FROM CAPT. MANNY ASCHEMEYER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
MARINE EXCHANGE OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
January 31, 2002
The following message and attachments were received from the USCG today, January 31, 2002, following up on the announcement made yesterday by VADM Ray Riutta, PacArea Commander for USCG, concerning the implementation of "Security Guidelines" for Terminals & Ships at American ports and harbors located along the U.S. West Coast, Alaska, and Hawaii. These guidelines will be put in place by the respective USCG "Captains-of-the-Port", who will also be responsible for oversight and enforcement. We understand that there will be a "grace period" applied by the COTP's, whereby the terminals and ships will be granted time to make the necessary changes to their procedures and infrastructures. Meantime, the USCG will be working on a formal set of new federal regulations covering terminal and ship security items, based on these new "guidelines", but that process is estimated to take a year or more to complete. Additionally, COTP's "may" put these security guidelines under a local "COTP Order" (which make them mandatory) -- but at this point it's uncertain that will actually happen.
In any event, before taking any action in this matter, you'll need to wait for your personal copy of these guidelines to be sent to your particular facility by the local USCG COTP, along with his cover letter outlining the implementation process (including any "grace period" to be allowed).
Call your local MSO or COTP contacts if you have any questions or need more information.------------------------------------------------------
PACAREA INST 16611
28 January 2002
Commander (Pm)
Pacific Area 
| Coast Guard Island, Bldg 50-6
Alameda, CA 94501-5100
Staff Symbol: (Pm)
Phone: 510 437-2943 |
a. Using the enforcement authority delegated to COTPs, the COTP may order an individual master, agent, or owner/operator of a waterfront facility to take certain types of measures or actions which will satisfy the requirement in 33 CFR 6.16-3 to take “all necessary precautions” to protect the facility from sabotage (MSM Vol. VII, Chapter 1.C.2). As per reference (g), on a case-by-case basis, COTPs may authorize, after evaluation of security concerns or threats, the movement of vessels or other port activities. Reference (g) supports the notion that the actions to be taken are the issuance of COTP Orders, not the establishment of rules applicable to a class of vessels or waterfront facilities. This is also consistent with the Ports and Waterways Safety COTP control actions in reference (h), which are directed to specific situations and hazards.
b. The primary responsibility for waterfront facility security rests with an owner/operator. Coast Guard COTPs have the authority and responsibility to evaluate the adequacy of a facility’s security. The Coast Guard’s principle policy document for Port Security, the Marine Safety Manual (Volume VII, Chapter 7.G), suggests that such an evaluation be done in accordance with reference (i). Under the guidance of reference (i), the COTP is to determine if a facility’s security is adequate to counter the current threat. The continuous process of port security planning as outlined in reference (i) includes the use of physical security assessments and port physical security checklists. Disclosure of information, however, by the facility owner/operator is voluntary and subject to the Privacy Act. The COTP may also inspect a facility to identify whether the facility owner/operator is taking adequate precautions to counter sabotage.
c. One factor which complicates the establishment of security standards for all types of waterfront facilities are the type-specific regulations already established for passenger terminals, waterfront facilities handling dangerous cargoes, LNG, LHG, and oil or hazardous materials. The guidelines in enclosures (1) and (2) are not designed or intended to exceed present regulatory standards that specifically address items such as lighting, alarm systems, etc. Furthermore, although drafted to address all types of facilities, COTPs and their inspectors should use the guidelines in enclosures (1) and (2) in conjunction with the regulations set forth in references (a) through (d). Any notice requirements, time frames for compliance, and appeal procedures set forth in the relevant regulations should be followed. The following paragraphs discuss these regulations.
d. Passenger Terminals. Regulations contained in reference (c) apply to all passenger terminals embarking or disembarking passengers for passenger vessels over 100 gross tons, carrying more than 12 passengers, on voyages over 24 hours, on the high seas. These regulations were developed to combat terrorist acts and, in part, require Terminal Security Plans. Such plans must include procedures for protecting persons and property in a terminal and for preventing weapons, explosive devices, etc., from entering a facility via carriage by passengers/workers, baggage, or ship stores. In addition, the regulations require designation of a Security Officer, training of security personnel and security personnel screening. Reference (j) provides specific guidelines for these plans and procedures. Terminal security procedures are established for Levels I, II, and III. The Coast Guard determines the security levels for passenger terminals taking into consideration the present threat conditions. All Terminal Security Plans must be satisfactorily examined by the COTP. These regulations include appeal procedures. The regulations authorize COTPs to have the plans amended to provide effective security. COTPs should require passenger terminal plans to be amended to incorporate appropriate measures in enclosures (1) and (2) not addressed by reference (j).
e. Designated Waterfront Facilities. Regulations contained in reference (a) apply to facilities that handle, store, stow, load, discharge, or transport Class 1 explosives or other dangerous cargoes. These regulations require adequate guards and lighting. Adequate is defined in 33 CFR 126.15(n) as a “determination which a reasonable person would make under circumstances of the particular case.” It further states that unless there exists gross non-compliance, the judgment of the operator is acceptable as fulfilling the requirements unless and until the COTP inspects the facility and notifies the operator in writing and offers the opportunity to correct the noted deficiencies. The COTP has the authority (33 CFR 126.31) to terminate a general facility permit if he/she considers the facility security inadequate. Such a suspension must be in writing. Although no specific appeal procedures are outlined in reference (a), the regulations do allow a waterfront facility’s general permit to be revived by the District Commander upon a finding by him/her “that the cause of termination no longer exists and is unlikely to recur.”
f. Waterfront facilities handling LNG and LHG. Regulations contained in reference (b) for designated waterfront facilities handling liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquefied hazardous gases (LHG) incorporate detailed provisions for lighting systems including emergency lighting, access limitation, identification cards, security personnel and patrols (or manned TV monitoring systems), fencing, and security of patrol communications. In addition, the operator of a waterfront facility handling LNG/LHG must allow the COTP or his representative to make reasonable inspections to determine whether the facility meets the requirements of reference (b). Title 33 CFR section 127.013 authorizes the COTP to order a temporary, but indefinite, suspension of transfer operations whenever he/she finds a condition, or set of conditions, requiring immediate action to prevent damage to, or destruction of, any waterfront facilities. Appeal procedures are set forth in section 127.015.
g. Oil or Bulk Hazardous Material Facilities. Regulations contained in reference (d) note specific requirements for adequate lighting and provisions for guards. These regulations are safety oriented rather than security based. A facility operator is required to make his/her facility available to the COTP for examination at any time to determine compliance with reference (d). The COTP must provide the facility operator with a written report of the results of the examination for the record required by section 154.740(e) and must list the deficiencies in the report when the facility is not in compliance with the requirements of Part 154. Appeal provisions are provided in section 154.1075.
h. The publication of the enclosed security guidelines is not intended to be a substitute for formal rulemaking. Furthermore, these guidelines do not relieve facility operators of their responsibility to comply with existing facility regulations. Nor should these guidelines be viewed as adequate to counter every possible threat. Rather, the guidelines serve to assist the COTP in evaluating the security of the facilities in a given port given the present threat level. If the COTP inspects a particular facility and subsequently determines that the security measures adopted by the facility operator are not adequate to address the current threat condition, the COTP may then require the facility operator to take certain measures to address the threat condition. When a COTP determines that certain additional security measures are justified, a COTP Order should be issued to the facility operator. The COTP may order the facility to cease operations for failing to comply with the order, if necessary to ensure the safety or security of the port.
i. The procedures in enclosures (1) and (2) will serve as general security guidance for COTPs until further notice. It is expected that facilities and terminals will meet these guidelines unless alternative arrangements that provide an equivalent level of security are in place or can be established. Enclosure (3) organizes the facility security requirements for Level I in enclosure (1) into a checklist format.
j. Vessels moored to waterfront facilities are especially susceptible to terrorist attacks. Enclosure (4) provides security guidelines to reduce their vulnerability.
k. The guidelines in this instruction are not meant to cover individual situations, which are best handled through experience and sound judgment. The guidelines are intended to promote consistency within the Pacific Area, without undue restriction of independent judgment on the part of the Captain of the Port. In order to possibly improve these guidelines, COTPs should notify PACAREA, via the cognizant district, of any significant variances from these guidelines that they accept.