Revised CPSC Rule on the Retesting of Compliant Clothing Textiles

In response to multiple requests from the clothing textile industry to reduce the need to retest clothing textiles already tested and found to be in compliance with CPSC regulations, it has amended its rule with respect to flammability testing.

Effective today, April 22, 2011, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has revised its terms under which the agency will accept flammability test certifications for children’s products based on third party accredited test labs.

Specifically, it will accept, for children’s product certification purposes, tests conducted by accredited third party labs since August 18, 2009 (pursuant to 16 CFR Part 1610).

CPSCs rationale was based simply upon the nature of the wearing apparel industry, in that it recognized there could be a significant time lapse between fabric testing and the actual making of a garment.

At issue, was the acceptance of tests undertaken by a now-CPSC-accredited test lab, prior to its accreditation, but after August 18, 2009. Testing under these circumstances has been referred to by the CPSC as “restrospective” testing.

Rather than causing these already tested fabrics to undergo subsequent tests, however, CPSC has instead revised its position on “retrospective” testing in order to reduce the need for redundant testing.

In order to avoid the retest and issuance of new certifications, the following conditions* must apply:

• At the time of product testing, the product was tested by a third party conformity assessment body that was ISO/IEC 17025 accredited by an accreditation body that is a signatory to the ILAC–MRA;

• The third party conformity assessment body’s application for testing using the test methods in 16 CFR Part 1610 is accepted by the CPSC on or before November 16, 2010;

• The product was tested under 16 CFR Part 1610 on or after August 18, 2009;

• The accreditation scope in effect for the third party conformity assessment body at the time of testing expressly included testing to 16 CFR Part 1610;

• The test results show compliance with the applicable current standards and/or regulations; and

• The third party conformity assessment body’s accreditation, including inclusion in its scope of 16 CFR Part 1610, remains in effect through the effective date for mandatory third party testing and manufacturer certification for conformity with 16 CFR Part 1610.

* CPSC Docket No. CPSC-2010-0086, 76 FR 22608 (4/22/11)

Questions/comments? Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com

Advance Filing of Cargo Data (AMS)

I attended a conference recently on international law at St. John’s University Law School. Actually, it was nice to get out there as I had yet to visit the campus despite having considered going there for law school back in the 1990s.

One of the panelists, specifically referencing the DOHA Development Agenda, spoke about how, in his estimation, international trade law was designed as a counter-terrorist measure. For more on DOHA, click here.

Counter-terrorism activity is the number one initiative of US Customs and in furtherance of this, it has a requirement (one of many) that it must receive, by way of it’s Automated Manifest System (AMS), information pertaining to a shipment before the cargo is either brought into or sent from the US by any mode of commercial transportation (sea, air, rail or truck).

According to US Customs, the cargo information required is that which is reasonably necessary to enable high-risk shipments to be identified for purposes of ensuring cargo safety, security, and the prevention of smuggling, pursuant to the laws enforced and administered by the agency. The specific inward foreign manifest (advance filing of cargo declaration - AMS) requirements are contained in 19 CFR 4.7 and 19 CFR 4.7a.

In true US Customs form, a failure to do this will lead to a penalty which is called a “liquidated damage.” Of course, through the mitigation process a party assessed a penalty may seek a reduction, which can be mitigated to as little as 10% of the claim, though from correspondence from US Customs on a case I recently handled, mitigation to this level is unlikely unless that party is a member of C-TPAT.

Does C-TPAT membership, or the lack thereof, sound like a reasonable basis for deciding on a penalty mitigation?

Questions/comments? Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com

The "Food Crisis" and International Trade

Date: April 13, 2011
Time: Networking and refreshments at 6:00pm.
Program commences at 6:30pm.
Location: Law offices of Baker & McKenzie in the Grace Building,1114 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
(the entrance is on 42nd Street directly across from Bryant Park)
Cost: $20 for OWIT members, students, and government employees, $25 for non-members

Please join me next week for a lively presentation on food together with a beer and cheese tasting thereafter - yum!

Speaker Jessica Wurwarg will address the causes of the food “crisis” linking them to international trade through a discussion around issues such as export bans and agricultural subsidies.

Jessica, together with fellow OWIT-NY Board Member, Carolyn Avery, will then introduce us to a selection of local cheeses paired with various beers.

Jessica Wurwarg is a food policy specialist, an adjunct instructor at both NYU and the New School, and is a former World Bank staffer.

Jessica currently works full time for the City of New York, and also teaches classes about cheese and pairings with wine and beer.

This promises to be an intellectually and gastronomically stimulating evening! And, of course, I will be there – what more could you ask for?

To register please click here.

You can follow OWIT-NY on Twitter.com/OWITNY for the latest news and events in international trade.

Hope to see you there!

Questions/comments? Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com