CBP Proposal for Broker Continuing Education Mostly Uncontroversial Among Commenters

Comments filed in response to CBP's proposal to require 36 hours of continuing education every three years for customs brokers were largely supportive and suggested only minor tweaks. As of Nov 16, there were 70 comments posted to the docket, which closed Nov. 9. Several of the filings copied language from the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America submission (see 2111010040).

DHL asked that CBP act as an accreditor of course materials and not limit that role to entities outside the government. That would allow CBP "to monitor the training that brokers are receiving" and provide "brokers with a secure accreditor to prevent disclosures of confidential business processes," the company said in its comments. The company is concerned about giving confidential information "to accreditors who may not have sufficient protections in place to prevent such data from being released to its competitors," it said. As an accreditor, CBP may also "be able to offer accreditation at a cost that is not overly burdensome to brokers preparing their own internal training. DHL is concerned that CBP may select an insufficient number of accreditors that could lead to significant accreditation costs for brokers who are preparing training for brokerage employees," it said.

CBP should also count participation in a federal advisory group as education credits, DHL said. "The participants in many of these committees dedicate a significant amount of their own time in participating in these committees," it said.

FedEx Trade Networks asked that CBP reconsider its position that the time spent on creating education materials doesn't count toward the requirements. "We encourage CBP to reconsider its position regarding the educational value of time spent publishing subject matter for an accredited course even if the license holder preparing the material is not an instructor, discussion leader, or speaker," the company said. "Such authors of accredited material for the continuing education of licensed brokers should also be eligible for the special allowance" permitted for instructors.

The U.S.Fashion Industry Association thinks CBP should keep in mind the effects of such rules on brokers that work within an importer. "USFIA believes that insufficient attention is paid to how an individual, not employed by a brokerage but working for an importer, interested in CE will be able to identify appropriate courses," the trade group said.. "The proposed rule indicates that qualifying CE will be available from government agencies or sources accredited by CBP-selected accreditors. USFIA strongly suggests that CBP maintain, and make easily available, lists of selected accreditors as well as accredited courses or programs."

Third-party accreditation shouldn't be required for all educational activities, the JFK Airport Customs Brokers and Freight Fowarders Association said in its comments. "We believe that educational activity (e.g., membership meetings, seminars and the like) offered by the JFK Association, as well as similarly-situated broker associations, should not require third-party accreditation in order to count towards the 36 hour requirement," it said. "These programs should automatically count similar programs offered by CBP. The JFK Association, again like most brokerage associations, is uniquely positioned to offer continuing education."

New education requirements will help customs brokers adjust to the changing demands of the job, Flexport said. "As we enter a more tech-driven economy, customs brokers will take on more important roles, advising clients on more advanced matters," the company said. "It’s actually already happening. Thus, continuing education unifies the industry around pillars of client service and global trade growth. It’s an obvious yes."