Fall 2014

SHIPPING / TRANSPORTATION

Half a billion for upgrades at the Port of Long Beach

Grace M. Lavigne, Associate Web Editor JOC| Sep 04, 2014

The Long Beach City Council approved an $858 million budget for the Port of Long Beach for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, with two-thirds set aside for a modernization program to keep the port competitive.

For the fiscal year, the Long Beach Harbor Department plans to spend $579 million on capital projects, part of a decade-long, $4 billion investment in port upgrades and efficiency improvements. The ongoing Gerald Desmond Bridge Replacement Project and Middle Harbor Terminal Redevelopment will continue to be the port’s largest construction projects.

The port, the second largest in the U.S. behind neighboring Los Angeles, hopes that improving older facilities and infrastructure will help keep it competitive at a time when threats loom from the 2016 expansion of the Panama Canal, fewer but larger ships and larger alliances that may choose to limit port calls. The Port of Long Beach’s container volume growth in the first half of 2014 slowed to 2.5 percent year-over-year, down from 14.2 percent year-over-year growth in the first half of 2013. Long Beach lost 0.3 percentage points on its first-half 2013 market share, handling 27.9 percent of all container throughput on the West Coast.

“To remain competitive, the port needs to continually reinvest in major facilities upgrades,” said Jon Slangerup, the port’s chief executive as of June, at a city council meeting this week. “We are proud that the Port of Long Beach remains financially strong.”

The Harbor Department receives no taxpayer revenue to operate. Port operations are supported by revenue from terminal leases and fees charged to terminal companies and shipping lines. Another source of revenue is grants from state and federal agencies for roadway, rail and security projects.

“Amid stiff competition,” the port said the budget projects revenue of $346.8 million in the coming year, on par with the current year’s revenues. The approved budget adds 28 new full-time positions, which include 20 in engineering to support capital improvements, and six to enhance port security. The budget also includes $30 million for environmental programs and projects such as technology-advancement demonstrations of a barge-based pollution-control system for ships at berth and an electric highway truck system.


Port congestion hits Asia, disrupting schedules

Congestion at ports across Asia is creating havoc with shipping schedules, forcing a major intra-Asia specialist to cancel rotations as it battles lengthy delays.

Robert Sallons, managing director of Cheng Lie Navigation Co. (CNC Line), told JOC.com the congestion was affecting the ports of Incheon in Korea, Qingdao and Shanghai in China, Hong Kong and Cat Lai in Vietnam.

“We operate with a 21-day port rotation but lose up to 12 days in Manila alone, so by the time we get to Cat Lai we are already bumping into the next rotation. Wait times in Hong Kong are 18 to 36 hours. It means we are forced to lose one rotation every 21 days,” he said.

CNC Line was acquired by French line CMA CGM in 2007 and operates exclusively in Asia. With a throughput of 850,000 TEUs in 2013, the line is expecting to carry 1 million 20-foot containers this year. However, the improving business environment is causing problems.

“The container volumes are strong in intra-Asia, the fuel price is down and freight rates are stable. But we are having to spend more money on schedule recovery than before. On long haul Asia-Europe services carriers can recover schedules between ports, but that cannot be done in Asia where the transit times are so much shorter. So we have to increase speed or slide services,” he said.

Another option carriers use when faced with regular port delays is to add an additional vessel to a string, but Sallons said this was not possible with the current delays.

“Normally we would add a fifth ship to a four-ship string to buffer any delays, but shorter voyages mean it would not work even with an extra vessel. And because volumes are so strong, port omissions are no longer viable.”

Part of the problem at the big gateway ports is that larger ships bring in more containers and need to stay longer. Sallons said other issues being faced by the ports included dense fog in Korea and northern China, monsoon rain and regular typhoons in the Philippines, and poor terminal design. The ports of Keelung, Incheon, Cat Lai, and Hong Kong’s Kwai Chung have limited space and can not cope efficiently with increasing volumes.

“Cat Lai is smack in the middle of Ho Chi Minh City, and at the port of Manila containers have to be trucked in and out through the city, causing congestion.”

Manila’s port congestion worsened after the municipal government imposed a daytime truck ban in February in an attempt to clear the Philippine capital’s notorious gridlock. All it did was bring the port to a standstill while doing little to free up the streets.

Michel Azrak, general manager of CMA CGM Philippines, said the average dwell time for import cargo at the port of Manila was now 12 days.

“All the depots are full and apart from the empties, there are many laden containers that consignees have not picked up,” he said.

The Philippines Ports Authority this week ordered shippers with customs-cleared containers in the port to collect their boxes or they would be shipped out to the ports of Batangas and Subic.

“All the shipping lines are facing the same situation,” Azrak said. “We don’t expect an improvement for at least another four months because customers will all start receiving their Christmas orders and early next year the Chinese New Year rush will begin.”

Persistent congestion has also clogged major gateway ports in the U.S. and Europe, where it is raising a debate about whether it’s just peak-season volumes causing delays in import shipments or the inability of ports to handle the sharp growth in container ship sizes. Nearly half of all post-Panamax ships saw delays of 12 hours or more at North and South American ports in July, according to a recent study released by CargoSmart.


FREIGHT RATES      Trans-Pacific Trade

Short Term: The majority of the carriers within the Trans-Pacific trade are planning to implement a General Rate Increase (referred to as “PSS” within the GOAL Tariff) to become effective October 15, 2014.  The announced levels are as follows;

From:  Asia Origin Ports        To: All USA Destinations and Points

Per 20’:        $480-540 (Amount can vary depending on carrier)

Per 40’:        $600.00

Per HQ:       $675.00

Per 45’:        $760.00

As has been the case for the past several years, GRI’s or PSS’s can prove to be volatile and are subject to modification based on market conditions. Traditional peak and slack seasons are no longer valid due to multiple factors within the market. Due to the volatility of ocean pricing, we strongly recommend that Partners utilize NRA’s as the pricing model for your clients. Please feel free to contact Tony Kozlowski if you would need any assistance with NRA’s.

Extended: Recently announced new alliances between CMA CGM, China Shipping, and United Arab Shipping Company (termed the “O3”) and Maersk and Mediterranean Shipping (termed the “2M”) are anticipated to have a significant impact on major east-west trades beginning in 2015. These carriers have massive vessels on their order book (several in the capacity range of 17,700 – 19,000 TEU) and are banking that the efficiencies, economies of scale, and lower per unit costs for these mega vessels will allow them to return to profitability. Certainly Maersk Lines announced first-half profit of nearly $1.1 billion would lend some credibility to this line of reasoning.  

It is anticipated that the moves by O3 and 2M will put pressure on the G-6 and CKYHE alliances to also order more massive vessels so as to be able to enjoy the same costs advantages to allow them to compete – which could lead to additional over-capacity on the major east-west trades. It is expected that ship capacity will increase by 7.3 percent in 2015 but demand grown is predicted to only increase by 5.5 percent. Depending on the actions of the G-6 and CYKHE alliances, over-capacity could plague the trade for a few more years.

For assistance or information please contact: Tony Kozlowski, 562-244-6767,  tonyk@goaltrans.com


Rails prep for winter to avoid another Chicago meltdown

The unseasonably cold front that moved through Chicago last weekend provided railroads and shippers a chilly reminder that the rail meltdown seen in winter 2013-2014 could occur again.

How carload and intermodal freight moves through the top U.S. freight hub (and bottleneck) depends not only on the severity of the weather but also on whether the railroad’s revamped approach to interchanging cargo connects. If railroads’ plans don’t succeed in mitigating the congestion caused by cold and harsh weather in the Midwest, shippers could once again see intermodal rail service plummet.

And, as this year has proved, service is hard to restore when volume, both carload and intermodal, keeps building. The U.S. rail industry is hoping a mixture of capacity improvements, more employees and a new approach to triggering operational plans in Chicago will help them maintain service reliability.

“The railroads now have implemented a system where certain metrics for terminals, lines and weather will trigger a certain plan,” Jack Koraleski, Union Pacific Railroad chairman, president and CEO, wrote to the U.S. Surface Transportation Board on Sept. 15. “We believe this new process will allow the railroads to respond better in Chicago.”

In the past, all the railroads with lines connecting to Chicago had to agree that a plan was warranted, and gaining consensus sometimes proved “difficult and time-consuming, he said. As requested by the STB, UP, along with the other six Class I railroads that connect in Chicago, told the U.S. rail regulatory agency how they would reduce Chicago congestion and the resulting disruption to supply chains.

UP is prepping its internal winter response plan soon, Koraleski said. Starting Nov. 29 and through April 2, 2015, UP will operate 24-7 command centers in every unit along its Northern Corridor, which includes Chicago. UP plans to ramp up its workforce serving Chicago, with half of the 3,200 train engine and yard employees it will hire this year headed to its Northern Corridor. Three hundred and fifty of those new employees will work in the Chicago area.

“These command centers will decrease our response time for addressing operating issues, such as broken rails, snow removal and frozen switches,” he said.

Like UP, BNSF sees communications among the industry and with the Chicago Transportation Coordination Office as key to speeding up the interchange of cargo in the Windy City. Inconsistent train arrivals cause bunching of traffic flows in and out of Chicago, requiring management to control “flows to and from other connecting railroads at multiple junction points,” BNSF President and CEO Carl Ice told the STB. He said the railroad is also working with its interchange partners — namely CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern Railway — to find ways to divert cargo not destined for Chicago.

“The goal of this effort is to create an operating plan that consists only of a crew change to achieve greater velocity gains,” said Ice, who added BNSF is also building more interchange track to speed the hand-off of freight to eastern carriers.

CSX told the STB that its acquisition of the operating easement, known as the Elsdon Subdivision, from the Grand Trunk Western Railroad will enhance network fluidity and capacity in the Chicago area. The early 2014 opening of the Elsdon Subdivision — a roughly 22-mile track running from Munster, Indiana, to the southern Chicago and up north into the city — helped alleviate congestion during the last winter, said Michael Ward, chairman, CEO and president of CSX.

“Despite that positive impact, the full integration of the Elsdon (line) into CSX’s network continues as we train crews over the new routes and fully assimilate the  new lines teams.” Ward said.

While the railroad’s winter preparation plans are crucial, how well they can restore fluidity in Chicago before the snow hits the ground and temperatures drop below zero is also important. CSX and UP are only railroads to report to the Association of American Railroads the average time loaded railcars dwell at its Chicago railyards, which is a good indicator of rail performance, and intermodal units tends to move faster than railcars. But even that limited metric gives an indication of how much slower traffic is moving through the city — even nearly six months after winter recedes.

The average time a loaded railcar rested at its Chicago railyard was 15.6 hours in the third quarter of 2013, compared with 18.2 hours in August. For UP, the average time was 34.4 hours in the July through September 2013 period, and 42.5 hours in August.

IMPORT / EXPORT

EXPORT FAQ

What is the difference between EAR99 and NLR?

It is a common misconception that the terms are interchangeable and mean the same thing. EAR99 is a classification, NLR is a designation. Just because an export is EAR99 does not automatically signify it is NLR and vice versa.

EAR99 is a classification for an item. It indicates that a particular item is subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), but not listed with a specific Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) on the Commerce Control List (CCL). While the classification describes the item, the authorization for shipment of that item may change, depending on the transaction. NLR is the designator of a transaction that stands for the "No License Required" authorization. NLR may be used for either EAR99 items, or items on the CCL that do not require a license for the destination in question, provided no General Prohibitions apply.

For more information: http://usexportcompliance.com/FAQear.htm#EAR99

Forwarders find China’s VAT system 'clear as mud’

International freight forwarders that qualify for VAT exemption in China are complaining that the new system is unclear, drastically increases their administration work and leaves them with mountains of documents to file with the China Tax Bureau.

“We need an agreement with the shipper stating that the cargo is being exported from China. Once that is granted we have to get the agreement from the shipper for each and every transaction,” said a Hong Kong forwarder that has six offices on the mainland. Because of the sensitive nature of the subject, he did not wish to be identified.

“At the end of every month I need to list the port of loading, the port of discharge overseas, the contents, the bill of lading, everything relating to that single shipment. That list has to show all shipments for which we have agreements and are therefore exempted from VAT. We do a couple of thousand a month and it is an administrative nightmare to keep up.”

The VAT system was implemented nationwide in August last year, replacing business tax and theoretically streamlining the tax collection operation. In reality, it is creating confusion, especially among forwarders that qualify for exemption if part of their income from providing a service is obtained overseas.

According to Robert Smith, Asia Pacific and greater China indirect tax leader at Ernst & Young, China’s VAT system is one of the most complex in the world “and requires significant efforts to stay on top of the changing environment.”

Working with VAT in China requires more transactions, more documentation, more paper, more invoices, more steps in the process, more data, more returns, more involvement of the China Tax Bureau — which was overwhelming for smaller companies.

The Hong Kong forwarder said he had six accountants looking at the VAT regulations and tried to get them to explain the system. “After an hour I just had a headache. It is as clear as mud and so complicated,” he said.

A steady stream of VAT reform regulatory updates are issued by the China Tax Bureau and its state and municipal offices, making the system hard to follow, ambiguous and prone to misinterpretation. There is constant dialogue and attempts to seek clarification and guidance between forwarders and the tax authorities, but finding the correct person and receiving clear answers is rare.

It is not just the smaller forwarders that are struggling for clarity. Joerg Hoppe, director and head of ocean freight for north and central China at DB Schenker, said the VAT system was unclear and subject to varied interpretation by respective local financial authorities.

“We are cautiously proceeding under the assumption that charges for ‘international freight movements’ — there also is no clear governmental definition of what that includes or excludes — are VAT exempt,” he said.

Holger Stoelker, former managing director at logistics provider Leschaco China (he has subsequently moved on), said VAT reform continued to be a hot topic on the mainland. “There is still a lot of uncertainty around on how to handle this for international logistics companies,” he said.

Kevin Lam, Kerry Logistics director of international freight forwarding in China, said the latest updated policy was released in July in which freight forwarding business, both internationally or between local agents, could enjoy tax exemption, “so there should be positive effect on the tax burden of freight forwarders.”

This is subject to change, of course. “Since it was announced by the State Tax Bureau, we are still waiting for the Municipal Tax Bureau's confirmation at the moment,” he said.


Imports of Tree Bark and KILLER BEETLES

No, we’re not talking about the band from Liverpool.

The most notorious stowaway on and in shipments from Asia is the Longhorn Beetle.  This and many of his friends have hitched a ride to the U.S. and are devastating our trees and other vegetation.  In an effort to control the buggers from getting into or on our import shipments, CBP and Agriculture has focused attention on goods that are made from or have real tree bark attached.  For a period of time all import shipments that contained tree bark were banned from importation and either destroyed or exported out of the country.

There is now good news for importing goods with tree bark!

Karen Sperry, Customs and Border Protection Agricultural Specialist at the port of Milwaukee has shared the following information for importing goods that are made from or incorporate real tree bark.  The following will be required to release an import shipment containing bark:

1.  A USDA Permit issued to the importer (recommended to apply 30 days in advance of importing)

2. The tree species of the bark may be required, (the permit would specify, or you may ask the permit unit)

3.  Documentation that would prove the bark was heat or steam treated to 56 °C (133 °F) or higher for 30 minutes or longer; or the temperature of the center of the bark was raised to at least 71.1 °C (160 °F) for at least 75 minutes such that the moisture content of the bark is 20% or less as measured by an electrical conductivity meter. 

4.  The goods cannot be commingled with other regulated materials (other than solid wood packing materials) unless the chips and the other regulated articles are in separate holds or in a separate sealed container.

5.   All pallets and other regulated wood packing materials used in the shipment are subject to inspection and must conform to 7 CFR 319.40-3.

For Permit Information related to forest products.

Additional information that may be helpful regarding imports of regulated items.

And in a related story: A 10-foot-tall pine tree in Los Angeles Griffith Park, dedicated in 2004 with a plaque to the late musician George Harrison, was recently destroyed by an infestation, and another will be planted in its place, according to a city councilman. The infestation was by beetles. CBS News, 7-22-2014


Children’s Products
The Impact of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA)

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) is a law that impacts Importers of products sold to or used by children. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has a web site devoted to the CPSIA  http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/cpsia.html  and  http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/cpsia.HTML#bytopic

Defining Toys and Child Care Articles

Children’s Toy: Is a product intended for a child 12 or younger for use when playing.

Excludes: Bikes, Playground equipment, musical instruments, sporting goods (except for their toy counterparts).

Child Care Article:  A product that a child 3 and younger would use for sleeping, feeding or teething.

Examples: Pacifier/teether, Sippy Cup, Bib, Crib Mattress, Children’s sleepwear.

Identifying Children’s Products

There are four factors in determining whether a product is designed or intended for use by children 12 years of age and younger.

1) A statement by the manufacturer about the intended use of the product, including a label on the product stating the same.

2) If the product is represented in its packaging, display or promotion or advertising as appropriate for use by a specified age group.

3) If the product is commonly recognized by consumers as being intended for use by a child of the ages specified; and

4) The Age Determining Guidelines issued by the commission staff in Sept 2002.

More simply though a children’s product is defined as a “consumer product designed or intended primarily for children 12 years of age and younger.

Web site for definition can be located at: http://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/120425/northup09292010.pdf  

Children's products, which are most strongly affected, are not just products designed and intended specifically for children 12 years of age and younger. Children's products can also be considered any products with packaging, promotions, or advertising that displays their product as appropriate for children 12 and younger. This means that if a product designed for adults is being used by a child in an advertisement, it will then be regulated the same as a children's product.

Children’s Metal Jewelry

·         Lead rules apply to all children’s products, including Jewelry.

·         Third party testing required

·         Children’s metal jewelry may or may not also be a “children’s toy”.

Labeling (Tracking Labels)

Manufacturers must affix a permanent label on their product so that the ultimate purchaser can ascertain when and where the product was manufactured and tested.

The law requires that markings with the specified information be permanent. Hangtags and adhesive labels are not permanent.

Tracking labels will be required for products if they are primarily intended for children 12 years of age or younger. The label must be on the product (only once) and on the packaging.

Required information for labeling

·         Manufacturer or private labeler

·         location of the product

·         date of production 

·         cohort information (if applicable) (including the batch, run number, or other identifying characteristic)

Mandatory Testing

The legislation requires that every manufacturer of a product subject to a consumer product safety rule will provide a "General Conformity Certificate" to certify, based on unit testing or a reasonable testing program, that the product complies with all safety rules. This requirement was imposed on every product manufactured on or after 12 November 2008. The certificate must:

1. be in English

2. list the name, address, and phone number of the manufacturer, importer, and/or private labeler issuing the certificate and any third party testing facility

3. list the date and place of manufacture and date and place of testing

4. list the contact information of the records keeper

5. list each applicable rule, standard, and ban

These certificates must accompany the product through the distribution chain through the retailer. They must be available to the CPSC during any inspection (not an entry requirement but a copy should be in the import file).

Children's products are singled out for third party testing by this Act.

General Conformity Certificate

A general certification requirement is sometimes called a “supplier’s declaration of conformity.” These general conformity certifications do not need to be based on testing done by a third-party laboratory. Certification must be based on a test of the product or a “reasonable testing program.” This new general certification requirement goes into effect on November 12, 2008.

·         What must be covered by a certificate?

o    Any consumer product imported or distributed in commerce if the product is subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA/CPSIA or any similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation enforced by CPSC.

Third-Party Testing of Children's Products

The new legislation imposes an additional third-party testing requirement for all consumer products primarily intended for children twelve years of age or younger. Every manufacturer (including an importer) or private labeler of a children’s product must have its product tested by an accredited independent testing lab and, based on the testing, must issue a certificate that the product meets all applicable CPSC requirements.

CPSC is given authority either to accredit laboratories (“third party conformity assessment bodies”) for doing the required testing of children’s products or to designate independent accrediting organizations to accredit the testing laboratories, with one exception. The Commission itself must accredit laboratories that are controlled by the manufacturer of the children’s product in question. To assure their impartiality, government labs must also meet strict standards of independence. The CPSC must maintain an up-to-date list of accredited labs on its web site. CPSC has authority to suspend or terminate a laboratory’s accreditation in appropriate circumstances.

The third-party testing and certification requirements for children’s products are phased in on a rolling schedule. The statute requires the CPSC to issue laboratory accreditation regimes for different categories of children’s products. Once the CPSC issues the laboratory accreditation requirement for that category of children’s products, each children’s product in that category that is manufactured more than ninety days after that date must be tested and certified to the applicable requirements. The schedule for CPSC to issue the laboratory accreditation requirements and the certification schedule is set forth on the timeline shown in the chart below.

Accredited 3rd part laboratories can be found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cgi-bin/labsearch/  

Certificates

The required certificates, whether general conformity certificates or certificates for children’s products based on third-party testing, must be in English and also may be in another language. They must include information on the identity of the manufacturer or private labeler of the product, the testing laboratory, and the date and place of manufacturing and testing the product. 

Products without the required certificate cannot be imported or distributed in commerce in the United States. The certificate must accompany the product or product shipment and must be available to CPSC and Customs and Border Protection upon request. Failure to furnish the certificate or furnishing a false certificate can subject the manufacturer or private labeler to civil and criminal penalties. 

CPSC LEAD TESTING EXEMPTIONS

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has voted to approve a list of products that are now exempt from lead testing for children's products under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). CPSC commissioners agreed that the following items do not exceed the CPSIA lead limits and therefore are not subject to those limits or the related testing requirements 

Textiles (excluding after-treatment applications, e.g., screen prints, transfers, decals or other prints) consisting of natural fibers or manufactured fibers, whether dyed or undyed. For apparel items, this means that fabric and yarn will be exempt from lead testing but not metal or plastic findings, trimmings, fasteners, buttons, zippers, etc.

Other plant-derived and animal-derived materials; i.e., wood, natural fibers, coral, amber, feathers, fur, untreated leather, bone, sea shell, animal glue, bee's wax, seeds, nut shells, flowers and bone, provided these materials are not treated with any chemicals or surface coating.

Paper and similar materials made from wood or other cellulosic fiber, including paperboard, linerboard and medium, and coatings on such paper that become part of the substrate.

Printing inks using the modern CMYK printing process (excluding spot colors, other inks that are not used in CMYK process, inks that do not become part of the substrate, and inks used in after-treatment applications, including screen prints, transfers, decals or other prints) and the paper used in books. The CPSC also determined that adhesives and binding materials used in children's books will normally be inaccessible and therefore fall within the inaccessibility exception to the lead limits.

Precious gemstones, semiprecious gemstones and other minerals (excluding any mineral based on lead or lead compounds, including aragonite, bayldonite, boleite, cerussite, crocoite, galena, phosgenite, vanadinite and wulfenite).

Natural or cultured pearls.

Metals and alloys, including surgical steel and precious metals.

The CPSC stated that the determination that these products do not contain lead does not relieve the products from lead testing if the product or material is altered or modified so as to exceed the lead content limits.

Lead

The legislation reduces the limit of lead allowed in surface coatings or paint to 90 ppm (from the current limit of 600 ppm) effective on 14 August 2009.

The legislation reduces the amount of total lead content in children's products to

·         600 ppm by 10 February 2009

·         300 ppm by 14 August 2009

·         100 ppm by 14 August 2011

Phthalates

As of February 10, 2009, it shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture for sale, distribute in commerce, or import any children's toy or childcare article that contains the phthalates, DBP or BBP at levels higher than 0.1 percent.

The legislation bans from any children's toy that can be put in a child's mouth or childcare articles phthalates DINP, DIDP and DnOp at levels higher than 0.1%.

Frequently Asked Questions for third party testing (from CPSC web site).

General Certification of Conformity

Can electronic certificates be used to meet the requirements of Section 102 rather than paper?

The Commission has issued a rule specifically allowing use of an electronic certificate provided the Commission has reasonable access to it, it contains all of the information required by section 102 of the CPSIA, and it complies with the other requirements of the rule. The rule is available on the CPSC World Wide Web site at http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr09/certification.pdf

Who must issue the certificate?

Under the Commission's rule at http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr09/certification.pdf, for products manufactured overseas, the certificate must be issued by the importer. For products produced outside the United States, the certificate must be issued by the U.S. manufacturer. Neither a foreign manufacturer nor a private labeler is required to issue a certificate. Neither need be identified on the certificate issued by the importer or domestic manufacturer. 

Must each shipment be "accompanied" by a certificate?

Yes, the law requires that each import (and domestic manufacturer) shipment be "accompanied" by the required certificate. The requirement applies to imports and products manufactured domestically. Under the rule issued by the Commission an electronic certificate is "accompanying" a shipment if the certificate is identified by a unique identifier and can be accessed via a World Wide Web URL or other electronic means, provided the URL or other electronic means and the unique identifier are created in advance and available with the shipment. Certificates can also be transmitted electronically to a broker with other customs entry documents before a shipment arrives so long as they are available to the Commission or Customs and Border Protection staff if the product or shipment is inspected. 

Is the importer or U.S. manufacturer required to supply the certificate to its distributors and retailers?

Yes. The importer or U.S. manufacturer is required to "furnish" the certificate to its distributors and retailers. The Commission's rule states that this requirement is satisfied if the importer or U.S. manufacturer provides its distributors and retailers a reasonable means to access the certificate. 

Must the certifier(s) sign the certificate?

No. Issuing the certificate satisfies the new law. It does not have to be signed by the issuer(s).

On what does my certification have to be based?

The general conformity certification must be based on a test of each product or a reasonable testing program.

Where must these certificates be filed?

A certificate does not have to be filed with the government. As noted above, the certificate must "accompany" the product shipment, and be "furnished" to distributors and retailers, and be furnished to CPSC upon request.  

Are youth ATVs subject to the third party testing requirements of section 102(a)(2)? And if so, when?

Section 102(a)(2) requires third party testing for children’s products that are subject to a children’s product safety rule. A children’s product is a consumer product designed or intended primarily for a child 12 years of age or younger (see section 232(a)). Thus, youth ATVs intended primarily for children 12 years of age or younger will need to comply with the third party testing requirements of section 102(a)(2). This will require third party testing for compliance to the new ATV standard. A manufacturer’s certification based on that testing requirement will be required 90 days after the Commission publishes accreditation requirements for testing laboratories that will test conformity to the ATV standard.


ASIAN HOLIDAYS

Hong Kong

National Day

1-2 Oct. 2014

China

National Day

1-7 Oct. 2014

Taiwan

Double Tenth Festival

10 Oct. 2014

Malaysia

Hari Raya Haji

5-6 Oct. 2014

Indonesia

Eid al-Adha

5 Oct. 2014

Korea

National Foundation Day

3 Oct. 2014

Hangul Proclamation Day

9 Oct. 2014

The Goal Newsletter is an online international trade information service, published electronically by Goal (publisher) The publisher has taken all reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of the content of this site. The publisher does not and will not at any time accept any responsibility or otherwise be liable for any loss or damage whatsoever that you may suffer as a result information contained in this newsletter. Links are provided for your convenience only. Accessing links to third party Web sites and use of or reliance upon third party material is solely at your own risk.

NOTE: Information contained herein is of necessity a summary of complicated and fact-specific issues. It is not intended to convey legal advice, and receipt of it does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship. Before you act on any information provided in this document, you should seek professional advice regarding its applicability to your specific circumstances.

Copyright © 2014 Goal - All Rights Reserved