CPSC Certificate Filing a Data Entry Challenge, Says Broker

Electronic filing of certificates of compliance could create a host of data entry issues for customs brokers, making the certificate registry approach contemplated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission an “attractive” option, said Amy Magnus, director-customs and compliance at A.N. Deringer, during a meeting between the agency and a CBP Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations working group set up to address certificate filing.

There’s a possibility with CPSC-regulated entries that multiple certificates will have to be filed for the same entry line, because multiple types of testing could be required for a given product or multiple products could be combined into a set, said Magnus. “If we have a lot of lots or a lot of lines, we have a lot of work,” said Magnus, speaking from experience with a pilot testing electronic filing of Food Safety and Inspection Service data. Using FSIS filing as an example, Magnus said each additional lot requires entry of about 30 pieces of data. For entries with just one lot, the extra burden on her staff isn’t unbearable, she said. “But when it’s a lot more than that it’s not a very comfortable time in the office.”

More data entry also creates more opportunity to make mistakes, said Magnus. Accurate data entry is essential, because a given data element could make the difference in a decision on whether cargo is held and subjected to exam, she said. Any delays caused by data entry errors can be extremely costly for clients because of contractual relationships that goods be delivered at a certain time. “Any time fingers get on a keyboard there will be an opportunity to make an error,” she said. Much like the FSIS eCert program, CPSC’s certificate registry would cut down on data entry by allowing input of a single certificate number, which is a “beautiful thing,” said Magnus.

Increased data entry also raises questions about whether importers should have to verify the additional data provided to partner government agencies, especially in light of PGA recordkeeping requirements, said Magnus. For example, brokers already key in additional data required by the Food and Drug Administration on behalf of their importer clients, but that data is only seen by CBP, FDA and the broker, she said. There is no process for the importer to check the broker’s work. That can be a problem if a “fat finger Freddy” that is less skilled at data entry makes a keying error that changes the way the PGA treats the shipment, said Magnus.

The “sweet spot” for brokers is electronic data interchange (EDI) instead of manual data entry, said Magnus. However, Deringer only gets about 25 percent of its information from importers in the form of EDI because of the costs of implementation, she said. Although there are savings in the end, setting up an EDI with an importer can be costly, said Magnus. It requires that programmers work to accept and map the data that comes in, which often times is not uniform and may not match up with what brokers need.

One solution could be bypassing the broker and importer altogether by allowing testing labs to input certificate data directly into the registry. The importer could then attest that the data is accurate and finalize it, said Jim Joholske, deputy director at CPSC’s Office of Import Surveillance. Having labs input certificate data would allow the party closest to the data to submit it, potentially resolving brokers’ “fat finger problem,” said Mike Mullen of the Express Association of America. Representatives from testing labs Intertek, Bureau Veritas and SGS said creating a link to the registry may be possible, although there could be costs and there are hurdles to overcome, such as when multiple labs are involved in testing for a single product.

CPSC still anticipates it will begin a pilot of electronic filing of certificates and the certificate registry in February 2016 (see 1503120069), although the agency is “a little behind schedule” on a Federal Register notice announcing the pilots and soliciting 10 participants, said Carol Cave, CPSC director-Import Surveillance. CPSC is also working on CATAIR guidelines and a list of HTS numbers that come under CPSC jurisdiction, and hopes to get those out in early June.

The HTS mapping exercise, which will be used to create a flag in the Automated Commercial Environment for entry lines that may be subject to certificate requirements, is complicated by the fact that some CPSC-regulated HTS numbers also cover products that are not subject to certificate requirements. CPSC is currently leaning toward following the FDA’s example and allowing filers to “disclaim” products covered by a flagged HTS number where a certificate isn’t needed, said CPSC’s Joholske.