49 CFR Parts 37 and 38 -- Transportation for Individuals With Disabilities at Intercity, Commuter, and High Speed Passenger Railroad Station Platforms; Miscellaneous Amendments, Preamble

Comments

As the Department is aware and as many commenters pointed out in response to the NPRM question on the subject, in the nearly 20 years since the Department issued its ADA regulation there has been a proliferation of different types of wheelchairs, including some models that may not meet the common wheelchair criteria. Most disability community commenters believed that the operational use of the concept was an unnecessary obstacle to transportation opportunities for people with mobility disabilities and that this use of the term should be dropped. They preferred a requirement that would direct transportation providers to carry any wheelchair that the provider's equipment could in fact accommodate. For example, if a lift could carry an 800-pound wheelchair, and there was room on the vehicle for the wheelchair, the provider would have to permit the device onto the vehicle.

Some commenters cited problems that transportation providers' implementation of the common wheelchair provision had caused. For example, someone who had a wheelchair that reclined, but did not recline it when boarding, was told she could not bring the wheelchair on board a paratransit vehicle because, when reclined, it exceeded the dimensional envelope, even though there was room for it to recline. Other passengers complained of being denied rides because a footrest exceeded the dimensional envelope or because their weight, combined with that of their wheelchair, exceeded the common wheelchair weight limit, even though they had ridden the system's vehicles for years without any problem.

Transportation providers generally preferred to retain either the operational effect of the common wheelchair definition or to use some other way of limiting the size and weight of wheelchairs brought onto the vehicle. Some commenters mentioned safety and potential damage to vehicles and equipment as concerns if larger or more irregularly shaped wheelchairs were permitted. The difficulty of securing such wheelchairs was one concern that commenters mentioned. In addition to weight, some commenters mentioned clearance concerns in the vehicle, such as difficulty in getting a wheelchair around a wheel well, driver station, or fare box. A number of transportation providers asked for flexibility in terms of the type of mobility aids they are required to carry.

A number of transportation commenters suggested that a longer-term solution to the problem would be to work with wheelchair manufacturers and the Department of Health and Human Services to establish standards for wheelchairs (or at least wheelchairs that would be purchased via Medicare or Medicaid). Such standards, they suggested, could address not only size and weight but also the ability of wheelchairs to be secured on vehicles. Additional research and consultation with stakeholders was also recommended.

In September 2005, the Department issued guidance concerning non-traditional mobility devices. It said, in essence, that under existing DOT nondiscrimination rules, regulated entities must accept such non-traditional devices (e.g., Segways) as long as the devices could be physically accommodated and accepting them did not cause a direct threat to safety. Some disability community commenters supported this approach, citing the increased mobility that these devices offered persons with mobility impairments, while some transportation industry commenters did not want to have to accept such devices, based on concerns about safety, space, and securement.