8516 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 
TABLE 1 OF§ 165.801—S ECTOR OHIOVALLEY ANNUAL AND RECURRING SAFETY ZONES —Continued 
Date Sponsor/name Sector Ohio valley lo-
cation Safety zone 
87. 1 day—One week-
end in September.Aurora Fireworks ............................................. Aurora, IN ................... Ohio River, Mile 496.3–497.3 (Ohio). 
88. 1 day—Last two 
weekends in Sep-
tember.Cabana on the River ....................................... Cincinnati, OH ............ Ohio River, Mile 483.2–484.2 (Ohio). 
89. Multiple days— 
September through January.University of Pittsburgh Athletic Department/ 
University of Pittsburgh Fireworks.Pittsburgh, PA ............ Ohio River, Miles 0.0–0.1, Monongahela 
River, Miles 0.0–0.1, Allegheny River, Miles 0.0–0.25 (Pennsylvania). 
90. 1 day—First three 
weeks of October.Leukemia & Lymphoma Society/Light the 
Night.Pittsburgh, PA ............ Ohio River, Mile 0.0–0.5, Allegheny River, 
Mile 0.0–0.5, and Monongahela River, Mile 0.0–0.5 (Pennsylvania). 
91. 1 day in October ... Leukemia and Lymphoma Society/Light the 
Night Walk Fireworks.Nashville, TN .............. Cumberland River, Miles 189.7–192.1 (Ten-
nessee). 
92. 1 day—First two 
weeks in October.Yeatman’s Fireworks ...................................... Cincinnati, OH ............ Ohio River, Miles 469.0–470.5 (Ohio). 
93. 1 day in October ... Outdoor Chattanooga/Swim the Suck ............ Chattanooga, TN ........ Tennessee River, Miles 452.0–454.5 (Ten-
nessee). 
94. 1 day in October ... Chattajack ....................................................... Chattanooga, TN ........ Tennessee River,  Miles 462.7–465.5 (Ten-
nessee). 
95. 1 day—One week-
end in October.West Virginia Motor Car Festival .................... Charleston, WV .......... Kanawha River, Miles 58–59 (West Virginia). 
96. 2 days—One of the 
last three weekends in October.Monster Pumpkin Festival .............................. Pittsburgh, PA ............ Allegheny River, Mile 0.0–0.25 (Pennsyl-
vania). 
97. 1 day—Friday be-
fore Thanksgiving.Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership/Light Up 
Night.Pittsburgh, PA ............ Allegheny River, Miles 0.0–1.0 (Pennsyl-
vania). 
98. 1 day—Friday be-
fore Thanksgiving.Kittanning Light Up Night Firework Display .... Kittanning, PA ............ Allegheny River, Miles 44.5–45.5 (Pennsyl-
vania). 
99. 1 day—Friday be-
fore Thanksgiving.Santa Spectacular/Light up Night ................... Pittsburgh, PA ............ Ohio River, Mile 0.0–0.5, Allegheny River, 
Mile 0.0–0.5, and Monongahela River, Mile 0.0–0.5 (Pennsylvania). 
100. 1 day—Friday be-
fore Thanksgiving.Monongahela Holiday Show ........................... Monongahela, PA ....... Ohio River, Miles 31.5–32.5 (Pennsylvania). 
101. 1 day in Novem-
ber.Friends of the Festival/Cheer at the Pier ....... Chattanooga, TN ........ Tennessee River, Miles 462.7–465.2 (Ten-
nessee). 
102. 1 day—Third 
week of November.Gallipolis in Lights ........................................... Gallipolis, OH ............. Ohio River, Miles 269.2–270 (Ohio). 
103. 1 day—December 
31.Pittsburgh Cultural Trust/Highmark First Night 
Pittsburgh.Pittsburgh, PA ............ Allegheny River, Miles 0.5–1.0 (Pennsyl-
vania). 
104. 7 days—Sched-
uled home games.University of Tennessee/UT Football Fire-
works.Knoxville, TN .............. Tennessee River, Miles 645.6–648.3 (Ten-
nessee). 
* * * * * 
Dated: February 7, 2020. 
