The Census Bureau is halfway through closing filers out of the legacy AESDirect system as it prepares to close the system down on April 25, Census AESDirect liaison Theresa Gordon said during a March 23 meeting of the Bureau of Industry and Security’s Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee (RPTAC). Filers have submitted over 542,000 accepted shipments in ACE AESDirect since its November rollout, a 35 percent increase from the 400,000 shipments logged as of March 11 (see 1603110049). Gordon added that ACE AESDirect comprises more than 203,000 profiles, 10,030 filers, and 20,000 individual users, and has more than 84,000 stored templates. Census will review whether to impose a limit on templates as the system ramps up toward full usage, she said.

The Food and Drug Administration’s recent move to relax certain ACE data element requirements includes a more permanent change that will make filing of certain active pharmaceutical ingredient data optional, said FDA officials during a March 23 webinar. While the agency will only temporarily allow filing of a “UNK” code, indicating unknown, for intended use, brand name and device listing number data elements beginning April 5 (see 1603210028), the shift of the active ingredient producer data element from mandatory to optional will remain in place “for the foreseeable future,” said Sandra Abbott, director of FDA’s Division of Compliance Systems.

CBP issued the following releases on commercial trade and related matters:

CBP will allow the header level consignee number at the line level for "ACE entry summary input transaction[s] (App ID = AE)" in some cases, the agency said in a CSMS message (here). Currently, "a formal entry covering one or many sales with an ACE entry summary over $2,500 in value will require the input of valid party information (EIN number) at the line level," said CBP. "Because the sold to party information is not always known or provided at the line level to the filer," the header level consignee number can be used in some situations. When "the formal ACE entry summary is covering multiple sales, with some individual sales less than $2,500 and the EIN number of the sold to party type at the line level is not known or not provided to the filer, the header level consignee number should be transmitted in the ACE AE at that line level" said CBP. Also, "non-resident consignee (CBP assigned) numbers are also acceptable to be used in this manner and reported at the line level." CBP said this solution is temporary and it will address "name and address functionality" once it "can be prioritized for development.&qrduo;

CBP issued the following releases on commercial trade and related matters:

International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for March 14 - March 18 in case they were missed.

CBP New York/Newark released statistics in a pipeline notice showing the "cycle time measurement" of Centralized Examination Stations from October through December. The cycle times refer to the time from ocean container arrival, as transmitted via the Automated Commercial Environment, through final examination completion release date.

The Food and Drug Administration will allow filers to list "unknown" for some required data elements in ACE entries starting April 4, said CBP in a CSMS message (here). While currently listed as mandatory within the FDA's Supplemental Guidance, filers will be able to file entries in ACE without information on intended use code, brand name, device listing number and active ingredient producer, said CBP. "If filers are unable to obtain this information at the time of transmission, a value of 'UNK' (unknown) will be allowed to assist in the transition from ACS to ACE," said CBP. Also, "entity role code 'GD' is temporarily not required for the Active Ingredient Producer" as of April 4, CBP said. Those four data elements will continue to be required and "failure to transmit the complete information, including a value of 'UNK', will result in CBP rejecting the entry," CBP said. "If the correct information or UNK is provided, FDA may request documentation and further information about the entry. FDA highly encourages filers to transmit complete data sets, including Intended Use, Brand Name, Device Listing Number, and Active Ingredient Producer, when required by the specific commodity. Filers that transmit complete information will receive priority review of entries and an expedited review process."

CBP issued the following releases on commercial trade and related matters:

The Department of Energy should “abandon” or “at least, delay finalization,” of its proposed rule to require the filing of additional data elements in ACE for products subject to energy efficiency standards, the Consumer Technology Association said in recent comments (here). CTA objected to the proposed rule “in both substance and timing,” it said. “While all manufacturers and importers must comply with federal law and companies would also want their competitors to do so,” the proposed rule “is unnecessary and unsupported,” it said. The eight-page filing follows joint comments CTA filed Feb. 29 with other groups (see 1603140027), also asking DOE to withdraw the proposed rule or suspend the rulemaking process to do “further analysis and significant outreach.” Other commenters raised similar concerns (see 1603160021). There's “no evidence” DOE’s proposed rule is “necessary,” CTA said in its latest comments. DOE “has not provided any data that supports the allegation that importers across the board are disproportionately bringing non-compliant products into the country at a significant level,” CTA said. The proposed rule “only provides some anecdotal information about imported motors’ noncompliance,” it said. “CTA supports and applauds DOE’s efforts to stop noncompliance, if it is indeed occurring. Considering the high burden that the rule would impose on a vast number of importers, however, CTA asks that DOE provide statistical evidence substantiating its noncompliance concern with the imported products at issue prior to finalizing this rule.” CTA also said there's no evidence the proposed rule “will address the alleged underlying issue,” and the provisions would cover “an overly broad scope of product.” CTA also fears the proposed rule would violate World Trade Organization agreements barring international trade barriers, it said.