DOE Reopens Period for Comments on Controversial Energy Efficiency ACE Filing Proposal
The Energy Department is reopening until June 15 the period for comments on its proposal to require filing of “certifications of admissibility” in ACE at time of entry for products subject to energy efficiency standards, in a notice (here). The agency is seeking input on “how to minimize the burden of data collection to importers of covered products or equipment subject to an applicable energy conservation standard, while at the same time providing DOE with traceability information sufficient to determine whether a covered import is one that the DOE has previously identified as noncompliant” and give CBP a description of the import so the border agency can refuse admission, said the notice.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
DOE said it is considering alternatives to the data elements it identified in its controversial Dec. 29 proposed rule (see 1512290020). Among these are the brand name and basic model number of the product or equipment as reported in the most recent CCMS certification submission; the brand name and individual model number of the product or equipment as reported in the most recent CCMS certification submission; or a SKU code, Universal Product Code, International Article Number, or Global Trade Item Number.
Commenters have expressed concern about DOE’s proposal to require information for component parts (see 1603160021), noted DOE, which says it “welcomes comments on alternatives, including alternatives that would reduce importer burden, such as allowing the importer to identify the range of possible component part basic models.” However, “importers should be aware that this approach could potentially result in a greater impact by having CBP stop shipments that may not contain noncompliant products due to the importer’s choice to group multiple basic models into a single identifier.’
(Federal Register 05/16/16)