51848 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1 ‘‘Sensitive Security Information’’ or ‘‘SSI’’ is 

information obtained or developed in the conduct 

of security activities, the disclosure of which would 

constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy, 

reveal trade secrets or privileged or confidential 

information, or be detrimental to the security of 

transportation. The protection of SSI is governed by 

49 CFR part 1520. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Transportation Security Administration 

49 CFR Parts 1515, 1520, 1522, 1540, 

1544, 1546, 1548, and 1549 

[Docket No. TSA–2009–0018; Amendment 

Nos. 1515–2, 1520–9, 1522–1, 1540–11, 

1544–10, 1546–6, 1548–6, 1549–1] 

RIN 1652–AA64 

Air Cargo Screening 

AGENCY: Transportation Security 

Administration, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This rule amends two 

provisions of the Air Cargo Screening 

Interim Final Rule (IFR) issued on 

September 16, 2009, and responds to 

public comments on the IFR. The IFR 

codified a statutory requirement of the 

Implementing Recommendations of the 

9/11 Commission Act of 2007 that the 

Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA) establish a system to screen 100 

percent of cargo transported on 

passenger aircraft not later than August 

3, 2010. It established the Certified 

Cargo Screening Program, in which TSA 

certifies shippers, indirect air carriers, 

and other entities as Certified Cargo 

Screening Facilities (CCSFs) to screen 

cargo prior to transport on passenger 

aircraft. Under the IFR, each CCSF 

applicant had to successfully undergo 

an assessment of their facility by a TSAapproved validation firm or by TSA. In 

response to public comment, this Final 

Rule removes all validation firm and 

validator provisions, so that TSA will 

continue to conduct assessments of the 

applicant’s facility to determine if 

certification is appropriate. 

The IFR also required that if an 

aircraft operator or foreign air carrier 

screens cargo off an airport, it must do 

so as a CCSF. The Final Rule deletes 

this requirement, as aircraft operators 

are already screening cargo on airport 

under a TSA-approved security 

program, and do not need a separate 

certification to screen cargo off airport. 

This rule also proposes a fee range for 

the processing of Security Threat 

Assessments, and seeks comment on the 

proposed fee range and the methodology 

used to develop the fee. TSA will 

announce the final fee in a future 

Federal Register notice. 

DATES: Effective September 19, 2011. 

Comment Date: Comments must be 

received by September 19, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by the TSA docket number to 

this rulemaking, to the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS), a 

government-wide, electronic docket 

management system, using any one of 

the following methods: 

Electronically: You may submit 

comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Mail, In Person, or Fax: Address, 

hand-deliver, or fax your written 

comments to the Docket Management 

Facility, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 

20590–0001; Fax 202–493–2251. The 

Department of Transportation (DOT), 

which maintains and processes TSA’s 

official regulatory dockets, will scan the 

submission and post it to FDMS. 

See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 

format and other information about 

comment submissions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions related to air cargo screening 

program: Tamika McCree, Manager, Air 

Cargo Stakeholder Relations, Air Cargo 

Security, TSA–28, Transportation 

Security Administration, 601 South 

12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598–6028; 

telephone (571) 227–2632; facsimile 

(571) 227–1947; e-mail AirCargo

ScreeningCommentsIFR@dhs.gov. 

For legal questions: Alice Crowe, 

Senior Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, 

TSA–22, Transportation Security 

Administration, 601 South 12th Street, 

Arlington, VA 20598–6028; telephone 

(571) 227 –2652; facsimile (571) 227– 

1379; e-mail alice.crowe@dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

In this final rule, TSA seeks prior 

public comment on our proposed fee to 

cover the cost of the STAs. To the 

maximum extent possible, DHS 

provides an opportunity for public 

comment on regulations issued without 

prior notice. Accordingly, TSA invites 

interested persons to participate in this 

rulemaking by submitting written 

comments, data, or views on the 

proposed fee for the STA. See 

ADDRESSES above for information on 

where to submit comments. 

With each comment, please identify 

the docket number at the beginning of 

your comments. TSA encourages 

commenters to provide their names and 

addresses. The most helpful comments 

reference a specific portion of the 

rulemaking, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. You may submit 

comments and material electronically, 

in person, by mail, or fax as provided 

under ADDRESSES, but please submit 

your comments and material by only 

one means. If you submit comments by 

mail or delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 8.5 by 

11 inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. 

If you would like TSA to acknowledge 

receipt of comments submitted by mail, 

include with your comments a selfaddressed, stamped postcard on which 

the docket number appears. We will 

stamp the date on the postcard and mail 

it to you. 

TSA will file in the public docket all 

comments received by TSA, except for 

comments containing confidential 

information and sensitive security 

information (SSI).1 TSA will consider 

all comments received on or before the 

closing date for comments and will 

consider comments filed late to the 

extent practicable. The docket is 

available for public inspection before 

and after the comment closing date. 

Handling of Confidential or Proprietary 

Information and Sensitive Security 

Information (SSI) Submitted in Public 

Comments 

Do not submit comments that include 

trade secrets, confidential commercial 

or financial information, or SSI to the 

public regulatory docket. Please submit 

such comments separately from other 

comments on the rulemaking. 

Comments containing this type of 

information should be appropriately 

marked as containing such information 

and submitted by mail to the address 

listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

Upon receipt of such comments, TSA 

will not place the comments in the 

public docket and will handle them in 

accordance with applicable safeguards 

and restrictions on access. TSA will 

hold documents containing SSI, 

confidential business information, or 

trade secrets in a separate file to which 

the public does not have access, and 

place a note in the public docket that 

TSA has received such materials from 

the commenter. If TSA determines, 

however, that portions of these 

comments may be made publicly 

available, TSA may include a redacted 

version of the comment in the public 

docket. If TSA receives a request to 

examine or copy information that is not 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 51849 

2 74 FR 47672. The IFR provides detailed 

information on TSA’s reasoning behind the 

regulatory provisions for the CCSP. For further 

information refer to the IFR. 

3 74 FR 47686 and 47706. 

4 49 CFR 1549.111. 

5 49 CFR 1549.7. 

6 49 CFR 1549.5. 

7 49 CFR 1540.203. 

8 49 CFR 1549.101(d). 

in the public docket, TSA will treat it 

as any other request under the Freedom 

of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552) 

and the FOIA regulation of the 

Department of Homeland Security 

found in 6 CFR part 5. 

Reviewing Comments in the Docket 

Please be aware that anyone is able to 

search the electronic form of all 

comments received into any of our 

dockets by the name of the individual 

who submitted the comment (or signed 

the comment, if submitted on behalf of 

an association, business, labor union, 

etc.). You may review the applicable 

Privacy Act Statement published in the 

Federal Register on April 11, 2000 (65 

FR 19477) and modified on January 17, 

2008 (73 FR 3316). 

You may review TSA’s electronic 

public docket on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. In addition, DOT’s 

Docket Management Facility provides a 

physical facility, staff, equipment, and 

assistance to the public. To obtain 

assistance or to review comments in 

TSA’s public docket, you may visit this 

facility between 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays, or call (202) 366–9826. This 

docket operations facility is located in 

the West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140 at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 

SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

Availability of Rulemaking Document 

You can get an electronic copy using 

the Internet by— 

(1) Searching the electronic Federal 

Docket Management System (FDMS) 

web page at http://www.regulations.gov; 

(2) Accessing the Government 

Printing Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html; or 

(3) Visiting TSA’s Security 

Regulations Web page at http:// 

www.tsa.gov and accessing the link for 

‘‘Research Center’’ at the top of the page. 

In addition, copies are available by 

writing or calling the individual in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. Make sure to identify the docket 

number of this rulemaking. 

Small Entity Inquiries 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires TSA to comply with small 

entity requests for information and 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within TSA’s 

jurisdiction. Any small entity that has a 

question regarding this document may 

contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. Persons can 

obtain further information regarding 

SBREFA on the Small Business 

Administration’s web page at http:// 

www.sba.gov/advo/laws/law_lib.html. 

Abbreviations and Terms Used in This 

Document 

ACDMS Air Cargo Data Management 

System 

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

CCSF Certified Cargo Screening Facility 

CCSP Certified Cargo Screening Program 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CHRC Criminal History Records Check 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DOE Department of Energy 

FSD Federal Security Director 

IAC Indirect Air Carrier 

IED Improvised Explosive Device 

SIDA Security Identification Display Area 

SSI Sensitive Security Information 

STA Security Threat Assessment 

S&T DHS Directorate of Science & 

Technology 

STP Screening Technology Pilot 

TSA Transportation Security 

Administration 

Outline of Final Rule 

I. Background 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

III. Disposition of Comments 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of Changes 

V. Proposed Fee for Security Threat 

Assessments 

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act 

VII. Economic Impact Analysis 

VIII. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

IX. Environmental Analysis 

X. Energy Impact Analysis 

I. Background 

Sec. 1602 of the Implementing the 

Recommendations of the 

9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 

110–53, 121 Stat. 266, 478, Aug. 3, 

2007) (9/11 Act), which amended 49 

U.S.C. 44901(g)(1), provides, in 

pertinent part: 

Not later than 3 years after the date of 

enactment of the [9/11 Act], the Secretary of 

Homeland Security shall establish a system 

to screen 100 percent of cargo transported on 

passenger aircraft operated by an air carrier 

or foreign air carrier in air transportation or 

intrastate air transportation to ensure the 

security of all such passenger aircraft 

carrying cargo. 

As amended by the 9/11 Act, 49 

U.S.C. 44901(g)(2) provides that the 

system used to screen cargo on 

passenger aircraft shall provide a level 

of security ‘‘commensurate with the 

level of security for the screening of 

passenger checked baggage,’’ and directs 

that one hundred percent of such cargo 

must be screened not later than August 

3, 2010. 

Summary of Interim Final Rule 

Section 44901(g)(3)(B) explicitly 

authorizes TSA to issue an interim final 

rule to implement the requirements. On 

September 16, 2009, TSA issued the Air 

Cargo Screening IFR implementing 

these 9/11 Act requirements, and sought 

comments on the provisions contained 

in the IFR.2 Section 44901(g)(3)(B)(i) of 

the 9/11 Act requires TSA to issue a 

final rule not later than one year after 

the effective date of the IFR, or by 

November, 16, 2010. TSA was unable to 

meet the November 16, 2010, deadline 

due to changes that had to be made to 

the Final Rule. Data from industry 

indicates that industry met the August 

3, 2010, deadline for domestically up 

lifted cargo only. Neither the IFR nor the 

Final Rule apply to international 

inbound cargo. 

Requirements of the IFR 

The IFR established the Certified 

Cargo Screening Program (CCSP), a 

program to certify shippers, indirect air 

carriers (IAC), and other entities located 

in the United States to screen cargo 

prior to tendering it to aircraft operators 

for transport on passenger aircraft.3 The 

CCSP requires certified cargo screening 

facility (CCSF) personnel to successfully 

undergo a TSA conducted security 

threat assessment (STA) 4 and submit to 

an evaluation of its facility by a TSAapproved validator or TSA.5 Once 

certified, the CCSF must, among other 

responsibilities: 

• Implement a TSA-approved 

standard security program.6

• Ensure that key personnel with 

unescorted access to screened cargo 

undergo an STA 7 including (1) Each 

employee and authorized representative 

who screens cargo or has unescorted 

access to screened cargo, and (2) each 

security coordinator and alternate, 

senior manager of the facility, and other 

individual who implements the cargo 

screening program. 

• Adhere to strict physical and access 

control measures for the storage, 

handing, and screening of cargo. 

• Screen cargo using TSA-approved 

methods. 

• Initiate chain of custody measures 

to ensure the security of the cargo from 

the time the CCSF screens the cargo 

until it is loaded on passenger aircraft.8

• Appoint security coordinators at the 

corporate and facility levels and 

alternates to be available 24 hours per 

day, 7 days per week. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

51850 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

9 49 CFR 1549.5. 

10 49 CFR part 1522. 

11 74 FR 47683 and 47684. 

12TSA classifies the over 400 commercial airports 

in the United States into one of five airport security 

categories (I, II, III, IV, and X) based on various 

factors, such as the total number of take-offs and 

landings annually, the extent to which passengers 

are screened at the airport, and other special 

security considerations. In general, Category X 

airports have the largest number of passenger 

boardings and Category IV airports have the 

smallest. 

• Apply for recertification, including 

a new examination by TSA or a TSAapproved validator, every 36 months. 

The IFR further stated that aircraft 

operators that wish to screen cargo offairport must become a CCSF, and adopt 

and implement a CCSF security program 

for that purpose.9 Additionally, the IFR 

established procedures under which 

firms may apply for TSA’s approval to 

conduct validation assessments of CCSF 

facilities.10 TSA believed these 

procedures would help quickly process 

many applications for CCSPs in a short 

amount of time. 

The IFR also amended the threat 

assessment provisions that currently 

exist in 49 CFR part 1540, subpart C, for 

individuals who work in the air cargo 

sector to enhance TSA’s ability to 

effectively conduct STAs. 

Finally, the IFR explained the 

methodology by which TSA would 

calculate a fee that TSA would charge 

for conducting STAs and presented an 

expected fee range for these STAs. TSA 

invited comment on the amount of the 

fee and the methodology used to 

calculate the fee but did not establish a 

fee. The IFR explained that TSA would 

specify the final fee amount in a 

separate notice in the Federal 

Register.11

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

In response to comments on the IFR, 

TSA decided to remove two major 

requirements, explained below, 

concerning validation firms and 

certification of aircraft operators. This 

final rule also makes a few clarifications 

and other minor revisions such as 

typographical errors. Further 

explanations of these changes can be 

found in section IV of this rule, in the 

Section-by-Section Analysis of Changes. 

TSA deleted part 1522 regarding 

validation firms and validators as we do 

not believe they are needed. TSA will 

continue to conduct all assessments of 

the facilities applying to become CCSFs 

because TSA has the capacity to review 

and certify all CCSF applicants itself. 

