Vessel carriers: Transport cargo from a foreign port to a U.S. port. For cargo transiting the United States, but for which the United States is  not the final destination, the rule requires importers to submit an ISF-5 to  CBP prior to loading. Targeting High-Risk Shipments Using ISF Rule Data

According to the rule, ISF data are intended to improve CBP’s ability to  identify (target) high-risk shipments. Targeters at the ATUs are to review the  information associated with shipments destined for ports within their  respective regions to identify those shipments that may be at risk for  containing terrorist weapons or other contraband. Submission Rates for ISFs Vary, While Carrier Requirement Rates Could Not Be Determined; CBP Generally Monitors Compliance

		Submission Rates for ISF- 10s Have Generally Been High, and CBP is Taking Steps to Increase ISF-5 Submission Rates

Submission rates for ISF-10s have generally been high and CBP is taking  steps to increase the ISF-5 submission rate. In particular, submission  rates for shipments requiring an ISF-10 increased from approximately 95  percent in 2012 to 99 percent in 2015 (see figure 2). In July 2016, CBP published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which  seeks to address the ISF-5 issue by expanding the definition of ISF  Importer to ensure that the party that has the best access to the required  information will be responsible for filing the ISF. Submission Rates for Vessel Stow Plans and Container Status Messages Could Not Be Determined

We were not able to determine submission rates for the two additional  carrier requirements—vessel stow plans and CSMs—for 2012 through  2015. According to CBP officials,  carriers’ overall compliance overall with stow plan submissions is likely  nearly 100 percent given that targeters at ATUs follow up with carriers  prior to vessel arrival if they have not yet submitted the vessel stow plan. CBP Has Taken Actions to Enforce ISF and Stow Plan Submissions, but Could Do More to Enforce CSMs and Assess the Effectiveness of its ISF Enforcement Actions

		CBP Has Taken Actions to Enforce Submission of ISF-10s and Stow Plans, but not CSMs

CBP primarily uses two types of enforcement actions—ISF holds and  liquidated damages claims—to enforce compliance with the ISF rule  among importers and carriers. An evaluation of the effectiveness of its enforcement actions  could help inform CBP’s enforcement strategy and increase compliance  at ports with relatively low ISF-10 submission rates. CBP Reports the ISF Program Has Improved Its Ability to Identify High-Risk Shipments, but CBP Could Collect Additional Information to Better Evaluate Program Effectiveness

		CBP Reports ISF Rule Data Have Helped Assess Shipment Risk, but Collecting Additional Performance Information Could Enhance Evaluation of Program Effectiveness

CBP officials told us that ISF rule data have improved CBP’s ability to  assess the risk of cargo shipments, but evaluating the direct effects of ISF  rule data on identifying high-risk shipments is difficult. However, we  identified examples of additional information CBP could collect to better  evaluate the program’s effectiveness. According to CBP, vessel stow  plans also help CBP assess shipment risk by allowing CBP to identify  unmanifested containers—containers and their associated contents not  listed on a vessel’s manifest—that pose a security risk in that no  information is known about their origin or contents. Recommendations for Executive Action

To enhance CBP’s identification of high-risk cargo shipments and its  enforcement of the ISF rule, we recommend that the Commissioner of  CBP take the following two actions: enforce the ISF rule requirement that carriers provide CSMs to CBP  when targeters identify CSM noncompliance; and evaluate the ISF enforcement strategies used by ATUs to assess  whether particular enforcement methods could be applied to ports  with relatively low submission rates. Further, we recommend that the Commissioner of CBP identify and  collect additional performance information on the impact of the ISF rule  data, such as the identification of shipments containing contraband, to  better evaluate the effectiveness of the ISF program. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report addresses U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP)  implementation of the Importer Security Filing (ISF) and Additional Carrier  Requirements (ISF rule). More specifically, our objectives were to  address: (1) importers’ and carriers’ compliance rates for ISF rule  requirements, and the extent to which CBP monitors their compliance; (2)  CBP’s actions to enforce the ISF rule and whether its enforcement  actions have contributed to increased compliance among importers and  carriers; and (3) whether the ISF program has improved CBP’s ability to  identify high-risk cargo shipments prior to their arrival in the United  States, and the extent to which data submitted under the program are  accurate. Further, we could  not determine submission rates for CSMs because CBP could provide us  data on the number of CSMs it received from carriers, but not those it did  not receive because CBP does not have access to carriers’ private  systems to know when CSMs have been created and should be provided  to CBP.
Why GAO Did This Study

Cargo shipments can present security concerns as terrorists could use cargo containers to transport a weapon of mass destruction or other contraband into the United States. In January 2009, CBP, within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), implemented the ISF rule. The rule requires importers and vessel carriers to submit information, such as country of origin, to CBP before cargo is loaded onto U.S.-bound vessels. The information is intended to improve CBP's ability to identify high-risk shipments.
GAO was asked to review the ISF program. This report addresses: (1) importers' and carriers' submission rates for ISF rule requirements, (2) CBP's actions to enforce the ISF rule and assess whether enforcement actions have increased compliance, and (3) the extent to which the ISF rule has improved CBP's ability to identify high-risk shipments. GAO, among other things, analyzed CBP's compliance and enforcement data for 2012 through 2015—the most recent data available at the time of GAO's review—and interviewed CBP officials and trade industry members.

What GAO Found

Through the Importer Security Filing (ISF) and Additional Carrier Requirements (the ISF rule), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) requires importers to submit ISFs and vessel carriers to submit vessel stow plans and container status messages (CSM). Submission rates for ISF-10s—required for cargo destined for the United States—increased from about 95 percent in 2012 to 99 percent in 2015. Submission rates for ISF-5s—required for cargo transiting but not destined for the United States—ranged from about 68 to 80 percent. To increase ISF-5 submission rates, CBP published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in July 2016 to clarify the party responsible for submitting the ISF-5. GAO could not determine submission rates for vessel stow plans, which depict the position of each cargo container on a vessel, because CBP calculates stow plan submission rates on a daily basis, but not comprehensively over time. CBP officials noted, though, that compliance overall is likely nearly 100 percent because Advance Targeting Units (ATU), responsible for identifying high-risk shipments, contact carriers if they have not received stow plans. GAO also could not determine submission rates for CSMs, which report container movements and status changes, because CBP does not have access to carriers' private data systems to know the number of CSMs it should receive. CBP targeters noted that they may become aware that CSMs have not been sent based on other information sources they review.
CBP has taken actions to enforce ISF and stow plan submissions, but has not enforced CSM submissions or assessed the effects of its enforcement actions on compliance at the port level. ATUs enforce ISF and vessel stow plan compliance by using ISF holds, which prevent cargo from leaving ports, and issuing liquidated damages claims. CBP has not enforced CSM submissions because of the high volume it receives and lack of visibility into carriers' private data systems. However, when CBP targeters become aware that CSMs have not been received based on reviewing other information sources, taking enforcement actions could provide an incentive for carriers to submit all CSMs and help targeters better identify high-risk cargo. GAO's enforcement data analysis shows that ATUs used varying methods to enforce the ISF rule and that ports' ISF-10 submission rates varied. By assessing the effects of its enforcement strategies at the port level, CBP could better ensure it maximizes compliance with the rule.
CBP officials stated that ISF rule data have improved their ability to identify high-risk cargo shipments, but CBP could collect additional performance information to better evaluate program effectiveness. Evaluating the direct impact of ISF rule data in assessing shipment risk is difficult; however, GAO identified examples of how CBP could better assess the ISF program's effectiveness. For example, CBP could track the number of containers not listed on a manifest—which could pose a security risk—it identifies through reviewing vessel stow plans. Collecting this type of additional performance information could help CBP better assess whether the ISF program is improving its ability to identify high-risk shipments.
This is a public version of a sensitive report that GAO issued in May 2017. Information CBP deemed Law Enforcement Sensitive has been deleted.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that CBP (1) enforce the CSM requirement when targeters identify carriers' noncompliance; (2) evaluate the effect of enforcement strategies on compliance at the port level; and (3) collect additional performance information to better evaluate the effectiveness of the ISF program. DHS concurred with the recommendations.