[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 
statutory responsibility for a wide range of regulations. For example, 
DOT regulates safety in the aviation, motor carrier, railroad, mass 
transit, motor vehicle, maritime, commercial space, and pipeline 
transportation areas. DOT regulates consumer and economic issues in 
aviation and provides financial assistance and writes the necessary 
implementing rules for programs involving highways, airports, mass 
transit, the maritime industry, railroads, and motor vehicle safety. It 
writes regulations carrying out such disparate statutes as the 
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Uniform Time Act. The 
Department establishes tolls and operational requirements for the St. 
Lawrence Seaway. It regulates the construction and operation of bridges 
over navigable waters, the prevention of oil pollution, and the 
security of commercial aviation and passenger vessels. Finally, DOT has 
the usual housekeeping regulations governing everything from conflicts 
of interest to the Privacy Act to seismic standards for building 
construction.
Although 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 it facilitates top management's 
involvement in these actions.
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: DOT 
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. It will assess the risks addressed by the rules and their 
costs and benefits, including the cumulative effect. The Department 
will consider appropriate alternatives, including nonregulatory 
approaches. It will also make every effort to ensure that legislation 
does not impose unreasonable mandates.
Consistent with this process and the Department's regulatory 
philosophy, DOT continually seeks ways of improving the way it conducts 
regulatory work. The creation of an electronic docket for the 
Department and steps to shorten the internal review process for new 
rules are examples of these efforts. In addition, the Department 
consistently seeks out opportunities to review, in depth, certain 
regulations or groups of regulations. Some recent examples include the 
Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) ``zero-based'' review of its 
motor carrier safety rules, a Coast Guard-initiated review to cull out 
unnecessary and obsolete rules, and a Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA) review of rules cited by the 1993 Airline Commission report as 
burdening the industry. The FAA also used an innovative technique for 
getting public input concerning priorities for regulatory reviews, by 
asking interested parties to list the three regulations they would most 
like to see FAA change.
This Department's regulatory process and philosophy also facilitated 
the Department's successful participation in President Clinton's 1995 
Regulatory Reinvention Initiative. The cumulative impact of this effort 
was significant. The Department has committed to removing 13.2 percent 
of its Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) pages and reinventing an 
additional 19.6 percent of its CFR pages. In addition, DOT identified a 
number of specific, substantial regulatory projects that will help the 
Administration to achieve its regulatory policy objectives. The 
following are a few examples:
 FAA rules to harmonize aviation safety rules with European 
            standards should save the industry at least $100 million 
            (perhaps up to $1 billion, depending on economic 
            conditions) over 10 years.
 As part of a review of air traffic control procedures, the FAA 
            determined it could expand pilot participation in selecting 
            the most desirable routings for long-distance flights. This 
            program, which is now in effect, saves the industry about 
            $40 million per year; FAA is considering expanding the 
            program in ways that could save an additional $40 million 
            annually.
 DOT has suspended the requirement for preemployment alcohol 
            testing and has proposed legislation to make such testing 
            permanently discretionary. This should save the motor 
            carrier, mass transit, aviation, and railroad industries 
            $28 million a year.
 The Office of the Secretary (OST) is considering a proposal to 
            align passenger fare tariff filing requirements more 
            closely with international aviation policies and review 
            requirements. This effort could substantially change the 
            aviation tariff filing requirement for a significant number 
            of the parties now covered. The remaining parties would 
            file electronically. The result would be a significant 
            reduction in paperwork.
 The Coast Guard is proposing to amend its rules to allow U.S. 
            flag vessels to be inspected by the American Bureau of 
            Shipping or other qualified private organizations rather 
            than by the Coast Guard. This will eliminate duplication in 
            inspection requirements and reduce ``down time'' for 
            vessels.
 The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) plans a major 
            paperwork reduction initiative that would allow many 
            ``Hours of Service Act'' records to be maintained and 
            reported electronically. For Class I railroads, this 
            initiative could save $2.3 million annually by eliminating 
            requirements to store 7.3 million paper records at any 
            given time and create 3.6 million paper records per year.
 FHWA is considering a new rule to exempt motor carriers and 
            drivers from the requirement to record duty status on a 
            specified grid for each 24-hour period if they use advanced 
            technology to provide an accurate reflection of the 
            driver's compliance with the hours-of-service regulations. 
            Currently about 3.3 million drivers are subject to this 
            safety requirement. This application of new technology 
            would make possible a major paperwork reduction.
In other areas of the President's initiative, the Department reported 
on the ways in which we will ensure that our compliance efforts reward 
results and deemphasize red tape. This report focuses on such matters 
as improved performance measures (e.g., vessel casualties per 1,000 
passenger vessels, commercial motor vehicle out-of-service rates), 
customer service training for front-line employees, development of a 
framework for performance management requiring that evaluation of the 
work of all employees, not just front-line regulators, be based on 
results, and education and training programs to assist regulators and 
customers to work together to achieve compliance.
The Department's enforcement policies are consistent with the effort to 
reward results and deemphasize red tape. For example, the Coast Guard 
authorizes its personnel to issue warnings, rather than impose 
penalties, for minor violations that are corrected promptly. It 
recently implemented a ``pollution ticket'' program that reduces 
paperwork and reduces penalties for first- and second-time minor 
violations of some environmental requirements. The Research and Special 
Programs Administration (RSPA) is implementing a program to waive up to 
100 percent of penalties for violations that are corrected in a stated 
time frame. The FHWA's policy is to impose penalties only as a last 
resort when other means of obtaining compliance, such as education and 
training, have failed. The FRA's guidance to its inspectors emphasizes 
exercising discretion to waive or reduce initial penalty assessments, 
focusing particularly on efforts to achieve compliance.
The Department has engaged in a wide variety of activities to help 
cement the partnerships between its agencies and its customers that 
will produce good results for transportation programs and safety. For 
example, Secretary Pena participated in four transportation safety 
summits, along with front-line regulators and representatives of 
regulated industries. These concerned pipeline safety (July 1994), rail 
safety (September 1994), aviation safety (January 1995), and, most 
recently, a national truck and bus safety summit (March 1995). 
Administrators and other high officials of the operating 
administrations have participated in a wide variety of meetings with 
customers to form viable partnerships among industries, consumers, and 
front-line regulators. For example, the Federal Transit Administrator 
recently participated in a ``Paratransit Summit'' involving disability 
community groups and transit providers, which discussed issues 
concerning accessible public transportation. In addition, the 
Department's agencies have established a number of continuing 
partnership mechanisms. For example, the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee (ARAC) is an ongoing grassroots effort. ARAC 
provides a forum for all elements of the aviation community to 
participate in the early development of FAA rulemakings.
The Department of Transportation was a pioneer in creating the 
regulatory negotiation concept, and it conducted the Federal 
Government's first negotiated rulemaking. Since that time, DOT has 
conducted regulatory negotiations on a variety of subjects, such as the 
Air Carrier Access Act and aspects of the Oil Pollution Act. The 
Department has also used advisory committees to obtain customer input 
on regulatory projects, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act 
rule. There are several regulatory negotiation projects currently 
planned or underway, concerning such subjects as roadway worker safety 
(FRA), oxygen use by airline passengers (OST), headlamp aimability (the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA), incorporating 
physical fitness determinations in the commercial drivers' license 
program (FHWA), and the definition of and safety requirements for gas 
gathering lines (RSPA).
The Department's regulatory process and philosophy also make it 
possible for the Department to achieve the aims of the DOT Strategic 
Plan. Many of the objectives of this plan--Tie America Together, Invest 
Strategically in Transportation Infrastructure, Promote Safe and Secure 
Transportation, Actively Enhance Our Environment, and Put People 
First--call for creating, reinventing, or improving DOT regulations.
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. Although OST's principal role 
concerns making the Department's regulatory process run smoothly and 
effectively, this office also plays an important role in the substance 
of rulemaking projects concerning aviation economic rules and those 
having cross-modal significance. In connection with its oversight and 
coordination role, the Office of the Secretary also led the 
Department's work to carry out President Clinton's Regulatory 
Reinvention Initiative.
OST provides guidance for use of regulatory personnel throughout the 
Department on compliance with requirements concerning the regulatory 
process. For example, OST provided guidance concerning implementation 
of the regulatory portions of the Unfunded Mandates Act, as well as 
providing updated information on such matters as compliance with 
Executive Orders, economic analyses, paperwork reduction, the 
Regulatory Agenda and Plan, and other regulatory policy matters. During 
the next year, OST plans to provide guidance and training concerning 
cost-benefit analyses and risk assessments, as well as continuing to 
offer DOT personnel a periodic 2-day training course on regulatory 
development and process.
OST led and coordinated the Department's response to the Administration 
and Congress in 1995 concerning legislative proposals for regulatory 
reform. The General Counsel's office worked closely with 
representatives of other agencies, the Office of Management and Budget, 
the White House, and Congressional staff to provide information on how 
various proposals would affect the ability of the Department to perform 
its safety, infrastructure, and other missions. OST gathered 
substantial information from the operating administrations to provide 
examples of the effects of these proposals. If regulatory reform 
legislation is enacted, OST will have the lead responsibility for 
providing Department-wide guidance and training on its implementation. 
Regardless of action on the pending proposals, OST and the operating 
administrations will continue their efforts to ensure that problems 
identified by proponents of the legislation do not exist in the 
Department's programs.
The Office of Commercial Space Transportation (OCST) is responsible for 
providing regulatory guidance to the emerging U.S. commercial space 
transportation industry. (Effective October 1, 1995, OCST will move 
from OST to the Federal Aviation Administration, where it will operate 
as a ``seventh line of business.'') 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. 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.
United 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 that 
deficiencies are corrected. Through Coast Guard initiatives at the 
International Maritime Organization (IMO), international standards have 
been raised to a level comparable with U.S. 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.
The Coast Guard recognizes its obligation to engage in a partnership 
with the regulated public. It will continue to provide meaningful 
opportunities for public participation at all stages of the regulatory 
process, using negotiated rulemaking when possible. The Coast Guard 
also recognizes its obligation to protect the maritime interests of the 
United States through helping the regulated public to achieve 
compliance with effective, efficient regulations. Finally, the Coast 
Guard is working to reduce unnecessary paperwork burdens. Very few of 
the Coast Guard information collection requirements are in the form of 
regularly scheduled reports. As directed by the President, the Coast 
Guard has reviewed its reporting requirements and has identified only 
six reports of this nature.
In the past year, the Coast Guard has reviewed each part of the Code of 
Federal Regulations for which it is responsible, primarily in titles 33 
and 46. It received suggestions for improving these regulations from 
members of the affected public at local grassroots meetings, at a 
meeting at Coast Guard Headquarters, in written comments, and from 
Coast Guard field personnel. In identifying regulations to be 
eliminated or reinvented, the Coast Guard selected those parts which 
impose the greatest burdens and provide the least benefits. As a result 
of this review, the Coast Guard currently plans to remove over 300 
pages from the Code of Federal Regulations.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Title 49, United States Code, Subtitle VII--Aviation Programs, 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 underway 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 100 
            issues.
 Improving the agency's economic analysis process. The agency 
            sponsored a Benefit Cost Conference on June 28, 1994, to 
            obtain public input for the improvement of the process. An 
            action plan has been developed to respond to concerns 
            raised at the conference.
 Harmonizing the U.S. aviation regulations with those of other 
            countries. The harmonization of the U.S. regulations with 
            the European Joint Aviation Regulations (JAR) is the FAA's 
            most comprehensive long-term rulemaking effort. The 
            differences worldwide in certification standards, practices 
            and procedures, and operating rules 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, l994, 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 method 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.
On July 13, 1995, Administrator Hinson announced CHALLENGE 2000--a 
comprehensive review of the FAA's regulation and certification 
capabilities. The purpose of the review is to determine what the agency 
will need to do to overcome the increasing challenges of regulating the 
aviation industry and certifying rapidly changing technologies as 
America enters the 21st century. Near term initiatives of CHALLENGE 
2000 include an aggressive education program, targeting rulemaking 
initiatives to enhance safety, voluntary accreditation of parts 
suppliers, and a status report on the Safety Summit held in January 
1995.
Top regulatory priorities of the FAA for 1995-1996 include a review of 
regulations affecting commuter operations and general certification and 
operations requirements, security at airports, harmonization of U.S. 
regulations with those of other countries, certification and 
maintenance of aircraft, survival equipment, and drug enforcement.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
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 our State and local partners can be increased.
The major areas in which the FHWA will initiate or continue to develop 
significant rulemaking actions 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 (a) focus on those 
areas of enforcement and compliance which are most effective in 
reducing motor carrier accidents, (b) reduce compliance costs, (c) 
encourage innovation, (d) clearly and succinctly describe what is 
required, and (e) 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 redrafting the Rules of Practice for 
Motor Carrier Safety and Hazardous Materials Proceedings. It plans to 
simplify the current process to facilitate responses by the accused 
motor carriers and drivers, and to offer alternative means of 
adjudicating the claims. It also intends 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 reducing and mitigating motor vehicle 
crashes and related fatalities and injuries, providing motor vehicle 
information to consumers, and improving automotive fuel efficiency. The 
agency pursues policies that encourage the development of nonregulatory 
approaches when feasible in meeting its statutory mandate; issues new 
standards and regulations or amendments to existing standards and 
regulations when appropriate; ensures 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 considers 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 a number of 
means, including 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. For example, the 
agency is continuing an evaluation of the effectiveness of Standard No. 
208's automatic crash protection requirement and is beginning an 
evaluation of Standard No. 214's new dynamic side-impact protection 
requirements.
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. Also, 
pursuant to the President's 1995 Regulatory Reinvention Initiative, 
NHTSA has undertaken a review of all its regulations and directives. 
During the course of this review, the agency identified several 
regulations that are potential candidates for rescission or amendment. 
NHTSA will continue to pursue these actions during the next year. The 
agency also will be continuing other ongoing safety rulemakings.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) exercises regulatory 
authority over all areas of railroad safety. The Federal Railroad 
Safety Act of 1970 is the primary source of this authority.
FRA promotes safe, environmentally sound, and successful railroad 
transportation to meet the current and future needs of all its 
customers. It encourages policies and investment in infrastructure and 
technology to enable rail to reach its full potential.
FRA seeks to develop a regulatory program that is based on the 
regulatory principles enunciated in Executive Order 12866 and that 
satisfies the Order's basic criteria for such programs. FRA's vision is 
of 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. FRA seeks to create 
regulations that are as ``effective, consistent, sensible, and 
understandable'' as those envisioned by the President in his Order. 
More specifically, given the significant number of pending 
congressional mandates for railroad safety regulations, FRA is also 
challenged to address the most important regulatory issues on the 
agency's own agenda in the most timely and reasonable manner possible.
Our current regulatory priorities include the issuance of final rules 
on several important subjects: track safety; power brake inspection and 
maintenance; whistle bans at highway-rail grade crossings; and railroad 
accident reporting. Each of these rules will embody cost-effective 
improvements of the way railroads currently conduct business. These 
measures, we believe, will increase safety performance significantly 
within an industry that is already performing at high safety levels.
Pursuant to the President's 1995 Regulatory Reinvention Initiative, and 
for over the past 2 years on its own initiative, FRA has conducted a 
vigorous review of its regulations, consulting both its own safety 
professionals and our external customers in the industry. In so doing, 
FRA has identified numerous opportunities to eliminate or improve 
significant aspects of our regulatory program. For example, FRA 
identified 11 pages of the CFR, representing roughly 3 percent of the 
CFR parts, that it should eliminate. In addition, FRA identified 
roughly 55 percent of the CFR parts, the majority of those items 
identified for reinvention, as requiring significant improvements.
FRA has also commenced various nonstatutory regulatory reform 
initiatives. First, FRA is using negotiated rulemaking to create, with 
