Page 23 - 2a Edicion

02 – CODIGOS ISM & ISPS, APLICACIÓN Y CASOS REALES

They are derived from Alexander Hamilton’s “Letter of Instruction to the
Commanding Officers of Revenue Cutters,” dated June 4, 1791:
• Clear Objective
• On-Scene Initiative
• Effective Presence
• Managed Risk
• Unity of Effort
• Flexibility
• Restraint

Clear COTPs exercise their authority to address situations that might threaten people, the
Objective environment, and port infrastructure, as well as to promote safe, secure, and environmentally
sound port operations.
On-Scene Captains of the port do not need to seek permission from higher authority to issue orders, and
Initiative Coast Guard administrative procedures are streamlined to avoid delays. Equally important,
Captains of the port can lift restrictions with equal speed as soon as conditions allow.
Effective Our operational presence in port areas means that we are aware of baseline maritime activity
Presence and risks before an event, and therefore are able to make informed decisions when incidents
occur. Specific COTP actions, like safety zones, are generally enforced via on-scene Coast Guard
personnel. This means COTP orders are effective and meaningful.
Managed Risk A captain of the port’s job is not to eliminate risk, but to manage it to an acceptable level.
Accepting a certain degree of risk in consultation with stakeholders allows commerce to proceed
while taking prudent measures to limit the overall potential consequences of a situation
Unity of Effort COTP actions such as safety and security zones or vessel traffic systems help coordinate actions
by various private and public sector organizations into a unity of effort that serves the port
community as a whole. COTP involvement in forums such as harbor safety committees and
area maritime security committees promotes a unity of effort in steady-state situations and
lays the groundwork for collective action in contingencies
Flexibility The broad nature of COTP authority allows great flexibility in addressing risk. Captains of the
port have flexibility in the geographic scope of an order (e.g., the size of a safety zone), the
timing (e.g., “daylight transit only”), and the specific measures they may take or require of a
vessel or facility operator. Another example of this flexibility is COTP approval of facility security
plans, which are performancebased plans customized for individual port facilities
Restraint The Coast Guard recognizes that most vessel and facility operators are responsible,
professional, and share the Coast Guard’s interest in a safe and timely resolution to an incident.
Highly prescriptive measures are rarely needed.
Cooperation with operators helps ensure that the COTP takes only those measures necessary
to achieve the desired objective. Consultation with stakeholders promotes transparency and
reminds us that we serve the public as a whole. Captain of the port actions are not punitive in
nature, but intended only to address specific safety, security, and environmental hazards.
The principle of clear objective is particularly important and speaks to the
purpose of COTP authorities. Going back to 1917, the objective was to keep
ports functioning by enabling the Coast Guard to keep them safe from accident
and secure from sabotage. One way to look at this is that captains of the port
should exercise their authority to the benefit of the port as a whole, rather
than they would to benefit any individual vessel or facility operator.

Our regulations make this clear in several locations. For example, 33 CFR
160.109 states that captains of the port may take certain actions “To prevent
damage to, or the destruction of, any bridge or other structure in the United
States …” Other regulations cite conditions that are unsafe, those posing a
threat to the marine environment, or specific safety risks such as vessels that

[7]