Rail Transportation Security, 7376-7381 [07-715]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
7376
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Flooding source(s)
* Elevation in
feet (NGVD)
+ Elevation in
feet (NAVD)
# Depth in feet
above ground.
Location of referenced elevation
Effective
Communities affected
Modified
City of Glendale
Maps are available for inspection at 5909 N Milwaukee River Parkway, Glendale, WI.
Send comments to The Honorable Jerome Tepper, Mayor, 5909 N Milwaukee River Parkway, Glendale, WI 53209–3815.
City of Milwaukee
Maps are available for inspection at 200 E Wells Street, Milwaukee, WI.
Send comments to The Honorable Tom Barrett, Mayor, 200 E Wells Street, Room 205, Milwaukee, WI 53202–3515.
City of Oak Creek
Maps are available for inspection at 8640 S Howell Avenue, Oak Creek, WI.
Send comments to The Honorable Richard Bolender, Mayor, PO Box 27, Oak Creek, WI 53154–2918.
City of South Milwaukee
Maps are available for inspection at 2424 15th Avenue, South Milwaukee, WI.
Send comments to The Honorable Thomas Zepecki, Mayor, 2424 15th Avenue, South Milwaukee, WI 53172–2410.
City of Wauwatosa
Maps are available for inspection at 7725 W North Avenue, Wauwatosa, WI.
Send comments to The Honorable Theresa Estness, Mayor, 7725 W North Avenue, Wauwatosa, WI 53213–1720.
City of West Allis
Maps are available for inspection at 7525 W Greenfield Avenue, West Allis, WI.
Send comments to The Honorable Jeannette Bell, Mayor, 7525 W Greenfield Avenue, West Allis, WI 53214–4648.
Village of Brown Deer
Maps are available for inspection at 4800 W Green Brook Drive, Brown Deer, WI.
Send comments to Ms. Margaret Jayberg, President, 4800 W Green Brook Drive, Brown Deer, WI 53223–2406.
Village of River Hills
Maps are available for inspection at 7650 N Pheasant Lane, River Hills, WI.
Send comments to Mr. Robert C. Brunner, President, 7650 N Pheasant Lane, River Hills, WI 53217–3012.
Village of Shorewood
Maps are available for inspection at 3930 N Murray Avenue, Shorewood, WI.
Send comments to Mr. Guy Johnson, President, 3930 N Murray Avenue, Shorewood, WI 53211–2303.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.
83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance’’.
BILLING CODE 9110–12–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Transportation Security Administration
49 CFR Parts 1520 and 1580
[Docket No. TSA–2006–26514]
RIN 1652–AA51
Rail Transportation Security
Transportation Security
Administration, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document places in the
Federal Register the entire Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
for this proposed rulemaking on rail
transportation security, which has been
available in the public docket. TSA
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:53 Feb 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
Submitting Comments to the NPRM
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dated February 7, 2007.
David I. Maurstad,
Director, Mitigation Division, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department
of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E7–2638 Filed 2–14–07; 845 am]
published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) on Rail
Transportation Security and placed the
IRFA in the public docket as part of the
comprehensive Regulatory Impact
Assessment, on December 28, 2006.
However, TSA inadvertently omitted
the summary of the IRFA from the
NPRM when we published it in the
Federal Register. TSA decided to
publish in the Federal Register the same
IRFA that has been in the docket.
You can get an electronic copy using
the Internet by
(1) Searching the Department of
Transportation’s electronic Docket
Management System (DMS) web page
(https://dms.dot.gov/search);
(2) Accessing the Government
Printing Office’s web page at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/; or
(3) Visiting TSA’s Security
Regulations web page at https://
www.tsa.gov and accessing the link for
‘‘Research Center’’ at the top of the page.
In addition, copies are available by
writing or calling the individual in the
For questions related to rail security:
Lisa Pena, Transportation Sector
Network Management, Freight Rail
Security, TSA–28, Transportation
Security Administration, 601 South
12th Street, Arlington, VA 22202–4220;
telephone (571) 227–4414; facsimile
(571) 227–1923; email
lisa.pena@dhs.gov.
For legal questions: David H.
Kasminoff, Office of Chief Counsel,
TSA–2, Transportation Security
Administration, 601 South 12th Street,
Arlington, VA 22202–4220; telephone
(571) 227–3583; facsimile (571) 227–
1378; email david.kasminoff@dhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
TSA invited comments to the NPRM
that TSA published in the Federal
Register on December 21, 2006 (71 FR
76852); Docket No. TSA–2006–26514;
RIN 1652-AA51. You may continue to
submit comments to the NPRM until the
comment period closes on February 20,
2007, using any one of the methods and
the procedures identified in the NPRM.
Availability of Rulemaking Document
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. Be sure to identify the docket
number of this rulemaking.
E:\FR\FM\15FEP1.SGM
15FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Background
In accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601–
612), TSA prepared an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
proposed rail transportation security
rule. On December 28, 2006, TSA made
the IRFA available in the public docket
for this rulemaking as part of the
comprehensive Regulatory Impact
Assessment. However, TSA
inadvertently omitted the summary of
the IRFA when we published the NPRM
in the Federal Register on December 21,
2006 (71 FR 76852). To correct this
oversight, TSA decided to publish in
this document, the same IRFA, in its
entirety, in the Federal Register. No
new information is being added to the
analysis with this document, but TSA is
providing an additional means for the
public to see this information.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
You may find the following IRFA, as
reproduced below verbatim from the
public docket for this rulemaking, in
Section 7 of the Regulatory Impact
Assessment, beginning on page 36. In
this analysis, we note several
abbreviations: (1) North American
Classification System (NAICS); (2)
Environmental Protection Agency’s Risk
Management Program (RMP); (3) Rail
Security Coordinators (RSCs); and (4)
Small Business Administration (SBA).
You may view or download the IRFA
directly from the public docket
at https://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/
pdf99/434562_web.pdf.
erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
7. Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis
In accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), TSA
prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) that
examines the impacts of the proposed
rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.). A small entity may be: (1) A small
business, defined as any independently
owned and operated business not
dominant in its field that qualifies as a
small business per the Small Business
Act (5 U.S.C. 632); (2) a small not-forprofit organization; or (3) a small
governmental jurisdiction (locality with
fewer than 50,000 people).
This IRFA addresses the following:
1. The objectives of and legal basis for
the proposed rule;
2. The reason the agency is
considering this action;
3. The number and types of small
entities to which the rule applies;
4. Projected reporting, recordkeeping,
and other compliance requirements of
the proposed rule, including the classes
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:53 Feb 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
of small entities that will be subject to
the requirements and the type of
professional skills necessary for
preparation of the reports and records;
5. Other relevant Federal rules that
may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
the proposed rule; and
6. Significant alternatives to the
component under consideration that
accomplish the stated objectives of
applicable statutes and may minimize
any significant economic impact of the
proposed rule on small entities.
7.1 Background and Legal Authority
In response to the attacks on
September 11, 2001, Congress passed
the Aviation and Transportation
Security Act (ATSA),1 which
established the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA). TSA was created
as an agency within the Department of
Transportation (DOT), operating under
the direction of the Under Secretary of
Transportation for Security. On March
1, 2003, TSA was transferred to the
Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) and the officer formerly
designated Under Secretary for
Transportation Security, DOT, is now
the Assistant Secretary, Transportation
Security Administration (TSA),
Department of Homeland Security
(DHS).
TSA has the responsibility for
enhancing security in all modes of
transportation. Under ATSA, and
delegated authority from the Secretary
of Homeland Security, TSA has broad
responsibility and authority for
‘‘security in all modes of transportation
* * * including security
responsibilities’’ over modes of
transportation that are exercised by the
Department of Transportation.’’ 2 TSA
has additional authorities as well. TSA
is specifically empowered to develop
policies, strategies, and plans for
dealing with threats to transportation.3
As part of its security mission, TSA is
responsible for assessing intelligence
and other information to identify
1 Public Law 107–71, 115 Stat. 597 (November 19,
2001).
2 See, 49 U.S.C. 114(d). The TSA Assistant
Secretary’s current authorities under ATSA have
been delegated to him by the Secretary of Homeland
Security. Under Section 403(2) of the Homeland
Security Act (HSA) of 2002, Pub. L. 107–296, 116
Stat. 2315 (2002), all functions of TSA, including
those of the Secretary of Transportation and the
Undersecretary of Transportation of Security related
to TSA, transferred to the Secretary of Homeland
Security. Pursuant to DHS Delegation Number
7060.2, the Secretary delegated to the Assistant
Secretary (then referred to as the Administrator of
TSA), subject to the Secretary’s guidance and
control, the authority vested in the Secretary with
respect to TSA, including that in Section 403(2) of
the HSA.
3 49 U.S.C. 114(f)(3).
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7377
individuals who pose a threat to
transportation security and to
coordinate countermeasures with other
Federal agencies to address such
threats.4 TSA also is to enforce securityrelated regulations and requirements,5
ensure the adequacy of security
measures for the transportation of
cargo,6 oversee the implementation, and
ensure the adequacy, of security
measures at transportation facilities,7
and carry out other appropriate duties
relating to transportation security.8 TSA
has broad regulatory authority to
achieve ATSA’s objectives, and may
issue, rescind, and revise such
regulations as are necessary to carry out
TSA functions,9 and may issue
regulations and security directives
without notice or comment or prior
approval of the Secretary of DHS.10 TSA
is also charged with serving as the
primary liaison for transportation
security to the intelligence and law
enforcement communities.11
TSA’s authority with respect to
transportation security is
comprehensive and supported with
specific powers related to the
development and enforcement of
regulations, security directives, security
plans, and other requirements.
Accordingly, under this authority, TSA
may assess a security risk for any mode
of transportation, develop security
measures for dealing with that risk, and
enforce compliance with those
measures.
TSA’s legal authority is supported by
National policy. On December 17, 2003,
the President issued Homeland Security
Presidential Directive 7 (HSPD–7,
Critical Infrastructure Identification,
Prioritization, and Protection), which
‘‘establishes a national policy for
Federal departments and agencies to
identify and prioritize United States
critical infrastructure and key resources
and to protect them from terrorist
attacks.’’ 12 In recognition of the lead
role assigned to DHS for transportation
security, and consistent with the powers
granted to TSA by ATSA, the directive
provides that the roles and
responsibilities of the Secretary of DHS
include coordinating protection
activities for ‘‘transportation systems,
including mass transit, aviation,
maritime, ground/surface, and rail and
4 49
U.S.C. 114(f)(1)–(5); (h)(1)–(4).
U.S.C. 114(f)(7).
6 49 U.S.C. 114(f)(10).
7 49 U.S.C. 114(f)(11).
8 49 U.S.C. 114(f)(15).
9 49 U.S.C. 114(l)(1).
10 49 U.S.C. 114(l)(2).
11 49 U.S.C. 114(f) (1) and (5).
12 HSPD–7, Paragraph 1.
5 49
E:\FR\FM\15FEP1.SGM
15FEP1
7378
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules
pipeline systems.’’ 13 In furtherance of
this coordination process, HSPD–7
provides that DHS and DOT will
‘‘collaborate on all matters relating to
transportation security and
transportation infrastructure
protection.’’ 14 See, HSPD–7, Paragraph
22(h).
In accordance with the September
2004 Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) between DHS and DOT, both
Departments share responsibility for rail
and hazardous materials transportation
security. The two departments consult
and coordinate on security-related rail
and hazardous materials transportation
requirements to ensure they are
consistent with overall security policy
goals and objectives and the regulated
industry is not confronted with
inconsistent security guidance or
requirements promulgated by multiple
agencies.
7.2 Statement of Need for the
Proposed Action
TSA developed the proposed rule to
mitigate threats and vulnerabilities in
the rail transportation network. In the
United States, freight rail transportation
systems transport hundreds of millions
of dollars worth of freight and employ
hundreds of thousands of individuals
on an annual basis.15 Furthermore,
passenger systems, including passenger
rail carriers as well as mass transit
systems, carry millions of people daily
throughout the country.
Rail transportation networks ‘‘ both
passenger and freight’’ are vulnerable to
a variety of transportation security
incidents. In the past, terrorists have
targeted passenger rail transportation
systems to inflict mass casualties (e.g.
Tokyo 1995; Moscow 2000, 2001, and
2004; Madrid 2004; London 2005; and
Mumbai 2006). When transporting
certain materials, freight rail systems
also represent potential terrorist targets.
Although not the result of a deliberate
attack, the incident involving a ruptured
chlorine tank car in Graniteville, South
Carolina, killed nine people and injured
hundreds more. These incidents
highlight the fact that hazardous
materials in rail transportation and rail
passenger systems are possible targets of
terrorism intended to inflict hundreds
or even thousands of fatalities, with
direct and indirect costs from
transportation system disruption that
could total billions of dollars.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
attempts to reduce the probability that
such an event would occur by: (1)
Requiring the protection of sensitive
security information in the rail sector;
(2) giving TSA authority to conduct
inspections of rail security operations;
(3) requiring the designation of Rail
Security Coordinators; (4) requiring
covered entities to have the ability to
report on rail car locations; (5) requiring
covered entities to report significant
security concerns to TSA; and (6)
requiring covered entities to establish a
chain of custody and control standards
for certain hazardous shipments.
7.3 Description and Estimated Number
of Small Entities
The regulated entities are divided into
railroad carriers, transit systems, and
rail hazmat facilities. Rail hazmat
facilities are primarily chemical
manufacturers although some
wholesalers may also ship chemicals. In
addition, some ammonia producers
classify themselves as support activities
for agriculture or agricultural
wholesalers. Figure 1 provides the
NAICS codes and SBA standards for
defining small entities for the sectors
expected to be affected by the rule.
FIGURE 1.—FIRM SIZE STANDARDS
Industry
NAICS
Line Haul railroads ........................................................................................................................
Short line railroads ........................................................................................................................
Transit Systems .............................................................................................................................
Petrochemical manufacturing ........................................................................................................
Alkalis and chlorine manufacturing ...............................................................................................
All other basic inorganics ..............................................................................................................
All other basic organics .................................................................................................................
Plastic and resin manufacturing ....................................................................................................
Nitrogen fertilizer manufacturing ...................................................................................................
Other chemical manufacturing ......................................................................................................
Support activities for rail ................................................................................................................
Petroleum refineries ......................................................................................................................
Pulp and paper mills .....................................................................................................................
Support activities for agriculture ....................................................................................................
Chemical wholesalers ...................................................................................................................
Agricultural wholesalers ................................................................................................................
Electric utilities ...............................................................................................................................
Water and sewage systems, private .............................................................................................
Water and sewage systems, public ..............................................................................................
Small business standard
482111
482112
485
32511
325181
325188
325199
32511
325311
325
48821
32411
3221
1151
42469
42491
2111
2213
92
1,500 FTE.
500 FTE.
$6.5 million.
1,000 FTE.
1,000 FTE.
1,000 FTE.
1,000 FTE.
750 FTE.
1,000 FTE.
500–1,000 FTE.
$6.5 million.
1,500 FTE.
750 FTE.
$6.5 million.
100 FTE.
100 FTE.
<4 m megawatt hours/year.
$6.5 million.
<50,000 people serviced.
erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
Source: Small Business Administration.
13 HSPD–7,
14 HSPD–7,
Paragraph 15.
Paragraph 22(h).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:53 Feb 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
most local rail carriers are privately
owned. Based on AAR data on
employment and revenues, TSA
assumed that all rail carriers except the
seven Class I railroads are small
entities.16 This assumption may be
conservative because some private
companies own a number of local
railroads and may exceed the 500 FTE
size limits. Figure 2 presents the AAR
data on the number of railroads, average
revenues, and average number of FTEs.
15 U.S. Department of Transportation, Research
and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau
of Transportation Statistics, Pocket Guide to
Overall, of all the regulated parties,
TSA identified 654 entities that may
meet the SBA definition of small entity.
The number of small rail carriers
potentially affected by the rule is
difficult to estimate accurately because
Transportation 2006 (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, 2006).
16 Association of American Railroads, ‘‘Overview
of U.S. Freight Railroads,’’ January 2006.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15FEP1.SGM
15FEP1
7379
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules
FIGURE 2.—RAILROAD TYPES BY AVERAGE REVENUE AND NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
Type
Average freight
revenue
Number
Class I ........................................................................................................................................................
Regional .....................................................................................................................................................
Local ..........................................................................................................................................................
Switching and Terminal .............................................................................................................................
7
31
314
204
$5,590,000,000
45,483,871
3,121,019
3,137,255
Average
number
of FTEs
21,100
239
17
32
Source: American Association of Railroads.
BTS list 152 transit systems (21
commuter rail systems, 45 rail transit
systems, 86 other rail transit systems).17
Of these, 86 are listed as ‘‘other,’’ and
include cable car, inclined plane,
monorail, and automated guideway.18
As shown in Figure 3, only the systems
in the ‘‘other’’ category have average
passenger revenues of less than $6.5
million, which is the SBA standard for
small transit entities. The other transit
systems not only have average passenger
revenues that exceed the standard, but
are generally also operated by
governmental entities that receive
support from federal and state
governments. It is unlikely that local
governments that meet the SBA
standard for small governments (50,000
people served) operate rail transit
systems. Consequently, TSA has
included only the ‘‘other’’ entities as
potentially affected small entities.
FIGURE 3.—TRANSIT SYSTEMS BY AVERAGE REVENUES
Type
Number
Heavy Rail .............................................................................................................................................................
Light Rail ................................................................................................................................................................
Commuter Rail .......................................................................................................................................................
Other ......................................................................................................................................................................
14
27
21
86
Average annual passenger revenue
$189,590,000
8,490,000
73,910,000
590,000
Source: BTS.
Of the 241 rail hazmat facilities
identified from the RMP data, there are
36 facilities that may be small entities
(fewer than 500 employees for
manufacturers or 100 for wholesalers
and not obviously part of larger
corporations). Of the 36 identified small
entities, only a certain subset may incur
costs for rail secure areas. As explained
in Section 5.6.1, only facilities with a
range of less than five to less than 21
employees are expected to incur
incremental costs related to creating
secure storage areas, while all would
incur costs for the other requirements.
Figure 4 presents the RMP data
distribution by FTE for hazmat facilities
that may be SBA-defined small entities.
Of the total facilities assumed to be
small, seven have 10 to 19 employees;
17 have 20–49 employees; six have 50–
99 employees; and 6 have 100–499.19
FIGURE 4.—AFFECTED SMALL RAIL
HAZMAT FACILITIES
Rail hazmat
facilities
Number of FTEs
100–499 ................................
50–99 ....................................
20–49 ....................................
10–19 ....................................
1–9 ........................................
Potential Small Entities .........
Facilities with FTE > 499 ......
6
6
17
7
0
36
205
Total Rail Hazmat Facilities .............................
241
7.4 Description of Compliance
Requirements
Railroads will have to submit the
name(s) of and engage in training of the
RSC, document chain of custody
transfers, and file incident reports and
car location reports as needed. TSA
assumed that regional and local carriers
handled hazmat shipments in
proportion to their percentage of total
freight carried. Again, this assumption
may be conservative because it is likely
that Class I carriers move most
chemicals. Figure 5 presents the costs
for an average regional, local, and S&T
rail carrier to comply with the
requirements.
Source: TSA Calculations.
FIGURE 5.—AVERAGE COSTS TO RAILROADS BY SIZE
Requirement
Unit cost
erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
RSC ..........................................................................................................................
Incident Report .........................................................................................................
17 Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National
Transportation Statistics, Modal Profile Transit
Systems, Updated April 2005. Note, however, that
four of the 152 transit system listed by BTS are
classified as trolley bus and would not be covered
by this proposed rule. This is represented in Figure
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:53 Feb 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Regional
2
2
$182
126
$91
63
22, which only shows 41 transit systems (14 heavy
rail and 27 light rail).
18 The estimate for ‘‘Other Rail Transit Systems’’
impacted by the proposed rule shown in Figure 22
is conservative because it includes conveyances
such as vanpool and aerial tramway, which would
not be affected by this NPRM.
PO 00000
# Activities/
year
Local
$182
126
S&T
$182
126
19 The number of facilities that actually are part
of firms that meet the small entity definitions may
be lower. TSA excluded only those facilities that
could be clearly identified as belonging to
corporations or municipalities that exceed the SBA
standards.
E:\FR\FM\15FEP1.SGM
15FEP1
7380
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules
FIGURE 5.—AVERAGE COSTS TO RAILROADS BY SIZE—Continued
Unit cost
# Activities/
year
Regional
Chain of Custody .....................................................................................................
4,969,723
5,362
368
370
Location ....................................................................................................................
91
Weighted by
% of
Revenue
1
91
91
91
Total ..................................................................................................................
....................
....................
5,761
767
769
Requirement
Local
S&T
Source: TSA Calculations.
As discussed above, only the 86
transit systems in the ‘‘other’’ category
in Figure 3 are expected to be small
entities according to SBA standards.20
These small transit systems will only
incur unit costs for submission of RSC
information and incident reporting.
Both the RSC and incident reporting
costs are expected to be incurred on
average just once per year per small
transit system, resulting in average costs
per system of just $245, as shown in
Figure 6.
FIGURE 6.—AVERAGE COSTS FOR SMALL TRANSIT SYSTEMS
Unit cost
# of Activities/year
Regional
A
B
A×B
Requirement
RSC .........................................................................................................................................................
Incident Report ........................................................................................................................................
$91.00
63.00
2
1
$182
63
Total ..................................................................................................................................................
245
Source: TSA Calculations.
As explained above, the cost for
hazmat facilities includes the cost of
adding fencing, training, and
inspections, plus the types of cost
incurred by railroads. TSA assumed that
each facility will train 10 workers and
the number of inspections per small
facility is based on the assumption that
the number of inspections is
proportional to the quantity of chemical
held. The 36 small rail hazmat facilities
represent about 6.5 percent of the
affected chemicals; therefore 6.5 percent
of the inspections were divided among
the 36 firms to estimate 384 inspections
a year. Figure 7 presents the average
costs for a hazmat facility. Because
fencing is a capital cost, Figure 7 also
presents the cost based on amortizing
the fencing cost over 10 years at 7%
discount rate.21
FIGURE 7.—AVERAGE COSTS FOR SMALL RAIL HAZMAT FACILITIES
Unit cost
#
First-year
cost
A
B
A×B
Requirement
Secure Storage Area .......................................................................................................
RSC .................................................................................................................................
Training ............................................................................................................................
Inspections .......................................................................................................................
Incident Report ................................................................................................................
Chain of Custody .............................................................................................................
Location Reporting ...........................................................................................................
$16,150
91
63
32
63
42,481
91
1
2
10
384
1
1
1
Annualized
$2,299
182
630
12,096
63
42,481
91
71,693
Total ..........................................................................................................................
$16,150
182
630
12,096
63
42,481
91
57,842
Source: TSA Calculations.
erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
Figure 8 presents the average costs as
a percent of average sales. As can be
seen, some small entities categorized as
chemical or agricultural wholesalers
may incur costs that exceed one percent
of annual sales. TSA requests comment
20 Again, it is important to note that the estimate
of 86 ‘‘Other Rail Transit Systems’’ impacted by the
rule is in all likelihood conservative.
21 Note that calculations in Figure 23 may be off
due to rounding.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:53 Feb 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
on whether the rule will have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
E:\FR\FM\15FEP1.SGM
15FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules
7381
FIGURE 8.—AVERAGE FIRST-YEAR COMPLIANCE COSTS AS A PERCENT OF REVENUE
Average firstyear cost
Average
revenue
A
B
Type
Cost as a
percent of
revenue
(percent)
A/B
Regional .......................................................................................................................................
Local ............................................................................................................................................
S & T ............................................................................................................................................
Small Transit ................................................................................................................................
Chemical Manufacturer, 10–19 FTE ...........................................................................................
Chemical Wholesaler, 10–19 FTE ...............................................................................................
Agricultural Wholesaler, 10–19 FTE ............................................................................................
$5,761
767
769
245
71,693
71,693
71,693
$45,483,871
3,121,019
3,137,255
590,000
18,637,676
6,184,695
6,062,925
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.38
1.16
1.18
Source: TSA Calculations.
7.5 Identification of Duplication,
Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules
TSA has no knowledge of any
duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting
Federal rules.
7.6
Preliminary Conclusion
Based on this preliminary analysis,
TSA has not determined if the
rulemaking would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under section
605(b) of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The agency requests comment on all
aspects of this analysis. TSA will
publish a Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis for the Final Rule.
Issued in Arlington, Virginia, on February
12, 2007.
Mardi Ruth Thompson,
Deputy Chief Counsel for Regulations.
[FR Doc. 07–715 Filed 2–13–07; 10:44 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–05–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018–AV19
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 12-Month Petition Finding
and Proposed Rule To List the Polar
Bear (Ursus maritimus) as Threatened
Throughout Its Range
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public
informational meetings and public
hearings.
erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
locations and times of combined public
meetings that have been scheduled to:
(1) Provide information on the 12-month
petition finding and proposed rule to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:53 Feb 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
list the polar bear (Ursus maritimus) as
threatened throughout its range, and (2)
Receive verbal public comments on that
proposal.
DATES: The meeting dates are:
1. March 1, 2007, 7 to 10 p.m.,
Anchorage, AK.
2. March 5, 2007, 6 to 9 p.m.,
Washington, DC.
3. March 7, 2007, 5 to 10 p.m.,
Barrow, AK.
We will accept written comments
until April 9, 2007. If you wish to
submit written comments, follow the
directions in our January 9, 2007,
proposed regulation (72 FR 1064).
ADDRESSES: The meeting locations are:
1. Anchorage—Wilda Marston
Theatre, Z.J. Loussac Library, 3600
Denali Street, Anchorage, AK 99503.
2. Washington, DC—Department of
the Interior (Sidney Yates Auditorium),
1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240.
3. Barrow—Inupiat Heritage Center
(Multipurpose Room), Barrow, AK
99723.
Cathy Rezabeck, Regional Outreach
Coordinator, 1011 East Tudor Rd., MS–
101, Anchorage, AK 99503 (telephone
907/786–3351). Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–
8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. For
information concerning the Washington,
D.C., meeting, please contact Valerie
Fellows, Public Affairs Specialist, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 1849 C Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20240 (telephone
202/208–5634).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We will
hold a combined public informational
meeting and public hearing at the
following locations: Anchorage, Alaska;
Barrow, Alaska; and Washington, DC. In
each location, the public informational
meeting will precede the public hearing.
All meetings will include a 30-minute
presentation on the Service’s status
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
review of the polar bear followed by a
30-minute question and answer period
on the status review. We invite the
public to provide oral testimony during
the public hearing.
Background
On January 9, 2007, we published a
proposed rule (72 FR 1064) to list the
polar bear as threatened on the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife in 50 CFR 17.11(h). Because of
the wide geographic scope of the
proposal and heightened public interest,
we have scheduled public informational
meetings and public hearings at three
locations.
Our purpose for holding these public
informational meetings is to provide
additional opportunities for the public
to gain information and ask questions
about our proposal. These informational
sessions should assist interested parties
in preparing substantive comments,
which we will accept until close of
business (5 p.m.) Alaska Local Time on
April 9, 2007. The public hearings will
be the only method for the public to
verbally present comments and data for
entry into the public record of this
rulemaking and for our consideration
during our final decision. Anyone
wishing to make an oral comment or
statement for the record at a public
hearing listed above is encouraged (but
not required) to also provide a written
copy of the statement and present it to
us at the hearing. Oral and written
statements receive equal consideration.
In the event there is a large attendance,
the time allotted for oral statements may
be limited.
Comments and data can also be
submitted in writing or electronically,
as described in the January 9, 2007,
proposal, and at: https://alaska.fws.gov/
fisheries/mmm/polarbear/issues.htm.
Public Comments Solicited
We intend that any final action
resulting from the proposed rule will be
E:\FR\FM\15FEP1.SGM
15FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 31 (Thursday, February 15, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7376-7381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-715]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Transportation Security Administration
49 CFR Parts 1520 and 1580
[Docket No. TSA-2006-26514]
RIN 1652-AA51
Rail Transportation Security
AGENCY: Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document places in the Federal Register the entire
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for this proposed
rulemaking on rail transportation security, which has been available in
the public docket. TSA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
on Rail Transportation Security and placed the IRFA in the public
docket as part of the comprehensive Regulatory Impact Assessment, on
December 28, 2006. However, TSA inadvertently omitted the summary of
the IRFA from the NPRM when we published it in the Federal Register.
TSA decided to publish in the Federal Register the same IRFA that has
been in the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For questions related to rail security: Lisa Pena, Transportation
Sector Network Management, Freight Rail Security, TSA-28,
Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street,
Arlington, VA 22202-4220; telephone (571) 227-4414; facsimile (571)
227-1923; email lisa.pena@dhs.gov.
For legal questions: David H. Kasminoff, Office of Chief Counsel,
TSA-2, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street,
Arlington, VA 22202-4220; telephone (571) 227-3583; facsimile (571)
227-1378; email david.kasminoff@dhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Submitting Comments to the NPRM
TSA invited comments to the NPRM that TSA published in the Federal
Register on December 21, 2006 (71 FR 76852); Docket No. TSA-2006-26514;
RIN 1652-AA51. You may continue to submit comments to the NPRM until
the comment period closes on February 20, 2007, using any one of the
methods and the procedures identified in the NPRM.
Availability of Rulemaking Document
You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by
(1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket
Management System (DMS) web page (https://dms.dot.gov/search);
(2) Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/; or
(3) Visiting TSA's Security Regulations web page at https://
www.tsa.gov and accessing the link for ``Research Center'' at the top
of the page.
In addition, copies are available by writing or calling the
individual in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Be sure to
identify the docket number of this rulemaking.
[[Page 7377]]
Background
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C.
601-612), TSA prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the proposed rail transportation security rule. On December
28, 2006, TSA made the IRFA available in the public docket for this
rulemaking as part of the comprehensive Regulatory Impact Assessment.
However, TSA inadvertently omitted the summary of the IRFA when we
published the NPRM in the Federal Register on December 21, 2006 (71 FR
76852). To correct this oversight, TSA decided to publish in this
document, the same IRFA, in its entirety, in the Federal Register. No
new information is being added to the analysis with this document, but
TSA is providing an additional means for the public to see this
information.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
You may find the following IRFA, as reproduced below verbatim from
the public docket for this rulemaking, in Section 7 of the Regulatory
Impact Assessment, beginning on page 36. In this analysis, we note
several abbreviations: (1) North American Classification System
(NAICS); (2) Environmental Protection Agency's Risk Management Program
(RMP); (3) Rail Security Coordinators (RSCs); and (4) Small Business
Administration (SBA). You may view or download the IRFA directly from
the public docket at https://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf99/434562_
web.pdf.
7. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), TSA prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
that examines the impacts of the proposed rule on small entities (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). A small entity may be: (1) A small business,
defined as any independently owned and operated business not dominant
in its field that qualifies as a small business per the Small Business
Act (5 U.S.C. 632); (2) a small not-for-profit organization; or (3) a
small governmental jurisdiction (locality with fewer than 50,000
people).
This IRFA addresses the following:
1. The objectives of and legal basis for the proposed rule;
2. The reason the agency is considering this action;
3. The number and types of small entities to which the rule
applies;
4. Projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements of the proposed rule, including the classes of small
entities that will be subject to the requirements and the type of
professional skills necessary for preparation of the reports and
records;
5. Other relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the proposed rule; and
6. Significant alternatives to the component under consideration
that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and may
minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small
entities.
7.1 Background and Legal Authority
In response to the attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress passed
the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA),\1\ which
established the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). TSA was
created as an agency within the Department of Transportation (DOT),
operating under the direction of the Under Secretary of Transportation
for Security. On March 1, 2003, TSA was transferred to the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) and the officer formerly designated Under
Secretary for Transportation Security, DOT, is now the Assistant
Secretary, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Department of
Homeland Security (DHS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Public Law 107-71, 115 Stat. 597 (November 19, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSA has the responsibility for enhancing security in all modes of
transportation. Under ATSA, and delegated authority from the Secretary
of Homeland Security, TSA has broad responsibility and authority for
``security in all modes of transportation * * * including security
responsibilities'' over modes of transportation that are exercised by
the Department of Transportation.'' \2\ TSA has additional authorities
as well. TSA is specifically empowered to develop policies, strategies,
and plans for dealing with threats to transportation.\3\ As part of its
security mission, TSA is responsible for assessing intelligence and
other information to identify individuals who pose a threat to
transportation security and to coordinate countermeasures with other
Federal agencies to address such threats.\4\ TSA also is to enforce
security-related regulations and requirements,\5\ ensure the adequacy
of security measures for the transportation of cargo,\6\ oversee the
implementation, and ensure the adequacy, of security measures at
transportation facilities,\7\ and carry out other appropriate duties
relating to transportation security.\8\ TSA has broad regulatory
authority to achieve ATSA's objectives, and may issue, rescind, and
revise such regulations as are necessary to carry out TSA functions,\9\
and may issue regulations and security directives without notice or
comment or prior approval of the Secretary of DHS.\10\ TSA is also
charged with serving as the primary liaison for transportation security
to the intelligence and law enforcement communities.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, 49 U.S.C. 114(d). The TSA Assistant Secretary's current
authorities under ATSA have been delegated to him by the Secretary
of Homeland Security. Under Section 403(2) of the Homeland Security
Act (HSA) of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2315 (2002), all
functions of TSA, including those of the Secretary of Transportation
and the Undersecretary of Transportation of Security related to TSA,
transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security. Pursuant to DHS
Delegation Number 7060.2, the Secretary delegated to the Assistant
Secretary (then referred to as the Administrator of TSA), subject to
the Secretary's guidance and control, the authority vested in the
Secretary with respect to TSA, including that in Section 403(2) of
the HSA.
\3\ 49 U.S.C. 114(f)(3).
\4\ 49 U.S.C. 114(f)(1)-(5); (h)(1)-(4).
\5\ 49 U.S.C. 114(f)(7).
\6\ 49 U.S.C. 114(f)(10).
\7\ 49 U.S.C. 114(f)(11).
\8\ 49 U.S.C. 114(f)(15).
\9\ 49 U.S.C. 114(l)(1).
\10\ 49 U.S.C. 114(l)(2).
\11\ 49 U.S.C. 114(f) (1) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSA's authority with respect to transportation security is
comprehensive and supported with specific powers related to the
development and enforcement of regulations, security directives,
security plans, and other requirements. Accordingly, under this
authority, TSA may assess a security risk for any mode of
transportation, develop security measures for dealing with that risk,
and enforce compliance with those measures.
TSA's legal authority is supported by National policy. On December
17, 2003, the President issued Homeland Security Presidential Directive
7 (HSPD-7, Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and
Protection), which ``establishes a national policy for Federal
departments and agencies to identify and prioritize United States
critical infrastructure and key resources and to protect them from
terrorist attacks.'' \12\ In recognition of the lead role assigned to
DHS for transportation security, and consistent with the powers granted
to TSA by ATSA, the directive provides that the roles and
responsibilities of the Secretary of DHS include coordinating
protection activities for ``transportation systems, including mass
transit, aviation, maritime, ground/surface, and rail and
[[Page 7378]]
pipeline systems.'' \13\ In furtherance of this coordination process,
HSPD-7 provides that DHS and DOT will ``collaborate on all matters
relating to transportation security and transportation infrastructure
protection.'' \14\ See, HSPD-7, Paragraph 22(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ HSPD-7, Paragraph 1.
\13\ HSPD-7, Paragraph 15.
\14\ HSPD-7, Paragraph 22(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with the September 2004 Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) between DHS and DOT, both Departments share responsibility for
rail and hazardous materials transportation security. The two
departments consult and coordinate on security-related rail and
hazardous materials transportation requirements to ensure they are
consistent with overall security policy goals and objectives and the
regulated industry is not confronted with inconsistent security
guidance or requirements promulgated by multiple agencies.
7.2 Statement of Need for the Proposed Action
TSA developed the proposed rule to mitigate threats and
vulnerabilities in the rail transportation network. In the United
States, freight rail transportation systems transport hundreds of
millions of dollars worth of freight and employ hundreds of thousands
of individuals on an annual basis.\15\ Furthermore, passenger systems,
including passenger rail carriers as well as mass transit systems,
carry millions of people daily throughout the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative
Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics,
Pocket Guide to Transportation 2006 (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rail transportation networks `` both passenger and freight'' are
vulnerable to a variety of transportation security incidents. In the
past, terrorists have targeted passenger rail transportation systems to
inflict mass casualties (e.g. Tokyo 1995; Moscow 2000, 2001, and 2004;
Madrid 2004; London 2005; and Mumbai 2006). When transporting certain
materials, freight rail systems also represent potential terrorist
targets. Although not the result of a deliberate attack, the incident
involving a ruptured chlorine tank car in Graniteville, South Carolina,
killed nine people and injured hundreds more. These incidents highlight
the fact that hazardous materials in rail transportation and rail
passenger systems are possible targets of terrorism intended to inflict
hundreds or even thousands of fatalities, with direct and indirect
costs from transportation system disruption that could total billions
of dollars.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking attempts to reduce the
probability that such an event would occur by: (1) Requiring the
protection of sensitive security information in the rail sector; (2)
giving TSA authority to conduct inspections of rail security
operations; (3) requiring the designation of Rail Security
Coordinators; (4) requiring covered entities to have the ability to
report on rail car locations; (5) requiring covered entities to report
significant security concerns to TSA; and (6) requiring covered
entities to establish a chain of custody and control standards for
certain hazardous shipments.
7.3 Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities
The regulated entities are divided into railroad carriers, transit
systems, and rail hazmat facilities. Rail hazmat facilities are
primarily chemical manufacturers although some wholesalers may also
ship chemicals. In addition, some ammonia producers classify themselves
as support activities for agriculture or agricultural wholesalers.
Figure 1 provides the NAICS codes and SBA standards for defining small
entities for the sectors expected to be affected by the rule.
Figure 1.--Firm Size Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NAICS Small business standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line Haul railroads........................ 482111 1,500 FTE.
Short line railroads....................... 482112 500 FTE.
Transit Systems............................ 485 $6.5 million.
Petrochemical manufacturing................ 32511 1,000 FTE.
Alkalis and chlorine manufacturing......... 325181 1,000 FTE.
All other basic inorganics................. 325188 1,000 FTE.
All other basic organics................... 325199 1,000 FTE.
Plastic and resin manufacturing............ 32511 750 FTE.
Nitrogen fertilizer manufacturing.......... 325311 1,000 FTE.
Other chemical manufacturing............... 325 500-1,000 FTE.
Support activities for rail................ 48821 $6.5 million.
Petroleum refineries....................... 32411 1,500 FTE.
Pulp and paper mills....................... 3221 750 FTE.
Support activities for agriculture......... 1151 $6.5 million.
Chemical wholesalers....................... 42469 100 FTE.
Agricultural wholesalers................... 42491 100 FTE.
Electric utilities......................... 2111 <4 m megawatt hours/year.
Water and sewage systems, private.......... 2213 $6.5 million.
Water and sewage systems, public........... 92 <50,000 people serviced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Small Business Administration.
Overall, of all the regulated parties, TSA identified 654 entities
that may meet the SBA definition of small entity.
The number of small rail carriers potentially affected by the rule
is difficult to estimate accurately because most local rail carriers
are privately owned. Based on AAR data on employment and revenues, TSA
assumed that all rail carriers except the seven Class I railroads are
small entities.\16\ This assumption may be conservative because some
private companies own a number of local railroads and may exceed the
500 FTE size limits. Figure 2 presents the AAR data on the number of
railroads, average revenues, and average number of FTEs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Association of American Railroads, ``Overview of U.S.
Freight Railroads,'' January 2006.
[[Page 7379]]
Figure 2.--Railroad Types by Average Revenue and Number of Employees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Type Number Average freight number
revenue of FTEs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I.......................... 7 $5,590,000,000 21,100
Regional......................... 31 45,483,871 239
Local............................ 314 3,121,019 17
Switching and Terminal........... 204 3,137,255 32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: American Association of Railroads.
BTS list 152 transit systems (21 commuter rail systems, 45 rail
transit systems, 86 other rail transit systems).\17\ Of these, 86 are
listed as ``other,'' and include cable car, inclined plane, monorail,
and automated guideway.\18\ As shown in Figure 3, only the systems in
the ``other'' category have average passenger revenues of less than
$6.5 million, which is the SBA standard for small transit entities. The
other transit systems not only have average passenger revenues that
exceed the standard, but are generally also operated by governmental
entities that receive support from federal and state governments. It is
unlikely that local governments that meet the SBA standard for small
governments (50,000 people served) operate rail transit systems.
Consequently, TSA has included only the ``other'' entities as
potentially affected small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National
Transportation Statistics, Modal Profile Transit Systems, Updated
April 2005. Note, however, that four of the 152 transit system
listed by BTS are classified as trolley bus and would not be covered
by this proposed rule. This is represented in Figure 22, which only
shows 41 transit systems (14 heavy rail and 27 light rail).
\18\ The estimate for ``Other Rail Transit Systems'' impacted by
the proposed rule shown in Figure 22 is conservative because it
includes conveyances such as vanpool and aerial tramway, which would
not be affected by this NPRM.
Figure 3.--Transit Systems by Average Revenues
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual
Type Number passenger revenue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy Rail.............................. 14 $189,590,000
Light Rail.............................. 27 8,490,000
Commuter Rail........................... 21 73,910,000
Other................................... 86 590,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: BTS.
Of the 241 rail hazmat facilities identified from the RMP data,
there are 36 facilities that may be small entities (fewer than 500
employees for manufacturers or 100 for wholesalers and not obviously
part of larger corporations). Of the 36 identified small entities, only
a certain subset may incur costs for rail secure areas. As explained in
Section 5.6.1, only facilities with a range of less than five to less
than 21 employees are expected to incur incremental costs related to
creating secure storage areas, while all would incur costs for the
other requirements.
Figure 4 presents the RMP data distribution by FTE for hazmat
facilities that may be SBA-defined small entities. Of the total
facilities assumed to be small, seven have 10 to 19 employees; 17 have
20-49 employees; six have 50-99 employees; and 6 have 100-499.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The number of facilities that actually are part of firms
that meet the small entity definitions may be lower. TSA excluded
only those facilities that could be clearly identified as belonging
to corporations or municipalities that exceed the SBA standards.
Figure 4.--Affected Small Rail Hazmat Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rail hazmat
Number of FTEs facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
100-499................................................. 6
50-99................................................... 6
20-49................................................... 17
10-19................................................... 7
1-9..................................................... 0
Potential Small Entities................................ 36
Facilities with FTE > 499............................... 205
---------------
Total Rail Hazmat Facilities........................ 241
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: TSA Calculations.
7.4 Description of Compliance Requirements
Railroads will have to submit the name(s) of and engage in training
of the RSC, document chain of custody transfers, and file incident
reports and car location reports as needed. TSA assumed that regional
and local carriers handled hazmat shipments in proportion to their
percentage of total freight carried. Again, this assumption may be
conservative because it is likely that Class I carriers move most
chemicals. Figure 5 presents the costs for an average regional, local,
and S&T rail carrier to comply with the requirements.
Figure 5.--Average Costs to Railroads by Size
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirement Unit cost Activities/ Regional Local S & T
year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RSC.................................................... $91 2 $182 $182 $182
Incident Report........................................ 63 2 126 126 126
[[Page 7380]]
Chain of Custody....................................... 4,969,723 Weighted by 5,362 368 370
% of
Revenue
Location............................................... 91 1 91 91 91
--------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. ........... ........... 5,761 767 769
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: TSA Calculations.
As discussed above, only the 86 transit systems in the ``other''
category in Figure 3 are expected to be small entities according to SBA
standards.\20\ These small transit systems will only incur unit costs
for submission of RSC information and incident reporting. Both the RSC
and incident reporting costs are expected to be incurred on average
just once per year per small transit system, resulting in average costs
per system of just $245, as shown in Figure 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Again, it is important to note that the estimate of 86
``Other Rail Transit Systems'' impacted by the rule is in all
likelihood conservative.
Figure 6.--Average Costs for Small Transit Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit cost Regional
------------- of ------------
Activities/
Requirement year
A ------------- A x B
B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RSC.............................. $91.00 2 $182
Incident Report.................. 63.00 1 63
--------------------------------------
Total........................ ........... ........... 245
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: TSA Calculations.
As explained above, the cost for hazmat facilities includes the
cost of adding fencing, training, and inspections, plus the types of
cost incurred by railroads. TSA assumed that each facility will train
10 workers and the number of inspections per small facility is based on
the assumption that the number of inspections is proportional to the
quantity of chemical held. The 36 small rail hazmat facilities
represent about 6.5 percent of the affected chemicals; therefore 6.5
percent of the inspections were divided among the 36 firms to estimate
384 inspections a year. Figure 7 presents the average costs for a
hazmat facility. Because fencing is a capital cost, Figure 7 also
presents the cost based on amortizing the fencing cost over 10 years at
7% discount rate.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Note that calculations in Figure 23 may be off due to
rounding.
Figure 7.--Average Costs for Small Rail Hazmat Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit cost First-year
-------------------------- cost
Requirement ------------- Annualized
A B A x B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secure Storage Area......................................... $16,150 1 $16,150 $2,299
RSC......................................................... 91 2 182 182
Training.................................................... 63 10 630 630
Inspections................................................. 32 384 12,096 12,096
Incident Report............................................. 63 1 63 63
Chain of Custody............................................ 42,481 1 42,481 42,481
Location Reporting.......................................... 91 1 91 91
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... ........... ........... 71,693 57,842
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: TSA Calculations.
Figure 8 presents the average costs as a percent of average sales.
As can be seen, some small entities categorized as chemical or
agricultural wholesalers may incur costs that exceed one percent of
annual sales. TSA requests comment on whether the rule will have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
[[Page 7381]]
Figure 8.--Average First-Year Compliance Costs as a Percent of Revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average first- Average Cost as a
year cost revenue percent of
-------------------------------- revenue
Type (percent)
A B ---------------
A/B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional........................................................ $5,761 $45,483,871 0.01
Local........................................................... 767 3,121,019 0.02
S & T........................................................... 769 3,137,255 0.02
Small Transit................................................... 245 590,000 0.04
Chemical Manufacturer, 10-19 FTE................................ 71,693 18,637,676 0.38
Chemical Wholesaler, 10-19 FTE.................................. 71,693 6,184,695 1.16
Agricultural Wholesaler, 10-19 FTE.............................. 71,693 6,062,925 1.18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: TSA Calculations.
7.5 Identification of Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other
Rules
TSA has no knowledge of any duplicative, overlapping, or
conflicting Federal rules.
7.6 Preliminary Conclusion
Based on this preliminary analysis, TSA has not determined if the
rulemaking would have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under section 605(b) of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.). The agency requests comment on all aspects of this analysis.
TSA will publish a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Final
Rule.
Issued in Arlington, Virginia, on February 12, 2007.
Mardi Ruth Thompson,
Deputy Chief Counsel for Regulations.
[FR Doc. 07-715 Filed 2-13-07; 10:44 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-05-P
