Appendix A to Part 605
49:7.1.2.1.5.7.1.1.35 : Appendix A
Appendix A to Part 605 Comptroller General of the United States,
Washington, DC, December 7, 1966.
Dear Mr. Wilson: The enclosure with your letter of October 4,
1966, concerns the legality of providing a grant under the Federal
Mass Transit Act of 1964 to the City of San Diego, (City),
California. The problem involved arises in connection with the
definition in subsection 9(d)(5) of the Act, 49 U.S.C. 1608(d)(5),
excluding charter or sightseeing service from the term “mass
transportation.”
It appears from the enclosure with your letter that the City
originally included in its grant application a request for funds to
purchase 8 buses designed for charter service. Subsequently the
City amended its application by deleting a request for a portion of
the funds attributable to the charter bus coaches. However, in
addition to the 8 specially designed charter buses initially
applied for, the City allegedly uses about 40 of its transit type
buses to a substantial extent for charter-type services. In light
of these factors surrounding the application by the City, the
enclosure requests our opinion with regard to the legality of
grants under the Act as it applies to certain matters (in effect
questions), which are numbered and quoted below and answered in the
order presented.
Number one:
“The grant of funds to a City to purchase buses and equipment
which are intended for substantial use in the general charter bus
business as well as in the Mass Transportation type business.”
The Federal Mass Transit Act of 1964 does not authorize grants
to assist in the purchase of buses or other equipment for any
service other than urban mass transportation service. Section 3(a)
of the Act limits the range of eligible facilities and equipment to
“* * * buses and other rolling stock, and other real or personal
property needed for an efficient and coordinated mass
transportation system.” In turn, “mass transportation” is defined,
in section 9(d)(5) of the Act, specifically to exclude charter
service. We are advised by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) that under these provisions, the Department has
limited its grants to the purchase of buses of types suitable to
meet the needs of the particular kind of urban mass transportation
proposed to be furnished by the applicant.”
HUD further advises that:
“One of the basic facts of urban mass transportation operations
is that the need for rolling stock is far greater during the
morning and evening rush hours on weekdays than at any other time.
For that reason, any system which has sufficient rolling stock to
meet the weekday rush-hour needs of its customers must have a
substantial amount of equipment standing idle at other times, as
well as drivers and other personnel being paid when there is little
for them to do. To relieve this inefficient and uneconomical
situation, quite a number of cities have offered incidental charter
service using this idle equipment and personnel during the hours
when the same are not needed for regularly scheduled runs. Among
the cities so doing are Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Alameda, Tacoma,
Detroit and Dallas.
“Such service contributes to the success of urban mass
transportation operations by bringing in additional revenues and
providing full employment to drivers and other employees. It may in
some cases even reduce the need for Federal capital grant
assistance.
“We do not consider that there is any violation of either the
letter or the spirit of the Act as a result of such incidental use
f buses in charter service. To guard against abuses, every capital
facilities grant contract made by this Department contains the
following provisions:
“ ‘Sec. 4. Use of Project Facilities and Equipment - The
Public Body agrees that the Project facilities and equipment will
be used for the provision of mass transportation service within its
urban area for the period of the useful life of such facilities and
equipment. . . . The Public Body further agrees that during the
useful life of the Project facilities and equipment it will submit
to HUD such financial statements and other data as may be deemed
necessary to assure compliance with this Section.’ ”
It is our view that grants may be made to a city under section
3(a) of the Act to purchase buses needed by the city for an
efficient and coordinated mass transportation system, even though
the city may intend to use such buses for charter use when the
buses are not needed on regularly scheduled runs (i.e., for
mass transportation purposes) and would otherwise be idle.
Number two:
“Whether a grant of such funds is proper if charter bus use is
incidental to mass public transportation operations. If so, what is
the definition of incidental use.”
We are advised by HUD that under its legislative authority, it
cannot and does not take charter service requirements into
consideration in any way in evaluating the needs of a local mass
transportation system for buses or other equipment.
HUD further advises that:
“However, as indicated above, we are of the opinion that any
lawful use of project equipment which does not detract from or
interfere with the urban mass transportation service for which the
equipment is needed would be deemed an incidental use of such
equipment, and that such use of project equipment is entirely
permissible under our legislation. What uses are in fact
incidental, under this test, can be determined only on a
case-by-case basis.”
In view of what we stated above in answer to the first question,
the first part of question two is answered in the affirmative.
As to the second part of the question, in Security National
Insurance Co. v. Secuoyah Marina, 246F.2d 830,
“incident” is defined as meaning “that which appertains to
something else which is primary.” Thus, we cannot say HUD's
definition of incidental use as set forth above is
unreasonable. Under the Act involved grants may be made to purchase
buses only if the buses are needed for an efficient and coordinated
mass transportation system. It would appear that if buses are
purchased in order to meet this need, and are, in fact, used to
meet such need, the use of such buses for charter service when not
needed for mass transportation services would, in effect, be an
“incidental use,” insofar as pertinent here. In our opinion such
incidental use would not violate the provisions of the 1964
Act.
Number three:
“The grant of funds for mass public transportation purposes to a
City which has expressed an intent to engage in the general charter
bus business when such funds would in effect constitute a subsidy
to the City of its intended charter bus operations; i.e. freeing
Municipal funds with which to purchase charter bus equipment.”
Section 4(a) of the 1954 Act (49 U.S.C. 1603(a)) provides, in
part, as follows:
“* * * The Administrator (now Secretary), on the basis of
engineering studies, studies of economic feasibility, and data
showing the nature and extent of expected utilization of the
facilities and equipment, shall estimate what portion of the cost
of a project to be assisted under section 1602 of this title cannot
be reasonably financed from revenues - which portion shall
hereinafter be called ‘net project cost’. The Federal grant for
such a project shall not exceed two-thirds of the net project cost.
The remainder of the net project cost shall be provided, in cash,
from sources other than Federal funds * * *.”
It is clear from the legislative history of the Act involved
that the “revenues” to be considered are mass transportation system
revenues including any revenues from incidental charter operations.
There is nothing in the language of the Act which requires HUD to
take into account the status of the general funds of an applicant
city in determining how much capital grant assistance to extend to
that city.
It should be noted that in a sense nearly every capital grant to
a city constitutes a partial subsidy of every activity of the city
which is supported by tax revenues, since it frees tax revenues for
such other uses.
Number four:
“With specific reference to the application of the City of San
Diego for funds under its application to the Department of Housing
and Urban Development dated June 2, 1966, whether the Act permits a
grant to purchase equipment wherein 25 percent of such equipment
will be used either exclusively or substantially in the operation
of charter bus services.”
As to the City of San Diego's grant application, we have been
advised by HUD as follows:
“As explained above, the Act authorizes assistance only for
facilities to be used in mass transportation service. We could not,
therefore, assist San Diego in purchasing any equipment to be used
‘exclusively’ in the operation of charter bus service. Furthermore,
as also explained above, assisted mass transportation equipment can
be used only incidentally for such charter services.
“Whether equipment used ‘substantially’ in such service
qualifies under this rule can be answered only in the light of the
specifics of the San Diego situation. * * * we have already, during
our preliminary review of the City's application, disallowed about
$150,000 of the proposed project cost which was allocated to the
purchase of eight charter-type buses.
“The final application of the City of San Diego is presently
under active consideration by this Department. In particular, we
have requested the City to furnish additional information as to the
nature and extent of the proposed use, if any, of project
facilities and equipment in charter service, so that we can further
evaluate the application under the criteria above set forth. We
have also requested similar information from Mr. Fredrick J. Ruane,
who has filed a taxpayers' suit (Superior Court for San Diego
County Civil #297329) against the City, contesting its authority to
engage in charter bus operations.”
As indicated above, it is clear that under the Act in question
grants may not legally be made to purchase buses to be used
“exclusively” in the operation of charter bus service. However, in
view of the purposes of the Act involved it is our opinion that a
city which has purchased with grant funds buses needed for an
efficient mass transportation system, is not precluded by the act
from using such buses for charter service during idle or off-peak
periods when the buses are not needed for regularly scheduled runs.
As indicated above, such a use would appear to be an incidental
use.
The fourth question is answered accordingly.
As requested, the correspondence enclosed with your letter is
returned herewith.
Sincerely yours, Frank H. Weitzel,
Assistant Comptroller
General of the United States.
Enclosures:
The Honorable Bob Wilson, House of Representatives.
March 29, 1976. Inflationary Impact Statement final regulations on
school bus operations
I certify that, in accordance with Executive Order 11821, dated
November 27, 1974, and Departmental implementing instructions, an
Inflationary Impact Statement is not required for final regulations
on School Bus Operations.
Robert E. Patricelli,
Federal Mass Transit
Administrator.