Showing posts with label seafarer access. Show all posts
Showing posts with label seafarer access. Show all posts

Saturday, March 30, 2019

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More details:

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

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

(1) Regularly scheduled escort between the vessel and the facility gate that conforms to the vessel’s watch schedule as agreed upon between the vessel and facility.
(2) An on-call escort between the vessel and the facility gate.
(3) Arrangements with taxi services or other transportation services, ensuring  that any costs for providing the access described in this section, above the service’s standard fees charged to any customer, are not charged to the individual to whom such access is provided. If a facility  provides arrangements with taxi services or other transportation services as the only method for providing the access described in this section, the facility is responsible to pay any fees for transit within the facility.
(4) Arrangements with seafarers’ welfare organizations to facilitate the access described in this section.
(5) Monitored pedestrian access routes between the vessel and facility gate.
(6) A method, other than those in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section, approved by the COTP.
(7) If an access method relies on a third party, a back-up access method that will be used if the third party is unable to or does not provide the required access in any instance. An owner or operator must ensure that the access required in paragraph (a) of this section is actually provided in all instances.

What is “in a timely manner”? The Captain of the Port (COTP) will decide if the manner is timely.
The facility owner or operator must provide the access described in this section without unreasonable delay, subject to review by the Captain of the Port (COTP). The facility owner or operator must consider the following when establishing timely access without unreasonable delay:
(1) Length of time the vessel is in port.
(2) Distance of egress/ingress between the vessel and facility gate.
(3) The vessel watch schedules.
(4) The facility’s safety and security procedures as required by law.
(5) Any other factors specific to the vessel or facility that could affect access to and from the vessel.
(d) Access methods.

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

From the preamble, on costs:
The CGAA does not specify who should pay for no-cost access for seafarers. Ultimately, the Coast Guard determined that it is the facility’s responsibility to provide the no cost service, as Coast Guard regulations already require each facility to have an approved FSP, which must now include a system for providing no-cost access to the facility for certain individuals.
However, the Coast Guard declined to specifically prohibit charges to the vessel, and let parties decide the allocation of costs between facility and vessel. This rule provides flexibility to facilities on how to comply with the mandate and how to provide no-cost access for seafarers, as long as its solution does not result in a cost to seafarers.

What must my new FSP Section 22, System for seafarers’ access, include?
On or before February 3, 2020, the facility owner or operator must document the facility’s system for providing the access described in this section in the approved FSP in accordance with § 105.410 or § 105.415.
The description of the facility’s system must include—
(1) Location of transit area(s) used for providing the access described in this section;
(2) Duties and number of facility personnel assigned to each duty associated with providing the access described in this section;
(3) Methods of escorting and/or monitoring individuals transiting through the facility;
(4) Agreements or arrangements between the facility and private parties, nonprofit organizations, or other parties, to facilitate the access described in this section; and
(5) Maximum length of time an individual would wait for the access described in this section, based on the provided access method(s).

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

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

What about facilities operating under an Alternate Security Program (ASP)?
From the preamble:
“Each facility operating under a Coast Guard-approved ASP must include seafarer access as directed by the ASP itself. This may be in the form of an annex or appendix explaining how the facility will comply with this rule. This document must be submitted to and approved by the cognizant COTP in the location of the facility submitting the annex.”



PART 105—MARITIME SECURITY: FACILITIES
■ 1. The authority citation for part 105 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 70103; 50 U.S.C. 191; Sec. 811, Pub. L. 111–
281, 124 Stat. 2905; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
§ 105.200 [Amended]
■ 2. Amend § 105.200 as follows:
■ a. In paragraph (b)(1), remove the words ‘‘security organizational structure’’ and add in their place the words ‘‘organizational structure of the security personnel’’ and remove the words ‘‘within that structure’’;
■ b. In paragraph (b)(4), remove the text ‘‘an FSP’’ and add in its place the text ‘‘a Facility Security Plan (FSP)’’;
■ c. In paragraph (b)(6) introductory text, remove the acronym ‘‘TWIC’’ and add in its place the words ‘‘Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)’’;
■ d. In paragraph (b)(6)(i), after the words ‘‘FSP are permitted to’’ add the words ‘‘serve as an’’;
■ e. In paragraph (b)(6)(ii), remove the word ‘‘should’’ and add in its place the words ‘‘in the event that’’;
■ f. In paragraph (b)(6)(iii), remove the word ‘‘what’’, and add in its place the word ‘‘which’’ and after the words ‘‘are secure areas and’’ add the words ‘‘which are’’;
■ g. In paragraph (b)(9), remove the text ‘‘coordination of’’ and add in its place the text ‘‘implementation of a system, in accordance with § 105.237, coordinating’’ and remove the text
‘‘(including representatives of seafarers’ welfare and labor organizations)’’ and add in its place the text ‘‘, as described in § 105.237(b)(3)’’; and
■ h. In paragraph (b)(14), remove the text ‘‘TSA’’ and add in its place the text ‘‘Transportation Security Administration (TSA)’’.
■ 3. Add § 105.237 to read as follows:
§ 105.237 System for seafarers’ access.
(a) Access required. Each facility owner or operator must implement a system by June 1, 2020 for providing access through the facility that enables individuals to transit to and from a
vessel moored at the facility and the facility gate in accordance with the requirements in this section. The system must provide timely access as described in paragraph (c) of this section and incorporate the access methods described in paragraph (d) of this section at no cost to the individuals covered. The system must comply with the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) provisions in this part.
(b) Individuals covered. The individuals to whom the facility owner or operator must provide the access described in this section include—
(1) Seafarers assigned to a vessel at that facility;
(2) Pilots; and
(3) Representatives of seafarers’ welfare and labor organizations.
(c) Timely access. The facility owner or operator must provide the access described in this section without unreasonable delay, subject to review by the Captain of the Port (COTP). The facility owner or operator must consider the following when establishing timely access without unreasonable delay:
(1) Length of time the vessel is in port.
(2) Distance of egress/ingress between the vessel and facility gate.
(3) The vessel watch schedules.
(4) The facility’s safety and security procedures as required by law.
(5) Any other factors specific to the vessel or facility that could affect access to and from the vessel.
(d) Access methods. The facility owner or operator must ensure that the access described in this section is provided through one or more of the following methods:
(1) Regularly scheduled escort between the vessel and the facility gate that conforms to the vessel’s watch schedule as agreed upon between the vessel and facility.
(2) An on-call escort between the vessel and the facility gate.
(3) Arrangements with taxi services or other transportation services, ensuring that any costs for providing the access described in this section, above the service’s standard fees charged to any customer, are not charged to the individual to whom such access is provided. If a facility provides arrangements with taxi services or other transportation services as the only method for providing the access described in this section, the facility is responsible to pay any fees for transit within the facility.
(4) Arrangements with seafarers’ welfare organizations to facilitate the access described in this section.
(5) Monitored pedestrian access routes between the vessel and facility gate.
(6) A method, other than those in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section, approved by the COTP.
(7) If an access method relies on a third party, a back-up access method that will be used if the third party is unable to or does not provide the required access in any instance. An owner or operator must ensure that the access required in paragraph (a) of this section is actually provided in all instances.
(e) No cost to individuals. The facility owner or operator must provide the access described in this section at no cost to the individual to whom such access is provided.
(f) Described in the Facility Security Plan (FSP). On or before February 3, 2020, the facility owner or operator must document the facility’s system for providing the access described in this section in the approved FSP in accordance with § 105.410 or § 105.415.
The description of the facility’s system must include—
(1) Location of transit area(s) used for providing the access described in this section;
(2) Duties and number of facility personnel assigned to each duty associated with providing the access described in this section;
(3) Methods of escorting and/or monitoring individuals transiting through the facility;
(4) Agreements or arrangements between the facility and private parties, nonprofit organizations, or other parties, to facilitate the access described in this
section; and
(5) Maximum length of time an individual would wait for the access described in this section, based on the provided access method(s).
■ 4. Amend § 105.405 as follows:
■ a. In paragraph (a)(18), remove the text ‘‘part 105; and,’’ and add in its place ‘‘this part;’’;
■ b. In paragraph (a)(21), remove the period at the end of the paragraph and add in its place ‘‘; and’’; and
■ c. Add paragraph (a)(22).
The addition reads as follows:
§ 105.405 Format and content of the Facility Security Plan (FSP).
(a) * * *
(22) System for seafarers’ access.
* * * * *
Dated: March 27, 2019.
Jennifer F. Williams,
Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Director of
Inspections and Compliance.


Tuesday, March 1, 2016

Summary of Coast Guard Office of Port and Facility Compliance (CG-FAC) 2015 Annual Report

On March 1, 2016, the Coast Guard Office of Port and Facility Compliance (CG-FAC) issued the 2015 Annual Report.  It can be found at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg544/docs/CG-FAC%20Year%20In%20Review%202015_Final.pdf. The MTSA community, especially Facility Security Officers, should read the entire report. Important points are summarized below, using portions of the report.

FSOs should pay particular attention to 2015 MTSA Facility Enforcement Actions and What’s Coming in 2016.

Strategy for the Waterside Security of Especially Hazardous Cargo
On 1 September 2015, the Commandant of the Coast Guard signed the "Strategy for the Waterside Security of Especially Hazardous Cargo."  It seeks to manage the risk of an attack on the Maritime Transportation System (MTS) involving EHC by mitigating the Threat, Vulnerability, and Consequence elements of risk through the Awareness, Prevention, Protection, Response, and Recovery components of the security spectrum. Security governance to facilitate and improve communication between industry and government on incident response/recovery, as well as maritime transportation infrastructure security, will be incorporated through an Implementation Plan.  CG-FAC is working an initial action plan with a 5 year execution.

Technology
USCG is deploying IPads to inspection corps who requested to be part of the program. This dramatically reduces large quantities of references and materials that inspectors need to carry around. Other devices which FAC recommends purchasing, at the unit’s expense, are a Bluetooth keyboard, portable Bluetooth printer, and Apps. The USCG would appreciate any feedback and recommendation for use of the iPads provided to the CG- Portal site. https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cgfac2/iPads/SitePages/Home.aspx.

Port Security Specialist Program
The USCG has conducted a performance planning front end analysis (FEA) to determine Port Security Specialist and Security Specialist (Port / Recovery) performance requirements. Ten recommendations were identified during the FEA. Recommendations from this analysis will help optimize limited training resources and improve Port Security Specialist and Security Specialist (Port / Recovery) performance. A 2015 ALCOAST was issued providing an update to the PSS Program, defining roles and responsibilities of the PSS, and highlighting accomplishments.

Cybersecurity Assessment and Risk Management Approach (CARMA) Assessment in Philadelphia
During the week of June 8th, DHS Office of Sector Engagement Critical Infrastructure Resilience, in conjunction with the Coast Guard, led a cyber risk assessment in the Port of Philadelphia. Agencies involved were DHS, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), USCG Sector Del Bay, LANTAREA, CG-FAC, CG-CVC.

Coast Guard LNG Workgroup
Both Harvey-Gulf and TOTE have delivered vessels with LNG fueled engines, and the LNG workgroup worked closely with field units to interpret regulations and develop implementation strategies for these new facilities. CG-FAC chairs the LNG Workgroup, and during 2015 the work group facilitated the development and release of OES Policy letters 01-15 and 02-15 to, among other things, address gaps in 33 CFR 127 for LNG facilities that will bunker LNG. The report gives a link for USCG units to access the LNG Workgroup site in CG Portal (USCG restricted).

Alternative Security Program (ASP)
There are close to 200 facilities operating under ASPs and thousands of vessels, more than are using vessel-specific security plans. Since cyber-security is a topic of growing interest to the entire maritime industry the Coast Guard is exploring options for how to best incorporate cyber risks into security plans required by the Maritime Transportation Security Act. During the past year, two ASP Sponsoring Organization’s Workshops were held in Washington, DC. These workshops are a great forum for information sharing and discussions of best practices for both facilities and vessels. The workshop, held on November 18, 2015, provided an opportunity for in-depth discussions on cyber risks. Many industry groups are developing cyber security best practices and the Alternative Security Program potentially provides an ideal way of addressing cyber risks.

Cyber Risk Management
On 15 January 2015, CG-FAC held a public meeting to solicit input on a policy development project to address cyber security risks in the marine transportation system. In June 2015, the Commandant announced the promulgation of the Coast Guard’s first Cyber Strategy. This Strategy presents a ten-year vision for Coast Guard operations in cyberspace, and lays out our Service’s highest strategic objectives in this rap- idly evolving operational domain.

With the signing of the Cyber Strategy, CG-FAC became the lead office for implementing the Protect Infrastructure portion of the Strategy. The newly formed Protect Infrastructure Cyber Strategy Implementation Team (CSIT) had representatives from nearly every office within CG-5P and also representatives from other offices including CG-2, CG-6, and CG- 5R. Other offices outside of HQ have also pitched in, including National Maritime Center (NMC), Areas and Districts. The CSIT recently submitted an implementation plan and continues to work to complete identified initiatives. CG-FAC members were active in supporting Coast Guard wide research and development related to cyber risks in the marine transportation system.

Cyber Lexicon
CG-FAC, working within the Transportation System Sec- tor Cyber Security Working Group, assisted in developing a Common Cyber Language for the Transportation Sector. The language can be used to assist sub-sectors such as airlines or rail within the Transportation Sector have a common language when discussing cyber issues. The trail to this file in Homeport is Missions>Cybersecurity>Cyber Information> Transportation Sector Common Cyber Language.

Cybersecurity Assessment and Risk Management Approach (CARMA)
CARMA is a DHS developed tool that attempts to identify cyber risks within the port. It is a stakeholder-vetted list of the Port’s cyber infrastructure, as defined by its critical functions, supporting value chains, and specific types of cyber systems. What is important is that it utilizes local stakeholders to derive a port-level understanding of shared vulnerabilities and with it a prioritized list of strategies for managing the identified risks. This allows individual owners and operators to prioritize budget and resource allocations according to common risks. It also uses the identified cybersecurity risks to help build valid scenarios that could be leveraged for sector or national-level cyber exercises. Information on CARMA is accessed via email at ncsd_cipcs@hq.dhs.gov.

Cyber Risk Awareness and Policy Development
In 2015, the Coast Guard worked with the National Maritime Security Advisory Council, the National Offshore Safety Advisory Council, and many individual industry associations to share cyber information.

In June, the U.S. Coast Guard submitted a paper and introduced cyber risk management as a topic at the International Maritime Organization. Transport Canada has been a particularly strong partner in cyber. CG-FAC sent out 12 cyber related notices in 2015. A new resource section was also added to Homeport that shares over 100 different links to cyber related sites from advisories to alerts, assessment tools, recovery resources, supporting documents, tools, and training and education.

2015 Facility Inspections Program Statistics
Total regulated facilities:
8,211
MTSA-regulated facilities:
3,476
Total facility inspections completed:
11,856
MTSA facility inspections completed:
5,937
Total container inspections completed:
18,053
Total transfer monitors conducted:
456
Total operational controls (COTP Orders)
34
Security COTP Orders
16
Safety/Environmental Protection COTP Orders
19



2015 MTSA Security Compliance by District
District
FSPs*
MTSA Inspections
Deficiencies
1st
298
949
164
5th
166
451
129
7th
310
928
241
8th
905
1902
570
9th
304
691
120
11th
135
326
120
13th
139
257
106
14th
77
214
142
17th
98
219
27
Total
2432
5937
1619

Container Update
CG-FAC continuously seeks to improve the National Container Inspection Program (NCIP) guidance and streamline the process for both industry and the field. CG-FAC recently met with Hapag-Lloyd and the National Cargo Bureau to discuss industry and Coast Guard concerns and issues with the shipment of containers in an effort to identify ways to mitigate risks. Hapag-Lloyd has developed a system called “Watchdog”, that analyzes shipping documents searching for key words to assist in selecting containers for inspection. Watchdog has enabled Hapag-Lloyd to inspect 20% of all containers shipped by the company.

Mis-declared cargo and leakage are the most prominent issues ailing the shipment of containers and account for 86% of deficiencies according to the Cargo Incident Notification System website. According to the same website, over 70% of those deficiencies involve general cargo shipments, which point to the success of inspection programs focused on declared Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT).

Higher national compliance rates in declared HAZMAT shipments led to a shift for inspections rates of declared HAZMAT and general cargo container shipments. Previous guidance prioritized HAZMAT over general cargo shipments at a 90% to 10% inspection goal respectively. On average, of the total containers inspected nationally the Coast Guard has achieved roughly 60% to 40% HAZMAT to general cargo annually.

Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Verifications
As part of the MTSA security program, Facility Inspectors conducted a combined 48,289 visual and electronic inspections of TWIC cards in 2015, and identified 970 instances of non-compliance with TWIC requirements.  CG-FAC is currently conducting market research for replacement readers; current hand-helds are reaching the end of their service life. There are currently a few USCG units conducting field testing for iPad based reader applications. 

USCG TWIC Implementation branch members worked directly with counterparts at TSA to discuss and address TWIC program improvements and issues. TSA has recently begun implementation of a civil enforcement program for individual TWIC holders violating regulatory requirements. Many Transportation Security Inspectors – Surface (TSI-S) personnel have reached out to Districts and Sectors to coordinate implementation of this inspection program.

2015 MTSA Facility Enforcement Actions
In 2015, the Coast Guard completed 4,717 security-related MTSA annual and spot check ex- aminations and recorded 131 enforcement activities against MTSA-regulated facility owners or operators for noncompliance with MTSA regulations.  The 131 enforcement activities executed in 2015 took place at 115 MTSA-regulated facilities and included official letters of warning or administrative civil penalties.


Citation


Citation Title
Enforcement Activities Executed
33 CFR 101.305
Reporting, Breach of Security
3
33 CFR 105.125
Noncompliance
3
33 CFR 105.140
Alternative Security Program
1
33 CFR 105.200
Owner or operator requirements
27
33 CFR 105.205
Facility Security Officer requirements
7
33 CFR 105.210
Facility personnel with security duties
13
33 CFR 105.220
Drill and exercise requirements
15
33 CFR 105.225
Facility recordkeeping requirements
4
33 CFR 105.255
Security measures for access control
29
33 CFR 105.260
Security measures for restricted areas
8
33 CFR 105.275
Security measures for monitoring
3
33 CFR 105.290
Additional cruise ship terminal requirements
2
33 CFR 105.305
Requirements for facility security assessments
1
33 CFR 105.400
Facility Security Plans
5
33 CFR 105.410
Facility Security Plans – Submission and approval
7
33 CFR 105.415
Facility Security Plans – Amendment and audit
3
Total
131

As noted on the previous page, as in 2014, almost 50% of Coast Guard enforcement actions at regulated facilities were for 33CFR105.200 and 105.255 violations.

Rulemakings
Seafarer’s Access to Maritime Facilities - On July 27, 2015, the public comment period for the Seafarer’s Access to Maritime Facilities Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) officially closed. The 162 comments have been adjudicated and the Final Rule is being developed. This proposed rule would implement section 811 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, and requires each owner or operator of a facility regulated by the Coast Guard to implement a system that provides seafarers and other individuals with access between vessels moored at the facility and the facility gate, in a timely manner and at no cost to the seafarer or other individual.

Consolidated Cruise Ship Security - On June 1, 2015, the public comment period for the Consolidated Cruise Ship Security Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) officially closed. The 115 comments have been adjudicated and the Final Rule is being developed. The Coast Guard proposes to amend its regulations on cruise ship terminal security and the proposed regulations would provide detailed, flexible requirements for the screening of all baggage, personal items, and persons—including passengers, crew, and visitors—intended for carriage on a cruise ship. The proposed regulations would standardize security of cruise ship terminals and eliminate redundancies in the regulations that govern the security of cruise ship terminals.

Training
This year, CG-FAC traveled to each District to meet with a number of Facility Inspectors and Port Security Specialists during the FAC road show. Program staff covered certain topics specific to the Unit, District, or Area’s request.  Hot topics were LNG as Fuel, TWIC, MTSAII, and Cyber.

Area Maritime Security Committees
In April 2015, the Delaware Bay Area Maritime Security Committee was recognized as the 2014 Area Maritime Security Committee of the Year. This AMSC has developed a Regional Business Continuity Planning Template which was developed by taking an all hazards approach to include commercial risks. The template document serves as a readily implementable tool for use by Port Stakeholders in developing their own Business Continuity Plans. Widespread use of this template will lead to facilities better suited  to maintain critical business functions throughout our port and the nation, leading to a more  secure, resilient port and the ability to continue to contribute to the regional economy through unforeseen circumstances.

Trending Issues in Port Safety, Security, and Resilience
MTSRU - In order to build system continuity and maintain effective levels of program readiness, CG-FAC Senior Leadership developed and incorporated a strategy with the office business plan to host a National MTSRU Workshop every two years, to review and update program policies, guidance and analyze lessons learned from real events to improve response effectiveness and enhance program visibility.

Cooperation with Transport Canada - increased cooperation in 2016.

What to Expect in 2016
Facility Security - A policy letter encouraging facilities to submit their FSP/VSP/ASP renewals to the Coast Guard 60 days prior to the expiration date will be signed and disseminated to the field in CY16. Also, the Breach of Security Instruction has been updated to include suspicious activity response. The instruction will be published mid- 2016 and will address network security in addition to physical security incidents. Finally, be on the lookout for NVIC 03-03, Change 3 as well as an Alternative Security Plan NVIC in CY16.

EHC Strategy - CG-FAC will be working with other offices to create an Implementation Working Group for the EHC Strategy. This working group will look to implement the four goals of the EHC Strategy including awareness, prevention, response, and recovery.

Cyber - CG-FAC is working on several policy updates concerning cyber risk management. In cooperation with NIST, CG-FAC is drafting a Cyber Framework Implementation Guide for bulk liquid facilities. This will help facility operators identify the components of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework most applicable to their operations. CG-FAC is also developing a NVIC that will provide cyber risk management guidance to facility and vessel operators. CG-FAC will continue to support the Areas on conducting Cyber Awareness Training for CG Units.

Exercise requirements: CG-FAC is working on policy to clarify the definition for annual, and other time periods, as it is used in the 33 CFR 154 for exercise requirements.

Pipeline testing: CG-FAC is updating current policy and incorporating that into a pipeline testing policy NVIC that will guidance on alternate testing methods.

HOMEPORT— CG FAC is working with other Coast Guard Headquarters Offices to complete a long overdue technical refresh of Homeport.  This update will improve reliability and cyber security for the system and provide a better user interface.

Regulatory Projects:
Consolidated Cruise Ship Security - The public comment period for this NPRM ended on June 1, 2015. The anticipated final rule publication date is in 2016.

Seafarer’s Access to Maritime Facilities - The public comment period for this NPRM ended July 27, 2015. The anticipated final rule publication date is in 2016.

Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Reader Requirements - The Final Rule is in final agency clearance.