Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22625 

1See unclassified summary at: http:// 

www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_05- 

51_Sep05.pdf. 

2See http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/tsnm/ 

general_aviation/ 

programs_sp.shtm#general_aviation for more 

information on the General Aviation Secure 

Program. 

(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section 

12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

VII. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report to each House of 

the Congress and to the Comptroller 

General of the United States. EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of this final rule in the 

Federal Register. This final rule is not 

a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: April 15, 2011. 

Daniel J. Rosenblatt, 

Acting Director, Registration Division, Office 

of Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. Section 180.492 is amended by 

revising the section heading and 

paragraph (a) introductory text and 

alphabetically adding the following 

commodities to the table in paragraph 

(a) to read as follows: 

§ 180.492 Triflusulfuron-methyl; tolerances 

for residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for residues of 

triflusulfuron-methyl, including its 

metabolites and degradates, in or on the 

commodities listed in the table below. 

Compliance with the tolerance levels 

specified below is to be determined by 

measuring only triflusulfuron-methyl 

(methyl 2-[[[[[4-(dimethylamino)-6- 

(2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy)-1,3,5-triazin-2- 

yl]amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-3- 

methylbenzoate) in or on the following 

commodities: 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Beet, garden, roots ................... 0.01 

Beet, garden, tops .................... 0.02 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

*****

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–9849 Filed 4–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Transportation Security Administration 

49 CFR Part 1503 

[Docket No. TSA–2009–0014; Amendment 

No. 1503–4] 

RIN 1652–AA66 

Reporting of Security Issues 

AGENCY: Transportation Security 

Administration, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) is adding 

procedures by which any person will 

receive a receipt for reporting a 

problem, deficiency, or vulnerability 

related to transportation security, 

including the security of aviation, 

maritime, railroad, motor carrier 

vehicle, or pipeline transportation, or 

any mode of public transportation, such 

as mass transit, in accordance with the 

‘‘Implementing Recommendations of the 

9/11 Commission Act of 2007’’ (9/11 

Act). 

DATES: Effective May 23, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Traci Klemm, Office of Chief Counsel, 

TSA–2, Transportation Security 

Administration, 601 South 12th Street, 

Arlington, VA 20598–6002; telephone 

(571) 227–3596; facsimile (571) 227– 

1380; e-mail traci.klemm@dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability of Rulemaking Document 

You can get an electronic copy using 

the Internet by— 

(1) Searching the electronic Federal 

Docket Management System (FDMS) 

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

(2) Accessing the Government 

Printing Office’s Web page at http:// 

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

(3) Visiting TSA’s Security 

Regulations Web page at http:// 

www.tsa.gov and accessing the link for 

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

In addition, copies are available by 

writing or calling the person in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Make sure to identify the docket number 

of this rulemaking. 

Small Entity Inquiries 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires TSA to comply with small 

entity requests for information and 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within TSA’s 

jurisdiction. Any small entity that has a 

question regarding this document may 

contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. Persons can 

obtain further information regarding 

SBREFA on the Small Business 

Administration’s Web page at http:// 

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

Background 

In the immediate aftermath of the 

events on September 11, 2001, the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

established a task force to respond to the 

large volume of incoming phone calls, 

e-mails, and letters from the public. On 

June 1, 2002, the Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA) assumed 

responsibility for this response to the 

public, creating what is now known as 

the TSA Contact Center (TCC). The TCC 

is a widely-publicized open line for the 

public to contact TSA. As such, it has 

also provided a mechanism through 

which TSA may receive information 

about potential threats to transportation 

security from both well-meaning 

persons and those with harmful intent. 

In December 2004, TCC availability 

was expanded to 24 hours a day, 7 days 

a week, 365 days per year, primarily to 

ensure continuous review for threatrelated contacts. The current process for 

public reporting of potential security 

violations, threat information or 

criminal activities, vulnerabilities and 

intelligence was put in place after the 

DHS Office of Inspector General 

assessed the Agency’s actions to 

improve the handling of threat and nonthreat communications following an 

incident where a college student was 

testing security.1

TSA also has ongoing initiatives 

within the various transportation 

modes, such as the General Aviation 

Secure Program, that includes hotline 

numbers to alert TSA of security 

concerns.2 Information from these 

reporting options, along with reports of 

other security incidents and concerns 

required by various TSA regulations, is 

received and processed by the same 

analytical components of TSA. Through 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
22626 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

3Public Law 110–53, 121 Stat. 266 (August 3, 

2007), sections 1413(i) (public transportation), 

1521(i) (railroad carriers), and 1536(i) (commercial 

motor vehicles); these sections are codified in the 

United States Code at 6 U.S.C. 1142, 49 U.S.C. 

20109, and 49 U.S.C. 31105, respectively. Future 

references will be to the codified sections. 

4 Id. 

5For purpose of TSA regulations, ‘‘person’’ is 

defined in 49 CFR 1500.3. 

6See 49 U.S.C. 114(d). The TSA Administrator’s 

current authorities under ATSA have been 

delegated to him by the Secretary of Homeland 

Security. Section 403(2) of the Homeland Security 

Act (HSA) of 2002, Public Law 107–296, 116 Stat. 

2315 (Nov. 25, 2002), transferred all functions of 

TSA, including those of the Secretary of 

Transportation and the Under Secretary of 

Transportation of Security related to TSA, to the 

Secretary of Homeland Security. Pursuant to DHS 

Delegation Number 7060.2, the Secretary of 

Homeland Security delegated to the Administrator, 

subject to the Secretary’s guidance and control, the 

authority vested in the Secretary with respect to 

TSA, including that in sec. 403(2) of the HSA. 

7 49 U.S.C. 114(l)(1). 

8Published in the Federal Register on August 26, 

2009 (74 FR 43088). 

the Transportation Security Operations 

Center (TSOC) and other TSA 

components, information is also 

routinely passed to TSA’s partners for 

appropriate response. 

The ‘‘Implementing 

Recommendations of the 9/11 

Commission Act’’ (9/11 Act) requires the 

Secretary of Homeland Security to 

establish, by regulation, a process for 

any person to report transportationrelated security problems, deficiencies, 

or vulnerabilities and promptly receive 

an acknowledging receipt for their 

report.3 This requirement is included in 

provisions to protect transportationsector employees from discrimination or 

other retaliation for reporting or 

preventing violations of Federal laws 

related to transportation safety or 

security.4

Summary of the Rule 

This rule, which implements the 9/11 

requirements, establishes the process for 

any person 5 to receive a receipt for 

making a report to TSA regarding any 

transportation-related security problem, 

deficiency, or vulnerability. This 

mechanism to receive a receipt for 

reports applies to all modes of 

transportation, including aviation, 

commercial motor vehicle, maritime, 

pipeline, public transportation, and 

railroad transportation. 

In § 1503.3(a) of the rule, TSA 

designates the addresses and a 

telephone number that a person must 

use in order to obtain a receipt for their 

report. In order to obtain a receipt, the 

person must use one of these reporting 

mechanisms and provide valid contact 

information. 

Paragraph (b) indicates how TSA will 

provide a receipt acknowledging the 

report. Reports submitted by mail or 

through the Internet will receive written 

confirmation. Internet receipts will 

include the content of the report. 

Reports submitted by phone will receive 

a call identifier number. The call 

identifier number is linked to a copy of 

the information as recorded by TSA, 

which will be maintained according to 

TSA’s record retention schedules 

(currently, these records are scheduled 

to be retained by TSOC for two years). 

To receive a written copy of the report, 

the person will need to contact TSA at 

the address identified in the rule within 

two years of their call and request a 

paper copy. 

Paragraph (c) reiterates TSA’s 

commitment to review and consider all 

information received and to take 

appropriate steps. 

Paragraph (d) clarifies that a report 

made voluntarily under this subpart 

will not satisfy any separate legal 

obligation of any person to report 

information to TSA or any other 

Government agency under any other 

law. Operators must comply with those 

provisions regardless of whether a 

report has been submitted through the 

new part 1503 procedures. 

Finally, paragraph (e) is a reminder 

that these reporting mechanisms are not 

to be used for reporting immediate or 

emergency security or safety concerns. 

These concerns should be immediately 

reported to the appropriate emergency 

services operator, such as by calling 

911. Alleged waste, fraud, and abuse in 

TSA programs should be reported to the 

Department of Homeland Security 

Inspector General: (800) 323–8603, or 

DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov. 

Authorities 

As previously discussed, the 9/11 Act 

requires DHS to issue this regulation for 

transportation security-related reports 

affecting public transportation, rail, and 

motor carriers. TSA has determined that 

the security benefits of receiving these 

reports applies to modes of 

transportation not enumerated in the 

statute: Aviation, maritime, and 

pipeline. 

Aspects of this rule not required by 

the 9/11 Act are supported by TSA’s 

statutory authority to enhance security 

for all modes of transportation.6 TSA 

has broad regulatory authority and may 

issue, rescind, and revise such 

regulations as are necessary to carry out 

its transportation security functions.7

Changes From the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) 

This final rule adopts the regulations 

proposed in the NPRM 8 with minor 

revisions. A scope provision has been 

added. Addresses for providing reports 

by mail, through the Internet, or by 

phone have been added to 49 CFR part 

1503. Information on how to obtain a 

receipt has also been provided. This 

preamble does not address technical 

corrections or corrected typographical 

errors. 

While the text of the rule has not been 

significantly altered since the NPRM, 

the costs estimated for this regulation 

have been significantly lowered. At the 

time that the NPRM was published, TSA 

intended to extensively publicize the 

reporting mechanism for use by the 

general public to report any 

transportation-related security concern. 

The costs in the NPRM reflected that 

assumption. Since that time, however, 

DHS has launched the ‘‘See Something, 

Say Something’’ campaign. 

The ‘‘See Something, Say Something’’ 

campaign is part of DHS’s commitment 

to promoting a vigilant citizenry that 

actively participates in protecting 

national security. In her September 2010 

speech to first responders at the NYC 

Emergency Operations Center, Secretary 

Napolitano noted in her prepared 

remarks: ‘‘Recall that it was a New York 

street vendor who tipped off a 

policeman about the bombing attempt in 

Times Square. It was a group of 

passengers on Flight 253 who 

intervened to stop the bombing attempt 

on Christmas Day.’’ She then continued, 

‘‘Making individuals and citizens better 

informed and empowered is crucial, and 

DHS has therefore launched, and is 

expanding, a national campaign around 

a slogan you probably know well: ‘If 

You See Something, Say Something.’ ’’ 

The purpose of the campaign, as stated 

by the Secretary, is to raise ‘‘awareness 

of potential terrorist tactics, and 

emphasizing the importance of 

reporting suspicious activity to law 

enforcement.’’ 

The implementation of that campaign 

has changed TSA’s assumptions 

regarding how the mechanisms required 

by the 9/11 Act are likely to be used. 

Where the NPRM estimated costs based 

on the most currently available number 

of all security-related calls to the 

Contact Center and then increased that 

amount based on additional publicity, 

TSA now assumes that most reports 

under this rule will be made by a subset 

of the individuals who contact TSA 

with security concerns, primarily made 

up of employees within the 

transportation sector seeking a reporting 

mechanism that will provide them with 

documentation of their report in the 

event they may need it in the future. 

This results in far fewer estimated 

reports resulting from the mechanisms 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22627 

9 6 U.S.C. 1142(i), 49 U.S.C. 20109(i), and 49 

U.S.C. 31105(i). 

10 6 U.S.C. 1142, 49 U.S.C. 20109, and 49 U.S.C. 

31105. 

11See 49 U.S.C. 42121. 

12See 74 FR 43090 (August 26, 2009). 

under this final rule than estimated in 

the NPRM. 

As a result, the estimated costs have 

been significantly reduced from those 

provided in the NPRM. This specifically 

relates to estimates for the number of 

reports received and the TSA costs for 

processing those reports. In addition, 

TSA has developed new automated 

mechanisms for providing receipts to 

persons who report security concerns 

through e-mail; all security-related 

reports, regardless of whether they are 

being made as a result of this rule or for 

other reasons, will automatically receive 

an e-mail receipt. This substantially 

reduces the potential costs for TSA. 

Public Comments on the NPRM 

The public comment period for the 

NPRM closed on October 26, 2009. TSA 

received two public comments, from a 

commercial airline and a trade 

association representing members of the 

aviation industry. TSA addresses these 

comments below. 

Including the Aviation Industry 

Comments: One commenter objected 

to including the aviation industry in the 

scope of this rule because this sector is 

already highly regulated and required to 

report suspicious activities and events. 

As part of these requirements, they 

assert that knowledgeable employees 

report deficiencies, incidents, and 

vulnerabilities. They question whether 

untrained persons will be able to 

‘‘identify true vulnerabilities within 

commercial aviation without the 

understanding or comprehension of our 

security programs?’’ 

TSA Response: This rule does not 

create a reporting requirement; it 

provides a voluntary reporting and 

receipt mechanism. Therefore, it is 

neither imposing an additional 

regulatory burden upon the industry nor 

duplicating the requirements for air 

carriers or other owner/operators to 

report security incidents and events. It 

is intended to provide a mechanism for 

anyone reporting transportation-related 

security problems, deficiencies, and 

vulnerabilities to obtain a receipt of 

their report. TSA is not limiting the 

scope for who can benefit from this 

mechanism, recognizing that 

transportation employees and members 

of the general public are capable of 

identifying things that are out of the 

ordinary. TSA will evaluate the 

information and determine whether 

further investigation or validation is 

necessary and by whom. 

While the language regarding the 

reporting and receipt mechanism is 

inclusive, referencing ‘‘any person,’’ 9 we 

note that the requirement for TSA to 

develop this mechanism is contained in 

statutory provisions that are focused on 

providing protections for surface 

transportation employees who report 

concerns to authorities and are 

subsequently subject to retaliation, 

discharge, or discrimination.10 The 9/11 

Act can be seen as an extension of these 

protections previously enacted for 

aviation employees.11 The processes set 

forth in this rule provide all 

transportation-related employees with 

the ability to obtain a receipt for reports. 

TSA Rewards Program 

Comments: As noted in the preamble 

of the NPRM,12 TSA is in the process of 

developing a program to confer 

monetary or other recognition on 

persons who provide valuable 

information to TSA about criminal acts 

or other violations relating to 

transportation security. One commenter 

raised questions regarding how TSA is 

planning to administer a rewards 

program for persons who provide 

valuable information related to 

transportation security. 

TSA Response: The rewards program 

is still under development. Any 

information regarding implementation 

of a rewards program by TSA will be 

contained in other documents when 

appropriate. 

Costs of the Rule 

Comments: One commenter asserted 

that implementation of this rule will 

cost the taxpayers $1,000,000 annually 

and provide no benefit. They asserted 

the ‘‘traveling consumer should not bear 

the monetary burden of this program.’’ 

TSA response: Costs for implementing 

this statutorily-required rule have been 

revised and are discussed in Economic 

Impact Analyses section of this 

preamble. TSA disagrees that there is no 

benefit from providing this mechanism. 

It is important for the public, travelers, 

and employees to remain vigilant and 

play an active role in keeping the 

country’s transportation network, and 

the people who rely on it, safe and 

secure. Similar to the ‘‘If You See 

Something, Say Something’’ campaign 

originally implemented by New York 

City’s Metropolitan Transit Authority, it 

is important to raise awareness and 

ensure reporting of vulnerabilities and 

weaknesses in security measures that 

could make the transportation sector a 

weak target for terrorists and others with 

malicious intent. 

Coordination With the ‘‘General 

Aviation Hotline’’ Program 

Comments: One commenter urged 

TSA to ensure that the processes 

identified in this rule complement the 

existing ‘‘General Aviation Hotline’’ 

program. They state that this program is 

well known within the general aviation 

industry and is part of an ongoing effort 

to develop a more comprehensive 

reporting for aviation security. 

TSA response: The mechanism 

created by this rule complements the 

General Aviation Hotline program. The 

General Aviation Hotline program, also 

known as the General Aviation Secure 

Program, was developed by TSA’s 

Office of Transportation Sector Network 

Management (TSNM) General Aviation 

Division by working with the industry 

and community to build upon the 

Airport Watch program, encouraging 

everyone to be vigilant about General 

Aviation security and report any 

unusual activities to TSA. Now seen in 

the context of the Department of 

Homeland Security’s broader ‘‘See 

Something, Say Something Campaign,’’ 

the program includes a number where 

suspicions regarding operations can be 

reported, such as pilots appearing to be 

under the control of others, unfamiliar 

persons loitering around the field, 

suspicious aircraft lease or rental 

requests, anyone making threats, and 

unusual, suspicious activities or 

circumstances. Information from reports 

made by persons under this rule will be 

processed and analyzed through the 

same TSA component as information 

received through the General Aviation 

program, providing TSA with a more 

comprehensive picture of threats and 

vulnerabilities to transportation 

security. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

that TSA consider the impact of 

paperwork and other information 

collection burdens imposed on the 

public and, under the provisions of 

PRA, 44 U.S.C. section 3507(d), obtain 

approval from the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for each collection of 

information it conducts, sponsors, or 

requires through regulations. As 

protection provided by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, as amended, an agency 

may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to, a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. TSA has determined there are 

no current or new information 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
22628 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

13 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). 14See 75 FR 43090. 

collection requirements associated with 

this rule. 

Economic Impact Analyses 

Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order (EO) 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review,13

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 

consider the economic impact of 

regulatory changes on small entities. 

Third, the Trade Agreements Act (19 

U.S.C. 2531–2533) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. Fourth, 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

agencies to prepare a written assessment 

of the costs, benefits, and other effects 

of proposed or final rules that include 

a Federal mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by State, local, or Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

annually (adjusted for inflation). 

Executive Order 12866 Assessment 

In conducting these analyses, TSA 

determined: 

1. This rulemaking is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as 

defined in the Executive Order. 

2. This rulemaking will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

3. This rulemaking will not constitute 

a barrier to international trade. 

4. This rulemaking does not impose 

an unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

Tribal governments, or on the private 

sector. 

The basis for these conclusions is set 

forth below. 

Costs 

This rule enhances the ability for any 

person to report to TSA—via regular 

mail, through the Internet, or 

telephone—security problems, 

deficiencies, or vulnerabilities related to 

aviation, maritime, railroad, motor 

vehicle, pipeline, or public 

transportation. As previously discussed, 

when TSA prepared its initial draft of 

this rule, it intended to extensively 

publicize the reporting mechanism for 

use by the general public to report any 

transportation-related security concern. 

The costs in the NPRM reflected that 

assumption. Since that time, however, 

DHS has developed the ‘‘See Something, 

Say Something’’ campaign. The 

implementation of that campaign has 

changed TSA’s assumptions for how the 

reporting and receipt mechanisms 

required by the 9/11 Act are likely to be 

used. 

TSA now assumes that most reports 

under this rule will be made by a subset 

of the general population, primarily 

made up of employees within the 

transportation sector seeking a reporting 

mechanism that will provide them with 

documentation of their report in the 

event they may need it in the future. 

This results in far fewer estimated 

reports under this final rule than 

estimated in the NPRM. As a result, the 

estimated costs have been significantly 

reduced from those provided in the 

NPRM. This specifically relates to 

estimates for the number of reports 

received and the TSA costs for 

processing those reports. In addition, 

TSA has developed new automated 

mechanisms for providing receipts to 

persons who report security concerns 

through e-mail; all security-related 

reports, regardless of whether they are 

being made as a result of this rule or for 

other reasons, will automatically receive 

an e-mail receipt. Consistent with the 

estimates of the NPRM, TSA assumes 

that the costs associated with the 

operation of this reporting system will 

be incurred by TSA and the person 

making the report. 

TSA currently provides the public 

with the ability to communicate security 

concerns by contacting TSA’s Contact 

Center (1–866–289–9673) or through the 

TSA Web site (http://www.tsa.gov), by 

clicking on the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link at the 

top of the home page, clicking on the 

‘‘Security Issues’’ link, and submitting 

an online form describing the securityrelated issue (received by TSA as an email). If someone misses that link and 

scrolls on down the page, there is 

another heading (‘‘Security Violations 

and Concerns’’) that provides an 

additional opportunity to submit a 

report. 

As a result of this rulemaking, the 

‘‘Security Violation and Concerns’’ 

section of the site will include a 

hyperlink back to the ‘‘Security Issues’’ 

form and the additional contact 

addresses identified in this rule. 

Therefore, this analysis of costs and 

benefits assumes that all Web-based 

reports under this rule will be through 

the ‘‘Security Issues’’ form on TSA’s 

Web site. As noted, the public will also 

be able to make reports by contacting 

TSA directly through a designated 

phone number or submitting a report 

through the mail to a designated 

address. 

There is no accurate method for 

gauging how many additional e-mail 

messages, telephone calls, and letters 

reporting transportation security 

concerns these changes to the Web site 

could generate. While estimating an 

accurate cost to the public of voluntarily 

reporting security concerns to TSA is 

difficult, one can use fiscal year (FY) 

2010 TSA Contact Center (TCC) data as 

a starting point to estimate the cost of 

potential scenarios. For this analysis, we 

assumed that the rule will incrementally 

expand the number of security-related 

telephone calls and e-mail messages 

TSA received in FY 2010 by 25 percent. 

In FY 2010, the TCC fielded 393 

security-related telephone calls that 

could be categorized as reporting a 

transportation-related security problem, 

deficiency, or vulnerability. (While the 

TCC may receive many more calls that 

a person has self-selected to be 

‘‘security-related,’’ not all of those are 

within the scope of what is anticipated 

to be relevant to this rule.) These calls 

are addressed by security specialists 

who help determine whether the issue 

involves an issue related to 

transportation security or other 

complaints or concerns that the caller 

may have. They also determine whether 

the information provided will fit within 

the scope of the rule. Issues requiring 

action by TSA are routed to the 

appropriate TSA components. The 

security specialists also route 

information relevant to sister agencies to 

their designated points of contact. 

According to the TCC, the average 

telephone conversation involving a 

security specialist during FY 2010 

lasted 3.25 minutes. For purposes of the 

NPRM, TSA estimated the calls would 

last approximately 4 minutes.14

However, the Transportation Security 

Operations Center (TSOC), which will 

start fielding these calls in FY 2011, 

assumes that calls from the public as a 

result of this rule will mostly come from 

a subset of callers who want a receipt 

acknowledging their call; processing 

these calls may require more detailed 

information than the average call. This 

primarily includes the information 

needed to provide the person with a 

receipt, which is not required for all 

calls received by TSOC. TSOC considers 

ten minutes to be a reasonable estimate 

for the length of such a call. If one 

projects that the public will place 98 

additional calls (.25 × 393) as a result of 

the rule (for the purposes of this 

analysis, TSA assumes that all of these 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22629 

15For purposes of this rulemaking, TSA uses the 

May 2009 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) mean 

hourly wage rate for all Transportation and Material 

Moving Occupations (SOC Code 53–0000), adjusted 

for inflation. To access this information, go to the 

following BLS Web sites: http://data.bls.gov/cgibin/print.pl/oes/2009/may/naics2_48-49.htm and 

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1012.pdf. The $19.00 

mean hourly wage rate found at the first Web site 

is converted to 2010 dollars by multiplying it times 

1.0168, the amount by which the Consumer Price 

Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers 

(CPI–W) rose between 2009 and 2010 (215.262/ 

211.703 = 1.0168). 

16See 75 FR 43091. 

17 Data from TSA’s Office of Financial 

Management show that this was the average amount 

of personal compensation and benefits paid out in 

FY 2010 to a G–Band employee. The total 

comprises $51,933 in base pay and $28,275 in 

benefits. 

18See 75 FR 43091. 

19TSOC will incur no incremental costs for 

training because in-house training has already been 

funded. There also will be no additional expenses 

for space, computers, and telephones; existing 

equipment at TSOC will be used to handle the 

expected increase in telephonic and electronic 

reporting. 

calls will be from individuals wanting a 

receipt and providing the necessary 

contact information), then the public 

would spend 980 minutes (98 calls at 

about 10 minutes per call) on the 

telephone with TSA. At $19.32 per 

hour,15 the total annual cost to the 

public for the additional telephone calls 

will be $316 ($19.32 per hour × 980 

minutes/60 minutes per hour). 

To estimate the cost of contacting 

TSA electronically, this analysis used 

other data collected by the TCC as a 

starting point. In FY 2010 the TCC 

received 1,527 security-related e-mail 

messages from customers who logged 

onto the TSA Web site and used the 

links described above. TSA receives 

information submitted through the Web 

site in the form of an e-mail. As noted 

under the analysis for phone calls, the 

TCC may receive many more e-mails 

that a person has self-selected than are 

within the scope of what is anticipated 

to be relevant to this rule. The estimates 

reflect those e-mails that are relevant to 

the rule. 

If one assumes that TSA will receive 

an additional 382 e-mail messages 

(1,527 × .25) as a result of this rule and 

that the average e-mail message will 

require thirty minutes to prepare, one 

can modify the value-of-time formula 

used to calculate the FY 2010 cost of 

security-related telephonic reports to 

TSA to estimate the cost to the public 

of e-mailing its concerns: 382 e-mail 

messages × 30/60 hours per e-mail 

message × $19.32 per hour = $3,690. 

TSA has doubled the time estimate 

assumed in the NPRM due to the more 

detailed information one would expect 

to be provided; a person who is 

reporting a security vulnerability or 

deficiency is likely to have more 

information regarding security 

requirements that are not being 

followed.16 Because the receipt 

mechanism for persons making reports 

through TSA’s Web site is automated, 

any person who reports through this 

mechanism will receive a receipt if they 

provide contact information. 

The rule will also allow the public to 

report transportation-related security 

problems, deficiencies, and 

vulnerabilities by regular mail (the 

mailing address will be posted on the 

TSA Web site). As previously noted, 

TSA assumes the majority of persons 

contacting TSA by mail and requesting 

a receipt will be subset of the general 

population, primarily made up of 

employees within the transportation 

sector seeking a reporting mechanism 

that will provide them with 

documentation of their report in the 

event they may need it in the future. In 

addition, TSA also assumes that most 

persons will report by e-mail as they 

will be provided with a more 

comprehensive verification of their 

report as the automated e-mail will 

include the exact text that they 

submitted. As a result, the estimated 

costs have been significantly reduced 

from those provided in the NPRM. If 

one projects that this rule will generate 

50 letters per year and that it takes the 

average letter writer 30 minutes to write 

a report and 15 minutes to mail it, the 

value of the public’s time for this 

exercise equates to $725 (50 letters × 

45/60 hour per letter × $19.32 per hour). 

This increase in time from the NPRM is 

consistent with that for the other 

reporting mechanisms. When the cost of 

postage is included (50 letters × $.44 per 

stamp = $22), using regular mail to 

report transportation security-related 

problems, deficiencies, and 

vulnerabilities to TSA will cost the 

public $747. 

The projected cost of the three modes 

of communication—$316 for telephone 

calls, $3,690 for Web-based 

communications, and $747 for regular 

mail—is $4,753. As reporting under this 

rule is voluntary, the public would 

assume this direct cost voluntarily; the 

cost is not imposed by this rule. 

In addition to this direct cost to the 

public, TSA will incur expenses in 

handling the increased volume of 

reports. Although it is not feasible to 

accurately establish the number of 

additional telephonic, e-mail, and 

regular mail reports this rule will 

generate, TSOC is prepared to dedicate 

one full time equivalent (FTE) employee 

(at an overall cost of $80,208 17 per year) 

to handle the increased volume of 

communications. In addition to the 

labor costs associated with responding 

to the increase in security-related 

contacts, TSA will incur two non-labor 

expenses. This reduction from the 

estimates in the NPRM 18 is consistent 

with the reductions in estimates for the 

public. 

The hardware and software needed to 

implement the ‘‘auto-response’’ function 

for Web-based reports will cost $2,060 

($1,100 for a dedicated desktop 

computer and $960 for software). This 

feature provides an electronic receipt 

including the content of their report to 

anyone who uses the ‘‘Security Issues’’ 

Web form on the TSA Web site to 

submit security concerns (people who 

contact TSA by phone will be provided 

a unique identifier number for the call). 

Persons who submit reports by mail 

will receive a receipt in the mail. If one 

projects that this rule will generate 50 

letters per year and that all the letters 

will have return addresses, the cost of 

mailing a response will be $22 (50 

letters × $.44 per stamp = $22). 

Taken together, the estimated labor 

expense ($80,208) and receipt processes 

($2,060 for auto-response and $22 for 

mail) yield a total annual cost to TSA of 

$82,290.19

Benefits 

This rulemaking provides the 

following benefits: 

1. It reminds the public that TSA 

wants to receive these reports, possibly 

alerting TSA to transportation security 

concerns that may otherwise have been 

overlooked. It is quite possible that 

reports from the public could prevent a 

national security problem that otherwise 

would have gone unaddressed. 

2. It encourages employees and other 

persons who may hesitate to make a 

report for fear of retaliation or other 

adverse action to obtain the necessary 

documentation to support any future 

claims under 6 U.S.C. 1142, 49 U.S.C. 

20109, 49 U.S.C. 31105, and 49 U.S.C. 

42121. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Assessment 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

of 1980 requires that agencies perform a 

review to determine whether a proposed 

or final rule will have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. If the 

determination is that it will, the agency 

must prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis as described in the RFA. For 

purposes of the RFA, small entities 

include small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations, and small governmental 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
22630 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

jurisdictions. Individuals and States are 

not included in the definition of a small 

entity. 

This rule enhances the public’s ability 

to report security concerns voluntarily 

to TSA. TSA and the public will incur 

some costs in the operation of this 

enhanced reporting system. As stated 

previously, the public will voluntarily 

assume the direct cost of reporting 

problems and deficiencies to TSA; the 

cost is not imposed by this rule. TSA 

certifies that this rulemaking will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 

prohibits Federal agencies from 

establishing any standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Legitimate domestic objectives, such as 

safety, are not considered unnecessary 

obstacles. The statute also requires 

consideration of international standards 

and, where appropriate, that they be the 

basis for U.S. standards. TSA has 

assessed the potential effect of this 

rulemaking and has determined that it 

will impose the same costs on domestic 

and international entities and thus have 

a neutral trade impact. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104–4, is 

intended, among other things, to curb 

the practice of imposing unfunded 

Federal mandates on State, local, and 

Tribal governments. Title II of the Act 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final rule that may result in a $100 

million or more expenditure (adjusted 

annually for inflation) in any one year 

by State, local, and Tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or by the private sector; 

such a mandate is deemed to be a 

‘‘significant regulatory action.’’ 

This rulemaking does not contain 

such a mandate. The requirements of 

Title II of the Act, therefore, do not 

apply and TSA has not prepared a 

statement under the Act. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

TSA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, or the relationship between the 

National Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

does not have federalism implications. 

Environmental Analysis 

TSA has reviewed this action for 

purposes of the National Environmental 

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

4321–4347) and has determined that 

this action will not have a significant 

effect on the human environment. 

Energy Impact Analysis 

The energy impact of the action has 

been assessed in accordance with the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

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

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

that this rulemaking is not a major 

regulatory action under the provisions 

of the EPCA. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1503 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Investigations, Law 

enforcement, Penalties, Transportation. 

The Amendments 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Transportation Security 

Administration amends part 1503 in 

chapter XII of title 49, Code of Federal 

Regulations to read as follows: 

PART 1503—INVESTIGATIVE AND 

ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1503 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 6 U.S.C. 1142; 18 U.S.C. 6002; 

28 U.S.C. 2461 (note); 49 U.S.C. 114, 20109, 

31105, 40113–40114, 40119, 44901–44907, 

46101–46107, 46109–46110, 46301, 46305, 

46311, 46313–46314. 

■ 2. Add subpart A to part 1503 to read 

as follows: 

Subpart A—General 

Sec. 

§ 1503.1 Scope. 

§ 1503.3 Reports by the public of security 

problems, deficiencies, and 

vulnerabilities. 

Subpart A—General 

§ 1503.1 Scope. 

This part provides information on 

TSA’s investigative and enforcement 

procedures. 

§ 1503.3 Reports by the public of security 

problems, deficiencies, and vulnerabilities. 

This section prescribes the reporting 

mechanisms that persons may use in 

order to obtain a receipt for reports to 

TSA regarding transportation-related 

security problems, deficiencies, and 

vulnerabilities. 

(a) Any person who reports to TSA a 

transportation security-related problem, 

deficiency, or vulnerability—including 

the security of aviation, commercial 

motor vehicle, maritime, pipeline, any 

mode of public transportation, or 

railroad transportation—will receive a 

receipt for their report if they provide 

valid contact information and report 

through one of the following: 

(1) U.S. mail to Transportation 

Security Administration HQ, TSA–2; 

Attn: 49 CFR 1503.3 Reports; 601 South 

12th Street; Arlington, VA 20598–6002; 

(2) Internet at http://www.tsa.gov/ 

contact, selecting ‘‘Security Issues’’; or 

(3) Telephone (toll-free) at 1–866– 

289–9673. 

(b) Reports submitted by mail will 

receive a receipt through the mail, 

reports submitted by the Internet will 

receive an e-mail receipt, and reports 

submitted by phone will receive a call 

identifier number linked to TSA 

documents held according to published 

record schedules. To obtain a paper 

copy of reports provided by phone, the 

person who made the report, or their 

authorized representative, must contact 

TSA at the address identified in (a)(1) of 

this section within that period and 

provide the identifier number. 

(c) TSA will review and consider the 

information provided in any report 

submitted under this section and take 

appropriate steps to address any 

problems, deficiencies, or 

vulnerabilities identified. 

(d) Nothing in this section relieves a 

person of a separate obligation to report 

information to TSA under another 

provision of this title, a security 

program, or a security directive, or to 

another Government agency under other 

law. 

(e) Immediate or emergency security 

or safety concerns should be reported to 

the appropriate local emergency 

services operator, such as by 

telephoning 911. Alleged waste, fraud, 

and abuse in TSA programs should be 

reported to the Department of Homeland 

Security Inspector General: telephone 

(toll-free) 1–800–323–8603, or e-mail 

DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov. 

Issued in Arlington, Virginia, on April 1, 

2011. 

John S. Pistole, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9629 Filed 4–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–05–P 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES