Maritime industry asks House to reject container scan bill

Maritime industry asks House to reject container scan bill    Cargo vessel and marine terminal operators are again urging members of the U.S. House of Representatives not to support a possible amendment calling for automated X-ray and radiation scanning of every U.S.-bound container at foreign ports.
   The “Sail Only if Scanned Act,” or SOS bill, authored by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., was recently blocked in the Homeland Security Committee from being added to a comprehensive piece of cargo and port security legislation. But political observers expect that Nadler or Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., will try to attach similar language on 100 percent cargo screening when the “SAFE Port Act” comes up for a floor vote today.
   A requirement for mandatory non-intrusive container inspections ignores many logistical details needed to make the system work, would disrupt American commerce and cause foreign retaliation on U.S. exports, the Coalition for Secure Ports said in a letter sent to lawmakers.
   The Coalition for Secure Ports is an alliance between the World Shipping Council, the National Association of Waterfront Employers, the United States Maritime Alliance and the Pacific Maritime Association.
   A system that requires every image to be inspected and approved by the Department of Homeland Security prior to vessel loading would impose “enormous” compliance costs and “gridlock commerce,” the group said.
   Two terminal operators in Hong Kong are experimenting with an integrated system that takes container images and radiation readings as trucks drive through the gates at normal speed, leading to hope within the industry that a system can be developed to capture and use data for security purposes. To date the terminals and their technology provider, SAIC, say they have successfully demonstrated that images can be acquired without slowing down traffic, but no protocols have been established for analyzing that data or sharing it with U.S. or other customs authorities.
   The legislative proposal would require implementation of a system that is not ready for deployment, the industry group said. Requiring all images to be manually analyzed in real time would grind vessel loading to a halt and cause huge shipment delays, it said.
   Security and industry experts expect that new software eventually will be available that can automate the analysis of images.
   U.S. officials do not have jurisdiction to operate equipment or conduct inspections in foreign countries, so such a system would rely on foreign terminal operators to gather and transmit the data. The coalition noted that Congress was squeamish about allowing state-owned Dubai Ports World from operating several terminals in U.S. ports for security reasons and that it should realize that the U.S. container inspection program would rest on the backs of these foreign companies.
   “If Congress were to now embrace this change in strategy, it would be wholly unfair, unjustifiable and hypocritical to later question or criticize the value of the screening products because they had been produced by Dubai Ports World, Hutchison Whampoa or other companies,” the group said.
   Scanning all containers without a comprehensive security strategy would undermine the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism and the Container Security Initiative programs that use threat-based analysis of shipping data to selectively target a small universe of suspicious ocean boxes for inspection, the group said.
   Importers who voluntary take steps to tighten up controls in their supply chains in exchange for expedited cargo clearance would have no incentive to participate in the C-TPAT program, which would effectively be killed by the scan-all legislation, the trade associations said.
   Other countries will likely require the United States to similarly conduct outbound inspections of containers, which could negatively impact export trade, the group said.
   “As U.S. ports and DHS are not equipped or organized to perform such inspection and screening of all exports, reciprocal requirements would cause substantial U.S. port, rail and highway congestion, and would impair U.S. export trades and cause some lost markets for U.S. businesses, especially export commodity businesses where alternative sources for goods are available,” the coalition said.
   The Retail Industry Leaders Association and National Retail Federation also voiced opposition to the 100 percent inspection legislation prior to the committee vote.
   Separately, the Port of Tacoma and the Local 19 of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union issued a statement calling on Congress to make sure cargo and port security legislation under consideration is affordable and does not impede the flow of commerce. The port and the union expressed support for the GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act, the Senate’s companion bill to the SAFE Port Act, and urged Congress to provide enough funding so that the Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection have enough personnel to carry out security mandates.