[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 68 (Monday, April 10, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18056-18061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-3411]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
49 CFR Part 604
[Docket No. FTA-2005-22657]
RIN 2132-AA85
Charter Service
AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
ACTION: Final notice forming a negotiated rulemaking advisory
committee.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the direction contained in the Joint Explanatory
Statement of the Committee of Conference, for section 3023(d),
``Condition on Charter Bus Transportation Service'' of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA-LU) of 2005, FTA is establishing a committee to
develop, through negotiated rulemaking procedures, recommendations for
improving the regulation regarding the prohibition of FTA grant
recipients from providing charter bus service. The committee will
consist of persons who represent the interests affected by the proposed
rule, i.e., charter bus companies, public transportation operators, and
other interested parties. This document lists the committee members,
issues to be addressed by the committee, and proposed meeting dates,
time, and location.
DATES: Effective Date: April 10, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions regarding accessibility,
directions, or administrative procedures, please contact Elizabeth
Martineau at (202) 366-1966 or Linda Lasley at (202) 366-4063.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Statutory Authority
Section 3023 of SAFETEA-LU amends 49 U.S.C. 5323(d) to state that
``the Secretary shall bar a recipient or an operator from receiving
federal transit assistance in an amount the Secretary considers
appropriate if the Secretary finds a pattern of violations of the
[charter bus] agreement.'' Congressional conference report language on
Section 3023 requests that FTA ``initiate a negotiated rulemaking
seeking public comment on the regulations implementing section
5323(d)'' and to consider the issues listed below:
1. Are there potential limited conditions under which public
transit agencies can provide community-based charter services directly
to local governments and private non-profit agencies that would not
otherwise be served in a cost-effective manner by private operators?
2. How can the administration and enforcement of charter bus
provisions be better communicted to the public, including use of
internet technology?
3. How can the enforcement of violations of the charter bus
regulations be improved?
4. How can the charter complaint and administrative appeals process
be improved?
II. Negotiated Rulemaking
As requested by conference report language on Section 3023 of
SAFETEA-LU, FTA will conduct the negotiated rulemaking. The Negotiated
Rulemaking Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-648 (5 U.S.C. 561, et seq.) (NRA)
establishes a framework for the conduct of a negotiated rulemaking and
encourages agencies to use negotiated rulemaking to enhance the
rulemaking process. FTA will form an advisory committee consisting of
representatives of the affected interests for the purpose of reaching
consensus, if possible, on a proposed rulemaking.
A. The Concept of Negotiated Rulemaking
Usually FTA develops a rulemaking proposal using its own staff and
consultant resources. The concerns of affected parties are made known
through means such as various informal contacts and advance notices of
proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register. After the notice
of proposed rulemaking is published for comment, affected parties may
submit arguments and data defining and supporting their positions with
regard to the issues in the proposed rule. All comments from affected
parties are directed to the Department's docket (http://dms.dot.gov)
for the rulemaking. In general, there is limited communication among
parties representing different interests. As Congress noted in the RA,
such regulatory development procedures may ``discourage the affected
parties from meeting and communicating with each other, and may cause
parties with different interest to assume conflicting and antagonistic
positions * * *'' (Sec. 2(2) of Pub. L. 101-648). Congress also stated
``adversarial rulemaking deprives the affected parties and the public
of the benefits of face-to-face negotiations and cooperation in
developing and reaching agreement on a rule. It also deprives them of
the benefits of shared information, knowledge, expertise, and technical
abilities possessed by the affected parties.'' (Sec. 2(3) of Pub. L.
101-648).
Using negotiated rulemaking to develop the proposed rule is
fundamentally different. Negotiated rulemaking is a process by which a
proposed rule is developed by a committee composed of representatives
of those interests that will be significantly affected by the rule.
Decisions are made by some form of consensus, which generally requires
a measure of concurrence among the interests represented.\1\ An agency
desiring to initiate the process does so by carefully identifying all
interests potentially affected by the rulemaking under consideration.
To help in this identification process, the agency publishes a notice,
such as this one, which identifies a preliminary list of interests and
requests public comment on that list. Following receipt of the
comments, the agency establishes an advisory committee representing
these various interests to negotiate a consensus on the terms of a
proposed rule. The committee is chartered under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2) (FACA). Representation on the committee
may be ``direct'', that is, each member represents a specific interest,
or may be ``indirect,'' that is, through coalitions of parties formed
for this purpose. The establishing agency has a member of the committee
representing the Federal Government's own set of interests. A
facilitator or mediator can assist the negotiated rulemaking advisory
committee by
[[Page 18057]]
facilitating the negotiation process. The role of this mediator, or
facilitator, is to apply proven consensus building techniques to the
advisory committee setting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The negotiated Rulemaking Act defines ``consensus'' as
``unanimous concurrence among the interests represented on a
negotiated rulemaking committee * * * unless such committee (A)
agrees to define such term to mean a general but not unanimous
concurrence; or (B) agrees upon another specified definition.'' 5
U.S.C. 562(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once a regulatory negotiation advisory committee reaches consensus
on the provisions of a proposed rule, the agency consistent with its
legal obligations, uses this consensus as the basis of its proposed
rule and published it in the Federal Register. This provides the
required public notice under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA; 5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) and allows for a public comment period. Under the
APA, the public retains the right to comment. FTA anticipates, however,
that the pre-proposal consensus agreed upon by this committee will
effectively address virtually all major issues prior to publication of
a proposed rulemaking.
B. The Federal Transit Administration's Commitment
In initiating this regulatory negotiation process, FTA plans to
provide adequate resources to ensure timely and successful completion
of the process. This includes making the process a priority activity
for all representatives, components, officials, and personnel of FTA
who need to be involved in the rulemaking, from the time of initiation
until such time as a final rule is issued or the process is expressly
terminated. FTA will provide administrative support for the process and
will take steps to ensure that the negotiated rulemaking committee has
adequate resources to complete its work in a timely fashion in each
case as reasonably determined by FTA. These may include the provision
or procurement of such support services as properly equipped space
adequate for public meetings and caucuses; logistical support; word
processing and distribution of background information; the services of
a facilitator; and additional research and other technical assistance.
FTA hired Susan Podziba & Associates, a public policy mediation and
consensus building company, to act as the facilitator for this
negotiated rulemaking.
C. Committee Members
As discussed above, the negotiated rulemaking process is
fundamentally different from the usual process for developing a
proposed rule. Negotiation allows interested and affected parties to
discuss possible approaches to various issues rather than simply being
asked in a regular notice and comment rulemaking proceeding to respond
to details on a proposal developed and issued by an agency. The
negotiation process involves the mutual education of the parties by
each other on the practical concerns about the impact of various
approaches. Each committee member participates in resolving the
interests and concerns of other members, rather than leaving it
exclusively to the agency to bridge different points of view.
A key principle of negotiated rulemaking is that agreement is by
consensus, as defined by the committee. Thus, no one interest or group
of interests shall control the process. Under the NRA as noted above,
``consensus'' usually means the unanimous concurrence among interests
represented on a negotiated rulemaking committee, though a different
definition may be employed in some cases. In addition, experience has
demonstrated that using a professional mediator to facilitate this
process will assist all potential parties, including helping to
identify their interests in the rule and enabling them to reevaluate
previously stated positions on issues involved in the rulemaking
effort.
D. Key Issues for Negotiation
The Conference Committee report on SAFETEA-LU requested that FTA
and the negotiated rulemaking committee consider the issues listed
below:
1. Are there potential limited conditions under which public
transit agencies can provide community-based charter services directly
to local governments and private non-profit agencies that would not
otherwise be served in a cost-effective manner by private operators?
2. How can the administration and enforcement of charter bus
provisions be better communicated to the public, including use of
internet technology?
3. How can the enforcement of violations of the charter bus
regulations be improved?
4. How can the charter complaint and administrative appeals process
be improved?
In addition to those issues posed in the Conference Committee Report,
FTA identified the following issues for consideration by the committee:
1. A potential new exception for emergency services such as
evacuation and training for emergencies, including homeland security,
natural disasters, and other emergencies.
2. A new process for determining if there a private charter bus
companies willing and able to provide service that would utilize
electronic notification and response within 72 hours.
3. A new exception for transportation of government employees,
elected officials, and members of the transit industry to examine local
transit operations, facilities, and public works.
4. Clarify the definitions of regulatory terms.
FTA invited comment on all of these issues.
III. Comments Received
We received 20 comments on the proposed issues for consideration by
the advisory committee; see document published 71 FR 5037, Jan. 31,
2006. We heard from large and small public transportation providers,
rural transportation providers, large, medium, and small bus companies,
transit associations, charter associations, and several state
Departments of Transportation (state DOT). While we have summarized the
comments received, we do not feel it is appropriate at this time to
respond to the comments received. As a member of the advisory
committee, FTA is eager to engage in discussions and deliberations with
the other members of the committee regarding the issues identified in
the Conference Committee Report and the issues we identified.
Responding to comments now could give the impression that we have
settled on a particular approach or resolution.
Conference Committee Report Issues
1. Are there potential limited conditions under which public transit
agencies can provide community-based charter services directly to local
governments and private non-profit agencies that would not otherwise be
served in a cost-effective manner by private operators?
Private charter operators took exception to the inclusion of the
term ``cost-effective'' in this issue because there has been no
demonstrated ``unmet need'' by public transportation providers. One
commenter noted that cost-effectiveness cannot be equated with price.
Providing incidental charter service will cost private carriers and
public transit systems roughly the same. Public transit systems,
however, often price their service at or below their costs for
providing the service. According to this commenter that argument ``goes
to very heart of `unfair government competition.' '' Another private
charter operator noted that while they do not believe there is an unmet
charter service need, if public transportation providers could
demonstrate ``that a valid need exists to create further exceptions to
the charter rule, we would only consider supporting such exceptions if
they were clearly defined and significantly limited; if there were more
accountability, reporting and
[[Page 18058]]
publication requirements built into the process; and if we could be
assured of more consistent and aggressive enforcement of the charter
rules.''
Several comments from public transportation providers asked FTA to
revise the charter rules to make them more flexible for FTA funded
providers in rural areas. One commenter summarized this issues as:
``Charter bus operators seldom base equipment in rural areas and thus
face high mobilization costs if they are to move vehicle to small
communities to provide services for limited periods of time. Since
private charter companies are often unable to provide the service at a
price the group can afford, the service need goes unmet.'' Another
commenter noted that public officials who already have limited budgets
feel they should be able to use the vehicles for community-based events
such as transporting juries to crime locations or transporting
potential new business owners who may be interested in locating in the
area.
A few comments from public transportation providers supported an
exception from charter regulations for those transit systems that
contract out their day-to-day operations to a private for-profit
transit provider. Those commenters assert that these contracts already
support private charter operations, and, thus, the regulations should
not apply to their systems. One of these commenters requested that the
regulations require the public transit agency, instead of the customer,
contact the private charter company. This commenter believes that such
a requirement would lessen the frustration of those seeking charter
services.
2. How can the administration and enforcement of charter bus provisions
be better communicated to the public, including use of internet
technology?
All comments received agreed that FTA could more effectively use
the internet to inform the public and transportation providers
regarding requests for charter service. One commenter suggested that
all transit agencies provide their chartering policies on their
websites. Another commenter states that ``those companies willing and
able to provide charter service should have to submit information on
service area and ability to provider charters to [FTA] and to the
[state DOTs] so that the information will be readily available to
public transit providers in their service areas.'' This commenter also
states that following this method would provide a record of
notification and responses, or non-responses. One commenter encouraged
the use of the Internet but warned that many rural operators still do
not have access to the Internet.
A state DOT would like to see FTA develop a brochure--paper and on
the Internet--that would inform state and local officials as to when a
transit agency cannot provide service even though providing such
service would appear to be consistent with the transit agency's
mission. This commenter also believes that FTA should adopt methods for
removing private charter companies from the list of willing and able
companies when that private charter company, in fact, never provides
the services.
A private operator also suggested a Web-based clearinghouse and
recommended that the Web site be arranged to send alerts to private
operators that there is a request for charter service. In addition,
this commenter noted that FTA could more regularly and effectively
communicate the rules to public transit grantees through ``Dear
Colleague'' letters, publications, audits, congressional testimony,
trade association presentations and other means. This commenter also
encouraged FTA publish complaints and enforcement actions on the
Internet.
3. How can the enforcement of violations of the charter bus regulations
be improved?
One commenter suggested that the committee consider definitions (or
a requirement for formal FTA written guidance) to make it clear under
what conditions the FTA, or a state DOT for rural operators, may
require a transit agency to cancel pending prohibited charter service,
when doing so would require the transit agency to nullify a contract
commitment. Additionally, this commenter suggested the committee might
consider requiring FTA to develop standard methods that can be used by
FTA and state DOTs to evaluate a complaint and, in particular, confirm
that a transit agency did not provide prohibited charter service.
A state DOT suggested letting non-charter systems know up-front the
ramifications of performing charter service. Another state DOT
commented that state-level bus associations and the national
associations should receive copies of all complaints, and FTA's
regional offices should have appropriate levels of dedicated personnel
in order to participate in any complaint and enforcement activities.
A public transportation provider stated that FTA can improve its
enforcement of violations of charter prohibitions by issuing a written
warning to the transit agency for the first offense. The warning serves
to inform the agency that their action is deemed inappropriate. If
there are subsequent offenses, then the transit agency should lose its
Federal funding in the amount of the Federal share of the cost of the
vehicle(s) it used to provide the charter service in question.
A private charter operator commented that the Secretary should
clearly and repeatedly inform all transit assistance recipients of the
regulations governing use of equipment purchased with Federal funds and
FTA should offer tools to transit agencies to aid in this compliance
including: Greater consistency in enforcement decisions; publication of
enforcement decisions; clear guidance on permissible and impermissible
actions and appropriate training for agency employees assigned the
responsibility for enforcing the charter rules. This comment also
suggested the Secretary could promote greater compliance among public
agencies by requiring them to notify FTA of charter service provided
and audits of the charter service provided should be conducted to
ensure compliance.
Another private operator suggested two enforcement options: (1) A
financial penalty (developed on a predetermined, progressive scale) or
(2) a total prohibition to provide charter service for an extended
period of time.
4. How can the charter complaint and administrative appeals process be
improved?
One state DOT suggested the committee consider allowing FTA to make
a determination that a complaint is substantially incomplete, such that
the complainant can be requested to provide additional information or
documentation before FTA will accept or act on the complaint.
A private charter operator stated if FTA offered a more open,
flexible and timely process, the appeals process could indeed become
truly fair for all parties. FTA should consider the average length of
time an appeal takes from the initiation to resolution; the ability of
a Regional decision to be overturned; and the fairness of this process
to both the complainer and the complainant. Another private operator
suggested each grantee or sub-grantee should provide FTA with an annual
report of the actual dates and total compensation of charter services
it provided. This type of report could be generated and reported with
only a minimal amount of effort by the grantees. The data would serve
as a basis for evaluating the extent of these
[[Page 18059]]
services, and should FTA receive a charter complaint, there would be a
record of such activity. The information would expedite the FTA's
administrative compliance review of these provisions, and in turn, the
timeliness on any determination of any complaint and appeal process
will certainly be reduced. This commenter also suggested that FTA
should also impose a penalty for grantees' failure to report charter
service dates and their associated revenue.
FTA Issues
1. A potential new exception for emergency services such as evacuation
and training for emergencies, including homeland security, natural
disasters, and other emergencies
Several public transportation providers supported an exception from
charter service regulations for emergency services. One comment
summarized their support for such an exception ``because in times of
crisis, brownouts, natural catastrophic events, or by order of the
Governor or his designated emergency response agency, public systems
should be able to provide non-scheduled service on an immediate basis,
e.g., evacuations, particularly for local government and non-profit
personnel but also more broadly.'' In addition, this commenter noted
``we believe that providing charter transportation to assist government
officials with training is consistent with the broader exception for
serving government officials raised in the first question posed by
Congress and therefore supports a new exception for training as raised
in this question.''
Private operators expressed concern about this potential exception.
One commented that it is premature to create such an exception at this
time and discussion by the committee on these additional issues, such
as an emergency services exception, should occur only after consensus
is reached on the core issues. Another private operator stated that
issues one and three on FTA's list of issues are totally new issues
beyond the scope of the conference committee report and this commenter
recommended that the regulatory negotiation advisory committee only
consider these items if there are limited conditions under which public
transit agencies can provide community-based charter services directly
to local governments and private non-profit agencies that would not
otherwise be served in a cost-effective manner by private operators.
Another private operator stated that a potential emergency service
exemption does not fit within topic one on the Conference Committee
Report list, and this topic should not be lumped into a rulemaking that
relates to government competition with the private sector. Discussions
relating to national security and emergency services training, by
necessity, will require a different group of interested parties than
those identified for this rulemaking.
2. A new process for determining if there are private charter bus
companies willing and able to provide service that would utilize
electronic notification and response within 72 hours
All comments received agreed with utilizing an electronic
notification and response system. A private charter operator commented
that FTA should modernize the charter rules through a Web-based
approach with electronic notification. Once a notice is issued, all
users would have the same amount of time in which to respond. All users
would receive the information the same way, and, thus, be in the same
position to respond. A state DOT also agreed with the notion of
utilizing an electronic or internet notification system in lieu of the
current system because it would be cost effective, timely way of doing
business. Another state DOT stated an electronic system would
potentially let publicly funded transit systems know that charter
service is not available to a group of passengers and would allow the
publicly funded system to perform that service.
3. A new exception for transportation of government employees, elected
officials, and members of the transit industry to examine local transit
operations, facilities, and public works
Private charter operators object to this potential exception
because ``any exemption applied to providing service to government
employees will have a severe negative effect on many private operators
most of which are small businesses.'' In addition, any exemption that
would allow transit agencies to undercut the private sector and provide
similar fixed-contract services to any government agency, is not within
the scope of Conference Committee Report's issues and was not the
intent of Congress. An association stated that school districts should
be excluded from any new exception for local government entities.
Public transportation providers generally supported this exception.
One noted that it supports an exemption for the transportation of
government officials or other similar individuals ``who are
participating in a tour of transit facilities or are en route to a
transit agency-sponsored event.'' Another public transportation
provider commented that ``if the funding sources see a duplication of
spending and that dollars could be saved, then this will be a good
idea.'' This commenter also noted that it is very difficult for an
operator of a public transit system to tell elected officials that they
can not provide a service even though that governmental entity owns and
operates the vehicle. One also commented that ``the committee should be
clear on what constitutes `public work.' ''
4. Clarify the definitions of regulatory terms
Comments received generally agree that there should be a
clarification of the terms used in the charter bus regulations. One
noted that the committee should be sure all definitions in the rule,
and FTA guidance materials that result from the rule, are applicable to
demand response services. Another commented that consensus on the
definitions of regulatory terms is absolutely essential to the success
of any changes to the charter rule. An association provided a list
terms that should be clarified: ``Charter,'' ``regular and continuing
service,'' ``closed door service,'' and ``pattern of violations.''
Finally, we received three comments suggesting new issues for
consideration by the advisory committee. Two commenters suggested that
the negotiated rulemaking advisory committee consider consolidating all
charter service requirements into one regulation. These commenters note
that while there are slightly different approaches in each of the
program areas (charter, school, and complementary paratransit service),
in the interest of simplicity and consistency, FTA should create one
set of regulations to ensure that ``private purveyors'' are not
adversely affected by the existence of Federally subsidized assets. The
third comment suggested the committee address FTA policies relative to
the enforcement of charter rules and the boundary between charter and
mass transit services in specific circumstances, such as university
transportation and transportation to/from special events. The advisory
committee will determine whether to consider these two additional
issues.
IV. Interests Likely To Be Affected; Representation of Those Interests
The advisory committee will include a representative from FTA and
from the interests and organizations listed below. The FTA
representative is the Designated Federal Official (DFO) and will
participate in the deliberations and
[[Page 18060]]
activities of the committee. The DFO will be authorized to fully
represent FTA in the discussions and negotiations of the committee.
The DFO for the Charter Bus Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory
Committee (CBNRAC) will be David B. Horner, Chief Counsel of FTA. As
the DFO, Mr. Horner will serve as the Chairperson for the CBNRAC and is
primarily responsible for ensuring the proper administration of the
CBNRAC. The Chairperson's responsibilities are set out in the Charter
for the CBNRAC, which is included in the docket for this rulemaking.
The CBNRAC will include the following individuals:
1. Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA;
represented by Dale Marsico).
2. Northwest Motorcoach Association/Starline Luxury Coaches
(represented by Gladys Gillis).
3. American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO; represented by David Spacek from IL DOT).
4. National School Transportation Association (NSTA; represented by
John Corr from Transgroup).
5. Trailways (represented by Jack Burkett).
6. Lancaster Trailways of the Carolinas (represented by Mary
Presley).
7. American Public Transportation Association (APTA; represented by
Dan Duff).
8. Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA; represented by
Mark Huffer).
9. New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (NYMTA;
represented by Christopher Boylan).
10. Los Angeles County Municipal Operators Association (LACMOA;
represented by Stephanie Negriff of Santa Monica's Big Blue Bus).
11. Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU; represented by Karen Head).
12. Oklahoma State University, The Bus Community Transit System
(represented by Hugh Kierig).
13. Monterey-Salinas (MST; represented by Carl Sedoryk).
14. Taxicab, Limousine & Paratransit Association (TLPA; represented
by Harold Morgan).
15. South Dakota Department of Transportation (represented by Ron
Baumgart).
16. American Bus Association (ABA; represented by Clyde Hart).
17. United Motorcoach Association (UMA; represented by Victor
Parra).
18. FTA.
We asked for comment on our proposed list of committee members and
received comments primarily requesting representation of certain
individuals on the CBNRAC. Others requested representation of specific
interests. We believe our list of committee members for the CBNRAC is
responsive to the concerns expressed by commenters. What follows is a
summary of the comments received regarding our list of proposed
interests. We do not include, however, a summary of specific
individuals who applied for membership or were nominated for membership
on the committee. Those names can be obtained by reviewing the docket
for this matter.
One comment asked that we include an employee representative on the
negotiated rulemaking advisory committee. This would ensure that the
revised regulations on charter service protect the interests of the
workers in both the private bus industry and the public transit
agencies.
FTA agrees with this comment, and, therefore, we have included
employee representation by selecting the Amalgamated Transit Union to
participate on the CBNRAC.
A state DOT emphasized the importance of having small rural transit
providers represented as well as non-profit agencies, senior centers
and other human service agencies who are users of public transportation
services. This commenter also noted that the list of individuals
proposed to be named to the committee does not appear to include an
officer of a state DOT. This is a significant omission and the
committee should not be convened until one or more state DOT officials
are made part of the committee.
FTA agrees with this comment, and, in response, we have included
the South Dakota Department of Transportation and a member from the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
A private charter association advised that the inclusion of
[elderly, disabled, and other consumers groups] will only serve to
detract from the fundamental discussion of whether there are limited
conditions whereby public transit operators might provide community-
based charter services directly to local governments and private non-
profit agencies. The commenter went on to note these additional
interests, while representative of parts of the community, are not
representative of the key elements to this discussion. Another private
charter operator stated the number of the interest groups FTA
identified--consumer with disabilities, elderly consumers, for-profit
consumers, convention bureaus and representatives of large sporting
events--would have the effect of skewing the discussions and shift the
balance of the negotiation advisory committee membership in favor of
the pro charter views espoused by transit agencies. Adding
representatives from these groups to the negotiation advisory committee
goes beyond the scope of the negotiated rulemaking as set by the
conference committee report. An association for private charter
operators echoed this comment by stating: ``These parties may believe
they have legitimate interests in the negotiations; however, they are
in no way referenced under the issues identified as subjects for the
rulemaking in the SAFETEA-LU Conference Report.''
FTA disagrees that with these comments to the extent that they
suggest FTA cannot include interests that were not identified in
SAFETEA-LU. Convening a negotiated rulemaking advisory committee is not
mandated by SAFETEA-LU and SAFETEA-LU did not identify nor limit
interests that might participate in the negotiations. Therefore, FTA
has exercised its discretion to select a balanced panel of groups and
interests to deliberate the revisions to the charter bus regulations.
One comment asked for private sector school bus contractor
representation on the committee because those individuals are an
important player in the charter community and to the success of the
overall negotiated rulemaking process on this issue. This type of
service represents a significant amount of business for school bus
contractors and is the area where we find that violations of the
charter bus rules often occur.
FTA agrees with this comment and has included the National School
Transportation Association on the CBNRAC.
A. Meeting Location and Dates
All meetings of the CBNRAC will be held in Washington, DC at 400
Seventh Street, SW., in room 6248. The first meetings will be held on
May 8th and 9th from 9 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. Subsequent meetings dates
will be discussed during the first meeting and a Federal Register
notice will be issued announcing those meeting dates and time. Each of
the individuals selected will receive a letter confirming their
participation on the CBNRAC.
B. Persons Not Selected for Committee Membership
We believe that each potentially affected group does not need to
participate directly in the negotiations. What is important is that
each affected interest be adequately represented. It is very important
to recognize that
[[Page 18061]]
interested parties who are not selected for membership on the committee
can make valuable contributions to this negotiated rulemaking effort in
several ways:
The person or organization could request to be placed on
the committee mailing list, submitting written comments, as
appropriate;
Any member of the public could attend the committee
meetings, caucus with his or her interest's member on the committee,
and, as provided in FACA, speak to the committee. Time will be set
aside during each meeting for this purpose, consistent with the
committee's need for sufficient time to complete its deliberations;
The person or organization could assist in the work of a
workgroup that might be established by the committee; or
The person or organization may participate by telephone.
FTA will establish a call-in number for that purpose. Members of the
public who wish to participate by phone may request the call-in number
by writing to the Chairperson, David B. Horner, Chief Counsel, Federal
Transit Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 9316, Washington,
DC 20590. At the Chairperson's discretion, the number of individuals
participating may be limited.
Informal workgroups are usually established by an advisory
committee to assist it in ``staffing'' various technical matters (e.g.,
researching or preparing summaries of the technical literature or
comments on particular matters such as economic issues) before the
committee so as to facilitate committee deliberations. They also might
assist in estimating costs and drafting regulatory text on issues
associated with the analysis of the costs and benefits addressed, and
formulating drafts of the various provisions and their justification
previously developed by the committee. Given their staffing function,
workgroups usually consist of participants who have expertise or
particular interest in the technical matter(s) being studied.
C. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
The CBNRAC's objective will be to prepare a report, consisting of
its consensus recommendations for the regulatory text of a draft notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). This report may also include suggestions
for the NPRM preamble, regulatory evaluation, or other supplemental
documents. If the CBNRAC cannot achieve consensus on some aspects of
the proposed regulatory text, it will, pursuant to the ``ground rules''
the CBNRAC has established, identify in its report those areas of
disagreement, and provide explanations for any disagreement. FTA will
use the information and recommendations from the CBNRAC report to draft
a notice of proposed rulemaking and, as appropriate, supporting
documents. CBNRAC recommendations and other documents produced by it
will be placed in the rulemaking docket.
In the event that FTA's NPRM differs from the CBNRAC's consensus
recommendations, the preamble to an NPRM addressing the issues that
were the subject of the negotiations will explain the reasons for the
decision to depart from the CBNRAC's recommendations.
Following the issuance of NPRM and comment period, FTA will prepare
and provide to the CBNRAC a comment summary. The CBNRAC will then be
asked to determine whether it should reconvene to discuss changes to
the NPRM based on the comments.
D. Committee Procedures
Under the general guidance of the facilitator, and subject to legal
requirements, the CBNRAC will establish detailed procedures for the
meetings. The meetings of the CBNRAC will be open to the public. Any
person attending the meetings may address the CBNRAC if time permits or
may file statements with the committee.
E. Record of Meetings
In accordance with FACA requirements, the facilitator will prepare
summaries of all CBNRAC meetings. These summaries will be placed in the
public docket for this rulemaking.
Issued this 3rd day of April 2006.
Sandra K. Bushue,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration.
[FR Doc. 06-3411 Filed 4-7-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-M