A.M. Beach, 
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 
Port, Sector Ohio Valley. 
[FR Doc. 2020–02978 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P ARCHITECTURAL AND 
TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD 
36 CFR Part 1192 
[Docket No. ATBCB–2020–0002] 
RIN 3014–AA42 
Americans With Disabilities Act 
Accessibility Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles; Rail Vehicles 
AGENCY : Architectural and 
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. 
ACTION : Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking. 
SUMMARY : We, the Architectural and 
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (hereafter, ‘‘Access Board’’, ‘‘Board’’, or ‘‘we’’), are issuing this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to begin the process of updating our existing 
accessibility guidelines for rail vehicles covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). By this ANPRM, the Access Board invites public comment on the substance of recommendations contained in the report issued by its Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee (RVAAC) and poses related questions. The Board will consider comments received in response to this ANPRM, along with the recommendations in the RVACC report, to develop proposed updates to our rail vehicle accessibility guidelines in a future rulemaking. 
DATE : Submit comments by May 14, 
2020. 
ADDRESSES : You may submit comments, 
identified by docket number (ATBCB– 2020–0002), by any of the following methods: 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS8517 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 
1For example, in 1998, the Access Board and 
DOT issued a joint final rule specifying new 
accessibility requirements for over-the-road buses. See 63 FR 51670 (Sept. 28, 1998). Also, in 2016, the Access Board updated its existing guidelines for buses, over-the-road buses (OTRBs), and vans. These updated guidelines incorporated new accessibility-related technologies, such as automated announcement systems and level boarding bus systems, as well as additional changes to ensure that the Board’s transportation vehicle guidelines remained consistent with its other regulations issued since 1998. See 81 FR 90600 (Dec. 14, 2016) (codified at 36 CFR 1192.21 & App. A). DOT has not yet adopted these updated accessibility guidelines for non-rail vehicles as enforceable standards. 
2The full list of organizations represented on the 
Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee is available at https://www.access-board.gov/ guidelines-and-standards/transportation/vehicles/ rail-vehicles-access-advisory-committee/advisory- committee-members. •Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 
www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments. 
•Email: docket@access-board.gov. 
Include docket number ATBCB–2020– 
0002 in the subject line of the message. 
•Fax: 202–272–0081. 
•Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: 
Office of Technical and Information Services, U.S. Access Board, 1331 F Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004–1111. 
Instructions: All submissions must 
include the docket number (ATBCB– 2020–0002) for this regulatory action. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any 
personal information provided. 
Docket: For access to the docket to 
read background documents or comments received, go to www.regulations.gov/docket?D=ATBCB- 2020-0002. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : 
Technical information: Juliet Shoultz, (202) 272–0045, Email: shoultz@access- board.gov. Legal information: Wendy 
Marshall, (202) 272–0043, marshall@access-board.gov. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : 
I. Legal Authority 
The Americans with Disabilities Act 
(ADA) charges the Access Board with developing and maintaining minimum guidelines to ensure the accessibility and usability of covered transportation vehicles, including rail passenger cars, for persons with disabilities. See 42 U.S.C. 12204; see also 29 U.S.C 792(b)(3)(B) & (b)(10) (authorizing the Access Board to ‘‘establish and maintain’’ minimum guidelines for standards issued pursuant to titles II and III of the ADA). These Access Board guidelines serve as the basis for legally enforceable accessibility standards issued by the Department of Transportation (DOT), which is the federal entity responsible for implementing and enforcing the ADA’s non-discrimination provisions related to transportation vehicles. See, e.g., 42 
U.S.C. 12149(b), 12163, 12186(c) (accessibility standards in DOT regulations implementing ADA titles II and III must be ‘‘consistent with’’ the Access Board’s minimum guidelines). 
II. Background: Rulemaking History 
and Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee 
In 1991, the Access Board first issued 
accessibility guidelines for ADA- covered transportation vehicles, which addressed minimum requirements for buses, vans, and rail vehicles. 56 FR 45756 (Sept. 6, 1991) (codified at 36 
CFR part 1192) (hereafter, ‘‘ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles’’). That same day, DOT adopted the Board’s ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles as enforceable accessibility standards applicable to new, used, or remanufactured ADA- covered vehicles. See 56 FR 45584, 45619–20 (Sept. 6, 1991) (codified at 49 CFR part 38). 
Over the ensuing years, while the 
Access Board has issued updates to the ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles for non-rail vehicles, the Board has not yet revised the accessibility requirements applicable to rail vehicles since their initial promulgation.
1The existing 
guidelines for rail vehicles thus need to be updated to, among other things, incorporate new accessibility-related technologies that did not exist nearly three decades ago and to ensure consistency with the Board’s other subsequently issued regulations. Indeed, in 2016, when the Board revised the accessibility guidelines for non-rail vehicles, we expressly noted that our existing guidelines for transportation vehicles that operated in fixed guideway systems (e.g., rapid rail, light rail, 
commuter rail, and intercity rail), which similarly needed updating, would be addressed in a future rulemaking. See Final Rule, 81 FR at 90600. 
In May 2013, as a first step in the 
process to update our existing rail vehicles guidelines, the Access Board convened the Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee (RVAAC or 
Committee). See Notice of Establishment; Appointment of Members, Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee, 78 FR 30828 (May 23, 2013). RVAAC was charged with ‘‘mak[ing] recommendations to the Board on matters associated with revising and updating our [rail vehicle] accessibility guidelines.’’ Id. at 30829. The Committee was comprised of manufacturers of transportation vehicles that operate on fixed guideway systems, transportation providers that operated fixed guideway systems, organizations representing individuals with disabilities, and other entities whose interests may be affected by the accessibility guidelines.
2Id. Due to time 
constraints, the Committee decided to focus only on recommendations for new rail vehicles. 
The RVAAC organized itself into the 
following four subcommittees: Communications; Boarding and Alighting; Onboard Circulation and Seating; and Rooms and Spaces. Committee members spent most of their time working in the subcommittees, which reported to the full Committee. The full Committee met seven times. The Committee adopted the following guiding principles to develop its recommendations: 
•Features providing access for 
people with disabilities must be equivalent to those provided to others in terms of functionality and aesthetics, and must not segregate individuals with disabilities; 
•Accessible features should be the 
norm for everyone; 
•There may not be restrictions on 
using any facilities or features until the train is stopped; 
•Safety concerns must be balanced 
with the underlying civil rights principles of the ADA; 
•Establishing policy mandates will 
drive the development of improved generations of technology; 
•All train cars should be accessible; 
•Access Board guidelines should 
promote the development of technology, and not freeze current technology in place; and 
•‘‘[G]rowing demographics (graying 
of America)’’ must be considered when establishing scoping for accessible features. 
In July 2015, the Committee formally 
presented its final report (hereinafter RVAAC Report) to the Access Board. The RVAAC Report, which totals 71 pages, consists of a ‘‘main’’ report that is broken down into five chapters (which, except for the introductory chapter, mirror the topics covered by the four subcommittees) and several accompanying appendices. The full RVAAC Report is available at https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and- standards/transportation/vehicles/rail- vehicles-access-advisory-committee. 
In sum, the Report provides the 
Committee’s recommendations for 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS8518 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 
updated accessibility requirements 
applicable to newly acquired rail vehicles, which are written using regulatory-style language interspersed with occasional textual discussion. The appendices provide supplementary information in the form of a reference copy of ADA provisions relating to transportation vehicles (Appendix A), a list of operational matters for DOT consideration that arose during committee deliberations but fall outside the Board’s jurisdiction (Appendix B), and minority reports submitted by three Committee members (Appendix C). 
It is important to emphasize that the 
RVAAC Report merely sets forth the Committee’s non-binding recommendations for consideration by the Access Board. The Committee’s recommendations should not be viewed as the Board’s own proposed revisions to our existing rail vehicle accessibility guidelines. While we will consider the RVAAC Report when formulating proposed updates to the rail vehicle guidelines, other pertinent sources, including public comment received in response to this ANPRM, will be considered. 
