[The Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations]
[Department of Transportation Regulatory Plan]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Transportation (DOT) consists of nine operating 
administrations and the Office of the Secretary, each of which has 
responsibility for a wide range of regulations. For example, we 
regulate safety in the aviation, motor carrier, railroad, mass transit, 
motor vehicle, maritime, commercial space, and pipeline transportation 
areas. We regulate consumer and economic issues in aviation and provide 
financial assistance and write the necessary implementing rules for 
programs involving highways, airports, mass transit, maritime, 
railroads, and motor vehicle safety. We write regulations carrying out 
such disparate statutes as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the 
Uniform Time Act. We establish tolls and operational requirements for 
the St. Lawrence Seaway. We regulate the construction and operation of 
bridges over navigable waters, the prevention of oil pollution, and the 
security of commercial aviation and passenger vessels. Finally, we have 
the usual housekeeping regulations governing everything from conflicts 
of interest to the Privacy Act to seismic standards for building 
construction.
While it carries this heavy regulatory workload, the Department has 
long been recognized as a leader in Federal efforts to improve and 
streamline the regulatory process and ensure that regulations do not 
impose unnecessary burdens. The Department was the first major Federal 
agency to establish a comprehensive internal management and review 
process for new and existing regulations.
This process is codified in the Department's regulatory policies and 
procedures, which ensure that the Secretary and other appropriate 
appointed officials review and concur in all significant DOT rules. 
These policies and procedures emphasize that DOT regulations should be 
necessary, clear, timely, reasonable, and fair, without imposing 
unnecessary burdens on individuals, the private sector, or State or 
local governments.
For virtually all DOT rules, the initiating office must prepare an 
analysis that includes a discussion of the problem intended to be 
addressed, the major alternatives, the reasons for choosing one 
alternative over another, and the economic and other consequences of 
the action. The Department has a management process that permits key 
officials to follow closely the development of significant regulatory 
projects. The process is intended to ensure that these rulemakings are 
completed in a timely manner and facilitates top management's 
involvement in these actions.
The Department has also undertaken a number of new initiatives to 
improve the quality of its rulemaking. A number of examples are worth 
noting. We have taken a number of steps to streamline our concurrence 
process to enable us to respond more rapidly with needed regulations. 
We are attempting to provide better, easier public access to our 
rulemaking process through such things as more informal public 
meetings, increased use of telecommunications, and an electronic 
docket. We are also taking steps to improve public awareness and 
understanding of our rules through training, seminars, guidance 
material, electronic bulletin boards, and other techniques; for 
example, approximately 2,000 people attended a recent series of four 
conferences DOT held on regulatory requirements for drug and alcohol 
testing of transportation industry employees. We have been stressing 
improved coordination with other Federal, State, local, and tribal 
agencies or governments. We are trying to provide as much flexibility 
as possible for small entities and actively participated in a recent 
series of conferences and meetings on this subject cosponsored by the 
Office of Management and Budget and the Small Business Administration. 
We have increased our already considerable efforts to review existing 
regulations, recently identifying 10 new areas for review. We have 
continued our careful analysis of our rules and reemphasized through 
recent rulemakings our commitment to use non-command and control 
requirements, to provide maximum flexibility, and to reduce paperwork 
burdens; included in our initiative are a number of efforts to improve 
the harmonization of our new rules with those of other countries or 
international bodies. Finally, as the first department to use 
regulatory negotiation, we thought it important to stress our support 
of this valuable process and have recently identified over a half-dozen 
possible candidates for negotiation during the next year; the Federal 
Railroad Administration has already published a notice seeking public 
comment on its proposal to use regulatory negotiation for one of these 
candidates, a rulemaking addressing the hazards railroad workers face 
along rights-of-way from moving equipment.
Under the leadership of Secretary of Transportation Federico Pena, the 
Department has adopted a regulatory philosophy that applies to all its 
rulemaking activities. This philosophy is articulated as follows: 
Department of Transportation regulations must be clear, simple, timely, 
fair, reasonable, and necessary. They will be issued only after an 
appropriate opportunity for public comment, which must provide an equal 
chance for all affected interests to participate, and after appropriate 
consultation with other governmental entities. The Department will 
fully consider the comments received. We will assess the risks 
addressed by our rules and their costs and benefits, including the 
cumulative effect. We will consider appropriate alternatives, including 
nonregulatory approaches. We will also make every effort to ensure that 
legislation does not impose unreasonable mandates.
The Department will apply this regulatory philosophy to achieving the 
objectives identified in the Department's January 1994 Strategic Plan. 
Five of the goals of this plan have regulatory components or 
implications:

Tie America Together calls for integrating all modes of 
            transportation.
Invest Strategically in Transportation Infrastructure calls for 
            promoting greater opportunities for minority and women 
            owned businesses and identifying opportunities to provide 
            strategic support to new transportation industries (e.g., 
            the commercial space industry). Achieving these objectives 
            calls for creating or improving DOT regulations to assist 
            emerging businesses.
Promote Safe and Secure Transportation involves a variety of 
            activities with important regulatory components. These 
            include enforcing highway safety requirements, improving 
            safety at rail/highway and waterway/bridge intersections, 
            improving the safety of hazardous material and pipeline 
            transportation, and maintaining and advancing aviation, 
            port, and waterway safety.
Actively Enhance Our Environment also involves a variety of 
            activities with important regulatory components. These 
            include setting targets and deadlines for congestion 
            reduction and demand management on highways, as well as 
            implementing the Clean Air Act and Oil Pollution Act.
Put People First calls for ensuring mobility in all 
            transportation modes for Americans with disabilities and 
            making the Metropolitan Planning Organization planning 
            process work. Both these objectives involve major, 
            continuing regulatory activity by the Department.
Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST)
The Office of the Secretary (OST) oversees the regulatory process for 
the Department. OST implements the Department's regulatory policies and 
procedures and is responsible for ensuring the involvement of top 
management in regulatory decisionmaking. Through the General Counsel's 
office, OST is also responsible for ensuring that the Department 
complies with Executive Order 12866 and other legal and policy 
requirements affecting rulemaking.
OST is currently leading a major initiative to streamline the 
Department's regulatory process, to ensure that rulemakings move 
through the process more quickly and that deadlines are met. This 
initiative includes greater use of delegation of concurrence and 
approval authority for regulations; an improved tracking, target date 
and management reporting system; and greater use of internal rulemaking 
techniques (such as task forces and early management briefings) and 
means of getting greater public involvement (such as regulatory 
negotiation, public meetings, and special science or technical panels) 
that should expedite and improve rulemaking projects. The initiative 
also includes a major project to centralize and ``computerize'' the 
Department's rulemaking docket functions.
OST continues to provide periodically a 2-day training course on 
regulatory development and processing for DOT employees. OST also 
prepares guidance for use of regulatory personnel throughout the 
Department on such matters as compliance with Executive Orders, 
economic analyses, paperwork reduction, the Regulatory Agenda and Plan, 
and other regulatory policy matters.
While OST's principal role concerns making the Department's regulatory 
process run smoothly, OST also plays an important role in the substance 
of rulemaking projects having cross-modal significance. OST offices 
successfully coordinated the Department's effort that led to this 
year's massive alcohol and drug testing rulemaking. OST continues to 
coordinate implementation of these rules as well as work on follow-up 
rulemakings. OST coordinates the Department's response to requirements 
under the Americans with Disabilities Act and related statutes, and is 
currently working on rules concerning the accessibility of over-the-
road buses and small commuter aircraft. OST is also leading a 
multimodal task force that will produce, later this year, a final rule 
revising the Department's disadvantaged business enterprise program 
regulation.
The Office of Commercial Space Transportation (OCST) within OST is 
responsible for providing regulatory guidance to the emerging U.S. 
commercial space transportation industry. U.S. aerospace companies, 
which have traditionally constructed launch vehicles and conducted 
launches as contractors of the U.S. Government, have been successfully 
marketing commercial services worldwide and are now conducting 
commercial launches on a regular basis. Newer commercial launch firms 
are developing and testing innovative vehicle technologies that will 
serve the important small-payload market. The Department, as the agency 
authorized by statute to license and otherwise regulate commercial 
space launch activities, is responsible for ensuring that these 
activities are conducted in a safe manner. At the same time, the 
Department must also shape its policies and requirements in a way that 
does not unduly burden the U.S. commercial space transportation 
industry. OCST, therefore, is seeking to streamline and further refine 
its regulatory processes, while continuing to consult with other 
agencies having responsibilities related to commercial space 
transportation.
Unites States Coast Guard (USCG)
The United States Coast Guard, an armed force of the United States, has 
many peacetime missions directly affecting the public. These missions 
include placing and maintaining aids to navigation, enforcing laws and 
treaties, protecting the marine environment, performing search and 
rescue, and ensuring marine safety and security. Various statutes 
authorize the Coast Guard to issue regulations in connection with these 
missions. The Coast Guard traditionally provides for pollution 
prevention and safety of passengers, crew, cargo, and ports through a 
framework of regulations that apply to U.S. flag vessels and foreign 
vessels that call at U.S. ports. The Marine Safety Council, a group of 
senior Coast Guard officers, establishes regulatory policy, reviews 
each rulemaking project, and advises the Commandant of the Coast Guard 
on regulatory matters.
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 mandated over 30 different rulemaking 
projects, affecting pollution liability, personnel training and 
qualification, and vessel construction and equipment requirements. A 
number of regulations issued under the authority of the Oil Pollution 
Act of 1990 are now in effect, including requirements for financial 
responsibility, double-hull construction, and vessel and facility oil 
spill response plans. Other rulemaking projects, including requirements 
for hazardous substances response plans and structural and operational 
measures to prevent pollution from existing tank vessels, are in 
progress.
The percentage of foreign vessel traffic in U.S. ports has increased 
significantly over the past several years. As a result, the Coast Guard 
is shifting its emphasis from ``flag state control'' directed primarily 
at U.S. vessels to ``port state control.'' Its goal will be to identify 
substandard foreign vessels and operators, and ensure deficiencies are 
corrected. Through Coast Guard initiatives at the International 
Maritime Organization (IMO), international standards have been raised 
to a level comparable with domestic requirements. The Coast Guard 
intends to increase its acceptance of international standards and 
eliminate or reduce inconsistencies with domestic regulations, while 
still ensuring an appropriate level of safety.
Additional emphasis will also be placed on sectors of the maritime 
industry that have previously not been regulated. As a result of recent 
casualties, legislation and regulations that would improve navigation 
and operation requirements for uninspected towing vessels are under 
consideration. Regulatory projects have been initiated to improve 
equipment and construction standards for uninspected fishing vessels. 
Legislation that would expand licensing and inspection requirements for 
fishing vessels is also under consideration.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
In 1994-1995, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will continue 
to promulgate regulatory actions to implement the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and other relevant statutes and 
will revise existing regulations where appropriate. The FHWA will 
rigorously pursue regulatory reform in areas where project development 
can be streamlined or accelerated, duplicative requirements can be 
consolidated, recordkeeping requirements can be reduced or simplified, 
and the decisionmaking authority of the States can be increased.
The major areas in which the FHWA will initiate or continue to develop 
significant rulemaking actions in 1994 are in its ongoing zero-base 
review of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and in 
implementing the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. The 
goals and objectives of the zero-base review project are to (1) focus 
on those areas of enforcement and compliance which are most effective 
in reducing motor carrier accidents, (2)reduce compliance costs, 
(3)encourage innovation, (4) clearly and succinctly describe what is 
required, and (5)facilitate enforcement. Through the zero-base review, 
the FHWA intends to develop a unified, performance-based regulatory 
system that will enhance safety on our Nation's highways while 
minimizing the burdens placed on the motor carrier industry. In 
addition, the FHWA is currently re-drafting the Rules of Practice for 
Motor Carrier Safety and Hazardous Materials Proceedings. We plan to 
simplify the current process to facilitate responses by the accused 
motor carriers and drivers, and to offer alternative means of 
adjudicating the claims. We also intend to promulgate comprehensive 
rules covering the entire enforcement process from initial contact with 
the motor carrier to the final disposition of the claim.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
The statutory responsibilities of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) include improving highway safety, reducing motor 
vehicle crashes and related fatalities and injuries, providing 
information and cost savings to consumers, and improving automotive 
fuel efficiency. The agency endeavors to pursue policies that encourage 
the development of nonregulatory approaches when appropriate in meeting 
its statutory mandate; to issue new standards and regulations or 
amendments to existing standards and regulations when appropriate; to 
ensure that regulatory alternatives reflect a careful assessment of the 
problem and a comprehensive analysis of the benefits, costs, and other 
impacts associated with the proposed regulatory action; and to consider 
alternatives consistent with the Administration's regulatory 
principles.
In addition to numerous programs that focus on the safety and 
performance of the motor vehicle, the agency is engaged in a variety of 
programs to improve driver behavior. These programs emphasize the human 
aspects of motor vehicle safety and recognize the important role of the 
States in this common pursuit. This goal is accomplished by providing 
flexibility and encouraging initiatives in such areas as safety belt 
usage, motorcycle helmet usage, child safety-seat usage, activities 
aimed at combating drunk driving and driving under the influence of 
other drugs, and consumer information activities.
Furthering initiatives begun under the National Performance Review, 
NHTSA is conducting several program evaluations that are designed to 
review and evaluate the actual benefits, costs, and overall 
effectiveness of existing standards and regulations.
In its 1994 Regulatory Plan, NHTSA focuses on three significant 
rulemakings: to consider additional brake performance requirements for 
passenger cars; to upgrade the current interior impact standard to 
provide greater head injury protection from contact with upper vehicle 
interiors; and to establish corporate average fuel economy standards 
for light trucks for model years 1998-2006.
The actions included in the Regulatory Plan were undertaken in 
conformance with a congressional mandate, and reflect a continuation of 
NHTSA's regulatory reform policy objectives. The suggested Regulatory 
Plan actions on passenger car brakes and head-impact protection in 
vehicle interiors are supported by extensive research and crash data. 
Suggested light truck fuel economy standards were discussed in a report 
by the National Academy of Sciences, and carefully analyzed in a series 
of ongoing discussions between NHTSA, the Department of Energy and the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
NHTSA's regulatory program includes additional proposals that will be 
undertaken in order to allow design flexibility, promote new 
technology, and encourage market competition and consumer choice.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) exercises regulatory 
authority over all areas of railroad safety. This authority has been 
delegated to FRA by the Secretary of Transportation. The primary source 
of the authority is the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, 45 U.S.C. 
431 et seq.
FRA's general regulatory objective is to develop a regulatory program 
that meets the basic criteria for such programs set forth in Executive 
Order 12866 and is based on the regulatory principles enunciated in the 
Order. FRA's vision is a regulatory program that protects the health 
and safety of all persons affected by railroading in America and 
enhances the environment without imposing unreasonable costs on 
society. In the words of the Order, FRA seeks to create regulations 
that ``are effective, consistent, sensible, and understandable.''
More specifically, FRA's objectives are to implement the significant 
number of pending congressional mandates for railroad safety 
regulations in the most timely and reasonable manner possible and to 
address the most important regulatory issues on the agency's own agenda 
in the same manner.
Our current regulatory priorities include issuance of final rules on 
several important subjects: maintenance, inspection, and testing of 
grade crossing warning devices; track safety; power brake inspection 
and maintenance; and the crashworthiness and inspection of hazardous 
materials tank cars. (On the last subject, we work jointly with the 
Research and Special Programs Administration.) Each of these rules will 
embody cost-effective improvements in the way railroads currently 
conduct business that will, we believe, significantly increase safety 
performance in an industry that already has a generally sound safety 
record.
One especially important FRA initiative planned for the coming year is 
a proposed rule concerning safety standards for railroad equipment 
designed for high-speed passenger service. Amtrak, of course, plans to 
purchase a number of high-speed trainsets in the near future, and other 
purchases are increasingly likely. The higher speeds at which these 
trains will operate and their unique features require issuance of 
standards that address those factors. Such standards will provide the 
certainty that developers of such systems desire for design and cost 
estimation purposes. More important, these rules will ensure that 
important safety features are built into all high-speed equipment 
designed for use in America.
FRA's regulatory priorities clearly track the President's priorities 
with respect to the promotion of a safe and efficient transportation 
system that includes high-speed rail passenger service as a vital 
component.
Maritime Administration (MARAD)
MARAD administers Federal laws and programs designed to promote and 
maintain a U.S. merchant marine capable of meeting the Nation's 
shipping needs for both domestic and foreign commerce and national 
security.
MARAD's regulatory objectives and priorities reflect its promotional 
mandate. Generally, regulation is undertaken only when required by 
statute, as was the case recently to implement Administration-sponsored 
legislation to strengthen America's shipyards, or when it would clearly 
provide a significant net benefit to the Maritime industry and no 
effective alternative has been identified. MARAD's entry in the present 
Regulatory Plan falls in the latter category and is designed to bring 
government procurement of ocean transport more in line with commercial 
practices. MARAD has been involved in ongoing discussions with the U. 
S. Department of Agriculture and the U. S. Agency for International 
Development concerning the proposed changes. Industry, the government 
and the public should benefit from the rule.
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)
The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) has 
responsibility for rulemaking under three programs. Through the 
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, RSPA 
administers regulatory programs under the Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Act (HMTA); the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 
amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990; and the Sanitary Food 
Transportation Act. Through the Associate Administrator for Pipeline 
Safety, RSPA administers regulatory programs under the Natural Gas 
Pipeline Safety Act of 1968; the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act 
of 1979; and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the 
Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The Associate Administrator for Research, 
Technology, and Analysis is responsible for collecting, evaluating, and 
disseminating the necessary tariff, financial, traffic, and consumer 
information to support the aviation programs of the Department under 
the Federal Aviation Act of 1958.
In the area of hazardous materials transportation, the regulatory 
priorities are to complete the rulemaking actions mandated by the 1990 
amendments to the HMTA, including extending Federal regulation to the 
intrastate highway transportation of hazardous materials and improving 
hazardous materials identification systems. Other priorities are to 
issue final rules on detection of flaws in railroad tank cars and 
crashworthiness protection requirements for tank cars.
The regulatory priorities in the pipeline safety area are to manage the 
risks inherent in pipeline transportation through strategies directed 
at prevention, detection, and mitigation activities. Specific 
regulatory actions to implement these activities include excavation 
damage prevention programs mandating participation in one-call 
notification systems; increased inspection requirements using 
instrumented internal inspection devices; and prescribing the 
circumstances under which pipeline operators must use emergency flow 
restricting devices to mitigate spills.
In the aviation information area, the regulatory priorities are to 
examine ways to improve the Passenger Origin-Destination Survey, 
explore the issue of confidential treatment of domestic market data, 
fully automate tariff filings by air carriers, and eliminate routine 
filing of cargo tariffs.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
The Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, charges the Administrator 
of the FAA with promoting safety of flight of civil aircraft in air 
commerce. The stated FAA mission is to provide a safe, secure, and 
efficient global aviation system which contributes to national security 
and the promotion of U.S. aviation. The agency relies on its Regulatory 
Plan to provide that system.
The FAA currently has a major initiative to improve the regulatory 
process in the spirit of Executive Order 12866, which charges agencies 
to promulgate regulations that are effective, consistent, sensible, and 
understandable. As a matter of policy, the FAA will promulgate no 
regulation if a nonregulatory solution exists. Other innovations 
include:

 Involving the aviation community early in the regulatory 
            process to obtain input, both on the rule and the 
            economics, from affected parties prior to publishing a 
            proposed regulation. The Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 
            Committee represents members from all aviation interests 
            and is presently working on the resolution of more than 70 
            issues.
 Improving the agency's economic analysis process. The agency 
            sponsored a public symposium on June 28, 1994, to obtain 
            public input for the improvement of the process.
 Harmonizing the U.S. aviation regulations with those of other 
            countries. The harmonization of the U.S. regulations with 
            the European Joint Aviation Regulations (JAA) is the FAA's 
            most comprehensive long-term rulemaking effort. The 
            differences worldwide in certification standards, 
            practices, and procedures, and operating rules and 
            procedures, must be identified and minimized to reduce the 
            regulatory burden on the international aviation system. The 
            differences between the FAA regulations and the 
            requirements of other nations impose a heavy burden on U.S. 
            aircraft manufacturers and operators. Harmonization and 
            standardization should help the U.S. aerospace industry, 
            which contributed approximately $23 billion in trade 
            surplus for 1990, to remain internationally competitive. 
            While the overall effort to achieve this is global, it will 
            be accomplished by many small, individual, nonsignificant 
            rulemaking projects.
 Reviewing the regulations to identify those rules that are 
            inconsistent with state-of-the-art technology or current 
            industry practice. To enhance its ability to perform its 
            statutory role without undue economic burden on the 
            aviation industry, the agency announced a comprehensive 
            review on January 10, 1994, asking interested parties to 
            identify those regulations that are believed to be 
            unwarranted or inappropriate. The comments provided in 
            response to this notice will assist the agency in 
            establishing its priorities for future regulatory changes. 
            Other reviews will be conducted periodically.
 Improving the regulatory process. To improve its internal 
            process, the FAA is experimenting with a new methodology of 
            processing regulations that will require earlier 
            involvement by all interested parties. Also, through an 
            improved prioritization process, top management at the FAA 
            now identifies certain projects that are designated as 
            expedited rulemakings. These are generally simple, 
            relieving rulemakings that are accomplished quickly through 
            a dedication of resources. In addition, the FAA is working 
            on a rulemaking proposal that would allow the use of a 
            finding of equivalent level of safety that could be used in 
            lieu of exemptions.
Top regulatory priorities of the FAA for 1994-1995 are those affecting 
security at airports, harmonization of U.S. regulations with those of 
other countries, certification and maintenance of aircraft, survival 
equipment, and drug enforcement. Those rulemaking efforts are described 
in detail in this edition of the Regulatory Plan of the United States 
Government.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Office of the Secretary (OST)
            ___________________________________________________________
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
116. +LICENSING COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH ACTIVITIES
Legal Authority:


 49 USC app 2601 to 2623


CFR Citation:


 14 CFR 400 to 415


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended, grants the 
Department of Transportation's Office of Commercial Space 
Transportation authority to license and otherwise regulate commercial 
launches and the commercial operation of launch sites. The Office must 
ensure that commercial space launch activities are conducted in a 
manner that does not jeopardize public health and safety and the safety 
of property without, however, imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens 
on the commercial launch industry. The industry has grown in size and 
complexity since the original regulations were published in 1988, and 
the Office's licensing program continues to evolve to reflect these 
changes. This rulemaking would modify the current regulations to 
reflect a streamlined and more mature licensing regime developed over 
the past few years. Such changes would benefit the industry by reducing 
regulatory burdens, thus reducing costs.


This rulemaking is significant because of substantial public interest.


Statement of Need:





On April 4, 1988, the Office of Commercial Space Transportation (OCST) 
published final regulations for licensing commercial space launch 
activities. The regulations include the general administrative 
procedures of OCST as well as revised and expanded policies for 
licensing commercial launch activities. The industry has grown in size 
and complexity since the licensing regulations were first published in 
1988. As a result, the Office has continued to refine its approach to 
licensing launch proposals in a manner that facilitates private sector 
launch activities. This rulemaking would modify the current regulations 
to reflect a more efficient licensing regime. In addition, the 
rulemaking will address the procedures and requirements applicable to 
the licensing of commercial spaceport operators.


Summary of the Legal Basis:





The Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended, 49 U.S.C. app. 
2601 et seq., confers upon the Department of Transportation the 
responsibility to license and otherwise regulate launches by the 
private sector of launch vehicles and the commercial operation of 
launch sites. The Department's Office of Commercial Space 
Transportation carries out this responsibility for ensuring that these 
commercial launch activities do not jeopardize public health and 
safety, the safety of property, and national security and foreign 
policy interests of the United States.


Alternatives:





No alternatives were considered. OCST is required by the Commercial 
Space Launch Act to review and act upon applications for licenses to 
conduct commercial launches and commercial launch site operations. The 
Act does not permit OCST to follow alternative approaches in carrying 
out this responsibility. Therefore, although this rulemaking will make 
further refinements to the licensing process, the basic regulatory 
approach will not change.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:





The rule should impose no additional costs on the commercial space 
transportation industry. By streamlining the licensing process that is 
already in place, the rule should benefit the industry by reducing the 
regulatory burden. The rule should benefit the Office by establishing a 
more efficient licensing mechanism, thereby reducing staff time.


Risks:





The primary purpose of OCST licensing is to ensure that commercial 
space launch activities do not jeopardize public health and safety and 
the safety of property and to ensure compliance with international 
obligations of the United States. Although the historical safety record 
of government and commercial launch firms is excellent, significant 
risks or hazards are presented by the launch of launch vehicles. Risks 
or hazards include possible explosions and fires involving liquid or 
solid rocket propellants and ordnance, as well as the generation of 
launch vehicle and payload debris. Launch accidents, including in-
flight failures of guidance or destruction systems, may result in 
injury to launch personnel and the public and in damages to or loss of 
government and private property. The potential maximum probable loss 
for injuries and damages from a single launch typically is in the tens 
of millions of dollars. The OCST licensing process, in conjunction with 
U.S. Government launch facilities' range safety control procedures, are 
directed at ensuring these launch activities do not jeopardize public 
safety or U.S. national interests. In addition, OCST imposes financial 
responsibility requirements on licensees to protect the public and the 
government, pursuant to the 1988 amendments to the Commercial Space 
Launch Act.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           10/00/94
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Analysis:


 Regulatory Evaluation 10/00/94


Agency Contact:
Ronald K. Gress
Deputy Associate Director
Office of Commercial Space Transportation
Department of Transportation
Office of the Secretary
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
202 366-2929
RIN: 2105-AB85
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--OST
117. +TRANSPORTATION FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
Legal Authority:


 49 USC 322; PL 101-336, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)


CFR Citation:


 49 CFR 27


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, May 16, 1994.


Abstract:


The Department is seeking responses to questions concerning 
requirements for accessibility of over-the-road buses (OTRBs). DOT is 
required to consider the recent report of the Office of Technology 
Assessment in drafting OTRB access rules. This project is considered 
significant because of substantial public interest.


Statement of Need:





This regulation is necessary for the Department to comply with the ADA 
requirement that it issue a regulation governing accessibility in OTRB 
service for persons with disabilities.


Summary of the Legal Basis:





Under the ADA, the Department must issue regulations concerning OTRBs. 
OTRBs are buses with a high passenger deck and a below-deck baggage 
compartment, of the kind used by Greyhound, other intercity and local 
fixed-route operators, and charter and tour companies.


When Congress enacted the ADA, it directed DOT to establish limited 
interim regulations for OTRBs. These interim regulations, which DOT 
published as part of its 1991 ADA rules, call for OTRBs to provide 
boarding assistance to individuals with disabilities and to carry their 
wheelchairs in baggage. By statute, these interim rules could not 
require lifts or other specific boarding devices.


Based on concerns about the economic weakness of the intercity bus 
industry and the potential for reductions in OTRB service (particularly 
to rural areas), Congress directed the Office of Technology Assessment 
(OTA) to study issues relating to demand, technology, cost-
effectiveness, and service impacts of implementing OTRB access. OTA 
published its report in May 1993. OTA took the view that the ADA 
requires new OTRBs to be lift-equipped and requires passengers to be 
able to ride in their own wheelchairs (the highest cost approach to 
achieving OTRB accessibility). Under OTA's interpretation of the 
statute, DOT would have little regulatory discretion to fashion more 
flexible requirements.


Because OTA's study left many questions unanswered, DOT issued, in 
October 1993, an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to 
obtain views on the Department's discretion under the statute and 
technical, cost and service data critical to the development of a full 
range of OTRB regulatory options. The Department also held a public 
workshop, attended by bus industry and disability groups, to discuss 
OTRB accessibility options.


The gaps in the OTA study, and the Department's consequent need to 
begin the regulatory process with an ANPRM, have put the Department 
behind the timetable established in the ADA, which called for a final 
rule to be issued within one year of the OTA report (i.e., May 1994).


The next step in the process is for the Department to issue a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM).


Alternatives:





The Department analyzed comments to the docket in an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking and held a workshop involving representatives of 
interested parties to obtain views on the Department's discretion under 
the statute for achieving accessibility in OTRB device and technical, 
costs, and service data. As a result of these activities, several 
options have been suggested for achieving accessible OTRB service. 
Option I assumes lift equipage of 100 percent of OTRB's. Option II 
assumes an accessible OTRB system based primarily on station-based 
lifts plus ramps and a boarding chair on 100 percent of OTRBs vs. one 
based on Scalamobiles (a powered stair climber device) on 100 percent 
of OTRBs. Option III assumes 25 percent lift-equipped OTRBs and 75 
percent Scalamobiles. All options assume a 10-year implementation 
period.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:





Cost information is very sparse and our estimates are still in flux. 
Presently, the anticipated annual cost of option I would be $67-$78 
million. The high and low cost range reflects differences in lift 
types, other OTRB and terminal access features, personnel training and 
forgone revenue from seat and/or package loss. The anticipated annual 
cost of option II would be $16-$19 million. The high and low costs 
reflect differences between an accessible OTRB system based primarily 
on station-based lifts plus ramps and boarding chairs on 100 percent of 
OTRBs vs. one based on Scalamobiles on 100 percent of OTRBs.


Option III annual costs would be estimated at $40-$45 million based on 
25 percent lift-equipped OTRBs and 75 percent of the fleet with 
Scalamobiles.


Option I would permit persons with disabilities to schedule trips at 
the last minute and they could remain in their mobility devices while 
traveling. They would not have to transfer to a vehicle seat. This is 
the option that would be favored by the disability community, but is 
the most costly option to the OTRB industry. The high cost of complying 
with this option could drive some companies out of business.


Under option II, OTRB operators would not be required to purchase buses 
equipped with vehicle-based lifts or securement locations. They would 
be required to ensure, within a given period of time, that individuals 
with disabilities, including wheelchair users, could use all services 
the operator provides. Wheelchair users would transfer to a vehicle 
seat, rather than riding in their own mobility aids.


Under option III, OTRB operators, within a given period of time, would 
have to obtain a certain percentage of lift-equipped buses as part of 
their mix of services to passengers with disabilities. This approach 
combines the flexibility of option II with a requirement for a modest 
level of fleet accessibility, which would enable passengers to ride in 
their own wheelchairs but would require advance notice to schedule 
trips. This responds partially to concerns of disability community 
comments on the Department's ANPRM. Bus industry commenters expressed 
at least qualified support for this approach.


Risks:





Because of the economic weakness of the intercity bus industry, the 
Department is concerned that any one of the options for bringing about 
accessible OTRB service could potentially bring about a reduction in 
intercity bus service for all users. This could have a significant 
negative impact on current intercity bus users, most of whom have low 
incomes and may not have ready access to other means of affordable 
transportation.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           58 FR 52735                                    10/12/93
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       11/26/93
NPRM                                                           10/00/94
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Analysis:


 Regulatory Evaluation


Additional Information:


Telephone number for TDD is (202) 755-7687.


Agency Contact:
Robert C. Ashby
Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement
Department of Transportation
Office of the Secretary
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
202 366-9306
RIN: 2105-AC00
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--OST
            ___________________________________________________________
FINAL RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
118. +NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAP IN FEDERALLY ASSISTED 
PROGRAMS AND IN AIR TRAVEL (AIR CARRIER ACCESS ACT)
Legal Authority:


 29 USC 794


CFR Citation:


 49 CFR 27; 14 CFR 382


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:





This action would amend portions of the rule implementing section 504 
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 concerning federally assisted airport 
facilities to comport with 14 CFR 382, implementing the Air Carrier 
Access Act of 1986. The proposed rule would also apply the section 504 
rule to air carriers receiving Federal financial assistance under the 
essential air service program. In addition, this action would amend 14 
CFR 382 to implement the Air Carrier Access Act with respect to lifts 
for small commuter aircraft and airport facility accessibility. This 
rulemaking is considered significant because of substantial public 
interest.


Statement of Need:





This rule is necessary to further implement the Air Carrier Access Act 
of 1986.


Summary of the Legal Basis:





In the Department's regulation implementing section 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which went into effect in 1979, the 
Department required federally assisted airports to play a role in 
boarding assistance for individuals with disabilities.


Each operator at an airport receiving any Federal financial assistance 
shall assure that adequate assistance is provided for enplaning and 
deplaning handicapped persons. Boarding by level-entry boarding 
platforms and by passenger lounges are the preferred methods for 
movement of handicapped persons between terminal buildings and aircraft 
at air carrier airports; however, where this is not practicable, 
operators at air carrier airport terminals shall assure that there are 
suitable devices available for enplaning and deplaning handicapped 
passengers.


Alternatives:





The Department considered three approaches for assisting persons with 
disabilities in boarding and deboarding aircraft having fewer than 30 
seats at airports where level boarding equipment was not provided. Air 
carriers and airport operators have the option of using lifts, ramps, 
or other suitable devices, not normally used for freight, to assist 
persons with disabilities in enplaning and deplaning small commuter-
type aircraft.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:





The estimated annual compliance costs for carriers and airports of the 
NPRM's requirements would range from $1.0 to $8.3 million in 1993 
dollars. The estimated cost depends upon the number and type of lift 
boarding devices assumed to be needed at different size airports.


The benefits that would accrue from removing barriers to boarding and 
deboarding commuter type aircraft cannot be quantified, but could well 
include increased employment opportunities for persons with 
disabilities, as well as an enhanced quality of life associated with 
expanded travel opportunities. Other potential benefits could include 
reduced injuries and associated medical cost to airline passengers and 
to airline employees who hand-carry passengers onto aircraft because 
there is no other means of boarding assistance available.


Risks:





Requiring air carriers and air carrier airports to purchase and 
maintain boarding assistance equipment could cause financial hardship 
on these entities. However, not having such equipment available could 
result in injuries to passengers and employees who continue to hand-
carry passengers with disabilities onto aircraft. While hand-carrying 
persons with disabilities in boarding chairs up and down airstairs on 
commuter planes (those with less than 30 seats) is not required by the 
Department's Air Carrier Access Act regulation, such service is 
sometimes volunteered by carrier employees.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            55 FR 8081                                     03/06/90
NPRM Comment Period End                                        06/04/90
Second NPRM     58 FR 47681                                    09/10/93
NPRM Comment Per58 FR 63154d to 01/07/94                       11/30/93
Second NPRM Comment Period End                                 12/09/93
Final Action                                                   10/00/94
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Analysis:


 Regulatory Evaluation 03/06/90 (55 FR 8081)


Additional Information:


The telephone number for TDD is (202) 755-7687; a taped copy of the 
NPRM is available on request. The issue of lifts for small commuter 
aircraft was removed from RIN 2105-AB60 and consolidated into this 
proceeding.


Agency Contact:
Robert C. Ashby
Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement
Department of Transportation
Office of the Secretary
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
202 366-9306
RIN: 2105-AB62
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
            ___________________________________________________________
PRERULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
119.  +FACILITY RESPONSE PLANS FOR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES (94-
048)
Legal Authority:


 33 USC 1321(j)


CFR Citation:


 33 CFR 154


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This project would implement provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 
1990 that require an owner or operator of a marine transportation-
related facility transferring bulk hazardous substances to develop and 
operate in accordance with an approved response plan. The regulations 
would apply to marine transportation-related facilities that, because 
of their location, could cause substantial or significant and 
substantial harm to the environment by discharging a hazardous 
substance into or on the navigable waters or adjoining shoreline. This 
would be defined as any facility capable of transferring hazardous 
substances regulated under 46 CFR Subchapters D and O to or from a 
vessel in quantities of 250 barrels or more. A separate rulemaking 
under RIN 2115-AE88 would address hazardous response plan requirements 
for tank vessels. This action is considered significant because of 
substantial public interest.


Statement of Need:





This rulemaking is intended to reduce the impact from hazardous 
substance spills from vessels and marine transportation-related 
facilities.


Summary of the Legal Basis:





Section 4202(a) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), codified at 
33 USC 1321(j)(5), mandates that the President issue regulations 
requiring the preparation of oil and hazardous substance discharge 
response plans. Although 4202(b)(4) of OPA 90 established an 
implementation schedule for these response plans for oil, it did not 
establish a deadline for submission or approval of hazardous substances 
response plans. The Coast Guard has issued separate interim rules 
governing response plan requirements for vessels carrying oil in bulk 
as cargo and facilities that handle, store, or transport oil in bulk. 
Under section 1321, ``hazardous substances'' are designated by the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Administrator 
has designated 297 chemicals as hazardous substances under this 
section. However, the Coast Guard has identified only 83 hazardous 
substances currently transferred in bulk by marine transportation-
related facilities.


Alternatives:





The Coast Guard intends to determine what types of response strategies 
would be required to address spills of different types of hazardous 
substances. For some substances, containment and recovery may be the 
appropriate response. However, some spilled substances may not be 
recoverable from the water and other actions may be necessary. Plans 
would be required, by statute, to address responses to a ``worst case 
discharge.'' For facilities, a ``worst case discharge'' is ``the 
largest foreseeable discharge in adverse weather conditions.'' The 
Coast Guard is considering requirements for response plans for less 
than ``worst case discharges,'' similar to the requirements adopted in 
the vessel and facility response plans rules for oil discharges. 
Additionally, as in the vessel and facility response plans for oil 
discharges, owners or operators are required by statute to maintain 
contracts or other acceptable arrangements with spill-response 
organizations.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:





The potential costs of this rulemaking may include the costs of 
developing and implementing a hazardous substance response plan, 
maintaining contracts with spill response organizations, reviewing and 
updating hazardous substance response plans, maintaining any required 
equipment, and training and exercising response personnel. Potential 
benefits include enhanced environmental quality from improved ability 
to respond to, contain, and recover spilled hazardous substances and a 
reduction in the severity of the impact of accidental hazardous 
substance discharges. The Coast Guard does not yet have sufficient 
information to estimate the potential monetary costs and benefits of 
this rule. A key element in developing effective regulations for 
hazardous substance response plans will be the development of an 
approach for addressing different types of hazardous substances.


Risks:





Response plans are required by statute. A response plan will not 
prevent a discharge of a hazardous substance, but it may improve the 
response and, in certain cases, help to minimize personal injury and 
damage to the environment. This rule should not affect the economic 
viability of facilities involved in transferring hazardous substances 
in bulk or have a significant impact on the volume of hazardous 
substances shipped by marine transportation-related facilities. Most 
facilities involved in transferring hazardous substances in bulk have 
developed plans, but there have not been requirements for 
standardization.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                                                          12/00/94
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Analysis:


 Regulatory Evaluation


Agency Contact:
LCDR Walter M. Hunt
Project Manager
G-MS
Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW.
Washington, DC 20593-0001
202 267-6230
RIN: 2115-AE87
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--USCG
120.  +TANK VESSEL RESPONSE PLANS FOR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES (94-
032)
Legal Authority:


 33 USC 1321(j)


CFR Citation:


 33 CFR 155


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This project would implement provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 
1990 that require an owner or operator of a tank vessel carrying bulk 
hazardous substances to develop and operate in accordance with an 
approved response plan. The regulations would apply to vessels 
operating on the navigable waters or within the Exclusive Economic Zone 
(EEZ) of the U.S. that carry bulk hazardous substances regulated under 
46 CFR Subchapters D and O. A separate rulemaking under RIN 2115-AE87 
would address hazardous substances response plan requirements for 
marine transportation-related facilities. This action is considered 
significant because of substantial public interest.


Statement of Need:





This rulemaking is intended to reduce the impact from hazardous 
substance spills from vessels.


Summary of the Legal Basis:





Section 4202(a) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), codified at 
33 USC 1321(j)(5), mandates that the President issue regulations 
requiring the preparation of oil and hazardous substance discharge 
response plans. Although 4202(b)(4) of OPA 90 established an 
implementation schedule for these response plans for oil, it did not 
establish a deadline for submission or approval of hazardous substances 
response plans. The Coast Guard has issued separate interim rules 
governing response plan requirements for vessels carrying oil in bulk 
as cargo and facilities that handle, store, or transport oil in bulk. 
Under section 1321, ``hazardous substances'' are designated by the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Administrator 
has designated 297 chemicals as hazardous substances under this 
section. However, the Coast Guard has identified only 83 hazardous 
substances currently transferred in bulk by marine transportation-
related facilities.


Alternatives:





The Coast Guard intends to determine what types of response strategies 
would be required to address spills of different types of hazardous 
substances. For some substances, containment and recovery may be the 
appropriate response. However, some spilled substances may not be 
recoverable from the water and other actions may be necessary. Plans 
would be required, by statute, to address responses to a ``worst case 
discharge.'' For vessels, a ``worst case discharge'' is ``a discharge 
in adverse weather conditions of its entire cargo.'' The Coast Guard is 
considering requirements for response plans for less than ``worst case 
discharges,'' similar to the requirements adopted in the vessel and 
facility response plans rules for oil discharges. Additionally, as in 
the vessel and facility response plans for oil discharges, owners or 
operators are required by statute to maintain contracts or other 
acceptable arrangements with spill response organizations.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:





The potential costs of this rulemaking may include the costs of 
developing and implementing a hazardous substance response plan, 
maintaining contracts with spill-response organizations, reviewing and 
updating hazardous substance response plans, maintaining any required 
equipment, and training and exercising response personnel. Potential 
benefits include enhanced environmental quality from improved ability 
to respond to, contain, and recover spilled hazardous substances and a 
reduction in the severity of the impact of accidental hazardous 
substance discharges. The Coast Guard does not yet have sufficient 
information to estimate the potential monetary costs and benefits of 
this rule. A key element in developing effective regulations for 
hazardous substance response plans will be the development of an 
approach for addressing different types of hazardous substances.


Risks:





Response plans are required by statute. A response plan will not 
prevent a discharge of a hazardous substance, but it may improve the 
response and, in certain cases, help to minimize personal injury and 
damage to the environment. This rule should not affect the economic 
viability of vessels involved in transferring hazardous substances in 
bulk, or have a significant impact on the volume of hazardous 
substances shipped by vessel. Most vessels carrying hazardous 
substances in bulk have developed plans, but there have not been 
requirements for standardization.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                                                          12/00/94
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Analysis:


 Regulatory Evaluation


Agency Contact:
Marcia Landman
Project Manager
G-MS
Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW.
Washington, DC 20593-0001
202 267-6770
RIN: 2115-AE88
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--USCG
            ___________________________________________________________
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
121. +STRUCTURAL AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES TO REDUCE OIL SPILLS FROM 
EXISTING TANK VESSELS WITHOUT DOUBLE HULLS (91-045)
Legal Authority:


 46 USC 3703; PL 101-380


CFR Citation:


 33 CFR 157


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, August 26, 1991.


Abstract:


This rulemaking will address the interim measures existing vessels must 
take to provide substantial protection to the environment. The interim 
measures will apply to existing vessels until the vessel must comply 
with the double-hull regulations. No tank vessel without a double hull 
may operate after January 15, 2015. Interim measures are to include 
structural and operational standards to provide substantial protection 
to the environment that are economically and technologically feasible. 
This rulemaking is considered significant due to substantial public 
interest and environmental impact.


Statement of Need:





This rulemaking is intended to reduce the likelihood of, and impact 
from, oil spills from existing tank vessels.


Summary of the Legal Basis:





Section 4115(b) of OPA 90, codified at 46 USC 3703a, mandates that the 
Secretary of Transportation ``... issue a final rule to require that 
tank vessels over 5,000 gross tons ... comply until January 1, 2015, 
with structural and operational requirements that the Secretary 
determines will provide as substantial protection to the environment as 
is economically and technologically feasible.''


Alternatives:





In 1989, the Coast Guard commissioned the National Academy of Sciences 
to conduct a study of alternative tank vessel designs. The study 
addressed the feasibility and ramifications of implementing various 
design options. An advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) was 
published on November 1, 1991, and solicited comments on a number of 
possible structural and operational measures. Comments were 
specifically solicited on the number of vessels affected, technical 
feasibility, and costs of various measures. Based on comments received 
and the Coast Guard's own analysis, the range of possible alternatives 
was narrowed. Remaining options included protectively located noncargo 
tanks (PL/Spaces), emergency rapid transfer systems, emergency rescue 
systems, underpressure systems, and hydrostatically balanced loading 
(HBL). Following publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
on October 22, 1993, the Coast Guard conducted a public meeting and 
received additional comments. Several comments expressed concern over 
the effectiveness of some of the proposed structural and operational 
measures, such as protectively located spaces and hydrostatic balance 
loading. Therefore, the Coast Guard is considering a three-prong 
approach. A partial final rule addressed emergency lightering equipment 
and prearrival notification requirements. Future rulemakings will 
address the other structural measures and solicit additional comments.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:





The costs of the proposed rule will depend on what combination of 
alternatives is eventually selected. Costs may range from approximately 
$50,000 to create PL/Spaces on a small, pre-MARPOL ship to 
approximately $25 million to add a double bottom to a very large crude 
carrier. Lost cargo capacity may also impose substantial costs for 
certain alternatives, especially HBL, double sides, and double bottoms. 
The principal benefit of the proposed rule will be a potential 
reduction in oil spillage into U.S. waters. This should result in 
reduced cleanup costs and natural resource damages. The proposed 
regulation would provide environmental benefits during the period of 
time that single-hull vessels remain in service.


Risks:





The effectiveness of this rulemaking will depend on the combination of 
alternatives selected.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           56 FR 56284                                    11/01/91
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       12/31/91
ANPRM Comment Pe57 FR 1243ded to 01/30/92                      01/13/92
NPRM            58 FR 54870                                    10/22/93
NPRM Correction 58 FR 61143                                    11/19/93
Meeting Notice a58 FR 65683n of Comment Period to 02/21/94     12/16/93
NPRM Comment Period End                                        12/20/93
Final Rule; Arri59 FR 40186and Lightering Equipment            08/05/94
SNPRM; Operational Measures                                    03/00/95
SNPRM; Structural Measures                                     09/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Analysis:


 Regulatory Evaluation; Environmental Impact


Additional Information:


This entry was previously titled Existing Tank Vessel Hull 
Requirements. The correct docket number is 91-045. The rulemaking 
project has been divided into three distinct parts: A final rule was 
published that requires an advance notice of arrival for all tank 
vessels 5,000 GT or more entering U.S. ports and the carriage of 
lightering equipment on these vessels. A supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking will be issued for Structural Measures and an SNPRM 
will be issued for Operational Measures.


Agency Contact:
R. Crenwelge
Project Manager
G-MS
Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW.
Washington, DC 20593-0001
202 267-6220
RIN: 2115-AE01
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
            ___________________________________________________________
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
122. +CORROSION CONTROL PROGRAM
Legal Authority:


 49 USC 1352 to 1355; 49 USC 1401; 49 USC 1421 to 1431; 49 USC 1471; 49 
USC 1472; 49 USC 1501; 49 USC 1510; 49 USC 1522; 49 USC 2121 to 2125; 
49 USC 106(g)


CFR Citation:


 14 CFR 121; 14 CFR 125; 14 CFR 129; 14 CFR 135


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This project would ensure that airplanes used or not used in common 
carriage in air transportation have a comprehensive corrosion 
prevention program within their maintenance or inspection program. In 
April 1988, a commercial transport airplane experienced an in-flight 
decompression and separation of approximately 18 feet of the fuselage 
skin and structure at the top of the airplane. The airplane had been in 
service for 19 years and had flown almost 90,000 flights. The National 
Transportation Safety Board concluded that the failure of the airline 
to detect skin disbonding resulted in corrosion and metal fatigue 
leading to separation of the airplane's skin structure. This rulemaking 
is considered significant because of substantial public interest.


Statement of Need:





The FAA plans to promulgate a rule that would require persons operating 
certain airplanes in air transportation to include in their maintenance 
or inspection program an FAA-approved corrosion prevention and control 
program. This action is necessary to preclude an unsafe condition in 
airplanes due to the effects of corrosion.


Summary of the Legal Basis:





Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (P.L. 95-504, October 24, 1978; P.L. 96-
192, February 15, 1980)


Alternatives:





The FAA may rely upon airplane operators to develop comprehensive 
corrosion prevention and control programs as part of their normal 
maintenance programs or the FAA may rely upon the aviation community to 
develop comprehensive corrosion prevention and control programs for 
individual airplane models and recommend rulemaking to implement them 
in the fleet.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:





The FAA has implemented corrosion prevention and control programs for 
eleven models of airplane as part of the aging airplane program. The 
cost of these programs range from $3,000 to $30,000 per year depending 
upon the construction of the airplane model. The expected benefit of 
the proposed rule is a reduction in the risk of accidents related to 
corrosion that might otherwise occur. The FAA holds that the potential 
benefits of this proposed rule exceed the expected costs.


Risks:





The U.S. fleet continues to age and recent accident history may not be 
representative of future conditions or of future exposure to such 
conditions. The FAA cannot assess the exact proportion or severity of 
potential accidents that would be averted by issuance of this proposed 
rule. It is the FAA's position that the requirements for operators to 
develop and implement corrosion prevention and control programs would 
result in more consistent conduct of necessary maintenance and in an 
associated increase in overall safety.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           09/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Analysis:


 Regulatory Evaluation 09/00/95


Additional Information:


Project Number: AFS-93-382R


Agency Contact:
Frederick Sobeck
Aircraft Maintenance Division
Flight Standards Service
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20591
202 267-7355
RIN: 2120-AE92
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--FAA
            ___________________________________________________________
FINAL RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
123. +AIRCRAFT FLIGHT SIMULATOR USE IN PILOT TRAINING, TESTING, AND 
CHECKING AND AT TRAINING CENTERS
Legal Authority:


 49 USC 1301; 49 USC 1303; 49 USC 1344; 49 USC 1348; 49 USC 1352; 49 
USC 1355; 49 USC 1401; 49 USC 1421 to 1431; 49 USC 1471; 49 USC 1472; 
49 USC 1502; 49 USC 1510; 49 USC 1522; 49 USC 2121 to 2125; 49 USC 
106(g)


CFR Citation:


 14 CFR 61; 14 CFR 91; 14 CFR 121; 14 CFR 125; 14 CFR 135; 14 CFR 141; 
14 CFR 142


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This action would amend the pilot and flight instructor certification 
rules to include additional use of aircraft, aircraft flight 
simulators, and flight training devices for pilot training, testing, 
and checking. This notice also would propose a new part 142 that would 
govern a new concept called training centers. This new concept will 
emphasize the use of flight simulators in training applicants for pilot 
certificates. This rulemaking is considered significant because of 
substantial public interest; it involves a major change in the way 
industry trains applicants.


Statement of Need:





The training roles of several elements of the aviation community have 
expanded during the past 10 years. In October 1989, an advisory 
committee studying matters relating to training and qualification 
recommended that the FAA standardize the use of flight simulators and 
flight training devices, provide a means to certificate entities called 
training centers, and permit the training centers to apply for national 
approval of core curriculums that could be used by individuals 
receiving training. This rulemaking project responds to this 
recommendation by including the concept of a certificated training 
center.


Summary of the Legal Basis:





Secs. 601 and 602 of the Federal Aviation Act: Section 601 empowers the 
Administrator to prescribe the minimum standards governing appliances 
such as simulators; section 602 empowers the Administrator to issue 
airmen certificates.


Alternatives:





Since the FAA accepted the recommendations of the advisory committee, 
it will not pursue any nonregulatory options.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:





The total 10-year cost to implement part 142 is estimated to be about 
$1.3 million discounted. The benefits of this rule, however, far 
outweigh its costs. Most of the cost savings come from lowered 
operations costs. The estimated savings from existing simulator 
training centers training pilots will be $808 million, discounted over 
the next 10 years.


Risks:





Flight simulators will expand under the changes in the simulator rule. 
The future use of simulators should reduce the need for pilot 
instructional flights and the incidence of instructional flight 
accidents. Each year many student pilots and their instructors die in 
instructional flight accidents. In the 10-year period 1983 through 
1993, the National Transportation Safety Board reported 307 fatal 
instructional accidents resulting in 553 fatalities. The FAA estimates 
the average value of such an accident equals $4.8 million. 
Instructional flight accidents are a risk that would follow in the 
absence of the simulator rule.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            57 FR 35888                                    08/11/92
NPRM Comment Period End                                        12/09/92
SNPRM; Comment P58 FR 951403/22/93                             02/19/93
Final Action                                                   01/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Analysis:


 Regulatory Evaluation 08/11/92 (57 FR 35888)


Additional Information:


This project was formerly entitled ``Aircraft Simulator Use in Airman 
Training and Certification.'' Project Number AFS-83-105R.


The SNPRM clarified or eliminated certain provisions found to be 
unclear or inappropriate for present consideration.


Agency Contact:
Warren Robbins
Manager, Regulations Branch
Office of Flight Standards
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20591
202 267-8150
RIN: 2120-AA83
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--FAA
124. +UNESCORTED ACCESS PRIVILEGE
Legal Authority:


 49 USC 1354(a); 49 USC 1356; 49 USC 1357; 49 USC 1358 to 1421; 49 USC 
106(g)


CFR Citation:


 14 CFR 107; 14 CFR 108


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, April 24, 1992.


Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990


Abstract:


This action proposed to establish regulations to implement criminal 
history records checks for air carrier and airport security employees. 
This rulemaking is considered significant because of substantial 
congressional and public interest.


Statement of Need:





In response to the December 21, 1988, destruction of Pan American 
Airways Flight 103, former President Bush established a Commission on 
Aviation Security and Terrorism to assess the overall effectiveness of 
the U.S. civil aviation security system. The Commission's May 15, 1990, 
report recommended that Congress enact legislation requiring a criminal 
history records check for airport employees, identify certain crimes 
that indicate a potential risk, and enable airport operators to deny 
employment in positions requiring access to security-sensitive areas. 
The Commission's recommendations formed the basis of the Aviation 
Security Improvement Act of 1990.


Summary of the Legal Basis:





Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-604. Section 
105(a) amends section 316 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 by adding 
a new subsection (g) captioned ``Air Carrier and Airport Security 
Personnel.''


Alternatives:





Because of the statutory mandate, the FAA does not have a nonregulatory 
option. However, in response to commenters who objected to imposing a 
background check on all individuals having access to the security 
identification display area (SIDA), the FAA issued a supplemental 
notice of proposed rulemaking (Notice 92-3C) that excluded individuals 
with existing unescorted access privileges. The final rule will not 
subject current employees with unescorted access authority to the 
access investigation.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:





Discounted costs over 10 years are expected to range from $4.3 million 
to $11.1 million. The FAA finds that air terrorist acts are exceedingly 
expensive; an act such as the destruction of Pan American Airways 
Flight 103 could exceed $1.3 billion.


Risks:





The FAA finds that this rulemaking will accomplish an appropriate 
balance between enhancing the effectiveness of the U.S. civil aviation 
security system and respecting the employment rights of individuals.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            57 FR 5352                                     02/13/92
NPRM Comment Per57 FR 8834ed to 05/15/92                       03/12/92
NPRM Comment Period End                                        03/16/92
Public Meetings 57 FR 12396                                    04/09/92
SNPRM; Comment P57 FR 432942/17/92                             09/18/92
Final Action                                                   12/00/94
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis; Regulatory Evaluation 09/18/92 (57 FR 
43294)


Additional Information:


Project Number ACS-91-076R.


Agency Contact:
Sam Brinkley
Office of Civil Aviation Security
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20591
202 267-9834
RIN: 2120-AE14
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--FAA
125. +AGING AIRCRAFT SAFETY
Legal Authority:


 49 USC 1301; 49 USC 1303; 49 USC 1344; 49 USC 1348; 49 USC 1352 to 
1355; 49 USC 1401; 49 USC 1421 to 1431; 49 USC 1471; 49 USC 1472; 49 
USC 1501; 49 USC 1510; 49 USC 1522; 49 USC 2121 to 2125; 49 USC 106(g); 
EO 11514


CFR Citation:


 14 CFR 39; 14 CFR 91; 14 CFR 121; 14 CFR 125; 14 CFR 129; 14 CFR 135


Legal Deadline:


 Other, Statutory, April 24, 1992.


Aging Aircraft Safety Act of 1991; action must be initiated by 04/24/
92.


Abstract:


This action would require air carriers of certain aircraft used in air 
transportation to demonstrate that the aircraft's maintenance has been 
adequate to ensure the highest degree of safety. This action would 
require air carriers of 15-year-old or older aircraft with a maximum 
certificated takeoff weight of 75,000 pounds or more to demonstrate 
that certain specified maintenance actions have been performed and to 
make the aircraft available to the Administrator of the FAA for 
inspection. This rulemaking is considered significant because of 
substantial public and congressional interest.


Statement of Need:





The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) plans to require operators of 
15-year-old or older aircraft, used in air transportation, to verify 
that all aging aircraft requirements have been met at each heavy 
maintenance check. The FAA has also proposed a framework for 
operational limits for aircraft, should such limits be necessary in the 
future. It has been recognized for many years that as aircraft get 
older they require increased attention and maintenance. However, the 
Aloha Airlines accident of April 28, 1988, which involved a structural 
failure on a relatively old and heavily used aircraft, shocked the 
Federal Aviation Administration, the aviation industry, and the 
traveling public. The accident challenged the soundness of a number of 
assumptions that had guided regulatory policy on aircraft age, 
structures, inspections, and maintenance. Subsequent to this accident, 
the Congress directed the FAA to initiate a rulemaking proceeding for 
the purpose of issuing a rule to assure the continuing airworthiness of 
aging aircraft.


Summary of the Legal Basis:





Aging Aircraft Safety Act of 1991, Public Law 102-143, Oct. 28, 1991 
Title IV.


Alternatives:





Because of the statutory mandate, the FAA does not have a nonregulatory 
option.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:





The only direct costs of the proposed rule would result from the 
requirements that operators (1) notify the FAA at least 30 days prior 
to an airplane's scheduled heavy maintenance check, and (2) make a 
maintenance record entry which verifies that the airplane is in 
compliance with all aging-aircraft-related maintenance program 
requirements. The FAA estimates that the present-value, 10-year cost of 
these two activities would equal $828,000. By comparison, a single 
recent fatigue and corrosion related accident resulted in an economic 
loss to society of $16.7 million.


The expected benefit of the proposed rule is a reduction in the risk of 
accidents related to fatigue and corrosion that might otherwise occur. 
This benefit would result from the requirement that operators review 
their records and verify through a maintenance record entry that their 
aging airplanes are in full compliance with maintenance program 
requirements. The FAA holds that the potential benefits of this 
proposed rule would exceed the expected costs.


Risks:





The U.S. fleet continues to age and recent accident history may not be 
representative of future conditions or of future exposure to such 
conditions. The FAA cannot assess the exact proportion or severity of 
potential accidents that would be averted by issuance of this proposed 
rule. It is the FAA's position that the requirements for operator 
demonstration of maintenance program compliance would result in more 
consistent conduct of necessary maintenance and in an associated 
increase in overall safety.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            58 FR 51944                                    10/05/93
NPRM Comment Period End                                        02/02/94
NPRM Comment Per59 FR 5741ed to 03/04/94                       02/08/94
Final Action                                                   10/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis; Regulatory Evaluation 10/05/93 (58 FR 
51944)


Additional Information:


Project Number AFS-92-029R.


Agency Contact:
Frederick Sobeck
Aircraft Maintenance Division
Flight Standards Service
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20591
202 267-7355
RIN: 2120-AE42
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
            ___________________________________________________________
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
126. +EXTEND ANTILOCK BRAKE SYSTEM TO PASSENGER CARS
Legal Authority:


 15 USC 1392; 15 USC 1401; 15 USC 1403; 15 USC 1407


CFR Citation:


 49 CFR 571.105; 49 CFR 571.135


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, January 4, 1997. Other, Statutory, December 31, 
1993.


Other deadline is for an ANPRM.


Abstract:


The NHTSA Authorization Act of 1991 directs the agency to publish an 
ANPRM to consider the need for additional brake performance standards 
for passenger cars, including antilock brake systems (ABSs). The ANPRM 
laid out the issues that the agency needs to resolve in order to 
determine whether to proceed with rulemaking on light vehicle ABSs. 
This action is considered significant because of substantial public 
interest.


Statement of Need:





This rulemaking is undertaken because the primary benefit of ABS is its 
ability to prevent loss-of-control accidents caused by wheel lockup 
during braking by automatically controlling the amount of braking 
pressure applied to a wheel. This allows the driver to maintain 
steering control and lateral stability even in panic braking 
situations. An ABS typically enhances braking efficiency and as a 
consequence usually results in shorter stopping distances, particularly 
on low-friction surfaces, compared to the same vehicle without an ABS. 
Initial crash test data indicate that braking-induced loss-of-control 
crashes and inability-to-stop-in-time crashes are especially prevalent 
on wet or slippery roads, a condition in which ABSs would be most 
beneficial. In 1991, 11 percent of all fatal crashes and 18 percent of 
property-damage-only crashes occurred on wet or slippery roads.


Summary of the Legal Basis:





In the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), NHTSA 
is directed to complete a rulemaking to consider the need for any 
additional brake performance requirements for passenger cars, including 
antilock brake system (ABS) requirements. Rulemaking is to be completed 
within 36 months of the ANPRM (1/4/94 59 FR 281).


Alternatives:





The primary alternative would be to let the market determine the extent 
to which the ABS is installed on passenger cars and light trucks. In 
the 1993 model year, approximately 40 percent of passenger cars and 80 
percent of light trucks were equipped with ABS. NHTSA estimates that 85 
percent of new passenger cars and all new light trucks will be equipped 
with at least 2 rear-wheel ABS by model year 1999/2000, even without a 
requirement for the system.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs:


The unit cost of ABSs for passenger cars is $526. For light trucks, the 
incremental cost of four-wheel vs. two-wheel ABSs is $231 per unit. The 
cost of ABS for the new model year fleet is $737 million for passenger 
cars and $345 million for light trucks, for a total of $1,082 million.


Benefits:


Passenger cars: The agency does not have sufficient data to evaluate 
the effectiveness of four-wheel antilock brakes on passenger cars. 
Preliminary analysis of the accident data available at this time does 
not indicate that a passenger car ABS reduces the number or severity of 
crashes. However, this analysis only considered early-model 
applications of ABSs that typically were installed in higher-
performance/luxury-model automobiles. As additional and more 
conventional passenger cars are equipped with ABSs and become more 
prevalent in the on-road vehicle population, the agency will further 
analyze crash data to examine the real-world performance of the systems 
in a broader spectrum of vehicles and uses.


Light trucks: The agency's preliminary evaluation of a rear-wheel ABS 
indicates that it is effective on light trucks in reducing the number 
of nonfatal run-off-road crashes--rollovers and side and frontal 
impacts with fixed objects. Analysis of State accident files found that 
a rear-wheel ABS was effective in such crashes in reducing the risk of 
nonfatal rollover and side impacts with fixed objects for almost every 
type of truck, under any type of road condition. Reductions of rollover 
were typically in the 30-40 percent range, reductions of side impacts 
with fixed objects in the 15-30 percent range, and reductions of 
frontal impacts with fixed objects in the 5-20 percent range. The risk 
of collisions with pedestrians, animals, bicycles, trains, or on-road 
objects was also significantly reduced, by about 5-15 percent. The 
agency does not have sufficient data at this time to evaluate whether 
rear-wheel antilock is effective in reducing fatal light-truck run-off-
road crashes.


Risks:


ABS will be directed against the following risks:


For passenger cars, in 1992 there were 402,000 crashes, involving 
272,000 injuries and 2,500 fatalities, in which brakes were applied; of 
these, 140,000 crashes, involving 74,000 injuries and 500 fatalities, 
occurred when brakes were applied in wet, icy, or snowy conditions.


For light trucks, there were 146,000 crashes, involving 102,000 
injuries and 1,400 fatalities, in which brakes were applied; of these, 
49,000 crashes, involving 25,000 injuries and 300 fatalities, occurred 
when brakes were applied in wet, icy, or snowy conditions.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           59 FR 281                                      01/04/94
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       03/07/94
ANPRM Comment Pe59 FR 10779ed to 04/06/94                      03/08/94
NPRM                                                           10/00/94
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Analysis:


 Regulatory Evaluation


Additional Information:


This entry was formerly titled: Passenger Car Brake Performance.


Agency Contact:
Dr. Patricia Breslin
Director
Office of Vehicle Safety Standards
Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
202 366-0842
RIN: 2127-AE47
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--NHTSA
127. +LIGHT TRUCK AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS FOR MYS 1998 THROUGH 
2006
Legal Authority:


 15 USC 1657; 15 USC 2002


CFR Citation:


 49 CFR 533


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, March 1996.


Abstract:


The agency is beginning to develop a proposal for light truck average 
fuel economy standards for model years after 1997 and is requesting 
comments to assist the agency in developing the proposal. This action 
is considered significant because of the impact on manufacturers, the 
interest shown by consumers, and the potential significant effects on 
the automotive marketplace.


Statement of Need:





The agency has tentatively determined that it is necessary to change 
the way it has been setting light-truck corporate average fuel economy 
(CAFE) standards and establish them far enough in advance to require 
significant fuel economy improvements. The reasons are: first, the need 
of the Nation to conserve energy is increasing; second, there is a 
current lack of consumer demand or other market pressure for 
manufacturers to improve light-truck fuel economy; third, the continued 
growth in market share of those vehicles means more of these relatively 
low-fuel-economy vehicles are being driven; and fourth, there is 
increased concern in recent years about the impact of cars, light 
trucks, and other personal vehicles on global warming.


Summary of the Legal Basis:





Under 15 U.S.C. 2002, NHTSA is required to establish light truck CAFE 
standards for each model year. The standards are required to be 
established at least 18 months before the beginning of each model year.


Alternatives:





No specific alternative levels of light-truck fuel economy standards 
were proposed in an ANPRM published April 6, 1994. The ANPRM did 
discuss estimates made by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in its 
April 1992 report, ``Automotive Fuel Economy--How Far Should We Go?'' 
The NAS report's estimates of the costs and benefits of ``technically 
achievable'' levels of fuel economy should not be taken as NAS' 
recommendation as to what future fuel economy standards should be. NAS 
offered two estimates of the ``technically achievable'' levels of fuel 
economy for both MYs 2001 and 2006. The lower estimate was given with a 
high degree of confidence that the light truck fleet could achieve such 
a level. The higher CAFE level was given with a lower degree of 
confidence that the fleet could achieve that level due to unidentified 
uncertainties. The range of values are:


Model Year NAS Technically Achievable:


2001: 24 - 25 mpg; 2006: 26 - 28 mpg.


These estimates did not include large vans and large utility vehicles. 
While large vans and large utility vehicles combined make up only 7.9 
percent of current sales, they represent heavier vehicles with lower 
fuel economy than the average vehicle considered by NAS. Also, the 
fleet fuel economy averages do not represent any particular 
manufacturer's capability, which the agency must consider in setting 
fuel economy standards.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:





The NAS committee estimated the likely increases in costs to consumers 
of improved fuel economy. The agency calculated the expected increases 
in the average price of new light trucks in MY 2006 associated with the 
technically achievable levels, using the data contained in the NAS 
study. The agency estimates that, at a higher-confidence fuel economy 
level, the incremental retail price equivalent for improved fuel 
economy ranges from $573 to $1,331 per vehicle, and at a lower-
confidence fuel economy level, the range is from $1,205 to $2,443 per 
vehicle.


Relative to the MY 1997 standard of 20.7 mpg, at the 24 mpg and 25 mpg 
levels described in the NAS report as ``technically achievable'' for 
light trucks in MY 2001, the per-truck lifetime fuel consumption would 
be reduced by 1,002 to 1,253 gallons, respectively. At the 26 mpg and 
28 mpg levels described in the NAS report as ``technically achievable'' 
for light trucks in MY 2006, the per-truck lifetime fuel consumption 
would be reduced by 1,485 and 1,899 gallons, respectively.


Using recent DOE fuel price projections (and a 7 percent annual 
discount rate), the present values of the above fuel savings per 
vehicle would be $963-$1,204 at the 24-25 mpg fuel economy levels and 
$1,427-$1,826 at the 26-28 mpg levels.


Risks:





If such higher fuel economy levels are attained, there would be 
substantial petroleum savings for the nation as a whole. A 5-million 
units/year light truck fleet with an average fuel economy rating of 
20.7 mpg would consume about 867 million barrels of petroleum over its 
operating life. At average fuel economy levels of 24.0-25.0 mpg, this 
figure would be reduced by 14-17 percent, respectively. At 26.0-28.0 
mpg, this figure would be reduced by 20-26 percent, respectively.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           59 FR 16324                                    04/06/94
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       08/04/94
NPRM                                                           02/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Orron Kee
Chief, Motor Vehicle Requirements
Office of Market Incentives
Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
202 366-0846
RIN: 2127-AF16
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--NHTSA
            ___________________________________________________________
FINAL RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
128. +REDUCE HEAD INJURIES DUE TO CONTACT WITH UPPER VEHICLE INTERIOR
Legal Authority:


 15 USC 1392; 15 USC 1407


CFR Citation:


 49 CFR 571.201; 49 CFR 571.205; 49 CFR 571.206; 49 CFR 571.214


Legal Deadline:


 NPRM, Statutory, January 31, 1993. Final, Statutory, February 28, 
1995.


Abstract:


This action concerns improved head impact protection from interior 
components of passenger cars, that is, from roof rails, pillars, and 
front headers. This rulemaking action and notice of a publication date 
for the NPRM are required by the NHTSA Authorization Act of 1991. This 
action is considered significant because of safety and cost 
implications.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking is undertaken to alleviate the problem that head 
impacts with the pillars, roof side rails, windshield header, and rear 
header result in nearly 3,400 passenger car and light truck occupant 
fatalities and 26,000 moderate-to-critical passenger car and light 
truck occupant injuries annually. The vast majority of these fatalities 
and serious injuries are attributable to impacts with upper interior 
components in the front of the vehicle, that is, components from the B-
pillar forward. Although airbags decrease the number of head impacts 
with the front header and A-pillars, the agency has found a number of 
cases with front header and A-pillar strikes even though the air bag 
deployed.


Summary of the Legal Basis:





Many occupant injuries and fatalities result from head impacts with 
upper vehicle interiors. In 1980, the agency initiated a research 
program to support upgrading the current interior impact standard to 
provide occupant protection in these impacts. The agency was then 
directed by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
(ISTEA) to improve head-impact protection from interior components of 
passenger cars, that is, from roof rails, pillars, and front headers. A 
final rule is to be published within 24 months of the NPRM (2/8/93 58 
FR 7506).


Alternatives:


Two sets of alternatives were analyzed. The first relates to the injury 
criteria. The injury criteria are known as Head Injury Criteria (HICs). 
The higher the HIC, the greater the possibility of serious injury. The 
first set of alternatives is whether an HIC of 1,000 would be 
applicable to all components or whether an HIC of 1,000 would be 
applicable to all components except side components, and an HIC of 800 
would apply to side components. A lower HIC for side components may be 
appropriate since research shows the side of the head is more 
susceptible to injury than the front of the head. The second set of 
alternatives relates to whether the amendments would be applicable to 
both the front and rear seating areas of passenger cars and light 
trucks.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


At an HIC of 1,000, costs were estimated at $29 per passenger car and 
$45 per light truck. At HICs of 800/1,000, costs were estimated at $49 
per passenger car and $68 per light trucks.


Benefits were estimated for the injury-level alternatives. The 
Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) is used to rank injuries by level of 
severity. An AIS 1 injury is a minor one, while an AIS 6 injury is one 
that is currently untreatable and fatal. The benefits were estimated as 
follows:


If an HIC of 1,000 is required, injuries resulting from head impacts in 
passenger cars per year would be reduced between 862 and 1,114 
fatalities and between 575 and 708 AIS 2-5 injuries; injuries in light 
trucks would be reduced between 276 and 281 fatalities and between 108 
to 116 AIS 2-5 injuries.


If an HIC of 800/1,000 is required, head-impact injuries would be 
reduced for passenger cars between 1,054 and 1,323 fatalities and 
between 572 and 1,188 AIS 2-5 injuries; injuries in light trucks would 
be reduced between 291 and 311 fatalities and between 269 and 290 AIS 
2-5 injuries.


Risks:





Estimated annual head/face injuries from contacting upper interior 
components are 2,942 fatalities and 22,844 AIS 2-5 injuries in 
passenger cars and 409 fatalities and 3,162 AIS 2-5 injuries in light 
trucks; a total of 3,351 fatalities and 26,006 AIS 2-5 injuries.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           53 FR 31712                                    08/19/88
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       10/18/88
Notice of Intent57 FR 24008                                    06/05/92
NPRM            58 FR 7506                                     02/08/93
NPRM Comment Period End                                        04/09/93
Final Action                                                   11/00/94
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Analysis:


 Regulatory Evaluation 02/08/93 (58 FR 7506)


Additional Information:


This entry was formerly titled: Side-Impact Protection, Head/Neck 
Protection, and Occupant Ejection Mitigation. The agency published on 
10/20/93 (58 FR 54099) a notice of a public hearing and reopened the 
comment period until 12/01/93. This title has since been revised the 
second time.


Agency Contact:
Dr. Patricia Breslin
Director
Office of Vehicle Safety Standards
Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
202 366-0842
RIN: 2127-AB85
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
            ___________________________________________________________
PRERULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
129. +GENERIC STANDARDS FOR CORRIDORS UP TO 160 MPH
Legal Authority:


 45 USC 431; 45 USC 438


CFR Citation:


 49 CFR 209 to 245


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


FRA intends to amend many of its regulations, not necessarily within 
one rulemaking entry, to consider issues unique to high-speed 
operations up to 160 mph. Some issues on track and power brakes are 
being addressed in pending rulemakings. Other issues, for example, 
equipment design and inspection, communications, intrusion detection, 
employee qualifications, and grade crossings, may be dealt with in a 
comprehensive rulemaking. Issues such as design of high-speed trainsets 
may require separate rulemakings. These actions are considered 
significant because novel policy issues are likely to arise from this 
high-speed-rail initiative.


Statement of Need:





The Department's Strategic Plan has as two of its goals the promotion 
of safe and secure transportation and the creation of a new alliance 
between the Nation's transportation and technology industries, which 
includes the promotion of high-speed rail as a viable transportation 
option in select corridors. Issuance of regulations that will help 
ensure the safety of the emerging high-speed operations will protect 
passengers, employees, and other affected persons and at the same time 
provide certainty and clarity that will assist the designers and 
developers of these systems to plan. This is an opportunity to build 
safety into an innovative transportation alternative from the very 
beginning.


Summary of the Legal Basis:





Under the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, the Federal Railroad 
Administration (by delegation from the Secretary), has regulatory and 
enforcement authority over all areas of railroad safety. This plenary 
authority certainly covers the safety of the new high-speed operations. 
In fact, the statute was amended in 1988 to clarify that this authority 
extends to all forms of nonhighway ground transportation that run on 
rails or guideways. There is currently no statutory or judicial 
requirement to issue regulations in this area.


Alternatives:





Because this rulemaking is at such a formative stage, it is premature 
to discuss alternatives. However, during the process of developing 
these rules, FRA will consider all reasonable alternatives. Given the 
very nature of the subject, FRA has made a preliminary determination 
that some direct regulation in the form of setting standards will be 
necessary to ensure public and employee safety.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:





Having not yet decided what specific standards it intends to issue, FRA 
cannot yet provide an estimate of the costs and benefits of its 
regulatory action. FRA is quite mindful of the President's regulatory 
philosophy and principles, as expressed in section 1 of Executive Order 
12866. Accordingly, FRA will base any regulation it issues on a 
reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs. To some 
degree, this will require consideration of the societal benefits 
(greater transportation efficiency, improved environment, etc.) that 
high speed rail operations are likely to produce.


Risks:





Sensible, well-considered regulations will reduce the safety risks 
associated with rail transportation of passengers at very high speeds. 
Of course, depending on a variety of factors, the probability of an 
accident is not necessarily greater at higher speeds. However, the 
consequences of an accident could be greater merely because of the 
increased energy to be dissipated in an accident at higher speeds. 
Passengers and railroad employees should not have to incur any 
appreciably greater risk using high-speed rail service than they would 
incur using other modes of transportation or lower-speed rail service. 
The challenge presented is to reduce the risk to an acceptable level 
without imposing requirements that stifle development. The solution, 
which is somewhat technically complex, appears to lie in ensuring that 
the probability of collisions and other impacts is restrained by 
appropriate accident avoidance measures while, at the same time, the 
consequences of any accident are reduced by measures designed to absorb 
crash energy, protect occupants from secondary risks (such as fire and 
flying debris), and hasten efficient evacuation and emergency response. 
Of course, FRA's entire safety regulatory program focuses on reducing 
risks to safety and health, and the agency must address certain risks 
more immediately pressing than those posed by operations that have not 
yet begun. Accordingly, while it is important to ensure that safety is 
built into high-speed operations, FRA must devote most of its 
regulatory resources to the more immediate risks posed by current 
operations, many of which are the subject of pending statutory 
requirements for regulatory action.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                                                          03/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Analysis:


 Regulatory Evaluation


Agency Contact:
Daniel Smith
Assistant Chief Counsel
Department of Transportation
Federal Railroad Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
202 366-0635
RIN: 2130-AA88
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
            ___________________________________________________________
FINAL RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
130. +STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR FIXED-GUIDEWAY SYSTEM SAFETY
Legal Authority:


 49 USC 5330


CFR Citation:


 49 CFR 659


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, October 28, 1992.


Abstract:


Former section 28 of the Federal Transit Act, as amended (now 49 USC 
5330), directs the Federal Transit Administration to issue a rule 
requiring States to oversee the safety of rail fixed guideway systems 
not regulated by Federal Railroad Administration. This rulemaking would 
improve the safety of rail fixed-guideway systems. This action is 
considered significant because of substantial public and congressional 
interest, and the statutory mandate.


Statement of Need:





A ``patchwork'' system of regulation of rail fixed-guideway systems 
(subways, light rail systems, and monorails) has developed throughout 
the country; some systems regulate themselves, while others are 
regulated by State oversight agencies. In 1991 Congress addressed this 
issue by adding section 28 to the Federal Transit Act, as amended, and 
in doing so, instructed the FTA to issue a regulation requiring a State 
to designate an agency to oversee the safety of rail fixed guideway 
systems within the State. With this rule, the FTA intends to develop 
consistency among the States and various transit agencies operating 
rail fixed guideway systems and ensure that passengers have safe mass 
transportation.


Summary of the Legal Basis:





This rulemaking is required by section 28 of the FT Act (now 49 USC 
5330), which applies only to those States in which a rail fixed-
guideway system operates that is not regulated by the Federal Railroad 
Administration (FRA), and requires any such State to designate a State 
oversight agency to be responsible for overseeing the rail-fixed 
guideway system's safety practices. FTA is required to issue a rule 
implementing the program, and may withhold Federal funds if a State 
fails to implement the rule. The provision was added to the FT Act by 
the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.


More specifically, the statute describes the responsibilities of the 
State, the agency the State designates to provide safety oversight, and 
the type of activities the agency is expected to carry out. In most 
instances, this entity will be an agency of the State because most rail 
fixed-guideway systems operate in only one State, but where a rail 
fixed-guideway system operates in more than one State, the statute 
permits the affected States to designate any entity, other than the 
transit agency itself, to oversee that rail fixed-guideway system.


Whether the oversight agency is a State agency or some other entity, it 
must require each affected transit agency to create a system safety 
program plan, which the oversight agency reviews and approves. The 
oversight agency also must investigate accidents and hazardous 
conditions. Once a hazardous condition has been discovered, the 
oversight agency must require the transit agency to correct or 
eliminate it.


If a State has not met these requirements by September 30, 1994, or has 
not made adequate efforts to comply with them, the Secretary may 
withhold up to 5 percent of the fiscal year 1995 (or subsequent year) 
section 9 apportionment attributable to the State or an affected 
urbanized area in the State. (The section 9 program, the basic transit 
program upon which cities rely for their transportation needs, provides 
capital and operating assistance to urbanized (50,000 or more in 
population) areas. Section 9 funds are apportioned by a statutory 
formula based on population and population density for areas under 
200,000 in population; and on population, population density, and 
transportation data for areas over 200,000 in population.)


Alternatives:





Because this rule is mandated by Congress, FTA has not considered any 
nonregulatory ways to address this issue. Through the rulemaking 
process, however, we have sought to give the affected States a variety 
of options, especially since several States have in place an existing 
oversight system. We note, however, that the statute describes, in some 
detail, the role of the State oversight agency and we have limited the 
alternatives to those which meet the requirements of section 28.


The Federal Transit Administration published an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register on June 25, 1992, 
at 57 FR 28572, and a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on December 
9, 1993, at 58 FR 64856. In the ANPRM, the public was asked to comment 
about a variety of issues, particularly concerning the role of the 
State oversight agency. At issue was whether FTA should prescribe in 
detail the structure and duties of the oversight agency, whether FTA 
should promulgate general minimum guidelines, or whether FTA should 
allow the localities to decide for themselves how they would like to 
structure the oversight agency and the oversight process. We continue 
to address this issue in the NPRM stage of the rulemaking process.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:





FTA's regulatory evaluation estimated that implementing the rule would 
save 2 lives and prevent 195 injuries annually and would cost FTA, the 
State oversight agencies, and the transit agencies $1,274,300 during 
the first year, and $11,352,100 over 10 years. The figures for the 
first year include the one-time start-up costs for all the agencies 
involved.


Risks:





The primary intent of the rule is to improve the safe operation of rail 
fixed-guideway systems, which may mean a reduction in the number of 
accidents and injuries occurring during the operation of a rail fixed-
guideway system and a consequent lowering of health care costs.


Although the intent of section 28 is to increase the safety of rail 
fixed-guideway systems, it does not authorize the FTA to regulate them, 
and hence, does not greatly expand FTA's very limited safety authority. 
Instead, it requires FTA to require rail fixed-guideway systems, 
through the State oversight agency, to adopt a proactive process to 
ensure the safe operation of the system. While mass transit is one of 
the most reliable and safe modes of transportation, the sheer volume of 
passengers transported at any one time shows the magnitude of the risk 
of a catastrophic accident--a relatively minor operational or 
mechanical failure could endanger many transit riders.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Public Hearing N57 FR 24768                                    06/11/92
ANPRM           57 FR 28572                                    06/25/92
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       08/24/92
NPRM            58 FR 64856                                    12/09/93
NPRM Comment Period End                                        02/07/94
Hearing Notice; 59 FR 9460of Comment Period to 03/08/94        02/28/94
Final Action                                                   10/00/94
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


State


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis; Regulatory Evaluation 12/09/93 (58 FR 
64856)


Agency Contact:
Nancy Zaczek
Attorney Advisor
Department of Transportation
Federal Transit Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
202 366-4011
RIN: 2132-AA39
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)
            ___________________________________________________________
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
131. +IMPROVEMENTS TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS
Legal Authority:


 49 USC 1803 to 1808


CFR Citation:


 49 CFR 172


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, June 16, 1992, complete rulemaking on central 
reporting system and computerized telecommunications data center.


Final, Statutory, May 16, 1993, complete rulemaking oncontinually 
monitored telephone systems.


Final, Statutory, May 16, 1993, final rule on improving system for 
placarding vehicles transporting hazardous materials.


Abstract:


This rulemaking proposes to determine methods of improving the current 
system of placarding vehicles transporting hazardous materials; to 
determine the feasibility and methods for establishing a central 
reporting system and computerized telecommunications data center for 
daily hazardous materials shipments in all modes; and to evaluate the 
need and safety benefits of requiring carriers to establish a 
continually monitored telephone system to provide information and 
assistance to emergency responders. This action is required by section 
25 of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 
1990. This rulemaking is considered significant because of substantial 
public interest and safety implications.


Statement of Need:





Sections 25 and 26 of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform 
Safety Act of 1990 require DOT to initiate rulemaking to determine 
methods of improving the current system of placarding vehicles 
transporting hazardous materials; to determine methods for establishing 
and operating a central reporting system and computerized 
telecommunication data center that can provide information to 
facilitate responses to accidents and incidents involving the 
transportation of hazardous materials; and to study the feasibility of 
requiring carriers of hazardous materials to establish continually 
monitored telephone systems equipped to provide emergency response 
information. Although the National Academy of Sciences, in its report 
to Congress and DOT, did not support implementation of a central 
reporting system and computerized data communications center, it did 
identify certain areas in the current system of hazardous materials 
identification that could be improved incrementally.


Summary of the Legal Basis:





The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 
requires DOT to initiate a rulemaking to determine methods of improving 
the current system of placarding vehicles transporting hazardous 
materials; to determine methods for establishing and operating a 
central reporting system and computerized telecommunications data 
center that can provide information to facilitate responses to 
accidents and incidents involving the transportation of hazardous 
materials; and to study the feasibility of requiring carriers of 
hazardous materials to establish continually monitored telephone 
systems equipped to provide emergency response information.


Alternatives:





In an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, DOT asked a series of 66 
questions addressing three primary areas of regulation: improvements to 
the current hazard communication system, involving labeling and 
placarding; the need and feasibility of establishing a central 
reporting system and data communications center; and the need and 
feasibility of requiring carriers to maintain a 24-hour emergency 
response telephone number. Various alternatives have been evaluated in 
the notice of proposed rulemaking, which will propose an incremental 
increase in improving the current hazard communication system.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:





At this time, RSPA has limited information on the costs and benefits 
associated with issuing regulations on improvements to the hazard 
communication system, including placarding, establishment and 
continuing costs for a central reporting system and computerized data 
center, or for a continually monitored carrier telephone number for 
information on hazardous materials accidents and incidents. Various 
options are being evaluated, and the costs associated with these 
options and proposed requirements are included in a draft regulatory 
evaluation as part of the docket. RSPA will continue to assess the 
costs and benefits associated with the proposed requirements as 
additional information is obtained through the rulemaking process.


Risks:





Over the last 25 years, DOT has developed a comprehensive hazardous 
materials transportation regulatory system. This system encompasses 
various aspects of hazardous materials transportation, including 
hazardous materials classification criteria, packaging standards for 
hazardous materials, training of hazardous materials workers, handling 
requirements for transportation workers, and hazardous communication 
requirements, including shipping papers, package marking and labeling, 
vehicle placarding, and emergency response information requirements. 
The changes proposed in this notice of proposed rulemaking are 
consistent with the overall approach of DOT to ensure the safe 
transportation of hazardous materials. These incremental improvements 
to safety will provide emergency responders with better identification 
of the hazardous materials involved in the incident and will enable 
them to better protect themselves and the public.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           57 FR 24532                                    06/09/92
ANPRM Comment Pe57 FR 34542ed to 10/09/92                      08/05/92
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       08/10/92
NPRM            59 FR 41848                                    08/15/94
Public Hearing N59 FR 41848                                    08/15/94
NPRM Correction 59 FR 44230                                    08/26/94
Correction to 0859 FR 44795ection                              08/30/94
NPRM Comment Period End                                        12/02/94
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Analysis:


 Regulatory Evaluation 08/15/94 (59 FR 41848)


Additional Information:


Docket HM-206. Formerly entitled ``Improving Hazardous Materials 
Identification: Placarding; Reporting/Tracking; and Continually 
Monitored Telephone Systems.''


Agency Contact:
J. Potter/H. Engrum
Department of Transportation
Research and Special Programs Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
202 366-4488
RIN: 2137-AB75
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--RSPA
132. +INCREASED INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS
Legal Authority:


 49 USC 1672(g); 49 USC 2002(k)


CFR Citation:


 49 CFR 192; 49 CFR 195


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, October 24, 1995.


Abstract:


This rulemaking would require gas pipelines in high-density population 
areas and hazardous liquid pipelines in those areas and in 
environmentally sensitive areas or navigable waterways to be inspected 
periodically by internal inspection devices or equivalent means. This 
action is considered significant because of substantial public 
interest.


Statement of Need:





Gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipelines in high-density 
population areas and hazardous liquid pipelines in environmentally-
sensitive areas or navigable waterways expose more people and the 
environment to the potential hazards of line failures than do similar 
pipelines in other locations. Many failures in these areas are due to 
the growth of hidden time-dependent defects, such as material flaws, 
corrosion, and gouges from excavation damage. Early detection and 
removal of time-dependent defects in high-risk areas through frequent 
inspections may be a cost-effective way to prevent accidents and the 
consequent damage to people and the environment.


Summary of the Legal Basis:





Sections 103 and 203 of the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 require the 
Secretary to issue regulations requiring operators to inspect 
periodically certain pipelines, and to specify the circumstances, if 
any, under which an instrumented internal inspection device shall be 
used.


Alternatives:





The alternatives under consideration are possible definitions of 
``high-density population area'', ``environmentally sensitive area, and 
``navigable waterway'', and the means of inspection that may be 
equivalent to internal inspection devices.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:





The potential costs and benefits of this action have not yet been 
determined.


Risks:





The magnitude of the risk this action is intended to mitigate is 
illustrated by our latest published statistics. For example, in 1991, 
at least 74 of 210 accidents involving hazardous liquid pipelines, or 
35 percent, involved causes that might have been prevented by timely 
inspection. (This number excludes accidents where the cause was 
reported as excavation damage.) For gas transmission, comparable 
numbers are 18 of 71 accidents, or 25 percent. An example of the risk 
that could be lessened by this action is the failure on March 28, 1993, 
near Reston, Virginia, of a 36-inch petroleum pipeline operated by the 
Colonial Pipeline Company. An unrepaired gouge that had occurred either 
during construction or later by excavation damage led to a spill of 
over 30,000 gallons of diesel fuel into the Sugarland Run creek.


The effect of this action in reducing the overall risk of time-
dependent defects is still under study. However, it would depend on the 
proportion of accidents that occur on lines in high-density population 
areas, environmentally sensitive areas, and navigable waterways, and on 
the capability and frequency of inspection method. Because the risk of 
time-dependent defects is caused to some extent by unrepaired 
excavation damage, the rulemaking on excavation damage prevention 
programs also may reduce this risk.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/94
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Analysis:


 Regulatory Evaluation 12/00/94


Agency Contact:
L. M. Furrow
Department of Transportation
Research and Special Programs Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590-0001
202 366-2392
RIN: 2137-AC38
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--RSPA
133. +EMERGENCY FLOW-RESTRICTING DEVICES
Legal Authority:


 49 USC 2002


CFR Citation:


 49 CFR 195


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, October 24, 1996.


Abstract:


This rulemaking would specify those circumstances under which operators 
of hazardous liquid pipelines are required to use emergency flow-
restricting devices, and other procedures, systems, and equipment to 
detect and locate pipeline ruptures and minimize releases. This action 
is considered significant because of substantial public interest.


Statement of Need:





The adverse safety and environmental effects of pipeline accidents are 
often the result of an operator's failure to rapidly detect and locate 
a leak and to rapidly shut down the pipeline. Quicker response to 
pipeline leaks through the strategic placement and use of emergency 
flow-restricting devices, with a reliable leak detection capability, 
can reduce the amount of liquid spilled into the environment and the 
consequent damages to life and property.


Summary of the Legal Basis:





Section 212 of the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 requires the Secretary 
to survey and assess the effectiveness of emergency flow-restricting 
devices (including remotely controlled valves and check valves) and 
other equipment used to detect and locate pipeline ruptures and 
minimize product releases. Section 212 requires the Secretary, within 2 
years after completing the survey and assessment, to issue regulations 
prescribing the circumstances under which operators of hazardous liquid 
pipeline facilities must use emergency flow-restricting devices or 
other equipment.


Alternatives:





The alternatives under consideration are different types of emergency 
flow-restricting devices and associated leak detection systems, and the 
sites that would maximize the usefulness of these devices and systems.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:





The potential costs and benefits of this action have not yet been 
determined.


Risks:





This action addresses the increased risks to safety and the environment 
that result from the lack of prompt response to a line leak. Although 
the magnitude of potential risk reduction has not yet been determined, 
an example of the type of accident that this action might mitigate is 
the 1989 spill from an Exxon pipeline in the harbor between New York 
and New Jersey. Over 500,000 gallons of No. 2 fuel oil entered the 
water from a gash in the pipeline. A leak detection system that had 
been malfunctioning for 12 years failed to alert the operator to shut 
down the pipeline immediately.


This action is related to an action required by the Oil Pollution Act 
of 1990. This other action, now in effect under an interim final rule, 
but subject to change, requires operators to develop and execute 
approved oil spill response plans. Both actions are directed toward 
improving operators' accident response capabilities and minimizing 
accident consequences.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           59 FR 2802                                     01/19/94
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       04/19/94
NPRM                                                           12/00/94
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Analysis:


 Regulatory Evaluation


Agency Contact:
L. Ulrich
Department of Transportation
Research and Special Programs Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590-0001
202 366-2392
RIN: 2137-AC39
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Maritime Administration (MarAd)
            ___________________________________________________________
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
134. +CARGO PREFERENCE--U.S.-FLAG VESSELS; UNIFORM CONTRACTING 
REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS
Legal Authority:


 46 app USC 1241(b)


CFR Citation:


 46 CFR 381


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


MARAD is proposing amendments to its cargo preference regulations 
intended to ensure that U.S.-flag carriers of preference cargoes be 
allowed to carry such cargoes subject to standard commercial contract 
and contract tender terms that will allow them to avoid economic harm 
from discriminatory practices. This is considered a significant 
regulatory action because it may create a serious inconsistency with an 
action taken or planned by another agency.


Statement of Need:


The NPRM will propose a uniform charter party to be executed by the 
U.S. vessel owner and the charterer with respect to the carriage of 
agricultural commodity preference cargoes and would also require MARAD 
approval of all freight tenders for such preference cargoes. This 
action is needed to eliminate charter party terms that are at variance 
with generally accepted commercial terms and which discriminate against 
U.S.-flag carriers of agricultural commodity preference cargoes.


Summary of the Legal Basis:





The legal basis for this action is section 901(b) of the Merchant 
Marine Act, 1936, as amended, 46 App U.S.C. 1241(b), granting MARAD (by 
delegation from the Secretary of Transportation) authority to issue 
regulations that are binding on every department or agency having 
responsibility for administering cargo preference programs. This 
authority has been affirmed specifically with respect to the content of 
this rulemaking by a decision by the Department of Justice, Office of 
Legal Counsel, dated April 19, 1994.


Alternatives:





Alternatives to the action would be to allow these discriminatory 
practices to continue, or to attempt ad hoc negotiation of many 
individual charter parties with acceptable terms.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:





It is anticipated that the requirement for MARAD approval of all 
freight tenders and the introduction of a uniform charter party will 
result in an average savings of $5/metric ton of agricultural 
commodities shipped under the agricultural assistance programs, with an 
annual cost saving of $30 million, or about 20 percent of the USDA/DOT 
1993 budget for U.S.-flag ocean freight differential of $155 million.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           10/00/94
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Sectors Affected:


 441 Deep Sea Foreign Transportation of Freight


Analysis:


 Regulatory Evaluation


Agency Contact:
Judith Blackman
Director, Office of National Cargo and Compliance
Department of Transportation
Maritime Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
202 366-4610
RIN: 2133-AA95
BILLING CODE 4910-62-F