The Department of Customs and Border Protection has issued a reminder for NEXUS participants to renew their enrollments on time.
Many NEXUS enrollments began expiring in June and Customs officials are asking that NEXUS members begin their application renewal 90 days prior to their expiration date.
To continue their membership in the program, applicants must:
• Submit an application and go through a registration process
• Satisfy the eligibility criteria
• Be admissible to United States and Canada
• Pass risk assessments by both countries
Members may apply on-line at http://www.cbp.gov, by clicking on Travel at the top of the screen and then clicking on Trusted Traveler Programs on the left-hand side of the Web page.
Participants without computer access can submit their application by mail to: NEXUS Program, P.O. Box 126, Niagara Falls, ONL2E 6T1, CANADA.
The application processing fee of $50 (U.S. or Canadian funds) and is non-refundable. Children under the age of 18 must also apply but are free of charge.
The renewed membership will be valid for another five years.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
U.S. DOT Updates Regulations on Transporting Hazardous Materials
(World Trade Interactive)
The Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has issued a final rule, effective Oct. 1, amending the Hazardous Materials Regulations to update, clarify or provide relief from certain requirements governing the classification, packaging or labeling of hazardous materials transported in commerce. PHMSA’s amendments include:
• adding a new entry to the Hazardous Materials Table for ethanol and gasoline blends with more than 10 percent alcohol;
• expanding the exceptions from regulation for small quantities of hazardous materials;
• updating provisions incorporating consensus standards issued by the Chlorine Institute and the Compressed Gas Association;
• adding a definition for “household wastes” to clarify the current exception in the HMR for transportation of such materials;
• revising the HMT to harmonize certain entries with international standards by removing, adding and revising certain proper shipping names;
• revising certain hazard communication provisions to address shipping paper requirements for marine pollutants, marking requirements for limited quantities, proper shipping name markings on packages and labeling of intermediate bulk containers;
• clarifying requirements applicable to the transportation of dry ice on aircraft, detonator assemblies and packagings authorized for the transportation of certain explosives;
• clarifying that a shipper must use a carrier with a safety permit to transport hazardous materials for which safety permits are required as specified under the federal motor carrier safety regulations; and
• clarifying segregation requirements for hazardous materials transported by motor carrier.
The Federal Register notice is available here.
The Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has issued a final rule, effective Oct. 1, amending the Hazardous Materials Regulations to update, clarify or provide relief from certain requirements governing the classification, packaging or labeling of hazardous materials transported in commerce. PHMSA’s amendments include:
• adding a new entry to the Hazardous Materials Table for ethanol and gasoline blends with more than 10 percent alcohol;
• expanding the exceptions from regulation for small quantities of hazardous materials;
• updating provisions incorporating consensus standards issued by the Chlorine Institute and the Compressed Gas Association;
• adding a definition for “household wastes” to clarify the current exception in the HMR for transportation of such materials;
• revising the HMT to harmonize certain entries with international standards by removing, adding and revising certain proper shipping names;
• revising certain hazard communication provisions to address shipping paper requirements for marine pollutants, marking requirements for limited quantities, proper shipping name markings on packages and labeling of intermediate bulk containers;
• clarifying requirements applicable to the transportation of dry ice on aircraft, detonator assemblies and packagings authorized for the transportation of certain explosives;
• clarifying that a shipper must use a carrier with a safety permit to transport hazardous materials for which safety permits are required as specified under the federal motor carrier safety regulations; and
• clarifying segregation requirements for hazardous materials transported by motor carrier.
The Federal Register notice is available here.
Nutrition Labelling Transition Period
(Canadian Food Inspection Agency)
As of December 12, 2007, the nutrition labelling transition period has passed. The CFIA website has been updated to reflect these changes in the following documents:
Chapter 5 of the 2003 Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising [nutrition labelling]
Chapter 7 of the 2003 Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising [nutrient content claims]
Chapter 12 of the 2003 Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising [honey]
Chapter 13 of the 2003 Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising [maple products]
Chapter 15 of the 2003 Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising [fish and fish products]
Section J of the Nutrition Labelling Toolkit [evaluation standard – introduction]
Section J2 of the Nutrition Labelling Toolkit [evaluation standard – label]
Section B of the Nutrition Labelling Toolkit [What Products May Carry a Nutrition Facts Table?]
Information Letter: Carbohydrate Claims on Foods Sold in Canada
Information Bulletin: Nutrition Labelling Regulations and Foods Sold in Restaurants and Food Service Establishments
As of December 12, 2007, the nutrition labelling transition period has passed. The CFIA website has been updated to reflect these changes in the following documents:
Chapter 5 of the 2003 Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising [nutrition labelling]
Chapter 7 of the 2003 Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising [nutrient content claims]
Chapter 12 of the 2003 Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising [honey]
Chapter 13 of the 2003 Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising [maple products]
Chapter 15 of the 2003 Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising [fish and fish products]
Section J of the Nutrition Labelling Toolkit [evaluation standard – introduction]
Section J2 of the Nutrition Labelling Toolkit [evaluation standard – label]
Section B of the Nutrition Labelling Toolkit [What Products May Carry a Nutrition Facts Table?]
Information Letter: Carbohydrate Claims on Foods Sold in Canada
Information Bulletin: Nutrition Labelling Regulations and Foods Sold in Restaurants and Food Service Establishments
Canadian Border and Trade Agencies Investigate Allegations of China Steel Dumping
(The Canadian Press)
The Canada Border Services Agency said Thursday it is investigating allegations of dumping and subsidizing of certain carbon steel welded pipe from China after a complaint was made by ArcelorMittal out of Montreal.
Also Thursday, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal said it will look into the complaints and decide by March 25 if the alleged dumping and subsidizing has injured the domestic steel industry.
“If there is a large increase in harmful imports and the Tribunal decides that retroactive application of anti-dumping or countervailing duty is justified, duty could be levied on the goods brought into Canada as of today,’’ the tribunal said in a statement.
According to the border agency, ArcelorMittal alleges that the dumping is creating “price erosion, price suppression, lost sales, reduced market share, lost revenues, reduced profitability, reduced production and overcapacity, lost employment and plant shut downs, increased inventory levels and impairment to make future investments.’’
Dumping occurs when goods are sold to importers in Canada at prices that are less than their selling prices in the exporter’s domestic market or at unprofitable prices. Subsidizing occurs when goods imported into Canada benefit from foreign government financial assistance. The Special Import Measures Act protects Canadian producers from the damaging effects of such unfair trade.
Officials at ArcelorMittal could not immediately be reached for comment.
Arcelor SA acquired Hamilton-based Dofasco in 2006, and in 2007 Dofasco became a part of ArcelorMittal after Mittal Steel bought Arcelor, to create the world’s largest steelmaker.
The Canada Border Services Agency said Thursday it is investigating allegations of dumping and subsidizing of certain carbon steel welded pipe from China after a complaint was made by ArcelorMittal out of Montreal.
Also Thursday, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal said it will look into the complaints and decide by March 25 if the alleged dumping and subsidizing has injured the domestic steel industry.
“If there is a large increase in harmful imports and the Tribunal decides that retroactive application of anti-dumping or countervailing duty is justified, duty could be levied on the goods brought into Canada as of today,’’ the tribunal said in a statement.
According to the border agency, ArcelorMittal alleges that the dumping is creating “price erosion, price suppression, lost sales, reduced market share, lost revenues, reduced profitability, reduced production and overcapacity, lost employment and plant shut downs, increased inventory levels and impairment to make future investments.’’
Dumping occurs when goods are sold to importers in Canada at prices that are less than their selling prices in the exporter’s domestic market or at unprofitable prices. Subsidizing occurs when goods imported into Canada benefit from foreign government financial assistance. The Special Import Measures Act protects Canadian producers from the damaging effects of such unfair trade.
Officials at ArcelorMittal could not immediately be reached for comment.
Arcelor SA acquired Hamilton-based Dofasco in 2006, and in 2007 Dofasco became a part of ArcelorMittal after Mittal Steel bought Arcelor, to create the world’s largest steelmaker.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Supply Chain Impact 2008
SCDigest recently invited a number of industry experts to offer their perspectives on what issues, trends, and strategies are likely to impact supply chain and logistics thinking in 2008. The following is a summary of the key observations of each. The full 2008 predictions from each of the nine experts consulted can be found on the SCDigest web site: Key Trends Impacting Supply Chain Management and Logistics for 2008.
Gartner’s Dwight Klappich says conditions may force companies back to basics in 2008.
“Supply chain management organizations will be forced to divert their attention away from strategic initiatives like innovation; instead they will have to focus more time and effort on tactical and operational issues driven by economic and competitive pressures” he notes. But interestingly, he says that many leading companies have already attacked the low hanging fruit.
“The next level of cost reduction is going to be more difficult and require more organizational sophistication and creativity to identify different ways to streamline processes and remove costs,” he adds.
Dr. Larry Lapide of MIT agrees – and says this may mean a reversal of some current trends.
“With oil and logistics costs over the past few years, we’ll see more effort in trying to keep these costs down. Many companies will ‘slow down’ their supply chains by using less expensive and slower transport modes,” Lapide said. “This will, of course, mean that inventories will increase – especially in-transit and at just-in-time sites.”
He also thinks there may be some return to in-house manufacturing over both quality issues and the need to be more reactive to demand without inventory build-ups.
Dr. John Langley of Georgia Tech, in part, says companies will need to get more focus on “integrated logistics.”
“Practitioners and academics are still searching for the “holy grail” in terms of supply chain integration, but daily, pragmatic issues continue to stand in the way of needed progress,” Langley said. He cited barriers including: functional silos within organizations; inability of supply chain organizations to put the betterment of the supply chain ahead of major objectives such as short-term profitability; continually-changing, unpredictable, and frequently irrational demands of customers throughout the supply chain.
DRCA’s Jon Kirkegaard has two takes – what he thinks will happen, and what he thinks should happen.
In the former category, for example, he thinks the fall in the value of the dollar and other factors may lead to more production being brought back to the US. He sees a “decline in the false dialog that the future is in service industries and the realization that the future is in “value add manufacturing” of many types.”
In the latter, he thinks we ought to see buyers more rigorous about demanding ROI from their technology spend – but is not optimistic, saying companies should “demand quantifiable IRR/ROA in weeks from investments and not fall prey to “trust me” technology investments.”
Jeff Karrenbauer of Insight (another “Dr.” actually) agrees with Kirkegaard on the likely evolution in views about offshoring, saying too many outsourcing decisions have been based on faulty analysis.
Going to China “was once seen as an obvious decision (and still is by too many firms and Wall Street analysts), based myopically on comparative labor rates,” he said. “However, such questions are increasingly being subjected to much more sophisticated analyses that include procurement, manufacturing, transportation, warehousing, cross-dock, in-transit, cycle, and safety stock inventory, port handling, duty, and tax costs, together with an assessment of quality, intellectual property theft, and disruption risks. In short, the “obvious” outsourcing choice of, for example, the Pacific Basin, is often simply wrong.”…
Dr. Jim Tompkins of Tompkins Associates also looks at the global perspective, saying that companies need to think more about “total delivered costs,” not just total “landed” costs.
“Organizations continue to rely upon total landed cost, and this results in not effectively looking at which ports should be used, as well as the reconfiguration of their domestic distribution network,” he says. This focus on understanding total delivered costs, combined with sourcing trends that are changing the physical flows of offshored Asian goods, “really sets the table for some huge supply chain transformations” in 2008 and beyond, he adds.
Several experts, such as Adrian Gonzalez of ARC Advisory Group, looked closely at trends in transportation. He’s sees a collision emerging between the “solutions” of TMS software vendors, 3PLs and some consulting firms.
“Simply stated, software vendors will add managed services to their offerings (e.g., i2, LeanLogistics), 3PLs will offer technology-only solutions (e.g., Transplace), and consultants will also leverage technology to provide managed services (e.g., Chainalytics with their benchmarking service),” he told SCDigest.
Speaking of Chainalytics, consultant Gary Girotti thinks the overcapacity seen lately in the transportation market to the advantage of shippers will disappear in 2008. That situation “will end as carriers pull back capacity and hit the wall on margin reduction potential.”
This will also reflect itself in service challenges for shippers, “as carriers exit unprofitable markets and lanes.” He also expects a continued shift from truckload to rail/intermodal.
Last, but by no means least, Dr. Marshall Fisher from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania thinks the consumer goods-to-retail supply chain will continue to focus on “the last 50 yards” – getting goods to the retail shelf effectively.
“Many retailers report numerous execution short falls, including stock outs on the shelf due to inadequate stocking from the backroom, inventory record errors, and incorrect signage and pricing, all of which hurt the quality of a customer’s experience, and therefore sales,” he told SCDigest. “Most retailers view in store labor as a cost to be minimized, rather than an asset to be leveraged. As a result, many stores have a minimum number of store associates earning minimum wage, and this is having a huge negative impact on the top line.”
Gartner’s Dwight Klappich says conditions may force companies back to basics in 2008.
“Supply chain management organizations will be forced to divert their attention away from strategic initiatives like innovation; instead they will have to focus more time and effort on tactical and operational issues driven by economic and competitive pressures” he notes. But interestingly, he says that many leading companies have already attacked the low hanging fruit.
“The next level of cost reduction is going to be more difficult and require more organizational sophistication and creativity to identify different ways to streamline processes and remove costs,” he adds.
Dr. Larry Lapide of MIT agrees – and says this may mean a reversal of some current trends.
“With oil and logistics costs over the past few years, we’ll see more effort in trying to keep these costs down. Many companies will ‘slow down’ their supply chains by using less expensive and slower transport modes,” Lapide said. “This will, of course, mean that inventories will increase – especially in-transit and at just-in-time sites.”
He also thinks there may be some return to in-house manufacturing over both quality issues and the need to be more reactive to demand without inventory build-ups.
Dr. John Langley of Georgia Tech, in part, says companies will need to get more focus on “integrated logistics.”
“Practitioners and academics are still searching for the “holy grail” in terms of supply chain integration, but daily, pragmatic issues continue to stand in the way of needed progress,” Langley said. He cited barriers including: functional silos within organizations; inability of supply chain organizations to put the betterment of the supply chain ahead of major objectives such as short-term profitability; continually-changing, unpredictable, and frequently irrational demands of customers throughout the supply chain.
DRCA’s Jon Kirkegaard has two takes – what he thinks will happen, and what he thinks should happen.
In the former category, for example, he thinks the fall in the value of the dollar and other factors may lead to more production being brought back to the US. He sees a “decline in the false dialog that the future is in service industries and the realization that the future is in “value add manufacturing” of many types.”
In the latter, he thinks we ought to see buyers more rigorous about demanding ROI from their technology spend – but is not optimistic, saying companies should “demand quantifiable IRR/ROA in weeks from investments and not fall prey to “trust me” technology investments.”
Jeff Karrenbauer of Insight (another “Dr.” actually) agrees with Kirkegaard on the likely evolution in views about offshoring, saying too many outsourcing decisions have been based on faulty analysis.
Going to China “was once seen as an obvious decision (and still is by too many firms and Wall Street analysts), based myopically on comparative labor rates,” he said. “However, such questions are increasingly being subjected to much more sophisticated analyses that include procurement, manufacturing, transportation, warehousing, cross-dock, in-transit, cycle, and safety stock inventory, port handling, duty, and tax costs, together with an assessment of quality, intellectual property theft, and disruption risks. In short, the “obvious” outsourcing choice of, for example, the Pacific Basin, is often simply wrong.”…
Dr. Jim Tompkins of Tompkins Associates also looks at the global perspective, saying that companies need to think more about “total delivered costs,” not just total “landed” costs.
“Organizations continue to rely upon total landed cost, and this results in not effectively looking at which ports should be used, as well as the reconfiguration of their domestic distribution network,” he says. This focus on understanding total delivered costs, combined with sourcing trends that are changing the physical flows of offshored Asian goods, “really sets the table for some huge supply chain transformations” in 2008 and beyond, he adds.
Several experts, such as Adrian Gonzalez of ARC Advisory Group, looked closely at trends in transportation. He’s sees a collision emerging between the “solutions” of TMS software vendors, 3PLs and some consulting firms.
“Simply stated, software vendors will add managed services to their offerings (e.g., i2, LeanLogistics), 3PLs will offer technology-only solutions (e.g., Transplace), and consultants will also leverage technology to provide managed services (e.g., Chainalytics with their benchmarking service),” he told SCDigest.
Speaking of Chainalytics, consultant Gary Girotti thinks the overcapacity seen lately in the transportation market to the advantage of shippers will disappear in 2008. That situation “will end as carriers pull back capacity and hit the wall on margin reduction potential.”
This will also reflect itself in service challenges for shippers, “as carriers exit unprofitable markets and lanes.” He also expects a continued shift from truckload to rail/intermodal.
Last, but by no means least, Dr. Marshall Fisher from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania thinks the consumer goods-to-retail supply chain will continue to focus on “the last 50 yards” – getting goods to the retail shelf effectively.
“Many retailers report numerous execution short falls, including stock outs on the shelf due to inadequate stocking from the backroom, inventory record errors, and incorrect signage and pricing, all of which hurt the quality of a customer’s experience, and therefore sales,” he told SCDigest. “Most retailers view in store labor as a cost to be minimized, rather than an asset to be leveraged. As a result, many stores have a minimum number of store associates earning minimum wage, and this is having a huge negative impact on the top line.”
Managing the Global Trade-off - Manufacturers are trying to simplify their approach to global trade compliance
(Industry Week)
The majority of Americans are pretty clueless when it comes to U.S. Customs regulations, but these days manufacturers are having to become virtual experts. Partly, it’s because most of them have made doing business with foreign buyers and suppliers an integral part of their businesses, but it’s also in response to a variety of new security measures enacted in the post-9/11 world.
Today, manufacturers involved in importing or exporting goods regularly find themselves under a microscope, subject to a laundry list of different rules and regulations to comply with federal law. According to Trudi West, director of global trade compliance for Hitachi Data Systems Corp., a manufacturer of data storage systems, compliance functions seem to reach new levels of complexity every year.
“We’re dealing with issues that are very different than they were just a few years ago,” notes West. “Regulations that had been clearly defined in black and white are now in much more of a grey area. And with more responsibility on companies to self-police, everyone needs to make sure they have a squeaky-clean program if the government ever decides to perform an audit, which are also a lot more common.”
If a company is the subject of a compliance audit, the cost of a violation can be expensive -- and the rates are only going up. To make sure their trading activities are on the straight and narrow, most manufacturers have programs or full-blown departments in place with the sole function of handling compliance-related issues and avoiding costly fines. Typically, importers and exporters are given the opportunity to demonstrate “reasonable care,” which West says can simply mean covering all of your bases, asking your buyer or supplier enough questions, and being confident that your audit trail can stand up in an enforcement matter.
However, trade compliance programs are also in a unique position in that they are seen as a foregone cost for many manufacturers, making them difficult to measure. “If you do everything right, no one notices,” says Louis Lisowski, manager of global customs compliance and policy with high-tech giant Hewlett-Packard Co. “What we try to do is look at the speed and accuracy with which shipments clear customs. Then we do a post-mortem and look for any internal errors that might need to be fixed. Those outcomes will tell you whether your staff is communicating effectively and give you an idea of how well your program is doing.”
One of the most critical components of any compliance program is that it has a champion at the top levels of the company. Upper management needs to be vocal and visible, making the entire organization clear on their responsibility to follow trade regulations and that they seek support from the professionals within the organization. If that sentiment isn’t ingrained in the culture, even the best-laid programs and policies will never be successful.
“If manufacturers want to continue selling in the global market, they need to be able to comply with trade regulations,” Lisowski says. “They have to understand them on a global basis, too -- not just what’s required in the United States. These products are traveling around the world and they have to meet the standards of wherever they are going. And it’s only becoming more important as suppliers become more global.”
The majority of Americans are pretty clueless when it comes to U.S. Customs regulations, but these days manufacturers are having to become virtual experts. Partly, it’s because most of them have made doing business with foreign buyers and suppliers an integral part of their businesses, but it’s also in response to a variety of new security measures enacted in the post-9/11 world.
Today, manufacturers involved in importing or exporting goods regularly find themselves under a microscope, subject to a laundry list of different rules and regulations to comply with federal law. According to Trudi West, director of global trade compliance for Hitachi Data Systems Corp., a manufacturer of data storage systems, compliance functions seem to reach new levels of complexity every year.
“We’re dealing with issues that are very different than they were just a few years ago,” notes West. “Regulations that had been clearly defined in black and white are now in much more of a grey area. And with more responsibility on companies to self-police, everyone needs to make sure they have a squeaky-clean program if the government ever decides to perform an audit, which are also a lot more common.”
If a company is the subject of a compliance audit, the cost of a violation can be expensive -- and the rates are only going up. To make sure their trading activities are on the straight and narrow, most manufacturers have programs or full-blown departments in place with the sole function of handling compliance-related issues and avoiding costly fines. Typically, importers and exporters are given the opportunity to demonstrate “reasonable care,” which West says can simply mean covering all of your bases, asking your buyer or supplier enough questions, and being confident that your audit trail can stand up in an enforcement matter.
However, trade compliance programs are also in a unique position in that they are seen as a foregone cost for many manufacturers, making them difficult to measure. “If you do everything right, no one notices,” says Louis Lisowski, manager of global customs compliance and policy with high-tech giant Hewlett-Packard Co. “What we try to do is look at the speed and accuracy with which shipments clear customs. Then we do a post-mortem and look for any internal errors that might need to be fixed. Those outcomes will tell you whether your staff is communicating effectively and give you an idea of how well your program is doing.”
One of the most critical components of any compliance program is that it has a champion at the top levels of the company. Upper management needs to be vocal and visible, making the entire organization clear on their responsibility to follow trade regulations and that they seek support from the professionals within the organization. If that sentiment isn’t ingrained in the culture, even the best-laid programs and policies will never be successful.
“If manufacturers want to continue selling in the global market, they need to be able to comply with trade regulations,” Lisowski says. “They have to understand them on a global basis, too -- not just what’s required in the United States. These products are traveling around the world and they have to meet the standards of wherever they are going. And it’s only becoming more important as suppliers become more global.”
Thursday, January 10, 2008
UPS Expanding Global Service in Wake of US Economic Downturn
(Canadian Transportation Logistics)
United Parcel Service (UPS) is expanding an international air-freight service that guarantees delivery dates in the wake of a slowing US economy, the Toronto Star reports.
The UPS Express Freight service will more than triple the amount of express lanes currently served, UPS officials said.
The service, which now reaches 52 countries, is designed to provide guaranteed time-definite, overnight-to-three day door-to-door delivery including routine customs clearance to major global metropolitan areas.
UPS has been boosting international revenue at a faster rate than in the US, where the economic expansion is waning, according to the Toronto Star. The report said UPS international operations accounted for 28% of the company's total revenue in 2006.
United Parcel Service (UPS) is expanding an international air-freight service that guarantees delivery dates in the wake of a slowing US economy, the Toronto Star reports.
The UPS Express Freight service will more than triple the amount of express lanes currently served, UPS officials said.
The service, which now reaches 52 countries, is designed to provide guaranteed time-definite, overnight-to-three day door-to-door delivery including routine customs clearance to major global metropolitan areas.
UPS has been boosting international revenue at a faster rate than in the US, where the economic expansion is waning, according to the Toronto Star. The report said UPS international operations accounted for 28% of the company's total revenue in 2006.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Democratic Presidential Candidates Outline Trade Policy Views
(World Trade Interactive)
The Democratic candidates for president said in recently released statements that they support trade agreement provisions that enforce labor and environmental standards and that they would review and possibly renegotiate all existing U.S. trade pacts. The statements were released by the Iowa Fair Trade Campaign, a group of trade unions and other organizations, which requested the candidates’ views while they campaigned in Iowa for the Jan. 3 caucus. The candidates, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, former Sen. John Edwards and Gov. Bill Richardson (Sens. Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd responded as well but have since dropped out of the race) were asked to address five general areas that affect trade: the fast track trade negotiating process; terms for future trade agreements; review or renegotiation of NAFTA and other existing agreements; Doha Round negotiations; and measures to address the trade deficit.
Following are highlights from their statements.
Fast Track
Clinton said she would not finalize any new trade agreements or seek trade promotion authority (‘fast track’) until her administration has reviewed all existing agreements and crafted a comprehensive trade policy. Edwards said the U.S. needs a new negotiating process that ensures ‘diverse public input,’ to include ‘non-commercial interests.’ Obama said the criteria for determining possible trade partners must involve an analysis of their labor and environmental standards. Obama also supports a stronger role for Congress in the trade agreement negotiation process.
Trade Agreement Provisions
All the candidates supported enforceable labor and environmental terms in trade agreements. Edwards and Obama were critical of provisions that allow foreign investors to directly challenge U.S. federal and local laws, and Obama said he would limit this right. To ensure the safety of imported foods and other products, Clinton said she would create a single agency to oversee food safety, support country of origin labeling and increase the number of U.S. inspectors at domestic and foreign ports. Edwards endorsed removing ‘unreasonable limitations’ in trade agreements related to border inspections and safety standards. Obama would support increased enforcement of current product safety laws and further assistance for the federal agencies that oversee these issues. Richardson would turn to the WTO for all members to agree on a ‘no-standards lowering clause.’ On government procurement, Edwards said he is willing to change existing agreements to ensure that any related clause supports rather than hurts domestic businesses. Richardson said he would promote labor and other human rights and stated that the U.S. should buy goods from companies that adhere to certain standards.
Review or Renegotiation of FTAs
The candidates generally said that if elected they would review NAFTA and other existing U.S. trade agreements. Obama and Clinton said they would work with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada to renegotiate and correct ‘shortcomings’ in that agreement.
Doha Round
Edwards, the only candidate to respond to the question on the Doha Round negotiations, said generally that change is needed in current WTO proceedings, including the Doha Round, and that the U.S. should work with WTO trading partners to fix rules.
Trade Deficit Measures
To combat the U.S. trade deficit, Clinton, Edwards and Obama highlighted the need to eliminate currency manipulation, which they felt puts U.S. goods at a disadvantage. Both Clinton and Edwards said they would vigorously enforce current free trade agreements, while Clinton added that she would double the enforcement staff at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Edwards and Obama would eliminate ‘tax incentives’ that U.S. companies may have to invest overseas. Obama also said he would protect U.S. producers from dumping and predatory pricing and ‘demand equal access to markets abroad.’
The Democratic candidates for president said in recently released statements that they support trade agreement provisions that enforce labor and environmental standards and that they would review and possibly renegotiate all existing U.S. trade pacts. The statements were released by the Iowa Fair Trade Campaign, a group of trade unions and other organizations, which requested the candidates’ views while they campaigned in Iowa for the Jan. 3 caucus. The candidates, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, former Sen. John Edwards and Gov. Bill Richardson (Sens. Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd responded as well but have since dropped out of the race) were asked to address five general areas that affect trade: the fast track trade negotiating process; terms for future trade agreements; review or renegotiation of NAFTA and other existing agreements; Doha Round negotiations; and measures to address the trade deficit.
Following are highlights from their statements.
Fast Track
Clinton said she would not finalize any new trade agreements or seek trade promotion authority (‘fast track’) until her administration has reviewed all existing agreements and crafted a comprehensive trade policy. Edwards said the U.S. needs a new negotiating process that ensures ‘diverse public input,’ to include ‘non-commercial interests.’ Obama said the criteria for determining possible trade partners must involve an analysis of their labor and environmental standards. Obama also supports a stronger role for Congress in the trade agreement negotiation process.
Trade Agreement Provisions
All the candidates supported enforceable labor and environmental terms in trade agreements. Edwards and Obama were critical of provisions that allow foreign investors to directly challenge U.S. federal and local laws, and Obama said he would limit this right. To ensure the safety of imported foods and other products, Clinton said she would create a single agency to oversee food safety, support country of origin labeling and increase the number of U.S. inspectors at domestic and foreign ports. Edwards endorsed removing ‘unreasonable limitations’ in trade agreements related to border inspections and safety standards. Obama would support increased enforcement of current product safety laws and further assistance for the federal agencies that oversee these issues. Richardson would turn to the WTO for all members to agree on a ‘no-standards lowering clause.’ On government procurement, Edwards said he is willing to change existing agreements to ensure that any related clause supports rather than hurts domestic businesses. Richardson said he would promote labor and other human rights and stated that the U.S. should buy goods from companies that adhere to certain standards.
Review or Renegotiation of FTAs
The candidates generally said that if elected they would review NAFTA and other existing U.S. trade agreements. Obama and Clinton said they would work with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada to renegotiate and correct ‘shortcomings’ in that agreement.
Doha Round
Edwards, the only candidate to respond to the question on the Doha Round negotiations, said generally that change is needed in current WTO proceedings, including the Doha Round, and that the U.S. should work with WTO trading partners to fix rules.
Trade Deficit Measures
To combat the U.S. trade deficit, Clinton, Edwards and Obama highlighted the need to eliminate currency manipulation, which they felt puts U.S. goods at a disadvantage. Both Clinton and Edwards said they would vigorously enforce current free trade agreements, while Clinton added that she would double the enforcement staff at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Edwards and Obama would eliminate ‘tax incentives’ that U.S. companies may have to invest overseas. Obama also said he would protect U.S. producers from dumping and predatory pricing and ‘demand equal access to markets abroad.’
Lack of Standards Is Slowing Adoption of RFID for Cargo Security
(Industry Week)
The U.S. government has been slow to issue any kind of mandate regarding the implementation of RFID on cargo containers.
It’s been several years now since consumer goods manufacturers received their marching orders from retail giant Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and the U.S. Department of Defense to start implementing radio frequency identification (RFID) technology into their operations. There, the goal has primarily been to speed up warehousing operations and improve inventory management.
And yet, paradoxically, the U.S. government has been much slower to issue any kind of mandate regarding the implementation of RFID on cargo containers, where the goal would be much loftier: ensuring supply chain security and thwarting terrorists and hijackers.
One reason for the lag in cargo security technology adoption has been market confusion about standards. An ISO committee has issued a standard based on active RFID tags, i.e., those that include a power source, such as a battery. However, according to a recent study conducted by ABI Research, many end-users would rather use passive RFID solutions (no power source, and much less expensive), which are the types of tags Wal-Mart and DoD suppliers are adopting.
“The cargo tracking and security market is not immune from the active vs. passive cost-benefit-performance debate,” points out Michael Liard, a director with ABI Research. “The ISO standards committee has been deliberating for years, and this year, amid industry rumors suggesting that the U.S. government would mandate inspection of container seals on all incoming containers, it decided in favor of active technology.”
However, he continues, since the Department of Homeland Security has not issued any kind of RFID mandate, end-users have mostly taken a “wait and see” position. In the meantime, some suppliers of passive RFID tags are working with other standards groups to create a passive RFID standard for container tracking, according to ABI Research.
“So far, the U.S. government has wielded the ‘carrot’ of expedited processing of sealed containers, rather than the ‘stick’ of a legal mandate,” observes Mike Ippoliti, another research director at ABI Research. “That carrot has not been tasty enough to tempt any of the interested parties. While nobody wants a container-related breach of security, only if there is a major incident will the government try to impose its will on this industry. If and when that happens, we expect the container security market to explode.”
The U.S. government has been slow to issue any kind of mandate regarding the implementation of RFID on cargo containers.
It’s been several years now since consumer goods manufacturers received their marching orders from retail giant Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and the U.S. Department of Defense to start implementing radio frequency identification (RFID) technology into their operations. There, the goal has primarily been to speed up warehousing operations and improve inventory management.
And yet, paradoxically, the U.S. government has been much slower to issue any kind of mandate regarding the implementation of RFID on cargo containers, where the goal would be much loftier: ensuring supply chain security and thwarting terrorists and hijackers.
One reason for the lag in cargo security technology adoption has been market confusion about standards. An ISO committee has issued a standard based on active RFID tags, i.e., those that include a power source, such as a battery. However, according to a recent study conducted by ABI Research, many end-users would rather use passive RFID solutions (no power source, and much less expensive), which are the types of tags Wal-Mart and DoD suppliers are adopting.
“The cargo tracking and security market is not immune from the active vs. passive cost-benefit-performance debate,” points out Michael Liard, a director with ABI Research. “The ISO standards committee has been deliberating for years, and this year, amid industry rumors suggesting that the U.S. government would mandate inspection of container seals on all incoming containers, it decided in favor of active technology.”
However, he continues, since the Department of Homeland Security has not issued any kind of RFID mandate, end-users have mostly taken a “wait and see” position. In the meantime, some suppliers of passive RFID tags are working with other standards groups to create a passive RFID standard for container tracking, according to ABI Research.
“So far, the U.S. government has wielded the ‘carrot’ of expedited processing of sealed containers, rather than the ‘stick’ of a legal mandate,” observes Mike Ippoliti, another research director at ABI Research. “That carrot has not been tasty enough to tempt any of the interested parties. While nobody wants a container-related breach of security, only if there is a major incident will the government try to impose its will on this industry. If and when that happens, we expect the container security market to explode.”
TACA Lines to Hike Eastbound Rates Next Month
(Transport Intelligence)
Container shipping lines belonging to the Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement (TACA) are planning to implement a general rate increase for eastbound traffic, effective February 1, 2008.
In a statement, the group claimed that following a further review of current and projected transatlantic trading conditions, they wished to advise that “the increasing eastbound trade volume, as reported in the August trade announcement, is now creating severe demands on vessel space and, in particular, on container availability for the growing US exports”.
“This rising demand for space, as evidenced by the strength of eastbound cargo volumes and the high level of forward bookings, coupled with the additional costs of repositioning containers, is expected to increase substantially into 2008. In this respect, the TACA rate restoration measures published in October 2007 have provided insufficient revenues to cover the rising cost pressures encountered by these demands.
“The parties conclude that, under such conditions, services will become unsustainable at current levels and that further action is necessary in order to maintain the quality of services required by the trade. As a consequence, TACA wishes to advise its customers of an eastbound general tariff increase effective from February 1, 2008.”
TACA said the planned increases, for dry van and temperature-controlled containers moving from and via Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific ports, were $400 per 20ft container, $500 per 40ft/45ft container and WM $25.
Container shipping lines belonging to the Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement (TACA) are planning to implement a general rate increase for eastbound traffic, effective February 1, 2008.
In a statement, the group claimed that following a further review of current and projected transatlantic trading conditions, they wished to advise that “the increasing eastbound trade volume, as reported in the August trade announcement, is now creating severe demands on vessel space and, in particular, on container availability for the growing US exports”.
“This rising demand for space, as evidenced by the strength of eastbound cargo volumes and the high level of forward bookings, coupled with the additional costs of repositioning containers, is expected to increase substantially into 2008. In this respect, the TACA rate restoration measures published in October 2007 have provided insufficient revenues to cover the rising cost pressures encountered by these demands.
“The parties conclude that, under such conditions, services will become unsustainable at current levels and that further action is necessary in order to maintain the quality of services required by the trade. As a consequence, TACA wishes to advise its customers of an eastbound general tariff increase effective from February 1, 2008.”
TACA said the planned increases, for dry van and temperature-controlled containers moving from and via Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific ports, were $400 per 20ft container, $500 per 40ft/45ft container and WM $25.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
