[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 49 (Friday, March 13, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13253-13263]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05646]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

49 CFR Parts 27 and 37

[Docket OST-2006-23985]
RIN 2105-AE15

Transportation for Individuals With Disabilities; Reasonable
Modification of Policies and Practices

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department is revising its rules under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, as amended (section 504), specifically to provide that
transportation entities are required to make reasonable modifications/
accommodations to policies, practices, and procedures to avoid
discrimination and ensure that their programs are accessible to
individuals with disabilities.

DATES: This rule is effective July 13, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill Laptosky, Office of the General
Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Room W96-
488,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions related to
transit, you may contact Bonnie Graves, Office of Chief Counsel,
Federal Transit Administration, same address, Room E56-306, 202-366-
0944<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and, for rail, Linda Martin, Office of
Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, same address, Room W31-
304,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule concerning reasonable
modification of transportation provider policies and practices is based
on a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) issued February 27, 2006 (71
FR 9761). The NPRM also concerned several other subjects, most notably
nondiscriminatory access to new and altered rail station platforms. The
Department issued a final rule on these other subjects on September 19,
2011 (76 FR 57924).

Executive Summary

I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    This final rule is needed to clarify that public transportation
entities are required to make reasonable modifications/accommodations
to their policies, practices, and procedures to ensure program
accessibility. While this requirement is not a new obligation for
public transportation entities receiving Federal financial assistance
(see section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act), including the National
Passenger Railroad Corporation (Amtrak), courts have identified an
unintended gap in our Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
regulations. This final rule will fill in the gap. The real-world
effect will be that the nature of an individual's disability cannot
preclude a public transportation entity from providing full access to
the entity's service unless some exception applies. For example, an
individual using a wheelchair who needs to access the bus will be able
to board the bus even though sidewalk construction or snow prevents the
individual from boarding the bus from the bus stop; the operator of the
bus will need to slightly adjust the boarding location so that the
individual using a wheelchair may board from an accessible location.
    Reasonable modification/accommodation requirements are a
fundamental tenet of disability nondiscrimination law--for example,
they are an existing requirement for recipients of Federal assistance
and are contained in the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) ADA rules
for public and private entities, the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) ADA rules for passenger vessels, and DOT rules
under the Air Carrier Access Act. In addition, section 504 has long
been interpreted by the courts to require recipients of Federal
financial assistance--virtually all public transportation entities
subject to this final rule--to provide reasonable accommodations by
making changes to policies, practices, and procedures if needed by an
individual with a disability to enable him or her to participate in the
recipient's program or activity, unless providing such accommodations
are an undue financial and administrative burden or constitute a
fundamental alteration of the program or activity. Among the
Department's legal authorities to issue this rulemaking are section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794), and the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101-12213.

II. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action

    Public entities providing designated public transportation (e.g.,
fixed route, demand-responsive, and ADA complementary paratransit)
service will need to make reasonable modifications/accommodations to
policies and practices to ensure program accessibility subject to
several exceptions. These exceptions include when the modification/
accommodation would cause a direct threat to the health or safety of
others, would result in a fundamental alteration of the service, would
not actually be necessary in order for the individual with a disability
to access the entity's service, or (for recipients of Federal financial
assistance) would result in an undue financial and administrative
burden. Appendix E of this final rule provides specific examples of
requested modifications that public transportation entities typically
would not be required to grant for one or more reasons.
    Public entities providing designated public transportation service
will need to implement their own processes for making decisions and
providing reasonable modifications under the ADA to their policies and
practices. In many instances, entities already have compliant processes
in place. This final rule does not prescribe the exact processes
entities must adopt or require DOT approval of the processes. However,
DOT reserves the right to review an entity's process as part of its
normal oversight. See 49 CFR 37.169.

III. Costs and Benefits

    The Department estimates that the costs associated with this final
rule will be minimal for two reasons. First, modifications to policies,
practices, and procedures, if needed by an individual with a disability
to enable him or her to participate in a program or activity, are

already required by other Federal law that applies to recipients of
Federal financial assistance. Since virtually every entity subject to
this final rule receives Federal financial assistance, each entity
should already be modifying its policies, practices, and procedures
when necessary. Second, the reasonable modification/accommodation
requirements contained in this final rule are not very different from
the origin-to-destination requirement already applicable to
complementary paratransit service, as required by current DOT
regulations at 49 CFR 37.129(a) and as described in its implementing
guidance.

The Reasonable Modification NPRM

    Through amendments to the Department's ADA regulations at 49 CFR
37.5 and 37.169, the NPRM proposed that transportation entities,
including, but not limited to, public transportation entities required
to provide complementary paratransit service, must make reasonable
modifications to their policies and practices to avoid discrimination
on the basis of disability and ensure program accessibility. Making
reasonable modifications to policies and practices is a fundamental
tenet of disability nondiscrimination law, reflected in a number of DOT
(e.g., 49 CFR 27.11(c)(3), 14 CFR 382.7(c)) and DOJ (e.g., 28 CFR
35.130(b)(7)) regulations. Moreover, since at least 1979, section 504
has been interpreted to require recipients of Federal financial
assistance to provide reasonable accommodations to program
beneficiaries. See, e.g., Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985);
Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397 (1979). In
accordance with these decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court (e.g., Choate
and Davis), the obligation to modify policies, practices, and
procedures is a longstanding obligation under section 504, and the U.S.
Department of Justice, which has coordination authority for section 504
pursuant to Executive Order 12250, is in agreement with this
interpretation.
    However, as the NPRM explained, DOT's ADA regulations do not
include language specifically requiring regulated parties to make
reasonable modifications to policies and practices. The Department,
when drafting 49 CFR part 37, intended that Sec.  37.21(c) would
incorporate the DOJ provisions on this subject, by saying the
following:

Entities to which this part applies also may be subject to ADA
regulations of the Department of Justice (28 CFR parts 35 or 36, as
applicable). The provisions of this part shall be interpreted in a
manner that will make them consistent with applicable Department of
Justice regulations.

    Under this language, provisions of the DOJ regulations concerning
reasonable modifications of policies and practices applicable to public
entities, such as 28 CFR 35.130(b)(7), could apply to public entities
regulated by DOT, while provisions of DOJ regulations on this subject
applicable to private entities (e.g., 28 CFR 36.302) could apply to
private entities regulated by DOT. A 1997 court decision appeared to
share the Department's intention regarding the relationship between DOT
and DOJ requirements (Burkhart v. Washington Area Metropolitan Transit
Authority, 112 F.3d 1207 (D.C. Cir. 1997)).
    However, more recent cases that addressed the issue directly held
that, in the absence of a DOT regulation explicitly requiring
transportation entities to make reasonable modifications,
transportation entities were not obligated to make such modifications
under the ADA. The leading case on this issue was Melton v. Dallas Area
Rapid Transit (DART), 391 F.3d 669 (5th Cir. 2004); cert. denied 125 S.
Ct. 2273 (2005). In this case, the court upheld DART's refusal to pick
up a paratransit passenger with a disability in a public alley behind
his house, rather than in front of his house (where a steep slope
allegedly precluded access by the passenger to DART vehicles). The DART
argued that paratransit operations are not covered by DOJ regulations.
``Instead,'' as the court summarized DART's argument, ``paratransit
services are subject only to Department of Transportation regulations
found in 49 CFR part 37. The Department of Transportation regulations
contain no analogous provision requiring reasonable modification to be
made to paratransit services to avoid discrimination.'' 391 F.3d at
673.
    The court essentially adopted DART's argument, noting that the
permissive language of Sec.  37.21(c) (``may be subject'') did not
impose coverage under provisions of DOJ regulations which, by their own
terms, provided that public transportation programs were ``not subject
to the requirements of [28 CFR part 35].'' See 391 F.3d at 675. ``It is
undisputed,'' the court concluded

that the Secretary of Transportation has been directed by statute to
issue regulations relating specifically to paratransit
transportation. Furthermore, even if the Secretary only has the
authority to promulgate regulations relating directly to
transportation, the reasonable modification requested by the Meltons
relates specifically to the operation of DART's service and is,
therefore, exempt from the [DOJ] regulations in 28 CFR Part 35.

Id. Two other cases, Boose v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation
District of Oregon, 587 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2009) and Abrahams v. MTA
Long Island Bus, 644 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2011), subsequently agreed with
Melton.
    Because the Department believed that, as in all other areas of
disability nondiscrimination law, making reasonable modifications to
policies and practices is a crucial element of nondiscriminatory and
accessible service to people with disabilities, we proposed to fill the
gap the courts had identified in our regulations. Consequently, the
2006 NPRM proposed amending the DOT rules to require that
transportation entities, both fixed route and paratransit, make
reasonable modifications in the provisions of their services when doing
so is necessary to avoid discrimination or to provide program
accessibility to services.
    In Sec.  37.5, the general nondiscrimination section of the ADA
rule, the Department proposed to add a paragraph requiring all public
entities providing designated public transportation to make reasonable
modifications to policies and practices where needed to avoid
discrimination on the basis of disability or to provide program
accessibility to services. The language was based on DOJ's requirements
and, like the DOJ regulation, would not require a modification if doing
so would fundamentally alter the nature of the entity's service.
    The NPRM also proposed to place parallel language in a revised
Sec.  37.169, replacing an obsolete provision related to over-the-road
buses. Under the proposal, in order to deny a request for a
modification, the head of a public entity providing designated public
transportation services would have had to make a written determination
that a needed reasonable modification created a fundamental alteration
or undue burden. The entity would not have been required to seek DOT
approval for the determination, but DOT could review the entity's
action (e.g., in the context of a complaint investigation or compliance
review) as part of a determination about whether the entity had
discriminated against persons with disabilities. In the case where the
entity determined that a requested modification created a fundamental
alteration or undue burden, the entity would be obligated to seek an
alternative solution that would not create such an undue burden or
fundamental alteration.
    The ADA and part 37 contain numerous provisions requiring
transportation entities to ensure that persons with disabilities can
access and

use transportation services on a nondiscriminatory basis. Some of these
provisions relate to the acquisition of vehicles or the construction or
alteration of transportation facilities. Others concern the provision
of service by public and private entities, in modes ranging from public
demand-responsive service for the general public to private over-the-
road buses. Still others concern the provision of complementary
paratransit service.
    In all of these cases, public transportation entities are likely to
put policies and procedures in place to carry out applicable
requirements. In order to achieve the objectives of the underlying
requirements in certain individual cases, entities may need to depart
from these otherwise acceptable policies. This final rule concerns the
scope of situations in which such departures--i.e., reasonable
modifications--are essential. The underlying provisions of the rule
describe the ``bottom line'' of what transportation entities must
achieve. This reasonable modification rule describes how transportation
entities get to that ``bottom line'' in individual situations where
entities' normal procedures do not achieve the intended result.
    As comments to the NPRM made clear, an important concern of
transportation entities is that the DOT final rule makes it possible to
understand clearly what modifications are expected; in other words,
which requested modifications would be ``reasonable'' and which would
not. For example, in the fixed route context, we believe that stopping
a bus a short distance from a bus stop sign to allow a wheelchair user
to avoid an obstacle to boarding using a lift (e.g., a utility repair,
a snowdrift) would generally be reasonable. Establishing a ``flag
stop'' policy that allowed a passenger to board a bus anywhere, without
regard to bus stop locations, would not. In the complementary
paratransit context, the Department would expect, in many
circumstances, that drivers would provide assistance outside a vehicle
where needed to overcome an obstacle, but drivers would not have to
provide personal services that extend beyond the doorway into a
building to assist a passenger. Appendix E to this final rule addresses
issues of this kind in greater detail.
    In addition to the ``modification of policies'' language from the
DOJ ADA rules, there are other features of those rules that are not
presently incorporated in the DOT ADA rules (e.g., pertaining to
auxiliary aids and services). The NPRM sought comment on whether it
would be useful to incorporate any additional provisions from the DOJ
rules into Part 37.

Comments to the NPRM

    The Department received over 300 comments on the reasonable
modification provisions of the NPRM. These comments were received
during the original comment period, a public meeting held in August
2010, and a reopened comment period at the time of that meeting. The
comments were polarized, with almost all disability community
commenters favoring the proposal and almost all transit industry
commenters opposing it.
    The major themes in transit industry comments opposing the proposal
were the following. Many transit industry commenters opposed the
application of the concept of reasonable modification to
transportation, and a few commenters argued that it was not the job of
transit entities to surmount barriers existing in communities. Many
transit commenters said that the rule would force them to make too many
individual, case-by-case decisions, making program administration
burdensome, leading to pressure to take unreasonable actions, creating
the potential for litigation, and making service slower and less
reliable. Some of these commenters also objected to the proposal that
the head of an entity, or his designee, would be required to make the
decision that a requested modification was a fundamental alteration or
would result in an undue burden, and provide a written decision to the
requestor, stating this requirement would take substantial staff time
to complete. Many commenters provided examples or, in some cases,
extensive lists, of the kinds of modifications they had been asked or
might be asked to make, many of which they believed were unreasonable.
A number of commenters said the rule would force paratransit operators
to operate in a door-to-door mode, eliminating, as a practical matter,
the curb-to-curb service option. A major comment from many transit
industry sources was that reasonable modification would unreasonably
raise the costs of providing paratransit. Per-trip costs would rise,
various commenters said, because of increased dwell time at stops, the
need for additional personnel (e.g., an extra staff person on vehicles
to assist passengers), increased insurance costs, lower service
productivity, increased need for training, or preventing providers from
charging fees for what they would otherwise view as premium service.
Some of these commenters attached numbers to their predictions of
increased costs (e.g., the costs of paratransit would rise from 22-50
percent, nationwide costs would rise by $1.89-2.7 billion), though,
with few exceptions, these numbers appeared to be based on
extrapolations premised on assumptions about the requirements of the
NPRM that were contrary to the language of the NPRM's regulatory text
and preamble or on no analysis at all.
    Commenters opposed to the proposal also raised safety issues, again
principally in the context of paratransit. Making some reasonable
modifications would force drivers to leave vehicles, commenters said.
This could result in other passengers being left alone, which could
expose them to hazards. Drivers leaving a vehicle would have to turn
off the vehicle's engine, resulting in no air conditioning or heating
for other passengers in the time the driver was outside the vehicle.
The driver could be exposed to injury outside the vehicle (e.g., from a
trip and fall).
    A smaller number of commenters also expressed concern about the
application of the reasonable modification concept to fixed route bus
service. Some commenters said that the idea of buses stopping at other
than a designated bus stop was generally unsafe and burdensome, could
cause delays, and impair the clarity of service. A number of these
commenters appeared to believe that the NPRM could require transit
entities to stop anywhere along a route where a person with a
disability was flagging a bus down, which they said would be a
particularly burdensome practice.
    Commenters also made legal arguments against the proposal. Some
commenters supported the approach taken by the court in Melton. Others
said that the Department lacks statutory authority under the ADA to
require reasonable modification or that reasonably modifying
paratransit policies and practices would force entities to exceed the
``comparable'' service requirements of the statute. Some of these
commenters said that the proposal would push entities too far in the
direction of providing individualized, human service-type
transportation, rather than mass transit. A number of commenters also
said that it was good policy to maintain local option for entities in
terms of the service they provide. Others argued that the proposed
action was inconsistent with statutes or Executive Orders related to
unfunded mandates and Federalism.
    A variety of commenters--in both the disability community and
transportation industry--noted that a significant number of paratransit
operators already either provide door-to-door service as

their basic mode of service (some commenters said as many as 50 percent
of paratransit operators provide door-to-door service) or follow what,
in effect, is curb-to-curb with reasonable modification approach for
paratransit, or allowed fixed route buses flexibility in terms of where
they stop. Some of these commenters said that transit operators imposed
conditions on the kind of modifications that could be made (e.g.,
drivers could only leave the vehicle for a limited time or distance).
    In some cases, commenters said, while they use their discretion to
make the kinds of modifications the NPRM proposed, they wanted these
actions to remain discretionary, rather than being the subject of a
Federal mandate. A smaller number of commenters asked for additional
guidance on expectations under a reasonable modification rule or for
clarification of an enforcement mechanism for the proposed requirement.
    Disability community commenters were virtually unanimous in
supporting the proposal, saying that curb-to-curb paratransit service
was often inadequate for some people with disabilities, who, in some
circumstances, could not make use of ADA-mandated paratransit service.
For example, medical oxygen users should not have to use part of their
supply waiting at the curb for a vehicle; blind passengers may need
wayfinding assistance to get to or from a vehicle; or bad weather may
make passage to or from a vehicle unduly difficult for wheelchair
users. Some disability community commenters supported the inclusion in
the rule of various other provisions of the DOJ ADA regulations (e.g.,
with respect to auxiliary aids and services).

DOT Response to Comments

    Reasonable modification is a central concept of disability
nondiscrimination law, based on the principle that it is essential for
entities to consider individuals with disabilities as individuals, not
simply as members of a category. The concept recognizes that entities
may have general policies, legitimate on their face, that prevent
nondiscriminatory access to entities' service, programs, or facilities
by some individuals with disabilities under some circumstances. The
concept calls on entities to make individual exceptions to these
general policies, where needed to provide meaningful, nondiscriminatory
access to services, programs, or facilities, unless making such an
exception would require a fundamental alteration of an entity's
programs.
    Reasonable modification requirements are part of existing
requirements for recipients of Federal financial assistance, DOJ ADA
rules for public and private entities, DOT ADA rules for passenger
vessels, and DOT rules under the Air Carrier Access Act. In none of
these contexts has the existence of a reasonable modification
requirement created a significant obstacle to the conduct of the wide
variety of public and private functions covered by these rules. Nor has
it led to noticeable increases in costs. At this point, surface
transportation entities are the only class of entities not explicitly
covered by an ADA regulatory reasonable modification requirement.
Having reviewed the comments to this rulemaking, the Department has
concluded that commenters failed to make a persuasive case that there
is legal justification for public transportation entities to be treated
differently than other transportation entities. Further, per the
analysis above, section 504 requires entities receiving Federal
financial assistance to make reasonable accommodations to policies and
practices when necessary to provide nondiscriminatory access to
services. This existing requirement applies to nearly all public
transportation entities.
    As stated in the NPRM, DOT recognizes that not all requests by
individuals with disabilities for modifications of transportation
provider policies are, in fact, reasonable. The NPRM recognized three
types of modifications that would not create an obligation for a
transportation provider to agree with a request: (1) Those that would
fundamentally alter the provider's program, (2) those that would create
a direct threat, as defined in 49 CFR 37.3, as a significant risk to
the health or safety of others, and (3) those that are not necessary to
enable an individual to receive the provider's services. The NPRM
provided some examples of modifications that should be or need not be
granted. Commenters from both the disability community and the transit
industry provided a vastly larger set of examples of modifications that
they had encountered or believed either should or should not be
granted.
    To respond to commenters' concerns that, given the wide variety of
requests that can be made, it is too difficult to make the judgment
calls involved, the Department has created an Appendix E to its ADA
regulation that lists examples of types of requests that we believe, in
most cases, either will be reasonable or not. This guidance recognizes
that, given the wide variety of circumstances with which transportation
entities and passengers deal, there may be some generally reasonable
requests that could justly be denied in some circumstances, and some
requests that generally need not be granted that should be granted in
other circumstances. In addition, we recognize that no list of
potential requests can ever be completely comprehensive, since the
possible situations that can arise are far more varied than can be set
down in any document. That said, we hope that this Appendix will
successfully guide transportation entities' actions in a substantial
majority of the kinds of situations commenters have called to our
attention, substantially reducing the number of situations in which
from-scratch judgment calls would need to be made, and will provide an
understandable framework for transportation entities' thinking about
specific requests not listed. Of course, as the Department learns of
situations not covered in the Appendix, we may add to it.
    The Department wants again to make clear that, as stated in the
preamble to the last rulemaking:

[the] September 2005 guidance concerning origin-to-destination
service remains the Department's interpretation of the obligations
of ADA complementary paratransit providers under existing
regulations. As with other interpretations of regulatory provisions,
the Department will rely on this interpretation in implementing and
enforcing the origin-to-destination requirement of part 37. 76 FR
57924, 57934 (Sept. 19, 2011).

    Thus, achieving the objective of providing origin-to-destination
service does not require entities to make door-to-door service their
basic mode of service provision. It remains entirely consistent with
the Department's ADA rule to provide ADA complementary paratransit in a
curb-to-curb mode. When a paratransit operator does so, however, it
would need to make exceptions to its normal curb-to-curb policy where a
passenger with a disability makes a request for assistance beyond curb-
to-curb service that is needed to provide access to the service and
does not result in a fundamental alteration or direct threat to the
health or safety of others. Given the large number of comments on this
issue, and to further clarify the Department's position on this, we
have added a definition of ``origin-to-destination'' in part 37.
    As commenters noted, a significant number of paratransit operators
already follow an origin-to-destination policy that addresses the needs
of passengers that require assistance beyond the curb in order to use
the paratransit service. This fact necessarily means that these
providers can and do handle individual

requests successfully. When a significant number of complementary
paratransit systems already do essentially what this rule requires, or
more, it is difficult to argue that it cannot be done without
encountering insuperable problems.
    To respond to commenters' concerns about an asserted onerous review
process of requested modifications, the Department has removed the
requirement that a response to a request be in writing, and is amending
the complaint procedure in 49 CFR 27.13, and then mirroring that
provision in a new section 37.17, to ensure it applies not just to
recipients of Federal funds but to all designated public transportation
entities. A person who is denied a modification may file a complaint
with the entity, but the process would be the same as with any other
complaint, so no separate complaint procedure is listed in 37.169.
    With respect to fixed route bus service, the Department's
position--elaborated upon in Appendix E--is that transportation
providers are not required to stop at nondesignated locations. That is,
a bus operator would not have to stop and pick up a person who is
trying to flag down the bus from a location unrelated to or not in
proximity to a designated stop, regardless of whether or not that
person has a disability. On the other hand, if a person with a
disability is near a bus stop, but cannot get to the precise location
of the bus stop sign (e.g., because there is not an accessible path of
travel to that precise location) or cannot readily access the bus from
the precise location of the bus stop sign (e.g., because of
construction, snow, or a hazard that makes getting onto the lift from
the area of the bus stop sign too difficult or dangerous), then it is
consistent both with the principle of reasonable modification and with
common sense to pick up that passenger a modest distance from the bus
stop sign. Doing so would not fundamentally alter the service or cause
significant delays or degradation of service.
    While it is understandable that commenters opposed to reasonable
modification would support the outcome of Melton and cases that
followed, it is important to understand that the reasoning of these
cases is based largely on the proposition that, in the absence of a DOT
ADA regulation, transportation entities could not be required to make
reasonable modifications on the basis of DOJ requirements, standing
alone. This final rule will fill the regulatory gap that Melton
identified. While Melton stated that there was a gap in coverage with
respect to public transportation and paratransit, as Sec.  37.5(f)
notes, private entities that were engaged in the business of providing
private transportation services have always been obligated to provide
reasonable modifications under title III of the ADA. Further, as stated
above, reasonable accommodation is a requirement under section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
    We do not agree with commenters who asserted that reasonable
modification goes beyond the concept of comparable complementary
paratransit found in the ADA, going too far in the direction of
individualized, human services transportation, rather than mass
transit. To the contrary, complementary paratransit remains a shared-
ride service that must meet regulatory service criteria. Nothing in
this final rule changes that. What the final rule does make clear is
that in providing complementary paratransit service, transit
authorities must take reasonable steps, even if case-by-case exceptions
to general procedures, to make sure that eligible passengers can
actually get to the service and use it for its intended purpose. ADA
complementary paratransit remains a safety net for individuals with
disabilities who cannot use accessible fixed route service. Adhering
rigidly to policies that deny access to this safety net is inconsistent
with the nondiscrimination obligations of transportation entities.
Because transportation entities would not be required to make any
modifications to their general policies that would fundamentally alter
their service, the basic safety net nature of complementary paratransit
service remains unchanged.
    By the terms of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, as
amended, requirements to comply with nondiscrimination laws, including
those pertaining to disability, are not unfunded mandates subject to
the provisions of the Act. 2 U.S.C. 1503. As a practical matter, for
the vast majority of transportation entities subject to the DOT ADA
regulation who receive FTA or other DOT financial assistance,
compliance with any DOT regulations is, to a significant degree, a
funded mandate. For both these reasons, comments suggesting that the
proposal would impose an unfunded mandate were incorrect.
    With respect to federalism, State and local governments were
consulted about the rule, both by means of the opportunity to comment
on the NPRM and a public meeting. Transportation authorities--many of
which are likely to be State and local entities--did participate
extensively in the rulemaking process, as the docket amply
demonstrates. As stated previously, transportation industry commenters
prefer to use their discretion to make the kinds of modifications the
NPRM proposed, rather than being subject to a Federal mandate. These
entities continue to have the discretion to grant or deny requests for
reasonable modification, albeit in the context of Appendix E.
    The effects of the final rule on fixed route service are quite
modest, and comments did not assert the contrary. The issue of the cost
impact of the reasonable modification focused almost exclusively on ADA
complementary paratransit. There was little in the way of allegations
that making exceptions to usual policies would increase costs in fixed
route service.
    In looking at the allegations of cost increases on ADA
complementary paratransit, the Department stresses that all recipients
of Federal financial assistance--which includes public transportation
entities of complementary paratransit service--are already required to
modify policies, practices, and procedures if needed by an individual
with a disability to enable him or her to participate in the
recipient's programs or activities, and this principle has been applied
by Federal agencies and the courts accordingly. However, to provide
commenters with a fuller response to their comments, the Department
would further make three primary points. First, based on statements on
transportation provider Web sites and other information, one-half to
two-thirds of transit authorities already provide either door-to-door
service as their basic mode of service or provide what amounts to curb-
to-curb service with assistance beyond the curb as necessary in order
to enable the passenger to use the service. The rule would not require
any change in behavior, or any increase in costs, for these entities.
Second, the effect of providing paratransit service in a door-to-door,
or curb-to-curb, with reasonable modification, mode on per-trip costs
is minimal. In situations where arrangements for reasonable
modification are made in advance, which would be a significant portion
of all paratransit modification requests, per-trip costs could even be
slightly lower. The concerns expressed by commenters that per-trip
costs would escalate markedly appear not to be supported by the data.
Third, there could be cost increases, compared to current behavior, for
paratransit operators that do not comply with existing origin-to-
destination

requirements of the rule. Suppressing paratransit ridership by
preventing eligible individuals from using the service or making the
use of the service inconvenient saves money for entities. Conversely,
making service more usable, and hence more attractive, could increase
usage. Because of the operating cost-intensive nature of paratransit
service, providing service to more people tends to increase costs. The
Department estimated that increased costs from increased ridership
stemming from improved service could amount to $55 million per year
nationwide for those public transportation entities who are not in
compliance with the current DOT origin-to-destination regulations.
    This estimate would be at the upper end of the range of possible
ridership-generated cost increases, since it is not clear that
transportation entities with a strict curb-to-curb policy never provide
modifications to their service. Analysts made the assumption that
transportation agencies with curb-to-curb policies did not make
modifications when modifications were not mentioned on the entities'
Web sites. Disability community commenters suggested that, as a
practical matter, transportation entities often provide what amounts to
modifications even if their formal policies do not call for doing so.
    In addition, it should be emphasized that transportation entities
who comply with the existing rule's origin-to-destination requirement
will not encounter ridership-related cost increases. In an important
sense, any paratransit operation that sees an increase in ridership
when this rule goes into effect are experiencing increased costs at
this time because of their unwillingness to comply with existing
requirements over the past several years.

Provisions of the Final Rule

    In amendments to 49 CFR part 27 (the Department's section 504 rule)
and part 37 (the Department's ADA rule for most surface
transportation), the Department is incorporating specific requirements
to clarify that public transportation entities are required to modify
policies, practices, procedures that are needed to ensure access to
programs, benefits, and services.
    With regard to the Department's section 504 rule at 49 CFR part 27,
we are revising the regulation to specifically incorporate the
preexisting reasonable accommodation requirement recognized by the U.S.
Supreme Court (see, e.g., Choate and Davis). The revised section 27.7
will clarify that recipients of Federal financial assistance are
required to provide reasonable accommodations to policies, practices,
or procedures when the accommodations are necessary to avoid
discrimination on the basis of disability unless making the
modifications (1) would fundamentally alter the nature of the service,
program, or activity, or (2) would result in undue financial and
administrative burdens.
    With regard to the Department's ADA regulations in part 37, we are
revising the regulation to further clarify this requirement and to fill
in the gap identified by the courts. Under our revised part 37
regulations, public transportation entities may deny requests for
modifications to their policies and practices on one or more of the
following grounds: Making the modifications (1) would fundamentally
alter the nature of the service, program, or activity, (2) would result
in a direct threat to the health or safety of others, or (3) without
the requested modification, the individual with a disability is able to
fully use the entity's services, programs, or activities for their
intended purpose. Please note that under our section 504 regulations at
part 27, there is an undue financial and administrative burden defense,
which is not relevant to our ADA regulations at part 37.
    This final rule revises section 37.169, which focuses on the
reasonable modification obligations of public entities providing
designated public transportation, including fixed route, demand-
responsive, and complementary paratransit service. The key requirement
of the section is that these types of transportation entities implement
their own processes for making decisions on and providing reasonable
modifications to their policies and practices. In many cases, agencies
are handling requests for modifications during the paratransit
eligibility process, customer service inquiries, and through the long-
existing requirement in the Department's section 504 rule for a
complaint process. Entities will need to review existing procedures and
conform them to the new rule as needed. The Department is not requiring
that the process be approved by DOT, and the shape of the process is up
to the transportation provider, but it must meet certain basic
criteria. The DOT can, however, review an entity's process as part of
normal program oversight, including compliance reviews and complaint
investigations.
    First, the entity must make information about the process, and how
to use it, readily available to the public, including individuals with
disabilities. For example, if a transportation provider uses printed
media and a Web site to inform customers about bus and paratransit
services, then it must use these means to inform people about the
reasonable modification process. Of course, like all communications,
this information must be provided by means accessible to individuals
with disabilities.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 28 CFR 35.160(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the process must provide an accessible means by which
individuals with disabilities can request a reasonable modification/
accommodation. Whenever feasible, requests for modifications should be
made in advance. This is particularly appropriate where a permanent or
long-term condition or barrier is the basis for the request (e.g.,
difficulty in access to a paratransit vehicle from the passenger's
residence; the need to eat a snack on a rail car to maintain a
diabetic's blood sugar levels; lack of an accessible path of travel to
a bus stop, resulting in a request to have the bus stop a short
distance from the bus stop location). In the paratransit context, it
may often be possible to consider requests of this kind in conjunction
with the eligibility process. The request from the individual with a
disability should be as specific as possible and include information on
why the requested modification is needed in order to allow the
individual to use the transportation provider's services.
    Third, the process must also provide for those situations in which
an advance request and determination is not feasible. The Department
recognizes that these situations are likely to be more difficult to
handle than advance requests, but responding to them is necessary. For
example, a passenger who uses a wheelchair may be able to board a bus
at a bus stop near his residence but may be unable to disembark due to
a parked car or utility repair blocking the bus boarding and alighting
area at the stop near his destination. In such a situation, the transit
vehicle operator would have the front-line responsibility for deciding
whether to grant the on-the-spot request, though it would be consistent
with the rule for the operator to call his or her supervisor for
guidance on how to proceed.
    Further, section 37.169 states three grounds on which a
transportation provider could deny a requested modification. These
grounds apply both to advance requests and on-the-spot requests. The
first ground is that the request would result in a fundamental
alteration of the provider's services (e.g., a request for a dedicated
vehicle in

paratransit service, a request for a fixed route bus to deviate from
its normal route to pick up someone). The second ground is that
fulfilling a request for a modification would create a direct threat to
the health or safety of others (e.g., a request that would require a
driver to engage in a highly hazardous activity in order to assist a
passenger, such as having to park a vehicle for a prolonged period of
time in a no-parking zone on a high-speed, high-volume highway that
would expose the vehicle to a heightened probability of being involved
in a crash). Third, the requested modification would not be necessary
to permit the passenger to use the entity's services for their intended
purpose in a nondiscriminatory fashion (e.g., the modification might
make transportation more convenient for the passenger, who could
nevertheless use the service successfully to get where he or she is
going without the modification). Appendix E provides additional
examples of requested modifications that transportation entities
usually would not be required to grant for one or more of these
reasons.
    Where a transportation provider has a sound basis, under this
section, for denying a reasonable modification request, the entity
would still need to do all it could to enable the requester to receive
the services and benefits it provides (e.g., a different work-around to
avoid an obstacle to transportation from the one requested by the
passenger). Transportation agencies that are Federal recipients are
required to have a complaint process in place. The Department has added
a new section 37.17 that extends the changes made to 49 CFR 27.13 to
all public and private entities that provide transportation services,
regardless of whether the entity receives Federal funds.
    By requiring entities to implement a local reasonable modification
process, the Department intends decisions on individual requests for
modification to be addressed at the local level. The Department does
not intend to use its complaint process to resolve disagreements
between transportation entities and individuals with disabilities about
whether a particular modification request should have been granted.
However, if an entity does not have the required process, it is not
being operated properly (e.g., the process is inaccessible to people
with disabilities, does not respond to communications from prospective
complainants), it is not being operated in good faith (e.g., virtually
all complaints are routinely rejected, regardless of their merits), or
in any particular case raising a Federal interest, DOT agencies may
intervene and take enforcement action.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures, and Executive Order 13563 (Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review)

    This final rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Orders
12866 and 13563 and the Department of Transportation's Regulatory
Policies and Procedures. Therefore, it has not been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 and
Executive Order 13563. The costs of this rulemaking are expected to be
minimal for two reasons. First, modifications to policies, practices,
and procedures, if needed by an individual with a disability to enable
him or her to participate in a program or activity, are already
required by other Federal law that applies to recipients of Federal
financial assistance. Since virtually every entity subject to this
final rule receives Federal financial assistance, each entity should
already be modifying its policies, practices, and procedures when
necessary. Second, the reasonable modification/accommodation
requirements contained in this final rule are not very different from
the origin-to-destination requirement already applicable to
complementary paratransit service, as required by current DOT
regulations at 49 CFR 37.129(a) and as described in its implementing
guidance. However, the Department recognizes that it is likely that
some regulated entities are not complying with the current section 504
requirements and origin-to-destination regulation. In those
circumstances only, the Department estimates that increased costs from
increased ridership stemming from improved service could amount to $55
million per year nationwide for those public transportation entities
who are not in compliance with the current DOT origin-to-destination
regulations and section 504 requirements. Those costs are not a cost of
this rule, but rather a cost of coming into compliance with current
law.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. This final rule does
not include any provision 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 level of government; (2) imposes substantial direct compliance
costs on State and local governments; or (3) preempts State law.
Therefore, the rule does not have federalism impacts sufficient to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Executive Order 13084 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments)

    The final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084. Because this final
rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the
Indian Tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs
on them, 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 economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule may
affect actions of some small entities (e.g., small paratransit
operations). However, the bulk of paratransit operators are not small
entities, and the majority of all paratransit operators already appear
to be in compliance. There are not significant cost impacts on fixed
route service at all, and the number of small grantees who operate
fixed route systems is not large. Since operators can provide service
in a demand-responsive mode (e.g., route deviation) that does not
require the provision of complementary paratransit, significant
financial impacts on any given operator are unlikely.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule imposes no new information reporting or recordkeeping
necessitating clearance by the Office of Management and Budget.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The agency has analyzed the environmental impacts of this action
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined that it is categorically
excluded pursuant to DOT Order 5610.1C, Procedures for Considering
Environmental Impacts (44 FR 56420, Oct. 1, 1979). Categorical
exclusions are actions identified in an agency's NEPA implementing

procedures that do not normally have a significant impact on the
environment and therefore do not require either an environmental
assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See 40 CFR
1508.4. In analyzing the applicability of a categorical exclusion, the
agency must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are
present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. Id.
Paragraph 3.c.5 of DOT Order 5610.1C incorporates by reference the
categorical exclusions for all DOT Operating Administrations. This
action is covered by the categorical exclusion listed in the Federal
Highway Administration's implementing procedures, ``[p]romulgation of
rules, regulations, and directives.'' 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20). The
purpose of this rulemaking is to provide that transportation entities
are required to make reasonable modifications/accommodations to
policies, practices, and procedures to avoid discrimination and ensure
that their programs are accessible to individuals with disabilities.
The agency does not anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are
no extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this
rulemaking.
    There are a number of other statutes and Executive Orders that
apply to the rulemaking process that the Department considers in all
rulemakings. However, none of them is relevant to this rule. These
include the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (which does not apply to
nondiscrimination/civil rights requirements), Executive Order 12630
(concerning property rights), Executive Order 12988 (concerning civil
justice reform), and Executive Order 13045 (protection of children from
environmental risks).

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 27

    Administrative practice and procedure, Airports, Civil rights,
Highways and roads, Individuals with disabilities, Mass transportation,
Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 37

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

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of
Transportation amends 49 CFR parts 27 and 37, as follows:

PART 27--NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN PROGRAMS
OR ACTIVITIES RECEIVING FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

0
1. The authority citation for part 27 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended (29 U.S.C. 794); 49 U.S.C. 5332.

0
2. Amend Sec.  27.7 by adding a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  27.7  Discrimination prohibited.

* * * * *
    (e) Reasonable accommodations. A recipient shall make reasonable
accommodations in policies, practices, or procedures when such
accommodations are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of
disability unless the recipient can demonstrate that making the
accommodations would fundamentally alter the nature of the service,
program, or activity or result in an undue financial and administrative
burden. For the purposes of this section, the term reasonable
accommodation shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the term
``reasonable modifications'' as set forth in the Americans with
Disabilities Act title II regulations at 28 CFR 35.130(b)(7), and not
as it is defined or interpreted for the purposes of employment
discrimination under title I of the ADA (42 U.S.C. 12111-12112) and its
implementing regulations at 29 CFR part 1630.

0
3. Revise Sec.  27.13 to read as follows:

Sec.  27.13  Designation of responsible employee and adoption of
complaint procedures.

    (a) Designation of responsible employee. Each recipient shall
designate at least one person to coordinate its efforts to comply with
this part.
    (b) Adoption of complaint procedures. A recipient shall adopt
procedures that incorporate appropriate due process standards and
provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging
any action prohibited by this part and 49 CFR parts 37, 38, and 39. The
procedures shall meet the following requirements:
    (1) The process for filing a complaint, including the name,
address, telephone number, and email address of the employee designated
under paragraph (a) of this section, must be sufficiently advertised to
the public, such as on the recipient's Web site;
    (2) The procedures must be accessible to and usable by individuals
with disabilities;
    (3) The recipient must promptly communicate its response to the
complaint allegations, including its reasons for the response, to the
complainant by a means that will result in documentation of the
response.

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

0
4. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:

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

0
5. In Sec.  37.3, add a definition of ``Origin-to-destination service''
in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec.  37.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Origin-to-destination service means providing service from a
passenger's origin to the passenger's destination. A provider may
provide ADA complementary paratransit in a curb-to-curb or door-to-door
mode. When an ADA paratransit operator chooses curb-to-curb as its
primary means of providing service, it must provide assistance to those
passengers who need assistance beyond the curb in order to use the
service unless such assistance would result in in a fundamental
alteration or direct threat.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec.  37.5 by revising paragraph (h) and adding paragraph (i)
to read as follows:

Sec.  37.5  Nondiscrimination.

* * * * *
    (h) It is not discrimination under this part for an entity to
refuse to provide service to an individual with disabilities because
that individual engages in violent, seriously disruptive, or illegal
conduct, or represents a direct threat to the health or safety of
others. However, an entity shall not refuse to provide service to an
individual with disabilities solely because the individual's disability
results in appearance or involuntary behavior that may offend, annoy,
or inconvenience employees of the entity or other persons.
    (i) Public and private entity distinctions.-- (1) Private entity-
private transport. Private entities that are primarily engaged in the
business of transporting people and whose operations affect commerce
shall not discriminate against any individual on the basis of
disability in the full and equal enjoyment of specified transportation
services. This obligation includes, with respect to the provision of
transportation services, compliance with the requirements of the rules
of the Department of Justice concerning

eligibility criteria, making reasonable modifications, providing
auxiliary aids and services, and removing barriers (28 CFR 36.301-
36.306).
    (2) Private entity-public transport. Private entities that provide
specified public transportation shall make reasonable modifications in
policies, practices, or procedures, when the modifications are
necessary to afford goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless
the entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would
fundamentally alter the nature of the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages, or accommodations.
    (3) Public entity-public transport. Public entities that provide
designated public transportation shall make reasonable modifications in
policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary
to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability or to provide
program accessibility to their services, subject to the limitations of
Sec.  37.169(c)(1)-(3). This requirement applies to the means public
entities use to meet their obligations under all provisions of this
part.
    (4) In choosing among alternatives for meeting nondiscrimination
and accessibility requirements with respect to new, altered, or
existing facilities, or designated or specified transportation
services, public and private entities shall give priority to those
methods that offer services, programs, and activities to qualified
individuals with disabilities in the most integrated setting
appropriate to the needs of individuals with disabilities.

0
7. Add Sec.  37.17 to read as follows:

Sec.  37.17  Designation of responsible employee and adoption of
complaint procedures.

    (a) Designation of responsible employee. Each public or private
entity subject to this part shall designate at least one person to
coordinate its efforts to comply with this part. (b) Adoption of
complaint procedures. An entity shall adopt procedures that incorporate
appropriate due process standards and provide for the prompt and
equitable resolution of complaints alleging any action prohibited by
this part and 49 CFR parts 27, 38 and 39. The procedures shall meet the
following requirements:
    (1) The process for filing a complaint, including the name,
address, telephone number, and email address of the employee designated
under paragraph (a) of this section, must be sufficiently advertised to
the public, such as on the entity's Web site;
    (2) The procedures must be accessible to and usable by individuals
with disabilities;
    (3) The entity must promptly communicate its response to the
complaint allegations, including its reasons for the response, to the
complainant and must ensure that it has documented its response.

0
8. Add Sec.  37.169 to read as follows:

Sec.  37.169  Process to be used by public entities providing
designated public transportation service in considering requests for
reasonable modification.

    (a)(1) A public entity providing designated public transportation,
in meeting the reasonable modification requirement of Sec.  37.5(g)(1)
with respect to its fixed route, demand responsive, and complementary
paratransit services, shall respond to requests for reasonable
modification to policies and practices consistent with this section.
    (2) The public entity shall make information about how to contact
the public entity to make requests for reasonable modifications readily
available to the public through the same means it uses to inform the
public about its policies and practices.
    (3) This process shall be in operation no later than July 13, 2015.
    (b) The process shall provide a means, accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities, to request a modification in the
entity's policies and practices applicable to its transportation
services.
    (1) Individuals requesting modifications shall describe what they
need in order to use the service.
    (2) Individuals requesting modifications are not required to use
the term ``reasonable modification'' when making a request.
    (3) Whenever feasible, requests for modifications shall be made and
determined in advance, before the transportation provider is expected
to provide the modified service, for example, during the paratransit
eligibility process, through customer service inquiries, or through the
entity's complaint process.
    (4) Where a request for modification cannot practicably be made and
determined in advance (e.g., because of a condition or barrier at the
destination of a paratransit or fixed route trip of which the
individual with a disability was unaware until arriving), operating
personnel of the entity shall make a determination of whether the
modification should be provided at the time of the request. Operating
personnel may consult with the entity's management before making a
determination to grant or deny the request.
    (c) Requests for modification of a public entity's policies and
practices may be denied only on one or more of the following grounds:
    (1) Granting the request would fundamentally alter the nature of
the entity's services, programs, or activities;
    (2) Granting the request would create a direct threat to the health
or safety of others;
    (3) Without the requested modification, the individual with a
disability is able to fully use the entity's services, programs, or
activities for their intended purpose.
    (d) In determining whether to grant a requested modification,
public entities shall be guided by the provisions of Appendix E to this
Part.
    (e) In any case in which a public entity denies a request for a
reasonable modification, the entity shall take, to the maximum extent
possible, any other actions (that would not result in a direct threat
or fundamental alteration) to ensure that the individual with a
disability receives the services or benefit provided by the entity.
    (f)(1) Public entities are not required to obtain prior approval
from the Department of Transportation for the process required by this
section.
    (2) DOT agencies retain the authority to review an entity's process
as part of normal program oversight.

0
9. Add a new Appendix E to Part 37 to read as follows:

Appendix E to Part 37--Reasonable Modification Requests

    A. This appendix explains the Department's interpretation of
Sec. Sec.  37.5(g) and 37.169. It is intended to be used as the
official position of the Department concerning the meaning and
implementation of these provisions. The Department also issues
guidance by other means, as provided in Sec.  37.15. The Department
also may update this appendix periodically, provided in response to
inquiries about specific situations that are of general relevance or
interest.
    B. The Department's ADA regulations contain numerous
requirements concerning fixed route, complementary paratransit, and
other types of transportation service. Transportation entities
necessarily formulate policies and practices to meet these
requirements (e.g., providing fixed route bus service that people
with disabilities can use to move among stops on the system,
providing complementary paratransit service that gets eligible
riders from their point of origin to their point of destination).
There may be certain situations, however, in which the otherwise
reasonable policies and practices of entities do not suffice to
achieve the regulation's objectives. Implementing a fixed route bus
policy in the normal way may

not allow a passenger with a disability to access and use the system
at a particular location. Implementing a paratransit policy in the
usual way may not allow a rider to get from his or her origin to his
or her destination. In these situations, subject to the limitations
discussed below, the transportation provider must make reasonable
modifications of its service in order to comply with the underlying
requirements of the rule. These underlying provisions tell entities
the end they must achieve; the reasonable modification provision
tells entities how to achieve that end in situations in which normal
policies and practices do not succeed in doing so.
    C. As noted above, the responsibility of entities to make
requested reasonable modifications is not without some limitations.
There are four classes of situations in which a request may
legitimately be denied. The first is where granting the request
would fundamentally alter the entity's services, programs, or
activities. The second is where granting the request would create a
direct threat to the health or safety of others. The third is where
without the requested modification, the individual with a disability
is able to fully use the entity's services, programs, or activities
for their intended purpose. The fourth, which applies only to
recipients of Federal financial assistance, is where granting the
request would cause an undue financial and administrative burden. In
the examples that follow, these limitations are taken into account.
    D. The examples included in this appendix are neither exhaustive
nor exclusive. Transportation entities may need to make
determinations about requests for reasonable modification that are
not described in this appendix. Importantly, reasonable modification
applies to an entities' own policies and practices, and not
regulatory requirements contained in 49 CFR parts 27, 37, 38, and
39, such as complementary paratransit service going beyond \3/4\
mile of the fixed route, providing same day complementary
paratransit service, etc.

Examples

    1. Snow and Ice. Except in extreme conditions that rise to the
level of a direct threat to the driver or others, a passenger's
request for a paratransit driver to walk over a pathway that has not
been fully cleared of snow and ice should be granted so that the
driver can help the passenger with a disability navigate the
pathway. For example, ambulatory blind passengers often have
difficulty in icy conditions, and allowing the passenger to take the
driver's arm will increase both the speed and safety of the
passenger's walk from the door to the vehicle. Likewise, if snow or
icy conditions at a bus stop make it difficult or impossible for a
fixed route passenger with a disability to get to a lift, or for the
lift to deploy, the driver should move the bus to a cleared area for
boarding, if such is available within reasonable proximity to the
stop (see Example 4 below).
    2. Pick Up and Drop Off Locations with Multiple Entrances. A
paratransit rider's request to be picked up at home, but not at the
front door of his or her home, should be granted, as long as the
requested pick-up location does not pose a direct threat. Similarly,
in the case of frequently visited public places with multiple
entrances (e.g., shopping malls, employment centers, schools,
hospitals, airports), the paratransit operator should pick up and
drop off the passenger at the entrance requested by the passenger,
rather than meet them in a location that has been predetermined by
the transportation agency, again assuming that doing so does not
involve a direct threat.
    3. Private Property. Paratransit passengers may sometimes seek
to be picked up on private property (e.g., in a gated community or
parking lot, mobile home community, business or government facility
where vehicle access requires authorized passage through a security
barrier). Even if the paratransit operator does not generally have a
policy of picking up passengers on such private property, the
paratransit operator should make every reasonable effort to gain
access to such an area (e.g., work with the passenger to get the
permission of the property owner to permit access for the
paratransit vehicle). The paratransit operator is not required to
violate the law or lawful access restrictions to meet the
passenger's requests. A public or private entity that unreasonably
denies access to a paratransit vehicle may be subject to a complaint
to the U.S. Department of Justice or U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development for discriminating against services for persons
with disabilities.
    4. Obstructions. For fixed route services, a passenger's request
for a driver to position the vehicle to avoid obstructions to the
passenger's ability to enter or leave the vehicle at a designated
stop location, such as parked cars, snow banks, and construction,
should be granted so long as positioning the vehicle to avoid the
obstruction does not pose a direct threat. To be granted, such a
request should result in the vehicle stopping in reasonably close
proximity to the designated stop location. Transportation entities
are not required to pick up passengers with disabilities at
nondesignated locations. Fixed route operators would not have to
establish flag stop or route-deviation policies, as these would be
fundamental alterations to a fixed route system rather than
reasonable modifications of a system. Likewise, subject to the
limitations discussed in the introduction to this appendix,
paratransit operators should be flexible in establishing pick up and
drop off points to avoid obstructions.
    5. Fare Handling. A passenger's request for transit personnel
(e.g., the driver, station attendant) to handle the fare media when
the passenger with a disability cannot pay the fare by the generally
established means should be granted on fixed route or paratransit
service (e.g., in a situation where a bus passenger cannot reach or
insert a fare into the farebox). Transit personnel are not required
to reach into pockets or backpacks in order to extract the fare
media.
    6. Eating and Drinking. If a passenger with diabetes or another
medical condition requests to eat or drink aboard a vehicle or in a
transit facility in order to avoid adverse health consequences, the
request should be granted, even if the transportation provider has a
policy that prohibits eating or drinking. For example, a person with
diabetes may need to consume a small amount of orange juice in a
closed container or a candy bar in order to maintain blood sugar
levels.
    7. Medicine. A passenger's request to take medication while
aboard a fixed route or paratransit vehicle or in a transit facility
should be granted. For example, transit agencies should modify their
policies to allow individuals to administer insulin injections and
conduct finger stick blood glucose testing. Transit staff need not
provide medical assistance, however, as this would be a fundamental
alteration of their function.
    8. Boarding Separately From Wheelchair. A wheelchair user's
request to board a fixed route or paratransit vehicle separately
from his or her device when the occupied weight of the device
exceeds the design load of the vehicle lift should generally be
granted. (Note, however, that under Sec.  37.165(b), entities are
required to accommodate device/user loads and dimensions that exceed
the former ``common wheelchair'' standard, as long as the vehicle
and lift will accommodate them.)
    9. Dedicated vehicles or special equipment in a vehicle. A
paratransit passenger's request for special equipment (e.g., the
installation of specific hand rails or a front seat in a vehicle for
the passenger to avoid nausea or back pain) can be denied so long as
the requested equipment is not required by the Americans with
Disabilities Act or the Department's rules. Likewise, a request for
a dedicated vehicle (e.g., to avoid residual chemical odors) or a
specific type or appearance of vehicle (e.g., a sedan rather than a
van, in order to provide more comfortable service) can be denied. In
all of these cases, the Department views meeting the request as
involving a fundamental alteration of the provider's service.
    10. Exclusive or Reduced Capacity Paratransit Trips. A
passenger's request for an exclusive paratransit trip may be denied
as a fundamental alteration of the entity's services. Paratransit is
by nature a shared-ride service.
    11. Outside of the Service Area or Operating Hours. A person's
request for fixed route or paratransit service may be denied when
honoring the request would require the transportation provider to
travel outside of its service area or to operate outside of its
operating hours. This request would not be a reasonable modification
because it would constitute a fundamental alteration of the entity's
service.
    12. Personal Care Attendant (PCA). While PCAs may travel with a
passenger with a disability, transportation agencies are not
required to provide a personal care attendant or personal care
attendant services to meet the needs of passengers with disabilities
on paratransit or fixed route trips. For example, a passenger's
request for a transportation entity's driver to remain with the
passenger who, due to his or her disability, cannot be left alone
without an attendant upon reaching his or her destination may be
denied. It would be a fundamental alteration of the driver's
function to provide PCA services of this kind.

    13. Intermediate Stops. The Department views granting a
paratransit passenger's request for a driver to make an intermediate
stop, where the driver would be required to wait, as optional. For
example, a passenger with a disability arranges to be picked up at a
medical facility and dropped off at home. On the way, the passenger
with a disability wishes to stop by a pharmacy and requests that the
driver park outside of the pharmacy, wait for the passenger to
return, and then continue the ride home. While this can be a very
useful service to the rider, and in some cases can save the
provider's time and money (by scheduling and providing a separate
trip to and from the drug store), such a stop in the context of a
shared ride system is not required. Since paratransit is, by its
nature, a shared ride system, requests that could disrupt schedules
and inconvenience other passengers could rise to the level of a
fundamental alteration.
    14. Payment. A passenger's request for a fixed route or
paratransit driver to provide the transit service when the passenger
with a disability cannot or refuses to pay the fare may be denied.
If the transportation agency requires payment to ride, then to
provide a free service would constitute a fundamental alteration of
the entity's service.
    15. Caring for Service Animals. A paratransit or fixed route
passenger's request that the driver take charge of a service animal
may be denied. Caring for a service animal is the responsibility of
the passenger or a PCA.
    16. Opening Building Doors. For paratransit services, a
passenger's request for the driver to open an exterior entry door to
a building to provide boarding and/or alighting assistance to a
passenger with a disability should generally be granted as long as
providing this assistance would not pose a direct threat, or leave
the vehicle unattended or out of visual observation for a lengthy
period of time.\1\ Note that a request for ``door-through-door''
service (i.e., assisting the passenger past the door to the
building) generally would not need to be granted because it could
rise to the level of a fundamental alteration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Please see guidance issued on this topic. U.S. Department of
Transportation, Origin-to-Destination Service, September 1, 2005,
available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/12325_3891.html (explaining
that, ``the Department does not view transit providers' obligations
as extending to the provision of personal services. . . . Nor would
drivers, for lengthy periods of time, have to leave their vehicles
unattended or lose the ability to keep their vehicles under visual
observation, or take actions that would be clearly unsafe . . .'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. Exposing Vehicle to Hazards. If the passenger requests that
a vehicle follow a path to a pick up or drop off point that would
expose the vehicle and its occupants to hazards, such as running off
the road, getting stuck, striking overhead objects, or reversing the
vehicle down a narrow alley, the request can be denied as creating a
direct threat.
    18. Hard-to-Maneuver Stops. A passenger may request that a
paratransit vehicle navigate to a pick-up point to which it is
difficult to maneuver a vehicle. A passenger's request to be picked
up in a location that is difficult, but not impossible or
impracticable, to access should generally be granted as long as
picking up the passenger does not expose the vehicle to hazards that
pose a direct threat (e.g., it is unsafe for the vehicle and its
occupants to get to the pick-up point without getting stuck or
running off the road).
    19. Specific Drivers. A passenger's request for a specific
driver may be denied. Having a specific driver is not necessary to
afford the passenger the service provided by the transit operator.
    20. Luggage and Packages. A passenger's request for a fixed
route or paratransit driver to assist with luggage or packages may
be denied in those instances where it is not the normal policy or
practice of the transportation agency to assist with luggage or
packages. Such assistance is a matter for the passenger or PCA, and
providing this assistance would be a fundamental alteration of the
driver's function.
    21. Request to Avoid Specific Passengers. A paratransit
passenger's request not to ride with certain passengers may be
denied. Paratransit is a shared-ride service. As a result, one
passenger may need to share the vehicle with people that he or she
would rather not.
    22. Navigating an Incline, or Around Obstacles. A paratransit
passenger's request for a driver to help him or her navigate an
incline (e.g., a driveway or sidewalk) with the passenger's wheeled
device should generally be granted. Likewise, assistance in
traversing a difficult sidewalk (e.g., one where tree roots have
made the sidewalk impassible for a wheelchair) should generally be
granted, as should assistance around obstacles (e.g., snowdrifts,
construction areas) between the vehicle and a door to a passenger's
house or destination should generally be granted. These
modifications would be granted subject, of course, to the proviso
that such assistance would not cause a direct threat, or leave the
vehicle unattended or out of visual observation for a lengthy period
of time.
    23. Extreme Weather Assistance. A passenger's request to be
assisted from his or her door to a vehicle during extreme weather
conditions should generally be granted so long as the driver leaving
the vehicle to assist would not pose a direct threat, or leave the
vehicle unattended or out of visual observation for a lengthy period
of time. For example, in extreme weather (e.g., very windy or stormy
conditions), a person who is blind or vision-impaired or a frail
elderly person may have difficulty safely moving to and from a
building.
    24. Unattended Passengers. Where a passenger's request for
assistance means that the driver will need to leave passengers
aboard a vehicle unattended, transportation agencies should
generally grant the request as long as accommodating the request
would not leave the vehicle unattended or out of visual observation
for a lengthy period of time, both of which could involve direct
threats to the health or safety of the unattended passengers. It is
important to keep in mind that, just as a driver is not required to
act as a PCA for a passenger making a request for assistance, so a
driver is not intended to act as a PCA for other passengers in the
vehicle, such that he or she must remain in their physical presence
at all times.
    25. Need for Return Trip Assistance. A passenger with a
disability may need assistance for a return trip when he or she did
not need that assistance on the initial trip. For example, a
dialysis patient may have no problem waiting at the curb for a ride
to go to the dialysis center, but may well require assistance to the
door on his or her return trip because of physical weakness or
fatigue. To the extent that this need is predictable, it should be
handled in advance, either as part of the eligibility process or the
provider's reservations process. If the need arises unexpectedly,
then it would need to be handled on an ad hoc basis. The paratransit
operator should generally provide such assistance, unless doing so
would create a direct threat, or leave the vehicle unattended or out
of visual observation for a lengthy period of time.
    26. Five-Minute Warning or Notification of Arrival Calls. A
passenger's request for a telephone call 5 minutes (or another
reasonable interval) in advance or at time of vehicle arrival
generally should be granted. As a matter of courtesy, such calls are
encouraged as a good customer service model and can prevent ``no
shows.'' Oftentimes, these calls can be generated through an
automated system. In those situations where automated systems are
not available and paratransit drivers continue to rely on hand-held
communication devices (e.g., cellular telephones) drivers should
comply with any State or Federal laws related to distracted driving.
    27. Hand-Carrying. Except in emergency situations, a passenger's
request for a driver to lift the passenger out of his or her
mobility device should generally be denied because of the safety,
dignity, and privacy issues implicated by hand-carrying a passenger.
Hand-carrying a passenger is also a PCA-type service which is
outside the scope of driver duties, and hence a fundamental
alteration.

    Issued this 6th day of March, 2015, at Washington, DC, under
authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.27(a).
Kathryn B. Thomson,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2015-05646 Filed 3-12-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 89440]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28542]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR24-25-000.
    Applicants: Enterprise Texas Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  284.123(g) Rate Filing: SOC Update to be
effective 4/1/2024.
    Filed Date: 12/20/23.
    Accession Number: 20231220-5087.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/10/24.
    Sec.  284.123(g) Protest: 5 p.m. ET 2/20/24.

    Docket Numbers: PR24-26-000.
    Applicants: Acadian Gas Pipeline System.
    Description: Sec.  284.123(g) Rate Filing: SOC Update 2023 to be
effective 4/1/2024.
    Filed Date: 12/20/23.
    Accession Number: 20231220-5112.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/10/24.
    Sec.  284.123(g) Protest: 5 p.m. ET 2/20/24.

    Docket Numbers: PR24-27-000.
    Applicants: Enterprise Intrastate LLC.
    Description: Sec.  284.123(g) Rate Filing: SOC Update to be
effective 4/1/2024.
    Filed Date: 12/20/23.
    Accession Number: 20231220-5122.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/10/24.
    Sec.  284.123(g) Protest: 5 p.m. ET 2/20/24.

    Docket Numbers: RP24-257-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Discount Type Adjustments,
Revision to GT&C Section 46 to be effective 1/20/2024.
    Filed Date: 12/20/23.
    Accession Number: 20231220-5169.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/24.

    Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a
complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with
Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211,
385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the
specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is
necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP23-991-001.
    Applicants: Viking Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Report Filing: Compliance Filing to Implement EPCRA to
be effective 1/1/2024.
    Filed Date: 12/20/23.
    Accession Number: 20231220-5040.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/24.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: December 20, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-28542 Filed 12-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 93)]
[Notices]
[Page 27544-27545]
[DOCID:fr13my08-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; 30-day notice and request for comments; Extension of a
currently approved collection 1660-0025, Standard Forms: SF-LLL, SF-
424, SF-270, FEMA Forms: 20-10, 20-15, 20-16A, 20-16B, 20-16C, 20-17,
20-18, 20-19, 20-20, and 76-10A.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) has submitted the following information collection to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance
with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The
submission describes the nature of the information collection, the
categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort
and resources used by respondents to respond) and cost, and includes
the actual data collection instruments FEMA will use.
    Title: FEMA Grant Administration Forms.
    OMB Number: 1660-0025.
    Abstract: This collection of information focuses on the
standardization and consistent use of standard and FEMA forms
associated with grantees requests for disaster and non-disaster Federal
assistance, submission of financial and administrative reporting and
record keeping. The use of the forms will minimize burden on the
respondent and enable FEMA to continue to improve in its grants
administration practices. The forms are used to administer the
following FEMA grant programs.
    National Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Response System--To develop
an immediately deployable, national response capability to locate and
extricate, and medically stabilize victims of structural collapse
during a disaster, while simultaneously enhancing the US&R response
capabilities of State and local governments.
    Community Assistance Program--State Support Services Element (CAP-
SSSE)--To ensure that communities participating in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) are achieving flood loss reduction measures
consistent with program direction. The CAP-SSSE is intended to
identify, prevent and resolve floodplain management issues in
participating communities before they develop into problems requiring
enforcement action.
    Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP)--To
enhance emergency preparedness capabilities of the States and local
communities at each of the eight chemical agent stockpile storage
facilities. The purpose of the program is to assist States and local
communities in efforts to improve their capacity to plan for and
respond to accidents associated with the storage and ultimate disposal
of chemical warfare materials.
    National Dam Safety Program (NDSP)--To encourage the establishment
and maintenance of effective State programs intended to ensure dam
safety, to protect human life and property, and to improve State dam
safety programs.
    Interoperable Communications Equipment (ICE)--To provide funding to
jurisdictions across the nation for demonstration projects on uses of
equipment and technologies to increase communications interoperability
among the fire service, law enforcement, and emergency medical service
communities. These projects will illustrate and encourage the
acceptance of new technologies and operating methods to assist
communities in achieving interoperability.

    Earthquake Consortium (EqC)--To operate a program of grants and
assistance to enable States to develop mitigation, preparedness and
response plans prepare inventories and conduct seismic safety
inspection of critical structures and lifelines, update building and
zoning codes and ordinances to enhance seismic safety, increase
earthquake awareness and education, and encourage the development of
multi-State groups for such purposes.
    Disaster Donations Management Program (AIDMATRIX)--To distribute
technology solutions to State and local government and voluntary
agencies throughout the country prior, to a major event, through the
Aidmatrix Foundation/FEMA partnership. This will allow end-users to
incorporate technology solutions into their planning, increasing their
capacity to respond quickly and effectively once a disaster occurs.
    Alternative Housing Pilot Program (AHPP)--Evaluate the efficacy of
non-traditional short and intermediate-term housing alternatives for
potential future use in a catastrophic disaster environment. Identify,
develop and evaluate alternatives to and alternative forms of FEMA
Disaster Housing to assist victims of the 2005 hurricanes in the Gulf
Coast.
    Cooperating Technical Partners (CTP)--To increase local involvement
in, and ownership of, the development and maintenance of flood hazard
maps produced for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
    Map Modernization Management Support (MMMS)--To increase local
involvement in, and ownership of, management of the development and
maintenance of flood hazard maps produced for the National Flood
Insurance.
    New Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC)--The Repetitive Flood Claims
(RFC) Program was authorized in 2004 under Public Law 108-264, funds
were not appropriated until FY 2006. The RFC program is authorized
under the NFIA to award grants for actions that reduce flood damages to
individual properties for which one or more claim payments for losses
have been made. FEMA is not required to publish regulations; however,
FEMA will provide notice to eligible applicants, post notice on OMB's
Grants.gov Web site, and post the RFC program guidance on its Web site
at http://www.fema.gov.
    Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA)--To assist States and communities
in implementing measures to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of
flood damage to buildings, manufactured homes, and other structures
insurable under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
    Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM)--To provide States and communities
with a much needed source of pre-disaster mitigation funding for cost-
effective hazard mitigation activities that are part of a comprehensive
mitigation program, and that reduce injuries, loss of life, and damage
and destruction of property. Competitive grants are part of this
program including grants to universities.
    Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG)--To provide direct
assistance, on a competitive basis, to fire departments of a State or
tribal nation for the purpose of protecting the health and safety of
the public and firefighting personnel against fire and fire-related
hazards.
    Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER)--To
increase the number of firefighters in local communities and to help
them meet industry minimum standards and attain 24/7 staffing for
adequate protection against fire and fire-related hazards, and fulfill
related roles associated with fire departments.

Disaster Programs

    Public Assistance Grants (PA)--To provide supplemental assistance
to States, local governments, and political subdivisions to the State,
Indian Tribes, Alaskan Native Villages, and certain nonprofit
organizations in alleviating suffering and hardship resulting from
major disasters or emergencies declared by the President.
    Crisis Counseling (SCC)--To provide immediate crisis counseling
services, when required, to victims of a major Federally-declared
disaster for the purpose of relieving mental health problems caused or
aggravated by a major disaster or its aftermath.
    Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and
Households--Other Needs (ONA)--To provide assistance to individuals and
households affected by a disaster or emergency declared by the
President, and enable them to address necessary expenses and serious
needs, which cannot be met through other forms of disaster assistance
or through other means such as insurance.
    Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)--To provide States and local
governments' financial assistance to implement measures that will
permanently reduce or eliminate future damages and losses from natural
hazards through safer building practices and improving existing
structures and supporting infrastructure.
    Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAGP)--To provide grants to
States, Indian tribal government and local governments for the
mitigation, management and control of any fire burning on publicly
(nonfederal) or privately owned forest or grassland that threatens such
destruction as would constitute a major disaster.
    Affected Public: State, local, and tribal government.
    Number of Respondents: 56.
    Estimated Time per Respondent: 38,408.66.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,150,885.
    Frequency of Response: On Occasion.
    Comments: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Nathan
Lesser, Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/FEMA, and sent
via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to (202)
395-6974. Comments must be submitted on or before June 12, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
Mail Drop Room 301, 1800 S. Bell Street, Arlington, VA 22202, facsimile
number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address FEMA-Information-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 28, 2008.
John A. Sharetts-Sullivan,
Director, Records Management Division, Office of Management, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security,
[FR Doc. E8-10580 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-49-P