Los Angeles / Long Beach Terminal Operators Move Quickly to Recover From Congestion
Pier Pass / http://www.pierpass.org
Container throughput surged in March at marine terminals at the Port of LosAngeles and Port of Long Beach. Compared to February, 75% more containers moved through the terminal truck gates in March during the Off Peak shifts (Monday through Friday nights and Saturday) and Exempt shifts (Saturday night and Sunday). Container moves during Peak shifts (Monday through Friday day times) jumped 54% in March over February.
Average in-terminal turn time in March 2015:
51.5 minutes day shift
54.5 minutes night shift
For comparison, the average in-terminal turn time in February 2015 was 49.6 minutes for the day shift and 53.0 minutes for the night shift.
In-terminal turn time is the average amount of time a truck is inside a terminal to complete a transaction. Truck activity information is derived from RFID data, and excludes lunch hour, breaks and trouble tickets. Turn time at individual terminals will vary depending on time of day and other factors.
Average daily moves per truck for frequent callers* in March:
5 or moves per day: 8%
4 moves per day: 15%
3 moves per day: 29%
2 moves per day: 31%
1 move per day: 17%
*The ports define frequent callers as trucks making one or more moves per weekday. Average moves per day by frequent callers tells us how many moves a truck can make if it is working every day. In March, 23% of frequent callers made four or more moves per day.
Gate moves during Peak and Off Peak/exempt shifts:
Total Peak gate moves: 374,007 (55%)
Total Off Peak/Exempt gate moves: 306,187 (45%)
A gate move occurs when a container enters or leaves a marine terminal via the truck gates. Peak shifts are Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Off Peak shifts are Monday through Friday, 6:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m., and Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday night and Sunday shifts, which are not regularly scheduled, are considered “exempt.”
To learn what it takes for a truck to drop off or pick up a container at a marine terminal, please see http://youtu.be/P9IJN1yIIJ4.
American Textile Industry Praises TPA
Committee on Ways and Means / www.waysandmeans.house.gov
There's no mistaking it: TPA is picking up endorsements from all corners of the American economy. Even the U.S. textile industry has come out in strong support for the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act. And it's not hard to see why.
Shortly after the bill's introduction, the National Council of Textile Organizations announced, "We are pleased to lend our support to this renewal of Trade Promotion Authority." In a statement, the NCTO added, "We look forward to working with both the Executive Branch and Congress as we advocate for trade agreements that fully incorporate the interests of U.S. textile manufacturers. It is critical that these trade agreements help to level the international playing field and boost American exports, create manufacturing jobs, and strengthen the U.S. economy."
There's good reason for textile support. TPA will specifically require the administration to negotiate agreements that tear down barriers to American textiles. The bill lays out several big negotiating objectives for textiles, such as:
Promotes Textile and Apparel Exports: TPA continues to ensure that trade agreements will promote the export of U.S.-made textiles and apparel products by seeking fairer and more open conditions for textiles and apparel trade.
Promotes Global Value Chains: New provisions support U.S. participation in global value chains and ensure that trade agreements reflect the increasingly interrelated and multi-sectoral nature of trade and investment activity.
Advances Best Practices in Trade Agreements: TPA supports best practices, including a robust safeguard to protect against a surge in imports that injures the domestic industry as well as strong provisions to prevent transshipment.
Supports a Balanced Outcome, Including the Yarn-Forward Rule of Origin: The negotiating objective is consistent with USTR’s continued use of a yarn-forward rule of origin, which requires that the yarn production and all operations forward occur in either the United States or the territory of our trading partner. The objective supports a balanced approach in textile negotiations, recognizing the importance of global value chains and the necessity of seeking substantially equivalent opportunities for U.S. exporters in foreign markets as those afforded to foreign importers in the U.S. market.
Strengthens Consultations with Congress and the Public: New and expanded provisions empower Congress and ensure it plays a meaningful role in negotiations. This includes requiring special identification and consultations with House Ways & Means, Senate Finance and House and Senate Agriculture Committees [or House and Senate Committees of Jurisdiction] for products facing tariff disparities (higher foreign tariffs than U.S. tariffs).
Addresses Currency Manipulation: New negotiating objective for the first time directs that trade partners avoid manipulating exchange rates, such as through cooperative mechanisms, enforceable rules, reporting, monitoring, transparency, or other means, as appropriate.
Addresses Impact of State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs): A new negotiating objective calls for eliminating trade distortions and unfair competition from SOEs and ensuring that they act based solely on commercial considerations.
Secretary Lew Sends Letter to Congress on Trade Promotion Authority Bill and Currency Provision
U.S. Department of the Treasury / http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl10033.aspx
4/21/15 WASHINGTON – U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Jacob J. Lew today sent the following letter to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden, the bipartisan sponsors of the “Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015:
The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
Chairman
Committee on Finance
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Chairman Hatch:
I am writing to express strong support for the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation introduced last week. The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 is a critical step toward delivering high-quality trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP).
The Administration shares the concerns of many in Congress about the currency policies of some of our major trading partners. We know that unfair and inappropriate currency polices have hurt our workers and firms. This is why the Treasury Department remains strongly engaged with our trading partners, both bilaterally and through the G-7, the G-20, and the IMF. These efforts are showing real results: in particular, China’s exchange rate is up nearly 30 percent on a real effective basis since 2010, and Japan has not intervened in the foreign exchange market for more than three years. Many Members of Congress and various stakeholders have made a strong case in favor of addressing currency in the context of trade agreements such as the TPP, and we support the current draft of the TPA that includes a strong currency negotiating objective.
We are committed to continuing to work with you and with other Members of Congress to best address currency concerns through approaches that complement our ongoing engagement on currency issues and help to expand U.S. exports and the high-quality jobs associated with trade.
In light of the currency objective that is included in the current TPA legislation, we began formal consultation with our TPP partners and had a number of these conversations last week during the Spring Meetings of the IMF and World Bank. Our partners indicated a willingness to constructively discuss our concerns about inappropriate currency policies, providing an opportunity to work with them to develop an historic new approach to promote greater accountability. Nonetheless, all of the partners consulted have made clear that they will not support the introduction of enforceable currency provisions in the context of trade agreements, and specifically, the TPP. Our partners fear that a trade agreement with an enforceable currency discipline could constrain the ability of their monetary authorities to conduct appropriate macroeconomic policies, and that is a risk they are unwilling to take.
We have a serious concern that in any trade negotiation other countries would insist that an enforceable currency provision be designed so it could be used to challenge legitimate U.S. monetary policy, an outcome we would find unacceptable. Seeking enforceable currency provisions would likely derail the conclusion of the TPP given the deep reservations held by our trading partners. As such, any amendment to TPA legislation requiring that the Administration only seek enforceable currency provisions as a principal negotiating objective would undermine our ability to successfully conclude a TPP negotiation.
We also oppose the current legislation that would use the countervailing duty process to address currency undervaluation. The legislation raises questions about consistency with our international obligations, and other countries might pursue retaliatory measures that could hurt our exporters. Taking such a unilateral step would be counterproductive to our ongoing bilateral and multilateral engagement, as well as to our efforts to promote greater accountability on currency policies in the context of the TPP.
We look forward to working with you to effectively address the currency issue in the context of our trade agreements. The passage of bipartisan TPA legislation will allow us to enter into trade agreements that expand opportunities for American businesses, create high-quality jobs, and further unlock the macroeconomic gains from expanded trade and investment. Reducing trade barriers and securing reforms abroad through well-crafted trade agreements benefit both U.S. economic competitiveness and global economic prosperity.
Sincerely,
Jacob J. Lew
Year-Over-Year Port of Los Angeles Container Volumes for March Rise by 17%, Second Busiest Month in Port's History
Port of Los Angeles / www.portoflosangeles.org/newsroom/2015_releases/news_041615_march_teus.asp
SAN PEDRO, Calif. —April 16, 2015 — March containerized cargo volumes at the Port of Los Angeles increased 17.3 percent compared to the same period last year. The Port handled a total of 791,863 Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units (TEUs), the second-highest month in the Port’s history. The busiest single month was October 2006, when the Port moved 800,063 TEUs.
For the first three months of 2015, overall volumes (1,823,854 TEUs) are down 5 percent compared to the same period in 2014. Current and historical data is available here .
'March container volumes were robust as our terminals worked aggressively to clear out the backlog of vessels," said Port of Los Angeles Executive Director Gene Seroka. "The number of ships waiting at anchor has reduced significantly, labor levels are strong and our container terminals are extremely active. We continue to work on a series of initiatives to improve efficiencies throughout the supply chain. Next week, the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach will co-host stakeholders to discuss additional solutions to further optimize the San Pedro Bay supply chain."
Imports increased 31.5 percent, from 327,497 Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units (TEUs) in March 2014 to 430,898 TEUs in March 2015. Exports declined 22.5 percent, from 187,826 TEUs in March 2014 to 145,536 TEUs in March 2015. Combined, total loaded imports and exports increased 11.86 percent, from 515,323 TEUs in March 2014 to 576,434 TEUs in March 2015. Factoring in empties, which increased 34.7 percent, overall March 2015 volumes (791,863 TEUs) improved 17.3 percent.
United States Files Suit Against Michaels Stores Inc. for Failing to Report Serious Safety Hazard in Shattering Glass Vases
US Consumer Product Safety Commission / www.cpsc.gov
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Department of Justice and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) are jointly announcing the filing of a complaint against Michaels Stores Inc. and its subsidiary Michaels Stores Procurement Co. Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Michaels is a publicly held corporation headquartered in Irving, Texas. In 2013, Michaels had more than $4.5 billion in sales and 50,600 employees. It is the largest arts and crafts specialty retailer in North America.
The complaint charges that Michaels knowingly violated the reporting requirements of the Consumer Product Safety Act with respect to glass vases that shattered in consumers’ hands, sometimes as the consumer lifted the vase from the Michaels Stores shelf. As set forth in the complaint, Michaels imported and sold the vases, which caused serious injuries to consumers, including lacerations requiring stitches, permanent nerve damage and surgery to repair severed tendons. The complaint, filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of the CPSC, seeks civil penalties and permanent injunctive relief.
“Michaels allegedly failed to report critical information about the safety of one of its products,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “The Department of Justice will continue to protect the public against companies that put profits over safety.”
In addition to failing to notify the CPSC “immediately” as required by law, the government also alleges that when Michaels finally notified the CPSC, it did so in a misleading way. Michaels’ report conveyed the false impression that Michaels did not import the vases, even though Michaels should have known it was the importer. The complaint asserts that Michaels’ misrepresentation allowed Michaels to avoid legal responsibility for the recall of the vases as well as any obligation to pay costs and expenses associated with a recall.
“We believe that Michaels chose to profit from selling defective vases that put people at risk, instead of following the law and immediately reporting that their vases were shattering and causing great harm to consumers,” said CPSC Chairman Elliot F. Kaye. “To protect the public, companies are required to report potential product hazards and risks to CPSC on a timely basis. That means within 24 hours, not more than a year as in Michaels’ case.”
Michaels sold the vases in its stores from 2006 to 2010. According to the complaint, the vases pose a safety hazard because their walls are too thin to withstand the pressure of normal handling and, as a result, they shatter in consumers’ hands. The complaint alleges that beginning as early as November 2007 and continuing for more than two years, Michaels received numerous consumer complaints that the vases were unsafe because they shattered during normal use and caused serious injuries. The vases were recalled in September 2010.
The matter is being handled by Trial Attorney Kerala Thie Cowart of the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch, Assistant U.S. Attorney Lisa Hasday of the Northern District of Texas and Patricia Vieira of the CPSC’s Office of the General Counsel.
The claims made in the complaint are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.
ITA - USTR Expresses Concern over EU Proposal to Allow Member States to Ban the Use of GE Food and Feed Deemed Safe
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative / http://www.ustr.gov
Washington, D.C. – United States Trade Representative Michael Froman today expressed disappointment at the new proposal by the European Commission to amend legislation on its genetically-engineered (GE) food and feed approval process to allow EU countries to ignore science-based safety and environmental determinations made by the European Union and “opt out” of imports of GE food and feed.
“We are very disappointed by today's announcement of a regulatory proposal that appears hard to reconcile with the EU's international obligations. Moreover, dividing the EU into 28 separate markets for the circulation of certain products seems at odds with the EU's goal of deepening the internal market. At a time when the U.S. and the EU are working to create further opportunities for growth and jobs through the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, proposing this kind of trade restrictive action is not constructive."
Background
In 2006, a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement panel found that EU member-state bans on import and cultivation of GE products violated WTO rules, because the safeguards were not based on risk assessments. Since then, the U.S. has been working to normalize agricultural trade with the EU.
In 2014, the United States exported a record-high $155.1 billion of agricultural exports to the world, supporting over a million American jobs.
This decision could impact the exports and economies, of countries around the world. In 2014, the EU imported a total of 3.1 billion Euros of potentially affected products from United States, Argentina, Brazil and Canada. Regulatory uncertainty in the EU has the potential to unnecessarily restrict trade in these products.