Richard Plant--- IOMM & P--- No
Douglas Dillon---TMSA/AMFFO--- No
Kyle Grant--- Ft.Schuyler--- No
J. Scott Rainey--- APA--- Yes
Jean Godwin--- AAPA--- Yes
Brian Davidson--- ILWU--- Yes
Doug Schneider---World Shipping Council--- Yes
Rick Kaser--- DOT/Off. Of Intel &Security---No
Kevin Dale--- USCG- Port Security---No
Dan Floyd--- USCS-Port Security---No
Tom Marchessault---USDOT - OST--- No
Robert Edmonson--- Journal of Commerce--- No
Dragos Rauta--- INTERTANKO--- Yes
Jonathan Benner--- INTERTANKO--- Yes
Stephanie Meadows--- API---No
Tom McNamara--- USDOT - OST Policy--- No
Carl J. Seiberlich--- Transystems Corp---No
George Rodriguez--- TSA--- No
Bob Nelson---BOAT US--- Yes
Carol Lambos--- Counsel to USMX--- Yes
Marc MacDonald--- Pacific Maritime Association--- Yes
Chuck Carroll--- NAWE--- Yes
Jack Legler--- American Trucking Associations--- Yes
Bill Wanamaker--- American Trucking Associations--- Yes
Ellen Leonard--- ABS Consulting, Inc.--- Yes
Tony Furst--- USDOT (S-3)--- No
Matt Thomas--- Robins, Kaplan--- No
Chris Koch--- World Shipping Council--- Yes
Joe Cox--- Chamber of Shipping of America--- Yes
Richard Lolich--- U.S.Maritime Administration---No
Richard Lolich of the Maritime Administration convened the meeting at 10:00 am and welcomed the group. Mr. Lolich advised the group that due to a conflict, the Security Team Chair, Chuck Raymond, would be unable to attend, but had designated Carol Lambos, Counsel to USMX, as the Acting Chair for today's meeting. Participants introduced themselves. The Acting Chair called for a motion to approve the minutes of the May 13, 2002. It was so moved and seconded, and the minutes were approved.
Tony Furst of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, DOT, provided a briefing on the progress of the Interagency Container Working Group (CWG) and its Business Practices sub-group of which he is a Chair. The CWG is chaired by a Steering Committee, nowcomposed of Admiral Bennis of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Bruce Carlton of the Maritime Administration (MARAD), and a representative of the U.S. Customs Service. On February 1, 2002, the CWG provided a paper that detailed 24 recommendations short-term recommendations. These recommendations were also presented at a conference at Kings Point in July of this year. Among the issues the Business Practices sub-group is considering includeinternationalreciprocity, physical application and which governmental entity should receivereports.
After Mr. Furst's update, there was a Question and Answer period. Among them:
· What is the status of container bolt seal standards? U.S. Customs is working on a new seal standard. The lead time is not known.
· What intelligence groups/agencies is the CWG working with? Mostly transportation organizations.
Update on Pending Seaport Security Legislation
Carol Lambos advised the group that there is no compromised bill on the Hill at this time, and none is expected until Congress returns to Washington in September. When a new draft compromise bill is available, the Security Team will convene a meeting to discuss the bill. One of the participants asked if US DOT had sent a letter to Congress expressing their views on Seaport security. Mr. Tom Marchessault of the U.S. DOT Office of the Secretary, replied that a letter has been drafted, but has not yet been sent.
Carol Lambos pointed out that although the main focus of the Security Team has been on loaded containers, the group will also consider other areas, such as the procedures for transporting empty containers as well as passenger security and other relevant issues.
The group began a long and animated discussion on procedures for transportation empty containers. Jonathan Benner asked what the Security Team will present to the full MTSNAC at the Long Beach meeting. Carol Lambos replied that the Team will present the results of thisdiscussion. The following issues were discussed:
· Seals on empty containers may lead to a false sense of security
· No consensus on the best type of seal for empties
· If container is sealed and not manifested, what good is the seal?
· Empties currently possess advantage since they can be easily opened for inspection
· Since container seal must be broken at terminal gate for inspection, why is a seal necessary?
· Can a reusable seal be used so that empty container can be inspected and resealed?
· All empties may not currently be inspected at terminals, thus posing a potential security risk
· Standard practice for international container carriers is to inspect empty containers upon receipt at the terminal
· There are no local, state or federal regulations requiring inspection of empties - it is merely customary industry practice
· Seal on empty containers merely inhibits entry – does not prove a chain of custody
· Seals on empty containers make no sense if the seal is broken at terminal gate
· Since an empty container intended for one ship is often diverted to another, it is very difficult for terrorist to ensure that an empty stuffed with dangerous materials will actually go on a specific ship to a specific port
· No mandatory rules should be promulgated until the issue is fully understood and studied
· The issue appears to be one best suited for a business practices decision based on a risk analysis
Carol Lambos advised the group that she will summarize these issues for presentation to the full MTSNAC meeting in Long Beach. Some members suggested that a recommendation be finalized today for Long Beach, but it was decided such a blanket recommendation was probably premature. Chris Koch of the World Shipping Council stated that the Business Practices Subgroup of the CWG was discussing a sealed empty container protocol for imported containers from certain high risk ports and nations, based on certain risk and threat assessments.
Chuck Carroll asked if U.S. Customs had come up with a seal requirement, and Dan Floyd of U.S. Customs replied that a requirement had not been clarified.
The group took a ten-minute break and reconvened at 11:05.
General Security Issues
Jack Legler of ATA advised the group that certain state roadside law enforcement officers were unwilling to certify container shipments that had been unsealed for inspection and resealed. In addition, some receivers were unwilling to accept such shipments, in particular food shipments.
Should all foreign seafarers be required to have visas? Joe Cox of the Chamber of Shipping of America stated that the ILO was studying this issue, and that comments are to be received by December 2002 in preparation for the ILO conference in June 2003.
Mr. George Rodriguez, head of Cargo Security at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), joined the group and was introduced by Carol Lambos. Mr. Rodriguez briefed the group on the work of TSA, including Operation Safe Commerce, a test of container shipment procedures from origin to destination. Operation Safe Commerce will include the ports of Seattle/Tacoma, LA/Long Beach, and Oakland. Operation Safe Commerce will test three main system components: technology, training (with industry), and procedures. Mr. Rodriguez was asked if this would be the only test method. The answer is no - this is just one of several methods under consideration, including Federal labs. When asked if Operation Safe Commerce will issue solicitations and requirements, Mr. Rodriguez replied that it would only make recommendations.
Seafarer Identification (con't)
Joe Cox stated that the Chamber of Shipping of America is in favor of a credentialing document for seafarers that will fulfill all necessary security requirements. A national body should probably issue this document. There is also a need for a database to confirm the authenticity of the document. Mr. Cox added that ICAO is also working on an international air crew credentialing system. Biometric cards are also being reviewed, but there is no current biometric standard.
Richard Plant raised the issue of national (domestic) mariners. U.S. inland waterways mariners are not documented. The TSA requirements for transportation worker ID would include inland waterways workers. Admiral Seiberlich stated that current international standards should be reviewed prior to the adoption of any specific standard or requirement. Chris Koch added that the issue of international reciprocity should also be considered. He cited the issuance of visas to U.S. crew members for China or Russia. Jack Legler commented that current proposed legislation doesn't address the issue of worker ID documents or biometrics. Mr. Rodriguez replied that TSA and the Administration are taking an incremental approach, considering the sheer size of the transportation worker population. He also mentioned that there is a lack of adequate choke points in the transportation industry which would enhance security. Jonathan Benner stated that his group (INTERTANKO) had received reports of crew members with valid visas being confined to vessels while in port. He also added that current makeshift requirements are beginning to bog down vessel operations.
Doug Dillon raised the issue of the First Responders Program in U.S. ports and how best to integrate all participants so as to avoid wholesale closures of ports due to an alert or suspected cargo. Carol Lambos stated that the compromise port security bill may address the First Responder issue. She added that the Senate version (S. 1214) address the issue of professional security training.
George Rodriguez advised the group that one section of TSA is devoted to crisis response and that they are currently in the process of hiring a director and industry professionals to staff the office. One of the goals is uniform national training. Chris Koch asked if TSA would recommend a national protocol for First Responder and Mr. Rodriguez responded yes. He added that there was a critical need to standardize procedures. When asked if Customs would part of the protocol Mr. Rodriguez replied that Customs will be involved, but TSA will have the major role in development of a protocol.
Doug Dillon expressed his hope that the MTSNAC will take a proactive approach to all of the issues discussed today.
Admiral Seiberlich then updated the team on the IMO Pilot Security Program. The carrier participants are APL and Maersk-SeaLand and the port pairs include Rotterdam-NY, Panama-Houston, Singapore-Seattle, and Singapore-LA. A report is to be made to the Secretary of IMO by September 7, 2002.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:25 pm.