Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Notices 69121

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates

of Public Convenience and Necessity

and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed

Under Subpart Q During the Week

Ending October 20, 2000

The following Applications for

Certificates of Public Convenience and

Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier

Permits were filed under Subpart Q of

the Department of Transportation’s

Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR

302.1701 et. seq.). The due date for

Answers, Conforming Applications, or

Motions to Modify Scope are set forth

below for each application. Following

the Answer period DOT may process the

application by expedited procedures.

Such procedures may consist of the

adoption of a show-cause order, a

tentative order, or in appropriate cases

a final order without further

proceedings.

Docket Number: OST–2000–8155.

Date Filed: October 19, 2000.

Due Date for Answers, Conforming

Applications, or Motion to Modify

Scope: November 9, 2000.

Description: Application of Britannia

Airways AB (‘‘Applicant’’) pursuant to

49 U.S.C. Sections 41301 et seq. and

Subpart Q, applies for a foreign air

carrier permit authorizing it to engage in

charter foreign air transportation of

persons and their accompanying

baggage, and property: (1) Between a

point or point in Sweden, Denmark and

Norway and a point or points in the

United States; (2) between a point or

points in the United States and any

point or points in a third country

provided that such service constitutes

point of a continuous operation that

includes service to Sweden, Denmark

and/or Norway for the purpose of

carrying local traffic between Sweden,

Denmark and Norway and the United

States; and also authorizing Applicant

to engage in other charter trips in

foreign air transportation subject to the

terms, conditions, and limitations of the

Department’s regulations governing

charters.

Dorothy Y. Beard,

Federal Register Liaison.

[FR Doc. 00–29235 Filed 11–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates

of Public Convenience and Necessity

and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed

Under Subpart Q During the Week

Ending November 3, 2000

The following Applications for

Certificates of Public Convenience and

Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier

Permits were filed under Subpart Q of

the Department of Transportation’s

Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR

302.1701 et seq.). The due date for

Answers, Conforming Applications, or

Motions to Modify Scope are set forth

below for each application. Following

the Answer period DOT may process the

application by expedited procedures.

Such procedures may consist of the

adoption of a show-cause order, a

tentative order, or in appropriate cases

a final order without further

proceedings.

Docket Number: OST–2000–8212.

Date Filed: October 30, 2000.

Due Date for Answers, Conforming

Applications, or Motion to Modify

Scope: November 20, 2000.

Description: Application of Venture

Travel, LLC d/b/a Taquan Air (Venture)

and Taquan Air Service, Inc. (TAS,

Inc.), applies for a disclaimer of

jurisdiction and transfer of the

certificate of public convenience and

necessity currently held by TAS, Inc.

Dorothy Y. Beard,

Federal Register Liaison.

[FR Doc. 00–29238 Filed 11–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates

of Public Convenience and Necessity

and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed

Under Subpart Q During the Week

Ending October 6, 2000

The following Applications for

Certificates of Public Convenience and

Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier

Permits were filed under Subpart Q of

the Department of Transportation’s

Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR

302.1701 et seq.). The due date for

Answers, Conforming Applications, or

Motions to Modify Scope are set forth

below for each application. Following

the Answer period DOT may process the

application by expedited procedures.

Such procedures may consist of the

adoption of a show-cause order, a

tentative order, or in appropriate cases

a final order without further

proceedings.

Docket Number: OST–2000–8059.

Date Filed: October 4, 2000.

Due Date for Answers, Conforming

Applications, or Motion to Modify

Scope: October 25, 2000.

Description: Application of Mountain

Bird Inc. d/b/a Salmon Air pursuant to

49 U.S.C. Section 41738 and Subpart Q,

requests authority to operate scheduled

passenger service as a commuter air

carrier.

Docket Number: OST–2000–8074.

Date Filed: October 5, 2000.

Due Date for Answers, Conforming

Applications, or Motion to Modify

Scope: October 26, 2000.

Description: Application of

Euroatlantic Airways-Transportes

Aereos, S.A. (‘‘Euroatlantic’’) pursuant

to 49 U.S.C. Section 41301 and Subpart

Q, requests a foreign air carrier permit

authorizing it to engage in charter

foreign air transportation of persons,

property and mail between points in

Portugal and points in the United States

and between points in the United States

and points in third countries.

Dorothy Y. Beard,

Federal Register Liaison.

[FR Doc. 00–29239 Filed 11–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Docket OST–2000–7800]

RIN: 2105–AC94

Interim Statement of Policy on

Alternative Dispute Resolution

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of interim statement of

policy; request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Transportation publishes this Interim

Statement of Policy to further its

commitment to using alternative dispute

resolution (ADR ) to advance our

mission by preventing, minimizing

escalation of, and resolving disputes

among our employees and with external

parties, at the earliest stage possible, in

a cost-effective manner. This notice is

intended to provide information about

ADR, introduce new ADR initiatives,

and promote the use of ADR. We request

comments on our interim policy

statement, on how to incorporate ADR

into our processes, and how to

encourage its use in appropriate

circumstances.

DATES: Comments must be received by

January 16, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

to the Dockets Management System,

69122 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Notices

U.S. Department of Transportation, PL

401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590–0001.

Comments should refer to Docket

Number OST–2000–7800 and be

submitted in two copies. If you wish to

receive confirmation of receipt of your

written comments, include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard.

Comments may also be submitted to the

docket electronically by logging onto the

Dockets Management System website at

http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ‘‘Help &

Information’’ to obtain instructions for

filing the comment electronically. In

every case, the comment should refer to

the Docket number. The Dockets

Management System is located on the

Plaza level of the Nassif Building at the

Department of Transportation at the

above address. You can review public

dockets there between the hours of 9:00

a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. You

can also review comments on-line at the

DOT Dockets Management System web

site at ‘‘http://dms.dot.gov/.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Judith S. Kaleta, Senior Counsel for

Dispute Resolution and Dispute

Resolution Specialist, 202–493–0992.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Interim Statement of Policy on

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

ADR is a collaborative, consensual

dispute resolution approach. It

describes a variety of problem-solving

processes that are used in lieu of

litigation or other adversarial

proceedings to resolve disagreements.

ADR encompasses mediation,

facilitation, conciliation, factfinding,

mini-trials, negotiation, negotiated

rulemaking, neutral evaluation, policy

dialogues, use of ombuds, arbitration,

and other processes that usually involve

a neutral third party who assists the

parties in preventing, minimizing the

escalation of, and resolving disputes.

The efficient and effective use of ADR

will help us resolve disputes at an early

stage, in an expeditious, cost-effective,

and mutually acceptable manner.

The Department of Transportation is

committed to using ADR to advance our

mission. We will consider using ADR in

all areas including workplace issues,

formal and informal adjudication,

issuance of regulations, enforcement

and compliance, issuing and revoking

licenses and permits, contract and grant

award and administration, litigation

brought by or against the Department,

and other interactions with the public

and the regulated community.

We will provide learning and

development opportunities for our

employees so that they will be able to

use conflict resolution skills,

understand the theory and practice of

ADR, and apply ADR appropriately.

We will use a variety of evaluation

and assessment strategies to measure

and improve our processes and our use

of ADR.

We will allocate resources to support

the use of ADR.

We will provide confidentiality

consistent with the provisions of the

Administrative Dispute Resolution Act

and other applicable Federal laws.

The Department will attempt to

incorporate ADR in its dispute

resolution, or as appropriate,

rulemaking processes. In addition,

either on our own initiative or in

response to a request, the Department

will examine the appropriateness of

using ADR on a case-by-case basis. The

decision-making on when to use ADR

should reflect sound judgment that ADR

offers the best opportunity to resolve the

dispute. In appropriate disputes, the

Department will use ADR in a goodfaith effort to achieve consensual

resolution. However, if necessary, we

will litigate or participate in some other

process to resolve a dispute.

We will work together to further ADR

use across the Department. However,

decision-making on incorporating ADR

into dispute resolution processes, using

ADR to resolve a particular dispute, and

allocating resources rests with the

Department’s operating administrations,

secretarial offices, or Office of the

Inspector General.

All employees and persons who

interact with the Department are

encouraged to identify opportunities for

collaborative, consensual approaches to

dispute resolution or rulemaking.

Background

The Administrative Dispute

Resolution Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 571–

583, authorizes and encourages Federal

agencies to use consensual means of

dispute resolution as alternatives to

traditional dispute resolution processes.

The Act defines alternative means of

dispute resolution as ‘‘any procedure

that is used to resolve issues in

controversy * * *’’ It defines ‘‘issue in

controversy’’ as ‘‘an issue which is

material to a decision concerning an

administrative program of an agency,

and with which there is disagreement

* * *’’ The Act requires that each

Federal agency adopt a policy that

addresses the use of ADR and appoint

a Dispute Resolution Specialist.

Congress enacted the Administrative

Dispute Resolution Act to reduce the

time, cost, inefficiencies, and

contentiousness that too often are

associated with litigation and other

adversarial dispute resolution

mechanisms.

The Negotiated Rulemaking Act of

1996, 5 U.S.C. 561–570, establishes a

framework for use of negotiated

rulemaking. Congress enacted the

Negotiated Rulemaking Act to increase

the acceptability and improve the

substance of rules, making it less likely

that the affected parties will challenge

the rules or resist enforcement.

On May 1, 1998, President Clinton

issued a memorandum for heads of

executive departments and agencies

encouraging the use of ADR and

negotiated rulemaking. In his

memorandum, the President stated that

each Federal agency must take steps to

promote greater use of mediation,

facilitation, arbitration, early neutral

evaluation, ombuds, negotiated

rulemaking, and other dispute

resolution techniques.

For purposes of this ADR initiative,

‘‘the Department’’ or ‘‘we’’ refers to the

Office of the Secretary, the operating

administrations (the United States Coast

Guard, the Federal Aviation

Administration, the Federal Highway

Administration, the Federal Motor

Carrier Safety Administration, the

Federal Railroad Administration, the

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, the Federal Transit

Administration, the Maritime

Administration, the Saint Lawrence

Seaway Development Corporation, the

Research and Special Programs

Administration, the Bureau of

Transportation Statistics, and the

Transportation Administrative Services

Center (TASC)), and the Office of

Inspector General. The Department’s

ADR initiative is a ONEDOT effort,

where we are working better together to

create and communicate our ADR goals.

As we strive to meet our national

transportation goals, we recognize the

need to collaborate and form

partnerships, internally and externally.

Experience at the Department of

Transportation and other Federal

agencies shows that ADR can achieve

mutually acceptable solutions more

effectively than traditional, noncollaborative processes.

Promoting ADR

The Department has taken several

affirmative steps to promote the use of

ADR.

Dispute Resolution Specialist

As required by the Administrative

Dispute Resolution Act, the Secretary

appointed a Dispute Resolution

Specialist. The Dispute Resolution

Specialist is authorized to: (1)

Implement the Administrative Dispute

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Notices 69123

Resolution Act of 1996 and coordinate

with the Assistant General Counsel for

Regulation and Enforcement with regard

to ADR policy as it relates to rulemaking

under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of

1996; (2) develop dispute resolution

policy and procedures; (3) monitor and

evaluate dispute resolution program

execution and results; (4) identify

barriers to the use of ADR and work for

their removal; (5) require reports from

Departmental organizations and report

to the Secretary annually on the

Department’s ADR efforts; (6) determine

appropriate training to educate

employees and external parties about

ADR and conflict management options

and processes; (7) provide advice and

assistance in obtaining neutrals; and (8)

represent the Department on ADR

matters.

Notwithstanding this focal point for

ADR activity, decision-making on

whether to incorporate ADR into

dispute resolution processes or to use

ADR to resolve a particular dispute rests

with the Department’s operating

administrations, secretarial offices, and

the Office of Inspector General.

Furthermore, the participation in a

particular ADR process is by mutual

consent of the parties.

Dispute Resolution Council

The Secretary established a Dispute

Resolution Council as part of the

Department’s ONEDOT management

strategy to work better together and to

further use of ADR across the

Department. The Council, chaired by

the Department’s Dispute Resolution

Specialist, is comprised of

representatives appointed by heads of

modal administrations and secretarial

officers and the Inspector General, who

serve as Deputy Dispute Resolution

Specialists to promote and coordinate

the use of ADR within their

organizations and coordinate with their

Regulation or Liaison Officer with

regard to ADR policy as it relates to

rulemaking under the Negotiated

Rulemaking Act of 1996. The Dispute

Resolution Council worked together to

develop the Department’s interim policy

statement. The Dispute Resolution

Council supports the Dispute Resolution

Specialist and works together to (1)

facilitate the sharing of ADR

information; (2) examine how the

Department is currently using ADR, in

headquarters and the regions, and make

recommendations for improvements; (3)

explore the use of ADR techniques in

connection with a variety of areas; and

(4) assist in identifying future ADR uses

and coordinating the development of

ADR programs.

Web Site

The Dispute Resolution Council has

established a web site to provide

information about the Department’s use

of ADR. The site provides links to a

variety of other ADR sites, including the

Interagency ADR Working Group, the

Federal Procurement ADR Electronic

Guide, and the Office of Personnel

Management ADR Resource Guide. The

site will be regularly updated to provide

information about our ADR efforts. The

web address is www.dot.gov/adr.

Training

The Department is committed to

educating its personnel about the

potential benefits and appropriate use of

ADR, as well as to obtain ADR guidance

and assistance. The Department has

provided training about ADR, effective

communication, and conflict

management. Employees who serve as

neutrals to resolve disputes using ADR

techniques have received core training

and will receive additional training

annually. The Department intends to

work in partnership with other Federal

agencies, through the Interagency ADR

Working Group, and in other ways to

meet our training needs.

Evaluation

The Department will use a variety of

evaluation and assessment strategies to

provide valid and reliable information

for measuring and improving

performance. Depending on the ADR

program, we may look at the number of

attempts to use ADR , the number of

resolutions, customer satisfaction with

the process, the neutral, and/or the

resolutions, or estimated cost- and/or

time-savings.

Resources

As noted in Appendix II, the

Department is using ADR for a variety

of activities and has provided resources

to support ADR use. However, lack of

resources is often identified as a barrier

to ADR use. To avoid this potential

barrier, the Department will continue to

allocate resources to support ADR

initiatives. This may include collateral

duty or detail assignments, permanent

ADR positions, contract dollars, or other

funding alternatives. Decision-making

on allocating resources rests with the

Department’s operating administrations

and secretarial offices.

Confidentiality

In some instances, many of the

benefits of ADR can be realized only

through confidential proceedings.

Confidentiality ensures that the parties

may speak freely with a neutral who

will not disclose their confidences to

other parties or to the outside world.

Without that assurance, the parties may

be unwilling to freely discuss their

interests and possible settlements with

the neutral. Confidentiality also allows

the parties to raise sensitive issues and

discuss creative ideas and solutions that

they would be unwilling to discuss

publicly.

Although negotiated rulemaking is a

process conducted under the Federal

Advisory Committee Act at public

meetings that have been announced in

the Federal Register, confidentiality

may also be a consideration for the

participants. For example, a convenor

who impartially assists an agency in

determining whether establishment of a

negotiated rulemaking committee is

feasible and appropriate may agree not

to disclose the identity of a party who

raises a particular concern about an

agency. Information shared in caucuses

may also be confidential.

The Administrative Dispute

Resolution Act generally provides that

communications (including a neutral’s

notes and documents prepared for the

proceedings) between a neutral and the

parties must be kept confidential by the

neutral and the parties, unless certain

specific exceptions exist. A court may

require disclosure of such information if

it is necessary to prevent a manifest

injustice, help establish a violation of

law, or prevent harm to the public

health or safety. The injustice, violation,

or harm must be of a sufficient

magnitude in the particular case to

outweigh the integrity of the dispute

resolution proceedings. In addition,

other Federal laws may impact the

confidentiality of information in

specific cases.

ADR Considerations

A decision to use ADR may be made

before or after a dispute arises. Several

factors should be considered in making

that decision. Some factors may favor

the use of ADR while others may weigh

against it. Although not intended as an

exhaustive list of factors, the

Department has determined that ADR

may be helpful in resolving a particular

dispute where one or more of the

following factors is present:

1. Identifiable Parties. There is an

identifiable group of constituents with

interests (the parties) so that all

reasonably foreseeable interests can be

represented.

2. Good Faith. The parties are willing

to participate in good faith.

3. Communication. The parties are

interested in seeking agreement, but

poor communication or personality

conflicts between the parties adversely

affect negotiations.

69124 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Notices

4. Continuing Relationship. A

continuing relationship between the

parties is important and desirable.

5. Issues. There are issues that are

agreed to be ripe for a negotiated

solution.

6. Unrealistic View of the Issues. The

parties’ demands or views of the issues

are unrealistic. A discussion of the

situation with a neutral may increase

the parties’ understanding and result in

more realistic alternatives and options.

7. Sufficient Areas of Compromise.

There are sufficient areas of compromise

to make ADR worthwhile.

8. Expectation of Agreement. The

parties expect to agree eventually, most

likely before reaching the court room or

engaging in other adversarial processes.

9. Timing. There is sufficient time to

negotiate and ADR will not

unreasonably delay the outcome of the

matter in dispute. There is a likelihood

that the parties will be able to reach

agreement within a fixed time. There are

no statutory or judicial deadlines that

are adversely affected by the process.

ADR may result in an earlier resolution

of the dispute.

10. Resources. The parties have

adequate resources (budget and people)

and are willing to commit them to the

process.

While many of these factors may

apply to agency rulemaking, there may

be some variation in the consideration.

For example, with regard to

‘‘Expectation of Agreement,’’ the

consideration may be that all affected

interests recognize that there is a

problem that must be solved and that

Federal regulation is the appropriate

response. Furthermore, under the

Negotiated Rulemaking Act, the head of

the agency would determine whether

negotiated rulemaking is in the public

interest and would consider several

factors concerning the parties, the

timing, the costs, and the issues. See 5

U.S.C. 561.

There are also factors that suggest that

ADR should not be used. The

Administrative Dispute Resolution Act

of 1996 provides factors that suggest

that ADR is inappropriate or may not be

productive in a particular dispute

resolution proceeding. See 5 U.S.C. 572.

Relationship to Other Dispute

Resolution Procedures

This interim policy statement replaces

DOT Order 2101.1. It does not

supersede collective bargaining

agreements or other statutory,

regulatory, or contractual dispute

resolution procedures, or military

disciplinary processes. ADR is intended

to supplement, not replace, existing

procedures.

No Creation of Rights

The choice of when and how to use

ADR is within the discretion of the

Department’s operating administrations

and secretarial offices. This interim

statement of policy does not create any

right to judicial review involving the

compliance or noncompliance with the

statement. In addition, the statement

does not obligate the Department to

offer funds to settle any case, to accept

a particular settlement or resolution of

a dispute, or to alter any existing

delegation of settlement or litigation

authority.

Request for Public Comment

The Department invites comment on

the interim policy statement. In

addition, the Department welcomes

input on areas of agency activity that

would benefit from a dispute resolution

process that incorporates ADR

techniques including workplace issues,

formal and informal adjudication,

issuance of regulations, enforcement

and compliance, issuing and revoking

licenses and permits, contract and grant

award and administration, litigation

brought by or against the Department,

and other interactions with the public

and the regulated community.

Appendix II includes examples of ADR

initiatives currently in use and under

consideration.

Issued in Washington, DC on October 23,

2000.

Rodney E. Slater,

Secretary of Transportation.

Appendix I—Glossary of ADR Terms

The following terms are commonly

associated with ADR. They are provided for

your convenience and have been adapted

from the Administrative Dispute Resolution

Act and other sources.

Arbitration: Arbitration is a process in

which a neutral decision-maker oversees the

exchange of information, presides over a

mini-hearing, and decides the matter.

Arbitration may be binding or non-binding.

Conciliation: Conciliation is a process in

which a neutral independently

communicates with the parties either to

improve relations, resolve a dispute, or pave

the way for some other ADR process, such as

mediation. Conciliation is intended to help

establish trust and openness between parties

to a dispute.

Convening: Convening is a process used to

identify issues, interests, and parties to a

dispute or potential dispute. The goal of

convening is to assess the potential for use

of other ADR processes to resolve a problem

and to recommend a process or combination

of processes.

Early Neutral Evaluation: Early neutral

evaluation is a process in which the parties

provide the highlights of their positions to an

expert neutral fact-finder who evaluates the

merits. The neutral provides a non-binding,

objective evaluation of the strength of each

party’s position. This assists in future

negotiations between the parties.

Facilitation: Facilitation is a process in

which a neutral works with all parties in

group sessions, helping the group to

effectively move through the problem-solving

steps of the meeting to reach the agreed upon

goal.

Mediation: Mediation is a process in which

a neutral, a mediator, assists open discussion

between parties in dispute and helps them

come to a mutually agreeable solution. A

mediator has no authority to impose a

decision on the parties.

Mini-trial: A mini-trial is a process in

which a neutral presides over the

presentation of highlights of the parties’ cases

by the parties’ attorneys to the parties’

principals and may include witness

testimony. The neutral engages the parties in

litigation risk analysis and facilitates

settlement discussions.

Negotiated rulemaking: Negotiated

rulemaking is a process in which

representatives of those interests that would

be affected by a rule convene to consider and

discuss issues for the purpose of reaching

consensus in the development of a rule.

Negotiation: Negotiation is a bargaining

relationship between two or more parties.

The parties join in a temporary relationship

to educate each other about their needs and

interests and then exchange specific

resources or promises that will resolve one or

more issues. Almost all of the ADR

procedures in which the parties maintain

control over the outcome of the conflict are

variations of negotiation.

Neutral: A neutral is an individual who

functions specifically to aid the parties in

resolving a dispute. The neutral may be a

Federal employee or any private individual

who is acceptable to the parties. A neutral

may not have financial, official, or personal

conflict of interest with respect to the

dispute, unless the interest is disclosed in

writing to the parties and all parties agree

that the neutral may serve.

Ombuds: An ombuds receives complaints

and questions from individuals concerning

the functioning of an entity, works for the

resolution of particular issues, and where

necessary, makes recommendations for the

improvement of the general administration of

the entity.

Policy Dialogue: A policy dialogue is a

process designed to facilitate voluntary,

interactive exchanges of views and

information among interested groups and

individuals working towards consensus

solutions to policy issues. A policy dialogue

is a flexible tool to enable all parties to

participate in a non-adversarial setting to

define and resolve issues. The product of a

policy dialogue can be a report, a set of

recommendations, agreements in principle,

exchanges of information, or other ways of

addressing the issues involved.

Roster: A roster is a list of persons

qualified to provide services as neutrals and

may indicate the person’s area of ADR

expertise.

Settlement Judge: A settlement judge is an

administrative law judge, a Board of Contract

Appeals judge, or Dispute Resolution Officer

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Notices 69125

trained in alternative dispute resolution

techniques who consults with the parties and

assists them in resolving a dispute instead of

using a formal administrative hearing.

Appendix II—Examples of ADR Initiatives

ADR is working to bring parties together

and to resolve disputes, resulting in less

adversarial relationships and a better work

environment. Employees who have been

made aware of ADR techniques are routinely

beginning to see them as desirable

alternatives to traditional, more adversarial

approaches. The Department has used ADR

in various administrative and programmatic

areas. Some examples of ADR initiatives that

reflect the Department’s commitment to

collaborative decision-making include the

following:

Civil Enforcement

Administrative Law Judges at the U.S.

Coast Guard will continue to use ADR as

appropriate. The ADR techniques may

include early neutral evaluation, mediation,

and settlement judges.

Contract and Procurement

Currently, the Department is reviewing its

Transportation Acquisition Regulations and

its Transportation Acquisition Manual and

may incorporate an ‘‘ADR first’’ approach for

agency protests, GAO protests, and appeals

from contracting officers’ final decisions. The

Department encourages parties to call upon

the Department’s Board of Contract Appeals

to provide early neutral evaluation and other

ADR assistance on all acquisition

controversies including bid protests and

performance disputes.

In FY 1999, the Department’s Board of

Contract Appeals used alternative means of

dispute resolution, including mini-trials and

appointment of an independent neutral, in

seven cases. Settlement was reached in six of

the cases. The Board also provided early

neutral evaluation on contract dispute

matters.

The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) issued a final rule on the procedural

requirements of the Office of Dispute

Resolution for Acquisition (ODRA) for the

resolution of both bid protests and contract

disputes. This dispute resolution process

emphasizes the use of ADR as the primary

means to resolve disputes. ODRA makes its

Dispute Resolution Officers available as ADR

neutrals with the concurrence of the parties.

In addition, ODRA has established a web site,

(www.faa.gov/agc/) which includes a guide to

the conduct of protests and contract disputes

and information about specific cases. In

1999, ODRA employed ADR techniques in 42

cases (bid protests and contract disputes)

helping the parties to reach settlements in

95% of the contract disputes and 53% of bid

protests.

The U.S. Coast Guard has established a

Solicitation Ombuds and is completing

development of an agency protest procedure.

Contracting professionals consider ADR in

resolution of pre- and post-award

procurement disputes, and innovative

processes, including contractor partnering, as

appropriate. To enhance employee

awareness, the Coast Guard provided ADR

training to the chiefs of its contracting offices

and its procurement attorneys.

Environmental

In response to Section 1309 of the

Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st

Century, the Federal Highway

Administration has requested that the U.S.

Institute for Environmental Conflict

Resolution provide assistance in developing

a national policy and set of procedures that

define a project level ADR system. This

system will be applied during the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) evaluation

process to specific transportation projects.

The ADR system will be used to help

stakeholders identify, avoid, and resolve

potential problems and issues related to

specific projects that would, if not addressed,

cause delays during the NEPA process,

fragment agency reviews, and make project

sponsors and the lead agencies vulnerable to

legal liability.

The Maritime Administration (MARAD) is

using ADR to resolve environmental

litigation. In two cases filed pursuant to the

Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980,

MARAD successfully engaged in mediation

to resolve the cases. In both instances,

external mediators were used and mediation

lasted for 3 days. All parties saved on the

costs of litigation by using mediation.

Savings to the government included:

expedited discovery; reduced travel

expenses; elimination of court costs;

elimination of trial preparation costs;

reduced witness costs; and elimination of

protracted procedural costs. Moreover, the

United States was successful in greatly

reducing the assessment against the

government by convincing the parties in both

cases that the government’s defenses to

higher allocation were credible.

Evaluation

As the Department links the budget process

to results by using performance measures to

make resource decisions, the validity,

reliability, timeliness, and comparability over

time of performance data will be a challenge

to ADR programs. The Bureau of

Transportation Statistics will assist in

evaluation efforts. For example, the Bureau

has provided statistical support to the

ONEDOT Sharing Neutrals Program, assisting

in defining what data to collect and

designing a data collection and evaluation

system.

Labor-Management Partnership

The Transportation Partnership Council

(TPC), under Executive Order 12871,

provides a mechanism for the representation

of over 30,000 bargaining unit employees and

both career mid-level managers and top DOT

and operating administration executives to

fully discuss issues of importance. TPC

objectives include facilitating the formation

and operation of partnerships in the

Operating Administrations. TPC has fostered

informal dispute resolution and resolution

and interest-based bargaining throughout

DOT. For example, FAA-National Air Traffic

Controller Association used interest-based

bargaining in term negotiations, Research and

Special Programs Administration’s Volpe

National Transportation Systems Center and

National Association of Government

Employees used a collaborative approach on

term negotiations, FRA-Association of

Federal Government Employees used

interest-based bargaining and partnerships

with industry labor-management teams, and

the U.S. Coast Guard and International Metal

Trades-Aerospace Workers completed

negotiations using an interest-based process.

Negotiated Rulemaking

The Department was the first Federal

agency to use negotiated rulemaking back in

1983, and has a long, successful experience

with the process. In the early 1980s, we

advised employees throughout the

Department of the process and factors to

consider in deciding whether to use it. This

led to the first use of the process for an FAA

rulemaking on flight and duty time rules.

Building on this success, we continued to

provide information about and encourage the

use of negotiated rulemaking. For example,

in 1991, we circulated a memorandum

providing more detail on the factors to

consider in determining whether a particular

rulemaking was an appropriate candidate for

a regulatory negotiation in light of our

experience and, in 1996, we circulated a

memorandum that made a number of

suggestions for cutting the costs of

conducting negotiated rulemakings.

Furthermore, senior political leadership has

been briefed on the process and two DOT

attorney have taught a negotiated rulemaking

course attended by many DOT attorneys at

the Department of Justice’s National

Advocacy Center.

Many of the Department’s operating

administrations have used negotiated

rulemaking. The Federal Highway

Administration conducted a regulatory

negotiation on incorporation of physical

fitness determinations into the commercial

drivers license process for state enforcement

of medical certification. The National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration

conducted negotiations on standards for

headlight aimability, specifically for altering

lower beam pattern, and reached consensus

that led to a final rule. The Research and

Special Programs Administration (RSPA)

conducted negotiations and reached

consensus on a recommended rule on the

qualifications for personnel performing

certain safety related functions for pipelines.

In addition, RSPA successfully conducted a

regulatory negotiation to develop

recommendations for alternative safety

standards for preventing and mitigating

unintentional releases during the unloading

of cargo tank motor vehicles in liquefied

compressed gas service, such as propane and

anhydrous ammonia. The U.S. Coast Guard

used negotiated rulemaking to develop a rule

on the operating schedule for a series of

drawbridges over the Chicago River to

balance the recreational boaters’ need for lake

access with the need to reduce the adverse

impact of bridge openings on downtown

motor vehicle traffic. Although unsuccessful

in achieving consensus, the process did aid

in developing the rule. Finally, the FAA and

the Federal Railroad Administration have

established standing advisory committees

that they use to negotiate rules.

69126 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Notices

Process Design

In 1998, the FAA established the Office of

Administrative Dispute Resolution under the

Associate Chief Counsel for ADR, within the

FAA Chief Counsel’s Office. This Office is

responsible for implementing provisions of

the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act

within the FAA. This Office provides

leadership and support for new and existing

ADR programs within FAA headquarters and

the regions. It provides ADR briefings and

orientation, assistance with system design,

and instruction in conflict management,

mediation, and advocacy in the ADR process.

The Office has also worked with the FAA’s

Center for Management to develop training in

mediation techniques for supervisors and

managers.

The U.S. Coast Guard is establishing an

information cross-flow ADR awareness

program which will align with the

Department’s policy, with integrated training

components to continue and expand current

Coast Guard ADR uses. In furtherance of this,

a core group has met and will continue to

meet on a quarterly basis pending full standup of Dispute Resolution Council activities.

The U.S. Coast Guard anticipates that the

program will ultimately provide and

continually invigorate awareness across

directorate and operational lines, and

enhance coordination with other modes to

optimize program effectiveness and share

and exchange information and

implementations.

Workplace

The Department, under its ONE DOT

initiative, has been developing a DOT-wide

mediation program to help resolve Equal

Employment Opportunity complaints. The

department has trained employees to serve as

neutral mediators to assist in the consensual

resolution of those complaints and has

established a pilot DOT-wide Sharing

Neutrals Program for the mediation of

discrimination complaints in the

Washington, DC area. The U.S. Coast Guard,

FAA, and Federal Railroad Administration

also established mediation programs for

discrimination complaints. In 1999, FAA

mediated 123 complaints of discrimination.

Mediation resolved 71 (58%) of the disputes.

This resolution rate is up from 43% in 1998.

With regard to other workplace issues, one

office within the FAA has established an

Early Resolution System and successfully

resolved 16 out of 18 cases.

The FAA also established two new

programs at its William J. Hughes Technical

Center in Atlantic City, N.J., under which

employees and management mediate

workplace disputes. One program includes

the bargaining unit employees of the

American Federation of Government

Employees, Local 200. The other involves the

non-bargaining unit employees.

The FAA and the National Air Traffic

Controllers Association (NATCA) established

an ADR Working Group in accordance with

their collective bargaining agreement.

NATCA represents approximately 25,000 air

traffic employees. The ADR Working Group

has produced three Memoranda of

Agreement designed to encourage joint

problem solving, and to assist in the

resolution of current disputes and the

avoidance of future disputes between the

FAA, NATCA, and NATCA members. The

first program is designed to eliminate the

backlog of current grievances through an

upper level joint review process. The second

program is a Neutral Evaluation pilot being

conducted in two FAA regions. This program

uses a neutral evaluator, generally an

arbitrator with labor law expertise, to give the

parties a realistic assessment of the

respective merits of the grievance cases that

would normally proceed to arbitration. The

goal is to enhance opportunities for

settlement, and the neutral is available to

move the process into mediation should the

parties so desire. The third program consists

of a grievance mediation process and a

facility-to-facility review process. Both

processes are designed to resolve disputes

early, so as to reduce the negative

consequences of conflict.

[FR Doc. 00–29099 Filed 11–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA–2000–8278]

High Density Airports; Notice of

Lottery of Slot Exemptions at

LaGuardia Airport

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration.

ACTION: Notice of intent to conduct a

lottery of takeoff and landing times at

LaGuardia Airport.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

Federal Aviation Administration’s

(FAA) intention to hold a lottery, with

the Port Authority of New York and

New Jersey, in late November or early

December to reallocate exemption slots

at LaGuardia Airport as authorized

under the Wendell H. Ford Aviation

Investment and Reform Act of the 21st

Century. The FAA finds that this action

is necessary to address the level of

delays that are currently experienced as

a result of the significant increase in

operations authorized by that

legislation, and to prevent an increase in

delays from additional flights scheduled

to begin in the near future.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before November 20, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice

should be mailed or delivered in

duplicate, to: U.S. Department of

Transportation Dockets, Docket No.

FAA–2000–8278, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Room Plaza 401, Washington, DC

20590. Comments may also be sent

electronically to the following Internet

address: DMS.dot.gov. Comments may

be filed and/or examined in Room Plaza

401 between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m.

weekdays except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David L. Bennett, Office of Airport

Safety and Standards, Federal Aviation

Administration, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;

telephone number 202–267–3053.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

comment on this process by submitting

such written data, views, or arguments

as they may desire. Comments that

provide the factual basis supporting the

views and suggestions presented are

particularly helpful in developing

reasoned decisions. Communications

should identify the docket number and

be submitted in triplicate to the above

specified address. All communications

and a report summarizing any

substantive public contact with FAA

personnel on this notice will be filed in

the docket. The docket is available for

public inspection both before and after

the closing date for receiving comments.

Before taking any final action on this

proposal, the Administrator will

consider all comments made on or

before the closing date for comments

and the proposal may be changed in

light of the comments received.

The FAA will acknowledge receipt of

a comment if the commenter includes a

self-addressed, stamped postcard with

the comment. The post card should be

marked ‘‘Comments to Docket No. FAA–

2000-8278.’’ When the comment is

received by the FAA, the postcard will

be dated, time stamped, and returned to

the commenter.

Authority

The FAA has broad authority under

Title 49 of the United States Code

(U.S.C.), Subtitle VII, to regulate and

control the use of the navigable airspace

of the United States. Under 49 U.S.C.

40103, the agency is authorized to

develop plans for and to formulate

policy with respect to the use of

navigable airspace and to assign by rule,

regulation, or order the use of navigable

airspace under such terms, conditions,

and limitations as may be deemed

necessary in order to ensure the safety

of aircraft and the efficient utilization of

the navigable airspace. Also, under

section 40103, the agency is further

authorized and directed to prescribe air

traffic rules and regulations governing

the efficient utilization of the navigable

airspace.

The High Density Traffic Airports

Rule, or ‘‘High Density Rule,’’ 14 CFR

part 93, subpart K, was promulgated in