Express Carriers Call for Collaborative Approach to CPSC Electronic Certificate System
Consumer Product Safety Commission Chairman Elliot Kaye remains fully committed to electronic filing of certificates of compliance, and prefers a data elements approach rather than use of CBP’s Document Imaging System, Kaye said during a meeting at CPSC headquarters on Sept. 9. But with a public workshop on electronic certificates of compliance fast approaching, industry members told Kaye that CPSC needs to work closely with the trade to come up with a system that gives CPSC the information it needs to effectively target risk without crippling express couriers’ ability to quickly process shipments. The meeting included representatives from the the Express Association of America, National Retail Federation, FedEx and DHL.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Several participants in the intimate meeting with CPSC staff said the commission could look to CBP’s implementation of Air Cargo Advance Screening to inform its own efforts on electronic certificates. ACAS was the fruit of close collaboration between air carriers and CBP, only taking about two months from the bomb threat that prompted the program until the first data was transmitted. CBP was open about what security risks were and what it needed, so industry, which knows its own systems best, was able to come up with the quickest and easiest way to effectively get the required data to the agency, said the industry representatives. “It was a real testament of what can be done when there is an urgent need, and people are flexible,” said Mike Mullen, executive director of EAA. “And CBP was very flexible.”
Part of the response to the bomb threat that spawned ACAS included the sharing of individual shipment data by CBP, but that level of information sharing may be impossible for CPSC, said Kaye. The commission is restricted from sharing detailed information on product issues by Section 6(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, he said. Without a change to the underlying law, CPSC is not able to get that sort of information to industry within the timeframe industry could act, said Kaye. And while shippers may find the information useful, other segments of industry, such as the retail sector, might oppose such efforts, said Jonathan Gold of the National Retail Federation.
During the meeting, Mullen and several other industry representatives listed several desired features of any system for filing electronic certificates of compliance. At the top of the list is that the actual importer, and not the importer of record, should be responsible for certifying compliance with product safety standards, said Mullen. Echoing criticisms from other industry associations, including the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America (see 13073014), Mullen said requiring customs brokers to certify compliance when they serve as importer of record would put the responsibility on a party that has little knowledge of the product and its safety risks. Some customs brokers might just stop handling certain products entirely in order to avoid liability, said Mullen.
Mullen also reiterated an industry suggestion that CPSC create a list of products for which certificates of compliance are required. The list should identify products by Harmonized Tariff Number to make it convenient for importers, he said.
Both Kaye and the industry representatives said they hope to continue discussions on electronic filing at the public workshop scheduled for Sept. 18 (see 14070226). A change to Part 1110 rules on certificates of compliance is inevitable, said Kaye. The rules need an update because of recent changes to related regulations, he said. But whether CPSC adopts its controversial proposed rule as final (see 13051018), or issues a new proposal, could depend on the feedback it receives at the workshop, said Kaye.