Supply Chain Security: CBP Has Made Progress in Assisting the Trade Industry in Implementing the New Importer Security Filing Requirements, but Some Challenges Remain
Highlights
Cargo containers present significant security concerns given the potential for using them to smuggle contraband, including weapons of mass destruction. In January 2009, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), implemented the Importer Security Filing (ISF) and Additional Carrier Requirements, collectively known as the 10+2 rule. Collection of cargo information (10 data elements for importers, such as country of origin, and 2 data elements for vessel carriers), in addition to that already collected under other CBP rules, is intended to enhance CBP's ability to identify high-risk shipments. As requested, GAO assessed, among other things, (1) the extent to which CBP conducted the 10+2 regulatory assessment in accordance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, (2) how CBP used information it collected and assessed to inform its efforts to implement the 10+2 rule since January 2009, and (3) the extent to which CBP has used the additional 10+2 data to identify high-risk cargo. GAO analyzed relevant laws, OMB guidance, and CBP's 10+2 regulatory assessment, and interviewed CBP officials.
Recommendations
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| United States Customs and Border Protection | If CBP updates its Regulatory Assessment and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, the Commissioner of CBP should provide greater transparency in the updated assessment regarding the information which contributed to decisions made in developing the 10+2 rule by including information, such as: (1) a discussion of how the alternatives were selected for analysis, including alternatives that were considered but not included in the analysis, and what information CBP considered in addition to the regulatory assessment to conclude that the alternative requiring the Importer Security Filing, with an exemption for bulk cargo, and the Additional Carrier Requirements was preferable over the other alternatives analyzed; (2) an uncertainty analysis for the costs to importers for a day of delay and for the value of statistical life; and (3) to the extent data are available, estimates for lost profits borne by foreign entities. |
In fiscal year 2010, we reviewed and reported on U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) implementation of the interim final rule for the Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements, known as the 10+2 rule. We found that CBP's Regulatory Assessment and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis generally adhered to Office of Management and Budget guidance, although greater transparency regarding the selection of alternatives analyzed and a more complete analysis could have improved CBP's assessment. We recommended that, if CBP updates its assessment, CBP should provide greater transparency in the update. In April 2013, CBP officials informed GAO that CBP completed an update to the Regulatory Assessment and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the 10+2 rule on March 19, 2013. However, CBP was unable to provide a copy of the updated assessment for our review to determine whether it addresses our recommendation. As of August 2014, CBP officials indicated the update was still being reviewed internally. Given the passage of time since GAO made the recommendation in 2010, and the remaining uncertainty about when and how CBP will address it, GAO is closing this recommendation as not implemented.
|
| United States Customs and Border Protection | To help guide CBP in updating the Automated Targeting System (ATS) national security weighted rule set, the Commissioner of CBP should establish milestones and time frames for updating the ATS national security weighted rule set to use 10+2 data in its identification of shipments that could pose a threat to national security. |
In fiscal year 2010, we reviewed and reported on U.S. Custom and Border Protection's (CBP) implementation of the Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements, known as the 10+2 rule. We found that the 10+2 rule data elements were available for identifying high-risk cargo, but CBP had not yet finalized its national security targeting criteria to include these additional data elements to support high-risk targeting. We recommended that CBP establish milestones and timeframes for updating the targeting criteria. In December 2010, CBP provided GAO with a project plan for integrating the data into its targeting criteria. On January 18, 2011, CBP implemented the updated targeting criteria to address risk factors present in the Importer Security Filing data. These actions are consistent with our recommendation.
|