Maritime Security

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.

• January 27, 2003, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., New Orleans, LA.

• January 30, 2003, 2 p.m. to 7 p.m., Cleveland, OH.

• January 31, 2003, 12 (noon) to 6 p.m., St. Louis, MO.

• February 3, 2003, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Seattle, WA.

• February 5, 2003, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA.

• February 7, 2003, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Jacksonville, FL.

• 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:

• New Orleans, LA—Hilton Riverside, 2 Poydras St., New Orleans, LA 70140.

• Cleveland, OH—Sheraton Cleveland City Centre Hotel, Dorothy Fuldheim Room, 777 St. Clair Ave., Cleveland, OH 44144.

• St. Louis, MO—Robert A. Young Federal Building (R.A.Y. Building), 1222 Spruce St., St. Louis, MO 63017.

• Seattle, WA—Boeing Field, 7755 East Marginal Way South, Building 2-22, Auditorium, Seattle, WA 98108.

• Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA—Port of Los Angeles, 425 S. Palos Verdes St., San Pedro, CA 90731.

• Jacksonville, FL—Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), 921 N. Davis St., Building E, Jacksonville, FL 32209.

• 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.

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:

• Owners and operators of vessels, facilities, and other structures located on or adjacent to U.S. navigable waters;

• Federal, State, and local agencies in law enforcement and emergency planning;

• Port authorities;

• State and local government organizations;

• Shipping agents;

• Insurance companies;

• Protection and Indemnity Clubs;

• Classification societies;

• Maritime industry associations; and

• 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

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—

• Recreational vessels and uninspected passengers vessels.

• Nautical school vessels and sailing school vessels.

• Small passenger vessels on domestic voyages.

• Uninspected fishing vessels.

• Oil spill response vessels.

• Military installations and vessels.

• Facilities that transfer, store, or otherwise handle dry bulk or general cargo.

• Marinas.

• Ship repair facilities.

• Waterfront areas that are densely populated or host large public events.

• Other areas within the port that are critical to port operations or public safety.

Vessel Owners, Operators, and Charterers

. Requirements are being

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—

• All foreign ships, both cargo and passenger, required to comply with SOLAS;

• All foreign ships, both cargo and passenger, of countries not signatory to SOLAS;

• All vessels subject to 46 CFR subchapter I (cargo vessels);

• All vessels subject to 46 CFR subchapter L (offshore supply vessels);

• All passenger vessels subject to 46 CFR subchapters H and K;

• All passenger vessels subject to 46 CFR subchapter T engaged on an International voyage;

• All barges subject to 46 CFR subchapters D, I, and O;

• All tankships subject to 46 CFR subchapters D and O;

• All Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODUs) subject to 46 CFR subchapter I-A; and

• 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—

• Facilities that handle cargo regulated under 33 CFR parts 126, 127, and 154;

• Facilities that service vessels certified to carry more than 150 passengers; and

• 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.

•

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.

•

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.

•

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

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

Guarded: Blue

Elevated: Yellow

MARSEC Level 1.

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.

• From a port perspective, would these communication processes meet your needs? Why or why not?

• 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.

• 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)?

• 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.

• 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?

• 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.

• Do you anticipate that your organization would request an alternative or equivalency? If so, why?

• 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.

• 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?

• 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.

• 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?

• 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.

• Do you believe that a SSI classification will be sufficient? If not, why?

• 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

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.

• Who do you believe should be involved in the Port Security Committees?

• 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.

• 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?

• 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.

• 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?

• 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.

• Under this scheme, would you participate in a Port Security Plan exercise?

• Do you have a suggestion on a type of Port Security Plan exercise other than those listed in Part B, paragraph 18.6?

• 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.

• Do you know of a national, State, or industry standard that could be used in the marine environment?

• 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.

• Do you believe that this adequately addresses the obligations and specific requirements of a company? If no, why?

• Do you have a suggestion for how to ensure that companies meet these obligations and requirements?

• 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.

• 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?

• Do you believe these security measures should apply to other vessels, not already listed?

• Do you believe that these activities and protective measures adequately address the security of a vessel? If no, why?

• 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.

• Do you have any suggestions on how to best conduct a VSA and review results? Is there a current practice to meet this requirement?

• For vessels on domestic voyages, are there any appropriate alternatives to a VSA that could be considered?

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.

• Do you have any suggestions on additional items the VSP should address?

• Do you have a suggestion or a best practice to meet this VSP requirement?

• 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.

• Do you have suggestions on how these approvals could be streamlined? Is there an alternative process?

• 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.

• 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.

• Do you have a suggestion or best practice related to recordkeeping you believe the Coast Guard should require?

• 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.

• Do you believe the Coast Guard should require CSOs to attend training?

• Do you believe Company certification is appropriate or do you have a suggestion for an alternate verification for the CSO qualifications?

• 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.

• Do you believe the Coast Guard should require VSOs to attend formal training?

• Do you believe Company certification is appropriate or do you have a suggestion for an alternate verification for the VSO qualifications?

• 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.

• Do you believe the Coast Guard should require vessel personnel to attend formal training?

• 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.

• Do you have any other suggestions for verification and certification that vessels comply with security regulations?

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.

• Do you know of a national, state, and industry standard that could be used in the marine environment?

• 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.

• 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?

• Do you believe these security measures should apply to other facilities, not already listed?

• Do you believe that these activities and protective measures adequately address the security of a facility? If no, why?

• 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.

• 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?

• 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.

• Do you have any suggestions on additional items the FSP should address?

• Do you have a suggestion or a best practice to meet this FSP requirement?

• 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.

• Do you have suggestions on how these approvals could be streamlined or an alternative process?

• 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.

• Do you have a suggestion or best practice related to recordkeeping you believe the Coast Guard should require?

• 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.

• Do you believe the Coast Guard should require FSOs to attend training?

• Do you believe Company certification is appropriate or do you have a suggestion for an alternate verification for the FSO qualifications?

• Would there be a case where a FSO may perform their duties for more than one facility?

• 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.

• Do you believe the Coast Guard should require facility personnel to attend training?

• 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.

• Do you have any suggestions for verification and certification that facilities comply with security regulations?

• 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

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.

• 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.

• 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.

• Do you believe this requirement would benefit vessels limited to domestic voyages engaged in the transport of certain dangerous cargos?

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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?

• 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:

• 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?

• 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

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:

• 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?

• Beyond the SOLAS requirements and the vessels specifically listed in the MTSA, what other vessels should be required to carry AIS for security purposes?

• 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:

• 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.

• 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.

• Security functions aboard vessels would not require additional manning.

• Security functions for facilities would require additional security guards with a loaded rate of $40,000 per year.

• 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

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

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

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

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

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 and port facilities;

.3 Preventing unauthorized access to ships, port facilities and their restricted areas;

.4 Preventing the introduction of unauthorized weapons, incendiary devices or explosives to ships or port facilities;

.5 Providing means for raising the alarm in reaction to security threats or security incidents;

.6 Requiring ship and port facility security plans based upon security assessments; and

.7 Requiring training, drills and exercises to ensure familiarity with security plans and procedures.

2 Definitions

2.1 For the purpose of this part, unless expressly provided otherwise:

.1 Convention means the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 as amended.

.2 Regulation means a regulation of the Convention.

.3 Chapter means a chapter of the Convention.

.4 Ship security plan means a plan developed to ensure the application of measures on board the ship designed to protect persons on board, cargo, cargo transport units, ship's stores or the ship from the risks of a security incident.

.5 Port facility security plan means a plan developed to ensure the application of measures designed to protect the port facility and ships, persons, cargo, cargo transport units and ship's stores within the port facility from the risks of a security incident.

.6 Ship security officer means the person on board the ship, accountable to the master, designated by the Company as responsible for the security of the ship, including implementation and maintenance of the ship security plan and for liaison with the company security officer and port facility security officers.

.7 Company security officer means the person designated by the Company for ensuring that a ship security assessment is carried out; that a ship security plan is developed, submitted for approval, and thereafter implemented and maintained and for liaison with port facility security officers and the ship security officer.

.8 Port facility security officer means the person designated as responsible for the development, implementation, revision and maintenance of the port facility security plan and for liaison with the ship security officers and company security officers.

.9 Security level 1 means the level for which minimum appropriate protective security measures shall be maintained at all times.

.10 Security level 2 means the level for which appropriate additional protective security measures shall be maintained for a period of time as a result of heightened risk of a security incident.

