Disadvantaged Business Enterprises; Western States Guidance for Public Transportation Providers, 48579-48580 [06-7053]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 161 / Monday, August 21, 2006 / Notices
of the functions of the Department,
including whether the information will
have practical utility; the accuracy of
the Department’s estimates of the
burden of the proposed information
collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 14,
2006.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance
Officer, Information Systems and Technology
Services Staff, ABA–20.
[FR Doc. 06–7064 Filed 8–18–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–M
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
[Docket No. FTA–2006–24063]
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises;
Western States Guidance for Public
Transportation Providers
Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of availability and policy
guidance.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice announces the
Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA)
implementation of Department of
Transportation guidance for participants
of the Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise (DBE) program. This notice
solely concerns FTA implementation
procedures applicable to FTA grantees
in the states comprising the 9th Federal
Judicial Circuit (California, Oregon,
Washington, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho,
Montana, Nevada, and Hawaii).
DATES: Effective Date: This policy takes
effect on August 21, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Scheryl Portee, Attorney Advisor, Office
of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366–4011
(telephone) and (202) 366–3809 (fax).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with NOTICES
1. Availability of the DOT Guidance
and Comments
A copy of the Department of
Transportation Guidance for
participants of the Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise (DBE) program in
the affected States and comments
received from the public are available
for inspection or copying at the Docket
Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, Room PL–401 on the
plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:53 Aug 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
You may retrieve the guidance and
comments online through the Document
Management System (DMS) at: https://
dms.dot.gov. Enter the docket number
24063 in the search field. The DMS is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days
each year. Electronic submission and
retrieval help and guidelines are
available under the help section of the
Web site. An electronic copy of the
document may also be downloaded by
using a computer, modem and suitable
communications software from the
Government Printing Office’s Electronic
Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512–
1661. Internet users may also reach the
Office of the Federal Register’s home
page at: https://www.nara.gov/fedreg and
the Government Printing Office’s Web
page at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/
index.html.
2. Background
The General Counsel of the
Department of Transportation issued
guidance concerning the effects of the
Western States Paving Co. v. United
States and Washington State
Department of Transportation, 407 F. 3d
983 (9th Cir. 2005) in January 2006. On
March 23, 2006, FTA published a
Federal Register notice requesting
comments on its implementation of the
Department’s guidance (56 FR 14775).
The guidance applies to recipients of
Federal funds authorized under chapter
53 of Title 49 of the United States Code
that are located within the states of
Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and
Washington.
The Court of Appeals for the 9th
Circuit, like other Federal courts that
have reviewed the Department of
Transportation’s DBE program, held that
49 CFR part 26 and the authorizing
statute for the DBE program in TEA–21
were constitutional. The court affirmed
that Congress had determined that there
was a compelling need for the DBE
program and part 26 was narrowly
tailored. However, the 9th Circuit
opinion held that the Washington State
Department of Transportation’s program
for implementing part 26 was not
narrowly tailored because the State’s
evidence of discrimination supporting
the use of race conscious measures in
the program was inadequate. The
January 2006 DOT guidance provides
information to recipients in the 9th
Circuit about how to address the
implications of the court’s decision in
their programs. This document provides
further information on how FTA will
administer the DBE program for FTA
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
48579
recipients in light of the court decision
and the DOT guidance.
3. Response to Comments
This notice responds to comments
regarding the procedures that FTA will
employ in its review process for overall
goal submissions from grantees in 9th
Circuit States for Fiscal Year 2006 (that
were due August 1, 2005) and
subsequent-year submissions. These
procedures concern such matters as
race-neutral submissions, the evidence
gathering process to determine evidence
of discrimination or its effects in
grantees’ markets, and action plans for
disparity/availability studies or other
appropriate evidence gathering
processes.
FTA solicited comments on two
transit-specific issues. FTA considered
all comments and statements filed that
pertained to these two issues. FTA
responses to these comments are
included in this section. There is no
discussion by FTA of comments that
addressed Department-wide DBE issues,
the content of the January 2006 DOT
guidance, or statutory requirements.
These issues were beyond the scope of
the FTA notice. FTA received 10
comments in response to the two
transit-specific issues we raised. The
breakdown among commenter
categories follows:
• Nonprofits and special transit
providers: 1.
• City and County transit providers:
8.
• Trade association: 1.
Issues
1. Commitment To Conduct Disparity
Studies
On the two matters posed for
comment regarding FTA’s
implementation of the Western States
guidance, there were limited comments
on the first issue, that FTA may require
recipients to certify that they will
conduct or participate in a disparity or
availability study. Those that did
respond expressed concern that the
Regional Civil Rights Office may require
this certification.
FTA Response: DBE compliance is a
condition of the FTA Master Agreement
for all applicable recipients. The
Regional Civil Rights Officer, in its
review of DBE goal submissions, will
work with grantees. In some cases, this
will result in grantees having to commit
to conducting disparity studies or
similar evidence gathering efforts.
The Department’s Guidance explicitly
states that if a recipient does not
currently have sufficient evidence of
discrimination or its effects, then an all
E:\FR\FM\21AUN1.SGM
21AUN1
48580
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 161 / Monday, August 21, 2006 / Notices
hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with NOTICES
race-neutral overall goal for Fiscal Year
2006 would be submitted, along with a
statement concerning the absence of
adequate evidence and a description of
plans to conduct a study or other
appropriate evidence gathering process,
an action plan, and time lines for its
completion. The Regional Civil Rights
Office review of the annual goal
submissions will determine whether
evidence of discrimination or its effects
has been provided.
Under part 26, any recipient,
wherever located, would submit an all
race-neutral overall goal if it concluded,
based on the information used in the
goal-setting process, that it could meet
its overall goal without any use of race
conscious measures like contract goals.
If a recipient in the 9th Circuit presents
an analysis making this showing, then
the recipient need not submit an action
plan for conducting a disparity study or
similar evidence gathering effort.
However, if a 9th Circuit recipient’s Part
26 goal-setting analysis concludes that
race conscious measures would be
necessary to meet part of its overall goal
and that the recipient does not have
sufficient evidence to meet the
requirements of the Western States
decision, the recipient would submit a
race-neutral overall goal and an action
plan for a disparity study or similar
evidence gathering effort. In some cases,
it may be necessary for grantees who
have already submitted Fiscal Year 2006
goals to rework their submissions to
address these matters.
2. Costs of Disparity Studies
A common thread was noted in
comments responding to the second
issue concerning funding of disparity
studies. Commenters stated that
additional targeted funding for disparity
studies is needed to avoid reducing the
current pressing service-related needs.
Commenters also noted the financial
limitations of small transit operators
with respect to conducting such studies.
FTA Response: FTA is aware of the
costs involved in conducting disparity
studies or availability studies. For
recipients in the 9th Circuit states
whose goal-setting processes would lead
to the use of race conscious means, but
for the effects of the Western States
decision, a disparity study or similar
evidence gathering effort is essential,
and consistent with DOT’s guidance, is
a condition of FTA’s approval of a raceneutral overall goal. As noted in the
General Counsel’s DBE guidance,
funding of disparity studies is
reimbursable from Federal program
funds, subject to the availability of those
funds and under the FTA statute, this is
an eligible capital expense. Recipients
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:53 Aug 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
that propose to undertake a study may
wish to consider joint studies within
their locale or participate in studies that
will be undertaken by other transit
properties in the local market. The
Regional Civil Rights Office will review
the overall goal submissions and work
with recipients to respond to local
circumstances and to achieve
compliance with the overall objectives
of the DBE program.
FTA also suggests that recipients
communicate with the State DOT to
determine what preparations are being
undertaken for a statewide study and
whether participation in the study is
feasible. Per the guidance, this is
occurring and some recipients are
complying with the guidance by
submission of a race-neutral overall goal
and participation in studies currently
underway rather than conducting their
own study.
3. Group-Specific Goals
One commenter asked about an
apparent inconsistency between Part 26
and the DOT guidance concerning
group-specific goals.
FTA Response: Part 26 prohibits
group-specific goals. Following the
completion of a disparity study, a
recipient might conclude that it had
evidence of discrimination with respect
to some, of the groups presumed to be
disadvantaged under the rule. In such a
case, the recipient should apply for a
program waiver under § 26.15 of the
rule. This opportunity is not limited to
recipients in the 9th Circuit or to FTA
grantees. For example, Colorado DOT
applied for and was granted such a
waiver on the basis of its disparity study
for its Fiscal Year 2000 overall goal.
FTA will continue to work with
recipients in the 9th Circuit to meet the
requirements of a ‘‘narrowly tailored’’
DBE program in light of the recent
developments in case law.
Dated: August 15, 2006.
Sandra K. Bushue,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 06–7053 Filed 8–18–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–57–M
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA 2006–24928; Notice 2]
Continental Tire North America, Grant
of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
Continental Tire North America
(Continental) has determined that
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
certain tires it produced in 2004 and
2005 do not comply with S5.5(f) of 49
CFR 571.139, Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139,
‘‘New pneumatic radial tires for light
vehicles.’’ Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30118(d) and 30120(h), Continental has
petitioned for a determination that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety and has filed an
appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR
part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance
Reports.’’ Notice of receipt of a petition
was published, with a 30-day comment
period, on June 14, 2006, in the Federal
Register (71 FR 34414). NHTSA
received no comments.
Affected are a total of approximately
2,627 model 235/55R17 99H Conti Pro
Contact replacement tires manufactured
during 2004 and 2005. S5.5(f) of FMVSS
No. 139 requires the actual number of
plies in the tread area to be molded on
both sidewalls of each tire. The
noncompliant tires are marked on the
sidewall ‘‘Tread Plies 1 Rayon + 2 Steel
+ 2 Nylon’’ whereas the correct marking
should be ‘‘Tread Plies 1 Rayon + 2
Steel + 1 Nylon.’’ Continental has
corrected the problem that caused these
errors so that they will not be repeated
in future production.
Continental Tire believes that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety and that no
corrective action is warranted.
Continental Tire states,
All other sidewall identification markings
and safety information are correct. This
noncompliant sidewall marking does not
affect the safety, performance and durability
of the tire; the tires were built as designed.
The Transportation Recall,
Enhancement, Accountability, and
Documentation (TREAD) Act (Pub. L.
106–414) required, among other things,
that the agency initiate rulemaking to
improve tire label information. In
response, the agency published an
Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal
Register on December 1, 2000 (65 FR
75222).
The agency received more than 20
comments on the tire labeling
information required by 49 CFR 571.109
and 119, part 567, part 574, and part
575. In addition, the agency conducted
a series of focus groups, as required by
the TREAD Act, to examine consumer
perceptions and understanding of tire
labeling. Few of the focus group
participants had knowledge of tire
labeling beyond the tire brand name,
tire size, and tire pressure.
Based on the information obtained
from comments to the ANPRM and the
consumer focus groups, we have
E:\FR\FM\21AUN1.SGM
21AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 161 (Monday, August 21, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48579-48580]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7053]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
[Docket No. FTA-2006-24063]
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises; Western States Guidance for
Public Transportation Providers
AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of availability and policy guidance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces the Federal Transit Administration's
(FTA) implementation of Department of Transportation guidance for
participants of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program.
This notice solely concerns FTA implementation procedures applicable to
FTA grantees in the states comprising the 9th Federal Judicial Circuit
(California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, and Hawaii).
DATES: Effective Date: This policy takes effect on August 21, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scheryl Portee, Attorney Advisor,
Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-4011 (telephone) and (202) 366-
3809 (fax).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Availability of the DOT Guidance and Comments
A copy of the Department of Transportation Guidance for
participants of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program in
the affected States and comments received from the public are available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may
retrieve the guidance and comments online through the Document
Management System (DMS) at: https://dms.dot.gov. Enter the docket number
24063 in the search field. The DMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. Electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines
are available under the help section of the Web site. An electronic
copy of the document may also be downloaded by using a computer, modem
and suitable communications software from the Government Printing
Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet
users may also reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at:
https://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government Printing Office's Web
page at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
2. Background
The General Counsel of the Department of Transportation issued
guidance concerning the effects of the Western States Paving Co. v.
United States and Washington State Department of Transportation, 407 F.
3d 983 (9th Cir. 2005) in January 2006. On March 23, 2006, FTA
published a Federal Register notice requesting comments on its
implementation of the Department's guidance (56 FR 14775).
The guidance applies to recipients of Federal funds authorized
under chapter 53 of Title 49 of the United States Code that are located
within the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho,
Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.
The Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, like other Federal courts
that have reviewed the Department of Transportation's DBE program, held
that 49 CFR part 26 and the authorizing statute for the DBE program in
TEA-21 were constitutional. The court affirmed that Congress had
determined that there was a compelling need for the DBE program and
part 26 was narrowly tailored. However, the 9th Circuit opinion held
that the Washington State Department of Transportation's program for
implementing part 26 was not narrowly tailored because the State's
evidence of discrimination supporting the use of race conscious
measures in the program was inadequate. The January 2006 DOT guidance
provides information to recipients in the 9th Circuit about how to
address the implications of the court's decision in their programs.
This document provides further information on how FTA will administer
the DBE program for FTA recipients in light of the court decision and
the DOT guidance.
3. Response to Comments
This notice responds to comments regarding the procedures that FTA
will employ in its review process for overall goal submissions from
grantees in 9th Circuit States for Fiscal Year 2006 (that were due
August 1, 2005) and subsequent-year submissions. These procedures
concern such matters as race-neutral submissions, the evidence
gathering process to determine evidence of discrimination or its
effects in grantees' markets, and action plans for disparity/
availability studies or other appropriate evidence gathering processes.
FTA solicited comments on two transit-specific issues. FTA
considered all comments and statements filed that pertained to these
two issues. FTA responses to these comments are included in this
section. There is no discussion by FTA of comments that addressed
Department-wide DBE issues, the content of the January 2006 DOT
guidance, or statutory requirements. These issues were beyond the scope
of the FTA notice. FTA received 10 comments in response to the two
transit-specific issues we raised. The breakdown among commenter
categories follows:
Nonprofits and special transit providers: 1.
City and County transit providers: 8.
Trade association: 1.
Issues
1. Commitment To Conduct Disparity Studies
On the two matters posed for comment regarding FTA's implementation
of the Western States guidance, there were limited comments on the
first issue, that FTA may require recipients to certify that they will
conduct or participate in a disparity or availability study. Those that
did respond expressed concern that the Regional Civil Rights Office may
require this certification.
FTA Response: DBE compliance is a condition of the FTA Master
Agreement for all applicable recipients. The Regional Civil Rights
Officer, in its review of DBE goal submissions, will work with
grantees. In some cases, this will result in grantees having to commit
to conducting disparity studies or similar evidence gathering efforts.
The Department's Guidance explicitly states that if a recipient
does not currently have sufficient evidence of discrimination or its
effects, then an all
[[Page 48580]]
race-neutral overall goal for Fiscal Year 2006 would be submitted,
along with a statement concerning the absence of adequate evidence and
a description of plans to conduct a study or other appropriate evidence
gathering process, an action plan, and time lines for its completion.
The Regional Civil Rights Office review of the annual goal submissions
will determine whether evidence of discrimination or its effects has
been provided.
Under part 26, any recipient, wherever located, would submit an all
race-neutral overall goal if it concluded, based on the information
used in the goal-setting process, that it could meet its overall goal
without any use of race conscious measures like contract goals. If a
recipient in the 9th Circuit presents an analysis making this showing,
then the recipient need not submit an action plan for conducting a
disparity study or similar evidence gathering effort. However, if a 9th
Circuit recipient's Part 26 goal-setting analysis concludes that race
conscious measures would be necessary to meet part of its overall goal
and that the recipient does not have sufficient evidence to meet the
requirements of the Western States decision, the recipient would submit
a race-neutral overall goal and an action plan for a disparity study or
similar evidence gathering effort. In some cases, it may be necessary
for grantees who have already submitted Fiscal Year 2006 goals to
rework their submissions to address these matters.
2. Costs of Disparity Studies
A common thread was noted in comments responding to the second
issue concerning funding of disparity studies. Commenters stated that
additional targeted funding for disparity studies is needed to avoid
reducing the current pressing service-related needs. Commenters also
noted the financial limitations of small transit operators with respect
to conducting such studies.
FTA Response: FTA is aware of the costs involved in conducting
disparity studies or availability studies. For recipients in the 9th
Circuit states whose goal-setting processes would lead to the use of
race conscious means, but for the effects of the Western States
decision, a disparity study or similar evidence gathering effort is
essential, and consistent with DOT's guidance, is a condition of FTA's
approval of a race-neutral overall goal. As noted in the General
Counsel's DBE guidance, funding of disparity studies is reimbursable
from Federal program funds, subject to the availability of those funds
and under the FTA statute, this is an eligible capital expense.
Recipients that propose to undertake a study may wish to consider joint
studies within their locale or participate in studies that will be
undertaken by other transit properties in the local market. The
Regional Civil Rights Office will review the overall goal submissions
and work with recipients to respond to local circumstances and to
achieve compliance with the overall objectives of the DBE program.
FTA also suggests that recipients communicate with the State DOT to
determine what preparations are being undertaken for a statewide study
and whether participation in the study is feasible. Per the guidance,
this is occurring and some recipients are complying with the guidance
by submission of a race-neutral overall goal and participation in
studies currently underway rather than conducting their own study.
3. Group-Specific Goals
One commenter asked about an apparent inconsistency between Part 26
and the DOT guidance concerning group-specific goals.
FTA Response: Part 26 prohibits group-specific goals. Following the
completion of a disparity study, a recipient might conclude that it had
evidence of discrimination with respect to some, of the groups presumed
to be disadvantaged under the rule. In such a case, the recipient
should apply for a program waiver under Sec. 26.15 of the rule. This
opportunity is not limited to recipients in the 9th Circuit or to FTA
grantees. For example, Colorado DOT applied for and was granted such a
waiver on the basis of its disparity study for its Fiscal Year 2000
overall goal.
FTA will continue to work with recipients in the 9th Circuit to
meet the requirements of a ``narrowly tailored'' DBE program in light
of the recent developments in case law.
Dated: August 15, 2006.
Sandra K. Bushue,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 06-7053 Filed 8-18-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-M
