Transportation for Individuals With Disabilities; Service Criteria for Complementary Paratransit Fares, 32716-32717 [2016-11182]

Download as PDF 32716 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS Section 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide for consultation and participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP. Mississippi Code Title 49, Appendix A–9, Section 49–17–17(c), gives the Commission the statutory authority to advise and consult with any political subdivisions in the State. Mississippi Code Title 49, Appendix A– 9, Section 49–17–19(b) requires the Commission to conduct public hearings in accordance with EPA regulations prior to establishing, amending, or repealing standards of air quality. Additionally, MDEQ works closely with local political subdivisions during the development of its transportation conformity SIP and regional haze SIP. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi’s SIP and practices adequately demonstrate consultation with affected local entities related to the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS when necessary. V. Proposed Action With the exception of the preconstruction PSD permitting requirements for major sources of section 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of (D)(i), and (J), the interstate transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other states and visibility protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), and the state board majority requirements respecting the significant portion of income of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is proposing to approve that Mississippi’s February 28, 2013, SIP submission for the 2010 1hour NO2 NAAQS has met the abovedescribed infrastructure SIP requirements because these aspects of the submission are consistent with section 110 of the CAA. EPA is proposing to disapprove in part section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of Mississippi’s infrastructure submission because a majority of board members may still derive a significant portion of income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders issued by the Mississippi Boards. Therefore, its current SIP does not meet the section 128(a)(1) majority requirements respecting significant portion of income. This proposed action, however, does not include the preconstruction PSD permitting requirements for major sources of section 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of (D)(i), and (J), which have been approved in a separate action, or the interstate transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other states of prongs 1, VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:13 May 23, 2016 Jkt 238001 2 and 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which will be addressed by EPA in a separate action. Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal that addresses a requirement of a CAA Part D Plan or is required in response to a finding of substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP call) starts a sanctions clock. The portion of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) provisions (the provisions being proposed for disapproval in this action) were not submitted to meet requirements for Part D or a SIP call, and therefore, if EPA takes final action to disapprove this submittal, no sanctions will be triggered. However, if this disapproval action is finalized, that final action will trigger the requirement under section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) no later than 2 years from the date of the disapproval unless the State corrects the deficiency, and EPA approves the plan or plan revision before EPA promulgates such FIP. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action: • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); • does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); • does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and • does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: May 12, 2016. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. 2016–12102 Filed 5–23–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary 49 CFR Part 37 [Docket DOT–OST–2015–0075] Transportation for Individuals With Disabilities; Service Criteria for Complementary Paratransit Fares Office of the Secretary (OST), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notification of disposition of petition for rulemaking. AGENCY: This document announces the disposition of a petition for rulemaking from Access Services concerning the Department’s regulations implementing SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM 24MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) with respect to the method of determining the fare for a trip charged to an ADA paratransit-eligible user. The petition asked the Department to revise its regulation to allow for a ‘‘coordinated’’ or two-tier fare structure. The current regulation provides that the fare shall not exceed twice the fare that would be charged to an individual paying full fare for a similar trip on the fixed route system. On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. Section 3023 of the FAST Act allows the fare structure Access Services supported in its petition for rulemaking, thereby rendering the petition for rulemaking moot. DATES: May 24, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill Laptosky, Attorney-Advisor, Office of General Counsel, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone: 202–493–0308, or email, Jill.Laptosky@dot.gov; or Bonnie Graves, Assistant Chief Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Transit Administration, same address, telephone: 202–366–4011, or email, Bonnie.Graves@dot.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 4, 2015, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) received a petition for rulemaking from Access Services, the Americans with VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:13 May 23, 2016 Jkt 238001 Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit provider for 44 fixed route transit providers in Los Angeles County, California. Access Services described that it uses a ‘‘coordinated’’ or two-tier fare structure where it generally charges $2.75 for one-way trips up to 19.9 miles, and $3.50 for one-way trips of 20 miles or more. In some cases, these fares exceed twice the fixed route fare. The DOT’s ADA regulation at 49 CFR 37.131(c) provides that the fare for a trip charged to an ADA paratransit-eligible user of the complementary paratransit service shall not exceed twice the fare that would be charged to an individual paying full fare for a trip of similar length, at a similar time of day, on the entity’s fixed route system. In recent triennial reviews of some fixed route providers in Los Angeles County, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has made findings that the ADA paratransit fares exceed twice the fixed route fare. In other words, some paratransit riders had been paying more for ADA paratransit fares than they should have been under the Department’s regulations. On August 20, 2015, the Department placed Access Services’ petition for rulemaking in a public docket and sought comments on the petition in order to help the Department determine whether to grant or deny the petition. The Department received approximately 179 comments to the docket, several with multiple signatures. With the exception of one person, all those in PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 32717 support of the petition were in Access Services’ service area, and all opposed were outside of the service area. On December 4, 2015, Congress enacted the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L. 114– 94). Section 3023 of the FAST Act provides that notwithstanding 49 CFR 37.131(c), any paratransit system currently coordinating complementary paratransit service for more than 40 fixed route agencies shall be permitted to continue using an existing tiered, distance-based coordinated paratransit fare system, if the fare for the existing tiered, distance-based coordinated paratransit fare system is not increased by a greater percentage than any increase to the fixed route fare for the largest transit agency in the complementary paratransit service area. Given this statutory provision, the Department has determined the issue is moot and no further action is necessary with regard to this petition for rulemaking. As a result, Access Services may continue to operate its coordinated fare structure notwithstanding 49 CFR 37.131(c) and in compliance with section 3023 of the FAST Act. Issued in Washington, DC, this 5th day of May, 2016, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.27(a). Kathryn B. Thomson, General Counsel. [FR Doc. 2016–11182 Filed 5–23–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P E:\FR\FM\24MYP1.SGM 24MYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32716-32717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11182]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Part 37

[Docket DOT-OST-2015-0075]


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

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

ACTION: Notification of disposition of petition for rulemaking.

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

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

[[Page 32717]]

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

DATES:  May 24, 2016.

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

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, this 5th day of May, 2016, under 
authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.27(a).
Kathryn B. Thomson,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2016-11182 Filed 5-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.