Some See 40-Hour Continuing Ed Requirement for Brokers as Too High
DHL and Comstock & Theakston would like to see CBP reduce the number of hours it would require as a part of any continuing education requirements for customs brokers, the companies said in comments to the agency. The comments were in response to CBP's advance notice of proposed rulemaking that asked about whether requiring 40 hours of education over three years seems appropriate (see 2010270038). The companies also would like to see internal training apply to any required continuing education.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
(Disclosure: The publisher of International Trade Today also filed comments in the proceeding.)
CBP should allow a “wide range of training programs,” including events held by CBP and training provided by DHL to its brokers, as counting toward the requirements, DHL said in its comments. If such activities wouldn't count, “DHL strongly urges CBP to lower the triennial continuing education requirement to 24 to 36 hours every three years,” it said. Customs brokers may “be overly burdened with various training requirements that could be detrimental to overall compliance” if CBP “imposes a substantial continuing education requirement.” The company also “strongly discourages CBP from giving non-governmental entities the ability to accredit continuing education courses.”
Comstock & Theakston said that a 36-hour requirement might be easier to track “as that would allow each broker to complete 1 hour of training a month over the course of the 3-year period.” Anything beyond “the 40-hour mark would be too burdensome for the broker industry,” the company said in its comments.
FedEx Logistics would like CBP to go beyond the 40-hour requirement, it said. “We believe that this proposed requirement is too low to keep pace with the constant tide of developments and changes in laws, regulations and processes administered by CBP and partner government agencies (PGA),” it said. The company opposes “enacting bare minimum continuing education mandates that do little more to address broker competency concerns than existing informed compliance and penalty regulations.” FedEx said several trade associations and law firms already provide training services, but “they are not able to address the needs of all customs brokers across the country,” it said. That's why training from the customs brokerages for the employees should also count, it said.
The American Association of Exporters and Importers sees 40 hours as “more than adequate.” The agency also should “be mindful of the financial impact that government events (particularly for free) can have on the professional training function of trade associations, which generally falls under 'non-dues revenue,'” it said. Government-run training also often differs from industry training because “the government is only in a position to address what is in the regulations, when how to apply them presents an altogether different set of considerations,” AAEI said. As a result, “training by the private sector is far more valuable,” it said.
The National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America, which was frequently cited by other commenters as an already common source of continuing education material, provided some survey results in its comments. “Members were confused by CBPs continued reference to exports and export training as these actions do not fall under the definition of customs business.” The group suggested that NCBFAA Educational Institute (NEI) certificates and other evidence be required for tracking completed training. NCBFAA members also said CBP should require accreditation. “The NCBFAA envisions an accreditation framework primarily, if not solely, by non-profit or educational and/or public entities or institutions to minimize any profit motive or bias that can ensue should private for-profit entities handle accreditation,” it said.
Samuel Shapiro & Co. said it believes “CBP should be the accrediting party, if there is one” because “companies would not be comfortable with another company accrediting their work.” The agency should also make tracking as easy as possible, the customs brokerage said. Customs research website CustomsMobile said it supports CBP setting a price ceiling on how much an accreditor can charge for “course/activity approval.” “We are concerned that allowing private entities to carry out government regulations that mandate fees -- and where such fees have no ceiling -- could lead to a less competitive market in which only the largest players can participate.”