2350 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Information on Manufacturer Cost 

38. What is the typical difference in 

cost to produce cordless products, 

products with inaccessible cords, and 

corded window coverings? If possible, 

please provide the information by 

window covering type (e.g. vertical 

blinds, horizontal blinds, and the 

various types of shades, such as cellular, 

pleated, roller, roll-up and Roman)? 

39. What is the manufacturer’s cost to 

produce various safety technologies, 

including research and development 

costs, and components, such as a 

retractable cord operating system, cord 

cleat, or cord shroud? 

40. How would manufacturing these 

products in large quantities change the 

cost? Please provide examples in terms 

of quantity and price change (%). 

Alberta E. Mills, 

Acting Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00566 Filed 1–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

46 CFR Part 70 

[Docket No. USCG–2011–0357] 

RIN 1625–AB91 

Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act 

of 2010; Implementation 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes 

amending its passenger vessel 

regulations to implement the Cruise 

Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2010 

with respect to deck rails, systems for 

detecting or recording falls overboard 

and for recording evidence of possible 

crimes, hailing devices, security guides, 

sexual assault response, and crime 

scene preservation training. The 

proposed regulations promote the Coast 

Guard’s maritime safety and security 

missions. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must either be submitted to our online 

docket via http://www.regulations.gov 

on or before April 16, 2015 or reach the 

Docket Management Facility by that 

date. Comments sent to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) on 

collection of information must reach 

OMB on or before April 16, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2011–0357 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Online: 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 NPRM, you must also send 

comments to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of 

Management and Budget. 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 LT Jason Kling, U.S. 

Coast Guard Office of Design and 

Engineering Standards, telephone 202– 

372–1361, email jason.m.kling@

uscg.mil. If you have questions on 

viewing or submitting material to the 

docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Preamble 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

A. Submitting Comments 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

C. Privacy Act 

D. Public Meeting 

II. Abbreviations 

III. Background 

IV. Comments on 2011 Notice 

V. Discussion of CVSSA and 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 (USCG–2011–0357), 

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 or by fax, mail, or hand 

delivery, but please use only one of 

these means. We recommend that you 

include your name and a mailing 

address, an email address, or a phone 

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, and follow 

the instructions on that Web site. 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 this proposed 

rule based on your comments. 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

Public comments and relevant 

documents mentioned in this notice 

will all be available in the public 

docket. To see the public docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, and follow 

the instructions on that Web site. If you 

do not have access to the internet, you 

may view the docket online by visiting 

the Docket Management Facility in 

Room W12–140 on the ground floor of 

the Department of Transportation West 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2351 

1Public Law 111–207, 124 Stat. 2243; July 27, 

2010. 

2 46 U.S.C. 3507(k). 

3CVSSA sec. 2, codified at 46 U.S.C. 3507 note. 

4 ‘‘Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2010, 

Available Technology,’’ 76 FR 30374 (May 25, 

2011). 

5CG–543 Policy Letter 11–09, June 28, 2011. 

6CG–543 Policy Letter 11–10, July 27, 2011. 

7The model course is available at: http:// 

www.uscg.mil/hq/cg2/cgis/Docs/CVSSA_MC_

110615.pdf. 

Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. We have an 

agreement with the Department of 

Transportation to use the Docket 

Management Facility. 

C. Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of comments received into any 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 now plan to hold a public 

meeting. 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 decide to hold a public meeting, we 

will announce its time and place in a 

later notice in the Federal Register. 

II. Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CLIA Cruise Line International Association 

CVSSA Cruise Vessel Security and Safety 

Act of 2010 

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation 

FR Federal Register 

IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

MARAD Maritime Administration 

MISLE Marine Information for Safety and 

Law Enforcement 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

SBA Small Business Administration 

§ Section symbol 

U.S.C. United States Code 

III. Background 

The purpose of this proposed rule is 

to implement the Cruise Vessel Security 

and Safety Act of 2010 (CVSSA),1 which 

added 46 U.S.C. 3507 (Passenger vessel 

security and safety requirements) and 46 

U.S.C. 3508 (Crime scene preservation 

training for passenger vessel 

crewmembers). The basis of this 

proposed rule is 46 U.S.C. 2103 

(regulatory authority to implement 46 

U.S.C. Subtitle II) and 46 U.S.C. 3507(j) 

(regulatory authority to issue regulations 

necessary to implement section 3507). 

The Secretary of Homeland Security’s 

authority under these statutes is 

delegated to the Coast Guard by DHS 

Delegation No. 0170.1, para. II (92.a), 

(92.b). 

The CVSSA prescribes security and 

safety requirements for any passenger 

vessel that is authorized to carry and 

has onboard sleeping facilities for at 

least 250 passengers, that is not engaged 

in a coastwise voyage, and that embarks 

or disembarks passengers in the United 

States.2 It provides new requirements 

for vessel design, public access to 

information about crime aboard cruise 

ships, provisions for emergency medical 

treatment, and crime prevention and 

criminal evidence gathering. 

In passing the CVSSA, Congress 

found that serious incidents, including 

sexual assault and the disappearance of 

passengers at sea, have occurred on 

cruise vessel voyages, that passengers 

lack adequate understanding of their 

vulnerability to crime on board cruise 

vessels, that inadequate resources are 

available to assist cruise vessel crime 

victims, and that detecting and 

investigating cruise vessel crimes is 

difficult.3

In 2011, the Coast Guard published a 

Federal Register notice and request for 

comments relating to the CVSSA.4 The 

notice did not propose a rulemaking, 

but asked the public to comment on the 

types of technology currently available 

to provide the video surveillance and 

image-capture or detection of falls 

overboard that the CVSSA requires. We 

discuss the comments we received on 

this notice in Section IV of this 

preamble. 

Later in 2011, we issued guidance 5

for Coast Guard inspectors in verifying 

cruise vessel compliance with CVSSA 

requirements, and guidance and a 

model course curriculum 6 for 

complying with the CVSSA’s 

requirements for training at least one 

cruise vessel crew member in crime 

prevention and criminal evidence 

gathering. We developed the model 

course in consultation with the 

Maritime Administration (MARAD) and 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI).7

IV. Comments on 2011 Notice 

As added by the CVSSA, 46 U.S.C. 

3507(a)(1)(D) requires cruise vessels to 

‘‘integrate technology that can be used 

for capturing images of passengers or 

detecting passengers who have fallen 

overboard, to the extent that such 

technology is available.’’ In addition, 46 

U.S.C. 3507(b) requires cruise vessel 

owners to ‘‘maintain a video 

surveillance system to assist in 

documenting crimes on the vessel and 

in providing evidence for the 

prosecution of such crimes. . . .’’ Our 

2011 notice sought information on the 

technology currently available for 

meeting these requirements, and asked 

two specific sets of questions designed 

to elicit that information. We received 

submissions from nine commenters: 

Five security equipment providers; two 

crime victim advocacy organizations; 

one cruise vessel trade association; and 

one cruise passenger. 

The cruise passenger did not respond 

to our questions, but asked for 

regulations to control smoking on cruise 

vessels. That topic is not addressed by 

the CVSSA and is outside the scope of 

this proposed rule. 

The first substantive question set 

asked: ‘‘If you work in the maritime 

community, do you use equipment to 

detect persons falling overboard? If yes, 

what is the equipment, and how reliable 

is the equipment? What alternative 

source(s) for detecting persons falling 

overboard would you recommend? How 

would you rate the alternative source(s) 

in terms of user cost and reliability and 

usefulness of the information?’’ 

The second substantive question set 

asked: ‘‘Do industry best practices for 

placement and retention of video 

recording devices exist? If yes, please 

specify what they are and how effective 

they have been in helping law 

enforcement officials prosecute 

offenders.’’ 

The cruise vessel trade association 

answered the first question by saying 

that, while the technology exists to 

capture images of persons who have 

gone overboard, fall-overboard detection 

systems are not yet reliable under 

marine conditions. As added by the 

CVSSA, 46 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D) requires 

a vessel to integrate image capture or 

fall detection technology ‘‘to the extent 

such technology is available.’’ Given 

that the industry view is that fall 

detection technology is not yet reliable 

under marine conditions, we expect that 

owners and operators will select the 

image capture option provided by 

Congress until such time that fall 

detection technology is believed to be 

sufficiently reliable. 

The cruise vessel trade association 

answered the second question by saying 

that video surveillance has been used 

successfully for many years, but that 

‘‘one size does not fit all’’ and that 

system placement is unique for each 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
2352 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

vessel. As added by the CVSSA, 46 

U.S.C. 3507(b)(1) requires each vessel to 

maintain a video surveillance system, 

but it does not specify how the system 

must be placed. Our proposed rule 

would require only that video 

surveillance be provided in areas to 

which passengers and crew members 

have common access (other than 

passenger staterooms or crew cabins). 

We would expect the vessel owner or 

operator to make whatever arrangements 

are necessary to ensure effective system 

placement. 

The five security equipment providers 

provided information about the 

capabilities of various fall detection or 

surveillance systems. The information 

provided for fall detection systems did 

not directly address the cruise vessel 

trade association’s assertion that 

existing systems are unreliable under 

marine conditions. It was not clear from 

the equipment providers’ comments that 

industry prefers any one system for 

specific applications under specific 

conditions. The approach taken in our 

proposed rule is to let each vessel owner 

or operator determine the suitability and 

reliability of available systems, and 

choose the system or systems best 

adapted to its needs and the conditions 

under which the vessel operates. With 

respect to falls overboard, our proposed 

rule incorporates the CVSSA’s flexible 

approach under which vessel owners 

could choose between detection 

systems, image capture systems, or some 

combination of image capture and 

detection systems. 

One of the two crime victim advocacy 

organizations said video surveillance 

should ‘‘in essence provide a safety 

blanket that envelopes the vessel,’’ 

should cover all public areas, and 

should be monitored as well as 

recorded. This organization also 

recommended keeping videos for at 

least 90 days and longer when a serious 

incident has occurred or is alleged, and 

said the Coast Guard should verify 

information about a vessel’s video 

systems annually. This organization also 

provided recommendations for the 

relative responsibilities of law 

enforcement and vessel personnel for 

reviewing video evidence. As added by 

the CVSSA, 46 U.S.C. 3507(b)(1) 

requires video surveillance systems ‘‘to 

assist in documenting crimes . . . and 

in providing evidence.’’ The statute 

does not require real time monitoring, 

and in the event a crime is alleged to 

have taken place, video can be 

retrospectively reviewed for possible 

evidence of the crime. Thus, we do not 

propose requiring real time monitoring. 

We would require video to be kept for 

at least 14 days after a voyage, and for 

an additional 120 days when a serious 

incident is reported. We think this 

provides adequate time for law 

enforcement to take action should an 

incident be serious enough to be 

reported. We do not think it is necessary 

to detail how video records must be 

safeguarded or shared with law 

enforcement, except to note that our 

proposed rule would require 

compliance with the current industry 

practice, which is to keep records in a 

secure location to prevent unauthorized 

access or tampering, and to make them 

available on request to law enforcement 

officials investigating an incident. 

The other crime victim advocacy 

organization provided technical 

recommendations for ensuring that 

video surveillance can provide an 

individual’s ‘‘accurate likeness.’’ This 

organization said video surveillance 

should be operational at all times, but 

that monitoring video is ‘‘beyond the 

scope of any comparable industry 

standard.’’ It recommended keeping 

video for at least 30 days past the end 

of each cruise and as part of the 

investigative file in the event of an 

incident, and made additional 

recommendations for safeguarding and 

limiting crew access to video images. 

We agree that video monitoring should 

not be required. We think video should 

be kept for an additional 120 days after 

a voyage if a serious incident is reported 

to have taken place during the voyage. 

The Coast Guard does not have 

regulatory authority over local law 

enforcement personnel and therefore we 

cannot require them to retain video as 

part of any open investigative file. We 

agree that video surveillance should be 

operational at all times and should 

provide identifiable images, and that 

video should be safeguarded and 

protected from unauthorized access, but 

we do not think it necessary to prescribe 

specifics for how each vessel complies 

with those requirements. 

V. Discussion of CVSSA and Proposed 

Rule 

Our proposed rule would add new 

subpart 70.40 to subchapter H 

(passenger vessels) of Title 46 CFR. The 

new subpart would include all the selfexecuting CVSSA provisions, as well as 

regulations needed to implement those 

CVSSA provisions that require 

regulatory action in order to be fully 

effective. Table 1 lists each CVSSA 

provision and distinguishes the selfexecuting provisions from those that 

must be implemented through Coast 

Guard regulatory action. A detailed 

discussion follows the table. 

TABLE 1—BREAKDOWN OF CVSSA PROVISIONS

Legislative section Provision 

Self-executing? 

Yes No 

3507(a)(1)(A) ................................... Rail height ................................................................................................. ........................ X 

3507(a)(1)(B) ................................... Peep holes ................................................................................................ X ........................

3507(a)(1)(C) ................................... Security latches and time-sensitive key technology for staterooms and 

crew cabins.

X ........................

3507(a)(1)(D) ................................... Systems for detecting falls overboard ....................................................... ........................ X 

3507(a)(1)(E) ................................... Hailing or warning devices ........................................................................ ........................ X 

3507(a)(2) ........................................ Security latches and time-sensitive keys technology must consider fire 

and other safety requirements.

X ........................

3507(b) ............................................. Video recording ......................................................................................... ........................ X 

3507(c) ............................................. Security guides .......................................................................................... ........................ X 

3507(d) ............................................. Sexual assault response ........................................................................... ........................ X 

3507(e) ............................................. Confidentiality for victim’s information ....................................................... X ........................

3507(f) .............................................. Procedures to identify crew with access to staterooms ........................... X ........................

3507(g) ............................................. Vessel owners required to log reported criminal allegations, report serious incidents to law enforcement, and make statistics available to the 

public on the owner’s website.

X ........................

3507(h) ............................................. Civil penalties for violations and denial of entry into the U.S. when serious crimes are alleged.X ........................


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2353 

8CG–543 Policy Letter 11–09, para. 6.a.(1). 

9CG–543 Policy Letter 11–09, paragraph 6.a.(2). 

10CG–543 Policy Letter 11–09, paragraph 6.a.(3). 11CG–543 Policy Letter 11–09, paragraph 6.a.(3). 

TABLE 1—BREAKDOWN OF CVSSA PROVISIONS—Continued 

Legislative section Provision 

Self-executing? 

Yes No 

3508(a) ............................................. Crime scene preservation training and victim assistance training ........... ........................ X 

Section 3507(a)(1)(A) requires each 

cruise vessel to ‘‘be equipped with ship 

rails that are located not less than 42 

inches above the cabin deck.’’ This 

requirement is largely self-executing 

and Coast Guard inspectors already 

have guidance on its enforcement.8

However, to fully achieve section 

3507(a)(1)(A)’s apparent intention of 

helping prevent falls overboard, we 

propose, in new 46 CFR 70.40–5, 

applying the 42-inch height requirement 

to any exterior deck to which passengers 

have general access, including but not 

limited to, cabin decks. We would allow 

alternative arrangements where a 42- 

inch height could interfere with the 

operation of lifesaving equipment or 

arrangements. Passenger vessel rails and 

bulwarks may already be subject to 46 

CFR subpart 72.40, which requires a 

minimum height of 391⁄2 inches, even if 

they are not subject to the CVSSA. 

Section 3507(a)(1)(B) requires each 

passenger stateroom and crew cabin to 

be ‘‘equipped with entry doors that 

include peep holes or other means of 

visual identification.’’ This provision is 

self-executing and Coast Guard 

inspectors have the necessary 

enforcement guidance.9 We have placed 

this provision in proposed 46 CFR 

70.40–2(a). 

Section 3507(a)(1)(C) requires that, for 

any vessel the keel of which is laid after 

July 27, 2010, each passenger stateroom 

and crew cabin must be equipped with 

security latches and time-sensitive key 

technology. This provision is selfexecuting and Coast Guard inspectors 

have the necessary enforcement 

guidance.10 We have placed this 

provision in proposed 46 CFR 70.40– 

2(b). We interpret ‘‘keel laid’’ to mean 

the date the vessel’s keel was laid or the 

vessel reached an equivalent stage of 

construction. 

Section 3507(a)(1)(D) requires each 

vessel to ‘‘integrate technology that can 

be used for capturing images of 

passengers or detecting passengers who 

have fallen overboard, to the extent that 

such technology is available.’’ 

Therefore, in proposed 46 CFR 70.40–6 

we would require a vessel either to 

maintain a fall-overboard image capture 

system, or a fall-overboard detection 

system, or some combination of both. 

The fall-overboard detection system, by 

itself, is intended to sound an 

immediate alarm, and may (but need 

not) capture an image of the falling 

person. However, to the extent the 

vessel relies on an image-capture 

system, or combination image-capture/

detection system, the system should 

record the incident’s date and time to 

provide proper assistance to search and 

rescue or law enforcement personnel. 

System video, data, and images 

(‘‘records’’) need to be made available 

for search and rescue or law 

enforcement purposes. To ensure that 

availability, we propose requiring 

records to be kept for the duration of the 

voyage, and for at least 14 days after all 

passengers are accounted for as having 

disembarked. The 14-day proviso allows 

extra time to report the disappearance of 

a stowaway or other person whose 

presence on the vessel may not be 

reflected in the vessel operator’s 

records, thereby making it less likely 

that the person’s disappearance could 

be discovered or reported quickly. If, 

during the voyage or the subsequent 14 

days, the vessel receives a report of a 

fall overboard, these records would have 

to be kept for an additional 120 days 

after receipt of the report. Our proposed 

rule provides flexible performancebased standards that may be met using 

a variety of technological equipment 

and systems. 

Section 3507(a)(1)(E) requires each 

vessel to be ‘‘equipped with a sufficient 

number of operable acoustic hailing or 

other such warning devices to provide 

communication capability around the 

entire vessel when operating in high 

risk areas (as defined by the United 

States Coast Guard).’’ We designate as 

‘‘high risk’’ areas those waters where 

hazards like widespread piracy activity 

are known to be present. The location of 

high risk areas is sensitive security 

information that we do not divulge to 

the general public. We think section 

3507(a)(1)(E) requires vessels to carry 

megaphones or other devices for use in 

high risk waters anywhere in the world. 

Such devices could facilitate 

communications if circumstances made 

use of the vessel’s normal 

communications system impossible. We 

do not think section 3507(a)(1)(E) 

requires vessels to carry high pitched 

sound-emitting devices to repel 

unauthorized boarders, and while we 

take no position on the advisability of 

equipping vessels with such devices, we 

note that vessel owners and operators 

are free to do so if they choose. Because 

an area in which a cruise vessel is 

operating may be determined to be 

‘‘high risk’’ only after the vessel has 

entered it and no longer has the ability 

to procure appropriate equipment, we 

propose requiring vessels to carry this 

equipment at all times. 

Section 3507(a)(2) provides that the 

security-latch and time-sensitive key 

technology requirements of section 

3507(a)(1)(C) must be administered after 

taking ‘‘into consideration fire safety 

and other applicable emergency 

requirements’’ established by the Coast 

Guard and under international law, ‘‘as 

appropriate.’’ The section 3507(a)(1)(C) 

requirements are self-executing, and 

Coast Guard inspectors are required 11 to 

make sure that the latch devices will not 

hinder appropriate emergency actions, 

like breaking down a door, in the event 

of a fire. We propose placing the section 

3507(a)(2) requirement in 46 CFR 70.40– 

2(b) to make it clear that the required 

devices may not prevent appropriate 

access by emergency responders. 

Section 3507(a)(3) made most section 

3507(a)(1) requirements effective 

January 27, 2012. Because that date has 

passed and the applicable requirements 

are now in effect, we have not reflected 

it in proposed regulatory text. The 

section 3507(a)(1)(C) security latch and 

time-sensitive key technology 

requirement applies only to newer 

vessels with keels laid after July 27, 

2010. We have included this limitation 

on applicability in proposed 46 CFR 

70.40–2(b). 

Section 3507(b) requires vessel 

owners to maintain a video surveillance 

system to assist in documenting crimes 

on the vessel and to provide law 

enforcement officials investigating those 

crimes with copies of video records. We 

propose new 46 CFR 70.40–8 to specify 

that the surveillance system must cover 

any areas of the vessel to which 

passengers or crew members have 

common access—which excludes 

passenger staterooms and crew cabins. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
2354 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

12CG–543 Policy Letter 11–09, paragraph 6.a.(4). 

13CG–543 Policy Letter 11–09, paragraphs 6.a.(5) 

and (6). 

14CG–543 Policy Letter 11–09, paragraph 6.a.(7). 15CG–543 Policy Letter 11–09, paragraph 6.a.(9). 

The surveillance system must make 

identifiable time and date-stamped 

images of persons who may be involved 

in alleged crimes. The surveillance 

system must be maintained in a secure 

location and access must be strictly 

limited and documented to prevent 

unauthorized access or tampering. To 

ensure that copies of system records can 

be provided to law enforcement officials 

upon request, we propose requiring 

those records to be kept for the duration 

of the voyage, and for 7 days after all 

passengers are accounted for as having 

disembarked (7 days during the average 

length of travel during the voyage and 

7 days after disembarking). The 14-day 

proviso allows extra time to report a 

crime, such as theft, that may not be 

discovered until sometime after all 

passengers have disembarked. If a crime 

is reported any time during the 14-day 

period, the records would need to be 

kept for an additional 120 days. Our 

proposed rule provides performancebased standards that may be met using 

a variety of technological equipment 

and systems. 

Section 3507(c)(1) requires a vessel 

owner to provide each passenger with a 

security guide. The guide must identify 

onboard personnel designated to 

prevent and respond to criminal and 

medical situations, and must describe 

applicable criminal law procedures for 

crimes committed in any waters the 

vessel might traverse during the voyage. 

The vessel owner must provide the FBI 

with a copy of the security guide for 

comment, and must publicize the 

security guide on its Web site. Section 

3507(c)(2) would require a listing of 

U.S. embassy and consulate locations in 

any foreign countries to be visited 

during the voyage. This list must be 

provided in each passenger stateroom, 

and must be posted in a location that is 

readily accessible to the crew. Although 

these requirements are largely selfexecuting, and enforcement guidance 

has been provided for Coast Guard 

inspectors,12 we need regulatory text to 

make it clear how we will ensure that 

each passenger is provided with a 

security guide. Therefore, we propose 

adding 46 CFR 70.40–9, to require that 

a copy of the guide must be provided in 

each passenger stateroom prior to each 

voyage. 

Section 3507(d) specifies what 

medical personnel, equipment, and 

‘‘adequate’’ supplies vessel owners must 

maintain on board for responding and 

providing victim treatment in the event 

of a sexual assault. It also specifies the 

measures the vessel owner must take to 

give victims access to lawyers, 

investigators, and victim advocacy 

programs. Section 3507(d) is largely 

self-executing, and Coast Guard 

inspectors have enforcement 

guidance.13 We do not think it necessary 

to issue regulations stating what 

medical supplies are needed to provide 

the treatment described in section 

3507(d), because that can be left to the 

discretion of the medical staff, and the 

identity of those supplies may change 

over time as medical techniques and 

supplies improve. However, we do 

think our regulations need to define, for 

the benefit of the public and our 

inspectors, what constitutes an adequate 

stock of medical supplies. Therefore, in 

proposed 46 CFR 70.40–10, we propose 

that the vessel must have enough 

supplies for at least two patients 

throughout the expected length of the 

voyage. If any of an owner’s cruise 

vessels has a history of alleged sexual 

assaults within the past three years, 

then the owner must ensure that each of 

its vessels has enough medical supplies 

on board to treat the maximum number 

of assaults alleged to have occurred on 

one of those previous voyages within 

the last three years. We also propose 

requiring any crew member who 

interviews an alleged sexual assault 

victim to have been trained to 

communicate appropriately with a 

trauma victim. 

Section 3507(e) requires 

confidentiality for information obtained 

as the result of providing medical or 

other assistance to sexual assault 

victims. This requirement is selfexecuting and Coast Guard inspectors 

have enforcement guidance.14 We 

propose referencing the section 3507(e) 

requirement in regulatory text at 46 CFR 

70.40–2(c). 

Section 3507(f) requires vessel owners 

to establish procedures for identifying 

crew members who have access to 

passenger staterooms and for limiting 

that access. This requirement is selfexecuting and Coast Guard inspectors 

have adequate enforcement guidance in 

CG–543 Policy Letter 11–09, paragraph 

6.a.(8). We propose referencing the 

section 3507(f) requirement in 

regulatory text at 46 CFR 70.40–2(d). 

Section 3507(g) requires vessel 

owners to log reported criminal incident 

allegations, to report serious incidents 

to law enforcement officials, and to 

make a statistical compilation of data 

relating to alleged criminal incidents 

available to the public on the owner’s 

Web site. This requirement is selfexecuting and Coast Guard personnel 

have enforcement guidance.15 We 

propose referencing the section 3507(g) 

requirement in regulatory text at 46 CFR 

70.40–2(e). 

Section 3507(h) provides civil and 

criminal penalties for persons who 

violate section 3507 or regulations 

under that section. It also allows the 

Coast Guard to deny a vessel entry into 

the United States if the vessel owner 

commits an act or omission for which a 

penalty can be imposed under section 

3507(h), or if the vessel owner fails to 

pay such a penalty. We propose 

referencing this provision in new 46 

CFR 70.40–1(c). CG–543 Policy Letter 

11–09, paragraph 6.b, addresses how the 

Coast Guard handles possible violations. 

Section 3507(i) requires the Coast 

Guard to issue the implementation 

guidance contained in the two 2011 

policy letters. The Coast Guard has 

complied with this requirement by 

issuing CG–543 Policy Letters 11–09 

and 11–10. 

Section 3507(j) authorizes ‘‘such 

regulations as are necessary to 

implement’’ section 3507. This NPRM 

proposes the regulations we consider to 

be necessary for implementation. We do 

not think it necessary to restate the 

regulatory authorization itself in 

regulatory language, and the proposed 

rule would not do so. 

Section 3507(k) describes the vessels 

to which the CVSSA applies, to include 

any voyage that ‘‘embarks or disembarks 

passengers in the United States.’’ This 

phrase could be interpreted as applying 

to a voyage originating and ending in a 

foreign country, and on which no U.S. 

national is a passenger, but which 

makes a brief port call in a U.S. port. 

Because we do not think the U.S. 

interest in the safety and security of a 

vessel engaged in such a voyage is 

sufficient to subject it to the proposed 

regulations, we propose specifying, in 

46 CFR 70.40–1(a), that subpart 70.40 

applies to a voyage that embarks or 

disembarks passengers in the U.S., 

‘‘except that embarking and 

disembarking does not include 

temporary port calls by passengers.’’ We 

also propose clarifying, in 46 CFR 

70.40–1(a), that subpart 70.40 applies to 

foreign as well as to U.S. vessels, 

notwithstanding 46 CFR 70.05–3(b), 

which generally exempts foreign vessels 

from Coast Guard passenger vessel 

regulations. We propose amending 46 

CFR 70.05–3(b) to clarify that this 

general exemption is subject to specific 

exceptions, such as the exception we 

propose to include in 46 CFR 70.40– 

1(a). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2355 

16CG–543 Policy Letter 11–10. See footnote 2 for 

a link to the model course. 

17CG–543 Policy Letter 11–10, paragraph 6. 

Section 3507(l) defines Coast Guard 

‘‘Commandant’’ and a vessel’s ‘‘owner.’’ 

Our proposed rule does not use the term 

‘‘Commandant,’’ but it does refer to a 

vessel’s ‘‘owner,’’ so we propose 

including the statutory definition of that 

term in new 46 CFR 70.40–1(b). 

In section 3508, paragraphs (a) 

through (d) concern training in 

appropriate methods for prevention, 

detection, evidence preservation, and 

reporting of criminal activities in the 

international maritime environment. 

Section 3508(a) requires the Coast 

Guard to consult with the FBI and 

MARAD to develop training standards 

and criteria, and permits (but does not 

require) MARAD to certify U.S. and 

foreign training and certification 

providers. We complied with section 

3508(a) by consulting with the FBI and 

MARAD, and incorporated the results of 

that consultation in our policy guidance 

and model course.16 The model course 

covers the minimum standards set out 

in section 3508(b). Our guidance was 

issued on June 28, 2011. It established 

the interim training requirement called 

for by section 3508(d) (effective from 

July 2011 to July 2013) and the final 

certification requirement called for by 

section 3508(c). We made the final 

certification requirement effective on 

July 27, 2013. Since that date, persons 

who voluntarily develop and provide 

training that meets the model course 

criteria have been eligible for 

certification as training providers under 

section 3508(a), and persons who 

voluntarily receive that training have 

been eligible for certification under 

section 3508(c) as having received the 

training specified by that paragraph. 

However, the policy letter is not binding 

on members of the public and therefore, 

until new regulations are in place, no 

one is obligated to receive certification 

either as a training provider or as having 

received training. 

We propose making certification 

mandatory by adding new 46 CFR 

70.40–11. A person who develops and 

provides training in all the subjects 

listed in section 70.40–11(a), and who 

certifies those who successfully 

complete training, would be eligible for 

certification as a training provider. This 

certification could be made by MARAD, 

if MARAD chooses to exercise its 

discretionary section 3508(a) authority 

to provide certification, and section 

70.40–11(b)(2) makes it clear that we 

would accept the validity of MARAD’s 

certification so long as MARAD’s 

certification criteria requires training in 

all the subjects listed in section 70.40– 

11(a). If MARAD chooses not to provide 

certification, a person could become a 

certified training provider under section 

70.40–11(b)(1) by self-certifying that the 

training provided meets or exceeds the 

criteria detailed in our model course. 

A person who successfully completes 

training from a certified training 

provider in all the subjects listed in 

section 70.40–11(a) would be certified 

as having received the training specified 

by 46 U.S.C. 3508(c). Over time, training 

may be forgotten, and relevant 

developments such as changes in 

evidentiary techniques may require 

updates to our model course 

requirements. Therefore, we propose 

requiring training and certification to be 

refreshed at least once every 2 years. 

Section 3508(e) provides civil 

penalties for violations of section 3508. 

Coast Guard personnel have been given 

enforcement guidance for this provision, 

which we propose referencing in new 

46 CFR 70.40–1(c).17, provides 

enforcement guidance to Coast Guard 

personnel. 

Section 3508(f) allows the Coast 

Guard to deny entry into the U.S. by 

vessels that violate section 3508 or fail 

to pay a penalty for violation. We 

propose referencing this provision in 

new 46 CFR 70.40–1(c). 

VI. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 14 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

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 proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, as supplemented 

by Executive Order 13563, Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review, and 

does not require an assessment of 

potential costs and benefits under 

section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) has 

not reviewed it under that Order. 

Nonetheless, we developed an analysis 

of the costs and benefits of the proposed 

rule to ascertain its probable impacts on 

industry. We consider all estimates and 

analysis in this regulatory analysis to be 

preliminary and subject to change in 

consideration of public comments. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED RULE’S IMPACTS

Category Summary 

Applicability ........................................................................ Cruise vessels that are authorized to carry at least 250 passengers, have onboard 

sleeping facilities for each passenger, are on voyages that embark or disembark 

passengers in the United States, and are not engaged in coastwise voyages 

Affected Population ............................................................ 147 cruise vessels: 

71 U.S. flagged 

76 Foreign flagged 

Total Cost to Industry and Government1 ...........................

(7% discount rate) ..............................................................

10-year: $79.1 million 2

Annualized: $8.4 million 2

Non-quantified Benefits ...................................................... Clarification of rail height requirements by aligning regulation with statutory language. 

Enhanced ability to determine if and when a person went overboard. 

Potential to reduce search and rescue costs by reducing search area. 

Clarification of hailing or warning devices requirement by aligning regulation with 

statutory language. 

Improved criminal investigation and recordkeeping 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
2356 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

18Totals may not add due to rounding. 

19 ‘‘Cruise Vessels: Most Required Security and 

Safety Measures Have Been Implemented, but 

Concerns Remain About Crime Reporting’’, 

December 2013, United States Government 

Accountability Office report (GAO–14–43), p. 13 

(available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14- 

43). 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED RULE’S IMPACTS—Continued 

Category Summary 

Potential deterrent effect. 

Clarification of sexual assault medical equipment requirements by aligning regulation 

with statutory language. 

Enhanced awareness of security contacts, in case of an emergency. 

Ensures that personnel are trained appropriately in crime scene preservation, thereby improving criminal investigation and recordkeeping. 

Ensures that vessel crew members are limited in their access to passenger staterooms. 

Clarifies that crewmembers respect the privacy of passengers and the security of 

their staterooms. 

Improved recordkeeping. 

Enhanced transparency to the public of reported crimes. 

1 Note that US-based cost is $28.4 million and the cost to foreign-based companies is $30.7 million (10-year, 7% discounted) 

2 Costs include burden imposed to comply with statue. 

A preliminary Regulatory Assessment 

follows: 

In this NPRM, we propose to 

implement the CVSSA, codified at 46 

U.S.C. 3507 and 3508. The proposed 

changes include amendments to 

regulations affected by CVSSA 

mandates, and new guidelines for 

surveillance systems, determining the 

appropriate amount of medical supplies 

to maintain on board to treat victims of 

a sexual assault, and reporting serious 

incidents to Federal authorities. The 

proposed changes, in conjunction with 

CVSSA mandates, are intended to 

improve passenger and crew safety 

aboard cruise vessels. 

As previously discussed, many 

provisions of the CVSSA were current 

industry standards prior to the 

enactment of the CVSSA and 

implementing the proposed regulatory 

changes will not result in any change in 

industry practices. This preliminary 

regulatory analysis provides an 

assessment of costs and benefits of the 

provisions of the proposal. 

This proposed rule would affect 

current Coast Guard regulations in Title 

46, subchapter H (Passenger Vessels) of 

the CFR. The CVSSA affects a unique 

subset of approximately 147 overnight 

ocean-going cruise vessels that operate 

worldwide, of which approximately 48 

percent are U.S.-based. The other 52 

percent are foreign-based. At that rate, 

the US-based cost is approximately 38.0 

million and the cost to foreign-based 

companies is approximately $41.1 

million (10-year, undiscounted).18

These cruise vessels are authorized to 

carry at least 250 passengers, have 

onboard sleeping facilities for each 

passenger, are on voyages that embark 

or disembark passengers in the United 

States, and are not engaged in coastwise 

voyages. 

We propose to amend 46 CFR part 70 

to address changes to current 

regulations dealing with ship design 

and operating requirements resulting 

from the CVSSA that are specifically 

directed to cruise ships as defined in the 

CVSSA. Table 2 provides a summary of 

the cost impacts from the proposed rule 

by provision. 

Many of the provisions of the CVSSA 

were already current industry practice 

prior to the enactment to the statute. 

According to the Government 

Accountability Office: 

‘‘Officials from all five of the cruise lines 

we spoke with, as well as CLIA [the Cruise 

Line International Association], told us that 

there were minor issues with implementing 

these 11 CVSSA requirements and that most 

of the safety and security measures required 

by the law were already in place when the 

CVSSA was enacted, in July 2010. For 

example, each of the cruise line officials we 

met with told us that their vessels already 

were in compliance with most CVSSA 

provisions including having peepholes in 

stateroom doors, using certified medical 

personnel for sexual assault exams, and 

carrying rape kits onboard.’’ 19

For the provisions that were industry 

practice prior to the CVSSA enactment, 

there will be no cost impacts for the 

proposal. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF COST IMPACTS

Provision/Description of Change Type of Change Cost Impact 

§ 70.05–3 Foreign vessels subject to the requirements of this subchapter. 

Requires the compliance of foreign vessels ................ Mandatory statutory alignment .................................... No cost because this describes 

the population. 

§ 70.40–1 Applicability; definition; penalties. 

Defines the type of cruise vessel ................................ Mandatory statutory alignment .................................... No cost because this describes 

the affected population. 

Civil penalties for violations and denial of entry into 

the U.S. when serious crimes are alleged.

Mandatory statutory alignment .................................... No net impact. Civil penalties are 

transfer payments and avoidable by complying with the law. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2357 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF COST IMPACTS—Continued 

Provision/Description of Change Type of Change Cost Impact 

§ 70.40–2 Statutory requirements. 

Requires peep holes or other means of visual identification.Mandatory statutory alignment .................................... No cost. Already industry practice prior to CVSSA.20

Security latches and time-sensitive key technology for 

staterooms and crew cabins for new vessels.

Mandatory statutory alignment .................................... Currently, all vessels are in compliance with this requirement 

so there is no cost due to the 

regulatory implementation of 

the statutory requirement. 

However, some vessels made 

modifications in order to comply with the 2010 statute. The 

total cost incurred by industry 

at that time to comply with the 

statute is $23.3 million (10- 

year, 7% discounted). 

Confidentiality of sexual assault examination .............. Mandatory statutory alignment .................................... No cost. Rule only states that 

confidentiality must be upheld 

in sexual assault cases. 

Means to access support information (telephone line, 

computer and internet access).

Mandatory statutory alignment .................................... Telephone line and computer 

with internet access currently 

available and provided. 

Procedures to identify crew with access to staterooms.Mandatory statutory alignment .................................... $29,164 total cost (10-year, 7% 

discounted). 

Vessel owners required to log reported criminal allegations, report serious incidents to law enforcement, and make statistics available to the public on 

the owner’s website.

Mandatory statutory alignment .................................... $26,523 total cost (10-year 7% 

discounted). 

§ 70.40–5 Rail or bulwark height. 

Rail heights must be at least 42 inches above deck, 

except where it would interfere with the operation 

of lifesaving equipment.

Mandatory statutory alignment .................................... Currently, all vessels are in compliance with this requirement 

so there is no cost due to the 

regulatory implementation of 

the statutory requirement. 

However, some vessels made 

modifications in order to comply with the 2010 statute. The 

total cost incurred by industry 

at that time to comply with the 

statute is $125,496 (10-year, 

7% discounted).21

§ 70.40–6 Fall-overboard incidents. 

Vessels must have a system for detecting or capturing falls overboard.Mandatory statutory alignment .................................... $29.9 million total cost (10-year, 

7% discounted). 

Video footage must be kept for 14 days or an additional 120 days after receipt of a report.USCG has the discretion to establish time required 

to store such footage.

$13,180 total cost (10-year, 7% 

discounted) for retention of 

footage for 120 days. 

§ 70.40–7 Hailing or warning devices. 

Vessels must be equipped with a hailing or warning 

device.

Mandatory statutory alignment .................................... No cost. Already in compliance.22

§ 70.40–8 Video recording. 

Requires video footage of common access areas. Excludes state room and crew cabins.Mandatory statutory alignment .................................... No cost. Cruise vessels, prior to 

CVSSA, already had an extensive system of surveillance 

cameras. The performancebased requirements proposed 

here mirror the desired criteria 

used by industry in meeting 

the statutory requirements.23

Video footage must be kept for 14 days or an additional 120 days after receipt of a report.USCG has the discretion to establish the time required to store footage.See § 70.40–6 above for cost. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
2358 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

20 ‘‘Cruise Vessels: Most Required Security and 

Safety Measures Have Been Implemented, but 

Concerns Remain About Crime Reporting’’, 

December 2013, United States Government 

Accountability Office report (GAO–14–43), p. 13 

(available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO–14– 

43). 

21 GAO–14–43 documented one case where a 

vessel needed to change rail heights. Based on the 

GAO report, we assume that all CLIA members are 

in compliance with the exception of one vessel. Due 

to the lack of information, we assume that the 

remaining three non-CLIA members will also need 

to update rail heights. 

22As described below, based on SOLAS 

requirements for all international ships to have a 

public address system onboard, and based on ship 

examinations, we estimate that vessels comply with 

this requirement. 

23USCG Docket USCG–2011–0357, CLIA, July 25, 

2011. 

24 GAO–14–43, ‘‘Cruise Vessels: Most Required 

Security and Safety Measures Have Been 

Implemented, but Concerns Remain About Crime 

Reporting’’ GAO report, p. 13. American College of 

Emergency Physicians Health Care Guidelines for 

Cruise Ship Medical Facilities specify carriage of 

these supplies. 25 GAO–14–43, p. 13. 

26http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=

20090212185609AAFuxLL. 

27http://www.rina.org.uk/lifeboatembarkation.html. 

28Average length of a lifeboat http://

www.fassmer.de/index.php?id=63. 

29Average rate of rails is $100/meter. $50/meter 

http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/cheapdubai-stainless-steel-railings-price_

1338866401.html, $150/meter http://

www.alibaba.com/product-detail/stainless-steelrailings-price_1382208547.html. 

30Welder: 1 hour per meter (Coast Guard subject 

matter expert)*$27.16 per hour (http://www.bls.gov/ 

oes/2011/may/oes514121.htm) * load factor of 1.49. 

Therefore the welder’s loaded wage rate is $27.16 

= ($18.23 wage rate * 1.49 load rate). 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF COST IMPACTS—Continued 

Provision/Description of Change Type of Change Cost Impact 

§ 70.40–9 Security guides and embassy information. 

Security guides must be provided in each stateroom USCG has the discretion to establish protocol in 

which individuals are provided access to security 

guides.

$3.2 million total cost (10-year, 

7% discounted). 

§ 70.40–10 Sexual assault response. 

Vessels must have a sufficient number of medication 

and equipment to deal with sexual assault cases.

USCG has discretion to establish the quantity of 

medication and equipment.

No cost. Already industry practice prior to CVSSA.24

§ 70.40–11 Training. 

Vessels must have at least one person trained in 

crime scene preservation training.

Vessels must have trained staff onboard to deal with 

trauma victims.

USCG has the discretion to establish minimum training requirements.$2.5 million total cost (10-year, 

7% discounted). 

There are nine categories of 

requirements in this proposal that we 

discuss and analyze in this section: 

1. Rail Heights and Guards 

2. Fall-Overboard Incidents 

3. Hailing or Warning Devices 

4. Video Recording 

5. Sexual Assault 

6. Security Guides 

7. Training 

8. Crewmembers with Stateroom 

Access Addendums 

9. Crime Complaints Logs 

To better inform our analysis for this 

proposal, the Coast Guard issued a 

notice of request for comments (76 FR 

31350; May 25, 2011), to solicit public 

comment on the availability of 

technology to meet certain provisions of 

the CVSSA, specifically related to video 

recording and fall-overboard detection 

technologies. Our research also gathered 

information from the CLIA to assess the 

current practices in the field. The 

information provided by CLIA confirms 

that the requirements detailed in this 

proposed rule are for the most part 

current industry practice. The responses 

from CLIA, whose member companies 

account for 98 percent of the cruise 

capacity marketed for North America, 

were used to support this preliminary 

regulatory analysis regarding CVSSA 

compliance with requirements related to 

rail heights and guards, falls-overboard 

detection, video recording, sexual 

assault, and timeliness of crimes 

reporting. 

For several provisions, the current 

industry practice prior to the CVSSA 

already met the proposed requirements. 

This section analyzes those 

requirements that are expected to have 

a cost impact on the affected 

population. 

1. Rail Heights and Guards 

The CVSSA requires that vessels be 

equipped with ship rails that are located 

not less than 42 inches above the cabin 

deck. Based on information provided by 

industry, 42 inches is, for the most part, 

the current industry standard for rail 

heights. For example, classification 

societies such Lloyd’s require a railheight build standard of 1100 

millimeters above deck, which is 32 

millimeters above the 42 inches 

(1067mm) CVSSA requirement. The 

2013 GAO report documented industry 

compliance with one exception where a 

cruise line has modified isolated 

locations on a single vessel (such as 

around entrance gangways and lifeboat 

stations) and is now in compliance with 

the 42-inch standard.25 Based on this 

information, the Coast Guard estimates 

that all CLIA members except for one 

vessel meet this requirement. Since we 

have no information on the other 3 

vessels of the affected population, we 

assume that they would need to upgrade 

the rail heights in limited locations as 

well (for a total of 4 vessels affected by 

this requirement). 

To determine the length of rail to be 

replaced around lifeboat stations, we 

first estimate the number of lifeboats per 

cruise vessel. The Coast Guard Foreign 

and Offshore Vessel Division within the 

Office of Commercial Vessel 

Compliance estimates that, on average, 

there are 1,600 staterooms per cruise 

ship. Assuming that there are 2 people 

per stateroom, we estimate that there are 

3,200 people per ship.26 Assuming a 

passenger capacity of 150 people, we 

estimate that the rails would need to be 

adjusted around 22 lifeboats.27

Assuming that the average length of a 

lifeboat is 12 meters, an affected vessel 

would need to update 264 meters per 

boat, at an average cost of $100 per 

meter for rails and a weld rate of $27.16 

per hour. 28 29 30 The per vessel cost is 

as follows: 

264 meters * $27.16 per hour (1 hour 

per meter) + $26,400 rails = $33,570 per 

vessel 

We estimate that 4 vessels would be 

affected by this provision. We estimate 

that vessels would incur a one-time cost 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2359 

31The CVSSA of 2010 states that there are 

approximately 200 cruise vessels affected. The 

Coast Guard Foreign and Offshore Vessel Division 

provided an updated figure of 147. 

32Based on input from Coast Guard subject matter 

experts for similarly exposed equipment. 

33 Ibid. 

34SOLAS Chapter IV, Regulation 6. https://

treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/

Volume%201184/volume-1184–I–18961- 

English.pdf. 

35 GAO–14–43 ‘‘Cruise Vessels: Most Required 

Security and Safety Measures Have Been 

Implemented, but Concerns Remain About Crime 

Reporting’’ GAO report, p. 16. 

of $134,281 in year one. $33,570 * 4 

vessels = $134,281. 

2. Overboard Detection or Capture 

The CVSSA requires integration of 

technology that can be used for 

capturing images of passengers or 

detecting passengers who have fallen 

overboard, to the extent that such 

technology is available, and does not 

require one approach over the other. 

This provision is performance based 

and allows for use of either imagecapture or detection systems, or a 

combination thereof. Based on the 

comments submitted by CLIA in 

response to the 2011 notice, we 

anticipate industry will comply 

predominantly through capture. 

According to CLIA, image capture 

technology systems (closed circuit TV, 

thermal, etc.) have been proven to be 

reliable and have been successfully used 

in the maritime environment for many 

years. However, the technology to 

reliably detect persons or objects as they 

are in the process of going overboard is 

not yet readily available for use at sea. 

Because the statute does not require one 

method over the other, we anticipate 

that the cruise industry will focus on 

using capture systems rather than 

detection systems. 

While some cruise ships already have 

cameras that can capture images of 

objects going overboard, the industry 

does not universally meet the 

requirements of the CVSSA at this time. 

Based on industry data provided by 

cruise lines, we estimate that costs 

would range from $62,500 to $700,000 

per ship in order to comply with the 

CVSSA requirements. For the purposes 

of regulatory analysis, we used the 

weighted average of all the cost points 

as provided by industry ($108,583 per 

ship). Coast Guard data indicates that 

there are 147 cruise ships that will be 

affected by this regulation.31 Coast 

Guard estimates that all 147 cruise ships 

would incur additional costs to comply 

with this requirement. Using the 

$108,583 cost per ship for 147 ships, we 

estimate that the first year cost would be 

$15.96 million. Because of the harsh 

weather conditions at sea and the 

dynamic nature of a cruise ship, we 

must account for some maintenance and 

operational cost to maintain the cameras 

on an annual basis. For this analysis, we 

assume the annual cost will be 5 percent 

of the installation costs due to 

deterioration from weather, or about 

$798,088 per year.32 We also assume a 

5-year replacement cost for the system 

equal to the first year cost.33 Table 3 

shows the 10-year costs for overboard 

capture systems. 

TABLE 3—COST FOR OVERBOARD CAPTURE SYSTEM

Year Undiscounted 7% Discount rate 3% Discount rate 

1 ................................................................................................................................. $15,961,750 $14,917,523 $15,496,845 

2 ................................................................................................................................. 798,088 697,081 752,274 

3 ................................................................................................................................. 798,088 651,477 730,363 

4 ................................................................................................................................. 798,088 608,857 709,090 

5 ................................................................................................................................. 798,088 569,025 688,437 

6 ................................................................................................................................. 15,961,750 10,635,988 13,367,714 

7 ................................................................................................................................. 798,088 497,009 648,918 

8 ................................................................................................................................. 798,088 464,494 630,018 

9 ................................................................................................................................. 798,088 434,107 611,668 

10 ............................................................................................................................... 798,088 405,707 593,852 

Total .................................................................................................................... 38,308,200 29,881,268 34,229,179 

Annualized ................................................................................................................. .............................. 4,254,420 4,012,704 

We estimate the 10-year costs for 

overboard capture systems to be 

approximately $29.9 million discounted 

at 7 percent and $34.2 million 

discounted at 3 percent. The annualized 

costs would be $4.3 million and $4.0 

million discounted at 7 percent and 3 

percent, respectively. 

3. Hailing or Warning Devices 

This proposal requires that all vessels 

transiting waters that are designated as 

a high risk area be equipped with 

acoustic hailing or other devices as 

required by the Coast Guard to provide 

communication capability around the 

entire vessel. Based on International 

Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 

(SOLAS) requirements for all 

international ships to have a public 

address system onboard, and based on 

ship examinations, we estimate that all 

vessels comply with this requirement.34

4. Video Recording and Retention 

The CVSSA requires affected vessel 

owners to ‘‘maintain a video 

surveillance system to assist in 

documenting crimes on the vessel and 

in providing evidence for the 

prosecution of such crimes, as 

determined by the Secretary.’’ 46 U.S.C. 

3507(b)(1). The Act further requires 

vessel owners to ‘‘provide to any law 

enforcement official performing official 

duties in the course and scope of an 

investigation, upon request, a copy of all 

records of video surveillance that the 

official believes may provide evidence 

of a crime reported to law enforcement 

officials.’’ 46 U.S.C. 3507(b)(2). 

Industry representatives provided 

information that cruise vessels maintain 

video footage for approximately 14 days 

(7 days during the average cruise and 7 

days beyond the end of the cruise).35

The proposed regulation requires the 

retention of video for two weeks. Based 

on this information, we assumed no cost 

to retain footage for 14 days due to the 

current industry practice of retaining 

video for 14 days. 

Further, in the event of a reported 

crime, a cruise vessel would need to 

maintain footage of the incident for at 

least an additional 120 days. Industry 

would incur a collection of information 

cost to store footage of reported 

incidents. From 2010–2012, there was 

an average of 73 incidents reported 

annually to the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation. We assume that footage 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
2360 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

36Mean reported wage is $34.50 * 1.49 load rate 

= $51.41. http://www.bls.gov/oes/2011/may/

oes535021.htm. 

37http://www.cruising.org/regulatory/issuesfacts/health-and-medical. 

38http://www.acep.org/Content.aspx?id=29980. 

39http://www.ncl.com/sites/default/files/

Security_Guide_11252013.pdf. 

40 $23.65 = ($15.87 per hour * 1.49 loaded wage 

rate) http://www.bls.gov/oes/2011/may/

oes436014.htm. 

would be stored by a Vessel Security 

Officer, at the loaded wage rate of 

$51.41 per hour.36 Based on other 

collections of information, we assume 

that it would take 30 minutes (0.5 

hours) to store video footage. At this 

rate, we estimate the annual hour 

burden to be 36.5 hours (0.5 hours × 73 

incidents), costing cruise vessels $1,876 

annually for all 147 vessels or $15 per 

ship. Table 4 provides the 10-year 

breakdown in costs for this provision. 

TABLE 4—COST TO RETAIN VIDEO FOOTAGE FOR REPORTED CRIMES

Year Undiscounted 7% Discount rate 3% Discount rate 

1 ................................................................................................................................. $1,876 $1,754 $1,822 

2 ................................................................................................................................. 1,876 1,639 1,769 

3 ................................................................................................................................. 1,876 1,532 1,717 

4 ................................................................................................................................. 1,876 1,432 1,667 

5 ................................................................................................................................. 1,876 1,338 1,619 

6 ................................................................................................................................. 1,876 1,250 1,572 

7 ................................................................................................................................. 1,876 1,169 1,526 

8 ................................................................................................................................. 1,876 1,092 1,481 

9 ................................................................................................................................. 1,876 1,021 1,438 

10 ............................................................................................................................... 1,876 954 1,396 

Total .................................................................................................................... 18,765 13,180 16,007 

Annualized ................................................................................................................. .............................. 1,876 1,876 

* Note numbers may not add due to rounding. 

5. Sexual Assault 

The CVSSA requires cruise ships to 

maintain an adequate supply of 

equipment and materials for performing 

a medical examination in sexual assault 

cases. Current industry practice is for 

vessels to determine the appropriate 

supply based on the number of 

passengers, history of sexual assaults 

where medications are needed and the 

demographics of the cruising 

population. Cruise lines follow the 

American College of Emergency 

Physicians Health Care Guidelines for 

Cruise Ship Medical Facilities. As such, 

we do not expect industry to incur 

additional burden from this 

requirement, as it was current industry 

practice prior to the CVSSA.37 38

6. Security Guides 

Based on research into company Web 

sites, security guides are available via 

the company Web site. However, the 

CVSSA requires that vessel owners 

provide each passenger with access to a 

security guide. The guide must identify 

onboard personnel designated to 

prevent and respond to criminal and 

medical situations, and it must describe 

applicable criminal law procedures for 

offenses committed in any waters the 

vessel might be in during the voyage. 

The guide must also provide a list of 

U.S. embassy and consulate locations in 

foreign countries to be visited during 

the voyage. We propose that a copy of 

the security guide must be placed in 

each stateroom. Industry will incur a 

cost for this requirement initially as 

well as an annual replacement cost. The 

Coast Guard Foreign and Offshore 

Vessel Division within the Office of 

Commercial Vessel Compliance 

estimates that, on average, there are 

1,600 staterooms per cruise ship. We 

estimate 147 cruise ships would be 

affected by this proposal, meaning there 

would be 235,200 security guides 

required for the affected population. As 

security guides are currently available 

on company Web sites, there will be no 

additional cost to develop the content of 

the security guide. 

Based on one industry Web site, there 

were 72 pages of security information 

($0.10 per page * 72 pages = $7.20 

printing cost).39 We then estimate that 

an administrative assistant or secretary 

would print the pages and add the guide 

to existing vessel and cruise 

documentation in the staterooms at a 

rate of 10 minutes per guide ($23.65 

loaded wage rate * 0.1667 = $3.94).40

We based our estimate of 10 minutes on 

information from internal subject matter 

experts. With this cost of $7.20 per 

security guide and $3.94 in labor hours 

to print and add the guide to existing 

vessel and cruise documentation 

currently provided within staterooms, 

this requirement would have an initial 

cost of $2.62 million. We also assume a 

five-percent replacement cost per year 

of $131,035. Table 5 shows the 

estimated 10-year costs for this 

requirement. 

TABLE 5—SECURITY GUIDE COSTS

Year Undiscounted 7% Discount rate 3% Discount rate 

1 ................................................................................................................................. $2,620,705 $2,449,257 $2,544,374 

2 ................................................................................................................................. 131,035 114,451 123,513 

3 ................................................................................................................................. 131,035 106,964 119,916 

4 ................................................................................................................................. 131,035 99,966 116,423 

5 ................................................................................................................................. 131,035 93,426 113,032 

6 ................................................................................................................................. 131,035 87,314 109,740 

7 ................................................................................................................................. 131,035 81,602 106,544 

8 ................................................................................................................................. 131,035 76,264 103,440 

9 ................................................................................................................................. 131,035 71,275 100,428 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2361 

41Freely accessed at: http://www.marad.dot.gov/ 

documents/Model_Course_CVSSA_11-01.pdf. 

42Based on Coast Guard subject matter experts, a 

cruise ship will have one VSO on board during a 

cruise. In order for cruise ships to operate on 

existing schedules, a second VSO per ship is 

required to act as a backup and to alternate cruises 

as needed. Thus, two VSO’s per ship would require 

training. 

43 GAO–14–43 Cruise Vessels: Most Required 

Security and Safety Measures Have Been 

Implemented, but Concerns Remain About Crime 

Reporting’’ GAO report, p. 25. 

44Web developer: $58.51 = ($39.27 wage rate * 

1.49 load rate). (http://www.bls.gov/oes/2011/may/ 

oes151179.htm) 

TABLE 5—SECURITY GUIDE COSTS—Continued 

Year Undiscounted 7% Discount rate 3% Discount rate 

10 ............................................................................................................................... 131,035 66,612 97,503 

Total ............................................................................................................. 3,800,023 3,247,131 3,534,913 

Annualized ................................................................................................................. .............................. 462,318 414,400 

* Note that numbers may not total due to rounding. 

7. Training 

The proposed regulation would 

require refresher training for crime 

scene preservation. This proposal would 

require that a refresher course be taken 

at least every two years. This will 

present a burden to industry equal to 

the opportunity cost associated with 

staff time spent in training. For this 

rulemaking, we assume that refresher 

training will be similar in content to the 

initial training and will take 

approximately 8 hours, based on 

MARAD’s available training course.41

The proposed regulation would also 

require that a person who interviews an 

alleged sexual assault victim must be 

trained to communicate appropriately 

with a trauma victim. We assume that 

a VSO would be the first point of 

contact for an alleged sexual assault; 

therefore, we assume that they would 

need additional victim assistance 

training in the event that a sexual 

assault occurs. 

We assume that the refresher training 

and victim assistance training may be 

available via multiple delivery methods, 

including electronic or on the job 

training. As such, we do not account for 

travel costs associated with training in 

this regulatory analysis. For our 

analysis, we assume that the vessel 

security officer would complete the 

eight hour training for crime 

preservation and an additional forty 

hours for victim assistance training at a 

cost of $2,467.68 per trainee, at a loaded 

hourly wage of $51.41. As we estimate 

that there are 147 cruise ships that 

would train a total of two vessel security 

officers, we anticipate that this 

requirement would cost approximately 

$362,749 per year, based on one-half of 

the population taking the refresher 

every year.42 Table 6 shows these costs 

over the 10-year period of analysis. 

(Number of Vessels (147) × Trainees per 

Vessel (2) × Cost per Trainee ($2,467.68) 

÷ 2 years = Training Cost per Year = 

($362,749 rounded)). 

TABLE 6—TRAINING COSTS

Year Undiscounted 7% Discount rate 3% Discount rate 

1 ................................................................................................................................. $362,749 $339,018 $352,183 

2 ................................................................................................................................. 362,749 316,839 341,926 

3 ................................................................................................................................. 362,749 296,111 331,967 

4 ................................................................................................................................. 362,749 276,739 322,298 

5 ................................................................................................................................. 362,749 258,635 312,910 

6 ................................................................................................................................. 362,749 241,715 303,797 

7 ................................................................................................................................. 362,749 225,902 294,948 

8 ................................................................................................................................. 362,749 211,123 286,357 

9 ................................................................................................................................. 362,749 197,311 278,017 

10 ............................................................................................................................... 362,749 184,403 269,919 

Total .................................................................................................................... 3,627,490 2,547,797 3,094,323 

Annualized ................................................................................................................. .............................. 362,749 362,749 

8. Crew Access 

The proposed regulation requires an 

addendum or memo listing all 

crewmembers with stateroom access as 

well as procedures and restrictions to 

stateroom access. Based on input from 

internal subject matter experts we 

estimate that it would take 20 hours for 

each company to create the document 

and then an additional hour per ship to 

modify it according to their 

specifications and distribute it. Based 

on Coast Guard Marine Information for 

Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) 

data, we estimate that there are 

approximately 23 companies managing 

the 147 ships. Based on this 

information, the number of total hours 

needed to draft an addendum or memo 

is 607 = ((23 companies * 20 hours) + 

(147 ships * 1 hour)). It would be a onetime cost of $31,206 = (607 hours * 

$51.41 per hour) for VSOs. 

9. Alleged Crime Logs 

The CVSSA requires that complaints 

of crimes (thefts of $10,000 or more or 

other crimes) must be logged and 

reported to the Coast Guard, Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (FBI), or other 

law enforcement personnel. From 2010 

to 2012, there has been an average of 73 

cases per year reported to the FBI.43

Based on internal subject matter experts, 

we estimate that would take a VSO 0.5 

hours to log the report as outlined in the 

U.S.C. 3507(g) and take another 0.5 

hours to report it to the appropriate 

officials at the rate of $51.41 per hour. 

The CVSSA also requires that reported 

crimes be posted on their Web site. 

Based on internal subject matter experts, 

we estimate that a web developer would 

upload the information at $58.51 per 

hour in 0.1 hours.44 Table 7 provides 

the breakdown of costs for the VSO to 

log and report alleged crimes and for a 

web developer to upload crimes 

committed to the Web site. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
2362 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 7—LOGGING, REPORTING, AND UPLOADED LIST OF CRIMES

Activity Number of 

incidents Hours per incident Hourly wage rate Annual cost 

Log Incidents ........................................................................... 73 0.5 51.41 $1,876 

Report Serious Crimes ............................................................ 73 0.5 51.41 1,876 

Upload onto Website ............................................................... 4 0.1 58.51 23 

Annual Cost ............................................................................. .............................. .............................. .............................. 3,776 

Table 8 provides the 10-year 

breakdown for these annually recurring 

costs. 

TABLE 8—10-YEAR CRIMES LOGGING AND REPORTING COSTS

Undiscounted 7% Discount rate 3% Discount rate 

1 ................................................................................................................................. $3,776 $3,529 $3,666 

2 ................................................................................................................................. 3,776 3,298 3,560 

3 ................................................................................................................................. 3,776 3,083 3,456 

4 ................................................................................................................................. 3,776 2,881 3,355 

5 ................................................................................................................................. 3,776 2,692 3,257 

6 ................................................................................................................................. 3,776 2,516 3,163 

7 ................................................................................................................................. 3,776 2,352 3,071 

8 ................................................................................................................................. 3,776 2,198 2,981 

9 ................................................................................................................................. 3,776 2,054 2,894 

10 ............................................................................................................................... 3,776 1,920 2,810 

37,763 26,523 32,213 

Annualized ................................................................................................................. .............................. 3,776 3,776 

10. Total Cost 

Based on our analysis, we anticipate 

the cost drivers to industry from this 

proposal would come from the falloverboard capture systems and security 

locks, which represent about 48% and 

42% of the total cost of the proposed 

rule, respectively. Based on the cost 

inputs as described in the sections 

above, we estimate that it would cost 

$4.0 million per ship to comply with 

this proposed rule. Table 9 provides the 

per-vessel cost by provision. 

TABLE 9—PER SHIP COST BY PROVISION

Rail 

heights Locks Overboard capture 

Video 

storage Addendums Logs Training Security guides Total 

1 ................................ $33,570 $368,000 $108,583 $13 $212 $26 $2,468 $17,828 $530,700 

2 ................................ 0 368,000 5,429 13 0 26 2,468 891 376,827 

3 ................................ 0 368,000 5,429 13 0 26 2,468 891 376,827 

4 ................................ 0 368,000 5,429 13 0 26 2,468 891 376,827 

5 ................................ 0 368,000 5,429 13 0 26 2,468 891 376,827 

6 ................................ 0 368,000 108,583 13 0 26 2,468 891 479,981 

7 ................................ 0 368,000 5,429 13 0 26 2,468 891 376,827 

8 ................................ 0 368,000 5,429 13 0 26 2,468 891 376,827 

9 ................................ 0 368,000 5,429 13 0 26 2,468 891 376,827 

10 .............................. 0 368,000 5,429 13 0 26 2,468 891 376,827 

Total ................... 33,570 3,680,000 260,600 128 212 257 24,677 25,850 4,025,294 

Table 10 shows the total, 

undiscounted 10-year cost by provision. 

TABLE 10—TOTAL UNDISCOUNTED COST TO INDUSTRY BY PROVISION

Rail 

heights Locks Overboard capture 

Video 

storage Addendums Logs Training Security guides Total 

1 .................... $134,281 $3,312,000 $15,961,750 $1,876 $31,206 $3,776 $362,749 $2,620,705 $22,428,344 

2 .................... 0 3,312,000 798,088 1,876 0 3,776 362,749 131,035 4,609,525 

3 .................... 0 3,312,000 798,088 1,876 0 3,776 362,749 131,035 4,609,525 

4 .................... 0 3,312,000 798,088 1,876 0 3,776 362,749 131,035 4,609,525 

5 .................... 0 3,312,000 798,088 1,876 0 3,776 362,749 131,035 4,609,525 

6 .................... 0 3,312,000 15,961,750 1,876 0 3,776 362,749 131,035 19,773,187 

7 .................... 0 3,312,000 798,088 1,876 0 3,776 362,749 131,035 4,609,525 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2363 

TABLE 10—TOTAL UNDISCOUNTED COST TO INDUSTRY BY PROVISION—Continued 

Rail 

heights Locks Overboard capture 

Video 

storage Addendums Logs Training Security guides Total 

8 .................... 0 3,312,000 798,088 1,876 0 3,776 362,749 131,035 4,609,525 

9 .................... 0 3,312,000 798,088 1,876 0 3,776 362,749 131,035 4,609,525 

10 .................. 0 3,312,000 798,088 1,876 0 3,776 362,749 131,035 4,609,525 

Total ....... 134,281 33,120,000 38,308,200 18,765 31,206 37,763 3,627,490 3,800,023 79,077,728 

Note: The total undiscounted cost without the self-implementing provisions for rail heights and locks is $45.8 million. 

Table 11 shows the 10-year costs for 

this proposal. As shown in Table 11, we 

estimate the 10-year costs for CVSSA 

requirements implemented by this 

proposed rule to be approximately $59.1 

million discounted at 7 percent and 

$69.3 million discounted at 3 percent. 

The annualized costs would be $8.4 

million and $8.1 million discounted at 

7 percent and 3 percent, respectively. 

TABLE 11—TOTAL COST

Year Undiscounted 7% Discount rate 3% Discount rate 

1 ................................................................................................................................. $22,428,344 $20,961,069 $21,775,091 

2 ................................................................................................................................. 4,609,525 4,026,137 4,344,919 

3 ................................................................................................................................. 4,609,525 3,762,745 4,218,368 

4 ................................................................................................................................. 4,609,525 3,516,584 4,095,503 

5 ................................................................................................................................. 4,609,525 3,286,527 3,976,216 

6 ................................................................................................................................. 19,773,187 13,175,709 16,559,733 

7 ................................................................................................................................. 4,609,525 2,870,580 3,747,965 

8 ................................................................................................................................. 4,609,525 2,682,785 3,638,801 

9 ................................................................................................................................. 4,609,525 2,507,276 3,532,817 

10 ............................................................................................................................... 4,609,525 2,343,249 3,429,919 

Total .................................................................................................................... 79,077,728 59,132,663 69,319,333 

Annualized ................................................................................................................. .............................. 8,419,161 8,126,341 

Benefits 

The purpose of this proposal is to 

provide requirements for those 

provisions in the CVSSA that are not 

self-executing, thereby complying with 

statutory requirements and enhancing 

compliance with the CVSSA mandate. 

Table 12 describes the benefits for the 

requirements presented in this NPRM. 

TABLE 12—BENEFITS

Key provision Benefit 

Rail Heights ..................................... • Clarification of rail height requirements by aligning regulation with statutory language. 

Overboard Detection or Capture .... • Enhanced ability to determine if and when a person went overboard. Potential to reduce search and rescue costs by reducing search area. 

Hailing or Warning Devices ............ • Clarification of hailing or warning devices requirement by aligning regulation with statutory language. 

Video Recording ............................. • Improved criminal investigation and recordkeeping. 

• Potential deterrent affect. 

Sexual Assault ................................ • Clarification of sexual assault medical equipment requirements by aligning regulation with statutory language. 

Security Guides ............................... • Enhanced awareness of security contacts, in case of an emergency. 

Training ........................................... • Ensures that personnel are trained appropriately in crime scene preservation, thereby improving criminal 

investigation and recordkeeping. 

Crew Access ................................... • Ensures that vessel crew members are limited in their access to passenger staterooms. 

• Clarifies that crewmembers respect the privacy of passengers and the security of their staterooms. 

Crime Logs ...................................... • Improved recordkeeping. 

• Enhanced transparency to the public of reported crimes. 

The proposed rule would align 

regulatory language with congressional 

mandates in the CVSSA to reduce 

regulatory uncertainty. Because most of 

our proposals align with current 

industry practice, most benefits derive 

from harmonizing regulatory language 

with the statute. For other requirements, 

it is difficult to quantify the benefits 

because we cannot accurately estimate 

what the impact would be of provisions 

like fall-overboard capture or 

availability of security contacts. 

Therefore we discuss the benefits of 

those requirements qualitatively. 

From 2010 to 2012, the average 

annual number of crimes that occurred 

on cruise ships reported to the FBI was 

73. Crimes may be homicide, suspicious 

deaths, missing, kidnapping, assault 

with serious bodily injury, firing or 

tampering with the vessel, thefts greater 

than $10,000, or sexual assault. 

In 2011, there were five cruise shiprelated cases of a person in the water 

who required a search and rescue (SAR) 

effort by the Coast Guard. These cases 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
2364 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

45United States Department of Transportation, 

‘‘Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of 

a Statistical Life in U.S. Department of 

Transportation Analyses’’, 2013, available at 

http://www.dot.gov/regulations/economic-valuesused-in-analysis. 

46U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 

Circular A–4, September 17, 2003. 

47To calculate the required risk reduction for 

costs and benefits to break even, we divide the 

annualized cost of the RA by the annual monetized 

loss that we are trying to mitigate: $8.4 million/

$20.0 million = 42.1% percent. 

resulted in one life lost and four lives 

unaccounted for. These five SAR 

activities required 14 sorties at a total 

expense of approximately $1.2 million. 

We believe that the introduction of more 

robust fall-overboard detection or 

capture capabilities could lead to a 

decrease in the SAR costs associated 

with fall-overboard incidents on cruise 

ships. By providing accurate 

information about where and when a 

person may have fallen overboard, the 

industry and the proper authorities 

would be able to reduce their search 

area, which would reduce costs and 

could also lead to an increase in 

recovery and survivability of a person 

who has fallen overboard. 

Looking at Coast Guard MISLE 

casualty data from 2007–2011, we found 

that, on average, there have been 2.2 

deaths or missing persons per year due 

to falls overboard on cruise ships. Using 

$9.1 million as the value of a statistical 

life,45 we can monetize these casualties 

at $20.0 million per year. 

Break-even analysis is useful when it 

is not possible to quantify the benefits 

of a regulatory action. OMB Circular A– 

4 recommends a ‘‘threshold’’ or ‘‘breakeven’’ analysis when non-quantified 

benefits are important to evaluating the 

benefits of a regulation. Threshold or 

break-even analysis answers the 

question, ‘‘How small could the value of 

the non-quantified benefits be (or how 

large would the value of the nonquantified costs need to be) before the 

rule would yield zero net benefits?’’ 46 If 

we use value of the fatalities from falls 

overboard from a cruise ($20.0 million) 

to perform a break-even analysis, we get 

a required risk reduction of 40.4 

percent 47 for the benefits to break even 

with the costs. To state it another way, 

this proposal would need to prevent 1 

death every 3 years to break even (Table 

11). 

TABLE 13—BREAK-EVEN ANALYSIS

Cost of the proposed rule (annualized at 7%) 

Monetized loss 

due to casualties 

(annual) 

Required risk 

reduction 

Frequency of 

casualties avoided 

$8,419,161 ................................................................................................................ $20,020,000 42.1% 1 every 3 years. 

Other provisions of this rule offer 

benefits as mentioned in Table 5. 

Although we cannot quantify benefits 

for these provisions, we believe that 

there will be benefits associated with 

these provisions, such as improved 

awareness of contact information in the 

event of a crime, as listed in the security 

guides. 

Discussion of Alternatives 

Because the majority of the proposed 

provisions are current industry practice, 

we do not present alternatives to the 

performance-based requirements for rail 

heights, video recording, or sexual 

assault preparedness. We are able to 

present alternatives based on the falloverboard, training and security guides 

requirements. Table 14 describes these 

alternatives. 

TABLE 14—REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES

Description 10-Year cost Annualized cost 

(7%) 

NPRM Alternative ........... Includes requirements for rail heights, locks for new vessels, fall-overboard 

capture, crime scene preservation refresher training every three years, 

security guidelines to be placed in every stateroom, outline of crew access, and logs of crime reports.

$79,077,728 $8,419,161 

Alternative 2 ................... Same rail height and fall-overboard requirements as NPRM Alternative, no 

requirement for refresher training, and no requirement for security guides 

to be placed in staterooms.

71,650,215 7,594,093 

Alternative 3 ................... Requires redundant camera coverage of entire vessel for fall-overboard 

system, video retention of 1 month, annual refresher training for crime 

scene preservation, and the same security guides requirements as the 

NPRM Alternative.

227,635,928 27,343,787 

NPRM Alternative—Fall-overboard 

detection or capture, crime scene 

preservation refresher training no less 

than every three years, and security 

guides to be placed in all staterooms: 

The analysis for this alternative is 

discussed in detail previously in the 

regulatory analysis section of this 

NPRM, as it is the proposed alternative. 

Alternative 2—Less Stringent 

Alternative—Reduce burden associated 

with training and security guides: 

This alternative would include the 

same fall-overboard requirements as the 

NPRM Alternative, but would not 

include requirements for refresher 

training every 2 years or for security 

guides to be placed in every stateroom. 

For this alternative, we remove the 

requirement for refresher training, 

which reduces the burden on industry. 

We also remove the requirement for 

security guides in every stateroom, 

rather, allowing online only posting of 

the security guides. This also reduces 

the burden. This alternative would have 

a 10-year cost of $53.3 million, 

discounted at 7 percent and an 

annualized cost of $7.6 million, 

discounted at 7 percent. Table 15 

provides the undiscounted, 10-year 

breakdown of costs, by provision, to 

comply with this alternative. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2365 

48 $500,000 for a 2-week increment + $250,000 for 

redundancy = $750,000 per ship to install 

additional video retention. 

TABLE 15—ALTERNATIVE 2 COSTS

Rail heights Locks Overboard Video 

retention Training Addendum Logs Security guides Total 

$134,281 .................. $3,312,000 $15,961,750 $1,876 $0 $31,206 $3,776 $0 $19,444,890 

0 ............................... 3,312,000 798,088 1,876 0 0 3,776 0 4,115,740 

0 ............................... 3,312,000 798,088 1,876 0 0 3,776 0 4,115,740 

0 ............................... 3,312,000 798,088 1,876 0 0 3,776 0 4,115,740 

0 ............................... 3,312,000 798,088 1,876 0 0 3,776 0 4,115,740 

0 ............................... 3,312,000 15,961,750 1,876 0 0 3,776 0 19,279,403 

0 ............................... 3,312,000 798,088 1,876 0 0 3,776 0 4,115,740 

0 ............................... 3,312,000 798,088 1,876 0 0 3,776 0 4,115,740 

0 ............................... 3,312,000 798,088 1,876 0 0 3,776 0 4,115,740 

0 ............................... 3,312,000 798,088 1,876 0 0 3,776 0 4,115,740 

134,281 .................... 33,120,000 38,308,200 18,765 0 31,206 37,763 0 71,650,215 

We rejected this alternative because 

we felt that it does not provide 

sufficient training for crime-scene 

preservation due to advancements in the 

field and also because of the relative 

infrequency of crime on board cruise 

vessels. The Coast Guard believes that 

refresher training is necessary for vessel 

personnel to maintain the necessary 

skills. Furthermore, the Coast Guard 

believes that the only way to ensure that 

all passengers have the pertinent 

security information readily available 

when on board a vessel is to have the 

information in each stateroom, rather 

than only available online or in public 

areas of the vessel. 

Alternative 3—More Stringent 

Alternative—Increases requirements for 

training and fall-overboard systems: 

This alternative would require a falloverboard system that would include 

overlapping fields of view for all areas 

of the vessel, providing greater coverage 

and redundancy. It would require 

additional video retention for the 

existing coverage as well as coverage for 

additional cameras, as needed. Based on 

input from industry, the cost to retain 

an additional 2 week worth of video 

would range from $400,000 to $600,000 

per ship. They would need to install 

additional storage for the 2 incremental 

weeks, plus an incremental amount 

($250,000) to cover the redundant 

cameras.48 It would also require the 

same annual refresher training for 

crime-scene preservation. The security 

guides requirement would remain the 

same as the NPRM alternative. This 

alternative would have a 10-year cost of 

$227.6 million and an annualized cost 

of $27.3 million, discounted at 7 

percent. Table 16 provides the 10-year, 

undiscounted cost to comply with this 

alternative. 

TABLE 16—ALTERNATIVE 3 COSTS

Rail Heights Locks Overboard Video 

retention Training Addendum Logs Security guides Total 

$134,281 ............ $3,312,000 $31,923,500 $110,251,876 $362,749 $31,206 $3,776 $2,620,705 $148,640,094 

0 ......................... 3,312,000 1,596,175 1,876 362,749 0 3,776 131,035 5,407,612 

0 ......................... 3,312,000 1,596,175 1,876 362,749 0 3,776 131,035 5,407,612 

0 ......................... 3,312,000 1,596,175 1,876 362,749 0 3,776 131,035 5,407,612 

0 ......................... 3,312,000 1,596,175 1,876 362,749 0 3,776 131,035 5,407,612 

0 ......................... 3,312,000 31,923,500 1,876 362,749 0 3,776 131,035 35,734,937 

0 ......................... 3,312,000 1,596,175 1,876 362,749 0 3,776 131,035 5,407,612 

0 ......................... 3,312,000 1,596,175 1,876 362,749 0 3,776 131,035 5,407,612 

0 ......................... 3,312,000 1,596,175 1,876 362,749 0 3,776 131,035 5,407,612 

0 ......................... 3,312,000 1,596,175 1,876 362,749 0 3,776 131,035 5,407,612 

134,281 .............. 33,120,000 76,616,400 110,268,765 3,627,490 31,206 37,763 3,800,023 227,635,928 

The Coast Guard rejects this 

alternative because it would impose an 

unnecessary burden on industry. The 

performance-based approach to falloverboard systems proposed in this 

NPRM would provide a sufficient level 

of coverage without the more stringent 

and costly requirements. 

Video Retention Alternatives 

We considered various alternatives to 

complying with the video retention 

requirements. Currently, industry 

retains footage for 14 days. Retaining 

video footage for an additional 2 weeks 

would require cruise vessels to incur a 

cost of $73.5 million in the first year 

and $367.5 million for the industry to 

retain video footage for 90 days. These 

durations were selected based on input 

from victim advocacy groups. Table 17 

provides the cost comparison at 2 

weeks, 4 weeks, and 90 days. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
2366 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

49Based on information provided by CLIA. 50The incremental cost is calculated by taking the 

undiscounted cost and dividing it by the 

incremental difference between capture rates. For 

example, at 4 weeks the incremental cost = $73.5 

million (undiscounted cost) ÷ 1 (incremental 

difference from 2 weeks). 

TABLE 17—COST COMPARISON FOR VIDEO FOOTAGE

Retention rate 

Percent capture 

rate of crimes 

reported 49

Incremental 

difference 

(from 2 weeks) 

Cost 

(undiscounted) 

Annualized 

(7%) 

Incremental 

cost 50

(undiscounted) 

2 weeks (proposed Alternative) 90 .1 .................................... $0 $0 $0 

4 weeks (30 days) ..................... 91 .5 1 .4% 73,518,765 10,467,418 73,518,765 

90 days ...................................... 97 .2 7 .0 367,518,765 24,859,898 73,503,753 

The longer video footage is retained, 

the more incidents are available in 

video storage after a crime has been 

reported. At the current industry 

practice of 2 weeks of storage, 90 

percent of the reported crimes would be 

available in video storage at no cost to 

industry. If an additional 2 weeks of 

video retention is required (to 30 days 

total), an additional 1.4 percent of 

reported crimes would be available in 

storage at an additional 10-year 

undiscounted cost of $73.5 million. If 90 

days of storage is required, an additional 

7 percent of reported crimes would be 

available in storage (although 3 percent 

would remain uncaptured) at a 10-year 

undiscounted cost of $367.5 million. We 

selected the cost minimizing alternative 

of requiring 2 weeks of video retention, 

as most incidents (90 percent) are 

reported within 2 weeks. 

OMB A–4 Accounting Statement 

This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

is not expected to exceed the threshold 

for economic significance under section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review. In 

accordance with OMB Circular A–4 

(available at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ 

circulars/), we have prepared a 

preliminary accounting statement 

showing the classification of impacts 

associated with the rulemaking. 

Agency/Program Office: U.S. Coast 

Guard 

Rule Title: Cruise Vessel Safety and 

Security Facilities NPRM 

RIN#: 1625–AB91 

Date: July 2013 

Category Primary estimate Minimum estimate High estimate Source 

Benefits 

Annualized monetized benefits ($ Mil) ................................ None ................................................ RA 

Annualized quantified, but unmonetized, benefits ............... None ................................................ RA 

Unquantifiable Benefits ........................................................ Clarification of rail height requirements by aligning regulation with 

statutory language. 

RA 

Enhanced ability to determine if and when a person went overboard. 

Potential to reduce search and rescue costs by reducing search area. 

Clarification of hailing or warning devices requirement by aligning 

regulation with statutory language. 

Improved criminal investigation and recordkeeping. 

Potential deterrent affect. 

Clarification of sexual assault medical equipment requirements by 

aligning regulation with statutory language. 

Enhanced awareness of security contacts, in case of an emergency. 

Ensure that personnel are trained appropriately in crime scene 

preservation, thereby improving criminal investigation and 

recordkeeping. 

Ensure that vessel crew members are limited in their access to 

passenger staterooms. 

Clarifies that crewmembers respect the privacy of passengers and the 

security of their staterooms. 

Improved recordkeeping. 

Enhanced transparency to the public of crimes reported. 

Costs * 

Annualized monetized costs ($ Mil) * .................................. $8.4 7% ................ 7% ................ 7% RA 

$8.1 3% ................ 3% ................ 3% RA 

Annualized quantified, but unmonetized, costs ................... None. 

Qualitative (un-quantified) costs .......................................... None. 

Transfers 

Annualized monetized transfers: ‘‘on budget’’ ..................... None. 

From whom to whom? ......................................................... None. 

Annualized monetized transfers: ‘‘off-budget’’ ..................... None. 

From whom to whom? 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2367 

51Small business information can be accessed 

online at http://www.sba.gov/size/

indextableofsize.html. 

52U.S. Census Bureau information can be 

accessed online at http://factfinder.census.gov/

servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ECN&_

tabId=ECN1&_submenuId=datasets_4&_lang=en&_

ts=246366688395. 

53Source: 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. 

Category 

Miscellaneous Analyses/Category 

Effects on State, local, and/or tribal governments .............. None. 

Effects on small businesses ................................................ We do not expect the rulemaking to have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small businesses. 

RA 

Effects on wages ................................................................. Not determined. 

Effects on growth ................................................................. Not determined. 

* Note: Annualized cost on US entities: $4.0 million discounted at 7% and $3.8 million at 3%. 

Annualized cost on foreign entities: $4.4 million discounted at 7% and 4.2 million at 3%. 

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. 

We used managing owner and 

operator contact information from the 

Coast Guard MISLE data in 2011 to 

research public and proprietary 

business databases for entity ownership 

status (subsidiary, parent company, 

government entity, etc.), employee size, 

and revenue, among other information. 

By using the Small Business 

Administration (SBA)’s size standards 

and the North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code 

classifications, we are able to determine 

whether a business is small or not. The 

SBA provides business size standards 

for all sectors of the NAICS. We found 

that of the 23 entities that own or 

operate cruise ships and would be 

affected by this proposed rulemaking, 

11 are foreign entities. Of the remaining 

12, all entities exceed the SBA size 

standards for small businesses. Table 18 

provides the breakdown of businesses 

by size. 

TABLE 18—NUMBER OF ENTITIES

IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED RULE

Entities Number Percentage 

Businesses that 

Exceed SBA 

Standards .......... 11 48 

Foreign owned entities ................... 12 52 

Small Businesses 

with revenue 

data ................... ................ 0 

Unknown, assumed Small 

Business 1 ......... ................ 0 

TABLE 18—NUMBER OF ENTITIES IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED RULE— 

Continued 

Entities Number Percentage 

Total ............... 23 100 

1 Revenue information on these 26 were not 

available, which are then considered to be 

small. 

Entities are categorized by the NAICS 

codes.51 By using SBA criteria for small 

businesses, the associated NAICS codes, 

and the 2007 United States Economic 

Census data,52 Table 14 provides the top 

5 NAICS Codes of the identified small 

businesses. 

We expect entities affected by the rule 

would be classified under the 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 SBA’s Table of Small 

Business Size Standards,53 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. 

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, Public Law 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 consult 

the person named under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. The Coast Guard 

will not retaliate against small entities 

that question or complain about this 

proposed rule or any policy or action of 

the Coast Guard. 

D. Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for new 

collections 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
2368 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

Title: Cruise Vessel Security and 

Safety. 

OMB Control Number: XXXX–XXXX. 

Summary of the Collection of 

Information: Cruise vessels subject to 

the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety 

Act of 2010 would be required to record 

and maintain video surveillance data of 

public areas of the vessel and any fall 

overboard image capture or alleged 

crime records for at least 120 days after 

the completion of a voyage in the event 

of an incident, as well as maintain a log 

of such crimes. Furthermore, there is a 

one-time cost for cruise vessels to draft 

procedure and restrictions on 

crewmember access to staterooms. 

Need for Information: The video 

surveillance information and logging of 

incidents are necessary to assist in 

criminal investigations for alleged 

crimes on board cruise vessels. Fall 

overboard detection or image capture is 

necessary to assist in investigation of 

such incidents. The requirement that 

procedures and restrictions for crew 

access to passenger staterooms be 

established, implemented, documented, 

and periodically reviewed, is a nonsubstantive paraphrase of the statutory 

requirement, 46 U.S.C. 3507(f). The 

Coast Guard has not modified that 

requirement in any way. Stateroomaccess procedures and restrictions 

protect the privacy of cruise vessel 

passengers and the security of their 

staterooms. 

Proposed Use of Information: 

Appropriate law enforcement agencies 

would use this information to assist in 

criminal investigations when necessary. 

Cruise vessel operators would use 

stateroom-access procedures and 

restrictions to ensure that vessel crew 

members are limited in their access to 

passenger staterooms, and respect the 

privacy of passengers and the security of 

their staterooms. The Coast Guard 

would enforce the statutory requirement 

by verifying, during vessel inspections 

or examinations that those procedures 

are in place to comply with the statute. 

Description of the Respondents: The 

respondents are any passenger vessel 

that is authorized to carry and has 

onboard sleeping facilities for at least 

250 passengers, that is not engaged in a 

coastwise voyage, and that embarks or 

disembarks passengers in the United 

States. 

Number of Respondents: The number 

of respondents is 147 affected cruise 

vessels. 

Frequency of Response: Cruise lines 

would need to retain video footage and 

a log of such events in the event of a 

reported incident. This would occur as 

part of their standard operation 

procedure. Cruise lines would also need 

to provide a one-time response 

regarding crewmember access to 

staterooms. 

Burden of Response: The estimated 

burden for each response would be 0.5 

hours to retain video surveillance, 1 

hour to write a log and report the 

incident, 20 hours per company to draft 

an addendum or memo, and 1 hour for 

each vessel to modify the addendum or 

memo to tailor it to the ships’ 

specificity. 

Estimate of Total Annual Burden: We 

estimate an annual industry total of 73 

incidents for video surveillance, logs of 

such incidents, and fall-overboard 

systems. We estimate that it takes 0.5 

hours for a VSO to file or store video 

footage of a reported incident and it 

takes 1 hour to write and report an 

incident. Based on the wage rate for a 

VSO ($51.41), we estimate the annual 

burden cost to be $5,629 to collect video 

footage and log the reported incident. 

The estimated one-time burden of 

response for cruise lines to draft an 

addendum or memo regarding 

crewmember access to staterooms is 607 

hours. Based on the wage rate for a VSO, 

we estimate that one-time cost to be 

$31,206. This makes the total hourly 

burden 717, for a total cost of $36,835. 

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 does 

not have implications for federalism. A 

summary of our analysis is provided 

below. 

It is well settled that States may not 

regulate in categories reserved for 

regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also 

well settled, now, that all of the 

categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 

3703, 7101, and 8101 (design, 

construction, alteration, repair, 

maintenance, operation, equipping, 

personnel qualification, and manning of 

vessels) are within the fields foreclosed 

from regulation by the States. (See the 

decision of the Supreme Court in the 

consolidated cases of United States v. 

Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 

89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (March 6, 2000).). 

These regulations implement safety and 

security features on board certain 

inspected passenger vessels, specifically 

with regard to vessel design, 

construction, operation, and equipment 

requirements. Because States may not 

promulgate rules within these 

categories, there are no implications for 

federalism under Executive Order 

13132. 

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 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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2369 

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 because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

L. Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act, 15 U.S.C. 272 

note, directs agencies to use voluntary 

consensus standards in their 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 use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

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, 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 regulations 

concerning the training of maritime 

personnel, the equipping of vessels, and 

vessel operation safety equipment. 

Thus, this rule is likely to be 

categorically excluded under section 

2.B.2, figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(c) and 

(d) of the Instruction, as well as under 

categorical exclusion 6(a) as listed in the 

Coast Guard’s notice of July 23, 2002 (67 

FR 48243 at 48245). We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 70 

Marine safety; Passenger vessels; 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 46 CFR part 70 as follows: 

TITLE 46—SHIPPING 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 70 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3507, 

3703; Pub. L. 103–206, 107 Stat. 2439; 49 

U.S.C. 5103, 5106; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 

3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, 

para. II (92.a), (92.b); Section 70.01–15 also 

issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507. 

■ 2. In § 70.05–3, add paragraph (g) to 

read as follows: 

§ 70.05–3 Foreign vessels subject to the 

requirements of this subchapter. 

* * * * * 

(g) Notwithstanding the exceptions 

noted in paragraph (b) of this section, 

each foreign vessel to which 46 U.S.C. 

3507 applies must comply with subpart 

70.40 of this part. 

■ 3. Add subpart 70.40 to read as 

follows: 

Subpart 70.40—Cruise Vessel Security and 

Safety 

Sec. 

70.40–1 Applicability; definition; penalties. 

70.40–2 Statutory requirements. 

70.40–3 and 70.40–4 [Reserved] 

70.40–5 Rail or bulwark height. 

70.40–6 Fall-overboard incidents. 

70.40–7 Hailing or warning devices. 

70.40–8 Video recording. 

70.40–9 Security guides and embassy 

information. 

70.40–10 Sexual assault response. 

70.40–11 Training. 

Subpart 70.40—Cruise Vessel Security 

and Safety 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3507(j); 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1(92.a), (92)(b). 

§ 70.40–1 Applicability; definition; 

penalties. 

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of 

46 CFR 70.05–3(b), this subpart applies 

to the owner, charterer, managing 

operator, master, or other individual in 

charge of each passenger vessel, 

whether U.S.- or foreign-flagged, as 

defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(22), that— 

(1) Is authorized to carry at least 250 

passengers; 

(2) Has onboard sleeping facilities for 

each passenger; 

(3) Is on a voyage that embarks or 

disembarks passengers in the United 

States, except that embarking and 

disembarking does not include 

temporary port calls by passengers; 

(4) Is not engaged on a coastwise 

voyage; and 

(5) Is neither a vessel of the United 

States operated by the Federal 

government nor a vessel owned and 

operated by a State. 

(b) As used in this subpart, ‘‘owner’’ 

means the owner, charterer, managing 

operator, master, or other individual in 

charge of a vessel. 

(c) Failure to comply with this 

subpart is subject to the civil and 

criminal penalties provided by 46 

U.S.C. 3507 and 3508, and may result in 

a vessel’s being denied entry into the 

United States. 

§ 70.40–2 Statutory requirements. 

In addition to the regulatory 

requirements of this subpart, the owner, 

charterer, managing operator, master, or 

other individual in charge of each 

passenger vessel to which this subpart 

applies is also subject to the following 

requirements of 46 U.S.C. 3507: 

(a) Each passenger stateroom and 

crew cabin must be equipped with entry 

doors that include peep holes or other 

means of visual identification, in 

accordance with 46 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(B); 

(b) For any vessel the keel of which 

is laid after July 27, 2010, each 

passenger stateroom and crew cabin 

must be equipped with security latches 

and time-sensitive key technology, but 

neither the latches nor the timesensitive key technology may prevent 

emergency responders from taking 

appropriate emergency action to enter a 

stateroom or cabin in the event of fire 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
2370 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

or other emergency, in accordance with 

46 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(C) and (a)(2); 

(c) The confidentiality of sexual 

assault examination and support 

information must be protected in 

accordance with the detailed provisions 

of 46 U.S.C. 3507(e); 

(d) Procedures and restrictions for 

crew access to passenger staterooms 

must be established, implemented, 

documented, and periodically reviewed 

in accordance with the detailed 

provisions of 46 U.S.C. 3507(f); and 

(e) Complaints of crimes must be 

logged and made available to Coast 

Guard, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

or other law enforcement personnel, and 

crimes and other information must be 

reported, in accordance with the 

detailed provisions of 46 U.S.C. 3507(g). 

§§ 70.40–3 and 70.40–4 [Reserved] 

§ 70.40–5 Rail or bulwark height. 

(a) The height of each guard rail or 

bulwark on any exterior deck to which 

passengers have general access must be 

at least 42 inches above the deck. 

(b) The Coast Guard may accept 

alternative arrangements where the 42- 

inch height requirement would interfere 

with the operation of lifesaving 

equipment or arrangements. 

§ 70.40–6 Fall-overboard incidents. 

(a) Each vessel must maintain either— 

(1) A recording system for capturing 

an image of any person falling 

overboard from the vessel into the sea 

(a ‘‘fall-overboard’’); or 

(2) A detection system for 

immediately detecting any falloverboard and sounding an alarm in a 

manned location; or 

(3) A combination of recording and 

detecting systems. 

(b) Video, data, and images 

(‘‘records’’) created by a recording 

system must be— 

(1) Time and date-stamped; 

(2) Kept for the entire voyage and at 

least 7 days after all passengers 

disembark; provided that if, during that 

time, the vessel receives a report of a fall 

overboard during the voyage, the 

records must be kept for an additional 

120 days after receipt of the report; and 

(3) Made available on request to any 

search and rescue or law enforcement 

official investigating a fall overboard. 

§ 70.40–7 Hailing or warning devices. 

Each vessel must be equipped with 

acoustic hailing or other devices to 

provide communication capability 

around the entire vessel. 

§ 70.40–8 Video recording. 

(a) This section applies to any alleged 

incident involving a U.S. national as 

either an alleged victim or alleged 

perpetrator, regardless of whether 

committed in or outside U.S. waters, 

which if committed in U.S. waters 

would be a crime. 

(b) Each vessel must maintain a 

system, in areas of the vessel to which 

passengers and crew members have 

common access and excluding 

passenger staterooms and crew cabins, 

to record an identifiable time and datestamped image of any person involved 

in an incident to which this section 

applies. The system must be maintained 

in a secure location to prevent 

unauthorized access or tampering. 

(c) Recorded images must be kept for 

the entire voyage and at least 7 days 

after all passengers disembark; provided 

that if, during that time, the vessel 

receives a report of an incident to which 

this section applies, the recorded images 

from that voyage must be kept for an 

additional 120 days after receipt of the 

report. 

(d) Recorded images must also be 

maintained in a secure location to 

prevent unauthorized access or 

tampering. 

(e) Recorded images must be made 

available on request to any law 

enforcement official investigating an 

incident to which this section applies. 

§ 70.40–9 Security guides and embassy 

information. 

Prior to each voyage, the vessel owner 

or operator must ensure that— 

(a) A copy of a security guide 

containing the medical and security 

personnel information required by 46 

U.S.C. 3507(c)(1)(A)(i) and the 

jurisdictional and procedural 

information required by 46 U.S.C. 

3507(c)(1)(A)(ii) has been provided to 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation for 

comment and is placed in each 

passenger stateroom; and 

(b) The embassy and consulate 

information required by 46 U.S.C. 

3507(c)(2) has been provided in each 

passenger stateroom and in a location 

readily accessible to all crew members. 

§ 70.40–10 Sexual assault response. 

(a) A vessel complies with the 

requirements of 46 U.S.C. 3507(d)(1) 

and (2) if it has on board a supply of the 

medications required by that statute that 

is enough for the expected length of the 

voyage and for the number of patients 

required by paragraph (b) of this section. 

(b) The number of patients described 

in paragraph (a) of this section must be 

the greater of— 

(1) Two patients; or 

(2) The highest number of sexual 

assaults alleged on any single voyage of 

any cruise vessel owned by the owner 

in the past 3 years. 

(c) Any crew member who interviews 

an alleged sexual assault victim must 

have been trained to communicate 

appropriately with a trauma victim. 

§ 70.40–11 Training. 

(a) A vessel complies with the 

requirements of 46 U.S.C. 3508(c) if at 

least one crewmember on the vessel is 

certified by a certified training provider 

as having successfully completed, 

within the past 2 years, training that 

includes topics covering the following 

competences: 

(1) Security and safety requirements 

aboard cruise vessels; 

(2) Current safety and security threats 

and patterns; 

(3) Cruise vessel characteristics and 

conditions where criminal activities are 

likely to occur; 

(4) Cruise vessel security equipment 

and systems; 

(5) Criminal incident procedures and 

plans; 

(6) Crime scene preservation, 

gathering evidence and chain of 

custody; 

(7) Requirements for reporting and 

documenting serious crimes; 

(8) Protection and proper handling of 

confidential, personally identifiable, 

sensitive security, or other information 

and communications; 

(9) Law enforcement response to 

criminal activity; and 

(10) Required support to be provided 

to law enforcement and prosecutors. 

(b) For the purpose of complying with 

paragraph (a) if this section, a certified 

training provider is one who certifies 

those who successfully complete 

training in accordance with paragraph 

(a) of this section and who— 

(1) Certifies that the training provided 

by the provider meets or exceeds the 

criteria contained in the Coast Guard 

model course available from the Coast 

Guard at [URL]; or 

(2) Is certified as a training provider 

by the Administrator of the Maritime 

Administration in accordance with 46 

U.S.C. 3508(a) and paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

Dated: January 6, 2015. 

Paul F. Zukunft, 

Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00464 Filed 1–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER