CBP's Answers to Questions Submitted at its January 2005 Trade Symposium (Part IV)

(CBP's 2004 Trade Symposium was held on January 12-14, 2005 in Washington, DC. See ITT's Online Archives or 01/27/05 and 01/28/05 news, 05012710 and 05012810, for Parts I and II of BP's summary of this trade symposium.)

This is Part IV of a multi-part series of summaries on this document, and provides "highlights" of the questions and answers concerning contingency plans for incident response. (See ITT's Online Archives or 06/10/05, 06/13/05, and 06/14/05 news, 05061005, 05061305, and 05061410, for Parts I-III.)

Highlights of Questions & Answers on Contingency Plans for Incident Response

The following are highlights of the questions and answers related to contingency plans for incident response:

DHS expected to develop national maritime security response plan in 2005. In response to a question on which government agency is seen as having the lead on development of a contingency plan and in what time frame can a first draft be expected, CBP states that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has the lead on contingency planning. According to CBP, contingency planning is under development in the maritime transportation mode at the present time, noting that a national plan should be developed in 2005 as part of the National Maritime Security Plan.

(See ITT's Online Archives or 04/18/05 news, 05041815, for BP summary of Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-13 which directs the development of an interim National Maritime Security Response Plan in concert with the development of a National Strategy for Maritime Security.)

Response plans for other modes. In response to a question on when CBP anticipates having contingency plans complete for other modes of transportation and if they be will be developed in parallel with maritime or after the maritime plan is completed, CBP states that maritime is being done as first priority, then air, rail, truck, public transit, etc. until every mode is completed.

In addition, CBP states that the National Response Plan and National Incident Management System (NIMS) provide for national response and recovery plans for all areas.

(See ITT's Online Archives or 01/12/05 news, 05011299 5, for BP summary of the completion of the National Response Plan, which uses NIMS to establish a unified and standardized approach within the U.S. for protecting citizens and managing homeland security incidents.)

C-TPAT benefits in event of an incident. In response to a question on what benefits will be extended to Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) members in the event of a security incident and if C-TPAT members will have priority treatment when trade flow is restored, CBP states that C-TPAT provides for greater security of the supply chain. However, CBP states that although this is an important criteria, it is one of many criteria that must be considered in response and recovery planning. CBP states that based on the specific incident and threat, contingency plans will be developed to ensure low-risk cargo is expedited to the extent possible.

Diversion of vessels & advanced entry information if incident occurs. A questioner asked if an incident occurs in one port, has CBP developed a plan for the quick diversion of ships on the water and for the advanced entry information from the affected port to be accepted by CBP in the port of diversion.

CBP states that the diversion of vessels will be a decision of industry, in concert with DHS contingency planning information and restrictions. Since vessel advance electronic information is available to all ports, there should be no problem with the diversion port receiving the correct information. CBP notes that vessel owners/agents will need to comply with CBP regulations (19 CFR 4.33) regarding the diversion of cargo.

Using electronic manifest information to select essential freight or whether carrier should arrive at a port. In response to a question on whether it is foreseen that electronic manifest information will be utilized in the selection of essential and nonessential freight and notifying the carrier to arrive or not to arrive at port, CBP states that use of electronic manifest information is critical to contingency planning in that it provides greater visibility into the supply chain. The information also allows CBP to review threat information against manifest information to determine risk. However, CBP notes that since container vessels will have a mix of low-risk and high-risk cargo, it is anticipated that containers will be offloaded and handled individually.

National & local decisions on port reopenings. One questioner inquired, in the recovery phase, if the national decision should be what ports to reopen and in what order, and if the local decision should be how a port reopens. CBP responds that during recovery operations there will be both national and local issues. At the national level, strategic decisions regarding the threat picture and prioritization of cargo will need to be made. At the local level, specific operational decisions will be made regarding vessel movements in the port.

Prioritizing shipments in a restart. A questioner asked, if there will be trading data for each container/shipment available in the future, would such shipments be accorded a higher priority in a restart. CBP responds that many issues are incorporated into the decisions regarding prioritization of cargo, including transparency into the supply chain. According to CBP, having greater visibility into the supply chain will provide DHS with greater confidence when making prioritization decisions. Other issues include industry capacities and available supplies of strategic and critical materials.

TOPOFF and PortSTEP exercises. A commenter noted that some cities have staged drills or mock attack events, and asked whether such tools are envisioned or suggested in communications already established between DHS and ports, airports and terminals.

CBP responds that DHS continues to conduct various national and local exercises in order to "stress-test" operations and capabilities, with local government and industry participating in the exercises and in after-actions reporting.

According to CBP, the Top Officials (TOPOFF) Program is one example of a national exercise program, which just concluded the TOPOFF 3 exercise, that is designed to incorporate federal, state, and local emergency responders in a coordinated effort to address a major event. (See ITT's Online Archives or 03/31/05 news, 05033199 3, for BP summary on the scheduled conduction of TOPOFF 3 in April 2005.)

Another program that will be underway later in 2005 is the Port Security Training Exercise Program (PortSTEP) under which DHS, through the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Coast Guard Area Maritime Security Committees with major industry participation and input, will conduct transportation security incident exercises in seaports. CBP notes that a component of PortSTEP will be the development of a web-based information system for after-action reporting and lessons learned.

List of trade associations for communication. In response to a question on whether CBP has a list of trade associations in place to use to communicate and on how to make sure an association is on the list, CBP states that the CBP Office of Trade Relations should be contacted at traderelations@dhs.gov or (202) 344-1440.

Comments on contingency planning should be sent to CBP. According to CBP, the trade should send its comments and recommendations regarding contingency planning to the CBP Office of Trade Relations at traderelations@dhs.gov.

CBP Answers to Question Cards Submitted at the Trade Symposium 2004 available at http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/import/communications_to_industry/trade_2004/trade_answers.ctt/trade_answers.doc