The Energy Department’s proposal to require the filing of additional data elements in ACE for products subject to energy efficiency standards is unnecessarily burdensome, and runs contrary to the federal government’s stated goal of simplifying the import process, said manufacturer and importer associations in comments submitted to the agency (here). The proposed rule results from a misunderstanding of the roles various parties play in the import process, seeking data from importers that is best and most easily – and already – submitted by manufacturers, they said.
The Department of Energy should withdraw its recently issued proposal to require the filing of “certifications of admissibility” at time of entry for products subject to energy efficiency standards (see 1512310008), or at least suspend the rulemaking process while it does “further analysis and significant outreach,” said several trade groups in comments. The Feb. 29 joint comments from the groups, which included CTA, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Information Technology Industry Council and National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America, were posted Friday.
The Department of Energy should withdraw its recently issued proposal to require the filing of “certifications of admissibility” at time of entry for products subject to energy efficiency standards (see 1512310008), or at least suspend the rulemaking process while it does “further analysis and significant outreach,” said several trade groups in comments. The Feb. 29 joint comments from the groups, which included CTA, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Information Technology Industry Council and National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America, were posted Friday.
The Department of Energy should withdraw its recently issued proposal to require the filing of “certifications of admissibility” at time of entry for products subject to energy efficiency standards (see 1512310008), or at least suspend the rulemaking process while it does “further analysis and significant outreach,” said several trade groups in comments. The Feb. 29 joint comments from the groups, which included CTA, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Information Technology Industry Council and National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America, were posted Friday.
The Energy Department should withdraw its recently issued proposal to require the filing of “certifications of admissibility” at time of entry for products subject to energy efficiency standards, or at least suspend the rulemaking process while it conducts “further analysis and significant outreach” said several trade groups in recently submitted comments (here). The joint comments from the trade groups, which include the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America, Consumer Technology Association and Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, were posted on March 11 (here).
Participants in the Environmental Protection Agency’s pilot on filing of pesticide shipment data in the Automated Commercial Environment are seeing a drastic reduction in processing times, according to Roy Chaudet of EPA’s Office of Environmental Information during a March 8 webinar. Only three slots are filled in the pilot, which is limited to nine participants, though several other filers are interested and getting ready to file their notices of arrival in ACE, he said.
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Feb. 22-26 in case they were missed.
The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (here), signed into law Feb. 24, includes an overhaul of current law on drawback, including provisions for substitute drawback at the eight-digit level and a uniform five-year deadline for claims. It also increases the de minimis limit to $800, exempts container residue from duties, and eliminates an exemption from import bans on goods produced with forced labor. Finally, the law holds CBP to stricter reliquidation timelines, and fixes legislation enacted last year that would have resulted in higher tariffs on recreational performance outerwear.
The Federal Maritime Commission wants public input on possible amendments to the agency's rules on service contracts and non-vessel operating common carrier service arrangements, it said in an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (here). Among the issues the agency is seeking comment on are its definition of "affiliate" within the regulations, an extension to the time a service contract correction request can be filed and possible "metadata" requirements for service contracts, it said. The FMC is also considering regulatory changes to allow "a service contract amendment to be filed individually and sequentially within 30 days of its effectiveness" or "any number of service contract amendments to be consolidated into a single document, but filed within 30 days of the effective date of the earliest of all amendments contained in the document." The FMC began work on the regulatory review in September of 2013 and "informally solicited views from various stakeholders in order to gather a broad range of perspectives," it said. Among those that provided comments were the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America, beneficial cargo owners, NVOCCs and shippers associations, it said. Comments are due March 30.
The Bureau of Industry and Security should modify a proposed rule that would “significantly” alter the factors that BIS considers when setting penalties in various enforcement cases, said the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America in comments to the agency (here). The group said the rule (see 1512240003) could harm forwarders, NVOCCs, and exporters that might have -- “inadvertently or not” -- violated the Export Administration Regulations. The proposed changes are meant to make administrative penalties more predictable and better aligned with those used by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, BIS said in December (here). NCBFAA said it appreciates BIS’ effort to mesh its penalty enforcement guidelines with OFAC’s, but argues that, if enacted, the rule could birth an “unduly rigid enforcement mechanism.” The organization asserts the proposed process appears to be less flexible than the current one, and it believes the rule will likely prompt more enforcement cases and boost penalty amounts.