Office of the Secretary 

 of Transportation

GENERAL COUNSEL 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

MEMORANDUM

Prepared By: Jill Laptosky

Attorney-Advisor, Office of Regulation and Enforcement (C-50)

Re: Office of the Secretary’s Final Rule on Transportation with Individuals with 

Disabilities: Reasonable Modifications (2105–AD54)

On May 28, 2014, representatives from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) met with 

Access Services, the Los Angeles County Consolidated Transportation Services Agency that

administers the Los Angeles County Coordinated Paratransit Plan on behalf of the county’s 44

public fixed route operators (i.e., bus and rail). Access Services called the meeting to discuss the 

Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Fiscal Year 2013 Grantee Management Review finding 

regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Specifically, the FTA found that Access 

Services was not providing origin-to-destination service as required by 49 CFR 37.129(a).

The following individuals were present from DOT:

 James Cole, Deputy General Counsel, Office of the Secretary (OST)

 John Day, Legislative Analyst, Federal Transit Administration

 Linda Ford, Director, Civil Rights, Federal Transit Administration

 Bonnie Graves, Attorney, Federal Transit Administration

 Bryna Helfer, Director of Public Engagement, OST

 Jill Laptosky, Attorney, OST

 Kathryn Sinniger, Assistant General Counsel, OST

The following individuals were present from or on behalf of Access Services:

 Andre Colaiace, Deputy Executive Director Planning and Governmental Affairs, Access 

Services

 Len Simon, Simon and Company, Inc.

 Shelly Verrinder, Executive Director, Access Services

Mr. Colaiace provided a description of Access Services, discussed some of the funding 

challenges, and mentioned that Access Services has responded to FTA’s finding. Access 

Services has a policy disagreement with DOT on what origin-to-destination service requires. 

Access Services feels that they are going above and beyond the requirements of ordinary se rvice, 

but FTA is asking for them to do more (i.e., origin-to-destination service). Access Services 

believes that providing origin-to-destination service would impose a large cost estimated 
2

between $40-70 million over 4 years. This cost includes a full conversion to a door-to-door 

service model from the curb-to-curb service model that Access Service currently uses. This cost 

also includes increased dwell times of 1-2 minutes in certain trips, which Access Services 

estimates would slow down service on their system. For example, Access Services says that 

drivers providing door-to-door service may only be able to complete eight trips in the time that 

today, whereas under a curb-to-curb service model, the driver may be able to complete ten trips. 

Ms. Graves mentioned that some transit agencies have found the opposite effect—that is, that 

switching from a curb-to-curb to a door-to-door service model actually lowers systemwide costs

as it has reduced dwell times. 

Access Services also mentioned some safety issues that they have with providing door-to-door 

service, such as joyriding.

Ms. Graves provided some basic clarifications of what origin-to-destination service is and is not.

Specifically, origin-to-destination does not require a system providing curb-to-curb service to 

change its entire operation to door-to-door. It requires only that the transit system provide doorto-door service for those passengers who need door-to-door in order to use the service.

Access Services asserted that a provision of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) states that guidance cannot be 

binding. However, Ms. Graves clarified that the SAFETEA–LU provision applies only to certain 

FTA guidance documents, and not OST guidance documents, such as the 2005 origin-todestination guidance. Under 49 U.S.C. 5334(k), when FTA issues a statement that has a binding 

obligation on recipients, FTA must follow applicable rulemaking procedures.

With regard to OST’s pending rulemaking on reasonable modifications, Access Services said, “If 

reasonable modification comes out as law, we are prepared to implement it.” Access Services 

discussed a couple of cases, Melton and Rochester. Access Services said that this was the first 

time that not complying with origin-to-destination service has come up as a finding in a triennial 

review, and they want to find a way to close the finding.

Access Services believes that the guidance found in the Appendix to Part 37 and the guidance 

issued in 2005 are inconsistent. Mr. Simon asked some questions about the pending rulemaking 

on reasonable modifications, but OST declined to comment. Ms. Sinniger mentioned that the 

schedule for the reasonable modification final rule is posted on the DOT Web site monthly, and 

that publication is currently projected for October 2014.

Access Services mentioned that when the reasonable modification final rule is issued, it will 

require a large educational effort for their passengers on their part.

Currently, Access Services does not have any clients who need door-to-door service. They refer 

those who do to other service providers (e.g., dial-a-ride). 

Mr. Cole closed by saying that the best way to move forward is to get the reasonable 

modification final rule completed as soon as possible.