Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 83 / Monday, April 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules 18713

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Part 40

[OST Docket OST–96–1295] [Notice 96–13]

RIN: 2105–AC49

Update of Drug and Alcohol

Procedural Rules

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Transportation is reviewing its

procedural rules for drug and alcohol

testing. This review is intended to lead

to a notice of proposed rulemaking to

update and clarify provisions of the

rules. This advance notice of proposed

rulemaking seeks suggestions for

possible changes to the regulation.

DATES: Comments should be received

July 29, 1996. Late-filed comments will

be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to

the Docket Clerk, Docket No. OST–96–

1295, Department of Transportation, 400

7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.,

Room PL 401, Washington, D.C., 20590.

We request that, in order to minimize

burdens on the docket clerk’s staff,

commenters send three copies of their

comments to the docket. Commenters

wishing to have their submissions

acknowledged should include a

stamped, self-addressed postcard with

their comments. The docket clerk will

date stamp the postcard and return it to

the commenter. Comments will be

available for inspection at the above

address from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant

General Counsel for Regulation and

Enforcement, 400 7th Street, S.W.,

Room 10424, Washington, D.C., 20590.

(202) 366–9306.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Six of the

Department’s operating administrations

(the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA), Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA), Federal Transit

Administration (FTA), Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA), U.S. Coast Guard

(USCG), and Research and Special

Programs Administration (RSPA)) have

modal-specific drug and/or alcohol

testing rules. These rules apply to about

8 million transportation employees who

work in safety-sensitive positions (e.g.,

truck drivers, airline pilots, and railroad

engineers). The operating

administration rules impose substantive

requirements concerning the testing

program, on subjects such as which

employers must conduct tests, which

employees are subject to testing, what

kinds of tests are required, when the

tests must be administered, the

consequences of positive tests and other

rule violations, how an employee who

has violated the rule can return to duty,

and what recordkeeping and reporting

requirements apply to employers. These

modal rules are not being revisited as

part of this rulemaking initiative.

The Office of the Secretary (OST)

procedural rule (49 CFR Part 40) that is

the subject of this advance notice of

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) applies

to regulated parties through each of the

operating administration’s rules. Part 40

describes, in detail, how the required

tests must be conducted.

The drug testing portion of Part 40

closely follows the Mandatory

Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug

Testing Programs of the Department of

Health and Human Services (DHHS).

With respect to the four operating

administrations covered by the

Omnibus Transportation Employee

Testing Act of 1991 (FAA, FRA, FHWA,

and FTA), the Department is required by

statute to have procedures consistent

with the DHHS Guidelines. We are

committed, as a matter of policy, to

consistency with the DHHS Guidelines

with respect to the RSPA and Coast

Guard drug testing programs as well.

Consequently, the Department is not, in

this ANPRM, entertaining comments

that would require substantive

departures from the DHHS Guidelines.

Nor is the Department seeking

comments on significant substantive

issues that have, in recent years, been

the subject of completed or pending

rulemaking actions (e.g., review of

negative drug test results by medical

review officers, blood testing for

alcohol, ‘‘shy bladder’’ procedures).

The Department conceives this

ANPRM, then, not as an occasion for

suggesting major substantive changes to

how we test for drugs and alcohol, but

rather as an opportunity to clarify the

myriad details of Part 40. We want to

make the rule as easy to understand and

apply as we can, reduce burdens where

feasible, take ‘‘lessons learned’’ during

the several years of operating the

program under Part 40 into account,

correct problems that have been

identified, clarify areas of uncertainty or

ambiguity, and incorporate, where

appropriate, the Department’s

interpretations of Part 40 into the

regulatory text. We also anticipate

reordering provisions of the rule so that

the material flows more smoothly and is

easier for readers to follow.

While we are soliciting comments on

both the drug and alcohol portions of

the regulation, we anticipate that the

main focus of this effort will be on drug

testing procedures, which are both more

complex and older than the alcohol

testing procedures. We seek the ideas of

everyone involved with the program—

employers, employees, consortia and

third-party administrators, laboratories,

substance abuse professionals, medical

review officers, collectors, breath

alcohol technicians, and other

interested persons—to assist us in this

process.

The Department is contemplating

hosting one or more public meetings or

other forums during which interested

persons can discuss potential Part 40

changes with DOT officials and staff.

We will issue a notice announcing such

events when plans are in place.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

This ANPRM, which simply requests

public input concerning potential

changes to the Department’s drug and

alcohol testing procedures, is not

significant for purposes of Executive

Order 12866 or Department of

Transportation Rulemaking Policies and

Procedures.

Issued this 22nd day of April 1996, at

Washington, D.C.

Federico Pen ̃ a,

Secretrary of Transportation.

[FR Doc. 96–10522 Filed 4–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

Federal Highway Administration

49 CFR Parts 383 and 391

[FHWA Docket No. MC–93–23]

RIN 2125–AD20

Commercial Driver Physical

Qualifications As Part of the

Commercial Driver’s License Process

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to form a

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on

Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) and

Physical Qualifications Requirements.

SUMMARY: The FHWA proposes to

establish a negotiated rulemaking

advisory committee (the Committee)

under the Federal Advisory Committee

Act and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act

to consider the relevant issues and

attempt to reach a consensus in

developing regulations governing the

proposed merger of the Stateadministered commercial driver’s

license procedures and the driver
18714 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 83 / Monday, April 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules

physical qualifications requirements of

49 CFR Part 391. The Committee would

be composed of people who represent

the interests that would be substantially

affected by the rule.

The FHWA invites interested parties

to comment on the proposal to establish

the Committee and on the proposed

membership of the Committee, and to

submit applications or nominations for

membership on the Committee.

DATES: Interested parties may file

comments and nominations for

committee membership on or before

May 29, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments and/or

nominations should be sent to FHWA

Docket No. MC–93–23, Room 4232,

HCC–10, Office of Chief Counsel,

Federal Highway Administration, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C.

20590. All comments received will be

available for examination at the above

address from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. e.t.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. Those desiring notification of

receipt of comments must include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard/envelope.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Teresa Doggett, Office of Motor Carrier

Research and Standards, (202) 366–

4001, or Ms. Grace Reidy, Office of

Chief Counsel, (202) 366–0834, Federal

Highway Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590.

Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15

p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Secretary of Transportation has

authority to establish standards for

physical qualifications that must be met

by drivers in interstate commerce. 49

U.S.C. 31502 and 49 U.S.C. 31136. This

authority is delegated to the Federal

Highway Administrator. 49 CFR 1.48.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Regulations (FMCSRs) set forth the

qualifications of drivers who operate

commercial motor vehicles (CMV) in

interstate commerce. 49 CFR 391.11.

The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety

Act of 1986 (CMVSA) provides, in

section 12005(a)(8) (49 U.S.C.

31305(a)(8)), that Federal standards may

be promulgated to require issuance of a

certification of fitness to operate a CMV

to each person who passes a CDL test

and may require such person to have a

copy of such certification in his or her

possession whenever operating a CMV.

In September 1990, the FHWA

explored options for giving

responsibility for medical qualification

determinations to the State licensing

agencies as part of the CDL process. Six

States—Alabama, Utah, Arizona, North

Carolina, Indiana and Missouri—began

pilot programs seeking efficient ways to

assure that commercial motor vehicle

drivers meet the Federal physical

qualifications requirements before they

are issued a license. The pilots were

developed by the FHWA and its

contractors, the Association for the

Advancement of Automotive Medicine

and the American Association of Motor

Vehicle Administrators, in conjunction

with a committee of State government

licensing officials.

The pilot projects were completed on

January 31, 1995, and a final report was

submitted to the agency. The report

revealed that the State driver licensing

agencies demonstrated the potential to

assume responsibility for commercial

motor vehicle driver medical

qualification determinations as part of

the CDL process. However, some States

indicated they would require enabling

legislation and additional funding to

administer the process.

Currently, the FMCSRs require that

CMV drivers be medically examined

and certified as physically qualified

once every two years in order to operate

in interstate commerce. If the driver

meets the Federal physical

qualifications requirements, a medical

examiner then issues a medical

certificate which indicates that the

driver is qualified to drive. Drivers must

carry this certificate while driving and

employers must maintain a copy in the

drivers’ qualification files. 49 CFR

391.41(a), 391.43, 391.45 and

391.51(b)(1). Enforcement of these

requirements is performed primarily

through roadside inspections of vehicles

and drivers or through Federal or State

safety compliance reviews of motor

carriers.

