55156 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 183 / Thursday, September 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

could be reclaimed by the Commission, 

as well as how a reconfigured and 

enlarged A Block should be licensed, in 

the event the Commission adopts the 

Optimization Plan. 

43. Further, because the Optimization 

Plan does not specifically disclaim or 

supercede the preceding White Paper 

band plan proposals, the Commission 

seeks comment on the White Paper 

proposals as well. As in the case of the 

Optimization Plan, the White Paper’s 

three proposals entail some shift in the 

position of the commercial spectrum 

blocks in the Upper 700 MHz Band. The 

White Paper’s three band plan proposals 

would increase the existing allocation of 

one megahertz for the A Block up to 

one-and-a-half or two megahertz. In 

order to facilitate broadband within an 

enlarged A Block, the White Paper 

proposals involve either eliminating the 

B Block while adding bandwidth to the 

A Block and the public safety block, or 

reducing the B Block while adding 

bandwidth to the A Block. The NPRM 

seeks comment on whether the 

Commission should adopt any of the 

various White Paper proposals and also 

requests comment on the same 

transition issues raised by consideration 

of the Optimization Plan. The NPRM 

seeks comment on similar transition 

issues, including cost, timing and 

equitable compensation considerations, 

for each of the other alternative 

proposals as well. 

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rule 

44. None. 

Ordering Clauses 

45. Pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 5(c), 

7, 10, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 302, 303, 

307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 314, 316, 319, 

324, 332, 333, 336 and 337 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 

155(c), 157, 160, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 

302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 314, 

316, 319, 324, 332, 333, 336 and 337, 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 

hereby adopted. 

46. Pursuant to applicable procedures 

set forth in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, and 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments on this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking on or before 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register, and 

reply comments on or before 45 days 

after publication in the Federal 

Register. 

47. The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

List of Subjects 

47 CFR Part 1 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Communications common 

carriers. 

47 CFR Part 27 

Communications equipment, Radio. 

47 CFR Part 90 

Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Federal Communication Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 06–7912 Filed 9–20–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

49 CFR Part 172 

[Docket No. PHMSA–06–25885 (HM–232F)] 

RIN 2137–AE22 

Hazardous Material: Revision of 

Requirements for Security Plans 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPRM) and 

announcement of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: PHMSA is considering 

revisions to the list of hazardous 

materials that require development and 

implementation of a security plan to 

address security risks during 

transportation in commerce. This effort 

is being coordinated with other 

Department of Transportation modal 

administrations (Federal Aviation 

Administration, Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration, and Federal 

Railroad Administration) and the 

Transportation Security Administration 

of the Department of Homeland 

Security. The revisions would address 

outstanding petitions requesting that 

certain materials be excepted from the 

security plan requirements. PHMSA 

will hold a public meeting on November 

30, 2006 to obtain stakeholder 

comments on security plan 

requirements. This ANPRM and the 

public meeting provide an opportunity 

for the public to comment on this issue 

and make recommendations on the 

applicability of the security plan 

requirements. 

DATES: Public meeting: The meeting will 

be held on November 30, 2006. The 

meeting will begin at 9 a.m. 

Written comments: Comments must 

be received by December 20, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Public meeting: The 

meeting will be held at the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Nassif 

Building, Room 2230, 400 Seventh 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590–

0001. Requests for special 

accommodations should be addressed to 

the Pipeline and Hazardous Material 

Safety Administration, PHH–10, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590–0001; telephone (202) 366–8553. 

Written comments: You may submit 

comments identified by the docket 

number (PHMSA–06–25885) by any of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic docket 

site. 

• FAX: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management System, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

PL–402, Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: PL–402 on the plaza 

level of the Nassif Building, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number or Regulation Identification 

Number (RIN) for this notice. Internet 

users may access comments received by 

DOT at http://dms.dot.gov. Note that 

comments received may be posted 

without change to http://dms.dot.gov 

including any personal information 

provided. 

While all comments should be sent to 

DOT’s Docket Management System 

(DMS), comments or those portions of 

comments PHMSA determines to 

include trade secrets, confidential 

commercial information, or sensitive 

security information (SSI) will not be 

placed in the public docket and will be 

handled separately. If you believe your 

comments contain trade secrets, 

confidential commercial information, or 

SSI, those comments or the relevant 

portions of those comments should be 

appropriately marked so that DOT may 

make a determination. PHMSA 

procedures in 49 CFR part 105 establish 

a mechanism by which commenters 

may request confidentiality. 

In accordance with 49 CFR 105.30, 

you may ask PHMSA to keep 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 183 / Thursday, September 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 55157 

information confidential using the 

following procedures: (1) Mark 

‘‘confidential’’ on each page of the 

original document you would like to 

keep confidential; (2) send DMS both 

the original document and a second 

copy of the original document with the 

confidential information redacted; and 

(3) explain why the information is 

confidential (as a trade secret, 

confidential commercial information, or 

SSI). In your explanation, you should 

provide enough information to enable 

PHMSA to determine whether the 

information provided is protected by 

law and must be handled separately. 

In addition, for comments or portions 

of comments that you believe contain 

SSI as defined in 49 CFR 15.7, you 

should comply with Federal regulations 

governing the handling of SSI. See 49 

CFR 1520.9 and 49 CFR 15.9, 

Restrictions on the disclosure of 

sensitive security information. Those 

regulations restrict the disclosure of SSI 

to those with a need to know and set 

forth specific requirements for marking, 

packaging, and disposing of documents 

containing SSI. Note when mailing in or 

using a special delivery service to send 

comments containing SSI, comments 

should be wrapped in a manner to 

prevent the information from being 

read. PHMSA may perform concurrent 

reviews on requests for designations as 

SSI. 

After reviewing your request for 

confidentiality and the information 

provided, PHMSA will determine 

whether the information should be 

treated as confidential under applicable 

laws and regulations. PHMSA will 

notify you of the decision to grant or 

deny confidential treatment. If PHMSA 

denies your request, you will be 

provided an opportunity to request 

reconsideration before the information 

is publicly disclosed. PHMSA will 

reconsider its decision to deny 

confidentiality based on your response. 

To further guard against disclosure of 

SSI, PHMSA will review all 

submissions, whether or not they are 

identified as confidential, prior to their 

posting on the public docket. PHMSA 

will notify you if we determine that 

information in your submission should 

not be disclosed to the public. If you 

have any questions concerning the 

procedures for determining 

confidentiality or security sensitivity, 

you may call one of the individuals 

listed below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Gorsky or Ben Supko, Office of 

Hazardous Materials Standards, (202) 

366–8553, Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. Current DOT Security Requirements 

On March 25, 2003, the Research and 

Special Programs Administration 

(RSPA), the predecessor agency to the 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration (PHMSA) published a 

final rule (Docket HM–232; 57 FR 

14510) amending the Hazardous 

Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR 

parts 171–180) to establish requirements 

to enhance the security of hazardous 

materials transported in commerce. The 

final rule required shippers and carriers 

of certain hazardous materials to 

develop and implement security plans. 

The security plan requirements in 

subpart I of part 172 of the HMR apply 

to persons who offer for transportation 

or transport: 

(1) A highway-route controlled 

quantity of a Class 7 (radioactive) 

material; 

(2) More than 25 kg (55 lbs.) of a 

Division 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3 (explosive) 

material; 

(3) More than 1 L (1.06 qt.) per 

package of a material poisonous by 

inhalation in Hazard Zone A; 

(4) A shipment in a bulk packaging 

with a capacity equal to or greater than 

13,248 L (3,500 gallons) for liquids or 

gases or greater than 13.24 cubic meters 

(468 cubic feet) for solids; 

(5) A shipment in other than a bulk 

packaging of 2,268 kg (5,000 lbs.) gross 

weight or more of one class of 

hazardous materials for which 

placarding is required; 

(6) A select agent or toxin regulated 

by the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention under 42 CFR part 73 and, 

by April 1, 2007, a select agent or toxin 

regulated by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture under 9 CFR part 121; or 

(7) A shipment that requires 

placarding under subpart F of part 172 

of the HMR. 

The security plan must include an 

assessment of possible transportation 

security risks and appropriate measures 

to address the assessed risks. Specific 

measures implemented as part of the 

plan may vary with the level of threat 

at a particular time. At a minimum, the 

security plan must address personnel 

security, unauthorized access, and en 

route security. For personnel security, 

the plan must include measures to 

confirm information provided by job 

applicants for positions involving access 

to and handling of the hazardous 

materials covered by the plan. For 

unauthorized access, the plan must 

include measures to address the risk of 

unauthorized persons gaining access to 

materials or transport conveyances 

being prepared for transportation. For 

en route security, the plan must include 

measures to address security risks 

during transportation, including the 

security of shipments stored temporarily 

en route to their destinations. 

As indicated above, the HMR set forth 

general requirements for a security 

plan’s components rather than a 

prescriptive list of specific items that 

must be included. The HMR set a 

performance standard providing offerors 

and carriers with the flexibility 

necessary to develop security plans 

addressing their individual 

circumstances and operational 

environments. Accordingly, each 

security plan will differ because it will 

be based on an offeror’s or a carrier’s 

individualized assessment of the 

security risks associated with the 

specific hazardous materials it ships or 

transports and its unique circumstances 

and operational environment. 

In developing the HM–232 final rule, 

we assessed the security risks associated 

with the transportation of different 

classes and quantities of hazardous 

materials. We concluded that the most 

significant security risks involve the 

transportation of certain radioactive 

materials; certain explosives; materials 

that are poisonous by inhalation, certain 

infectious and toxic substances; and 

bulk shipments of materials such as 

flammable and compressed gases, 

flammable liquids, flammable solids, 

and corrosives. Based on this security 

risk assessment, the HM–232 final rule 

currently in effect requires persons who 

offer for transportation or transport a 

hazardous material in an amount that 

requires placarding or select agents to 

develop and implement security plans. 

Using the placarding thresholds to 

trigger enhanced security requirements 

covers the materials that present the 

most significant security threats in 

transportation and provides a relatively 

straightforward way to distinguish 

materials that may present a significant 

security threat from materials that do 

not. It also provides regulatory 

consistency, thereby minimizing 

confusion and facilitating compliance 

by the regulated community. We note as 

well that the current security plan 

requirements provide shippers and 

carriers with the flexibility to develop 

and implement a security plan that is 

appropriate to the individual 

circumstances, the types and quantities 

of hazardous materials shipped or 

transported and the modes of 

transportation utilized. A shipper or 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
55158 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 183 / Thursday, September 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

carrier must assess the security risks for 

the types and quantities of hazardous 

materials to be transported and 

implement appropriate measures to 

address those risks. The risk assessment 

could well conclude that, for materials 

such as paint or flavoring extracts, the 

transportation security risk is not 

significant and extensive security 

measures are not warranted. 

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), in 49 CFR 

part 385, prohibits a motor carrier from 

transporting certain hazardous materials 

unless the motor carrier holds a safety 

permit. A safety permit is required for 

the following hazardous materials in the 

quantities indicated: 

(1) A highway-route controlled 

quantity of a Class 7 (radioactive) 

material; 

(2) More than 25 kg (55 lbs.) of a 

Division 1.2, 1.2, or 1.3 (explosive) 

material; 

(3) More than 1 L (1.08 qt.) per 

package of a material poisonous by 

inhalation in Hazard Zone A; 

(4) A bulk packaging (capacity greater 

than 450 L (119 gallons)) of a material 

poisonous by inhalation in Hazard Zone 

B; 

(5) A packaging with a capacity equal 

to or greater than 13,248 L (3,500 

gallons) of a material poisonous by 

inhalation in Hazard Zone C or D; or 

(6) A shipment of compressed or 

refrigerated liquefied methane or 

liquefied natural gas, or other liquefied 

gas with a methane content of at least 

85 percent, in a bulk packaging having 

a capacity equal to or greater than 

13,248 L (3,500 gallons). 

B. International Transportation Security 

Standards 

The United Nations Model 

Regulations on the Transport of 

Dangerous Goods (UN 

Recommendations) identify high 

consequence dangerous goods for which 

enhanced security measures are 

recommended. The recommended 

security measures include security 

plans and are similar to the 

requirements in subpart I of part 172 of 

the HMR. The UN Recommendations 

define high consequence dangerous 

goods as materials with the ‘‘potential 

for mis-use in a terrorist incident and 

which may, as a result, produce serious 

consequences such as mass casualties or 

mass destruction.’’ The UN 

Recommendations list the following 

materials as high consequence 

dangerous goods: 

(1) Division 1.1 explosives; 

(2) Division 1.2 explosives; 

(3) Division 1.3 compatibility group C 

explosives; 

(4) Division 1.5 explosives; 

(5) Bulk shipments of Division 2.1 

flammable gases; 

(6) Division 2.3 toxic gases (excluding 

aerosols); 

(7) Bulk shipments of Class 3 

flammable liquids in PG I or II; 

(8) Class 3 and Division 4.1 

desensitized explosives; 

(9) Bulk shipments of Division 4.2 PG 

I materials; 

(10) Bulk shipments of Division 4.3 

PG I materials; 

(11) Bulk shipments of Division 5.1 

PG I oxidizing liquids; 

(12) Bulk shipments of Division 5.1 

perchlorates, ammonium nitrate and 

ammonium nitrate fertilizers; 

(13) Division 6.1 PG I toxic materials; 

(14) Division 6.2 infectious substances 

of Category A (UN2814 and 2900); 

(15) Class 7 radioactive materials in 

quantities greater than 3000 A1 (special 

form) or 3000 A2, as applicable, in Type 

B(U) or Type B(M) or Type (C) packages; 

and 

(16) Bulk shipments of Class 8 PG I 

materials. 

For purposes of the security provisions, 

the UN defines ‘‘in bulk’’ to mean 

quantities greater than 3,000 kg (6,614 

lbs.) or 3,000 liters (660 gallons) in 

portable tanks or bulk containers. 

II. Purpose of This ANPRM 

PHMSA has received two petitions for 

rulemaking requesting a review and 

reevaluation of the current HMR 

security plan requirements. The Council 

on Safe Transportation of Hazardous 

Articles (COSTHA) petitioned PHMSA 

(P–1447) to reevaluate the security 

requirements in subpart I of part 172 of 

the HMR to ‘‘enhance international 

harmonization and to better utilize 

available resources in enhancing 

hazardous materials transportation 

security.’’ COSTHA notes that the list of 

hazardous materials in the HMR that are 

subject to the security plan 

requirements differs from the list of high 

consequence dangerous goods in the UN 

Recommendations. COSTHA cites 

several examples of hazardous materials 

(e.g., automobile batteries, inks, paint, 

flavoring extracts) that, based on hazard 

class and quantity, require placarding 

under the HMR, and, therefore, are 

subject to the security plan 

requirements. COSTHA suggests it is 

highly unlikely a terrorist would use 

these materials to cause loss of lives, 

destruction of property, or damage to 

the environment. The petition requests 

that PHMSA adopt the same criteria as 

the UN Recommendations for materials 

that are subject to the security plan 

requirements, or, as an alternative, 

eliminate the security plan requirement 

for quantities of hazardous materials for 

which placarding under the provisions 

of subpart F of part 172 is required. 

Similarly, the American Trucking 

Associations (ATA) petitioned PHMSA 

(P–1466) to create a new subset of 

hazardous materials that are ‘‘security 

sensitive hazardous materials.’’ The 

ATA supports the materials and 

quantities that are subject to the FMCSA 

Hazardous Materials Safety Permit 

requirements as the starting point for 

determining security sensitive 

hazardous materials. In addition to 

those materials, ATA suggests that 

PHMSA add the following materials 

from the UN high consequence 

dangerous goods list: (1) Bulk shipments 

of Division 2.1; (2) bulk shipments of 

Class 3, PG I and II; (3) Class 3 and 

Division 4.1 desensitized explosives 

(quantity to be determined); (4) bulk 

shipments of Division 4.2, PG I; (5) bulk 

shipments of Division 4.3, PG I; (6) bulk 

shipments of Division 5.1, PG I; (7) bulk 

shipments Division 5.1 perchlorates, 

ammonium nitrate and ammonium 

nitrate fertilizers; (8) Division 6.2 

infectious substances of Category A 

(quantity to be determined); (9) any 

quantity of select agents; and (10) bulk 

shipments of Class 8, PG I. The ATA 

uses quantities greater than 3,500 

gallons or 5,000 pounds to define 

‘‘bulk’’ for purposes of security 

planning. 

We agree with COSTHA and ATA that 

the list of materials for which a security 

plan is required should be re-assessed. 

The philosophy underlying PHMSA’s 

earlier approach to security plans was 

that the security plans represented a 

baseline requirement. We considered 

the company preparing the security plan 

to be in the best position to assess 

security risks based on its operational 

circumstances. If security risks were 

determined to be insignificant, this 

would be reflected in a simple security 

plan with minimal content. Increased 

coverage would be required when 

security risks are more substantial. The 

security plan requirements went into 

effect September 25, 2003; both the 

industry and the government have had 

three years of experience evaluating 

security risks associated with specific 

hazardous materials and transportation 

environments and identifying 

appropriate measures to address those 

risks. Accordingly, we are initiating this 

rulemaking, in coordination with other 

DOT modal administrations (Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA), and 

FMCSA) and the Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA) of the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), to consider modifications to the 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 183 / Thursday, September 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 55159 

list of hazardous materials for which 

security plans are required. We ask 

commenters to address the following 

questions: 

(1) What is the best basic approach to 

security plans? Is the current approach 

correct or should security plans be 

required only for hazardous materials in 

threshold quantities that are known to 

pose significant security risks? 

(2) Are there ways to lessen the 

burdens of security plan requirements 

on companies with minimal security 

risks? 

(3) Should baseline security 

requirements or guidelines be 

established when security plans are not 

required? 

(4) What factors should be considered 

in determining whether security risks of 

a specific hazardous material or class of 

hazardous materials are significant 

enough to require preparation of a 

security plan? 

(5) What role should Packing Groups 

play in determining the need for 

security plans? 

(6) How should the quantities of 

hazardous materials transported be 

considered when determining whether a 

security plan is required? 

(7) Does easy availability of a 

hazardous material in specific quantities 

outside of transportation play a role in 

determining whether a security plan 

should be required? 

(8) Should uniform security plan 

requirements apply across all modes of 

transportation or should the triggering 

criteria (hazardous class and quantity) 

be mode-specific? 

(9) What factors should be considered 

when determining whether specific 

hazardous materials, classes or 

quantities thereof, should be excepted 

from security plan requirements? 

(10) How should the determination of 

transportation security risk account for 

specific hazardous materials or classes 

of materials that by themselves do not 

pose a security risk, but that could 

present a security risk in combination 

with other materials? 

(11) What compliance or enforcement 

issues should be considered as we reassess current security plan 

requirements? 

(12) Should company size or 

geographic location (e.g., specific region 

of the country or urban or rural) play a 

role in determining whether a security 

plan is required? 

(13) Does the Government need to 

provide more information on the 

specific security concerns that cause the 

need for preparation of a security plan 

for certain hazardous materials to assist 

in security plan preparation? 

(14) Should the Government maintain 

an evolving list of hazardous materials 

for which security plans are required 

based on changing threats and 

scenarios? 

There are a number of additional 

issues that PHMSA will consider in 

assessing the list of hazardous materials 

for which a security plan is required. 

These include the analyses required 

under the following statutes and 

executive orders in the event we 

determine that rulemaking is 

appropriate: 

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review. E.O. 12866 

requires agencies to regulate in the 

‘‘most cost-effective manner,’’ to make a 

‘‘reasoned determination that the 

benefits of the intended regulation 

justify its costs,’’ and to develop 

regulations that ‘‘impose the least 

burden on society.’’ We therefore 

request comments, including specific 

data if possible, concerning the costs 

and benefits that may be associated with 

revisions to the list of hazardous 

materials for which security plans are 

required. A rule that is considered 

significant under E.O. 12866 must be 

reviewed and cleared by the Office of 

Management and Budget before it can be 

issued. 

Executive Order 13132: Federalism. 

E.O. 13132 requires agencies to assure 

meaningful and timely input by state 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that may have a 

substantial, direct effect on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. We invite state 

and local governments with an interest 

in this rulemaking to comment on the 

effect that revisions to the list of 

materials for which security plans are 

required may have on state or local 

safety or security programs. 

Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments. E.O. 13175 requires 

agencies to assure meaningful and 

timely input from Indian tribal 

government representatives in the 

development of rules that ‘‘significantly 

or uniquely affect’’ Indian communities 

and that impose ‘‘substantial and direct 

compliance costs’’ on such 

communities. We invite Indian tribal 

governments to provide comments as to 

the effect that revisions to the list of 

materials for which security plans are 

required may have on Indian 

communities. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. Under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.), we must consider 

whether a proposed rule would have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

‘‘Small entities’’ include small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

that are independently owned and 

operated and are not dominant in their 

fields, and governmental jurisdictions 

with populations under 50,000. If you 

believe that revisions to the list of 

materials for which security plans are 

required could have a significant 

economic impact on small entities, 

please provide information on such 

impacts. 

III. Announcement of Public Meeting 

PHMSA is conducting a public 

meeting to discuss the security plan 

requirements and receive comments and 

recommendations concerning the list of 

hazardous materials that trigger the 

requirement for a security plan. Other 

DOT modal administrations and DHS 

are participating in the meeting. See 

ADDRESSES and DATES for meeting 

details. 

All interested persons are encouraged 

to participate. Prior notification to 

PHMSA is not required. Due to the 

heightened security measures, 

participants are encouraged to arrive 

early to allow time for security checks 

necessary to gain access to the building. 

IV. Regulatory Notices—Executive 

Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures 

This rulemaking is not considered a 

significant regulatory action under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 

and, therefore, was not reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget. This 

rulemaking is not considered significant 

under the Regulatory policies and 

procedures of the Department of 

Transportation (44 FR 11034). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

18, 2006 under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

part 106. 

Robert A. McGuire, 

Associate Administrator for Hazardous 

Materials Safety. 

[FR Doc. 06–7930 Filed 9–20–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS1