Friday, February 1, 2013

Coast Guard Publishes Request for Comments Notice


Today the Coast Guard published a notice in the Federal Register (78 FR 7334-7336) requesting comments on how to best proceed with the implementation of §822 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-281). While the words ‘advanced notice of proposed rulemaking’ are nowhere to be found in this notice, this is certainly what it appears to be.
In passing the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 Congress added two new mandates in §822:
• Make a current copy of the vulnerability assessment conducted under subsection (b) available to the port authority with jurisdiction of the facility and appropriate State or local law enforcement agencies; and
• Integrate, to the maximum extent practical, any security system for the facility with compatible systems operated or maintained by the appropriate State, law enforcement agencies, and the Coast Guard.

Facility Vulnerability Assessment

The Coast Guard is considering four possible options for the requirement to share vulnerability assessments:
• Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to make a copy of the current FVA available to the cognizant Coast Guard Captain of the Port, port authority, and State and local law enforcement agencies, upon request.
• Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to proactively provide a copy of the current FVA to the port authority and State and local law enforcement agencies at a prescribed time interval (as opposed to making copies of FVAs available to the port authorities and law enforcement upon request).
• Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to share the current FVA with the port authority and State and local law enforcement agencies annually at the annual exercise required under 33 CFR 105.220 or at a newly required annual FVA sharing meeting.
• Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to share the current FVA with the port authority and State and local law enforcement agencies during the regularly scheduled 5-year re-submission process of the Facility Security Plan (FSP).

Security System Integration

The Coast Guard is considering four options for fulfilling the security system integration requirements of the mandate:
• Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to have and demonstrate via annual exercises the ability to provide manual alerts regarding a transportation security incident (TSI) to appropriate State and local law enforcement agencies and the Coast Guard.
• Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to have and demonstrate via annual exercises the ability to provide automated alerts regarding a TSI to appropriate State and local law enforcement agencies and the Coast Guard.
• Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to make security data feeds regarding a TSI (e.g., alerts, video feeds, alarms, etc.) available to appropriate State and local law enforcement agencies and the Coast Guard.
• Require each MTSA-regulated facility owner or operator to incorporate a technological solution that integrates their electronic surveillance and communications systems with compatible systems operated or maintained by the appropriate State and local law enforcement agencies and the Coast Guard.

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard is actively looking for input on these potential methods of meeting the Congressional mandate. The notice provides a series of specific questions that they are specifically looking to have answered. Additionally they are looking for comments on the feasibility, costs, and benefits of each of the preliminary alternatives described above.
Comments may be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal (www.Regulations.gov; Docket # USCG-2012-0907). Comments should be submitted by May 2, 2013.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

First, the USCG should read its own regulation as it does not require a vulnerability assessment. The missing component in the MTSA system is the discussion of threat which the USCG manages with a MARSEC Level. This is inadequate, especially since they keep such a tight hold on the antiquated threat profile used in MSRAM. The current regulation requires a facility SECURITY assessment, made mostly of fencing as that is the only security measure the USCG seems to understand.

Ref the use of communication devices, the regulation already requires primary and alternate means of communication with internal and external entities. It further requires an exercise to incorporate in addition to other things, communications. The USCG compounds the inadequacy of the exercise system by allowing facilities to sit and watch the exercises the US GOV pays hefty price tags for only to have the FSO observe and actually test 0% of his own facility security plan.

Why do they need feeds into the facility? They are not a first responding organization. Perhaps if thy did no write an NOV when you call them about an incident, more people would notify them, but as it stands now, if someone jumps your fence and you call to report it, a 22 year old arrives to impart his centuries of security wisdom and write you a $3500.00 ticket. Now they want us to automate the means by which we snitch on ourselves?

The USCG needs to realize that that E-4's cannot run this system and that Officer corps has to get out of the office and maybe even stay past 1600. I understand that they are grossly overtaxed, but this is just another attempt to get more resources to do the work they already have. This is just another case of the government not being able to do what they signed up to do and miring their ineptitude in more legislation.

 
/* Use this with templates/template-twocol.html */