Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2007/02/15/E7-2715/charter-service
Timestamp: 2018-02-23 11:00:07
Document Index: 559582558

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 604', 'art 604', 'art 604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', 'art 604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604', '§\u2009604']

A Proposed Rule by the Federal Transit Administration on 02/15/2007
Comments must be received by April 16, 2007. Late filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
7525-7546 (22 pages)
IV. Conference Committee Report Issues
Issue #1: Limited Exceptions for Providing Community-Based Charter Services
(b) Qualified Human Service Organizations
(c) Leasing FTA-Funded Equipment and Drivers
(d) Events of National or Regional Significance
(e) When No Registered Charter Provider Responds to Notice From a Recipient
(f) Agreement With Registered Charter Providers
1. Additional Exceptions
(i) “Hardship”
(2) Reporting Requirements for All Exceptions
(4) 1,000 or More Buses in Peak Hour Service
Issue #2: How Can We Better Communicate Charter Administration and Enforcement to the Public?
Issue #3: How Can Enforcement of Violations of the Charter Bus Regulations Be Improved?
(c) Cease and Desist Orders
(d) Neutral Decision-Maker
Issue #4: How Can the Charter Complaint and Administrative Appeals Process Be Improved?
(b) Conciliation Period
(c) Removal From Charter Registration Web Site
V. Additional Issues Considered by the CBNRAC
Issue #5: A New Process for Determining If There Are Private Charter Bus Companies Willing and Able To Provide Service That Would Utilize Electronic Notification and Response
(a) Registration of Qualified Human Service Organizations
Issue #6: A New Exception for Transportation of Government Employees, Elected Officials, and Members of the Transit Industry To Examine Local Transit Operations, Facilities, and Public Works
Issue #7: Review and Clarify, as Necessary the Definitions of Regulatory Terms
(a) Definition of Charter Service
(b) Definition of Pattern of Violations
(c) Definition of Qualified Human Service Organization
(d) Definition of Charter Service Hours
(e) Definition of Special Transportation
Issue #8: FTA Policies Relative to the Enforcement of Charter Rules and the Boundary Between Charter and Public Transit Services in Specific Circumstances, Such as University Transportation and Transportation to/from Special Events
VI. Other Revisions to the Charter Service Regulations
Subpart D—Procedures for Registration of Qualified Human Services Organizations and Duties for Recipients Regarding Charter Registration Web Site
Subpart E—Advisory Opinions
Subpart H—Initial Decisions by FTA and Referrals to a Presiding Official (PO)
Subpart D—Registration of Qualified Human Service Organizations and Duties for Recipients Regarding Charter Registration Web site
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/E7-2715 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/E7-2715
Start Preamble Start Printed Page 7526
Pursuant to the direction contained in the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference, for section 3023(d), “Condition on Charter Bus Transportation Service” of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) of 2005, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) established a committee to develop, through negotiated rulemaking procedures, recommendations for improving the regulation regarding unauthorized competition from recipients of Federal financial assistance. The proposed revisions contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) represent a complete revision to the charter service regulations contained in 49 CFR part 604. The NPRM contains the consensus work product of the Charter Bus Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee (CBNRAC), which was able to reach consensus on a majority of the regulatory language. Where the CBNRAC was unable to reach consensus, FTA proposes revisions to the charter service regulations based on the open, informed exchange of information that took place during meetings with the CBNRAC.
Instructions: When submitting comments electronically to Department's Docket Management System (DMS) Web site located at http://dms.dot.gov, you must use docket number 22657. This will ensure that your comment is placed in the correct docket. If you submit comments by mail, you should submit two copies and include the above docket number. If you wish to receive confirmation that FTA received your comments, you must include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://dms.dot.gov. This means that if your comment includes any personal identifying information, such information will be made available to users of DMS. You may review the Department's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.
Linda Lasley, Senior Advisor, Office of the Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 9328, Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-4011 or Linda.Lasley@dot.gov; Nancy-Ellen Zusman, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel, 200 West Adams Street, Suite 320, Chicago, IL 60606, (312) 353-2789 or Nancy-Ellen.Zusman@dot.gov; or Elizabeth Martineau, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 9316, Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-1966 or Elizabeth.Martineau@dot.gov.
Pursuant to the direction contained in the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference, for section 3023(d), “Conditions on Charter Bus Transportation Service” of SAFETEA-LU, FTA established a Federal Advisory Committee on May 5, 2005, to develop recommendations through negotiated rulemaking procedures for improvement of the regulation regarding unauthorized competition from recipients of Federal financial assistance.
The Charter Bus Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee (CBNRAC) consisted of persons who represented the interests affected by the proposed rule (i.e., charter bus companies, public transportation agencies—recipients of FTA grant funds), and other interested entities. The CBNRAC included the following organizations:
Amalgamated Transit Union;
Capital Area Transportation Authority;
Coach America;
Community Transportation Association of America;
Kansas City Area Transportation Authority;
Lancaster Trailways of the Carolinas;
Los Angeles County Municipal Operators Association
Monterey Salinas Transit;
New York State Metropolitan Transportation Authority;
Northwest Motorcoach Association/Starline Luxury Coaches;
Oklahoma State University/The Bus Community Transit System;
River Cities Transit;
Southwest Transit Association;
Taxicab, Limousine & Paratransit Association;
Trailways; and
FTA hired Susan Podziba & Associates to facilitate the CBNRAC meetings and prepare meeting summaries. All meeting summaries, including materials distributed during the meetings, are contained in the docket for this rulemaking (#22657). During the first meeting of the CBNRAC, the committee developed ground rules for the negotiations, which are summarized briefly below:
○ The CBNRAC operates by consensus, meaning that agreements are considered reached when there is no dissent by any member. Thus, no member can be outvoted.
○ Work groups can be designated by the CBNRAC to address specific issues or to develop proposals. Work groups are not authorized to make decisions for the full CBNRAC.
○ All consensus agreements reached during the negotiations are assumed to be tentative agreements contingent upon additional minor revisions to the language until members of the CBNRAC Start Printed Page 7527reach final agreement on regulatory language. Once final consensus is achieved, the CBNRAC members may not thereafter withdraw from the consensus.
○ Once the CBNRAC reaches consensus on specific provisions of a proposed rule, FTA, consistent with its legal obligations, will incorporate this consensus into its proposed rule and publish it in the Federal Register. This provides the required public notice under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., and allows for a public comment period. Under the APA, the public retains the right to comment. FTA anticipates, however, that the pre-proposal consensus agreed upon by this committee will effectively address virtually all the major issues prior to publication of a proposed rulemaking.
○ If consensus is reached on all issues, FTA will use the consensus text as the basis of its NPRM, and the CBNRAC members will refrain from providing formal negative comments on the NPRM.
○ If the CBNRAC reaches agreement by consensus on some, but not all, issues, the CBNRAC may agree to consider those agreements as final consensus. In such a case, FTA will include the consensus-based language in its proposed regulation and decide all the outstanding issues, taking into consideration the CBNRAC discussions regarding the unresolved issues and reaching a compromise solution. The CBNRAC members would refrain from providing formal negative comments on sections of the rule based on consensus regulatory text, but would be free to provide negative comments on the provisions decided by FTA.
○ In the event that CBNRAC fails to reach consensus on any of the issues, FTA will rely on its judgment and expertise to decide all issues of the charter regulation, and CBNRAC members may comment on all components of the NPRM.
○ If FTA alters consensus-based language, it will identify such changes in the preamble to the proposed rule, and the CBNRAC members may provide formal written negative or positive comments on those changes and on other parts of the proposed rule that might be connected to that issue.
1. A new process for determining if there are private charter bus companies willing and able to provide service that would utilize electronic notification and response within 72 hours.
2. A new exception for transportation of government employees, elected officials, and members of the transit industry to examine local transit operations, facilities, and public works.
3. Review and clarify, as necessary, the definitions of regulatory terms.
4. FTA policies relative to the enforcement of charter rules and the boundary between charter and mass transit services in specific circumstances, such as university transportation and transportation to/from special events.
The negotiated rulemaking process for the charter service regulation resulted in a complete overhaul of the regulation. This was done in response to longstanding concerns that the existing regulation is hard to understand because it is unclear about what activities constitute “charter service.” In addition, members of the CBNRAC agreed that the existing exceptions to the prohibition on charter service should be clarified. Concerns were also raised about the complaint process. Some members felt that complaints were filed in a vindictive manner and without a substantive basis. Others felt that once a complaint was filed, the standard contained in the existing regulation made it nearly impossible to receive the relief requested. All members of the CBNRAC felt that the complaint and appeal process takes too long.
Furthermore, two major changes are worth noting at the outset. First, the CBNRAC agreed to discard the concept of “willing and able,” that had persisted for more than 20 years. As a result, private charter operators interested in performing requests for charter service received by recipients would now be “registered charter providers.” This term is appropriate because, as explained in further detail later in this document, private charter operators would register on an Internet site. This website, known as the FTA Charter Registration Website, would store the names of private charter operators interested in receiving notice from recipients. This new process would replace the old “willing and able” process.
To summarize, the proposals contained in this NPRM represent consensus language and informed decisions by FTA. The complete rewrite Start Printed Page 7528of part 604 has been a long time in the making, and is necessary. It is the hope of FTA that the clarifications made in this proposal will assist public transit agencies in complying with charter service regulations and ensure that all parties understand when compliance has been achieved.
Under the current regulations governing charter service, an FTA recipient is generally prohibited from providing charter service unless one of the exceptions applies. The existing exceptions are: (1) When there is no “willing and able” private charter operator; (2) leasing equipment; (3) rural hardship; (4) special events; (5) non-profit organizations serving individuals with disabilities; (6) non-profit social service agencies listed in Appendix A; (7) non-profit organizations serving low-income or transit-dependent persons; (8) rural non-profit organizations serving the elderly; and (9) formal agreement with all willing and able private charter operators.
The CBNRAC agreed that the revised regulation should also contain exceptions. The committee reached consensus on six exceptions: (1) Government officials; (2) qualified human service organizations; (3) leasing equipment; (4) events of regional or national significance; (5) when no registered charter provider responds to notice from a recipient; and (6) agreement with registered charter providers. We discuss each of these exceptions below. We also discuss one exception where the committee could not reach consensus, which was the “hardship” exception. We have added an exception that the committee did not consider, but due to past and recent events, we believe should be added; an exception for the Administrator. Finally, we discuss three sub-issues for all exceptions: Reporting requirements, fully allocated costs, and recipients with 1,000 or more buses in peak hour service.
This is a new exception to the charter regulations and would allow recipients to provide charter service to government officials for non-transit related purposes as long as the recipient provides the service in its geographic service area, does not generate revenue (except as required by law), and records the trip. The CBNRAC also agreed that there should be an hourly annual limit for this exception, but could not reach consensus on the number of hours. The public transit caucus proposed an annual limit of 125 charter service hours. The private charter caucus proposed an annual limit of 80 charter service hours. Neither caucus explained why one limit should prevail over the other.
Since this is a new exception to the charter regulations, FTA proposes to accept the private charter caucus' annual limit of 80 hours of charter service to government officials for non-transit related purposes within the recipient's geographic service area. In accepting this proposal, however, FTA believes that extenuating circumstances may arise where additional hours may be necessary. As a result, FTA added a provision to allow for additional charter service hours under this exception, at the Administrator's discretion, in rare or unusual circumstances, if the recipient submits a written request: (1) Describing the event; (2) explaining why registered charter providers in the geographic service area cannot perform the service (e.g., equipment, time constraints, or other extenuating circumstances); (3) describing the number of charter service hours requested to perform the service; and (4) presenting evidence that the recipient has sent the request for additional hours to registered charter providers in its geographic service area. FTA would review the request and respond to the recipient. The recipient would then be responsible for emailing FTA's response to the registered charter providers in its geographic service area. As with all exceptions under the proposed regulation, the recipient would be responsible for recording the service in an electronic log.
This exception would essentially collapse three exceptions contained in the existing regulation pertaining to the elderly, individuals with disabilities, and low-income individuals into one exception for “qualified human service organization.” Consistent with the President's Executive Order on Human Service Transportation Coordination (February 24, 2004), the CBNRAC reached consensus on allowing recipients to provide charter service to “persons with mobility limitations related to advanced age, persons with disabilities, and persons struggling for self-sufficiency * * *” If an organization serving the above individuals also receives funds from one or more of the 65 Federal programs to be listed in Appendix A to the regulation, then the recipient would only need to record the charter service in order to provide it. If the organization does not receive Federal funds from the programs listed in Appendix A, but serves individuals described in this section, then the organization would need to register on FTA's Charter Registration Web site and the recipient would need to record the charter service. FTA will provide Appendix A in the final rule and will update it from time to time as new Federal programs are created to assist individuals and organizations covered by this exception or when a party sends a petition to the Administrator requesting an update to Appendix A.
The existing exception under the charter regulations allows for a recipient to lease equipment to a private charter operator if the private charter operator receives a request that exceeds its capacity, or the private charter operator does not have equipment accessible to the elderly or individuals with disabilities. The CBNRAC reached consensus on maintaining this exception with a few minor changes. First, the private charter operator would have to be registered on the FTA Charter Registration Website. Second, the private charter operator would have to own and operate a charter service business. Third, the private charter operator would have to exhaust all available vehicles from other private charter operators in the recipient's geographic service area. Fourth, the recipient would have to record the vehicles leased and retain the documentation provided by the private charter operator that demonstrates compliance with the first three requirements.
This exception in the current regulation requires a petition to the Administrator personally in order to provide charter service for a special event. The only limitation is that the service can be provided “to the extent that private charter operators are unable to provide the service.” The CBNRAC reached consensus on retaining this exception, but with a more formal process for petitioning the Administrator. The revised exception would require recipients to first consult with private charter operators registered in the recipient's geographic service area. After consultation, the recipient may petition the Administrator only if the recipient (1) submits the petition at Start Printed Page 7529least 90 days before the event; (2) describes the importance of the event, the amount of charter service needed, and how private charter operators will be utilized; and (3) files the petition in the special events docket. The Administrator would review the petition, request any additional information necessary to make a decision, and then post the decision in the special events docket. The Administrator's approval of a petition under this exception would be limited to the event described in the petition.
The existing regulation allows a recipient to provide any and all charter service to the extent that there are no private charter operators interested in providing the service. The CBNRAC reached consensus on retaining this exception, but with a modification designed to make the whole process more responsive. As noted earlier, the implementation of an FTA Charter Registration Website would allow recipients and registered charter providers to respond in real time regarding charter service requests. Under this exception, a registered charter provider would have 72 hours to respond to a request for charter service to be provided in less than 30 days and 14 days to respond to a request for charter service to be provided in more than 30 days. If a registered charter provider responds to the request, then the recipient may not provide the service, even if the registered charter provider and the customer are not able to agree upon a price. Alternatively, if no registered charter provider responds to a request, then the recipient may provide the service so long as it records the proper information in an electronic log.
This exception in the current regulation allows a recipient to enter into an agreement with all private charter operators in its geographic service area to allow it to provide charter service directly to a customer. The CBNRAC reached consensus on retaining this exception with certain modifications to account for the use of the Charter Registration Website instead of the annual willing and able process. Under the revised exception, the recipient would have to ascertain registered charter providers in its geographic service area from the Charter Registration Website by January 30th of each year. The recipient would have to enter into an agreement with those registered charter providers by February 15th of each year.
The CBNRAC was unable to reach consensus regarding the “hardship” exception that currently exists in the charter regulation. This exception is intended to allow non-urbanized (rural) areas to provide charter service if a private charter operator's provision of this service would create a hardship on the customer because the private charter operator imposes a minimum duration that is longer than the trip length or the private charter operator is located “too far” from the origin of the charter service.
The CBNRAC could not reach consensus on what constitutes “too far.” The private charter caucus proposed retaining the exception as is. The public transit caucus offered to replace “too far” with “deadhead time exceeding total trip time from initial pick-up to final drop-off.”
FTA proposes to retain the hardship exception and replace “too far” with the public transit caucus’ proposal. We believe that this proposal sufficiently clarifies what is meant by “too far” without opening up the exception to abuse.
FTA proposes to add a new exception to address unique situations in which it may not be practical or feasible to provide notice to registered charter providers. Specifically, FTA proposes an Administrator's discretion exception that would allow the Administrator to personally approve a recipient's use of Federally-funded assets to provide charter service for such events as funerals of local, regional, or national significance. Such an event is unanticipated and requires an immediate response. For example, the deaths of Presidents Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford underscore the need for flexibility when using Federally-funded assets to assist in funeral preparation activities and on the day of the funeral. Thus, FTA proposes an Administrator's discretion exception to the charter regulations. A recipient would have to submit a written request, by facsimile or e-mail, that describes the event, describes the charter service requested, explains the time constraints for providing the charter service, describes the anticipated number of charter service hours needed for the event, the type of equipment requested, approximate number of vehicles needed, duration of the event, and explains how provision of the charter service is in the public's interest. Recipients granted an exception under this section would need to retain the record of approval from the Administrator for three years and include the approval in its electronic records for quarterly reporting on the Charter Registration Web site.
The CBNRAC could not reach consensus on whether or not the above electronic records should be posted on the Charter Registration Web site. The public transit caucus believes that posting their electronic records to a public Web site may implicate privacy concerns. That caucus instead favors the provision of records via e-mail upon request. The private charter caucus insisted that electronic records should be posted to the Web site in order to facilitate transparency. FTA agrees with the private charter caucus, but also recognizes that there may be some situations where certain information should not be posted on the Web site. Thus, FTA proposes to include a provision in the regulation that allows recipients to provide only generalized origin and destination information when safety or security is an issue. Start Printed Page 7530
The CBNRAC was unable to reach consensus on whether the concept of “fully allocated costs” should apply to public transit agencies that provide charter service. The public transit caucus felt as though the requirement would be a barrier to providing community-based transportation, but the private charter caucus argued that the requirement is necessary to protect private charter operators.
In the past, FTA required public transit agencies to recover fully allocated operating and capital costs and ensure that the charter service did not interfere with the intended use of the asset. FTA allowed this “incidental use” because it believed the charter service provided supported the mission of FTA.
We propose to eliminate the concept of “fully allocated costs.” The exceptions included in the proposed regulation would allow recipients to provide charter service that is in the public interest, and is consistent with the overall mission of public transit operators as mobility managers within their communities. Hence, the charter service that would be allowed under the proposed rule would be an incidental use of FTA-funded equipment and facilities, and the recovery of fully allocated costs would not be required.
Further, in the case of service provided to “qualified human service organizations,” the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility is currently engaged, in cooperation with the Office of Management and Budget, in developing cost allocation principals to share fairly the costs of human service transportation. To require FTA recipients to recover fully allocated costs from those qualified human service organizations, including a share of capital costs already subsidized by FTA, would impose unfair conditions on those interagency deliberations.
That being said, FTA encourages and expects recipients that provide charter services under the provisions of part 604 to develop fair charges to recover as much as possible of the marginal operating cost of the service, consistent with the public purpose of the charter service, and the ability of the requesting entity to pay. As noted earlier, under section 604.12, if a registered charter provider responds to the request for charter service, the recipient may not provide the service, even if the private charter operator's fee for the service prevents the requester from purchasing the trip. This provision protects the private charter industry from competition with transit operators that receive subsidies from FTA.
The CBNRAC reached consensus on limiting the application of two exceptions—qualified human service organizations and government officials—to recipients with 1,000 or more buses in peak hour service. The public transit caucus requested this limitation, but the private charter caucus wholly supported it because of the potentially negative impact on private charter operators in urban areas where there are higher concentrations of qualified human service organizations and government officials. Both caucuses viewed the potential number of requests as problematic and felt that it was in each caucuses' interest to place a limitation on those two exceptions. FTA requests comments from qualified human service organizations and governmental officials on the practical impact of this limitation in the final regulation.
The CBNRAC reached consensus on improved enforcement of charter service regulations by focusing on deterrence of risky behavior. Members of the committee noted that the seminal question regarding enforcement is: “What is charter service?” For the public transit caucus, it is important to protect the public transit agency's ability to provide public transportation and serve its community. This includes the ability to modify routes to address congestion or improve mobility for the elderly, disabled or low-income populations. For the private charter caucus, charter service by public transit agencies should not be “dressed up” to look like public transportation. The private charter caucus believed that service for special events of an irregular nature constitutes charter service and the public transit agencies should be prohibited from providing such service unless there is no private charter operator interested in performing the service.
The proposed regulation would implement a new remedial scheme, giving the decision-maker discretion to determine the type and amount of the remedy based on a number of relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the gravity of the violation, the revenue earned by providing charter service, and the operating budget of the recipient. The remedy could take the form of withholding a “reasonable percentage” of available Federal financial assistance, a complete bar on receiving future Federal funds, or a refund to the U.S. Treasury of revenue collected in violation of the rule.
Besides flexibility in the assessment of a remedy, the CBNRAC reached consensus on several other ways to improve the enforcement process, specifically (1) issuing advisory opinions and (2) conducting Start Printed Page 7531investigations. The CBNRAC could not reach consensus on whether the following measures should be included in a new and improved charter service enforcement regime: (1) Cease and desist orders, (2) using neutral decision-makers, and (3) considering a pattern of violations as an aggravating factor to any remedy assessed. We discuss each of these issues below.
Advisory opinions represent a more formalized “letter of determination,” which is currently issued when private charter operators or recipients seek regulatory advice from FTA before providing charter service. This more formal process would provide transparency and consistency regarding FTA's advice. The CBNRAC reached consensus on this issue.
Another way to improve enforcement is to ensure that a complaint filed has a substantive basis. Members of the CBNRAC raised concerns regarding the filing of incomplete complaints or frivolous complaints. Thus, the proposed regulation includes a new provision allowing FTA ninety days to conduct an investigation regarding a complaint. This provision is consistent with the statutory requirement: “On receiving a complaint about a violation of an agreement, the Secretary of Transportation shall investigate and decide whether a violation has occurred.” 49 U.S.C. 5323(d) (2). Thus, the CBNRAC reached consensus on revised regulatory language that would allow FTA to conduct an investigation after a registered charter provider files a complaint. The proposed revision would also allow FTA to investigate on its own initiative. After an investigation is complete, FTA may dismiss the complaint, issue an initial decision based on the pleadings to date, or refer the matter to a neutral decision-maker for a hearing.
This NPRM does not include a cease and desist provision. While FTA believes that a properly worded cease and desist provision would protect against “wrongfully” issued cease and desist orders, we are reluctant to implement a cease and desist process because FTA does not have the human resources to administer a cease and desist provision. FTA is concerned that interested parties would inundate the agency with cease and desist requests. Furthermore, we believe that revisions to the charter service definition, coupled with clear exceptions and strong remedies for violations of the regulation provide sufficient protection of a private charter operator's financial interest.
After careful consideration of the above positions, and considering FTA's limited resources, we propose to include a new provision in the proposed regulation that would allow a headquarters office to make an initial decision regarding a charter service complaint or to refer the matter to a neutral decision-maker (Presiding Official) for a hearing. The Presiding Official might be an Arbitrator or other hearing officer and the parties to the proceeding would be the public transit agency and the complaining party. The Presiding Official would then issue a recommended decision to an appropriate headquarters office that would reject, ratify, or adopt with modifications the recommended decision. Any initial decision may be appealed to the Administrator. This proposed process allows FTA to make a determination that a hearing is unnecessary and issue an immediate decision based on the pleadings to date or to refer the matter for a hearing. We believe that this approach is less resource intensive but still provides a neutral decision-maker for more serious cases that require a hearing.
As part of the revised rule's more rigorous enforcement scheme, the proposed regulation contains language that would increase any remedy ordered if the decision-maker determines that there is a “pattern of violations.” The CBNRAC could not reach consensus on this issue. The private charter caucus believed that more than one violation of the charter service regulations should incur a severe penalty. The public transit caucus believed that more than one violation of the same requirement should be treated more severely. The public transit caucus argued that more than one violation of different charter service requirements should not constitute a pattern of violations, because the public transit agency is unlikely to know what constitutes a violation of the charter service regulations until FTA informs the public transit agency of the violation.
As will be discussed later in the definitions section of this NPRM, we propose to define a pattern of violations as: “more than one finding of non-Start Printed Page 7532compliance of this Part by FTA beginning with the most recent finding of noncompliance and looking back over a period of 72 months.” We intend to apply this definition in the “remedies” section of the rule. Under that section, if the decision-maker determines there is a pattern of violations, then the decision-maker “shall bar a recipient from receiving Federal transit assistance in an amount * * * considered appropriate.” This means that a public transit agency violating the charter service regulation for the first time would be treated differently, and less severely, than a public transit agency that has violated the charter service regulations more than once over the past six years. Further, we determined that looking at a six year period would be sufficient to determine whether the public transit agency has a history of non-compliance with the charter service regulations. FTA believes that the new provision on “pattern of violations” would deter conduct that leads to complaints, would reduce the number of complaints, and would promote consultation with FTA.
Furthermore, the committee reached consensus on a more detailed complaint process. The existing rule only requires the filing of a complaint that “is not without obvious merit and that * * * states grounds on which relief may be granted.” This generalized pleading process has led to frivolous filings or complaints that do not contain enough information to determine the violation of the charter service regulations. The revised regulations would require a complainant to identify the specific provisions of the charter service regulation allegedly violated, provide a complete and concise statement of the facts relied upon in filing the complaint, and submit all documents offered in support of the complaint.
In addition to a more detailed complaint process, the CBNRAC agreed that the appeals process should have more flexibility, the conciliation period should be eliminated, parties should be able to complain about a private charter operator or qualifed human service organization's registration on the FTA Charter Registration Web site, and it should be easier for FTA to dismiss incomplete or non-substantive complaints. Each of these points is discussed below.
The CBNRAC reached consensus on an improved appeals process that gives the Administrator discretion to take an appeal or modify an initial decision. Previously, the Administrator could only consider an appeal if “the appellant presents evidence that there are new matters of fact or points of law that were not available or not known during the investigation of the complaint.” 49 CFR 604.20(b). Members of the committee viewed that provision as too limiting, and advocated for broader discretion. Thus, the new provision would allow an appeal so long as the appellant meets the relevant deadlines. Further, even if the appellant has not filed an appeal, the Administrator, on his or her own motion, may review an initial decision. As noted earlier, the initial decision would be made either by a headquarters office or by an Arbitrator after a hearing and ratification by a headquarters office. Additionally, the new regulation would set out specific timeframes for FTA to make decisions regarding the complaint and appeal. Specifically, the initial decision would have to be issued 110 days after the investigation is complete. A decision on an appeal would have to be made within 30 days.
The committee also determined that the mandatory conciliation period in the existing rule was almost never used and had no effect other than delaying the adjudicatory process. The committee recommended that FTA remove this requirement from the new rule and instead include a statement that encourages the parties to resolve their dispute informally before filing a complaint. Thus, we proposed not to include a conciliation period in the revised regulation.
The CBNRAC reached consensus on providing a new provision that allows registered charter providers or recipients to file a complaint challenging the registration of a private charter operator or qualified human service organization on the Charter Registration Web site. Members of the committee approved of this provision because it would allow the removal of private charter operators that act vindictively when responding to requests for charter service. In other words, a private charter operator that responds affirmatively to a notice from a recipient requesting charter service but then does not contact the customer or negotiates in bad faith with the customer could be removed from the Web site and not receive future requests for charter services. The proposed regulation sets out specific reasons why FTA could remove a registered charter provider from the registration list. In addition, we plan to develop an Appendix B that would set out examples of each basis for removal. Start Printed Page 7533
Thus, under this new process, a complaint would be filed electronically in the complaint docket and a response would be required in seven days. FTA would then consider the complaint and response and issue a decision in ten business days. FTA's decision would be posted in the complaint docket and would identify the reasons for removing or allowing the private charter operator or qualified human service organization on FTA's Charter Registration Web site. If removal is ordered, the decision would identify the length of time for removal and when the party may reapply for registration.
The CBNRAC discussed this issue because the private charter caucus and public transit caucus were close to an agreement on this issue during previous negotiations before the formation of the CBNRAC. Essentially, the committee viewed the current “willing and able” process as protection for private charter operators from unsuccessful negotiations with customers who might expect lower prices from public transit agencies. The current process also allows public transit agencies to provide charter service when there is no private charter operator interested in performing the service. Even so, the committee recognized that the existing willing and able process is outdated and agreed to eliminate it in favor of a web-based registration process.
The proposed regulation includes language that would make it optional for a private charter operator to indicate whether they would provide free or reduced rate charter services to qualified human service organizations. We believe that private charter operators wish to support their communities in the same way that many recipients support their communities and that they would likely take advantage of this option because qualified human service organizations can conduct a search on the Charter Registration Web site to look only for those private charter operators with free or reduced rates. We do not believe, however, that private charter operators should be required to provide such information.
(a) The charter service regulations would not apply to a recipient that transports its employees, or other transit system employees or officials for Start Printed Page 7534emergency preparedness planning and operations.
(d) The charter service regulations would not apply to a non-urbanized area transporting its employees outside of its geographic service area for training purposes.
One of the main points of contention for the CBNRAC was the definition of “charter service” and “pattern of violations.” For all other definitions, the CBNRAC was able to reach consensus. Additionally, since the conclusion of the negotiations, we decided that definitions of “qualified human service organization” and “charter service hours” are necessary. Thus, what follows is a discussion of the negotiations regarding the definitions of charter service and pattern of violations. We also offer our proposed definitions of qualified human service organization, charter service hours, and special transportation.
CBNRAC was unable to come to an agreement on the definition of the term “charter service.” The controversy centered on a particular category of transportation service provided on an irregular basis for occasional local events such as golf tournaments, festivals, state fairs, July 4th celebrations, flower shows, home shows, and sporting events. The public transit caucus considers open-door bus service to these types of events to be public transportation that serves the community at large (by providing traffic mitigation and other public benefits) even though the transit agency may need to create new or modified routes on a temporary basis for the duration of the event in order to provide the service. The private charter caucus believes that such services constitute “charter service” because a third party event sponsor is usually involved through some type of contractual arrangement; a new, temporary route has to be created to transport people to and from the event (as opposed to published, regular transit routes); and because the service is not continuous, and lasts only for the duration of the event. Despite lengthy discussions and an exchange of various proposals between the two sides, these differences could not be resolved by the committee. We recommend that interested parties review the docket for the exact proposals offered by each caucus.
In response to the discussions held by the CBNRAC, we propose a definition of charter service that recognizes concerns raised by each caucus and provides examples of what would be considered charter service. In providing this definition of charter service, we note that the term “buses” includes rubber-tire replica trolleys.
In an effort to provide further clarification of what service would be considered charter service or public transportation, FTA will publish an Appendix C with the final rule that contains more examples and frequently asked questions. We would appreciate comments with questions that should be included in Appendix C.
The CBNRAC did not reach agreement on the definition of “pattern of violations.” Some participants advocated that the term should mean “more than one instance of noncompliance with charter service regulations.” Under this interpretation, FTA could find in a single decision that a transit agency engaged in a pattern of charter service violations. A pattern could be established, for instance, if the public transit agency's one-time provision of charter service violated several requirements of the charter service rule.
We propose to adopt a definition of pattern of violations that looks at violations over a period of time. The violation need not be a violation of the same regulation, although it could be, in order for FTA to find a pattern of violations. Further, we propose to look at the recipient's six-year history to determine whether or not it has engaged in a pattern of violations. Thus, a violation in the year 2006 means that FTA could look back to the year 2000 to determine whether other violations Start Printed Page 7535exist, which would constitute a pattern of violations. Violations found by FTA in 1999 could not be used to find a pattern of violations. This definition strikes a balance between the need to penalize recipients that routinely violate the charter service requirements and the need to place a time limit on how far back FTA may look for other violations. This definition, as with all provisions of this rulemaking, does not take effect until FTA issues a final rule.
After the conclusion of negotiations, and as we began to make decisions about the outstanding issues, it became clear that we needed to include a definition of “qualified human service organization” in the proposed regulation. We believe this definition is necessary to elaborate on the exception for qualified human service organizations contained in the regulation with the Executive Order on Human Service Transportation Coordination signed by the President on February 24, 2004. Thus, we propose to define “qualified human service organization” as an organization that serves persons who qualify for human service or transportation-related programs or services due to disability, income, or advanced age.
We also did not present a definition of “charter service hours” to the CBNRAC. While the committee reached consensus that charter service hours is the appropriate measurement for the annual limit contained in the “government officials” exception, FTA did not provide a definition of charter service hours for review by the committee. Thus, we now propose to define charter service hours as the total hours operated by buses or vans while in charter service, including the hours operated while carrying passengers for hire and associated deadhead hours.
The CBNRAC did not discuss the definition of special transportation during its deliberations, but we believe the term should be defined to avoid confusion in the future. The statutory definition of “public transportation” includes a reference to “special transportation.” There is no definition of “special transportation” in statute or in the charter service regulations. Legislative history, however, indicates that the term includes service exclusively for the elderly and persons with disabilities, and service for workers who live in the innercity but commute to a factory in the suburbs. See, H.R. Rep. No. 1785, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1968 U.S. Code Cong. Ad. & News 2941. In order to provide clarity, we believe it would be helpful to include a definition of “special transportation” in the proposed charter service regulation. Thus, we propose to define “special transportation” as demand response or paratransit service that is regular and continuous and is a type of “public transportation.”
Section Title and Number: Start Printed Page 7536
(Subpart A) (Subpart A)
Purpose § 604.1 Purpose § 604.1.
Applicability § 604.3 Applicability § 604.2.
Definitions § 604.5 Definitions § 604.3.
Charter Agreement § 604.7 Charter Agreement § 604.5.
Charter Service § 604.9 Exceptions (Subpart B).
§ 604.9(a) § 604.12(b).
§ 604.9(b)(1) removed.
§ 604.9(b)(2) § 604.10.
§ 604.9(b)(3) § 604.9.
§ 604.9(b)(4) § 604.11.
§ 604.9(b)(5) § 604.8.
§ 604.9(b)(6) § 604.8.
§ 604.9(b)(7) § 604.8.
§ 604.9(b)(8) § 604.13.
Procedures for determining if there are any willing and able private charter operators § 604.11 (Subpart C).
Registration of private charter operators § 604.16.
Reviewing evidence submitted by private charter operators § 604.13 removed.
Filing a complaint (Subpart B) Complaints (Subpart F).
§ 604.15(a) § 604.27(a).
§ 604.15(b) removed.
§ 604.15(c) § 604.27(b).
§ 604.15(d) § 604.27(c).
§ 604.15(e) § 604.34 or 46.
§ 604.15(f) § 604.32 or 33.
§ 604.15(g) (Subpart I).
§ 604.36.
§ 604.15(h) § 604.37.
§ 604.15(i) § 604.45.
Remedies § 604.17 Remedies § 604.47.
Appeal to Administrator and final agency orders
(Subpart J).
Appeals § 604.19(a) § 604.48(a).
§ 604.19(b) § 604.48(b).
§ 604.19(c) § 604.48(c).
§ 604.19(d) § 604.48(a).
§ 604.19(e) § 604.48(b).
Judicial Review § 604.21 (Subpart K).
§ 604.50.
When an agency issues a rulemaking proposal, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires the agency to “prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis,” which will “describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.” (5 U.S.C. 603(a)). Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the proposed rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Start Printed Page 7537
We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” dated May 18, 2001. We have determined that it is not a significant energy action under that 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.
1. Revise Part 604 to read as follows:
Charter service agreement.
Qualified human service organizations.
Leasing FTA funded equipment and drivers.
Events of regional or national significance.
When no registered charter provider responds to notice from a recipient.
Agreement with registered charter providers.
Administrator's discretion.
Reporting requirements for all exceptions.
Registration of private charter operators.
Notification to registered charter providers.
Registration of qualified human service organizations.
Duties for recipients with respect to charter registration Web Site.
Processing of advisory opinions.
Effect of an advisory opinion.
Complaints and decisions regarding removal of private charter operators or qualified human service organizations from registration list.
Complaints, answers, replies, and other documents.
Incomplete complaints.
Agency initiation of investigation.
Initial decisions and referrals to a PO.
Powers of a PO.
Waiver of procedures.
Recommended decision by a PO.
Appeal from a headquarters office initial decision.
Administrator's discretionary review of a headquarters offices initial decision.
Start Printed Page 7538 Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5323(d); 49 CFR 1.51
(d) The affidavit described in paragraph (c) of this section shall be notarized and an original copy sent to: Office of the Chief Counsel, TCC-20, Room 9316, Washington, DC 20590. In addition, the above affidavit shall be submitted electronically to http://dms.dot.gov and placed in the Charter Service Exemption Docket number xxxxx.
(a) The term “Federal Transit Laws” means 49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq., and includes 23 U.S.C. 103(e)(4), 142(a), and 142(c), when used to provide assistance to public transit agencies for purchasing buses and vans.
(b) The term “Administrator” means the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration or their designee.
(c) The term “charter service” means providing transportation service using buses or vans to a group of riders pursuant to a single contract with a third party, for a fixed charge, and according to an itinerary determined by someone other than the recipient.
(d) The term “charter service hours” means total hours operated by buses or vans while in charter service including (1) hours operated while carrying passengers for hire, plus (2) associated deadhead hours.
(e) The term “Chief Counsel” means the Office of the Chief Counsel within the Federal Transit Administration.
(f) The term “days” means calendar days. The last day of a time period is included in the computation of time Start Printed Page 7539unless the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, in which case, the time period runs until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
(g) The term “FTA” means the Federal Transit Administration.
(h) The term “interested party” means an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other organization that has a financial interest that is affected by the actions of a recipient providing charter service under the Federal Transit Laws. This term includes states, counties, cities, and their subdivisions, and tribal nations.
(i) The term “registration list” means the current list of registered charter providers and qualified human service organizations maintained on FTA's charter registration website.
(j) The term “geographic service area” means the entire area in which a recipient is authorized to provide public transportation service under appropriate local, state, and Federal law.
(k) The term “pattern of violations” means more than one finding of non-compliance with this Part by FTA beginning with the most recent finding of non-compliance and looking back over a period of 72 months.
(l) The term “public transportation” has the meaning set forth in 49 U.S.C. 5302(a)(10).
(m) The term “qualified human service organization” means an organization that serves persons who qualify for human service or transportation-related programs or services due to disability, income, or advanced age. This term is used consistent with the President's Executive Order on Human Service Transportation Coordination (February 24, 2004).
(n) The term “registered charter provider” means a private charter operator that wants to receive notice of charter service requests directed to recipients and has registered on FTA's charter registration website.
(o) The term “recipient” means an agency or entity that receives Federal financial assistance, either directly or indirectly, under the Federal Transit Laws. This term does not include third-party contractors.
(p) The term “special transportation” means demand response or paratransit service that is regular and continuous and is a type of “public transportation.”
§ 604.7
§ 604.8
(c) If an organization serving persons described in paragraph (a) of this section does not receive funding from any of the programs listed in Appendix A of this Part, the organization shall register on the FTA charter registration Web site in accordance with § 604.18.
§ 604.9
(a) A recipient may lease FTA-funded equipment and drivers for charter service only if the following conditions exist: Start Printed Page 7540
§ 604.11
§ 604.12
(a) A recipient may provide charter service to a customer if no registered charter provider responds to the notice issued in § 604.17:
(b) A recipient shall not provide charter service under this section if a registered charter provider indicates interest in providing the charter service set out in the notice issued pursuant to § 604.17.
§ 604.13
§ 604.14
§ 604.15
§ 604.16
§ 604.17
(3) Provide notice to registered charter providers as set out in this section and provide the service pursuant to the exception contained in § 604.12.
§ 604.18
(a) Qualified human service organizations that do not receive funds from Federal programs listed in Appendix A but serve individuals described in § 604.8, shall register on FTA's charter registration Web site by submitting the following information:
§ 604.19
Chief Counsel, Federal Transit Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 9316,
§ 604.22
(a) A request for an advisory opinion shall be sent to the address indicated in § 604.21(b) of this subpart; filed electronically at http://dms.dot.gov or sent to the dockets office located at 400 Seventh Street SW., PL-401, Washington, DC 20590, in the Charter Service Advisory Opinion Docket number xxxx; and sent to the recipient, if appropriate.
(b) The Chief Counsel shall make every effort to respond to a request for an advisory opinion within ten days of receipt of a request that complies with § 604.21(b). The Chief Counsel will send the response to the requestor, the docket, and the recipient, if appropriate.
§ 604.23
(a) An advisory opinion represents the formal position of FTA on a matter, and except as provided in § 604.24 of this subpart, obligates the agency to follow it until it is amended or revoked.
§ 604.24
§ 604.25
§ 604.26
(3) the date by which the private charter operator or qualified human service organization may re-apply for registration on the FTA charter registration website. Start Printed Page 7543
§ 604.27
(a) A registered charter provider, or their duly authorized representative (“complainant”), affected by an alleged noncompliance of this Part may file a complaint with the Office of the Chief Counsel.
(b) Except as provided otherwise in § 604.26, complaints filed under this subpart shall—
(1) Title the document “Notice of Charter Service Complaint;”
(3) Serve the complaint in accordance with § 604.31, along with all documents then available in the exercise of reasonable diligence, offered in support of the complaint, upon all recipients named in the complaint as being responsible for the alleged action(s) or omission(s) upon which the complaint is based;
(c) Unless the complaint is dismissed pursuant to § 604.28 or § 604.29, FTA shall notify the complainant, respondent, and state recipient, if applicable, within 30 days after the date FTA receives the complaint that the complaint has been docketed. Respondents shall have 30 days from the date of service of the FTA notification to file an answer.
§ 604.28
(a) Within 20 days after the receipt of a complaint described in § 604.27, the Office of the Chief Counsel shall provide reasons for dismissing a complaint, or any claim in the complaint, with prejudice under this section if:
§ 604.29
If a complaint is not dismissed pursuant to § 604.28, but is deficient as to one or more of the requirements set forth in § 604.27, the Office of the Chief Counsel will dismiss the complaint within 20 days after receiving it. Dismissal shall be without prejudice and the complainant may re-file after amendment to correct the deficiency. The Chief Counsel's dismissal shall include the reasons for the dismissal without prejudice.
§ 604.30
(a) Filing address. Unless provided otherwise, the complainant shall file the complaint with the Office of the Chief Counsel, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 9316, Washington, DC 20590 and file it electronically at http://dms.dot.gov or mail it to the docket at 400 Seventh Street, SW., PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. Filings sent to the docket shall include the Charter Service Complaint docket number xxxx.
(c) E-mail. A party may also send the document by facsimile or email, but delivery by either facsimile or email shall not constitute service as described in § 604.31.
(f) Signing of documents and other papers. The original of every document filed shall be signed by the person filing it or the person's duly authorized representative. Subject to the enforcement provisions contained in this subpart, the signature shall serve as a certification that the signer has read the document and, based on reasonable inquiry, to the best of the signer's knowledge, information, and belief, the document is—
§ 604.31
(h) Who must be served. Copies of all documents filed with FTA shall be served by the entity filing them on all parties to the proceeding. A certificate of service shall accompany all Start Printed Page 7544documents when they are tendered for filing and shall certify concurrent service on FTA and all parties. Certificates of service shall be in substantially the following form:
I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing [name of document] on the following persons at the following addresses and email or facsimile numbers (if also served by email or facsimile) by [specify method of service]:
Dated this _ day of _, 20_.
(i) Method of service. Except as otherwise provided in § 604.26, or agreed by the parties and the Presiding Official, as appropriate, the method of service is personal delivery or U.S. mail.
(j) Presumption of service. There shall be a presumption of lawful service—
§ 604.32
(c) The Chief Counsel shall send a notice to complainant(s) and respondent(s) once an investigation is complete, but not later than 90 days after receipt of the last pleading specified in § 604.27 was due to FTA.
§ 604.33
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, FTA may initiate its own investigation of any matter within the applicability of this Part without having received a complaint. The investigation may include, without limitation, any of the actions described in § 604.32.
§ 604.34
(a) After receiving a complaint consistent with § 604.27, and conducting an investigation, the Chief Counsel may:
(3) Dismiss the complaint pursuant to § 604.28.
§ 604.35
§ 604.36
§ 604.37
(a) Any party to the hearing may appear and be heard in person and any party to the hearing may be accompanied, represented, or advised by an attorney licensed by a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory of the United States to practice law or appear before the courts of that State or territory, or by another duly authorized representative. An attorney, or other duly authorized representative, who represents a party shall file a notice of appearance in accordance with § 604.30 and § 604.31.
§ 604.38
(b) The PO shall limit the frequency and extent of discovery permitted by this section if a party shows that—
§ 604.39
§ 604.40
§ 604.41
§ 604.42
§ 604.43
§ 604.44
(b) Any interested person may examine the record by entering the docket number at http://dms.dot.gov or after payment of reasonable costs for search and reproduction of the record.
§ 604.45
§ 604.46
§ 604.47
(c) The headquarters office shall mitigate the remedy when the recipient can document corrective action of alleged violation. The headquarters office's decision to mitigate a remedy shall be determined on the basis of how much corrective action was taken by the recipient and when it was taken. Systemic action to prevent future Start Printed Page 7546violations will be given greater consideration than action simply to remedy violations identified during FTA's inspection or identified in a complaint.
§ 604.48
(a) Each party adversely affected by the headquarters office's initial decision may file an appeal with the Administrator within 21 days of the date of the headquarters office issued their initial decision. Each party may file a reply to an appeal within 21 days after it is served on the party. Filing and service of appeals and replies shall be by personal delivery consistent with §§ 604.30 and 604.31.
(c) If no appeal is filed, and the Administrator does not take review of the initial decision by the headquarters office on the Administrator's own motion, the headquarters office's initial decision shall take effect as the final agency decision and order on the twenty-first day after the actual date the headquarters office's initial decision is issued.
§ 604.49
Administrator's discretionary review of a headquarters office's initial decision.
(a) If the Administrator takes review on the Administrator's own motion, the Administrator shall issue a notice of review by the twenty-first day after the actual date the headquarters office's initial decision that contains the following information:
(2) Parties may file one brief on review to the Administrator or rely on their post-hearing briefs to the headquarters office. Briefs on review shall be filed not later than 10 days after service of the notice of review. Filing and service of briefs on review shall be by personal delivery consistent with § 604.30 and § 604.31.
§ 604.50
(1) An FTA decision to dismiss a complaint as set forth in §§ 604.28 and 604.29;
(2) FTA's determination to remove or allow a listing on FTA's charter registration website in accordance with § 604.26;
Issued this 12th day of February, 2007.
[FR Doc. E7-2715 Filed 2-14-07; 8:45 am]