Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/01/15/2013-00597/department-regulatory-agenda-semiannual-summary
Timestamp: 2018-04-19 19:57:36
Document Index: 5775892

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 243', 'arts 571', 'art 221', 'art 241', 'art 291', 'art 403']

A Proposed Rule by the Transportation Department on 01/15/2013
This republication is effective January 15, 2013.
78 FR 3289
3289-3309 (21 pages)
2013-00597
Section 610 and Other ReviewsStart Printed Page 3297
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2013-00597 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2013-00597
Start Preamble Start Printed Page 3290
The entire Department of Transportation Fall 2012 Unified Agenda published in the Federal Register on January 8, 2013 (78 FR 1604), is being republished to correct missing portions of the fall 2012 preamble. This information was omitted in error, and is therefore being reprinted to publish the data in its entirety.
The entire Department of Transportation Fall 2012 Unified Agenda is being republished to correct missing portions of the fall 2012 preamble.
To help the Department achieve these goals and in accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” (58 FR 51735; Oct. 4, 1993) and the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; Feb. 26, 1979), the Department prepares a Semiannual Regulatory Agenda. It summarizes all current and projected rulemaking, reviews of existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department. These are matters on which action has begun or is projected during the succeeding 12 months or such longer period as may be anticipated or for which action has been completed since the last Agenda.
Because publication in the Federal Register is mandated for the regulatory flexibility agendas required by the Start Printed Page 3291Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602), DOT's printed Agenda entries include only:
First, the Agenda is divided by initiating offices. Then, the Agenda is divided into five categories: (1) Prerule stage, (2) proposed rule stage, (3) final rule stage, (4) long-term actions, and (5) completed actions. For each entry, the Agenda provides the following information: (1) Its “significance”; (2) a short, descriptive title; (3) its legal basis; (4) the related regulatory citation in the Code of Federal Regulations; (5) any legal deadline and, if so, for what action (e.g., NPRM, final rule); (6) an abstract; (7) a timetable, including the earliest expected date for a decision on whether to take the action; (8) whether the rulemaking will affect small entities and/or levels of government and, if so, which categories; (9) whether a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis is required (for rules that would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities); (10) a listing of any analyses an office will prepare or has prepared for the action (with minor exceptions, DOT requires an economic analysis for all its rulemakings.); (11) an agency contact office or official who can provide further information; (12) a Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) assigned to identify an individual rulemaking in the Agenda and facilitate tracing further action on the issue; (13) whether the action is subject to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; (14) whether the action is subject to the Energy Act; and (15) whether the action is major under the congressional review provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. If there is information that does not fit in the other categories, it will be included under a separate heading entitled “Additional Information.” One such example of this is the letters “SB,” “IC,” “SLT.” These refer to information used as part of our required reports on Retrospective Review of DOT rulemakings. A “Y” or an “N,” for yes and no, respectively, follow the letters to indicate whether or not a particular rulemaking would have effects on: Small businesses (SB); information collections (IC); or State, local, or tribal (SLT) governments.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, comments are specifically invited on regulations that we have targeted for review under section 610 of the Act. The phrase (sec. 610 Review) appears at the end of the title for these reviews. Please see appendix D for the Department's section 610 review plans.Start Printed Page 3292
Section 610 requires that we conduct reviews of rules that (1): Have been published within the last 10 years, and (2) have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” (SEIOSNOSE). It also requires that we publish in the Federal Register each year a list of any such rules that we will review during the next year. The Office of the Secretary and each of the Department's Operating Administrations have a 10-year review plan. These reviews comply with section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.Start Printed Page 3293
Start Printed Page 3294
General: In September 2011, the Department proposed to change the existing rule to explicitly ban the smoking of electronic cigarettes on air carriers and foreign air carrier flights in scheduled intrastate, interstate and foreign air transportation. The Department is also considering banning smoking on charter flights with 19 or more passenger seats in part out of concern about the health effects of second hand smoke on flight attendants aboard such flights. Carriers that provide air transportation exclusively with aircraft that seat no more than 60 passenger seats are considered to be small entities. OST's plain language review indicates no need for substantial revision.
14 CFR part 243—Passenger Manifest InformationStart Printed Page 3295
General: The Department is anticipating proposing changes to the existing rule to codify the requirements in a statute (49 U.S.C. 41712(c)) and the Department's enforcement policy with respect to Web site disclosure of code-share and long term wet lease arrangements. OST's plain language review indicates no need for substantial revision.
Section 610: This rule imposes requirements on small air carriers but the Department believes that the economic impact will not be significant
General: The Department is anticipating proposing changes to the existing rule to require comfortable cabin temperatures when there is a lengthy tarmac delay and to require a marketing carrier provide assistance to its code-share partner when a flight operated by the code share partner experiences a lengthy tarmac delay. OST's plain language review indicates no need for substantial revision.
Section 610: The agency conducted a Section 610 review of this part and found that the SEISNOSE no longer exists.
General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. FAA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.Start Printed Page 3296
5 49 CFR parts 571.101 through 571.110, and 571.135, 571.138 and 571.139 2012 2013
49 CFR part 221—Rear End Marking Device Passenger, Commuter and Freight Trains
49 CFR part 241—United States Locational Requirement for Dispatching of United States Rail Operations.
Start Printed Page 3299
General: This rule prescribes requirements for the immediate notice of certain hazardous materials incidents by telephone to the National Response Start Printed Page 3300Center (NRC). The primary function of the National Response Center is to serve as the sole national point of contact for reporting all oil, chemical, radiological, biological, and etiological discharges into the environment anywhere in the United States and its territories. In addition to gathering and distributing spill data for Federal On-Scene Coordinators and serving as the communications and operations center for the National Response Team, the NRC maintains agreements with a variety of Federal entities to make additional notifications regarding incidents meeting established trigger criteria. Section 171.15(b) establishes the trigger criteria for a reportable hazardous materials incident. PHMSA's plain language review of this rule indicates no need for substantial revision.
14 CFR part 291—Caro Operations in Interstate Air Transportation
33 CFR part 403—Rules of Procedure of the Joint Tolls Review BoardStart Printed Page 3301
Abstract: This rulemaking would address the following issues: (1) Whether the Department should require a marketing carrier to provide assistance to its code-share partner when a flight operated by the code-share partner experiences a lengthy tarmac delay; (2) whether the Department should enhance disclosure requirements on code-share operations, including requiring on-time performance data, reporting of certain data code-share operations, and codifying the statutory amendment of 49 U.S.C. 41712(c) regarding Web site schedule disclosure of code-share operations; (3) whether the Department should expand the on-time performance “reporting carrier” pool to include smaller carriers; (4) whether the Department should require travel agents to adopt minimum customer service standards in relation to the sale of air transportation; (5) whether the Department should require ticket agents to disclose the carriers whose tickets they sell or do not sell and information regarding any incentive payments they receive in connection with the sale of air transportation; (6) whether the Department should require ticket agents to disclose any preferential display of individual fares or carriers in the ticket agent's Internet displays; (7) whether the Department should require additional or special disclosures regarding certain substantial fees, e.g., Start Printed Page 3303oversize or overweight baggage fees; (8) whether the Department should prohibit post-purchase price increase for all services and products not purchased with the ticket or whether it is sufficient to prohibit post-purchase prices increases for baggage charges that traditionally have been included in the ticket price; and (9) whether the Department should require that ancillary fees be displayed through all sale channels.
Agency Contact: Deke Abbott, Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Phone: 202-267-8266, Email: deke.abbott@faa.gov.
Agency Contact: Nancy L Claussen, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, Start Printed Page 3304DC 20591, Phone: 202-267-8166, Email: nancy.claussen@faa.gov.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.Start Printed Page 3305
Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102 to 20103; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; 49 CFR 1.49; 49 U.S.C. 20107; 49 U.S.C. 20133; 49 U.S.C. 20141; 49 U.S.C. 20157; 49 U.S.C. 20301 to 20303; 49 U.S.C. 20306; 49 U.S.C. 21301 to 21302; 49 U.S.C. 21304Start Printed Page 3306
Abstract: This rulemaking would respond to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule published on November 30, 2011. FRA received two petitions for reconsideration of the final rule from railroad industry organizations. The first petition raised concern with the final rule's cost-benefit analysis and requested several amendments to the final rule to lessen the potential costs. Start Printed Page 3308The second petition discussed the final rule's potential impact on passenger train service/resultant costs and requested an amendment to the final rule to allow passenger trains to travel at higher speeds when passing maintenance of way work zones implicated by the rulemaking. This Final Rule will make amendments to the original Adjacent-Track On-Track Safety Final Rule.