National Maritime Security Advisory Committee Date: 10.18.2016 Time: 1330 Location: Leesburg, VA Meeting called by United States Coast Guard Type of meeting Public Facilitator United States Coast Guard Attendees NMSAC Stephen Caldwell, John Crowley (Chair), April Danos, Dan Gianfalla, Ralph Gogliettino, Kim Hall, Larry Laverriere, Paul Londynsky, Ed Madura, Tracey Mayhew, Christian Spain, Laurie Thomas (Vice Chair), Thomas Valleau, Marcus Woodring, CAPT Ryan Manning (DFO), Ryan Owens (ADFO) GOVERNMENT/CONTRACT SUPPORT Duane Davis (FEMA), Eric Golder (ABS Consulting), Robyn Kapperman (USCG),, LCDR Kevin McDonald (USCG), Cameron Naron (MARAD), LCDR Chris Pisares (USCG), Robert Reimann (USCG), Marilynn Small (USCG), LCDR Brett Thompson (USCG) and CDR Nicholas Wong (USCG) PUBLIC Jeff Dyer (maritime consultant), Jeff Gunnulfsen (AFPM), James Prazak (Tricon Energy) and William Bill Robinson (PBF Energy) Administrative Matters Ryan Owens, NMSAC ADFO Overview Mr. Owens provided several items for the information of the committee. CAPT Manning installed the new NMSAC members by swearing them in with the oath of office Transportation Worker Identification Credential Update USCG: LCDR Brett Thompson, CG-FAC-2 Overview LCDR Brett Thompson discussed the TWIC reader rule published late last August that is set to affect approximately 165 CDC facilities and 130 passenger terminals, otherwise known as Risk Group A, over a two year implementation period. While container terminals are exempt from this rule, they may voluntarily participate and use the more capable readers.
Tom Valeau inquired as to what guidance there is on what card reader should be used, to which LCDR Thompson replied the requirements are performance based and do not require the use of any specific piece of equipment. In response to Marcus Woodring s question on when the new TWIC NVIC will be ready, LCDR Thompson answered that the goal is to do so within the next six months, but this could change. Laurie Thomas asked under what circumstances would a risk grouping change. LCDR Thompson responded that the reasons for doing so would vary, and would require a new rule making. Public Comment There was no public comment Extremely Hazardous Cargo (EHC) Strategy Marcus Woodring, NMSAC Robert Reimann, CG-FAC-1 Overview A revised task statement was presented to the Committee for consideration. In broad terms, the EHC strategy has multiple goals broken up into short Medium, and long term tasks all designed to move the strategy forward to the ultimate goal of implementation. The primary issue at hand is whether to continue to base the strategy on the current Commodity Flow Study, last completed in 2011. Much has changed within the industry since it was first published. Should it be revalidated it or should a new study be conducted? With contract support, redoing the study could possibly be accomplished in a year. This question will need to be answered before there is movement with strategy implementation. The Committee voted unanimously to accept the revised task Statement. If either a revalidated or new study were to be deemed necessary by the joint Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC)/NMSAC working group, the Committee stated it would support that decision.
Action Items Person Deadline Follow up brief at the spring NMSAC public meeting CAPT Woodring Mr. Reimann Regulatory Update/ Facility Security Officer Regulation and Training USCG: LCDR Kevin McDonald, CG-FAC-2 LCDR Kevin McDonald provided a regulatory update Spring 2017 Cruise Ship Regulations 1) Cruise ship terminals will be required to incorporate a terminal screening program (TSP) into their existing facility security plans (FSPs). 2) The Coast Guard will maintain a Prohibited Items List (PIL) for cruise ship terminals similar to what the airline industry has in place. Vessel stores, bunkers or cargo are exempt from applicability. Seafarer Access The new rules will ensure seafarers do not pay directly or indirectly for transportation and other ancillary costs associated with traversing between ship and shore. There is an understanding that each and every facility is different with their own unique set of logistical hurdles to accomplish such a task. Facility owners and operators should work with their local USCG Captain of the Port (COTP) in amending and documenting their seafarer access procedures within their Coast Guard-approved FSP. The FSP seafarer modification is to be completed within one year of the publication of the final rule. Facility Security Officer Training The Facility Security Officer Training program is currently being looked at for review. Considering the early nature of the efforts, it is difficult to predict what the final rule may look like, but LCDR McDonald assured the committee that they would be included in the s. FSO Training- Given the amount of money and time invested to certify FSOs, multiple members queried as to whether any bridging courses will be offered or if there will be any grandfathering for current trained FSOs. LCDR McDonald answered that there are multiple issues that need to be looked at carefully and these are issues that will be considered. NMSAC members also expressed a value in the use of a modular training approach for varying FSO duties.
Seafarer Access- Several NMSAC members asked for assurances that seafarers in no way will be charged for their access to the shore and back. The Coast Guard reiterated that the FSP is the mechanism in place to enforce compliance. Stephen Caldwell requested clarification of what is the Maritime Transportation Security Act 2002 (MTSA) II, if it meant the coming of a new law. The Coast Guard responded that MTSA II is a regulatory refinement of their current interpretation of MTSA. The Policy Council (PAC) documents developed over the years that are used to provide meaningful guidance will be incorporates into existing regulation; and this integration will be known as MTSA II Public Comment A member of the public asked when MTSA II is set for promulgation. Following LCDR McDonald s reply that MTSA II would not be promulgated until after the Cyber Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) is signed, Captain Ryan Manning, Chief, Office of Port And Facility Compliance (CG-FAC), added that the target date for submitting the NVIC to the Federal Register is the end of Calendar Year 2016. Port Security Grants Duane Davis, FEMA Overview Over the phone, Duane Davis provided a brief overview of DHS s Port Security Grant (PSG) program, discussed a number of program highlights, explained the review process, supplied examples of funded projects, spoke to some degree on how the cost-share or match requirement works, stressed the importance of having a sound investment justification and developing a detailed budget, and wrapped up the lecture portion of the presentation with the best practices and common mistakes their office has seen. John Crowley asked if changes in DHS priorities are ever published, and what the basis is for these changes. Is it based on reason, politics or a mixture of both? Mr. Davis replied that the Secretary does not look at any individual project. What the Secretary is concerned with is if the funding is based upon risk. Risk drives whether a project is funded or not. Mr. Davis affirmed Mr. Crowley s follow-up question when he asked if funding denials are due to poor justification and not a lack of funding. Mr. Davis further clarified that Congress has even inquired as to why there has not been an increase in
grant applications. To which the reply was that their office cannot force the ports to apply. Stephen Caldwell asked what happens to old funds from backlog years and are they still available. Mr. Davis replied, any funding is fiscally based, at the end of each fiscal year, all non-obligated funds are sent back to the Treasury for reallocation for the following fiscal year. Thus, old funds cease to exist. April Danos inquired if the tiering of ports is still used in the PSG process. Mr. Davis explained the risk scores determine the bracketing breaks for each port grouping as well as whether a project is funded. He added that because whatever tier an applicant was in had no bearing in the decision making process, it did not make sense to keep the port tiering. Ms. Danos expressed her concern that this makes it harder for the smaller ports to compete with larger/higher risk ports for funds. Additionally, Ms. Danos suggested that the PSG program prioritize to provide a port or facility s identified First Responders (Port Police, for example) before considering other local agencies which have other sources of funding (Urban Area Security Initiative, State Homeland Security Grants). Ms. Danos pointed to her own port where their Harbor Police Force, their primary first responder, was passed over for funding over the local law enforcement agency. Public Comments There were no public comments General Public Comment Session Summary The Chair opened up the floor for any other public comments. There were no further comments from the public.
National Maritime Security Advisory Committee Date: 10.19.2016 Time: 0815 Location: Leesburg, VA Meeting called United States Coast Guard Type of Public Facilitator United States Coast Guard Attendees NMSAC Stephen Caldwell, John Crowley (Chair), April Danos, Dan Gianfalla, Ralph Gogliettino, Kim Hall, Larry Laverriere, Paul Londynsky, Ed Madura, Tracey Mayhew, Christian Spain, Laurie Thomas (Vice Chair), Thomas Valleau, Marcus Woodring, CAPT Ryan Manning (DFO), Ryan Owens (ADFO) GOVERNMENT/CONTRACT SUPPORT Eric Golder (ABS Consulting), Robyn Kapperman (USCG), Cameron Naron (MARAD), LCDR Chris Pisares (USCG), Marilynn Small (USCG), and CDR Nicholas Wong (USCG) PUBLIC Bill Robinson (PBF Energy) Administrative Matters Ryan Owens, NMSAC ADFO Mr. Owens provided several items for the information of the committee. 1. Motion to vote for Chair and Vice Chair was held. Paul Londynsky nominated John Crowley for Chair. Ralph Gogliettino nominated Marcus Woodring for Vice Chair. No other members were nominated for either position. The NMSAC voted unanimously to accept both nominees. 2. NMSAC motioned and unanimously voted in favor of the attached recommendation on PSG program consideration of grants to provide security for seafarer access. 3. NMSAC motioned and unanimously voted in favor of the attached recommendation on the USCG certification of FSO training regulations to include consideration of a grandfathering provision for currently trained FSOs as well as any bridging courses that can assist currently trained FSOs in coming up to speed on new security concerns (such as cyber) 4. NMSAC motioned and unanimously voted in favor of creating an FSO Training Working group to assist the CG in its development of FSO Training Regulations. The following NMSAC members volunteered to participate: Larry Laverriere, Christian
Spain, Laurie Thomas, Ralph Gogliettino, Paul Londynsky, Dan Gianfalla, Ed Madura, Tracey Mayhew Future Maritime Security Concerns NMSAC Members Overview The chair opened up the floor for a round robin discussion of the future maritime security concerns the committee had. The Committee provided the following concerns/issues Stephen Caldwell: - Cyber security. - Not enough info sharing from the Coast Guard. - Cyber NVIC. - Concerns with CBP on placement and space requirements of scanning equipment within ports. John Crowley: - Regulatory effort being done at the international level. April Danos: - Cyber security. - Not enough info sharing from the Coast Guard. - Bring back port tiering of PSGs. Dan Gianfalla: - Cyber security - Threat assessment training, particularly in respect to aerial drones. Ralph Gogliettino: - The lack of major security incidents is a good sign, but there is concern it is creating a lax - mindset among the ports. Kim Hall: - Cyber security, consistency/unity of effort in approach by USG to the industry, pointed to the need for an industry engagement strategy on the subject. - Regulations not keeping up with today s business environment.
Larry Laverriere: - Consistency among USCG Sector units. - The lack of transparency in agencies. Paul Londynsky: - Cyber security. - Container screening technology, paramount that containers are screened before they are released into the country, otherwise, it is impossible to intercept any danger they may pose. - Training in general. - Enthusiasm gap with MTS security. Ed Madura: - Need to emphasize more practical on-site training. - Foster relationship building between organizations, so when a disaster hits it will not be the first time everyone is introduced to one another. Tracey Mayhew: - Training, complacency and the ability to maintain preparation and readiness. Christian Spain: - Concern over low flash point fuels. Laurie Thomas: - Burdensome security regulations are choking industry s ability to do business. Since there has not been a major terrorist incident since 9/11 and none ever within the maritime environment, industry is fatigued with the constant vigilance. Thomas Valleau: - Make ports safer by not trying to solve all of the problems, but with prioritization of what is most important; cyber and port recovery being the top two issues of concern. Marcus Woodring: - Info sharing. What does industry needs to know to be safe and secure? - How will regulations affect cooperatives? Action Items Person Deadline
Mr. Owens will consolidate the list and provide to Ryan Owens intercessional the Committee members for review USCG/CBP Joint Port Recovery Protocols USCG: LCDR Chris Pisares, CG-FAC-1 Summary LCDR Chris Pisares informed the committee that the Customs Border Protection (CBP)/U.S. Coast Guard Joint Port Recovery Protocols are designed to assist in the resumption of trade and resiliency of the Marine Transportation System (MTS) following an event causing a major disruption in the operations of multiple ports. A hurricane is an example of a major event of concern. The protocols do not supersede laws or regulations. Embedded throughout the MTS are recovery units, known as MTSRUs. The MTSRUs include local experts with the most experience to report back on the status of the MTS and offer recommendations on how best to proceed towards recovery. MTSRUs are composed of elements from the USCG, industry and other governmental agencies (OGAs). The key industry players that make this possible are the Carrier Support Group, Trade Support Group and the Brokers Support Group. In addition to updating the guidance and sharing plans documents, the next step towards building upon the current capabilities of the joint port recovery protocols is to tackle how to address recovery on a regional level. The idea is to allow for a more responsive, nimbler way for handling matters affecting the more local MTS but not necessarily affecting the national MTS. Paul Londynsky questioned why the Area Maritime Security Committees (AMSCs) are not included among the key players. According to LCDR Pisares, the affected AMSCs are briefed and kept aware through their respective USCG Captain of the Port. After hearing how the joint port recovery protocols work from the main brief, Kim Hall and Laurie Thomas asked if those keenly interested in the protocols were able to volunteer or observe future MTSRU exercises. LCDR Pisares replied that while some logistical details would have to be worked out, NMSAC members would be welcomed. LCDR Pisares replied to Thomas Valleau s questions that exercises are done on an annual basis and the Coast Guard does not involve itself with vessel diversions but only the opening and closing of ports. Public Comment There was no public comment
General Public Comment Session The Chair opened up the floor for any other public comments. Conclusions Bill Robinson thanked the committee and USCG for their work regarding the TWIC requirements. There were no further comments from the public.
Current Tasks Task number Task Name Status T2016-1 Hazardous Cargo Transportation Security Ongoing Subcommittee T2016-2 Future Policy Issues Ongoing Recommendations Number Name Status R2016-1 Cyber Security Submitted R2016-2 TWIC Next Generation Submitted R2016-3 Facility Security Officer Training Submitted R2016-4 Port Security Grant Priorities Submitted