City Priorities & Issues, W D.CMEMORANDUM
January 13,2003
TO:The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM:Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
SUBJECT:City Priorities and Issues: Washington, D.C.
In anticipation of participating in the Dubuque Area Chamber of Commerce February
trip to Washington, D.C., and in furtherance of the City Council priority to work closely
with the Federal government, Economic Development Director Bill Baum is
recommending City Council approval of the City of Dubuque Priorities and Requests for
Federal Appropriations.
I concur with the recommendation and respectfully request Mayor and City Council
approval.
Michael C. Van Milligen
MCVM/jh
Attachment
cc: Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel
Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager
Bill Baum, Economic Development Director
CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA
MEMORANDUM
January 10,2003
TO:Michael Van Milligen, City Manager
FROM:Bill Baum, Economic Development Director
SUBJECT:City Priorities and Issues: Washington, D.C.
INTRODUCTION AND DISCUSSION
On February 12, 13, and 14 the Mayor and majority of the City Council will be in
Washington D.C., participating in the annual information sharing discussion with the
Iowa Congressional Delegation.
In preparation for the meeting Congressional staff are requesting information on the
priorities or issues of the City. In reviewing the City Council goals for 2003, as well as
the information provided to the staff in the past, I have developed the attached report
entitled "City of Dubuque Priorities and Requests for Federal Appropriations."
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend the City Council approval of the "City of Dubuque Priorities and
Requests for Federal Appropriations."
F:\USERS\WBaum\Federal Initiatives\Memo to Mike 2003 priorities.doc
February 2003
City of Dubuque Priorities and Requests for Federal
Appropriations
1. DUBUQUE'S STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Bee Branch Watershed Flood Mitigation Project
Purpose: To limit flooding in Iow/moderate income neighborhoods.
In 1999, an unusually intense spring storm deluged Dubuque with rainfall. The storm
produced in excess of four feet of stormwater in city streets and five feet of stormwater
in basements, and resulted in a Presidential Disaster Declaration for Dubuque County.
Flood damage devastated hundreds of homes in the City of Dubuque. At the time of the
flood, the City was in the process of adopting a Stormwater Management Plan. On July
23, 2001, HDR Engineering, of Omaha, Neb., the consulting firm hired by the City to
produce the Stormwater Management Plan, presented its findings to City Council.
The solution proposed by the consultants includes the construction of the Bee Branch
Watershed Flood Mitigation project:
The 4200-foot proposed open waterway would extend from 16th Street and
Sycamore, to 24th and Elm Streets at an estimated cost of $17.1 Million. Of this
total, approximately 2000 feet of the open waterway would extend through a
Iow/moderate income target neighborhood at an estimated cost of $10.2 Million.
The City Council has not yet made a final decision on what elements will be in the
final plan.
The City has requested an earmark through the State and Tribal Grant program
"STAG ."
The City is studying the concept of a storm water utility.
The City's consultants have indicated a potential of Corps of Engineers grant
program that might be available to assist in this project. The City is looking at
any possible EPA source of funding from Washington, D.C. to assist us in this
project.
2. TRANSPORTATION
IA 32 - (Southwest Arterial):
The Dubuque City Council, the Dubuque County Board of Supervisors, and Dubuque
Metropolitan Planning Organization (DMATS) have identified the completion of the IA 32
(Southwest Arterial) as the No. 1 surface transportation pdority in the Dubuque area.
The IA 32 connects the new Dubuque Technology Park on U.S. 61/151 with the new
Dubuque Industrial Center West, and the existing Dubuque Industrial Center near U.S.
20. The highway then extends north to John Deers Dubuque Works.
In October 2001, McGraw Hill Publishing Company made a decision to locate a new
330,000-squats-foot distribution center in the Dubuque Industrial Center West.
Assurances that US 32 was under study and construction was in the Iowa Department
of Transportation five-year plan weighed heavily in that decision. Other companies
asking for a connection between U.S. 20 and U.S. 61/151 include John Deers,
Nordstrom Distribution Center, A.Y. McDonald, Swiss Valley Farms, Flexsteel, and
Dubuque Stamping and Manufacturing.
Total Project Cost: Current estimate: $52,000,000 - $71,000,000. City and County have
agreed to cost share in the Environmental Assessment Phase, and have contracted for
$594,000 to complete the EA. The State of Iowa has committed $21 million for the
project in the Iowa Department of Transportation's five-year plan. The Metropolitan
Planning Organization, DMATS, has committed $7 million in Surface Transportation
Program funds for the facility.
The funding "gap" in the project is $24 Million on the Iow side to $43 Million-on
the high end. The City is requesting this project be identified and earmarked in
the next federal transportation bill.
Current Status:
Work continues on the Environmental Assessment. The consultants have identified 14
sites requiring intensive level amheological study, and each study is estimated to cost
$300,000. Therefore, $4.2 million of additional work could be completed in FY03/04,
according to City consultants and IDOT. City has requested an earmark, and on July
25, the City was informed of Senate committee approval of $3,000,000 to assist in
accomplishing this work.
2
Capacity Improvements to U.S.20/Julien Dubuque Bridge
The U.S. 20/Julien Dubuque Bridge spans the Mississippi River and provides one
eastbound and one westbound lane of traffic. On either side of the river, the highway
immediately expands to four or more lanes. The result is a bottleneck in traffic on both
sides of the bridge. This link is important for an east-west connection between
Dubuque and other communities. To the west: Galena, 1114 Rockford, 1114 and Chicago.
To the east: Waterloo, Iowa and the 1-35 interchange. This project is a very high priority
with the City Council and the Metropolitan Planning Organization, DMATS.
The City of Dubuque appreciates the $28 million commitment to the bridge
secured by Dubuque's Congressional delegation.
Current Status:
The location study and environmental documentation are complete. IDOT has selected
the firm of Parsons of Chicago, Illinois, in conjunction with WHKS of Dubuque, to
perform the preliminary and final design of the bridge, bridge approaches, and roadway
improvements.
The City had hoped to see completion of Phase I construction plans for the new
approaches in June, 2003. Phase I construction on the bridge approaches and
roadway improvements on both sides of the River was scheduled for the latter part of
Calendar Year 2003 and Calendar Year 2004 with the current money available. New
cost estimates raising the total bridge project cost from $96 Million to $165 Million has
derailed these plans.
The design and land acquisition will be completed with existing funds, however no
funding is currently available for construction of the project.
Additionally, the City has been informed of City responsibility to pay the cost of
relocation of utilities, estimated to be approximately $3,000,000.
Latest estimates to complete the project are $130 Million. Therefore, the City is
requesting 80% - 90% funding for construction, and utility relocation in the
amount of $104 - $117 Million in the next federal transportation bill. If legislation
needs to be amended to recognize utility relocation as an eligible expense, we
request that change in the law.
Dubuque Regional Airport
The Airport Commission is nearing completion of an airport terminal study. The study
identifies the need for a new terminal approximately 3 times the size of the existing
facility. Estimated cost is $25 million. After the study is finalized and approved,
the City will be requesting federal assistance for construction of the new terminal.
3
3. AMERICA'S RIVER AT THE PORT OF DUBUQUE
Property Acquisition/Environmental Assessment in Port of Dubuque.
The City has, in the past year, invested in the purchase these properties in the Port of
Dubuque:
Peavey (ConAgra) property: 5 acres
Dubuque Hardwoods property: 5 acres
Mississippi Valley Trucking: 1.4 acres
Klauer Manufacturing: .529 acres
Current status:
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) recently announced award of a
$2,000,000 grant for the acquisition of the Adams Company property.
In October, The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the award of a
$200,000 grant to the City for Phase I and Phase II Environmental Assessments in the
Port of Dubuque. Consultant selection has been completed.
In August, the City was informed that a Senate committee had approved an
earmark of $400,000 to assist in property acquisition and/or cleanup activities.
These funds are yet to be appropriated.
City is now seeking funds to assist in the mitigation of environmental issues on
the properties acquired by the City. Specifically, EPA's new grant program for
cleanup and HUD's Brownfield Economic Development Initiative are two potential
funding sources.
Dubuque Star Brewery
Located on the Mississippi River and a prominent landmark in the Port of Dubuque
campus, this City-owned inactive brewery is a unique historical structure. Eligible for
National Register designation, the brewery requires stabilization and is proposed to be
redeveloped into a mixed-use project. The estimated cost of renovation is $6,000,000.
City has requested $1,500,000 through Save America's Treasures, but the request
has not been funded. The City has issued an RFQ/RFP to potential developers, one
response has been received, and the City is negotiating with the potential developer,
4
Shot Tower
Located on East Fourth Street in the Port of Dubuque, the City-owned Shot Tower is a
unique National Register structure used in the early munitions industry to produce lead
shot during the Civil War. The Shot Tower needs to be renovated, landscaped, and
improved to make it a strong part of the Amedca's River project. The City has
submitted an application to the Department of Interior for the Save America's Treasures
grant program, but the application has been denied. The City anticipates applying
again for $250,000 in matching funds for Phase I of the renovation.
Passenqer Boardinq Facilities in Port of Dubuque; City Garage Maintenance
Facility.
The City has requested an earmark of $880,000 through Federal Transit Authority.
Purpose: design and construction of passenger boarding facilities within the Port of
Dubuque in conjunction with the America's River Project, and new City garage on City
property north of Kerper Court.
4. Neighborhood Strategy
Lead Paint Poisoning Prevention Program
Purpose: To reduce the incidence of childhood lead poisoning through "lead-
safe" rehabilitation of older residential buildings
Problem statement:
Dubuque's residential housing stock is the oldest in the State; Iowa's is the sixth oldest
in the nation. 41% of Dubuque's housing was built pre-1940; approximately 90% was
constructed before 1978, the year lead paint was banned for residential uses. More
than half of the city's housing units are assumed to have an incidence of lead-based
paint.
Our incidence of childhood lead poisoning - for children from birth to age six -
Is twice the national average.
Background:
Dubuque received a $3.69 million HUD Lead Hazard Prevention grant in 1997. We will
have made heady 500 residential units lead-safe by the scheduled termination of this
contract, in March 2003.
5
In addition, we have trained and certified more than 200 local contractors, workers and
landlords in safe lead paint removal practices. We are the only Iowa Department of
Public Health-certified state-wide provider of these training services. We have held
these training classes around the State for contractors, risk assessors and municipal
health officials, since 1998, certifying
200 additional personnel.
We have made application for renewal of these HUD funds, from the Office of Lead
Hazard Control, for the past three years. These applications have been denied. At this
time, we will be without HUD funding by the end of this fiscal year.
Solution:
We need to continue our lead paint hazard reduction activities, in the interest of the
public health and welfare. Specifically, this program, as we have developed it over the
past five years, must:
1. Provide subsidized loans or grants to Dubuque home and apartment owners
for the high costs of lead paint removal
2. Continue our program of testing in older housing stock, using
specialized technology to identify the presence of lead-based paint
3. Continue our programs of public education, alerting the public to the
dangers of this invisible health hazard
4. Continue our training certification programs for area contractors and
apartment owners, in safe work and hazard reduction practices
5. Continue our training programs for lead paint contractors and health
officials throughout the State. As the only certified training provider, all
other Iowa cities are dependent on us to do this, in order to remain in
compliance with HUD regulations requiring certification.
6. Continue to respond with medical and environmental investigations, in
cases of childhood lead paint poisoning
Cost:
With existing staff capacity, we can generate 75-80 units annually, At $7000/unit
subsidy, this cost is approximately $540,000. Staff and program costs are an additional
$225,000 annually. To continue our existing programs and provide all the services
listed above, both locally and throughout Iowa, this program cost is
approximately $750,000 per year, and the City will be resubmitting an application
to HUD early in 2003.
6
5. Dubuque Post Office Renovations
The City is very concerned about the ongoing deterioration of the Federal Building
downtown currently housing the Post Office. Our understanding is that the Social
Security Administration will soon be moving out of the facility, leaving only the Post
Office operation in this magnificent building, and that the building would soon be for
sale.
The City requests the Congressional delegation work with GSA to fund
renovations to this building, and encourage federal agencies to lease space in
this downtown facility.
6. Cable TV Rate Regulation
The City of Dubuque recently received a letter from our cable TV franchise operator
announcing the addition of three program services to the basic cable service package
(which they now call "Family Cable") in Dubuque, and a plan to implement an increase
in the rate they charge for that service, effective February 1,2003.
Pdor to February 1, rate for "Family Cable" was $36.95/mo., plus taxes and federal
fees. The new rate will be $41.95/mo., plus taxes and fees. Senior Citizens will receive
a $4.20 (10%) discount. This new rate represents a '13.5% increase in one year, and
a 90.7% increase since the City's limited rate regulation authority was lost in July,
1996. Inflation for that same 6.5 year period has been about 15%. The $5.00
increase will be the largest single increase in the basic rate in Dubuque's 49-year
cable history.
The current provider and its predecessors raised basic cable service rates on the first
of February in 2001, 2002, and 2003, and on the first of January in 1997, 1998, 1999,
and 2000. Many major cable operators are implementing their annual increases across
the country. However, the amount of this increase, particularly as compared to inflation,
is once again very disturbing and cleady reflects the combined effects of a vertically-
integrated industry which is subject neither to regulation nor to effective market
competition.
Dubuque's need for an entry-level "broadcast basic" package, which includes area
broadcast stations and PEG access channels, will be a key topic in franchise renewal
negotiations, but local rate controls, per se, cannot be restored via the franchise
renewal process.
The solution is federal legislation. Deregulation of this industry was passed to create
competition and lower prices. Just the opposite has occurred in Dubuque: a monopoly
is contrelling higher prices. The 1996 law limiting the City's ability to regulate rates
should be repealed.
7
7. Homeland Security
Regional Emergency Responder Training Facility
PROJECT SUMMARY
The Dubuque Fire Department is part of the group developing the training facility as a
joint venture with all emergency response agencies in Dubuque County.
OUR VISION: To develop an emergency responder training facility including training
tower, an indoor/outdoor evolution lab and classroom to enable firefighters, law
enforcement officers, EMS personnel, and safety workers in local
manufacturing/commercial industry to safely train in real-life emergency situations.
Firefighters, law enforcement officers, and EMS workers will now be able to participate
in joint training exercises, enabling:
-Preparation for multiple disaster scenarios
-The sharing of ideas and training techniques
-Introduction to and training with new and more efficient equipment
-Team building between departments and communities
FUNDING CHALLENGES: Private/public partnerships have been established to
assist with funding this project. However, additional funding assistance is
necessary. Since much of the training will be related to homeland security
disasters, we are hopeful that some funding may be possible from the federal
government. The total cost of the facility is $2,600,000.
Proposed Requirements For Security Measures for Ports,
Vessels, and Facilities.
(See attached memo from Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager)
8
MEMORANDUM
January 14,2003
TO: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
FROM: Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Federal Register Maritime Security Notice
Discussion
Attached is a summary of a notice published in the Federal Register on Monday,
December 30, 2002. The content of this Notice relates to Maritime Security and its
impact locally could be quite significant. In summary the notice is being proposed by
the United States Coast Guard in response to terrorist acts of September 11, 2001. The
Coast Guard's comments indicate the need for specific threat identification, analysis of
threats, and methods for developing performance standards to plan for response to
maritime threats. The most significant piece of this notice as it relates to Dubuque, is
that the notice extends beyond maritime vessel owners and operators and will be
extended to include commercials vessels and facilities as well as to such entities as
facilities that 1 ) transfer, store or otherwise handle dry bulk or general cargo; 2)
recreational vessels and 3) waterfront areas that are densely populated or host large
public events. This includes all of the major facilities at the Port of Dubuque (National
Mississippi Museum and Aquarium, Diamond Jo Casino, Spirit of Dubuque, Grand
Harbor Resort, The Grand River Center, Dubuque Star Brewery, Peavey Grain, Newt
Marine, Dodds Terminal) as well as the Port itself. This may also includes facilities at
Schmitt and Dove Harbor and Riprow Valley. Kevin Stier from the Diamond Jo has
participated in early discussions related to this proposal and has raised concerns about
cost and operational challenges that will face impacted facilities. There is no
information on whether there will be funds available to assist in these costs.
Recommendation
I would suggest that a copy of this Federal Register be distributed to the property
owners at the Port of Dubuque, Greater Dubuque Development Corporation, Dubuque
Area Chamber of Commerce as well as city departments including Economic
Development, Police, Fire and Water. We may also want to consider this in our
discussion with federal legislators in Washington to make sure that Homeland Security
Funds are appropriated for implementation of security measures.
Cc: Pauline Joyce, Administrative Services Manager
Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel
Monday,
December 30, 2002
Part Ill
Department of
Transportation
Coast Guard
Maritime Security; Notice
79742
Federal Register/VoL 67, No. 250/Monday, December 30, 2002/Notices
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
[USCG-2062-14D69]
Maritime Security
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of meetings; request for
ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at
the following locations:
· New Orleans, LA--Hilton
Riverside, 2 Poydras St., New Orleans,
LA 70140.
· Cleveland, OH--Sheraton
Cleveland City Centre Hotel, Dorothy
Fu]dhalm Room, 777 St. Clair Ave.,
Cleveland, OH 44144.
· St. Louis, MO--Robert A. Young
Federal Building CR.A.Y. Building),
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is holding 1222 Spruce St., St. Louis, MO 63017.
seven public meetings to discuss · Seattle, WA--Boeing Field, 7755
requirements for securiW assess~mant~. East Marginal Way South, Building 2-
~lans, and specific security measures for 22, Auditorium, Seattle, WA 98108.
errs vessels and facil~ Discussions
wi--~ald the Coast Guard in determining of Los Angeles, 425 S. Palos Verdes St.,
the Lvpes of vessels and facilities that
pose a risk of being involved in a
transportation security incident, and in
identifying security measures and
standards to deter such incidents.
Discussions will also focus on aligning
domestic maritime security
requirements with the International
Ship and Port Facility Security [ISPS)
Code and recent amendments to the
International Convention for the Safety
of Life at Sea [SOLAS), to comply with
section 102 [Port security) of the
recently enacted Maritime
Transportation Security Act of 2002
(MTSA). We encourage interested
individuals and organizations to attend
the meetings and submit comments for
discussion during the meetings. We also
seek comments from anyone unable to
attend the meetings.
DATES: The public meetIngs will be held
on the following dates and at the
following locations.
· January 27, 2903, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
New Orleans, LA.
· January 30, 2003, 2 p.m. to 7 p.m.,
Cleveland, OH.
· January 31, 2003, 12 (noonl to 6
p,m., St. Louis, MO.
· February 3, 2003, 9 a,m. te 5 p.m.,
Seattle, WA.
· February 5, 2003, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA.
· February 7, 2003, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Jacksonville, FL.
· February 11, 2003, § a.m. to 5 p.m.,
New York City, NY.
Comments and related material
intended for inclusion in the public
docket [USCC~-2002-14069) must reach
the Docket Management Facility on or
before Februm"y 28, 2003. Comments
and related material containing
protected information, such as
proprietary or security information,
intended for inclusion in the Coast
Guard's internal docket for protected
information al~o must reach the Coast
Guard's Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law (C-LRA) on or
before February 28, 2003.
· Los Angeles-Long Beech, CA--Port
San Pedro, CA 90731.
· Jacksonville, FL--Florida
Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE),
921 N. Davis St., Building E.
Jacksonville, FL 32209.
· New York City, NY~ustams
House Auditorium, Alexander Hamilton
U.S. Customs House, 1 Bowling Green,
New York, NY 10004.
You may submit your public
comments directly to the Docket
Management Facility. Please see the
Request for Comments section below for
more information regardIng submitting
comments that contaIn protected
information. To make sure that
public comments and related material
do not enter the docket (USCC~-2002-
14069) more than once, please submit
them by orfly one ofthe following
means:
(1) Electronically through the Web
Site for the Docket Management System
at htip://dms.dot.$ov/.
(2) By fax to the Docket Management
Facility at 202-493-2251.
[3) By delivery to room PL-401 on the
Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The telephone number is 202-366-
9329.
[4) By mail to the Docket Management
Facility, (USCCr-2002-14069), U.S.
Depariment of Transportation, room PL-
401,400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001,
The Docket Management Facility
maintains the public docket for this
notice. Comments and material received
from the public, as well as documents
mentioned in this notice as being
available in the public docket, will
become part of this public docket and
will be available for inspection or
copying at room PL-40I on the Plaza
]eve] of the Nassif Building, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
You may also find this notice In the
public docket on the Internet at http://
dins.dot.soy~.
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or si~ning the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor uninn, etc.), You may
review the Department of
Transportation's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 Fl%
19477-78), or you may visit ht~p://
dine. dot.gev~.
Comments containing protected
information, as explained in the Request
for Comments section below, must be
submit[ed in ~riting and must be
mailed or hand-delivered to
Commandant (C-LRA)/Room 3406, U.S.
Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second
Street, SW., Washinglon, DC 20593.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information concerning this notice or
the public meetings, write or call Mr.
Mar~in Jackson of the Office' of
Standards Evaluation and Development
(C-MSR), U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20593,
mfackson@comdt.usc&miI, or at 202-
For questions regarding submissions
of protected information, contact Ms.
Kathryn Sirmiger of the Office of
Regulations and Administrative Law
(G-Lika), U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW.
Washington, DC 20593, or at 202-267-
1534.
For questions on viewing er
submitting material to the public
docket, call Ma. Dorothy Beard, Chief of
Dockets, Department of Transportation,
at 202-366-5149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Connuents
We encourage you to parficipate in
these meetings by submitting comments
and related material. If you do so, please
include ymtr name and address, identify
the docket number [USCG-2002-14069)
and give the reason for each comment,
If you wish to submit any protected
information in your comments, you
must submit your comment by mail or
hand delivery to the Office of
Regulations and Administrative Law
{G-LRA) at the address under
ADDRESSES. Protected information
includes confidential or privileged
business or commercial information that
is not normally released to the public.
It also includes secarily information
that, if released, would be detrimental to
the safety of persons in transportation.
Federal l~egister/VoL 67, No. 250/Monday, December 30, 200g/Notices 79743
Examples of the latter include
vulnerability assessments (or portions
thereof), specific security actions to be
taken by your company or vessel, and
draft plans that would comply with the
International Ship and Per; Facility
Security (ISPS) Code or any of the
Navigation and Vessel Inspection
Circulars [NVICs) referenced in this
notice. Please be sure to indicate
whether the entire submission
constitutes protected information, or if
it is only portions of the submission that
need to be protected. If the latter, please
identify those portions which constitute
protected information clearly within
your submission. If you are submitting
confidential or privileged business
information, please explain, within your
submission, how this information is
normally treated within your company
or orgai~ization.
You may submit your public
comments and material electronically,
by fax, by delivery, or by mail to the
Docket Management Facility at the
address under ADDRESSES; but please
submit your public comments and
Atiendees will be responsible for
making their own arrangements for
lunch at the m~d-day break, scheduled
for I p.m, each day. The meetings will
reconvene at 2 p.m. and are scheduled
meetings early if we have covered all of
the agenda topics and if the people
attending have no further comments.
comments made orally at the public
meetings will become part of the public
docket, hi addition to these public
meetings, the Coast Guard will request
its Federal Advisory Committees, as
appropriate, to include maritime
security issues and the content of this
provide farther oppor~anities for
Information on Services for Individuals
With Disabilities
To obtain information on facilities or
services for individuals with disabilities
or to ask that we provide special
assistance at the meetings, please notify
material by only one means, If you Mr. Mar[in Jackson at the address or
submit them by mail or delivery, submit phone number under FOR FURTHER
them in an unbound format, no larger INFORmATIOR CONTACt.
than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you
submit them by mail and would llke to
know that they reached the Facility.
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed
postcard or envelope. We will consider
all comments and material received
during the comment period.
Public Meetings
The Coast Guard encourages the
following individuals and organization
representatives to attend the public
meetings:
· Owners and operators of vessels,
facilities, and other structures located
on or adjacent to U.S. navigable waters;
· Federal, State, and local agencies in
law enforcement and emergency
planning;
· Port authorities;
· State and local government
organizations;
· Shipping agents;
Insurance companies;
~ Protection and Indemnity Clubs;
· Classification societies;
· Marithne industry associations; and
· Other interested persor~s.
Meeting attendees will have the
opportunity to erally comment on topics
scheduled for discussion on the agenda.
Appendix A provides the intended
format of the meetings. We may ask
questions to clarify comments given by
an atrendea. Unless otherwise noted, the
meetings will be held each day from §
a.m. to 5 p.m. on the dates and locations
Background and Purpose
In the aftermath of September 11,
2001, the Commandant of the Coast
Guard re~rrand the Coast Guard's
Maritime Homeland Security mission
and its lead role, in coordination with
the Department of Defense; Federal,
State, and local agencies; owners and
operators of vessels and maritime
facilities; and others with interests in
our nation's marine transportation
system, to detect, deter, disrupt, and
respond to attacks against U.S. territory,
population, vessels, facilities, and
critical maritime infrastructure by
terrorist organizations.
In November 2001, the Commandant
of the Coast Guard addressed the
International Maritime Organization
(rMo] General Assembly, urging that
body to consider an international
scheme for port and shippIng security.
Recommendations and proposals for
comprehensive security requirements,
includIng amendments to SOLAS and
the new ISPS Code, were developed at
a series of intersessional maritime
security work group meetings held at
the direction of the lMO's Maritime
Safety Committee.
The Coast Guard submitted
comprehensive security proposals to the
intersessional maritime security work
group meetings based on work it had
been coordinating since October 2001.
Prior to each intersessional meeting, the
Coast Guard held public meetings as
well as coordinated several industry
meetings with representatives from
major U.S, and foreign associations for
shipping, labor, and ports. Maritime
security was also a major agenda item at
Federal Advisory Committee meetings
held by the Coast Guard during the past
year. Additional meetings were also
held with Federal agencies having
complementary secarity
responsibilities.
In January 2002, the Coast Guard held
a lwo-day public workshop In
Washington, DC, attended by more than
300 individuals, including members of
the public and private sectors, and
representatives of the national and
international marine Industry (66 FR
65020, December 17, 2001; docket
number USCC-2001-11138). Their
comments indicated the need for
specific threat identification, analysis of
threats, and methods for developing
performance standards to plan for
response to maritime threats.
Additionally, the public comments
stressed the importance of uniformity in
the application and enforcement of
requirements and the need to establish
threat levels with a means to
communicate threats to the marine
transportation system.
The Coast Guard considered and
advanced U.S. proposals for maritime
security that took into account this
public and agency input. We consider
the International Convention for the
Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)
amendments and the ISPS Code, as
adopted by the International Me,time
Organization tIMe) Diplomatic
Conference in December 2002, to reflect
current Industry, public, and agency
concerns. The entry into force date of
both the ISPS Code and related SOLAS
amendments is July 1, 2004, with the
exception of the Automatic
Identification System (ALS) whose
implementation was accelerated to no
later than December 31, 2004,
depending on the particular class of
SOLAS vessel.
DomesticaJly, the Coast Guard had
previously developed regulations for
security that are contained In 33 CFR
parts 120 and 128. Complementary
guidance can be found In Navigation
and Vessel Inspection Circular [NVIC)
3-96, Change 2, Security for Passenger
Vessels and Passenger Terminals. Prior
to development of additional
regulations, the Coast Guard, with input
from the public, needed to assess the
current state of port and vessel security
and their vulnerabilities. As mentioned
previously, to accomplish this, the Coast
Guard conducted a public workshop
January 26-30, 2002, to assess existing
Maritime Transportation System
79744 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2002 / Notices
security standards and measures and to
gather ideas on possible improvements.
Based on the comments received at the
workshop, the Coast Guard cancelled
NVIC 3-96 (Security for Passenger
Vessels and Passenger Terminals) and
issued a new NVIC 4-02 (Secu~rity for
Passenger Vessels and Passenger
Terminals) that incorporated guidelines
consistent with international initiatives
(the ISPS Code and SOLAS
amendments). Additional NV]Cs were
also published, including lXrVIC 9-02
(Guidelines for Port Security
Commitlees, and Port Security Plans
Required for U.S. Ports), NVIC 10-02
(Security Guidelines for Vessels); and
N-VIC 11-02 (Security Guidelines for
Facilities [not yet available)). The
documents are or will be available in
the public docket [USCC-2002-14069)
for review at the locations under
ADDRESSES.
On November 25, 2002, Pres[dent
George W. Bush signed into effect
Public Law 107-295, the Maritime
Transportation Security Act of 2002
(MTSA], which had been proposed to
Congress the year before as the Port and
Maritime Security Act (S. 1214). The
MTSA requires the Secretary to issue an
interim final rule, as soon as practicable,
as a temporary regulation to implement
the Port Security section of the Act. The
MTSA expressly waives the
requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act, including notice and
comment, for this purpose.
Nevertheless, the Coast Guard believes
it is important to get the preliminary
views of the public, especially affected
maritime interests, prior to issuing the
interim final mlle. The temporary
interim rule may be superseded by a
final rule within one year of the
enactment of the MTSA. The
requirements of MTSA section 102
directly align with the security
requirements embodied in the SOLAS
amendments and ISPS Code; however,
the MTSA has broader application that
includes domestic vessels and facilities.
Thus, the Coast Guard intends to
implement the MTSA through the
requirements in the SOLiS
amendments and the ISPS Code parts A
and B for all vessels and facilities that
are currently required to meet SOLAS,
as well as those vessels exclusively on
domestic trade and facilities that are at
risk of being involved in a
transportation security incident.
The Coast Guard considers that the
implementation of these requirements is
best done through mandating
compliance with the SOLAS
amendments and the ISPS Code
including part A and part B (see
Appendix B). The Coast Guard
considers part B an essential element in
ensure full and effective compliance
with the intent of the MTSA. Foreign
flag vessels entering the U.S. would be
expected to verify compliance with part
B or provide proof that any alternatives
are equivalent to that part. Verification
of compliance could be established by
flag administration documents or
endorsements that indicate that the Ship
Security Certificate was issued based
upon full compliance with part B.
Because of the broad application in
the MTSA, the discussions in this notice
use the term "vessels" rather than the
term "ships" as found in the SOLAS
amendments and the ISPS Code. These
terms can be used interchangeably but
serve to emphasize the Coast Guard's
intention to apply security measures to
those vessels we have determined are at
risk of being involved in a
transportation security incident.
In addition, under MTSA, the terms
"A~ea Maritime Transportation Security
Plan" means a Port Security Plan
developed in accordance with NVIC 9-
02; "Area Security Advisory
CommiRee' means the Port Security
Committee; and "Federal Maritime
Security Coordinator" means the
cognizant Captain of the Port. The Coast
Guard intends to align any future
rulemaking with the MTSA
terminology.
The Coast Guard plans to publish a
temporary interim rule no later than
June 2003 and a final rule by November
2003. These dates are critical in order to
uniformly implement the ISPS Code and
SOLAS amendments, as we]] as meet
the urgency set by the mandates in the
MTSA.
As such, the Coast Guard is
announcing seven public meetings and
requesting comments that will aid them
in drafting the mandated interim rule
and final rule.
Wha! Will Be Discussed at the Public
Meetings?
Attendees should be prepared to
discuss the implementation of SOLAS
amendments and ISPS Code, including
application to vessels engaged in
domestic voyages in accordance with
the MTSA, as well as domestic
implications of implementing the
recommended security measures
described in recently published
guidance (NVICs).
How Should I Prepare for the Public
Meetinz?
Attendees should review the SOLAS
amendments and ISPS Code, published
N¥ICs, existing regulations in 33 CFR
parts 120 and 128, section 102 of the
MTSA, preliminary cost analysis, and
associated supporting documents to
evaluate the feasibility of recommended
or required security measures.
The ISPS Code and SOLAS
amendments, and the preliminary costs
analysis are included in this notice as
Appendix B and Appendix C,
respectively. The NViCs, MTSA, related
pubhc comments, and associated
supporting documents are available for
review in the public docket (USCG-
2002-14069) at the locations under
ADDRESSES.
After evaluating these documents, the
public shquld then prepare statements
to be presented at the meetings or
submit to the public docket (USCC-
2002-14069) expressing any concerns
and suggesting ways to implement the
required measures. Attendees also
should propose possible equivalencies
to the SOLAS amendments and ISPS
Code, and the MTSA requirements.
Who Should Attend the Public
Meetings?
Port Stakeholders. While the Coast
Guard will be primarily responsible for
ensuring the new SOLAS amendments
and ISPS Code, and section 102 of the
MTSA for U.S. ports are implemented
tkrough the development of Port
Security Plans and establishment of Port
Security Committees, we will need the
cooperation of other Federal agencies,
port authorities, State and loca~l
governments, local em r~
responaers, maritime industry
assoc~auons, tacility and vessel owners
a~d operators aha other port community
staJceholaers such as the owners of other
structares located on or adjacent to U.S,
navigable waters.
.... Because Port Security Plans are
overarching and address many areas of
the marltime community, the plans will
apply to commercial vessels and~
facilities, as well as to such entities a~--
% Recreational vessels and_
uninfected p~ssengers vessels.
~ Nautical school vessels and sailing
school vessels.
· Small passenger vessels on
domestic voyages.
· uninspected fishing vessels.
· Oil spill response vessels.
· Military installations and vessels.
· Facilities that transfer, store, ar
otherw~ise handle dry bulk or general
ca__r~.~_.
· Ship repair facilities.
· Waterfront areas that are d~nselv
populated or Host large public events,
' '- Gd~er areas wimin me port that
critical to port operations or public
safety.
Vessel Owners, Operators, and
Charterers. RBquirements are being
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 250/Monday, December 30, 2002/Notices 79745
considered for operators of certain
vessels to develop Vessel Security
Assessments and Plans, designate
Company and Vessel Security Officers,
and implement security measures (see
Appendix A). The Coast Guard
considers these security measures to be
integral for vessel security and
appropriate for the majority of vessels
operating in U.S. waters. Therefore, the
Coast Guard would apply these
requirements to such commercial
vessels as--
, All foreign ships, both cargo and
passenger, required to comply with
SOLAS;
· All foreign ships, both cargo and
passenger, of countries not signatory to
SOLAS;
· All vessels subject to 46 CFR
subchapter I (cargo vessels);
· All vessels subiect to 46 CFR
subchapter L (offshore supply vessels);
· All passenger vessels subject to 46
CFR subchapters H and K;
· All passenger vessels subject to 46
CFR subchapter T engaged on an
International voyage;
· Ali barges subiect to 46 CFR
subchapters D, I, and O;
· All tankships subiect to 46 CFR
subchapters D and O;
· All Mobile Offshore Drilling Units
(MODUs) subject to 45 CFR subchaptar
I-A; and
· All towing vessels greater than 6
meters in registered length.
Facility Owners or Operators.
Requirements are being considered for
operators of certain facilities to develop
Facility Security Assessments and
Plans, designate Facility Security
Officers, and implement security
measures (see Appendix A). The Coast
Guard considers these security measures
to be integra~ for facility security and
appropriate for the majority of facilities
servicing vessels that operate in U.S.
waters or facilities that are on or
adiacent to U.S. waters and pose a risk
to them. Therefore, the Coast Guard
would apply these requirements to such
facilities as-
. Facilities that handle cargo
regulated under 33 CFR parts 126, 127,
and 154;
· Facilities that service vessels
certified to carry more than 15o
passengers; and
· Facilities that receive vessels on
international voyages including vessels
solely navigating the Great Lakes.
As an Affected Entity, What Information
Should I Bzing to the Public Meetings?
Attendees should bring their
recommendations and responses to the
questions provided in Appendix A.
· Attendees should also be prepared to
offer their best practices with regard to
the security issues and comments on
application, implementation and
operating costs.
What Will Be the Format of the Public
Meetings?
The public meetings will follow a
question-answer format. A facilitator
will describe the SOLAS amendment
and ISPS Cod~ requirements and the
Coast Guard's implementation strategy.
The facilitator then will pose a series of
questions and solicit attendees'
responses. We will discuss, in
order, general security provisions, port
security provisions, vessel security
provisions, facility security provisions,
and other security provisions. Appendix
A provides the intended format of the
meetings.
What Other lnformation Would Assist
the Coast Guard in Drafting the
Temporary Interim Security Rule?
We request information about all
current Federal, State, and local
govarrunental laws, procedures,
regulations, and standards that are
either functioning or that are planned.
We also request industry to provide any
currant and planned standards and
procedures covering the security of
vessels and facilities, and
recommendations toward additional
regulations.
What Are the Estimated Costs of
Implementing the SOLAS Amendments,
the ISPS Code, and Section 102 of the
MTSA, as Discussed in This Noffce?
For the purposes of good business
practice and in order to comply with
regulations promulgated by other
Federal and State agencies, many
companies have spent, to date, a
substantial amount of money and
resources to upgrade and improve
security. The costs discussed in
Appendix C do not include resources
these companies have already spent to
enhance security. To estimate costs, we
contacted operators to determine what
specific security improvements they had
made and the costs they had incurred
since the events of September 11, 2001.
We found that these operators were
reluctant to share their information with
us. Consequently, the estimates in the
following analysis are based heavily on
Coast Guard judgments.
We realize that each company
engaged in maritime commerce would
not implement the ISPS Code exactly as
presented in this analysis. Depending
on each company's choices, some
companies could spend much less thou
what is estimated herein while others
could spend significantly more. in
general, we assume that each company
would implement the ISPS Code based
on the types of vessels alld facilities it
owns or operates and whether it engages
in international or domestic trade.
Based on this analysis, the first year
cost would be approximately $1.4
billion, with costs of approximately
Present Value (pV) $6.0 billion over the
next 10 years (2003-2012, 7 percent
discount rate). The preliminary cost
analysis in Appendix C presents the
costs in three sections: vessel security,
facility security, and port security. The
following is a summary of the
preliminary cost analysis.
· yesse] SecuritY. The first-year cost
of purchasing equipment, hiring
security officers, and preparing
paperwork is approximately $188.
millio_n. F611~wing initial
implementation, the annual cost is__
approximately $144 million. Ove~ the
T~ext lU years~ ti~e cost woui~ be PV $1.1
billion approximately. The paperwork
burden associated with planr6ng would
b~ approximately 140,000 hours in the
f~rst year and ?,000 hours in subsequent
years.
· Facility Security. The first-year cost
of purchasing equipment, hiring
security officers, and preparing
paperwork is an estimated $963 million.
Following initial implementation, the
annual cost is approximately $535 _
million. Over tke next 10 years, the cost
wouTa'be PV $4.4 billion approximately.
The pape~vork burden associated with
planning would be approximately
465,000 hours in the first year and
17,000 hours in subsequent years.
· Port Security. The first-year cost of
establishing Port Security Committees
and creating Port Security Plans for all
port areas is an estimated $120 million.
The second-year cost is approximately
$106 million. In subsequent years, the
annual cost is approximately $46
million. Over the next 10 years, the cost
would be PV $477 million
approximately, The paperwork burden
associated with planning would be
approximately 1,090,000 hours in 2003;
1,278,000 hours in 2004, and 827,000
hours in subsequent years.
Dated: Dec~unber 20, 2002.
Paul J. Pluto,
Rear Admtral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant
Commandant for Marine Safety, Sectudty and
Env/ronmental Protection.
Appendix A: Maritime Security Issues
for Discussion