Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 45929 

For information regarding proper 

filing procedures for comments, see 47 

CFR 1.415 and 1.420. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio, Radio broadcasting. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 73 as follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. 

§ 73.202 [Amended] 

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM 

Allotments under Arizona is amended 

by removing Channel 286C2 and by 

adding Channel 228C2 at Ehrenberg, 

and by removing Channel 247C and by 

adding Channel 281C at First Mesa. 

3. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM 

Allotments under California is amended 

by adding Needles, Channel 287B1. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division Media 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. E8–18212 Filed 8–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Parts 356, 365, and 374 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2008–0235] 

RIN 2126–AB16 

Elimination of Route Designation 

Requirement for Motor Carriers 

Transporting Passengers Over Regular 

Routes 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM); request for comments. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA proposes to 

discontinue its current requirement that 

applicants seeking authority to transport 

passengers over regular routes submit a 

detailed description and a map of the 

route(s) over which they propose to 

operate. The Agency would register 

such carriers as regular-route carriers 

without requiring designation of 

specific regular routes and fixed endpoints. Once these regular-route motor 

carriers have obtained operating 

authority from FMCSA, they would no 

longer need to seek additional FMCSA 

approval in order to change or add 

routes. By eliminating the need to file 

and process multiple requests 

concerning routes, the Agency believes 

this action will decrease the paperwork 

burden on regular-route motor carriers 

seeking to expand or change their routes 

without compromising safety. It will 

also decrease the Agency’s own 

paperwork burden. Each registered 

regular-route motor carrier of passengers 

would continue to be subject to the full 

safety oversight and enforcement 

program of FMCSA and its State and 

local partners. 

DATES: FMCSA must receive your 

comments by September 22, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by the Federal Docket 

Management System Number in the 

heading of this document by any of the 

following methods. Do not submit the 

same comments by more than one 

method. The Federal eRulemaking 

portal is the preferred method for 

submitting comments, and we urge you 

to use it. 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. In the Comment or 

Submission section, type Docket ID 

Number ‘‘FMCSA–2008–0235’’, select 

‘‘Go’’, and then click on ‘‘Send a 

Comment or Submission.’’ You will 

receive a tracking number when you 

submit a comment. 

Telefax: 1–202–493–2251. 

Mail, Courier, or Hand-Deliver: 

Docket Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. Office 

hours are between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

E.T., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

Privacy Act: Regardless of the method 

used for submitting comments, all 

comments will be posted without 

change to the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS) at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Anyone can 

search the electronic form of all our 

dockets in FDMS, by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). DOT’s complete Privacy 

Act Statement was published in the 

Federal Register on April 11, 2000 (65 

FR 19476), and can be viewed at the 

URL http://docketsinfo.dot.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

David Miller, Regulatory Development 

Division, (202) 366–5370 or by e-mail at: 

FMCSAregs@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

section is organized as follows: 

I. Description of the Rulemaking 

II. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking 

III. Background 

A. Introduction 

B. Impact on State Regulation of Intrastate 

Regular-Route Transportation by 

Interstate Carriers 

C. Registration of Governmental Entities 

Providing Interstate Regular-Route 

Transportation 

IV. The Proposed Rule 

V. Other Approaches Considered 

VI. Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

I. Description of the Rulemaking 

FMCSA is discontinuing the 

administrative requirement that motor 

carriers must describe specific routes 

when seeking authority to provide 

regular-route transportation of 

passengers in interstate commerce. 

Except for carriers who are public 

recipients of governmental assistance, 

regular-route passenger carriers will be 

registered as such without any specific 

route designations. Carriers currently 

holding route-specific operating 

authority will be issued motor carrier 

certificates of registration that are not 

route-specific which will supersede 

their existing authority. 

Designation of regular routes is no 

longer required by statute and 

discontinuing this requirement will 

streamline the registration process by 

eliminating the need for motor carriers 

to file new applications when seeking to 

change or expand their routes. It will 

also benefit new entrants by simplifying 

the application for operating authority. 

Designation of regular routes is an 

administrative requirement based on 

economic regulation which is 

considered to have limited safety 

benefits to the public or the 

transportation community. 

However, the Agency will continue to 

require public recipients of 

governmental assistance to designate 

specific routes when applying for 

regular-route authority because its 

governing statute permits persons to 

challenge specific regular-route 

transportation service provided by 

public entities on the ground that 

authorizing such service is not 

consistent with the public interest. 

Eliminating the route designation 

requirement would prevent the Agency 

from evaluating proposed transportation 

services under the public interest 

standard, in violation of its statutory 

mandate. 

This rulemaking amends several 

FMCSA regulations that reference 

authorized routes or points of service in 

order to make them consistent with the 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
45930 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Agency’s discontinuation of the route 

designation requirement. The OP–1(P) 

application form would also be changed 

to eliminate the current routedesignation and mapping requirements. 

II. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking 

Regular-route passenger service 

predates the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 

(MCA) (Pub. L. 74–255, 49 Stat. 543, 

Aug. 9, 1935). The MCA, which placed 

interstate motor carriers under Federal 

regulation for the first time, authorized 

the Interstate Commerce Commission 

(ICC) to regulate motor carriers by, 

among other things, issuing certificates 

of operating authority to motor carriers 

of property and passengers operating in 

interstate commerce. Many motor 

carriers providing regular-route service 

before 1935 received ‘‘grandfathered’’

operating authority in the MCA. Section 

207(a) of the MCA stated that ‘‘no 

certificate shall be issued to any 

common carrier of passengers for 

operations over other than a regular 

route or regular routes, and between 

fixed termini [end-points], except as 

such carriers may be authorized to 

engage in special or charter operations.’’

Section 208(a) required that certificates 

issued to regular-route passenger 

carriers specify the routes, end-points, 

and intermediate points to be served 

under the certificate. Section 208(b) 

permitted occasional deviations from 

authorized routes, if permitted by ICC 

regulations. The ICC did not issue 

regulations codifying sections 207(a) 

and 208(a) of the MCA, although it did 

permit minor deviations from 

authorized routes in rules now codified 

at 49 CFR 356.3. 

The above MCA provisions were 

recodified without substantive change 

as 49 U.S.C. 10922(f)(1)–(3); however, 

the provisions were then repealed by 

the ICC Termination Act of 1995 

(ICCTA) (Pub. L. 104–88, 109 Stat. 888, 

Dec. 29, 1995). As discussed later in this 

preamble, section 103 of the ICCTA 

amended subtitle IV of title 49, United 

States Code, including section 10922 of 

title 49. In particular, the ICCTA 

retained some of the former registration 

requirements of section 10922 

applicable to regular-route passenger 

carriers but eliminated many others, 

including sections 10922(f)(1)–(3). 

Consequently, the Agency is no longer 

required to issue operating authority to 

regular-route passenger carriers 

specifying routes and fixed end-points. 

However, the Agency has continued to 

require applicants seeking regular-route 

authority to submit maps and a detailed 

description of proposed operating 

route(s) as attachments to the Form 

OP–1(P) application. 

The Agency is proposing to 

discontinue this requirement and 

amend its regulations and Form OP–1(P) 

to reflect the change in statute, i.e., it 

would no longer require carriers to 

specify, in applications for regular-route 

operating authority, the routes, endpoints, and intermediate points to be 

served. Under 49 U.S.C. 13301(a), the 

Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) 

may prescribe regulations to carry out 

title 49, subtitle IV, part B, which 

includes registration requirements for 

motor carriers transporting passengers 

in interstate commerce for 

compensation. The Secretary has 

delegated this authority to the 

Administrator of FMCSA under 49 CFR 

1.73(a). 

III. Background 

A. Introduction 

FMCSA currently registers for-hire 

passenger carriers in two distinct 

operational categories: (1) Carriers 

providing service over regular routes, 

and (2) carriers providing charter and 

special transportation. Regular-route 

carriers perform regularly scheduled 

service over named roads or highways. 

Applicants seeking regular-route 

authority must currently submit a 

‘‘detailed narrative description of the 

route(s) and a corresponding map that 

graphically displays the path of the 

route’’ over which they propose to 

operate. If a carrier proposes to add 

routes to its operating system, it must 

file a new application in order to do so. 

A carrier is not limited in the number 

of routes it may include in any 

particular application. 

The route descriptions submitted by 

an applicant are published in the 

FMCSA Register (see http://lipublic.fmcsa.dot.gov/LIVIEW/ 

pkg_menu.prc_ menu). Interested 

parties may file protests to an 

application within 10 days of 

publication. The Agency must deny the 

application if a protest or information 

independently developed by the Agency 

demonstrates that the applicant is not 

willing and able to comply with the 

Agency’s safety fitness requirements or 

with the applicable commercial, safety, 

or financial responsibility regulations 

(49 CFR parts 356 through 396). As 

discussed later, a protesting party may 

object to a regular-route application 

filed by a public recipient of 

governmental assistance on the 

additional ground that the 

transportation proposed is not in the 

public interest. 

As of July 2008, there were 272 active 

regular-route carriers in FMCSA’s 

Licensing and Insurance database. In 

2007, FMCSA received 94 applications 

for regular-route authority from new 

entrants and 34 applications from 

registered motor carriers of passengers 

with existing regular-route authority. 

The number of protests received is 

generally very small; they averaged one 

per year between 2003 and 2007. 

FMCSA believes its current 

requirement for route designation no 

longer serves a useful purpose. Congress 

enacted the statutory requirement in the 

MCA primarily to protect existing 

carriers, serving a particular route, from 

competition. Subsequent legislative 

changes, including those in the ICCTA, 

have limited the ability of existing 

carriers to protest applications based on 

economic grounds. If Congress believed 

the requirement for route designation 

served a useful purpose, it presumably 

would have retained the requirement in 

the ICCTA, as it did with numerous 

other provisions of the former Interstate 

Commerce Act. 

