        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 711
        [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0809; FRL-9928-99]
        RIN 2070-AK01
        Partial Exemption of Certain Chemical Substances From Reporting Additional Chemical Data

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is proposing to amend the list of chemical substances that are partially exempt from reporting additional information under the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule. EPA has determined that, based on the totality of information available on the chemical substances listed in this proposed rule, there is a low current interest in their CDR processing and use information. EPA reached this conclusion after considering a number of factors, including the risk of adverse human health or environmental effects, information needs for CDR processing and use information, and the availability of other sources of comparable processing and use information.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before September 21, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0809, by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
          • Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.

          Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

            For technical information contact: Christina Thompson, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-0983; email address: thompson.christina@epa.gov.

            For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Executive Summary
        A. What action is the agency taking?
        This partial exemption would eliminate an existing reporting requirement under 40 CFR 711.6(b)(2). EPA is proposing to add the following chemical substances to the list of chemical substances that are exempt from reporting the information described in 40 CFR 711.15(b)(4): Fatty acids, C14-18 and C16-18 unsaturated, methyl esters (Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number (CASRN) 67762-26-9); Fatty acids, C16-18 and C-18 unsaturated, methyl esters (CASRN 67762-38-3); fatty acids, canola oil, methyl esters (CASRN 129828-16-6); Fatty acids, corn oil, methyl esters (CASRN 515152-40-6); Fatty acids, tallow, methyl esters (CASRN 61788-61-2); and Soybean oil, methyl esters (CASRN 67784-80-9). However, by existing terms at 40 CFR 711.6, this partial exemption will become inapplicable to a subject chemical substance in the event that the chemical substance later becomes the subject of a rule proposed or promulgated under section 4, 5(a)(2), 5(b)(4), or 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); an enforceable consent agreement (ECA) developed under the procedures of 40 CFR part 790; an order issued under TSCA section 5(e) or 5(f); or relief that has been granted under a civil action under TSCA section 5 or 7.
        B. Why is the agency taking this action?
        This proposed rule is in response to a petition EPA received for these chemical substances (Refs. 2 and 3) submitted under 40 CFR 711.6(b)(2)(iii)(A). EPA reviewed the information put forward in the petition and additional information against the considerations listed at 40 CFR 711.6(b)(2)(ii). EPA's chemical substance-specific analysis is detailed in supplementary documents available in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0809 (Refs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9). The Agency is proposing to add these chemical substances to the partially exempt chemical substances list because it has concluded that, based on the totality of information available, the CDR processing and use information for these chemical substances is of low current interest.
        In the January 27, 2015 Federal Register (80 FR 4482) (FRL-9921-56), EPA published a direct final rule to add these six chemical substances to the list of chemical substances that are partially exempt from reporting additional information under the CDR rule. EPA received an adverse comment that is pertinent to all six of the chemical substances that were the subject of that direct final rule (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0809-0014). In accordance with the procedures described in the January 27, 2015 Federal Register document, EPA withdrew the direct final rule. EPA is now proposing to make the same additions to the list of partially exempt chemical substances. Before taking final action on this proposal, EPA will consider the adverse comment it received in response to the direct final rule, together with any other timely comments it receives on this proposed rule. On the basis of comments received, EPA may finalize this proposed rule or revise its prior determination that the CDR processing and use information for these six chemical substances is of low current interest.
        C. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

        This action is proposed under the authority of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2600 et seq., to carry out the provisions of section 8(a), 15 U.S.C. 2607(a). TSCA section 8(a) authorizes EPA to promulgate rules under which manufacturers of chemical substances and mixtures must submit such information as the Agency may reasonably require. The partial exemption list was established in 2003 (Ref. 10) and can be found in 40 CFR 711.6.
        D. What are the impacts of this action?

        There are no costs associated with this action and the benefits provided would be related to avoiding potential costs. This partial exemption would eliminate an existing reporting requirement without imposing any new requirements. See also the discussion in Unit V of the January 27, 2015 Federal Register document.
        E. Does this action apply to me?

        You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture (defined by statute at 15 U.S.C. 2602(7) to include import) the chemical substances contained in this rule. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes provided here are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provide a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include chemical manufacturers subject to CDR reporting of one or more subject chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g., chemical manufacturing and petroleum refineries.
        F. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
        Do not submit CBI information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
        II. Background
        EPA published a direct final rule in the Federal Register of January 27, 2015 (80 FR 4482) (FRL-9921-56). The preamble to that direct final rule explained our reasons for amending the list of chemical substances that are partially exempt from reporting additional information under the TSCA CDR rule. In addition, EPA explained the low current interest partial exemption and petition process in 40 CFR 711.6(b)(2)(iv), and further explained that we would withdraw the amendment presented in the direct final rule if written adverse comment was received within 30 days of the publication of that direct final rule. Since EPA received written adverse comment, EPA has withdrawn the direct final rule in a separate document published in the Federal Register of March 30, 2015 (80 FR 16576) (FRL-9924-84), and is now issuing this proposed rule for the six chemical substances. The record for the direct final rule was established as docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0809.
        III. References

        The following is a listing of the documents that have been placed in the docket for this proposed rule. The docket contains information considered by EPA in developing this proposed rule, including the documents listed in this unit, which are physically located in the docket. In addition, interested parties should consult documents that are referenced in the documents that EPA has placed in the docket, regardless of whether the referenced document is physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating documents that are referenced in documents that EPA has placed in the docket, but that are not physically located in the docket, please consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The docket is available for review as specified under ADDRESSES.

          1. Public Comment from G. Valasek to EPA, February 26, 2015.
          2. Letter from Biobased and Renewable Products Advocacy Group, to EPA, OPPT CDR Submission Coordinator, October 21, 2014. Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0809, regarding request for exemption of biodiesel products.
          3. Letter from Biobased and Renewable Products Advocacy Group, to EPA, OPPT CDR Submission Coordinator, November 5. Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0809, supplement to request for exemption of biodiesel products.
          4. EPA, OPPT. Fatty acids, C14-18 and C16-18 unsaturated, methyl esters (CASRN 67762-26-9) Partial Exemption Analysis. December 2014.
          5. EPA, OPPT. Fatty acids, C16-18 and C-18 unsaturated, methyl esters (CASRN 67762-38-3) Partial Exemption Analysis. December 2014.
          6. EPA, OPPT. Fatty acids, canola oil, methyl esters (CASRN 129828-16-6) Partial Exemption Analysis. December 2014.
          7. EPA, OPPT. Fatty acids, corn oil, methyl esters (CASRN 515152-40-6) Partial Exemption Analysis. December 2014.
          8. EPA, OPPT. Fatty acids, tallow, methyl esters (CASRN 61788-6-2) Partial Exemption Analysis. December 2014.
          9. EPA, OPPT. Soybean oil, methyl esters (CASRN 67784-80-9) Partial Exemption Analysis. December 2014.

          10. EPA. TSCA Inventory Update Rule Amendments; Final Rule. Federal Register (68 FR 848, January 7, 2003) (FRL-6767-4).

        IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
        This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
        B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
        According to the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on the related collection instrument or form, as applicable.
        The information collection requirements related to CDR have already been approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control number 2070-0162 (EPA ICR No. 1884.06). Since this action will create a partial exemption from that reporting, without creating any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements, this action will not impose any new burdens that require additional OMB approval.
        C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

        I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, because the primary purpose of a final regulatory flexibility analysis is to identify and address regulatory alternatives that “minimize the significant economic impact on small entities” 5 U.S.C. 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule has no net burden effect on the small entities subject to the rule.
        As indicated previously, EPA is proposing to eliminate an existing reporting requirement for the chemical identified in this document. In granting a partial exemption from existing reporting, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any affected entities, regardless of their size.
        D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

        This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. In granting a partial exemption from existing reporting, this action will impose no new enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments, or on the private sector. In addition, based on EPA's experience with chemical data reporting under TSCA, State, local, and Tribal governments are not engaged in the activities that would require them to report chemical data under 40 CFR part 711.

        E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
        This action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
        F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
        This action will not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This action will not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this rule.
        G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
        This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this action does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children.
        H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
        This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use.
        I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act (NTTAA)
        Since this action does not involve any technical standards, NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note, does not apply to this action.
        J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
        EPA has determined that this action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. As such, this action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 711
          Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: July 13, 2015.
          James Jones,
          Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.

        Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows:

          PART 711—[AMENDED]

        1. The authority citation for part 711 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           15 U.S.C. 2607(a).

        2. In § 711.6, add in numerical order by CASRN number the following entries to Table 2 in paragraph (b)(2)(iv) to read as follows:

          § 711.6
          Chemical substances for which information is not required.

          (b) * * *
          (2) * * *
          (iv) * * *

            Table 2—CASRN of Partially Exempt Chemical Substances

              CASRN
              Chemical

              *         *         *         *         *         *         *

              61788-61-2
              Fatty acids, tallow, methyl esters.

              *         *         *         *         *         *         *

              67762-26-9
              Fatty acids, C14-18 and C16-18 unsaturated, methyl esters.

              67762-38-3
              Fatty acids, C16-18 and C-18 unsaturated, methyl esters.

              67784-80-9
              Soybean oil, methyl esters.

              *         *         *         *         *         *         *

              129828-16-6
              Fatty acids, canola oil, methyl esters.

              515152-40-6
              Fatty acids, corn oil, methyl esters.

              *         *         *         *         *         *         *

      [FR Doc. 2015-17629 Filed 7-21-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        Defense Acquisition Regulations System
        48 CFR Part 219 and Appendix I to Chapter 2
        [Docket DARS-2018-0019]
        RIN 0750-AJ25
        Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Mentor-Protégé Program Modifications (DFARS Case 2017-D016)

          AGENCY:
          Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement sections of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 that provide modifications to the DoD Pilot Mentor-Protégé Program.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before July 3, 2018, to be considered in the formation of a final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2017-D016, using any of the following methods:
          ○ Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by entering “DFARS Case 2017-D016” under the heading “Enter keyword or ID” and selecting “Search.” Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “DFARS Case 2017-D016.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “DFARS Case 2017-D016” on your attached document.
          ○ Email: osd.dfars@mail.mil. Include DFARS Case 2017-D016 in the subject line of the message.
          ○ Fax: 571-372-6094.
          ○ Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Jennifer D. Johnson, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

          Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ms. Jennifer D. Johnson, telephone 571-372-6100.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Background
        This rule proposes to revise the DFARS to implement section 1823 and paragraph (b) of section 1813 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328). Sections 1823 and 1813 provide modifications to the DoD Pilot Mentor-Protégé Program (“the Program”). Section 1823 revises the definition and requirements associated with affiliation between mentor firms and their protégé firms. Both sections add new types of assistance for mentor firms to provide to their protégé firms.
        II. Discussion and Analysis
        This rule proposes amendments to DFARS subpart 219.71 and Appendix I as summarized in the following paragraphs:
        A. Subpart 219.71, Pilot Mentor-Protégé Program. Section 219.7100, Scope, is amended to reflect the date of the most recent statutory changes to the Program.
        B. Appendix I, Policy and Procedures for the DoD Pilot Mentor-Protégé Program.

        • Section I-101, Definitions, is amended to add the definition of “affiliation” provided in section 1823.
        • Section I-102, Participant eligibility, is amended to add new paragraph (e), which specifies that a mentor firm may not enter into an agreement with a protégé firm if the Small Business Administration (SBA) has made a determination of affiliation. In addition, paragraph (e) addresses the conditions under which DoD will request a determination from SBA regarding affiliation.
        • Section I-106, Development of mentor-protégé agreements, is amended to add women's business centers under 15 U.S.C. 656 as a form of assistance that a mentor firm can obtain for a protégé firm.
        • Section I-107, Elements of a mentor-protégé agreement, is amended to add new paragraph (h), which implements the requirement provided in section 1813 for mentor-protégé agreements to include assistance the mentor firm will provide to the protégé firm in understanding Federal contract regulations, including the FAR and DFARS.
        III. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) and for Commercial Items, Including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf (COTS) Items
        This rule does not propose to create any new provisions or clauses or impact any existing provisions or clauses.
        IV. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
        Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        V. Executive Order 13771
        This rule is not subject to E.O. 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, because this rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
        VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        DoD does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because of the relatively small number of small entities who participate in the DoD Pilot Mentor-Protégé Program. However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been performed and is summarized as follows:
        This rule proposes to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement section 1823 and paragraph (b) of section 1813 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328), which provide modifications to the DoD Pilot Mentor-Protégé Program (“the Program”). Specifically, section 1823 revises the definition and requirements associated with affiliation between mentor firms and their protégé firms. Both sections add new types of assistance for mentors to provide to their protégés.
        The objective of this rule is to implement statutory modifications to the Program. The legal basis for the modifications is sections 1823 and paragraph (b) of section 1813 of the NDAA for FY 2017.
        The rule will apply to small entities that participate in the Program. There are currently 85 small entities participating in the Program.
        The rule does not impose any reporting or recordkeeping requirements on any small entities.
        The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
        There are no known, significant, alternative approaches to the proposed rule that would meet the requirements of the applicable statute.
        DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
        DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2017-D016), in correspondence.
        VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
        The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 219 and Appendix I to Chapter 2
          Government procurement.

          Amy G. Williams,
          Deputy, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

        Therefore, 48 CFR part 219 and appendix I to chapter 2 are proposed to be amended as follows:
        1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 219 and appendix I to chapter 2 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

          PART 219—SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS

            219.7100
             [Amended]

        2. Amend section 219.7100 by removing “November 25, 2015” and adding “December 23, 2016” in its place.
        3. Amend appendix I to chapter 2 as follows:
        a. In section I-101 by—
        i. Redesignating sections I-101.1 through I-101.6 as sections I-101.2 through I-101.7, respectively; and
        ii. Adding new section I-101.1.
        b. In section I-102 by—

        i. Redesignating paragraphs (e) and (f) as paragraphs (f) and (g), respectively;
        ii. Adding new paragraph (e); and
        iii. In newly redesignated paragraph (f), removing “Subpart 9.4” and adding “subpart 9.4” in its place.
        c. In section I-106 by adding paragraph (d)(6)(v).
        d. In section I-107 by—
        i. Redesignating paragraphs (h) through (o) as paragraphs (i) through (p), respectively; and
        ii. Adding new paragraph (h).
        The additions read as follows:

          Appendix I to Chapter 2—Policy and Procedures for the DoD Pilot Mentor Protégé Program

          I-101.1 Affiliation.
          With respect to a relationship between a mentor firm and a protégé firm, a relationship described under 13 CFR 121.103.

          I-102 Participant eligibility.

          (e) A mentor firm may not enter into an agreement with a protégé firm if SBA has made a determination of affiliation. If SBA has not made such a determination and if the DoD Office of Small Business Programs (OSBP) has reason to believe, based on SBA's regulations regarding affiliation, that the mentor firm is affiliated with the protégé firm, then DoD OSBP will request a determination regarding affiliation from SBA.

          I-106 Development of mentor-protégé agreements.

          (d) * * *
          (6) * * *
          (v) Women's business centers described in section 29 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 656).

          I-107 Elements of a mentor-protégé agreement.

          (h) The assistance the mentor will provide to the protégé firm in understanding Federal contract regulations, including the FAR and DFARS, after award of a subcontract under the Program, if applicable;

      [FR Doc. 2018-09487 Filed 5-3-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 5001-06-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Transit Administration
        49 CFR Part 605
        [Docket No. FTA-99-5082]
        RIN 2131-AA67
        School Bus Operations; Amendment of Tripper Service Definition

          AGENCY:
          Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Withdrawal of rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This document withdraws the rulemaking in which the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) proposed to amend its tripper service definition to clarify which student transportation operations are inconsistent with FTA requirements. The rulemaking is being withdrawn because after consideration of the comments, FTA has concluded that no regulatory clarification is necessary.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Elizabeth S. Martineau, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Transit Administration, (202) 366-1936 or (202) 366-3809 (fax).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Electronic Access

        An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem and suitable communication software from the Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet users may reach the Federal Register's home page at: http://www.archives.gov and the Government Printing Office's database at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nar.

        Background
        On May 3, 1999, the Federal Transit Administration published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to amend its tripper service definition to clarify that buses used in tripper service may not carry destination signs such as “student” or any other marking indicating that they are carrying school children. Further, the rule would have clarified that, as consistent with the current regulation, these buses may only stop at stops that are accessible to the public and that are clearly marked as available to the public. 64 FR 23590, May 3, 1999.
        Discussion of Comments on the NPRM
        FTA received sixty comments on its proposal to amend the definition of tripper service.
        Comments Supporting the Proposed Changes
        Three commenters expressed support for FTA's proposed amendment to the tripper service definition. One commenter suggested that destination signs be permitted to inform the rider where the bus route goes. Another commenter was concerned that those who opposed the changes were confusing the issue of safety of school children with the tripper service definition. The commenter stated that the issue of safety of school children on public transportation is an important one that merits its own separate rulemaking. One other commenter recommended that if FTA is not going to eliminate tripper service, it should ensure timely and aggressive enforcement of the regulations.
        Comments Opposing the Proposed Changes
        Stopping at Marked Public Stops

        Twenty-three commenters objected to the proposed amendment to the tripper service definition that would clarify that buses may stop only at stops that are accessible to the public and that are clearly marked as available to the public. Although the law currently prohibits stops on property that is not accessible to the general public, nineteen commenters cited the risk to student safety from not being picked up and discharged on school property as a reason for objecting to the proposed amendment.
        Commenters also raised non-safety-related objections to the requirement that buses providing tripper service may only stop at marked public stops. Eight commenters objected to the requirement because buses in suburban and rural areas often stop at unmarked flag stops that are known to the public. Seven commenters stated that loading and unloading students on school property prevents impediments to traffic flow on public streets. Seven commenters noted that in other situations buses are allowed to drop-off and pickup passengers at stops to which the general public may not have access, such as secured work sites, private business parks, and college campuses. Two commenters opposed the requirement that buses providing tripper service may only stop at clearly marked stops because they thought it would impose a higher standard than that generally required of fixed route transit services.
        Six commenters asserted that the proposed changes would require cities to purchase new signs to mark each stop, which would be a significant cost. The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) commented that the marked bus stop requirement would impose an undue financial burden on numerous transit authorities.
        Signage and Markings on Buses
        The proposal to clarify that tripper buses may not carry any signs or markings indicating the presence of school children onboard raised objections from eleven commenters, all of whom cited safety as their primary concern. Two commenters noted that without signs and markings, drivers would not be alerted to the presence of school children who may be crossing the road. One commenter also noted that without signs and markings, there would be increased public ridership, which could pose additional safety risks to children onboard. One commenter added that there was no objective evidence that existing signage regarding school children caused the public to believe that buses used for tripper service were not open to the general public.
        Two commenters who did not support FTA's proposed amendment did support the prohibition on signs and markings on transit buses that indicate the presence of school children. One of these commenters stated that the public becomes confused when equipment from yellow school buses is placed on transit buses.
        Enlarge Scope To Address Safety Generally
        Eleven commenters suggested that, rather than focus on one aspect of the tripper service definition, FTA should work with the school transportation and public transit communities to address the safety needs of school students on public transit vehicles. Nine of the commenters opposed the proposed amendment entirely, arguing that it is shortsighted. The National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services (NASDPTS) argued that while ensuring that tripper buses remain open to the public is an important objective of the tripper rule, providing for student safety is an equally important objective. Consequently, they argued, amending only one element of the rule at the expense of the other is “inappropriate.” NASDPTS suggested that FTA “with the assistance of the school transportation community and the public transit community, develop a list of acceptable safety practices to accommodate the needs of school students.” Six other commenters concurred in NASDPTS's suggestion.
        One commenter, a private citizen from Altoona, Pennsylvania, noticed that tripper buses lack many of the safety features found in traditional school buses, such as forward facing seats and additional emergency exits. This difference in the level of passenger safety prompted the National Association for Pupil Transportation (NAPT) to suggest temporarily suspending tripper service altogether. NAPT suggested that tripper service be disallowed until “it is clear that children who ride a transit bus to school receive the equivalent level of operational safety as children who ride a school bus to school.”
        Forced Elimination or Reduction of Tripper Service
        Ten commenters asserted that the proposed amendment would cost cities significant amounts of money, because to the extent that the proposed change eliminates or reduces tripper service, cities would be required to purchase and maintain a yellow bus fleet or to contract for those services.
        Four commenters opposed the proposed amendments because they would either reduce or eliminate tripper service, which would increase the time that it takes students to get to and from school. Without tripper service, they asserted, some students would have to transfer buses one or more times, thus adding to the time it takes the student to reach the school.
        Agency Response
        Given the comments on the proposed rulemaking, FTA has decided to withdraw this rulemaking as unnecessary. FTA believes that the proposed amendments to the regulation were merely clarifying in nature, and not necessary to the enforcement of current law and regulation. The comments received generally indicated objections to the underlying law and current regulations, rather than to the clarifying amendments, indicating that confusion about the intent of the current regulation was not the primary issue.
        The proposed amendment to the destination sign language was intended only to give additional information about language that is inappropriate on a tripper service bus by specifically prohibiting use of the word “student” and adding the language “or any other marking indicating that they are carrying school children.” FTA proposed this added language because it believed that grantees were interpreting the term “such as” in the existing regulation as an exclusive listing of prohibited signs, rather than a representative listing of prohibited signs that could also include other signs. However, based on the comments received, it appears that there is no general misunderstanding of the existing regulation. Indeed, commenters objected to the underlying prohibition on signs or markings that indicate the presence of school children on board, arguing that such a prohibition is unsafe. However, under the current regulation, tripper service cannot be operated in a way that would call into question its availability to the public. Moreover, FTA believes that allowing transit buses to carry such signs actually poses a greater threat to safety because the widespread use of these signs on transit buses could engender a false belief by parents or guardians that transit buses are the equivalent of school buses in terms of safety. In FTA's view, the comments opposing the prohibition on signage based on safety concerns failed to account for the fact that tripper service is intended to make ordinary transit bus service available to school children; it is not intended to substitute for school bus transportation.

        Grantees that honor flag stops in suburban and rural areas expressed concern regarding the requirement that tripper buses stop only at clearly marked public bus stops. The proposed rulemaking was not intended to eliminate the use of flag stops for tripper service when such stops are generally used for public transportation service. Commenters who opposed this clarification generally expressed concerns about student safety if buses were not allowed to stop on school property. This comment seemed to reflect a lack of clarity or misunderstanding of the proposed amendment; consistent with the current regulation, the proposed amendment would not have prohibited stops on school property, as long as those stops were clearly marked, accessible to the general public, and included in published bus schedules.
        APTA also opposed the public bus stop amendment based on the fact that FTA allows grantees to make stops on private work sites, which are generally inaccessible to the public. However, the statute singles out school bus service for special attention and the current implementing regulation requires that tripper buses stop only at clearly marked stops that are open to the public.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 605
          Mass transit, Grants, School bus.

        For the reasons set forth above, FTA is withdrawing its proposed amendments to title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 605.

          Issued on: January 4, 2005.
          Jennifer L. Dorn,
          Administrator.

      [FR Doc. 05-1644 Filed 1-27-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-57-U