More than two months into the new security regime, forwarders and shippers using airfreight are still waiting to hear from US customs (CBP) about changes to the Air Cargo Advanced Screening (ACAS) system.
After the window to submit comments closed on 20 January, questions remain unanswered, but it appears that the new set of rules will not undergo significant changes.
Back in November the agency announced new requirements for airlines, indirect air carriers or shippers (if members of the latter two groups choose to get involved) to submit information before cargo is loaded on an aircraft headed for the US.
Those rules expand the set of data required significantly from previously seven data sets. New mandatory elements include the consignee’s email and phone number, shipment packing and/or scheduled pickup location, and details about the “ship to” party scheduled to first receive the cargo after release by CBP
In addition, there is string of conditional data elements, only required in certain circumstances, which include shipper contact information, customer account details, and device IP/MAC addresses used in transactions.
Finally there are optional (but recommended) data, such as declared cargo value, harmonised tariff schedule, and the shipment’s origin.
These rules are already in effect, but CBP is not enforcing them for an initial 12 months to give industry time to get used to the new requirements. Beyond that there will be penalties of $5,000 for each violation, up to a maximum of $100,000 per arriving flight.
The agency estimates that the cost of implementing the new regime to the industry ranges from $877m to $1.04bn. It reckons that most users’ systems only require some adjustment and do not have to be replaced.
So far, CBP has not made any further announcements, nor responded to submissions. Judging from reactions on the US forwarder side, it would seem that there will be little change, let alone a chance of CBP going back on the plan.
According to Brandon Fried, executive director of the US Airforwarders Association (AfA), feedback from US cargo agents has been relatively light. He attributes this in part to firms being preoccupied with other matters, such as looming programmes from the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) on crimes targeting the trucking sector.
He suspects US forwarders may pay little heed to the new regime, regarding these new data requirements primarily as a hurdle for their overseas counterparts and international shippers to clear at the point of origin.
“A lot of forwarders think the ultimate burden is on the airline, since CBP designates carrires as the primary filing entity. They think ‘they want to fly the cargo, they’ll work it out’, but that’s an erroneous assumption,” he explained.
“We are cautioning our members that this is not just an ‘overseas’ problem. In many instances, US companies are the ones routing these shipments from international locations. For those companies, ensuring seamless data flow is non-negotiable—any gap in ACAS-related information can cause critical delays that ripple through the entire supply chain,” he said.
There has been no communication on the issue from the airlines to discuss the issue with the forwarding community, he said. “I find it somewhat disturbing that airlines are not engaging with us on this,” he added.
In its own submission to CBP on the issue the AfA sought clarification on several points, notably mandated information on aspects that may not be available to forwarders.
On the mandate to provide information on the shipment packing location and/or scheduled shipment pick-up location, it pointed out that in many instances the forwarder did not arrange the pick-up of goods and therefore would not know those locations.
Regarding information on the ship-to party that first receives imported goods after they have been cleared by CBP, the AfA noted that the identity and address of that party were frequently not known to the forwarder, and pointed out that this was particularly common in consolidated shipments, deferred routing scenarios and time-sensitive airfreight movements where downstream handling arrangement were determined after departure.
So far CBP has not responded to these questions, which is not out of the ordinary.
“They’ll let you know what decision they made,” Mr Fried said. “That doesn’t mean they don’t listen to us.”
Another aspect might be that CBP has other, more pressing priorities, especially since ACAS is first and foremost an issue for the TSA.
“When it comes to ACAS, CBP is doing TSA’s work. They want those data elements. CBP is the implementer,” added Mr Fried.
A third point on which the AfA is seeking clarification from CBP is terminology. It noted in its submission that the new rule appeared to use the terms ‘shipper’ and ‘customer’ interchangeably, and pointed out that these parties were often distinct in freight forwarding transactions.
This is somewhat baffling. After more than two decades of work on tighter air cargo security after 9/11, you would expect two US government agencies in the driving seat on the very issue to have grasped the difference between these terms.
[embedded content]
