Contact Us
AAFA and IPR Affordable Footwear Act African Growth & Opportunity Act (AGOA) Andean TPA Berry Amendment Burma CAFTA-DR Children’s Clothing Regulations China Export Policies Congress & China Design Piracy Prohibition Act Doha Round Drawstrings Employee Free Choice Act EU Anti-Dumping Cases EU Retaliation Federal Prison Industries First Sale Flammable Fabrics FTAs Under Negotiation General Trade Issues Government Contracts Intellectual Property Rights Labeling Labor Issues Legislative Update Minimum Wage Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff Bill NTC/[TC] 2 Funding Other China Issues Port Security Product Safety Social Responsibility Sweatshops Textile Marker System Trade Promotion Authority US Trade Agreements Vietnam
Home . Port Security

Port Security

 
The Issue:
As part of the “first hundred hours” push of the new Democratic majority, the House of Representatives approved 9/11 Commission Implementation Act (HR 1), which, among other things, contains a new mandate for 100 percent scanning for radiological materials of all inbound cargo before leaving foreign ports. This provision would override a 100 percent scanning pilot program created in The Security and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act, which the President signed into law in October 2006.   Senators, however, seem less inclined to revisit this issue, particularly since the pilot program in the SAFE Port Act has not yet been given time to be implemented and because it is unclear there exists the technology to satisfy a full 100 percent scanning mandate. Meanwhile, efforts continue regarding implementation of the SAFE Port Act.  Among other things, that legislation will increase requirements for participants in Customs' Container Security Initiative (CSI) and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) program and require background checks of all workers at US ports.  The act also requires Customs to ensure it has sufficient data on shipments entering the United States, which has led to new 10+2 data requirements.  Meanwhile, on February 23, California Senator Alan Lowenthal re-introduced SB 974, AAFA-opposed legislation which calls for a $60 per 40-foot container fee at the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland to pay for goods movement infrastructure investments and goods movement-related pollution reduction programs. The same bill passed the California General Assembly last year, but Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) vetoed the measure. Many experts feel that the political environment has changed, which could force Schwarzenegger to sign the measure if it reaches his desk again. On a related point, due to intense opposition by AAFA and others,  similar legislation in the Washington State Senate that would have imposed a new $100 per container fee on containers moving through the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma has now become a proposed study to evaluate whether a new container fee would lead to cargo diversion away from Washington State ports.
 
AAFA on the Issue:
AAFA will lobby to defeat or change proposed legislation and other initiatives that could adversely affect U.S. apparel and footwear firms while doing little to improve homeland security.  At the same time, AAFA continues to work with Congress and the U.S. government to find constructive solutions to improving homeland security and to improve the transportation infrastructure in the United States without impeding trade. AAFA will also continue to monitor the situation on the West Coast and will explore alternative solutions (including possible legislative fixes) for AAFA members.
 
The Latest News:
3.17.08
The Port of Oakland Harbor Commission is set to consider a similar container fee program as has been proposed by the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach over the last couple months. Like that plan, Oakland will be looking at fees to pay for a fleet of clean trucks and infrastructure projects in northern California. However, the price of fees and the collection mechanism have not yet been released.

01.07.08
Despite strong opposition from AAFA and the rest of the business community, the Port of Long Beach on December 17 and the Port of Los Angeles on December 20 approved a tax - which they call a Clean Trucks Fee - of $35 per TEU ($70 per FEU) on each loaded container entering or leaving the port by truck. Trains are not covered. The fee starts on June 1, 2008 and is expected to end in 2012, when the "cleaner" drayage fleet envisioned under the Ports' Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) is in place. The CAAP imposes a ban on old, dirty trucks that call at the ports. The ban will be phased in, beginning October 1, 2008, with a ban on all trucks built before 1989. By January 1, 2010, only trucks built after 1993 will be allowed and, by January 1, 2012, all trucks must meet 2007 federal EPA standards. On December 19, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), reversing a previous policy position, expressed support for the fees.

As a result of this latest action by the ports, California State Senator Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) has now pledged to push forward with his own statewide container tax bill that would impose similar container fees in addition to those imposed by the ports. Earlier this year, the senator announced that he would postpone any further movement of his legislation, as he has twice before failed to implement his bill last year after a veto from the governor. However, early last week, Schwarzenegger stated that he now supports Lowenthal’s bill.

The effects of these fees will undoubtedly be detrimental to the flow of goods moving through Southern California and will place even more egregious burdens on those companies that rely upon this crucial point along the international supply chain. AAFA is continuing to track and speak on behalf of the industry on this important and fast developing issue.
 
PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION  .  EMAIL THIS PAGE
 
©2008 AAFA All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Directions    Site Map