Contributing Editor Toby Gooley is a writer and editor specializing in supply chain, logistics, and material handling, and a lecturer at MIT's Center for Transportation & Logistics. She previously was Senior Editor at DC VELOCITY and Editor of DCV's sister publication, CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly. Prior to joining AGiLE Business Media in 2007, she spent 20 years at Logistics Management magazine as Managing Editor and Senior Editor covering international trade and transportation. Prior to that she was an export traffic manager for 10 years. She holds a B.A. in Asian Studies from Cornell University.
When U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) unveiled its Importer Security Filing (ISF) rule, many people suspected that their business operations were about to change in a big way. Nearly a year after the rule's implementation, it's abundantly clear that their assessment was right on the mark.
The ISF rule, which is intended to help CBP screen incoming ocean containers for security risks, is popularly known as "10+2"—a name derived from the number of data elements importers (10) and ocean carriers (2) must provide to CBP before a U.S.-bound container is loaded on board a ship.
To comply with the rule, which CBP began enforcing in January, importers have been forced to make a number of procedural changes. They must collect more data than before—often from different parties than in the past—and report it to CBP much earlier and in a different format than they used to.
The road to compliance has been a bumpy one; these and many other ISF-related changes have given rise to a host of questions, complications, and procedural errors that have affected almost every importer at some point. Addressing them often requires extremely detailed, technical knowledge, but there are a few general steps you can take to avoid some of the obstacles. In this follow-up to our July 2010 article ("'10+2' + technology = progress"), we share six tips that may make your path to "10+2" compliance a little smoother.
1. Read CBP's "ISF Frequently Asked Questions." This 63-page download is required reading for anyone who's involved in 10+2 compliance—not just those in import operations but also technical staff who are responsible for software modification and data formatting. The document, updated in July 2010, explains what importers should do and how the agency will respond in specific situations. These FAQs can be found on the Importer Security Filing page of CBP's website.
A useful summary of ISF basics is the PowerPoint "10+2 Program: Importer Presentation" located on the same page. This document explains relationships, responsibilities, typical problems encountered, and where to get more information.
2. Get expert assistance. Although some large importers handle their own filings, most importers, large and small, find the details of compliance daunting enough that they seek outside assistance. Many go to their customs brokers for help in managing their filings and keeping abreast of changing policies and procedures. But customs brokers aren't the only source of information. You can also obtain expert advice from trade compliance consultants, global trade management software companies, and specialized organizations like the American Association of Exporters and Importers and the International Compliance Professionals Association.
3. Develop an ISF standard procedures manual. So many procedures and technical requirements have changed that no one can—or should—expect people to figure it out on their own. Having a procedures manual is therefore essential, says Beth Peterson, co-author of two research studies on ISF compliance and president of BPE Global, a San Francisco-based consulting firm that specializes in import/export compliance. An online or printed manual will help you train not only your own employees but also your suppliers' staffs, she says.
4. Build ISF compliance into your supplier contracts and communications. You have no choice but to rely on suppliers and providers of transportation and logistics services to provide some of the ISF data—and to provide it within some very tight windows. One of the best ways to make sure you get what you need when you need it is to write those requirements into contractual agreements and service contracts. Peterson recommends raising the subject during negotiations with suppliers like contract manufacturers, rather than waiting until it's time to ship. "You have to get this done at the time you negotiate the broader contract," she says. "You don't want to go back and tell them after the fact, 'Oh, by the way, you have to give me this information within this time frame.'"
Along those lines, CBP recommends incorporating ISF data requirements into purchase orders and advance shipment notifications. Some importers also mandate that their vendors use an online booking tool that requires them to enter all ISF data before they can obtain a booking confirmation or require their suppliers to undergo training in ISF compliance.
5. Give CBP everything you've got, as soon as you've got it. Sometimes it's simply not possible to obtain every piece of data within the required time frame. "Send what you have, even if you don't have a bill of lading number yet," advises Peterson. "Make sure what you do send is timely. You can update it as soon as you get additional details."
So far, she says, importers that communicate with customs authorities and can demonstrate that they're making an honest effort to get the information and resolve any problems are "not feeling a lot of pressure. ... Customs has been true to its word" that it will take those efforts into consideration when assessing compliance levels.
6. Automate, automate, automate. That's the message from vendors of global trade management (GTM) software. Although they have an obvious interest in promoting automated solutions, they do have a valid point, especially in regard to ISF filings. With so many parties now involved in providing data and with tighter deadlines to meet, using software to standardize data collection and formatting is a huge time saver. It can also promote accuracy, minimize errors, and avoid duplication of effort. On top of that, the software can identify information gaps, provide greater visibility into overseas activities and costs, create a compliance audit trail, and improve data integrity throughout the supply chain.
Don't let your guard down
Since 10+2 has been in effect, importers have experienced numerous glitches, surprises, and holdups, caused mostly by inaccurate, conflicting, missing, or late information. They have also seen their order-to-delivery cycle times stretch by an average of two days, according to a survey conducted late last year by American Shipper magazine and BPE Global.
Thanks to regular communication between the trade community and CBP, and to hard work by organizations like AAEI and CBP's advisory councils, many of those issues have been resolved—or at least they're on the agency's radar screen. In fact, the trade community has done remarkably well in meeting the complex ISF requirements. In a July 23 letter to 15 industry organizations, CBP Commissioner Alan Bersin wrote, "To date, CBP is very satisfied with the compliance levels of the trade community."
Even if you're confident your company merits such praise, that doesn't mean it's safe to let your guard down. Instead, use the six suggestions offered here to make sure that when it comes to ISF compliance, you, your suppliers, and your service providers are all following best practices.
A move by federal regulators to reinforce requirements for broker transparency in freight transactions is stirring debate among transportation groups, after the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) published a “notice of proposed rulemaking” this week.
According to FMCSA, its draft rule would strive to make broker transparency more common, requiring greater sharing of the material information necessary for transportation industry parties to make informed business decisions and to support the efficient resolution of disputes.
The proposed rule titled “Transparency in Property Broker Transactions” would address what FMCSA calls the lack of access to information among shippers and motor carriers that can impact the fairness and efficiency of the transportation system, and would reframe broker transparency as a regulatory duty imposed on brokers, with the goal of deterring non-compliance. Specifically, the move would require brokers to keep electronic records, and require brokers to provide transaction records to motor carriers and shippers upon request and within 48 hours of that request.
Under federal regulatory processes, public comments on the move are due by January 21, 2025. However, transportation groups are not waiting on the sidelines to voice their opinions.
According to the Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA), an industry group representing the third-party logistics (3PL) industry, the potential rule is “misguided overreach” that fails to address the more pressing issue of freight fraud. In TIA’s view, broker transparency regulation is “obsolete and un-American,” and has no place in today’s “highly transparent” marketplace. “This proposal represents a misguided focus on outdated and unnecessary regulations rather than tackling issues that genuinely threaten the safety and efficiency of our nation’s supply chains,” TIA said.
But trucker trade group the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) welcomed the proposed rule, which it said would ensure that brokers finally play by the rules. “We appreciate that FMCSA incorporated input from our petition, including a requirement to make records available electronically and emphasizing that brokers have a duty to comply with regulations. As FMCSA noted, broker transparency is necessary for a fair, efficient transportation system, and is especially important to help carriers defend themselves against alleged claims on a shipment,” OOIDA President Todd Spencer said in a statement.
Additional pushback came from the Small Business in Transportation Coalition (SBTC), a network of transportation professionals in small business, which said the potential rule didn’t go far enough. “This is too little too late and is disappointing. It preserves the status quo, which caters to Big Broker & TIA. There is no question now that FMCSA has been captured by Big Broker. Truckers and carriers must now come out in droves and file comments in full force against this starting tomorrow,” SBTC executive director James Lamb said in a LinkedIn post.
The “series B” funding round was financed by an unnamed “strategic customer” as well as Teradyne Robotics Ventures, Toyota Ventures, Ranpak, Third Kind Venture Capital, One Madison Group, Hyperplane, Catapult Ventures, and others.
The fresh backing comes as Massachusetts-based Pickle reported a spate of third quarter orders, saying that six customers placed orders for over 30 production robots to deploy in the first half of 2025. The new orders include pilot conversions, existing customer expansions, and new customer adoption.
“Pickle is hitting its strides delivering innovation, development, commercial traction, and customer satisfaction. The company is building groundbreaking technology while executing on essential recurring parts of a successful business like field service and manufacturing management,” Omar Asali, Pickle board member and CEO of investor Ranpak, said in a release.
According to Pickle, its truck-unloading robot applies “Physical AI” technology to one of the most labor-intensive, physically demanding, and highest turnover work areas in logistics operations. The platform combines a powerful vision system with generative AI foundation models trained on millions of data points from real logistics and warehouse operations that enable Pickle’s robotic hardware platform to perform physical work at human-scale or better, the company says.
Bloomington, Indiana-based FTR said its Trucking Conditions Index declined in September to -2.47 from -1.39 in August as weakness in the principal freight dynamics – freight rates, utilization, and volume – offset lower fuel costs and slightly less unfavorable financing costs.
Those negative numbers are nothing new—the TCI has been positive only twice – in May and June of this year – since April 2022, but the group’s current forecast still envisions consistently positive readings through at least a two-year forecast horizon.
“Aside from a near-term boost mostly related to falling diesel prices, we have not changed our Trucking Conditions Index forecast significantly in the wake of the election,” Avery Vise, FTR’s vice president of trucking, said in a release. “The outlook continues to be more favorable for carriers than what they have experienced for well over two years. Our analysis indicates gradual but steadily rising capacity utilization leading to stronger freight rates in 2025.”
But FTR said its forecast remains unchanged. “Just like everyone else, we’ll be watching closely to see exactly what trade and other economic policies are implemented and over what time frame. Some freight disruptions are likely due to tariffs and other factors, but it is not yet clear that those actions will do more than shift the timing of activity,” Vise said.
The TCI tracks the changes representing five major conditions in the U.S. truck market: freight volumes, freight rates, fleet capacity, fuel prices, and financing costs. Combined into a single index indicating the industry’s overall health, a positive score represents good, optimistic conditions while a negative score shows the inverse.
Specifically, the new global average robot density has reached a record 162 units per 10,000 employees in 2023, which is more than double the mark of 74 units measured seven years ago.
Broken into geographical regions, the European Union has a robot density of 219 units per 10,000 employees, an increase of 5.2%, with Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Slovenia in the global top ten. Next, North America’s robot density is 197 units per 10,000 employees – up 4.2%. And Asia has a robot density of 182 units per 10,000 persons employed in manufacturing - an increase of 7.6%. The economies of Korea, Singapore, mainland China and Japan are among the top ten most automated countries.
Broken into individual countries, the U.S. ranked in 10th place in 2023, with a robot density of 295 units. Higher up on the list, the top five are:
The Republic of Korea, with 1,012 robot units, showing a 5% increase on average each year since 2018 thanks to its strong electronics and automotive industries.
Singapore had 770 robot units, in part because it is a small country with a very low number of employees in the manufacturing industry, so it can reach a high robot density with a relatively small operational stock.
China took third place in 2023, surpassing Germany and Japan with a mark of 470 robot units as the nation has managed to double its robot density within four years.
Germany ranks fourth with 429 robot units for a 5% CAGR since 2018.
Japan is in fifth place with 419 robot units, showing growth of 7% on average each year from 2018 to 2023.
Progress in generative AI (GenAI) is poised to impact business procurement processes through advancements in three areas—agentic reasoning, multimodality, and AI agents—according to Gartner Inc.
Those functions will redefine how procurement operates and significantly impact the agendas of chief procurement officers (CPOs). And 72% of procurement leaders are already prioritizing the integration of GenAI into their strategies, thus highlighting the recognition of its potential to drive significant improvements in efficiency and effectiveness, Gartner found in a survey conducted in July, 2024, with 258 global respondents.
Gartner defined the new functions as follows:
Agentic reasoning in GenAI allows for advanced decision-making processes that mimic human-like cognition. This capability will enable procurement functions to leverage GenAI to analyze complex scenarios and make informed decisions with greater accuracy and speed.
Multimodality refers to the ability of GenAI to process and integrate multiple forms of data, such as text, images, and audio. This will make GenAI more intuitively consumable to users and enhance procurement's ability to gather and analyze diverse information sources, leading to more comprehensive insights and better-informed strategies.
AI agents are autonomous systems that can perform tasks and make decisions on behalf of human operators. In procurement, these agents will automate procurement tasks and activities, freeing up human resources to focus on strategic initiatives, complex problem-solving and edge cases.
As CPOs look to maximize the value of GenAI in procurement, the study recommended three starting points: double down on data governance, develop and incorporate privacy standards into contracts, and increase procurement thresholds.
“These advancements will usher procurement into an era where the distance between ideas, insights, and actions will shorten rapidly,” Ryan Polk, senior director analyst in Gartner’s Supply Chain practice, said in a release. "Procurement leaders who build their foundation now through a focus on data quality, privacy and risk management have the potential to reap new levels of productivity and strategic value from the technology."