[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73255-73272]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28845]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 101, 104, 105, 120, and 128

[Docket No. USCG-2006-23846]
RIN 1625-AB30

Consolidated Cruise Ship Security Regulations

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend its regulations on cruise
ship terminal security. The proposed regulations would provide
detailed, flexible requirements for the screening of all baggage,
personal items, and persons--including passengers, crew, and visitors--
intended for carriage on a cruise ship. The proposed regulations would
standardize security of cruise ship terminals and eliminate
redundancies in the regulations that govern the security of cruise ship
terminals.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before March 10, 2015. Requests for public meetings must be
received by the Coast Guard on or before January 9, 2015. Comments sent
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on collection of
information must reach OMB on or before March 10, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2006-23846 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (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<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.
    Collection of Information Comments: If you have comments on the
collection of information discussed in section VI.D. of this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), you must also send comments to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), OMB. To ensure that your
comments to OIRA are received on time, the preferred methods are by
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(include the docket number and
``Attention: Desk Officer for Coast Guard, DHS'' in the subject line of
the email) or fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>. An alternate, though slower, method
is by U.S. mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503, ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander Kevin McDonald, Inspections
and Compliance Directorate, Office of Port and Facility Compliance,
Cargo and Facilities Division (CG-FAC-2), Coast Guard; telephone 202-
372-1168, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
    A. Submitting Comments
    B. Viewing Comments and Documents
    C. Privacy Act
    D. Public Meeting
II. Abbreviations
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Background
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
VI. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but
please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it
will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully
transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment,
it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when
it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a
telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact
you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number USCG-2006-23846 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number USCG-2006-23846 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any

of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

D. Public Meeting

    We do not plan to hold a public meeting at this time. But you may
submit a request for one to the docket using one of the methods
specified under ADDRESSES. In your request, explain why you believe a
public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid
this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a
later notice in the Federal Register.

II. Abbreviations

APA Administrative Procedure Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CLIA Cruise Lines International Association
COTP Captain of the Port
CVSSA Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2010
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DoS Declaration of Security
EDS Explosive Detection System
E.O. Executive Order
FSO Facility Security Officer
FSP Facility Security Plan
FR Federal Register
IMO International Maritime Organization
ISPS International Ship and Port Facility Security
ISSC International Ship Security Certificate
MARSEC Maritime Security
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement
MSC/Circ. Maritime Safety Committee Circular
MTSA Maritime Transportation Security Act
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NMSAC National Maritime Security Advisory Committee
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NVIC Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
PAC Policy Advisory Council
PWSA Port and Waterways Safety Act
Sec.  Section symbol
SSI Sensitive Security Information
TSA Transportation Security Administration
TSI Transportation Security Incident
TSP Terminal Screening Program
TWIC Transportation Worker Identification Credential
U.S.C. United States Code
VSP Vessel Security Plan

III. Basis and Purpose

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend the maritime security
regulations, found in title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (33
CFR) subchapter H (parts 101 through 105), to require terminal
screening programs (TSPs) in existing facility security plans (FSP) at
cruise ship terminals within the United States and its territories.
This proposed rule would standardize screening activities for all
persons, baggage, and personal effects at cruise ship terminals while
also allowing an appropriate degree of flexibility that accommodates
and is consistent with different terminal sizes and operations. This
flexible standardization ensures a consistent layer of security at
terminals throughout the United States. This proposed rule builds upon
existing facility security requirements in 33 CFR part 105, which
implements the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA), Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064 (November 25, 2002), codified at 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701. The Coast Guard consulted with the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) during the development of this proposed rule.
    The Coast Guard also proposes to remove 33 CFR parts 120 and 128
because provisions in those parts requiring security officers and
security plans or programs for cruise ships and cruise ship terminals
would be redundant with the provisions in 33 CFR subchapter H. Section
120.220, concerning the reporting of unlawful acts, would also be
removed because it is obsolete and existing law enforcement protocols
require members of the Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) to
report incidents involving serious violations of U.S. law to the
nearest Federal Bureau of Investigation field office as soon as
possible. The Coast Guard will consider issuing additional regulations
on this subject in a separate rulemaking pursuant to the Cruise Vessel
Security and Safety Act of 2010 (CVSSA), Pub. L. 111-207 (July 27,
2010) (See RIN 1625-AB91).
    This proposed rule does not address the screening of vessel stores,
bunkers, or cargo. Similarly, it does not affect what items may be
brought onto a cruise ship by the cruise ship operator, including items
that passengers may check for secure storage with the cruise operator
outside of their baggage or carry-ons. Requirements for security
measures for the delivery of vessel stores, bunkers, and cargo exist
and may be found in 33 CFR 104.275, 104.280, 105.265, and 105.270.
    This proposed rule also does not include regulations that may be
required pursuant to the CVSSA. Although this rule and the CVSSA are
both concerned with cruise ship security generally, this rule
consolidates and updates pre-boarding screening requirements while the
CVSSA prescribes requirements in other areas, such as cruise ship
design, providing information to passengers, maintaining medications
and medical staff on board, crime reporting, crew access to passenger
staterooms, and crime scene preservation training. Delaying
promulgation of this proposed rule while the regulations required by
the CVSSA are developed, for the sole purpose of publishing all of
these regulations together, would unnecessarily deprive the public of
the benefit of improved cruise ship screening regulations during that
period.

IV. Background

A. Development of 33 CFR Parts 120 and 128

    Following the terrorist attack on the cruise ship ACHILLE LAURO,
the International Maritime Organization (IMO) published Maritime Safety
Committee Circular (MSC/Circ.) 443 on September 26, 1986, which
directed contracting governments to develop measures to ensure the
security of passengers and crews aboard cruise ships and at cruise ship
terminals. MSC/Circ. 443 also strongly recommended that governments
ensure the development, implementation, and maintenance of ship
security plans and facility security plans. MSC/Circ. 443 is available
in the docket of this rulemaking, and can be obtained by following the
instructions in the ``Viewing comments and documents'' section of this
preamble.
    In recognition of IMO's guidance on the security of cruise ships
and cruise ship terminals, the Coast Guard published regulations in
1996 for the security of large passenger vessels (i.e., cruise ships)
in 33 CFR part 120, and the security of passenger terminals (i.e.,
cruise ship terminals) in 33 CFR part 128 (61 FR 37647, July 18, 1996).
These regulations include requirements for large passenger vessels and
passenger terminals to submit vessel security plans and terminal
security plans, respectively. Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular
(NVIC) 4-02 provides guidance for complying with these regulations. The
Coast Guard has posted NVIC 4-02 in the docket of this rulemaking; see
the ``Viewing comments and documents'' section of this preamble for
more information.

B. Development of 33 CFR Subchapter H

    In response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001,
Congress enacted MTSA to increase maritime security. In Section 101 of
MTSA, Congress found

that ``[c]ruise ships visiting foreign destinations embark from at
least 16 [U.S.] ports,'' and that ``the cruise industry poses a special
risk from a security perspective.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In 2003, the Coast Guard implemented Section 102 of MTSA through a
series of regulations for maritime security, located in 33 CFR
subchapter H. These regulations require owners or operators of vessels,
facilities, and Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) facilities to conduct
security assessments of their respective vessels and facilities, create
security plans specific to their needs, and submit the plans for Coast
Guard approval by December 29, 2003. These plans must be updated at
least every 5 years. The Coast Guard has required all affected vessels,
facilities, and OCS facilities to operate in accordance with their
plans since July 1, 2004.
    Included in 33 CFR subchapter H are specific security requirements
for owners or operators of cruise ships and cruise ship terminals in 33
CFR 104.295 and 105.290. The Coast Guard developed these requirements
to further mitigate the elevated risk of cruise ship and cruise ship
terminal involvement in a transportation security incident (TSI).
    Among the requirements in Sec. Sec.  104.295 and 105.290, owners or
operators of cruise ships and cruise ship terminals must ensure that
all persons, baggage, and personal effects are screened for dangerous
substances and devices. The FSPs for the cruise ship terminals,
approved under 33 CFR part 105, currently document the screening
requirements in Sec. Sec.  105.215, 105.255, and 105.290, such as
qualifications and training of screening personnel, screening
equipment, and the recognition of dangerous substances and devices.
However, these FSPs do not include a separate section specifically
addressing these screening requirements; rather FSPs address them
throughout the document and in a general fashion.
    This rulemaking would require cruise ship terminal FSPs to follow
an organized format that includes more specific aspects of screening.
In particular, the Coast Guard proposes to require owners and operators
of U.S. cruise ship terminals to utilize a Prohibited Items List when
conducting screening of all persons, baggage, and personal effects at
the terminal. This list would reduce uncertainty in the industry and
the public about what is prohibited and what is not, and would help
cruise ship facilities better implement the screening requirement in 33
CFR 105.290(a).
    The level of risk mitigated by the establishment of a Prohibited
Items List for cruise ship terminals should align with the level of
risk reduction required in MTSA. MTSA states that vessel security plans
must ``identify, and ensure . . . the availability of security measures
necessary to deter to the maximum extent practicable a transportation
security incident or a substantial threat of such a security
incident.'' Consequently, the goal of the Prohibited Items List is not
to completely eliminate all possible risks, as complete risk reduction
is not the risk standard set forth in MTSA. MTSA is clear that maritime
transportation security plans must be written to prevent TSIs (such as
the loss of the vessel or other mass casualty scenarios).
    While we recognize that cruise ship operators are also required to
ensure screening for dangerous substances and devices under 33 CFR
104.295(a), the Coast Guard is not proposing to require them to modify
VSPs in a manner similar to cruise ship terminal FSPs, for reasons of
cost-effectiveness and redundancy as described below. However, we do
believe that the publication of the Prohibited Items List will provide
helpful guidance to cruise ship operators in complying with 33 CFR
104.295(a).
Current Status of 33 CFR Parts 120 and 128
    The implementation of MTSA and 33 CFR subchapter H was one step in
a larger effort to revise the requirements in 33 CFR parts 120 and 128.
On January 8, 2004, the Coast Guard MTSA/International Ship and Port
Facility Security (ISPS) Policy Advisory Council (PAC), whose members
are all Coast Guard personnel, issued PAC Decision 04-03 to provide
guidance on 33 CFR subchapter H. PAC Decision 04-03 states that ``33
CFR parts 120 and 128 and NVIC 4-02 will remain in effect until July 1,
2004.'' Since that date, cruise ships and cruise ship terminals have
operated in accordance with 33 CFR subchapter H, not 33 CFR part 120 or
128. This decision is available in the docket of this rulemaking, which
can be accessed by following the instructions in the ``Viewing comments
and documents'' section of this preamble, and on the Coast Guard
Homeport Web site at http://homeport.uscg.mil.
Development of Regulations by the Transportation Security
Administration
    In 2002, the TSA promulgated 49 CFR subchapter C, regarding the
security of civil aviation after the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks. Screening persons and property at airports is an integral
element within these aviation security regulations. The TSA screening
requirements for persons and property intending to board commercial
aircraft include rigorous standards for screening personnel training
and qualifications, screening equipment, staffing of screening
stations, and screening operations at airports. The TSA enforces a
Prohibited Items List and the Permitted Items List nationwide,
regardless of the airline used or airport visited within the United
States.
    To complement 49 CFR subchapter C, the TSA published and updates
the Prohibited Items and Permitted Items Lists for air travel. The
first version of the lists issued to implement 49 CFR 1540.111 appeared
in the Federal Register on February 14, 2003 (68 FR 7444). The lists,
and several subsequent updates, interpreted the meaning of the terms
``weapons, explosives, and incendiaries'' for purposes of 49 CFR
1540.111(a), and were published under authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b) as
interpretive rules without notice and comment. We drafted this proposed
rule after reviewing TSA's aircraft screening requirements.
    The Coast Guard's proposed Prohibited Items List is closely aligned
with TSA's Prohibited Items List for aviation. The two lists are not
exactly the same due to the distinctly different risk profiles of
cruise ships and aircraft: (1) Aircraft can be used as a missile. A
cruise ship, however, cannot be used as a missile and, at worst, can be
grounded. (2) There are inherent limits on vulnerability reduction of
prohibiting items that may already be on board the cruise ship (e.g.,
items such as steak knives or ice axes could be used to create a
Transportation Security Incident, but they are readily available to
cruise ship passengers for recreational and other purposes and thus it
would be ineffective to prohibit them upon boarding).
    There are additional differences between cruise ships and aircraft
which support the differences between the two Prohibited Items Lists:
(1) The increased robustness of cruise ship design to resist an attack
as compared to an aircraft and (2) The larger presence of security
personnel on board cruise ships trained to combat a potential TSI.
Advisory Committee Participation
    In addition to using the current TSA regulations as guidelines when
drafting this proposal, we also drew upon the expertise of the National
Maritime Security Advisory Committee (NMSAC). This committee is
composed of

representatives from a cross-section of maritime industries and port
and waterway stakeholders including, but not limited to, shippers,
carriers, port authorities, and facility operators. The NMSAC advises,
consults with, and makes recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland
Security via the Commandant of the Coast Guard on matters affecting
maritime security.
    We presented the NMSAC with the following questions relating to
cruise ship and cruise ship terminal security screening measures, and
asked for comments and recommendations. The NMSAC answered with
industry-specific comments and recommendations, and addressed other
pertinent issues as well, including screener training and reporting
unlawful acts at sea. We summarized their comments and provide our
responses below. The task statement and the full NMSAC recommendations
may be found in the docket for this rulemaking, which can be accessed
by following the instructions in the ``Viewing comments and documents''
section of this preamble.
Prohibited Items List
1. Would a national standardized Prohibited Items List be useful?
    Comment: NMSAC believes that publishing a list of Federally
Prohibited Items will be beneficial to cruise ship operators and will
serve to give guidance to passengers and potential passengers as to the
items that may not be brought on board a cruise ship, as well as the
items that may be brought aboard under controlled circumstances.
    Response: We agree that an important use for a Federally Prohibited
Items List is to advise passengers of items they cannot bring into a
cruise ship terminal or onto a cruise ship.
    Comment: NMSAC states that it must also be recognized by the
Federal Government and all parties concerned that cruise ships differ
from other types of passenger vessels, passenger vessel operations, and
other transportation industries, especially air travel. This difference
is a result of the size and robust construction of the ship, crewing,
and the presence of trained security crew onboard.
    Response: We have adopted some screening measures from the airline
industry because screening processes and technology have commonalities
in both industries. However, the Coast Guard recognizes the difference
between cruise ships and other transportation industries. We recognize
that other types of passenger vehicles, such as aircraft, are primarily
used for transportation from one point to another, and that passengers
are usually on board for a relatively short duration. Cruise ships, on
the other hand, may carry thousands of passengers for up to several
weeks. Additionally, cruise ships have a very different set of
vulnerabilities than aircraft due to their heavier nature and
significant numbers of trained security personnel, which makes certain
items that present a threat to aircraft low or no risk in the context
of a cruise ship concerning the potential for a TSI. Therefore, we
propose tailoring our screening regulations and establishing a
Prohibited Items List for use by the cruise ship industry.
2. What entity is the most appropriate generator of such a list?
    Comment: NMSAC believes and recommends that the Coast Guard is the
correct agency to lead in the development and publication of this
listing; however, TSA should be consulted due to their expertise in
screening systems.
    Response: We agree with NMSAC that the Coast Guard should develop
and maintain a dangerous substances and devices list. We have and will
continue to work with TSA throughout this rulemaking and in the future
to ensure the list is current and updated to address evolving threats
as necessary.
3. What items should be on the list?
    Comment: NMSAC recommends that a Federally Prohibited Items List
should recognize multiple categories, including--
     Prohibited items;
     Items permitted with special controls; and
     Items permitted for medical use only.
    Response: We anticipate publishing a list of dangerous substances
and devices for screening persons, baggage, and personal items at
cruise ship terminals in the United States and its territories. We
would retain the ability to add to or modify the list as needed.
However, we recognize the need to distinguish between items prohibited
at all times from items that would be permitted under specified
conditions onboard a particular vessel and as documented in the Vessel
Security Plan, and thus would not propose to include in regulation
specific instructions relating to items allowed conditionally. Instead,
control of such items that are dangerous in some situations or
quantities would be left to the discretion of the cruise ship
operators.
    Comment: NMSAC states that cruise ship passengers as well as crew
have access to their baggage and are regularly involved in activities
and events associated with a lengthy vacation or special celebration.
In contrast, passengers and crew aboard an aircraft do not have access
to checked baggage. Because of the difference in access, some items,
such as guns, are permitted to be carried in checked baggage onboard an
aircraft, but such items would not be permitted onboard a cruise ship
at all.
    Response: We agree that a list of items prohibited on a cruise ship
may be different from those prohibited on aircraft. The most obvious
difference is that there will be no distinction between checked baggage
or carry-on items, since passengers and crew will have access to their
personal items once they are onboard.
    Comment: Some items, such as a steak knife, which would be
prohibited onboard a passenger aircraft, are not only available onboard
a cruise ship but will also be delivered to a person's room with a
meal. Other such items such as aerosols sold in the ships stores, and
fire axes as part of the ships safety equipment, are also normally
available onboard ship. Other items which are commonly permitted
onboard a cruise ship may include: A diver's spear gun or knife; a
chef's personal cutlery; SCUBA tanks; firearm replicas and indoor
pyrotechnics used for stage productions; compressed gas cylinders for
personal use or ship repair; and tools needed for specialized ship
repair or maintenance. All these are part of the everyday activities or
life on board a ship that may be away from port for days at a time.
This listing is certainly not exhaustive. Each of these items is
important to the cruise experience and must be permitted onboard with
proper controls over access and use.
    Response: We agree that it would be unproductive to prohibit an
item that can be purchased in a ship store or that is available from
room service (e.g. a steak knife). However, cruise lines may choose to
prohibit passengers from carrying knives or axes onboard without prior
approval and under controlled procedures.
    We also agree that when determining the items that will and will
not be allowed onboard a cruise ship or into a cruise ship terminal,
consideration must be given to those items that passengers would
reasonably be expected to need in order to enjoy the cruise. Items
including, but not limited to, dive knives, spear guns, and SCUBA tanks
may fit into this category and, as suggested by NMSAC, may be
acceptable if controlled by ship security personnel until the
passengers need them.

    Comment: Generally NMSAC believes that screening, and any list of
prohibited and controlled items, should only apply to personal baggage
and carry-on items, not to ship stores. Items that are part of ship
stores and for the ship's operations and guest programs should not be
considered to be subject to this listing. For example, gasoline may be
carried as part of the ship's stores for use in ship carried jet skis.
    Response: We agree with NMSAC's recommendations that, for the
purposes of this rulemaking, the dangerous substances and devices list
should not apply to ship stores. Ship stores are outside the scope of
this rulemaking.
    Comment: In the event a listed item is discovered on board, NMSAC
recommends that the response be measured and based upon the nature of
the item discovered and the actual threat that the item presents. Nor
should it be considered as a listing of items which would automatically
constitute a violation or breach of security if one of the items is
discovered onboard.
    NMSAC additionally recommends that a clear statement be included to
the effect that the response to a non-detectable or controlled item
discovered on board should be based upon the nature of the item and the
actual threat presented and that discovery of such an item would not
necessarily constitute a violation or breach of security.
    Response: We agree that the appropriate response to the discovery
of a prohibited item onboard should be measured, and based upon the
nature of the item and the actual threat it presents. However, a listed
prohibited item that has passed through security screening and is
discovered onboard would constitute a breach of security as defined in
33 CFR 101.105, since a security measure has been circumvented, eluded,
or violated.
    Although a breach of security is a violation, the Coast Guard would
not necessarily have to take enforcement action. The Coast Guard would
examine each event based on the circumstances and details of the
breach, the actual threat posed by the item or items, and remedial
action taken after the breach is detected. The ultimate goal of the
regulation is to provide security to cruise ship passengers, crews, the
cruise ship, and the cruise ship terminal.
Screening Equipment
1. What is the possibility of standardizing screening methods, similar
to the methods employed by TSA at airports?
    Comment: NMSAC notes that the task statement from the Coast Guard
states: ``Some cruise ship terminals use metal detectors, x-ray
systems, explosive detection systems, and/or canines for screening and
that their use and operation is not uniform across the U.S.'' NMSAC
questions the Coast Guard's statement that only some cruise ship
terminals contain appropriate detection equipment, and that the use of
this equipment is not uniform across the United States. The Coast Guard
regulatory requirements contained in 33 CFR parts 120 and 128 require
both cruise ships and cruise ship passenger terminals to have in place
effective security plans for three levels of security, which include
requirements for screening of baggage, ship stores, carry-on items, and
persons. These regulations and accompanying guidance implemented by
approved plans would be expected to provide for this unity of purpose
and application of performance standards contained in the regulations.
    Response: During visits at several cruise ship terminals, cruise
ship embarkation ports, and ports of call, the Coast Guard witnessed
various types of screening activities. Most terminals use metal
detectors and x-ray systems. Some terminals use canines and other
terminals, normally ports of call, screen by hand.
    Cruise ships and cruise ship terminals have been subject to 33 CFR
parts 120 and 128, and after July 1, 2004, to the International Ship
and Port Facility Security Code and 33 CFR subchapter H. To minimize
potential risk associated with cruise ships and cruise ship terminals,
we propose implementing more detailed regulations. We would retain the
spirit of the performance-based standards in 33 CFR subchapter H.
2. Should standards be developed for the screening equipment used at
U.S. cruise ship terminals and ports of call?
    Comment: In seeking to ensure consistency throughout the United
States regarding screening activities at cruise ship terminals, NMSAC
notes that flexibility is an absolute necessity in the cruise ship
industry. NMSAC agrees with performance standards for training or
certification, and for minimum consistency of equipment. However, what
equipment is employed and how it fits into an effective system for
assuring security should remain flexible.
    Response: We agree that flexibility is necessary, and note that
consistency of screening equipment would mean consistency in the
performance standards of equipment.
    Comment: NMSAC recommends that specificity of performance standards
or goals could be developed for detection equipment; to specify exactly
which equipment should be used would be counterproductive to
development of new technology. Standardization of application would
also prevent the flexibility to meet varying operational requirements,
varying threats that may be encountered by different size ships at
different ports. Standardization would also prevent the flexibility to
meet varying operational requirements, and varying threats that may be
encountered.
    Response: We agree. The equipment would need to be adequate to meet
specific performance standards. The Coast Guard intends to allow each
owner or operator of a cruise ship facility to specify the type of
screening equipment used to detect prohibited items.
    Comment: NMSAC notes that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
has established a Transportation Screening Capability Working Group.
The focus of the group is to identify screening capabilities and needs.
As such, the work of this group appears to be of interest to NMSAC
particularly in regard to this current tasking and interface between
the Working Group and NMSAC is recommended. At a minimum, DHS
representatives should be invited to brief NMSAC with regards to the
work, conclusions, and recommendations of the Working Group.
    Response: We agree that it may be necessary to invite DHS
representatives to discuss current screening initiatives.
    Comment: NMSAC recommends that performance standards for detection
equipment be developed in conjunction with the above mentioned Working
Group, and that a listing of items to be detected by these screening
systems be developed.
    Response: We will continue to work with TSA and DHS representatives
regarding equipment performance standards.
    Comment: NMSAC also states that, while an item may be prohibited,
this does not mean that technology exists for detecting such items
during the screening process. Screening should not be expected for
items that cannot be detected. NMSAC notes that a prohibited items
listing should not be indiscriminately mistaken to be the exact listing
of items that must be detected by current screening technology or
screening personnel. They state that it is a well-known and established
fact that 100 percent screening does not equate to 100 percent
detection and a number of the items potentially listed are not
detectable by

current screening technology or processes.
    Response: We recognize that requiring screening of all persons,
baggage, and personal items does not realistically equate to 100
percent detection of prohibited items. Screening should ensure that
there are no dangerous substances or devices present on cruise ships or
in terminals. The Coast Guard would place items on a dangerous
substances and devices list that we determine to pose a real danger to
security. Detection measures should be employed to ensure, to the
greatest practicable extent, that such dangers are not present. If a
listed item is found onboard, the owners or operators of cruise ships
or terminals should examine their screening processes to determine the
reason they did not detect the item during the screening process. As
part of this examination, owners or operators of cruise ships and
terminals should review security measures, such as qualification and
training of screening personnel as well as the technology they use. It
is not the intent of the proposed rule to expect or demand more than is
possible or achievable given available technology. The goal should be
continuous process improvement.
    Comment: NMSAC is aware that current screening capabilities do not
readily detect or identify certain items that may currently be
prohibited onboard either an aircraft in carry-on baggage or otherwise
or onboard ships. Accordingly, electronic screening should not include
items that cannot be detected by current capabilities and other
screening should not be required for these items unless the threat of
introduction is so high (Maritime Security Level III) that alternate
means of screening is necessary.
    Response: We agree that the technology required to screen for
certain prohibited items, especially nuclear, biological, and chemical
agents, either does not exist or may be excessively expensive. We
expect screening to be conducted at cruise ships and cruise ship
terminals using several methods and technologies already employed for
screening at airports, such as metal detectors and x-ray machines.
Although a dangerous substances and devices list may include items for
which screening technology does not exist, we expect the cruise ships'
or terminals' screening personnel to attempt to detect these materials
using screening methods other than electronic equipment. For example,
during an escalated Maritime Security (MARSEC) Level 2 or 3, we would
require alternate means of screening that may include random hand
searches or other methods appropriate to the threat. MARSEC Levels
advise the maritime community and the public of the level of risk to
the maritime elements of the national transportation system. There are
only three MARSEC levels. MARSEC Level 1 is the level for which minimum
appropriate security measures shall be maintained at all times. Under
33 CFR 101.200(b), unless otherwise directed, each port, vessel, and
facility must operate at MARSEC Level 1.
3. What standards should apply if canines were to be used to screen for
the presence of explosives at U.S. cruise ship terminals?
    Comment: NMSAC recommends that any need for and use of canines for
screening should be clearly written into the security plan that is
required by 33 CFR part 105. Because each terminal operation, passenger
ship, threat information, and security operation is different, a ``one
size fits all'' regulation to meet the ``when'' and ``how'' of canine
use will not work. Instead, this can be broken into three issues:
    a. When should canines be utilized for screening?
    b. How should canines be used for screening?
c. What should be the training and certification requirements for the
canine and the handler?
    With regards to item c. above, NMSAC acknowledges that cruise ship
industry canine security representatives have been meeting with USCG
and DHS officials to discuss appropriate regulatory requirements for
the certification of both dog and handlers. NMSAC does not possess the
expertise to overtake these discussions and therefore declines to offer
recommendations in this regard. As the end users of canine screening or
search capabilities, NMSAC members would be interested in receiving a
briefing of this regulatory development project.
    Response: We agree, and do not propose mandating the use of canines
for normal screening operations. We do recognize the need to address
required standards in the event that terminals or cruise ships
voluntarily use canines to screen for explosives. The Coast Guard is
engaged in separate, ongoing projects to address the use of canines at
maritime facilities, including cruise ship and other passenger
facilities.

C. Miscellaneous

1. Training of Screening Personnel
    Comment: NMSAC believes that the development of national standards
for training screening personnel is appropriate. NMSAC recommends that
such standards should be developed in cooperation with the maritime
industry and appropriate professional stake holders, and should address
the basic knowledge, understanding, and proficiency to be demonstrated
by candidates to receive certification. Given the difference in cruise
ship operations, as well as the cruise ships themselves and the ports
they visit, consideration should be given to different levels of
certification.
    Response: We agree that a need exists for national standards for
training screening personnel, and that these standards should be
developed in cooperation with the maritime industry and appropriate
professional stake holders. The Coast Guard proposes adding a new Sec.
105.535 to set forth training requirements of screeners, who must
demonstrate knowledge, understanding, and proficiency in various
security related areas as part of their security-related
familiarization.
2. Unlawful Acts Reporting Requirement (33 CFR 120.220)
    Comment: NMSAC recommends that the consolidation of 33 CFR 120 &
128 into 33 CFR Subchapter H be clarified so that unlawful acts
involving felonies or other serious crime are promptly reported to the
agency that has the proper jurisdiction for investigation and
prosecution. A variety of governmental entities, both foreign and
domestic, exercise law enforcement authority over each ship, depending
upon where it is located, where it has come from and where it may be
going to. Alleged criminal acts involving U.S. citizens are already
reported to the appropriate law enforcement agencies.
    Response: Existing law enforcement protocols contain standards for
the types of crimes that owners or operators of cruise ships must
report as well as the form and the timeliness of that reporting. Under
those protocols, members of the Cruise Lines International Association
(CLIA) are already obligated to report incidents involving serious
violations of U.S. law, which include but are not limited to homicide,
suspicious death, assault with serious bodily injury, and sexual
assaults to the nearest Federal Bureau of Investigation field office as
soon as possible. The Coast Guard will consider issuing additional
regulations on this subject in a separate rulemaking pursuant to the
Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2010 (CVSSA.), Pub. L. 111-207
(July 27, 2010).

3. Definition of Cruise Ship
    Comment: NMSAC stated that they have not defined ``cruise ship''.
    Response: We will use the definition for cruise ship currently in
33 CFR 101.105.

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    In the paragraphs below, we explain the origins and rationale for
the proposed changes in this NPRM. We organized the discussion
according to the section number in which each change would appear.

Sec.  101.105 Definitions

    The Coast Guard proposes amending Sec.  101.105 by adding new
definitions for carry-on item, checked baggage, cruise ship terminal,
cruise ship voyage, disembark, embark, explosive detection system
(EDS), high seas, port of call, screener, and TSP.

Sec.  104.295 Additional Requirements--Cruise Ships

    Currently, the Coast Guard requires cruise ship owners or operators
to ensure that screening is performed for all persons, baggage, and
personal effects. This requirement is usually fulfilled in coordination
with the U.S. cruise ship terminals, with which the cruise ships
interface. We propose to add language in this section requiring cruise
ship owners or operators to ensure screening is performed in accordance
with proposed subpart E of part 105. Cruise ship owners or operators
would continue to ensure that screening is performed, and we anticipate
that they would continue to coordinate screening with the cruise ship
terminals.
    While cruise ship terminals would be required to incorporate the
Prohibited Items List into their FSPs, we are not proposing to require
cruise ship operators to include the list in their VSPs. We believe
that such a proposal would be redundant on two levels. First,
passengers and screeners would be aware of the Prohibited Items List
because it is already required to be available at all screening
locations under 33 CFR 105.515(c). Second, nearly all cruise ships
operate under an International Ship Security Certificate (ISSC), which
details procedures for screening dangerous substances and devices.
Additionally, 33 CFR 104.295(a) would require that when passengers
embark at a point that is not at a terminal, cruise ship screeners must
meet the training requirements of 33 CFR 105.535, which requires that
they are familiar with the contents of the Prohibited Items List. For
these reasons, we believe that the additional paperwork burden
requiring the incorporation of the Prohibited Items List into the
cruise ships' VSP would be unnecessary.

Sec.  105.225 Facility Record-Keeping Requirements

    Within this section, we propose to add language referencing
proposed Sec.  105.535 for the safekeeping of screener training
records. Currently, the Facility Security Officer (FSO) is responsible
for recordkeeping. As proposed, the FSO's recordkeeping
responsibilities would be extended to include screener training
records. See the discussion of Sec.  105.535 in this preamble for
additional information on changes to that section.

Sec.  105.290 Additional Requirements--Cruise Ship Terminals

    We propose to amend Sec.  105.290 by revising paragraph (b) and
adding language to paragraph (a) referencing proposed subpart E. The
Coast Guard would require owners or operators of cruise ship terminals
to conduct screening in accordance with subpart E, and identification
requirements would be clarified.

Sec.  105.405 Format and Content of the Facility Security Plan (FSP)

    The Coast Guard proposes amending Sec.  105.405 by adding new
paragraph (a)(21). This new paragraph would require that owners or
operators of cruise ship terminals ensure that the FSPs include a TSP
that is submitted to the Coast Guard for approval. See the discussion
of Sec.  105.505 in this preamble for additional information on the
TSP. The Coast Guard is also reserving paragraphs (a)(19) and (a)(20)
as it is considering proposing additional amendments to Sec.  105.405
in separate rulemakings.

Subpart E--Facility Security: Cruise Ship Terminals

    The Coast Guard proposes to add a new subpart to part 105
specifically related to the screening of all persons, baggage, and
carry-on items performed at cruise ship terminals. This new subpart
would be titled Facility Security: Cruise Ship Terminals. Below, we
discuss the proposed sections to be included in this subpart.

Sec.  105.500 General

    This proposed section encompasses the applicability, purpose, and
compliance dates for subpart E. First, subpart E would apply to cruise
ship terminals only. For this NPRM, we consider any U.S. facility that
receives cruise ships as they are defined in 33 CFR 101.105, or tenders
from cruise ships, to embark or disembark passengers or crew as being
cruise ship terminals. These include facilities where the majority of
passengers embark with checked baggage, as well as facilities where
passengers may visit for a limited time and then re-board the cruise
ship. As described previously in the discussion of proposed changes in
Sec.  104.295 of this preamble, the Coast Guard would require cruise
ship owners or operators to coordinate screening operations with the
terminal owners or operators.
    The purpose of subpart E is, as stated above, to ensure security at
cruise ship terminals. Specifically, subpart E is included in this
proposed rule to give terminal owners or operators more detailed
requirements to assist development of their screening regimes. However,
based on our analysis of current cruise ship terminal screening
procedures, we do not believe that these requirements would necessitate
operational changes at any existing cruise ship terminal at this time.
Instead, the existence of the regulation would set a screening
``floor,'' as well as provide certainty as to the minimum requirements.
    Finally, the Coast Guard proposes to require cruise ship terminal
owners or operators to submit their TSPs to the Coast Guard for
approval no later than 180 days after publication of the final rule.
Subsequently, the terminal owners or operators would have to operate in
accordance with their TSPs 1 year after publication of the final rule.

Sec.  105.505 Terminal Screening Program (TSP)

    This section would detail the requirements of the TSP. The Coast
Guard would require the TSP to be included as part of the FSP, and to
document the screening process for all persons, baggage, and personal
items from the time that the person or baggage first enters the cruise
ship terminal until the person or baggage arrives aboard a cruise ship
moored at the facility.
    We acknowledge that FSPs currently approved by the Coast Guard
address screening procedures within the section for access control.
However, the TSP, as part of the FSP, would provide a more detailed
description of the screening process at cruise ship terminals. Also, as
part of the FSP, audits and amendments to the TSP would fall under
current requirements in Sec.  105.415. A list of specific topics the
TSP would address is included in Sec.  105.505(c). These topics include
qualifications and training of persons conducting screening, screening
methods and equipment used at the terminal, and procedures employed

when a dangerous substance or device is detected during screening
operations.
    In developing the requirements for TSPs, we drew upon the current
requirements for FSPs and the requirements contained in 49 CFR 1544.103
for security programs developed by air carriers and commercial
operators that conduct screening at airports. TSA regulations in 49 CFR
1544.103 were useful in the development of this NPRM because those
regulations apply to commercial, non-governmental entities conducting
screening. Nevertheless, we understand that wholesale adoption of the
TSA regulations would not be appropriate for cruise ship terminals
because of differences between the operations of the airline and cruise
ship industries.

Sec.  105.510 Responsibilities of the Owner or Operator

    The Coast Guard proposes adding a new Sec.  105.510, detailing the
cruise ship terminal owners' or operators' responsibilities regarding
screening of all persons, baggage, and personal items at the terminal.
The requirements in this section are in addition to the
responsibilities described in 33 CFR 105.200. This proposed section
would ensure that cruise ship terminal owners or operators develop and
perform several aspects of the screening process, such as the
following--
     Developing and implementing the TSP;
     Documenting screening responsibilities in the Declaration
of Security (DoS);
     Enforcing the Prohibited Items List; and
     Establishing procedures for reporting, handling, and
controlling prohibited items.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We believe all terminal operators would currently meet the
proposed standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The owner or operator ultimately retains responsibility for the
security of the cruise ship terminal. By ensuring that screening is
performed according to these proposed regulations, the owner or
operator would ensure an essential component of overall security is in
place for both the cruise ship and the terminal.

Sec.  105.515 Prohibited Items List

    The Coast Guard proposes to require owners and operators of U.S.
cruise ship terminals to utilize a Prohibited Items List when
conducting screening of all persons, baggage, and personal effects at
the terminal. The Coast Guard would also require cruise ship owners or
operators of cruise ship terminals to include a list of dangerous
substances and devices in every DoS.
    During development of proposed Sec.  105.515, the Coast Guard
reviewed the TSA list of prohibited and allowed items for aircraft
travel, as discussed in the Background section of this preamble. We
also took into account current industry practices, including
collaboration between cruise ship and terminal owners or operators to
develop the List. Finally, we considered the input received from NMSAC,
which is also discussed in the Background section of this preamble.
    The Coast Guard recognizes that owners or operators of cruise ships
and cruise ship terminals have a vested interest in prohibiting
dangerous substances and devices on their property. In order to reduce
uncertainty in the cruise line industry and the public about what is
prohibited and what is not, and to better implement the screening
requirements in 33 CFR 104.295(a) and 105.290(a), the Coast Guard
proposes to issue and maintain a list of prohibited items that are
always considered to be dangerous substances and devices, as defined in
33 CFR 101.105. The Coast Guard would prohibit these dangerous
substances and devices for security reasons. Accordingly, passengers
and crew would be prohibited from bringing onboard a cruise ship items
on the Prohibited Items List at any time through a cruise ship terminal
regulated under 33 CFR part 105. If an item from the Coast Guard's
Prohibited Items List is discovered after passing through the screening
location at the cruise ship or terminal, the owner or operator would be
required to report a breach of security. The Coast Guard also
recognizes that some items on the list are necessary to accommodate
normal cruise ship operations. For this reason, the prohibited items
list would not apply to cargo and vessel stores. We also note that the
Prohibited Items List does not necessarily encompass all ``dangerous
substances and devices,'' and that cruise ship and terminal operators
can prohibit passengers from bringing on board any other items or
substances they deem a threat to safety.

Interpretative Rules

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), the notice and comment rulemaking
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) do not apply to
interpretative rules. The preamble to this proposed rule contains a
proposed version of the Prohibited Items List. Although the Coast Guard
does not waive its claim that this list is exempt from APA notice and
comment requirements, we are soliciting comments at this time on the
content of the proposed list because the Coast Guard is aware of the
unique challenges inherent to security screening in the cruise industry
context. Whereas airline screening can be conducted with the
understanding that airline travel is undertaken for only a relatively
short period of time and with a focused mission, cruise travel can be
for much longer periods of time and with travelers participating in
varying activities. Additionally, there is no distinction in cruise
travel between checked baggage or carry-on items, since passengers and
crew will have access to their personal items once they are onboard.
    Interpretive rules are ``issued by an agency to advise the public
of the agency's construction of the statutes and the rules which it
administers.'' Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative
Procedure Act at 30 n.3. In other words, an interpretive rule
describes, clarifies, and reminds the public of a statutory standard or
pre-existing rule. Courts have upheld a general standard to determine
if a rule is interpretative. American Mining Congress v. Mine Safety
and Health Admin., 995 F.2d 1106 (D.C. Cir. 1993). The Prohibited Items
List meets this standard.
    To determine if a rule is interpretive, as opposed to legislative,
the rule must meet four criteria. Id. at 1112. First, in the absence of
the interpretive rule there must be adequate legislative or regulatory
basis for enforcement action. Second, an interpretative rule must not
be published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Third, the agency
cannot evoke its general grant of authority when promulgating an
interpretative rule. Fourth, the interpretive rule must not effectively
amend a prior legislative rule.
    The development of the Prohibited Items List meets the four-part
American Mining standard for an interpretive rule. First, the Coast
Guard has existing regulatory authority to require screening for
dangerous substances or devices under 33 CFR 104.295 and 105.290, which
mandate that the owner or operator of a cruise ship and facility ensure
that all passengers and baggage are screened for such material. The
existing definition of ``dangerous substances and devices,'' which
means ``any material, substance, or item that reasonably has the
potential to cause a transportation security incident,'' already
provides an adequate basis for enforcement action on its own, without
further explication (these regulations were promulgated as a
legislative rule under authority of the Ports and

Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) and the Maritime Transportation Safety Act
(MTSA) (see 33 U.S.C. 1221 and 46 U.S.C. 1221)). Second, the final list
will not be incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations. While we
are publishing a draft version of the list in the Federal Register as
part of the preamble to this proposed regulation to allow for comment
because of the unique challenges faced when screening cruise line
passengers, the list is not part of the proposed regulatory text will
not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations upon publication of the
Final Rule. Third, the Coast Guard has not invoked its general
legislative authority when promulgating the list. The authority for
this interpretive rule is the authority for the Coast Guard to
interpret its own regulations in 33 CFR 101.105, 104.295, and 105.290.
Fourth, the rule does not effectively amend a prior legislative rule.
Instead, the prohibited items list is only a partial explication of the
phrase ``dangerous substances and devices,'' as defined in 33 CFR
101.105. What the Prohibited Items List adds is a list of substances
and items that the Coast Guard believes, under all circumstances, have
the potential to cause a TSI. The Prohibited Items List would not be a
substitute for the regulatory definition in section 101.105, as other
substances and devices could have the potential to cause a TSI under
specific circumstances, and would be addressed in the TSPs of the
specific vessels or facilities at issue.
    Due to rapidly-developing threat analysis and security
considerations, the Coast Guard requires the flexibility to revise the
Prohibited Items List quickly to protect the public from security
threats that can change rapidly. In order to keep the list current
without the delays often associated with notice and comment
rulemakings, the Coast Guard proposes to publish the list separately as
an interpretive rule in the Federal Register, and to issue updates in
the same manner. In proposing this approach, the Coast Guard took note
of TSA's use of interpretive rules to promulgate and update its list of
prohibited items (67 FR 8340, February 22, 2002; 68 FR 7444, February
14, 2003; 70 FR 9877, March 1, 2005; 70 FR 51679, August 31, 2005; and,
70 FR 72930, December 8, 2005). Additionally, the Coast Guard would
endeavor to obtain NMSAC input and afford ship and facility owners a
reasonable amount of advance notice before making an update effective
unless an immediate change is necessary for imminent public safety and/
or national security reasons. Finally, we reiterate that the Prohibited
Items List would only prohibit passengers from carrying items in
baggage or on their persons; it does not prohibit these items from
being brought onboard by cruise ship operators on their behalf.
    The Coast Guard is soliciting public comments on the content of the
proposed Prohibited Items List shown below due to the unique challenges
inherent to security screening in the cruise industry context.
Additionally, we invite public comments on the use of interpretive
rules to issue and update the list.

Proposed Prohibited Items List for Cruise Ship Terminals

    Passengers and persons other than passengers are prohibited from
bringing the following items onboard cruise ships through terminal
screening operations regulated under 33 CFR part 105.

Weapons, Including

 Hand Guns (including BB guns, pellet guns, compressed air guns
and starter pistols, as well as ammunition and gunpowder)
 Rifles/shotguns (including BB guns, pellet guns, compressed
air guns and starter pistols, as well as ammunition and gunpowder)
 Stun guns or other shocking devices (e.g. Taser[supreg],
cattle prod)
 Realistic replicas and/or parts of guns and firearms

Explosives, Including

 Blasting caps
 Dynamite
 Fireworks or pyrotechnics
 Flares in any form
 Hand grenades
 Plastic explosives
 Explosive devices
 Realistic replicas of explosives

Incendiaries, Including

 Aerosols (including spray paint but excluding items for
personal care or toiletries in limited quantities)
 Gasoline or other such fuels or accelerants
 Gas torches
 Lighter fluids (except in liquefied gas (e.g. Bic[supreg]-
type) or absorbed liquid (e.g. Zippo[supreg]-type) lighters in
quantities appropriate for personal use)
 Turpentine
 Paint thinner
 Realistic replicas of incendiaries

Disabling Chemicals and Other Dangerous Items, Including

 Chlorine
 Liquid bleach
 Tear gas and other self defense sprays

The Prohibited Items List does not contain all possible items that may
be prohibited from being brought on a cruise ship by passengers. The
Coast Guard and the cruise ship terminal reserve the right to
confiscate (and destroy) any articles that in our discretion are
considered dangerous or pose a risk to the safety and security of the
ship, or our guests, and no compensation will be provided.

Sec.  105.525 Terminal Screening Operations

    Section 105.525 would specify how cruise ship terminal owners or
operators must screen persons, personal effects, and baggage and where
the screening must take place. Additionally, this new section would
provide staffing requirements for screening operations. During
development of this proposed section, the Coast Guard identified
several components of existing screening process requirements that
should be preserved throughout all U.S. cruise ship terminals. The
proposed regulations are primarily performance-based, but specific
procedures must take place to ensure the security of persons, their
personal effects, and baggage.
    Section 105.525 specifies requirements for screening passengers,
persons other than passengers, checked baggage, and unaccompanied
baggage. As proposed, the screening of passengers and persons other
than passengers (such as crew members, vendors, or contractors) may
take place at the same screening location, or at separate screening
locations, which is current industry practice. The Coast Guard would
require application of the same standards for screening locations,
regardless of who is being screened. Adequate staffing, checking
personal identification, and re-screening are all addressed in this
subparagraph.
    If a cruise ship terminal checks baggage, screening or security
personnel would be required to control the baggage throughout the
screening process. If a terminal accepts unaccompanied baggage, then
the cruise ship's Vessel Security Officer would need to provide written
consent. Screening or security personnel would then treat the
unaccompanied baggage as checked baggage.
    The Coast Guard would require terminal owners or operators to
document additional screening methods in an approved TSP. Further, the
Captain of the Port (COTP) may direct additional screening methods that
are appropriate for each terminal.

Sec.  105.530 Qualifications of Screeners

    The Coast Guard proposes adding Sec.  105.530 to address basic
qualifications for cruise ship terminal screeners. While the Coast
Guard researched TSA's regulations during the development of this
section, specifically 49 CFR 1544.405, which describes qualifications
for new screeners when commercial carriers and aircraft operators
provide screening, we are proposing screening requirements that are
less rigorous than those for airline screeners, for the reasons
described below.
    As mentioned in the discussion of Sec.  105.505 in this preamble,
TSA's aviation regulations provide a solid foundation for screening
standards, but they are not wholly appropriate for cruise ship
terminals. For example, while the Aviation Transportation Security Act
(ATSA) requires a high school diploma, MTSA contains no such
requirement.
    The Coast Guard would require the screener to have, as a
prerequisite, a combination of education and experience that the
Facility Security Officer deems appropriate for the position.
Additionally, the screener must be able to use all the screening
equipment and methods appropriate for the position. Taken together with
the requirements in 33 CFR 105.210, these qualifications would help to
ensure that screeners have the ability to perform their duties.

Sec.  105.535 Training Requirements of Screeners

    Screeners at cruise ship terminals currently receive training in
accordance with Sec.  105.210, as well as facility-specific
familiarization. The Coast Guard proposes to add requirements for
certain topics to be covered during the facility-specific
familiarization. This training would ensure that the screeners are
instructed in the screening process used at the cruise ship terminal
where they would be working. These topics would include--
     Historic and current threats against the cruise ship
industry;
     Relevant portions of the approved TSP and FSP;
     The purpose and content of the approved Prohibited Items
List;
     Specific instruction on the screening equipment and
methods used at the terminal;
     Specific response procedures when a dangerous substance or
device is detected at the terminal;
     Additional screening methods performed at increased MARSEC
Levels; and
     Any additional topics specified in the terminal's approved
TSP.

Sec.  105.540 Screener Participation in Drills and Exercises

    Section 105.220 currently requires security drills and exercises.
In proposed Sec.  105.540, the Coast Guard would require screening
personnel to participate in drills and exercises performed at the
cruise ship terminal. The drills and exercises would be excellent
opportunities not only for testing the terminal's FSP, including the
TSP, but also would refresh the screeners' training.

Sec.  105.545 Screening Equipment

    This section would address operation and maintenance of x-ray,
explosives detection, and metal detection equipment used to screen all
persons, baggage, and personal effects at U.S. cruise ship terminals.
Again, the Coast Guard researched TSA's standards for screening
performed by air carriers and commercial operators in 49 CFR part 1544.
Specifically, TSA's regulations address the use of metal detectors, x-
ray systems, and explosives detection systems in 49 CFR 1544.209,
1544.211, and 1544.213. Most cruise ship terminals use these systems
already. Therefore, we used 49 CFR part 1544 as a guide for the
proposed regulation, with the understanding that the maritime
environment of a cruise ship terminal is inherently different from the
environment of an airport.
    The proposed requirements are performance-based. The Coast Guard
would not require the use of specific equipment or screening methods.
However, if metal detection, explosive detection, or x-ray equipment is
used at a cruise ship terminal, then safety and performance standards
similar to the standards for equipment at airports would be required.
Further, such screening equipment would be documented in the terminal's
TSP.
    Of particular note is the proposed signage requirement if x-ray
equipment is used at the terminal. Similar to airports, people bring
film and photographic equipment to cruise ship terminals on a regular
basis. Since x-ray systems may have an effect on film and photographic
equipment, we propose to add this signage requirement to ensure that
persons being screened receive adequate notice.

Sec.  105.550 Alternative Screening

    The Coast Guard proposes to add a section concerning alternative
screening methods including procedures for passengers and crew with
disabilities or medical conditions precluding certain screening
methods. If a cruise ship terminal owner or operator chooses to employ
screening methods other than x-ray, metal detection, or explosives
detection equipment, then each method must be described in detail
within the TSP. The Coast Guard intends this proposed section to allow
cruise ship terminal owners or operators flexibility in their screening
methods. We believe this would be helpful as new technologies develop.
It would allow flexibility at terminals with space constraints, or if
terminal owners or operators use a contingency screening method when a
piece of equipment fails. Alternative screening methods may take many
forms. For example, terminal owners or operators may use canine
explosives detection or manually search baggage and personal effects.

33 CFR Parts 120 and 128

    In July 2004, when vessels and facilities subject to 33 CFR parts
120 and 128 became subject to 33 CFR parts 101, 103, 104 and 105, the
Coast Guard placed specific requirements pertaining to cruise ships and
cruise ship terminals in 33 CFR 104.295 and 105.290, respectively.
While parts 120 and 128 use slightly different terms than parts 104 and
105, the concept of ensuring that maritime entities have security plans
is the same. Therefore, this NPRM proposes removing regulations in
parts 120 and 128 that require security officers and security plans
similar to those required in parts 104 and 105. Additionally, the
procedures in Sec.  120.200 for reporting unlawful acts have been
superseded by recent amendments to title 46, United States Code,
chapter 35. For these reasons, the Coast Guard proposes to remove all
of 33 CFR part 120.
    Finally, the Coast Guard also proposes to remove 33 CFR part 128 in
its entirety. Not only would the sections requiring security plans and
security officers be removed, we would also remove Sec.  128.220, which
requires the reporting of unlawful acts. We believe that the removal of
this requirement will not diminish security at cruise ship terminals
because other laws and regulations sufficiently cover the requirement
in Sec.  128.220.

VI. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarized our
analysis based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies
to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives
and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of
promoting flexibility. This NPRM has been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' although not economically significant, under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. A full Regulatory
Analysis (RA) is available in the docket where indicated under the
``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' section of this
preamble. A summary of the RA follows:
    The following table summarizes the affected population, costs, and
benefits of this proposed rule. A summary of costs and benefits by
provision are provided later in this section.

       Table 1--Summary of Affected Population, Costs and Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Category                             Estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected population...............................  137 MTSA-regulated
                                                     facilities; 23
                                                     cruise line
                                                     companies.
Development of TSP................................  $145,471.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updating FSP......................................  $9,092.
                                                   ---------------------
    Total Cost *..................................  $154,563.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Qualitative Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terminal Screening Program........................  Greater clarity and
                                                     efficiency due to
                                                     removal of
                                                     redundancy in
                                                     regulations.
                                                    The TSP improves
                                                     industry
                                                     accountability and
                                                     provide for a more
                                                     systematic approach
                                                     to monitor facility
                                                     procedures.
Prohibited Items List.............................  Details those items
                                                     that are prohibited
                                                     from all cruise
                                                     terminals and
                                                     vessels.
                                                    Provides a safer
                                                     environment by
                                                     prohibiting
                                                     potentially
                                                     dangerous items
                                                     across the entire
                                                     industry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Value is undiscounted. We expect the costs of this rulemaking are
  borne in the first year of implementation. See discussion below for
  more details.

    As previously discussed, this proposed rule would amend regulations
on cruise ship terminal security. The proposed regulations would
provide flexible requirements for the screening of persons intending to
board a cruise ship, as well as their baggage and personal effects. In
this rulemaking, we propose to issue and maintain a minimum requirement
of Prohibited Items List of dangerous substances or devices (i.e.
firearms & ammunition, flammable liquids and explosives, dangerous
chemicals etc. . .), which are based on similar items currently
prohibited by industry. We anticipate that the prohibited item list
described in the preamble would be cost neutral to the industry.
However, the Coast Guard is requesting public comment on this issue if
anyone believes that this requirement would create a new economic
burden to industry.
    We also propose to eliminate redundancies in the regulations that
govern the security of cruise ship terminals.
    The proposed rule would allow owners and operators of cruise ships
and cruise ship terminals the flexibility of choosing their own
screening methods and equipment and establish security measures
tailored to their own operations. This proposed rule would incorporate
current industry practices and performance standards.
    We found several provisions of the rulemaking to have no additional
impact based on information from Coast Guard and industry security
experts and site visits to cruise terminals. A summary of key
provisions with and without additional costs follow.
    Key provisions without additional costs (current industry practice
under existing MTSA regulations):
     Sec.  105 Subpart E Screening equipment standards;
    [cir] 33 CFR 105.255 (a) and Sec.  128.200 (a)(1) and Sec.  128
(a)(2) currently require screening for dangerous substances or devices.
As such, industry already screens baggage and persons.
     Sec.  105.530 Qualifications of screeners; and,
    [cir] 33 CFR 105.210 details qualifications for facility personnel
with security duties, which includes operation of security equipment
and systems, and methods of physical screening of persons, personal
affects, baggage, cargo and vessel stores.
     Sec.  105.535 Training of screeners.
    [cir] 33 CFR 105.210 details qualifications for facility personnel
with security duties, which includes operation of security equipment
and systems, and methods of physical screening of persons, personal
affects, baggage, cargo and vessel stores. Records for all training
under Sec.  105.210 are required to be kept per Sec.  105.225 (b)(1).
    The purpose of including these requirements in the proposed
regulatory action is to consolidate requirements for screeners in one
place of the CFR and eliminate redundancies in cruise ship security
regulations by eliminating the requirements in parts 120 and 128. We do
not believe that these new items would add any additional costs, for
the reasons described below.
    We note that several of the requirements in Sec.  105.535 are
already implicitly required by the general security training
requirements in Sec.  105.210. Specifically, Sec. Sec.  105.535(b),
(c), and (g), requiring that screening personnel be familiar with
specific portions of the TSP, are already encompassed by the general
requirement in 105.210(k), which requires security personnel to be
familiar with relevant portions of the FSP). Also, Sec.  105.535(f),
which requires that screeners be familiar with additional screening
requirements at increased MARSEC levels, is implicitly contained in the
existing requirement in Sec.  105.210(m).
    Other items in Sec.  105.535 are not expected to increase costs
because we believe they are already performed by screening personnel.
We believe that all

screening personnel are currently trained in the specific screening
methods and equipment used at the terminal (item (d)), and the
terminal-specific response procedures when a dangerous item is found
(item (e)). Furthermore, we believe it is a reasonable assumption that
terminal screening personnel are familiar with item (a)--historic and
current threats against the cruise ship industry. However, we do
request comments on whether cruise ship personnel are familiar with
this latter matter, and whether cruise ship operators or terminal
operators would incur any additional costs as a result of these
proposed requirements.
    We estimate the proposed rule would affect 23 cruise line
companies. Each cruise line maintains an FSP for each terminal that
they utilize. Based on information from the Coast Guard Marine
Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database, we
estimate that the proposed rule would require that FSPs at 137 MTSA-
regulated facilities be updated. The proposed rule would require these
facilities to add TSP chapters to their existing FSPs. This rule would
also require owners and operators of cruise ship terminals to add a
Prohibited Items List to current FSPs. The following table provides a
breakdown of additional costs by requirement.

           Table 2--Summary of First-Year Costs by Requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Costs (undiscounted;
         Requirement                   rounded)            Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terminal Screening Program                    $145,471  Cost to create
 (TSP).                                                  and add the TSP
                                                         chapter to the
                                                         FSPs.
Update the FSP...............                    9,092  Cost to update
                                                         the Prohibited
                                                         Items List in
                                                         FSPs.
                              -------------------------
    Total....................                  154,563  First-year
                                                         undiscounted
                                                         costs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the cost of this rule to industry to be about $154,563
in the first year. We expect the total costs of this rulemaking to be
borne in the first year of implementation. Under MTSA, FSPs are
required to undergo an annual audit, and it is during that audit that
any revisions to the Prohibited Items List would be incorporated into
the FSP.\3\ As such, we do not anticipate any recurring annual cost as
a result of this proposal, as the annual cost to update the FSP is not
expected to change due to the inclusion of the TSP and Prohibited Items
List.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 33 CFR 105.415 for FSP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits

    The benefits of the rulemaking include codification of guidelines
for qualifications for screeners, more transparent and consistent
reporting of screening procedures across cruise lines, improved
industry accountability regarding security procedures, and greater
clarity and efficiency due to the removal of redundant regulations. We
do not have data to estimate monetized benefits of this rulemaking. We
present qualitative benefits and a break even analysis in the
Regulatory Analysis available in the docket to demonstrate that we
expect the benefits of the rulemaking to justify its costs.
    There are several qualitative benefits that can be attributed to
the provisions in this proposal. Table 3 provides a brief summary of
benefits of key provisions.

                   Table 3--Benefits of Key Provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Key provision                           Benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terminal Screening Program........   Greater clarity and
                                     efficiency due to removal of
                                     redundancy in regulations.
                                     The TSP improves industry
                                     accountability and provide for a
                                     more systematic approach to monitor
                                     facility procedures.
                                     Details those items that
                                     are prohibited from all cruise
                                     terminals and vessels.
Prohibited Items List.............   Provides a safer
                                     environment by prohibiting
                                     potentially dangerous items across
                                     the entire industry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Break Even Analysis

    It is difficult to quantify the effectiveness of the provisions in
this rulemaking and the related monetized benefits from averting or
mitigating a TSI. Damages resulting from TSIs are a function of a
variety of factors including, but not limited to, target type,
terrorist attack mode, the number of fatalities and injuries, economic
and environmental impacts, symbolic effects, and national security
impacts.
    For regulatory analyses, the Coast Guard uses a value of a
statistical life (VSL) of $9.1 million. A value of a statistical life
of $9.1 million is equivalent to a value of $9.10 as a measure of the
public's willingness to pay to reduce the risk of a fatality by one in
a million, $0.91 to reduce a one in 10 million risk, and $0.091 to
reduce a one in 100 million risk.\4\ As 8.9 million passengers embark
onto cruise ships in the U.S. each year \5\, very small reductions in
risk can result in a fairly large aggregate willingness to pay for that
risk reduction. A VSL of $9.1 million indicates that 8.9 million cruise
ship passengers that embark from the U.S. would collectively be willing
to pay approximately $8.1 million to reduce the risk of a fatality by
one in 10 million (8.90 million passenger X $0.91). As the 8.9 million
passengers estimate only includes the initial embarkation of a cruise
and passengers often leave and return to the vessel during a cruise
(passing through screening each time), the actual risk reduction to
break even per screening may be lower. The annualized costs of the
proposed rule are approximately $20,000 at 7 percent; thus, the
proposed rule would have to prevent one fatality every 405 years for
the rule to reach a break-even point where costs equal benefits ($9.1
million value of a

statistical life/$20,000 average annual cost of rule = 405).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of a
Statistical Life in U.S., Department of Transportation Analysis''
see http://www.dot.gov/regulations/economic-value-used-in-analysis.
    \5\ Source: Cruise Lines International Association, Inc. (CLIA),
2009 U.S. Economic Impact Study, Table ES-2, Number of U.S,
Embarkations. http://www.cruising.org/sites/default/files/pressroom/2009EconomicStudies/EconStudy_Exec_Summary2009.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The preliminary Regulatory Analysis in the docket provides
additional details of the impacts of this rulemaking.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of fewer than
50,000 people.
    We expect entities affected by the rule would be classified under
the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code
subsector 483-Water Transportation, which includes the following six-
digit NAICS codes for cruise lines: 483112-Deep Sea Passenger
transportation and 483114-Coastal and Great Lakes Passenger
Transportation.
    According to the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Table of
Small Business Size Standards \6\, a U.S. company with these NAICS
codes and employing equal to or fewer than 500 employees is a small
business. Additionally, cruise lines may fall under the NAICS code
561510-Travel Agencies, which have a small business size standard of
equal to or less than $3,500,000 in annual revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Source: 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this proposed rule, we reviewed recent company size and
ownership data from the Coast Guard MISLE database, and public business
revenue and size data. We found that of the 23 entities that own or
operate cruise ship terminals and would be affected by this proposed
rulemaking, 11 are foreign entities. The remaining 12 entities exceed
the SBA small business standards for small businesses.
    We did not find any small not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields.
We did not find any small governmental jurisdictions with populations
of fewer than 50,000 people. Based on this analysis, we found that this
rulemaking, if promulgated, will not affect a substantial number of
small entities.
    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of U.S. small entities. If you
think that a business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction
qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule will have a
significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the
Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. In your
comment, explain why you think it qualifies as a small entity and how
and to what degree this proposed rule will economically affect it.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact LCDR Kevin
McDonald at the telephone number or email address indicated under the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. The Coast Guard
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain
about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for a collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). As defined
in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information'' comprises reporting,
recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other similar
actions. The title and description of the information collection, a
description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate
of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of data, gathering
and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection.
    Under the provisions of the proposed rule, plan holders would
submit amended security plans within 180 days of promulgation of the
rule and update them annually. This requirement would be added to an
existing collection with OMB control number 1625-0077.
    Title: Security Plans for Ports, Vessels, Facilities, Outer
Continental Shelf Facilities and Other Security-Related Requirements.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0077.
    Summary of The Collection of Information: Facilities that receive
cruise ships would be required to update Facility Security Plans (FSPs)
to contain additional information regarding the screening process at
cruise terminals. Also, all cruise ship terminals that currently have a
Facility Security Plan (FSP), would need to update said plan to include
the list of prohibited items as detailed in this proposed rule.
    Need for Information: The information is necessary to show evidence
that cruise lines are consistently providing a minimum acceptable
screening process when boarding passengers. The information would
improve existing and future FSPs for cruise terminals, since they
currently do not separate this important information.
    Proposed Use of Information: The Coast Guard would use this
information to ensure that facilities are taking the proper security
precautions when loading cruise ships.
    Description of the Respondents: The respondents are FSP holders
that receive cruise ships.
    Number of Respondents: The adjusted number of respondents is 13,825
for vessels, 3,270 for facilities, and 56 for Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS) facilities. Of these 3,270 facilities, 137 that receive cruise
ships would be required to modify their existing FSPs to account for
the TSP chapter.
    Frequency of Response: Cruise lines would only need to write a TSP
chapter once before inserting it into the associated FSP. This would be
required during the first 6 months after publication of the final rule.
    Burden of Response: The estimated burden for cruise lines per TSP
chapter would be approximately 16 hours. The estimated burden to update
the FSP would be 1 hour.
    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The estimated first-year burden
for cruise lines is 16 hours per TSP chapter. Since

there are currently 137 FSPs, the total burden on facilities would be
2,192 hours (137 TSPs x 16 hours per TSP) in the first year. For the
137 facilities, the total burden would be 137 hours (137 FSPs x 1 hour
per VSP). The current burden listed in this collection of information
is 1,108,043. The new burden, as a result of this proposed rulemaking,
is 1,110,392 (1,108,043 + 2,192 + 137) in the first year only. All
subsequent year burdens will be considered part of the annual review
process for FSPs.
    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), we have submitted a copy of this proposed rule to the OMB for
its review of the collection of information.
    We ask for public comment on the proposed collection of information
to help us determine how useful the information is; whether it can help
us perform our functions better; whether it is readily available
elsewhere; how accurate our estimate of the burden of collection is;
how valid our methods for determining burden are; how we can improve
the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information; and how we can
minimize the burden of collection.
    If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit
them both to OMB and to the Docket Management Facility where indicated
under ADDRESSES, by the date under DATES.
    You need not respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the
requirements for this collection of information become effective, we
will publish a notice in the Federal Register of OMB's decision to
approve, modify, or disapprove the proposed collection.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it has implications for federalism. A summary of
the impact of federalism in this rule follows.
    This NPRM builds on the existing port security requirements found
in 33 CFR part 105 by establishing detailed, flexible requirements for
the screening of persons, baggage, and personal items intended for
boarding a cruise ship. It also establishes terminal screening
requirements for owners and operators of cruise ship terminals, some of
which are State entities.
    As implemented by the Coast Guard, the MTSA-established federal
security requirements for regulated maritime facilities, including the
terminal facilities serving the cruise ship industry, which are
proposed for amendment by this Notice. These regulations were, in many
cases, preemptive of State requirements. Where State requirements might
conflict with the provisions of a federally approved security plan,
they had the effect of impeding important federal purposes, including
achieving uniformity. However, the Coast Guard also recognizes that
States have an interest in these proposals to the extent they impose
requirements on State-operated terminals or individual States may wish
to develop stricter regulations for the federally regulated maritime
facilities in their ports, so long as necessary security and the above-
described principles of federalism are not compromised. Sections 4 and
6 of Executive Order 13132 require that for any rules with preemptive
effect, the Coast Guard shall provide elected officials of affected
state and local governments and their representative national
organizations the notice and opportunity for appropriate participation
in any rulemaking proceedings, and to consult with such officials early
in the rulemaking process. Therefore, we invite affected state and
local governments and their representative national organizations to
indicate their desire for participation and consultation in this
rulemaking process by submitting comments to this notice. In accordance
with Executive Order 13132, the Coast Guard will provide a federalism
impact statement to document (1) the extent of the Coast Guard's
consultation with State and local officials that submit comments to
this proposed rule, (2) a summary of the nature of any concerns raised
by state or local governments and the Coast Guard's position thereon,
and (3) a statement of the extent to which the concerns of State and
local officials have been met.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

H. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order. Though it is a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their

regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the
Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation;
test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not add any voluntary consensus standards.
Due to the nature of cruise ship security operations, performance-based
standards allow an appropriate degree of flexibility that accommodates
and is consistent with different terminal sizes and operations. This
proposed rule would standardize screening activities for all persons,
baggage, and personal effects at cruise ship terminals to ensure a
consistent layer of security at terminals throughout the United States.
Additionally, the Coast Guard consulted with the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) during the development of this proposed
rule.
    We propose to use performance-based requirements in this rule. The
Coast Guard reserves the right to require voluntary consensus standards
at a later date, via a notice of availability or in conjunction with a
subsequent rulemaking published in the Federal Register. If you
disagree, please send a comment to the docket using one of the methods
under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you disagree with our
analysis and/or identify voluntary consensus standards that might
apply.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under the ``Public
Participation and Request for Comments'' section of this preamble. This
rule involves requirements for the screening of persons, baggage, and
personal items intended for boarding a cruise ship and falls under
paragraphs 34(a), regulations which are editorial or procedural; 34(c),
regulations concerning the training, qualifying, licensing, and
disciplining or maritime personnel; and 34(d), regulations concerning
the documentation, admeasurement, inspection, and equipment of vessels,
of the Coast Guard's NEPA Implementing Procedures and Policy for
Considering Environmental Impacts, COMDTINST M16475.1D, and paragraph
6(b) of the Appendix to National Environmental Policy Act: Coast Guard
Procedures for Categorical Exclusions (67 FR 48243, July 23, 2002). We
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 101

    Harbors, Maritime security, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, Vessels, Waterways.

33 CFR Part 104

    Maritime security, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Security measures, Vessels.

33 CFR Part 105

    Maritime security, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Security measures.

33 CFR Part 120

    Passenger vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Security measures, Terrorism.

33 CFR Part 128

    Harbors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security
measures, Terrorism.

    For the reasons listed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR parts 101, 104, 105, 120, and 128 as follows:

PART 101--MARITIME SECURITY: GENERAL

0
1. The authority citation for part 101 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 192; Executive Order 12656, 3 CFR 1988 Comp., p. 585; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

Sec.  101.105  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  101.105--
0
b. Add, in alphabetical order, definitions for the terms ``Carry-on
item'', ``Checked baggage'', ``Cruise ship terminal'', ``Cruise ship
voyage'', ``Disembark'', ``Embark'', ``Explosive detection system
(EDS)'', ``High seas'', ``Port of call'', ``Screener'', and ``Terminal
screening program (TSP)'' to read as follows:

Sec.  101.105  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Carry-on item means an individual's accessible property, including
any personal effects that the individual intends to carry onto a vessel
or facility subject to this subchapter and is therefore subject to
screening.
* * * * *
    Checked baggage means an individual's personal property tendered by
or on behalf of a passenger and accepted by a facility or vessel owner
or operator. This baggage is accessible to the individual after
boarding the vessel.
* * * * *
    Cruise ship terminal means any portion of a facility that receives
a cruise ship or its tenders to embark or disembark passengers or crew.
    Cruise ship voyage means a cruise ship's entire course of travel,
from the first port at which the vessel embarks passengers until its
return to that port or another port where the majority of the
passengers disembark and terminate their voyage. A cruise ship voyage
may include one or more ports of call.
* * * * *
    Disembark means any time that the crew or passengers leave the
ship.
* * * * *
    Embark means any time that crew or passengers board the ship,
including re-boarding at ports of call.
* * * * *
    Explosives Detection System (EDS) means any system, including
canines, automated device, or combination of devices that have the
ability to detect explosive material.
* * * * *
    High seas means the waters defined in Sec.  2.32(d) of this
chapter.
* * * * *
    Port of call means a U.S. port where a cruise ship makes a
scheduled or unscheduled stop in the course of its voyage and
passengers are allowed to embark and disembark the vessel.
* * * * *
    Screener means an individual who is trained and authorized to
screen or inspect persons, baggage (including carry-on items), personal
effects, and vehicles for the presence of dangerous substances and
devices, and other items listed in the vessel or facility security
plan.
* * * * *
    Terminal Screening Program (TSP) means a written program developed
for

a cruise ship terminal that documents methods used to screen persons,
baggage, and carry-on items for the presence of dangerous substances
and devices to ensure compliance with this part.
* * * * *

PART 104--MARITIME SECURITY: VESSELS

0
3. The authority citation for part 104 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19; Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
4. In Sec.  104.295, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  104.295  Additional requirements--cruise ships.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Screen all persons, baggage, and personal effects for dangerous
substances and devices at the cruise ship terminal or, in the absence
of a terminal, immediately prior to embarking a cruise ship, in
accordance with the qualification, training, and equipment requirements
of Sec. Sec.  105.530, 105.535, and 105.545 of this chapter.
* * * * *

PART 105--MARITIME SECURITY: FACILITIES

0
5. The authority citation for part 105 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 70103; 50 U.S.C. 191;
33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
6. In Sec.  105.225, revise paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  105.225  Facility recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Training. For training under Sec. Sec.  105.210 and 105.535,
the date of each session, duration of session, a description of the
training, and a list of attendees;
* * * * *
0
7. In Sec.  105.290, revise paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  105.290  Additional requirements--cruise ship terminals.

* * * * *
    (a) Screen all persons, baggage, and personal effects for dangerous
substances and devices in accordance with the requirements in subpart E
of this part;
    (b) Check the identification of all persons seeking to enter the
facility in accordance with Sec. Sec.  101.514, 101.515, and 105.255 of
this subchapter. Persons holding a Transportation Worker Identification
Credential (TWIC) must be checked as set forth in this part. For
persons not holding a TWIC, this check includes confirming the
individual's validity for boarding by examining passenger tickets,
boarding passes, government identification or visitor badges, or work
orders;
* * * * *
0
8. In Sec.  105.405, revise paragraph (a)(17) and (a)(18), reserve
paragraphs (a)(19) and (a)(20), and add paragraph (a)(21) to read as
follows:

Sec.  105.405  Format and content of the Facility Security Plan (FSP).

    (a) * * *
    (17) Facility Security Assessment (FSA) report;
    (18) Facility Vulnerability and Security Measures Summary (Form CG-
6025) in Appendix A to part 105; and,
    (19) Reserved
    (20) Reserved
    (21) If applicable, cruise ship Terminal Screening Program (TSP) in
accordance with subpart E of this part.
0
9. Add new subpart E to part 105 to read as follows:
Subpart E--Facility Security: Cruise Ship Terminals
Sec.
105.500 General.
105.505 Terminal Screening Program (TSP).
105.510 Screening responsibilities of the owner or operator.
105.515 Prohibited Items List.
105.525 Terminal screening operations.
105.530 Qualifications of screeners.
105.535 Training requirements of screeners.
105.540 Screener participation in drills and exercises.
105.545 Screening equipment.
105.550 Alternate screening.

Subpart E--Facility Security: Cruise Ship Terminals

Sec.  105.500  General.

    (a) Applicability. The owner or operator of a cruise ship terminal
must comply with this subpart when receiving a cruise ship or tenders
from cruise ships.
    (b) Purpose. This subpart establishes cruise ship terminal
screening programs within the Facility Security Plans (FSPs) to ensure
that prohibited items are not present within the secure areas that have
been designated for screened persons, baggage, and personal effects,
and are not brought onto cruise ships interfacing with the terminal.
    (c) Compliance dates. (1) No later than 180 days after the
effective date of the final rule, cruise ship terminal owners or
operators must submit, for each terminal, a Terminal Screening Program
(TSP) that conforms with the requirements in Sec.  105.505 of this
subpart to the cognizant COTP for review and approval.
    (2) No later than 1 year after the effective date of the final
rule, each cruise ship terminal owner or operator must operate in
compliance with an approved TSP and this subpart.

Sec.  105.505  Terminal Screening Program (TSP).

    (a) General requirements. The owner or operator of a cruise ship
terminal must ensure a Terminal Screening Program (TSP) is developed,
added to the Facility Security Plan (FSP), and implemented. The TSP
must:
    (1) Document all procedures that are employed to ensure all
persons, baggage, and personal effects are screened at the cruise ship
terminal prior to being allowed into a cruise ship terminal's secure
areas or onto a cruise ship;
    (2) Be written in English; and,
    (3) Be approved by the Coast Guard as part of the FSP in accordance
with subpart D of this part.
    (b) Availability. Each cruise ship terminal Facility Security
Officer must:
    (1) Maintain the TSP in the same or similar location as the FSP as
described in Sec.  105.400(d) of this part;
    (2) Have an accessible, complete copy of the TSP at the cruise ship
terminal;
    (3) Have a copy of the TSP available for inspection upon request by
the Coast Guard;
    (4) Maintain the TSP as sensitive security information (SSI) and
protect it in accordance with 49 CFR part 1520; and
    (5) Make a copy of the current Prohibited Items List publicly
available. The List and copies thereof are not SSI.
    (c) Content. The TSP must include the following:
    (1) A line diagram of the cruise ship terminal including:
    (i) The physical boundaries of the terminal;
    (ii) The location(s) where all persons intending to board a cruise
ship, and all personal effects and baggage are screened; and,
    (iii) The point(s) in the terminal beyond which no unscreened
person may pass;
    (2) The responsibilities of the owner or operator regarding the
screening of persons, baggage, and personal effects;
    (3) The procedure to obtain and maintain the Prohibited Items List;
    (4) The procedures used to comply with the requirements of Sec.
105.530 of this part regarding qualifications of screeners;

    (5) The procedures used to comply with the requirements of Sec.
105.535 of this part regarding training of screeners;
    (6) The number of screeners needed at each location to ensure
adequate screening;
    (7) A description of the equipment used to comply with the
requirements of Sec.  105.525 of this part regarding the screening of
individuals, their personal effects, and baggage, including screening
at increased MARSEC Levels, and the procedures for use of that
equipment;
    (8) The operation, calibration, and maintenance of any and all
screening equipment used in accordance with Sec.  105.545 of this part;
    (9) The procedures used to comply with the requirements of Sec.
105.550 of this part regarding the use of alternative screening methods
and/or equipment, including procedures for passengers and crew with
disabilities or medical conditions precluding certain screening
methods; and
    (10) The procedures used when prohibited items are detected.
    (d) As a part of the FSP, the requirements in Sec. Sec.  105.410
and 105.415 of this part governing submission, approval, amendment, and
audit of a TSP apply.

Sec.  105.510  Screening responsibilities of the owner or operator.

    In addition to the requirements of Sec.  105.200 of this part, the
owner or operator of a cruise ship terminal must ensure that:
    (a) A Terminal Screening Program (TSP) is developed in accordance
with this subpart, and submitted to and approved by the cognizant
Captain of the Port (COTP), as part of the Facility Security Plan
(FSP), in accordance with this part;
    (b) Screening is conducted in accordance with this subpart and an
approved TSP;
    (c) Specific screening responsibilities are documented in a
Declaration of Security (DoS) in accordance with Sec. Sec.  104.255 and
105.245 of this subchapter;
    (d) Procedures are established for reporting and handling
prohibited items that are detected during the screening process;
    (e) All personal screening is conducted in a uniform, courteous,
and efficient manner respecting personal rights to the maximum extent
practicable; and
    (f) When the MARSEC Level is increased, additional screening
measures are employed in accordance with an approved TSP.

Sec.  105.515  Prohibited Items List.

    (a) The Coast Guard will issue and maintain a Prohibited Items List
consisting of dangerous substances and devices for purposes of
Sec. Sec.  105.290(a) of this chapter. The list specifies those items
that the Coast Guard prohibits all persons from bringing onboard any
cruise ship through terminal screening operations regulated under 33
CFR part 105.
    (b) Procedures for screening persons, baggage and personal effects
must include use of the Prohibited Items List which will be provided to
screening personnel by the cruise ship terminal owner or operator.
    (c) The list must be present at each screening location during
screening operations. Additionally, the list must be included as part
of the Declaration of Security.
    (d) Facility personnel must report the discovery of a prohibited
item introduced by violating security measures at a cruise ship
terminal as a breach of security in accordance with Sec.  101.305(b) of
this subchapter.

Sec.  105.525  Terminal screening operations.

    (a) Passengers and personal effects. (1) Each cruise ship terminal
must have at least one location to screen passengers and carry-on items
prior to allowing such passengers and carry-on items into secure areas
of the terminal designated for screened persons and carry-on items.
    (2) Screening locations must be adequately staffed and equipped to
conduct screening operations in accordance with the approved Terminal
Screening Program (TSP).
    (3) Facility personnel must check personal identification prior to
allowing a person to proceed to a screening location, in accordance
with Sec.  105.290(b) of this part, which sets forth additional
requirements for cruise ship terminals at all Maritime Security levels.
    (4) All screened passengers and their carry-on items must remain in
secure areas of the terminal designated for screened persons and
personal effects until boarding the cruise ship. Persons who leave a
secure area must be re-screened.
    (b) Persons other than passengers. Crew members, visitors, vendors,
and other persons who are not passengers, and their personal effects,
must be screened either at screening locations where passengers are
screened or at another location that is adequately staffed and equipped
in accordance with this subpart and is specifically designated in an
approved TSP.
    (c) Checked baggage. (1) A cruise ship terminal that accepts
baggage must have at least one location designated for the screening of
checked baggage.
    (2) Screening personnel may only accept baggage from a person
with--
    (i) A valid passenger ticket;
    (ii) Joining instructions;
    (iii) Work orders; or
    (iv) Authorization from the terminal or vessel owner or operator to
handle baggage;
    (3) Screening personnel may only accept baggage in an area
designated in an approved TSP and manned by terminal screening
personnel; and,
    (4) Screening or security personnel must constantly control the
checked baggage, in a secure area, from the time it is accepted at the
terminal until it is onboard the cruise ship.
    (d) Unaccompanied baggage. (1) Facility personnel may accept
unaccompanied baggage, as defined in Sec.  101.105 of this subchapter,
only if the Vessel Security Officer provides prior written approval for
the unaccompanied baggage.
    (2) If facility personnel accept unaccompanied baggage at a cruise
ship terminal, they must handle such baggage in accordance with
paragraph (c) of this section.

Sec.  105.530  Qualifications of screeners.

    In addition to the requirements for facility personnel with
security duties contained in Sec.  105.210 of this part, screening
personnel at cruise ship terminals must--
    (a) Have a combination of education and experience that the
Facility Security Officer (FSO) has determined to be sufficient for the
individual to perform the duties of the position; and
    (b) Be capable of using all screening methods and equipment needed
to perform the duties of the position.

Sec.  105.535  Training requirements of screeners.

    In addition to the requirements for facility personnel with
security duties in Sec.  105.210 of this part, screening personnel at
cruise ship terminals must demonstrate knowledge, understanding, and
proficiency in the following areas as part of their security-related
familiarization--
    (a) Historic and current threats against the cruise ship industry;
    (b) Relevant portions of the Terminal Screening Program (TSP) and
Facility Security Plan;
    (c) The purpose and contents of the cruise ship terminal Prohibited
Items List;
    (d) Specific instruction on screening methods and equipment used at
the cruise ship terminal;

    (e) Terminal-specific response procedures when a dangerous
substance or device is detected;
    (f) Additional screening requirements at increased Maritime
Security Levels; and,
    (g) Any additional topics specified in the facility's approved TSP.

Sec.  105.540  Screener participation in drills and exercises.

    Screening personnel must participate in drills and exercises
required under Sec.  105.220 of this part.

Sec.  105.545  Screening equipment.

    The following screening equipment may be used, provided it is
specifically documented in an approved Terminal Screening Program
(TSP).
    (a) Metal detection devices. (1) The owner or operator of a cruise
ship terminal may use a metal detection device to screen persons,
baggage, and personal effects.
    (2) Metal detection devices used at any cruise ship terminal must
be operated, calibrated, and maintained in accordance with
manufacturer's instructions.
    (b) X-ray systems. The owner or operator of a cruise ship terminal
may use an x-ray system for the screening and inspection of personal
effects and baggage if all of the following requirements are
satisfied--
    (1) The system meets the standards for cabinet x-ray systems used
primarily for the inspection of baggage, found in 21 CFR 1020.40;
    (2) Familiarization training for screeners, in accordance with
Sec.  105.535 of this subpart, includes training in radiation safety
and the efficient use of x-ray systems;
    (3) The system must meet the imaging requirements found in 49 CFR
1544.211;
    (4) The system must be operated, calibrated, and maintained in
accordance with manufacturer's instructions;
    (5) The x-ray system must fully comply with any defect notice or
modification order issued for that system by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), unless the FDA has advised that a defect or
failure to comply does not create a significant risk of injury,
including genetic injury, to any person;
    (6) The owner or operator must ensure that a sign is posted in a
conspicuous place at the screening location where x-ray systems are
used to inspect personal effects and where screeners accept baggage.
These signs must--
    (i) Notify individuals that items are being screened by x-ray and
advise them to remove all x-ray, scientific, and high-speed film from
their personal effects and baggage before screening;
    (ii) Advise individuals that they may request screening of their
photographic equipment and film packages be done without exposure to an
x-ray system; and
    (iii) Advise individuals to remove all photographic film from their
personal effects before screening, if the x-ray system exposes any
personal effects or baggage to more than one milliroentgen during the
screening.
    (c) Explosives detection systems. The owner or operator of a cruise
ship terminal may use an explosives detection system to screen baggage
and personal effects for the presence of explosives if it meets the
following requirements:
    (1) At locations where x-ray technology is used to inspect baggage
or personal effects for explosives, the terminal owner or operator must
post signs in accordance with paragraph (b)(6) of this section; and,
    (2) All explosives detection equipment used at a cruise ship
terminal must be operated, calibrated, and maintained in accordance
with manufacturer's instructions.

Sec.  105.550  Alternative screening.

    If the owner or operator of a U.S. cruise ship terminal chooses to
screen using equipment or methods other than those described in Sec.
105.545 of this subpart, the equipment and methods must be described in
detail in an approved Terminal Screening Program.

PART 120--SECURITY OF PASSENGERS [REMOVED AND RESERVED]

0
10. Under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1231, remove and reserve part 120.

PART 128--SECURITY OF PASSENGER TERMINALS [REMOVED AND RESERVED]

0
11. Under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1231, remove and reserve part 128.

    Dated: November 24, 2014.
Paul F. Zukunft,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant.
[FR Doc. 2014-28845 Filed 12-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P