Maritime Transportation and Security Act of 2002
MARITIME TRANSPORTATION AND SECURITY ACT OF 2002 15
MaritimeTransportation and Security Act of 2002
Abrief legislative history of the Maritime Transportation and SecurityAct of 2002
The2002 Maritime Transportation Security Act joins together the myriadof national, state, local and personal decree enforcement agenciessupervising the security of the worldwide boundaries in America`sseaports. The bill gives authorization to more officers of thesecurity sector, more broadcasting equipment, and the construction ofsignificant infrastructure around the seaports for safety purposes.
OnAugust 2001, the Senate Commerce Committee collectively came togetherand approved a preceding description of the Port as well as theMaritime Security Act which centered on offense, as well as cargotheft. The statement was dramatically expanded to concentrate on thenew menace of violence that took place at the United States seaportsafter September 11. TheBushgovernment endorsed the novel statement on December 6, and approvedthe Senate by common approval on December 20, 2001. On June 4, 2002,the House of Representative endorsed the bill. The convention came toan end on November 12, after which the Senate was provided with thereport for suggestion.
Withthe implementation of this act in the United States, its fullsupplies came into effect on the 1stof July 2004. It requires vesselsas well as port facilities for the purpose of conductingvulnerabilityassessing and developing securityplans which may include passenger, car and belongings screeningprocesses, safety measure patrols, establishment of areas which arerestricted, personnel identification processes, access controlprocedures, as well as installing surveillanceapparatus. The decree creates a reliable security agenda for all thenation’s havens to better spot as well as put off threats.Developed using risk-based method, the Maritime, Transportation andSecurity Act of 2002 security regulations focus on those divisions ofmaritimeindustryhaving a higher risk of connection with a transportation securityevent, including several tank vessels, barges, huge passenger vessel,vesselsof cargo, offshore gas and oil platforms and port amenities thathandle definite kinds of hazardous freight or service the vesselsmentioned above.
Maritime,Transportation and Security Act of 2002 also required establishingcommittees in all ports of the nation. This was for the purpose ofcoordinating activities of all harbor stakeholders, including otherlocal, federal and state unions. These unions, referred to as AreaMaritime Security Committees, are tasked with working together tosecure their ports so that the resources of an area can be best putin use for deterring, preventing and responding to threats ofterror. The UnitedStates Coast Guardissued rules for enacting the provisions of the decree and foraligning domestic regulations with the maritime security values ofSOLAS as well as the ISPS Code. The rules are found in Title33of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 101 through 107. Part104holds vessel security rules, including some supplies that pertain tooverseas ships in United States waters.
MaritimeSecurity Act of 2002 (S. 1214)
Thisdecree provides for a countrywide system for protecting the MarineTransportation System. Generally, it does the following:
It enables the Transportation Secretary to perform an evaluation of all vessels and amenities on or next to the water. This is for the purpose if identifying those that are at the risk of getting involved with transportation security incidents. This helps to make certain that those identified are dealt with effectively and on time. This helps to make certain that any further risks are avoided. Once these amenities have been identified, effective security measures are taken and the Coast Guard conducts more assessments on the vessels.
Provides a go-ahead for the Coast Guard to establish the National Marine Transportation Security Plan as well as the regional Area Maritime Transportation Security Plans. This will be satisfactory for deterring a transportation protection incident to the highest extent. Area plans will as well be produced to cover contingency reaction to potential attacks of terrorism.
Provides a go ahead for the very first time that all ports and vessels have complete security plans and confrontation response plans basing on detailed Coast Guard exposure assessments as well as security recommendations. The policies will, therefore be submitted by waterfront facilities, port authorities, Coast Guard, and vessel operators. The policies are necessitated to be endorsed by the Coast Guard. Besides, the entire ports, harbor vessels and amenities are required to function under security plans that are approved.
Sets up restricted port security committees to enhance the coordination of efforts of federal local and private decree enforcement bureaus and to advise on plans security plans. The federal bureaus include brainpower, Customs, Immigration, FBI and the Coast Guard (Frittelli, 2005)
Directs the United States DOT to build up rules to develop protected vicinities within the ports with the intention of ensuring safety, and to limit right of entry to areas requiring high security by employing initial verification, besides issuing transportation protection identification card, limit firearms and other weapons as well as developing an evacuation plan (Matison, 2009). Background checks will be carried out for the employees who are working in areas that are security-sensitive. Seafarers will also be mandatory to bring globally satisfactory identification.
