|
My colleague Patrick Coyle at Chemical Facility
Security News has once more proved how important it is to be a daily reader
of his blog at http://chemical-facility-security-news.blogspot.com.
He alerted us to the notice that OMB sent out yesterday (03/12/2013) that OMB
has completed its mandatory 90-day review of the TWIC reader NPRM. Below is information from the OMB
announcement at reginfo.gov, http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201210&RIN=1625-AB21
Overall
Description of Deadline:
The final rule is required 2 years after the commencement of the pilot
program.
|
||||||||||
|
Statement
of Need:
The Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of 2002 explicitly required
the issuance of a biometric transportation security card to all U.S. merchant
mariners and to workers requiring unescorted access to secure areas of
MTSA-regulated facilities and vessels. On May 22, 2006, the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) and the Coast Guard published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to carry out this statute, proposing a
Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Program where TSA
conducts security threat assessments and issues identification credentials,
while the Coast Guard requires integration of the TWIC into the access
control systems of vessels, facilities, and Outer Continental Shelf
facilities. Based on comments received during the public comment period, TSA
and the Coast Guard split the TWIC rule. The final TWIC rule, published in
January of 2007, addressed the issuance of the TWIC and use of the TWIC as a
visual identification credential at access control points. The ANPRM,
published in March of 2009, proposed a risk-based approach to TWIC reader
requirements and included proposals to classify MTSA-regulated vessels and
facilities into one of three risk groups, based on specific factors related
to TSI consequence, and apply TWIC reader requirements for vessels and
facilities in conjunction with their relative risk-group placement. This
rulemaking is necessary to comply with the SAFE Port Act and to complete the
implementation of the TWIC Program in our ports. By requiring electronic card
readers at vessels and facilities, the Coast Guard will further enhance port
security and improve access control measures.
|
||||||||||
|
Summary
of the Legal Basis:
The statutory authorities for the Coast Guard to prescribe, change, revise,
or amend these regulations are provided under 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C.
chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 192; Executive Order 12656, 3 CFR 1988 Comp., p.
585; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
|
||||||||||
|
Alternatives: The implementation of TWIC
reader requirements is mandated by the SAFE Port Act. The Coast Guard is
currently considering several regulatory alternatives regarding how to
implement the TWIC reader requirements. These alternatives will be further
explored in the NPRM.
|
||||||||||
|
Anticipated
Costs and Benefits:
The main cost drivers of this proposal are the acquisition and installation
of TWIC readers and the maintenance of the affected entity's TWIC reader
system. Costs, which we would distribute over a phased-in implementation
period, consist predominantly of the costs to purchase, install, and
integrate approved TWIC readers to their current physical access control
system. Recurring annual costs will be driven by costs associated with
canceled card list updates, opportunity cost associated with delays and
replacement of TWICs that cannot be read, and maintenance of the affected
entity's TWIC reader system. At this time, we are still developing our
estimates for the impacts of this proposed rule. The benefits of the
rulemaking include the enhancement of the security of vessel ports and other
facilities by ensuring that only individuals who hold valid TWICs are granted
unescorted access to secure areas at those locations. It will also implement
the 2002 MTSA transportation security card requirements, thereby ensuring
compliance with those statutes.
|
||||||||||
|
Risks: USCG used risk-based
decision-making to develop this proposed rule.
|
||||||||||
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
OMB Announcement Concerning TWIC Reader NPRM from Chemical Facility Security News
Friday, January 18, 2013
TWIC Renewal
Yesterday I began the
steps to perform the 5-year renewal of my TWIC. I have the following to report:
Positives:
1. Both TSA HelpDesk
personnel that I spoke with were extremely courteous, apologetic about the
wait, and seemed to be informed about the process.
2. I received email notification about the
transaction within minutes of its completion.
Negatives:
1. I was unable to use the website to pre-enroll,
as directed by the TSA TWIC FAQs. When I entered my personal information, I was
moved onto a screen that informed me that I already have a TWIC and needed to
enter a UserID and password. I could not recall whatever it was that I had
selected 5 years ago. I attempted to use
both the “forgot UserID” function and the “forgot password” function. Clicking
on these links led to a screen in which I was required to enter the answer to
two challenge questions. The screen would not accept my answers, although I
know they were correct. I tried mis-spelling
combinations and even that was unsuccessful. I also got an error message once
as I was moving between screens. There is no moving forward from the challenge
question screen so I was stuck. The option to use the website to pre-enroll was
now closed to me.
2. I then called the HelpDesk and experienced a
combined wait on hold of one hour. When
an agent came on the line, she advised me that you cannot enroll for a 5-year
renewal via the website. She stated, “We
need to help you with that.” She asked
me if I had ever contacted the HelpDesk before. I had, and she pulled up a case
number and my card information. She said I would need to remember the case
number as she was going to transfer me to another agent for payment and he
would need the number. There was a
second lengthy wait and another agent came on the line and to take my ID
and payment information. This agent stated that the
only way to renew the card for 5 years was to walk into an enrollment center, but
that he could renew my TWIC for 3 years under the EED program. I did opt for
the 3 year EED although I disagree with its basic premise because it excludes
the background checks. Later I asked the agent for clarification about the procedure
for renewing for 5-years and he stated that you can pre-enroll online but it is
just as quick to walk into the enrollment center. I told him about the problems
I was having with the website. He was
apologetic but stated that the website was a different branch of the program.
So I basically got two answers as to whether one can use the website for the
5-year renewal: “yes” and “no”.
3. It appears to me from
my experience that you cannot use the HelpDesk for the 5-year renewal, and that
the website is experiencing problems so you cannot pre-enroll via the website. This
leaves open the question: is possible that TSA is funneling many renewal
requests into the EED option? This would greatly speed up and streamline the renewal process but it defeats the purpose
of the card. We need at least an
every-five-year snapshot of the backgrounds of the people who are being granted
unescorted access to the secure areas of regulated facilities and vessels.
Saturday, December 29, 2012
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,
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.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Legislative change to TWIC enrollment process
On Dec. 12, 2012, the United States Senate agreed to
the United States House of Representatives amendment to Senate amendment by
Voice Vote on amendments to H.R. 2838, the Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Act of 2012. This is the process for the final reconciliation of
two versions of the bill. It will now go to the President for his signature. Among
several significant provisions, the following section, if implemented, may make
a substantial change to the TWIC enrollment process:
SEC. 709. TRANSPORTATION WORKER IDENTIFICATION CREDENTIAL PROCESS REFORM.
Not later than 270 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall reform the
process for Transportation Worker Identification Credential enrollment,
activation, issuance, and renewal to require, in total, not more than one
in-person visit to a designated enrollment center except in cases in which
there are extenuating circumstances, as determined by the Secretary,
requiring more than one such in-person visit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)