83_FR_12139 83 FR 12086 - Consolidated Cruise Ship Security Regulations

83 FR 12086 - Consolidated Cruise Ship Security Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 53 (March 19, 2018)

Page Range12086-12104
FR Document2018-05394

The Coast Guard is issuing a final rule to eliminate outdated regulations that imposed unnecessary screening requirements on cruise ships and cruise ship terminals. This final rule replaces these outdated regulations with simpler, consolidated regulations that provide efficient and clear requirements for the screening of baggage, personal items, and persons on a cruise ship. This final rule will enhance the security of cruise ship terminals and allow terminal operators to use effective screening mechanisms with minimal impact to business operations.

Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 53 (Monday, March 19, 2018)
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 53 (Monday, March 19, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12086-12104]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05394]



[[Page 12085]]

Vol. 83

Monday,

No. 53

March 19, 2018

Part II





Department of Homeland Security





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





Coast Guard





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





33 CFR Parts 101, 104, 105, et al.





Consolidated Cruise Ship Security Regulations; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 12086]]


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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is issuing a final rule to eliminate outdated 
regulations that imposed unnecessary screening requirements on cruise 
ships and cruise ship terminals. This final rule replaces these 
outdated regulations with simpler, consolidated regulations that 
provide efficient and clear requirements for the screening of baggage, 
personal items, and persons on a cruise ship. This final rule will 
enhance the security of cruise ship terminals and allow terminal 
operators to use effective screening mechanisms with minimal impact to 
business operations.

DATES: This final rule is effective April 18, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket 
USCG-2006-23846. To view public comments or documents mentioned in this 
preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and 
click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated 
with this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this 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 protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Abbreviations
II. Executive Summary
    A. Summary of NPRM and Overview of the Final Rule
    B. Summary of Costs and Benefits
III. Basis and Purpose and Regulatory History
IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes
    A. Requirements for Cruise Ship Terminals vs. Ports of Call
    B. Legal Responsibility for Terminal Screening Program
    C. Screening Procedures and Requirements
    D. Prohibited Items List (PIL)
    E. Regulatory Impact Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis
    F. Other Comments
V. 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. Abbreviations

AAPA American Association of Port Authorities
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CLIA Cruise Lines International Association
COTP Captain of the Port
DoS Declaration of Security
FSO Facility Security Officer
FSP Facility Security Plan
FR Federal Register
MARSEC Maritime Security
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement
MTSA Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PIL Prohibited Items List
QPL Qualified Product List
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
VSL Value of Statistical Life

II. Executive Summary

    The Coast Guard is amending its regulations on cruise ship terminal 
security by simplifying and removing outdated regulations located in 33 
CFR parts 120 and 128. These parts prescribe requirements for passenger 
vessels and passenger terminals to develop and implement vessel 
security plans and terminal security plans. However, the enactment of 
the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA) largely 
superseded the requirements located in 33 CFR parts 120 and 128 with 
the requirements in 33 CFR Subchapter H, parts 104 and 105. As a 
result, parts 120 and 128 are now used only for their terminal security 
plan implementation requirements.
    The final rule will improve regulatory clarity and efficiency by 
replacing the terminal screening procedures from parts 120 and 128 with 
updated terminal screening procedures laid out in the current MTSA 
regulations located in Subchapter H. The primary purpose of these 
changes is to provide more efficient and clear requirements for the 
screening of all baggage, personal items, and persons--including 
passengers, crew, and visitors--intended for carriage on a cruise ship, 
and enhance the security of cruise ship terminals, while minimizing 
disruptions to business operations. As a result, the changes will allow 
terminals an appropriate degree of clarity that accommodates and is 
consistent with their varying sizes and operations.
    The final rule will also both clarify and simplify requirements to 
ensure all facilities maintain screening measures that meet a minimum 
standard. For example, while the terminal security plan requirements in 
part 128 merely required that owners or operators of a terminal 
facility ``[p]rovide adequate security training to employees of the 
terminal,'' \1\ the new regulations both incorporate the existing MTSA 
training requirements located in section 105.210, as well as enumerate 
several terminal-specific items that clarify what knowledge base is 
needed to adequately ensure security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 33 CFR 128.300(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the final rule will establish clear, simplified, 
enforceable standards, consolidate the terminal security regulations in 
the Code of Federal Regulations, and ensure a consistent, minimum layer 
of security at cruise ship terminals throughout the United States with 
a minimal impact to business operations.
    We estimate that this rule will affect 137 MTSA-regulated 
facilities, 131 cruise ships, and 23 cruise line companies. This 
rulemaking will have a one-time administrative cost for the development 
of a terminal screening program and for updating the FSP for the 
prohibited items list. We estimate the one-time cost for these updates 
to be about $158,660 (undiscounted).

A. Summary of NPRM

    In the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (79 FR 73255, December 
10, 2014), the Coast Guard proposed several changes to existing 
regulations on the screening of persons and their baggage at cruise 
ship terminals. The discussion below summarizes the proposed 
requirements. A more detailed discussion of the requirements can be 
found in the NPRM.
    First, we proposed that cruise ship terminals revise their Facility 
Security

[[Page 12087]]

Plans (FSPs) to include a consolidated section on terminal screening, 
called the terminal screening program (TSP). Additionally, we proposed 
several requirements for TSPs, as laid out in proposed subpart E of 33 
CFR 105 (Sec. Sec.  105.500 through 105.550), that would impose clearer 
requirements on how a screening program should operate.
    The proposed specific requirements of the TSP were minimal. Many of 
the requirements in subpart E are already contained in a terminal's 
existing TSP, as mandated by existing 33 CFR part 128, although these 
items are discussed in greater detail in the new subpart E. 
Additionally, the proposed subpart E included some new training and 
qualification requirements for screeners (such as familiarity with 
relevant portions of the TSP and FSP), requirements for screeners to 
participate in drills, and requirements for how screening equipment 
should be used if the screener chose to use it. In our analysis of 
cruise ship TSPs, we estimated that most, if not all, cruise ship 
terminals would already comply with the vast majority of the 
requirements in subpart E, and that the costs of compliance with the 
proposed rule would be largely limited to revising cruise ship terminal 
FSPs to meet the format requirements of subpart E. See the preliminary 
regulatory analysis (available in the docket under ``Supporting 
Documents'' at USCG-2006-23846-0029) for a more detailed discussion of 
the costs of the proposed rule.
    Second, the Coast Guard proposed that cruise ship operators also 
meet certain new requirements in proposed Sec.  104.295. Specifically, 
we proposed that cruise ship owners or operators be required to ensure 
that screening is performed in accordance with the screener 
qualification (new Sec.  105.530), screener training (new Sec.  
105.535), and screening equipment (new Sec.  105.545) provisions of 
Subpart E regardless of whether the screening is performed by a cruise 
ship terminal. Existing Sec.  104.295 makes cruise ship owners and 
operators responsible for ensuring pre-embarkation screening, but does 
not refer to Subpart E. We note that the screening equipment 
regulations proposed in Sec.  105.545 did not require the use of 
additional screening equipment, but only to regulate the way certain 
equipment would be used and maintained if the screener chose to employ 
it.
    Third, the Coast Guard proposed to develop a Prohibited Items List 
(PIL) similar but not identical to that used by the Transportation 
Security Administration (TSA) at airports, which would define certain 
items that could not be brought on board a cruise ship by passengers on 
their persons or in checked luggage. Proposed Sec.  105.515 required 
this PIL be posted at each screening location. In the NPRM, we 
explained that prohibiting the items listed on the PIL was not intended 
to be a new requirement, but an interpretation of the existing 
requirement, located in 33 CFR 104.295(a) and 105.290(a), that cruise 
ship and cruise ship terminal operators ``[s]creen all persons, 
baggage, and personal effects for dangerous substances and devices.'' 
Considering that the definition of ``dangerous substances and devices'' 
in 33 CFR 101.105 means ``any material, substance, or item that 
reasonably has the potential to cause a transportation security 
incident [TSI]'', we proposed to publish the PIL as an interpretive 
document indicating which items the Coast Guard believes are 
``dangerous substances and devices'' at all times, while other items 
may or may not be considered such at the FSO's discretion. We noted 
that cruise ship operators were free to prohibit additional items on 
their vessels if they believed they were dangerous, or for any other 
reason, and noted that most cruise lines already advertised lists of 
prohibited items that are extremely similar to, if not more extensive 
than, the proposed PIL.
    Finally, the Coast Guard proposed 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. We also 
proposed removing section 120.220, concerning the reporting of unlawful 
acts, as 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.

B. Overview of the Final Rule

    The final rule amends the maritime security regulations, found in 
title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (33 CFR) subchapter H 
(parts 101 through 105), relating to TSPs in existing FSPs at cruise 
ship terminals within the United States and its territories. The final 
rule builds upon existing facility security requirements in 33 CFR part 
105, which implements the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 
(MTSA), Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064 (November 25, 2002), 
codified at 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701.
    We note that this rule only addresses screening procedures for 
persons boarding the vessel and their baggage. This 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. 
Requirements for security measures for the delivery of vessel stores, 
bunkers, and cargo exist and are found in 33 CFR 104.275, 104.280, 
105.265, and 105.270.
    This final rule also makes changes to the list of prohibited items 
proposed in the NPRM. The Coast Guard announces in this final rule the 
availability of the revised PIL in the regulatory docket for this 
rulemaking and on the Coast Guard's website at https://homeport.uscg.mil.
    This rule does not include regulations that may be required 
pursuant to the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2010 (CVSSA), 
Public Law 111-207 (July 27, 2010) (See RIN 1625-AB91) (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.

C. Summary of Costs and Benefits

    We expect minimal cost impacts to industry and the public from this 
rulemaking since it incorporates current industry practices. We 
estimate that this rule will affect 137 MTSA-regulated facilities, 131 
cruise ships, and 23 cruise line companies. While this rulemaking 
streamlines and clarifies the existing requirements regarding passenger 
screening, there will be a one-time administrative cost for the 
development of a terminal screening program and for updating the FSP 
for the prohibited items list. We estimate the one-time cost for these 
updates to be about $158,660 (undiscounted).

III. Basis and Purpose and Regulatory History

    The Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.), 
authorizes the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is 
operating to take certain actions to advance port, harbor, and coastal 
facility security. The Secretary is authorized under 33 U.S.C. 1231 to

[[Page 12088]]

promulgate regulations to implement 33 U.S.C. chapter 26, including 33 
U.S.C. 1226. The Secretary has delegated this authority to the 
Commandant of the Coast Guard (DHS Delegation 0170.1(70) and (71)).
    On December 10, 2014, the Coast Guard published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Consolidated Cruise Ship Security 
Regulations'' in the Federal Register (79 FR 73255). As described in 
more detail in the section of the NPRM entitled ``Development of 33 CFR 
Subchapter H'', the purpose of this rule was to require cruise ship 
terminal Facility Security Plans (FSPs) to follow an organized format 
that includes more aspects of screening, and to develop a Prohibited 
Items List for use 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).
    We provided an initial 3-month comment period for the proposed rule 
that was to close on March 10, 2015. However, on April 1, 2015, we 
published a Notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 17372) because we 
omitted from the docket the accompanying Regulatory Analysis. We 
reopened the comment period for a period of 60 days, until June 1, 2015 
to allow commenters to read and comment on the detailed Regulatory 
Analysis if desired. We received 31 written submissions. Additionally, 
we held a public meeting at the Port Everglades Cruise Terminal in 
Hollywood, Florida on February 9, 2015, where 4 persons made oral 
statements.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This meeting was announced in the Federal Register on 
January 21, 2015 (80 FR 2839).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes

    Comments generally fell into one of five overall categories, with 
the most prominent being questions related to requirements for small 
ports of call and the legal responsibilities of cruise ship terminals. 
We also received numerous comments related to screening requirements in 
the TSP, breaches of security, and the prohibited items list. In 
response to those comments, the Coast Guard has clarified and altered 
the final rule in a way that we believe will be less disruptive to the 
cruise ship experience, while still maintaining strong overall levels 
of security. In the subsections below, we summarize the comments 
received and discuss our specific responses.

A. Requirements for Cruise Ship Terminals vs. Ports of Call

    The Coast Guard received numerous comments regarding the imposition 
of screening requirements on ports of call. As described in the NPRM 
proposed definition, ports of call are interim destinations where 
cruise ship passengers disembark the ship for shore excursions. We note 
that some commenters used the term ``port of call'' to describe any 
interim destination by a cruise ship, while others seemed to limit the 
term to facilities where a cruise ship would be serviced by tenders in 
lieu of docking directly.\3\ Unlike at cruise ship terminals, 
passengers do not generally carry much if any baggage at ports of call, 
leaving most belongings on the cruise ship. As far as security measures 
go, security screening is rarely carried out at ports of call, and 
cruise ships generally check passengers when they return to the cruise 
ship to ensure that they have not brought back prohibited items from 
their shore excursions. The security arrangements made between a cruise 
ship and a port of call are generally implemented through a Declaration 
of Security (DoS), which details the respective security arrangements 
between the parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In the NPRM discussion, we stated ``[d]uring visits at 
several cruise ship terminals, cruise ship embarkation ports, and 
ports of call, the Coast Guard witnessed various types of screening 
activities.'' The discrete listings of ``cruise ship terminals'' and 
``ports of call'' indicated that cruise ship terminals and ports of 
call were separate. In the next sentence, however, we stated, 
``[m]ost terminals use metal detectors and x-ray systems. . . and 
other terminals, normally ports of call, screen by hand,'' thus 
seeming to indicate that ports of call are a subset of cruise ship 
terminals (79 FR 73259). This inadvertent inconsistency may have 
contributed to commenters' misunderstanding the definition of ports 
of call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the NPRM proposals were not specifically targeted at ports of 
call, commenters were concerned that ports of call were included in the 
proposed definition of ``cruise ship terminal[s]'', which was defined 
as ``any portion of a facility that receives a cruise ship or its 
tenders to embark or disembark passengers or crew.'' This definition, 
especially with the inclusion of the phrase ``or its tenders,'' meant 
that the scope of this rule would be vastly expanded beyond what is 
traditionally meant by a cruise ship facility, and would impose 
security screening requirements on owners and operators of ports of 
call that had previous delegated screening responsibilities to cruise 
ship operators.
    The Coast Guard received a large number of comments from the 
operators of ports of call questioning many aspects of the proposed 
regulations. Many of these facility operators were concerned that the 
proposed cruise ship terminal requirements were inappropriate for use 
at ports of call that do not receive cruise ships, and that 
implementing these requirements would have substantial costs far above 
and beyond the modest expenditures presented in the preliminary 
regulatory analysis. Furthermore, operators of these ports of call 
suggested that implementing the cruise ship terminal security 
procedures would be redundant, because passengers are already screened 
when they return to the cruise ship.
    To generally summarize, commenters on this issue believed that the 
Coast Guard was proposing to require that all ports of call conduct 
screening of passengers for prohibited items at the facility before 
passengers could re-board cruise ships. This would run contrary to 
existing arrangements, where screening is done on board the ship by 
cruise vessel security personnel.\4\ Such would also likely entail 
significant costs to many facility operators, who would have to build 
out facilities and hire personnel in order to conduct screening, which 
might be duplicative of screening conducted on the vessel. As an 
overall response, the Coast Guard notes that this interpretation was 
based on a misunderstanding of the proposal. We did not intend to imply 
that terminal screening requirements would be expanded to ports of 
call, and we did not intend that ports of call would have specific 
screening requirements imposed by this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ While we note that it would be legal for a screening to be 
conducted at the facility, rather than on the cruise ship, if 
specified in the DoS, we are not aware of any situations in which 
this is done.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to these comments, the Coast Guard has made several 
changes that we hope improve the clarity of the regulatory text. We 
have updated the definitions of ``cruise ship terminal'' and ``ports of 
call'' to clearly delineate between the two, and have included a new 
section 105.292 to make clear the specific responsibilities on ports of 
call. We have also added a new paragraph (a)(2) to Sec.  104.295 to 
remove confusion about screening requirements at ports of call, and to 
make clear that arrangements where screening is conducted onboard the 
vessel do not need to be duplicated at the facility. We believe that by 
making these changes, we have addressed the concerns raised by 
commenters on this issue.
    Below, we address the specific comments received on this issue, as

[[Page 12089]]

well as the Coast Guard's responses to those issues. Given that many 
comments shared many themes as described above, we do not address each 
individual remark, but we do respond to specific comments and issues as 
they present nuance or unique questions on this topic.
    The proposed rule was intended only to be applied to cruise ship 
terminals and not to ports of call. In the NPRM, we estimated the 
proposed rule would affect 23 cruise line companies, each of which 
maintains an FSP for each terminal that they use. Therefore, we stated 
the following: ``[W]e 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.'' 
79 FR 73266. The Preliminary Regulatory Analysis (available in the 
docket at USCG-2006-23846-0029), which accompanied the NPRM, provided 
an explanation of what facilities would be affected by the rule. As 
stated above, the Coast Guard estimated that 137 facilities would be 
affected by this rule (see the Regulatory Planning and Review section 
below), which was based on the number of MTSA-regulated waterfront 
facilities that receive cruise vessels according to the Coast Guard 
Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database (as 
of February 2009).
    However, based on the responses in comments, it appears that this 
analysis may not have been considered by commenters regarding 
potentially affected facilities due to the proposed definition of 
``cruise ship terminal.'' While the term ``cruise ship terminal'' is 
not explicitly defined under current regulations, if a cruise ship does 
not directly service a facility, but instead passengers are transported 
to and from the facility via small vessels known as tenders, then the 
Coast Guard does not consider the facility to be a ``cruise ship 
terminal.'' \5\ In the proposed rule, commenters noted that this class 
of facilities would be swept into the category of cruise ship 
terminals, thus making them subject to both the existing and proposed 
requirements for cruise ship terminals under this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ We note that while there is no current definition of 
``cruise ship terminal,'' the existing definition of ``passenger 
terminal,'' located in 33 CFR 120.110, is ``any structure used for 
the assembling, processing, embarking, or disembarking of passengers 
or baggage for vessels subject to [part 120]. It includes piers, 
wharves, and similar structures to which a vessel may be secured; 
land and water under or in immediate proximity to these structures; 
buildings on or contiguous to these structures; and equipment and 
materials on or in these structures.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A comment from the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) summed up 
this general concern, expressing strong concern that the proposed rule 
would eliminate the category of a ``Port of Call'' and force every 
destination at which a cruise ship calls to be considered a cruise ship 
terminal, ``with requirements for an on-shore screening facility at 
every location where passengers embark or disembark, rather than allow 
the screening to be conducted as passengers board at and by the ship.'' 
\6\ The commenter suggested that the proposed rule would require 
installation and operation of screening facilities on the docks or 
shore, which would be unnecessary due to the existing screening done as 
the passengers board the ship. The commenter also provided several 
descriptions of various small facilities that receive cruise ship 
tenders, describing how they could incur substantial costs if they were 
forced to construct costly screening operation centers. We believe that 
the changes made to the regulatory text address these concerns by 
making clear that these ports of call would not be subject to the 
requirements for cruise ship terminals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ United States Virgin Islands, Office of the Governor, 
comment, USCG-2006-23846-0022, p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many commenters, including many represented by the Passenger Vessel 
Association (PVA), also urged the Coast Guard to reconsider whether 
facilities that only receive cruise ship tenders should be defined as 
``cruise ship terminals'' and be made subject to the associated 
regulations in 33 CFR 105.290. The PVA offered several examples of 
small facilities that receive cruise ship tenders only that would be 
ill-suited to screen passengers for dangerous substances and devices on 
their premises. The PVA instead suggested that ``[a] `port of call' 
facility that simply receives cruise ship tenders, but not the cruise 
ship itself, should not be required to install and operate the 
screening equipment. That responsibility should lie with the cruise 
ship operator, and the rule should permit it to be performed at any 
location prior to boarding the cruise ship, not necessarily on the dock 
or pier.'' \7 8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Passenger Vessel Association comment, available in the 
docket at USCG-2006-23846-0025, p.3.
    \8\ We note that, contrary to the text of the comment, the 
proposed rule would not have required all cruise ship facilities to 
install and operate screening equipment, see proposed Sec. Sec.  
105.545 and 105.550.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional commenters raised PVA's concerns in the context of their 
specific situations. One commenter, a small seasonal company 
specializing in whale watch excursions, argued that ``tender ports 
should not be considered `cruise ship terminals','' and that the 
current rules for tender ports provide effective security.\9\ Noting 
that there is usually no building to store x-ray machines and other 
security apparatuses, the commenter states that the facility or ship 
generally provides simply a tent for passengers to stand under while 
checking IDs and bags. The commenter also noted that the cruise ships 
have x-ray machines and metal detectors at the boarding areas on board, 
thus indicating that imposing screening requirements on the facility 
would be both duplicative and expensive. Another commenter, from the 
city of Ketchikan, Alaska, suggested that there is no centralized 
location for screening in a facility that extends over a mile of 
downtown waterfront.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ USCG-2006-23846-0016, p.1.
    \10\ USCG-2006-23846-0026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters raised similar concerns, but did not limit 
themselves only to ports of call that serviced cruise ship tenders 
exclusively. The American Association of Port Authorities simply stated 
that many facilities that handle port of call visits from cruise ships 
have little or no infrastructure in place to conduct screenings, and 
that the rule must be rewritten so as to not impose significant 
economic burdens on those facilities.\11\ The Cruise Line Agencies of 
Alaska stated that while there are only two cruise terminal facilities 
in the State, there are 25 ports of call, which have little or no 
accompanying shore-side terminal buildings.\12\ This commenter noted 
that they currently conduct screening in coordination with the vessel 
moored at the facility in accordance with existing 33 CFR 105.290. The 
commenter argued that to ``construct the type of facilities 
referenced'' would cost between $2 and $3 million per facility, 
although they did not specify exactly what that would entail.\13\ 
Another commenter, a port facility security officer in Alaska, echoed 
similar concerns, stating that at his port of call facility the docks 
are piers without structures on them, and that building such facilities 
would present an economic hardship.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ USCG-2006-23846-0013.
    \12\ USCG-2006-23846-0019.
    \13\ USCG-2006-23846-0019, p.2.
    \14\ USCG-2006-23846-0018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As indicated above, we have revised Sec.  104.295 to make clear 
that arrangements where screening is

[[Page 12090]]

conducted onboard the vessel do not need to be duplicated at the 
facility.\15\ We note that with regard to the Alaskan ports of call 
referenced by these commenters, the facilities do not appear to be 
serviced by tenders, but the cruise ship docks at the facility. Thus, 
the mere retraction of the phrase ``or its tenders'' from the proposed 
definition of ``cruise ship terminal'' would not appear to alleviate 
their concerns. Thus, in the final rule text, while we are leaving the 
phrase ``or its tenders'' in the definition of cruise ship terminals, 
we have clarified in 104.295 that cruise ship terminal regulations do 
not apply to ports of call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Or, in a hypothetical situation in which screening was 
performed at the facility, it would not need to be duplicated on the 
ship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter stated that proposed changes to the screening method 
in Sec.  105.290(a) would impose significant costs on a small 
facility.\16\ We believe that the commenter's focus on the proposed 
language in Sec.  105.290 is misplaced, and that this comment relates 
more appropriately to the proposed change in the definition of ``cruise 
ship terminal.'' Specifically, this commenter may not have been subject 
to any cruise ship terminal requirements previously (as it would have 
been considered a port of call), and had the proposed change been 
finalized, would have become subject to Sec.  105.290--along with other 
cruise ship terminal requirements--as a result of the proposed change 
to the definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ USCG-2006-23846-0014, p.1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The specific change to Sec.  105.290(a) proposed to add the phrase 
``in accordance with the requirements of subpart E of this part'' to 
the existing requirement that facilities ``Screen all persons, baggage, 
and personal effects for dangerous substances and devices.'' The 
commenter stated that at Maritime Security (MARSEC) Level 1, they 
perform random checks on the docks, and that the new rule would require 
that 100% of all passengers and crew would have to be checked before 
entering the docks. The commenter stated that this new requirement 
would be both costly and redundant. The commenter also stated that 
``the new rule stipulates that 100% of all passengers and crew would be 
checked before putting a foot on our docks, before entering our 
facility [sic].''
    We have several concerns with this comment. To begin, we note that 
both the existing and proposed regulatory text required that ``all'' 
persons be screened, so it appears that, if a facility was subject to 
the requirements of 33 CFR 105.290, random screenings would be a 
violation of both existing and proposed regulations. The new 
regulations add no additional language that could be interpreted as 
requiring more passengers to be screened than under the existing 
language. The commenter also states that the rule would dramatically 
increase costs--and cites the cost of screening all of the passengers 
and crew as an increased cost of the proposed regulation. Again, both 
the existing and proposed regulations require that facilities subject 
to Sec.  105.290 require screening of all passengers, so this rule is 
not imposing new costs. Finally, the commenter states that all 
passengers would need to be screened before entering the facility, but 
we note that neither Sec.  105.290 nor the proposed rule would require 
this (no citation was given in the comment).
    Several commenters were concerned about the definition of ``cruise 
ship terminal'' pertaining to screening locations. The commenters 
argued that the NPRM proposed several changes that, combined, could be 
construed to require the physical location of screening to be located 
only at certain points prior to boarding a cruise ship. Specifically, 
in Sec.  104.295(a)(1) (``Additional Requirements--Cruise Ships''), we 
proposed to add the phrase ``at the cruise ship terminal, or in the 
absence of a cruise ship terminal, immediately prior to embarking a 
cruise ship'' to the requirement that the operator of a cruise ship 
ensure the screening of all persons, baggage, and personal effects for 
dangerous substances and devices.
    The preamble discussion of Sec.  104.295 did not discuss any 
requirements for the physical location of screening, and stated that it 
was only adding language requiring cruise ship owners or operators to 
ensure screening is performed in accordance with the updated screening 
requirements. The NPRM preamble also stated that the Coast Guard 
anticipated that they would continue to coordinate screening with the 
cruise ship terminals.
    Notwithstanding the preamble discussion, several commenters 
expressed concern, related to the language in Sec.  104.295(a)(1) and 
to the proposed definition of ``cruise ship terminal,'' that the 
changes in the proposed rule would force changes to the screening 
location that could increase costs, create duplication, and possibly 
harm security. One commenter stated that the requirement that 
passengers be screened at ports of call was duplicative, as they must 
also be screened upon boarding the cruise ship as specified in the 
ship's VSP.\17\ A second commenter noted that the proposed language in 
Sec.  104.295(a)(1), particularly the phrase ``in the absence of a 
terminal,'' conflicts with the new definition of ``cruise ship 
terminal,'' which would include any facility that receives cruise ships 
or their tenders.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ USCG-2006-23846-0014, p.2.
    \18\ USCG-2006-23846-0027, p.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We agree with the overall assertion made by the commenters. Reading 
the proposed expansive definition of cruise ship terminal, along with 
the phrasing of Sec.  104.295(a)(1) which, in the proposed text, would 
have required screening ``at the cruise ship terminal, or in the 
absence of a terminal, immediately prior to embarking on a cruise 
ship'', would create duplicative screening requirements. We also agree 
that the proposed definition of ``cruise ship terminal'' would make the 
phrase ``in the absence of a terminal'' (in proposed Sec.  
104.295(a)(1)) a logical impossibility. Both of these items are 
addressed by the changes to the definition of cruise ship terminal and 
the changes to Sec.  104.295(a)(1) in this final rule. As stated at the 
start of this section, the new definition of cruise ship terminal 
limits the definition to facilities to the point where the cruise 
vessel begins or ends its voyage, thus excluding ports of call, where 
security screening is conducted on the vessel (or at a facility, if 
detailed in a DoS) pursuant to the requirements in Sec.  104.265(f)-
(g), as detailed in its VSP. Similarly, the new text in Sec.  
104.295(a)(1) replaces the wording that would have required screening 
``at the cruise ship terminal, or in the absence of a terminal, 
immediately prior to embarking a cruise ship'' with the phrase ``prior 
to entering the sterile (or secure) portion of a cruise ship''. These 
changes allow the existing arrangement, where passengers returning to a 
cruise ship at a port of call, may be screened upon entering the 
vessel, to continue.
    However, we disagree with an assertion by the second commenter that 
``docks'' should not be considered ``facilities.'' This commenter 
stated that some cruise ships routinely use ports that simply have 
docks that are used for port calls, which should not be considered 
''terminals'' or even ``facilities''. The commenter also states that 
these ports do not have the room or infrastructure to support screening 
areas, but that the cruise ships visiting these ports do, and currently 
screen all passengers. We note that we would consider a dock where 
cruise ship passengers embark or disembark to be a ``facility'' based 
upon the definition of

[[Page 12091]]

``facility'' in 33 CFR 101.105.\19\ To be more specific regarding this 
particular dock, the Coast Guard would consider it a ``port of call'' 
based on the fact that cruise ships make a scheduled stop at this 
facility in the course of their voyage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Facility means any structure or facility of any kind 
located in, on, under, or adjacent to any waters subject to the 
jurisdiction of the U.S. and used, operated, or maintained by a 
public or private entity, including any contiguous or adjoining 
property under common ownership or operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) expressed concern 
that the proposed rule's requirement in Sec.  104.295(a)(1), relating 
to the required screening location, was inappropriate for smaller 
terminals. CLIA noted that for many terminals, ``screening is conducted 
onboard cruise ships in the absence of appropriate facilities at a 
terminal'', and noted that ``some embarkation/disembarkation ports are 
not equipped to conduct screening prior to a passenger boarding.'' \20\ 
CLIA suggested several additions to the regulations that could increase 
the flexibility for cruise ship facilities in situations like this. One 
suggestion was to amend Sec.  104.295 from ``immediately prior to 
embarking a cruise ship'' to ``immediately prior to entering the 
sterile (or secure) portion of a cruise ship,'' which would allow the 
mandated screening to take place on the vessel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Cruise Lines International Association comment, USCG-2006-
23846-0023, p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CLIA made two other suggestions related to part 105. The first was 
to add the phrase ``where screening is performed at the cruise ship 
terminal'' to the proposed requirement in Sec.  105.500(a) 
(``Applicability''),\21\ and the second suggestion was to amend Sec.  
105.550 (``Alternatives'') to allow for alternative screening locations 
in addition to alternative screening equipment. They stated that these 
changes to the regulations would allow cruise ship terminals to locate 
screening facilities where most appropriate, as well as have screening 
performed on the vessel if done in accordance with a DoS. However, we 
note that the requested changes to subpart E are rendered unnecessary 
by the changes to the definition of ``cruise ship terminal'' and the 
revision of the definition for ``port of call,'' along with the new 
text in Sec. Sec.  104.295 and 105.292.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Thus, Sec.  105.500(a) would read, ``The owner or operator 
of a cruise ship terminal must comply with this subpart when 
receiving a cruise ship or tenders from cruise ships where screening 
is performed at the cruise ship terminal.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CLIA also expressed concern that the security-related 
familiarization for screeners, in Sec.  105.535, may be a burden 
because the expectation that screeners are aware of historic and 
current threats to the industry may be unrealistic, especially without 
an authoritative source pointing to those threats. In response to this, 
we note that the particular requirements in Sec.  104.295, which would 
require the vessel to screen ``in accordance with the qualification, 
training, and equipment requirements of Sec. Sec.  105.530, 105.535, 
and 105.545,'' would be unlikely to significantly impact training 
operations. The requirements referenced consist of basic training and 
qualification requirements, and Sec.  105.545 only mandates that 
screening equipment, if used, must be used in accordance with general 
maintenance and signage requirements. With regard to familiarization, 
we would interpret it to mean familiarity with what items are 
prohibited, and common means in which they may be hidden on a person. 
We expect that all security screeners are given this training, which is 
why we have not considered it to be an added burden in this final rule.
    Additionally, one commenter stated that the proposed regulations 
would go beyond the International Maritime Organization's International 
Ship and Port Facility Security Code requirements,\22\ and that 
foreign-flagged cruise ships are not required to comply with these 
additional vessel security regulations. The commenter argued that some 
cruise ships, particularly foreign-flagged ships, may not have the room 
or capability to screen at the levels described in the proposed rule. 
Thus, the commenter argued, the liability to perform the necessary 
screening would by default fall on the facility, with ports of call 
being affected far more than cruise ship terminals. We believe that by 
clarifying the particular responsibilities of ports of call in new 
Sec.  105.292, in contrast to the requirements for cruise ship 
terminals, we have made clear that ports of call are free to continue 
screening operations in conjunction with vessels. As a result, these 
foreign-flagged cruise vessels will only be required to meet the 
limited requirements in Sec. Sec.  105.530, 105.535, and 105.545 of 
subpart E, which we believe they already do. The same commenters 
pointed out that several provisions of the proposed rule, particularly 
the definition of ``cruise ship terminal,'' but also proposed 33 CFR 
104.295, had the effect of regulatory changes that were not anticipated 
or desired by the Coast Guard. As stated in our preamble and economic 
analysis, the intent of this rulemaking action is to provide more 
detailed regulatory requirements for cruise ship screening operations 
and the associated TSP than are currently provided in parts 120 and 
128, as well as to include the requirements for a PIL in the 
regulations. We do not believe that commenters took issue with what was 
the original intent of the NPRM, but rather the unintended changes 
based on the wording of the proposed regulatory text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ USCG-2006-28615-0019, p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, based on the comments received, this final rule 
contains several changes from the proposed rule pertaining to 
requirements for cruise ship terminals and ports of call. The 
paragraphs below describes those changes in detail.
    First, to alleviate the confusion expressed by many commenters, we 
are adding a definition of ``cruise ship terminal'' that reflects the 
common understanding of the difference between a ``terminal'' and a 
``port of call.'' Cruise ship terminals are where passengers embark or 
disembark at the beginning and end of the voyage, while ports of call 
are intermediate stops during the voyage. The requirements of subpart E 
primarily apply to cruise ship terminals, while ports of call are 
simply subject to the existing requirements that the screening and 
other security arrangements be coordinated with the vessels. We are 
also modifying the definition of ``port of call'' by adding the phrase 
``or its tenders'' to the existing definition, and adding a specific 
regulatory requirement (located in new Sec.  105.292) to ensure cruise 
vessels screen all persons, baggage, and personal effects for dangerous 
substances and devices prior to entering the sterile (or secure) 
portion of a cruise ship. The primary change to the regulations with 
regard to ports of call, unchanged from the proposed rule, will be the 
requirement that the PIL be used and displayed during the screening 
process.
    Additionally, we are amending the proposed language in Sec.  
104.295 to remove the screening location requirement from the 
regulations. We agree with commenters that this language would cause 
problems for facilities where screening is performed on a cruise ship, 
and it was not our intent to impose a requirement for a redundant 
screening procedure. Instead, we are incorporating in new Sec.  
104.295(a)(2) a version of the existing language from 33 CFR 120 which 
allowed the vessel owner or operator to work with the owner or operator 
of a port of call to ensure that all passengers were screened. We 
believe that the addition of this language will make clear that the 
existing arrangements

[[Page 12092]]

between ports of call and cruise ships, in which screening is conducted 
upon re-boarding the cruise ship, remains an acceptable means of 
compliance with this part.
    We believe that these changes are responsive to the comments 
received above and better reflect the goals of the Coast Guard in this 
rulemaking. With these regulations in place, we are accomplishing three 
things. First, we are improving and standardizing screening procedures 
at cruise ship terminals, where the bulk of baggage is examined, to 
ensure that items that pose a risk of causing a TSI are prevented from 
being brought onto the vessel at those points. Second, we are 
clarifying through the use of the PIL which items must be prohibited, 
and ensuring that this information is disseminated to passengers and 
crew, not just at terminals, but also at ports of call and on vessels. 
Finally, we are clarifying the requirements for specific aspects of 
screening that Coast Guard believes are vital, including procedures, 
training, and reporting, as opposed to the more general requirements of 
the existing parts 120 and 128, to provide a minimum baseline 
requirement that ensures cruise ships remain a safe and secure 
environment.

B. Legal Responsibility for Terminal Screening Program

    Generally, commenters were concerned that the rule could make 
cruise ship terminal owners responsible for terminal screening 
operations, and therefore liable for civil monetary penalties, even if 
those operations were conducted by an independent cruise ship terminal 
operator or by the cruise ship operator. Commenters stated that in many 
cases responsibilities for passenger screening were delegated from the 
cruise ship terminal to another party, often the cruise ship operator. 
Cruise ship terminal operators argued that the proposed regulations, if 
not clarified, could impose responsibility for security and screening 
on the owner or operator of the cruise ship terminal. One commenter, a 
Port Authority, noted that Sec.  104.295(a)(1) holds the ``owner or 
operator of the vessel'' responsible for ensuring that the screening 
takes place. The commenter suggested that the Coast Guard include 
statements that the current system of assignment of screening 
responsibility is acceptable and may continue, and that the terminal 
owner or operator is not responsible for screening operations unless 
specifically noted in security plans.
    The American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) made several 
comments that related to the responsibility for ensuring screening 
practices are carried out properly. They stated their concern that the 
proposed regulations, as written, ``do not account for the transfer of 
responsibility for security [from the terminal operator to the cruise 
ship operator] on cruise days,'' and that the language ``would impose 
full responsibility for security and screening on the owner and 
operator of a cruise ship terminal.'' The AAPA requested that the 
regulations be clarified or revised to impose the enhanced security 
obligations on the entity exercising security duties at the cruise ship 
terminal on cruise days, and that imposing obligations on the terminal 
owner who does not control security functions is redundant and would 
impose a significant financial burden.
    Similarly, another commenter stated that the language in Sec.  
105.510, ``Screening responsibilities of the owner or operator,'' is 
not flexible enough. The commenter suggested that enough flexibility 
must be written into the final rule to allow terminal owners to enter 
into agreements with terminal operators that define responsibility for 
compliance with these requirements.
    Several other commenters expressed concern regarding the perceived 
change in responsibility. One commenter argued that there were 
unintended consequences in transferring the responsibility for 
screening of passengers from the cruise lines, which are willing and 
capable, to smaller jurisdictions that are not equipped to do so. 
Another commenter stated that the proposed rule needs clarification on 
the transfer of responsibility for security and screening on cruise 
days, noting that the operator of the terminal may switch control on 
those days. One commenter, who operates a cruise facility in Miami, 
described such a mode of operation. Another operator of a cruise ship 
terminal requested that the regulation language allow terminal 
``owners'' to enter into agreements with terminal ``operators'' that 
define responsibilities for compliance with the screening requirements.
    While we do not believe that the language in the proposed 
regulation would have imposed additional responsibilities on terminal 
owners or operators, the Coast Guard nonetheless would like to respond 
to these concerns and clarify this in the final rule. In the NPRM, the 
Coast Guard did not discuss any intent to redistribute legal 
responsibility. Under both the existing regulations and the proposed 
regulatory text, the cruise ship terminal operator would be responsible 
for ensuring that terminal screening operations are carried out in a 
proper manner. Under the existing regulatory text, one acceptable way 
for the owner or the operator of a cruise ship terminal to accomplish 
this is through coordination with the cruise ship operator and 
delegation of screening operations to that entity. The existing 
language in 33 CFR part 128, ``Security of Passenger Terminals'' (which 
also applies to cruise ship terminals), addresses this matter. Existing 
Sec.  128.200(b) provides that ``you'' must work with the operator of 
each passenger vessel subject to 33 CFR part 120, to provide security 
for the passengers, the terminal, and the vessel. Those terminals need 
not duplicate any provisions fulfilled by the vessel unless directed to 
by the Captain of the Port. Additionally, when a provision is fulfilled 
by a vessel, the applicable section of the Terminal Security Plan must 
refer to that fact.
    We emphasize that ``you'' is defined in Sec.  128.110 as ``the 
owner or operator of a passenger terminal.'' We also note there is a 
reciprocal passage in Sec.  120.200(b) pertaining to the legal 
responsibilities of passenger vessels.
    Thus, the existing regulations place the requirements for the TSP 
on the owner or operator of a passenger terminal, and the proposed 
regulatory text referred to by the commenters (in Sec. Sec.  105.500, 
105.505, and 105.515) uses functionally identical language (``the owner 
or operator of a cruise ship terminal''). Based on the existing 
language in 33 CFR 128.200(b), the owner or operator of a terminal 
could meet its TSP requirements by having certain provisions fulfilled 
by a vessel, assuming the TSP referred to that fact. We believe the 
commenters' concerns resulted from the removal of the sections, in 
parts 120 and 128, which explicitly stated that the responsibilities of 
vessels and terminals could be handled through cooperative means if 
specified in the respective security plans. In response to the comments 
received, we are incorporating that language into the text of parts 104 
and 105 (see Sec. Sec.  104.295(a)(2) and 105.292(a)), to acknowledge 
that the current system remains unchanged.
    One commenter stated that the way the security screening process 
works at his port is that the facility signs a DoS agreement with the 
ship, and the DoS identifies who is responsible for security throughout 
the process. The commenter stated that ``the facility people would 
usually agree to be responsible for the facilities [sic] security and 
the ship crew are responsible for their own ship.'' \23\ We

[[Page 12093]]

acknowledge that such a system is still permissible under the final 
rule, and believe that incorporating the language contained in parts 
120 and 128 into the text of parts 104 and 105 (specifically section 
104.295(a)(2) and section 105.295(a)) clarifies this type of 
arrangement. Another commenter noted that several items from proposed 
subpart E (Sec.  105.505(c)(2) and (c)(6), and Sec.  105.510(c)), 
appear to indicate that specific screening responsibilities can be 
delegated in the DoS, as is currently permitted. We note that this is 
correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ USCG-2006-23846-0016, p.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AAPA laid out several scenarios detailing how security 
responsibilities may be shared between the facility and cruise ship at 
different types of ports. We believe that all of them are addressed by 
the changes in this final rule.
    In the first scenario, the cruise line leases the entire terminal 
facility from the port authority. The cruise line will have its own FSP 
for the leased terminal, and will have the legal responsibility to 
screen for dangerous substances and devices for the terminal and the 
vessel.
    In the second scenario, the AAPA states that a port authority may 
operate the cruise ship terminal, and would itself handle the security 
of the facility. Both of these situations would be acceptable means of 
complying with Sec. Sec.  104.295 and 105.290, assuming that the 
division of responsibilities was laid out in a DoS and detailed in the 
relevant security plans. We note that in the first scenario, as the 
facility owner, a terminal operator could be liable if security 
measures were not maintained, and if it was discovered that the 
terminal operator did not properly ensure compliance by working with a 
cruise ship operator as required in Sec.  105.290(a). We note that 
language, adapted from Sec.  128.200(b), has been added to subsection 
105.290(a) to improve clarity.
    In the third scenario, a port authority may outsource the operation 
and security for cruise operations to a third party, who would control 
the FSP. In this case, the AAPA argues that the port authority could be 
exposed to civil penalties under the proposed rule. We agree that in 
this scenario a port authority, as the owner of a cruise ship terminal, 
could be held responsible for inadequate security procedures if they 
did not properly ensure that the third party, given control of the 
terminal by the port authority, conducted screening operations pursuant 
to subpart E. In such a scenario, the third party, as the operator of a 
cruise ship terminal, could also face penalties.\24\ We believe that it 
is proper that both owners and operators be held to these standards to 
ensure that screening procedures are carried out properly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ In deciding against whom to assess civil monetary penalties 
under MTSA, the Coast Guard attempts to assign the penalties to the 
party whose negligence or malfeasance caused the violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the fourth scenario, cruise ships conduct screening and maintain 
legal liability. Under the regulations specific to ports of call that 
we have added in Sec.  105.292, which include the adapted language from 
existing Sec.  128.200(b), ports of call could continue to rely on 
cruise ships to conduct screening. A port of call could be subject to 
legal liability if it did not complete a DoS and ensure that the cruise 
ship operator was conducting the required screening. We believe this is 
an appropriate incentive to ensure that screening is provided.

C. Screening Procedures and Requirements

    The Coast Guard received a number of comments relating to the 
specific screening requirements laid out in proposed subpart E. These 
comments contained questions related to the training and certification 
of screeners, the use of screening equipment, requirements in cases of 
breaches of security, and other items. In this section, we address the 
specific issues relating to the technical and operational aspects of 
the proposed screening requirements. While many comments addressed both 
technical questions as well as issues relating to the operational 
capacities of small ports of call, we note that the issue with ports of 
call has been addressed extensively in section A above.
    In the NPRM, we laid out the specific proposed screening 
requirements in subpart E of part 105, ``Facility Security: Cruise Ship 
Terminals.'' This subpart contained a requirement to develop a TSP as 
part of the FSP, as well as detailing specific operational, training 
and qualification, and equipment requirements. We received numerous 
comments requesting clarification and amendments of these parts, which 
are addressed below.
    One commenter asked questions relating to Sec.  105.530, 
``Qualifications of Screeners,'' in which the Coast Guard had proposed 
that screeners must have a combination of education and experience 
deemed sufficient by the Facility Security Officer (FSO) in order to 
perform the duties of the position, and that screeners are capable of 
using all methods and equipment needed to perform their duties. The 
commenter took issue with these requirements, and suggested that we 
require proof of certification to operate each type of screening 
equipment. The commenter suggested that such a system could be similar 
to that required in the Private Charter Standard Security Program, 
which is a particular privately-run program for security compliance.
    While we have considered a more specific requirement, such as that 
used by the Private Charter Standard Security Program, we have decided 
to use a more general, and thus more flexible, standard for this rule. 
Because this rule does not impose specific equipment or methodologies 
for screening, writing certification requirements into regulation could 
severely restrict the options used at ports. Given the wide differences 
in the way cruise ship terminals are used, set up, and operated, we 
believe that giving the FSO the discretion and responsibility for 
determining which qualifications are necessary to adequately perform 
the required duties is the best course of action.
    The commenter also questioned whether the training requirements for 
screeners, laid out in proposed Sec.  105.535, would be demonstrated 
through self-certification or from a certified provider. The commenter 
suggested that, much as FSOs must have a certification pursuant to 
section 821 (``Port Security Training and Certification'') of the Coast 
Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-281, October 15, 2010), 
screeners should also be required to be certified by a provider rather 
than self-certify, arguing that self-certification fails to establish a 
minimum level of required training and competency.
    We note that nothing in Sec.  105.210 requires certification, 
either self-certification or third-party certification, and furthermore 
we note that the items in Sec.  105.535 are facility-specific. As to 
whether third-party certification could be a viable alternative to the 
current method, we believe that it would be impractical for a 
certification provider to develop and provide certifications relating 
to facility-specific issues. We continue to believe that the 
familiarization requirements set forth in Sec.  105.535 are best 
documented in the TSP, as set forth in Sec.  105.505(c)(5) (the 
documentation requirement for procedures to comply with Sec.  105.535 
regarding training of screeners).
    Several commenters also raised the issue of the discovery of 
prohibited items during the screening process. In Sec.  105.515(d), we 
proposed the following text: ``Facility personnel must report the 
discovery of a prohibited item

[[Page 12094]]

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.'' The commenter argued that the discovery of prohibited 
items during the screening process must not be treated as a breach of 
security, but rather treated in accordance with local law enforcement 
practices, which may include such remedies as confiscation or disposal 
of the prohibited item. Only if the item is discovered in the secure 
area of the cruise ship terminal should it be treated as a breach of 
security pursuant to Sec.  101.305(b). We agree with the commenter, and 
in fact this was our intention. Therefore, we are modifying the text of 
this section to clarify that fact by adding a sentence noting that a 
prohibited item discovered during security screening is not considered 
a breach of security.
    Additionally, one commenter requested clarification that an 
occurrence of a reportable breach of security is not, in itself, a 
basis for a civil or criminal penalty under Sec.  101.415 as a breach 
of security is distinct from a violation of the requirements applicable 
to cruise ship terminal owners and operators. We agree with this 
analysis, although we also note that reporting a breach of security 
does not negate a violation of the cruise ship terminal's security 
requirements, if they were not properly carried out.
    Another commenter also expressed confusion regarding the language 
in Sec.  105.515(d). This commenter noted that some prohibited items, 
such as bleach, may be properly located in the ship's stores, which is 
a secure area. They stated that this may be confusing for facility 
security personnel and Coast Guard officers, ``especially if a facility 
is not designed with space for separate areas.'' \25\ We assume that 
this last phrase means that there is a single space for ship's stores 
and screened passenger baggage. In such a case, we hope that the cruise 
ship operator is able to distinguish between items in the ship's stores 
and items brought on board by passengers. If unable to, such an 
operator may wish to create separation between the two storage areas. 
As noted above, items contained in ship's stores are not subject to the 
restrictions in this section, which only apply to items brought on 
board by passengers. If an item properly brought on board as part of 
the ship's stores is ``discovered'' in a secure area, it would not 
constitute a breach of security. We note the proposed language makes 
this distinction clear, as it reads ``facility personnel must report 
the discovery of a prohibited item introduced by violating security 
measures'' as a breach of security (emphasis added). Items brought on 
board by legal means, such as ship's stores, do not fall under this 
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ USCG-2006-23846-0019, p.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter requested clarification that the screening processes 
are not required upon entrance to the cruise ship terminal, but rather 
that screening measures should be in place only when passengers attempt 
to gain access to a secure area of the terminal. Another commenter 
suggested that the Coast Guard would require screening processes be in 
place at the time a person or baggage enters the cruise ship terminal. 
The former interpretation is correct, and we believe the regulatory 
text is already clear on this point. Note that the only requirement 
regarding the location of screening is in Sec.  105.525(a)(1), which 
reads, ``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 the secure areas of the terminal designated for 
screened persons and carry-on items.'' Similarly, the complementary 
requirement in Sec.  104.295(a)(1) only requires that screening take 
place prior to entering the sterile or secure portion of the cruise 
ship.
    One commenter stated that screening equipment that has been 
determined to meet the TSA's Qualified Product List (QPL) would be 
appropriate for use under Sec.  105.545, which sets basic standards for 
screening equipment. The commenter also suggested that products on the 
QPL could be optimized for the cruise ship industry. We agree that 
products on the QPL have undergone significant testing and refinement, 
but we disagree with the suggestion that we refer to the QPL directly 
because in this rule we are attempting to maintain as much flexibility 
as possible. Therefore, we have limited the requirements to compliance 
with 49 CFR 1544.211 (TSA requirements for use of X-ray systems), as 
well as FDA safety requirements.

D. Prohibited Items List (PIL)

    Commenters raised a variety of concerns regarding the PIL, 
including the posting of the PIL, clarification of specific terms on 
the PIL, requests to add or delete items from the PIL, and application 
of the list to persons other than passengers. These concerns are 
addressed below.
    One commenter suggested that there should be an exemption from the 
prohibition on dangerous substances and devices for crew members 
bringing items necessary for the performance of their duties. These 
could include props, such as toy guns, if used in a performance, or 
other such items. We do not believe such an exemption for crew members 
is warranted. We are concerned that a crew member may breach security 
with a prohibited item under the false pretense that an item was needed 
for his or her official duties. We note that if certain items are 
needed on board, such as props for a show, they can be brought in as 
ship's stores.
    One commenter took issue with including the PIL in the FSP, but not 
the VSP. The commenter argued that by not including the PIL as a 
requirement in the VSP, there is inconsistency in the application of 
prohibited items. They also argued that including the PIL in the VSP 
would ensure application at foreign ports of call and allow for 
consistent communication regarding prohibited items. We disagree. Even 
if the cruise ship conducts the screening, they are still required to 
conduct it in accordance with the requirements in Sec.  104.295, which 
prohibit the introduction of ``dangerous substances and devices.'' The 
PIL is a document that helps to clarify what those items are. 
Therefore, because vessel operators must screen for items on the PIL, 
it is not necessary to include the PIL in the VSP.
    One commenter argued that the Coast Guard may not be the correct 
entity to generate the PIL, as the limitations placed on its resources 
make it inadequate to compile a modern list of dangerous substances. We 
disagree and note that the Coast Guard expends considerable resources 
in considering materials, scenarios, and techniques that could be used 
to cause security incidents. Finally, we note that members of the 
public are welcome to contact the Coast Guard at any time with 
suggestions for how the PIL can be improved.
    One commenter requested more specificity for the PIL. Noting that 
the list includes such terms as ``limited quantities'' and ``quantities 
appropriate for personal use,'' the commenter suggested that those 
terms needed additional specificity in order to take the subjectivity 
out of screening for passengers and cruise terminal operators, as well 
as Coast Guard inspectors.
    These terms were used in the PIL in two locations. We stated that 
aerosols are prohibited, but excluded ``items for personal care or 
toiletries in limited quantities.'' Similarly, we stated that lighter 
fluids are prohibited, but provided an exception for ``liquefied gas 
(e.g. Bic[supreg]-type) or absorbed liquid (e.g.

[[Page 12095]]

Zippo[supreg]-type) lighters in quantities appropriate for personal 
use.''
    Upon consideration, and given the nature of the PIL, we believe 
that removing aerosols and lighter fluids from the PIL is appropriate. 
By removing these items from the PIL, we are not saying that lighter 
fluid and aerosols are not ``dangerous substances'' in any amount. 
Rather, we are giving the responsible security officials the discretion 
and responsibility for determining if allowing these items in ``limited 
quantities'' or ``quantities appropriate for personal use'' is the best 
course of action considering the particular nature of the vessel and 
duration of the cruise. If the security officer believes that a 
particular quantity of aerosols or lighter fluid constitutes a 
dangerous amount, then they should prohibit that item as they would any 
other dangerous substance or device in accordance with Sec.  104.295 
and Sec.  105.290.
    For similar reasons involving a lack of specificity, we are 
removing ``realistic replicas'' of guns and firearms. Again, we leave 
it to the judgment of a security officer as to whether a replica is 
realistic enough to constitute a threat.
    One commenter argued that the PIL would not be particularly 
effective, and that ``any current inspector is already looking for 
those items.'' We agree with the idea that an inspector would likely be 
looking for the items listed on the PIL, and would like to use this 
opportunity to explain again the purpose of the PIL. Regulations 
already exist prohibiting ``dangerous substances and devices'' from 
being brought on board cruise ships, and screening procedures are 
already designed to search for them. The PIL is a Coast Guard 
interpretation of certain items that we believe are always ``dangerous 
substances and devices,'' and must be intercepted at screening. 
Publication of this list by the Coast Guard will reduce uncertainty in 
the industry and the public about what is prohibited and what is not, 
especially as many cruise lines maintain varying lists about what is 
prohibited, and will help cruise ship facilities better implement the 
screening requirement in 33 CFR 105.290(a). We fully expect cruise ship 
and terminal operators to use discretion in screening, and to prohibit 
other items that they consider dangerous, either based on the nature of 
the item, the quantity, or other characteristics. For that reason, the 
PIL is not intended to be a comprehensive list of all items prohibited 
on a cruise ship. Furthermore, we note that the PIL does not prohibit 
screening for other items that, while not necessarily dangerous from a 
security standpoint, may be prohibited for other reasons, such as 
electrical appliances or alcoholic beverages.
    The commenter also suggested that the posting of the PIL on docks, 
the incorporation into the FSP, and the use of the PIL in training 
would not be particularly onerous. We agree.
    One commenter suggested that the proposed regulations do not 
address items that can be brought on board at a foreign port of call. 
We disagree, and note that a cruise ship must still comply with the 
regulations in Sec.  104.295 before passengers enter the sterile (or 
secure) portion of a cruise ship. During that screening, which 
incorporates relevant portions of subpart E, items brought on board at 
the port of call will be subject to the requirements of this rule.
    One commenter protested the inclusion of ``self-defense sprays'' on 
the PIL. The commenter made several arguments as to why such items 
should be permitted on vessels. First, the commenter noted that unlike 
an aircraft, on cruise ships there are medical facilities for treatment 
and open air areas on the ship in case of accidental release. In 
response, we note that the rationale for an item being included on the 
PIL is not that they may accidentally injure a passenger, but rather 
that they can be used to effect a TSI. Therefore we do not agree with 
the commenter on this point. Second, the comment suggested that bear 
spray is often used by passengers in Alaska for use on shore 
excursions, and argued that the restricted areas on the ship could 
protect critical operations in the event of a bear spray release. While 
we realize that this is possible, we note that a TSI may not 
necessarily involve breaching critical ship areas like the bridge or 
engine room, but could involve simply the injury or deaths of large 
numbers of passengers trapped in an enclosed area, which is one reason 
that cruise ships are protected more than other areas, such as 
buildings.
    However, we note that there is a solution for the commenter's need 
for passengers to possess items like bear spray. The PIL is a rule that 
relates to screening of passenger items, but does not affect items 
brought on board as vessel stores or provisions. In the bear spray 
example, passengers could relinquish their bear spray to vessel 
employees prior to boarding, who could store the sprays in a secure 
area of the vessel. The sprays could then be returned to the passengers 
prior to their shore excursions. In this way, the fact that the item is 
on the PIL does not fully exclude it from use. Such a system of having 
items stored in a secure area can be used if a passenger wishes to 
transport or use on expeditions other items on the PIL, including 
firearms. We reiterate that this rule is simply designed to prohibit 
dangerous items from being accessible to passengers on the vessel, not 
to limit the activities of person on shore-side excursions.
    Finally, the Coast Guard is modifying the language in Sec.  
105.515(a) so that it is phrased as a requirement on owners and 
operators of cruise ship terminals, rather than simply a policy 
statement that the Coast Guard will issue and maintain the PIL. We note 
that this has no substantive effect, but is simply a stylistic change, 
as owners and operators of cruise ship terminals are required by Sec.  
105.515(c) to display the PIL at screening locations and integrate the 
PIL into the DoS.
    We have included a copy of the revised Prohibited Items List in the 
docket of this rulemaking, and we also note that it is available on the 
Coast Guard's website at https://homeport.uscg.mil. As stated in the 
NPRM, if there are future revisions to the PIL, the Coast Guard will 
publish an interpretive rule in the Federal Register to alert the 
public of any such change. Additionally, the Coast Guard will, as 
stated in the NPRM, 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.

E. Regulatory Impact Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Coast Guard received comments from one commenter on the 
Regulatory Analysis. The commenter stated that the cost analyses did 
not reflect the costs that would be incurred by existing facilities 
that receive cruise ship tenders if they would have to assume 
responsibility for screening. The commenter also noted that the 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the NPRM did not include the costs 
for these facilities, which are likely owned by small businesses and 
governments.
    In response to these and other similar comments, for the Final 
Rule, the Coast Guard modified two definitions in Sec.  101.105 and 
amended the proposed language to remove the screening location 
requirement in Sec.  104.295. These changes, discussed in detail in 
section A, above, clarify that existing facilities that receive cruise 
ship tenders may continue the current practice of coordinating 
screening and security arrangements with cruise vessels. The cost 
concerns expressed in the comments on the Regulatory Analysis are 
alleviated by the regulatory language

[[Page 12096]]

changes, the language in the Final Rule clarifies the current industry 
practice.

F. Other Comments

    The Coast Guard received comments on a wide variety of other 
matters, only some of which directly related to the substance of the 
proposed rule. We address these comments briefly in this section.
    Several commenters expressed dissatisfaction with the proposed rule 
in general, and argued that screening for dangerous substances and 
devices would be burdensome and/or ineffective. We note that screening 
of passengers and their baggage is already required, and this rule 
merely adds more detail to those requirements. As made clear in our 
regulatory analysis, we do not believe that the additional detail 
provided in this regulation will substantially alter the time and/or 
burden that this screening requires for either passengers or cruise 
ship terminal operators.
    One commenter requested that there be exceptions to the items 
prohibited, such as a medical condition or special circumstances. We 
have addressed this issue above, and note that otherwise-prohibited 
items can be brought onto a ship via ship's stores, and stored in a 
controlled environment for authorized use. The commenter also suggested 
that the Coast Guard should take into consideration the vast 
differences in size between cruise ships and aircraft, and allow cruise 
ships to formulate their own screening methods. We note that this rule 
relates to screening methods that were developed specifically for 
cruise ships, and is scalable for cruise ships that need to screen 
thousands of passengers in a short time.
    One commenter argued that bringing guns on board a cruise ship 
would improve the personal safety of passengers, if one passenger were 
to be assaulted by another. We note that this rule is focused on the 
risks of a TSI, not personal safety, and the risks to all passengers 
caused by allowing uncontrolled firearms onto cruise ships are 
substantial. We note that the issue of personal safety with regard to 
firearms is outside the scope of this rule.
    One commenter agreed with the Coast Guard that while wholesale 
adoption of TSA standards for X-ray and explosives detective systems 
was not necessary, there were certain advantages to using machinery on 
the TSA's QPL. These advantages included established system maturity, 
mature logistics and maintenance organizations, and certification 
programs. We agree that operators may find items that are certified to 
TSA standards useful, but they are not required. The commenter also 
noted that such machines can be used to scan vessel stores, although we 
note that screening of stores is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    One commenter recommended that the Coast Guard adopt a ``turnkey 
approach'' to security inspections of all sorts where a single company 
is tasked with providing equipment, personnel, training, and the 
security infrastructure necessary to meet specified requirements. While 
it is certainly within the scope of cruise ship terminal operators and 
cruise ship operators to work with a single company to meet all of the 
applicable requirements, it is by no means required. The security 
requirements finalized in this rule are designed to allow flexibility, 
especially given the varying configurations and operational models for 
cruise ships, terminals, and ports of call.
    The Coast Guard received comments from one commenter on the 
Regulatory Analysis. The commenter stated that the cost analyses did 
not reflect the costs that would be incurred by existing facilities 
that receive cruise ship tenders if they would have to assume 
responsibility for screening. The commenter also noted that the 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the NPRM did not include the costs 
to these facilities, which are likely owned by small businesses and 
governments.
    In response to the comments, for the Final Rule, the Coast Guard 
has modified several definitions and amended the proposed language to 
remove the screening location requirement in Sec.  104.295. These 
changes clarify that existing facilities that receive cruise ship 
tenders may continue the current practice of coordinating screening and 
security arrangements with cruise vessels. The cost concerns expressed 
in the comments on the Regulatory Analysis are alleviated by the 
regulatory language changes. Therefore, we are adopting as final the 
regulatory assessment for the NPRM, with minor administrative edits to 
account for the revised text of the final rule. In addition, a full 
Regulatory Assessment (RA) is available in the docket.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this final rule after considering numerous statutes 
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our 
analysis based on these statutes and 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. Executive Order 13771 (``Reducing Regulation and 
Controlling Regulatory Costs''), directs agencies to reduce regulation 
and control regulatory costs and provides that ``for every one new 
regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for 
elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently 
managed and controlled through a budgeting process.''
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this 
rule a ``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. As this 
rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from 
the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum 
``Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled `Reducing Regulation and 
Controlling Regulatory Costs' '' (April 5, 2017). A regulatory analysis 
(RA) follows.
    The following table summarizes the affected population, costs, and 
benefits of this rule. A summary of costs and benefits by provision is 
provided later in this section.

  Table 1--Summary of Affected Population, Costs in 2016$ and Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                             Estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected population....................  137 MTSA-regulated facilities;
                                         23 cruise line companies.
Development of TSP.....................  $156,397

[[Page 12097]]

 
Updating FSP...........................  $9,775
                                        --------------------------------
    Total Cost *.......................  $166,171
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Qualitative Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terminal Screening Program.............  Greater clarity and efficiency
                                          due to removal of redundancy
                                          in regulations.
                                         The TSP improves industry
                                          accountability and provides
                                          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 in unsecured
                                          areas of the cruise ship
                                          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 final rule will amend regulations on 
cruise ship terminal security. The regulations will provide 
requirements for the screening of persons intending to board a cruise 
ship, as well as their baggage and personal effects. In this 
rulemaking, we intend to issue and maintain a Prohibited Items List of 
dangerous substances or devices (e.g., firearms and ammunition, 
flammable liquids and explosives, dangerous chemicals). The PIL is 
based on similar items currently prohibited by industry, and is 
intended to be a minimum requirement; vessel owner and operators would 
be free to prohibit items not listed on it. We anticipate that the PIL 
described in the preamble will be cost neutral to the industry. We also 
intend to eliminate redundancies in the regulations that govern the 
security of cruise ship terminals. Table 2 summarizes changes from the 
NPRM to the Final Rule.

                                Table 2--Changes From the NPRM to the Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Section                           NPRM                  Final rule                 Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cruise ship terminal.................  Referred to as a point   Referred to as a point   Clarification: No cost.
                                        from which passengers    for initial
                                        or crew commence or      embarkation.
                                        terminate a voyage.
104.295(1): Screening................  Required that screening  The requirement for the  Clarification: No Cost.
                                        should be done at the    final rule, now state
                                        cruise ship terminal.    that screen should be
                                                                 done prior to entering
                                                                 the sterile (or
                                                                 secure) portion of a
                                                                 cruise ship.
104.295(2): Screening................  N/A....................  Vessel owner or          Current industry
                                                                 operator may work with   practice: No Cost.
                                                                 cruise ship terminal
                                                                 of port of call to
                                                                 meet the requirement
                                                                 of this section.
105.292: Cruise ship ports of call...  N/A....................  Owner or operator of     Current industry
                                                                 cruise ship port of      practice: No Cost.
                                                                 call must work with
                                                                 the operator of each
                                                                 cruise ship to
                                                                 minimize duplication
                                                                 of any provision
                                                                 fulfilled by the
                                                                 vessel.
105.500(c)(2): General...............  Terminal owners and      Both terminal and        Clarification: No Cost.
                                        operators must comply    cruise ship owners and
                                        with an approved TSP.    operators must comply
                                                                 with an approved TSP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule will allow owners and operators of cruise ships and 
cruise ship terminals the choice of their own screening methods and 
equipment and establish security measures tailored to their own 
operations. This final rule will 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):
     33 CFR part 105 Subpart E Screening equipment standards;
    [cir] Sec.  105.255(a) and Sec.  128.200(a)(1) and Sec.  128(a)(2) 
currently require screening for dangerous substances and devices. In 
accordance with those regulations, industry already screens baggage and 
persons.
     Sec.  105.530 Qualifications of screeners; and
    [cir] Sec.  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] Sec.  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

[[Page 12098]]

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 this 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 will 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.  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 Sec.  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 screening personnel are familiar with item (a)--
historic and current threats against the cruise ship industry.
    We estimate the final rule will affect 23 cruise line companies. 
Each cruise line maintains an FSP for each terminal that they utilize. 
Based on information from the Coast Guard MISLE database, we estimate 
that the final rule will require that FSPs at 137 MTSA-regulated 
facilities be updated. The final rule will require these facilities to 
add TSP chapters to their existing FSPs. This rule will 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 3--Summary of First-Year Costs by Requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Costs
          Requirement            (undiscounted;        Description
                                     rounded)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terminal Screening Program             $156,397  Cost to create and add
 (TSP).                                           the TSP chapter to the
                                                  FSPs.
Update the FSP.................           9,775  Cost to update the
                                                  Prohibited Items List
                                                  in FSPs.
                                ----------------
    Total......................         166,171  First-year undiscounted
                                                  costs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the cost of this rule to industry to be about $166,171 
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 PIL will be incorporated into the FSP (33 CFR 
105.415). We do not anticipate any recurring annual cost as a result of 
this rule, as the annual cost to update the FSP is not expected to 
change due to the inclusion of the TSP and PIL.
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 rulemaking. Table 4 provides a brief summary of 
benefits of key provisions.

                   Table 4--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 provides for a more
                                systematic approach to monitor facility
                                procedures.
Prohibited Items List........   Details those items that are
                                prohibited from unsecured areas in all
                                cruise terminals and vessels.
                                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 transportation security incident (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 $9.6 million. A value of a statistical life 
of $9.6 million is equivalent to a value of $9.60 as a measure of the 
public's willingness to pay to reduce the risk of a fatality by one in 
a million, $0.96 to reduce a one in 10 million risk, and $0.096 to 
reduce a one in 100 million risk.\26\ As 8.9

[[Page 12099]]

million passengers embark onto cruise ships in the U.S. each year,\27\ 
very small reductions in risk can result in a fairly large aggregate 
willingness to pay for that risk reduction. A VSL of $9.6 million 
indicates that 8.9 million cruise ship passengers that embark from the 
U.S. would collectively be willing to pay approximately $8.544 million 
to reduce the risk of a fatality by one in 10 million (8.90 million 
passenger x $0.96). 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 final rule are approximately 
$22,111 at 7 percent; thus, the final rule would have to prevent one 
fatality every 434 years for the rule to reach a break-even point where 
costs equal benefits ($9.6 million value of a statistical life/$22,111 
average annual cost of rule = 434).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ ``Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of a 
Statistical Life in U.S., Department of Transportation Analysis'' 
https://cms.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/2016%20Revised%20Value%20of%20a%20Statistical%20Life%20Guidance.pdf.
    \27\ Source: Cruise Lines International Association, Inc. 
(CLIA), 2009 U.S. Economic Impact Study, Table ES-2, Number of U.S., 
Embarkations. . https://www.cruising.org/about-the-industry/press-room/press-releases/pr/clia-releases-report-on-industry-s-2009-contributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 rule will 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. In the NPRM the Coast Guard certified that this rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The Coast Guard received no comments related to its 
discussion and analysis of impacts on small entities during the public 
comment period. We have received no additional information or data that 
will alter our determination, discussion and analysis of the NPRM.
    We expect entities affected by the rule will 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 Table of Small 
Business Size Standards,\28\ 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 $20.5 million in annual revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 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 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 will be affected by this rulemaking, 11 are foreign entities. All 
23 entities exceed the Small Business Administration small business 
standards for small businesses along with the 137 MTSA facilities.
    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 affirms its certification under 5 U.S.C. 
605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small 
entities in understanding this rule so that they could better evaluate 
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 rule calls 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 this final rule, plan holders will submit 
amended security plans within 180 days of promulgation of the rule and 
update them annually. This requirement will 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 will 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 
FSP, will need to update said plan to include the list of prohibited 
items as detailed in this 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 will 
improve existing and future FSPs for cruise terminals, since they 
currently do not separate this important information.
    Proposed Use of Information: The Coast Guard will 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 number of respondents is 10,158 for 
vessels, 5,234 for facilities, and 56 for Outer

[[Page 12100]]

Continental Shelf (OCS) facilities. Of these 5,234 facilities, 137 
facilities that receive cruise ships that will be required to modify 
their existing FSPs to account for the TSP chapter.
    Frequency of Response: Cruise lines will only need to write a TSP 
chapter once before inserting it into the associated FSP. This will 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 will be approximately 16 hours. The estimated burden to update 
the FSP will 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 will be 2,192 hours (137 TSPs 
x 16 hours per TSP) in the first year. For the 137 facilities, the 
total burden will be 137 hours (137 FSPs x 1 hour per FSP). The current 
burden for this collection of information is 1,125,171. The new burden, 
as a result of this rulemaking, is (1,125,171 + 2,192 + 137) or 
1,127,500 hours 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 final rule to the OMB for 
its review of the collection of information.
    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 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 final rule builds on the existing port security requirements 
found in 33 CFR part 105 by establishing detailed 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, are amended by 
this final rule. 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 invited 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 the NPRM. In accordance with Executive Order 
13132, the Coast Guard is providing 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 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.
    The Coast Guard interacted with State and local governmental 
authorities primarily through the notice and comment procedure. The 
Coast Guard received comments from the following governmental entities: 
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the City of Rockland, 
ME, the Massachusetts Port Authority, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Port 
Miami, and the Broward County Florida Port Everglades Department. The 
commenters addressed a range of issues of significance, which while 
addressed in more detail above in section IV, are summarized below.
    Many port authorities were concerned regarding the issue of 
liability in the event of security breaches or failures to comply with 
applicable terminal screening regulations. Several port authorities 
described contractual relationships with cruise ship operators or third 
parties that assigned screening responsibility to those parties, and 
were concerned that the new regulations could hold them liable as 
terminal owners if the operating party failed to comply with 
regulations. This transfer of liability was not the intent of the rule, 
and the Coast Guard was responsive to these entities' request by adding 
language to sections 104.295 and 105.292 specifying that, if detailed 
in a DoS, terminal owners could meet their regulatory requirements by 
assigning screening responsibility to a cruise ship operator or other 
responsible party. We believe this change fully addresses this concern.
    Other issues raised by local or State authorities concerned 
procedural requirements stemming from the identification of prohibited 
items discovered in secure areas. These issues, which were also raised 
by non-governmental entities, were addressed by including language in 
the text of the regulation at section 105.515(d) that more clearly laid 
out the steps to be taken in the event of a discovery of a prohibited 
item at various stages of the screening process.
    Several governmental entities, most notably the U.S. Virgin 
Islands, were highly concerned about the expansion of the regulation to 
``ports of call.'' In response to these concerns, the Coast Guard 
clarified in section IV.A that the enhanced screening requirements 
applied only to terminals, which are a separate class of facilities. 
This clarifies that the smaller ports of call can continue to conduct 
screening requirements under their current systems.
    Finally, we received a request from one large port authority to add 
more specific training and qualification criteria for cruise ship 
screeners. In the final rule, we declined to adopt this suggestion, 
because we believe that such a ``one size fits all'' approach would be 
impracticable and burdensome considering the wide range of cruise ship 
terminals and ports of call. We note that while not required, larger 
terminals are free to subject their screening personnel to more 
stringent training requirements than required by these regulations.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) 
requires

[[Page 12101]]

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 rule will not result in 
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 
in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

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

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 
because it will 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 rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant 
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy. 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 OMB, 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 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 
rule will 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 TSA during the 
development of this rule.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security 
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which 
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that it 
is one of a category of actions that do not individually or 
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A 
Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this 
determination is available in the docket where indicated in the 
ADDRESSES section of this preamble. This rule is categorically excluded 
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).

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 amends 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.


0
2. In Sec.  101.105, add, in alphabetical order, definitions for the 
terms ``carry-on item'', ``checked baggage'', ``cruise ship terminal'', 
``cruise ship voyage'', ``disembark'', ``embark'', ``explosive 
detection system'', ``high seas'', ``port of call'', ``screener'', and 
``terminal screening program or 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.
* * * * *

[[Page 12102]]

    Cruise ship terminal means any portion of a facility that receives 
a cruise ship or its tenders for initial embarkation or final 
disembarkation.
    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 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 or its 
tenders.
* * * * *
    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 security plan (VSP) or 
facility security plan (FSP).
* * * * *
    Terminal screening program or 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 paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) 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 prior to entering the sterile or secure portion 
of a cruise ship in accordance with the qualification, training, and 
equipment requirements of Sec. Sec.  105.530, 105.535, and 105.545 of 
this subchapter.
    (2) The vessel owner or operator may work with the owner or 
operator of each cruise ship terminal or port of call at which that 
vessel embarks or disembarks passengers to meet the requirements of 
this section. The owner or operator of a cruise ship need not duplicate 
any provisions fulfilled by the cruise ship terminal or port of call. 
When a provision is fulfilled by the cruise ship terminal or port of 
call, the applicable section of the Vessel Security Plan must refer to 
that fact.
* * * * *

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. The owner or operator of a cruise ship terminal need not 
duplicate any provisions fulfilled by the vessel. When a provision is 
fulfilled by a vessel, the applicable section of the terminal security 
program (TSP) must refer to that fact.
    (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. Add Sec.  105.292 to read as follows:


Sec.  105.292  Additional requirements--cruise ship ports of call.

    (a) The owner or operator of a cruise ship port of call must work 
with the operator of each cruise ship subject to part 104 of this 
chapter to ensure that passengers are screened for dangerous substances 
and devices in accordance with the qualification, training, and 
equipment requirements of Sec. Sec.  105.530, 105.535, and 105.545. The 
port of call need not duplicate any provisions fulfilled by the vessel. 
When a provision is fulfilled by a vessel, the applicable section of 
the TSP must refer to that fact.
    (b) The owner or operator of a cruise ship port of call must 
display the Prohibited Items List at each screening location.

0
9. In Sec.  105.405, revise paragraphs (a)(17) and (18), reserve 
paragraphs (a)(19) and (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)-(20) [Reserved]
    (21) If applicable, cruise ship TSP in accordance with subpart E of 
this part.
* * * * *

0
10. Add 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 (PIL).
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 Alternative screening.

[[Page 12103]]

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 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 October 15, 2018, 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 to the cognizant COTP for review and approval.
    (2) No later than April 18, 2019, 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 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 (FSO) must--
    (1) Maintain the TSP in the same or similar location as the FSP as 
described in Sec.  105.400(d);
    (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 (PIL) publicly 
available. The PIL and copies thereof are not SSI.
    (c) Content. The TSP must include--
    (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 PIL;
    (4) The procedures used to comply with the requirements of Sec.  
105.530 regarding qualifications of screeners;
    (5) The procedures used to comply with the requirements of Sec.  
105.535 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 regarding the screening of individuals, 
their personal effects, and baggage, including screening at increased 
Maritime Security (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;
    (9) The procedures used to comply with the requirements of Sec.  
105.550 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 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, the owner or 
operator of a cruise ship terminal must ensure that--
    (a) A 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 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 (Maritime Security) level is increased, 
additional screening measures are employed in accordance with an 
approved TSP.


Sec.  105.515  Prohibited Items List (PIL).

    (a) The owner or operator of a cruise ship terminal must obtain 
from the Coast Guard and maintain a Prohibited Items List (PIL) 
consisting of dangerous substances and devices for purposes of Sec.  
105.290(a). 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 PIL 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 DoS.
    (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. A prohibited item discovered during security screening 
is not considered to be a breach of security, and should be treated in 
accordance with local law enforcement practices.


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 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), which sets forth additional requirements for 
cruise ship terminals at all MARSEC levels.
    (4) All screened passengers and their carry-on items must remain in 
secure

[[Page 12104]]

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 (VSO) 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, screening personnel at 
cruise ship terminals must--
    (a) Have a combination of education and experience that the 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, 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 TSP and FSP;
    (c) The purpose and contents of the cruise ship terminal PIL;
    (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 MARSEC 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.


Sec.  105.545  Screening equipment.

    The following screening equipment may be used, provided it is 
specifically documented in an approved 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, 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.
    (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, the equipment and methods must be described in detail in an 
approved TSP.

PART 120--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

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

PART 128--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

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

    Dated: March 8, 2018.
Jennifer F. Williams,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2018-05394 Filed 3-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P



                                               12086              Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

                                               DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND                                    C. Screening Procedures and Requirements            terminal screening procedures from
                                               SECURITY                                                  D. Prohibited Items List (PIL)                      parts 120 and 128 with updated
                                                                                                         E. Regulatory Impact Analysis and                   terminal screening procedures laid out
                                               Coast Guard                                                  Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
                                                                                                                                                             in the current MTSA regulations located
                                                                                                         F. Other Comments
                                                                                                       V. Regulatory Analyses                                in Subchapter H. The primary purpose
                                               33 CFR Parts 101, 104, 105, 120, and                      A. Regulatory Planning and Review                   of these changes is to provide more
                                               128                                                       B. Small Entities                                   efficient and clear requirements for the
                                                                                                         C. Assistance for Small Entities                    screening of all baggage, personal items,
                                               [Docket No. USCG–2006–23846]
                                                                                                         D. Collection of Information                        and persons—including passengers,
                                               RIN 1625–AB30                                             E. Federalism                                       crew, and visitors—intended for
                                                                                                         F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act                     carriage on a cruise ship, and enhance
                                               Consolidated Cruise Ship Security                         G. Taking of Private Property                       the security of cruise ship terminals,
                                               Regulations                                               H. Civil Justice Reform
                                                                                                         I. Protection of Children
                                                                                                                                                             while minimizing disruptions to
                                                                                                         J. Indian Tribal Governments                        business operations. As a result, the
                                               AGENCY:    Coast Guard, DHS.
                                                                                                         K. Energy Effects                                   changes will allow terminals an
                                               ACTION:   Final rule.                                     L. Technical Standards                              appropriate degree of clarity that
                                                                                                         M. Environment                                      accommodates and is consistent with
                                               SUMMARY:    The Coast Guard is issuing a
                                                                                                                                                             their varying sizes and operations.
                                               final rule to eliminate outdated                        I. Abbreviations                                         The final rule will also both clarify
                                               regulations that imposed unnecessary                                                                          and simplify requirements to ensure all
                                                                                                       AAPA American Association of Port
                                               screening requirements on cruise ships                    Authorities                                         facilities maintain screening measures
                                               and cruise ship terminals. This final                   CFR Code of Federal Regulations                       that meet a minimum standard. For
                                               rule replaces these outdated regulations                CLIA Cruise Lines International Association           example, while the terminal security
                                               with simpler, consolidated regulations                  COTP Captain of the Port                              plan requirements in part 128 merely
                                               that provide efficient and clear                        DoS Declaration of Security
                                                                                                       FSO Facility Security Officer
                                                                                                                                                             required that owners or operators of a
                                               requirements for the screening of                                                                             terminal facility ‘‘[p]rovide adequate
                                               baggage, personal items, and persons on                 FSP Facility Security Plan
                                                                                                       FR Federal Register                                   security training to employees of the
                                               a cruise ship. This final rule will                                                                           terminal,’’ 1 the new regulations both
                                                                                                       MARSEC Maritime Security
                                               enhance the security of cruise ship                     MISLE Marine Information for Safety and               incorporate the existing MTSA training
                                               terminals and allow terminal operators                    Law Enforcement                                     requirements located in section 105.210,
                                               to use effective screening mechanisms                   MTSA Maritime Transportation Security                 as well as enumerate several terminal-
                                               with minimal impact to business                           Act of 2002                                         specific items that clarify what
                                               operations.                                             NAICS North American Industry
                                                                                                                                                             knowledge base is needed to adequately
                                                                                                         Classification System
                                               DATES:  This final rule is effective April              NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking                    ensure security.
                                               18, 2018.                                               OMB Office of Management and Budget                     Therefore, the final rule will establish
                                               ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in                       PIL Prohibited Items List                             clear, simplified, enforceable standards,
                                               this preamble are part of docket USCG–                  QPL Qualified Product List                            consolidate the terminal security
                                               2006–23846. To view public comments                     § Section symbol                                      regulations in the Code of Federal
                                                                                                       SSI Sensitive Security Information                    Regulations, and ensure a consistent,
                                               or documents mentioned in this                          TSA Transportation Security
                                               preamble as being available in the                                                                            minimum layer of security at cruise ship
                                                                                                         Administration                                      terminals throughout the United States
                                               docket, go to http://                                   TSI Transportation Security Incident
                                               www.regulations.gov, type the docket                    TSP Terminal Screening Program
                                                                                                                                                             with a minimal impact to business
                                               number in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click                  TWIC Transportation Worker Identification             operations.
                                               ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket                          Credential                                            We estimate that this rule will affect
                                               Folder on the line associated with this                 U.S.C. United States Code                             137 MTSA-regulated facilities, 131
                                               rulemaking.                                             VSP Vessel Security Plan                              cruise ships, and 23 cruise line
                                                                                                       VSL Value of Statistical Life                         companies. This rulemaking will have a
                                               FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
                                                                                                       II. Executive Summary                                 one-time administrative cost for the
                                               you have questions on this rule, call or                                                                      development of a terminal screening
                                               email Lieutenant Commander Kevin                           The Coast Guard is amending its                    program and for updating the FSP for
                                               McDonald, Inspections and Compliance                    regulations on cruise ship terminal                   the prohibited items list. We estimate
                                               Directorate, Office of Port and Facility                security by simplifying and removing                  the one-time cost for these updates to be
                                               Compliance, Cargo and Facilities                        outdated regulations located in 33 CFR                about $158,660 (undiscounted).
                                               Division (CG–FAC–2), Coast Guard;                       parts 120 and 128. These parts prescribe
                                               telephone 202–372–1168, email                           requirements for passenger vessels and                A. Summary of NPRM
                                               Kevin.J.McDonald2@uscg.mil.                             passenger terminals to develop and                       In the notice of proposed rulemaking
                                               SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:                              implement vessel security plans and                   (NPRM) (79 FR 73255, December 10,
                                                                                                       terminal security plans. However, the                 2014), the Coast Guard proposed several
                                               Table of Contents
                                                                                                       enactment of the Maritime                             changes to existing regulations on the
                                               I. Abbreviations                                        Transportation Security Act of 2002                   screening of persons and their baggage
                                               II. Executive Summary                                   (MTSA) largely superseded the                         at cruise ship terminals. The discussion
                                                  A. Summary of NPRM and Overview of the               requirements located in 33 CFR parts                  below summarizes the proposed
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2




                                                     Final Rule                                        120 and 128 with the requirements in 33               requirements. A more detailed
                                                  B. Summary of Costs and Benefits
                                               III. Basis and Purpose and Regulatory History
                                                                                                       CFR Subchapter H, parts 104 and 105.                  discussion of the requirements can be
                                               IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes                  As a result, parts 120 and 128 are now                found in the NPRM.
                                                  A. Requirements for Cruise Ship Terminals            used only for their terminal security                    First, we proposed that cruise ship
                                                     vs. Ports of Call                                 plan implementation requirements.                     terminals revise their Facility Security
                                                  B. Legal Responsibility for Terminal                    The final rule will improve regulatory
                                                     Screening Program                                 clarity and efficiency by replacing the                 1 33   CFR 128.300(b)(4).



                                          VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:16 Mar 16, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00002   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\19MRR2.SGM     19MRR2


                                                                  Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations                                           12087

                                               Plans (FSPs) to include a consolidated                  Administration (TSA) at airports, which                  We note that this rule only addresses
                                               section on terminal screening, called the               would define certain items that could                 screening procedures for persons
                                               terminal screening program (TSP).                       not be brought on board a cruise ship by              boarding the vessel and their baggage.
                                               Additionally, we proposed several                       passengers on their persons or in                     This rule does not address the screening
                                               requirements for TSPs, as laid out in                   checked luggage. Proposed § 105.515                   of vessel stores, bunkers, or cargo.
                                               proposed subpart E of 33 CFR 105                        required this PIL be posted at each                   Similarly, it does not affect what items
                                               (§§ 105.500 through 105.550), that                      screening location. In the NPRM, we                   may be brought onto a cruise ship by the
                                               would impose clearer requirements on                    explained that prohibiting the items                  cruise ship operator, including items
                                               how a screening program should                          listed on the PIL was not intended to be              that passengers may check for secure
                                               operate.                                                a new requirement, but an interpretation              storage with the cruise operator outside
                                                  The proposed specific requirements of                of the existing requirement, located in               of their baggage. Requirements for
                                               the TSP were minimal. Many of the                       33 CFR 104.295(a) and 105.290(a), that                security measures for the delivery of
                                               requirements in subpart E are already                   cruise ship and cruise ship terminal                  vessel stores, bunkers, and cargo exist
                                               contained in a terminal’s existing TSP,                 operators ‘‘[s]creen all persons, baggage,            and are found in 33 CFR 104.275,
                                               as mandated by existing 33 CFR part                     and personal effects for dangerous                    104.280, 105.265, and 105.270.
                                               128, although these items are discussed                 substances and devices.’’ Considering                    This final rule also makes changes to
                                               in greater detail in the new subpart E.                 that the definition of ‘‘dangerous                    the list of prohibited items proposed in
                                               Additionally, the proposed subpart E                    substances and devices’’ in 33 CFR                    the NPRM. The Coast Guard announces
                                               included some new training and                          101.105 means ‘‘any material,                         in this final rule the availability of the
                                               qualification requirements for screeners                substance, or item that reasonably has                revised PIL in the regulatory docket for
                                               (such as familiarity with relevant                      the potential to cause a transportation               this rulemaking and on the Coast
                                               portions of the TSP and FSP),                           security incident [TSI]’’, we proposed to             Guard’s website at https://
                                               requirements for screeners to participate               publish the PIL as an interpretive                    homeport.uscg.mil.
                                               in drills, and requirements for how                     document indicating which items the                      This rule does not include regulations
                                               screening equipment should be used if                   Coast Guard believes are ‘‘dangerous                  that may be required pursuant to the
                                               the screener chose to use it. In our                    substances and devices’’ at all times,                Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of
                                               analysis of cruise ship TSPs, we                        while other items may or may not be                   2010 (CVSSA), Public Law 111–207
                                               estimated that most, if not all, cruise                 considered such at the FSO’s discretion.              (July 27, 2010) (See RIN 1625–AB91)
                                               ship terminals would already comply                     We noted that cruise ship operators                   (CVSSA). Although this rule and the
                                               with the vast majority of the                           were free to prohibit additional items on             CVSSA are both concerned with cruise
                                               requirements in subpart E, and that the                 their vessels if they believed they were              ship security generally, this rule
                                               costs of compliance with the proposed                   dangerous, or for any other reason, and               consolidates and updates pre-boarding
                                               rule would be largely limited to revising               noted that most cruise lines already                  screening requirements while the
                                               cruise ship terminal FSPs to meet the                   advertised lists of prohibited items that             CVSSA prescribes requirements in other
                                               format requirements of subpart E. See                   are extremely similar to, if not more                 areas, such as cruise ship design,
                                               the preliminary regulatory analysis                     extensive than, the proposed PIL.                     providing information to passengers,
                                               (available in the docket under                             Finally, the Coast Guard proposed to               maintaining medications and medical
                                               ‘‘Supporting Documents’’ at USCG–                       remove 33 CFR parts 120 and 128                       staff on board, crime reporting, crew
                                               2006–23846–0029) for a more detailed                    because provisions in those parts                     access to passenger staterooms, and
                                               discussion of the costs of the proposed                 requiring security officers and security              crime scene preservation training.
                                               rule.                                                   plans or programs for cruise ships and
                                                  Second, the Coast Guard proposed                     cruise ship terminals would be                        C. Summary of Costs and Benefits
                                               that cruise ship operators also meet                    redundant with the provisions in 33                      We expect minimal cost impacts to
                                               certain new requirements in proposed                    CFR subchapter H. We also proposed                    industry and the public from this
                                               § 104.295. Specifically, we proposed                    removing section 120.220, concerning                  rulemaking since it incorporates current
                                               that cruise ship owners or operators be                 the reporting of unlawful acts, as it is              industry practices. We estimate that this
                                               required to ensure that screening is                    obsolete, and existing law enforcement                rule will affect 137 MTSA-regulated
                                               performed in accordance with the                        protocols require members of the Cruise               facilities, 131 cruise ships, and 23 cruise
                                               screener qualification (new § 105.530),                 Lines International Association (CLIA)                line companies. While this rulemaking
                                               screener training (new § 105.535), and                  to report incidents involving serious                 streamlines and clarifies the existing
                                               screening equipment (new § 105.545)                     violations of U.S. law to the nearest                 requirements regarding passenger
                                               provisions of Subpart E regardless of                   Federal Bureau of Investigation field                 screening, there will be a one-time
                                               whether the screening is performed by                   office as soon as possible.                           administrative cost for the development
                                               a cruise ship terminal. Existing                                                                              of a terminal screening program and for
                                               § 104.295 makes cruise ship owners and                  B. Overview of the Final Rule
                                                                                                                                                             updating the FSP for the prohibited
                                               operators responsible for ensuring pre-                    The final rule amends the maritime                 items list. We estimate the one-time cost
                                               embarkation screening, but does not                     security regulations, found in title 33 of            for these updates to be about $158,660
                                               refer to Subpart E. We note that the                    the Code of Federal Regulations (33                   (undiscounted).
                                               screening equipment regulations                         CFR) subchapter H (parts 101 through
                                               proposed in § 105.545 did not require                   105), relating to TSPs in existing FSPs               III. Basis and Purpose and Regulatory
                                               the use of additional screening                         at cruise ship terminals within the                   History
                                               equipment, but only to regulate the way                 United States and its territories. The                   The Ports and Waterways Safety Act
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2




                                               certain equipment would be used and                     final rule builds upon existing facility              (PWSA) (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.),
                                               maintained if the screener chose to                     security requirements in 33 CFR part                  authorizes the Secretary of the
                                               employ it.                                              105, which implements the Maritime                    department in which the Coast Guard is
                                                  Third, the Coast Guard proposed to                   Transportation Security Act of 2002                   operating to take certain actions to
                                               develop a Prohibited Items List (PIL)                   (MTSA), Public Law 107–295, 116 Stat.                 advance port, harbor, and coastal
                                               similar but not identical to that used by               2064 (November 25, 2002), codified at                 facility security. The Secretary is
                                               the Transportation Security                             46 U.S.C. Chapter 701.                                authorized under 33 U.S.C. 1231 to


                                          VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:16 Mar 16, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00003   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\19MRR2.SGM   19MRR2


                                               12088              Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

                                               promulgate regulations to implement 33                  comments received and discuss our                         of ports of call questioning many
                                               U.S.C. chapter 26, including 33 U.S.C.                  specific responses.                                       aspects of the proposed regulations.
                                               1226. The Secretary has delegated this                                                                            Many of these facility operators were
                                                                                                       A. Requirements for Cruise Ship
                                               authority to the Commandant of the                                                                                concerned that the proposed cruise ship
                                                                                                       Terminals vs. Ports of Call
                                               Coast Guard (DHS Delegation 0170.1(70)                                                                            terminal requirements were
                                               and (71)).                                                 The Coast Guard received numerous                      inappropriate for use at ports of call that
                                                  On December 10, 2014, the Coast                      comments regarding the imposition of                      do not receive cruise ships, and that
                                               Guard published a notice of proposed                    screening requirements on ports of call.                  implementing these requirements would
                                               rulemaking (NPRM) titled                                As described in the NPRM proposed                         have substantial costs far above and
                                               ‘‘Consolidated Cruise Ship Security                     definition, ports of call are interim                     beyond the modest expenditures
                                               Regulations’’ in the Federal Register (79               destinations where cruise ship                            presented in the preliminary regulatory
                                               FR 73255). As described in more detail                  passengers disembark the ship for shore                   analysis. Furthermore, operators of
                                               in the section of the NPRM entitled                     excursions. We note that some                             these ports of call suggested that
                                               ‘‘Development of 33 CFR Subchapter                      commenters used the term ‘‘port of call’’                 implementing the cruise ship terminal
                                                                                                       to describe any interim destination by a                  security procedures would be
                                               H’’, the purpose of this rule was to
                                                                                                       cruise ship, while others seemed to                       redundant, because passengers are
                                               require cruise ship terminal Facility
                                                                                                       limit the term to facilities where a cruise               already screened when they return to
                                               Security Plans (FSPs) to follow an
                                                                                                       ship would be serviced by tenders in                      the cruise ship.
                                               organized format that includes more
                                                                                                       lieu of docking directly.3 Unlike at                         To generally summarize, commenters
                                               aspects of screening, and to develop a
                                                                                                       cruise ship terminals, passengers do not                  on this issue believed that the Coast
                                               Prohibited Items List for use when
                                                                                                       generally carry much if any baggage at                    Guard was proposing to require that all
                                               conducting screening of all persons,
                                                                                                       ports of call, leaving most belongings on                 ports of call conduct screening of
                                               baggage, and personal effects at the
                                                                                                       the cruise ship. As far as security                       passengers for prohibited items at the
                                               terminal. This list would reduce
                                                                                                       measures go, security screening is rarely                 facility before passengers could re-board
                                               uncertainty in the industry and the
                                                                                                       carried out at ports of call, and cruise                  cruise ships. This would run contrary to
                                               public about what is prohibited and                     ships generally check passengers when
                                               what is not, and would help cruise ship                                                                           existing arrangements, where screening
                                                                                                       they return to the cruise ship to ensure                  is done on board the ship by cruise
                                               facilities better implement the screening               that they have not brought back
                                               requirement in 33 CFR 105.290(a).                                                                                 vessel security personnel.4 Such would
                                                                                                       prohibited items from their shore                         also likely entail significant costs to
                                                  We provided an initial 3-month                       excursions. The security arrangements
                                               comment period for the proposed rule                                                                              many facility operators, who would
                                                                                                       made between a cruise ship and a port                     have to build out facilities and hire
                                               that was to close on March 10, 2015.                    of call are generally implemented
                                               However, on April 1, 2015, we                                                                                     personnel in order to conduct screening,
                                                                                                       through a Declaration of Security (DoS),                  which might be duplicative of screening
                                               published a Notice in the Federal                       which details the respective security
                                               Register (80 FR 17372) because we                                                                                 conducted on the vessel. As an overall
                                                                                                       arrangements between the parties.
                                               omitted from the docket the                                                                                       response, the Coast Guard notes that
                                                                                                          While the NPRM proposals were not
                                               accompanying Regulatory Analysis. We                                                                              this interpretation was based on a
                                                                                                       specifically targeted at ports of call,
                                               reopened the comment period for a                       commenters were concerned that ports                      misunderstanding of the proposal. We
                                               period of 60 days, until June 1, 2015 to                of call were included in the proposed                     did not intend to imply that terminal
                                               allow commenters to read and comment                    definition of ‘‘cruise ship terminal[s]’’,                screening requirements would be
                                               on the detailed Regulatory Analysis if                  which was defined as ‘‘any portion of a                   expanded to ports of call, and we did
                                               desired. We received 31 written                         facility that receives a cruise ship or its               not intend that ports of call would have
                                               submissions. Additionally, we held a                    tenders to embark or disembark                            specific screening requirements
                                               public meeting at the Port Everglades                   passengers or crew.’’ This definition,                    imposed by this rule.
                                               Cruise Terminal in Hollywood, Florida                   especially with the inclusion of the                         In response to these comments, the
                                               on February 9, 2015, where 4 persons                    phrase ‘‘or its tenders,’’ meant that the                 Coast Guard has made several changes
                                               made oral statements.2                                  scope of this rule would be vastly                        that we hope improve the clarity of the
                                                                                                       expanded beyond what is traditionally                     regulatory text. We have updated the
                                               IV. Discussion of Comments and                                                                                    definitions of ‘‘cruise ship terminal’’
                                                                                                       meant by a cruise ship facility, and
                                               Changes                                                                                                           and ‘‘ports of call’’ to clearly delineate
                                                                                                       would impose security screening
                                                  Comments generally fell into one of                  requirements on owners and operators                      between the two, and have included a
                                               five overall categories, with the most                  of ports of call that had previous                        new section 105.292 to make clear the
                                               prominent being questions related to                    delegated screening responsibilities to                   specific responsibilities on ports of call.
                                               requirements for small ports of call and                cruise ship operators.                                    We have also added a new paragraph
                                               the legal responsibilities of cruise ship                  The Coast Guard received a large                       (a)(2) to § 104.295 to remove confusion
                                               terminals. We also received numerous                    number of comments from the operators                     about screening requirements at ports of
                                               comments related to screening                                                                                     call, and to make clear that
                                               requirements in the TSP, breaches of                      3 In the NPRM discussion, we stated ‘‘[d]uring          arrangements where screening is
                                               security, and the prohibited items list.                visits at several cruise ship terminals, cruise ship      conducted onboard the vessel do not
                                                                                                       embarkation ports, and ports of call, the Coast           need to be duplicated at the facility. We
                                               In response to those comments, the                      Guard witnessed various types of screening
                                               Coast Guard has clarified and altered                   activities.’’ The discrete listings of ‘‘cruise ship      believe that by making these changes,
                                               the final rule in a way that we believe                 terminals’’ and ‘‘ports of call’’ indicated that cruise   we have addressed the concerns raised
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2




                                               will be less disruptive to the cruise ship
                                                                                                       ship terminals and ports of call were separate. In        by commenters on this issue.
                                                                                                       the next sentence, however, we stated, ‘‘[m]ost              Below, we address the specific
                                               experience, while still maintaining                     terminals use metal detectors and x-ray systems. . .
                                                                                                                                                                 comments received on this issue, as
                                               strong overall levels of security. In the               and other terminals, normally ports of call, screen
                                               subsections below, we summarize the                     by hand,’’ thus seeming to indicate that ports of call
                                                                                                       are a subset of cruise ship terminals (79 FR 73259).        4 While we note that it would be legal for a

                                                                                                       This inadvertent inconsistency may have                   screening to be conducted at the facility, rather than
                                                 2 This meeting was announced in the Federal           contributed to commenters’ misunderstanding the           on the cruise ship, if specified in the DoS, we are
                                               Register on January 21, 2015 (80 FR 2839).              definition of ports of call.                              not aware of any situations in which this is done.



                                          VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:16 Mar 16, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00004   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\19MRR2.SGM       19MRR2


                                                                   Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations                                            12089

                                               well as the Coast Guard’s responses to                    and proposed requirements for cruise                    Additional commenters raised PVA’s
                                               those issues. Given that many comments                    ship terminals under this rule.                      concerns in the context of their specific
                                               shared many themes as described above,                       A comment from the United States                  situations. One commenter, a small
                                               we do not address each individual                         Virgin Islands (USVI) summed up this                 seasonal company specializing in whale
                                               remark, but we do respond to specific                     general concern, expressing strong                   watch excursions, argued that ‘‘tender
                                               comments and issues as they present                       concern that the proposed rule would                 ports should not be considered ‘cruise
                                               nuance or unique questions on this                        eliminate the category of a ‘‘Port of Call’’         ship terminals’,’’ and that the current
                                               topic.                                                    and force every destination at which a               rules for tender ports provide effective
                                                  The proposed rule was intended only                                                                         security.9 Noting that there is usually no
                                                                                                         cruise ship calls to be considered a
                                               to be applied to cruise ship terminals                                                                         building to store x-ray machines and
                                                                                                         cruise ship terminal, ‘‘with
                                               and not to ports of call. In the NPRM,                                                                         other security apparatuses, the
                                               we estimated the proposed rule would                      requirements for an on-shore screening
                                                                                                                                                              commenter states that the facility or
                                               affect 23 cruise line companies, each of                  facility at every location where
                                                                                                                                                              ship generally provides simply a tent for
                                               which maintains an FSP for each                           passengers embark or disembark, rather
                                                                                                                                                              passengers to stand under while
                                               terminal that they use. Therefore, we                     than allow the screening to be
                                                                                                                                                              checking IDs and bags. The commenter
                                               stated the following: ‘‘[W]e estimate that                conducted as passengers board at and by
                                                                                                                                                              also noted that the cruise ships have x-
                                               the proposed rule would require that                      the ship.’’ 6 The commenter suggested
                                                                                                                                                              ray machines and metal detectors at the
                                               FSPs at 137 MTSA-regulated facilities                     that the proposed rule would require
                                                                                                                                                              boarding areas on board, thus indicating
                                               be updated. The proposed rule would                       installation and operation of screening
                                                                                                                                                              that imposing screening requirements
                                               require these facilities to add TSP                       facilities on the docks or shore, which
                                                                                                                                                              on the facility would be both
                                               chapters to their existing FSPs. This rule                would be unnecessary due to the
                                                                                                                                                              duplicative and expensive. Another
                                               would also require owners and                             existing screening done as the
                                                                                                                                                              commenter, from the city of Ketchikan,
                                               operators of cruise ship terminals to add                 passengers board the ship. The
                                                                                                                                                              Alaska, suggested that there is no
                                               a Prohibited Items List to current FSPs.’’                commenter also provided several
                                                                                                                                                              centralized location for screening in a
                                               79 FR 73266. The Preliminary                              descriptions of various small facilities
                                                                                                                                                              facility that extends over a mile of
                                               Regulatory Analysis (available in the                     that receive cruise ship tenders,
                                                                                                                                                              downtown waterfront.10
                                               docket at USCG–2006–23846–0029),                          describing how they could incur
                                                                                                                                                                 Other commenters raised similar
                                               which accompanied the NPRM,                               substantial costs if they were forced to
                                                                                                                                                              concerns, but did not limit themselves
                                               provided an explanation of what                           construct costly screening operation
                                                                                                                                                              only to ports of call that serviced cruise
                                               facilities would be affected by the rule.                 centers. We believe that the changes
                                                                                                                                                              ship tenders exclusively. The American
                                               As stated above, the Coast Guard                          made to the regulatory text address
                                                                                                                                                              Association of Port Authorities simply
                                               estimated that 137 facilities would be                    these concerns by making clear that
                                                                                                                                                              stated that many facilities that handle
                                               affected by this rule (see the Regulatory                 these ports of call would not be subject
                                                                                                                                                              port of call visits from cruise ships have
                                               Planning and Review section below),                       to the requirements for cruise ship
                                                                                                                                                              little or no infrastructure in place to
                                               which was based on the number of                          terminals.
                                                                                                                                                              conduct screenings, and that the rule
                                               MTSA-regulated waterfront facilities                         Many commenters, including many                   must be rewritten so as to not impose
                                               that receive cruise vessels according to                  represented by the Passenger Vessel                  significant economic burdens on those
                                               the Coast Guard Marine Information for                    Association (PVA), also urged the Coast              facilities.11 The Cruise Line Agencies of
                                               Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE)                        Guard to reconsider whether facilities               Alaska stated that while there are only
                                               database (as of February 2009).                           that only receive cruise ship tenders                two cruise terminal facilities in the
                                                  However, based on the responses in                     should be defined as ‘‘cruise ship                   State, there are 25 ports of call, which
                                               comments, it appears that this analysis                   terminals’’ and be made subject to the               have little or no accompanying shore-
                                               may not have been considered by                           associated regulations in 33 CFR                     side terminal buildings.12 This
                                               commenters regarding potentially                          105.290. The PVA offered several                     commenter noted that they currently
                                               affected facilities due to the proposed                   examples of small facilities that receive            conduct screening in coordination with
                                               definition of ‘‘cruise ship terminal.’’                   cruise ship tenders only that would be               the vessel moored at the facility in
                                               While the term ‘‘cruise ship terminal’’ is                ill-suited to screen passengers for                  accordance with existing 33 CFR
                                               not explicitly defined under current                      dangerous substances and devices on                  105.290. The commenter argued that to
                                               regulations, if a cruise ship does not                    their premises. The PVA instead                      ‘‘construct the type of facilities
                                               directly service a facility, but instead                  suggested that ‘‘[a] ‘port of call’ facility         referenced’’ would cost between $2 and
                                               passengers are transported to and from                    that simply receives cruise ship tenders,            $3 million per facility, although they
                                               the facility via small vessels known as                   but not the cruise ship itself, should not           did not specify exactly what that would
                                               tenders, then the Coast Guard does not                    be required to install and operate the               entail.13 Another commenter, a port
                                               consider the facility to be a ‘‘cruise ship               screening equipment. That                            facility security officer in Alaska,
                                               terminal.’’ 5 In the proposed rule,                       responsibility should lie with the cruise            echoed similar concerns, stating that at
                                               commenters noted that this class of                       ship operator, and the rule should                   his port of call facility the docks are
                                               facilities would be swept into the                        permit it to be performed at any location            piers without structures on them, and
                                               category of cruise ship terminals, thus                   prior to boarding the cruise ship, not               that building such facilities would
                                               making them subject to both the existing                  necessarily on the dock or pier.’’ 7 8               present an economic hardship.14
                                                  5 We note that while there is no current definition
                                                                                                                                                                 As indicated above, we have revised
                                               of ‘‘cruise ship terminal,’’ the existing definition of
                                                                                                           6 United States Virgin Islands, Office of the      § 104.295 to make clear that
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2




                                               ‘‘passenger terminal,’’ located in 33 CFR 120.110, is     Governor, comment, USCG–2006–23846–0022, p.2.        arrangements where screening is
                                                                                                           7 Passenger Vessel Association comment,
                                               ‘‘any structure used for the assembling, processing,
                                               embarking, or disembarking of passengers or               available in the docket at USCG–2006–23846–0025,       9 USCG–2006–23846–0016,   p.1.
                                               baggage for vessels subject to [part 120]. It includes    p.3.                                                   10 USCG–2006–23846–0026.
                                               piers, wharves, and similar structures to which a           8 We note that, contrary to the text of the
                                                                                                                                                                11 USCG–2006–23846–0013.
                                               vessel may be secured; land and water under or in         comment, the proposed rule would not have
                                                                                                                                                                12 USCG–2006–23846–0019.
                                               immediate proximity to these structures; buildings        required all cruise ship facilities to install and
                                                                                                                                                                13 USCG–2006–23846–0019,   p.2.
                                               on or contiguous to these structures; and equipment       operate screening equipment, see proposed
                                               and materials on or in these structures.’’                §§ 105.545 and 105.550.                                14 USCG–2006–23846–0018.




                                          VerDate Sep<11>2014    17:16 Mar 16, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00005   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\19MRR2.SGM   19MRR2


                                               12090              Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

                                               conducted onboard the vessel do not                      proposed regulations. The new                         second commenter noted that the
                                               need to be duplicated at the facility.15                 regulations add no additional language                proposed language in § 104.295(a)(1),
                                               We note that with regard to the Alaskan                  that could be interpreted as requiring                particularly the phrase ‘‘in the absence
                                               ports of call referenced by these                        more passengers to be screened than                   of a terminal,’’ conflicts with the new
                                               commenters, the facilities do not appear                 under the existing language. The                      definition of ‘‘cruise ship terminal,’’
                                               to be serviced by tenders, but the cruise                commenter also states that the rule                   which would include any facility that
                                               ship docks at the facility. Thus, the                    would dramatically increase costs—and                 receives cruise ships or their tenders.18
                                               mere retraction of the phrase ‘‘or its                   cites the cost of screening all of the
                                                                                                                                                                 We agree with the overall assertion
                                               tenders’’ from the proposed definition of                passengers and crew as an increased
                                                                                                                                                              made by the commenters. Reading the
                                               ‘‘cruise ship terminal’’ would not                       cost of the proposed regulation. Again,
                                                                                                                                                              proposed expansive definition of cruise
                                               appear to alleviate their concerns. Thus,                both the existing and proposed
                                                                                                                                                              ship terminal, along with the phrasing
                                               in the final rule text, while we are                     regulations require that facilities subject
                                                                                                                                                              of § 104.295(a)(1) which, in the
                                               leaving the phrase ‘‘or its tenders’’ in                 to § 105.290 require screening of all
                                                                                                        passengers, so this rule is not imposing              proposed text, would have required
                                               the definition of cruise ship terminals,
                                                                                                        new costs. Finally, the commenter states              screening ‘‘at the cruise ship terminal,
                                               we have clarified in 104.295 that cruise
                                                                                                        that all passengers would need to be                  or in the absence of a terminal,
                                               ship terminal regulations do not apply
                                                                                                        screened before entering the facility, but            immediately prior to embarking on a
                                               to ports of call.
                                                  One commenter stated that proposed                    we note that neither § 105.290 nor the                cruise ship’’, would create duplicative
                                               changes to the screening method in                       proposed rule would require this (no                  screening requirements. We also agree
                                               § 105.290(a) would impose significant                    citation was given in the comment).                   that the proposed definition of ‘‘cruise
                                               costs on a small facility.16 We believe                     Several commenters were concerned                  ship terminal’’ would make the phrase
                                               that the commenter’s focus on the                        about the definition of ‘‘cruise ship                 ‘‘in the absence of a terminal’’ (in
                                               proposed language in § 105.290 is                        terminal’’ pertaining to screening                    proposed § 104.295(a)(1)) a logical
                                               misplaced, and that this comment                         locations. The commenters argued that                 impossibility. Both of these items are
                                               relates more appropriately to the                        the NPRM proposed several changes                     addressed by the changes to the
                                               proposed change in the definition of                     that, combined, could be construed to                 definition of cruise ship terminal and
                                               ‘‘cruise ship terminal.’’ Specifically, this             require the physical location of                      the changes to § 104.295(a)(1) in this
                                               commenter may not have been subject                      screening to be located only at certain               final rule. As stated at the start of this
                                               to any cruise ship terminal requirements                 points prior to boarding a cruise ship.               section, the new definition of cruise
                                               previously (as it would have been                        Specifically, in § 104.295(a)(1)                      ship terminal limits the definition to
                                               considered a port of call), and had the                  (‘‘Additional Requirements—Cruise                     facilities to the point where the cruise
                                               proposed change been finalized, would                    Ships’’), we proposed to add the phrase               vessel begins or ends its voyage, thus
                                               have become subject to § 105.290—                        ‘‘at the cruise ship terminal, or in the              excluding ports of call, where security
                                               along with other cruise ship terminal                    absence of a cruise ship terminal,                    screening is conducted on the vessel (or
                                               requirements—as a result of the                          immediately prior to embarking a cruise               at a facility, if detailed in a DoS)
                                               proposed change to the definition.                       ship’’ to the requirement that the                    pursuant to the requirements in
                                                  The specific change to § 105.290(a)                   operator of a cruise ship ensure the                  § 104.265(f)–(g), as detailed in its VSP.
                                               proposed to add the phrase ‘‘in                          screening of all persons, baggage, and                Similarly, the new text in
                                               accordance with the requirements of                      personal effects for dangerous                        § 104.295(a)(1) replaces the wording that
                                               subpart E of this part’’ to the existing                 substances and devices.                               would have required screening ‘‘at the
                                               requirement that facilities ‘‘Screen all                    The preamble discussion of § 104.295               cruise ship terminal, or in the absence
                                               persons, baggage, and personal effects                   did not discuss any requirements for the              of a terminal, immediately prior to
                                               for dangerous substances and devices.’’                  physical location of screening, and                   embarking a cruise ship’’ with the
                                               The commenter stated that at Maritime                    stated that it was only adding language               phrase ‘‘prior to entering the sterile (or
                                               Security (MARSEC) Level 1, they                          requiring cruise ship owners or                       secure) portion of a cruise ship’’. These
                                               perform random checks on the docks,                      operators to ensure screening is                      changes allow the existing arrangement,
                                               and that the new rule would require that                 performed in accordance with the                      where passengers returning to a cruise
                                               100% of all passengers and crew would                    updated screening requirements. The                   ship at a port of call, may be screened
                                                                                                        NPRM preamble also stated that the                    upon entering the vessel, to continue.
                                               have to be checked before entering the
                                                                                                        Coast Guard anticipated that they would
                                               docks. The commenter stated that this                                                                             However, we disagree with an
                                                                                                        continue to coordinate screening with
                                               new requirement would be both costly                                                                           assertion by the second commenter that
                                                                                                        the cruise ship terminals.
                                               and redundant. The commenter also                           Notwithstanding the preamble                       ‘‘docks’’ should not be considered
                                               stated that ‘‘the new rule stipulates that               discussion, several commenters                        ‘‘facilities.’’ This commenter stated that
                                               100% of all passengers and crew would                    expressed concern, related to the                     some cruise ships routinely use ports
                                               be checked before putting a foot on our                  language in § 104.295(a)(1) and to the                that simply have docks that are used for
                                               docks, before entering our facility [sic].’’             proposed definition of ‘‘cruise ship                  port calls, which should not be
                                                  We have several concerns with this                                                                          considered ’’terminals’’ or even
                                                                                                        terminal,’’ that the changes in the
                                               comment. To begin, we note that both                                                                           ‘‘facilities’’. The commenter also states
                                                                                                        proposed rule would force changes to
                                               the existing and proposed regulatory                                                                           that these ports do not have the room or
                                                                                                        the screening location that could
                                               text required that ‘‘all’’ persons be                                                                          infrastructure to support screening
                                                                                                        increase costs, create duplication, and
                                               screened, so it appears that, if a facility                                                                    areas, but that the cruise ships visiting
                                                                                                        possibly harm security. One commenter
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2




                                               was subject to the requirements of 33                                                                          these ports do, and currently screen all
                                                                                                        stated that the requirement that
                                               CFR 105.290, random screenings would                                                                           passengers. We note that we would
                                                                                                        passengers be screened at ports of call
                                               be a violation of both existing and                                                                            consider a dock where cruise ship
                                                                                                        was duplicative, as they must also be
                                                 15 Or, in a hypothetical situation in which
                                                                                                        screened upon boarding the cruise ship                passengers embark or disembark to be a
                                               screening was performed at the facility, it would        as specified in the ship’s VSP.17 A                   ‘‘facility’’ based upon the definition of
                                               not need to be duplicated on the ship.
                                                 16 USCG–2006–23846–0014, p.1–2.                          17 USCG–2006–23846–0014,      p.2.                    18 USCG–2006–23846–0027,   p.1.



                                          VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:16 Mar 16, 2018   Jkt 244001    PO 00000   Frm 00006   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\19MRR2.SGM   19MRR2


                                                                   Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations                                           12091

                                               ‘‘facility’’ in 33 CFR 101.105.19 To be                 are aware of historic and current threats             detailed regulatory requirements for
                                               more specific regarding this particular                 to the industry may be unrealistic,                   cruise ship screening operations and the
                                               dock, the Coast Guard would consider it                 especially without an authoritative                   associated TSP than are currently
                                               a ‘‘port of call’’ based on the fact that               source pointing to those threats. In                  provided in parts 120 and 128, as well
                                               cruise ships make a scheduled stop at                   response to this, we note that the                    as to include the requirements for a PIL
                                               this facility in the course of their                    particular requirements in § 104.295,                 in the regulations. We do not believe
                                               voyage.                                                 which would require the vessel to                     that commenters took issue with what
                                                  The Cruise Lines International                       screen ‘‘in accordance with the                       was the original intent of the NPRM, but
                                               Association (CLIA) expressed concern                    qualification, training, and equipment                rather the unintended changes based on
                                               that the proposed rule’s requirement in                 requirements of §§ 105.530, 105.535,                  the wording of the proposed regulatory
                                               § 104.295(a)(1), relating to the required               and 105.545,’’ would be unlikely to                   text.
                                               screening location, was inappropriate                   significantly impact training operations.                In summary, based on the comments
                                               for smaller terminals. CLIA noted that                  The requirements referenced consist of                received, this final rule contains several
                                               for many terminals, ‘‘screening is                      basic training and qualification                      changes from the proposed rule
                                               conducted onboard cruise ships in the                   requirements, and § 105.545 only                      pertaining to requirements for cruise
                                               absence of appropriate facilities at a                  mandates that screening equipment, if                 ship terminals and ports of call. The
                                               terminal’’, and noted that ‘‘some                       used, must be used in accordance with                 paragraphs below describes those
                                               embarkation/disembarkation ports are                    general maintenance and signage                       changes in detail.
                                               not equipped to conduct screening prior                 requirements. With regard to                             First, to alleviate the confusion
                                               to a passenger boarding.’’ 20 CLIA                      familiarization, we would interpret it to             expressed by many commenters, we are
                                               suggested several additions to the                      mean familiarity with what items are                  adding a definition of ‘‘cruise ship
                                               regulations that could increase the                     prohibited, and common means in                       terminal’’ that reflects the common
                                               flexibility for cruise ship facilities in               which they may be hidden on a person.                 understanding of the difference between
                                               situations like this. One suggestion was                We expect that all security screeners are             a ‘‘terminal’’ and a ‘‘port of call.’’ Cruise
                                               to amend § 104.295 from ‘‘immediately                   given this training, which is why we                  ship terminals are where passengers
                                               prior to embarking a cruise ship’’ to                   have not considered it to be an added                 embark or disembark at the beginning
                                               ‘‘immediately prior to entering the                     burden in this final rule.                            and end of the voyage, while ports of
                                               sterile (or secure) portion of a cruise                    Additionally, one commenter stated                 call are intermediate stops during the
                                               ship,’’ which would allow the mandated                  that the proposed regulations would go                voyage. The requirements of subpart E
                                               screening to take place on the vessel.                  beyond the International Maritime                     primarily apply to cruise ship terminals,
                                                  CLIA made two other suggestions                      Organization’s International Ship and                 while ports of call are simply subject to
                                               related to part 105. The first was to add               Port Facility Security Code                           the existing requirements that the
                                               the phrase ‘‘where screening is                         requirements,22 and that foreign-flagged              screening and other security
                                               performed at the cruise ship terminal’’                 cruise ships are not required to comply               arrangements be coordinated with the
                                               to the proposed requirement in                          with these additional vessel security                 vessels. We are also modifying the
                                               § 105.500(a) (‘‘Applicability’’),21 and the             regulations. The commenter argued that                definition of ‘‘port of call’’ by adding the
                                               second suggestion was to amend                          some cruise ships, particularly foreign-              phrase ‘‘or its tenders’’ to the existing
                                               § 105.550 (‘‘Alternatives’’) to allow for               flagged ships, may not have the room or               definition, and adding a specific
                                               alternative screening locations in                      capability to screen at the levels                    regulatory requirement (located in new
                                               addition to alternative screening                       described in the proposed rule. Thus,                 § 105.292) to ensure cruise vessels
                                               equipment. They stated that these                       the commenter argued, the liability to                screen all persons, baggage, and
                                               changes to the regulations would allow                  perform the necessary screening would                 personal effects for dangerous
                                               cruise ship terminals to locate screening               by default fall on the facility, with ports           substances and devices prior to entering
                                               facilities where most appropriate, as                   of call being affected far more than                  the sterile (or secure) portion of a cruise
                                               well as have screening performed on the                 cruise ship terminals. We believe that                ship. The primary change to the
                                               vessel if done in accordance with a DoS.                by clarifying the particular                          regulations with regard to ports of call,
                                               However, we note that the requested                     responsibilities of ports of call in new              unchanged from the proposed rule, will
                                               changes to subpart E are rendered                       § 105.292, in contrast to the                         be the requirement that the PIL be used
                                               unnecessary by the changes to the                       requirements for cruise ship terminals,               and displayed during the screening
                                               definition of ‘‘cruise ship terminal’’ and              we have made clear that ports of call are             process.
                                               the revision of the definition for ‘‘port               free to continue screening operations in                 Additionally, we are amending the
                                               of call,’’ along with the new text in                   conjunction with vessels. As a result,                proposed language in § 104.295 to
                                               §§ 104.295 and 105.292.                                 these foreign-flagged cruise vessels will             remove the screening location
                                                  CLIA also expressed concern that the                 only be required to meet the limited                  requirement from the regulations. We
                                               security-related familiarization for                    requirements in §§ 105.530, 105.535,                  agree with commenters that this
                                               screeners, in § 105.535, may be a burden                and 105.545 of subpart E, which we                    language would cause problems for
                                               because the expectation that screeners                  believe they already do. The same                     facilities where screening is performed
                                                                                                       commenters pointed out that several                   on a cruise ship, and it was not our
                                                  19 Facility means any structure or facility of any   provisions of the proposed rule,                      intent to impose a requirement for a
                                               kind located in, on, under, or adjacent to any waters   particularly the definition of ‘‘cruise               redundant screening procedure. Instead,
                                               subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and used,       ship terminal,’’ but also proposed 33                 we are incorporating in new
                                               operated, or maintained by a public or private
                                                                                                       CFR 104.295, had the effect of                        § 104.295(a)(2) a version of the existing
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2




                                               entity, including any contiguous or adjoining
                                               property under common ownership or operation.           regulatory changes that were not                      language from 33 CFR 120 which
                                                  20 Cruise Lines International Association            anticipated or desired by the Coast                   allowed the vessel owner or operator to
                                               comment, USCG–2006–23846–0023, p.2.                     Guard. As stated in our preamble and                  work with the owner or operator of a
                                                  21 Thus, § 105.500(a) would read, ‘‘The owner or
                                                                                                       economic analysis, the intent of this                 port of call to ensure that all passengers
                                               operator of a cruise ship terminal must comply with
                                               this subpart when receiving a cruise ship or tenders    rulemaking action is to provide more                  were screened. We believe that the
                                               from cruise ships where screening is performed at                                                             addition of this language will make
                                               the cruise ship terminal.’’                               22 USCG–2006–28615–0019,      p.2.                  clear that the existing arrangements


                                          VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:16 Mar 16, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00007   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\19MRR2.SGM   19MRR2


                                               12092              Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

                                               between ports of call and cruise ships,                 responsibility for ensuring screening                 carried out in a proper manner. Under
                                               in which screening is conducted upon                    practices are carried out properly. They              the existing regulatory text, one
                                               re-boarding the cruise ship, remains an                 stated their concern that the proposed                acceptable way for the owner or the
                                               acceptable means of compliance with                     regulations, as written, ‘‘do not account             operator of a cruise ship terminal to
                                               this part.                                              for the transfer of responsibility for                accomplish this is through coordination
                                                 We believe that these changes are                     security [from the terminal operator to               with the cruise ship operator and
                                               responsive to the comments received                     the cruise ship operator] on cruise                   delegation of screening operations to
                                               above and better reflect the goals of the               days,’’ and that the language ‘‘would                 that entity. The existing language in 33
                                               Coast Guard in this rulemaking. With                    impose full responsibility for security               CFR part 128, ‘‘Security of Passenger
                                               these regulations in place, we are                      and screening on the owner and                        Terminals’’ (which also applies to cruise
                                               accomplishing three things. First, we are               operator of a cruise ship terminal.’’ The             ship terminals), addresses this matter.
                                               improving and standardizing screening                   AAPA requested that the regulations be                Existing § 128.200(b) provides that
                                               procedures at cruise ship terminals,                    clarified or revised to impose the                    ‘‘you’’ must work with the operator of
                                               where the bulk of baggage is examined,                  enhanced security obligations on the                  each passenger vessel subject to 33 CFR
                                               to ensure that items that pose a risk of                entity exercising security duties at the              part 120, to provide security for the
                                               causing a TSI are prevented from being                  cruise ship terminal on cruise days, and              passengers, the terminal, and the vessel.
                                               brought onto the vessel at those points.                that imposing obligations on the                      Those terminals need not duplicate any
                                               Second, we are clarifying through the                   terminal owner who does not control                   provisions fulfilled by the vessel unless
                                               use of the PIL which items must be                      security functions is redundant and                   directed to by the Captain of the Port.
                                               prohibited, and ensuring that this                      would impose a significant financial                  Additionally, when a provision is
                                               information is disseminated to                          burden.                                               fulfilled by a vessel, the applicable
                                               passengers and crew, not just at                           Similarly, another commenter stated                section of the Terminal Security Plan
                                               terminals, but also at ports of call and                that the language in § 105.510,                       must refer to that fact.
                                               on vessels. Finally, we are clarifying the              ‘‘Screening responsibilities of the owner                We emphasize that ‘‘you’’ is defined
                                               requirements for specific aspects of                    or operator,’’ is not flexible enough. The            in § 128.110 as ‘‘the owner or operator
                                               screening that Coast Guard believes are                 commenter suggested that enough                       of a passenger terminal.’’ We also note
                                               vital, including procedures, training,                  flexibility must be written into the final            there is a reciprocal passage in
                                               and reporting, as opposed to the more                   rule to allow terminal owners to enter                § 120.200(b) pertaining to the legal
                                               general requirements of the existing                    into agreements with terminal operators               responsibilities of passenger vessels.
                                               parts 120 and 128, to provide a                         that define responsibility for                           Thus, the existing regulations place
                                               minimum baseline requirement that                       compliance with these requirements.                   the requirements for the TSP on the
                                               ensures cruise ships remain a safe and                     Several other commenters expressed                 owner or operator of a passenger
                                               secure environment.                                     concern regarding the perceived change                terminal, and the proposed regulatory
                                                                                                       in responsibility. One commenter                      text referred to by the commenters (in
                                               B. Legal Responsibility for Terminal                    argued that there were unintended                     §§ 105.500, 105.505, and 105.515) uses
                                               Screening Program                                       consequences in transferring the                      functionally identical language (‘‘the
                                                  Generally, commenters were                           responsibility for screening of                       owner or operator of a cruise ship
                                               concerned that the rule could make                      passengers from the cruise lines, which               terminal’’). Based on the existing
                                               cruise ship terminal owners responsible                 are willing and capable, to smaller                   language in 33 CFR 128.200(b), the
                                               for terminal screening operations, and                  jurisdictions that are not equipped to do             owner or operator of a terminal could
                                               therefore liable for civil monetary                     so. Another commenter stated that the                 meet its TSP requirements by having
                                               penalties, even if those operations were                proposed rule needs clarification on the              certain provisions fulfilled by a vessel,
                                               conducted by an independent cruise                      transfer of responsibility for security               assuming the TSP referred to that fact.
                                               ship terminal operator or by the cruise                 and screening on cruise days, noting                  We believe the commenters’ concerns
                                               ship operator. Commenters stated that                   that the operator of the terminal may                 resulted from the removal of the
                                               in many cases responsibilities for                      switch control on those days. One                     sections, in parts 120 and 128, which
                                               passenger screening were delegated                      commenter, who operates a cruise                      explicitly stated that the responsibilities
                                               from the cruise ship terminal to another                facility in Miami, described such a                   of vessels and terminals could be
                                               party, often the cruise ship operator.                  mode of operation. Another operator of                handled through cooperative means if
                                               Cruise ship terminal operators argued                   a cruise ship terminal requested that the             specified in the respective security
                                               that the proposed regulations, if not                   regulation language allow terminal                    plans. In response to the comments
                                               clarified, could impose responsibility                  ‘‘owners’’ to enter into agreements with              received, we are incorporating that
                                               for security and screening on the owner                 terminal ‘‘operators’’ that define                    language into the text of parts 104 and
                                               or operator of the cruise ship terminal.                responsibilities for compliance with the              105 (see §§ 104.295(a)(2) and
                                               One commenter, a Port Authority, noted                  screening requirements.                               105.292(a)), to acknowledge that the
                                               that § 104.295(a)(1) holds the ‘‘owner or                  While we do not believe that the                   current system remains unchanged.
                                               operator of the vessel’’ responsible for                language in the proposed regulation                      One commenter stated that the way
                                               ensuring that the screening takes place.                would have imposed additional                         the security screening process works at
                                               The commenter suggested that the Coast                  responsibilities on terminal owners or                his port is that the facility signs a DoS
                                               Guard include statements that the                       operators, the Coast Guard nonetheless                agreement with the ship, and the DoS
                                               current system of assignment of                         would like to respond to these concerns               identifies who is responsible for
                                               screening responsibility is acceptable                  and clarify this in the final rule. In the            security throughout the process. The
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2




                                               and may continue, and that the terminal                 NPRM, the Coast Guard did not discuss                 commenter stated that ‘‘the facility
                                               owner or operator is not responsible for                any intent to redistribute legal                      people would usually agree to be
                                               screening operations unless specifically                responsibility. Under both the existing               responsible for the facilities [sic]
                                               noted in security plans.                                regulations and the proposed regulatory               security and the ship crew are
                                                  The American Association of Port                     text, the cruise ship terminal operator               responsible for their own ship.’’ 23 We
                                               Authorities (AAPA) made several                         would be responsible for ensuring that
                                               comments that related to the                            terminal screening operations are                       23 USCG–2006–23846–0016,   p.3.



                                          VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:16 Mar 16, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00008   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\19MRR2.SGM   19MRR2


                                                                  Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations                                            12093

                                               acknowledge that such a system is still                 also face penalties.24 We believe that it             took issue with these requirements, and
                                               permissible under the final rule, and                   is proper that both owners and operators              suggested that we require proof of
                                               believe that incorporating the language                 be held to these standards to ensure that             certification to operate each type of
                                               contained in parts 120 and 128 into the                 screening procedures are carried out                  screening equipment. The commenter
                                               text of parts 104 and 105 (specifically                 properly.                                             suggested that such a system could be
                                               section 104.295(a)(2) and section                          In the fourth scenario, cruise ships               similar to that required in the Private
                                               105.295(a)) clarifies this type of                      conduct screening and maintain legal                  Charter Standard Security Program,
                                               arrangement. Another commenter noted                    liability. Under the regulations specific             which is a particular privately-run
                                               that several items from proposed                        to ports of call that we have added in                program for security compliance.
                                               subpart E (§ 105.505(c)(2) and (c)(6), and              § 105.292, which include the adapted                     While we have considered a more
                                               § 105.510(c)), appear to indicate that                  language from existing § 128.200(b),                  specific requirement, such as that used
                                               specific screening responsibilities can                 ports of call could continue to rely on               by the Private Charter Standard Security
                                               be delegated in the DoS, as is currently                cruise ships to conduct screening. A                  Program, we have decided to use a more
                                               permitted. We note that this is correct.                port of call could be subject to legal                general, and thus more flexible,
                                                                                                       liability if it did not complete a DoS and            standard for this rule. Because this rule
                                                  The AAPA laid out several scenarios
                                                                                                       ensure that the cruise ship operator was              does not impose specific equipment or
                                               detailing how security responsibilities
                                                                                                       conducting the required screening. We                 methodologies for screening, writing
                                               may be shared between the facility and
                                                                                                       believe this is an appropriate incentive              certification requirements into
                                               cruise ship at different types of ports.
                                                                                                       to ensure that screening is provided.                 regulation could severely restrict the
                                               We believe that all of them are
                                                                                                                                                             options used at ports. Given the wide
                                               addressed by the changes in this final                  C. Screening Procedures and                           differences in the way cruise ship
                                               rule.                                                   Requirements                                          terminals are used, set up, and operated,
                                                  In the first scenario, the cruise line                  The Coast Guard received a number of               we believe that giving the FSO the
                                               leases the entire terminal facility from                comments relating to the specific                     discretion and responsibility for
                                               the port authority. The cruise line will                screening requirements laid out in                    determining which qualifications are
                                               have its own FSP for the leased                         proposed subpart E. These comments                    necessary to adequately perform the
                                               terminal, and will have the legal                       contained questions related to the                    required duties is the best course of
                                               responsibility to screen for dangerous                  training and certification of screeners,              action.
                                               substances and devices for the terminal                 the use of screening equipment,                          The commenter also questioned
                                               and the vessel.                                         requirements in cases of breaches of                  whether the training requirements for
                                                  In the second scenario, the AAPA                     security, and other items. In this                    screeners, laid out in proposed
                                               states that a port authority may operate                section, we address the specific issues               § 105.535, would be demonstrated
                                               the cruise ship terminal, and would                     relating to the technical and operational             through self-certification or from a
                                               itself handle the security of the facility.             aspects of the proposed screening                     certified provider. The commenter
                                               Both of these situations would be                       requirements. While many comments                     suggested that, much as FSOs must have
                                               acceptable means of complying with                      addressed both technical questions as                 a certification pursuant to section 821
                                               §§ 104.295 and 105.290, assuming that                   well as issues relating to the operational            (‘‘Port Security Training and
                                               the division of responsibilities was laid               capacities of small ports of call, we note            Certification’’) of the Coast Guard
                                               out in a DoS and detailed in the relevant               that the issue with ports of call has been            Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–
                                               security plans. We note that in the first               addressed extensively in section A                    281, October 15, 2010), screeners should
                                               scenario, as the facility owner, a                      above.                                                also be required to be certified by a
                                               terminal operator could be liable if                                                                          provider rather than self-certify, arguing
                                                                                                          In the NPRM, we laid out the specific
                                               security measures were not maintained,                                                                        that self-certification fails to establish a
                                                                                                       proposed screening requirements in
                                               and if it was discovered that the                                                                             minimum level of required training and
                                                                                                       subpart E of part 105, ‘‘Facility Security:
                                               terminal operator did not properly                                                                            competency.
                                                                                                       Cruise Ship Terminals.’’ This subpart                    We note that nothing in § 105.210
                                               ensure compliance by working with a                     contained a requirement to develop a
                                               cruise ship operator as required in                                                                           requires certification, either self-
                                                                                                       TSP as part of the FSP, as well as                    certification or third-party certification,
                                               § 105.290(a). We note that language,                    detailing specific operational, training
                                               adapted from § 128.200(b), has been                                                                           and furthermore we note that the items
                                                                                                       and qualification, and equipment                      in § 105.535 are facility-specific. As to
                                               added to subsection 105.290(a) to                       requirements. We received numerous                    whether third-party certification could
                                               improve clarity.                                        comments requesting clarification and                 be a viable alternative to the current
                                                  In the third scenario, a port authority              amendments of these parts, which are                  method, we believe that it would be
                                               may outsource the operation and                         addressed below.                                      impractical for a certification provider
                                               security for cruise operations to a third                  One commenter asked questions                      to develop and provide certifications
                                               party, who would control the FSP. In                    relating to § 105.530, ‘‘Qualifications of            relating to facility-specific issues. We
                                               this case, the AAPA argues that the port                Screeners,’’ in which the Coast Guard                 continue to believe that the
                                               authority could be exposed to civil                     had proposed that screeners must have                 familiarization requirements set forth in
                                               penalties under the proposed rule. We                   a combination of education and                        § 105.535 are best documented in the
                                               agree that in this scenario a port                      experience deemed sufficient by the                   TSP, as set forth in § 105.505(c)(5) (the
                                               authority, as the owner of a cruise ship                Facility Security Officer (FSO) in order              documentation requirement for
                                               terminal, could be held responsible for                 to perform the duties of the position,                procedures to comply with § 105.535
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2




                                               inadequate security procedures if they                  and that screeners are capable of using               regarding training of screeners).
                                               did not properly ensure that the third                  all methods and equipment needed to                      Several commenters also raised the
                                               party, given control of the terminal by                 perform their duties. The commenter                   issue of the discovery of prohibited
                                               the port authority, conducted screening                                                                       items during the screening process. In
                                                                                                          24 In deciding against whom to assess civil
                                               operations pursuant to subpart E. In                                                                          § 105.515(d), we proposed the following
                                                                                                       monetary penalties under MTSA, the Coast Guard
                                               such a scenario, the third party, as the                attempts to assign the penalties to the party whose   text: ‘‘Facility personnel must report the
                                               operator of a cruise ship terminal, could               negligence or malfeasance caused the violation.       discovery of a prohibited item


                                          VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:16 Mar 16, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00009   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\19MRR2.SGM   19MRR2


                                               12094              Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

                                               introduced by violating security                        distinction clear, as it reads ‘‘facility             items necessary for the performance of
                                               measures at a cruise ship terminal as a                 personnel must report the discovery of                their duties. These could include props,
                                               breach of security in accordance with                   a prohibited item introduced by                       such as toy guns, if used in a
                                               § 101.305(b) of this subchapter.’’ The                  violating security measures’’ as a breach             performance, or other such items. We do
                                               commenter argued that the discovery of                  of security (emphasis added). Items                   not believe such an exemption for crew
                                               prohibited items during the screening                   brought on board by legal means, such                 members is warranted. We are
                                               process must not be treated as a breach                 as ship’s stores, do not fall under this              concerned that a crew member may
                                               of security, but rather treated in                      category.                                             breach security with a prohibited item
                                               accordance with local law enforcement                      One commenter requested                            under the false pretense that an item
                                               practices, which may include such                       clarification that the screening processes            was needed for his or her official duties.
                                               remedies as confiscation or disposal of                 are not required upon entrance to the                 We note that if certain items are needed
                                               the prohibited item. Only if the item is                cruise ship terminal, but rather that                 on board, such as props for a show, they
                                               discovered in the secure area of the                    screening measures should be in place                 can be brought in as ship’s stores.
                                               cruise ship terminal should it be treated               only when passengers attempt to gain                     One commenter took issue with
                                               as a breach of security pursuant to                     access to a secure area of the terminal.              including the PIL in the FSP, but not the
                                               § 101.305(b). We agree with the                         Another commenter suggested that the                  VSP. The commenter argued that by not
                                               commenter, and in fact this was our                     Coast Guard would require screening                   including the PIL as a requirement in
                                               intention. Therefore, we are modifying                  processes be in place at the time a                   the VSP, there is inconsistency in the
                                               the text of this section to clarify that fact           person or baggage enters the cruise ship              application of prohibited items. They
                                               by adding a sentence noting that a                      terminal. The former interpretation is                also argued that including the PIL in the
                                               prohibited item discovered during                       correct, and we believe the regulatory                VSP would ensure application at foreign
                                               security screening is not considered a                  text is already clear on this point. Note             ports of call and allow for consistent
                                               breach of security.                                     that the only requirement regarding the               communication regarding prohibited
                                                  Additionally, one commenter                          location of screening is in                           items. We disagree. Even if the cruise
                                               requested clarification that an                         § 105.525(a)(1), which reads, ‘‘each                  ship conducts the screening, they are
                                               occurrence of a reportable breach of                    cruise ship terminal must have at least               still required to conduct it in
                                               security is not, in itself, a basis for a               one location to screen passengers and                 accordance with the requirements in
                                               civil or criminal penalty under                         carry-on items prior to allowing such                 § 104.295, which prohibit the
                                               § 101.415 as a breach of security is                    passengers and carry-on items into the                introduction of ‘‘dangerous substances
                                               distinct from a violation of the                        secure areas of the terminal designated               and devices.’’ The PIL is a document
                                               requirements applicable to cruise ship                  for screened persons and carry-on                     that helps to clarify what those items
                                               terminal owners and operators. We                       items.’’ Similarly, the complementary                 are. Therefore, because vessel operators
                                               agree with this analysis, although we                   requirement in § 104.295(a)(1) only                   must screen for items on the PIL, it is
                                               also note that reporting a breach of                    requires that screening take place prior              not necessary to include the PIL in the
                                               security does not negate a violation of                 to entering the sterile or secure portion             VSP.
                                               the cruise ship terminal’s security                     of the cruise ship.                                      One commenter argued that the Coast
                                               requirements, if they were not properly                    One commenter stated that screening                Guard may not be the correct entity to
                                               carried out.                                            equipment that has been determined to                 generate the PIL, as the limitations
                                                  Another commenter also expressed                     meet the TSA’s Qualified Product List                 placed on its resources make it
                                               confusion regarding the language in                     (QPL) would be appropriate for use                    inadequate to compile a modern list of
                                               § 105.515(d). This commenter noted that                 under § 105.545, which sets basic                     dangerous substances. We disagree and
                                               some prohibited items, such as bleach,                  standards for screening equipment. The                note that the Coast Guard expends
                                               may be properly located in the ship’s                   commenter also suggested that products                considerable resources in considering
                                               stores, which is a secure area. They                    on the QPL could be optimized for the                 materials, scenarios, and techniques that
                                               stated that this may be confusing for                   cruise ship industry. We agree that                   could be used to cause security
                                               facility security personnel and Coast                   products on the QPL have undergone                    incidents. Finally, we note that
                                               Guard officers, ‘‘especially if a facility is           significant testing and refinement, but               members of the public are welcome to
                                               not designed with space for separate                    we disagree with the suggestion that we               contact the Coast Guard at any time
                                               areas.’’ 25 We assume that this last                    refer to the QPL directly because in this             with suggestions for how the PIL can be
                                               phrase means that there is a single space               rule we are attempting to maintain as                 improved.
                                               for ship’s stores and screened passenger                much flexibility as possible. Therefore,                 One commenter requested more
                                               baggage. In such a case, we hope that                   we have limited the requirements to                   specificity for the PIL. Noting that the
                                               the cruise ship operator is able to                     compliance with 49 CFR 1544.211 (TSA                  list includes such terms as ‘‘limited
                                               distinguish between items in the ship’s                 requirements for use of X-ray systems),               quantities’’ and ‘‘quantities appropriate
                                               stores and items brought on board by                    as well as FDA safety requirements.                   for personal use,’’ the commenter
                                               passengers. If unable to, such an                                                                             suggested that those terms needed
                                               operator may wish to create separation                  D. Prohibited Items List (PIL)                        additional specificity in order to take
                                               between the two storage areas. As noted                   Commenters raised a variety of                      the subjectivity out of screening for
                                               above, items contained in ship’s stores                 concerns regarding the PIL, including                 passengers and cruise terminal
                                               are not subject to the restrictions in this             the posting of the PIL, clarification of              operators, as well as Coast Guard
                                               section, which only apply to items                      specific terms on the PIL, requests to                inspectors.
                                               brought on board by passengers. If an                   add or delete items from the PIL, and                    These terms were used in the PIL in
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2




                                               item properly brought on board as part                  application of the list to persons other              two locations. We stated that aerosols
                                               of the ship’s stores is ‘‘discovered’’ in a             than passengers. These concerns are                   are prohibited, but excluded ‘‘items for
                                               secure area, it would not constitute a                  addressed below.                                      personal care or toiletries in limited
                                               breach of security. We note the                           One commenter suggested that there                  quantities.’’ Similarly, we stated that
                                               proposed language makes this                            should be an exemption from the                       lighter fluids are prohibited, but
                                                                                                       prohibition on dangerous substances                   provided an exception for ‘‘liquefied gas
                                                 25 USCG–2006–23846–0019,     p.3.                     and devices for crew members bringing                 (e.g. Bic®-type) or absorbed liquid (e.g.


                                          VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:16 Mar 16, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00010   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\19MRR2.SGM   19MRR2


                                                                  Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations                                           12095

                                               Zippo®-type) lighters in quantities                     may be prohibited for other reasons,                  transport or use on expeditions other
                                               appropriate for personal use.’’                         such as electrical appliances or                      items on the PIL, including firearms. We
                                                  Upon consideration, and given the                    alcoholic beverages.                                  reiterate that this rule is simply
                                               nature of the PIL, we believe that                         The commenter also suggested that                  designed to prohibit dangerous items
                                               removing aerosols and lighter fluids                    the posting of the PIL on docks, the                  from being accessible to passengers on
                                               from the PIL is appropriate. By                         incorporation into the FSP, and the use               the vessel, not to limit the activities of
                                               removing these items from the PIL, we                   of the PIL in training would not be                   person on shore-side excursions.
                                               are not saying that lighter fluid and                   particularly onerous. We agree.                          Finally, the Coast Guard is modifying
                                               aerosols are not ‘‘dangerous substances’’                  One commenter suggested that the                   the language in § 105.515(a) so that it is
                                               in any amount. Rather, we are giving the                proposed regulations do not address                   phrased as a requirement on owners and
                                               responsible security officials the                      items that can be brought on board at a               operators of cruise ship terminals, rather
                                               discretion and responsibility for                       foreign port of call. We disagree, and                than simply a policy statement that the
                                               determining if allowing these items in                  note that a cruise ship must still comply             Coast Guard will issue and maintain the
                                               ‘‘limited quantities’’ or ‘‘quantities                  with the regulations in § 104.295 before              PIL. We note that this has no
                                               appropriate for personal use’’ is the best              passengers enter the sterile (or secure)              substantive effect, but is simply a
                                               course of action considering the                        portion of a cruise ship. During that                 stylistic change, as owners and
                                               particular nature of the vessel and                     screening, which incorporates relevant                operators of cruise ship terminals are
                                               duration of the cruise. If the security                 portions of subpart E, items brought on               required by § 105.515(c) to display the
                                               officer believes that a particular quantity             board at the port of call will be subject             PIL at screening locations and integrate
                                               of aerosols or lighter fluid constitutes a              to the requirements of this rule.                     the PIL into the DoS.
                                               dangerous amount, then they should                         One commenter protested the                           We have included a copy of the
                                               prohibit that item as they would any                    inclusion of ‘‘self-defense sprays’’ on               revised Prohibited Items List in the
                                               other dangerous substance or device in                  the PIL. The commenter made several                   docket of this rulemaking, and we also
                                               accordance with § 104.295 and                           arguments as to why such items should                 note that it is available on the Coast
                                               § 105.290.                                              be permitted on vessels. First, the                   Guard’s website at https://
                                                  For similar reasons involving a lack of              commenter noted that unlike an aircraft,              homeport.uscg.mil. As stated in the
                                               specificity, we are removing ‘‘realistic                on cruise ships there are medical                     NPRM, if there are future revisions to
                                               replicas’’ of guns and firearms. Again,                 facilities for treatment and open air                 the PIL, the Coast Guard will publish an
                                               we leave it to the judgment of a security               areas on the ship in case of accidental               interpretive rule in the Federal Register
                                               officer as to whether a replica is realistic            release. In response, we note that the                to alert the public of any such change.
                                               enough to constitute a threat.                          rationale for an item being included on               Additionally, the Coast Guard will, as
                                                  One commenter argued that the PIL                    the PIL is not that they may accidentally             stated in the NPRM, endeavor to obtain
                                               would not be particularly effective, and                injure a passenger, but rather that they              NMSAC input and afford ship and
                                               that ‘‘any current inspector is already                 can be used to effect a TSI. Therefore we             facility owners a reasonable amount of
                                               looking for those items.’’ We agree with                do not agree with the commenter on this               advance notice before making an update
                                               the idea that an inspector would likely                 point. Second, the comment suggested                  effective unless an immediate change is
                                               be looking for the items listed on the                  that bear spray is often used by                      necessary for imminent public safety
                                               PIL, and would like to use this                         passengers in Alaska for use on shore                 and/or national security reasons.
                                               opportunity to explain again the                        excursions, and argued that the
                                               purpose of the PIL. Regulations already                 restricted areas on the ship could                    E. Regulatory Impact Analysis and
                                               exist prohibiting ‘‘dangerous substances                protect critical operations in the event              Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
                                               and devices’’ from being brought on                     of a bear spray release. While we realize                The Coast Guard received comments
                                               board cruise ships, and screening                       that this is possible, we note that a TSI             from one commenter on the Regulatory
                                               procedures are already designed to                      may not necessarily involve breaching                 Analysis. The commenter stated that the
                                               search for them. The PIL is a Coast                     critical ship areas like the bridge or                cost analyses did not reflect the costs
                                               Guard interpretation of certain items                   engine room, but could involve simply                 that would be incurred by existing
                                               that we believe are always ‘‘dangerous                  the injury or deaths of large numbers of              facilities that receive cruise ship tenders
                                               substances and devices,’’ and must be                   passengers trapped in an enclosed area,               if they would have to assume
                                               intercepted at screening. Publication of                which is one reason that cruise ships are             responsibility for screening. The
                                               this list by the Coast Guard will reduce                protected more than other areas, such as              commenter also noted that the
                                               uncertainty in the industry and the                     buildings.                                            Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the
                                               public about what is prohibited and                        However, we note that there is a                   NPRM did not include the costs for
                                               what is not, especially as many cruise                  solution for the commenter’s need for                 these facilities, which are likely owned
                                               lines maintain varying lists about what                 passengers to possess items like bear                 by small businesses and governments.
                                               is prohibited, and will help cruise ship                spray. The PIL is a rule that relates to                 In response to these and other similar
                                               facilities better implement the screening               screening of passenger items, but does                comments, for the Final Rule, the Coast
                                               requirement in 33 CFR 105.290(a). We                    not affect items brought on board as                  Guard modified two definitions in
                                               fully expect cruise ship and terminal                   vessel stores or provisions. In the bear              § 101.105 and amended the proposed
                                               operators to use discretion in screening,               spray example, passengers could                       language to remove the screening
                                               and to prohibit other items that they                   relinquish their bear spray to vessel                 location requirement in § 104.295.
                                               consider dangerous, either based on the                 employees prior to boarding, who could                These changes, discussed in detail in
                                               nature of the item, the quantity, or other              store the sprays in a secure area of the              section A, above, clarify that existing
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2




                                               characteristics. For that reason, the PIL               vessel. The sprays could then be                      facilities that receive cruise ship tenders
                                               is not intended to be a comprehensive                   returned to the passengers prior to their             may continue the current practice of
                                               list of all items prohibited on a cruise                shore excursions. In this way, the fact               coordinating screening and security
                                               ship. Furthermore, we note that the PIL                 that the item is on the PIL does not fully            arrangements with cruise vessels. The
                                               does not prohibit screening for other                   exclude it from use. Such a system of                 cost concerns expressed in the
                                               items that, while not necessarily                       having items stored in a secure area can              comments on the Regulatory Analysis
                                               dangerous from a security standpoint,                   be used if a passenger wishes to                      are alleviated by the regulatory language


                                          VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:16 Mar 16, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00011   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\19MRR2.SGM   19MRR2


                                               12096                    Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

                                               changes, the language in the Final Rule                               detective systems was not necessary,                         final the regulatory assessment for the
                                               clarifies the current industry practice.                              there were certain advantages to using                       NPRM, with minor administrative edits
                                                                                                                     machinery on the TSA’s QPL. These                            to account for the revised text of the
                                               F. Other Comments
                                                                                                                     advantages included established system                       final rule. In addition, a full Regulatory
                                                  The Coast Guard received comments                                  maturity, mature logistics and                               Assessment (RA) is available in the
                                               on a wide variety of other matters, only                              maintenance organizations, and                               docket.
                                               some of which directly related to the                                 certification programs. We agree that
                                               substance of the proposed rule. We                                                                                                 V. Regulatory Analyses
                                                                                                                     operators may find items that are
                                               address these comments briefly in this                                certified to TSA standards useful, but                         We developed this final rule after
                                               section.                                                              they are not required. The commenter                         considering numerous statutes and
                                                  Several commenters expressed                                       also noted that such machines can be                         executive orders related to rulemaking.
                                               dissatisfaction with the proposed rule in                             used to scan vessel stores, although we                      Below we summarize our analysis based
                                               general, and argued that screening for                                note that screening of stores is outside                     on these statutes and executive orders.
                                               dangerous substances and devices                                      the scope of this rulemaking.                                A. Regulatory Planning and Review
                                               would be burdensome and/or                                               One commenter recommended that
                                               ineffective. We note that screening of                                the Coast Guard adopt a ‘‘turnkey                               Executive Orders 12866 (‘‘Regulatory
                                               passengers and their baggage is already                               approach’’ to security inspections of all                    Planning and Review’’) and 13563
                                               required, and this rule merely adds                                   sorts where a single company is tasked                       (‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory
                                               more detail to those requirements. As                                 with providing equipment, personnel,                         Review’’) direct agencies to assess the
                                               made clear in our regulatory analysis,                                training, and the security infrastructure                    costs and benefits of available regulatory
                                               we do not believe that the additional                                 necessary to meet specified                                  alternatives and, if regulation is
                                               detail provided in this regulation will                               requirements. While it is certainly                          necessary, to select regulatory
                                               substantially alter the time and/or                                   within the scope of cruise ship terminal                     approaches that maximize net benefits
                                               burden that this screening requires for                               operators and cruise ship operators to                       (including potential economic,
                                               either passengers or cruise ship terminal                             work with a single company to meet all                       environmental, public health and safety
                                               operators.                                                            of the applicable requirements, it is by                     effects, distributive impacts, and
                                                  One commenter requested that there                                 no means required. The security                              equity). Executive Order 13563
                                               be exceptions to the items prohibited,                                requirements finalized in this rule are                      emphasizes the importance of
                                               such as a medical condition or special                                designed to allow flexibility, especially                    quantifying both costs and benefits, of
                                               circumstances. We have addressed this                                 given the varying configurations and                         reducing costs, of harmonizing rules,
                                               issue above, and note that otherwise-                                 operational models for cruise ships,                         and of promoting flexibility. Executive
                                               prohibited items can be brought onto a                                terminals, and ports of call.                                Order 13771 (‘‘Reducing Regulation and
                                               ship via ship’s stores, and stored in a                                  The Coast Guard received comments                         Controlling Regulatory Costs’’), directs
                                               controlled environment for authorized                                 from one commenter on the Regulatory                         agencies to reduce regulation and
                                               use. The commenter also suggested that                                Analysis. The commenter stated that the                      control regulatory costs and provides
                                               the Coast Guard should take into                                      cost analyses did not reflect the costs                      that ‘‘for every one new regulation
                                               consideration the vast differences in                                 that would be incurred by existing                           issued, at least two prior regulations be
                                               size between cruise ships and aircraft,                               facilities that receive cruise ship tenders                  identified for elimination, and that the
                                               and allow cruise ships to formulate their                             if they would have to assume                                 cost of planned regulations be prudently
                                               own screening methods. We note that                                   responsibility for screening. The                            managed and controlled through a
                                               this rule relates to screening methods                                commenter also noted that the                                budgeting process.’’
                                               that were developed specifically for                                  Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the                         The Office of Management and Budget
                                               cruise ships, and is scalable for cruise                              NPRM did not include the costs to these                      (OMB) has not designated this rule a
                                               ships that need to screen thousands of                                facilities, which are likely owned by                        ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
                                               passengers in a short time.                                           small businesses and governments.                            section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
                                                  One commenter argued that bringing                                    In response to the comments, for the                      Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.
                                               guns on board a cruise ship would                                     Final Rule, the Coast Guard has                              As this rule is not a significant
                                               improve the personal safety of                                        modified several definitions and                             regulatory action, this rule is exempt
                                               passengers, if one passenger were to be                               amended the proposed language to                             from the requirements of Executive
                                               assaulted by another. We note that this                               remove the screening location                                Order 13771. See OMB’s Memorandum
                                               rule is focused on the risks of a TSI, not                            requirement in § 104.295. These changes                      ‘‘Implementing Executive Order 13771,
                                               personal safety, and the risks to all                                 clarify that existing facilities that                        Titled ‘Reducing Regulation and
                                               passengers caused by allowing                                         receive cruise ship tenders may                              Controlling Regulatory Costs’ ’’ (April 5,
                                               uncontrolled firearms onto cruise ships                               continue the current practice of                             2017). A regulatory analysis (RA)
                                               are substantial. We note that the issue                               coordinating screening and security                          follows.
                                               of personal safety with regard to                                     arrangements with cruise vessels. The                           The following table summarizes the
                                               firearms is outside the scope of this rule.                           cost concerns expressed in the                               affected population, costs, and benefits
                                                  One commenter agreed with the Coast                                comments on the Regulatory Analysis                          of this rule. A summary of costs and
                                               Guard that while wholesale adoption of                                are alleviated by the regulatory language                    benefits by provision is provided later
                                               TSA standards for X-ray and explosives                                changes. Therefore, we are adopting as                       in this section.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2




                                                                                  TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF AFFECTED POPULATION, COSTS IN 2016$ AND BENEFITS
                                                                                           Category                                                                                        Estimate

                                               Affected population ...................................................................................   137 MTSA-regulated facilities;
                                                                                                                                                         23 cruise line companies.
                                               Development of TSP ................................................................................       $156,397




                                          VerDate Sep<11>2014        17:16 Mar 16, 2018       Jkt 244001      PO 00000      Frm 00012      Fmt 4701      Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\19MRR2.SGM    19MRR2


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations                                                                     12097

                                                                       TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF AFFECTED POPULATION, COSTS IN 2016$ AND BENEFITS—Continued
                                                                                             Category                                                                                          Estimate

                                               Updating FSP ...........................................................................................      $9,775

                                                     Total Cost * ........................................................................................   $166,171

                                                                                                                                           Qualitative Benefits

                                               Terminal Screening Program ...................................................................                Greater clarity and efficiency due to removal of redundancy in regula-
                                                                                                                                                               tions.
                                                                                                                                                             The TSP improves industry accountability and provides for a more sys-
                                                                                                                                                               tematic 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 in unsecured areas of the cruise ship across the entire indus-
                                                                                                                                                               try.
                                                 * 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 final                                    Prohibited Items List of dangerous                              prohibit items not listed on it. We
                                               rule will amend regulations on cruise                                    substances or devices (e.g., firearms and                       anticipate that the PIL described in the
                                               ship terminal security. The regulations                                  ammunition, flammable liquids and                               preamble will be cost neutral to the
                                               will provide requirements for the                                        explosives, dangerous chemicals). The                           industry. We also intend to eliminate
                                               screening of persons intending to board                                  PIL is based on similar items currently                         redundancies in the regulations that
                                               a cruise ship, as well as their baggage                                  prohibited by industry, and is intended                         govern the security of cruise ship
                                               and personal effects. In this rulemaking,                                to be a minimum requirement; vessel                             terminals. Table 2 summarizes changes
                                               we intend to issue and maintain a                                        owner and operators would be free to                            from the NPRM to the Final Rule.

                                                                                                      TABLE 2—CHANGES FROM THE NPRM TO THE FINAL RULE
                                                                   Section                                                 NPRM                                            Final rule                              Costs

                                               Cruise ship terminal .......................           Referred to as a point from which                      Referred to as a point for initial     Clarification: No cost.
                                                                                                        passengers or crew commence                            embarkation.
                                                                                                        or terminate a voyage.
                                               104.295(1): Screening ...................              Required that screening should                         The requirement for the final rule,    Clarification: No Cost.
                                                                                                        be done at the cruise ship ter-                        now state that screen should be
                                                                                                        minal.                                                 done prior to entering the sterile
                                                                                                                                                               (or secure) portion of a cruise
                                                                                                                                                               ship.
                                               104.295(2): Screening ...................              N/A ................................................   Vessel owner or operator may           Current   industry     practice:   No
                                                                                                                                                               work with cruise ship terminal of      Cost.
                                                                                                                                                               port of call to meet the require-
                                                                                                                                                               ment of this section.
                                               105.292: Cruise ship ports of call ..                  N/A ................................................   Owner or operator of cruise ship       Current   industry     practice:   No
                                                                                                                                                               port of call must work with the        Cost.
                                                                                                                                                               operator of each cruise ship to
                                                                                                                                                               minimize duplication of any pro-
                                                                                                                                                               vision fulfilled by the vessel.
                                               105.500(c)(2): General ..................              Terminal owners and operators                          Both terminal and cruise ship          Clarification: No Cost.
                                                                                                        must comply with an approved                           owners and operators must
                                                                                                        TSP.                                                   comply with an approved TSP.



                                                  This final rule will allow owners and                                 summary of key provisions with and                                 • § 105.530 Qualifications of
                                               operators of cruise ships and cruise ship                                without additional costs follow.                                screeners; and
                                               terminals the choice of their own                                          Key provisions without additional                                Æ § 105.210 details qualifications for
                                               screening methods and equipment and                                      costs (current industry practice under                          facility personnel with security duties,
                                               establish security measures tailored to                                  existing MTSA regulations):                                     which includes operation of security
                                               their own operations. This final rule                                                                                                    equipment and systems, and methods of
                                                                                                                          • 33 CFR part 105 Subpart E                                   physical screening of persons, personal
                                               will incorporate current industry
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2




                                                                                                                        Screening equipment standards;                                  affects, baggage, cargo and vessel stores.
                                               practices and performance standards.
                                                                                                                          Æ § 105.255(a) and § 128.200(a)(1) and                           • § 105.535 Training of screeners.
                                                  We found several provisions of the
                                                                                                                        § 128(a)(2) currently require screening                            Æ § 105.210 details qualifications for
                                               rulemaking to have no additional
                                                                                                                        for dangerous substances and devices.                           facility personnel with security duties,
                                               impact based on information from Coast
                                                                                                                        In accordance with those regulations,                           which includes operation of security
                                               Guard and industry security experts and
                                                                                                                        industry already screens baggage and                            equipment and systems, and methods of
                                               site visits to cruise terminals. A
                                                                                                                        persons.                                                        physical screening of persons, personal


                                          VerDate Sep<11>2014        17:16 Mar 16, 2018        Jkt 244001       PO 00000       Frm 00013       Fmt 4701      Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\19MRR2.SGM    19MRR2


                                               12098                     Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

                                               affects, baggage, cargo and vessel stores.                                 portions of the TSP, are already                                Furthermore, we believe it is a
                                               Records for all training under § 105.210                                   encompassed by the general                                      reasonable assumption that screening
                                               are required to be kept per                                                requirement in § 105.210(k), which                              personnel are familiar with item (a)—
                                               § 105.225(b)(1).                                                           requires security personnel to be                               historic and current threats against the
                                                  The purpose of including these                                          familiar with relevant portions of the                          cruise ship industry.
                                               requirements in this regulatory action is                                  FSP. Also, § 105.535(f), which requires                            We estimate the final rule will affect
                                               to consolidate requirements for                                            that screeners be familiar with                                 23 cruise line companies. Each cruise
                                               screeners in one place of the CFR and                                      additional screening requirements at                            line maintains an FSP for each terminal
                                               eliminate redundancies in cruise ship                                      increased MARSEC levels, is implicitly                          that they utilize. Based on information
                                               security regulations by eliminating the                                    contained in the existing requirement in                        from the Coast Guard MISLE database,
                                               requirements in parts 120 and 128. We                                      § 105.210(m).                                                   we estimate that the final rule will
                                               do not believe that these new items will                                      Other items in § 105.535 are not                             require that FSPs at 137 MTSA-
                                               add any additional costs, for the reasons                                  expected to increase costs because we                           regulated facilities be updated. The final
                                               described below.                                                           believe they are already performed by                           rule will require these facilities to add
                                                  We note that several of the                                             screening personnel. We believe that all                        TSP chapters to their existing FSPs.
                                               requirements in § 105.535 are already                                      screening personnel are currently                               This rule will also require owners and
                                               implicitly required by the general                                         trained in the specific screening                               operators of cruise ship terminals to add
                                               security training requirements in                                          methods and equipment used at the                               a Prohibited Items List to current FSPs.
                                               § 105.210. Specifically, § 105.535(b), (c),                                terminal (item (d)), and the terminal-                          The following table provides a
                                               and (g), requiring that screening                                          specific response procedures when a                             breakdown of additional costs by
                                               personnel be familiar with specific                                        dangerous item is found (item (e)).                             requirement.

                                                                                                     TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF FIRST-YEAR COSTS BY REQUIREMENT
                                                                                                                                                         Costs
                                                                                     Requirement                                                    (undiscounted;                                   Description
                                                                                                                                                       rounded)

                                               Terminal Screening Program (TSP) ...........................................                              $156,397          Cost to create and add the TSP chapter to the FSPs.
                                               Update the FSP ..........................................................................                    9,775          Cost to update the Prohibited Items List in FSPs.

                                                     Total .....................................................................................              166,171      First-year undiscounted costs.



                                                  We estimate the cost of this rule to                                    FSP is not expected to change due to the                        do not have data to estimate monetized
                                               industry to be about $166,171 in the                                       inclusion of the TSP and PIL.                                   benefits of this rulemaking. We present
                                               first year. We expect the total costs of                                   Benefits                                                        qualitative benefits and a break even
                                               this rulemaking to be borne in the first                                                                                                   analysis in the Regulatory Analysis
                                               year of implementation. Under MTSA,                                           The benefits of the rulemaking                               available in the docket to demonstrate
                                               FSPs are required to undergo an annual                                     include codification of guidelines for                          that we expect the benefits of the
                                                                                                                          qualifications for screeners, more
                                               audit, and it is during that audit that                                                                                                    rulemaking to justify its costs.
                                                                                                                          transparent and consistent reporting of
                                               any revisions to the PIL will be                                                                                                             There are several qualitative benefits
                                                                                                                          screening procedures across cruise
                                               incorporated into the FSP (33 CFR                                          lines, improved industry accountability                         that can be attributed to the provisions
                                               105.415). We do not anticipate any                                         regarding security procedures, and                              in this rulemaking. Table 4 provides a
                                               recurring annual cost as a result of this                                  greater clarity and efficiency due to the                       brief summary of benefits of key
                                               rule, as the annual cost to update the                                     removal of redundant regulations. We                            provisions.

                                                                                                                        TABLE 4—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 provides for a more systematic approach to
                                                                                                                              monitor facility procedures.
                                               Prohibited Items List ...........................................            • Details those items that are prohibited from unsecured areas in all cruise terminals and ves-
                                                                                                                              sels.
                                                                                                                            • Provides a safer environment by prohibiting potentially dangerous items across the entire in-
                                                                                                                              dustry.



                                               Break Even Analysis                                                        type, terrorist attack mode, the number                         measure of the public’s willingness to
                                                  It is difficult to quantify the                                         of fatalities and injuries, economic and                        pay to reduce the risk of a fatality by
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2




                                               effectiveness of the provisions in this                                    environmental impacts, symbolic                                 one in a million, $0.96 to reduce a one
                                               rulemaking and the related monetized                                       effects, and national security impacts.                         in 10 million risk, and $0.096 to reduce
                                               benefits from averting or mitigating a                                        For regulatory analyses, the Coast                           a one in 100 million risk.26 As 8.9
                                               transportation security incident (TSI).                                    Guard uses a value of a statistical life                          26 ‘‘Guidance on Treatment of the Economic
                                               Damages resulting from TSIs are a                                          (VSL) of $9.6 million. A value of a                             Value of a Statistical Life in U.S., Department of
                                               function of a variety of factors                                           statistical life of $9.6 million is                             Transportation Analysis’’ https://cms.dot.gov/sites/
                                               including, but not limited to, target                                      equivalent to a value of $9.60 as a                             dot.gov/files/docs/2016%20Revised%20



                                          VerDate Sep<11>2014        17:16 Mar 16, 2018          Jkt 244001      PO 00000        Frm 00014         Fmt 4701    Sfmt 4700    E:\FR\FM\19MRR2.SGM   19MRR2


                                                                  Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations                                            12099

                                               million passengers embark onto cruise                   Coastal and Great Lakes Passenger                      Regulatory Fairness Boards. The
                                               ships in the U.S. each year,27 very small               Transportation.                                        Ombudsman evaluates these actions
                                               reductions in risk can result in a fairly                  According to the Small Business                     annually and rates each agency’s
                                               large aggregate willingness to pay for                  Administration’s Table of Small                        responsiveness to small business. If you
                                               that risk reduction. A VSL of $9.6                      Business Size Standards,28 a U.S.                      wish to comment on actions by
                                               million indicates that 8.9 million cruise               company with these NAICS codes and                     employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–
                                               ship passengers that embark from the                    employing equal to or fewer than 500                   888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247).
                                               U.S. would collectively be willing to                   employees is a small business.
                                               pay approximately $8.544 million to                     Additionally, cruise lines may fall                    D. Collection of Information
                                               reduce the risk of a fatality by one in 10              under the NAICS code 561510—Travel                        This rule calls for a collection of
                                               million (8.90 million passenger × $0.96).               Agencies, which have a small business                  information under the Paperwork
                                               As the 8.9 million passengers estimate                  size standard of equal to or less than                 Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
                                               only includes the initial embarkation of                $20.5 million in annual revenue.                       3520). As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c),
                                               a cruise and passengers often leave and                    For this rule, we reviewed recent                   ‘‘collection of information’’ comprises
                                               return to the vessel during a cruise                    company size and ownership data from                   reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring,
                                               (passing through screening each time),                  the Coast Guard MISLE database, and                    posting, labeling, and other similar
                                               the actual risk reduction to break even                 public business revenue and size data.                 actions. The title and description of the
                                               per screening may be lower. The                         We found that of the 23 entities that                  information collection, a description of
                                               annualized costs of the final rule are                  own or operate cruise ship will be                     those who must collect the information,
                                               approximately $22,111 at 7 percent;                     affected by this rulemaking, 11 are                    and an estimate of the total annual
                                               thus, the final rule would have to                      foreign entities. All 23 entities exceed               burden follow. The estimate covers the
                                               prevent one fatality every 434 years for                the Small Business Administration                      time for reviewing instructions,
                                               the rule to reach a break-even point                    small business standards for small                     searching existing sources of data,
                                               where costs equal benefits ($9.6 million                businesses along with the 137 MTSA                     gathering and maintaining the data
                                               value of a statistical life/$22,111 average             facilities.                                            needed, and completing and reviewing
                                               annual cost of rule = 434).                                We did not find any small not-for-                  the collection.
                                                 The preliminary Regulatory Analysis                   profit organizations that are                             Under the provisions of this final rule,
                                               in the docket provides additional details               independently owned and operated and                   plan holders will submit amended
                                               of the impacts of this rulemaking.                      are not dominant in their fields. We did               security plans within 180 days of
                                                                                                       not find any small governmental                        promulgation of the rule and update
                                               B. Small Entities                                       jurisdictions with populations of fewer                them annually. This requirement will be
                                                  Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act                 than 50,000 people. Based on this                      added to an existing collection with
                                               (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered                  analysis, we found that this rulemaking,               OMB control number 1625–0077.
                                               whether this rule will have a significant               if promulgated, will not affect a                         Title: Security Plans for Ports, Vessels,
                                               economic impact on a substantial                        substantial number of small entities.                  Facilities, Outer Continental Shelf
                                               number of small entities. The term                         Therefore the Coast Guard affirms its               Facilities and Other Security-Related
                                               ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small                      certification under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that               Requirements.
                                               businesses, not-for-profit organizations                this rule will not have a significant                     OMB Control Number: 1625–0077.
                                               that are independently owned and                        economic impact on a substantial                          Summary of the Collection of
                                               operated and are not dominant in their                  number of small entities.                              Information: Facilities that receive
                                               fields, and governmental jurisdictions                  C. Assistance for Small Entities                       cruise ships will be required to update
                                               with populations of fewer than 50,000                                                                          Facility Security Plans (FSPs) to contain
                                                                                                         Under section 213(a) of the Small                    additional information regarding the
                                               people. In the NPRM the Coast Guard
                                                                                                       Business Regulatory Enforcement                        screening process at cruise terminals.
                                               certified that this rule will not have a
                                                                                                       Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),                Also, all cruise ship terminals that
                                               significant economic impact on a
                                                                                                       we offered to assist small entities in                 currently have a FSP, will need to
                                               substantial number of small entities.
                                                                                                       understanding this rule so that they                   update said plan to include the list of
                                               The Coast Guard received no comments
                                                                                                       could better evaluate its effects on them              prohibited items as detailed in this rule.
                                               related to its discussion and analysis of
                                                                                                       and participate in the rulemaking. The                    Need for Information: The
                                               impacts on small entities during the
                                                                                                       Coast Guard will not retaliate against                 information is necessary to show
                                               public comment period. We have
                                                                                                       small entities that question or complain               evidence that cruise lines are
                                               received no additional information or
                                                                                                       about this rule or any policy or action                consistently providing a minimum
                                               data that will alter our determination,
                                                                                                       of the Coast Guard.                                    acceptable screening process when
                                               discussion and analysis of the NPRM.                      Small businesses may send comments
                                                  We expect entities affected by the rule                                                                     boarding passengers. The information
                                                                                                       on the actions of Federal employees                    will improve existing and future FSPs
                                               will be classified under the North
                                                                                                       who enforce or otherwise determine                     for cruise terminals, since they currently
                                               American Industry Classification
                                                                                                       compliance with Federal regulations to                 do not separate this important
                                               System (NAICS) code subsector 483—
                                                                                                       the Small Business and Agriculture                     information.
                                               Water Transportation, which includes
                                                                                                       Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman                          Proposed Use of Information: The
                                               the following six-digit NAICS codes for
                                                                                                       and the Regional Small Business                        Coast Guard will use this information to
                                               cruise lines: 483112—Deep Sea
                                               Passenger transportation and 483114—                                                                           ensure that facilities are taking the
                                                                                                          28 Source: http://www.sba.gov/size. SBA has
                                                                                                                                                              proper security precautions when
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2




                                                                                                       established a Table of Small Business Size
                                               Value%20of%20a%20Statistical%20Life%20                  Standards, which is matched to the North American      loading cruise ships.
                                               Guidance.pdf.                                           Industry Classification System (NAICS) industries.        Description of the Respondents: The
                                                 27 Source: Cruise Lines International Association,    A size standard, which is usually stated in number     respondents are FSP holders that
                                               Inc. (CLIA), 2009 U.S. Economic Impact Study,           of employees or average annual receipts                receive cruise ships.
                                               Table ES–2, Number of U.S., Embarkations. .             (‘‘revenues’’), represents the largest size that a
                                               https://www.cruising.org/about-the-industry/press-      business (including its subsidiaries and affiliates)
                                                                                                                                                                 Number of Respondents: The number
                                               room/press-releases/pr/clia-releases-report-on-         may be to remain classified as a small business for    of respondents is 10,158 for vessels,
                                               industry-s-2009-contributions.                          SBA and Federal contracting programs.                  5,234 for facilities, and 56 for Outer


                                          VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:16 Mar 16, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00015   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\19MRR2.SGM   19MRR2


                                               12100              Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

                                               Continental Shelf (OCS) facilities. Of                  of cruise ship terminals, some of which                  Many port authorities were concerned
                                               these 5,234 facilities, 137 facilities that             are State entities.                                   regarding the issue of liability in the
                                               receive cruise ships that will be                          As implemented by the Coast Guard,                 event of security breaches or failures to
                                               required to modify their existing FSPs to               the MTSA-established federal security                 comply with applicable terminal
                                               account for the TSP chapter.                            requirements for regulated maritime                   screening regulations. Several port
                                                  Frequency of Response: Cruise lines                  facilities, including the terminal                    authorities described contractual
                                               will only need to write a TSP chapter                   facilities serving the cruise ship                    relationships with cruise ship operators
                                               once before inserting it into the                       industry, are amended by this final rule.             or third parties that assigned screening
                                               associated FSP. This will be required                   These regulations were, in many cases,                responsibility to those parties, and were
                                               during the first 6 months after                         preemptive of State requirements.                     concerned that the new regulations
                                               publication of the final rule.                          Where State requirements might conflict               could hold them liable as terminal
                                                  Burden of Response: The estimated                    with the provisions of a federally                    owners if the operating party failed to
                                               burden for cruise lines per TSP chapter                 approved security plan, they had the                  comply with regulations. This transfer
                                               will be approximately 16 hours. The                     effect of impeding important federal                  of liability was not the intent of the rule,
                                               estimated burden to update the FSP will                 purposes, including achieving                         and the Coast Guard was responsive to
                                               be 1 hour.                                              uniformity. However, the Coast Guard                  these entities’ request by adding
                                                  Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The                 also recognizes that States have an                   language to sections 104.295 and
                                               estimated first-year burden for cruise                  interest in these proposals to the extent             105.292 specifying that, if detailed in a
                                               lines is 16 hours per TSP chapter. Since                they impose requirements on State-                    DoS, terminal owners could meet their
                                               there are currently 137 FSPs, the total                 operated terminals or individual States               regulatory requirements by assigning
                                               burden on facilities will be 2,192 hours                may wish to develop stricter regulations              screening responsibility to a cruise ship
                                               (137 TSPs × 16 hours per TSP) in the                    for the federally regulated maritime                  operator or other responsible party. We
                                               first year. For the 137 facilities, the total           facilities in their ports, so long as                 believe this change fully addresses this
                                               burden will be 137 hours (137 FSPs ×                    necessary security and the above-                     concern.
                                                                                                       described principles of federalism are                   Other issues raised by local or State
                                               1 hour per FSP). The current burden for
                                                                                                       not compromised. Sections 4 and 6 of                  authorities concerned procedural
                                               this collection of information is
                                                                                                       Executive Order 13132 require that for                requirements stemming from the
                                               1,125,171. The new burden, as a result
                                                                                                       any rules with preemptive effect, the                 identification of prohibited items
                                               of this rulemaking, is (1,125,171 + 2,192
                                                                                                       Coast Guard shall provide elected                     discovered in secure areas. These issues,
                                               + 137) or 1,127,500 hours in the first
                                                                                                       officials of affected state and local                 which were also raised by non-
                                               year only. All subsequent year burdens
                                                                                                       governments and their representative                  governmental entities, were addressed
                                               will be considered part of the annual
                                                                                                       national organizations the notice and                 by including language in the text of the
                                               review process for FSPs.
                                                                                                       opportunity for appropriate                           regulation at section 105.515(d) that
                                                  As required by the Paperwork                         participation in any rulemaking                       more clearly laid out the steps to be
                                               Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.                        proceedings, and to consult with such                 taken in the event of a discovery of a
                                               3507(d)), we have submitted a copy of                   officials early in the rulemaking process.            prohibited item at various stages of the
                                               this final rule to the OMB for its review               Therefore, we invited affected state and              screening process.
                                               of the collection of information.                       local governments and their                              Several governmental entities, most
                                                  You need not respond to a collection                 representative national organizations to              notably the U.S. Virgin Islands, were
                                               of information unless it displays a                     indicate their desire for participation               highly concerned about the expansion
                                               currently valid control number from                     and consultation in this rulemaking                   of the regulation to ‘‘ports of call.’’ In
                                               OMB. Before the requirements for this                   process by submitting comments to the                 response to these concerns, the Coast
                                               collection of information become                        NPRM. In accordance with Executive                    Guard clarified in section IV.A that the
                                               effective, we will publish a notice in the              Order 13132, the Coast Guard is                       enhanced screening requirements
                                               Federal Register of OMB’s decision to                   providing a federalism impact statement               applied only to terminals, which are a
                                               approve, modify, or disapprove the                      to document: (1) The extent of the Coast              separate class of facilities. This clarifies
                                               proposed collection.                                    Guard’s consultation with State and                   that the smaller ports of call can
                                               E. Federalism                                           local officials that submit comments to               continue to conduct screening
                                                                                                       this rule, (2) a summary of the nature of             requirements under their current
                                                  A rule has implications for federalism               any concerns raised by state or local                 systems.
                                               under Executive Order 13132,                            governments and the Coast Guard’s                        Finally, we received a request from
                                               Federalism, if it has a substantial direct              position thereon, and (3) a statement of              one large port authority to add more
                                               effect on the States, on the relationship               the extent to which the concerns of                   specific training and qualification
                                               between the national government and                     State and local officials have been met.              criteria for cruise ship screeners. In the
                                               the States, or on the distribution of                      The Coast Guard interacted with State              final rule, we declined to adopt this
                                               power and responsibilities among the                    and local governmental authorities                    suggestion, because we believe that such
                                               various levels of government. We have                   primarily through the notice and                      a ‘‘one size fits all’’ approach would be
                                               analyzed this rule under that Order and                 comment procedure. The Coast Guard                    impracticable and burdensome
                                               have determined that it has implications                received comments from the following                  considering the wide range of cruise
                                               for federalism. A summary of the impact                 governmental entities: The Port                       ship terminals and ports of call. We note
                                               of federalism in this rule follows.                     Authority of New York and New Jersey,                 that while not required, larger terminals
                                                  This final rule builds on the existing               the City of Rockland, ME, the                         are free to subject their screening
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2




                                               port security requirements found in 33                  Massachusetts Port Authority, the U.S.                personnel to more stringent training
                                               CFR part 105 by establishing detailed                   Virgin Islands, Port Miami, and the                   requirements than required by these
                                               requirements for the screening of                       Broward County Florida Port Everglades                regulations.
                                               persons, baggage, and personal items                    Department. The commenters addressed
                                               intended for boarding a cruise ship. It                 a range of issues of significance, which              F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
                                               also establishes terminal screening                     while addressed in more detail above in                 The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
                                               requirements for owners and operators                   section IV, are summarized below.                     of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires


                                          VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:16 Mar 16, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00016   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\19MRR2.SGM   19MRR2


                                                                  Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations                                            12101

                                               Federal agencies to assess the effects of               L. Technical Standards                                Categorical Exclusions’’ (67 FR 48243,
                                               their discretionary regulatory actions. In                                                                    July 23, 2002).
                                               particular, the Act addresses actions                      The National Technology Transfer
                                                                                                       and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15                       List of Subjects
                                               that may result in the expenditure by a
                                               State, local, or tribal government, in the              U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use              33 CFR Part 101
                                               aggregate, or by the private sector of                  voluntary consensus standards in their
                                                                                                       regulatory activities unless the agency                 Harbors, Maritime security, Reporting
                                               $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or                                                                      and recordkeeping requirements,
                                               more in any one year. Though this rule                  provides Congress, through OMB, with
                                                                                                       an explanation of why using these                     Security measures, Vessels, Waterways.
                                               will not result in such an expenditure,
                                               we do discuss the effects of this rule                  standards would be inconsistent with                  33 CFR Part 104
                                               elsewhere in this preamble.                             applicable law or otherwise impractical.                Maritime security, Reporting and
                                                                                                       Voluntary consensus standards are                     recordkeeping requirements, Security
                                               G. Taking of Private Property                           technical standards (e.g., specifications             measures, Vessels.
                                                 This rule will not cause a taking of                  of materials, performance, design, or
                                                                                                       operation; test methods; sampling                     33 CFR Part 105
                                               private property or otherwise have
                                               taking implications under Executive                     procedures; and related management                      Maritime security, Reporting and
                                               Order 12630, Governmental Actions and                   systems practices) that are developed or              recordkeeping requirements, Security
                                               Interference with Constitutionally                      adopted by voluntary consensus                        measures.
                                               Protected Property Rights.                              standards bodies.
                                                                                                                                                             33 CFR Part 120
                                                                                                          This rule does not add any voluntary
                                               H. Civil Justice Reform                                                                                         Passenger vessels, Reporting and
                                                                                                       consensus standards. Due to the nature
                                                 This rule meets applicable standards                  of cruise ship security operations,                   recordkeeping requirements, Security
                                               in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive               performance-based standards allow an                  measures, Terrorism.
                                               Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to                   appropriate degree of flexibility that                33 CFR Part 128
                                               minimize litigation, eliminate                          accommodates and is consistent with
                                                                                                                                                               Harbors, Reporting and recordkeeping
                                               ambiguity, and reduce burden.                           different terminal sizes and operations.
                                                                                                                                                             requirements, Security measures,
                                                                                                       This rule will standardize screening
                                               I. Protection of Children                                                                                     Terrorism.
                                                                                                       activities for all persons, baggage, and
                                                                                                       personal effects at cruise ship terminals               For the reasons listed in the preamble,
                                                 We have analyzed this rule under
                                                                                                       to ensure a consistent layer of security              the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR parts
                                               Executive Order 13045, Protection of
                                                                                                       at terminals throughout the United                    101, 104, 105, 120, and 128 as follows:
                                               Children from Environmental Health
                                               Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not                States. Additionally, the Coast Guard                 PART 101—MARITIME SECURITY:
                                               an economically significant rule and                    consulted with the TSA during the                     GENERAL
                                               will not create an environmental risk to                development of this rule.
                                               health or risk to safety that might                     M. Environment                                        ■ 1. The authority citation for part 101
                                               disproportionately affect children.                                                                           continues to read as follows:
                                               J. Indian Tribal Governments                               We have analyzed this rule under                     Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C.
                                                                                                       Department of Homeland Security                       Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 192; Executive
                                                  This rule does not have tribal                       Management Directive 023–01 and                       Order 12656, 3 CFR 1988 Comp., p. 585; 33
                                               implications under Executive Order                      Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,                     CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19;
                                               13175, Consultation and Coordination                    which guide the Coast Guard in                        Department of Homeland Security Delegation
                                               with Indian Tribal Governments,                         complying with the National                           No. 0170.1.
                                               because it will not have a substantial                  Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42                  ■  2. In § 101.105, add, in alphabetical
                                               direct effect on one or more Indian                     U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have                          order, definitions for the terms ‘‘carry-
                                               tribes, on the relationship between the                 determined that it is one of a category               on item’’, ‘‘checked baggage’’, ‘‘cruise
                                               Federal Government and Indian tribes,                   of actions that do not individually or                ship terminal’’, ‘‘cruise ship voyage’’,
                                               or on the distribution of power and                     cumulatively have a significant effect on             ‘‘disembark’’, ‘‘embark’’, ‘‘explosive
                                               responsibilities between the Federal                    the human environment. A Record of                    detection system’’, ‘‘high seas’’, ‘‘port of
                                               Government and Indian tribes.                           Environmental Consideration (REC)                     call’’, ‘‘screener’’, and ‘‘terminal
                                                                                                       supporting this determination is                      screening program or TSP’’ to read as
                                               K. Energy Effects
                                                                                                       available in the docket where indicated               follows:
                                                  We have analyzed this rule under                     in the ADDRESSES section of this
                                                                                                                                                             § 101.105   Definitions.
                                               Executive Order 13211, Actions                          preamble. This rule is categorically
                                               Concerning Regulations That                             excluded under paragraphs 34(a),                      *     *     *     *     *
                                               Significantly Affect Energy Supply,                     regulations which are editorial or                      Carry-on item means an individual’s
                                               Distribution, or Use. We have                           procedural; 34(c), regulations                        accessible property, including any
                                               determined that it is not a ‘‘significant               concerning the training, qualifying,                  personal effects that the individual
                                               energy action’’ under that order because                licensing, and disciplining or maritime               intends to carry onto a vessel or facility
                                               it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’           personnel; and 34(d), regulations                     subject to this subchapter and is
                                               under Executive Order 12866 and is not                  concerning the documentation,                         therefore subject to screening.
                                               likely to have a significant adverse effect             admeasurement, inspection, and                        *     *     *     *     *
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2




                                               on the supply, distribution, or use of                  equipment of vessels, of the Coast                      Checked baggage means an
                                               energy. The Administrator of the Office                 Guard’s NEPA Implementing                             individual’s personal property tendered
                                               of Information and Regulatory Affairs                   Procedures and Policy for Considering                 by or on behalf of a passenger and
                                               has not designated it as a significant                  Environmental Impacts, COMDTINST                      accepted by a facility or vessel owner or
                                               energy action. Therefore, it does not                   M16475.1D, and paragraph 6(b) of the                  operator. This baggage is accessible to
                                               require a Statement of Energy Effects                   ‘‘Appendix to National Environmental                  the individual after boarding the vessel.
                                               under Executive Order 13211.                            Policy Act: Coast Guard Procedures for                *     *     *     *     *


                                          VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:16 Mar 16, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00017   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\19MRR2.SGM   19MRR2


                                               12102              Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

                                                  Cruise ship terminal means any                       § 104.295 Additional requirements —                   holding a Transportation Worker
                                               portion of a facility that receives a                   cruise ships.                                         Identification Credential (TWIC) must
                                               cruise ship or its tenders for initial                    (a) * * *                                           be checked as set forth in this part. For
                                               embarkation or final disembarkation.                      (1) Screen all persons, baggage, and                persons not holding a TWIC, this check
                                                  Cruise ship voyage means a cruise                    personal effects for dangerous                        includes confirming the individual’s
                                               ship’s entire course of travel, from the                substances and devices prior to entering              validity for boarding by examining
                                               first port at which the vessel embarks                  the sterile or secure portion of a cruise             passenger tickets, boarding passes,
                                               passengers until its return to that port or             ship in accordance with the                           government identification or visitor
                                               another port where the majority of the                  qualification, training, and equipment                badges, or work orders;
                                               passengers disembark and terminate                      requirements of §§ 105.530, 105.535,                  *     *     *    *     *
                                               their voyage. A cruise ship voyage may                  and 105.545 of this subchapter.
                                               include one or more ports of call.                        (2) The vessel owner or operator may                ■   8. Add § 105.292 to read as follows:
                                                                                                       work with the owner or operator of each
                                               *      *     *    *     *                                                                                     § 105.292 Additional requirements—cruise
                                                                                                       cruise ship terminal or port of call at               ship ports of call.
                                                  Disembark means any time that the                    which that vessel embarks or
                                               crew or passengers leave the ship.                      disembarks passengers to meet the                        (a) The owner or operator of a cruise
                                               *      *     *    *     *                               requirements of this section. The owner               ship port of call must work with the
                                                  Embark means any time that crew or                   or operator of a cruise ship need not                 operator of each cruise ship subject to
                                               passengers board the ship, including re-                duplicate any provisions fulfilled by the             part 104 of this chapter to ensure that
                                               boarding at ports of call.                              cruise ship terminal or port of call.                 passengers are screened for dangerous
                                               *      *     *    *     *                               When a provision is fulfilled by the                  substances and devices in accordance
                                                  Explosives detection system means                    cruise ship terminal or port of call, the             with the qualification, training, and
                                               any system, including canines,                          applicable section of the Vessel Security             equipment requirements of §§ 105.530,
                                               automated device, or combination of                     Plan must refer to that fact.                         105.535, and 105.545. The port of call
                                               devices that have the ability to detect                 *     *     *     *     *                             need not duplicate any provisions
                                               explosive material.                                                                                           fulfilled by the vessel. When a provision
                                                                                                       PART 105—MARITIME SECURITY:                           is fulfilled by a vessel, the applicable
                                               *      *     *    *     *
                                                                                                       FACILITIES                                            section of the TSP must refer to that
                                                  High seas means the waters defined in                                                                      fact.
                                               § 2.32(d) of this chapter.                              ■ 5. The authority citation for part 105                 (b) The owner or operator of a cruise
                                               *      *     *    *     *                               continues to read as follows:                         ship port of call must display the
                                                  Port of call means a U.S. port where                   Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C.          Prohibited Items List at each screening
                                               a cruise ship makes a scheduled or                      70103; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–            location.
                                               unscheduled stop in the course of its                   11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19; Department of
                                               voyage and passengers are allowed to                    Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.              ■ 9. In § 105.405, revise paragraphs
                                               embark and disembark the vessel or its                                                                        (a)(17) and (18), reserve paragraphs
                                                                                                       ■ 6. In § 105.225, revise paragraph (b)(1)
                                               tenders.                                                                                                      (a)(19) and (20), and add paragraph
                                                                                                       to read as follows:
                                               *      *     *    *     *                                                                                     (a)(21) to read as follows:
                                                  Screener means an individual who is                  § 105.225 Facility recordkeeping
                                                                                                                                                             § 105.405 Format and content of the
                                                                                                       requirements.
                                               trained and authorized to screen or                                                                           Facility Security Plan (FSP).
                                               inspect persons, baggage (including                     *     *     *     *     *
                                                                                                         (b) * * *                                             (a) * * *
                                               carry-on items), personal effects, and
                                               vehicles for the presence of dangerous                    (1) Training. For training under                      (17) Facility Security Assessment
                                               substances and devices, and other items                 §§ 105.210 and 105.535, the date of each              (FSA) report;
                                               listed in the vessel security plan (VSP)                session, duration of session, a                         (18) Facility Vulnerability and
                                               or facility security plan (FSP).                        description of the training, and a list of            Security Measures Summary (Form CG–
                                                                                                       attendees;                                            6025) in Appendix A to part 105; and,
                                               *      *     *    *     *
                                                                                                       *     *     *     *     *
                                                  Terminal screening program or TSP                                                                            (19)–(20) [Reserved]
                                                                                                       ■ 7. In § 105.290, revise paragraphs (a)
                                               means a written program developed for                                                                           (21) If applicable, cruise ship TSP in
                                               a cruise ship terminal that documents                   and (b) to read as follows:
                                                                                                                                                             accordance with subpart E of this part.
                                               methods used to screen persons,                         § 105.290 Additional requirements—cruise              *     *     *    *      *
                                               baggage, and carry-on items for the                     ship terminals.
                                               presence of dangerous substances and                                                                          ■ 10. Add subpart E to part 105 to read
                                                                                                       *     *     *       *  *
                                               devices to ensure compliance with this                    (a) Screen all persons, baggage, and                as follows:
                                               part.                                                   personal effects for dangerous                        Subpart E—Facility Security: Cruise Ship
                                               *      *     *    *     *                               substances and devices in accordance                  Terminals
                                                                                                       with the requirements in subpart E of                 Sec.
                                               PART 104—MARITIME SECURITY:                             this part. The owner or operator of a                 105.500 General.
                                               VESSELS                                                 cruise ship terminal need not duplicate               105.505 Terminal Screening Program (TSP).
                                                                                                       any provisions fulfilled by the vessel.               105.510 Screening responsibilities of the
                                               ■ 3. The authority citation for part 104                When a provision is fulfilled by a                         owner or operator.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2




                                               continues to read as follows:                           vessel, the applicable section of the                 105.515 Prohibited Items List (PIL).
                                                                                                                                                             105.525 Terminal screening operations.
                                                 Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C.            terminal security program (TSP) must                  105.530 Qualifications of screeners.
                                               Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1,              refer to that fact.                                   105.535 Training requirements of screeners.
                                               6.04–11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19; Department of              (b) Check the identification of all                 105.540 Screener participation in drills and
                                               Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.                persons seeking to enter the facility in                   exercises.
                                               ■ 4. In § 104.295, revise paragraphs                    accordance with §§ 101.514, 101.515,                  105.545 Screening equipment.
                                               (a)(1) and (2) to read as follows:                      and 105.255 of this subchapter. Persons               105.550 Alternative screening.



                                          VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:16 Mar 16, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00018   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\19MRR2.SGM   19MRR2


                                                                  Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations                                              12103

                                               Subpart E—Facility Security: Cruise                       (1) A line diagram of the cruise ship                  (d) Procedures are established for
                                               Ship Terminals                                          terminal including—                                   reporting and handling prohibited items
                                                                                                         (i) The physical boundaries of the                  that are detected during the screening
                                               § 105.500   General.                                    terminal;                                             process;
                                                 (a) Applicability. The owner or                         (ii) The location(s) where all persons                 (e) All personal screening is
                                               operator of a cruise ship terminal must                 intending to board a cruise ship, and all             conducted in a uniform, courteous, and
                                               comply with this subpart when                           personal effects and baggage, are                     efficient manner respecting personal
                                               receiving a cruise ship or tenders from                 screened; and                                         rights to the maximum extent
                                               cruise ships.                                             (iii) The point(s) in the terminal                  practicable; and
                                                 (b) Purpose. This subpart establishes                 beyond which no unscreened person                        (f) When the MARSEC (Maritime
                                               cruise ship terminal screening programs                 may pass.                                             Security) level is increased, additional
                                               within the Facility Security Plans to                     (2) The responsibilities of the owner               screening measures are employed in
                                               ensure that prohibited items are not                    or operator regarding the screening of                accordance with an approved TSP.
                                               present within the secure areas that                    persons, baggage, and personal effects;
                                               have been designated for screened                         (3) The procedure to obtain and                     § 105.515   Prohibited Items List (PIL).
                                               persons, baggage, and personal effects,                 maintain the PIL;                                        (a) The owner or operator of a cruise
                                               and are not brought onto cruise ships                     (4) The procedures used to comply                   ship terminal must obtain from the
                                               interfacing with the terminal.                          with the requirements of § 105.530                    Coast Guard and maintain a Prohibited
                                                 (c) Compliance dates. (1) No later                    regarding qualifications of screeners;                Items List (PIL) consisting of dangerous
                                                                                                         (5) The procedures used to comply                   substances and devices for purposes of
                                               than October 15, 2018, cruise ship
                                                                                                       with the requirements of § 105.535                    § 105.290(a). The list specifies those
                                               terminal owners or operators must
                                                                                                       regarding training of screeners;                      items that the Coast Guard prohibits all
                                               submit, for each terminal, a terminal                     (6) The number of screeners needed at
                                               screening program (TSP) that conforms                                                                         persons from bringing onboard any
                                                                                                       each location to ensure adequate                      cruise ship through terminal screening
                                               with the requirements in § 105.505 to                   screening;
                                               the cognizant COTP for review and                                                                             operations regulated under 33 CFR part
                                                                                                         (7) A description of the equipment
                                               approval.                                                                                                     105.
                                                                                                       used to comply with the requirements of
                                                 (2) No later than April 18, 2019, each                                                                         (b) Procedures for screening persons,
                                                                                                       § 105.525 regarding the screening of
                                               cruise ship terminal owner or operator                                                                        baggage and personal effects must
                                                                                                       individuals, their personal effects, and
                                               must operate in compliance with an                                                                            include use of the PIL which will be
                                                                                                       baggage, including screening at
                                               approved TSP and this subpart.                                                                                provided to screening personnel by the
                                                                                                       increased Maritime Security (MARSEC)
                                                                                                                                                             cruise ship terminal owner or operator.
                                               § 105.505   Terminal Screening Program                  levels, and the procedures for use of that               (c) The list must be present at each
                                               (TSP).                                                  equipment;                                            screening location during screening
                                                 (a) General requirements. The owner                     (8) The operation, calibration, and
                                                                                                                                                             operations. Additionally, the list must
                                               or operator of a cruise ship terminal                   maintenance of any and all screening
                                                                                                                                                             be included as part of the DoS.
                                               must ensure a TSP is developed, added                   equipment used in accordance with
                                                                                                                                                                (d) Facility personnel must report the
                                               to the Facility Security Plan (FSP), and                § 105.545;
                                                                                                         (9) The procedures used to comply                   discovery of a prohibited item
                                               implemented. The TSP must—                                                                                    introduced by violating security
                                                 (1) Document all procedures that are                  with the requirements of § 105.550
                                                                                                       regarding the use of alternative                      measures at a cruise ship terminal as a
                                               employed to ensure all persons,                                                                               breach of security in accordance with
                                               baggage, and personal effects are                       screening methods and/or equipment,
                                                                                                       including procedures for passengers and               § 101.305(b) of this subchapter. A
                                               screened at the cruise ship terminal                                                                          prohibited item discovered during
                                               prior to being allowed into a cruise ship               crew with disabilities or medical
                                                                                                       conditions precluding certain screening               security screening is not considered to
                                               terminal’s secure areas or onto a cruise                                                                      be a breach of security, and should be
                                               ship;                                                   methods; and
                                                                                                         (10) The procedures used when                       treated in accordance with local law
                                                 (2) Be written in English; and                                                                              enforcement practices.
                                                 (3) Be approved by the Coast Guard as                 prohibited items are detected.
                                                                                                         (d) As a part of the FSP, the                       § 105.525   Terminal screening operations.
                                               part of the FSP in accordance with
                                                                                                       requirements in §§ 105.410 and 105.415
                                               subpart D of this part.                                                                                          (a) Passengers and personal effects.
                                                                                                       governing submission, approval,
                                                 (b) Availability. Each cruise ship                                                                          (1) Each cruise ship terminal must have
                                                                                                       amendment, and audit of a TSP apply.
                                               terminal Facility Security Officer (FSO)                                                                      at least one location to screen
                                               must—                                                   § 105.510 Screening responsibilities of the           passengers and carry-on items prior to
                                                 (1) Maintain the TSP in the same or                   owner or operator.                                    allowing such passengers and carry-on
                                               similar location as the FSP as described                  In addition to the requirements of                  items into secure areas of the terminal
                                               in § 105.400(d);                                        § 105.200, the owner or operator of a                 designated for screened persons and
                                                 (2) Have an accessible, complete copy                 cruise ship terminal must ensure that—                carry-on items.
                                               of the TSP at the cruise ship terminal;                   (a) A TSP is developed in accordance                   (2) Screening locations must be
                                                 (3) Have a copy of the TSP available                  with this subpart, and submitted to and               adequately staffed and equipped to
                                               for inspection upon request by the Coast                approved by the cognizant Captain of                  conduct screening operations in
                                               Guard;                                                  the Port (COTP), as part of the FSP, in               accordance with the approved TSP.
                                                 (4) Maintain the TSP as sensitive                     accordance with this part;                               (3) Facility personnel must check
                                               security information (SSI) and protect it                 (b) Screening is conducted in                       personal identification prior to allowing
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2




                                               in accordance with 49 CFR part 1520;                    accordance with this subpart and an                   a person to proceed to a screening
                                               and                                                     approved TSP;                                         location, in accordance with
                                                 (5) Make a copy of the current                          (c) Specific screening responsibilities             § 105.290(b), which sets forth additional
                                               Prohibited Items List (PIL) publicly                    are documented in a Declaration of                    requirements for cruise ship terminals at
                                               available. The PIL and copies thereof are               Security (DoS) in accordance with                     all MARSEC levels.
                                               not SSI.                                                §§ 104.255 and 105.245 of this                           (4) All screened passengers and their
                                                 (c) Content. The TSP must include—                    subchapter;                                           carry-on items must remain in secure


                                          VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:16 Mar 16, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00019   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\19MRR2.SGM   19MRR2


                                               12104              Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

                                               areas of the terminal designated for                    cruise ship terminals must demonstrate                of injury, including genetic injury, to
                                               screened persons and personal effects                   knowledge, understanding, and                         any person;
                                               until boarding the cruise ship. Persons                 proficiency in the following areas as                    (6) The owner or operator must ensure
                                               who leave a secure area must be re-                     part of their security-related                        that a sign is posted in a conspicuous
                                               screened.                                               familiarization—                                      place at the screening location where x-
                                                  (b) Persons other than passengers.                      (a) Historic and current threats against           ray systems are used to inspect personal
                                               Crew members, visitors, vendors, and                    the cruise ship industry;                             effects and where screeners accept
                                               other persons who are not passengers,                      (b) Relevant portions of the TSP and               baggage. These signs must—
                                               and their personal effects, must be                     FSP;                                                     (i) Notify individuals that items are
                                               screened either at screening locations                     (c) The purpose and contents of the                being screened by x-ray and advise them
                                               where passengers are screened or at                     cruise ship terminal PIL;                             to remove all x-ray, scientific, and high-
                                               another location that is adequately                        (d) Specific instruction on screening              speed film from their personal effects
                                               staffed and equipped in accordance                      methods and equipment used at the                     and baggage before screening;
                                               with this subpart and is specifically                   cruise ship terminal;                                    (ii) Advise individuals that they may
                                               designated in an approved TSP.                             (e) Terminal-specific response                     request screening of their photographic
                                                  (c) Checked baggage. (1) A cruise ship               procedures when a dangerous substance                 equipment and film packages be done
                                               terminal that accepts baggage must have                 or device is detected;                                without exposure to an x-ray system;
                                               at least one location designated for the                   (f) Additional screening requirements              and
                                               screening of checked baggage.                           at increased MARSEC levels; and,                         (iii) Advise individuals to remove all
                                                  (2) Screening personnel may only                        (g) Any additional topics specified in             photographic film from their personal
                                               accept baggage from a person with—                      the facility’s approved TSP.                          effects before screening, if the x-ray
                                                  (i) A valid passenger ticket;                                                                              system exposes any personal effects or
                                                                                                       § 105.540 Screener participation in drills
                                                  (ii) Joining instructions;                                                                                 baggage to more than one milliroentgen
                                                                                                       and exercises.
                                                  (iii) Work orders; or                                                                                      during the screening.
                                                  (iv) Authorization from the terminal                   Screening personnel must participate
                                                                                                       in drills and exercises required under                   (c) Explosives detection systems. The
                                               or vessel owner or operator to handle                                                                         owner or operator of a cruise ship
                                               baggage;                                                § 105.220.
                                                                                                                                                             terminal may use an explosives
                                                  (3) Screening personnel may only                     § 105.545    Screening equipment.                     detection system to screen baggage and
                                               accept baggage in an area designated in
                                                                                                         The following screening equipment                   personal effects for the presence of
                                               an approved TSP and manned by
                                                                                                       may be used, provided it is specifically              explosives if it meets the following
                                               terminal screening personnel; and
                                                                                                       documented in an approved TSP.                        requirements:
                                                  (4) Screening or security personnel
                                                                                                         (a) Metal detection devices. (1) The                   (1) At locations where x-ray
                                               must constantly control the checked
                                                                                                       owner or operator of a cruise ship                    technology is used to inspect baggage or
                                               baggage, in a secure area, from the time
                                                                                                       terminal may use a metal detection                    personal effects for explosives, the
                                               it is accepted at the terminal until it is
                                                                                                       device to screen persons, baggage, and                terminal owner or operator must post
                                               onboard the cruise ship.
                                                                                                       personal effects.                                     signs in accordance with paragraph
                                                  (d) Unaccompanied baggage. (1)
                                                                                                         (2) Metal detection devices used at                 (b)(6) of this section.
                                               Facility personnel may accept
                                                                                                       any cruise ship terminal must be                         (2) All explosives detection
                                               unaccompanied baggage, as defined in
                                                                                                       operated, calibrated, and maintained in               equipment used at a cruise ship
                                               § 101.105 of this subchapter, only if the
                                                                                                       accordance with manufacturer’s                        terminal must be operated, calibrated,
                                               Vessel Security Officer (VSO) provides
                                                                                                       instructions.                                         and maintained in accordance with
                                               prior written approval for the
                                                                                                         (b) X-ray systems. The owner or                     manufacturer’s instructions.
                                               unaccompanied baggage.
                                                                                                       operator of a cruise ship terminal may
                                                  (2) If facility personnel accept                                                                           § 105.550   Alternative screening.
                                                                                                       use an x-ray system for the screening
                                               unaccompanied baggage at a cruise ship
                                                                                                       and inspection of personal effects and                  If the owner or operator of a U.S.
                                               terminal, they must handle such
                                                                                                       baggage if all of the following                       cruise ship terminal chooses to screen
                                               baggage in accordance with paragraph
                                                                                                       requirements are satisfied—                           using equipment or methods other than
                                               (c) of this section.
                                                                                                         (1) The system meets the standards for              those described in § 105.545, the
                                               § 105.530   Qualifications of screeners.                cabinet x-ray systems used primarily for              equipment and methods must be
                                                 In addition to the requirements for                   the inspection of baggage, found in 21                described in detail in an approved TSP.
                                               facility personnel with security duties                 CFR 1020.40;
                                                                                                         (2) Familiarization training for                    PART 120—[REMOVED AND
                                               contained in § 105.210, screening
                                                                                                       screeners, in accordance with § 105.535,              RESERVED]
                                               personnel at cruise ship terminals
                                               must—                                                   includes training in radiation safety and
                                                                                                       the efficient use of x-ray systems;                   ■ 11. Under the authority of 33 U.S.C.
                                                 (a) Have a combination of education                                                                         1231, remove and reserve part 120.
                                               and experience that the FSO has                           (3) The system must meet the imaging
                                               determined to be sufficient for the                     requirements found in 49 CFR 1544.211;
                                                                                                                                                             PART 128-–[REMOVED AND
                                               individual to perform the duties of the                   (4) The system must be operated,
                                                                                                                                                             RESERVED]
                                               position; and                                           calibrated, and maintained in
                                                 (b) Be capable of using all screening                 accordance with manufacturer’s                        ■ 12. Under the authority of 33 U.S.C.
                                                                                                       instructions;
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2




                                               methods and equipment needed to                                                                               1231, remove and reserve part 128.
                                               perform the duties of the position.                       (5) The x-ray system must fully
                                                                                                       comply with any defect notice or                        Dated: March 8, 2018.
                                               § 105.535 Training requirements of                      modification order issued for that                    Jennifer F. Williams,
                                               screeners.                                              system by the Food and Drug                           Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of
                                                 In addition to the requirements for                   Administration (FDA), unless the FDA                  Inspections and Compliance.
                                               facility personnel with security duties                 has advised that a defect or failure to               [FR Doc. 2018–05394 Filed 3–16–18; 8:45 am]
                                               in § 105.210, screening personnel at                    comply does not create a significant risk             BILLING CODE 9110–04–P




                                          VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:16 Mar 16, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00020   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 9990   E:\FR\FM\19MRR2.SGM   19MRR2



Document Created: 2018-03-17 04:24:55
Document Modified: 2018-03-17 04:24:55
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionRules and Regulations
ActionFinal rule.
DatesThis final rule is effective April 18, 2018.
ContactIf you have questions on this 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 protected]
FR Citation83 FR 12086 
RIN Number1625-AB30
CFR Citation33 CFR 101
33 CFR 104
33 CFR 105
33 CFR 120
33 CFR 128
CFR AssociatedHarbors; Maritime Security; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Security Measures; Vessels; Waterways; Passenger Vessels and Terrorism

2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR