Rule2024-29990
Transportation for Individuals With Disabilities; Adoption of Accessibility Standards for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 18, 2024
Effective
January 17, 2025
Issuing agencies
Transportation Department
Abstract
The Department of Transportation (DOT or the Department) is amending its Americans with Disabilities Act regulations to adopt, without modification, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board's Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way (PROWAG) as DOT's regulatory standards for new construction and alterations of transit stops in the public right- of-way.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 243 (Wednesday, December 18, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 18, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 102800-102809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29990]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
49 CFR Part 37
[Docket No. DOT-OST-2024-0090]
RIN 2105-AF05
Transportation for Individuals With Disabilities; Adoption of
Accessibility Standards for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-
of-Way
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT or the Department).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation (DOT or the Department) is
amending its Americans with Disabilities Act regulations to adopt,
without modification, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board's Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities
in the Public Right-of-Way (PROWAG) as DOT's regulatory standards for
new construction and alterations of transit stops in the public right-
of-way.
DATES: This rule is effective January 17, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions, Holly Ceasar-
Fox, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation,
(202) 366-7420, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e78f888b8b9ec984828694869581889fa7838893c9808891"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4d2522212134632e282c3e2c3f2b22350d292239632a223b">[email protected]</span></a>. For legal questions related to
PROWAG, James T. Esselman, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Highway
Administration, (202) 366-6181, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d2b8b3bfb7a1fcb7a1a1b7bebfb3bc92b6bda6fcb5bda4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6309020e06104d061010060f0e020d23070c174d040c15">[email protected]</span></a>. For legal
questions related to transit, Diane Alexander, Office of Chief Counsel,
Federal Transit Administration, (202) 366-3101,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cda9a4aca3a8e3aca1a8b5aca3a9a8bf8da9a2b9e3aaa2bb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="54303d353a317a3538312c353a30312614303b207a333b22">[email protected]</span></a>. For questions related to intercity or high-
speed rail, Linda Martin, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of
Chief Counsel, 202-689-9408, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2d614443494c03604c5f5944436d494259034a425b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="87cbeee9e3e6a9cae6f5f3eee9c7e3e8f3a9e0e8f1">[email protected]</span></a>.
Electronic Access and Filing: This document, the notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received, and all background material
may be viewed online at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> using the docket number
listed above. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on
the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An
electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office
of the Federal Register's website at <a href="http://www.federalregister.gov">www.federalregister.gov</a> and the
Government Publishing Office's website at <a href="http://www.GovInfo.gov">www.GovInfo.gov</a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
directs the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
(U.S. Access Board, or the Board) to issue minimum guidelines for
accessible design to guide the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) in the development of ADA
accessibility standards. See 42 U.S.C. 12204(a). On August 8, 2023, the
Board issued its final rule on Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility
Guidelines (PROWAG). (88 FR 53604).
Title II of the ADA sets forth accessibility requirements
applicable to public entities. Under Title II, Part B, DOT is
authorized to implement the ADA relating to nondiscrimination in the
provision of public transportation services. See 42 U.S.C. 12149(a).
The ADA directs DOT to adopt standards for accessible public
transportation facilities that are ``consistent with'' final minimum
accessibility guidelines issued by the Board. Id. at section 12149(b).
Similarly, Title III of the ADA directs DOT to adopt regulations
implementing the transportation provisions of Title III, applicable to
private entities that provide specified public transportation services
and provides that any standards adopted under such regulations must be
``consistent with'' final minimum accessibility guidelines adopted by
the Access Board. Id. at sections 12186(a), (c).
Under these authorities, DOT issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) to adopt the PROWAG into DOT's ADA regulations on August 22,
2024 (89 FR 67922). The NPRM proposed to adopt the entirety of the
PROWAG into DOT's ADA regulations but noted that DOT's independent
regulatory authority under the ADA extends only to the accessibility of
public transportation facilities. See 42 U.S.C. 12149(a), 12186(a),
(c). As a result, the NPRM proposed that in adopting the PROWAG into
DOT's ADA regulations, DOT will apply only those provisions applicable
to new construction and alterations of transit stops in the public
right-of-way. PROWAG R210 requires transit stops and transit shelters
to comply with technical requirements set forth in PROWAG R309.
Elements required to be accessible under PROWAG R309 include the
boarding and alighting area
[[Page 102801]]
at a sidewalk or street-level transit stop or the boarding platform,
pedestrian access routes (PARs) that connect altered boarding and
alighting areas or altered boarding platforms with existing pedestrian
circulation paths, and, if provided, transit shelters and PARs
connecting transit shelters with boarding and alighting areas or
boarding platforms. Other PROWAG provisions applicable to transit stops
in the public right-of-way include: fare vending machines (R210);
operable parts of other fixed elements (R210); detectable warnings for
boarding platforms (R205.5) and sidewalk and street-level rail boarding
and alighting areas (R205.6); pedestrian signs (R208); PARs between
newly constructed transit stops and accessible elements, spaces, and
pedestrian facilities required to be accessible (R203.2.1); alternate
transit stops (R204.2); and benches (R209.6.1).
Because DOT's independent regulatory authority under the ADA
extends only to the accessibility of public transportation facilities,
DOT's authority does not extend to regulating the accessibility of
other separate elements of the public right-of-way, such as on-street
parking spaces, crosswalks, or sidewalks, with the exception of the
elements mentioned above, as applied to transit stops. Such other
elements in the public right-of-way fall under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Justice under Title II, Part A, of the ADA.
In addition to seeking comments on DOT's proposal to adopt PROWAG
into its ADA regulations, DOT also requested comments on specific
issues. First, noting that DOT's ADA standards must be ``consistent
with'' the Access Board's PROWAG, the Department asked whether its
accessibility standards should differ from the Access Board's PROWAG by
adopting modifications that provide greater accessibility than the
PROWAG or that clarify application of certain PROWAG provisions.
Specifically, DOT requested comments on whether it should add
restrictions on certain transit stop designs that locate the transit
boarding and alighting area so that it coincides with vehicular lanes,
including bicycle facilities. The Department expressed concern that
these types of transit stop designs may impede accessibility for
individuals with disabilities.
The NPRM proposed, as well, to add definitions of ``transit stop,''
``public right-of-way,'' and ``alteration of a transit stop'' to 49 CFR
37.3. The Department also proposed that a transit stop project located
in the public right-of-way on which construction has begun, or for
which all approvals for final design have been received, before the
effective date of the final rule, would not be required to comply with
DOT's PROWAG standards, but would otherwise be required to be readily
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. The
Department also proposed an effective date of the final rule of 30 days
after publication of the final rule.
As discussed in further detail below, DOT is proceeding with
adopting the PROWAG into DOT's ADA regulations at 49 CFR part 37,
without modification, as standards applicable to transit stops in the
public right-of-way. In order to avoid duplication, since the entire
text of the PROWAG is available in materials published by the Access
Board, the Department is adopting the PROWAG into Sec. 37.9 of the
Department's ADA regulations at 49 CFR part 37 by cross-reference to 36
CFR part 1190.
Comments to the NPRM
DOT published its NPRM proposing to adopt the PROWAG into DOT's ADA
regulations at 49 CFR part 37 on August 22, 2024. The comment period
ended on September 23, 2024.
DOT received 88 comments in response to the NPRM. Out of the 88
comments considered, 61 commenters expressed general support for the
proposed rule, while 27 commenters did not provide a general opinion
but rather focused their comments on specific issues. No commenters
expressed general opposition to the proposed rule.
1. Overlapping Boarding Areas With Vehicular Lanes
Comments
The greatest number of comments on the NPRM concerned DOT's request
for comments on whether DOT should consider adding restrictions on
certain transit stop designs that locate the transit boarding and
alighting area so that it coincides with vehicular lanes, including
bicycle facilities. The PROWAG does not currently address such designs,
and DOT expressed concern that co-location of the boarding area with a
vehicular lane, including a bicycle lane, may put a transit user with
disabilities at risk of being struck while waiting to board or while
alighting from a transit vehicle. The Department sought comment on
whether allowing boarding and alighting areas to overlap vehicular
lanes presents accessibility concerns, and whether it should consider
adding a provision to R309.1 when it adopts the PROWAG into its
standards restricting such co-location. DOT also sought comment on
whether there are solutions short of prohibiting co-location that would
address accessibility concerns, such as alternative designs that
prevent vehicular passage when riders are boarding or alighting from a
transit vehicle.
DOT received comments from forty-four entities opposed to adding
restrictions on transit stop designs that provide for overlap between
boarding and alighting areas and bicycle lanes. Those entities included
ten State departments of transportation (State DOTs), fourteen local
public entities, four public transit providers, three disability
advocacy groups, eight transportation-related organizations, two
consultant groups, and three individuals. Arguments against adding
restrictions on these types of transit stop designs included the
following: (1) several entities that have used such designs reported no
or minor instances of conflicts between cyclists or micromobility users
(e.g., scooters) and transit users; (2) even if such conflict does
exist, numerous design guidelines have been developed that minimize the
potential for conflicts between transit riders and vehicles while
retaining the key design features of multimodal transit boarding and
alighting areas; (3) such designs are an emerging area of practice that
would benefit from increased coordination and research; (4) the
addition of restrictions would impact the scope of currently active
bike lane projects and create additional barriers to their completion;
and (5) prohibition of co-location would add more complexity to future
active transportation projects, especially in constrained environments,
and negatively impact the ability of entities to meet environmental and
Vision Zero goals. Commenters also expressed opposition to DOT taking
any action in this area in the absence of proposing specific regulatory
language.
More specifically, several entities, acknowledging the potential
for transit user--vehicular conflicts where transit stop designs
provide overlap between vehicle lanes and the boarding and alighting
area, argued that restricting such designs would deprive entities of
necessary flexibility to accommodate all users of limited right-of-way
and pointed to existing design guidelines from around the country that
they contend effectively mitigate conflict concerns. One transit agency
commented that it undertook its own design process for transit stops
that could safely accommodate pedestrians, transit users, and cyclists
and that, working alongside accessibility advocates, transit experts,
and active transportation advocates, arrived at a design that has been
implemented in
[[Page 102802]]
thirty locations. The entity reported few incidents between cyclists,
micromobility users, and transit riders at these locations.
One local public entity reported using an overlapping transit stop/
bike lane design at over forty locations with no record of reported
pedestrian-cyclist accidents at such locations. The entity noted that
through monitoring and evaluation, as well as consultation with the
local disability community, it has continued to refine shared stop
designs to promote safe and predictable interactions between bicyclists
and bus customers. Other entities commented that research should
continue to better inform the conversation before any regulatory action
might be taken. The three disability advocacy groups that opposed
regulatory restrictions at this time encouraged DOT to monitor ongoing
research.
DOT received comments from fifteen entities in favor of adding
restrictions on the co-location of boarding and alighting areas with
vehicular lanes. These entities include ten disability advocacy groups,
one State DOT, three local public entities, and one public transit
provider. These entities generally contended that designs that allow
overlap of boarding areas with vehicular lanes (e.g., bike lanes)
present significant accessibility and safety concerns for people with
disabilities, including those who are blind or have low vision,
warranting restrictions through this rulemaking.
One disability advocacy group shared the concerns that DOT had
noted about co-located boarding and alighting areas and bicycle lanes
and noted that there was at least one instance in their community of a
cyclist colliding with and injuring a transit rider alighting from a
bus. This commenter emphasized that shared transit stop areas are
becoming increasingly dangerous as bike lanes are used more frequently
by individuals using electric bikes, electric scooters, and motor
scooters, which can travel at much greater speeds. Another disability
advocacy group added that although many cyclists and micromobility
users act responsibly at conflict points, the personal experiences of
members is that many cyclists and micromobility users do not reliably
yield to pedestrians or transit riders at shared transit stop
locations. Another commenter noted that shared transit stop designs can
cause confusion for individuals with vision disabilities and increase
safety concerns which may encourage some individuals with disabilities
to avoid certain transit stops or shift their mode of travel to curb-
to-curb service.
Many of the same commenters who encouraged DOT to add regulatory
restrictions on shared or overlapping transit stops also encouraged DOT
to restrict or provide further guidance on ``floating'' transit stop
islands, a design in which the transit stop is set away from the
sidewalk with a bike lane channel in between the sidewalk and the
transit stop island. Commenters noted that in addition to transit stops
that overlap with vehicular lanes, transit stop islands also present
challenges and safety concerns for individuals with disabilities,
particularly those who are blind or have low vision, who must cross the
bicycle lane to reach the transit stop. Commenters stated that
individuals with vision disabilities struggle to detect approaching
cyclists at such locations and lack customary physical cues signaling
the presence of a bus stop.
DOT Response
DOT continues to have concerns, as expressed in the NPRM, about the
accessibility of transit stop designs that locate the transit boarding
and alighting area so that it coincides with vehicular lanes, including
bicycle facilities. These concerns were echoed primarily by disability
advocacy groups, but also by commenters that opposed DOT taking any
regulatory action at this time. In fact, most commenters who opposed
regulatory restrictions recognize the inherent conflict that exists by
allowing vehicular lanes to overlap with boarding and alighting areas
but argue that allowance of design flexibility, particularly in
constrained right-of-way environments common predominantly to dense
urban areas, is vital to allow safe accommodation of travelers as a
whole. They note that there is little data showing that the use of
overlapping transit stop designs has led to major conflicts between
transit riders and cyclists or micromobility users and point to
existing design guides that have been developed to minimize the
potential for major conflicts at such locations.
Despite DOT's ongoing concerns about transit stop designs that
locate the transit boarding and alighting area so that it coincides
with vehicular lanes, DOT will not add any regulatory restrictions on
such designs at this time. DOT recognizes the relatively recent
development of these types of designs and the ongoing research taking
place to identify the impact of such designs on transportation in
general, including efforts to develop safe multimodal networks, but
also more specifically on individuals with disabilities. DOT is
encouraged by the number of comments that reflected public entities
working with individuals with disabilities to address safety and
accessibility concerns in the design of transit stops and encourages
continued coordination among all transportation stakeholders on these
issues.
DOT also recognizes the concerns expressed by many commenters about
the accessibility and safety of floating transit stop islands,
including comments that urged further research on the use of wayfinding
aids, such as tactile warning surface indicators, tactile directional
indicators, and tactile warning delineators. DOT declines to take any
action in this final rule with respect to floating transit stop islands
but encourages further research on the accessibility of such designs.
2. Definition of ``Transit Stop''
Comments
DOT received seven comments regarding the proposed definition of
transit stop. Three disability advocacy groups commented that DOT
should remove the language in the definition limiting its application
to stops used by transportation vehicles that operate on a fixed route
or scheduled route. These groups argued that by focusing only on stops
used by vehicles that operate on a fixed or scheduled route, the
definition does not account for pick-up and drop-off locations used by
demand responsive public transportation services. These commenters
noted that many public transportation providers have begun and are
likely to continue to deploy a wide range of demand-responsive transit
models beyond paratransit service that should be addressed by DOT's
rule. Two transportation organizations commented that the definition of
transit stop should expressly include the need for a pedestrian access
route connecting to existing pedestrian circulation paths. One State
DOT supported the proposed definition of transit stop, and one local
public entity suggested that the definition of transit stop should
include all elements required to be accessible at a transit stop.
DOT Response
As DOT explained in the NPRM, the ADA directs DOT to adopt
standards for accessible public transportation facilities that are
``consistent with'' final minimum accessibility guidelines issued by
the Board. Id. at section 12149(b). Similarly, Title III of the ADA
directs DOT to adopt regulations implementing the transportation
provisions of Title III, applicable to private entities that
[[Page 102803]]
provide specified public transportation services and provides that any
standards adopted under such regulations must be ``consistent with''
final minimum accessibility guidelines adopted by the Access Board. Id.
at sections 12186(a), (c).
Public transportation facilities subject to Title II of the ADA and
DOT's ADA regulations at 49 CFR part 37 are those facilities used in
the provision of designated public transportation, which is defined in
DOT's ADA regulations as ``transportation provided by a public entity
(other than public school transportation) by bus, rail, or other
conveyance (other than transportation by aircraft or intercity or
commuter rail transportation) that provides the general public with
general or special service, including charter service, on a regular and
continuing basis.'' 49 CFR 37.3. These facilities include bus and other
transit stops in the public right-of-way operated by public transit
agencies.
Public transportation facilities subject to Title III of the ADA
and DOT's ADA regulations at 49 CFR part 37 include those facilities
located in the public right-of-way used in the provision of specified
public transportation, which is defined in DOT's ADA regulations as
``transportation by bus, rail, or any other conveyance (other than
aircraft) provided by a private entity to the general public, with
general or special service (including charter service) on a regular and
continuing basis.'' 49 CFR 37.3.
DOT's intent in the NPRM was to bridge the gap between the language
used in its current regulations at 49 CFR part 37 regarding designated
and specified public transportation and the language in the PROWAG,
which does not refer to designated and specified public transportation
but contains provisions specific to transit stops. To bridge this gap,
DOT proposed adopting a definition of ``transit stop'' that mirrors the
definition of transit stop in the PROWAG but also seeks to clarify that
a transit stop is a transportation facility used in the provision of
designated or specified public transportation.
The PROWAG defines ``transit stop'' as: ``An area that is
designated for passengers to board or alight from buses, rail cars, and
other transportation vehicles that operate on a fixed route or
scheduled route, including bus stops and boarding platforms. This
definition does not include intercity rail except where a stop is
located in the public right-of-way.'' PROWAG R104. DOT proposed adding
a sentence to the end of this definition as follows: ``A facility used
in the provision of designated or specified public transportation in
the public right-of-way is a transit stop.''
As noted above, three disability advocacy groups commented that
DOT's proposed definition of ``transit stop,'' by focusing only on
stops used by transportation vehicles that operate on a fixed route or
schedule route, does not address stops in the public right-of-way that
may be used by providers of demand responsive designated or specified
public transportation. In response, DOT notes that the definition of
``transit stop'' in the PROWAG is intended only to cover those stops
used by public transportation vehicles that serve fixed or scheduled
routes. The bus boarding and alighting area dimensions, boarding
platform requirements, and other elements included at R309 of the
PROWAG were all developed to address the accessibility of stops used by
public transportation vehicles that serve fixed or scheduled routes.
Those specific requirements are not intended to apply to other
locations in the public right-of-way that may be used by demand
responsive designated or specified public transportation vehicles.
The PROWAG, however, includes provisions for other pick-up and
drop-off locations in the public right-of-way. The PROWAG defines a
``passenger loading zone'' as ``[a]n area that is specifically designed
or designated for loading and unloading passengers, but that does not
primarily serve vehicles on a fixed or scheduled route.'' By noting
that a passenger loading zone does not primarily serve vehicles on a
fixed or scheduled route, the PROWAG distinguishes a passenger loading
zone from a transit stop. The PROWAG further provides that
``permanently designated passenger loading zones'' other than transit
stops, must comply with accessibility requirements. PROWAG at R212. The
Access Board described the application of section R212 in further
detail in the preamble to its final PROWAG rule: ``Often, permanent
passenger loading zones in the public right-of-way are comprised of a
sidewalk cut out so that vehicles can pull out of the traveled way to
unload passengers. However, a permanently affixed sign designating a
passenger loading zone is sufficient to bring the loading zone under
coverage of this rule. Passenger loading zones that vary with the time
of day or the occupancy of a particular retail space, such as valet
stands that are provided only during certain hours, are not considered
permanently designated and are therefore not subject to PROWAG.''
DOT acknowledges that demand responsive designated or specified
public transportation vehicles may use passenger loading zones in the
public right-of-way, but such loading zones are not necessarily
exclusively designed for use by such vehicles; rather, they may often
be used by individual, private vehicles. In developing its NPRM to
adopt PROWAG into its ADA regulations, DOT viewed the scope of
``passenger loading zones'' as falling under DOJ's ADA jurisdiction
over all other pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way, and,
thus, DOT did not propose covering such facilities under its ADA rule.
While DOT declines to finalize standards at this time concerning
coverage of passenger loading zones applicable to providers of
designated or specified transportation, DOT recognizes that this is an
area of overlapping jurisdiction with DOJ and may consider proposing
standards in this area in a future rulemaking. Even in the absence of
enforceable standards, the ADA requires new and altered facilities,
including facilities used in the provision of public transportation, to
be accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. See 42
U.S.C. 12146, 12147. DOT encourages entities to follow the PROWAG
guidelines applicable to passenger loading zones.
In response to these comments, however, DOT also acknowledges that
a portion of its proposed definition of ``transit stop'' should be
removed. The sentence reading ``[a] facility used in the provision of
designated or specified public transportation in the public right-of-
way is a transit stop'' is overbroad and unnecessary. A transit stop is
a facility used in the provision of designated or specified public
transportation, but not all facilities used in the provision of
designated or specified public transportation are transit stops. As
discussed above, a passenger loading zone may be used in the provision
of designated or specified public transportation. As a result, DOT will
remove this sentence from its definition of ``transit stop.''
Regarding other aspects of the proposed definition of transit stop,
two transportation organizations commented that the definition of
transit stop should expressly include the need for a pedestrian access
route connecting to existing pedestrian circulation paths, and one
local public entity suggested that the definition of transit stop
should include all elements required to be accessible at a transit
stop. Both of these concerns derive from DOT's proposed definition of
transit stop identifying some but not all elements of transit stops for
which PROWAG accessibility requirements would apply under DOT's final
rule. As noted previously, the PROWAG defines ``transit stop'' as
``[a]n
[[Page 102804]]
area that is designated for passengers to board or alight from buses,
rail cars, and other transportation vehicles that operate on a fixed
route or scheduled route, including bus stops and boarding platforms.
This definition does not include intercity rail except where a stop is
located in the public right-of-way.'' DOT proposed adopting a
definition of ``transit stop'' into its regulations mirroring the
PROWAG definition but adding that ``[t]ransit stops include, if
provided, transit shelters and pedestrian circulation connections
between transit shelters and bus boarding and alighting areas or
boarding platforms they serve.'' The local public entity commenter
expressed that by adding a sentence that includes transit shelters and
pedestrian circulation connections in the definition of transit stop
but excludes other elements that must be accessible if provided at
transit stops, such as fare vending machines and benches, may confuse
the public. Similarly, the two transportation organizations that
commented on this aspect of the definition of transit stop felt that
the definition should make clear the need for a pedestrian access route
connecting to existing pedestrian circulation paths.
Upon consideration of these comments, DOT has decided to remove the
additional sentence about transit shelters and pedestrian circulation
connections from the definition of ``transit stop'' in DOT's final
rule. In this way, the definition of ``transit stop'' in DOT's final
rule tracks more closely with the definition of ``transit stop'' in the
PROWAG. Other elements required to be accessible if provided at a
transit stop are set forth clearly in the PROWAG itself, which is
adopted into DOT's regulation by reference. As set forth in the NPRM,
elements required to be accessible at a transit stop in the public
right-of-way under PROWAG R309 include the boarding and alighting area
at a sidewalk or street-level transit stop or the boarding platform,
pedestrian access routes (PARs) that connect altered boarding and
alighting areas or altered boarding platforms with existing pedestrian
circulation paths, and, if provided, transit shelters and PARs
connecting transit shelters with boarding and alighting areas or
boarding platforms. The PROWAG contains other provisions applicable to
transit stops in the public right-of-way that would be subject to DOT
enforcement under this rule: fare vending machines (R210); operable
parts of other fixed elements (R210); detectable warnings for boarding
platforms (R205.5) and sidewalk and street-level rail boarding and
alighting areas (R205.6); pedestrian signs (R208); PARs between newly
constructed transit stops and accessible elements, spaces, and
pedestrian facilities required to be accessible (R203.2.1); alternate
transit stops (R204.2); and benches (R209.6.1).
3. Alteration of a Transit Stop
Comments
DOT proposed to adopt a definition of ``alteration of a transit
stop'' providing: ``Alteration of a transit stop means a change to or
an addition of a transit stop in an existing, developed public right-
of-way that affects or could affect pedestrian access, circulation, or
usability.'' DOT received eight comments regarding the proposed
definition. Four State DOTs and one local public entity commented that
DOT should further clarify specific activities that would constitute an
``alteration of a transit stop.'' One public transit provider commented
that DOT should clarify that an ``alteration of a transit stop'' only
includes activity that involves concrete work. One disability advocacy
group commented that the definition of ``alteration of a transit stop''
should be consistent with the existing definition of ``alteration'' in
DOT's regulations at 49 CFR part 37. And, last, one local public entity
commented that the definition of ``alteration of a transit stop''
should be revised to read ``alteration or addition of a transit stop''
to ensure that practitioners understand that an addition of a transit
stop to existing developed right-of-way is considered an alteration
under PROWAG and not new construction.
More specifically, with respect to the types of activities that
would be considered an alteration of a transit stop under the rule, one
commenter asked whether resurfacing a road adjacent to a transit stop
would be considered an alteration of the transit stop requiring the
entire transit stop to be brought into compliance, to the maximum
extent feasible, with PROWAG transit stop requirements. Similarly,
another commenter asked if activities such as repairing a broken post,
or fixing or replacing a sign, would trigger an obligation to bring the
entire transit stop into compliance with PROWAG requirements.
Commenters expressed concern that if small changes to individual
elements at a transit stop triggered an obligation to ensure that the
entire transit stop meets PROWAG standards, entities may choose to
remove particular stops altogether rather than improve them.
DOT Response
DOT agrees with the commenters that the public needs clarification
on what activities explicitly constitute an ``alteration'' under the
proposed definition of ``alteration of a transit stop'' and the scope
of improvements that would be required when a transit stop or part of a
transit stop is altered. DOT specifically proposed a definition of
``alteration of a transit stop'' to distinguish alterations of such
facilities from the definition of ``alteration'' in DOT's current ADA
regulations at 49 CFR 37.3, which applies to alterations of facilities
that are buildings or on sites. Thus, to the extent that one commenter
suggested that the definition of ``alteration of a transit stop''
should be harmonized with the existing definition of ``alteration,''
DOT declines to take that step because the definition of ``alteration''
that applies to buildings or sites contains language that is specific
to those types of facilities. A separate definition of ``alteration of
a transit stop'' is necessary.
DOT notes that the existing definition of ``alteration'' at 49 CFR
37.3 contains much more detail about the types of activities considered
to be alterations of buildings or sites than DOT proposed for the
definition of ``alteration of a transit stop.'' Specifically, the
existing definition of alteration is: ``Alteration means a change to an
existing facility, including, but not limited to, remodeling,
renovation, rehabilitation, reconstruction, historic restoration,
changes or rearrangement in structural parts or elements, and changes
or rearrangement in the plan configuration of walls and full-height
partitions. Normal maintenance, reroofing, painting or wallpapering,
asbestos removal, or changes to mechanical or electrical systems are
not alterations unless they affect the usability of the building or
facility.'' This definition is a modification of the definition of
``alteration'' in the Access Board's 2004 ADA Accessibility Guidelines,
which provided examples of the types of modifications to a facility
that would constitute an alteration.
Similarly, DOT adopted its proposed definition of ``alteration of a
transit stop'' from the PROWAG's definition of ``alteration,'' which
provides that an alteration or the term altered means: ``A change to or
an addition of a pedestrian facility in an existing, developed public
right-of-way that affects or could affect pedestrian access,
circulation, or usability.'' In adopting the PROWAG, the Access Board
deliberately chose to omit detailed examples of the types of activities
that would be considered
[[Page 102805]]
alterations, choosing instead to allow DOT and DOJ, the ADA enforcement
agencies, to provide necessary clarification. See Accessibility
Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way, 88 FR
53604, 53608 (Aug. 8, 2023). Because the term ``alteration of a transit
stop'' narrows the scope of the types of activities that could be
covered as compared with the general definition of ``alteration'' in
the PROWAG, DOT believes it is appropriate to provide clarification of
the scope of covered alterations and more detailed examples of
``alteration of a transit stop'' in the regulatory text as opposed to
relying on the issuance of guidance statements at some future date,
while not precluding the possibility of issuing further clarifying
guidance.
Accordingly, DOT is adopting the following definition of
``alteration of a transit stop'' in this final rule: ``Alteration of a
transit stop means a change to or an addition of a transit stop, or a
part thereof, in an existing, developed public right-of-way that
affects or could affect pedestrian access, circulation, or usability.
Alterations include, but are not limited to, the reconstruction of an
existing transit stop, the addition of a new transit shelter, the
addition of a new bench, fare vending machine, or transit sign that
identifies a stop or route, reconfiguring the interface of a transit
stop with the street or sidewalk network, such as adding floating bus
stops, adding a prepared surface for boarding and alighting, and
rearrangement of transit stop elements, such as benches or fare vending
machines. Normal maintenance such as painting transit shelters,
replacing damaged transit shelter windows or screens, repairing a fare
vending machine, replacing damaged sign posts, repairing existing curb,
or repairing damaged benches or trash cans, are not alterations unless
they affect the usability of the transit stop. Permanent closure of a
transit stop due to service changes is also not an alteration of a
transit stop.''
It is not possible to provide examples of all potential
modifications to a transit stop in the regulatory definition of
``alteration of a transit stop,'' but DOT believes that the examples
provided in this final rule illustrate the way particular modifications
should be addressed. In addition, in response to comments regarding
whether an alteration of an element of a transit stop necessarily
triggers the need to bring the entire transit stop into compliance with
PROWAG standards at the same time, DOT is modifying the definition of
``alteration to a transit stop'' to mean ``a change to or an addition
of a transit stop, or a part thereof'' (emphasis added). In making this
revision, DOT intends to focus compliance efforts in the first instance
on the part of the transit stop that is being altered. This phrasing is
consistent with language in the ADA statute, which provides that
alterations to an existing facility, or part thereof, must be made in
such a manner that to the maximum extent feasible, the altered portions
of the facility are readily accessible to and usable by individuals
with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. 12147(a). For example, should a public
entity add a new bench at a transit stop, which is included as an
example of an ``alteration of a transit stop,'' only those provisions
of PROWAG applicable to benches added to an existing right-of-way would
be required to be made accessible at the transit stop to the maximum
extent feasible where existing physical constraints make compliance
with applicable requirements technically infeasible. This would include
the requirements for benches at transit stops set forth at R209.6.1 but
would also include the provisions at R202.2 which require pedestrian
access routes to connect altered pedestrian facilities to an existing
pedestrian circulation path (a transitional segment may be used in the
connection). Addition of a new bench at a bus stop would require the
bench to be connected by a PAR to an existing pedestrian circulation
path but would not trigger the requirement to bring the bus boarding
and alighting area into compliance with PROWAG standards.
Similar approaches would be taken to other alterations of elements
of a transit stop. If an entity adds a bus boarding and alighting area
with a prepared surface to a bus stop that previously did not include a
prepared surface (e.g., a stop identified only by a sign in the
ground), the bus boarding and alighting area would be required to be
made accessible to the maximum extent feasible where existing physical
constraints make compliance with applicable requirements technically
infeasible. The entity adding the new bus boarding and alighting area
would be required to provide necessary PARs connecting the new bus
boarding and alighting area to existing pedestrian circulation paths
under PROWAG R309.1.3.2, which provides that ``[i]n alterations,
boarding and alighting areas and boarding platforms shall be connected
to existing pedestrian circulation paths by pedestrian access routes
complying with R302.''
4. Compliance Exception for Projects in Construction Phase or Through
Final Design
Comments
DOT proposed to include an exception in the regulation that would
exempt from compliance with the final rule those transit stop projects
located in the public right-of-way on which construction has begun or
for which all approvals for final design have been received before the
effective date of the final rule. DOT received two comments from State
DOTs and one comment from a local public entity that urged DOT to
exempt from compliance with the final rule all transit projects in the
planning stage at the time the final rule becomes effective. One of the
State DOTs commented that projects in the planning and design stages,
but which have not yet completed final design, may have already
completed right-of-way acquisition or signed contracts with utility
companies and that the requirement to comply with newly adopted
standards could result in delays to such projects.
DOT Response
DOT disagrees with the commenters' recommendation to exempt transit
projects in the planning and design stages from compliance with the
newly adopted PROWAG standards at the time of the effective date of the
final rule. The exemption for projects on which construction has begun
or for which final design has been completed before the effective date
of the rule strikes an appropriate balance for entities affected by the
rule by recognizing the investment of resources in projects that have
advanced to final design or construction versus ensuring that the
benefits of the newly adopted standards are realized for projects that
remain only in the planning or design phase. DOT followed this same
approach with respect to compliance with the revised ADA Accessibility
Guidelines that DOT adopted in 2006. DOT will adopt the exemption as
proposed in the NPRM. DOT notes, however, that projects for which all
final design approvals have been received or for which construction has
begun at the time of the effective date of the final rule still must
ensure that the elements of the transit stop affected by the transit
project (either new construction or alteration) are accessible to and
usable by individuals with disabilities even if they are not required
to comply with the specific standards adopted by DOT in this final
rule. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 12147(a).
[[Page 102806]]
5. Effective Date
Comments
DOT proposed in the NPRM that its final rule adopting PROWAG into
its ADA regulations at 49 CFR part 37 would become effective 30 days
after issuance of the final rule. In support of this proposal, DOT
noted the public and regulated entities have been aware of the proposed
PROWAG's provisions related to transit stops since 2011, which are
generally unchanged in the PROWAG, and that many entities have relied
on the Department of Justice's similar 2010 ADA Standards and DOT's
2006 ADA Standards for boarding and alighting areas or boarding
platforms as references for transit stops in the public right-of-way.
As a result, DOT stated that it did not anticipate entities requiring
additional time to become familiar with the Department's ADA public
right-of-way standards before compliance is required for new
construction and alterations.
DOT received twelve comments in favor of its proposed 30-day
effective date. Five of those commenters favored the 30-day effective
date outright, including one disability advocacy group, three local
public entities, and one transportation organization. Seven other
commenters endorsed the 30-day effective date provided that DOT did not
adopt any modifications to the PROWAG, particularly with respect to
placing restrictions on the use of transit stop designs that place the
bus boarding and alighting area so that it overlaps with vehicular
lanes, including bicycle lanes.
DOT received six comments opposed to the 30-day effective date. One
State DOT proposed setting a 90-day effective date. One State DOT, one
local public entity, one transportation organization, and one public
transit provider proposed a 12-month effective date. Last, one State
DOT expressed opposition to the 30-day effective date but did not
propose an alternative. The commenters opposed to the 30-day effective
date generally expressed that although the Access Board's PROWAG NPRM
was issued in 2011 and similar standards for transit stops at sites
under the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) have been in place since
1991, the length of time since the 2011 PROWAG NPRM to the present has
created ambiguity over how entities should approach the accessibility
of transit stops in the public right-of-way.
DOT Response
DOT disagrees with commenters who proposed a later effective date
than the 30-day effective date in the proposed rule. The Access Board
issued its final PROWAG rule in August 2023, setting minimum guidelines
for the accessibility of pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-
way, including transit stops, and the ADA requires DOT to adopt
standards for accessible public transportation facilities that are
``consistent with'' the Access Board's minimum guidelines. So, covered
entities have been aware for more than a year that DOT's accessibility
standards for transit stops would provide accessibility requirements no
less than the guidelines in PROWAG. Moreover, as reflected in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis accompanying this final rule, even in the
absence of enforceable standards before issuance of this final rule,
public entities have had a general obligation to ensure that their
facilities are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities, and to otherwise not discriminate against individuals on
the basis of disability. As such, covered entities have generally
looked to the Department of Justice's 2010 ADA Standards,\1\ the
Federal Transit Administration's ADA Circular,\2\ or other references
for guidance on how to meet that general accessibility requirement. A
review of these sources shows that they provide specifications
substantially similar to the final PROWAG rule. In addition, guidance
from some of the largest transit agencies indicated that these transit
agencies either cite DOT's or DOJ's existing ADA standards applicable
to facilities on sites (2004 ADAAG) with regard to accessibility of
transit stops or otherwise refer to ADA accessibility requirements in
their publications. For more information and analysis on the current
state of industry practice, please see the Regulatory Impact Analysis,
which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, U.S. Department of
Justice (2010), accessed July 14, 2022 from <a href="https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/2010ADAstandards.htm">https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/2010ADAstandards.htm</a> (applicable primarily
to facilities on sites).
\2\ FTA Circular 4710.1--Americans With Disabilities Act
Guidance, Federal Transit Administration (2015), accessed July 18,
2022 from <a href="https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/Final_FTA_ADA_Circular_C_4710.1.pdf">https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/Final_FTA_ADA_Circular_C_4710.1.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entities have had sufficient time to anticipate the standards that
DOT is adopting in the final rule. This is especially the case as DOT
is not proposing any modifications to PROWAG in adopting PROWAG in this
final rule. The majority of entities that commented on this issue
support this approach, and the rule retains an exception from
compliance with the PROWAG standards for those projects on which
construction has begun, or all approvals for final design have been
received before the effective date. DOT is adopting a 30-day effective
date from the date of publication of this rule.
6. Other Comments
Comments
DOT received several comments requesting that DOT make revisions to
various PROWAG provisions that are unrelated to the accessibility of
transit stops in the public right-of-way. For instance, one individual
and one consulting firm requested clarification about the change of
grade requirements at PROWAG R304.5.2 for curb ramps and blended
transitions at gutters or streets. Another individual commented on the
pedestrian signal phase timing requirements at PROWAG R306.2. Two
disability advocacy groups and one State DOT commented on PROWAG
provisions related to roundabouts. These and other similar comments
pertain to provisions of PROWAG that fall within DOJ's ADA jurisdiction
and fall outside of DOT's limited ADA jurisdiction over facilities
related to the delivery of designated or specified public
transportation. These PROWAG provisions will become enforceable once
they are adopted, with or without modifications, as mandatory standards
under the ADA by DOJ.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of
E.O. 12866, as amended by E.O. 14094 (``Modernizing Regulatory
Review''). The rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of
$200 million or more. The rule will not adversely affect in a material
way the economy, any sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local,
territorial, or Tribal governments or communities. In addition, the
changes will not interfere with any action taken or planned by another
agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impact of any
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs.
DOT estimates that this rulemaking will have minimal implementation
costs, due to the close alignment between the requirements of the rule
and existing guidance and industry practices for transit stops in the
public
[[Page 102807]]
right-of-way. This is presented in further detail in the accompanying
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) document.
The rule benefits pedestrians with disabilities by establishing a
clear set of accessible design and construction standards for transit
stops in the public right-of-way with which public entities would be
required to comply. The rule will ensure a more uniformly accessible
public transportation system, which facilitates independent living and
economic self-sufficiency. Other pedestrians may experience ancillary
benefits as well if facilities are easier to use. These benefits are
unlikely to be quantified or monetized. The full RIA is available in
the docket.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354,
5 U.S.C. 601-612), DOT has reviewed the analysis conducted by the
Access Board and published with the final rule (88 FR 53604, August 8,
2023), and evaluated the effects of this rule on small entities and has
determined that it is not anticipated to have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. DOT estimates that
this rulemaking will have minimal implementation costs, due to the
close alignment between the requirements of the rule and existing
guidance and industry practices for transit stops in the public right-
of-way. In addition, many small governmental jurisdictions are located
in rural areas and do not have transit facilities that will be impacted
by this rulemaking. This is presented in further detail in the
accompanying RIA document. Therefore, the Department certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not apply to proposed or
final rules that enforce constitutional rights of individuals or
enforce statutory rights that prohibit discrimination on the basis of
race, color, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or disability. Since
DOT's adoption of the 2023 Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian
Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way Guidelines is done pursuant to
the ADA, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, an
assessment of the rule's effect on State, local, and Tribal
governments, and the private sector is not required.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)
DOT's rule will be applicable to public entities, including State
and local governments, but any federalism implications are not
significant. Public entities have been subject to the ADA since 1991,
and the many public entities that receive Federal financial assistance
have also been required to comply with the requirements of section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Both statutes have required
accessibility of transit stops, even in the absence of enforceable
standards. Many public entities, in fact, have independently applied
the proposed 2011 PROWAG or similar transit stop provisions in DOT's
2006 ADA Standards or DOJ's 2010 ADA Standards. Thus, the adoption of
PROWAG into DOT's ADA regulations, enforceable only with respect to
transit stops, will not significantly alter existing practice. In
addition, public entities previously had the opportunity to provide
input and feedback during the development of the Access Board's PROWAG
rule. As a result, DOT has determined that this rule will not have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
federalism assessment. This final rule will not have a substantial
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among various levels of government.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. DOT has determined
that this final rule does not contain collection of information
requirements for the purposes of the PRA.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Department 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
1501.4(a). Paragraph 4(c)(5) of DOT Order 5610.1C adopts by reference
the categorical exclusions for all DOT Operating Administrations. This
action is covered by the categorical exclusion listed in the Federal
Transit Administration's implementing procedures, ``[p]lanning and
administrative activities that do not involve or lead directly to
construction, such as: . . . promulgation of rules, regulations,
directives . . .'' 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4) and Federal Highway
Administration's implementing procedures, ``[p]romulgation of rules,
regulations, and directives.'' 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20).
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. 40 CFR
1501.4(b). This rulemaking concerns civil rights protection for
individuals with disabilities. The Department does not anticipate any
environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances
present in connection with this rulemaking.
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
DOT has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in E.O. 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments.'' The rule establishes a regulation on the
accessibility of transit stops in the public right-of-way.
This measure applies to public entities, as defined under the ADA,
which does not include Tribal governments or other Tribal entities, and
it will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
Tribes, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian
Tribal governments, and will not preempt Tribal laws. Accordingly, the
funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply and a
Tribal summary impact statement is not required.
Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
E.O. 12898 requires that each Federal agency make achieving
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minorities and low-income populations. DOT has determined
that this rule does not raise any environmental justice issues.
[[Page 102808]]
Regulation Identifier Number
A RIN is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified
Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service
Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year.
The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross
reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 37
Civil Rights, Individuals with disabilities, Transportation.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.27(a).
Subash Iyer,
Acting General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOT amends 49 CFR part
37, as follows:
PART 37--TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
(ADA)
0
1. The authority citation for part 37 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12101-12213; 49 U.S.C. 322.
0
2. Amend Sec. 37.3 by adding, in alphabetical order, the definitions
for ``Alteration of a transit stop'', ``Public right-of-way'', and
``Transit stop'' to read as follows:
Sec. 37.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Alteration of a transit stop means a change to or an addition of a
transit stop, or a part thereof, in an existing, developed public
right-of-way that affects or could affect pedestrian access,
circulation, or usability. Alterations include, but are not limited to,
the reconstruction of an existing transit stop, the addition of a new
transit shelter, the addition of a new bench, fare vending machine, or
transit sign that identifies a stop or route, reconfiguring the
interface of a transit stop with the street or sidewalk network such as
adding floating bus stops, adding a prepared surface for boarding and
alighting, and rearrangement of transit stop elements, such as benches
or fare vending machines. Normal maintenance such as painting transit
shelters, replacing damaged transit shelter windows or screens,
repairing a fare vending machine, replacing damaged sign posts,
repairing existing curb, or repairing damaged benches or trash cans,
are not alterations unless they affect the usability of the transit
stop. Permanent closure of a transit stop due to service changes is
also not an alteration of a transit stop.
* * * * *
Public right-of-way means public land acquired for or dedicated to
transportation purposes, or other land where there is a legally
established right for use by the public for transportation purposes.
* * * * *
Transit stop means an area that is designated for passengers to
board or alight from buses, rail cars, and other transportation
vehicles that operate on a fixed route or scheduled route, including
bus stops and boarding platforms. This definition does not include
intercity rail except where a stop is located in the public right-of-
way.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise Sec. 37.9 to read as follows:
Sec. 37.9 Standards for accessible transportation facilities.
(a) Transportation facilities other than transit stops in the
public right-of-way. (1) For purposes of this part, a transportation
facility shall be considered to be readily accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities if it meets the requirements of this part
and the requirements set forth in appendices B and D to 36 CFR part
1191, which apply to buildings and facilities covered by the Americans
with Disabilities Act, as modified by appendix A to this part.
(2) Facility alterations begun before January 26, 1992, in a good
faith effort to make a facility accessible to individuals with
disabilities may be used to meet the key station requirements set forth
in Sec. Sec. 37.47 and 37.51, even if these alterations are not
consistent with the requirements set forth in appendices B and D to 36
CFR part 1191 and appendix A to this part, if the modifications
complied with the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) or
ANSI A117.1(1980) (American National Standards Specification for Making
Buildings and Facilities Accessible to and Usable by the Physically
Handicapped). This paragraph applies only to alterations of individual
elements and spaces and only to the extent that provisions covering
those elements or spaces are contained in UFAS or ANSI A117.1, as
applicable.
(3)(i) New construction or alterations of buildings or facilities
on which construction has begun, or all approvals for final design have
been received, before November 29, 2006, are not required to be
consistent with the requirements set forth in appendices B and D to 36
CFR part 1191 and appendix A to this part, if the construction or
alterations comply with the former appendix A to this part, as codified
in the October 1, 2006, edition of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(ii) Existing buildings and facilities that are not altered after
November 29, 2006, and which comply with the former appendix A to this
part, are not required to be retrofitted to comply with the
requirements set forth in appendices B and D to 36 CFR part 1191 and
appendix A to this part.
(4)(i) For purposes of implementing the equivalent facilitation
provision in ADA chapter 1, section 103, of appendix B to 36 CFR part
1191, the following parties may submit to the Administrator of the
applicable operating administration a request for a determination of
equivalent facilitation:
(A)(1) A public or private entity that provides transportation
facilities subject to the provisions of subpart C of this part, or
other appropriate party with the concurrence of the Administrator.
(2) With respect to airport facilities, an entity that is an
airport operator subject to the requirements of part 27 of this title
or regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act, an air
carrier subject to the requirements of 14 CFR part 382, or other
appropriate party with the concurrence of the Administrator.
(B) The manufacturer of a product or accessibility feature to be
used in a transportation facility or facilities.
(ii) The requesting party shall provide the following information
with its request:
(A) Entity name, address, contact person and telephone;
(B) Specific provision(s) of appendices B and D to 36 CFR part 1191
or appendix A to this part concerning which the entity is seeking a
determination of equivalent facilitation;
(C) [Reserved]
(D) Alternative method of compliance, with demonstration of how the
alternative meets or exceeds the level of accessibility or usability
provided in appendices B and D to 36 CFR part 1191 or appendix A to
this part; and
(E) Documentation of the public participation used in developing an
alternative method of compliance.
(iii) In the case of a request by a public entity that provides
transportation facilities (including an airport operator), or a request
by an air carrier with respect to airport facilities, the required
public participation shall include the following:
(A) The entity shall contact individuals with disabilities and
groups representing them in the community.
[[Page 102809]]
Consultation with these individuals and groups shall take place at all
stages of the development of the request for equivalent facilitation.
All documents and other information concerning the request shall be
available, upon request, to Department of Transportation officials and
members of the public.
(B) The entity shall make its proposed request available for public
comment before the request is made final or transmitted to DOT. In
making the request available for public review, the entity shall ensure
that it is available, upon request, in accessible formats.
(C) The entity shall sponsor at least one public hearing on the
request and shall provide adequate notice of the hearing, including
advertisement in appropriate media, such as newspapers of general and
special interest circulation and radio announcements.
(iv) In the case of a request by a manufacturer or a private entity
other than an air carrier, the manufacturer or private entity shall
consult, in person, in writing, or by other appropriate means, with
representatives of national and local organizations representing people
with those disabilities who would be affected by the request.
(v) A determination of compliance will be made by the Administrator
of the concerned operating administration on a case-by-case basis, with
the concurrence of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy.
(vi)(A) Determinations of equivalent facilitation are made only
with respect to transportation facilities, and pertain only to the
specific situation concerning which the determination is made.
Provided, however, that with respect to a product or accessibility
feature that the Administrator determines can provide an equivalent
facilitation in a class of situations, the Administrator may make an
equivalent facilitation determination applying to that class of
situations.
(B) Entities shall not cite these determinations as indicating that
a product or method constitutes equivalent facilitation in situations,
or classes of situations, other than those to which the determinations
specifically pertain.
(C) Entities shall not claim that a determination of equivalent
facilitation indicates approval or endorsement of any product or method
by the Federal Government, the Department of Transportation, or any of
its operating administrations.
(b) Transportation facilities (transit stops) in the public right-
of-way. (1) Except as set forth in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, if
new construction or alterations of a transit stop located in the public
right-of-way commence after January 17, 2025, the new construction or
alterations of the transit stop shall comply with the requirements set
forth in the appendix to 36 CFR part 1190, which apply to pedestrian
facilities located in the public right-of-way covered by the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
(2) New construction or alterations of transit stops located in the
public right-of-way on which construction has begun, or all approvals
for final design have been received, before January 17, 2025, are not
required to be consistent with the requirements set forth in the
appendix to 36 CFR part 1190, but are otherwise required to be readily
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
(3)(i) For purposes of implementing the equivalent facilitation
provision in chapter 1, section R102.1, of the appendix to 36 CFR part
1190, the following parties may submit to the Administrator of the
applicable operating administration a request for a determination of
equivalent facilitation:
(A) A public or private entity that provides transit stops in the
public right-of-way subject to the provisions of subpart C of this
part, or other appropriate party with the concurrence of the
Administrator.
(B) The manufacturer of a product or accessibility feature to be
used in a transit stop in the public right-of-way.
(ii) The requesting party shall provide the following information
with its request:
(A) Entity name, address, contact person and telephone;
(B) Specific provision(s) of the appendix to 36 CFR part 1190
concerning which the entity is seeking a determination of equivalent
facilitation;
(C) Alternative method of compliance, with demonstration of how the
alternative meets or exceeds the level of accessibility or usability
provided in the appendix to 36 CFR part 1190; and
(D) Documentation of the public participation used in developing an
alternative method of compliance.
(iii) In the case of a request by a public entity that provides
transit stops in the public right-of-way, the required public
participation shall include the following:
(A) The entity shall contact individuals with disabilities and
groups representing them in the community. Consultation with these
individuals and groups shall take place at all stages of the
development of the request for equivalent facilitation. All documents
and other information concerning the request shall be available, upon
request, to Department of Transportation officials and members of the
public.
(B) The entity shall make its proposed request available for public
comment before the request is made final or transmitted to DOT. In
making the request available for public review, the entity shall ensure
that it is available, upon request, in accessible formats.
(C) The entity shall sponsor at least one public hearing on the
request and shall provide adequate notice of the hearing, including
advertisement in appropriate media, such as newspapers of general and
special interest circulation and radio announcements.
(iv) In the case of a request by a manufacturer or a private
entity, the manufacturer or private entity shall consult, in person, in
writing, or by other appropriate means, with representatives of
national and local organizations representing people with those
disabilities who would be affected by the request.
(v) A determination of compliance will be made by the Administrator
of the concerned operating administration on a case-by-case basis, with
the concurrence of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy.
(vi)(A) Determinations of equivalent facilitation are made only
with respect to transit stops in the public right-of-way, and pertain
only to the specific situation concerning which the determination is
made. Provided, however, that with respect to a product or
accessibility feature that the Administrator determines can provide an
equivalent facilitation in a class of situations, the Administrator may
make an equivalent facilitation determination applying to that class of
situations.
(B) Entities shall not cite these determinations as indicating that
a product or method constitutes equivalent facilitation in situations,
or classes of situations, other than those to which the determinations
specifically pertain.
(C) Entities shall not claim that a determination of equivalent
facilitation indicates approval or endorsement of any product or method
by the Federal Government, the Department of Transportation, or any of
its operating administrations.
[FR Doc. 2024-29990 Filed 12-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 18, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.