TSA Begins Issuing New TWIC Design

From TSA, 07/10/2018:  "The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) began issuing a new, more secure Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC®) on July 10, 2018. Incorporating enhanced security features, the new TWIC® design aims to deter counterfeiting efforts and mitigate the fraudulent use of the credential at regulated facilities and vessels. Below are some key details about the new card:

•               Current TWIC® card holders do not need to replace a valid TWIC® card with the new TWIC® card design. 

•               Regulated entities that require TWIC® for access will accept and recognize both the current and new TWIC® designs until the card’s expiration.

•               The new card design is compatible with qualified TWIC® readers.

•               To deter alteration of the card’s expiration date, the new card includes a color-coded expiration date box that will update on an annual basis.

•               The fee for the newly re-designed TWIC® card remains unchanged ($125.25) and the credential is valid for five years."

A “TWIC Authentication Guide” document focused on the overt security features of the new TWIC® card design has been cleared for public release. 

Please note, TSA did not approve, disapprove, or endorse this blog post.  

Sen John Thune (R-S.D.) introduces S.763, the Surface Transportation and Maritime Security Act.

On March 30, 2017, Sen John Thune (R-S.D.) introduced S.763, the Surface Transportation and Maritime Security Act.  Sen. Thune is Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. He’s been in the Senate since 2005 and has served in powerful positions within that body. From Sen. Thune’s website, at https://www.thune.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=065CC562-BCB2-49FD-82EA-6CE3285E7947:

U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Science, Commerce, and Transportation, joined Sens. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) in reintroducing S. 763, the Surface Transportation and Maritime Security Act. The legislation, which is substantially similar to the bill introduced late last Congress, would address deficiencies in the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) efforts to protect rail, transit, highway, and maritime passenger and freight transportation.

“To keep Americans safe, Congress must continually focus attention on areas of neglect and potential weakness to keep them from becoming targets for terrorism,” said Thune. “The Commerce Committee will soon vote on these important reforms for the TSA.”

The legislation would address concerns, raised by independent government watchdog agencies, that TSA is not adequately positioned to identify security risks across different modes of transportation or effectively support federal, state, local and private providers of transportation security. TSA has previously said in testimony to Congress that it uses only three percent of its budget on surface transportation security.

Highlights of the Surface Transportation and Maritime Security Act:

Enhances Risk-Based Security Planning

• Requires the TSA administrator to conduct a risk analysis and implement a risk-based security model for surface transportation facilities.
• Mandates risk-based budgeting for surface transportation security focusing resources on current threats with annual reviews of program effectiveness.

Canine Explosive Detection Teams for Surface Transportation

• Authorizes as many as 70 additional canine teams to work in surface transportation security as soon as possible.
• Requires a review of the number, location, and utilization of canine teams in surface transportation security to ensure effective use.
• Following this review and the implementation of recommendations, TSA may then raise the total number of canine teams to 200 or higher as identified in TSA’s risk-based analysis. 

Increases Transparency

• Mirroring the advisory committee for aviation established by the Aviation Security Stakeholder Participation Act of 2014, establishes a Surface Transportation Advisory Committee to provide stakeholders and the public with the opportunity to coordinate with the agency and comment on policy and pending regulations. 
• Requires that TSA budget submissions clearly indicate which resources will be used for surface transportation security and which will be dedicated to aviation.
• Directs TSA to regularly update Congress on the status of long overdue surface transportation rulemakings.

Enhances Passenger Rail Security

• Authorizes the use of computerized vetting systems for passenger rail at the request of Amtrak police and the Amtrak Board of Directors.
• Allows grant funding to be used to enhance passenger manifest data so that rail passengers can be identified in case of emergency.

From a quick read of the text of the bill, link from the Senator's website:

The vulnerability assessment off surface transportation modes required of the bill must evaluate  the vetting and security training of employees in maritime transportation and other individuals with access to sensitive or secure areas of transportation networks.

The  Commandant of  the  Coast Guard shall  coordinate  with  the Administrator (of the TSA) to  provide  input  and  other  information regarding  the vulnerabilities of  and  risks  to maritime facilities.  

RISK-BASED SECURITY STRATEGY-

(1)   In GENERAL - Not   later   than   180 days after  the  date  the  security  assessment  from subsection (a)  is  complete, the  Administrator  shall  use the  results  of  the assessment-

(A)  to develop  and  implement  a cross-cutting, risk-based  security strategy that      includes

(i) all surface transportation modes;

(ii)  to the  extent  the Transportation Security  Administration   provides support in maritime transportation security efforts, maritime  transportation;

(B)  coordinate with  the  Commandant   of the  Coast Guard-

(i)         to evaluate existing maritime transportation  security  programs, policies, and initiatives   for  consistency with  the risk-based  security strategy and, to the extent practicable, avoid any unnecessary duplication   of effort;

(ii)  to   ensure   there  are   no security gaps between  jurisdictional  authorities that a threat can exploit to  cause  harm;

(iii)  to determine  the  extent  to which    stakeholder   security programs, policies, and   initiatives  address  the  vulnerabilities and  risks to  maritime transportation systems, identified in subsection (a); and

(iv)  subject  to clauses  (ii)  and (iii), to mitigate each  vulnerability and       risk   to maritime transportation systems identified in subsection (a).