Sets up a grant agenda to make equitable and fair allocations to port powers, harbor facility machinists, as well as local and state agencies to offer protection infrastructure and services (Hecker, 2002).
Authorizes grants for several forms of security upgrades including compensation for the purposes of upgrading which are in accord with the Federal National and Area Security Plans accomplished since September 11, 2001. Authorizes such arithmetic values as essential to assist grant beneficiaries comply with the centralized security requirements directed by the legislation. As required by the Act, the Administration to propose financial support levels for seaport safety measure agendas and mandates yearly reports outlining fulfillment with the safety measure consents ascertained in the legislation (Close, 2009).
Authorizes $90 million to ensure that research and development of grants are granted for improvement methodologies for the purpose of amplifying the capacity of the United States Customs Service to inspect products transported by vessels arriving in the US build up equipment to detect nuclear equipment improving the seals and tags employed on delivery vessels, including elegant sensors for the purpose of tracking consignments as well apparatus to allay the consequences of fanatic attack (Moyer & Handerson, 1974).
Authorizes 33 million dollars for the development of security instruction as well as for tutoring and certification of state, federal, as well as private security workforce. It also provides direction to the Transportation Secretary to generate a curriculum aimed at teaching as well as principles for certification of maritime defense workforce. In order to develop the principles, a convention comprising of the Federal Law Enforcement Training, in conjunction with the private unions, police agencies, as well as the maritime protection workforce is to be held. Various settings where the teaching can be provided encompass the Appalachian Transportation Institute, and the US Merchant Marine Academy amongst others. The training opportunities would be offered to the US maritime security workforce among other human resources working in overseas ports employed by vessels with US citizens as crew members and passengers (Maritime Transportation Security Act, 2002).
Requires the expansion of a maritime brainpower system for collecting and analyzing data concerning vessels operating in maritime sector under the U.S control and the crew, passengers as well as cargoes carried. A maritime aptitude agency will be anticipated to work jointly with other agencies in collecting and analyzing data not available from other brainpower supplies.
Enhances the reporting of imported consignments, travelers, as well as crew members with the intention of tracking distrustful actions in an effective manner.
Requires business vessels to be fitted with and run a mechanical detection system whilst navigating on the US waters, in addition to elongated array tracking system for global expedition vessels encompassing US waters. Through this, it is possible for vessel movements to be tracked effectively (Caldwell, 2007).
Ensures that supply chain protection is provided, in addition to a safe trading system. This is achieved by permitting for protected maritime borders s well as an effective freight transportation system. Screening, inspecting, and clearing ocean vessels together with the luggage being transported would be beneficial to the US as well as the clients of the Marine Transportation system. A trade program would be developed by the Transportation Oversight Board. The program would allow for the establishment of standards to improve the physical protection of freight containers.
Establishes a Maritime Security Advisory Committee whose purpose is to provide information and recommendations on issues relating to national safety.
Sanctions the Sea Marshal agenda in addition to necessitating the protection of maritime. The defense teams are responsible for protecting the public, waterfronts, vessels, ports, as well as harbor facilities. As put forth by the Maritime Security (2003), the Coast Guard is sanctioned to enter ships going in the US ports for the purpose of preventing high jacking among other terrorist menaces. It also improves maritime safety through the establishment of maritime security crews.
Provides directions to the Transportation Security to evaluate antiterrorism actions sustained by overseas ports that are served by the US vessels, or that are projected to pose a security threat to global maritime business thus denying entrance of vessels which originate from ports without efficient antiterrorism measures.
Approved approximately 6 billion dollars for the financial year 2003 for the Coast Guard overall budget. This continued the rising trend of the Coast Guard’s budget from the financial year 2001 misappropriation amount of 4.5 billion dollars, and 5.8 billion dollars in 2002.
Integration of the authorization bill of the Coast Guard- the initial bill was enacted in 1998 by the Congress. The provisions mirrors those provided in the Authorization Act of 2001, as well as those provided in the House maritime security bill.
Amplifies the utmost yearly military workforce from 35,500 to 45,500 and incorporates workforce inducement.
Sanctions 725 million dollars for capital investment. This guarantees sufficient funding of the multi-year deepwater plan as well as the renovation of the National Distress and Response system (Akiva & Lorenz, 2007).
Provision of amplified endorsement degree of appropriation in the financial year 200, in addition to ensuring amplified workforce. About six billion dollars is permitted by the bill for the entire budget of the Coast Guard for the financial year 2003, roughly one billion dollar higher as compared to the previous financial year Transportation Appropriations Bill. Besides, it is roughly 200 million dollars higher as compared with the whole approved amount in the financial year 2002.
It necessitates the Coast Guard to offer Congress with an inclusive report regarding its subsisting NDS system, categorize the existing reporting gaps in the US, particular steps of filling the gaps, a register of the entire marine accidents taking place in locales where such gaps have been identified, and short-term steps which can be undertaken to fill the gaps.
Necessitates the establishment and implementation of safety operations standards by the Coast Guard. Such operations encompass the entire rescue and search facilities. The standards encompass the duration a person can supply his services on watch, as well as the acquirement of equipment to attain security in the short-term, considering the improvement of the whole system.
Making certain that there are sufficient workforce and capital resources for the Coast Guard. Such resources must be provided at an efficient time. According to Ellen (2012), the dreadful actions of September 11 resulted in the positioning of better demands on the Coast Guard. This is termed as the locale of homeland security.
The Coast Guard is required by the bill to execute the presentation to the Congress a strategic plan categorizing assignment targets for the financial years 2003, 2004, as well as 2005 together with precise steps needed to attain such targets.
In the past, the Coast Guard use to invest just 2 percent of its entire working budget into the safety of the port. Nevertheless, after September 11, the amount rose to more that 50 percent of the agency’s entire working budget. In the current time more than 22 percent of the funds, is set for ensuring safety of the port. Furthermore, the Coast Guard is obligated with other exceptional functions encompassing the enforcement of the United States fisheries laws, searching and rescuing mariners, executing the prohibition of drugs at maritime, and safeguarding the maritime surroundings from being polluted.
The Coast Guard has a wide array of duties ranging from safeguarding the port, as well as the deep-rooted responsibilities performed by the agency in other assignment areas. This implies that the Coast Guard has the visualization of achieving the “novel normalcy” in which it executes its deep-rooted and novel responsibilities, together with the techniques of making sure that its capacity of executing such roles. This balance is ascertained as the bill necessitates the Coast Guard to scrutinize and inform the Congress regarding its expenditures putting into consideration the mission areas prior to and following September 11 (Bush, 2006). In addition to this, the degree of funding required to meet additional roles executed by the Coast Guard should also be reported.
Thestrengths and weaknesses of the legislation
Justlike every other aspect in the society, this act has its strengths aswell as weaknesses. In every implementation to be put into practice,there are strengths and weaknesses. These are the aspects are thosethat determine how the intended implementation will work. Thestrengths generally outdo the weakness because this decree makescertain that the nation’s ports are secure. In this case, it isclear that everything done around the ports are safe. This means thateven those things that are imported and exported are secure.Generally, if the imports and exports are secure. The nation is in aposition to carry out its operations effectively and profitably asexpected. The decree is good because most of the issues which aresupposed to be taken care of within the maritime sector are takengood care of. It is in this case, clear that if there are amendmentsto be done, then they are few. Most of the things are done just rightand the ones to be amended are just too minimal.
Overthe years there have been changes in technology, population as wellas other social factors. This is the reason as to why there are fewamendments to be done with this decree. With such social changes, itbecomes a challenge to run all the maritime processes the way theywere run in the past. It is the duty of the administration of thenation to check out on these changes that take place. Observing thesechanges is the main procedure that will make it possible to necessaryand effective changes. Without learning the changes in trend, thereis no way adjustments can be made. It is wise to make adjustmentsaccording to the changes so that the changes can match with what istaking place.
Thefact that this decree takes care of the many problems associated withthe maritime sector, gives a clear impression that it is good. Thisis a decree which can be used to make certain that everything withinthe maritime sector is well taken care of. There are many issueswhich bring about problems within the said sector. Looking at theMaritime, Transportation and Security Act of 2002, these issues arecovered. This means that it is an act which provides solutions to thepossible solutions related to this field. This gives a clearimpression that the decree’s strengths outdo the weakness.
Theonly problem which arises is when the involved nations are not inagreement about the import export issues. With such a situation, itis hard for the nations involved to get involved in serioustransactions that would lead to benefiting them. This gives a clearimpression that the administrations involved have to make certainthat the carry out their procedures as expected. In this case, thisis a problem which can be solved because the administration bodiesinvolved can come together and make pacts to make certain thatmaritime insecurity incidents do not take place. This therefore,means that it depends on the administrations involved for everythingto be done as expected. The efforts made by these administrationswill actually determine the end result. This gives a clear impressionthat it is upon the units in question to ensure that every possibleis done for the purpose of achieving set goals.
Conclusionwith a final assessment of the legislation including anyrecommendations that might strengthen the legislation
Ingeneral terms the legislation is good because it takes care of manythings. It makes sure that within the maritime sector there is propersecurity. This is to make certain that things do not end up gettingmessed. It is also to make sure that predicaments which can beavoided are dealt with. This helps to ensure that there is safety andthat the maritime personnel does not have a hard time rather an ampleone when dealing with their goods as well as providing services. Thisis one of the things that make this decree good.
Thereare various things which have to be dome to make certain thateverything goes well. For all the export and import processes, manythings have to be done for the purpose of making sure that furtherlosses are not incurred. Assessments on all maritime securityamenities have to be carried out. This is to ensure that all thosevulnerable to security incidents are dealt with on time. Waiting forhard situation to take place in order to make necessary steps tofinding possible solutions is not the way to do.
Inthis case, governments have to make certain that every processcarried out in the ports is well taken care of. It is clear that thisfield is important to a nation as it determines to some extent howthe citizens in the nations live. To ensure that these citizens livelives that are comfortable, everything has to be dome in the rightway. Possible predicaments are supposed to be avoided to give roomfor finding solutions to those that are not anticipated for. Avoiding problems even before they happen makes it easy when solvingthose that take place. This is because those at hand are few comparedwith those that would have taken place if nothing would have beendone. The main this which has to be done therefore to make sure thatthere are effective changes, is to study changes in the society andknow what to expect as well as how to deal with the expectedsituations. Implementing this main practice of observance will makeit possible to deal with situations effectively as well as gettingprepared for the future.
Everygovernment has to put into practice implementations that will help
Securemaritime transportation. This is a procedure which involves earning anation foreign exchange. Exporting and importing goods through marinetransportation is one of the methods for transportation. For bestresults therefore, effort has to be made. The effort put by everyadministration involved determines the end result. In this case,every unit has to make certain that they do their best for thepurpose of achieving the set goals.
Theadministration units involved in this case, have to make sure thatall facilities required are available. This is to ensure thateverything needed for maritime security is available. Every vesselused for transportation has to be checked in order to make sure thatit works well and that it has no faults. Foe effectivetransportation, various vessels have to b available so that if one ofthem breaks down there is an alternative. The vessel to be usedshould not only be one. Generally, these units have to be prepared byhaving enough facilities for every process.
Allen,CraigH.,,Sr. (2012). Future ports scenarios for 21ST century portstrategic planning.Journal of Transportation Law, Logistics, and Policy, 79(2),89-137. Retrieved fromhttp://search.proquest.com/docview/1415738584?accountid=8289
AkivaJ. Lorenz (2007)Al Qaeda’s Maritime Threat,http://www.maritimeterrorism.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/al-qaedas-maritime-threat.pdf
Bush,G. W. (2006). Remarks on Signing the SAFE Port Act. WeeklyCompilation Of Presidential Documents,42(41),1815-1817.
Caldwell,S. L. (2007). Maritime Security: Observations on Selected Aspects ofthe SAFE Port Act: GAO-07-754T. GAOReports,1.
Close,K. L. (2009). TWIC AS AN ACCESS CONTROL AT U.S. SEAPORTS. Journal OfTransportation Law, Logistics & Policy, 76(1), 11-19.
Frittelli,J. (2005). Portand maritime security: Background and issues for Congress.CongressionalResearch Service (CRS) – A Report toCongress. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31733.pdf
Hecker,J.E. (2002). Port security: Nation faces formidable challenges inmaking new initiatives successful. U.S. General Accounting Office.(GAO-02-993T)
MaritimeTransportation Security Act (MTSA) of 2002:
MARITIMESECURITY Progress and Challenges 10 Years after the MaritimeTransportation Security Acthttp://www.gao.gov/assets/650/647999.pdf
MaritimeTransportation System Security Recommendations,https://www.hsdl.org/?viewHYPERLINK"https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=457455"&HYPERLINK"https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=457455"did=457455
MaritimeSecurity: Progress Made in Implementing Maritime TransportationSecurity Act, but Concerns Remain: GAO-03-1155T. (2003). GAOReports,1.
Matison,K. (2009). WHAT`S IN THE BOX?. JournalOf Transportation Law, Logistics & Policy,76(3),329-349.
Moyer,R., & Handerson, H. (1974). A Critique of the Rationales forPresent U.S. Maritime Programs. TransportationJournal (American Society Of Transportation & Logistics Inc),14(2),5-16.