Port Security
Security continues to be the dominant
issue on the US Coast Guard’s plate. It is extremely demanding of their
resources. Only at the height of the Cold War was Port Security an issue in
the states. The Soviets, our Cold War adversary, successfully apposed us for
nearly a half century. It now seems probable that even they did not have much
interest in terrorizing the American people.
Our world has changed forever. Now we
must work to see that it becomes the place of safety and liberty for which we
crave and look back so fondly upon.
The U.S. Coast Guard is in the process of
identifying specific areas of our waterways that are considered to be of high
risk and creating security zones around these areas and in some cases
assigning vessels to protect the resources. There is no doubt that it has
already dawned on the USCG that they do not have enough personnel or vessels
to adequately protect those resources that may need protecting.
There is no question that additional
vessels and personnel will be needed to do the job expected by our government
and citizenry.
Protection of our ports and waterways
from items that can be placed within intermodal containers is probably our
greatest tong term maritime risk. This will take a massive influx of
personnel and training and total cooperation from the many agencies involved.
Which of the thousands of containers per month that cross our docks need to be
opened and inspected for potential threats?
The Offshore environment will probably
become a significant security issue. The US has many truly significant energy
assets on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in the form of fixed and
floating production systems and Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODUs). Most
of these are in the Gulf of Mexico. The assets that need protecting generally
beyond the limit of the territorial sea and are not technically part of U.S.
navigable waters.
Over the years the U.S. Navy has always
been against the U.S. Congress passing any act that would radically extend the
U.S. territorial sea, as other countries would soon then follow suit. Freedom
to navigate on the “high seas” is an issue that negatively impacts potential
security of offshore facilities. Thus we have a conundrum concerning security
of our offshore assets.
The USCG can create “Safety Zones” on the
OCS within 500 meters of designated OCS assets but does not have a sufficient
number of vessels to adequately protect these resources. Can local or state
constabulary or a private security force enforce the USCG’s “Safety Zones”?
The OCS Lands Act (OCSLA) clearly states that state laws apply on offshore
production units but the mechanisms are unclear. We are not sure that anyone
ever told the states. The states probably have no duty to respond offshore
because the taxes (royalties) paid go to the federal government.
The OCSLA mandates that only U.S.
Citizens be employed on platforms, vessels and MODU’s offshore with some
exceptions. The USCG has devoted few resources to enforcing these
requirements over the past 25 years. It would appear that citizenship of
personnel on our OCS will probably become an issue of national interest over
the coming months.
The oil companies favor the creation of a
universal identification card issued by private entities that would be
accepted by various companies. Should proof of citizenship be made a part of
this ID card?
Security of offshore production units
from an oil company prospective generally equates to protection from errant
deep draft vessels. How to provide real increased security offshore is a
serious issue with no easy answers.
STCW
There is a new development with STCW.
The USCG recently altered their enforcement policy for STCW in Near Coastal
Domestic Trades. All mariners were to have completed all STCW – 95
requirements and have appropriate certificates from the USCG by February 1,
2002. The delay in enforcement is most probably because of perceived
difficulty among limited tonnage licensed and unlicensed personnel to obtain
the requisite training, as well as back logs at the Regional Examination
Centers in processing the numerous applications. The Coast Guard indicated on
October 1, 2001 that there were still 10,000 mariners were without the
required STCW–95 certificate.
The enforcement hiatus will last until
February 1, 2003. The USCG is emphatic that any license or Merchant Mariner
Document (MMD) renewal, raise in grade or change in scope during the year will
necessity be required to comply with the full requirements of STCW–95 and
obtain appropriate STCW–95 certificates.
Employers are cautioned to ensure that
mariners must still have completed the basic safety and familiarization
training to be employable in accordance with current regulations. The
actual training requirements have not been deferred.
The RECs have been instructed to expedite
issuance of STCW–95 certificates if the mariner presents a letter on company
letterhead indicating that the mariner is about to engage in a specific
foreign voyage and therefore needs the STCW–95 certificate.
It seems only reasonable that the USCG is
providing this temporary remedy to domestic STCW enforcement. It is hoped that
this is the predicted harbinger of a shift from hard nosed regulator to
becoming the facilitator of U.S. commerce, a transition that many of us hope
will occur.