III. Areas for Public Comment 
Considering the significant public 
interest in the RVAAC Report and in 
anticipation of a future rulemaking to ‘‘refresh’’ the accessibility guidelines for rail vehicles, the Access Board issues this ANPRM. Specifically the Board seeks public comment in two areas: (a) The substance of the recommendations in the RVAAC Report; and (b) related questions about the feasibility or potential impact of specific recommendations (e.g., design, 
operations, cost), as well as current research, data, and technologies relating to the improvement of rail vehicle accessibility. The Access Board encourages all interested parties to provide comment, including governmental agencies, private entities that own or operate rail vehicles, individuals with disabilities, and advocacy organizations. Comments submitted in response to this ANPRM will be considered by the Access Board when developing any forthcoming notice of proposed rulemaking. 
In reviewing and commenting on the 
RVAAC Report, we strongly encourage commenters to focus on the substance of the Committee’s recommendations, rather than the specific wording of particular recommendations. In any future proposal to update the existing accessibility guidelines for rail vehicles, the Access Board will develop its own regulatory text and ensure consistency with the formatting used in other 
accessibility guidelines. 
While this notice highlights certain 
sections of the RVAAC Report and poses related questions, the Access Board seeks comments on all recommendations presented in the RVAAC Report. More broadly, we also seek comment on cross-cutting issues including the potential impact of the 
Report’s recommendations on the safety of rail passengers and personnel, implementation costs, and the ways that such costs might be minimized while still achieving an appropriate level of access for persons with disabilities. 
IV. Discussion of RVAAC 
Recommendations and Questions for Public Comment 
Discussed below are some of the 
recommendations posed in the RVAAC Report that, if implemented, would represent changes from the Access Board’s existing requirements for rail vehicles in the ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles (36 CFR part 1192). The Board highlights these recommendations and poses related questions to the public for the purpose of obtaining additional information about recent research and current technology relevant to these recommended changes, and the potential costs of implementing such changes. 
A. Application 
The Access Board’s existing rail 
vehicle guidelines apply to all ADA- 
covered new, used, and remanufactured rail vehicles. However, due to time constraints, the RVAAC only addressed and provided recommendations pertaining to new rail vehicles. This limited scope of the RVAAC Report does not mean that, when the Access Board issues a proposed rule to update our existing accessibility guidelines, we will similarly limit our scope to new rail vehicles. 
Question 1: Would it be feasible for 
remanufactured rail cars to meet the accessibility requirements recommended in the RVAAC Report? What would be the challenges and costs of applying the RVAAC’s proposed accessibility requirements to remanufactured rail cars? For each challenge and or cost that you raise, please indicate the type of rail vehicle affected. 
Question 2: What is the typical 
lifespan of different types of rail vehicles? How often is each type of existing rail vehicle replaced with a new or remanufactured vehicle? 
Question 3: We are not aware of any 
small governmental jurisdictions that currently operate rail transportation 
systems covered by the ADA. With respect to small businesses, are there any specific issues or concerns that the Access Board should consider when developing any proposed regulatory updates to its existing accessibility guidelines for rail vehicles? 
B. Communication Access 
Currently, the only provisions 
regarding communication for rail 
vehicles in the existing guidelines specify that each vehicle be equipped with a public address system permitting transportation system personnel, or recorded or digitized human speech messages, to announce stations and provide other information, with some exceptions. See 36 CFR 1192.61, 1192.87, 1192.103 & 1192.121. 
The RVAAC Report recommended a 
robust expansion of requirements for accessible communications, including provisions for variable message signage (VMS) and hearing induction loops. It also recommended requiring VMS and real-time route map tracking (where provided) to be located in at least two locations in each car, so that every seat has a view of one or more of the accessible signs. RVAAC Report, Chap. 2, §§ I–XI. 
Question 4: What solutions or 
technologies are commercially available that, if implemented, would be capable of providing access to public communications onboard rail vehicles? 
Question 5: What solutions or 
technologies are commercially available that, if implemented on rail vehicles, would provide accessible emergency information to passengers in real-time? 
Question 6: What are the design and 
cost impacts of the RVAAC’s proposed requirement for variable messaging systems on rail cars? 
Question 7: What are the design and 
cost impacts of the RVAAC’s proposed requirement for hearing induction loops on rail cars? 
C. Boarding and Alighting 
The RVACC Report stressed that ‘‘full- 
length level or near level boarding 
should be the highest priority and most preferred method of boarding on all fixed guideway (e.g. rail) modes.’’ 
RVAAC Report, Chap. 3, § I.A. But, 
when not required or possible, ‘‘boarding should be, as often as possible, by ramp or bridge-plate as the primary means for boarding’’ and mechanical lifts should only be used as a back-up alternative. See id. § I.B. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS8519 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 
1. Car-Borne Ramps, Bridge Plates, and 
Lifts 
Currently, the existing guidelines for 
rail vehicles permit station-based ramps, bridge plates, and lifts for use in boarding and alighting in certain situations. See 36 CFR 1192.83, 1192.95 & 1192.125. The Committee recommended requiring car-borne ramps, bridge plates, and lifts in certain instances. RVAAC Report, Chap. 3, § I.B. Were this recommendation included in a proposed rule, it would, in most circumstances, prohibit the use of station-based lifts, and would instead require rail vehicles to provide car- borne ramps, bridge plates, and lifts. In a minority report, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority of the State of New York raised concerns with this recommendation, asserting that the new gap recommendations will require that the bridge plates installed on the cars be capable of traversing the largest vertical and horizontal gap at any station. The station with the largest gap will dictate the bridge plate design for all new cars. Consequently, the bridge plates carried on the cars may be very long to accommodate the largest gaps. These long bridge plates may create a safety hazard when deployed in confined areas at a station. Id. at App. C (MTA–SNY Minority Report, pp. 62–63). 
Question 8: Please identify research 
studies or data that address the impact of car-borne ramps, bridge plates, or lifts on rail vehicle operation, maintenance, or rider safety. 
Question 9: What would be the cost 
implications if ramps, bridge plates, and lifts were required to be mounted on rail vehicles instead of being based at stations? 
2. Lift Design Load 
The RVAAC Report recommended 
increasing the lift design load from the 
existing requirement of 600 pounds to 800 pounds. See RVAAC Report, Chap. 3, § IV.A; see also 36 CFR 1192.83(b), 1192.95(b) & 1192.125(b) (existing Access Board specifications for design loads of rail vehicle-based lifts). In the Access Board’s final rule promulgating updated accessibility requirements for non-rail vehicles, we retained the 600- pound design load for vehicle lifts based on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for public use lifts, which are codified at 49 CFR 571.403 and 571.404. See 36 CFR 1192.21, Appendix A, T402.2. However, the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards address lifts used on motor vehicles, not rail cars. The Access Board thus seeks additional information regarding design 
loads on rail vehicles. 
Question 10: What would be the 
design and cost impacts if the design load requirement for rail vehicle-based lifts was increased to 800 pounds minimum? Are there any types of rail vehicles requiring a lift to board for which an 800-pound minimum design load would not be feasible? 
Question 11: What is the current 
design load of newly manufactured lifts 
used for rail vehicles? 
3. Platform Lift Service Size 
Currently, the Access Board’s rail 
vehicles guidelines require lift platforms 
to have a minimum clear width of 30 inches and a minimum clear length of 48 inches, as measured from 2 inches above the platform surface to 30 inches above the surface. The minimum clear width as measured at the platform surface to a height of 2 inches is permitted to be 28
1⁄2inches instead of 
30 inches to accommodate the structure and frame of doors on some rail vehicles. See 36 CFR 1192.83(b)(6), 1192.95(b)(6) & 1192.125(b)(6). The RVAAC Report recommended increasing the size of lift platform surfaces to a clear width of 32 inches minimum and a clear length of 54 inches minimum, both measured from the platform surface to 40 inches above the platform surface. See RVAAC Report, Chap. 3, § IV.B. 
Currently available research and the 
RVAAC’s recommendations demonstrate a potential need to increase the size of the lift platform to accommodate larger wheeled mobility devices and advancement in their engineering and design. See Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access, Anthropometry of Wheeled Mobility Project—Final Report (Dec. 2010), available at http://www.udeworld.com/documents/anthropometry/pdfs/AnthropometryofWheeledMobilityProject_ Final
Report.pdf. 
Question 12: What would be the 
design impacts on rail vehicles if the required size of platforms on rail vehicle-based lifts was increased to a clear width of 32 inches minimum and clear length of 54 inches minimum? 
4. Bi-Parting Side Doors 
The existing guidelines require that 
accessible passenger doorways have a 
clear opening width of 32 inches. See 38 CFR 1192.53(a)(1), 1192.73(a)(1), 1192.93(a)(1) & 1192.113(a)(1). The RVACC Report recommends that bi- parting side doors should have one leaf that provides a clear width opening of at least 32 inches. The purpose of this proposal is to ensure passengers can readily board and alight from vehicles, especially during high capacity periods and when alternative doorways are not available, including when one of the bi- parting doors fails to open. However, the Committee recommended this as a best practice and not a requirement because it recognized that larger panels can create unintended consequences and it did not want to inhibit more efficient, reliable, and safe designs. RVACC Report, Chap. 4, §§ I.A & I.B(1)– (2). 
Question 13: How prevalent is the 
situation where a single leaf of a bi- parting side door on a rail vehicle fails to open, thereby restricting the clear width to less than 32-inches? 
Question 14: What would be the 
design implications of a requirement that one leaf of bi-parting doors on rail vehicles provide a clear width of 32 inches minimum? 
5. Between-Car Barriers 
The existing guidelines for rail 
vehicles require between-car barriers for 
light and rapid rail systems and certain commuter rail systems. 36 CFR 1192.63, 1192.85 & 1192.109. This requires that a device or system be provided to prevent, deter, or warn individuals from inadvertently stepping off the platform between cars. Id. 
The RVAAC Report recommends that 
between-car barriers also be required for rail vehicles used in intercity and high- speed rail systems. RVAAC Report, Chap. 4, § V.A. Amtrak raised concerns about this proposal in a minority report, asserting that while between-car barriers are appropriate for high-platform, level- boarding, ‘‘[b]i-level long intercity trains will see no benefit from adding the barriers, will add cost and may in fact create a safety hazard to railroad employees responsible for coupling and uncoupling cars.’’ RVAAC Report, Appendix C (Amtrak Minority Report, p. 53). 
Question 15: What data or other 
evidence supports a need for between- car barriers on rail vehicles used for intercity or high-speed rail service, if any? 
Question 16: If requirements for 
between-car barriers were extended to rail vehicles used for intercity or high- speed rail service, should there be a specified minimum between-car gap that would trigger application of such a requirement? If so, what size gap should be used to trigger any such requirement? 
Question 17: What would be the cost 
of requiring between-car barriers on rail vehicles used for intercity or high-speed rail service? 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS8520 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2020 / Proposed Rules 
D. On Board Accessibility 
1. Mobility Aid Seating Location Size 
The Access Board’s existing 
guidelines require clear floor space for 
mobility aid seating locations of 48 inches by 30 inches. See 36 CFR 1192.83(a)(1), 1192.57(b), 1192.125(d)(2) & 1192.95(d)(2). In the RVAAC Report, the Committee recommended increasing required clear floor space to 54 inches by 32 inches where the space is confined on no more than two sides, and 59 inches by 32 inches where the space is confined on three sides. RVAAC Report, Chap 4, § IV.A. See also Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access, Anthropometry of Wheeled Mobility Project—Final Report (Dec. 2010), available at http://www.udeworld.com/documents/anthropometry/pdfs/AnthropometryofWheeledMobilityProject_ Final
Report.pdf. The Metropolitan 
Transportation Authority of the State of New York raised concerns in a RVAAC Minority Report about the loss of additional seats with the increased floor space. RVAAC Report, Appendix C (MTA–SNY Minority Report, p. 68). 
Question 18: What would be the effect 
on the design and operation of rail cars if the required size of mobility aid seating locations were increased from 48 inches by 30 inches to a requirement of (1) 54 inches by 32 inches where the space is confined on no more than two sides and (2) 59 inches by 32 inches where the space is confined on three sides? 
