The United States Coast Guard (USCG) has updated many of their policies to meet the intent of the MTSA. The former 24-hour advance Notice of Arrival (NOA) has been extended to a 96-hour NOA (Frittelli, 2003, 3). This increase provides the USCG, port security, Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), and other key players increased time to validate and scrutinize vessel information. Since one criticism of these new mandates can be perceived as the slowdown of commerce due to increase checks and inspections, providing a larger window in such a low impact area for validation will ensure ports are not backlogged with materiel waiting on inspection and or validation for onward movement. One strength of the MTSA is the type of new programs that have been
…show more content…
There is concern that the USCG might accept foreign countries certification of their own security plans (Wrighton, 2003, 4). With limited resources and budget, the USCG most likely cannot send teams to all foreign ports in a timely manner. The assumption is that most countries will take a serious look at their own security since in the long run it will benefit them. There could be others that hide deficiencies so that they do not lose business or due to corruption at those installations. Since the USCG does not have the manpower to send teams to every port they do have the ability to contract out that duty. Since the USCG has taken this track, some assessments being conducted by an outside contractor have been criticized for their quality (Wrighton, 2003, …show more content…
Many improvements have the ability for federal grant assistance which can cut costs by 75% if approved. Even if the grants would not cover that much the improvement in security benefits companies conducting business through ports, ports themselves, neighboring communities, and the nation. It’s a long road view and not a short one that usually relies on immediate profit. I do not believe mandating these changes and putting the onus on the private enterprises that run our ports to comply with these regulations a burden. There is an assumed obligation that since they are bringing in these materiel’s it is an inherent responsibility to ensure that nothing harmful or illegal is passing through their ports into the United
There is concern that the USCG might accept foreign countries certification of their own security plans (Wrighton, 2003, 4). With limited resources and budget, the USCG most likely cannot send teams to all foreign ports in a timely manner. The assumption is that most countries will take a serious look at their own security since in the long run it will benefit them. There could be others that hide deficiencies so that they do not lose business or due to corruption at those installations. Since the USCG does not have the manpower to send teams to every port they do have the ability to contract out that duty. Since the USCG has taken this track, some assessments being conducted by an outside contractor have been criticized for their quality (Wrighton, 2003, …show more content…
Many improvements have the ability for federal grant assistance which can cut costs by 75% if approved. Even if the grants would not cover that much the improvement in security benefits companies conducting business through ports, ports themselves, neighboring communities, and the nation. It’s a long road view and not a short one that usually relies on immediate profit. I do not believe mandating these changes and putting the onus on the private enterprises that run our ports to comply with these regulations a burden. There is an assumed obligation that since they are bringing in these materiel’s it is an inherent responsibility to ensure that nothing harmful or illegal is passing through their ports into the United