In addition, this final rule deletes the 

IFR requirement that an aircraft operator 

must become certified as a CCSF in 

order to screen air cargo off-airport. As 

explained in Section III. (Disposition of 

Comments) of this preamble, TSA will 

continue to update the security 

programs through the security program 

amendment process as described in 49 

CFR 1544.105(c) and 156.105(c) for 

aircraft operators and foreign air carriers 

to ensure that the same level of security 

applies to cargo that those entities and 

CCSFs screen. Because aircraft operators 

will need to meet the same substantive 

requirements as CSSFs, they do not 

need to be certified under the CCSP to 

screen cargo off airport. 

III. Disposition of Comments 

TSA received approximately 40 

comments from trade associations, 

aircraft operators, including a few from 

individuals. The issues raised in these 

comments are discussed below. 

TSA Screening at Airports 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that TSA, not private industry through 

the CCSP, should conduct screening of 

cargo to be transported on passenger 

aircraft. These commenters stated that 

TSA should use existing statutory 

authority to establish TSA-operated 

screening operations at airports. One 

commenter stated that TSA should 

screen all cargo transported on 

passenger aircraft because Congress 

created TSA to replace screening by 

third parties. These commenters believe 

that TSA screening is the only way to 

screen 100 percent of cargo on 

passenger aircraft without impeding the 

flow of commerce. Some commenters 

suggested that the CCSP must be a 

complement to, but not a substitute for, 

a Federal air cargo screening program 

operated by TSA at all domestic 

airports. 

Other commenters favored the CCSP. 

The International Air Cargo Association 

(TIACA) commented that either 

federalization or airline-only screening 

would unduly crowd screening onto 

airport grounds, potentially creating 

significant bottlenecks by imposing a 

one-size-fits-all approach to air cargo 

screening. TIACA commented that the 

flexibility allowed under the CCSP is a 

better fit with the diverse needs of the 

air cargo supply chain. 

TSA Response: The 9/11 Act required 

the Secretary of Homeland Security to 

establish a system to screen 100 percent 

of cargo loaded in the United States on 

passenger aircraft. TSA has determined 

the most appropriate model to 

accomplish this mandate is for TSA to 

establish screening standards that 

allows airlines, shippers, and IACs and 

other entities to perform the necessary 

screening. The CCSP program satisfies 

the statutory directive. The 9/11 Act, 49 

U.S.C. 44901(g)(1), requires TSA to 

‘‘* * * establish a system * * *’’ for 

screening 100 percent of air cargo, and 

does not require TSA to conduct the 

screening. The 9/11 Act provides that 

screening includes ‘‘* * * a program to 

certify the security methods used by 

shippers * * *’’ and therefore, 

anticipates that an entity other than 

TSA may conduct the screening to TSA 

standards. 49 U.S.C. 44901(g)(5). 

TSA believes that if TSA screened 

cargo at airports, the screening process 

would very likely impede the flow of 

commerce as described in the TIACA 

comment above. It would create many of 

the same problems that would occur if 

aircraft operators screened 100 percent 

of cargo. There is insufficient space at 

airports to screen the 7.6 million 

pounds of cargo transported on 

passenger aircraft daily. TSA believes 

airport screening would be timeconsuming. A high volume of cargo 

reaches the airports on skids or loaded 

into unit load devices, which TSA 

would have to break down and screen, 

a process that could lead to congestion 

at the cargo screening locations. 

A fundamental principle of the CCSP 

is to provide stakeholders with 

additional options for screening air 

cargo. Participation in the CCSP allows 

shippers to move screening away from 

the airport to avoid the bottlenecks that 

TSA expects would occur if all cargo 

were screened there. The CCSP also 

allows industry participants to conduct 

screening at stages earlier within the 

cargo supply chain and off-airport. 

Thus, the CCSP gives industry control to 

schedule screening of the cargo at the 

most financially sensible point in their 

business process while still meeting all 

security requirements. Screening 

conducted by the industry permits IACs 

and shippers to tender screened cargo to 

aircraft operators so that it can be 

transported immediately on passenger 

aircraft, thereby avoiding the backlog 

that would result from screening solely 

by TSA or aircraft operators on-airport. 

TSA is confident that the CCSP will 

achieve the security benefits that 

Congress sought in the statutory 

mandate without causing unnecessary 

delays. 

TSA believes the CCSP, 

supplemented by TSA screening at 

Category II–IV airports 12 and other 

measures TSA has already taken (such 

as requiring 100 percent screening of 

cargo transported on narrow-body 

aircraft), combined with cargo screened 

directly by aircraft operators, has 

achieved the 100 percent screening 

requirement. TSA believes that the 

CCSP concept provides the greatest 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 51851 

13A Category I airport is an airport where 

screening is performed pursuant to TSA regulations 

and the number of annual enplanements are 1 

million or more. A Category X airport is an airport 

where screening is performed pursuant to TSA 

regulations, the number of annual enplanements is 

5 million or more, and the number of international 

enplanements is 1 million or more. 

degree of flexibility and efficiency and 

should be the centerpiece of the current 

air cargo screening program. TSA will 

continue to screen almost all cargo 

received at Category II–IV airports.13

Cargo screened at these locations 

involves relatively lower volumes and 

smaller pieces, which are conducive to 

screening by existing baggage 

equipment. TSA will also continue to 

screen any cargo delivered to the ticket 

counter for shipment, known as a 

counter-to-counter express shipment. 

Comment: The U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce recommended that TSA 

expand the use of TSA-certified 

explosive-detection canines to screen 

large air cargo consolidations. 

TSA Response: TSA will continue to 

evaluate the need for additional canine 

teams. In the future, TSA is also 

considering the use of TSA-approved 

canine teams owned by regulated 

parties to screen air cargo. 

Impact of the CCSP on Small and MidSized Companies 

Comment: Some commenters 

expressed the view that small and midsized freight forwarders do not have the 

financial resources to participate in the 

CCSP, and that the CCSP will put them 

out of business, or impose significant 

economic burdens. One commenter 

cited the costs that a CCSF would incur 

for maintaining a compliant facility and 

ensuring adequate employee training as 

placing a burden on the companies. 

TSA Response: TSA designed the 

CCSP to give small- and medium-sized 

companies several options to avoid 

unnecessary costs while achieving the 

security benefits of the program. The 

CCSP is a voluntary program intended 

to give industry the flexibility to 

respond to new security requirements in 

the 9/11 Act. Participation in CCSP does 

not require a business to purchase any 

costly screening equipment, because 

TSA provides multiple options to 

participants. For example, entities that 

wish to join the CCSP may choose to 

screen by conducting a physical search 

of the cargo as they pack it for shipment. 

Physical search may be more cost 

effective for companies that would have 

to screen smaller volumes of cargo and 

for any company that is conducting the 

screening as they pack the cargo for 

shipment, as many CCSFs do. A 

physical search is likely to satisfy the 

screening requirement of the 9/11 Act at 

a much lower cost for such companies 

than purchasing screening equipment. 

Moreover, a small- or mid-sized 

freight forwarder has several options for 

getting its cargo screened that do not 

require participation in the CCSP. They 

may choose to have their cargo screened 

by a CCSF IAC, a CCSF independent 

cargo screening facility (ICSF), or an 

aircraft operator, if that is more cost 

effective than participating in the CCSP. 

We believe that the most viable option 

for many small to medium shippers and 

IACs who do not wish to join the CCSP 

may be to have their cargo screened by 

ICSFs located away from the airport. 

This fee-based solution provides the 

benefit of screening away from the 

potential congestion and delay at the 

airport, without necessitating an 

investment in facilities, training, or 

screening equipment. TSA has 

published a list of all CCSFs IACs and 

ICSFs, as well as other IACs authorized 

to transport screened cargo for CCSF 

shippers. See the ‘‘Certified Cargo 

Screening Locations’’ section at http:// 

www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/ 

aircargo/certified_screening.shtm. 

Comment: The House Committee on 

Homeland Security requested that TSA 

consider expanding Screening 

Technology Pilot (STP) locations and 

on-airport screening options to provide 

stakeholders, particularly small 

businesses, with screening options that 

do not involve the purchase of costly 

screening equipment. 

The Committee also recommended 

that TSA find a way to incorporate 

grants, tax incentives, low-interest 

loans, or innovative financing measures 

into the CCSP. 

TSA Response: TSA has attempted to 

mitigate the impacts of the new air cargo 

program on small businesses by offering 

options, described in the TSA Response 

immediately above, that allow small 

businesses to choose how best to get 

their cargo screened. 

The STP, a Congressionally-funded 

pilot program designed to test screening 

technology, was a useful program that 

authorized TSA to reimburse 

participants for a portion of the cost of 

acquiring screening technology. At this 

time, the funding has been exhausted 

through reimbursement to companies 

that participate in the CCSP. The 

reimbursement did not include the cost 

of labor, training, consumables, 

maintenance, facility security, or any 

other costs associated with the CCSP. 

Therefore, it may not be the best option 

for small businesses. At this time, TSA 

has no other program to provide 

financial assistance for air cargo 

screening technology. 

Validations by Independent Validation 

Firms 

Comment: TSA received several 

significant comments on the validation 

firm and validator requirements of the 

IFR. Some commenters stated that TSA, 

not private entities, should perform the 

validations because they view the 

function as ‘‘inherently governmental.’’ 

Other commenters believed that TSA 

should bear the cost of the validation or 

set a fee for the service. Several 

commenters were concerned that there 

is an inherent conflict of interest 

between the facility and the validator, 

because the facility would pay the 

validator to conduct the assessment. 

TSA Response: While TSA disagrees 

that the validation process set forth in 

this rule requires industry to perform 

‘‘inherently governmental’’ functions, 

TSA has decided that it does not need 

independent validators to perform 

assessments of CCSF applicants. TSA is 

removing the validation firms and 

validators process in part 1522 because 

there were fewer CCSF applicants than 

TSA expected, and TSA is capable of 

processing the applications itself. The 

IFR, published in November 2009, 

included this feature based on a similar 

validation program successful in the 

United Kingdom and a concern that 

TSA lacked the capacity to quickly 

evaluate and certify the 15,000 

applications TSA estimated it would 

receive. The actual number of CCSF 

applications, however, is much lower 

than the estimate. To date, TSA has 

certified over 1,000 CCSFs, and is able 

to process the new applications without 

the support of validation firms. These 

certified locations are already screening 

a large volume of cargo destined for 

transport on passenger aircraft. Further, 

we believe that the industry has 

achieved 100 percent air cargo screening 

for domestic uplift as of the beginning 

of August 2010. While we may see 

additional CCSF applicants as shippers 

decide they want to screen their own 

cargo rather than risking the cargo being 

opened during screening downstream, 

TSA has determined that it can handle 

the future facility assessment workload 

without undue delay. 

Under the final rule, applicants for 

the CCSP will not have to pay a fee to 

independent validators, thereby 

reducing the cost of the CCSP. 

Approximately $65.9 million in costs, 

discounted at 7 percent, over the 

10-year period of the rulemaking were 

removed from the IFR to the FR as a 

result of the elimination of the 

requirement for TSA-approved 

validation firms (TAVFs). Discounted at 

seven percent, the following are the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

51852 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

specific cost reductions to the respective 

impacted entities: $11.7 million for 

TAVFs, $54.0 million for CCSFs, and 

$0.2 million for TSA. This reduction in 

the cost of CCSP participation should be 

particularly helpful to the small- and 

mid-sized companies concerned that the 

cost of joining the CCSP is too high. 

Security Level of Cargo Screening 

Relative to the Security Level of 

Checked Baggage Screening 

Comment: One commenter argued 

that the CCSP does not provide a level 

of security that is commensurate with 

the level of security for passenger 

checked baggage, as required by the 

9/11 Act. This commenter stated that 

‘‘commensurate’’ means ‘‘equal’’ and 

that such a standard limits the 

discretion of TSA. According to this 

commenter, it would be much easier for 

a third party to compromise the chain 

of custody under the CCSP and tamper 

with screened cargo than it would be to 

infiltrate the chain of custody for 

passenger-checked baggage. For 

example, this commenter believes that 

tamper evident tape, which may be used 

as a chain of custody procedure under 

the CCSP, is inexpensive, and could 

easily be acquired or manufactured by a 

terrorist. This commenter also believes 

that even if CCSFs use more 

technologically advanced methods to 

protect the chain of custody, the length 

of time an item of cargo is stored after 

it is screened and prior to its delivery 

to an airport could provide third parties 

with time to break the chain of custody. 

TSA Response: Section 44901(g)(2) of 

the 9/11 Act establishes the parameters 

for meeting the 100 percent screening 

requirement—the system must provide a 

level of security for cargo commensurate 

with the level of security for checked 

baggage. ‘‘Commensurate’’ is not a 

statutorily defined term and must be 

understood to have its ordinary meaning 

of ‘‘similar’’ or ‘‘analogous.’’ 

‘‘Commensurate’’ does not mean 

‘‘identical.’’ Notably, it is not the 

‘‘method of screening’’ that must be 

commensurate with that of checked 

baggage, but the resulting ‘‘level of 

security’’ that must be commensurate. 

Physical examination is but one of many 

layers of security in place to protect air 

transportation. Therefore, it is the entire 

system that must ultimately produce 

security of cargo commensurate with 

that in place for checked baggage. 

Section 44901(g)(5) defines 

‘‘screening’’ of air cargo placed on a 

passenger aircraft, and enumerates 

specific types of authorized screening, 

including x-ray systems, explosives 

detection systems (EDS), explosives 

trace detection, and explosives 

detection canine teams certified by TSA. 

In addition to the particular screening 

technologies and techniques listed, 

paragraph (g)(5) expressly provides that 

‘‘the Administrator may approve 

additional methods to ensure that the 

cargo does not pose a threat to 

transportation and to assist in meeting 

the requirements of this subsection.’’ A 

system of screening that utilizes a 

combination of the screening methods 

planned for use in the CCSP will 

provide a level of security 

commensurate with that in place for 

checked baggage. 

The methods of screening, in some 

cases, may be the same used for checked 

baggage. By statute, however, checked 

baggage must be screened using EDS. 49 

U.S.C. 44901(d). There is no parallel 

requirement for cargo in 49 U.S.C. 

44901(g); rather, any one or more of a 

number of methods, including EDS, may 

be used. Also, like checked baggage 

security, the overall system will rely on 

layers of security to protect cargo from 

terrorist threats. Those layers will 

include STAs of individuals with 

unescorted access to cargo, physical 

protection of cargo once it is screened, 

and chain of custody practices to protect 

cargo from the time it is screened until 

it is tendered for transport on passenger 

aircraft. 

TSA believes that the chain of 

custody measures the CCSP requires 

will provide a high degree of security 

for air cargo throughout the supply 

chain. TSA has established multiple 

layers of security for cargo as it travels 

through the supply chain. For example, 

the CCSP security programs, which are 

sensitive security information (SSI), 

contain requirements, such as the use of 

tamper-evident tape on cargo that has 

been screened, and security measures 

for the trucks and other conveyances 

that transport screened cargo to the 

airport. The transport and handling 

measures established in the security 

programs for the CCSP are similar to 

those already in place for the ground 

transport of screened cargo that is in the 

custody of air carriers. Screened cargo 

in the supply chain is handled by secure 

facilities and modes of transport. Air 

cargo is not typically stored for any 

significant period once it has been 

tendered for transport, as the very 

nature of air cargo is to move materials 

as quickly as possible from shipper to 

consignee. 

TSA’s Funding for Implementing the 

CCSP 

Comment: The House Committee on 

Homeland Security expressed concerns 

regarding the level of TSA’s investment 

in the CCSP and stressed the importance 

of TSA having appropriate resources to 

support its regulatory oversight role. 

Specifically, the Committee noted that 

TSA would need appropriate staffing 

levels for inspectors to be able to certify 

TSA-approved validation firms, and 

process STAs for workers at such firms 

and for CCSFs. The Committee 

suggested that TSA seek multiple means 

of additional funding to ensure that the 

100 percent screening mandate is met, 

including seeking funds through the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act (ARRA). The Committee was also 

concerned that TSA would not have 

enough resources to certify enough 

CCSFs by the August 3, 2010, deadline. 

TSA Response: TSA has requested, 

and Congress has provided, sufficient 

resources to attain the 100 percent 

screening requirements set forth in the 

mandate. In addition, the FY 2010 

Homeland Security Appropriations Act 

provided nearly $15 million above the 

Administration’s request, including 

$3.45 million for additional air cargo 

inspectors and $9 million for technology 

development. TSA considered 

requesting ARRA funds, however, they 

are not available for TSA staffing for the 

CCSP; Congress restricted ARRA funds 

to the procurement and installation of 

checked baggage explosives detection 

systems and checkpoint explosives 

detection equipment. 

TSA concurs that it is important to 

have the resources to certify CCSFs 

quickly so as not to disrupt commerce. 

In the months before the requirement to 

screen 100 percent of air cargo became 

effective, TSA coordinated with the 

different applicants to ensure that 

facilities desiring to be CCSFs received 

an assessment as soon as the facility 

declared that it was ready. 

At the current pace of applications 

and certifications, TSA remains 

confident that it will be able to certify 

all current (and a significant number of 

additional) applicants that remain 

engaged and interested in proceeding. 

TSA believes it also has the capability 

to manage any short-term surges in 

activity. TSA will continue to monitor 

and evaluate resource and funding 

levels, and will request increases that 

may be required by the circumstances to 

carry out its oversight responsibilities. 

After evaluating the flow of applications 

and the certification process, TSA has 

determined that the usage of TSAapproved validation firms is no longer 

required. Not having to certify 

validation firms, as well as no longer 

needing to process STA’s for their 

workers, will provide TSA inspectors 

with some additional time for oversight 

and compliance activities related to 

CCSFs. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 51853 

Outreach to Stakeholders 

Comment: The House Committee on 

Homeland Security urged TSA to 

conduct additional industry outreach to 

encourage participation in the CCSP. 

Suggestions for increasing CCSP 

participation through outreach 

included: Utilizing existing federal 

supply chain programs, such as the 

Customs-Trade Partnership Against 

Terrorism (C–TPAT) program to 

conduct industry outreach and training 

on a larger scale; obtaining statistical 

data on shippers from the U.S. 

Department of Commerce in order to 

perform targeted outreach; providing 

low-cost training and information 

sessions to small businesses; and 

increasing CCSP visibility to industry 

trade publications. 

TSA Response: To ensure the cargo 

and shipping industry are aware of the 

impact and requirements of the 

100 percent screening requirement, TSA 

conducted outreach through multiple 

organizations, and we continue our 

longstanding relationships with 

associations whose members are 

impacted by the 9/11 Act. These 

organizations include members of 

airports, airlines, and freight forwarders. 

TSA continues its contact with 

associations such as the Air and 

Expedited Motor Carriers Association, 

Air Forwarders Association, Air 

Transport Association, American 

Association of Exporters and Importers, 

Cargo Airline Association, Council of 

Supply Chain Management 

Professionals, Express Delivery and 

Logistics Association, International Air 

Transport Association, Meridian One 

Consulting, National Association of 

Manufacturers, National Association of 

Wholesalers-Distributors, National 

Customs Brokers and Forwarders 

Association of America, and National 

Industrial Transportation League. 

In addition, TSA representatives 

speak at trade association conferences 

and participate in webinars and other 

public forums to share vital information 

regarding the CCSP. This on-going effort 

will continue throughout 

implementation of the CCSP. 

In coordinating outreach efforts, TSA 

estimates that approximately 20 of the 

largest airports within the United States 

disproportionately account for most of 

the air cargo transported on passenger 

aircraft, and these locations are 

primarily the largest (Category I and 

Category X) airports. TSA continues its 

outreach efforts to these airports to 

ensure widespread understanding of the 

CCSP. 

Applicability of CCSP to Cargo Loaded 

Outside the United States 

Comment: One association 

commended TSA for clarifying that the 

IFR does not apply to cargo that is 

loaded on passenger aircraft outside the 

United States. This commenter supports 

TSA’s two-pronged approach of working 

with the International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) standards, and 

applying risk assessments for air cargo. 

The commenter suggested that TSA 

should leverage other Government 

programs, such as pertinent U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

programs, and adopt best security 

practices currently in use in other 

countries for international inbound 

cargo. 

TSA Response: TSA is working 

closely with its foreign government 

counterparts to leverage existing air 

cargo security practices and to work 

towards compatibility across systems to 

the greatest extent possible. TSA has 

been working in both bilateral and 

multilateral forums to better understand 

the air cargo security regimes currently 

in place in other countries in order to 

promote best practices while also 

enhancing air cargo security systems, 

where necessary, in order to ensure 

commensurate levels of security from 

system to system. This is an ongoing 

effort and will take considerable time to 

review and analyze the information, and 

to coordinate and collaborate with our 

partners and industry stakeholders in 

the development of mutually 

recognizable systems. TSA is hopeful 

that with the continued cooperation of 

our international partners, this work 

will promote uniformity and recognition 

among countries. In addition, TSA has 

aligned its CCSP as closely as possible 

with CBP’s C–TPAT program and 

continues to seek opportunities to create 

efficiencies where possible. 

Aircraft Operators or Foreign Air 

Carriers as CCSFs 

Comment: The IFR required any air 

cargo screening facility that is offairport, including one operated by an 

aircraft operator, to become a CCSF in 

order to screen cargo. Several 

commenters objected to this 

requirement, stating that this requires 

aircraft operators to comply with two 

separate security programs. They 

claimed that this was unnecessary. 

However, another commenter argued 

that exempting aircraft operators from 

the certification requirements would be 

inappropriate; it would produce an 

economic disadvantage for non-air 

carriers that currently operate as CCSFs. 

A trade association argued that this 

portion of the rule (§ 1544.205(g)(3)) 

should be removed only if there is: (1) 

No difference in security requirements 

between existing air carrier rules and 

CSSP requirements, and (2) there is no 

economic benefit favoring air carriers 

over non-air carriers. 

TSA Response: TSA has evaluated the 

issue of aircraft operators and foreign air 

carriers operating off-airport screening 

facilities, and is amending the IFR to 

eliminate the requirement for aircraft 

operators and foreign air carriers to 

become CCSFs in order to screen offairport. The security programs for 

aircraft operators have been and will 

continue to be amended to ensure that 

the same level of security involving 

screened cargo are equivalent to that for 

CCSFs. Because aircraft operators will 

need to meet the same substantive 

requirements as other CCSFs and CCSFs 

will no longer need to be validated by 

a third party, TSA does not believe that 

non-aircraft operators will be at a 

disadvantage. 

Comparable Programs 

Comment: One commenter 

commended TSA for using some of the 

same chain of custody requirements for 

the CCSP as for the IAC Standard 

Security Program. 

TSA Response: In developing the 

CCSP, TSA tried to leverage the existing 

IAC program to the extent possible. 

Using the IAC program as a base, TSA 

strengthened those requirements for 

handling screened cargo in the CCSP. 

Comments: Several commenters 

expressed the view that compliance 

with other cargo security programs 

should substitute for compliance with 

TSA’s regulation. Commenters listed a 

number of programs that they believed 

provide comparable security. A trade 

association expressed concern that 

many of its members have to comply 

with security provisions in other 

government programs, including DOD’s 

National Industrial Security Program 

Operating Manual (NISPOM), 

International Traffic in Arms 

Regulations (ITAR), Export 

Administration Regulations (EAR), and 

C–TPAT. The commenter urged TSA 

and other agencies to consider 

recognizing security requirements in 

each other’s programs as being 

commensurate with one another. 

Another association also 

recommended aligning C–TPAT and 

CCSP security requirements. 

TSA Response: TSA structured the 

CCSP to incorporate secure practices 

recommended by industry 

representatives, including many of the 

security measures and processes already 

used in programs such as C–TPAT and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

51854 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Transported Asset Protection 

Association, to the extent that these 

programs were compatible with the 

security and other requirements of the 

CCSP. Initially, TSA structured the 

CCSP to basically align with CBP’s C– 

TPAT program following its structure in 

areas such as: Facility security, 

background checks, and basic chain of 

custody. However; there are key 

differences that should be noted: (1) The 

CCSP requires individuals to have a 

TSA security threat assessment, (2) 

individuals must be trained and 

implement screening procedures, (3) 

individuals must complete training 

specified by TSA, and (4) each entity is 

identified by site-specific methods 

rather than company-wide methods. 

Additionally, TSA structured the CCSP 

to incorporate industry security ‘‘best 

practice’’ procedures recommended by 

industry representatives, including 

many of the security measures and 

processes already used in programs 

such as C–TPAT and Transported Asset 

Protection Association, (TAPA). 

The CCSP was established to enable a 

flexible solution for achieving the U.S. 

domestic 100 percent screening 

requirements. The air cargo security 

environment will continue to change 

and therefore the security practices, 

both established by TSA and practiced 

by industry or other government 

agencies will continue to change. TSA 

will maintain its close working 

relationship with key stakeholders and 

evaluate ongoing security measures and 

processes as the threat and risk to air 

cargo change. This may include 

incorporating additional measures and 

practices into the CCSP. 

Certification for CCSPs 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that TSA should allow 

companies to participate in the CCSP on 

a corporate basis, rather than have to 

enroll on a facility-by-facility basis. 

Under this scenario, TSA would certify 

a company as being CCSP-compliant 

through random inspections of a 

sampling of facilities per corporate 

entity. 

TSA Response: TSA is retaining the 

CCSP as a facility-based program. In 

order to achieve the level of security 

that is the goal of the CCSP, every 

participating facility must be considered 

individually because of its unique 

design and security configuration. 

While a corporation may direct the 

types and level of security at its 

facilities, the CCSF must account for the 

security of cargo at each location where 

cargo is screened, packed, or 

consolidated before the cargo is 

transferred to an aircraft operator. TSA 

must be confident that each location 

will meet TSA’s CCSF standards. 

Comment: Several commenters feared 

that there may be a backlog of CCSF 

applications, and that it could take TSA 

over six months to certify a facility to 

become a CCSF. Commenters urged TSA 

to take measures to avoid disruptions 

and dislocations to the cargo shipping 

industry. 

TSA Response: To keep up with the 

CCSF applicant pool, TSA prioritizes, 

coordinates, and assesses any CCSF 

facility based on the readiness of the 

CCSF facility to meet the requirements 

of the security program. Some 

applicants can be certified sooner than 

others can. TSA has found that IACs 

applying for the program are often ready 

to implement the regulatory security 

requirements of the CCSP, and TSA can 

certify them quickly. TSA does not 

expect future delays in certifying 

CCSFs. 

Security Threat Assessments 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the CCSP’s use of name-based STAs 

provides less security than criminal 

history records checks (CHRCs), which 

are required for individuals with access 

to passenger baggage. This commenter 

believed that STAs by themselves are 

not a robust enough vetting tool for the 

CCSP, and that all individuals who 

maintain unescorted access to air cargo 

should be vetted according to the same 

standard—a fingerprint-based CHRC, 

accompanied by an STA. 

TSA Response: TSA agrees that 

fingerprint-based CHRCs provide a 

greater degree of security than the STA 

requirement in this final rule, and that 

there should be congruency among the 

STA requirements for workers in 

functions that present similar security 

concerns, such as checked baggage 

screeners and cargo screeners. TSA is 

considering proposing a rulemaking that 

would provide for more consistent 

application of the CHRC requirement in 

STAs, including STAs for air cargo 

workers. Rather than addressing a CHRC 

requirement for air cargo workers on a 

program-specific basis in this final rule, 

TSA intends to address the CHRC 

requirement in the broader context of all 

TSA programs. TSA believes this 

approach will result in a more 

consistent, efficient, and equitable 

outcome on this issue. 

Comment: Several commenters 

objected to the five-year renewal 

requirement for STAs, stating their 

belief that it is overly burdensome to 

industry. Commenters believed that this 

is a particular issue for express 

consignment operators, who may find it 

difficult to segregate their employees 

who handle air cargo, and therefore 

would have to issue hundreds of 

thousands of STAs across their industry. 

These commenters stated that only a 

name change should trigger a new STA 

requirement. These commenters 

maintain that TSA tools, such as the 

IAC Management System (IACMS), 

provide the means necessary to 

continually check applicant names 

against watch lists, and should obviate 

the need for a reapplication process, 

except for cases where a person’s name 

changes. 

TSA Response: The five-year renewal 

requirement is consistent with the 

duration of renewal requirements in 

other similar programs, such as national 

security clearances administered by the 

Office of Personnel Management, the 

CBP Free and Secure Trade Credential, 

the CBP Nexus credential, and TSA’s 

Transportation Worker Identification 

Credential (TWIC). It is important for 

TSA to have current biographic 

information, such as address, to identify 

the individual and to administer the 

program effectively. For example, even 

after an individual successfully 

completes the initial STA, he or she is 

continually re-checked against various 

databases and watch lists; in the event 

of a subsequent match, TSA needs 

accurate information regarding the 

individual to distinguish similar names 

and to contact the individual with 

information about redress rights if 

subsequent vetting produces a match. If 

TSA renews the STA only as often as 

the individual’s name changes, the other 

important biographic data may become 

stale. A system that only tracks the 

names of individuals, such as the 

IACMS, is therefore not an adequate 

substitute for periodic renewals. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed their belief that requiring an 

STA for certain individuals is 

duplicative and unnecessary. These 

parties submitted that individuals who 

have already completed an STA for 

airport credentialing purposes should 

not have to reapply for another STA 

under the CCSP. A third commenter 

approved of TSA’s decision to accept 

Hazardous Materials Endorsements, 

TWICs, or Free and Secure Trade cards 

in lieu of redundant background checks 

for air cargo screening operations. 

TSA Response: TSA attempts to avoid 

unnecessary redundancy in STA 

requirements. Therefore, TSA 

regulations provide for the possibility of 

comparable STAs. If TSA determines 

that another STA conducted by TSA or 

by another government agency is 

comparable to the STA required by part 

1540, subpart C, individuals who have 

successfully completed such a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 51855 

14Section 1549.105. 

comparable STA are not required to 

undergo another STA under part 1540, 

subpart C. 49 CFR 1540.203(f). 

TSA has already determined that an 

STA conducted for purposes of security 

identification display area (SIDA) access 

at airports, that is, a CHRC conducted in 

accordance with 49 CFR 1542.209, 

1544.229, or 1544.230 that includes a 

name-based check conducted by TSA, is 

comparable to the check required under 

part 1540, subpart C. 49 CFR 

1540.203(h). For other security threat 

assessments conducted by a 

governmental agency, the commenter 

may request a determination that the 

other governmental STA is comparable 

to the STA required under part 1540, 

subpart C. 49 CFR 1540.203(f), (g). If 

TSA grants the determination of 

comparability, the individuals who have 

successfully completed such a 

comparable STA are not required to 

undergo another STA under part 1540, 

subpart C. A background check or 

investigation conducted by a nongovernmental agency would not qualify 

as a ‘‘comparable’’ STA. Nongovernmental agencies are not 

necessarily focused on the factors 

underlying a governmental STA, and are 

unlikely to have access to the depth and 

breadth of information available to a 

governmental agency. Therefore, TSA 

does not consider the STA required by 

part 1540, subpart C, to be duplicative 

with such non-governmental checks. 

Screening of Animals 

Comment: The Association of Zoos 

and Aquariums expressed concern with 

screening procedures for live animals, 

and warned that opening containers 

with live animals inside could create 

potential hazards for the animals, 

handlers, and cargo personnel. 

TSA Response: TSA agrees that 

screening live animals provides special 

challenges. Aircraft operator and CCSF 

security programs, as required under 49 

CFR parts 1544, 1546, and 1549, already 

provide procedures for screening live 

animals to ensure the safety of both the 

screeners and the animals. 

Use of Non-Citizens To Perform 

Screening 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that the air carriers’ and freight 

forwarders’ use of non-U.S. citizens to 

screen cargo violates International 

Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and 

Export Administration Regulations 

(EAR) for cargo that is designated as 

sensitive military technology. 

TSA Response: Section 1549.103(d) 

requires, in part, that each certified 

cargo screening facility must ensure that 

each individual who screens cargo or 

who supervises cargo screening is a 

citizen or national of the United States 

or an alien lawfully admitted for 

permanent residence. TSA sets 

minimum standards for the screening of 

cargo to be transported on passenger 

aircraft, which the CCSF must meet. 

However, if there are additional 

standards that apply, for example, for 

sensitive military technology, the CCSF 

must meet those additional 

requirements as well. 

Time Concerns 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern about the time it 

takes a CCSF to break down palletized 

shipments for screening. 

TSA Response: TSA agrees that 

having to break down and screen cargo 

consolidations at the airport could lead 

to significant delays. The CCSP allows 

entities to screen cargo before it is 

consolidated. TSA will continue to 

evaluate technologies that allow for bulk 

screening of some types of consolidated 

cargo. As such technologies become 

available, TSA may authorize their use. 

Reporting Burden; Estimated Number of 

CCSFs 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that TSA’s estimate of 7,514 entities 

seeking CCSP membership annually was 

an overestimate, but that TSA’s estimate 

of annual cargo reporting burden of 

293,037 hours was an underestimate. 

Furthermore, one air carrier argued that 

TSA’s estimate that CCSFs will 

complete monthly cargo reports at an 

estimated time of one hour per week is 

an underestimate of the time required. 

The air carrier maintained that dealing 

with thousands of shipments and 

hundreds of thousands of pieces in a 

reporting period produces a data 

collection burden that will far surpass 

TSA’s estimate. 

TSA Response: With respect to the 

estimate of 7,514 entities applying to the 

CCSP annually, TSA agrees that this 

was an overestimate and has revised the 

population estimate in the regulatory 

evaluation and fee model so that this 

final rule better reflects where the CCSP 

is today. The new estimate also takes 

into account recent information from 

shippers and IACs as to the types and 

sizes of entities that will most likely join 

the CCSP in the future. 

TSA’s original estimate that it takes 

CCSFs one hour per week to report 

monthly cargo statistics was based on 

how long it might take a CCSF to record 

the data by hand on the form provided 

by TSA, resolve any identified 

discrepancies in that data, and transmit 

that information to TSA. 

Subsequently, TSA created the Cargo 

Reporting Tool (CRT) as a convenience 

for CCSFs, IACs, and aircraft operators, 

to allow these entities to more easily 

submit cargo screening data to TSA. A 

small group of air carriers, freight 

forwarders, and shippers was asked to 

beta test the CRT for approximately one 

year and the users indicated it took 

approximately one hour to enter 

information into the system. 

Accordingly, TSA believes that the onehour time limit is a reasonable estimate, 

and is retaining this estimate for the 

final rule. 

In addition, TSA is developing an Air 

Cargo Data Management System 

(ACDMS) to facilitate compliance with 

this requirement and minimize the 

reporting burden on industry. The 

ACDMS will allow industry to submit 

certain information to a single point of 

entry online, which then will provide 

industry access to several systems and 

services. 

Comment: The House Committee on 

Homeland Security asked TSA to review 

the recordkeeping provisions to 

ascertain how to streamline these 

requirements while maintaining the 

appropriate regulatory oversight. 

TSA Response: TSA reviewed the 

recordkeeping requirements 14 and has 

decided to maintain these 

recordkeeping requirements. These 

requirements are consistent with those 

required by other regulated entities 

within the air cargo supply chain (for 

example, air carriers, aircraft operators, 

and indirect air carriers). These 

requirements are necessary to ensure 

that regulated parties are in compliance 

with CCSF regulations. Additionally, 

TSA is developing ACDMS to assist 

industry in complying with this 

requirement. TSA expects the ACDMS 

to reduce the time required to comply 

with the recordkeeping requirements. 

Issuance of IFR 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

the view that TSA’s issuance of an IFR 

was inappropriate, and that TSA should 

have provided prior opportunity for 

public comment. 

TSA Response: The 9/11 Act required 

TSA to put in place an air cargo 

screening program within a short time 

period. Accordingly, 49 U.S.C. 

44901(g)(3)(A) provides that ‘‘the 

Secretary of Homeland Security may 

issue an interim final rule * * * to 

implement this subsection without 

regard to the provision of chapter 5 of 

title 5.’’ Thus, Congress concluded that 

the significant benefits of strengthening 

air cargo security within the statutory 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

51856 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

15See http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/ 

aircargo/certified_screening.shtm#approved for 

information about the CCSP, including links to 

qualified vendor lists. 

time period warranted implementing 

the program through an IFR. TSA could 

not have had the CCSP operational by 

the August deadline without being able 

to issue an IFR. 

TSA conducted outreach to a wide 

range of stakeholders before issuing the 

IFR. In addition, TSA provided a 60-day 

notice and an opportunity to submit 

written comments on the IFR. TSA 

considered these comments in 

developing this final rule and before 

establishing the final STA fee. 

Screening Technology 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

the view that most of the approved 

screening methods and equipment are 

appropriate for the passenger screening 

environment, but are ill-suited to the air 

cargo environment where palletized or 

other consolidated shipments are the 

norm. The commenter stated that CCSFs 

are currently technologically incapable 

of effectively screening large pallets of 

cargo without breaking down shipments 

and urged TSA to use the $4 million 

Congress appropriated to TSA for 

FY2010 to develop and deploy 

technologies capable of screening skids 

and pallets, including vapor and metal 

detection technologies. Another 

commenter also urged TSA to test and 

approve effective screening technology 

equipment that could be used to screen 

palletized shipments. 

TSA Response: TSA is exploring 

newer technologies for screening cargo, 

especially those technologies that screen 

palletized and consolidated cargo. In 

order to effectively evaluate and qualify 

technologies for screening cargo, TSA is 

working closely with the DHS Science 

and Technology Directorate (S&T), and 

the Department of Energy (DOE) 

National Laboratories and Technology 

Centers to continue to evaluate new and 

emerging technologies. TSA has 

qualified three technologies for 

screening some skid-level cargo 

configurations and commodities on the 

Air Cargo Screening Technology List 

(ACSTL), and is currently in the process 

of evaluating additional large aperture 

technologies for screening cargo. A nonSSI version of the ACSTL may be found 

at http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/ 

non_ssi_acstl.pdf. In addition to these 

efforts, screening protocols in security 

programs have also been refined for use 

in a cargo environment. 

Congress appropriated $18 million for 

TSA to specifically evaluate and deploy 

screening technologies. TSA added to 

the Congressional appropriation to fund 

a $40 million Screening Technology 

Pilot (STP) for IACs. This pilot is 

evaluating the effectiveness of screening 

technologies for screening cargo at the 

piece level, as well as for cargo 

consolidations, such as TSA Advanced 

Technology X-Ray (AT X-Ray) and 

Explosives Trace Detection (ETD), by 

commodity class, at each participant’s 

consolidation facility. TSA provided 

some distributed funding to 47 

participants at 111 different locations 

among 17 airports nationwide that 

handle large volumes of cargo, and that 

build cargo pallets for transport on 

passenger wide-body aircraft. TSA’s 

objectives for the pilot program include 

determining the effectiveness of 

screening technology on various 

commodity classes of cargo, including 

palletized shipments. The pilot is 

evaluating 11 different X-ray models 

and 4 different ETD models, totaling 226 

systems. 

TSA was also appropriated $4M in 

FY2010 for the evaluation and 

qualification of other technologies for 

air cargo screening including metal 

detectors and vapor detection systems 

with the intent to focus on perishable 

commodities and screening skids and 

pallets. These types of systems are 

currently undergoing the qualification 

process and results of these evaluations 

will be complete by the fourth quarter 

2010. 

Comment: A commenter requested 

that TSA ensure transparency in its 

review procedures and expedite its 

evaluation of new technologies. In 

addition, the House Committee on 

Homeland Security also expressed 

concerns about TSA’s approval of new 

technologies, adding their view that the 

lack of a Qualified Product List (QPL) 

for cargo screening technology makes 

industry stakeholders hesitant to 

purchase expensive equipment on the 

Approved List of Technology without 

the assurances that this equipment will 

be certified in future years. The 

Committee urged TSA to work with S&T 

to strengthen their processes in order to 

give timely attention to the development 

and certification of technology for cargo 

screening. 

TSA Response: DHS has expedited 

the evaluation process for new 

technologies by instituting simultaneous 

field and laboratory testing, and is 

working to qualify dozens of 

technologies. TSA is working closely 

with DHS S&T and the DOE National 

Laboratories to determine new and 

emerging technologies that exhibit 

proficiency in detecting improvised 

explosive devices and other prohibited 

items. Additionally, TSA’s 

implementation of the CCSP is also 

mitigating the impact of screening 

consolidations on the air cargo supply 

chain, as CCSFs may tender screened 

cargo that does not need to be broken 

down to the piece level for additional 

screening. 

TSA has expedited the evaluation of 

these new technologies and is working 

to encourage industry to invest in new 

technology research and development 

by releasing Requests for Information 

(RFIs), holding industry forums with 

potential developers, and conducting 

other ongoing outreach. All of these 

efforts support the development and 

qualification of additional cargo 

screening technologies providing more 

technologies to meet industry’s needs. 

As part of these activities, TSA must be 

confident that new technologies will 

meet the CCSP’s security objectives 

before approving them. TSA has posted 

a Qualified Technology List.15 TSA will 

continually update this list with 

additional qualified technologies as 

those qualifications are completed. 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of 

Changes 

Part 1515—Appeal and Waiver 

Procedures for Security Threat 

Assessments for Individuals 

In part 1515 TSA removed references 

to part 1522, validation firms, and 

validators because that part is being 

removed from the CFR, as discussed 

below. 

Part 1522—TSA-Approved Validation 

Firms and Validators 

As explained in Section III., TSA 

decided it does not need independent 

validators to perform assessments of 

CCSF applicants because TSA has the 

capacity to review and certify all CCSF 

applicants itself. Thus, TSA has deleted 

part 1522 in its entirety. 

Part 1540—Civil Aviation Security: 

General Rules 

TSA is amending § 1540.201(a), 

Applicability and terms used in this 

subpart, to correct an incorrect citation. 

The IFR reference to 49 CFR 1549.113 

was incorrect and is changed in this 

final rule to 49 CFR 1549.111. 

Part 1544—Aircraft Operator Security: 

Air Carriers and Commercial 

Operations; and Part 1546—Foreign Air 

Carrier Security 

Under the IFR, § 1544.105(a) provided 

that each aircraft operator must submit 

a security program to TSA at least 90 

days before the intended date of 

passenger operations. In this final rule, 

TSA deleted the term ‘‘passenger’’ from 

the provision, because the requirement 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 51857 

16 71 FR 30478. 

17 74 FR 47672. 

18Section 1540.209 of the 2006 rule stated that a 

fee of $28 is required for TSA to conduct an STA. 

The 2009 IFR, however, revised § 1540.209 so that 

the regulation no longer contains a specific fee 

amount. Section 1540.209 now states that TSA will 

publish fee amounts and any revisions to the fee 

amounts as a notice in the Federal Register. 

applies to both passenger and all-cargo 

operations. 

Paragraphs (g)(3) of §§ 1544.205 and 

1546.205, Acceptance and Screening of 

Cargo, Subpart C, of the IFR provided 

that an aircraft operator that screens 

cargo off-airport must become a certified 

cargo screening facility in accordance 

with part 1549. In response to 

comments, TSA is deleting this 

requirement for both aircraft operators 

and foreign air carriers for the reasons 

stated in Section III. of this preamble. 

Part 1548—Indirect Air Carrier Security 

Sections 1548.15(a) and 

§ 1548.15(a)(2) incorrectly referred to 

the ‘‘aircraft operator.’’ TSA corrected 

these sections by inserting the word 

‘‘indirect air carrier’’ in place of 

‘‘aircraft operator.’’ 

Part 1549—Certified Cargo Screening 

Program 

TSA clarified the language in 

§ 1549.7(b)(1) to make it clear that a 

CCSF must apply for renewal of its 

security program and its certification 

every 36 months. 

V. Proposed Fee for Security Threat 

Assessments 

TSA is authorized to collect fees to 

offset the cost of conducting security 

threat assessments (STAs). 6 U.S.C. 469. 

TSA issued the Air Cargo Security 

Requirements final rule on May 26, 

2006 (2006 rulemaking),16 which, in 

part, required certain cargo workers of 

aircraft operators, foreign air carriers, 

and indirect air carriers (IACs) to obtain 

a security threat assessment. That final 

rule established a fee for STAs of $28, 

and incorporated the fee amount in 49 

CFR 1540.209. TSA published the Air 

Cargo Screening IFR on September 16, 

2009,17 that establishes requirements for 

certain additional individuals to 

successfully complete security threat 

assessments conducted by TSA. These 

individuals are CCSF employees and 

authorized representatives that screen 

cargo, have unescorted access to 

screened cargo or carry out certain other 

cargo security duties. The IFR amended 

§ 1540.209 to remove the specific fee 

amount. In the preamble to the IFR, we 

described how TSA would calculate the 

fee for STAs, and stated that the fee 

would be between $13 and $21, 

depending on the size of the population 

and whether costs involved in the 

calculation may change. We invited 

comment on the proposed fee, and the 

methodology and population estimates 

we used to arrive at the proposed fee. 

We stated that TSA would publish 

specific fee amounts and changes to fee 

amounts as a notice in the Federal 

Register. 

However, since the IFR, TSA has 

further reviewed costs and population 

data. Due to significant decreases in the 

population estimate, the fee necessary to 

recover our costs of conducting threat 

assessments would need to be 

increased. In this final rule, we propose 

that the user fee for the security threat 

assessments under 49 CFR 1540.209 

will be between $31 and $51. As stated 

above, we will announce the final fee in 

a notice in the Federal Register. 

Discussion 

TSA proposes a fee range of $31 to 

$51 for STAs for aircraft operators, 

foreign air carriers, and IAC personnel 

who have unescorted access to screened 

cargo to be transported on passenger 

aircraft, screen cargo, supervise the 

screening of cargo, or perform certain 

other security functions as provided for 

in § 1540.201.18 Applicants who have 

previously completed a TSA STA under 

the Air Cargo Security Requirements 

final rule, 71 FR 30478 (May 26, 2006) 

(2006 rulemaking), were subject to the 

security fee in effect at that time and 

will not be subject to this fee until their 

existing STA reaches its five year 

expiration mark. At the time of 

expiration, applicants re-applying for an 

STA will be asked to pay a new air 

cargo screening fee that will be between 

$31 and $51. 

To ensure consistency and equity 

across the entire air cargo community, 

TSA combined the costs and 

populations of individuals, or 

applicants, who would need STAs 

under both the 2006 IAC Air Cargo 

Security Requirements Final Rule and 

the 2009 IFR to create one harmonious 

fee. TSA calculated the fee based on 

historical counts of IAC applications 

and an estimate of the number of CCSF 

applicants (population), the cost of 

processing the applications, the cost of 

performing the STAs, and the cost of 

maintaining the information systems to 

support the process. Table 1, below in 

the Costs section, presents the 

calculations supporting the estimated 

fee. 

Costs 

TSA proposes that individuals 

required to undergo an STA would be 

required to pay a fee to cover the 

following costs: 

TABLE 1—AIR CARGO COST ESTIMATES

Operational year 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year 5th Year Total 

Cost Components: 

Name Check ..................................... $445,705 $659,710 $874,730 $721,160 $557,350 $3,258,656 

Platforms/Systems ............................ 3,240,521 1,890,265 1,718,315 1,781,956 1,845,597 10,476,654 

Personnel .......................................... 2,538,286 2,489,620 2,663,626 2,685,010 2,706,329 13,082,872 

Grand Totals .............................. 6,224,512 5,039,595 5,256,671 5,188,126 5,109,276 26,818,182 

For the TSA STA, each applicant’s 

information will be name-checked 

against multiple databases and other 

information sources. The threat 

assessment process includes an appeals 

process for individuals who believe the 

records upon which TSA bases its 

determination are incorrect. TSA would 

also need to implement and maintain 

the appropriate systems, resources, and 

personnel to process applicant 

information and to allow TSA to 

receive, and act on, the results of the 

STA. 

TSA’s fee methodology begins with 

estimating the unit cost for each namecheck, and then builds on costs for 

threat assessment investments used by 

all applicants. These investments are 

estimated as fixed costs over a five-year 

period and then equally distributed to 

all applicants over that same five-year 

period. In doing so, TSA has established 

a constant fee that will be imposed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

51858 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

19TSA utilized appropriations to fund certain 

start-up systems costs. These appropriations have 

not been included in the fee model and therefore, will not be recovered through the imposition of 

security fees. 

equitably across the population that is 

receiving and benefiting from this 

unique service. 

TSA estimates that the cost, net of 

appropriations,19 of STA services for 

both the IAC and CCSF populations will 

be $26,818,182 over five years. The 

estimate for STA services includes 

$3,258,656 for TSA name-based checks, 

$10,476,654 for platforms/systems costs, 

and $13,082,872 for fully-loaded 

personnel costs necessary to facilitate 

the STA processing. TSA arrived at 

these cost estimates using information 

gathered from subject matter experts in 

the program office. Please see Table 2 

below for detailed breakout of the Air 

Cargo fee: 

TABLE 2—AIR CARGO FEE BREAKOUT

Cost category Total cost Fee 

(%) 

Security Threat Assessment .................................................................................................................... $3,258,656 12 

Equipment/Systems ................................................................................................................................. 10,476,654 39 

Personnel ................................................................................................................................................. 13,082,872 49 

Total .................................................................................................................................................. 26,818,182 100 

Population 

TSA estimates that approximately 

651,713 applicants would be required to 

complete a STA during the next five 

years of the program. This estimate is 

derived from the following population 

figures that have been gathered for 

specific segments of the regulated 

population. 

TABLE 3—AIR CARGO POPULATION ESTIMATES

Operational year 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year 5th Year Total 

CCSP: 

Applicants ................................................................. 30,165 67,598 53,878 50,852 55,370 257,863 

IAC: 

Applicants ................................................................. 58,976 64,344 121,068 93,380 56,100 393,868 

Grand Totals ...................................................... 89,141 131,942 174,946 144,232 111,470 651,731 

The CCSP population segment 

includes an estimated number of STAs 

to be performed for CCSP enrolled 

shippers and independent cargo 

screening facilities from 2010 to 2014. 

The number of STAs is based on a 

projected 1,745 entities and an average 

131 STAs per entity over five years. The 

number of projected entity enrollments 

and average number of STAs per entity 

were based on information known about 

currently enrolled CCSFs and the types 

of entities that may enroll in the future. 

The turnover estimate is based on the 

2009 BLS JOLT transportation, 

warehousing, and utilities worker hires 

rate. The turnover rate is also used to 

estimate the number of employees that 

received an STA in 2009, which would 

still be employed in 2014 when they are 

required to renew their STA. For the 

IAC population segment, TSA utilized 

historical actual enrollments over the 

past four years to develop an estimate 

for the next five years. 

When the IFR was published, TSA 

anticipated as many as 15,000 

applicants would apply to participate in 

the CCSP. This was based on the 

assumption that the CCSP would be 

comprised of a high number of 

individual shippers. TSA surmised that 

individual shippers would participate 

in the program to screen their own cargo 

to minimize additional handling and the 

potential for delay or damage to the 

cargo if it were screened at a later point 

in the supply chain. Instead, the 

indirect air carrier industry (i.e., freight 

forwarders) led enrollment in CCSP and 

has taken on a significant percentage of 

the screening performed under the 

program. This has resulted in 

significantly fewer applicants and 

participants in the program than 

originally estimated, as a single indirect 

air carrier has the capacity to screen 

cargo for multiple shippers. This 

redistribution of screening led to a 

significant reduction in the number of 

STAs required by personnel who have 

access to screened cargo. 

TSA will continue to work to 

minimize all costs and will finalize the 

proposed fee in a notice in the Federal 

Register. Additionally, pursuant to the 

Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 

(Pub. L. 101–576, 104 Stat. 2838, Nov. 

15, 1990), DHS/TSA is required to 

review fees no less than every two years 

(31 U.S.C. 3512). Upon review, if TSA 

finds that the fees are either too high 

(that is, total fees exceed the total cost 

to provide the services) or too low (total 

fees do not cover the total costs to 

provide the services) TSA would adjust 

the fee. Finally, TSA would be able to 

adjust the fees for inflation following 

publication of the final rule. If TSA 

were to adjust the fees for this reason, 

TSA would publish a notice in the 

Federal Register notifying the public of 

the change. 

Fee Range 

The fee TSA establishes for the STA 

should cover all the costs related to the 

STA process. TSA estimates that the 

final fee to the applicant will be 

between $31 and $51 per applicant 

based on the total estimated cost of 

services provided ($26,818,182). This 

cost will be equally apportioned to the 

estimated population (651,731) 

receiving the threat assessment service. 

The resulting fee will be sufficient to 

fully recover the remaining STA costs. 

TSA invites comment on the 

proposed fee range of $31 to $51 and the 

methodology and population estimates 

we used to arrive at this amount. 

Additional detailed information 

regarding the fee determination has 

been provided in the ‘‘Air Cargo 

Screening Security Threat Assessment 

Fee Development Report.’’ This report 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 51859 

has been placed in the public docket 

established for this rulemaking. After 

reviewing all comments received, TSA 

will issue a notice in the Federal 

Register that summarizes and addresses 

the comments we receive, and 

establishes the final fee amount, after 

which the fee will be charged to 

applicants. 

Revised § 1540.209 provides that TSA 

will calculate fees for STAs based on 

widely accepted accounting principles 

and practices and in accordance with 

the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 9701 and 

other Federal law as applicable. 

Comments on the Fee Calculation 

TSA received two comments on the 

IFR relating to the STA fee. The 

comments raised several points, 

discussed below. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that the proposed fee range in the IFR 

indicated that TSA has been 

overcharging by applying an STA fee of 

$28 for IACs since the 2006 rulemaking. 

TSA Response: TSA based the fee of 

$28, established in 2006, on the 

population and costs of conducting 

STAs only on cargo workers covered 

under the 2006 rulemaking. TSA set that 

fee to cover TSA’s cost of conducting 

STAs for that population. Further, as we 

established the CCSP in the 2009 IFR, 

both the overall estimated costs of 

processing the STAs and the overall 

number of estimated individuals that 

would be required to undergo the STA 

increased. Because the IFR population 

estimate had increased in greater 

proportion to the costs, TSA estimated 

a fee range of $13 to $21. Ultimately, in 

this final rule, TSA utilized the most 

robust cost and population estimates to 

determine the STA fee range. Compared 

to IFR estimates, both cost and 

population estimates have decreased. 

But because the population estimate 

decreased in greater proportion to the 

cost estimate, TSA must increase the fee 

to a range between $31 and $51 to 

recover the full cost of the STA services 

from the estimated population regulated 

under this rulemaking. 

Comment: A commenter stated that 

TSA’s failure to impose fees for 

processing the STAs for CCSF 

applicants prior to this notice amounted 

to discrimination against the regulated 

entities that have been paying the fee of 

$28 under the 2006 rulemaking. The 

commenter believes that TSA should 

have waited to process STAs for the 

CCSFs until we had the rulemaking 

authority in place to charge fees. 

TSA Response: TSA considered it 

necessary to initiate the CCSP in order 

to meet the mandatory screening 

requirements imposed by the 

Implementing the Recommendations of 

the 9/11 Act. To protect the public from 

explosives on passenger aircraft, 

Congress required that 50 percent of 

cargo transported on passenger aircraft 

be screened by February 3, 2009, and 

that 100 percent of such cargo be 

screened by August 3, 2010. TSA 

commenced a screening pilot to build 

the CCSP so that industry could meet 

the deadlines of the 9/11 Act. STAs 

were needed to implement the pilot 

program to ensure that key personnel 

with unescorted access to screened 

cargo, and thus, the opportunity to 

compromise security, were checked 

against the relevant domestic and 

international watch lists. 

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires 

that TSA consider the impact of 

paperwork and other information 

collection burdens imposed on the 

public and, under the provisions of PRA 

section 3507(d), obtain approval from 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for each collection of 

information it conducts, sponsors, or 

requires through regulations. OMB has 

approved information collection 

requirements associated with this rule 

and has assigned OMB Control Number 

1652–0053 to these collections. 

However, TSA has adjusted its burden 

estimates to reflect information actually 

collected following the publication of 

the IFR, as well as the elimination of 

TAVF requirements from the IFR to the 

final rule, and has submitted the 

following information requirements to 

OMB for its review. 

Title: Certified Cargo Screening 

Program Final Rule. 

Summary: Section 1602 of the 

Implementing Recommendations of the 

9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 

110–53, 121 Stat. 266, Aug. 3, 2007) 

requires the development of a system to 

screen 100 percent of the cargo 

transported on a passenger aircraft 

operating within the United States by 

August 2010 and to screen 50 percent of 

all air cargo by February 2009. This rule 

amends several parts of title 49 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), as 

described in prior sections of this 

preamble. The rule involves several 

information collections already 

approved by OMB. 

This final rule includes the following 

information collections, which were 

included in the IFR: 

First, an entity that seeks to become 

a CCSF under 49 CFR part 1549 must 

submit an application to TSA. 

Second, TSA must conduct STAs for 

key personnel of CCSFs. These key 

personnel must submit personal data to 

TSA for the STAs. This STA portion is 

a previously approved collection under 

OMB control number 1652–0040. This 

FR under OMB control number 1652– 

0053 expands the population from 

which the information is collected. 

Third, CCSFs (49 CFR 1549.7) must 

accept the TSA-approved security 

program or submit amendments to the 

TSA-approved security program. CCSFs 

must accept a standard security program 

provided by TSA or submit a proposed 

modified security program to the 

designated TSA official for approval 

initially and periodically thereafter as 

required. 

Fourth, CCSP participants must 

maintain records of compliance with the 

final rule and make them available for 

TSA inspection (see 49 CFR 1549.105 

and 1522.129). 

Finally, CCSFs must submit TSAdetermined monthly cargo screening 

metrics to TSA in accordance with their 

security programs. 

Use of: TSA uses the applications of 

entities seeking to become CCSFs to 

approve the entity as a CCSF. TSA 

collects personally identifiable 

information from CCSFs about their key 

personnel in order to conduct STAs on 

these individuals. STAs are required for 

individuals who screen cargo, those 

who have unescorted access to screened 

cargo, and other key individuals who 

support those functions. CCSF security 

programs are necessary because they 

contain specific measures to deter 

incidents that may jeopardize 

transportation security. CCSFs must 

maintain records and provide TSA 

Inspectors and Principal Cargo Security 

Analysts (PCSAs) access to their 

records, equipment, and facilities 

necessary to conduct inspections and 

assessments. Finally, TSA requires 

CCSFs to provide information on the 

amount of cargo screened at an 

approved facility in order to evaluate 

the compliance and performance of the 

CCSFs and to provide information 

needed for congressional reporting and 

future rulemaking relating to air cargo 

security. 

Respondents (including number of): 

Over a three-year period, the likely 

respondents to this proposed 

information requirement are the 2,902 

entities that seek to become CCSFs 

under 49 CFR part 1549. 

Frequency: CCSFs will submit an 

application for recertification every 

three years. CCSFs will submit 

personally identifiable information of 

their key personnel so that TSA can 

conduct STAs every five years. The rule 

requires CCSFs to accept the TSAapproved security program or submit 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

51860 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

amendments to the TSA-approved 

security program once. TSA estimates 

CCSFs will submit updates to their 

security program on average once 

annually. The recordkeeping 

requirements must be continuous in 

accordance with their security program. 

The requirement for CCSFs to provide 

information on the amount of cargo 

screened and other screening data at an 

approved facility will be a monthly 

collection. 

Annual Burden Estimate: TSA 

estimates that the 967 entities who seek 

to become CCSFs annually will spend 

approximately 2 hours each to complete 

the applications for an annual burden of 

1,934 hours. TSA estimates 51,172 

annual responses from CCSFs 

submitting applications to TSA for 

processing STAs. TSA estimates an 

average of 15 minutes per application 

for an annual burden of 12,793 hours. 

TSA has estimated that a total of 1,778 

CCSFs will adopt their security 

programs over the three years for an 

average of 593 security programs 

annually. Each CCSF will devote 

approximately 42 hours to their initial 

security program, resulting in an annual 

burden of 24,906 hours. TSA has 

estimated that a total 3,701 CCSFs will 

be required to maintain and update their 

security programs over the three years 

for an average of 1,234 security 

programs updated annually. Each CCSF 

will devote approximately four hours 

annually, beginning in the second year, 

updating their security programs for an 

annual hour burden of 4,936. TSA 

estimates all CCSFs over the three years 

will be required to maintain records of 

compliance with the final rule. This 

includes a time burden of 

approximately 5 minutes (0.083 hours) 

for every CCSF employee required to 

have an STA as well as other records of 

compliance. This recordkeeping 

requirement results in 51,172 annual 

record updates for an annual burden of 

approximately 4,247 hours. TSA 

estimates that 1,826 CCSFs, the 

estimated annual average in the 

program, will complete monthly cargo 

reports at an estimated time of one hour 

per week for an annual burden of 

approximately 94,952 hours. 

Function 

Average 

annual 

respondents 

Average 

annual 

responses 

Time per response Annual hours TSA form No. FR cite 

CCSF Applications Collected every 36 months after initial application. 

One Year ................................... 967 967 2 hours .................. 1,934 419E ...................... § 1549.7 

Three Years .............................. 2,902 2,902 2 hours .................. 5,804 

STA Applications Collected every five years after initial application. 

One Year ................................... 51,172 51,172 .25 hours ............... 12,793 419F ...................... § 1549.11 

Three Years .............................. 153,516 153,516 .25 hours ............... 38,379 ............................... § 1549.103 

Security Programs 

Creations One time collection. 

One Year ................................... 593 593 42 hours ................ 24,906 N/A ........................ § 1549.5 

Three Years .............................. 1,778 1,778 42 hours ................ 74,676 

Updates Once annually 

One Year ................................... 1,234 1,234 4 hours .................. 4,936 N/A ........................ § 1549.5 

Three Years .............................. 3,701 3,701 4 hours .................. 14,804 

Recordkeeping Continuous as needed. 

One Year ................................... 51,172 51,172 .083 hours ............. 4,247 N/A ........................ § 1549.105 

Three Years .............................. 153,516 153,516 .083 hours ............. 12,742 

Cargo Reporting Monthly collection. 

One Year ................................... 1,826 21,912 52 hours/yr ............ 94,952 N/A ........................ § 1549.105 

Three Years .............................. 5,479 65,748 52 hours/yr ............ 284,908 

Total for One Year ............. 106,964 127,050 ............................... 143,768 

Total for Three Years ........ 320,892 381,161 ............................... 431,313 

Note: One year burdens may not multiply to three year burdens due to rounding. 

As a protection provided by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, as amended, 

an agency may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a person is not required to respond 

to, a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

VII. Economic Impact Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation Summary 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order (EO) 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, as 

supplemented by EO 13563, Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review, 

directs each Federal agency to propose 

or adopt a regulation only if the agency 

makes a reasoned determination that the 

benefits of the intended regulation 

justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq., as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

(SBREFA) of 1996) requires agencies to 

consider the economic impact of 

regulatory changes on small entities 

when an agency is required to issue a 

notice of proposed rulemaking. Third, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 51861 

the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 

2531–2533) prohibits agencies from 

setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. Fourth, 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

agencies to prepare a written assessment 

of the costs, benefits, and other effects 

of proposed or final rules that include 

a Federal mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by State, local, or Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

annually (adjusted for inflation). 

TSA has prepared a Regulatory 

Evaluation, with detailed analyses, 

which is available to the public in this 

docket. With respect to these analyses, 

TSA provides the following conclusions 

and summary information: 

• This rule is considered an 

economically significant rule within the 

definition of EO 12866, as 

supplemented by EO 13563, as 

estimated annual costs or benefits 

exceed $100 million in any year. TSA 

has included the mandatory OMB 

Circular A–4 Accounting Statement in 

the Regulatory Evaluation and thus has 

not repeated it here. 

• Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act of 1980, TSA is not required to 

perform a Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis because we did not publish a 

proposed rule. 

• The Regulatory Evaluation provides 

the required assessment of the Trade 

Agreement Act of 1979. 

• The Regulatory Evaluation provides 

the required written assessment of 

Unfunded Mandates. This final rule is 

not likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or Tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, of $100 million or more 

annually (adjusted for inflation). This 

rule, however, does impose an 

unfunded mandate of greater than $100 

million or more annually (adjusted for 

inflation) on the private sector. The 

separate analysis of the costs and 

benefits of the rule in the Regulatory 

Evaluation, found in the public docket, 

satisfies the analysis requirements of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

B. Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563 Assessments 

The following summary highlights the 

costs and benefits of the rule. The 

following table presents the annualized, 

monetized costs of the rule, discounted 

at both seven and three percent, along 

with a discussion of the qualitative 

benefits, which have not changed from 

the IFR to this final rule. This 

information is also found in the OMB 

Circular A–4 in the Regulatory 

Evaluation Summary of the regulatory 

evaluation. 

Category 

Estimates Units 

Primary Low High Year dollar Discount 

rate 

Costs 

Annualized ............................................................................................... $178.1 $146.1 $210.9 2009 7% 

Monetized ($millions/year) ....................................................................... $180.1 $147.7 $213.1 2009 3% 

Benefits 

Qualitative ................................................................................................ Increased protection of passengers and cargo from acts of terrorism. 

Prevent the introduction of unauthorized persons, explosives, incendiaries, and other destructive substances or items into the air cargo 

supply chain. Protect citizens on the ground, in buildings, and elsewhere in our society from acts of terrorism involving the use of aircraft. 

Costs 

TSA issued an IFR implementing the 

CCSP on September 16, 2009 (74 FR 

47672). This final rule makes only two 

changes to the program TSA established 

in the IFR—the elimination of the 

requirement for aircraft operators to be 

certified as a CCSF in order to screen 

cargo off-airport and the elimination of 

TSA-approved validation firms (TAVFs) 

in favor of TSA assessments because of 

the reduction in the expected number of 

CCSF participants. In response to public 

comments and changes in the expected 

CCSF population, TSA has adjusted the 

estimated costs for the CCSP. The effect 

of eliminating the TAVF requirement 

will be to lower the cost of the 

rulemaking by $65.9 million, 

discounted at 7 percent, over the 10- 

year period of the rulemaking. However, 

TSA is unable to quantify any potential 

impacts on cargo volumes or shipping/ 

screening prices that may stem from 

changes in requirements which removed 

the TAVFs. The TAVF concept was 

never implemented by TSA, 

consequently there is no data that can 

be used as a baseline. The Regulatory 

Evaluation accompanying this rule 

contains a further qualitative discussion 

of these potential impacts. 

The Regulatory Evaluation 

accompanying this rule summarizes the 

revised cost estimates of the CCSP, 

which would be borne by four relevant 

parties: aircraft operators (including, in 

this context, both U.S. aircraft operators 

and foreign air carriers), CCSFs, nonCCSF entities that receive screened 

cargo from CCSFs, and TSA. 

Total 

In summary, over the 10-year period 

of the analysis, TSA estimates the 

aggregate costs of the CCSP to total 

approximately $1.5 billion discounted 

at three percent and approximately $1.3 

billion discounted at seven percent. The 

Regulatory Evaluation, available in the 

public docket, provides detailed 

estimates of these costs. 

TSA estimates costs of this Regulatory 

Evaluation using two methods: a topdown approach and a bottom-up 

approach. TSA’s bottom-up cost 

approach is based primarily on the 

projected participation of IACs, ICSFs, 

and shippers in the CCSP. TSA uses 

these estimates in conjunction with 

estimated costs of program compliance 

to estimate a total cost for the rule from 

the bottom up. 

TSA expects IACs and ICSFs choosing 

to become CCSFs to charge a service fee 

for screening cargo. TSA believes that 

this fee, similar to that charged by 

United Kingdom Known Consignors, 

would include all costs and profit 

associated with screening of cargo and 

is therefore a useful proxy in 

determining the cost to firms of 

screening cargo. TSA’s top-down 

method estimates the cost of CCSP using 

a range of fees seen in the United 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

51862 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Kingdom Known Consignor program as 

the basis for costs incurred by industry. 

TSA considers the top-down cost 

approach more accurate considering the 

level of uncertainty in TSA’s estimate of 

the number of firms choosing to become 

CCSFs. Also, the top-down approach is 

more likely to reflect the efficiencies 

captured by allowing the market to 

allocate screening measures. Thus, the 

top-down cost estimate is TSA’s 

preferred approach. 

Both the bottom-up and the top-down 

cost estimates decreased from the IFR to 

the final rule due to changes in 

assumptions, based on having better 

data available for the final rule. For 

example, TSA used Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics data in the IFR 

to estimate cargo volume, but in the 

final rule, actual cargo volume data 

were available from the air carriers. The 

only change in rule requirements that 

impacted the cost estimates was the 

elimination of the TSA-approved 

validation firms. In the top-down 

approach, only the TSA costs were 

reduced by the elimination of TAVFs. In 

the bottom-up approach, costs were 

reduced for CCSFs, TSA, and the 

potential TAVFs. 

The following table presents the 

annual costs of the rule over the 10-year 

analysis period. The total is broken out 

by costs to TSA, cost to industry (using 

the preferred approach), and the 

estimated delay costs due to screening. 

The TSA total represents the estimated 

costs TSA will incur to implement the 

CCSP and enforce compliance. 

The industry cost is estimated using 

a range of fees observed in the United 

Kingdom Known Consignor Program as 

the basis, and accounts for the 57 

percent of cargo shipped on passenger 

planes expected to be screened at CCSFs 

as well as the additional 28 percent that 

aircraft operators are expected to screen. 

The remaining 15 percent is assumed to 

have been screened by the air carriers 

prior to the rulemaking. The delay cost 

assumes the 43 percent of cargo (15 

percent screened prior to the CCSP and 

an additional 28 percent under the 

CCSP) expected to be screened by the 

aircraft operators will be the only cargo 

subject to delay. The high and low 

estimates represent variance around 

TSA’s primary estimate to allow for 

uncertainties with the inputs used to 

estimate the total cost of the rule. 

TABLE 1—10-YEAR TOTAL COST SUMMARY OF CCSP 

[$ millions] 

Year TSA cost Industry cost Delay cost Total cost Discounted 

(3 percent) 

Discounted 

(7 percent) 

1 ............................................................... $32.7 $109.7 $30.1 $172.5 $167.5 $161.2 

2 ............................................................... 5.4 115.0 31.6 152.0 143.3 132.7 

3 ............................................................... 4.9 120.5 33.1 158.5 145.1 129.4 

4 ............................................................... 4.1 126.3 34.7 165.1 146.7 126.0 

5 ............................................................... 4.1 132.3 36.4 172.9 149.1 123.3 

6 ............................................................... 4.5 138.7 38.2 181.4 151.9 120.9 

7 ............................................................... 4.3 145.3 40.1 189.7 154.3 118.2 

8 ............................................................... 4.3 152.3 42.0 198.6 156.8 115.6 

9 ............................................................... 4.6 159.6 44.0 208.2 159.6 113.3 

10 ............................................................. 4.4 167.3 46.2 217.9 162.1 110.8 

Total .................................................. 73.4 1,367.0 376.5 1,816.8 1,536.3 1,251.2 

Low ........................................................... 55.0 1,139.2 296.5 1,490.7 1,260.2 1,026.1 

High .......................................................... 91.7 1,594.8 463.3 2,149.9 1,818.2 1,481.1 

Changes in Cost Estimates From Interim 

Final Rule 

The CCSP final rule cost estimates 

differ from the IFR in large part to 

reflect actual data gathered since the 

implementation of the program. TSA 

uses the current state of the program, 

technology purchased, screening 

distribution, and numerous other 

sources of information to better estimate 

population projections and program 

costs. The tables below identify these 

cost differences for the CCSP top-down 

approach (which is TSA’s preferred 

approach), CCSP bottom-up approach, 

and the 100 percent Air Carrier 

Alternative at the undiscounted, three 

percent, and seven percent discounted 

rate. 

TABLE 2—CHANGES TO COST ESTIMATES FROM IFR 

[$ millions] 

Estimate 

Undiscounted 10-year total costs 

IFR Final rule Difference 

CCSP Top-down .......................................................................................................................... $2,836.4 $1,816.8 ($1,019.6) 

CCSP Bottom-up ......................................................................................................................... 5,199.5 2,300.0 (2,899.5) 

Air Carrier Alternative .................................................................................................................. 11,141.6 3,513.7 (7,627.9) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 51863 

TABLE 2a—CHANGES TO COST ESTIMATES FROM IFR 

[$ millions] 

Estimate 

3% Discount 10-year total costs 

IFR Final rule Difference 

CCSP Top-down .......................................................................................................................... $2,394.0 $1,536.3 ($857.7) 

CCSP Bottom-up ......................................................................................................................... 4,403.9 1,946.1 (2,457.7) 

Air Carrier Alternative .................................................................................................................. 9,427.0 2,966.4 (6,460.6) 

TABLE 2b—CHANGES TO COST ESTIMATES FROM IFR 

[$ millions] 

Estimate 

7% Discount 10-year total costs 

IFR Final rule Difference 

CCSP Top-down .......................................................................................................................... $1,945.0 $1,251.2 ($693.8) 

CCSP Bottom-up ......................................................................................................................... 3,597.0 1,585.4 (2,011.5) 

Air Carrier Alternative .................................................................................................................. 7,683.0 2,410.4 (5,272.6) 

The tables below identify the major 

driving forces behind the changes for 

the CCSP Bottom-up approach. The 

Regulatory Evaluation explains in detail 

the reasons for the changes. 

TABLE 3—CHANGES TO AIR CARRIER AND NON-CCSF IAC COSTS

[$ millions] 

Cost component 

10-year total costs 

Major cost driving changes 

IFR Final rule Difference 

Personnel ........................................................

Equipment .......................................................

Screener Training ...........................................

$709.9 

57.3 

6.4 

$564.1 

34.8 

3.7 

($145.8) 

(22.5) 

(2.7) 

TSA increased the percentage of cargo 

screened by air carriers and updated tendering percentage configuration assumptions based on current screening data. 

Chain of Custody Training .............................. 75.5 55.2 (20.3) TSA updated with a more industry-specific 

wage. 

Undiscounted Total .................................. 849.1 657.8 (191.3) 

3% Discounted Total ............................... 717.7 556.3 (161.4) 

7% Discounted Total ............................... 584.3 453.0 (131.2) 

TABLE 4—CHANGES TO TSA APPROVED VALIDATION FIRM (TAVF) COSTS

[$ millions] 

Cost component 

10-year total costs 

Major cost driving changes 

IFR Final rule Difference 

Enrollment .......................................................

Validator Training ............................................

STA Cost .........................................................

$0.002 

14.10 

0.10 

$0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

($0.002) 

(14.10) 

(0.10) 

TSA will perform assessments on CCSFs 

and has eliminated the need for TAVFs. 

Undiscounted Total .................................. 14.20 0.00 (14.20) 

3% Discounted Total ............................... 14.0 0.0 (14.0) 

7% Discounted Total ............................... 11.7 0.0 (11.7) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

51864 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 5—CHANGES TO CCSF COSTS

[$ millions] 

Cost component 

10-year total costs 

Major cost driving changes 

IFR Final rule Difference 

Validations ....................................................... $75.4 $0.0 ($75.4) TSA will now perform assessments at no 

charge to CCSFs and eliminated the need 

for TAVFs. 

Facility Security ............................................... 172.3 19.1 (153.2) TSA updated the CCSF population projection 

based on current participation and the 

types of entities expected to enroll in the 

future. 

Training ........................................................... 902.2 107.0 (795.2) 

Security Coordinators ..................................... 593.8 53.2 (540.6) 

Enrollment ....................................................... 119.0 17.0 (102.0) TSA updated CCSF population projection. 

Also, based on current program included 

new cost for a two-hour application per 

CCSF. 

Screening Equipment ...................................... 914.8 309.6 (605.2) TSA updated CCSF population projection 

and equipment expected to be purchased 

based on technology purchased by currently enrolled CCSFs. Also revised purchase prices to reflect industry experience. 

Chain of Custody ............................................ 58.8 24.5 (34.3) TSA updated assumptions based on current 

practice. 

STA Cost ......................................................... 31.0 20.7 (10.3) TSA updated CCSF population projection 

and STA fee. In addition, estimated firms 

will pay STA fee in years 3–10. Previously, 

TSA was assumed responsible for the duration of the analysis. 

Personnel ........................................................ 785.5 641.4 (144.1) TSA updated tendering percentage assumptions based on current screening data. 

Undiscounted Total .................................. 3,652.8 1,192.4 (2,460.4) 

3% Discounted Total ............................... 3,094.8 1,006.4 (2,088.4) 

7% Discounted Total ............................... 2,529.1 816.6 (1,712.6) 

TABLE 6—CHANGES TO TSA COSTS

[$ millions] 

Cost component 

10-year total costs 

Major cost driving changes 

IFR Final rule Difference 

Inspections ..................................................... $200.2 $9.5 ($190.7 ) TSA updated the CCSF population projections based on current participation and 

the types of entities expected to enroll in 

the future. 

Training .......................................................... 10.0 5.1 (4.9 ) TSA updated with more industry-specific 

wages. 

Security Plan Review ..................................... 30.0 4.3 (25.7 ) TSA updated CCSF population projection. 

Assessments .................................................. 0.0 9.6 9.6 TSA will be performing assessments and 

eliminated the need for TAVFs. 

Assessment Review ....................................... 42.3 1.0 (41.3 ) TSA updated CCSF population projection. 

Validation Firm Enrollment ............................. 0.3 0.0 (0.3 ) TSA will be performing assessments and 

has eliminated the need for TAVFs. 

ACDMS .......................................................... 9.0 14.0 5.0 TSA updated costs based on current 

ACDMS development. 

STAs .............................................................. 71.4 1.5 (69.9 ) TSA updated CCSF population projections. 

TSA estimates industry will pay an STA 

fee in years 3–10. Previously, TSA was 

assumed responsible for the duration of 

the analysis. 

Equipment for Screening Technology Pilot 

(STP).

23.6 28.4 4.8 TSA updated cost to reflect actual cost incurred for pilot. 

Undiscounted Total ................................. 386.8 73.4 (313.4 ) 

3% Discounted Total .............................. 326.8 66.0 (260.8 ) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 51865 

20U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 

Circular A–4, September 17, 2003, p.2. 

21 ‘‘Economic Values for FAA Investment and 

Regulatory Decisions, a Guide’’ (updated Oct 2007). 

22FAA Aerospace Forecast 2008–2025 (load 

factor across all aircraft). The FAA Aerospace 

Forecast is updated annually and provides the best 

available data on load factors. 

23U.S. Department of Transportation 

memorandum, ‘‘Treatment of the Economic Value 

of a Statistical Life in Departmental Analyses—2009 

Annual Revision.’’ Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation, March 18, 2009. http://

gov.rosenet.org/uploads/254/treatment_of_a_

statistical_life_dot.pdf. 

24 Ibid. 25http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ 

policy_guidance/benefit_cost/media/050404%20

Critical%20Values%20Dec%2031%20

Report%2007Jan05.pdf. 

26http://bls.gov/ppi/. 

TABLE 6—CHANGES TO TSA COSTS—Continued 

[$millions] 

Cost component 

10-year total costs 

Major cost driving changes 

IFR Final rule Difference 

7% Discounted Total .............................. 268.7 58.3 (210.4 ) 

TABLE 7—CHANGES TO CCSP DELAY COST

[$millions] 

Cost component 

10-year total costs 

Major cost driving changes 

IFR Final rule Difference 

Undiscounted Total Delay Cost ............... $297.1 $376.5 $79.4 TSA updated the percentage of cargo 

screened by CCSFs and tendering percentage configuration assumptions based 

on current screening data. In addition, 

TSA corrected errors in the delay model. 

3% Discounted Total ............................... 250.3 317.4 67.2 

7% Discounted Total ............................... 202.9 257.5 54.6 

Benefits 

The CCSP allows for more 

standardized governance in cargo 

screening and provides fourfold benefits 

in terms of increased security of 

commercial passenger aviation. First, by 

screening 100 percent of cargo shipped 

on passenger aircraft, the passenger 

airline industry will have more 

protection against an act of terrorism or 

other malicious behavior. Second, 

allowing the screening process to occur 

throughout the supply chain via the 

CCSP reduces potential bottlenecks and 

delays at the airports. Third, the CCSP 

allows the market to identify the most 

efficient venue for screening along the 

supply chain thereby permitting any 

entity in the supply chain to apply for 

TSA certification to screen the cargo 

and apply chain-of-custody procedures. 

Finally, the CCSP enables members to 

screen valuable cargo earlier in the 

supply chain and avoid any potentially 

invasive screening that may occur at the 

aircraft operator level. 

The main benefit of this regulation, 

decreased terrorism risk, cannot be 

quantified given current data 

limitations. When it is not possible to 

quantify or monetize the important 

incremental benefits of a regulation, 

OMB recommends conducting a 

threshold, or ‘‘break-even’’ analysis. 

According to OMB, such an analysis 

answers the question, ‘‘How small could 

the value of the non-quantified benefits 

be (or how large would the value of the 

non-quantified costs need to be) before 

the rule would yield zero net 

benefits?’’ 20 Consequently, to better 

inform the comparison of the costs of 

implementing the rule with the benefits 

to homeland security of the CCSP, TSA 

performed a series of break-even 

analyses. In these break-even analyses, 

TSA compared the annualized costs of 

the rule’s requirements to the expected 

benefits of preventing certain potential 

terrorist attacks. To evaluate the 

potential range of attacks, TSA 

considers four relevant attack scenarios. 

For example, TSA considered the 

direct costs of a scenario where an 

explosive device placed in cargo 

shipped on a passenger plane destroys 

a standard narrow body aircraft (from 

the fleets used by major U.S. aircraft 

operators) during flight. This incident is 

assumed to result in the loss of the lives 

of all passengers and crewmembers on 

board, along with the total destruction 

of the aircraft. Based on data reported in 

the FAA Critical Values Guidance,21

TSA used an average capacity of 142 

passengers with a load factor of 80 

percent 22 and an average crew size of 

five to estimate 119 (142 passengers × 80 

percent + 5 crewmembers) total people 

to be on board. TSA estimates the value 

of these statistical lives is approximately 

$714.0 million, based on the 

Department of Transportation’s Value of 

a Statistical Life (VSL) estimation of 

$6.0 million per person.23 The VSL 

represents an individuals’ willingness to 

pay to avoid a fatality, based on 

economic studies of the value 

individuals place on small changes in 

risk and is not meant to represent the 

actual value of a specific life. TSA notes 

the VSL used in the final rule has 

increased to $6.0 million from the $5.8 

million used in the IFR. This increase 

was done to remain in alignment with 

the VSL used by DOT, which was raised 

from $5.8 million to $6.0 million.24 A 

further discussion of VSL is included in 

the Break Even Analysis section of the 

Regulatory Evaluation. 

The estimated aircraft cost is $18.5 

million. The aircraft replacement costs 

are from an FAA guide on economic 

values in regulatory analysis.25 The 

values in the FAA guidance are in 2003 

dollars. In the IFR, TSA inflated these 

2003 prices to 2006 price levels using 

the BLS Producer Price Index (PPI) 

Commodity Data for Civilian Aircraft. 

The final rule inflated them to 2009 

dollars using the PPI Industry Data for 

Aircraft Manufacturing of Civilian 

Aircraft.26 The eight percent increase 

from the IFR shows the PPI increase for 

this industry from 2006 to 2009, and is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

51866 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

consistent across all aircraft types used 

in the Regulatory Evaluation. 

Assuming that the aircraft is 

destroyed and minimal impact damage 

is done, TSA estimates the total direct 

monetary consequence of the attack, the 

value of the lives on board and the 

aircraft, at $732.5 million. Dividing the 

$732.5 million in estimated direct 

consequences, by the $178.1 (the 

annualized cost of the rule discounted 

at seven percent), shows that in order 

for the rule to break even, it will need 

to reduce the existing or baseline 

frequency of terror attack by one attack 

every 4.1 years ($732.5/$178.1 = 4.1). 

The estimate of the economic impacts 

of the attack scenarios used in these 

break-even analyses is limited to direct 

costs only (value of casualties and loss 

of aircraft). This analysis does not 

consider any indirect or macroeconomic 

consequences these terrorist attacks 

might cause. Consequently, the 

economic impacts of the terrorist attacks 

estimated for this series of break-even 

analyses is a lower-bound estimate of 

the economic impact of these attacks. A 

full discussion of the break-even 

analysis including an analysis of each of 

the four scenarios analyzed is presented 

in Chapter 4 of the Regulatory 

Evaluation accompanying this rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Assessment 

Section 604(a) of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that, 

when an agency promulgates a final rule 

‘‘after being required * * * to publish a 

general notice of proposed rulemaking,’’ 

the agency must determine whether a 

proposed or final rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

and, if so, must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

Act. Because TSA did not issue a 

proposed rule prior to this final rule, we 

are not required to perform a Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis. Although a 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was not 

prepared, TSA analyzed the impact of 

costs of the program on all CCSFs 

currently enrolled. This analysis is 

presented in Appendix A of the 

Regulatory Evaluation accompanying 

this rule. 

D. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

prohibits Federal agencies from 

establishing any standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Legitimate domestic objectives, such as 

safety, are not considered unnecessary 

obstacles. The statute also requires 

consideration of international standards 

and, where appropriate, that they be the 

basis for U.S. standards. TSA has 

assessed the potential effect of this final 

rule and has determined that the same 

measures must apply to both U.S. 

aircraft operators and foreign air carriers 

loading cargo on passenger aircraft. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (UMRA) is intended, among 

other things, to curb the practice of 

imposing unfunded Federal mandates 

on State, local, and Tribal governments. 

Title II of UMRA requires each Federal 

agency to prepare a written statement 

assessing the effects of any Federal 

mandate in a proposed or final agency 

rule that may result in an expenditure 

of $100 million or more (adjusted 

annually for inflation) in any one year 

by State, local, and Tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or by the private sector, 

such a mandate is deemed to be a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’. This 

final rule does not exceed this threshold 

with respect to State, local, and Tribal 

governments, because it does not 

require them to take any action. The 

impact on the private sector, however, 

does exceed the threshold, resulting in 

an unfunded mandate on the private 

sector; the regulatory evaluation 

documents the costs and alternatives 

associated with this regulatory action. 

VIII. Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism 

TSA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, or the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

does not have federalism implications. 

IX. Environmental Analysis 

We have analyzed this final rule 

under DHS Management Directive 

5100.1 ‘‘Environmental Planning 

Program’’ (see also 71 FR 16790, Apr. 4, 

2006), which guides DHS in complying 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321– 

4370f). We have concluded that this rule 

is part of a category of actions described 

in items A3, A4, A7, B3, H1 and H2 of 

Table 1 in Appendix A of the 

Management Directive. This final rule 

would not have individually or 

cumulatively a significant effect on the 

human environment and, therefore, 

neither an environmental assessment 

nor an environmental impact statement 

is necessary. 

X. Energy Impact Analysis 

TSA has assessed the energy impact 

of this rule in accordance with the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

(EPCA), Public Law 94–163, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 6362). We have determined 

that this rulemaking is not a major 

regulatory action under the provisions 

of the EPCA. 

List of Subjects 

49 CFR Part 1515 

Appeals, Commercial driver’s license, 

Criminal history background checks, 

Explosives, Facilities, Hazardous 

materials, Incorporation by reference, 

Maritime security, Motor carriers, Motor 

vehicle carriers, Ports, Seamen, Security 

measures, Security threat assessment, 

Vessels, Waivers. 

49 CFR Part 1520 

Air transportation, Law enforcement 

officers, Maritime carriers, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Security measures. 

49 CFR Part 1522 

Accounting, Aircraft operators, 

Aviation safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Security 

measures. 

49 CFR Part 1540 

Air carriers, Aircraft, Airports, Civil 

aviation security, Law enforcement 

officers, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Screening. 

49 CFR Part 1544 

Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 

Freight forwarders, Incorporation by 

reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures. 

49 CFR Part 1546 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, foreign air 

carriers, Incorporation by reference, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures. 

49 CFR Part 1548 

Air transportation, Aviation safety, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures. 

49 CFR Part 1549 

Air transportation, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Security 

measures. 

The Amendments 

Under 49 U.S.C. 114(l) and as 

discussed in the preamble, the 

Transportation Security Administration 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 51867 

amends Chapter XII, of Title 49, Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

SUBCHAPTER A—ADMINISTRATIVE AND 

PROCEDURAL RULES 

PART 1515—APPEAL AND WAIVER 

PROCEDURES FOR SECURITY 

THREAT ASSESSMENTS FOR 

INDIVIDUALS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1515 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70105; 49 U.S.C. 114, 

5103a, 40113, and 46105; 18 U.S.C. 842, 845; 

6 U.S.C. 469. 

■ 2. Revise § 1515.1(a)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1515.1 Scope. 

(a) * * * 

(2) 49 CFR part 1540, subpart C, 

which includes individuals engaged in 

air cargo operations who work for 

certain aircraft operators, foreign air 

carriers, indirect air carriers (IACs), or 

certified cargo screening facilities. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 1515.9 remove paragraph 

(c)(1)(v), and revise paragraphs (a)(3) 

and (f)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 1515.9 Appeal of security threat 

assessment based on other analyses. 

(a) * * * 

(3) TSA had determined that an 

individual engaged in air cargo 

operations who works for certain 

aircraft operators, foreign air carriers, 

IACs, or certified cargo screening 

facilities, poses a security threat as 

provided in 49 CFR 1549.109. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(3) If TSA withdraws a Determination 

of No Security Threat for an individual 

engaged in air cargo operations who 

works for certain aircraft operators, 

foreign air carriers, IACs, or certified 

cargo screening facilities. 

■ 4. Revise § 1515.11(a)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1515.11 Review by administrative law 

judge and TSA Final Decision Maker. 

(a) * * * 

(3) An individual engaged in air cargo 

operations who works for certain 

aircraft operators, foreign air carriers, 

IACs, or certified cargo screening 

facilities who has been issued a Final 

Determination of Threat Assessment 

after an appeal as described in 49 CFR 

1515.9. 

* * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER B—SECURITY RULES FOR 

ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION 

PART 1520—PROTECTION OF 

SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 1520 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70102–70106, 70117; 

49 U.S.C. 114, 40113, 44901–44907, 44913– 

44914, 44916–44918, 44935–44936, 44942, 

46105. 

■ 6. Revise § 1520.7(b) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1520.7 Covered persons. 

* * * * * 

(b) Each indirect air carrier (IAC), as 

described in 49 CFR part 1548; and each 

certified cargo screening facility and its 

personnel, as described in 49 CFR part 

1549. 

* * * * * 

PART 1522—[REMOVED] 

■ 7. Remove part 1522. 

SUBCHAPTER C—CIVIL AVIATION 

AUTHORITY 

PART 1540—CIVIL AVIATION 

AUTHORITY: GENERAL RULES 

■ 8. The authority citation for part 1540 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114, 5103, 40113, 

44901–44907, 44913–44914, 44916–44918, 

44935–44936, 44942, 46105. 

Subpart C—Security Threat 

Assessments 

■ 9. In § 1540.201 remove paragraphs 

(a)(10), (11), and (12), and revise 

paragraph (a) introductory text and 

paragraph (b) definition of ‘‘Operator’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 1540.201 Applicability and terms used in 

this subpart. 

(a) This subpart includes the 

procedures that certain aircraft 

operators, foreign air carriers, indirect 

air carriers, and certified cargo 

screening facilities must use to have 

security threat assessments performed 

on certain individuals pursuant to 49 

CFR 1544.228, 1546.213, 1548.7, 

1548.15, 1548.16 and 1549.111. This 

subpart applies to the following: 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Operator means an aircraft operator, 

foreign air carrier, and indirect air 

carrier listed in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (a)(3) of this section, and a 

certified cargo screening facility 

described in paragraph (a)(6) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

§ 1540.203 [Amended] 

■ 10. In § 1540.203 remove paragraph 

(a)(1) and redesignate paragraphs (a)(2) 

through (a)(6) as paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (a)(5). 

■ 11. Revise § 1540.209 introductory 

text and paragraph (c)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1540.209 Fees for security threat 

assessment. 

This section describes the payment 

process for completion of the security 

threat assessments required under this 

subpart. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) The fees required under this 

subpart must be remitted to TSA in a 

form and manner acceptable to TSA 

each time the applicant or an aircraft 

operator, foreign air carrier, indirect air 

carrier, or certified cargo screening 

facility submits the information 

required under § 1540.203 or § 1540.207 

to TSA. 

* * * * * 

PART 1544—AIRCRAFT OPERATOR 

SECURITY: AIR CARRIERS AND 

COMMERCIAL OPERATORS 

■ 12. The authority citation for part 

1544 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114, 5103, 40113, 

44901–44905, 44907, 44913–44914, 44916– 

44918, 44932, 44935–44936, 44942, 46105. 

Subpart C—Operations 

■ 13. Revise § 1544.105(a) introductory 

text to read as follows: 

§ 1544.105 Approval and amendments. 

(a) Initial approval of security 

program. Unless otherwise authorized 

by TSA, each aircraft operator required 

to have a security program under this 

part must submit its proposed security 

program to the designated official for 

approval at least 90 days before the 

intended date of operations. The 

proposed security program must meet 

the requirements applicable to its 

operation as described in § 1544.101. 

Such requests will be processed as 

follows: 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Revise § 1544.205(g)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1544.205 Acceptance and screening of 

cargo. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(3) Limitation on who may conduct 

screening. Screening must be conducted 

by the foreign air carrier on an airport, 

by another aircraft operator or foreign 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

51868 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

air carrier operating under a security 

program under this chapter with a 

comparable cargo security program on 

an airport with a complete program 

under 49 CFR part 1542, by a certified 

cargo screening facility in accordance 

with 49 CFR part 1549, or by TSA. 

* * * * * 

PART 1546—FOREIGN AIR CARRIER 

SECURITY 

■ 15. The authority citation for part 

1546 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114, 5103, 40113, 

44901–44905, 44907, 44914, 44916–44917, 

44935–44936, 44942, 46105. 

Subpart C—Operations 

■ 16. Revise § 1546.205(g)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1546.205 Acceptance and screening of 

cargo. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(3) Limitation on who may conduct 

screening. Screening must be conducted 

by the foreign air carrier on an airport, 

by another aircraft operator or foreign 

air carrier operating under a security 

program under this chapter with a 

comparable cargo security program on 

an airport with a complete program 

under 49 CFR part 1542, by a certified 

cargo screening facility in accordance 

with 49 CFR part 1549, or by TSA. 

* * * * * 

PART 1548—INDIRECT AIR CARRIER 

SECURITY 

■ 17. The authority citation for part 

1548 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114, 5103, 40113, 

44901–44905, 44913–44914, 44916–17, 

44932, 44935–44936, 46105. 

■ 18. Revise § 1548.15(a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1548.15 Access to cargo: Security threat 

assessments for individuals having 

unescorted access to cargo. 

(a) Before an indirect air carrier 

authorizes and before an individual 

performs a function described in 

paragraph (b) of this section— 

(1) Each individual must successfully 

complete a security threat assessment or 

comparable security threat assessment 

described in part 1540 subpart C of this 

chapter; and 

(2) Each indirect air carrier must 

complete the requirements in part 1540 

subpart C. 

* * * * * 

PART 1549—CERTIFIED CARGO 

SCREENING PROGRAM 

■ 19. The authority citation for 1549 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114, 5103, 40113, 

44901–44905, 44913–44914, 44916–44917, 

44932, 44935–44936, 46105. 

Subpart A—General 

■ 20. In § 1549.7 revise paragraphs 

(a)(2)(ii), (a)(3)(ii), (a)(5), and (b)(2) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1549.7 Approval, amendment, renewal of 

the security program and certification of a 

certified cargo screening facility. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) An applicant must successfully 

undergo an assessment by TSA. 

(3) * * * 

(ii) The applicant has successfully 

undergone an assessment by TSA; 

(5) Commencement of operations. The 

certified cargo screening facility may 

operate under a security program when 

it meets all TSA requirements, 

including but not limited to an 

assessment by TSA, successful 

completion of training, and Security 

Threat Assessments by relevant 

personnel. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) The certified cargo screening 

facility must demonstrate that it has 

successfully undergone a revalidation of 

its operations by TSA prior to the first 

day of the 36th anniversary month of 

initial approval of its security program. 

* * * * * 

Subpart B—Operations 

■ 21. Revise § 1549.105(a)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1549.105 Recordkeeping. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Copies of all documents related to 

applications for, or renewals of, TSA 

certification to operate under part 1549. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Arlington, Virginia, on August 

10, 2011. 

John S. Pistole, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20840 Filed 8–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–05–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3