[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 18, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68375-68390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-26683]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration

49 CFR Part 605

[Docket No. FTA-2008-0044]
RIN 2132-AB00


School Bus Operations

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Through this notice, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 
proposes to amend its school bus operations regulations. Most notably, 
FTA proposes to clarify several definitions, amend the school bus 
operations complaint procedures, and implement Section 3023(f) of the 
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). FTA seeks comment on this notice from 
interested parties.

DATES: Comments must be received by February 17, 2009. FTA will 
consider late filed comments to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods.
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     U.S. Post or Express Mail: U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room 
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: The West Building of the U.S. Department of

[[Page 68376]]

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590, 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.
    Instructions: You must include the agency name (Federal Transit 
Administration) and the Docket number (FTA-2008-0044) or the Regulatory 
Identification Number (RIN) (2132-AB00) for this notice at the 
beginning of your comment. You should include two copies of your 
comment if you submit it by mail. If you wish to receive confirmation 
that FTA received your comment, you must include a self-addressed 
stamped postcard. Note that FTA will post all comments that it 
receives, including any personal information provided therein, without 
change, to http://www.regulations.gov.
    Due to security procedures in effect since October 2001 regarding 
mail deliveries, mail received through the U.S. Postal Service may be 
subject to delays. A party that submits a comment responsive to this 
notice should consider using an express mail firm to ensure the prompt 
filing of any submissions not filed electronically or by hand.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael L. Culotta, Attorney, Office 
of Chief Counsel, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., East Building--5th Floor, 
Washington, DC 20590. E-mail: [email protected]. Telephone: (202) 
366-1936.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

A. Introduction

    FTA issues this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding its school 
bus operations regulations at 49 CFR part 605 pursuant to the changes 
Congress requires in section 3023(f) of the Safe, Accountable, 
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 
(SAFETEA-LU),\1\ to provide clarification in the context of the U.S. 
District Court for the Western District of New York's decision in 
Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority v. Hynes-Cherin,\2\ 
and generally, to update the regulation. Through this Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, FTA intends to provide its grantees with a 
regulatory basis which will allow them to continue to provide the 
service that FTA historically has allowed through administrative 
adjudications, while simultaneously satisfying the statutory 
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5323(f). To the extent that FTA departs from 
any previous guidance with respect to its school bus operations 
regulations, FTA sets forth its reasons below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) sec. 3023, 49 U.S.C. 5323(f) 
(2006).
    \2\ 531 F.Supp.2d 494 (W.D.N.Y. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Statutory and Regulatory History

    In 1973, Congress passed the Federal-Aid Highway Act, which 
authorizes FTA to provide financial assistance to a grantee under 49 
U.S.C. Chapter 53 only if the grantee agrees ``not to provide school 
bus transportation that exclusively transports students and school 
personnel in competition with a private school bus operator.'' \3\ 
Congress's intent in enacting this provision was to prevent unfair 
competition between federally funded public transportation systems and 
private school bus operators.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973, Public Law No. 93-87, sec. 
164(b), 87 Stat. 250, 281-82 (1973) (codified as amended at 49 
U.S.C. 5323(f) (2006)).
    \4\ Chicago Transit Auth. v. Adams, 607 F.2d 1284, 1292-93 (7th 
Cir. 1979) (citing H.R. REP. NO. 93-410, at 87 (1973) (Conf. Rep.); 
S. REP. NO. 93-355, at 87 (1973) (Conf. Rep.)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1976, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, now FTA, 
codified regulations at 49 CFR part 605 which implemented the above 
statutory provision.\5\ Under 49 CFR 605.14, FTA may not provide 
financial assistance to a grantee ``unless the applicant and the 
Administrator shall have first entered into a written agreement that 
the applicant will not engage in school bus operations exclusively for 
the transportation of students and school personnel in competition with 
private school bus operators.'' \6\ FTA defines ``school bus 
operations'' as ``transportation by bus exclusively for school 
students, personnel and equipment. * * *'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Codification of Charter Bus Operations Regulations, 41 
FR 14,122 (Apr. 1, 1976) (codified at 49 CFR part 605 (2007)).
    \6\ 49 CFR 605.14 (2007).
    \7\ 49 CFR 605.3(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTA exempts ``tripper service'' from the prohibition of school bus 
operations.\8\ FTA defines ``tripper service'' as ``regularly scheduled 
mass transportation service which is open to the public, and which is 
designed or modified to accommodate the needs of school students and 
personnel, using various fare collections or subsidy systems.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 49 CFR 605.13.
    \9\ 49 CFR 605.3(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 10, 2005, President George W. Bush signed SAFETEA-LU into 
law. Section 3023(f)(3) of SAFETEA-LU provides, ``If the Secretary 
finds that an applicant, governmental authority, or publicly owned 
operator has violated the [school bus] agreement * * * the Secretary 
shall bar a recipient or an operator from receiving Federal transit 
assistance in an amount the Secretary considers appropriate.'' \10\ 
Prior to SAFETEA-LU, Congress required the Secretary of Transportation 
to completely bar a violator of 49 CFR part 605 of all Federal transit 
funds to which it was entitled.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ SAFETEA-LU sec. 3023(f)(3).
    \11\ See 49 CFR 605.33(b) (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority v. Hynes-Cherin

    On January 24, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Western 
District of New York issued a decision in Rochester-Genesee Regional 
Transportation Authority which set aside FTA's interpretation of its 
school bus operations regulations at 49 CFR part 605.\12\ The Court 
allowed the Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority (RGRTA) 
to restructure its public transportation operation through the addition 
of 240 new express school bus routes proposed to serve the Rochester 
City School District (RCSD) and its students.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Rochester-Genesee Reg'l Transp. Auth., 531 F.Supp.2d 
521-22.
    \13\ Id. at 507-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its decision, the Court narrowly interpreted the word 
``exclusively'' in FTA's definition of ``school bus operations'' and 
concluded that technically, because a member of the general public 
hypothetically could board a bus along one of RGRTA's proposed 240 
routes, RGRTA did not propose to ``exclusively'' transport students, 
and therefore, RGRTA's proposed express school bus service did not 
constitute an impermissible school bus operation.\14\ Additionally, the 
Court broadly interpreted FTA's definition of ``tripper service'' 
citing United States ex rel. Lamers v. City of Green Bay for the 
proposition that a grantee may ``completely redesign its transit system 
to accommodate school children as long as all routes are accessible to 
the public and the public is kept informed of route changes.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id. at 507-09.
    \15\ Id. at 512 (citing United States ex rel. Lamers v. City of 
Green Bay, 168 F.3d 1013, 1019 (7th Cir. 1999)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. School Bus Operations Policy Statement

    On September 16, 2008, in the context of the Court's decision in 
Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority, FTA issued a 
``Final Policy Statement on FTA's School Bus

[[Page 68377]]

Operations Regulations.'' \16\ In the policy statement, FTA noted that 
it respects the Court's decision in the Western District of New York; 
however, FTA found the Court's decision problematic because, if applied 
elsewhere in the United States, the decision could obstruct FTA's 
ability to execute and implement Congress' school bus prohibition and 
its express intent regarding that prohibition.\17\ FTA found that if it 
permitted a grantee to provide school bus operations so long as the 
service is technically open to the public, then Congress's purpose of 
protecting private school bus operators would be nullified.\18\ Such an 
interpretation would create a loophole in the statutory and regulatory 
scheme which would permit FTA's grantees to displace private school bus 
operators with ease.\19\ Clearly, Congress did not intend this result, 
otherwise, Congress would not have passed the statutory provision at 49 
U.S.C. 5323(f).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Final Policy Statement on FTA's School Bus Operations 
Regulations, 73 FR 53,384 (Sept. 16, 2008).
    \17\ 73 FR 53,390.
    \18\ 73 FR 53,387.
    \19\ 73 FR 53,387.
    \20\ 73 FR 53,387.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, in the policy statement, FTA interpreted the term ``tripper 
service'' as it historically has interpreted that definition to allow a 
grantee to (1) utilize various fare collections or subsidy systems, (2) 
modify the frequency of service, and (3) make de minimis route 
alterations from route paths in the immediate vicinity of schools to 
stops located at or in close proximity to the schools.\21\ FTA 
interpreted the term ``exclusively'' as used in FTA's definition of 
school bus operations at 49 CFR 605.3(b) to encompass any service that 
a reasonable person would conclude was primarily designed to 
accommodate students and school personnel, and only incidentally to 
serve the non-student general public.\22\ In the policy statement, FTA 
expressed its intention to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to 
amend the regulatory text at 49 CFR part 605.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 73 FR 53,390.
    \22\ 73 FR 53,390.
    \23\ 73 FR 53,385.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Introduction

    FTA issues this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding its school 
bus operations regulations at 49 CFR part 605 pursuant to the changes 
Congress requires in section 3023(f) of the Safe, Accountable, 
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 
(SAFETEA-LU),\24\ to provide clarification in the context of the U.S. 
District Court for the Western District of New York's decision in 
Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority v. Hynes-
Cherin,\25\ and generally to update the regulation. Through this Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, FTA intends to provide its grantees with a 
regulatory basis which will allow them to continue to provide the 
service that FTA historically has allowed through administrative 
adjudications, while simultaneously satisfying its statutory 
requirements under 49 U.S.C. 5323(f). To the extent that FTA departs 
from any previous guidance with respect to its school bus operations 
regulations, FTA sets forth its reasons below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ SAFETEA-LU sec. 3023.
    \25\ 531 F.Supp.2d 494.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When drafting this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FTA sought 
comment from interested parties on the existing school bus operations 
regulation at 49 CFR part 605. On June 11, 2008, FTA met with 
representatives from the National School Transportation Association to 
discuss viewpoints from private school bus operators on the existing 
school bus operations regulation. On July 29, 2008, FTA met with 
representatives from the American Public Transportation Association, 
the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, the Champaign-
Urbana Mass Transit District, the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit 
Authority, the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, The Rapid, and 
the Council of the Great City Schools to discuss viewpoints from 
operators of public transportation systems and public school districts 
on the existing school bus operations regulation. FTA intends to post 
on docket number FTA-2008-0044 information from the meetings mentioned 
above, such as attendance sheets and rulemaking proposals.
    On September 16, 2008, FTA issued a ``Final Policy Statement on 
FTA's School Bus Operations Regulations'' that clarifies FTA's 
interpretation of its school bus operations regulations at 49 CFR part 
605.\26\ The public provided FTA with over 600 comments at docket 
number FTA-2008-0015 regarding FTA's proposed policy statement, and FTA 
considered those comments in developing this Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 73 FR 53,384.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Section-by-Section Analysis

    In this section, FTA discusses the differences between the existing 
regulation and the proposed regulation. In addition to seeking general 
comments on the proposed regulation, FTA requests comments on the 
specific issues indicated below.
1. Subpart A--General

a. Purpose (Sec.  605.1)

    FTA proposes to amend 49 CFR 605.1 to update statutory citations. 
Additionally, FTA proposes to amend 49 CFR 605.1 to include the 
language of 49 U.S.C. 5323(f), specifically, ``Financial assistance 
under this chapter may be used for a capital project, or to operate 
public transportation equipment or a public transportation facility, 
only if the applicant agrees not to provide schoolbus transportation 
that exclusively transports students and school personnel in 
competition with a private schoolbus operator.''

b. Scope (Sec.  605.2)

    FTA proposes to amend 49 CFR 605.2 to update statutory citations.

c. Definitions (Sec.  605.3)

i. General
    FTA proposes to amend 49 CFR 605.3 to update statutory citations.
    FTA proposes to add a definition of the term ``Chief Counsel'' to 
provide clarification with respect to FTA's proposed procedures under 
Subpart B and Subpart C.
    FTA proposes to delete the term ``grant contract'' because it is no 
longer applicable under FTA's proposed agreement requirements at 49 CFR 
605.11.
    FTA proposes to update the term ``grantee'' to include 
subrecipients of federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 
53 and 23 U.S.C. 133 and 142.
    FTA proposes to delete the term ``incidental'' because it is no 
longer applicable to 49 CFR part 605. FTA cautions grantees, however, 
that FTA Circular 5010.1 defines ``incidental use'' as:

    [T]he authorized use of real property and equipment acquired 
with FTA funds for the purposes of transit service but which also 
has limited non-transit use due to transit operating circumstances. 
Such use must be compatible with the approved purposes of the 
project and not interfere with intended public transportation uses 
of project assets.

    FTA proposes to delete the term ``tripper service.'' FTA discusses 
this proposal in section (II)(B)(2)(d) below.
    FTA proposes to delete the term ``urban area'' and replace it with 
the term ``geographic service area'' which means ``the area in which a 
recipient is authorized to provide public transportation service under 
appropriate

[[Page 68378]]

local, state, and Federal law.'' FTA no longer uses the term ``urban 
area,'' but instead, FTA uses the term ``geographic service area'' to 
refer to the local area in which a grantee operates.
ii. ``School Bus Operations''
    FTA proposes to amend the definition of the term ``school bus 
operations.'' Under 49 U.S.C. 5323(f), FTA may provide financial 
assistance to a grantee only if the grantee agrees ``not to provide 
school bus transportation that exclusively transports students and 
school personnel in competition with a private school bus operator.'' 
\27\ Congress's intent in enacting this provision was to prevent unfair 
competition between federally funded public transportation systems and 
private school bus operators.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 49 U.S.C. 5323(f).
    \28\ Chicago Transit Auth., 607 F.2d at 1292-93.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its school bus operations regulations, FTA defines ``school bus 
operations'' as ``transportation by bus exclusively for school 
students, personnel and equipment * * *'' \29\ In Rochester-Genesee 
Regional Transportation Authority, the Court narrowly interpreted the 
word ``exclusively'' and concluded that, technically, because a member 
of the general public hypothetically could board a bus along one of 
RGRTA's proposed 240 routes, RGRTA did not propose to ``exclusively'' 
transport students, and therefore, RGRTA's proposed express school bus 
service did not constitute an impermissible school bus operation.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 49 CFR 605.3.
    \30\ Rochester-Genesee Reg'l Transp. Auth., 531 F.Supp.2d at 
507-09.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTA finds the Court's decision in Rochester-Genesee Regional 
Transportation Authority problematic. FTA believes that a grantee, 
pursuant to the Court's interpretation of ``school bus operations,'' 
may believe that it could restructure substantially its public 
transportation operation to accommodate the needs of a local school 
district and its students, which might have the effect of displacing 
private school bus operators and their employees, provided the system 
keeps the service open to the public even though members of the public 
unlikely will board these buses. This practice would produce unfair 
competition for private school bus operators which is precisely the 
result Congress sought to prevent when enacting 49 U.S.C. 5323(f).
    FTA proposes to add a definition of the term ``exclusively'' as 
used in 49 U.S.C. 5323(f) and the definition of ``school bus 
operations'' at 49 CFR 605.3 to mean ``transportation that a reasonable 
person would conclude was designed primarily to accommodate students 
and school personnel, without regard to demand from the non-student 
general public.'' FTA intends its proposed definition of 
``exclusively'' to effectuate Congress's intent of protecting private 
school bus operators from unfair competition with federally subsidized 
grantees.
    FTA relies, in part, on the subsequent qualifying language of 49 
U.S.C. 5323(f)--``in competition with a private schoolbus operator''--
to justify this definition. To illustrate, if FTA permitted a grantee 
to provide school bus operations so long as the service is advertised 
as generally open to the public, then Congress's purpose of protecting 
private school bus operators would be nullified. Such an interpretation 
would create a loophole in the statutory and regulatory scheme which 
would permit FTA's grantees to displace private school bus operators 
with ease. As noted earlier, Congress did not intend this result; 
otherwise, Congress would not have enacted this statutory provision.
    Additionally, the relevant language of the regulation prohibits 
service that is ``exclusively for'' students and school personnel, and 
therefore, FTA concludes that it is reasonable and proper to consider 
whether service is, in fact, ``for'' such riders.
    With respect to the ``reasonable person'' standard, FTA points out 
that this standard has nearly a two hundred year history in the common 
law.\31\ Courts have held that the reasonable person standard is an 
objective standard, and that a ``reasonable person'' is a person: (1) 
Of ordinary prudence, (2) who has knowledge of the law and is aware of 
its consequences, and (3) who exercises caution in similar 
circumstances.\32\ Accordingly, FTA proposes to utilize this objective, 
rather than subjective, standard when analyzing issues involving school 
bus operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Vaughan v. Menlove, (1837) 132 Eng. Rep. 490, and its 
progeny.
    \32\ See William L. Prosser & W. Page Keeton, Prosser and Keeton 
On Torts 173-93 (5th ed. 1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTA also uses the reasonable person standard in a similar 
definition of ``exclusive'' in its charter service regulations at 49 
CFR part 604. Under 49 CFR 604.3(h), `` `Exclusive' means service that 
a reasonable person would conclude is intended to exclude members of 
the public.'' \33\ Employing a similar reasonable person standard in 
the school bus regulation would afford FTA and the public consistency 
throughout its regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 49 CFR 604.3(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to utilizing a reasonable person standard, FTA proposes 
to identify a non-exhaustive list of factors that it intends to 
consider when evaluating a school bus operations issue. FTA discusses 
these factors at section (II)(B)(4)(a)(v) below.
    Finally, FTA does not intend to discourage grantees from creating 
new routes to serve new demand, so long as a reasonable person would 
conclude that the grantees designed the routes to serve some segment of 
the non-student general public. Therefore, FTA proposes to define 
``school bus operations'' to allow a grantee to create a new route to 
serve school students and personnel if a reasonable person would 
conclude that the grantee also designed the route to serve some segment 
of the non-student general public.

d. Public Hearing Requirement (Sec.  605.4)

    FTA proposes to delete the public hearing requirement for 
applicants that engage or wish to engage in school bus operations at 49 
CFR 605.4 and replace it with the proposed procedures in Subpart B as 
discussed in section (II)(B)(2) below.
2. Subpart B--School Bus Agreements

a. Purpose (Sec.  605.10)

    Under 49 CFR 605.10, FTA explains that the purpose of Subpart B is 
``to formulate procedures for the development of an agreement 
concerning school bus operations.'' \34\ FTA proposes to delete this 
statement of purpose. FTA includes a statement of purpose regarding its 
school bus operations regulations at 49 CFR 605.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 49 CFR 605.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Instead, FTA proposes to amend 49 CFR 605.10 to include an express 
prohibition on school bus operations. Under FTA's current school bus 
operations regulations, FTA does not have a separate, express provision 
which prohibits school bus operations. Instead, FTA requires applicants 
to enter into an agreement with FTA stating that they will not provide 
school bus operations. With an express prohibition on school bus 
operations at 49 CFR 605.10, FTA intends to clarify its regulatory 
scheme.
    Additionally, FTA proposes to prohibit grantees from contracting to 
provide school bus operations. Under the current regulatory scheme, FTA 
only may entertain a school bus operations case if a potential 
violation has occurred, that is, if a grantee provided

[[Page 68379]]

service that was a potential school bus operation. Currently, if a 
grantee contracted to provide service, but has not yet provided it, 
then the case is not ripe for FTA's adjudication.\35\ FTA believes that 
this scenario is problematic because, at the point when a case becomes 
ripe, the academic year likely is in session, and FTA's decision on the 
merits could potentially disrupt school transportation for that 
academic year. By considering cases in which a grantee contracted to 
provide service that potentially constitutes a school bus operation, 
but has not yet provide the service, FTA proposes to mitigate the risk 
of disrupting school transportation for the academic year by providing 
the grantees, private operators, and school districts with time to 
create a system that complies with FTA's school bus operations 
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See, e.g., Laidlaw Transit, Inc. v. Rochester-Genesee Reg'l 
Transp. Auth., FTA School Bus Operations Docket Number 2007-01 1, 3 
(2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Exemptions (Sec.  605.11)

