US DHS eases off its '10+2' import rules

To the joy of many computer manufacturers, the Department of Homeland Security has done some significant reworking of the "10+2" security regulations for imports, including computer components.

An interim Final Rule version of the Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements clauses of the SAFE (Security and Accountability for Every Port) Act of 2006 was entered into the Federal Register on Thursday. Those clauses would go into effect 60 days later -- sort of -- assuming no further comments are received and deemed worthy of action.

At that time, importers and manufacturers will be responsible for supplying a raft of new information to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials, and doing so well in advance of rolling up on American shores.

The proposal under consideration is alternately known as the "Importer Security Filing proposal," or the "10+2 proposal" for the number of requirements placed on, respectively, importers and carriers.

It was widely believed that DHS was rushing to set measures in place before the White House changes hands. However, an earlier 60-day comment period (extended to 75 days by popular demand) generated such uproar from manufacturers, trade organizations, and other concerned parties that it was decided that the proposal needed further work. The version filed this week addresses many of the hundreds of comments received.

One of the changes to the latest version of the requirements is the compliance date. CBP is proposing one year for involved companies to get up to speed, and is making plans for a number of compliance seminars to be held at our various ports. The department also acknowledges in the rule comments that "the trade may need time to adjust business practices," and promises to "show restraint in enforcing the rule" in the meantime.

Other changes added some flexibility to four of the ten importer data requirements (manufacturer or supplier, ship-to party, country of origin, and commodity HTSUS number) that originally required very specific information that might not be available on the CBP's schedule, one of the main criticisms of the original proposal. The changes also loosen up the timeframe for importers to send CBP data concerning container stuffing location aboard the ship and consolidator (stuffer) information.

The National Association of Manufacturers was among the organizations leading the charge to work out the kinks in the 10+2 proposal, and in a statement indicated that its members were "very pleased" with the changes -- even though "some serious problems still have not been corrected" in the interim rule.

"The 10+2 Rule, as originally drafted, would have cost US manufacturers as much as $20 billion annually, created huge delays and missed shipments in the global supply chain, risked shutting down US production lines and actually worsened security by increasing the amount of time containers sat around available for tampering at foreign ports," said NAM President John Engler. "We are very pleased that, after nearly a year of the NAM's unrelenting effort, a realistic assessment of the rule was made under the auspices of the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB)."