Below is a comparison between the port security training provisions of the The Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFEPort Act) and the USCG Authorization Act 0f 2011 (HR 3619.) HR 3619 has been passed by Congress and is awaiting the President’s signature.
SAFEPORT Act Provisions (Sec. 113)
This was a wider piece of legislation whose intent was to establish a Port Security Training Program, to enhance the security preparedness of regulated facilities. This Program was supposed to provide validated ( not defined) training to
• multiple port security stakeholders
• at the awareness, performance, management, and planning levels
• addressing many port security topics, including cargo theft and container security
• that supports the many national plans
• is evaluated against clear and consistent performance measures ( no further guidance provided)
• addresses the security requirements contained in facility security plans
• includes education of the neighborhoods surrounding the facilities.
This Act was passed four years ago. There is no Port Security Training Program.
USCG Authorization Act of 2011
Section 821 is Port Security Training and Certification, and it will have a major effect on the training of facility security officers. (It is unclear to me if the framers of this law intended it to refer to persons regulated under 33 CFR 105.205 or 33 CFR 105.210 or both. I am assuming that “facility security officers” refers to 105.205 but that might not be a valid assumption. Persons who don’t work with MTSA on a regular basis can be derailed by the difference between “officer” and “personnel” in this context.) This section repeals Section 113 of the SAFEPort Act.
This section establishes a training program leading to certification for FSO’s. In putting together this training program, DHS must work with affected industry stakeholders (details of collaboration not given), and evaluate existing training programs already in place at terminals, programs already developed by the government, and also factor in the
This program is to provide validated training (not defined)
• at the awareness, performance, management, and planning levels
• utilizes multiple training media and methods
• establishes an on-line certification methodology
• provides for continuing education for FSO’s beyond certification, including a program on shipping hazardous and especially hazardous cargo
• addresses a wide variety of port security topics.
These topics differ slightly from the list in the SAFEPort Act. Included are
• how to develop security plans
• requirements under ISPS for shore leave for mariners
• any other subject matter prescribed by DHS.
The following topics were not addressed under the SAFEPort Act.
1. Programs will be developed for Federal, state, and local officials with security responsibilities at United States seaports (unclear if this also applies to inland waters) to provide them with training about:
• port and shipping operations and MTSA
• dangers and issues connected with the shipments of hazardous and especially hazardous cargoes
• continuing education as deemed necessary
Author’s aside: It is gratifying to find that the University of Findlay is so far ahead of the curve with our DHS-certified training for first responders with 105 facilities in their jurisdictions, AWR 144 Port and Vessel Security for Public Safety and Maritime Personnel, which was approved in 2008 and has been presented in more than 40 locations across the U. S.
2. DHS is directed to work with MARAD and with institutions with maritime expertise and with industry stakeholders with security expertise to develop curriculum and deliver training. The partnership must have appropriate training capacity to ensure that training can be provided in a geographically balanced manner to personnel needing certification or education.
3. Development of curriculum and provision of training will now be eligible activities under homeland security or port security grants. This is a welcome modification of the port security grant program. Development of curriculum was not covered, and entities seeking to fund the expensive development process were often caught in a DHS shuffle. Denied a port security grant, they approached FEMA who declared the activities to be port security and directed them back to the port security grant program.
SUMMARY: While there are some interesting provisions in the training section of this new bill, it is unclear what will keep it from the fate of the training program enacted under the SAFEPort Act. It will take time for these provisions to be incorporated into the port and homeland security grant solicitations, and it will take the will to enforce.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
MTSA 2010
On July 21, 2010 Sen. Rockefeller (D-WV) introduced Senate Bill 3969, the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2010. The bill has been referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. This piece of legislation is in the earliest stages of its life and it is anticipated that substantial changes will occur before/if it is passed. All provisions of the bill affect the MTSA community but here are some selections. My comments are in brackets.
SMALL VESSEL SECURITY. The bill requires operators of recreational vessel equipped with propulsion machinery of any kind to carry a certificate, card, or other proof of successful completion of a recreational boating safety course or test that conforms to the National Boating Education Standards as recognized by the United States Coast Guard. There are exemptions for recent purchases, charters, rentals, and persons who have valid U. S. Coast Guard MMD’s. There is a lengthy phase-in for this provision: 3 years after the date of the enactment for operators 18 years or younger, and 7 years after the date of the enactment for all operators.
The America’s Waterway Watch Program is formally established within the USCG, and funded with $3,000,000 annually through 2016. Provisions address immunity for good-faith reporting of suspicious activities, and immunity for response to the report on the part of the authorized officials not entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity.
TRANSPORTATION OF ESPECIALLY HAZARDOUS CARGOES. DHS will work with the International Maritime Organization and in consultation with the International Standards Organization and shipping industry stakeholders to develop protocols, procedures, standards, and requirements for receiving, handling, loading, unloading, vessel crewing, and transportation of especially hazardous cargo to promote the safe and secure operation of ports, facilities, and vessels that transport especially hazardous cargo to the United States. An IMO work item concerning this transportation is encouraged.
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SECURITY INCIDENT MITIGATION PLAN. These plans will establish regional response and recovery protocols to prepare for, respond to, mitigate against, and recover from a transportation security incident consistent with section 202 of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (6 U.S.C. 942) [Post-incident recovery.]
ESTABLISHMENT OF A SECURITY INDIVIDUAL. Section 308 states that all U. S. registered vessels five net tons or more or each foreign vessel entering a United States port or a facility on or adjacent to the waterways of the United States, engaged in the commercial transportation of goods or passengers shall designate a U. S. person that is responsible for responding to a transportation security incident involving the vessel while in the United States to notify appropriate emergency response entities and facilitating vessel response activities; and provide notice to the Coast Guard Captain of the Port of the identity of, and contact for such person. [Interesting to see how much of a burden this might be.]
SEAMAN SHORESIDE ACCESS. Section 309 states that each105 facility security plan shall 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. (Does not affect TWIC.)
RISK BASED RESOURCE ALLOCATION. Section 310 states that n carrying out chapter 701 of title 46 (Port Security,) DHS shall develop and utilize a national standard and formula for prioritizing and addressing assessed security risks at United State ports and facilities on or adjacent to the waterways of the United States, such as the Maritime Assessment Strategy Tool that has been tested by the Department of Homeland Security. AMSC’s shall use this standard to regularly evaluate, prioritize, and mitigate each port’s most significant risks. DHS shall utilize the standard when considering departmental resource allocations and grant making decisions. [Will this codify MSRAM?]
MSRAM. Section 311 states that within 180 days after the date of enactment of the Act, DHS shall make the Coast Guard’s Maritime Security Risk Assessment Model tool available, in an unclassified version, on a limited basis to regulated vessels and facilities to conduct true risk assessments of their own facilities and vessels using the same criteria employed by the United States Coast Guard when evaluating a port area, facility, or vessel.
INTEGRATION OF SECURITY PLANS AND SYSTEMS WITH LOCAL PORT AUTHORITIES, STATE HARBOR DIVISIONS, AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. The owner or operator of a facility shall—‘(1) make a current copy of the vulnerability assessment conducted under subsection (b) of Section 70102 of title 46, United States Code, available to the port authority with jurisdiction of the facility and appropriate State or local law enforcement agencies; an(2) integrate, to the maximum feasible extent, any security system for the facility with compatible systems operated or maintained by the appropriate State, law enforcement agencies, and the Coast Guard.
[Is there a distinction between the 70102 VA and the 105.300 VA?]
WRITTEN AGREEMENTS REQUIRED BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITYAND PUBLIC OR PRIVATE MARINE TERMINAL OPERATORS. Section 313 addresses these agreements, and states that at a minimum they will cover the terms and conditions for use of the screening devices, including operations and safety procedures. The agreements will include an indemnification and hold harmless clause to protect the marine terminal operator from liability for injuries or damage to individuals or property caused by DHS.
PORT SECURITY TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION. This section amends 46 USC 701 and addresses comprehensive facility security officer training requirements designed to provide full security training that would lead to certification of such officers.
In establishing the requirements, the Secretary shall work with affected industry stakeholders and evaluate 1) the requirements that the training program shall provide; 2) existing security training programs employed at marine terminal facilities; and 3) existing port security training programs developed by the Federal Government.
The training program shall provide validated training that—
(1) provides training at the awareness, performance, management, and planning levels;
(2) utilizes multiple training mediums and methods;
(3) establishes a validated provisional on-line certification methodology;
(4) addresses port security topics, including—
(A) facility security plans and procedures, including how to develop security plans and security procedure requirements when threat levels are elevated;
(B) facility security force operations and management;
(C) physical security and access control at facilities;
(D) methods of security for preventing and countering cargo theft;
(E) container security;
(F) recognition and detection of weapons, dangerous substances, and devices;
(G) operation and maintenance of security equipment and systems;
(H) security threats and patterns;
(I) security incident procedures, including procedures for communicating with governmental and nongovernmental emergency response providers; and
(J) evacuation procedures;
(5) is consistent with, and supports implementation of, the National Incident Management System, the National Response Plan, the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, the National Preparedness Guidance, the National Preparedness Goal, the National Maritime Transportation Security Plan, and other such national initiatives;
(6) is evaluated against clear and consistent performance measures; and addresses security requirements under facility security plans.
CONTINUING SECURITY TRAINING.—DOT will work with State and local law enforcement agencies and industry stakeholders to develop and certify
the following additional security training requirements for Federal, State, and local officials with security responsibilities at United States seaports:
(1) A program to familiarize them with port and shipping operations, requirements of the Maritime Transportation Security Act, and other port
and cargo security programs that educates and trains them with respect to their roles and responsibilities.
(2) A program to familiarize them with dangers and potential issues with respect to shipments of hazardous and especially hazardous cargoes.
(3) A program of continuing education as deemed necessary by DOT.
TRAINING PARTNERS.—In developing and delivering training under the training program and continuing security training, the Secretary, in coordination with the Maritime Administration of the Department of Transportation, and consistent with section 109 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 70101), shall—
(1) work with government training facilities, academic institutions, private organizations, employee organizations, and other entities that provide
specialized, state-of-the-art training for governmental and non-governmental emergency responder providers or commercial seaport personnel and management; and
(2) utilize, as appropriate, government training facilities, courses provided by community colleges, public safety academies, State and private universities, and other facilities.
CONSULTATION.—In carrying out this section, DOT shall ensure that activities surrounding the development of curriculum and the provision of training are eligible to receive grant funds.
GRANT PROGRAM.—DOT shall establish a grant program to provide funds to industry stakeholders to help underwrite their assistance in the development of curriculum and training under this section.
This training program is funded to DOT, $3,000,000 in 2011 and 2012.
[Interesting additions. First of all, does this section use the 33 CFR 101 definitions for facility security officer? On-line training is mentioned. The program is funded. The IMO Model Course is not addressed. MARAD is still in charge. Training for port first responders is addressed. {The University of Findlay has been presenting this training in a DHS-certified format since 2007, all over the U. S.}The subchapter H updates are supposed to address training standards – there is no connection between this bill it its final form and the updates, which have been in the regulatory hopper for years.]
NMSAC – Section 315 refines the membership of NMSAC, ensuring that there is at least one member representing port authorities, facilities, terminals, vessels, maritime labor, academia, state and local government, and maritime industry. AMSC membership is also refined; members are to be composed of individuals who represent the interests of the port industry, terminal operators, port labor organizations, and other users of the port areas.
[Just my opinion but the purpose of the AMSC is the security port area as a whole, and the idea of choosing someone because of the interest that they represent is odd and possibly counterproductive. The phrase “the interests of” indicates to me the interests of that group to the exclusion of everyone else.]
More to come on this bill......
SAFEPort Reauthorization Act
Thanks to my friend and CBP veteran Laura Hains for the heads-up on this, from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, posted 07/27/10:
SENATORS COLLINS, MURRAY INTRODUCE BILL TO EXTEND PORT PROTECTIONS, ANTI-TERRORISM ACT
Senators co-authored the original legislation in 2005; gain endorsements from many key groups
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Susan Collins, R-Me., Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Patty Murray, D-Wash., introduced a bipartisan bill Tuesday that would extend the groundbreaking port security programs now in place in the United States.
The measure, “The SAFE Port Reauthorization Act of 2010,” extends anti-terrorism protections designed to safeguard the nation’s critical shipping lanes and seaports from attack and sabotage. Senators Collins and Murray coauthored the original SAFE Port Act in 2005; it was enacted the following year.
“The scope of what we need to protect is broad,” said Senator Collins. “America has 361 seaports – each vital links in our nation’s transportation network. Our seaports move more than 95 percent of overseas trade. In 2009, U.S. ports logged 68,000 ports-of-call by foreign-flagged vessels, bringing 9.8 million shipping containers to our shores.
“Because seaports are flourishing, our harbors operate as vital centers of economic activity; they also represent vulnerable targets. An attack on one or more U.S. ports could cause great loss of life and large numbers of injuries; it could damage our energy supplies and infrastructure; it could cripple retailers and manufacturers dependent on incoming inventory; and it could hamper our ability to move and supply American military forces fighting against the forces of terrorism.”
Said Senator Murray: “As long as terrorists continue trying to harm our country, we can’t afford to let our guard down at our nation’s ports. We need to extend the SAFE Port Act to make sure our communities, families, and economy remain protected. This is especially important for my home state of Washington, where families and businesses depend on our ports remaining safe and open for business.”
Among other things, the bill would reauthorize the SAFE Port Act maritime cargo security programs that have proven to be successful. These include:
- The Automated Targeting System that identifies high-risk cargo;
- The Container Security Initiative that ensures high-risk cargo containers are inspected at ports overseas before they travel to the United States; and
- The Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, or C-TPAT, that provides incentives to importers to enhance the security of their cargo from point of origin to destination.
The bill would also strengthen the C-TPAT program by providing new benefits, including voluntary security training to industry participants and providing participants an information sharing mechanism on maritime and port security threats, and by authorizing Customs and Border Protection to conduct unannounced inspections to ensure that security practices are robust. The cooperation of private industry is vital to protecting supply chains, and C-TPAT is a necessary tool for securing their active cooperation in supply chain security efforts.
Further, the bill would extend the competitive, risk-based, port security grants that have provided $1.5 billion to improve the security of our ports. The authorization for the next five years at $400 million per year is a continued major commitment of resources, but it is fully proportional to what is at stake, and a priority that we cannot ignore.
In addition to continuing and strengthening critical programs, the bill also would expand the America’s Waterway Watch Program to promote voluntary reporting of suspected terrorist activity or suspicious behavior against a vessel, facility, port, or waterway.
The bill also protects citizens from frivolous lawsuits when they report, in good faith, suspicious behavior that may indicate terrorist activity against the United States, building on a 2007 homeland security law that encourages people to report suspicious transportation activity.
The legislation enhances research and development efforts to improve maritime cargo security with demonstration project to examine the use of composite materials in cargo containers to improve container integrity and to deploy next generation sensors.
Finally, the measure addresses the difficulties in administering the mandate of x-raying and scanning for radiation all cargo containers overseas that are destined for the United States by July 2012. That technology is not yet perfected. The bill would eliminate the deadline for x-raying 100 percent of containers if the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies the effectiveness of individual security measures of that layered security approach. This is a more reasonable method to secure our cargo until a new method of x-raying containers is proven effective.
Among the groups that have endorsed the legislation: American Association of Port Authorities; National Retail Federation; National Maritime Manufacturers Association; Association of Marina Industries; National Association of State Boating Law Administrators; National Boating Federation, and Boat Owners of the United States.
SENATORS COLLINS, MURRAY INTRODUCE BILL TO EXTEND PORT PROTECTIONS, ANTI-TERRORISM ACT
Senators co-authored the original legislation in 2005; gain endorsements from many key groups
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Susan Collins, R-Me., Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Patty Murray, D-Wash., introduced a bipartisan bill Tuesday that would extend the groundbreaking port security programs now in place in the United States.
The measure, “The SAFE Port Reauthorization Act of 2010,” extends anti-terrorism protections designed to safeguard the nation’s critical shipping lanes and seaports from attack and sabotage. Senators Collins and Murray coauthored the original SAFE Port Act in 2005; it was enacted the following year.
“The scope of what we need to protect is broad,” said Senator Collins. “America has 361 seaports – each vital links in our nation’s transportation network. Our seaports move more than 95 percent of overseas trade. In 2009, U.S. ports logged 68,000 ports-of-call by foreign-flagged vessels, bringing 9.8 million shipping containers to our shores.
“Because seaports are flourishing, our harbors operate as vital centers of economic activity; they also represent vulnerable targets. An attack on one or more U.S. ports could cause great loss of life and large numbers of injuries; it could damage our energy supplies and infrastructure; it could cripple retailers and manufacturers dependent on incoming inventory; and it could hamper our ability to move and supply American military forces fighting against the forces of terrorism.”
Said Senator Murray: “As long as terrorists continue trying to harm our country, we can’t afford to let our guard down at our nation’s ports. We need to extend the SAFE Port Act to make sure our communities, families, and economy remain protected. This is especially important for my home state of Washington, where families and businesses depend on our ports remaining safe and open for business.”
Among other things, the bill would reauthorize the SAFE Port Act maritime cargo security programs that have proven to be successful. These include:
- The Automated Targeting System that identifies high-risk cargo;
- The Container Security Initiative that ensures high-risk cargo containers are inspected at ports overseas before they travel to the United States; and
- The Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, or C-TPAT, that provides incentives to importers to enhance the security of their cargo from point of origin to destination.
The bill would also strengthen the C-TPAT program by providing new benefits, including voluntary security training to industry participants and providing participants an information sharing mechanism on maritime and port security threats, and by authorizing Customs and Border Protection to conduct unannounced inspections to ensure that security practices are robust. The cooperation of private industry is vital to protecting supply chains, and C-TPAT is a necessary tool for securing their active cooperation in supply chain security efforts.
Further, the bill would extend the competitive, risk-based, port security grants that have provided $1.5 billion to improve the security of our ports. The authorization for the next five years at $400 million per year is a continued major commitment of resources, but it is fully proportional to what is at stake, and a priority that we cannot ignore.
In addition to continuing and strengthening critical programs, the bill also would expand the America’s Waterway Watch Program to promote voluntary reporting of suspected terrorist activity or suspicious behavior against a vessel, facility, port, or waterway.
The bill also protects citizens from frivolous lawsuits when they report, in good faith, suspicious behavior that may indicate terrorist activity against the United States, building on a 2007 homeland security law that encourages people to report suspicious transportation activity.
The legislation enhances research and development efforts to improve maritime cargo security with demonstration project to examine the use of composite materials in cargo containers to improve container integrity and to deploy next generation sensors.
Finally, the measure addresses the difficulties in administering the mandate of x-raying and scanning for radiation all cargo containers overseas that are destined for the United States by July 2012. That technology is not yet perfected. The bill would eliminate the deadline for x-raying 100 percent of containers if the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies the effectiveness of individual security measures of that layered security approach. This is a more reasonable method to secure our cargo until a new method of x-raying containers is proven effective.
Among the groups that have endorsed the legislation: American Association of Port Authorities; National Retail Federation; National Maritime Manufacturers Association; Association of Marina Industries; National Association of State Boating Law Administrators; National Boating Federation, and Boat Owners of the United States.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Yesterday's NMSAC meeting
Due to the technical problems with the webcast of the NMSAC meeting, I was unable to hear a substantial proportion of the meeting. Topics of extreme interest to the port security stakeholder community were on the agenda. LCDR O'Brien was kind enough to send me a copy of her presentation including the Subchapter H update, but the presentation does not go into any detail. Screening and training standards will be addressed in the update, but again, technical difficulties with the broadcast prevented online listeners from hearing anything but silence during this part of the meeting, so any questions or comments from the physical participants were not able to be heard and may also be lost to the archive. I dropped off the webcast at 11:25AM in frustration.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Mark your calendars, May 4-5, 2011
The U. S. Maritime Security Expo is back on the East Coast, on May 4 - 5, 2011, at the Baltimore Convention Center. The website is http://www.maritimesecurityexpo.com/. The conference agenda has not yet been posted.
Friday, July 9, 2010
DHS Small Vessel Security Update Bulletin
The Department of Homeland Security has issued a Small Vessel Security Update Bulletin. The link to the bulletin can be found at http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/gc_1277906887901.shtm.
Those are the facts. Below is my opinion of this document and the progress of this program:
This two-page document (for three years’ of work by the Coast Guard) essentially states that most of the progress on this program has been performed on the West Coast, and consists of liaison between citizens groups and AWW and testing of operational concepts and technology against the threat of the transportation of nuclear material by small vessels. The report also lists the December 2008 IMO non-mandatory guidelines document as if this was a product of the program.
Half of this 2-page document consists of an after-action report of AWW 2.0 support of the XXI Olympic Games.
AWW is a great program. We support it in our MARAD-approved Facility Security Officer courses, and we support it in our DHS-certified courses. But in many cases and venues we first have to acquaint the students with the basics of the program, the fact that it exists in the first place. After all this time, that’s all we have in the SVS toolkit?
The threat of small vessels is a major concern to persons throughout the U. S. MTS. These persons gathered in the national and regional SVS seminars. I don’t believe anyone at those seminars would have imagined that after all this time, we would still be at this stage of (lack of) progress.
The report states, “A roadmap for the entire effort is expected to be released in the near future.” As we’ve seen in MTSA II, and standardized training for MTSA screening, “near future” may mean we have to wait for more progress. I hope that events, also, are content to wait.
Those are the facts. Below is my opinion of this document and the progress of this program:
This two-page document (for three years’ of work by the Coast Guard) essentially states that most of the progress on this program has been performed on the West Coast, and consists of liaison between citizens groups and AWW and testing of operational concepts and technology against the threat of the transportation of nuclear material by small vessels. The report also lists the December 2008 IMO non-mandatory guidelines document as if this was a product of the program.
Half of this 2-page document consists of an after-action report of AWW 2.0 support of the XXI Olympic Games.
AWW is a great program. We support it in our MARAD-approved Facility Security Officer courses, and we support it in our DHS-certified courses. But in many cases and venues we first have to acquaint the students with the basics of the program, the fact that it exists in the first place. After all this time, that’s all we have in the SVS toolkit?
The threat of small vessels is a major concern to persons throughout the U. S. MTS. These persons gathered in the national and regional SVS seminars. I don’t believe anyone at those seminars would have imagined that after all this time, we would still be at this stage of (lack of) progress.
The report states, “A roadmap for the entire effort is expected to be released in the near future.” As we’ve seen in MTSA II, and standardized training for MTSA screening, “near future” may mean we have to wait for more progress. I hope that events, also, are content to wait.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Notice of NMSAC meeting, July 20, 2010 0900
SUMMARY: The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee (NMSAC) will meet in Washington, DC to discuss various issues relating to national maritime security. This meeting will be open to the public.
DATES: The Committee will meet on Tuesday, July 20, 2010 from 9 a.m. to 4p.m. This meeting may close early if all business is finished. Written material and requests to make oral presentations should reach the Coast Guard on or before July 13, 2010. Requests to have a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee should reach the Coast Guard on or before July13, 2010.
ADDRESSES: The Committee will meet at Coast Guard Headquarters, Room 4202, 2100 2nd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593. Additionally, this meeting will be broadcast via a web enabled interactive online format. Send written material and requests to make oral presentations to Mr. Ryan Owens, Assistant Designated Federal Officer (ADFO) of the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee, 2100 2nd Street SW., Stop 7581; Washington, DC
20593–7581. You may also e-mail material to ryan.f.owens@uscg.mil. This notice may be viewed in our online docket, USCG–2010–0586, at http://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ryan Owens, ADFO of NMSAC, telephone 202–372–1108 or ryan.f.owens@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.(Pub. L. 92–463).
Agenda of Public Meeting
The agenda for the Public part of the May 4 Committee meeting is as follows:
(1) TWIC Update.
(2) Discussion on creation of a National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) Sub-Committee.
(3) DHS Global Supply Chain Security Strategy initiative.
(4) Maritime Transportation Security Act update.
(5) Update from CDC Strategy Working Group.
(6) Update on the Small VesselSecurity Strategy.
Procedural
This meeting is open to the public for the morning session and will also be conducted via an online meeting format. Please note that the public portion of the meeting may close early if all business is finished. Seating is very limited, and members of the public will require additional screening and an escort while in Coast Guard Headquarters. Members of the public wishing to attend should register with Mr. Ryan Owens, ADFO of NMSAC, telephone 202–372–1108 or
ryan.f.owens@uscg.mil no later than July 13, 2010. Additionally, if you would like to participate in this meeting via the online Web format, please log onto https://connect.hsin.gov/uscgnmsac/
and follow the online instructions to register for this meeting. At the Chair’s discretion, members of the public may make oral presentations during the public portion of the meeting. If you would like to make an oral presentation at the public portion of the meeting, please notify the ADFO no later than Tuesday, July 13, 2010. Written material for distribution at a meeting should
reach the Coast Guard no later than Tuesday, July 13, 2010. If you would like a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee inadvance of a meeting, please submit 25 copies to the ADFO no later than Tuesday, July 13, 2010.
Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the ADFO as soon as possible.
Dated: June 28, 2010.
K.C. Kiefer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Chief, Office of Port and Facility Activities, Designated Federal Official, NMSAC.
[FR Doc. 2010–16112 Filed 7–1–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DATES: The Committee will meet on Tuesday, July 20, 2010 from 9 a.m. to 4p.m. This meeting may close early if all business is finished. Written material and requests to make oral presentations should reach the Coast Guard on or before July 13, 2010. Requests to have a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee should reach the Coast Guard on or before July13, 2010.
ADDRESSES: The Committee will meet at Coast Guard Headquarters, Room 4202, 2100 2nd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593. Additionally, this meeting will be broadcast via a web enabled interactive online format. Send written material and requests to make oral presentations to Mr. Ryan Owens, Assistant Designated Federal Officer (ADFO) of the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee, 2100 2nd Street SW., Stop 7581; Washington, DC
20593–7581. You may also e-mail material to ryan.f.owens@uscg.mil. This notice may be viewed in our online docket, USCG–2010–0586, at http://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ryan Owens, ADFO of NMSAC, telephone 202–372–1108 or ryan.f.owens@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.(Pub. L. 92–463).
Agenda of Public Meeting
The agenda for the Public part of the May 4 Committee meeting is as follows:
(1) TWIC Update.
(2) Discussion on creation of a National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) Sub-Committee.
(3) DHS Global Supply Chain Security Strategy initiative.
(4) Maritime Transportation Security Act update.
(5) Update from CDC Strategy Working Group.
(6) Update on the Small VesselSecurity Strategy.
Procedural
This meeting is open to the public for the morning session and will also be conducted via an online meeting format. Please note that the public portion of the meeting may close early if all business is finished. Seating is very limited, and members of the public will require additional screening and an escort while in Coast Guard Headquarters. Members of the public wishing to attend should register with Mr. Ryan Owens, ADFO of NMSAC, telephone 202–372–1108 or
ryan.f.owens@uscg.mil no later than July 13, 2010. Additionally, if you would like to participate in this meeting via the online Web format, please log onto https://connect.hsin.gov/uscgnmsac/
and follow the online instructions to register for this meeting. At the Chair’s discretion, members of the public may make oral presentations during the public portion of the meeting. If you would like to make an oral presentation at the public portion of the meeting, please notify the ADFO no later than Tuesday, July 13, 2010. Written material for distribution at a meeting should
reach the Coast Guard no later than Tuesday, July 13, 2010. If you would like a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee inadvance of a meeting, please submit 25 copies to the ADFO no later than Tuesday, July 13, 2010.
Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the ADFO as soon as possible.
Dated: June 28, 2010.
K.C. Kiefer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Chief, Office of Port and Facility Activities, Designated Federal Official, NMSAC.
[FR Doc. 2010–16112 Filed 7–1–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
MARSEC Directive 104-6 Rev 2 and 3
On May 25, the U. S. Coast Guard issued MARSEC Directive 104-6 Maritime Security Directive 104-6 (Rev 2 and 3); Guidelines for
U.S. Vessels Operating in High Risk Waters. This Directive only applies to
U.S. flagged vessels subject to the Maritime Transportation Security
Act (MTSA) on international voyages through or in designated high risk
waters, and provides additional anti-piracy guidance and mandatory
measures for these vessels operating in these areas where acts of
piracy and armed robbery against ships are prevalent. MARSEC Directive
104-6 (Rev 2 and 3) also includes an annex that provides specific
direction for vessels operating around the Horn of Africa. MARSEC
Directives are designated Sensitive Security Information (SSI) and are
not subject to public release. Details of publication in the Federal Register on May 25.
U.S. Vessels Operating in High Risk Waters. This Directive only applies to
U.S. flagged vessels subject to the Maritime Transportation Security
Act (MTSA) on international voyages through or in designated high risk
waters, and provides additional anti-piracy guidance and mandatory
measures for these vessels operating in these areas where acts of
piracy and armed robbery against ships are prevalent. MARSEC Directive
104-6 (Rev 2 and 3) also includes an annex that provides specific
direction for vessels operating around the Horn of Africa. MARSEC
Directives are designated Sensitive Security Information (SSI) and are
not subject to public release. Details of publication in the Federal Register on May 25.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
More on MTSA II
I want to confine this blog to news on MTSA topics but I also want to take a minute to address a topic that isn't getting the attention it deserves. I hope that MTSA II clarifies and refines screening. The range of practices across industry in this topic is astounding, and what goes on at the gate can bear little resemblance to the measures described in the security plan. I am not sure that NVIC 06-04 is a) current; b) widely known to USCG regulators; c) readily available to USCG regulators, and d) widely known or readily available to industry. Screening is a very dangerous activity and industry is being made to perform this activity without adequate training.
MTSA II News
There is news on the update of Subchapter H. It apparently will be out in November 2010, see http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201004&RIN=1625-AB38
Friday, December 11, 2009
SSI fallout from TSA security breach
The House Committee of Homeland Security is requiring information from TSA Acting Administrator Gale Rossides. In a letter dated Dec. 08, 2009, the Committee asked for answers to questions that contained the following:
--What is TSA's standard operating procedure when screening TSA documents and issuing SSI classification? Please describe steps taken by each component at the Department involved in making such a determination.
--What is your practice when issuing a classification for a document that may contain information within multiple classification levels and what may be considered SSI?
The Committee is examining not only the specific security breach but also the SSI designation process. It seems reasonable to expect an increase in oversight of this information classification.
--What is TSA's standard operating procedure when screening TSA documents and issuing SSI classification? Please describe steps taken by each component at the Department involved in making such a determination.
--What is your practice when issuing a classification for a document that may contain information within multiple classification levels and what may be considered SSI?
The Committee is examining not only the specific security breach but also the SSI designation process. It seems reasonable to expect an increase in oversight of this information classification.
HR 2868 substitute
Posted on the House Homeland Security Committee website, in the document Key Points on the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to HR2868, Chemical Security Legislation," dated October 29, 2009: "Title I helps close these vulnerabilities by directing the U. S. Coast Guard, which current (sic) regulates port facilities under the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 to oversee the administration of CFATS for port facilities." This is a welcome solution for the unwieldy scenario of TSA CFATS inspectors in USCG MTSA facilities. I trust the legislation will also give more money and personnel to the U. S. Coast Guard to compensate for the additional responsibilities.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Piracy PSA and TWIC PAC
Two items of interest –
Concerning piracy: Port Security Advisory (11-09) Supplementary Guidance on Anti-Piracy Defensive Measures, was issued on 12/01/09, to provide “additional clarification to specific Directive requirements based upon lessons learned to date. These clarifications and other changes will be incorporated into the next revision of MARSEC Directive 104-6.” The PSA addresses Heavy Wheel Movements, Communication in the Event of an Attack, AIS, Energizing Fire Pumps and Fire Hoses, Engine Room Manning, and Other Equivalent Measures.
More on TWIC: On Oct. 13, 2009, PAC 03-09 ch. 3 was extended until further notice. This PAC addresses the problem of persons experiencing a longer than 7-day turn around when trying to replace lost and stolen TWIC’s. An additional 30 calendar days of unescorted access can be granted “provided that all requirements under 33 CFR 104.265(c)(2)(i),(ii), and (iii), 105.255(c)(2)(i),(ii), and (iii), or 106.260(c)(2)(i)(ii), and (iii) are met and the following:
1) The individual provides proof that a replacement TWIC has been ordered ( a payment receipt (for $60.00) is acceptable as proof); and
2) Provide the VSO, FSO, or other designated employee with security duties, the individual’s first name and last name and application I.D. (if known). This information can then be used by the facility to confirm that the individual has previously held a valid TWIC and has ordered a replacement by using the card status check feature on TSA’s website located at: http://twicinformation.tsa.dhs.gov/twicinfo. “
Concerning piracy: Port Security Advisory (11-09) Supplementary Guidance on Anti-Piracy Defensive Measures, was issued on 12/01/09, to provide “additional clarification to specific Directive requirements based upon lessons learned to date. These clarifications and other changes will be incorporated into the next revision of MARSEC Directive 104-6.” The PSA addresses Heavy Wheel Movements, Communication in the Event of an Attack, AIS, Energizing Fire Pumps and Fire Hoses, Engine Room Manning, and Other Equivalent Measures.
More on TWIC: On Oct. 13, 2009, PAC 03-09 ch. 3 was extended until further notice. This PAC addresses the problem of persons experiencing a longer than 7-day turn around when trying to replace lost and stolen TWIC’s. An additional 30 calendar days of unescorted access can be granted “provided that all requirements under 33 CFR 104.265(c)(2)(i),(ii), and (iii), 105.255(c)(2)(i),(ii), and (iii), or 106.260(c)(2)(i)(ii), and (iii) are met and the following:
1) The individual provides proof that a replacement TWIC has been ordered ( a payment receipt (for $60.00) is acceptable as proof); and
2) Provide the VSO, FSO, or other designated employee with security duties, the individual’s first name and last name and application I.D. (if known). This information can then be used by the facility to confirm that the individual has previously held a valid TWIC and has ordered a replacement by using the card status check feature on TSA’s website located at: http://twicinformation.tsa.dhs.gov/twicinfo. “
Friday, September 11, 2009
Review of most current TWIC PAC's
While we are on the topic of PAC documents, here is a recent TWIC PAC that is likely to affect many MTSA facilities:
PAC 06-09, issued June 9, 2009, "Escorting Requirements for Passengers Traveling With Commercial Truck Drivers." The issue at hand was, Are passengers riding with commercial truck drivers required to obtain a TWIC if they stay within the cab of the vehicle while in secure areas of a 105 facility? The answer is, Yes, if it's acceptable to the owner/operator, and if the following conditions are met:
• the passenger does not require a TWIC in their own right, per 33 CFR 101.514;
• the passenger remains within the cab of the vehicle for the duration of the time that the vehicle remains within a secure area;
• the facility owner/operator agrees to permit the trucker to escort his/her passenger;
• the passenger can present personal identification that meets the requirements of 33 CFR 101.515, unless age prevents issuance of a qualifying ID;
• there is no suspicious behavior or actions on the part of the passenger or truck driver requesting to perform escorting duties;
• the passenger’s age or presence within the secure area will not interfere with facility safety policies/procedures;
• the commercial truck driver possesses a valid TWIC and meets the minimum training requirements listed in 33 CFR 105.215 (Security training for all other vessel/facility/OCS facility personnel) and any additional training requirements established by the facility; and
• the commercial truck driver must have knowledge of the owner/operator’s escorting procedures, and the procedures and contingency plans determined by the owner/operator if an escorted individual is engaged in activities other than those for which escorted access was granted. (The owner/operator is responsible for providing this information to the truck driver by classroom-style, one-to-one briefings, or via fliers/handouts outlining the various information that the escort needs to know. For further guidance, refer to Policy Advisory Council (PAC) Decision 02-09 dated 22 JAN 09.)
This PAC reinforces the importance of facility security personnel familiarity with the ID standards of 33 CFR 101.515. It is based on the decision of the owner/operator. If the owner/operator declines to allow a TWIC-less passenger back into the secure area, this is his/her decision to make. Eventually the 104.225 and 105.215 standard for basic knowledge for TWIC escort (PAC 02-09) will be enforced on a system-wide basis.
PAC 06-09, issued June 9, 2009, "Escorting Requirements for Passengers Traveling With Commercial Truck Drivers." The issue at hand was, Are passengers riding with commercial truck drivers required to obtain a TWIC if they stay within the cab of the vehicle while in secure areas of a 105 facility? The answer is, Yes, if it's acceptable to the owner/operator, and if the following conditions are met:
• the passenger does not require a TWIC in their own right, per 33 CFR 101.514;
• the passenger remains within the cab of the vehicle for the duration of the time that the vehicle remains within a secure area;
• the facility owner/operator agrees to permit the trucker to escort his/her passenger;
• the passenger can present personal identification that meets the requirements of 33 CFR 101.515, unless age prevents issuance of a qualifying ID;
• there is no suspicious behavior or actions on the part of the passenger or truck driver requesting to perform escorting duties;
• the passenger’s age or presence within the secure area will not interfere with facility safety policies/procedures;
• the commercial truck driver possesses a valid TWIC and meets the minimum training requirements listed in 33 CFR 105.215 (Security training for all other vessel/facility/OCS facility personnel) and any additional training requirements established by the facility; and
• the commercial truck driver must have knowledge of the owner/operator’s escorting procedures, and the procedures and contingency plans determined by the owner/operator if an escorted individual is engaged in activities other than those for which escorted access was granted. (The owner/operator is responsible for providing this information to the truck driver by classroom-style, one-to-one briefings, or via fliers/handouts outlining the various information that the escort needs to know. For further guidance, refer to Policy Advisory Council (PAC) Decision 02-09 dated 22 JAN 09.)
This PAC reinforces the importance of facility security personnel familiarity with the ID standards of 33 CFR 101.515. It is based on the decision of the owner/operator. If the owner/operator declines to allow a TWIC-less passenger back into the secure area, this is his/her decision to make. Eventually the 104.225 and 105.215 standard for basic knowledge for TWIC escort (PAC 02-09) will be enforced on a system-wide basis.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
HSAS teleconference - register by 1700 9/10
DTE Energy compliance and training specialist Thomas Kopera, Esq., alerted me to the Federal Register notice about the the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) meeting to review the findings and recommendations of the HSAC’s Homeland Security Advisory System Task Force.
The HSAC conference call will take place from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. EST on Tuesday, September 15, 2009. The meeting is scheduled for one hour and all participating members of the public should promptly call-in at the beginning of the teleconference.
To register for the teleconference, each individual must provide his or her full legal name, e-mail address and phone number no later than 5 p.m. EST on September 10, 2009, to a staff member
of the HSAC via e-mail at HSAC@dhs.gov or via phone at (202) 447–3135. HSAC conference call details will be provided at this time.
This notice is at Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices.
The HSAC conference call will take place from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. EST on Tuesday, September 15, 2009. The meeting is scheduled for one hour and all participating members of the public should promptly call-in at the beginning of the teleconference.
To register for the teleconference, each individual must provide his or her full legal name, e-mail address and phone number no later than 5 p.m. EST on September 10, 2009, to a staff member
of the HSAC via e-mail at HSAC@dhs.gov or via phone at (202) 447–3135. HSAC conference call details will be provided at this time.
This notice is at Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices.
PAC 09-09 Certain asphalt facilities opting out of MTSA
Asphalt facilities seeking to waive the requirements of MTSA need to direct the letter to the COTP, not the Commandant (CG-54), as the document seems to indicate. In speaking with Coast Guard personnel across Districts, there is a possibility that there may be some variety of interpretation of the qualifying conditions, which are:
1. The facility stores less than 42,000 aggregate gallons of any other 33 CFR 154
cargoes.
2. The facility receives no vessels subject to SOLAS.
3. The facility receives no foreign flagged vessels.
4. The facility receives no passenger vessels.
5. The facility is not regulated under another applicability factor.
One approach in writing the request for waiver is to ensure that each of these five qualifying conditions is listed and underneath each, briefly describe how the facility meets the condition. Even if all the qualifying conditions are not met at the facility (example, receives foreign-flagged vessels; has a storage of more than 42,000 gallons of another substance regulated under 154), the facility may still request a waiver.
The Policy Advisory Council document describes the reasoning behind allowing the facilities to opt out of MTSA, based largely on the properties of the cargo. The risk introduced into the situation by the presence of the vessel is not similarly addressed.
1. The facility stores less than 42,000 aggregate gallons of any other 33 CFR 154
cargoes.
2. The facility receives no vessels subject to SOLAS.
3. The facility receives no foreign flagged vessels.
4. The facility receives no passenger vessels.
5. The facility is not regulated under another applicability factor.
One approach in writing the request for waiver is to ensure that each of these five qualifying conditions is listed and underneath each, briefly describe how the facility meets the condition. Even if all the qualifying conditions are not met at the facility (example, receives foreign-flagged vessels; has a storage of more than 42,000 gallons of another substance regulated under 154), the facility may still request a waiver.
The Policy Advisory Council document describes the reasoning behind allowing the facilities to opt out of MTSA, based largely on the properties of the cargo. The risk introduced into the situation by the presence of the vessel is not similarly addressed.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
New Blog
For those of you who have been looking for a blog, or another blog, on MTSA matters, here it is. The main purpose of this blog will be to serve as another information source on policy, regulations, news, and industry announcements concerning facilities regulated under 33 CFR 105 and/or vessels regulated under 33 CFR 104. The recent release of the MTSA PAC 09-09 without notification to many critical parties and the varying interpretations of this document illustrate that information exchange is still a work in progress.
It also illustrates the importance of Homeport. There's been considerable criticism about the site since its launch and I encounter USCG personnel who state that they do not use it. As far as I can tell from the outside, the only notification concerning PAC 09-09 was its posting on Homeport. Like it or not, it's vital to use the Homeport site.
It also illustrates the importance of Homeport. There's been considerable criticism about the site since its launch and I encounter USCG personnel who state that they do not use it. As far as I can tell from the outside, the only notification concerning PAC 09-09 was its posting on Homeport. Like it or not, it's vital to use the Homeport site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)