Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 2865 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 125 

[USCG–2006–24189] 

Maritime Identification Credentials 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of acceptable 

identification credentials; phased 

cancellation. 

SUMMARY: This document informs the 

public that, after their Captain of the 

Port (COTP) has implemented access 

control procedures using the 

Transportation Worker Identification 

Credential (TWIC), the COTP no longer 

needs to enforce the previously 

published notice requiring name-based 

vetting of certain port workers. 

DATES: This announcement is effective 

January 16, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2006– 

24189 and are available for inspection 

or copying at the Docket Management 

Facility, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building, Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. They may also be viewed 

online at www.regulations.gov at any 

time. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this document, 

call James Bull, Coast Guard, telephone 

202–372–1144. If you have questions on 

viewing material in the docket, call 

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background and Purpose 

Under the authority of 50 U.S.C. 191 

and Coast Guard regulations (33 CFR 

part 125), the Coast Guard has the 

authority to require identification 

credentials for access to waterfront 

facilities and to port and harbor areas, 

including vessels and harbor craft in 

those areas. The Commandant of the 

Coast Guard, pursuant to 33 CFR 

125.15(a), is authorized to direct, from 

time to time, the Captains of the Port ‘‘to 

prevent access of persons who do not 

possess one or more of the identification 

credentials listed in § 125.09 to those 

waterfront facilities, and port and 

harbor areas, including vessels and 

harbor craft therein, where the following 

shipping activities are conducted: * * * 

[t]hose essential to the interests of 

national security and defense, to 

prevent loss, damage or injury, or to 

insure the observance of rights and 

obligations of the United States.’’ 

On April 28, 2006, the Coast Guard 

published a ‘‘Notice of acceptable 

identification credentials’’ in the 

Federal Register at 71 FR 25066 (‘‘April 

28, 2006 Notice’’), which directed the 

COTPs to deny access to waterfront 

facilities regulated under 33 CFR part 

105 to persons that did not have 

appropriate identification credentials, as 

defined by 33 CFR 125.09. This action 

was deemed necessary in the interests of 

national security and to protect these 

facilities from loss, damage, or injury. 

The appropriate credentials included a 

Merchant Mariner Document, an Armed 

Forces Identification Card, Federal law 

enforcement credentials, identification 

credentials issued to public safety 

officers, and other credentials defined in 

the April 28, 2006 Notice in accordance 

with 33 CFR 125.09(g). 

The April 28, 2006 Notice set out a 

procedure by which the Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA) analyzed 

relevant information, submitted by the 

facility owner or operator either directly 

to TSA or via the Coast Guard, before 

determining whether or not an 

employee or longshoreman posed or 

was suspected of posing a security 

threat warranting denial of access to the 

port facility. This information included 

the employee’s or longshoreman’s legal 

name, date of birth, social security 

number (optional), and alien 

identification number (if applicable). 

TSA notified the facility and the COTP 

of persons that posed or were suspected 

of posing a security threat, and those 

persons were denied access to facilities 

regulated under 33 CFR part 105, as not 

having approved identification 

credentials under 33 CFR 125.09(f). 

Facility Access Under TWIC 

The April 28, 2006 Notice stated that 

‘‘when regulations implementing the 

Transportation Worker Identification 

Credential (TWIC) are issued, the Coast 

Guard will reevaluate this action.’’ (71 

FR 25066). The Final Rule 

implementing TWIC was published in 

the Federal Register on January 25, 

2007 (72 FR 3492). TWIC enrollment 

began in October of 2007 (72 FR 57342); 

there are now 149 enrollment centers 

open. On May 7, 2008, the Coast Guard 

and TSA issued a final rule extending 

the TWIC compliance date. (73 FR 

25562). All persons required to obtain a 

TWIC, and all vessels and facilities 

required to use a TWIC as an access 

control measure, must comply by April 

15, 2009, unless the Coast Guard issues 

an earlier compliance date. 

On May 7, 2008, the Coast Guard 

began announcing earlier rolling 

compliance dates for facilities, as 

provided in 33 CFR 105.115(e). (73 FR 

25757). Those compliance dates, in 

order of occurrence and by COTP Zone, 

are listed in Table 1, below. 

Cancellation of Procedure Established 

by April 28, 2006 Notice 

The procedure established in the 

April 28, 2006 Notice was intended to 

be an interim measure that would be 

reevaluated once the TWIC program was 

operational. As part of this procedure, 

TSA conducted a name-based security 

threat assessment on more than 800,000 

workers. This number far exceeds the 

population estimates we had when the 

April 28, 2006 Notice was published, 

and has enhanced security in the 

nation’s maritime sector. However, the 

security threat assessment TSA is now 

able to conduct through the TWIC 

program is more robust. Also, the TWIC 

enrollment process, which includes 

comprehensive identification 

verification standards and more detailed 

information provided by the worker, 

produces more complete information on 

which to base a security threat 

assessment. Thus, the results of the 

TWIC threat assessments are more 

accurate than the name-based check run 

under the April 28, 2006 Notice. 

As a result of the above, the Coast 

Guard has determined that, once TWIC 

has been implemented in a COTP Zone 

(according to the date announced in the 

Federal Register and reflected in Table 

1), the personal identification 

requirements implemented by the April 

28, 2006 Notice are no longer necessary. 

TABLE 1—DATES OF TWIC COMPLIANCE AND CANCELLATION OF TSA NAME–BASED VETTING

If you are in COTP zone . . . Then your TWIC Compliance date (and the date when you may stop 

using the procedure from the April 28, 2006 Notice) is . . . 

Boston, Northern New England, Southeastern New England ................. October 15, 2008 (Notice published at 73 FR 25757). 

Cape Fear River, Corpus Christi, North Carolina .................................... November 28, 2008 (Notice published at 73 FR 40739). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
2866 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—DATES OF TWIC COMPLIANCE AND CANCELLATION OF TSA NAME–BASED VETTING—Continued 

If you are in COTP zone . . . Then your TWIC Compliance date (and the date when you may stop 

using the procedure from the April 28, 2006 Notice) is . . . 

Buffalo, Detroit, Duluth, Lake Michigan, Sault St. Marie ......................... December 1, 2008 (The original Notice, published at 73 FR 39323, set 

a compliance date of October 31, 2008. A new Notice, published at 

73 FR 64208, delayed compliance until December 1, 2008). 

Charleston, Long Island Sound, Jacksonville, Savannah ........................ December 1, 2008 (Notice published at 73 FR 44653). 

Baltimore, Delaware Bay, Mobile, Lower Mississippi River, Ohio Valley, 

Pittsburgh, San Diego.

December 30, 2008 (Notice published at 73 FR 50721). 

Hampton Roads, Morgan City, New Orleans, Upper Mississippi River, 

Miami, Key West, St. Petersburg.

January 13, 2009 (Notice published at 73 FR 52924). 

Honolulu, Prince William Sound, Southeast Alaska, Western Alaska ..... February 12, 2009 (Notice published at 73 FR 56730). 

Portland, Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay ............................................ February 28, 2009 (Notice published at 73 FR 60951). 

New York .................................................................................................. March 23, 2009 (Notice published at 73 FR 60951). 

Guam, Houston-Galveston , Los Angeles-Long Beach, San Juan ......... April 14, 2009 (Notice published at 73 FR 63377). 

Port Arthur ................................................................................................ April 14, 2009 (The original Notice, published at 73 FR 40739, set a 

compliance date of October 31, 2008. A new Notice, published at 73 

FR 64208, delayed compliance until April 14, 2009). 

As of the above-listed effective date of 

TWIC compliance in each COTP zone, 

the Coast Guard is rescinding its 

previous direction to COTPs to prevent 

access to all facilities regulated under 33 

CFR part 125 to persons who do not 

have an identification credential listed 

in 33 CFR 125.09, as amended by the 

April 28, 2006 Notice. Once they have 

implemented access control procedures 

utilizing TWIC, owners and operators of 

these facilities, and unions, may cease 

the transmission of information on 

employees and longshoremen 

(respectively) to TSA. Unless further 

notice appears in the Federal Register, 

by April 14, 2009, all transmissions of 

information under the April 28, 2006 

Notice should cease. 

Dated: January 12, 2009. 

James A. Watson, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of 

Prevention Policy. 

[FR Doc. E9–847 Filed 1–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

39 CFR Part 111 

New Automation Requirements for 

Detached Addressed Labels 

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: To make Detached Address 

Labels (DALs) accompanying saturation 

mailings of Periodicals or Standard 

Mail® flats more compatible with our 

processing equipment, they must be 

automation-compatible and have a 

correct delivery point POSTNET(tm) 

barcode or Intelligent Mail® barcode 

with an 11-digit routing code. This 

requirement does not apply to DALs 

with simplified addresses. Also, for 

consistency, we are requiring return 

addresses on DALs. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 2, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Monica Grein at 202–268–8411. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

27, 2008, we published a proposed rule 

in the Federal Register (Volume 73, 

Number 167, pages 50584–50585), 

requiring DALs to be automationcompatible and bear a delivery point 

barcode when used with saturation 

mailings of Periodicals or Standard Mail 

flats. 

Except for DALs prepared with 

simplified addresses, all DALs 

accompanying saturation mailings of 

Periodicals or Standard Mail flats must 

be automation-compatible and have a 

correct delivery point POSTNET 

barcode or Intelligent Mail barcode with 

an 11-digit routing code. Automationcompatible and barcoded DALs may be 

processed in a manner that is more 

consistent with today’s operating 

environment. 

We suggest that mailers work with the 

local Postal Service mailpiece design 

analyst (MDA) to ensure that all DALs 

accompanying saturation mailings of 

Periodicals or Standard Mail flats meet 

the new standards. Saturation flats 

mailings presented with DALs that are 

not automation-compatible and 

barcoded will not qualify for saturation 

prices but may be entered at the basic 

carrier route price for Periodicals 

mailings or the basic Enhanced Carrier 

Route price for Standard Mail mailings. 

We received comments from five 

respondents on the proposal: two from 

a mailer association, two from mailers 

that use DALs, and one from a USPS®

postmaster. 

Comments 

One commenter suggested that to 

reduce costs further we should 

eliminate the use of DALs altogether, or 

also apply the automation requirements 

to DALs prepared with simplified 

addresses. Eliminating the use of DALs 

or requiring saturation mailers to 

physically apply addresses directly on 

each mailpiece may cause undue 

hardship for some mailers. We 

determined that such a requirement 

would be difficult for small local 

mailers sending saturation mailings to 

rural or highway contract routes and 

perhaps cause them to stop using the 

mail. We concluded that these 

additional changes were not in the best 

interest of the Postal Service or our 

customers. 

One commenter requested DALs be 

allowed for Periodicals and Standard 

Mail ECR high-density mailings. This 

request is outside the scope of this rule. 

One commenter expressed concern 

about the added cost of preparing an 

automation-compatible DAL. We 

considered the implications for our 

customers, and note that the use of 

DALs is an option in most instances. We 

continue to encourage customers to 

move to on-piece addressing rather than 

use DALs. Incidentally, on June 7, 2007, 

at the request of many mailers, we 

revised our standards to allow 

advertising on the front of DALs, 

provided that the DALs were barcoded 

and automation-compatible (see Postal 

Bulletin 22208 and DMM(r) 602.4.2.5.b). 

This change provided mailers with the 

ability to offset the DAL surcharge, 

implemented in May 2007, with new 

opportunities for advertising revenue. 

One commenter requested we extend 

the use of simplified addresses to city 

route deliveries. This request is outside 

the scope of this final rule. 

One commenter expressed concerns 

about continuing to enter DALs at 

destination delivery units (DDUs) while 

remaining eligible for DDU prices for 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES