User's Manual

Chamber of Shipping of America

June 2003 Monthly Update to the International Chamber of Shipping

Maritime Security

The long awaited interim final rule(s) for maritime security was published July 1, 2003 in the Federal

security in the areas of area/port systems, AIS, facilities, general requirements, outer continental shelf

facilities and vessels. The interim final rules are all effective July 1, 2003 with the final rule promulgation

expected by late November 2003. Interested parties may make comments to the docket for consideration

by the US Coast Guard in the finalizing of the regulations which are due by July 31, 2003. A public

meeting, which CSA will attend, is scheduled on July 23, 2003 in Washington, DC for purposes of

discussion and receiving comments from the public on these interim final rules. CSA will analyze these

interim rules and provide a full analysis for review by all interested parties with special emphasis on those

provisions which may be inconsistent with or more stringent than those contained in the newly adopted

SOLAS amendments and the ISPS Code. Recent press reports have suggested that the plan approval

requirements contained in theMaritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) require the US Coast Guard

to review andapprove the plans of every vessel calling in US ports (versus recognizing the “approved”

vessel plans issued by Flag States). The reader is asked to recall that the USCG’s position during the

deliberations leading up to adoption of the SOLAS amendments and the ISPS (and their current position),

held that they could meet their obligations under domestic legislation by recognition of these Flag State

approved plans. Unfortunately, Members of Congress disagree with this interpretation and support the

more stringent requirement that the USCG need approve each and every vessel plan. It is significant

however that Congress has previously increased the USCG budget to permit the addition of additional

personnel to handle the work load generated by the plan approval requirements for US flag

shipowners/operators ONLY, a point clearly made in the budget documents. This will be a significant

issue on which CSA, through regular discussions with Congressional staff, continues to support the

USCG position that they fulfill their responsibilities by recognition of approved security plans issued by

other governments which are party to the new SOLAS amendments (e.g. Flag States). Earlier in the

month, CSA received a question from Mr. Peter Hinchcliffe concerning use of AIS while in US ports

specifically during hazardous cargo operations. The specific question relates to the “rumor” that some US

ports may require AIS transmission at all times while a vessel is in port, including time at berth and how

such a requirement would conflict with existing safe operating practices in the ISGOTT Guide that

restricts VHF transmissions to less than 1 watt while a vessel is engaged in bulk hazardous cargo

operations (noting that some AIS units may transmit with up to 12 watts power). CSA has

approached the USCG and learned the following: (1) there is no truth to the rumor that some or all US

ports will require continuous AIS operations while a vessel is in port during a normal (MARSEC 1)

security level (2) the USCG did indicate that there may be situations during elevated security levels

(MARSEC 2 and 3) where a Captain of the Port may require such continuous operations including time at

berth (3) should such a

situation arise, provisions in the regulations permitting the AIS to be shut off where it jeopardizes the

safety and/or security of the vessel would control where the AISemissions exceed those that are deemed

safe by standard operating practices such asthose contained in the ISGOTT Guide. In order to avoid

conflicts in such situations, the USCG has advised us that the approved ship’s security plan should include

those situations where the AIS should be turned off and if questioned by a port state control officer, its

inclusion in the approved security plan would be sufficient for port state control purposes. On a practical

note, such a solution may require a limited opening of the vessel security plan to only that section that

indicates that the vessel is in such a designated situation that permits the AIS to be turned off. Another

practical concern which the USCG has promised to review and respond to CSA is what, if any,

notifications must be made to local port officials, when such an approved situation occurs.