that discriminate against “beneficiaries of the public entity’s program,” but it does not define what it means for a program to be the “public entity’s.” It does not seem that a program of driver education belongs to the TEA. Another regulation provides that “[t]he programs or activities of entities that are licensed or certified by a public entity are not, themselves, covered.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(6). But we agree with the named plaintiffs that this statement does not automatically immunize licensed activities from the ADA’s gamut, given that the regulations also provide that a public entity cannot discriminate “directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1). Looking further to the interpretative guidance provid 441-42 (D.Kan.1994) (<HOLDING>). The importance of a contractual or agency
holding that it is not holding that city council had discretion to approve applications for liquor licenses and that liquor license holder was no more entitled to renewal than firsttime applicant holding that city is not liable for inaccessible restaurants and liquor stores it licenses holding that public entity is not liable for inaccessible taxi companies it licenses and regulates holding that public utility company is not liable for inaccessible bus company it licenses where there is no contract between them