Coast Guard Office of Port and Facility Compliance Issues 2018 Year in Review

On May 05, 2019, Coast Guard Maritime Commons, the Coast Guard’s blog for maritime professionals, published a notice that the Office of Port and Facility Compliance (CG-FAC) has issued its Annual Review, available on the CG-FAC website. The Maritime Commons post is at https://mariners.coastguard.dodlive.mil/2019/04/05/4-5-2019-port-and-facility-compliance-annual-report-published/    The Year in Review report is at the bottom of the CG-FAC homepage at https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Prevention-Policy-CG-5P/Inspections-Compliance-CG-5PC-/cgfac/

As stated in the document, “The mission of the Office of Port and Facility Compliance (CG-FAC) is to provide safety, security, and environmental stewardship for the nation’s ports and facilities.”[1] Cargo and container security, facility security, TWIC, cyber security, the Area Maritime Security Committees, and most of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA) activities vital to Facility Security Officers are managed from this office. This is a short, very readable document. The very important activities of this Office in 2018 are presented in brief summaries. There are often links included to source documents.

Topics addressed in the report include:

• ·      Highlights of 2018:
• o   Marine Transportation System Recovery
• o   Biennial Facility Inspector & Port Security Specialist Workshop
• o   Committee for the Marine Transportation System (CMTS) Workshop
• o   Common Assessment and Reporting Tool (CART)
• o   Explosive Handling Supervisor Program Manual
• o   Regulated Bulk Liquid Transfer Monitor Manual
• o   API 570 Policy Letters
• o   International Engagement
• o   Arctic Work on Prevention of Pollution of the Marine Environment
• o   Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facility Support
• o   Reporting of Inadequate Port Reception Facilities
• o   Marine Information for Safety & Law Enforcement (MISLE) Enhancements
• o   Policy Advisory Council (PAC) Document Registry
• o   National Maritime Security Advisory Committee (NMSAC)
• ·         Cyber Risk Management
• ·         Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)
• ·         2018 Statistics
• ·         Container Updates
• ·         Rulemakings
• ·         Training
• ·         Area Maritime Security Committees
• ·         On the Horizon for 2019[2] 

While all of these topics are important, here are several that really caught my attention.

First of all, 2018 enforcement statistics:

From 2018 Year in Review

It’s no surprise that access control generates the most citations of the top five. Next in line comes owner/operator requirements, followed by drill and exercise requirements, then comes a tie between restricted area and reporting (breach of security). Facility inspectors across multiple Coast Guard Sectors have been stating that reporting is becoming an area of concern. This is confirmed here. Four out of the top 5 citations appeared in LCDR Jennifer Osburn’s excellent 2017, report, MTSA Effectiveness[3], which listed these violations, 1) Access Control, 2) Restricted Areas, 3) Drills & Exercises, 4)Owner/Operator Requirements, and 5) Audits & VSP/ASP Amendments (stating that they were not in order and were “common” and “typical”).

Cyber risk management:

While the draft Cyber NVIC is going through review, units are encouraged to engage in conversations with facility owners, operators, and security officers about facilities’ cybersecurity/cyber risk management programs and how to begin incorporating cyber into FSAs and FSPs. The Cyber NVIC itself is an awareness tool to inform industry of the requirement to include cyber and provides examples of how cyber might relate to cites within 33 CFR 105 and 106. The NVIC itself is not a template for a Facility Security Plan (FSP) update, addendum, or otherwise example, and therefore addressing cyber risks should not pend on its publication.[4]

Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)

There is an excellent discussion here of a best practice from Sector New Orleans, focusing on focus on tracking authorized UAS flights rather than trying to determine unauthorized flights.

In an effort to support this established novel practice, CG-FAC is working with the Coast Guard

Operations Systems Center (OSC) to develop a voluntary “Notice of UAS Operations” submissions tool on Homeport. The objective is to develop a communications network similar to New Orleans’. CG-FAC is also working on a policy letter to provide guidance on the procedure for reporting unauthorized UAS flights to include the FAA reporting guidelines.[5]

Rulemakings

This section contains an explanation of where we are (or are not) with the TWIC reader final rule. Congress forbad the USCG from implementing the rule or any similar rulemaking until an assessment of the TWIC program is reported to Congress. The RAND Corporation is performing this assessment.

Once completed (estimated June 2019 by HSOAC/RAND), the Coast Guard will review the

results of the assessment and move forward with the TWIC Reader Rule implementation

process, taking into consideration any changes resulting from the assessment, coordination with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Screening Coordination Office

(SCO), and any possible Congressional feedback concerning the assessment.[6]

Policy Advisory Council (PAC) Document Registry

PACs are “decision documents…that provide interpretation of regulations covered under the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of 2002. PACs are a valuable tool for explaining maritime security regulations and aiding Coast Guard field units and the maritime industry.”[7] PACs were issued from 2003 to 2011. Since then, these documents may have been superseded or policy may have changed.  The Coast Guard reviewed all the PACS in 2017.

All active PACs were compiled into a single Adobe document that is indexed and keyword searchable. PACs deemed “no longer required” were rescinded and those incorporated into other policy documents were noted in the registry. The new registry was published on Feb 6, 2018, replacing the individual PAC files previously posted on Coast Guard’s Homeport website. The registry will be reviewed by CG-FAC-2 on an annual basis, where updates and changes will be tracked, noted in the registry, and communicated to port stakeholders through Homeport.[8]

On the Horizon for 2019

CG-FAC is working to address Coast Guard specific tasking within the recent FAA

Reauthorization Act, which directs the Coast Guard, in coordination with other stakeholders, to establish a cyber risk assessment model for the marine transportation system. This cyber risk assessment tool will follow the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Cybersecurity Framework, similar to CG-FAC’s work on Cybersecurity Framework Profiles (CFP).[9]

What this section doesn’t mention: issuance of two NVIC updates, 03-03 CH-3 and 03-07 CH-1. NVIC 03-07 CH-1 may be waiting on the reader rule which means it is on the shelf depending on what Congress says about the Rand report. NVIC 03-03 CH-3 has been worked on for several years and should be ready to go?

Conclusion:

There is something for every MTSA stakeholder in this Office of Port and Facility Compliance 2018 Year in Review. FSOs are urged to read the entire report.

---

[1] U.S. Department of Homeland Security. United States Coast Guard. Office of Port & Facility Compliance. https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Prevention-Policy-CG-5P/Inspections-Compliance-CG-5PC-/cgfac/

[2] U.S. Department of Homeland Security. United States Coast Guard. Office of Port and Facility Compliance.

2018 Annual Report. 2019.  https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/CG-FAC/Documents/Year%20in%20Review/YearInReview2018.pdf?ver=2019-04-03-153641-730

[3]Osburn, Jennifer. Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA) Effectiveness. 2017. https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/CG-FAC/Documents/MTSA%20Effectiveness.pdf?ver=2017-07-19-070242-347

[4] U.S. Department of Homeland Security. United States Coast Guard. Office of Port and Facility Compliance.

2018 Annual Report. 2019.  https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/CG-FAC/Documents/Year%20in%20Review/YearInReview2018.pdf?ver=2019-04-03-153641-730

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

Coast Guard Issues Final Rule on Seafarers' Access to Maritime Facilities

On Monday April 1, 2019, the U.S Coast Guard will issue the Final Rule on Seafarers Access to Maritime Facilities at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-04-01/pdf/2019-06272.pdf. The Federal Register section consists of a very enlightening preamble followed by the actual sections of 33 CFR 105 that will be amended.

Here are some details on the Final Rule. All quotations are from the Rule.

What? All MTSA facilities must implement a system providing seafarers, pilots, and representatives of seamen’s welfare and labor organizations access

Where? Between vessels moored at the facility and the facility gate

How? In a timely manner and at no cost to the seafarer or other individuals.

What are the timelines? The Final Rule is effective May 01, 2019. The new Sec. 21 of the Facility Security Plan (FSP), System for Seafarers Access, needs to be submitted to the Coast Guard for review by 02/01/2020, for implementation by 06/01/2020. Most facilities are already in compliance with granting seafarer’s access, but may not be meeting all the specific requirements of the Rule. Note: please talk to your petty officer before submitting. Depending on when your FSP needs to be annually inspected or re-approved, the Coast Guard may want you to submit this section in alignment with the annual compliance review or reapproval process, for Coast Guard workload considerations.

The amendments to 33 CFR 105 are included at the end of this post.

Why did this regulatory action come about? The Seaman’s Church Institute tracked and documented a troubling pattern of restrictions on access for seafarers and seafarer welfare providers over a period of years.  Despite actions on the part of the Coast Guard to ensure resolution of access problems short of regulation, access continued to be restricted. Congress took notice and Sec. 811 was included in the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-281) requiring “facility owners and operators to ensure shore access for seafarers and other individuals. Specifically, section 811 requires each MTSA-regulated facility to ‘‘provide a system for seamen assigned to a vessel at that facility, pilots, and representatives of seamen’s welfare and labor organizations to board and depart the vessel through the facility in a timely manner at no cost to the individual.’’ A Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) published in 2014 resulted. The Coast Guard held a public meeting on the issues in Washington, D.C. in early 2015.The comment period on the NPRM closed in February 2015 but the Coast Guard reopened and extended the comment period for an additional 60 days.

More details:

Who is the ‘seafarer” and who are  the people who need to be given access? Seafarers are seafarers assigned to a vessel at that facility. Only foreign seafarers who have proper visa credentialing are affected by this rule. The NPRM considered family members to be among the persons to be given access.  This class of people has been eliminated in the final rule. The persons to be given access are pilots and representatives of seamen’s welfare and labor organizations.

How is this access to be accomplished? By using one of these methods:

(1) Regularly scheduled escort between the vessel and the facility gate that conforms to the vessel’s watch schedule as agreed upon between the vessel and facility.

(2) An on-call escort between the vessel and the facility gate.

(3) Arrangements with taxi services or other transportation services, ensuring  that any costs for providing the access described in this section, above the service’s standard fees charged to any customer, are not charged to the individual to whom such access is provided. If a facility  provides arrangements with taxi services or other transportation services as the only method for providing the access described in this section, the facility is responsible to pay any fees for transit within the facility.

(4) Arrangements with seafarers’ welfare organizations to facilitate the access described in this section.

(5) Monitored pedestrian access routes between the vessel and facility gate.

(6) A method, other than those in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section, approved by the COTP.

(7) If an access method relies on a third party, a back-up access method that will be used if the third party is unable to or does not provide the required access in any instance. An owner or operator must ensure that the access required in paragraph (a) of this section is actually provided in all instances.

What is “in a timely manner”? The Captain of the Port (COTP) will decide if the manner is timely.

The facility owner or operator must provide the access described in this section without unreasonable delay, subject to review by the Captain of the Port (COTP). The facility owner or operator must consider the following when establishing timely access without unreasonable delay:

(1) Length of time the vessel is in port.

(2) Distance of egress/ingress between the vessel and facility gate.

(3) The vessel watch schedules.

(4) The facility’s safety and security procedures as required by law.

(5) Any other factors specific to the vessel or facility that could affect access to and from the vessel.

(d) Access methods.

What is “no cost”? There is an excellent discussion of this issue in the preamble to the Final Rule. “No cost” means two things: “no cost to the seafarer” and also “no cost that is somehow underhandedly passed onto the seafarer”, as in the facility bills the vessel for the costs of this access who takes the cost out of the seafarers’ wages. On p. 12104 of the Federal Register, there is a very stern notice about what the Coast Guard is going to do if it finds out that fees as a condition of shoreside access are being imposed on seafarers.

From the preamble, on costs:

The CGAA does not specify who should pay for no-cost access for seafarers. Ultimately, the Coast Guard determined that it is the facility’s responsibility to provide the no cost service, as Coast Guard regulations already require each facility to have an approved FSP, which must now include a system for providing no-cost access to the facility for certain individuals.

However, the Coast Guard declined to specifically prohibit charges to the vessel, and let parties decide the allocation of costs between facility and vessel. This rule provides flexibility to facilities on how to comply with the mandate and how to provide no-cost access for seafarers, as long as its solution does not result in a cost to seafarers.

What must my new FSP Section 22, System for seafarers’ access, include?

On or before February 3, 2020, the facility owner or operator must document the facility’s system for providing the access described in this section in the approved FSP in accordance with § 105.410 or § 105.415.

The description of the facility’s system must include—

(1) Location of transit area(s) used for providing the access described in this section;

(2) Duties and number of facility personnel assigned to each duty associated with providing the access described in this section;

(3) Methods of escorting and/or monitoring individuals transiting through the facility;

(4) Agreements or arrangements between the facility and private parties, nonprofit organizations, or other parties, to facilitate the access described in this section; and

(5) Maximum length of time an individual would wait for the access described in this section, based on the provided access method(s).

What about TWIC and seafarer access?

            From the preamble:

…. this rule does not change existing TWIC requirements, and whether escorts are or are not required under TWIC rules does not affect the obligation to provide no-cost access to the seafarer. The facility has flexibility to decide how to comply with its TWIC requirements and the no-cost access requirements of this rule… Congress requires MTSA-regulated facilities to grant access through the facility to seafarers at no cost to the seafarer. This rule does not change the requirement to escort or otherwise monitor the access of a person who is not authorized to have unescorted access to the facility.

What about safety concerns when granting this access?

From the preamble:

“This final rule provides facility owners and operators with flexibility to ensure the safe passage of seafarers to and from the facilities’ gates through a variety of methods. It remains the responsibility of the facility owner or operator to ensure safety in accordance with the approved FSP on file. If conditions are unsafe or overly burdensome at certain facilities, mariners are encouraged to contact the local COTP to report such unsafe or overly burdensome conditions.”

What about facilities operating under an Alternate Security Program (ASP)?

From the preamble:

“Each facility operating under a Coast Guard-approved ASP must include seafarer access as directed by the ASP itself. This may be in the form of an annex or appendix explaining how the facility will comply with this rule. This document must be submitted to and approved by the cognizant COTP in the location of the facility submitting the annex.”

PART 105—MARITIME SECURITY: FACILITIES

■ 1. The authority citation for part 105 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 70103; 50 U.S.C. 191; Sec. 811, Pub. L. 111–

281, 124 Stat. 2905; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19; Department of

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

§ 105.200 [Amended]

■ 2. Amend § 105.200 as follows:

■ a. In paragraph (b)(1), remove the words ‘‘security organizational structure’’ and add in their place the words ‘‘organizational structure of the security personnel’’ and remove the words ‘‘within that structure’’;

■ b. In paragraph (b)(4), remove the text ‘‘an FSP’’ and add in its place the text ‘‘a Facility Security Plan (FSP)’’;

■ c. In paragraph (b)(6) introductory text, remove the acronym ‘‘TWIC’’ and add in its place the words ‘‘Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)’’;

■ d. In paragraph (b)(6)(i), after the words ‘‘FSP are permitted to’’ add the words ‘‘serve as an’’;

■ e. In paragraph (b)(6)(ii), remove the word ‘‘should’’ and add in its place the words ‘‘in the event that’’;

■ f. In paragraph (b)(6)(iii), remove the word ‘‘what’’, and add in its place the word ‘‘which’’ and after the words ‘‘are secure areas and’’ add the words ‘‘which are’’;

■ g. In paragraph (b)(9), remove the text ‘‘coordination of’’ and add in its place the text ‘‘implementation of a system, in accordance with § 105.237, coordinating’’ and remove the text

‘‘(including representatives of seafarers’ welfare and labor organizations)’’ and add in its place the text ‘‘, as described in § 105.237(b)(3)’’; and

■ h. In paragraph (b)(14), remove the text ‘‘TSA’’ and add in its place the text ‘‘Transportation Security Administration (TSA)’’.

■ 3. Add § 105.237 to read as follows:

§ 105.237 System for seafarers’ access.

(a) Access required. Each facility owner or operator must implement a system by June 1, 2020 for providing access through the facility that enables individuals to transit to and from a

vessel moored at the facility and the facility gate in accordance with the requirements in this section. The system must provide timely access as described in paragraph (c) of this section and incorporate the access methods described in paragraph (d) of this section at no cost to the individuals covered. The system must comply with the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) provisions in this part.

(b) Individuals covered. The individuals to whom the facility owner or operator must provide the access described in this section include—

(1) Seafarers assigned to a vessel at that facility;

(2) Pilots; and

(3) Representatives of seafarers’ welfare and labor organizations.

(c) Timely access. The facility owner or operator must provide the access described in this section without unreasonable delay, subject to review by the Captain of the Port (COTP). The facility owner or operator must consider the following when establishing timely access without unreasonable delay:

(1) Length of time the vessel is in port.

(2) Distance of egress/ingress between the vessel and facility gate.

(3) The vessel watch schedules.

(4) The facility’s safety and security procedures as required by law.

(5) Any other factors specific to the vessel or facility that could affect access to and from the vessel.

(d) Access methods. The facility owner or operator must ensure that the access described in this section is provided through one or more of the following methods:

(1) Regularly scheduled escort between the vessel and the facility gate that conforms to the vessel’s watch schedule as agreed upon between the vessel and facility.

(2) An on-call escort between the vessel and the facility gate.

(3) Arrangements with taxi services or other transportation services, ensuring that any costs for providing the access described in this section, above the service’s standard fees charged to any customer, are not charged to the individual to whom such access is provided. If a facility provides arrangements with taxi services or other transportation services as the only method for providing the access described in this section, the facility is responsible to pay any fees for transit within the facility.

(4) Arrangements with seafarers’ welfare organizations to facilitate the access described in this section.

(5) Monitored pedestrian access routes between the vessel and facility gate.

(6) A method, other than those in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section, approved by the COTP.

(7) If an access method relies on a third party, a back-up access method that will be used if the third party is unable to or does not provide the required access in any instance. An owner or operator must ensure that the access required in paragraph (a) of this section is actually provided in all instances.

(e) No cost to individuals. The facility owner or operator must provide the access described in this section at no cost to the individual to whom such access is provided.

(f) Described in the Facility Security Plan (FSP). On or before February 3, 2020, the facility owner or operator must document the facility’s system for providing the access described in this section in the approved FSP in accordance with § 105.410 or § 105.415.

The description of the facility’s system must include—

(1) Location of transit area(s) used for providing the access described in this section;

(2) Duties and number of facility personnel assigned to each duty associated with providing the access described in this section;

(3) Methods of escorting and/or monitoring individuals transiting through the facility;

(4) Agreements or arrangements between the facility and private parties, nonprofit organizations, or other parties, to facilitate the access described in this

section; and

(5) Maximum length of time an individual would wait for the access described in this section, based on the provided access method(s).

■ 4. Amend § 105.405 as follows:

■ a. In paragraph (a)(18), remove the text ‘‘part 105; and,’’ and add in its place ‘‘this part;’’;

■ b. In paragraph (a)(21), remove the period at the end of the paragraph and add in its place ‘‘; and’’; and

■ c. Add paragraph (a)(22).

The addition reads as follows:

§ 105.405 Format and content of the Facility Security Plan (FSP).

(a) * * *

(22) System for seafarers’ access.

* * * * *

Dated: March 27, 2019.

Jennifer F. Williams,

Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Director of

Inspections and Compliance.

DHS Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) has Issued a New Request for Comment, Assessing the Risk-Mitigation Value of TWIC® at Maritime Facilities.

On Feb. 07, 2019, Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a new request for comment, Assessing the Risk-Mitigation Value of TWIC® at Maritime Facilities.  This notice is located in the Federal Register at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-07/pdf/2019-01377.pdf .

Please note that this notice requests comments on two items: number one, how effective the TWIC program is at enhancing security and reducing security risks for regulated maritime facilities and vessels, and number two, specific issues concerning an annual information collection about assessing the risk mitigation value of TWIC® at maritime facilities.

From the notice:

By law, the Secretary of Homeland Security is required to commission an assessment of how effective the transportation security card program is at enhancing security and reducing security risks for regulated maritime facilities and vessels. Through the transportation security card program, the Department issues the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC®). Legislation passed August 2, 2018 restricts the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) from implementing any rule requiring the use of biometric readers for TWIC® until after submission to Congress of the results of this effectiveness assessment.

The Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center (HSOAC), a federally funded research and development center operated by the RAND Corporation, will collect information from those involved in maritime security on behalf of the DHS S&T Research and Development Partnerships (RDP) Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) Program Management Office. HSOAC will visit regulated maritime facilities and terminals and conduct interviews using a semi-structured interview method to collect information. HSOAC will analyze this information and use it to produce a public report with its research findings.

DATES: Comments are encouraged and accepted until April 8, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS–2018–0052, at:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Please follow the instructions for submitting comments.

• Mail and hand delivery or commercial delivery: Science and Technology Directorate, ATTN: Chief Information Office—Mary Cantey, 245 Murray Drive, Mail Stop 0202, Washington, DC 20528.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number DHS–2018–0052.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Secretary of Homeland Security, according to Public Law 114–278, is required to commission an assessment of how effective the transportation security card program is at enhancing security and reducing security risks for regulated maritime facilities and vessels. Through the transportation security card program, the Department issues the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC®). In addition, Public Law 115–230 restricts the USCG from implementing any rule requiring the use of biometric readers for TWIC® until submitting the results of this assessment to Congress. DHS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. DHS is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. DHS is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology? Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Assessing the Risk Mitigation Value of TWIC® at Maritime Facilities.

Type of Review: New.

Affected Public: Port security subject matter experts such as Port Authority Security Managers, Facility Security Managers, Industry Security Managers, and local law enforcement; Labor, Other Industry Operation and Technology Managers.

Frequency of Collection: Once, Annually.

Average Burden per Response: 60 minutes.

Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 400.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 400.

Discussion: There is an effective and an ineffective way to comment on a regulation. From “Tips for Submitting Effective Comments”, found at https://www.regulations.gov/docs/Tips_For_Submitting_Effective_Comments.pdf:

·         "Read and understand the regulatory document you are commenting on
·         Feel free to reach out to the agency with questions
·         Be concise but support your claims
·         Base your justification on sound reasoning, scientific evidence, and/or how you will be impacted
·         Address trade-offs and opposing views in your comment
·         There is no minimum or maximum length for an effective comment
·         The comment process is not a vote – one well supported comment is often more influential than a thousand form letters."

Comments submitted to address the first issue need to mention how the program does or does not enhance security and reduce security risks for regulated maritime facilities and vessels. That you are personally inconvenienced during the enrollment process or that the cards are not accepted at airports probably does not address the question of risk reduction in the maritime environment. A comment that is submitted without the word “risk” or “security” in it seems to me to be flawed at the onset. DHS is required to consider these comments so this is one more chance for us to get our hands on the TWIC program and influence its path. Let’s make sure we don’t waste this opportunity.

I am still gathering information on the details of number two, the information collection. I want to know how DHS arrived at the figure of 400 persons who will submit information, and that the collection will take one hour. Until I know these details, I can’t sensibly comment on the second issue.