Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 73255 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Parts 101, 104, 105, 120, and 

128 

[Docket No. USCG–2006–23846] 

RIN 1625–AB30 

Consolidated Cruise Ship Security 

Regulations 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

amend its regulations on cruise ship 

terminal security. The proposed 

regulations would provide detailed, 

flexible requirements for the screening 

of all baggage, personal items, and 

persons—including passengers, crew, 

and visitors—intended for carriage on a 

cruise ship. The proposed regulations 

would standardize security of cruise 

ship terminals and eliminate 

redundancies in the regulations that 

govern the security of cruise ship 

terminals. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before March 10, 2015. Requests for 

public meetings must be received by the 

Coast Guard on or before January 9, 

2015. Comments sent to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) on 

collection of information must reach 

OMB on or before March 10, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2006–23846 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

Collection of Information Comments: 

If you have comments on the collection 

of information discussed in section 

VI.D. of this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM), you must also 

send comments to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA), OMB. To ensure that your 

comments to OIRA are received on time, 

the preferred methods are by email to 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov (include 

the docket number and ‘‘Attention: Desk 

Officer for Coast Guard, DHS’’ in the 

subject line of the email) or fax at 202– 

395–6566. An alternate, though slower, 

method is by U.S. mail to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, 

ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or email Lieutenant 

Commander Kevin McDonald, 

Inspections and Compliance Directorate, 

Office of Port and Facility Compliance, 

Cargo and Facilities Division (CG–FAC– 

2), Coast Guard; telephone 202–372– 

1168, email Kevin.J.McDonald2@

uscg.mil. If you have questions on 

viewing or submitting material to the 

docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

A. Submitting Comments 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

C. Privacy Act 

D. Public Meeting 

II. Abbreviations 

III. Basis and Purpose 

IV. Background 

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

VI. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Small Entities 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

D. Collection of Information 

E. Federalism 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

G. Taking of Private Property 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

I. Protection of Children 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

K. Energy Effects 

L. Technical Standards 

M. Environment 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted, 

without change, to http://

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

A. Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking, indicate the specific section 

of this document to which each 

comment applies, and provide a reason 

for each suggestion or recommendation. 

You may submit your comments and 

material online at http://

www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or 

hand delivery, but please use only one 

of these means. If you submit a 

comment online, it will be considered 

received by the Coast Guard when you 

successfully transmit the comment. If 

you fax, hand deliver, or mail your 

comment, it will be considered as 

having been received by the Coast 

Guard when it is received at the Docket 

Management Facility. We recommend 

that you include your name and a 

mailing address, an email address, or a 

telephone number in the body of your 

document so that we can contact you if 

we have questions regarding your 

submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, type the 

docket number USCG–2006–23846 in 

the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click 

‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on ‘‘Submit a 

Comment’’ on the line associated with 

this rulemaking. 

If you submit your comments by mail 

or hand delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 

11 inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. If you submit 

comments by mail and would like to 

know that they reached the Facility, 

please enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard or envelope. We will consider 

all comments and material received 

during the comment period and may 

change the rule based on your 

comments. 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, type the 

docket number USCG–2006–23846 in 

the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click 

‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket 

Folder on the line associated with this 

rulemaking. You may also visit the 

Docket Management Facility in Room 

W12–140 on the ground floor of the 

Department of Transportation West 

Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

C. Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of all comments received into any 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

73256 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

of our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding our public dockets 

in the January 17, 2008, issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

D. Public Meeting 

We do not plan to hold a public 

meeting at this time. But you may 

submit a request for one to the docket 

using one of the methods specified 

under ADDRESSES. In your request, 

explain why you believe a public 

meeting would be beneficial. If we 

determine that one would aid this 

rulemaking, we will hold one at a time 

and place announced by a later notice 

in the Federal Register. 

II. Abbreviations 

APA Administrative Procedure Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CLIA Cruise Lines International Association 

COTP Captain of the Port 

CVSSA Cruise Vessel Security and Safety 

Act of 2010 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DoS Declaration of Security 

EDS Explosive Detection System 

E.O. Executive Order 

FSO Facility Security Officer 

FSP Facility Security Plan 

FR Federal Register 

IMO International Maritime Organization 

ISPS International Ship and Port Facility 

Security 

ISSC International Ship Security Certificate 

MARSEC Maritime Security 

MISLE Marine Information for Safety and 

Law Enforcement 

MSC/Circ. Maritime Safety Committee 

Circular 

MTSA Maritime Transportation Security 

Act 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NMSAC National Maritime Security 

Advisory Committee 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NVIC Navigation and Vessel Inspection 

Circular 

OCS Outer Continental Shelf 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs 

PAC Policy Advisory Council 

PWSA Port and Waterways Safety Act 

§ Section symbol 

SSI Sensitive Security Information 

TSA Transportation Security 

Administration 

TSI Transportation Security Incident 

TSP Terminal Screening Program 

TWIC Transportation Worker Identification 

Credential 

U.S.C. United States Code 

VSP Vessel Security Plan 

III. Basis and Purpose 

The Coast Guard proposes to amend 

the maritime security regulations, found 

in title 33 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (33 CFR) subchapter H 

(parts 101 through 105), to require 

terminal screening programs (TSPs) in 

existing facility security plans (FSP) at 

cruise ship terminals within the United 

States and its territories. This proposed 

rule would standardize screening 

activities for all persons, baggage, and 

personal effects at cruise ship terminals 

while also allowing an appropriate 

degree of flexibility that accommodates 

and is consistent with different terminal 

sizes and operations. This flexible 

standardization ensures a consistent 

layer of security at terminals throughout 

the United States. This proposed rule 

builds upon existing facility security 

requirements in 33 CFR part 105, which 

implements the Maritime 

Transportation Security Act (MTSA), 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064 

(November 25, 2002), codified at 46 

U.S.C. Chapter 701. The Coast Guard 

consulted with the Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA) during 

the development of this proposed rule. 

The Coast Guard also proposes to 

remove 33 CFR parts 120 and 128 

because provisions in those parts 

requiring security officers and security 

plans or programs for cruise ships and 

cruise ship terminals would be 

redundant with the provisions in 33 

CFR subchapter H. Section 120.220, 

concerning the reporting of unlawful 

acts, would also be removed because it 

is obsolete and existing law enforcement 

protocols require members of the Cruise 

Lines International Association (CLIA) 

to report incidents involving serious 

violations of U.S. law to the nearest 

Federal Bureau of Investigation field 

office as soon as possible. The Coast 

Guard will consider issuing additional 

regulations on this subject in a separate 

rulemaking pursuant to the Cruise 

Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2010 

(CVSSA), Pub. L. 111–207 (July 27, 

2010) (See RIN 1625–AB91). 

This proposed rule does not address 

the screening of vessel stores, bunkers, 

or cargo. Similarly, it does not affect 

what items may be brought onto a cruise 

ship by the cruise ship operator, 

including items that passengers may 

check for secure storage with the cruise 

operator outside of their baggage or 

carry-ons. Requirements for security 

measures for the delivery of vessel 

stores, bunkers, and cargo exist and may 

be found in 33 CFR 104.275, 104.280, 

105.265, and 105.270. 

This proposed rule also does not 

include regulations that may be required 

pursuant to the CVSSA. Although this 

rule and the CVSSA are both concerned 

with cruise ship security generally, this 

rule consolidates and updates preboarding screening requirements while 

the CVSSA prescribes requirements in 

other areas, such as cruise ship design, 

providing information to passengers, 

maintaining medications and medical 

staff on board, crime reporting, crew 

access to passenger staterooms, and 

crime scene preservation training. 

Delaying promulgation of this proposed 

rule while the regulations required by 

the CVSSA are developed, for the sole 

purpose of publishing all of these 

regulations together, would 

unnecessarily deprive the public of the 

benefit of improved cruise ship 

screening regulations during that 

period. 

IV. Background 

A. Development of 33 CFR Parts 120 

and 128 

Following the terrorist attack on the 

cruise ship ACHILLE LAURO, the 

International Maritime Organization 

(IMO) published Maritime Safety 

Committee Circular (MSC/Circ.) 443 on 

September 26, 1986, which directed 

contracting governments to develop 

measures to ensure the security of 

passengers and crews aboard cruise 

ships and at cruise ship terminals. MSC/ 

Circ. 443 also strongly recommended 

that governments ensure the 

development, implementation, and 

maintenance of ship security plans and 

facility security plans. MSC/Circ. 443 is 

available in the docket of this 

rulemaking, and can be obtained by 

following the instructions in the 

‘‘Viewing comments and documents’’ 

section of this preamble. 

In recognition of IMO’s guidance on 

the security of cruise ships and cruise 

ship terminals, the Coast Guard 

published regulations in 1996 for the 

security of large passenger vessels (i.e., 

cruise ships) in 33 CFR part 120, and 

the security of passenger terminals (i.e., 

cruise ship terminals) in 33 CFR part 

128 (61 FR 37647, July 18, 1996). These 

regulations include requirements for 

large passenger vessels and passenger 

terminals to submit vessel security 

plans and terminal security plans, 

respectively. Navigation and Vessel 

Inspection Circular (NVIC) 4–02 

provides guidance for complying with 

these regulations. The Coast Guard has 

posted NVIC 4–02 in the docket of this 

rulemaking; see the ‘‘Viewing comments 

and documents’’ section of this 

preamble for more information. 

B. Development of 33 CFR Subchapter H 

In response to the terrorist attacks on 

September 11, 2001, Congress enacted 

MTSA to increase maritime security. In 

Section 101 of MTSA, Congress found 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 73257 

1 46 U.S.C.A. 70101, note, secs. 101(5) and (9). 

that ‘‘[c]ruise ships visiting foreign 

destinations embark from at least 16 

[U.S.] ports,’’ and that ‘‘the cruise 

industry poses a special risk from a 

security perspective.’’ 1

In 2003, the Coast Guard 

implemented Section 102 of MTSA 

through a series of regulations for 

maritime security, located in 33 CFR 

subchapter H. These regulations require 

owners or operators of vessels, facilities, 

and Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) 

facilities to conduct security 

assessments of their respective vessels 

and facilities, create security plans 

specific to their needs, and submit the 

plans for Coast Guard approval by 

December 29, 2003. These plans must be 

updated at least every 5 years. The Coast 

Guard has required all affected vessels, 

facilities, and OCS facilities to operate 

in accordance with their plans since 

July 1, 2004. 

Included in 33 CFR subchapter H are 

specific security requirements for 

owners or operators of cruise ships and 

cruise ship terminals in 33 CFR 104.295 

and 105.290. The Coast Guard 

developed these requirements to further 

mitigate the elevated risk of cruise ship 

and cruise ship terminal involvement in 

a transportation security incident (TSI). 

Among the requirements in 

§§ 104.295 and 105.290, owners or 

operators of cruise ships and cruise ship 

terminals must ensure that all persons, 

baggage, and personal effects are 

screened for dangerous substances and 

devices. The FSPs for the cruise ship 

terminals, approved under 33 CFR part 

105, currently document the screening 

requirements in §§ 105.215, 105.255, 

and 105.290, such as qualifications and 

training of screening personnel, 

screening equipment, and the 

recognition of dangerous substances and 

devices. However, these FSPs do not 

include a separate section specifically 

addressing these screening 

requirements; rather FSPs address them 

throughout the document and in a 

general fashion. 

This rulemaking would require cruise 

ship terminal FSPs to follow an 

organized format that includes more 

specific aspects of screening. In 

particular, the Coast Guard proposes to 

require owners and operators of U.S. 

cruise ship terminals to utilize a 

Prohibited Items List when conducting 

screening of all persons, baggage, and 

personal effects at the terminal. This list 

would reduce uncertainty in the 

industry and the public about what is 

prohibited and what is not, and would 

help cruise ship facilities better 

implement the screening requirement in 

33 CFR 105.290(a). 

The level of risk mitigated by the 

establishment of a Prohibited Items List 

for cruise ship terminals should align 

with the level of risk reduction required 

in MTSA. MTSA states that vessel 

security plans must ‘‘identify, and 

ensure . . . the availability of security 

measures necessary to deter to the 

maximum extent practicable a 

transportation security incident or a 

substantial threat of such a security 

incident.’’ Consequently, the goal of the 

Prohibited Items List is not to 

completely eliminate all possible risks, 

as complete risk reduction is not the 

risk standard set forth in MTSA. MTSA 

is clear that maritime transportation 

security plans must be written to 

prevent TSIs (such as the loss of the 

vessel or other mass casualty scenarios). 

While we recognize that cruise ship 

operators are also required to ensure 

screening for dangerous substances and 

devices under 33 CFR 104.295(a), the 

Coast Guard is not proposing to require 

them to modify VSPs in a manner 

similar to cruise ship terminal FSPs, for 

reasons of cost-effectiveness and 

redundancy as described below. 

However, we do believe that the 

publication of the Prohibited Items List 

will provide helpful guidance to cruise 

ship operators in complying with 33 

CFR 104.295(a). 

Current Status of 33 CFR Parts 120 and 

128 

The implementation of MTSA and 33 

CFR subchapter H was one step in a 

larger effort to revise the requirements 

in 33 CFR parts 120 and 128. On 

January 8, 2004, the Coast Guard MTSA/ 

International Ship and Port Facility 

Security (ISPS) Policy Advisory Council 

(PAC), whose members are all Coast 

Guard personnel, issued PAC Decision 

04–03 to provide guidance on 33 CFR 

subchapter H. PAC Decision 04–03 

states that ‘‘33 CFR parts 120 and 128 

and NVIC 4–02 will remain in effect 

until July 1, 2004.’’ Since that date, 

cruise ships and cruise ship terminals 

have operated in accordance with 33 

CFR subchapter H, not 33 CFR part 120 

or 128. This decision is available in the 

docket of this rulemaking, which can be 

accessed by following the instructions 

in the ‘‘Viewing comments and 

documents’’ section of this preamble, 

and on the Coast Guard Homeport Web 

site at http://homeport.uscg.mil. 

Development of Regulations by the 

Transportation Security Administration 

In 2002, the TSA promulgated 49 CFR 

subchapter C, regarding the security of 

civil aviation after the September 11, 

2001, terrorist attacks. Screening 

persons and property at airports is an 

integral element within these aviation 

security regulations. The TSA screening 

requirements for persons and property 

intending to board commercial aircraft 

include rigorous standards for screening 

personnel training and qualifications, 

screening equipment, staffing of 

screening stations, and screening 

operations at airports. The TSA enforces 

a Prohibited Items List and the 

Permitted Items List nationwide, 

regardless of the airline used or airport 

visited within the United States. 

To complement 49 CFR subchapter C, 

the TSA published and updates the 

Prohibited Items and Permitted Items 

Lists for air travel. The first version of 

the lists issued to implement 49 CFR 

1540.111 appeared in the Federal 

Register on February 14, 2003 (68 FR 

7444). The lists, and several subsequent 

updates, interpreted the meaning of the 

terms ‘‘weapons, explosives, and 

incendiaries’’ for purposes of 49 CFR 

1540.111(a), and were published under 

authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b) as 

interpretive rules without notice and 

comment. We drafted this proposed rule 

after reviewing TSA’s aircraft screening 

requirements. 

The Coast Guard’s proposed 

Prohibited Items List is closely aligned 

with TSA’s Prohibited Items List for 

aviation. The two lists are not exactly 

the same due to the distinctly different 

risk profiles of cruise ships and aircraft: 

(1) Aircraft can be used as a missile. A 

cruise ship, however, cannot be used as 

a missile and, at worst, can be 

grounded. (2) There are inherent limits 

on vulnerability reduction of 

prohibiting items that may already be on 

board the cruise ship (e.g., items such as 

steak knives or ice axes could be used 

to create a Transportation Security 

Incident, but they are readily available 

to cruise ship passengers for 

recreational and other purposes and 

thus it would be ineffective to prohibit 

them upon boarding). 

There are additional differences 

between cruise ships and aircraft which 

support the differences between the two 

Prohibited Items Lists: (1) The increased 

robustness of cruise ship design to resist 

an attack as compared to an aircraft and 

(2) The larger presence of security 

personnel on board cruise ships trained 

to combat a potential TSI. 

Advisory Committee Participation 

In addition to using the current TSA 

regulations as guidelines when drafting 

this proposal, we also drew upon the 

expertise of the National Maritime 

Security Advisory Committee (NMSAC). 

This committee is composed of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

73258 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

representatives from a cross-section of 

maritime industries and port and 

waterway stakeholders including, but 

not limited to, shippers, carriers, port 

authorities, and facility operators. The 

NMSAC advises, consults with, and 

makes recommendations to the 

Secretary of Homeland Security via the 

Commandant of the Coast Guard on 

matters affecting maritime security. 

We presented the NMSAC with the 

following questions relating to cruise 

ship and cruise ship terminal security 

screening measures, and asked for 

comments and recommendations. The 

NMSAC answered with industryspecific comments and 

recommendations, and addressed other 

pertinent issues as well, including 

screener training and reporting unlawful 

acts at sea. We summarized their 

comments and provide our responses 

below. The task statement and the full 

NMSAC recommendations may be 

found in the docket for this rulemaking, 

which can be accessed by following the 

instructions in the ‘‘Viewing comments 

and documents’’ section of this 

preamble. 

Prohibited Items List 

1. Would a national standardized 

Prohibited Items List be useful? 

Comment: NMSAC believes that 

publishing a list of Federally Prohibited 

Items will be beneficial to cruise ship 

operators and will serve to give 

guidance to passengers and potential 

passengers as to the items that may not 

be brought on board a cruise ship, as 

well as the items that may be brought 

aboard under controlled circumstances. 

Response: We agree that an important 

use for a Federally Prohibited Items List 

is to advise passengers of items they 

cannot bring into a cruise ship terminal 

or onto a cruise ship. 

Comment: NMSAC states that it must 

also be recognized by the Federal 

Government and all parties concerned 

that cruise ships differ from other types 

of passenger vessels, passenger vessel 

operations, and other transportation 

industries, especially air travel. This 

difference is a result of the size and 

robust construction of the ship, crewing, 

and the presence of trained security 

crew onboard. 

Response: We have adopted some 

screening measures from the airline 

industry because screening processes 

and technology have commonalities in 

both industries. However, the Coast 

Guard recognizes the difference between 

cruise ships and other transportation 

industries. We recognize that other 

types of passenger vehicles, such as 

aircraft, are primarily used for 

transportation from one point to 

another, and that passengers are usually 

on board for a relatively short duration. 

Cruise ships, on the other hand, may 

carry thousands of passengers for up to 

several weeks. Additionally, cruise 

ships have a very different set of 

vulnerabilities than aircraft due to their 

heavier nature and significant numbers 

of trained security personnel, which 

makes certain items that present a threat 

to aircraft low or no risk in the context 

of a cruise ship concerning the potential 

for a TSI. Therefore, we propose 

tailoring our screening regulations and 

establishing a Prohibited Items List for 

use by the cruise ship industry. 

2. What entity is the most appropriate 

generator of such a list? 

Comment: NMSAC believes and 

recommends that the Coast Guard is the 

correct agency to lead in the 

development and publication of this 

listing; however, TSA should be 

consulted due to their expertise in 

screening systems. 

Response: We agree with NMSAC that 

the Coast Guard should develop and 

maintain a dangerous substances and 

devices list. We have and will continue 

to work with TSA throughout this 

rulemaking and in the future to ensure 

the list is current and updated to 

address evolving threats as necessary. 

3. What items should be on the list? 

Comment: NMSAC recommends that 

a Federally Prohibited Items List should 

recognize multiple categories, 

including— 

• Prohibited items; 

• Items permitted with special 

controls; and 

• Items permitted for medical use 

only. 

Response: We anticipate publishing a 

list of dangerous substances and devices 

for screening persons, baggage, and 

personal items at cruise ship terminals 

in the United States and its territories. 

We would retain the ability to add to or 

modify the list as needed. However, we 

recognize the need to distinguish 

between items prohibited at all times 

from items that would be permitted 

under specified conditions onboard a 

particular vessel and as documented in 

the Vessel Security Plan, and thus 

would not propose to include in 

regulation specific instructions relating 

to items allowed conditionally. Instead, 

control of such items that are dangerous 

in some situations or quantities would 

be left to the discretion of the cruise 

ship operators. 

Comment: NMSAC states that cruise 

ship passengers as well as crew have 

access to their baggage and are regularly 

involved in activities and events 

associated with a lengthy vacation or 

special celebration. In contrast, 

passengers and crew aboard an aircraft 

do not have access to checked baggage. 

Because of the difference in access, 

some items, such as guns, are permitted 

to be carried in checked baggage 

onboard an aircraft, but such items 

would not be permitted onboard a 

cruise ship at all. 

Response: We agree that a list of items 

prohibited on a cruise ship may be 

different from those prohibited on 

aircraft. The most obvious difference is 

that there will be no distinction between 

checked baggage or carry-on items, since 

passengers and crew will have access to 

their personal items once they are 

onboard. 

Comment: Some items, such as a steak 

knife, which would be prohibited 

onboard a passenger aircraft, are not 

only available onboard a cruise ship but 

will also be delivered to a person’s room 

with a meal. Other such items such as 

aerosols sold in the ships stores, and fire 

axes as part of the ships safety 

equipment, are also normally available 

onboard ship. Other items which are 

commonly permitted onboard a cruise 

ship may include: A diver’s spear gun 

or knife; a chef’s personal cutlery; 

SCUBA tanks; firearm replicas and 

indoor pyrotechnics used for stage 

productions; compressed gas cylinders 

for personal use or ship repair; and tools 

needed for specialized ship repair or 

maintenance. All these are part of the 

everyday activities or life on board a 

ship that may be away from port for 

days at a time. This listing is certainly 

not exhaustive. Each of these items is 

important to the cruise experience and 

must be permitted onboard with proper 

controls over access and use. 

Response: We agree that it would be 

unproductive to prohibit an item that 

can be purchased in a ship store or that 

is available from room service (e.g. a 

steak knife). However, cruise lines may 

choose to prohibit passengers from 

carrying knives or axes onboard without 

prior approval and under controlled 

procedures. 

We also agree that when determining 

the items that will and will not be 

allowed onboard a cruise ship or into a 

cruise ship terminal, consideration must 

be given to those items that passengers 

would reasonably be expected to need 

in order to enjoy the cruise. Items 

including, but not limited to, dive 

knives, spear guns, and SCUBA tanks 

may fit into this category and, as 

suggested by NMSAC, may be 

acceptable if controlled by ship security 

personnel until the passengers need 

them. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 73259 

Comment: Generally NMSAC believes 

that screening, and any list of prohibited 

and controlled items, should only apply 

to personal baggage and carry-on items, 

not to ship stores. Items that are part of 

ship stores and for the ship’s operations 

and guest programs should not be 

considered to be subject to this listing. 

For example, gasoline may be carried as 

part of the ship’s stores for use in ship 

carried jet skis. 

Response: We agree with NMSAC’s 

recommendations that, for the purposes 

of this rulemaking, the dangerous 

substances and devices list should not 

apply to ship stores. Ship stores are 

outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

Comment: In the event a listed item 

is discovered on board, NMSAC 

recommends that the response be 

measured and based upon the nature of 

the item discovered and the actual 

threat that the item presents. Nor should 

it be considered as a listing of items 

which would automatically constitute a 

violation or breach of security if one of 

the items is discovered onboard. 

NMSAC additionally recommends 

that a clear statement be included to the 

effect that the response to a nondetectable or controlled item discovered 

on board should be based upon the 

nature of the item and the actual threat 

presented and that discovery of such an 

item would not necessarily constitute a 

violation or breach of security. 

Response: We agree that the 

appropriate response to the discovery of 

a prohibited item onboard should be 

measured, and based upon the nature of 

the item and the actual threat it 

presents. However, a listed prohibited 

item that has passed through security 

screening and is discovered onboard 

would constitute a breach of security as 

defined in 33 CFR 101.105, since a 

security measure has been 

circumvented, eluded, or violated. 

Although a breach of security is a 

violation, the Coast Guard would not 

necessarily have to take enforcement 

action. The Coast Guard would examine 

each event based on the circumstances 

and details of the breach, the actual 

threat posed by the item or items, and 

remedial action taken after the breach is 

detected. The ultimate goal of the 

regulation is to provide security to 

cruise ship passengers, crews, the cruise 

ship, and the cruise ship terminal. 

Screening Equipment 

1. What is the possibility of 

standardizing screening methods, 

similar to the methods employed by 

TSA at airports? 

Comment: NMSAC notes that the task 

statement from the Coast Guard states: 

‘‘Some cruise ship terminals use metal 

detectors, x-ray systems, explosive 

detection systems, and/or canines for 

screening and that their use and 

operation is not uniform across the 

U.S.’’ NMSAC questions the Coast 

Guard’s statement that only some cruise 

ship terminals contain appropriate 

detection equipment, and that the use of 

this equipment is not uniform across the 

United States. The Coast Guard 

regulatory requirements contained in 33 

CFR parts 120 and 128 require both 

cruise ships and cruise ship passenger 

terminals to have in place effective 

security plans for three levels of 

security, which include requirements 

for screening of baggage, ship stores, 

carry-on items, and persons. These 

regulations and accompanying guidance 

implemented by approved plans would 

be expected to provide for this unity of 

purpose and application of performance 

standards contained in the regulations. 

Response: During visits at several 

cruise ship terminals, cruise ship 

embarkation ports, and ports of call, the 

Coast Guard witnessed various types of 

screening activities. Most terminals use 

metal detectors and x-ray systems. Some 

terminals use canines and other 

terminals, normally ports of call, screen 

by hand. 

Cruise ships and cruise ship terminals 

have been subject to 33 CFR parts 120 

and 128, and after July 1, 2004, to the 

International Ship and Port Facility 

Security Code and 33 CFR subchapter 

H. To minimize potential risk associated 

with cruise ships and cruise ship 

terminals, we propose implementing 

more detailed regulations. We would 

retain the spirit of the performancebased standards in 33 CFR subchapter 

H. 

2. Should standards be developed for 

the screening equipment used at U.S. 

cruise ship terminals and ports of call? 

Comment: In seeking to ensure 

consistency throughout the United 

States regarding screening activities at 

cruise ship terminals, NMSAC notes 

that flexibility is an absolute necessity 

in the cruise ship industry. NMSAC 

agrees with performance standards for 

training or certification, and for 

minimum consistency of equipment. 

However, what equipment is employed 

and how it fits into an effective system 

for assuring security should remain 

flexible. 

Response: We agree that flexibility is 

necessary, and note that consistency of 

screening equipment would mean 

consistency in the performance 

standards of equipment. 

Comment: NMSAC recommends that 

specificity of performance standards or 

goals could be developed for detection 

equipment; to specify exactly which 

equipment should be used would be 

counterproductive to development of 

new technology. Standardization of 

application would also prevent the 

flexibility to meet varying operational 

requirements, varying threats that may 

be encountered by different size ships at 

different ports. Standardization would 

also prevent the flexibility to meet 

varying operational requirements, and 

varying threats that may be 

encountered. 

Response: We agree. The equipment 

would need to be adequate to meet 

specific performance standards. The 

Coast Guard intends to allow each 

owner or operator of a cruise ship 

facility to specify the type of screening 

equipment used to detect prohibited 

items. 

Comment: NMSAC notes that the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) has established a Transportation 

Screening Capability Working Group. 

The focus of the group is to identify 

screening capabilities and needs. As 

such, the work of this group appears to 

be of interest to NMSAC particularly in 

regard to this current tasking and 

interface between the Working Group 

and NMSAC is recommended. At a 

minimum, DHS representatives should 

be invited to brief NMSAC with regards 

to the work, conclusions, and 

recommendations of the Working 

Group. 

Response: We agree that it may be 

necessary to invite DHS representatives 

to discuss current screening initiatives. 

Comment: NMSAC recommends that 

performance standards for detection 

equipment be developed in conjunction 

with the above mentioned Working 

Group, and that a listing of items to be 

detected by these screening systems be 

developed. 

Response: We will continue to work 

with TSA and DHS representatives 

regarding equipment performance 

standards. 

Comment: NMSAC also states that, 

while an item may be prohibited, this 

does not mean that technology exists for 

detecting such items during the 

screening process. Screening should not 

be expected for items that cannot be 

detected. NMSAC notes that a 

prohibited items listing should not be 

indiscriminately mistaken to be the 

exact listing of items that must be 

detected by current screening 

technology or screening personnel. They 

state that it is a well-known and 

established fact that 100 percent 

screening does not equate to 100 percent 

detection and a number of the items 

potentially listed are not detectable by 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

73260 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

current screening technology or 

processes. 

Response: We recognize that requiring 

screening of all persons, baggage, and 

personal items does not realistically 

equate to 100 percent detection of 

prohibited items. Screening should 

ensure that there are no dangerous 

substances or devices present on cruise 

ships or in terminals. The Coast Guard 

would place items on a dangerous 

substances and devices list that we 

determine to pose a real danger to 

security. Detection measures should be 

employed to ensure, to the greatest 

practicable extent, that such dangers are 

not present. If a listed item is found 

onboard, the owners or operators of 

cruise ships or terminals should 

examine their screening processes to 

determine the reason they did not detect 

the item during the screening process. 

As part of this examination, owners or 

operators of cruise ships and terminals 

should review security measures, such 

as qualification and training of 

screening personnel as well as the 

technology they use. It is not the intent 

of the proposed rule to expect or 

demand more than is possible or 

achievable given available technology. 

The goal should be continuous process 

improvement. 

Comment: NMSAC is aware that 

current screening capabilities do not 

readily detect or identify certain items 

that may currently be prohibited 

onboard either an aircraft in carry-on 

baggage or otherwise or onboard ships. 

Accordingly, electronic screening 

should not include items that cannot be 

detected by current capabilities and 

other screening should not be required 

for these items unless the threat of 

introduction is so high (Maritime 

Security Level III) that alternate means 

of screening is necessary. 

Response: We agree that the 

technology required to screen for certain 

prohibited items, especially nuclear, 

biological, and chemical agents, either 

does not exist or may be excessively 

expensive. We expect screening to be 

conducted at cruise ships and cruise 

ship terminals using several methods 

and technologies already employed for 

screening at airports, such as metal 

detectors and x-ray machines. Although 

a dangerous substances and devices list 

may include items for which screening 

technology does not exist, we expect the 

cruise ships’ or terminals’ screening 

personnel to attempt to detect these 

materials using screening methods other 

than electronic equipment. For example, 

during an escalated Maritime Security 

(MARSEC) Level 2 or 3, we would 

require alternate means of screening that 

may include random hand searches or 

other methods appropriate to the threat. 

MARSEC Levels advise the maritime 

community and the public of the level 

of risk to the maritime elements of the 

national transportation system. There 

are only three MARSEC levels. MARSEC 

Level 1 is the level for which minimum 

appropriate security measures shall be 

maintained at all times. Under 33 CFR 

101.200(b), unless otherwise directed, 

each port, vessel, and facility must 

operate at MARSEC Level 1. 

3. What standards should apply if 

canines were to be used to screen for the 

presence of explosives at U.S. cruise 

ship terminals? 

Comment: NMSAC recommends that 

any need for and use of canines for 

screening should be clearly written into 

the security plan that is required by 33 

CFR part 105. Because each terminal 

operation, passenger ship, threat 

information, and security operation is 

different, a ‘‘one size fits all’’ regulation 

to meet the ‘‘when’’ and ‘‘how’’ of 

canine use will not work. Instead, this 

can be broken into three issues: 

a. When should canines be utilized 

for screening? 

b. How should canines be used for 

screening? 

c. What should be the training and 

certification requirements for the canine 

and the handler? 

With regards to item c. above, 

NMSAC acknowledges that cruise ship 

industry canine security representatives 

have been meeting with USCG and DHS 

officials to discuss appropriate 

regulatory requirements for the 

certification of both dog and handlers. 

NMSAC does not possess the expertise 

to overtake these discussions and 

therefore declines to offer 

recommendations in this regard. As the 

end users of canine screening or search 

capabilities, NMSAC members would be 

interested in receiving a briefing of this 

regulatory development project. 

Response: We agree, and do not 

propose mandating the use of canines 

for normal screening operations. We do 

recognize the need to address required 

standards in the event that terminals or 

cruise ships voluntarily use canines to 

screen for explosives. The Coast Guard 

is engaged in separate, ongoing projects 

to address the use of canines at 

maritime facilities, including cruise 

ship and other passenger facilities. 

C. Miscellaneous 

1. Training of Screening Personnel 

Comment: NMSAC believes that the 

development of national standards for 

training screening personnel is 

appropriate. NMSAC recommends that 

such standards should be developed in 

cooperation with the maritime industry 

and appropriate professional stake 

holders, and should address the basic 

knowledge, understanding, and 

proficiency to be demonstrated by 

candidates to receive certification. 

Given the difference in cruise ship 

operations, as well as the cruise ships 

themselves and the ports they visit, 

consideration should be given to 

different levels of certification. 

Response: We agree that a need exists 

for national standards for training 

screening personnel, and that these 

standards should be developed in 

cooperation with the maritime industry 

and appropriate professional stake 

holders. The Coast Guard proposes 

adding a new § 105.535 to set forth 

training requirements of screeners, who 

must demonstrate knowledge, 

understanding, and proficiency in 

various security related areas as part of 

their security-related familiarization. 

2. Unlawful Acts Reporting 

Requirement (33 CFR 120.220) 

Comment: NMSAC recommends that 

the consolidation of 33 CFR 120 & 128 

into 33 CFR Subchapter H be clarified 

so that unlawful acts involving felonies 

or other serious crime are promptly 

reported to the agency that has the 

proper jurisdiction for investigation and 

prosecution. A variety of governmental 

entities, both foreign and domestic, 

exercise law enforcement authority over 

each ship, depending upon where it is 

located, where it has come from and 

where it may be going to. Alleged 

criminal acts involving U.S. citizens are 

already reported to the appropriate law 

enforcement agencies. 

Response: Existing law enforcement 

protocols contain standards for the 

types of crimes that owners or operators 

of cruise ships must report as well as 

the form and the timeliness of that 

reporting. Under those protocols, 

members of the Cruise Lines 

International Association (CLIA) are 

already obligated to report incidents 

involving serious violations of U.S. law, 

which include but are not limited to 

homicide, suspicious death, assault 

with serious bodily injury, and sexual 

assaults to the nearest Federal Bureau of 

Investigation field office as soon as 

possible. The Coast Guard will consider 

issuing additional regulations on this 

subject in a separate rulemaking 

pursuant to the Cruise Vessel Security 

and Safety Act of 2010 (CVSSA.), Pub. 

L. 111–207 (July 27, 2010). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 73261 

3. Definition of Cruise Ship 

Comment: NMSAC stated that they 

have not defined ‘‘cruise ship’’. 

Response: We will use the definition 

for cruise ship currently in 33 CFR 

101.105. 

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

In the paragraphs below, we explain 

the origins and rationale for the 

proposed changes in this NPRM. We 

organized the discussion according to 

the section number in which each 

change would appear. 

§ 101.105 Definitions 

The Coast Guard proposes amending 

§ 101.105 by adding new definitions for 

carry-on item, checked baggage, cruise 

ship terminal, cruise ship voyage, 

disembark, embark, explosive detection 

system (EDS), high seas, port of call, 

screener, and TSP. 

§ 104.295 Additional Requirements— 

Cruise Ships 

Currently, the Coast Guard requires 

cruise ship owners or operators to 

ensure that screening is performed for 

all persons, baggage, and personal 

effects. This requirement is usually 

fulfilled in coordination with the U.S. 

cruise ship terminals, with which the 

cruise ships interface. We propose to 

add language in this section requiring 

cruise ship owners or operators to 

ensure screening is performed in 

accordance with proposed subpart E of 

part 105. Cruise ship owners or 

operators would continue to ensure that 

screening is performed, and we 

anticipate that they would continue to 

coordinate screening with the cruise 

ship terminals. 

While cruise ship terminals would be 

required to incorporate the Prohibited 

Items List into their FSPs, we are not 

proposing to require cruise ship 

operators to include the list in their 

VSPs. We believe that such a proposal 

would be redundant on two levels. First, 

passengers and screeners would be 

aware of the Prohibited Items List 

because it is already required to be 

available at all screening locations 

under 33 CFR 105.515(c). Second, 

nearly all cruise ships operate under an 

International Ship Security Certificate 

(ISSC), which details procedures for 

screening dangerous substances and 

devices. Additionally, 33 CFR 

104.295(a) would require that when 

passengers embark at a point that is not 

at a terminal, cruise ship screeners must 

meet the training requirements of 33 

CFR 105.535, which requires that they 

are familiar with the contents of the 

Prohibited Items List. For these reasons, 

we believe that the additional 

paperwork burden requiring the 

incorporation of the Prohibited Items 

List into the cruise ships’ VSP would be 

unnecessary. 

§ 105.225 Facility Record-Keeping 

Requirements 

Within this section, we propose to 

add language referencing proposed 

§ 105.535 for the safekeeping of screener 

training records. Currently, the Facility 

Security Officer (FSO) is responsible for 

recordkeeping. As proposed, the FSO’s 

recordkeeping responsibilities would be 

extended to include screener training 

records. See the discussion of § 105.535 

in this preamble for additional 

information on changes to that section. 

§ 105.290 Additional Requirements— 

Cruise Ship Terminals 

We propose to amend § 105.290 by 

revising paragraph (b) and adding 

language to paragraph (a) referencing 

proposed subpart E. The Coast Guard 

would require owners or operators of 

cruise ship terminals to conduct 

screening in accordance with subpart E, 

and identification requirements would 

be clarified. 

§ 105.405 Format and Content of the 

Facility Security Plan (FSP) 

The Coast Guard proposes amending 

§ 105.405 by adding new paragraph 

(a)(21). This new paragraph would 

require that owners or operators of 

cruise ship terminals ensure that the 

FSPs include a TSP that is submitted to 

the Coast Guard for approval. See the 

discussion of § 105.505 in this preamble 

for additional information on the TSP. 

The Coast Guard is also reserving 

paragraphs (a)(19) and (a)(20) as it is 

considering proposing additional 

amendments to § 105.405 in separate 

rulemakings. 

Subpart E—Facility Security: Cruise 

Ship Terminals 

The Coast Guard proposes to add a 

new subpart to part 105 specifically 

related to the screening of all persons, 

baggage, and carry-on items performed 

at cruise ship terminals. This new 

subpart would be titled Facility 

Security: Cruise Ship Terminals. Below, 

we discuss the proposed sections to be 

included in this subpart. 

§ 105.500 General 

This proposed section encompasses 

the applicability, purpose, and 

compliance dates for subpart E. First, 

subpart E would apply to cruise ship 

terminals only. For this NPRM, we 

consider any U.S. facility that receives 

cruise ships as they are defined in 33 

CFR 101.105, or tenders from cruise 

ships, to embark or disembark 

passengers or crew as being cruise ship 

terminals. These include facilities 

where the majority of passengers 

embark with checked baggage, as well as 

facilities where passengers may visit for 

a limited time and then re-board the 

cruise ship. As described previously in 

the discussion of proposed changes in 

§ 104.295 of this preamble, the Coast 

Guard would require cruise ship owners 

or operators to coordinate screening 

operations with the terminal owners or 

operators. 

The purpose of subpart E is, as stated 

above, to ensure security at cruise ship 

terminals. Specifically, subpart E is 

included in this proposed rule to give 

terminal owners or operators more 

detailed requirements to assist 

development of their screening regimes. 

However, based on our analysis of 

current cruise ship terminal screening 

procedures, we do not believe that these 

requirements would necessitate 

operational changes at any existing 

cruise ship terminal at this time. 

Instead, the existence of the regulation 

would set a screening ‘‘floor,’’ as well as 

provide certainty as to the minimum 

requirements. 

Finally, the Coast Guard proposes to 

require cruise ship terminal owners or 

operators to submit their TSPs to the 

Coast Guard for approval no later than 

180 days after publication of the final 

rule. Subsequently, the terminal owners 

or operators would have to operate in 

accordance with their TSPs 1 year after 

publication of the final rule. 

§ 105.505 Terminal Screening Program 

(TSP) 

This section would detail the 

requirements of the TSP. The Coast 

Guard would require the TSP to be 

included as part of the FSP, and to 

document the screening process for all 

persons, baggage, and personal items 

from the time that the person or baggage 

first enters the cruise ship terminal until 

the person or baggage arrives aboard a 

cruise ship moored at the facility. 

We acknowledge that FSPs currently 

approved by the Coast Guard address 

screening procedures within the section 

for access control. However, the TSP, as 

part of the FSP, would provide a more 

detailed description of the screening 

process at cruise ship terminals. Also, as 

part of the FSP, audits and amendments 

to the TSP would fall under current 

requirements in § 105.415. A list of 

specific topics the TSP would address is 

included in § 105.505(c). These topics 

include qualifications and training of 

persons conducting screening, screening 

methods and equipment used at the 

terminal, and procedures employed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

73262 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2We believe all terminal operators would 

currently meet the proposed standards. 

when a dangerous substance or device 

is detected during screening operations. 

In developing the requirements for 

TSPs, we drew upon the current 

requirements for FSPs and the 

requirements contained in 49 CFR 

1544.103 for security programs 

developed by air carriers and 

commercial operators that conduct 

screening at airports. TSA regulations in 

49 CFR 1544.103 were useful in the 

development of this NPRM because 

those regulations apply to commercial, 

non-governmental entities conducting 

screening. Nevertheless, we understand 

that wholesale adoption of the TSA 

regulations would not be appropriate for 

cruise ship terminals because of 

differences between the operations of 

the airline and cruise ship industries. 

§ 105.510 Responsibilities of the 

Owner or Operator 

The Coast Guard proposes adding a 

new § 105.510, detailing the cruise ship 

terminal owners’ or operators’ 

responsibilities regarding screening of 

all persons, baggage, and personal items 

at the terminal. The requirements in this 

section are in addition to the 

responsibilities described in 33 CFR 

105.200. This proposed section would 

ensure that cruise ship terminal owners 

or operators develop and perform 

several aspects of the screening process, 

such as the following— 

• Developing and implementing the 

TSP; 

• Documenting screening 

responsibilities in the Declaration of 

Security (DoS); 

• Enforcing the Prohibited Items List; 

and 

• Establishing procedures for 

reporting, handling, and controlling 

prohibited items.2

The owner or operator ultimately 

retains responsibility for the security of 

the cruise ship terminal. By ensuring 

that screening is performed according to 

these proposed regulations, the owner 

or operator would ensure an essential 

component of overall security is in 

place for both the cruise ship and the 

terminal. 

§ 105.515 Prohibited Items List 

The Coast Guard proposes to require 

owners and operators of U.S. cruise ship 

terminals to utilize a Prohibited Items 

List when conducting screening of all 

persons, baggage, and personal effects at 

the terminal. The Coast Guard would 

also require cruise ship owners or 

operators of cruise ship terminals to 

include a list of dangerous substances 

and devices in every DoS. 

During development of proposed 

§ 105.515, the Coast Guard reviewed the 

TSA list of prohibited and allowed 

items for aircraft travel, as discussed in 

the Background section of this 

preamble. We also took into account 

current industry practices, including 

collaboration between cruise ship and 

terminal owners or operators to develop 

the List. Finally, we considered the 

input received from NMSAC, which is 

also discussed in the Background 

section of this preamble. 

The Coast Guard recognizes that 

owners or operators of cruise ships and 

cruise ship terminals have a vested 

interest in prohibiting dangerous 

substances and devices on their 

property. In order to reduce uncertainty 

in the cruise line industry and the 

public about what is prohibited and 

what is not, and to better implement the 

screening requirements in 33 CFR 

104.295(a) and 105.290(a), the Coast 

Guard proposes to issue and maintain a 

list of prohibited items that are always 

considered to be dangerous substances 

and devices, as defined in 33 CFR 

101.105. The Coast Guard would 

prohibit these dangerous substances and 

devices for security reasons. 

Accordingly, passengers and crew 

would be prohibited from bringing 

onboard a cruise ship items on the 

Prohibited Items List at any time 

through a cruise ship terminal regulated 

under 33 CFR part 105. If an item from 

the Coast Guard’s Prohibited Items List 

is discovered after passing through the 

screening location at the cruise ship or 

terminal, the owner or operator would 

be required to report a breach of 

security. The Coast Guard also 

recognizes that some items on the list 

are necessary to accommodate normal 

cruise ship operations. For this reason, 

the prohibited items list would not 

apply to cargo and vessel stores. We also 

note that the Prohibited Items List does 

not necessarily encompass all 

‘‘dangerous substances and devices,’’ 

and that cruise ship and terminal 

operators can prohibit passengers from 

bringing on board any other items or 

substances they deem a threat to safety. 

Interpretative Rules 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), the notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

of the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) do not apply to interpretative 

rules. The preamble to this proposed 

rule contains a proposed version of the 

Prohibited Items List. Although the 

Coast Guard does not waive its claim 

that this list is exempt from APA notice 

and comment requirements, we are 

soliciting comments at this time on the 

content of the proposed list because the 

Coast Guard is aware of the unique 

challenges inherent to security 

screening in the cruise industry context. 

Whereas airline screening can be 

conducted with the understanding that 

airline travel is undertaken for only a 

relatively short period of time and with 

a focused mission, cruise travel can be 

for much longer periods of time and 

with travelers participating in varying 

activities. Additionally, there is no 

distinction in cruise travel between 

checked baggage or carry-on items, since 

passengers and crew will have access to 

their personal items once they are 

onboard. 

Interpretive rules are ‘‘issued by an 

agency to advise the public of the 

agency’s construction of the statutes and 

the rules which it administers.’’ 

Attorney General’s Manual on the 

Administrative Procedure Act at 30 n.3. 

In other words, an interpretive rule 

describes, clarifies, and reminds the 

public of a statutory standard or preexisting rule. Courts have upheld a 

general standard to determine if a rule 

is interpretative. American Mining 

Congress v. Mine Safety and Health 

Admin., 995 F.2d 1106 (D.C. Cir. 1993). 

The Prohibited Items List meets this 

standard. 

To determine if a rule is interpretive, 

as opposed to legislative, the rule must 

meet four criteria. Id. at 1112. First, in 

the absence of the interpretive rule there 

must be adequate legislative or 

regulatory basis for enforcement action. 

Second, an interpretative rule must not 

be published in the Code of Federal 

Regulations. Third, the agency cannot 

evoke its general grant of authority 

when promulgating an interpretative 

rule. Fourth, the interpretive rule must 

not effectively amend a prior legislative 

rule. 

The development of the Prohibited 

Items List meets the four-part American 

Mining standard for an interpretive rule. 

First, the Coast Guard has existing 

regulatory authority to require screening 

for dangerous substances or devices 

under 33 CFR 104.295 and 105.290, 

which mandate that the owner or 

operator of a cruise ship and facility 

ensure that all passengers and baggage 

are screened for such material. The 

existing definition of ‘‘dangerous 

substances and devices,’’ which means 

‘‘any material, substance, or item that 

reasonably has the potential to cause a 

transportation security incident,’’ 

already provides an adequate basis for 

enforcement action on its own, without 

further explication (these regulations 

were promulgated as a legislative rule 

under authority of the Ports and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 73263 

Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) and the 

Maritime Transportation Safety Act 

(MTSA) (see 33 U.S.C. 1221 and 46 

U.S.C. 1221)). Second, the final list will 

not be incorporated into the Code of 

Federal Regulations. While we are 

publishing a draft version of the list in 

the Federal Register as part of the 

preamble to this proposed regulation to 

allow for comment because of the 

unique challenges faced when screening 

cruise line passengers, the list is not 

part of the proposed regulatory text will 

not appear in the Code of Federal 

Regulations upon publication of the 

Final Rule. Third, the Coast Guard has 

not invoked its general legislative 

authority when promulgating the list. 

The authority for this interpretive rule 

is the authority for the Coast Guard to 

interpret its own regulations in 33 CFR 

101.105, 104.295, and 105.290. Fourth, 

the rule does not effectively amend a 

prior legislative rule. Instead, the 

prohibited items list is only a partial 

explication of the phrase ‘‘dangerous 

substances and devices,’’ as defined in 

33 CFR 101.105. What the Prohibited 

Items List adds is a list of substances 

and items that the Coast Guard believes, 

under all circumstances, have the 

potential to cause a TSI. The Prohibited 

Items List would not be a substitute for 

the regulatory definition in section 

101.105, as other substances and 

devices could have the potential to 

cause a TSI under specific 

circumstances, and would be addressed 

in the TSPs of the specific vessels or 

facilities at issue. 

Due to rapidly-developing threat 

analysis and security considerations, the 

Coast Guard requires the flexibility to 

revise the Prohibited Items List quickly 

to protect the public from security 

threats that can change rapidly. In order 

to keep the list current without the 

delays often associated with notice and 

comment rulemakings, the Coast Guard 

proposes to publish the list separately as 

an interpretive rule in the Federal 

Register, and to issue updates in the 

same manner. In proposing this 

approach, the Coast Guard took note of 

TSA’s use of interpretive rules to 

promulgate and update its list of 

prohibited items (67 FR 8340, February 

22, 2002; 68 FR 7444, February 14, 

2003; 70 FR 9877, March 1, 2005; 70 FR 

51679, August 31, 2005; and, 70 FR 

72930, December 8, 2005). Additionally, 

the Coast Guard would endeavor to 

obtain NMSAC input and afford ship 

and facility owners a reasonable amount 

of advance notice before making an 

update effective unless an immediate 

change is necessary for imminent public 

safety and/or national security reasons. 

Finally, we reiterate that the Prohibited 

Items List would only prohibit 

passengers from carrying items in 

baggage or on their persons; it does not 

prohibit these items from being brought 

onboard by cruise ship operators on 

their behalf. 

The Coast Guard is soliciting public 

comments on the content of the 

proposed Prohibited Items List shown 

below due to the unique challenges 

inherent to security screening in the 

cruise industry context. Additionally, 

we invite public comments on the use 

of interpretive rules to issue and update 

the list. 

Proposed Prohibited Items List for 

Cruise Ship Terminals 

Passengers and persons other than 

passengers are prohibited from bringing 

the following items onboard cruise 

ships through terminal screening 

operations regulated under 33 CFR part 

105. 

Weapons, Including 

• Hand Guns (including BB guns, pellet 

guns, compressed air guns and starter 

pistols, as well as ammunition and 

gunpowder) 

• Rifles/shotguns (including BB guns, 

pellet guns, compressed air guns and 

starter pistols, as well as ammunition 

and gunpowder) 

• Stun guns or other shocking devices 

(e.g. Taser®, cattle prod) 

• Realistic replicas and/or parts of guns 

and firearms 

Explosives, Including 

• Blasting caps 

• Dynamite 

• Fireworks or pyrotechnics 

• Flares in any form 

• Hand grenades 

• Plastic explosives 

• Explosive devices 

• Realistic replicas of explosives 

Incendiaries, Including 

• Aerosols (including spray paint but 

excluding items for personal care or 

toiletries in limited quantities) 

• Gasoline or other such fuels or 

accelerants 

• Gas torches 

• Lighter fluids (except in liquefied gas 

(e.g. Bic®-type) or absorbed liquid 

(e.g. Zippo®-type) lighters in 

quantities appropriate for personal 

use) 

• Turpentine 

• Paint thinner 

• Realistic replicas of incendiaries 

Disabling Chemicals and Other 

Dangerous Items, Including 

• Chlorine 

• Liquid bleach 

• Tear gas and other self defense sprays 

The Prohibited Items List does not 

contain all possible items that may be 

prohibited from being brought on a 

cruise ship by passengers. The Coast 

Guard and the cruise ship terminal 

reserve the right to confiscate (and 

destroy) any articles that in our 

discretion are considered dangerous or 

pose a risk to the safety and security of 

the ship, or our guests, and no 

compensation will be provided. 

§ 105.525 Terminal Screening 

Operations 

Section 105.525 would specify how 

cruise ship terminal owners or operators 

must screen persons, personal effects, 

and baggage and where the screening 

must take place. Additionally, this new 

section would provide staffing 

requirements for screening operations. 

During development of this proposed 

section, the Coast Guard identified 

several components of existing 

screening process requirements that 

should be preserved throughout all U.S. 

cruise ship terminals. The proposed 

regulations are primarily performancebased, but specific procedures must take 

place to ensure the security of persons, 

their personal effects, and baggage. 

Section 105.525 specifies 

requirements for screening passengers, 

persons other than passengers, checked 

baggage, and unaccompanied baggage. 

As proposed, the screening of 

passengers and persons other than 

passengers (such as crew members, 

vendors, or contractors) may take place 

at the same screening location, or at 

separate screening locations, which is 

current industry practice. The Coast 

Guard would require application of the 

same standards for screening locations, 

regardless of who is being screened. 

Adequate staffing, checking personal 

identification, and re-screening are all 

addressed in this subparagraph. 

If a cruise ship terminal checks 

baggage, screening or security personnel 

would be required to control the 

baggage throughout the screening 

process. If a terminal accepts 

unaccompanied baggage, then the cruise 

ship’s Vessel Security Officer would 

need to provide written consent. 

Screening or security personnel would 

then treat the unaccompanied baggage 

as checked baggage. 

The Coast Guard would require 

terminal owners or operators to 

document additional screening methods 

in an approved TSP. Further, the 

Captain of the Port (COTP) may direct 

additional screening methods that are 

appropriate for each terminal. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

73264 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

§ 105.530 Qualifications of Screeners 

The Coast Guard proposes adding 

§ 105.530 to address basic qualifications 

for cruise ship terminal screeners. While 

the Coast Guard researched TSA’s 

regulations during the development of 

this section, specifically 49 CFR 

1544.405, which describes 

qualifications for new screeners when 

commercial carriers and aircraft 

operators provide screening, we are 

proposing screening requirements that 

are less rigorous than those for airline 

screeners, for the reasons described 

below. 

As mentioned in the discussion of 

§ 105.505 in this preamble, TSA’s 

aviation regulations provide a solid 

foundation for screening standards, but 

they are not wholly appropriate for 

cruise ship terminals. For example, 

while the Aviation Transportation 

Security Act (ATSA) requires a high 

school diploma, MTSA contains no 

such requirement. 

The Coast Guard would require the 

screener to have, as a prerequisite, a 

combination of education and 

experience that the Facility Security 

Officer deems appropriate for the 

position. Additionally, the screener 

must be able to use all the screening 

equipment and methods appropriate for 

the position. Taken together with the 

requirements in 33 CFR 105.210, these 

qualifications would help to ensure that 

screeners have the ability to perform 

their duties. 

§ 105.535 Training Requirements of 

Screeners 

Screeners at cruise ship terminals 

currently receive training in accordance 

with § 105.210, as well as facilityspecific familiarization. The Coast 

Guard proposes to add requirements for 

certain topics to be covered during the 

facility-specific familiarization. This 

training would ensure that the screeners 

are instructed in the screening process 

used at the cruise ship terminal where 

they would be working. These topics 

would include— 

• Historic and current threats against 

the cruise ship industry; 

• Relevant portions of the approved 

TSP and FSP; 

• The purpose and content of the 

approved Prohibited Items List; 

• Specific instruction on the 

screening equipment and methods used 

at the terminal; 

• Specific response procedures when 

a dangerous substance or device is 

detected at the terminal; 

• Additional screening methods 

performed at increased MARSEC Levels; 

and 

• Any additional topics specified in 

the terminal’s approved TSP. 

§ 105.540 Screener Participation in 

Drills and Exercises 

Section 105.220 currently requires 

security drills and exercises. In 

proposed § 105.540, the Coast Guard 

would require screening personnel to 

participate in drills and exercises 

performed at the cruise ship terminal. 

The drills and exercises would be 

excellent opportunities not only for 

testing the terminal’s FSP, including the 

TSP, but also would refresh the 

screeners’ training. 

§ 105.545 Screening Equipment 

This section would address operation 

and maintenance of x-ray, explosives 

detection, and metal detection 

equipment used to screen all persons, 

baggage, and personal effects at U.S. 

cruise ship terminals. Again, the Coast 

Guard researched TSA’s standards for 

screening performed by air carriers and 

commercial operators in 49 CFR part 

1544. Specifically, TSA’s regulations 

address the use of metal detectors, x-ray 

systems, and explosives detection 

systems in 49 CFR 1544.209, 1544.211, 

and 1544.213. Most cruise ship 

terminals use these systems already. 

Therefore, we used 49 CFR part 1544 as 

a guide for the proposed regulation, 

with the understanding that the 

maritime environment of a cruise ship 

terminal is inherently different from the 

environment of an airport. 

The proposed requirements are 

performance-based. The Coast Guard 

would not require the use of specific 

equipment or screening methods. 

However, if metal detection, explosive 

detection, or x-ray equipment is used at 

a cruise ship terminal, then safety and 

performance standards similar to the 

standards for equipment at airports 

would be required. Further, such 

screening equipment would be 

documented in the terminal’s TSP. 

Of particular note is the proposed 

signage requirement if x-ray equipment 

is used at the terminal. Similar to 

airports, people bring film and 

photographic equipment to cruise ship 

terminals on a regular basis. Since x-ray 

systems may have an effect on film and 

photographic equipment, we propose to 

add this signage requirement to ensure 

that persons being screened receive 

adequate notice. 

§ 105.550 Alternative Screening 

The Coast Guard proposes to add a 

section concerning alternative screening 

methods including procedures for 

passengers and crew with disabilities or 

medical conditions precluding certain 

screening methods. If a cruise ship 

terminal owner or operator chooses to 

employ screening methods other than xray, metal detection, or explosives 

detection equipment, then each method 

must be described in detail within the 

TSP. The Coast Guard intends this 

proposed section to allow cruise ship 

terminal owners or operators flexibility 

in their screening methods. We believe 

this would be helpful as new 

technologies develop. It would allow 

flexibility at terminals with space 

constraints, or if terminal owners or 

operators use a contingency screening 

method when a piece of equipment 

fails. Alternative screening methods 

may take many forms. For example, 

terminal owners or operators may use 

canine explosives detection or manually 

search baggage and personal effects. 

33 CFR Parts 120 and 128 

In July 2004, when vessels and 

facilities subject to 33 CFR parts 120 

and 128 became subject to 33 CFR parts 

101, 103, 104 and 105, the Coast Guard 

placed specific requirements pertaining 

to cruise ships and cruise ship terminals 

in 33 CFR 104.295 and 105.290, 

respectively. While parts 120 and 128 

use slightly different terms than parts 

104 and 105, the concept of ensuring 

that maritime entities have security 

plans is the same. Therefore, this NPRM 

proposes removing regulations in parts 

120 and 128 that require security 

officers and security plans similar to 

those required in parts 104 and 105. 

Additionally, the procedures in 

§ 120.200 for reporting unlawful acts 

have been superseded by recent 

amendments to title 46, United States 

Code, chapter 35. For these reasons, the 

Coast Guard proposes to remove all of 

33 CFR part 120. 

Finally, the Coast Guard also proposes 

to remove 33 CFR part 128 in its 

entirety. Not only would the sections 

requiring security plans and security 

officers be removed, we would also 

remove § 128.220, which requires the 

reporting of unlawful acts. We believe 

that the removal of this requirement will 

not diminish security at cruise ship 

terminals because other laws and 

regulations sufficiently cover the 

requirement in § 128.220. 

VI. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarized our analysis 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 73265 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 12866 (‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’) and 13563 

(‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review’’) direct agencies to assess the 

costs and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM 

has been designated a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action,’’ although not 

economically significant, under section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866. 

Accordingly, the NPRM has been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget. A full Regulatory Analysis 

(RA) is available in the docket where 

indicated under the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ section of this preamble. A 

summary of the RA follows: 

The following table summarizes the 

affected population, costs, and benefits 

of this proposed rule. A summary of 

costs and benefits by provision are 

provided later in this section. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF AFFECTED POPULATION, COSTS AND BENEFITS

Category Estimate 

Affected population ................................... 137 MTSA-regulated facilities; 23 cruise line companies. 

Development of TSP ................................. $145,471. 

Updating FSP ............................................ $9,092. 

Total Cost * ........................................ $154,563. 

Qualitative Benefits 

Terminal Screening Program .................... Greater clarity and efficiency due to removal of redundancy in regulations. 

The TSP improves industry accountability and provide for a more systematic approach to monitor facility procedures. 

Prohibited Items List ................................. Details those items that are prohibited from all cruise terminals and vessels. 

Provides a safer environment by prohibiting potentially dangerous items across the entire industry. 

* Value is undiscounted. We expect the costs of this rulemaking are borne in the first year of implementation. See discussion below for more 

details. 

As previously discussed, this 

proposed rule would amend regulations 

on cruise ship terminal security. The 

proposed regulations would provide 

flexible requirements for the screening 

of persons intending to board a cruise 

ship, as well as their baggage and 

personal effects. In this rulemaking, we 

propose to issue and maintain a 

minimum requirement of Prohibited 

Items List of dangerous substances or 

devices (i.e. firearms & ammunition, 

flammable liquids and explosives, 

dangerous chemicals etc. . .), which are 

based on similar items currently 

prohibited by industry. We anticipate 

that the prohibited item list described in 

the preamble would be cost neutral to 

the industry. However, the Coast Guard 

is requesting public comment on this 

issue if anyone believes that this 

requirement would create a new 

economic burden to industry. 

We also propose to eliminate 

redundancies in the regulations that 

govern the security of cruise ship 

terminals. 

The proposed rule would allow 

owners and operators of cruise ships 

and cruise ship terminals the flexibility 

of choosing their own screening 

methods and equipment and establish 

security measures tailored to their own 

operations. This proposed rule would 

incorporate current industry practices 

and performance standards. 

We found several provisions of the 

rulemaking to have no additional 

impact based on information from Coast 

Guard and industry security experts and 

site visits to cruise terminals. A 

summary of key provisions with and 

without additional costs follow. 

Key provisions without additional 

costs (current industry practice under 

existing MTSA regulations): 

• § 105 Subpart E Screening 

equipment standards; 

Æ 33 CFR 105.255 (a) and § 128.200 

(a)(1) and § 128 (a)(2) currently require 

screening for dangerous substances or 

devices. As such, industry already 

screens baggage and persons. 

• § 105.530 Qualifications of 

screeners; and, 

Æ 33 CFR 105.210 details 

qualifications for facility personnel with 

security duties, which includes 

operation of security equipment and 

systems, and methods of physical 

screening of persons, personal affects, 

baggage, cargo and vessel stores. 

• § 105.535 Training of screeners. 

Æ 33 CFR 105.210 details 

qualifications for facility personnel with 

security duties, which includes 

operation of security equipment and 

systems, and methods of physical 

screening of persons, personal affects, 

baggage, cargo and vessel stores. 

Records for all training under § 105.210 

are required to be kept per § 105.225 

(b)(1). 

The purpose of including these 

requirements in the proposed regulatory 

action is to consolidate requirements for 

screeners in one place of the CFR and 

eliminate redundancies in cruise ship 

security regulations by eliminating the 

requirements in parts 120 and 128. We 

do not believe that these new items 

would add any additional costs, for the 

reasons described below. 

We note that several of the 

requirements in § 105.535 are already 

implicitly required by the general 

security training requirements in 

§ 105.210. Specifically, §§ 105.535(b), 

(c), and (g), requiring that screening 

personnel be familiar with specific 

portions of the TSP, are already 

encompassed by the general 

requirement in 105.210(k), which 

requires security personnel to be 

familiar with relevant portions of the 

FSP). Also, § 105.535(f), which requires 

that screeners be familiar with 

additional screening requirements at 

increased MARSEC levels, is implicitly 

contained in the existing requirement in 

§ 105.210(m). 

Other items in § 105.535 are not 

expected to increase costs because we 

believe they are already performed by 

screening personnel. We believe that all 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

73266 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

3 33 CFR 105.415 for FSP. 

4 ‘‘Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value 

of a Statistical Life in U.S., Department of 

Transportation Analysis’’ see http://www.dot.gov/

regulations/economic-value-used-in-analysis. 

5Source: Cruise Lines International Association, 

Inc. (CLIA), 2009 U.S. Economic Impact Study, 

Table ES–2, Number of U.S, Embarkations. http:// 

www.cruising.org/sites/default/files/pressroom/

2009EconomicStudies/EconStudy_Exec_

Summary2009.pdf. 

screening personnel are currently 

trained in the specific screening 

methods and equipment used at the 

terminal (item (d)), and the terminalspecific response procedures when a 

dangerous item is found (item (e)). 

Furthermore, we believe it is a 

reasonable assumption that terminal 

screening personnel are familiar with 

item (a)—historic and current threats 

against the cruise ship industry. 

However, we do request comments on 

whether cruise ship personnel are 

familiar with this latter matter, and 

whether cruise ship operators or 

terminal operators would incur any 

additional costs as a result of these 

proposed requirements. 

We estimate the proposed rule would 

affect 23 cruise line companies. Each 

cruise line maintains an FSP for each 

terminal that they utilize. Based on 

information from the Coast Guard 

Marine Information for Safety and Law 

Enforcement (MISLE) database, we 

estimate that the proposed rule would 

require that FSPs at 137 MTSAregulated facilities be updated. The 

proposed rule would require these 

facilities to add TSP chapters to their 

existing FSPs. This rule would also 

require owners and operators of cruise 

ship terminals to add a Prohibited Items 

List to current FSPs. The following table 

provides a breakdown of additional 

costs by requirement. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF FIRST-YEAR COSTS BY REQUIREMENT

Requirement Costs 

(undiscounted; rounded) Description 

Terminal Screening Program (TSP) ................................... $145,471 Cost to create and add the TSP chapter to the FSPs.

Update the FSP .................................................................. 9,092 Cost to update the Prohibited Items List in FSPs. 

Total ............................................................................. 154,563 First-year undiscounted costs. 

We estimate the cost of this rule to 

industry to be about $154,563 in the 

first year. We expect the total costs of 

this rulemaking to be borne in the first 

year of implementation. Under MTSA, 

FSPs are required to undergo an annual 

audit, and it is during that audit that 

any revisions to the Prohibited Items 

List would be incorporated into the 

FSP.3 As such, we do not anticipate any 

recurring annual cost as a result of this 

proposal, as the annual cost to update 

the FSP is not expected to change due 

to the inclusion of the TSP and 

Prohibited Items List. 

Benefits 

The benefits of the rulemaking 

include codification of guidelines for 

qualifications for screeners, more 

transparent and consistent reporting of 

screening procedures across cruise 

lines, improved industry accountability 

regarding security procedures, and 

greater clarity and efficiency due to the 

removal of redundant regulations. We 

do not have data to estimate monetized 

benefits of this rulemaking. We present 

qualitative benefits and a break even 

analysis in the Regulatory Analysis 

available in the docket to demonstrate 

that we expect the benefits of the 

rulemaking to justify its costs. 

There are several qualitative benefits 

that can be attributed to the provisions 

in this proposal. Table 3 provides a brief 

summary of benefits of key provisions. 

TABLE 3—BENEFITS OF KEY PROVISIONS

Key provision Benefit 

Terminal Screening Program .......... • Greater clarity and efficiency due to removal of redundancy in regulations. 

• The TSP improves industry accountability and provide for a more systematic approach to monitor facility 

procedures. 

• Details those items that are prohibited from all cruise terminals and vessels. 

Prohibited Items List ....................... • Provides a safer environment by prohibiting potentially dangerous items across the entire industry. 

Break Even Analysis 

It is difficult to quantify the 

effectiveness of the provisions in this 

rulemaking and the related monetized 

benefits from averting or mitigating a 

TSI. Damages resulting from TSIs are a 

function of a variety of factors 

including, but not limited to, target 

type, terrorist attack mode, the number 

of fatalities and injuries, economic and 

environmental impacts, symbolic 

effects, and national security impacts. 

For regulatory analyses, the Coast 

Guard uses a value of a statistical life 

(VSL) of $9.1 million. A value of a 

statistical life of $9.1 million is 

equivalent to a value of $9.10 as a 

measure of the public’s willingness to 

pay to reduce the risk of a fatality by 

one in a million, $0.91 to reduce a one 

in 10 million risk, and $0.091 to reduce 

a one in 100 million risk.4 As 8.9 

million passengers embark onto cruise 

ships in the U.S. each year 5, very small 

reductions in risk can result in a fairly 

large aggregate willingness to pay for 

that risk reduction. A VSL of $9.1 

million indicates that 8.9 million cruise 

ship passengers that embark from the 

U.S. would collectively be willing to 

pay approximately $8.1 million to 

reduce the risk of a fatality by one in 10 

million (8.90 million passenger X 

$0.91). As the 8.9 million passengers 

estimate only includes the initial 

embarkation of a cruise and passengers 

often leave and return to the vessel 

during a cruise (passing through 

screening each time), the actual risk 

reduction to break even per screening 

may be lower. The annualized costs of 

the proposed rule are approximately 

$20,000 at 7 percent; thus, the proposed 

rule would have to prevent one fatality 

every 405 years for the rule to reach a 

break-even point where costs equal 

benefits ($9.1 million value of a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 73267 

6Source: http://www.sba.gov/size. SBA has 

established a Table of Small Business Size 

Standards, which is matched to the North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) industries. 

A size standard, which is usually stated in number 

of employees or average annual receipts 

(‘‘revenues’’), represents the largest size that a 

business (including its subsidiaries and affiliates) 

may be to remain classified as a small business for 

SBA and Federal contracting programs. 

statistical life/$20,000 average annual 

cost of rule = 405). 

The preliminary Regulatory Analysis 

in the docket provides additional details 

of the impacts of this rulemaking. 

B. Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of fewer than 50,000 

people. 

We expect entities affected by the rule 

would be classified under the North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code subsector 483- 

Water Transportation, which includes 

the following six-digit NAICS codes for 

cruise lines: 483112-Deep Sea Passenger 

transportation and 483114-Coastal and 

Great Lakes Passenger Transportation. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) Table of Small 

Business Size Standards 6, a U.S. 

company with these NAICS codes and 

employing equal to or fewer than 500 

employees is a small business. 

Additionally, cruise lines may fall 

under the NAICS code 561510-Travel 

Agencies, which have a small business 

size standard of equal to or less than 

$3,500,000 in annual revenue. 

For this proposed rule, we reviewed 

recent company size and ownership 

data from the Coast Guard MISLE 

database, and public business revenue 

and size data. We found that of the 23 

entities that own or operate cruise ship 

terminals and would be affected by this 

proposed rulemaking, 11 are foreign 

entities. The remaining 12 entities 

exceed the SBA small business 

standards for small businesses. 

We did not find any small not-forprofit organizations that are 

independently owned and operated and 

are not dominant in their fields. We did 

not find any small governmental 

jurisdictions with populations of fewer 

than 50,000 people. Based on this 

analysis, we found that this rulemaking, 

if promulgated, will not affect a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies 

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed 

rule, if promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of U.S. small 

entities. If you think that a business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this proposed rule will have a 

significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment to the Docket 

Management Facility at the address 

under ADDRESSES. In your comment, 

explain why you think it qualifies as a 

small entity and how and to what 

degree this proposed rule will 

economically affect it. 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the proposed rule would affect your 

small business, organization, or 

governmental jurisdiction and you have 

questions concerning its provisions or 

options for compliance, please contact 

LCDR Kevin McDonald at the telephone 

number or email address indicated 

under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this notice. The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this rule or any policy or action 

of the Coast Guard. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce or otherwise determine 

compliance with Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). 

D. Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for a 

collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). As defined in 5 CFR 

1320.3(c), ‘‘collection of information’’ 

comprises reporting, recordkeeping, 

monitoring, posting, labeling, and other 

similar actions. The title and 

description of the information 

collection, a description of those who 

must collect the information, and an 

estimate of the total annual burden 

follow. The estimate covers the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing sources of data, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the 

collection. 

Under the provisions of the proposed 

rule, plan holders would submit 

amended security plans within 180 days 

of promulgation of the rule and update 

them annually. This requirement would 

be added to an existing collection with 

OMB control number 1625–0077. 

Title: Security Plans for Ports, Vessels, 

Facilities, Outer Continental Shelf 

Facilities and Other Security-Related 

Requirements. 

OMB Control Number: 1625–0077. 

Summary of The Collection of 

Information: Facilities that receive 

cruise ships would be required to 

update Facility Security Plans (FSPs) to 

contain additional information 

regarding the screening process at cruise 

terminals. Also, all cruise ship terminals 

that currently have a Facility Security 

Plan (FSP), would need to update said 

plan to include the list of prohibited 

items as detailed in this proposed rule. 

Need for Information: The 

information is necessary to show 

evidence that cruise lines are 

consistently providing a minimum 

acceptable screening process when 

boarding passengers. The information 

would improve existing and future FSPs 

for cruise terminals, since they currently 

do not separate this important 

information. 

Proposed Use of Information: The 

Coast Guard would use this information 

to ensure that facilities are taking the 

proper security precautions when 

loading cruise ships. 

Description of the Respondents: The 

respondents are FSP holders that 

receive cruise ships. 

Number of Respondents: The adjusted 

number of respondents is 13,825 for 

vessels, 3,270 for facilities, and 56 for 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) facilities. 

Of these 3,270 facilities, 137 that receive 

cruise ships would be required to 

modify their existing FSPs to account 

for the TSP chapter. 

Frequency of Response: Cruise lines 

would only need to write a TSP chapter 

once before inserting it into the 

associated FSP. This would be required 

during the first 6 months after 

publication of the final rule. 

Burden of Response: The estimated 

burden for cruise lines per TSP chapter 

would be approximately 16 hours. The 

estimated burden to update the FSP 

would be 1 hour. 

Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The 

estimated first-year burden for cruise 

lines is 16 hours per TSP chapter. Since 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

73268 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

there are currently 137 FSPs, the total 

burden on facilities would be 2,192 

hours (137 TSPs × 16 hours per TSP) in 

the first year. For the 137 facilities, the 

total burden would be 137 hours (137 

FSPs × 1 hour per VSP). The current 

burden listed in this collection of 

information is 1,108,043. The new 

burden, as a result of this proposed 

rulemaking, is 1,110,392 (1,108,043 + 

2,192 + 137) in the first year only. All 

subsequent year burdens will be 

considered part of the annual review 

process for FSPs. 

As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

3507(d)), we have submitted a copy of 

this proposed rule to the OMB for its 

review of the collection of information. 

We ask for public comment on the 

proposed collection of information to 

help us determine how useful the 

information is; whether it can help us 

perform our functions better; whether it 

is readily available elsewhere; how 

accurate our estimate of the burden of 

collection is; how valid our methods for 

determining burden are; how we can 

improve the quality, usefulness, and 

clarity of the information; and how we 

can minimize the burden of collection. 

If you submit comments on the 

collection of information, submit them 

both to OMB and to the Docket 

Management Facility where indicated 

under ADDRESSES, by the date under 

DATES. 

You need not respond to a collection 

of information unless it displays a 

currently valid control number from 

OMB. Before the requirements for this 

collection of information become 

effective, we will publish a notice in the 

Federal Register of OMB’s decision to 

approve, modify, or disapprove the 

proposed collection. 

E. Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. We have 

analyzed this proposed rule under that 

Order and have determined that it has 

implications for federalism. A summary 

of the impact of federalism in this rule 

follows. 

This NPRM builds on the existing 

port security requirements found in 33 

CFR part 105 by establishing detailed, 

flexible requirements for the screening 

of persons, baggage, and personal items 

intended for boarding a cruise ship. It 

also establishes terminal screening 

requirements for owners and operators 

of cruise ship terminals, some of which 

are State entities. 

As implemented by the Coast Guard, 

the MTSA-established federal security 

requirements for regulated maritime 

facilities, including the terminal 

facilities serving the cruise ship 

industry, which are proposed for 

amendment by this Notice. These 

regulations were, in many cases, 

preemptive of State requirements. 

Where State requirements might conflict 

with the provisions of a federally 

approved security plan, they had the 

effect of impeding important federal 

purposes, including achieving 

uniformity. However, the Coast Guard 

also recognizes that States have an 

interest in these proposals to the extent 

they impose requirements on Stateoperated terminals or individual States 

may wish to develop stricter regulations 

for the federally regulated maritime 

facilities in their ports, so long as 

necessary security and the abovedescribed principles of federalism are 

not compromised. Sections 4 and 6 of 

Executive Order 13132 require that for 

any rules with preemptive effect, the 

Coast Guard shall provide elected 

officials of affected state and local 

governments and their representative 

national organizations the notice and 

opportunity for appropriate 

participation in any rulemaking 

proceedings, and to consult with such 

officials early in the rulemaking process. 

Therefore, we invite affected state and 

local governments and their 

representative national organizations to 

indicate their desire for participation 

and consultation in this rulemaking 

process by submitting comments to this 

notice. In accordance with Executive 

Order 13132, the Coast Guard will 

provide a federalism impact statement 

to document (1) the extent of the Coast 

Guard’s consultation with State and 

local officials that submit comments to 

this proposed rule, (2) a summary of the 

nature of any concerns raised by state or 

local governments and the Coast 

Guard’s position thereon, and (3) a 

statement of the extent to which the 

concerns of State and local officials 

have been met. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule would not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this proposed rule elsewhere 

in this preamble. 

G. Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not cause a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

I. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

K. Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order. Though 

it is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866, it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

L. Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 73269 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not add any 

voluntary consensus standards. Due to 

the nature of cruise ship security 

operations, performance-based 

standards allow an appropriate degree 

of flexibility that accommodates and is 

consistent with different terminal sizes 

and operations. This proposed rule 

would standardize screening activities 

for all persons, baggage, and personal 

effects at cruise ship terminals to ensure 

a consistent layer of security at 

terminals throughout the United States. 

Additionally, the Coast Guard consulted 

with the Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) during the 

development of this proposed rule. 

We propose to use performance-based 

requirements in this rule. The Coast 

Guard reserves the right to require 

voluntary consensus standards at a later 

date, via a notice of availability or in 

conjunction with a subsequent 

rulemaking published in the Federal 

Register. If you disagree, please send a 

comment to the docket using one of the 

methods under ADDRESSES. In your 

comment, explain why you disagree 

with our analysis and/or identify 

voluntary consensus standards that 

might apply. 

M. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket where indicated 

under the ‘‘Public Participation and 

Request for Comments’’ section of this 

preamble. This rule involves 

requirements for the screening of 

persons, baggage, and personal items 

intended for boarding a cruise ship and 

falls under paragraphs 34(a), regulations 

which are editorial or procedural; 34(c), 

regulations concerning the training, 

qualifying, licensing, and disciplining 

or maritime personnel; and 34(d), 

regulations concerning the 

documentation, admeasurement, 

inspection, and equipment of vessels, of 

the Coast Guard’s NEPA Implementing 

Procedures and Policy for Considering 

Environmental Impacts, COMDTINST 

M16475.1D, and paragraph 6(b) of the 

Appendix to National Environmental 

Policy Act: Coast Guard Procedures for 

Categorical Exclusions (67 FR 48243, 

July 23, 2002). We seek any comments 

or information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects 

33 CFR Part 101 

Harbors, Maritime security, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Security measures, Vessels, Waterways. 

33 CFR Part 104 

Maritime security, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Security 

measures, Vessels. 

33 CFR Part 105 

Maritime security, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Security 

measures. 

33 CFR Part 120 

Passenger vessels, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Security 

measures, Terrorism. 

33 CFR Part 128 

Harbors, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Terrorism. 

For the reasons listed in the preamble, 

the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 

CFR parts 101, 104, 105, 120, and 128 

as follows: 

PART 101—MARITIME SECURITY: 

GENERAL 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 101 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 192; Executive 

Order 12656, 3 CFR 1988 Comp., p. 585; 33 

CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

§ 101.105 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 101.105— 

■ b. Add, in alphabetical order, 

definitions for the terms ‘‘Carry-on 

item’’, ‘‘Checked baggage’’, ‘‘Cruise ship 

terminal’’, ‘‘Cruise ship voyage’’, 

‘‘Disembark’’, ‘‘Embark’’, ‘‘Explosive 

detection system (EDS)’’, ‘‘High seas’’, 

‘‘Port of call’’, ‘‘Screener’’, and 

‘‘Terminal screening program (TSP)’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 101.105 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Carry-on item means an individual’s 

accessible property, including any 

personal effects that the individual 

intends to carry onto a vessel or facility 

subject to this subchapter and is 

therefore subject to screening. 

* * * * * 

Checked baggage means an 

individual’s personal property tendered 

by or on behalf of a passenger and 

accepted by a facility or vessel owner or 

operator. This baggage is accessible to 

the individual after boarding the vessel. 

* * * * * 

Cruise ship terminal means any 

portion of a facility that receives a 

cruise ship or its tenders to embark or 

disembark passengers or crew. 

Cruise ship voyage means a cruise 

ship’s entire course of travel, from the 

first port at which the vessel embarks 

passengers until its return to that port or 

another port where the majority of the 

passengers disembark and terminate 

their voyage. A cruise ship voyage may 

include one or more ports of call. 

* * * * * 

Disembark means any time that the 

crew or passengers leave the ship. 

* * * * * 

Embark means any time that crew or 

passengers board the ship, including reboarding at ports of call. 

* * * * * 

Explosives Detection System (EDS) 

means any system, including canines, 

automated device, or combination of 

devices that have the ability to detect 

explosive material. 

* * * * * 

High seas means the waters defined in 

§ 2.32(d) of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

Port of call means a U.S. port where 

a cruise ship makes a scheduled or 

unscheduled stop in the course of its 

voyage and passengers are allowed to 

embark and disembark the vessel. 

* * * * * 

Screener means an individual who is 

trained and authorized to screen or 

inspect persons, baggage (including 

carry-on items), personal effects, and 

vehicles for the presence of dangerous 

substances and devices, and other items 

listed in the vessel or facility security 

plan. 

* * * * * 

Terminal Screening Program (TSP) 

means a written program developed for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

73270 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

a cruise ship terminal that documents 

methods used to screen persons, 

baggage, and carry-on items for the 

presence of dangerous substances and 

devices to ensure compliance with this 

part. 

* * * * * 

PART 104—MARITIME SECURITY: 

VESSELS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 104 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 

6.04–11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 4. In § 104.295, revise paragraph (a)(1) 

to read as follows: 

§ 104.295 Additional requirements—cruise 

ships. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Screen all persons, baggage, and 

personal effects for dangerous 

substances and devices at the cruise 

ship terminal or, in the absence of a 

terminal, immediately prior to 

embarking a cruise ship, in accordance 

with the qualification, training, and 

equipment requirements of §§ 105.530, 

105.535, and 105.545 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

PART 105—MARITIME SECURITY: 

FACILITIES 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 105 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

70103; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04– 

11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 6. In § 105.225, revise paragraph (b)(1) 

to read as follows: 

§ 105.225 Facility recordkeeping 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Training. For training under 

§§ 105.210 and 105.535, the date of each 

session, duration of session, a 

description of the training, and a list of 

attendees; 

* * * * * 

■ 7. In § 105.290, revise paragraphs (a) 

and (b) to read as follows: 

§ 105.290 Additional requirements—cruise 

ship terminals. 

* * * * * 

(a) Screen all persons, baggage, and 

personal effects for dangerous 

substances and devices in accordance 

with the requirements in subpart E of 

this part; 

(b) Check the identification of all 

persons seeking to enter the facility in 

accordance with §§ 101.514, 101.515, 

and 105.255 of this subchapter. Persons 

holding a Transportation Worker 

Identification Credential (TWIC) must 

be checked as set forth in this part. For 

persons not holding a TWIC, this check 

includes confirming the individual’s 

validity for boarding by examining 

passenger tickets, boarding passes, 

government identification or visitor 

badges, or work orders; 

* * * * * 

■ 8. In § 105.405, revise paragraph 

(a)(17) and (a)(18), reserve paragraphs 

(a)(19) and (a)(20), and add paragraph 

(a)(21) to read as follows: 

§ 105.405 Format and content of the 

Facility Security Plan (FSP). 

(a) * * * 

(17) Facility Security Assessment 

(FSA) report; 

(18) Facility Vulnerability and 

Security Measures Summary (Form CG– 

6025) in Appendix A to part 105; and, 

(19) Reserved 

(20) Reserved 

(21) If applicable, cruise ship 

Terminal Screening Program (TSP) in 

accordance with subpart E of this part. 

■ 9. Add new subpart E to part 105 to 

read as follows: 

Subpart E—Facility Security: Cruise Ship 

Terminals 

Sec. 

105.500 General. 

105.505 Terminal Screening Program (TSP). 

105.510 Screening responsibilities of the 

owner or operator. 

105.515 Prohibited Items List. 

105.525 Terminal screening operations. 

105.530 Qualifications of screeners. 

105.535 Training requirements of screeners. 

105.540 Screener participation in drills and 

exercises. 

105.545 Screening equipment. 

105.550 Alternate screening. 

Subpart E—Facility Security: Cruise 

Ship Terminals 

§ 105.500 General. 

(a) Applicability. The owner or 

operator of a cruise ship terminal must 

comply with this subpart when 

receiving a cruise ship or tenders from 

cruise ships. 

(b) Purpose. This subpart establishes 

cruise ship terminal screening programs 

within the Facility Security Plans (FSPs) 

to ensure that prohibited items are not 

present within the secure areas that 

have been designated for screened 

persons, baggage, and personal effects, 

and are not brought onto cruise ships 

interfacing with the terminal. 

(c) Compliance dates. (1) No later 

than 180 days after the effective date of 

the final rule, cruise ship terminal 

owners or operators must submit, for 

each terminal, a Terminal Screening 

Program (TSP) that conforms with the 

requirements in § 105.505 of this 

subpart to the cognizant COTP for 

review and approval. 

(2) No later than 1 year after the 

effective date of the final rule, each 

cruise ship terminal owner or operator 

must operate in compliance with an 

approved TSP and this subpart. 

§ 105.505 Terminal Screening Program 

(TSP). 

(a) General requirements. The owner 

or operator of a cruise ship terminal 

must ensure a Terminal Screening 

Program (TSP) is developed, added to 

the Facility Security Plan (FSP), and 

implemented. The TSP must: 

(1) Document all procedures that are 

employed to ensure all persons, 

baggage, and personal effects are 

screened at the cruise ship terminal 

prior to being allowed into a cruise ship 

terminal’s secure areas or onto a cruise 

ship; 

(2) Be written in English; and, 

(3) Be approved by the Coast Guard as 

part of the FSP in accordance with 

subpart D of this part. 

(b) Availability. Each cruise ship 

terminal Facility Security Officer must: 

(1) Maintain the TSP in the same or 

similar location as the FSP as described 

in § 105.400(d) of this part; 

(2) Have an accessible, complete copy 

of the TSP at the cruise ship terminal; 

(3) Have a copy of the TSP available 

for inspection upon request by the Coast 

Guard; 

(4) Maintain the TSP as sensitive 

security information (SSI) and protect it 

in accordance with 49 CFR part 1520; 

and 

(5) Make a copy of the current 

Prohibited Items List publicly available. 

The List and copies thereof are not SSI. 

(c) Content. The TSP must include the 

following: 

(1) A line diagram of the cruise ship 

terminal including: 

(i) The physical boundaries of the 

terminal; 

(ii) The location(s) where all persons 

intending to board a cruise ship, and all 

personal effects and baggage are 

screened; and, 

(iii) The point(s) in the terminal 

beyond which no unscreened person 

may pass; 

(2) The responsibilities of the owner 

or operator regarding the screening of 

persons, baggage, and personal effects; 

(3) The procedure to obtain and 

maintain the Prohibited Items List; 

(4) The procedures used to comply 

with the requirements of § 105.530 of 

this part regarding qualifications of 

screeners; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 73271 

(5) The procedures used to comply 

with the requirements of § 105.535 of 

this part regarding training of screeners; 

(6) The number of screeners needed at 

each location to ensure adequate 

screening; 

(7) A description of the equipment 

used to comply with the requirements of 

§ 105.525 of this part regarding the 

screening of individuals, their personal 

effects, and baggage, including 

screening at increased MARSEC Levels, 

and the procedures for use of that 

equipment; 

(8) The operation, calibration, and 

maintenance of any and all screening 

equipment used in accordance with 

§ 105.545 of this part; 

(9) The procedures used to comply 

with the requirements of § 105.550 of 

this part regarding the use of alternative 

screening methods and/or equipment, 

including procedures for passengers and 

crew with disabilities or medical 

conditions precluding certain screening 

methods; and 

(10) The procedures used when 

prohibited items are detected. 

(d) As a part of the FSP, the 

requirements in §§ 105.410 and 105.415 

of this part governing submission, 

approval, amendment, and audit of a 

TSP apply. 

§ 105.510 Screening responsibilities of the 

owner or operator. 

In addition to the requirements of 

§ 105.200 of this part, the owner or 

operator of a cruise ship terminal must 

ensure that: 

(a) A Terminal Screening Program 

(TSP) is developed in accordance with 

this subpart, and submitted to and 

approved by the cognizant Captain of 

the Port (COTP), as part of the Facility 

Security Plan (FSP), in accordance with 

this part; 

(b) Screening is conducted in 

accordance with this subpart and an 

approved TSP; 

(c) Specific screening responsibilities 

are documented in a Declaration of 

Security (DoS) in accordance with 

§§ 104.255 and 105.245 of this 

subchapter; 

(d) Procedures are established for 

reporting and handling prohibited items 

that are detected during the screening 

process; 

(e) All personal screening is 

conducted in a uniform, courteous, and 

efficient manner respecting personal 

rights to the maximum extent 

practicable; and 

(f) When the MARSEC Level is 

increased, additional screening 

measures are employed in accordance 

with an approved TSP. 

§ 105.515 Prohibited Items List. 

(a) The Coast Guard will issue and 

maintain a Prohibited Items List 

consisting of dangerous substances and 

devices for purposes of §§ 105.290(a) of 

this chapter. The list specifies those 

items that the Coast Guard prohibits all 

persons from bringing onboard any 

cruise ship through terminal screening 

operations regulated under 33 CFR part 

105. 

(b) Procedures for screening persons, 

baggage and personal effects must 

include use of the Prohibited Items List 

which will be provided to screening 

personnel by the cruise ship terminal 

owner or operator. 

(c) The list must be present at each 

screening location during screening 

operations. Additionally, the list must 

be included as part of the Declaration of 

Security. 

(d) Facility personnel must report the 

discovery of a prohibited item 

introduced by violating security 

measures at a cruise ship terminal as a 

breach of security in accordance with 

§ 101.305(b) of this subchapter. 

§ 105.525 Terminal screening operations. 

(a) Passengers and personal effects. 

(1) Each cruise ship terminal must have 

at least one location to screen 

passengers and carry-on items prior to 

allowing such passengers and carry-on 

items into secure areas of the terminal 

designated for screened persons and 

carry-on items. 

(2) Screening locations must be 

adequately staffed and equipped to 

conduct screening operations in 

accordance with the approved Terminal 

Screening Program (TSP). 

(3) Facility personnel must check 

personal identification prior to allowing 

a person to proceed to a screening 

location, in accordance with 

§ 105.290(b) of this part, which sets 

forth additional requirements for cruise 

ship terminals at all Maritime Security 

levels. 

(4) All screened passengers and their 

carry-on items must remain in secure 

areas of the terminal designated for 

screened persons and personal effects 

until boarding the cruise ship. Persons 

who leave a secure area must be rescreened. 

(b) Persons other than passengers. 

Crew members, visitors, vendors, and 

other persons who are not passengers, 

and their personal effects, must be 

screened either at screening locations 

where passengers are screened or at 

another location that is adequately 

staffed and equipped in accordance 

with this subpart and is specifically 

designated in an approved TSP. 

(c) Checked baggage. (1) A cruise ship 

terminal that accepts baggage must have 

at least one location designated for the 

screening of checked baggage. 

(2) Screening personnel may only 

accept baggage from a person with— 

(i) A valid passenger ticket; 

(ii) Joining instructions; 

(iii) Work orders; or 

(iv) Authorization from the terminal 

or vessel owner or operator to handle 

baggage; 

(3) Screening personnel may only 

accept baggage in an area designated in 

an approved TSP and manned by 

terminal screening personnel; and, 

(4) Screening or security personnel 

must constantly control the checked 

baggage, in a secure area, from the time 

it is accepted at the terminal until it is 

onboard the cruise ship. 

(d) Unaccompanied baggage. (1) 

Facility personnel may accept 

unaccompanied baggage, as defined in 

§ 101.105 of this subchapter, only if the 

Vessel Security Officer provides prior 

written approval for the unaccompanied 

baggage. 

(2) If facility personnel accept 

unaccompanied baggage at a cruise ship 

terminal, they must handle such 

baggage in accordance with paragraph 

(c) of this section. 

§ 105.530 Qualifications of screeners. 

In addition to the requirements for 

facility personnel with security duties 

contained in § 105.210 of this part, 

screening personnel at cruise ship 

terminals must— 

(a) Have a combination of education 

and experience that the Facility Security 

Officer (FSO) has determined to be 

sufficient for the individual to perform 

the duties of the position; and 

(b) Be capable of using all screening 

methods and equipment needed to 

perform the duties of the position. 

§ 105.535 Training requirements of 

screeners. 

In addition to the requirements for 

facility personnel with security duties 

in § 105.210 of this part, screening 

personnel at cruise ship terminals must 

demonstrate knowledge, understanding, 

and proficiency in the following areas as 

part of their security-related 

familiarization— 

(a) Historic and current threats against 

the cruise ship industry; 

(b) Relevant portions of the Terminal 

Screening Program (TSP) and Facility 

Security Plan; 

(c) The purpose and contents of the 

cruise ship terminal Prohibited Items 

List; 

(d) Specific instruction on screening 

methods and equipment used at the 

cruise ship terminal; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

73272 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(e) Terminal-specific response 

procedures when a dangerous substance 

or device is detected; 

(f) Additional screening requirements 

at increased Maritime Security Levels; 

and, 

(g) Any additional topics specified in 

the facility’s approved TSP. 

§ 105.540 Screener participation in drills 

and exercises. 

Screening personnel must participate 

in drills and exercises required under 

§ 105.220 of this part. 

§ 105.545 Screening equipment. 

The following screening equipment 

may be used, provided it is specifically 

documented in an approved Terminal 

Screening Program (TSP). 

(a) Metal detection devices. (1) The 

owner or operator of a cruise ship 

terminal may use a metal detection 

device to screen persons, baggage, and 

personal effects. 

(2) Metal detection devices used at 

any cruise ship terminal must be 

operated, calibrated, and maintained in 

accordance with manufacturer’s 

instructions. 

(b) X-ray systems. The owner or 

operator of a cruise ship terminal may 

use an x-ray system for the screening 

and inspection of personal effects and 

baggage if all of the following 

requirements are satisfied— 

(1) The system meets the standards for 

cabinet x-ray systems used primarily for 

the inspection of baggage, found in 21 

CFR 1020.40; 

(2) Familiarization training for 

screeners, in accordance with § 105.535 

of this subpart, includes training in 

radiation safety and the efficient use of 

x-ray systems; 

(3) The system must meet the imaging 

requirements found in 49 CFR 1544.211; 

(4) The system must be operated, 

calibrated, and maintained in 

accordance with manufacturer’s 

instructions; 

(5) The x-ray system must fully 

comply with any defect notice or 

modification order issued for that 

system by the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA), unless the FDA 

has advised that a defect or failure to 

comply does not create a significant risk 

of injury, including genetic injury, to 

any person; 

(6) The owner or operator must ensure 

that a sign is posted in a conspicuous 

place at the screening location where xray systems are used to inspect personal 

effects and where screeners accept 

baggage. These signs must— 

(i) Notify individuals that items are 

being screened by x-ray and advise them 

to remove all x-ray, scientific, and highspeed film from their personal effects 

and baggage before screening; 

(ii) Advise individuals that they may 

request screening of their photographic 

equipment and film packages be done 

without exposure to an x-ray system; 

and 

(iii) Advise individuals to remove all 

photographic film from their personal 

effects before screening, if the x-ray 

system exposes any personal effects or 

baggage to more than one milliroentgen 

during the screening. 

(c) Explosives detection systems. The 

owner or operator of a cruise ship 

terminal may use an explosives 

detection system to screen baggage and 

personal effects for the presence of 

explosives if it meets the following 

requirements: 

(1) At locations where x-ray 

technology is used to inspect baggage or 

personal effects for explosives, the 

terminal owner or operator must post 

signs in accordance with paragraph 

(b)(6) of this section; and, 

(2) All explosives detection 

equipment used at a cruise ship 

terminal must be operated, calibrated, 

and maintained in accordance with 

manufacturer’s instructions. 

§ 105.550 Alternative screening. 

If the owner or operator of a U.S. 

cruise ship terminal chooses to screen 

using equipment or methods other than 

those described in § 105.545 of this 

subpart, the equipment and methods 

must be described in detail in an 

approved Terminal Screening Program. 

PART 120—SECURITY OF 

PASSENGERS [REMOVED AND 

RESERVED] 

■ 10. Under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 

1231, remove and reserve part 120. 

PART 128—SECURITY OF 

PASSENGER TERMINALS [REMOVED 

AND RESERVED] 

■ 11. Under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 

1231, remove and reserve part 128. 

Dated: November 24, 2014. 

Paul F. Zukunft, 

Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28845 Filed 12–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0480; FRL–9919–75– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Antelope Valley 

Air Quality Management District and 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Antelope Valley Air 

Quality Management District 

(AVAQMD) and South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD) 

portions of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern particulate matter 

(PM) emissions from fugitive dust and 

abrasive blasting. We are proposing to 

approve local rules to regulate these 

emission sources under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by January 9, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2014–0480, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS