Transportation for Individuals With Disabilities

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