The requirement that regular-route 

carriers file new applications when 

seeking to expand or change routes is 

not based on motor carrier safety 

considerations—it is grounded in 

economic regulation. Eliminating the 

multiple application requirement would 

not have an adverse impact on safety 

because the motor carriers will still be 

required to comply with all applicable 

safety rules. New entrants would still be 

subject to the ‘‘fitness standard,’’ and 

existing regular-route passenger carriers 

would be treated the same as property 

carriers and passenger carriers that 

provide charter and special 

transportation. These latter carriers 

normally receive nationwide operating 

authority and generally need file only a 

single application in order to provide 

interstate transportation. Potential safety 

problems are generally determined 

through new entrant safety audits, 

compliance reviews, or roadside 

inspections, and are addressed through 

the Agency’s enforcement program. The 

Agency believes there is no reason for 

regular-route passenger carriers to be 

treated differently from other carriers to 

ensure their compliance with the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Regulations. 

Each new entrant regular-route motor 

carrier of passengers is subject to the 

full safety oversight and enforcement 

programs of the FMCSA and its State 

and local partners. As required by 49 

U.S.C. 31144, FMCSA determines 

whether each owner and operator is fit 

to operate safely. This section requires 

each owner and operator granted 

operating authority to undergo a new 

entrant safety audit within 18 months of 

starting operations. These new entrant 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 45931 

safety audits identify new motor carriers 

that are operating in violation of 

FMCSA regulations and, therefore, may 

have a high risk of causing crashes that 

could result in fatalities, injuries, and 

property damage. The safety audit 

process in 49 CFR part 385, subpart D 

(§§ 385.301 through 385.337) allows the 

Agency to evaluate new motor carriers 

before granting them permanent 

registration. 

In addition to the new entrant safety 

audit, FMCSA conducts continual 

oversight of regular-route motor carriers 

of passengers under its general, preexisting legal authority provided by 

section 206 of the Motor Carrier Safety 

Act of 1984 (codified at 49 U.S.C. 

31136) (the 1984 Act). The 1984 Act 

requires regulations that prescribe 

minimum safety standards for 

commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) that 

ensure: (1) CMVs are maintained, 

equipped, loaded, and operated safely; 

(2) the responsibilities imposed on 

operators of CMVs do not impair their 

ability to operate the vehicles safely; (3) 

the physical condition of operators of 

CMVs is adequate to enable them to 

operate the vehicles safely; and (4) the 

operation of CMVs does not have a 

deleterious effect on the physical 

condition of the operators (49 U.S.C. 

31136(a)). 

FMCSA would continue to monitor 

and enforce its commercial, safety, and 

financial responsibility regulations on 

all regular-route motor carriers of 

passengers. It would also require and 

ensure its State motor carrier safety 

enforcement partners continue their 

monitoring and enforcement activities 

as required in their grant funding 

agreements under the Motor Carrier 

Safety Assistance Program. Therefore, 

regular-route motor carriers of 

passengers would continue to be subject 

to the full requirements of the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Regulations that 

require CMVs to be maintained and 

operated safely. 

The Agency concludes that the 

current route designation requirement, 

and its related requirement that 

registered carriers file new applications 

when adding or changing routes, has no 

discernible safety benefit. It does, 

however, continue to burden the 

industry and the Agency with 

unnecessary paperwork. 

B. Impact on State Regulation of 

Intrastate Regular-Route Transportation 

by Interstate Carriers 

Although the ICCTA repealed 49 

U.S.C. 10922(f)(1)–(3), Congress carried 

forward other preexisting statutory 

requirements applicable to regular-route 

passenger carriers. The most significant 

of these provisions is now codified in 49 

U.S.C. 13902(b)(3) and provides: 

Intrastate transportation by interstate 

carriers.—A motor carrier of passengers that 

is registered by the Secretary under 

subsection [13902] (a) is authorized to 

provide regular-route transportation entirely 

in one State as a motor carrier of passengers 

if such intrastate transportation is to be 

provided on a route over which the carrier 

provides interstate transportation of 

passengers. 

Section 13902(b)(3) codifies section 6 of 

the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982 

(Bus Act) (Pub. L. 97–261, 96 Stat. 1102, 

Sept. 20, 1982), which amended former 

section 10922 in numerous respects. 

Section 6 preempted States from 

regulating intrastate service provided by 

interstate regular-route passenger 

carriers over interstate routes. 

Congress concluded that burdensome 

State regulation was one of several 

significant factors contributing to the 

declining financial health of the 

interstate regular-route bus industry. 

This conclusion was based largely on: 

(1) The inability of interstate carriers to 

discontinue unprofitable intrastate 

routes due to State regulatory 

restrictions on entry, exit, or service 

frequency over these routes; and (2) the 

inability of interstate carriers to 

maximize operational efficiency due to 

State ‘‘closed door’’ policies prohibiting 

them from picking up and dropping off 

intrastate passengers along interstate 

routes. 

If a regular-route passenger carrier 

obtains operating authority from 

FMCSA, a State is prohibited from 

requiring the carrier to obtain operating 

authority to provide intrastate service 

on that route. In H.R. Conf. Rep. 100–

27 accompanying the Surface 

Transportation and Uniform Relocation 

Assistance Act of 1987 (STURAA) (Pub. 

L. 100–17, 101 Stat. 132, Apr. 2, 1987), 

Congress noted that the preemption is 

limited; that is, grants of intrastate 

authority must have a nexus to 

legitimate interstate service provided 

along interstate routes. The STURAA 

amended the Bus Act by clarifying that 

interstate service provided along the 

route must be a substantial, bona fide 

service involving actual service in more 

than one State. Because the preemption 

is route-specific, FMCSA requests 

comment on whether elimination of 

route designations in FMCSA operating 

certificates would make this preemption 

provision more difficult to enforce and 

perhaps result in increased State 

regulation of intrastate regular-route 

transportation. 

Under 49 U.S.C. 14501(a)(1)(A), States 

are also preempted from regulating the 

scheduling of interstate or intrastate 

transportation (including 

discontinuance of or reduction in the 

level of service) on an interstate route. 

FMCSA specifically requests comment 

on whether elimination of route 

designations will affect this preemption 

provision. 

A related statutory provision, 49 

U.S.C. 13902(b)(4), concerns the ability 

of States to regulate express packages, 

newspapers, or mail carried on buses. 

Section 13902(b)(4) provides: 

Preemption of State regulation regarding 

certain service.—No State or political 

subdivision thereof and no interstate agency 

or other political agency of 2 or more States 

shall enact or enforce any law, rule, 

regulation, standard or other provision 

having the force and effect of law relating to 

the provision of pickup and delivery of 

express packages, newspapers, or mail in a 

commercial zone if the shipment has had or 

will have a prior or subsequent movement by 

bus in intrastate commerce and, if a city 

within the commercial zone, is served by a 

motor carrier of passengers providing regularroute transportation of passengers subject to 

jurisdiction under subchapter I of chapter 

135. 

This provision, which was enacted by 

the Bus Act, essentially extends the 

preemption of State regulation of 

intrastate passenger transportation in 

section 13902(b)(3) to express packages, 

newspapers, or mail carried in the 

buses. As with section 13902(b)(3), 

FMCSA requests comment on whether 

elimination of route designations in 

FMCSA operating certificates would 

make this preemption provision more 

difficult to enforce and perhaps result in 

increased State regulation of the 

transportation of express packages, 

newspapers, or mail in a commercial 

zone. 

C. Registration of Governmental Entities 

Providing Interstate Regular-Route 

Transportation 

Additional statutory provisions 

applicable to interstate regular-route 

transportation include 49 U.S.C. 

13902(b)(2)(B), which provides: 

Regular-route transportation.—The 

Secretary shall register under subsection 

[13902] (a)(1) a public recipient of 

governmental assistance to provide regularroute transportation subject to jurisdiction 

under subchapter I of chapter 135 as a motor 

carrier of passengers if the Secretary finds 

that the recipient meets the requirements of 

subsection (a)(1), unless the Secretary finds, 

on the basis of evidence presented by any 

person objecting to the registration, that the 

transportation to be provided pursuant to the 

registration is not in the public interest. 

This subsection mandates registration 

of governmental entities providing 

regular-route transportation if they meet 

Agency fitness standards, unless the 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
45932 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Agency finds the transportation is not in 

the public interest (but only if someone 

objects to the application and submits 

the necessary evidence). 

Title 49 U.S.C. 13902(b)(8) defines 

‘‘public recipient of governmental 

assistance’’ as: 

(i) any State, (ii) any municipality or other 

political subdivision of a State, (iii) any 

public agency or instrumentality of one or 

more States and municipalities and political 

subdivisions of a State, (iv) any Indian tribe, 

and (v) any corporation, board, or other 

person owned or controlled by any entity 

described in clause (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv), which 

before, on, or after January 1, 1996, received 

governmental assistance for the purchase or 

operation of any bus. 

This subsection essentially recodifies a 

requirement enacted by the STURAA. 

According to H.R. Conf. Rep. 100–27, 

this provision was intended to permit 

the Secretary to deny applications for 

regular-route authority filed by public 

entities if they propose specific 

operations that will not be in the public 

interest because of the potential adverse 

financial impact on existing private 

operations. 

Consequently, applications filed by 

public entities seeking to provide 

regular-route transportation are subject 

to more registration criteria than those 

applicable to private entities. Removing 

the route-designation requirement for 

applications for regular route authority 

filed by public entities would prevent 

persons from protesting the specific 

transportation to be provided. 

Accordingly, the Agency is retaining the 

existing route-designation requirements 

for public recipients of governmental 

assistance filing applications subject to 

section 13902(b)(2)(B). 

IV. The Proposed Rule 

FMCSA is proposing to register 

passenger carriers as regular-route 

carriers without designating specific 

regular routes or fixed end-points. Thus, 

registered regular-route passenger 

carriers would no longer be required to 

submit a new application to add new or 

change existing routes. By eliminating 

the need to file and process multiple 

applications containing detailed routes, 

this change would decrease the 

paperwork burden on regular-route 

carriers seeking to expand or change 

their routes. It would also reduce the 

Agency’s own administrative and 

paperwork burden. 

FMCSA would modify existing 

certificates of regular-route authority 

upon issuance of a final rule. Carriers 

holding existing certificates would not 

be required to file new OP–1(P) 

applications in order to seek the broader 

regular-route authority proposed by the 

Agency. The broader authority would 

automatically supersede any routespecific authority issued by FMCSA or 

its predecessor agencies. FMCSA would 

issue and mail to all active motor 

carriers of passengers registered as 

having regular-route authority new 

certificates showing the broader 

authority. Such certificates would 

become effective on the effective date of 

a final rule in this proceeding. 

In order to implement this proposal, 

FMCSA proposes to amend various 

sections of Title 49 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) to make them 

consistent with the Agency’s proposed 

registration procedures. First, 49 CFR 

356.3 prescribes the extent to which 

passenger carriers may serve points not 

located on their ‘‘authorized routes.’’

Except for motor carriers authorized to 

operate in designated parts of the New 

York City metropolitan area, passenger 

carriers are allowed to serve 

municipalities, unincorporated areas, 

military posts, airports, schools, and 

‘‘similar establishments’’ located within 

1 airline mile of the authorized route. 

The Agency proposes to eliminate this 

section, as authorization for specific 

regular routes would no longer be 

required. 

Section 365.101 identifies the types of 

operating authority applications filed 

with the Agency. Under § 365.101(e), 

these applications include 

‘‘[a]pplications for certificates under 49 

U.S.C. 13902(b)(3) to operate as a motor 

common carrier of passengers in 

intrastate commerce on a route over 

which applicant holds interstate 

authority as of November 19, 1982.’’

Similarly, current § 365.101(f) includes: 

‘‘[a]pplications for certificates under 49 

U.S.C. 13902(b)(3) to operate as a motor 

common carrier of passengers in 

intrastate commerce on a route over 

which applicant has been granted or 

will be granted interstate authority after 

November 19, 1982.’’ The regulations 

implicitly tie authority to operate in 

intrastate commerce to authority to 

operate over specific interstate routes 

granted by FMCSA. The Agency 

proposes to consolidate these 

paragraphs to reflect that the Agency 

would no longer be granting authority to 

passenger carriers to operate over 

specific routes. 

Subpart C to 49 CFR part 374 contains 

regulations governing the adequacy of 

intercity regular-route passenger service. 

Three sections contain language 

referencing the Agency’s authority over 

‘‘points’’ or ‘‘routes.’’ Current 

§ 374.303(f) defines ‘‘service’’ as 

passenger transportation by bus between 

‘‘authorized points’’ or over ‘‘authorized 

routes.’’ Current § 374.311(a) requires 

carriers to establish schedules that can 

be reasonably met to adequately serve 

‘‘all authorized points.’’ Current 

§ 374.311(b) requires carriers to report 

all schedule changes on routes to 

FMCSA and to post notices for the 

convenience of their passengers. These 

regulations indicate that passenger 

carriers must receive authority from 

FMCSA to operate over specific routes. 

We propose to amend §§ 374.303(f) and 

374.311(a) by removing the specific 

language indicating that the Agency 

grants authority to operate over specific 

routes. We propose to amend 

§ 374.311(b) by removing the 

requirement that carriers must file with 

FMCSA notices of schedule and route 

changes. 

FMCSA would continue to require 

regular-route motor passenger carriers to 

post notices of schedule changes in each 

affected bus and carrier facility for the 

convenience of their passengers. 

V. Other Approaches Considered 

FMCSA considered alternatives to 

eliminating the existing route 

designation requirement, including: (1) 

Registering all passenger carriers in the 

same manner, not distinguishing 

between regular-route, charter, and 

special operations passenger carriers; 

and (2) registering passenger carriers as 

regular-route carriers between fixed 

end-points without requiring 

designation of specific regular routes. 

If passenger carriers were registered in 

the same manner, they would only be 

required to file a single application with 

a single filing fee to provide any type of 

passenger service. If passenger carriers 

were only required to designate fixed 

end-points, they would not be required 

to file a new application to add or 

change routes between end-points. This 

would also decrease the burden on 

Agency staff in transcribing routes and 

processing applications. 

Registering all passenger carriers in 

the same manner would require 

statutory changes to sections 13902 and 

14501 to maintain preemption of State 

regulation of intrastate regular-route 

service, which is expressly based on 

interstate regular-route operations. It 

would also require revisions to, or the 

elimination of, regulations linked to the 

regular-route operational designation, 

particularly in 49 CFR part 374, subpart 

C, regarding adequacy of service. 

Although requiring carriers to file 

new applications only when adding 

end-points would be less burdensome 

than the current practice, carriers would 

still be required to file multiple 

applications under this option in order 

to expand existing routes. Thus, it 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 45933 

would be more burdensome than the 

Agency’s proposal. 

The Agency invites comment on this 

proposal, as well as other possible 

alternatives to the current routedesignation requirement. 

VI. Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review); DOT Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures 

FMCSA determined that this action is 

not significant under Executive Order 

12866. This proposal does not have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more and does not adversely 

affect in a material way the economy, a 

sector of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local, 

or tribal governments or communities. 

The proposal does not create a serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfere 

with an action taken or planned by 

another agency, does not materially alter 

the budgetary impact of entitlements, 

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 

rights and obligations of recipients, and 

does not raise novel legal or policy 

issues arising out of legal mandates or 

the Administration’s priorities. FMCSA 

prepared a regulatory impact assessment 

for this NPRM as required by Executive 

Order 12866, but the NPRM and the 

regulatory impact assessment have not 

been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) because 

it was determined to be not significant 

under the Executive Order. 

The Agency’s regulatory impact 

assessment in the docket, identified in 

the heading of this NPRM, notes that the 

intercity passenger industry may be 

experiencing structural changes in terms 

of the number of new firms and market 

share of carriers. Therefore, the Agency 

evaluated the route deregulation options 

under three industry growth/change 

scenarios. FMCSA based each scenario 

on the number of regular-route authority 

applications filed over the past 3 to 5 

years. 

Based on these scenarios, FMCSA 

estimates annual net benefits to the 

industry of $36,000 to $44,000 from 

avoided costs related to the elimination 

of the route designation application 

requirement. Evaluated over a 10-year 

period, the estimated net present value 

of the industry cost savings is in a range 

from $222,000 to $341,000 based on 

discount rates of 3 to 7 percent 

depending on whether one uses a 3-year 

average, 5-year average, or 5-year 

median. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121, 

110 Stat. 857), requires Federal 

agencies, as a part of each rulemaking, 

to consider regulatory alternatives that 

minimize the impact on small entities 

while achieving the objectives of the 

rulemaking. FMCSA has evaluated the 

effects of this proposed rule on small 

entities as required by the RFA. 

All new entrant regular-route carriers 

are affected by the proposed rulemaking 

action because all such carriers must file 

an OP–1(P) application to obtain 

regular-route authority. Existing regularroute carriers are affected only if they 

seek to expand their routes. New 

entrants and existing carriers submitted 

an average of 92 regular-route authority 

applications each year between 2003 

and 2005. Currently, there are 272 active 

regular route authority carriers in total. 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) Small Business Size Standard for 

Interurban and Rural Bus 

Transportation is no more than $6.5 

million in gross annual revenue. Based 

on U.S. industry statistics for 2002 

provided by the SBA Office of 

Advocacy, 279 out of 323 firms in the 

interurban and rural bus transportation 

industry (roughly 86 percent) reported 

annual receipts of less than $5 million. 

Additionally, carriers with annual gross 

revenues between $5 million and $6.5 

million would also be classified as small 

businesses, though FMCSA is unable to 

quantify the number of carriers within 

this range. Absent more current detailed 

data, the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis assumes that approximately 86 

percent of regular route authority 

carriers are small entities. 

The proposed rulemaking is a 

deregulatory action implementing a 

policy change intended to provide relief 

to industry. There are no additional 

costs specific to these entities as a result 

of this rulemaking, and the underlying 

policy change provides applicants with 

a cost saving of approximately $300 for 

each application. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires 

each agency to assess the effects of its 

regulatory actions on State, local, and 

tribal governments and the private 

sector. Any agency promulgating a final 

rule likely to result in a Federal 

mandate requiring expenditures by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$136.1 million or more in any 1 year 

must prepare a written statement 

incorporating various assessments, 

estimates, and descriptions that are 

delineated in the Act. FMCSA 

determined that this proposal would not 

have an impact of $136.1 million or 

more in any 1 year. 

Environmental Impacts 

The Agency analyzed this proposed 

rule for the purpose of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the 

Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations implementing NEPA (40 

CFR 1500–1508), and FMCSA’s NEPA 

Implementation Order 5610.1 published 

March 1, 2004 (69 FR 9680). This action 

is categorically excluded under 

Appendix 2, paragraph 6.d of the Order 

(regulations governing applications for 

operating authority) from further 

environmental documentation. The 

Agency believes that the action includes 

no extraordinary circumstances that 

would have any effect on the quality of 

the environment. Thus, the action does 

not require an environmental 

assessment or an environmental impact 

statement. 

FMCSA also analyzed this proposed 

rule under the Clean Air Act, as 

amended (CAA) section 176(c), (42 

U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) and implementing 

regulations promulgated by the 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

Approval of this action is exempt from 

the CAA’s general conformity 

requirement since it involves 

rulemaking and policy development and 

issuance. (See 40 CFR 93.153(c)(2).) It 

would not result in any emissions 

increase nor would it have any potential 

to result in emissions that are above the 

general conformity rule’s de minimis 

emission threshold levels. Moreover, it 

is reasonably foreseeable that the rule 

would not increase total CMV mileage, 

how CMVs operate, or the CMV fleetmix of motor carriers. This action 

merely allows passenger carriers to 

make changes to their regular routes 

without FMCSA approval. Such 

alterations are routinely approved under 

current Agency procedures. 

Environmental Justice 

The FMCSA evaluated the 

environmental effects of this NPRM in 

accordance with Executive Order 12898 

and determined that there are no 

environmental justice issues associated 

with its provisions nor any collective 

environmental impact resulting from its 

promulgation. Environmental justice 

issues would be raised if there were 

‘‘disproportionate’’ and ‘‘high and 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
45934 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

adverse impact’’ on minority or lowincome populations. None of the 

alternatives analyzed in the Agency’s 

categorical exclusion determination, 

discussed under National 

Environmental Policy Act, would result 

in high and adverse environmental 

impacts. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), a 

Federal agency must obtain approval 

from OMB for each collection of 

information it conducts, sponsors, or 

requires. This rulemaking would affect 

a currently-approved information 

collection request (ICR) covered by 

OMB Control Number 2126–0016, 

entitled ‘‘Licensing Applications for 

Motor Carrier Operating Authority.’’

This ICR has an annual burden of 

55,738 burden hours, and will expire on 

August 31, 2008. 

FMCSA is authorized to register forhire motor passenger carriers under the 

provisions of 49 U.S.C. 13902. The form 

used to apply for operating authority 

with FMCSA is Form OP–1(P) for motor 

passenger carriers. This form requests 

information on the applicant’s identity, 

location, familiarity with safety 

requirements, and type of proposed 

operations. 

The Agency proposes to discontinue 

its current requirement that motor 

carriers seeking authority to transport 

passengers over regular routes submit to 

FMCSA a detailed description and map 

of the proposed route(s) for approval. 

The proposal would reduce the 

currently approved ICR annual burden 

by 180 hours [2 hours to provide 

description and map of regular routes in 

Form OP–1(P) × 90 regular route 

applications per year = 180 hours]. The 

estimated annual burden for this ICR 

would decrease to 55,558 hours [55,738 

currently approved annual burden 

hours ¥ 180 hours less time to 

complete Form OP–1(P) regular route 

applications = 55,558]. 

Public Comments Invited: You are 

asked to comment on any aspect of this 

information collection, including: (1) 

Whether the proposed collection is 

necessary for the Agency to perform its 

mission, (2) the accuracy of the 

estimated burden, (3) ways for FMCSA 

to enhance the quality, usefulness, and 

clarity of the collected information, and 

(4) ways that the burden could be 

minimized without reducing the quality 

of the collected information. The 

Agency will summarize or include your 

comments in the request for OMB’s 

clearance of this information collection. 

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

This rulemaking meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, entitled ‘‘Civil 

Justice Reform,’’ to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of 

Private Property) 

FMCSA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under Executive Order 12630, 

entitled ‘‘Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights.’’ We do not 

anticipate that this proposed action 

would effect a taking of private property 

or otherwise have taking implications 

under Executive Order 12630. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This proposed action has been 

analyzed in accordance with the 

principles and criteria contained in 

Executive Order 13132, and FMCSA has 

preliminarily determined that this 

rulemaking would not warrant the 

preparation of a Federalism assessment. 

We have determined that this proposed 

action would not affect the States’

ability to discharge traditional State 

government functions. 

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects) 

FMCSA has analyzed this proposed 

action under Executive Order 13211, 

entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.’’

The Agency has determined that it is 

not a significant energy action within 

the meaning of section 4(b) of the 

Executive Order and is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects 

is not required. 

Executive Order 12372 

(Intergovernmental Review) 

The regulations implementing 

Executive Order 12372 regarding 

intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities do not 

apply to this NPRM. 

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal 

Consultation) 

FMCSA has analyzed this action 

under Executive Order 13175, dated 

November 6, 2000, and believes that the 

proposed action would not have 

substantial direct effects on one or more 

Indian tribes; would not impose 

substantial compliance costs on Indian 

tribal governments; and would not 

preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal 

summary impact statement is not 

required. 

List of Subjects 

49 CFR Part 356 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Routing, Motor carriers. 

49 CFR Part 365 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Brokers, Buses, Freight 

forwarders, Motor carriers, Moving of 

household goods, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

49 CFR Part 374 

Aged, Blind, Buses, Civil rights, 

Freight, Individuals with disabilities, 

Motor carriers, Smoking. 

For the reasons discussed above, 

FMCSA proposes to amend title 49, 

Code of Federal Regulations, chapter III, 

subchapter B, as set forth below: 

PART 356—MOTOR CARRIER 

ROUTING REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 356 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553; 49 U.S.C. 13301 

and 13902; and 49 CFR 1.73. 

§ 356.3 [Removed and Reserved]. 

2. Remove and reserve § 356.3. 

PART 365—RULES GOVERNING 

APPLICATIONS FOR OPERATING 

AUTHORITY 

3. The authority citation for part 365 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553 and 559; 16 U.S.C. 

1456; 49 U.S.C. 13101, 13301, 13901–13906, 

14708, 31138, and 31144; 49 CFR 1.73. 

4. Amend § 365.101 by removing 

paragraph (f), redesignating paragraphs 

(g) and (h) as paragraphs (f) and (g), and 

revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 365.101 Applications governed by these 

rules. 

* * * * * 

(e) Applications for certificates under 

49 U.S.C. 13902(b)(3) to operate as a 

motor carrier of passengers in intrastate 

commerce over regular routes if such 

intrastate transportation is to be 

provided on a route over which the 

carrier provides interstate transportation 

of passengers. 

* * * * * 

PART 374—PASSENGER CARRIER 

REGULATIONS 

5. The authority citation for part 374 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 13301 and 14101; and 

49 CFR 1.73. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 45935 

6. Amend § 374.303 by revising 

paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 374.303 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(f) Service means passenger 

transportation by bus over regular 

routes. 

* * * * * 

7. Amend § 374.311 by revising 

paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows: 

§ 374.311 Service responsibility. 

(a) Schedules. Carriers shall establish 

schedules that can be reasonably met, 

including connections at junction 

points, to serve adequately all points. 

(b) Continuity of service. No carrier 

shall change an existing regular-route 

schedule without first displaying 

conspicuously a notice in each facility 

and on each bus affected. Such notice 

shall be displayed for a reasonable time 

before it becomes effective and shall 

contain the carrier’s name, a description 

of the proposed schedule change, the 

effective date thereof, the reasons for the 

change, the availability of alternate 

service, and the name and address of the 

carrier representative passengers may 

contact. 

* * * * * 

Issued on: July 31, 2008. 

John H. Hill, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E8–18173 Filed 8–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R3–ES–2008–0030; 1111 FY07 MO–

B2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List the U.S. Population of 

Coaster Brook Trout (Salvelinus 

fontinalis) as Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Correction and reopening of 

comment period for 90-day petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), correct and 

reopen the comment period for the 

March 20, 2008, 90-day finding on a 

petition to list the U.S. population of 

coaster brook trout. 

DATES: We will consider information 

received or postmarked on or before 

September 8, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

information by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: [FWS–R3–

ES–2008–0030]; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all information received at 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Information Solicited section 

below for more details). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Jessica Hogrefe, East Lansing Field 

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2651 Coolidge Road—Suite 101, East 

Lansing, MI 48823–6316; telephone 

517–351–5467; facsimile 517–351–1443. 

If you use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

(800) 877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

20, 2008, the Service published in the 

Federal Register a notice of 90-day 

petition finding and initiation of status 

review concerning the petition to list as 

endangered a population of brook trout 

(Salvelinus fontinalis) known as coaster 

brook trout throughout its known 

historical range in the conterminous 

United States (73 FR 14950). In the 

DATES section of that document, we 

solicited requests for public hearings 

and established a date by which we 

would receive such requests. 

This part of the notice was printed in 

error and we will not hold public 

hearings for this 90-day finding. Section 

4(b)(5) of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.), states, ‘‘With respect to any 

regulation proposed by the Secretary to 

implement a determination, 

designation, or revision referred to in 

subsection (a)(1) or (3) [proposed or 

final rule to list a species as endangered 

or threatened, or proposed or final rule 

to designate any habitat of such species 

to be critical habitat], the Secretary shall 

* * * promptly hold one public hearing 

on the proposed regulation if any person 

files a request for such a hearing within 

45 days after the date of publication of 

general notice.’’ Notices of 90-day 

findings on petitions to list species are 

not proposed regulations. The Service 

does not generally hold public hearings 

for nonrulemaking findings, and will 

not hold any public hearings regarding 

the coaster brook trout 90-day finding. 

For a 90-day finding, we request 

information from the public that 

improves our understanding of the 

status of the species. This information 

typically includes agency reports and 

other collections of empirical data that 

is best gathered in the form of written 

comments. If, in the future, we publish 

a proposed rule for this species (e.g., a 

proposed listing), we will allow the 

public an opportunity to request a 

public hearing at that time. 

Information Solicited 

We are, however, providing a new 

comment period with respect to the 90- 

day finding to afford the public an 

additional opportunity to provide us 

information for our status review or 

submit any remarks that would 

otherwise have been presented at a 

public hearing. We have also contacted 

directly the persons who requested a 

hearing to advise them of this additional 

opportunity to submit information. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for or opposition to the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, will not be considered 

in making a determination, because 

section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) directs that determinations 

as to whether any species is a 

threatened or endangered species shall 

be made ‘‘solely on the basis of the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available.’’ At the conclusion of the 

status review, we will determine 

whether listing is warranted, not 

warranted, or warranted but precluded. 

You may submit your information 

concerning this status review by one of 

the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. We will not consider 

submissions sent by e-mail or fax or to 

an address not listed in the ADDRESSES

section. 

If you submit information via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this personal 

identifying information from public 

review. However, we cannot guarantee 

that we will be able to do so. We will 

post all hardcopy submissions on 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Information and materials we receive 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, East Lansing Field Office (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS