8550 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1See Proposed Rule, Air Cargo Security 

Requirements, 69 FR 65257, 65269 (Nov. 10, 2004). 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Transportation Security Administration 

49 CFR Part 1548 

[Docket No. TSA–2020–0002] 

RIN 1652–AA72 

Frequency of Renewal Cycle for 

Indirect Air Carrier Security Programs 

AGENCY: Transportation Security 

Administration, Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) is modifying its 

regulations to reduce the frequency of 

renewal applications by indirect air 

carriers (IACs). Rather than requiring 

these entities to submit an application 

to renew their security program each 

year, TSA now requires renewal once 

every 3 years. This modification reduces 

the burden of compliance without a 

negative impact on security. 

DATES: This rule is effective March 11, 

2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Angel Rodriguez, telephone 1–571–227– 

2108; email angel.l.rodriguez@

tsa.dhs.gov; 6595 Springfield Center 

Drive, Springfield, VA 20598–6003. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability of Rulemaking Document 

You can find an electronic copy of 

this rule using the internet by accessing 

the Government Publishing Office’s web 

page at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/ 

collection/FR/ to view the daily 

published Federal Register edition or 

accessing the Office of the Federal 

Register’s web page at https://

www.federalregister.gov. Copies are also 

available by contacting the individual 

identified for ‘‘General Questions’’ 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 the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Persons can obtain further information 

regarding SBREFA on the Small 

Business Administration’s web page at 

https://www.sba.gov/category/advocacynavigation-structure/regulatory-policy/ 

regulatory-flexibility-act/sbrefa. 

Abbreviations and Terms Used in This 

Document 

CCSF—Certified Cargo Screening Facility 

CEQ—Council on Environmental Quality 

DHS—Department of Homeland Security 

DOT—Department of Transportation 

E.O.—Executive Order 

FOIA—Freedom of Information Act 

IAC—Indirect Air Carrier 

IACSSP—Indirect Air Carrier Standard 

Security Program 

NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act 

OMB—Office of Management and Budget 

PRA—Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

SBREFA—Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

SSI—Sensitive Security Information 

TSA—Transportation Security 

Administration 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of the Regulation 

The Indirect Air Carrier (IAC), 

sometimes called a freight forwarder, 

acts as an intermediary between a 

shipper of air cargo and an air carrier by 

receiving and consolidating cargo from 

one or more shippers for transport on 

one or more aircraft flights. IACs are a 

critical component of the secure air 

cargo supply chain in the United States, 

helping to ensure the safe, timely, and 

efficient movement of goods every day. 

Approximately 3,800 IACs are operating 

in the United States and registered with 

TSA, ranging from sole proprietors 

working out of their homes to large 

corporations. Currently, TSA’s 

regulations require IACs to renew their 

registration each year. 

TSA is modifying 49 CFR 1548.7 to 

reduce the frequency at which IACs 

must renew their registration from 

annual to once every 3 years. This 

modification reduces the burden of 

compliance by reducing the time and 

effort an IAC must devote to renewing 

their registration, permitting them to 

focus on other operational and business 

priorities. TSA has determined that the 

change will not have a negative impact 

on aviation security. 

B. Summary of Major Provisions 

This final rule makes limited changes 

to 49 CFR 1548.7, which are necessary 

to change the regulatory requirement for 

the IAC security program-renewal from 

1 year to 3 years. Table 1 identifies each 

change. 

C. Costs and Benefits 

TSA has determined this modification 

reduces the cost of compliance without 

any negative impacts on security. As 

described in the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) (87 FR 79264, 

December 27, 2022) and as noted below, 

TSA estimates that, over 10 years, cost 

savings aggregate to $7.8 million 

undiscounted, $6.6 million discounted 

at 3 percent, and $5.4 million 

discounted at 7 percent. This final rule 

would realize an annualized $0.8 

million cost savings discounted at 7 

percent over 10 years. 

II. General Discussion of the 

Rulemaking 

A. Background 

To ensure the security of the air cargo 

system, TSA imposes security 

requirements on IACs in 49 CFR part 

1548. Through these regulations, TSA 

ensures ‘‘IACs are held accountable for 

securing the goods entrusted to them 

throughout those legs of the supply 

chain for which they are responsible.’’ 1

Under 49 CFR 1548.5, each IAC must 

adopt and carry out the IAC Standard 

Security Program (IACSSP). Persons 

interested in becoming IACs are vetted 

by TSA and are required to implement 

security requirements in the IACSSP. 

These requirements are intended to 

ensure security during the period 

between when a package leaves a 

shipper and when it is presented to the 

aircraft operators. IACs must also ensure 

their employees understand and are 

trained to implement their security 

responsibilities. 

Current 49 CFR 1548.7(b) presents the 

processes an IAC must follow annually 

to seek renewed approval from TSA to 

operate under the IACSSP. In general, 

annual renewal is a continuation of 

current practices and security measures 

in the IACSSP, including any TSAapproved amendments issued under 49 

CFR 1548.7(c), (d), and/or (e). IACs must 

submit the renewal request to TSA at 

least 30 calendar days before expiration 

of the IACSSP, as well as other 

standards for the submission. 

Since 2006, TSA has required IACs to 

renew their registration each year. Since 

the annual renewal requirement was 

imposed in 2006, TSA has determined 

that it is unnecessary to continue 

requiring annual renewal and that the 

program could be renewed once every 3 

years without having a negative impact 

on security. As discussed below, this 

determination is based on two key 

factors: (1) TSA’s inspection processes 

and priorities for IACs negate the need 

for annual renewals, and (2) the 

triennial renewal requirement for other 

TSA air cargo programs that have 

proven to be effective and secure. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 8551 

2 87 FR 79264 (Dec. 27, 2022). 

3https://www.regulations.gov/docket/TSA-2020- 

0002/comments, TSA–2020–0002–0002. 4https://www.regulations.gov/docket/TSA-2020- 

0002/comments, TSA–2020–0002–0003. 5See sec. 6 of E.O. 13563. 

6 87 FR 79265. 

7 87 FR 79266. 

8See id. for more discussion on this issue. 

9 Id. 10 87 FR 79266. 

TSA published an NPRM on 

December 27, 2022,2 proposing to 

change the renewal period, and 

requested comments from the public to 

be submitted by February 27, 2023. TSA 

received two comments, both from 

interested industry associations. 

B. Summary of Comments 

TSA received two comments, both 

from interested industry associations. 

One trade association representing 

indirect air carriers and aircraft 

operators expressed general support for 

the rule, and expressed the belief that 

the rule would not negatively impact 

security.3 Another trade association 

representing airline pilots 

recommended that TSA not move 

forward with the rulemaking.4 The 

association for the airline pilots stated: 

(1) TSA should not reduce oversight in 

pursuit of economic relief, which could 

reduce opportunities to discover 

evolving security threats; (2) TSA’s 

estimated burden of 4 hours to complete 

annual certification is not a meaningful 

burden on industry; (3) the high 

turnover rate among IAC staff requires 

TSA audits and training verification on 

an annual basis at a minimum; and (4) 

if TSA’s process for revalidating IACs is 

tied to their security program renewals, 

the shift to a 3-year renewal cycle would 

create an unnecessary security risk and 

TSA should assess IACs for security 

risks on an annual basis, or more 

frequently. 

TSA Response: Following review of 

the issues raised by the airlines pilots’ 

association, TSA has determined that 

the commenter provided no new 

information to counter TSA’s previous 

determination on the benefits and need 

for this rulemaking. First, TSA is not 

sacrificing security in order to obtain 

economic benefits. These limited 

changes to the IAC regulation are 

consistent with 49 U.S.C. 114(l)(3), 

which requires TSA to consider the 

costs of any proposed regulation relative 

to its security benefit. In addition, 

Executive Order (E.O.) 13563 of January 

18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review), requires agencies to 

periodically review existing regulations 

to identify requirements that ‘‘may be 

outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or 

excessively burdensome, and to modify, 

streamline, expand, or repeal them in 

accordance with what has been 

learned.’’ 5 Before proposing this 

change, TSA conducted a risk analysis 

and determined that the revision would 

not have a negative impact on security 

due to other compensating procedures. 

This final rule provides an overall 

reduction in the burden of compliance 

without negatively affecting security.6

Second, the costs of compliance with 

the annual renewal requirement may be 

relatively small for each IAC, but TSA 

estimates that over 10 years the cost 

savings aggregate to $7.8 million 

undiscounted, $6.6 million discounted 

at 3 percent, and $5.4 million 

discounted at 7 percent. The rule would 

realize annualized savings of $0.8 

million in 2020 dollars.7 These cost 

savings accrue for both the industry and 

TSA. Reducing the administrative 

burden on TSA staff of reviewing 

annual renewal applications allows TSA 

to focus additional resources and staff 

effort on the highest air cargo security 

priorities. 

Third, as noted in the NPRM, the 

transition from an annual security 

program certification to a 3-year security 

program certification renewal period 

does not mean that IACs will only be 

assessed or audited for compliance once 

every 3 years. As discussed in the 

NPRM and below, TSA has determined 

that a 3-year renewal cycle is effective, 

efficient, and secure when coupled with 

an appropriately staffed and resourced 

inspection and enforcement program.8

TSA acknowledges the airline pilots 

association concern regarding turnover 

in the IAC industry, but an extension of 

the recertification period does not mean 

a reduction in regulatory inspections. 

This determination is supported by 

TSA’s experience with other air cargo 

security regulations, specifically the 

Certified Cargo Screening Program 

(CCSP), and TSA believes it will be 

similarly effective with IACs.9

Fourth, under this final rule, within 

any 3-year period, every IAC will be 

subject to at least one triennial 

comprehensive inspection, two targeted 

annual inspections in years when a 

comprehensive inspection is not 

conducted, and possible supplemental 

inspections whenever TSA’s assessment 

of risk or evolving compliance posture 

indicate that additional inspections are 

warranted. TSA’s process for inspecting 

and revalidating IACs is not tied to the 

annual renewal of IAC security 

programs because the inspection and 

revalidation schedules of TSA 

inspectors are managed separately from 

TSA’s program renewal efforts. TSA 

implements a national inspection plan 

based on regular cycles, and conducts 

focused Special Emphasis Assessments 

and Special Emphasis Inspections 

whenever necessary. Further, TSA’s 

local inspection plans augment the 

national plan with risk-based local 

inspection and revalidation schedules 

that consider regional threats, a specific 

IAC’s past performance, and other 

factors. 

TSA’s local field offices determine 

whether to conduct additional 

inspections of an individual IAC by 

assessing the results of prior compliance 

reviews in light of evolving and 

emerging threat information. TSA’s 

local field offices may conduct more 

frequent inspections of IACs that have 

lower compliance rates, or otherwise 

present an elevated security risk. All 

IACs are subject to supplemental 

inspections if the local field office 

determines one is necessary. 

When TSA imposed the annual 

renewal requirement in 2006, TSA 

expected that the annual cycle of 

renewals would be the primary method 

to ensure the agency regularly reviewed 

each IAC and confirmed compliance 

with TSA security requirements. As 

described above, TSA now ensures 

compliance with the program through 

the nationwide schedule of regular 

annual inspections, Special Emphasis 

Assessments and Inspections, and 

additional inspections at the discretion 

of the local field office. 

An additional safeguard is provided 

by 49 CFR 1540.301, which allows TSA 

to withdraw approval of an IAC security 

program if TSA determines continued 

operation is contrary to security and the 

public interest. If TSA withdraws 

approval, an IAC must discontinue 

operation immediately, regardless of the 

renewal date of its program certification. 

As TSA noted in the NPRM,10 the 

triennial renewal requirement for other 

TSA air cargo programs have proven to 

be effective and secure. In addition to 

recognizing the effectiveness of its 

regular inspections to ensure 

compliance with the IAC program, TSA 

considered the requirements for the IAC 

program compared to other aviation 

security requirements, specifically 

requirements for the CCSP under 49 

CFR part 1549. When TSA finalized the 

rule establishing the CCSP in 2011, TSA 

provided a 3-year renewal period for 

Certified Cargo Screening Facilities 

(CCSFs). Experience gained by more 

than a decade of implementing the 

CCSP validates that the triennial 

recertification cycle does not have a 

negative impact on security. The final 

rule does not change the actions that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
8552 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

11Published at 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). 

12Published at 88 FR 21879 (Apr. 6, 2023). 

13Published at 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011). 14See 49 CFR 1549.7(a)(6). See also supra notes 

8 and 10, and accompanying text. 

IACs must perform to recertify or the 

requirements they must meet to 

maintain approval to operate as an IAC; 

the final rule simply reduces the 

frequency with which they must 

recertify. 

C. Section-by-Section Analysis 

After consideration of each comment 

and any relevant potential changes to 

the proposed rule, TSA is adopting the 

revisions as proposed in the NPRM. 

TSA has addressed all issues and 

concerns derived from these comments 

in the discussion below. 

Table 1 identifies each change made 

to 49 CFR 1548.7 as a result of this 

rulemaking. 

TABLE 1—CHANGES TO 49 CFR 1548.7 

Section Prior text Revised text 

1548.7(a)(4) .............. Removing the words ‘‘one year after the month it was approved’’.Adding in their place ‘‘3 years after the month it was approved, or until the program has been surrendered or 

withdrawn, whichever is earlier’’. 

1548.7(a)(5) .............. ............................................................................................... In the introductory text, adding the words ‘‘or renewal’’ after 

the words ‘‘submitted during its initial’’. 

1548.7(b)(1) .............. Removing the words ‘‘at least 30 calendar days prior to the 

first day of the anniversary month of initial approval’’.

Adding in their place ‘‘at least 30 calendar days before the 

36th month after the initial approval’’. 

1548.7(b)(4) .............. Removing the words ‘‘one year after the month it was renewed’’.Adding in their place ‘‘3 years after the month it was renewed, or until the program has been surrendered or 

withdrawn, whichever is earlier’’. 

III. Regulatory Analyses 

TSA conducted a regulatory impact 

analysis (RIA) for the NPRM, posted in 

the docket for this rulemaking. As there 

were no comments related to the 

regulatory impact analysis in the NPRM, 

TSA has made no changes to the 

analysis in this final rule. TSA 

considered numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking 

when developing this rule. The 

following summarizes TSA’s analyses of 

the impact of the rulemaking as directed 

by these statutes or Executive orders. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

1. Background 

Under the requirements of E.O. 12866 

of September 30, 1993 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review),11 as amended by 

E.O. 14094 of April 6, 2023 

(Modernizing Regulatory Review),12 and 

E.O. 13563 of January 18, 2011 

(Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review),13 agencies must assess the 

costs and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, select regulatory approaches 

that maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety effects, 

distributive impacts, and equity). These 

requirements were supplemented by 

E.O. 13563, which emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined this rule is not 

a significant regulatory action under 

section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as amended. 

Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed 

this rule. 

In conducting these analyses, TSA has 

certified that this rulemaking does not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The basis for this conclusion is set 

forth below. 

This final rule reduces regulatory 

costs by reducing the frequency that 

IACs must renew their security program 

certifications. This final rule reduces the 

frequency of annual IAC security 

program certifications to once every 3 

years. This rule does not impose any 

incremental costs because regulated 

entities are already performing all 

actions required to obtain the 

certification in question. The expected 

outcome will be a minimal impact with 

positive net benefits. 

2. Estimated Cost Savings to Affected 

Entities 

The cost savings from this rule arise 

from extending the duration of IAC 

security programs approved by TSA 

from 1 year to 3 years. This change 

aligns the duration of the IAC security 

program with the CCSP.14 Table 2 

summarizes the change and impact from 

this action. 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF CURRENT 49 CFR PART 1548 AND THE FINAL RULE

Current Final rule Impact Estimated cost savings 

Requires annual 

renewal of security program.

Revises to renewal every 

3 years.

(1) Aligns part 1548 renewal period with that 

of the TSA-approved Certified Cargo 

Screening Program, part 1549.

(2) Provides cost savings to industry and 

TSA.

TSA estimates the annualized cost saving to industry and 

Federal government to be $0.8 million annualized at a 7 

percent discount rate. Cost savings arise from time saved 

due to a less frequent security program renewal cycle. 

To estimate cost savings, TSA 

calculates the number of instances an 

IAC would resubmit a security program 

under the current annual requirement, 

and the number of instances that would 

be avoided under the final rule’s 3-year 

requirement. TSA uses the difference in 

the number of resubmission instances 

between the current requirement and 

the final rule as the basis for the cost 

savings. 

TSA uses historical data on the 

number of existing IACs to forecast the 

number of security programs submitted 

for certification over the 10-year period 

of analysis. TSA assumes that the 

regulatory change for less frequent 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 8553 

15Based on TSA data, there were 4,576 IACs in 

2008 and 3,768 in 2020. TSA calculates a negative 

compound annual growth rate of 1.61% = (3,768 ÷ 

4,576)(1 ÷ (2020¥2008))¥1. 

16The number of aggregate active IACs is 

estimated using the previous year aggregate value 

and the negative growth rate. For instance, the year 

0 (2022) aggregate number of active IACs of 3,648 

is estimated applying the negative growth rate to 

the year¥1 (2021) aggregate number of 3,707: 3,648 

= 3,707 × (1¥1.61%). The number of new IAC 

applications in year 0 is estimated at 197 by 

multiplying the estimated number of aggregate IACs 

in year 0 (3,648) by the average proportion of new 

IAC applications: 197 = 3,648 × 5.41%. 

17The number of IAC renewals is estimated 

applying the percentage complementary to the 

proportion of new IAC applications (1¥5.41%) into 

the aggregate number of active IACs. For instance, 

the year 0 (2022) number of renewals is estimated 

multiplying the number of aggregate active IACs, or 

3,648, by the complementary percentage of 94.59% 

to obtain 3,451 (3,648 × 94.59%). The number of 

IAC renewals can also be estimated subtracting the 

number of newly approved IAC applications from 

the number of aggregate active IACs. 

18For example, calculations of Year 0, Year 1 and 

Year 2 IAC Exits are as follows:¥257 (Year 0 Exits) 

= 3,648 (Year 0 Active IACs)¥3,707 (Year¥1 

Active IACs)¥197 (Year 0 Newly Approved 

IACs);¥253 (Year 1 Exits) = 3,589 (Year 1 Active 

IACs)¥3,648 (Year 0 Active IACs)¥194 (Year 1 

Newly Approved IACs); and¥249 (Year 2 Exits) = 

3,532 (Year 2 Active IACs)¥3,395 (Year 1 Active 

IACs)¥191 (Year 2 Newly Approved IACs). 

19The exit rate is estimated by dividing the 

number of IAC exits by the aggregate number of 

active IACs in the previous year. For example, TSA 

estimates there would be 257 exits in year 0 (197 

exits that were replaced by new entrants plus the 

60 exits that decreased the aggregate population). 

TSA calculates a 6.92% exit rate in year 0 (257 exits 

÷ 3,707 aggregate active IACs in year¥1). This exit 

rate is the same throughout the 10-year period of 

analysis. The exit rate for future years can also be 

derived mathematically as follows: (Newly 

Approved IAC Proportion) × (1 + Active IAC 

Growth Rate)¥(Active IAC Growth Rate), which 

numerically is equal to: 6.92% = 5.41% 

(1¥1.61%)¥(¥1.61%). 

20Firms do not get renewals either because a 

submission was not filed or was not approved. 

21 It is assumed that the validity of security plans 

will be extended until year 1 once this action is 

executed. If an IAC firm in the year 0 population 

wants to remain active over the 10 years of analysis 

it will have to obtain four renewals during this 

period, in years 1, 4, 7, and 10. 

22 80.6% = (100%¥6.92% exit rate)(3-year cycle)

. 

23A cycle is the period in between renewals (or 

between the first renewal and the initial approval). 

The 3-year cycle means that submissions have to be 

renewed every 3 years. The current submission 

cycle is annual, one submission every year. 

24Note IACs that were approved by TSA in 

year¥1 (2 years before the start date of this rule) 

and partially in year 0 (1 year before the publication 

of this final rule) would need to resubmit 36 

months from their last approval. IACs that were 

approved before the publication of the final rule 

(¥1 & 0) are included in year¥1, for the purpose 

of this analysis. For example: (Year 4 Second Cycle 

Resubmissions) = (Year 1 Renewals) × 80.6%. 

25The frequency in which an IAC must resubmit 

their security program for review. 

recertification does not impact the 

annual number of forecasted active IAC 

certifications. Based on historical 

program data, TSA assumes the 

aggregate population of active and 

approved IACs under the baseline and 

the final rule decreases each year with 

more dropping out than entering. TSA 

calculates that the aggregate active 

population decreases at an annual rate 

of 1.61 percent 15 and compounds this 

rate to estimate the aggregate active IAC 

population for the next 10 years, as 

displayed in column a of Table 3. The 

aggregate active population of IACs 

(column a) also represents the number 

of security program submissions and 

resubmissions under the baseline 

annual renewal requirement. 

TSA postulates that the number of 

newly approved IAC applications 

represents a proportion of the number of 

aggregate active IACs in the same year. 

This proportion has stabilized over the 

last 5 years at 5.41 percent. TSA applied 

this percentage to the forecasted 

aggregate number of active IACs during 

a year to estimate the number of newly 

approved IAC applications during the 

same year 16 as displayed in column c of 

Table 3. 

The aggregate active population of 

IACs during a year is composed of IAC 

renewals and newly approved IAC 

applications. Since TSA calculates the 

number of newly approved IAC 

applications by assuming they are a 

constant proportion of the number of 

aggregate active IACs, then the number 

of renewals must be estimated applying 

the complementary proportion to the 

number of aggregate active IACs, as 

shown in column b of Table 3.17

The exit rate of IAC in a given year 

is based on the subtraction of the given 

year’s active IAC population from the 

preceding year’s active IAC population, 

and the removal of the given year’s 

newly approved IACs,18 as displayed in 

column d of Table 2. Since the number 

of IAC exits is estimated based on the 

number of active IACs during the year 

and the number of newly approved IAC 

applications, an exit rate is derived from 

these two estimates for the purposes of 

compounding the number of exits over 

time. TSA calculates an IAC exit rate of 

6.92 percent 19 (i.e., do not resubmit or 

are not approved) from year to year. The 

exit rate in a specific year is the 

percentage of IACs that do not request 

their security program renewed 20 out of 

the total number of IACs that had a 

security program in place before this 

year. 

TSA estimates the total number of 

submissions in two blocks: the first 

block includes submissions associated 

with the current IAC population in each 

year, and the second block includes 

submissions from new applicants. This 

final rule is expected to be implemented 

in year 1 and the relevant prior year 

active IAC population will have, by 

then, a valid security plan; which will 

have to be renewed following the new 

3-year cycle.21 New applicants would 

also have to follow this 3-year renewal 

cycle. In both blocks, there is a share of 

IAC firms that will not renew their 

security plans during the next renewal 

event, and a share of IAC firms that will 

renew. The number of IACs 

resubmitting in a given year is estimated 

by multiplying the number of program 

submissions from 3 years prior by a 

factor that results from compounding 

the annual exit rate over 3 years; this 

retention factor, estimated to be 80.6 

percent,22 is multiplied by the number 

of program submissions from 3 years 

before estimate the number of renewals 

in the corresponding year. 

Table 3 staggers recertifications under 

the final rule’s 3-year cycle 23 in four 

separate columns for submissions one to 

four in the 10-year projection span. For 

example, TSA estimates that 2,738 of 

the 3,395 IAC recertifications in year 1 

would resubmit their security programs 

in year 4,24 and that 159 of the 197 new 

entrants in year 1 would resubmit for 

the first time in year 4 (see columns e 

and f regarding first and second 

submissions). In Table 3, TSA takes into 

account four recertification cycles 25

within the 10-year framework (columns 

e through h) and sums all the 

recertifications under the final rule in 

column i. Finally, TSA calculates the 

number of eliminated recertifications 

(column j) by subtracting the final rule 

recertifications (column i) from the 

baseline annual recertifications (column 

b). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
8554 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

26The active IAC population in subsequent years 

was estimated by applying the negative growth rate 

of 1.61% to the active IAC population. The negative 

growth rate represents the net change in the active 

IAC population accounting for IAC exits and 

entries. Year 1’s value accounts for 3 years of 

negative growth derived from 3,768 IACs as of the 

end of fiscal year 2020 based on TSA records. 

27Baseline renewals represent Active IACs minus 

New IACs. 

28A retention factor of 0.806 is calculated as the 

exit rate of 6.92 percent compounded over 3 years 

to account for the number of IACs still operating 

who submitted a security program 3 years prior. 

29Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), U.S. 

Department of Labor, May 2020 National Industry 

Specific Occupation Employment and Wage 

Estimates, First-Line Supervisors of Transportation 

and Material Moving Workers (SOC 53–1040) in 

Freight Transportation Arrangement (NAICS 

488510) and Administrative Management and 

General Management Consulting Services (NAICS 

541611), and to Transportation, Storage, and 

Distribution Managers (SOC 11–3071) in (NAICS 

488510) and (NAICS 541611). (Accessed May 19, 

2021 at https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/naics4_

541600.htm and https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/ 

may/naics4_488500.htm). 

30The average compensation factor is 1.4968. 

1.4968 = (($31.76 + $30.89 + $30.99 + $30.40) ÷ 4) 

÷ (($21.35 + $20.62 + $20.61 + $20.29) ÷ 4). The 

compensation factor is calculated based on the 

average of the quarterly total compensation divided 

by the average of the quarterly total wages. Source: 

BLS, News Releases, 2020 Employer Costs for 

Employee Compensation, Table 4: Employer Costs 

for Employee Compensation for private industry 

workers by occupational and industry group 

(Transportation and Material Moving Occupational 

Group), as published in June 2020, September 2020, 

December 2020, and March 2021. (Accessed May 

19, 2021 at https://www.bls.gov/bls/news-release/ 

ecec.htm.) 

TABLE 3—NUMBER OF FINAL RULE ELIMINATED SECURITY PROGRAM RECERTIFICATIONS

Year Active 

IACs 26

Baseline 

recerts 27 New IACs IAC exits 

Recertification cycle 28

Final rule 

recerts 

Eliminated 

recerts 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 

a(¥1) = 

initial pop a 

= a(n¥1) × (1¥1.61%) 

b1 = first 

year 

renewals 

bn = an × (1¥5.41%) 

c = an × (5.41%) dn = 

(an¥a(n¥1))¥cn 

e1 = b1 en 

= c(n¥3) × (0.806) 

fn = e(n¥3) × (0.806) gn = f(n¥3) × (0.806) hn = 

g(n¥3) × (0.806) 

i = e + f + 

g + h 

j = b¥i 

1 .............. 3,589 3,395 194 ¥253 3,395 0 0 0 3,395 0 

2 .............. 3,532 3,341 191 ¥249 162 0 0 0 162 3,179 

3 .............. 3,475 3,287 188 ¥245 159 0 0 0 159 3,128 

4 .............. 3,419 3,234 185 ¥241 156 2,738 0 0 2,894 340 

5 .............. 3,364 3,182 182 ¥237 154 130 0 0 284 2,898 

6 .............. 3,310 3,131 179 ¥233 151 128 0 0 280 2,852 

7 .............. 3,257 3,081 176 ¥229 149 126 2,207 0 2,483 598 

8 .............. 3,205 3,032 173 ¥226 147 124 105 0 376 2,656 

9 .............. 3,153 2,983 170 ¥222 144 122 103 0 370 2,613 

10 ............ 3,103 2,935 168 ¥218 142 120 102 1,780 2,144 791 

Note: Calculations may not be exact due to rounding in the table. 

TSA estimates a time burden of 4 

hours for an IAC manager to review and 

resubmit a security program. To 

calculate the hourly savings to industry, 

TSA multiplies the 4-hour burden by 

the fully loaded hourly wage rate for an 

IAC manager. TSA calculates the wage 

rate by estimating a weighted wage rate 

for two occupations across two industry 

subgroups.29 To calculate the weighted 

wage rate, TSA multiplies each labor 

category wage rate by its respective 

number of employees, sums the product 

of these calculations, and then divides 

the result by the total number of 

employees across all four wage rates. 

Table 4 illustrates the weighted average 

wage calculation. 

TABLE 4—CALCULATION OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE INDUSTRY WAGE RATE

Industry NAICS Occupations 

Wage rate Number of 

employees 

a b 

Freight Transportation Arrangement (488510).First-Line Supervisors of Transportation and Material Moving Workers (53–1040) $28.72 3,460 

Transportation, Storage, and Distribution Managers (11–3071) ............................. 46.41 4,920 

Management, Scientific, 

and Technical Consulting Services 

(541611).

First-Line Supervisors of Transportation and Material Moving Workers (53–1040) 27.52 3,190 

Transportation, Storage, and Distribution Managers (11–3071) ............................. 50.65 2,680 

Industry Weighted Average Wage Rate = è(ai × bi) ÷ èb $38.68 

Note: Calculations may not be exact due to rounding in the table. 

Next, TSA adjusts this wage rate to 

account for employer benefits,30 which 

results in an industry compensation rate 

of $57.90 per hour. Table 5 illustrates 

the calculation of the hourly industry 

compensation rate based on these 

adjustments. 

TABLE 5—CALCULATION OF INDUSTRY COMPENSATION RATE

Weighted wage rate 

(a) 

Benefits factor 

(b) 

Compensation rate 

(c = a × b) 

$38.68 1.4968 $57.90 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 8555 

31 $231.61 Renewal Unit Cost to Industry = 4- 

Hour Renewal Time Burden × $57.90 Compensation 

Rate for IAC Managers. 

32TSA uses an SV pay grading system, which is 

a discrete salary system with pay ranges, 

incorporated into pay bands. 

33TSA, DHS Modular Cost Standards, 

Washington DC Metropolitan Area Locality Pay, IBand $70.62 = $147,382 annual compensation ÷ 

2,087 hours and J-Band $83.17 = $173,585 annual 

compensation ÷ 2,087 hours (Office Personnel 

Management changed the 2,080 work hours for 

federal employees to 2,087 by amending 5 U.S.C. 

5504(b). Source: Consolidated Omnibus Budget 

Reconciliation Act of 1985, Public Law 99–272 (100 

Stat. 82; April 7, 1986). 

34 $177.73 Renewal Unit Cost to TSA = $78.99 I/ 

J Band TSA Weighted Compensation Rate × 2.25 

Hour Burden for Renewal Review. 

35See Public Law 96–354 (94 Stat. 1164; Sept. 19, 

1980) as codified at 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 

TSA multiplies 4 hours per 

resubmission by the $57.90 for an IAC 

manager to calculate a unit cost savings 

of $232 per recertification.31

TSA estimates a duration of 2.25 

hours for TSA staff to review a 

resubmission. The TSA review staff is 

composed of two ‘‘I’’ pay band 

members 32 and four ‘‘J’’ pay band 

members. Each submission could be 

reviewed by any one of these staff 

members. TSA calculates a staff 

compensation rate based on the 

weighted average of two different TSA 

pay-bands that conduct reviews. To 

calculate the TSA weighted 

compensation rate, TSA multiplies the 

respective pay band compensation 33 by 

the respective number of employees, 

sums the product of these calculations, 

and then divides by the total number of 

employees. Table 6 displays this 

weighted average calculation. 

TABLE 6—CALCULATION OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE TSA COMPENSATION RATE

TSA pay band 

Compensation 

rate * 

Number of 

employees 

a b 

TSA I Band ............................................................................................................................................................ $70.62 2 

TSA J Band ........................................................................................................................................................... 83.17 4 

Weighted Average TSA Compensation Rate = è(ai × bi ) ÷ èb ........................................................................... $78.99 

* Compensation Rate includes employer benefits. 

TSA multiplies 2.25 hours by the TSA 

compensation rate of $78.99 per hour to 

obtain a unit cost savings per 

recertification of $178.34

To calculate savings, TSA multiplies 

the number of eliminated resubmissions 

from column j of Table 3, by the 

respective unit cost savings for industry 

($232) and TSA ($178). Table 7 displays 

the industry, TSA, and total savings 

from modifying the security program 

resubmission frequency from 1 to 3 

years. TSA estimates that over 10 years 

cost savings aggregate to $7.8 million 

undiscounted, $6.6 million discounted 

at 3 percent, and $5.4 million 

discounted at 7 percent. The final rule 

would realize an annualized $0.8 

million cost savings discounted at 7 

percent over 10 years. 

TABLE 7—TOTAL COST SAVINGS FROM THE FINAL RULE

[$Thousands] 

Year 

Eliminated resubmissions Industry savings TSA savings (Cost savings) 

d = èb,c 

a 

b = a × $231.61 

÷ 1,000 

c = a × $177.73 

÷ 1,000 Undiscounted Discounted 

at 3% 

Discounted 

at 7% 

1 .............................................................................................. .......................... $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

2 .............................................................................................. 3,179 736 565 1,301 1,227 1,137 

3 .............................................................................................. 3,128 725 556 1,280 1,172 1,045 

4 .............................................................................................. 340 79 60 139 124 106 

5 .............................................................................................. 2,898 671 515 1,186 1,023 846 

6 .............................................................................................. 2,852 660 507 1,167 978 778 

7 .............................................................................................. 598 139 106 245 199 153 

8 .............................................................................................. 2,656 615 472 1,087 858 633 

9 .............................................................................................. 2,613 605 464 1,070 820 582 

10 ............................................................................................ 791 183 141 324 241 165 

Total ................................................................................. 19,056 4,413 3,387 7,800 6,641 5,443 

Annualized ................................................................ .......................... ............................ ............................ ........................ $775 $779 

Note: Calculation may not be exact in table due to rounding. 

B. Small Entities 

As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act,35 TSA considered 

whether this final rule would have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

including small businesses and not-forprofit organizations that are 

independently owned and operated and 

are not dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. This 

rule does not place any new 

requirements on the regulated industry 

or small businesses. In addition, TSA 

received no comments related to the 

regulatory impact analysis in the NPRM, 

therefore has made no changes to this 

analysis in the final rule. TSA has 

certified that this rule does not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

C. Collection of Information 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
8556 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

36See Public Law 96–39 (93 Stat. 144; July 26, 

1979) as amended by the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, Public Law 103–465 (108 Stat 

4809; Dec. 8, 1994), codified at 19 U.S.C. 2531– 

2533. 

37See Public Law 104–4 (109 Stat. 48; Mar. 22, 

1995), codified at 2 U.S.C. 1501–1538. 38Published at 77 FR 26413 (May 4, 2012). 39Published at 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999). 

public and, under the provisions of 44 

U.S.C. 3507(d), obtain approval from the 

OMB for each collection of information 

it conducts, sponsors, or requires 

through regulations. As provided by the 

PRA, 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. 

The collection of information covered 

by this final rule is covered by OMB 

control number 1652–0040. 

This final rule impacts the collection 

of information by reducing the 

frequency that information must be 

submitted. This reduction would 

decrease the current number of security 

program recertifications submitted from 

an estimated annual average of 3,700 to 

1,239 responses (a reduction of 2,461). 

The corresponding burden is also 

reduced from an annual average of 

14,800 hours to 4,956 hours (a reduction 

of 9,844 hours). Table 8 displays the 

annual number of responses and burden 

hour estimates associated with the final 

rule. 

TABLE 8—PRA INFORMATION COLLECTION RESPONSES AND BURDEN HOURS

Collection activity 

Responses 

Total hours 

Average 

annual 

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 hours Total 

responses 

Average 

annual 

responses 

Time 

burden per 

response 

(hours) 

Final Rule Recerts .......................................................... 3,395 162 159 3,716 1,239 .................... 4,956 1,652 

As required by the PRA (44 U.S.C. 

3507(d)), TSA has submitted a copy of 

the final rule to the OMB for its review 

of the collection of information. 

D. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 36

prohibits Federal agencies from 

establishing any standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these requirements, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. 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 the final rule and has 

determined that it does not impose any 

new requirements. Therefore, the rule 

would not have an adverse impact on 

international trade. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 37 establishes 

requirements for Federal agencies to 

assess the effects of their regulatory 

actions on State, local, and tribal 

governments and the private sector. 

Under sec. 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act, TSA generally 

must prepare a written statement, 

including a cost-benefit analysis, for 

proposed and final rules with ‘‘Federal 

mandates’’ that may result in 

expenditures by State, local, and tribal 

governments in the aggregate or by the 

private sector of $100 million (adjusted 

for inflation) or more in any one year. 

The final rule does not contain such a 

mandate. Therefore, the written 

statement requirements of the Act do 

not apply. 

F. Environment 

TSA has reviewed this rulemaking for 

purposes of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 

4321–4347) and has determined that 

this action will not have a significant 

effect on the human environment. This 

action is covered by categorical 

exclusion number A3(b) in DHS 

Management Directive 023–01 (formerly 

Management Directive 5100.1), 

Environmental Planning Program, 

which guides TSA compliance with 

NEPA.G. International Compatibility 

and Cooperation. 

E.O. 13609 of May 1, 2012 (Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation),38

promotes international regulatory 

cooperation to meet shared challenges 

involving health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and to 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. TSA analyzed this action 

under the policies and agency 

responsibilities of E.O. 13609, and has 

determined that this action would have 

no effect on international regulatory 

cooperation. In keeping with U.S. 

obligations under the Convention on 

International Civil Aviation (also known 

as the ‘‘Chicago Convention’’), it is TSA 

policy to comply with International 

Civil Aviation Organization Standards 

and Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. TSA has 

determined that this regulation has no 

direct relationship to the Chicago 

Convention. 

H. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

TSA has analyzed this rule under the 

principles and criteria of E.O. 13132 of 

August 4, 1999 (Federalism).39 TSA has 

determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, or the relationship between the 

Federal 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. 

I. Energy Impact Analysis 

The energy impact of this rulemaking 

has been assessed in accordance with 

the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

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

(42 U.S.C. 6362). TSA has determined 

that this rulemaking would not be a 

major regulatory action under the 

provisions of the EPCA. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1548 

Air transportation, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Security 

measures. 

The Amendment 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Transportation Security 

Administration amends chapter XII of 

title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as 

follows: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 8557 

Subchapter C—Civil Aviation Security 

PART 1548—INDIRECT AIR CARRIER 

SECURITY 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1548 

continues to read as follows:

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

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

44932, 44935–44936, 46105. 

§ 1548.7 [Amended]

■ 2. Amend § 1548.7 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (a)(4), removing the 

words ‘‘one year after the month it was

approved’’ and adding in their place ‘‘3

years after the month it was approved,

or until the program has been

surrendered or withdrawn, whichever is

earlier’’.

■ b. In paragraph (a)(5) introductory 

text, adding the words ‘‘or renewal’’ 

after the words ‘‘submitted during its 

initial’’. 

■ c. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the 

words ‘‘at least 30 calendar days prior

to the first day of the anniversary month

of initial approval’’ and adding in their

place ‘‘at least 30 calendar days before

the 36th month after the initial

approval’’.

■ d. In paragraph (b)(4), removing the 

words ‘‘one year after the month it was

renewed’’ and adding in their place ‘‘3

years after the month it was renewed, or

until the program has been surrendered

or withdrawn, whichever is earlier’’.

Dated: February 1, 2024. 

David P. Pekoske, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–02495 Filed 2–7–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 217 

Regulations Governing the Take of 

Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities 

CFR Correction 

This rule is being published by the 

Office of the Federal Register to correct 

an editorial or technical error that 

appeared in the most recent annual 

revision of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

■ In Title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Parts 200 to 227, revised as

of October 1, 2023, remove Subpart I to

Part 217.

[FR Doc. 2024–02695 Filed 2–7–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 0099–10–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[240202–0033] 

RIN 0648–XD495 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab 

Fishery; 2024 Atlantic Deep-Sea Red 

Crab Specifications 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is approving 

specifications for the 2024–2027 

Atlantic deep-sea red crab fishery, 

including the annual catch limits and 

total allowable landings limits. This 

action implements the allowable 2024 

harvest levels, consistent with the 

Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab Fishery 

Management Plan. This action is 

necessary to establish allowable red crab 

harvest levels that will prevent 

overfishing. 

DATES: The final specifications for the 

2024 Atlantic deep-sea red crab fishery 

are effective March 11, 2024, through 

February 28, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the supplemental 

information report, including the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis and 

other supporting documents for the 

specifications, are available from Dr. 

Cate O’Keefe, Executive Director, New 

England Fishery Management Council, 

50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, 

MA 01950 or at https://www.nefmc.org/ 

library/2024-2027-red-crabspecifications. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Allison Murphy, Fishery Policy Analyst, 

(978) 281–9122.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background 

The Atlantic deep-sea red crab fishery 

is managed by the New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council). The 

Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) includes a 

specification process that requires the 

Council to recommend, on a triennial 

basis, an acceptable biological catch 

(ABC), an annual catch limit (ACL), and 

total allowable landings (TAL) every 4 

years. The Council’s Scientific and 

Statistical Committee (SSC) provides a 

recommendation to the Council for the 

ABC. The Council makes a 

recommendation to NMFS on the ABC, 

which cannot exceed the ABC 

recommendation made by the SSC. 

Final Specifications 

The biological and management 

reference points currently in the FMP 

are used to determine whether 

overfishing is occurring or if the stock 

is overfished. There is insufficient 

information on the species to establish 

the maximum sustainable yield, 

optimum yield, or overfishing limit. The 

ABC is defined in terms of landings 

instead of total catch because there is 

insufficient information to estimate 

dead discards of red crab. We are 

approving the Council-recommended 

specifications for the 2024–2027 fishing 

years that establish a 2,000-metric ton 

ABC, ACL, and TAL. This action 

implements these specifications for the 

2024 fishing year. 

At the end of each fishing year, we 

evaluate catch information and 

determine if the quota has been 

exceeded. If a quota is exceeded, the 

regulations at 50 CFR 648.262(b) require 

a pound-for-pound reduction of the 

quota in a subsequent fishing year. 

NMFS will publish a notice in the 

Federal Register of any revisions to the 

projected specifications if an overage 

occurs. Based on the performance of the 

2023 red crab fishery, no adjustment is 

necessary for fishing year 2024. NMFS 

will provide notice of the final 2025– 

2027 quotas, and any necessary 

reductions, prior to the start of each 

respective fishing year. 

Comments and Responses 

The public comment period for the 

proposed rule (88 FR 83893, December 

1, 2023) ended on January 2, 2024. No 

comments were received on the 

proposed rule. 

Changes From the Proposed Rule 

There are no changes from the 

proposed rule. 

Classification 

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS 

Assistant Administrator has determined 

that this final rule is consistent with the 

Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab FMP, other 

provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, and other applicable law. 

This final rule is exempt from review 

under Executive Order 12866. 

The Chief Counsel for Regulation, 

Department of Commerce, certified to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

during the proposed rule stage that this 

action would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1