Bill Overview
Title: Port Crane Security and Inspection Act of 2022
Description: This bill limits the operation at U.S. ports of foreign cranes. Foreign cranes are those (1) manufactured by companies that are subject to the control or influence of a country designated as a foreign adversary, and (2) using software or other technology that connects to ports' cyber infrastructure. Foreign cranes that are contracted for on or after the date of the bill's enactment may not operate at a U.S. port. The bill also prohibits, effective five years after the date of the bill's enactment, foreign cranes at U.S. ports if the cranes use software or other technology manufactured by a company affiliated with a foreign adversary and connect to a port's cyber infrastructure. Additionally, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) must (1) inspect foreign cranes before they are placed into operation for potential security vulnerabilities, and (2) assess the threat posed by security vulnerabilities on existing or newly constructed foreign cranes. CISA must also report to Congress about critical and high-risk security vulnerabilities posed by foreign cranes at U.S. ports.
Sponsors: Rep. Gimenez, Carlos A. [R-FL-26]
Target Audience
Population: people globally affected by port crane operations and cybersecurity regulations
Estimated Size: 3000000
- The primary focus of this bill is to regulate the operation of foreign cranes at U.S. ports due to security concerns, thereby impacting the workforce associated with these ports, particularly those involved with procurement, maintenance, and operation of such cranes.
- There are approximately 328 U.S. ports that handle primarily bulk cargos, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, which provide a direct indication of the number of facilities potentially affected.
- The legislation also impacts any foreign businesses or countries designated as 'foreign adversaries' that manufacture cranes or crane software, affecting international trade and business operations.
- Given that CISA is required to inspect these cranes, the bill will increase the workload for employees within this agency and potentially create demand for additional cybersecurity professionals.
- The bill will impact workers and companies involved in the import/export and logistics industries that rely on these ports, estimated to be a significant portion of the labor force given the centrality of ports to international trade in the U.S.
- A significant segment of the U.S. population is indirectly affected because these ports facilitate trade that is integrated into numerous sectors of the U.S. economy, thereby potentially affecting the price and availability of goods.
Reasoning
- The bill targets U.S. ports and security concerns related to foreign cranes, mainly affecting port workers, related suppliers, and cybersecurity personnel.
- Globally estimated, the policy involves crane operations, cybersecurity implications in port logistics affecting international and domestic trade and supply chains.
- Direct U.S. impact centers on port workers, including those directly handling cranes, but extends out to import-export businesses and associated industries.
- Crane manufacturing by foreign adversaries may shift demand to other markets, impacting international business relations.
- U.S. supply chains might experience a rise in costs of goods due to increased security measures and substitution of foreign technology.
- CISA's inspections will require additional workforce within the agency and potentially private cybersecurity firms.
Simulated Interviews
Port Crane Operator (Houston, Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the need for security but worried it might affect my job if we reduce reliance on foreign cranes.
- I could have to retrain if foreign cranes are phased out, which is not easy at my age.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Cybersecurity Specialist at CISA (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill aligns with our focus on securing critical infrastructure.
- It may require us to expand, which would be busy but offer opportunities for career growth.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Port Manager (Savannah, Georgia)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If we can't use our existing cranes or require new systems, there may be significant costs involved.
- Coordination with federal agencies will be crucial; our operational thinking needs an upgrade.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Logistics Coordinator in Maritime Transport (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increasing security is good but ports are already tight, and adjustments can cause delays.
- Our costs will likely go up if we can't use some of our current cranes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Small Business Owner in Import Sector (Miami, Florida)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I rely on fast and cost-effective import flows, so disruptions or increased costs could directly affect my bottom line.
- Considering alternative routes or ports might become necessary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Union Representative for Port Workers (New York City, New York)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might be seen as anti-worker if cranes are decommissioned without alternatives.
- We need to ensure that jobs and safety are both priorities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Software Developer for Port Security Firms (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 42 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill is good for business as our expertise will be in higher demand.
- Security threats are real, and proactive efforts are necessary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired Former Port Executive (Newark, New Jersey)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm mostly observing now, but the shift in technology might disrupt the traditional way these ports have operated.
- Retooling can be costly, and there's usually pushback.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Procurement Officer for Shipping Company (Norfolk, Virginia)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am concerned that this policy will decrease the selection available and increase costs for components.
- Replacing affected cranes will be logistical and financial headaches.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Dock Worker (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm on the ground, and any changes in crane operations might change work pace or processes.
- Security is important, but so is job stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $55000000 (Low: $44000000, High: $66000000)
Year 3: $60000000 (Low: $48000000, High: $72000000)
Year 5: $75000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $90000000)
Year 10: $-1 (Low: $-1, High: $-1)
Year 100: $-1 (Low: $-1, High: $-1)
Key Considerations
- The economic impact of securing U.S. port operations against potential threats from adversarial nations.
- Balancing immediate economic costs with long-term benefits of enhanced security.
- Potential trade disruptions from immediate restrictions on foreign cranes.