Page 27: of Maritime Logistics Professional Magazine (Q1 2012)

ers did not come close to this standard. TSA?s report to Con- gress is apparently still hung up in the review process above TSA?s level, but TSA representatives have repeatedly said the report will not include data on actual reader performance.Second, the details of the eventual TWIC reader require- ments are unknown at this point. But whatever the Þ nal regu- lation mandating the use of TWIC readers looks like, it will not require all MTSA-regulated facilities and vessels to use the readers all the time, let alone in the biometric mode all the time. In March 2007, the Coast Guard issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in which it asked for comments on its ?preliminary thoughts? on TWIC reader requirements. The ANNPRM proposed grouping vessels and facilities into three tiers based on the perceived risk from a terrorist incident.Vessels carrying CDCs in bulk or certi Þ cated for more than 1,000 passengers, and facilities that receive them, were placed in the highest risk category, with a requirement for a biometric match, card authenticity check, and card validity (not expired/ revoked) check for every entry. Vessels carrying HAZMAT other than CDCs or certi Þ cated for 500-1,000 passengers and facilities receiving them would have to do the electronic au- thenticity and validity checks for each entry, but a biometric match would only be required on a random basis not less than once a month at MARSEC Level 1. (At higher MARSEC Lev- els, this group would have to conduct the biometric match for each entry.) All other vessels and facilities would continue, at all MARSEC Levels, to use the visual checks currently in force, with the Coast Guard performing electronic veri Þ ca- tions of TWICs with hand-held readers during inspections and spot checks.The ANPRM speci Þ cally warned that both the risk group- ings and their reader requirements could be changed when the detailed regulatory proposal (a Notice of Proposed Rulemak- ing or NPRM) was issued, based on public comments on the ANPRM and the results of TSA?s pilot study. Most industry commentators supported the risk-based approach to reader re- quirements, but not necessarily the Coast Guard?s use of spe- ciÞ c cargos or passenger numbers. For example, the American Association of Port Authorities suggested Þ rst assessing over- all risk at the port level and then evaluating an individual facil- ity?s risk on a variety of factors, including nearby facilities. REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE VARIABLES Work on a proposed reader regulation is ongoing. Its is- suancehas been a moving target, but the Coast Guard, with access to the results of the pilot study, says it?s on track for publication later this year. Congress is another factor that may impact the shape of the NPRM. There are indications that the Coast Guard may be shifting its view of risk as a result of legislation removing TWIC requirements for mariners not serving on vessels requiring MTSA security plans (recently implemented by a Coast Guard Policy Memo). Congressional reaction to TSA?s pilot study report, once it?s delivered, could have a more direct impact. Once the NPRM is published there will be a month or two during which the public may submit comments and public hearings will be held. Then the Coast Guard will have to spend time considering the comments it receives, before it issues the Þ nal rule, which probably won?t happen until 2014. That rule will have to allow an extended time for the industry to comply with its requirements before they become legally enforceable. APPLES TO APPLES: ADD UP THE METRICS So, is the TWIC Program worth all the time and effort, not tomention money? An accurate costing of the program is not available. In the TWIC credentialing rulemaking of Janu- ary 2007, TSA and the Coast Guard estimated the 10-year implementation cost to government and the private sector at between $694 million and $3.2 billion. And those estimates don?t include any costs associated with implementing TWIC reader requirements. According to the GAO, TSA?s TWIC Program funding through 2010 amounted to over $111 mil- lion and FEMA had expended a like sum for TWIC-related security grants. To this must be added the $265 million or so paid by or for TWIC applicants to date, as well as their time and travel. It?s clear the original vision of universal use of readers for biometric matching all the time will not be realized. From a security perspective, each departure from that ideal reduces the effectiveness and value of the Program. But it is not true that, as one Congressman said ?without any readers, TWIC is about as useful as a library card.? A ?fully? vetted maritime work force is certainly worth something in a multi-layered ap- proach to protecting the maritime transportation system from terrorism. Perhaps, however, risk-based analysis should be ap- plied not only to determine where and when TWIC readers are required, but also to decide which workers really need to undergo vetting for the TWIC itself. The Author John C. W. Bennett has been the President/Chief Executive Of? cer of Maritime Protective Services since January 1994. During that time he has managed the international operations of a specialist maritime security company with of? ces on two continents and a worldwide practice, as well as personally participating in the development of maritime security assessments and plans, the conduct of security audits, design of security exercises, and other maritime security services. In 2006, he was appointed a Distinguished Visiting Research Professor at the University College, Florida Institute of Technology. In 2011, Mr. Bennett was selected to join the Federal Bureau of Investigations INFRAGARD vetted collaboration on Critical Infrastructure Protection with the private sector. He holds a B.A. from Swarthmore College, a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center, and has written several articles in the maritime trade press. He is the author of the well respected blog, Maritime Transportation Security News & Views,? which is carried on the Maritime Professional website.www.maritimeprofessional.com | Maritime Professional | 27