the industry, a rule addressing the issue of roadway worker safety. 
Begun early this year, the negotiated rulemaking advisory committee 
recently came to agreement on the recommendations they will make to the 
agency for ensuring the safety of roadway workers. This negotiated 
rulemaking represented an historic departure from FRA's traditional 
rulemaking program.
Second, based on the beneficial aspects of its negotiated rulemaking 
experience, FRA is intensively pursuing a new regulatory paradigm. This 
new model will consist of a more collaborative rulemaking program and 
will include the creation of a Rail Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC). 
RSAC will consist of members of rail management, labor, FRA and other 
interested parties and will operate by seeking agreement on the facts 
and data underlying any real or perceived safety problem; identifying 
cost-effective solutions based upon stipulated facts; and, where 
appropriate, identifying regulatory options to implement these 
solutions.
Finally, FRA is examining revising the User Fee Program to ease the 
user fee burdens imposed upon small entities who do not fit within the 
formulaic approach to assessment. FRA is required to establish and 
maintain a schedule of fees to be assessed equitably upon railroads to 
defray the costs of administering FRA's safety laws. Currently, many 
small entities that have low formula-based amounts assessed pay a 
minimum user fee that is higher than the formula assessment. Thus, FRA 
is considering proposing revisions to the user fee regulations to 
exempt small railroads or to eliminate a minimum fee for them.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides financial assistance 
to State and local governments for mass transportation purposes. The 
regulatory activity of FTA focuses on establishing the terms and 
conditions of Federal financial assistance available under the Federal 
transit laws.
FTA's policy regarding regulations is to:
 Implement statutory authorities in ways which provide the 
            maximum net benefits to society;
 Keep paperwork requirements to a minimum;
 Allow for as much local flexibility and discretion as is 
            possible within the law;
 Ensure the most productive use of limited Federal resources;
 Protect the Federal interest in local investments; and
 Incorporate good management principles into the grant 
            management process.
As mass transportation needs have changed over the years, so have the 
requirements for Federal financial assistance under the Federal transit 
laws and related statutes. FTA's regulatory priority for 1995 is to 
assist FTA recipients in complying with the drug and alcohol testing 
regulations.
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 national security and domestic and foreign 
commerce.
MARAD's regulatory objectives and priorities are prescribed by statute 
and reflect the agency's responsibility for ensuring the availability 
of efficient water transportation services to American shippers and 
consumers. To advance these objectives, MARAD's regulations, which are 
principally administrative and interpretive in nature, are issued so as 
to provide a significant net benefit to the maritime industry. MARAD 
works closely with other agencies, for example, the Department of 
Defense and the Department of Agriculture, to ensure that its cargo 
preference regulations can be implemented by those agencies in a cost-
effective manner. MARAD's proposal in the present Regulatory Plan is 
designed to bring government procurement of ocean transport more in 
line with commercial practices, and thus support a system that is more 
cost-effective to carriers, shippers, and ultimately the consumer.
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 Federal hazardous materials 
transportation law and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 
amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Through the Associate 
Administrator for Pipeline Safety, RSPA administers regulatory programs 
under the Federal pipeline safety laws 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 information to support the aviation programs of the Department 
under the Federal aviation laws. In the aviation tariffs area, the 
regulatory priorities are to fully automate tariff filings by air 
carriers and eliminate routine filing of cargo tariffs. However, this 
function is expected to be moved to OST on October 1, 1995, in order to 
improve program coordination.
In the area of hazardous materials transportation, the regulatory 
priorities are to complete the rulemaking actions mandated by the 1990 
amendments of the Federal hazardous materials law, including extending 
Federal regulation to the intrastate highway transportation of 
hazardous materials. Another priority is to adopt a simplified 
compliance enforcement procedure that involves ticketing shippers, 
carriers, and other persons for minor violations of hazardous materials 
regulations. Also, as part of the President's 1995 Regulatory 
Reinvention Initiative, RSPA is considering the elimination of 
unnecessary, obsolete, and duplicative regulations and a simplification 
and reformatting of the remaining regulations that potentially may 
reduce the size of the Code of Federal Regulations by 100 pages and may 
reduce the size of the hazardous materials regulations by one volume, 
thereby reducing the cost to industry by more than $75,000 per year.
The regulatory priorities in the pipeline 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 risk-based approaches to pipeline 
safety regulations.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS)
The Office of Airline Information (OAI), which recently became part of 
the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), is the only BTS function 
with regulatory authority. OAI collects airline passenger, cargo, 
traffic, and financial data. This information gives the Government 
consistent and comprehensive economic and market data on individual 
airline operations and is used, for instance, in supporting policy 
initiatives, negotiating international bilateral aviation agreements, 
awarding international route authorities, and meeting international 
treaty obligations. The aviation, travel, and tourism communities value 
this information for a variety of purposes, such as conducting analyses 
of on-time performance, denied boardings, and market trends.
BTS has two short-term regulatory priorities. The first is to resolve 
the requirement for on-time flight information in a way that meets 
consumer needs without compromising safety. The second is to consider 
whether to include foreign carriers among those that provide passenger 
origin and destination data for their operations within the United 
States.
BTS will also conduct a complete review and modernization of the 
passenger origin and destination survey. BTS can make significant 
improvements by providing data for the needs of DOT and other users in 
a way that takes advantage of the information revolution and matches 
the dramatically changed airline industry.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Office of the Secretary (OST)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

85. +LICENSING COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH ACTIVITIES
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 49 USC 70101 to 70119


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 USC 70101 to 
70119, 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:


DOT's Office of Commercial Space Transportation must ensure that 
commercial space launch activities do not jeopardize public health and 
safety and the safety of property and also 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 that 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

_______________________________________________________________________
Public Meeting N59 FR 52020equest for Comments                 10/13/94
Comment Period E59 FR 6235912/16/94                            12/05/94
NPRM                                                           04/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Analysis:


 Regulatory Evaluation


Agency Contact:
Frank Weaver
Director
Office of Commercial Space Transportation
Department of Transportation
Office of the Secretary
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-2937
RIN: 2105-AB85
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------

86. +FACILITY RESPONSE PLANS FOR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES (CGD 94-048)
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 33 USC 1321(j); PL 101-380


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 with a capacity 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                                                          10/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Analysis:


 Regulatory Evaluation


Agency Contact:
Janet Walton
Project Manager
G-MES-2
Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW.
Washington, DC 20593-0001
Phone: 202 267-0784
RIN: 2115-AE87
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--USCG
87. +TANK VESSEL RESPONSE PLANS FOR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES (CGD 94-032)
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 33 USC 1231; 33 USC 1321(j); PL 101-380


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                                                          10/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Analysis:


 Regulatory Evaluation


Agency Contact:
Janet Walton
Project Manager
G-MES-2
Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW.
Washington, DC 20593-0001
Phone: 202 267-0784
RIN: 2115-AE88
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--USCG

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

88. +STRUCTURAL AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES TO REDUCE OIL SPILLS FROM 
EXISTING TANK VESSELS WITHOUT DOUBLE HULLS (CGD 91-045)
Priority:


Economically Significant


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. Two SNPRMs will address 
operational and structural measures respectively 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
Notice of Meetin58 FR 65683nt Period Extended 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                                    10/00/95
SNPRM; Structural Measures                                     12/00/95
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:
Janet Walton
Project Manager
G-MES-2
Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW.
Washington, DC 20593-0001
Phone: 202 267-0784
RIN: 2115-AE01
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

89. +AIRCRAFT FLIGHT SIMULATOR USE IN PILOT TRAINING, TESTING, AND 
CHECKING AND AT TRAINING CENTERS
Priority:


Other Significant


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 Pe58 FR 9514/22/93                               02/19/93
Final Action                                                   10/00/95
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
Phone: 202 267-8150
RIN: 2120-AA83
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--FAA
90. +AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: FLIGHT RULES BASED ON EUROPEAN JOINT 
AVIATION REQUIREMENTS
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 49 USC 134; 49 USC 1354(a); 49 USC 1355; 49 USC 1421; 49 USC 1423; 49 
USC 1425; 49 USC 1428; 49 USC 1429; 49 USC 1430; 49 USC 106(g); PL 97-
449


CFR Citation:


 14 CFR 23


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The FAA established an Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (56 FR 
20492, May 3, 1991), to provide advice and recommendations to the FAA 
on the full range of aviation-related issues. The ARAC has been tasked 
to recommend airworthiness standards for standard and commuter category 
airplanes in part 23 of Title 14 of the CFR. The FAA has also committed 
to harmonizing its requirements applicable to type certification of new 
airplanes, rotocraft, aircraft engines, and propellers with those of 
the European members of the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA). This 
proposal and the three related proposals, which resulted from 
recommendations from the ARAC, will harmonize the airworthiness 
requirements of part 23 with those of the JAA, and will result in 
significant cost savings to applicants for type certification for part 
23 airplanes.


Statement of Need:


The FAA has committed to harmonizing the requirements that apply to 
type certification of new airplanes, rotocraft, aircraft engines, and 
propellers. Currently, an applicant for U.S. and European type 
certificates for a product must demonstrate that its design complies 
with Title 14 of the CFR, and the airworthiness requirements of the 
European countries in which applications are made. Because of 
differences between U.S. and European requirements, type certification 
programs can involve multiple certification efforts, including costly 
expenditures for flight testing and computer data generation and 
modeling. This is often redundant, because the requirements have common 
safety objectives. This effort to harmonize will result in type 
certification programs for which an applicant for multiple 
certification need only demonstrate compliance once. This rule is one 
of four such proposals to harmonize part 23 of the CFR with European 
requirements. Other areas are systems and equipment (2120-AE59), 
propulsion (2120-AE60), and airframe (2120-AE62).


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Former Title VI of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, now 
codified at 49 USC 44701, requires the FAA to promote safe flight of 
civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing minimum standards 
required in the interest of safety for the design, material, 
construction, quality of work, and performance of aircraft, aircraft 
engines, and propellers.


Alternatives:


The only alternative to harmonization of the FAA's type certification 
requirements would be to allow the status quo to continue; that would 
mean that applicants for U.S. and foreign type certificates would 
continue to demonstrate compliance with multiple sets of rules.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


These flight harmonization rules would reduce the regulatory burden on 
type certificate applicants, both domestic and foreign, who apply for 
U.S. and foreign type certificates. A typical new airplane 
certification in the commuter category can cost tens of millions of 
dollars for a U.S. type certificate; demonstrating compliance with 
additional requirements for one or more foreign aviation authorities 
can cost additional millions of dollars. The overall cost benefits to 
the domestic and foreign aircraft, engine, and propeller manufacturers 
will be a function of the numbers of products for which new type 
certificate applications will be made. That is difficult to predict. 
However, it should be noted that typical type certification programs 
for new transport airplanes are more expensive than those for commuter 
airplanes, and programs for new engines and propellers are less 
expensive than for commuter airplanes.


Risks:


The aircraft, aircraft engine, and propeller industry has identified 
the additional, and sometimes redundant, cost of certifying a product 
to different sets of standards. Should the FAA not harmonize its rules 
with those of the other countries in which modern aircraft are 
operated, it will have lost an opportunity to achieve an important goal 
of ``reinventing'' government by decreasing the financial burden of 
regulations. The FAA has evaluated the proposed rules to ensure that 
they will further the public interest in a high level of aviation 
safety.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            59 FR 37878                                    07/25/94
NPRM Comment Period End                                        11/22/94
Final Action                                                   06/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Analysis:


 Regulatory Evaluation 07/25/94 (59 FR 37878)


Additional Information:


Project No.: ACE-94-286A.


Agency Contact:
John Colomy
Aircraft Certification Service
Small Planes Directorate
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
601 East 12th Street
Kansas City, MO 64106
Phone: 816 426-6930
RIN: 2120-AE61
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--FAA
91. +COMMUTER OPERATIONS AND GENERAL CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS 
REQUIREMENTS
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 49 USC 1153; 49 USC 40101 to 40103; 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 44105; 49 USC 
44106; 49 USC 44111; 49 USC 44701; 49 USC 44722; 49 USC 44901; 49 USC 
44903; 49 USC 44904; 49 USC 44912; 49 USC 44914; 49 USC 49936; 49 USC 
44938; ...


CFR Citation:


 14 CFR 121; 14 CFR 135


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This action would respond to the 10 recommendations from the National 
Transportation Safety Board dated November 15, l994. The primary 
objective of this action is to revise the Federal Aviation Regulations 
(FAR) to require all scheduled passenger operations conducted with 
airplanes with more than nine passenger seats to be conducted under the 
requirements of Part 121. Other projects that the FAA already has 
ongoing include: Part 142, Training Centers; Flight Crewmember Duty 
Limitations and Rest Requirements; and the 121/135 Training Program. 
This rulemaking is considered significant because of substantial public 
interest.


Statement of Need:


The accident record of Part 135 operators is not as good as that of 
Part 121 operators. There has been a growing public perception that 
flying under Part 135 is not as safe as flying under Part 121. Although 
the safety record of Part 135 operators is improving, several accidents 
in the past several years have increased the public's desire for a 
single set of requirements for all passenger-carrying operations. These 
accidents led to NTSB to recommend to the FAA that scheduled passenger-
carrying operations conducted in aircraft with 10 or more seats comply 
with Part 121.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 44701, Title 49 of the United States Code states that the 
Administrator shall promote safety of flight of civil aircraft in air 
commerce by prescribing minimum standards required in the interest of 
safety.


Alternatives:


The FAA is reviewing the comments submitted by the public. It is in the 
process of evaluating whether any suggested alternatives should be 
pursued in lieu of some regulatory proposals.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the FAA anticipated that the 
safety benefits would be $393 million (discounted) from 1996-2005. Over 
the same period, the rule would impose costs of $275 million 
(discounted). The FAA is considering comments on these estimated costs 
and benefits to determine a final economic evaluation.


Risks:


Since the FAA initiated this rulemaking, one additional commuter 
airplane accident has occurred, resulting in the deaths of five 
persons. If issued as proposed, this rulemaking would add requirements, 
for example, for additional pilot training, a dispatch system, and 
enhanced performance requirements, that the FAA believes would increase 
the level of safety for the traveling public. On the other hand, these 
requirements will be very expensive for some operators. Alaska 
operators and air tour operators have indicated that, if the rule is 
imposed, they will convert to smaller, less safe 9-seat airplanes. This 
in turn would mean an increase in noise and air traffic. Other 
operators have pointed out that the costs would be passed on to 
passengers, making the price of tickets so expensive that the public 
would choose to travel by automobile, a less safe means of travel.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            60 FR 16230                                    03/29/95
NPRM Comment Period End                                        06/27/95
Final Action                                                   12/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Project Number: AFS-95-064
49 USC 46103, 49 USC 46105.


Agency Contact:
Alberta Brown
Air Transportation Division
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20591
Phone: 202 267-8321
RIN: 2120-AF62
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------

92.  +ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY IN COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE 
OPERATIONS
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 49 USC 31136; 49 USC 31502


CFR Citation:


 49 CFR 395


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Current Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations limit the hours of 
service of commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers in order to reduce 
fatigue-related accidents. These regulations include substantial 
recordkeeping requirements to monitor drivers' hours of service. The 
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is considering ways to reduce the 
recordkeeping burden while maintaining or improving safety. This is 
significant because of the broad industry impact.


Statement of Need:


The hours-of-service regulations adopted by the FHWA are intended to 
address the issue of driver fatigue and to enhance highway safety by 
reducing the number and severity of accidents caused by fatigue. The 
recordkeeping associated with this regulation, primarily the 
requirement for drivers to maintain daily records of duty status, 
imposes a significant burden on drivers and motor carriers.
The FHWA believes that advances in technology may hold the promise for 
substantially reducing the paperwork burden of this rule while 
improving compliance with the underlying hours-of-service limitations, 
thus enhancing highway safety.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The FHWA is authorized to regulate hours of service of CMV drivers in 
order to enhance highway safety. Beginning in 1935, the Federal 
Government (first the Interstate Commerce Commission and then the 
Federal Highway Administration) has regulated the hours of service of 
interstate drivers. See 49 USC 31502. In 1984, the Congress directed 
the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe regulations to ensure that 
commercial motor vehicles are operated safely and that the physical 
condition of operators of CMVs is adequate to enable them to operate 
safely. See 49 USC 31136. Finally the Congress has provided that, if 
the Secretary prescribes a regulation about the use of monitoring 
devices in CMVs to increase compliance with hours of service 
regulations, the regulation is to ensure that the devices are not used 
to harass vehicle operators. See 49 USC 31137(a).


Alternatives:


Current Federal safety regulations require drivers to maintain records 
of duty status on handwritten forms or alternatively, at a motor 
carrier's option, electronically through the use of on-board recording 
devices (49 CFR 395).
The FHWA has considered the use of satellite tracking technology to 
replace handwritten records of duty status. The FHWA believes that 
system modifications necessary to allow the use of this technology for 
this purpose is not cost effective at this time. Satellite tracking 
systems, as currently configured, are primarily designed to track 
vehicle location. They do not provide driver identification or 
supporting documentation for roadside enforcement.
The FHWA is now planning further study of the use of on-board recording 
devices to monitor drivers' hours of service. This study will include 
recent advances in technology and current costs.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Current recordkeeping requirements directly affect 3.3 million drivers 
who are required to complete records of duty status. The motor carrier 
industry expends 14.8 million burden hours at an estimated cost of $340 
million annually.


Risks:


Hours of service recordkeeping requirements are intended to reduce 
safety risks associated with driver fatigue. No risks have been 
identified with increased use of onboard recording devices.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: Request 60 FR 46682tion                                09/07/95
Comments Period End                                            11/06/95
Study To Be Completed                                          09/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Bryan Price
Transportation Specialist
Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-5720
RIN: 2125-AD65
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------

93.  +HOURS OF SERVICE ELECTRONIC RECORDKEEPING PROJECT
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 49 USC 20103; 49 USC 21101 to 21108; 49 USC 21303 to 21304; 49 USC 
21311


CFR Citation:


 49 CFR 228


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Federal Railway Administration (FRA) will launch a major project to 
facilitate maintenance of hours-of-service records and submission of 
``excess service'' reports in an electronic, rather than a paper, 
format. FRA will host an industry forum and propose to issue a model 
waiver to railroads interested in maintaining electronic records for 
train and engine service employees. These employees compose the vast 
majority of those subject to the statutory limitations on hours of 
service. This project will eventually lead to the formal revision of 49 
CFR 228.


Statement of Need:


Two of the goals of FRA's Strategic Plan are to increase our customer 
focus by giving our best to the customer's needs and priorities and to 
``advance technological innovation in rail transportation through 
leadership and partnership.'' It is consistent with these goals to 
allow greater flexibility in the maintenance of hours-of-service 
records and to encourage the railroads' use of electronic 
recordkeeping. Moreover, when meeting with sectors of the industry 
pursuant to the President's March 4, 1995 Reinvention Initiative, FRA 
learned that the industry is interested in obtaining greater 
flexibility in this area. Consequently, it is anticipated that FRA will 
change the hours-of-service regulations' paper records and reports 
requirements for subscribing railroads. This will improve these 
regulations by providing flexibility in the generation of payroll and 
hours-of-service records from the same databases, by facilitating 
electronic filing of excess service records, and by providing data to 
FRA in a format that can be more readily analyzed.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Under the Federal railroad safety laws, the FRA (by delegation from the 
Secretary), has regulatory and enforcement authority over all areas of 
railroad safety. This plenary authority certainly covers a modification 
of the method employed in the maintenance of hours-of-service records. 
There is currently no statutory or judicial requirement to make this 
modification.


Alternatives:


Because this rulemaking is at such a formative stage, it is premature 
to discuss alternatives. However, during the process of developing this 
waiver project, FRA will consider all reasonable alternatives.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


While FRA cannot yet conclusively provide an analysis of the costs and 
benefits of this project, it is estimated that this project will, after 
the initial cost of systems is recovered, yield savings to the industry 
of 2.3 million dollars annually for Class I railroads. These savings 
will flow from the elimination of the requirement to create 3.6 million 
paper records each year and to store 7.3 million records at any given 
time.


Risks:


As this project is designed to allow railroads to make technological 
improvements in the manner of creating and maintaining hours-of-service 
records, it is not anticipated that there will be any risks associated 
with allowing participating railroads to waive the requirements of 
paper recordkeeping.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Grant or Deny Master Waiver Application                        04/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
David Kasminoff
Trial Attorney
Department of Transportation
Federal Railroad Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-0638
RIN: 2130-AB04
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

94. +EMERGENCY FLOW-RESTRICTING DEVICES
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 49 USC 60101 to 60125


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                                                           12/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Analysis:


 Docket No. PS-133; Regulatory Evaluation 01/00/96


Additional Information:


Docket No. PS-133. Public Workshop 10/19/95. Notice published 8/29/95 
(60 FR 44822).


Agency Contact:
L. Ulrich
Department of Transportation
Research and Special Programs Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590-0001
Phone: 202 366-4556
RIN: 2137-AC39
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--RSPA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

95. +HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 49 USC 5101 to 5127


CFR Citation:


 49 CFR 171 to 179


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking proposes to extend the application of the hazardous 
materials regulations (HMR) to all intrastate transportation of 
hazardous materials in commerce. The 1990 amendments to Federal 
hazardous material transportation law mandate that the Research and 
Special Programs Administration (RSPA) regulate the safe transportation 
of hazardous materials in intrastate, in addition to interstate and 
foreign, commerce. The goal of this action is to raise the safety level 
of hazardous transportation by promoting national uniformity of the 
regulations. Currently the regulations generally do not apply to 
intrastate carriage by highway, with the exception of hazardous waste, 
hazardous substances, and flammable cryogenic liquids in portable tanks 
and cargo tanks. The supplemental notice would propose to extend the 
mandatory compliance date for regulations applicable to certain cargo 
tanks, and propose a ``materials of trade'' exception for relatively 
small quantities of hazardous materials contained on service vehicles 
operated by plumbing, welding, and lawn service companies.


Statement of Need:


Section 5103(b)(1) of Title 49, USC, specifies that the Secretary shall 
prescribe regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous 
materials in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce. This 
statutory mandate follows the Department's long-standing policy of 
encouraging the States to adopt the HMR as a means of promoting 
national uniformity and transportation safety. In addition, the Federal 
Highway Administration (FHWA) requires States to adopt and enforce the 
highway-related portions of the HMR to qualify for grants under FHWA's 
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program.
Comments submitted in response to the original notice of proposed 
rulemaking advised RSPA that many cargo tank motor vehicles currently 
used by farmers and small businesses would need to be removed from 
hazardous materials service far in advance of the useful life of the 
tanks, or require extensive retrofitting. Other commenters noted the 
potential for significant adverse impact on small businesses that 
engage in the incidental transportation of hazardous materials used in 
support of their non-transportation-related commercial activities. To 
adequately address these concerns, RSPA is considering certain 
proposals that would require prior notice to the regulated community.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 5103(b)(1) of Title 49 USC, specifies that the Secretary shall 
prescribe regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous 
materials in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce.


Alternatives:


The statutory mandate to regulate the transportation of hazardous 
materials in intrastate commerce requires RSPA to take affirmative 
action. The alternative to the proposed action is to require immediate 
and uniform application of hazardous materials by motor vehicle.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


A preliminary regulatory evaluation prepared by RSPA considered 
potential costs and benefits in seven States (California, Georgia, 
Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Texas, and Wyoming) having State regulations 
that are not in full conformance with the HMR. The preliminary estimate 
of costs and benefits for these seven States (where the regulatory cost 
impact would be the greatest) demonstrates a favorable benefit/cost 
ratio of approximately 3:1. The supplemental notice for ``materials of 
trade'' has the potential for annual savings by small businesses on the 
order of $50 million.


Risks:


There are several major considerations involved in developing uniform 
intrastate/interstate regulations for the transportation of hazardous 
materials in commerce. Most hazardous materials are of such a nature 
that no useful distinction can be made as to why intrastate 
transportation should be subject to less demanding safety standards 
than interstate counterparts. For example, the transportation of 
gasoline in a cargo tank presents the same level of risk to the public 
regardless of whether the transportation is intrastate or interstate.
It is neither economical nor efficient for each of the 50 states to 
duplicate RSPA's expertise and safety research efforts with respect to 
classification of hazardous materials; determination of transportation 
risks; and development of effective transportation safety standards. 
Economically and administratively, it is more efficient for State and 
local emergency response and enforcement personnel to focus on and 
become more proficient in one set of regulations that uniformly apply 
to the transportation of hazardous materials regardless of whether 
intrastate or interstate.
Emergency response personnel may not be able to make distinctions as to 
whether hazardous materials carriers are in intrastate or interstate 
service. Emergency response personnel reacting to incidents involving 
hazardous materials must first identify the specific hazards before 
determining a proper response. An inappropriate response involving an 
unfamiliar hazardous material carried intrastate by a cargo tank not 
subject to the HMR can significantly endanger the public, community, 
and environment. Also response to an incident involving materials, 
carried intrastate by a cargo tank, which are found to be nonhazardous, 
may cause inconvenience and needless economic hardship on the public 
and surrounding community. Communities have been evacuated on the mere 
suspicion that hazardous materials are present. Major roads and 
arteries have been closed and transportation patterns and delivery 
schedules have been disrupted or delayed because of poor or inadequate 
emergency planning and response. By adopting and becoming more 
proficient in one set of regulations, the effectiveness of State and 
local emergency response and enforcement programs will be increased, 
and transportation safety will be enhanced with respect to both 
intrastate and interstate transportation of hazardous materials.
This rule will address legitimate public concerns about incidents 
involving hazardous materials in intrastate commerce. Such incidents 
now lead to public concern regarding the transportation of hazardous 
materials and the risks associated with such movements in the form of 
increased State activity and Congressional pressure to further regulate 
both intrastate and interstate carriers of hazardous materials without 
regard to the underlying costs and benefits.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           52 FR 24195                                    06/29/87
Comment Period E52 FR 3546411/28/87                            09/21/87
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       09/28/87
NPRM            58 FR 36920                                    07/09/93
NPRM Correction 58 FR 38111                                    07/15/93
NPRM Comment Period End                                        10/13/93
SNPRM                                                          10/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Analysis:


 Regulatory Evaluation 07/09/93 (58 FR 36920)


Additional Information:


Docket No. HM-200. Regarding Small Entities Affected by this rule, RSPA 
is working with the Small Business Administration to identify the small 
entities affected and to minimize the impact on them.


Agency Contact:
Jacquelyn Smith
Department of Transportation
Research and Special Programs Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-4488
RIN: 2137-AB37
BILLING CODE 4910-62-F