Jan. 15 2015 USCG Public Meeting In Washington DC to Receive Comments on the Development of Cybersecurity Assessment Methods for Vessels and Facilities Regulated by the Coast Guard

On Friday, December 12, 2014, the United Stated Coast Guard posted a notice of a January 15 2015 public meeting in Washington DC to receive comments on the development of cybersecurity assessment methods for vessels and facilities regulated by the Coast Guard. The docket number for submitting comments prior to this meeting is USCG-2014-1020.  Comments may be submitted both before and after the meeting.  There are several deadlines for persons interested in participating.  For attendance in person, the Coast Guard advises that seating is limited and should be reserved by the method specified in the notice NLT January 05, 2014. There will be a live video feed of the meeting.  To access the video feed, the request must be made by the means specified in the notice NLT January 13, 2015. Persons who wish to attend the meeting in person are advised of transportation and identification requirements.

My memory may be failing me but it seems to me like the last time I tried to access this building (Department of Transportation Headquarters building) two government-issued photo IDs were required, not one, as the notice specifies.  Below is the text of the notice from regulations.gov.  The supplemental documents referenced in the notice have not been posted as of noon 12/15/14.

Action

Notice of public meeting and request for comments.

Summary

The U.S. Coast Guard announces a public meeting to be held in Washington, DC, to receive comments on the development of cybersecurity assessment methods for vessels and facilities regulated by the Coast Guard. This meeting will provide an opportunity for the public to comment on development of security assessment methods that assist vessel and facility owners and operators identify and address cybersecurity vulnerabilities that could cause or contribute to a Transportation Security Incident. The Coast Guard will consider these public comments in developing relevant guidance, which may include standards, guidelines, and best practices to protect maritime critical infrastructure.

Dates

The meeting will be held on Thursday, January 15, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The deadline to reserve a seat is Monday, January 5, 2015. All written comments and related material must either be submitted to the online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before January 29, 2015 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

Addresses

The public meeting will be held at the Department of Transportation Headquarters, Oklahoma Room, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; the building telephone number is 202-366-1035. The building is accessible by taxi, public transit, and privately-owned conveyance. However, public parking in the vicinity of the building is extremely limited. Meeting participants are encouraged to use mass transit.

Seating is limited, so please reserve a seat as soon as possible, but no later than January 5, 2015. To reserve a seat, please email Josephine.A.Long@uscg.mil with the participant's first and last name for all U.S. Citizens, and additionally, official title, date of birth, country of citizenship, and passport number with expiration date for non-U.S. Citizens. To gain entrance to the Department of Transportation Headquarters building, all meeting participants must present government-issued photo identification (e.g., state-issued driver's license). If a visitor does not have a photo ID, that person will not be permitted to enter the facility. All visitors and any items brought into the facility will be required to go through security screening each time they enter the building.

The Coast Guard will provide a live video feed of the meeting. To access the video feed, email a request to LT Josephine Long at Josephine.A.Long@uscg.mil no later than January 13, 2015.

The docket for this notice is available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov, entering USCG-2014-1020 in the search box and following the instructions.

Written comments may also be submitted in response to this notice. All written comments and related material submitted before or after the meeting must either be submitted to the online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before January 29, 2015 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date. You may submit written comments identified by docket number USCG-2014-1020 before or after the meeting using any one of the following methods:

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

(2) Fax: 202-372-1990.

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.

The Coast Guard will post a video recording and written summary of the meeting to the docket.

For Further Information Contact

If there are questions concerning this meeting, please call or email LT Josephine Long, Coast Guard at 202-372-1109 or via email at Josephine.A.Long@uscg.mil or LCDR Joshua Rose, Coast Guard; at 202-372-1106 or via email at Joshua.D.Rose@uscg.mil. If there are questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

Supplementary Information

Background and Purpose

On February 12, 2013, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13636 “Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity.” The E.O. provided the national approach to protecting critical infrastructure cybersecurity and directed federal agencies to assess cyber risk to critical infrastructure. Pursuant to E.O. 13636, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) developed a voluntary Preliminary Cybersecurity Framework, (1) followed by the February 12, 2014 publication of a Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (2) (Cybersecurity Framework). The Cybersecurity Framework serves to help industry stakeholders reduce their cyber risk and vulnerabilities. The Coast Guard encourages vessel and facility owners and operators to adopt the Cybersecurity Framework voluntarily to achieve a minimum standard of cybersecurity protection.

Section 7(d) of E.O. 13636 states that in developing the Cybersecurity Framework, the Director of NIST “shall engage in an open public review and comment process” and consult with stakeholders including owners and operators of critical infrastructure. Similarly, the Coast Guard will host this public meeting to engage the public and obtain comments to assist in the drafting of procedures to enable operators of vessels and facilities regulated pursuant to the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA) to identify and address cybersecurity risks that could result in a Transportation Security Incident (TSI). (3) This may include standards, guidelines, and best practices to protect maritime critical infrastructure. 

The meeting will include the following topics:

(1) Identify: What cyber dependent systems perform vital functions that are addressed in MTSA requirements, such as access control, cargo control, and communications?

(2) Protect: What standards are suitable to ensure the integrity of these systems?

(3) Detect: What procedures are available to owners and operators to detect cyber intrusions that could compromise the integrity of vital systems or contribute to a TSI?

(4) Respond: What response and notification procedures can minimize the consequences of cyber events?

(5) Recover: What procedures can owners and operators take to promote rapid maritime transportation system recovery after a cyber incident?

In addition to the topics outlined above, the Coast Guard is posting several supplemental documents to the online docket for this notice. The supplemental documents provide additional background information that may be useful for the public to consider in formulating comments. We encourage individuals interested in participating in the public meeting and/or submitting comments to the docket to review the supplemental documents. To view the supplemental documents and other documents mentioned in this notice as available in the docket, please follow the instructions described above in the ADDRESSES section. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Coast Guard has an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

The Coast Guard encourages the public to participate by submitting comments either in person at the meeting or in writing. The public may submit written comments to Coast Guard personnel at the meeting. The Coast Guard will post these comments to the online public docket. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

Privacy Act

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of the dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). There is a Privacy Act notice regarding the public dockets for review in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register(73 FR 3316).

Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities

For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting, contact LT Josephine Long at the telephone number or email address indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

Authority

This notice is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

Dated: December 3, 2014.

Andrew Tucci,

Chief, Office of Port & Facility Compliance, U.S. Coast Guard.

[FR Doc. 2014-29205 Filed 12-11-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-04-P

GAO Issues Report: Maritime Security: DHS Could Benefit from Tracking Progress in Implementing the Small Vessel Security Strategy

On November 19, 2013, the Government Accountability Office issued GAO Report 14-32, Maritime Security: DHS Could Benefit from Tracking Progress in Implementing the Small Vessel Security Strategy.  This report is of particular interest to us here at the University of Findlay because our course Small Vessel Security for Rural Communities was recently certified by DHS as AWR 311. The report can be found at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-32. Below are highlights from the report.

From the highlights:

Why GAO did this study: The Coast Guard estimates that there were more than 22 million small vessels operating in the United States in 2012. Terrorists, smugglers, and other criminals can use small vessels as platforms for their activities because small vessels are generally unregulated and largely anonymous. Law enforcement agencies face the challenge of distinguishing between legitimate small vessel operators and the relatively few individuals estimated to be engaged in illicit activities. DHS issued its SVSS in April 2008 and its follow-on SVSS Implementation Plan in January 2011 to help guide actions to mitigate the security risks arising from small vessels. Given the importance of small vessel security, GAO was asked to review DHS’s efforts in developing and implementing the SVSS Implementation Plan.

  

This report examines what actions, if any, DHS and its components have taken to address small vessel security concerns, and the extent to which they have implemented action items in the SVSS Implementation Plan. GAO analyzed DHS documents; interviewed DHS officials; and visited two ports selected on the basis of the volume of small vessel traffic and security initiatives in place, among other things. While the results of the port visits cannot be generalized across all ports, they provided insights on small vessel security issues and operations.

What GAO found: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components—such as the U.S. Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—have started or completed initiatives to address small vessel security risks, but DHS is not tracking the progress being made to address action items in the Small Vessel Security Strategy (SVSS) Implementation Plan. “Small vessels” are characterized as any watercraft—regardless of method of propulsion—less than 300 gross tons, and used for recreational or commercial purposes. DHS component officials GAO met with identified examples of key initiatives that they have completed or have under way to enhance small vessel security, including an initiative to help CBP better track small vessels arriving from foreign locations and another to assist the Coast Guard in assessing and monitoring small vessel launch sites. Although the SVSS Implementation Plan states that DHS is to assess and update the plan, DHS has not determined the progress its components and other relevant stakeholders—such as the Department of Defense—are making in completing the action items and has no current plans to do so. DHS officials stated that this is due, in part, to budget constraints that make this a low priority. DHS officials stated that updating the SVSS Implementation Plan would be valuable, and doing so is particularly important since more than one component could be responsible for action items in the plan. Accordingly, by systematically gathering information from its components and other relevant stakeholders to regularly update the progress they are making in addressing the action items in the plan, DHS could help prioritize initiatives given constrained budgets and better identify successes and lessons learned, among other things.

What GAO recommends: GAO recommends that DHS regularly update the progress its components and other relevant stakeholders are making in addressing action items in the SVSS Implementation Plan. DHS concurred with the recommendation.

From the main body of the report:

DHS officials we spoke with stated that there is no plan to update the SVSS Implementation Plan because it is not a priority, given budget constraints, and it is too early to measure the effectiveness of action items in the plan. According to a senior DHS Policy official, although the SVSS Implementation Plan states that DHS should assess and update the plan annually, given these constraints, an annual review is too frequent. The senior DHS official added that per the Secretary of Homeland Security’s direction, DHS components are focusing on maintaining their ongoing operations under constrained budgets, and so efforts to update the SVSS Implementation Plan are not currently a priority…Coast Guard officials added that America’s Waterway Watch—a program highlighted in the SVSS Implementation Plan that provides outreach to the public, including the small vessel community, on awareness of threats and how to report suspicious activity—may not receive funding in DHS’s fiscal year 2014 appropriation…

DHS officials also stated that because the SVSS Implementation Plan was issued in early 2011, it is too early to expect a majority of the action items to be completed or, especially for the long-term action items, to have been implemented. These officials stated that accomplishing the SVSS’s goals and objectives through implementation of the many action items in the SVSS Implementation Plan will require a significant investment of time and resources, along with buy-in from state and local maritime security stakeholders. Accordingly, it could take years to fully implement some of the action items and determine whether they are effective…

Although it may be too early to measure the effectiveness of some action items in the SVSS Implementation Plan, updating the progress made in addressing the action items could help DHS and its components prioritize their efforts given constrained budgets; better identify successes and lessons learned; and enhance collaboration with federal, state, and local stakeholders regarding small vessel security issues. The SVSS Implementation Plan states that, because of risk, the unpredictability of budgets, policy changes, and administrative priorities, the plan must be reviewed regularly to ensure that it remains current and accurate. By engaging in this review process, the plan states that it is intended to be a living document that provides a strategic overview of participating agencies’ implementation of the SVSS. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government calls for federal agencies to design and implement control activities to enforce management’s directives.

Conclusions: Recognizing the risks posed by terrorists using small vessels to attack targets or as a conveyance for terrorists and their contraband to enter the United States, DHS issued its SVSS Implementation Plan in January 2011 to help guide efforts to mitigate the security risks arising from small vessels. DHS component agencies have completed some initiatives and have other initiatives under way to address the risk of a small vessel attack, but DHS is not gathering information on the progress its components or relevant stakeholders are making to address action items in the SVSS Implementation Plan and has no plans to do so. The SVSS Implementation Plan, by design, is to be revised to accommodate new information about threats, technologies, requirements, and lessons learned as action items are implemented, but DHS has not updated the plan since it was issued in 2011. Given that internal controls call for federal agencies to design and implement control activities to enforce management’s directives, DHS could better prioritize initiatives and identify successes if it was to regularly update the progress its components and other relevant stakeholders are making to address the action items in the SVSS Implementation Plan. This information could be particularly useful to DHS components that may be operating under more constrained budgets than when the plan was first issued.

Recommendation for Executive Action: To improve DHS’s ability to monitor progress, prioritize action items, and identify successes, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security systematically gather information from the department’s components and other relevant stakeholders to regularly update the progress they are making in addressing action items in the SVSS Implementation Plan.

Federal Register Notice Concerning the Carriage of Shale Gas Extraction Waste Water in Bulk via Barge

Once more, many thanks to CAPT Dennis Bryant for mentioning the Coast Guard Oct. 30 Federal Register fracking water policy notice in his great resource, Bryant’s Maritime Blog, http://brymar-consulting.com/.

From the Federal Register, vol 78, issue 210:

“The Coast Guard announces the availability of a proposed policy letter concerning the carriage of shale gas extraction waste water in bulk via barge, and invites public comment. The policy letter specifies the conditions under which a barge owner may request and be granted a Certificate of Inspection endorsement or letter allowing the barge to transport shale gas extraction waste water in bulk. The policy letter also defines the information the Coast Guard may require the barge owner to provide and specifies the additional requirements the Coast Guard is considering imposing on such barges. Upon reviewing comments received on this proposed policy letter, Coast Guard will issue the final policy letter and specify its effective date.

DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before November 29, 2013 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.”

You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG– 2013–0915 using any one of the methods identified in the Federal Register notice.

From the policy letter, which will be posted on Regulations.gov but for now can be found at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg521/:

“The purpose of this policy letter is: (a) to specify the conditions under which a barge owner may request and be granted a Certificate of Inspection endorsement or letter, under 46 CFR 153.900(d), allowing the barge to transport shale gas extraction waste water (SGEWW) in bulk as Conditionally Permitted SGEWW; (b) to define the information the Coast Guard may require the barge owner to provide pursuant to 46 CFR 153.900(d)(1)(ii); and (c) to specify the additional requirements the Coast Guard imposes on such barges pursuant to 46 CFR 153.900(d)(2)(iii). A barge owner who has not been granted an endorsement or letter under 46 CFR 153.900(d), or who has not provided the information defined by this policy letter, or who has not complied with the additional requirements this policy letter describes, is prohibited from transporting SGEWW in bulk on that barge.”

"Endorsement of Certificate of Inspection. Pursuant to 46 CFR 153.900(d)(1)(i), a barge owner may request endorsement of a barge’s Certificate of Inspection, or a letter, allowing the barge to transport Conditionally Permitted SGEWW in bulk. Requests may be made by contacting the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant (CG-ENG-5) at (202) 372-1412 or by emailing HazmatStandards@uscg.mil. The Coast Guard, at its discretion, may provide the endorsement or letter, on condition that the barge owner conduct and document the analyses and surveys, and take the venting measures, described in this paragraph 8. Carriage requirements for SGEWW are given in Enclosure (4), and a sample endorsement is included in Enclosure (5) to this policy letter."

"Analyses. As an “additional requirement” that the Coast Guard may impose, per 46 CFR 153.900(d)(2)(iii), on the endorsement or letter described in paragraph 8.b, prior to carrying SGEWW on board the barge, the barge owner must have each consignment load of SGEWW chemically analyzed in accordance with Enclosure (1) to this policy letter. The barge owner must keep records showing the results of each analysis for two years and make those records available to the Coast Guard upon request. These records are subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The identity of proprietary chemicals may be withheld from public release pursuant to the FOIA and applicable Coast Guard policy." (Details of analysis including the radioactivity concentration limit and the consignment activity limit are given in Enc. 1).

"Surveys. As an “additional requirement” that the Coast Guard may impose, per 46 CFR 153.900(d)(2)(iii), on the endorsement or letter described in paragraph 8.b, the barge owner must have the barge surveyed in accordance with Enclosure (1) to this policy letter, whenever the barge changes from carrying Conditionally Permitted SGEWW to carrying another cargo, and prior to the entry of any personnel, Coast Guard or otherwise, into the barge. The barge owner must keep records showing the results of each survey for two years and make those records available to the Coast Guard upon request."

"Venting. Carriage of Conditionally Permitted SGEWW may over time lead to the accumulation of radon, a daughter radionuclide of both Ra-226 and Ra-228, in the tank head space. Daily temperature changes can cause variations in tank pressure, and open venting provides pressure relief, preventing over- or under-pressurization of the tanks. Closed or restricted venting would trap the radon in the head space of the tank. Therefore, as a “design and equipment” requirement under 46 CFR 153.900(d)(2)(ii) and as an “additional requirement” under 46 CFR 153.900(d)(2)(iii), the barge owner must ensure that each barge to which the endorsement or letter described in paragraph 8.b is issued has open venting and must ensure that personnel avoid areas where gas from the tanks may escape, especially during loading and offloading. The owner may meet these requirements by ensuring that operational policy instructs personnel to avoid the tank vents and that personnel comply with that instruction."

Enclosure 1 of the policy discusses details of the analysis for hazardous materials including radioisotopes;  criteria to determine if SGEWW can be carried as conditionally permitted SGEWW, including radioactivity formulas, and safety conditions and procedures to protect personnel.

Enclosure 2 of the policy is a State of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Form 26R , Chemical Analysis of Residual Waste, Annual Report by the Generator.

Enclosure 3 are Sample Calculations for Maximum Allowed Volume.  These are equations used to find  the total radioactivity limit allowed to be transported in one barge.  Editorial comment – both shippers and inspectors will need to go back to school in order to understand this part of the policy document.

Enclosure 4 talks about Interim Minimum Requirements for the Carriage on Unmanned Barges, 46 CFR 153.  The policy letter states that has been assigned to Group 43 (Miscellaneous Water Solutions) as listed in 46 CFR Part 150. For those of us who don’t work with Title 46 a lot, Part 150 is found in Subchapter O.

Enclosure 5 is a sample Certificate of Inspection Endorsement for Carriage of Shale Gas Extraction Waste Water (SGEWW).

Questions or concerns regarding this policy may be directed to Commandant (CG-ENG-5) at (202) 372-1412 or emailed to HazmatStandards@uscg.mil.

__________________________________________________________________

The policy letter does not address any security concerns. Absent any word from the Coast Guard to the contrary, the towboat and barge transporting SGEWW appears to me to be a 104 vessel under 33 CFR 104.105(a)(8). A terminal accepting the vessel would become regulated under 33 CFR 105.

FY13 Port Security Grant Program Solicitation posted

On May 22, 2013 FEMA posted the details of this year’s (FY13) Port Security grant program. The file is available at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=7471. Below are some important points:

 Key Dates and Times:

Application Start Date: 05/21/2013

Application Submission Deadline Date: 06/24/2013 at 11:59:59 p.m. EST

Anticipated Funding Selection Date: 08/02/2013

Anticipated Award Date: 09/01/2013

Award Amounts, Important Dates, and Extensions

Available Funding for this FOA: $93,207,313

Projected Number of Awards: 210

Projected Award Start Date(s): 09/01/2013

Projected Award End Date(s): 08/31/2015

Period of Performance: 24 months

Cost Match:

Public Sector. Public sector applicants must provide a non-Federal match (cash or in-kind) supporting at least 25 percent (25%) of the total project cost for each proposed project.

Private Sector. Private sector applicants must provide a non-Federal match (cash or in-kind) supporting at least 50 percent (50%) of the total project cost for each proposed project.

Cash and in-kind matches must consist of eligible costs (i.e., purchase price of allowable contracts, equipment). A cash match includes cash spent for project-related costs while an in-kind match includes the valuation of in-kind services. The cost-match requirement for the PSGP award may not be met by costs borne by another Federal grant or assistance program. Likewise, in-kind matches used to meet the matching requirement for the PSGP award may not be used to meet matching requirements for any other Federal grant program (e.g., FY 2013 funds are used to purchase a mobile command center from a vendor, the vendor contributes or donates communications equipment associated with the mobile command center, the value of the donated equipment may be considered as an in-kind match for the PSGP award only).

Program Objectives

The FY 2013 PSGP plays an important role in the implementation of the National Preparedness System (NPS) by supporting the building, sustainment, and delivery of core capabilities essential to achieving the National Preparedness Goal (NPG) of a secure and resilient Nation. Delivering core capabilities requires the combined effort of the whole community, rather than the exclusive effort of any single organization or level of government. The FY 2013 PSGP’s allowable costs support efforts to build and sustain core capabilities across Prevention, Protection, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery mission areas.

Grantees under the FY 2013 PSGP are encouraged to build and sustain core capabilities through activities such as:

• Strengthening governance integration;

• Enhancing Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA)

• Enhancing IED and Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, Explosive (CBRNE) prevention, protection, response and supporting recovery capabilities within the maritime domain

• Enhancing cybersecurity capabilities

• Maritime security risk mitigation projects that support port resilience and recovery capabilities

• Training and exercises

• Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) implementation

Application Review Information

The four core PSGP funding priorities for applications are:

• Funding Priority #1. Projects that support development and sustainment of the core capabilities in the NPG and align to PSGP funding priorities identified in Appendix B –PSGP Priorities. These include:

• Enhancing MDA

• Enhancing IED and CBRNE prevention, protection, response and recovery capabilities within the maritime domain

• Enhancing cybersecurity capabilities

• Maritime security risk mitigation projects that support port resilience and recovery capabilities

• Training and exercises

• TWIC implementation

• Funding Priority #2. Projects that address priorities outlined in the applicable AMSP, FSP, and Vessel Security Plan (VSP), as mandated under the MTSA and/or the Port-Wide Risk Mitigation Plans (PRMP)

• Funding Priority #3. Projects that address additional maritime security priorities based on the COTP’s expertise and experience of the COTP within the specific Port Area

• Funding Priority #4. Projects that are eligible and feasible based on program priorities, Port Area plans and priorities, and available period of performance 

Port Area Group Designations

For FY 2013, there will be two Port Area Group Designations, rather than the traditional four groupings in prior years. Table 2 lists the specific Port Areas by Group that are eligible for funding through the FY 2013 PSGP and the competitive funding amount available within each Group. This change helps ensure funding is made available to the highest risk ports and funding is awarded to projects that are rated most effective in addressing program priorities and mitigating port security risks. DHS/FEMA reserves the right to re-allocate funding from one group to the other should the applications within a particular group prove insufficient in terms of quality, number, and/or total project costs.

Group I Port Areas

Eight Port Areas have been selected as Group I (highest risk) and will be allocated 60 percent (60%) of funding available. Each Group I Port Area will compete for the target funding allocation assigned to the group. The amount of available funding for the group is based on the FY 2013 DHS risk analysis. This will allow applicants to submit IJs for projects without being confined to a set dollar amount, providing DHS the opportunity to conduct field and national reviews of each project and make awards based on the two overarching priorities of PSGP, risk-based funding and regional security cooperation, as well as evaluating the extent to which each IJ decreases risk for the Port Area.

Group II Port Areas

The legacy Group II, III, and All Other Port Areas are combined into a single Port Grouping known as Group II, which will receive the remaining 40 percent (40%) of funds available. These Port Areas will compete for the target funding allocation assigned to Group II. As is the case with the Group I Port Areas, available funding is based on results of the FY 2013 DHS risk analysis. The number of legacy Group II and III ports will be adjusted to, 47 and 35, respectively; thus the total number of Group II ports under the new grouping methodology is 82. Note: The total number of Group II ports does not include All Other Port Areas. 

Ineligible Entities

The PSGP will not accept applications or IJs from an applicant or sub-applicant for the purpose of providing a service or product to an otherwise eligible entity

Port-Wide Risk Management Planning for legacy Group I and Group II Port Areas

Legacy Group I and II Port Areas are encouraged to maintain their PRMPs and to use them to identify projects that will serve to address remaining maritime security vulnerabilities. These ports are also highly encouraged to develop a Business Continuity/Resumption of Trade Plan (BCRTP). For purposes of regional strategic and tactical planning, these plans must take into consideration all other Port Areas covered by their AMSP.

Depending on the number of highly rated IJs received within each Port Grouping, funding may adjusted between groups to ensure the most highly effective, risk based maritime security projects are funded.

More from TWIC Reader Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Will there be a different requirement for TWIC reader use at elevated MARSEC Levels for Risk Group A?

The Coast Guard recognizes that the system of MARSEC Levels creates a useful mechanism for the Coast Guard to elevate security requirements at times of heightened risk. Nonetheless, the Coast Guard uses this mechanism in a targeted manner, and at this time, the Coast Guard does not believe that elevated TWIC reader requirements at higher MARSEC Levels are generally practical or appropriate. In considering the comments above, the Coast Guard notes the change that it has made from the ANPRM to this NPRM with respect to TWIC reader requirements. In the NPRM, the Coast Guard proposed TWIC reader requirements for Risk Groups A and B, with stricter TWIC reader requirements for both risk groups at higher MARSEC Levels. The ANPRM’s stricter TWIC reader requirements would have primarily affected Risk Group B because the ANPRM proposed routine biometric scanning with a TWIC reader for Risk Group A at all MARSEC Levels. For example, the ANPRM would have required Risk Group B to use TWIC readers at MARSEC Level 1 for card authentication (i.e., no routine biometric scan) and once-monthly biometric identity verification. The ANPRM, however, would have only required Risk Group B to regularly use TWIC readers for biometric identity verification at higher MARSEC Levels. In this NPRM, the Coast Guard has eliminated the proposed TWIC reader requirements for Risk Group B. The requirements for routine biometric scanning with a TWIC reader for Risk Group A remain the same as in the ANPRM. Note that the Coast Guard proposes increased requirements at higher MARSEC Levels to the extent that the NPRM would require Risk Group A to perform daily updates of CCL information at higher MARSEC Levels, instead of the weekly updates required at MARSEC Level 1.

What types of readers may be utilized?

The Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and TSA are developing TWIC reader specifications. TSA will establish a process to qualify TWIC readers, and will maintain a Qualified Technology List (QTL) of acceptable TWIC readers. The Coast Guard anticipates that there may be changes from the ICE Test list to the QTL list, based on final TWIC reader specifications resulting from the QTL process.

A list of TWIC readers that have passed the Initial Capability Evaluation (ICE) Test is available at http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/twic_ice_list.pdf. As stated in PAC–D 01–11, however, TWIC readers allowed pursuant to PAC–D 01–11 may no longer be valid after promulgation of a TWIC reader final rule, and DHS will not fund replacement TWIC readers.

TSA is developing the QTL so that approved readers meet durability standards. Additionally, in this NPRM, we’re proposing requirements that provide owners and operators the flexibility to choose the TWIC reader that best suits their operational needs.

Section 101.105, Definitions.TWIC reader means an electronic device listed on TSA’s Qualified Technology List (QTL) and used to verify and validate: the authenticity of a TWIC; the identity of the TWIC-holder as the legitimate bearer of the credential; that the TWIC is not expired; and that the TWIC is not on the CCL. TSA’s QTL of acceptable TWIC readers may be accessed online at http://(TBD).