.11 Security level 3 means the level for which further specific protective security measures shall be maintained for a limited period of time when a security incident is probable or imminent, although it may not be possible to identify the specific target.

2.2 The term “ship”, when used in this Code, includes mobile offshore drilling units and high-speed craft as defined in regulation XI-2/1.

2.3 The term “Contracting Government” in connection with any reference to a port facility, when used in sections 14 to 18, includes a reference to the “Designated Authority'.

2.4 Terms not otherwise defined in this part shall have the same meaning as the meaning attributed to them in chapters I and XI-2.

3 Application

3.1 This Code applies to:

.1 The following types of ships engaged on international voyages:

.1 Passenger ships, including high-speed passenger craft;

.2 Cargo ships, including high-speed craft, of 500 gross tonnage and upwards; and

.3 Mobile offshore drilling units; and

.2 Port facilities serving such ships engaged on international voyages.

3.2 Notwithstanding the provisions of section 3.1.2, Contracting Governments shall decide the extent of application of this part of the 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.

3.2.1 Contracting Governments shall base their decisions, under section 3.2, on a port facility security assessment carried out in accordance with this part of the Code.

3.2.2 Any decision which a Contracting Government makes, under section 3.2, shall not compromise the level of security intended to be achieved by chapter XI-2 or by this part of the Code.

3.3 This Code 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.

3.4 Sections 5 to 13 and 19 of this part apply to Companies and ships as specified in regulation XI-2/4.

3.5 Sections 5 and 14 to 18 of this part apply to port facilities as specified in regulation XI-2/10.

3.6 Nothing in this Code shall prejudice the rights or obligations of States under international law.

4 Responsibilities of Contracting Governments

4.1 Subject to the provisions of regulation XI-2/3 and XI-2/7, Contracting Governments shall set security levels and provide guidance for protection from security incidents. Higher security levels indicate greater likelihood of occurrence of a security incident. Factors to be considered in setting the appropriate security level include:

.1 The degree that the threat information is credible;

.2 The degree that the threat information is corroborated;

.3 The degree that the threat information is specific or imminent; and

.4 The potential consequences of such a security incident.

4.2 Contracting Governments, when they set security level 3, shall issue, as necessary, appropriate instructions and shall provide security related information to the ships and port facilities that may be affected.

4.3 Contracting Governments may delegate to a recognized security organization certain of their security related duties under chapter XI-2 and this part of the Code with the exception of:

.1 Setting of the applicable security level;

.2 Approving a Port Facility Security Assessment and subsequent amendments to an approved assessment;

.3 Determining the port facilities which will be required to designate a Port Facility Security Officer;

.4 Approving a Port Facility Security Plan and subsequent amendments to an approved plan;

.5 Exercising control and compliance measures pursuant to regulation XI-2/9; and

.6 Establishing the requirements for a Declaration of Security.

4.4 Contracting Governments shall, to the extent they consider appropriate, test the effectiveness of the Ship or the Port Facility Security Plans, or of amendments to such plans, they have approved, or, in the case of ships, of plans which have been approved on their behalf.

5 Declaration of Security

5.1 Contracting Governments shall determine when a Declaration of Security is required by assessing the risk the ship/port interface or ship to ship activity poses to people, property or the environment.

5.2 A ship can request completion of a Declaration of Security when:

.1 The ship is operating at a higher security level than the port facility or another ship it is interfacing with;

.2 There is an agreement on Declarations of Security between Contracting Governments covering certain international voyages or specific ships on those voyages;

.3 There has been a security threat or a security incident involving the ship or involving the port facility, as applicable;

.4 The ship is at a port which is not required to have and implement an approved port facility security plan; or

.5 The ship is conducting ship to ship activities with another ship not required to have and implement an approved ship security plan.

5.3 Requests for the completion of a Declaration of Security, under this section, shall be acknowledged by the applicable port facility or ship.

5.4 The Declaration of Security shall be completed by:

.1 The master or the ship security officer on behalf of the ship(s); and, if appropriate,

.2 The port facility security officer or, if the Contracting Government determines otherwise, by any other body responsible for shore-side security, on behalf of the port facility.

5.5 The Declaration of Security shall address the security requirements that could be shared between a port facility and a ship (or between ships) and shall state the responsibility for each.

5.6 Contracting Governments shall specify, bearing in mind the provisions of regulation XI-2/9.2.3, the minimum period for which Declarations of Security shall be kept by the port facilities located within their territory.

5.7 Administrations shall specify, bearing in mind the provisions of regulation XI-2/9.2.3, the minimum period for which Declarations of Security shall be kept by ships entitled to fly their flag.

6 Obligations of the Company

6.1 The Company shall ensure that the ship security plan contains a clear statement emphasizing the master's authority. The Company shall establish in the ship security plan that the master has the overriding authority and responsibility to make decisions with respect to the security of the ship and to request the assistance of the Company or of any Contracting Government as may be necessary.

6.2 The Company shall ensure that the company security officer, the master and the ship security officer are given the necessary support to fulfil their duties and responsibilities in accordance with chapter XI-2 and this part of the Code.

7 Ship Security

7.1 A ship is required to act upon the security levels set by Contracting Governments as set out below.

7.2 At security level 1, the following activities shall be carried out, through appropriate measures, on all ships, taking into account the guidance given in part B of this Code, in order to identify and take preventive measures against security incidents:

.1 Ensuring the performance of all ship security duties;

.2 Controlling access to the ship;

.3 Controlling the embarkation of persons and their effects;

.4 Monitoring restricted areas to ensure that only authorized persons have access;

.5 Monitoring of deck areas and areas surrounding the ship;

.6 Supervising the handling of cargo and ship's stores; and

.7 Ensuring that security communication is readily available.

7.3 At security level 2, the additional protective measures, specified in the ship security plan, shall be implemented for each activity detailed in section 7.2, taking into account the guidance given in part B of this Code.

7.4 At security level 3, further specific protective measures, specified in the ship security plan, shall be implemented for each activity detailed in section 7.2, taking into account the guidance given in part B of this Code.

7.5 Whenever security level 2 or 3 is set by the Administration, the ship shall acknowledge receipt of the instructions on change of the security level.

7.6 Prior to entering a port, or whilst in a port within the territory of a Contracting Government that has set security level 2 or 3, the ship shall acknowledge receipt of this instruction and shall confirm to the port facility security officer the initiation of the implementation of the appropriate measures and procedures as detailed in the ship security plan, and in the case of security level 3 in instructions issued by the Contracting Government which has set security level 3. The ship shall report any difficulties in implementation. In such cases, the port facility security officer and ship security officer shall liase and co-ordinate the appropriate actions.

7.7 If a ship is required by the Administration to set, or is already at, a higher security level than that set for the port it intends to enter or in which it is already located, then the ship shall advise, without delay, the competent authority of the Contracting Government within whose

territory the port facility is located and the port facility security officer of the situation.

7.7.1 In such cases, the ship security officer shall liase with the port facility security officer and co-ordinate appropriate actions, if necessary.

7.8 An Administration requiring ships entitled to fly its flag to set security level 2 or 3 in a port of another Contracting Government shall inform that Contracting Government without delay.

7.9 When Contracting Governments 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, such ships shall be advised to maintain vigilance and report immediately to their Administration and any nearby coastal States any information that comes to their attention that might affect maritime security in the area.

7.9.1 When advising such ships of the applicable security level, a Contracting Government shall, taking into account the guidance given in the part B of this Code, also advise those ships of any security measure that they should take and, if appropriate, of measures that have been taken by the Contracting Government to provide protection against the threat.

8 Ship Security Assessment

8.1 The ship security assessment is an essential and integral part of the process of developing and updating the ship security plan.

8.2 The company security officer shall ensure that the ship security assessment is carried out by persons with appropriate skills to evaluate the security of a ship, in accordance with this section, taking into account the guidance given in part B of this Code.

8.3 Subject to the provisions of section 9.2.1, a recognised security organisation may carry out the ship security assessment of a specific ship.

8.4 The ship security assessment shall include an on-scene security survey and, at least, the following elements:

.1  Identification of existing security measures, procedures and operations;

.2 Identification and evaluation of key ship board operations that it is important to protect;

.3 Identification of possible threats to the key ship board operations and the likelihood of their occurrence, in order to establish and prioritise security measures; and

.4 Identification of weaknesses, including human factors in the infrastructure, policies and procedures.

8.5 The ship security assessment shall be documented, reviewed, accepted and retained by the Company.

9 Ship Security Plan

9.1 Each ship shall carry on board a ship security plan approved by the Administration. The plan shall make provisions for the three security levels as defined in this part of the Code.

9.1.1 Subject to the provisions of section 9.2.1, a recognised security organisation may prepare the ship security plan for a specific ship.

9.2 The Administration may entrust the review and approval of ship security plans, or of amendments to a previously approved plan, to recognised security organisations.

9.2.1 In such cases the recognised security organisation, undertaking the review and approval of a ship security plan, or its amendments, for a specific ship shall not have been involved in either the preparation of the ship security assessment or of the ship security plan, or of the amendments, under review.

9.3 The submission of a ship security plan, or of amendments to a previously approved plan, for approval shall be accompanied by the security assessment on the basis of which the plan, or the amendments, have been developed.

9.4 Such a plan shall be developed, taking into account the guidance given in part B of this Code and shall be written in the working language or languages of the ship. If the language or languages used is not English, French or Spanish, a translation into one of these languages shall be included. The plan shall address, at least, the following:

.1 Measures designed to prevent weapons, dangerous substances and devices intended for use against people, ships or ports and the carriage of which is not authorized from being taken on board the ship;

.2 Identification of the restricted areas and measures for the prevention of unauthorized access to them;

.3 Measures for the prevention of unauthorized access to the ship;

.4 Procedures for responding to security threats or breaches of security, including provisions for maintaining critical operations of the ship or ship/port interface;

.5 Procedures for responding to any security instructions Contracting Governments may give at security level 3;

.6 Procedures for evacuation in case of security threats or breaches of security;

.7 Duties of shipboard personnel assigned security responsibilities and of other shipboard personnel on security aspects;

.8 Procedures for auditing the security activities;

.9 Procedures for training, drills and exercises associated with the plan;

.10 Procedures for interfacing with port facility security activities;

.11 Procedures for the periodic review of the plan and for updating;

.12 Procedures for reporting security incidents;

.13 Identification of the ship security officer;

.14 Identification of the company security officer including with 24-hour contact details;

.15 Procedures to ensure the inspection, testing, calibration, and maintenance of any security equipment provided on board, if any;

.16 Frequency for testing or calibration any security equipment provided on board, if any;

.17 Identification of the locations where the ship security alert system activation points are provided;

1

and

1

Administrations may allow, in order to avoid any compromising of the objective of providing on board the ship security alert system, this information to be kept elsewhere on board in a document known to the master, the ship security officer and other senior shipboard personnel as may be decided by the Company.

.18 Procedures, instructions and guidance on the use of the ship security alert system, including the testing, activation, deactivation and resetting and to limit false alerts.

1

9.4.1 Personnel conducting internal audits of the security activities specified in the plan or evaluating its implementation shall be independent of the activities being audited unless this is impracticable due to the size and the nature of the Company or of the ship.

9.5 The Administration shall determine which changes to an approved ship security plan or to any security equipment specified in an approved plan shall not be implemented unless the relevant amendments to the plan are approved by the Administration. Any such changes shall be at least as effective as those measures prescribed in chapter XI-2 and this part of the Code.

9.5.1 The nature of the changes to the ship security plan or the security equipment that have been specifically approved by the Administration, pursuant to section 9.5, shall be documented in a manner that clearly indicates such approval. This approval shall be available on board and shall be presented together with the International Ship Security Certificate (or the Interim International Ship Security Certificate). If these changes are temporary, once the original approved measures or equipment are reinstated, this documentation no longer needs to be retained by the ship.

9.6 The plan may be kept in an electronic format. In such a case, it shall be protected by procedures aimed at preventing its unauthorised deletion, destruction or amendment.

9.7 The plan shall be protected from unauthorized access or disclosure.

9.9 Ship security plans are not subject to inspection by officers duly authorised by a Contracting Government to carry out control and compliance measures in accordance with regulation XI-2/9, save in circumstances specified in section 9.9.1.

9.9.1 If the officers duly authorised by a Contracting Government have clear grounds to believe that the ship is not in compliance with the requirements of chapter XI-2 or part A of this Code, and the only means to verify or rectify the non-compliance is to review the relevant requirements of the ship security plan, limited access to the specific sections of the plan relating to the non-compliance is exceptionally allowed, but only with the consent of the Contracting Government of, or the master of, the ship concerned. Nevertheless, the provisions in the plan relating to section 9.4 subsections .2, .4, .5, .7, .15, .17 and .18 of this part of the Code are considered as confidential information, and cannot be subject to inspection unless otherwise agreed by the Contracting Governments concerned.

10 Records

10.1 Records of the following activities addressed in the ship security plan shall be kept on board for at least the minimum

period specified by the Administration, bearing in mind the provisions of regulation XI-2/9.2.3:

.1 Training, drills and exercises;

.2 Security threats and security incidents;

.3 Breaches of security;

.4 Changes in security level;

.5 Communications relating to the direct security of the ship such as specific threats to the ship or to port facilities the ship is, or has been;

.6 Internal audits and reviews of security activities;

.7 Periodic review of the ship security assessment;

.8 Periodic review of the ship security plan;

.9 Implementation of any amendments to the plan; and

.10 Maintenance, calibration and testing of security equipment, if any including testing of the ship security alert system.

10.2 The records shall be kept in the working language or languages of the ship. If the language or languages used are not English, French or Spanish, a translation into one of these languages shall be included.

10.3 The records may be kept in an electronic format. In such a case, they shall be protected by procedures aimed at preventing their unauthorised deletion, destruction or amendment.

10.4 The records shall be protected from unauthorized access or disclosure.

11 Company Security Officer

11.1 The Company shall designate a company security officer. A person designated as the company security officer may act as the company security officer for one or more ships, depending on the number or types of ships the Company operates provided it is clearly identified for which ships this person is responsible. A Company may, depending on the number or types of ships they operate designate several persons as company security officers provided it is clearly identified for which ships each person is responsible.

11.2 In addition to those specified elsewhere in this part of the Code, the duties and responsibilities of the company security officer shall include, but are not limited to:

.1 Advising the level of threats likely to be encountered by the ship, using appropriate security assessments and other relevant information;

.2 Ensuring that ship security assessments are carried out;

.3 Ensuring the development, the submission for approval, and thereafter the implementation and maintenance of the ship security plan;

.4 Ensuring that the ship security plan is modified, as appropriate, to correct deficiencies and satisfy the security requirements of the individual ship;

.5 Arranging for internal audits and reviews of security activities;

.6 Arranging for the initial and subsequent verifications of the ship by the Administration or the recognised security organisation;

.7 Ensuring that deficiencies and non-conformities identified during internal audits, periodic reviews, security inspections and verifications of compliance are promptly addressed and dealt with;

.8 Enhancing security awareness and vigilance;

.9 Ensuring adequate training for personnel responsible for the security of the ship;

.10 Ensuring effective communication and co-operation between the ship security officer and the relevant port facility security officers;

.11 Ensuring consistency between security requirements and safety requirement;

.12 Ensuring that, if sister-ship or fleet security plans are used, the plan for each ship reflects the ship-specific information accurately; and

.13 Ensuring that any alternative or equivalent arrangements approved for a particular ship or group of ships are implemented and maintained.

12 Ship Security Officer

12.1 A ship security officer shall be designated on each ship.

12.2 In addition to those specified elsewhere in this part of the Code, the duties and responsibilities of the ship security officer shall include, but are not limited to:

.1 Undertaking regular security inspections of the ship to ensure that appropriate security measures are maintained;

.2 Maintaining and supervising the implementation of the ship security plan, including any amendments to the plan;

.3 Co-ordinating the security aspects of the handling of cargo and ship's stores with other shipboard personnel and with the relevant port facility security officers;

.4 Proposing modifications to the ship security plan;

.5 Reporting to the Company Security Officer any deficiencies and non-conformities identified during internal audits, periodic reviews, security inspections and verifications of compliance and implementing any corrective actions;

.6 Enhancing security awareness and vigilance on board;

.7 Ensuring that adequate training has been provided to shipboard personnel, as appropriate;

.8 Reporting all security incidents;

.9 Co-ordinating implementation of the ship security plan with the company security officer and the relevant port facility security officer; and

.10 Ensuring that security equipment is properly operated, tested, calibrated and maintained, if any.

13 Training, Drills and Exercises on Ship Security

13.1 The company security officer and appropriate shore-based personnel shall have knowledge and have received training, taking into account the guidance given in part B of this Code.

13.2 The ship security officer shall have knowledge and have received training, taking into account the guidance given in part B of this Code.

13.3 Shipboard personnel having specific security duties and responsibilities shall understand their responsibilities for ship security as described in the ship security plan and shall have sufficient knowledge and ability to perform their assigned duties, taking into account the guidance given in Part B of this Code.

13.4 To ensure the effective implementation of the ship security plan, drills shall be carried out at appropriate intervals taking into account the ship type, ship personnel changes, port facilities to be visited and other relevant circumstances, taking into account guidance given in part B of this Code.

13.5 The company security officer shall ensure the effective coordination and implementation of ship security plans by participating in exercises at appropriate intervals, taking into account the guidance given in part B of this Code.

14 Port Facility Security

14.1 A port facility is required to act upon the security levels set by the Contracting Government within whose territory it is located. Security measures and procedures shall be applied at the port facility in such a manner as to cause a minimum of interference with, or delay to, passengers, ship, ship's personnel and visitors, goods and services.

14.2 At security level 1, the following activities shall be carried out through appropriate measures in all port facilities, taking into account the guidance given in part B of this Code, in order to identify and take preventive measures against security incidents:

.1 Ensuring the performance of all port facility security duties;

.2 Controlling access to the port facility;

.3 Monitoring of the port facility, including anchoring and berthing area(s);

.4 Monitoring restricted areas to ensure that only authorized persons have access;

.5 Supervising the handling of cargo;

.6 Supervising the handling of ship's stores; and

.7 Ensuring that security communication is readily available.

14.3 At security level 2, the additional protective measures, specified in the port facility security plan, shall be implemented for each activity detailed in section 14.2, taking into account the guidance given in part B of this Code.

14.4 At security level 3, further specific protective measures, specified in the port facility security plan, shall be implemented for each activity detailed in section 14.2, taking into account the guidance given in part B of this Code.

14.4.1 In addition, at security level 3, port facilities are required to respond to and implement any security instructions given by the Contracting Government within whose territory the port facility is located.

14.5 When a port facility security officer is advised that a ship encounters difficulties in complying with the requirements of chapter XI-2 or this part or in implementing the appropriate measures and procedures as detailed in the ship security plan, and in the case of security level 3 following any security instructions given by the Contracting Government within whose territory the port facility is located, the port facility security

officer and ship security officer shall liase and co-ordinate appropriate actions.

14.6  When a port facility security officer is advised that a ship is at a security level, which is higher than that of the port facility, shall report the matter to the competent authority and shall liase with the ship security officer and co-ordinate appropriate actions, if necessary.

15 Port Facility Security Assessment

15.1 The port facility security assessment is an essential and integral part of the process of developing and updating the port facility security plan.

15.2  The port facility security assessment shall be carried out by the Contracting Government within whose territory the port facility is located. A Contracting Government may authorise a recognised security organisation to carry out the port facility security assessment of a specific port facility located within its territory.

15.2.1 When the port facility security assessment has been carried out by a recognised security organisation, the security assessment shall be reviewed and approved for compliance with this section by the Contracting Government within whose territory the port facility is located.

15.3 The persons carrying out the assessment shall have appropriate skills to evaluate the security of the port facility in accordance with this section, taking into account the guidance given in part B of this Code.

15.4 The port facility security assessments shall periodically be reviewed and updated, taking account of changing threats and/or minor changes in the port facility and shall always be reviewed and updated when major changes to the port facility take place.

15.5 The port facility security assessment shall include, at least, the following elements:

.1 Identification and evaluation of important assets and infrastructure it is important to protect;

.2 Identification of possible threats to the assets and infrastructure and the likelihood of their occurrence, in order to establish and prioritize security measures;

.3 Identification, selection and prioritization of counter measures and procedural changes and their level of effectiveness in reducing vulnerability; and

.4 Identification of weaknesses, including human factors in the infrastructure, policies and procedures.

15.6 The Contracting Government may allow a port facility security assessment to cover more than one port facility if the operator, location, operation, equipment, and design of these port facilities are similar. Any Contracting Government, which allows such an arrangement shall communicate to the Organization particulars thereof.

15.7 Upon completion of the port facility security assessment, a report shall be prepared, consisting of a summary of how the assessment was conducted, a description of each vulnerability found during the assessment and a description of counter measures that could be used to address each vulnerability. The report shall be protected from unauthorized access or disclosure.

16 Port Facility Security Plan

16.1 A port facility security plan shall be developed and maintained, on the basis of a port facility security assessment, for each port facility, adequate for the ship/port interface. The plan shall make provisions for the three security levels, as defined in this part of the Code.

16.1.1 Subject to the provisions of section 16.2, a recognized security organization may prepare the port facility security plan of a specific port facility.

16.2 The port facility security plan shall be approved by the Contracting Government in whose territory the port facility is located.

16.3 Such a plan shall be developed taking into account the guidance given in part B of this Code and shall be in the working language of the port facility. The plan shall address, at least, the following:

.1 Measures designed to prevent weapons or any other dangerous substances and devices intended for use against people, ships or ports and the carriage of which is not authorized, from being introduced into the port facility or on board a ship;

.2 Measures designed to prevent unauthorized access to the port facility, to ships moored at the facility, and to restricted areas of the facility;

.3 Procedures for responding to security threats or breaches of security, including provisions for maintaining critical operations of the port facility or ship/port interface;

.4 Procedures for responding to any security instructions the Contracting Government, in whose territory the port facility is located, may give at security level 3;

.5 Procedures for evacuation in case of security threats or breaches of security;

.6 Duties of port facility personnel assigned security responsibilities and of other facility personnel on security aspects;

.7 Procedures for interfacing with ship security activities;

.8 Procedures for the periodic review of the plan and updating;

.9 Procedures for reporting security incidents;

.10 Identification of the port facility security officer including 24-hour contact details;

.11 Measures to ensure the security of the information contained in the plan;

.12 Measures designed to ensure effective security of cargo and the cargo handling equipment at the port facility;

.13 Procedures for auditing the port facility security plan;

.14 Procedures for responding in case the ship security alert system of a ship at the port facility has been activated; and

.15 Procedures for facilitating shore leave for ship's personnel or personnel changes, as well as access of visitors to the ship including representatives of seafarers' welfare and labour organizations.

16.3.1 Personnel conducting internal audits of the security activities specified in the plan or evaluating its implementation shall be independent of the activities being audited unless this is impracticable due to the size and the nature of the port facility.

16.4 The port facility security plan may be combined with, or be part of, the port security plan or any other port emergency plan or plans.

16.5 The Contracting Government in whose territory the port facility is located shall determine which changes to the port facility security plan shall not be implemented unless the relevant amendments to the plan are approved by them.

16.6 The plan may be kept in an electronic format. In such a case, it shall be protected by procedures aimed at preventing its unauthorised deletion, destruction or amendment.

16.7 The plan shall be protected from unauthorized access or disclosure.

16.8 Contracting Governments may allow a port facility security plan to cover more than one port facility if the operator, location, operation, equipment, and design of these port facilities are similar. Any Contracting Government, which allows such an alternative arrangement, shall communicate to the Organization particulars thereof.

17 Port Facility Security Officer

17.1 A port facility security officer shall be designated for each port facility. A person may be designated as the port facility security officer for one or more port facilities.

17.2 In addition to those specified elsewhere in this part of the Code, the duties and responsibilities of the port facility security officer shall include, but are not limited to:

.1 Conducting an initial comprehensive security survey of the port facility taking into account the relevant port facility security assessment;

.2 Ensuring the development and maintenance of the port facility security plan;

.3 Implementing and exercising the port facility security plan;

.4 Undertaking regular security inspections of the port facility to ensure the continuation of appropriate security measures;

.5 Recommending and incorporating, as appropriate, modifications to the port facility security plan in order to correct deficiencies and to update the plan to take into account of relevant changes to the port facility;

.6 Enhancing security awareness and vigilance of the port facility personnel;

.7 Ensuring adequate training has been provided to personnel responsible for the security of the port facility;

.8 Reporting to the relevant authorities and maintaining records of occurrences which threaten the security of the port facility;

.9 Co-ordinating implementation of the port facility security plan with the appropriate Company and ship security officer(s);

.10 Co-ordinating with security services, as appropriate;

.11 Ensuring that standards for personnel responsible for security of the port facility are

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.