USCG Proceedings NEW DIGITAL EDITION now online

Proceedings now offers an online digital edition that can be read from laptop and desktop computers as well as mobile devices, including:

iPad, iPod Touch, iPhone, Blackberry Torch and Playbook, and most Android-powered phones and tablets.

Go to www.uscg.mil/proceedings and click on the cover picture to view.

Fall 2011 Search and Rescue is available online!

The current edition of Proceedings (Fall 2011 Search and Rescue) is available online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/. This edition highlights search and rescue agencies, partners, and the Good Samaritans who work alongside Coast Guard responders to improve response time to distressed boaters/sailors all around the world.

This issue is very exciting for Proceedings, since changes have been made to the way readers will view our editions. This edition officially kicks off our digital viewing option, which is more reader-friendly. To view our digital edition, click on the Fall 2011 headline icon, the magazine cover, or the link beneath the magazine cover to be directed to the digital magazine. We hope you enjoy this new edition and new format!

E-NAVIGATION UNDERWAY 2012: An International Conference on e-Navigation

Information provided by and shared at the request of Mr. William Cairns, Principal Navigation Engineer, USCG Office of Navigation Systems, and member of the steering committee for this event.


After a successful 2011 conference with more than 130 participants from 21 countries, IALA and EfficienSea, with the support of the Nautical Institute and CIRM, have deci­ded to repeat the event.

This year the conference will have a broader perspective, including discussions of the overall e-Navigation process as well as demonstrations of practical e-Navigation tests. Furthermore, the industry will put their state-of-the-art navi­gation solutions up for display.

The aim will be to address the following issues:

What are the implications of the e-Navigation strategy implementation plan?

Who are the e-Navigation stakeholders, and what are their roles?

Harmonization of test bed methodology has previously been identified as a need. Has anything transpired?

An update on existing and new e-Navigation test beds will be given.

We hope and believe that the 2012 conference will attract as many and as qualified attendees as in 2011, so the high standard from the first conference can be maintained.


Further information is available at http://www.e-navigation.net/.

Download the conference pamphlet at http://www.efficiensea.org/files/e_navigation_underway_2012_.pdf.

Today's Data Sharing-The Coast Guard's Enterprise Geographic Information System

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council magazine by Mr. Pete Noy, Information Technology Specialist, U.S. Coast Guard Operations Systems Management Division, and CDR Joseph Sundland, Geospatial Management Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Office of Enterprise Architecture and Governance.


The U.S. Coast Guard collects and generates large amounts of information related to the people, vessels, and facilities it interacts with daily, ranging from law enforcement actions, to search and rescue activities, environmental response activities, and vessel or facility inspections. Often there is a common thread--the information has a unique geospatial component. As a result, it can be mapped for easier viewing and awareness.

Sharing this information poses the real challenge. For this, the Coast Guard relies on a geographic information system (GIS), an integrated collection of computer software and data used to view and manage information about geographic places, analyze spatial relationships, and model spatial processes. Simply put, this provides a way for a user to take data from a number of sources and generate a map that can be shared with other users.

USCG Enterprise Geographic Information System
The Coast Guard's Enterprise Geographic Information System (EGIS) arranges this information in a more user-friendly format, allowing the user to see the extent of a situation, such as an oil spill, and immediately identify Coast Guard assets for deployment. The system can also display SAR activities within a given sector and allow the user to access various Coast Guard systems of record to pull and display this information.

A key driver for the EGIS is the ability to ingest and share its large datasets and make them available to a broad range of users. For example, if a hurricane were forecast to impact an area, a user would be able to pull all facility information for a particular captain of the port and display this on a map. The user could then access the latest hurricane tracking information from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration website and overlay it to determine which facilities could be impacted, and plan accordingly.

Since the EGIS can share datasets within the Coast Guard and with external users, everyone can access the same information, which reduces duplication and potential errors.

Future Direction
At the time this article was written, the EGIS was undergoing a software rewrite to make it fully compliant with the current DHS Enterprise Architecture while offering a more positive and robust solution. Additionally, other Coast Guard programs have begun evaluating ways to share their own unique datasets. As a result, the Coast Guard established a Geospatial Management Office at its headquarters with an eye toward consolidating geospatial technologies across all Coast Guard programs.

For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/summer2010.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Long-Range Identification and Tracking—Observing maritime activity over the horizon

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council magazine by CDR Kevin Keast, Chief for Communications and Sensors, U.S. Coast Guard Office of C4 and Sensors Capabilities.

Many technical capabilities leverage the latest in C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) architecture to enhance maritime situational awareness, or what is commonly referred to as the maritime common operational picture. Programs like the Nationwide Automatic Identification System (NAIS)—a coastal network of receiver sites—detect NAIS transponder signals and track vessels in the coastal environment. However, once line-of-sight limitations are reached, other capabilities are required.

The United States realized early on that this gap was part of a larger issue of global security. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) was easily convinced that a long-range ship tracking capability was required, and instituted the Long-Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT) effort.

The LRIT System

The Long-Range Identification and Tracking System is designed to collect and disseminate vessel position information received from IMO member state ships that are subject to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). This system allows SOLAS contracting governments access to tracking information.

Global Efforts

The Coast Guard developed the U.S. National Data Center in December 2008 to collect, request, receive, and distribute data within the LRIT system. Additionally, the IMO designated that the U.S. build and temporarily operate the International Data Exchange, which routes vessel positioning data among all participating LRIT data centers, through the end of 2011.

The Way Ahead

Although Long-Range Identification and Tracking is in its infancy, the U.S. is already obtaining thousands of ship position reports daily for thousands of reporting vessels. These numbers will continue to grow as all SOLAS vessels integrate into the LRIT system and data centers come online. LRIT has been delivered to the Coast Guard as an open architecture system and is providing a tracking service that can be delivered easily across all U.S. government entities. While this tracking information is only available to the Coast Guard and the Department of Defense at present, the service will be extended to other government agencies to support government requirements relating to maritime safety, security, and environmental protection.

For more information:

Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/summer2010.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Civilian Earth Observation Satellites for Global Maritime Awareness-Effective? Affordable?

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council magazine by Mr. Guy Thomas, Science and Technology Advisor, U.S. Coast Guard.


Civilian earth observations satellites have been operating since the mid-1980s and are expanding in number and capability. Many of these systems have significant ocean surveillance capabilities, which--if bundled together and used intelligently--could provide the maritime nations of the world with a much better picture of who is sailing the seas, and provide indications of their intentions.

However, no one is planning to take advantage of these systems for the global maritime awareness they could provide if operated collaboratively.

Earth Surveillance Satellites
The numbers and capabilities of both electro-optical and/or infrared (EO/IR) imaging systems and synthetic aperture radar satellites (SARSats) with oceanic surveillance capabilities are projected to grow substantially in the coming years. In addition, in the last two years almost a dozen different satellites have been launched with Automatic Identification System (AIS) receivers, and an AIS receiver has been installed on the International Space Station. Some of these are now in direct support of at least two different SAR satellites.

Indeed, it is the coupling of AIS via space with radar satellites, which can "see" in darkness and look through most cloud cover, and the new, higher-resolution imaging satellites that makes the concept known as "Collaboration in Space for International Global Maritime Awareness," or C-SIGMA, feasible. These new civilian space systems are not seen as replacing any existing terrestrial systems, but as a means to make those sorts of broad ocean surveillance systems more effective.

A Look Ahead
To achieve maritime domain awareness goals, satellites could be used to openly survey the world's oceans to establish normal patterns of behavior for shipping and boating worldwide. Other sources and methods would need to be employed to gain further information, but the basic data would be provided by the envisioned, unclassified system.

A civilian-based space broad ocean surveillance system such as the proposed C-SIGMA concept could provide the necessary surveillance for first-level indications as to whether a vessel was engaged in actions such as illegal fishing, environmentally harmful practices, smuggling, or just operating in a manner such that a closer examination might be warranted. Indeed, projects are underway to develop anomaly detection algorithms.

C-SIGMA is not a silver bullet, but it would be a huge help in establishing the envisioned transparency for all maritime nations. The dawn of unclassified open ocean surveillance has already occurred, and while these systems do not replace the national classified systems, their data can be shared with the many nations of the world.


For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/summer2010.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Proceedings Spring 2011 Issue Available Online

The current edition of Proceedings (Spring 2011 – Waterways Management) is available online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/.

This issue highlights the domestic and international efforts of the Marine Transportation Systems Management Directorate.

Because marine transportation systems management is such a broad mission area within the Coast Guard, it is just a sampling of the marine transportation systems management that occurs in the field and at headquarters. It is intended to update readers on the latest developments for many of the areas traditionally covered under the waterways management umbrella.

In this day and age, this nation and our global partners rely more heavily than ever on our oceans and waterways for our collective prosperity, safety, and security. We trust that this edition will provide our policy makers, industry stakeholders, and international partners with a broader understanding of marine transportation systems management.

Maritime Security—The National Maritime Intelligence Center

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council magazine by CAPT Paul Crissy, U.S. Coast Guard Reserve, National Maritime Intelligence Center Plans and Policy Staff.


The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 authorized the Director of National Intelligence to establish national intelligence centers to provide all-source analysis. In January of 2009 he established the National Maritime Intelligence Center to coordinate the efforts of the global maritime community of interest (GMCOI) with regard to information sharing.

As a result, it is an integrated capability where U.S. maritime intelligence requirements and all maritime security requirements, including military, criminal, economic, and national sovereignty issues, threats, and opportunities are considered in aggregate.

The NMIC’s goal is to create a “decision advantage” that confronts motivated, adaptive, and determined adversaries and focuses on threats and activities including:

• Illicit activities
• Gaps and seams
• Asymmetric threats
• Disruption of the global supply chain
• Extreme climatology
• Critical infrastructure interruption
• Environmental destruction
• Safety, security, and stewardship of the maritime environment

Synergistic Efforts
The NMIC’s key functions are coordinating and integrating maritime information and intelligence in support of national policy and decision makers, supporting maritime domain awareness objectives, and supporting interagency maritime requirements.

Its four functional areas and representative initiatives are collection integration, analysis integration, architecture, and information management and sharing.

What to Expect From Your NMIC
To ensure robust dialogue from stakeholders and ensure the greatest return on investment, the Director of the National Maritime Intelligence Center will continue to aggressively engage the GMCOI. Temporary and standing working groups and communities of interest such as the NMIC interagency working group, the maritime threat working group, and the interagency advisory group have been created to advise the NMIC director and bring together expertise from the intelligence community, the interagency and international communities, and industry to address matters of shared concern in the maritime domain.


For more information:
The Maritime Domain Awareness Information Exchange: http://www.mda.gov/.

The National Maritime Domain Awareness Coordination Office: http://www.gmsa.gov/index.html.

Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/summer2010.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Interagency Information Sharing

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council magazine by LCDR Craig Wennet, Project Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Maritime Domain Awareness and Information Sharing.


In addition to other efforts and legislation, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA) ensured that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would have a central role in the information sharing environment. The Coast Guard, as the largest DHS component and a member of the intelligence community, possesses a unique role in federal information sharing efforts.

Coast Guard Information Sharing Initiatives
Since 2007, the Coast Guard’s Information Sharing Executive Agent (ISEA) staff has visited Coast Guard sectors and subordinate units. Staff members speak with sector personnel and their port partners about their working relationships in maritime safety and security and gather information about information sharing and joint operations.

Visits are planned in coordination with several key Coast Guard and DHS stakeholders, including Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE). We interview a variety of partners at the federal, state, local, public, private, and occasionally international levels to gather information sharing best practices and recommendations for improvement.

General Findings and Recommendations
Primary sector collaboration venues include Area Maritime Security Committees, harbor safety committees, and numerous other committees or associations. In every port visited, the Coast Guard also plays a chairing or moderating role in local law enforcement or first responder associations, and is often the glue that holds them together, even when it is not the primary response or enforcement agency.

Since commencing our interviews in 2007, a consistent trend toward increased collaborative planning, joint operations, and joint training among the Coast Guard and its numerous partners has been apparent. Additionally, respondents shared concerns and provided many recommendations for improving operational collaboration and information sharing.

Next Steps
DHS published its information sharing strategy in July 2008, and the ISEA staff plans to introduce an information sharing strategy for the Coast Guard, incorporating what we have learned through visits and interviews with port partners.

One of the ISEA staff’s most important goals is to make the best practices and recommendations we have collected more visible within the Coast Guard. For more information on Information Sharing Executive Agent staff initiatives or to review our annual reports, please visit our Homeport or CG Portal sites:

• https://homeport.uscg.mil/infosharing
• https://cgportal.uscg.mil/lotus/myquickr/uscg-information-sharing

We invite you to share your information sharing success stories or recommendations with us at uscginformationsharing@uscg.mil.


For more information:
The Maritime Domain Awareness Information Exchange: http://www.mda.gov/.

The National Maritime Domain Awareness Coordination Office: http://www.gmsa.gov/index.html.

Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/summer2010.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Interagency Solutions Analysis—The state of interagency MDA requirements

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council magazine by Mr. Hank Blaney, Policy Analyst, U.S. Coast Guard Maritime Domain Awareness and Information Sharing.


In the years following 9/11, a collection of federal agencies with major responsibilities for maritime domain awareness drafted the National Plan to Achieve MDA.

These partners recognized that a national investment strategy would be required to ensure that the government achieved effective MDA in a coordinated, efficient fashion. A first step, the 2007 Interagency Investment Strategy, compared tasks required for effective national MDA with current capability, determined where gaps existed, and made recommendations as to which departments should mitigate or eliminate these gaps.

As the interagency maritime domain awareness governance process matured and a new administration emphasized “whole-of-government” problem solving, the MDA Stakeholder Board directed the next steps in resolving national maritime domain awareness shortcomings—the Interagency Solutions Analysis (IASA). A team of MDA professionals drawn from throughout the federal government, the IASA Working Group:

Verifies and prioritizes maritime domain awareness gaps. MDA stakeholders have been active in the years since the interagency investment strategy was written, eliminating some of the gaps. Other entities have conducted somewhat similar studies and made their own conclusions concerning maritime domain awareness tasks or gaps. An interagency solutions analysis working group will join forces with two of the major efforts—the Department of Defense MDA Joint Integration Concept and the Navy’s MDA Capabilities-Based Assessment—avoiding duplication of effort while adding more resources and brainpower to the interagency team.

Recommends interagency solutions to mitigate or close the gaps. The Interagency Solutions Analysis working group will consider non-material solutions (changes in policy or procedures) as well as material solutions (new capability that must be bought or developed). The difficult part will come next—determining which agencies or organizations should be responsible to bring about the necessary changes, and estimating the cost of these improvements.

Provides strategic planning, budget, and acquisition documentation necessary to facilitate the improvements. The Department of Defense has probably the most robust requirements-to-budget system—the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS). In the absence of a formal interagency process to determine and share solutions to MDA gaps, the working group will utilize a JCIDS-like process for its planning documentation baseline.

The process will be modified as necessary to capture agency-specific requirements. At the same time the analysis is being conducted, there will be an ongoing process of updating the MDA Stakeholder Board and all major partners to ensure that all involved understand the process and there are no surprises when recommendations for funding are made.

Study Process
The process will begin by defining the scope of the analysis. The team must determine how much MDA is “enough” in each of the primary focus areas. Without imposing some reasonable limits, recommended solutions might easily prove to be “pie in the sky” and therefore not achievable in today’s budgetary climate.

Critical gaps identified by the interagency solutions analysis and other studies will be compared against existing doctrine and policy. The processes or capabilities required will not always require new technologies. Modifying regulations, breaking down illogical barriers between organizations, or re-orienting methods of doing business can result in dramatic improvements in information flow.

Looking Ahead
The Interagency Solutions Analysis team’s first round of recommendations will include the validated list of critical maritime domain awareness gaps, the best potential solutions, cost estimates, and the recommended lead department or agency to tackle the issue. Time will be allowed for feedback from all stakeholders. Then the report will be presented to the involved departments and, ultimately, the Maritime Security Interagency Policy Council.

The primary measure of success of the interagency solutions analysis should be development of implementable cross-agency solutions that will mitigate or solve the identified critical MDA tasks and related capability gaps. The current cooperation among these partners portends well for a successful venture.


For more information:
The Maritime Domain Awareness Information Exchange: http://www.mda.gov/.

The National Maritime Domain Awareness Coordination Office: http://www.gmsa.gov/index.html.

Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/summer2010.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Breaking Down Barriers—Managing successful information sharing

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council magazine by CAPT David F. Sanders, JAGC, USN, Legal Counsel, National MDA Coordination Office Executive Secretariat.


Effective information sharing employs a combination of collection, storage,
dissemination, and analysis, resulting in an understanding of what is happening, and what it means.

Trust is the underpinning of information sharing. Systems security must be inherent in information transfer to merit trust. Participants in the information flow must trust and be trusted in the proper protection of information and sources. Sharing information, therefore, dispels any notions of secrecy, opens the curtain of government operation, engenders public confidence, and reinforces the concept of ownership by the people.

First, government must make information available to the public. Secondly,
government must be positioned to receive information from the public. Finally, government must effectively share information “within the castle.”

The “push-button” expectation for instant information demands instant action and instant sharing. Juxtaposed thereto are various barriers that can stall or prevent successful information sharing.

Barriers to Information Sharing
While each type of barrier hinders the proposed sharing, not all barriers are bad. Therefore, the goal is not to eliminate barriers, but to manage those barriers effectively.

Natural Barriers: The first “natural” barrier to information sharing is that individuals may have a tendency to work alone. To overcome this tendency, measures of success must encourage, recognize, and reward information sharing and teamwork, not penalize it.

Additionally, the concept of “information is power” and holding, hoarding, or manipulating information accruing to the public benefit cannot be tolerated.

Bureaucratic Barriers: While serious information sharing efforts are underway within government, they are not yet institutionalized. There must be a clear mandate to share, an acceptance of the practice to share, and reinforcement of the policy and practice via education, evaluation, recognition, and reward.

Legal Barriers: There are myriad legal barriers to information sharing. An efficient new barrier resolution plan must include a formal procedure to resolve information sharing disputes, modeled after prevailing alternative dispute resolution practices, including identifying a final arbitrator with the authority to resolve the dispute.

Administrative Barriers: These impediments include classification of information and resulting restrictions on transferability. This barrier can be resolved through uniformity of classification, a common understanding of the applicability of the classifications, and a common-sense approach to initial classification application to information.

Technical Barriers: Technology in itself is not a barrier to information sharing; barriers are those restrictions placed upon technology. Barrier management must begin in the design of the technology system that delivers the information.

The Goal
Management of barriers to information sharing is a systemic problem that requires a comprehensive and coordinated approach, beginning with a clear federal mandate to share information to the greatest extent possible and permissible under law and regulation.


For more information:
The Maritime Domain Awareness Information Exchange: http://www.mda.gov/.

The National Maritime Domain Awareness Coordination Office: http://www.gmsa.gov/index.html.

Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/summer2010.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Social Media in Rulemaking—Challenges

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council magazine. Click here for Part 1.


Using social media tools in the rulemaking process presents several challenges.

First, developing and maintaining social media tools is expensive and time-consuming. With the exception of CGPortal and certain HomePort features, the Coast Guard does not currently maintain its own social media technologies.

The Coast Guard does use commercial “off-the-shelf” products such as Blogger, YouTube, Flickr, and Twitter, generally at no cost to the Coast Guard or the public. However, using these products presents questions, such as whether the Coast Guard may agree to standard terms of service, how it can prevent inappropriate information appearing on sites associated with the Coast Guard, and how to control data that is saved on external web servers.

Moreover, providing new content, responding to public comments, intercepting inappropriate comments, and maintaining the system all require Coast Guard resources.

Second, many types of social media tools require users to submit identifying information such as a name or pseudonym and/or an e-mail address. Although most blogging tools can accept anonymous comments, wikis generally require an identifier to track content changes. Users could view webcasts anonymously, but most likely would require an identifier to participate. Many commercial websites require users to provide a birth date, as well. Even though the Coast Guard would have no direct access to personal information provided by the public, it may need to consider whether privacy protections are appropriate.

Third, the Coast Guard has legal obligations to provide adequate public notice of its regulatory actions via the Federal Register, and to keep records associated with its rulemaking activities. Accepting public comment through other avenues without giving notice in the Federal Register may not satisfy existing law and could open any eventual rule to legal challenge. Collecting and preserving comments from a blog or—even more challenging—a wiki is a daunting task because of the potential volume of comments and because the informal tone used on social media tools makes it difficult to identify which comments are directed at the potential rulemaking.

As the Coast Guard moves forward with social media, it will need to maintain a clear line between idea generation conducted using social media tools and comments on the record that may be taken into account during the rulemaking process.

These and other legal obligations prevent the Coast Guard from conducting any rulemaking entirely through social media tools at this time. The Coast Guard must and will continue to publish its notices in the Federal Register, and accept comment through traditional means (mail, fax, hand delivery, or online at www.regulations.gov). However, the Coast Guard is actively working to address the challenges, and to implement social media tools in a way that promotes public participation and results in better rules.


For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/spring2010.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

THE COAST GUARD ONLINE

Coast Guard Compass blog
http://coastguard.dodlive.mil/

Coast Guard Marine Safety blog
http://cgmarinesafety.blogspot.com/

Coast Guard YouTube channel
http://www.youtube.com/user/USCGImagery

Coast Guard Flickr album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/coast_guard/

Coast Guard Facebook fan page
http://www.facebook.com/UScoastguard

Coast Guard Twitter
http://twitter.com/uscoastguard

The USCG and Social Media

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council magazine by LT Anthony Migliorini, U.S. Coast Guard Public Affairs, and Ms. Rebecca Day, Attorney Advisor, U.S. Coast Guard Office of Regulations and Administrative Law.


The Coast Guard’s first foray into social media came with the development of a YouTube channel in February 2007. ADM Thad Allen, then-Commandant of the Coast Guard, debuted his official blog in September 2008. The Coast Guard also started accounts on Facebook and on the photo-sharing website Flickr in September 2008.

RDML James Watson, then-Director of Prevention Policy, started using a video blog to inform the public of the importance of the Coast Guard’s role in the global maritime transportation system. Headquarters staff have utilized wiki technology to collaborate real-time with field personnel on policy changes. Most recently, the Coast Guard established an internal collaborative tool, CGPortal, which incorporates wikis and blogs for improved knowledge management within the Coast Guard.

Many field units have also begun to utilize social media tools. Deployed cutters are staying connected with families and friends through Facebook and blogs. District public affairs staffs are fielding questions and informing media outlets about Coast Guard activities through Twitter updates.

Social Media in Rulemaking
In light of the Coast Guard’s success using social media in other missions, it is exploring how social media tools might become useful in the regulatory context. The use of social media tools—particularly blogs, wikis, and webcasts—could enhance public participation before and during rulemaking.

The use of blogs and wikis could help the Coast Guard improve public access to rulemaking documents by making those documents more easily detected by search engines, allowing the public to provide direct input into draft documents. Using live webcasts could make public meetings more accessible to the public and more cost-effective for the Coast Guard. Social media tools could also lower barriers to commenting and idea-sharing; dialogue conducted using social media tools could refine and improve the ideas eventually submitted for rulemaking.

In Part 2 we will explore how using social media tools presents challenges to the rulemaking process.


For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/spring2010.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

THE COAST GUARD ONLINE

Coast Guard Compass blog
http://coastguard.dodlive.mil/

Coast Guard Marine Safety blog
http://cgmarinesafety.blogspot.com/

Coast Guard YouTube channel
http://www.youtube.com/user/USCGImagery

Coast Guard Flickr album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/coast_guard/

Coast Guard Facebook fan page
http://www.facebook.com/UScoastguard

Coast Guard Twitter
http://twitter.com/uscoastguard

Rulemaking Process Improvements

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council magazine by Mr. Jeff Lantz, U.S. Coast Guard Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.


The U.S. Coast Guard is the nation’s maritime guardian. One of our goals is to develop policies, develop regulations, and execute a technical compliance program to guide and enhance the Coast Guard’s marine safety, security, and stewardship missions.

A substantial increase in regulatory workload brought about by 9/11 and ensuing legislation placed the Coast Guard in a reactive rulemaking mode rather than a proactive leadership role. We were not staffed to address that increased regulatory workload as quickly as we would have liked.

In response to these increased demands, the Coast Guard embarked on an effort to improve the rulemaking process. We have already begun to implement some of these improvements, which provides us an opportunity to reduce our project backlog, improve our processes and measurements, and increase our efficiency.

For example, we will establish better communications and clearer expectations of the full range of staff members involved in each project, and ensure all requirements are fully understood before we embark on a particular regulation project. We have also clarified team roles and responsibilities and delegation of authority for each project, eliminating unnecessary overlapping regulation writing.

We are leveraging technology by adopting an intranet-based visual reporting system that will help us focus on important deadlines and establish priorities among the wide range of regulations under development.

In upcoming posts we will feature a cross-section of articles that cover the range of aspects associated with the rulemaking process. I hope that readers will have a better appreciation for our rulemaking process and the steps we take to address all stakeholders’ concerns.


For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/spring2010.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Dive ALIVE

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council magazine by LT David Ambos, Senior Investigating Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Key West.


In the last week of July, the Florida Keys opens its annual lobster season with a two-day “mini-season.” This event attracts thousands of enthusiasts from all over the U.S. who dive and snorkel for lobster.

Unfortunately, during the 2006 mini-season five divers died. These incidents, along with several other dive-related deaths, raised a flag of concern at U.S. Coast Guard Sector Key West.

Although the casualties occurred on a variety of vessels and experience level varied among victims, the casualties typically fell into three categories: diver complacency, diver training/error, or pre-existing medical conditions.


The Stand Up
Identifying a need for intervention, Sector Key West staff made contact with several other state and local law enforcement agencies and created the “Dive ALIVE” initiative.

The mission: to increase the safety, health, and well-being of snorkelers and scuba divers through education. Public outreach included distributing the “Dive ALIVE” card, a quick reference that hit the streets prior to the lobster mini-season. Shown in the picture above, the safety card contains an easy-to-remember “ALIVE” mnemonic device that serves as a refresher for all divers.



Lobster Rodeo
The second major outreach effort was the “lobster rodeo,” which occurred the day before the opening of the lobster mini-season and focused on education.

The showpiece of the rodeo was the group of underwater scuba skills refresher stations, controlled by a certified dive instructor, who took each participating diver through a complete dive refresher in a controlled environment. Education ranged from simple mask clearing to buddy breathing. In the picture at left, lobster rodeo participants demonstrate the use of a hyperbaric chamber.

Additionally, participating agencies and various professional dive agencies set up information booths to pass out diver safety and environmental/reef safety pamphlets. In the picture below, representatives from various regulatory agencies answer questions, pass out safety and regulatory information, and advise rodeo attendees about lobster “no take” zones.


















For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/winter2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Improving Coast Guard SAR Capability—The Next Challenge

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine.


Despite the successful deployment of new direction-finding equipment, there are still some problems with the 406-MHz EPIRB—most notably, false alarms.

For example:

• Since 2004, more than 96% of 406-MHz EPIRB activations in the United States were from false or unknown causes.
• Since 2004, 45% of 406-MHz EPIRB activations were from either unregistered EPIRBs or from EPIRBs with obsolete registration information, which delays Coast Guard response.
• The Coast Guard spends 20 to 50 aircraft hours monthly (costing $200,000 to $700,000 dollars) on sorties for false EPIRB activations.

The design of some 406-MHz EPIRBs contributes to a high number of false activations. For example, one model is manufactured so that it can be installed backwards. If installed incorrectly, the model activates upon getting wet. Also, some EPIRBs are manufactured with loose bracket straps that allow moisture to unintentionally activate the EPIRB.

While some poorly designed EPIRBs are slowly being phased out of service, the remaining 406-MHz EPIRBs in the field (over 220,000 U.S.-registered) will continue to waste Coast Guard time and effort until they are properly installed and registered with current contact information.


For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/winter2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Improving Coast Guard SAR Capability—New Technology Supports Rapid Response

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by LT Myles Greenway, Chief, Investigations Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Charleston.


The Coast Guard received disturbing news following the rescue of the captain of the F/V Still Crazy V, which sank off the coast of South Carolina in 1999. The captain reported that although he held his emergency position-indicating radio beacon (EPIRB) and saw Coast Guard helicopters, they couldn’t locate him.

Troubled by what the master told him, Greg Johnson, Sector Charleston’s commercial fishing vessel safety examiner, promised to look into the matter.

Mixed Signals
Following this incident, Johnson analyzed data from EPIRB activations and aircraft sorties and identified more than 100 instances in which Coast Guard aircraft detected an EPIRB’s 121.5-MHz homing signal, but were not equipped to detect the stronger 406-MHz signal.

Testing EPIRBs and Coast Guard Equipment
In 2001, the Seventh Coast Guard District forwarded Johnson’s findings to USCG headquarters. Personnel tested 406-MHz EPIRBs and the current Coast Guard aircraft direction-finding equipment.

Testing indicated that signal strength could be affected when the device is held close to a mariner’s body. Additional testing indicated that, under ideal weather conditions, a Coast Guard HH-65 helicopter equipped with the existing direction-finding equipment could locate an unencumbered EPIRB 20 nautical miles away at an elevation of 3,000 feet.

Meanwhile, Back at Sector Charleston
While testing continued, Johnson consulted with Coast Guard aviators and foreign exchange pilots and learned that the Canadian Air Force had begun installing new direction-finding equipment on their C-130s. He also discovered that the Coast Guard Aviation Logistics Center was considering the same equipment that provided 360-degree scanning capability and minimized false bearing indications.

Johnson shared his research with the Aviation Logistics Center. Buoyed by his data, the center installed the prototype aboard a Coast Guard C-130, tail number 1504, and tested off the coast of Charleston. The flight data proved the new equipment performed as designed—it locked onto an EPIRB’s 406-MHz signal at nearly twice the distance as compared to the existing equipment for the 121.5-MHz frequency.

On Scene
On June 10, 2005, the sport fisher Extractor capsized while evading tropical storm Arlene. Coast Guard aircraft searched more than 13,000 square miles of ocean for the two crewmembers with negative results. Before running out of daylight, District Seven requested Coast Guard C-130, tail number 1504.

While transiting to the search area, the prototype unit locked onto the EPIRB’s 406-MHz signal from more than 90 nautical miles away at an elevation of 17,000 feet. C-130 personnel successfully vectored a Coast Guard helicopter to the crew, who had been hanging onto the capsized vessel for more than 26 hours.

Success
As of March 2009, the Coast Guard equipped all of its fixed-wing aircraft with the new direction finders. More significantly, the equipment has assisted Coast Guard in the successful rescue of more than 50 mariners to date.

Pictured: Greg Johnson receives the DHS Secretary’s Award for Excellence for his research.


For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/winter2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Lessons Learned—The Grounding of a Cruise Ship—Part III

Part III—A Lesson in Maritime Management

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine. Read Part I and Part II here.


The ship’s safety management system intends the bridge officers to work as a team, with checks and verifications of tasks accomplished. However, there was evidence that the master’s abrasive personality created reluctance among the crew to disagree or question the master’s decisions. This attitude of unquestioning subservience established an unsafe condition.

As stated in the casualty report:

“The lack of teamwork arose due to the master’s failure to involve the watch standers in the decision-making process regarding the departure route, as well as the master’s overbearing presence. The senior members of the navigational team expressed their surprise at the unusual and more dangerous departure course, but failed to express their concern because they did not feel empowered to voice doubt in the master’s decisions.”

Ergonomic and Human Performance Issues
The officer of the watch’s decision to rely solely on the automatic radar plotting aid (ARPA) to plot the Proselyte Reef lighted buoy as the sole reference point was contrary to the rules of good seamanship, his training as a navigational officer, and the vessel’s established standard procedures.

This was combined with a poor layout of the navigation station, which made it much more difficult to use the ARPA as well as the other navigational aids aboard the vessel. The chart table was placed well away from the automatic radar plotting aid, which was at the forward starboard side of the bridge. While this position allowed a good view of traffic, all other navigation instruments as well as the charts were located well away from that position.



It was also discovered that the navigational watch officers relied on the electronic instruments rather than taking terrestrial navigational fixes. Taking terrestrial navigational fixes is time-consuming, requiring placement of the azimuth bearing circles on the gyro repeaters, taking bearings, and then plotting them. On this vessel, the gyro compass repeaters were blocked by equipment cowlings, as depicted here.


The officer of the watch also failed to fully utilize the automatic radar plotting aid’s capabilities. He never ground-locked the ARPA nor did he manually input the wind and current values that would have allowed the ARPA to calculate the vessel’s set and drift. If he had, he might have realized that the ship was a lot closer to the reef than he thought.

Lessons Learned
The investigation report noted more than a dozen different recommendations, which can be summarized:

• Operate as a team and communicate clearly with each other, especially when making an emergency or non-routine operation.
• Separate hotel management responsibilities from the bridge crew to ensure that hotel problems do not compromise the safety of the ship.
• Plan passages and make written records of the plans.
• Keep charts current and corrected.
• Practice good seamanship and do not be over-confident about your abilities or those of your ship or the ship’s instruments.
  

For more information:
Full article is available at www.uscg.mil/proceedings. Click on “archives” and “2006 Volume 63, Number 2” (Summer 2006).

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

Lessons Learned—The Grounding of a Cruise Ship—Part II

Part II—A Lesson in Maritime Management


Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine. Read Part I here.


Just before the turn that immediately led to the grounding, the officer of the watch (OOW) was distracted by a phone call on the bridge regarding a disturbance related to a loud party in a stateroom. He was also required to silence a smoke alarm that had sounded on the bridge.

As soon as he felt the ship vibrate from contact with the reef, the master returned to the bridge and assumed the watch of the ship. At about 1:35 a.m. all of the watertight doors were ordered closed to prevent further flooding throughout the ship. The photo depicts the water level in an interior stairway.

At 1:47 a.m., the general emergency signal was sounded, and all passengers and crew were told to report to their emergency/abandon ship stations. By 2:20 a.m. all of the passenger cabins had been evacuated.

At 2:35 a.m. the master intentionally grounded the ship on a sandbar. Since this was accomplished successfully, the decision was made to evacuate the passengers by tenders rather than via the lifeboats. The evacuation was carried out by the shore-based tenders in about an hour and a half.

What Went Wrong?
As with many incidents, no single error caused it. There were organizational errors, navigational errors, and individual human errors.

One of the most critical organizational errors was the master’s not following the standards and procedures as laid out in the ship’s safety management system. Specifically, the officers on the bridge:

• did not set down a written passage plan for this particular deviation;
• did not follow the departure checklist;
• did not take a navigational fix;
• relied on only one navigational instrument, the automatic radar plotting aid (ARPA);
• relied on only one navigational aid, the Proselyte Reef lighted buoy;
• had not updated the charts to reflect the information in the latest Notice to Mariners.

This last item was critical, as the latest notice let mariners know that the Proselyte Reef lighted buoy the OOW was using to navigate had moved 125 meters west of the position on the ship’s chart.

The navigational errors were numerous as well. The officer of the watch did not take an initial fix on the ship’s position and did not account for the current and wind in his calculations. He also relied solely on the automatic radar plotting aid and did not take a terrestrial fix or utilize the global positioning system.

Not surprisingly, the human factors were also many. The master decided to sail to the east side of Proselyte Reef, which is the most dangerous side to transit, as the current moves in a westerly direction, the wind is normally easterly, and the lighted buoy they were navigating by is positioned on the west side of the reef. The master also had a managerial style that did not encourage communication of suggestions or questions by his bridge officers.

Additionally, the other officers of the bridge took no initiative to prepare a passage plan, record the passage of the vessel on the navigation charts, or even take readings from any of the other navigational aids to ensure that the ship was where they thought it was.

What’s the Bottom Line?
Of the multitude of mistakes made that led up to the grounding, many might have not occurred if the master had embraced and encouraged his crew to follow the procedures laid out in the ship’s safety management system.

Part III outlines the human errors and lessons learned from this incident.

For more information:
Full article is available at www.uscg.mil/proceedings. Click on “archives” and “2006 Volume 63, Number 2” (Summer 2006).

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.

The Mobilization Readiness Tracking Tool—modernizing Coast Guard response efforts

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard “Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council” magazine by Mr. Samuel J. Korson, U.S. Coast Guard Office of Incident Management and Response.


The Coast Guard’s mobilization readiness tracking tool (MRTT) represents a modernization of force readiness. MRTT is a web-based tool that:

· streamlines Coast Guard personnel mobilization;
· captures mobilization-related data;
· provides stakeholders process visibility;
· is capable of tracking active duty personnel assigned temporary duty.

The Process
The MRTT will take a request, match an appropriate individual, and assign him or her to a billet. It will also prevent others from filling the same position. The system will track an individual if he or she is sent elsewhere and ensure that the individual is demobilized properly.

It is also capable of creating force packages (such as incident management teams and joint field office support teams) to facilitate response efforts.

The Contingency Personnel Requirements List
The tool will help tie the Coast Guard’s personnel database to the contingency personnel requirements list, a systematic process to analyze what personnel and equipment support a unit will need for a contingency response.

The MRTT matches the requirements from a unit meeting a surge situation to those on the contingency personnel requirements list. These lists can be uploaded into the mobilization readiness tracking tool, and the planner can then download the appropriate list or create force packages from that list to meet response efforts.

The Voyage Ahead
By providing an automated mechanism by which Incident Command System requirements can match selective criteria, the MRTT enables the Coast Guard to meet the needs associated with a given incident. Logistics section chiefs can remain at their stations within the incident command post and fulfill requests for personnel by entering the web-based system and requesting the appropriate competencies.


For more information:
Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/fall2009.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp.