81_FR_32816 81 FR 32716 - Transportation for Individuals With Disabilities; Service Criteria for Complementary Paratransit Fares

81 FR 32716 - Transportation for Individuals With Disabilities; Service Criteria for Complementary Paratransit Fares

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 100 (May 24, 2016)

Page Range32716-32717
FR Document2016-11182

This document announces the disposition of a petition for rulemaking from Access Services concerning the Department's regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) with respect to the method of determining the fare for a trip charged to an ADA paratransit-eligible user. The petition asked the Department to revise its regulation to allow for a ``coordinated'' or two-tier fare structure. The current regulation provides that the fare shall not exceed twice the fare that would be charged to an individual paying full fare for a similar trip on the fixed route system. On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. Section 3023 of the FAST Act allows the fare structure Access Services supported in its petition for rulemaking, thereby rendering the petition for rulemaking moot.

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016) 
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32716-32717]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11182]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Part 37

[Docket DOT-OST-2015-0075]


Transportation for Individuals With Disabilities; Service 
Criteria for Complementary Paratransit Fares

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notification of disposition of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the disposition of a petition for 
rulemaking from Access Services concerning the Department's regulations 
implementing

[[Page 32717]]

the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) with respect to the method of 
determining the fare for a trip charged to an ADA paratransit-eligible 
user. The petition asked the Department to revise its regulation to 
allow for a ``coordinated'' or two-tier fare structure. The current 
regulation provides that the fare shall not exceed twice the fare that 
would be charged to an individual paying full fare for a similar trip 
on the fixed route system. On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed 
into law the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. 
Section 3023 of the FAST Act allows the fare structure Access Services 
supported in its petition for rulemaking, thereby rendering the 
petition for rulemaking moot.

DATES:  May 24, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill Laptosky, Attorney-Advisor, 
Office of General Counsel, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 
DC 20590, telephone: 202-493-0308, or email, [email protected]; or 
Bonnie Graves, Assistant Chief Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, 
Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Transit Administration, same address, 
telephone: 202-366-4011, or email, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  On March 4, 2015, the U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT) received a petition for rulemaking from Access 
Services, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary 
paratransit provider for 44 fixed route transit providers in Los 
Angeles County, California. Access Services described that it uses a 
``coordinated'' or two-tier fare structure where it generally charges 
$2.75 for one-way trips up to 19.9 miles, and $3.50 for one-way trips 
of 20 miles or more. In some cases, these fares exceed twice the fixed 
route fare. The DOT's ADA regulation at 49 CFR 37.131(c) provides that 
the fare for a trip charged to an ADA paratransit-eligible user of the 
complementary paratransit service shall not exceed twice the fare that 
would be charged to an individual paying full fare for a trip of 
similar length, at a similar time of day, on the entity's fixed route 
system. In recent triennial reviews of some fixed route providers in 
Los Angeles County, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has made 
findings that the ADA paratransit fares exceed twice the fixed route 
fare. In other words, some paratransit riders had been paying more for 
ADA paratransit fares than they should have been under the Department's 
regulations.
    On August 20, 2015, the Department placed Access Services' petition 
for rulemaking in a public docket and sought comments on the petition 
in order to help the Department determine whether to grant or deny the 
petition. The Department received approximately 179 comments to the 
docket, several with multiple signatures. With the exception of one 
person, all those in support of the petition were in Access Services' 
service area, and all opposed were outside of the service area.
    On December 4, 2015, Congress enacted the Fixing America's Surface 
Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L. 114-94). Section 3023 of the FAST 
Act provides that notwithstanding 49 CFR 37.131(c), any paratransit 
system currently coordinating complementary paratransit service for 
more than 40 fixed route agencies shall be permitted to continue using 
an existing tiered, distance-based coordinated paratransit fare system, 
if the fare for the existing tiered, distance-based coordinated 
paratransit fare system is not increased by a greater percentage than 
any increase to the fixed route fare for the largest transit agency in 
the complementary paratransit service area.
    Given this statutory provision, the Department has determined the 
issue is moot and no further action is necessary with regard to this 
petition for rulemaking. As a result, Access Services may continue to 
operate its coordinated fare structure notwithstanding 49 CFR 37.131(c) 
and in compliance with section 3023 of the FAST Act.

