United States of America: Bill to ban imports of goods for which there is no registered domestic agent
Description
A bill that was under consideration in the U.S. Congress would have imposed a new administrative burden on imports of a wide range of products, and ban imports of goods that do not meet this requirement. The House of Representatives did not vote on the “Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act” (H.R.4678) before adjourning. It could nonetheless be brought up again in the 112th Congress (2011-2012).
The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act would require foreign manufacturers of products imported into the United States to establish registered agents in the United States who are authorized to accept service of process against such manufacturers. The agent would be eligible to receive civil or regulatory lawsuits and other legal challenges filed in State or Federal courts. Imports of covered products (i.e., drugs, devices, and cosmetics; biological products; consumer products; chemical substances; and pesticides) from manufacturers that do not have such a registered would be banned.
One of the sections of the bill reads as follows:
SEC. 4. PROHIBITION OF IMPORTATION OF PRODUCTS OF MANUFACTURERS WITHOUT REGISTERED AGENTS IN UNITED STATES.
(a) In General- Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date the regulations [for this bill] are prescribed, a person may not import into the United States a covered product (or component part that will be used in the United States to manufacture a covered product) if such product (or component part) or any part of such product (or component part) was manufactured or produced outside the United States by a manufacturer or producer who does not have a registered agent [under the terms of this law] whose authority is in effect on the date of the importation.
(b) Enforcement- The Secretary of Homeland Security shall prescribe regulations to enforce the prohibition in subsection (a).
Originally sponsored in the Senate by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (Democrat of Rhode Island), where it is designated as S.1606, the bill was introduced on August 7, 2009. It was based in part on issues raised in a hearing that was held on May 19, 2009 in the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts. Senator Whitehouse is chairman of that subcommittee. It is cosponsored by senators Jeff Sessions (Republican of Alabama) and Richard Durbin (Democrat of Illinois). No formal action has yet been taken on the bill in the Senate.
The version in the House of Representatives, where it is designated as H.R.4678, was introduced on February 24, 2010. It is sponsored there by Representative Betty Sutton (Democrat of Ohio) and 62 co-sponsors. The bill was the subject of a hearing in the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection of the Energy and Commerce Committee on June 16, 2010.
Among the bill's supporters are the American Association for Justice (formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America), the Consumers Union, and the Consumer Federation of America. The only organization to provide testimony in opposition to the bill at the June 16, 2010 hearing was the American Association of Exporters and Importers.
Any Evidence-Based Deliberation:
| Question | Result |
|---|---|
| Is there anything in the public record to suggest that evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed measure was considered during official deliberations? | No |
| Is there any evidence that alternatives to the proposed measure were considered? | No |
| Is there anything in the public record that suggests that empirical evidence informed the comparison across the alternatives available to government? | No |
| Was such evidence identified? | No |
| Is such evidence publicly available? | No |
| Did the official decision-maker in question provide an explanation as to why a chosen measure was favoured over alternatives? | No |
| Is there any evidence to suggest that potentially affected trading partners were consulted before the measures were taken? | No |
| Is there any evidence that safeguards have been put in place to ensure that implementation of the initiative is transparent and non-discriminatory? | No |
| Did the government state its intention to review the measure within one year of implementation? | No |
Date Discovered:
Implemented: No
Date of inception:
GTA Evaluation: Amber
Source:
See the hyperlinked material in the description.
Government Response:
- 867 reads
