u.s. coast guard intertanko north american panel presentation

United States Coast GuardMarine Safety, Security, and Stewardship

U.S. Coast Guard INTERTANKO North American

Panel Presentation

Mr. Jeff LantzDirector of Commercial Regulations and Standards

April 27, 2010


Outline Coast Guard leadership changes

Port State Control Update Piracy and Executive Order TWIC Seafarer Access

Regulatory Development• Air Emissions • Ballast Water Management• Vessel General Permit• Climate Change • Salvage


Coast Guard Leadership ChangesCommandant

ADM Robert Papp

Vice - CommandantVADM Sally Brice-

Ohara

Deputy Cmdt OperationsRADM Brian Salerno

CG-5RADM Paul Zukunft

CG-53RDML Cari Thomas

Pollution response, law enforcement, SAR

CG-52Mr. Jeff Lantz

Technical standards, IMO, Regulations

CG-53RDML Kevin Cook

Vessel inspection, PSC, maritime security


Port State Control UpdateTank Vessel Stats

Safety Detentions

Security Major Control Actions

2008 2009 2008 2009

All Vessels 176 162 27 18

Tank Vessels 22 20 3 1

Operational Controls by Vessel Type

All vessels Tank vessels

Category 2008 2009 2008 2009

Fire Fighting Appliances 62 57 11 13

Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery 65 47 12 4

Marine Pollution 88 43 19 10

Crew 51 41 5 5

Life Saving Appliances 50 34 5 3

Top 5 Detainable Deficiencies


Port State Control Targeted Flags - 2010

PSC Targeted Flags – 2010 (preliminary)

7 Points 2 Points

Bolivia * Antigua and Barbuda

Chile Belize*

Cook Islands Gibraltar *

Croatia Italy

Honduras Malta

Mexico Netherlands

Russian Federation Panama

St. Kitts and Nevis * Turkey

St. Vincent and the Grenadines Republic of Korea *

Venezuela *

* Administrations not targeted in 2009


Port State Control – QUALSHIP 21 Eligible Flags for 2010

Barbados Greece Singapore *

Canada * Isle of Man * Sweden

China Japan Switzerland

Denmark Malaysia Thailand *

France Marshall Islands

Germany Norway

* New this year


Port State Update Chronically Detained Vessel Policy

•Would deny a vessel entry if the vessel has been subject to three detentions in a 12 month period, if the Coast Guard determines that those detentions are related to their Safety Management System (SMS) and adequate measures were not put in place to prevent reoccurrences.

•The vessel would be temporarily denied entry; giving the vessel, company, and flag State time to perform a proper assessment of the vessel’s SMS and to ensure proactive measures are taken to improve the ineffective SMS and prevent continued non-compliance.


Port Security – Conditions of Entry

• The Coast Guard imposes Conditions of Entry on vessels arriving from ports with inadequate security requiring those vessels to take additional security precautions. See Port Security Advisory 3-10 dated 14 April 2010

• This year, CG has imposed additional security measures for LNG vessels arriving from high risk countries.

• Venezuela – frequent flyer policy

Cambodia Guinea-Bissau Mauritania

Cameroon Indonesia San Tome & Principe

Republic of Congo Iran Syria

Cuba Liberia Timor-Leste

Equatorial Guinea Madagascar Venezuela


USCG Piracy-Related Policy & Guidance• Maritime Security (MARSEC) Directive 104-6 (Rev 2)

• Guidance/direction for U.S. flagged vessels operating in High Risk Waters• Provides enhanced security measures • Supported by supplementary guidance in Port Security Advisories (PSAs)

PSA (2-09) – Non-SSI version of directive; for public release.PSA (3-09) – Guidance on Self-defensive and defense of othersPSA (4-09) – Guidance on International Traffic in Arms Regs (ITAR)PSA (5-09) – Guidelines for contracted security servicesPSA (6-09) – Establishes a screening process for security personnelPSA (8-09) – Provides info regarding the carriage and transport of self-defensive weapons into foreign ports/statesPSA (9-09) – Guidance on expected course of action following a pirate attackPSA (11-09) – Supplementary guidance on defensive measures

• MARSEC Directive 104-6 (series) is being revised and will incorporate lessons-learned and best management practices that were successful in thwarting pirate attacks.

Piracy


Executive Order concerning Somalia

• Provides authority and tools to go after the “bad guys”, i.e. those persons and entities that are destabilizing Somalia

•Applies to only the 11 persons and one entity listed in the Annex

• Prohibits all transactions, including remittances and other payments (ransoms), by U.S. persons or others doing business in the U.S. to the persons and entity identified in the EO

• Need a US nexus – foreign flag ship, foreign company

• Prosecutorial discretion based on the facts of the case

• No pre-decision on legality or ransom payment

•Questions: Dept of Treasury (OFAC) 202-540-6322

Piracy


Transportation Worker Identification Credential•Since the national compliance date of April 15, 2009, all personnel requiring unescorted access to secure areas of MTSA regulated facilities and vessels, and all mariners holding Coast Guard issued credentials, are required to have a TWIC.

•Individuals applying for a B-1 visa who work in the maritime domain are to obtain an annotation allowing them to be eligible for a TWIC. TSA will be putting out information on the process soon.

•Risk-Based Approach to TWIC Reader Regulations (ANPRM published March 2009)•Maximum consequence•Criticality to nation•TWIC utility

•Three Risk Groups•Highest: Biometric check at each entry •Middle: Biometric check once/month •Lowest: Visual identification

•NPRM will be informed by the Pilot Program, currently underway to test business processes, technology, & operational impacts of readers


Seafarer AccessReports to the Coast Guard: inconsistent interpretation of regulations exorbitant fees for escorts limited hours of escort availability facility denial of access without TWIC

Coast Guard efforts include: Strong push for seafarer access using the tools currently available to the COTP Clarification on interpretation of regulation and policy and flexibility with the COTPs to

approve monitoring and escort plans ALCOAST 529/08 and 575/09 Reviewing Facility Security Plans to include seafarer access provisions

Port security grant money eligibility for projects associated with the facilitation of seafarer access


Salvage and Marine FirefightingRulemaking TROIKA• Salvage and Marine Firefighting

• Published December 31, 2008• Vessel and Facility Response Plans for Oil;2003 Removal Equipment Requirements &Alternative Technical Revisions

• Published August 31, 2009• Amended S&MFF compliance to February 22, 2011

• Non-tank Vessel Response Plans• NPRM published August 31, 2009• Working to resolve comments and publish final rule• Goal is to publish Final Rule ASAP; recognize the importance of having it published by February 22, 2011


BWDS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published August 28 2009• Received over 3000 comments, currently evaluating• Proposal - Phased Approach

•IMO Standard initially•1000 times more stringent than IMO after 2016

• Practicability Review will determine if 1000x standard can be met.• If Practicability Review determines 1000x cannot be met, then intermediary standards established.

•Type Approval Process

Ballast Water Management



Technical description

Large Organisms(> 50μm)

Small Organisms(>10μ and ≤50 μm)

Very Small Organisms(≤ 10μm)

Bacteria

Toxigenic Vibrio

cholerae (O1 & O139)

Eschericia coli

Intestinal enterococci

Phase One < 10 per m3 < 10 per ml N/A <1 cfu per 100 ml

<250 cfu per 100 ml

<100 cfu per 100 ml

Phase Two < 1 per 100 m3

< 1 per 100 ml

< 1000 bacterial

cells AND < 10,000

viruses per 100 ml

<1 cfu per 100 ml

<126 cfu per 100 ml

<33 cfu per 100 ml


Given anticipated timeframe for U.S. approval process, initial systems likely to be foreign approved

• Develop a process for foreign acceptance• Dependent upon transparency of administration and testing facility process and dossier• May require additional testing or refinement prior to U.S. type approval.

State preemption still exists• Both laws authorizing Coast Guard and EPA permit states to establish their own BWDS



Vessel General Permit• Prohibits discharge of any pollutant from any point source into navigable waters without a permit.• EPA instituted VGP in December 2008 w/ effective date of February 2009.• VGP identified 28 different discharge streams which must be controlled.• As of 19 September 2009, vessels must submit Notice of Intent to receive coverage.•CG & EPA working together to develop joint enforcement measures

• USCG/EPA reached agreement on MOU for VGP compliance – 12 May • CG examines vessels for compliance during routine exams.• Discrepancies referred to EPA for action.• Initial enforcement generally limited to outreach and education, only egregious cases will warrant penalty action


Amended MARPOL Annex VI entered into force on 1 Jan 2010• Tier II NOx standards for ships built after 2011• Tier III NOx standards for ships built after 2016 when

operating in an ECA• Increase SOx standards: 4.5% prior to 2012, 3.5% after 2012,

0.5% after 2020• SOx ECA requirements: 1.5% prior to July 2012, 1.0% after

July 2010, 0.1% after 2015

Air Emissions

North America Emission Control Area (ECA) adopted by IMO (MEPC 60, March 2010) – enters into force 1 August 2011 – extends 200 mi from coast of US and Canada

• 1.0 % sulfur on 1 August 2012, 0.1% sulfur after 1 January 2015• Tier III NOx for ships after 1 January 2016 • EPA regulations apply ECA standards to the internal waters of the US• Equivalency, i.e. exhaust after treatment permitted


US position regarding GHG emissions in the maritime sector

IMO is the appropriate regulatory body Fully support development of and application of EEDI to

both new and existing ships Heartened by the progress on the EEDI made at MEPC 60 US proposal on Market Based Measure (MBM)

• Based on CO2 efficiency, Applies efficiency standard to both new and existing ships

• Neither a cap or bunker levy • Ships have options to demonstrate compliance –

technical, operational or efficiency credit trading• Incentivizes development of efficient ships

Climate Change


US GHG Proposal

Effective date

Time

Eff

icie

ncy

Baselines

New ship(EEDI)

Existing ship

Efficiency Goal


US GHG Proposal

Effective date

Time

Eff

icie

ncy

AShip

Y1

Baselines

New ship(EEDI)

Existing ship

Efficiency Goal

B


US GHG Proposal

Effective date

Time

Eff

icie

ncy

A

B

CShip

Y1 Y2

Baselines

New ship(EEDI)

Existing ship

Efficiency Goal


US GHG Proposal

Advantages of US proposal• Efficiency improvements provide significant cost savings

through reduced fuel costs• Incentivizes building and operating of efficient ships• All revenues from this scheme fund projects within the

international maritime sector• Efficiency credit trading makes the most cost-effective

efficiency gains available to all in the sector• Does not cap absolute emissions• Provides certainty to the industry


Thank you

u.s. coast guard intertanko north american panel presentation

Documents