|
This file is available on a Cryptome DVD offered by Cryptome. Donate $25 for a DVD of the Cryptome 10-year archives of 35,000 files from June 1996 to June 2006 (~3.5 GB). Click Paypal or mail check/MO made out to John Young, 251 West 89th Street, New York, NY 10024. Archives include all files of cryptome.org, cryptome2.org, jya.com, cartome.org, eyeball-series.org and iraq-kill-maim.org. Cryptome offers with the Cryptome DVD an INSCOM DVD of about 18,000 pages of counter-intelligence dossiers declassified by the US Army Information and Security Command, dating from 1945 to 1985. No additional contribution required -- $25 for both. The DVDs will be sent anywhere worldwide without extra cost. | |||
21 September 2006
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Federal Register: September 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 183)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 55156-55159]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21se06-14]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 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
[[Page 55158]]
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
[[Page 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 re-assess 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