102800 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

use, or disposal of the microorganism, 

or any combination of such activities, to 

the extent necessary to protect against 

an unreasonable risk of injury to health 

or the environment, as set forth in 

section 5(e) of the Act. EPA may issue 

an order under section 5(e) of the Act 

that requires certain testing to be 

conducted and presented to EPA after 

the applicable review period has 

concluded. 

(iii) Following determinations 

described in paragraph (b)(1)(v) of this 

section, EPA will issue the submitter a 

document containing EPA’s final 

determination and will submit for 

publication in the Federal Register a 

statement of the finding, as set forth in 

section 5(g) of the Act. Upon EPA’s 

issuance of the determination 

document, the submitter may 

commence the manufacture of the 

microorganism without waiting for the 

end of the applicable review period. 

(3) EPA may modify or revoke the 

prohibitions and limitations in an order 

issued under paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (ii) of 

this section after the applicable review 

period has ended if EPA receives 

additional information, testing, studies, 

or reports that EPA determines, upon 

review, demonstrate that such 

prohibitions or limitations are no longer 

necessary to protect against an 

unreasonable risk of injury to health or 

the environment. Where such 

information demonstrates that the 

prohibitions or limitations of the order 

are not sufficient to protect against an 

unreasonable risk of injury to health or 

the environment, EPA may modify the 

order or take other action, as 

appropriate, to the extent necessary to 

protect against such risk. 

(4) No person submitting an MCAN in 

response to the requirements of this 

subpart may manufacture a 

microorganism subject to this subpart 

until EPA has issued a determination in 

accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section and taken the associated action 

required under paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

PART 761—POLYCHLORINATED 

BIPHENYLS (PCBs) 

MANUFACTURING, PROCESSING, 

DISTRIBUTION IN COMMERCE, AND 

USE PROHIBITIONS 

■ 28. The authority citation for part 761 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2611, 

2614, and 2616. 

■ 29. In § 761.3 amend the definition for 

‘‘Importer’’ by removing the citation 

‘‘§ 720.3(l)’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘§ 720.3.’’ 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–28870 Filed 12–17–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 Rightof-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, holly.ceasarfox@dot.gov. For 

legal questions related to PROWAG, 

James T. Esselman, Office of Chief 

Counsel, Federal Highway 

Administration, (202) 366–6181, 

james.esselman@dot.gov. For legal 

questions related to transit, Diane 

Alexander, Office of Chief Counsel, 

Federal Transit Administration, (202) 

366–3101, diane.alexander@dot.gov. For 

questions related to intercity or highspeed rail, Linda Martin, Federal 

Railroad Administration, Office of Chief 

Counsel, 202–689–9408, Linda.Martin@

dot.gov. 

Electronic Access and Filing: This 

document, the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM), all comments 

received, and all background material 

may be viewed online at 

www.regulations.gov 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 

www.federalregister.gov and the 

Government Publishing Office’s website 

at www.GovInfo.gov. 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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-ofway 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 rightof-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 § 37.9 of the Department’s ADA 

regulations at 49 CFR part 37 by crossreference 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 fortyfour 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
102802 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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-tocurb 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 demandresponsive 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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-ofway that may be used by demand 

responsive designated or specified 

public transportation vehicles. 

The PROWAG, however, includes 

provisions for other pick-up and dropoff 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 rightof-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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
102804 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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-ofway.’’ 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 rightof-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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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-ofway 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). 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
102806 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, U.S. 

Department of Justice (2010), accessed July 14, 2022 

from https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/ 

2010ADAStandards/2010ADAstandards.htm 

(applicable primarily to facilities on sites). 

2FTA Circular 4710.1—Americans With 

Disabilities Act Guidance, Federal Transit 

Administration (2015), accessed July 18, 2022 from 

https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/ 

docs/Final_FTA_ADA_Circular_C_4710.1.pdf. 

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. 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
102808 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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) 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 37 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12101–12213; 49 

U.S.C. 322. 

■ 2. Amend § 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: 

§ 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-ofway. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Revise § 37.9 to read as follows: 

§ 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 §§ 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. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 rightof-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-ofway, 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES