[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 139 (Thursday, July 21, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-17735]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: July 21, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Parts 37 and 38

[Docket 49658; Notice 94-9]
RIN 2105-AC13

 

Transportation for Individuals With Disabilities

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice proposes two sets of amendments to the Department 
of Transportation's rules implementing the Americans with Disabilities 
Act (ADA). The first group of proposals is based on petitions for 
rulemaking from members of the public. While the Department is 
publishing proposed amendments based on these petitions, in order to 
seek public comment on them, the Department is not now taking a 
position on whether these amendments should be adopted. The petitions 
would create an exception to the provision requiring transit providers 
to allow persons with disabilities to use every stop in the system, 
change the requirements affecting certain private schools that provide 
fixed route transportation, change the provision of the Department's 
technical standards concerning gaps for higher-speed people mover 
vehicles and eliminate the provision that requires paratransit systems 
to allow reservations to be made 14 days in advance. Second, the 
Department is proposing a number of minor or technical adjustments to 
clarify or improve administration of certain portions of the rule.

DATES: Comments are requested on or before October 19, 1994. Late-filed 
comments will be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent, preferably in triplicate, to Docket 
Clerk, Docket No. 49658, Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, 
S.W., Room 4107, Washington, D.C., 20590. Comments will be available 
for inspection at this address from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday. Commenters who wish the receipt of their comments to be 
acknowledged should include a stamped, self-addressed postcard with 
their comments. The Docket Clerk will date-stamp the postcard and mail 
it back to the commenter.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant 
General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, Department of 
Transportation, 400 7th Street, S.W., Room 10424, Washington, D.C., 
20590. (202) 366-9306 (voice); (202) 755-7687 (TDD).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Petitions for Rulemaking

    The Department has received four petitions for rulemaking, each of 
which requests an amendment to the Department's Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA) rules. The Department is acting on the petitions 
by issuing this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). If, based on the 
comments and the Department's further consideration of the issues 
involved, the Department believes the proposed changes have merit, it 
can issue final rules based on this NPRM. At this time, however, the 
Department is not taking a position on whether the proposed changes 
should be adopted.

1. Inadequate Bus Stops

    Seattle Metro seeks a change in 49 CFR 37.167(g), which provides as 
follows:

    The entity shall not refuse to permit a passenger who uses a 
lift to disembark from a vehicle at any designated stop, unless the 
lift cannot be deployed, the lift will be damaged if it is deployed, 
or temporary conditions at the stop, not under the control of the 
entity, preclude the safe use of the stop by all passengers.

In the Appendix to Part 37, DOT described the intent of this provision 
as follows:

    It is inconsistent with this section for a transit provider to 
refuse to let a passenger use a lift at any designated stop, unless 
the lift is physically unable to deploy or the lift would be damaged 
if it did. * * * In addition, if a temporary situation at the stop 
(construction, an accident, a landslide) made the stop unsafe for 
anyone to use, the provider could decline to use the lift there 
(just as it refused to open the door for other passengers at the 
same point). The provider could not, however, declare a stop ``off 
limits'' to persons with disabilities that is used for other 
persons. If the transit authority has concerns about barriers or 
safety hazards, that particularly affect individuals with 
disabilities that would use the stop, it should consider making 
efforts to move the stop. (56 FR 45755, September 6, 1991).

Seattle Metro urges the Department to change this policy. Metro's 
petition says that its bus lifts need 4-5 feet to deploy and that 
persons using mobility aids need another 4 feet in order to maneuver 
off the lift. The petition asserts that it has 6220 fully accessible 
bus stops, 1571 that do not meet present ADA standards (i.e., a lift 
cannot deploy at these stops), and 702 that could be used by standees 
but do not provide adequate space for wheelchair users. The 
inaccessibility of stops is due, Metro says, to factors such as 
topography and terrain, line of sight, traffic speed, and access to 
shoulder pullout areas, all of which are more or less permanent matters 
beyond its control. Often, local jurisdictions, rather than Metro, 
control these factors as well as the locations of the bus stops 
themselves. This, in Metro's view, often makes it impractical to 
relocate stops to more accessible locations.
    Allowing passengers to choose to disembark at ``inaccessible'' 
locations may create safety hazards, Metro asserts. Passengers with 
disabilities should not be allowed to decide it is safe to use a 
particular stop, in Metro's view, particularly since the visual or 
cognitive disabilities of some passengers could impair their ability to 
make an adequate assessment of the situation and since a visual 
inspection might not, in any event, reveal the problems of a site. 
Metro is concerned about tort liability in such situations.
    With its petition, Metro provided a brief videotape, which we have 
made part of the docket. It shows wheelchair users leaving or entering 
buses in locations where narrowness of the sidewalk (i.e., next to a 
retaining wall, adjacent to a grassy knoll) or other conditions (e.g., 
an eroded, broken sidewalk) make it difficult (but not necessarily 
impossible) to get on or off the bus.
    Metro has petitioned the Department to amend Sec. 37.167(g) in two 
ways. First, Metro would permit transit providers to refuse to allow 
persons with disabilities to use stops available to other passengers if 
``the lift, when fully deployed, would leave inadequate space at the 
stop for the passenger to obtain a secure and maintainable position on 
the ground.'' Second, Metro would add a sentence saying that ``A stop 
which does not meet the specifications set forth in Sec. 10.2.1(1) of 
appendix A to 49 CFR part 37 shall be deemed to provide inadequate 
space for passengers using common wheelchairs to obtain a secure and 
maintainable position on the ground.'' For information of potential 
commenters, the bus stop standards in Appendix A that Metro references 
are the following:

10.2.1  New Construction

    (1) Where new bus stop pads are constructed at bus stops, bays, 
or other areas where a lift or ramp is to be deployed, they shall 
have a firm, stable surface; minimum clear length of 96 inches 
(measured from the curb or roadway vehicle edge) and a minimum clear 
width of 60 inches (measured parallel to the vehicle roadway) to the 
maximum extent allowed by legal or site constraints; and shall be 
connected to streets, sidewalks, or pedestrian paths by an 
accessible route complying with 4.3 and 4.4. The slope of the pad 
parallel to the roadway shall, to the extent practicable, be the 
same as the roadway. For water drainage, a maximum slope of 1:50 
(2%) perpendicular to the roadway is allowed.

It should be noted that Metro's proposal would apply this new 
construction standard to make judgments about allowing wheelchair users 
to use existing bus stops. Also, the standard refers to ``bus stop 
pads,'' not to bus stops in general. In addition, the standard's 
minimum clear width and length requirements are required ``to the 
extent allowed by legal or site constraints.'' Site constraints would 
appear to include the kinds of conditions of which Metro's petition 
speaks.
    The effect of its proposed amendment, Metro says, would be to allow 
transit providers to refuse to serve wheelchair passengers at stops 
that did not meet Access Board standards. According to Metro, this 
would place an additional 702 stops (8 percent of the total number of 
stops in the system) off limits to wheelchair users. However, other 
passengers with disabilities (e.g., standees) and passengers without 
disabilities would be served at these stops. While Metro's petition 
does not specify how service to origins and destinations served by 
these stops (or the other 19 percent of stops at which lifts will not 
deploy at all) would be made available to wheelchair users, the 
Department assumes individuals who need accessible service to those 
destinations would be eligible for paratransit.

2. Requirements for Private School Transportation

    Congress exempted ``public school transportation'' from the 
transportation requirements of the ADA, by defining such transportation 
not to be ``designated public transportation.'' The House Public Works 
Committee Report on the legislation says that it is the intent of 
Congress that the same exemption should apply to private elementary and 
secondary school transportation if the school receives Federal 
financial assistance, is covered by section 504 of the Rehabilitation 
Act of 1973, and provides equivalent transportation service to students 
with disabilities (see H. Rept. 101-485, Pt. 1, at 36). In addition, 
religiously-affiliated schools are exempt from the ADA altogether, 
based on the ADA's exemption for religious organizations. Section 37.27 
of the Department's ADA regulation implements these exemptions.
    As pointed out in the petition of the National Association of 
Independent Schools (NAIS), schools that are private, not religiously 
affiliated, and not recipients of Federal funds do not benefit from any 
of these exemptions. As private entities not primarily in the business 
of transporting people providing (usually) fixed route transportation 
with vehicles with a passenger capacity exceeding 16 persons, they are 
subject to a requirement to purchase all new accessible school buses.
    NAIS says ``[t]he cost of this requirement is enormous, and in 
relation to the cost the benefit to disabled students is minimal, 
because there is no need that every vehicle purchased be accessible; 
all disabled students may be served as long as a sufficient number of 
the vehicles are accessible.'' The NAIS petition seeks a modification 
of the current regulation to place its members on the same footing as 
other schools, saying that ``independent schools which do not receive 
federal financial assistance are the only schools who are required to 
purchase accessible vehicles even when the school already has 
sufficient such vehicles to provide adequate services to students with 
disabilities.''
    The requested modification would amend Sec. 37.27 to apply the same 
requirement to private schools that do not receive Federal assistance 
as to other private schools, i.e. a requirement to provide equivalent 
transportation services to students with disabilities.

3. People Mover Gap Standards

    The Special Standards Division of the American Society of Civil 
Engineers (ASCE) has petitioned the Department to modify its technical 
standards concerning horizontal and vertical gaps for automated 
guideway transit (AGT) vehicles and systems, better known as ``people 
movers.'' 49 CFR Sec. 38.173 requires that the horizontal gap between a 
stopped AGT vehicle's door and the platform be no greater than one 
inch, with a vertical gap of plus or minus one half inch. The 
regulation allows other rail systems (e.g., rapid and light rail) to 
have horizontal and vertical gaps of 3 inches and plus or minus \5/8\ 
inch, respectively.
    ASCE suggests that the regulation should recognize a distinction 
between AGT systems based on vehicle speed. AGT systems vary in speed 
from 5 to 80 miles per hour, ASCE says, and it is, in the 
organization's view, more appropriate for higher-speed AGTs to meet the 
more flexible standards applicable to rapid and light rail systems than 
the narrower AGT standard. ASCE cites the Access Board's preamble 
discussion concerning AGT systems, which refers to ``AGT vehicles that 
travel at slow speed,'' and subsequent Access Board manuals suggesting 
that the rapid/light rail gap should apply to faster AGT vehicles.
    ASCE surveyed existing AGT systems, determining that most do not 
comply with the current AGT gap standards. The petition cites 
engineering reasons (e.g., the need in higher-speed vehicles for larger 
and more complex suspension systems, which in turn make it more 
difficult to meet existing gap standards) for this phenomenon. Based on 
its data and engineering analysis, ASCE recommends that 20 miles per 
hour be the dividing line: systems that operate below that speed can 
reasonably meet the current AGT standard, while faster systems should 
be allowed to meet the rapid/light rail standard. (The Access Board has 
interpreted its guidelines, as presently worded, to permit the 
construction urged by ASCE. The Department does not object to this 
interpretation; nevertheless, for the sake of clarity in the rule text, 
we are proposing to amend the language. The Department will also work 
with the Access Board to incorporate changes in the guidelines that may 
be made with respect to vehicle/platform gaps in AGT systems.)

4. 14-day Advance Reservations

    49 CFR Sec. 37.131(b)(4) provides, with respect to complementary 
paratransit services, that ``the entity shall permit advance 
reservations to be made up to 14 days in advance of an ADA paratransit 
eligible individual's desired trip.'' This provision, not a part of the 
NPRM that led to the Department's final ADA rule, was added in response 
to comments to the NPRM.
    Two separate petitions urge the Department to eliminate this 
provision. One is from Doug Douglas, Assistant Vice-President, 
Paratransit Services, of Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART). Mr. Douglas 
draws a distinction between advance reservations in a context like the 
airline industry, where the customer goes to the point of service, and 
paratransit. In the former, he says, if a passenger cancels a 
reservation or does not show up for the plane, the airline can simply 
fill in the reserved spot with a standby passenger. Paratransit does 
not have this flexibility, since the vehicle must be rerouted in the 
case of a cancellation or makes a futile trip in case of a no-show. 
Cancellations and no-shows are a major problem for his system, Mr. 
Douglas asserts:

    There are a number of arguments to support the repeal of the 14 
days advanced reservation requirements as prescribed by Sec. 7.131. 
The most obvious reason is the waste of precious resources on 
clients who reserve trips well in advance, forget the trip has been 
scheduled, and do not call the provider to cancel the trip. Even 
when the client does remember to cancel the trip, they are only 
required to do so within an hour prior to the scheduled pick-up 
time, which does not allow us to effectively utilize the time slot 
for another client. We are averaging 16,183 canceled trips and 2,936 
no-shows per month. Fourteen days advance reservation does not 
appear to be operationally feasible in a paratransit environment, 
and should be repealed or revised to make it more palatable for 
providers of specialized transportation services.

    Patrisha Piras, a California transportation consultant and Board 
member of AC Transit, also petitioned the Department to eliminate this 
provision. She views this provision as an impediment to the effective 
implementation of ``real-time'' scheduling for paratransit services. 
Her rationale is the following:

    Real-time scheduling provides a dynamic ability for the service 
provider to respond to the current level of demand from service 
users. Adjustments in wait time and vehicle trip patterns are based 
on the current situation ``on the street.'' This is a significant 
contrast to traditional ``advance reservation'' systems, where trips 
are booked several days in advance, creating an artificial picture 
of actual service, since often users would subsequently cancel or 
rearrange trips, and the provider would then have to rearrange 
planned vehicle deployment and assignments.
    [In my experience] * * *, often up to one third of trips booked 
on an advance reservation system are ultimately cancels or no-shows. 
This further creates a ``blocking'' mechanism, so that potential 
users would call farther and farther in advance to ensure a better 
chance of getting a ride * * *.
    What the 14-day advance provision does is to institutionalize 
capacity constraints, with a preference for people who have decided 
on their trip long in advance. This is counter to other 
philosophical bases of the regulation, which call for paratransit 
service to be relatively comparable to fixed-route, including the 
sense of ``spontaneity'' without having to pre-plan a trip. The 14-
day advance provision also imposes or allows an implicit priority to 
certain kinds of trips, such as medical or other appointments, where 
the rider (and often the provider as well!) wants to have the 
certainty in advance that the trip is available. This, too, is 
counter to the basic service criteria of the regulations.
    The 14-day advance reservation provision should be eliminated 
(or, at a minimum, be made permissive and subservient to the other 
criteria) * * * (emphasis in original).

By eliminating the 14-day provision, or making it permissive, the NPRM 
would permit transit providers to decline to accept reservations 
farther from the date of travel than the day before. The minimum 
reservation time requirement--that providers must provide next-day 
service--would, of course, remain in place.

DOT-Proposed Adjustments to the Rule

1. Reduction of Paperwork for Paratransit Plan Updates

    Under the Department's ADA regulation, each fixed route public 
transit operator was required to submit a paratransit plan to the 
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) by January 26, 1992. Section 
37.135(c) of the rule requires that ``each entity shall submit an 
update to the plan on January 26 of each succeeding year.'' Section 
37.139(j) requires these updates to include information needed to 
update the information requirements applying to the original plan, 
significant changes or revisions to the timetable, whether milestones 
for progress toward full compliance have been met, explanations of any 
slippage that has occurred in meeting the timetable for full 
compliance, and corrective action for any slippage. The same public 
participation requirements that applied to the original plan (including 
notice, a public hearing, and consultation with the disability 
community) apply to updates.
    FTA data indicate that about 117 of the 540 fixed route operators 
required to submit paratransit plans have indicated that they expected 
to be fully in compliance by the end of 1993. Another 70 providers 
expected to be fully in compliance by the end of 1994. By full 
compliance, we mean that the transit property meets all six service 
criteria spelled out for paratransit systems in the regulation 
(concerning service area, response time, trip purpose, hours and days 
of service, fares, and capacity constraints). It appears unnecessary to 
require transit properties which in fact meet all criteria to do the 
paperwork for an update every year. If a system is fully in compliance, 
and no significant changes have occurred, going through this process 
has no benefit for passengers with disabilities.
    For these reasons, the Department is proposing to modify 
Secs. 37.135(c) and 37.139(j) to allow transit properties who fully 
comply with all service criteria for paratransit service to rely on the 
assurance of ADA compliance required by Sec. 27.4, rather than 
submitting an update report. If significant changes occurred that could 
affect compliance, or if the system fell out of compliance with respect 
to one or more of the service criteria, it would have to notify FTA of 
the problem and submit annual updates until it had returned to 
compliance.
    The Department has some concern that, if it adopts this proposal, 
it may not have an adequate source of data about the compliance status 
of transit authorities, ridership, or costs. Such data may be useful 
for program evaluation as well as forming a basis for reports to 
Congress or the public. The Department seeks comment on whether, if 
this proposal is adopted, there should be any additional data reporting 
requirements concerning paratransit compliance, ridership, and costs.

2. Visitor Eligibility

    Section 37.127, concerning complimentary paratransit service for 
visitors, provides that a public entity is not required to provide 
service to a visitor for more than 21 days from the date of the first 
paratransit trip used by the visitor. We have been asked whether this 
means 21 consecutive days or a collection of days over a given period 
of time adding up to 21. For the sake of simplicity and clarity, we 
propose to add the words ``per year.'' This means that a visitor could 
have any 21 days of eligibility in any calendar year.

3. Vehicle Acquisition for ``Private Not Primarily Engaged'' Providers

    Section 37.101 contains the vehicle acquisition requirements for 
private entities not primarily engaged in the business of transporting 
people. Because of the way that section 302 of the ADA itself it 
drafted, there is no specific vehicle acquisition requirement for 
``private not primarily engaged'' entities providing demand responsive 
service with vehicles having a capacity of 16 or fewer passengers. 
Rather, entities in this situation must provide equivalent service to 
passengers with disabilities. This requirement is set forth in 
Sec. 37.171. To avoid confusion, we propose to add to Sec. 37.101 a new 
paragraph containing a cross-reference to Sec. 37.171.

4. Personal Care Attendants

    Section 37.123(f)(1)(i) permits an eligible individual traveling on 
ADA paratransit to be accompanied by a ``personal care attendant'' 
(PCA) as well as by any other person of the individual's choice. 
Section 37.131(c)(3) says that the PCA rides without charge, while the 
other companion must pay the paratransit fare. These provisions have 
led to questions about who should be regarded as a PCA. Section 
37.123(f)(1)(ii) attempted to provide guidance on this issue by saying 
that a family member or friend traveling with an eligible individual is 
not regarded as a PCA unless that person is acting in the capacity of a 
PCA. The Appendix discussion of this section notes that a PCA is 
someone ``designated or employed specifically to help the individual 
meet his or her personal needs,'' such as eating, drinking, using the 
bathroom, communicating etc. The Appendix also notes that the 
paratransit provider may, as part of the eligibility certification 
process, require that eligible individuals register as users of PCAs. 
The companion of someone not so registering could be charged the 
paratransit fare.
    The Department is aware that there may be definitions of PCA used 
in other contexts (e.g., human services programs). We seek comment on 
whether one of these definitions would be appropriate for use in the 
context of paratransit.

5. Equivalent Facilitation

    The current provisions concerning ``equivalent facilitation'' 
(Secs. 37.7 and 37.9) require, as one condition for obtaining a 
determination of equivalent facilitation, that an entity demonstrate 
its ``reasons for inability to comply'' with the existing regulatory 
standards. In other words, before the Department can determine that 
something is an equivalent facilitation, the applicant must show not 
only that it is proposing a solution providing equal or greater 
accessibility, but also that it is precluded from using the solution 
provided for in the Department's standards. The purpose of this 
provision was to limit departures from established regulatory standards 
to those situations where they could not be applied and, therefore, to 
discourage a proliferation of solutions that might undermine the goal 
of having uniform, predictable standards. This approach has the 
disadvantage, however, of also discouraging newer technologies or more 
innovative solutions that might actually provide accessibility gains in 
some situations. For this reason, the Department is proposing to delete 
the ``inability to comply'' language from the equivalent facilitation 
sections of the rule. We seek comment on whether this is a good idea.
    We would point out that the proposed change is not intended to 
diminish the requirement that any equivalent facilitation provide equal 
or greater accessibility. For example, it would not permit a rail 
system to avoid installing detectable warnings meeting the regulatory 
standards without that system having demonstrated that a substitute 
design was as detectable or more detectable by persons with impaired 
vision.

6. Clarification of Appendix Statement on Vehicle Lift Dimensions

    Part 38, the Departments standards for accessible vehicles, 
contains dimensions for wheelchair lifts on vehicles. The reference to 
these dimensions in the Part 37, Appendix A, discussion of Sec. 37.13 
speaks of the ``new 30'' x 48'' lift platform specifications.'' While 
the dimensions are 30 x 48 inches at a distance of two inches above the 
platform, the width of the platform need only be 28.5 inches at the 
platform itself. This seeming discrepancy has confused some readers. To 
resolve it, we propose to remove the words ``30'' by ``48'' from the 
Appendix, so that the reference is simply to the lift standards of Part 
38.

7. Typographical Errors

    In Sec. 37.3, in the definition of ``designated public 
transportation,'' the word ``containing'' in the final line should be 
``continuing.'' In Sec. 37.11(a), the reference in the last line to 
``Subpart F'' of 49 CFR Part 27 should be ``Subpart C'' (Part 27 no 
longer contains any Subpart F). Commenters are encouraged to note other 
such errors, so that they can also be corrected.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

    This NPRM does not propose a significant rule under Executive Order 
12866. It is a significant NPRM under the Department's Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures, since it would amend the Department's 
Americans with Disabilities Act rule, which is a significant rule. We 
expect economic impacts to be minimal, so we have not prepared a 
regulatory evaluation. There are no Federalism impacts sufficient to 
warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. The Department 
certifies that the proposals, if adopted, will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Issued this 12th day of July, 1994, at Washington, DC.
Federico Pena,
Secretary of Transportation.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department proposes 
to amend 49 CFR Part 37 and 49 CFR Part 38 as follows:

PART 37--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for 49 CFR Part 37 is proposed to 
continue to read as follows:

    Authority: Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
12101-12213); 49 U.S.C. 322.

    2. The authority citation for 49 CFR Part 38 is proposed to be 
revised to read as follows:

    Authority: Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
12101-12213); 49 U.S.C. 322.

    3. In part 37, Sec. 37.27(b) is proposed to be revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 37. 27  Transportation for elementary and secondary education 
systems.

* * * * *
    (b) The requirements of this part do not apply to the 
transportation of school children to and from a private elementary or 
secondary school, and its school-related activities, if the school is 
providing transportation service to students with disabilities 
equivalent to that provided to students without disabilities. The test 
of equivalence is the same as that provided in Sec. 37.105. If the 
school does not meet the requirement of this paragraph for exemption 
from the requirements of this part, it is subject to the requirements 
of this part for private entities not primarily engaged in transporting 
people.
    4. In part 37, Sec. 37.135 is proposed to be amended by revising 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec. 37.135  Submission of paratransit plan.

* * * * *
    (c) Annual updates. Except as provided in this paragraph, each 
entity shall submit an annual update to its plan on January 26 of each 
succeeding year.
    (1) If an entity has met and is continuing to meet fully all 
requirements for complementary paratransit in Secs. 37.121 through 
37.133 of this part, the entity may submit to FTA on January 26 of each 
succeeding year a certification of compliance in lieu of a plan update. 
Entities that have submitted a joint plan under Sec. 37.141 may submit 
a joint certification under this paragraph. The requirements of 
Secs. 37.137 through 37.139 do not apply when a certification is 
submitted under this paragraph.
    (2) In the event of any change in circumstances that results in an 
entity which has submitted a certification of compliance falling short 
of full compliance with Secs. 37.121 through 37.133 in any respect, the 
entity shall immediately notify FTA of the problem. In this case, the 
entity shall file a plan update meeting the requirements of 
Secs. 37.137 through 37.139 of this part on the next following January 
26 and in each succeeding year until the entity returns to full 
compliance.
    (3) An entity which has been granted a waiver from any provision of 
this part on the basis of undue financial burden shall file a plan 
update meeting the requirements of Secs. 37.137 through 37.139 of this 
part on each January 26 during which the waiver is in effect.
    5. In part 37, Sec. 37.167 is proposed to be amended by revising 
paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec. 37.167  Other service requirements.

* * * * *
    (g) (1) The entity shall not refuse to permit a passenger who uses 
a lift to disembark from a vehicle at any designated stop, unless--
    (i) The lift cannot be deployed;
    (ii) The lift will be damaged if it is deployed;
    (iii) The lift, when fully deployed, would leave an inadequate 
space at the stop for the passenger to obtain a secure and maintainable 
position on the ground; or
    (iv) Temporary conditions at the stop, not under the control of the 
entity, preclude the safe use of the stop by all passengers.
    (2) For purposes of this paragraph, a stop that does not meet the 
specifications set forth in Sec. 10.2.1(1) of Appendix A to this part 
shall be deemed to provide inadequate space for passengers using common 
wheelchairs to obtain a secure and maintainable position on the ground.
    6. In part 38, Sec. 38.173(a) is proposed to be amended by adding 
the words ``(i.e., at a speed of no more than 20 miles per hour at any 
location on their route during normal operation)'' after the words 
``slow speed.''
    7. In part 38, Sec. 38.173(d) is proposed to be amended by adding 
the following sentence at the end: ``AGT systems whose vehicles travel 
at a speed of more than 20 miles per hour at any location on their 
route during normal operation are covered under this paragraph rather 
than under paragraph (a) of this section.''
    8. In part 37, Sec. 37.131(b)(4) is proposed to be removed or, in 
the alternative, to be amended by substituting the word ``may'' for the 
word ``shall.''
    9. In Part 37, Sec. 37.127(e) is proposed to be amended by adding 
the words ``per year'' after the word ``days''.
    10. In part 37, Sec. 37.101 is proposed to be amended by adding a 
new paragraph (e), to read as follows:


Sec. 37.101  Purchase or lease of vehicles by private entities not 
primarily engaged in the business of transporting people.

* * * * *
    (e) Demand Responsive System, Vehicle Capacity of 16 or Fewer. 
Providers of transportation in this category should refer to 
Sec. 37.171 of this part for requirements pertaining to that service.
    11. In part 37, Sec. 37.7 is proposed to be amended by revising 
paragraph (b)(2) and removing and reserving (b)(3) to read as follows:


Sec. 37.7  Standards for accessible vehicles.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Specific provision of part 38 of this title concerning which 
the entity is seeking a determination of equivalent facilitation.
* * * * *
    12. In part 37, Sec. 37.9 is proposed to be amended by revising 
paragraph (d)(2) and removing and reserving (d)(3) to read as follows:


Sec. 37.9  Standards for accessible facilities.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Specific provision of Appendix A concerning which the entity is 
seeking a determination of equivalent facilitation.
* * * * *
    13. In part 37, Appendix A, the paragraph entitled ``Section 37.13 
Effective Date for Certain Vehicle Lift Specifications'' is proposed to 
be amended by deleting the words ``30'' x ``48''.''
    14. In part 37, the definition of the term ``Designated public 
transportation'' in Sec. 37.3 is proposed to be amended by revising the 
word ``containing'' to read ``continuing''.
    15. In part 37, Sec. 37.11(a) is proposed to be amended by revising 
the words ``subpart F'' to read ``subpart C.''

[FR Doc. 94-17735 Filed 7-20-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P