In addition, 49 CFR 383.71(a) requires

that during the CDL application process

a person who operates or expects to

operate in interstate or foreign

commerce, or is otherwise subject to 49

CFR Part 391, shall certify that he or she

meets the qualification requirements

contained in 49 CFR Part 391. In

practice, some States rely solely on the

drivers’ certifications while other States

also require drivers who certify that

they meet the qualification requirements

of Part 391 to produce the required

medical certificate in order to be issued

a CDL. Before issuing the CDL, a few

States also review the medical ‘‘long

form’’ that the medical examiner

completes to assure that the regulatory

requirements are met.

The FHWA issued an advance notice

of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM)(copy

enclosed in Docket File) on July 15,

1994, requesting comments on merging

the CDL and physical qualifications

programs. 59 FR 36338. The FHWA

stated in the ANPRM that merging the

systems would allow the States to make

the physical qualification

determinations prior to issuing a CDL.

Under such an approach, the CDL

would then be the sole document a

commercial driver would have to carry

and would be evidence that a driver is

medically qualified to operate the CMV.

The proposal to merge the medical

fitness determination into the CDL

process has several very strong potential

benefits. Drivers would be relieved of

the responsibility to carry a medical

fitness card, thus eliminating the

potential for such cards to be

inadvertently lost, damaged or

destroyed. Enforcement personnel

would also have immediate notice of the

medical fitness status of a driver,

without the time-consuming need to

refer to and authenticate a separate

document. Carriers would no longer

need to maintain driver medical

qualification certificates, as the license

document itself would confirm the

fitness of the driver.

In addition, States would be better

able to identify unqualified drivers that

currently operate without medical cards

or with forged medical cards. Where

questions exist regarding a license

applicant, the driver licensing agency

could refer the applicant and the

medical fitness form to the State

medical advisory board for further

review. Medical advisory boards are

currently in place in many States and

are used to review medical

qualifications of passenger car drivers

and for intrastate CMV operators. The

agency understands that forty-seven

States currently have either a medical

advisory board or some kind of medical

review process for the above-described

driver licensing determinations. In this

rulemaking, the FHWA proposes to

include medical determinations

involving interstate CMV drivers in

existing State medical review

infrastructure programs by taking

advantage of established working

practices that are prevalent within State

licensing agencies.

The results of the six-State pilot

program provide support for the benefits

of this proposal. The final report found

that drivers who did not meet current

medical standards could be readily

detected and could be restricted from

driving CMVs entirely or within

parameters set by the driver licensing

agency and its medical advisory board.

Medical examiners would be able to

contact the driver licensing agency

medical unit or medical advisory board

if questions arose during a physical. The
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 83 / Monday, April 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules 18715

review of the fitness qualifications as

part of the licensing process streamlines

the procedure and creates a single

record for each driver. The pilot found

that fraudulent or expired medical

certifications and the lack of required

medical certifications of drivers did not

exist in the six participating States.

In the ANPRM, the FHWA asked

interested parties to comment on

specific issues including the feasibility

of the ‘‘merger’’ concept; how best to

achieve such a system; how to reconcile

the differences between the States’ fouryear CDL renewal cycle with the

FHWA’s two-year medical certificate

cycle; whether medical examiners

should be certified to perform

examinations; the degree of flexibility

States should have in determining how

to implement any new, merged

standard; and the types of resources

required by States to implement a new,

merged standard. Seventy-six parties

responded to the notice, including State

agencies, for-hire motor carriers, private

carriers, safety advocates, and medical

groups.

The responses received from

commenters to the ANPRM generally

involved one of five general issues.

Because the parties likely to be

interested in this proposed regulation

(i.e., State licensing agencies, carriers,

drivers, medical professionals) are fairly

well defined, and the issues identified

through the ANPRM are also well

defined, the agency believed that this

proposed rulemaking would be a good

candidate for negotiated rulemaking.

The range of interested parties and

issues to be addressed are not the only

reasons for the decision to initiate a

negotiated rulemaking. The agency is

enthusiastic about the opportunity to

work cooperatively with partners in the

motor carrier community at large to

discuss this issue and approaches to

resolving it in an open exchange of

ideas. The opportunity to engage in

face-to-face discussion of concerns and

benefits will hopefully allow for a

creative, cooperative approach to

addressing the merger of medical fitness

and licensing decisions.

As referenced earlier, the five general

issues identified by the respondents to

the ANPRM were: (1) whether States

would have statutory authority to verify

the physical qualifications of a driver;

(2) whether there will be adequate staff

available to verify drivers’ compliance

with physical qualifications

requirements at the time a license is

issued; (3) the feasibility of merging the

two-year medical certificate with the

States’ four-year licensing cycle; (4) the

motor carrier’s role in assuring physical

qualifications of the driver; and (5) the

cost of training licensing examiners

and/or staffing medical review boards

on the administration of the process.

Comments on the ANPRM included

questions on the potential costs to States

of assuming responsibility for verifying

medical fitness as part of CDL issuance

or renewal. Some carriers expressed

concern that licensing agencies would

be unable to adequately confirm

information on the medical form and

suggested that the current carrier

responsibility for driver fitness be

maintained. The agency believes that

the results of the six-State pilot program

indicate a strong likelihood that States

can assume responsibility for the

medical fitness determination process.

This rulemaking will form the basis for

addressing the questions raised by

respondents to the ANPRM, as well as

other issues that may be identified as

this process continues.

Pursuant to the Negotiated

Rulemaking Act, 5 U.S.C. 561–570, the

agency has decided to form a negotiated

rulemaking committee. As discussed

earlier, the agency believes that this

approach is most likely to lead to an

efficient and successful transfer of

responsibility for medical fitness

determinations to State licensing

agencies. Unlike traditional, informal

notice and comment rulemaking, this

process will allow for the open

exchange of ideas and information

among and between parties with an

interest in the outcome of this issue.

The agency believes that in adopting

this approach, the process will lead to

creative, innovative approaches to

resolving issues that might not emerge

through the individual efforts of

commenters to a docket. The process

will still result in the promulgation of

a notice of proposed rulemaking. This

will provide an opportunity for

comment by other interested parties and

the general public, but the initial

proposal that will be published for

comment will reflect the exchange of

ideas and differing proposals that occur

in negotiations. One result of the

negotiations will be a better informed

commercial motor vehicle safety

community with a fuller understanding

of the benefits and potential problem

areas associated with State verification

of medical fitness determinations. This

knowledge should help all parties,

including the agency, to develop a more

practical, effective means of dealing

with these medical fitness

determinations.

Negotiated Rulemaking Process

Conveners

As provided for in 5 U.S.C. 563(b), a

convener assists the agency in

identifying the persons or interests that

would be significantly affected by the

proposed rule. The convener conducts

discussions with representatives of such

interests to identify the issues of

concern to them and to ascertain the

feasibility of establishing a negotiated

rulemaking committee.

The FHWA retained the services of a

contractor to act as a convener and

provide advice on the feasibility of

using a negotiated rulemaking process

for this rule. The convening team met

with FHWA officials to review

background information on the issues,

including the responses to the ANPRM,

potential interested parties, and

objectives of the agency. Prior to

conducting interviews with prospective

participants, the convening team

analyzed the views of the various

respondents to the ANPRM and the

level of controversy generated by the

issues as outlined in the ANPRM.

The conveners attempted to develop

the range of interests that would be

affected by the rule and identify

individuals who would be able to

represent or articulate those interests.

The conveners then sought to interview

those individuals to determine their

views on the issues involved and

whether they would be interested in

participating in the negotiated

rulemaking. The convening team sought

to determine whether the negotiated

rulemaking process would be effective

in developing the rule. Each party was

also asked if there were other

individuals or groups which should be

contacted and these additional parties

were also interviewed. Based upon

these interviews, the conveners

submitted a convening report (copy

enclosed in Docket File) in December

1995 to the FHWA, recommending that

the agency proceed with the negotiated

rulemaking process.

Determination of Need for Negotiated

Rulemaking Committee

The purpose of a negotiated

rulemaking committee is to develop

consensus on a proposed rule.

‘‘Consensus’’ means the unanimous

concurrence among the interests

represented on the negotiated

rulemaking committee unless the

committee explicitly adopts some other

definition. This requirement also means

that the agency itself participates in the

negotiations in a manner similar to that

of any other party.
18716 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 83 / Monday, April 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Before establishing such a negotiated

rulemaking committee, the Negotiated

Rulemaking Act (5 U.S.C. 563(a)) directs

the head of an agency to consider

whether:

1. There is a need for the rule;

2. There are a limited number of

identifiable interests that will be

significantly affected by the rule;

3. There is a reasonable likelihood

that a committee can be convened with

a balanced representation of persons

who can adequately represent those

interests and are willing to negotiate in

good faith to reach a consensus on a

proposed rule;

4. There is a reasonable likelihood

that a committee will reach consensus

on the proposed rule within a fixed

period of time;

5. The negotiated rulemaking will not

unreasonably delay the issuance of the

notice of proposed rulemaking and the

final rule;

6. The agency has adequate resources

and is willing to commit such resources,

including technical assistance, to the

committee; and

7. The agency, to the maximum extent

possible, consistent with its statutory

authority and legal obligations, will use

the consensus of the committee as the

basis for the rule proposed by the

agency for notice and comment.

The FHWA believes that all of the

requisite negotiated rulemaking factors

are satisfied with regard to the proposal

to merge the medical qualification

determination and the CDL processes

and that the negotiating process could

provide significant advantages over

conventional informal rulemaking. This

determination is based on the review of

the comments to the ANPRM and the

convener’s report submitted by the

contractor. There is broad consensus

among the parties contacted by the

conveners that there are weaknesses in

the current medical qualifications

system that can be improved. The

potentially affected interests are limited

in number; there are clearly fewer than

25 distinct interests that would be

affected by the rule. A balanced

committee representing the various

interests at stake in this matter can be

empaneled. The parties contacted by the

conveners have expressed their interests

in discussing the issues and believe that

there is a strong likelihood of reaching

consensus on the issues within a

reasonable period of time. The FHWA

believes that these negotiations will not

delay, but will expedite the rulemaking

process since the negotiations will

enable the agency to benefit from the

committee members’ practical first-hand

insights and knowledge into the

operation of the physical qualifications

determinations and the benefits and

costs of integrating those determinations

into the licensing process. Gaining those

insights and resolving the controversies

surrounding the identified issues would

otherwise take the agency considerably

longer to resolve by using traditional

rulemaking. The agency is committed to

facilitating the negotiated rulemaking

process and will devote the necessary

resources, including technical

assistance, to the Committee. The

member or members of the Committee

representing the agency shall participate

in the deliberations and activities of the

Committee with the same rights and

responsibilities as other members of the

Committee, and shall be authorized to

fully represent the agency in

discussions and negotiations of the

Committee. The agency, to the

maximum extent possible, consistent

with its statutory authority and legal

obligations, will use the consensus of

the Committee as the basis for the rule

proposed by the agency for notice and

comment.

Therefore, based on this analysis of

the seven factors mentioned above, the

agency has concluded that the use of the

negotiated rulemaking procedure in this

case is in the public interest.

Potential Topics for the Negotiated

Rulemaking Process

Based on the interviews conducted

with potential committee members and

the report provided by the convener, the

FHWA proposes that the following

issues would be considered in the

negotiated rulemaking process.

1. Whether the physical qualifications

guidelines currently used by the agency

should be modified to more effectively

implement the current medical

standards.

2. The scope of any medical

qualifications tracking system which

might be used by law enforcement

officials, as well as by carriers interested

in medical information that is not

currently available.

3. What is the status of the various

federally-funded State Prototype

Medical Review pilot programs which

explored the merger of the medical

qualifications and licensing processes,

and what useful information can be

utilized from these efforts in drafting a

rule on merging CDL and physical

qualifications requirements?

4. How much control should various

parties have over the medical review

process and should the current

commonly-used procedure, in which a

company directs its drivers to

physicians it selects, be replaced

entirely or could it simply be modified?

For example, should the agency require

drivers to submit a medical long form to

employers and the appropriate State

licensing agency instead of replacing the

current system?

5. How can the current physical

examination requirements used by

medical providers be clarified? How can

these requirements and guidelines be

more effectively communicated to the

medical provider community?

6. Is there a way to allow merger of

the separate requirements without

burdening the small operator who

moves to another State? In this case,

although the driver’s medical

certification would still be valid, he or

she might still be required to be

recertified in the new State, thus

potentially requiring a new certificate

and a corresponding fee (e.g. medical

reciprocity of old certificate to new

States).

Once the negotiated rulemaking

process begins, Committee members

may raise other issues necessary for

successful completion of the

rulemaking.

Potential Participants Who Were

Interviewed By Conveners

The following entities were identified

as interested parties that should be

included in the negotiated rulemaking

process either directly as members of

the Committee or as a part of a broader

caucus of similar or related interests:

Enforcement Groups

Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance

International Association of Chiefs of

Police

State Licensing Agencies

American Association of Motor Vehicle

Administrators

Carriers

American Trucking Associations

National Private Truck Council

National School Transportation

Association

United Bus Motor Coach Association

American Bus Association

Terra International (Agricultural)

Farmland Industries (Agricultural)

Drivers

Owner-Operators Independent Drivers

Association

Independent Truckers and Driver

Association

Independent Truck Owner Operator

Association

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Public Interest

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety

American Automobile Association
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 83 / Monday, April 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules 18717

Medical

American College of Occupational and

Environmental Medicine

Association for the Advancement of

Automotive Medicine

American Association of Occupational

Health Nurses

Insurance

Lancer Insurance (Busing Interests)

AI Transportation—AIG (Busing and

Trucking)

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Proposed Agenda and Schedule

The FHWA anticipates that the

negotiated rulemaking committee will

hold six two-day meetings,

approximately once a month. The first

committee meeting will focus on such

matters as: determining if there are

additional interests that should be

represented on the Committee;

identifying issues to be considered; and

setting ground rules, a schedule, and an

agenda for future Committee meetings.

Administrative Support

The FHWA’s Office of Motor Carrier

Research and Standards will supply

logistical, technical, and administrative

support to the Committee. The meetings

will be held at the FHWA headquarters

in Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. is

where a majority of the prospective

Committee members are located. In

general, Committee members will be

responsible for their own expenses, but

the FHWA will consider requests for

compensation in accordance with 5

U.S.C. 568(c).

Applications for Membership on

Committee

The FHWA is soliciting comments on

this proposal to establish a negotiated

rulemaking advisory committee and on

the proposed membership of the

Committee. Persons may apply or

nominate another person for

membership on the Committee in

accordance with the following

procedures:

Persons who will be significantly

affected by the proposed rule and who

believe that their interests will not be

adequately represented by any person

on the previously discussed list of

potential participants may apply for, or

nominate another person for,

membership on the negotiated

rulemaking committee. Each application

or nomination shall include:

1. the name of the applicant or

nominee and a description of the

interests such person shall represent;

2. evidence that the applicant or

nominee is authorized to represent

parties related to the interests the

person proposes to represent;

3. a written commitment that the

applicant or nominee shall actively

participate in good faith in the

development of the rule under

consideration; and

4. the reasons that the persons

specified in this notice do not

adequately represent the interests of the

person submitting the application or

nomination.

Announcement of FHWA Public

Meeting

In order to identify and select

organizations or interests to be

represented on the Committee, the

FHWA will hold a public meeting on

May 14, 1996. The meeting will be held

at the Nassif Building, 400 7th Street,

SW, Room 9230, Washington, D.C., at

8:30 a.m. e.t. All parties interested in

this rulemaking, including the potential

participants listed above and parties

submitting applications or nominations

for membership, are encouraged to

attend this meeting. The convener/

facilitator will also attend this

organizational meeting.

As a general rule, the Federal

Advisory Committee Act provides that

no advisory committee may meet or take

any action until an approved charter has

been filed with the appropriate House

and Senate committees with jurisdiction

over the agency using the committee.

Only upon the Secretary of

Transportation’s approval of the charter

and the list of organizations or interests

to be represented on the Committee and

the filing of the charter will the FHWA

form the Committee and begin

negotiations.

After review of the comments

received in response to this notice and

any additional comments received at the

organizational meeting, the FHWA will

issue a final notice announcing the

Committee members and the date of the

first Committee meeting.

Authority: [5 U.S.C. 561–570].

Issued on: April 23, 1996.

Rodney E. Slater,

Federal Highway Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–10548 Filed 4–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P