2. Vertical Access 
There is no requirement in the 
existing guidelines to provide vertical 
access on rail cars. In the RVAAC report, the committee recommended adding a requirement for vertical access in new intercity bi-level lounge cars. The Committee explained that a lounge ‘‘means any car with a primary function that is to enhance the passenger experience beyond the purchased coach or sleeper accommodation and is so designed to enhance viewing from the second level.’’ Such lounge cars include open platform observation areas that are accessible to passengers, whether or not an extra fare is charged, and single level cars (known as ‘‘dome cars) that offer an elevated area designed for viewing scenery. The Committee explained that the goal is to expand the full rail travel experience for passengers who might otherwise miss out on key features of the travel. This would include providing a lift, an accessible restroom (if an upper level restroom is provided), and accessible wheelchair spaces on the upper level. RVAAC Report, Chap 4, § IX. 
Question 19: Should vertical access be 
required on new intercity bi-level lounge cars? If so, should such a requirement apply only to certain types of intercity bi-level cars (such as those that provide a viewing dome on the upper level)? 
Question 20: Is it technically feasible 
for platform lifts to serve the upper levels of bi-level rail cars? 
Question 21: What are the likely costs, 
including both one-time equipment installation costs and ongoing maintenance, if vertical access was required on intercity bi-level rail cars? 
3. Handrails and Stanchions for 
Onboard Circulation 
The Access Board’s existing 
guidelines require that handrails and stanchions not encroach on the accessible routes and permit safe boarding, onboard circulation, seating and standing assistance, and alighting by persons with disabilities. 36 CFR 1192.57, 1192.77, 1192.97 & 1192.115. The RVAAC recommended retaining the existing requirement for the diameter of the interior handrails and stanchions with additional specifications that (a) handrails or handholds be included on transverse passenger seats in all rail cars, and (b) in light and rapid rail systems, vertical stanchions be provided adjacent to, or as part of, seats on alternate rows and sides of the aisle. RVAAC Report, Chap. 4, § VI.B. The current regulation does not address the visibility of handholds, handrails, and stanchions. The Access Board is interested in obtaining public comment on any potential need for visual contrast for handholds, handrails, or stanchions. 
Question 22: Are additional types of 
handholds, handrails, or stanchions needed on rapid, light rail, intercity or commuter rail vehicles beyond those currently required? If so, please describe. 
Question 23: Are handholds, 
handrails, or stanchions for rail vehicles currently designed with visual contrast? 
Question 24: Is there a need for visual 
contrast on handholds, handrails, or stanchions? If so, please explain. 
E. Dining Cars 
Regarding accessible seating in dining 
cars, the RVAAC proposed to increase 
the required wheelchair spaces and transfer seating at tables from one to two spaces. The Committee also noted that this requirement could be met with convertible spaces. RVAAC Report, Chap. 5, § II.A. In response to this suggested requirement, Amtrak, in a minority report, indicated that when they attempted to use convertible spaces during the development of their new dining cars, the convertible spaces were criticized as ‘‘making a spectacle’’ of the arrival of someone using a wheelchair. RVAAC Report, Appendix C (Amtrak Minority Report, p. 54). 
Question 25: What would be the 
advantages and disadvantages of having convertible/readily removable seating in dining cars on rail vehicles to accommodate passengers using wheelchairs. 
David M. Capozzi, 
Executive Director. 
[FR Doc. 2020–02843 Filed 2–13–20; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 8150–01–P 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 
AGENCY 
40 CFR Part 52 
[EPA–R01–OAR–2020–0029; FRL–10005– 
07-Region 1] 
Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; 
Approval of Single Source Order 
AGENCY : Environmental Protection 
Agency(EPA). 
ACTION : Proposed rule. 
SUMMARY : The Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of New Hampshire. The revision approves a single source order for PSI Molded Plastics. The intended effect of this action is to propose approval of this item into the New Hampshire SIP. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act. 
DATES : Written comments must be 
received on or before March 16, 2020. 
ADDRESSES : Submit your comments, 
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– OAR–2020–0029 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to 
mcconnell.robert@epa.gov. For 
comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner 
of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Feb 13, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS