OTTAWA — USDA’s controversial rule to impose new border inspection charges on all Canadian trucks should be scrapped, say Canadian officials, who also question whether the interim rule is a violation of NAFTA trade obligations.

“We ask that the formal rulemaking process for this interim rule be withdrawn,” says a letter from the Canadian Embassy in Washington to the US Dept of Agriculture. “We would also seek bilateral discussions to identify any 1egitimate issues that may exist concerning cross-border movement of fruits and vegetables and to collaboratively address them in ways that do not disrupt trade.”

USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s interim rule removes any prior exemptions from inspection for imported fruits and vegetables grown in Canada. The U.S. says it needs to step-up inspections to guard against pests and bio-terror risk in food and agriculture products — especially those from abroad that are illegally being labeled as Canadian products.

To pay for the additional screening, USDA is requiring truckers — whether they’re hauling Cauliflower or computers — to fork over $5.25 US per crossing, or $105 for an annual decal starting Nov. 24 of this year.

Canadian officials say the ‘needless’ inspections could seriously
disrupt the flow of traffic at busy border crossings

Today’s Trucking recently learned that carriers with transponders used to pay for U.S. Customs and Border protection’s $100 border crossing fee will be able to simply pay for both administrative processes through CBP’s single system.

But thousands of truckers who don’t cross the border as frequently don’t have transponders, and many others may not even be aware of the additional $105 charge to USDA. Those truckers will be asked to dig in their pockets for $5.25 US to cross — creating the potential for massive disruptions at busy land ports.

Echoing the playbook of the Canadian Trucking Alliance, the Canadian Embassy told the U.S. officials “it takes very little to seriously disrupt the flow of traffic through busy land-border crossings whether by truck, rail or passenger vehicles.”

Furthermore, says the letter, “the interim rule notes that current infrastructure would need to be expanded to accommodate the activities it proposes … Our busiest ports of entry are bridges, with little capacity to absorb the increased burden of fee collection and what in Canada’s view are unnecessary increases in inspections as proposed by the (rule).”

Not only will the additional inspections undermine “sophisticated food-safety, food-security and traceability practices” — which will result in contaminated food and rejection of shipments by buyers — but Canada also warns the rule may also be at odds with international trade obligations.

“It is important to note that the (U.S.) has undertaken commitments … that require, among other things, that inspection requirements be limited to what is reasonable and necessary, and that any fees imposed for such inspections are applied equitably and are no higher than the actual cost of providing these services.”

Like the CTA, Ottawa also points out how thousands of carriers, shippers, and drivers have already made investments in pre-clearance security and advance cargo notification programs to prove they or their cargo isn’t a threat. “The approach taken by the interim rule to collect fees to increase random inspection of all conveyances flies in the face of sound principles of risk management — principles our two countries formalized in the 2001 Smart Border Declaration.”

Rather than going forward with the extra inspections at the border, Canadian officials recommend the two counties work together to mitigate the risk at origin, a process that “has been successfully employed by our two countries … and has provided superior levels of protection for the citizens and agricultural resources of both our countries.

“Moving to the approach proposed in the (rule) would be a step backwards from the collaborative U.S.-Canada approach taken up to this point and would likely increase rather than decrease biosecurity risks.”

— for more on this story be sure to check the upcoming Nov. print issue of Today’s Trucking