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

Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 231 / Friday, November 29, 1996 / The
                            Regulatory Plan

[[Page 62111]]

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 aviation consumer and economic 
issues 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 
responsibility for developing policies that implement a wide range of 
regulations that govern internal programs such as acquisition and 
grants, access for the disabled, environmental protection, energy 
conservation, information technology, property asset management, 
seismic safety, security, and the use of aircraft and vehicles.
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.
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 
its regulatory work. The creation of an electronic docket for the 
Department, the use of direct final rulemaking, and the increased use 
of regulatory negotiation are three examples of this.
This Department's regulatory process and philosophy also facilitated 
the Department's successful participation in President Clinton's 
Regulatory Reinvention Initiative. The cumulative impact of this effort 
was significant. The Department has removed 13.2 percent (1221 pages) 
of its Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) pages and reinvented an 
additional 19.6 percent (2129 pages) of its CFR pages. In addition, DOT 
took a number of specific, substantial regulatory steps that helped the 
Administration achieve its regulatory policy objectives. The following 
are a few examples:
 FAA completed four rulemakings to harmonize aviation safety 
            rules with European standards. Overall, the rules should 
            save the industry at least $100 million (perhaps up to $1 
            billion, depending on economic conditions) over 10 years.
 FAA took action to permit more liberal use of flight 
            simulators and flight training devices for airman 
            certification training, testing, and checking. Benefits 
            will include savings in flight hours and fuel, and the 
            decreased potential for accidents during training.
 DOT suspended the requirement for preemployment alcohol 
            testing in advance of legislation to make such testing 
            permanently discretionary in the National Highway System 
            Act of 1995. This has saved the motor carrier, mass 
            transit, aviation, and railroad industries $28 million a 
            year. DOT is now in the process of amending its rules to 
            conform to the statutory language.
 USCG reduced the reporting burdens placed on sponsors of 
            marine events while continuing to protect life at sea. This 
            change will lower the number of permit requests filed 
            annually from over 3,000 to below 100.
 FHWA eliminated a requirement for semiannual reports regarding 
            on-the-job training on Federal-aid construction contracts. 
            Elimination of this requirement reduced the administrative 
            burden on highway construction contractors and State 
            highway agencies.
 MARAD amended its rules governing the ``Title XI'' Obligation 
            Guarantees Program to significantly shorten the time for 
            processing applications for guarantees and reduce the 
            amount of information required by applicants.
 RSPA removed unnecessary, obsolete, and duplicative 
            regulations. It changed the format of the Hazardous 
            Materials Table and List of Hazardous Substances to 
            eliminate approximately 100 pages from the CFR.
In responding to other Presidential initiatives, the Department is 
ensuring that compliance efforts reward results and deemphasize red 
tape. It is stressing results, and education and training programs, to 
assist regulators and customers to work together 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. These 
have included summits with front-line regulators and representatives of 
regulated industries. In addition, the Department's agencies have 
established a number of continuing partnership mechanisms in the form 
of rulemaking advisory committees.
The Department of Transportation was a pioneer in creating the 
regulatory negotiation concept, and it conducted the Federal 
Government's first

[[Page 62112]]

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. Regulatory 
negotiation projects currently planned, underway, or completed concern 
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), 
qualifications for pipeline personnel (RSPA), and modernizing the motor 
carrier financial reporting requirements in light of changes made by 
the ICC Termination Act (Bureau of Transportation Statistics, BTS).
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 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, the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Act of 1996 (including congressional review of rules). It also provides 
updated information on such matters as compliance with Executive 
orders, economic analyses, the Regulatory Agenda and Plan, and other 
regulatory policy matters. OST provides guidance and training 
concerning cost-benefit analyses and risk assessments, as well as 
offering DOT personnel periodic training on regulatory development and 
process.
OST led and coordinated the Department's response to the Administration 
and Congress in 1995-96 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. 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.
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, vessel and facility oil spill 
response plans, and operational measures to prevent oil spills from 
tank vessels without double hulls. Other rulemaking projects, including 
requirements for hazardous substance response plans, 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 has begun an effort 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. The Coast 
Guard sponsors standing advisory committees and councils including: 
Chemical Transportation, Towing Safety, Merchant Marine Personnel, 
National Offshore Safety, Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel, National 
Boating Safety, and Navigational Safety, to facilitate a broad range of 
interests participating in regulatory development. Very few of the 
Coast Guard information collection requirements are in the form of 
regularly scheduled reports.
In 1994, the Coast Guard reviewed each part of the Code of Federal 
Regulations for which it is responsible,

[[Page 62113]]

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, in 1995 and 1996 the Coast Guard 
removed more than 370 pages from the Code of Federal Regulations and 
reinvented more than 1,250 others, with the substantive effect of 
facilitating international commerce while also protecting maritime 
safety and the marine environment.
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 77 
            issues. To date, the ARAC has accomplished the issuance of 
            12 notices of proposed rulemaking, 11 final rules, and 10 
            advisory circulars.
 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.
 Changing the regulatory process to conform more closely with 
            other changes being implemented throughout the Agency. In 
            May of 1996, the Administrator announced the results of a 
            comprehensive review of the regulation and certification 
            capabilities, better known as Challenge 2000. In the final 
            report, the FAA noted that it faces a rapidly changing 
            aviation environment which is becoming global in nature 
            with increased growth and technology. This in turn could 
            accelerate a pace of change that would also have to meet 
            increasing public expectations. In terms of the regulatory 
            process, it found that the regulatory process is lengthy, 
            that additional regulations alone will not answer the 
            future challenges, and that Government and industry must 
            build effective partnerships to achieve the challenge of 
            the years ahead. The FAA is committed to identifying 
            industry best practices, to developing centers of 
            excellence, to using empowered rulemaking teams, and to 
            promulgating performance-based rules.
 Improving the rulemaking process internally. Managers would 
            provide rulemaking with greater visibility and top-level 
            attention as rulemaking teams identify issues early in the 
            process. The process of rulemaking would utilize the 
            integrated team concept. More flexibility of compliance 
            would be provided by developing regulations that require a 
            standard of performance, rather than rigid requirements, 
            such as number of training hours. The Agency also plans 
            periodic and selective reviews of the FARs.
Top regulatory priorities of the FAA for 1996-1997 include the 
regulations governing duty limitations and rest requirements for flight 
crewmembers, an update to the digital flight data recorder 
requirements, and three separate regulations to address airspace 
management and noise from aircraft overflights of the national parks 
(one specifically applying to the Grand Canyon National Park, one for 
the Rocky Mountain National Park, and the third to apply to national 
parks in general). Also, the White House Commission on Aviation Safety 
and Security, chaired by Vice President Gore, will be making a number 
of recommendations in the months ahead to enhance aviation safety and 
security and modernize air traffic control. To the extent regulatory 
action will be needed to support the recommendations, the FAA will take 
the appropriate action.
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.

[[Page 62114]]

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 will continue evaluating Standard 208's automatic crash 
protection requirement and Standard 214's new dynamic side-impact 
protection requirement and begin evaluating Standard 108's requirement 
for reflective marking (either retroreflective tape or reflex 
reflectors) on heavy truck trailers to enhance their detectability at 
night or under other conditions of reduced visibility. NHTSA will also 
begin evaluating the implementation of the American Automobile Labeling 
Act, which requires new passenger cars, light trucks and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles to carry labels providing information on their 
domestic and foreign parts content.
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 regulations 
that are potential candidates for rescission or amendment. NHTSA 
completed action on many of the candidate regulations and will complete 
action on the few remaining ones in the coming year. The Agency will 
also 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.
While railroad safety has improved substantially over the past decade 
due to the implementation of easy and obvious risk reduction measures, 
significant risk remains due to the nature of rail transportation. 
Properly ranking safety priorities, based on apparent need and 
available opportunities for risk reduction, requires increasingly 
sophisticated approaches to accident and casualty trend analysis, 
industry practices, and other factors. Fashioning solutions that have 
favorable benefit-to-cost ratios, and that, where feasible, incorporate 
flexible performance standards, requires cooperative action by all 
affected parties. Interested parties have traditionally approached rail 
safety rulemakings in an adversarial manner, however, which greatly 
inhibited the development of the best regulatory approaches to resolve 
difficult safety issues.
FRA began addressing these concerns when it decided to use negotiated 
rulemaking to create a rule addressing the safety of roadway workers. 
Begun early in 1995, the negotiated rulemaking advisory committee 
reached a consensus agreement about how best to ensure the safety of 
roadway workers and presented its recommendations to the Agency. FRA 
issued an NPRM based upon these recommendations in March of 1996 and 
expects to issue the rule in final by November of 1996. This negotiated 
rulemaking represented an historic departure from FRA's traditional 
rulemaking program.
Building on its success with this collaborative rulemaking experience, 
and also to further address the concerns delineated above, FRA 
established the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) in late March 
of 1996. Making collaborative rulemaking a new way of doing business at 
FRA is essential to future improvements in public and railroad employee 
safety. RSAC provides the foundation for accomplishing this objective 
because it represents a rare commitment on the part of labor unions, 
railroads, and private associations to work together, and with FRA, on 
the establishment of regulatory priorities, the gathering and analysis 
of safety data, and the development of standards which are necessary to 
ensure that maximum safety levels are both obtained and maintained. As 
such, it is important to the creation of trust, both between the Agency 
and the industry, as well as among industry members.
The purpose of RSAC is to develop consensus recommendations for 
regulatory action on issues referred to it by FRA. Where consensus is 
achieved, and FRA believes it serves the public interest, the resulting 
rule is very likely to be better understood, more widely accepted, more 
cost-beneficial, and more correctly applied. Where consensus cannot be 
achieved, however, FRA will fulfill its regulatory role without the 
benefit of RSAC's recommendations.

[[Page 62115]]

The RSAC has met on a quarterly basis so far and currently has 
established working groups to address the following five tasks: (1) the 
revision of the regulations governing power brake systems for freight 
equipment; (2) the revision of the regulations governing track safety 
standards; (3) the revision of the regulations governing radio 
standards and procedures; (4) the revision of the regulations governing 
locomotive inspection standards for steam-powered locomotives; and (5) 
the review of FRA regulations for their applicability to tourist, 
excursion, scenic, and historic railroads on and off the general rail 
system.
Other than those items being addressed by the RSAC, or other 
collaborative rulemaking initiatives like the negotiated rulemaking on 
roadway worker safety, FRA's current regulatory priorities include the 
issuance of final rules on several important subjects: passenger 
equipment standards, emergency preparedness for rail passenger service, 
and two-way end-of-train telemetry devices.
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 1996 is to 
assist FTA recipients in complying with the drug and alcohol rules and 
the State safety oversight rule.
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 adequate and efficient water transportation services for American 
shippers and consumers. To advance these objectives, MARAD issues 
regulations, which are principally administrative and interpretive in 
nature, when appropriate, in order to provide a net benefit to the U.S. 
maritime industry. In developing its regulations MARAD routinely 
consults with other interested agencies, for example, the Departments 
of Defense and Agriculture, to ensure that its cargo preference 
regulations can be implemented by those agencies in a cost-effective 
manner.
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)
The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) has 
responsibility for rulemaking under two 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.
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 update and consolidate the 
regulatory requirements for cylinders used to transport hazardous 
materials.
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 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 created 
the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). BTS is responsible for 
compiling, analyzing, and making accessible information on the nation's 
transportation systems; collecting information on intermodal 
transportation and other areas as needed; and enhancing the quality and 
effectiveness of the statistical program of DOT through research, the 
development of guidelines, and the promotion of improvements in data 
acquisition and use.
One of BTS's regulatory priorities is to completely review its motor 
carrier financial data collection program. The data is collected under 
recently revised statutory authority, which requires BTS to give 
consideration to: (1) safety needs; (2) the need to preserve 
confidential business information and trade secrets and prevent 
competitive harm; (3) private sector, academic, and public use of 
information in the reports; and (4) the public interest. Further, the 
statute calls for BTS to ``streamline and simplify'' reporting 
requirements to the ``maximum extent practicable.'' Among the issues 
BTS plans to address are: which motor carriers should report, what data 
items should be collected, and how often should data be collected. BTS 
hopes to use negotiated rulemaking to help it design a collection 
program that meets legitimate public and private sector data needs 
while minimizing the burden on the industry.
BTS's Office of Airline Information (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's regulatory priority in the aviation area is to conduct a complete 
review and modernization of the passenger origin and destination 
survey.

[[Page 62116]]

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 changing airline industry.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Office of the Secretary (OST)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

77. +PASSENGER MANIFEST INFORMATION
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 49 USC 44909


CFR Citation:


 14 CFR 243


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, March 16, 1991.


Abstract:


This rule would require that each air carrier and foreign air carrier 
collect basic information from specified passengers traveling on flight 
segments to or from the United States. U.S. carriers would collect the 
information for all passengers and foreign air carriers would collect 
the information for U.S. citizens. The information would include the 
passenger's full name and passport number and issuing country code, if 
a passport is required for travel. In addition, airlines would be 
required to solicit the name and telephone number of a person or entity 
to be contacted in case of emergency. Airlines would be required to 
make a record of passengers who decline to provide an emergency 
contact. The information would be provided to the Departments of 
Transportation and State in case of an aviation disaster. This 
rulemaking is considered significant because of substantial public 
interest and the congressional mandate.


Statement of Need:


During the immediate aftermath of the tragic bombing of Pan American 
Flight over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, the Department of State 
experienced difficulties in securing complete and accurate passenger 
manifest information and in notifying the families of victims. The 
Department of State did not receive the information for ``more than 
seven hours after the tragedy'' and then, in accordance with current 
airline practice, it included only the passenger's surnames and first 
initials which was insufficient information to permit notification of 
the victims' families in a timely manner. There were continuing 
problems after subsequent crashes on international flights from the 
U.S. that took place near Cali, Columbia, in December 1995, and off 
Long Island, New York, in July 1996.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


This proposal is being issued in order to implement the requirements of 
49 USC 44909. In 1990, Congress mandated that the Secretary of 
Transportation require all U.S. air carriers to provide a passenger 
manifest for any flight to an appropriate representatives of the U.S. 
Department of State (1) not later than 1 hour after any such carrier is 
notified of an aviation disaster outside the United States which 
involves such flight; or (2) if it is not technologically feasible or 
reasonable to fulfill the requirement of this subsection within 1 hour, 
then as expeditiously as possible, but no later than 3 hours after such 
notification.
In addition, the statute requires that the passenger manifest 
information include the full name of each passenger, the passport 
number of each passenger, if a passport is required for travel, and the 
name and telephone number of an emergency contact for each passenger. 
The statute further notes that the Secretary of Transportation shall 
consider the necessity and feasibility of requiring U.S. carriers to 
collect passenger manifest information as a condition for passenger 
boarding of any flight subject to the passenger manifest requirements. 
Finally, the statute provides that the Secretary of Transportation 
shall consider a requirement for foreign air carriers comparable to 
that imposed on U.S. air carriers.


Alternatives:


The Department is proposing to waive compliance with certain 
requirements if an air carrier has in effect a signed Memorandum of 
Understanding with the Department of State concerning cooperation and 
mutual assistance following aviation disasters abroad.
The Department proposes to allow air carriers to develop their own 
passenger manifest data collection systems. Air carriers would be free 
to adopt any system that minimizes the burden on them, so long as the 
system is capable of meeting the requirements set out in the statute. 
In an attempt to not disproportionately burden smaller air carriers, 
DOT is considering, in addition, a longer phase-in period for these air 
carriers.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The Department estimates that the rule would cost between $27.6 and 
$44.8 million per year plus a one-time start-up cost of $30.5 million. 
The direct benefits would include prompt and accurate notification to 
families of victims of aviation disasters that occur on flights to and 
from the United States and a general increase in the response 
capability of the Department of State regarding its duties to U.S. 
citizens and to foreign governments following an aviation disaster.


Risks:


This action addresses the need for prompt and accurate notification of 
families of victims of aviation disasters on international flights to 
or from the U.S. We expect the action to significantly reduce, if not 
eliminate, many of the notification problems that the air carriers and 
the Department of State have encountered in previous aviation 
disasters.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           56 FR 3810                                     01/31/91
ANPRM Correction56 FR 5665                                     02/12/91
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       02/19/91
Notice: Public M61 FR 10706/96                                 03/15/96
NPRM            61 FR 47692                                    09/10/96
NPRM Comment Period End                                        11/12/96
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Analysis:


 Regulatory Evaluation 09/10/96 (61 FR 47692)


Additional Information:


This entry was formerly titled Aviation Security: Passenger Manifest 
Information.


Agency Contact:
Bernard Gaillard
Director, Office of International Transportation and Trade
Department of Transportation
Office of the Secretary
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-4368
RIN: 2105-AB78

[[Page 62117]]

_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

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


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


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 final 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 carried in bulk by vessels.


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. While the specific estimates of potential 
monetary costs and benefits have not been measured, this is considered 
an economically significant action. 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           61 FR 20084                                    05/03/96
Notice of Public61 FR 34775                                    07/03/96
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       09/03/96
NPRM                                                           09/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Analysis:


 Economic Analysis


Agency Contact:
LT Cliff Thomas
Project Manager
G-MSR-2
Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW.
Washington, DC 20593-0001
Phone: 202 267-1099
RIN: 2115-AE87
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--USCG
79. +TANK VESSEL RESPONSE PLANS FOR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES (CGD 94-032)
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined

[[Page 62118]]

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 final 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           61 FR 20084                                    05/03/96
Notice of Public61 FR 34775                                    07/03/96
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       09/03/96
NPRM                                                           09/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Analysis:


 Regulatory Evaluation


Agency Contact:
LT Cliff Thomas
Project Manager
G-MSR-2
Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW.
Washington, DC 20593-0001
Phone: 202 267-1099
RIN: 2115-AE88
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--USCG

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

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


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 46 USC 3703; PL 101-380


CFR Citation:


 33 CFR 157


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, August 18, 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

[[Page 62119]]

January 15, 2015. Interim measures may include structural 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 990, 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, under pressure 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. In light of the comments received at the public meeting and in 
response to the written comments received on the NPRM, the Coast Guard 
reviewed the proposed requirements for structural and operational 
measures. To expedite the implementation of section 4115(b) of OPA 90, 
the Coast Guard developed a three-pronged approach which encompassed 
three separate rulemaking projects. First, the Coast Guard issued a 
final rule on August 5, 1994, requiring the carriage of emergency 
lightering equipment and the inclusion of the vessel;s International 
Maritime Organization (IMO) number in the advance notice of arrival 
report; second, under RIN number 2115-AE01, on November 3, 1995, the 
Coast Guard issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) 
regarding additional operational measures. The final rule on 
operational measures was published on July 30, 1996. It contains 
requirements for bridge resource management and vessel specific policy 
and procedures, enhanced survey programs, maneuvering performance 
capability tests, and other measures aimed at reducing the likelihood 
of an oil discharge from these vessels. Third, on December 28, 1995, 
the Coast Guard issued an SNPRM regarding structural requirements for 
Single-hull tank vessels. Structural measures addressed in this third 
project included hydrostatic loading requirements, structural refit of 
existing hull areas, emergency cargo off-loading capabilities, and 
other structural adaptations or major cargo carrying adjustments. The 
Coast Guard plans to issue a final rule in December 1996.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The costs of the regulation on structural measures 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 Coast Guard is reexamining the economic and 
technological feasibility of imposing certain structural requirements 
in light of the finding contained in the revised regulatory assessment. 
The principal benefit of these rules will be a potential reduction in 
oil spillage into U.S. waters. This should result in reduced cleanup 
costs and natural resource damages. The regulations will 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
NPRM            58 FR 54870                                    10/22/93
NPRM Comment Period End                                        12/20/93
SNPRM           60 FR 67226                                    12/28/95
Notice of Meetin61 FR 6334ent Period Extended to 4/10/96       02/20/96
Notice of Correc61 FR 6590PRM                                  02/21/96
SNPRM Comment Period End                                       03/27/96
Final Action                                                   12/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Analysis:


 Regulatory Evaluation


Additional Information:


This action was part of RIN 2115-AE01 until the Notice of Correction to 
the SNPRM, published 2/21/96, 61 FR 6590, which corrected Table 2 and 
identified the new RIN, 2115-AF27 for Structural Measures. The public 
meeting was 3/19/96. The final rule for operational measures, RIN 2115-
AE01, was published on July 30, 1996, 61 FR 39770.


Agency Contact:
LCDR S. Englebert
Project Manager
G-MSR-2
Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW.
Washington, DC 20593-0001
Phone: 202 267-6490
RIN: 2115-AF27
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

81. +REVISIONS TO DIGITAL FLIGHT DATA RECORDER RULES
Priority:


Other Significant

[[Page 62120]]

Legal Authority:


 49 USC 106(g); 49 USC 40104 to 40105; 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 40119; 49 
USC 44101; 49 USC 44701 to 44702; 49 USC 44705; 49 USC 44709 to 44711; 
49 USC 44712; 49 USC 44715; 49 USC 44716 to 44717; 49 USC 44722; 49 USC 
44901 to 44904; 49 USC 44906; 49 USC 44912


CFR Citation:


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


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule will revise the Federal Aviation Regulations to require that 
additional parameters be recorded by certain aircraft digital flight 
data recorders. This rulemaking follows a recommendation from the 
National Transportation Safety Board. This rule will allow for more 
comprehensive accident and incident information to be gathered. The 
accident and incident data gathered by recorders is essential to 
prescribe future corrective action. This rulemaking is considered 
significant because of anticipated costs and substantial public 
interest.


Statement of Need:


The history of aircraft accidents and the lack of information that has 
inhibited proper investigation of their causes is much broader than 
recent accident experience with certain Boeing 737 airplanes. 
Historical records of airplane incidents suggest that additional 
reliable data for the entire fleet of transport category airplanes is 
necessary to identify causes of these incidents before accidents occur. 
This rule will expand the data collection requirements to include all 
parameters that can cost-effectively be collected.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


49 USC 44701 empowers the Administrator to prescribe regulations and 
minimum standards in the interest of safety for aircraft and equipment.


Alternatives:


Some alternatives considered include: European Joint Aviation 
Requirements for Operations vs. parameters proposed in this rulemaking 
(57 vs. 88 parameters); whether airplanes with 10-19 passenger seats 
should be covered; whether expected but not currently existing 
technology could be mandated in future requirements for new airplanes.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


For a 4-year compliance timeframe, the estimated costs of this rule 
would be $309.0 million ($259.2 discounted). It is expected, however, 
that implementing this rule will help reduce accidents because the 
recordation of additional parameters will aid in determining probable 
cause of an incident or accident, and will supply information that may 
detect a trend in operations that can be corrected before an accident 
or incident could occur.
DFDR's do not in and of themselves prevent accidents; they are used as 
an investigative tool when accidents or incidents occur. From the DFDR 
information, a greater understanding of the dynamics and probable 
causes of accidents and incidents can be obtained. With this knowledge, 
a ``fix'' can be made to reduce the chance of a similar occurrence in 
the future. In addition, the FAA will be able to use incident 
information to reduce accidents of the nature that are currently of 
undetermined cause.


Risks:


If adopted, this action will help provide data to prevent otherwise 
non-preventable accidents based on past experience.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            61 FR 37144                                    07/16/96
NPRM Comments Due on Parts 121, 125, and 135                   08/15/96
NPRM Comments Due on Part 129                                  11/13/96
Final Action                                                   12/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Analysis:


 Regulatory Evaluation 07/16/96 (61 FR 37144)


Additional Information:


Project Number: AIR-95-267R. This is an Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 
Committee project.


Agency Contact:
Frank Rock
Office of Aircraft Certification
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20591
Phone: 202 267-9567
RIN: 2120-AF76
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--FAA
82. +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 authority to license and otherwise 
regulate commercial launches and the commercial operation of launch 
sites. In accordance with this authority, delegated to the FAA, the 
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST) 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 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 
AST'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 general administrative procedures 
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 FAA's Associate

[[Page 62121]]

Administrator for Commercing Space Tax 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, a future rulemaking currently under development by the FAA 
will address the procedures and requirements applicable to the 
licensing of commercial launch site 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 FAA's 
Assoc. Administrator for 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. the FAA is required under U.S.C. 
70101-70119 to review and act upon applications for licenses to conduct 
commercial launches. The Act does not permit the FAA 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 FAA by establishing a 
more efficient licensing mechanism, thereby reducing staff time.


Risks:


The Assistant Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation of the 
FAA 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 
FAA's 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, the FAA 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
Extended Comment59 FR 62359 12/16/94                           12/05/94
NPRM                                                           10/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Analysis:


 Regulatory Evaluation 10/00/96


Additional Information:


This action first appeared in the Agenda under RIN 2105-AB85. However, 
it was transferred from the Office of the Secretary, Department of 
Transportation, to the Federal Aviation Administration due to Transfer 
of Delegations. See 60 FR 62762, December 7, 1995, for information of 
the delegation.
Project Number: AST-96-142R.


Agency Contact:
Frank Weaver
Associate Administrator for
Commercial Space Transportation
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-2937
RIN: 2120-AF99
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--FAA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

83. +FLIGHT CREWMEMBER DUTY PERIOD LIMITATIONS, FLIGHT TIME 
LIMITATIONS, AND REST REQUIREMENTS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 49 USC 106(g); 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 40119; 49 USC 44101; 49 USC 44701 
to 44701; 49 USC 44705; 49 USC 44709 to 44711; 49 USC 44712; 49 USC 
44713; 49 USC 44715; 49 USC 44716 to 44717; 49 USC 44722; 49 USC 44901; 
49 USC 44903 to 44904; 49 USC 44912


CFR Citation:


 14 CFR 121; 14 CFR 135


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would amend the regulations to establish one set of 
duty period limitations, flight time limitations, and rest requirements 
for flight crewmembers engaged in air transportation. The proposal 
resulted from public and congressional interest in regulating flight 
crewmember rest requirements, NTSB Safety Recommendations, petitions 
for rulemaking, and scientific data contained in recent National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration reports. The proposal would 
replace certain outdated regulations with a simplified regulatory 
approach based on scientific studies of fatigue. The objective of the 
proposal is to ensure that flight crewmembers are provided with the 
opportunity to obtain sufficient rest to perform their routine and 
emergency safety duties.
This action is considered significant because of substantial public 
interest.

[[Page 62122]]




Statement of Need:


The aviation community requires 24-hour activities to meet operational 
demands. Growth in long-haul, regional, overnight cargo, and short-haul 
domestic operations are increasing. Therefore, shift work, night work, 
irregular work schedules, and time zone changes will continue to be 
commonplace.
With this growth, the scientific knowledge about sleep, sleep 
disorders, circadian physiology, fatigue, and performance decrements 
has also grown. Some of the scientific knowledge has indicated that 
aviators experience performance-impairing fatigue from sleep loss 
resulting from current flight and duty practices. A primary purpose of 
this rulemaking is to incorporate as much as possible of the scientific 
knowledge into the applicable regulations.
In addition, industry and individuals have told the FAA that the 
current regulations are confusing and difficult to enforce. Therefore, 
a second purpose of the rulemaking is to establish consistent and clear 
duty period limitations and rest requirements for all types of 
operations.


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:


One obvious alternative would be to continue with the current rules, 
which would be very expensive for the industry. In reviewing the 
comments, the FAA is also considering other reserve alternatives that 
would not penalize certain segments of the industry, such as the air 
ambulance operators. There is no overall alternative to rest and duty 
regulations; however, there may be some alternatives that would lend 
flexibility for operators.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The FAA estimates in the NPRM that total discounted costs over a 10-
year period would range between $536 and $800.17 million. Benefits 
accruing from preventing a fatal accident and the opportunity for using 
pilots more intensively, are estimated to be approximately $780 million 
over 10 years.


Risks:


Although there has been only one identifiable accident due to pilot 
fatigue, fatigue is increasingly becoming the focus of possible causes 
following all accidents. Pilot reports of being fatigued to the point 
of incapacity are not uncommon, and NASA test data indicates that 
pilots are subject to dozing. Intuitively, it is reasonable to expect, 
that as air traffic increases, there will be more pilots, and thus more 
of a probability of fatigued pilots. This is especially true in 
overnight delivery operations, which are expected to increase 
significantly in the future.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            60 FR 65951                                    12/20/95
NPRM Comment Period End                                        03/19/96
Extended Comment61 FR 11492 6/19/96                            03/20/96
Final Action                                                   07/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Analysis:


 Regulatory Evaluation 12/20/95 (60 FR 65951)


Additional Information:


Project Number AFS-94-443R


Agency Contact:
Larry Youngblut
Air Transportation Division
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20591
Phone: 202 267-3755
RIN: 2120-AF63
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--FAA
84. +AIRSPACE MANAGEMENT: SPECIAL FLIGHT RULES IN THE VICINITY OF THE 
GRAND CANYON
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 49 USC 106(g); 49 USC 40103; 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 40120; 49 USC 44101; 
49 USC 44111; 49 USC 44701; 49 USC 44709; 49 USC 44711; 49 USC 44712; 
49 USC 44715; 49 USC 44716; 49 USC 44717; 49 USC 44722; 49 USC 46306


CFR Citation:


 14 CFR 91; 14 CFR 93; 14 CFR 121; 14 CFR 135


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


In l987, the Congress enacted P.L. 100-91, commonly known as the 
National Parks Overflights Act, which stated that noise associated with 
aircraft overflights at Grand Canyon National Park was causing ``a 
significant adverse effect on the natural quiet and experience of the 
park and current aircraft operations at the Grand Canyon National Park 
have raised serious concerns regarding public safety, including 
concerns regarding the safety of park users.'' The law mandated a 
number of studies and required that subsequent recommendations provide 
for the substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience of 
the park and protection of public health and safety from adverse 
effects associated with overflights.
In March l994, the FAA and the National Park Service issued an ANPRM 
seeking public comment on policy recommendations addressing the effects 
of aircraft overflights on National parks, including Grand Canyon 
National Park. The FAA received more than 30,000 comments.
On April 22, l996, the President issued a memorandum directing the 
Secretary of Transportation to issue within 90 days; proposed 
regulations to place appropriate limits on sightseeing aircraft over 
the Grand Canyon National Park to reduce the noise immediately and make 
further substantial progress toward restoration of the natural quiet. 
The memorandum further directed that action on this rulemaking be 
completed by the end of 1996.
On July 31, l996, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking to 
provide a variety of options for the continued elimination of noise in 
the Grand Canyon National Park. The comment period on the proposal 
closed September 30, 1996. In addition, public meetings were held in 
September 1996.
The Department of Transportation has been working with the Department 
of Interior to address the issue of reducing noise from aircraft 
overflights of the national parks and restoring the national quiet. In 
addition to this rule on the Grand Canyon, there are two other 
significant rulemaking actions which are included in the overall 
regulatory effort. They are a rule on

[[Page 62123]]

Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of the Rocky Mountain National 
Park (RIN 2120-AG11) and Overflights of Units of the National Park 
System (RIN 2120-AF46).


Statement of Need:


As pointed out in the referenced Presidential memorandum, aircraft 
flying at low altitudes can mar the natural beauty of the parks and 
present considerable problems to the environment. If not monitored, 
aircraft noise can interfere with wildlife, cultural resources and 
visitors' enjoyment of the park.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 41103, Title 49 of the United States Code states that the 
Administrator shall develop plans and policy for the use of the 
navigable airspace and shall assign by regulation or order the use of 
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the 
efficient use of airspace.


Alternatives:


In addition to the basic proposal for more restrictions and flight-free 
zones, the proposed rulemaking contains two principal alternatives to 
further protect park resources: a moratorium or immediate cap on 
flights and an operational curfew on when flights could be conducted. 
Another alternative, although very costly, might be an allocation of 
slots.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The FAA estimates that the annual cost of establishing and modifying 
the flight-free zones and corridors and adding the new reporting 
requirement is approximately $1.3 million in potential operator revenue 
losses and added consumer costs. The FAA also estimates that, with the 
introduction of the variable flight-free periods for the 3-year 
timeframe 1999-2001, the average annual cost would rise to about $11.0 
million for variable and fixed curfews. The estimated cost of the 
proposed alternative to flight-free periods (a cap) would have slightly 
lower costs. Benefits are measured by an estimated 38 percent increase 
of the park experiencing a substantial restoration of the natural 
quiet.


Risks:


The alternative of not doing rulemaking, or the destruction of the 
natural quiet, has been determined to be a greater risk than the 
rulemaking, especially as the FAA has stated in the proposal that any 
combination of the proposals may be adopted.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            61 FR 40120                                    07/31/96
Correction      61 FR 41040                                    08/07/96
NPRM Comment Period End                                        09/30/96
Final Action                                                   12/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Analysis:


 Regulatory Evaluation 07/31/96 (61 FR 40120)


Additional Information:


Project Number: ATP-95-236R.


Agency Contact:
Neil Saunders
Air Traffic Rules Branch
Air Traffic Rules and Procedures Service
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20591
Phone: 202 267-9241
RIN: 2120-AF93
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

85. +FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS: HEAD IMPACT PROTECTION
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 49 USC 322; 49 USC 30111; 49 USC 30115; 49 USC 30117; 49 USC 30166


CFR Citation:


 49 CFR 571.201


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would amend Federal motor vehicle standard No. 201 
``Occupant Protection in Interior Impact'' to modify the performance 
requirement and test procedures in order to facilitate the introduction 
and assess the performance of crash deployed restraint systems that 
will provide occupants with protection in side impacts and other crash 
modes. This action is considered significant because of substantial 
public interest.


Statement of Need:


Having installed air bags to provide crash-deployed protection in 
frontal crashes, motor vehicle manufacturers are now developing a 
variety of technologies for providing crash-deployed protection in 
other crash modes, including side crashes. However, the manufacturers 
believe that they cannot do so without amendments to the upper interior 
head protection requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard 
No. 201.
Those requirements are intended to reduce deaths and injuries to motor 
vehicle occupants resulting from impacts with the interior of the 
passenger compartment. They were adopted in a rulemaking proceeding 
completed in 1995. In that year, NHTSA published a final rule amending 
Standard 201 to require passenger cars and trucks, busses, and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles (collectively, LTVs) with a gross 
vehicle weight rateing (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, to provide 
protection against injury when an occupant's head strikes upper 
interior components, including pillars, side rails, headers, and the 
roof, during a crash (60 FR 43031). The amendments added procedures and 
performance requirements for a new in-vehicle component test. It is 
expected that vehicle manufacturers will comply using a variety of 
energy absorbing materials. The potential benefits of this rulemaking 
place it among the highest benefit rulemaking in the agency history.
The advent of new dynamic restraint and head protection systems such as 
side air bags, may require modification of this standard. These dynamic 
systems, which may offer significant safety benefits, may not conform 
to the standard as it is currently written. Accordingly, NHTSA is 
considering amendments to Standard No. 201 that would allow these 
dynamic systems and specify new requirements and test procedures to 
assess their performance.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 30111, Title 49 of the United States Code, states that the 
Secretary shall prescribe motor vehicle safety standards. Authority to 
prescribe such standards is delegated to the Administrator by 49 CFR 
501.2.

[[Page 62124]]

Alternatives:


NHTSA is reviewing comments and suggestions included in petitions for 
reconsideration of the August 1995 final rule. The agency is in the 
process of evaluating a variety of performance requirements and test 
procedures for the purpose of making a tentative assessment of which 
would most appropriately measure the performance of the dynamic 
systems, and assure their effectiveness. Given that the petitioners are 
contemplating significantly different types of technology, more than 
one set of requirements and test procedures may be necessary.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


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


Risks:


Even in the future when all cars and light trucks on the road are 
equipped with air bags, an estimated 1,924 fatalities per year will 
occur from an occupant's head striking an upper interior surface. A 
variety of dynamic systems are being considered as an alternative or 
supplement to simply padding certain portions of these surfaces. 
Padding is estimated to be able to reduce these fatalities by 873 to 
1,045 annually. The effectiveness of dynamic systems, some of which 
also address additional accident modes, is currently being studied.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           61 FR 9136                                     03/07/96
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       04/22/96
NPRM                                                           10/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Steve Kratzke
Division Chief
Planning and Review Division
Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-5203
RIN: 2127-AG07
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--NHTSA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

86. +FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS; OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 49 USC 322; 49 USC 30111; 49 USC 30115; 49 USC 30117; 49 USC 30166


CFR Citation:


 49 CFR 571.208


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The agency is proposing amendments to the occupant crash protection 
standard and child restraint standard to reduce the adverse effects of 
air bags, especially those on children. Eventually, either through 
market forces or government regulation, the NHTSA expects that 
``smart'' passenger-side air bags will be installed in passenger cars 
and light trucks to mitigate these adverse effects. The agency 
considers smart air bags to include any system that automatically 
prevents an air bag from injuring the two groups of children that 
experience has shown to be at special risk from air bags: infants in 
rear-facing child seats and children who are out-of-position (because 
they are unbelted or improperly belted) when the air bag deploys. This 
is considered significant because of substantial public interest.


Statement of Need:


As of August 1, 1996, NHTSA had identified 22 crashes in which the 
deployment of the passenger-side air bag resulted in fatal injuries to 
a child. In addition, the agency had investigated 5 cases of serious 
injuries to children in air-bag-related crashes. The fatalities are 
believed to reflect a complete census of all fatalities related to air 
bags and small children. The injuries are not a census; they simply are 
cases that have come to NHTSA's attention. The number of fatalities and 
injuries is expected to grow dramatically as the number of passenger-
side air bags in the fleet grows dramatically. Between 1995 and 2000, 
the number of passenger-side air bags will increase by a factor of six. 
Out-of-position adult injuries and fatalities are also being 
investigated.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 30111, title 49 of the United States Code, states that the 
Secretary shall prescribe motor vehicle safety standards. Section 
30127, title 49, states that the Secretary shall require the 
installation of air bags in the driver's and right front passenger's 
seating positions in passenger cars and light trucks. Authority to 
prescribe such standards is delegated to the Administrator by 49 CFR 
501.2.


Alternatives:


Several alternatives are being examined to reduce the risks. These 
include: labeling, manual cutoff switches, and ``smart'' air bags 
(including weight sensors to preclude air bag deployment in the 
presence of children).


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The costs of this rulemaking are dependent on the nature of the 
alternatives ultimately adopted by the agency. NHTSA estimates that the 
costs of the new or enhanced labels that would be required by the 
proposed rule at between 15 and 25 cents per vehicle. The enhanced 
labels for child restraints would add between $0.05 and $1.00 per child 
restraint. The costs of automatic cutoff devices, or other automatic 
systems to prevent injuries from bags, varies considerably, although 
the agency does not have accurate estimates of these costs. A weight 
sensor may cost $20 or more; a smart air bag system incorporating other 
technologies may add $50 or more in incremental cost; an air bag that 
utilizes different fold patterns and inflators may add very little 
incremental cost to the current air bag system. These are all rough 
estimates. NHTSA estimates the cost of a manual cutoff device at a 
little over five dollars. Such a device would be optional, not 
required.
The potential benefits of this action have not yet been determined.


Risks:


This is one of NHTSA's most significant rulemakings regarding children. 
The alternatives include labeling, manual cut-off switches, and 
``smart'' air bags (including weight sensors to preclude air bag 
deployment in the presence of children). The reduction in risk due to 
improved labeling and expanding the option for manufacturers to install 
manual cut-off switches has not been quantified. The effectiveness of 
smart air bags for

[[Page 62125]]

children and adults is believed to be high but has not yet been 
estimated. As an illustration of their possible effectiveness, if 
passenger weight sensors had been used with a minimum deployment 
threshold of 30 kilograms, in 19 of the 21 child fatality cases 
described above, the air bag would not have deployed. As a result, the 
child would likely not have been either fatally or even seriously 
injured.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Request for Comm60 FR 56554nt Period End 12/26/95              11/09/95
NPRM            61 FR 40784                                    08/06/96
NPRM Comment Period End                                        09/20/96
Final Action                                                   12/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Analysis:


 Regulatory Evaluation 08/06/96 (61 FR 40784)


Agency Contact:
Clarke Harper
Division Chief
Light Duty Vehicle Division
Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-4916
RIN: 2127-AG14
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

87. +RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE: EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Priority:


Other Significant


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


 49 USC 20103; 49 USC 20133; 49 USC 20111 to 20113; 49 USC 20301 to 
20306; 49 USC 21301 to 21302; 49 USC 21304 to 21311; PL 103-440, sec 
215


CFR Citation:


 49 CFR 239


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, November 2, 1997.


NPRM, Statutory, November 2, 1997, Initial regulations.


Final, Statutory, November 2, 1999, Final regulations.


Abstract:


Pursuant to the Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994, FRA 
is proposing to prescribe regulations establishing minimum emergency 
preparedness standards to ensure that railroads involved in passenger 
train operations can effectively and officially manage emergencies. The 
NPRM will provide substantial flexibility to each railroad to establish 
procedures and policies appropriate to its particular operations, 
subject to review and approval by the FRA. The NPRM will provide 
substantial flexibility to each railroad to establish procedures and 
policies appropriate to its particular operations, subject to review 
and approval by the FRA. This is considered significant due to public 
interest.
After the 1993 derailment of the ``Sunset Limited'' near Mobile, 
Alabama, the NTBS found that rescue efforts were delayed by a lack of 
prompt and accurate communication between Amtrak and emergency 
responders. Even before this, the FRA had commissioned a study by the 
Volpe Transportation Systems Center, which resulted in a publication 
containing guidelines for emergency preparedness for passenger train 
operators. Finally, some passengers in the MARC train collision in 
Silver Spring, Maryland, last year had difficulty finding and opening 
emergency window exits.


Statement of Need:


After the 1993 derailment of the ``Sunset Limited'' near Mobile, 
Alabama, the NTSB found that rescue efforts were delayed by a lack of 
prompt and accurate communication between Amtrak and emergency 
responders. Even before this, the FRA had commissioned a study by the 
Volpe Transportation Systems Center, which resulted in a publication 
containing guidelines for emergency preparedness for passenger train 
operators. Finally, some passengers in the MARC train collision in 
Silver Spring, Maryland last year had difficulty finding and opening 
emergency window exits.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 215 of the Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994, 
49 USC 20133, requires the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe 
regulation establishing minimum standards for the safety of cars used 
by railroad passengers, including emergency response procedures and 
equipment.


Alternatives:


The proposed rule is expected to incorporate a variety of alternatives, 
in order to allow each railroad to adapt the basic requirements to its 
specific operations. In addition, the NPRM will invite comment on 
whether certain additional emergency preparations should be mandatory 
for all railroads conducting passenger operations.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Undetermined.


Risks:


The Mobile, Alabama, accident showed that lack of preparation for an 
emergency can delay the arrival of emergency responders. Such a delay 
increases the risk of death and severe injuries following an accident 
or other emergency.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           10/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
David H. Kasminoff
Trial Attorney
Department of Transportation
Federal Railroad Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 632-3191
RIN: 2130-AA96
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

88. +EMERGENCY FLOW-RESTRICTING DEVICES
Priority:


Other Significant

[[Page 62126]]

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:


49 U.S.C. 60102 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. 49 U.S.C. 
60102 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                                                           03/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Docket No. PS-133. Public workshop 10/19/95 (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

                              -----------

89. +HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE (SECTION 610 REVIEW)
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 5101 to 5127


CFR Citation:


 49 CFR 107; 49 CFR 171 to 180


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 materials transportation by promoting uniformity of the 
regulations. Currently the regulations generally do not apply to 
intrastate carriage by highway, with the exception of hazardous wastes, 
hazardous substances, marine pollutants, and flammable cryogenic 
liquids in portable tanks and cargo tanks. A supplemental notice 
proposed to extend the mandatory compliance date for regulations 
applicable to certain cargo tanks, and proposed a ``materials of 
trade'' exception for relatively small quantities of hazardous 
materials contained on service vehicles operated by plumbing, welding, 
lawn service, and other non-transportation businesses. As part of this 
action, a small entities review under 5 USC Section 610 will be 
included.


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

[[Page 62127]]

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 has issued a supplemental 
notice reducing the scope of the proposed requirements.


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 Federal regulations to the intrastate 
transportation 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. Adoption of, and proficiency in using, 
one set of regulations will enhance the effectiveness of State and 
local emergency response and enforcement programs and improve 
transportation safety 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 
have led to public concern regarding the transportation of hazardous 
materials and the risks associated with such movements. This public 
concern has resulted in form of increased State and local activity 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
Extended Comment52 FR 35464 11/28/87                           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           61 FR 11484                                    03/20/96
Extended Comment61 FR 24904 8/16/96                            05/17/96
Final Action                                                   12/00/96
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. The supplemental 
notice reflects this concern.


Agency Contact:
Diane LaValle
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