CBP also  works with other customs organizations to enhance international supply  chain security. The SAFE Port Act Requires a Pilot Program to Test the Feasibility of 100 Percent Scanning

To improve maritime container security, the SAFE Port Act was enacted in  October 2006 and requires, among other things, that CBP conduct a pilot  program to determine the feasibility of scanning 100 percent of U.S.-bound  containers. The SFI Pilot Program and 100 Percent Scanning Face a Number of Challenges

We identified challenges in nine areas that are related to the continuation  of the SFI pilot program and the longer-term 100 percent scanning  requirement: (1) workforce planning, (2) the lack of information about  host government cargo examination systems,(3) measuring performance  outcomes, (4) undefined resource responsibilities for the cost and labor  for implementation, (5) logistical feasibility for scanning equipment and  processes, (6) technological issues, (7) the use and ownership of scanning  data, (8) a perceived disparity between 100 percent scanning and the risk  management approach of CBP’s international partners, and (9) potential  requests for reciprocity from foreign governments. Under the CSI  program, CBP operated and conducted cargo container scanning at 58  foreign seaports as of January 2008; however, given that additional  scanning equipment will be used in the SFI pilot program, and fulfilling the  100 percent scanning requirement will naturally increase the number of  containers to be scanned at the more than 700 seaports that ship cargo to  the United States, the SFI pilot program and 100 percent scanning  requirement will generate an increased quantity of scan data. Therefore, in implementing the 100  percent scanning requirement, CBP will face staffing challenges because  more CBP officers will be required to review and analyze these data from  participating seaports. Without outcome-based performance measures, it will  be difficult for CBP and DHS managers and Congress to effectively  provide program oversight and determine whether 100 percent scanning  achieves the desired result—namely increased security for the United  States. The SAFE Port and 9/11 Acts did not require nor prohibit  the federal government from bearing the cost of scanning 100 percent of  U.S.-bound cargo containers. For example, we  observed that scanning equipment at some seaports is located several  miles away from where cargo containers are stored, which could add to  the time and cost requirements for scanning these containers. For example, cargo containers that arrive at a seaport by  truck or rail are generally easier to isolate, whereas transshipment cargo  containers—those moved from one vessel to another—are only available  for scanning for a comparatively short time and may be more difficult to  access. While the SAFE Port Act  specifies that SFI pilot program scan data should be available for review  by U.S. government officials, neither it nor the 9/11 Act establishes who is  to be responsible for managing the data collected at foreign seaports. 100 Percent Scanning Could Lead to Calls for Reciprocity and Be Viewed as a Barrier to Trade

Implementation of the 100 percent scanning requirement could result in  calls for reciprocity of scanning activities from foreign officials and be  viewed as a barrier to trade. Related GAO Products

Supply Chain Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection Has  Enhanced Its Partnership with Import Trade Sectors, but Challenges  Remain in Verifying Security Practices. Homeland Security: Key Cargo Security Programs Can Be Improved.
Why GAO Did This Study

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is responsible for preventing weapons of mass destruction from entering the United States in cargo containers that are shipped from more than 700 foreign seaports. The Security and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act calls for testing the feasibility of scanning 100 percent of U.S.-bound cargo containers, and the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act (9/11 Act) requires scanning 100 percent of U.S.-bound cargo containers by 2012. To fulfill these requirements, CBP created the Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) and has initiated a pilot program at seven seaports. This testimony discusses challenges related to the SFI pilot program and implementation of the requirement to scan 100 percent of U.S.-bound container cargo. This testimony is based on GAO products issued from July 2003 through April 2008 and ongoing work. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed reports from CBP and international partners on SFI and other container security programs, and interviewed CBP and foreign customs officials.

What GAO Found

GAO identified challenges in nine areas that are related to the continuation of the SFI pilot program and the longer-term 100 percent scanning requirement: (1) Workforce planning: The SFI pilot program could generate an increased quantity of scan data. Therefore, more CBP officers will be required to review and analyze data for participating seaports. (2) Host nation examination practices: The SAFE Port and 9/11 Acts require DHS to develop standards for the scanning systems, but CBP lacks information on host nation equipment and practices. (3) Measuring performance: CBP has had difficulties defining performance measures for its container security programs; therefore, it will be difficult to assess if 100 percent scanning achieves increased security. (4) Resource responsibilities: Neither the SAFE Port Act nor the 9/11 Act specifies whether the United States would bear the costs of implementing 100 percent scanning. (5) Logistics: Space constraints can require seaports to place scanning equipment miles from where cargo containers are stored, and some containers are only available for scanning for a short period of time and may be difficult to access. (6) Technology and infrastructure: Environmental conditions can damage equipment and cause delays, and infrastructure capacity and equipment compatibility have presented difficulties in the SFI pilot program. (7) Use and ownership of data: Legislation specifies that scan data should be available to CBP officials, but the data are often generated and collected by foreign seaports and, in some cases, will require international agreements for transfer to CBP officials. (8) Consistency with risk management: International partners state that 100 percent scanning is inconsistent with accepted risk management principles and diverts resources away from other security threats. (9) Reciprocity and trade concerns: Foreign governments could call for reciprocity of 100 percent scanning, requiring the United States to scan cargo containers, and some view this requirement as a barrier to trade.