i. Existing Provisions
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5323(f), FTA provides exemptions to its 
prohibition on school bus operations where (1) a grantee or applicant 
operates a school system and a separate and exclusive school bus 
program for that school system; (2) private school bus operators in the 
local area are unable to provide adequate transportation, at a 
reasonable rate, and in conformance with applicable safety standards; 
and (3) a grantee or applicant is a state or local public body or 
agency that previously was engaged in school bus operations.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 49 CFR 605.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the existing regulation, a grantee or applicant that wishes to 
provide school bus operations under an exemption must follow the 
procedures set forth in 49 CFR 605.16-605.19. In sum, a grantee or 
applicant must (1) provide notice to local private school bus operators 
of its proposed or existing school bus operation,\37\ (2) publish in a 
local newspaper a description of its proposed or existing school bus 
operation,\38\ (3) hold public hearings regarding the proposed or 
existing school bus operation,\39\ and (4) submit an application to FTA 
setting forth reasons why FTA should allow the grantee or applicant to 
provide school bus operations.\40\ If no private school bus operator 
operates in the grantee's or applicant's local area, then the grantee 
or applicant may so certify in lieu of providing the notice required 
above.\41\ Private school bus operators have an opportunity to comment 
on the grantee's or applicant's proposed or existing school bus 
operations.\42\ The FTA Administrator subsequently issues a decision 
regarding the grantee's or applicant's application for an 
exemption.\43\ Since FTA promulgated its school bus operations 
regulations in 1976, grantees and applicants rarely have applied for an 
exemption under 49 CFR 605.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 49 CFR 605.16(a)(1).
    \38\ 49 CFR 605.16(a)(2).
    \39\ 49 CFR 605.18.
    \40\ 49 CFR 605.11.
    \41\ 49 CFR 605.17.
    \42\ 49 CFR 605.18.
    \43\ 49 CFR 605.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Proposed Exemptions
    FTA proposes to restructure its regulatory scheme with regard to 
exemptions. First, FTA proposes to move its list of exemptions from 49 
CFR 605.11 to 49 CFR 605.12.
    Second, FTA proposes to delete from 49 CFR 605.3(b) its definition 
of ``tripper service'' and its provision regarding tripper service at 
49 CFR 605.13. FTA proposes to add exemptions to the school bus 
operations prohibition for service that FTA historically has considered 
to be tripper service. This amendment is discussed in detail in Section 
(II)(B)(2)(d) below.
    Third, FTA proposes to remove from its list of exemptions the 
exemption located at 49 CFR 605.11(b) which allows a grantee or 
applicant to provide school bus operations if the grantee or applicant 
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator, ``That private 
school bus operators in the urban area are unable to provide adequate 
transportation, at a reasonable rate, and in conformance with 
applicable safety standards.'' \44\ FTA proposes to make this 
``exemption'' a new ``exception,'' and FTA discusses this proposal in 
detail in Section (II)(B)(2)(b)(iii) below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 49 CFR 605.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, FTA proposes to eliminate the procedural requirements that 
a grantee or applicant must follow at 49 CFR 605.16-605.19 to provide 
service pursuant to an exemption. FTA intends its proposed exemptions 
to serve as defenses for grantees in the context of a school bus 
operations complaint filed under proposed Subpart C.
iii. New Exceptions
    As mentioned above, FTA proposes to amend 49 CFR 605.13 to provide 
exceptions to the proposed prohibition on school bus operations at 49 
CFR 605.10. Here, FTA borrows from, and modifies, the current 
procedures corresponding to a petition for an exemption.
    FTA proposes to allow an applicant or grantee to petition the Chief 
Counsel for an exception to the school bus operations prohibition 
``where private school bus operators in the applicant's or grantee's 
geographic service area are unable to provide adequate transportation 
at a reasonable rate and in conformance with applicable safety 
standards.''
    To provide service pursuant to this proposed exception, an 
applicant or a grantee must follow a series of proposed procedural 
requirements. FTA proposes to require an applicant or a grantee to 
formally apply to FTA for a ``Petition for an Exception.'' First, the 
applicant or grantee must provide notice to the Chief Counsel that it 
intends to apply for a Petition for an Exception. This notice must 
include a description of the proposed school bus operations, including 
a description of (1) the geographic service area that the applicant or 
grantee intends to serve; (2) the schools and school districts that the 
applicant or grantee intends to serve; (3) the anticipated ridership 
related to the school bus operation; (4) an estimation of the number 
and types of buses that the applicant or grantee intends to utilize to 
provide the school bus operation; (5) the duration of the school bus 
operation; (6) the frequency of daily service related to the school bus 
operation; (7) an analysis regarding the extent to which the proposed 
school bus operation complies with local, state, and Federal safety 
laws; (8) a summary of the fully allocated costs related to the school 
bus operation; and (9) the rate that the applicant or grantee intends 
to charge for the school bus operation. FTA believes that this 
information will help it determine whether the proposed service is 
adequate, safe, and at a reasonable rate. FTA invites the public to 
comment on the components of a fully allocated cost analysis that it 
should require from its applicants and grantees.
    Second, FTA will open an electronic docket, entitled ``Petition for 
an Exception Docket,'' at http://www.regulations.gov corresponding to 
the Petition for an Exception. Instead of requiring applicants and 
grantees to provide notices in local newspapers, FTA intends to utilize 
current technology, particularly the electronic docket, to provide more 
accessibility to the public regarding a Petition for an Exception. FTA 
also believes that the utilization of this technology will make FTA 
action more transparent.
    Third, FTA will transmit a copy of the notice and its docket number 
to the

[[Page 68380]]

applicant or grantee and to the National School Transportation 
Association (NSTA). NSTA may circulate the notice to any appropriate 
private school bus operators that provide school bus operations in a 
particular geographic service area. Furthermore, persons interested in 
monitoring petitions submitted to FTA for which a docket is opened may 
sign up for the Regulations.gov list serv. Through this service, 
Regulastions.gov will notify subscribers each time a party submits a 
document to the docket.
    Fourth, any private operator having a place of business in the 
applicant's or grantee's geographic service area may, within thirty 
days of the notice's docketing date, submit comments on the Petition 
for an Exception Docket demonstrating the extent to which it can 
provide school bus operations that constitute adequate transportation 
at a reasonable rate and in conformance with applicable safety 
standards. FTA invites the public to comment on whether it should allow 
a private operator a different timeframe for commenting on a proposed 
school bus operation.
    Fifth, the applicant or grantee, after evaluating any comments from 
private school bus operators, may petition the Chief Counsel for an 
exception to the school bus operations prohibition at 49 CFR 605.10. 
The applicant or grantee must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 
Chief Counsel that no private operator having a place of business in 
the applicant's or grantee's geographic service area can provide school 
bus operations that constitute adequate transportation at a reasonable 
rate and in conformance with applicable safety standards. The Chief 
Counsel subsequently will issue a decision that either grants or denies 
the applicant's or grantee's Petition for an Exception.

c. Use of Project Equipment (Sec.  605.12)

    FTA proposes to delete the regulatory provision at 49 CFR 605.12 
regarding the use of project equipment. FTA recently amended its 
charter service regulations at 49 CFR part 604, and FTA believes that 
the current provision at 49 CFR 605.12 is no longer applicable.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Charter Service Final Rule, 73 FR 2,326 (Jan. 14, 
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Tripper Service (Sec.  605.13)

    FTA proposes to delete the regulatory provision at 49 CFR 605.13 
regarding tripper service. Although there is no statutory definition 
for the term, FTA included the concept of ``tripper service'' in its 
school bus operations regulations.\46\ FTA defines ``tripper service'' 
as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ The Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA), now 
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), did not include the term 
``tripper service'' in its proposed school bus operations 
regulation. See 40 FR 25,309-14 (June 13, 1975). UMTA introduced the 
term ``tripper service'' into its final rule with no explanation as 
to why it inserted that regulatory term. See 41 FR 128 (Apr. 1, 
1976).

    [R]egularly scheduled mass transportation service which is open 
to the public, and which is designed or modified to accommodate the 
needs of school students and personnel, using various fare 
collections or subsidy systems. Buses used in tripper service must 
be clearly marked as open to the public and may not carry 
designations such as ``school bus'' or ``school special.'' These 
buses may stop only at a grantee or operator's regular service stop. 
All routes traveled by tripper buses must be within a grantee's or 
operator's regular route service as indicated in their published 
route schedules.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 49 CFR 605.3.

    Under this definition of tripper service, FTA originally allowed 
grantees to accommodate students only with respect to ``different fare 
collections and subsidy systems.'' However, through administrative 
decisions over the years, FTA broadened its interpretation of its 
tripper service definition to allow grantees to make accommodations 
beyond subsidies and fare collection systems. Specifically, FTA began 
to allow its grantees to make minor modifications to its route paths 
and frequency of service. As FTA stated in one matter concerning the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erie Metropolitan Transit Authority:

    Read narrowly, ``modification of regularly scheduled mass 
transportation service to accommodate the needs of school students 
and personnel'' means using different fare collections and subsidy 
systems. In practice, ``modification of mass transportation 
service'' has been broadened to include minor modifications in route 
or frequency of scheduling to accommodate the extra passengers that 
may be expected to use particular routes at particular times of 
day.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See In re Erie Metropolitan Transit Authority 1, 4 (1989).

    For example, in Travelways, Inc. v. Broome County Department of 
Transportation, FTA stated that, ``A familiar type of modification 
would be where the route deviates from its regular path and makes a 
loop to a school returning back to the point of deviation to complete 
the path unaltered.'' \49\ FTA reaffirmed this particular 
interpretation of tripper service in its October 12, 2007 RGRTA 
determination by permitting RGRTA to operate four loop-like route 
extensions, each only several blocks in length, to accommodate the 
needs of school students.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Travelways, Inc. v. Broome County Dep't of Transp. 1, 7 
(1985) (allowing a grantee to run a bus to a point and express to a 
school from that point if the grantee ran a second bus along the 
regular route path from the point at which the first bus expressed 
to the school).
    \50\ Letter from Federal Transit Administration to Rochester-
Genesee Regional Transportation Authority at 6 (Oct. 12, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTA has not, however, allowed a grantee to restructure its public 
transportation operation solely to accommodate the needs of school 
students--such a modification would be a major modification. Thus, in 
its October 12, 2007 letter to RGRTA, FTA rejected RGRTA's proposed 
addition of 240 new routes because it would have constituted a major 
overhaul of RGRTA's public transportation system solely to accommodate 
the needs of school students.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Id. at 2-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to minor modifications to route paths, FTA previously 
has allowed grantees to modify route schedules and the frequency of 
service. For example, in Travelways, FTA stated, ``Other common 
modifications include operating the service only during school months, 
on school days, and during school and opening and closing periods.'' 
\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Travelways at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Jurisprudence in United States courts has broadened the scope of 
FTA's tripper service definition to include essentially any 
modification. In United States ex rel. Lamers v. City of Green Bay, the 
Seventh Circuit stated, arguably in dicta, ``[T]he City may completely 
redesign its transit system to accommodate school children as long as 
all routes are accessible to the public and the public is kept informed 
of route changes.'' \53\ Citing Lamers, the Court in Rochester-Genesee 
Regional Transportation Authority allowed RGRTA to restructure its 
public transportation system by adding 240 new routes to accommodate 
the needs of RCSD and its students.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ United States ex rel. Lamers v. City of Green Bay, 168 F.3d 
1013, 1019 (7th Cir. 1999).
    \54\ Rochester-Genesee Reg'l Transp. Auth., 531 F.Supp.2d 494, 
509.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTA finds the definition of tripper service and its subsequent 
interpretations problematic. FTA believes that a grantee, pursuant to 
the jurisprudence of the Courts in Lamers and Rochester-Genesee 
Regional Transportation Authority, may believe that it could 
substantially restructure its public transportation operation solely to 
accommodate the needs of a local school district and its students while 
displacing private school bus operators and their employees provided 
the system keeps the service open to the public even though no member 
of the public likely will ride those particular

[[Page 68381]]

routes. This practice would produce unfair competition for private 
school bus operators which is precisely the result Congress sought to 
prevent when enacting 49 U.S.C. 5323(f).
    In this notice, FTA proposes to codify in regulatory text the type 
of service that it historically has allowed through administrative 
adjudications. FTA proposes to eliminate the term ``tripper service,'' 
and instead, create exemptions to FTA's proposed school bus operations 
prohibition at 49 CFR 605.11. This regulatory scheme would allow a 
grantee to continue to use various fare collection or subsidy systems, 
modify the frequency of its service, and make de minimis route 
alterations to accommodate the needs of school students and personnel.
    To illustrate, FTA would allow a grantee to issue fare cards to 
students and school personnel and it would allow a grantee to accept a 
payment from a school or a school district in exchange for service. FTA 
would allow a grantee to modify the frequency of its service, meaning, 
FTA would allow a grantee to run more buses on routes in the morning 
when school begins and more buses in the afternoon when school ends. 
With respect to the de minimis route alterations, FTA would allow a 
grantee to make one-half mile or less route alterations from routes 
within a one-half mile or less radius of a school building to 
accommodate the needs of students and school personnel.\55\ FTA invites 
the public to comment on whether it should utilize a different 
measurement, such as time traveled or route percentage. For example, 
should FTA allow route deviations where a bus makes a five minute 
deviation from a route? Should FTA allow route deviations that 
constitute ten percent of the route? Alternatively, should FTA allow 
route deviations that are greater than one-half mile? FTA also invites 
public comment on whether it should allow grantees to make route 
deviations at multiple portions of routes or only within the immediate 
vicinity of school buildings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Historically, FTA has allowed grantees to make route 
deviations that are several blocks in length within the immediate 
vicinity of school buildings. See Travelways at 7; Letter from 
Federal Transit Administration to Rochester-Genesee Regional 
Transportation Authority at 6 (Oct. 12, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTA notes that, through this proposed regulatory scheme, a grantee 
may provide services pursuant to an exemption without a formal 
application to FTA, similar to a grantee's existing opportunity to 
provide ``tripper service'' without a formal application to FTA. FTA's 
intent here is to clarify in regulatory text the type of service that 
it will allow and to simplify the organization of its school bus 
operations regulatory scheme--FTA's intent is not to overhaul the types 
of service that it historically has allowed. FTA does not intend to 
create additional regulatory burdens for grantees that wish to provide 
this type of service.

e. Agreement (Sec.  605.14)

    FTA proposes to consolidate the regulatory provisions at 49 CFR 
605.14 and 49 CFR 605.15 regarding a school bus agreement and move 
those provisions to a new 49 CFR 605.11. Through this proposed 
provision, FTA intends to simplify the requirements regarding school 
bus agreements.
    Under the current regulatory scheme, FTA requires an applicant to 
enter into an agreement with the Administrator whereby the applicant 
agrees ``that the applicant will not engage in school bus operations 
exclusively for the transportation of students and school personnel in 
competition with private school bus operators.'' \56\ Under current 
practice, FTA's grantees and applicants submit and certify to FTA an 
``Annual List of Certifications and Assurances for Federal Transit 
Administration Grants and Cooperative Agreements'' and grantees 
subscribe to FTA's ``Master Agreement.'' Under the terms of these 
documents, the applicants and grantees agree not to provide school bus 
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 49 CFR 605.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To simplify FTA's requirements regarding school bus agreements and 
to codify current practice, FTA proposes to allow applicants to satisfy 
the requirements regarding school bus agreements by submitting and 
certifying to FTA an ``Annual List of Certifications and Assurances for 
Federal Transit Administration Grants and Cooperative Agreements'' and 
by subscribing to FTA's ``Master Agreement.'' No separate school bus 
agreement is necessary under this proposal.

f. Content of Agreement (Sec.  605.15)

    For the reasons discussed above, FTA proposes to consolidate the 
regulatory provisions at 49 CFR 605.14 and 49 CFR 605.15 regarding a 
school bus agreement and move those provisions to a new 49 CFR 605.11. 
FTA intends to simplify the requirements regarding school bus 
agreements and proposes to provide financial assistance to an applicant 
or a grantee only if ``the applicant or grantee agrees not to provide 
school bus operations exclusively for students and school personnel in 
competition with a private school bus operator.''

g. Notice (Sec.  605.16)

    FTA proposes to delete 49 CFR 605.16 regarding the notice 
requirements for an exemption to FTA's school bus operations 
prohibition in light of FTA's proposed procedures in Subpart B 
explained above.

h. Certification in Lieu of Notice (Sec.  605.17)

    FTA proposes to delete 49 CFR 605.17 regarding the opportunity for 
a certification in lieu of notice corresponding to an exemption to 
FTA's school bus operations prohibition in light of FTA's proposed 
procedures in Subpart B explained above.

i. Comments by Private School Bus Operators (Sec.  605.18)

    FTA proposes to delete 49 CFR 605.18 regarding comments from 
private school bus operators on an applicant's petition for an 
exemption in light of FTA's proposed procedures in Subpart B explained 
above.

j. Approval of School Bus Operations (Sec.  605.19)

    FTA proposes to delete 49 CFR 605.19 regarding FTA's approval of an 
applicant's school bus operations in light of FTA's proposed procedures 
in Subpart B explained above.
3. Subpart C--Modification of Prior Agreements and Amendment of 
Application for Assistance

a. Modification of Prior Agreements (Sec.  605.20)

    FTA proposes to delete the regulatory provision at 49 CFR 605.20 
regarding the modification of prior school bus agreements in light of 
FTA's proposed school bus agreement requirements in Subpart B explained 
above. FTA proposes to replace this provision with amended complaint 
procedures as explained in Subpart D below.

b. Amendment of Applications for Assistance (Sec.  605.21)

    FTA proposes to delete the regulatory provision at 49 CFR 605.21 
regarding the amendment of applications for assistance in light of 
FTA's proposed school bus agreement requirements in Subpart B explained 
above. FTA proposes to replace this provision with amended complaint 
procedures as explained in Subpart D below.
4. Subpart D--Complaint Procedures and Remedies
    Generally, FTA proposes to reorganize its complaint procedures and 
remedies under a proposed ``Subpart C--Complaint Procedures and 
Remedies'' at 49 CFR 605.20-605.31.

[[Page 68382]]

a. Filing a Complaint (Sec.  605.30)

i. Centralized Decision-Making Through the Chief Counsel
    Under FTA's existing school bus operations regulations, any 
interested party may file a written complaint with the Administrator 
alleging a violation of 49 CFR part 605.\57\ FTA requires the 
complainant to write its complaint, to specify in detail the potential 
violation, and to provide evidence substantiating the allegation.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 49 CFR 605.30.
    \58\ 49 CFR 605.30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTA proposes to restructure and modify this section. Under the 
existing regulation, the Administrator issues school bus operations 
decisions. In practice, the Administrator delegates this authority to 
each of FTA's ten Regional Administrators. FTA finds that this practice 
may breed inconsistencies in decision-making and school bus operations 
guidance. Different regions, under different administrations, may issue 
conflicting decisions.
    To remedy this potential conflict, FTA proposes to issue decisions 
centrally through the Chief Counsel. This system will ensure 
consistency in decision-making and school bus operations guidance.
ii. Time Limit for Filing a Complaint
    Under the current regulatory scheme, FTA does not impose a time 
limit on parties that wish to file a complaint alleging a violation of 
49 CFR part 605. FTA finds this regulatory scheme problematic because a 
party may believe that it may file a complaint alleging a school bus 
operations violation years after the potential violation occurred. At 
that point, valuable evidence may be lost or destroyed. Under FTA's 
proposal, the complainant must file its complaint with the Chief 
Counsel within ninety days after the alleged event giving rise to the 
complaint occurred. FTA invites the public to comment on whether it 
should impose a different time limit on parties wishing to file a 
complaint under 49 CFR part 605.
iii. Burden of Persuasion
    Under the current regulatory scheme, FTA does not identify which 
party carries the burden of persuasion in a school bus operations 
adjudication. In this notice, FTA proposes to impose on the complainant 
the burden of persuasion, that is, the complainant loses if the 
evidence is equally balanced. FTA notes that this is the default rule 
in an administrative adjudication,\59\ and FTA invites the public to 
comment on whether it should utilize some other standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See, e.g., Schaffer ex rel Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 
56 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. Standard of Proof
    Under the current regulatory scheme, FTA does not identify a 
standard of proof in a school bus operations administrative 
adjudication. In this notice, FTA proposes to utilize a preponderance 
of the evidence standard. FTA notes that the preponderance of the 
evidence standard is the default standard in administrative 
adjudications,\60\ and to hold something by a preponderance of the 
evidence means that something is more likely so than not so. FTA 
invites the public to comment on whether it should utilize some other 
standard of proof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See, e.g., Yzaguirre v. Barnhart, 58 F.App'x 460, 462 (10th 
Cir. 2003) (quoting Jones ex rel Jones v. Chater, 101 F.3d 509, 512 
(7th Cir. 1996)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

v. School Bus Operations Factors
    In practice, when evaluating a school bus operations issue under 49 
CFR part 605, FTA weighs and considers a series of factors when 
determining whether a grantee provided school bus operations. In this 
notice, FTA presents factors that should provide clearer guidance in 
its school bus operations regulations. FTA's intent is to codify an 
objective standard for evaluating a potential school bus operations 
violation. The non-exhaustive list of factors is as follows.

    (1) Whether and to what extent a grantee designed and intended 
to design its service to meet the demands of a school or school 
district. If a grantee designed and intended its service to meet the 
demands of a school or school district, then the service is more 
likely to be a school bus operation.
    (2) Whether and to what extent the grantee controls its routes 
and schedules. If the grantee does not control its routes and 
schedules, but instead, a school or school district controls the 
routes and schedules at issue, then the service is more likely to be 
a school bus operation.
    (3) Whether and to what extent students' residences and schools 
serve as the starting or ending points of a route. If students' 
residences and schools serve as the starting or ending points of a 
route, then the service is more likely to be a school bus operation.
    (4) Whether and to what extent the grantee publicizes the 
service at issue. If the grantee does not publicize the service at 
issue, for example by not publicizing the service in its regularly 
published route schedules and maps, then the service is more likely 
to be a school bus operation.
    (5) Whether and to what extent the grantee's service displaces 
private school bus operators. If the grantee's service displaces 
private school bus operators, then the service is more likely to be 
a school bus operation.
    (6) Whether and to what extent the grantee's service is open to 
the public. If the grantee's service is open to the public, then the 
service is less likely to be a school bus operation.
    (7) The extent to which non-students use the grantee's service. 
If a significant portion of non-students use the grantee's service 
at issue, then the service is less likely to be a school bus 
operation.
    (8) Whether and to what extent the grantee operates its service 
during times when school is not in session. If the grantee operates 
the service at issue during times when school is not in session, 
then the service is less likely to be a school bus operation.
    (9) The frequency of the grantee's service during times when 
school is in session. If the grantee frequently operates the service 
at issue during times when school is in session, then the service is 
less likely to be a school bus operation.
    (10) Whether and the extent to which buses stop at clearly 
marked regular route stops. If buses stop at clearly marked regular 
route stops, then the service is less likely to be a school bus 
operation.

FTA invites the public to comment on whether it should utilize these 
factors or some of these factors in its analysis of a school bus 
operations issue.
vi. Previous Oversight Findings
    Under 49 U.S.C. 5307(h)(2), Congress mandates FTA to conduct 
periodic, triennial reviews of its grantees to ensure that the grantees 
are in compliance with the conditions imposed on them as recipients of 
Federal funds.\61\ As a practical matter, however, a triennial review 
is a constrained means of monitoring compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 49 U.S.C. 5307(h)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a triennial review, if FTA finds that a grantee has complied 
with its school bus operations regulations, then that finding should 
not preclude FTA from later finding, pursuant to a complaint filed 
under 49 CFR part 605, that a grantee has violated the school bus 
operations prohibition. At the time of a triennial review, FTA may not 
have all the pertinent facts when it makes a school bus operations 
finding. FTA may find new facts in a complaint proceeding. Therefore, 
FTA proposes to add a provision in its school bus operations 
regulations that, ``Any previous oversight findings of compliance with 
the Federal Transit Administration's school bus operations regulations 
will not preclude the Chief Counsel from finding a violation of this 
part.''
vii. Independent Investigation
    Under the current regulatory scheme, the Administrator may 
investigate a grantee if the Administrator believes

[[Page 68383]]

that it has violated 49 CFR part 605.\62\ FTA proposes to amend this 
section to allow the Chief Counsel to initiate and conduct an 
investigation if it has reasonable suspicion to believe that a grantee 
violated 49 CFR part 605.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ 49 CFR 605.31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Notification to the Respondent (Sec.  605.31)

    Pursuant to 49 CFR 605.31, when a complainant files a complaint, or 
if the Administrator has reason to believe that grantee violated FTA's 
school bus operations regulations, the Administrator notifies the 
grantee that it may have violated this 49 CFR part 605.\63\ FTA 
proposes to overhaul this provision and insert new complaint procedures 
at 49 CFR 605.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 49 CFR 605.31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Complaint Procedures
    Under the current regulatory scheme, FTA imposes few requirements 
on parties with respect to the format and content of their submissions 
in a school bus operations proceeding. FTA finds that this system is 
problematic because parties often do not provide FTA with the facts 
that it needs to make well-informed decisions. Furthermore, the parties 
often do not apply the facts of their cases to applicable laws. 
Therefore, FTA proposes to update its school bus operations regulations 
to require parties to provide clarity in their submissions.
    Under FTA's proposal, FTA would require a complainant to identify a 
potential violator of 49 CFR part 605, the specific provisions of 49 
CFR part 605 that were violated, any relevant documentation, a brief 
statement of the relevant facts, and the harm suffered by the 
complainant. Additionally, FTA would require parties, in their 
responses, replies, and rebuttals, to provide FTA with a brief 
statement of the relevant facts, admissions or denials where 
appropriate, affirmative defenses where appropriate, and any supporting 
documentation. FTA also proposes to allow parties to request extensions 
of time, not to exceed thirty days for good cause, to file a submission 
under this section.
    Furthermore, under the current regulatory scheme, a respondent has 
only one opportunity--in its response--to make its case to FTA. A 
respondent is unable to rebut a complainant's reply which may include 
additional facts or arguments that may merit an additional opportunity 
for the respondent to file a submission. In FTA's proposal, FTA would 
allow a respondent to file a rebuttal to a complainant's reply within 
ten days of the date of service of the reply.
    Additionally, under the current regulatory scheme, FTA allows a 
respondent thirty (30) days to respond to a complaint.\64\ FTA allows 
the complainant a ``like time'' to reply to the response. FTA finds 
that this timeframe is ambiguous because FTA does not specify the 
duration of the ``like time.'' In this notice, to provide clarity, FTA 
proposes to allow a complainant to reply to a response within twenty 
(20) days from the date of service of the respondent's response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ 49 CFR 605.32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Third Party Intervention
    Under the current regulatory scheme, FTA has no explicit authority 
to allow third parties to intervene in a school bus operations 
proceeding. In some instances, a third party may be integral to a 
proceeding because the existing parties may not adequately represent 
the third party's interests and the third party consequently may suffer 
harm. Therefore, FTA proposes to add 49 CFR 605.22 to explicitly allow 
a third party to intervene in a school bus operations proceeding if it 
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Chief Counsel that the parties 
to the proceeding do not adequately represent the third party's 
interests and that it will suffer harm if the Chief Counsel does not 
grant its motion to intervene.
iii. Dismissal of a Complaint
    FTA proposes to add 49 CFR 605.23 to provide the Chief Counsel with 
authority to dismiss a complaint or any claim in a complaint, with 
prejudice, if the complaint or claim is outside FTA's jurisdiction, the 
complainant does not state a claim, or the complainant lacks standing.
iv. Incomplete Complaint
    FTA proposes to add 49 CFR 605.24 to provide the Chief Counsel with 
authority to dismiss a complaint without prejudice if the complaint is 
deficient as to one or more of the requirements set forth in FTA's 
proposed 49 CFR 605.21.
v. Filing of a Complaint
    Under the current regulatory scheme, FTA requires parties to submit 
to FTA paper submissions in a school bus operations proceeding. Since 
1976, the year that FTA promulgated its school bus operations 
regulations, technology has undergone huge advancements. For example, 
electronic dockets available through Regulations.gov provide 
opportunities for Federal agencies to conduct adjudicative proceedings 
electronically. FTA believes that electronic dockets promote 
transparency in the Federal government, preserve public documents in an 
easily accessible public forum, and provide parties with a simple and 
efficient method of filing submissions in administrative adjudications. 
For these reasons, FTA proposes to add 49 CFR 605.25 to create an 
electronic filing system for its complaint process through 
Regulations.gov.
vi. Service
    Under the current regulatory scheme, FTA does not require parties 
to serve copies of their submissions to opposing parties. FTA finds 
this system problematic because parties may not be aware of complaints 
and other submissions filed with FTA on a timely basis. In this notice, 
FTA proposes to require parties to serve copies of all submissions that 
they file with FTA on all other opposing parties.
vii. Appeal From Chief Counsel's Decision
    Under the current regulatory scheme, a party adversely affected by 
a decision may not file an appeal with FTA before filing an action in 
United States District Court. FTA finds that this system has prevented 
FTA from remedying issues administratively so that parties need not 
seek relief in expensive and protracted litigation before United States 
courts. In this notice, FTA proposes to add 49 CFR 605.29 to allow 
parties adversely affected by a decision of the Chief Counsel to file 
an appeal with the Administrator. On appeal, the Administrator shall 
review the entire administrative record within the context of any issue 
on appeal, and the Administrator shall issue a final decision. FTA also 
proposes to amend 49 CFR 605.30 to authorize the Administrator to 
review the Chief Counsel's decision at his or her own motion. FTA 
invites the public to comment on whether it should utilize a different 
standard of review on appeal.

c. Accumulation of Evidentiary Material (Sec.  605.32)

    Under the current regulatory scheme, the Administrator allows the 
respondent to respond to a complaint within thirty days of receipt of 
the complaint.\65\ The Administrator allows the complainant to reply to 
the respondent's response within ``a like period.'' \66\ The 
Administrator may undertake such

[[Page 68384]]

further investigation as the Administrator deems necessary.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ 49 CFR 605.32.
    \66\ 49 CFR 605.32.
    \67\ 49 CFR 605.32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTA proposes to amend its procedures for accumulating evidentiary 
material with its provisions at 49 CFR 605.20-605.26 as discussed 
above.

d. Adjudication (Sec.  605.33)

    Under the current regulatory scheme, the Administrator issues a 
written decision at the conclusion of a school bus operations 
proceeding.\68\ If the Administrator determines that a grantee violated 
49 CFR part 605, then the Administrator shall order such remedial 
measures as the Administrator deems appropriate.\69\ FTA proposes to 
reorganize this section by moving the provision regarding the 
Administrator's remedial measures to 49 CFR 605.28--the proposed 
section that outlines the remedies available to FTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 49 CFR 605.33(a).
    \69\ 49 CFR 605.33(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Remedy Where There Has Been a Violation of the Agreement (Sec.  
605.34)

    FTA proposes to amend the provisions at 49 CFR 605.34 regarding 
remedies for a violation of the school bus agreement. Under the 
Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, Congress instructed the Urban Mass 
Transportation Administration (UMTA), now FTA, that if it found a 
violation of the school bus operations prohibition, then it ``shall bar 
such applicant from receiving any other federal financial assistance. * 
* *'' \70\ FTA subsequently implemented this statutory provision at 49 
CFR 605.34 which states, ``If the Administrator determines * * * that 
there has been a violation of the terms of the agreement, he may bar a 
grantee or operator from the receipt of further financial assistance 
for mass transportation facilities and equipment.'' \71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Federal-Aid Highway Act sec. 164(b).
    \71\ 49 CFR 605.34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under this framework, the Administrator did not exercise the remedy 
provision at 49 CFR 605.34 because such an action would completely bar 
a grantee or operator from the receipt of financial assistance and 
significantly obstruct their ability to provide public transportation. 
That changed when Congress enacted the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, and amended 49 
U.S.C. 5323(f) as follows, ``If the Secretary finds that an applicant, 
governmental authority, or publicly owned operator has violated the 
agreement * * * the Secretary shall bar a recipient or an operator from 
receiving Federal transit assistance in an amount the Secretary 
considers appropriate.'' \72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ SAFETEA-LU sec. 3023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTA intends to implement the amended statutory provision at 49 
U.S.C. 5323(f). Using the language of 49 U.S.C. 5323(f), FTA proposes 
the following remedies provision at 49 CFR 605.28, ``If the Chief 
Counsel determines, pursuant to this subpart, that a grantee has 
violated this part or the terms of the agreement, then the Chief 
Counsel shall bar the grantee from the receipt of further financial 
assistance for public transportation in an amount that the Chief 
Counsel considers appropriate.''
    Additionally, FTA proposes to authorize the Chief Counsel to issue 
cease and desist orders where appropriate. FTA believes that this 
remedy will allow the Chief Counsel some additional flexibility when 
issuing remedies and tailoring those remedies to the severity of the 
violation.
    Finally, FTA proposes to authorize the Chief Counsel to issue any 
other such remedies that the Chief Counsel believes are appropriate. 
FTA currently authorizes the Administrator to issue such remedies at 49 
CFR 605.33(b). To illustrate, FTA may require a violator of 49 CFR part 
605 to submit a remediation plan to FTA whereby it would outline a plan 
to restructure its service so that it complies with FTA's school bus 
operations regulations. FTA believes that this remedy will allow the 
Chief Counsel some additional flexibility when issuing remedies and 
tailoring those remedies to the severity of the violation.

f. Judicial Review (Sec.  605.35)

    FTA proposes to restructure its regulatory scheme by moving the 
judicial review provisions at 49 CFR 605.35 to a proposed 49 CFR 
605.31.
5. Subpart E--Reporting and Records

a. Reports and Information (Sec.  605.40)

    Under the current regulatory scheme, ``The Administrator may order 
any grantee or operator for the grantee, to file special or separate 
reports setting forth information relating to any transportation 
service rendered by such grantee or operator, in addition to any other 
reports required by this part.'' \73\ FTA does not propose to amend 
this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ 49 CFR 605.40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Proposed Subpart E--Grandfathering of Existing School Bus Operations

    FTA proposes to add 49 CFR 605.50 to include grandfathering 
provisions in its amended regulatory framework. FTA recognizes that 
some grantees may need significant time to modify their school bus 
operations to comply with FTA's amended 49 CFR part 605. Therefore, FTA 
proposes to allow these grantees to modify their school bus operations 
to comply with FTA's amended 49 CFR part 605 by June 30, 2010. With 
this timeframe, FTA proposes to give these grantees until the end of 
the next academic year to comply with this part.
    FTA also proposes to allow grantees to provide school bus 
operations to schools or school districts if the grantee provided the 
school bus operations without payment from the schools or school 
districts prior to August 1, 2008. If a grantee receives payment from a 
school or school district for school bus operations on or after August 
1, 2008, then this grandfathering provision no longer would apply.
6. Appendix A to Part 605
    Under the current regulatory scheme, FTA attaches Appendix A to 49 
CFR part 605 which is an opinion of the Comptroller General of the 
United States dated December 7, 1966. The Comptroller General discusses 
the definition of the term ``incidental.'' FTA used this discussion to 
clarify its definition of the term ``incidental'' as used in its 
charter service regulations at 49 CFR part 604 and its school bus 
operations regulations at 49 CFR part 605. FTA recently promulgated 
amended charter service regulations at 49 CFR part 604, and FTA 
proposes to delete Appendix A to 49 CFR part 605 because it is no 
longer applicable in light of FTA's amended charter service 
regulations.

III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review/DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures

    Under Executive Order 12866, the U.S. Department of Transportation 
(DOT) must examine whether this proposed rule is a ``significant 
regulatory action.'' A significant regulatory action is subject to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of 
the Executive Order. Executive Order 12866 defines ``significant 
regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: 
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $120 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy; a sector of the 
economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public 
health or safety; or state, local, or tribal governments or 
communities; (2) Create a serious

[[Page 68385]]

inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by 
another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of 
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and 
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy 
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or 
the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
    This rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action within the 
meaning of Executive Order 12866, and, therefore, this rulemaking was 
not reviewed by OMB. Further, this rule is not significant under DOT's 
regulatory policies and procedures. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
contains revisions that are clarifying in nature.
    FTA does not anticipate this rule to adversely affect, in a 
material way, any sector of the economy. Through this rulemaking, FTA 
proposes to effectuate the purpose of 49 U.S.C. 5323(f) and to clarify 
provisions to protect private school bus operators from unfair 
competition by federally subsidized public transit agencies; thus, 
these changes should increase economic opportunities for private school 
bus operators. Additionally, this proposed rule would not create a 
serious inconsistency with another agency's action or materially alter 
the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 
programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required. 
FTA also estimates the costs associated with this rule to be minimal 
because the rule clarifies definitions and exemptions.

B. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and 
timely input by state and local officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that may have a substantial, direct effect on the 
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. FTA has analyzed this Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in 
Executive Order 13132, and FTA has determined that this Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications 
to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. FTA has also 
determined that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would not preempt 
any state law or regulation or affect a state's ability to discharge 
traditional state governmental functions.

C. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and 
timely input from Indian tribal government representatives in the 
development of rules that ``significantly or uniquely affect'' Indian 
communities and that impose ``substantial and direct compliance costs'' 
on such communities. FTA has analyzed this proposed rule under 
Executive Order 13175 and FTA believes that the proposed action would 
not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; would 
not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal 
governments; and would not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, a tribal 
impact statement is not required.

D. National Environmental Policy Act

    As a rulemaking process, FTA concludes that this proposed action is 
categorically excluded from the requirements of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and FTA's NEPA regulation at 23 CFR 
771.117(c)(20). Although FTA's NEPA regulation requires some level of 
environmental review even for those activities that are categorically 
excluded if they involve ``unusual circumstances,'' 23 CFR 771.117(b), 
FTA finds that the proposed action, if finalized, would not result in 
the unusual circumstances that would cause FTA to perform an 
environmental review. Although commenters on FTA's Notice of Proposed 
Policy Statement on FTA's School Bus Operations Regulations \74\ raised 
concerns about the environmental effects of the operation of school 
buses relative to the operation of transit buses, FTA lacks the 
evidence and data on the numerous variables necessary to predict 
differences between operating the various types of buses that are used 
in both public and private school transportation. Furthermore, it is 
impossible to predict the likely minor changes in the types of buses 
used that would result from FTA's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ 73 FR 28,790 (May 19, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 \75\ (PRA), a Federal 
agency must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information 
it conducts, sponsors, or requires through regulations. This Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking does not impose any paperwork collection 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    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.'' \76\ Under section 605 of the RFA, Congress allows an 
agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the 
agency does not expect the proposed rulemaking to have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ 5 U.S.C. 603(a) (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The nature of this rulemaking is to effectuate the purpose of 49 
U.S.C. 5323(f) and to prevent unfair competition by federally 
subsidized public transit agencies with private school bus operators. 
FTA invites comment on the economic impact of the proposed regulations 
on small entities.

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    In this notice, FTA does not propose to impose unfunded mandates as 
defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.\77\ This Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking will not result in the expenditure of non-Federal 
funds by state, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by 
the private sector, of $120.7 million in any one year.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4, 109 
Stat. 48 (1995).
    \78\ See 2 U.S.C. 1532 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 605

    School bus operations.

    In consideration of the foregoing, FTA amends Chapter VI of Title 
49 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below.

Title 49--Transportation

    1. Revise part 605 to read as follows:

PART 605--SCHOOL BUS OPERATIONS

Subpart A--General
Sec.
605.1 Purpose.
605.2 Scope.
605.3 Definitions.
Subpart B--School Bus Operations Prohibition and Agreement
605.10 Prohibition.
605.11 Agreement.
605.12 Exemptions.
605.13 Exceptions.
Subpart C--Complaint Procedures and Remedies
605.20 General.
605.21 Complaint Procedures.

[[Page 68386]]

605.22 Third Party Intervention.
605.23 Dismissal of a Complaint.605.24 Incomplete Complaint.
605.25 Filing of a Complaint.
605.26 Service.
605.27 Adjudication.
605.28 Remedies.
605.29 Appeal from the Chief Counsel's Decision.
605.30 Administrator's Discretionary Review of the Chief Counsel's 
Decision.
605.31 Judicial Review of a Final Decision and Order.
Subpart D--Reporting and Records
605.40 Reports and Information.
Subpart E--Grandfathering of Existing School Bus Operations
605.50 Grandfathering Provisions.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5323(f); 49 CFR 1.51.

Subpart A--General


Sec.  605.1  Purpose.

    (a) The purpose of this part is to prescribe policies and 
procedures to implement 49 U.S.C. 5323(f).
    (b) By the terms of 49 U.S.C. 5323(f), financial assistance under 
this chapter may be used for a capital project, or to operate public 
transportation equipment or a public transportation facility, only if 
the applicant agrees not to provide schoolbus transportation that 
exclusively transports students and school personnel in competition 
with a private schoolbus operator.


Sec.  605.2  Scope.

    These regulations apply to all recipients of financial assistance 
for the construction or operation of facilities and equipment for use 
in providing public transportation under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 and 23 
U.S.C. 133 and 142.


Sec.  605.3  Definitions.

    (a) Terms defined at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 shall have the same 
meaning in this part.
    (b) For purposes of this part:
    The Acts means the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as 
amended and codified at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, and 23 U.S.C. 133 and 
142.
    Administrator means the Federal Transit Administration 
Administrator or his or her designee.
    Adequate transportation means transportation for students and 
school personnel which the Chief Counsel determines conforms to 
applicable safety laws, is on time, poses a minimum of discipline 
problems, is not subject to fluctuating rates, and is operated 
efficiently and in harmony with state educational goals and programs.
    Agreement means an agreement required under 49 U.S.C. 5323(f).
    Applicant means applicant for assistance under the Acts.
    Assistance means Federal financial assistance for the purchase, 
financing, leasing, or operation of buses and equipment and the 
construction, financing, leasing, or operation of facilities for use in 
providing public transportation services under the Acts, but does not 
include research, development, and demonstration projects funded under 
the Acts.
    Chief Counsel means the Federal Transit Administration Chief 
Counsel or his or her designee.
    Exclusively means transportation that a reasonable person would 
conclude was designed primarily to accommodate school students, 
personnel, or equipment, without regard to demand from the non-student 
general public.
    Geographic service area means the area in which a recipient is 
authorized to provide public transportation service under appropriate 
local, state, and Federal law.
    Government means the Government of the United States of America.
    Grantee means a recipient, including a subrecipient, of assistance 
under the Acts.
    Interested party means an individual, partnership, corporation, 
association, public organization, private organization, or its duly 
authorized representative, that has a financial interest which is 
adversely affected by the act or acts of a grantee with respect to 
school bus operations.
    Reasonable rates means rates which are fair and equitable taking 
into consideration the local conditions which surround the geographic 
service area where the rate is in question, including the portion of 
Federal assistance that a grantee uses or intends to use to provide 
school bus operations.
    School bus operations means transportation by bus exclusively for 
school students, personnel, and equipment.

Subpart B--School Bus Operations Prohibition and Agreement


Sec.  605.10  Prohibition.

    A grantee shall not provide, or contract to provide, school bus 
operations, except as provided in Sec.  605.12 and Sec.  605.13.


Sec.  605.11  Agreement.

    (a) The Federal Transit Administration shall not provide assistance 
under the Acts unless the applicant or grantee agrees not to provide 
school bus operations exclusively for students and school personnel in 
competition with a private school bus operator, except as provided in 
Sec.  605.12 and Sec.  605.13.
    (b) A grantee shall satisfy Sec.  605.11(a) by submitting and 
certifying to the Federal Transit Administration its ``Annual List of 
Certifications and Assurances for Federal Transit Administration Grants 
and Cooperative Agreements'' and by subscribing to the Federal Transit 
Administration's ``Master Agreement.''
    (c) The ``Annual List of Certifications and Assurances for Federal 
Transit Administration Grants and Cooperative Agreements'' and the 
Federal Transit Administration's ``Master Agreement'' shall state as 
follows:

    The [Grantee, Recipient, or Applicant] agrees that it will not 
provide school bus operations exclusively for students and school 
personnel in competition with a private school bus operator, except 
as provided in 49 U.S.C. 5323(f), 49 CFR Part 605, and any relevant 
Federal Transit Administration directives. The [Grantee, Recipient, 
or Applicant] agrees that it will comply with all the provisions of 
49 U.S.C. 5323(f), 49 CFR Part 605, and any relevant Federal Transit 
Administration directives.

Sec.  605.12  Exemptions.

    (a) The school bus operations prohibition at Sec.  605.10 shall not 
apply where:
    (1) The grantee uses various fare collection or subsidy systems for 
students, the grantee modifies the frequency of service, and the 
grantee makes a one-half mile or less route deviation from a route 
within a one-half mile or less radius of a school building;
    (2) The grantee operates a school system in a grantee's geographic 
service area and also operates a separate and exclusive school bus 
program for that school system; or
    (3) The grantee is a state or local public body or agency thereof, 
or a direct predecessor in interest which has acquired the function of 
transporting school students and personnel along with facilities to be 
used therefor, which provided school bus operations:

    (i) In the case of a grant involving the purchase of buses--
anytime during the twelve (12) month period immediately prior to 
August 13, 1973; or
    (ii) In the case of a grant for construction or operating of 
facilities and equipment made pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, 
anytime during the twelve (12) month period immediately prior to 
November 26, 1974.

Sec.  605.13  Exceptions.

    (a) Exceptions. An applicant or grantee may petition the Chief 
Counsel for an exception to the school bus operations prohibition at 
Sec.  605.10 where private school bus operators in the applicant's or 
grantee's geographic

[[Page 68387]]

service area are unable to provide adequate transportation at a 
reasonable rate and in conformance with applicable safety standards.
    (b) Procedures. An applicant or grantee shall provide notice to the 
Chief Counsel that it intends to apply for a ``Petition for an 
Exception,'' and the applicant or grantee shall complete the following:
    (1) An applicant or grantee shall send the notice required under 
Sec.  605.13(b)(1) by electronic mail to the Chief Counsel at 
[email protected].
    (2) An applicant or grantee shall include the following information 
in its notice:
    (i) A description of the geographic service area that the applicant 
or grantee intends to serve;
    (ii) A description of the schools and school districts that the 
applicant or grantee intends to serve;
    (iii) A description of the anticipated ridership related to the 
school bus operation;
    (iv) An estimation of the number and types of buses that the 
applicant or grantee intends to utilize for the school bus operation;
    (v) A description of the duration of the school bus operation;
    (vi) A description of the frequency of daily service related to the 
school bus operation;
    (vii) An analysis regarding the extent to which the proposed school 
bus operation complies with local, state, and Federal safety laws;
    (vii) A summary of the fully allocated costs related to the school 
bus operation; and
    (viii) The rate that the applicant or grantee intends to charge for 
the school bus operation.
    (c) The Federal Transit Administration shall open an electronic 
Petition for an Exception Docket and file the notice at http://www.regulations.gov.
    (d) The Federal Transit Administration shall transmit a copy of the 
notice and its docket number to the applicant or grantee and the 
National School Transportation Association.
    (e) Any private operator having a place of business in the 
applicant's or grantee's geographic service area may, within thirty 
(30) days of the notice's docketing date, submit comments on the 
Petition for an Exception Docket demonstrating the extent to which it 
can provide school bus operations that constitute adequate 
transportation at a reasonable rate and in conformance with applicable 
safety standards.
    (f) Petition for an Exception. After the thirty (30) day comment 
period closes, an applicant or grantee may petition the Chief Counsel 
for an exception to the school bus operations prohibition at Sec.  
605.10 after completing the following steps:
    (1) The applicant or grantee shall title the petition ``Petition 
for an Exception'';
    (2) The applicant or grantee shall file the Petition for an 
Exception electronically in the appropriate Petition for an Exception 
Docket at http://www.regulations.gov or mail it to the Docket Office at 
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 
Washington, DC 20590;
    (3) The applicant or grantee shall send an executed original copy 
of the Petition for an Exception by U.S. mail to the Chief Counsel at 
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., East Building--5th Floor, Washington, DC 
20590; and
    (4) The applicant or grantee shall include in its Petition for an 
Exception the applicant's or grantee's response to any comments filed 
in the docket before the close of the thirty (30) day comment period.
    (g) To qualify for an exception under this section, the applicant 
or grantee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Chief Counsel 
that no private operator having a place of business in the applicant's 
or grantee's geographic service area can provide school bus operations 
that constitute adequate transportation at a reasonable rate and in 
conformance with applicable safety standards.
    (h) The Chief Counsel shall issue a written decision that either 
grants or denies the applicant's or grantee's Petition for an 
Exception.
    (i) If the applicant or grantee fails to satisfy any of the 
requirements in this section, then the Chief Counsel may dismiss the 
Petition for an Exception with or without prejudice.

Subpart C--Complaint Procedures and Remedies


Sec.  605.20  General.

    (a) Standing. Any interested party affected by an alleged 
noncompliance of this part may file a complaint with the Chief Counsel 
alleging a violation or violations of this part.
    (b) Time Limit for Filing a Complaint. The complainant shall file 
its complaint with the Chief Counsel within ninety (90) days after the 
alleged event giving rise to the complaint occurred.
    (c) Burden of Persuasion. The complainant bears the burden of 
persuasion in a proceeding under this subpart, that is, the complainant 
loses if the evidence is equally balanced.
    (d) Standard of Proof. The standard of proof in a proceeding under 
this subpart is a preponderance of the evidence standard. To hold 
something by a preponderance of the evidence means that something is 
more likely so than not so.
    (e) School Bus Operations Factors. The Chief Counsel may weigh and 
consider a variety of factors in determining whether a grantee 
provided, or contracted to provide, school bus operations, including, 
but not limited to, the following:
    (1) Whether and to what extent the grantee designed and intended to 
design its service to meet the demands of a school or school district;
    (2) Whether and to what extent the grantee controls its routes and 
schedules;
    (3) Whether and to what extent students' residences and schools 
serve as the starting or ending points of a route;
    (4) Whether and to what extent the grantee publicizes the service 
at issue;
    (5) Whether and to what extent the grantee's service displaces 
private school bus operators;
    (6) Whether and to what extent the grantee's service is open to the 
public;
    (7) The extent to which students and non-students utilize the 
grantee's service;
    (8) Whether and to what extent the grantee operates its service 
during times when school is not in session;
    (9) The frequency of the grantee's service during times when school 
is in session; and
    (10) Whether and the extent to which buses stop at clearly marked 
regular route stops.
    (f) Previous Oversight Findings. Any previous oversight findings of 
compliance with the Federal Transit Administration's school bus 
operations regulations will not preclude the Chief Counsel from finding 
a violation of this part, particularly when the Chief Counsel finds new 
facts during the course of a proceeding under this subpart which were 
not known or available during a triennial review.
    (g) Independent Investigation. If the Chief Counsel, at any time, 
has reasonable suspicion to believe that a grantee violated this part, 
then the Chief Counsel may initiate and conduct an investigation and 
take appropriate action pursuant to this part.


Sec.  605.21  Complaint Procedures.

    (a) Complaint. In its complaint, the complainant shall:
    (1) Title its complaint ``School Bus Operations Complaint'';
    (2) State the name and address of each grantee that is the subject 
of the complaint, and, with respect to each

[[Page 68388]]

grantee, state the specific provision(s) of this part that the 
complainant believes were violated;
    (3) Serve the complaint in accordance with Sec.  605.26, along with 
all documents then available in the exercise of reasonable diligence 
that are offered in support of the complaint, upon each grantee named 
in the complaint as being responsible for the alleged actions(s) or 
omission(s) upon which the complaint is based;
    (4) Provide a concise but complete statement of the facts relied 
upon to substantiate each allegation; and
    (5) Describe how the complainant was directly and substantially 
affected by the action(s) or omission(s) of the grantee(s).
    (b) Withdrawal of Complaint. The complainant may withdraw a 
complaint at any time by serving a ''Notification of Withdrawal'' on 
the Chief Counsel and the respondent.
    (c) Docketing of Complaint. Unless the Chief Counsel dismisses the 
complaint pursuant to this subpart, the Chief Counsel shall notify the 
complainant and respondent that the Chief Counsel received the 
complaint and that the complaint has been docketed.
    (d) Response. (1) The respondent shall have thirty (30) days from 
the date of service of the Chief Counsel's notification under Sec.  
605.21(a)(3) to file a response.
    (2) In its response, the respondent shall provide a concise but 
complete statement of the facts upon which the respondent relies to 
substantiate its answers, admissions, denials, or averments.
    (3) In its response, the respondent shall provide supporting 
documentation upon which the respondent relies.
    (4) In its response, the respondent shall admit or deny each 
allegation made in the complaint or state that it is without sufficient 
knowledge or information to admit or deny an allegation.
    (5) In its response, the respondent shall assert any affirmative 
defense.
    (6) In its response, the respondent may make a motion to dismiss 
the complaint, or any portion thereof, with a supporting memorandum of 
points and authorities.
    (e) Reply. (1) The complainant may file a reply within twenty (20) 
days of the date of service of the respondent's response.
    (2) In its reply, the complainant shall provide a concise but 
complete statement of the facts upon which the complainant relies to 
substantiate its answers, admissions, denials, or averments.
    (3) In its reply, the complainant shall provide supporting 
documentation upon which the complainant relies.
    (f) Rebuttal. (1) The respondent may file a rebuttal within ten 
(10) days of the date of service of the reply.
    (2) In its rebuttal, the respondent shall provide a concise but 
complete statement of the facts upon which the respondent relies to 
substantiate its answers, admissions, denials, or averments.
    (3) In its rebuttal, the respondent shall provide supporting 
documentation upon which the respondent relies.
    (g) Extensions of Time. A party may request from the Chief Counsel 
an extension of time, not to exceed thirty (30) days, for good cause, 
to file a submission with the Chief Counsel under this section. The 
Chief Counsel may grant an extension of time to a party as he or she 
deems appropriate.
    (h) Evidentiary Hearing. The Chief Counsel, as he or she deems 
appropriate, may hold an evidentiary hearing to allow each party to 
submit evidence under this part.


Sec.  605.22  Third Party Intervention.

    (a) Any interested party may submit a motion to the Chief Counsel 
requesting intervention in a proceeding under this subpart.
    (b) The party requesting intervention shall demonstrate to the 
satisfaction of the Chief Counsel that the parties to the proceeding do 
not adequately represent the third party's interests and that it will 
suffer harm if the Chief Counsel does not grant its motion to 
intervene.
    (c) The Chief Counsel may grant or deny the motion to intervene.


Sec.  605.23  Dismissal of a Complaint.

    (a) The Chief Counsel may dismiss a complaint or any claim in a 
complaint, with prejudice, if:
    (1) On its face, it appears to be outside the jurisdiction of the 
Federal Transit Administration under the Acts;
    (2) On its face, it does not state a claim that warrants an 
investigation or further action by the Federal Transit Administration; 
or
    (3) The complainant lacks standing to file a complaint under this 
part.
    (b) The Chief Counsel shall provide reasons for dismissing a 
complaint or any claim in the complaint.


Sec.  605.24  Incomplete Complaint.

    (a) If the Chief Counsel does not dismiss a complaint under Sec.  
602.23, but the complaint is deficient as to one or more of the 
requirements set forth in Sec.  605.21, then the Chief Counsel may 
dismiss the complaint.
    (b) If the Chief Counsel dismisses a complaint under this section, 
then the Chief Counsel shall dismiss the complaint without prejudice 
and the complainant may re-file a complaint after amendment to correct 
the deficiency.
    (c) The Chief Counsel shall include in the dismissal under this 
section the reasons for the dismissal without prejudice.


Sec.  605.25  Filing of a Complaint.

    (a) Filing Address and Method of Filing. (1) The complainant shall 
file the complaint electronically in the School Bus Operations 
Complaint docket at http://www.regulations.gov or mail it to the Docket 
Office at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room 
W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
    (2) Parties shall file responses, replies, rebuttals, appeals, and 
responses to appeals electronically in the School Bus Operations 
Complaint docket at http://www.regulations.gov or mail it to the Docket 
Office at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room 
W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
    (b) Date. Unless the date is shown to be inaccurate, documents 
filed with the Federal Transit Administration shall be deemed filed, on 
the earliest of:
    (1) The date that the party filed the document electronically in 
the School Bus Operations Complaint docket at http://www.regulations.gov;
    (2) The date of personal delivery;
    (3) The mailing date shown on the certificate of service;
    (4) The date shown on the postmark if there is no certificate of 
service; or
    (5) The mailing date shown by other evidence if there is no 
certificate of service and no postmark.
    (c) Electronic Mail or Facsimile. A document sent by electronic 
mail or facsimile shall not constitute service as described in this 
subpart.
    (d) Number of Copies. Each party shall send to the Chief Counsel by 
personal delivery or by U.S. mail return receipt requested an executed 
original copy of each document that it electronically files on the 
School Bus Operations Complaint docket. Each party shall send the 
executed original copy to the Chief Counsel at 1200 New Jersey Avenue 
SE., East Building--5th Floor, Washington, DC 20590.
    (e) Form. Each party shall type or legibly print each document that 
it files with the Office of Chief Counsel. In the case of docketed 
proceedings, the document shall include a title and the docket number, 
as established by the Chief Counsel, of the proceeding on the front 
page.
    (f) Signing of Documents and Other Papers. Either the complainant 
or a duly

[[Page 68389]]

authorized representative of the complainant shall sign the original 
copy of each document that it files with the Office of Chief Counsel. 
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, that the document is:
    (1) Consistent with this part;
    (2) Warranted by existing law or that a good faith argument exists 
for extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; and
    (3) Not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or 
to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of the 
administrative process.


Sec.  605.26  Service.

    (a) Designation of Person to Receive Service. (1) In its complaint, 
the complainant shall:
    (i) State the complainant's name, post office address, and 
telephone number;
    (ii) State the complainant's facsimile number, if any, and e-mail 
addresses, if any; and
    (iii) Designate a person to receive service on behalf of the 
complainant.
    (2) If any of the items in paragraph (a) of this section change 
during the proceeding, then the complainant promptly shall file notice 
of the change with the Chief Counsel and shall serve the notice on each 
party to the proceeding.
    (b) Who Must be Served. Each party shall serve a copy of each 
document that it files with the Chief Counsel to each other party to 
the proceeding. Each party shall include a certificate of service on 
each document when the party tenders it for filing and shall certify 
concurrent service on each other party. 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 by 
[specify method of service]:

[list persons and addresses]


Dated this ----day of ------, 20--.


[signature], for [party]

    (c) Method of Service. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, as 
appropriate, the method of service is personal delivery or U.S. mail.
    (d) Presumption of Service. There shall be a presumption of lawful 
service:
    (1) When a person who customarily or in the ordinary course of 
business receives mail at the address of the party or the person 
designated under this section acknowledges receipt; or
    (2) When a properly addressed envelope, sent to the last known 
address, has been returned as undeliverable, unclaimed, or refused.


Sec.  605.27  Adjudication.

    (a) Upon the conclusion of a proceeding under this subpart, the 
Chief Counsel shall issue a written determination as to whether a 
grantee has committed a violation of this part.
    (b) The Chief Counsel shall include an analysis and explanation of 
his or her findings in the determination.


Sec.  605.28  Remedies.

    (a) If the Chief Counsel determines that a grantee has violated 
this part or the terms of the agreement, then the Chief Counsel shall 
bar the grantee from the receipt of financial assistance for public 
transportation in an amount that the Chief Counsel considers 
appropriate.
    (b) If the Chief Counsel determines that a grantee has violated 
this part or the terms of the agreement, then the Chief Counsel may 
issue a cease and desist order requiring the grantee to cease and 
desist from the provision of the service at issue.
    (c) If the Chief Counsel determines, pursuant to this subpart, that 
a grantee has violated this part or the terms of the agreement, then 
the Chief Counsel may issue other remedies as the Chief Counsel 
determines are appropriate.


Sec.  605.29  Appeal from the Chief Counsel's Decision.

    (a) Each party adversely affected by a decision of the Chief 
Counsel may file an appeal with the Administrator within thirty (30) 
days of the date of the Chief Counsel's decision.
    (b) Procedures. (1) The appellant shall file the appeal 
electronically and consistently with Sec.  605.25.
    (2) The appellant shall serve a copy of the appeal on each appellee 
by either personal delivery or U.S. mail consistent with Sec.  605.26.
    (3) Each appellee may file a response to an appeal within twenty 
(20) days after the appellant serves the appeal on the appellee.
    (c) If a party files an appeal, then the Administrator shall review 
the entire administrative record and issue a final agency decision 
based on the administrative record that either accepts, rejects, or 
modifies the Chief Counsel's decision. If a party does not file an 
appeal, then the Administrator may review the Chief Counsel's decision 
on his or her own motion. If the Administrator finds that a party is 
not in compliance with this part, then the final agency order shall 
include a statement of corrective action, if appropriate, and identify 
remedies.
    (d) If a party does not file an appeal, and the Administrator does 
not review the Chief Counsel's decision on the Administrator's own 
motion, then the Chief Counsel's decision shall take effect as the 
final agency decision and order on the thirtieth day after the date 
that the Chief Counsel issued the decision.
    (e) The failure to file an appeal is deemed a waiver of any right 
to seek judicial review of the Chief Counsel's decision that becomes a 
final agency decision by operation of paragraph (c) of this section.


Sec.  605.30  Administrator's Discretionary Review of the Chief 
Counsel's Decision.

    (a) If the Administrator reviews the Chief Counsel's decision on 
the Administrator's own motion, then the Administrator shall issue a 
notice of review to each party by the thirtieth day after the date that 
the Chief Counsel issued the decision.
    (1) In the notice of review, the Administrator shall set forth the 
specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Chief Counsel's 
decision subject to review.
    (2) Each party may file one brief on review to the Administrator or 
rely on its post-hearing briefs to the Chief Counsel. Each party shall 
file a brief on review no later than ten (10) days after the 
Administrator serves notice of the review. Each party shall file and 
serve its brief on review by personal delivery or U.S. mail consistent 
with Sec.  605.26.
    (3) The Administrator shall issue a final agency decision and order 
within thirty (30) days after the due date of the briefs on review. If 
the Administrator finds that a party is not in compliance with this 
part, then the final agency order shall include a statement of 
corrective action, if appropriate, and identify remedies.
    (b) If the Administrator reviews a decision of the Chief Counsel on 
the Administrator's own motion, then the Administrator shall stay the 
Chief Counsel's decision pending a final decision by the Administrator.


Sec.  605.31  Judicial Review of a Final Decision and Order.

    (a) A party may seek judicial review in an appropriate United 
States District Court of a final decision and order as provided in 5 
U.S.C. 701-706.
    (b) The Chief Counsel's decision to dismiss a complaint under Sec.  
605.24 does not constitute a final decision and order subject to 
judicial review.

[[Page 68390]]

Subpart D--Reporting and Records


Sec.  605.40  Reports and Information.

    The Administrator may order any grantee or operator for the grantee 
to file special or separate reports setting forth information relating 
to any transportation service rendered by such grantee or operator, in 
addition to any other reports required by this part.

Subpart E--Grandfathering of Existing School Bus Operations


Sec.  605.50  Grandfathering Provisions.

    (a) Each grantee shall have until June 30, 2010, to modify its 
school bus operations to comply with this part.
    (b) If a grantee provided school bus operations for a school or 
school district and received no payment from that school or school 
district for the school bus operations prior to August 1, 2008, then 
that grantee may continue to provide the school bus operations for that 
particular school or school district. If a grantee receives payment 
from a school or school district for school bus operations on or after 
August 1, 2008, then this grandfathering provision does not apply.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on this 3rd day of November, 2008.
James S. Simpson,
Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E8-26683 Filed 11-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-P