Trade Groups Nervous About FWS Approach to ACE

The Fish and Wildlife Service should reconsider its approach to ACE so as to not add several new burdens to industry filers, a group of trade associations said in a Nov. 16 letter to FWS Director Dan Ashe (here). The groups, including the National Retail Federation, the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the FWS International Trade Data System pilot "has raised a number of concerns about the entry process and the long-term implications that could adversely affect both the agency and the industry." Among the concerns are an increase in the tariff subheadings flagged by FWS as requiring some type of filer action and the end to the Non-Designated Port Exemption Permit (DPEP) (see 1611140019). "We believe it is critical that these issues are addressed before any new mandatory ACE requirement is issued by FWS," the associations said.

The FWS pilot seems to lack the efficiency improvements included in other Partner Government Agency pilots, the groups said. "FWS is dramatically increasing the universe of products being flagged, as opposed to reducing this universe by focusing on the most high-risk products through a risk management approach," the trade groups said. "Under the current FWS pilot, 2,023 HTS numbers will now require FWS data in the ACE environment where only 440 of these HTS numbers were targeted previously. In addition, the amount of information required, especially for domesticated animal products that are not subject to FWS enforcement, and the complexity of this information, much of which does not currently exist in the supply chain, will undoubtedly delay cargo and cause undue expense."

Also troubling are the number of new HTS subheadings said by FWS to indicate further reporting requirements, the groups said in the letter. The FWS should clarify how it decided which HTS numbers require such data reporting, they said. The disclaim process, which filers use to tell an agency that further information isn't required despite a flagged entry, also poses some problems. "We believe this will put an undue burden on both the agency as well as importers and their brokers, with little benefit to protecting wildlife or endangered species." FWS didn't immediately comment.

The end to the DPEP program, which allowed for FWS-regulated goods to enter at ports with no FWS staff present, "severely curtails the number of ports through which FWS products or products containing FWS components may be imported," the trade associations said. "Importers build very complex supply chains that align by port based upon previously established distribution centers, not the location of FWS inspectors. Eliminating the DPEP and forcing importers to route their cargo through a limited number of ports that are outside of the importers' normal alignment will substantially increase logistics costs, add administrative burden, and require additional lead time impacting logistics processes as well as sourcing and procurement processes, again with limited benefit to increasing protection for wildlife or endangered species."