[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A REVIEW OF FEDERAL
MARITIME DOMAIN AWARENESS PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
(112-92)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 10, 2012
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
74-969 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey Columbia
GARY G. MILLER, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SAM GRAVES, Missouri BOB FILNER, California
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
BILLY LONG, Missouri HEATH SHULER, North Carolina
BOB GIBBS, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania LAURA RICHARDSON, California
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida
JEFF DENHAM, California
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
Tennessee
------ 7
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska RICK LARSEN, Washington
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland CORRINE BROWN, Florida
FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana, NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
Vice Chair (Ex Officio)
JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ iv
TESTIMONY
Vice Admiral Peter Neffenger, Deputy Commandant for Operations,
United States Coast Guard...................................... 4
PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY WITNESS
Vice Admiral Peter V. Neffenger.................................. 19
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
United States Coast Guard, inserts for the record:
Long Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT)
International Data Exchange (IDE) Disaster Recovery
(DR) site.............................................. 10
Status of December 16, 2008, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking............................................. 11
Status of research of low-cost, nonintrusive
identification system for passenger vessels............ 12
Information about notice of arrival and notice of
departure.............................................. 16
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4969.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4969.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4969.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4969.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4969.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4969.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4969.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4969.008
A REVIEW OF FEDERAL MARITIME
DOMAIN AWARENESS PROGRAMS
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 10, 2012
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:59 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank LoBiondo
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. LoBiondo. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to
order.
The subcommittee is meeting this morning to review the
status of the Coast Guard Maritime Domain Awareness programs.
The Coast Guard operates a broad array of systems and
sensors to gather data to enhance the Service's awareness of
activities in the maritime domain. At a time when Coast Guard
assets and personnel are stretched very thin, Maritime Domain
Awareness programs can act as a critical force multiplier, but
that can only happen if the programs are properly implemented
and information is integrated and distributed for action at all
levels of the Coast Guard. Unfortunately, that does not seem to
be the case.
I remain skeptical as to whether the Coast Guard has ever
looked at all these systems in totality to determine whether
they are providing the data in an efficient manner. Each system
was designed for a specific mission goal and developed
independently of each other. As a result, many systems provide
the Coast Guard duplicative information.
For instance, most large vessels are required to carry
Automatic Identification System transponders in addition to a
Long Range Identification and Tracking System to track their
movements. The Coast Guard proposes that fishing vessels carry
AIS transponders in addition to vessel monitoring system units
they already are required to carry and operate.
Finally, the Department of Homeland Security's plan for
small vessel security proposes to require boat owners to buy
new technologies to track their vessels. Meanwhile, the
Department proposes to develop radar systems to do the same
thing.
Each of these requirements and proposed mandates are and
will be very expensive and, in some cases, prohibitive for
vessel owners. Yet it is unclear how they will benefit safety
and security in our ports and waterways if the Coast Guard
lacks the ability to properly integrate and analyze the data.
I am concerned that after 10 years and billions of dollars
the Coast Guard still lacks the infrastructure to sufficiently
tie these different systems into one common operating picture.
Given the scant resources the Coast Guard plans to devote to
these programs over the next 5 years, I question whether the
Service remains committed to fully integrating these programs.
For example, the Coast Guard appears to be backing away
from its stated goal of providing interoperability between all
Coast Guard assets and shore-based facilities. The GAO recently
found that the Service only intends to install an advanced
communications system on less than half of its recapitalized
assets.
Maritime Domain Awareness is a critical tool to maximize
the Coast Guard's capabilities to safeguard American interests
in U.S. waters and on the high seas. However, the duplicative
mandates and the lack of progress in delivering a common
operational picture have been a major source of frustration.
Rather than continuing to devote time and money on programs
that do not function as intended, it may be time to reevaluate
the MDA strategy.
I am anxious to hear from the Admiral on what he thinks the
future holds for MDA programs and how we can best move forward
to ensure taxpayers getting a good return on the very
significant investments they have made on the Coast Guard's MDA
programs.
I want to thank Admiral Neffenger for appearing today and
congratulate him on his recent promotion, and I look forward to
hearing his testimony.
With that being said, I would now like to yield to Mr.
Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
convening this morning's hearing to evaluate and assess the
Coast Guard's important Maritime Domain Awareness activities.
Maritime Domain Awareness, or MDA, is defined by the Coast
Guard as our understanding of anything in the global maritime
environment that can impact the security, economy, or
environment of the United States. The maritime domain remains
critical to the Nation's security and economy, especially the
maritime transportation system.
The maritime transportation system has over 300,000 square
miles of waterways, 95,000 miles of shoreline, 10,000 miles of
navigable waterways, and 361 ports of call. That includes 8 of
the world's 50 highest volume ports.
Aside from infrastructure, over 60 million Americans are
employed within 100 miles of our coasts and contribute over $4
billion annually to the Nation's economy. These jobs rely on
the security that comes with Maritime Domain Awareness, and I
am pleased that several positive steps have been taken since
2002 to alert the Coast Guard and other Federal agencies of
potential threats arising from beyond our shores.
Congress has expanded significantly the amount of data that
commercial vessels must submit to the Coast Guard regarding
their cargoes, registries, crews, and routes. For example, new
international vessel tracking programs such as the Automatic
Identification System and Long Range Identification and
Tracking System have been implemented. We have also enhanced
our situational awareness by requiring most commercial vessels
to report to the Coast Guard their arrival times at U.S. ports
at least 96 hours in advance. Additionally, integrated
operation centers have been established to better coordinate
and facilitate information sharing between the Coast Guard and
other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.
The end result is that more assets and resources are now
devoted to MDA. These resources are more sophisticated, better
coordinated, and more capable of providing actionable
intelligence concerning the maritime domain.
The question is whether these actions have made our shores
more secure from potential maritime threats. Are our
communities, industries, and infrastructure safer?
The assumptions underlying our assessment of maritime
threats and our strategies to address these risks have received
their share of criticism over the years. The Government
Accountability Office, the Department of Homeland Security
Inspector General, and the RAND Corporation have all raised
legitimate concerns, especially regarding the threat
characterization of small vessels; and unlike after September
11, 2001, when resources were freely available to address
deficiencies in Homeland Security, we operate now in a much
more difficult budget environment. Present fiscal constraints
leave us little choice but to examine carefully the assets and
resources we devote to MDA, especially to the Coast Guard,
whose budget is already stretched thin.
I have said this before, and I will keep saying it. We
cannot expect the Coast Guard to do more with less. The sad
reality is that the Coast Guard is doing less with less, and
MDA is no exception. The Coast Guard needs to maximize any
investment in new technologies, new programs, and human
resources to fulfill Coast Guard missions and whenever possible
leverage those capabilities to support MDA. But we also need to
ensure that those MDA programs and activities within the Coast
Guard that remain funded are absolutely essential and that we
eliminate MDA activities that are redundant or unnecessary or
are an unnecessary drain on Coast Guard resources.
Admiral Neffenger confronts this dilemma on a daily basis
as the Coast Guard's Deputy Commandant for Operations. Admiral,
I commend you for your efforts in balancing these competing
demands within the Coast Guard. I look forward to hearing from
you this morning about how we might best maintain the quality
of Maritime Domain Awareness provided by the Coast Guard in an
era of constrained Federal budgets.
In closing, no longer can we simply ask how much MDA can we
afford. Rather, we need to ask ourselves how much MDA can we
afford not to have. To a large extent, the shape and
effectiveness of our future maritime security will ride on how
we answer that question.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Larsen.
Today, our witness is Coast Guard Vice Admiral Peter
Neffenger, Deputy Commandant for Operations.
Admiral, you are recognized for your statement.
TESTIMONY OF VICE ADMIRAL PETER V. NEFFENGER, DEPUTY COMMANDANT
FOR OPERATIONS, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
Admiral Neffenger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen,
distinguished members of the subcommittee, and thank you for
the opportunity to testify today and for your continued
advocacy, interest, and oversight of the Coast Guard's Maritime
Domain Awareness efforts.
Having this past month assumed the role of Coast Guard
Deputy Commandant for Operations, I am pleased to update you on
the Coast Guard's approach to Maritime Domain Awareness and the
improvements we have made toward achieving MDA goals.
As the Deputy Commandant for Operations, my primary
responsibility is to set the strategic direction for the Coast
Guard's mission to ensure the safety, security, and stewardship
of the Nation's waters. This includes the very important matter
of Maritime Domain Awareness. I have a brief opening statement
and would like to submit my written testimony for the record.
During my previous tours as an operational field commander,
I have observed our Nation's MDA capabilities improve over
time. I was Commander and Captain of the Port of Sector Los
Angeles-Long Beach from 2003 to 2006, Commander of the 9th
Coast Guard District in the Great Lakes and Saint Lawrence
Seaway Region from 2008 to 2010, and then most recently the
Deputy National Incident Commander for the BP Deepwater Horizon
oil spill response.
In each of these roles, I thought about what it meant to
have effective Maritime Domain Awareness on a daily basis and
how important it is in order to meet our mission. Whether
looking for an oil sheen, a drug trafficker, or a person in
distress, you need effective awareness to deliver the right
capabilities to the right places at the right times with the
right combinations of people and partners. This requires a
combination of technology, sound regulatory regimes, and solid
partnerships.
So, as you said, Mr. Chairman, we must not only understand
the various systems and capabilities but also how they operate
together as a whole; and our understanding of this has evolved
over time. MDA is much more than technology, although this is
an important enabler. In addition to having a picture of
maritime activity, I need to understand that picture, know who
the various stakeholders are at public and private levels, and
understand how the system operates together; and this is a top
priority for me as I enter this assignment.
We must also share a common definition of MDA. The National
Strategy for Maritime Security spells it out as follows: The
effective understanding of anything associated with the
maritime domain that could impact the safety, security,
economy, or environment of the United States.
That is a tall order. But as lead Federal agency for
maritime safety, security, and stewardship, the Coast Guard has
extensive authorities, dual status as a military and law
enforcement agency, and is a member of the intelligence
community. These traits suit us uniquely to take a national
leadership role in developing Maritime Domain Awareness.
There are also many technical and regulatory pieces
involved in MDA, many of which you have mentioned, including
common operational picture, Automatic Identification System,
the Long Range Identification and Tracking System, the
Nationwide Automatic Identification System, interagency
operation centers, and the various regulatory components such
as advance notices of arrival, among others. And so if I could
just highlight a few of these.
The current common operational picture integrates the Coast
Guard with Department of Defense and intelligence community
partners through DOD's Global Command and Control System, also
known as GCCS. While this is an effective system, access is
necessarily limited to Federal stakeholders with appropriate
clearances. As such, strategically, I intend to continue moving
the Coast Guard towards a Web-based delivery of information to
partners at all levels in our seaports.
The Automatic Identification System enables maritime
authorities to identify and locate large commercial vessels.
Our current proposed AIS and notice of arrival regulation will
improve MDA by covering smaller commercial vessels and
requiring notices of departure from U.S. ports.
The global Long Range Identification and Tracking System
became operational in 2008, and today more than 100 flagged
States participate. The Coast Guard established the national
data center in the United States to serve as the central
collection point for ship reports received from U.S.-flagged
vessels. We have transferred responsibility for the
International Data Exchange to the European Maritime Safety
Agency but continue to maintain backup capability for this
service in the United States.
Overall, the LRIT program is functioning well and provides
useful information on vessel arrivals and operations offshore,
and it remains an essential component of our MDA efforts.
Domestically, we have interim Nationwide Automatic
Identification System capability in 58 major ports and coastal
areas. This will migrate to permanent capability over the next
several years and will be collocated with Rescue 21 equipment
to leverage existing investments.
NAIS complements the Long Range Identification and
Tracking. Information from each system as well as from our
advanced notices of arrival and other national technical means
enhance our MDA domestically and overseas, and in fact
information from these systems helped us to map locations of
commercial vessels and to target relief efforts during the 2010
earthquake response in Haiti.
At the Department level, interagency operations centers
provide partners at high-priority ports with a framework to
plan, coordinate, and execute maritime operations in real time.
WatchKeeper is a collaborative Web-based information system
designed to provide shared awareness of port conditions, port
assets, and coordination of operational activities among port
partners. It allows coordination across operational networks
without the physical collocation of watchstanders, and at
present is up and running at 18 of our 35 sectors, with the
remainder scheduled for installation by the end of fiscal year
2014.
Perhaps most important, underpinning our technical and
regulatory regimes are critical partnerships. At the sector
level, area maritime security committees bring together
partners from Federal, State, local, and private entities to
improve communication and information sharing; and these
partnerships have strengthened as they have matured and will
remain a top priority in our seaports. And of course we have
longstanding international partnerships as well.
Finally, to speak to overarching governance, I serve as
senior chairperson of the Coast Guard's executive team charged
with improving MDA and information sharing. I will convene the
team for the first time under my direction this month and
intend to provide robust oversight of our ongoing MDA efforts.
In closing, I am grateful for your advocacy, support, and
interest in the Coast Guard and our priorities with MDA. Thank
you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to
your questions.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Admiral.
The Coast Guard collects data on a vessel's identification,
position, crew, voyage history, and other matters through
several systems that are supposed to fuse together into a user-
defined common operational picture, as we understand it. Does
the Coast Guard have the infrastructure and the capabilities to
bring all of these different MDA systems together to produce a
comprehensive common operational picture?
Admiral Neffenger. With respect to the common operational
picture, I think I mentioned that we currently have a system
that we are using for the DOD that provides us with a fairly
comprehensive picture of what is operating in the oceans, and
we gather that picture through both national technical means as
well as through things like Long Range Identification and
Tracking.
As you know, the goal is to have a user-defined picture in
every seaport--every major seaport of this country, and to some
extent we do have that. It does not fuse and fully integrate
all information at this point. WatchKeeper will ultimately--we
hope to ultimately migrate WatchKeeper, to evolve WatchKeeper
to the point where you can do that.
Some of the challenges associated with that are the vast
volume of information. So what we have discovered over time--
and I can speak from my own experience on this--is that if you
simply just load a picture with a bunch of information without
an ability to sort and somehow delineate or discriminate within
that, it becomes challenging for the WatchKeepers, for the
watchstanders to understand what they are looking at and
certainly challenging for local operational commanders.
So what we tried to do is integrate the most critical
information initially into our various common operational
pictures that we are pushing out to our ports through our
current DOD-sponsored COP as well as WatchKeeper and then
evaluating how to best integrate additional information,
whether that be sensor information from camera systems in
ports, photographs of vessels, and the like.
So I suppose the short answer to your question, sir, would
be that I don't think our common operational picture is as
fully integrated as I would like to see it in the future. I
think it is much better than it has ever been, and it is
providing our operational commanders with a much more complete
picture of what is happening in their individual port
environments at geographic regions than they had before. The
challenge is going to be in integrating the various individual
types of sensors and feeds that each port has and in
determining, you know, what best to put in there and also to
bring into the picture more of our local port partners.
Mr. LoBiondo. So it is safe to assume this will be a
priority of yours?
Admiral Neffenger. Absolutely. Yes, sir. In fact, it is one
of the questions that I have already asked of my staff.
Mr. LoBiondo. And could we expect--we would like to hear
back from you, recognizing you are relatively new in putting
this together, of what are your kind of views. I want to give
you a little bit of time, but we would like to come back and
without waiting for another hearing or waiting 6 months or a
year, because I think this is pretty important information.
Admiral Neffenger. Yes, sir, I would be happy to come back
and brief the committee at anytime.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK. The Coast Guard has spent over 10 years
and almost $700 million to build the C4ISR system for
deployment on its recapitalized vessels and aircraft. How this
highly touted program is supposed to have tremendous
capabilities and the goal of the system was to deliver a C4ISR-
equipped asset which can collect and process MDA information
from a variety of inputs and share that data with other Coast
Guard assets and shore-based facilities in a common operating
picture, which I think is just outstanding for what we are
looking to do.
But the GAO recently found that the Coast Guard apparently
no longer plans to deploy the system on all recapitalized
assets and is backing away from asset-to-asset data sharing. So
the question is, to you, Admiral, is a fully interoperable
C4ISR system installed on each Coast Guard asset still a goal
for the Service? And, if not, why not?
Admiral Neffenger. Yes, sir, that is still a goal for the
Service. Although, again, what we have learned over time is
that one of the challenges associated with the program I think
as it was originally envisioned is the rate at which technology
refreshes and the rate at which certain technical systems
become obsolete. Those are expensive systems, as you know, and
you have already mentioned the amount of money that we have put
into it.
Many of those acquisition baselines were developed in more
favorable fiscal environments, so what we had to do, given what
we believe will be the fiscal constraints into the future, is
look at this again, determine whether we need to adjust our
strategy going forward. But the goal is still to have complete
interoperability with the ability to push the picture.
We are some measure along that road already. I would hate
to put a percentage on it, but we do have a significant amount
of capability to move information amongst our larger assets,
aircraft, and cutter fleet. But we are not where we had
originally envisioned the system being at this point, although
it is still a goal of mine to get us there, sir.
Mr. LoBiondo. Last question for now. In testimony before
this subcommittee in 2009, the Coast Guard stated it was
working with a commercial satellite provider to test the
feasibility of pushing AIS coverage out to a range of 2,000
nautical miles. The Coast Guard informed the subcommittee it
hoped to have this system operational by 2010. Can you give us
the status of the initiative?
Admiral Neffenger. Yes, sir. We actually did a proof of
concept with a commercial satellite provider in 2010 to look at
whether or not the capability could work. We found that it did
work. But in the course of doing that we also discovered that
we have much more capability through national technical means
as well as through current LRIT information that we are getting
that we don't think it is--we no longer have a program for
putting our own satellite up. We think that there are less
expensive ways to do it, whether that be through ultimately
leasing some commercial space on commercial satellites. But the
truth is that we are currently getting a significant amount of
information, much more than we expected to get, through these
other means. So we don't have a program right now to pursue our
own Coast Guard satellite system, sir.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral, back to the C4ISR, I understand that with your
answer you say you are still committed to making investments,
but from what I understand of the progress of the C4ISR
investments, there are eight separate segments. You are on
segment two in the Coast Guard. That leaves six left. You are
anticipating about $40 million a year over the next 5 years for
C4ISR investment. Some of that is going to get chewed up by the
technology churn that you noted, leaving something less than
$20 million to meet a goal of $681 million or to meet a goal to
implement six more segments.
I don't see how you do that. I don't see how that happens
given the budget constraints, given the challenges with
turnover and technology. And so is it realistic to expect the
Coast Guard will upgrade all of its C4ISR capabilities for the
full eight segments, given this budget environment?
Admiral Neffenger. As you said, sir, I think the budget
environment makes it challenging. Those programs, as you know,
as I said, were developed during a time of greater fiscal
certainty or what we expected to be greater fiscal certainty. I
don't know what the current plan would allow, given where we
may be with the budget over the next few years.
What I can promise you, however, is that that is a question
that I have to ask and get detailed answers to as I move into
this role, and I intend to explore that in more detail. And I
would be happy to come back to you as I learn more about that
myself and figure out where we are going with that, with our
technology refresh, sir.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, please do that. Please do that.
On the question of coordination and dissemination of vessel
tracking data, as much as I want to commend the IMO and the
Coast Guard for initiating multiple vessel tracking programs,
some critics have expressed concern about some of the longer
range tracking data being gathered as duplicative or redundant
and therefore may be adding little value for the extra costs.
First, do you agree with that criticism? Second, what is
the distinction between the AIS and the LRIT? And, third, what
has the Coast Guard done to address the criticism?
So do you agree with the criticism about redundancy? How
would you distinguish between AIS and LRIT data? And what has
the Coast Guard done to address the criticism, sir?
Admiral Neffenger. Well, I mean, I understand concerns
about redundancy. There is a certain amount of redundancy that
is nice to have in a system, especially when you are looking
for awareness. If you go back to the definition that says you
want effective awareness of everything that is happening,
sometimes you want to make sure you can verify that awareness
through multiple sources. So I think a certain amount of
redundancy actually improves the health of the system and makes
the system more reliable, more dependable, and more
sustainable.
With respect to the differences between AIS and Long Range
Identification and Tracking, AIS is a VHF-based system, so it
is primarily line of sight, although it can be bounced beyond
line of sight through satellite connection. Long Range
Identification and Tracking is a satellite-based system. It
typically plays off of or reads off of something called the
global marine distress and signaling system transceivers that
are on board large commercial vessels, applies only to SOLAS-
based vessels, as opposed to AIS, which applies to more than
just our SOLAS-based vessels and is carried on other vessels,
and in fact our rulemaking would extend it to others. So the
difference is in the way in which they transmit information and
then the types of vessels that would be required to carry it.
But with respect to redundancy, I would argue that the
relative cost, particularly for large commercial vessels, is
minimal to add one or the other systems to the vessel. They are
both required for different reasons. AIS was originally
envisioned as a collision avoidance system. So what we are
doing is we are leveraging a system that was originally
designed to tell each other where you were in a more robust way
and finding out that you can actually gain good position
information out of it.
And then a certain amount of redundancy I like as an
operational commander to say--to know if, for example, without
any malintent somebody's AIS system isn't transmitting or
somebody's LRIT isn't transmitting, I have got another means of
identifying that vessel, and it just becomes a backup system.
Mr. Larsen. What steps has the Coast Guard taken to reduce
the clutter in tracking data in order to produce actionable
intelligence?
Part of the problem that we always have is we are
collecting all this data, but there is no effective way to sift
through it to get something to act on. So what steps has the
Coast Guard taken to reduce that clutter and to sift through
the data so that you have something that you can act on in a
timely manner?
Admiral Neffenger. You have hit on a key to Maritime Domain
Awareness effectiveness. As I said before, just a picture of
dots on a screen doesn't tell you much. But what we have
learned over the past 10 years or so in particular that we have
been collecting data is you learn a lot about who is operating
in the system. So some of the way you sift through that data is
by just eliminating known trusted operators. So you can just
erase them from the screen or just layer them out of the
screen.
The goal is ultimately to be able to generate a picture for
yourself, whether that be a common operational picture or an
understanding picture that says, all right, I know who the
trusted operators are, I know how the system normally works, I
know what I expect to normally see in there. Remove all of that
and show me what is left. And now I will pay attention to what
is left.
That is sort of in a high-level answer as how we do that.
There is some interesting technical ways in which that is done,
and we would be happy to show you that in some detail at some
time if you would be interested.
Mr. Larsen. Yeah, that would be interesting.
With regards to the management of the LRIT data, it is my
understanding the Coast Guard established the national data
center to serve as a central collection point for ship reports
received from U.S.-flagged vessels as required by the IMO LRIT
regulation. In addition, the Coast Guard established the
International Data Exchange to manage the global data. The
Coast Guard maintained the IDE on an interim basis and then
transferred that management to the European Maritime Safety
Agency.
That being the case, can you explain why the Coast Guard
continues to maintain an alternative IDE site for the
international community? How much does that cost? Is that
itself redundant and duplicative? And, given those questions,
why does the Coast Guard continue to maintain an alternative
site?
Admiral Neffenger. To your very last point, I think that we
will look at whether it makes sense to do that for the long
term.
I think the initial feeling was let's make sure that the
European Maritime Safety Agency manages the site effectively
and that it operates effectively for our purposes. So that was
part of it.
I don't know the cost off the top of my head. I will get
that for the record for you, sir, and find out what that has
cost.
[The information follows:]
Direct cost associated with the U.S. Coast Guard
operating and maintaining the Long Range Identification
and Tracking (LRIT) International Data Exchange (IDE)
Disaster Recovery (DR) site is $35,000 per year in
recurring annual support costs and software licenses.
The Coast Guard maintains the (alternative) LRIT IDE DR
site to ensure continuous uninterrupted operation of
the International LRIT System during any scheduled or
unscheduled outage of the permanent LRIT IDE operated
by the European Maritime Safety Agency. By doing this,
the U.S. meets the security, safety, environmental
protection, and search and rescue goals in accordance
with SOLAS Chapter V/19-1.
Admiral Neffenger. And then I need to look at the actual
agreement that we entered with the European Maritime Safety
Agency to see what it puts us--if anything, what kinds of
requirements it puts on us for maintaining that into the
future.
But I know the initial concern was to have capabilities
still there in the event the European Maritime Safety Agency
system failed for some reason. I can answer those other
questions as I dig more deeply into it, and I will get back to
you with those, sir.
Mr. Larsen. Please do so.
Finally, on the AIS rulemaking, the Coast Guard published a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on December 16, 2008, to expand
the carriage requirement to carry AIS transponders to certain
commercial vessels of less than 300 gross tons. It has been
over 3\1/2\ years since the Coast Guard published the NPRM. How
does the Coast Guard--sorry, when does the Coast Guard intend
to publish a final rule?
Admiral Neffenger. Well, the rule is in final clearance
now; and as soon as it clears, we will publish the rule, sir.
Mr. Larsen. When do you anticipate it will clear?
Admiral Neffenger. I don't know exactly when. I know that
it is in final clearance at this point, and we are just waiting
for that to come through, sir.
Mr. Larsen. And who is responsible for final clearance?
Admiral Neffenger. Well, it runs through the
administration. So it is through the clearance process in the
administration at this point.
Mr. Larsen. So somewhere in the bowels of the White House?
Admiral Neffenger. But I can get you a specific answer for
where that is.
[The information follows:]
This rulemaking project remains in final agency
clearance. Once cleared, it will be formally submitted
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA). Given the complexity of the rule and the
potential costs that would be imposed on the maritime
public, a timetable for the formal submission of the
rule to OIRA cannot be provided at this time.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Cravaack.
Mr. Cravaack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Admiral, for being here today, sir. Appreciate
you being here and thank you for all the great things that the
sailors and airmen of the Coast Guard do on a daily basis that
none of us know about. So thank you very much for that.
Sir, the Department of Homeland Security released a Small
Vessel Security Strategy in 2008 to address the risks
associated with potential use of small recreational vehicles to
stage an attack on the United States or U.S. interests.
Everybody is keenly aware of USS Cole and what Commander Kirk
Lippold had to go through.
In January of 2011 DHS released a Small Vessel Security
Strategy Implementation Plan. What is the Coast Guard doing to
monitor the potential risks emanating from small vessels in
U.S. ports?
Admiral Neffenger. Well, that fits squarely into that
question of Maritime Domain Awareness. So some of what we have
done are the things that we have been doing for sometime now,
which is every sector commander, port commander, every local
Coast Guard office is required to understand who is operating
in their ports. So it begins with that understanding: What does
normal look like in my port? What kind of marinas do I have?
Who operates out of those marinas? Who owns the marinas? Who
manages the marinas? And so forth.
We use our local small boat stations, our auxiliary. We
bring those people into our area maritime security committees.
So there is a governance piece associated with this. That is
where it starts. Obviously, not the final answer, because you
have still got potential bad actors out there.
The second piece is to continue to work with the States for
more robust oversight of boating registration and more robust
reporting of boating registration. We have got some ways to go
yet, although we have come a long way on that score.
And then, ultimately, it is how do you balance the
requirement to know where vessels are with the very real
pressures to maintain low costs for operators; and, of course,
there are some of the privacy concerns and others that people
have with respect to requiring registration and the like.
Mr. Cravaack. The Coast Guard has gone through an
implementation plan that calls for research for a low-cost,
nonintrusive identification system for passenger vessels; is
that correct?
Admiral Neffenger. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cravaack. OK. What is the current status of that
research, sir?
Admiral Neffenger. That--again, I haven't got an answer to
that question for you today, but I will get that for you, sir.
Mr. Cravaack. OK, I understand.
[The information follows:]
Current studies and testing include transponder-based
systems, particularly the Automated Identification
System (AIS) and Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
technologies, to enhance the information available to
the U.S. Coast Guard while performing law enforcement
operations. The research has provided an initial test
of the feasibility of integrating AIS, RFID, and radar
signals to improve maritime domain awareness.
Ongoing research on technical features of high-
frequency surface radar for vessel tracking has been
extended to focus on small vessels. This work leverages
existing deployed coastal radar systems by refining the
ways signals are processed, as well as combining the
information these signals yield with other data about
observed vessels, and making it available in useful and
appropriate ways to Department of Homeland Security
personnel for operational purposes.
As this research proceeds, it will be possible to
estimate the effectiveness of systems that incorporate
the capabilities of these technologies. The research
effort is sensitive to potential deployment costs; as a
result, it will include quantitative information about
cost-effectiveness and the overall contribution of
these technologies as awareness and defense elements to
the Department of Homeland Security's Small Vessel
Security Strategy.
Amplifying information is contained in the Coast
Guard's September 7, 2012, report to Congress titled:
``Small Boat Attack Mitigation Efforts.''
Mr. Cravaack. If the Government--if we are planning to have
a nonintrusive type of vessel identification system to track
vessels, what is the point, then, of having--you might not be
able to answer this question, but what is the point of then
having small vessel owners install an AIS system?
Admiral Neffenger. Well, again, going back to the idea that
not all redundant systems are necessarily bad, it depends on
how that redundancy plays into an overarching understanding of
the system and feeding you information.
My understanding is that we would not be requiring AIS on
absolutely everybody out there. You have still got some pretty
small operators and some small craft that wouldn't be required
to have that. And so a combination of a nonintrusive system,
which might be more passive, less ability to spoof the system,
if you will, or to take advantage of the system, combined with
one where you have trusted operators, people who say I am
putting this on board, I am operating it, it kind of gives you
that ability to do a little bit of a cross-check among
yourselves. So I think there is some value to thinking about
some systems that give you the same kinds of information but
from different sources.
Mr. Cravaack. Sir, from your position, what keeps you up at
night? What do you think is the biggest threat to our global
maritime situation?
Admiral Neffenger. Well, I think getting to that perfect
state of effective awareness of what is operating. I don't know
that we will ever get there, but, you know, that is a big ocean
out there, and there is a lot of people operating in it. And I
think that it is not so much that it keeps me awake at night,
but it really keeps me thinking at night as to how--you know,
what is the most effective way to understand what is happening
in a way that tells me more than just what is out there? I
mean, that is a piece of information. But what I really want to
know is what is it doing out there, who can I trust, who are
the people operating it, where are they going, and how are they
connected to the various parts of the world where people put
things on vessels and send them our direction?
Because ultimately what you are trying to do is find that
one or two, you know, real bad actors out of the, you know,
50,000 or 60,000 or so really good actors out there, and that
is a challenge. I used to think about that every day when I was
sitting in Los Angeles and Long Beach and I would see 13,000--
at the time it was 13,000 actual containers a day that were
coming in the port, and that kept me up at night trying to
think about, you know, how do you have any idea what is coming
in.
So I think the trick is you have got to know a lot about
the system. Going back to Chairman LoBiondo's earlier point,
you really have to understand how all the pieces come together
to paint a picture of what looks like normal in the
environment.
Mr. Cravaack. All right. Thank you again, Admiral, and I
will yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Master Chief Coble.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I am late. I
had two other hearings simultaneously going on.
Admiral, good to have you with us this morning.
Admiral, under current law, as you know, the Department of
Homeland Security is required to establish interagency
operation centers in all high-priority U.S. ports. However, at
this time I am told that less than 10 such centers exist
nationwide.
Let me put a three-part question to you, Admiral: Is this
still a priority for the Coast Guard, A; B, do you have a
strategy to establish joint operations centers in all Coast
Guard sectors; and, C, what level of resources would be
necessary to accomplish this?
Admiral Neffenger. Thank you, sir, and good morning.
With respect to IOC priority, it is still a priority for
us, but let me tell you about how my thinking has evolved with
respect to integrated operations centers. I think the concept
is absolutely valid. If you don't have people talking to one
another in a geographic region, people who have like
responsibilities or overlapping like responsibilities and who
have generally the same interests in the safety, security, or
stewardship concerns that you do, then you run the risk of, at
best, duplicating efforts or, at worst, working counter to one
another.
So that was what I think was some of the thinking driving
operations centers--integrated operations centers to begin
with.
Now, how my thinking has evolved over time is that I think
in some locations that means you have to be collocated
physically, and that is possible to do, particularly in those
very traditional port environments where everyone seems to be
in the same general geographic location. But I think that it is
possible to do that virtually in some locations and sometimes
more effectively virtually.
I think about my time up on the Great Lakes. It would be
very challenging there to do one or two integrated operations
centers that could manage that whole system. Because from the
perspective of the Great Lakes, that is a system that you care
about. You almost have to think of it as a port system, and you
want a bigger picture of how that goes. So, in that case, it is
tough to figure out where you actually put one that can manage
that system. So there is a virtual piece to that. So I think
that there is a combination of both physical collocation as
well as virtual collocation through software and looking at the
same picture.
So where are we with respect to that? I think I mentioned
before, fully integrating all of that information has been a
challenge. We are about halfway through our implementation of
the software piece of that integrated operations center. That
is called WatchKeeper. So 18 of our 35 sectors. We have about
10 locations where we have got physical collocation.
Again, with the challenges we are facing--and these are
not--this is not meant to be an excuse. It is simply a
statement of fact as I dig into this. Interagency agreements
are a little bit challenging. Sometimes it is hard to get
people as they are facing budget cuts to continue to put people
into those centers. They see that as a reduction of a
capability elsewhere. So I think it is a matter of moving
enough capability into those collocated centers to have it not
feel as if you are being asked to staff two different places at
one time.
So some of those agreements are more challenging, I think,
than were envisioned, and some of the longer term commitments
as people face budget crisis and start to look to cut back
certain staff overhead can become a bit of a challenge.
That said, I know that our port captains, our captains of
the port, our sector commanders, working through their area
maritime security committees, are doing some pretty significant
work with respect to maintaining the connections that they need
to maintain for sharing of information.
So I think the information sharing piece is coming along
well. It is not ultimately where I would like to see it. And I
think the question with respect to how many of those physical
collocation centers is still open in my mind, sir.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Admiral.
Admiral, you may not want to insert your oar into these
waters, but do you want to venture a guess as to the level of
resources that would be needed? And you may not be able to do
that.
Admiral Neffenger. Well, I think it is going to be
challenging right now to put a dollar figure on it. What we are
going to focus on right now is getting the software piece
right. Because no matter what we do with respect to actual
physical centers, you have got to have a backbone for sharing
information. So we are putting efforts into that WatchKeeper
software program, and then we will continue to work the centers
that are currently existing and look to see what we have to
identify for the future.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Admiral, for being with us.
Yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Neffenger. Thank you, sir.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Landry.
Mr. Landry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Vice Admiral, the Coast Guard has still not released a
final rulemaking on the Automatic Identification System; is
that correct?
Admiral Neffenger. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Mr. Landry. And, as you know, there are many unanswered
questions even if it is feasible for the domestic supply
industry to comply with the NOA regulations. Wouldn't it be
better for the Coast Guard resources--a better use of Coast
Guard resources and provide more certainty for the industry if
the Coast Guard put domestic compliance with NOA on the back
burner for now and focused on laying down the rules of the road
as it pertains to AIS and once the AIS is tested and the Coast
Guard finds itself needing more domain awareness, then
returning back to notice of arrival?
Admiral Neffenger. As I understand, sir, with respect to
notice of arrival, what we are looking at is adding notice of
departure requirements and then changing somewhat the
requirements for people who would have to provide notice of
arrival information in addition to the AIS carriage requirement
component of that notice.
Mr. Landry. A notice of departure. Could you explain?
Admiral Neffenger. It would be a notice that would be
required prior to departure from a port for a vessel so that
you have an awareness of both the entry of the vessel as well
as its intended departure.
Mr. Landry. Well, what happens to the supply vessels now in
my district that basically move around from--they leave port
and then go from one rig to another rig to another rig and then
back to that port again? The problem we are having is that they
don't--when they leave, they may be detoured to go to a
different rig. And then it is kind of like a UPS guy goes from
house to house to house, but sometimes they may bring him a
package sent to another house. You see what I am saying? I am
trying to understand how a notice of departure would help.
Admiral Neffenger. Yes, sir, I see exactly what you are
saying. I will be honest with you. I would have to look at the
specific rule as it applies to that. But my thinking is that it
would be both unrealistic for us and unwieldy for us to even
worry about those kinds of things. I mean, what we are really
looking at is, first of all, what is a normal operation out
there? So let me look--let me get to you with the answer
specifically with respect to OSVs, but I don't believe that it
would require them to report every single rig that they----
[The information follows:]
The Coast Guard has issued additional regulations for
notice of arrival (NOA) for Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS) activities in response to security measures as
required by the SAFE Port Act of 2006. This rulemaking
requires owners or operators of floating facilities,
mobile offshore drilling units, and vessels to submit
NOA information to the National Vessel Movement Center
prior to engaging in OCS activities. The amendments are
intended to enhance maritime security, safety, and
environmental protection by increasing maritime domain
awareness (MDA) on units and personnel engaging in OCS
activities. The Coast Guard published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in June 2009 and made some
adaptations to enhance clarity based on the comments
received. No adverse comments were received regarding
the applicability to U.S. vessels, and no significant
impact on energy production was or is anticipated. The
final rule cleared DHS and OMB, was signed by the
Commandant of the Coast Guard on December 22, 2010, and
published on January 13, 2011; effective date is
February 14 (76 Fed. Reg. 2254).
As noted, the Coast Guard received no adverse comments
pertaining to application of the rule to U.S. vessels
in the NPRM. However, upon publication and
implementation of the final rule, industry noted
significant concerns. In response, the Coast Guard has
initiated a redesign of the form used to collect the
data, effectively suspending enforcement, and convened
a working group under the partnership with the Offshore
Marine Service Association to specifically address the
design of an OCS-specific reporting form, as well as
alternatives to the electronic submission of an NOA.
The Coast Guard has made great strides towards creating
a process and reporting form that is both workable for
industry, while also providing the Coast Guard the
critical information it needs to maintain safety and
security. This form will include: creating an offline
option; third party vendor option; and an import
function so that vessels operating on the OCS have the
ability to copy, save, and email the required
information.
The Coast Guard drafted and interprets current
regulations (33 CFR Part 146) to require that OSVs give
due notice while transiting from OCS block to OCS block
area, but not within a single OCS block area (i.e.,
from rig-to-rig within a single OCS block area). This
requirement was intended to maximize maritime safety
and security, and to better protect mariners operating
on the OCS, by providing real-time visibility of what
and where vessels and personnel actually are or are
anticipated to be in any given area. The information
required to be submitted by this regulation will
greatly assist the Coast Guard in evaluating risk
associated with OCS activities and to manage
appropriate resources should a significant incident
occur (e.g., environmental or national security), and a
coordinated response is necessary.
Finally, the Coast Guard is committed to working with
the regulated public to find a way forward, in terms of
policy and procedures, which will both achieve greater
MDA and minimize any regulatory burden.
Mr. Landry. Because I am having a bigger problem with
foreign-flagged vessels, OK, entering our ports and basically
providing services in the Gulf of Mexico in a clear violation
of the Jones Act. And so we have foreign-flagged vessels that
if they have an AIS system and they turn it off, the Coast
Guard just says don't do that, but then when our supply vessels
would fail to comply with NOA, they would be fined. And so we
basically, in my opinion, are placing a greater burden on our
domestic fleet than we are placing on our foreign fleet. And
yet I thought that these regulations and this rulemaking were
made to try to get a grip on exactly who is coming in and out
of the ports.
Admiral Neffenger. Yes, sir, that is the reason for the
rulemaking, is for awareness of coming in and out of the ports.
With respect to specific actions that have been taken with
respect to U.S.-flagged versus foreign-flagged, I would be
happy to look into some specific concerns you have. I am not
aware of those instances that you refer to.
But the purpose behind AIS is specifically to understand--
or the requirement for carriage of AIS is to understand who is
operating, how they are operating, and where they are
operating.
Mr. Landry. Well, but the problem is, as I see it, we are
putting a bigger burden on our domestic fleet while we are
letting the foreign vessels operate really without any penalty.
And so the costs of doing business by our domestic fleet is
raised by your regulations, and basically the cost to that
foreign fleet hasn't changed. So then the day rates on the
foreign-fleet vessels stay the same, and our domestic vessels
have to raise their rates. Do you understand? You are putting a
greater burden on our people.
Admiral Neffenger. I don't believe that was the intention,
sir. I would be happy to look into the detail on that. I
don't--I am not aware of the fact that the foreign fleet is
evading any of the same requirements if they are operating
coming in and out of U.S. ports.
Mr. Landry. And I appreciate that comment. I really do.
Because the chairman was so grateful to work with us last year
and insert language clarifying that Congress never intended NOA
to apply to domestic vessels, and it passed the House of
Representatives. And so my question is, do you all feel like
the language that the House put out, an intent--and clarifying
that intent is just something you can ignore and continue to
move the NOA forward and apply it to domestic vessels?
Admiral Neffenger. No, sir. Actually, I pay a lot of
attention to congressional intent. It is how we can interpret
what the law really means for us. So I certainly pay attention
to the intent of Congress. It is one of the questions I ask:
What was the intent behind the legislation that was passed and
how do we meet that intent most effectively?
Mr. Landry. Well, we passed that. I would like you to take
a look at that language if you don't mind, sir.
Thank you so very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Neffenger. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK, thank you, Mr. Landry.
Admiral, thank you very much. Good luck. You have got a big
job to pull this together, and we will look forward to getting
back with you soon.
The committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:46 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]