October 1, 2004
The International Ship and Port Facility Security Code is law and it’s easy to abide by, if captains and owners take reasonable measures to make sure their vessel is as safe as it can be.
That was the message from Rupert Connor, president of the yacht management company Luxury Yacht Group and speaker at September’s Connection seminar at Hyatt Pier 66.
While the complexity and newness of ISPS have been a hassle for management companies and the captains who work with them, abiding by the law isn’t difficult, Connor said.
"It’s surprisingly simple [to comply], although the rules do require some reading," he said. Megayachts larger than 500 tons that engage in international trade must do a risk assessment of their vessels, write a plan, train crew and get their plans approved.
The ISPS Code sets the regulations for security issues in and around ports and went into effect July 1. Each country that is part of the International Maritime Organization drafted laws to enforce those issues. In the United States, that legislation is the Maritime Transportation Security Act, which is enforced by the Coast Guard.
One problem has been that the United States interprets ISPS differently than most other countries, leaving globe-trotting captains baffled by who needs to comply, when and how.
"The U.S. is probably, among all nations, the one taking it most seriously and has shown the least tolerance with vessels that don’t comply either with their advanced notice of arrivals or having the appropriate certification," Connor said.
Details of that law are in 33 CFR 101-106, with Chapter 104 concentrating on vessels, 105 on facilities.
The bottom line for megayachts, though, is security, Connor said. Is the vessel secure? Does it challenge boarding by unauthorized people? Does it have a plan to keep its guests and crew safe?
"If a port state control officer comes by your boat, knocks on the hull, no one answers, sees the passarelle down, strolls up on board and meets the captain in the wheelhouse drinking a cup of coffee, you’ll have a problem," Connor said.
At that point, the officer has determined there’s "clear grounds" that the ship’s security plan isn’t working, he said, because no plan would allow a total stranger access to the bridge.
The answer isn’t a 24-hour watch over the passarelle. Instead, hang a sign that says "Private yacht, No boarding." Lock doors to the salon or bridge to hinder access.
The requirement is that someone be challenged. The moment someone tries to step aboard, have a crew member ask for identification, even if the person looks like a Coast Guard officer, he said.
"You don’t have to invest thousands in security cameras and technology such as lighting system," Connor said. "Make the crew mess door the only off-hours access point, and keep all other doors locked. That’s acceptable and cheap."
A module for ship security officer is expected to be incorporated into STCW by 2006, he said.
Several captains indicated they weren’t impacted by the law, which the Coast Guard enforces on commercial vessels larger than 500 tons. The Coast Guard considers vessels that carry SOLAS-equivalent certificates commercial.
"There’s a large amount of discrepancy over the Coast Guard’s interpretation as to whether a private yacht that is able to charter and comes to the U.S. as a private yacht and wants to get a cruising permit, which specifically says it is not engaged in trade," Connor said. "There are a lot of issues with that right now on whether they apply."
Concerns are heightening in South Florida as the yachting community prepares for the Ft. Lauderdale International Boat Show at the end of the month.
By mid-September, none of the marinas scheduled to handle boats for the show had approved plans in place, though most expected to gain approval by show time. Without them, the largest megayachts would not be permitted to enter.
"We have a number of vessels scheduled to be here for the boat show with alternate plans in Freeport in case we can’t get dockage," Connor said of some of the 20 yachts his firm manages.
One possible solution for secure dockage was to turn the largest megayachts to boatyard, which are exempt in the United States from complying with the MTSA.
A question from the audience of more than 30 captains and shore-based support professionals generated a discussion about the genesis of the MTSA, which originally was intended for vessels larger than 65 feet, said Taff Weaver, company security officer at Luxury Yacht Group who also spoke with Connor. The Coast Guard is considering applying the code to vessels over 100 tons, he said.
Several in the audience suggested captains talk to their bosses about influencing decision-makers in Washington.
"We know enough influential people that the laws can be changed," one yacht manager said. "We can lobby as far as we need to lobby. If we need to lobby the IMO, so be it."
"The ISM code took seven years to produce," Weaver said. "This [the ISPS Code] was knocked out in 18 months. There are going to be hiccups."
All this talk makes lawyer Gale Hawkes crazy. He insists that the megayacht industry’s handling of the law is incorrect • mainly because the Coast Guard’s interpretation of the MTSA is incorrect, he said. He urged captains and owners to challenge Coast Guard officers when they refuse a yacht entry to facilities or begin issuing fines for non compliance.
The MTSA permits the CG to administer fines up to $25,000 for each violation per day. With several infractions onboard, a vessel can quickly accumulate hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.
"The whole deal is a question of interpretation and enforcement," said Gale Hawkes, a maritime attorney from Miami who has served as a consultant to the IMO on security issues. "The code is written so sloppily. We’re not going to know what a lot of it means until we get in front of a federal judge."
Contact Editor Lucy Chabot Reed at lucy@the-triton.com.
About the Author
