Coast Guard officials said field units report that they are meeting their  inspection requirements, but inspections may not be documented in the  compliance database, or inspections may have been delayed by staff being  diverted to meet higher-priority needs. Definitive information about the extent to which all facilities were  inspected is not available, because the Coast Guard’s MISLE database  does not have the capability to document the extent to which MTSA  facilities received an annual inspection for a particular year. 2). The SAFE Port Act’s requirement  for each facility to receive two inspections was not effective until October  2006. Deficiencies Identified in about One-Third of Facilities and Most Were Addressed without Formal Coast Guard Enforcement Action

The Coast Guard identified deficiencies in about one-third of the facilities  inspected in 2004-2006, with deficiencies concentrated in a subset of five  deficiency categories, for example, failing to follow facility security plans  for access control. Coast Guard officials do not know what the effect of the new spot  check requirements will be on resources needed. Spot Check Guidance May Affect the Sufficiency of Inspectors to Conduct All Inspections

A second factor that may affect the reliability of the estimates is that the  Coast Guard based its estimate for the number of inspectors needed in  part on the number of spot checks conducted in the past, but subsequent  spot check guidance may require inspectors to spend more time on these  spot checks than they had previously. A more thorough evaluation of the facility compliance program could  provide information on, for example, the variations we identified between  Coast Guard units in oversight approaches, the advantages and  disadvantages of each approach, and whether some approaches work  better than the others. In such situations, delays might affect the unit’s  ability to complete its inspection workload. OMB noted that there have been no reviews indicating  whether or how the program is achieving results. In MISLE, however, data and  database fields were missing, duplicative, and inconsistent, with data entry  a particular concern. The Coast Guard gives considerable leeway to sectors and local units in  deciding how to implement requirements, and as this report has shown,  units have gone in somewhat different directions. For example, some have  decided to conduct the annual compliance exam unannounced, while  others announce them in advance, and some use formal enforcement  actions such as written warnings or fines while others do not. Specifically, our objectives included  determining the extent to which the Coast Guard:    has met its maritime facility inspection requirements under MTSA and  the SAFE Port Act and has found facilities to be in compliance with  their security plans,    has determined the availability of trained personnel to meet current  and future facility inspection requirements, and    has assessed the effectiveness of its MTSA facility oversight program  and ensured that program compliance data collected and reported are  reliable. We also  discussed current and planned guidance for conducting facility  inspections with headquarters officials. In the seven sectors we visited, we  met with facility inspectors to discuss facility inspector training, the  adequacy of inspection resources, guidance used to conduct inspections,  and other inspector responsibilities. Maritime Security: Better Planning Needed to Help Ensure an Effective  Port Security Assessment Program.
Why GAO Did This Study

To help secure the nation's ports against a terrorist attack, federal regulations have required cargo and other maritime facilities to have security plans in place since July 2004. U.S Coast Guard (USCG) guidance calls for an annual inspection to ensure that plans are being followed. Federal law enacted in October 2006 required such facilities to be inspected two times a year--one of which is to be conducted unannounced. The USCG plans to conduct one announced inspection and the other as a less comprehensive unannounced "spot check." GAO examined the extent to which the USCG (1) has met inspection requirements and found facilities to be complying with their plans, (2) has determined the availability of trained personnel to meet current and future facility inspection requirements, and (3) has assessed the effectiveness of its facility inspection program and ensured that program compliance data collected and reported are reliable. GAO analyzed USCG compliance data, interviewed inspectors and other stakeholders in 7 of 35 USCG sectors of varying size, geographic location, and type of waterway.

What GAO Found

We could not determine the extent to which the USCG has met inspection requirements because its compliance database does not identify all regulated facilities to establish how many should have been inspected. While the USCG estimates there are about 3,200 facilities requiring inspection, their records indicate 2,126 annual inspections were conducted in 2006. Headquarters officials said field units reported that all required facility inspections were conducted. However, officials also said some inspections may not have been recorded, or were delayed by staff being diverted for natural disasters. The USCG identified deficiencies in about one-third of inspections, mainly for problems with access controls or missing documentation. Over 80 percent of deficiencies identified by the USCG were resolved by facility operators without the USCG applying formal enforcement actions. Although USCG officials believe they have enough trained inspectors to conduct current and future inspections, two additional factors could affect the USCG's estimates of the number of inspectors needed. First, facility inspectors balance security inspections with other competing duties, such as safety or pollution checks, and giving priority to security inspections could affect these other duties, inspectors said. Second, new guidance for spot checks calls for these checks to be more detailed--and perhaps more time-consuming--than some USCG units conducted in the past. For example, the guidance now requires an on-site visit, whereas some units had allowed the check to be a drive-by observation. The effect of the new guidance on resource requirements in these units is unknown. The USCG has not assessed the effectiveness of its facility inspection program. Headquarters guidance gives considerable discretion to local USCG units in deciding how to conduct facility inspections--for example, deciding whether a fine is warranted. The USCG has little or no information, however, on which approaches work better than others and is therefore limited in being able to make informed decisions in guiding the program. Flaws in USCG's database, including missing, duplicate, and inconsistent information, complicate the USCG's ability to conduct such analyses or provide other information for making management decisions.