WASHINGTON A controversial District of Columbia Department of Motor Vehicles regulation that requires charter buses visiting the nations capital to have trip permits has been upheld by the D.C. Superior Court.

Judge Jeannette Clark ruled the disputed regulation -- put in place a year ago by the D. C. City Council and which also affects trucks and other commercial vehicles -- does not violate federal interstate commerce laws or vehicle registration rules.

The decision allows the D.C. DMV to continue to require charter operators registered outside of the district to purchase permits for each coach they send into Washington. The permits cost $50 each and are good for six days.

The requirement was challenged in court by three major motorcoach industry trade organizations, the United Motorcoach, American Bus and National Tour associations, which said permit requirement not only was illegal, but was a "money grab" by the district government.

As many as 1,000 charter buses visit the nations capital every day, making the fee an easy and hefty new source of revenue for the district and a major expense for charter bus operators and their customers, the three associations maintained.

Rick Schweitzer, general counsel for the ABA who argued the court case for the industry, said the associations are considering appealing the decision, which he described as disappointing and wrong. The coalition has until June 27 to file such an action that would take the case to the D.C. Court of Appeals.

UMA Vice President Ken Presley said he, too, was disappointed by the decision and that an appeal certainly is an option. "The industry has had its day in court, at least our first day," he said.

The industry argued that the permit requirement restricted interstate commerce, conflicted with the requirements of the International Registration Plan, and was unconstitutional because it applied only to out-of-state carries entering the district.

"We made our case at the oral arguments, but the judge already had her mind made up," said Schweitzer, noting the judge delivered an oral ruling from the bench rather than issuing a more common written one.

He maintained that, in addition to Clarks decision being incorrect, she also erred in a key conclusion involving the interstate commerce issue.

"She erroneously noted that the fees only apply to intrastate commerce and not interstate commerce, and that a carrier could operate through the district without being subject to the fees," he said. "Thats just wrong."

A key industry argument involving the IRP apparently drew little attention from the judge.

Under an alternative written into the trip permit regulations, operators do not have to have a permit on their buses if they purchase apportioned tags from their home state each year and pay the district a fee based on the number of visits each coach makes to Washington.

Had the judge ruled the permit fee was unconstitutional, as suggested by the industry, then the only option left to operators would be to buy the apportioned registration tags. However, the IRP provides that charter buses are not apportionable vehicles and the district may not require an out-of-state carrier to apportion its registration.

Schweitzer said charter carriers may apportion registration at their option under the IRP, but the districts law would have become essentially mandatory had the permit fee been found to be illegal.

The trade organizations and several motorcoach operators jumped on the permit requirement when word of it became public last summer, some time after it was adopted by the D.C. City Council. The measure was included in a package of changes the council routinely made to DMV rules and regulations and received virtually no publicity when it was adopted.

Before the law took effect in August, motorcoach industry representatives met with DMV officials and managed to convince them to make some positive fixes to it. However, they were unable to get them to try to get the council to rescind it.

Among the changes the DMV made at the urging of the industry were making the permits available for purchase online and allowing operators to buy them in bulk, rather than individually for each coach in their fleet. They also agreed to let operators obtain a free permit for a replacement bus if one with a permit broke down during a charter trip and had to be replaced by a bus that did not have a permit.

Under the law, operators can be fined up to $500 if they do not have a permit on a bus traveling in the district and up to $1,000 if they misuse a permit, including transferring it to a different coach.

Meantime, Presley urged operators that do not have apportioned plates to continue to purchase the trip permits for coaches that are sent to the district.

In addition, he encouraged operators that currently utilize base-state tags to become familiar with IRP rules and apportionable tags. "If anything positive has come out of the D.C. trip issue, its that many operators have discovered that apportioned tags represent a savings for them," he noted. "It varies with base states and states traveled."

Still, he expressed concern that other states (D.C. is considered a state under IRP rules) may use the ruling and attempt to collect trip fees from operators as well. "State budgets are strained right now and they seem to be looking under every rock for every possible tax dollar," he noted.