180 days after the date that the security assessment is completed, TSA shall submit to the appropriate Congressional committees a report that includes, among other items, any   recommended   changes  to the National  Infrastructure Protection  Plan, the  modal   annexes  to the NIPP, or  relevant surface  or  maritime transportation security  programs,   policies, or initiatives.

BUDGET TRANSPARENCY - ln submitting the annual  budget  of  the  United  States  Government under Section 1105  of title 81,  United States Code,  the President  shall clearly distinguish  the  resources requested for surface and maritime transportation  security from  the  resources requested for aviation security.

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE   - The   TSA Administrator shall establish  within  the TSA the Surface Transportation  Security Advisory  Committee.  Voting members to serve in a volunteer, non-paid  basis and consist of representatives from associations  representing the  modes of surface transportation;  labor organizations  representing the modes; groups representing  the  users of the modes, including asset manufacturers,  as appropriate;  relevant  law enforcement, first  responders, and security experts; and other   groups   as   the Administrator considers appropriate.

Excellent Coast Guard newsletter for port security stakeholders

In October 2012 the Coast Guard Office of Port and Facility Compliance (CG-FAC) began publishing an excellent newsletter, Waves on the Waterfront. These newsletters can be found at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg544/Waves%20on%20the%20Waterfront.asp. They are published on a quarterly basis and each newsletter is full of information that can be extremely useful to a working FSO. Those of us who were fortunate enough to have worked with CAPT Andrew Tucci (commanding officer of CG-FAC ) when he was in Sector Ohio Valley will remember what a premium he placed on communication.

Waves on the Waterfront is designed to provide port security stakeholders with useful information on the national and international policies that guide our activities. CG-FAC uses this publication to highlight success stories, best practices, and achievements from the field. They welcome contributions, photos, articles, and ideas. Contact information for the CG-FAC team is included in each newsletter.  I don’t often say this about government publications, but each of these short, well-written newsletters is worth reading from beginning to end.

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.

Meeting Notice for National Maritime Security Advisory Committee posted in Federal Register

The following notice will be posted in the Federal Register, vol. 78, no. 52, on Monday March 18, 2013:

The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee (NMSAC) will meet on April 2-3, 2013 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, April 2, 2013 from 9:00 a.m.to 4:00 p.m. and Wednesday, April 3, 2013 from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.This meeting may close early if all business is finished. All written material and requests to make oral presentations should reach the CoastGuard on or before March 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The Committee will meet in the Oklahoma Room at the Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave SE., Washington, DC 20590. Seating is very limited. Members of the public wishing to attend should register with Mr. Ryan Owens, Alternate Designated Federal Official (ADFO) of NMSAC, telephone 202-372-1108 or

ryan.f.owens@uscg.mil no later than March 25, 2013. Additionally, this meeting will be broadcasted via a web enabled interactive online format and teleconference line.

    To participate via teleconference, dial 866-810-4853, the pass code to join is 9760138. Additionally, if you would like to participate in this meeting via the online web format, please log onto

https://connect.hsin.gov/r11254182 and follow the online instructions to register for this meeting.

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section as soon as possible.

    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the Committee as listed in the ``Agenda'' section below. You may submit written comments no later than March 29, 2013. Identify your comments by docket number [USCG-2012-0797] using one of the following methods:

     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     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. We encourage use of electronic submissions because security screening may delay delivery of

mail.

     Fax: (202) 493-2251.

     Hand Delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words``Department of Homeland Security'' and docket number [USCG-2012-0797].

All submissions received will be posted without alteration at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316)

Day 1 

    The agenda for the Committee meeting is as follows:

    (1) Cyber Security Executive Order. On February 12, 2013, President  Barack Obama signed 

an Executive Order \1\ to strengthen the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure by increasing 

information sharing and by jointly developing and implementing a framework of cybersecurity 

practices with our industry partners. NMSAC will be engaged to discuss and hear public 

comment on the Executive Order and begin initial work in developing a framework for the 

maritime community.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

    \1\ The Executive Order (not numbered) is available for viewing online at the White House's 

Web site:

 http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/executive-order-improving-critical-

infrastructure-cybersecurity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

    (2) Presidential Policy Directive-21.\2\ On February 12, 2013, the White House Office of the 

Press Secretary published a Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) on critical infrastructure 

security and resilience. PPD-21 updates the national approach from Homeland Security 

Presidential Directive-7 (issued in 2003) to adjust to the new risk environment, understand

 key lessons learned, and drive toward enhanced capabilities. NMSAC will be engaged to 

discuss and hear public comment on PPD-21 and its impacts on the maritime community.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

    \2\ Presidential Policy Directive-21 is available for viewing online at the White House's 

Web site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/presidential-policy-directive-

critical-infrastructure-security-and-resil.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

    (3) Maritime Domain Awareness and Information Sharing. NMSAC will receive a brief on, 

and will engage in a discussion on, the efforts of the Coast Guard and DHS to implement 

Maritime Domain Awareness and Information Sharing.

    (4) National Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative (NSI). NMSAC will receive a brief, 

hear public comments and provide recommendations, on the NSI program.

    (5) Public Comment Period. 

Day 2 

    (1) Radiation Portal Monitoring. NMSAC will continue its discussion of the Radiation Portal 

Monitoring Program.

    (2) Port Security Grant Program. NMSAC will discuss the Port Security Grant Program, 

hear public comments and provide recommendations to the Coast Guard on the future 

implementation of the program.

    (3) Public comment period. 

Dated: March 11, 2013.

R.F. Owens,

U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Port and Facility Compliance, Deputy 

Designated Federal Official.

New Information on Update to Subchapter H

Once again I need to thank Patrick Coyle and his excellent blog Chemical Facility Security News (http://chemical-facility-security-news.blogspot.com) for drawing attention to the fact that DHS has published the Fall 2012 Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DHS-2012-0079. The documents on this site are dated 12/24/2012. Among many items of interest is the information below about the update to Subchapter H. The Coast Guard is proposing to publish the NPRM during April 2013.

Title: Updates to Maritime Security

Abstract: The Coast Guard proposes certain additions, changes, and amendments to 33 CFR, subchapter H. Subchapter H is comprised of parts 101 through 106. Subchapter H implements the major provisions of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. This rulemaking is the first major revision to subchapter H. The proposed changes would further the goals of domestic compliance and international cooperation by incorporating requirements from legislation implemented since the original publication of these regulations, such as the SAFE Port Act, and including international standards such as STCW security training. This rulemaking has international interest because of the close relationship between subchapter H and the International Ship and Port Security Code (ISPS).

Priority: Economically Significant

Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: Undetermined

Unfunded Mandates: No

Regulatory Plan:

Statement of Need: This rulemaking is needed to incorporate Coast Guard Policy Advisory Council (PAC) decisions on the interpretation of regulations, guidance provided in response to questions to the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA) hotline, and to implement various requirements found in the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006, and the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010. In addition, this rulemaking is needed to incorporate recommendations from the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee. It also incorporates various U.S. Maritime Administration and International Maritime Organization voluntary consensus standards related to maritime security training.

Legal Basis: The fundamental legal basis for subchapter H remains the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 as amended by the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006, and the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010.

Alternatives: The Coast Guard is currently evaluating a number of alternatives based on applicability and risk (threat, vulnerability, and consequence). However, an overall update to make necessary changes to subchapter H and address improvements resulting from our experience since 2003 is prudent.

Costs and Benefits: The Coast Guard is currently estimating the costs associated with this rulemaking. The benefit from these provisions is compliance with mandates and harmonization with international standards. This rulemaking expands and improves competencies associated with Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA). MDA is the effective understanding of anything associated with the global maritime domain that could impact the United States' security, safety, economy, or environment. The proposed rule would improve MDA through training, exercise, and security plan enhancements.

Risks: With this rulemaking, the Coast Guard seeks to maintain the risk reduction goals established with the promulgation of the original MTSA regulations by incorporating provisions related to more recent legislation and warranted by our experience with subchapter H since 2003.

Timetable:

Action Date, NPRM 04/00/2013

International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.

_____________________________________________________________________

What may have changed from the last time the USCG described this NPRM? In January 2012, the USCG used this wording in describing this NPRM: “Among other things, these regulations require owners or operators of vessels and port facilities to develop security plans. Since promulgation of the MTSA regulations, the Coast Guard has granted exemptions from MTSA provisions on an ad hoc, individual basis. Through this rule, the Coast Guard would formalize several categories of exemptions, which, in turn, will reduce the burden associated with the current ad hoc waiver process.” The NPRM would “ clarify MTSA requirements in response to requests for interpretation and guidance; formalize exemptions from certain MTSA provisions, which would provide an annual savings of $125,000 to society.”  ( DHS’ Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations –Progress Report,

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DHS-2011-0015-0068).  

It is not clear to me what the Coast Guard envisioned by “categories of exemptions,”  or if these categories will be addressed through adoption of policy guidance from PAC’s and NVIC’s. Is this a substantive change between two drafts, or just another way of describing the same thing? I hope to see language about exemptions in the NPRM. Those of us who have spent considerable time drafting security measures at MARSEC 1, 2, and 3 to defend piles of commodities that “are not now and have never been regulated” will be glad to see system-wide consistency.

And the Coast Guard has advised the MTSA community in another forum that the current FSO training initiative will be addressed in a separate NPRM that will probably not be issued until fall 2013. It is unclear what incorporation of “voluntary consensus standards” could mean, apart from changing “voluntary” to “mandatory.”  This could generate some very interesting scenarios as related to 33 CFR 105.215 and .210 training.