NATIONAL CUSTOMS BROKERS & WASHINGTON, DC 20036 …

[Pages:6]NATIONAL CUSTOMS BROKERS & FORWARDERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.

**cbFP^

Via FedEx U.S. Customs & Border Protection 90 K Street NE, 10th floor Washington, DC 20229-1177

1200 18TH ST., NW, SUITE 901 PHONE 202/466-0222

WASHINGTON, DC 20036 FAX 202/466-0226

October 31, 2019

Attention; Randy Mitchell Director, Commercial Operations, Revenue and Entry Division Trade Policy and Programs, Office of Trade

Re: October 2019 Customs Broker Licensing Examination Our Reference; 10900 0290054

Dear Mr. Mitchell We are writing to provide you with input on the October 2019 Customs Brokers Licensing

Examination ("CBLE") in order to continue our dialogue on measures which can be taken to improve the examination process for future applicants.

Following the conclusion of the examination, we solicited comments from our membership so that with CBP, we could evaluate the success of the examination. The comments we received were fairly consistent and can be broadly categorized as follows:

1. Inadequate desk space; 2. Inappropriate security measures; 3. Lack of clear instructions; 4. Exam format changes; 5. Question structure; and 6. Proctor response

INTERNET:

SERVICE ? INTEGRITY ? TRUST

E-MAIL: recp@

INADEQUATE DESK SPACE

We received over 150 responses to our request for feedback and the responses were uniformly critical of the desk space provided for the test takers. This issue was by far the largest complaint that we received with regard to the October 2019 CBLE.

The nature of the CBLE is such that it requires the applicants to frequently refer to printed versions of the Harmonized Tariff Schedules and the Customs Regulations. These materials are mandatory reference guides for every person taking the examination and, indeed, the CBP website advises applicants to bring these materials with them to the examination. Thus, adequate desk space is critical and an absolute requirement.

In our prior discussions regarding examination site selection, we had discussed the goal of providing each applicant with 6 linear feet of desk space to accommodate their materials. The standard cubicle that was provided by the Pearson testing service was considerably smaller and was largely consumed by the computer that was set up within the cubicle. Most applicants were forced to put their reference materials on the floor and flip back and forth as they worked through the test. The cubicles allotted for each applicant were simply not big enough to accommodate the computer, Harmonized Tariff Schedules and Customs Regulations.

We appreciate that CBP has worked hard to identify appropriate locations within which to host the CBLE and we note that the locations selected for the October 2019 CBLE were greatly improved from the April 2019 examination. Nevertheless, the physical space provided within the locations chosen for the October 2019 CBLE was grossly inadequate. There can be no doubt that the space limitation had a material adverse effect on the outcome of the examination. This issue must be remedied for future examinations.

INTERNET: www,

SERVICE ? INTEGRITY ? TRUST

E-MAIL: staff@

SECURITY ISSUES

We received uniform complaints regarding the pre-test security screening applied at the registration desk. This was the second most common complaint.

Applicants were required to unbutton shirts, roll up their sleeves, turn in hair ties, shake out their hair, turn their waistbands inside out, remove jewelry (including non-smart wrist watches) and permit the proctors to scan their eyeglasses. Applicants were not allowed to take extra eyeglasses, chapstick, cough drops and snacks into the examination room; more than one applicant reported that she was required to unwrap all of her cough drops so that the proctors could inspect the wrappers before she was permitted to sit for the exam. We also understand that although the applicants were allowed to take bathroom breaks, they were subjected to the same physical inspection each time they attempted to return. By any measure, these security checks are excessive; particularly for an open book exam.

We question the need for such rigorous security and urge CBP to instruct Pearson to adjust its screening process. To the extent that these screening procedures will be in place for the next exam, Pearson should be required to update their online orientation videos so show the students exactly what to expect on test day.

We hope that CBP will provide the proctoring company more information on the nature of this exam and the amount of materials that the students are allowed/expected to bring in. Multiple testing sites did not allow the students to bring their materials in using their crates/suitcases, causing serious time delays and unnecessary noise and stress at both the beginning and end of the exam.

