![](media/image1.png){width="0.9166666666666666in"
height="0.9270833333333334in"}

April 13, 2007

Docket Management Facility

US Department of Transportation

400 Seventh St. SW

Washington DC 20590-0001

Re: Comments to Docket 2005-22657

49 CFR Part 604 -- Charter Rule

The New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) submits the
following comments to the docket on the revisions to the FTA charter
rule.

NHDOT is opposed to the proposal to require state DOTs to review
complaints against rural operators prior to FTA review. Interpretations
of whether specific activities are violations of the charter rule are
best left to the FTA rather than to individual states. The increasing
complexity of the rule and its definitions and registration, exception,
and exemption procedures would make it difficult for state DOTs to
evaluate complaints.

Part 604.2 proposes to exempt private charter operators from the
provisions of the rule. This exemption would place a private operator
receiving FTA funds at an advantage over a competitor that does not
receive FTA funds. This is the reason for the charter rule in the first
place -- to avoid creating a competitive advantage through federal
funding of transit operators. NHDOT works closely and successfully with
several private operators, and through contracts applies the same
restrictions on their operations that transit operators face. These
provisions should be included in the rule.

Part 604.2 also establishes a provision for charters in emergencies but
with an arbitrary three-day limit and confusing language about
procedures when a recipient "expects" an emergency to last longer than
three days. The exception should exist for the duration of the emergency
as declared by the appropriate local, state, or federal authority. The
experience of recent years should support bringing all resources to
assist with emergency response.

Part 604.4 c, the charter service definition, contains several
problematic and confusing provisions. The existing definition, involving
exclusive use of vehicles by a particular group, is consistent with the
common understanding of what a charter is, and that element of the
definition should be retained. Open-door shuttle services to community
events that are listed in transit schedules should not be considered
charters. The wording in paragraph (c) is inconsistent and confusing.
For example, a community event that occurs once a year could either be
considered "irregular" as in (ii) or "service \[that\] continues from
year to year" as in 2 (iv). The shuttle services described in (iii),
provided under contract to an institution or university, are also not
clear. This restriction, if applied to shuttles from peripheral parking
lots to hospitals or other large employers, would make it difficult for
transit systems to seek out contracting opportunities with other
agencies and institutions to foster coordination. Providing examples of
what is and is not charter service is helpful but should not be
substituted for a clear and easily understandable definition. Transit
systems need to be able to explain to local community leaders why the
rule prohibits them from providing a requested service. This is not an
easy task with the present rule and promises to be more difficult with
the proposed language.

The notification time frame in Part 604.17 could present a challenge to
very small transit systems with limited staff, as in the case of many
rural systems. NHDOT requests that FTA review the entire proposed rule
and its procedures in light of its impact on transit systems that may
have a very small administrative staff.

Thank you for considering these comments, and for the time and effort of
the CBNRAC in its attempt to negotiate a rulemaking on this contentious
issue.

Sincerely,

Christopher Morgan

Administrator

Bureau of Rail & Transit