The National Association of Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America will lose Executive Vice President barbara reilly, the trade group said March 21 (here). Effective June 7, reilly will end her 16-year tenure with the NCBFAA, said the association. "Preparations are currently underway to conduct a search for a replacement," it said.

Port operators and longshoremen should get an early start on negotiations over the next west coast contract to avoid the disruptions that plagued west coast ports in 2014, said a group of over 100 trade organizations in a letter to the Pacific Maritime Association and International Longshore and Warehouse Union dated March 15 (here). With the current contract set to expire in 2019, there remain “important and difficult issues” to resolve, and talks should “begin as early as possible in order to lay the groundwork for a new contract, or contract extension, without major disruption,” said the trade groups, which included the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America, American Association of Exporters and Importers and American Apparel & Footwear Association. Both sides should also “pledge to avoid actions that would slow, stop, or disrupt cargo movement during negotiations,” said the letter.

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).

While some experts said the FCC has a golden opportunity to impose rules on ISPs to provide greater consumer privacy, others said during a Future of Privacy Forum discussion Thursday that stringent regulations would unfairly target one group in a much larger Internet ecosystem. That day, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler circulated a draft NPRM on ISP privacy for a March 31 vote, which observers expect to be contentious (see 1603100037).

While some experts said the FCC has a golden opportunity to impose rules on ISPs to provide greater consumer privacy, others said during a Future of Privacy Forum discussion Thursday that stringent regulations would unfairly target one group in a much larger Internet ecosystem. That day, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler circulated a draft NPRM on ISP privacy for a March 31 vote, which observers expect to be contentious (see 1603100037).

A proposal by ISPs on privacy rules included groups representing nearly all ISPs (see 1603010069) except wireless ISPs, said Robert Quinn, AT&T senior vice president-federal, in a blog post Wednesday. FTC oversight has worked well, Quinn said. “All major ISPs have enacted privacy policies which explain to consumers the information that ISPs collect and how that data is used,” he said. “At AT&T, we’ve continued to simplify our policy, including several years ago when we went to a single comprehensive privacy policy that describes plainly and simply the information we collect, how we collect it and how we use it.” Quinn said he was AT&T chief privacy officer for several years and can say firsthand “we take customer privacy and how we communicate our polices to our customers seriously.” But some groups are pushing for much stricter rules than ISPs have faced in the past (see 1603070049), Quinn said. “To get there, those groups have characterized ISPs as ‘gatekeepers,’ asserted that ISPs (as opposed to companies like Google) are the real leaders of targeted advertising and, finally, argued that the Federal Trade Commission is, in essence, incompetent at policing privacy given the tools they have available.” Those arguments aren't supported by the facts, he said, though he warned the FCC may be listening. “Time and time again, the FCC appears to want to place its thumb on the scale in favor of Internet companies and against the companies that invest in broadband infrastructure in this country,” he wrote. “Last year, it was the Title II proceeding. Last month, we were talking about set-top boxes, this month it’s privacy, next month it could be special access.” The FCC did not comment. "I’ve characterized ISPs as ‘gatekeepers’ because that is what they are,” said John Simpson, Consumer Watchdog privacy project director, responding to Quinn. “Edge providers like Google and Facebook do pose serious privacy concerns, but that is no justification for not dealing with the privacy issues raised by ISPs and their unique position. That is what the FCC is legally bound to do now that broadband providers are classified as common carriers.” The FTC has tried to protect consumers' privacy, “but because it doesn’t have rulemaking authority in this area and can only move against ‘unfair and deceptive’ acts, its powers are limited,” Simpson said. “The phone and cable ISP industry is totally disingenuous claiming that the use of privacy policies is an effective way to protect consumers,” said Center for Digital Democracy Executive Director Jeffrey Chester. “These companies are engaged in significant cross device tracking and targeting using their advantage over subscriber information. They are expanding their work with data brokers, acquiring powerful consumer data assets, and are engaged in practices that threaten the privacy of their customers. The FCC has to step in before these broadband giants further invade our privacy.”