making presentations which included Customs and Border Protection, Transportation Security Administration, Federal Aviation Administration and United States Department of Agriculture all discussed issues attendant to examination of freight and violations in regards to the transportation of freight and the detection or lack of detection of those violations. In discussion with local enforcement representatives of each agency it was unanimous that the duplication of effort is costing both the Government and private industry unnecessary and untold millions of dollars. As an example, the Customs service (CBP) has proposed new procedures for Advance Electronic Reporting of cargo being carried by truckers across our Northern and Southern borders (BRASS). The proposed rules require specific bar coding of house bills of lading in order to assist Customs in determining which cargo to examine and which cargo poses a threat or potential threat. Measure that against the procedures implemented with regards to air freight where there is no required bar coding identification procedure. On the air side, the very same Customs service (CBP) has implemented a Jerririgged system whereby the airlines or other designated parties must electronically submit house airway bill information in a much less efficient fashion than on the land borders. Although the industry agrees that some type of security measures are necessary, it remains unclear as to whether the partially implemented procedures of these various federal agencies has had any impact upon increased security. In a recently released study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, it was concluded that, despite the CBP implementation of security procedures, the “supply chain”continues to be particularly vulnerable “to potential terrorists.” One can argue that it is thus disingenuous for Customs and TSA to impose penalties for failure to follow the dictates of security provisions. Obviously, penalties at some point would be appropriate, but without the published guidelines as to what types of violations should be penalized and what the mitigating guidelines should be; the non-uniformity of these penalty provisions, both in the initial assessment and in the ultimate determination do not create the desired deterrent effect. Where violations occur because of the lack of ability to obtain valid information and where there is no intentional violation, penalties should only be assessed, at this time, for the most egregious and potentially dangerous violations. A procedural deviation should not be penalized in the same manner as one that could have a significant impact on our security. Without guidelines to follow for mitigation of these penalties, there should be a moratorium on both the assessment of penalties as well as final resolutions. In a regard to Advance Electronic presentation of cargo information Customs should realize at this time that it mistakenly allows for the submission of “advance information” by anyone other than the Customs broker. In comments to the proposed rule published in the Federal Register, and submitted on 8/22/03, we, on behalf of the JFK Airport Customs Brokers & Freight Forwarders Association made the suggestion that “only” the Customs Broker or the importer of record can be relied upon “to correctly report to Customs what it is that is arriving on board a plane, train, boat or truck.” The rationale that only “the importer of record,” or the Customs Broker should submit this information was succinctly presented in our 8/22 comments. It is quite clear that, neither the forwarder nor the carrier has access to the required information.