NVIC 01-00: Guidance on Harbor Safety Committees under MTS

COMDTPUB P16700.4 NVIC 1-00 25 APRIL 2000 NAVIGATION AND VESSEL INSPECTION CIRCULAR NO. 1-00 Subj: GUIDANCE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF HARBOR SAFETY COMMITTEES UNDER THE MARINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (MTS) INITIATIVE Ref: (a) U.S. Department of Transportation, "An Assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System: A Report to Congress," September 1999 (b) COMDTINST 5420.37, Committee Management Policy and Procedures (c) U.S. Coast Guard, "Harbor Safety Committee Study," by RHH Associates, Inc., February 2000

Guidance for the establishment and development of Harbor Safety Committees under the Maritime Transportation System (MTS) initiative. — PURPOSE. The Interagency Committee for the Marine Transportation System (ICMTS) elected to use this document as a vehicle to provide guidance for local coordination of Marine Transportation System issues such as ports and waterways safety, security, mobility and environmental protection. Reference (c) has called for improved coordination of MTS issues at all lev

1. PURPOSE. The Interagency Committee for the Marine Transportation System (ICMTS) elected to use this document as a vehicle to provide guidance for local coordination of Marine Transportation System issues such as ports and waterways safety, security, mobility and environmental protection. Reference (c) has called for improved coordination of MTS issues at all levels by public and private stakeholders. This Navigation and Inspection Circular (NVIC) provides guidance for possible ways to accomplish this at the local level. This NVIC is careful not to mandate the formation of new local MTS committees or to force adoption of all MTS issues by existing committees such as Harbor Safety Committees. This NVIC does encourage local stakeholders to review their current state and existing committees such as Harbor Safety Committees and/or existing committees to encourage local stakeholders to review their current state and to use this guidance as necessary to improve local coordination of issues within our MTS. Although titles vary by locality, for the purposes of this guidance, a port MTS coordinating body or committee will be referred to as a "Harbor Safety Committee" (HSC). HSC responsibilities include recommending actions to improve the safety, security, mobility and environmental protection of a port or waterway. An HSC is typically comprised of representatives of governmental agencies, maritime labor and industry organizations, environmental groups, and other public interest groups. HSC is used as a term of convenience and it is not necessary that existing or new committees be called HSCs or that these groups concern themselves solely with safety.

Guidance for the establishment and development of Harbor Safety Committees under the Maritime Transportation System (MTS) initiative. — DIRECTIVES AFFECTED. None

DIRECTIVES AFFECTED. None

Guidance for the establishment and development of Harbor Safety Committees under the Maritime Transportation System (MTS) initiative. — BACKGROUND:

a. HSCs have long been recognized as a key to safe, efficient and environmentally sound operations. In the 1996 U.S. Port and Terminal Safety Study, the Independent Terminal and Tanker Owners (INTERTANKO) noted that port complexes, their associated waterways, and their terminals have extremely diverse infrastructure, quality control, management, procedures and port functions. HSCs are often the only local bodies available for facility operators and port users to functions. HSCs are often the only local bodies available for facility operators and port users to meet and discuss mutual safety, mobility and environmental protection issues. These committees have varying degrees of scope and effectiveness. There have never been standard guidelines, expectations, representation or organizational structure, nor has there been a national coordinating mechanism to achieve consistency or synergy among the many autonomous harbor committees. b. At the MTS National Conference in November 1998, senior stakeholders agreed that:

(1) there is a strong need for effective local coordinating organizations,

(2) successful local committees can serve as models for other ports seeking to establish coordinating organizations or to improve the effectiveness of existing organizations,

