[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 120 (Monday, June 23, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33793-33798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-16126]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration

49 CFR Part 604

[Docket No. FTA-97-2624]
RIN 2132-AA58


Charter Services Demonstration Program

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments and 
recommendations.

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

SUMMARY: Section 3040 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) directed the Federal Transit Administration 
(FTA) to issue regulations establishing a demonstration program that 
would permit transit operators to provide charter services for the 
purpose of meeting the transit needs of the government, civic, 
charitable, and other community activities which otherwise would not be 
served in a cost effective and efficient manner. Section 3040 required 
FTA to consult with a board representing public transit operators and 
privately owned charter services. Section 3040 also required FTA to 
submit a report to Congress evaluating the effectiveness of the charter 
demonstration program and providing recommendations for improving the 
current charter service regulations. Today's Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) presents results and conclusions drawn from the 
charter demonstration program, and seeks comments and recommendations 
regarding improvements to the charter service regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received by August 22, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted to U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Central Docket Office, PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rita Daguillard or Regina Martin, 
Federal Transit Administration, 202/366-1936.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. FTA's Charter Service Requirements

    On April 13, 1987, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), then 
the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA), revised its 
charter service regulation, 49 CFR Part 604. The principle behind this 
regulation is that federally funded equipment and facilities may not be 
used to compete unfairly with private charter operators, in keeping 
with 49 U.S.C. 5323(d) and 5302(a)(7) of the Federal transit laws. When 
the regulation went into effect on May 13, 1987, it was subject to five 
limited exceptions, set out in 49 CFR 604.9. Under these exceptions, a 
recipient of Federal funds may provide charter services if: (1) There 
are no willing and able private operators; (2) the private charter 
operator does not have the capacity needed for a particular charter 
trip; (3) the private charter operator is unable to provide equipment 
accessible to the elderly and persons with disabilities; (4) in non-
urbanized areas, the charter service that would be provided would 
result in a hardship on users; or, (5) private charter operators are 
not capable of providing service for special events.
    On December 22, 1987, the President signed the Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1988 (Pub. L. 
100-202, 101 Stat. 1329; hereinafter the ``FY 1988 Act''). In the 
Conference Report accompanying the FY 1988 Act, FTA was directed to 
amend its charter service regulation to ``permit non-profit social 
service agencies to seek bids for charter service from publicly funded 
operators.'' (Conf. Rept., Committee Print accompanying Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Act, 1988, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. 
62). This report suggested that ``(t)hese non-profit agencies * * * be 
limited to government entities subject to sections 501(c) 1, 3, 3 (sic) 
and 19 of the Internal Revenue Code.'' The report recommended that 
``(i)n such cases, the public operator * * * be required to

[[Page 33794]]

identify to the chartering organizations any private operator that has 
notified it of its willingness and ability to provide comparable 
charter service.''
    Further to this congressional directive, FTA amended its charter 
regulation on December 30, 1988, to provide three additional exceptions 
to the general prohibition on the use of federally funded equipment and 
facilities for charter service (53 FR 53348).
    The first exception allows the use of FTA-funded equipment and 
facilities for direct charter service with non-profit social service 
agencies that are governmental entities or organizations exempt from 
taxation under Internal Revenue Code 501(c) (1), (3), (4) and (19), 
provided that the agency is contracting for service for persons with 
disabilities; is a recipient of funds under certain U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services (``USDHHS'') programs; or has been State-
certified according to the procedure set forth in Sec. 604.9(b)(5)(iii) 
of the Charter Service Regulation.
    The second exception provides an additional exemption for non-
urbanized areas by allowing FTA-funded equipment and facilities 
operated by recipients in such areas to be used incidentally in direct 
charter service for social services agencies that are governmental 
entities or organizations exempt under Internal Revenue Code 501(c) 
(1), (3), (4) and (19), provided that the agency is contracting for 
service for elderly persons.
    The third exception allows FTA-funded equipment and facilities to 
be used on an incidental basis in any particular charter service for 
which the FTA recipient and the local private operators have reached an 
agreement as part of the willing and able determination allowing the 
recipient to provide such service.

B. Section 3040 of ISTEA

    On December 18, 1991, the President signed the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). Section 3040 of ISTEA 
directed FTA to issue regulations implementing a charter services 
demonstration program in not more than 4 states. Under this 
demonstration program, transit operators would be permitted to provide 
charter service for the purpose of meeting the transit needs of the 
government, civic, charitable, and other community activities which 
otherwise would not be served in a cost effective and efficient manner. 
Section 3040 provided that in developing such regulations, FTA should 
consult with a board equally represented by public transit operators 
and privately owned charter services. FTA was directed to transmit to 
Congress, not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the 
Federal transit laws, a report containing an evaluation of the 
effectiveness of the demonstration program regulations established 
under this section and to issue recommendations for improving the 
current charter services regulation.
    The Conference Report accompanying ISTEA, (H.R. Rep. No. 404, 102nd 
Cong., 1st Sess. 424 (1991)), explained that the demonstration program 
had been mandated in response to concerns expressed by local transit 
operators regarding the existing charter service regulation. The Report 
stated that the implementing regulations should be designed to enable 
public transit operators to provide charter services to government, 
civic, charitable and other community organizations that serve a public 
purpose and help address unmet transit needs. According to the Report, 
it was intended that these regulations would grant public transit 
operators additional flexibility that was not afforded under the 
existing charter regulations, without creating undue competition for 
privately owned charter operators. The Report indicated that the 
results of the demonstration program should provide Congress and FTA 
with data to determine the most effective method for providing charter 
services to local communities, and whether the current regulations are 
in need of modification. The Report recommended that FTA select the 
state of Michigan as a participant in the program.

II. The Charter Services Demonstration Program

    Pursuant to the congressional directive, FTA established a Federal 
Advisory Committee (FAC), effective March 16, 1992, comprised of 
individuals equally representing public and private operators, to 
assist FTA in implementing regulations establishing the charter service 
demonstration. After consulting with the FAC, FTA issued a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on October 28, 1992, 
describing FTA's proposed charter demonstration program, including 
provisions to allow public transit operators in the selected 
demonstration sites additional flexibility in the development of a 
local charter policy to meet local circumstances.
    A State Department of Transportation (DOT) or Metropolitan Planning 
Organization (MPO) in each of the selected demonstration sites was 
empowered to determine the charter services that the public operator 
actually provided during the demonstration. The State DOT or MPO 
appointed a local advisory panel, composed of four to six persons, 
equally represented by public transit operators or local business 
organizations and representatives of local private charter operators. 
The DOT or MPO adopted the local charter policy that was recommended by 
the local advisory board.
    The NPRM solicited proposals from interested public transit 
agencies to participate in the demonstration. After consultation with 
the FAC, FTA selected the following public transit operators in four 
states encompassing large and medium sized cities, as well as rural 
areas:
     Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST), Monterey, California.
     Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority 
(COTPA), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
     Bi-State Development Agency (Bi-State), St. Louis, 
Missouri.
     Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), with four 
unnamed sites within the state.
     Yolo County Transit Authority (YCTA), Yolo, California.
    MDOT subsequently selected the four sites for participation in 
demonstration in Michigan:
     Isabella County Transportation Commission (ICTC), Isabella 
County.
     Capital Area Transit Authority (CATA), Lansing.
     Marquette County Area Transportation Authority (MarqTran), 
Marquette.
     Muskegon Area Transit System (MATS), Muskegon.
    The final rule, issued July 9, 1993, incorporated the provisions of 
the NPRM, identified the eight demonstration sites, and authorized the 
demonstration period from August 9, 1993, through August 9, 1994.
    Few of the demonstration participants were able to implement the 
demonstration locally by August 1993. The process of informing the 
private operators, establishing and convening the local advisory 
committee, and reaching a consensus on the local charter policy spanned 
several months. As a result of the initial delays, FTA extended the 
charter demonstration through October 31, 1994 to allow for a full year 
of demonstration activity. However, many public operators continued to 
express concern that the length of the demonstration did not provide 
sufficient time to implement the local charter policy and accurately 
evaluate the effects of the demonstration. In response to the concerns, 
FTA extended the

[[Page 33795]]

demonstration through October 31, 1995.
    Most of the local demonstrations were implemented in the fall of 
1993. However, Marquette County did not initiate its demonstration 
until January 1995.

III. Demonstration Methodology

A. Structure of the Demonstration

    The ISTEA mandate for the charter demonstration required the 
Secretary of Transportation to transmit to Congress a report containing 
an evaluation of the effectiveness of the demonstration program 
regulations and make recommendations to improve current charter service 
regulations. The objective of the evaluation was to assess the 
effectiveness of the demonstration program. The evaluation focused 
specifically on:
     The impact on the public operators
     The impact on customers
     The impact on private operators
     The effectiveness of local decisionmaking process
    The evaluation addressed each of the eight demonstration sites 
individually and presented a summary of all sites. The evaluation was 
based on the charter information provided by the public operators for 
the demonstration and pre-demonstration periods, the results of the 
customer surveys, and discussions with the public and private 
operators. Because private operator data was not received from at least 
three private operators in any of the sites, except Yolo County, FTA 
only presented an analysis of the private operator data for Yolo 
County.
    FTA analyzed the public operators' charter service in terms of 
quantity of service provided, the groups served, and the consistency of 
the service with the local charter policy. FTA analyzed the impact on 
the individual public operators' operations based on the quantity of 
service provided, the charter revenue generated, the change in level of 
service from the pre-demonstration, and comparison of charter service 
to overall operations.
    Congress mandated the demonstration in response to public transit 
agencies' concerns about the unmet needs of specific types of 
organizations, including the government, civic, charitable, and 
community groups. The evaluation assessed the extent to which the 
public operators provided charter service to meet the needs of these 
groups during the demonstration. FTA classified the charters performed 
by the public operator into categories including private groups and 
individuals, community, government, subcontracts to private operators, 
convention, and university. FTA analyzed the impact on customers by the 
changes in the level of service provided to each group.
    FTA analyzed the impact on private operators based on the total 
charter revenue hours and revenue earned by the public operator, 
changes in the level of service provided by the public operator, and 
changes in private operator service, where reported, results of the 
customer surveys, and comments provided by the private operators during 
the demonstration.
    FTA assessed the effectiveness of the local decision-making process 
based upon the development of the local advisory committee, development 
of the local charter policy, communication among the committee members, 
and proper reporting of charter activities.

B. General Public Comments

    On September 12, 1996, FTA held a charter bus demonstration review 
meeting to present the results of the charter demonstration. The 
meeting was also intended as a forum in which the public could make 
comments and suggestions regarding the draft final report of the 
evaluation of the charter bus demonstration. Many of those attending 
the meeting had been members of the FAC that assisted FTA in 
establishing the demonstration. FTA also received some written comments 
on the report. These comments and a transcript of the September 12, 
1996, public meeting have been filed in the docket.
    Generally, the comments indicated that public operators felt that 
public transit authorities should be allowed a great latitude in 
chartering buses directly with anyone having the need for a chartered 
bus within their service areas. In essence, the public operators 
objected to the requirement of being precluded from providing charter 
service if there is at least one local ``willing and able'' private 
operator. They expressed the view that many private operators 
determined ``willing and able'' under the current definition of the 
charter regulation were actually unwilling and unable to provide needed 
charter services in their communities.
    On the other hand, private operators felt that the demonstration 
did not support the claims by the public operators of unmet 
transportation needs. Therefore, they supported minor, if any, changes 
to the current charter regulations. However, there was support among 
the private operators to establish a massive outreach program by FTA to 
better educate public operators on the current charter requirements. 
They also advocated promoting cooperative efforts between both the 
private and public operators in meeting local charter needs.

IV. Results of the Charter Demonstration Program

    The data gathered as a result of the charter demonstration program 
did not support the public operators' claims of unmet needs for the 
groups for which the demonstration was primarily intended: government, 
civic, charitable and other community activities. Although the public 
operators in each area identified groups that would not be otherwise 
served in a cost effective manner, including those for which the 
demonstration was intended and those particular to each site, the 
charter service provided during the demonstration did not serve a 
significant number of these groups or significantly increase the level 
of service to these groups.
    Based on these results, the demonstration did not indicate the need 
for FTA to significantly alter its current service regulations. 
However, the demonstration did indicate that there may be a need for 
some minor changes to the charter service regulations in order to 
improve the ability of public operators to utilize the existing 
exceptions to the charter regulations in providing needed charter 
service.

V. FTA'S Current Charter Service Exceptions

    Pursuant to 49 CFR Part 604, recipients of Federal funds are 
prohibited from providing charter service using federally funded 
equipment or facilities except on an incidental basis if there is at 
least one private charter operator willing and able to provide the 
service. The charter regulations provide several exceptions under which 
a recipient of FTA funds may operate charter service. While these 
exceptions generally provide FTA recipients with sufficient flexibility 
in meeting charter needs that cannot be met by private operators, the 
results of the demonstration suggest that some minor modification is 
necessary to meet certain needs not addressed by the current 
exceptions.
    The following are the types of charter service that FTA recipients 
may provide under the seven current exceptions to the charter service 
regulations:
    1. Direct service to customers when there are no willing and able 
private charter operators.
    A public operator may provide incidental charter service if it 
determines on an annual basis that there are no private charter 
operators willing and able to provide the service. The

[[Page 33796]]

public operator must conduct an annual public participation process. If 
at least one willing and able private charter operator exists, the 
public operator cannot provide charter service under this exception.
    2. Under contract to provide FTA-funded vehicles or service to a 
private operator to satisfy a capacity need or a need for accessible 
equipment.
    The public operator must enter into an agreement with the private 
charter operator for the service--not directly with the charter 
customer. The public operator may not have an exclusive arrangement 
with only one private operator; the public operator must respond 
equitably to requests from all private operators.
    3. In a non-urbanized area, direct service to customers when the 
service provided by a willing and able operator(s) creates a hardship 
on the customer due to minimum duration requirements or distance 
between the charter origin and operator location.
    The public operator must petition the FTA Regional Administrator 
for approval. The public operator must provide notice of its request 
for an exception to all willing and able private operators.
    4. Direct service to customers for special events where private 
operators are not capable of providing the service.
    A public operator may petition the FTA Regional Administrator to 
provide charter service directly to customers for special events, at 
least 90 days prior to the event. The petition must describe the event, 
explain how it is special, and specify the amount of charter service 
that the private operators cannot provide.
    5. Under contract to private, non-profit organization serving 
persons with disabilities or with a government entity that is a 
qualified social service agency receiving Federal funds, or receiving 
welfare assistance funds.
    A public operator may provide charter service directly to a 
government entity or private, non-profit organization if one of the 
following conditions apply: a significant number of disabled persons 
will be passengers on the trip; the organization is a qualified social 
service agency; or the entity is eligible to receive directly or 
indirectly from a state or local government body public welfare 
assistance funds for purposes that may require transportation.
    6. In a non-urbanized area, under contract to a government entity 
or a private, non-profit organization that certifies that more than 50 
percent of the passengers will be elderly.
    7. Direct service to customers through formal agreements with all 
private charter operators.
    A public operator may provide charter service directly to a 
customer, if an agreement has been reached with all willing and able 
private operators. The public operator must provide for an annual 
participation process to identify all ``willing and able'' private 
operators. The formal agreement must specify the type of charter 
service allowed under the agreement.

VI. FTA'S Recommended Action

    The results of the demonstration program indicate that while no 
major overhaul of the charter regulations is required, some minor 
changes may be needed to provide public operators with additional 
flexibility in providing charter service to their communities. 
Therefore, FTA proposes the following actions, and seeks comments from 
interested parties.

A. Amendment of the Definition of ``Willing and Able'' Private 
Operators (49 CFR 604.5(p)) and FTA Review of the ``Willing and Able'' 
Determination Process (49 CFR 604.13(e))

    Under 49 CFR 604.5, any private operator having one bus or one van 
and licensed to provide charter service may be determined ``willing and 
able'', thereby precluding an FTA recipient from providing charter 
service for at least one full calendar year. As a result, some FTA 
recipients have maintained that they are often unable to provide needed 
charter service to their communities when ``willing and able'' private 
operators do not have the desire or capability to provide certain 
trips. In response to this perception that ``willing and able'' is too 
broadly defined, FTA proposes to modify the definition to exclude 
operators who may in actual fact be incapable of providing service 
within a recipient's service area. FTA believes that as a general rule, 
only private operators located within a reasonable distance of a 
particular service area are likely to provide reliable and cost-
effective service to users in that area. Therefore, FTA proposes to 
amend 49 CFR 604.5 to define a ``willing and able'' operator as having 
one bus or one van, possessing legal authority, including the necessary 
safety certifications, licenses and other legal prerequisites, to 
provide charter service, and located within a 125 mile radius of the 
recipients service area. FTA believes that this geographic limitation 
will narrow the definition of ``willing and able'' sufficiently to 
include only those private operators who are able to provide service 
within reasonable time limits and at a reasonable cost.
    An organization representing private operators suggested that an 
FTA recipient could be permitted to look behind evidence that a private 
charter operator is ``willing and able'' to provide the requested 
service if it has valid reasons to believe that the operator is unable 
to effectively serve local charter needs. In these instances, the FTA 
recipient would be required to inform FTA of its basis for concluding 
that a private operator responding to its annual notification is 
unwilling or unable to provide the service specified. FTA could then 
make a determination based on the recipient's submittal and on 
information from the private operator in question. FTA believes that 
this proposed change may allow recipients additional flexibility in 
situations where a private operator technically meets the ``willing and 
able'' criteria, but is unlikely, either due to chronic lack of vehicle 
capacity or to an unwillingness to provide trips of a certain type or 
duration, to meet all local charter needs. FTA thus proposes to amend 
section 604.13(e) accordingly.
    FTA seeks comments on its proposed amendment of 49 CFR 604.5(p) and 
49 CFR 604.13(e)).

B. Extension of Non-urbanized Area Hardship Exception (49 CFR 
604.9(b)(3))to Small Urbanized Areas (50,000 to 200,000 Population)

    Under 49 CFR 604.9(b)(3), an FTA recipient may petition FTA for an 
exception to provide charter service directly to the customer in non-
urbanized areas (population under 50,000) if the charter service 
provided by the ``willing and able'' private charter operator(s) would 
create a hardship on the customer due to state-imposed minimum duration 
requirements. Some public sector participants in the demonstration 
program suggested that this exception be extended to small urbanized 
areas, many of which also lack readily available and reasonably priced 
charter services. In response to these comments, FTA proposes to extend 
the non-urbanized hardship exception at 49 CFR 604.9(b)(3) to small 
urbanized areas having populations between 50,000 to 200,000. FTA 
believes that this amendment may provide recipients in small urbanized 
areas with additional flexibility in providing charter service to their 
communities.
    FTA seeks comments on its proposed amendment of 49 CFR 604.9(b)(3).

[[Page 33797]]

C. Amendment of the Exception for Formal Agreements (49 CFR 604.9(b)(7) 
With All Private Charter Operators

    Under 49 CFR 604.9(b)(7), if an FTA recipient obtains a formal 
agreement with all ``willing and able'' private operators, it can 
provide certain specified types of charter service directly to the 
customer. Section 604.9(b)(7) requires an FTA recipient to complete the 
``willing and able'' determination process for all private operators 
responding to its charter notice, and to obtain written agreements from 
each of these operators. Some FTA recipients maintain that they are 
unable to make use of this exception because of the impracticability of 
obtaining agreements from all local private operators. They note that 
it is often impossible to obtain unanimous consenus from a large number 
of organizations having varying interests and divergent views. Thus, 
they state, while this exception is effective in theory in allowing 
recipients to meet certain charter needs, it is unworkable in actual 
fact.
    One participant in the September 12, 1996 charter demonstration 
review meeting suggested that instead of requiring unanimity, the 
regulation should provide that only a \2/3\ majority of all local 
private operators would be required for a formal charter agreement. FTA 
believes that providing for a majority rather than a unanimous vote on 
the formal agreement will facilitate the use of this exception by more 
FTA recipients, thereby allowing them to provide a wider range of 
needed services to their communities.
    FTA seeks comments on its proposed amendment of 49 CFR 604.9(b)(7).

D. Implementation of an Outreach Program to Foster a Better 
Understanding of the Charter Regulations and Exceptions

    The demonstration program revealed that many public and private 
operators have an incomplete understanding of FTA's charter 
requirements and how to use them effectively to serve the charter needs 
in their communities. Therefore, FTA proposes to implement an outreach 
program for public and private operators to provide them with a better 
understanding of how to better utilize the charter regulations and 
exceptions. The outreach program would include the distribution of 
brochures and literature to public and private operators describing the 
charter bus regulations and exceptions, and examples of how to best 
utilize the exception process. FTA also proposes to sponsor seminars 
and information sessions on the charter requirements at meetings and 
conferences sponsored by various industry groups. FTA believes that the 
establishment of an outreach program would not only minimize the 
ongoing misunderstanding between some of the public and private 
operators, but would also serve as a resource to other operators 
entering the charter business.
    This proposed effort was supported by the majority of participants 
in the September 12, 1996, meeting as a useful tool in improving the 
understanding and utilization of the existing exceptions to the charter 
regulations. FTA seeks additional suggestions for implementing its 
education and outreach program.

VII. Regulatory Impacts

A. Regulatory Process Matters

    The proposed rule is considered to be a nonsignificant rulemaking 
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, 44 FR 11034. It is also a 
nonsignifant rule for the purposes of Executive Order 12866. The 
Department certifies, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, that the 
NPRM, if adopted, would not have a significant economic effect on a 
substantial number of small enities. The NPRM would not impose any 
costs or burdens on regulated entities. The rule has also been analyzed 
in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive 
Order 12612, and it has been determined that it does not have 
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
Federalism Assessment.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule contains no information collection requirements under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Department has determined that the requirements of Title II of 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this 
rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 604

    Administrative practice and procedure, Buses, Grant programs--
transportation, Mass transportation, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

Proposed Amendment to 49 CFR Part 604

    Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Title 49, Code of Federal 
Regulations, Part 604, Charter Service, is proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 604--CHARTER SERVICE

    1. The authority citation for part 604 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5323(d); 23 U.S.C. 103(e)(4); 142(a); and 
142(c); and 49 CFR 1.51.

    2. Section 604.5 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph 
(p) to read as follows:


Sec. 604.5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (p) Willing and able means having the desire, having the physical 
capability of providing the categories of revenue vehicles requested, 
including the necessary safety certifications, licenses, and other 
legal prerequisites, to provide charter service, and located within a 
125-mile radius of the area in which it is proposed to be provided.
    3. Section 604.9 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraphs 
(b)(3) and (b)(7) to read as follows:


Sec. 604.9  Charter service.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) A recipient in a non-urbanized or small urbanized area may 
petition FTA for an exception to provide charter service directly to 
the customer if the charter service provided by the willing and able 
private charter operator or operators would create a hardship on the 
customer because:
    (i) The willing and able private charter operator or operators 
impose minimum duration's pursuant to State regulation and the desired 
trip length is shorter than the mandatory trip length; or
    (ii) The willing and able private operator or operators are located 
too far from the origin of the charter service.
* * * * *
    (7) A recipient may provide charter service directly to the 
customer where a formal agreement has been executed between the 
recipient and a two-thirds (2/3) majority of all private charter 
operators it has determined to be willing and able in accordance with 
this part, provided that:
    (i) The agreement specifically allows the recipient to provide the 
particular type of charter trip;
    (ii) The recipient has provided for such an agreement in its annual 
charter notice published pursuant to this part before undertaking any 
charter service pursuant to this exception;
    (iii) If a recipient has received several responses to its annual 
charter notice but ceased its review process after determining that one 
private operator was willing and able, it must, before concluding a 
formal charter agreement

[[Page 33798]]

under this section, complete the review process to ensure that a two-
thirds (\2/3\) majority of the willing and able private operators are 
valid parties to the agreement.
* * * * *
    4. Section 604.13 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph 
(e) to read as follows:


Sec. 604.13  Reviewing evidence submitted by private charter operators.

* * * * *
    (e) A recipient may look behind the evidence submitted by a private 
charter operator only if the recipient has reasonable cause to believe:
    (1) That some or all of the evidence has been falsified; or
    (2) That the private operator may not be capable of providing 
certain specified types of charter service.
    (i) A recipient believing that it has reasonable cause to determine 
that a private operator or operators is/are not willing and able 
pursuant to this paragraph (e)(2), may petition the FTA Regional 
Administrator for a determination. The recipient must send a copy of 
its petition to the private operator or operators in question. The 
private operator or operators may submit evidence opposing the petition 
to the FTA Regional Administrator within 30 days of receipt of a copy 
of the recipient's petition.
    (ii) The FTA Regional Administrator will rule on the recipient's 
petition within 60 days of receipt.
* * * * *
    Issued on: June 16, 1997.
Gordon J. Linton,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-16126 Filed 6-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-U