[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 6, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9048-9054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-2853]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

49 CFR Part 37

[Docket OST-1998-3648]
RIN 2105-ACOO


Transportation for Individuals With Disabilities--Accessibility 
of Over-the-Road Buses (OTRBs)

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Interim final rule; Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Department is amending its Americans with Disabilities Act 
(ADA) regulations concerning accessibility of over-the-road buses 
(OTRBs) by removing the provision requiring compensation to passengers 
who do not receive required service, clarifiying the information 
collection requirements, postponing until March 26, 2001, the 
requirement for bus companies to submit information reporting ridership 
on accessible fixed route service and the acquisition of buses, and 
designating a different address for regulated parties to use in 
submitting the required information. The amendments respond to a recent 
court decision and comments on the information collection requirements.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule becomes effective March 8, 2001.
    Written Comments: Comments on the interim final rule must be 
submitted on or before March 8, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The public is invited to submit written comments on the 
Interim Final Rule. The Interim Final Rule may be changed in light of 
the comments received. Written comments should refer to the docket 
number of this interim rule and be submitted in duplicate to: DOT 
Central Docket Management Facility located in room PL-401 at the Plaza 
level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590.
    Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the 
collection of information requirements should direct them to the Office 
of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the 
Secretary of Transportation, Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, and should also send a copy of their 
comments to: DOT Central Docket Management Facility located in room PL-
401 at the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590.
    All docket material will be available for inspection at this 
address and on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. Docket hours at the 
Nassif Building are Monday-Friday, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., excluding Federal 
holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must 
include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blane A. Workie, Attorney, Regulation 
and Enforcement, Office of the General Counsel, 400 7th Street, SW., 
Room 10424, Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-9306 (voice), 202-366-9313 
(fax), or blane,[email protected] (email).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department's September 1998 final rule

[[Page 9049]]

on over-the-road bus accessibility contained a number of information 
collection requirements and a requirement that bus operators compensate 
disabled passengers when required service is not provided. The final 
rule amends both of the aforementioned requirements and postpones until 
March 26, 2001, the requirement for bus companies to submit information 
reporting ridership on accessible fixed route service and the 
acquisition of buses. The Department addresses the reasons for the 
amendments in turn.

Section 37.199  Compensation for Failure To Provide Required Vehicles 
or Service

    As a means of ensuring that OTRB operators were accountable for 
meeting service requirements under the final rule, the Department 
adopted a suggestion made by bus industry commenters during the comment 
period leading to the final rule. Section 37.199 of the final rule 
requires bus operators to make modest compensation payments to disabled 
passengers when required service is not provided. This provision 
focuses primarily, though not exclusively, on 48-hour advance notice 
service.
    The bus industry sought judicial review of the entire final rule. 
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the final 
rule in every respect. American Bus Association, Inc. v. Rodney E. 
Slater, No. 98 Civ. 2351 (D. D.C. September 10, 1999). The industry 
then appealed the District Court decision solely with respect to 
Sec. 37.199. On November 14, 2000, the Federal Appeals Court for the 
District of Columbia Circuit determined that the compensation provision 
was not authorized by statute. American Bus Association, Inc. v. Rodney 
E. Slater, 231 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 14, 2000). In consequence of the 
court's decision, the Department in this final rule is deleting 
Sec. 37.199, as well as certain recordkeeping and reporting provisions 
that relate to the compensation provision.
    The Department wishes to emphasize that the remainder of the rule, 
including all requirements for accessible buses and bus service, remain 
fully in effect. The court decision does not change these requirements 
in any way.
    The Department continues to believe that OTRB operators must remain 
accountable for proper implementation of all required service under the 
rule. While removing Sec. 37.199 will eliminate the opportunity for 
individual passengers to receive compensation automatically for the 
denial of required service, there are other existing means through 
which the Department's rule can be enforced.
    Under Title III of the ADA, there are judicial remedies available 
for noncompliance (e.g., enforcement litigation brought by the 
Department of Justice). Also, the OTRB rule includes recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements concerning the provision of service. These 
requirements will allow the Department and other interested persons to 
determine the extent to which OTRB operators provide required service. 
It may also provide a factual basis for the Department to work with the 
Department of Justice on potential enforcement actions. The Department 
seeks comment on whether there are other appropriate enforcement 
mechanisms that the Department could, in the future, propose to replace 
Sec. 37.199.
    The Department also seeks comment on whether, in the absence of 
Sec. 37.199, we should reconsider certain substantive provisions of the 
rule. During the comment period leading to the OTRB rule, bus industry 
commenters asked to maximize the use of on-call accessible bus service, 
saying that it was the most cost-effective approach to providing 
accessible services. Disability community commenters disagreed, saying 
that on-call service had shown itself to be unreliable and that 
disabled passengers could not count on the bus industry to comply fully 
with on-call service obligations.
    To mitigate impacts of the rule on small businesses, we permitted 
charter/tour operators and smaller fixed-route and mixed-service 
operators to meet their requirements through 48-hour on-call services, 
rather than requiring them to purchase accessible buses in all cases. 
We believed that this decision was reasonable, in part, because it was 
balanced by the compensation provision of Sec. 37.199, which would help 
to ensure that bus operators met their obligations. In the absence of 
this accountability mechanism, should the Department reconsider its 
decision to allow extensive use of on-call bus service? For example, 
should we propose requiring acquisition of accessible buses in some 
situations where on-call service is not permitted? Are there other ways 
of restoring the balance between the Department's objectives of 
ensuring accessible buses and service for passengers with disabilities 
and mitigating economic impacts on small businesses?

Section 37.213  Information Collection Requirements

    The Department is making changes to the final rule regarding the 
information collection requirements in response to comments. In an 
April 1, 1999, Federal Register notice (64 FR 15866), we asked for 
comments on these requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act. We 
received 91 comments from members of disability community 
organizations, individuals with disabilities, and state and local 
agencies that work with individuals with disabilities. Prior to this 
notice, the American Bus Association (ABA) had provided a comment on 
the information collection requirements of the rule. We received no 
additional comments from the bus industry regarding the information 
collection requirements following the April 1999 notice.
    The common theme among the disability community comments was that 
the only way to protect the civil rights of people with disabilities 
and provide equal access to transportation is to hold OTRB companies 
accountable by requiring documentation. Documentation is the only way a 
disabled passenger can prove that he or she made a request for advance 
service or equivalent service or that lawful compensation is due.
    The commenters, however, had concerns regarding the proposed 
documentation. One concern was that bus companies may require the 
passenger to provide documentation as proof or as a prerequisite to 
receiving accessible service. A commenter requested that the rule make 
clear that neither a copy of the form or confirmation number is needed 
as proof of request or as a prerequisite to receiving accessible 
service. DOT believes that it is clear that bus companies cannot 
require documentation as a prerequisite to receiving accessible 
service. Nowhere in the rule is there a requirement for disabled 
persons to provide proof of request as a prerequisite to receiving 
accessible service.
    A second concern was that the request for an accessible bus should 
cover the entire trip, including round trip or any connections, and 
operators should be required to document the arrangements that were 
made to provide an accessible bus. Commenters wanted assurance that a 
passenger traveling round trip or whose trip involves bus changes 
should only have to make one request. DOT believes that the rule 
intends for a request for accessible bus service to cover the entire 
trip, including round trip and/or any connections. The

[[Page 9050]]

amendment revises the rule to clarify this point.
    A third concern was that the rule does not specify what constitutes 
a failure to provide an accessible bus. A failure to provide service 
occurs when accessible service is not provided. Specific questions as 
to whether there is a failure on the part of operator to provide the 
requested accessible service when the passenger is made to wait or 
accepts an alternative arrangement are primarily matters of 
interpretation. DOT does not believe it is necessary to modify the 
regulations for this purpose.
    Commenters supported the requirement that bus companies report the 
number of new or used accessible buses that have been purchased or 
leased. Many commenters explained that this requirement is essential to 
monitor companies' compliance with the regulations. One commenter 
suggested that companies should be required to report both the number 
of accessible buses that are actually used in service and the number of 
accessible buses in the entire fleet. DOT does not think, however, that 
there is a strong rationale for requiring companies to report the 
number of accessible buses that are actually used in service, since the 
rule already requires fixed route operators to report the number of 
accessible buses in each category and ridership on accessible buses.
    Another commenter expressed a concern with how bus companies are 
planning to make their fleets accessible. Specifically, the commenter 
wanted data indicating whether companies would raise fares or receive 
government assistance. As stated in the September 1998 final rule's 
preamble, there are a variety of programs that provide financial 
assistance or relief to OTRB companies. OTRB companies accepted over $2 
million in accessibility subsidies during 1999, for example. The 
Department does not believe, however, that it is necessary to collect 
extensive fare information, which can reflect a variety of market 
influences.
    Some disability community commenters said that the requirement that 
bus companies report the number of lift boardings should be eliminated 
from the rule. There is a general belief among disability community 
commenters that, historically, bus companies have underreported this 
information and that DOT's reliance on this data will be detrimental to 
the disability community. Thus, in the absence of some way to 
independently verify this data, they assert that this requirement 
should be dropped. The ABA believes that reporting under the rule 
should be limited to Class I carriers and to data concerning total one-
way trips and total one-way trips by passengers in wheelchairs.
    DOT believes that it is important that the rule retain the 
requirement to report the number of lift boardings because ridership 
has been a major issue in this regulation. Six years from now, there 
will be a regulatory review and some measure of usage is potentially 
useful information. DOT is aware of concerns of underreporting and will 
aim to periodically perform spot checks of lift boarding usage to test 
the accuracy of the information provided by the OTRB industry. We are 
also willing to consider data developed independently by sources 
outside the Department.
    We recognize that ABA opposes the accountability requirements of 
the rule, and consequently would prefer to avoid reporting information 
concerning the success of bus companies in meeting their requirements 
for accessible buses and service. Nonetheless, for program evaluation 
and compliance purposes, we believe that this recordkeeping and 
reporting is vital to ensuring that passengers receive the 
nondiscriminatory service that the ADA and the Department's regulation 
establish as their civil right.
    Many disability community commenters expressed the viewpoint that 
the proposed five-year record retention requirement is too short. The 
OTRB industry has over thirteen years to phase in the ADA regulations. 
Therefore, commenters said, the retention period should be extended to 
fifteen or twenty years in order to cover the entire period in which 
the regulations are to be phased in. The ABA suggested, however, that 
the record retention period be reduced to one year, as a means of 
reducing paperwork burdens.
    DOT is not persuaded by these arguments and believes that five 
years is an appropriate time period for retention of records and a 
reasonable compromise between these competing concerns. It is unlikely 
that in year 10 there will be a need or interest to look at forms from 
year 4, and older records would be of limited use in enforcement 
proceedings. In DOT's experience, five years is ample time to retain 
records for enforcement purposes. In addition, requiring long-term or 
indefinite retention of records could add to the information collection 
burden of the rule for Paperwork Reduction Act purposes. Yet, 
permitting companies to discard records after one year would probably 
be insufficient for program evaluation and compliance purposes.
    Commenters further requested that DOT require that the individual 
forms be submitted to DOT annually because the summarized reports 
submitted by industry might not be entirely accurate. DOT believes that 
it is sufficient to require the OTRB industry to submit annual reports, 
especially considering the fact that operators must make the forms 
available to DOT or Department of Justice (DOJ) officials at their 
request. In addition, the limitations of the Department's resources 
would make it difficult for us to catalog the additional forms and 
review them adequately. Commenters also asserted that records should be 
made available to the general public. Most, if not all, of the records 
or information that DOT receives from the OTRB industry would be 
available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
    There were also a number of comments regarding the proposed forms 
to be used. One suggestion is that Form A should denote the locations 
where the accessible bus is needed and operators should be required to 
document the arrangements made for the return trip or any connections. 
A second suggestion is that Forms A and B differ unnecessarily, which 
can lead to confusion. A third suggestion is that there needs to be 
clarification of when a passenger is entitled to documentation for 
equivalent service.
    Commenters said that the rule and Form B should more clearly 
require small fixed operators who choose to provide equivalent service 
give the passenger a copy of Form B upon request for equivalent service 
and whenever the requested equivalent service is provided. A fourth 
suggestion is that DOT fix an error in item 10 of Form B. Item 10 of 
Form B states ``If the answer to items 9 and 10 is no, attach 
documentation that compensation required by Department of 
Transportation regulations was paid.'' Item 10 mistakenly refers to 
item 10 as if it preceded it, leading one commenter to wonder whether 
an item is missing from Form B.
    Based upon these comments, DOT is revising Appendix A to Subpart H 
of Part 37 and section 37.213 of the final rule. As explained earlier, 
DOT agrees with the comments that the form should include a question 
about the location(s) where an accessible bus is needed. DOT also 
agrees with the suggestions that Forms A and B should not differ 
unnecessarily. For these reasons, we have eliminated the dual forms and 
created one form, which will be used for all purposes. The new form 
avoids the problem cited by commenters with respect to item 10 of Form 
B. Additionally, the new form does not require OTRB operators attach

[[Page 9051]]

documentation that compensation was paid because the compensation 
provision has been eliminated. Furthermore, DOT agrees that there needs 
to be clear language in section 37.213(b) of the final rule and Form B 
explaining that a passenger is entitled to documentation whenever 
equivalent service is requested and whenever the requested equivalent 
service is not provided.
    The ABA requested clarification of the time in which bus companies 
should send copies of the form back to passengers after a request for 
accessible or equivalent service. The ABA suggested the next business 
day after the request is received. In cases where the carrier failed to 
provide accessible or equivalent service, and the carrier paid 
compensation, ABA recommended that the form and attached compensation 
should be sent within up to seven working days from the failure to 
provide service. The ABA said that this would be consistent with the 
seven-day time frame for actually providing the compensation.
    The Department agrees with the ABA in that on the next business day 
after a passenger's request for accessible or equivalent services is 
received, bus companies should send copies of the form back to that 
passenger. It does not matter whether the operator believes that it has 
a basis under the rule for failing to provide accessible or equivalent 
service (e.g., the request for accessible service was not made in a 
timely manner), it must still send copies of the form to the passenger 
on the next business day. The compensation provision has been removed 
from the rule and thus, the related requirement of attaching 
compensation to the form no longer exists.
    Comments were also received suggesting that DOT require bus 
companies to post public notice of key ADA requirements on their buses, 
at their stations, in their publications, and on their web-sites. Some 
commenters propose that the companies make forms available through 
various means such as over the internet, via facsimile, available for 
pick-up, or mailed on the same day the request is made. Such third-
party notice requirements are viewed as information collection burdens 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, and we are not convinced that they 
are necessary burdens to impose. It is in the interest of all 
concerned, including the companies, to make customers aware of 
available services. The Department can revisit this issue if it 
appears, during implementation, that consumers are not receiving 
adequate information.
    As for the burden estimates, the commenters agreed that most of 
DOT's estimations of the burden hours that it will take to comply with 
the reporting requirements were reasonable. The only one they felt was 
exaggerated was the estimation of the amount of time it will take to 
prepare an annual report listing the number of accessible buses. DOT 
estimated that it will take 35.4 hours and the commenters feel that 
three to five hours is a more accurate estimation. The commenters argue 
that computers and the Internet substantially lessen the burden of the 
paperwork requirements. OTRB companies can use computers to 
automatically confirm and record transactions completed over the 
Internet. If the transaction is completed by telephone, an employee can 
enter the information as the transaction is taking place. By keeping an 
up-to-date database, this information will always be ready and 
available. Therefore, it will take minimal hours to report this 
information to DOT.
    DOT agrees that modern technology could reduce the burden of 
preparing an annual report listing the number of accessible buses. 
However, the commenters have not provided DOT with the data to support 
their belief that three to five hours is a more accurate estimate. All 
of DOT's burden hour estimates were calculated using national averages 
of cost indicators developed through a major study of records 
management costs. The Association of Records Managers and 
Administrators (ARMA) sponsored this study.

Extension of Due Date for Information Collection

    The September 1998 final rule on over the road buses (49 CFR Part 
37, Subpart H) called for bus companies to submit a number of forms, 
reports and data to the Department. In this final rule, we extend the 
due date for information collection as required by Sec. 37.213 of this 
rule. Paragraph (c) of this section called for large operators to make 
their first submissions to the Department on October 30, 2000, for the 
year beginning in October 1999, and for small operators to make their 
first submissions to the Department on October 29, 2001, for the year 
beginning in October 2000. Paragraph (d) called for bus companies to 
submit their first report on accessible and inaccessible new, used and 
leased buses to the Department on October 28, 1999, for the year 
beginning in October 1998.
    The Department is extending the effective date for some of the 
information collection requirements for two reasons. First, although 
the Department published a notice requesting comments on these 
information collection requirements on April 1, 1999, DOT has not been 
able to publish a notice addressing the comments received until today. 
Following the publication of this final rule, we expect to obtain an 
OMB control number for the new information collection requirements 
resulting from the OTRB rulemaking.
    Second, in December 1999, two major bus industry associations 
petitioned the Department to change this rule. Beginning on October 29, 
1999, bus companies were required to submit a report concerning the 
acquisition of buses. The industry associations alleged that most 
operators were not aware of the requirement and relatively few 
operators had submitted the information. Although we did provide legal 
notice of the requirement, we believe we should provide more time 
because we have not completed the Paperwork Reduction Act requirements. 
The Department will also make efforts to inform companies of this 
reporting requirement.
    The Department, however, does not want to lose the benefit of 
information gathered during the past two years regarding company bus 
acquisitions. Thus, we are amending Sec. 37.213(d) by changing the 
first reporting date for the acquisition of buses from October 29, 1999 
to March 26, 2001, but we will require the March 2001 report to include 
data for the period of October 1998 through October 2000. All 
subsequent submissions will be due on the last Monday in October of 
that year and would include a year of data (i.e. the October 29, 2001 
submission should include data from October 2000 through October 2001).
    The Department also does not want to lose the benefit of 
information gathered during the past year regarding ridership. Thus, we 
are amending Sec. 37.213(c) by changing the first reporting date for 
ridership data for large operators from October 30, 2000 to March 26, 
2001. The same data that should have been submitted on October 30, 
2000, for the period of October 1999 through October 2000, shall be 
submitted on March 26, 2001. Beginning on October 29, 2001 and on the 
last Monday in October each year thereafter, large operators must 
submit data for the year commencing and ending each October (i.e. the 
October 30, 2001 submission by large operators must include data from 
October 2000 through October 2001). The due date for submissions by 
small operators, October 29, 2001, remains unchanged except to clarify 
that data for each year thereafter must be submitted on the last Monday 
in October.

[[Page 9052]]

    Additionally, we are amending Sec. 37.213(a), (b), (c), and (d) by 
deleting the phrase ``on that date'' and adding the phrase ``on the 
last Monday in October'' to clarify that the due date for the 
submission of data in subsequent years is always the last Monday in 
October.
    Finally, petitioners were correct in stating that there was 
uncertainty about which office in DOT would collect the data in this 
and other reports. Although the September 1998 report designated the 
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) to play this role, DOT has 
decided to require submission of the reports to the Office of Data 
Analysis and Information Systems in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, and the rule has been changed to this effect.

Regulatory Analysis and Notices

 Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    This rulemaking is not ``significant'' under Executive Order 12866 
or the Department of Transportation Regulatory Policies and Procedures 
because there are no costs associated with this rule.
 Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''). This 
final rule does not adopt any regulation that (1) has substantial 
direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government; (2) imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments; or 
(3) preempts state law. Therefore, the consultation and funding 
requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
 Executive Order 13084
    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (``Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''). Because this final rule 
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian 
tribal governments and does not impose substantial direct compliance 
costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 
13084 do not apply.
 Regulatory Flexibility Act
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an 
agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities 
unless the agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. We hereby 
certify this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities because it imposes no costs.
 Paperwork Reduction Act
    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DOT has 
submitted the Information Collection Requests (ICRs) abstracted below 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Before OMB decides 
whether to approve these proposed collections of information and issue 
a control number, the public must be provided 30 days to comment. 
Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the 
collection of information requirements should direct them to the Office 
of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the 
Secretary of Transportation, Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, and should also send a copy of their 
comments to: DOT Central Docket Management Facility located in room PL-
401 at the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590. OMB is required to make a decision concerning the 
collection of information requirements contained in this rule between 
30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal 
Register. Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its 
full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
    We will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information 
collection requirements contained in this rule. OST may not impose a 
penalty on persons for violating information collection requirements 
which do not display a current OMB control number, if required. OST 
intends to obtain current OMB control numbers for any new information 
collection requirements resulting from this rulemaking action. The OMB 
control number, when assigned, will be announced by separate notice in 
the Federal Register.
    The ICRs were previously published in the Federal Register (54 FR 
15866). Although minor changes in the information collection burden 
hours in 1(A)-(D) and 2(A)-(C) as well as the estimated total annual 
burden hours have been made due to mathematical errors in the previous 
submission, the assumptions upon which these calculations are based 
have not changed. Moreover, the effect on the information collection 
burden hours of the elimination of the compensation requirement 
provision on the ICRs is de minimis.
    The DOT Final Rule on Accessibility of Over-the-Road Buses has 
information collection requirements in four areas: (1) Advance notice 
requests; (2) equivalent service; (3) ridership on accessible fixed 
route service; and, (4) number of accessible and inaccessible purchased 
or leased buses.

    (1)(A) Requirement to fill out a form each time there is an advance 
notice request.
    Respondents: Demand-responsive (i.e. charter/tour service) 
operators. Fixed route companies before fleet becomes fully accessible. 
Small mixed service operators that choose to provide 48 hour notice.
    Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: 3.3 (low estimate) to 5.0 
(high estimate) hours for each of the 3,448 respondents.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 11,478 (low estimate) to 17,321 
(high estimate) hours.
    Frequency: 15 times (low estimate) and 23 times (high estimate) in 
initial year.

    (1)(B) Requirement to provide a copy of the form to the passenger 
when the operator receives a request for accessible bus service.
    Respondents: Demand-responsive (i.e. charter/tour service) 
operators. Fixed route companies before fleet becomes fully accessible. 
Small mixed service operators that choose to provide 48 hour notice.
    Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: 3.1 (low estimate) to 4.7 
hours (high estimate) for each of the 3,448 respondents.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 10,787 (low estimate) to 16,277 
(high estimate) hours.
    Frequency: 15 times (low estimate) and 23 times (high estimate) in 
initial year.

    (1)(C) Requirement to provide a copy of the form to the passenger 
on the scheduled date of trip if the requested accessible bus was not 
provided.
    Respondents: Demand-responsive (i.e. charter/tour service) 
operators. Fixed route companies before fleet becomes fully accessible. 
Small mixed service operators that choose to provide 48 hour notice.
    Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: 0.3 (low estimate) to 0.5 
hours (high estimate) for each of the 3,448 respondents.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1,079 (low estimate) to 1628 (high 
estimate) hours.

[[Page 9053]]

    Frequency: 1 time (low estimate) to 2 times (high estimate) in 
initial year.

    (1)(D) Requirement to retain one copy of the form for 5 years.
    Respondents: Demand-responsive (i.e. charter/tour service) 
operators. Fixed route companies before fleet becomes fully accessible. 
Small mixed service operators that choose to provide 48 hour notice.
    Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: 1.9 (low estimate) to 2.9 
(high estimate) hours for each of the 3,448 respondents.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 6,627 (low estimate) to 9999 (high 
estimate) hours.
    Frequency: 15 times (low estimate) and 23 times (high estimate) in 
initial year.

    (1)(E) Requirement to submit a summary of its form to DOT.
    Respondents: Demand-responsive (i.e. charter/tour service) 
operators. Fixed route companies before fleet becomes fully accessible. 
Small mixed service operators that choose to provide 48 hour notice.
    Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: 35.4 hours for each of the 
3,448 respondents.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 122,059 hours.
    Frequency: Submit summary to DOT annually.

    (2)(A) Requirement to fill out a form each time fixed route 
operator provides equivalent service.
    Respondents: Small fixed route operators who choose to provide 
equivalent service to passengers with disabilities.
    Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: 4.0 (low estimate) to 6.3 
(high estimate) hours for each of the 215 respondents.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 870 (low estimate) to 1356 (high 
estimate) hours.

    Frequency: 18 times (low estimate) and 28 times (high estimate) in 
initial year.

    (2)(B)Requirement to provide one copy of the form to the passenger.
    Respondents: Small fixed route operators who choose to provide 
equivalent service to passengers with disabilities.
    Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: 3.8 (low estimate) to 5.9 
(high estimate) hours for each of the 215 respondents.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 817 (low estimate) to 1274 (high 
estimate) hours.
    Frequency: 18 times (low estimate) and 28 times (high estimate) in 
initial year.

    (2)(C) Requirement to retain copy for 5 years.
    Respondents: Small fixed route operators who choose to provide 
equivalent service to passengers with disabilities.
    Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: 2.3 (low estimate) to 3.6 
(high estimate) hours for each of the 215 respondents.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 502 (low estimate) to 783 (high 
estimate) hours.
    Frequency: 18 times (low estimate) and 28 times (high estimate) in 
initial year.

    (2)(D)Requirement to submit a summary of its form to DOT.
    Respondents: Small fixed route operators who choose to provide 
equivalent service to passengers with disabilities.
    Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: 35.4 hours for each of the 
215 respondents.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 7,611 hours.
    Frequency: Submit summary to DOT annually.

    (3) Requirement to submit a report to DOT on ridership on 
accessible fixed route buses.
    Respondents: Fixed route operators.
    Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: 35.4 hours for each of the 
448 respondents.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 15,859 hours.
    Frequency: Submit report to DOT annually.

    (4) Requirement to submit a report to DOT listing the number of 
accessible and inaccessible new and used buses it has purchased or 
leased, as well as the total numbers of buses in operators' fleets.
    Respondents: All operators.
    Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: 35.4 hours for each of the 
3448 respondents.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 122,059 hours.
    Frequency: Submit report to DOT annually.
    The estimated total annual burden resulting from the collection of 
information in the DOT Final Rule on Accessibility of Over-the-Road 
Buses is between 299,748 hours (low estimate) to 316,226 hours (high 
estimate).
 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    The Department has determined that the requirements of Title II of 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this 
rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 37

    Buildings and facilities, Buses, Civil rights, Individuals with 
disabilities, Mass transportation, Railroads, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

    Issued this 18th day of January, 2000, at Washington, DC.
Rodney E. Slater,
Secretary of Transportation.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 49 CFR Part 37 is 
amended as follows:

PART 37--TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES 
(ADA)

    1. The authority citation for part 37 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12101-12213; 49 U.S.C. 322.

Subpart H--Over-the-Road Buses (OTRBs)


Sec. 37.199  [Removed and Reserved]

    2. Remove and reserve Sec. 37.199.
    3. Revise Sec. 37.213 to read as follows:


Sec. 37.213  Information collection requirements.

    (a) This paragraph (a) applies to demand-responsive operators under 
Sec. 37.189 and fixed-route operators under Sec. 37.193(a)(1) that are 
required to, and small mixed-service operators under Sec. 37.191 that 
choose to, provide accessible OTRB service on 48 hours' advance notice.
    (1) When the operator receives a request for an accessible bus or 
equivalent service, the operator shall complete lines 1-9 of the 
Service Request Form in Appendix A to this subpart. The operator shall 
transmit a copy of the form to the passenger no later than the end of 
the next business day following the receipt of the request. The 
passenger shall be required to make only one request, which covers all 
legs of the requested trip (e.g., in the case of a round trip, both the 
outgoing and return legs of the trip; in the case of a multi-leg trip, 
all connecting legs).
    (2) On the scheduled date(s) of the trip(s), the operator providing 
the trip shall complete lines 10 and 11 of the form. In any case in 
which the requested accessible bus was not provided, the operator shall 
transmit a copy of the form to the passenger no later than the end of 
the next business day following failure to provide requested service.
    (3) The operator shall retain its copy of the completed form for 
five years. The operator shall make these forms available to Department 
of Transportation or Department of Justice officials at their request.
    (4) Beginning October 29, 2001, for large operators, and October 
28, 2002,

[[Page 9054]]

for small operators, and on the last Monday in October in each year 
thereafter, each operator shall submit a summary of its forms to the 
Department of Transportation. The summary shall state the number of 
requests for accessible bus service and the number of times these 
requests were met. It shall also include the name, address, telephone 
number, and contact person name for the operator.
    (b) This paragraph (b) applies to small fixed route operators who 
choose to provide equivalent service to passengers with disabilities 
under Sec. 37.183(b)(2).
    (1) The operator shall complete the Service Request Form in 
Appendix A to this subpart on every occasion on which a passenger with 
a disability needs equivalent service in order to be provided 
transportation.
    (2) The operator shall transmit a copy of the form to the passenger 
no later than the next business day following request for equivalent 
service and whenever the requested equivalent service is not provided. 
The operator shall retain its copy of the completed form for five 
years. The operator shall make these forms available to the Department 
of Transportation of Department of Justice officials at their request.
    (3) Beginning on October 28, 2002 and on the last Monday in October 
in each year therafter, each operator shall submit a summary of its 
forms to the Department of Transportation. The summary shall state the 
number of situations in which equivalent service was needed and the 
number of times such service was provided. It shall also include the 
name, address, telephone number, and contact person name for the 
operator.
    (c) This paragraph (c ) applies to fixed-route operators.
    (1) On March 26, 2001, each fixed-route large operator shall submit 
to the Department a report on how many passengers with disabilities 
used the lift to board accessible buses for the period of October 1999 
to October 2000. For fixed-route operators, the report shall reflect 
separately the data pertaining to 48-hour advance reservation service 
and other service.
    (2) Beginning on October 29, 2001 and on the last Monday in October 
in each year thereafter, each fixed-route operator shall submit to the 
Department, a report on how many passengers with disabilities used the 
lift to board accessible buses. For fixed-route operators, the report 
shall reflect separately the data pertaining to 48-hour advance 
reservation service and other service.
    (d) This paragraph (d) applies to each over the road bus operator.
    (1) On March 26, 2001, each operator shall submit to the 
Department, a summary report listing the number of new buses and used 
buses it has purchased or leased for the period of October 1998 through 
October 2000, and how many buses in each category are accessible. It 
shall also include the total number of buses in the operator's fleet 
and the name, address, telephone number, and contact person name for 
the operator.
    (2) Beginning on October 29, 2001 and on the last Monday in October 
in each year thereafter, each operator shall submit to the Department, 
a summary report listing the number of new buses and used buses it has 
purchased or leased during the preceding year, and how many buses in 
each category are accessible. It shall also include the total number of 
buses in the operator's fleet and the name, address, telephone number, 
and contact person name for the operator.
    (e) The information required to be submitted to the Department 
shall be sent to the following address: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, Office of Data Analysis & Information System 400 7th 
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

    4. Revise Appendix A to Subpart H of Part 37 to read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart H of Part 37--Service Request Form

Form for Advance Notice Requests and Provision of Equivalent Service

1. Operator's name-----------------------------------------------------
2. Address-------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Phone number:-------------------------------------------------------
4. Passenger's name:---------------------------------------------------
5. Address:------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Phone number:-------------------------------------------------------
7. Scheduled date(s) and time(s) of trip(s):---------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Date and time of request:-------------------------------------------
9. Location(s) of need for accessible bus or equivalent service, as 
applicable:------------------------------------------------------------
10. Was accessible bus or equivalent service, as applicable, 
provided for trip(s)? 
Yes ________  no ________
11. Was there a basis recognized by U.S. Department of 
transportation regulations for not providing an accessible bus or 
equivalent service, as applicable, for the trip(s)? Yes ________  no 
________
If yes, explain--------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 01-2853 Filed 2-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P