Charter Services Demonstration Program

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