[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 27 (Thursday, February 10, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7150-7163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2630]



[[Page 7149]]

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

Part III





Department of Homeland Security





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



Transportation Security Administration



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



49 CFR Part 1562



Maryland Three Airports: Enhanced Security Procedures for Operations at 
Certain Airports in the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area Flight 
Restricted Zone; Interim Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 27 / Thursday, February 10, 2005 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 7150]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Transportation Security Administration

49 CFR Part 1562

[Docket No. TSA-2005-20118]
RIN 1652-AA39


Maryland Three Airports: Enhanced Security Procedures for 
Operations at Certain Airports in the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area 
Flight Restricted Zone

AGENCY: Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Department of 
Homeland Security.

ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This action transfers responsibility for ground security 
requirements and procedures at three Maryland airports that are located 
within the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone, 
and for individuals operating aircraft to and from these airports, from 
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to TSA. These requirements 
and procedures were previously issued by the FAA, in coordination with 
TSA, in Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 94. TSA is assuming 
responsibility for these requirements and procedures because TSA and 
FAA agree that they are best handled under TSA's authority over 
transportation security. These requirements and procedures will 
continue to enhance the security of the critical infrastructure and 
Federal government assets in the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective February 13, 2005.
    Comment Date: Comments must be received by April 11, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the TSA docket number 
to this rulemaking, using any one of the following methods:
    Comments Filed Electronically: You may submit comments through the 
docket Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. 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 submitting the comment (or 
signing 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), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.
    Comments Submitted by Mail, Fax, or In Person: Address or deliver 
your written, signed comments to the Docket Management System, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590-0001; Fax: 202-493-2251.
    Comments that include trade secrets, confidential commercial or 
financial information, or sensitive security information (SSI) should 
not be submitted to the public regulatory docket. Please submit such 
comments separately from other comments on the rule. Comments 
containing trade secrets, confidential commercial or financial 
information, or SSI should be appropriately marked as containing such 
information and submitted by mail to the individual(s) listed in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Reviewing Comments in the Docket: You may review the public docket 
containing comments on this interim final rule in person in the Docket 
Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. The Docket Office is located on the plaza level of the NASSIF 
Building at the Department of Transportation address above. Also, you 
may review public dockets on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.
    See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for format and other information 
about comment submissions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For policy questions: Robert Rottman, 
Office of Aviation Security Policy, Transportation Security 
Administration Headquarters, East Building, Floor 11, 601 South 12th 
Street, Arlington, VA 22202; telephone: 571-227-2289; e-mail: 
[email protected].
    For technical questions: Dirk Ahle, Aviation Operations, 
Transportation Security Administration Headquarters, East Building, 
Floor 9, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 22202; telephone: 571-
227-1504; e-mail: [email protected].
    For legal questions: Dion Casey, Office of Chief Counsel, 
Transportation Security Administration Headquarters, East Building, 
Floor 12, TSA-2, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 22202; telephone: 
571-227-2663; e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited

    This interim final rule is being adopted without prior notice and 
prior public comment. However, to the maximum extent possible, 
operating administrations within DHS will provide 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. We also invite comments 
relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts 
that might result from this rulemaking. See ADDRESSES above for 
information on where to submit comments.
    Comments that include trade secrets, confidential commercial or 
financial information, or SSI should not be submitted to the public 
regulatory docket. Please submit such comments separately from other 
comments on the rule. Comments containing this type of information 
should be appropriately marked and submitted by mail to the 
individual(s) 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 them 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 
receives a request to examine or copy this information, TSA will treat 
it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 
U.S.C. 552) and the Department of Homeland Security's FOIA regulation 
found in 6 CFR part 5.
    With each comment, please include your name and address, identify 
the docket number at the beginning of your comments, and give the 
reason for each comment. The most helpful comments reference a specific 
portion of the rule, 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 two copies, in an 
unbound format, no larger than 8.5 by 11 inches, suitable for copying 
and electronic filing.
    If you want the TSA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this 
rulemaking, include with your comments a self-addressed, stamped 
postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on 
the postcard and mail it to you.
    Except for comments containing confidential information and SSI, we 
will file in the public docket all comments we receive, as well as a 
report summarizing each substantive public contact with TSA personnel 
concerning this rulemaking. The docket

[[Page 7151]]

is available for public inspection before and after the comment closing 
date.
    We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing 
date for comments. We will consider comments filed late to the extent 
practicable. We may change this rule in light of the comments we 
receive.

Availability of Rulemaking Document

    You may obtain an electronic copy using the Internet by--
    (1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket 
Management System (DMS) Web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search);
    (2) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html; or
    (3) Visiting the TSA's Law and Policy Web page at http://www.tsa.dot.gov/public/index.jsp.
    In addition, copies are available by writing or calling any of the 
individuals 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 
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within TSA's 
jurisdiction. Any small entity that has a question regarding this 
document may contact the persons listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section for information or advice. You can get further 
information regarding SBREFA on the Small Business Administration's Web 
page at http://www.sba.gov/advo/laws/law_lib.html.

Good Cause for Immediate Adoption

    TSA is issuing this interim final rule without prior notice and 
opportunity to comment pursuant to its authority under section 4(a) of 
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This 
provision authorizes the agency to issue a rule without notice and 
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those 
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public 
interest.'' TSA finds that notice and public comment to this interim 
final rule are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public 
interest for the following reasons.
    First, after the September 11, 2001 attacks, three airports in 
Maryland--College Park Airport, Potomac Airfield, and Washington 
Executive/Hyde Field (the Maryland Three Airports)--were closed for a 
sustained period because of their proximity to important National 
Capitol Region assets and because of the restrictions on aircraft 
operations in the airspace that overlies those airports. The airports 
were not permitted to reopen until the FAA, in coordination with TSA, 
issued SFAR 94 on February 19, 2002 (67 FR 7538). According to comments 
that the FAA received, this sustained closure placed significant 
financial burdens on the Maryland Three Airports. SFAR 94 is set to 
expire on February 13, 2005. If TSA does not issue this IFR 
immediately, the Maryland Three Airports may be required to close again 
until TSA completes this rulemaking. Such a closure could cause the 
Maryland Three Airports significant financial burdens that are not 
necessary from a security perspective.
    Second, in this interim final rule TSA is largely adopting the 
security measures and procedures that were required under SFAR 94. The 
Maryland Three Airport operators, and pilots who operate to and from 
those airports, have been operating under the SFAR 94 requirements 
since February 19, 2002. In addition, because TSA is largely adopting 
the SFAR 94 requirements, the airport security procedures that were 
approved under SFAR 94 for each of the Maryland Three Airports will be 
approved by TSA under this interim final rule. Thus, TSA believes that 
the interim final rule will not present any surprises or impose any 
additional burdens on the Maryland Three Airport operators or the 
pilots who operate to and from those airports. In fact, in response to 
comments on SFAR 94 and FAA Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) 3/0853, this 
interim final rule relaxes one of the major burdens imposed under NOTAM 
3/0853--the requirement that aircraft approved to operate to or from 
any of the Maryland Three Airports be based at one of those airports--
without relaxing security. Under this interim final rule, TSA may 
permit transient aircraft to operate to or from any of the Maryland 
Three Airports if the pilot complies with the requirements of the 
interim final rule. This change will reduce costs without relaxing 
security.
    Finally, TSA notes that the FAA first issued these requirements as 
SFAR 94 on February 19, 2002. SFAR 94 was set to expire one year from 
that date. The FAA requested and received public comments on SFAR 94. 
On February 14, 2003, the FAA published a final rule extending the 
expiration date of SFAR 94 for an additional two years (68 FR 7684). In 
the 2003 final rule, the FAA, in coordination with TSA, responded to 
the public comments that it received after the publication of SFAR 94 
in 2002. The FAA did not receive any additional comments after 
publishing the final rule extending the expiration date of SFAR 94 in 
2003. Consequently, TSA believes that the issues involved in this 
rulemaking have already been addressed through the prior FAA 
rulemakings.
    For these reasons, TSA finds that notice and public comment to this 
interim final rule are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the 
public interest. However, TSA is inviting public comments on all 
aspects of the interim final rule. If, based upon information provided 
in public comments, TSA determines that changes to the interim final 
rule are necessary to address transportation security more effectively, 
or in a less burdensome but equally effective manner, the agency will 
not hesitate to make such changes.

Abbreviations and Terms Used in This Document

ADIZ--Air Defense Identification Zone
ATC--Air Traffic Control
ATSA--Aviation and Transportation Security Act
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CHRC--Criminal History Records Check
CIA--Central Intelligence Agency
DHS--Department of Homeland Security
DOD--Department of Defense
DOT--Department of Transportation
FAA--Federal Aviation Administration
FBI--Federal Bureau of Investigation
FRZ--Flight Restricted Zone
GA--General Aviation
IFR--Instrument Flight Rules
NM--Nautical Mile
NOTAM--Notice to Airmen
PIN--Personal Identification Number
SFAR--Special Federal Aviation Regulation
TFR--Temporary Flight Restriction
TSA--Transportation Security Administration
VFR--Visual Flight Rules
VOR/DME--Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring 
Equipment

Background

    After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against four U.S. 
commercial aircraft resulting in the tragic loss of human life at the 
World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in southwest Pennsylvania, the 
FAA immediately prohibited all aircraft operations within the 
territorial airspace of the U.S., with the exception of certain 
military, law enforcement, and emergency related aircraft operations. 
This general prohibition was lifted in part on September 13, 2001. In 
the Washington,

[[Page 7152]]

DC, Metropolitan Area, however, aircraft operations remained prohibited 
at all civil airports within a 25 nautical mile (NM) radius of the 
Washington Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring 
Equipment (VOR/DME). This action was accomplished via the U.S. NOTAM 
system. The FAA issued several NOTAMs under 14 CFR 91.139, Emergency 
Air Traffic Rules, and implemented temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) 
under 14 CFR 91.137, Temporary Flight Restrictions in the Vicinity of 
Disaster/Hazard Areas.
    On October 4, 2001, limited air carrier operations were permitted 
to resume at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA).
    On October 5, 2001, the FAA issued NOTAM 1/0989, which authorized 
instrument flight rules (IFR) operations and limited visual flight 
rules (VFR) operations within an 18 to 25 NM radius from the DCA VOR/
DME in accordance with emergency air traffic rules issued under 14 CFR 
91.139. Exception to the restrictions affecting aircraft operations 
under 14 CFR part 91 (part 91 operations) in the Washington, DC, area 
issued since September 11, 2001, were made to permit the repositioning 
of aircraft from airports within the area of the TFR and to permit 
certain operations conducted under waivers issued by the FAA.
    On December 19, 2001, the FAA cancelled NOTAM 1/0989 and issued 
NOTAM 1/3354 that, in part, set forth special security instructions 
under 14 CFR 99.7 and created a new TFR for the Washington, DC, area. 
NOTAM 1/3354 also created TFRs in the Boston and New York City areas. 
That action significantly decreased the size of the area subject to the 
earlier prohibitions on part 91 operations in the Washington, DC, area 
and permitted operations at Freeway (W00), Maryland (2W5), and Suburban 
(W18) airports.
    As security concerns were resolved, most general aviation (GA) 
operations resumed with varying degrees of restriction. However, due to 
their proximity to important National Capitol Region assets, the 
Maryland Three Airports remained closed for a sustained period 
following the September 11 attacks because of the restrictions on 
aircraft operations in the airspace that overlies those airports. In 
addition, most part 91 operations in the airspace that overlies the 
Maryland Three Airports remained prohibited under NOTAM 1/3354.
    On February 14, 2002, the FAA cancelled NOTAM 1/3354 and issued 
NOTAM 2/1257, which provided flight plan filing procedures and air 
traffic control (ATC) arrival and departure procedures for pilots 
operating from the Maryland Three Airports in accordance with SFAR 94. 
The FAA updated and reissued NOTAM 2/1257 as NOTAM 2/2720 on December 
10, 2002. NOTAM 2/2720 permitted pilots vetted at any one of the 
Maryland Three Airports to fly into any of the Maryland Three Airports. 
NOTAM 3/0853 replaced NOTAM 2/2720 on February 1, 2003. NOTAM 3/0853 
remains in effect as of the date of this interim final rule.

Aviation and Transportation Security Act

    The events of September 11, 2001, led Congress to enact the 
Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), which created TSA.\1\ 
ATSA required TSA to assume many of the civil aviation security 
responsibilities that the FAA maintained prior to that date. On 
February 22, 2002, TSA published a final rule transferring the bulk of 
the FAA's civil aviation security regulations to TSA and adding new 
standards required by ATSA.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Pub. L. 107-71, November 19, 2001, 115 Stat. 597.
    \2\ 67 FR 8340, February 22, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAA and TSA Authority

    The FAA has broad authority to regulate the safe and efficient use 
of the navigable airspace.\3\ The FAA is also authorized to issue air 
traffic rules and regulations to govern the flight of aircraft, the 
navigation, protection, and identification of aircraft for the 
protection of persons and property on the ground, and for the efficient 
use of the navigable airspace. Additionally, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 
40103(b)(3), the FAA has the authority, in consultation with the 
Department of Defense (DOD), to ``establish security provisions that 
will encourage and allow maximum use of the navigable airspace by civil 
aircraft consistent with national security.'' Such provisions may 
include establishing airspace areas the FAA decides are necessary in 
the interest of national defense; and by regulation or order, 
restricting or prohibiting flight of civil aircraft that the FAA cannot 
identify, locate, and control with available facilities in those areas. 
The FAA has broad statutory authority to issue regulations in the 
interests of safety in air commerce and national security.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 49 U.S.C. 40103(a).
    \4\ See 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TSA has broad authority over civil aviation security.\5\ TSA is 
responsible for developing policies, strategies, and plans for dealing 
with threats to transportation security, as well as other plans related 
to transportation security, including coordinating countermeasures with 
appropriate departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the U.S. 
government.\6\ TSA is also authorized to work in conjunction with the 
FAA with respect to any actions or activities that may affect aviation 
safety.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 49 U.S.C. 114(d)(1).
    \6\ See 49 U.S.C. 114(f)(3) and (4).
    \7\ See 49 U.S.C. 114(f)(13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA retains authority over airspace, including the authority to 
issue airspace restrictions. FAA issued SFAR 94 under that authority. 
However, because some of the requirements in SFAR 94 deal primarily 
with security (including background checks for pilots operating to or 
from the Maryland Three Airports and security procedures for the 
airports), and because TSA's primary mission is civil aviation 
security, the FAA and TSA have determined that ground security 
procedures (including security threat assessments for pilots and 
airport security coordinators) for the Maryland Three Airports are best 
handled under TSA's authority. TSA also notes that TSA inspectors have 
conducted inspections of Maryland Three Airports for compliance with 
the airports' approved security procedures. For these reasons, the 
ground security requirements and procedures for the Maryland Three 
Airports as well as the security threat assessments for individuals 
operating aircraft to and from those airports are being placed in TSA 
regulations. The airspace security restrictions in NOTAM 3/0853 remain 
under FAA authority.

SFAR 94

    The FAA issued SFAR 94 as a final rule on February 19, 2002.\8\ 
SFAR 94 defined the restricted airspace over the Washington, DC, 
Metropolitan Area and established rules for all pilots operating 
aircraft to or from any of the Maryland Three Airports. It also 
established security procedures for the Maryland Three Airports. SFAR 
94 had a one-year effective period and was set to expire on February 
13, 2003. However, the FAA, in consultation with TSA and other Federal 
agencies, reissued SFAR 94 on February 14, 2003, with an expiration 
date of February 13, 2005.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 67 FR 7537.
    \9\ 68 FR 7683.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Security Justification for the Interim Final Rule

    Because of its status as home to all three branches of the Federal 
government, as well as numerous Federal buildings, foreign embassies, 
multinational institutions, and national monuments of iconic 
significance, the

[[Page 7153]]

Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area continues to be an obvious high 
priority target for terrorists.
    Although there is no information suggesting an imminent plan by 
terrorists to use airplanes to attack targets in the Washington, DC, 
Metropolitan Area, the success of the September 11, 2001, attack on the 
Pentagon and reports demonstrating terrorist groups' enduring interest 
in aviation-related attacks indicate the need for continued vigilance 
in aviation security.
    For example, the April 2004 arrest of Waleed bin Attash and the 
subsequent discovery of a plot to crash an explosive-laden small 
aircraft into the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, illustrates 
terrorist groups' continued interest in using aircraft to attack U.S. 
interests. Other information--such as documents found in Zacarias 
Moussaoui's possession that outlined crop duster operations--suggests 
that terrorist groups may have been considering other domestic aviation 
attack plans in addition to the September 11, 2001, attacks.
    In addition, recent press reporting on the debriefings of detained 
terrorist leader Khalid Shaykh Muhammad not only hints at the 
complexity of planning involved in the September 11, 2001, attacks but 
also suggests the group was likely planning follow-on operations inside 
the United States, possibly including inside the Washington, DC, 
Metropolitan Area.
    While DHS has no specific information that terrorist groups are 
currently planning to use GA aircraft to perpetrate attacks against the 
U.S., it remains concerned that (in light of completed and ongoing 
security enhancements for commercial aircraft and airports) terrorists 
may turn to GA as an alternative method for conducting operations.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ TSA has taken several actions to enhance GA security. For 
example, TSA, in partnership with GA associations, implemented a GA 
Hotline (1-866-GA SECURE) that is tied to an Airport Watch Program. 
This provides a mechanism to enable any GA pilot to report 
suspicious activity at his or her airport to one central Federal 
Government focal point. The Hotline, which is operated by the 
National Response Center and managed by the U.S. Coast Guard, became 
operational on December 2, 2002. The Airport Watch program has 
extended the Neighborhood Watch concept to airports. Pilots, airport 
workers, and aircraft maintainers are asked to call the Hotline to 
report any suspicious activity. In addition, TSA has released 
guidelines to provide GA airport owners, operators, and users with a 
set of Federally-endorsed security enhancements and methods for 
determining implementation. The guidelines are available on the TSA 
Web site at http://www.tsa.gov/public/interapp/editorial/editorial_1113.xml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To protect against a potential threat to the Washington, DC, 
Metropolitan Area, FAA, in consultation with TSA and other Federal 
agencies, implemented a system of concentric airspace rings and 
complementary airspace control measures via NOTAM 3/0853 in February 
2003. The dimensions of this protected airspace were determined after 
considering such factors as the average speed of likely suspect 
aircraft and minimum launch time and speed of intercept aircraft. After 
extensive coordination among Federal agencies, the dimensions for this 
protected airspace were established along with the requirements to 
enter and operate in the airspace. The outer lateral boundary is the 
same as the outer lateral boundary for the Tri-Area Class B airspace in 
the Washington-Baltimore area. This outer boundary is, at certain 
places, more than 40 nautical miles from the Washington Monument. The 
Government conditioned entry into this airspace on the identification 
of all aircraft operators within the airspace in order to ensure the 
security of protected ground assets. This airspace is called an Air 
Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ). Within the ADIZ airspace is an 
inner ring, called a Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ), which has a radius 
of approximately 15 NM centered on the Washington (DCA) VOR/DME. In 
order to enter and operate in FRZ airspace, more stringent access and 
security procedures are applied.
    The Maryland Three Airports are located within the FRZ. Therefore, 
aircraft operating to or from one of the Maryland Three Airports must 
be subject to special rules. TSA notes that under SFAR 94 and NOTAM 3/
0853, aircraft operations permitted in the FRZ are limited to U.S. 
Armed Forces, law enforcement, aeromedical services, air carriers that 
operate under 14 CFR part 121, and certain types of general aviation 
aircraft operations that receive an FAA waiver after the waiver 
applications are reviewed and cleared by TSA. The pilots of these 
operations have successfully completed a threat assessment prior to 
operating in the FRZ.

Discussion of the Interim Final Rule

    TSA is adopting most of the security requirements and procedures 
that are currently in SFAR 94. TSA requests comment on each of the 
requirements discussed below. In the interim final rule, TSA has 
reorganized the paragraph structure of the requirements in SFAR 94 to 
help clarify the requirements.
    In keeping with SFAR 94, the interim final rule applies to the 
three Maryland airports (College Park Airport (CGS), Potomac Airfield 
(VKX), and Washington Executive/Hyde Field (W32)) that are located 
within the airspace designated as the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area 
FRZ, as defined in FAA NOTAM or regulations. These airports are 
referred to as the Maryland Three Airports. The interim final rule also 
applies to individuals who operate an aircraft to or from those 
airports.

Airport Operator Requirements

    SFAR 94 required each Maryland Three Airport operator to adopt 
security procedures that met minimum requirements in SFAR 94 and were 
approved by the FAA Administrator. This interim final rule carries over 
that requirement, except that the airport security procedures must be 
approved by TSA. The minimum-security procedures are discussed in 
greater detail below. TSA notes that because the agency is making only 
minor revisions to the SFAR 94 requirements, the airport security 
procedures that were approved by FAA under SFAR 94 for each of the 
Maryland Three Airports will be approved by TSA under this interim 
final rule.
    The interim final rule requires the airport operator to maintain at 
the airport a copy of the airport's TSA-approved security procedures, 
and to permit officials authorized by TSA to inspect the airport, the 
airport's TSA-approved security procedures, and any other documents 
required under the interim final rule. These requirements will help 
increase awareness of, and compliance with, the airport's approved 
security procedures, as well as facilitate the proper administration 
and oversight of the security procedures at each airport. SFAR 94 
contained a similar provision at paragraph 4(a)(7).
    The interim final rule also requires the airport operator to 
maintain at the airport a copy of each FAA NOTAM and rule that affects 
security procedures at the Maryland Three Airports. SFAR 94 did not 
contain this requirement. TSA is adding this requirement to help 
increase pilots' awareness of, and compliance with, the FAA's 
requirements for operating in the FRZ.
    In addition, the interim final rule requires the airport operator 
to appoint an airport employee as the airport security coordinator. The 
airport security coordinator will be responsible for ensuring that the 
airport's security procedures are implemented and followed. The airport 
security coordinator must be approved by TSA. To obtain TSA approval, 
an airport security coordinator is required to undergo the same 
security threat assessment and criminal history records check as pilots 
who are approved to operate to or from a Maryland Three Airport. 
Accordingly, the airport

[[Page 7154]]

security coordinator is required to present to TSA his or her name, 
social security number, date of birth, address, phone number, and 
fingerprints. These requirements, though not contained specifically in 
SFAR 94, were contained in the airport security procedures approved by 
TSA and FAA under SFAR 94.
    The interim final rule imposes on airport security coordinators who 
are approved by TSA a continuing obligation to meet these requirements. 
If TSA determines that an airport security coordinator poses a threat 
to national or transportation security, or a threat of terrorism, after 
TSA has approved the airport security coordinator, TSA may withdraw its 
approval of the airport security coordinator. In addition, if an 
airport security coordinator is convicted or found not guilty by reason 
of insanity of any of the listed disqualifying crimes after receiving 
TSA approval, the airport security coordinator must report the 
conviction or finding of not guilty by reason of insanity within 24 
hours of the decision. TSA may withdraw its approval of the airport 
security coordinator as a result of the conviction or finding of not 
guilty by reason of insanity.
    TSA intends to issue a form that airport security coordinators can 
use to submit all of this information to TSA.\11\ TSA notes that 
airport security coordinators who were approved under SFAR 94 may 
continue in their capacity as airport security coordinators without 
resubmitting to TSA the information described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This form will be issued in accordance with the 
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Security Procedures

    To be approved by TSA, an airport's security procedures must meet 
the minimum requirements set forth in the interim final rule. As noted 
above, TSA is making only minor revisions to the minimum requirements 
established in SFAR 94. Therefore, the airport security procedures that 
were approved by FAA under SFAR 94 for each of the Maryland Three 
Airports will be approved by TSA under the interim final rule. TSA 
requests comment on these minimum requirements. The minimum 
requirements are as follows.
    First, as required under SFAR 94 at paragraph 4(a)(1), the interim 
final rule requires an airport's security procedures to contain basic 
airport information, outline the hours of operation, and identify the 
airport security coordinator who is responsible for ensuring that the 
security procedures are implemented and followed. Such information will 
help ensure accountability for compliance with the security procedures 
at each airport. The interim final rule also requires the airport 
security coordinator to present to TSA, in a form and manner acceptable 
to TSA, his or her name, social security number, date of birth, and 
fingerprints, and to successfully complete a TSA terrorist threat 
assessment, including a criminal history records check, that is the 
same as the threat assessment pilots will have to successfully complete 
to be approved to operate to or from any of the Maryland Three 
Airports. Airport security coordinators who were approved under SFAR 94 
will continue to be approved under the interim final rule.
    Second, the interim final rule requires an airport's security 
procedures to contain a current record of the individuals and aircraft 
authorized to operate to or from the airport. This will help ensure 
that only individuals who have been properly vetted by TSA operate 
aircraft to or from the Maryland Three Airports. SFAR 94 contained 
similar provisions at paragraphs 4(a)(2) and (3).
    Third, the interim final rule requires an airport's security 
procedures to contain procedures to monitor the security of aircraft at 
the airport during operational and non-operational hours, and to alert 
aircraft owners and operators, the airport operator, and TSA of 
unsecured aircraft. Such procedures will help prevent aircraft located 
at the airport from being stolen and used for unauthorized purposes. 
SFAR 94 contained this provision at paragraph 4(b)(5).
    Fourth, as required under paragraph 4(b)(6) of SFAR 94, the interim 
final rule requires an airport's security procedures to contain 
procedures to ensure that security awareness procedures are implemented 
and maintained at the airport. Such procedures will help ensure that 
airport employees and pilots operating to and from the airport are 
aware of, and comply with, the security procedures in place at the 
airport, and that they are able to recognize suspicious behavior or 
activity at the airport.
    Fifth, the interim final rule requires an airport's security 
procedures to contain TSA-approved procedures for approving pilots who 
violate the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone 
and are forced to land at an airport. For example, if a pilot who was 
not vetted by TSA to take off or land at one of the Maryland Three 
Airports did so, the security procedures would be used to allow the 
pilot to take off from the airport after he or she had been vetted by 
TSA.\12\ The interim final rule requires that the pilot comply with all 
applicable FAA and TSA aircraft operator requirements before he or she 
is permitted by FAA to take off from the airport. Thus, the interim 
final rule requires the airport's security procedures to contain the 
requirements that the pilot would have to satisfy before he or she 
could receive a limited TSA approval. SFAR 94 contained a similar 
provision at paragraph 4(b)(4). That provision required airport 
security procedures to contain airport arrival and departure route 
descriptions, air traffic control clearance procedures, flight plan 
requirements, communications procedures, and procedures for transponder 
use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ TSA recognizes that a pilot who violates the Flight 
Restricted Zone would not receive TSA approval to operate to or from 
any of the Maryland Three Airports because the pilot would have a 
record of an airspace violation under the interim final rule. 
However, TSA notes that the approval granted under this provision 
would be for a one-time operation for the pilot to take off from the 
airport and leave the Flight Restricted Zone. The approval granted 
under this provision would not allow the pilot to continuously 
operate to or from the Maryland Three Airports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the interim final rule requires an airport's security 
procedures to contain any additional procedures necessary to provide 
for the security of aircraft operations to or from the airport. This 
will allow TSA to work with each of the Maryland Three Airports to 
implement any additional security procedures that may be necessary to 
enhance secure aircraft operations at a particular airport, and allow 
TSA to amend an airport's security procedures in response to threat 
information or elevated threat levels. SFAR 94 contained this provision 
at paragraph 4(b)(9).
    TSA notes that it may need to be able to quickly amend a particular 
airport's security procedures in response to threat information, an 
elevation in the threat level, noncompliance with the security 
procedures, or other circumstances. Thus, the interim final rule 
provides that airport security procedures approved by TSA remain in 
effect unless TSA determines that operations at the airport have not 
been conducted in accordance with the approved security procedures, or 
the airport's security procedures must be amended to provide for the 
security of aircraft operations to or from the airport. SFAR 94 
contained a similar provision at paragraph 4(b) providing that an 
airport's security procedures remain in effect unless TSA determines 
that operations at the airport have not been conducted in accordance 
with the security procedures.

[[Page 7155]]

Pilot Requirements

    The interim final rule prohibits a pilot from operating an aircraft 
to or from any of the Maryland Three Airports unless he or she is 
approved by TSA. To receive TSA approval, a pilot must meet the 
following requirements. As with the airport operator requirements, TSA 
is making only minor revisions to requirements that are currently in 
effect under SFAR 94. TSA also notes that pilots who were approved to 
operate to or from any of the Maryland Three Airports under SFAR 94 may 
continue to operate using the PIN issued to them by TSA. Such pilots do 
not have to reapply for TSA approval under the interim final rule.
    First, the interim final rule requires a pilot to present to 
TSA\13\ the following: (1) The pilot's name, social security number, 
date of birth, address, and phone number; (2) the pilot's current and 
valid airman certificate; (2) the pilot's current medical certificate; 
(3) one form of Government issued picture identification of the pilot; 
(4) the pilot's fingerprints, in a form and manner acceptable to TSA; 
and (5) a list containing the make, model, and registration number of 
each aircraft that the pilot intends to operate to or from the airport. 
These requirements will help establish a pilot's identification and 
permit TSA to conduct the required security threat assessment as well 
as check the pilot's FAA record. SFAR 94 contained a similar provision 
at paragraph 3(b)(1).\14\ TSA intends to issue a form that pilots can 
use to submit all of this information to TSA.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The airport security procedures approved by TSA and FAA 
under SFAR 94 required the airport operator to collect this 
information from pilots. TSA intends to continue that collection 
process under the interim final rule. In addition, TSA intends to 
issue a form that pilots can use to submit this information to the 
airport operator, who will submit the form to TSA.
    \14\ Although SFAR 94 did not specifically require pilots to 
submit their name, date of birth, or social security number, the 
airport security procedures approved by TSA and FAA under SFAR 94 
did require pilots to submit that information.
    \15\ This form will be issued in accordance with the 
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the interim final rule requires pilots to submit their 
fingerprints to TSA in a form and manner acceptable to TSA. Paragraph 
3(b)(2) of SFAR 94 required pilots to successfully complete a 
background check by a law enforcement agency, which could include 
submission of fingerprints and the conduct of a criminal history 
records check. Under SFAR 94, individuals who sought approval to 
operate to or from one of the Maryland Three Airports were required to 
submit their fingerprints at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport 
(DCA) and pay the appropriate fee to the entity collecting the 
fingerprints as well as a fee to the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
(FBI) for processing the fingerprints. TSA did not charge any 
additional fee. TSA intends to continue using this process under the 
interim final rule.
    Third, the interim final rule requires pilots to successfully 
undergo a terrorist threat assessment. This may include a check of 
terrorist watchlists and other databases relevant to determining 
whether a pilot poses a security threat or that confirm a pilot's 
identity. A pilot will not receive TSA approval under this analysis if 
TSA determines or suspects the individual of posing a threat to 
national or transportation security, or a threat of terrorism. The 
interim final rule imposes on pilots who are approved by TSA a 
continuing obligation to meet this requirement. If a pilot who is 
approved to operate to or from any of the Maryland Three Airports is 
determined by TSA to pose a threat to national or transportation 
security, or a threat of terrorism, TSA may withdraw its approval of 
the pilot.
    Fourth, pilots are required to undergo a criminal history records 
check. A pilot may not be approved by TSA if he or she has been 
convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity, in any 
jurisdiction, during the ten years prior to the date of the pilot's 
request to operate to or from any of the Maryland Three Airports, or 
while authorized to do so, of any crime specified in 49 CFR 1542.209 or 
1572.103. These crimes are: (1) Forgery of certificates, false marking 
of aircraft, and other aircraft registration violation; (2) 
interference with air navigation; (3) improper transportation of a 
hazardous material; (4) aircraft piracy; (5) interference with flight 
crew members or flight attendants; (6) commission of certain crimes 
aboard aircraft in flight; (7) carrying a weapon or explosive aboard 
aircraft; (8) conveying false information or threats; (9) aircraft 
piracy outside the special aircraft jurisdiction of the U.S.; (10) 
lighting violations involving transporting controlled substances; (11) 
unlawful entry into an aircraft or airport area that serves air carrier 
or foreign air carriers contrary to established security requirements; 
(12) destruction of an aircraft or aircraft facility; (13) murder; (14) 
assault with intent to murder; (15) espionage; (16) sedition; (17) 
kidnapping or hostage taking; (18) treason; (19) rape or aggravated 
sexual abuse; (20) unlawful possession, use, sale, distribution, 
manufacture, purchase, receipt, transfer, shipping, transporting, 
import, export, storage of, or dealing in an explosive, explosive 
device, firearm, or other weapon; (21) extortion; (22) armed or felony 
unarmed robbery; (23) distribution of, or intent to distribute, a 
controlled substance; (24) felony arson; (25) a felony involving a 
threat; (26) a felony involving: willful destruction of property; 
importation or manufacture of a controlled substance; burglary; theft; 
dishonesty, fraud, or misrepresentation; possession or distribution of 
stolen property; aggravated assault; bribery; or illegal possession of 
a controlled substance punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 
more than one year; (27) violence at international airports; (28) a 
crime listed in 18 U.S.C. Chapter 113B--Terrorism, or a State law that 
is comparable; (29) a crime involving a transportation security 
incident; (30) immigration violations; (31) violations of the Racketeer 
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. 1961, et seq., or a 
State law that is comparable; or (32) conspiracy or attempt to commit 
any of these criminal acts.
    With the exception of four of the crimes listed above, these are 
the same crimes that were considered disqualifying under paragraph 
3(b)(4) of SFAR 94. TSA also notes that these crimes are considered 
disqualifying under 49 CFR 1544.229 for TSA security screeners and 
under Sec.  1542.209 for individuals with unescorted access authority 
to a security identification display area (SIDA). TSA understands the 
unique nature of GA and that in many instances those security measures 
in place for commercial aviation would not be appropriate for GA 
facilities. However, the unique nature and security concerns 
surrounding the national capital region require additional security 
enhancements, such as requirements for disqualifying offenses similar 
to those used for individuals with SIDA access, that are more robust 
than those at other GA airports.
    TSA is adding the disqualifying crimes listed in 49 CFR 1572.103. 
In developing that list of crimes, TSA consulted with the Department of 
Justice and Department of Transportation to include those offenses that 
are reasonably indicative of an individual's predisposition to engage 
in violent or deceptive behavior that may be predictive of a security 
threat. TSA notes that there is considerable overlap in the crimes 
listed in 49 CFR 1572.103 and 1542.209. The additional crimes listed in 
49 CFR 1572.103 are the crimes listed above in (28), (29), (30), and 
(31), as well as the addition of the following language to the crimes 
listed in (20): ``explosive device'' and ``purchase,

[[Page 7156]]

receipt, transfer, shipping, transporting, import, export, storage of, 
and dealing in''.
    The listed crimes would be considered grounds for disqualification 
whether civilian or military authorities prosecute them. If a pilot has 
been convicted within the ten years preceding the individual's request 
to operate to or from any of the Maryland Three Airports, the pilot 
will be disqualified.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Pilots who were vetted in accordance with the requirements 
of SFAR 94 will not be required to reapply for approval under the 
interim final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The interim final rule also imposes on pilots who are approved by 
TSA a continuing obligation to meet this requirement. If a pilot is 
convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity of any of the 
listed disqualifying crimes after receiving TSA approval, the pilot 
must report the conviction or finding of not guilty by reason of 
insanity within 24 hours of the decision. TSA may withdraw its approval 
of the pilot as a result of the conviction or finding of not guilty by 
reason of insanity. Paragraph 3(b)(4) of SFAR 94 required that pilots 
not be convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity of any of 
the disqualifying crimes ``while authorized to operate to or from the 
airport.''
    TSA invites comment from all interested parties concerning this 
list of disqualifying crimes. TSA must balance its responsibility to 
ensure the security of the critical infrastructure and Federal 
government assets in the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area against the 
knowledge that individuals may participate in criminal acts but 
subsequently become trusted citizens. TSA wishes to minimize the 
adverse impact this interim final rule may have on individuals who have 
committed criminal offenses and served their sentences, without 
compromising the security of the infrastructure and assets in the 
nation's capitol.
    Fifth, a pilot is required to receive a briefing acceptable to FAA 
and TSA that describes procedures for operating to and from the 
airport. These procedures will be contained in the airport's approved 
security procedures. SFAR 94 contained this requirement at paragraph 
3(b)(3). Pilots comply with the requirement by viewing a videotaped 
FAA/TSA briefing. In the near term, TSA intends to continue to use that 
videotape for compliance with the TSA rule. However, in the future TSA 
intends to update that videotape or provide an alternate briefing. This 
requirement will help ensure that individuals are aware of, and comply 
with, the proper procedures for operating to and from the airport, and 
will help prevent inadvertent violations of those procedures.
    Sixth, a pilot is required to undergo a check of his or her FAA 
record for certain violations. A pilot will not receive TSA approval 
if, in TSA's discretion, he or she has a record of a violation of: (1) 
A prohibited area designated under 14 CFR part 73; (2) a flight 
restriction established under 14 CFR 91.141; (3) special security 
instructions issued under 14 CFR 99.7; (4) a restricted area designated 
under 14 CFR part 73; (5) emergency air traffic rules issued under 14 
CFR 91.139; (6) a temporary flight restriction designated under 14 CFR 
91.137, 91.138, or 91.145; or (7) an area designated under 14 CFR 
91.143. In view of the critical need to protect the critical 
infrastructure and national assets in the Washington, DC, Metropolitan 
Area, TSA will not approve pilots who have a record of violating 
restricted airspace.\17\ SFAR 94 contained a similar provision at 
paragraph 3(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ TSA will consider only final FAA determinations of a 
violation of restricted airspace, not any pending enforcement 
actions. TSA will consider an FAA determination to be final if the 
matter has been fully and finally adjudicated or the time for filing 
an appeal has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TSA notes that there may be special circumstances in which TSA may 
approve an individual who has a record of a violation of restricted 
airspace. TSA will review such circumstances on a case-by-case basis.
    The interim final rule imposes upon pilots who are approved by TSA 
a continuing obligation to meet this requirement. If a pilot who is 
approved by TSA to operate to or from the Maryland Three Airports 
commits any of the violations described above, the pilot must notify 
TSA within 24 hours of the violation. TSA, in its discretion, may 
withdraw its approval of the pilot as a result of the violation. TSA 
notes that this obligation is slightly different from the requirement 
for a pilot who is applying for access to the Maryland Three Airports. 
In reviewing a pilot's application for access to the Maryland Three 
Airports, TSA will consider only final FAA determinations of violations 
to be disqualifying. However, if a pilot who has received TSA approval 
to operate to or from the Maryland Three Airports subsequently commits 
any of the violations described above, TSA, in its discretion, may 
withdraw its approval without waiting for a final FAA determination. 
This is necessary to ensure that TSA can immediately withdraw its 
approval of a pilot who commits one or more serious airspace 
violations.
    The interim final rule also requires pilots who have received TSA 
approval to operate to and from the Maryland Three Airports to adhere 
to the following security measures.
    First, the interim final rule requires a pilot to protect from 
unauthorized disclosure any identification information issued by TSA 
for the conduct of operations to or from the airport. SFAR 94 contained 
a similar provision at paragraph 3(b)(7). Under SFAR 94, TSA would 
issue a personal identification number (PIN) to each individual 
approved to operate to or from any of the Maryland Three Airports. TSA 
will continue to do so under this interim final rule. This requirement 
will help allow for the ready identification of individuals who have 
met the background check requirements and been approved for operations 
to or from any of the Maryland Three Airports.
    Second, the interim final rule requires a pilot to secure the 
aircraft after returning to the airport from any flight. This 
requirement will help prevent aircraft from being stolen and used for 
terrorist and other criminal purposes. SFAR 94 contained this provision 
at paragraph 3(b)(14).
    Finally, a pilot is required to comply with any other requirements 
for operating to or from the airport specified by the FAA or TSA. For 
example, in the event the national threat level is elevated to Orange, 
TSA may coordinate with local law enforcement officers to positively 
identify a pilot operating from one of the Maryland Three Airports by 
checking his or her identification or pilot's certificate before 
permitting the individual to take off. SFAR 94 contained a similar 
provision at paragraphs 3(b)(15) and (16).
    The interim final rule allows a pilot who is approved by TSA to 
operate an aircraft to or from one of the Maryland Three Airports to 
operate an aircraft to any of the Maryland Three Airports, provided 
that the pilot: (1) Files an IFR or VFR flight plan with Leesburg 
Automated Flight Service Station; (2) obtains an ATC clearance with a 
discrete transponder code; and (3) follows any arrival/departure 
procedures required by the FAA. This was also permitted under SFAR 94.
    TSA notes that under SFAR 94 and NOTAM 3/0853, only pilots and 
aircraft that were based at one of the Maryland Three Airports were 
permitted to operate to or from the Maryland Three Airports. Transient 
aircraft were not permitted to operate to or from any of the Maryland 
Three Airports. Based on comments to SFAR 94, TSA has determined that 
this restriction may be

[[Page 7157]]

relaxed without degrading security. Therefore, under the interim final 
rule, TSA may approve transient aircraft to operate to or from any of 
the Maryland Three Airports if the pilot complies with all of the 
requirements described above, including submitting his or her 
fingerprints at DCA and successfully completing the TSA security threat 
assessment and terrorist threat analysis.
    The interim final rule permits U.S. armed forces, law enforcement, 
and aeromedical services aircraft to operate to or from any of the 
Maryland Three Airports, provided that the pilot operating the aircraft 
complies with any procedures specified by FAA or TSA. These 
requirements include complying with the ATC procedures and aircraft 
equipment requirements specified in applicable FAA regulations, and 
complying with any other requirements for operating to or from the 
airport specified by TSA or FAA.
    Below is a table comparing the requirements contained in SFAR 94 
with the requirements in this interim final rule and the requirements 
that remain in NOTAM 3/0853 or may be included in any NOTAM or rule 
that the FAA issues to replace NOTAM 3/0853. As noted above, the 
requirements in this interim final rule are intended to replace the 
security requirements in SFAR 94, which will expire on February 13, 
2005. The requirements in NOTAM 3/0853 will remain in effect until the 
FAA removes them or replaces them with another NOTAM or a rule.

                      Airport Operator Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                TSA interim final
           SFAR 94                    rule              NOTAM 3/0853
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identify and provide contact  Appoint an airport    ....................
 information for the manager   employee as the
 responsible for ensuring      airport security
 that security procedures      coordinator and
 are implemented and           provide contact
 maintained. 4(a)(1).          information for him
                               or her. Sec.
                               1562.3(a)(1) and
                               (c)(1).
Identify aircraft eligible    Maintain a current    ....................
 to be authorized for          record of the
 operations to or from the     individuals and
 airport, and maintain a       aircraft authorized
 current record of those       to operate to or
 persons authorized to         from the airport.
 conduct operations to or      Sec.   1562.3(c)(2).
 from the airport and the
 aircraft in which the
 person is authorized to
 conduct those operations.
 4(a)(2) and (3).
Maintain airport arrival and  Maintain procedures   ....................
 departure route               for limited
 descriptions, air traffic     approval of pilots
 control clearance             who violate the
 procedures, communications    Washington, DC,
 procedures, and procedures    Metropolitan Area
 for transponder use.          Flight Restricted
 4(a)(4).                      Zone and are forced
                               to land at the
                               airport. Sec.
                               1562.3(c)(5).
Maintain procedures to        Maintain procedures   ....................
 monitor the security of       to monitor the
 aircraft at the airport       security of
 during operational and non-   aircraft at the
 operational hours and to      airport during
 alert aircraft owners and     operational and non-
 operators, airport            operational hours
 operators, and the FAA of     and to alert the
 unsecured aircraft. 4(a)(5).  aircraft owner(s)
                               and operator(s),
                               the airport
                               operator, and TSA
                               of unsecured
                               aircraft. Sec.
                               1562.3(c)(3).
Maintain procedures to        Implement and         ....................
 ensure that security          maintain security
 awareness procedures are      awareness
 implemented and maintained    procedures at the
 at the airport. 4(a)(6).      airport. Sec.
                               1562.3(c)(4).
Ensure that a copy of the     Maintain at the       ....................
 approved security             airport a copy of
 procedures is maintained at   the airport's TSA-
 the airport and can be made   approved security
 available for inspection      procedures and
 upon FAA request, and         permit officials
 provide FAA with the means    authorized by TSA
 necessary to make any         to inspect the
 inspection to determine       security
 compliance with the           procedures. Sec.
 approved security             1562.3(a)(3) and
 procedures. 4(a)(7) and (8).  (5).
Maintain any additional       Maintain any          ....................
 procedures necessary to       additional
 provide for the security of   procedures required
 aircraft operations to or     by TSA to provide
 from the airport. 4(a)(9).    for the security of
                               aircraft operations
                               to or from the
                               airport. Sec.
                               1562.3(c)(6).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                           Pilot Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                TSA interim final
           SFAR 94                    rule              NOTAM 3/0853
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to obtaining            To obtain TSA         ....................
 authorization to operate to   approval to operate
 or from the airport,          to or from the
 present to FAA: (1) Current   airport, present to
 and valid airman              TSA: (1) Name; (2)
 certificate; (2) current      social security
 medical certificate; (3)      number; (3) date of
 one form of Government        birth; (4) address;
 issued picture                (5) phone number;
 identification; and (4) the   (6) current and
 make, model, and              valid airman
 registration number of each   certificate or
 aircraft the pilot intends    student pilot
 to operate to or from the     certificate; (7)
 airport. 3(b)(1). Note that   current medical
 the airport security          certificate; (8)
 procedures approved by TSA    one form of
 and FAA under SFAR 94         Government issued
 required pilots to submit     picture
 to FAA their: name, social    identification; (9)
 security number, date of      the make, model,
 birth, address, phone         and registration
 number, and fingerprints.     number of each
                               aircraft the pilot
                               intends to operate
                               to or from the
                               airport; and (10)
                               fingerprints. Sec.
                                1562.3(e)(1).

[[Page 7158]]

 
Successfully complete a       Successfully          ....................
 background check by a law     complete a TSA
 enforcement agency, which     terrorist threat
 may include submission of     assessment and a
 fingerprints and the          criminal history
 conduct of a criminal         records check. Sec.
 history records check.          1562.3(e)(2) and
 3(b)(2).                      (4).
Attend a briefing acceptable  Receive a briefing    ....................
 to FAA that describes         acceptable to TSA
 procedures for operating to   and FAA that
 or from the airport.          describes
 3(b)(3).                      procedures for
                               operating to or
                               from the airport.
                               Sec.   1562.3(e)(3).
Not have been convicted or    Not have been         ....................
 found not guilty by reason    convicted or found
 of insanity, in any           not guilty by
 jurisdiction, during the 10   reason of insanity,
 years prior to being          in any
 authorized to operate to or   jurisdiction,
 from the airport, or while    during the 10 years
 authorized to operate to or   prior to applying
 from the airport, of those    for authorization
 crimes specified in 14 CFR    to operate to or
 108.229(d). 3(b)(4).          from the airport,
                               or while authorized
                               to operate to or
                               from the airport,
                               of any crime
                               specified in 49 CFR
                               1542.209 or
                               1572.103. Sec.
                               1562.3(e)(4).
Not have a record on file     Not have a record on  ....................
 with the FAA of: (1) a        file with the FAA
 violation of a prohibited     of a violation of:
 area designated under 14      a prohibited area
 CFR part 73, a flight         designated under 14
 restriction established       CFR part 73; a
 under 14 CFR 91.141, or       flight restriction
 special security              established under
 instructions issued under     14 CFR 91.141;
 14 CFR 99.7; or more than     special security
 one violation of a            instructions issued
 restricted area designated    under 14 CFR 99.7;
 under 14 CFR part 73,         a restricted area
 emergency air traffic rules   designated under 14
 issued under 14 CFR 91.139,   CFR part 73;
 a temporary flight            emergency air
 restriction designated        traffic rules
 under 14 CFR 91.137,          issued under 14 CFR
 91.138, or 91.145, an area    91.139; a temporary
 designated under 14 CFR       flight restriction
 91.143, or any combination    designated under 14
 thereof. 3(b)(5).             CFR 91.137, 91.138,
                               or 91.145; or an
                               area designated
                               under 14 CFR
                               91.143. Sec.
                               1562.3(e)(5).
Be authorized by the FAA to   Be approved by TSA.   ....................
 conduct operations to or      Sec.   1562.3(e).
 from the airport. 3(b)(6).
Protect from unauthorized     Protect from          ....................
 disclosure any                unauthorized
 identification information    disclosure any
 issued by FAA for the         identification
 conduct of operations to or   information issued
 from the airport. 3(b)(7).    by TSA for the
                               conduct of
                               operations to or
                               from the airport.
                               Sec.   1562.3(f)(1).
Operate an aircraft that is   ....................  ....................
 authorized by FAA for
 operations to or from the
 airport. 3(b)(8).
File an IFR or VFR flight     ....................  Part 2 of NOTAM 3/
 plan telephonically with                            0853 requires each
 Leesburg AFSS prior to                              pilot to file an
 departure and obtain an ATC                         IFR or VFR flight
 clearance prior to entering                         plan with Leesburg
 the FRZ. 3(b)(9).                                   AFSS for all
                                                     arrivals and
                                                     departures via
                                                     telephone.
Operate the aircraft in       ....................  NOTAM 3/0853
 accordance with an open IFR                         contains specific
 or VFR flight plan while in                         flight plan
 the FRZ, unless otherwise                           procedures pilots
 authorized by ATC. 3(b)(10).                        must follow while
                                                     operating in the
                                                     FRZ.
Maintain two-way              ....................  Part 2 of NOTAM 3/
 communications with an                              0853 requires
 appropriate ATC facility                            pilots to maintain
 while in the FRZ. 3(b)(11).                         two-way radio
                                                     communication with
                                                     ATS while in the
                                                     FRZ.
Ensure that the aircraft is   ....................  NOTAM 3/0853
 equipped with an operable                           requires aircraft
 transponder with altitude                           to be equipped with
 reporting capability and                            an operational Mode
 use an assigned discrete                            C transponder, and
 beacon code while operating                         pilots to remain on
 in the FRZ. 3(b)(12).                               their assigned
                                                     discrete beacon
                                                     code until they
                                                     land.
Comply with any instructions  ....................  NOTAM 3/0853
 issued by ATC for the                               requires pilots to
 flight. 3(b)(13).                                   fly as assigned by
                                                     ATC until they
                                                     leave the FRZ.
Secure the aircraft after     Secure the aircraft   ....................
 returning to the airport      after returning to
 from any flight. 3(b)(14).    the airport from
                               any flight. Sec.
                               1562.3(f)(2).
Comply with all additional    Comply with any       ....................
 safety and security           other requirements
 requirements specified in     for operating to or
 applicable NOTAMs.            from the airport
 3(b)(15). Comply with any     specified by TSA or
 TSA or law enforcement        FAA. Sec.
 requirements to operate to    1562.3(f)(3).
 or from the airport.
 3(b)(16).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waivers

    Under the interim final rule, TSA, in coordination with FAA, the 
United States Secret Service, and any other relevant Federal agency, 
may permit an operation to or from any of the Maryland Three Airports 
if TSA finds that such action would be in the public interest and 
provide the level of security required under the interim final rule. 
Any waiver issued will be a temporary waiver for a single operation, 
such as an aircraft that is conducting aerial photography or an 
aircraft that is being moved from one of the Maryland Three Airports 
after maintenance. TSA will not issue any permanent waivers for 
continued operations.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 
requires that a Federal agency 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

[[Page 7159]]

Budget (OMB) for each collection of information it conducts, sponsors, 
or requires through regulations.
    This rulemaking contains information collection activities subject 
to the PRA. The FAA initially required this collection under SFAR 94 
(now 49 CFR part 1562) and cleared under OMB control number 2120-0677. 
The responsibility for the collection has been transferred to TSA and 
assigned OMB control number 1652-0029.
    As protection 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.

Regulatory Analyses

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review 
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), directs each Federal agency to propose 
or adopt a regulation only upon 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 analyze the economic impact of regulatory 
changes on small entities. Third, the Office of Management and Budget 
directs agencies to assess the effect of regulatory changes on 
international trade. 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.)
    In conducting these analyses, TSA has determined that the interim 
final rule's benefits outweigh its costs. TSA also has determined that 
the interim final rule will impose a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. However, TSA believes that the 
requirements of a regulatory flexibility analysis were met in the FAA 
analysis of the 2-year extension of SFAR 94. The interim final rule is 
not expected to adversely affect international trade or impose unfunded 
mandates costing more than $100 million in a year on state, local, or 
tribal governments or on the private sector. These analyses, available 
in the rulemaking docket, are summarized below.

Economic Analyses

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB 
review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. This rulemaking 
is not ``significant'' under the Executive Order. However, TSA has 
prepared a full regulatory evaluation for this rulemaking, which is 
available for review in the docket of this matter. The results of the 
evaluation are summarized here.

Costs

    The interim final rule results in costs for the Maryland Three 
airports and for government agencies enforcing the requirements. Pilots 
that operate to and from the airports may also incur costs. However, 
TSA believes that the cost of the security requirements for pilots were 
incurred by practically all covered pilots during the first year of 
SFAR 94. Any additional costs imposed will be only for new pilots 
attracted to the airports. TSA believes that because of the security 
restrictions, new pilots attracted to these airports will be limited to 
pilots of transient operations, which will be allowed to return to 
these airports as a result of this interim final rule. TSA believes 
that given the security restrictions and three years experience with 
local based operations, transient operations at these airports is 
likely to be limited. Therefore, TSA assumed that minimal to no cost 
will be imposed for pilots as a result of the interim final rule. 
Therefore, TSA assumed for this analysis that minimal to no new costs 
will be imposed for pilots as a result of the interim final rule.
    The cost impact of codifying the requirements and procedures of 
SFAR 94 result either from costs associated with the security-related 
provisions of TSA, or from the cost of flight restrictions imposed by 
the FAA. With regard to airports, security-related costs are imposed 
for: compliance with the physical security provisions of the interim 
final rule; preparation of security briefings for pilots and employees; 
and airport security program preparation, modification, and 
maintenance. Lost revenue as a result of operational restrictions will 
also be a cost for airports.
    Although most costs could be identified as resulting either from 
TSA requirements or FAA requirements without much difficulty, it may be 
difficult to determine whether lost revenue from operational 
restrictions is totally the result of closures due to security 
restrictions, or the result of FAA flight restrictions. For that 
reason, the annual costs of codifying the requirements of SFAR 94 are 
summarized in two tables. Table ES-1 shows the estimated costs of the 
rule (in 2002 dollars) with the value of lost revenue from operational 
restrictions included, while Table ES-2 shows the estimated cost 
excluding lost revenue.

       Table ES-1.--Cost of Compliance for SFAR-94 (2002 Dollars)
                 [With cost of operational restrictions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Cost of       Cost of
             Entity                security     operational  Total costs
                                 requirements  restrictions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
College Park...................      $181,500    $1,624,400   $1,805,900
Potomac Airfield...............        63,100     1,633,300    1,696,400
Washington Executive/Hyde......        78,600     1,598,100    1,678,600
                                ---------------
    Total airport costs........       323,200     4,855,800    5,179,000
                                ===============
Government Agencies............        10,200  ............       10,200
                                ---------------
    Total cost per year........       333,400     4,855,800    5,189,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 7160]]


       Table ES-2.--Cost of Compliance for SFAR-94 (2002 Dollars)
               [Without cost of operational restrictions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Cost of
                 Entity                      security       Total costs
                                           requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
College Park............................        $181,500         181,500
Potomac Airfield........................          63,100          63,100
Washington Executive/Hyde...............          78,600          78,600
                                         -----------------
    Total Airport Costs.................         323,200         323,200
                                         =================
Government Agencies.....................          10,200          10,200
                                         -----------------
    Total cost per year.................         333,400         333,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lost revenue as a result of operational restrictions is included as 
a cost in the FAA regulatory evaluation of its notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) to codify the airspace restrictions of SFAR 94. To 
avoid double counting those costs, the cost of operational restrictions 
is not included in the TSA estimates of total costs in this analysis. 
Based on the above, TSA estimated first year cost of compliance of the 
interim final rule at $0.3 million, and the 10-year undiscounted cost 
at $3.3 million. The present value of those costs is $2.3 million as 
shown in Table ES-3 below.

                                    Table ES-3.--Total Cost of Compliance of Interim Final Rule Security Requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                      Total
                             Year                                College      Potomac     Washington   Government     annual    7% discount  Net present
                                                                   Park       Airfield    Executive                   costs        factor       value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005.........................................................     $181,500      $63,100      $78,600      $10,200     $333,400       0.9346     $311,600
2006.........................................................      181,500       63,100       78,600       10,200      333,400       0.8734      291,200
2007.........................................................      181,500       63,100       78,600       10,200      333,400       0.8163      272,200
2008.........................................................      181,500       63,100       78,600       10,200      333,400       0.7629      254,400
2009.........................................................      181,500       63,100       78,600       10,200      333,400       0.7130      237,700
2010.........................................................      181,500       63,100       78,600       10,200      333,400       0.6663      222,100
2011.........................................................      181,500       63,100       78,600       10,200      333,400       0.6227      207,600
2012.........................................................      181,500       63,100       78,600       10,200      333,400       0.5820      194,000
2013.........................................................      181,500       63,100       78,600       10,200      333,400       0.5439      181,300
2014.........................................................      181,500       63,100       78,600       10,200      333,400       0.5083      169,500
                                                              --------------
    Total....................................................    1,815,000      631,000      786,000      102,000    3,334,000  ...........    2,341,600
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When added to air space-related costs, as calculated by FAA, of 
$6.06 million annually and $60.6 million over 10 years, the total ten-
year cost of codifying SFAR 94 is estimated at $63.9 million.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The FAA estimate is based on information in the FAA 
regulatory evaluation of the codification of airspace requirements 
of SFAR 94.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits

    TSA believes that allowing transient operations at the airports 
will reduce some of the lost revenue shown in Table ES-1 as a result of 
this interim final rule. However, the primary benefit of the rule will 
be enhanced protection for a significant number of vital government 
assets in the National Capital Region, while keeping the airports 
operational. Without these measures, the Maryland Three Airports would 
have to be closed due to the FAA requirements. The security provisions 
contained in this rule are an integral part of the effort to identify 
and defeat the threat posed by members of foreign terrorist groups to 
vital U.S. assets and security. The TSA believes that the rule will 
reduce the risk that an airborne strike initiated from an airport 
moments away from vital national assets will occur. The TSA recognizes 
that such an impact may not cause substantial damage to property or a 
large structure; however, it could potentially result in an 
undetermined number of fatalities and injuries and reduced tourism. The 
resulting tragedy would adversely impact the regional economies. Thus, 
TSA has concluded that the benefits associated with the interim final 
rule vastly exceed the costs.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Assessment

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended, requires 
Federal agencies to consider the impact of regulatory actions on small 
entities. To that end, the RFA requires agencies to perform a review to 
determine whether a proposed or final rule will have ``a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' Section 
603(a) of the RFA requires that agencies prepare and make available for 
public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for 
rulemakings subject to the notice and comment requirements of the 
Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Section 604(a) of the RFA requires 
a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for final rules issued 
subsequently.
    TSA is issuing this interim final rule without prior notice and 
opportunity to comment pursuant to its authority under section 4(a) of 
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This 
provision authorizes the agency to issue a rule without notice and 
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those 
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public 
interest.'' TSA finds that notice and public comment to the interim 
final rule are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public 
interest for the following reasons.
    The Maryland Three Airport operators, and pilots who operate to and 
from those airports, have been operating

[[Page 7161]]

under the SFAR 94 requirements since February 19, 2002. TSA is largely 
adopting the security measures and procedures that were required under 
SFAR 94. As a result, TSA believes that the interim final rule will not 
present any surprises or impose any additional burdens on the Maryland 
Three Airport operators or the pilots who operate to and from those 
airports. SFAR 94, however, is set to expire on February 13, 2005. 
Consequently, if TSA does not issue this interim final rule 
immediately, The Maryland Three Airports may be required to close until 
TSA completes this rulemaking.
    The FAA issued SFAR 94 without prior notice and public comment, but 
did consider and respond to comments in its two-year extension of SFAR 
94. The FAA also performed a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, which 
addressed the following requirements of an IRFA:
    1. Reasons why the rule was considered. In the wake of the 
catastrophic events of September 11, 2001, there was an awareness of 
the need to take steps to safeguard critical national assets and 
counter the increased threat level, while restoring operations at the 
Maryland Three Airports, which are located within a few minutes of 
vital civilian and military control centers.
    2. Objective. To restore operations at the affected airports, while 
attempting to counter the threat of a possible terrorist airborne 
attack on vital national assets located within the National Capital 
Region. The legal basis is found in 49 U.S.C. 44901 and 49 U.S.C. 
40101(d).
    3. Description and number of small entities regulated. The IFR 
regulates two small (based on the SBA Office of Size Standards criteria 
of less than $6.0 million in annual receipts) privately-owned general 
aviation airports (Potomac Airfield and Washington Executive Airport). 
In total, three airports are regulated, but the third is owned by two 
governmental jurisdictions with a combined population of 1.7 million 
(well above the 50,000 SBA threshold population for small governmental 
jurisdictions), and thus was not considered a small entity for the 
analysis.
    4. Compliance requirements. The FAA analysis discussed the airspace 
flight restrictions imposed and the cost of compliance and lost revenue 
as a result. In addition, the analysis described the security 
requirements to maintain a security program and to modify and submit 
security procedures to TSA upon request. The cost of flight 
restrictions, lost revenue, and security procedures is estimated at 
$290,700 annually for Washington Executive Airport and $220,700 for the 
Potomac Airfield Airport; \19\ these costs increase to $333,100 and 
$252,200, respectively when the anticipated airport revenue losses are 
increased by 20 percent, as discussed in the full regulatory 
evaluation. The analysis further described the estimated time and cost 
requirements for modifying and submitting security procedures to TSA at 
16 hours and $672 for Potomac, and 15 hours and $600 for Washington 
Executive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The full regulatory evaluation shows revenue losses and 
security costs broken down between actual airport costs and those 
incurred by other airport entities. The costs applicable here are 
only those incurred by the airports. For Potomac, revenue losses are 
$157,600 (Table 6 in full regulatory evaluation) and security costs 
are $63,100 (Table 7), summing to $220,700. For Washington 
Executive/Hyde, revenue losses are estimated at $212,100 and are 
calculated by summing $69,200 (Table 10) with the average of 
airport-only costs (excluding fuel and landing fees) from Tables 2 
(College Park) and 6 (Potomac). The revenue losses from those two 
tables are $209,300 and $76,500, respectively, resulting in an 
average of $142,900 (($209,300 + $76,500 = $285,800) (/ 2 = 
$142,900). Therefore, total revenue losses for Washington Executive 
are estimated at $212,100 ($69,200 + $142,900 = $212,100). With 
security costs at $78,600 (Table 11), the cost of compliance sums to 
$290,700 for Washington Executive ($212,100 + $78,600 = $290,700).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Duplication/Overlap. The FAA is unaware of any Federal rules 
that duplicate, overlap, or were in conflict with SFAR 94.
    The FAA Regulatory Flexibility Analysis also discussed the 
following alternatives: (1) Rescind the rule; (2) Maintain the status 
quo (SFAR 94); and (3) Close the airports permanently. Of those 
alternatives, maintaining the status quo (SFAR 94) is preferred because 
rescinding the rule would increase the vulnerability and diminish the 
level of protection now in place, while closing the airports 
permanently causes the greatest financial burden on the airports.
    The FAA analysis also addressed the additional elements required 
for the FRFA. As required in the FRFA, FAA summarized and addressed 
significant issues raised by public comments, in addition to providing 
a summarized assessment of those issues. Further, in response to one of 
those issues raised as an alternative, this IFR relaxes one of the 
major burdens imposed--the requirement that aircraft approved to 
operate to or from any of the Maryland Three Airports be based at one 
of those airports. As a result, through this IFR, TSA may permit 
transient aircraft to operate to or from any of the Maryland Three 
Airports if the pilot complies with the requirements of the interim 
final rule. TSA believes that this change will reduce the burden on the 
airports without relaxing security.
    For the reasons stated above, TSA believes that the requirements of 
both the IRFA and the FRFA have already been satisfied.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from 
engaging in any standards or 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. In addition, consistent with the Administration's belief in 
the general superiority and desirability of free trade, it is the 
policy of to remove or diminish to the extent feasible, barriers to 
international trade, including both barriers affecting the export of 
American goods and services to foreign countries and barriers affecting 
the import of foreign goods and services into the United States.
    In accordance with the above statute and policy, the TSA has 
assessed the potential effect of this interim final rule and has 
determined that it will have only a domestic impact and therefore no 
affect on any trade-sensitive activity.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires Federal 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 more 
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base 
year of 1995). Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires TSA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objective of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows TSA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
agency publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted.
    This interim final rule will not result in the expenditure by 
State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

[[Page 7162]]

by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually. Thus, TSA 
has not prepared a written assessment under the UMRA.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 requires TSA to develop an accountable 
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local 
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Under the Executive Order, TSA may construe a Federal 
statute to preempt State law only where, among other things, the 
exercise of State authority conflicts with the exercise of Federal 
authority under the Federal statute.
    This interim final rule will not have substantial direct effects on 
the States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. Thus, TSA has determined that this 
interim final rule will not have sufficient Federalism implications to 
warrant the preparation of a Federal Assessment.

National Environmental Policy Act

    TSA has reviewed this action for purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has 
determined that this action will not have a significant effect on the 
human environment.

Energy Impact

    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). TSA has tentatively determined that this 
interim final rule will not be a major regulatory action under the 
provisions of the EPCA.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1562

    Airports, Flight restricted zone, General aviation, Security threat 
assessment.

The Amendments

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Transportation Security 
Administration amends Chapter XII, subchapter C, of Title 49, Code of 
Federal Regulations, by adding a new part 1562 to read as follows:

PART 1562--GENERAL AVIATION

Subpart A--Maryland Three Airports: Enhanced Security Procedures 
for Operations at Certain Airports in the Washington, DC, 
Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone

Sec.
1562.1 Scope and definitions.
1562.3 Operating requirements.

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


Sec.  1562.1  Scope and definitions.

    (a) Scope. This subpart applies to the following airports, and 
individuals who operate an aircraft to or from those airports, that are 
located within the airspace designated as the Washington, DC, 
Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone by the Federal Aviation 
Administration:
    (1) College Park Airport (CGS);
    (2) Potomac Airfield (VKX); and
    (3) Washington Executive/Hyde Field (W32).
    (b) Definitions. For purposes of this section:
    Airport security coordinator means the official at a Maryland Three 
Airport who is responsible for ensuring that the airport's security 
procedures are implemented and followed.
    Maryland Three Airport means any of the airports specified in 
paragraph (a) of this section.


Sec.  1562.3  Operating requirements.

    (a) Airport operator requirements. Each operator of a Maryland 
Three Airport must:
    (1) Appoint an airport employee as the airport security 
coordinator;
    (2) Maintain and carry out security procedures approved by TSA;
    (3) Maintain at the airport a copy of the airport's TSA-approved 
security procedures;
    (4) Maintain at the airport a copy of each Federal Aviation 
Administration Notice to Airmen and rule that affects security 
procedures at the Maryland Three Airports; and
    (5) Permit officials authorized by TSA to inspect--
    (i) The airport;
    (ii) The airport's TSA-approved security procedures; and
    (iii) Any other documents required under this section.
    (b) Airport security coordinator requirements. Each airport 
security coordinator for a Maryland Three Airport must be approved by 
TSA. To obtain TSA approval, an airport security coordinator must:
    (1) Present to TSA, in a form and manner acceptable to TSA, his or 
her--
    (i) Name;
    (ii) Social Security Number;
    (iii) Date of birth;
    (iv) Address;
    (v) Phone number; and
    (vi) Fingerprints.
    (2) Successfully complete a TSA terrorist threat assessment; and
    (3) Not have been convicted or found not guilty by reason of 
insanity, in any jurisdiction, during the 10 years prior to applying 
for authorization to operate to or from the airport, or while 
authorized to operate to or from the airport, of any crime specified in 
49 CFR 1542.209 or 1572.103.
    (c) Security procedures. To be approved by TSA, an airport's 
security procedures, at a minimum, must:
    (1) Identify and provide contact information for the airport's 
airport security coordinator.
    (2) Contain a current record of the individuals and aircraft 
authorized to operate to or from the airport.
    (3) Contain procedures to--
    (i) Monitor the security of aircraft at the airport during 
operational and non-operational hours; and
    (ii) Alert the aircraft owner(s) and operator(s), the airport 
operator, and TSA of unsecured aircraft.
    (4) Contain procedures to implement and maintain security awareness 
procedures at the airport.
    (5) Contain procedures for limited approval of pilots who violate 
the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone and are 
forced to land at the airport.
    (6) Contain any additional procedures required by TSA to provide 
for the security of aircraft operations to or from the airport.
    (d) Amendments to security procedures. Airport security procedures 
approved by TSA remain in effect unless TSA determines that--
    (1) Operations at the airport have not been conducted in accordance 
with those procedures; or
    (2) The procedures must be amended to provide for the security of 
aircraft operations to or from the airport.
    (e) Pilot requirements for TSA approval. Except as specified in 
paragraph (g) of this section, each pilot of an aircraft operating to 
or from any of the Maryland Three Airports must be approved by TSA. To 
obtain TSA approval, a pilot must:
    (1) Present to TSA--
    (i) The pilot's name;
    (ii) The pilot's Social Security Number;
    (iii) The pilot's date of birth;
    (iv) The pilot's address;
    (v) The pilot's phone number;
    (vi) The pilot's current and valid airman certificate or current 
student pilot certificate;

[[Page 7163]]

    (vii) The pilot's current medical certificate;
    (viii) One form of Government-issued picture identification of the 
pilot;
    (ix) The pilot's fingerprints, in a form and manner acceptable to 
TSA; and
    (x) A list containing the make, model, and registration number of 
each aircraft that the pilot intends to operate to or from the airport.
    (2) Successfully complete a TSA terrorist threat assessment.
    (3) Receive a briefing acceptable to TSA and the Federal Aviation 
Administration that describes procedures for operating to and from the 
airport.
    (4) Not have been convicted or found not guilty by reason of 
insanity, in any jurisdiction, during the 10 years prior to applying 
for authorization to operate to or from the airport, or while 
authorized to operate to or from the airport, of any crime specified in 
49 CFR 1542.209 or 1572.103.
    (5) Not, in TSA's discretion, have a record on file with the 
Federal Aviation Administration of a violation of--
    (i) A prohibited area designated under 14 CFR part 73;
    (ii) A flight restriction established under 14 CFR 91.141;
    (iii) Special security instructions issued under 14 CFR 99.7;
    (iv) A restricted area designated under 14 CFR part 73;
    (v) Emergency air traffic rules issued under 14 CFR 91.139;
    (vi) A temporary flight restriction designated under 14 CFR 91.137, 
91.138, or 91.145; or
    (vii) An area designated under 14 CFR 91.143.
    (f) Additional pilot requirements. Except as specified in paragraph 
(g) of this section, each pilot of an aircraft operating to or from any 
of the Maryland Three Airports must:
    (1) Protect from unauthorized disclosure any identification 
information issued by TSA or the Federal Aviation Administration for 
the conduct of operations to or from the airport.
    (2) Secure the aircraft after returning to the airport from any 
flight.
    (3) Comply with any other requirements for operating to or from the 
airport specified by TSA or the Federal Aviation Administration.
    (g) Operations to any of the Maryland Three Airports. A pilot who 
is approved by TSA in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section may 
operate an aircraft to any of the Maryland Three Airports, provided 
that the pilot--
    (1) Files an instrument flight rules or visual flight rules flight 
plan with Leesburg Automated Flight Service Station;
    (2) Obtains an Air Traffic Control clearance with a discrete 
transponder code; and
    (3) Follows any arrival/departure procedures required by the 
Federal Aviation Administration.
    (h) U.S. Armed forces, law enforcement, and aeromedical services 
aircraft. An individual may operate a U.S. Armed Forces, law 
enforcement, or aeromedical services aircraft on an authorized mission 
to or from any of the Maryland Three Airports provided that the 
individual complies with any requirements for operating to or from the 
airport specified by TSA or the Federal Aviation Administration.
    (i) Continuing responsibilities. (1) If an airport security 
coordinator, or a pilot who is approved to operate to or from any of 
the Maryland Three Airports, is convicted or found not guilty by reason 
of insanity, in any jurisdiction, of any crime specified in 49 CFR 
1542.209 or 1572.103, the airport security coordinator or pilot must 
notify TSA within 24 hours of the conviction or finding of not guilty 
by reason of insanity. TSA may withdraw its approval of the airport 
security coordinator or pilot as a result of the conviction or finding 
of not guilty by reason of insanity.
    (2) If a pilot who is approved to operate to or from any of the 
Maryland Three Airports commits any of the violations described in 
paragraph (e)(5) of this section, the pilot must notify TSA within 24 
hours of the violation. TSA, in its discretion, may withdraw its 
approval of the pilot as a result of the violation.
    (3) If an airport security coordinator, or a pilot who is approved 
to operate to or from any of the Maryland Three Airports, is determined 
by TSA to pose a threat to national or transportation security, or a 
threat of terrorism, TSA may withdraw its approval of the airport 
security coordinator or pilot.
    (j) Waivers. TSA, in coordination with the Federal Aviation 
Administration, the United States Secret Service, and any other 
relevant agency, may permit an operation to or from any of the Maryland 
Three Airports, in deviation from the provisions of this section, if 
TSA finds that such action--
    (1) Is in the public interest; and
    (2) Provides the level of security required by this section.

    Issued in Arlington, Virginia, on February 4, 2005.
David M. Stone,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-2630 Filed 2-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P