MARINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL

 

SECURITY TEAM MEETING

 

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2002

DOT HEADQUARTERS, ROOM 6200

1:00 PM

 

 

ATTENDEES

 

 

            NAME                                                            REPRESENTING

       Patrick Hall                                 National Association of Waterfront Employers

       Carol Lambos                              Counsel to USMX

       George Quick                              Int’l Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots

       Richard Plant                              Int’l Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots

       Chuck Carroll                              National Association of Waterfront Employers

       Col. George Montgomery          Military Traffic Management Command

       Hal Mesirow                               Pacific Maritime Association

       Ellen Leonard                              ABS Consulting

       Brian Davidson                           Int’l Longshore and Warehouse Union

       Don O’Hare                                World Shipping Council

       Jennifer Macdonald                    Association of American Railroads

       Matt Thomas                              Robins Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP

       Joe Cox                                       Chamber of Shipping of America

       Peter Gatti                                   National Industrial Transportation League

       Bill Wanamaker                          American Trucking Association

       Susan Turner                               American Association of Port Authorities

       Carl Seiberlich                            Transystems Corp.

       Julie Soutuyo                               SAIC

       Carol Malkolin                            U.S. Customs Service

       Dan Floyd                                    U.S. Customs Service

       Raymond Barberesi                    U.S. Maritime Administration

       Richard Lolich                             U.S. Maritime Administration

 

The meeting was called to order at 1:00 PM by the new Chair, Pat Hall of the National Association of Waterfront Employers.  Mr. Hall praised Chuck Raymond, the previous Chair, for all the work which he had done on the Security Team.

 

Raymond Barberesi, of the Maritime Administration, welcomed the team to DOT and thanked them for the work already done by the Security Team.  He said that the papers and suggestions submitted by the Team have been greatly appreciated at the Department of Transportation.  He added that the work of this group highlights what the MTSNAC Council does as it moves forward to assist the Secretary with a SEA-21 legislative proposal.  All those present then introduced themselves. 

 

Action Item 1

 

The Chair requested that the team review and approve the minutes of the August 5, 2002 meeting.  It was pointed out since the minutes had already been approved by the full Council at its August 13-14, 2002 meeting, there was no need to approve them today.

 

Action Item 2

 

The floor was opened to discussion of the draft paper on transporting empty containers.  Brian Davidson stated that security issues should not be addressed in the Business Practices Group as suggested in the draft.  He also added that not all steamship lines checked empty containers when they enter the port terminal.  Some do and some don’t.  If a container is sealed and checked at each point in the chain of command, then no further chain of custody is needed.  Mr. Davidson objected to the conclusion of the draft as outrageous and stated that the West Coast port lockout has no impact on container security.

 

Carol Lambos pointed out that the Business Practices Group is asking for a review of commercial and therefore that reference is appropriate.

 

Chuck Carroll pointed out that the security of all containers is important.  Empty containers cannot be studied and dealt with in a vacuum.  We should include the study of all containers.

 

Don O’Hare presented two amendments to the document:

 

• In the fifth bullet on the second page, delete considered in the first sentence, and replace it with the word determined, and add the following phrase after U.S. Government in the second line:  based on a specific threat assessment;
• In the sixth bullet on the second page, add the following sentence at the end:

This should be carried out in consultation with appropriate industry sectors.

 

Carol Makolin reminded the group that container seals testing could not be done nationwide, but only at selected locations.

 

Brian Davidson suggested the following amendments:

 

• In the first bullet on the second page, strike the entire second sentence, as there is no evidence to support this statement.
• In the seventh bullet on the second page, delete the word not in the first line.  Checking the seal does prove chain of custody.

 

He also took exception to the second sentence of the conclusion.

 

Bill Wanamaker pointed out that sealing inhibits legitimate parties from opening containers.  This is a big problem for truckers when law enforcement officers open containers to inspect and the seal is broken.  This represents not only time lost, but also financial loss to the shippers.

 

Chuck Carroll stated that container security must be considered in light of any future federal regime involving all containers.

 

Brian Davidson suggested that bullet #6 should eliminate the need for bullet #7 on the second page.  He also expressed concern with the fourth bullet on that page and asked why inspect sealed empties if loaded containers are not inspected?  He provided the group with additional ILWU written comments.

 

A motion was then made to approve the paper with the changes proposed.  The motion was approved with one dissension.

 

Action Item 3

 

Chuck Carroll provided the group with an update on current security legislation in Congress.  He said that the Senate should finish draft legislation on S-1214 sometime next week.  The funding portion has been dropped and the bill should be approved by mid-November.  Under this bill TWICs (Transportation Worker Identification Cards) will be required as well as background checks, and terminal and vessel plans must be approved by the Coast Guard.

 

Bill Wanamaker pointed out that under this proposed legislation secure area also includes private land outside and adjacent to the port.

 

Action Item 4

Two U.S. Coast Guard Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circulars (NVIC) were reviewed.  The first was NVIC 10 02, covering security guidelines for vessels.  This circular is now final, but there were some comments among the group.

 

George Quick noted that the workload of security officers onboard vessels under this NVIC will increase beyond the officer’s practical ability.  Manning requirements should be reviewed so as not to put U.S.-flag vessels at a competitive disadvantage with these types of security requirements.

 

Don O’Hare asked if there were any major inconsistencies between this NVIC and the draft IMO document.  Joe Cox replied that there weren’t.  This NVIC seems to track the IMO document very closely.  He also noted that the manning issue was important to his members.

 

The second NVIC, covering security guidelines for waterfront facilities, is still in draft form and comments were solicited. 

 

George Quick asked if there was a definition of high consequence facilities, referenced in Table 3 of Enclosure 3, page 4.  It was noted that the definition appears in Table 1.  Mr. Quick also pointed out in Note 2 on the same page of the document, the following should be added after escorted to/from facility entrances:  at no cost.

 

Joe Cox indicated that this will be addressed in the IMO meetings later this year.  He also noted that the ILO is working on this issue.  An important issue is that of visas.  All those entering the U.S. must have a visa, but a visa alone does not give the bearer a right to enter, only an opportunity.  The proposed international document will have positive and verifiable identification.

 

Carol Lambos noted that the draft NVIC seems to require terminal operators to police the water.  The document seems to be written more for a military facility.  National defense and container terminal security are not the same.  Chuck Carroll said that NAWE agreed with this criticism.  The document imposes security policing and other functions on private terminal operators.  A suggestion was made that MTSNAC recommend clarification of security responsibilities at waterfront facilities.  George Quick noted that the document is not clear on who is the police authority – vessel crew members or the port authority?  It was agreed that Carol Lambos and Chuck Carrollwould draft a position paper for review by the Team and presentation to the full MTSNAC Council meeting in New York in mid-November.

 

 

Other Business

 

 

Susan Turner presented a motion that MTSNAC recommend that the Secretary of Transportation request funding for Port Security Grants in the Fiscal Year 2004 budget.

 

Bill Wanamaker observed that the recent GAO report identified fees paid by maritime stakeholders.  Could we redirect some of these funds to port security?  It was noted that the Infrastructure Team had already discussed this and will make a recommendation to the full MTSNAC.

 

Discussion on the motion centered around the question of whether or not funding should be broadened to seaport security in general.  Why should we limit ourselves? 

 

Bill Wanamaker pointed out that we should be looking for a long term, sustained funding stream, not just a one year line item program such as the port security grant program.  Susan Turner’s motion was revised as follows: 

 

The MTSNAC recommends that the Secretary of Transportation request that the administration provide funds for port security mandates, including a port security grant program, in its FY ’04 and successive budgets.

 

It waspresented to the group for its approval.  The motion was seconded and approved unanimously.

 

In response to Bill Wanamaker’s question on how funding issues were handled by MTSNAC, Carol Lambos explained that the full Council had referred all MTS funding issues to the Infrastructure Team.

 

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:30 PM.