GHY Tradelines

(The Canadian Press)

Federal Maritime Commission singles out Prince Rupert, B.C.

An American federal agency is suggesting Canadian ports taking in U.S.-bound cargo, in particular Prince Rupert, B.C., lack the tight security measures in place in the United States for cargo shipped directly to its ports.

The report by the five-member Federal Maritime Commission points out that Prince Rupert isn’t a “CSI” port. CSI is an acronym for the Container Security Initiative, a program implemented by U.S. Customs and Border Control to pre-screen more than 86 per cent of U.S.-bound container cargo.

“Vancouver, Montreal and Halifax are CSI ports; Prince Rupert is not,” reads the report obtained by The Canadian Press on the eve of its official release. Read more here.
 

(ST&R Trade Report)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) informed members of the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) Feb. 15 that implementation of the updated International Organization for Standardization (ISO) mechanical seal standard will not be viable by March 1 as previously announced. CBP has learned that the tamper evidence element (clause 6) of the new standard (ISO 17712:2010) cannot be met and that to date no accredited independent laboratories have been willing to test and certify seals as complying with this requirement. While the ISO is working to resolve this issue, implementation of the new standard will be delayed until CBP receives definitive information that this has been accomplished.

CBP notes that since the ISO 17712: 2010 (18 mm) certification for high-security seals is attainable without the clause 6 testing portion of the standard, C-TPAT partners are encouraged to buy seals that meet this part of the standard. If they do so, however, they should request documentation to confirm that the purchased seals comply with the current testing requirements for ISO 17712: 2010 (18 mm) certification.
 

(STR Trade Report)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection recently advised members of the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism that effective March 1 the current International Organization for Standardization (ISO) mechanical seal standard (ISO/PAS 17712) will be replaced with new standard ISO 17712:2010.

CBP is not requiring C-TPAT participants to discard any high-security container seals that may not comply with the new standard that are currently in stock but is encouraging them to purchase compliant seals when their existing stocks are exhausted. CBP also states that when C-TPAT companies transition to new seals they should request documentation (lab reports) to confirm that the seals comply with the new standard.

CBP states that the updated standard includes the following requirements: testing to determine a seal’s classification for physical strength (as a barrier of entry), process auditing of the manufacturer’s security-related business practices, testing (pass/fail) of a seal’s ability to indicate evidence of tampering, and a new 18mm minimum width diameter for bolt seals.

CBP adds that benefits of complying with the revised standard include a reduced possibility of cargo theft or tampering, fewer shipping delays resulting from missing or broken seals, and easier detection of compromised seals.
 

(World Trade Interactive)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is soliciting participants in a pilot program for the Secure Transit Corridors program, which will evaluate an experimental reusable high-security lock in a real world environment. The experimental locks for this pilot program, which is tentatively scheduled to begin Oct. 1 and last 12 months, will be used in place of the high-security seals that are normally affixed to containers bound for the U.S.

According to CBP, only Tier III members of the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism that make entry through the ports of Detroit or Nogales will be eligible to participate in the pilot. For members who use Detroit, only supply chains utilizing highway carriers will be considered. For members who use Nogales, only supply chains utilizing highway carriers and/or rail carriers will be considered.

CBP states that the pilot will require the installation of system readers at the facility grounds where the containers are loaded and high-security seals are affixed to the containers. System readers will also need to be installed at the C-TPAT member’s U.S. distribution centers or warehouse facilities. The system readers create a geo-free-zone allowing the experimental locks to be opened and closed without sending an alarm message to the importer.

Those interested in being considered for selection to participate in the pilot should email the following information to CBP industry.partnership@dhs.gov by Aug. 15: company name, name of loading company/facility, address where container is loaded, mode of transportation, port of entry, number of shipments entering through Detroit and/or Nogales ports for a period of one year, commodity and whether shipments require hazmat documentation.
 

pspan style=”FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial”(World Trade Interactive)?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office” /o:p/o:p/span/ppspan style=”FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial”While the Department of Homeland Security has been working for many years to develop and implement technologies to increase the security of international cargo containers, those efforts have yielded only moderate success to date, according to a recent report from the Government Accountability Office. In addition, there are a number of substantial challenges ahead, including buy-in from the international trade community, foreign countries and international organizations./spanspan style=”FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial”o:p/o:p/span/ppemb style=”mso-bidi-font-weight: normal”span style=”FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-style: italic”Technologies Under Developmentbr //span/b/ememspan style=”FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial”span style=”mso-spacerun: yes” /span/span/emspan style=”FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial”br /The report identifies four container security technology projects currently at various stages of development./spanspan style=”FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial”o:p/o:p/span/ppspan style=”FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial”• the Advanced Container Security Device, to detect intrusion on all six sides of a container/spanspan style=”FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial”o:p/o:p/span/ppspan style=”FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial”• the Container Security Device, to detect the opening or removal of container doors/spanspan style=”FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial”o:p/o:p/span/ppspan style=”FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial”• the Hybrid Composite Container, a lightweight container with an embedded sensor grid to detect intrusion on all six sides /spanspan style=”FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial”o:p/o:p/span/ppspan style=”FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial”• the Marine Asset Tag Tracking System, to track containers/spanspan style=”FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial”o:p/o:p/span/ppspan style=”FONT-FAMILY: ‘Verdana’, ‘sans-serif’; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial”The ACSD and Hybrid Composite Container technologies have not yet completed laboratory testing, but the CSD and MATTS are proceeding to testing in an operational environment, which will determine if they can operate in the global supply chain. However, the report points out that the testing DHS plans to conduct is limited to the maritime environment and does not fully address all of the operational scenarios being considered. The report therefore recommends that DHS move to Phase II trade lane testing to better determine if these technologies will be suitable for use in their intended operational environments. Read more a href=”http://www.strtrade.com/wti/wti.asp?pub=0amp;story=35645amp;date=amp;company”span style=”color:#0000ff;”here/span/a.o:p/o:p/span/p

span style=”font-size:85%;”(Video: PBS/KCTS • Story: International Freighting Weekly)/spanbr /br /object height=”385″ width=”480″param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/VwoQbXX1EMIamp;hl=en_USamp;fs=1amp;”param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always”embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/VwoQbXX1EMIhl=en_USfs=1″ type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowscriptaccess=”always” allowfullscreen=”true” width=”480″ height=”385″/embed/objectbr /br /The International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) has warned that shipowners should no longer send ships through areas affected by piracy because of the risk to seafarers. In a motion adopted by its fair practice committee, the ITF said flag states and shipowners that had not taken anti-piracy measures in the Indian Ocean should act before it became “impossible for seafarers to pass through the ever-widening danger area”.br /br /The ITF said: “Save in exceptional circumstances, ships should not transit the [affected] area. The risk of attack is now so great that putting seafarers in harm’s way amounts to a breach of the shipowner’s duty of care.”br /br /ITF maritime coordinator Steve Cotton added: “There are countries actively fighting piracy and there are owners training and supporting their crews to resist it.

span style=”font-size:85%;”(CBSA)/spanbr /br /This document provides a href=”http://www.cbsa.gc.ca/security-securite/pip-pep/seals-scelles-eng.html” target=”_blank”guidelines/a for Partners in Protection (PIP) members on the use of high-security mechanical seals on containers and trailers for imported, exported and in-transit cargo. This document should be used in conjunction with the Security Profile as it applies to the applicable industry sector, shipment or conveyance.br /br /• Scope • Background • Terms and Definitions • Seal Authentication • Supply Chain and Business Partners • PIP Member Responsibilities • LTL, LCL and P amp; D • Seal Application and Control • Failure to Meet/Maintain PIP Seal Requirements

span style=”font-size:85%;”(HS Today – Phil Leggiere)/spanbr /br /bNew report argues that economic conditions weaken case for 100 Percent cargo screening mandate/bbr /br /The pursuit of “perfect” 100% screening of all cargo, however well intentioned, may undermine a more realistic technologically and economically feasible focus on identifying and securing truly high-risk cargo, researcher James Jay Carafano of Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, argues in a href=”http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandSecurity/wm2099.cfm”a new report/a titled emSecuring Global Supply Chains: 10 Plus 2 Container Security Ruling Needed/em. Instead, Carafano’s paper urges that the DHS “10 + 2” security initiative be implemented as soon as possible as a far more appropriate strategy for the economic and security situation confronting global shippers and consumers.br /br /Technically called the Importer Security Filing (ISF) and Additional Carrier Requirements, 10 + 2 requires both importers and carriers to submit additional cargo information before the cargo is loaded on U.S.-bound vessels. This rule describes how importers will report 10 additional items of information on cargo shipped to the United States, while the carrier provides two more data sets.br /br /As Carafano explains, “There are about 20 million sea-going shipping containers in the world that make about 200 million trips per year. In one of its first programs to enhance transportation security after 9/11, DHS established the Container Security Initiative (CSI). CSI evaluates data on each container bound for the United States and determines which might represent a potential risk that warrants further investigation. The U.S. works with other countries to inspect the high-risk containers before they are loaded on ships and sent to the United States. This efficient process requires physically scanning 2–3 percent of inbound containers. This has minimal impact of moving global trade, adds a valuable security deterrent, and enables DHS to focus its efforts on the most serious risks.”br /br /The most important additions to the “10 + 2″ reporting requirements, according to Carafano, include adding where the materials in the container are from and which conveyer is responsible for packing the container. These data points, he says, are invaluable for identifying potential sources of malicious activities that might attempt to place something harmful or dangerous in a container, for identifying entities that are not known and trusted and subsequently targeting them for inspection. Read more a href=”http://hstoday.us/content/view/5608/149/”here/a.

span style=”font-size:85%;”(World Trade Interactive)/spanbr /br /A new Government Accountability Office report argues that the statutory requirement for 100% scanning of U.S.-bound container cargo by 2012 could threaten efforts to fashion international supply chain security standards and may actually provide a lower level of security than the current risk management approach.br /br /According to the report, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has been at the forefront of efforts to develop and implement the World Customs Organization’s Safe Framework of Standards to Secure and Facilitate Global Trade. The SAFE Framework in large part internationalizes the concepts first promulgated under CBP’s Container Security Initiative and Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism. As in CSI, the standards in the customs-to-customs pillar of the SAFE Framework state that members should use a risk-management system to target and identify potentially high-risk cargo. Member customs administrations are urged to provide for joint targeting and screening, the use of standardized sets of targeting criteria and compatible communication and information-exchange mechanisms. In addition, as with C-TPAT, the WCO customs-to-business pillar provides that customs administrations should design validation processes for their respective authorized economic operator programs that offer incentives to participating businesses.br /br /Widespread acceptance of the core principles of the SAFE Framework and implementation of its standards could have numerous benefits, the report states.br /br /• the focus of international customs administrations would be shifted from primarily revenue collection to include enhanced securitybr /br /• cooperation between customs administrations would be strengthened, improving their capability to detect high-risk cargobr /br /• port shopping by terrorists or smugglers looking for seaports with more lax or nonexistent security standards could be reducedbr /br /• programs for ensuring that customs administrations are free of corruption could be improvedbr /br /• CSI-like customs security practices could be implemented at non-CSI foreign seaports and customs administration reform and modernization could be enhancedbr /br /• companies could avoid the burden of addressing different sets of requirements as a shipment moves through the supply chain in different countriesbr /br /However, the report warns, these benefits are being threatened because of the focus on 100% scanning under the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, which runs counter to the risk management approach employed by the SAFE Framework, CSI and C-TPAT. WCO officials are concerned that 100% scanning could have an adverse impact on several of the organization’s core instruments, which include not only the SAFE Framework but also the Revised Kyoto Convention, an international customs agreement to which the U.S., the European Union and 52 others have acceded. Some countries are reluctant to implement AEO programs since they believe such programs would not be necessary with 100 percent scanning, and some companies are reluctant to join AEO programs since one of the main benefits of membership, a reduced likelihood of examination, would no longer apply if all containers are required to be scanned.br /br /In addition, the report states, CBP, WCO and EU officials assert that 100% scanning may actually provide a lower level of security than existing programs. The risk management approach directs resources to where they are most needed, officials say, whereas 100% scanning directs too many resources to one activity and diminishes the focus on those container shipments that pose the highest risk. Customs officers currently review the scanned images of high-risk containers in a very thorough and detailed manner, one WCO official said, but reviews may not be as thorough if all containers are scanned due simply to the sheer volume of work, leading to a degradation of security. In addition, a European customs official noted, 100% scanning could have a negative impact on the flow of international commerce, which under the 9/11 Act may be grounds for granting a two-year, renewable extension to the 100% scanning requirement at individual seaports.

span style=”font-size:85%;”(CBP)/spanbr /br /The purpose of this notice is to inform you that the requirement for Container Seals on Maritime Cargo was published in the Federal Register on August 7, 2008 and will become effective on October 15, 2008. The statute requires all containers to be sealed with a seal meeting the International Organization for Standardization Publicly Available Specification 17712 (ISO/PAS 17712), Freight Containers-Mechanical Seals. This specification addresses seal strength and durability so as to prevent accidental breakage, early deterioration, detect tampering, as well as advises each seal be clearly and legibly marked with a unique identification number. All containers (maritime) in transit to the United States must be sealed with an ISO/PAS 17712 mechanical seal no later than October 15, 2008.br /br /The statutory requirement applies to loaded containers, including freight remaining on board, arriving by vessel at U.S. ports of entry. Exceptions, however, include tanks, non-standard containers (such as open top containers), and those containers incapable of being affixed with such a seal. U.S Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will ensure compliance with this new requirement as part of normal seaport container inspection activities and does not envision new activities aimed simply at seal verification.br /br /Vessel carriers are reminded, pursuant to 19 CFR 4.7(b) (2) and 4.7a(c) (4) (xiv), to transmit via the Vessel Automated Manifest System all seal numbers to CBP 24 hours before cargo is laden aboard a vessel at a foreign port. In addition, enforcement action in accordance with 19 CFR Section 4.7 concerning Advance Filing of Cargo Declaration Requirements for failure to transmit accurate information, remains in effect.br /br /Vessel carriers are advised that CBP will begin the phasing in of penalty assessments for violation of the container sealing requirements. CBP will consider 6 U.S.C to be violated if a loaded container that is subject to the sealing requirements arrives by vessel at a port of entry in the United States on or after October 15, 2008, either with no seal, or with a seal that fails to meet the ISO/PAS 17712 standard. CBP may assess a civil penalty against the party responsible for the violation of 6 U.S.C. § 944 under 19 U.S.C. Section 1595a (b) for the attempted introduction of merchandise into the United States contrary to law.

span style=”font-size:85%;”(American Shipper – Eric Kulisch)/spanbr /br /U.S. Customs and Border last week posted its draft technical requirements for a proposed security measure to collect more detailed, advance information on import cargo, known as “10+2.”br /br /Agency officials have observed a quiet period while fielding public comments and preparing a final rulemaking, but import industry representatives have been pressing since the beginning of the year for a policy-free dialogue to get a head start on complex programming changes needed to properly transmit the Importer Security Filing.br /br /The proposed rule requires importers to file 10 types of data identifying the manufacturer, consolidator, buyer and receiver of the goods 24 hours prior to vessel loading overseas. Ocean carriers must transmit two sets of data related to each container.br /br /The publication of the data layouts indicates the agency is ready to begin discussions with the trade community about the design of the input fields and other technical matters needed to implement 10+2, which CBP officials predict will be released in final form later this summer. Programming issues to be resolved include the size of the data fields, how alphanumeric characters are used to describe records, and other coding.br /br /Richard DiNucci, program manager for 10+2 in the Office of Field Operations, said at the May 9 meeting of the Commercial Operations Advisory Committee in Washington that his team was gearing up to discuss technical issues with industry. CBP officials indicated that COAC should take the lead in coordinating the talks with the industry. COAC members, in turn, have said they are prepared to delegate the data field layouts and electronic protocols to the Trade Support Network’s supply chain security committee. DiNucci said Customs may start gathering technical input at the June meeting of the Customs Electronic Systems Action Committee.br /br /CESAC typically deals with information technology issues related to the electronic interfaces between ocean carriers and CBP, such as the Automated Manifest System. It likely will deal with the two data sets – stowage plans and container status messages – carriers must file under the rulemaking.br /br /The TSN is a large gathering of industry representatives that provides Customs with feedback on agency modernization efforts. It is the logical place to examine the technical aspects related to the importer filing requirements, according to COAC members mingling at the American Association of Exporters and Importers Conference in New York on Monday.br /br /The Department of Homeland Security is reviewing the final rule, which takes into account about 200 formal comments submitted by industry. DHS indicated in a document earlier this year that the Importer Security Filing would be finalized by September, but DiNucci said that date was included as a process formality, not as a hard timeline. The department is still trying to publish the final rule this summer, he said.br /br /The Office of Management and Budget will reconsider its original cost-benefit analysis, which some industry representatives feel understated the potential implementation costs, as part of the process, DiNucci said.br /br /To see CBP’s draft layout for 10+2 data transactions, go to a href=”http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/automated/automated_systems/sf_transaction_sets/”the CBP website/a.