(3) there is no consistent mechanism for communication among local public and private sector entities. c. After the MTS National Conference, the Secretary of Transportation established the MTS Task Force mandated in the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998. The Task Force assessed the adequacy of the nation's marine transportation system in a report delivered by the Secretary of Transportation to Congress (ref. (a)). d. A primary recommendation from the report was the creation of a stakeholder coordination framework. Two key elements are the MTS National Advisory Council (MTSNAC) and the ICMTS, comprised ICMTS. The Council, comprised entirely of private sector members, and the ICMTS, comprised of federal government agencies, will provide a structured approach for addressing national-level issues and recommendations. Other key elements of the MTS coordination framework include regional (where needed) and the local committees. The report's recommendations addressed the regional (where needed) and the local committees. The report's recommendations addressed the call for local coordination and leadership by endorsing HSCs as the mechanism in the proposed coordination framework. e. Committees, as recommended in the MTS report, already exist in many ports, but they may need to be modified to respond to the MTS recommendations found in reference (a). The Coast Guard recognizes the importance of specialized structure and leadership in existing HSCs that will vary from port to port, conforming to the needs and characteristics of each region or locality. However, achieving MTS expectations from reference (a) and increasing local/national coordination and plugging into a national coordinating structure allows a stronger local voice for vetting issues to a higher level, facilitates more efficient handling of port issues and results in a better run, safer and more economically efficient port or waterway. Through adopting those traits that have helped other HSCs, using tools and assistance that the Coast Guard can provide and addressing issues that can advance our MTS as a whole, each individual port is improved.

Guidance for the establishment and development of Harbor Safety Committees under the Maritime Transportation System (MTS) initiative. — DISCUSSION.

a. There are several options to facilitate local coordination of MTS issues. Local conditions should drive selection of the appropriate option:

(1) Enhance an already existing committee or HSC

(2) Add an MTS subcommittee to an existing HSC

(3) Consolidate several committees into one body

(4) Allow several committees to remain separate

(5) Create a new committee Coordinating MTS issues through one committee as opposed to several committees in a given port or waterway area may be easier from a resource efficiency and coordination effort perspective.

Using an existing committee may also be preferable to forming a new committee for the same reasons.

There are instances, though, in which several committees may be preferable because they may provide port where needed and formation of a new committee is more desirable. b.

HSCs were suggested as the best mechanism for local coordination of MTS issues because they have a proven track record in dealing with port safety issues, have a diverse membership which includes most MTS stakeholder groups and because HSCs already exist in most ports and because there are already a plethora of stakeholder committees.

The last point is important because there are already a plethora of stakeholder waterways.

The last point is important because there are already a plethora of stakeholder waterways.

There is no formula for determining when the benefits of an existing committee will benefit from expanding to address MTS issues beyond safety.

Therefore, it is recommended that local MTS stakeholders first consider expanding existing HSCs before moving to establish new local coordinating bodies to address MTS issues beyond safety. c.

Local coordination plays a critical role in improving our MTS.

It is recognized that the establishment or enhancement of HSCs may add time, effort and possible funding burdens to local port stakeholders.

However, HSC establishment/enhancement is a key first step in moving forward with many of the recommendations in the much larger MTS initiative, in which HSCs are viewed as key coordinating bodies. d.

There are also numerous advantages to HSCs using the guidance outlined here.

Enhancing local coordination and plugging into a national coordinating structure allows a stronger local voice for vetting issues to a higher level, facilitates more efficient handling of port issues and results in a better run, safer and more economically efficient port or waterway.

Through adopting those traits that have helped other HSCs, using tools and assistance that the Coast Guard can provide and addressing issues that can advance our MTS as a whole, each individual port is improved. e.

Local port stakeholders should view this NVIC as assistance, guidance and support.

It is not the intention of the Coast Guard to mandate or control these organizations, but it is our intention to actively promote and encourage the establishment and expansion of these organizations as a local MTS coordinating body.

Individual HSCs can commensurate with their importance as a local MTS coordinating body.

Individual HSCs can use this guidance to the degree necessary to increase their effectiveness.

The decisions regarding how to achieve this are left to the discretion of each HSC and local stakeholders. f.

Enclosure (1) contains generic characteristics and organizational structure that HSCs can use as a blueprint or guide.

A summary of the recommendations from reference (a) with the most direct relevance to HSCs is also included as a catalyst to further discussion about the potential benefits of establishing an HSC as outlined in this guidance.

In addition, the enclosure discusses two of the tools developed by the Coast Guard for enhancing HSCs' ability to fulfill their mission.

The tools developed by the Coast Guard for enhancing HSCs' ability to fulfill their mission.

The first of these tools is the "Harbor Safety Committees National Information Clearinghouse & Exchange," a communications and information hub (web-site) designed to facilitate access to useful information and to allow communication between HSCs and to the national coordinating bodies.

The second is a suite of risk assessment and risk management tools that will be available through the local COTP to assist HSCs in defining and managing the safety, security, mobility and environmental risks of their waterway. g.

There are important issues related to HSCs that are best resolved within each region or locality.

We urge local stakeholders to give these careful consideration:

(1) The feasibility and need for regional HSCs. Reference (a) advocates the establishment of regional coordinating bodies where they can be beneficial. HSCs should consider whether regional level organizations could assist them in addressing issues that are beyond their local scope to solve (e.g., proposed dredging that may affect waterborne commerce to an entire region and would benefit from regional coordination); and

(2) The need for HSCs at smaller ports. There is no formula for determining when the benefits of local stakeholders nor could this guidance properly determine the need for establishing additional HSCs at smaller ports. However, this subject should be considered by stakeholders to assure that attention is given to MTS coordination where needed to properly address local issues. h. In coordinating, supporting or participating in the activities of HSCs you should be aware of the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) as implemented by reference (b). HSCs will not generally be advisory committees under FACA if they are organized and run in accordance with the guidance contained in this NVIC. However, departure from this guidance, for example, through Coast Guard control of an HSC's governance or agenda, could convert an HSC into an advisory committee required to comply with the provisions of FACA. You should ensure that HSCs do not become advisory committees under FACA by familiarizing yourself with FACA, and reference (b). Any questions on this matter should be referred to your servicing legal office or Commandant (G-LRA).

Guidance for the establishment and development of Harbor Safety Committees under the Maritime Transportation System (MTS) initiative. — ACTION. Coast Guard Captains of the Port (COTPs), other government agencies, maritime industry and interested stakeholders are encouraged to consider the expectations of reference (a). Existing and interested stakeholders are encouraged to evaluate their current organizational structure and agenda and use this HSCs are encouraged to evaluate their current organi

5.

ACTION.

Coast Guard Captains of the Port (COTPs), other government agencies, maritime industry and interested stakeholders are encouraged to consider the expectations of reference (a).

Existing and interested stakeholders are encouraged to evaluate their current organizational structure and agenda and use this HSCs are encouraged to evaluate their current organizational structure and agenda and use this guidance to enhance and/or expand as necessary.

If no HSCs exist in an area, the local MTS stakeholders are encouraged to consider the benefits of establishing an HSC as outlined in this guidance.

Reference (a) and (c) can be accessed at (www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/w/docs.htm).

R.C.

NORTH Rear Admiral, U.S.

Coast Guard Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety and Environmental Protection Encl: Generic Attributes of Successful Harbor Safety Committees Non-Standard Distribution: C:e New Orleans (90); Hampton Roads (50); Baltimore (45); San Francisco, Puget Sound (40); Philadelphia, Port Arthur, Honolulu (35); Miami, Houston, Mobile, Long Beach, Morgan City, Portland (30); Jacksonville (20); Boston, Portland ME, Charleston, Galveston, Anchorage (15); Cleveland OR (25); Jacksonville (20); Boston, Portland ME, Charleston, Galveston, Anchorage (15); Cleveland (12); Louisville, Memphis, Paducah, Pittsburgh, St.

Louis, Savannah, San Juan, Tampa, Buffalo, Chicago, Detroit, Duluth, Milwaukee, San Diego, Juneau, Valdez (10); Providence, Huntington, Wilmington, Corpus Christi, Toledo, Guam, Sault Ste.

Marie (5).

C:n New York (70) D:d Group/MSO Long Island Sound (6) D:1 CG Liaison Officer MILSEALIFTCOMD (Code N-7CG), CG Liaison Officer RSPA (DHM-22), CG Liaison Officer JUSMAGPHIL, CG Liaison Officer MARAD (MAR-742), CG Liaison Officer ABS, Maritime Liaison Office Commander U.S.

Naval World Maritime University, CG Liaison Office Commander U.S.

Naval Forces Central Command (1).

U.S.

Merchant Marine Academy (1).