CPSC Needs More Work With Industry Before Implementing RAM Import Targeting, User Fees

The Consumer Product Safety Commission still needs to pursue additional engagement and coordination with the trade community before it completes full implementation of its Risk Assessment Methodology (RAM) targeting system, said several trade associations in a March 18 letter to congressional appropriators (here). CPSC’s proposed user fee approach is problematic, and the agency has still not addressed issues that have arisen during its RAM pilot, said the trade groups in a letter to Reps. Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla., and Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., chairman and ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, respectively.

According to the letter, signed by the American Association of Exporters and Importers, U.S. Fashion Industry Association and American Apparel & Footwear Association, among others, CPSC’s RAM pilot has resulted in “significant and unnecessary delays” for compliant goods. “Importers are not provided information on why their shipments are targeted and are frustrated by the CPSC’s lack of communication on this issue,” said the letter. “While we support the RAM, industry still believes additional coordination and consultation with all affected trade stakeholders is needed for further development and implementation of the system to ensure legitimate commerce and entries of compliant products are not stopped or unnecessarily delayed during the CPSC’s import screening process,” they said.

CPSC again asked Congress to fund full implementation of its RAM system by authorizing user fees on importers (see 1602100038). However, CPSC has not yet consulted the trade community on “exactly how the proposed fee would be collected or used,” said the letter. The user fee approach also raises “significant legal and operational issues,” it said. “Import surveillance and the RAM program are core CPSC enforcement functions and as such should be funded through the normal congressional appropriations and oversight process and not through user fees.” CPSC commissioners are currently split over whether to implement the fees (see 1602260050).

Rather than rush forward with RAM user fees, CPSC should take note of the industry consultation process that led to the agency’s “alpha” e-filing pilot for product safety-related entry data, said the letter, which also called for a halt to funding for CPSC’s voluntary recall and “6(b)” information disclosure proposals. Originally proposing e-filing for entire certificates of compliance, CPSC had to “walk back” its proposal in response to importer concerns, and then collaborated with industry to develop the alpha pilot, which will determine the “feasibility and workability” of e-filing. “We encourage this type of stakeholder engagement as an ongoing initiative for all import surveillance related issues,” said the letter.

The trade groups called on CPSC to develop a “vibrant” trusted trader that provides “low-risk importers willing to subject their product safety and import process and supply chains to CPSC scrutiny” with “actual, significant” benefits including fewer examinations and data requests. Such a program “will allow the agency to focus limited resources on identifying bad actors and violative products without hampering those products from known, verified and, indeed, trusted importers,” it said. The letter also called for development of a CPSC federal advisory committee to address import surveillance, recall effectiveness, and information collection and management issues.