2010 BTA roadmap

In 2010, the BTA will:

1.  Provide positive information regarding the impact of the border on the economy.

The BTA will be carrying a positive message about our borders as we work to debunk the myths surrounding the border area. Trade and commerce are keys to economic recovery, but are too often stifled at the border by inefficient ports of entry and unmanned inspection booths during peak periods of travel.

2.  Work to reduce the non-tariff barriers to trade.

The BTA will identify areas where reporting and regulatory requirements put an undue burden on importers. We’ll also work with importers to understand the impact of the reporting requirements and address concerns with CBP.

3.  Help improve human resources of CBP and infrastructure at ports of entry along the border.

The BTA believes strongly that all of the primary inspection lanes should be staffed during peak periods of traffic, and that trade efficiency is suffering as a result of outmoded infrastructure.

Policy recommendations for Customs and Border Protection

Integrated entry/exit process

Canada and the U.S. are already engaged in information sharing that has greatly improved trade efficiency on the U.S.-Canada border. Unfortunately, post-9/11, the effort to integrate our processes with our Mexican trading partners lost significant momentum. We believe the time is right to revisit integrated processes with Mexico and, as a result, improve cross-border trade efficiency.

Mexican aduanas has already mapped out 62 of the 63 data elements that would be required to integrate entry/exit information with the U.S. In fact, Mexico has made significant upgrades into their trade information technology, making that country the envy of the NAFTA marketplace when it comes to customs information technology.

The ultimate goal is for shippers to be required to present only one document that would serve as both an entry and an exit document.

Mexico, to that country’s credit, has indicated a willingness to work with the U.S. to accomplish this goal, no matter whether Mexico would be required to share import data or export data. The Mexicans simply want improved efficiency. We agree with them.

Create incentives for trade facilitation, not just interdiction

The trade community fully recognizes the need for CBP to interdict people and cargo that could cause our country harm. Importer and exporters are committed to partnering with CBP to help the agency carry out its important dual mission of enforcement and facilitation.

Unfortunately, facilitation often takes a backseat to enforcement, especially among the front line primary lane inspectors at the land borders, where inspectors are rightly recognized by CBP leadership for interdicting drug shipments or illegal immigrants.

Let there be no mistake: We fully understand the importance of border security, especially in light of the drug-related violence that has gripped Mexico. We simply believe that facilitation and enforcement can – and must – go hand in hand.

To that end, we recommend CBP investigate a way to incentivize and reward inspectors for facilitating trade. Inspectors should receive recognition for achieving a certain percentage of secondary inspection referrals that result in some sort of enforceable action. Furthermore, inspectors who have a low percentage of secondary referrals that result in enforcement action should receive further training.

Moreover, we encourage CBP to work with port directors to instruct their inspectors not to conduct secondary-level inspections in the primary lanes. If an inspector believes a more thorough inspection is required, that truck or vehicle should be immediately referred to a designated secondary inspection area so that the inspector can move to the next truck or vehicle in line.

Establish clear remedies and processes for C-TPAT shippers who self-report

The Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program is a great example of industry and CBP working together to advance trade facilitation and enforcement. For some C-TPAT participating companies, however, the program could place them in morally ambiguous positions that could undermine C-TPAT’s success.

Participant companies who self-report a possible breech in their security should be given the benefit of the doubt. After all, these companies have been vetted by CBP and have been given the agency’s seal of approval.

Shippers deserve a clear understanding of what will happen to their C-TPAT status if they self-report. For example, CBP should commit to completing a post-incident report within, say, two weeks after the report of a potential breech.

This is critical to encouraging self-reporting as well as for giving companies some measure of certainty as to how the post-incident analysis process works.

For example, a C-TPAT carrier that uses the FAST lane for the majority of its border crossings would be barred from using FAST while the analysis is being conducted. That carrier’s customers, however, could simply move their business to another carrier with FAST access, especially when it is unclear when there will be some resolution to the original carrier’s case.

As a result, a carrier that stands to suffer significant harm to its business might be very reluctant to self-report.

Finally, if the post-incident analysis indicates that a company should be removed from C-TPAT, that company should be given a clear understanding of when it can reapply for readmission to the program. We’ve heard anecdotes of companies who’ve been removed from the program who simply reorganize under a different name and then apply for C-TPAT admission. Hopefully a clearer readmission process would lead to fewer instances of companies seeking to game the system.