    Issued in Washington, DC, this 5th day of May, 2016, under 
authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.27(a).
Kathryn B. Thomson,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2016-11182 Filed 5-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P

32716 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules Section 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to 2 and 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which • is not an economically significant provide for consultation and will be addressed by EPA in a separate regulatory action based on health or participation in SIP development by action. safety risks subject to Executive Order local political subdivisions affected by Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); the SIP. Mississippi Code Title 49, disapproval of a submittal that • is not a significant regulatory action Appendix A–9, Section 49–17–17(c), addresses a requirement of a CAA Part subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR gives the Commission the statutory D Plan or is required in response to a 28355, May 22, 2001); authority to advise and consult with any finding of substantial inadequacy as • is not subject to requirements of political subdivisions in the State. described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Section 12(d) of the National Mississippi Code Title 49, Appendix A– call) starts a sanctions clock. The Technology Transfer and Advancement 9, Section 49–17–19(b) requires the portion of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because Commission to conduct public hearings provisions (the provisions being application of those requirements would in accordance with EPA regulations proposed for disapproval in this action) be inconsistent with the CAA; and prior to establishing, amending, or were not submitted to meet • does not provide EPA with the repealing standards of air quality. requirements for Part D or a SIP call, discretionary authority to address, as Additionally, MDEQ works closely with and therefore, if EPA takes final action appropriate, disproportionate human local political subdivisions during the to disapprove this submittal, no health or environmental effects, using development of its transportation sanctions will be triggered. However, if practicable and legally permissible conformity SIP and regional haze SIP. this disapproval action is finalized, that methods, under Executive Order 12898 EPA has made the preliminary final action will trigger the requirement (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). determination that Mississippi’s SIP and under section 110(c) that EPA The SIP is not approved to apply on practices adequately demonstrate promulgate a federal implementation any Indian reservation land or in any consultation with affected local entities plan (FIP) no later than 2 years from the other area where EPA or an Indian tribe related to the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS date of the disapproval unless the State has demonstrated that a tribe has when necessary. corrects the deficiency, and EPA jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian V. Proposed Action approves the plan or plan revision country, the rule does not have tribal before EPA promulgates such FIP. implications as specified by Executive With the exception of the Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, preconstruction PSD permitting VI. Statutory and Executive Order 2000), nor will it impose substantial requirements for major sources of Reviews direct costs on tribal governments or section 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of (D)(i), preempt tribal law. Under the CAA, the Administrator is and (J), the interstate transport required to approve a SIP submission List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 provisions pertaining to the that complies with the provisions of the contribution to nonattainment or Environmental protection, Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. interference with maintenance in other pollution control, Incorporation by 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). states and visibility protection of section reference, Intergovernmental relations, Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and EPA’s role is to approve state choices, and 4), and the state board majority recordkeeping requirements, Volatile provided that they meet the criteria of requirements respecting the significant organic compounds. portion of income of section the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is proposing to action merely approves state law as Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. approve that Mississippi’s February 28, meeting Federal requirements and does Dated: May 12, 2016. 2013, SIP submission for the 2010 1- not impose additional requirements Heather McTeer Toney, hour NO2 NAAQS has met the above- beyond those imposed by state law. For Regional Administrator, Region 4. described infrastructure SIP that reason, this proposed action: [FR Doc. 2016–12102 Filed 5–23–16; 8:45 am] requirements because these aspects of • Is not a significant regulatory action BILLING CODE 6560–50–P the submission are consistent with subject to review by the Office of section 110 of the CAA. EPA is Management and Budget under proposing to disapprove in part section Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of Mississippi’s infrastructure submission because a January 21, 2011); Office of the Secretary majority of board members may still • does not impose an information derive a significant portion of income collection burden under the provisions 49 CFR Part 37 from persons subject to permits or of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 enforcement orders issued by the U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); [Docket DOT–OST–2015–0075] Mississippi Boards. Therefore, its • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a Transportation for Individuals With current SIP does not meet the section substantial number of small entities Disabilities; Service Criteria for 128(a)(1) majority requirements under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Complementary Paratransit Fares respecting significant portion of income. This proposed action, however, does not U.S.C. 601 et seq.); AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), include the preconstruction PSD • does not contain any unfunded U.S. Department of Transportation mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS permitting requirements for major mandate or significantly or uniquely (DOT). sources of section 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 affect small governments, as described ACTION: Notification of disposition of of (D)(i), and (J), which have been in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act petition for rulemaking. approved in a separate action, or the of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); interstate transport provisions • does not have Federalism SUMMARY: This document announces the pertaining to the contribution to implications as specified in Executive disposition of a petition for rulemaking nonattainment or interference with Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, from Access Services concerning the maintenance in other states of prongs 1, 1999); Department’s regulations implementing VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:13 May 23, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM 24MYP1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules 32717 the Americans with Disabilities Act Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary support of the petition were in Access (ADA) with respect to the method of paratransit provider for 44 fixed route Services’ service area, and all opposed determining the fare for a trip charged transit providers in Los Angeles County, were outside of the service area. to an ADA paratransit-eligible user. The California. Access Services described On December 4, 2015, Congress petition asked the Department to revise that it uses a ‘‘coordinated’’ or two-tier enacted the Fixing America’s Surface its regulation to allow for a fare structure where it generally charges Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L. 114– ‘‘coordinated’’ or two-tier fare structure. $2.75 for one-way trips up to 19.9 miles, 94). Section 3023 of the FAST Act The current regulation provides that the and $3.50 for one-way trips of 20 miles provides that notwithstanding 49 CFR fare shall not exceed twice the fare that or more. In some cases, these fares 37.131(c), any paratransit system would be charged to an individual exceed twice the fixed route fare. The currently coordinating complementary paying full fare for a similar trip on the DOT’s ADA regulation at 49 CFR paratransit service for more than 40 fixed route system. On December 4, 37.131(c) provides that the fare for a trip fixed route agencies shall be permitted 2015, President Obama signed into law charged to an ADA paratransit-eligible to continue using an existing tiered, the Fixing America’s Surface user of the complementary paratransit distance-based coordinated paratransit Transportation (FAST) Act. Section service shall not exceed twice the fare fare system, if the fare for the existing 3023 of the FAST Act allows the fare that would be charged to an individual tiered, distance-based coordinated structure Access Services supported in paying full fare for a trip of similar paratransit fare system is not increased its petition for rulemaking, thereby length, at a similar time of day, on the by a greater percentage than any rendering the petition for rulemaking entity’s fixed route system. In recent increase to the fixed route fare for the moot. triennial reviews of some fixed route largest transit agency in the providers in Los Angeles County, the DATES: May 24, 2016. complementary paratransit service area. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill has made findings that the ADA Given this statutory provision, the Laptosky, Attorney-Advisor, Office of paratransit fares exceed twice the fixed Department has determined the issue is General Counsel, DOT, 1200 New Jersey route fare. In other words, some moot and no further action is necessary Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, paratransit riders had been paying more with regard to this petition for telephone: 202–493–0308, or email, for ADA paratransit fares than they rulemaking. As a result, Access Services Jill.Laptosky@dot.gov; or Bonnie Graves, should have been under the may continue to operate its coordinated Assistant Chief Counsel for Legislation Department’s regulations. fare structure notwithstanding 49 CFR and Regulations, Office of Chief On August 20, 2015, the Department 37.131(c) and in compliance with Counsel, Federal Transit placed Access Services’ petition for section 3023 of the FAST Act. Administration, same address, rulemaking in a public docket and Issued in Washington, DC, this 5th day of telephone: 202–366–4011, or email, sought comments on the petition in May, 2016, under authority delegated in 49 Bonnie.Graves@dot.gov. order to help the Department determine CFR 1.27(a). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March whether to grant or deny the petition. Kathryn B. Thomson, 4, 2015, the U.S. Department of The Department received approximately Transportation (DOT) received a 179 comments to the docket, several General Counsel. petition for rulemaking from Access with multiple signatures. With the [FR Doc. 2016–11182 Filed 5–23–16; 8:45 am] Services, the Americans with exception of one person, all those in BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:13 May 23, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM 24MYP1


Document Created: 2016-05-24 05:21:31
Document Modified: 2016-05-24 05:21:31
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionProposed Rules
ActionNotification of disposition of petition for rulemaking.
DatesMay 24, 2016.
ContactJill Laptosky, Attorney-Advisor, Office of General Counsel, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone: 202-493-0308, or email, [email protected]; or Bonnie Graves, Assistant Chief Counsel for Legislation and Regulations,
FR Citation81 FR 32716 
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR