,191,807 72.5 57,794 4,249,601 

2030 4,191,807 72.5 57,794 4,249,601 

Total 20,959,037 288,969 21,248,006 

*Pilot period years with estimated not actual values. 
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2891 

39To estimate the number of total outbound train 

cars in future years, CBP used the average volume 

of train cars during the seven year period (2017– 

2023) = 4,191,807 annually. 

40 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, 

subject matter expert on December 6, 2022, and 

May 10, 2024. Data obtained from CBP’s ACE. 41Based on data from CBP’s ACE tracking the 

total number of holds issued during the rail EEM 

test. 2H holds were not initially issued as complete 

functionality of the Test was gradually 

implemented. CBP notes that 2H holds were only 

generated starting in 2020 and to calculate the 

average percent of data transmission that had a 2H 

hold issued CBP only used 2020–2023 data. 1H 

Enforcement holds were being issued during the 

entire Test and therefore CBP calculated the average 

percent of data transmissions that had a 1H hold 

issued using data from 2016–2023. 

In addition to the number of export 

manifest data transmissions and train 

consists submitted electronically from 

2016–2023, CBP also obtained 

information from the Test on the 

number of 2H Documentation and 1H 

Enforcement holds that were issued 

during these years. According to CBP 

internal data as part of the rail EEM test 

from 2016–2023 CBP issued a total of 

31,202 2H Documentation holds and 

795 1H Enforcement holds.40 To 

determine the number of holds that 

would be issued by CBP in the final two 

years of the pilot period CBP used the 

percent of export manifest data 

transmissions submitted that resulted in 

a 2H Documentation or a 1H 

Enforcement hold. Based on the 

information obtained during the Test, 

on average a 2H Documentation hold 

was issued on approximately 3.78 

percent of all export manifest data 

transmissions and on average a 1H 

Enforcement hold was issued on 0.05 

percent of all export manifest data 

transmissions.41

To estimate the number of holds 

issued in 2024 and 2025 CBP multiplied 

the percentage of EEM data 

transmissions resulting in a 2H 

Documentation hold (3.78%) and 1H 

Enforcement hold (0.05%) by the 

expected total number of rail EEM data 

transmissions during 2024 and 2025 

(see Table 2). CBP anticipates that 

during the pilot period CBP would issue 

around 47,375 2H Documentation holds 

and around 1,049 1H Enforcement 

holds. 

CBP expects that these holds would 

be issued at a similar frequency during 

the regulatory period. Therefore, to 

estimate the number of CBP holds that 

would be issued during the regulatory 

period, CBP multiplied the percentage 

of data transmissions that were issued 

2H Documentation holds (3.78%) and 

1H Enforcement holds (0.05%) by the 

estimated number of total data 

transmissions (see Table 3), for each 

year of the regulatory period. According 

to CBP’s estimates, CBP would issue a 

total of 802,400 2H Documentation 

holds or on average 160,480 annually 

and around 11,137 1H Enforcement 

holds or on average 2,227 annually 

during the regulatory period. Table 4 

displays CBP’s estimates for total holds 

that would be issued during the 

regulatory period. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13JA25.006</GPH>

Table 4. Actual and Estimated Holds Issued during 2016-2030 

Year Total EEM Percent of Data Percent of Data 2H Holds lH Holds Total Holds 

Data Transmissions Transmissions Issued Issued Issued 

Transmissions with2H Hold with lH Hold 

Pilot Period 

2016 85,122 30 30 

2017 218,543 37 37 

2018 224,518 34 34 

2019 219,572 41 41 

2020 184,179 691 353 1,044 

2021 203,564 3,779 115 3,894 

2022 226,705 9,281 113 9,394 

2023 211,799 17,451 102 17,553 

2024* 214,135 3.78% 0.05% 8,087 112 8,199 

2025* 214,135 3.78% 0.05% 8,087 112 8,199 

Total 2,002,272 47,375 1,049 48,424 

Regulatory Period 

2026 4,249,601 3.78% 0.05% 160,480 2,227 162,707 

2027 4,249,601 3.78% 0.05% 160,480 2,227 162,707 

2028 4,249,601 3.78% 0.05% 160,480 2,227 162,707 

2029 4,249,601 3.78% 0.05% 160,480 2,227 162,707 

2030 4,249,601 3.78% 0.05% 160,480 2,227 162,707 

Total 21,248,006 802,400 11,137 813,537 

*Pilot period years with estimated not actual values. 
2892 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

42Other trade members would include USPPIs, 

FPPIs, NVOCCs, freight forwarders, or other third 

parties with knowledge of manifest data elements. 

43 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, on 

December 7, 2022. Rail EEM ACE cost estimates 

were provided by CBP’s Office of Information and 

Technology and provided development and 

ongoing costs that increase at a fixed rate each year. 

44 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, on 

August 2, 2022. 1H Enforcement holds can also be 

issued by CBP officers upon manual review of 

export manifest data. 

45 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, on 

June 21, 2022. 

46 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, on 

November 8, 2022. 

47 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, 

subject matter expert on November 21, 2022. Data 

obtained from CBP’s OMR database. 

48 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, 

subject matter expert on December 6, 2022 and May 

10, 2024. Data obtained by CBP’s ACE and based 

on CBP estimates for years 2024–2025. 

49CBP bases this wage on the FY 2023 salary, 

benefits, premium pay, non-salary costs, and 

awards of the national average of CBP Officer 

Positions, which is equal to a GS–11, Step 10. 

Source: Email correspondence with CBP’s Office of 

Finance on September 26, 2023. 

CBP believes that it is possible that 

the total number of holds could be less 

than these estimates during the 

regulatory period as rail carriers and 

other trade members become more 

familiar and efficient at providing the 

pre-departure EEM data, potentially 

improving compliance and limiting the 

number of holds CBP issues. CBP did 

not issue any DNL holds during the Test 

and does not expect a significant 

number of DNL holds to be issued 

during the regulatory period. If DNL 

holds are issued this would be an 

additional cost to rail carriers, who are 

ultimately responsible for loading and 

not loading cargo. 

Pilot Period 

Costs 

CBP expects that CBP, participating 

rail carriers, other trade members incur 

some costs during the pilot period when 

compared to the baseline.42 CBP’s 

primary cost during the pilot period was 

from implementing the Test EEM data 

tool into ACE. ACE was already in place 

prior to the Test; therefore, CBP did not 

need to develop an entirely new system. 

However, there were some development 

and ongoing systems costs to CBP 

during the introduction and operation of 

the Test. Initially, CBP incurred systems 

costs of approximately $608,000 to 

develop and implement the Test EEM 

tool into ACE.43 During the pilot period, 

CBP incurs ongoing operations and 

maintenance costs associated with the 

Test, which costs CBP on average 

approximately $101,350 each year. CBP 

estimates that total systems costs to CBP 

for developing and operating the Test 

would be approximately $1.6 million 

during the pilot period. 

CBP also incurs some time burdens 

while conducting additional review of 

EEM data when compared to the 

baseline. As stated earlier, in the 

baseline scenario the rail carriers 

provided export rail data to CBP all at 

once in the finalized train consists at or 

prior to departure from the United 

States. Therefore, under the baseline 

scenario, CBP was unable to review 

export data until the finalized train 

consist was submitted. During the Test, 

participants provide EEM data on a flow 

basis, so CBP is able to review the data 

when participants transmitted the EEM 

data and does not have to wait for rail 

carriers to finalize all the data and 

submit it together in the train consist. 

When participants transmit the EEM 

data to CBP via ACE, the integrated 

system can identify potential high-risk 

cargo and issue a 1H Enforcement hold, 

which requires manual review from a 

CBP officer. As discussed earlier, 2H 

Documentation holds generated by ACE 

do not require any action or response 

from CBP officers, therefore CBP does 

not anticipate any time burden to CBP 

when a 2H Documentation hold is 

issued. CBP estimates that this 

additional review of each 1H 

Enforcement hold imposes an average 

time burden of approximately 5 minutes 

(0.083 hours) to CBP officers.44 In 

addition to reviewing the EEM data 

transmitted, CBP officers also incur time 

burdens when addressing and resolving 

1H Enforcement holds. Depending on 

the complexity of the 1H Enforcement 

hold, the time burden to CBP officers to 

address and resolve these holds varies 

from a few minutes to a few hours if a 

hold requires a CBP officer to manually 

examine cargo or a train car.45 CBP does 

not know how many issued 1H 

Enforcement holds result in cargo 

examinations during the pilot period or 

if the Test result in additional 

examinations when compared to the 

baseline scenario. However, CBP notes 

that the majority of these 1H 

Enforcement holds do not result in a 

cargo examination and CBP officers are 

able to address and resolve the majority 

of these holds in a few minutes.46 CBP 

estimates that, on average, CBP officers 

incur an additional time burden of 10 

minutes (0.167 hours) to address and 

resolve each 1H Enforcement hold.47 In 

total, CBP expects on average a CBP 

officer incurs a time burden of 

approximately 15 minutes (0.25 hours) 

to review and resolve each 1H 

Enforcement hold. 

During the pilot period, CBP estimates 

that rail carriers will transmit a total of 

2,002,272 EEM data submissions as part 

of the Test, resulting in approximately 

1,049 1H Enforcement holds issued 

which require additional review by a 

CBP officer.48 CBP calculates the time 

burden to CBP officers during the pilot 

period by multiplying the estimated 

number of 1H Enforcement holds 

(1,049) by the expected average time 

burden to CBP officers to review, 

address and resolve the average 1H 

Enforcement hold (15 minutes, 0.25 

hours). CBP expects that CBP officers 

incurs a time burden of approximately 

262 hours (1,049 holds × 0.25 hours) 

during the pilot period. CBP estimates 

the costs to CBP officers by multiplying 

the total time burden (262 hours) by the 

average hourly loaded rate for a CBP 

officer ($101.44) = $26,608.49 Table 5 

shows CBP’s estimate for the time and 

cost burden to CBP officers when 

reviewing and resolving 1H 

Enforcement holds during the pilot 

period. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2893 

50 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, 

subject matter expert on June 21, 2022. 51 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, 

subject matter expert on December 6, 2022 and May 

10, 2024. Data obtained from CBP’s ACE, Borderstat 

and OMR databases. CBP notes that most of the 

time the ratio of a simple bill to train car is 1 to 

1, however a simple bill could be submitted for 

multiple train cars or vice versa. Because CBP only 

knows the number of simple bills transmitted 

during the Test and not the number of train cars, 

CBP assumes in this analysis that the ratio of a 

simple bill to train car is 1 to 1, essentially the 

number of simple bills represents the number of 

train cars. CBP determined the number of total 

export manifest data submissions during the pilot 

period by accounting for if all export manifest data 

were transmitted electronically and by assuming 

one simple bill per estimated departing train car 

and one train consist per departing rain, based on 

the volume of inbound train cars and CBP’s 

estimate for the number of simple bills (train cars) 

per train. 

52 Information was obtained from feedback and 

discussions with Trade members on the potential 

impacts of providing EEM data in addition to the 

paper forms. Data obtained in February 2023. 

53Rail EEM test participants didn’t start 

providing the train consists electronically to CBP on 

a consistent basis until 2021, therefore CBP does 

not know how many actual trains had electronic 

data transmitted to CBP earlier in the pilot period. 

54 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, 

subject matter expert on December 6, 2022, and 

May 10, 2024. Data obtained from CBP’s ACE. CBP 

used only three years of year of data 2021–2023, 

because these were the only full years of data 

during the pilot period when all train consists were 

actually transmitted by participating rail carriers in 

the Test. 

55Source of median wage rate: U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment and 

Wage Statistics, ‘‘May 2022 National Occupational 

Employment and Wage Estimates United States.’’ 

Updated April 25, 2023. Available at https://

www.bls.gov/oes/2022/may/oes_nat.htm. Accessed 

August 21, 2023. The total compensation to wages 

and salaries ratio is equal to the total compensation 

cost per hour worked for Office and Administrative 

Support occupations ($32.52) divided by the wages 

and salaries cost per hour worked for the same 

occupation category ($22.01). See ‘‘Table 2. 

Employer Costs for Employee Compensation for 

civilian workers by occupational and industry 

group.’’ Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘‘Employer Costs 

Continued 

In addition to CBP, rail carrier 

participants and some other trade 

members incur costs during the pilot 

period. The Test implements a few 

changes that affect rail carrier 

participants, such as providing advance 

EEM data within CBP-requested 

deadlines prior to cargo loading onto 

trains, transmitting the requested EEM 

data elements to CBP, and responding to 

and addressing any issued holds or 

questions from CBP about the data 

provided. So far during the pilot period, 

the participating rail carriers 

demonstrate very high levels of 

compliance with providing data within 

the requested deadlines of the Test, as 

approximately 94 percent of EEM data 

provided to CBP was transmitted on 

time.50 From 2016–2023, the 

participating rail carriers electronically 

transmitted a total of 1,574,002 EEM 

data submissions, including 1,563,694 

simple bills and 10,308 train consists, 

representing around 4 percent of all 

estimated export manifest data 

submissions.51

Since CBP requests that rail carriers 

participating in the Test continue to 

provide the paper forms in addition to 

the EEM data, these rail carriers incur 

an additional time burden to submit the 

new electronic data during the Test. 

CBP estimates that on average rail 

carriers incur a time burden of 

approximately 40 minutes (0.667 hours) 

per train to transmit the EEM data.52

Unfortunately, CBP does not have data 

on the exact number of total trains for 

which the participating rail carriers 

provide electronic data during the pilot 

period.53 Therefore, to provide an 

estimate, CBP used 2021–2023 data 

from the Test on the number of simple 

bills transmitted compared to the 

number of train consists transmitted.54

Over the course of these years rail 

carriers electronically transmitted to 

CBP a total of 633,336 simple bills and 

8,732 train consists as part of the Test, 

or on average approximately 72.5 simple 

bills per train consist. CBP used this 

ratio of simple bills (train cars) to train 

consists (trains) and the total estimated 

number of simple bills that would be 

transmitted during each year of the pilot 

period (2016–2025) to estimate the total 

number of trains for which rail carriers 

will transmit electronic export manifest 

data to CBP. According to CBP’s 

estimates, there will be approximately 

27,384 trains that will have EEM data 

transmitted to CBP when departing the 

United States. Assuming that the Test 

participants will transmit EEM data for 

approximately 27,384 trains, CBP 

estimates that these rail carrier 

participants incur a time burden of 

18,256 hours for transmission purposes 

(27,384 trains × 0.667 hours). To 

estimate the time burden costs, CBP 

multiplied the time burden hours by the 

average hourly loaded wage rate for 

exporters ($35.62).55 CBP estimates that, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13JA25.007</GPH>

Table 5. Estimated Time Burden and Costs to CBP from lH Enforcement Holds during 

Pilot Period 2016-2025 (time in hours, costs in undiscounted 2023 U.S. Dollars) 

Year 1 H Enforcement Holds Average Time Total Time Wage Total Cost 

Issued Burden Burden Rate 

2016 30 0.25 7.50 $101.44 $761 

2017 37 0.25 9.25 $101.44 $938 

2018 34 0.25 8.50 $101.44 $862 

2019 41 0.25 10.25 $101.44 $1,039 

2020 353 0.25 88.23 $101.44 $8,950 

2021 115 0.25 28.74 $101.44 $2,916 

2022 113 0.25 28.24 $101.44 $2,865 

2023 102 0.25 25.49 $101.44 $2,586 

2024* 112 0.25 28.05 $101.44 $2,846 

2025* 112 0.25 28.05 $101.44 $2,846 

Total 1,049 262 $26,608 

*Pilot period years with estimated not actual values. 
2894 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

for Employee Compensation—December 2022.’’ 

Released March 17, 2023. Available at https://

www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_

03172023.pdf. Accessed August 29, 2023.. CBP 

assumes an annual growth rate of 7.01% based on 

the prior year’s change in the implicit price 

deflator, published by the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis. To adjust to 2023 dollars, multiply by the 

2021–2022 percent change in the Bureau of 

Economic Analysis’s Implicit Price Deflators for 

Gross Domestic Product (127.224/118.895–1). See 

‘‘Table 1.1.9. Implicit Price Deflators for Gross 

Domestic Product,’’ Line 1 Gross Domestic Product, 

annual. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Updated 

August 30, 2023. Available at https://apps.bea.gov/ 

iTable/?reqid=19&step=2&isuri=1&

categories=survey#eyJhcHBpZCI6MTksInN0ZXBzI

jpbMSwyLDMsM10sImRhdGEiOltb

ImNhdGVnb3JpZXMiLCJTdXJ2ZXki

XSxbIk5JUEFfVGFibGVfTGlzdCIsIjEzIl0sWy

JGaXJzdF9ZZWFyIiwiMjAxNiJdLFsiTGFzdF9ZZWF

yIiwiMjAyMyJdLFsiU2NhbGUiLCIwIl0sWy

JTZXJpZXMiLCJBIl1dfQ==. Accessed September 20, 

2023. 

56 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, 

subject matter expert on December 6, 2022, and 

May 10, 2024. 

57 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, 

subject matter expert on June 21, 2022, and May 10, 

2024. Data obtained from CBP’s ACE. 

58 Data obtained from CBP discussion with Trade 

members on the potential costs to review and 

resolve holds issued by CBP in response to EEM 

data transmitted. Time burdens vary greatly 

depending on the complexity of the issue; CBP took 

this into consideration when calculating the average 

time burden to review and address an issued hold. 

Data obtained in February 2023. 

during the pilot period when submitting 

the EEM data to CBP, Test participants 

incur a total cost of around $650,273 or 

on average $65,027 annually. Table 6 

below displays CBP’s estimate for the 

number of trains that depart the United 

States and provide EEM data, the 

estimated time burden and costs to rail 

carriers during each year of the pilot 

period. 

CBP expects that rail carriers 

participating in the Test and other trade 

members also face time burdens and 

costs when responding to 2H 

Documentation holds and 1H 

Enforcement holds. According to CBP 

internal data and estimates for 2024 and 

2025, during the pilot period, CBP will 

issue a total of 47,375 2H 

Documentation holds and 1,049 1H 

Enforcement holds. CBP has not issued 

any DNL instructions during the Test.56

By the end of 2023, rail carriers have 

shown high rates of compliance and 

responsiveness to CBP holds during the 

Test, with over 99.8% of holds being 

resolved and cargo released.57 CBP 

expects that the time burden to respond 

to each hold depends on the complexity 

of the issue and if the hold results in an 

examination of cargo which would be 

more time consuming. When 

responding to holds, if a rail carrier does 

not have the necessary information and 

needs to obtain the data from another 

trade member, that would also impose 

a time burden on the other trade 

member. CBP believes that on average 

the overall time burden to trade (rail 

carriers and other trade members) when 

reviewing and addressing these holds is 

approximately 12.5 minutes (0.21 hours) 

per hold.58 Based on CBP Test data and 

estimates for 2024 and 2025, there will 

be a total of 48,424 holds issued during 

the pilot period (see Table 4) and CBP 

estimates these holds will impose a time 

burden to trade of around 10,088 hours 

(48,424 holds × 0.21 hours per hold). 

CBP estimated the cost to trade by 

multiplying the total expected hours 

spent reviewing and addressing holds 

(10,088) by the average hourly loaded 

wage rate for exporters ($35.62). CBP 

expects that during the pilot period 

reviewing and addressing holds issued 

by CBP cost trade approximately 

$359,350 or on average $35,935 

annually. Table 7 shows CBP estimates 

for the total number of holds issued, the 

estimated time burden and costs to rail 

carriers during each year of the pilot 

period. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13JA25.008</GPH>

Table 6. Estimated Time Burden and Costs to Rail Carriers when Providing EEM to CBP 

during Pilot Period 2016-2025 (undiscounted 2023 U.S. Dollars) 

Year Simple Bills Estimated Estimated Time Burden Total Wage Total Cost 

Transmitted Simple Bills Train per Train Time Rate 

per Train Departures Departure Burden 

2016 85,122 72.5 1,174 0.67 782 $35.62 $27,869 

2017 218,235 72.5 3,009 0.67 2,006 $35.62 $71,451 

2018 224,518 72.5 3,096 0.67 2,064 $35.62 $73,508 

2019 219,413 72.5 3,025 0.67 2,017 $35.62 $71,837 

2020 183,070 72.5 2,524 0.67 1,683 $35.62 $59,938 

2021 200,963 72.5 2,771 0.67 1,847 $35.62 $65,796 

2022 223,793 72.5 3,086 0.67 2,057 $35.62 $73,271 

2023 208,580 72.5 2,876 0.67 1,917 $35.62 $68,290 

2024* 211,225 72.5 2,912 0.67 1,941 $35.62 $69,156 

2025* 211,225 72.5 2,912 0.67 1,941 $35.62 $69,156 

Total 1,986,143 27,384 18,256 $650,273 

*Pilot period years with estimated not actual values. 
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2895 

59CBP can only use ATS on electronically 

transmitted data; therefore, because the majority of 

export manifest data provided to CBP prior to this 

proposed rule was submitted in paper and or via 

email, CBP was not able to use ATS to screen any 

cargo associated with these paper forms. 

60 Data obtained from feedback provided by Trade 

members on similarities between providing 

electronic import manifest data and the requested 

EEM. Data obtained in December 2022 and February 

2023. 

61 Data obtained from feedback provided by Trade 

members on potential necessary development, 

adjustments and maintenance of existing internal 

systems to support providing EEM to CBP via ACE. 

Data obtained in December 2022 and February 

2023. 

62 Data was obtained from feedback from Trade 

members on the potential costs to internal systems 

to support providing EEM to CBP via ACE. Data was 

obtained in December 2022 and February 2023. 

From the Test, CBP does not know to 

what extent obtaining pre-departure 

EEM data improves CBP’s enforcement, 

resulting in identifying additional highrisk cargo or other compliance issues, 

beyond what CBP would have identified 

prior to the Test. CBP notes that for all 

pre-departure EEM that was transmitted 

to the Test, CBP was able to use ATS for 

risk assessment compared to the 

baseline scenario where CBP was only 

able to use ATS on a very limited 

number of export cargo data in the rail 

environment.59 If CBP identifies more 

high-risk cargo as a result of the Test, 

that may result in larger time burdens 

on rail carriers to respond to and 

address CBP requests for cargo 

examination. 

During the pilot period, rail carriers 

that voluntarily participate in the Test, 

incur costs to adjust and maintain their 

IT systems to interact with CBP’s ACE 

and provide the required pre-departure 

EEM data to CBP. The EEM data 

requirements are very similar to data 

requirements for advance electronic 

import manifest data required during 

the import process.60 Because rail 

carriers have already developed systems 

for those electronic processes at import, 

Test participants do not need to develop 

entirely new IT systems to transmit EEM 

data for the Test, but rather rail carriers 

make adjustments to their already 

existing internal systems.61 As rail 

carriers already have systems to 

interface with ACE for import filings, 

among other things, systems needed to 

be modified rather than developed. In 

addition, rail carrier employees who file 

information for imports are typically the 

same who file for export. The cost of 

adjusting and maintaining internal 

systems to support providing EEM data 

to CBP can vary depending on the rail 

carrier or trade member. Therefore, CBP 

provides a range of estimates for the 

internal system costs to the average Test 

participant during the pilot period. CBP 

anticipates that the annual internal 

systems costs required to participate in 

the Test could range from $10,000 to 

$60,000 each year.62 CBP used the 

midpoint within the range, $35,000, as 

CBP’s primary estimate for annual 

internal systems costs to the average rail 

carrier participating in the Test. As 

alternate estimates, CBP used a low 

estimate of $10,000 and the high 

estimate of $60,000 for the annual 

internal systems costs per year. 

According to CBP’s primary estimate, 

the two Test participants will incur 

approximately $700,000 in total costs to 

adjust and maintain their internal 

systems for providing electronic export 

manifest data to CBP during the pilot 

period. CBP’s alternate low and high 

estimate show that internal systems 

total costs to the two rail carriers will be 

between $200,000 and $1,200,000 

during the pilot period. Table 8 displays 

CBP’s range of cost estimates for annual 

internal systems costs to the two rail 

carrier participants during the pilot 

period. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13JA25.009</GPH>

Table 7. Estimated Time Burden and Costs to Rail Carriers Responding to CBP Issued 

Holds during Pilot Period 2016-2025 (time in hours, costs in undiscounted 2023 U.S. 

Dollars) 

Year 2H Documentation lH Enforcement Average Total Time Wage Total Cost 

Holds Issued Holds Issued Time Burden Burden Rate 

2016 30 0.21 6.3 $35.62 $223 

2017 37 0.21 7.7 $35.62 $275 

2018 34 0.21 7.1 $35.62 $252 

2019 41 0.21 8.5 $35.62 $304 

2020 691 353 0.21 217.5 $35.62 $7,747 

2021 3,779 115 0.21 811.3 $35.62 $28,897 

2022 9,281 113 0.21 1957.1 $35.62 $69,711 

2023 17,451 102 0.21 3656.9 $35.62 $130,258 

2024* 8,087 112 0.21 1708.1 $35.62 $60,841 

2025* 8,087 112 0.21 1708.1 $35.62 $60,841 

Total 47,375 1,049 10,088 $359,350 

*Pilot period years with estimated not actual values. 
2896 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

CBP estimates that total overall costs 

from the Test during the pilot period 

will be approximately $3.6 million or on 

average $335,767. Total estimated costs 

to CBP and trade as a result of the Test 

are displayed below in Table 9. CBP 

estimates that during the pilot period 

CBP will incur costs of approximately 

$1.6 million or on average $164,805 

annually. According to CBP’s primary 

estimate for total costs to trade from 

participating in the Test during the pilot 

period, costs will be approximately 1.7 

million or on average $170,962 

annually. 

Cost Savings 

CBP anticipates that the 

implementation of the Test also 

provides cost savings during the pilot 

period. As CBP expected, obtaining 

EEM data through the Test is a more 

efficient process than obtaining export 

data from paper forms. As stated earlier, 

CBP officers manually review all 

finalized train consists prior to a train’s 

departure from the United States, 

regardless of whether rail carriers 

submit the train consists in paper or 

electronic form. During the pilot period, 

when CBP receives electronic finalized 

train consists from participating rail 

carriers the time burden to review those 

consists decreased substantially 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13JA25.010</GPH> EP13JA25.011</GPH>

Table 8. Estimated Systems Costs to Rail Carriers during Pilot Period 2016-2025 

(undiscounted 2023 U.S. Dollars) 

Year Primary Estimate Low Estimate High Estimate 

($35,000) ($10,000) ($60 000) 

2016 70,000 20,000 120,000 

2017 70,000 20,000 120,000 

2018 70,000 20,000 120,000 

2019 70,000 20,000 120,000 

2020 70,000 20,000 120,000 

2021 70,000 20,000 120,000 

2022 70,000 20,000 120,000 

2023 70,000 20,000 120,000 

2024 70,000 20,000 120,000 

2025 70,000 20,000 120,000 

Total 700,000 200,000 1,200,000 

Table 9. Estimated Total Costs during Pilot Period 2016-2025 (undiscounted 2023 U.S. 

Dollars) 

Year CBP CBP Total CBP Trade Trade Trade Total Total Costs 

Systems Review and Costs Costs to Review & Systems Trade 

Costs Address Provide Address Costs Costs 

Holds EEM Holds 

2016 $700,868 $761 $701,629 $27,869 $223 $70,000 $98,092 $799,721 

2017 $94,690 $938 $95,628 $71,451 $275 $70,000 $141,726 $237,354 

2018 $96,489 $862 $97,351 $73,508 $252 $70,000 $143,761 $241,112 

2019 $98,322 $1,039 $99,361 $71,837 $304 $70,000 $142,141 $241,503 

2020 $100,190 $8,950 $109,140 $59,938 $7,747 $70,000 $137,685 $246,825 

2021 $102,094 $2,916 $105,010 $65,796 $28,897 $70,000 $164,693 $269,703 

2022 $104,034 $2,865 $106,899 $73,271 $69,711 $70,000 $212,982 $319,881 

2023 $106,115 $2,586 $108,701 $68,290 $130,258 $70,000 $268,548 $377,249 

2024* $108,237 $2,846 $111,083 $69,156 $60,841 $70,000 $199,997 $311,080 

2025* $110,402 $2,846 $113,247 $69,156 $60,841 $70,000 $199,997 $313,245 

Total $1,621,440 $26,608 $1,648,048 $650,273 $359,350 $700,000 $1,709,623 $3,357,671 

*Pilot period years with estimated not actual values. 
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2897 

63 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, 

subject matter expert on November 8, 2022. With 

electronic transmitted data, the system assists in 

much of the cargo screening and review of the data 

allowing CBP to conduct a quicker and more 

thorough review of export manifest data. 

64 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, 

subject matter expert on August 2, 2022. 

compared to reviewing the paper 

consists. Additionally, CBP officers are 

able to conduct and complete their 

review of a transmitted electronic train 

consist prior to that train’s arrival to the 

U.S. port of export.63 CBP’s review of 

these train consists requires on average 

35 minutes (0.583 hours) when 

submitted electronically compared to an 

average of 2.5 hours when they were 

submitted to CBP on paper forms.64 To 

estimate the total time savings, CBP 

multiplied the average time savings of 

reviewing a train consist transmitted 

electronically (2.5 hours¥35 minutes = 

1.92 hours) by the total number of 

estimated train consists that will be 

transmitted electronically during the 

pilot period (16,129, see Table 2). CBP 

estimates that the Test will generate 

time savings of approximately 30,915 

hours to CBP officers. CBP then 

multiplied the estimated time savings 

(30,915 hours) by the average hourly 

loaded rate for a CBP officer ($101.44) 

to estimate the total cost savings of 

approximately $3.1 million to CBP 

during the pilot period. Table 10 shows 

CBP’s estimates for the time savings and 

cost savings to CBP officers from swifter 

review of electronic train consists for 

each year of the pilot period. 

CBP anticipates that rail carriers may 

also experience time and cost savings 

from the Test resulting in a more 

efficient export process at the U.S. port 

of export. Rail carriers support CBP’s 

transition to EEM data because rail 

carriers acknowledge that the former 

process of providing export information 

on paper forms is inefficient and 

unnecessarily burdensome to all parties 

involved. Additionally, the existing 

export process using paper forms is 

inconsistent with the import process 

which has already transitioned to 

electronic data transmission. Rail 

carriers have experienced a more 

efficient import process as a result, and 

they acknowledge the potential for 

improvements to the export process 

from providing electronic data. 

CBP’s review of electronic train 

consists is significantly quicker than 

train consists in paper form. In the 

baseline scenario, CBP does not know 

how often rail carriers sent finalized 

train consists by email in advance of 

departure and to what extent CBP 

officers were able to fully conduct their 

review of the paper train consist prior 

to the train’s arrival to the U.S. port of 

export. If CBP officers, prior to the Test, 

were unable to start their review of a 

train’s consist before the train reached 

the U.S. port of export and the train was 

held at the U.S. port of export until CBP 

officers conducted a review of the train 

consist, then participants in the Test 

experience a time savings similar to that 

estimated above for CBP’s officers 

during CBP’s review process (1.92 

hours) when transmitting an electric 

train consist. However, CBP does not 

know in the baseline scenario the extent 

to which rail carriers sent finalized predeparture data via email to CBP 

providing CBP officers enough time to 

review the paper train consists prior to 

the train’s arrival to the U.S. port of 

export. Therefore, during the pilot 

period CBP does not know exactly how 

much time savings rail carriers 

experience from a swifter CBP review of 

electronic train consists at the U.S. port 

of export. To estimate the potential time 

savings to rail carrier participants 

during the pilot period from quicker 

CBP processing time, CBP provides a 

range of time savings under a few 

situations that could occur in the 

baseline scenario depending on the 

amount of review CBP officers complete 

before the train’s arrival to the U.S. port 

of export. 

In Scenario 1, where CBP officers did 

not begin the review of paper train 

consists until the train arrived at the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13JA25.012</GPH>

Table 10. Estimated Time and Cost Savings to CBP From Improved Review of 

Electronic Train Consists during Pilot Period 2016-2025 (time in hours, cost savings in 

undiscounted 2023 U.S. Dollars) 

Year Train Consists Average Time Savings per Total Time Wage Total Cost 

Transmitted Electronic Train Consists Savings Rate Savings 

EI ectron i callv 

2016 1.92 $101.44 $0 

2017 308 1.92 590 $101.44 $59,883 

2018 1.92 $101.44 $0 

2019 159 1.92 305 $101.44 $30,914 

2020 1,109 1.92 2,126 $101.44 $215,619 

2021 2,601 1.92 4,985 $101.44 $505,704 

2022 2,912 1.92 5,581 $101.44 $566,170 

2023 3,219 1.92 6,170 $101.44 $625,859 

2024* 2,911 1.92 5,579 $101.44 $565,911 

2025* 2,911 1.92 5,579 $101.44 $565,911 

Total 16,129 30,915 $3,135,973 

*Pilot period years with estimated not actual values. 
2898 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

65To provide additional possible outcomes CBP 

also includes Scenario 4 which assumes CBP 

officers were able to complete 25 percent of the 

review of finalized train consists prior to a train’s 

arrival at the U.S. port of export. 

66 Information was obtained from feedback and 

discussions with Trade members on the potential 

effects of providing EEM data. Data obtained in 

February 2023. 

67 Information was obtained from feedback and 

discussions with Trade members on the potential 

effects of providing EEM data. Data obtained in 

February 2023. 

port, rail carriers participating in the 

Test would experience on average a 

time savings of 1.92 hours per train from 

a more efficient CBP review using 

electronic train consists, assuming no 

1H Enforcement holds, or other issues 

CBP identified during the review of the 

consist. In Scenario 2, during the 

baseline, where rail carriers sent 

finalized train consists by email predeparture and CBP officers were able to 

complete their review of these paper 

train consists prior to all trains arriving 

at the U.S. port of export, rail carriers 

participating in the Test would likely 

not experience any time savings from 

transmitting electronic train consists. 

CBP anticipates that in this scenario 

CBP officers were able to fully complete 

their review of the paper or electronic 

train consist prior to the train’s arrival 

to the U.S. port of export avoiding any 

delays to departure from CBP officers 

conducting their review at the U.S. port 

of export. CBP is uncertain to what 

extent these time savings are 

experienced by rail carriers during the 

pilot period; however, CBP believes that 

it would likely be between the 1.92 

hours and zero hours per train. For the 

purposes of this analysis, CBP uses 

Scenario 3, which is the mid-point 

between the two values (0.96 hours), as 

the primary estimate for time savings 

per electronic train consist reviewed 

during the pilot period. CBP also 

considered a Scenario 4 which assumes 

CBP officers were able to complete 25 

percent of the review of finalized train 

consists prior to a train’s arrival at the 

U.S. port of export during the baseline. 

For illustrative purposes, CBP 

presents these potential time savings to 

rail carriers in range estimates based on 

how much review CBP officers 

completed prior to a train’s arrival to the 

port in the baseline. CBP multiplied the 

average time savings per train by the 

estimated number of electronic train 

consists transmitted to CBP (16,129, see 

Table 2) during the pilot period to 

estimate the total potential time savings 

from expedited CBP processing at the 

U.S. port of export. To calculate the cost 

savings CBP multiplied these potential 

time savings by the average hourly 

loaded wage rate for exporters ($35.62). 

CBP’s primary estimate for time savings 

and costs savings to rail carriers from 

swifter CBP review of train consists will 

be approximately 15,484 hours and 

$551,546. Table 11 displays CBP’s 

primary estimate along with range 

estimates for potential time savings and 

cost savings to rail carriers at the U.S. 

port of export during the pilot period 

depending on if during the baseline CBP 

officers were able to complete 0 percent 

of their review of train consists, 25 

percent of their review and 100 percent 

of their review prior to a train’s arrival 

at the U.S. port of export.65

CBP expects that participating rail 

carriers also experience additional time 

savings from the Test when compared to 

the baseline when making corrections to 

submitted data.66 Making updates and 

corrections to data transmitted 

electronically is significantly more 

efficient than making updates and 

corrections to emailed paper forms. 

Additionally, the Test allows 

participants to transmit data when it 

becomes available, and the Test allows 

them to continuously edit and update 

data in ACE on a flow basis. CBP 

estimates that during the pilot period 

making such corrections when 

transmitting EEM data save Test 

participants on average 15 minutes (0.25 

hours) per train.67 To calculate the time 

savings, CBP used the estimate 

discussed earlier for total trains that had 

electronic data submitted during the 

pilot period (27,384 see Table 6) 

multiplied by the expected time savings 

per train (0.25 hours). CBP estimates 

that the total time savings to rail carriers 

from making data corrections in the 

electronic environment will be 

approximately 6,846 hours during the 

pilot period. CBP multiplied the 

estimated time savings by the average 

hourly loaded wage rate for exporters 

($35.62) and anticipates the total cost 

savings to rail carrier participants from 

making data corrections in the 

electronic environment will be 

approximately $243,852 or on average 

$24,385 annually during the pilot 

period. Table 12 shows CBP’s estimate 

for time savings and cost savings to rail 

carrier participants while making data 

corrections to EEM compared to paper 

forms during the pilot period. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13JA25.013</GPH>

Table l 1. Estimated Time and Cost Savings to Rail Carriers from Improved CBP Review 

during Pilot Period 2016-2025 (time in hours, costs in undiscounted 2023 U.S. dollars) 

Time Total Train Total Time Wage Total Cost 

Savings Per Consists Savings Rate Savings 

Consist 

Scenario 1 (0 percent) 1.92 16,129 30,968 $34.81 $1,103,092 

Scenario 2 (100 percent) 0 16,129 - $34.81 $0 

CBP's Primary Estimate: 0.96 16,129 15,484 $34.81 $551,546 

Scenario 3 (50 percent) 

Scenario 4 (25 percent) 0.48 16,129 7,742 $34.81 $275,773 
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2899 

68 Information was obtained from feedback and 

discussions with Trade members on the potential 

costs and time burden to remove a train car from 

a constructed train in order for CBP to conduct an 

examination of the cargo or container. Data 

obtained in February 2023. 

69 Information was obtained from feedback and 

discussions with Trade members on the frequency 

of cargo examinations prior to the Test and during 

the Test suggesting such an occurrence was fairly 

uncommon. Data obtained in February 2023. 

CBP anticipates there would be a 

savings to rail carriers during the Test 

when CBP identifies issues before trains 

are loaded and assembled. In the 

baseline scenario, when CBP identifies 

a high-risk cargo, the cargo has usually 

already been loaded onto the train, 

requiring a burdensome and timeconsuming process to detach or unload 

the cargo from an assembled train. CBP 

estimates that to physically detach a 

freight car from an assembled train 

typically costs around $3,000 and can 

result in a delay of up to two hours.68

This includes the freight and labor costs 

to safely decouple a train car from a 

built train. Under this rule, the predeparture EEM data transmitted to CBP 

would improve CBP’s ability to identify 

high-risk cargo before it is loaded onto 

a train, avoiding the costly action of 

deconstructing trains and unloading 

cargo for examination. CBP does not 

track the number of cargo examinations 

and was unable to generate an estimate 

for the average number of cargo 

examinations each year, but feedback 

received from trade members suggests 

that such examinations are not a 

frequent occurrence.69

CBP estimates that during the pilot 

period total cost savings as a result of 

the Test will be approximately $3.9 

million or on average $393,137 

annually. CBP expects that trade will 

experience a total cost savings of 

approximately $795,398 or on average 

$79,539 annually. Table 13 displays 

CBP’s estimates for cost savings to CBP, 

trade and total overall cost savings 

during the pilot period as a result of the 

Test. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13JA25.014</GPH>

Table 12. Estimated Time and Cost Savings to Rail Carriers from Making Corrections to 

EEM Data during the Pilot Period 2016-2025 (time in hours, costs in undiscounted 2023 

U.S. Dollars) 

Year Trains Departed Average Time Total Time Wage Total Cost 

providing EEM Savings per Train Savings Rate Savings 

2016 1,174 0.25 293 $35.62 $10,451 

2017 3,009 0.25 752 $35.62 $26,794 

2018 3,096 0.25 774 $35.62 $27,566 

2019 3,025 0.25 756 $35.62 $26,939 

2020 2,524 0.25 631 $35.62 $22,477 

2021 2,771 0.25 693 $35.62 $24,674 

2022 3,086 0.25 771 $35.62 $27,477 

2023 2,876 0.25 719 $35.62 $25,609 

2024* 2,912 0.25 728 $35.62 $25,933 

2025* 2,912 0.25 728 $35.62 $25,933 

Total 27,384 6,846 $243,852 

*Pilot period years with estimated not actual values. 
2900 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

CBP requests feedback and comments 

from rail carriers and other trade 

members on the costs and cost savings 

to rail carriers and other trade members 

during the Test pilot period discussed 

above and any other costs or cost 

savings to rail carriers and other trade 

members that CBP did not address in 

this analysis. 

Benefits 

According to Section 343(a) of the 

Trade Act of 2002, as amended (Trade 

Act) (19 U.S.C. 1415), CBP is authorized 

to establish regulations that provide for 

the mandatory electronic transmission 

of data by way of a CBP-approved 

electronic data interchange before cargo 

arrives in or departs the United States 

in all environments (sea, air, rail, and 

truck). The Test was developed and 

implemented as a way for CBP to test a 

feasible process to meet its requirements 

as per the Trade Act. In addition to 

meeting its statutory requirements, CBP 

likely experiences benefits during the 

pilot period. CBP does not have the data 

available to quantify these benefits and 

therefore will discuss these benefits 

qualitatively. The primary benefit of 

requiring pre-departure EEM data is 

improving CBP’s security efforts and its 

ability to use ATS to identify high-risk 

cargo prior to departing the United 

States, while minimizing the disruption 

to the export process. In the baseline, 

CBP officers usually manually review 

train consists at the time of departure 

without using CBP’s ATS, so CBP 

cannot take advantage of the ATS risk 

assessment during the rail exit process. 

All EEM data transmitted to CBP as part 

of the Test are screened by CBP using 

ATS prior to departure, providing a 

more robust review and improving 

CBP’s security efforts. Additionally, the 

gained efficiencies from obtaining data 

in an integrated system allow CBP to 

review export rail data more efficiently 

prior to departure and provide CBP 

officers the ability to allocate more time 

to mission-critical activities of cargo 

security and safety. 

Net Impact 

CBP has provided its primary 

estimates for the total costs and cost 

savings from the Test during the pilot 

period, displayed in Table 14. CBP 

estimates that the net cost savings will 

be approximately $573,700 or on 

average $57,370 annually. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13JA25.015</GPH>

Table 13. Estimated Cost Savings from Rail EEM during the Pilot Period 2016-2025 

(undiscounted 2023 U.S. Dollars) 

Year CBP Cost Trade Cost Savings Trade Cost Savings from Total Cost Total 

Savings from Improved CBP Making Corrections to Savings to Overall Cost 

Review EEMData Trade Savings 

2016 $0 $0 $10,451 $10,451 $10,451 

2017 $59,883 $10,532 $26,794 $37,326 $97,210 

2018 $0 $0 $27,566 $27,566 $27,566 

2019 $30,914 $5,437 $26,939 $32,376 $63,290 

2020 $215,619 $37,922 $22,477 $60,399 $276,018 

2021 $505,704 $88,942 $24,674 $113,615 $619,319 

2022 $566,170 $99,576 $27,477 $127,053 $693,223 

2023 $625,859 $110,074 $25,609 $135,683 $761,543 

2024* $565,911 $99,531 $25,933 $125,464 $691,376 

2025* $565,911 $99,531 $25,933 $125,464 $691,376 

Total $3,135,973 $551,546 $243,852 $795,398 $3,931,371 

*Pilot period years with estimated not actual values. 

Note: CBP cost savings and trade cost savings from improved CBP review are based on the estimated 

number of electronic train consists transmitted as seen in Table 2. Trade cost savings from making 

corrections to EEM data are based on CBP' s estimate for the number of trains that provided EEM data to 

CBP during the Test as seen in Table 6. 
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2901 

70 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, on 

December 7, 2022. Rail EEM ACE cost estimates 

were provided by CBP’s Office of Information and 

Technology, ongoing costs are expected increase at 

a fixed rate each year. 

71 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, 

subject matter expert on June 21, 2022. 

72 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, 

subject matter expert on November 8, 2022. 

Table 15 displays CBP’s primary 

estimate for quantifiable net cost savings 

from the Test adjusted for discounting. 

As shown, CBP expects that this 

proposed rule will result in total net 

cost savings to CBP, rail carriers and 

other trade members during the pilot 

period of around $343,946 using a two 

percent discount rate. CBP estimates 

that annualized net cost savings will be 

around $38,290 using a two percent 

discount rate. 

Regulatory Period 

For the regulatory period, CBP 

estimated the future costs, cost savings, 

and benefits to rail carriers, the Federal 

Government, and other trade members 

as a result of requiring EEM data in the 

rail environment. CBP anticipates the 

effects of the proposed rule would be 

similar to those experienced during the 

pilot period but on a larger scale as the 

proposed rule would make transmission 

of pre-departure EEM data mandatory 

for all U.S. exports in the rail 

environment. 

Costs 

CBP anticipates that this proposed 

rule would result in costs to both CBP 

and trade members during the 

regulatory period. CBP will bear 

technology and opportunity costs by 

expanding the existing test to a 

requirement for all rail carriers. CBP 

does not anticipate it will incur any 

costs to develop new systems during the 

regulatory period because CBP 

completed the system development and 

implementation of the rail EEM data 

tool application into ACE during the 

pilot period. CBP does expect to incur 

some ongoing systems operations and 

maintenance costs associated with the 

rail EEM data application in ACE. Over 

the course of the regulatory period, CBP 

estimates that ongoing systems costs in 

ACE would be approximately $586,026 

or on average $117,205 each year.70

In addition to the ongoing systems 

costs, CBP expects to incur additional 

time burdens as a result of CBP officers 

manually reviewing, addressing and 

resolving 1H Enforcement holds. CBP 

estimates that a total of 11,137 1H 

Enforcement holds would be issued 

during the regulatory period (see Table 

4 above). CBP expects that the time 

burden to a CBP officer to manually 

review a 1H Enforcement hold on 

average is about 5 minutes (0.083 

hours). CBP also anticipates that CBP 

officers will incur an additional time 

burden to address and resolve these 1H 

Enforcement holds. Depending on the 

complexity of the hold and if it is 

determined that a CBP officer needs to 

manually examine cargo, the time 

burden to CBP officers to address and 

resolve these holds varies from a few 

minutes to a few hours.71 CBP expects 

that the majority of these 1H 

Enforcement holds issued would not 

result in a cargo examination.72 CBP 

estimates that the average time burden 

incurred by CBP officers during the 

regulatory period for addressing and 

resolving 1H Enforcement holds is the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13JA25.016</GPH> EP13JA25.017</GPH>

Table 14. Estimated Net Cost Savings during Pilot Period 2016-2025 (undiscounted 2023 

U.S. Dollars) 

Year CBP Costs Trade Total Costs CBP Cost Trade Cost Total Cost Net Cost 

Costs Savings Savings Savings Savings 

2016 $701,629 $98,092 $799,721 $0 $10,451 $10,451 -$789,270 

2017 $95,628 $141,726 $237,354 $59,883 $37,326 $97,210 -$140,144 

2018 $97,351 $143,761 $241,112 $0 $27,566 $27,566 -$213,546 

2019 $99,361 $142,141 $241,503 $30,914 $32,376 $63,290 -$178,213 

2020 $109,140 $137,685 $246,825 $215,619 $60,399 $276,018 $29,193 

2021 $105,010 $164,693 $269,703 $505,704 $113,615 $619,319 $349,616 

2022 $106,899 $212,982 $319,881 $566,170 $127,053 $693,223 $373,342 

2023 $108,701 $268,548 $377,249 $625,859 $135,683 $761,543 $384,294 

2024* $111,083 $199,997 $311,080 $565,911 $125,464 $691,376 $380,296 

2025* $113,247 $199,997 $313,245 $565,911 $125,464 $691,376 $378,131 

Total $1,648,048 $1,709,623 $3,357,671 $3,135,973 $795,398 $3,931,371 $573,700 

*Pilot period years with estimated not actual values. 

Table 15. Total Monetized Present Value and Annualized Net Cost Savings of Pilot 

Period 2016-2025 (2023 U.S. Dollars) 

2% Discount Rate 

Present Value Net Cost Savings $343,946 

Annualized Net Cost Savings $38,290 
2902 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

73 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, 

subject matter expert on November 21, 2022. 

74 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, on 

December 15, 2022. 

75 Data obtained from feedback and discussions 

with Trade members on the potential costs 

associated with internal systems to support 

providing EEM to CBP via ACE. Data was obtained 

in December 2022 and February 2023. 

same as during the pilot period, 10 

minutes (0.167 hours).73 Combined, 

CBP expects that that on average the 

total time burden to CBP officers during 

the regulatory period to review, address 

and resolve a 1H Enforcement hold is 

approximately 15 minutes (0.25 hours). 

CBP estimates that the proposed rule 

would result in 1H Enforcement holds 

that would cause an additional time 

burden to CBP officers of approximately 

2,784 hours (11,137 1H Enforcement 

holds × 0.25 hours per hold). CBP 

calculated the costs to CBP officers in 

the regulatory period, by multiplying 

the total time burden (2,784) hours by 

the average hourly loaded rate for a CBP 

Officer ($101.44) = $282,433. Table 16 

shows CBP estimates for total costs to 

CBP during the regulatory period 

including ongoing systems and 

maintenance costs and the time burden 

and cost to CBP officers from additional 

review of 1H Enforcement holds during 

the regulatory period. Over the 

regulatory period this proposed rule 

would cost CBP approximately $868,459 

or on average $173,691 annually. 

CBP does not expect that this 

proposed rule would result in 

additional cargo examinations when 

compared to the baseline. In the case 

where CBP determines it is necessary to 

conduct a physical examination of cargo 

or a container on average a CBP officer 

is able to complete the examination and 

submit the findings in about 60 

minutes.74 Given the CBP officer hourly 

loaded wage rate of $101.44, CBP 

estimates the average time burden cost 

to CBP to conduct a cargo or container 

examination is approximately $101.44 

per examination. If there are more 

manual examinations of cargo as a result 

of 1H Enforcement holds when 

compared to the baseline, then the time 

burden to CBP officers during the 

regulatory period could be larger than 

CBP expected. Unfortunately, CBP does 

not have data on how many 1H 

Enforcement holds typically result in a 

cargo examination. However, because 

the EEM data is provided in advance of 

departure CBP would likely be able to 

issue holds before trains reach the U.S. 

port of export and possibly before cargo 

is loaded, limiting the time burden and 

costs of conducting these cargo 

examinations when compared to the 

baseline scenario. 

CBP anticipates that this proposed 

rule would result in costs to trade 

members in the form of both systems 

and opportunity costs. CBP expects that 

the remaining rail carriers (five) that did 

not participate in the Test would incur 

costs to adjust and maintain their IT 

systems to provide the electronic export 

manifest data directly to CBP via ACE. 

CBP anticipates that the cost of 

adjusting and maintaining internal 

systems can vary depending on the rail 

carrier or trade member and therefore 

CBP provides a range of estimates for 

the annual internal system costs to the 

rail EEM participants during the 

regulatory period. CBP anticipates that 

the annual internal systems costs would 

range from the low end $10,000 to as 

high as $60,000 each year.75 For the 

primary estimate during the regulatory 

period CBP used the same estimate as 

proposed during the pilot period, 

$35,000 in internal system costs to the 

average rail EEM participant to maintain 

its internal systems each year. To 

provide a range of cost estimates, CBP 

also provides estimates if maintaining 

the internal systems cost the average 

Rail EEM participant $10,000 each year 

or $60,000 each year. CBP expects that 

at least the seven rail carriers will incur 

these systems costs each year of the 

regulatory period; however, CBP does 

not know how many other trade 

members would also elect to participate 

and provide the EEM cargo data directly 

to CBP via ACE thus incurring systems 

costs. CBP notes that it is voluntary for 

the other trade members to provide the 

EEM cargo data. If no other party 

provides this EEM cargo data, then it 

must be provided by rail carriers. CBP 

believes that other trade members 

would only participate if it were 

beneficial for their business or 

company. Therefore, CBP does not 

anticipate these other trade members 

would participate if it resulted in a net 

cost. To estimate the cost to rail carriers 

from operating and maintaining their 

internal systems to support 

participation in providing EEM data, 

CBP multiplied the average annual cost 

by the number of expected rail carrier 

participants each year (seven). 

According to CBP’s primary estimate for 

operating and maintaining internal 

systems, rail EEM participants would 

incur costs of approximately $1.2 

million or on average $245,000 

annually. Under CBP’s low estimate, rail 

EEM participants would incur costs of 

around $350,000 or $70,000 annually 

and the high estimate shows internal 

systems costs of approximately $2.1 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13JA25.018</GPH>

Table 16. Estimated Time Burden and Costs to CBP during the Regulatory Period 2026-

2030 (time in hours, costs in undiscounted 2023 U.S. dollars) 

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Total 

1 H Enforcement Holds 2,227 2,227 2,227 2,227 2,227 11,137 

Time Burden per Hold 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 

Time Burden 557 557 557 557 557 2,784 

Time Burden Costs $56,487 $56,487 $56,487 $56,487 $56,487 $282,433 

Rail EEM System $112,610 $114,862 $117,159 $119,502 $121,892 $586,026 

O&M Costs 

Total Costs $169,096 $171,349 $173,646 $175,989 $178,379 $868,459 
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2903 

76CBP obtained feedback and information from 

Trade members on when in the export transaction 

process, the export manifest data is typically 

available for them to submit to CBP. Information 

obtained in February 2023. 

77 Data obtained from feedback and discussions 

with Trade members on the timeline for when 

export manifest data elements are made available 

and can be provided to CBP. Data was obtained in 

February 2023. 

78 Information provided during discussion with 

some Trade members in regard to the timeline for 

when export manifest data is available to be 

provided to CBP and challenges to providing predeparture data well in advance. Data obtained in 

February 2023. 

79CBP requested feedback from Trade members 

on the potential costs from adjusting business 

practices as a result of this proposed rule. Trade 

members suggested that there could be some costs 

but were unable to provide additional details on the 

costs for such adjustments to business practices or 

if this would be a one-time adjustment cost or 

ongoing adjustment costs. 

80 Data obtained from CBP discussion with Trade 

members on the potential costs to review and 

resolve holds issued by CBP in response to EEM 

data transmitted. Time burdens vary greatly 

depending on the complexity of the issue. CBP took 

this into consideration when calculating the average 

time burden to review and address an issued hold. 

Data obtained in February 2023. 

million or $420,000 annually. Table 17 

displays CBP’s estimates of internal 

systems costs to trade members during 

the regulatory period. 

The proposed rule adjusted data 

elements and deadlines for the 

transmission of EEM data from what 

CBP established during the Test. Rail 

EEM participants (rail carriers and other 

trade members such as USPPIs, FPPIs, 

NVOCCs, freight forwarders, CHB, or 

other third-parties with knowledge of 

manifest data elements) would provide 

the initial filing data elements to CBP 24 

hours prior to the cargo and train 

departing the U.S. port of export. As 

stated earlier, during the Test CBP 

considered what data elements were 

most important, CBP’s needs, and what 

trade members could provide, given the 

time frames recommended and CBP 

adjusted the required data elements for 

this proposed rule. CBP expects that 

most rail carriers would have access to 

most export manifest data early in the 

planning stages of an export rail cargo 

transaction and would be able to 

comply with the new deadlines 

imposed by the proposed rule. CBP 

notes that some rail carriers will have 

the export manifest data available days 

in advance prior to departure and 

therefore would have all the necessary 

information to submit the initial filing 

data to CBP and all other export 

manifest data well in advance of the 24- 

hour and 2-hour prior to departure 

deadlines.76 CBP anticipates that all 

parties that would participate in 

transmitting EEM data to CBP would 

have the necessary export data elements 

to provide the required EEM data within 

the two-hour prior to departure 

deadline.77 However, for some rail 

carriers acquiring the necessary data for 

the initial filing 24 hours prior to 

departure may require a change in 

business practices and additional 

coordination with other trade members 

or parties that have the required export 

information. CBP does not believe that 

in such instances the export manifest 

data does not exist; rather, the other 

trade member has not yet provided this 

information to the rail carrier.78 Based 

on input from the trade community, 

CBP expects that in such instances the 

net costs to rail carriers to obtain this 

information earlier from other trade 

members would be minimal. 

Additionally, if other trade members are 

reluctant to provide this information to 

the rail carriers within the 24-hour prior 

to departure deadlines the other trade 

members would be able to provide this 

data to CBP directly as a rail EEM 

participant. 

The transition from a paper form 

process to an electronic data process 

could also result in parties that provide 

EEM data adjusting business practices. 

CBP expects any costs related to 

adjusting business practices would be 

minimal and should not have a large 

effect on rail carriers and other trade 

members, specifically because they 

likely already have such practices 

developed to provide manifest data for 

rail imports.79 Additionally, 

participation in directly providing the 

rail EEM data to CBP by other trade 

members is voluntary; CBP expects that 

these parties would likely only directly 

provide data to CBP if the benefits 

outweighed the costs to their company. 

CBP requests comments from rail 

carriers and trade members on the 

potential costs during the regulatory 

period related to internal system 

adjustments, operation and maintenance 

needed to support transmitting predeparture EEM data to CBP via ACE. 

CBP also requests comment on any 

other costs to trade members associated 

with transitioning from paper forms to 

the transmission of EEM data that CBP 

did not address in this analysis. 

CBP expects that rail carriers and 

other trade members that provide EEM 

data to CBP would incur time burdens 

and costs while responding to CBPissued holds. During the regulatory 

period, the party that provides the EEM 

data to CBP is the party responsible for 

responding to any questions, holds or 

issues that arise from CBP’s review of 

that export data. During the regulatory 

period CBP expects that the time burden 

to respond to each hold depends on the 

complexity of the issue. When a party 

is reviewing and responding to holds, if 

that party does not have the necessary 

information and needs to obtain the data 

from another trade member, that would 

impose an additional time burden on 

both parties. To estimate the time 

burden to trade to review and resolve 

the average hold (including both 2H 

Documentation holds and 1H 

Enforcement holds) during the 

regulatory period CBP used the same 

time burden estimate as proposed 

during the pilot period of approximately 

12.5 minutes (0.21 hours) to trade when 

reviewing and resolving each 2H 

Documentation and 1H Enforcement 

hold.80

CBP does not expect that such holds 

would result in CBP officers conducting 

additional cargo examinations when 

compared to the baseline. Cargo 

examinations conducted after cargo has 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13JA25.019</GPH>

Table 17. Estimated Internal Systems Costs to Trade during Regulatory Period 2026-

2030 (undiscounted 2023 U.S. dollars) 

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Total 

Primary Estimate $245,000 $245,000 $245,000 $245,000 $245,000 $1,225,000 

Low Estimate $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $350,000 

High Estimate $420,000 $420,000 $420,000 $420,000 $420,000 $2,100,000 
2904 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

81 Information was obtained from feedback and 

discussions with Trade members on the frequency 

of cargo examinations prior to the Test and during 

the Test suggesting such an occurrence was fairly 

uncommon. Data obtained in February 2023. 

82 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, 

subject matter expert on August 2, 2022. 83CBP anticipates that any of the following bonds 

would be appropriate depending upon the party 

filing, CBP Basic Importation and Entry Bond 

containing the provisions found in section 113.62 

of this chapter, a Basic Custodial Bond containing 

the provisions found in 113.63 of this chapter, or 

an International Carrier Bond containing the 

provisions found in section 113.64 of this chapter. 

been loaded onto the train is a 

burdensome and time-consuming 

process and would result in a larger 

time burden to resolve holds that result 

in an examination. CBP does not track 

the number of cargo examinations and 

was unable to generate an estimate for 

the average number of cargo 

examinations each year, but feedback 

received from trade members suggests 

that cargo examinations are not a 

frequent occurrence.81 Although CBP 

does not anticipate examinations would 

increase as a result of this proposed 

rule, if CBP did conduct more 

examinations when compared to the 

baseline then time burden costs to trade 

members to review and resolve holds 

could be higher than what CBP provides 

in this analysis. Additionally, CBP does 

not track and was unable to estimate the 

number of holds issued that would 

result in multiple parties being involved 

in reviewing and resolving of holds. If 

responding to issued holds always 

requires multiple parties to be involved, 

then the time burden to review and 

resolve a hold would also likely be 

higher than the 12.5-minute estimate 

CBP provided above. 

To estimate the time burden to trade 

during the regulatory period when 

reviewing and resolving holds, CBP 

multiplied the total number of expected 

holds issued each year during the 

regulatory period by the estimated 

average time burden to review and 

resolve a hold (0.21 hours). CBP expects 

that during the regulatory period trade 

will review and resolve around 813,537 

holds (see Table 4) resulting in a total 

time burden of approximately 169,487 

hours or on average 33,897 hours 

annually. CBP calculated the costs to 

trade from reviewing and resolving 

these holds by multiplying the total 

hours of time burden by the average 

hourly loaded wage rate for exporters 

($35.62). CBP anticipates that overall 

costs to trade from reviewing and 

resolving holds as a result of this 

proposed rule would be around $6.0 

million or on average $1.2 million 

annually. Table 18 shows CBP’s 

regulatory period estimates for time 

burden and costs to trade associated 

with the review and resolution of holds 

issued by CBP. 

The proposed rule prohibits rail 

carriers from transporting cargo with a 

hold across the border until the issues 

have been addressed and the hold has 

been lifted. Upon notification of a hold 

being issued on a specific cargo the 

party responsible for providing that 

information to CBP would need to 

contact CBP for specifics and further 

instructions regarding the hold. If CBP 

requires a manual examination of cargo, 

the rail carrier must coordinate with 

CBP to identify a place where a proper 

examination of cargo can be conducted. 

CBP would prohibit a train’s departure 

from a U.S. port of export if there are 

any unresolved holds issued for cargo 

currently loaded onto a train. Parties 

that do not address a CBP-issued hold 

on specific cargo or freight cars before 

the required deadlines could face 

enforcement actions. Because CBP 

experienced very high rates of 

compliance during the Test (the 

compliance rate was over 99.8%), CBP 

expects excellent rates of compliance 

during the regulatory period.82 As stated 

earlier, CBP’s primary goal is 

compliance and CBP intends to work 

with parties providing the EEM data 

during this process to minimize the 

disruption of the flow of goods. 

This proposed rule would also require 

a party providing the EEM data to CBP 

to have a bond on file with CBP. 

Carriers and other potential filers 

generally are all subject to other bond 

requirements that would qualify them to 

submit EEM data to CBP.83 Therefore, 

CBP expects that any costs to rail 

carriers or other trade members from 

being required to have a bond to provide 

export manifest data electronically to 

CBP would be negligible. Rail carriers 

and other trade members could also 

incur some costs to meet the 

requirement of this proposed rule of 

having someone available 24 hours a 

day 7 days a week to respond to 

questions and issues that may arise from 

CBP’s review for EEM data transmitted. 

CBP anticipates that any additional 

staffing costs to participants would be 

negligible because they typically have 

someone working at all times for other 

business operations that can respond to 

CBP questions and issues. 

Rail carriers and other trade members 

may also be subject to claims for 

liquidated damages of $5,000 for each 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13JA25.020</GPH>

Table 18. Estimated Time Burden and Costs to Trade from Issued Holds during the 

Regulatory Period 2026-2030 (time in hours, costs in undiscounted 2023 U.S. dollars) 

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Total 

2H Documentation 160,480 160,480 160,480 160,480 160,480 802,400 

Holds 

lH Enforcement Holds 2,227 2,227 2,227 2,227 2,227 11,137 

Total Holds 162,707 162,707 162,707 162,707 162,707 813,537 

Average Time Burden 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 

Total Time Burden 33,897 33,897 33,897 33,897 33,897 169,487 

Wage Rate $35.62 $35.62 $35.62 $35.62 $35.62 

Total Costs $1,207,424 $1,207,424 $1,207,424 $1,207,424 $1,207,424 $6,037,119 

Note: totals may not sum due to rounding. 
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2905 

violation and up to a maximum of 

$100,000 per departure for 

noncompliance. These claims imposed 

by CBP are a compliance tool and CBP 

anticipates that there would be high 

levels of compliance from participants 

during the regulatory period such that 

violations that result in claim issuance 

would likely not be a common 

occurrence. CBP acknowledges that 

compliance is CBP’s primary goal and 

CBP plans to work with rail carriers and 

other trade members to ensure they 

provide the appropriate EEM data in a 

timely manner. To the extent that CBP 

issues claims against rail carriers or 

other trade members that would place 

an additional cost onto these parties as 

a result of this proposed rule, costs that 

would not be incurred if the charged 

parties are compliant. 

CBP estimated that during the 

regulatory period total overall costs of 

the proposed rule would be 

approximately $8.1 million or on 

average $1.6 million annually. Table 19 

below displays CBP’s estimates for total 

costs to CBP and trade members as a 

result of this proposed rule. CBP 

requests feedback and comments on the 

regulatory period costs from this 

proposed rule to rail carriers and other 

trade members discussed above and any 

other cost to rail carriers and other trade 

members that CBP did not address in 

this analysis. 

Cost Savings 

The mandatory transmission of predeparture EEM data would provide cost 

savings to CBP and to some trade 

members during the regulatory period. 

As discussed in the pilot period cost 

savings section of this analysis, 

obtaining, and reviewing EEM data is a 

more efficient process when compared 

to working with paper forms. During the 

regulatory period, CBP officers would 

continue to review all train consists 

prior to each train departing the U.S. 

port of export. As the transmission of 

EEM data becomes mandatory for all 

cargo departing the United States in the 

rail environment, CBP would 

experience more time savings through 

the expedited review of train consists. 

To estimate the time savings to CBP 

during the regulatory period CBP uses 

the time savings estimate provided 

during the pilot period of 1.92 hours per 

train consist. CBP multiplied this time 

savings per train consist by the 

forecasted number of departing trains 

exporting goods during the regulatory 

period, 288,969 trains (see Table 3). CBP 

estimates that as a result of this 

proposed rule CBP would experience 

time savings of approximately 110,771 

hours each year or 553,857 hours in 

total during the regulatory period. To 

calculate the total cost savings, CBP 

multiplied the time savings estimate by 

the average loaded hour wage rate for a 

CBP officer ($101.44). CBP estimates 

that the total cost savings to CBP during 

the regulatory period would be 

approximately $56.2 million or on 

average $11.2 million annually. Table 

20 displays these estimated time and 

cost savings to CBP for each year of the 

regulatory period. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13JA25.021</GPH> EP13JA25.022</GPH>

Table 19. Estimated Total Costs during Regulatory Period 2026-2030 (undiscounted 

2023 U.S. Dollars) 

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Total 

CBP Systems Costs $112,610 $114,862 $117,159 $119,502 $121,892 $586,026 

CBP Review of Holds $56,487 $56,487 $56,487 $56,487 $56,487 $282,433 

Total CBP Costs $169,096 $171,349 $173,646 $175,989 $178,379 $868,459 

Trade Systems Costs $245,000 $245,000 $245,000 $245,000 $245,000 $1,225,000 

Trade Review of Holds $1,207,424 $1,207,424 $1,207,424 $1,207,424 $1,207,424 $6,037,119 

Total Trade Costs $1,452,424 $1,452,424 $1,452,424 $1,452,424 $1,452,424 $7,262,119 

Total Overall Costs $1,621,520 $1,623,773 $1,626,070 $1,628,413 $1,630,803 $8,130,578 

Table 20. Estimated Time and Cost Savings to CBP during the Regulatory Period 2026-

2030 (time in hours, costs in 2023 U.S. dollars) 

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Total 

Train Consists 57,794 57,794 57,794 57,794 57,794 288,969 

Transmitted 

Time Savings Per 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92 

Consist 

Time Savings 110,771 110,771 110,771 110,771 110,771 553,857 

CBP Officer Wage $101.44 $101.44 $101.44 $101.44 $101.44 

Rate 

Cost Savings $11,236,646 $11,236,646 $11,236,646 $11,236,646 $11,236,646 $56,183,231 
2906 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

84 Information provided by CBP’s Cargo and 

Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, 

subject matter expert on November 8, 2022. 

Because the transmission of EEM data 

would be mandatory for all cargo trains 

departing across approximately 68 U.S. 

ports of export as a result of this 

proposed rule, rail carriers and other 

trade members would likely experience 

some time and cost savings during the 

regulatory period. CBP notes that during 

the pilot period when Test participants 

transmitted all EEM within the required 

deadlines, CBP officers are able to 

complete their review of those train 

consists prior to that train’s arrival to 

the U.S. port of export. CBP anticipates 

this would also be the case during the 

regulatory period.84 Therefore, the time 

savings to rail carriers during the 

regulatory period from a swifter CBP 

processing of an electronic train consist 

is dependent on how much review of a 

paper train consist CBP completed 

before the train arrives at the U.S. port 

of export in the baseline. CBP defines a 

few potential scenarios depending on 

when rail carriers provided export data 

to CBP prior to this proposed rule. In 

Scenario 1 rail carriers prior to this 

proposed rule did not provide export 

data pre-departure to CBP—meaning 

CBP officers were unable to start their 

review of the train consist until the train 

is at the U.S. port of export—in this 

scenario CBP anticipates these rail 

carriers would experience the same 

amount of time savings per train as CBP 

officers: 1.92 hours per outbound train. 

For Scenario 2, rail carriers who, prior 

to this proposed rule, provided predeparture export data and the finalized 

train consists to CBP in advance such 

that CBP officers were able to conduct 

and complete their review of this 

information before the train arrived at 

the U.S. port of export, these rail 

carriers would likely not experience any 

time savings from the expedited CBP 

review of train consists. As CBP does 

not have data prior to this proposed rule 

on how many trains submit predeparture export data to CBP in time for 

CBP to review it, CBP anticipates that 

the time savings to rail carriers from the 

expedited review of electronic train 

consists would be somewhere between 

1.92 hours to 0 hours per departing 

train. Similar to the pilot period 

estimate, CBP determined to use the 

midpoint between these two values 

(0.96 hours) as Scenario 3 and as CBP’s 

primary estimate for the time savings to 

rail carriers per outbound train during 

the regulatory period. CBP also provides 

the potential time savings from Scenario 

4 which assumes CBP officers were able 

to complete 25 percent of the review of 

finalized train consists prior to a train’s 

arrival at the U.S. port of export. 

Because of this uncertainty for the 

actual amount of time savings to rail 

carriers from this process CBP provides 

a range of potential time savings to rail 

carriers during the regulatory period 

using the same alternate estimates 

provided in the pilot period portion of 

this analysis, assuming CBP officers 

completed 0 percent of their review of 

train consists in Scenario 1 (1.92 hours 

of time savings per train), 100 percent 

of their review in Scenario 2 (0 hours of 

time savings per train), 50 percent of 

their review in Scenario 3 (0.96 hours of 

time savings per train), and 25 percent 

of their review in Scenario 4 (0.48 hours 

of time saving per train) before the train 

arrives at the U.S. port of export. CBP 

estimated the time savings to rail 

carriers by multiplying the average time 

savings per train by the forecasted 

number of outbound trains (see Table 3) 

during each year of the regulatory 

period. CBP then calculated a range of 

potential cost savings each year of the 

regulatory period by multiplying the 

estimated time savings by the average 

hourly loaded wage rate for exporters 

($35.62). Under CBP’s primary estimate, 

time savings to rail carriers during the 

regulatory period from swifter CBP 

review of electronic train consists 

would be approximately 277,410 hours 

or on average 55,482 hours annually. 

Cost savings to rail carriers would be 

approximately $9.88 million during the 

regulatory period or on average $1.98 

million annually. According to CBP’s 

range of estimates, cost savings to rail 

carriers from shorter review time of 

train consists could be anywhere from 

$0 to $19.8 million or at most on 

average $3.95 million annually. Table 

21 displays CBP’s primary estimate and 

alternative range estimates for these 

potential time savings and cost savings 

to rail carriers and other trade members. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2907 

85 Information was obtained from feedback and 

discussions with Trade members on the potential 

effects of providing EEM data instead of paper 

forms. Data obtained in February 2023. 

86 Information was obtained from feedback and 

discussions with Trade members on the potential 

effects of providing EEM data instead of paper 

forms. Data obtained in February 2023. 

CBP expects that rail carriers and 

other trade members that decide to 

provide EEM cargo data would also 

experience some other time and costs 

savings as a result of this proposed rule. 

During the regulatory period, rail 

carriers would transmit EEM data to 

CBP and would no longer submit 

finalized train consists in paper form to 

CBP either via email or at the U.S. port 

of export. Eliminating the time burden 

and cost to provide the paper form train 

consists would be a cost savings of this 

proposed rule, but parties would now 

incur the time and cost to provide the 

EEM data. CBP expects providing the 

EEM data takes less time than providing 

the data on paper forms and rail EEM 

participants would experience a time 

savings when providing EEM data.85

During the regulatory period, CBP 

estimates that eliminating paper forms 

and providing the EEM data would help 

rail carriers and other trade members to 

automate the process for providing 

export manifest data to CBP and would 

generate a time savings of 

approximately 20 minutes (0.333 hours) 

on average for each train exporting 

goods out of the United States.86

CBP used the number of total 

outbound trains estimated above 

288,969 (see Table 3) for the number of 

trains that would potentially be affected 

and experience this time savings during 

the regulatory period. According to CBP 

calculations, trade members would 

experience a total of 96,323 hours 

(288,969 trains × 0.333 hours) in time 

savings from a more efficient process of 

providing the electronic export manifest 

data when compared to the baseline. To 

provide an estimate for the total cost 

savings from this process, CBP 

multiplied the total expected time 

savings (96,323 hours) by the average 

hourly loaded wage rate for exporters 

($35.62). CBP estimates that these cost 

savings to trade during the regulatory 

period would be approximately $3.43 

million or on average $686,204 

annually. Additionally, during the 

regulatory period CBP expects that rail 

EEM participants will experience time 

savings when making corrections and/or 

updates to electronically transmitted 

data in ACE when compared to making 

corrections and updates to paper forms 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13JA25.023</GPH>

Table 21. Estimated Time and Cost Savings to Rail Carriers from Improved CBP Review 

during the Regulatory Period 2026-2030 (time in hours, costs in undiscounted 2023 U.S. 

dollars) 

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Total 

Scenario I (time savings per train 1.92 hours) 

Train Consists Transmitted 57,794 57,794 57,794 57,794 57,794 288,969 

Time Savings 110,964 110,964 110,964 110,964 110,964 554,820 

Wage Rate $35.62 $35.62 $35.62 $35.62 $35.62 

Cost Savings $3,952,538 $3,952,538 $3,952,538 $3,952,538 $3,952,538 $19,762,688 

Scenario 2 (time savings per train 0 hours) 

Train Consists Transmitted 54,559 54,559 54,559 54,559 54,559 272,797 

Time Savings 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Wage Rate $35.62 $35.62 $35.62 $35.62 $35.62 

Cost Savings $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Scenario 3 CBP's Primary Estimate (time savings per train 0.96 hours) 

Train Consists Transmitted 57,794 57,794 57,794 57,794 57,794 288,969 

Time Savings 55,482 55,482 55,482 55,482 55,482 277,410 

Wage Rate $35.62 $35.62 $35.62 $35.62 $35.62 

Cost Savings $1,976,269 $1,976,269 $1,976,269 $1,976,269 $1,976,269 $9,881,344 

Scenario 4 (time savings per train 0.48 hours) 

Train Consists Transmitted 57,794 57,794 57,794 57,794 57,794 288,969 

Time Savings 27,741 27,741 27,741 27,741 27,741 138,705 

Wage Rate $35.62 $35.62 $35.62 $35.62 $35.62 

Cost Savings $988,134 $988,134 $988,134 $988,134 $988,134 $4,940,672 
2908 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

87 Information was obtained from feedback and 

discussions with Trade members on the frequency 

of cargo examinations prior to the Test and during 

the Test suggesting such an occurrence was fairly 

uncommon. Data obtained in February 2023. 

88 Information was obtained from feedback and 

discussions with Trade members on the potential 

costs and time burden to remove a train car from 

a constructed train in order for CBP to conduct an 

examination of the cargo or container. Data 

obtained in February 2023. 

in the baseline scenario. CBP uses the 

same time savings estimate used in the 

pilot period of 15 minutes (0.25 hours) 

per train for the time savings 

experienced by rail EEM participants 

during the regulatory period. CBP 

multiplied this time savings per train by 

the expected number of outbound trains 

during each year of the regulatory 

period (57,794 trains, see Table 3). CBP 

estimates that rail EEM participants 

would experience a time savings of 

approximately 72,242 hours on average 

and 14,448 each year from being able to 

make updates and corrections to EEM 

data in ACE when compared to paper 

forms. To provide an estimate for the 

total cost savings from this process, CBP 

multiplied the total expected time 

savings during the regulatory period 

(72,242 hours) by the average hourly 

loaded wage rate for exporters ($35.62). 

CBP estimates that these cost savings to 

trade during the regulatory period 

would be approximately $2.57 million 

or on average $514,653 annually. Table 

22 displays CBP estimates for time 

savings to rail EEM participants from 

transitioning to transmitting EEM data 

and making corrections and updates to 

electronic data in ACE. Overall, CBP 

estimates that transitioning to EEM data 

transmission would save rail EEM 

participants approximately $6.0 million 

or on average $1.2 million annually. 

CBP also expects that rail carriers 

would experience time and cost savings 

if the pre-departure EEM data results in 

CBP identifying a high-risk cargo prior 

to that cargo being loaded or added to 

a train, thereby avoiding the costly 

burden of identifying high-risk cargo 

after the train has been constructed. CBP 

did not track how often such 

examinations occur prior to this 

proposed rule and CBP was unable to 

provide an estimate for how often such 

examinations occur, but CBP expects 

that they are fairly uncommon.87

Additionally, CBP does not anticipate 

this rule would result in additional 

examinations compared to the baseline. 

CBP estimates that the cost to rail 

carriers to remove a car from a 

constructed train for CBP examination is 

approximately $3,000 per occurrence 

and results in a delay of up to two 

hours.88 This includes the freight and 

labor costs to safely decouple a train car 

from a built train. Rail carriers would 

avoid these costs if CBP receives predeparture data and is able to issue holds 

and examine these cargo or train cars 

before constructed to the train. 

Additionally, moving to transmission of 

EEM data would reduce the space 

required to store and file paper form 

manifest documents generating savings 

to rail carriers and other trade members. 

Unfortunately, CBP does not have data 

available to provide a quantifiable 

estimate for the savings to trade 

members from reduced storage space as 

a result of eliminating paper form 

manifest documents, but based on 

feedback from trade members, does not 

consider the costs to be substantial. 

CBP estimates that total cost savings 

as a result of this proposed rule would 

be approximately $72.1 million or on 

average $14.4 million annually during 

the regulatory period. In total, CBP 

anticipates that trade members will 

experience a cost savings of $15.9 

million or on average $3.2 million 

during the regulatory period, while CBP 

would experience cost savings of 

around $56.2 million or on average 

$11.2 million annually. Table 23 below 

displays CBP’s estimates for total cost 

savings to CBP and trade during each 

year of the regulatory period. CBP 

requests feedback and comments from 

rail carriers and trade members on 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13JA25.024</GPH>

Table 22. Estimated Time and Cost Savings to Trade from Transmitting EEM during the 

Regulatory Period 2026-2030 (time in hours, costs in undiscounted 2023 U.S. dollars) 

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Total 

Total Outbound Trains 57,794 57,794 57,794 57,794 57,794 288,969 

Time Savings to Submit EEM 0.333 0.333 0.333 0.333 0.333 

per Train 

Total Time Savings to Submit 19,265 19,265 19,265 19,265 19,265 96,323 

EEM 

Wage Rate $35.62 $35.62 $35.62 $35.62 $35.62 

Total Cost Savings from $686,204 $686,204 $686,204 $686,204 $686,204 $3,431,022 

Submitting EEM 

Time Savings to Make 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 

Corrections oer Train 

Total Time Savings to Make 14,448 14,448 14,448 14,448 14,448 72,242 

Corrections 

Wage Rate $35.62 $35.62 $35.62 $35.62 $35.62 

Total Cost Savings from $514,653 $514,653 $514,653 $514,653 $514,653 $2,573,267 

Making Corrections 

Total Cost Savings $1,200,858 $1,200,858 $1,200,858 $1,200,858 $1,200,858 $6,004,289 

Note: totals may not sum due to rounding. 
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2909 

CBP’s estimates for the cost savings to 

trade as a result of this proposed rule 

and any other potential cost savings 

from this proposed rule that CBP may 

not have included in this analysis. 

Benefits 

CBP expects that parties involved in 

U.S. rail exports would likely 

experience benefits as a result of this 

proposed rule during the regulatory 

period. Unfortunately, CBP does not 

have the data available to quantify these 

benefits and therefore will discuss these 

benefits qualitatively. A primary benefit 

of requiring pre-departure EEM data 

would be an improvement in CBP’s 

security efforts and its ability to use 

CBP’s ATS to conduct risk assessment 

for all rail export cargo prior to 

departing the United States, while also 

minimizing the disruption to the export 

process. This proposed rule would 

assist CBP in preventing illegal, 

dangerous, and hazardous cargo from 

being exported out of the United States 

and would allow CBP to ensure cargo 

safety and security for all exports in the 

rail environment. Additionally, 

transitioning to electronic data would 

reduce the use of paper for all parties 

involved and bring the outbound rail 

process level with existing inbound rail 

processing technology. The deadlines 

for submitting EEM data and the gained 

efficiencies from moving from paper 

forms to electronic data transmission 

using an integrated system would 

provide CBP more time to review the 

necessary detailed export data prior to 

a train’s departure, allowing CBP 

officers to allocate more time to 

mission-critical activities. CBP also 

anticipates this proposed rule would 

generate benefits to the Federal 

Government through improved 

coordination and communication 

among CBP, the Department of 

Commerce, and other Government 

agencies with export jurisdiction, while 

enforcing U.S. export laws and 

regulations. In addition, CBP would be 

compliant in the rail environment with 

the Trade Act, which requires CBP to 

establish regulations providing for the 

mandatory electronic transmission of 

data by way of a CBP-approved 

electronic data interchange before cargo 

arrives or departs the United States in 

all environments. 

Net Impact of the Proposed Rule 

CBP anticipates that the cost savings 

generated from this proposed rule 

would outweigh the costs during the 

regulatory period. In addition, this rule 

generates meaningful unquantified 

security benefits. During the regulatory 

period, CBP anticipates that this 

proposed rule would generate net cost 

savings to both CBP and trade members. 

CBP notes that lack of data available 

prevented CBP from providing exact 

estimates for some of the potential costs 

and cost savings from the 

implementation of rail EEM and 

therefore the actual net cost savings 

could be more or less than what CBP’s 

primary estimates project in this 

analysis. Additionally, CBP 

acknowledges that for other trade 

members, participating directly in 

providing rail EEM data to CBP is 

voluntary and CBP expects that they 

would only do so if it were beneficial to 

their company and the benefits or cost 

savings outweigh the costs. Because 

CBP does not have data on how many 

of these other trade members would 

decide to directly participate in 

providing rail EEM data during the 

regulatory period the actual costs and 

cost savings from this proposed rule 

could be higher than what CBP has 

provided during the regulatory period of 

this analysis. For this reason, CBP 

presents a range of estimates. CBP 

estimates that, during the regulatory 

period, CBP, rail carriers, and other 

trade members bear costs of 

approximately $8.1 million or an 

average of $1.6 million per year. 

Meanwhile, CBP estimates a total cost 

savings to CBP, rail carriers and other 

trade members of approximately $72.1 

million during the regulatory period, or 

an average of $14.4 million per year. 

This results in a net cost savings of 

approximately $63.9 million, or an 

average of $12.8 million per year. Table 

24 displays CBP’s estimates for costs 

and cost savings to CBP and trade 

members during each year of the 

regulatory period. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13JA25.025</GPH>

Table 23. Estimated Total Cost Savings during Regulatory Period 2026-2030 

(undiscounted 2023 U.S. dollars) 

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 

CBP Review of Train $11,236,646 $11,236,646 $11,236,646 $11,236,646 $11,236,646 

Consists 

Trade Cost Savings from $1,976,269 $1,976,269 $1,976,269 $1,976,269 $1,976,269 

Improved CBP Review 

Trade Savings from $686,204 $686,204 $686,204 $686,204 $686,204 

Providing EEM 

Trade Cost Savings from $514,653 $514,653 $514,653 $514,653 $514,653 

Making Corrections to 

EEMData 

Total Trade Cost Savings $3,177,127 $3,177,127 $3,177,127 $3,177,127 $3,177,127 

Total Cost Savings $14,413,773 $14,413,773 $14,413,773 $14,413,773 $14,413,773 

Total 

$56,183,231 

$9,881,344 

$3,431,022 

$2,573,267 

$15,885,633 

$72,068,864 
2910 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

Table 25 shows the discounted total 

quantified costs during the regulatory 

period from this proposed rule. As 

shown, the total costs over the 5-year 

regulatory period of analysis would be 

around $7.4 million using a two percent 

discount rate. Expected annualized 

costs from this proposed rule are about 

1.6 million using a two percent discount 

rate. 

Table 26 displays the discounted total 

quantified cost savings as a result of this 

proposed rule during the regulatory 

period. CBP’s primary estimates show 

that this rule will provide cost savings 

to CBP, rail carriers and other trade 

members of around $68.0 million using 

a two percent discount rate. Annualized 

cost savings from this proposed rule 

would be approximately $14.4 million. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13JA25.026</GPH> EP13JA25.027</GPH> EP13JA25.028</GPH>

Table 24. Estimated Net Cost Savings to CBP and Trade during Regulatory Period 2026-

2030 (undiscounted 2023 U.S. dollars) 

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Total 

Costs 

CBP $169,096 $171,349 $173,646 $175,989 $178,379 $868,459 

Trade Members $1,452,424 $1,452,424 $1,452,424 $1,452,424 $1,452,424 $7,262,119 

Total Costs $1,621,520 $1,623,773 $1,626,070 $1,628,413 $1,630,803 $8,130,578 

Cost Savings 

CBP $11,236,646 $11,236,646 $11,236,646 $11,236,646 $11,236,646 $56, 183,231 

Trade Members $3,177,127 $3,177,127 $3,177,127 $3,177,127 $3,177,127 $15,885,633 

Total Cost Savings $14,413,773 $14,413,773 $14,413,773 $14,413,773 $14,413,773 $72,068,864 

CBPNet Cost $11,067,550 $11,065,298 $11,063,000 $11,060,657 $11,058,267 $55,314,772 

Savings 

Trade Member Net $1,724,703 $1,724,703 $1,724,703 $1,724,703 $1,724,703 $8,623,514 

Cost Savings 

Total Net Cost $12,792,252 $12,790,000 $12,787,703 $12,785,360 $12,782,970 $63,938,286 

Savings 

Note: totals may not sum due to rounding. 

Table 25. Total Monetized Present Value and Annualized Costs in Regulatory Period 

2026-2030 (2023 U.S. dollars) 

2% Discount Rate 

Present Value Cost $7,366,587 

Annualized Cost $1,626,024 

Table 26. Total Monetized Present Value and Annualized Cost Savings in Regulatory Period 

2026-2030 (2023 U.S. dollars) 

2% Discount Rate 

Present Value Cost Savings $67,938,735 

Annualized Cost Savings $14,413,773 
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2911 

Table 27 displays CBP’s primary 

estimate for quantifiable net cost savings 

from the implementation of rail EEM. 

As shown, CBP expects that this 

proposed rule would result in total net 

cost savings to CBP, rail carriers and 

other trade members of around $60.3 

million using a two percent discount 

rate. CBP estimates that annualized net 

cost savings are approximately $12.8 

million using a two percent discount 

rate. 

Total Impact of the Proposed Rail EEM 

Program 

CBP anticipates that over the entire 

15-year time period of analysis 2016– 

2030, the proposed rail EEM program 

would result in overall net cost savings 

compared to the baseline (before the rail 

EEM test was introduced). Initially as 

the rail EEM test was introduced, costs 

outweighed the cost savings but CBP 

estimates that as the test expanded and 

after the proposed rule would be 

implemented, cost savings would far 

outweigh the costs incurred by this 

proposed rule. In addition, CBP expects 

that this proposed rule would generate 

meaningful unquantified security 

benefits after it is implemented as 

discussed above in the regulatory period 

net impact section. CBP estimates that 

between 2016–2030 the rail EEM 

program would result in total costs of 

$11,488,249 or on average $765,883 

annually. Additionally, the rail EEM 

program would result total cost savings 

of $76,000,235 or on average $5,066,682 

annually between 2016–2030. CBP 

estimates that total net cost savings from 

the rail EEM program during the period 

of analysis 2016–2030 would be 

$64,511,986 or on average $4,300,799 

annually when compared to the 

baseline. Table 28 displays CBP’s 

estimates for total costs, cost savings 

and net cost savings as a result of this 

proposed rule from 2016–2030. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13JA25.029</GPH> EP13JA25.030</GPH>

Table 27. Total Monetized Present Value and Annualized Net Cost Savings of Regulatory Period 

2026-2030 (2023 U.S. dollars) 

2% Discount Rate 

Present Value Net Cost Savings $60,274,537 

Annualized Net Cost Savings $12,787,749 

Table 28. Estimated Cost, Cost Savings, and Net Cost Savings from Rail EEM 2015-

2030 (undiscounted 2023 U.S. dollars) 

Year Costs Cost Savings Net Cost Savings 

CBP Trade Total CBP Trade Total CBP Trade 

Members Members Members 

2016 $701,629 $98,092 $799,721 $0 $10,451 $10,451 ($701,629) ($87,641) 

2017 $95,628 $141,726 $237,354 $59,883 $37,326 $97,210 ($35,745) ($104,399) 

2018 $97,351 $143,761 $241,112 $0 $27,566 $27,566 ($97,351) ($116,195) 

2019 $99,361 $142,141 $241,503 $30,914 $32,376 $63,290 ($68,448) ($109,765) 

2020 $109,140 $137,685 $246,825 $215,619 $60,399 $276,018 $106,479 ($77,286) 

2021 $105,010 $164,693 $269,703 $505,704 $113,615 $619,319 $400,694 ($51,078) 

2022 $106,899 $212,982 $319,881 $566,170 $127,053 $693,223 $459,272 ($85,929) 

2023 $108,701 $268,548 $377,249 $625,859 $135,683 $761,543 $517,159 ($132,865) 

2024 $111,083 $199,997 $311,080 $565,911 $125,464 $691,376 $454,829 ($74,533) 

2025 $113,247 $199,997 $313,245 $565,911 $125,464 $691,376 $452,664 ($74,533) 

2026 $169,096 $1,452,424 $1,621,520 $11,236,646 $3,177,127 $14,413,773 $11,067,550 $1,724,703 

2027 $171,349 $1,452,424 $1,623,773 $11,236,646 $3,177,127 $14,413,773 $11,065,298 $1,724,703 

2028 $173,646 $1,452,424 $1,626,070 $11,236,646 $3,177,127 $14,413,773 $11,063,000 $1,724,703 

2029 $175,989 $1,452,424 $1,628,413 $11,236,646 $3,177,127 $14,413,773 $11,060,657 $1,724,703 

2030 $178,379 $1,452,424 $1,630,803 $11,236,646 $3,177,127 $14,413,773 $11,058,267 $1,724,703 

Total $2,516,507 $8,971,742 $11,488,249 $59,319,203 $16,681,031 $76,000,235 $56,802,696 $7,709,289 

Average $167,767 $598,116 $765,883 $3,954,614 $1,112,069 $5,066,682 $3,786,846 $513,953 

Total 

($789,270) 

($140,144) 

($213,546) 

($178,213) 

$29,193 

$349,616 

$373,342 

$384,294 

$380,296 

$378,131 

$12,792,252 

$12,790,000 

$12,787,703 

$12,785,360 

$12,782,970 

$64,511,986 

$4,300,799 
2912 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

Table 29 shows the discounted total 

quantified costs from the rail EEM 

program from 2016–2030 compared to 

the baseline scenario. As shown, the 

total costs over the 15-year period of 

analysis would be $9,330,571 using a 

two percent discount rate. Expected 

total annualized costs from this 

proposed rule are $726,156 using a two 

percent discount rate. 

Table 30 shows the discounted total 

quantified costs savings as a result of 

this proposed rule from 2016–2030. As 

shown, the total cost savings over the 

15-year period of analysis would be 

$59,120,631 using a two percent 

discount rate. Expected total annualized 

cost savings from this proposed rule 

would be $4,601,091 using a two 

percent discount rate. 

Table 31 shows the discounted total 

quantified net cost savings during the 

regulatory period from this proposed 

rule. As shown, the total net cost 

savings over the 15-year period of 

analysis compared to the baseline 

would be $49,790,060 using a two 

percent discount rate. Expected total 

annualized net cost savings from this 

proposed rule would be $3,874,935 

using a two percent discount rate. 

Accounting statements 1 and 2 show the 

expected costs, cost savings and benefits 

from this proposed rule for the 

regulatory period and the program as a 

whole, respectively. Though CBP 

presents the costs of the program as a 

whole, including both the pilot period 

and the regulatory period, the costs of 

the pilot period are sunk for the 

purposes of decision-making. Therefore, 

CBP considered the net effects for the 

regulatory period when deciding 

whether to proceed with this rule. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13JA25.031</GPH> EP13JA25.032</GPH> EP13JA25.033</GPH>

Table 29. Total Monetized Present Value and Annualized Costs of Rail EEM 2016-2030 

(2023 U.S. dollars) 

2% Discount Rate 

Present Value Cost $9,330,571 

Annualized Cost $726,156 

Table 30. Total Monetized Present Value and Annualized Cost Savings of Rail EEM 

2016-2030 (2023 U.S. dollars) 

2% Discount Rate 

Present Value Cost Savings $59,120,631 

Annualized Cost Savings $4,601,091 

Table 31. Total Monetized Present Value and Annualized Net Cost Savings of Rail EEM 

2016-2030 (2023 U.S. dollars) 

2% Discount Rate 

Present Value Net Cost Savings $49,790,060 

Annualized Net Cost Savings $3,874,935 
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2913 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13JA25.034</GPH>

Accounting Statement 1: Regulatory Period (Fiscal Years 2026-2030) (thousands of 

$2023) 

2% Discount Rate 

Costs 

Annualized monetized costs $1,626,024 

Annualized quantified, but non-monetized costs None 

If additional cargo examinations occur 

estimated cost to CBP would be around 

$101.44 per additional exam. 

Rail carriers and voluntary participants 

may have to adjust business practices 

when moving from a paper to 

electronic process. 

Qualitative (non-quantified) costs Securing a Bond is required to 

participate. 

Rail carriers and voluntary participants 

must have someone available 24 hours 

a day 7 days a week to respond to CBP 

questions about data transmitted. 

Liquidated damages, $5,000 for each 

violation up to max of$100,000 per 

departure. 

Cost Savings 

Annualized monetized cost savings $14,413,773 

Annualize quantified, but non-monetized cost savings None 

Reduce paper, printing and storage 

costs related to paper forms. 

Qualitative (non-quantified) cost savings Rail carriers may avoid CBP cargo 

examinations on already constructed 

trains, resulting in delays ( up to2 

hours) and costs ($3,000 per 

occurrence). 

Benefits 

Annualized monetized benefits None 

Annualized quantified, but non-monetized benefits None 

Improve CBP's security efforts on rail 

exports, electronic data transmissions 

will allow CBP to use its ATS system 

to conduct risk assessment on all rail 

exports. 

Qualitative (non-quantified) benefits Gained efficiencies from trade by 

switching from paper to electronic data 

transmission. 

Improved communication among 

Federal Agencies with export 

iurisdiction. 
2914 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13JA25.035</GPH>

Accounting Statement 2: Rail EEM Program (Fiscal Years 2016-2030) (Discounted 2023 

U.S. dollars) 

2% Discount Rate 

Costs 

Annualized monetized costs $726,156 

Annualized quantified, but non-monetized costs None 

If additional cargo examinations occur 

estimated cost to CBP would be 

around $101.44 per additional exam. 

Rail carriers and voluntary participants 

may have to adjust business practices 

when moving from a paper to 

electronic process. 

Qualitative (non-quantified) costs Securing a Bond is required to 

participate. 

Rail carriers and voluntary participants 

must have someone available 24 hours 

a day 7 days a week to respond to CBP 

questions about data transmitted. 

Liquidated damages, $5,000 for each 

violation up to max of $100,000 per 

departure. 

Cost Savings 

Annualized monetized cost savings $4,601,091 

Annualize quantified, but non-monetized cost savings None 

Reduce paper, printing and storage 

costs related to paper forms. 

Qualitative (non-quantified) cost savings Rail carriers may avoid CBP cargo 

examinations on already constructed 

trains, resulting in delays ( up to2 

hours) and costs ($3,000 per 

occurrence). 

Benefits 

Annualized monetized benefits None 

Annualized quantified, but non-monetized benefits None 

Improve CBP's security efforts on rail 

exports, electronic data transmissions 

will allow CBP to use its ATS system 

to conduct risk assessment on all rail 

exports. 

Qualitative (non-quantified) benefits Gained efficiencies from trade by 

switching from paper to electronic 

data transmission. 

Improved communication among 

Federal Agencies with export 

jurisdiction. 
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2915 

89CBP compared the five U.S. companies with 

the given U.S. Small Business Administration’s size 

standards for small businesses based on the 

associated NAICS classification listed in Hoovers 

Online Company Reports, available at http://

subscriber.hoovers.com/H/home/index.html. 

90According to CBP’s estimates each year during 

the regulatory period total costs to trade members 

would be $1,452,424, the total cost savings to trade 

would be $3,177,127 and the total expected rail 

EEM data transmissions each year are expected to 

be around 4,249,601. CBP calculated the average 

cost per rail EEM data submission by dividing the 

total cost by the estimated number of rail EEM data 

transmission ($1,452,424/4,249,602 = $0.34) and 

the average cost savings per rail EEM data 

submission by dividing the total cost saving by the 

estimated number of rail EEM data transmission 

($3,177,127/4,249,601 = $0.75). 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This section examines the impact on 

small entities as required by the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et. seq.), as amended by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement and 

Fairness Act of 1996. 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 per the 

Small Business Act); a small not-forprofit organization; or a small 

governmental jurisdiction (locality with 

fewer than 50,000 people). 

CBP acknowledges that this proposed 

rule, requiring pre-departure 

transmission of EEM data, could 

potentially affect a large number of 

small U.S. entities. CBP expects that all 

seven rail carrier companies that engage 

in exporting goods from the United 

States in the rail environment and an 

unknown number of other trade 

members (such as USPPIs, FPPIs, 

NVOCCs, freight forwarders, CHB, or 

other third parties with knowledge of 

export manifest data elements) at 

approximately 68 U.S. ports of export 

would be affected by this proposed rule. 

CBP notes that of the seven rail carriers 

affected by this proposed rule, two 

carriers are Canadian companies and the 

other five companies are large 

companies according to the U.S. Small 

Business Administration’s size 

standards for small businesses.89

Therefore, CBP does not anticipate that 

this proposed rule would affect any 

small U.S. entity rail carriers. The scope 

of impact on small U.S. entities depends 

largely on how many other trade 

members elect to provide electronic 

manifest cargo data voluntarily to CBP 

as a result of this proposed rule. This 

proposed rule does not require other 

trade members to provide electronic 

manifest cargo to CBP, and CBP expects 

that they would only do so if their 

benefits outweigh the costs. CBP expects 

that even if this proposed rule affects a 

significant number of small U.S. 

entities, such entities would not incur 

significant net costs. CBP expects that 

this proposed rule would save 

businesses time and money by 

transitioning from a paper process to a 

more efficient electronic process. CBP 

anticipates that providing rail export 

data electronically would generate time 

savings to those submitting data to CBP, 

when making any corrections to data 

submitted electronically, and would 

reduce paper, and printing costs. 

According to CBP’s calculations on the 

impacts from this proposed rule on 

average the estimated cost to provide a 

single rail EEM data transmission to 

CBP is approximately $0.34, meanwhile 

the estimated cost savings per data 

transmission is around $0.75, resulting 

in a net savings per data transmission.90

CBP does not know how many of these 

trade members will choose to submit 

this data to CBP or how often, so CBP 

is unable to estimate the annual savings 

to these trade members as a result of this 

rule. Overall, as discussed above, this 

rule would result in average annual total 

filing costs to trade members of 

$1,452,424 and savings of $3,177,127. 

We note that these costs and savings 

will be split between rail carriers (which 

are not small businesses) and other 

trade members (which may be small 

businesses). CBP anticipates that cost 

savings outweigh costs for parties 

affected; hence, CBP does not expect 

small U.S. entities would experience net 

costs as a result of this proposed rule. 

Therefore, CBP certifies that this 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small U.S. 

entities. CBP requests comments from 

the public on CBP’s certification that 

this proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small U.S. 

entities. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

An agency may not conduct, or 

sponsor, and an individual is not 

required to respond to a collection of 

information unless it displays a valid 

OMB control number. The collections of 

information in the current regulations 

have already been approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3507) and assigned OMB control 

number 1651–0001. This collection 

already provides estimated burdens to 

the public for voluntarily participating 

in the Rail EEM test. CBP anticipates 

that this proposed rule would result in 

an additional time burden to 

respondents that would provide rail 

EEM directly to CBP. This proposed rule 

establishes new requirements for trade 

members to provide rail EEM data to 

CBP prior to a train departing from a 

U.S. port of export. CBP notes that prior 

to providing EEM data, rail carriers 

typically incurred time burdens to 

provide some export data to CBP that 

were not originally included on this 

information collection or any other 

information collection as the data was 

not a statutory or regulatory 

requirement. Trade members have 

expressed that providing export data to 

CBP as part of the rail EEM did provide 

a reduction in time burden compared to 

the prior process, but because the 

original time burden to provide export 

data to CBP prior to rail EEM was not 

included in this information collection 

CBP estimates that the time burden to 

the public from this proposed rule 

would be insignificant. 

As a result of this proposed rule, CBP 

estimates that at least all seven major 

rail carriers that currently engage in 

exporting goods out of the United States 

in the rail environment would be 

affected. Collection 1651–0001 would 

be revised to reflect the changed burden 

hours for requiring trade members to 

provide rail EEM data to CBP prior to 

departure of the train from a U.S. port 

of export. The new information 

collection requirements from this 

proposed rule would result in the 

following change in the estimated time 

burdens to the public for the 

information collection number 1651– 

0001 from submitting rail EEM data to 

CBP: 

Estimated number of respondents 

annually: 7. 

Average responses per respondent: 

598,830. 

Total responses: 4,191,807. 

Estimated time burden per 

respondent: 5,506 hours. 

Total added time burden: 38,545 

hours. 

CBP estimates that this added time 

burden would increase the cost to the 

public by $1,372,986 and adjust the 

total cost to the public for this 

information collection to $611,127,188. 

CBP also expects that this new 

information collection requirement 

would result in a decrease in the annual 

cost to the Federal Government through 

the automated review of rail EEM data 

by ATS. CBP officers would experience 

a reduced time burden from reviewing 

only 0.05 percent of all rail EEM 

responses provided by the public. This 

revision to the total number of 

responses reviewed by CBP for this 

information collection decreased by 

12,803 responses resulting in a reduced 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2916 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

91See the DHS Privacy Policy web page, available 

at https://www.dhs.gov/privacy-policy-guidance. 

92See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Privacy Impact 

Assessment for The Automated Commercial 

Environment, DHS/CBP/PIA–003 and all 

subsequent updates, available at https://

www.dhs.gov/privacy-documents-us-customs-andborder-protection. 

93See DHS/CBP–001 Import Information System, 

81 FR 48826 (July 26, 2016), available at https://

www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/07/26/ 

2016-17596/privacy-act-of-1974-department-ofhomeland-security-us-customs-and-borderprotection-dhscbp-001; and DHS/CBP–020 Export 

Information Systems (EIS), 80 FR 53181 (September 

02, 2015), available at https://

www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/09/02/ 

2015-21675/privacy-act-of-1974-department-ofhomeland-security-us-customs-and-borderprotection-dhscbp-020. 

time burden of around 1,067 hours and 

cost reduction of around $77,884 

annually. 

D. Privacy 

CBP will ensure that all Privacy Act 

requirements and applicable DHS 

privacy policies are adhered as a result 

of this proposed regulation.91 CBP has 

issued a Privacy Impact Assessment 

(PIA) for the Automated Commercial 

Environment (ACE),92 which outlines 

how CBP ensures compliance with 

Privacy Act protections and DHS 

privacy policies, including DHS’s Fair 

Information Practice Principles (FIPPs). 

The FIPPs account for the nature and 

purpose of the information being 

collected in relation to DHS’s mission to 

preserve, protect and secure the United 

States. The PIA addresses issues such as 

the security, integrity, and sharing of 

data, use limitation and transparency. 

The PIA is publicly available at: http:// 

www.dhs.gov/privacy-documents-uscustoms-and-border-protection. 

The Privacy Act of 1974 requires that 

federal agencies issue a System of 

Record Notice (SORN) to provide the 

public notice regarding personally 

identifiable information (PII) collected 

in a system of records. SORNs explain 

how the information is used, retained, 

and may be accessed or corrected, and 

whether certain portions of the system 

are subject to Privacy Act exemptions 

for law enforcement, national security, 

or other reasons. CBP issued the DHS/ 

CBP–001 Import Information Systems 

(IIS) System of Records and the DHS/ 

CBP–020 Export Information System 

(EIS) System of Records, which provide 

coverage for the proposed regulation.93

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This rule will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted for inflation), 

and it will not significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. Therefore, no 

actions are necessary under the 

provisions of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995. 

IX. Signing Authority 

The signing authority for these 

amendments falls under 19 CFR 0.2(a). 

Accordingly, this document is signed by 

the Secretary of Homeland Security (or 

his delegate). 

List of Subjects 

19 CFR Part 113 

Common Carriers, Exports, Freight, 

Laboratories, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Surety 

bonds. 

19 CFR Part 123 

Canada, Customs duties and 

inspection, Freight, International 

Boundaries, Mexico, Motor Carriers, 

Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Vessels. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, parts 113 and 123 of title 19, 

Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 

parts 113 and 123), are proposed to be 

amended as set forth below: 

PART 113—CBP Bonds 

■ 1. The general authority section for 

part 113 continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Amend § 113.62 by adding 

paragraph (k)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 113.62 Basic importation and entry bond 

conditions. 

* * * * * 

(k) Agreement to comply with 

electronic entry and/or advance cargo 

information filing requirements. (1) 

* * * 

(2) * * * 

(3) If the principal elects to provide 

advance outbound information to CBP 

electronically, the principal agrees to 

provide such information in the manner 

and in the time period required under 

§ 123.93 of this chapter. If the principal 

defaults with regard to these obligations, 

the principal and surety (jointly and 

severally) agree to pay liquidated 

damages of $5,000 for each violation. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 113.63 by revising and 

republishing paragraph (g) to read as 

follows: 

§ 113.63 Basic custodial bond conditions. 

* * * * * 

(g) Agreement to comply with 

electronic entry and/or advance cargo 

information filing requirements. (1) The 

principal agrees to comply with all 

Importer Security Filing requirements 

set forth in part 149 of this chapter 

including but not limited to providing 

security filing information to CBP in the 

manner and in the time period 

prescribed by regulation. If the principal 

defaults with regard to any obligation, 

the principal and surety (jointly and 

severally) agree to pay liquidated 

damages of $5,000 per violation. 

(2) If the principal elects to provide 

advance outbound information to CBP 

electronically, the principal agrees to 

provide such information in the manner 

and in the time period required under 

§ 123.93 of this chapter. If the principal 

defaults with regard to these obligations, 

the principal and surety (jointly and 

severally) agree to pay liquidated 

damages of $5,000 for each violation. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 113.64 by revising and 

republishing paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 113.64 International carrier bond 

conditions. 

* * * * * 

(d) Agreement to provide advance 

cargo information. (1) The incoming 

carrier agrees to provide advance cargo 

information to CBP in the manner and 

in the time period required under §§ 4.7 

and 4.7a of this chapter. If the incoming 

carrier, as principal, defaults with 

regard to these obligations, the principal 

and surety (jointly and severally) agree 

to pay liquidated damages of $5,000 for 

each violation, to a maximum of 

$100,000 per conveyance arrival. 

(2) The outbound carrier agrees to 

transmit advance outbound information 

to CBP electronically, in the manner and 

in the time period required under 

§ 123.93 of this chapter. If the outbound 

carrier, as principal, defaults with 

regard to these obligations, the principal 

and surety (jointly and severally) agree 

to pay liquidated damages of $5,000 for 

each violation, to a maximum of 

$100,000 per departure. 

* * * * * 

PART 123—CBP RELATIONS WITH 

CANADA AND MEXICO 

■ 1. The general authority section for 

part 123 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General 

Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS)), 1415, 1431, 1433, 

1436, 1448, 1624, 2071 note. 

■ 2. Revise and republish § 123.0 to read 

as follows: 

§ 123.0 Scope. 

This part contains special regulations 

pertaining to Customs procedures at the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2917 

Canadian and Mexican borders. 

Included are provisions governing 

report of arrival, manifesting, unlading 

and lading, instruments of international 

traffic, shipments in transit through 

Canada or Mexico or through the United 

States, commercial traveler’s samples 

transiting the United States or Canada, 

baggage arriving from Canada or Mexico 

including baggage transiting the United 

States or Canada or Mexico, and 

electronic information for rail and truck 

cargo in advance of arrival or departure. 

Aircraft arriving from or departing for 

Canada or Mexico are governed by the 

provisions of part 122 of this chapter. 

The arrival of all vessels from, and 

clearance of all vessels departing for, 

Canada or Mexico are governed by the 

provisions of part 4 of this chapter. Fees 

for services provided in connection with 

the arrival of aircraft, vessels, vehicles 

and other conveyances from Canada or 

Mexico are set forth in § 24.22 of this 

chapter. Regulations pertaining to the 

treatment of goods from Canada or 

Mexico under the North American Free 

Trade Agreement are contained in part 

181 of this chapter. The requirements 

for the United States Postal Service to 

transmit advance electronic information 

for inbound international mail 

shipments are set forth in § 145.74 of 

this chapter. 

■ 3. Revise the heading of Subpart J to 

read as follows: 

Subpart J—Advance Information for 

Cargo Arriving or Departing by Rail or 

Truck 

■ 4. Add section 123.93 to Subpart J to 

read as follows: 

§ 123.93 Electronic information for rail 

conveyance and cargo required in advance 

of export. 

(a) General requirement. Pursuant to 

section 343(a), Trade Act of 2002, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1415), for any train 

departing the United States, U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

must receive electronically from the rail 

carrier, or other eligible filer as specified 

in paragraph (c), certain information 

concerning the train and cargo, as 

enumerated in paragraphs (d), (e), and 

(f) of this section. CBP must receive this 

information, known as outbound 

electronic rail manifest data, no later 

than the time frames prescribed in 

paragraph (b) of this section. The 

transmission of the required data must 

occur through the Automated 

Commercial Environment (ACE) or any 

other CBP-authorized electronic data 

interchange system. Any examination 

referrals must be resolved in accordance 

with the provisions and time frames 

prescribed in paragraph (g) of this 

section. Any Do-Not-Load (DNL) or 

Hold instructions must be addressed in 

accordance with the provisions 

prescribed in paragraph (h) of this 

section. 

(b) Time frame for transmitting data. 

(1) Initial filing. The required initial 

filing data enumerated in paragraph (d) 

of this section must be transmitted as 

early as practicable, but no later than 24 

hours prior to departure of the train 

from the United States. 

(2) Subsequent Filing. The required 

subsequent filing will include the data 

identified below: 

(i) Export manifest cargo data. Export 

manifest cargo data other than initial 

filing data must be transmitted no later 

than two hours prior to departure of the 

train from the United States. 

(ii) Export manifest transportation 

data. Export manifest transportation 

data other than initial filing data must 

be transmitted no later than two hours 

prior to departure of the train from the 

United States. 

(iii) Empty container data. Data 

related to empty containers must be 

transmitted no later than the time of 

assembly of the train. 

(3) Updates. The party who transmits 

data must update it if, after the filing is 

transmitted, any of the transmitted data 

changes or more accurate data becomes 

available. Updates are required upon 

discovery of data changes. 

(c) Parties filing cargo and 

conveyance data. (1) Outbound carrier. 

The outbound carrier is responsible for 

transmitting export manifest 

transportation data and empty container 

data. If no other eligible party elects to 

transmit the initial filing data or export 

manifest cargo data, the outbound 

carrier must transmit it. If another 

eligible party elects to transmit either 

the initial filing data or export manifest 

cargo data, the outbound carrier may 

also choose to do so. 

(2) Other filers. In addition to the 

outbound carrier for whom participation 

is mandatory, one of the following 

parties meeting the qualifications of 

paragraph (a) of this section that require 

transmission of information through 

ACE or any other CBP-authorized 

electronic data interchange system may 

elect to transmit to CBP the initial filing 

data and/or the export manifest cargo 

data for outgoing cargo listed in 

paragraph (d) of this section: 

(i) The U.S. Principal Party in Interest 

(USPPI), as defined by the provisions of 

section 30.1 of the Foreign Trade 

Regulations (FTR) of the Department of 

Commerce, Bureau of the Census (15 

CFR 30.1), or its authorized agent; 

(ii) The Foreign Principal Party in 

Interest (FPPI) or its authorized agent 

with the FPPI being defined by the 

provisions of section 30.1 of the Foreign 

Trade Regulations (FTR) of the 

Department of Commerce, Bureau of the 

Census, (15 CFR 30.1); or 

(iii) Any other party with direct 

knowledge of the export information, 

which may include a customs broker, 

Automated Broker Interface (ABI) filer, 

non-vessel operating common carrier 

(NVOCC) as defined by § 4.7(b)(3)(ii) of 

this chapter, or a freight forwarder as 

defined in § 112.1 of this chapter. 

(3) Nonparticipation by other party. If 

another party specified in paragraph 

(c)(2) of this section does not transmit 

advance export information to CBP, the 

party that arranges for and/or delivers 

the cargo to the outbound carrier must 

fully disclose and present to the 

outbound carrier the cargo information 

listed in paragraph (d) of this section. 

The outbound carrier must transmit this 

information to CBP in accordance with 

this section. 

(4) Bond required. A party 

transmitting any of the information 

described in this subsection must have 

at least one of the following bonds on 

file with CBP: a CBP Basic Importation 

and Entry Bond containing the 

provisions found in § 113.62 of this 

chapter, a Basic Custodial Bond 

containing the provisions found in 

§ 113.63 of this chapter, or an 

International Carrier Bond containing 

the provisions found in § 113.64 of this 

chapter. 

(5) Required information in 

possession of third party. Any entity, 

other than the outbound carrier or a 

party described in paragraph (c)(2) of 

this section, in possession of data 

required to be transmitted to CBP under 

this section must fully disclose and 

present the required data to either the 

outbound carrier or other electronic 

filer, as applicable, which must transmit 

such data to CBP. 

(6) Party receiving information 

believed to be accurate. Where the party 

electronically transmitting the data 

required in paragraph (d) of this section 

receives any of this information from 

another party, CBP will take into 

consideration how, in accordance with 

ordinary commercial practices, the 

transmitting party acquired such 

information, and whether and how the 

transmitting party is able to verify this 

information. Where the transmitting 

party is not reasonably able to verify 

such information, CBP will permit the 

party to electronically transmit the 

information based on what that party 

reasonably believes to be true. 

(d) Initial Filing. The following 

information comprises the initial filing 

which is mandatory and may be made 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2918 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

by any party identified in paragraph 

(c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section: 

(1) Bill of lading number; 

(2) The numbers and quantities of the 

cargo laden aboard the train as 

contained in the carrier’s bill of lading, 

either master or house, as applicable 

(this means the quantity of the lowest 

external packaging unit; numbers or 

quantities of containers and pallets do 

not constitute acceptable information; 

for example, a container holding 10 

pallets with 200 cartons should be 

described as 200 cartons); 

(3) Total weight of cargo expressed in 

pounds or kilograms; 

(4) A precise cargo description (or the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS) 

number(s) to the 6-digit level under 

which the cargo is classified if that 

information is received from the 

shipper) and weight of the cargo; or, for 

a sealed container, the shipper’s 

declared description and weight of the 

cargo (generic descriptions, specifically 

those such as ‘‘FAK’’ (‘‘freight of all 

kinds’’), ‘‘general cargo,’’ and ‘‘STC’’ 

(‘‘said to contain’’) are not acceptable); 

(5) The shipper’s complete name and 

address, or identification number, from 

the bill(s) of lading (for each house bill 

in a consolidated shipment); 

(6) The consignee’s complete name 

and address, or identification number, 

from the bill(s) of lading (The consignee 

is the party to whom the cargo will be 

delivered in the foreign country. 

However, in the case of cargo shipped 

‘‘to order of [a named party],’’ the ‘‘to 

order’’ party must be named as the 

consignee; and if there is any other 

commercial party listed in the bill of 

lading for delivery or contact purposes, 

the carrier must also report this other 

commercial party’s identity and contact 

information including address in the 

‘‘Notify party’’ field.); and 

(7) The Automated Export System 

(AES) Exemption Statement, as 

applicable. 

(e) Export manifest transportation 

data. (1) Mandatory data. The following 

transportation data is mandatory and 

must be transmitted by the rail carrier 

or its agent: 

(i) Port of departure from the United 

States; 

(ii) Date of departure; 

(iii) Estimated time of departure; 

(iv) Carrier-assigned conveyance 

name, equipment number and trip 

number; 

(v) Train Consist, which includes: 

(A) Manifest number; 

(B) Train number; 

(C) Rail car order; and 

(D) Empty containers; 

(vi) The rail carrier identification 

SCAC code (the unique Standard Carrier 

Alpha Code assigned for each carrier by 

the National Motor Freight Traffic 

Association; see § 4.7a(c)(2)(iii) of this 

chapter); and 

(vii) Container or equipment numbers 

(for containerized shipments) or rail car 

Numbers (for all other shipments). 

(2) Conditional data. The following 

transportation data is conditional and 

must be transmitted by the rail carrier 

or agent if applicable: 

(i) 6-character Hazmat Code. The UN 

(for United Nations Number) or NA 

(North American Number) and the 

corresponding 4-digit identification 

number assigned to the hazardous 

material must be provided; 

(ii) Marks and numbers; and 

(iii) Seal number (only required if 

container was sealed). The seal numbers 

for all seals affixed to containers and/or 

rail cars to the extent that CBP’s data 

system can accept this information (for 

example, if a container has more than 

two seals, and only two seal numbers 

can be accepted through the system per 

container, electronic presentation of two 

of these seal numbers for the container 

would be considered as constituting full 

compliance with this data element). 

(3) Optional data. The following 

transportation data is optional and may 

be transmitted by the rail carrier or its 

agent: 

(i) Mode of transportation 

(containerized rail cargo or noncontainerized rail cargo); 

(ii) Equipment type code; and 

(iii) Place where the rail carrier takes 

possession of the cargo shipment or 

empty rail car. 

(f) Export manifest cargo data. (1) 

Mandatory data. The following export 

manifest cargo data is mandatory and 

may be transmitted by any party eligible 

to transmit as described in paragraph (c) 

of this section. If the information has 

been provided in the initial filing, it 

need not be transmitted again unless 

there are updates or changes: 

(i) Shipper name and address (for 

empty rail cars, the shipper may be the 

railroad from whom the rail carrier 

received the empty rail car to transport); 

(ii) Consignee name and address (for 

empty rail cars, the consignee may be 

the railroad to whom the rail carrier is 

transporting the empty rail car); 

(iii) Port of Lading; 

(iv) Port of Unlading; 

(v) Bill of Lading type (Master, House, 

Simple or Sub); 

(vi) Bill of Lading Numbers (Master, 

House, Simple or Sub); 

(vii) AES Internal Transaction 

Number or In-bond Number (per 

shipment); 

(viii) Cargo description; 

(ix) Weight of cargo (may be 

expressed in either pounds or 

kilograms); and 

(x) Quantity of cargo and unit of 

measure. 

(2) Conditional data. The following 

export manifest cargo data is 

conditional and must be transmitted if 

applicable: 

(i) In-bond type; 

(ii) Notify party name and address; 

and 

(iii) Secondary notify party name and 

address. 

(3) Optional data. The following 

export manifest cargo data is optional 

and may be transmitted by any party 

eligible to transmit as described in 

paragraph (c): 

(i) Mexican Pedimento Number (only 

for shipments for export to Mexico); 

(ii) Secondary notify party Standard 

Carrier Alpha Code (SCAC); 

(iii) Country of ultimate destination; 

and 

(iv) Number of house bills of lading. 

(g) Examination referrals. (1) Potential 

referrals. There are two types of referrals 

that may be issued by CBP after a risk 

assessment of an outbound export 

manifest data transmission. 

(i) Referral for information. A referral 

for information will be issued if a risk 

assessment of the cargo cannot be 

conducted due to non-descriptive, 

inaccurate, or insufficient data. This can 

be due to typographical errors, vague 

cargo descriptions, and/or unverifiable 

information; or 

(ii) Referral for screening. A referral 

for screening will be issued if the 

potential risk of the cargo is deemed 

high enough to warrant enhanced 

screening. 

(2) Rail export referral resolution. All 

outbound rail export data transmitters 

must respond to and take the necessary 

action to address all referrals, no later 

than prior to departure of the train. The 

appropriate protocols and time frame for 

taking the necessary action to address 

these referrals must be followed as 

directed. The parties responsible for 

taking the necessary action to address 

outbound rail export data referrals are as 

follows: 

(i) Referral for information. The data 

transmitter is responsible for taking the 

necessary action to address a referral for 

information. The last party to file the 

outbound rail manifest data for which 

referral is sought is responsible for such 

action. 

(ii) Referral for screening. If the 

outbound rail export manifest 

transmitter is the rail carrier, it may 

address a referral for screening directly. 

If the outbound rail export manifest 

transmitter is a party other than the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 7 / Monday, January 13, 2025 / Proposed Rules 2919 

outbound rail carrier, it may choose to 

address the referral for screening 

directly while informing the outbound 

carrier of the referral. If the outbound 

rail export manifest transmitter chooses 

not to address the referral for screening, 

it must notify the outbound rail carrier 

of the referral for screening. Upon such 

notification, the outbound rail carrier is 

responsible for taking the necessary 

action to address the referral. 

(3) Prohibition on transporting cargo 

with unresolved referrals. The outbound 

rail carrier may not transport cargo 

destined for departure from the United 

States until all referrals issued pursuant 

to this section with respect to such 

cargo have been resolved. 

(h) Do-Not-Load (DNL)/Hold 

instructions. (1) A Do-Not-Load (DNL) 

instruction will be issued if it is 

determined that the cargo or rail car 

may contain a potential threat to the 

train and its vicinity. 

(2) A Hold instruction will be issued, 

even after loading, if it is determined 

that further examination of the cargo or 

rail car is required. 

(3) All outbound rail manifest data 

transmitters must provide a telephone 

number and email address that is 

monitored 24 hours/7 days a week in 

case a Do-Not-Load (DNL) instruction is 

issued. All transmitters and/or 

outbound rail carriers, as applicable, 

must respond and fully cooperate when 

the entity is reached by phone and/or 

email when a Do-Not-Load (DNL) or 

Hold instruction is issued. The party 

with physical possession of the cargo 

will be required to carry out the Do-NotLoad (DNL) or Hold protocols and the 

directions provided by law enforcement 

authorities. 

(4) The outbound rail carrier may not 

transport cargo with a Do-Not-Load 

(DNL) or Hold instruction. 

Alejandro N. Mayorkas, 

Secretary of Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31331 Filed 1–7–25; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2