Bill Overview
Title: CTPAT Pilot Program Act of 2022
Description: 2022 This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to carry out a pilot program that assesses whether allowing certain entities to participate in the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (CTPAT) would enhance port security, combat terrorism, prevent supply chain security breaches, or otherwise satisfy the goals of CTPAT. Such entities are (1) non-asset-based third-party logistics providers that arrange international freight transportation and are licensed or bonded by specified federal agencies; or (2) asset-based third-party logistics providers that facilitate cross-border activity, are licensed or bonded by specified federal agencies, and execute logistics services using their own warehousing assets and resources. The bill requires the Government Accountability Office to report on the effectiveness of CTPAT.
Sponsors: Rep. Slotkin, Elissa [D-MI-8]
Target Audience
Population: Third-party logistics providers and associated trade professionals
Estimated Size: 100000
- The CTPAT Pilot Program Act of 2022 targets logistics providers involved in international freight transportation, particularly third-party logistics (3PL) providers.
- These logistics providers play a crucial role in the global supply chain, affecting trade operations worldwide.
- The legislation primarily impacts countries with significant trade partnerships and cross-border logistics operations, affecting international trade security.
Reasoning
- The CTPAT Pilot Program Act of 2022 mainly affects third-party logistics providers involved in international freight. Being a niche sector, the direct impact of the policy is expected to be primarily medium to low for the majority of the population who are not in logistics, but potentially high for those whose businesses hinge on these logistics operations.
- Due to a limited budget and a fairly specialized target group of approximately 100,000 in the U.S., the program will need to be highly selective in its engagement and targeted in its implementation strategy.
- In considering population distribution, we ensure a mix of direct beneficiaries (those in logistics roles) and indirect or unaffected individuals who represent the broader economic ecosystem influenced by trade and logistics.
Simulated Interviews
Logistics Coordinator (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic about participating in CTPAT if it opens up to us. Right now, we mainly arrange and track international freight, and this inclusion could strengthen our security credentials.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Owner of a 3PL company (Dallas, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to CTPAT could really enhance our operational standards and lead to better contracts. Security is a big concern in logistics.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Software Developer (Miami, FL)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think broader participation in CTPAT could increase demand for security software like ours, though indirectly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Customs Broker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- CTPAT expansion could streamline customs clearance. Fewer complications in security compliance would be a relief.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Warehouse Manager (Newark, NJ)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the policy leads to better security, then it could lessen our operational risks. It's not directly affecting me, but still relevant.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Freight Forwarder (Seattle, WA)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We might not be affected directly since we're small, but the trickle-down improvements can still benefit our operations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
International Trade Consultant (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- By making CTPAT more inclusive, clients can improve their compliance processes, which ultimately helps me support them better.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired Logistics Executive (Houston, TX)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm retired now, but in an advisory capacity, I see this as an opportunity for companies to modernize and improve security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Logistics Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The program could see us developing new analytical tools to help companies maintain compliance under the new CTPAT rules.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Educator in International Business (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's an interesting policy from an academic perspective. Expanding CTPAT provides case studies and real-world examples for students.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The pilot program will require close collaboration between logistics providers and DHS for successful implementation.
- The effectiveness and scalability of CTPAT principles will hinge on detailed reporting and analysis by the Government Accountability Office.
- Ensuring adequate funding for the pilot would be essential to truly assess its impacts on port security.
- Stakeholder feedback from those involved in the pilot program is crucial for future policy adjustments.