WASHINGTON The United Motorcoach Association has stepped up its legal fight to protect the federal charter service rule from assaults by public transit agencies just as a new attack has surfaced on another front this one by a U.S. senator.

Attorneys for the association filed an appeal here of a lower court decision that tossed out a challenge to a controversial opinion by the Federal Transit Administration allowing a public transit agency in the state of Washington to accept a lucrative charter contract that was sought by a private operator.

At the same time, U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., quietly inserted into an appropriations bill a provision that would effectively exempt her state from the federal charter service rule. Ironically, the senators name appears in the court case as someone who may have had a hand in influencing the disputed FTA opinion.

In the court action filed with the U.S Court of Appeals, UMA attorney Dan R. Mastromarco asked that the case be returned to the U.S. District Court so it can be fully aired and a decision issued.

"The facts are ripe for judicial decision," he said.

Mastromarco maintains that the opinion issued by the FTA side stepped the charter rule, which was updated last year after a lengthy negotiated rulemaking process that included representatives from both the public transit and private motorcoach industries.

"The motorcoach industry cant stand for such a complete gutting of the negotiated rulemaking process without challenging it," he said.

The case involved the FTA granting two waivers that allowed King County Metro Transit to operate parking lot shuttles for the Seattle Mariners during the 2008 baseball season even though a private operator, Starline Transportation, was prepared to do the work.

UMA sued the FTA in D.C. District Court, saying the action violated the charter rule, which prohibits tax-supported transit agencies from competing with private carriers. However, Judge Ellen S. Huyvelle dismissed the suit, saying the case was moot because the baseball season was over.

Mastromarco said while the season may have been over, the decision to grant the waiver could live on because the FTA could and would use it when deciding future charter rule cases, including those in other states.

"A well-established principle of administrative law is that an agency must follow its own standards in the future, deviation from which is itself an abuse of its discretion," he told the court in the appeal. "The general legal principles FTA espoused in this instance, FTA is now obliged to follow."

The FTA has argued that the opinion only affected the King County Metro and Starline case, but Mastromarco called that claim "self-serving surplusage."

While King County Metro took a pass on the shuttle service contract with the Mariners this year, Starline again offered to provide the service. The ball club, however, turned down the offer and, instead, dropped its shuttle service, forcing people to hike to the stadium from remote parking lots or take regular city buses that drop them off anywhere from in front of the ballpark to several blocks away.

"This legal effort represents not just a monetary investment (by UMA) but an investment of time and political capital as well," said Godfrey LeBron, UMA chairman and vice president of Paradise Trailways.

"I hope operators are taking note of who may not be actively involved in these battles in a big way."

Added Ken Presley, vice president of UMA: "I agree. When it comes to the charter service rule there are no gray areas. These battles seem to take place every day and operators need to know who is in the trenches with them."

Meantime, Murray took aim at the charter service rule by inserting into the 2010 transportation appropriations bill wording that would prohibit the FTA from using any funds to enforce the charter rule in Washington state. She chairs the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Subcommittee and is believed to have added the language without consulting members of her committee.

If passed, the spending prohibition would have the effect of exempting the state from the charter rule, which would clear the way for King County Metro to again provide the shuttle service to not only the Mariners, but other businesses as well.

There was immediate speculation in the motorcoach industry that the impetus for the action was the dispute last year with the Mariners and rumblings that other transit agencies in the state are interested in doing charter work.

Murrays office did not return telephone calls and e-mail messages requesting comment.

The senator is no stranger to transit and motorcoach operations in the state and, according to the appeal filed by UMA, she may have had a hand in the FTA opinion that allowed King County Metro to run the shuttles for the Mariners last season.

Mastromarco contends in the appeal that King County Metro initiated a "full-court Congressional press" to influence FTAs decision and the pressure came from Murrays staff. He said several meetings were held between the FTA and the senators staff.

"They just cant do that," stressed Mastromarco.

He said the purpose in bringing the potentially improper communications to the attention of the court was to show why the FTA "grossly deviated" from its own charter service regulations in issuing the opinion.

The attempt to exempt Washington from the charter rule brought an immediate response from the Northwest Motorcoach Association, which represents many of the more than 100 private carriers in the state.

"If this provision is enacted, we will effectively be out of business," association president Paul Downes wrote in a letter to Murray that was signed by most of the groups members.

He reminded the senator that the motorcoach business employs about 2,000 people, draws annual revenues of more than $140 million and pays more than $14 million a year in taxes to the state.

And, he noted, the federal charter rule prohibiting transit agencies from competing with private motorcoach companies has been federal law for more than 35 years and Congress long has recognized that it is fundamentally unfair for government entities subsidized by tax dollars to compete with unsubsidized taxpaying private businesses.

"Your provision puts a bullet through this principle in Washington state and will put a bullet through our heads as well," he added. "We ask you to seriously rethink if there is any appropriate time to destroy an entire sector of taxpaying, job-creating private businesses in our state."