INTERNET:

SERVICE ? INTEGRITY ? TRUST

E-MAIL: staff@

Some of the testing sites read the instructions to each student as they checked in; some reviewed them in one big group; some passed out the written instructions but did not review them verbally at all; some sites made the students sign a declaration that they would not discuss the exam with anyone until the results were released; some testing facilities got the students started individually (one at a time) as they were logged into the system and some logged everyone into the system then started everyone all at once. Some sites made an announcement that the examinees could start and some sites assumed that the students would 'self start' at the appropriate time. This last scenario was particularly problematic as it cost many students precious minutes at the beginning of the exam. CBP must work with the proctoring company to create a uniform testing experience in an optimal testing environment.

EXAM FORMAT AND QUESTION STRUCTURE

The format of the exam itself was very different for this exam. Past examinations featured questions that were grouped by category and a drop down menu that allowed students to group questions together as they saw fit. Several applicants commented that the practice exam posted by CBP the week before the October 2019 CBLE featured this functionality but the actual exam did not. Applicants commented that they found it very confusing and time consuming to flip back and forth between different sections of the regulations rather than being able to focus on a particular subject before moving on to the next section.

Numerous applicants also reported that until they reached Question 80, they were unable to toggle back to look at prior questions without repeatedly pressing the "back" button and waiting for the individual questions to load. This process proved to be very time consuming and, once again, unnecessarily added to the stress of the testing experience.

INTERNET:

SERVICE ? INTEGRITY ? TRUST

E-MAIL: staff@

There continue to be questions on each exam that are outside the scope of the HTS segments of the exam, and once again we received reports of "question stacking" (a series of questions where one question is predicated on the answer to the prior question, ensuring that if you fail to get the correct answer on the first question you will likely get all the subsequent questions wrong as well) despite CBP's commitment to eliminate that style of question. In addition, this year there were several questions with particularly problematic wording.1 We also received a general complaint that the test seemed designed to "trick" the applicant into selecting an incorrect answer rather than actually testing the applicant's knowledge of the HTS and regulations.

We do applaud CBP's efforts to decrease the length of the questions for this exam, and hope that CBP will continue its efforts to provide less "wordy" exam questions.

Post exam, Pearson's colossal mistake in showing students who sat for the exam a "fail" message when they logged into the system was disastrous for the reputation of the exam. We greatly appreciate the effort your office made to promptly issue a clarifying CSMS but the proctor should not have the ability to post such a message. This was obviously a "systems error" but even if that is their standard post-exam screen, they should be required to hard-code that field to eliminate the potential for future mistakes.

A very positive development was the distribution of the applicant's answers as the conclusion of the exam. The applicants were uniformly pleased to receive this information rather than having to rely upon their own notes as they have on prior exams. We hope that this will become standard practice for future examinations.

1 We understand that at least one question asked the applicant to determine what "CBP could potentially do." The test taker should not have to guess how CBP will exercise its regulatory authority.

INTERNET:

SERVICE ? INTEGRITY ? TRUST

E-MAIL: staff@

We note, however, that more than one applicant reported a discrepancy between the answer sheet received from Pearson and their own notes. The "official" answer sheet failed to record answers for every question whereas the applicants are confident that all they recorded answers for every question. These discrepancies involve questions which appeared in the middle of the exam and therefore cannot be explained away as timing issues. It is possible that this "glitch" occurred as the result of being signed out and signed back in by the proctor when the applicant took a bathroom break. We have suggested that the applicants bring these specific omissions to CBP's attention and we hope that CBP will examine the record to determine if the test was indeed halted when considering these appeals. We also suggest that CBP consider grading those exams on the basis of the number of questions with recorded answers rather than the entire field of 80 questions on the exam.

Many of the applicants have invested significant resources, both in terms of money spent to apply and prepare for the exam and time spent studying. The CBLE is an important opportunity for these people to advance their careers and improve their lives. It is critical that CBP address these issues and improve the process for future exams.

We appreciate your attention and we look forward to an ongoing dialogue to allow for continued improvement in the CBLE process.

Sincerely,

Alan R. Klestadt Customs Counsel

10378702 1 INTERNET:

SERVICE ? INTEGRITY ? TRUST

E-MAIL: staff@

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download