Coast Guard Makes a Course Correction on FSPs

 Apparently, based upon a recently published Coast Guard policy decision, lots of facilities will be able to throw their facility security plans (FSPs) in the trash. The policy document "Policy Advisory Council #02-11" lists 35 regulated cargos which are now exempt from maritime security regulations based upon their low risk. Most of the facilities which will be able to dispose of their FSPs are facilities that deal exclusively with barges. In general, if any of these facilities receive ships they will still be required to have an FSP due to the ships they receive, as always. However, the document is still useful for those ship-receiving facilities in deciding the appropriate level of security for the "cargo awaiting loading on ships" since the policy document clearly states these products, "have little threat of contributing to a TSI." Some questions for those ship-receiving facilities to ask about their FSP might be, "Do the cargo areas then still need to be restricted areas, or part of the secure area?"

 


But even more interesting is the second table of products listed in the policy document, labeled "Commodities that are not now and have never been regulated." The 11 products listed in this table include aggregate, gravel, gypsum, salt, etc. At first I didn't understand why the Coast Guard would find it necessary to publish a list of products which have never been regulated, although I had my suspicions.  Well, my suspicions were confirmed. Headquarters found it necessary to list those products because some facilities handling those products, but not receiving ships, had been mistakenly required to implement FSPs when those facilities had never fallen into the applicability of the maritime security regulations. Imagine the money spent by companies over the past seven years on plans, fences, cameras, training and TWIC cards, not to mention the stress and time wasted complying with a regulation which never applied. This is the unfortunate consequence of subscribing to the mentality of "just do whatever they say so they go away and leave us alone." 


Coast Guard headquarters' intent is to have consistent application and enforcement, and they continue to encourage industry to appeal if they feel the regulations are being applied or enforced incorrectly. I have submitted 37 FSPs to the Coast Guard, each one representing the "optimum level of compliance" for my client's facility. Few have been approved without a healthy debate up the chain of command on matters such as the TSI threats, the facility footprint, what needs to be a restricted area, what needs to be the secure area, etc. Four of these debates evolved into successful appeals, saving my clients hundreds and thousands of dollars.  Does your FSP represent the optimum level of compliance?

http://www.maritimecomplianceinternational.com/images/stories/articles/CG.PAC.02-11.exempt.commodities.pdf