The entire United States (and anyone else in the world with
access to cable or for that matter any TV) has become intimately involved in
what is sure to become the seminal event of our time. The World Trade Center
terrorism will change all of our lives in some respect from the day of the
event onward. The only question is how much our lives will be changed. Even
after the current threats pass our lives will ever be altered. It is up to our
government and us as to the direction our country and our lives will take. If
we leave it to our enemies, they would destroy us.
Port Security Security of our airborne and waterborne
commerce has now become a major national issue. This is an opportunity for the
USCG to bring the maritime industry together for the common good. The
Secretary of the Department of Transportation (DOT) has directed the USCG
improve waterborne security in our port areas, as is being done with the air
travel industry. Initially this meant that individual Coast Guard Captain of
the Port (COTP) units and Districts were to quickly develop plans and
methodology suitable to each individual port area. There is no question that
the USCG is taking great pains attempting to minimize the impact upon maritime
commerce while incrementally increasing waterborne security.
The USCG knows that the only real way to prevent the type
of sabotage that we are worried about is to place armed personnel on every
vessel within the U.S. Territorial Sea. If maritime sabotage does occur this
may be the only appropriate course of action.
Our ports and waterways are so complex and diverse that
variations from one port area to another are appropriate, certainly on a short
term basis and probable in the long term. It is likely that ocean going deep
draft traffic will be treated somewhat differently from non-ocean going
vessels because potential threats are different.
These increased security measures at the minimum request
all facility and vessel operators to review their security procedures and
possibly update them. Formal security plans are not currently required. In
some ports data concerning vessel movements, cargo movement information and
crewlists are required. Some ports require specific authorization from the
USCG Captain of the Port to navigate at all. Specific liquid cargo movements
and cargo handling will come under close scrutiny in some ports and not in
others.
Containers will be of particular concern and will be
extremely difficult to keep secure. It is not at all clear how passenger
cruise lines will be impacted around the country.
The variations from one port area to another are too
numerous to specifically enumerate. The information is however available from
each local Captain of the Port office around the country. It will likely be
very difficult for individual vessels and operators to become expert in the
broad range of security expectations from one port to another, but it is
essential to our survival as a successful commercial nation. Coast Guard Area
Commanders (both East and West) have promulgated special regulations under 33
CFR Part 165 concerning Naval Vessel Protection Zones. These zones limit and
control traffic in close proximity to naval combatants, auxiliaries, and
vessels leased to or chartered by the U.S. Navy.
All vessels within 500 yards of a naval vessel must
operated at minimum speed and proceed as directed by the authorized officers
(USCG Captains of the Port or other designated officer). Vessels may not
approach within 100 yards of a naval vessel without permission of these
authorized officers.
Clearly, the goals of Port Security are to obstruct
terrorism and not impede commerce. While the mechanisms to accomplish this
will change and evolve over the coming months, the USCG seems to be making
great efforts in working closely with the maritime industry to achieve both of
these goals.
STCW We had originally intended that this entire article
should concern the implementation of Standards of Training, Certificating and
Watchkeeping '95 (STCW-95) which is a major alteration of the previous
STCW-78.
Mariners currently holding STCW-78 documents will need to
complete additional training and obtain STCW-95 documents by February 2, 2002.
All mariners must provide evidence of competency in Basic Safety Training (BST).
Deck officers must be assessed in Bridge Resource Management. All engineers
must be Lifeboatmen qualified. Further, depending on the specific vessel that
an individual is employed upon, he or she will also need Global Marine
Distress Safety System (GMDSS) and/or Automatic Radar Plotting Aids (ARPA)
assessments.
Upgrades and changes in scope of licenses and merchant
mariner's documents (MMDs) mandate that the individual comply fully with the
new STCW-95. We believe that there are serious potential shortfalls that could
occur in supplying qualified personnel. We believe that individual mariners,
particularly those serving on seagoing vessels normally considered to be of
limited tonnage (<1600 Gross Tons) may be unable to complete the required
training by the February 1, 2002 deadline.
Individual mariners are charged to obtain the training. In
Europe and much of the rest of the world, the training is provided (sometimes
at a nominal cost) to mariners. In the US, employers provide some of the
training, deep draft unions are a major provider for their members but in the
end it is the responsibility of the mariner to schedule, pay for and obtain
the training in a timely manner. Human nature being what it is, many mariners
delayed obtaining the training until the last few months before the deadline.
The problem with this is that most if not all of the approved schools are
booked up and the training is not available for the large numbers of persons
needing it by February of 2002. Some of the mariners that will be unable to
schedule classes to complete STCW-95 requirements are involved in commerce
that will be critical to our national defense. It is not yet clear how the
USCG will resolve these issues. Regional Examination Centers (RECs) around the
country are extremely adept at being unresponsive to mariners' inquiries and
problems. To assume that they will do otherwise in the instant case may be
unproductive. Specific problems should probably be put in writing and provided
to the Officer in Charge of Marine Inspection (OCMI), the REC's boss.
If the magnitude of this problem is as serious as we
suspect, some sort of relief is appropriate and may be available if the USCG
is approached correctly. Our current national emergency will play a
significant role in any solution. It is just possible that the current crisis
could generate a slight shift in the USCG politic, from that of enforcer of
domestic and international law to that of facilitator of commerce. This could
be done without negatively impacting environmental statutes or regulations, as
was done during WWII, the Korean War and Viet Nam. There are many of us that
believe that the interests of the U.S. would be better served during the
current emergency by such a change in regulatory posture.
