Supply Chain Security: CBP's Ahern comments on GTX, 100 percent container scanning

Jeff Berman, Group News Editor -- Logistics Management, 4/10/2008

WASHINGTON—The future of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency’s Global Trade Exchange (GTX) initiative and 100 percent container scanning appears to have been put on hold, according to Jayson P. Ahern, CBP Deputy Commissioner.

The GTX, as defined by a CBP request for quotation from December 2007, would function as “a privately-operated, self-sustaining trade information system that would have the potential to collect commercial transaction data not currently available to CBP from parties in the supply chain who have contracted or provided services for the production or movement of international shipments.” The request added that CBP envisioned GTX to allow government and trade community participants to input and access trade data through an information broker. And it also noted that when combined with existing CBP targeting and analysis tools, it could potentially allow CBP to identify and target suspect shipments and transactions prior to a shipment entering the U.S.-bound supply chain.

While providing testimony at a House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security hearing earlier this week, Ahern stated various reasons for the CBP’s decision to not proceed with GTX.

“Further consideration of the GTX concept is premature at this time and may not be a prudent use of limited resources,” said Ahern. “CBP’s targeting systems will be enhanced through the 10+2 Security Filing, and before initiating further efforts aimed at gathering even greater supply chain security data, it is prudent to assess the benefits to be gained by the Security Filing.  

10+2 is part of CBP’s Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) in which importers and exporters will be required to submit more information about specific shipments to determine specific risk levels, which is far more detailed than basic manifest information. It is comprised of the 10 data elements an importer would provide for a shipment, and the two elements provided by an ocean carrier—the stowage plan and information regarding cargo remaining on board a vessel. CBP issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for 10+2 in January, and comments were collected until March 18.

While the CBP appears to have put GTX on hold, it still has myriad supply chain security efforts underway, including SFI, Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT), and the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), among others.

Being somewhat diversified in this respect may have been part of the reason behind the decision to shutter GTX, according to Albert Saphir, president of international trade consultants ABS Consulting in Marietta, Ga.

“Overall, I probably believe CBP has too many initiatives going on right now,” said Saphir. “And because of pressure from congress to do things in the supply chain security area, CBP and DHS have gone off in a lot of directions, and GTX was one of those things where there was a lot of skepticism with many questions: It is not a bad idea but is it really practical?; can it really be done?; and what is really the cost of the implementation?”

Saphir added that another strike against GTX was that it was not realistically close to being implemented on a global basis in the near future.

100 percent container scanning: In his testimony, CBP’s Ahern also said that there are significant challenges and costs associated with 100 percent scanning of all containers destined for the U.S. This sentiment comes after “H.R. 1 Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act,” which calls for 100 percent scanning of maritime cargo prior to being loaded onto U.S.-bound vessels by 2012, was signed into law last summer. H.R. also calls for the scanning of all cargo on passenger planes by 2010.

Ahern said that CBP already has robust layers in place to secure the supply chain and that that the resources required to achieve 100 percent scanning at the more than 700 U.S. ports shipping to the U.S. could be more appropriately directed towards cargo and passenger venues that present an equally real threat but where current security programs are less underdeveloped.

“Based on preliminary results from our three pilot locations, USG-funded scanning of cargo containers at foreign ports is a worthwhile investment only in high-risk trade corridors,” said Ahern.

Saphir agreed that this decision makes sense, because many experts, shippers, and other trading partners have told CBP this initiative is misguided for both fiscal- and resource- and equipment-related reasons.

While the five-year deadline is a “great concept,” the transfer from paper to reality could also prove to be far more difficult, says Captain Joseph Ahlstrom, professor of maritime transportation at SUNY Maritime College, in a 2007 interview. “Everyone is on the same page when it comes to security; they all want 100 percent scanning,” notes Ahlstrom. “But are we able to do that? One-hundred-percent screening where containers can be inspected is one thing, but I would much rather see some sort of system where an alarm will be triggered if there is something suspicious in the containers as they go through.”