[Federal Register: December 30, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 250)]
[Notices]
[Page 79741-79806]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30de02-144]
[[Page 79741]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coast Guard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maritime Security; Notice
[[Page 79742]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
[USCG-2002-14069]
Maritime Security
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of meetings; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is holding seven public meetings to discuss
requirements for security assessments, plans, and specific security
measures for ports, vessels, and facilities. Discussions will aid the
Coast Guard in determining the types of vessels and facilities that
pose a risk of being involved in a transportation security incident,
and in identifying security measures and standards to deter such
incidents. Discussions will also focus on aligning domestic maritime
security requirements with the International Ship and Port Facility
Security (ISPS) Code and recent amendments to the International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), to comply with
section 102 (Port security) of the recently enacted Maritime
Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA). We encourage interested
individuals and organizations to attend the meetings and submit
comments for discussion during the meetings. We also seek comments from
anyone unable to attend the meetings.
DATES: The public meetings will be held on the following dates and at
the following locations.
[sbull] January 27, 2003, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., New Orleans, LA.
[sbull] January 30, 2003, 2 p.m. to 7 p.m., Cleveland, OH.
[sbull] January 31, 2003, 12 (noon) to 6 p.m., St. Louis, MO.
[sbull] February 3, 2003, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Seattle, WA.
[sbull] February 5, 2003, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Los Angeles-Long Beach,
CA.
[sbull] February 7, 2003, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Jacksonville, FL.
[sbull] February 11, 2003, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., New York City, NY.
Comments and related material intended for inclusion in the public
docket (USCG-2002-14069) must reach the Docket Management Facility on
or before February 28, 2003. Comments and related material containing
protected information, such as proprietary or security information,
intended for inclusion in the Coast Guard's internal docket for
protected information also must reach the Coast Guard's Office of
Regulations and Administrative Law (G-LRA) on or before February 28,
2003.
ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the following locations:
[sbull] New Orleans, LA--Hilton Riverside, 2 Poydras St., New
Orleans, LA 70140.
[sbull] Cleveland, OH--Sheraton Cleveland City Centre Hotel,
Dorothy Fuldheim Room, 777 St. Clair Ave., Cleveland, OH 44144.
[sbull] St. Louis, MO--Robert A. Young Federal Building (R.A.Y.
Building), 1222 Spruce St., St. Louis, MO 63017.
[sbull] Seattle, WA--Boeing Field, 7755 East Marginal Way South,
Building 2-22, Auditorium, Seattle, WA 98108.
[sbull] Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA--Port of Los Angeles, 425 S.
Palos Verdes St., San Pedro, CA 90731.
[sbull] Jacksonville, FL--Florida Department of Law Enforcement
(FDLE), 921 N. Davis St., Building E, Jacksonville, FL 32209.
[sbull] New York City, NY--Customs House Auditorium, Alexander
Hamilton U.S. Customs House, 1 Bowling Green, New York, NY 10004.
You may submit your public comments directly to the Docket
Management Facility. Please see the Request for Comments section below
for more information regarding submitting comments that contain
protected information. To make sure that your public comments and
related material do not enter the docket (USCG-2002-14069) more than
once, please submit them by only one of the following means:
(1) Electronically through the Web Site for the Docket Management
System at http://dms.dot.gov/.
(2) By fax to the Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251.
(3) By delivery to room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is 202-366-9329.
(4) By mail to the Docket Management Facility, (USCG-2002-14069),
U.S. Department of Transportation, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this
notice. Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the public
docket, will become part of this public docket and will be available
for inspection or copying at room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You
may also find this notice in the public docket on the Internet at
http://dms.dot.gov/.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our 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.). You may review the
Department of Transportation's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you
may visit http://dms.dot.gov/.
Comments containing protected information, as explained in the
Request for Comments section below, must be submitted in writing and
must be mailed or hand-delivered to Commandant (G-LRA)/Room 3406, U.S.
Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC
20593.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this notice
or the public meetings, write or call Mr. Martin Jackson of the Office
of Standards Evaluation and Development (G-MSR), U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593,
mjackson@comdt.uscg.mil, or at 202-267-1140.
For questions regarding submissions of protected information,
contact Ms. Kathryn Sinniger of the Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law (G-LRA), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593, or at 202-267-1534.
For questions on viewing or submitting material to the public
docket, call Ms. Dorothy Beard, Chief of Dockets, Department of
Transportation, at 202-366-5149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in these meetings by submitting
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name
and address, identify the docket number (USCG-2002-14069) and give the
reason for each comment.
If you wish to submit any protected information in your comments,
you must submit your comment by mail or hand delivery to the Office of
Regulations and Administrative Law (G-LRA) at the address under
ADDRESSES. Protected information includes confidential or privileged
business or commercial information that is not normally released to the
public. It also includes security information that, if released, would
be detrimental to the safety of persons in transportation.
[[Page 79743]]
Examples of the latter include vulnerability assessments (or portions
thereof), specific security actions to be taken by your company or
vessel, and draft plans that would comply with the International Ship
and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code or any of the Navigation and
Vessel Inspection Circulars (NVICs) referenced in this notice. Please
be sure to indicate whether the entire submission constitutes protected
information, or if it is only portions of the submission that need to
be protected. If the latter, please identify those portions which
constitute protected information clearly within your submission. If you
are submitting confidential or privileged business information, please
explain, within your submission, how this information is normally
treated within your company or organization.
You may submit your public comments and material electronically, by
fax, by delivery, or by mail to the Docket Management Facility at the
address under ADDRESSES; but please submit your public comments and
material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail
and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period.
Public Meetings
The Coast Guard encourages the following individuals and
organization representatives to attend the public meetings:
[sbull] Owners and operators of vessels, facilities, and other
structures located on or adjacent to U.S. navigable waters;
[sbull] Federal, State, and local agencies in law enforcement and
emergency planning;
[sbull] Port authorities;
[sbull] State and local government organizations;
[sbull] Shipping agents;
[sbull] Insurance companies;
[sbull] Protection and Indemnity Clubs;
[sbull] Classification societies;
[sbull] Maritime industry associations; and
[sbull] Other interested persons.
Meeting attendees will have the opportunity to orally comment on
topics scheduled for discussion on the agenda. Appendix A provides the
intended format of the meetings. We may ask questions to clarify
comments given by an attendee. Unless otherwise noted, the meetings
will be held each day from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the dates and locations
identified under DATES and ADDRESSES. Attendees will be responsible for
making their own arrangements for lunch at the mid-day break, scheduled
for 1 p.m. each day. The meetings will reconvene at 2 p.m. and are
scheduled to end at 5 p.m. We may end the meetings early if we have
covered all of the agenda topics and if the people attending have no
further comments. All statements, questions and answers, or comments
made orally at the public meetings will become part of the public
docket. In addition to these public meetings, the Coast Guard will
request its Federal Advisory Committees, as appropriate, to include
maritime security issues and the content of this notice on their
agendas in order to provide further opportunities for comment.
Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities
To obtain information on facilities or services for individuals
with disabilities or to ask that we provide special assistance at the
meetings, please notify Mr. Martin Jackson at the address or phone
number under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Background and Purpose
In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the Commandant of the Coast
Guard reaffirmed the Coast Guard's Maritime Homeland Security mission
and its lead role, in coordination with the Department of Defense;
Federal, State, and local agencies; owners and operators of vessels and
maritime facilities; and others with interests in our nation's marine
transportation system, to detect, deter, disrupt, and respond to
attacks against U.S. territory, population, vessels, facilities, and
critical maritime infrastructure by terrorist organizations.
In November 2001, the Commandant of the Coast Guard addressed the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) General Assembly, urging that
body to consider an international scheme for port and shipping
security. Recommendations and proposals for comprehensive security
requirements, including amendments to SOLAS and the new ISPS Code, were
developed at a series of intersessional maritime security work group
meetings held at the direction of the IMO's Maritime Safety Committee.
The Coast Guard submitted comprehensive security proposals to the
intersessional maritime security work group meetings based on work it
had been coordinating since October 2001. Prior to each intersessional
meeting, the Coast Guard held public meetings as well as coordinated
several industry meetings with representatives from major U.S. and
foreign associations for shipping, labor, and ports. Maritime security
was also a major agenda item at Federal Advisory Committee meetings
held by the Coast Guard during the past year. Additional meetings were
also held with Federal agencies having complementary security
responsibilities.
In January 2002, the Coast Guard held a two-day public workshop in
Washington, DC, attended by more than 300 individuals, including
members of the public and private sectors, and representatives of the
national and international marine industry (66 FR 65020, December 17,
2001; docket number USCG-2001-11138). Their comments indicated the need
for specific threat identification, analysis of threats, and methods
for developing performance standards to plan for response to maritime
threats. Additionally, the public comments stressed the importance of
uniformity in the application and enforcement of requirements and the
need to establish threat levels with a means to communicate threats to
the marine transportation system.
The Coast Guard considered and advanced U.S. proposals for maritime
security that took into account this public and agency input. We
consider the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
(SOLAS) amendments and the ISPS Code, as adopted by the International
Maritime Organization (IMO) Diplomatic Conference in December 2002, to
reflect current industry, public, and agency concerns. The entry into
force date of both the ISPS Code and related SOLAS amendments is July
1, 2004, with the exception of the Automatic Identification System
(AIS) whose implementation was accelerated to no later than December
31, 2004, depending on the particular class of SOLAS vessel.
Domestically, the Coast Guard had previously developed regulations
for security that are contained in 33 CFR parts 120 and 128.
Complementary guidance can be found in Navigation and Vessel Inspection
Circular (NVIC) 3-96, Change 2, Security for Passenger Vessels and
Passenger Terminals. Prior to development of additional regulations,
the Coast Guard, with input from the public, needed to assess the
current state of port and vessel security and their vulnerabilities. As
mentioned previously, to accomplish this, the Coast Guard conducted a
public workshop January 28-30, 2002, to assess existing Maritime
Transportation System
[[Page 79744]]
security standards and measures and to gather ideas on possible
improvements. Based on the comments received at the workshop, the Coast
Guard cancelled NVIC 3-96 (Security for Passenger Vessels and Passenger
Terminals) and issued a new NVIC 4-02 (Security for Passenger Vessels
and Passenger Terminals) that incorporated guidelines consistent with
international initiatives (the ISPS Code and SOLAS amendments).
Additional NVICs were also published, including NVIC 9-02 (Guidelines
for Port Security Committees, and Port Security Plans Required for U.S.
Ports), NVIC 10-02 (Security Guidelines for Vessels); and NVIC 11-02
(Security Guidelines for Facilities [not yet available]). The documents
are or will be available in the public docket (USCG-2002-14069) for
review at the locations under ADDRESSES.
On November 25, 2002, President George W. Bush signed into effect
Public Law 107-295, the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002
(MTSA), which had been proposed to Congress the year before as the Port
and Maritime Security Act (S. 1214). The MTSA requires the Secretary to
issue an interim final rule, as soon as practicable, as a temporary
regulation to implement the Port Security section of the Act. The MTSA
expressly waives the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act,
including notice and comment, for this purpose. Nevertheless, the Coast
Guard believes it is important to get the preliminary views of the
public, especially affected maritime interests, prior to issuing the
interim final rule. The temporary interim rule may be superseded by a
final rule within one year of the enactment of the MTSA. The
requirements of MTSA section 102 directly align with the security
requirements embodied in the SOLAS amendments and ISPS Code; however,
the MTSA has broader application that includes domestic vessels and
facilities. Thus, the Coast Guard intends to implement the MTSA through
the requirements in the SOLAS amendments and the ISPS Code parts A and
B for all vessels and facilities that are currently required to meet
SOLAS, as well as those vessels exclusively on domestic trade and
facilities that are at risk of being involved in a transportation
security incident.
The Coast Guard considers that the implementation of these
requirements is best done through mandating compliance with the SOLAS
amendments and the ISPS Code including part A and part B (see Appendix
B). The Coast Guard considers part B an essential element to ensure
full and effective compliance with the intent of the MTSA. Foreign flag
vessels entering the U.S. would be expected to verify compliance with
part B or provide proof that any alternatives are equivalent to that
part. Verification of compliance could be established by flag
administration documents or endorsements that indicate that the Ship
Security Certificate was issued based upon full compliance with part B.
Because of the broad application in the MTSA, the discussions in
this notice use the term ``vessels'' rather than the term ``ships'' as
found in the SOLAS amendments and the ISPS Code. These terms can be
used interchangeably but serve to emphasize the Coast Guard's intention
to apply security measures to those vessels we have determined are at
risk of being involved in a transportation security incident.
In addition, under MTSA, the terms ``Area Maritime Transportation
Security Plan'' means a Port Security Plan developed in accordance with
NVIC 9-02; ``Area Security Advisory Committee'' means the Port Security
Committee; and ``Federal Maritime Security Coordinator'' means the
cognizant Captain of the Port. The Coast Guard intends to align any
future rulemaking with the MTSA terminology.
The Coast Guard plans to publish a temporary interim rule no later
than June 2003 and a final rule by November 2003. These dates are
critical in order to uniformly implement the ISPS Code and SOLAS
amendments, as well as meet the urgency set by the mandates in the
MTSA.
As such, the Coast Guard is announcing seven public meetings and
requesting comments that will aid them in drafting the mandated interim
rule and final rule.
What Will Be Discussed at the Public Meetings?
Attendees should be prepared to discuss the implementation of SOLAS
amendments and ISPS Code, including application to vessels engaged in
domestic voyages in accordance with the MTSA, as well as domestic
implications of implementing the recommended security measures
described in recently published guidance (NVICs).
How Should I Prepare for the Public Meeting?
Attendees should review the SOLAS amendments and ISPS Code,
published NVICs, existing regulations in 33 CFR parts 120 and 128,
section 102 of the MTSA, preliminary cost analysis, and associated
supporting documents to evaluate the feasibility of recommended or
required security measures.
The ISPS Code and SOLAS amendments, and the preliminary costs
analysis are included in this notice as Appendix B and Appendix C,
respectively. The NVICs, MTSA, related public comments, and associated
supporting documents are available for review in the public docket
(USCG-2002-14069) at the locations under ADDRESSES.
After evaluating these documents, the public should then prepare
statements to be presented at the meetings or submit to the public
docket (USCG-2002-14069) expressing any concerns and suggesting ways to
implement the required measures. Attendees also should propose possible
equivalencies to the SOLAS amendments and ISPS Code, and the MTSA
requirements.
Who Should Attend the Public Meetings?
Port Stakeholders. While the Coast Guard will be primarily
responsible for ensuring the new SOLAS amendments and ISPS Code, and
section 102 of the MTSA for U.S. ports are implemented through the
development of Port Security Plans and establishment of Port Security
Committees, we will need the cooperation of other Federal agencies,
port authorities, State and local governments, local emergency
responders, maritime industry associations, facility and vessel owners
and operators and other port community stakeholders such as the owners
of other structures located on or adjacent to U.S. navigable waters.
Because Port Security Plans are overarching and address many areas
of the maritime community, the plans will apply to commercial vessels
and facilities, as well as to such entities as--
[sbull] Recreational vessels and uninspected passengers vessels.
[sbull] Nautical school vessels and sailing school vessels.
[sbull] Small passenger vessels on domestic voyages.
[sbull] Uninspected fishing vessels.
[sbull] Oil spill response vessels.
[sbull] Military installations and vessels.
[sbull] Facilities that transfer, store, or otherwise handle dry
bulk or general cargo.
[sbull] Marinas.
[sbull] Ship repair facilities.
[sbull] Waterfront areas that are densely populated or host large
public events.
[sbull] Other areas within the port that are critical to port
operations or public safety.
Vessel Owners, Operators, and Charterers. Requirements are being
[[Page 79745]]
considered for operators of certain vessels to develop Vessel Security
Assessments and Plans, designate Company and Vessel Security Officers,
and implement security measures (see Appendix A). The Coast Guard
considers these security measures to be integral for vessel security
and appropriate for the majority of vessels operating in U.S. waters.
Therefore, the Coast Guard would apply these requirements to such
commercial vessels as--
[sbull] All foreign ships, both cargo and passenger, required to
comply with SOLAS;
[sbull] All foreign ships, both cargo and passenger, of countries
not signatory to SOLAS;
[sbull] All vessels subject to 46 CFR subchapter I (cargo vessels);
[sbull] All vessels subject to 46 CFR subchapter L (offshore supply
vessels);
[sbull] All passenger vessels subject to 46 CFR subchapters H and
K;
[sbull] All passenger vessels subject to 46 CFR subchapter T
engaged on an International voyage;
[sbull] All barges subject to 46 CFR subchapters D, I, and O;
[sbull] All tankships subject to 46 CFR subchapters D and O;
[sbull] All Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODUs) subject to 46
CFR subchapter I-A; and
[sbull] All towing vessels greater than 6 meters in registered
length.
Facility Owners or Operators. Requirements are being considered for
operators of certain facilities to develop Facility Security
Assessments and Plans, designate Facility Security Officers, and
implement security measures (see Appendix A). The Coast Guard considers
these security measures to be integral for facility security and
appropriate for the majority of facilities servicing vessels that
operate in U.S. waters or facilities that are on or adjacent to U.S.
waters and pose a risk to them. Therefore, the Coast Guard would apply
these requirements to such facilities as--
[sbull] Facilities that handle cargo regulated under 33 CFR parts
126, 127, and 154;
[sbull] Facilities that service vessels certified to carry more
than 150 passengers; and
[sbull] Facilities that receive vessels on international voyages
including vessels solely navigating the Great Lakes.
As an Affected Entity, What Information Should I Bring to the Public
Meetings?
Attendees should bring their recommendations and responses to the
questions provided in Appendix A. Attendees should also be prepared to
offer their best practices with regard to the security issues and
comments on application, implementation and operating costs.
What Will Be the Format of the Public Meetings?
The public meetings will follow a question-answer format. A
facilitator will describe the SOLAS amendment and ISPS Code
requirements and the Coast Guard's implementation strategy. The
facilitator then will pose a series of questions and solicit attendees'
responses. We will discuss, in this order, general security provisions,
port security provisions, vessel security provisions, facility security
provisions, and other security provisions. Appendix A provides the
intended format of the meetings.
What Other Information Would Assist the Coast Guard in Drafting the
Temporary Interim Security Rule?
We request information about all current Federal, State, and local
governmental laws, procedures, regulations, and standards that are
either functioning or that are planned. We also request industry to
provide any current and planned standards and procedures covering the
security of vessels and facilities, and recommendations toward
additional regulations.
What Are the Estimated Costs of Implementing the SOLAS Amendments, the
ISPS Code, and Section 102 of the MTSA, as Discussed in This Notice?
For the purposes of good business practice and in order to comply
with regulations promulgated by other Federal and State agencies, many
companies have spent, to date, a substantial amount of money and
resources to upgrade and improve security. The costs discussed in
Appendix C do not include resources these companies have already spent
to enhance security. To estimate costs, we contacted operators to
determine what specific security improvements they had made and the
costs they had incurred since the events of September 11, 2001. We
found that these operators were reluctant to share their information
with us. Consequently, the estimates in the following analysis are
based heavily on Coast Guard judgments.
We realize that each company engaged in maritime commerce would not
implement the ISPS Code exactly as presented in this analysis.
Depending on each company's choices, some companies could spend much
less than what is estimated herein while others could spend
significantly more. In general, we assume that each company would
implement the ISPS Code based on the types of vessels and facilities it
owns or operates and whether it engages in international or domestic
trade.
Based on this analysis, the first year cost would be approximately
$1.4 billion, with costs of approximately Present Value (PV) $6.0
billion over the next 10 years (2003-2012, 7 percent discount rate).
The preliminary cost analysis in Appendix C presents the costs in three
sections: vessel security, facility security, and port security. The
following is a summary of the preliminary cost analysis.
[sbull] Vessel Security. The first-year cost of purchasing
equipment, hiring security officers, and preparing paperwork is
approximately $188 million. Following initial implementation, the
annual cost is approximately $144 million. Over the next 10 years, the
cost would be PV $1.1 billion approximately. The paperwork burden
associated with planning would be approximately 140,000 hours in the
first year and 7,000 hours in subsequent years.
[sbull] Facility Security. The first-year cost of purchasing
equipment, hiring security officers, and preparing paperwork is an
estimated $963 million. Following initial implementation, the annual
cost is approximately $535 million. Over the next 10 years, the cost
would be PV $4.4 billion approximately. The paperwork burden associated
with planning would be approximately 465,000 hours in the first year
and 17,000 hours in subsequent years.
[sbull] Port Security. The first-year cost of establishing Port
Security Committees and creating Port Security Plans for all port areas
is an estimated $120 million. The second-year cost is approximately
$106 million. In subsequent years, the annual cost is approximately $46
million. Over the next 10 years, the cost would be PV $477 million
approximately. The paperwork burden associated with planning would be
approximately 1,090,000 hours in 2003, 1,278,000 hours in 2004, and
827,000 hours in subsequent years.
Dated: December 20, 2002.
Paul J. Pluta,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety,
Security and Environmental Protection.
Appendix A: Maritime Security Issues for Discussion
General Security Provisions
1. Obligations of Contracting Government with respect to
security. The SOLAS amendments (regulation 3) and ISPS Code (part A,
section 4, and part B, paragraph 4) lay out a series of requirements
for
[[Page 79746]]
Contracting Governments and Administrations to mandate security
levels that are appropriate for their vessels and ports. The Coast
Guard intends to implement these requirements in coordination with
the Homeland Security Advisory System (HSAS). Homeland Security
Presidential Directive (HSPD)-3 defines a five-tiered system for
setting threat levels. We intend to implement Maritime Security
(MARSEC) levels, which directly correspond to security levels as
discussed in the SOLAS amendments and the ISPS Code. The MARSEC
levels will be linked to the HSAS, as follows, to serve as the
maritime sector's tool for communicating risk.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homeland Security Advisory System
(HSAS) Maritime Security (MARSEC) Level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low: Green........................... MARSEC Level 1.
Guarded: Blue........................
Elevated: Yellow.....................
High: Orange......................... MARSEC Level 2.
Severe: Red.......................... MARSEC Level 3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We intend to communicate these MARSEC levels to our vessels and
ports using such methods as Broadcast Notice to Mariners, community
public alert systems, fax and e-mail alert lists, or other similar
methods, and intend that these communication processes be addressed
in the port security plan. To meet the SOLAS requirement to have a
point of contact through which vessels and facilities can request
advice or assistance or report any security concerns (chapter XI-2,
regulation 7), we anticipate using the toll-free phone number of our
National Response Center or a regional toll-free number as
coordinated with other agencies. This number and point of contact
information would be published in the Coast Pilot, on Web sites, and
in other public information formats.
[sbull] From a port perspective, would these communication
processes meet your needs? Why or why not?
[sbull] From a vessel perspective, would these communication
processes meet your needs? Why or why not?
2. Procedures for Authorizing a Recognized Security
Organization. The ISPS Code (part A, section 4, and part B,
paragraph 4) allows Contacting Governments to delegate certain
security related duties to Recognized Security Organizations (RSO).
In order to ensure proper implementation at the outset of the MTSA
as well as the international mandates, and because of the
accelerated implementation timeline, the Coast Guard does not intend
to delegate its authority to an RSO. However, in the future the
Coast Guard may consider such delegation.
[sbull] Do you believe the Coast Guard should delegate its
authority to an RSO keeping in mind the limitations in the ISPS Code
(part A, section 4.3)?
[sbull] Do you believe there should be additional qualification
and competency requirements to those listed in the ISPS Code part B,
paragraph 4.5 for RSOs?
3. Consideration of other Organizations competent in Maritime
Security. The Coast Guard recognizes that security assessments and
plans for the maritime community may require the assistance of
organizations with maritime security competency. Currently there is
not a standard for these organizations or companies; however, a
benchmark has been established in the ISPS Code part B, paragraph
4.5.
[sbull] Should the Coast Guard formalize professional standards
for companies or organizations that seek to do business providing
guidance on vessel and facility security assessments and plans?
[sbull] Should the Coast Guard vet these organizations or are
you aware of an alternative quality standard that should be
associated with them?
4. Procedures for Accepting Alternatives and Equivalencies. The
SOLAS amendments to chapter XI-2, regulation 11 and 12 along with
part B, paragraph 4.26 and 4.27 of the ISPS Code allow Contracting
Governments to permit alternatives and equivalencies to the security
requirements if they are at least as effective as the mandates and
are reported to the Organization. This concept aligns with
traditional SOLAS language and provides for some flexibility in
implementation. The Coast Guard intends to allow alternatives and
equivalencies for vessels and some facilities, as appropriate. The
Coast Guard would consider allowing a company that operates a number
of similar vessels and terminals, to develop a master plan provided
all aspects of the operation are addressed in lieu of individual
plans as provided for in SOLAS chapter XI-2, regulation 11 and 12.
Provisions for the submission of requests for the Coast Guard to
consider alternatives or equivalencies will be similar to that
already permitted in 46 CFR Subchapters, for example 46 CFR 30.15 or
70.15.
[sbull] Do you anticipate that your organization would request
an alternative or equivalency? If so, why?
[sbull] Do you believe the submission format proposed by the
Coast Guard is appropriate?
5. Procedures for Accepting Industry Standards. In addition to
the equivalencies and alternative provisions discussed above, the
Coast Guard is considering, for those vessels that are currently not
required to meet SOLAS, accepting industry standards for security
requirements to be used as an equivalent or alternative. To ensure
security for our maritime community remains high, these standards
would be reviewed and approved nationally. The Coast Guard also
believes that in order to be deemed acceptable, compliance with an
industry standard should be subject to verification by a third party
audit procedure acceptable to the Coast Guard. The concept of this
provision aligns with the current SOLAS provisions in chapter XI-2,
regulations 11 and 12. The submission process will be similar to
that found at 46 CFR 50.20-30, ``alternative materials or methods of
construction'', whereby the proposed industrial standard will be
submitted to the Commandant for review.
[sbull] Do you know of an industry standard that may be
considered equivalent (or could be equivalent with revision) to the
requirements of the SOLAS amendments and the ISPS Code?
[sbull] If an industry standard were available, would you
consider implementing it? If so, why?
6. Declaration of Security (DoS). The ISPS Code (part A, section
5) requires Contracting Governments to determine when a DoS is
required for vessels and facilities conducting vessel/port interface
or vessel-to-vessel activities. A DoS is a document that establishes
an agreement between a vessel and a facility, or between vessels, on
their security arrangements to ensure their coordination and
communication is clearly set out. At this time, the Coast Guard
intends to issue national guidelines when a DoS must be executed,
and the form of the DoS. The Coast Guard also intends to have each
Port Security Committee determine the conditions for executing a
DoS. Declarations of Security will be addressed in each Port
Security Plan. In addition, the Port Security Committee will be
asked to consider and include guidance in the Port Security Plan on
what actions to take when vessels request a DoS or request to enter
the Port with a security level higher than the Port's level. The
ISPS Code also allows Administrations to give guidance on when their
ships should request a DoS during a port call or when interacting
with other vessels. The Coast Guard intends to issue this as
guidance, either within regulations or as a separate document
(NVIC), to assist ship owners in the development of their vessel
security plans.
[sbull] During what operations or security levels do you believe
a DoS would be appropriate to facilitate coordination of security
measures between a facility and a vessel?
[sbull] What format, either regulation or guidance, would you
prefer to assist you in developing your vessel security plan to
address DoSs?
7. Security of information contained in port, vessel and
facility security assessments and plans. The ISPS Code (part A,
sections 9 and 16) and the MTSA (46 U.S.C. section 70101(d)) require
documents related to security, especially security assessments and
plans, to be kept in a manner that is protected from unauthorized
access or disclosure. However, the Coast Guard will require access
to vessel and facility records, as well as those held by other
structures located on or adjacent to U.S. navigable waters, for the
purpose of conducting or verifying assessments and plans. This
information may be required to be provided upon request by the Coast
Guard. The Coast Guard intends to require information related to
Port Security, Vessel Security, and Facility Security Plans to be
designated as Security Sensitive Information (SSI) in a manner
similar to that used by the airline industry. Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) is considering revisions to the SSI
regulations (49 CFR part 1520) to enable this classification.
[sbull] Do you believe that a SSI classification will be
sufficient? If not, why?
[sbull] Do you have a suggestion for an alternative way to
protect this information yet allow approvals and review?
Port Security Provisions
8. Port Security Plans and Committees. The requirements for
ports stem from the development of the new SOLAS amendments and the
ISPS Code as well as the MTSA (46 U.S.C. sections 70103, 70104 and
70112). The
[[Page 79747]]
definition of port facilities is broad and covers all aspects of the
interface between a ship and a facility, including anchorages and
other areas typically considered by the United States as public
waterways, as well as other structures located on or adjacent to
U.S. navigable waters. Thus, the Coast Guard intends to invoke the
alternative provided in part A, section 16.4 of the ISPS Code and
combine facility plans with a port plan to encompass all of our U.S.
navigable waters. The majority of the SOLAS amendments and ISPS Code
requirements would be applied to U.S. facilities to ensure a
seamless ship-to-facility security interface. However, the port
security requirements will be the overarching instrument for
implementing security communications and ensuring compliance. For
U.S. purposes, the Port Facility Security Officer (PFSO) will be the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) who may require Facility
Security Officers undertake certain responsibilities (such as
signing a DoS), as outlined in the Port Security Plan (PSP). The
Port Security Committees will assist the PFSO in developing the PSP
and will be intimately involved in the exercises to ensure it
remains effective. The Coast Guard intends to issue regulations that
will lay out the Port Security Committees' and the PFSOs'
responsibilities and guidance for the committee membership.
[sbull] Who do you believe should be involved in the Port
Security Committees?
[sbull] Do you have a suggestion for how to ensure the
involvement of the affected community listed in the section titled
``Who should attend the public meetings?'' of the notice?
9. Port Security Assessments Requirement. The Coast Guard is
considering requirements for Port Security Assessments (PSAs), as
discussed in ISPS Code part A, section 15 and part B paragraphs 15.1
through 15.16 as well as the MTSA (46 U.S.C. section 70102). The
regulation also would contain a description of the role of Port
Security Committees. Many assessments of this type have already been
performed in ports and should be a good foundation for this
requirement. Since the PSA will be integral in the development of
the PSP, requirements for its update and review will also be
included.
[sbull] Do you believe that your Port Security Committee, as
described in the NVIC and above, is able to provide enough
experience and expertise to develop PSAs? If no, why?
[sbull] Does your port currently have an assessment that you
believe could be used for a PSA?
10. Port security control of vessels, facilities, and
operations. The requirements for control of vessels are outlined in
the SOLAS amendments, regulation XI-2/9, and the ISPS Code part B,
paragraphs 4.29 through 4.46. The Coast Guard intends to implement
control measures as detailed in the SOLAS amendments and ISPS Code
requirements. The information from a vessel's advanced notice of
arrival, which is being revised under a separate rulemaking, and
other means of verifying compliance with the SOLAS amendments and
ISPS Code, will provide our COTPs the ability to assess appropriate
control measures for these vessels. In addition, the Port Security
Committee will be asked during the PSA process to review areas
within the port, such as fleeting areas, regulated navigation areas,
anchorages, and areas near facilities, to assess whether these areas
should have security zones or patrol requirements established at
certain security levels. If so, the Port Security Plan then would be
required to address these security zones (or other security
requirements) and arrangements to permanently establish the zones.
Alternatively, such measures may be promulgated through regulation.
The regulation would contain specific procedures for triggering
security zone implementation through a broadcast notice to mariners
or security level communication to the maritime community. Thus,
mariners would know precisely what to expect in their waterways
during higher security levels and facilities would also know if any
operations would be restricted due to waterway concerns.
[sbull] Do you believe a system of waterway and facility
restrictions pre-designated in regulations or other means (such as a
Coast Pilot) would assist in your compliance with security
requirements?
[sbull] Do you have any suggestions of other ways to restrict or
control activities within the port area at higher security levels?
11. Port security training and exercises. Part A, section 18 and
part B, paragraphs 18.1 through 18.6 of the ISPS Code detail
training, drills, and exercise requirements for port facilities. To
meet these requirements, the Coast Guard would require a quarterly
exercise of the Port Security Plan. In addition, training
requirements for Port personnel would also have to be included in
the Port Security Plan. At this time, the Coast Guard does not
expect to mandate a formal training course for port security
personnel. However, at a minimum, facilities will have to ensure
that security personnel receive appropriate training, consistent
with part B of the ISPS Code, to ensure that they can carry out
their assigned responsibilities. This includes, where appropriate,
guidance on firearms safety. Drill requirements mandated for port
security will be met in conjunction with drills for facility plans
on a quarterly basis.
[sbull] Under this scheme, would you participate in a Port
Security Plan exercise?
[sbull] Do you have a suggestion on a type of Port Security Plan
exercise other than those listed in Part B, paragraph 18.6?
[sbull] Do you have a port personnel security training program
or suggestions on training guidance for safety and security
personnel?
Vessel Security Provisions
12. Incorporation by Reference. The Coast Guard is considering
accepting national, State, and industry security standards to meet
certain security requirement(s), as appropriate, such as a vessel
security plan that incorporates the use of motion detection
equipment that meets an accepted national standard.
[sbull] Do you know of a national, State, or industry standard
that could be used in the marine environment?
[sbull] If a national, State, or industry standard was
available, would you consider implementing it? If so, why?
13. Obligations of the company. The obligations and specific
requirements of companies are discussed in SOLAS amendments
(regulation 4 and 5) and the ISPS Code (part A, section 6 and part
B, paragraphs 6.1 through 6.8). The Coast Guard would require Vessel
Security Plans (VSPs) to describe how the company will meet its
obligations and requirements.
[sbull] Do you believe that this adequately addresses the
obligations and specific requirements of a company? If no, why?
[sbull] Do you have a suggestion for how to ensure that
companies meet these obligations and requirements?
[sbull] What should the obligations of towing companies be with
respect to the responsibility for barges?
14. Vessel Security Requirements. The SOLAS amendments
(regulation 4) and ISPS Code (part A, section 7) require that
vessels act upon security levels set by Contracting Governments
through appropriate protective measures by carrying out certain
specified activities (part A, section 7.2). The MTSA requires the
Coast Guard to consider the types vessels that are likely to be
involved in a transportation security incident. For the purposes of
this notice and the Coast Guard discussion in Appendix C, cost
impact was only developed for those vessels listed in NVIC 10-02 and
also listed in the section titled, ``Who should attend the public
meetings?'' The Coast Guard also recognizes that many other vessels
could benefit from compliance with these requirements therefore, the
Coast Guard is considering extending them to all vessels, including
small passenger vessels or uninspected fishing vessels.
[sbull] Do you believe that the application of the requirements
in part A, section 7-13 of the ISPS Code for the vessels indicated
in the section titled ``Who should attend the public meetings?'' is
appropriate? If not, why?
[sbull] Do you believe these security measures should apply to
other vessels, not already listed?
[sbull] Do you believe that these activities and protective
measures adequately address the security of a vessel? If no, why?
[sbull] Do you have a suggestion for appropriate security
measures that a vessel can take to meet these requirements that are
not already listed in part B, paragraphs 9.1 through 9.49?
15. Vessel Security Assessments (VSA) Requirement. The ISPS Code
part A, section 8, and part B, paragraphs 8.1 through 8.14, as well
as the MTSA (46 U.S.C. sections 70102 and 70166), require that a
vessel perform a VSA that includes an on-scene security survey and
provides details of those elements that the VSA will include. The
VSA is integral in developing and updating the Vessel Security Plan.
The Coast Guard would require VSAs for all vessels indicated in the
section titled ``Who should attend the public meetings?'' of the
notice. The Coast Guard would review these assessments when Vessel
Security Plans are submitted for approval.
[sbull] Do you have any suggestions on how to best conduct a VSA
and review results? Is there a current practice to meet this
requirement?
[sbull] For vessels on domestic voyages, are there any
appropriate alternatives to a VSA that could be considered?
[[Page 79748]]
16. Vessel Security Plan (VSP) Requirement. The ISPS Code part
A, section 9, and part B, paragraphs 9.1 through 9.53, as well as
the MTSA (46 U.S.C. sections 70103 and 70104), require that VSPs be
developed, taking into consideration the VSA, make provisions for
the three MARSEC Levels, and be reviewed and updated. The Coast
Guard's requirements would incorporate all of these elements and
would also provide an outline that the VSP would follow or be cross-
referenced using a similar approach as done in 33 CFR 155.1030.
[sbull] Do you have any suggestions on additional items the VSP
should address?
[sbull] Do you have a suggestion or a best practice to meet this
VSP requirement?
[sbull] Would you find an outline a valuable aid to meeting
these requirements? If not, why?
17. Submission of Vessel Security Plans for approval. The ISPS
Code (part A, section 9) requires that vessels carry on board a VSP
that is approved by the Administration. The MTSA further requires
VSPs to be approved by the Secretary. Therefore, for foreign vessels
required to comply with SOLAS, the Coast Guard will deem Flag state
approval of a VSP that meets the requirements of SOLAS and the ISPS
Code to be approval of the Secretary for purposes of the MTSA. The
Coast Guard would approve all other VSPs at the Marine Safety Center
or at the COTP level, depending on the class of vessel. The
submission format would be similar to that already required in 33
CFR 120.305. In addition, for efficiency and timeliness, the Coast
Guard is considering alternative methods of Coast Guard approval for
VSPs for certain vessels that operate on domestic voyages. One
possible alternative includes Coast Guard approval of a unified or
corporate plan that would be implemented on a similarly situated
fleet of vessels in common ownership. Another alternative could
include verification of implementation of a pre-approved security
plan for a particular segment of industry.
[sbull] Do you have suggestions on how these approvals could be
streamlined? Is there an alternative process?
[sbull] Do you believe the submission format proposed by the
Coast Guard is appropriate?
18. Existing Security Measures for Certain Vessels. The Coast
Guard is evaluating the need for retaining certain security measures
in existing regulations, 33 CFR part 120, for those vessels (e.g.,
large passenger vessels) that could be involved in a transportation
security incident that results in a catastrophic loss of life. The
Coast Guard considers that 33 CFR part 120 meets the requirements of
the SOLAS amendments and the ISPS Code.
[sbull] Do you believe that additional security requirements are
needed for certain vessel types? If so, why and what would those
requirements be?
19. Vessel Security Recordkeeping. The ISPS Code part A, section
10, and part B, paragraphs 10.1 and 10.2, require certain security
records to be kept on board the vessel and retained for a period
specified by the Administration. The Coast Guard would require all
vessels to keep these records for at least 2 years and make them
available for review during inspections or boardings. Presently,
there are no requirements for the format of these records. However,
their review would have to provide an inspector with the appropriate
information to ensure the vessel's security plan is properly
implemented. The Coast Guard does not intend to prescribe where
these records are kept nor their format.
[sbull] Do you have a suggestion or best practice related to
recordkeeping you believe the Coast Guard should require?
[sbull] Do you wish the Coast Guard to prescribe a format for
these records?
20. Company Security Officer Designation. The ISPS Code (part A,
section 11) as well as the MTSA (46 U.S.C. section 70103), specify
that the Company must designate a Company Security Officer (CSO) and
details their duties, responsibilities, and competencies (part A,
sections 13.1 and 13.5 and part B, paragraph 13.1). In addition,
CSOs are required to participate in security exercises as discussed
in part B, paragraph 13.7 of the ISPS Code. The Coast Guard intends
to include these requirements for all vessels indicated in the
section titled ``Who should attend the public meetings?'' The Coast
Guard recognizes that many security programs are already in place
and have personnel working in the maritime community with the
experience and the competencies reflected in the ISPS Code. At this
time, the Coast Guard does not intend to certify courses as meeting
the standards of the ISPS Code or require any type of license for a
CSO. Rather, the Coast Guard intends to accept Company certification
for these officers indicating that they have the knowledge,
experience and competencies as required by the ISPS Code. The Coast
Guard also intends to have CSOs or Companies provide proof that CSOs
have participated in annual exercises, and records of that
participation would have to be retained for 2 years.
[sbull] Do you believe the Coast Guard should require CSOs to
attend training?
[sbull] Do you believe Company certification is appropriate or
do you have a suggestion for an alternate verification for the CSO
qualifications?
[sbull] Do you believe proof of participation in annual
exercises should be retained for 2 years? If not, how long? Why?
21. Vessel Security Officer Designation. The ISPS Code (part A,
section 11) as well as the MTSA (46 U.S.C. section 70103), specify
that each vessel shall designate a Vessel Security Officer (VSO) and
details their duties, responsibilities, and competencies (part A,
section 13.2 and part B, paragraphs 13.1 and 13.2). In addition,
VSOs are required to participate, if available, in security
exercises as discussed in part B, paragraph 13.7 of the ISPS Code.
Since many security programs and personnel are already working in
the maritime community and have the competencies reflected in the
ISPS Code, at this time, the Coast Guard does not intend to certify
courses as meeting the standards of the ISPS Code or require any
type of license for a VSO. Rather, the Coast Guard intends to accept
Company certification for these officers indicating that they have
the knowledge, experience and competencies as required by the ISPS
Code. The Coast Guard is also considering alternatives for some
vessel classes, such as barges, to allow a Company Security Officer
in lieu of a VSO with duties that encompass both. It should be noted
that there is no prohibition to the master also being designated as
the VSO although on large vessels, this may be impractical.
[sbull] Do you believe the Coast Guard should require VSOs to
attend formal training?
[sbull] Do you believe Company certification is appropriate or
do you have a suggestion for an alternate verification for the VSO
qualifications?
[sbull] Do you have any suggestions for certain classes of
vessels being allowed an alternative to a VSO? If so, how or who
would you make responsible for the VSO duties?
22. Security training and drill requirements for vessel
personnel. The ISPS Code (part A, sections 13.3 and 13.4, and part
B, paragraph 13.3) as well as section 109 of the MTSA, specify that
vessel personnel having specific security duties and
responsibilities be trained in their duties and have the knowledge
needed to carry them out. Part B, paragraph 13.4 also requires a
basic security knowledge and competency for all personnel employed
on the vessel to ensure security awareness. In addition, vessel
personnel are required to participate in security drills as
discussed in part A, section 13.4, and part B, paragraphs 13.5 and
13.6 of the ISPS Code. The Coast Guard intends to allow vessel
masters, VSOs, or CSOs to certify that vessel personnel have
received the training required to fulfill their security duties, if
applicable or the general security awareness training required for
all personnel. A record (such as a training record) kept on board
the vessel or any other form of acknowledgment (such as a log entry)
would be sufficient for this purpose. A record of drills would also
be required and is discussed in paragraph number 19 of this
appendix.
[sbull] Do you believe the Coast Guard should require vessel
personnel to attend formal training?
[sbull] Do you believe prescribing the format for training
records would assist you in meeting these requirements?
23. Certification for vessels. The ISPS Code, parts A and B,
section 19, requires Administrations to verify and certify by
issuing an International Ship Security Certificate (ISSC) that those
vessels subject to SOLAS comply with the applicable requirements of
SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code. The Coast Guard intends to
amend 46 CFR 2.01-25 by adding new paragraph (a)(viii) referring to
ISSC. Compliance with regulations for domestic vessels will be
verified during issuance and renewal of Certification of Inspection.
Issuance or endorsement of the Certificate of Inspection (COI) would
be contingent upon a vessel's compliance with these regulations.
Vessels that are not required to be inspected by the Coast Guard
under title 46 of the U.S.C, would be required to have proof on
board the vessel certifying that the vessel meets these requirements
and that they are implementing their VSP.
[sbull] Do you have any other suggestions for verification and
certification that vessels comply with security regulations?
[[Page 79749]]
Facility Security Provisions
24. Incorporation by Reference. The Coast Guard is considering
accepting national, State, and industry security standards to meet
certain security requirement(s), as appropriate, e.g., a facility
security plan that incorporates lighting or fencing equipment that
meets an accepted national standard.
[sbull] Do you know of a national, state, and industry standard
that could be used in the marine environment?
[sbull] If a national, state, and industry standard were
available, would you consider implementing it? If so, why?
25. Facility Security Requirement. The SOLAS amendments (chapter
XI-2, regulation 10) and ISPS Code parts A and B, section 14 require
that facilities act upon security levels set by Contracting
Governments through appropriate protective measures by carrying out
certain specified activities (part A, section 14.2). The MTSA
requires the Coast Guard to consider the types facilities that are
likely to be involved in a transportation security incident. For the
purposes of this notice and the Coast Guard discussion in Appendix
C, cost impact was only developed for those facilities listed in
NVIC 11-02 and also listed in the section titled, ``Who should
attend the public meetings?'' The Coast Guard also recognizes that
many other facilities could benefit from compliance with these
requirements therefore, the Coast Guard is considering extending
them to all facilities, including dry bulk or general cargo
facilities or ship repair facilities.
[sbull] Do you believe that the application of the requirements
in part A, section 14-18 of the ISPS Code for the facilities
indicated in the section titled ``Who should attend the public
meetings?'' is appropriate? If not, why?
[sbull] Do you believe these security measures should apply to
other facilities, not already listed?
[sbull] Do you believe that these activities and protective
measures adequately address the security of a facility? If no, why?
[sbull] Do you have a suggestion for appropriate security
measures that a facility can take to meet these requirements that
are not already listed in part B, paragraphs 16.1 through 16.63?
26. Facility Security Assessments (FSA) Requirement. The ISPS
Code parts A and B, section 15, as well as the MTSA (46 U.S.C.
sections 70102 and 70116), require that a facility perform a FSA
that includes an on-scene security survey and provides details of
those elements that the FSA will include. The FSA is integral in
developing and updating the Facility Security Plan. The Coast Guard
is considering requiring FSAs for all facilities indicated in the
section titled ``Who should attend the public meetings?'' of the
notice. The Coast Guard intends to review these assessments when
Facility Security Plans are submitted for approval.
[sbull] Do you have any suggestions on how to best conduct a FSA
and review the results? Is there a current practice to meet this
requirement?
[sbull] Are there any appropriate alternatives to a FSA that
could be considered?
27. Facility Security Plans. The ISPS Code parts A and B,
section 16, as well as the MTSA (46 U.S.C. sections 70103 and
70104), require that FSPs be developed taking into consideration the
facility security assessment, make provisions for the three MARSEC
Levels, and be reviewed and updated. The Coast Guard is considering
requirements that incorporate all of these requirements and also
would provide an outline for the FSP. The outline would follow or be
cross-referenced using a similar approach as done in 33 CFR part
155.1030.
[sbull] Do you have any suggestions on additional items the FSP
should address?
[sbull] Do you have a suggestion or a best practice to meet this
FSP requirement?
[sbull] Would you find an outline a valuable aid to meeting
these requirements? If not, why?
28. Submission of Facility Security Plans for approval. The ISPS
Code (part A, section 16) requires facilities to develop and
maintain a facility security plan (FSP) that is approved by the
Contracting Government in whose territory the facility is located.
The Coast Guard intends to review and approve FSPs at the COTP
level. The submission format would be similar to that already
required in 33 CFR 120.305. The Coast Guard is considering the
submission of a single FSP for companies that own and operate both
the facility and vessels that call on that facility.
[sbull] Do you have suggestions on how these approvals could be
streamlined or an alternative process?
[sbull] Do you believe the submission format proposed by the
Coast Guard is appropriate?
29. Facility Security Recordkeeping. Although records for
facilities are not specifically addressed in the ISPS Code, the
Coast Guard intends to require certain security records be kept for
certain security related activities and incidents and retained for a
period specified by the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard would require
these records to be kept for at least 2 years and will review them
during inspections. Presently, there are no requirements for the
format of these records. However, their review would have to provide
an inspector with the appropriate information to ensure the
facility's security plan is properly implemented. The Coast Guard
does not intend to prescribe where these records are kept nor their
format.
[sbull] Do you have a suggestion or best practice related to
recordkeeping you believe the Coast Guard should require?
[sbull] Do you wish the Coast Guard to prescribe a format for
these records?
30. Facility Security Officer. The ISPS Code, parts A and B,
section 17, as well as the MTSA (46 U.S.C. section 70103), specify
that the each facility shall designate a Facility Security Officer
(FSO) and details their duties, responsibilities, and competencies
(part A, section 17.2 and part B, paragraphs 17.1 and 17.2). In
addition, FSOs are required to participate in security exercises as
discussed in part B, paragraph 18.6 of the ISPS Code. Since many
security programs and personnel are already working in the maritime
community and have the competencies reflected in the ISPS Code, at
this time, the Coast Guard does not intend to certify courses as
meeting the standards of the ISPS Code or require any type of
license for a FSO. Rather, the Coast Guard intends to accept Company
certification for these officers indicating that they have the
knowledge, experience and competencies as required by the ISPS Code.
It should be noted that there is no prohibition of the FSO having a
collateral duty provided the individual is able to perform the
duties and responsibilities required by the ISPS Code and the
approved FSP.
[sbull] Do you believe the Coast Guard should require FSOs to
attend training?
[sbull] Do you believe Company certification is appropriate or
do you have a suggestion for an alternate verification for the FSO
qualifications?
[sbull] Would there be a case where a FSO may perform their
duties for more than one facility?
[sbull] Do you believe proof of participation in annual
exercises should be retained for 2 years? If not, how long? Why?
31. Training, drills and exercises on Facility Security. The
ISPS Code, parts A and B, section 18, as well as section 109 of the
MTSA, specify that facility personnel having specific security
duties and responsibilities be trained in their duties and have the
knowledge needed to carry them out. Part B, paragraph 18.3 also
requires a basic security knowledge and competency for all personnel
employed at the facility to ensure security awareness. In addition,
facility personnel are required to participate in security drills as
discussed in part A, section 18 and part B, paragraphs 18.4 and 18.6
of the ISPS Code. The Coast Guard intends to allow FSOs to certify
that facility personnel have received the training required to
fulfill their security duties, if applicable or the general security
awareness training required for all personnel. A record (e.g., a
training record) kept or any other form of acknowledgment (e.g., a
log entry) would be sufficient for this purpose. A record of drills
would also be required and is discussed in item number 28 of this
notice.
[sbull] Do you believe the Coast Guard should require facility
personnel to attend training?
[sbull] Do you believe prescribing the format for training
records would assist you in meeting these requirements?
32. Certification for facilities. The ISPS Code does not
specifically require that each facility be certified. The Coast
Guard would review and approve the FSP and would require companies
to certify their compliance with these requirements and that each
facility has drafted and implemented an FSP. The Coast Guard would
inspect facilities to verify compliance.
[sbull] Do you have any suggestions for verification and
certification that facilities comply with security regulations?
[sbull] Do you believe the Coast Guard should allow companies to
certify their facilities?
Other Security Provisions
33. Permanent hull marking requirement. The SOLAS amendments
created a new regulation in chapter XI-1 (regulation 3) that
requires vessels to have their identification number permanently
marked on their hull and in an easily accessible place on the
transverse bulkhead of the machinery space or on another suitable
interior location, as specified. At this time, the Coast Guard does
not intend to extend the application of this requirement to vessels
limited to domestic
[[Page 79750]]
voyages. However, all vessels subject to SOLAS and conducting
international voyages, including towing vessels and offshore supply
vessels whose international tonnage is greater than 300 gross tons
(gt), would be required to comply with this regulation when the
SOLAS amendments enter into force.
[sbull] Do you believe the Coast Guard should extend this
requirement to vessels limited to domestic voyages? If so, why?
34. Continuous Synopsis Record requirement. The SOLAS amendments
created a new regulation in chapter XI-1 (regulation 5) that
requires vessels to maintain and update a Continuous Synopsis
Record, to be kept on board, that contains information such as the
name of the flag Administration, the date of the vessel's registry,
the vessel's identification number, etc. At this time, the Coast
Guard does not intend to extend the application of this requirement
to vessels limited to domestic voyages. However, all vessels subject
to SOLAS and conducting international voyages, including towing
vessels and offshore supply vessels whose international tonnage is
greater than 500 gt would be required to comply with this regulation
when the SOLAS amendments enter into force.
[sbull] Do you believe the Coast Guard should extend this
requirement to vessels limited to domestic voyages? If so, why?
35. Security alert system requirement. The SOLAS amendments
created a new regulation in chapter XI-2 (regulation 6) that
requires vessels to have a security alert system. For the purposes
of this notice and the Coast Guard discussion in Appendix C, cost
impact was only developed for this requirement to those vessels
required to meet SOLAS chapter XI-2. However, the Coast Guard is
considering applying the requirement to vessels limited to domestic
voyages that are engaged in the transport of certain dangerous
cargos. The Coast Guard also recognizes that many other vessels
could benefit from compliance with this requirement such as certain
passenger vessels or towing vessels.
[sbull] Do you believe this requirement would benefit vessels
limited to domestic voyages engaged in the transport of certain
dangerous cargos?
[sbull] Do you believe the Coast Guard should extend this
requirement to other vessels limited to domestic voyages? If so,
why?
36. Fixed and floating platforms requirements. The International
Maritime Organization issued a resolution titled, ``Establishment of
Appropriate Measures to Enhance the Security of Ships, Port
Facilities, Mobile Offshore Drilling Units on Location and Fixed and
Floating Platforms Not Covered by Chapter XI-2 of the 1974 SOLAS
Convention'' which was adopted by the Conference on Maritime
Security as Resolution 7 on December 12, 2002. This resolution
encourages Contracting Governments to consider security requirements
for these maritime operators and platforms. The Coast Guard is
considering including these entities in its Port Security Plan
regime. We are also working with the offshore industry to develop
security standards that would provide a level of security equivalent
to that being established for land based facilities, yet tailored to
the unique offshore operating environment. Once acceptable offshore
industry security standards are determined, such standards may be
incorporated into regulations as part of a separate rulemaking
procedure.
[sbull] Do you believe the Coast Guard should extend security
requirements to offshore platforms? If so, why?
37. Seafarers' identification criteria requirements. The MTSA
(46 U.S.C. section 70111) requires the Secretary to establish
enhanced crewmember identification. In addition, section 103 of the
MTSA encourages the Secretary to negotiate an agreement for an
international system of identification for seafarers. In March 2002,
the Governing Body of the International Labour Organization (ILO)
agreed to have the International Labour Conference consider
amendments to the Seafarers' Identity Documents Convention, 1958
(No. 108) regarding seafarer identification at its 91st session in
June 2003. In support of this effort, the International Maritime
Organization issued a resolution titled, ``Enhancement of Security
in Co-operation with the International Labour Organization'' which
was adopted by the Conference on Maritime Security as Resolution 8
on December 12, 2002. The Coast Guard has been working with the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of State,
Maritime Administration, TSA, and others to support the work of ILO.
The U.S. intends to await the outcome of the June 2003 ILO
conference prior to developing further seafarer identification
domestic policy.
In addition to the above, the MTSA (46 U.S.C. section 70105)
requires the Secretary to develop and implement a Transportation
Security Card to control access to secure areas on a vessel or
facility. The U.S. is moving this requirement forward through its
work on a Transportation Worker Identification Credential System
(TWIC). Pilot testing of the TWIC is scheduled for one east regional
and one west regional port, each in communication with a TSA central
control point. This pilot project allows the TSA to leverage key
regional stakeholders and analyze life cycle and cost benefits, as
well as the performance of various forms of identification
technologies.
Recognizing that the implementation of the TWIC and the ILO
efforts on seafarers identification involve substantial negotiation
and development, the Coast Guard therefore intends to continue its
use of the criteria it set out in its clarification of regulations
notice entitled ``Maritime Identification Credentials'' published in
the Federal Register (67 FR 51082, August 7, 2002). This document
can be viewed on the DOT Document Management System at http://dms.dot.gov
under Docket USCG-2002-12917.
[sbull] Do you believe the Coast Guard should amend its policy
notice to capture additional forms of identification? If so, why?
38. Advanced notice of arrival (ANOA) requirements. The Coast
Guard has a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled ``Notification of
Arrival in U.S. Ports'' published in the Federal Register (67 FR
41659, June 19, 2002). This document can be viewed on the DOT
Document Management System at http://dms.dot.gov under Docket
USCG-2002-11865-1. The comment period for that rulemaking
has closed. The Coast Guard does not intend to add any additional
notification requirements to that rulemaking.
However, the SOLAS amendments and the ISPS Code contain several
information-related requirements that are not currently part of the
ANOA. The Coast Guard is considering expanding its advanced notice
of arrival information to incorporate these new international
requirements (SOLAS chapter XI-2, regulation 9). We are also
considering requiring foreign flag vessels to provide advance
notification on their compliance with part B of the ISPS Code. In
addition, the Coast Guard is considering further expanding the
notice requirements on the Mississippi River and its tributaries
above mile marker 235 for certain barges carrying certain dangerous
cargoes.
[sbull] Having reviewed the SOLAS amendments and the ISPS Code,
what additional information do you believe should be provided by
vessels prior to entering our ports?
[sbull] Do you believe further ANOA requirements are appropriate
for the Mississippi River and its tributaries above mile marker 235?
39. Foreign Port Assessments. Section 102 of the MTSA (46 U.S.C.
section 70108) requires the Secretary to assess the effectiveness of
antiterrorism measures maintained at a foreign port that serves
vessels departing on a voyage to the U.S. or any other port that the
Secretary believes poses a security risk to international maritime
commerce. In general, the Coast Guard intends to accept a foreign
government's approval of the respective port facility security
plans, thereby attesting to their compliance with SOLAS and the ISPS
Code, to provide the initial assessment of that foreign port's
antiterrorism security. However, the Coast Guard in making
assessments under the MTSA will also consider any other relevant
information and possibly conduct audits. No regulations are required
to implement this provision of the MTSA because these assessments
are an internal deliberative matter and further related to foreign
relations. However, the Coast Guard would appreciate public comment
on the following:
[sbull] Should the Coast Guard accept approval of foreign port
facility security plans as a preliminary indication that the foreign
port is maintaining effective antiterrorism measures?
[sbull] What factors do you believe the Coast Guard should
consider in assessing the effectiveness of antiterrorism measures at
foreign ports?
40. Automatic Identification System (AIS) requirements.
Regulation V/19 of SOLAS sets forth the international requirements
for the carriage of automatic identification systems (AIS),
including an implementation schedule that was recently accelerated
by the newly adopted amendments to SOLAS. Domestically, section 102
of the MTSA (46 U.S.C. section 70114) gives the Secretary additional
broad discretion to require AIS on
[[Page 79751]]
any vessel operating on the navigable waters of the United States if
necessary for the safety of navigation. In this regard, the Coast
Guard considers that requiring AIS for security purposes is an
essential element in ensuring the safety of navigation. At a
minimum, the MTSA specifically requires the following vessels to
have AIS:
(a) A self-propelled commercial vessel of at least 65 feet
overall in length;
(b) A vessel carrying more than a number of passengers for hire
determined by the Secretary;
(c) A towing vessel of more than 26 feet overall in length and
600 horsepower;
(d) Any other vessel for which the Secretary decides that an
automatic identification system is necessary for the safe navigation
of the vessel.
The Secretary may exempt or waive any such vessel from this
requirement if AIS is not necessary for the safety of navigation.
The implementation dates for AIS in the MTSA align with the SOLAS
requirements.
As reflected in the Department of Transportation's Fall 2002
Unified Agenda (67 FR 74853, December 9, 2002), a separate AIS
notice of proposed rulemaking should be published in the near
future. Therefore, it is not the Coast Guard's intent to interfere
with that rulemaking. However, because recent events indicate that
smaller vessels may be used as weapons against maritime
transportation, the Coast Guard is requesting limited public comment
related to the MTSA requirements as follows:
[sbull] Should any of the vessels listed in the MTSA be exempted
from carrying AIS because no security benefit would be derived from
such a requirement?
[sbull] Beyond the SOLAS requirements and the vessels
specifically listed in the MTSA, what other vessels should be
required to carry AIS for security purposes?
[sbull] Are there any particular navigable waters of the U.S.
where the AIS carriage requirement should be waived because no
security benefit would be derived from the requirement?
Preliminary Cost Analysis
The Coast Guard is seeking public comment on the following
assumptions used in the preliminary cost analysis:
[sbull] The loaded cost of a full-time employee designated to be
the Company Security Officer or a Facility Security Officer would be
$150,000 per year.
[sbull] Some vessel and facility owners would designate the
Company Security Officer and Facility Security Officer duties to an
existing employee, and these collateral duties would take about 25
percent of the employee's time.
[sbull] Security functions aboard vessels would not require
additional manning.
[sbull] Security functions for facilities would require
additional security guards with a loaded rate of $40,000 per year.
[sbull] The types of equipment vessels or facilities would
install are an accurate representation of the equipment needs owners
and operators can expect to face.
In addition, we are seeking public comment on the costs vessel
and facility owners or operators would incur in the event MARSEC
levels 2 or 3 are implemented.
Finally, we are seeking public comment on how these requirements
will economically impact small businesses, Indian tribal
governments, as well as comment on anticipated energy impacts.
Appendix B--SOLAS Amendments and ISPS Code
Note: The text in this appendix is excerpted from IMO documents
SOLAS/CONF.5/DC/1, SOLAS/CONF.5/DC/2, and SOLAS/CONF.5/DC/2/Add.1,
and has been edited to reflect the final decisions and other
editorial corrections reflected in SOLAS/CONF.5/33.
Amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at
Sea, 1974 as Amended
Chapter V--Safety of Navigation
Regulation 19--Carriage Requirements for Shipborne Navigational Systems
and Equipment
1 The existing subparagraphs .4, .5 and .6 of paragraph 2.4.2
are replaced by the following:
``.4 In the case of ships, other than passenger ships and
tankers, of 300 gross tonnage and upwards but less than 50,000 gross
tonnage, not later than the first safety equipment survey \1\ after
1 July 2004 or by 31 December 2004, whichever occurs earlier; and''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The first safety equipment survey means the first annual
survey, the first periodical survey or the first renewal survey for
safety equipment, whichever is due first after July 1, 2004 and, in
addition, in the case of ships under construction, the initial
survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 The following new sentence is added at the end of the existing
subparagraph .7 of paragraph 2.4:
``Ships fitted with AIS shall maintain AIS in operation at all
times except where international agreements, rules or standards
provide for the protection of navigational information.''
Chapter XI--Special Measures to Enhance Maritime Safety
3 The existing chapter XI is renumbered as chapter XI-1.
Regulation 3--Ship identification number 4 The following text is
inserted after the title of the regulation:
``(Paragraphs 4 and 5 apply to all ships to which this
regulation applies. For ships constructed before 1 July 2004, the
requirements of paragraphs 4 and 5 shall be complied with not later
than the first scheduled dry-docking of the ship after 1 July 2004
)''
5 The existing paragraph 4 is deleted and the following new text
is inserted:
``4 The ship's identification number shall be permanently
marked:
.1 In a visible place either on the stern of the ship or on
either side of the hull, amidships port and starboard, above the
deepest assigned load line or either side of the superstructure,
port and starboard or on the front of the superstructure or, in the
case of passenger ships, on a horizontal surface visible from the
air; and
.2 In an easily accessible place either on one of the end
transverse bulkheads of the machinery spaces, as defined in
regulation II-2/3.30, or on one of the hatchways or, in the case of
tankers, in the pump-room or, in the case of ships with ro-ro
spaces, as defined in regulation II-2/3.41, on one of the end
transverse bulkheads of the ro-ro spaces.
5.1 The permanent marking shall be plainly visible, clear of any
other markings on the hull and shall be painted in a contrasting
colour.
5.2 The permanent marking referred to in paragraph 4.1 shall be
not less than 200 mm in height. The permanent marking referred to in
paragraph 4.2 shall not be less than 100 mm in height. The width of
the marks shall be proportionate to the height.
5.3 The permanent marking may be made by raised lettering or by
cutting it in or by centre punching it or by any other equivalent
method of marking the ship identification number which ensures that
the marking is not easily expunged.
5.4 On ships constructed of material other than steel or metal,
the Administration shall approve the method of marking the ship
identification number.''
6 The following new regulation 5 is added after the existing
regulation 4:
Regulation 5--Continuous Synopsis Record
1 Every ship to which chapter I applies shall be issued with a
Continuous Synopsis Record.
2.1 The Continuous Synopsis Record is intended to provide an on-
board record of the history of the ship with respect to the
information recorded therein.
2.2 For ships constructed before July 1, 2004, the Continuous
Synopsis Record shall, at least, provide the history of the ship as
from July 1, 2004.
3 The Continuous Synopsis Record shall be issued by the
Administration to each ship that is entitled to fly its flag and it
shall contain at least, the following information:
.1 The name of the State whose flag the ship is entitled to fly;
.2 The date on which the ship was registered with that State;
.3 The ship's identification number in accordance with
regulation 3;
.4 The name of the ship;
.5 The port at which the ship is registered;
.6 The name of the registered owner(s) and their registered
address(es);
.7 The name of the registered bareboat charterer(s) and their
registered address(es), if applicable;
.8 The name of the Company, as defined in regulation IX/1, its
registered address and the address(es) from where it carries out the
safety management activities;
.9 The name of all classification society(ies) with which the
ship is classed;
.10 The name of the Administration or of the Contracting
Government or of the recognized organization which has issued the
Document of Compliance (or the Interim Document of Compliance),
specified in the ISM Code as defined in regulation IX/1, to the
Company operating the ship and the name of the body which has
carried out the audit on the basis of which the document
[[Page 79752]]
was issued, if other than that issuing the document;
.11 The name of the Administration or of the Contracting
Government or of the recognized organization that has issued the
Safety Management Certificate (or the Interim Safety Management
Certificate), specified in the ISM Code as defined in regulation IX/
1, to the ship and the name of the body which has carried out the
audit on the basis of which the certificate was issued, if other
than that issuing the certificate;
.12 The name of the Administration or of the Contracting
Government or of the recognized security organization that has
issued the International Ship Security Certificate (or an Interim
International Ship Security Certificate), specified in part A of the
ISPS Code as defined in regulation XI-2/1, to the ship and the name
of the body which has carried out the verification on the basis of
which the certificate was issued, if other than that issuing the
certificate; and
.13 The date on which the ship ceased to be registered with that
State.
4.1 Any changes relating to the entries referred to in
paragraphs 3.4 to 3.12 shall be recorded in the Continuous Synopsis
Record so as to provide updated and current information together
with the history of the changes.
4.2 In case of any changes relating to the entries referred to
in paragraph 4.1, the Administration shall issue, as soon as is
practically possible but not later than three months from the date
of the change, to the ships entitled to fly its flag either a
revised and updated version of the Continuous Synopsis Record or
appropriate amendments thereto.
4.3 In case of any changes relating to the entries referred to
in paragraph 4.1, the Administration, pending the issue of a revised
and updated version of the Continuous Synopsis Record, shall
authorise and require either the Company as defined in regulation
IX/1 or the master of the ship to amend the Continuous Synopsis
Record to reflect the changes. In such cases, after the Continuous
Synopsis Record has been amended the Company shall, without delay,
inform the Administration accordingly.
5.1 The Continuous Synopsis Record shall be in English, French
or Spanish language. Additionally, a translation of the Continuous
Synopsis Record into the official language or languages of the
Administration may be provided.
5.2 The Continuous Synopsis Record shall be in the format
developed by the Organization and shall be maintained in accordance
with guidelines developed by the Organization. Any previous entries
in the Continuous Synopsis Record shall not be modified, deleted or,
in any way, erased or defaced.
6 Whenever a ship is transferred to the flag of another State or
the ship is sold to another owner (or is taken over by another
bareboat charterer) or another Company assumes the responsibility
for the operation of the ship, the Continuous Synopsis Record shall
be left on board.
7 When a ship is to be transferred to the flag of another State,
the Company shall notify the Administration of the name of the State
under whose flag the ship is to be transferred so as to enable the
Administration to forward to that State a copy of the Continuous
Synopsis Record covering the period during which the ship was under
their jurisdiction.
8 When a ship is transferred to the flag of another State the
Government of which is a Contracting Government, the Contracting
Government of the State whose flag the ship was flying hitherto
shall transmit to the Administration as soon as possible after the
transfer takes place a copy of the relevant Continuous Synopsis
Record covering the period during which the ship was under their
jurisdiction together with any Continuous Synopsis Records previous
issued to the ship by other States.
9 When a ship is transferred to the flag of another State, the
Administration shall append the previous Continuous Synopsis Records
to the Continuous Synopsis Record the Administration will issue to
the ship so to provide the continuous history record intended by
this regulation.
10 The Continuous Synopsis Record shall be kept on board the
ship and shall be available for inspection at all times.''
7 The following new chapter XI-2 is inserted after the
renumbered chapter XI-1:
Chapter XI-2--Special Measures to Enhance Maritime Security
Regulation 1--Definitions
1 For the purpose of this chapter, unless expressly provided
otherwise:
.1 Bulk carrier means a bulk carrier as defined in regulation
IX/1.6.
.2 Chemical tanker means a chemical tanker as defined in
regulation VII/8.2.
.3 Gas carrier means a gas carrier as defined in regulation VII/
11.2.
.4 High-speed craft means a craft as defined in regulation X/
1.2.
.5 Mobile offshore drilling unit means a mechanically propelled
mobile offshore drilling unit, as defined in regulation IX/1, not on
location.
.6 Oil tanker means an oil tanker as defined in regulation II-1/
2.12.
.7 Company means a Company as defined in regulation IX/1.
.8 Ship/port interface means the interactions that occur when a
ship is directly and immediately affected by actions involving the
movement of persons, goods or the provisions of port services to or
from the ship.
.9 Port facility is a location, as determined by the Contracting
Government or by the Designated Authority, where the ship/port
interface takes place. This includes areas such as anchorages,
waiting berths and approaches from seaward, as appropriate.
.10 Ship to ship activity means any activity not related to a
port facility that involves the transfer of goods or persons from
one ship to another.
.11 Designated Authority means the organization(s) or the
administration(s) identified, within the Contracting Government, as
responsible for ensuring the implementation of the provisions of
this chapter pertaining to port facility security and ship/port
interface, from the point of view of the port facility.
.12 International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code
means the International Code for the Security of Ships and of Port
Facilities consisting of part A (the provisions of which shall be
treated as mandatory) and part B (the provisions of which shall be
treated as recommendatory), as adopted, on December 12, 2002, by
resolution 2 of the Conference of Contracting Governments to the
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 as may
be amended by the Organization, provided that:
.1 Amendments to part A of the Code are adopted, brought into
force and take effect in accordance with article VIII of the present
Convention concerning the amendment procedures applicable to the
Annex other than chapter I; and
.2 Amendments to part B of the Code are adopted by the Maritime
Safety Committee in accordance with its Rules of Procedure.
.13 Security incident means any suspicious act or circumstance
threatening the security of a ship, including a mobile offshore
drilling unit and a high speed craft, or of a port facility or of
any ship/port interface or any ship to ship activity.
.14 Security level means the qualification of the degree of risk
that a security incident will be attempted or will occur.
.15 Declaration of security means an agreement reached between a
ship and either a port facility or another ship with which it
interfaces specifying the security measures each will implement.
.16 Recognized security organization means an organization with
appropriate expertise in security matters and with appropriate
knowledge of ship and port operations authorized to carry out an
assessment, or a verification, or an approval or a certification
activity, required by this chapter or by part A of the ISPS Code.
2 The term ``ship'', when used in regulations 3 to 13, includes
mobile offshore drilling units and high-speed craft.
3 The term ``all ships'', when used in this chapter, means any
ship to which this chapter applies.
4 The term ``Contracting Government'', when used in regulations
3, 4, 7, and 10 to 13, includes a reference to the ``Designated
Authority''.
Regulation 2--Application
1 This chapter applies to:
.1 The following types of ships engaged on international
voyages:
.1.1 Passenger ships, including high-speed passenger craft;
.1.2 Cargo ships, including high-speed craft, of 500 gross
tonnage and upwards; and
.1.3 Mobile offshore drilling units; and
.2 Port facilities serving such ships engaged on international
voyages.
.2 Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1.2, Contracting
Governments shall decide the extent of application of this chapter
and of the relevant sections of part A of the ISPS Code to those
port facilities within their territory which, although used
primarily by ships not engaged on international voyages, are
required, occasionally, to serve ships arriving or departing on an
international voyage.
2.1 Contracting Governments shall base their decisions, under
paragraph 2, on a port
[[Page 79753]]
facility security assessment carried out in accordance with the
provisions of part A of the ISPS Code.
2.2 Any decision which a Contracting Government makes, under
paragraph 2, shall not compromise the level of security intended to
be achieved by this chapter or by part A of the ISPS Code.
3 This chapter does not apply to warships, naval auxiliaries or
other ships owned or operated by a Contracting Government and used
only on Government non-commercial service.
4 Nothing in this chapter shall prejudice the rights or
obligations of States under international law.
Regulation 3--Obligations of Contracting Governments With Respect to
Security
1 Administrations shall set security levels and ensure the
provision of security level information to ships entitled to fly
their flag. When changes in security level occur, security level
information shall be updated as the circumstance dictates.
2 Contracting Governments shall set security levels and ensure
the provision of security level information to port facilities
within their territory, and to ships prior to entering a port, or
whilst in a port, within their territory. When changes in security
level occur, security level information shall be updated as the
circumstance dictates.
Regulation 4--Requirements for Companies and Ships
1 Companies shall comply with the relevant requirements of this
chapter and of part A of the ISPS Code, taking into account the
guidance given in part B of the ISPS Code.
2 Ships shall comply with the relevant requirements of this
chapter and of part A of the ISPS Code, taking into account the
guidance given in part B of the ISPS Code, and such compliance shall
be verified and certified as provided for in part A of the ISPS
Code.
3 Prior to entering a port, or whilst in a port, within the
territory of a Contracting Government, a ship shall comply with the
requirements for the security level set by that Contracting
Government, if such security level is higher than the security level
set by the Administration for that ship.
4 Ships shall respond without undue delay to any change to a
higher security level.
5 Where a ship is not in compliance with the requirements of
this chapter or of part A of the ISPS Code, or cannot comply with
the requirements of the security level set by the Administration or
by another Contracting Government and applicable to that ship, then
the ship shall notify the appropriate competent authority prior to
conducting any ship/port interface or prior to entry into port,
whichever occurs earlier.
Regulation 5--Specific Responsibility of Companies
The Company shall ensure that the master has available on board,
at all times, information through which officers duly authorised by
a Contracting Government can establish:
.1 Who is responsible for appointing the members of the crew or
other persons currently employed or engaged on board the ship in any
capacity on the business of that ship;
.2 Who is responsible for deciding the employment of the ship;
and
.3 In cases where the ship is employed under the terms of
charter party(ies), who are the parties to such charter party(ies).
Regulation 6--Ship Security Alert System
1 All ships shall be provided with a ship security alert system,
as follows:
.1 Ships constructed on or after July 1, 2004;
.2 Passenger ships, including high-speed passenger craft,
constructed before July 1, 2004, not later than the first survey of
the radio installation after July 1, 2004;
.3 Oil tankers, chemical tankers, gas carriers, bulk carriers
and cargo high speed craft, of 500 gross tonnage and upwards
constructed before July 1, 2004, not later than the first survey of
the radio installation after July 1, 2004; and
.4 Other cargo ships of 500 gross tonnage and upward and mobile
offshore drilling units constructed before July 1, 2004, not later
than the first survey of the radio installation after July 1, 2006.
2 The ship security alert system, when activated, shall:
.1 Initiate and transmit a ship-to-shore security alert to a
competent authority designated by the Administration, which in these
circumstances may include the Company, identifying the ship, its
location and indicating that the security of the ship is under
threat or it has been compromised;
.2 Not send the ship security alert to any other ships;
.3 Not raise any alarm on-board the ship; and
.4 Continue the ship security alert until deactivated and/or
reset.
3 The ship security alert system shall:
.1 Be capable of being activated from the navigation bridge and
in at least one other location; and
.2 Conform to performance standards not inferior to those
adopted by the Organization.
4 The ship security alert system activation points shall be
designed so as to prevent the inadvertent initiation of the ship
security alert.
5 The requirement for a ship security alert system may be
complied with by using the radio installation fitted for compliance
with the requirements of chapter IV, provided all requirements of
this regulation are complied with.
6 When an Administration receives notification of a ship
security alert, that Administration shall immediately notify the
State(s) in the vicinity of which the ship is presently operating.
7 When a Contracting Government receives notification of a ship
security alert from a ship which is not entitled to fly its flag,
that Contracting Government shall immediately notify the relevant
Administration and, if appropriate, the State(s) in the vicinity of
which the ship is presently operating.
Regulation 7--Threats to Ships
1 Contracting Governments shall set security levels and ensure
the provision of security level information to ships operating in
their territorial sea or having communicated an intention to enter
their territorial sea.
2 Contracting Governments shall provide a point of contact
through which such ships can request advice or assistance and to
which such ships can report any security concerns about other ships,
movements or communications.
3 Where a risk of attack has been identified, the Contracting
Government concerned shall advise the ships concerned and their
Administrations of:
.1 The current security level;
.2 Any security measures that should be put in place by the
ships concerned to protect themselves from attack, in accordance
with the provisions of part A of the ISPS Code; and
.3 Security measures that the coastal State has decided to put
in place, as appropriate.
Regulation 8--Master's Discretion for Ship Safety and Security
1 The master shall not be constrained by the Company, the
charterer or any other person from taking or executing any decision
which, in the professional judgement of the master, is necessary to
maintain the safety and security of the ship. This includes denial
of access to persons (except those identified as duly authorized by
a Contracting Government) or their effects and refusal to load
cargo, including containers or other closed cargo transport units.
2 If, in the professional judgement of the master, a conflict
between any safety and security requirements applicable to the ship
arises during its operations, the master shall give effect to those
requirements necessary to maintain the safety of the ship. In such
cases, the master may implement temporary security measures and
shall forthwith inform the Administration and, if appropriate, the
Contracting Government in whose port the ship is operating or
intends to enter. Any such temporary security measures under this
regulation shall, to the highest possible degree, be commensurate
with the prevailing security level. When such cases are identified,
the Administration shall ensure that such conflicts are resolved and
that the possibility of recurrence is minimised.
Regulation 9--Control and Compliance Measures
1 Control of Ships in Port.
1.1 For the purpose of this chapter, every ship to which this
chapter applies is subject to control when in a port of another
Contracting Government by officers duly authorised by that
Government, who may be the same as those carrying out the functions
of regulation I/19. Such control shall be limited to verifying that
there is onboard a valid International Ship Security Certificate or
a valid Interim International Ships Security Certificate issued
under the provisions of part A of the ISPS Code (Certificate), which
if valid shall be accepted, unless there are clear grounds for
believing that the ship is not in compliance with the requirements
of this chapter or part A of the ISPS Code.
1.2 When there are such clear grounds, or where no valid
Certificate is produced when
[[Page 79754]]
required, the officers duly authorized by the Contracting Government
shall impose any one or more control measures in relation to that
ship as provided in paragraph 1.3. Any such measures imposed must be
proportionate, taking into account the guidance given in part B of
the ISPS Code.
1.3 Such control measures are as follows: inspection of the
ship, delaying the ship, detention of the ship, restriction of
operations including movement within the port, or expulsion of the
ship from port. Such control measures may additionally or
alternatively include other lesser administrative or corrective
measures.
2 Ships Intending To Enter a Port of Another Contracting
Government.
2.1 For the purpose of this chapter, a Contracting Government
may require that ships intending to enter its ports provide the
following information to officers duly authorized by that Government
to ensure compliance with this chapter prior to entry into port with
the aim of avoiding the need to impose control measures or steps:
.1 That the ship possesses a valid Certificate and the name of
its issuing authority;
.2 The security level at which the ship is currently operating;
.3 The security level at which the ship operated in any previous
port where it has conducted a ship/port interface within the
timeframe specified in paragraph 2.3;
.4 Any special or additional security measures that were taken
by the ship in any previous port where it has conducted a ship/port
interface within the timeframe specified in paragraph 2.3;
.5 That the appropriate ship security procedures were maintained
during any ship to ship activity within the timeframe specified in
paragraph 2.3; or
.6 Other practical security related information (but not details
of the ship security plan), taking into account the guidance given
in part B of the ISPS Code.
If requested by the Contracting Government, the ship or the
Company shall provide confirmation, acceptable to that Contracting
Government, of the information required above.
2.2 Every ship to which this chapter applies intending to enter
the port of another Contracting Government shall provide the
information described in paragraph 2.1 on the request of the
officers duly authorized by that Government. The master may decline
to provide such information on the understanding that failure to do
so may result in denial of entry into port.
2.3 The ship shall keep records of the information referred to
in paragraph 2.1 for the last 10 calls at port facilities.
2.4 If, after receipt of the information described in paragraph
2.1, officers duly authorised by the Contracting Government of the
port in which the ship intends to enter have clear grounds for
believing that the ship is in non-compliance with the requirements
of this chapter or part A of the ISPS Code, such officers shall
attempt to establish communication with and between the ship and the
Administration in order to rectify the non-compliance. If such
communication does not result in rectification, or if such officers
have clear grounds otherwise for believing that the ship is in non-
compliance with the requirements of this chapter or part A of the
ISPS Code, such officers may take steps in relation to that ship as
provided in paragraph 2.5. Any such steps taken must be
proportionate, taking into account the guidance given in part B of
the ISPS Code.
2.5 Such steps are as follows:
.1 A requirement for the rectification of the non-compliance;
.2 A requirement that the ship proceed to a location specified
in the territorial sea or internal waters of that Contracting
Government;
.3 Inspection of the ship, if the ship is in the territorial sea
of the Contracting Government the port of which the ship intends to
enter; or
.4 Denial of entry into port.
Prior to initiating any such steps, the ship shall be informed
by the Contracting Government of its intentions. Upon this
information the master may withdraw the intention to enter that
port. In such cases, this regulation shall not apply.
3 Additional provisions.
3.1 In the event:
.1 Of the imposition of a control measure, other than a lesser
administrative or corrective measure, referred to in paragraph 1.3;
or
.2 Any of the steps referred to in paragraph 2.5 are taken,
An officer duly authorized by the Contracting Government shall
forthwith inform in writing the Administration specifying which
control measures have been imposed or steps taken and the reasons
thereof. The Contracting Government imposing the control measures or
steps shall also notify the recognized security organization which
issued the Certificate relating to the ship concerned and the
Organization when any such control measures have been imposed or
steps taken.
3.2 When entry into port is denied or the ship is expelled from
port, the authorities of the port State should communicate the
appropriate facts to the authorities of the State of the next
appropriate ports of call, when known, and any other appropriate
coastal States, taking into account guidelines to be developed by
the Organization. Confidentiality and security of such notification
shall be ensured.
3.3 Denial of entry into port, pursuant to paragraphs 2.4 and
2.5, or expulsion from port, pursuant to paragraphs 1.1 to 1.3,
shall only be imposed where the officers duly authorized by the
Contracting Government have clear grounds to believe that the ship
poses an immediate threat to the security or safety of persons, or
of ships or other property and there are no other appropriate means
for removing that threat.
3.4 The control measures referred to in paragraph 1.3 and the
steps referred to in paragraph 2.5 shall only be imposed, pursuant
to this regulation, until the non-compliance giving rise to the
control measures or steps has been corrected to the satisfaction of
the Contracting Government, taking into account actions proposed by
the ship or the Administration, if any.
3.5 When Contracting Governments exercise control under
paragraph 1 or take steps under paragraph 2:
.1 All possible efforts shall be made to avoid a ship being
unduly detained or delayed. If a ship is thereby unduly detained, or
delayed, it shall be entitled to compensation for any loss or damage
suffered; and
.2 Necessary access to the ship shall not be prevented for
emergency or humanitarian reasons and for security purposes.
Regulation 10--Requirements for Port Facilities
1 Port facilities shall comply with the relevant requirements of
this chapter and part A of the ISPS Code, taking into account the
guidance given in part B of the ISPS Code.
2 Contracting Governments with a port facility or port
facilities within their territory, to which this regulation applies,
shall ensure that:
.1 Port facility security assessments are carried out, reviewed
and approved in accordance with the provisions of part A of the ISPS
Code; and
.2 Port facility security plans are developed, reviewed,
approved and implemented in accordance with the provisions of part A
of the ISPS Code.
3 Contracting Governments shall designate and communicate the
measures required to be addressed in a port facility security plan
for the various security levels, including when the submission of a
Declaration of Security will be required.
Regulation 11--Alternative Security Agreements
1 Contracting Governments may, when implementing this chapter
and part A of the ISPS Code, conclude in writing bilateral or
multilateral agreements with other Contracting Governments on
alternative security arrangements covering short international
voyages on fixed routes between port facilities located within their
territories.
2 Any such agreement shall not compromise the level of security
of other ships or of port facilities not covered by the agreement.
3 No ship covered by such an agreement shall conduct any ship-
to-ship activities with any ship not covered by the agreement.
4 Such agreements shall be reviewed periodically, taking into
account the experience gained as well as any changes in the
particular circumstances or the assessed threats to the security of
the ships, the port facilities or the routes covered by the
agreement.
Regulation 12--Equivalent Security Arrangements
1 An Administration may allow a particular ship or a group of
ships entitled to fly its flag to implement other security measures
equivalent to those prescribed in this chapter or in part A of the
ISPS Code, provided such security measures are at least as effective
as those prescribed in this chapter or part A of the ISPS Code. The
Administration, which allows such security measures, shall
communicate to the Organization particulars thereof.
2 When implementing this chapter and part A of the ISPS Code, a
Contracting
[[Page 79755]]
Government may allow a particular port facility or a group of port
facilities located within its territory, other than those covered by
an agreement concluded under regulation 11, to implement security
measures equivalent to those prescribed in this chapter or in part A
of the ISPS Code, provided such security measures are at least as
effective as those prescribed in this chapter or part A of the ISPS
Code. The Contracting Government, which allows such security
measures, shall communicate to the Organization particulars thereof.
Regulation 13--Communication of Information
1 Contracting Governments shall, not later than July 1, 2004,
communicate to the Organization and shall make available for the
information of Companies and ships:
.1 The names and contact details of their national authority or
authorities responsible for ship and port facility security;
.2 The locations within their territory covered by the approved
port facility security plans.
.3 The names and contact details of those who have been
designated to be available at all times to receive and act upon the
ship-to-shore security alerts, referred to in regulation 6.2.1;
.4 The names and contact details of those who have been
designated to be available at all times to receive and act upon any
communications from Contracting Governments exercising control and
compliance measures, referred to in regulation 9.3.1; and
.5 The names and contact details of those who have been
designated to be available at all times to provide advice or
assistance to ships and to whom ships can report any security
concerns, referred to in regulation 7.2;
And thereafter update such information as and when changes relating
thereto occur. The Organisation shall circulate such particulars to
other Contracting Governments for the information of their officers.
2 Contracting Governments shall, not later than July 1, 2004,
communicate to the Organization the names and contact details of any
recognized security organizations authorized to act on their behalf
together with details of the specific responsibility and conditions
of authority delegated to such organizations. Such information shall
be updated as and when changes relating thereto occur. The
Organisation shall circulate such particulars to other Contracting
Governments for the information of their officers.
3 Contracting Governments shall, not later than July 1, 2004
communicate to the Organization a list showing the approved port
facility security plans for the port facilities located within their
territory together with the location or locations covered by each
approved port facility security plan and the corresponding date of
approval and thereafter shall further communicate when any of the
following changes take place:
.1 Changes in the location or locations covered by an approved
port facility security plan are to be introduced or have been
introduced. In such cases the information to be communicated shall
indicate the changes in the location or locations covered by the
plan and the date as of which such changes are to be introduced or
were implemented;
.2 An approved port facility security plan, previously included
in the list submitted to the Organization, is to be withdrawn or has
been withdrawn. In such cases, the information to be communicated
shall indicate the date on which the withdrawal will take effect or
was implemented. In these cases, the communication shall be made to
the Organization as soon as is practically possible; and
.3 Additions are to be made to the list of approved port
facility security plans. In such cases, the information to be
communicated shall indicate the location or locations covered by the
plan and the date of approval.
4 Contracting Governments shall, at five year intervals after
July 1, 2004, communicate to the Organization a revised and updated
list showing all the approved port facility security plans for the
port facilities located within their territory together with the
location or locations covered by each approved port facility
security plan and the corresponding date of approval (and the date
of approval of any amendments thereto) which will supersede and
replace all information communicated to the Organization, pursuant
to paragraph 3, during the preceding five years.
5 Contracting Governments shall communicate to the Organization
information that an agreement under regulation 11 has been
concluded. The information communicated shall include:
.1 The names of the Contracting Governments which have concluded
the agreement;
.2 The port facilities and the fixed routes covered by the
agreement;
.3 The periodicity of review of the agreement;
.4 The date of entry into force of the agreement; and
.5 Information on any consultations which have taken place with
other Contracting Governments;
And thereafter shall communicate, as soon as practically possible,
to the Organization information when the agreement has been amended
or has ended.
6 Any Contracting Government which allows, under the provisions
of regulation 12, any equivalent security arrangements with respect
to a ship entitled to fly its flag or with respect to a port
facility located within its territory, shall communicate to the
Organization particulars thereof.
7 The Organization shall make available the information
communicated under paragraph 3 to other Contracting Governments upon
request.
International Code for the Security of Ships and of Port Facilities
Preamble
1 The Diplomatic Conference on Maritime Security held in London
in December 2002 adopted new provisions in the International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 and this Code to
enhance maritime security. These new requirements form the
international framework through which ships and port facilities can
co-operate to detect and deter acts which threaten security in the
maritime transport sector.
2 Following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the twenty-
second session of the Assembly of the International Maritime
Organization (the Organization), in November 2001, unanimously
agreed to the development of new measures relating to the security
of ships and of port facilities for adoption by a Conference of
Contracting Governments to the International Convention for the
Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (known as the Diplomatic Conference on
Maritime Security) in December 2002. Preparation for the Diplomatic
Conference was entrusted to the Organization's Maritime Safety
Committee (MSC) on the basis of submissions made by Member States,
intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations
in consultative status with the Organization.
3 The MSC, at its first extraordinary session, held also in
November 2001, in order to accelerate the development and the
adoption of the appropriate security measures established an MSC
Intersessional Working Group on Maritime Security. The first meeting
of the MSC Intersessional Working Group on Maritime Security was
held in February 2002 and the outcome of its discussions was
reported to, and considered by, the seventy-fifth session of the MSC
in March 2002, when an ad hoc Working Group was established to
further develop the proposals made. The seventy-fifth session of the
MSC considered the report of that Working Group and recommended that
work should be taken forward through a further MSC Intersessional
Working Group, which was held in September 2002. The seventy-sixth
session of the MSC considered the outcome of the September 2002
session of the MSC Intersessional Working Group and the further work
undertaken by the MSC Working Group held in conjunction with the
Committee's seventy-sixth session in December 2002, immediately
prior to the Diplomatic Conference and agreed the final version of
the proposed texts to be considered by the Diplomatic Conference.
4 The Diplomatic Conference (December 9 to 13, 2002) also
adopted amendments to the existing provisions of the International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS 74)
accelerating the implementation of the requirement to fit Automatic
Identification Systems and adopted new regulations in chapter XI-1
of SOLAS 74 covering marking of the Ship's Identification Number and
the carriage of a Continuous Synopsis Record. The Diplomatic
Conference also adopted a number of Conference Resolutions including
those covering implementation and revision of this Code, Technical
Co-operation, and co-operative work with the International Labour
Organization and World Customs Organization. It was recognised that
review and amendment of certain of the new provisions regarding
maritime security may be required on completion of the work of these
two Organizations.
5 The provision of chapter XI-2 of SOLAS 74 and this Code apply
to ships and
[[Page 79756]]
to port facilities. The extension of SOLAS 74 to cover port
facilities was agreed on the basis that SOLAS 74 offered the
speediest means of ensuring the necessary security measures entered
into force and given effect quickly. However, it was further agreed
that the provisions relating to port facilities should relate solely
to the ship/port interface. The wider issue of the security of port
areas will be the subject of further joint work between the
International Maritime Organization and the International Labour
Organization. It was also agreed that the provisions should not
extend to the actual response to attacks or to any necessary clear-
up activities after such an attack.
6 In drafting the provision care has been taken to ensure
compatibility with the provisions of the International Convention on
Standards of Training, Certification and Watch-keeping and
Certification for Seafarers, 1978, as amended, the International
Safety Management (ISM) Code and the harmonised system of survey and
certification.
7 The provisions represent a significant change in the approach
of the international maritime industries to the issue of security in
the maritime transport sector. It is recognised that they may place
a significant additional burden on certain Contracting Governments.
The importance of Technical Co-operation to assist Contracting
Governments implement the provisions is fully recognised.
8 Implementation of the provisions will require continuing
effective co-operation and understanding between all those involved
with, or using, ships and port facilities including ship's
personnel, port personnel, passengers, cargo interests, ship and
port management and those in National and Local Authorities with
security responsibilities. Existing practices and procedures will
have to be reviewed and changed if they do not provide an adequate
level of security. In the interests of enhanced maritime security
additional responsibilities will have to be carried by the shipping
and port industries and by National and Local Authorities.
9 The guidance given in part B of this Code should be taken into
account when implementing the security provisions set out in chapter
XI-2 of SOLAS 74 and in part A of this Code. However, it is
recognised that the extent to which the guidance applies may vary
depending on the nature of the port facility and of the ship, its
trade and/or cargo.
10 Nothing in this Code shall be interpreted or applied in a
manner inconsistent with the proper respect of fundamental rights
and freedoms as set out in international instruments, particularly
those relating to maritime workers and refugees including the
International Labour Organisation Declaration of Fundamental
Principles and Rights at Work as well as international standards
concerning maritime and port workers.
11 Recognizing that the Convention on the Facilitation of
Maritime Traffic, 1965, as amended, provides that foreign crew
members shall be allowed ashore by the public authorities while the
ship on which they arrive is in port, provided that the formalities
on arrival of the ship have been fulfilled and the public
authorities have no reason to refuse permission to come ashore for
reasons of public health, public safety or public order, Contracting
Governments when approving ship and port facility security plans
should pay due cognisance to the fact that ship's personnel live and
work on the vessel and need shore leave and access to shore based
seafarer welfare facilities, including medical care.
Part A--The Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 as Amended
Mandatory Requirements Regarding the Provisions of Chapter XI-2 of
the International Convention for the Safety of Life At Sea, 1974,
As Amended
1 General
1.1 Introduction.
This part of the International Code for the Security of Ships
and Port Facilities contains mandatory provisions to which reference
is made in chapter XI-2 of the International Convention for the
Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 as amended.
1.2 Objectives.
The objectives of this Code are:
.1 To establish an international framework involving co-
operation between Contracting Governments, Government agencies,
local administrations and the shipping and port industries to detect
security threats and take preventive measures against security
incidents affecting ships or port facilities used in international
trade;
.2 To establish the respective roles and responsibilities of the
Contracting Governments, Government agencies, local administrations
and the shipping and port industries, at the national and
international level for ensuring maritime security;
.3 To ensure the early and efficient collection and exchange of
security-related information;
.4 To provide a methodology for security assessments so as to
have in place plans and procedures to react to changing security
levels; and
.5 To ensure confidence that adequate and proportionate maritime
security measures are in place.
1.3 Functional requirements.
In order to achieve its objectives, this Code embodies a number
of functional requirements. These include, but are not limited to:
.1 Gathering and assessing information with respect to security
threats and exchanging such information with appropriate Contracting
Governments;
.2 Requiring the maintenance of communication protocols for
ships