Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 5107 

from Washington. His driving record for 

the last 3 years shows no crashes and 

one conviction for a moving violation, 

speeding in a CMV. He exceeded the 

speed limit by 12 mph. 

Matthew J. Konecki 

Mr. Konecki, 37, has had 

anisometropic amblyopia in his left eye 

since birth. The best corrected visual 

acuity in his right eye is 20/15–2 and in 

the left, 20/200. His ophthalmologist 

examined him in 2005 and noted, ‘‘It is 

my opinion that Mr. Konecki has 

sufficient vision to perform the driving 

tasks required to operate a commercial 

vehicle.’’ Mr. Konecki reported that he 

has driven straight trucks for 7 years, 

accumulating 91,000 miles. He holds a 

Class A CDL from Montana. His driving 

record for the last 3 years shows no 

crashes or convictions for moving 

violations in a CMV. 

Rick P. Moreno 

Mr. Moreno, 42, has a macular hole in 

his right eye due to an injury he 

sustained in 1987. The best corrected 

visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200 

and in the left, 20/20. Following an 

examination in 2005, his optometrist 

noted, ‘‘In my medical opinion, I feel 

Rick has sufficient vision to perform the 

driving tasks required to operate a 

commercial vehicle.’’ Mr. Moreno 

reported that he has driven straight 

trucks for 1 year, accumulating 24,000 

miles and tractor-trailer combinations 

for 3 years, accumulating 2.8 million 

miles. He holds a Class A CDL from 

Washington. His driving record for the 

last 3 years shows no crashes or 

convictions for moving violations in a 

CMV. 

Roy J. Oltman 

Mr. Oltman, 47, is blind in the left eye 

due to trauma he sustained at the age of 

7. The best corrected visual acuity in his 

right eye is 20/20. His ophthalmologist 

examined him in 2005 and noted, 

‘‘From a visual standpoint, I see no 

limitations for Mr. Oltman. As I 

explained to him, I do not know all 

activities needed for operating a 

commercial vehicle, but for a person 

with only one eye, his visual function 

is excellent in the right eye.’’ Mr. 

Oltman reported that he has driven 

straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 

10,000 miles and buses for 7 years, 

accumulating 10,500 miles. He holds a 

Class A CDL from Illinois. His driving 

record for the last 3 years shows no 

crashes or convictions for a moving 

violation in a CMV. 

Monte L. Purciful 

Mr. Purciful, 53, has a cataract in his 

right eye due to a traumatic injury that 

occurred at age 11. The best corrected 

visual acuity in his right eye is hand 

motion and in the left, 20/20. His 

ophthalmologist examined him in 2005 

and noted, ‘‘In my professional opinion, 

Mr. Purciful has adequate vision to 

safely operate a commercial vehicle.’’

Mr. Purciful reported that he has driven 

straight trucks for 36 years, 

accumulating 108,000 miles and tractortrailer combinations for 2 years, 

accumulating 2,000 miles. He holds a 

Class C operator’s license from Georgia. 

His driving record for the last 3 years 

shows no crashes or convictions for 

moving violations in a CMV. 

Bernard J. Wood 

Mr. Wood, 59, has a prosthetic right 

eye due to a traumatic injury at age 2. 

The best corrected visual acuity in his 

left eye is 20/15–1. Following an 

examination in 2005, his 

ophthalmologist noted, ‘‘In my opinion, 

Mr. Wood is capable and qualified to 

operate a commercial vehicle for 

interstate travel.’’ Mr. Wood reported 

that he has driven straight trucks for 10 

years, accumulating 400,000 miles. He 

holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin. 

His driving record for the last 3 years 

shows one crash, for which he was not 

cited, for violating any traffic laws and 

no convictions for moving violations in 

a CMV. 

Request for Comments 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 

and 31136(e), FMCSA requests public 

comment from all interested persons on 

the exemption petitions described in 

this notice. The agency will consider all 

comments received before the close of 

business March 2, 2006. Comments will 

be available for examination in the 

docket at the location listed under the 

ADDRESSES section of this notice. The 

agency will file comments received after 

the comment closing date in the public 

docket, and will consider them to the 

extent practicable. In addition to late 

comments, FMCSA will also continue to 

file, in the public docket, relevant 

information that becomes available after 

the comment closing date. Interested 

persons should monitor the public 

docket for new material. 

Issued on: January 23, 2006. 

Rose A. McMurray, 

Associate Administrator, Policy and Program 

Development. 

[FR Doc. E6–1154 Filed 1–30–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

[Docket No. FTA–2006–23511] 

Joint Development Guidance 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Notice of Guidance; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This guidance would 

implement additional authority 

provided in the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible and Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act, a Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA–LU) for public 

transportation agencies undertaking 

joint development projects. In addition, 

this notice seeks comment on two 

issues: a clarification of what is 

‘‘physically or functionally related’’ to a 

transit project; and a proposed 

limitation on the amount of space that 

might be leased under ‘‘incidental use.’’

Finally, this guidance would provide 

additional information in a questionand-answer format to assist grantees in 

developing and submitting project 

proposals for FTA review. 

DATES: Comments should be received on 

or before March 2, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver 

comments to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Dockets Management 

Facility, Room PL–401, 400 Seventh 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or 

submit electronically at http:// 

dmses.dot.gov/submit. All comments 

should include the docket number that 

appears in the heading of this 

document. All comments received will 

be available for examination and 

copying at the above address from 9 

a.m. to 5 p.m., e.s.t., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. Those 

desiring notification of receipt of 

comments must include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard or you 

may print the acknowledgment page 

that appears after submitting comments 

electronically. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Marx, 202–366–1675, or Paula Schwach, 

816–329–3935. FTA is located at 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590–0001. Office hours are from 8:30 

a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access and Filing 

You may submit or retrieve comments 

online through the Document 

Management System (DMS) at: http:// 

dmses.dot.gov/submit. Acceptable 

formats include: MS Word (versions 95 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
5108 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 

or later), MS Word for Mac (versions 6 

to 8), Rich Text File (RTF), American 

Standard Code Information Interchange 

(ASCII) (TXT), Portable Document 

Format (PDF), and WordPerfect 

(versions 7 to 9). The DMS is available 

24 hours each day, 365 days each year. 

Electronic submission and retrieval help 

and guidelines are available under the 

help section of the Web site. 

An electronic copy of this document 

may also be downloaded by using a 

computer, modem and suitable 

communications software from the FTA 

Web site: http://www.fta.dot.gov. 

Internet users may also reach the Office 

of the Federal Register’s home page at: 

http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the 

Government Printing Office’s Web page 

at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara. 

Background 

The Federal Transit laws have 

included joint development authority 

since the Urban Mass Transit Act of 

1974. In the Transportation Equity Act 

for the 21st Century (TEA–21), the joint 

development authority was 

incorporated into the definition of a 

transit capital project, at 49 U.S.C. 

5302(a)(1)(G). This made joint 

development activities eligible for 

reimbursement under formula and 

discretionary transit grant programs. 

SAFETEA–LU added intercity bus and 

rail terminals to the joint development 

authority, and excepted them from the 

prohibition on supporting the 

construction of space for commercial, 

revenue-producing activities. 

The definition of ‘‘capital project’’

reads, in pertinent part, as follows: 

(1) Capital project.—The term ‘‘capital 

project’’ means a project for * * * 

(G) a mass transportation improvement that 

enhances economic development or 

incorporates private investment, including 

commercial and residential development, 

pedestrian and bicycle access to a mass 

transportation facility, and the renovation 

and improvement of historic transportation 

facilities, construction, renovation, and 

improvement of intercity bus and intercity 

rail stations and terminals, because the 

improvement enhances the effectiveness of a 

mass transportation project and is related 

physically or functionally to that mass 

transportation project, or establishes new or 

enhanced coordination between mass 

transportation and other transportation, and 

provides a fair share of revenue for mass 

transportation that will be used for mass 

transportation—

(i) Including, property acquisition, 

demolition of existing structures, site 

preparation, utilities, building foundations, 

walkways, open space, safety and security 

equipment and facilities (including lighting, 

surveillance and related intelligent 

transportation system applications), facilities 

that incorporate community services such as 

daycare or health care, and a capital project 

for, and improving, equipment or a facility 

for an intermodal transfer facility or 

transportation mall, except that a person 

making an agreement to occupy space in a 

facility under this subparagraph shall pay a 

reasonable share of the costs of the facility 

through rental payments and other means; 

and 

(ii) Excluding construction of a commercial 

revenue-producing facility (other than an 

intercity bus station or terminal) or a part of 

a public facility not related to mass 

transportation;’’ [Emphasis on additions 

added.] 

FTA has implemented the joint 

development authority as part of its 

grant program circulars, inserting 

guidance as Appendix A to Circular 

5010.1, guidance for new Major Capital 

Investments, and as Appendix B to the 

Grants Management and Formula 

Capital Grants circulars, 9300.1 and 

9030.1. The proposed revision 

incorporates the new authority provided 

in SAFETEA–LU, and it seeks to clarify 

how FTA will review and approve 

specific activities involving the use of 

federally-assisted real property. These 

include transfer of real property for joint 

development, incidental use and shared 

use of transit property, as well as 

property disposition. The following are 

changes made to the original Appendix, 

for each of Circulars 5010.1, 9030.1 and 

9300.1. The revised Appendix, as a 

substitute for the existing Appendices, 

is accessible on the FTA Web site, at 

http://www.fta.dot.gov/; as well as in the 

DOT Docket, at FTA–2006–23511. 

• Page 1—Reorganized the beginning 

of the Appendix to focus on the three 

tests defining a joint development: 

Statutory Definition; Financial Return; 

and Highest and Best Transit Use. 

• Page 5—Eligible Costs—Added 

element f., ‘‘including integrity bus and 

rail facilities.’’ This item reflects the 

new authority in SAFETEA–LU. 

• Page 10—Added a new Section 9: 

Process for Submitting a New Joint 

Development Proposal. 

• Page 12—Revised Frequently Asked 

Questions, to include new examples on 

low and moderate-income housing 

(Question 11), Parking for Community 

Service Activities (Question 13), the 

difference between Joint Development 

Transfer and Disposition (Question 14), 

and the difference between Joint 

Development and Shared Use (Question 

15). 

• Page 25—Added Questions 18, 19, 

and 20 to clarify the treatment of 

property disposition, sharing common 

walls, and intercity bus and rail 

stations. 

• Attachment 1—FTA has developed 

a Joint Development checklist defining 

what is to be included in a project 

proposal submitted for FTA review. 

FTA seeks comment on these 

revisions to the joint development 

appendices to the respective FTA 

Circulars. 

In addition, FTA seeks comment on 

two basic issues that arose during the 

development of this Appendix. 

Physically or Functionally Related—A 

joint development project must be a 

mass transportation improvement that is 

physically or functionally related to the 

transit project. Based on the 

implementation of this authority over 

the last twenty years, FTA has taken this 

to mean that: either the joint 

development must be integrated into the 

transit project—i.e., share its common 

walls, floor, and/or roof—or that the 

joint development must be related to the 

transit project by function, as evidenced 

by connecting pathways, joint use of 

parking, bicycle and related amenities, 

and enhancement of the transit system 

by the joint development. FTA has 

tended to prefer projects where the joint 

development was fully integrated into 

the overall transit project, thus ensuring 

physical relationship. 

However, the addition of intercity bus 

and train stations to the definition of a 

joint development project raises some 

questions regarding functional 

relationship. The joint development is 

intended to enhance the effectiveness of 

public transit, and this may occur 

optimally if the intercity bus or rail 

station is in a nearby but separate 

facility from the transit station. FTA 

seeks comment on whether a direct 

(short distance) pedestrian or bicycle 

pathway is sufficient to establish a 

functional relationship between two 

stand-alone structures that are defined 

as a transit capital project, or whether 

FTA should require that a joint transit/ 

intercity terminal project share a 

common wall and roof in order to 

conform to the requirements of 

SAFETEA–LU. 

Parking is a related issue in this 

regard. FTA generally will not support 

parking in excess of transit need. 

However, both intercity bus and rail 

terminals will have a need for parking 

(and taxi access) even if most of their 

customers come to the terminal on 

public transportation. FTA seeks 

comment on how to incorporate 

intercity bus and rail terminal parking 

requirements into the overall transit 

project. 

Maintenance cost is also a related 

issue in this regard. Unlike other joint 

development projects, intercity bus and 

rail stations are not required to pay ‘‘a 

reasonable share of the costs of the 

facility through rental payments and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / Notices 5109 

other means; * * *’’ FTA has 

interpreted this exception as applying to 

the construction cost of these facilities, 

not their ongoing reasonable costs of 

maintenance. FTA will encourage 

public transportation agencies to 

negotiate shared maintenance 

agreements to ensure satisfactory 

condition and usefulness of the joint 

development project over its full term. 

Proportion of Incidental Use—FTA is 

considering establishing a percentage of 

additional space that may be supported 

with transit grant funds for joint 

development and/or incidental use 

purposes. Taking as given that the 

primary purpose of the expenditure is a 

transit project—say, a bus transfer 

facility—how much more space would 

be reasonable to include for a join 

development activity such as a day care 

center, congregate meal facility, or 

health care facility? Is it reasonable for 

the physical capacity of the jointly 

developed improvement to exceed the 

transit facility in size and/or cost? This 

question arises particularly in the 

context of an intercity bus or rail station 

which, since its service area is likely to 

be considerably larger than the transit 

agency’s, may require even more ‘‘peak’’

than the transit agency does. 

Related to this issue is the question of 

how to treat changes in the use of joint 

development space after the project is 

complete. For example, if space was 

made available for a day care center but 

three years after the project is complete, 

the day care center manager moves the 

operation to another location. FTA seeks 

comment on whether the transit agency 

should be required to replace the day 

care center only with another eligible 

transit activity (such as a senior care or 

public health activity), or whether the 

space might be made available for lease 

by a public or private sector activity. 

FTA is considering requiring the transit 

agency to perform a new market 

analysis on the basis of replacing the 

initial joint development activity with a 

market-based joint development 

activity. 

Finally, the public transit agency may 

reasonably seek to build a large enough 

facility to allow for future expansion. 

Given that such facilities may have a 

useful life of 40 years or more, it is 

reasonable to anticipate some growth in 

the transit agency and its service over 

that term. The transit agency may then 

wish to offer this additional space for 

rent on a non-interfering basis until it is 

needed for transit operations. FTA seeks 

comment on a method for determining 

what growth is ‘‘reasonable’’ to project 

in this instance. FTA is considering 

linking this projected growth to 

population forecasts for the region, as 

used by the Metropolitan Planning 

Organization for its long range plans. 

Issued on: January 24, 2006. 

Sandra K. Bushue, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 06–871 Filed 1–30–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

Prevention of Alcohol Misuse and 

Prohibited Drug Use in Transit 

Operations 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of random drug and 

alcohol testing rates. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

random testing rates for employers 

subject to the Federal Transit 

Administration’s (FTA) drug and 

alcohol rules. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 31, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry 

Powers, Drug and Alcohol Program 

Manager for the Office of Safety and 

Security, (202) 366–2896 (telephone) 

and (202) 366–7951 (fax). Electronic 

access to this and other documents 

concerning FTA’s drug and alcohol 

testing rules may be obtained through 

the FTA World Wide Web home page at 

http://www.fta.dot.gov, click on ‘‘Safety 

and Security.’’

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 1, 1995, FTA required large 

transit employers to begin drug and 

alcohol testing employees performing 

safety-sensitive functions and to begin 

submitting annual reports by March 15 

of each year beginning in 1996. The 

annual report includes the number of 

employees who had a verified positive 

for the use of prohibited drugs, and the 

number of employees who tested 

positive for the misuse of alcohol. Small 

employers commenced their FTArequired testing on January 1, 1996, and 

began reporting the same information as 

the large employers beginning March 

15, 1997. The testing rules were updated 

on August 1, 2001, and established a 

random testing rate for prohibited drugs 

and the misuse of alcohol. 

The rules require that employers 

conduct random drug tests at a rate 

equivalent to at least 50 percent of their 

total number of safety-sensitive 

employees for prohibited drug use and 

at least 25 percent for the misuse of 

alcohol. The rules provide that the drug 

random testing rate may be lowered to 

25 percent if the ‘‘positive rate’’ for the 

entire transit industry is less than one 

percent for two preceding consecutive 

years. Once lowered, it may be raised to 

50 percent if the positive rate equals or 

exceeds one percent for any one year 

(‘‘positive rate’’ means the number of 

positive results for random drug tests 

conducted under 49 CFR 655.45 plus 

the number of refusals of random tests 

required by 49 CFR 655.49, divided by 

the total number of random drug tests, 

plus the number of refusals of random 

tests required by 49 CFR part 655). 

The alcohol provisions provide that 

the random rate may be lowered to 10 

percent if the ‘‘violation rate’’ for the 

entire transit industry is less than 0.5 

percent for two consecutive years. It 

will remain at 25 percent if the 

‘‘violation rate’’ is equal to or greater 

than 0.5 percent but less than one 

percent, and it will be raised to 50 

percent if the ‘‘violation rate’’ is one 

percent or greater for any one year 

(‘‘violation rate’’ means the number of 

covered employees found during 

random tests given under 49 CFR 655.45 

to have an alcohol concentration of .04 

or greater, plus the number of 

employees who refuse a random test 

required by 49 CFR 655.49, divided by 

the total reported number of random 

alcohol tests plus the total number of 

refusals of random tests required by 49 

CFR part 655). 

49 CFR 655.45(b) states that, ‘‘the 

Administrator’s decision to increase or 

decrease the minimum annual 

percentage rate for random drug and 

alcohol testing is based, in part, on the 

reported positive drug and alcohol 

violation rates for the entire industry. 

The information used for this 

determination is drawn from the drug 

and alcohol Management Information 

System (MIS) reports required by 49 

CFR part 655. In determining the 

reliability of the data, the Administrator 

shall consider the quality and 

completeness of the reported data, may 

obtain additional information or reports 

from employers, and make appropriate 

modifications in calculating the 

industry’s verified positive results and 

violation rates.’’

In 2005, the FTA required a random 

drug testing rate of 50 percent of the 

total number of their ‘‘safety-sensitive’’

employees for prohibited drugs based 

on the ‘‘positive rate’’ for random drug 

test data from 2002 and 2003. FTA has 

received and analyzed the latest 

available data (CY2004) from a 

representative sample of transit 

employers. Based on the data, the 

random drug rate was lower than 1.0 

percent for the two preceding 

consecutive years (0.96 percent for 2003 

and 0.89 percent for 2004). However, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES