```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 18, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 102800-102809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29990]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Part 37

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2024-0090]
RIN 2105-AF05

Transportation for Individuals With Disabilities; Adoption of 
Accessibility Standards for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-
of-Way

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT or the Department).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation (DOT or the Department) is 
amending its Americans with Disabilities Act regulations to adopt, 
without modification, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers 
Compliance Board's Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities 
in the Public Right-of-Way (PROWAG) as DOT's regulatory standards for 
new construction and alterations of transit stops in the public right-
of-way.

DATES: This rule is effective January 17, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions, Holly Ceasar-
Fox, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, 
(202) 366-7420, [email protected]. For legal questions related to 
PROWAG, James T. Esselman, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Highway 
Administration, (202) 366-6181, [email protected]. For legal 
questions related to transit, Diane Alexander, Office of Chief Counsel, 
Federal Transit Administration, (202) 366-3101, 
[email protected]. For questions related to intercity or high-
speed rail, Linda Martin, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of 
Chief Counsel, 202-689-9408, [email protected].
    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

[[Page 102801]]

at a sidewalk or street-level transit stop or the boarding platform, 
pedestrian access routes (PARs) that connect altered boarding and 
alighting areas or altered boarding platforms with existing pedestrian 
circulation paths, and, if provided, transit shelters and PARs 
connecting transit shelters with boarding and alighting areas or 
boarding platforms. Other PROWAG provisions applicable to transit stops 
in the public right-of-way include: fare vending machines (R210); 
operable parts of other fixed elements (R210); detectable warnings for 
boarding platforms (R205.5) and sidewalk and street-level rail boarding 
and alighting areas (R205.6); pedestrian signs (R208); PARs between 
newly constructed transit stops and accessible elements, spaces, and 
pedestrian facilities required to be accessible (R203.2.1); alternate 
transit stops (R204.2); and benches (R209.6.1).
    Because DOT's independent regulatory authority under the ADA 
extends only to the accessibility of public transportation facilities, 
DOT's authority does not extend to regulating the accessibility of 
other separate elements of the public right-of-way, such as on-street 
parking spaces, crosswalks, or sidewalks, with the exception of the 
elements mentioned above, as applied to transit stops. Such other 
elements in the public right-of-way fall under the jurisdiction of the 
Department of Justice under Title II, Part A, of the ADA.
    In addition to seeking comments on DOT's proposal to adopt PROWAG 
into its ADA regulations, DOT also requested comments on specific 
issues. First, noting that DOT's ADA standards must be ``consistent 
with'' the Access Board's PROWAG, the Department asked whether its 
accessibility standards should differ from the Access Board's PROWAG by 
adopting modifications that provide greater accessibility than the 
PROWAG or that clarify application of certain PROWAG provisions. 
Specifically, DOT requested comments on whether it should add 
restrictions on certain transit stop designs that locate the transit 
boarding and alighting area so that it coincides with vehicular lanes, 
including bicycle facilities. The Department expressed concern that 
these types of transit stop designs may impede accessibility for 
individuals with disabilities.
    The NPRM proposed, as well, to add definitions of ``transit stop,'' 
``public right-of-way,'' and ``alteration of a transit stop'' to 49 CFR 
37.3. The Department also proposed that a transit stop project located 
in the public right-of-way on which construction has begun, or for 
which all approvals for final design have been received, before the 
effective date of the final rule, would not be required to comply with 
DOT's PROWAG standards, but would otherwise be required to be readily 
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. The 
Department also proposed an effective date of the final rule of 30 days 
after publication of the final rule.
    As discussed in further detail below, DOT is proceeding with 
adopting the PROWAG into DOT's ADA regulations at 49 CFR part 37, 
without modification, as standards applicable to transit stops in the 
public right-of-way. In order to avoid duplication, since the entire 
text of the PROWAG is available in materials published by the Access 
Board, the Department is adopting the PROWAG into Sec.  37.9 of the 
Department's ADA regulations at 49 CFR part 37 by cross-reference to 36 
CFR part 1190.

Comments to the NPRM

    DOT published its NPRM proposing to adopt the PROWAG into DOT's ADA 
regulations at 49 CFR part 37 on August 22, 2024. The comment period 
ended on September 23, 2024.
    DOT received 88 comments in response to the NPRM. Out of the 88 
comments considered, 61 commenters expressed general support for the 
proposed rule, while 27 commenters did not provide a general opinion 
but rather focused their comments on specific issues. No commenters 
expressed general opposition to the proposed rule.

1. Overlapping Boarding Areas With Vehicular Lanes

Comments
    The greatest number of comments on the NPRM concerned DOT's request 
for comments on whether DOT should consider adding restrictions on 
certain transit stop designs that locate the transit boarding and 
alighting area so that it coincides with vehicular lanes, including 
bicycle facilities. The PROWAG does not currently address such designs, 
and DOT expressed concern that co-location of the boarding area with a 
vehicular lane, including a bicycle lane, may put a transit user with 
disabilities at risk of being struck while waiting to board or while 
alighting from a transit vehicle. The Department sought comment on 
whether allowing boarding and alighting areas to overlap vehicular 
lanes presents accessibility concerns, and whether it should consider 
adding a provision to R309.1 when it adopts the PROWAG into its 
standards restricting such co-location. DOT also sought comment on 
whether there are solutions short of prohibiting co-location that would 
address accessibility concerns, such as alternative designs that 
prevent vehicular passage when riders are boarding or alighting from a 
transit vehicle.
    DOT received comments from forty-four entities opposed to adding 
restrictions on transit stop designs that provide for overlap between 
boarding and alighting areas and bicycle lanes. Those entities included 
ten State departments of transportation (State DOTs), fourteen local 
public entities, four public transit providers, three disability 
advocacy groups, eight transportation-related organizations, two 
consultant groups, and three individuals. Arguments against adding 
restrictions on these types of transit stop designs included the 
following: (1) several entities that have used such designs reported no 
or minor instances of conflicts between cyclists or micromobility users 
(e.g., scooters) and transit users; (2) even if such conflict does 
exist, numerous design guidelines have been developed that minimize the 
potential for conflicts between transit riders and vehicles while 
retaining the key design features of multimodal transit boarding and 
alighting areas; (3) such designs are an emerging area of practice that 
would benefit from increased coordination and research; (4) the 
addition of restrictions would impact the scope of currently active 
bike lane projects and create additional barriers to their completion; 
and (5) prohibition of co-location would add more complexity to future 
active transportation projects, especially in constrained environments, 
and negatively impact the ability of entities to meet environmental and 
Vision Zero goals. Commenters also expressed opposition to DOT taking 
any action in this area in the absence of proposing specific regulatory 
language.
    More specifically, several entities, acknowledging the potential 
for transit user--vehicular conflicts where transit stop designs 
provide overlap between vehicle lanes and the boarding and alighting 
area, argued that restricting such designs would deprive entities of 
necessary flexibility to accommodate all users of limited right-of-way 
and pointed to existing design guidelines from around the country that 
they contend effectively mitigate conflict concerns. One transit agency 
commented that it undertook its own design process for transit stops 
that could safely accommodate pedestrians, transit users, and cyclists 
and that, working alongside accessibility advocates, transit experts, 
and active transportation advocates, arrived at a design that has been 
implemented in

[[Page 102802]]

thirty locations. The entity reported few incidents between cyclists, 
micromobility users, and transit riders at these locations.
    One local public entity reported using an overlapping transit stop/
bike lane design at over forty locations with no record of reported 
pedestrian-cyclist accidents at such locations. The entity noted that 
through monitoring and evaluation, as well as consultation with the 
local disability community, it has continued to refine shared stop 
designs to promote safe and predictable interactions between bicyclists 
and bus customers. Other entities commented that research should 
continue to better inform the conversation before any regulatory action 
might be taken. The three disability advocacy groups that opposed 
regulatory restrictions at this time encouraged DOT to monitor ongoing 
research.
    DOT received comments from fifteen entities in favor of adding 
restrictions on the co-location of boarding and alighting areas with 
vehicular lanes. These entities include ten disability advocacy groups, 
one State DOT, three local public entities, and one public transit 
provider. These entities generally contended that designs that allow 
overlap of boarding areas with vehicular lanes (e.g., bike lanes) 
present significant accessibility and safety concerns for people with 
disabilities, including those who are blind or have low vision, 
warranting restrictions through this rulemaking.
    One disability advocacy group shared the concerns that DOT had 
noted about co-located boarding and alighting areas and bicycle lanes 
and noted that there was at least one instance in their community of a 
cyclist colliding with and injuring a transit rider alighting from a 
bus. This commenter emphasized that shared transit stop areas are 
becoming increasingly dangerous as bike lanes are used more frequently 
by individuals using electric bikes, electric scooters, and motor 
scooters, which can travel at much greater speeds. Another disability 
advocacy group added that although many cyclists and micromobility 
users act responsibly at conflict points, the personal experiences of 
members is that many cyclists and micromobility users do not reliably 
yield to pedestrians or transit riders at shared transit stop 
locations. Another commenter noted that shared transit stop designs can 
cause confusion for individuals with vision disabilities and increase 
safety concerns which may encourage some individuals with disabilities 
to avoid certain transit stops or shift their mode of travel to curb-
to-curb service.
    Many of the same commenters who encouraged DOT to add regulatory 
restrictions on shared or overlapping transit stops also encouraged DOT 
to restrict or provide further guidance on ``floating'' transit stop 
islands, a design in which the transit stop is set away from the 
sidewalk with a bike lane channel in between the sidewalk and the 
transit stop island. Commenters noted that in addition to transit stops 
that overlap with vehicular lanes, transit stop islands also present 
challenges and safety concerns for individuals with disabilities, 
particularly those who are blind or have low vision, who must cross the 
bicycle lane to reach the transit stop. Commenters stated that 
individuals with vision disabilities struggle to detect approaching 
cyclists at such locations and lack customary physical cues signaling 
the presence of a bus stop.
DOT Response
    DOT continues to have concerns, as expressed in the NPRM, about the 
accessibility of transit stop designs that locate the transit boarding 
and alighting area so that it coincides with vehicular lanes, including 
bicycle facilities. These concerns were echoed primarily by disability 
advocacy groups, but also by commenters that opposed DOT taking any 
regulatory action at this time. In fact, most commenters who opposed 
regulatory restrictions recognize the inherent conflict that exists by 
allowing vehicular lanes to overlap with boarding and alighting areas 
but argue that allowance of design flexibility, particularly in 
constrained right-of-way environments common predominantly to dense 
urban areas, is vital to allow safe accommodation of travelers as a 
whole. They note that there is little data showing that the use of 
overlapping transit stop designs has led to major conflicts between 
transit riders and cyclists or micromobility users and point to 
existing design guides that have been developed to minimize the 
potential for major conflicts at such locations.
    Despite DOT's ongoing concerns about transit stop designs that 
locate the transit boarding and alighting area so that it coincides 
with vehicular lanes, DOT will not add any regulatory restrictions on 
such designs at this time. DOT recognizes the relatively recent 
development of these types of designs and the ongoing research taking 
place to identify the impact of such designs on transportation in 
general, including efforts to develop safe multimodal networks, but 
also more specifically on individuals with disabilities. DOT is 
encouraged by the number of comments that reflected public entities 
working with individuals with disabilities to address safety and 
accessibility concerns in the design of transit stops and encourages 
continued coordination among all transportation stakeholders on these 
issues.
    DOT also recognizes the concerns expressed by many commenters about 
the accessibility and safety of floating transit stop islands, 
including comments that urged further research on the use of wayfinding 
aids, such as tactile warning surface indicators, tactile directional 
indicators, and tactile warning delineators. DOT declines to take any 
action in this final rule with respect to floating transit stop islands 
but encourages further research on the accessibility of such designs.

2. Definition of ``Transit Stop''

Comments
    DOT received seven comments regarding the proposed definition of 
transit stop. Three disability advocacy groups commented that DOT 
should remove the language in the definition limiting its application 
to stops used by transportation vehicles that operate on a fixed route 
or scheduled route. These groups argued that by focusing only on stops 
used by vehicles that operate on a fixed or scheduled route, the 
definition does not account for pick-up and drop-off locations used by 
demand responsive public transportation services. These commenters 
noted that many public transportation providers have begun and are 
likely to continue to deploy a wide range of demand-responsive transit 
models beyond paratransit service that should be addressed by DOT's 
rule. Two transportation organizations commented that the definition of 
transit stop should expressly include the need for a pedestrian access 
route connecting to existing pedestrian circulation paths. One State 
DOT supported the proposed definition of transit stop, and one local 
public entity suggested that the definition of transit stop should 
include all elements required to be accessible at a transit stop.
DOT Response
    As DOT explained in the NPRM, the ADA directs DOT to adopt 
standards for accessible public transportation facilities that are 
``consistent with'' final minimum accessibility guidelines issued by 
the Board. Id. at section 12149(b). Similarly, Title III of the ADA 
directs DOT to adopt regulations implementing the transportation 
provisions of Title III, applicable to private entities that

[[Page 102803]]

provide specified public transportation services and provides that any 
standards adopted under such regulations must be ``consistent with'' 
final minimum accessibility guidelines adopted by the Access Board. Id. 
at sections 12186(a), (c).
    Public transportation facilities subject to Title II of the ADA and 
DOT's ADA regulations at 49 CFR part 37 are those facilities used in 
the provision of designated public transportation, which is defined in 
DOT's ADA regulations as ``transportation provided by a public entity 
(other than public school transportation) by bus, rail, or other 
conveyance (other than transportation by aircraft or intercity or 
commuter rail transportation) that provides the general public with 
general or special service, including charter service, on a regular and 
continuing basis.'' 49 CFR 37.3. These facilities include bus and other 
transit stops in the public right-of-way operated by public transit 
agencies.
    Public transportation facilities subject to Title III of the ADA 
and DOT's ADA regulations at 49 CFR part 37 include those facilities 
located in the public right-of-way used in the provision of specified 
public transportation, which is defined in DOT's ADA regulations as 
``transportation by bus, rail, or any other conveyance (other than 
aircraft) provided by a private entity to the general public, with 
general or special service (including charter service) on a regular and 
continuing basis.'' 49 CFR 37.3.
    DOT's intent in the NPRM was to bridge the gap between the language 
used in its current regulations at 49 CFR part 37 regarding designated 
and specified public transportation and the language in the PROWAG, 
which does not refer to designated and specified public transportation 
but contains provisions specific to transit stops. To bridge this gap, 
DOT proposed adopting a definition of ``transit stop'' that mirrors the 
definition of transit stop in the PROWAG but also seeks to clarify that 
a transit stop is a transportation facility used in the provision of 
designated or specified public transportation.
    The PROWAG defines ``transit stop'' as: ``An area that is 
designated for passengers to board or alight from buses, rail cars, and 
other transportation vehicles that operate on a fixed route or 
scheduled route, including bus stops and boarding platforms. This 
definition does not include intercity rail except where a stop is 
located in the public right-of-way.'' PROWAG R104. DOT proposed adding 
a sentence to the end of this definition as follows: ``A facility used 
in the provision of designated or specified public transportation in 
the public right-of-way is a transit stop.''
    As noted above, three disability advocacy groups commented that 
DOT's proposed definition of ``transit stop,'' by focusing only on 
stops used by transportation vehicles that operate on a fixed route or 
schedule route, does not address stops in the public right-of-way that 
may be used by providers of demand responsive designated or specified 
public transportation. In response, DOT notes that the definition of 
``transit stop'' in the PROWAG is intended only to cover those stops 
used by public transportation vehicles that serve fixed or scheduled 
routes. The bus boarding and alighting area dimensions, boarding 
platform requirements, and other elements included at R309 of the 
PROWAG were all developed to address the accessibility of stops used by 
public transportation vehicles that serve fixed or scheduled routes. 
Those specific requirements are not intended to apply to other 
locations in the public right-of-way that may be used by demand 
responsive designated or specified public transportation vehicles.
    The PROWAG, however, includes provisions for other pick-up and 
drop-off locations in the public right-of-way. The PROWAG defines a 
``passenger loading zone'' as ``[a]n area that is specifically designed 
or designated for loading and unloading passengers, but that does not 
primarily serve vehicles on a fixed or scheduled route.'' By noting 
that a passenger loading zone does not primarily serve vehicles on a 
fixed or scheduled route, the PROWAG distinguishes a passenger loading 
zone from a transit stop. The PROWAG further provides that 
``permanently designated passenger loading zones'' other than transit 
stops, must comply with accessibility requirements. PROWAG at R212. The 
Access Board described the application of section R212 in further 
detail in the preamble to its final PROWAG rule: ``Often, permanent 
passenger loading zones in the public right-of-way are comprised of a 
sidewalk cut out so that vehicles can pull out of the traveled way to 
unload passengers. However, a permanently affixed sign designating a 
passenger loading zone is sufficient to bring the loading zone under 
coverage of this rule. Passenger loading zones that vary with the time 
of day or the occupancy of a particular retail space, such as valet 
stands that are provided only during certain hours, are not considered 
permanently designated and are therefore not subject to PROWAG.''
    DOT acknowledges that demand responsive designated or specified 
public transportation vehicles may use passenger loading zones in the 
public right-of-way, but such loading zones are not necessarily 
exclusively designed for use by such vehicles; rather, they may often 
be used by individual, private vehicles. In developing its NPRM to 
adopt PROWAG into its ADA regulations, DOT viewed the scope of 
``passenger loading zones'' as falling under DOJ's ADA jurisdiction 
over all other pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way, and, 
thus, DOT did not propose covering such facilities under its ADA rule. 
While DOT declines to finalize standards at this time concerning 
coverage of passenger loading zones applicable to providers of 
designated or specified transportation, DOT recognizes that this is an 
area of overlapping jurisdiction with DOJ and may consider proposing 
standards in this area in a future rulemaking. Even in the absence of 
enforceable standards, the ADA requires new and altered facilities, 
including facilities used in the provision of public transportation, to 
be accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. See 42 
U.S.C. 12146, 12147. DOT encourages entities to follow the PROWAG 
guidelines applicable to passenger loading zones.
    In response to these comments, however, DOT also acknowledges that 
a portion of its proposed definition of ``transit stop'' should be 
removed. The sentence reading ``[a] facility used in the provision of 
designated or specified public transportation in the public right-of-
way is a transit stop'' is overbroad and unnecessary. A transit stop is 
a facility used in the provision of designated or specified public 
transportation, but not all facilities used in the provision of 
designated or specified public transportation are transit stops. As 
discussed above, a passenger loading zone may be used in the provision 
of designated or specified public transportation. As a result, DOT will 
remove this sentence from its definition of ``transit stop.''
    Regarding other aspects of the proposed definition of transit stop, 
two transportation organizations commented that the definition of 
transit stop should expressly include the need for a pedestrian access 
route connecting to existing pedestrian circulation paths, and one 
local public entity suggested that the definition of transit stop 
should include all elements required to be accessible at a transit 
stop. Both of these concerns derive from DOT's proposed definition of 
transit stop identifying some but not all elements of transit stops for 
which PROWAG accessibility requirements would apply under DOT's final 
rule. As noted previously, the PROWAG defines ``transit stop'' as 
``[a]n

[[Page 102804]]

area that is designated for passengers to board or alight from buses, 
rail cars, and other transportation vehicles that operate on a fixed 
route or scheduled route, including bus stops and boarding platforms. 
This definition does not include intercity rail except where a stop is 
located in the public right-of-way.'' DOT proposed adopting a 
definition of ``transit stop'' into its regulations mirroring the 
PROWAG definition but adding that ``[t]ransit stops include, if 
provided, transit shelters and pedestrian circulation connections 
between transit shelters and bus boarding and alighting areas or 
boarding platforms they serve.'' The local public entity commenter 
expressed that by adding a sentence that includes transit shelters and 
pedestrian circulation connections in the definition of transit stop 
but excludes other elements that must be accessible if provided at 
transit stops, such as fare vending machines and benches, may confuse 
the public. Similarly, the two transportation organizations that 
commented on this aspect of the definition of transit stop felt that 
the definition should make clear the need for a pedestrian access route 
connecting to existing pedestrian circulation paths.
    Upon consideration of these comments, DOT has decided to remove the 
additional sentence about transit shelters and pedestrian circulation 
connections from the definition of ``transit stop'' in DOT's final 
rule. In this way, the definition of ``transit stop'' in DOT's final 
rule tracks more closely with the definition of ``transit stop'' in the 
PROWAG. Other elements required to be accessible if provided at a 
transit stop are set forth clearly in the PROWAG itself, which is 
adopted into DOT's regulation by reference. As set forth in the NPRM, 
elements required to be accessible at a transit stop in the public 
right-of-way under PROWAG R309 include the boarding and alighting area 
at a sidewalk or street-level transit stop or the boarding platform, 
pedestrian access routes (PARs) that connect altered boarding and 
alighting areas or altered boarding platforms with existing pedestrian 
circulation paths, and, if provided, transit shelters and PARs 
connecting transit shelters with boarding and alighting areas or 
boarding platforms. The PROWAG contains other provisions applicable to 
transit stops in the public right-of-way that would be subject to DOT 
enforcement under this rule: fare vending machines (R210); operable 
parts of other fixed elements (R210); detectable warnings for boarding 
platforms (R205.5) and sidewalk and street-level rail boarding and 
alighting areas (R205.6); pedestrian signs (R208); PARs between newly 
constructed transit stops and accessible elements, spaces, and 
pedestrian facilities required to be accessible (R203.2.1); alternate 
transit stops (R204.2); and benches (R209.6.1).

3. Alteration of a Transit Stop

Comments
    DOT proposed to adopt a definition of ``alteration of a transit 
stop'' providing: ``Alteration of a transit stop means a change to or 
an addition of a transit stop in an existing, developed public right-
of-way that affects or could affect pedestrian access, circulation, or 
usability.'' DOT received eight comments regarding the proposed 
definition. Four State DOTs and one local public entity commented that 
DOT should further clarify specific activities that would constitute an 
``alteration of a transit stop.'' One public transit provider commented 
that DOT should clarify that an ``alteration of a transit stop'' only 
includes activity that involves concrete work. One disability advocacy 
group commented that the definition of ``alteration of a transit stop'' 
should be consistent with the existing definition of ``alteration'' in 
DOT's regulations at 49 CFR part 37. And, last, one local public entity 
commented that the definition of ``alteration of a transit stop'' 
should be revised to read ``alteration or addition of a transit stop'' 
to ensure that practitioners understand that an addition of a transit 
stop to existing developed right-of-way is considered an alteration 
under PROWAG and not new construction.
    More specifically, with respect to the types of activities that 
would be considered an alteration of a transit stop under the rule, one 
commenter asked whether resurfacing a road adjacent to a transit stop 
would be considered an alteration of the transit stop requiring the 
entire transit stop to be brought into compliance, to the maximum 
extent feasible, with PROWAG transit stop requirements. Similarly, 
another commenter asked if activities such as repairing a broken post, 
or fixing or replacing a sign, would trigger an obligation to bring the 
entire transit stop into compliance with PROWAG requirements. 
Commenters expressed concern that if small changes to individual 
elements at a transit stop triggered an obligation to ensure that the 
entire transit stop meets PROWAG standards, entities may choose to 
remove particular stops altogether rather than improve them.
DOT Response
    DOT agrees with the commenters that the public needs clarification 
on what activities explicitly constitute an ``alteration'' under the 
proposed definition of ``alteration of a transit stop'' and the scope 
of improvements that would be required when a transit stop or part of a 
transit stop is altered. DOT specifically proposed a definition of 
``alteration of a transit stop'' to distinguish alterations of such 
facilities from the definition of ``alteration'' in DOT's current ADA 
regulations at 49 CFR 37.3, which applies to alterations of facilities 
that are buildings or on sites. Thus, to the extent that one commenter 
suggested that the definition of ``alteration of a transit stop'' 
should be harmonized with the existing definition of ``alteration,'' 
DOT declines to take that step because the definition of ``alteration'' 
that applies to buildings or sites contains language that is specific 
to those types of facilities. A separate definition of ``alteration of 
a transit stop'' is necessary.
    DOT notes that the existing definition of ``alteration'' at 49 CFR 
37.3 contains much more detail about the types of activities considered 
to be alterations of buildings or sites than DOT proposed for the 
definition of ``alteration of a transit stop.'' Specifically, the 
existing definition of alteration is: ``Alteration means a change to an 
existing facility, including, but not limited to, remodeling, 
renovation, rehabilitation, reconstruction, historic restoration, 
changes or rearrangement in structural parts or elements, and changes 
or rearrangement in the plan configuration of walls and full-height 
partitions. Normal maintenance, reroofing, painting or wallpapering, 
asbestos removal, or changes to mechanical or electrical systems are 
not alterations unless they affect the usability of the building or 
facility.'' This definition is a modification of the definition of 
``alteration'' in the Access Board's 2004 ADA Accessibility Guidelines, 
which provided examples of the types of modifications to a facility 
that would constitute an alteration.
    Similarly, DOT adopted its proposed definition of ``alteration of a 
transit stop'' from the PROWAG's definition of ``alteration,'' which 
provides that an alteration or the term altered means: ``A change to or 
an addition of a pedestrian facility in an existing, developed public 
right-of-way that affects or could affect pedestrian access, 
circulation, or usability.'' In adopting the PROWAG, the Access Board 
deliberately chose to omit detailed examples of the types of activities 
that would be considered

[[Page 102805]]

alterations, choosing instead to allow DOT and DOJ, the ADA enforcement 
agencies, to provide necessary clarification. See Accessibility 
Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way, 88 FR 
53604, 53608 (Aug. 8, 2023). Because the term ``alteration of a transit 
stop'' narrows the scope of the types of activities that could be 
covered as compared with the general definition of ``alteration'' in 
the PROWAG, DOT believes it is appropriate to provide clarification of 
the scope of covered alterations and more detailed examples of 
``alteration of a transit stop'' in the regulatory text as opposed to 
relying on the issuance of guidance statements at some future date, 
while not precluding the possibility of issuing further clarifying 
guidance.
    Accordingly, DOT is adopting the following definition of 
``alteration of a transit stop'' in this final rule: ``Alteration of a 
transit stop means a change to or an addition of a transit stop, or a 
part thereof, in an existing, developed public right-of-way that 
affects or could affect pedestrian access, circulation, or usability. 
Alterations include, but are not limited to, the reconstruction of an 
existing transit stop, the addition of a new transit shelter, the 
addition of a new bench, fare vending machine, or transit sign that 
identifies a stop or route, reconfiguring the interface of a transit 
stop with the street or sidewalk network, such as adding floating bus 
stops, adding a prepared surface for boarding and alighting, and 
rearrangement of transit stop elements, such as benches or fare vending 
machines. Normal maintenance such as painting transit shelters, 
replacing damaged transit shelter windows or screens, repairing a fare 
vending machine, replacing damaged sign posts, repairing existing curb, 
or repairing damaged benches or trash cans, are not alterations unless 
they affect the usability of the transit stop. Permanent closure of a 
transit stop due to service changes is also not an alteration of a 
transit stop.''
    It is not possible to provide examples of all potential 
modifications to a transit stop in the regulatory definition of 
``alteration of a transit stop,'' but DOT believes that the examples 
provided in this final rule illustrate the way particular modifications 
should be addressed. In addition, in response to comments regarding 
whether an alteration of an element of a transit stop necessarily 
triggers the need to bring the entire transit stop into compliance with 
PROWAG standards at the same time, DOT is modifying the definition of 
``alteration to a transit stop'' to mean ``a change to or an addition 
of a transit stop, or a part thereof'' (emphasis added). In making this 
revision, DOT intends to focus compliance efforts in the first instance 
on the part of the transit stop that is being altered. This phrasing is 
consistent with language in the ADA statute, which provides that 
alterations to an existing facility, or part thereof, must be made in 
such a manner that to the maximum extent feasible, the altered portions 
of the facility are readily accessible to and usable by individuals 
with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. 12147(a). For example, should a public 
entity add a new bench at a transit stop, which is included as an 
example of an ``alteration of a transit stop,'' only those provisions 
of PROWAG applicable to benches added to an existing right-of-way would 
be required to be made accessible at the transit stop to the maximum 
extent feasible where existing physical constraints make compliance 
with applicable requirements technically infeasible. This would include 
the requirements for benches at transit stops set forth at R209.6.1 but 
would also include the provisions at R202.2 which require pedestrian 
access routes to connect altered pedestrian facilities to an existing 
pedestrian circulation path (a transitional segment may be used in the 
connection). Addition of a new bench at a bus stop would require the 
bench to be connected by a PAR to an existing pedestrian circulation 
path but would not trigger the requirement to bring the bus boarding 
and alighting area into compliance with PROWAG standards.
    Similar approaches would be taken to other alterations of elements 
of a transit stop. If an entity adds a bus boarding and alighting area 
with a prepared surface to a bus stop that previously did not include a 
prepared surface (e.g., a stop identified only by a sign in the 
ground), the bus boarding and alighting area would be required to be 
made accessible to the maximum extent feasible where existing physical 
constraints make compliance with applicable requirements technically 
infeasible. The entity adding the new bus boarding and alighting area 
would be required to provide necessary PARs connecting the new bus 
boarding and alighting area to existing pedestrian circulation paths 
under PROWAG R309.1.3.2, which provides that ``[i]n alterations, 
boarding and alighting areas and boarding platforms shall be connected 
to existing pedestrian circulation paths by pedestrian access routes 
complying with R302.''

4. Compliance Exception for Projects in Construction Phase or Through 
Final Design

Comments
    DOT proposed to include an exception in the regulation that would 
exempt from compliance with the final rule those transit stop projects 
located in the public right-of-way on which construction has begun or 
for which all approvals for final design have been received before the 
effective date of the final rule. DOT received two comments from State 
DOTs and one comment from a local public entity that urged DOT to 
exempt from compliance with the final rule all transit projects in the 
planning stage at the time the final rule becomes effective. One of the 
State DOTs commented that projects in the planning and design stages, 
but which have not yet completed final design, may have already 
completed right-of-way acquisition or signed contracts with utility 
companies and that the requirement to comply with newly adopted 
standards could result in delays to such projects.
DOT Response
    DOT disagrees with the commenters' recommendation to exempt transit 
projects in the planning and design stages from compliance with the 
newly adopted PROWAG standards at the time of the effective date of the 
final rule. The exemption for projects on which construction has begun 
or for which final design has been completed before the effective date 
of the rule strikes an appropriate balance for entities affected by the 
rule by recognizing the investment of resources in projects that have 
advanced to final design or construction versus ensuring that the 
benefits of the newly adopted standards are realized for projects that 
remain only in the planning or design phase. DOT followed this same 
approach with respect to compliance with the revised ADA Accessibility 
Guidelines that DOT adopted in 2006. DOT will adopt the exemption as 
proposed in the NPRM. DOT notes, however, that projects for which all 
final design approvals have been received or for which construction has 
begun at the time of the effective date of the final rule still must 
ensure that the elements of the transit stop affected by the transit 
project (either new construction or alteration) are accessible to and 
usable by individuals with disabilities even if they are not required 
to comply with the specific standards adopted by DOT in this final 
rule. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 12147(a).

[[Page 102806]]

5. Effective Date

Comments
    DOT proposed in the NPRM that its final rule adopting PROWAG into 
its ADA regulations at 49 CFR part 37 would become effective 30 days 
after issuance of the final rule. In support of this proposal, DOT 
noted the public and regulated entities have been aware of the proposed 
PROWAG's provisions related to transit stops since 2011, which are 
generally unchanged in the PROWAG, and that many entities have relied 
on the Department of Justice's similar 2010 ADA Standards and DOT's 
2006 ADA Standards for boarding and alighting areas or boarding 
platforms as references for transit stops in the public right-of-way. 
As a result, DOT stated that it did not anticipate entities requiring 
additional time to become familiar with the Department's ADA public 
right-of-way standards before compliance is required for new 
construction and alterations.
    DOT received twelve comments in favor of its proposed 30-day 
effective date. Five of those commenters favored the 30-day effective 
date outright, including one disability advocacy group, three local 
public entities, and one transportation organization. Seven other 
commenters endorsed the 30-day effective date provided that DOT did not 
adopt any modifications to the PROWAG, particularly with respect to 
placing restrictions on the use of transit stop designs that place the 
bus boarding and alighting area so that it overlaps with vehicular 
lanes, including bicycle lanes.
    DOT received six comments opposed to the 30-day effective date. One 
State DOT proposed setting a 90-day effective date. One State DOT, one 
local public entity, one transportation organization, and one public 
transit provider proposed a 12-month effective date. Last, one State 
DOT expressed opposition to the 30-day effective date but did not 
propose an alternative. The commenters opposed to the 30-day effective 
date generally expressed that although the Access Board's PROWAG NPRM 
was issued in 2011 and similar standards for transit stops at sites 
under the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) have been in place since 
1991, the length of time since the 2011 PROWAG NPRM to the present has 
created ambiguity over how entities should approach the accessibility 
of transit stops in the public right-of-way.
DOT Response
    DOT disagrees with commenters who proposed a later effective date 
than the 30-day effective date in the proposed rule. The Access Board 
issued its final PROWAG rule in August 2023, setting minimum guidelines 
for the accessibility of pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-
way, including transit stops, and the ADA requires DOT to adopt 
standards for accessible public transportation facilities that are 
``consistent with'' the Access Board's minimum guidelines. So, covered 
entities have been aware for more than a year that DOT's accessibility 
standards for transit stops would provide accessibility requirements no 
less than the guidelines in PROWAG. Moreover, as reflected in the 
Regulatory Impact Analysis accompanying this final rule, even in the 
absence of enforceable standards before issuance of this final rule, 
public entities have had a general obligation to ensure that their 
facilities are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with 
disabilities, and to otherwise not discriminate against individuals on 
the basis of disability. As such, covered entities have generally 
looked to the Department of Justice's 2010 ADA Standards,\1\ the 
Federal Transit Administration's ADA Circular,\2\ or other references 
for guidance on how to meet that general accessibility requirement. A 
review of these sources shows that they provide specifications 
substantially similar to the final PROWAG rule. In addition, guidance 
from some of the largest transit agencies indicated that these transit 
agencies either cite DOT's or DOJ's existing ADA standards applicable 
to facilities on sites (2004 ADAAG) with regard to accessibility of 
transit stops or otherwise refer to ADA accessibility requirements in 
their publications. For more information and analysis on the current 
state of industry practice, please see the Regulatory Impact Analysis, 
which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, U.S. Department of 
Justice (2010), accessed July 14, 2022 from https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/2010ADAstandards.htm (applicable primarily 
to facilities on sites).
    \2\ FTA Circular 4710.1--Americans With Disabilities Act 
Guidance, Federal Transit Administration (2015), accessed July 18, 
2022 from https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/Final_FTA_ADA_Circular_C_4710.1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Entities have had sufficient time to anticipate the standards that 
DOT is adopting in the final rule. This is especially the case as DOT 
is not proposing any modifications to PROWAG in adopting PROWAG in this 
final rule. The majority of entities that commented on this issue 
support this approach, and the rule retains an exception from 
compliance with the PROWAG standards for those projects on which 
construction has begun, or all approvals for final design have been 
received before the effective date. DOT is adopting a 30-day effective 
date from the date of publication of this rule.

6. Other Comments

Comments
    DOT received several comments requesting that DOT make revisions to 
various PROWAG provisions that are unrelated to the accessibility of 
transit stops in the public right-of-way. For instance, one individual 
and one consulting firm requested clarification about the change of 
grade requirements at PROWAG R304.5.2 for curb ramps and blended 
transitions at gutters or streets. Another individual commented on the 
pedestrian signal phase timing requirements at PROWAG R306.2. Two 
disability advocacy groups and one State DOT commented on PROWAG 
provisions related to roundabouts. These and other similar comments 
pertain to provisions of PROWAG that fall within DOJ's ADA jurisdiction 
and fall outside of DOT's limited ADA jurisdiction over facilities 
related to the delivery of designated or specified public 
transportation. These PROWAG provisions will become enforceable once 
they are adopted, with or without modifications, as mandatory standards 
under the ADA by DOJ.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this 
rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of 
E.O. 12866, as amended by E.O. 14094 (``Modernizing Regulatory 
Review''). The rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of 
$200 million or more. The rule will not adversely affect in a material 
way the economy, any sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, 
territorial, or Tribal governments or communities. In addition, the 
changes will not interfere with any action taken or planned by another 
agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impact of any 
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs.
    DOT estimates that this rulemaking will have minimal implementation 
costs, due to the close alignment between the requirements of the rule 
and existing guidance and industry practices for transit stops in the 
public

[[Page 102807]]

right-of-way. This is presented in further detail in the accompanying 
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) document.
    The rule benefits pedestrians with disabilities by establishing a 
clear set of accessible design and construction standards for transit 
stops in the public right-of-way with which public entities would be 
required to comply. The rule will ensure a more uniformly accessible 
public transportation system, which facilitates independent living and 
economic self-sufficiency. Other pedestrians may experience ancillary 
benefits as well if facilities are easier to use. These benefits are 
unlikely to be quantified or monetized. The full RIA is available in 
the docket.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 
5 U.S.C. 601-612), DOT has reviewed the analysis conducted by the 
Access Board and published with the final rule (88 FR 53604, August 8, 
2023), and evaluated the effects of this rule on small entities and has 
determined that it is not anticipated to have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. DOT estimates that 
this rulemaking will have minimal implementation costs, due to the 
close alignment between the requirements of the rule and existing 
guidance and industry practices for transit stops in the public right-
of-way. In addition, many small governmental jurisdictions are located 
in rural areas and do not have transit facilities that will be impacted 
by this rulemaking. This is presented in further detail in the 
accompanying RIA document. Therefore, the Department certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not apply to proposed or 
final rules that enforce constitutional rights of individuals or 
enforce statutory rights that prohibit discrimination on the basis of 
race, color, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or disability. Since 
DOT's adoption of the 2023 Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian 
Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way Guidelines is done pursuant to 
the ADA, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, an 
assessment of the rule's effect on State, local, and Tribal 
governments, and the private sector is not required.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)

    DOT's rule will be applicable to public entities, including State 
and local governments, but any federalism implications are not 
significant. Public entities have been subject to the ADA since 1991, 
and the many public entities that receive Federal financial assistance 
have also been required to comply with the requirements of section 504 
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Both statutes have required 
accessibility of transit stops, even in the absence of enforceable 
standards. Many public entities, in fact, have independently applied 
the proposed 2011 PROWAG or similar transit stop provisions in DOT's 
2006 ADA Standards or DOJ's 2010 ADA Standards. Thus, the adoption of 
PROWAG into DOT's ADA regulations, enforceable only with respect to 
transit stops, will not significantly alter existing practice. In 
addition, public entities previously had the opportunity to provide 
input and feedback during the development of the Access Board's PROWAG 
rule. As a result, DOT has determined that this rule will not have 
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
federalism assessment. This final rule will not have a substantial 
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among various levels of government.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et 
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they 
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. DOT has determined 
that this final rule does not contain collection of information 
requirements for the purposes of the PRA.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this 
action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined that it is categorically 
excluded pursuant to DOT Order 5610.1C, Procedures for Considering 
Environmental Impacts (44 FR 56420, Oct. 1, 1979). Categorical 
exclusions are actions identified in an agency's NEPA implementing 
procedures that do not normally have a significant impact on the 
environment and therefore do not require either an environmental 
assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See 40 CFR 
1501.4(a). Paragraph 4(c)(5) of DOT Order 5610.1C adopts by reference 
the categorical exclusions for all DOT Operating Administrations. This 
action is covered by the categorical exclusion listed in the Federal 
Transit Administration's implementing procedures, ``[p]lanning and 
administrative activities that do not involve or lead directly to 
construction, such as: . . . promulgation of rules, regulations, 
directives . . .'' 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4) and Federal Highway 
Administration's implementing procedures, ``[p]romulgation of rules, 
regulations, and directives.'' 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20).
    In analyzing the applicability of a categorical exclusion, the 
agency must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are 
present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. 40 CFR 
1501.4(b). This rulemaking concerns civil rights protection for 
individuals with disabilities. The Department does not anticipate any 
environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances 
present in connection with this rulemaking.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    DOT has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in E.O. 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments.'' The rule establishes a regulation on the 
accessibility of transit stops in the public right-of-way.
    This measure applies to public entities, as defined under the ADA, 
which does not include Tribal governments or other Tribal entities, and 
it will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian 
Tribes, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian 
Tribal governments, and will not preempt Tribal laws. Accordingly, the 
funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply and a 
Tribal summary impact statement is not required.

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

    E.O. 12898 requires that each Federal agency make achieving 
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and 
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and 
activities on minorities and low-income populations. DOT has determined 
that this rule does not raise any environmental justice issues.

[[Page 102808]]

Regulation Identifier Number

    A RIN is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified 
Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service 
Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. 
The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross 
reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 37

    Civil Rights, Individuals with disabilities, Transportation.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 
1.27(a).
Subash Iyer,
Acting General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOT amends 49 CFR part 
37, as follows:

PART 37--TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES 
(ADA)

0
1. The authority citation for part 37 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12101-12213; 49 U.S.C. 322.

0
2. Amend Sec.  37.3 by adding, in alphabetical order, the definitions 
for ``Alteration of a transit stop'', ``Public right-of-way'', and 
``Transit stop'' to read as follows:

Sec.  37.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Alteration of a transit stop means a change to or an addition of a 
transit stop, or a part thereof, in an existing, developed public 
right-of-way that affects or could affect pedestrian access, 
circulation, or usability. Alterations include, but are not limited to, 
the reconstruction of an existing transit stop, the addition of a new 
transit shelter, the addition of a new bench, fare vending machine, or 
transit sign that identifies a stop or route, reconfiguring the 
interface of a transit stop with the street or sidewalk network such as 
adding floating bus stops, adding a prepared surface for boarding and 
alighting, and rearrangement of transit stop elements, such as benches 
or fare vending machines. Normal maintenance such as painting transit 
shelters, replacing damaged transit shelter windows or screens, 
repairing a fare vending machine, replacing damaged sign posts, 
repairing existing curb, or repairing damaged benches or trash cans, 
are not alterations unless they affect the usability of the transit 
stop. Permanent closure of a transit stop due to service changes is 
also not an alteration of a transit stop.
* * * * *
    Public right-of-way means public land acquired for or dedicated to 
transportation purposes, or other land where there is a legally 
established right for use by the public for transportation purposes.
* * * * *
    Transit stop means an area that is designated for passengers to 
board or alight from buses, rail cars, and other transportation 
vehicles that operate on a fixed route or scheduled route, including 
bus stops and boarding platforms. This definition does not include 
intercity rail except where a stop is located in the public right-of-
way.
* * * * *

0
3. Revise Sec.  37.9 to read as follows:

Sec.  37.9  Standards for accessible transportation facilities.

    (a) Transportation facilities other than transit stops in the 
public right-of-way. (1) For purposes of this part, a transportation 
facility shall be considered to be readily accessible to and usable by 
individuals with disabilities if it meets the requirements of this part 
and the requirements set forth in appendices B and D to 36 CFR part 
1191, which apply to buildings and facilities covered by the Americans 
with Disabilities Act, as modified by appendix A to this part.
    (2) Facility alterations begun before January 26, 1992, in a good 
faith effort to make a facility accessible to individuals with 
disabilities may be used to meet the key station requirements set forth 
in Sec. Sec.  37.47 and 37.51, even if these alterations are not 
consistent with the requirements set forth in appendices B and D to 36 
CFR part 1191 and appendix A to this part, if the modifications 
complied with the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) or 
ANSI A117.1(1980) (American National Standards Specification for Making 
Buildings and Facilities Accessible to and Usable by the Physically 
Handicapped). This paragraph applies only to alterations of individual 
elements and spaces and only to the extent that provisions covering 
those elements or spaces are contained in UFAS or ANSI A117.1, as 
applicable.
    (3)(i) New construction or alterations of buildings or facilities 
on which construction has begun, or all approvals for final design have 
been received, before November 29, 2006, are not required to be 
consistent with the requirements set forth in appendices B and D to 36 
CFR part 1191 and appendix A to this part, if the construction or 
alterations comply with the former appendix A to this part, as codified 
in the October 1, 2006, edition of the Code of Federal Regulations.
    (ii) Existing buildings and facilities that are not altered after 
November 29, 2006, and which comply with the former appendix A to this 
part, are not required to be retrofitted to comply with the 
requirements set forth in appendices B and D to 36 CFR part 1191 and 
appendix A to this part.
    (4)(i) For purposes of implementing the equivalent facilitation 
provision in ADA chapter 1, section 103, of appendix B to 36 CFR part 
1191, the following parties may submit to the Administrator of the 
applicable operating administration a request for a determination of 
equivalent facilitation:
    (A)(1) A public or private entity that provides transportation 
facilities subject to the provisions of subpart C of this part, or 
other appropriate party with the concurrence of the Administrator.
    (2) With respect to airport facilities, an entity that is an 
airport operator subject to the requirements of part 27 of this title 
or regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act, an air 
carrier subject to the requirements of 14 CFR part 382, or other 
appropriate party with the concurrence of the Administrator.
    (B) The manufacturer of a product or accessibility feature to be 
used in a transportation facility or facilities.
    (ii) The requesting party shall provide the following information 
with its request:
    (A) Entity name, address, contact person and telephone;
    (B) Specific provision(s) of appendices B and D to 36 CFR part 1191 
or appendix A to this part concerning which the entity is seeking a 
determination of equivalent facilitation;
    (C) [Reserved]
    (D) Alternative method of compliance, with demonstration of how the 
alternative meets or exceeds the level of accessibility or usability 
provided in appendices B and D to 36 CFR part 1191 or appendix A to 
this part; and
    (E) Documentation of the public participation used in developing an 
alternative method of compliance.
    (iii) In the case of a request by a public entity that provides 
transportation facilities (including an airport operator), or a request 
by an air carrier with respect to airport facilities, the required 
public participation shall include the following:
    (A) The entity shall contact individuals with disabilities and 
groups representing them in the community.

[[Page 102809]]

Consultation with these individuals and groups shall take place at all 
stages of the development of the request for equivalent facilitation. 
All documents and other information concerning the request shall be 
available, upon request, to Department of Transportation officials and 
members of the public.
    (B) The entity shall make its proposed request available for public 
comment before the request is made final or transmitted to DOT. In 
making the request available for public review, the entity shall ensure 
that it is available, upon request, in accessible formats.
    (C) The entity shall sponsor at least one public hearing on the 
request and shall provide adequate notice of the hearing, including 
advertisement in appropriate media, such as newspapers of general and 
special interest circulation and radio announcements.
    (iv) In the case of a request by a manufacturer or a private entity 
other than an air carrier, the manufacturer or private entity shall 
consult, in person, in writing, or by other appropriate means, with 
representatives of national and local organizations representing people 
with those disabilities who would be affected by the request.
    (v) A determination of compliance will be made by the Administrator 
of the concerned operating administration on a case-by-case basis, with 
the concurrence of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy.
    (vi)(A) Determinations of equivalent facilitation are made only 
with respect to transportation facilities, and pertain only to the 
specific situation concerning which the determination is made. 
Provided, however, that with respect to a product or accessibility 
feature that the Administrator determines can provide an equivalent 
facilitation in a class of situations, the Administrator may make an 
equivalent facilitation determination applying to that class of 
situations.
    (B) Entities shall not cite these determinations as indicating that 
a product or method constitutes equivalent facilitation in situations, 
or classes of situations, other than those to which the determinations 
specifically pertain.
    (C) Entities shall not claim that a determination of equivalent 
facilitation indicates approval or endorsement of any product or method 
by the Federal Government, the Department of Transportation, or any of 
its operating administrations.
    (b) Transportation facilities (transit stops) in the public right-
of-way. (1) Except as set forth in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, if 
new construction or alterations of a transit stop located in the public 
right-of-way commence after January 17, 2025, the new construction or 
alterations of the transit stop shall comply with the requirements set 
forth in the appendix to 36 CFR part 1190, which apply to pedestrian 
facilities located in the public right-of-way covered by the Americans 
with Disabilities Act.
    (2) New construction or alterations of transit stops located in the 
public right-of-way on which construction has begun, or all approvals 
for final design have been received, before January 17, 2025, are not 
required to be consistent with the requirements set forth in the 
appendix to 36 CFR part 1190, but are otherwise required to be readily 
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
    (3)(i) For purposes of implementing the equivalent facilitation 
provision in chapter 1, section R102.1, of the appendix to 36 CFR part 
1190, the following parties may submit to the Administrator of the 
applicable operating administration a request for a determination of 
equivalent facilitation:
    (A) A public or private entity that provides transit stops in the 
public right-of-way subject to the provisions of subpart C of this 
part, or other appropriate party with the concurrence of the 
Administrator.
    (B) The manufacturer of a product or accessibility feature to be 
used in a transit stop in the public right-of-way.
    (ii) The requesting party shall provide the following information 
with its request:
    (A) Entity name, address, contact person and telephone;
    (B) Specific provision(s) of the appendix to 36 CFR part 1190 
concerning which the entity is seeking a determination of equivalent 
facilitation;
    (C) Alternative method of compliance, with demonstration of how the 
alternative meets or exceeds the level of accessibility or usability 
provided in the appendix to 36 CFR part 1190; and
    (D) Documentation of the public participation used in developing an 
alternative method of compliance.
    (iii) In the case of a request by a public entity that provides 
transit stops in the public right-of-way, the required public 
participation shall include the following:
    (A) The entity shall contact individuals with disabilities and 
groups representing them in the community. Consultation with these 
individuals and groups shall take place at all stages of the 
development of the request for equivalent facilitation. All documents 
and other information concerning the request shall be available, upon 
request, to Department of Transportation officials and members of the 
public.
    (B) The entity shall make its proposed request available for public 
comment before the request is made final or transmitted to DOT. In 
making the request available for public review, the entity shall ensure 
that it is available, upon request, in accessible formats.
    (C) The entity shall sponsor at least one public hearing on the 
request and shall provide adequate notice of the hearing, including 
advertisement in appropriate media, such as newspapers of general and 
special interest circulation and radio announcements.
    (iv) In the case of a request by a manufacturer or a private 
entity, the manufacturer or private entity shall consult, in person, in 
writing, or by other appropriate means, with representatives of 
national and local organizations representing people with those 
disabilities who would be affected by the request.
    (v) A determination of compliance will be made by the Administrator 
of the concerned operating administration on a case-by-case basis, with 
the concurrence of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy.
    (vi)(A) Determinations of equivalent facilitation are made only 
with respect to transit stops in the public right-of-way, and pertain 
only to the specific situation concerning which the determination is 
made. Provided, however, that with respect to a product or 
accessibility feature that the Administrator determines can provide an 
equivalent facilitation in a class of situations, the Administrator may 
make an equivalent facilitation determination applying to that class of 
situations.
    (B) Entities shall not cite these determinations as indicating that 
a product or method constitutes equivalent facilitation in situations, 
or classes of situations, other than those to which the determinations 
specifically pertain.
    (C) Entities shall not claim that a determination of equivalent 
facilitation indicates approval or endorsement of any product or method 
by the Federal Government, the Department of Transportation, or any of 
its operating administrations.

[FR Doc. 2024-29990 Filed 12-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```