[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 126 (Tuesday, July 1, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39284-39292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-16187]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 103
[USCG-2003-14733]
RIN 1625-AA42
Area Maritime Security
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Temporary interim rule with request for comments and notice of
meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This interim rule establishes U.S. Coast Guard Captains of the
Ports as Federal Maritime Security Coordinators, and establishes
[[Page 39285]]
requirements for Area Maritime Security Plans and Area Maritime
Security Committees. This rule is one of six interim rules in today's
Federal Register that comprise a new subchapter on the requirements for
maritime security mandated by the Maritime Transportation Security Act
of 2002. These six interim rules implement national maritime security
initiatives concerning general provisions, Area Maritime Security
(ports), vessels, facilities, Outer Continental Shelf facilities, and
the Automatic Identification System. Where appropriate, they align
domestic maritime security requirements with those of the International
Ship and Port Facility Security Code and recent amendments to the
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. To best
understand these interim rules, first read the interim rule titled
``Implementation of National Maritime Security Initiatives'' (USCG-
2003-14792).
DATES: Effective date. This interim rule is effective from July 1, 2003
until November 25, 2003.
Comments. Comments and related material must reach the Docket
Management Facility on or before July 31, 2003. Comments on collection
of information sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must
reach OMB on or before July 31, 2003.
Meeting. A public meeting will be held on July 23, 2003, from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m., in Washington, DC.
ADDRESSES: Comments. To ensure that your comments and related material
are not entered more than once in the docket, please submit them by
only one of the following means:
(1) Electronically to the Docket Management System website at
http://dms.dot.gov.
(2) By mail to the Docket Management Facility (USCG-2003-14733),
U.S. Department of Transportation, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(3) By fax to the Docket Management Facility at (202) 493-2251.
(4) 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.
You must also mail comments on collection of information to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer,
U.S. Coast Guard.
Meeting. A public meeting will be held on July 23, 2003 in
Washington, DC at the Grand Hyatt Washington, D.C., 1000 H Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call Lieutenant Commander Richard Teubner, U.S. Coast Guard by
telephone (202) 267-1103, toll-free telephone 1-800-842-8740 ext. 7-
1103, or electronic mail [email protected]. If you have questions
on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Dorothy
Beard, Chief, Dockets, Department of Transportation, at (202) 366-5149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Due to the short timeframe given to
implement these National Maritime Transportation Security initiatives,
as directed by the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of 2002
(MTSA, Public Law 107-295, 116 STAT. 2064), and to ensure all comments
are in the public venue for these important rulemakings, we are not
accepting comments containing protected information for these interim
rules. We request you submit comments, as explained in the Request for
Comments section below, and discuss your concerns or support in a
manner that is not security sensitive. We also request that you not
submit proprietary information as part of your comment.
The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
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 docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.
Electronic forms of all comments received into any of our dockets
can be searched by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor unit, etc.) and is open to the public without
restriction. You may also review the Department of Transportation's
complete Privacy Act Statement published in the Federal Register on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov/.
Request for Comments
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. Your comments will be considered for the
final rule we plan to issue before November 25, 2003, to replace this
interim rule. If you choose to comment on this rule, please include
your name and address, identify the specific docket number for this
interim rule (USCG-2003-14733), indicate the specific heading of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. If you have comments on another rule, please submit those
comments in a separate letter to the docket for that rulemaking. You
may submit your comments and material by mail, hand delivery, fax, or
electronic means to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES. Please submit your comments and material by only one means.
If you submit them by mail or hand 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. We may change this rule in
view of them.
Public Meeting
We will hold a public meeting on July 23, 2003, in Washington, DC
at the Grand Hyatt Hotel, at the address listed under ADDRESSES. The
meeting will be from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. to discuss all of the maritime
security interim rules, and the Automatic Identification System (AIS)
interim rule, found in today's Federal Register. In addition, you may
submit a request for other public meetings to the Docket Management
Facility at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why another one
would be beneficial. If we determine that other meetings would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold them at a time and place announced by a later
notice in the Federal Register.
Regulatory Information
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this
rulemaking and are making this rule effective upon publication. Section
102(d)(1) of the MTSA of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-295, 116 STAT. 2064)
requires the publication of an interim rule as soon as practicable
without regard to the provisions of chapter 5 of title 5, U.S. Code
(Administrative Procedure Act). The Coast Guard finds that
harmonization of U.S. regulations with maritime security measures
adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in December
2002, and the need to institute measures for the protection
[[Page 39286]]
of U.S. maritime security as soon as practicable, furnish good cause
for this interim rule to take effect immediately under both the
Administrative Procedure Act and section 808 of the Congressional
Review Act.
Background and Purpose
A summary of the Coast Guard's regulatory initiatives for maritime
security can be found under the Background and Purpose section in the
preamble to the interim rule titled: ``Implementation of National
Maritime Security Initiatives'' (USCG-2003-14792), published elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register.
Discussion of Comments Addressing Port Issues in the Notice of Meeting
Docket
For a discussion of comments on ports at the public meetings and in
the docket, see the interim rule titled: ``Implementation of National
Maritime Security Initiatives'' (USCG-2003-14792), published elsewhere
in today's issue of the Federal Register.
Discussion of Interim Rule
This interim rule adds part 103--Area Maritime Security to a new
Subchapter H of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This
interim rule integrates port security-related requirements in the MTSA
of 2002 and the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS)
Code. In the MTSA, the port security-related requirements are contained
in the elements that address Area Maritime Security Plans and Federal
Maritime Security Coordinators. In the ISPS Code, the port security-
related requirements are contained in elements that address Port
Facility Security Plans and Port Facility Security Officers. A detailed
discussion on the MTSA and the ISPS Code and the need for these
regulations can be found in the interim rule titled: ``Implementation
of National Maritime Security Initiatives'' (USCG-2003-14792),
published elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
Part 103--Port Security is composed of the following five subparts.
Subpart A--General.
This subpart applies to all vessels and facilities located in, on,
under, or adjacent to waters subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. A
detailed discussion on applicability can be found in the interim rule
titled: ``Implementation of National Maritime Security Initiatives''
(USCG-2003-14792), published elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
The MTSA and the International Ship and Port Facility Security
(ISPS) Code use different terms to define similar, if not identical,
persons or things. These differing terms sometimes match up with the
terms used in subchapter H, but sometimes they do not. For a table of
the terms used in subchapter H and their related terms in the MTSA and
the ISPS Code, see the Discussion of Interim Rule section in the
preamble for the interim rule titled ``Implementation of National
Maritime Security Initiatives'' (USCG-2003-14792), published elsewhere
in today's Federal Register.
To provide flexibility and a systems approach to security measures
for certain areas, we will allow several Area Maritime Security Plans
to be combined, if appropriate. This strategy is currently being used
to combine the inland river systems into one Area Maritime Security
Plan; a similar system-wide concept is being developed for the Great
Lakes. In addition, Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) facilities in the
Gulf of Mexico will be covered by a single, district-wide plan
implemented by the Eighth Coast Guard District. This process includes
using each Area Maritime Security Assessment to form building blocks
that will be used to create a system-wide security plan methodology
that identifies vulnerabilities and consequences to be mitigated using
regional strategies and resources. The resulting Area Maritime Security
Plan will be a single document that provides consistent security
measures throughout multiple Captain of the Port (COTP) zones.
Subpart B--Federal Maritime Security Coordinator (FMSC) Designation and
Authorities.
This subpart designates the Coast Guard COTP as the Federal
Maritime Security Coordinator. This designation, along with a
description of the COTP's authority as Federal Maritime Security
Coordinator to establish, convene, and direct the Area Maritime
Security (AMS) Committee, fulfills the MTSA requirement to designate a
Coast Guard official as the Federal Maritime Security Coordinator.
Subpart C--Area Maritime Security (AMS) Committee.
This subpart describes the composition and responsibilities of the
AMS Committee. The AMS Committee brings appropriately experienced
representatives from a variety of sources in the port together to
continually assess security risks to the port and determine appropriate
risk mitigation strategies, develop, revise, and implement the AMS
Plan. The AMS Committee may also be the mechanism by which security
threats and changes in Maritime Security (MARSEC) Levels are
communicated to port stakeholders. AMS Committee membership
requirements and terms of office align with the criteria established in
the MTSA for ``Area Maritime Security Advisory Committees.'' Port
Security Committees, such as those operating under the guidelines of
U.S. Coast Guard Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 9-02,
that were established prior to the publication of this rule, are
considered AMS Committees, provided they conform to the procedures set
forth in these rules. The AMS Committee members may include, but are
not limited to, the following stakeholders: U.S. Coast Guard, Federal,
State, and local law enforcement, emergency response and public safety
organizations, recreational vessel associations, environmental response
organizations, labor organizations, port managers, and vessel and
facility owner/operator security representatives. There must at least
seven members in the AMS Committee however; there could be as many as
200 or more representatives.
Subpart D--Area Maritime Security (AMS) Assessment.
This subpart directs the AMS Committee to ensure development of a
risk-based AMS Assessment. The AMS Assessment is the important first
step in developing an AMS Plan. This subpart lists the essential
elements of an AMS Assessment, and these provisions are consistent with
the elements of a ``port facility security assessment'' set forth in
the ISPS Code. The AMS Assessment may be conducted by the AMS Committee
members themselves or by persons acting on behalf of the AMS Committee.
This subpart also establishes the skills and knowledge that persons
conducting an AMS Assessment must possess. This subpart further
identifies the process of evaluations that must be performed in the
course of conducting the AMS Assessment: identification of activities
or operations critical to the port area; a threat assessment; a
consequence and vulnerability assessment; a categorization of each
target/scenario combination; and measures that will be implemented at
all MARSEC Levels. This process is consistent with the Port Security
Assessment model identified in NVIC 9-02.
The following is a list of activities, operations, and
infrastructure that may require assessment in the development of the
AMS Plan: Highway bridges, railroad bridges, stadiums, tourist
attractions, significant symbolic structures, commercial attractions,
[[Page 39287]]
marinas, fishing vessels, recreational boats, airports, nuclear
facilities, power plants, oil and gas pipelines, anchorages, mid-stream
operations (e.g., bunkering), under-and-over water cables,
communication networks, utilities providing service to key
transportation assets, barge-fleeting areas, oil and gas production
platforms, tunnels, non-regulated vessels, non-regulated facilities,
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) facilities, lock and dams, public water
supplies (e.g., aqueducts), boat ramps, docks, un-inspected commercial
vessels, passenger terminals, grain and aggregate facilities, ship
yards, rail yards, tank farms, dikes, levees, sewer and water utility
facilities, major marine or special events, waterways. Additional
consideration should be given to the criticality of port operations as
they relate to vessels and facilities that are directly regulated in
parts 104 through 106 of Subchapter H.
The Coast Guard has also funded and contracted Port Security
Assessments (PSA) in certain port areas throughout the U.S. The Coast
Guard-sponsored PSA team, when completing the PSA, should review the
AMS Assessment and AMS Plan for content and consistency. As part of the
PSA, recommendations will be made to the COTP on strategies to improve
their AMS Plan in the port area that was covered by the PSA. These
recommendations will be part of the AMS Plan review process to ensure
the AMS Committee becomes aware of the PSA results and revises the AMS
Plan appropriately.
Subpart E--Area Maritime Security (AMS) Plan
The AMS Plan is primarily a communication and coordination
document. This subpart establishes the core elements of the AMS Plan
and its relationship to other plans. Core elements include: Details of
operational and physical measures that must be in place at all MARSEC
Levels; expected timeframes for responding to security threats and
changes of MARSEC Levels; communications procedures; measures to ensure
the security of vessels, facilities, and operations that are not
covered by the security requirements in other parts of this subchapter;
measures to ensure the security of the information in the AMS Plan;
periodic review, audit, and updating procedures; and procedures for
reporting security incidents. These requirements are consistent with
the elements of a ``port facility security plan'' established in the
ISPS Code.
This subpart also describes the review and approval process for the
AMS Plan. The COTP will submit an AMS Plan to the cognizant District
Commander for review, with the Area Commander, or his/her designee,
having the authority to approve or disapprove the plan. Approving
officers may require additional assessment, mitigation strategies, or
other measures by parties subject to Coast Guard jurisdiction as a
condition of approving AMS Plans. This review chain has been
established to promote plan coordination and consistency within and
among Coast Guard Districts and Areas. AMS Plans will form the basis
for the National Maritime Transportation Security Plan, established in
the MTSA, and will be consistent with the National Transportation
Security Plan. This subpart establishes exercise requirements under the
AMS Plan. Exercises are an important way to improve system performance
and ensure the AMS Plan remains current.
Although the exercise requirements established in this interim rule
may be satisfied by a tabletop exercise, as our experience with AMS
Plans matures, it may be desirable to require periodic field training
exercises for the future. Therefore, public comment is requested on a
requirement to conduct a maritime security field training exercise in
each area covered by an AMS Plan at least once every 3 years. A
maritime security field training exercise would require the deployment
of personnel and equipment in accordance with the AMS Plan for the
transportation security incident used for the exercise scenario. The
purpose of the field training exercise would include: Evaluating the
adequacy of the AMS Plan, exercising coordination and interoperability
between responding security forces and exercising coordination and
interoperability amongst command personnel of responding agencies
(i.e., Unified Command) as well as their ability to effectively command
and control the response to the transportation security incident. The
maritime security field training exercise may be combined with other
exercises (e.g., National Preparedness for Response Program (PREP) area
exercises) provided a significant security/terrorist attack aspect is
included in the scenario.
Finally, this subpart prescribes AMS Assessment and AMS Plan
records to be maintained by the COTP for 5 years, and exercise records
for 2 years.
Regulatory Assessment
This rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and has been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that Order. It
requires an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. It is significant under the regulatory policies
and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security. An Assessment is
available in the docket as indicated under ADDRESSES. A summary of the
Assessment follows:
Cost Assessment
This rule will affect stakeholders in 47 maritime areas containing
361 ports. The regulatory assessment and analysis documentation (see
docket) details estimated costs to public and private stakeholders and
does not include costs to the Coast Guard.
The total cost estimate of the rule, as it pertains to AMS, is
present value (PV) $477 million (2003-2012, 7 percent discount rate).
The initial cost of the startup period (June 2003-December 2003) for
establishing AMS Committees and creating AMS Plans is estimated to be
$120 million (non-discounted) for all areas. Following the startup
period, the first year of implementation (2004), consisting of monthly
AMS Committee meetings and AMS Plan exercises and drills for all areas,
is estimated to be $106 million (non-discounted). After the first year
of implementation, the annual cost of quarterly AMS Committee meetings
and AMS Plan exercises and drills for all areas is estimated to be $46
million (non-discounted). The startup period cost associated with
creating AMS Committees and AMS Plans for each area is the primary cost
driver of the rule. Both the startup and implementation year period
(2003-2004) combined is nearly half of the total 10-year PV cost
estimate, making initial development, planning, and testing the primary
costs of Area Maritime Security.
This rule will require all COTPs to establish security committees,
plans, training drills, and exercises for their areas, with the
participation of port stakeholders in their areas. The above costs to
stakeholders will be paperwork, travel, and communication costs
associated with participation in AMS Plan implementation.
We estimate 1,203,200 hours of paperwork and other associated
planning activities during 2003, the initial period of security
meetings and development. In 2004, the first year of implementation, we
estimate the value will fall slightly to 1,090,400 hours of paperwork
and other related information and communication activities related to
monthly AMS Committee meetings. In subsequent years, we estimate the
hours will fall to 488,800 hours--annually associated
[[Page 39288]]
with AMS Committee meetings, AMS Plan revisions, and information
exercises and drills.
Benefit Assessment
This interim rule is one of six interim rules that implement
national maritime security initiatives concerning general provisions,
Area Maritime Security (ports), vessels, facilities, Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) facilities, and the Automatic Identification System (AIS).
The Coast Guard used the National Risk Assessment Tool (N-RAT) to
assess benefits that would result from increased security for vessels,
facilities, Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) facilities, and ports. The N-
RAT considers threat, vulnerability, and consequences for several
maritime entities in various security-related scenarios. For a more
detailed discussion on the N-RAT and how we employed this tool, refer
to ``Applicability of National Maritime Security Initiatives'' in the
interim rule titled ``Implementation of National Maritime Security
Initiatives'' (USCG-2003-14792) published elsewhere in today's Federal
Register. For this benefit assessment, the Coast Guard used a team of
experts to calculate a risk score for each entity and scenario before
and after the implementation of required security measures. The
difference in before and after scores indicates the benefit of the
proposed action.
We recognized that the interim rules are a ``family'' of rules that
will reinforce and support one another in their implementation. We must
ensure, however, that risk reduction that is credited in one rulemaking
is not also credited in another. For a more detailed discussion on the
benefit assessment and how we addressed the potential to double-count
the risk reduced, refer to Benefit Assessment in the interim rule
titled ``Implementation of National Maritime Security Initiatives''
(USCG-2003-14792) published elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
We determined annual risk points reduced for each of the six
interim rules using the N-RAT. The benefits are apportioned among the
Vessel, Facility, OCS Facility, AMS, and AIS requirements. As shown in
Table 1, the implementation of AMS Plans for the affected population
reduces 135,202 risk points annually through 2012. The benefits
attributable for part 101--General Provisions--were not considered
separately since it is an overarching section for all the parts.
Table 1.--Annual Risk Points Reduced by the Interim Rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual risk points reduced by rulemaking
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maritime entity Vessel Facility OCS facility
security plans security plans security plans AMS plans AIS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels......................... 778,633 3,385 3,385 3,385 1,448
Facilities...................... 2,025 469,686 .............. 2,025 ..............
OCS Facilities.................. 41 .............. 9,903 .............. ..............
Port Areas...................... 587 587 .............. 129,792 105
=================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once we determined the annual risk points reduced, we discounted
these estimates to their PV (7 percent discount rate, 2003-2012) so
that they could be compared to the costs. We presented the cost
effectiveness, or dollars per risk point reduced, in two ways: First,
we compared the first-year cost and first-year benefit because the
first-year cost is the highest in our assessment as companies develop
security plans and purchase equipment. Second, we compared the 10-year
PV cost to the 10-year PV benefit. The results of our assessment are
presented in Table 2.
Table 2.--First-Year and 10-Year PV Cost and Benefit of the Interim rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim rule
----------------------------------------------------------------
OCS
Item Vessel Facility facility
security security security AMS plans AIS *
plans plans plans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First-Year Cost (millions)..................... $218 $1,125 $3 $120 $41
First-Year Benefit............................. 781,285 473,659 13,288 135,202 1,553
First-Year Cost Effectiveness ($/Risk Point $279 $2,375 $205 $890 $26,391
Reduced)......................................
10-Year PV Cost (millions)..................... $1,368 $5,399 $37 $477 $42
10-Year PV Benefit............................. 5,871,540 3,559,655 99,863 1,016,074 11,671
10-Year PV Cost Effectiveness ($/Risk Point $233 $1,517 $368 $469 $3,624
Reduced)......................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Cost less monetized safety benefit.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The stakeholders affected by this rule include a variety of
businesses and governments. The COTP will designate approximately 200
stakeholders, per maritime area, to engage in security planning,
meetings, and drills. Full participation by these stakeholders will be
voluntary. We estimate the first-year cost, per stakeholder, to be
$12,800 (non-discounted). In subsequent years, the annual cost, per
stakeholder (full participation in this rule), falls to $4,940 (non-
discounted).
The results from our assessment (copy available in the docket)
suggest that the impact of this rule is not significant for port and
maritime area authorities,
[[Page 39289]]
owners, or operators because of the low average annual cost per
stakeholder and the voluntary nature of participating in this rule.
We estimated the majority of small entities have a less than 3
percent impact on revenue if they choose to fully participate in this
rule. We anticipate the few remaining small entities that may have a
greater than 3 percent impact on annual revenue will either opt out
(not participate) or partially participate in the rule to the extent
that the impact on revenue is not a burden.
There are other stakeholders affected by this rule in addition to
port authorities, owners, and operators. The stakeholders could be any
entity that the COTP invites to partially or fully participate. We
anticipate the impact on other possible small entity stakeholders to be
minimal because of the low average annual cost per stakeholder and the
voluntary nature of participating in this rule.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this rule will have a significant economic impact on it,
please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the
address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically
affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction, and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please consult LCDR Richard Teubner, USCG-MPS-2
by telephone, 202-267-1103, toll-free telephone, 1-800-842-8740 ext. 7-
1103, or electronic mail, [email protected].
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or, otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).
Collection of Information
This rule calls for a collection of information under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). As defined in 5 CFR
1320.3(c), ``collection of information'' comprises reporting,
recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other, similar
actions. It modifies an existing OMB-approved collection--1625-0077
[formerly 2115-0622]. A summary of the revised collection follows.
Title: Security Plans for Ports, Vessels, Facilities, and Outer
Continental Shelf Facilities and Other Security-Related Requirements.
OMB Control Number: 1625-0077
Summary of the Collection of Information: The Coast Guard requires
security plans and communication procedures for U.S. ports and maritime
areas. This rule provides a framework to ensure adequate security
planning, exercises, drilling, and communication procedures by inviting
port and maritime area stakeholders (at the discretion of the COTP) to
participate in security planning events including, but not limited to,
meetings and information drills as detailed in part 103.
Need for Information: The primary need for information would be to
determine if stakeholders are in compliance with security standards.
Proposed Use of Information: This information can help to determine
appropriate security measures for the affected population. This
information also can help determine, in the case of a transportation
security incident, whether failure to meet these regulations
contributed to the transportation security incident.
Description of the Respondents: This rule will affect approximately
200 stakeholders in 47 maritime areas containing 361 ports. The
respondents are public and private stakeholders in the affected port
areas (at the discretion of the COTP).
Number of Respondents: 9,400 (200 stakeholders in 47 maritime
areas).
Frequency of Response: Varies. Initial AMS Plan planning occurs
throughout the first year on an undefined schedule. AMS Committee
meetings may occur monthly in the first two years of this rule with
quarterly AMS Committee meetings in subsequent years. Frequency of AMS
Committee meetings is established in the AMS Committee Charter. After
the first year, AMS Plan exercises occur once each calendar year with
no more than 18 months between exercises.
Burden of Response: The burden of response is approximately 128
hours for the first year per stakeholder. The second year burden of
response is 116 hours per stakeholder. In the subsequent years, the
annual burden of response is approximately 52 hours per stakeholder.
Estimate of Total Annual Burden: During the initial year the burden
will be 1,203,200 hours. Subsequently, the average annual reporting
burden is 488,800 hours for all stakeholders in all 47 COTP zones. For
a summary of all revisions to this existing OMB-approved collection,
refer to Collection of Information in the interim rule titled
``Implementation of National Maritime Security Initiatives'' (USCG-
2003-14792) published elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), we have submitted a copy of this rule to OMB for its review
of the collection of information. Due to the circumstances surrounding
this temporary rule, we asked for ``emergency processing'' of our
request. We received OMB approval for the collection of information on
June 16, 2003. It is valid until December 31, 2003.
We ask for public comment on the collection of information to help
us determine how useful the information is; whether it can help us
perform our functions better; whether it is readily available
elsewhere; how accurate our estimate of the burden of collection is;
how valid our methods for determining burden are; how we can improve
the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information; and how we can
minimize the burden of collection.
If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit
them both to OMB and to the Docket Management Facility where indicated
under ADDRESSES, by the date under DATES.
You need not respond to a collection of information, unless it
displays a currently valid control number from OMB. We received OMB
approval for the collection of information on June 16, 2003. It is
valid until December 31, 2003.
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. See the Federalism section in the
preamble to the interim
[[Page 39290]]
rule titled: ``Implementation of National Maritime Security
Initiatives'' (USCG-2003-14792) published elsewhere in today's Federal
Register, for a discussion of our analysis under this Executive Order.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. This rule is exempted from assessing the effect of the
regulatory action as required by the Act because it is necessary for
the national security of the U.S. (2 U.S.C. 1503(5)).
Taking of Private Property
This interim rule will not effect taking of private property or,
otherwise, have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This interim rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this interim rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. While this rule is an economically significant rule, it does not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This interim rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this interim rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order. Although it is a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
This interim rule has a positive effect on the supply,
distribution, and use of energy. The interim rule provides for security
assessments, plans, procedures, and standards, which will prove
beneficial for the supply, distribution, and use of energy at increased
levels of maritime security.
Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501-2582) prohibits
Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the U.S.
Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety and security, are not
considered unnecessary obstacles. The Act also requires consideration
of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the
basis for U.S. standards. We have assessed the potential effect of this
interim rule and have determined that it would likely create obstacles
to the foreign commerce of the U.S. However, because these regulations
are being put in place in order to further a legitimate domestic
objective, namely to increase the security of the U.S., any obstacles
created by the regulation are not considered unnecessary obstacles.
Environment
We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and
concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(a) and (34)(c) of
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, this rule is categorically excluded
from further environmental documentation. This interim rule concerns
security assessments and the establishment of security committees and
coordinators that will contribute to a higher level of marine safety
and security for U.S. ports. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination''
is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES or
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
This rulemaking will not significantly impact the coastal zone.
Further, the rulemaking and the execution of this rule will be done in
conjunction with appropriate State coastal authorities. The Coast Guard
will, therefore, comply with the requirements of the Coastal Zone
Management Act while furthering its intent to protect the coastal zone.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 103
Facilities, Harbors, Maritime security, Ports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Vessels, Waterways.
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is adding
part 103 to subchapter H of chapter I of title 33 in the CFR to read as
follows:
SUBCHAPTER H--MARITIME SECURITY
PART 103--AREA MARITIME SECURITY
Subpart A--General
Sec.
103.100 Applicability.
103.105 Definitions.
Subpart B--Federal Maritime Security Coordinator (FMSC) Designation and
Authorities
103.200 Designation of the Federal Maritime Security Coordinator
(FMSC).
103.205 Authority of the COTP as the Federal Maritime Security
Coordinator (FMSC).
Subpart C--Area Maritime Security (AMS) Committee
103.300 Area Maritime Security (AMS) Committee.
103.305 Composition of an Area Maritime Security (AMS) Committee.
103.310 Responsibilities of the Area Maritime Security (AMS)
Committee.
Subpart D--Area Maritime Security (AMS) Assessment
103.400 General.
103.405 Elements of the Area Maritime Security (AMS) Assessment.
103.410 Persons involved in the Area Maritime Security (AMS).
Subpart E--Area Maritime Security (AMS) Plan
103.500 General.
103.505 Elements of the Area Maritime Security (AMS) Plan.
103.510 Area Maritime Security (AMS) Plan review and approval.
103.515 Exercises.
103.520 Recordkeeping.
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 70102, 70103, 70104,
70112; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 103.100 Applicability.
This part applies to all vessels and facilities located in, on,
under, or adjacent to waters subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
[[Page 39291]]
Sec. 103.105 Definitions.
Except as specifically stated in this subpart, the definitions in
part 101 of this subchapter apply to this part.
Subpart B--Federal Maritime Security Coordinator (FMSC) Designation
and Authorities
Sec. 103.200 Designation of the Federal Maritime Security Coordinator
(FMSC).
The COTPs are the Federal Maritime Security Coordinators for their
respective COTP zones described in 33 CFR part 3, including all ports
and areas located therein.
Sec. 103.205 Authority of the COTP as the Federal Maritime Security
Coordinator (FMSC).
(a) Without limitation to the authority vested in the COTP by
statute or regulation, and in addition to authority prescribed
elsewhere in this part, the COTP as the FMSC is authorized to:
(1) Establish, convene, and direct the Area Maritime Security (AMS)
Committee;
(2) Appoint members to the AMS Committee;
(3) Develop and maintain, in coordination with the AMS Committee,
the AMS Plan;
(4) Implement and exercise the AMS Plan; and
(5) Maintain the records required by Sec. 103.520 of this part.
(b) The authorizations in paragraph (a) of this section do not
limit any other existing authority of the COTP.
Subpart C--Area Maritime Security (AMS) Committee
Sec. 103.300 Area Maritime Security (AMS) Committee.
(a) The AMS Committee is established under the direction of the
COTP and shall assist in the development, review, and update of the AMS
Plan for their area of responsibility. For the purposes of this
subchapter, Port Security Committees that were established prior to
July 1, 2003, according to guidance issued by the Coast Guard, may be
considered AMS Committees, provided they conform to the procedures
established by this part and satisfy the membership requirements of
Sec. 103.305 of this part.
(b) The AMS Committee will operate under terms specified in a
written charter. At a minimum, the charter must address:
(1) The AMS Committee's purpose and geographic area of
responsibility;
(2) Rules for membership;
(3) The AMS Committee's organizational structure and procedural
rules of order;
(4) Frequency of meetings, to include not less than once in a
calendar year or when requested by a majority of the AMS Committee
members;
(5) Guidelines for public access to AMS Committee meetings and
records; and
(6) Rules for handling and protecting classified, sensitive
security, commercially sensitive, and proprietary information.
Sec. 103.305 Composition of an Area Maritime Security (AMS)
Committee.
(a) An AMS Committee must be composed of not less than seven
members, each having at least 5 years of experience related to maritime
or port security operations, and who may be selected from:
(1) The Federal, Territorial, or Tribal government;
(2) The State government and political subdivisions thereof;
(3) Local public safety, crisis management and emergency response
agencies;
(4) Law enforcement and security organizations;
(5) Maritime industry;
(6) Other port stakeholders having a special competence in maritime
security; and
(7) Port stakeholders affected by security practices and policies.
(b) Members appointed under this section serve for a term of not
more than 5 years. In appointing members, the COTP should consider the
skills required by Sec. 103.410 of this part. Prior to the appointment
of an individual to a position on the AMS Committee, the COTP may
require an appropriate security background examination of the candidate
member.
Sec. 103.310 Responsibilities of the Area Maritime Security (AMS)
Committee.
(a) The AMS Committee shall:
(1) Identify critical port infrastructure and operations;
(2) Identify risks (threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences);
(3) Determine mitigation strategies and implementation methods;
(4) Develop and describe the process to continually evaluate
overall port security by considering consequences and vulnerabilities,
how they may change over time, and what additional mitigation
strategies can be applied; and
(5) Provide advice to, and assist the COTP in, developing the AMS
Plan.
(b) The AMS Committee shall also serve as a link for communicating
threats and changes in MARSEC Levels, and disseminating appropriate
security information to port stakeholders.
Subpart D--Area Maritime Security (AMS) Assessment
Sec. 103.400 General.
(a) The Area Maritime Security (AMS) Committee will ensure that a
risk based AMS Assessment, is completed and meets the requirements
specified in Sec. 103.310 of this part and Sec. 101.510 of this
subchapter, incorporating the elements specified in Sec. 103.405 of
this part.
(b) AMS Assessments can be completed by the COTP, the AMS
Committee, a Coast Guard Port Security Assessment team, or by another
third party approved by the AMS Committee.
(c) Upon completion of each AMS Assessment, a written report, which
is designated sensitive security information, must be prepared
consisting of:
(1) A summary of how the AMS Assessment was conducted;
(2) A description of each vulnerability and consequences found
during the AMS Assessment; and
(3) A description of risk reduction strategies that could be used
to ensure continued operation at an acceptable risk level.
Sec. 103.405 Elements of the Area Maritime Security (AMS) Assessment.
(a) The AMS Assessment must include the following elements:
(1) Identification of the critical Marine Transportation System
infrastructure and operations in the port;
(2) Threat assessment that identifies and evaluates each potential
threat on the basis of various factors, including capability and
intention;
(3) Consequence and vulnerability assessment for each target/
scenario combination; and
(4) A determination of the required security measures for the three
MARSEC Levels.
(b) In order to meet the elements listed in paragraph (a) of this
section, an AMS Assessment should consider each of the following:
(1) Physical security of infrastructure and operations at the port;
(2) Structures considered critical for the continued operation of
the port;
(3) Existing security systems and equipment available to protect
maritime personnel;
(4) Procedural policies;
(5) Radio and telecommunication systems, including computer systems
and networks;
(6) Relevant transportation infrastructure;
(7) Utilities;
(8) Security resources and capabilities; and
[[Page 39292]]
(9) Other areas that may, if damaged, pose a risk to people,
infrastructure, or operations within the port.
(c) AMS Assessments are sensitive security information and must be
protected in accordance with 49 CFR part 1520.
Sec. 103.410 Persons involved in the Area Maritime Security (AMS)
Assessment.
The persons carrying out the AMS Assessment must have the
appropriate skills to evaluate the security of the port in accordance
with this part. This includes being able to draw upon expert assistance
in relation to:
(a) Knowledge of current security threats and patterns;
(b) Recognition and detection of dangerous substances, and devices;
(c) Recognition, on a non-discriminatory basis, of characteristics
and behavioral patterns of persons who are likely to threaten security;
(d) Techniques used to circumvent security measures;
(e) Methods used to cause a transportation security incident;
(f) Effects of dangerous substances and devices on structures and
port services;
(g) Port security requirements;
(h) Port business practices;
(i) Contingency planning, emergency preparedness, and response;
(j) Physical security measures;
(k) Radio and telecommunications systems, including computer
systems and networks;
(l) Transportation and civil engineering;
(m) Vessel and port operations; and
(n) Knowledge of the impact, including cost impacts of implementing
security measures on port operations.
Subpart E--Area Maritime Security (AMS) Plan
Sec. 103.500 General.
(a) The Area Maritime Security (AMS) Plan is developed by the COTP,
in consultation with the AMS Committee, and is based on an AMS
Assessment that meets the provisions of subpart D of this part. The AMS
Plan must be consistent with the National Maritime Transportation
Security Plan and the National Transportation Security Plan.
(b) AMS Plans are sensitive security information and must be
protected in accordance with 49 CFR part 1520.
Sec. 103.505 Elements of the Area Maritime Security (AMS) Plan.
The AMS Plan should address the following elements, as applicable:
(a) Details of both operational and physical measures that are in
place in the port at MARSEC Level 1;
(b) Details of the additional security measures that enable the
port to progress, without delay, to MARSEC Level 2 and, when necessary,
to MARSEC Level 3;
(c) Details of the security incident command-and-response
structure;
(d) Details for regular audit of the AMS Plan, and for its
amendment in response to experience or changing circumstances;
(e) Measures to prevent the introduction of dangerous substances
and devices into designated restricted areas within the port;
(f) Measures to prevent unauthorized access to designated
restricted areas within the port;
(g) Procedures and expected timeframes for responding to security
threats or breaches of security, including provisions for maintaining
infrastructure and operations in the port;
(h) Procedures for responding to any security instructions the
Coast Guard announces at MARSEC Level 3;
(i) Procedures for evacuation within the port in case of security
threats or breaches of security;
(j) Procedures for periodic plan review, exercise, and updating;
(k) Procedures for reporting transportation security incidents
(TSI);
(l) Identification of, and methods to communicate with, Facility
Security Officers (FSO), Company Security Officers (CSO), Vessel
Security Officers (VSO), public safety officers, emergency response
personnel, and crisis management organization representatives within
the port, including 24-hour contact details;
(m) Measures to ensure the security of the information contained in
the AMS Plan;
(n) Security measures designed to ensure effective security of
infrastructure, special events, vessels, passengers, cargo, and cargo
handling equipment at facilities within the port not otherwise covered
by a Vessel or Facility Security Plan, approved under part 104, 105, or
106 of this subchapter;
(o) Procedures to be taken when a vessel is at a higher security
level than the facility or port it is visiting;
(p) Procedures for responding if a vessel security alert system on
board a vessel within or near the port has been activated;
(q) Procedures for communicating appropriate security and threat
information to the public;
(r) Procedures for handling reports from the public and maritime
industry regarding suspicious activity;
(s) Security resources available for incident response and their
capabilities;
(t) Procedures for responding to a TSI; and
(u) Procedures to facilitate the recovery of the Marine
Transportation System after a TSI.
Sec. 103.510 Area Maritime Security (AMS) Plan review and approval.
Each AMS Plan will be submitted to the cognizant District Commander
for review and then forwarded to the Area Commander for approval.
Sec. 103.515 Exercises.
(a) The COTP shall coordinate with the Area Maritime Security (AMS)
Committee to conduct an exercise at least once each calendar year, with
no more than 18 months between exercises, to test the effectiveness of
the AMS Plan.
(b) An exercise may consist of any of the following:
(1) A tabletop exercise to validate the AMS Plan. No equipment or
personnel deployment is required;
(2) A field training exercise consisting of personnel deployment
and use of security equipment; or
(3) A combination of Sec. 103.515(b)(1) and (b)(2).
(c) Upon concurrence of the cognizant District Commander, an actual
increase in MARSEC Level, or implementation of enhanced security
measures during periods of critical port operations or special marine
events may satisfy the exercise requirements of this section.
Sec. 103.520 Recordkeeping.
(a) All records pertaining to the Area Maritime Security (AMS)
Assessment and AMS Plan will be retained by the COTP for 5 years.
(b) Exercise documentation will be kept by the COTP for 2 years.
Dated: June 23, 2003.
Thomas H. Collins,
Admiral, Coast Guard Commandant.
[FR Doc. 03-16187 Filed 6-27-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P