83 FR 11667 - Large Aircraft Security Program, Other Aircraft Operator Security Program, and Airport Operator Security Program; Withdrawal

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Transportation Security Administration

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 52 (March 16, 2018)

Page Range		11667-11668
FR Document		2018-05401

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is withdrawing its rulemaking concerning the proposed establishment of a large aircraft security program (LASP). TSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for LASP on October 30, 2008. In the NPRM, TSA proposed that certain private and corporate aircraft operations should adopt security standards similar to those of commercial aircraft operations, including the use of security programs, crew vetting, and passenger watchlist matching. The NPRM also proposed new requirements for airports that serve the private and corporate operations. TSA held a series of public meetings and reviewed more than 7,000 public comments submitted in response to the NPRM. Based on all of the information received and a re-evaluation of the proposal in light of risk-based principles, TSA has decided not to pursue this rulemaking at this time.

Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 52 (Friday, March 16, 2018)

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 52 (Friday, March 16, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11667-11668]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05401]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Transportation Security Administration

49 CFR Parts 1515, 1520, 1522, 1540, 1542, 1544, and 1550

[Docket No. TSA-2008-0021]
RIN 1652-AA53


Large Aircraft Security Program, Other Aircraft Operator Security 
Program, and Airport Operator Security Program; Withdrawal

AGENCY: Transportation Security Administration, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is 
withdrawing its rulemaking concerning the proposed establishment of a 
large aircraft security program (LASP). TSA published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for LASP on October 30, 2008. In the NPRM, 
TSA proposed that certain private and corporate aircraft operations 
should adopt security standards similar to those of commercial aircraft 
operations, including the use of security programs, crew vetting, and 
passenger watchlist matching. The NPRM also proposed new requirements 
for airports that serve the private and corporate operations. TSA held 
a series of public meetings and reviewed more than 7,000 public 
comments submitted in response to the NPRM. Based on all of the 
information received and a re-evaluation of the proposal in light of 
risk-based principles, TSA has decided not to pursue this rulemaking at 
this time.

DATES: TSA is withdrawing the proposed rule published in Part III of 
the Federal Register on October 30, 2008 (73 FR 64789) as of March 16, 
2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Paterno, Office of Security 
Policy and Engagement, TSA-28, Transportation Security Administration, 
601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028; telephone (571) 227-
5698; facsimile (571) 227-2928; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview of the NPRM

    TSA administers an extensive range of regulatory programs that 
address security for scheduled and charter commercial aviation 
operations. See 49 CFR parts 1544, 1546, 1548, 1550, 1560, and 1562. In 
the LASP NPRM, TSA

[[Page 11668]]

proposed to apply many of the current commercial requirements to 
private and corporate operations in aircraft with a certificated 
maximum take-off weight (MTOW) above 12,500 pounds (large aircraft) and 
airports that serve those aircraft.
    TSA proposed to require--
     (1) Non-commercial, large aircraft operators to adopt a 
security program like the security programs that commercial aviation 
services must implement;
     (2) Large aircraft operators to contract with TSA-approved 
auditors to conduct audits of the operators' compliance with their 
security programs, and with TSA-approved watch-list service providers 
to verify that their passengers are not on the No Fly and/or Selectee 
portions of the consolidated terrorist watch-lists maintained by the 
Federal Government;
     (3) Security measures for large aircraft operators in all-
cargo operations and for operators of passenger aircraft with a MTOW of 
over 45,500 kilograms (100,309.3 pounds), operated for compensation or 
hire; and
     (4) Certain airports that serve large aircraft to adopt 
new security programs.
    TSA believed the proposed rule would yield benefits in the areas of 
transportation security and accountability. TSA included a ``break-
even'' analysis that showed the tradeoffs between program cost and 
program benefits that would be required for the LASP to be a cost-
beneficial undertaking. TSA estimated that under the NPRM, covered 
aircraft operators, airport operators, passengers, and TSA would incur 
approximately $1.4 billion in costs over 10 years to comply with the 
proposed LASP, discounted at 7 percent in 2006 dollars.
    TSA received more than 7,000 comments from pilots, aircraft 
operators, airports, aviation workers, individuals, members of 
congress, aviation associations, and civic organizations. TSA also held 
numerous public meetings to solicit stakeholder input on the NPRM. Many 
supported some aspects of the LASP NPRM, but the overwhelming majority 
of commenters objected to it based on their views that it increased 
costs unnecessarily, created burdensome new processes, and would lead 
small airport and aircraft operators to go out of business causing 
widespread loss of employment. These commenters also asserted that 
there was no need for the LASP NPRM, as evidenced in part by the fact 
that there was no specific statutory mandate for it.
    TSA analyzed the comments carefully and considered issuing a 
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to incorporate some 
of the ideas from the commenters into a new proposal. As part of this 
evaluation, TSA considered separating out some of the requirements into 
stand-alone rules, because the LASP NPRM covered several different 
kinds of airport and aircraft operations. Also, TSA considered changing 
the scope of the large aircraft that would be subject to the new 
regulations.

II. The Withdrawal

    Based on all of the foregoing information and consistent with risk-
based principles, TSA has decided to withdraw the LASP rulemaking at 
this time. In reaching this decision, TSA considered the relative costs 
and benefits of the NPRM identified through the agency's preliminary 
analysis. Moreover, TSA has several regulatory initiatives underway 
that are required by statute and have deadlines.
    As part of TSA's ongoing review of existing regulatory programs and 
to reduce the costs of regulations,\1\ TSA evaluated this withdrawal 
based on the requirements of E.O. 13771. The withdrawal of the NPRM 
qualifies as a deregulatory action under E.O. 13771. See OMB's 
Memorandum titled ``Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled 
`Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' '' (April 5, 
2017). However, there are no quantifiable cost savings associated with 
the withdrawal of this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ E.O. 13771 (Jan. 30, 2017), Reducing Regulation and 
Controlling Regulatory Costs, directs that, unless prohibited by 
law, whenever an executive department or agency publicly proposes 
for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it 
must repeal two or more existing regulations. Also, any new 
incremental costs associated with new regulations must, to the 
extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing 
costs. Only rules that are significant under section 3(f) of E.O. 
12866 (Sept. 30, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, are subject 
to these requirements.

    Dated: March 12, 2018.
David P. Pekoske,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-05401 Filed 3-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-05-P

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 11667

and adding paragraph (e) to read as (iii) Ensure that puncturing of the can DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
follows: is in a manner designed to prevent fires SECURITY
and to prevent the release of any
§ 273.33 Waste management. Transportation Security Administration
component of universal waste to the
* * * * * environment. This includes, but is not
(c) * * * limited to, locating the equipment on a 49 CFR Parts 1515, 1520, 1522, 1540,
(2) * * * solid, flat surface in a well ventilated 1542, 1544, and 1550
(iii) Ensures that a mercury clean-up area; [Docket No. TSA–2008–0021]
system is readily available to
immediately transfer any mercury (iv) Immediately transfer the contents RIN 1652–AA53
resulting from spills or leaks of broken from the waste aerosol can, or
ampules from that containment device puncturing device if applicable, to a Large Aircraft Security Program, Other
to a container that meets the container or tank that meets the Aircraft Operator Security Program,
requirements of 40 CFR 262.16 or applicable requirements of § 262.14, 15, and Airport Operator Security
262.17, as applicable. 16, or 17; Program; Withdrawal
(iv) Immediately transfers any (v) Conduct a hazardous waste AGENCY: Transportation Security
mercury resulting from spills or leaks determination on the emptied aerosol Administration, DHS.
from broken ampules from the can and its contents per 40 CFR 262.11.
containment device to a container that ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;
Any hazardous waste generated as a withdrawal.
meets the requirements of 40 CFR result of puncturing and draining the
262.16 or 262.17, as applicable. aerosol can is subject to all applicable SUMMARY: The Transportation Security
* * * * * requirements of 40 CFR parts 260 Administration (TSA) is withdrawing its
(e) Aerosol cans. A large quantity through 272. The handler is considered rulemaking concerning the proposed
handler of universal waste must manage the generator of the hazardous waste establishment of a large aircraft security
universal waste aerosol cans in a way and is subject to 40 CFR part 262; program (LASP). TSA published a
that prevents releases of any universal notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
waste or component of a universal waste (vi) If the contents are determined not
for LASP on October 30, 2008. In the
to the environment, as follows: to be hazardous, the handler may
NPRM, TSA proposed that certain
(1) Universal waste aerosol cans must manage the waste in any way that is in private and corporate aircraft operations
be accumulated in a container that is compliance with applicable federal, should adopt security standards similar
structurally sound, compatible with the state or local solid waste regulations; to those of commercial aircraft
contents of the aerosol cans, and lacks and operations, including the use of security
evidence of leakage, spillage, or damage (vii) A written procedure must be in programs, crew vetting, and passenger
that could cause leakage under place in the event of a spill or release watchlist matching. The NPRM also
reasonably foreseeable conditions; and a spill clean-up kit must be proposed new requirements for airports
(2) A large quantity handler of provided. All spills or leaks of the that serve the private and corporate
universal waste may conduct the contents of the aerosol cans must be operations. TSA held a series of public
following activities as long as each cleaned up promptly. meetings and reviewed more than 7,000
individual aerosol can is not breached public comments submitted in response
and remains intact: ■ 21. Section 273.34 is amended by
to the NPRM. Based on all of the
(i) Sorting aerosol cans by type; and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: information received and a re-
(ii) Mixing intact cans in one § 273.34 Labeling/marking. evaluation of the proposal in light of
container; and (iii) Removing actuators risk-based principles, TSA has decided
to reduce the risk of accidental release; * * * * *
not to pursue this rulemaking at this
(3) A large quantity handler of (f) Universal waste aerosol cans (i.e., time.
universal waste who punctures and each aerosol can), or a container in
DATES: TSA is withdrawing the
drains their aerosol cans must recycle which the aerosol cans are contained,
proposed rule published in Part III of
the empty punctured aerosol cans and must be labeled or marked clearly with the Federal Register on October 30,
meet the following requirements while any of the following phrases: ‘‘Universal 2008 (73 FR 64789) as of March 16,
puncturing and draining hazardous Waste—Aerosol Can(s)’’, ‘‘Waste 2018.
waste aerosol cans: Aerosol Can(s)’’, or ‘‘Used Aerosol
(i) Conduct puncturing and draining Can(s)’’. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
activities using a device specifically Alan Paterno, Office of Security Policy
[FR Doc. 2018–05282 Filed 3–15–18; 8:45 am]
designed to safely puncture aerosol cans and Engagement, TSA–28,
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Transportation Security Administration,
and effectively contain the residual
contents and any emissions thereof; 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA
(ii) Establish a written procedure 20598–6028; telephone (571) 227–5698;
detailing how to safely puncture and facsimile (571) 227–2928; email
drain universal waste aerosol can alan.paterno@tsa.dhs.gov.
(including proper assembly, operation SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

and maintenance of the unit; segregation
of incompatible wastes; and proper I. Overview of the NPRM
waste management practices to prevent TSA administers an extensive range of
fires or releases), maintain a copy of the regulatory programs that address
manufacturer’s specification and security for scheduled and charter
instruction onsite, and ensure commercial aviation operations. See 49
employees operating the device are CFR parts 1544, 1546, 1548, 1550, 1560,
trained in the proper procedures; and 1562. In the LASP NPRM, TSA

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:06 Mar 15, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM 16MRP1

$11668 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules proposed to apply many of the current would incur approximately $1.4 billion based principles, TSA has decided to commercial requirements to private and in costs over 10 years to comply with withdraw the LASP rulemaking at this corporate operations in aircraft with a the proposed LASP, discounted at 7 time. In reaching this decision, TSA certificated maximum take-off weight percent in 2006 dollars. considered the relative costs and (MTOW) above 12,500 pounds (large TSA received more than 7,000 benefits of the NPRM identified through aircraft) and airports that serve those comments from pilots, aircraft the agency’s preliminary analysis. aircraft. operators, airports, aviation workers, Moreover, TSA has several regulatory TSA proposed to require— individuals, members of congress, initiatives underway that are required • (1) Non-commercial, large aircraft aviation associations, and civic by statute and have deadlines. operators to adopt a security program organizations. TSA also held numerous As part of TSA’s ongoing review of like the security programs that public meetings to solicit stakeholder existing regulatory programs and to commercial aviation services must input on the NPRM. Many supported reduce the costs of regulations,1 TSA implement; some aspects of the LASP NPRM, but evaluated this withdrawal based on the • (2) Large aircraft operators to the overwhelming majority of requirements of E.O. 13771. The contract with TSA-approved auditors to commenters objected to it based on their withdrawal of the NPRM qualifies as a conduct audits of the operators’ views that it increased costs deregulatory action under E.O. 13771. compliance with their security unnecessarily, created burdensome new See OMB’s Memorandum titled programs, and with TSA-approved processes, and would lead small airport ‘‘Guidance Implementing Executive watch-list service providers to verify and aircraft operators to go out of Order 13771, Titled ‘Reducing that their passengers are not on the No business causing widespread loss of Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Fly and/or Selectee portions of the employment. These commenters also Costs’ ’’ (April 5, 2017). However, there consolidated terrorist watch-lists asserted that there was no need for the are no quantifiable cost savings maintained by the Federal Government; LASP NPRM, as evidenced in part by associated with the withdrawal of this • (3) Security measures for large the fact that there was no specific NPRM. aircraft operators in all-cargo operations statutory mandate for it. and for operators of passenger aircraft TSA analyzed the comments carefully Dated: March 12, 2018. with a MTOW of over 45,500 kilograms and considered issuing a supplemental David P. Pekoske, (100,309.3 pounds), operated for notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) Administrator. compensation or hire; and to incorporate some of the ideas from [FR Doc. 2018–05401 Filed 3–15–18; 8:45 am] • (4) Certain airports that serve large the commenters into a new proposal. As BILLING CODE 9110–05–P aircraft to adopt new security programs. part of this evaluation, TSA considered TSA believed the proposed rule separating out some of the requirements 1 E.O. 13771 (Jan. 30, 2017), Reducing Regulation would yield benefits in the areas of into stand-alone rules, because the and Controlling Regulatory Costs, directs that, transportation security and LASP NPRM covered several different unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive accountability. TSA included a ‘‘break- kinds of airport and aircraft operations. department or agency publicly proposes for notice even’’ analysis that showed the tradeoffs Also, TSA considered changing the and comment or otherwise promulgates a new between program cost and program regulation, it must repeal two or more existing scope of the large aircraft that would be benefits that would be required for the regulations. Also, any new incremental costs subject to the new regulations. associated with new regulations must, to the extent LASP to be a cost-beneficial permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of undertaking. TSA estimated that under II. The Withdrawal existing costs. Only rules that are significant under the NPRM, covered aircraft operators, Based on all of the foregoing section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993), airport operators, passengers, and TSA information and consistent with risk- Regulatory Planning and Review, are subject to these requirements. daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:06 Mar 15, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM 16MRP1$

Document Created: 2018-03-16 01:12:11
Document Modified: 2018-03-16 01:12:11

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Proposed Rules
Action		Notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.
Dates		TSA is withdrawing the proposed rule published in Part III of the Federal Register on October 30, 2008 (73 FR 64789) as of March 16, 2018.
Contact		Alan Paterno, Office of Security Policy and Engagement, TSA-28, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028; telephone (571) 227- 5698; facsimile (571) 227-2928; email [email protected]
FR Citation		83 FR 11667
RIN Number		1652-AA53
CFR Citation		49 CFR 1515 49 CFR 1520 49 CFR 1522 49 CFR 1540 49 CFR 1542 49 CFR 1544 49 CFR 1550

83 FR 11667 - Large Aircraft Security Program, Other Aircraft Operator Security Program, and Airport Operator Security Program; Withdrawal

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITYTransportation Security Administration

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 52 (March 16, 2018)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Transportation Security Administration