Industry Urges CPSC to Align Importer Certificate Filing With Current Entry Requirements

The Consumer Product Safety Commission should stick to its current system of requiring importers to provide certificates of compliance on an “on-demand” basis, industry representatives told CPSC staff at a workshop on Sept. 18. But should CPSC move forward with requiring importers to file certificates of compliance at time of entry, as proposed in May 2013 (see 13051018), the agency must ensure the program is fully integrated into existing supply chain processes and the Automated Commercial Environment, said several industry groups. CPSC must also revise its definition of importer of record to exclude customs brokers, others said. The commission should also work closely with CBP and the trade community to ensure it comes up with a rule that’s workable for both CPSC and industry, said industry representatives.

“While we wholeheartedly support the CPSC’s mission of product safety, we do not believe the proposed rule will efficiently and effectively enhance the agency’s risk targeting efforts,” said Jonathan Gold, vice president of supply chain and customs policy at the National Retail Federation. “Given the potentially wide-ranging impact of the proposal on the CPSC, CBP, and industry at large, retailers believe there is insufficient justification for a complete rewrite of the existing, ‘on-demand’ certification system that has generally worked well for the past six years.”

Should CPSC proceed, retailers are concerned about the “operability” of filing certificates with CBP as a condition of entry, said the Retail Industry Leaders Association’s Kathleen McGuigan, who joined Gold in a presentation during the workshop. Importers have already made “significant investments” in developing IT systems in order to meet the varying timelines for CBP entry requirements. Under recent changes to the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, CPSC may require certificates of compliance be filed with CBP up to 24 hours before arrival. Should CPSC adopt its own entry requirements, “it should work within the existing framework and timelines for filing entry-related information and not develop inconsistent and potentially incompatible requirements,” said McGuigan, who is senior vice president of legal and regulatory affairs at RILA. .

The workshop was held at CPSC headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland, and included representatives from government agencies like CBP, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food Safety Inspection Service, as well as industry groups including the NRF, RILA, National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America, Toy Industry Association and Express Association of America, and companies like UPS and Lego. The meeting was inspired by a letter sent by industry representatives in March asking CPSC to take a step back and engage with stakeholders before finalizing its proposal (see 14032025). CPSC subsequently postponed the changes indefinitely so it could gather input (see 14050702). Much of the workshop consisted of CPSC staff asking industry about their import and certificate procedures, and getting input from other agencies related to existing electronic certificate systems.

More Calls From Customs Brokers to Amend Importer Definition

Customs broker industry representatives reiterated calls to change the proposed definition of “importer of record” before CPSC moves forward. The proposed rule defines the “importer” of a product using CBP’s definition of “importer of record.” That puts customs brokers, when they’re acting as importer of record, in the awkward position of having to certify a product meets safety standards without being able to physically examine the product or know details about its manufacturing, the NCBFAA and other broker groups have said (see 13073014). Given the increased liability, some brokers might refuse to allow importers to use their customs bond on CPSC-regulated products altogether, said Michael Lahar of A.N. Deringer, representing NCBFAA at the workshop.

Even when acting on behalf of importers, the requirement to file certificates at entry could prove burdensome for brokers, and consequently costly for importers, said Lahar. Unless certificates are generated electronically and in uniform format, most will continue to be in hard copy and brokers will have to transcribe the required elements into ACE, increasing their workload and the cost for importers. No programming exists in ACE to flag entries that require certificates either, so as it currently stands brokers won’t be able to tell which entries should have a certificate, and CBP would find it difficult to enforce certificate requirements, said Lahar. Neither CPSC, CBP or the trade community is prepared to manage requiring certificates of compliance as a condition of entry, he said.

Industry repeatedly urged CPSC to follow CBP’s lead in working with the trade community to develop any new system for certificates of compliance. Brenda Smith, recently named head of CBP’s Office of International Trade (see 14091218), explained to CPSC staff the care that CBP takes when it sets new data requirements. “It would be very easy to ask for the world,” said Smith. “Frankly, we’d probably choke on it if we got a tremendous amount of data.” Smith noted to CPSC staff that CBP took a couple of years just talking about what data it would require before proposing its 10+2 Importer Security Filing Requirements. “When we ask for new data elements, we are very careful to make sure that a particular data element not only will help us make a good risk-based decision, but also that we’re asking for the right data at the right time from the right party,” she said. -- Brian Feito