National Academies Press: OpenBook
Page i
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. The Coast Guard’s Next Decade: An Assessment of Emerging Challenges and Statutory Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27059.
×
Page R1
Page ii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. The Coast Guard’s Next Decade: An Assessment of Emerging Challenges and Statutory Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27059.
×
Page R2
Page iii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. The Coast Guard’s Next Decade: An Assessment of Emerging Challenges and Statutory Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27059.
×
Page R3
Page iv
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. The Coast Guard’s Next Decade: An Assessment of Emerging Challenges and Statutory Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27059.
×
Page R4
Page v
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. The Coast Guard’s Next Decade: An Assessment of Emerging Challenges and Statutory Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27059.
×
Page R5
Page vi
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. The Coast Guard’s Next Decade: An Assessment of Emerging Challenges and Statutory Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27059.
×
Page R6
Page vii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. The Coast Guard’s Next Decade: An Assessment of Emerging Challenges and Statutory Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27059.
×
Page R7
Page viii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. The Coast Guard’s Next Decade: An Assessment of Emerging Challenges and Statutory Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27059.
×
Page R8
Page ix
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. The Coast Guard’s Next Decade: An Assessment of Emerging Challenges and Statutory Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27059.
×
Page R9
Page x
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. The Coast Guard’s Next Decade: An Assessment of Emerging Challenges and Statutory Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27059.
×
Page R10
Page xi
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. The Coast Guard’s Next Decade: An Assessment of Emerging Challenges and Statutory Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27059.
×
Page R11
Page xii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. The Coast Guard’s Next Decade: An Assessment of Emerging Challenges and Statutory Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27059.
×
Page R12
Page xiii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. The Coast Guard’s Next Decade: An Assessment of Emerging Challenges and Statutory Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27059.
×
Page R13
Page xiv
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. The Coast Guard’s Next Decade: An Assessment of Emerging Challenges and Statutory Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27059.
×
Page R14
Page xv
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. The Coast Guard’s Next Decade: An Assessment of Emerging Challenges and Statutory Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27059.
×
Page R15
Page xvi
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. The Coast Guard’s Next Decade: An Assessment of Emerging Challenges and Statutory Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27059.
×
Page R16
Page xvii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. The Coast Guard’s Next Decade: An Assessment of Emerging Challenges and Statutory Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27059.
×
Page R17
Page xviii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. The Coast Guard’s Next Decade: An Assessment of Emerging Challenges and Statutory Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27059.
×
Page R18

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Committee for a Study on New Coast Guard Authorities Marine Board Transportation Research Board Ocean Studies Board Division on Earth and Life Studies The Coast Guard’s Next Decade An Assessment of Emerging Challenges and Statutory Needs Consensus Study Report

Transportation Research Board Special Report 346 Subscriber Categories: Marine transportation, law, policy Transportation Research Board publications are available by ordering individual publications directly from the TRB Business Office, through the Internet at www.TRB.org or nationalacademies.org/trb, or by annual subscription through organizational or individual affiliation with TRB. Affiliates and library subscribers are eligible for substantial discounts. For further information, contact the Transportation Research Board Business Office, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001 (telephone 202-334-3213; fax 202-334-2519; or e-mail TRBsales@nas.edu). Copyright 2023 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. This study was sponsored by the U.S. Coast Guard. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-70370-3 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-70370-0 Digital Object Identifier: http://doi.org/10.17226/27059

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence- based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state departments of transportation, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at http://www.trb.org.

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task. Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release. For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.

v COMMITTEE FOR A STUDY ON NEW COAST GUARD AUTHORITIES Cary Coglianese, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, Chair ADM Thad W. Allen, U.S. Coast Guard (retired), Vienna, VA James-Christian B. Blockwood, Partnership for Public Service, Washington, DC Annie Brett, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL VADM Sally Brice-O’Hara, U.S. Coast Guard (retired), Annapolis, MD Martha R. Grabowski, Le Moyne College, Syracuse, NY, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY Donald Liu (NAE), American Bureau of Shipping (retired), Seattle, WA Wen C. Masters, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA Rodrigo Nieto-Gomez, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA Sean T. Pribyl, Holland & Knight LLP, Washington, DC VADM Sandra Stosz, U.S. Coast Guard (retired), Falmouth, MA RADM David W. Titley, U.S. Navy (retired), RV Weather, State College, PA Study Staff Melissa Welch-Ross, Study Director, Consensus and Advisory Studies, Transportation Research Board Thomas R. Menzies, Jr., Director, Consensus and Advisory Studies, Transportation Research Board Timothy B. Marflak, Program Coordinator, Consensus and Advisory Studies, Transportation Research Board Claudia Sauls, Program Coordinator, Consensus and Advisory Studies, Transportation Research Board Stacee Karras, Senior Program Officer, Ocean Studies Board, Division on Earth and Life Studies Consultant Sarah Jo Peterson, 23 Urban Strategies, LLC

Reviewers This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review process is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Craig Allen, University of Washington School of Law Chris Cummiskey, Cummiskey Strategic Solutions, LLC Margareta Lützhöft, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences Tony MacDonald, Monmouth University Harold “Lars” McCarter, Amazon Web Services Katherine McGrady, Center for Naval Analyses Craig McLean, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (retired) Fred Midgette, U.S. Coast Guard (retired) George Milner, The Pennsylvania State University Scott Savitz, RAND Corporation Duncan Smith, Smith Advocacy Group LLC and RADM United States Coast Guard Reserve (retired) Chris Wiernicki, American Bureau of Shipping vii

viii REVIEWERS The review of this report was overseen by Chris Hendrickson (NAE), Carnegie Mellon University, and Craig Philip (NAE), Vanderbilt University. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the Na- tional Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring com- mittee and the National Academies.

ix Contents PREFACE xi ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS xv SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 7 Study Origins and Charge, 10 Background on the Coast Guard, 13 Study Scope and Approach, 26 Report Organization, 28 2 IDENTIFYING FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS AND ASSESSING STATUTORY AUTHORITY 31 Foreseeable Developments, 34 Forces for Change, 36 Actions Responsive to Developments, 39 High-Level Assessments of Statutory Authority, 41 3 FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS, COAST GUARD RESPONSES, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR STATUTORY AUTHORITY 53 Autonomous Systems, 54 Cybersecurity Risk, 69 Commercial Space Operations, 78 Offshore Wind Energy, 85

x CONTENTS Aquaculture, 91 Arctic Domain, 93 Ship Decarbonization, 105 Disasters, 110 Migration, 116 Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing, 120 Concluding Observations, 126 4 ENSURING THE CAPACITY AND CAPABILITY TO ACT ON FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS 129 Data Management and Analysis, 130 Acquisition and Procurement, 136 Workforce Management, 143 5 OVERALL ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 155 Summary of Review and Findings, 158 Conclusions and Recommendations, 165 Considerations in Implementing Recommendations, 169 APPENDIXES A Study Committee Biographical Information 171 B Public Committee Meetings 181

xi Section 8249 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Autho- rization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 called for the U.S. Coast Guard to enter into an agreement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to “prepare an assessment of Coast Guard authorities” that provides “(1) an examination of emerging issues that may require Coast Guard oversight, regulation, or action; (2) a description of potential limita- tions and shortcomings of relying on current Coast Guard authorities to address emerging issues; and (3) an overview of adjustments and additions that could be made to existing Coast Guard authorities to fully address emerging issues.” “Emerging issues” is defined in the Act as “encompassing changes in the maritime industry and environment that in the determination of the National Academy of Sciences are reasonably likely to occur within 10 years.” To conduct the study, the National Academies appointed a com- mittee of 12 experts with experience in vessel navigation and operations, marine environmental protection and stewardship, marine safety, maritime law enforcement, defense readiness, domestic and international shipping, port and waterways security, maritime law, Coast Guard operations, and public administration. This report represents the consensus efforts of these 12 individuals, who served uncompensated in the public interest. Their biographical information is provided in Appendix A. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The committee met 12 times from January 2022 to February 2023. Por- tions of eight of these meetings were open to the public and used to gather Preface

xii PREFACE information relevant to the study. The committee thanks the following individuals from the Coast Guard for their participation in public meetings during the information-gathering process: Vice Admiral Scott Buschman, Captain Kelly K. Denning, Captain Matthew Denning, Rear Admiral Pat DeQuattro, Admiral Linda L. Fagan, Vice Admiral Peter W. Gautier, Kevin Kiefer, Jeffrey Lantz, Calvin Lederer, Vice Admiral Kevin E. Lunday, Rear Admiral John W. Mauger, Commander Kira Moody, Rear Admiral Joanna Nunan, Jeffrey Radgowski, Rear Admiral Michael P. Ryan, Admiral Karl L. Schultz (now retired), Vice Admiral Paul F. Thomas, and Rear Admiral John “Jay” Vann. The committee thanks the following additional individuals for partici- pating in the public briefings and contributing to the committee’s work: Craig Allen, Sr., University of Washington; Steve Andersen, Federal Mari- time Commission; Angela Bailey, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Joy Baker, Port of Nome; Kate Belmont and Christopher Wiernicki, Ameri- can Bureau of Shipping; Michael Berube, Kara Podkaminer, and Kevin Stork, U.S. Department of Energy; Danielle Blacklock, Alexa Cole, and James Landon, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Ian Bramson, ABS Group; Lawson Brigham, Wilson Center Polar Institute; Olivier Cadet, Kongsberg Maritime, Inc.; Daniel Chenok, IBM Center for The Business of Government; Heather Conley, German Marshall Fund of the United States; David H. Cummins, Blue Sky Maritime; Buddy Custard, Alaska Chadux Network; Robert Day, Chertoff Group; Matt Dwyer, U.S. House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; Ray Fitzgerald, Crowley Maritime; W. Craig Fugate, One Concern; Michele Gaudreault, United States Air Force Academy; Claire Grady, ManTech; Caitlin Hardy, Kongsberg Maritime; Michael Johnson, Sea Machines Ro- botics; David Kelly, Innovasea; Katrina Kemp, Maritime and Coast Guard Agency, United Kingdom; Brad Kieserman, American Red Cross; Lee Kind- berg, Maersk North America; Joe Kramek, World Shipping Council; James Kraska, U.S. Naval War College; Heather MacLeod, U.S. Government Accountability Office; Doug Massey, Princeton University; Brian McNa- mara, Tulane University; Tyson Meadors, U.S. Naval Institute; Svein David Medhaug, Norwegian Maritime Authority; Jason R. W. Merrick, Virginia Commonwealth University; Cameron Naron, U.S. Department of Trans- portation; Ed Page, Marine Exchange of Alaska; Steve Parode, U.S. Navy (retired); John Rayfield, U.S. House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; Claire Richer, American Clean Power Associa- tion; Tony Sager, Center for Internet Security, Inc.; Whitley Saumweber, Center for Strategic and International Studies; J. Peter Scoblic, New Amer- ica Foundation; Philip E. Tetlock, University of Pennsylvania; Kurt Tidd, U.S. Department of Defense (retired); Amy Trice, Ocean Conservancy; Erik Tvedt, Danish Maritime Authority; Fran Ulmer, Harvard Kennedy School;

PREFACE xiii Mark R. Vlaun, American Roll-On Roll-Off Carrier; and Jonathan K. Wal- dron, Blank Rome LLP. We thank Brian McNamara, Tulane University, for preparing a paper commissioned by the committee. We also thank Greg Giddens, Potomac Ridge Consulting, and Cécile Wendling, AXA, for sharing their expertise via calls with committee members and staff. We gratefully acknowledge the Coast Guard’s submission of written materials, including a list of emerging Coast Guard issues for the commit- tee’s consideration as well as responses to committee questions as follow-up to public meetings. These written submissions, as well as commissioned papers and other documents provided to the committee during the study from outside the Coast Guard, are available upon request.1 We thank Commander Sarah Kristine Rousseau and Marc Thibaut for facilitating the gathering of information and perspectives from the Coast Guard and coordinating Coast Guard participation in public meetings. Melissa Welch-Ross directed the study and assisted the study committee in the preparation of this report with the assistance of Constance (Stacee) Karras and Sarah Jo Peterson. Thomas R. Menzies, Jr., provided study guidance and oversight. Timothy B. Marflak and Claudia Sauls provided administrative and logistical support. Karen Febey, Senior Report Review Officer, managed the report review process. 1 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, New Coast Guard Authori- ties, https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-ork/new-coast-guard-authorities.

xv Acronyms and Abbreviations ABS American Bureau of Shipping AI artificial intelligence AIS automatic identification system BAA Broad Agency Announcement BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management CISA U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency COLREG Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea COTP U.S. Coast Guard captain of the port CSO Commercial Solutions Opening DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security DIU Defense Innovation Unit DOD U.S. Department of Defense DOE U.S. Department of Energy DOT U.S. Department of Transportation EEZ exclusive economic zone EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation

xvi ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office GHG greenhouse gas IMO International Maritime Organization ISM International Safety Management IT information technology IUU illegal, unreported, and unregulated JTA job task analysis LNG liquefied natural gas MARAD Maritime Administration MASS Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement MTS Marine Transportation System MTSA Maritime Transportation Security Act NAPA National Academy of Public Administration NDAA National Defense Authorization Act NMERPAC National Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NRF National Response Framework NSF National Science Foundation NVIC Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular OCS outer continental shelf OCSLA Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act OPA90 Oil Pollution Act of 1990 OREI offshore renewable energy installation OSLTF Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund OSRO oil spill response organization OT operational technology OTA other transaction agreement PIL U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Procurement Innovation Lab PPV public–private venture PWSA Ports and Waterways Safety Act R&D research and development

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS xvii SAR search and rescue SASH sexual assault and sexual harassment SMS safety management system SOLAS Safety of Life at Sea STCW Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers TRB Transportation Research Board TSA U.S. Transportation Security Administration UAS uncrewed aerial system UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea USCG U.S. Coast Guard USNI U.S. Naval Institute VTS Vessel Traffic System

Next: Summary »
The Coast Guard’s Next Decade: An Assessment of Emerging Challenges and Statutory Needs Get This Book
×
 The Coast Guard’s Next Decade: An Assessment of Emerging Challenges and Statutory Needs
Buy Paperback | $103.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

In the face of climate change, technological innovation, and global strategic competition, the U.S. Coast Guard will need to respond to many developments in the maritime domain over the next decade. The Coast Guard likely has sufficient statutory authority to respond to most of these developments, but some developments may call for new or clarified statutory authority as well as coordination with international bodies. Current statutory manning requirements, for example, will limit the Coast Guard’s ability to authorize the regulated use of uncrewed vessels with autonomous systems. New authority may also be needed to establish spaceflight-related safety zones applicable to foreign-flagged vessels within 200 nautical miles of the U.S. coastlines.

These are among the findings in TRB Special Report 346: The Coast Guard’s Next Decade: An Assessment of Emerging Challenges and Statutory Needs from the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

The report emphasizes that in addition statutory authority, the Coast Guard will need key organizational and operational capabilities, including a well-trained workforce, to respond to future challenges. A short video charts the Coast Guard's next decade.

READ FREE ONLINE

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!