Home » Physical Security » Video Surveillance

Opinion

Container Security: Is the Layered Approach Working?

Guest columnist Jim Giermanski says the government's five-layered approach to container security is on the right track, but needs significant improvements

By James Giermanski

Page 2

1. Carrier SCAC code (standard carrier alpha code)
2. Last foreign port
3. Vessel name
4. Voyage number
5. IMO vessel ID number
6. Date of departure from port
7. Container number
8. Commodity description (with HTS-6)
9. Commodity Weight
10. Bill of loading number
11. Shipper name and address
12. Consignee name and address
13. Hazmat code
14. Seal Number
15. Numbers and quantity
16. Foreign port of loading
17. First foreign place of receipt
18. Vessel country
19. Date of arrival at first U.S. port
20. Port of unloading
21. Time of departure from port

Furthermore, there's an expectation that CBP will announce in August or September the requirement to submit additional data contained in the "10-Plus-Two Program." There will be 10 pieces of data the shipper will have to submit, and an additional two pieces that the vessel carrier has to submit. From reviewing only six customs forms connected to inbound shipments, there were 122 distinct pieces of information. Of these bits of information there were 26 pieces that were repeated in the six forms. If that is any indication, there are hundreds of pieces of information-data that are CBP's mainframes that may or may not really be necessary or accurate. Regardless of how many elements are in the manifest today, the fundamental reality is that all elements represent what the shipper, not an individual, said to be true. In effect, the manifest states what is "alleged" to be in the container.

But the purpose of the 24-hour rule is to enable U.S. Customs to analyze container content information before a container is loaded and thereby decide on its "load/do not load" status in advance. An NVOCC is a non-vessel operating common carrier. In reality that entity can be a motor carrier leasing space on liners. For instance, Yellow Roadway trucking company is an NVOCC. Therefore, it accepts cargo from a shipper and provides the shipper a bill of lading to destination, including ocean travel, but Yellow Roadway does not own or operate an ocean-going vessel. Yet, it still is the carrier to its shipper and then it's the shipper to the vessel carrier. But only those NVOCCs who are authorized to communicate with CBP through an approved electronic portal can file a manifest as the liner can.

There is a flaw in this layer. How does a carrier know what's in the container? The carrier does not open the container to inspect it. The carrier simply takes the word of the shipper. Who is the shipper? Does the carrier really know? Even if the carrier really knows, the carrier is still relying on the shipper's word for the contents of the container. What if we have a perfectly honorable and well recognized shipper? Does that mean that between the stuffing of the container at origin and its arrival at the port of export, no surreptitious entry was made into that container and no weapon of mass destruction placed in the container before it arrived at the port of export? Since the carrier does not know what is really in the container that arrived at the port, how would CBP know what was really in the container if CBP relied only on the carrier's manifest? Assuming the shipper has historically been honest and trustworthy, the likelihood of CBP suspecting foul play is remote or non-existent under this layered approach. Thus, any positive or special treatment given this container can be deadly to either the recipients of the container, the United States, or to the exporting port where the explosive could really have been meant to detonate.