Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 64283 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

(DOT) 

Introduction: Department Overview 

and Summary of Regulatory Priorities 

The Department of Transportation 

(DOT) consists of ten operating 

administrations and the Office of the 

Secretary, each of which has statutory 

responsibility for a wide range of 

regulations. DOT regulates safety in the 

aviation, motor carrier, railroad, motor 

vehicle, commercial space, and pipeline 

transportation areas. DOT also regulates 

aviation consumer and economic issues 

and provides financial assistance for 

programs involving highways, airports, 

public transportation, the maritime 

industry, railroads, and motor vehicle 

safety. The Department writes 

regulations to carry out a variety of 

statutes ranging from the Americans 

with Disabilities Act to the Uniform 

Time Act. Finally, DOT develops and 

implements a wide range of regulations 

that govern internal programs such as 

acquisitions and grants, access for the 

disabled, environmental protection, 

energy conservation, information 

technology, occupational safety and 

health, property asset management, 

seismic safety, and the use of aircraft 

and vehicles. 

This Plan identifies the Department’s 

regulatory priorities—the fourteen 

pending rulemakings that the 

Department believes will merit special 

attention in the upcoming year. The 

rules included in the Regulatory Plan 

embody the Department’s continuing 

focus on safety, consumer protection, 

environmental stewardship, and energy 

independence. 

In order to prioritize these fourteen 

rulemakings from among the dozens in 

the Department’s broad regulatory 

agenda, we focused on a number of 

factors, including the following: 

•The relative risk being addressed 

•Requirements imposed by statute or 

other law 

• Actions on the National Transportation 

Safety Board ‘‘Most Wanted List’’ 

•The costs and benefits of regulations 

•The advantages to non-regulatory 

alternatives 

• Opportunities for deregulatory action 

•The enforceability of any rule, 

including the effect on agency 

resources 

The Regulatory Plan reflects the 

Department’s primary focus on safety— 

a focus that extends across all modes of 

transportation. 

•The airways: The Plan includes 

important initiatives by the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) to 

enhance the safety of our airways— 

including a proposed rulemaking to 

revise rest requirements for 

commercial pilots. 

•The roads: The Plan includes 

proposals by the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration 

(FMCSA) and the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) to improve the safety of our 

roadways. FMCSA has initiated 

rulemakings to strengthen the 

requirements for commercial drivers’ 

licenses and carrier fitness, while 

NHTSA is protecting the passengers 

of the vehicles on America’s roads 

through proposed rules to prevent 

passenger ejection and to require seat 

belts in buses. 

•The railways: The Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) will implement 

Congress’ directive to enhance the 

safety of our nation’s rail system 

through the introduction of positive 

train control systems. 

• Pipelines: The Pipelines and 

Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration (PHMSA) will 

continue to enhance the integrity of 

the pipeline distribution system. 

The Plan also reflects the 

Department’s focus on protecting the 

nation’s environment and furthering our 

energy independence. NHTSA’s 

proposed CAFE standards for 2012-2016 

—a joint effort with the Environmental 

Protection Agency—is a milestone in 

that effort. This same focus is reflected 

in NHTSA’s proposed rulemaking on 

tire fuel efficiency. 

The Plan also contains a rulemaking 

designed to safeguard the interests of 

consumers flying the nation’s skies by 

imposing limits on tarmac delays and 

chronically delayed flights. 

Each of the rulemakings in the 

Regulatory Plan is described below in 

detail. In order to place them in context, 

we first review the Department’s 

regulatory philosophy and our 

initiatives to educate and inform the 

public about transportation safety 

issues. We then describe the role in the 

Department’s regulatory process and 

other important regulatory initiatives of 

the Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation (OST) and of each of the 

Department’s components. Since each 

transportation ‘‘mode’’ within the 

Department has its own area of focus, 

we summarize the regulatory priorities 

of each mode and of OST, which 

supervises and coordinates the modal 

initiatives, and is charged with 

consumer protection in the aviation 

industry. 

The Department’s Regulatory 

Philosophy and Initiatives 

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 effects. The Department 

will consider appropriate alternatives, 

including nonregulatory approaches. It 

will also make every effort to ensure 

that legislation does not impose 

unreasonable mandates. 

An important initiative of the 

Department has been to conduct high 

quality rulemakings in a timely manner 

and to reduce the number of old 

rulemakings. To implement this, the 

following actions have been required: 

(1) Regular meetings of senior DOT 

officials to ensure effective policy 

leadership and timely decisions, (2) 

better tracking and coordination of 

rulemakings, (3) regular reporting, (4) 

early briefings of interested officials, (5) 

better training of staff, and (6) necessary 

resource allocations. The Department 

has achieved significant success as a 

result of this initiative. This is allowing 

the Department to use its resources 

more effectively and efficiently. 

The Department’s regulatory policies 

and procedures provide a 

comprehensive internal management 

and review process for new and existing 

regulations and ensure that the 

Secretary and other appropriate 

appointed officials review and concur in 

all significant DOT rules. DOT 

continually seeks to improve its 

regulatory process. A few examples 

include: the Department’s development 

of regulatory process and related 

training courses for its employees; its 

use of an electronic, Internet-accessible 

docket that can also be used to submit 

comments electronically; a ‘‘list serve’’ 

that allows the public to sign up for email notification when the Department 

issues a rulemaking document; creation 

of an electronic rulemaking tracking and 

coordination system; the use of direct 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
64284 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 

final rulemaking; the use of regulatory 

negotiation; an expanded internet page 

that provides important regulatory 

information, including ‘‘effects’’ report 

and status reports (http://regs.dot.gov/); 

and consideration of the use of internet 

blogs to enhance public participation in 

its rulemaking process. 

In addition, the Department continues 

to engage 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. The 

Department’s agencies also have 

established a number of continuing 

partnership mechanisms in the form of 

rulemaking advisory committees. 

The Department is also actively 

engaged in the review of existing rules 

to determine whether they need to be 

revised or revoked. These reviews are in 

accordance with section 610 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, the 

Department’s regulatory policies and 

procedures, and Executive Order 12866. 

This includes determining whether the 

rules would be more understandable if 

they are written using a plain language 

approach. Appendix D to our Regulatory 

Agenda highlights our efforts in this 

area. 

The Department will also continue its 

efforts to use advances in technology to 

improve its rulemaking management 

process. For example, the Department 

created an effective tracking system for 

significant rulemakings to ensure that 

either rules are completed in a timely 

manner or delays are identified and 

fixed. Through this tracking system, a 

monthly status report is generated. To 

make its efforts more transparent, the 

Department has made this report 

Internet-accessible. By doing this, the 

Department is providing valuable 

information concerning our rulemaking 

activity and is providing information 

necessary for the public to evaluate the 

Department’s progress in meeting its 

commitment to completing quality 

rulemakings in a timely manner. 

The Department will continue to 

place great emphasis on the need to 

complete high quality rulemakings by 

involving senior Departmental officials 

in regular meetings to resolve issues 

expeditiously. 

Education and Outreach 

The Department is committed to 

ensuring that the Administration’s 

priorities related to transportation safety 

remain a paramount focus of its 

operation and has planned or initiated 

a variety of safety initiatives, summits 

and forums, throughout the country, 

that bring together senior transportation 

officials, elected officials, safety 

advocates, law enforcement 

representatives, private sector 

representatives and academics. 

Departmental initiatives include some 

of the following: 

• Distracted Driving Summit – this 

Summit brought together senior 

transportation officials, elected 

officials, safety advocates, law 

enforcement representatives, private 

sector representatives and academics 

to address a range of issues related to 

reducing accidents through 

rulemaking and enforcement, public 

awareness, and education. 

Authoritative speakers from around 

the nation led interactive panel 

discussions on a number of key topics 

including the extent and impact of 

distracted driving, current research, 

regulations, and best practices. 

Participants also examined 

distractions caused by current and 

planned automotive devices, such as 

navigational systems. 

• Motorcoach Safety Action Plan – DOT 

agencies with responsibility for 

motorcoach safety will develop an 

integrated Motorcoach Safety Action 

Plan. The agencies will take a fresh 

look at motorcoach safety issues, 

identify actions to address 

outstanding safety problems, and 

develop an aggressive multi-modal 

schedule to implement those actions. 

The Department expects this strategy 

to result in a reduction in the number 

of motorcoach crashes and fatalities 

and injuries resulting from those 

crashes. Based on analysis of the 

available safety data, the Department 

assessed causes and contributing 

factors for motorcoach crashes, 

fatalities and injuries, and identified 

opportunities to enhance motorcoach 

safety. The plan would provide an 

integrated strategy addressing a wide 

range of issues including driver errors 

resulting from fatigue, distraction, 

medical condition, and experience; 

crash avoidance technologies; vehicle 

maintenance and safety; carrier 

compliance; and measures to protect 

occupants in the event of a crash, 

such as seat belts, enhanced vehicle 

roof strength, fire safety, and 

emergency egress. 

• Safety Performance Functions 

Summits – these summits provide a 

platform for the exchange of 

information among a group of 

stakeholders on the development and 

application of safety models (called 

‘‘safety performance functions’’) for 

identifying highway locations that 

present the greatest potential for 

safety improvement and for 

evaluating the effectiveness of safety 

projects. The Federal Highway 

Administration, thirty States, the 

American Association of State 

Highway Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO), the Transportation 

Research Board, and academia were 

represented at the summit. From the 

summit, a set of actions were 

developed to support the wider 

deployment of the safety performance 

functions that serve as underlying 

foundation for new analysis tools 

being delivered to the highway safety 

community. These summits are being 

held throughout the country from 

January - December 2009. 

•Towards Zero Fatalities: A Vision for 

Highway Safety – the objective is to 

begin framing the strategic issues that 

would need to be addressed to move 

the nation ‘‘Toward Zero Fatalities.’’ 

FHWA has a contract with AASHTO 

to hold a broad-based safety meeting 

in the spring of 2010. The meeting is 

intended to attract safety 

professionals from all across the 

nation and will provide us with a 

valuable opportunity to connect with 

stakeholders, solicit their input, and 

discuss the Department’s safety 

initiatives. 

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, including new 

statutes and Executive Orders. Although 

OST’s principal role concerns the 

review of the Department’s significant 

rulemakings, this office has the lead role 

in the substance of projects concerning 

aviation economic rules and those 

affecting the various elements of the 

Department. 

OST provides guidance and training 

regarding compliance with regulatory 

requirements and process for use by 

personnel throughout the Department. 

OST also plays an instrumental role in 

the Department’s efforts to improve our 

economic analyses; risk assessments; 

regulatory flexibility analyses; other 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 64285 

related analyses; and data quality, 

including peer reviews. 

OST also leads and coordinates the 

Department’s response to 

Administration and congressional 

proposals that concern the regulatory 

process. The General Counsel’s Office 

works 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. 

During fiscal year 2010, OST will 

continue to focus its efforts on 

enhancing airline passenger protections 

by requiring carriers to adopt various 

consumer service practices (2105- 

AB92). 

OST will also continue its efforts to 

help coordinate the activities of several 

operating administrations that advance 

various Departmental efforts that 

support the Administration’s initiatives 

on promoting safety, stimulating the 

economy and creating jobs, sustaining 

and building America’s transportation 

infrastructure, and improving livability 

for the people and communities who 

use transportation systems subject to the 

Department’s policies. 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

The Federal Aviation Administration 

is charged with safely and efficiently 

operating and maintaining the most 

complex aviation system in the world. 

It is guided by its Flight Plan goals— 

Increased Safety, Greater Capacity, 

International Leadership, and 

Organizational Excellence. It issues 

regulations to provide a safe and 

efficient global aviation system for civil 

aircraft, while being sensitive to not 

imposing undue regulatory burdens and 

costs on small businesses. 

Activities that may lead to rulemaking 

include: 

• Promotion and expansion of safety 

information sharing efforts, such as 

FAA-industry partnerships and datadriven safety programs that prioritize 

and address risks before they lead to 

accidents. Specifically, FAA will 

continue implementing Commercial 

Aviation Safety Team projects related 

to controlled flight into terrain, loss of 

control of an aircraft, uncontained 

engine failures, runway incursions, 

weather, pilot decision making, and 

cabin safety. Some of these projects 

may result in rulemaking and 

guidance materials. 

•Continuing to work cooperatively to 

harmonize the U.S. aviation 

regulations with those of other 

countries, without compromising 

rigorous safety standards. The 

differences worldwide in certification 

standards, practice 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. 

Standardization should help the U.S. 

aerospace industry remain 

internationally competitive. The FAA 

continues to publish regulations 

based on recommendations of 

Aviation Rulemaking Committees that 

are the result of cooperative 

rulemaking between the U.S. and 

other countries. 

FAA top regulatory priorities for 

2009-2010 include: 

• Automatic Dependent Surveillance - 

Broadcast (ADS-B) Out equipment 

(2120-AI92) 

• Qualification, Service, and Use of 

Crewmembers and Aircraft 

Dispatchers (2120-AJ00) 

• Helicopter Air Ambulance and 

Commercial Helicopter Safety 

Initiatives and Miscellaneous 

Amendments (2120- AJ53) 

• Flight and Duty Time Limitations and 

Rest Requirements (2120-AJ58) 

The ADS-B rulemaking would: 

• Accommodate the expected increase in 

demand for air transportation over the 

long run, as described in the Next 

Generation Air Transportation System 

Integrated Plan; 

• Provide the Federal Aviation 

Administration with a comprehensive 

surveillance system that safely and 

efficiently accommodates the 

anticipated increase in operations; 

and 

• Provide a platform for additional flight 

applications and services in the 

future. 

The Crewmember and Aircraft 

Dispatcher Training rulemaking would: 

•Reduce human error and improve 

performance among flight 

crewmembers, flight attendants, and 

aircraft dispatchers; 

• Enhance traditional training programs 

by requiring the use of flight 

simulation training devices for flight 

crewmembers; and 

• Include additional training 

requirements in areas critical to 

safety. 

The Air Ambulance and Commercial 

Helicopter rulemaking would: 

•Codify current agency guidance and 

address National Transportation 

Safety Board recommendations; 

• Provide certificate holders and pilots 

with tools and procedures that will 

aid in reducing accidents; 

•Require additional equipment on 

board helicopters or air ambulances; 

and 

• Amend all part 135 commercial 

helicopter operations regulations to 

include equipment requirements, 

pilot training, and alternate airport 

weather minimums. 

The Flight and Duty Time Limitations 

and Rest Requirements rulemaking 

would: 

• Address fatigue mitigation and use 

existing fatigue science to establish 

minimum rest periods, flight time 

limitations, and duty period limits for 

flight crewmembers; 

• Incorporate the use of Fatigue Risk 

Management Systems as an option to 

provide operator flexibility for 

specific operations; and 

•Reduce human error attributed to 

fatigue among flight crewmembers. 

Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) 

The Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) carries out the Federal highway 

program in partnership with State and 

local agencies to meet the Nation’s 

transportation needs. The FHWA’s 

mission is to improve continually the 

quality and performance of our Nation’s 

highway system and its intermodal 

connectors. 

Consistent with this mission, the 

FHWA will continue: 

•With ongoing regulatory initiatives in 

support of its surface transportation 

programs; 

•To implement legislation in the least 

burdensome and restrictive way 

possible; and 

•To 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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
64286 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 

FHWA continues to address a number 

of rules required by the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA-LU). The remaining 

congressionally directed rulemakings 

resulting from this act include: Express 

Lane Demonstration Project (2125- 

AF07) and Real-Time System 

Management Information Program 

(2125-AF19). These rulemakings are the 

FHWA’s top regulatory priorities. 

Additionally, the FHWA is in the 

process of reviewing all FHWA 

regulations to ensure that they are 

consistent with SAFETEA-LU and will 

update those regulations that are not 

consistent with this legislation 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA) 

The mission of the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) 

is to reduce crashes, injuries, and 

fatalities involving commercial trucks 

and buses. A strong regulatory program 

is a cornerstone of FMCSA’s compliance 

and enforcement efforts to advance this 

safety mission. Developing new and 

more effective safety regulations is key 

to increasing safety on our Nation’s 

highways. FMCSA regulations establish 

standards for motor carriers, drivers, 

vehicles, and State agencies receiving 

certain motor carrier safety grants and 

issuing commercial drivers’ licenses. 

FMCSA continues to develop 

regulations both mandated by Congress 

and initiated by the Agency to increase 

safety. FMCSA continues to address a 

significant number of rules required by 

its most recent reauthorization 

legislation, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The 

Agency is committed to promulgating 

the SAFETEA-LU mandated rules while 

continuing to make progress on a large 

and challenging rulemaking agenda. 

FMCSA continues its work on the 

Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 

(CSA 2010). The CSA 2010 initiative 

will improve the way FMCSA conducts 

compliance and enforcement operations 

over the coming years. CSA 2010’s goal 

is to improve large truck and bus safety 

by assessing a wider range of safety 

performance data of a larger segment of 

the motor carrier industry through an 

array of progressive compliance 

interventions. FMCSA is targeting 2010 

for deployment of this new operational 

model. The Agency anticipates that the 

impacts of CSA 2010 and its associated 

rulemakings, which includes the Carrier 

Safety Fitness Determination (RIN 2126- 

AB11) rulemaking, will contribute 

further to the Agency’s overall goal of 

decreasing CMV-related fatalities and 

injuries. 

A major undertaking by FMCSA in 

FY2010 will be to begin a new 

rulemaking on Hours of Service as the 

result of a settlement agreement reached 

on October 26, 2009. Under terms of the 

settlement, FMCSA must submit a draft 

notice of proposed rulemaking to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

within nine months. 

FMCSA’s Regulatory Plan for FY2010 

includes completion of a number of 

final and proposed rules that are high 

priorities for the Agency because they 

would have a positive impact on safety. 

Among the rulemakings included in the 

plan are: (1) Restrictions on the use of 

wireless communication devices (RIN 

2126-AB22) (2) Carrier Safety Fitness 

Determination (RIN 2126-AB11), (3) 

National Registry of Certified Medical 

Examiners (RIN 2126-AA97), and (4) 

Commercial Driver’s License Testing 

and Commercial Learner’s Permit 

Standard (RIN 2126-AB02). 

Together these priority rules will help 

to substantially improve commercial 

motor vehicle (CMV) safety on our 

Nation’s highways by improving 

FMCSA’s ability to provide safety 

oversight of motor carriers and drivers. 

For example, the restrictions on the use 

of wireless communication devices 

rulemaking would ban text messaging 

and restrict the use of cell phones while 

operating a commercial motor vehicle. 

The Commercial Driver’s License 

Testing and Learner’s Permit 

rulemaking would revise commercial 

driver’s license testing and require new 

minimum Federal standards for States 

to issue commercial learner’s permits. 

The National Registry of Certified 

Medical Examiners rulemaking would 

establish training and testing 

requirements for healthcare 

professionals who issue medical 

certificates to truck and bus drivers. 

In order to manage its rulemaking 

agenda, FMCSA continues to involve 

senior agency leaders at the earliest 

stages of its rulemakings, and continues 

to refine its regulatory development 

process. The Agency also holds senior 

executives accountable for meeting 

deadlines for completing rulemakings. 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) 

The statutory responsibilities of the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) relating to 

motor vehicles include reducing the 

number of, and mitigating the effects of, 

motor vehicle crashes and related 

fatalities and injuries; providing safety 

performance information to aid 

prospective purchasers of vehicles, 

child restraints, and tires; and 

improving automotive fuel efficiency. 

NHTSA pursues policies that encourage 

the development of non-regulatory 

approaches when feasible in meeting its 

statutory mandates. It issues new 

standards and regulations or 

amendments to existing standards and 

regulations when appropriate. It 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. Finally, 

it considers alternatives consistent with 

the Administration’s regulatory 

principles. 

NHTSA continues to pursue the high 

priority vehicle safety area of occupant 

protection in rollover events, and will 

propose new performance standards to 

reduce complete and partial ejections of 

vehicle occupants from outboard seating 

positions in fiscal year 2010. NHTSA 

will propose amending Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, 

Rearview Mirrors, to reduce deaths and 

injuries resulting from backing 

accidents, in accordance with the 

Cameron Gultransen Kids Transportaion 

Safety Act of 2007. NHTSA will also 

publish a notice of proposed rulemaking 

to require the installation of 

lap/shoulder belts in newlymanufactured motorcoaches in 

accordance with NHTSA’s 2007 

Motorcoach Safety Plan and DOT’s 

Departmental Motorcoach Safety Action 

Plan. 

NHTSA will continue its efforts to 

reduce domestic dependency on foreign 

oil in accordance with the Energy 

Independence and Security Act (EISA) 

of 2007 by publishing a final rule setting 

corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) 

standards for Model Years 2012-2016 for 

both cars and light trucks. NHTSA will 

also publish a final rule regarding tire 

fuel efficiency consumer information. 

In addition to numerous programs 

that focus on the safe performance of 

motor vehicles, the agency is engaged in 

a variety of programs to improve driver 

and occupant behavior. These programs 

emphasize the human aspects of motor 

vehicle safety and recognize the 

important role of the States in this 

common pursuit. NHTSA has identified 

two high priority areas: safety belt use 

and impaired driving. To address these 

issue areas, the agency is focusing 

especially on three strategies— 

conducting highly visible, well 

publicized enforcement; supporting 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 64287 

prosecutors who handle impaired 

driving cases and expanding the use of 

DWI/Drug Courts, which hold offenders 

accountable for receiving and 

completing treatment for alcohol abuse 

and dependency; and the adoption of 

alcohol screening and brief intervention 

by medical and health care 

professionals. Other behavioral efforts 

include: encouraging child safety-seat 

use; combating excessive speed and 

aggressive driving; improving 

motorcycle, bicycle, and pedestrian 

safety; and providing consumer 

information to the public. 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

The Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA) exercises regulatory authority 

over all areas of railroad safety and, 

where feasible, incorporates flexible 

performance standards. In order to 

foster an environment for collaborative 

rulemaking, the FRA established the 

Railroad Safety Advisory Committee 

(RSAC). The purpose of the RSAC is to 

develop consensus recommendations 

for regulatory action on issues brought 

before it by the FRA. When consensus 

is achieved, and the FRA believes the 

recommendation serves the public’s 

interest, the resulting rule, having been 

developed in a more transparent 

manner, is very likely to be better 

understood, more widely accepted, 

more cost-beneficial, and more correctly 

applied. In situations, where consensus 

cannot be achieved, the FRA fulfills its 

regulatory role without the benefit of the 

RSAC’s recommendations. 

FRA’s current regulatory program 

contains numerous mandates resulting 

from the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 

2008 (RSIA08) as well as actions 

supporting the Department’s HighSpeed Rail Strategic Plan. RSIA08 alone 

has resulted in at least 18 rulemaking 

actions, which are competing for limited 

resources to meet the short deadlines 

imposed by Congress. FRA has 

prioritized these rulemakings according 

to the greatest effect on safety, as well 

as expressed Congressional interest, and 

will work to complete as many 

rulemakings as possible prior their 

statutory deadlines. Revised timelines 

for completion of unfinished regulations 

will be forwarded to Congress for 

consideration. Through the RSAC, FRA 

is working to complete RSIA08 actions 

that include finalizing a Positive Train 

Control regulation, developing 

requirements for Train Conductor 

Certification, and determining hours of 

service for employees of intercity and 

commuter passenger rail service. RSACsupported actions that advance highspeed passenger rail include proposed 

revisions to the Track Safety Standards 

dealing with vehicle-track interaction. 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

FTA helps communities support 

public transportation by issuing grants 

to eligible recipients for public 

transportation purposes, including 

planning, vehicle purchases, facility 

construction, operations, and other 

transit-related purposes. FTA regulatory 

activity focuses on establishing the 

terms and conditions that attach to 

Federal financial assistance available 

under Federal transit laws. FTA policy 

regarding regulations is to: 

• implement statutes that provide the 

maximum benefit to our nation’s 

mobility and connectivity; 

• provide local flexibility and discretion; 

• ensure the most productive use of 

limited Federal resources; 

• protect taxpayer investments in public 

transportation assets; 

• incorporate good management 

principles into the grant management 

process; and 

• provide transparency. 

As public transportation needs have 

changed over the years, so have the 

requirements for Federal financial 

assistance under the Federal transit laws 

and related statutes. As a result of the 

next authorization statutes, FTA expects 

to conduct a number of substantive 

rulemakings. A few rulemakings are 

likely to be mandated by statute, and 

others are likely necessary to amend 

current regulations to make them 

consistent with the next authorization 

statutes. FTA’s regulatory priorities for 

the coming year will be reflective of the 

directives and programmatic priorities 

established by the authorization 

statutes, including, notably, FTA’s 

School Bus regulation, New Starts 

regulation, and State Safety Oversight 

regulation. FTA also anticipates revising 

its Project Management Oversight 

regulation. 

Maritime Administration (MARAD) 

The Maritime Administration 

(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 administers the Deepwater 

Port Act of 1974, as amended (DWPA, 

33 U.S.C. § 1501 et seq.), which 

established a licensing system for 

ownership, construction, and operation 

of oil and natural gas deepwater port 

(DWP) structures located seaward of 

U.S. territorial waters. The DWPA 

authorizes the Secretary of 

Transportation, and by delegation the 

Maritime Administration, to issue 

licenses for deepwater ports. 

By its delegated authority, MARAD is 

responsible for determining the 

financial capability of potential 

licensees, rendering citizenship 

determinations for ownership, and 

securing operational and 

decommissioning guarantees for 

deepwater port projects. In concert with 

the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and other 

cooperating Federal agencies, MARAD 

prepares a Record of Decision (ROD) for 

each application. Through the 

administration of the DWPA, the 

Maritime Administration plays a vital 

role in meeting Presidential energy 

directives, protecting the environment, 

building local economies, and 

improving mobility, safety, and security 

in our Nation’s oceans and ports. 

MARAD’s other regulatory objectives 

and priorities reflect the Agency’s 

responsibility of 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. 

Before the end of 2009, the Agency 

will issue a final rule regarding the 

America’s Marine Highway program 

that is in response to the enactment of 

the Energy Independence and Security 

Act of 2007 (PL. 110-140). The ACT 

directs the Secretary of Transportation 

to establish a short sea transportation 

program and designate short sea 

transportation projects to mitigate 

landside congestion. Finally, during FY 

2010, MARAD will focus on revising its 

cargo preference regulations. 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration (PHMSA) 

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration (PHMSA) has 

responsibility for rulemaking under two 

programs. Through the Associate 

Administrator for Hazardous Materials 

Safety, PHMSA 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, 

PHMSA administers regulatory 

programs under the Federal pipeline 

safety laws and the Federal Water 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
64288 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 

Pollution Control Act, as amended by 

the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. 

PHMSA will continue to work toward 

the elimination of deaths and injuries 

associated with the transportation of 

hazardous materials by all 

transportation modes, including 

pipeline. We will use data to focus our 

efforts on the prevention of high-risk 

incidents, particularly those of high 

consequence to people and the 

environment. PHMSA will use all 

available agency tools to assess data; 

evaluate alternative safety strategies, 

including regulatory strategies as 

necessary and appropriate; target 

enforcement efforts; and enhance 

outreach, public education, and training 

to promote safety outcomes. 

PHMSA will continue to focus its 

safety efforts on the resolution of 

highest priority risks, including those 

posed by the air transportation of 

hazardous materials and bulk 

transportation of high hazard materials 

(2137-AE32). To enhance aviation 

safety, PHMSA and FAA are seeking to 

identify cost-effective solutions that can 

be implemented to reduce incident rates 

and potentially detrimental 

consequences without placing 

unnecessary burdens on the regulated 

community. To this end, PHMSA and 

FAA are developing regulatory revisions 

to enhance the safe transportation of 

lithium batteries on board aircraft (2137- 

AE44). In addition, PHMSA is working 

with FAA to assess safety risks 

associated with the transportation by 

aircraft of hazardous materials in nonbulk packagings. To address the risks 

posed by the bulk transportation of 

high-risk hazardous materials, PHMSA 

is considering the development of 

enhanced safety measures governing 

bulk loading and unloading operations 

(2137-AE37). 

PHMSA will continue to look for 

ways to reduce the regulatory burden on 

hazardous materials shippers and 

carriers, consistent with our overall 

safety goals. For example, PHMSA is 

conducting a comprehensive review of 

special permits to identify those with 

demonstrated safety records that should 

be adopted as regulations of general 

applicability (2137-AE39). We will 

continue to review regulatory standards 

to ensure they are necessary, easy to 

understand, contemporary, and 

enforceable. 

In the fall of 2009, PHMSA will 

complete its integrity management 

initiative by finalizing risk-based 

integrity management regulations 

applicable to gas distribution pipelines. 

Research and Innovative Technology 

Administration (RITA) 

The Research and Innovative 

Technology Administration (RITA) 

seeks to identify and facilitate solutions 

to the challenges and opportunities 

facing America’s transportation system 

through: 

•Coordination, facilitation, and review 

of the Department’s research and 

development programs and activities; 

• Providing multi-modal expertise in 

transportation and logistics research, 

analysis, strategic planning, systems 

engineering and training; 

• Advancement, and research and 

development, of innovative 

technologies, including intelligent 

transportation systems; 

•Comprehensive transportation 

statistics research, analysis, and 

reporting; 

• Education and training in 

transportation and transportationrelated fields; and 

• Managing the activities of the John A. 

Volpe National Transportation 

Systems Center. 

Through its Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics, Office of Airline Information, 

RITA collects, compiles, analyzes, and 

makes accessible information on the 

Nation’s air transportation system. RITA 

collects airline financial, traffic, and 

operating statistical data, including ontime flight performance data. This 

information gives the Government 

consistent and comprehensive economic 

and market data on airline operations 

that are used in supporting policy 

initiatives and administering the 

Department’s mandated aviation 

responsibilities, including negotiating 

international bilateral aviation 

agreements, awarding international 

route authorities, performing airline and 

industry status evaluations, supporting 

air service to small communities, setting 

Alaskan Bush Mail rates, and meeting 

international treaty obligations. 

Through its Intelligent Transportation 

Systems Joint Program Office (ITS/JPO), 

RITA conducts research and 

demonstrations, and, as appropriate, 

may develop new regulations, in 

coordination with OST and other DOT 

operating administrations, to enable 

deployment of ITS research and 

technology results. 

Through its Volpe National 

Transportation Systems Center, RITA 

provides a comprehensive range of 

engineering expertise, and qualitative 

and quantitative assessment services, 

focused on applying, maintaining and 

increasing the technical body of 

knowledge to support DOT operating 

administration regulatory activities. 

Through its Transportation Safety 

Institute, RITA designs, develops, 

conducts and evaluates training and 

technical assistance programs in 

transportation safety and security to 

support DOT operating administration 

regulatory implementation and 

enforcement activities. 

RITA’s regulatory priorities are to 

assist OST and all DOT operating 

administrations in updating existing 

regulations by applying research, 

technology and analytical results; to 

provide reliable information to 

transportation system decision makers; 

and to provide safety regulation 

implementation and enforcement 

training. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 64289 

QUANTIFIABLE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF RULEMAKINGS 

ON THE 2009-2010 DOT REGULATORY PLAN 

This chart does not account for non-quantifiable benefits, which are often substantial 

Agency/RIN 

Number 

Title Stage Quantifiable 

Costs 

Discounted 

2007 $ 

(Millions) 

Quantifiable 

Benefits 

Discounted 

2007 $ 

(Millions) 

OST 

2105–AD72 Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections FR 02/10 5.6 14.1 

2105–AD92 Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections — Part 2 NPRM 06/10 TBD TBD 

Total for OST 5.6 14.1 

FAA 

2120–AI92 Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) Out 

equipment 

FR 04/10 1,600 1,000 

2120–AJ00 Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers SNPRM 04/10 TBD TBD 

2120–AJ53 Helicopter Air Ambulance and Commercial Helicopter Safety Initiatives and Miscellaneous Amendments NPRM 06/10 TBD TBD 

2120–AJ58 Flight and Duty Time Limitations and Rest Requirements NPRM 12/09 TBD TBD 

Total for FAA 1,600 1,000 

FMCSA 

2126–AA97 National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners NPRM 05/10 587 1,034 

2126–AB02 Commercial Driver’s Licenses and Learner’s Permit FR 04/10 65 231 

2126–AB11 Carrier Safety Fitness Determination NPRM 01/10 TBD TBD 

2126–AB22 Drivers of Commercial Motor Vehicles: Limiting the Use of Wireless Communication Devices NPRM 09/10 TBD TBD 

Total for FMCSA 652 1,265 

NHTSA 

2127–AK23 Ejection Mitigation NPRM 12/09 583 1,158 

2127–AK43 Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors NPRM 04/10 TBD TBD 

2127–AK45 Tire Fuel Efficiency FR 12/09 51 202 

2127–AK50 CAFE 2012-2016 FR 04/10 60,157 201,676 

2127–AK56 Motorcoach Occupant Crash Protection NPRM 03/10 25.8 107.7 

Total for NHTSA 60,817 203,144 

FRA 

2130–AC03 Positive Train Control FR 01/10 9,575 584 

Total for FRA 9,575 584 

PHMSA 

2137–AE15 Pipeline Safety: Distribution Integrity Management FR 11/09 1,484 2,691 

Total for PHMSA 1,484 2,691 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
64290 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 

Agency/RIN 

Number 

Title Stage Quantifiable 

Costs 

Discounted 

2007 $ 

(Millions) 

Quantifiable 

Benefits 

Discounted 

2007 $ 

(Millions) 

MARAD 

2133–AB74 Regulations To Be Followed by All Departments, Agencies and 

Shippers Having Responsibility To Provide a Preference for 

U.S.-Flag Vessels in the Shipment of Cargoes on Ocean Vessels 

NPRM 09/10 TBD TBD 

2133–AB75 Cargo Preference — Compromise, Assessment, Mitigation, Settlement & Collection of Civil Penalties NPRM 03/10 TBD TBD 

Total for MARAD 0 0 

TOTAL FOR DOT 74,133.6 208,698.1 

Notes: 

Estimated values are shown after rounding to the nearest $1 million and represent discounted present values assuming a discount rate of 7 

percent. 

Costs and benefits of rulemakings may be forecast over varying periods. Although the forecast periods will be the same for any given rulemaking, comparisons between proceedings should be made cautiously. 

The Department of Transportation generally assumes that there are economic benefits to avoiding a fatality of $5.8 million. That economic 

value is included as part of the benefits estimates shown in the chart. As noted above, we have made no effort to include the non-quantifiable 

benefits. 

DOT—Office of the Secretary (OST) 

PROPOSED RULE STAGE 

111. ∑ ŒENHANCING AIRLINE 

PASSENGER PROTECTIONS — PART 

2 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

49 USC 41712; 49 USC 40101(a)(4); 49 

USC 40101(a)(9); 49 USC 41702 

CFR Citation: 

Not Yet Determined 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

This rulemaking would enhance airline 

passenger protections by addressing the 

following areas: (1) contingency plans 

for lengthy tarmac delays; (2) reporting 

of tarmac delay data; (3) customer 

service plans; (4) notification to 

passengers of flight status changes; (5) 

inflation adjustment for denied 

boarding compensation; (6) alternative 

transportation for passengers on 

canceled flights; (7) opt-out provisions 

(e.g. travel insurance); (8) contract of 

carriage provisions; (9) baggage fees 

disclosure; and (10) full fare 

advertising. 

Statement of Need: 

This rule is needed to improve the air 

travel environment for passengers. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

The Department has authority and 

responsibility under 49 USC 41712 in 

concert with 49 USC 40101(a)(4) and 

40101(a)(9) and 49 USC 41702, to 

protect consumers from unfair and 

deceptive practices and to ensure safe 

and adequate service in air 

transportation. 

Alternatives: 

The main alternative would be to take 

no regulatory action. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

To be determined 

Risks: 

The risk of not taking regulatory action 

would be a continuation of the 

dissatisfaction and frustration 

passengers have with the air travel 

environment. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 01/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

Undetermined 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov 

Agency Contact: 

Blane A Workie 

Attorney 

Department of Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone: 202 366–9342 

TDD Phone: 202 755–7687 

Fax: 202 366–7152 

Email: blane.workie@dot.gov 

RIN: 2105–AD92 

DOT—OST 

FINAL RULE STAGE 

112. ŒENHANCING AIRLINE 

PASSENGER PROTECTIONS 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

49 USC 329 

CFR Citation: 

14 CFR 234; 14 CFR 399 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

This rulemaking would propose to 

enhance airline passenger protections 

in the following ways: (1) require 

carriers to adopt contingency plans for 

lengthy tarmac delays and to 

incorporate these plans in their 

contracts of carriage, (2) require carriers 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 64291 

to respond to consumer problems, (3) 

declare the operation of flights that 

remain chronically delayed to be an 

unfair and deceptive practice and an 

unfair method of competition, (4) 

require carriers to publish delay data 

on their web sites, and (5) require 

carriers to adopt customer service 

plans, incorporate these in their 

contracts of carriage, and audit their 

adherence to their plans. 

Statement of Need: 

This rule is needed to provide 

consumers with more information and 

protections to minimize the adverse 

consequences of air travel delays and 

cancellations. The Department’s Office 

of the Inspector General has 

recommended that the Department take 

specific action to improve the air travel 

environment for passengers and 

Congress has proposed legislation to 

improve airline passenger protections. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

The Department has authority and 

responsibility under 49 USC 41712, in 

concert with 49 USC 40101(a)(4) and 

40101(a)(9) and 49 USC 41702, to 

protect consumers from unfair and 

deceptive practices and to ensure safe 

and adequate service in air 

transportation. 

Alternatives: 

The main alternative would be to take 

no regulatory action to address the 

increasing number of passengers who 

are dissatisfied with airline service as 

a result of recent marathon tarmac 

waits and the epidemic of flight delays, 

and to rely on the airlines to regulate 

themselves. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

The rule is estimated to cost $5.6 

million and result in benefits of $14.1 

million per year (at a 7 percent 

discount rate). 

Risks: 

The risk of not taking regulatory action 

would be a continuation of the 

dissatisfaction and frustration 

passengers have with the air travel 

environment. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM 11/20/07 72 FR 65233 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End 

01/22/08 

Clarification 

Concerning 

ANPRM 

03/05/08 73 FR 11843 

NPRM 12/08/08 73 FR 74586 

NPRM Comment 

Period End 

02/06/09 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended 

02/06/09 74 FR 6249 

NPRM Extended 

Comment Period 

End 

03/09/09 

Final Rule 02/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

No 

Small Entities Affected: 

No 

Government Levels Affected: 

None 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov 

Agency Contact: 

Blane A Workie 

Attorney 

Department of Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone: 202 366–9342 

TDD Phone: 202 755–7687 

Fax: 202 366–7152 

Email: blane.workie@dot.gov 

RIN: 2105–AD72 

DOT—Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) 

PROPOSED RULE STAGE 

113. ŒQUALIFICATION, SERVICE, AND 

USE OF CREWMEMBERS AND 

AIRCRAFT DISPATCHERS 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

49 USC 106(g); 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 

40119; 49 USC 44101; 49 USC 44701; 

49 USC 44702; 49 USC 44705; 49 USC 

44709 to 44711; 49 USC 44713; 49 USC 

44716; 49 USC 44717; 49 USC 44722; 

49 USC 44901; 49 USC 44903; 49 USC 

44904; 49 USC 44912; 49 USC 46105 

CFR Citation: 

14 CFR 119; 14 CFR 121; 14 CFR 135; 

14 CFR 142; 14 CFR 65 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

This rulemaking would amend the 

regulations for crewmember and 

dispatcher training programs in 

domestic, flag, and supplemental 

operations. The rulemaking would 

enhance traditional training programs 

by requiring the use of flight simulation 

training devices for flight crewmembers 

and including additional training 

requirements in areas that are critical 

to safety. The rulemaking would also 

reorganize and revise the qualification 

and training requirements. The changes 

are intended to contribute significantly 

to reducing aviation accidents. 

Statement of Need: 

This rulemaking is part of the FAA?s 

efforts to reduce fatal accidents in 

which human error was a major 

contributing cause. The changes would 

reduce human error and improve 

performance among flight 

crewmembers, flight attendants, and 

aircraft dispatchers. National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

investigations identified several areas of 

inadequate training that were the 

probable cause of an accident. This 

rulemaking contains changes to address 

the causes and factors identified by the 

NTSB. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

The FAA?s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of 

the United States Code. This 

rulemaking is promulgated under the 

authority described in 49 U.S.C. 

44701(a)(5), which requires the 

Administrator to promulgate 

regulations and minimum standards for 

other practices, methods, and 

procedures necessary for safety in air 

commerce and national security. 

Alternatives: 

During the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) phase, the FAA 

did not find any significant alternatives 

in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 603(d). 

The FAA will again review alternatives 

at the final rule phase. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

The FAA will develop the costs and 

benefits of this rulemaking after 

reviewing the comments received in 

response to the NPRM. 

Risks: 

The FAA will review specific risks 

associated with this rulemaking. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 01/12/09 74 FR 1280 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
64292 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 

Action Date FR Cite 

Comment Period End 05/12/09 

Notice of Public 

Meeting 

03/12/09 74 FR 10689 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended 

04/20/09 74 FR 17910 

Extended Comment 

Period End 

08/10/09 

SNPRM 04/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

Yes 

Small Entities Affected: 

Businesses 

Government Levels Affected: 

None 

Additional Information: 

For flight crewmember information 

contact Edward Cook, for flight 

attendant information contact Nancy 

Lauck Claussen, and for aircraft 

dispatcher information contact David 

Maloy, Air Carrier Training Branch 

(AFS-210), Flight Standards Service, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267 8166. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov 

Agency Contact: 

Edward Cook 

Flight Standards Service 

Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

100 Hartsfield Centre Parkway, Suite 400 

Atlanta, GA 30354 

Phone: 404–832–4700 

Email: edward.cook@faa.gov 

RIN: 2120–AJ00 

DOT—FAA 

114. ∑ ŒAIR AMBULANCE AND 

COMMERCIAL HELICOPTER 

OPERATIONS; SAFETY INITIATIVES 

AND MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

49 USC 106(g); 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 

41706; 49 USC 44701; 49 USC 44702; 

49 USC 44705; 49 USC 44709; 49 USC 

44711; 49 USC 44712; 49 USC 44713; 

49 USC 44715; 49 USC 44716; 49 USC 

44717; 49 USC 44722; 49 USC 45101; 

49 USC 45102; 49 USC 45103; 49 USC 

45104; 49 USC 45105 

CFR Citation: 

14 CFR 1; 14 CFR 135 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

This rulemaking would change 

equipment and operating requirements 

for commercial helicopter operations, 

including many specifically for 

helicopter air ambulance operations. 

This rulemaking is necessary to 

increase crew, passenger, and patient 

safety. The intended effect is to 

implement the National Transportation 

Safety Board, Aviation Rulemaking 

Committee and internal FAA 

recommendations. 

Statement of Need: 

Since 2002, there has been an increase 

in fatal helicopter air ambulance 

accidents. The FAA has undertaken 

initiatives to address common factors 

that contribute to helicopter air 

ambulance accidents including issuing 

notices, handbook bulletins, operations 

specifications, and advisory circulars 

(ACs). This rule would codify many of 

those initiatives, as well as several 

NTSB and Part 125/135 Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee 

recommendations. In addition, the 

House of Representatives and the 

Senate introduced legislation in the 

111th Congress and in earlier sessions 

that would address several of the issues 

raised in this rulemaking. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

This rulemaking is promulgated under 

the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 

44701(a)(4), which requires the 

Administrator to promulgate 

regulations in the interest of safety for 

the maximum hours or periods of 

service of airmen and other employees 

of air carriers, and 49 U.S.C. 

44701(a)(5), which requires the 

Administrator to promulgate 

regulations and minimum standards for 

other practices, methods, and 

procedures necessary for safety in air 

commerce and national security. 

Alternatives: 

The FAA is currently reviewing 

alternatives to rulemaking. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

The FAA is currently developing costs 

and benefits. 

Risks: 

Helicopter air ambulance operations 

have several characteristics that make 

them unique, including that they are 

not limited to airport locations for 

picking up and dropping off patients, 

but may pick up a person at a roadside 

accident scene and transport him or her 

directly to a hospital. Helicopter air 

ambulance operations are also often 

time-sensitive. A helicopter air 

ambulance flight may be crucial to 

getting a donor organ or critically ill 

or injured patient to a medical facility 

as efficiently as possible. Additionally, 

patients generally are not able to 

choose the helicopter air ambulance 

company that provides them with 

transportation. Despite the fact that 

there are unique aspects to helicopter 

air ambulance operations, they remain, 

at their core, air transportation. 

Accordingly, the FAA has the 

responsibility for ensuring the safety of 

these operations. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 06/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

Yes 

Small Entities Affected: 

Businesses 

Government Levels Affected: 

None 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov 

Agency Contact: 

Edwin Miller 

Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Phone: 202–267–8166 

Email: edwin.miller@faa.gov 

RIN: 2120–AJ53 

DOT—FAA 

115. ∑ ŒFLIGHT AND DUTY TIME 

LIMITATIONS AND REST 

REQUIREMENTS 

Priority: 

Economically Significant. Major under 

5 USC 801. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 64293 

Legal Authority: 

49 USC 106(g); 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 

40119; 49 USC 41706; 49 USC 44101; 

49 USC 44701; 49 USC 44702; 49 USC 

44705; 49 USC 44705; 49 USC 44709; 

49 USC 44710; 49 USC 44711; 49 USC 

44712; 49 USC 44713; 49 USC 44715; 

49 USC 44716; 49 USC 44717; 49 USC 

44722; 49 USC 45101; 49 USC 45102; 

49 USC 45103; 49 USC 45104; 49 USC 

45105; 49 USC 46105 

CFR Citation: 

14 CFR 121; 14 CFR 135 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

This rule would establish one set of 

flight time limitations, duty period 

limits, and rest requirements for pilots. 

The rule is necessary to ensure that 

pilots have the opportunity to obtain 

sufficient rest to perform their duties. 

The objective of the rule is to 

contribute to an improved aviation 

safety system. 

Statement of Need: 

The FAA recognizes that the effects of 

pilot fatigue are universal, and the 

profiles of different types of operations 

are similar enough that the same fatigue 

mitigations should be applied across all 

types of operations. 

In June 2009, the FAA established the 

Flight and Duty Time Limitations and 

Rest Requirements Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee (ARC) whose 

membership includes labor, industry, 

and FAA representatives. The ARC will 

review current approaches to mitigating 

fatigue and make recommendations to 

the Associate Administrator for 

Aviation Safety in September 2009 on 

how to address this issue in FAA 

regulations. 

The ARC will consider: 

— An approach to fatigue that 

consolidates and replaces existing 

regulatory requirements; 

— Current fatigue science, data, and 

information; 

— How current international standards 

address fatigue; and 

— The use of Fatigue Risk Management 

Systems. 

Based on ARC recommendations, the 

FAA will propose new regulations 

using scientific research data, 

developing methods for data collection 

and analysis, reviewing fatigue-related 

accident data, and using relevant NTSB 

recommendations. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of 

the United States Code. This 

rulemaking is promulgated under the 

authority described in 49 U.S.C. 

44701(a)(5), which requires the 

Administrator to promulgate 

regulations and minimum standards for 

other practices, methods, and 

procedures necessary for safety in air 

commerce and national security. 

Alternatives: 

The FAA is currently reviewing 

alternatives to rulemaking. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

The proposed rule is designated as 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as 

designated in section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866. In addition, the proposed 

rule would have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. Quantifiable costs and 

benefits to be determined. 

Risks: 

The FAA will review specific risks 

associated with this rulemaking. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 12/00/09 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

Yes 

Small Entities Affected: 

Businesses, Organizations 

Government Levels Affected: 

None 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov 

Agency Contact: 

Nancy L Claussen 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Phone: 202 267–8166 

Email: nancy.claussen@faa.gov 

RIN: 2120–AJ58 

DOT—FAA 

FINAL RULE STAGE 

116. ŒAUTOMATIC DEPENDENT 

SURVEILLANCE — BROADCAST 

(ADS–B) EQUIPAGE MANDATE TO 

SUPPORT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL 

SERVICE 

Priority: 

Economically Significant. Major under 

5 USC 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: 

This action may affect the private 

sector under PL 104-4. 

Legal Authority: 

49 USC 1155; 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; 

49 USC 46315; 49 USC 46316; 49 USC 

46504; 49 USC 46506 ; 49 USC 47122; 

49 USC 47508; 49 USC 47528 to 47531; 

49 USC 106(g); Articles 12 and 29 of 

61 Stat.1180; 49 USC 46507 

CFR Citation: 

14 CFR 91 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

This rulemaking would require 

Automatic Dependent Surveillance — 

Broadcast (ADS-B) Out equipment on 

aircraft to operate in certain classes of 

airspace within the United States 

National Airspace System. The 

rulemaking is necessary to 

accommodate the expected increase in 

demand for air transportation, as 

described in the Next Generation Air 

Transportation System Integrated Plan. 

The intended effect of this rule is to 

provide the Federal Aviation 

Administration with a comprehensive 

surveillance system that accommodates 

the anticipated increase in operations 

and would provide a platform for 

additional flight applications and 

services. 

Statement of Need: 

Congress tasked the FAA with creating 

the Next Generation Air Transportation 

System (NextGen) to accommodate the 

demand for air traffic services. The 

current FAA surveillance system will 

not be able to maintain the same level 

of service as operations continue to 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
64294 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 

grow. ADS-B is a key component of 

NextGen that will move air traffic 

control from a radar-based system to 

satellite-derived aircraft location data. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

This rulemaking is promulgated under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103, 

Sovereignty and use of airspace, and 

Subpart III, Section 44701, General 

requirements. Under section 40103, the 

FAA is charged with prescribing 

regulations on the flight of aircraft 

(including regulations on safe altitudes) 

for navigating, protecting, and 

identifying aircraft, and the efficient 

use of the navigable airspace. Under 

section 44701, the FAA is charged with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. 

Alternatives: 

The FAA considered the following 

alternatives before proceeding with this 

rulemaking: 

(1) Radar as it exists today — Radars 

have different update rates, accuracies, 

ranges, and functions. ADS-B, however, 

employs one type of receiving 

equipment, and it does not have to 

accommodate for transition between 

differing surveillance systems. 

(2) Multilateration — Multilateration is 

a non-radar system that has limited 

deployment in the United States. 

Multilateration is a process by which 

an aircraft’s position is determined by 

measuring the time difference between 

the arrival of the aircraft’s signal to 

multiple receivers on the ground. At a 

minimum, multilateration requires 

upwards of four ground stations to 

deliver the same volume of coverage 

and integrity of information as ADS-B, 

due to the need to ‘‘triangulate’’ the 

aircraft’s position. 

The FAA rejected both of these 

alternatives. The agency has 

determined that the improved accuracy 

and update rate afforded by ADS-B 

provides an opportunity to make the 

system more efficient. Specifically, 

enhanced surveillance data via ADS-B 

will improve the performance of air 

traffic control (ATC) decision support 

tools that rely on surveillance data to 

make predictions. Unlike radar and 

multilateration, ADS-B provides more 

detailed flight information (for 

example, update rate, velocity, and 

heading) that supports ground based 

merging and spacing tools. The tools 

use this information to determine 

optimal tracks for ATC arrival 

planning. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

The FAA is currently developing costs 

and benefits. 

Risks: 

Congestion continues to build in the 

nation?s busiest airports and the 

surrounding airspace. The FAA must be 

poised to handle future demand that 

is certain to grow as the Nation’s 

economy improves. In addition, the 

current method of handling traffic flow 

will not be able to adapt to future 

operations as future aviation activity 

will be more diverse than it is today. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 10/05/07 72 FR 56947 

NPRM Comment 

Period End 

11/19/07 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended 

01/03/08 

Comment Period End 03/03/08 

Reopened for 

Comments on 

ARAC 

Recommendation 

10/02/08 73 FR 57270 

Comment Period End 11/03/08 

Final Rule 04/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

Yes 

Small Entities Affected: 

Businesses 

Government Levels Affected: 

None 

International Impacts: 

This regulatory action will be likely to 

have international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

Additional Information: 

Project number ATO-06-552-R. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov 

Agency Contact: 

Vincent Capezzuto 

Terminal Program Operations 

Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avene, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Phone: 202–385–8637 

Email: vincent.capezzuto@faa.gov 

RIN: 2120–AI92 

DOT—Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA) 

PROPOSED RULE STAGE 

117. ŒCARRIER SAFETY FITNESS 

DETERMINATION 

Priority: 

Other Significant. Major status under 5 

USC 801 is undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: 

Undetermined 

Legal Authority: 

Section 4009 of TEA–21 

CFR Citation: 

49 CFR 385 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

This rulemaking would revise 49 CFR 

part 385, Safety Fitness Procedures, in 

accordance with the Agency’s major 

new initiative, Comprehensive Safety 

Analysis (CSA) 2010. CSA 2010 is a 

new operational model FMCSA plans 

to implement that is designed to help 

the Agency carry out its compliance 

and enforcement programs more 

efficiently and effectively. Currently, 

the safety fitness rating of a motor 

carrier is determined based on the 

results of a very labor intensive 

compliance review conducted at the 

carrier’s place of business. Aside from 

roadside inspections and new audits, 

the compliance review is the Agency’s 

primary intervention. Under CSA 2010, 

FMCSA would propose to implement 

a broader array of progressive 

interventions, some of which allow 

FMCSA to make contact with more 

carriers. Through this rulemaking 

FMCSA would establish safety fitness 

determinations based on safety data 

consisting of crashes, inspections, and 

violation history rather than the 

standard compliance review. This will 

enable the Agency to assess the safety 

performance of a greater segment of the 

motor carrier industry with the goal of 

further reducing large truck and bus 

crashes and fatalities. 

Statement of Need: 

Because of the time and expense 

associated with the on-site compliance 

review, only a small fraction of carriers 

(approximately 12,000) receive a safety 

fitness determination each year. Since 

the current safety fitness determination 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 64295 

process is based exclusively on the 

results of an on site compliance review, 

the great majority of carriers subject to 

FMCSA jurisdiction do not receive a 

timely determination of their safety 

fitness. 

The proposed methodology for 

determining motor carrier safety fitness 

should correct the deficiencies of the 

current process. In correcting these 

deficiencies, FMCSA has made a 

concerted effort to develop a 

‘‘transparent’’ method for the SFD that 

would allow each motor carrier to 

understand fully how FMCSA 

established that carrier’s specific SFD. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

This rule is based primarily on the 

authority of 49 U.S.C. 31144, which 

directs the Secretary of Transportation 

to ‘‘determine whether an owner or 

operator is fit to operate a commercial 

motor vehicle’’ and to ‘‘maintain by 

regulation a procedure for determining 

the safety fitness of an owner or 

operator.’’ This statute was first enacted 

as part of the Motor Carrier Safety Act 

of 1984, § 215, Pub. L. 98-554, 98 Stat. 

2844 (Oct. 30, 1984). 

The proposed rule also relies on the 

provisions of 49 U.S.C. 31133, which 

gives the Secretary ‘‘broad 

administrative powers to assist in the 

implementation’’ of the provisions of 

the Motor Carrier Safety Act now found 

in chapter 311 of Title 49, U.S.C. These 

powers include, among others, 

authority to conduct inspections and 

investigations, compile statistics, 

require production of records and 

property, prescribe recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements and to perform 

other acts considered appropriate. 

These powers are used to obtain the 

data used by the Safety Management 

System and by the proposed new 

methodology for safety fitness 

determinations. 

Under 49 CFR 1.73(g), the Secretary has 

delegated the authority to carry out the 

functions in subchapters I, III, and IV 

of chapter 311, title 49, U.S.C., to the 

FMCSA Administrator. Sections 31133 

and 31144 are part of subchapter III of 

chapter 311. 

Alternatives: 

The Agency has been considering only 

two alternatives: the no-action 

alternative and the proposal. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

FMCSA has not yet fully assessed the 

costs and benefits at this time. 

Risks: 

FMCSA has not yet fully assessed the 

risks that might be associated with this 

activity. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 03/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

Undetermined 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined 

Federalism: 

Undetermined 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov 

Agency Contact: 

David Miller 

Regulatory Development Division 

Department of Transportation 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone: 202 366–5370 

Email: fmcsaregs@dot.gov 

RIN: 2126–AB11 

DOT—FMCSA 

118. ∑ ŒDRIVERS OF COMMERCIAL 

MOTOR VEHICLES: LIMITING THE 

USE OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION 

DEVICES 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

49 USC 31136; 49 USC 31502 

CFR Citation: 

49 CFR 367 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

This rulemaking would ban text 

messaging and restrict the use of cell 

phones while operating a commercial 

motor vehicle. This rulemaking is in 

response to Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration-sponsored 

studies that analyzed safety incidents 

and distracted drivers. This rulemaking 

would also address the National 

Transportation Safety Board’s ‘‘Most 

Wanted List’’ of safety 

recommendations. 

Statement of Need: 

TBD 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

TBD 

Alternatives: 

TBD 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

FMCSA has not fully assessed the costs 

and benefits that might be associated 

with this activity. 

Risks: 

FMCSA has not fully assessed the risk 

that might be associated with this 

activity. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 06/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

No 

Small Entities Affected: 

No 

Government Levels Affected: 

Federal, State 

URL For More Information: 

regs.dot.gov 

URL For Public Comments: 

regs.dot.gov 

Agency Contact: 

Thomas Yager 

Driver and Carrier Operations Division, 

MC–PSD 

Department of Transportation 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone: 202 366–4325 

Email: tom.yager@dot.gov 

RIN: 2126–AB22 

DOT—FMCSA 

FINAL RULE STAGE 

119. ŒNATIONAL REGISTRY OF 

CERTIFIED MEDICAL EXAMINERS 

Priority: 

Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 

801. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
64296 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 

Unfunded Mandates: 

This action may affect the private 

sector under PL 104-4. 

Legal Authority: 

PL 109–59 (2005), sec 4116 

CFR Citation: 

49 CFR 390; 49 CFR 391 

Legal Deadline: 

Final, Statutory, August 10, 2006, Final 

Rule. 

Abstract: 

This rulemaking would establish 

training, testing and certification 

standards for medical examiners 

responsible for certifying that interstate 

commercial motor vehicle drivers meet 

established physical qualifications 

standards; provide a database (or 

National Registry) of medical examiners 

that meet the prescribed standards for 

use by motor carriers, drivers, and 

Federal and State enforcement 

personnel in determining whether a 

medical examiner is qualified to 

conduct examinations of interstate 

truck and bus drivers; and require 

medical examiners to transmit 

electronically to FMCSA the name of 

the driver and a numerical identifier 

for each driver that is examined. The 

rulemaking would also establish the 

process by which medical examiners 

that fail to meet or maintain the 

minimum standards would be removed 

from the National Registry. This action 

is in response to section 4116 of Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users. 

Statement of Need: 

In enacting the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA-LU) [PL 109-59, August 10, 

2005], Congress recognized the need to 

improve the quality of the medical 

certification of drivers. SAFETEA-LU 

addresses the requirement for medical 

examiners to receive training in 

physical examination standards and be 

listed on a national registry of medical 

examiners as one step toward 

improving the quality of the 

commercial motor vehicle (CMV) driver 

physical examination process and the 

medical fitness of CMV drivers to 

operate CMVs. The safety impact will 

result from ensuring that medical 

examiners have completed training and 

testing to demonstrate that they fully 

understand FMCSA’s physical 

qualifications standards and are capable 

of applying those standards 

consistently, thereby decreasing the 

likelihood that a medically unqualified 

driver may obtain a medical certificate. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

The fundamental legal basis for the 

NRCME program comes from 49 U.S.C. 

31149(d), which requires FMCSA to 

establish and maintain a current 

national registry of medical examiners 

that are qualified to perform 

examinations of CMV drivers and to 

issue medical certificates. FMCSA is 

required to remove from the registry 

any medical examiner who fails to meet 

or maintain qualifications established 

by FMCSA. In addition, in developing 

its regulations, FMCSA must consider 

both the effect of driver health on the 

safety of CMV operations and the effect 

of such operations on driver health, 49 

U.S.C. 31136(a). 

Alternatives: 

The rulemaking is statutorily mandated. 

Thus, the Agency must establish the 

National Registry. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

We estimated 10 year costs (discounted 

at 7 percent) at $586,969,000, total 

benefits at $1,033,681,000, and net 

benefits over 10 years at $446,712,000. 

Risks: 

FMCSA has not yet fully assessed the 

risks that might be associated with this 

activity. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 12/01/08 73 FR 73129 

NPRM Comment 

Period End 

01/30/09 

Final Rule 05/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

Yes 

Small Entities Affected: 

Businesses 

Government Levels Affected: 

None 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov 

Agency Contact: 

Dr. Mary D Gunnels 

Director, Office of Medical Programs 

Department of Transportation 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone: 202 366–4001 

Email: maggi.gunnels@dot.gov 

RIN: 2126–AA97 

DOT—FMCSA 

120. ŒCOMMERCIAL DRIVER’S 

LICENSE TESTING AND 

COMMERCIAL LEARNER’S PERMIT 

STANDARDS 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

PL 109–347, sec 703; 49 USC 31102; 

PL 105–178, 112 stat 414 (1998); PL 

99–570, title XII, 100 Stat.3207 (1086); 

PL 102–240, sec 4007(a)(1), Stat. 1914, 

2151; PL 109–59 (2005), sec 4122; 49 

USC 31136 

CFR Citation: 

49 CFR 380; 49 CFR 383; 49 CFR 384; 

49 CFR 385 

Legal Deadline: 

Final, Statutory, April 13, 2008, Final 

Rule. 

The statutory deadline results from 

section 703 of the SAFE Port Act 

(enacted October 13, 2006). The Act 

requires the Agency to implement 

certain statutory provisions within 18 

months of enactment. 

Abstract: 

This rulemaking would establish 

revisions to the commercial driver’s 

license knowledge and skills testing 

standards as required by section 4019 

of TEA-21, implement fraud detection 

and prevention initiatives at the State 

driver licensing agencies as required by 

the SAFE Port Act of 2006, and 

establish new minimum Federal 

standards for States to issue 

commercial learner’s permits (CLPs), 

based in part on the requirements of 

section 4122 of SAFETEA-LU. In 

addition, to ensuring the applicant has 

the appropriate knowledge and skills to 

operate a commercial motor vehicle, 

this rule would establish the minimum 

information that must be on the CLP 

document and the electronic driver’s 

record. The rule would also establish 

maximum issuance and renewal 

periods, establish a minimum age limit, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 64297 

address issues related to a driver’s State 

of Domicile, and incorporate previous 

regulatory guidance into the Federal 

regulations. This rule would also 

address issues raised in the SAFE Port 

Act. 

Statement of Need: 

This proposed rule would create a 

Federal requirement for a commercial 

learner’s permit (CLP) as a precondition for a commercial driver’s 

license (CDL) and make a variety of 

other changes to enhance the CDL 

program. This would help to ensure 

that drivers who operate CMVs are 

legally licensed to do so and that they 

do not operate CMVs without having 

passed the requisite tests. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety 

Act of 1986 (CMVSA) (Public Law 99- 

570, Title XII, 100 Stat. 3207-170; 49 

U.S.C. chapter 313); section 4122 of the 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy 

for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Public Law 

109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, at 1734; 49 

U.S.C. 31302, 31308, and 31309); and 

section 703 of the Security and 

Accountability For Every Port Act of 

2006 (SAFE Port Act) (Public Law 109- 

347, 120 Stat. 1884, at 1944). It is also 

based in part on the Motor Carrier 

Safety Act of 1984 (MCSA) (Public Law 

98-554, Title II, 98 Stat. 2832; 49 U.S.C. 

31136, and the safety provisions of the 

Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (MCA) 

(Chapter 498, 49 Stat. 543, codified at 

49 U.S.C. 31502). 

Alternatives: 

There are 17 issues described in this 

rulemaking document and several 

alternatives were considered for each. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

We estimate 10 year costs (discounted 

at 7 percent) at $65,079,000, total 

benefits at $231,264,000, and net 

benefits over 10 years at $166,185,000. 

Risks: 

FMCSA has not yet fully assessed the 

risks that might be associated with this 

activity. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 04/09/08 73 FR 19282 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended 

06/09/08 73 FR 32520 

NPRM Comment 

Period End 

06/09/08 

Second NPRM 

Comment Period 

End 

07/09/08 

Final Rule 04/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

Yes 

Small Entities Affected: 

Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions 

Government Levels Affected: 

State 

Federalism: 

This action may have federalism 

implications as defined in EO 13132. 

Additional Information: 

Docket ID FMCSA-2007-27659 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov 

Agency Contact: 

Robert Redmond 

Senior Transportation Specialist 

Department of Transportation 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone: 202 366–5014 

Email: robert.redmond@dot.gov 

Related RIN: Related to 2126–AB00 

RIN: 2126–AB02 

DOT—National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) 

PROPOSED RULE STAGE 

121. ŒEJECTION MITIGATION 

Priority: 

Economically Significant. Major under 

5 USC 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: 

This action may affect the private 

sector under PL 104-4. 

Legal Authority: 

49 USC 30111; 49 USC 30115; 49 USC 

30117; 49 USC 30166; 49 USC 322; 

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 

CFR Citation: 

49 CFR 571.226 

Legal Deadline: 

Final, Statutory, October 1, 2009, Final 

Rule. Extended via Letter to Congress 

to January 31, 2011. 

Abstract: 

This rulemaking would create a new 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) for reducing occupant 

ejection. Currently, there are over 

52,000 annual ejections in motor 

vehicle crashes, and over 10,000 ejected 

fatalities per year. This rulemaking 

would propose new requirements for 

reducing occupant ejection through 

passenger vehicle side widows. The 

requirement would be an occupant 

containment requirement on the 

amount of allowable excursion through 

passenger vehicle side windows. The 

SAFETEA-LU legislation requires that: 

‘‘[t]he Secretary shall also initiate a 

rulemaking proceeding to establish 

performance standards to reduce 

complete and partial ejections of 

vehicle occupants from outboard 

seating positions. In formulating the 

standards the Secretary shall consider 

various ejection mitigation systems. 

The Secretary shall issue a final rule 

under this paragraph no later than 

October 1, 2009.’’ 

Statement of Need: 

The agency’s annualized injury data 

from 1997 to 2005 show that there are 

6,174 fatalities and 5,271 Maximum 

Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) 3+ 

non-fatal serious injuries for occupants 

partially and completely ejected 

through side windows in vehicles with 

a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) 

less than 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.). Sixtyseven percent of the fatalities and 78 

percent of the serious injuries are from 

ejections that involve a rollover as part 

of the crash event. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Section 30111, Title 49 of the USC, 

states that the Secretary shall prescribe 

motor vehicle safety standards. Section 

10301 of the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA-LU) requires the Secretary 

to issue by October 1, 2009, an ejection 

mitigation final rule reducing complete 

and partial ejections of occupants from 

outboard seating positions. The 

SAFETEA-LU legislation also requires 

that if the Secretary determines that the 

subject final rule deadline cannot be 

met, the Secretary shall notify and 

provide an explanation of the delay to 

the Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science and Transportation and the 

House of Representatives Committee on 

Energy and Commerce. On September 

24, 2009, the Secretary provided 

appropriate notification to Congress 

that the final rule would be delayed 

until January 31, 2011. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
64298 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 

Alternatives: 

The agency is not pursuing any 

alternatives to reduce side window 

ejections of light vehicle occupants 

other than establishing FMVSS No. 226. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

The agency is reducing the population 

of partial and complete side window 

ejections through a series of rulemaking 

actions. These actions included adding 

a pole impact upgrade to FMVSS No. 

214 — Side Impact Protection (72 FR 

51908) and promulgating FMVSS No. 

126 — Electronic Stability Control 

Systems (72 FR 17236). We estimate 

that promulgating FMVSS No. 226 will 

reduce the remaining population of 

ejection fatalities and serious injuries 

by the ranges of 390 to 402 and 296 

to 310, respectively. The cost per 

equivalent fatality at a seven percent 

discount rate is estimated to be $2.0 

million. 

Risks: 

The agency believes there are no 

substantial risks to this rulemaking, and 

that only beneficial outcomes will 

occur as the industry moves to reduce 

side window ejections of light vehicle 

occupants. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 12/00/09 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

No 

Small Entities Affected: 

No 

Government Levels Affected: 

None 

International Impacts: 

This regulatory action will be likely to 

have international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov 

Agency Contact: 

Louis Molino 

Safety Standards Engineer 

Department of Transportation 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone: 202 366–1833 

Fax: 202 366–4329 

Email: louis.molino@dot.gov 

RIN: 2127–AK23 

DOT—NHTSA 

122. ŒFEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLES 

SAFETY STANDARD NO. 111, 

REARVIEW MIRRORS 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

49 USC 30111; 49 USC 30115; 49 USC 

30117; 49 USC 30166; 49 USC 322; 

Delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 

CFR Citation: 

49 CFR 571.111 

Legal Deadline: 

Other, Statutory, February 28, 2009, 

Initiate Rulemaking. 

Final, Statutory, February 28, 2011, 

Publish Final Rule. 

Abstract: 

This rulemaking would amend Federal 

Motor Vehicle Standard No. 111, 

Rearview Mirrors, to reflect 

requirements contained in the Cameron 

Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety 

Act of 2007. The Act requires that 

NHTSA expand the required field of 

view to enable the driver of a motor 

vehicle to detect areas behind the 

motor vehicle to reduce death and 

injury resulting from backing incidents, 

particularly incidents involving small 

children and disabled persons. 

According to the Act, such a standard 

may be met by the provision of 

additional mirrors, sensors, cameras, or 

other technology to expand the driver’s 

field of view. 

Statement of Need: 

Vehicles that are backing up have a 

potential to create a danger to 

pedestrians and pedicyclists. NHTSA 

estimates that backover crashes 

involving light vehicles account for an 

estimated 228 fatalities and 17,000 

injuries annually. In analyzing the data 

further, we found that many of these 

incidents occur off public roadways, in 

areas such as driveways and parking 

lots and that they involve parents (or 

caregivers) accidentally backing over 

children. We have also found that 

children represent approximately 44 

percent of the fatalities, which we 

believe to be unique to this safety 

problem. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Section 3011, title 49 of the USC, states 

that the Secretary shall prescribe motor 

vehicle safety standards. 

Alternatives: 

NHTSA is evaluating additional 

mirrors, sensors, cameras, and other 

technology to address this safety 

problem. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Costs: $1.9 to 2.7 billion. 

Benefit: Reduction by 95 to 112 

fatalities. 

Risks: 

The agency believes there are no 

substantial risks to this rulemaking. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM 03/04/09 74 FR 9477 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End 

05/04/09 

NPRM 04/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

No 

Small Entities Affected: 

No 

Government Levels Affected: 

None 

International Impacts: 

This regulatory action will be likely to 

have international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov 

Agency Contact: 

David Hines 

General Engineer Office of Crash 

Avoidance Standards 

Department of Transportation 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone: 202 366–2720 

Email: dhines@nhtsa.dot.gov 

RIN: 2127–AK43 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 64299 

DOT—NHTSA 

123. ∑ ŒREQUIRE INSTALLATION OF 

SEAT BELTS ON MOTORCOACHES, 

FMVSS NO. 208 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

49 USC 30111; 49 USC 30115; 49 USC 

30117; 49 USC 30166; 49 USC 322; 49 

CFR 1.50 

CFR Citation: 

49 CFR 571.208; 49 CFR 571.3 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

This rulemaking would require the 

installation of lap/shoulder belts in 

newly-manufactured motorcoaches. 

Specifically, this rulemaking would 

establish a new definition for 

motorcoaches in 49 CFR Part 571.3. It 

would also amend Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, 

‘‘Occupant crash protection,’’ to require 

the installation of lap/shoulder belts at 

all driver and passenger seating 

positions. It would also require the 

installation of lap/shoulder belts at 

driver seating positions of large school 

buses in FMVSS No. 208. This 

rulemaking responds, in part, to 

recommendations made by the National 

Transportation Safety Board for 

improving bus safety. 

Statement of Need: 

Over the ten-year period between 1999 

and 2008, there were 54 fatal 

motorcoach crashes resulting in 186 

fatalities. During this period, on 

average, 16 fatalities have occurred 

annually to occupants of motorcoaches 

in crash and rollover events, with about 

2 of these fatalities being drivers and 

14 being passengers. However, while 

motorcoach transportation overall is 

safe, when serious crashes of this 

vehicle type do occur, they can cause 

a significant number of fatal or serious 

injuries during a single event, 

particularly when occupants are 

ejected. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Section 30111, Title 49 of the USC, 

states that the Secretary shall prescribe 

motor vehicle safety standards. 

Alternatives: 

In addition to the proposed installation 

of seat belts in all passenger seating 

positions on motorcoaches, the agency 

is also pursuing improvements to 

motorcoach roof strength, fire safety, 

and emergency egress to improve 

occupant protection. Our detailed plan 

for improving motorcoach passenger 

protection can be found in NHTSA’s 

Approach to Motorcoach Safety 2007 

(Docket No. NHTSA-2007-28793). 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

TBD 

Risks: 

The agency believes there are no 

substantial risks to this rulemaking, and 

that only beneficial outcomes will 

occur as the industry moves to reduce 

injuries of motorcoach occupants. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 03/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

No 

Small Entities Affected: 

No 

Government Levels Affected: 

None 

International Impacts: 

This regulatory action will be likely to 

have international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov 

Agency Contact: 

David Sutula 

Safety Standards Engineer 

Department of Transportation 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone: 202 366–3273 

Fax: 202 366–4329 

Email: david.sutula@dot.gov 

RIN: 2127–AK56 

DOT—NHTSA 

FINAL RULE STAGE 

124. ∑ ŒTIRE FUEL EFFICIENCY 

CONSUMER INFORMATION 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

49 USC 32304 

CFR Citation: 

49 CFR 575.105 

Legal Deadline: 

Final, Statutory, December 18, 2009, 

Publish Final Rule. 

Abstract: 

This rulemaking would establish a new 

program that would make information 

about the relative rolling resistance of 

tires available to purchasers of 

replacement tires and educate 

consumers about the effect of tires on 

automobile fuel efficiency, safety, and 

durability. The agency is required by 

the Energy Independence and Security 

Act of 2007 to establish a national tire 

fuel efficiency consumer information 

program for replacement tires designed 

for use on motor vehicles. Vehicle 

manufacturers often use low rolling 

resistance tires on new vehicles to help 

meet CAFE goals. This rulemaking is 

significant because it has a statutory 

mandate and it relates to fuel 

efficiency. 

Statement of Need: 

The agency is required by the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

to establish a national tire fuel 

efficiency consumer information 

program for replacement tires designed 

for use on motor vehicles that would 

make information about the relative 

rolling resistance of tires available to 

purchasers of replacement tires and 

educate consumers about the effect of 

tires on automobile fuel efficiency, 

safety, and durability. Vehicle 

manufacturers often use low rolling 

resistance tires on new vehicles to help 

meet CAFE goals. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

The Energy Independence and Security 

Act of 2007 (EISA; Pub. L. 110-140, 121 

Stat. 1492 (December 18, 2007) requires 

NHTSA to develop a national tire fuel 

efficiency consumer information 

program to educate consumers about 

the effect of tires on automobile fuel 

efficiency, safety, and durability. 

Alternatives: 

The agency is not pursuing any 

alternatives. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

The annual cost of NHTSA’s proposal 

is estimated to be between $18.9 and 

$52.8 million. This includes testing 

costs of $22,500, reporting costs of 

around $113,000, labeling costs of 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
64300 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 

around $9 million, costs to the Federal 

government of $1.28 million, and costs 

of between $8.4 and $42 million to 

improve tires. In addition, NHTSA 

anticipates one-time costs of around $4 

million, including initial testing costs 

of $3.7 million and reporting start-up 

costs of $280,000. 

It is hoped that the proposed rule will 

have benefits in terms of fuel economy, 

safety and durability. Because the 

agency cannot foresee precisely how 

much the consumer information 

program will affect consumer tire 

purchasing behavior, driving the market 

for improved tires, NHTSA made 

estimates based on hypothetical 

assumptions that 2% and 10% of tires 

would improve. Under these 

assumptions, the rule would save 7.9- 

78 million gallons of fuel annually. The 

values of the fuel savings are between 

$22 and $220 million at a 3 percent 

discount rate and between $20 and 

$203 million at a 7 percent discount 

rate. 

Risks: 

The agency believes there are no 

substantial risks to this rulemaking, and 

that only beneficial outcomes will 

occur as it will drive the market for 

more fuel efficient tires. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 06/22/09 74 FR 29541 

NPRM Comment 

Period End 

08/21/09 

Final Action 12/00/09 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

No 

Small Entities Affected: 

No 

Government Levels Affected: 

None 

International Impacts: 

This regulatory action will be likely to 

have international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov 

Agency Contact: 

Mary Versailles 

Office of Planning and Consumer 

Standards 

Department of Transportation 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone: 202–366–2057 

Email: mary.versailles@dot.gov 

RIN: 2127–AK45 

DOT—NHTSA 

125. ∑ ŒPASSENGER CAR AND LIGHT 

TRUCK CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL 

ECONOMY STANDARDS MYS 

2012–2016 

Priority: 

Economically Significant. Major under 

5 USC 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: 

This action may affect the private 

sector under PL 104-4. 

Legal Authority: 

49 USC 32902; delegation of authority 

at 49 CFR 1.50 

CFR Citation: 

49 CFR 533 

Legal Deadline: 

Final, Statutory, April 1, 2010, Final 

rule for Model Year 2012. 

Abstract: 

This joint NHTSA/EPA rulemaking 

would establish a National Program 

consisting of new standards for lightduty vehicles that will reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions and improve 

fuel economy. This rulemaking would 

be consistent with the National Fuel 

Efficiency Policy announced by 

President Obama on May 19, 2009, 

responding to the country’s critical 

need to address global climate change 

and to reduce oil consumption. EPA is 

proposing greenhouse gas emissions 

standards under the Clean Air Act, and 

NHTSA is proposing Corporate Average 

Fuel Economy standards under the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as 

amended. These standards apply to 

passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and 

medium-duty passenger vehicles, 

covering model years 2012 through 

2016. They require these vehicles to 

meet an estimated combined average 

emissions level of 250 grams of CO2 

per mile in MY 2016 under EPA’s GHG 

program, and 34.1 mpg in MY 2016 

under NHTSA’s CAFE program and 

represent a harmonized and consistent 

national program (National Program). 

Under the National Program, the overall 

light-duty vehicle fleet would reach 

35.5 mpg in MY 2016, if all reductions 

were made through fuel economy 

improvements. The Program would 

result in approximately 950 million 

metric tons of CO2 emission reductions 

and approximately 1.8 billion barrels of 

oil savings over the lifetime of vehicles 

sold in model years 2012 through 2016. 

This rulemaking action was 

inadvertently published under RIN 

2127-AK90. 

Statement of Need: 

NHTSA is required by statute to 

establish the CAFE standard for a 

model year not later than 18 months 

before its beginning, and thus must 

publish the final rule for model year 

2012 on or before April 1, 2010. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Section 32910(d) of Title 49 of the 

United States Code provides that the 

Administrator may prescribe 

regulations necessary to carry out his 

duties under Chapter 329, Automobile 

fuel economy. 

Alternatives: 

The agency is not pursuing any 

alternatives. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

The costs and benefits of the potential 

changes addressed in this action have 

not yet been assessed. 

Risks: 

Depending on how manufacturers 

address Federal fuel economy 

requirements, there is some potential 

effect on safety. The most recent 

NHTSA analysis (2003) indicated that 

the association between vehicle weight 

and overall crash fatality rates in 

heavier MY 1991-99 light trucks and 

vans was not significant. However, for 

three other groups of MY 1991-99 

vehicles - the lighter LTVs (light trucks 

and vans), the heavier cars, and 

especially the lighter cars - fatality rates 

increased as weights decreased. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 09/28/09 74 FR 49454 

Notice of Public 

Hearing 

10/06/09 74 FR 51252 

NPRM Comment 

Period End 

11/27/09 

Final Rule 04/00/10 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 64301 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

Undetermined 

Government Levels Affected: 

None 

Energy Effects: 

Statement of Energy Effects planned as 

required by Executive Order 13211. 

International Impacts: 

This regulatory action will be likely to 

have international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov 

Agency Contact: 

Julie Abraham 

Director 

Department of Transportation 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone: 202–366–1455 

Email: julie.abraham@dot.gov 

Related RIN: Related to 2060–AP58 

RIN: 2127–AK50 

DOT—Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA) 

FINAL RULE STAGE 

126. ∑ ŒPOSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL 

Priority: 

Economically Significant. Major under 

5 USC 801. 

Legal Authority: 

PL 110–432, Section 104 (Codified at 

49 USC 20157); Rail Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 

CFR Citation: 

49 CFR 236 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

This rulemaking would regulate the 

submission of Positive Train Control 

plans; the implementation of the 

Positive Train Control Systems; and the 

qualification, installation, maintenance 

and use of the these systems required 

under 49 USC 20157 or specifically 

required by the Federal Railroad 

Administration. 

Statement of Need: 

Required by the Railroad Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110- 

423. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Required by the Railroad Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110- 

423. 

Alternatives: 

The Railroad Safety Improvement Act 

of 2008 does not permit FRA to 

exercise discretion in requiring the 

installation of PTC systems on railroads 

operating on the affected network. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

The Railroad Safety Improvement Act 

of 2008 does not permit FRA to 

exercise discretion in requiring the 

installation of PTC systems on railroads 

operating on the affected network. All 

costs and benefits that follow are 20 

year costs and benefits, discounted at 

7% per year. FRA estimates that it will 

cost between $3 billion and $7 billion 

to install PTC on passenger railroads, 

and between $10 billion and $20 

billion to install PTC on Class 1 freight 

railroads. FRA estimates that the 

benefit of reduced accidents on 

railroads will be about $800 million, 

however the net impact on safety could 

be adverse if shippers and passengers 

divert to highway transportation. 

Risks: 

The advantages of PTC technology will 

significantly improve the safety and 

performance of train operations, 

significantly reducing the risk of train 

accidents. Under the statute, required 

PTC systems will be designed to 

prevent train-to-train collisions, 

overspeed derailments, and incursions 

into roadway worker work limits. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 07/21/09 74 FR 35950 

NPRM Comment 

Period End 

08/20/09 

Final Rule 01/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

Yes 

Small Entities Affected: 

Businesses 

Government Levels Affected: 

None 

Federalism: 

Undetermined 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov 

Agency Contact: 

Kathryn Shelton 

Trial Attorney 

Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone: 202 493–6063 

Email: kathryn.shelton@fra.dot.gov 

RIN: 2130–AC03 

DOT—Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA) 

FINAL RULE STAGE 

127. ŒPIPELINE SAFETY: 

DISTRIBUTION INTEGRITY 

MANAGEMENT 

Priority: 

Economically Significant. Major under 

5 USC 801. 

Legal Authority: 

49 USC 5103; 49 USC 60104; 49 USC 

60102; 49 USC 60108 to 60110; 49 USC 

60113; 49 USC 60118; 49 CFR 1.53 

CFR Citation: 

49 CFR 192 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

This rulemaking would establish 

integrity management program 

requirements appropriate for gas 

distribution pipeline operators. This 

rulemaking would require gas 

distribution pipeline operators to 

develop and implement programs to 

better assure the integrity of their 

pipeline systems. 

Statement of Need: 

This rule is necessary to comply with 

a Congressional mandate and to 

enhance safety by managing and 

reducing risks associated with gas 

distribution pipeline systems. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

The Pipeline Inspection, Protection, 

Enforcement and Safety Act of 2006 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
64302 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 

(Public Law No. 109-468), requires 

PHMSA to prescribe minimum 

standards for integrity management 

programs for gas distribution pipelines. 

Alternatives: 

PHMSA considered the following 

alternatives: 

—No Action: No new requirements 

would be levied. 

—Apply existing gas transmission 

pipeline IMP regulations to gas 

distribution pipelines. 

—Model State legislation by imposing 

requirements on excavators and others 

outside the regulatory jurisdiction of 

pipeline safety authorities. 

—Develop guidance documents for 

adoption by states with the intent of 

states mandating use of the guidance. 

—Implement prescriptive Federal 

regulations, specifying in detail, actions 

that must be taken to assure 

distribution pipeline integrity. 

—Implement risk-based, flexible, 

performance-oriented federal 

regulations, establishing high-level 

elements that must be included in 

integrity management programs—the 

alternative selected. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

The monetized benefits resulting from 

the rulemaking are estimated to be $214 

million per year. The costs of the 

rulemaking are estimated to be $155.1 

million in the first year and $104.1 

million in each subsequent year. 

Risks: 

These regulations will require operators 

to analyze their pipelines, including 

unique situations, identify the factors 

that affect risk — both risk to the 

pipeline and the risks posed by the 

pipeline — and manage those factors. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 06/25/08 73 FR 36015 

Extended NPRM 

Comment Period 

End 10/23/08 

09/12/08 73 FR 52938 

NPRM Comment 

Period End 

09/23/08 

Final Rule 12/00/09 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

No 

Small Entities Affected: 

Businesses 

Government Levels Affected: 

None 

Additional Information: 

Docket Nos. PHMSA-04-18938 and 

PHMSA-04-19854. 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov 

Agency Contact: 

Mike Israni 

General Engineer 

Department of Transportation 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone: 202 366–4571 

Email: mike.israni@rpsa.dot.gov 

RIN: 2137–AE15 

DOT—Maritime Administration 

(MARAD) 

PROPOSED RULE STAGE 

128. ŒREGULATIONS TO BE 

FOLLOWED BY ALL DEPARTMENTS, 

AGENCIES, AND SHIPPERS HAVING 

RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE A 

PREFERENCE FOR U.S.–FLAG 

VESSELS IN THE SHIPMENT OF 

CARGOES ON OCEAN VESSELS 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

49 CFR 1.66; 46 App USC 1101; 46 

App USC 1241; 46 USC 2302 (e)(1); PL 

91–469 

CFR Citation: 

46 CFR 381 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

This rulemaking would revise and 

clarify the Cargo Preference rules that 

have not been revised substantially 

since 1971. Revisions would include an 

updated purpose and definitions 

section along with the removal of 

obsolete provisions. 

Statement of Need: 

On September 4, 2009, the USDA, 

MARAD, and USAID entered into a 

MOU regarding the proper 

implementation of the Cargo Preference 

Act. The MOU establishes procedures 

and standards by which owners and 

operators of oceangoing cargo ships 

may seek to designate each of their 

vessels as either a dry bulk carrier or 

a dry cargo liner, according to specified 

service-based criteria. With the help of 

OMB, these agencies are in the process 

of negotiating updates to the 

comprehensive cargo preference rule, 

which has not been significantly 

changed since 1971. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

The Cargo Preference Act requires that 

Federal agencies take necessary and 

practicable steps to ensure that 

privately-owned US flag vessels 

transport at least 50 percent of the gross 

tonnage of cargo sponsored under 

Federal programs to the extent such 

vessels are available at fair and 

reasonable rates for commercial vessels 

of the US, in a manner that will ensure 

a fair and reasonable participation of 

commercial vessels of the US in those 

cargoes by geographic areas. 46 USC 

55305(b). An additional 25 percent of 

gross tonnage of certain food assistance 

programs is to be transported in 

accordance with the requirements of 46 

USC 55314. 

Alternatives: 

TBD 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

TBD 

Risks: 

TBD 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 09/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

No 

Small Entities Affected: 

No 

Government Levels Affected: 

None 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 64303 

Agency Contact: 

Christine Gurland 

Department of Transportation 

Maritime Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone: 202 366–5157 

Email: christine.gurland@dot.gov 

Related RIN: Related to 2133–AB37 

RIN: 2133–AB74 

DOT—MARAD 

129. ŒCARGO PREFERENCE — 

COMPROMISE, ASSESSMENT, 

MITIGATION, SETTLEMENT AND 

COLLECTION OF CIVIL PENALTIES 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Unfunded Mandates: 

Undetermined 

Legal Authority: 

PL 110–417 

CFR Citation: 

46 CFR 383 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

This rulemaking would establish part 

383 of the cargo preference regulations. 

This rulemaking would cover P.L. 110- 

417, section 3511, National Defense 

Authorization Act for FY2009 statutory 

changes to the cargo preference rules, 

which have not been substantially 

revised since 1971. The rulemaking 

also would include compromise, 

assessment, mitigation, settlement, and 

collection of civil penalties. 

Statement of Need: 

On September 4, 2009, the USDA, 

MARAD, and USAID entered into a 

MOU regarding the proper 

implementation of the Cargo Preference 

Act. The MOU establishes procedures 

and standards by which owners and 

operators of oceangoing cargo ships 

may seek to designate each of their 

vessels as either a dry bulk carrier or 

a dry cargo liner, according to specified 

service-based criteria. With the help of 

OMB, these agencies are negotiating 

updates to the comprehensive Cargo 

Preference rule, which has not been 

significantly changed since 1971. The 

statutory changes will be the subject of 

either a separate rulemaking or as part 

of the comprehensive rulemaking. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

The Cargo Preference Act requires that 

Federal agencies take necessary and 

practicable steps to ensure that 

privately-owned US flag vessels 

transport at least 50 percent of the gross 

tonnage of cargo sponsored under 

Federal programs to the extent such 

vessels are available at fair and 

reasonable rates for commercial vessels 

of the US, in a manner that will ensure 

a fair and reasonable participation of 

commercial vessels of the US in those 

cargoes by geographic areas. 46 USC 

55305(b). An additional 25 percent of 

gross tonnage of certain food assistance 

programs is to be transported in 

accordance with the requirements of 46 

USC 55314. P.L 110-417 gave MARAD 

the authority for assessing civil 

penalties and make-up cargoes for noncompliance with the cargo preference 

laws. 

Alternatives: 

TBD 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

TBD 

Risks: 

TBD 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 03/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

Yes 

Small Entities Affected: 

Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined 

URL For More Information: 

www.regulations.gov 

URL For Public Comments: 

www.regulations.gov 

Agency Contact: 

Christine Gurland 

Department of Transportation 

Maritime Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone: 202 366–5157 

Email: christine.gurland@dot.gov 

Related RIN: Related to 2133–AB74 

RIN: 2133–AB75 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–S 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES