[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-8676]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: April 12, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Justice
Office of the Attorney General
28 CFR Part 36
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
36 CFR Part 1191
Department of Transportation
Office of the Secretary
49 CFR Part 37
_______________________________________________________________________
Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines; Detectable
Warnings; Joint Final Rule
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of the Attorney General
28 CFR Part 36
[A.G. Order No. 1852-94]
ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD
36 CFR Part 1191
[Docket 93-3]
RIN 3014-AA15
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
49 CFR Part 37
Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines;
Detectable Warnings
AGENCIES: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board,
Department of Justice and Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Joint final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
is conducting research during fiscal year 1994 on whether detectable
warnings are needed at curb ramps and hazardous vehicular areas and
their effect on persons with mobility impairments and other
pedestrians. Depending on the results of this research, the Access
Board may conduct additional research during fiscal year 1995 to refine
the scoping provisions and technical specifications for detectable
warnings at these locations. Because of the issues that have been
raised about the use of detectable warnings at curb ramps and curbless
entranceways to retail stores and other places of public accommodation,
the Access Board, the Department of Justice, and the Department of
Transportation are suspending temporarily until July 26, 1996 the
requirements for detectable warnings at curb ramps, hazardous vehicular
areas, and reflecting pools in the Americans With Disabilities Act
Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) so that the agencies can consider the
results of the research and determine whether any changes in the
requirements are warranted.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 12, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Access Board: James J. Raggio, General
Counsel, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board,
1331 F Street NW., suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Telephone
(202) 272-5434 (voice) or (202) 272-5449 (TTY).
Department of Justice: Stewart B. Oneglia, Chief, Coordination and
Review Section, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice, Post
Office Box 66118, Washington, DC 20035. Telephone (202) 307-2222 (voice
or TTY).
Department of Transportation: Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant
General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, Department of
Transportation, 400 7th Street SW., room 10424, Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone (202) 366-9306 (voice) or (202) 755-7687 (TTY).
The telephone numbers listed above are not toll-free numbers.
This document is available in the following alternate formats:
cassette tape, braille, large print, and computer disc. Copies may be
obtained from the Access Board by calling (202) 272-5434 (voice) or
(202) 272-5449 (TTY). The document is also available on electronic
bulletin board from the Department of Justice at (202) 514-6193.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 9, 1993, the Access Board published a notice in the Federal
Register announcing that it planned to conduct research during fiscal
year 1994 on whether detectable warnings are needed at curb ramps and
hazardous vehicular areas and their effect on persons with mobility
impairments and other pedestrians.1 58 FR 37058. On the same day,
the Access Board, the Department of Justice, and the Department of
Transportation (hereinafter referred to as ``the agencies'') published
a joint notice of the proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal
Register to suspend temporarily the requirements for detectable
warnings at curb ramps, hazardous vehicular areas, and reflecting pools
in the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG)
pending the research. 58 FR 37052. In issuing the NPRM, the agencies
noted that blind persons and their organizations had taken differing
positions regarding whether detectable warnings are needed at these
locations; that persons with mobility impairments had expressed concern
that installing detectable warnings on the entire length of curb ramps
would adversely affect their ability to safely negotiate the sloped
surfaces; and that a national association of retail stores had asserted
that installing detectable warnings on curb ramps and curbless
entranceways to the stores would pose a tripping hazard for their
customers. The agencies stated in the NPRM that because of these
potential safety issues they believed that it would be in the public
interest to suspend temporarily the ADAAG requirements for detectable
warnings at the locations noted above until the research provides
additional information to address the issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Detectable warnings are a pattern of closely spaced, small
truncated domes that are built in or applied to a walking surface to
alert persons who are blind or who have low vision of hazards on a
circulation path. 36 CFR Part 1191, Appendix A, Section 4.29.2.
Research has shown that the truncated dome pattern is highly
detectable both by cane and under foot. The truncated dome pattern
has been used as a detectable warning along transit platform edges
for over five years by the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system in
California and by the Metro-Dade Transit Agency in Florida. The
truncated dome pattern has also been used in Great Britain, Japan,
and other countries as a detectable warning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 150 comments were received on the July 9, 1993 NPRM. Another
110 comments concerning detectable warnings were received in response
to a NPRM published by the Access Board in the Federal Register on
December 21, 1992 which proposed to reserve detectable warnings
provisions for curb ramps installed in the public right-of-way by State
and local governments. 58 FR 60612. The comments received in response
to both the July 9, 1993 NPRM and the December 21, 1992 NPRM have been
considered in this rulemaking. The comments came from blind persons and
their organizations (132 comments); State and local government agencies
(54 comments); manufacturers of detectable warnings (14 comments);
professional and trade associations (11 comments); businesses (4
comments); organizations representing persons with mobility impairments
(4 comments); mobility specialists (13 comments); and other individuals
(17 comments) and entities (14 comments). About 25 persons submitted
comments in response to both NPRM's.
The comments centered around three issues: whether detectable
warnings are needed at curb ramps and other locations; their effect on
persons with mobility impairments and other pedestrians; and their
durability, maintainability, and cost. The comments are further
discussed below.
Need for Detectable Warnings at Curb Ramps and Other Locations
The National Federation of the Blind (NFB), ten NFB chapters, and
31 blind individuals submitted comments supporting the proposed
suspension of the ADAAG requirements for detectable warnings at curb
ramps, hazardous vehicular areas, and reflecting pools. NFB further
recommended that detectable warnings be eliminated eventually from
ADAAG, including at transit platform edges. NFB asserted that blind
persons are responsible for using effective travel methods (i.e., cane
or guide dog) and that public policy should be based on an ``individual
responsibility'' standard. NFB pointed out that blind persons move
about safely every day without detectable warnings; and stated that
fears of blind persons falling or being injured are based on emotional
responses and not factual information. NFB claimed that there are
sufficient cues already available in the environment to alert blind
persons of hazards on a circulation path and that if only some hazards
are marked by detectable warnings, the inconsistency is likely to
defeat their intended purpose and could create a threat rather than an
aid to safe mobility for blind persons.
The American Council of the Blind (ACB), 18 ACB chapters, the
Council of Citizens with Low Vision International and two of its
chapters, the Guide Dog Users of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, the
National Alliance of Blind Students, the American Foundation for the
Blind, the Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind
and Visually Impaired, 15 other State and local organizations
representing persons who are blind or who have vision impairments, 49
blind individuals, and eight mobility specialists submitted comments
opposing the suspension. These commenters recounted incidents of blind
persons approaching curb ramps and stepping into the street without
stopping; walking into reflecting pools; and falling from transit
platforms. News articles were submitted reporting the deaths of three
blind persons who fell from subway platforms in Boston and New York and
from a commuter rail platform in Maryland during 1993.\2\ Another news
article reported an incident of a blind person who was severely injured
from falling in front of an oncoming train in Baltimore in December
1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\None of the transit platform edges had detectable warnings
that conform to the ADAAG requirements. The New York subway platform
edge was marked by a yellow stripe and an abrasive material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACB submitted a report of a recent research project which studied
cues used by blind persons to detect streets. Barlow, J. and Bentzen,
B.L., Cues Blind Travelers Use to Detect Streets, Washington, DC:
American Council of the Blind (1993). Eight cities were included in the
research project. In each city, ten blind persons who use canes to
travel approached ten unfamiliar intersections with curb ramps without
detectable warnings. They were asked to stop when they believed their
next step would be into the street and to report the cues which they
used to determine where to stop. Of the 80 blind persons who
participated in the research project, 75% were considered good-to-
excellent travellers by self-report and through assessment by
orientation and mobility specialists; and two-thirds reported
travelling independently a minimum of five times a week.
Of the 800 street approaches, the participants walked down the
center of the curb ramps in 557 instances and stopped before the street
in 360 cases (65%). Of the 22 cues reportedly used to detect the
street, the two most frequently mentioned cues were the downslope of
the ramp and the presence of traffic on the street perpendicular to the
participant's line of travel. Other cues frequently mentioned were the
upslope or texture change at the street, the end of the building line
or shoreline, and the presence of traffic on the street parallel to the
participant's line of travel. The participants stated that they usually
used a combination of cues to identify the street.
In the 197 instances (35%) where the participants walked down the
curb ramp and did not stop before the street:
There was traffic on the street perpendicular to the
participant's line of travel in 116 cases (59%). The traffic was moving
in 75 cases and idling in 41 cases.
The participants took two or more steps into the street in
151 cases (76%).
Although the participants reported the presence of the traffic on
the street perpendicular to their line of travel and the upslope or
texture change at the street as frequently used cues to detect the
street, the research data indicate that these cues are not sufficient
to consistently and dependably identify the street.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\The research project also analyzed participant variables such
as frequency of travel, travel proficiency, cane lengthen in
relation to stride length, cane technique, hearing, and
organizational membership. Travel proficiency and cane technique
were found to be marginally significant factors in detecting the
street. The other factors were not significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The research data suggest that there is a strong relationship
between the slope of the curb ramp and the detection of the street.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\The research data also suggest that there is a strong
relationship between the rate of change in slope between the walkway
leading up to the curb ramp and the ramp itself. The participants
had a greater rate (85%) of detecting the street were the change in
slope was abrupt and a lower rate (57%) where the change in slope
was gradual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where the slope was 6 deg. or more (1:10 or more), the
participants stopped before the street in 172 of 194 instances (89%).
Where the slope was 5 deg. (1:11 to 1:13), the
participants stopped before the street in 31 of 44 instances (70%).
Where the slope was 4 deg. or less (1:14 or less), the
participants stopped before the street in 157 of 319 instances
(49%).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\The ten most difficult streets to detect (i.e., where most
participants stepped into the street without stopping) had a ramp
with a slope of 4 deg. or less and at least one of the following
characteristics: a curb ramp parallel to the participant's line of
travel; a very quiet street or busy street with surges of traffic
and gaps in traffic cues; no building line or a building line that
was different from others on the route; and little or no texture
change or upslope at the street or a change which was considered
gradual. At one blended curb, all ten participants stepped into the
street without stopping and five of them crossed the entire street
without detecting it despite an abrupt end to the shore line, a
surface texture change, and a slight lip where the street pavement
overlapped the sidewalk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report made the following recommendations for additional
research:
[F]uture research could more precisely measure the curb ramps
included in this project, and analyze performance with relationship
to these more accurate measurements. It may be possible that ramps
which have 1:12 slopes facilitate high detection rates, while ramps
of lesser slopes (e.g., 1:15) may be clearly associated with low
detection rates. If ramps of 1:12 facilitate high street detection
rates, then it is possible that the [ADAAG] requirement for
detectable warnings on curb ramps could be limited, e.g., to ramps
having slopes less than 1:12. The requirement that detectable
warnings extend over the entire surface of curb ramps is not
supported by empirical evidence that such an extensive tactile cue
is necessary to alert blind travellers to the end of a curb ramp and
the beginning of a street. It is possible that a lesser amount of
warning (24'' or 36'') may be sufficient. If so, the optimal
placement of the warning still remains to be determined. Suggested
locations are (1) on the lower end of the ramp, immediately
adjoining the street; (2) on the upper end of the ramp; and (3)
around the sides and at the top of the ramp. Dimensions and location
of detectable warnings need further empirical research.
Effect of Detectable Warnings on Persons With Mobility Impairments and
Other Pedestrians
Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association, Paralyzed Veterans of
America, and two State organizations representing persons with mobility
impairments expressed concern that detectable warnings could have an
adverse effect on persons who use wheelchairs and other mobility aids,
especially on sloped surfaces.\6\ They generally supported suspending
the ADAAG requirements for detectable warnings at curb ramps, hazardous
vehicular areas, and reflecting pools while additional research is
conducted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association (EPVA) initially
supported the ADAAG requirements for detectable warnings and
explained that it had changed its position after reviewing the data
from the earlier Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and Metro-Dade
Transit Agency studies. The BART study conducted tests on level
platform surfaces with 24 persons with mobility impairments,
including four manual wheelchair users. Five participants (21%)
responded that the detectable warnings would be helpful; eight (33%)
responded that they were ``not affected''; seven (29%) responded
that they would be ``insignificantly affected''; four (17%)
responded that they would be ``moderately impaired''; and none
responded that they would be ``seriously impaired.'' Three of the
manual wheelchair users responded that they would be
``insignificantly affected'' and the other one responded that he or
she would be ``moderately impaired.'' Peck, A.F. and Bentzen, B.L.,
Tactile Warnings to Promote Safety in the Vicinity of Transit
Platform Edges, Cambridge, MA: Transportation Systems Center (1987).
The Metro-Dade Transit Agency conducted tests with seven wheelchair
users on level platform surfaces. Five of the participants responded
that they were ``not affected'' or ``insignificantly affected.'' The
other two had difficulty with the detectable warnings but their
specific responses are not reported in the study. Mitchell, M.,
Pathfinder Tactile Tile Demonstration Test Project, Miami, FL:
Metro-Dade Transit Agency (1988). Carsonite International, the
manufacturer of the detectable warning materials used in the BART
and Metro-Dade Transit Agency systems, submitted a letter from BART
stating that in over five years experience with detectable warnings
on its rail system, no problems have been observed with wheelchair
users entering or exiting the trains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The International Mass Retail Association, the National Grocers
Association, the Food Marketing Association, the Building Owners and
Managers Association International, a regional commercial real estate
association, 37 State and local government agencies, and four
businesses expressed concern that detectable warnings would pose a
tripping hazard to other pedestrians and supported the suspension.
Commenters who opposed the suspension stated that concerns about the
safety of others are speculative and unsubstantiated. Several
manufacturers commented that there have been no reported incidents of
trips or falls attributable to their products. A bank and a retail
store chain stated that they had installed detectable warnings on curb
ramps at their sites and had received complaints from wheelchair users
and elderly customers. Only one commenter, a local school district,
reported that an adult and some students had tripped while running over
a curb ramp with detectable warnings.
The Federal Transit Administration and Project ACTION of the
National Easter Seal Society have recently sponsored a research project
on detectable warnings which among other things tested detectable
warnings on curb ramps for safety and negotiability by persons with
mobility impairments. Bentzen, B.L., Nolin, T.L., Easton, R.D., and
Desmarais, L., Detectable Warning Surfaces: Detectability by
Individuals with Visual Impairments, and Safety and Negotiability for
Individuals with Physical Impairments, Cambridge, MA: Transportation
Systems Center (1993). The study tested a variety of detectable warning
materials with 40 persons having a wide range of physical disabilities.
The participants included 15 persons who use mobility aids with wheels
(power and manual wheelchairs, and three- and four-wheeled scooters);
18 persons who use mobility aids with tips (canes, crutches and
walkers); and seven persons who do not use any mobility aid. The
participants travelled up and down ramps that were six feet long and
four feet wide with a 1:12 slope, the maximum slope permitted by ADAAG
for new construction. Detectable warnings were installed on the entire
six foot length of the ramps. For comparison, participants also
travelled up and down a brushed concrete ramp of the same dimensions.
Subjective and objective measurements were collected.
Of the 40 participants, the objective data showed that:
14 participants (35%) exhibited no difficulty negotiating
the ramp;
19 participants (47.5%) exhibited few difficulties; and
7 participants (17.5%) exhibited numerous difficulties.
The latter group included four persons who used manual wheelchairs;
two persons who used walkers with wheels (rollators); and one person
who wore leg braces and used a quad cane.
A physical therapist who observed the participants reported that
persons using no mobility aids performed consistently well on all the
ramps with detectable warnings and that even those with protheses or
braces showed good negotiability. Persons using power wheelchairs, and
three- and four-wheeled scooters demonstrated few, if any difficulties,
on any of the ramps with detectable warnings. However, four of the five
manual wheelchair users exhibited numerous difficulties negotiating the
ramps with detectable warnings, including exerting additional effort to
go up the ramps, and the small, narrow front wheels getting caught in
the groves between the domes. Participants using canes, crutches, or
walkers were observed to have the most difficulties on the ramps with
detectable warnings. Mobility aids with small tips (canes or walkers)
appeared to get caught between the domes or lay on an angle between the
grove and the dome, causing the participant to feel less stable.
Participants who used crutches with larger tips appeared more safe and
generally negotiated the ramps with detectable warnings better than
those who used canes or walkers.
The research project report recommended that ``given even the
moderately increased level of difficulty and decrease in safety which
detectable warnings on slopes pose for persons with physical
disabilities, it is desirable to limit the width of detectable warnings
to no more than that required to provide an effective warning for
persons with visual impairments.'' The report suggested that a standard
width of 24, 30 or 36 inches be established for detectable warning
surfaces and indicated that such widths would provide an effective
stopping distance for 90 to 95% of blind persons and persons with low
vision.
Durability, Maintainability, and Cost
Many of the commenters who supported suspending the ADAAG
requirements for detectable warnings at curb ramps, hazardous vehicular
areas, and reflecting pools also expressed concern about the durability
and maintainability of detectable warning materials, especially under
certain climatic conditions (e.g., snow and ice, and the need for snow
and ice removal).
One commenter stated that a member of the ANSI A117 Committee
recently visited the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system and observed
a 50 to 60% ``failure rate'' with the corners of the detectable warning
titles ``turning up and creating tripping hazards.'' The commenter also
cited a magazine article on the use of detectable warnings in Japan as
evidence that they are prone to breakage and deterioration.
Manufacturers of various detectable warning materials responded
with information about their products. Carsonite International, the
manufacturer of the detectable warning materials used in the BART
system, stated that in its ten years of experience, it is rare that the
product or the adhesive fails. Where loosening or delamination has
occurred, it was due to a failure to properly prepare the substrate.
Carsonite International also submitted a letter from BART stating that
annual costs for maintaining the detectable warnings at its 34 stations
are $10,800 for materials and 8,160 hours of labor.
Another detectable warning manufacturer stated that its product has
been in use for the past two winters in the Boston area and that there
have been no notable difficulties with snow and ice removal. The
commenter also mentioned sites in Ontario, Canada where detectable
warnings have been installed and have performed well under tough winter
conditions. Other commenters who opposed the suspension noted that
there were snow and ice removal techniques that could be used with
detectable warnings without adversely affecting the efficiency of the
overall snow removal operation such as hot-air blowers, stiff brooms,
and de-icing materials.
A few commenters who supported the suspension objected to the cost
of detectable warnings but did not provide any specific data. There are
currently a variety of detectable warning products on the market,
including ceramic, hard composite, and resilient tiles; cast pavers;
pre-cast concrete and concrete stamping systems; stamped metal; rubber
mats; and resilient coatings. The costs of these products range from
three to twenty dollars per square foot. One commenter mentioned that a
university had installed detectable warnings on 25 to 30 new curb ramps
on its campus at an added cost of $5,000 for the entire project.
Other Issues
The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)
submitted comments on the July 9, 1993 NPRM stating that based on a
comparison of trackbed falling accidents for the WMATA and BART
systems, it believed that the granite edges on its platforms are
superior to truncated domes. Based on this analysis, WMATA requested
that the ADAAG requirements for detectable warnings be changed from
truncated domes to granite edges. The truncated dome pattern was
adopted in ADAAG because research has shown that it is highly
detectable both by cane and underfoot. WMATA did not submit any
information showing that its granite edge is equally detectable both by
cane and underfoot. As WMATA noted in its comments, the number of
trackbed falling accidents involving blind persons and persons with low
vision are relatively small in comparison to the millions of passenger
miles traveled annually on our nation's rail systems to do any
statistically meaningful analysis.
WMATA also recommended that research be conducted on the safety of
the truncated dome pattern for other passengers and that the ADAAG
requirements for detectable warnings in key stations and in newly
constructed and altered rail stations be suspended indefinitely. The
truncated dome pattern has been used as a detectable warning on the
platform edges of all rail stations in the BART and Metro-Dade Transit
Agency systems for over five years and no safety problems have been
reported by persons with mobility impairments or other passengers. The
Access Board is conducting additional research because questions have
been raised whether experience from the rail station environment is
transferable to sloped curb ramps and curbless entranceways to retail
stores. Additional research on the use of the truncated dome pattern in
rail stations is not necessary.
The New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) referenced a
NPRM published by the Department of Transportation on November 17, 1992
(57 FR 54210) which proposed to extend the deadline for retrofitting
key rail stations with detectable warnings until January 26, 1995. MTA
and SEPTA stated that they did not believe that the proposed extension
provided sufficient time for them to complete testing products and to
purchase and install the detectable warnings. MTA and SEPTA requested
that the deadline for retrofitting key rail stations with detectable
warnings be delayed until the Access Board's research on use of
detectable warnings on curb ramps and hazardous vehicular areas is
completed.
The Department of Transportation published a final rule on November
30, 1993 (58 FR 63092) extending the deadline for retrofitting key rail
stations with detectable warnings until July 26, 1994. In the final
rule, the Department of Transportation stated that ``[t]he drop-offs at
the edges of rail station platforms create a clear, documented, and
unacceptable hazard to persons with visual impairments'' and that
detectable warnings as specified in ADAAG will mitigate this hazard.
The Department of Transportation noted that many rail systems have been
working with detectable warning manufacturers to address concerns about
durability and maintainability and that the extension provided for in
the final rule was adequate to permit an aggressive effort by rail
systems to address concerns about installation.
The American Public Transit Association (APTA) submitted a comment
stating that, if as a result of the additional research conducted by
the Access Board on the use of detectable warnings at curb ramps and
hazardous vehicular areas, the technical specifications for detectable
warnings should be changed, rail systems could be placed in a position
of installing material which could be found to be unsafe in other
applications, and having to replace the material later. If the research
shows that detectable warnings are needed at curb ramps and hazardous
vehicular areas, it is possible that some refinements may be made to
the scoping provisions and technical specification for detectable
warnings (e.g., the location and width of detectable warnings for curb
ramps; the types of hazardous vehicular areas where detectable warnings
will be required). However, substantial change to the basic pattern of
raised truncated domes is not anticipated. The Department of
Transportation has indicated in its final rule extending the deadline
for retrofitting key rail stations with detectable warnings that if the
technical specifications for detectable warnings change in the future,
the grandfathering provision in its regulations (49 CFR 37.9) could
apply in appropriate situations to avoid making rail systems reinstall
detectable warnings meeting the revised specifications.
Final Common Rule
This rulemaking raises some difficult issues. It involves making
decisions about the safety needs of blind persons and persons with low
vision and considering their needs in light of the concerns expressed
by persons with mobility impairments and other commenters. The task is
all the more complicated by the fact that blind persons and their
organizations have taken differing positions on the matter.
After carefully reviewing the comments received on the July 9, 1993
and December 21, 1992 NPRM's and the reports of the two recent research
projects discussed above, the agencies believe that it is in the public
interest to suspend temporarily the ADAAG requirements for detectable
warnings at curb ramps, hazardous vehicular areas, and reflecting pools
while additional research is conducted on the need for detectable
warnings at these locations and their effect on persons with mobility
impairments and other pedestrians.
The July 9, 1993 NPRM proposed that the suspension remain in effect
until January 26, 1995. This date was first proposed by the Access
Board in November 1992. At the time, the Access Board envisioned that
the additional research would be completed in fiscal year 1994 and that
the agencies would have an opportunity to review the results of the
research and, if necessary, initiate further rulemaking on detectable
warnings before January 26, 1995. In subsequent planning for the
research project, the Access Board has divided the project into two
phases. The first phase, which is scheduled for completion in fiscal
year 1994, will focus on whether detectable warnings are needed at curb
ramps and hazardous vehicular areas and their effect on persons with
mobility impairments and other pedestrians. Depending on the results of
the first phase, an optional second phase may be conducted during
fiscal year 1995 to refine the scoping provisions and technical
specifications for detectable warnings at these locations. If the
second phase of the research project is conducted, the agencies will
conduct further rulemaking to amend the scoping provisions and
technical specifications based upon the recommendations of the research
project. Allowing nine months for the rulemaking process from the end
of fiscal year 1995, the joint final rule provides for the suspension
to remain in effect until July 26, 1996. Of course, depending on the
results of the first phase of the research project, the agencies could
decide to conduct further rulemaking earlier. The July 26, 1996 date is
the outside period by which the agencies expect to complete all
rulemaking on this matter.
Several commenters requested that the agencies provide guidance in
this rulemaking on whether entities may be required to retrofit
existing curb ramps, hazardous vehicular areas, and reflecting pools
with detectable warnings at a future date under the program
accessibility requirements for State and local governments (28 CFR
35.150) and the readily achievable barrier removal requirements for
public accommodations (28 CFR 36.304). At this time, it is premature to
provide such guidance. The agencies will further address these
questions after the research project is completed and further
rulemaking on the matter is conducted.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
The agencies have independently determined that this final rule is
not a significant regulatory action and that a regulatory assessment is
not required under Executive Order 12866. It is a significant rule
under the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and
Procedures since it amends the agency's ADA regulations, which are a
significant rule. The Department of Transportation expects the economic
impacts to be minimal and has not prepared a full regulatory
evaluation.
The agencies hereby independently certify that this proposed rule
is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required.
The agencies have also independently determined that there are no
Federalism impacts sufficient to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism assessment under Executive Order 12612.
Text of Final Common Rule
The text of the final common rule appears below.
Sec. ____ Temporary suspension of certain detectable warning
requirements.
The requirements contained in sections 4.7.7, 4.29.5, and 4.29.6 of
Appendix A to this part are suspended temporarily until July 26, 1996.
Adoption of Final Common Rule
The agency specific proposals to adopt the final common rule, which
appears at the end of the common preamble, are set forth below.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of the Attorney General
28 CFR Part 36
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 36
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcoholism, Buildings and
facilities, Business and industry, Civil rights, Consumer protection,
Drug abuse, Historic preservation, Individuals with disabilities,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority and Issuance
By the authority vested in me as Attorney General by 28 U.S.C. 509,
510; 5 U.S.C. 301; and 42 U.S.C. 12186(b), and for the reasons set
forth in the common preamble, part 36 of chapter I of title 28 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 36--NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY BY PUBLIC
ACCOMMODATIONS AND IN COMMERCIAL FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 36 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 42 U.S.C. 12186(b).
2. Section 36.407 is added to read as set forth at the end of the
common preamble.
Dated: February 23, 1994.
Janet Reno,
Attorney General.
ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD
36 CFR Part 1191
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 1191
Buildings and facilities, Civil rights, Individuals with
disabilities.
Authority and Issuance
For the reasons set forth in the common preamble, part 1191 of
title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 1191--AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) ACCESSIBILITY
GUIDELINES FOR BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for 36 CFR part 1191 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
12204).
2. Section 1191.2 is added to read as set forth at the end of the
common preamble.
Authorized by vote of the Access Board on November 10, 1993.
Judith E. Heumann,
Chairperson, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
49 CFR Part 37
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 37
Buildings and facilities, Buses, Civil rights, Individuals with
disabilities, Mass transportation, Railroads, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Authority and Issuance
For the reasons set forth in the common preamble, part 37 of title
49 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 37--TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
(ADA)
1. The authority citation for 49 CFR part 37 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
12101-12213); 49 U.S.C. 322.
2. Section 37.15 is added to read as set forth at the end of the
common preamble.
Dated: April 6, 1994.
Federico Pena,
Secretary of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 94-8676 Filed 4-11-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-P; 8150-01-P; 4910-62-P
