Clarity Still Lacking in Controversial Energy Efficiency ACE Filing Proposal, Trade Groups Say
There remains insufficient rationale behind a Department of Energy proposal to require filing of “certifications of admissibility” in ACE at time of entry for products subject to energy efficiency standards, a group of trade associations told the DOE in June 10 comments (here). The notice "seems to indicate that DOE is planning to continue down the same misguided path to further regulate importers who are already compliant with DOE’s regulations for no definable purpose and with no achievable outcome," the groups said. The DOE reopened the comment period on the proposal after industry members voiced a wide range of concerns about the plan (see 1605130022).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
As was true of the original proposal, the DOE doesn't provide enough justification for the new energy conservation enforcement efforts, said the groups, which include the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America, the Business Alliance for Customs Modernization, the Consumer Technology Association and the National Retail Federation. "With the re-opening of the comment period, DOE did nothing to further define or substantiate the issue that the proposed rule attempts to address," the groups said. "Thus, we have nothing to add -- before we can offer constructive or useful feedback, DOE must first demonstrate, through data, that there is a problem." That lack of further information "is enough to require DOE to withdraw the proposed rule unless or until it can provide sufficient justification for the regulation," the groups said.
The DOE ought to do further outreach beyond an additional public comment period, the groups said. That should include "individual and broad communication with stakeholders" for DOE to define the issue it's working to resolve, the groups said. More coordination with CBP to make certain the proposal won't interfere with the coming mandatory filing deadlines with ACE is also necessary, the groups said. A CBP official recently said the agency is willing to let industry take the lead in responding to the proposal (see 1605260009). "Adding a substantially greater number of data fields for importers to complete with duplicative information will not bolster DOE’s internal import surveillance and enforcement capabilities and resources," the groups said. "It will only result in costly compliance for importers while failing to achieve the underlying goal of compliance with U.S. energy and water conservation standards."