Title 49

Appendix D to Part 37 - Construction and Interpretation of Provisions of 49 CFR Part 37

49:1.0.1.1.27.10.43.1.24 : Appendix D

Appendix D to Part 37 - Construction and Interpretation of Provisions of 49 CFR Part 37

This appendix explains the Department's construction and interpretation of provisions of 49 CFR part 37. It is intended to be used as definitive guidance concerning the meaning and implementation of these provisions. The appendix is organized on a section-by-section basis. Some sections of the rule are not discussed in the appendix, because they are self-explanatory or we do not currently have interpretive material to provide concerning them.

The Department also provides guidance by other means, such as manuals and letters. The Department intends to update this Appendix periodically to include guidance, provided in response to inquiries about specific situations, that is of general relevance or interest.

Amendments to 49 CFR Part 27

Section 27.67(d) has been revised to reference the Access Board facility guidelines (found in appendix A to part 37) as well as the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standard (UFAS). This change was made to ensure consistency between requirements under section 504 and the ADA. Several caveats relating to the application of UFAS (e.g., that spaces not used by the public or likely to result in the employment of individuals with disabilities would not have to meet the standards) have been deleted. It is the Department's understanding that provisions of the Access Board standards and part 37 make them unnecessary.

The Department is aware that there is a transition period between the publication of this rule and the effective date of many of its provisions (e.g., concerning facilities and paratransit services) during which section 504 remains the basic authority for accessibility modifications. In this interval, the Department expects recipients' compliance with section 504 to look forward to compliance with the ADA provisions. That is, if a recipient is making a decision about the shape of its paratransit service between the publication of this rule and January 26, 1992, the decision should be in the direction of service that will help to comply with post-January 1992 requirements. A recipient that severely curtailed its present paratransit service in October, and then asked for a three- or five-year phase-in of service under its paratransit plan, would not be acting consistent with this policy.

Likewise, the Department would view with disfavor any attempt by a recipient to accelerate the beginning of the construction, installation or alteration of a facility to before January 26, 1992, to “beat the clock” and avoid the application of this rule's facility standards. The Department would be very reluctant to approve grants, contracts, exemption requests etc., that appear to have this effect. The purpose of the Department's administration of section 504 is to ensure compliance with the national policy stated in the ADA, not to permit avoidance of it.

Subpart A - General Section 37.3 Definitions

The definition of “commuter authority” includes a list of commuter rail operators drawn from a statutory reference in the ADA. It should be noted that this list is not exhaustive. Other commuter rail operators (e.g., in Chicago or San Francisco) would also be encompassed by this definition.

The definition of “commuter bus service” is important because the ADA does not require complementary paratransit to be provided with respect to commuter bus service operated by public entities. The rationale that may be inferred for the statutory exemption for this kind of service concerns its typical characteristics (e.g., no attempt to comprehensively cover a service area, limited route structure, limited origins and destinations, interface with another mode of transportation, limited purposes of travel). These characteristics can be found in some transportation systems other than bus systems oriented toward work trips. For example, bus service that is used as a dedicated connecter to commuter or intercity rail service, certain airport shuttles, and university bus systems share many or all of these characteristics. As explained further in the discussion of subpart B, the Department has determined that it is appropriate to cover these services with the requirements applicable to commuter bus systems.

The definitions of “designated public transportation” and “specified public transportation” exclude transportation by aircraft. Persons interested in matters concerning access to air travel for individuals with disabilities should refer to 14 CFR part 382, the Department's regulation implementing the Air Carrier Access Act. Since the facility requirements of this part refer to facilities involved in the provision of designated or specified public transportation, airport facilities are not covered by this part. DOJ makes clear that public and private airport facilities are covered under its title II and title III regulations, respectively.

The examples given in the definition of “facility” all relate to ground transportation. We would point out that, since transportation by passenger vessels is covered by this rule and by DOJ rules, such vessel-related facilities as docks, wharfs, vessel terminals, etc. fall under this definition. It is intended that specific requirements for vessels and related facilities will be set forth in future rulemaking.

The definitions of “fixed route system” and “demand responsive system” derive directly from the ADA's definitions of these terms. Some systems, like a typical city bus system or a dial-a-ride van system, fit clearly into one category or the other. Other systems may not so clearly fall into one of the categories. Nevertheless, because how a system is categorized has consequences for the requirements it must meet, entities must determine, on a case-by-case basis, into which category their systems fall.

In making this determination, one of the key factors to be considered is whether the individual, in order to use the service, must request the service, typically by making a call.

With fixed route service, no action by the individual is needed to initiate public transportation. If an individual is at a bus stop at the time the bus is scheduled to appear, then that individual will be able to access the transportation system. With demand-reponsive service, an additional step must be taken by the individual before he or she can ride the bus, i.e., the individual must make a telephone call.

(S. Rept. 101-116 at 54).

Other factors, such as the presence or absence of published schedules, or the variation of vehicle intervals in anticipation of differences in usage, are less important in making the distinction between the two types of service. If a service is provided along a given route, and a vehicle will arrive at certain times regardless of whether a passenger actively requests the vehicle, the service in most cases should be regarded as fixed route rather than demand responsive.

At the same time, the fact that there is an interaction between a passenger and transportation service does not necessarily make the service demand responsive. For many types of service (e.g., intercity bus, intercity rail) which are clearly fixed route, a passenger has to interact with an agent to buy a ticket. Some services (e.g., certain commuter bus or commuter rail operations) may use flag stops, in which a vehicle along the route does not stop unless a passenger flags the vehicle down. A traveler staying at a hotel usually makes a room reservation before hopping on the hotel shuttle. This kind of interaction does not make an otherwise fixed route service demand responsive.

On the other hand, we would regard a system that permits user-initiated deviations from routes or schedules as demand-responsive. For example, if a rural public transit system (e.g., a recipient of funds under 49 U.S.C. 5311) has a few fixed routes, the fixed route portion of its system would be subject to the requirements of subpart F for complementary paratransit service. If the entity changed its system so that it operated as a route-deviation system, we would regard it as a demand responsive system. Such a system would not be subject to complementary paratransit requirements.

The definition of “individual with a disability” excludes someone who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs, when a covered entity is acting on the basis of such use. This concept is more important in employment and public accommodations contexts than it is in transportation, and is discussed at greater length in the DOJ and EEOC rules. Essentially, the definition says that, although drug addiction (i.e., the status or a diagnosis of being a drug abuser) is a disability, no one is regarded as being an individual with a disability on the basis of current illegal drug use.

Moreover, even if an individual has a disability, a covered entity can take action against the individual if that individual is currently engaging in illegal drug use. For example, if a person with a mobility or vision impairment is ADA paratransit eligible, but is caught possessing or using cocaine or marijuana on a paratransit vehicle, the transit provider can deny the individual further eligibility. If the individual has successfully undergone rehabilitation or is no longer using drugs, as explained in the preamble to the DOJ rules, the transit provider could not continue to deny eligibility on the basis that the individual was a former drug user or still was diagnosed as a person with a substance abuse problem.

We defined “paratransit” in order to note its specialized usage in the rule. Part 37 uses this term to refer to the complementary paratransit service comparable to public fixed route systems which must be provided. Typically, paratransit is provided in a demand responsive mode. Obviously, the rule refers to a wide variety of demand responsive services that are not “paratransit,” in this specialized sense.

The ADA's definition of “over-the-road bus” may also be somewhat narrower than the common understanding of the term. The ADA definition focuses on a bus with an elevated passenger deck over a baggage compartment (i.e., a “Greyhound-type” bus). Other types of buses commonly referred to as “over-the-road buses,” which are sometimes used for commuter bus or other service, do not come within this definition. Only buses that do come within the definition are subject to the over-the-road bus exception to accessibility requirements in Title III of the ADA.

For terminological clarity, we want to point out that two different words are used in ADA regulations to refer to devices on which individuals with hearing impairments communicate over telephone lines. DOJ uses the more traditional term “telecommunications device for the deaf” (TDD). The Access Board uses a newer term, “text telephone.” The DOT rule uses the terms interchangably.

A “used vehicle” means a vehicle which has prior use; prior, that is, to its acquisition by its present owner or lessee. The definition is not relevant to existing vehicles in one's own fleet, which were obtained before the ADA vehicle accessibility requirements took effect.

A “vanpool” is a voluntary commuter ridesharing arrangement using a van with a seating capacity of more than seven persons, including the driver. Carpools are not included in the definition. There are some systems using larger vehicles (e.g., buses) that operate, in effect, as vanpools. This definition encompasses such systems. Vanpools are used for daily work trips, between commuters' homes (or collection points near them) and work sites (or drop points near them). Drivers are themselves commuters who are either volunteers who receive no compensation for their efforts or persons who are reimbursed by other riders for the vehicle, operating, and driving costs.

The definition of “wheelchair” includes a wide variety of mobility devices. This inclusiveness is consistent with the legislative history of the ADA (See S. Rept. 101-116 at 48). While some mobility devices may not look like many persons' traditional idea of a wheelchair, three- and more-wheeled devices, of many varied designs, are used by individuals with disabilities and must be transported. “Wheelchair” is defined in this rule as a mobility aid belonging to any class of three-or more-wheeled devices, usable indoors, designed or modified for and used by individuals with mobility impairments, whether operated manually or powered. The “three- or-more-wheeled” language in the definition is intended to encompass wheelchairs that may have additional wheels (e.g., two extra guide wheels in addition to the more traditional four wheels).

Persons with mobility disabilities may use devices other than wheelchairs to assist with locomotion. Canes, crutches, and walkers, for example, are often used by people whose mobility disabilities do not require use of a wheelchair. These devices must be accommodated on the same basis as wheelchairs. However, the Department does not interpret its rules to require transportation providers to accommodate devices that are not primarily designed or intended to assist persons with mobility disabilities (e.g., skateboards, bicycles, shopping carts), apart from general policies applicable to all passengers who might seek to bring such devices into a vehicle. Similarly, the Department does not interpret its rules to require transportation providers to permit an assistive device to be used in a way that departs from or exceeds the intended purpose of the device (e.g., to use a walker, even one with a seat intended to allow temporary rest intervals, as a wheelchair in which a passenger sits for the duration of a ride on a transit vehicle).

The definition of wheelchair is not intended to include a class of devices known as “other power-driven mobility devices” (OPMDs). OPMDs are defined in Department of Justice ADA rules as “any mobility device powered by batteries, fuel, or other engines - whether or not designed primarily for use by individuals with mobility disabilities - that is used by individuals with mobility disabilities for the purpose of locomotion, including golf carts * * * Segway[s]®, or any mobility device designed to operate in areas without defined pedestrian routes, but that is not a wheelchair * * * .” DOT is placing guidance on its Web site concerning the use of Segways in transportation vehicles and facilities.

The definition of “direct threat” is intended to be interpreted consistently with the parallel definition in Department of Justice regulations. That is, part 37 does not require a public entity to permit an individual to participate in or benefit from the services, programs, or activities of that public entity when that individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others. In determining whether an individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others, a public entity must make an individualized assessment, based on reasonable judgment that relies on current medical knowledge or on the best available objective evidence, to ascertain: the nature, duration, and severity of the risk; the probability that the potential injury will actually occur; and whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures or the provision of auxiliary aids or services will mitigate the risk.

Section 37.5 Nondiscrimination

This section states the general nondiscrimination obligation for entities providing transportation service. It should be noted that virtually all public and private entities covered by this regulation are also covered by DOJ regulations, which have more detailed statements of general nondiscrimination obligations.

Under the ADA, an entity may not consign an individual with disabilities to a separate, “segregated,” service for such persons, if the individual can in fact use the service for the general public. This is true even if the individual takes longer, or has more difficulty, than other persons in using the service for the general public.

One instance in which this principal applies concerns the use of designated priority seats (e.g., the so-called “elderly and handicapped” seats near the entrances to buses). A person with a disability (e.g., a visual impairment) may choose to take advantage of this accommodation or not. If not, it is contrary to rule for the entity to insist that the individual must sit in the priority seats.

The prohibition on special charges applies to charges for service to individuals with disabilities that are higher than charges for the same or comparable services to other persons. For example, if a shuttle service charges $20.00 for a ride from a given location to the airport for most people, it could not charge $40.00 because the passenger had a disability or needed to use the shuttle service's lift-equipped van. Higher mileage charges for using an accessible vehicle would likewise be inconsistent with the rule. So would charging extra to carry a service animal accompanying an individual with a disability.

If a taxi company charges $1.00 to stow luggage in the trunk, it cannot charge $2.00 to stow a folding wheelchair there. This provision does not mean, however, that a transportation provider cannot charge nondiscriminatory fees to passengers with disabilities. The taxi company in the above example can charge a passenger $1.00 to stow a wheelchair in the trunk; it is not required to waive the charge. This section does not prohibit the fares for paratransit service which transit providers are allowed to charge under § 37.131(d).

A requirement for an attendant is inconsistent with the general nondiscrimination principle that prohibits policies that unnecessarily impose requirements on individuals with disabilities that are not imposed on others. Consequently, such requirements are prohibited. An entity is not required to provide attendant services (e.g., assistance in toileting, feeding, dressing), etc.

This provision must also be considered in light of the fact that an entity may refuse service to someone who engages in violent, seriously disruptive, or illegal conduct. If an entity may legitimately refuse service to someone, it may condition service to him on actions that would mitigate the problem. The entity could require an attendant as a condition of providing service it otherwise had the right to refuse.

The rule also points out that involuntary conduct related to a disability that may offend or annoy other persons, but which does not pose a direct threat, is not a basis for refusal of transportation. For example, some persons with Tourette's syndrome may make involuntary profane exclamations. These may be very annoying or offensive to others, but would not be a ground for denial of service. Nor would it be consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements of this part to deny service based on fear or misinformation about the disability. For example, a transit provider could not deny service to a person with HIV disease because its personnel or other passengers are afraid of being near people with that condition.

This section also prohibits denials of service or the placing on services of conditions inconsistent with this part on individuals with disabilities because of insurance company policies or requirements. If an insurance company told a transit provider that it would withdraw coverage, or raise rates, unless a transit provider refused to carry persons with disabilities, or unless the provider refused to carry three-wheeled scooters, this would not excuse the provider from providing the service as mandate by this part. This is not a regulatory requirement on insurance companies, but simply says that covered entities must comply with this part, even in the face of difficulties with their insurance companies.

Section 37.7 Standards for Accessible Vehicles

This section makes clear that, in order to meet accessibility requirements of this rule, vehicles must comply with Access Board standards, incorporated in DOT rules as 49 CFR part 38. Paragraph (b) of § 37.7 spells out a procedure by which an entity (public or private) can deviate from provisions of part 38 with respect to vehicles. The entity would have to describe how its alternative mode of compliance would meet or exceed the level of access to or usability of the vehicle that compliance with part 38 would otherwise provide.

It should be noted that equivalent facilitation does not provide a means to get a waiver of accessibility requirements. Rather, it is a way in which comparable (not a lesser degree of) accessibility can be provided by other means. The entity must consult with the public through some means of public participation in devising its alternative form of compliance, and the public input must be reflected in the submission to the Administrator (or the Federal Railroad Administrator in appropriate cases, such as a request concerning Amtrak). The Administrator will make a case-by-case decision about whether compliance with part 38 was achievable and, if not, whether the proffered alternative complies with the equivalent facilitation standard. DOT intends to consult with the Access Board in making these determinations.

This equivalent facilitation provision can apply to buses or other motor vehicles as well as to rail cars and vehicles. An example of what could be an equivalent facilitation would concern rail cars which would leave too wide a horizontal gap between the door and the platform. If the operator used a combination of bridgeplates and personnel to bridge the gap, it might be regarded as an equivalent facilitation in appropriate circumstances.

Section 37.7(c) clarifies which specifications must be complied with for over-the-road buses purchased by public entities (under subpart D of part 37) or private entities standing in the shoes of the public entity (as described in § 37.23 of part 37). This section is necessary to make clear that over-the-road coaches must be accessible, when they are purchased by or in furtherance of a contract with a public entity. While the October 4, 1990 rule specified that over-the-road coaches must be accessible under these circumstances, we had not previously specified what constitutes accessibility.

Accordingly, this paragraph specifies that an over-the-road bus must have a lift which meets the performance requirements of a regular bus lift (see § 38.23) and must meet the interim accessibility features specified for all over-the-road buses in part 3, subpart G.

Section 37.9 Standards for Transportation Facilities

This section makes clear that, in order to meet accessibility requirements of this rule, vehicles must comply with appendix A to part 37, which incorporates the Access Board facility guidelines.

Paragraph (b) of § 37.9 provides that, under certain circumstances, existing accessibility modifications to key station facilities do not need to be modified further in order to conform to appendix A. This is true even if the standards under which the facility was modified differ from the Access Board guidelines or provide a lesser standard of accessibility.

To qualify for this “grandfathering,” alterations must have been before January 26, 1992. As in other facility sections of the rule, an alteration is deemed to begin with the issuance of a notice to proceed or work order. The existing modifications must conform to ANSI A-117.1, Specifications for Making Buildings and Facilities Accessible to and Usable by the Physically Handicapped 1980, or the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standard. (UFAS).

For example, if an entity used a Federal grant or loan or money to make changes to a building, it would already have had to comply with the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards. Likewise, if a private entity, acting without any Federal money in the project, may have complied with the ANSI A117.1 standard. So long as the work was done in conformity with the standard that was in effect when the work was done, the alteration will be considered accessible.

However, because one modification was made to a facility under one of these standards, the entity still has a responsibility to make other modifications needed to comply with applicable accessibility requirements. For example, if an entity has made some modifications to a key station according to one of these older standards, but the modifications do not make the key station entirely accessible as this rule requires, then additional modifications would have to be made according to the standards of appendix A. Suppose this entity has put an elevator into the station to make it accessible to individuals who use wheelchairs. If the elevator does not fully meet appendix A standards, but met the applicable ANSI standard when it was installed, it would not need further modifications now. But if it had not already done so, the entity would have to install a tactile strip along the platform edge in order to make the key station fully accessible as provided in this rule. The tactile strip would have to meet appendix A requirements.

The rule specifically provides that “grandfathering” applies only to alterations of individual elements and spaces and only to the extent that provisions covering those elements or spaces are found in UFAS or AHSI A117.1. For example, alterations to the telephones in a key station may have been carried out in order to lower them to meet the requirements of UFAS, but telecommunications devices for the deaf (TDDs) were not installed. (Neither UFAS nor the ANSI standard include requirements concerning TDDs). However, because appendix A does contain TDD requirements, the key station must now be altered in accordance with the standards for TDDs. Similarly, earlier alteration of an entire station in accordance with UFAS or the ANSI standard would not relieve an entity from compliance with any applicable provision concerning the gap between the platform between the platform and the vehicle in a key station, because neither of these two standards addresses the interface between vehicle and platform.

One further clarification concerning the implication of this provision deals with a bus loading island at which buses pull up on both sides of the island. It would be possible to read the bus pad specification to require the island to be a minimum of 84 inches wide (two widths of a bus stop pad), so that a lift could be deployed from buses on both sides of the island at the same time. A double-wide bus pad, however, is likely to exceed available space in most instances.

Where there is space, of course, building a double-wide pad is one acceptable option under this rule. However, the combination of a pad of normal width and standard operational practices may also suffice. (Such practices could be offered as an equivalent facilitation.) For example, buses on either side of the island could stop at staggered locations (i.e., the bus on the left side could stop several feet ahead of the bus on the right side), so that even when buses were on both sides of the island at once, their lifts could be deployed without conflict. Where it is possible, building the pad a little longer than normal size could facilitate such an approach. In a situation where staggered stop areas are not feasible, an operational practice of having one bus wait until the other's lift cycle had been completed could do the job. Finally, the specification does not require that a pad be built at all. If there is nothing that can be done to permit lift deployment on both sides of an island, the buses can stop on the street, or some other location, so long as the lift is deployable.

Like § 37.7, this section contains a provision allowing an entity to request approval for providing accessibility through an equivalent facilitation.

Section 37.11 Administrative Enforcement

This section spells out administrative means of enforcing the requirements of the ADA. Recipients of Federal financial assistance from DOT (whether public or private entities) are subject to DOT's section 504 enforcement procedures. The existing procedures, including administrative complaints to the DOT Office of Civil Rights, investigation, attempts at conciliation, and final resort to proceedings to cut off funds to a noncomplying recipient, will continue to be used.

In considering enforcement matters, the Department is guided by a policy that emphasizes compliance. The aim of enforcement action, as we see it, is to make sure that entities meet their obligations, not to impose sanctions for their own sake. The Department's enforcement priority is on failures to comply with basic requirements and “pattern or practice” kinds of problems, rather than on isolated operational errors.

Under the DOJ rules implementing title II of the ADA (28 CFR part 35), DOT is a “designated agency” for enforcement of complaints relating to transportation programs of public entities, even if they do not receive Federal financial assistance. When it receives such a complaint, the Department will investigate the complaint, attempt conciliation and, if conciliation is not possible, take action under section 504 and/or refer the matter to the DOJ for possible further action.

Title III of the ADA does not give DOT any administrative enforcement authority with respect to private entities whose transportation services are subject to part 37. In its title III rule (28 CFR part 36), DOJ assumes enforcement responsibility for all title III matters. If the Department of Transportation receives complaints of violations of part 37 by private entities, it will refer the matters to the DOJ.

It should be pointed out that the ADA includes other enforcement options. Individuals have a private right of action against entities who violate the ADA and its implementing regulations. The DOJ can take violators to court. These approaches are not mutually exclusive with the administrative enforcement mechanisms described in this section. An aggrieved individual can complain to DOT about an alleged transportation violation and go to court at the same time. Use of administrative enforcement procedures is not, under titles II and III, an administrative remedy that individuals must exhaust before taking legal action.

We also would point out that the ADA does not assert any blanket preemptive authority over state or local nondiscrimination laws and enforcement mechanisms. While requirements of the ADA and this regulation would preempt conflicting state or local provisions (e.g., a building code or zoning ordinance that prevents compliance with appendix A or other facility accessibility requirements, a provision of local law that said bus drivers could not leave their seats to help secure wheelchair users), the ADA and this rule do not prohibit states and localities from legislating in areas relating to disability. For example, if a state law requires a higher degree of service than the ADA, that requirement could still be enforced. Also, states and localities may continue to enforce their own parallel requirements. For example, it would be a violation of this rule for a taxi driver to refuse to pick up a person based on that person's disability. Such a refusal may also be a violation of a county's taxi rules, subjecting the violator to a fine or suspension of operating privileges. Both ADA and local remedies could proceed in such a case.

Labor-management agreements cannot stand in conflict with the requirements of the ADA and this rule. For example, if a labor-management agreement provides that vehicle drivers are not required to provide assistance to persons with disabilities in a situation in which this rule requires such assistance, then the assistance must be provided notwithstanding the agreement. Labor and management do not have the authority to agree to violate requirements of Federal law.

Section 37.13 Effective Date for Certain Vehicle Lift Specifications.

This section contains an explicit statement of the effective date for vehicle lift platform specifications. The Department has decided to apply the new part 38 lift platform specifications to solicitations after January 25, 1992. As in the October 4, 1990, rule implementing the acquisition requirements; the date of a solicitation is deemed to be the closing date for the submission of bids or offers in a procurement.

Subpart B - Applicability Section 37.21 Applicability - General

This section emphasizes the broad applicability of part 37. Unlike section 504, the ADA and its implementing rules apply to entities whether or not they receive Federal financial assistance. They apply to private and public entities alike. For entities which do receive Federal funds, compliance with the ADA and part 37 is a condition of compliance with section 504 and 49 CFR part 27, DOT's section 504 rule.

Virtually all entities covered by this rule also are covered by DOJ rules, either under 28 CFR part 36 as state and local program providers or under 28 CFR part 35 as operators of places of public accommodation. Both sets of rules apply; one does not override the other. The DOT rules apply only to the entity's transportation facilities, vehicles, or services; the DOJ rules may cover the entity's activities more broadly. For example, if a public entity operates a transit system and a zoo, DOT's coverage would stop at the transit system's edge, while DOJ's rule would cover the zoo as well.

DOT and DOJ have coordinated their rules, and the rules have been drafted to be consistent with one another. Should, in the context of some future situation, there be an apparent inconsistency between the two rules, the DOT rule would control within the sphere of transportation services, facilities and vehicles.

Section 37.23 Service Under Contract

This section requires private entities to “stand in the shoes” of public entities with whom they contract to provide transportation services. It ensures that, while a public entity may contract out its service, it may not contract away its ADA responsibilities. The requirement applies primarily to vehicle acquisition requirements and to service provision requirements.

If a public entity wishes to acquire vehicles for use on a commuter route, for example, it must acquire accessible vehicles. It may acquire accessible over-the-road buses, it may acquire accessible full-size transit buses, it may acquire accessible smaller buses, or it may acquire accessible vans. It does not matter what kind of vehicles it acquires, so long as they are accessible. On the other hand, if the public entity wants to use inaccessible buses in its existing fleet for the commuter service, it may do so. All replacement vehicles acquired in the future must, of course, be accessible.

Under this provision, a private entity which contracts to provide this commuter service stands in the shoes of the public entity and is subject to precisely the same requirements (it is not required to do more than the public entity). If the private entity acquires vehicles used to provide the service, the vehicles must be accessible. If it cannot, or chooses not to, acquire an accessible vehicle of one type, it can acquire an accessible vehicle of another type. Like the public entity, it can provide the service with inaccessible vehicles in its existing fleet.

The import of the provision is that it requires a private entity contracting to provide transportation service to a public entity to follow the rules applicable to the public entity. For the time being, a private entity operating in its own right can purchase a new over-the-road bus inaccessible to individuals who use wheelchairs. When that private entity operates service under contract to the public entity, however, it is just as obligated as the public entity itself to purchase an accessible bus for use in that service, whether or not it is an over-the-road bus.

The “stand in the shoes” requirement applies not only to vehicles acquired by private entities explicitly under terms of an executed contract to provide service to a public entity, but also to vehicles acquired “in contemplation of use” for service under such a contract. This language is included to ensure good faith compliance with accessibility requirements for vehicles acquired before the execution of a contract. Whether a particular acquisition is in contemplation of use on a contract will be determined on a case-by-case basis. However, acquiring a vehicle a short time before a contract is executed and then using it for the contracted service is an indication that the vehicle was acquired in contemplation of use on the contract, as is acquiring a vehicle obstensibly for other service provided by the entity and then regularly rotating it into service under the contract.

The “stand in the shoes” requirement is applicable only to the vehicles and service (public entity service requirements, like § 37.163, apply to a private entity in these situations) provided under contract to a public entity. Public entity requirements clearly do not apply to all phases of a private entity's operations, just because it has a contract with a public entity. For example, a private bus company, if purchasing buses for service under contract to a public entity, must purchase accessible buses. The same company, to the extent permitted by the private entity provisions of this part, may purchase inaccessible vehicles for its tour bus operations.

The Department also notes that the “stands in the shoes” requirement may differ depending on the kind of service involved. The public entity's “shoes” are shaped differently, for example, depending on whether the public entity is providing fixed route or demand responsive service to the general public. In the case of demand responsive service, a public entity is not required to buy an accessible vehicle if its demand responsive system, when viewed in its entirety, provides service to individuals with disabilities equivalent to its service to other persons. A private contractor providing a portion of this paratransit service would not necessarily have to acquire an accessible vehicle if this equivalency test is being met by the system as a whole. Similarly, a public entity can, after going through a “good faith efforts” search, acquire inaccessible buses. A private entity under contract to the public can do the same. “Stand in the shoes” may also mean that, under some circumstances, a private contractor need not acquire accessible vehicles. If a private company contracts with a public school district to provide school bus service, it is covered, for that purpose, by the exemption for public school transportation.

In addition, the requirement that a private entity play by the rules applicable to a public entity can apply in situations involving an “arrangement or other relationship” with a public entity other than the traditional contract for service. For example, a private utility company that operates what is, in essence, a regular fixed route public transportation system for a city, and which receives funding under 49 U.S.C. 5307 or 49 U.S.C. 5309 via an agreement with a state or local government agency, would fall under the provisions of this section. The provider would have to comply with the vehicle acquisition, paratransit, and service requirements that would apply to the public entity through which it receives the FTA funds, if that public entity operated the system itself. The Department would not, however, construe this section to apply to situations in which the degree of FTA funding and state and local agency involvement is considerably less, or in which the system of transportation involved is not a de facto surrogate for a traditional public entity fixed route transit system serving a city (e.g., a private non-profit social service agency which receives funds under 49 U.S.C. 5310 to purchase a vehicle).

This section also requires that a public entity not diminish the percentage of accessible vehicles in its fleet through contracting. For example, suppose a public entity has 100 buses in its fleet, of which 20 are accessible, meaning that 20 percent of its fleet is accessible. The entity decides to add a fixed route, for which a contractor is engaged. The contractor is supplying ten of its existing inaccessible buses for the fixed route. To maintain the 20 percent accessibility ratio, there would have to be 22 accessible buses out of the 110 buses now in operation in carrying out the public entity's service. The public entity could maintain its 20 percent level of accessibility through any one or more of a number of means, such as having the contractor to provide two accessible buses, retrofitting two if its own existing buses, or accelerating replacement of two of its own inaccessible buses with accessible buses.

This rule applies the “stand in the shoes” principle to transactions wholly among private entities as well. For example, suppose a taxi company (a private entity primarily engaged in the business of transporting people) contracts with a hotel to provide airport shuttle van service. With respect to that service, the taxi company would be subject to the requirements for private entities not primarily in the business of transporting people, since it would be “standing in the shoes” of the hotel for that purpose.

Section 37.25 University Transportation Systems

Private university-operated transportation systems are subject to the requirements of this rule for private entities not primarily engaged in the business of transporting people. With one important exception, public university-operated transportation systems are subject to the requirements of the rule for public entities. The nature of the systems involved - demand-responsive or fixed route - determines the precise requirements involved.

For public university fixed route systems, public entity requirements apply. In the case of fixed route systems, the requirements for commuter bus service would govern. This has the effect of requiring the acquisition of accessible vehicles and compliance with most other provisions of the rule, but does not require the provision of complementary paratransit or submitting a paratransit plan. As a result, private and public universities will have very similar obligations under the rule.

Section 37.27 Transportation for Elementary and Secondary Education Systems

This section restates the statutory exemption from public entity requirements given to public school transportation. This extension also applies to transportation of pre-school children to Head Start or special education programs which receive Federal assistance. It also applies to arrangements permitting pre-school children of school bus drivers to ride a school bus or allowing teenage mothers to be transported to day care facilities at a school or along a school bus route so that their mothers may continue to attend school (See H. Rept. 101-485, pt. 1 at 27). The situation for private schools is more complex. According to the provision, a private elementary or secondary school's transportation system is exempt from coverage under this rule if all three of the following conditions are met: (1) The school receives Federal financial assistance; (2) the school is subject to section 504; and (3) the school's transportation system provides transportation services to individuals with disabilities, including wheelchair users, equivalent to those provided to individuals without disabilities. The test of equivalency is the same as that for other private entities, and is described under § 37.105. If the school does not meet all these criteria, then it is subject to the requirements of Part 37 for private entities not primarily engaged in the business of transporting people.

The Department notes that, given the constitutional law on church-state separation, it is likely that church-affiliated private schools do not receive Federal financial assistance. To the extent that these schools' transportation systems are operated by religious entities or entities controlled by religious organizations, they are not subject to the ADA at all, so this section does not apply to them.

Section 37.29 Private Providers of Taxi Service

This section first recites that providers of taxi service are private entities primarily engaged in the business of transporting people which provide demand responsive service. For purposes of this section, other transportation services that involve calling for a car and a driver to take one places (e.g., limousine services, of the kind that provide luxury cars and chauffeurs for senior proms and analogous adult events) are regarded as taxi services.

Under the ADA, no private entity is required to purchase an accessible automobile. If a taxi company purchases a larger vehicle, like a van, it is subject to the same rules as any other private entity primarily engaged in the business of transporting people which operates a demand responsive service. That is, unless it is already providing equivalent service, any van it acquires must be accessible. Equivalent service is measured according to the criteria of § 37.105. Taxi companies are not required to acquire vehicles other than automobiles to add accessible vehicles to their fleets.

Taxi companies are subject to nondiscrimination obligations. These obligations mean, first, that a taxi service may not deny a ride to an individual with a disability who is capable of using the taxi vehicles. It would be discrimination to pass up a passenger because he or she was blind or used a wheelchair, if the wheelchair was one that could be stowed in the cab and the passenger could transfer to a vehicle seat. Nor could a taxi company insist that a wheelchair user wait for a lift-equipped van if the person could use an automobile.

It would be discrimination for a driver to refuse to assist with stowing a wheelchair in the trunk (since taxi drivers routinely assist passengers with stowing luggage). It would be discrimination to charge a higher fee or fare for carrying a person with a disability than for carrying a non-disabled passenger, or a higher fee for stowing a wheelchair than for stowing a suitcase. (Charging the same fee for stowing a wheelchair as for stowing a suitcase would be proper, however.) The fact that it may take somewhat more time and effort to serve a person with a disability than another passenger does not justify discriminatory conduct with respect to passengers with disabilities.

State or local governments may run user-side subsidy arrangements for the general public (e.g., taxi voucher systems for senior citizens or low-income persons). Under the DOJ title II rule, these programs would have to meet “program accessibility” requirements, which probably would require that accessible transportation be made available to senior citizens or low-income persons with disabilities. This would not directly require private taxi providers who accept the vouchers to purchase accessible vehicles beyond the requirements of this rule, however.

Section 37.31 Vanpools

This provision applies to public vanpool systems the requirements for public entities operating demand responsive systems for the general public. A public vanpool system is one operated by a public entity, or in which a public entity owns or purchases or leases the vehicles. Lesser degrees of public involvement with an otherwise private ridesharing arrangement (e.g., provision of parking spaces, HOV lanes, coordination or clearinghouse services) do not convert a private into a public system.

The requirement for a public vanpool system is that it purchase or lease an accessible vehicle unless it can demonstrate that it provides equivalent service to individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, as it provides to individuals without disabilities. For a public vanpool system, the equivalency requirement would be met if an accessible vehicle is made available to and used by a vanpool when an individual with a disability needs such a vehicle to participate. Public vanpool systems may meet this requirement through obtaining a percentage of accessible vehicles that is reasonable in light of demand for them by participants, but this is not required, so long as the entity can respond promptly to requests for participation in a vanpool with the provision of an accessible van when needed.

There is no requirement for private vanpools, defined as a voluntary arrangement in which the driver is compensated only for expenses.

Section 37.33 Airport Transportation Systems

Fixed route transportation systems operated by public airports are regarded by this section as fixed route commuter bus systems. As such, shuttles among terminals and parking lots, connector systems among the airport and a limited number of other local destinations must acquire accessible buses, but are not subject to complementary paratransit requirements. (If a public airport operates a demand responsive system for the general public, it would be subject to the rules for demand responsive systems for the general public.)

It should be noted that this section applies only to transportation services that are operated by public airports themselves (or by private contractors who stand in their shoes). When a regular urban mass transit system serves the airport, the airport is simply one portion of its service area, treated for purposes of this rule like the rest of its service area.

Virtually all airports are served by taxi companies, who are subject to § 37.29 at airports as elsewhere. In addition, many airports are served by jitney or shuttle systems. Typically, these systems operate in a route-deviation or similar variable mode in which there are passenger-initiated decisions concerning destinations. We view such systems as demand responsive transportation operated by private entities primarily engaged in the business of transporting people.

Since many of these operators are small businesses, it may be difficult for them to meet equivalency requirements on their own without eventually having all or nearly all accessible vehicles, which could pose economic problems. One suggested solution to this problem is for the operators serving a given airport to form a pool or consortium arrangement, in which a number of shared accessible vehicles would meet the transportations of individuals with disabilities. As in other forms of transportation, such an arrangement would have to provide service in a nondiscriminatory way (e.g., in an integrated setting, no higher fares for accessible service).

Section 37.35 Supplemental Service for Other Transportation Modes

This section applies to a number of situations in which an operator of another transportation mode uses bus or other service to connect its service with limited other points.

One instance is when an intercity railroad route is set up such that the train stops outside the major urban center which is the actual destination for many passengers. Examples mentioned to us include bus service run by Amtrak from a stop in Columbus, Wisconsin, to downtown Madison, or from San Jose to San Francisco. Such service is fixed route, from the train station to a few points in the metropolitan area, with a schedule keyed to the train schedule. It would be regarded as commuter bus service, meaning that accessible vehicles would have to be acquired but complementary paratransit was not required.

Another instance is one in which a commuter rail operator uses fixed route bus service as a dedicated connection to, or extension of, its rail service. The service may go to park and ride lots or other destinations beyond the vicinity of the rail line. Again, this service shares the characteristics of commuter bus service that might be used even if the rail line were not present, and does not attempt to be a comprehensive mass transit bus service for the area.

Of course, there may be instances in which a rail operator uses demand responsive instead of fixed route service for a purpose of this kind. In that case, the demand responsive system requirements of the rule would apply.

Private entities (i.e., those operating places of public accommodation) may operate similar systems, as when a cruise ship operator provides a shuttle or connector between an airport and the dock. This service is covered by the rules governing private entities not primarily engaged in the business of transporting people. Fixed route or demand responsive rules apply, depending on the characteristics of the system involved.

One situation not explicitly covered in this section concerns ad hoc transportation arranged, for instance, by a rail operator when the train does not wind up at its intended destination. For example, an Amtrak train bound for Philadelphia may be halted at Wilmington by a track blockage between the two cities. Usually, the carrier responds by providing bus service to the scheduled destination or to the next point where rail service can resume.

The service that the carrier provides in this situation is essentially a continuation by other means of its primary service. We view the obligation of the rail operator as being to ensure that all passengers, including individuals with disabilities, are provided service to the destination in a nondiscriminatory manner. This includes, for instance, providing service in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the individual and service that gets a passenger with a disability to the destination as soon as other passengers.

Section 37.37 Other Applications

The ADA specifically defines “public entity.” Anything else is a “private entity.” The statute does not include in this definition a private entity that receives a subsidy or franchise from a state or local government or is regulated by a public entity. Only through the definition of “operates” (see discussion of § 37.23) do private entities' relationships to public entities subject private entities to the requirements for public entities. Consequently, in deciding which provisions of the rule to apply to an entity in other than situations covered by § 37.23, the nature of the entity - public or private - is determinative.

Transportation service provided by public accommodations is viewed as being provided by private entities not primarily engaged in the business of transporting people. Either the provisions of this part applicable to demand responsive or fixed route systems apply, depending on the nature of a specific system at a specific location. The distinction between fixed route and demand responsive systems is discussed in connection with the definitions section above. It is the responsibility of each private entity, in the first instance, to assess the nature of each transportation system on a case-by-case basis and determine the applicable rules.

On the other hand, conveyances used for recreational purposes, such as amusement park rides, ski lifts, or historic rail cars or trolleys operated in museum settings, are not viewed as transportation under this rule at all. Other conveyances may fit into this category as well.

The criterion for determining what requirements apply is whether the conveyances are primarily an aspect of the recreational experience itself or a means of getting from Point A to Point B. At a theme park, for instance, a large roller coaster (though a “train” of cars on a track) is a public accommodation not subject to this rule; the tram that transports the paying customers around the park, with a stop at the roller coaster, is a transportation system subject to the “private, not primarily” provisions of this part.

Employer-provided transportation for employees is not covered by this part, but by EEOC rules under title I of the ADA. (Public entities are also subject to DOJ's title II rules with respect to employment.) This exclusion from part 37 applies to transportation services provided by an employer (whether access to motor pool vehicles, parking shuttles, employer-sponsored van pools) that is made available solely to its own employees. If an employer provides service to its own employees and other persons, such as workers of other employers or customers, it would be subject to the requirements of this part from private entities not primarily engaged in the business of transporting people or public entities, as applicable.

The rule looks to the private entity actually providing the transportation service in question in determining whether the “private, primarily” or “private, not primarily” rules apply. For example, Conglomerate, Inc., owns a variety of agribusiness, petrochemical, weapons system production, and fast food corporations. One of its many subsidiaries, Green Tours, Inc., provides charter bus service for people who want to view national parks, old-growth forests, and other environmentally significant places. It is probably impossible to say in what business Conglomerate, Inc. is primarily engaged, but it clearly is not transporting people. Green Tours, Inc., on the other hand, is clearly primarily engaged in the business of transporting people, and the rule treats it as such.

On the other hand, when operating a transportation service off to the side of to the main business of a public accommodation (e.g., a hotel shuttle), the entity as a whole would be considered. Even if some dedicated employees are used to provide the service, shuttles and other systems provided as a means of getting to, from, or around a public accommodation remain solidly in the “private, not primarily” category.

Subpart C - Transportation Facilities Section 37.41 Construction of Transportation Facilities by Public Entities

Section 37.41 contains the general requirement that all new facilities constructed after January 25, 1992, be accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. This provision tracks the statute closely, and is analogous to a provision in the DOJ regulations for private entities. Section 226 of the ADA provides little discretion in this requirement.

The requirement is keyed to construction which “begins” after January 25, 1992. The regulation defines “begin” to mean when a notice to proceed order has been issued. This term has a standard meaning in the construction industry, as an instruction to the contractor to proceed with the work.

Questions have been raised concerning which standards apply before January 26, 1992. There are Federal requirements that apply to all recipients of federal money, depending on the circumstances.

First, if an entity is a Federal recipient and uses Federal dollars to construct the facility, regulations implementing section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), require the recipient to comply with the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards.

Second, since the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-259), an operation of a recipient of federal funds would also have to comply with section 504, even though the activity was not paid for with Federal funds. Thus, the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards would apply to this construction as well.

As mentioned above, the Department intends, in the period before January 26, 1991, to view compliance with section 504 in light of compliance with ADA requirements (this point applies to alterations as well as new construction). Consequently, in reviewing requests for grants, contract approvals, exemptions, etc., (whether with respect to ongoing projects or new, experimental, or one-time efforts), the Department will, as a policy matter, seek to ensure compliance with ADA standards.

Section 37.42

Service in an integrated setting to passengers at intercity, commuter, and high-speed rail station platforms constructed or altered after February 1, 2012.

Individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, must have access to all accessible cars in each train using a new or altered station. This performance standard will apply at stations where construction or alteration of platforms begins 135 days or more after the rule is published. The performance standard does not require rail operators to retrofit existing station platforms or cars. The requirement is prospective, and section 37.42 does not require retrofit of existing stations (though compliance with existing disability nondiscrimination requirements not being altered is still required). To meet this performance standard on lines or systems where track passing through stations and adjacent to platforms is shared with existing freight rail operations, passenger railroads that do not choose to provide level-entry boarding may, after obtaining FRA and/or FTA approval, use car-borne lifts, ramps or other devices, mini-high platforms (making multiple stops where necessary to accommodate passengers wishing to use different cars of the train), or movable station-based lifts.

On commuter, intercity, or high-speed rail lines or systems in which track passing through stations and adjacent to platforms is not shared with existing freight rail operations, the performance standard must be met by providing level-entry boarding to all accessible cars in each train that serves new or altered stations on the line or system. For example, if a new commuter or high-speed rail line or system is being built, and the track adjacent to platforms is not shared with freight traffic (e.g., it is a passenger rail-only system, or a passing or gauntlet track exists for freight traffic), then the stations would have to provide level-entry boarding. Other options would not be permitted.

If a platform being constructed or altered is not adjacent to track used for freight, but the track and platform are used by more than one passenger railroad (e.g., Amtrak and a commuter railroad), the possibility of the platform serving cars with different door heights exists. In this situation, the level-entry boarding requirement continues to exist. Generally, the platform should be level with respect to the system that has the lower boarding height. This is because it is not good safety practice to make passengers step down (or be lifted down or use ramps to get down) to board a train. For example, if Amtrak operates through a station with cars that are 15 inches ATR, and a commuter railroad uses the same platform with cars that are 25 inches ATR, the platform would be level with respect to the Amtrak cars. The commuter railroad would have to provide another means of access, such as lifts. In all such cases where mixed rail equipment will be used, the rule requires that both FRA and FTA be consulted by the railroads involved. As in other cases where level-entry boarding is not used, the railroad must obtain FTA and/or FRA approval for the means the railroad wants to use to meet the performance standard.

The details of the “track passing through stations and adjacent to platforms is shared with existing freight rail operations” language are important. There may be stations that serve lines that are shared, at some points, by passenger and freight traffic, but where the freight traffic does not go through the particular station (e.g., because freight traffic bypasses the station), level-entry boarding is required. There could also be situations on which multiple tracks pass through a station, and freight traffic uses only a center track, not a track which is adjacent to a platform. In such cases, the new or altered platform would have to provide level-entry boarding. It is important to note that this language refers to “existing” freight rail traffic, as opposed to the possibility that freight traffic might use the track in question at some future time. Likewise, if freight trains have not used a track passing through a station in a significant period of time (e.g., the past 10 years), the Department does not view this as constituting “existing freight rail traffic.”

Passenger rail operators must provide access only to accessible, available cars that people with disabilities are trying to access at a given station. If a train has eight accessible cars, and wheelchair users want to enter only cars 2 and 7 (see discussion below of passenger notification), then railroad personnel need to deploy lifts or bridge plates only at cars 2 and 7, not at the other cars. Similarly, the rule requires operators to provide access only to available cars at a station. If a train has eight accessible cars, but the platform only serves cars 1 through 6, then railroad personnel need to deploy lifts or bridge plates only at cars that people with disabilities are trying to access and that are available to all passengers. We would also point out that wheelchair positions on rail passenger cars are intended to serve wheelchair users, and railroad operators should take steps to ensure that these spaces are available for wheelchair users and not for other uses. For example, it would be contrary to the rule for a wheelchair user to be told that he or she could not use car 7 because the wheelchair spaces were filled with other passengers' luggage from a previous stop.

In order to ensure that access was provided, passengers would have to notify railroad personnel. For example, if a passenger at a station wanted to use a station-based lift to access car 6, the passenger would request the use of car 6 and railroad personnel would deploy the lift at that car. Likewise, at a station using a mini-high platform, a passenger on this platform would inform train personnel that he or she wanted to enter car 5, whereupon the train would pull forward so that car 5 was opposite the mini-high platform. We contemplate that these requests would be made when the train arrives, and railroads could not insist on advance notice (e.g., the railroad could not require a passenger to call a certain time in advance to make a “reservation” to use a lift to get on a particular car). As part of its submission to FTA or FRA, the railroad would describe the procedure it would use to receive and fulfill these requests.

Where a railroad operator wishes to provide access to its rail cars through a means other than level-entry boarding, it is essential that it provide an integrated, safe, timely, reliable, and effective means of access for people with disabilities. A railroad is not required to choose what might be regarded as a more desirable or convenient method over a less desirable or convenient method, or to choose a more costly option over a less costly option. What a railroad must do is to ensure that whatever option it chooses works. However, to assist railroads in choosing the most suitable option, the rule requires that a railroad not using level-entry boarding, if it chooses an approach other than the use of car-borne lifts, must perform a comparison of the costs (capital, operating, and life-cycle costs) of car-borne lifts versus the means preferred by the railroad operator, as well as a comparison of the relative ability of each of the two alternatives (i.e., car-borne lifts and the railroad's preferred approach) to provide service to people with disabilities in an integrated, safe, reliable, and timely manner. The railroad must submit this comparison to FTA and FRA at the same time as it submits its plan to FRA and/or FTA, as described below, although the comparison is not part of the basis on which the agencies would determine whether the plan meets the performance standard. The Department believes that, in creating this plan, railroads should consult with interested individuals and groups and should make the plan readily available to the public, including individuals with disabilities.

To ensure that the railroad's chosen option works, the railroad must provide to FRA or FTA (or both), as applicable, a plan explaining how its preferred method will provide the required integrated, safe, reliable, timely and effective means of access for people with disabilities. The plan would have to explain how boarding equipment (e.g., bridge plates, lifts, ramps, or other appropriate devices) and/or platforms will be deployed, maintained, and operated, as well as how personnel will be trained and deployed to ensure that service to individuals with disabilities was provided in an integrated, safe, timely, effective, and reliable manner.

FTA and/or FRA will evaluate the proposed plan with respect to whether it will achieve the objectives of the performance standard and may approve, disapprove, or modify it. It should be emphasized that the purpose of FTA/FRA review of this plan is to make sure that whatever approach a railroad chooses will in fact work; that is, it will really result in an integrated, safe, reliable, timely and effective means of access for people with disabilities. If a plan, in the view of FRA or FTA, fails to meet this test, then FTA or FRA can reject it or require the railroad to modify it to meet the objectives of this provision.

In considering railroads' plans, the agencies will consider factors including, but not limited to, how the proposal maximizes integration of and accessibility to individuals with disabilities, any obstacles to the use of a method that could provide better service to individuals with disabilities, the safety and reliability of the approach and related technology proposed to be used, the suitability of the means proposed to the station and line and/or system on which it would be used, and the adequacy of equipment and maintenance and staff training and deployment.

For example, some commenters have expressed significant concerns about the use of station-based lifts, noting instances in which such lifts have not been maintained in a safe and reliable working order. A railroad proposing to use station-based lifts would have to describe to FTA or FRA how it would ensure that the lifts remained in safe and reliable operating condition (such as by cycling the lift daily or other regular maintenance) and how it would ensure that personnel to operate the lift were available in a timely manner to assist passengers in boarding a train. This demonstration must clearly state how the railroad expects that their operations will provide safe and dignified service to the users of such lifts.

In existing stations where it is possible to provide access to every car without station or rail car retrofits, rail providers that receive DOT financial assistance should be mindful of the requirement of 49 CFR 27.7(b)(2), which requires that service be provided “in the most integrated setting that is reasonably achievable.” For example, if a set of rail cars has car-borne lifts that enable the railroad to comply with section 37.42 at new or altered station platforms, it is likely that deployment of this lift at existing stations will be reasonably achievable. Similarly, it is likely that, in a system using mini-high platforms, making multiple stops at existing stations would be reasonable achievable. The use of a station-based lift at an existing station to serve more than one car of a train may well also be reasonably achievable (e.g., with movement of the lift or multiple stops, as needed). Such actions would serve the objective of providing service in an integrated setting. In addition, in situations where a railroad and the Department have negotiated access to every accessible car in an existing system (e.g., with car-borne lifts and mini-high platforms as a back-up), the Department expects the railroads to continue to provide access to every accessible car for people with disabilities.

Section 37.42(e) provides a safety requirement concerning the setback of structures and obstacles (e.g., mini-high platforms, elevators, escalators, and stairwells) from the platform edge. This provision is based on long-standing FRA recommendations and the expertise of the Department's staff. The Department believes that it is inadvisable, with the exception of boarding and alighting a train, to ever have a wheelchair operate over the two-foot wide tactile strips that are parallel to the edge of the platform. This leaves a four-foot distance for a person in a typical wheelchair to maneuver safely past stair wells, elevator shafts, etc. It also is important because a wheelchair user exiting a train at a door where there is not a six-foot clearance would likely have difficulty exiting and making the turn out of the rail car door. The requirement would also avoid channeling pedestrians through a relatively narrow space where, in crowded platform conditions, there would be an increased chance of someone falling off the edge of the platform. Since the rule concerns only new and altered platforms, the Department does not believe the cost or difficulty of designing the platforms to eliminate this hazard will be significant.

Section 37.42(f) provides the maximum gap allowable for a platform to be considered “level.” However, this maximum is not intended to be the norm for new or altered platforms. The Department expects transportation providers to minimize platform gaps to the greatest extent possible by building stations on tangent track and using gap-filling technologies, such as moveable platform edges, threshold plates, platform end boards, and flexible rubber fingers on the ends of platforms. The Department encourages the use of Gap Management Plans and consultation with FRA and/or FTA for guidance on gap safety issues.

Even where level-entry boarding is provided, it is likely that, in many instances, bridge plates would have to be used to enable passengers with disabilities to enter cars, because of the horizontal gaps involved. Section 38.95(c)(5), referred to in the regulatory text, permits various ramp slopes for bridge plates, depending on the vertical gap in given situation. In order to maximize the opportunity of passengers to board independently, the Department urges railroads to use the least steep ramp slope feasible at a given platform.

Section 37.43 Alteration of Transportation Facilities by Public Entities

This section sets out the accessibility requirements that apply when a public entity undertakes an alteration of an existing facility. In general, the section requires that any alteration, to the maximum extent feasible, results in the altered area being accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including persons who use wheelchairs. The provisions follow closely those adopted by the DOJ, in its regulations implementing title III of the ADA.

The section requires specific activities whenever an alteration of an existing facility is undertaken.

First, if the alteration is made to a primary function area, (or access to an area containing a primary function), the entity shall make the alteration in such a way as to ensure that the path of travel to the altered area and the restrooms, telephones and drinking fountains servicing the altered area are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs.

Second, alterations to drinking fountains, telephones, and restrooms do not have to be completed if the cost and scope of making them accessible is disproportionate.

Third, the requirement goes into effect for alterations begun after January 25, 1992.

Fourth, the term “maximum extent feasible” means that all changes that are possible must be made. The requirement to make changes to the maximum extent feasible derives from clear legislative history. The Senate Report states -

The phrase “to the maximum extent feasible” has been included to allow for the occasional case in which the nature of an existing facility is such as to make it virtually impossible to renovate the building in a manner that results in its being entirely accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. In all such cases, however, the alteration should provide the maximum amount of physical accessibility feasible.

Thus, for example the term “to the maximum extent feasible” should be construed as not requiring entities to make building alterations that have little likelihood of being accomplished without removing or altering a load-bearing structural member unless the load-bearing structural member is otherwise being removed or altered as part of the alteration. (S. Rept. 101-116, at 68).

Fifth, primary function means a major activity for which the facility is intended. Primary function areas include waiting areas, ticket purchase and collection areas, train or bus platforms, baggage checking and return areas, and employment areas (with some exceptions stated in the rule, for areas used by service personnel that are very difficult to access).

Sixth, “path of travel” means a continuous, unobstructed way of pedestrian passage by means of which the altered area may be approached, entered, and exited, and which connects the altered area with an exterior approach and includes restrooms, telephones, and drinking fountains serving the altered area. If changes to the path of travel are disproportionate, then only those changes which are not disproportionate are to be completed.

Seven, the final rule specifies that costs exceeding 20 percent would be disproportionate. This is consistent with the DOJ. In determining costs, the Department intends costs to be based on changes to the passenger service area that is scheduled for alteration.

Finally, the Department has defined the term “begin”, in the context of begin an alteration that is subject to the alteration provision to mean when a notice to proceed or work order is issued. Two terms are used (instead of only notice to proceed in the context of new construction) because many alterations may be carried out by the entity itself, in which case the only triggering event would be a work order or similar authorization to begin.

In looking at facility concepts like “disproportionality” and “to the maximum extent feasible,” the Department will consider any expenses related to accessibility for passengers. It is not relevant to consider non-passenger related improvements (e.g., installing a new track bed) or to permit “gold-plating” (attributing to accessibility costs the expense of non-related improvements, such as charging to accessibility costs the price of a whole new door, when only adding a new handle to the old door was needed for accessibility).

Section 37.47 Key Stations in Light and Rapid Rail Systems Section 37.49 Designation of Responsible Person(s) for Intercity and Commuter Rail Stations

This section sets forth a mechanism for determining who bears the legal and financial responsibility for accessibility modifications to a commuter and/or intercity rail station. The final provision of the section is the most important. It authorizes all concerned parties to come to their own agreement concerning the allocation of responsibility. Such an agreement can allocate responsibility in any way acceptable to the parties. The Department strongly encourages parties to come to such an agreement.

In the absence of such an agreement, a statutory/regulatory scheme allocates responsibility. In the first, and simplest, situation posed by the statute, a single public entity owns more than 50 percent of the station. In this case, the public entity is the responsible person and nobody else is required to bear any of the responsibility.

In the second situation, a private entity owns more than 50 percent of the station. The private entity need not bear any of the responsibility for making the station accessible. A public entity owner of the station, who does not operate passenger railroad service through the station, is not required to bear any of the responsibility for making the station accessible. The total responsibility is divided between passenger railroads operating service through the station, on the basis of respective passenger boardings. If there is only one railroad operating service through the station, it bears the total responsibility.

The Department believes that reference to passenger boardings is the most equitable way of dividing responsibility among railroads, since the number of people drawn to the station by each is likely to reflect “cost causation” quite closely. The Department notes, however, that, as passenger boarding percentages change over time, the portion of responsibility assigned to each party also may change. Station modifications may involve long-term capital investment and planning, while passenger boarding percentages are more volatile. Some railroads may stop serving a station, while others may begin service, during the period of time before modifications to the station are complete. To help accommodate such situations, the rule refers to passenger boardings “over the entire period during which the station is made accessible.”

This language is intended to emphasize that as circumstances change, the parties involved have the responsibility to adjust their arrangements for cost sharing. For example, suppose Railroad A has 30 percent of the passenger boardings in year 1, but by year 10 has 60 percent of the boardings. It would not be fair for Railroad A to pay only 30 percent of the costs of station modifications occurring in later years. Ultimately, the total cost burden for modifying the station over (for example) 20 years would be allocated on the share of the total number or boardings attributable to each railroad over the whole 20 year period, in order to avoid such unfairness.

The third, and most complicated, situation is one in which no party owns 50 percent of the station. For example, consider the following hypothetical situation: