7376 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation 

* Elevation in 

feet (NGVD) 

+ Elevation in 

feet (NAVD) 

# Depth in feet 

above ground. 

Communities affected 

Effective 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’’. 

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] 

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 

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 

(http://dms.dot.gov/search); 

(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 individual in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. Be sure to identify the docket 

number of this rulemaking. 


erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules 7377 

1Public Law 107–71, 115 Stat. 597 (November 19, 

2001). 

2See, 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). 

12HSPD–7, Paragraph 1. 

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 http://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-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 

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 

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 


erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
7378 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

13HSPD–7, Paragraph 15. 

14HSPD–7, Paragraph 22(h). 

15U.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). 

16Association of American Railroads, ‘‘Overview 

of U.S. Freight Railroads,’’ January 2006. 

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 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. 


erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules 7379 

17Bureau 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). 

18The 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. 

19The 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 2.—RAILROAD TYPES BY AVERAGE REVENUE AND NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

Type Number Average freight 

revenue 

Average 

number 

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. 

FIGURE 3.—TRANSIT SYSTEMS BY AVERAGE REVENUES

Type Number Average annual 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

FIGURE 4.—AFFECTED SMALL RAIL

HAZMAT FACILITIES

Number of FTEs Rail hazmat 

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/ 

year Regional Local S & T 

RSC .......................................................................................................................... $91 2 $182 $182 $182 

Incident Report ......................................................................................................... 63 2 126 126 126 


erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
7380 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 31 / Thursday, February 15, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

20Again, it is important to note that the estimate 

of 86 ‘‘Other Rail Transit Systems’’ impacted by the 

rule is in all likelihood conservative. 

21Note that calculations in Figure 23 may be off 

due to rounding. 

FIGURE 5.—AVERAGE COSTS TO RAILROADS BY SIZE—Continued 

Requirement Unit cost # Activities/ 

year Regional Local S & T 

Chain of Custody ..................................................................................................... 4,969,723 Weighted by 

% of 

Revenue 

5,362 368 370 

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. 

FIGURE 6.—AVERAGE COSTS FOR SMALL TRANSIT SYSTEMS

Requirement 

Unit cost # of Activities/year Regional 

A B A × 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

FIGURE 7.—AVERAGE COSTS FOR SMALL RAIL HAZMAT FACILITIES

Requirement 

Unit cost # First-year 

cost Annualized 

A B A × 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. 


erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
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

Type 

Average firstyear cost Average 

revenue 

Cost as a 

percent of 

revenue 

(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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

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 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public 

informational meetings and public 

hearings. 

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 

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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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 

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: http://alaska.fws.gov/ 

fisheries/mmm/polarbear/issues.htm. 

Public Comments Solicited 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from the proposed rule will be 


erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS