[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 139 (Thursday, July 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37648-37655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-18115]



[[Page 37647]]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Coast Guard



_______________________________________________________________________



33 CFR Parts 120 and 128



Security for Passenger Vessels and Passenger Terminals; Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 139, Thursday, July 18, 1996 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 37648]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 120 and 128

[CGD 91-012]
RIN 2115-AD75


Security for Passenger Vessels and Passenger Terminals

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Interim Rule with request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is implementing an interim rule for the 
security of passenger vessels and passenger terminals. This rule is 
intended to deter, or mitigate the results of, terrorism and other 
unlawful acts against passenger vessels and passenger terminals. It 
should reduce the likelihood of such acts and should reduce the damage 
to property and injury to persons, if such acts occur.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 16, 1996. Comments must be 
received on or before September 16, 1996. The Director of the Federal 
Register approves as of October 16, 1996 the incorporation by reference 
of certain publications listed in the rule.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Executive Secretary, Marine 
Safety Council (G-LRA, 3406) (CGD 91-012), U.S. Coast Guard 
Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, or may 
be delivered to room 3406 at the same address between 9:30 a.m. and 2 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone 
number is (202) 267-1477. Comments on collection-of-information 
requirements must be mailed also to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street 
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.
    The Executive Secretary maintains the public docket for this 
rulemaking. Comments will become part of this docket and will be 
available for inspection or copying at room 3406, U.S. Coast Guard 
Headquarters, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays.
    A copy of the material listed in ``Incorporation by Reference'' of 
this preamble is available for inspection at room 1312, U.S. Coast 
Guard Headquarters.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
CDR Dennis J. Haise, Office of Marine Safety, Security, and 
Environmental Protection (G-MOS-2), Room 1208, (202) 267-6451, between 
7:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Comments

    The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in 
this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments. 
Persons submitting comments should include their name and address, 
identify this rulemaking (CGD 91-012) and the specific section of this 
proposal to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each 
comment. Please submit two copies of all comments and attachments in an 
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for 
copying and electronic filing. Persons wanting acknowledgment of 
receipt of comments should enclose stamped, self-addressed postcards or 
envelopes.
    The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the 
comment period. It may change this rule in view of the comments.
    The Coast Guard held 3 public meetings after a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ``Security for Passenger Vessels and 
Passenger Terminals'' was published (See 59 FR 14290; March 25, 1994) 
and plans no further public hearing. Persons may request a public 
hearing by writing to the Marine Safety Council at the address under 
ADDRESSES. The request should include the reasons why a hearing would 
be beneficial. If it determines that the opportunity for oral 
presentations will aid this rulemaking, the Coast Guard will hold a 
public hearing at a time and place announced by a later notice in the 
Federal Register.

Regulatory Information

    On March 25, 1994, the Coast Guard published (59 FR 14290) a notice 
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ``Security for Passenger Vessels 
and Passenger Terminals''.

Background and Purpose

    The vulnerability to terrorism of passenger vessels and associated 
passenger terminals has been a major national and international concern 
since the death of a U.S. citizen during the hijacking of the ACHILLE 
LAURO in 1985. To address this threat, the President signed into law 
the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 
99-399; 100 Stat. 889), Title IX of which constitutes the International 
Maritime and Port Security Act. That Act amended the Ports and 
Waterways Safety Act (33 U.S.C. 1221), and provided the Coast Guard 
authority to ``carry out or require measures, including inspections, 
port and harbor patrols, the establishment of security and safety 
zones, and the development of contingency plans and procedures, to 
prevent or respond to acts of terrorism'' (Sec. 906).
    The International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted and published 
``Measures to Prevent Unlawful Acts Against Passengers and Crews on 
Board Ships'', also in 1986. Those measures, which are guidelines, 
apply to passenger ships engaged on international voyages of 24 hours 
or more and to the port facilities that serve them. The Coast Guard 
published a notice in the Federal Register listing these measures as 
``guidelines'' and encouraging voluntary compliance (52 FR 11587; April 
9, 1987).
    Since that time, the Coast Guard has relied upon voluntary 
compliance with the IMO measures, and with its own guidelines based on 
the IMO measures, to ensure that passenger vessels and passenger 
terminals were prepared to prevent, and respond to, acts of terrorism. 
Coast Guard encouragement to implement these measures has brought about 
varying degrees of acceptance. Initially, the response was promising as 
many passenger vessels and associated passenger terminals operating in 
the U.S. began implementing them. However, the degree of implementation 
has been inconsistent. Progress toward total implementation has slowed 
significantly over the last 3 years. Some passenger vessels and 
passenger terminals still do not maintain and administer appropriate 
security measures. The Coast Guard has determined that voluntary 
compliance has not produced the industry-wide level of security 
necessary to ensure that acts of terrorism are deterred, or responded 
to, in the best possible manner.
    Terrorism has not decreased. In fact, the Coast Guard has seen an 
increase in domestic terrorism along with a consistent, if not 
increasing, threat of international terrorism. For these reasons, the 
Secretary of the Department of Transportation (DOT) has asked all 
agencies of the Department to reassess their security procedures and 
standards. Consequently, the Coast Guard determined that implementing a 
rule to ensure that passenger vessels and passenger terminals are 
prepared to handle terrorist threats or actions was necessary.
    The decision to move from an NPRM to this interim rule is based on 
the fact that domestic terrorism, as well as international terrorism, 
seems to be increasing. Passenger vessels and passenger terminals are 
vulnerable and,

[[Page 37649]]

therefore, must begin developing plans to reduce the risk of terrorism 
against them.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received 115 letters of comment and held 3 public 
meetings. Thirty-three comments, and several speakers at the public 
hearings, expressed their concern that the NPRM was too stringent and 
inflexible. Many also felt that the proposed requirements were over and 
above those recommended in the IMO measures that the Coast Guard had 
encouraged the industry to adopt. As a result of the many comments 
received, the Coast Guard has reconsidered its position on the scope of 
the rule and has decided to align the rule as closely as possible with 
the IMO measures by incorporating the requirements of Circular 443 of 
the IMO's Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) into the rule (See 
Secs. 120.220 and 120.230; 128.220 and 128.230). The Coast Guard has 
determined that Circular 443 contains the basic elements necessary to 
develop a sound security program, and will give industry the 
flexibility that so many felt were missing from the NPRM.
    Another issue consistently raised by the comments was the 
perception that the current threat does not merit the degree of 
security specified in the NPRM. The Coast Guard agrees with this 
general observation; however, it believes that the need for increased 
security continues. Although the threat level today may be low, the 
possibility remains that it may escalate at any time. National-security 
assessments over the past several years attest that terrorism continues 
throughout the world. The United States is not exempt from terrorism as 
evidenced by the bombing in 1995 at Oklahoma City. There is little 
question that the threat of terrorism from both domestic and 
international terrorists is, in fact, real.
    Vulnerability has also been an important consideration in 
determining the need for this rule. In general, the cruise industry 
lacks identifiable security standards. Further, this industry is such 
that its operations are generally vulnerable to terrorist activities. 
The intent of this rule is to require passenger vessels and passenger 
terminals to evaluate their vulnerability, develop methods to reduce 
it, and establish plans to respond to increased threat. The 
promulgation of security standards will increase security, and should 
reduce vulnerability and the risk of a terrorist incident.
    The Coast Guard understands, however, that the need for maximum 
security does not exist at all times and has amended the rule to define 
levels of threat for which security plans must be developed. It has 
added three definitions to Sec. 120.110, for low, medium, and high 
threats. A low threat is one when the possibility of an unlawful act 
against a vessel or terminal exists, and indications are that a general 
worldwide threat of terrorism exists. This is the threat level for 
which security measures must be maintained for an indefinite period of 
time; in other words, these are the normal, everyday security measures. 
A medium threat is one where the threat of an unlawful act against a 
vessel or terminal is possible, and where intelligence indicates that 
terrorist activities are likely within a specific area, against a class 
of vessel, or against a type of terminal. This threat level indicates 
that a particular segment of the industry is in jeopardy but that no 
specific target has been identified. A high threat is one where 
intelligence indicates that terrorist activities have targeted a 
specific vessel or terminal and that the threat of an unlawful act 
against a vessel or terminal is probable if not imminent. The Coast 
Guard envisions that medium and high threats would not last long and 
would focus on only a small portion of the industry at any one time.
    Distribution and notification of threat levels will be the 
responsibility of the Coast Guard. The Commandant (G-MRO) will be 
responsible for ensuring that Captains of the Port (COTPs) advise 
passenger vessels and passenger terminals within their areas of 
responsibility of a higher or lower threat level. The vessel or 
terminal can and should increase its security whenever suspect 
activities are noted by their own personnel or other reliable sources 
such as the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) or local law-
enforcement authorities. Increases in threat level initiated by the 
vessel, terminal, or other sources shall be reported by the affected 
vessel or terminal to the local COTP as soon as practicable. With these 
amendments, the Coast Guard believes, the rule will allow owners and 
operators to continue to operate as they normally do; however, they 
will now have plans in place to increase security when advised by the 
Coast Guard or other competent authority.
    Thirteen comments expressed concerns for the amount of equipment 
that would have to be purchased to comply with the proposed rule. With 
the incorporation of the MSC Circular 443 requirements into the rule, 
equipment is no longer specified or required. Owners or operators must 
use the annexes within the Circular to determine how best to protect 
their passengers.
    Eighteen comments addressed what was felt as the Coast Guard's lack 
of consideration for smaller ports, or those ports at which passengers 
disembark for only short periods of time. The Coast Guard disagrees. If 
a port does not embark or disembark a large number of people with a 
substantial amount of baggage, then the degree of security decreases. 
In some instances, the only security necessary may be the screening of 
carry-on items; this may best be handled by the vessel. The rule 
specifically states that the operator of the terminal need not 
duplicate any provisions fulfilled by the operator of the vessel, or 
vice versa, unless directed by the Commandant. Each terminal will have 
to develop a plan addressing normal operations as well as operations 
during higher threats. This plan will be based on the amount and type 
of activity occurring within that port. It will be examined by the 
cognizant COTP, who has a working relationship with the port. The 
COTP's evaluation of the plan will depend upon the location of the port 
and upon the ability of the owner or operator of the vessel or terminal 
to meet the measures required for all three threat levels.
    Nine comments expressed concern that the rule would be pointless 
unless enforced equally worldwide. The Coast Guard does not have the 
authority to issue worldwide regulations and must work through IMO to 
help set international standards. The IMO measures for preventing acts 
against passenger vessels and passenger terminals were published to 
provide an international security standard. However, they are not 
mandatory, and, for that reason, the Coast Guard conducts periodic 
security assessments of foreign ports to determine compliance with 
them. The Coast Guard has the responsibility to request that the 
Department of Transportation ask the Department of State to issue an 
advisory warning against travel to a particular port if it determines 
that adequate security is not being provided.
    Nine comments addressed the release of security plans on requests 
under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552). All of the 
comments expressed the feeling that releasing these documents would 
seriously jeopardize the overall security of the vessel or terminal. 
The Coast Guard fully agrees with this feeling and has submitted a 
legislative proposal to specifically exempt these plans from requests 
under FOIA.
    The State of Alaska asked that its ferries be exempt from this 
rule. Its basis

[[Page 37650]]

for this request is that these ferries make up part of the Alaska 
Marine Highway System, and are a vital link between Alaska and the 
lower 48 States. It advises that people often use the system out of 
necessity, not choice, and that voyages transit the high seas for only 
very short periods of time between the U.S. and Canada. The intent of 
the Coast Guard has never been to apply this rule to this type of 
vessel. For that reason, Secs. 120.100 and 128.100 of the rule have 
been changed to exempt all ferries and terminals when servicing 
ferries.
    Five comments stated that the applicability of proposed 
Secs. 120.100 and 128.100 was not clear and that confusion exists 
whether a covered vessel must be on the high seas for 24 hours during a 
voyage or whether the entire voyage must be 24 hours with part of that 
voyage being on the high seas. The sections apply to those vessels 
making voyages of more than 24 hours, any part of which is on the high 
seas; they do not dictate that the vessel needs to be on the high seas 
for 24 hours. They have been changed to more clearly define the 
applicability of the rule relative to voyages on the high seas.
    Nine comments addressed the definition of operator in proposed 
Sec. 120.110. Some comments stated that the definition was overly broad 
and that they were concerned that it could be construed to include port 
authorities and general terminal operators. The salient phrase in the 
definition was--and still is--``maintains operational control over a 
passenger vessel or passenger terminal.'' Providing pier space does 
not, in and of itself, constitute operational control. The contract 
negotiated between the terminal and the vessel is a key indicator of 
operational control. For a terminal, the definition of operator must be 
coupled with the definition of passenger terminal, which emphasizes the 
use of the terminal for the assembling, processing, embarking, or 
disembarking of passengers or baggage. The Coast Guard considers the 
definition of operator, as written, clear and not in need of change.
    Eight comments addressed restricted areas described in proposed 
Sec. 120.210. The comments urged that too many locations were specified 
and that extensive installation of equipment would be necessary to 
comply with the rule. The incorporation of MSC Circular 443 eliminated 
this concern and allows owners or operators to use the guidance in the 
annexes of the Circular to determine which areas they intend to 
designate as ``restricted.''
    Five comments addressed the responsibilities of the security 
officer in proposed Secs. 120.220(b) and 128.220(b), and the 
requirement for that officer to do all the items mentioned. The Coast 
Guard did not intend for that officer to personally do all items 
specified: it is perfectly acceptable to use the services of other 
security professionals to accomplish these tasks. However, that officer 
should have a working knowledge of security procedures to ensure that 
the jobs are properly accomplished. To more clearly express this point, 
the rule has been reorganized and these requirements have been moved to 
Secs. 120.120 and 128.120.
    Six comments addressed proposed Secs. 120.240 and 128.240, 
coordination with terminal and vessel security, respectively. The major 
concern was that the Coast Guard did not designate specific 
responsibilities for the vessel and the terminal. The intent of these 
sections was to develop a relationship between the owner or operator of 
the vessel and the owner or operator of the terminal by requiring 
consultations about security between them. Of course each vessel and 
each terminal will have differences in capabilities. Coordination 
between the two will take these into consideration. Further, the cost 
of security may be reduced as duplication of effort will be avoided. 
Cooperation and coordination between the vessel and the terminal should 
prove beneficial to each. The Coast Guard has removed the specific 
sections imposing the requirement of coordination between the vessel 
and the terminal; however, the requirement still exists within 
Secs. 120.200(b) and 128.200(b) of the interim rule.
    Four comments addressed plans and their distribution in proposed 
Secs. 120.300 and 128.300. These comments urged that the plans be 
available only to those with the operational need to know. The Coast 
Guard agrees, and has amended these sections.
    Six comments addressed the survey contents required by proposed 
Secs. 120.310 and 128.310. The comments focused on the amount of 
information required and the potential size of the document. Annex 1 of 
MSC Circular 443, which now contains the guidance for security surveys, 
is not as stringent or specific as the guidance anticipated by the 
NPRM. These surveys are the most critical part of plan development. 
Each owner or operator should make them as thorough as possible.
    Seven comments addressed the requirements for identification in 
proposed Secs. 120.350 and 128.350. These requirements, too, have been 
removed by the incorporation of MSC Circular 443; Annex 2 to the 
Circular must now be used for guidance concerning identification.
    Sixteen comments addressed the screening of baggage, stores, and 
cargo under proposed Secs. 120.360 and 128.360. They dealt primarily 
with the amount of time it will take to screen all the baggage, stores, 
and cargo. The comments stated that all the screening would cause undue 
delays in boardings and departures of vessels. Some suggested that the 
process itself was a waste of time. Others supported it, and offered 
alternatives to help speed it. These sections, too, have been removed 
from this interim rule. This now directs owners and operators to use 
the guidance in Annex 2 of MSC Circular 443. The amount of screening to 
be done should be determined with reference to the three threat levels 
defined by this rule.
    Nine comments addressed the lighting requirements in proposed 
Sec. 120.410. They concerned primarily the impracticability of the 
lighting distance specified. This section has been removed. For 
guidance on security lighting, owners and operators must now turn to 
Annex 2 of MSC Circular 443.
    Twenty comments addressed the requirement for barriers in proposed 
Sec. 128.435. Most expressed the concern that fences with barbed wire 
were not aesthetically pleasing, were impracticable in some areas, and 
would detract from the cruising experience. This section has been 
removed. For guidance on barriers, owners and operators must now turn 
to Annex 2 of MSC Circular 443. Permanent barriers are no longer 
required; however, barriers must still achieve the purpose proclaimed 
in the Circular.
    Beyond those changes made in response to comments on the NPRM, the 
Coast Guard also has made the following changes on its own initiative.
    Proposed Secs. 120.200 and 128.200 have been amended to more 
clearly define requirements for planning based on threat. In 
particular, Secs. 120.200 and 128.200 as published today introduce 
planning based on three levels of threat.
    Proposed Secs. 120.300 and 128.300 have been amended to require 
planning for low, medium, and high threats and to restrict distribution 
of the plan to only those persons with the operational need to know. 
The latter change will help reduce the risk of the plan's falling into 
the hands of a terrorist.
    Proposed Secs. 120.305 and 128.305 have been retitled and reworded, 
removing the requirement of a letter of adequacy of inserting 
procedures by which the Coast Guard will examine plans for compliance 
with this rule.

[[Page 37651]]

These changes will reduce the amount of time necessary to review plans 
for compliance with this rule and will reduce the amount of paperwork 
generated by and for the Coast Guard. Sections 120.300(a) and 
128.300(a) require that an ``appropriate'' plan be developed and 
maintained. In this context, the examining authority, either the NMC or 
the COTP, will be reviewing plans to insure that security measures are 
commensurate with each threat level. The examining authorities will 
evaluate the circumstances unique to the vessel or terminal, and 
determine whether adequate security measures for the three threat 
levels are addressed. Factors to be considered will include such things 
as security guards, screening of baggage and stores, barriers, and 
personnel access control.
    Proposed Sec. 120.307 has been amended by removing the requirement 
for Commandant's approval of amendments to plans and by inserting 
procedures under which the Coast Guard will examine the amendments for 
compliance with this rule. Again, time for review and paperwork will be 
reduced because of this amendment.
    Proposed Sec. 128.307 has been amended by removing the requirement 
for COTPs' approval of amendments to plans and by inserting procedures 
under which the Coast Guard will examine the amendments to ensure 
compliance with this rule. This amendment will speed review of 
documents by the Coast Guard and will eliminate paperwork.
    Proposed Secs. 120.220 and 128.220 have been redesignated as 
Secs. 120.210 and 128.210, respectively.
    Proposed Sec. 120.250 has been redesignated as Sec. 120.220.
    Proposed Sec. 128.250 has been redesignated as Sec. 128.220.
    Proposed Secs. 128.210; 120.240 and 128.240; 120.370 and 128.370; 
120.420 and 128.420; 120.430 and 128.430; and 120.440 and 128.440 have 
given way to the guidance contained in the annexes to MSC Circular 443.
    Sections 120.309 and 128.309 have been added to provide the right 
to appeal the action or decision of the NMC or the COTP.

Incorporation by Reference

    The following material would be incorporated by reference in 
Secs. 120.220, 120.300, 128.220 and 128.300: International Maritime 
Organization (IMO), MSC Circular 443, ``Measures to Prevent Unlawful 
Acts Against Passengers and Crews on Board Ships'' dated September 26, 
1986. Copies of the material are available for inspection where 
indicated under ADDRESSES. Copies of the material are available from 
the source listed in Secs. 120.120 and 128.120.
    The Coast Guard has submitted this material to the Director of the 
Federal Register for approval of the incorporation by reference.

Assessment

    This proposal is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) 
of Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget under that Order. It requires an assessment of 
potential cost and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. It is 
significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the 
Department of Transportation (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). An 
Assessment has been prepared and is available in the docket for 
inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. A summary of the 
Assessment follows.
    The Coast Guard anticipates that approximately 120 passenger 
vessels and 53 passenger terminals would be affected. Of the vessels, 
approximately 117 are cruise vessels, each carrying in excess of 100 
passengers and operating out of U.S. ports. Of the terminals, all serve 
these cruise vessels. There may be up to 40 more vessels and 20 more 
terminals that would be subject to this rule only on occasion. There 
are approximately 4 million passengers a year that would be subject to, 
and benefit from, the proposed security measures.
    The Coast Guard estimates initial implementing costs at $546,368. 
It estimates annual operating costs at $28,000. If the number of 
passengers remains constant at approximately 4 million per year, the 
additional cost to consumers will be negligible.
    The potential exists for the loss of many lives and significant 
property damage from a single act of terrorism against a passenger 
vessel. The principal benefit gained by this action will be a higher 
level of preparedness and the ability to better respond to such an act. 
Additionally, these measures will act as a deterrent to terrorist 
actions. Although it is difficult to calculate the number of deaths and 
injuries, and dollar value of property damage, lawsuits, and lost 
business that this action will prevent, the Coast Guard asserts that 
the benefits will far outweigh the costs of this rule.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the 
Coast Guard must consider whether this rule will have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. ``Small 
entities'' include independently owned and operated businesses that are 
not dominant in their field and that otherwise qualify as ``small 
business concerns'' under Sec. 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
632).
    This rule will have a minimal impact on small entities, but most 
passenger vessels making voyages on the high seas of 24 hours or more, 
and most terminals associated with them, are neither owned nor operated 
by small entities. Security requirements for small vessels and 
terminals will be less complex and less expensive to implement than for 
large vessels and terminals. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 
5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. If, however, you 
think that your business qualifies as a small entity and that this rule 
will have a significant economic impact on your business, please submit 
a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think your business 
qualifies and in what way and to what degree this rule will 
economically affect your business.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This interim rule contains information collections which are 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13). The title, 
description, and respondent description of the information collections 
are shown below and an estimate of the annual recordkeeping and 
periodic reporting burden. Included in the estimate is the time for 
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    Title: Secretary for Passenger Vessels and Passenger Terminals.
    Description: This interim rule implements security standards for 
passenger vessels and terminals. It requires a comprehensive security 
program that includes requirements for a security plan and the 
reporting of unlawful acts or related activities. These requirements 
are contained in Secs. 120.220, 120.300, 120.307, 128,220, 128.300, and 
128.307.
    Need for Information: Protect the public from injury, prevent 
damage to property, and avoid economic losses.
    Proposed use of Information: Regulatory compliance, program 
management, and program evaluation.
    Description of Respondents: The owner of any covered vessel or 
terminal. These include: businesses or other for profit organizations, 
Federal, State and Local governments.

[[Page 37652]]

    Frequency of Response: Once for each covered vessel and terminal; 
then, on occasion of amendment to plan. Reporting of unlawful acts or 
related activities is also required when they occur.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 1,649 hours. This figure is the total 
annual burden hours for the estimated 120 covered vessels and the 53 
covered terminals. It includes the hours necessary for initial plan 
development and annual maintenance, and the time necessary to develop 
reports of unlawful acts, and is amortized over a 25-year period.
    As required be section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995, the Coast Guard has submitted a copy of this interim rule to OMB 
for its review of these information collection requirements.
    In addition, the Coast Guard solicits public comment on the 
information collection requirements in order to: (1) evaluate whether 
the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper 
performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the 
information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of 
the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information, 
including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used, (3) 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information 
on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate 
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting 
electronic submission of responses.
    Individuals and organizations may submit comments on the 
information collection requirements by September 16, 1996, and should 
direct them to the Executive Secretary, Marine Safety Council (address 
above) and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, 
New Executive Office Bldg., rm 10235, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 
20503, Attention: Desk Officer for DOT.
    Persons are not required to respond to a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control number. The Coast 
Guard will publish a notice in the Federal Register prior to the 
effective date of this interim rule of OMB's decisions to approve, 
modify or disapprove the information collection requirements.

Federalism

    The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that 
this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant 
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Environment

    The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this 
rulemaking and concluded that, under paragraph 2.B.2.e.(34) of 
Commandant Instruction M16475.1B, this rule is categorically excluded 
from further environmental documentation. This rulemaking implements 
statutory authority of the Coast Guard in maritime safety. A 
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is available in the docket for 
inspection or copying where indicated under addresses.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 120

    Security, Passenger vessels, Incorporation by reference, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

33 CFR Part 128

    Security, Waterfront facilities, Incorporation by reference, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend Chapter I of title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, as 
follows:
    1. Subchapter K, consisting of part 120, is added to read as 
follows:

SUBCHAPTER K--SECURITY OF VESSELS

PART 120--SECURITY OF PASSENGER VESSELS

Subpart A--General

Sec.
120.100  Applicability.
120.110  Definitions.
120.120  Incorporation by reference.

Subpart B--Security Program

120.200  General.
120.210  Vessel security officer.
120.220  Reporting of unlawful acts and related activities.

Subpart C--Plans and Procedures for Vessel Security.

120.300  Plan: General.
120.305  Plan: Procedure for examination.
120.307  Plan: Amendment.
120.309  Right of Appeal.

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 49 CFR 1.46.

Subpart A--General


Sec. 120.100  Applicability.

    This part applies to all passenger vessels over 100 gross tons, 
carrying more than 12 passengers for hire; making voyages lasting more 
than 24 hours, any part of which is on the high seas; and for which 
passengers are embarked or disembarked in the United States or its 
territories. It does not apply to ferries that hold Coast Guard 
Certificates of Inspection endorsed for ``Lakes, Bays, and Sounds'', 
and that transit international waters for only short periods of time, 
on frequent schedules.


 Sec. 120.110  Definitions.

    As used in this part:
    Captain of the Port (COTP) means the Coast Guard officer designated 
by the Commandant to command a Captain of the Port Zone as described in 
Part 3 of this chapter, or an authorized representative.
    Commandant means the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, or an 
authorized representative.
    High seas means all waters that are neither territorial seas nor 
internal waters of the United States or of any foreign country as 
defined in Part 2, Subpart 2.05, of this chapter.
    High threat means that the threat of an unlawful act against a 
vessel or terminal is probable or imminent and that intelligence 
indicates that terrorists have chosen specific targets.
    Low threat means that the threat of an unlawful act against a 
vessel or terminal is, though possible, not likely.
    Medium threat means that the threat of an unlawful act against a 
vessel or terminal is possible and that intelligence indicates that 
terrorists are likely to be active within a specific area, or against a 
type of vessel or terminal.
    Operator means the person, company, or governmental agency, or the 
representative of a company or governmental agency, that maintains 
operational control over a passenger vessel or passenger terminal.
    Passenger terminal means any structure used for the assembling, 
processing, embarking, or disembarking of passengers or baggage for 
vessels subject to this part. 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.
    Unlawful act means an act that is a felony under U.S. federal law, 
under the laws of the States where the vessel is located, or under the 
laws of the country in which the vessel is registered.
    Voyage means the passenger vessel's entire course of travel, from 
the first port at which the vessel embarks

[[Page 37653]]

passengers until its return to that port or another port where the 
majority of the passengers are disembarked and terminate their voyage.


Sec. 120.120  Incorporation by reference.

    (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part 
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance 
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. To enforce any edition other 
than that specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the Coast Guard 
must publish notice of change in the Federal Register and must make the 
material available to the public. All approved material may be 
inspected at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol 
Street NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC, and at the U.S. Coast Guard, (G-
MES), 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC. Copies may be obtained 
from IMO, 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR.
    (b) The materials approved for incorporation by reference in this 
part and the sections affected are:

International Maritime Organization (IMO)

4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR MSC Circular 443, Measures to 
Prevent Unlawful Acts Against Passengers and Crews on Board Ships 
September 26, 1986--120.220, 120.300

Subpart B--Security Program


Sec. 120.200  General.

    (a) Each operator of a vessel to which this part applies shall for 
each such of its vessels implement a program that--
    (1) Provides for the safety and security of persons and property 
traveling aboard the vessel against unlawful acts;
    (2) Prevents or deters the carriage aboard the vessel of any 
prohibited weapon, incendiary, or explosive, on or about any person or 
within his or her personal articles or baggage, and the carriage of any 
prohibited weapon, incendiary, or explosive, in stowed baggage, cargo, 
or stores;
    (3) Prevents or deters unauthorized access to the vessel and to 
restricted areas aboard the vessel;
    (4) Provides means to meet the requirements for low, medium, and 
high threats, through increased security measures to be implemented on 
advice by the Commandant or COTP of an increased threat to the vessel 
or persons on the vessel;
    (5) Designates, by name, a security officer for the vessel;
    (6) Ensures that all members of the crew are adequately trained to 
perform their duties relative to security; and
    (7) Provides for coordination with terminal security while in port.
    (b) Each operator of a vessel to which this part applies shall work 
with the operator of each terminal at which the vessel embarks or 
disembarks passengers, to provide security for the passengers and the 
vessel. The vessel, however, need not duplicate any provisions 
fulfilled by the terminal unless directed by the Commandant. When a 
provision is fulfilled by the terminal, that fact shall be referenced 
in the applicable section of the Vessel Security Plan required by 
Sec. 120.300.


Sec. 120.210  Vessel security officer.

    (a) Each operator of a vessel to which this part applies shall 
designate a security officer for the vessel.
    (b) This officer shall ensure that--
    (1) An initial comprehensive security survey is conducted and 
updated;
    (2) The plan required by Sec. 120.300 is implemented and 
maintained, and that amendments to correct its deficiencies and satisfy 
the security requirements for the vessel are proposed;
    (3) Adequate training for members of the crew responsible for 
security is provided;
    (4) Regular security inspections of the vessel are conducted;
    (5) Vigilance, as well as general awareness of security aboard the 
vessel, is encouraged;
    (6) All occurrences or suspected occurrences of unlawful acts and 
related activities are reported in accordance with Sec. 120.220; and
    (7) Coordination, for implementation of the plant required by 
Sec. 120.300, takes place with the terminal security officer at each 
terminal at which the vessel embarks or disembarks passengers.


Sec. 120.220  Reporting of unlawful acts and related activities.

    (a) Either the operator of the vessel or the vessel security 
officer shall report each breach of security, unlawful act, or threat 
of an unlawful act against the vessel or persons aboard it that occurs 
in a place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, both to 
the COTP and to the local office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
(FBI). Also, the operator of each U.S.-flag vessel shall report each 
such incident that occurs in a place outside the jurisdiction of the 
United States to the hotline of the Response Center of the Department 
of Transportation at 1-800-424-0201, or, from within metropolitan 
Washington D.C., at (202) 267-3675.
    (b) Either the operator of the vessel or the vessel security 
officer shall file a written report of the incident, using the form 
``Report on an Unlawful Act'', contained in IMO MSC Circular 443, which 
the operator or the officer shall forward as soon as possible to 
Commandant (G-MRO), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street 
SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001. Notification of an incident may be 
initially filed by fax. Original copies should be sent by mail in 
conjunction with faxing the report to the Commandant (G-MRO), fax 
numbers are (202) 267-4085/4065.

Subpart C--Plans and Procedures for Vessel Security


Sec. 120.300  Plan: General.

    (a) Each operator of a vessel subject to this part shall for each 
such vessel develop and maintain, in writing, an appropriate Vessel 
Security Plan that--
    (1) Is unique to the vessel;
    (2) Articulates the program required by Sec. 120.200; and
    (3) Includes an appendix, for each port in which the vessel embarks 
or disembarks passengers, that contains port-specific security 
information.
    (b) The Plan must be developed and maintained in accordance with 
the guidance in IMO MSC Circular 443, and must address security for 
periods of low, medium, and high threats, to--
    (1) Deter unauthorized access to the vessel and its restricted 
areas;
    (2) Deter the introduction of prohibited weapons, incendiaries, or 
explosives aboard the vessel;
    (3) Encourage vigilance, as well as general awareness of security, 
aboard the vessel;
    (4) Provide adequate training to members of the crew for security 
aboard the vessel;
    (5) Coordinate responsibilities for security with the operator of 
each terminal at which the vessel embarks or disembarks passengers; and
    (6) Provide information to members of the crew and to law-
enforcement personnel, in case of an incident affecting security.
    (c) The operator shall amend the Plan to address any known 
deficiencies.
    (d) The operator shall restrict the distribution, disclosure, and 
availability of information contained in the plan to those persons with 
an operational need to know.


Sec. 120.305  Plan: Procedure for examination.

    (a) Each operator of a passenger vessel subject to this part shall 
submit two copies of the Vessel Security Plan required by Sec. 120.300 
to the Director, National Maritime Center (NMC), 4200 Wilson Blvd., 
Suite 510, Arlington, VA 22203, for examination before October 16, 
1996, or at least 60 days before

[[Page 37654]]

embarking passengers on a voyage described in Sec. 120.100, whichever 
is later.
    (b) If the Director of the NMC finds that the Vessel Security Plan 
meets the requirements of Sec. 120.300, the Director shall return a 
copy to the owner or operator marked ``Examined by the Coast Guard''.
    (c) If the Director of the NMC finds that the Plan does not meet 
the requirements of Sec. 120.300, the Director shall return the plan 
with an explanation of why it does not meet the requirements.
    (d) No vessel subject to this part may embark or disembark 
passengers in the United States after November 16, 1996, unless it 
holds either a Vessel Security Plan that has been examined by the Coast 
Guard or a letter from the Director of the NMC stating that the Plan is 
currently under review by the Coast Guard and that normal operations 
may continue until the Coast Guard has determined whether the Plan 
meets the requirements of Sec. 120.300.


Sec. 120.307  Plan: Amendment.

    (a) The operator of a passenger vessel subject to this part may 
initiate amendments to the Vessel Security Plan on its own as well as 
when directed by the Director of the NMC.
    (b) Each proposed amendment to the Plan, initiated by the operator, 
including changes to the appendices required by Sec. 120.300(a)(3), 
must be submitted to the Director of the NMC for review at least 30 
days before the proposed amendment is to take effect, unless a shorter 
period is allowed by the Director. The Director will examine the 
amendment and respond according to Sec. 120.305.
    (c) The Director of the NMC may direct the operator of a vessel 
subject to this part to amend its Plan if the Director determines that 
implementation of the Plan is not providing effective security. Except 
in an emergency, the Director will issue to the operator a written 
notice of matters to address and will allow the operator at least 60 
days to submit proposed amendments.
    (d) If there is an emergency or other circumstance that makes the 
procedures in paragraph (c) of this section impracticable, the COTP may 
give to the operator of a vessel subject to this part an order to 
implement increased security measures immediately. The order will 
incorporate a statement of the reasons for it.


Sec. 120.309  Right of appeal.

    Any person directly affected by a decision or action taken by the 
Director of the NMC under this part, may appeal that action or decision 
to the Chief, Marine Safety and Environmental Protection Directorate 
(Commandant (G-M)) according to the procedures in 46 CFR 1.03-15.
    2. Part 128 is added to subchapter L to read as follows:

PART 128--SECURITY OF PASSENGER TERMINALS

Subpart A--General

Sec.
128.100  Applicability.
128.110  Definitions.
128.120  Incorporation by reference.

Subpart B--Security Program

Sec.
128.200  General.
128.210  Terminal security officer.
128.220  Reporting of unlawful acts and related activities.

Subpart C--Plans and Procedures for Terminal Security

Sec.
128.300  Plan: General.
128.305  Plan: Procedure for examination.
128.307  Plan: Amendment.
128.309  Right to Appeal.

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 49 CFR 1.46.

Subpart A--General


Sec. 128.100  Applicability.

    This part applies to all passenger terminals in the United States 
or its territories when being used for the assembling, processing, 
embarking, or disembarking of passengers or baggage for passenger 
vessels over 100 gross tons, carrying more than 12 passengers for hire; 
making a voyage lasting more than 24 hours, any part of which is on the 
high seas. It does not apply to terminals when serving ferries that 
hold Coast Guard Certificates of Inspection endorsed for ``Lakes, Bays, 
and Sounds'', and that transit international waters for only short 
periods of time, on frequent schedules.


Sec. 128.110  Definitions.

    The definitions in part 120 of this chapter apply to this part.


Sec. 128.120  Incorporation by reference.

    (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part 
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance 
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. To enforce any edition other 
than that specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the Coast Guard 
must publish notice of change in the Federal Register and must make the 
material available to the public. All approved material may be 
inspected at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol 
Street NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC, and at the U.S. Coast Guard, (G-
MES), 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC. Copies may be obtain from 
IMO, 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7 SR.
    (b) The materials approved for incorporation by reference in this 
part and the sections affected are:

International Maritime Organization (IMO)

4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR
MSC Circular 443, Measures to Prevent Unlawful Acts Against Passengers 
and Crews on Board Ships September 26, 1986--128.220, 128.300

Subpart B--Security Program


Sec. 128.200  General.

    (a) Each operator of a passenger terminal to which this part 
applies shall implement for each such terminal of which it is the 
operator a security program that--
    (1) Provides for the safety and security of persons and property in 
the terminal and aboard each passenger vessel subject to Part 120 of 
this chapter moored at the terminal, against unlawful acts;
    (2) Prevents or deters the carriage aboard any such vessel moored 
at the terminal of any prohibited weapon, incendiary, or explosive on 
or about any person or within his or her personal articles or baggage, 
and the carriage of any prohibited weapon, incendiary, or explosive in 
stowed baggage, or cargo, or stores;
    (3) Prevents or deters unauthorized access to any such vessel and 
to restricted areas in the terminal;
    (4) provides means to meet the requirements for low, medium, and 
high threats, through increased security measures to be implemented on 
advice by the Commandant or Captain of the Port (COTP) of an increased 
threat to the terminal, the vessel, or persons on the terminal or 
vessel;
    (5) Designates, by name, a security officer for the terminal;
    (6) Provides for the evaluation of all security personnel of the 
terminal, before hiring, to determine suitability for employment; and
    (7) Provides for coordination with vessel security while any 
passenger vessel subject to Part 120 of this chapter is moored at the 
terminal.
    (b) Each operator of a passenger terminal shall work with the 
operator of each passenger vessel subject to part 120 of this chapter, 
to provide security for the passengers, the terminal, and the vessel. 
The terminal, however, need not duplicate any provisions fulfilled by 
the vessel. When a provision is fulfilled by

[[Page 37655]]

a vessel, that fact shall be referenced in the applicable section of 
the Terminal Security Plan required by Sec. 128.300.


Sec. 128.210  Terminal security officer.

    (a) Each operator of a passenger terminal shall designate a 
security officer for the terminal.
    (b) This officer shall ensure that--
    (1) An initial comprehensive security survey is conducted and 
updated;
    (2) The plan required by Sec. 128.300 is implemented and 
maintained, and that amendments to correct its deficiencies and satisfy 
the security requirements of the terminal are proposed;
    (3) Adequate training for personnel responsible for security is 
provided;
    (4) Regular inspections of the terminal are conducted;
    (5) Vigilance, as well as general awareness of security at the 
terminal, is encouraged;
    (6) All occurrences or suspected occurrences of unlawful acts and 
related activities are reported in accordance with Sec. 128.220 and 
that records of the incident are maintained; and
    (7) Coordination, for implementation of the plan required by 
Sec. 128.300, takes place with the vessel security officer of each 
vessel that embarks or disembarks passengers at the terminal.


Sec. 128.220  Reporting of unlawful acts and related activities.

    (a) Either the operator of the terminal or the operator's 
representative shall report each unlawful act, breach of security, or 
threat of an unlawful act against the terminal, a passenger vessel 
subject to Part 120 of this chapter destined for or moored at that 
terminal, or persons on the terminal or vessel, to the COTP, to the 
local office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and to the 
local police agency having jurisdiction over the terminal.
    (b) Either the operator of the terminal or the operator's 
representative shall file a written report of the incident using the 
form ``Report on an Unlawful Act'', contained in IMO MSC Circular 443, 
as soon as possible to the local COTP.

Subpart C--Plans and Procedures for Terminal Security


Sec. 128.300  Plan: General.

    (a) Each operator of a passenger terminal subject to this part 
shall develop and maintain, in writing, for each such terminal of which 
it is the operator, an appropriate Terminal Security Plan that 
articulates the program required by Sec. 128.200.
    (b) The Plan must be developed and maintained in accordance with 
the guidance in IMO MSC Circular 443 and must address the security of 
passengers, of members of crews of passenger vessels subject to Part 
120 of this chapter, and of employees of the terminal, by establishing 
procedures, for periods of low, medium, and high threats, to--
    (1) Deter unauthorized access to the terminal and its restricted 
areas and to any passenger vessel moored at the terminal;
    (2) Deter the introduction of prohibited weapons, incendiaries, and 
explosives into the terminal and its restricted areas and onto any 
passenger vessel moored at the terminal;
    (3) Encourage vigilance, as well as general awareness of security, 
at the terminal;
    (4) Provide adequate training to employees of the terminal for 
security at the terminal;
    (5) Coordinate responsibilities for security with the operator of 
each vessel that embarks or disembarks passengers at the terminal; and
    (6) Provide information to employees of the terminal and to law-
enforcement personnel, in case of an incident affecting security.
    (c) The operator shall amend the Plan to address any known 
deficiencies.
    (d) The operator shall restrict the distribution, disclosure, and 
availability of information contained in the Plan to those persons with 
an operational need to know.


Sec. 128.305  Plan: Procedure for examination.

    (a) Each operator of a passenger terminal subject to this part 
shall submit two copies of the Terminal Security Plan required by 
Sec. 128.300 to the COTP for examination before October 16, 1996, or at 
least 60 days before transferring passengers to or from a vessel 
subject to Part 120 of this chapter, whichever is later.
    (b) If the COTP finds that the Plan meets the requirements of 
Sec. 128.300, the COTP shall return a copy to the owner or operator 
marked ``Examined by the Coast Guard.''
    (c) If the COTP finds that the Plan does not meet the requirements 
of Sec. 128.300, the COTP shall return the Plan with an explanation of 
why it does not meet the requirements.
    (d) No terminal subject to this part shall transfer passengers to 
or from a passenger vessel subject to Part 120 of this chapter after 
November 16, 1996, unless it holds either a Terminal Security Plan that 
has been examined by the Coast Guard or a letter from the COTP stating 
that the Plan is currently under review by the Coast Guard and that 
normal operations may continue until the COTP has determined whether 
the Plan meets the requirements of Sec. 128.300.


Sec. 128.307  Plan: Amendment.

    (a) The operator of a passenger terminal subject to this part may 
initiate amendments to the Terminal Security Plan on its own as well as 
when directed by the COTP.
    (b) Each proposed amendment to the Plan initiated by the operator 
of a passenger terminal, including changes to the enclosures required 
by Sec. 128.300(a), must be submitted to the COTP for review at least 
30 days before the amendment is to take effect, unless a shorter period 
is allowed by the COTP. The COTP will examine the amendment and respond 
according to Sec. 120.305.
    (c) The COTP may direct the operator of a terminal subject to this 
part to amend its Plan if the COTP determines that implementation of 
the Plan is not providing effective security. Except in an emergency, 
the COTP will issue to the operator a written notice of matters to 
address and will allow the operator at least 60 days to submit proposed 
amendments.
    (d) If there is an emergency or other circumstance that makes the 
procedures in paragraph (c) of this section impracticable, the COTP may 
give to the operator of a terminal subject to this part an order to 
implement increased security measures immediately. The order will 
incorporate a statement of the reasons for it.


Sec. 128.309  Right of Appeal.

    Any person directly affected by a decision or action taken by the 
COTP under this part, may appeal that action or decision to the 
cognizant District Commander according to the procedures in 46 CFR 
1.03-15; the District Commander's decision on appeal may be further 
appealed to the Commandant according to the procedures in 46 CFR 1.03-
25.

    Dated: July 10, 1996.
Robert E. Kramek,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant.
[FR Doc. 96-18115 Filed 7-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M