[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 14, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 90600-90629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28867]



[[Page 90599]]

Vol. 81

Wednesday,

No. 240

December 14, 2016

Part IV





 Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board





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





 36 CFR Part 1192





 Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for 
Transportation Vehicles; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2016 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 90600]]


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

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

36 CFR Part 1192

[Docket No. ATBCB 2010-0004]
RIN 3014-AA38


Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines 
for Transportation Vehicles

AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board 
(Access Board or Board) is issuing a final rule that revises its 
existing accessibility guidelines for non-rail vehicles--namely, buses, 
over-the-road buses, and vans--acquired or remanufactured by entities 
covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The revised guidelines 
ensure that such vehicles are readily accessible to, and usable by, 
individuals with disabilities. The U.S. Department of Transportation 
(DOT) is required to revise its accessibility standards for 
transportation vehicles acquired or remanufactured by entities covered 
by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to be consistent with the 
final rule.

DATES: The final rule is effective January 13, 2017. Compliance with 
the final rule is not required until DOT revises its accessibility 
standards for buses, over-the-road buses, and vans acquired or 
remanufactured by entities covered by the ADA to be consistent with the 
final rule.
    The incorporation by reference of one publication listed in the 
final rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of 
January 13, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Windley, U.S. Access Board, 1331 
F Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Telephone numbers: 
202-272-0025 (voice) or 202-272-0028 (TTY). Email address: 
board.gov">Windley@access-board.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary

Purpose and Legal Authority

    The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) charges the Access Board 
with responsibility for the development of minimum guidelines aimed at 
ensuring the accessibility and usability of transportation vehicles, 
including buses, over-the-road buses (OTRBs), and vans. See 29 U.S.C. 
42 U.S.C. 12204, 12149(b); see also 792(b)(3)(B) & (b)(10) (authorizing 
Access Board to ``establish and maintain'' minimum guidelines for 
standards issued pursuant to titles II and III of the ADA). These 
guidelines, once adopted by DOT, become enforceable standards. In 1991, 
the Access Board issued accessibility guidelines for ADA-covered 
transportation vehicles (including buses, vans, and fixed guideway 
systems), and amended these guidelines in 1998 to include accessibility 
requirements for OTRBs.\1\ Given the passage of nearly two decades, the 
existing guidelines are in need of a ``refresh'' for two primary 
reasons: To incorporate new accessibility-related technologies, such as 
automated announcement systems and level boarding bus systems, and to 
ensure that the agency's transportation vehicle guidelines remain 
consistent with its other regulations that have been issued since 1998. 
See, e.g., Americans with Disabilities Act and Architectural Barriers 
Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines), 36 
CFR part 1191, apps. A-D. The final rule modifies only the existing 
guidelines for buses, vans, and OTRBs; the current guidelines for 
transportation vehicles operated in fixed guideway systems (e.g., rapid 
rail, light rail, commuter rail, and intercity rail) will be updated in 
a future rulemaking. Compliance with the final rule is not required 
until DOT adopts these revised guidelines as enforceable accessibility 
standards for ADA-covered buses, OTRBs, and vans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Over-the-road buses are buses characterized by an elevated 
passenger deck located over a baggage compartment. 49 CFR 37.3. 
Outside the context of the ADA and this regulation, over-the-road 
buses are also commonly referred to as ``motor coaches.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this preamble, the Access Board's current accessibility 
requirements set forth in 36 CFR part 1192 for buses, OTRBs, and vans 
covered by the ADA are collectively referred to as the ``existing 
guidelines.'' The accessibility guidelines established in this final 
rule for ADA-covered buses, OTRBs, and vans are collectively referred 
to as the ``2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines.'' Unless otherwise noted, 
citations in this preamble to particular sections or subsections refer 
to provisions in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines.

Summary of Significant Changes

    The 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines are intended to revise and 
update the Access Board's existing guidelines that provide scoping and 
technical requirements to ensure that ADA-covered buses, OTRBs, and 
vans are accessible to, and usable by, passengers with disabilities. 
Some of the key changes reflected in the final rule (relative to the 
existing guidelines) include:
     New Organization and Format: The 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle 
Guidelines use a new organizational approach that is modelled after the 
Access Board's accessibility guidelines for buildings and facilities in 
36 CFR part 1191. The new format organizes the revised scoping and 
technical guidelines for buses, OTRBs, and vans, into seven chapters, 
all of which are contained in a new appendix to 36 CFR part 1192. Most 
of the revisions in the final rule are editorial only, and restate 
current requirements in plain terms that are clear and easier to 
understand.
     Consistent Application of Accessibility Requirements 
across Different Types of Non-Rail Vehicles: Unlike the vehicle-by-
vehicle approach used in the existing guidelines, the 2016 Non-Rail 
Vehicle Guidelines establish accessibility requirements that, with some 
exceptions, apply across all covered non-rail vehicles (i.e., buses, 
OTRBs, and vans), so that accessibility requirements between different 
types of vehicles are generally similar. The aim is to make these 
guidelines easier to understand and apply, particularly for regulated 
parties--such as public transit agencies--that frequently operate 
different types of non-rail vehicles.
     New Requirement for Automated Announcement Systems on 
Large Fixed Route Buses Operated by Large Transit Entities: Large 
transit entities are required under the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle 
Guidelines to provide automated stop and route announcement systems on 
all large vehicles operating in fixed route bus service that stop at 
multiple designated stops. Automated announcement systems must have 
both audible and visible components. For purposes of this requirement, 
a ``large transit entity'' is defined as a provider of public 
transportation that operates 100 or more buses in annual maximum 
service for all fixed route bus modes collectively based on required 
annual data reported to the National Transportation Database, which is 
maintained by the Federal Transit Administration.
     Revised Requirements for Maximum Running Slope of Ramps: 
The 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines revise and simplify the existing 
guidelines regarding running slope for ramps in non-rail vehicles. The 
existing guidelines specify a range of maximum running slopes for 
vehicle ramps depending on nature of deployment (e.g., deployment to 
sidewalk or

[[Page 90601]]

roadway), with 1:4 being the steepest permitted maximum running slope 
for ramps deployed to the roadway. However, years of field experience 
and research studies have shown that 1:4 ramps are difficult to use and 
have resulted in safety concerns for many transit operators and 
passengers who use wheeled mobility devices. Newer vehicle and ramp 
designs now make deployment of ramps with lesser slopes feasible. 
Accordingly, the final rule specifies a maximum running slope of 1:6 
for ramps deployed to roadways or curb-height bus stops, and 1:8 for 
ramps deployed to boarding platforms in level boarding bus systems.
     New Accessibility Requirements for OTRBs: Under the 2016 
Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines, OTRBs operating in fixed route service 
will be newly required to satisfy the following accessibility 
requirements: Signs for accessible seating and doorways; public address 
systems; stop request systems; and provision of exterior destination or 
route signs on the front and boarding sides of vehicles, when exterior 
signage is provided. These requirements are new only as applied to 
OTRBs; buses and vans have been covered by similar requirements since 
1991.
     Other Revisions to Reflect Changes in Technologies and 
Standards: The 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines also reflect other 
changes, such as establishing accessibility requirements for level 
boarding bus systems and incorporating updated standards for wheelchair 
securement systems, which did not exist when the existing guidelines 
were issued.
    Discussion of the bases for the key changes embodied in the 2016 
Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines, as well as proposed changes that were not 
carried forward to the final rule, is provided in this preamble.

Costs and Benefits

    Consistent with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the Access Board 
prepared a final regulatory assessment (Final RA) to assess the likely 
costs and benefits of new or revised accessibility requirements in the 
2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines that are expected have an incremental 
cost impact relative to its existing guidelines. The results of the 
Final RA show that, over the studied 12-year regulatory timeframe, 
annualized costs for the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines are expected 
to range from $2.3 million to $8.0 million, depending on the cost 
scenario and discount rate. Presented below are estimated annualized 
costs for the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines under each of the three 
cost scenarios (i.e., low, primary, and high) studied in the Final RA, 
using 3% and 7% discount rates:

 Table 1--Annualized Cost of New or Revised Accessibility Guidelines in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines for
                                  Buses, OTRBs, and Vans, All Regulatory Years
                                           [3% and 7% discount rates]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Low scenario     Primary scenario    High scenario
                     Discount rate                          ($millions)        ($millions)        ($millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3%.....................................................               $2.6               $5.0               $8.0
7%.....................................................                2.3                4.5                7.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Final RA also assesses the economic impact of the 2016 Non-Rail 
Vehicle Guidelines from several other cost perspectives, including the 
cost to large transit entities of complying with the new automated 
announcement systems requirement, and the costs of the new 
accessibility requirements for OTRBs. In order to present a more 
refined evaluation of estimated costs to large transit entities of the 
automated announcement systems requirement, the Final RA models costs 
using three prototypical size-based categories--which are denominated 
Tiers I, II and III--that are intended to be representative of the 
range of fixed route bus fleets operated by such entities. Tier I 
models costs for a large transit entity that is on the ``smaller'' end 
of the size spectrum (e.g., 130 buses operating in annual maximum fixed 
route service), while Tier III reflects a large transit entity on the 
``larger'' end of the size spectrum (e.g., 530 buses operating in 
annual maximum fixed route service). Based on these tiers, the Final RA 
estimates that per-agency annualized costs for the automated 
announcement system requirement will range from about $44,000 (for a 
Tier I agency under the low scenario) to about $430,000 (for a Tier III 
agency under the high scenario). Under the primary scenario, which 
models what are considered to be the most likely set of cost 
assumptions, the Final RA estimates that per-agency costs for automated 
announcement systems will be as follows for each respective tier: Tier 
I--$80,659; Tier II--$154,985; and, Tier III--$264,968.
    Additionally, in terms of accessibility requirements that are newly 
applicable to OTRBs, the Final RA shows that the cost impact of these 
requirements is expected to be relatively modest. Annualized costs per 
vehicle are expected to range from $631 (low scenario) to $1,513 (high 
scenario) at a 7% discount rate. In light of this modest cost profile, 
the Final RA's small business analysis finds that, while the 2016 Non-
Rail Vehicle Guidelines will undoubtedly affect a substantial number of 
``small business''-sized OTRB firms (in light of small firms' 
predominance in the relevant transportation, charter, and sightseeing 
industry sectors), its economic impact is not expected to be 
significant or disproportionate relative to other, larger OTRB firms.
    Benefits of the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines, as discussed in 
the Final RA, are particularly challenging to quantify or monetize due 
to a variety of considerations, including insufficient data, 
methodological constraints, and inherent difficulties in evaluating 
civil rights-based regulatory provisions that promote important 
societal values such as equity, fairness, and independence. 
Consequently, benefits attributable to new and revised requirements in 
the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines--which are expected to be 
significant--are described from a qualitative perspective.
    The Final RA discusses how the new and revised provisions in the 
2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines are expected to directly benefit a 
significant number of Americans with disabilities by ensuring that 
transit buses and OTRBs are accessible and usable. By addressing 
communication barriers (and, to a lesser extent, access barriers) 
encountered on such vehicles by persons with vision, hearing, mobility, 
and cognitive impairments, the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines will 
better enable persons with disabilities to use these modes of 
transportation to work, pursue an education, access health care, 
worship, shop, or participate in recreational activities. Other 
individuals and entities, such as transit agencies, are also expected 
to benefit from the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines through, for 
example, improved customer

[[Page 90602]]

satisfaction attributable to automated announcement systems.

II. Rulemaking History

    The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires the Access Board 
to issue guidelines for transportation vehicles--including buses, 
OTRBs, and vans--to ensure that new, used and remanufactured vehicles 
are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. 
See 42 U.S.C. 12204. These guidelines serve as the baseline for 
enforceable accessibility standards issued by DOT for ADA-covered 
transportation vehicles. 42 U.S.C. 12204.
    The Access Board first issued transportation vehicle accessibility 
guidelines in September 1991. See 56 FR 45530 (Sept. 6, 1991) (codified 
at 36 CFR pt. 1192, subpts. A-F). These guidelines establish 
accessibility requirements for new, used or remanufactured 
transportation vehicles--which included buses, vans, and rail vehicles 
operated in fixed guideway systems, but excluded OTRBs--covered by the 
ADA. These accessibility requirements relate to, among other things, 
ramps and lifts, onboard circulation, wheelchair spaces and securement 
devices, priority seats, stop request systems, and exterior route or 
destination signs. Id. With respect to announcement systems, these 
guidelines require large buses operating in fixed route service to be 
equipped with public address systems that permit announcement of stops 
or other passenger information. See 36 CFR 1192.35. The same day, DOT 
adopted the Access Board's guidelines as enforceable accessibility 
standards for transportation vehicles covered by the ADA. See 56 FR 
45584 (Sept. 6, 1991) (codified at 49 CFR pt. 37).
    In 1998, the Access Board and DOT issued a joint final rule 
amending their respective existing transportation vehicle guidelines 
and standards to include accessibility requirements for OTRBs. See 63 
FR 51694 (Sept. 28, 1998) (codified at 36 CFR pt. 1192, subpt. G & 49 
CFR pt. 38, subpt. H). While many of the accessibility requirements for 
OTRBs in the 1998 amendments were the same as those applicable to buses 
and vans, they were not identical. OTRBs, for example, were not 
required to provide public address systems, stop request systems, or 
exterior signage identifying destinations or routes.
    Other than these 1998 amendments, the Access Board's vehicle 
guidelines have not been modified since their initial issuance in 1991. 
Since that time, new or updated technologies (such as low floor buses, 
intelligent transportation systems, and automated announcement 
systems), transit system designs (such as bus rapid transit and level 
boarding bus systems), and accessibility standards have emerged. Such 
changes led the Access Board to begin informal efforts to update its 
existing transportation vehicle guidelines.
    First, in April 2007, the Board published draft revisions to the 
existing guidelines that proposed changes to accessibility requirements 
for buses and vans. See Availability of Draft Revisions to Guidelines, 
72 FR 18179 (April 11, 2007); U.S. Access Board, Draft Revisions to the 
ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buses and Vans (2007) (available on 
the Access Board Web site) [hereafter, ``2007 Draft Revised 
Guidelines''].\2\ Among other things, the 2007 Draft Revised Guidelines 
proposed that large buses used in multiple-stop, fixed route service be 
required to have automated stop and route announcement systems. This 
proposed requirement applied to all transit agencies operating fixed 
route buses regardless of their location or size of bus fleet. The 2007 
draft also proposed to decrease the maximum running slope of vehicle 
ramps to 1:8 (as compared to the existing guidelines, which specify a 
range of ramp slopes from 1:4 to 1:12, depending on deployment), 
require additional maneuvering clearance where a wheelchair space is 
confined on three sides, and require a 36-inch wide onboard circulation 
path from accessible doorways to wheelchair spaces (as compared to the 
existing guidelines, which require ``sufficient clearance'' for 
passengers who use wheelchairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The 2007 Notice of Availability published in the Federal 
Register provided only notice that the Access Board's draft revised 
guidelines had been made available for public review and comment. 
The actual text of the draft revised guidelines was posted on the 
Access Board's Web site. See U.S. Access Board, [2007] Draft 
Revisions to the ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buses and Vans, 
https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/transportation/vehicles/update-of-the-guidelines-for-transportation-vehicles/draft-update/text-of-draft-revised-guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following year, in November 2008, the Board published a notice 
of availability for a second set of draft revised guidelines for public 
review and comment. See Availability of Draft Revisions to Guidelines, 
73 FR 69592 (Nov. 19, 2008); U.S. Access Board, Revised Draft of 
Accessibility Guidelines for Buses and Vans (2008) (available on the 
Access Board Web site) [hereafter, ``2008 Draft Revised 
Guidelines''].\3\ Among other things, the 2008 Draft Revised Guidelines 
reflected a significantly revamped format and organization more akin to 
the Board's then-recent revisions to its revised ADA and ABA 
Accessibility Guidelines, rather than a ``conventional'' regulatory 
format. Id. at 69592. The 2008 Draft Revised Guidelines also 
incorporated changes in several proposed accessibility requirements in 
response to comments. Specifically, application of the automated 
announcement systems requirement was narrowed by proposing that only 
large transit agencies operating 100 or more buses in annual maximum 
service (referred to as ``VOMS'') be required to deploy automated 
announcement systems on their large, fixed-route buses. This 100-bus 
VOMS threshold was added at the behest of commenters, including the 
American Public Transportation Association (APTA), who urged the Access 
Board to add a ``small fleet exemption'' to the automated announcement 
system requirement. Additional proposed changes in the 2008 Draft 
Revised Guidelines included: Increasing the maximum running slope for 
ramps and bridgeplates to 1:6 when deployed to the roadway; decreasing 
the proposed maneuvering clearances for wheelchair spaces; and, 
decreasing the proposed minimum clear width for circulation paths to 34 
inches. Additionally, the 2008 Draft Revised Guidelines included 
proposed accessibility requirements for OTRBs and level boarding bus 
systems, which the 2007 draft revised guidelines had not addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As with the draft revised guidelines issued one year 
earlier, the 2008 Notice of Availability published in the Federal 
Register provided notice only that the Access Board's draft revised 
guidelines were available for public review and comment. The actual 
text of the draft revised guidelines was posted on the Access 
Board's Web site. See U.S. Access Board, [2008] Revised Draft of 
Updated Guidelines for Buses and Vans, https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/transportation/vehicles/update-of-the-guidelines-for-transportation-vehicles/revised-draft-of-updated-guidelines-for-buses-and-vans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In July 2010, the Access Board formally commenced the rulemaking 
process by issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking to update the 
existing guidelines for buses, OTRBs, and vans. See Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking--Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines 
for Transportation Vehicles, 75 FR 43748 (July 26, 2010) (hereafter, 
``2010 NPRM''). Aside from minor editorial changes, the proposed rule 
was substantively similar to the draft revised guidelines issued two 
years earlier. In particular, based on strong support from

[[Page 90603]]

commenters to the 2008 Draft Revised Guidelines, the automated 
announcement systems requirement (including a VOMS 100 threshold for 
large transit agencies) and the 1:6 maximum ramp slope requirement were 
carried forward to the proposed rule. To augment the written notice-
and-comment process, the Board also held public hearings on the 
proposed rule in Chicago, IL and Washington, DC.
    After the close of the comment period on the 2010 NPRM, the Access 
Board received reports from transit operators and a transportation 
consultant that some passengers who use wheelchairs were experiencing 
problems with new ramps that had been designed to meet the proposed 1:6 
maximum running slope for ramps when deployed to the roadway. 
Accordingly, the Board reopened the comment period on the proposed rule 
and held two on-the-record public meetings to gather additional 
information on the feasibility and safety of the new ramp designs. See 
Notice of Public Information Meeting and Reopening of Comment Period, 
77 FR 50068 (Aug. 20, 2012).

III. Major Issues

Automated Announcement Systems

    The Access Board's existing guidelines require large buses (i.e., 
more than 22 feet in length) operating in fixed route service to be 
equipped with onboard public address systems to announce stops and 
other passenger information. See 36 CFR 1192.35. Current DOT 
regulations, in turn, specify the requisite characteristics of stop and 
route announcements; however, there is no requirement that such 
announcements be provided through automated messages, as opposed to 
vehicle operators. See 49 CFR 37.167(b) & (c). Transit agency 
announcement programs that primarily rely on operator-based 
announcements have proven to be problematic. Compliance reviews 
conducted by DOT, as well as multiple Federal lawsuits, have shown 
that, in vehicle-operator-based announcement programs, compliance with 
the existing regulatory standards is rarely above 50% of requisite stop 
or route announcements. See Final RA, Section 3.2 (summarizing results 
of DOT compliance reviews of transit agency announcement programs and 
Federal lawsuits raising ADA challenges to vehicle operator-based 
announcement programs). Consequently, despite the promulgation of the 
existing announcement requirement more than two decades ago, transit 
users with disabilities, along with transportation researchers, 
continue to identify inadequate stop and route announcements as 
significant impediments to the use of public bus transportation by 
persons with disabilities.
    Since the early 2000s, deployment of various advanced technologies 
in transportation--commonly referred to as ``intelligent transportation 
systems'' (ITS)--has grown substantially. For public transit systems, 
ITS deployments generally include a ``core'' set of applications for 
Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) and Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) that 
facilitate management of fleet operations by providing real-time 
information on vehicle location. Additional functionalities, such as 
automated announcement systems, are also becoming increasingly common. 
Automated announcement systems help ensure that required stop and route 
announcements are made, and made consistently and clearly. Automated 
announcement systems also lessen the need to rely on operators of non-
rail vehicles for compliance, and, thereby, allow operators to pay more 
focused attention on driving or other operational tasks.
    Both ITS/AVL deployments generally, and deployments that include 
automated announcement systems, have exhibited tremendous growth in 
recent years. For example, as of 2013, DOT annual statistics tracking 
ITS deployments show that nearly 90% of fixed route buses are now 
equipped with AVL, which represents a 177% increase in AVL deployments 
since 2000.\4\ Moreover, according to the annual Public Transportation 
Vehicle Database maintained by the American Public Transportation 
Association (APTA), the number of fixed route buses in the United 
States that provide automated announcements has increased from 10% in 
2001 to 69% in 2015.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ DOT, Deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems: A 
Summary of the 2013 National Survey Results xiv, 26-27 (Aug. 2014).
    \5\ Historical data on automated stop announcement system 
deployments are based on the Appendix to APTA's 2015 Public 
Transportation Fact Book, which provides data on vehicle amenities 
by mode of travel from 2001 through 2014. See 2015 Public 
Transportation Fact Book, Appendix A: Historical Tables, Table 30 
(June 2015), available at: https://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/FactBook/2015-APTA-Fact-Book-Appendix-A.pdf. 
Data on automated atop announcement system deployments in 2015 are 
derived from a sample of vehicle amenity data in the 2015 APTA 
Public Transportation Database, which is available for purchase from 
APTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2010 NPRM, as did the 2008 Draft Revised Guidelines, proposed 
that public entities operating 100 or more buses in annual maximum 
fixed route service (as reported in the National Transit Database) must 
provide automated stop and route announcement systems on their large 
buses that operate in fixed route service and stop at multiple 
designated stops. Automated announcement systems, as proposed, must 
have both audible and visible components. For route announcements, the 
automated messages must be audible at boarding and alighting areas and 
the visible component must include signs on the front and boarding 
sides of buses. Stop announcements must be audible within vehicles, and 
the visible component must include signs that are viewable by 
passengers seated in wheelchair spaces and priority seats. The 2010 
NPRM also posed several questions seeking public input on the proposed 
scoping for automated announcement systems, technical requirements, and 
costs. See 2010 NPRM, Question Nos. 16-20.
    Overall, the vast majority of commenters to the 2010 NPRM were 
strongly supportive of the Board's proposal to require automated stop 
and route announcements. Supporters of the requirement, who represent a 
broad cross-section of commenters--including persons with disabilities, 
advocacy organizations, academia, and transit industry associations--
expressed their firm belief that automated announcement systems would 
bring much-needed consistency to stop and route announcements on fixed 
route buses and, thereby, ensure that passengers with disabilities have 
access to critical information needed to use public transportation 
systems. Supporters also noted that, by requiring audible and visible 
components, the proposal would broadly benefit not only passengers with 
vision or hearing-related disabilities, but also persons with other 
types of disabilities, including cognitive impairments. Automated 
announcement systems would also, they believe, promote universal access 
by aiding passengers who are unfamiliar with particular bus routes 
(e.g., out-of-town visitors or infrequent riders) and generally 
improving customer satisfaction.
    Commenters in favor of the automated announcement systems 
requirement also expressed uniform support for the VOMS 100 threshold 
(i.e., limiting scope of requirement to large transit agencies that 
operate 100 or more buses in annual maximum service in fixed route 
systems), viewing this limitation as striking a sensible balance 
between accessibility and economic considerations. For example, APTA--
one of the nation's largest organizations

[[Page 90604]]

involved in the public transportation industry--praised the VOMS 100 
threshold as a reasonable approach to limiting application of the 
automated announcement systems requirement. Other commenters voicing 
support for the VOMS 100 threshold included a statewide transit 
organization, a large disability-rights organization, and a national 
association of accessibility professionals. Several large transit 
agencies also noted that they have already equipped (or are in the 
process of equipping) their buses with automated announcement systems.
    Transit entities, on the other hand, had mixed views on the general 
notion of an automated announcement systems requirement. APTA and a 
statewide association of transit managers noted their general approval 
for this proposal. A large transit agency also expressed support for 
the automated announcement systems requirement, but noted that the cost 
for such systems might impose hardships on small transit agencies. 
Another large transit agency observed that, while automated 
announcement systems are ``a highly desired feature for improving 
customer information systems,'' they can be costly and technically 
challenging to implement in some environments. Several other transit 
entities took no position on automated announcement systems, but 
offered suggestions for improving the proposed requirement, such as 
clarifying its application or adding technical specifications for audio 
quality. Lastly, three transit agencies opposed the automated 
announcement systems requirement outright, expressing concern about 
costs and the fact that the requirement mandates use of automated 
announcement systems, rather than allowing transit agencies to choose 
among competing priorities at the local level, particularly with 
respect to rural bus service.
    After careful considerations of these comments, the Access Board 
has decided to retain the automated announcement system requirement in 
the final rule, albeit with several, small editorial changes that 
respond to commenters' requests for clarification. (These editorial 
changes are discussed in Section IV.H below.) The Board strongly 
believes that automated announcement systems improve communication 
access for passengers with disabilities, which is a crucial factor in 
facilitating new or expanded use of fixed route bus transportation 
systems. Automated announcement systems have proven to be far superior 
to transit agency announcement programs that rely solely on vehicle 
operator-provided announcement systems. See Final RA, Sections 3.2 & 
3.3 (discussing comparative performance of vehicle operator-based 
announcement programs and automated announcement systems). Indeed, even 
though the existing guidelines requiring stop and route announcements 
have been in effect since 1991, significant problems persist, as 
evidenced by commenters' anecdotes, DOT compliance reviews of transit 
agency announcement programs, and Federal ADA litigation.
    Moreover, while the Access Board acknowledges that deployment of 
automated announcement systems by large transit agencies to comply with 
the final rule will necessarily impose costs (as well as lead to 
substantial benefits for bus passengers with disabilities), the cost 
impact of this requirement is tempered by several considerations. 
Foremost is that its application is limited to large transit entities 
that operate 100 or more fixed route buses in annual maximum service--a 
limitation that was added at the behest of APTA. See 2010 NPRM, 75 FR 
at 43753. By establishing a VOMS 100 threshold, the Board believes that 
the automated announcement systems requirement is appropriately and 
narrowly tailored to larger transit agencies that have the financial 
resources to deploy ITS with automated announcement system 
functionality and potentially serve the greatest number of passengers 
with disabilities.\6\ Significantly, as discussed below in Section V.B 
(Regulatory Process Matters--Regulatory Flexibility Act), no small 
governmental entities (i.e., public transit authorities with service or 
population areas under 50,000) are expected to incur compliance costs 
under the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For a detailed analysis of quantitative considerations that 
support promulgation of a VOMS 100 threshold (as opposed to other 
potential alternative VOMS thresholds for large transit agencies 
subject to the automated announcement systems requirement), see 
Final RA, Section 8 (Alternative Regulatory Approaches: Large 
Transit Agencies and the VOMS 100 Threshold & App. J (Key 
Characteristics of Transit Agencies Reporting Bus Modes of Service 
(2014 NTD Data)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, extensive deployment of ITS in public transportation 
systems over the past decade means that, for most large transit 
agencies, the automated announcement systems requirement will not 
impose significant incremental costs. As noted above, transit industry 
statistics show that about 70% of fixed route buses nationally are 
already equipped with automated announcement systems, and nearly 90% 
are equipped with AVL. For large transit entities that have already 
installed (or are planning to install) automated announcement systems 
as part of their ITS deployment, this new requirement will impose no 
additional costs. For large transit agencies that have already deployed 
ITS/AVL system-wide, but do not yet have automated announcement 
systems, the incremental cost of complying with the new requirement 
will, in all likelihood, only be the cost of adding automated 
announcement system functionality, rather than purchasing an entirely 
new ITS system. Thus, the Access Board expects that only a few large 
transit agencies will have to purchase and deploy entirely ``new'' ITS 
with automated announcement system functionality in order to comply 
with the final rule.
    Finally, it bears emphasis that, while DOT has sole discretion to 
determine whether (or to what extent) the automated announcement system 
requirement will apply to new, remanufactured, and existing non-rail 
vehicles, the Department's past practice in ADA rulemakings suggests 
that it is highly unlikely that existing transit buses would need to be 
retrofitted to comply with the automated announcement system 
requirement. Typically, DOT has imposed more stringent, ``full'' 
accessibility requirements on new or remanufactured vehicles, and 
exempted existing vehicles entirely. See, e.g., 49 CFR 37.71, 37.75, 
37.103, 37.183, 37.195 & 37.197. The only exception to this practice 
was the Department's 1991 ADA rulemaking, which, in pertinent part, 
requires public entities acquiring used vehicles for operation in 
fixed-route service to ensure that such vehicles are readily accessible 
to and usable by individuals with disabilities. However, public 
entities are still permitted to purchase used vehicles that are not 
fully accessible so long as they document good faith efforts to obtain 
an accessible vehicle. See 49 CFR 37.73. Indeed, the Access Board is 
not aware of any instances of DOT adopting ADA transportation 
regulations that required current owners of existing buses to retrofit 
such buses to comply with newly promulgated standards. The Board 
appreciates that DOT will exercise its discretion concerning 
application of the automated announcement system requirement to 
existing vehicles based on its own assessment of costs and benefits, 
and will do so while bearing in mind past regulatory practices.

Wheelchair Securement Systems

    The Access Board's existing guidelines require buses, OTRBs, and

[[Page 90605]]

vans to provide wheelchair securement systems that comply with 
specified technical requirements at each wheelchair space. The 2010 
NPRM proposed two changes to these technical specifications based on 
transportation research that post-dated the issuance of the existing 
guidelines. See 2010 NPRM, 75 FR at 43752. First, in large non-rail 
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 30,000 pounds or more, 
the proposed rule reduced from 4,000 pounds to 2,000 pounds the minimum 
force that wheelchair securement systems must be designed to restrain 
in the forward longitudinal direction. This proposed revision was made 
in light of research showing that a lower design force would be 
sufficient to accommodate force generated on wheelchairs and their 
occupants in large non-rail vehicles under common conditions (e.g., 
maximum braking, maximum acceleration, frontal collision). Second, the 
proposed rule modified the technical requirements for rear-facing 
wheelchair securement systems by adding a specification for forward 
excursion barrier to the current technical requirements. The forward 
excursion barrier is a padded structure designed to limit forward 
movement of a rear-facing wheelchair and its occupant relative to the 
vehicle. Additionally, the 2010 NPRM also asked two questions seeking 
commenters' views on potential cost savings from the proposed design 
force reduction and proposed technical requirements for forward 
excursion barriers. See 2010 NPRM, Question Nos. 13-14.
    With respect to reducing the minimum design force for wheelchair 
securement systems, commenters to the 2010 NPRM expressed near 
universal support. Commenters who supported this proposal included 
several vehicle manufacturers, three public transit agencies, an 
individual with a disability, and an accessibility consultant. They 
applauded the proposed reduction in design force because it would, they 
believed, potentially foster more innovative designs that were lighter 
or easier to use than currently available securement systems. These 
commenters further opined that reducing the minimum design force would 
likely produce marginal (if any) cost savings. Only two commenters 
opposed the proposed reduction of the minimum design force, with one 
commenter (an equipment manufacturer) merely stating general opposition 
to the proposal and the other commenter (a public transit agency) 
expressing concern about safety in light of larger mobility devices and 
rising obesity levels.
    The Access Board has decided to retain the proposed reduction in 
minimum design force for wheelchair securement systems in the final 
rule. The revised design force would potentially spur greater 
innovation in wheelchair securement systems (which is an area in need 
of new approaches), but without sacrificing safety given that the 
2,000-pound specification is based on findings from transportation 
studies.
    With respect to the proposed addition of technical specifications 
for forward excursion barriers in rear-facing wheelchair securement 
systems, commenters expressed mixed views. Those who supported 
inclusion of specifications for forward excursion barriers (including 
individuals with disabilities and a transit agency), noted that, while 
rear-facing wheelchair spaces were not yet commonly used on fixed route 
buses in the United States, it was nonetheless important to specify a 
standard to keep pace with potential future changes in transit system 
designs. Other commenters (including a research center and a bus 
manufacturer), did not oppose inclusion of requirements for forward 
excursion barriers, but instead took issue with the Access Board's 
particular set of proposed specifications. They viewed the proposed 
requirements for forward excursion barriers as inadequate to protect 
wheelchair users. They suggested that, in the final rule, the Board 
should instead harmonize with international standards for rear-facing 
wheelchair securement systems, particularly since rear-facing 
wheelchair positions are much more common in Canadian and European 
public transportation systems. Finally, one transit agency objected 
outright to the inclusion of any requirement for forward excursion 
barriers.
    In the final rule, the Access Board retains the requirement for 
forward excursion barriers for rear-facing wheelchair securement 
systems, but modifies the technical requirements for such barriers in 
response to commenters' expressed concerns about the specifications in 
the proposed rule. Specifically, T603.5 requires rear-facing wheelchair 
securement systems to provide forward excursion barriers complying with 
ISO 10865-1:2012(E), ``Wheelchair containment and occupant retention 
systems for accessible transport vehicles designed for use by both 
sitting and standing passengers--Part 1: Systems for rearward facing 
wheelchair-seated passengers.'' The ISO standard specifies design and 
performance requirements and associated test methods for forward 
excursion barriers. The Board has determined that the added safety 
research used in the development of ISO 10865-1:2012(E), and its 
acceptance as a global standard, provide additional benefits to transit 
users and agencies that warrant its incorporation in the final rule.

Running Slope of Ramps Deployed to Roadways or Curb-Height Bus Stops

    In the 2010 NPRM, the Access Board proposed to simplify and update 
the existing guidelines addressing the running slope of ramps in non-
rail vehicles by establishing a single standard--1:6 maximum (17 
percent)--for ramps deployed to roadways or to boarding and alighting 
areas without boarding platforms (i.e., curb-height bus stops). See 
2010 NPRM, T303.8.1.\7\ The Board proposed these changes for two 
primary reasons: To address concerns about the safety and usability of 
ramps when deployed at the steepest maximum slope permitted under the 
existing guidelines (1:4); and to update ramp slope requirements in 
light of the evolution of bus and ramp designs in the 25 years since 
the existing guidelines were promulgated. The Board's proposed 1:6 
maximum ramp slope engendered the largest volume of comments of any of 
the proposed regulatory changes in the 2010 NPRM. Commenters 
overwhelmingly acknowledged the need to modernize the Board's existing 
guidelines for vehicle ramp slopes, but expressed differing views on 
the best approach for their revision. For the reasons discussed below, 
the final rule retains the proposed requirement that ramps in non-rail 
vehicles must have running slopes no steeper than 1:6 when deployed to 
roadways or boarding and alighting areas without boarding

[[Page 90606]]

platforms, such as curb-height bus stops. However, the text of the 
final rule has been revised to make clear that the requisite maximum 
running slope is a design standard to be measured to ground level with 
the bus on a flat surface; when deployed to roadways or curb-height bus 
stops, ramps must have the least running slope practicable under the 
given field conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For ease of reference, this section discusses requirements 
for running slope in terms of ramps only; however, in the final 
rule, such requirements apply equally to ramps and bridgeplates. For 
ramps and bridgeplates deployed to boarding platforms in level 
boarding bus systems, the 2010 NPRM proposed a maximum slope of 1:8 
(12.5 percent). See 2010 NPRM, T303.8.2. In level boarding bus 
systems, some or all designated stops have boarding platforms, and 
the design of the boarding platforms and the vehicles are 
coordinated to provide boarding having little or no change in level 
between the vehicle floor and the boarding platform. At present, 
there are only a handful of level boarding bus systems in the United 
States. The Access Board received no comments on this proposed 1:8 
maximum ramp slope in the context of level boarding bus systems. 
This requirement has been retained in the final rule, albeit with a 
minor change in the wording of the rule text from ``station 
platform'' to ``boarding platform.'' See discussion infra Section 
IV.B (Summary of Comments and Responses on Other Aspects of the 
Proposed Rule--Chapter 1: Application and Administration--T103 
Definitions) (discussing definition of ``boarding platforms'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The existing guidelines specify a range of maximum running slopes 
for non-rail vehicle ramps depending on the nature of their deployment. 
While ramps must generally have the ``least slope practicable,'' the 
guidelines go on to specify several different maximum running slopes 
depending on whether the ramp is being deployed to the roadway or to a 
curb-height bus stop. See 36 CFR 1192.23(c)(5) (ramp slope requirements 
for buses and vans), 1192.159(c)(5) (OTRB-related ramp slope 
requirements). When a ramp is deployed to the roadway, the existing 
guidelines require its slope to be 1:4 maximum. For ramps deployed to 
bus stops with an adjacent 6-inch curb, the existing guidelines specify 
a range of maximum ramp running slopes depending on the differential in 
height between vehicle floor and curb. The existing slope requirements 
for vehicle ramps deployed to curb-height bus stops are shown in Table 
2 below. Running slopes are expressed as the ratio of the vertical rise 
to the horizontal run.

Table 2--Existing Guidelines: Maximum Slope of Vehicle Ramps Deployed to
                          Curb-Height Bus Stops
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
       Height of vehicle floor above 6-inch-high curb           running
                                                                 slope
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 inches or less............................................         1:4
more than 3 inches and equal to or less than 6 inches.......         1:6
more than 6 inches and equal to or less than 9 inches.......         1:8
more than 9 inches..........................................        1:12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1991, when the Access Board issued the existing guidelines for 
ramp slopes, ramp and vehicle designs were not as advanced as they are 
today. Standard transit buses had high floors (usually 35 inches above 
the roadway) and steps at doorways. For this type of bus, lifts are the 
only means of providing accessible boarding and alighting. Yet, in 
public transit settings, lifts can sometimes be slow to deploy, costly 
to maintain, and have reliability issues. These and other factors 
spurred development and adoption of ``low floor'' transit buses in the 
early 1990s. Low floor buses have a lower vehicle floor (typically 15 
inches or less above the roadway) that permits a flat--rather than 
stepped--area at doorways. Most low floor buses also have a 
``kneeling'' feature that hydraulically lowers the front end of the 
vehicle several inches closer to the curb to aid in boarding. Because 
of their lower floor and flat entry area, low floor buses can use ramps 
(instead of lifts) to provide access for passengers with disabilities. 
These features tend to make boarding and alighting easier and more 
user-friendly for all passengers and, consequently, reduce dwell 
times.\8\ As of 1991, however, low floor bus technologies in the United 
States--as well as related vehicle ramp designs--were still in their 
infancy. Consequently, the maximum ramp slopes specified in the 
existing guidelines, while fairly steep for some types of deployments 
(such as 1:4 to the roadway), reflect what was feasible given then-
existing technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., Transp. Research Board, TCRP Synthesis 2--Low-
Floor Transit Buses: A Synthesis of Transit Practices (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the mid-2000s, when the Access Board initiated efforts to revise 
and update its non-rail vehicle guidelines, two related considerations 
prompted evaluation of ramp slopes. First, research studies 
demonstrated that steeper ramp slopes--particularly ramps with a 1:4 
slope--are difficult to use for many individuals who use mobility 
devices, most notably manual wheelchairs users.\9\ There were also 
documented incidents of wheelchairs and their occupants tipping over 
backwards going up bus ramps with 1:4 slopes. Second, low floor bus 
technologies had rapidly evolved and all major domestic bus 
manufacturers offered one or more models. Indeed, such buses had 
increasingly become public transit agencies' vehicle of choice for 
fixed-route bus service.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., K. Frost and G. Bertocci, Retrospective Review of 
Adverse Incidents Involving Passengers Seated in Wheeled Mobility 
Devices While Traveling in Large Accessible Transit Vehicles, 32 
Medical Engineering & Physics 230-36 (2010).
    \10\ See, e.g., Transp. Research Board, Federal Transit Admin., 
TCRP Report 41--New Designs and Operating Experiences with Low-Floor 
Buses i, 44-46 (1998)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2010 NPRM, the Access Board thus proposed to update the ramp 
slope requirements in the existing guidelines by establishing a 1:6 
maximum slope for ramps deployed to roadways or curb-height bus stops. 
See 2010 NPRM, T303.8.1.\11\ The intent of this proposal was two-fold: 
To lessen the steepness of the maximum permitted ramp slope from 1:4 to 
1:6, and to simplify application of the ramp slope requirements by 
replacing the existing deployment-based range of maximum ramp slopes 
with a single standard. On balance, commenters strongly supported this 
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Access Board also explored the feasibility of 
decreasing the maximum running slope for non-rail vehicle ramps in 
the 2007 and 2008 Draft Revised Guidelines. See supra Section II 
(Rulemaking History); see also 2010 NPRM, 75 FR at 43750.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed ramp slope provision received broad support from a 
wide spectrum of commenters, including the disability community, APTA, 
transportation researchers, ramp manufacturers, and several transit 
operators. These commenters applauded the Board's efforts to simplify 
the existing ramp slope requirements by specifying a single standard. 
They also agreed that the 1:4 maximum ramp slope in the existing 
guidelines was outdated and too steep. A 1:6 maximum for non-rail 
vehicle ramp slopes, in their view, was safer and more in line with 
current technology. Nonetheless, some supporters of the proposed ramp 
slope standard cautioned that, while a 1:6 standard for maximum ramp 
slope was preferable and generally feasible, certain local conditions 
(e.g., narrow urban sidewalk, roadside ditch, or excessive road crown) 
might make achieving a 1:6 ramp slope impractical or difficult in 
particular deployment situations. These commenters encouraged the Board 
to consider adding an exception that would permit steeper ramp slopes 
when necessary due to local conditions. Lastly, several ramp 
manufacturers observed that 1:6 ramps were commercially available, had 
about the same total cost of ownership (i.e., purchase price and 
maintenance costs) as older (1:4) ramp models, and were already in 
service on thousands of ramp-equipped low floor buses.
    Only a handful of commenters expressed outright opposition to the 
proposed 1:6 maximum slope for ramps in non-rail vehicles. For two 
transit operators, this proposal proved problematic because, in their 
view, a single standard cannot adequately take into account the many 
variables affecting ramp slope under ``real world'' operating 
conditions. The third transit operator expressed concern that 1:6 ramps 
would increase capital and maintenance costs, could require longer 
ramps, and might not be compatible with some bus or van models. 
Additionally, two bus manufacturers, while not expressly opposing a 1:6 
maximum slope standard, noted that certain models of smaller non-rail 
vehicles--such as vans or cutaway buses--might require redesign of 
suspension systems or other vehicle

[[Page 90607]]

parts in order to achieve the requisite ramp slope.
    After the close of the comment period on the proposed rule, the 
Access Board received reports that a few transit agencies were 
experiencing problems with the usability of some 1:6 ramp models that 
had been recently installed on new transit buses. Accordingly, in 
August 2012, the Board issued a notice that it was reopening the 
comment period on the proposed rule and planned to hold public meetings 
in Washington, DC and Seattle, Washington to receive additional 
information on the new ramp designs. See Notice of Public Information 
Meeting and Reopening of Comment Period, 77 FR 50068 (Aug. 20, 2012).
    Information developed during the reopened comment period painted a 
mixed picture of these 1:6 ramps. On the one hand, several transit 
agencies and individuals with disabilities confirmed that a few new 1:6 
ramp models were indeed creating difficulties on some ramp-equipped low 
floor buses. They reported that, in order to avoid extending the ramps 
a longer distance outside the bus, some 1:6 ramps were designed with a 
fixed slope inside the bus and a variable slope outside the bus. The 
resulting grade break in the ramp run, along with its close proximity 
to the vestibule area flat floor, caused some passengers who used 
wheeled mobility devices to have difficulty negotiating the ramps or 
maneuvering in the bus vestibule (e.g., paying fare or turning into the 
aisle). Some of the affected transit agencies had taken these ramps out 
of service, while others were working with manufacturers to develop 
modifications for in-use ramps. Several commenters, while 
characterizing the existing 1:4 maximum ramp slope as ``unsafe,'' 
nonetheless urged the Access Board to delay issuance of a final rule 
until research or field testing documented the safety and usability of 
1:6 ramps. They noted the complexity of the issue given the interplay 
of environmental conditions and in-vehicle space constraints.
    A number of other commenters, however, expressed support for 1:6 
ramps generally, as well as the particular ramp models at issue. 
Several bus and component manufacturers strongly supported the proposed 
1:6 maximum slope requirement, stating that standard and cutaway bus 
models were already in production that came equipped with ramps capable 
of achieving a 1:6 maximum slope to roadways or curb-height bus stops. 
Additionally, a ramp manufacturer observed that, of the thousands of 
1:6 ramps already in service on heavy-duty low floor transit buses 
across several hundreds of transit agencies, only about 2% of transit 
agencies had cited ramp grade break as a problem. This manufacturer 
also noted that, by 2013, it expected to have two new, redesigned 1:6 
ramp models in commercial production that would address the cited 
problems by eliminating the grade break in the ramp run and minimizing 
the ramp's impact on the available level floor space within the bus at 
the top of the ramp. Testing of field prototypes was underway, and 
initial feedback had been positive.
    A third group of commenters--including a disability organization 
and a research institution--believed that the Access Board's proposed 
1:6 maximum ramp slope was still too steep. While preferable to steeper 
(1:4) ramps, a 1:6 ramp, they noted, was not ``user-friendly'' and 
could be difficult for passengers who use manual wheelchairs to use 
independently. These commenters urged the Board to instead adopt a 1:8 
maximum ramp slope, which would make ramps usable for the vast majority 
of wheeled mobility device users.
    Several years have passed since the comment period closed in late 
2012. In the intervening years, 1:6 ramps have become well-established 
in the transit community. The ramp models at issue when the Access 
Board reopened the comment period have been replaced by a newer 
generation of 1:6 ramps; these ramps have been on the market--and in 
use--for several years without generating similar complaints. See Final 
RA, Section 3.4. Low floor non-rail vehicles equipped with 1:6 ramps 
are commercially available from a host of manufacturers, ranging from 
small cutaway buses to large, heavy-duty transit buses. Id. Moreover, 
the current version of APTA's ``Standard Bus Procurement Guidelines'' 
(commonly referred to as the ``APTA Whitebook''), which are widely used 
by transit agencies throughout the country for their bus procurements, 
lists 1:6 ramps as the default specification for large low floor buses. 
See APTA Standard Bus Procurement Guidelines, Sec.  TS 81.3 (May 2013). 
Indeed, 1:6 ramps have become so integrated into the transit 
marketplace that, at least for the heavy-duty low floor transit buses, 
these ramps are now the less expensive production models, whereas 
steeper (1:4) ramps are more costly special order items. See Final RA, 
Section 3.4.
    After careful consideration, the Board has determined that a 1:6 
maximum ramp slope--as proposed in the 2010 NPRM--strikes the 
appropriate balance between usability and feasibility. We believe that 
establishing a 1:6 maximum running slope for non-rail vehicle ramps 
will make such ramps more usable for most passengers who use wheeled 
mobility devices, while also ensuring a workable standard that 
manufacturers and vehicle operators can meet without undue difficulty 
or expense. There is near uniform agreement that the 1:4 maximum ramp 
slope in the existing guideline is outdated and potentially unsafe. A 
ramp with a 1:6 maximum slope, while perhaps not independently usable 
by all individuals who use wheeled mobility devices, nonetheless 
presents a safer and more usable method of boarding and alighting for 
most mobility device users. Indeed, a recent peer-reviewed 
transportation study validated the efficacy of 1:6 ramps in reducing 
ramp-related incidents and accidents on non-rail transit vehicles.\12\ 
This study found that the odds of a passenger using a wheeled mobility 
device having a ramp-related incident were 5.4 times greater when the 
ramp slope exceeded 1:6, and the odds of needing assistance were almost 
as great.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Karen L. Frost, et al., Ramp-Related Incidents 
Involving Wheeled Mobility Device Users During Transit Bus Boarding/
Alighting, 96 J. Physical Med. & Rehabilitation 928-33 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines thus require the running slope 
of ramps in non-rail vehicles used for deployment to roadways or curb-
height bus stops to be no steeper than 1:6. However, the text of the 
provision has been modified to address commenters' concerns about the 
difficulty of achieving 1:6 ramp slopes under all deployment 
conditions.
    In the 2010 NPRM, the proposed rule simply established a 1:6 
maximum slope for ramps deployed to roadways or curb-height bus stops; 
the provision did not, on its face, specify whether this maximum 
applied to a ramp's designed capability (i.e., ramp must be capable of 
achieving a 1:6 maximum slope when deployed to the roadway or a curb-
height bus stop) or to actual deployments in the field (i.e., ramp 
cannot be steeper than 1:6 regardless of local conditions under which 
it is being deployed). See 2010 NPRM, T303.8.1. Several commenters--
including some who otherwise supported the proposed 1:6 ramp slope 
standard--expressed concern that local conditions sometimes make 
achieving a 1:6 ramp slope particularly challenging or even impossible. 
These commenters urged the Board to add an exception that would 
expressly permit steeper ramp slopes when necessary due to local 
conditions, such as a narrow sidewalk

[[Page 90608]]

abutting a building in an urban setting, a roadside ditch in a rural 
area, or an excessive road crown.
    To address these concerns, the provisions in the final rule 
specifying the maximum ramp running slopes for non-rail vehicles (i.e., 
T402.8 and its two subsections) have been revised to clarify that the 
specified ramp slope requirements are design standards only. For 
example, T402.8.1 in the final rule states that, for ramps deployed to 
roadways or curb-height bus stops, the 1:6 maximum is a design standard 
that requires such ramps to be capable of achieving this requirement 
only when the vehicle is resting on a flat surface and the ramp is 
deployed to ground level. This revision aims to clarify that, although 
vehicle ramps may be deployed under various roadway and environmental 
conditions, measurement (and assessment) of compliance with the 1:6 
maximum slope requirement is to be taken under one condition i.e., when 
the bus is on a flat (level) surface, not on a crowned roadway or any 
other sloping surface. Typically, these ramp slope measurements will be 
made in the factory or testing laboratory prior to delivery to the 
field or, after a ramp is serviced, in the transit agency's maintenance 
facilities. We believe that these modifications to the final rule text 
address commenters' concerns that measurements would be affected by 
roadway conditions.

Clear Width of Circulation Paths and Maneuvering Clearances at 
Wheelchair Spaces

    In the 2010 NPRM, the Access Board proposed specific minimum 
dimensions for the clear width of circulation paths within non-rail 
vehicles, as well as maneuvering clearances at wheelchair spaces. For 
the reasons discussed below, these proposals have not been retained in 
the final rule. Instead, pending further research, the 2016 Non-Rail 
Vehicle Guidelines retain the approach in the existing guidelines by 
requiring ``sufficient clearances'' for passengers who use wheelchairs 
to move between accessible doorways and wheelchair spaces, and to enter 
and exit wheelchair spaces. See T504.1; see also 36 CFR 1192.23(a), 
1192.159(a)(1) (existing requirements for clearances for passengers who 
use wheelchairs).
    Since the initial issuance of the existing guidelines in 1991, 
various parties--including individuals with disabilities, transit 
operators, and vehicle manufacturers--have requested guidance on the 
meaning of ``sufficient clearances.'' Questions about clearances arose 
in the context of circulation paths that connect accessible doorways 
and wheelchair spaces, as well as maneuvering spaces at wheelchair 
positions, which, on buses, OTRBs and vans, are typically confined on 
three sides by seats, side walls, or wheel wells.
    Over the course of this rulemaking, the Access Board has attempted 
to clarify the meaning of ``sufficient clearances'' by proposing 
specific dimensions for the clear width of circulation paths and 
maneuvering clearances at wheelchair spaces, as well as more clearly 
specifying the obligation to ensure that features along circulation 
paths--particularly in the front vestibule of buses (where stanchions 
or fare collection devices tend to be located)--do not interfere with 
the maneuvering of wheelchairs or other mobility devices. For example, 
in the 2007 Draft Revised Guidelines, the Board proposed a fixed metric 
for the minimum clear width of circulation paths (36 inches), as well 
as maneuvering clearances of 6 inches (for front or rear entry 
wheelchair spaces) or 12 inches (for side entry wheelchair spaces) when 
wheelchair spaces are confined on three sides. See 2007 Draft Revised 
Guidelines, Sec. Sec.  1192.23(a)(2), 1192.23(d)(2). These clearances 
were in addition to the requisite 30 inch by 48 inch minimum clear 
floor space for each wheelchair space. The 2007 draft also proposed 
guidelines for clearances at turns (such as the turn needed at the 
front of a bus) along circulation paths. Id. Sec.  1192.23(a)(2).
    Many commenters to the 2007 Draft Revised Guidelines were critical 
of these new proposals for maneuvering clearances at wheelchair spaces 
and the clear width of circulation paths.\13\ Accordingly, in the 2008 
Draft Revised Guidelines, the Access Board modified the proposed 
requirements for maneuvering clearances and clear width of circulation 
paths. The proposed additional clearances for maneuvering in or out of 
wheelchair spaces were trimmed by 1 inch (front or rear entry 
wheelchair spaces) and 6 inches (side entry wheelchair spaces) 
respectively. See 2008 Revised Draft Guidelines, Sections T402.4.1, 
T402.4.2. The proposed minimum clear width of circulation paths was 
also decreased to 34 inches. Id. at Section T502.2. Additionally, the 
2008 Draft Revised Guidelines did not retain the proposal for 
maneuvering clearances at turns; instead, the 2008 draft proposed a 
more general requirement that features on circulation paths should not 
interfere with the maneuvering of wheelchairs. Id. at T502.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For example, several commenters stated that the proposed 
additional clearances would result in a significant reduction in 
seating capacity. See U.S. Access Board, Discussion of [2008] 
Revisions, https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/transportation/vehicles/update-of-the-guidelines-for-transportation-vehicles/revised-draft-of-updated-guidelines-for-buses-and-vans/discussion-of-revisions. Additionally, commenters submitted floor 
and seating plans showing that a 36-inch wide circulation path was 
not feasible for some vehicle models or seating layouts. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2010 NPRM, the proposed requirements for maneuvering 
clearances at wheelchair spaces and minimum clear width of circulation 
paths mirror the proposals in the 2008 Draft Revised Guidelines. See 
2010 NPRM, Sections T402.4.1, T402.4.2 & 502.5. Additionally, the 2010 
NPRM sought comment on a number of issues related to the proposed rule, 
including sufficiency of the proposals to meet the needs of persons 
with disabilities, feasibility of proposed clearances on different 
vehicle types and models, potential seat loss, and views on 
establishment of performance standards for passengers who use 
wheelchairs related to movement within vehicles and entry/exit from 
securement locations. See 2010 NPRM, 75 FR at 43751, Question Nos. 7-
12.
    Commenters' reactions to the proposed specifications in the 2010 
NPRM for maneuvering clearances and clear width of circulation paths 
were decidedly mixed. The disability community, while generally 
applauding the Board's effort to replace the approach in the existing 
guidelines (i.e., ``sufficient clearances'') with quantified minimum 
clearances, nonetheless expressed some skepticism that such clearances 
would be adequate to accommodate all types of mobility devices, 
particularly larger wheelchairs.
    Reaction from the public transit community was, on the other hand, 
solidly opposed to the proposed specifications for minimum clear width 
of circulation paths and maneuvering clearances at wheelchair spaces. 
APTA and a large transit agency expressed support for the proposed 
clearance for side entry wheelchair spaces, but also noted that this 
clearance could result in some (unspecified) seat loss. Otherwise, the 
transit community uniformly opposed the clearances proposed in the 2010 
NPRM. Several transit agencies submitted detailed drawings 
demonstrating that the proposed maneuvering clearances would, depending 
on various factors (e.g., vehicle type, model, and seating layout), 
have significant consequences, such as: Elimination of some models of 
non-rail vehicles or costly redesign of others, seat loss, 
discontinuation of flip up seats at wheelchair spaces, or procurement 
of more expensive seating

[[Page 90609]]

equipment. Providers of paratransit services also urged the Board to 
exempt cutaway vehicles (minibuses) used for paratransit because their 
small size would make compliance difficult, result in loss of 
wheelchair spaces, or necessitate purchase of larger vehicles. There 
was broad support among the transit community for development of 
performance standards for onboard clearances for passengers who use 
wheelchairs.
    Several bus manufacturers echoed the view that, for some bus 
models, compliance with the proposed requirements would require 
modification of designs and seating plans. One manufacturer noted some 
models of large buses might lose up to two seats for every side entry 
wheelchair space extended to meet the proposed 54-inch clearance. 
Another manufacturer submitted drawings showing that the proposed 34-
inch minimum clear width for circulation paths would result in the loss 
of 10-14 seats per vehicle, depending on the model of bus. 
Manufacturers also noted concerns about design constraints due to 
current axle designs, noise level specifications, and wheel well 
strength requirements. There was strong support among bus and van 
manufacturers for establishment of performance standards.
    Lastly, a university-based transportation research center stressed 
that development of suitable dimensions for maneuvering clearances and 
clear width of circulation paths on transit buses depended on multiple 
inter-related factors, including: Types of mobility devices, 
orientation of nearby seats, and relationship of wheelchair spaces to 
adjacent elements. Because of the complex relationship between these 
factors, the research center urged the Access Board to first undertake 
an in-depth study to better understand their interplay before 
promulgating criteria for clearances--criteria which, in their view, 
should be performance based, rather than prescriptive, to provide 
flexibility and foster innovation.
    After careful consideration of commenters' views, the Access Board 
has determined that enumeration of dimensions for clearances is not 
advisable at this time. Ensuring that passengers who use wheelchairs 
and other mobility devices can safely and easily move from doorway to 
wheelchair space, as well as into and out of the securement system at 
that space, is a complex challenge that, as commenters rightly note, 
calls into play numerous variables and considerations. Throughout the 
course of this rulemaking, dating from the 2007 Revised Draft 
Guidelines through the 2010 NPRM, the Board has attempted to provide 
better guidance on the meaning of ``sufficient clearances''--as 
provided in the existing guidelines--by proposing various minimum 
dimensions for maneuvering clearances at wheelchair spaces and clear 
width of circulation paths. Each iteration of these regulatory 
proposals, however, has been met with mixed reviews. Commenters made 
plain that a ``one size fits all'' approach--such as the establishment 
of specific minimum dimensions for clearances in the proposed rule--
might provide modest benefits to some passengers who use wheelchairs or 
other mobility devices, but would also come at a steep cost in terms of 
vehicle redesign or seat loss. There was also uniform agreement that, 
given the complex interplay of factors, performance standards for 
onboard circulation of passengers who use wheelchairs would be useful 
and preferable.
    However, while there are ongoing research studies aimed at 
improving the interiors of transportation vehicles for passengers who 
use mobility aids, the current state of information does not provide a 
sufficient basis for development of performance standards. The Board is 
hopeful that these ongoing research efforts will help to inform future 
rulemaking efforts. For example, the Rehabilitation Engineering 
Research Center on Accessible Public Transportation (RERC-APT) is 
conducting human factors research on boarding and disembarking vehicles 
by passengers with disabilities, as well as improved vehicle interiors, 
which may provide some of the evidentiary bases needed for the 
development of performance standards.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ RERC-APT is a partnership between the Robotics Institute at 
Carnegie Mellon University and the Center for Inclusive Design and 
Environmental Access (IDeA Center) at the School of Architecture and 
Planning, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, 
and is funded by the National Institute on Disability, Independent 
Living, and Rehabilitation Research. Information on the RERC on 
Accessible Public Transportation is available at: http://www.rercapt.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the meantime, however, the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines do 
not specify a minimum clear width for accessible circulation paths or 
maneuvering clearances at wheelchair spaces. Instead, the final rule 
retains the existing requirement that the clear width of accessible 
circulation paths must be sufficient to permit passengers using 
wheelchairs to move between accessible doorways and wheelchair spaces, 
and to enter and exit wheelchair spaces.

IV. Summary of Comments and Responses on Other Aspects of the Proposed 
Rule

    Overall, the Access Board received about 100 written comments to 
the 2010 NPRM, including those received during the reopening of the 
comment period in the fall of 2012 to address issues related to ramp 
designs. In addition to comments received on the major issues discussed 
in the preceding section, commenters also expressed views on a variety 
of other matters related to the proposed rule. The Access Board's 
response to significant comments on these other matters are discussed 
below on a chapter-by-chapter basis following the organization of the 
final rule. Also addressed below are requirements in the final rule 
that have been substantively revised from the proposed rule. Provisions 
in the final rule that neither received significant comment nor 
materially changed from the proposed rule are not discussed in this 
preamble.

A. Format and Organization

    As noted previously, the formatting and organization of the 2016 
Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines differs significantly from the existing 
guidelines. The new format organizes the revised scoping and technical 
guidelines for buses, OTRBs, and vans into seven chapters, all of which 
are contained in a new appendix to 36 CFR part 1192. This organization 
is consistent with the approach used by the Access Board since the 
issuance of its Americans with Disabilities Act and Architectural 
Barriers Act Accessibility Guidelines in 2004. The 2016 Non-Rail 
Vehicle Guidelines use a modified decimal numbering system preceded by 
the letter ``T'' to distinguish them from other existing guidelines and 
standards. Main section headings are designated by three numbers (e.g., 
T101, T102, etc.). Under each main section heading, the text of the 
guidelines is organized by section levels. The first section level is 
designated by a two-part number consisting of the number used for the 
main section heading followed by a decimal point and a consecutive 
number (e.g., T101.1, T101.2, etc.). The second section level is 
designated by a three-part number consisting of the two-part number 
assigned to the first level section followed by a decimal point and a 
consecutive number (e.g., T101.1.1, T101.1.2, etc.).
    Additionally, as part of its efforts to update its transportation 
vehicle guidelines, the Access Board has endeavored to write the 2016 
Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines in terms that make its requirements easier 
to understand.

[[Page 90610]]

As a consequence, most of the revisions in the final rule are editorial 
only, and merely restate existing guidelines in plainer language.
    Commenters to the 2010 NPRM generally applauded the Access Board's 
efforts to revise the existing guidelines, including the format and 
organization of the proposed rule. Several commenters also praised the 
proposed rule as providing a much needed ``refresh'' of the existing 
guidelines, which were last amended in 1998. Some commenters did 
suggest that certain provisions would benefit from clarification or a 
retooled format. In response to such comments, many provisions in the 
2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines have been consolidated, renumbered, or 
relocated. Even still, most of the scoping and technical requirements 
in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines remain substantively the same 
as the existing guidelines, with changes in wording being editorial 
only. A side-by-side comparison of the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines 
and the existing guidelines is available on the Access Board's Web site 
(www.access-board.gov). Unless otherwise noted, section numbers cited 
below refer to provisions in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines.

B. Chapter 1: Application and Administration

    Chapter 1 contains provisions on the application and administration 
of the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines. Only the definitions section 
in this chapter received comments.
T103 Definitions
    In the 2010 NPRM, the Access Board proposed to remove several 
outdated or redundant definitions in the existing guidelines, including 
the definition of the term ``common wheelchairs and mobility aids.'' 
Three transit agencies recommended that the Access Board retain this 
definition in the final rule, while another urged the Board to work 
with the Department of Transportation (DOT) to update the definition of 
``wheelchair'' in DOT's own regulations for ADA-covered vehicles. One 
transit agency described the term as serving as a ``reliable measure'' 
for transit operators.
    The Access Board believes that commenters' concerns about removal 
of this term from the transportation vehicle guidelines are misplaced. 
Deletion of the phrase ``common wheelchair and mobility aids'' will not 
leave transit agencies or others without guidance on what constitutes a 
``wheelchair'' or other mobility aid. Rather, the practical effect of 
removing this definition means that the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle 
Guidelines will, instead, look to the definition of ``wheelchair'' in 
DOT's regulations for ADA-covered transportation vehicles. See T103.2 
(providing that undefined terms, if expressly defined in DOT 
regulations, shall be interpreted according to those meanings). DOT's 
definition of ``wheelchair,'' in turn, is similar to the definition of 
``common wheelchairs and mobility aids'' in the existing guidelines, 
with the exception that its definition does not provide spatial and 
weight specifications for wheelchairs or mobility aids. Compare 49 CFR 
37.3 (DOT definition of ``wheelchair'') with 36 CFR 1192.3 (definition 
of ``common wheelchairs and mobility aids'' in existing 
guidelines).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Specifically, ``common wheelchairs and mobility aids'' is 
defined as follows in the Access Board's existing guidelines: ``[Any 
device] belonging to a class of three or four wheeled devices, 
usable indoors, designed for and used by persons with mobility 
impairments which do not exceed 30 inches in width and 48 inches in 
length, measured 2 inches above the ground, and do not weigh more 
than 600 pounds when occupied.'' 36 CFR 1192.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board is aware that some transit agencies have, in the past, 
used the definition of ``common wheelchairs and mobility aids'' 
inappropriately to exclude certain wheelchairs and mobility devices 
from buses or vans, even when such devices could be accommodated within 
the vehicle. To the extent transit agencies are concerned that deletion 
of this definition in the Access Board's transportation vehicle 
guidelines will mean they can no longer determine what size wheelchairs 
or mobility devices are eligible for bus service, existing DOT 
regulation already address this issue: ``The entity may not deny 
transportation to a wheelchair or its user on the ground that the 
device cannot be secured or restrained satisfactorily by the vehicle's 
securement system.'' 49 CFR 36.165(d). If DOT wishes to include a 
definition for ``common wheelchair'' in its regulations for other 
reasons, DOT can certainly do so. Comments on this subject should be 
directed to DOT when it commences a rulemaking to update its own 
regulations for ADA-covered transportation vehicles.
    To provide clarity and consistency, several new terms have also 
been added to the definitions section (T103) in the 2016 Non-Rail 
Vehicle Guidelines. These terms are: Boarding platform, fixed route 
service (or fixed route), large transit entity, large non-rail vehicle, 
small non-rail vehicle, and non-rail vehicle. Generally speaking, these 
terms (or their related concepts) were present in the proposed rule, 
but appeared in scattered scoping or technical provisions. For 
convenience and clarity, these terms are now centrally defined in T103. 
Each term is briefly discussed below.
    ``Boarding platform'' is a new term for which definition was needed 
because the final rule, for the first time, addresses accessibility 
requirements for level boarding bus systems. A ``boarding platform'' is 
defined as a platform ``raised above standard curb height in order to 
align vertically with the transit vehicle entry for level boarding and 
alighting.'' (Though not expressly defined, the 2010 NPRM used the term 
``station platform'' in the context of requirements for level boarding 
bus systems.)
    ``Fixed route'' is defined in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines 
because the existing definition (which is incorporated from DOT 
regulations) references ``fixed route systems,'' whereas the final rule 
refers to fixed route ``services'' or simply ``fixed routes.'' In all 
other respects, the definition of ``fixed route'' has the same meaning 
as the existing guidelines.
    The term ``large transit entity'' has been added in order to 
simplify the scoping and technical requirements for automated 
announcement systems, but it does not alter their meaning or 
application. As before, only public transportation providers that 
operate 100 or more buses in annual maximum service for all fixed route 
bus modes, as reported to the National Transit Database, are subject to 
the automated announcement system requirement.
    ``Large non-rail vehicle'' and ``small non-rail vehicle'' had 
previously been defined in Chapter 2's scoping provisions. For clarity, 
these ``definitions'' were moved to the definitions section in the 
final rule. In all respects, however, the terms have the same meaning 
as in the proposed rule. ``Large non-rail vehicles'' are vehicles more 
than 25 feet in length, as measured from standard bumper to standard 
bumper, and ``small non-rail vehicles'' are vehicles equal to or less 
than 25 feet in length. In the existing guidelines, 22 feet is the 
maximum length for small vehicles. A manufacturer noted, in response to 
the 2010 NPRM, that newer van designs have safety bumpers and frontal 
crash protection features that increase the vehicle length beyond 22 
feet, but provide no additional passenger space. Consequently, while 
their currently available production models of vans and small buses 
qualify as large vehicles under the existing 22-foot threshold, 
compliance with certain accessibility requirements applicable to large 
vehicles (e.g., provision of two

[[Page 90611]]

wheelchair spaces) is not practical due to limited interior space. This 
commenter recommended that the Access Board increase the threshold for 
distinguishing between small and large vehicles from 22 feet to 25 
feet. The Access Board believes this commenters' concerns are well 
taken, and, accordingly, has increased the size threshold for large 
non-rail vehicles in the final rule. The Board does not expect this 
change to have a cost impact. Rather, this revision to the regulatory 
definition of ``large non-rail vehicle'' is only intended to address 
the problem of small vans or buses being inadvertently ``reclassified'' 
as large vehicles due to exterior safety features that increase a 
vehicle's bumper-to-bumper length without any accompanying expansion of 
interior passenger space.
    Lastly, a definition of ``non-rail vehicle'' has been added to the 
final rule to clarify that this term, when used in the context of the 
2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines, is intended to collectively refer 
only to those types of transportation vehicles that are addressed in 
these revised guidelines--namely, buses, OTRBs, and vans. By so 
defining ``non-rail vehicle'' in the final rule, potential confusion is 
avoided with the far broader definition of the term in DOT's existing 
regulations for ADA-covered transportation vehicles, which includes, 
among other things, public rail transportation. See 49 CFR 37.3.

C. Chapter 2: Scoping Requirements

    Chapter 2 in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines has been 
substantially reorganized to present a more simplified approach. 
Whereas nearly all scoping provisions for buses, OTRBs, and vans in the 
2010 NPRM were ``nested'' as subsections to a single section (former 
T203), in the final rule, each discrete feature or set of related 
requirements--such as, steps (T203), doorways (T204), illumination 
(T205), and handrails, stanchions, and handholds (T206)--has been 
assigned its own scoping section. Some scoping provisions have also 
been editorially revised for clarity. While the Access Board believes 
the modifications to the organization and text of provisions in Chapter 
2 represent improvements, none of these changes were intended to alter 
the substantive scope of the final rule.
    With the exception of the scoping requirements for automated 
announcement systems, relatively few commenters to the 2010 NPRM 
addressed the scoping provisions. Most matters raised by commenters 
related to scoping for the automated announcement system requirement 
are discussed above in Section III (Major Issues), and will not be 
repeated here. However, there remain a few scoping-related matters 
raised by commenters that have not been previously addressed, and these 
matters are discussed below. Significant comments on other proposed 
scoping provisions are also discussed in this section.
T201 General
    Buses, OTRBs, and vans acquired or remanufactured by entities 
covered by the ADA must comply with the scoping requirements in Chapter 
2 to the extent required by DOT's implementing regulations for ADA-
covered transportation vehicles, which, when revised, are required to 
use the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines as minimum accessibility 
standards. Two transit agencies and a bus manufacturer expressed 
concern about, or requested clarification of, the application of the 
requirements in the final rule to existing or remanufactured non-rail 
vehicles. Implementation and enforcement of the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle 
Guidelines is within the sole authority of DOT, not the Access Board. 
The Access Board is statutorily tasked under the ADA with establishing 
minimum guidelines for the accessibility of ADA-covered transportation 
vehicles. Whether DOT ultimately elects to make its regulations 
applicable to then-existing ADA-covered vehicles, and, if so, to what 
extent, remains within the sole province of that agency. Consequently, 
compliance with the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines is not required 
until DOT adopts these guidelines as enforceable accessibility 
standards.
T202 Accessible Means of Boarding and Alighting
    All buses, OTRBs, and vans covered under the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle 
Guidelines must provide at least one means of accessible boarding and 
alighting that serves all designated stops on the assigned route to 
which the vehicle is assigned. These vehicles must also provide access 
to the roadway in the event passengers must be offloaded where there is 
no platform or curb. Provision of accessible boarding and alighting may 
be accomplished through the use of ramps and bridgeplates, lifts, or 
level boarding and alighting systems that meet the technical 
requirements in Chapter 4. Accessibility requirements for level 
boarding bus systems are new to the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines 
because the advent of such transit systems (e.g., bus rapid transit 
systems) post-dated the issuance of the existing guidelines in 1991. 
Only two commenters expressed views on this scoping section, and both 
supported the Access Board's inclusion of requirements for level 
boarding bus systems.
T206 Handrails, Stanchions, and Handholds
    The 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines, as with the existing 
guidelines, require handrails, stanchions, or handholds to be provided 
at passenger doorways, fare collection devices (where such devices are 
otherwise provided), and along onboard circulation paths. Large non-
rail vehicles must generally provide stanchions or handholds on 
forward- and rear-facing seat backs. Handrails, stanchions, and 
handholds must comply with the technical requirements in T303.
    In response to three separate comments from a bus manufacturer, 
seating manufacturer, and transit agency, the text of T206 has been 
revised and an exception for high-back seats, such as those often found 
on OTRBs, has been added. The text revisions clarify that, where 
stanchions or handholds are provided on front- and rear-facing seat 
backs, they must be located adjacent to the aisle so that passengers 
may use them when moving between aisles and seats. The new exception 
provides that, for high-back seats, overhead handrails are permitted in 
lieu of stanchions or seat-back handholds.
T207 Circulation Paths
    As a matter of clarification, the proposed rule specified that, 
where doorways are provided on one side of a non-rail vehicle, an 
accessible circulation path must connect each wheelchair space to at 
least one doorway with accessible boarding and alighting features. See 
2010 NPRM, Section T203.4.2. Where doorways are provided on two sides 
of a vehicle, the proposed rule provided that an accessible circulation 
path must connect each wheelchair space to at least one doorway with 
accessible boarding and alighting features located on each side of the 
vehicle. Id. Additionally, the proposed rule provided that an 
accessible circulation path must connect each wheelchair space to at 
least one accessible doorway (i.e., a doorway from which an accessible 
boarding and alighting feature can be deployed to the roadway). Id.
    The Access Board received several comments from disability rights 
organizations and individuals with disabilities in support of this 
clarifying

[[Page 90612]]

language, and no commenters expressed disagreement with this approach. 
The 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines retain this clarification on the 
scoping for circulation paths.
T210 Wheelchair Spaces
    Under the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines, large non-rail vehicles 
must provide at least two wheelchair spaces, and small non-rail 
vehicles must provide at least one wheelchair space. Wheelchair spaces 
must also be located as near as practicable to doorways that provide 
accessible boarding and alighting features and comply with the 
technical requirements in T602. The requirements remain unchanged from 
the proposed rule.
    A van manufacturer suggested, in response to the 2010 NPRM, that 
the Access Board add language in the final rule that would allow 
additional spaces, even if they do not meet the minimum required 
dimensions. The Board declines to add this requested text. Additional 
wheelchair spaces are already permitted under the existing guidelines, 
and the same language has been carried over into the 2016 Non-Rail 
Vehicle Guidelines. See T210.3. (``Small non-rail vehicles shall 
provide at least one wheelchair space complying with T602.'') (emphasis 
added). Neither the existing guidelines nor the revised guidelines in 
the final rule preclude additional wheelchair spaces beyond the 
minimum, but they do require each space--for safety reasons--to provide 
compliant securement systems, as well as seat and shoulder belts.
T211 Wheelchair Securement Systems
    Wheelchair securement systems complying with the technical 
requirements in T603 must be provided at each wheelchair space. The 
Access Board received several comments on the proposed technical 
provisions addressing wheelchair securement systems, and these comments 
are discussed under Chapter 6.
T213 Seats
    The 2010 NPRM proposed that non-rail vehicles operating in fixed 
route systems be required to designate at least two seats as priority 
seats for passengers with disabilities. See 2010 NPRM, Section 
T203.10.1. The priority seats must be located as near as practicable to 
a doorway used for boarding and alighting. This is similar to the 
requirement that wheelchair spaces be located as near as practicable to 
a doorway used for boarding and alighting. Where aisle-facing seats and 
forward-facing seats are provided, at least one of the priority seats 
must be forward facing.
    Comments were received from a bus manufacturer and a transit 
operator seeking clarification whether flip up seats used in wheelchair 
spaces could also be designated as priority seats. There is nothing in 
the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines that prohibits such an approach. 
The same bus manufacturer also sought clarification concerning whether 
aisle-facing priority seats must be provided, even if none are near a 
doorway. When there is one or more aisle-facing seats on a fixed route 
non-rail vehicle, at least one of these seats must be designated as a 
priority seat. If there is only one aisle-facing seat on a fixed route 
non-rail vehicle, then that seat must be designated as a priority seat 
regardless of its location. If, however, a fixed route non-rail vehicle 
has more than one aisle-facing seat, then the transit operator has the 
discretion to designate as a priority seat whichever aisle seat it 
deems ``as near as practicable'' to a passenger doorway.
T215 Communication Features
    The scoping provisions for communication features address a number 
of different areas, including: Signs or markers for priority seats, 
identification of wheelchair spaces and doorways that provide 
accessible means of boarding and alighting with the International 
Symbol of Accessibility, provision of exterior route or destination 
signs, and automated announcement systems on large non-rail vehicles 
that operate in fixed route service with multiple designated stops.
    In the 2010 NPRM, the scoping requirements for communication 
features were scattered throughout Chapter 2. In the 2016 Non-Rail 
Vehicle Guidelines, all scoping requirements related to communication 
features have been reorganized and consolidated under a single section, 
T215. Other than this reorganization and some minor editorial changes 
to the text of certain provisions to improve clarity, the scoping 
provisions in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines for communication 
features are the same as in the proposed rule.
    With respect to signage for priority seats, the 2010 NPRM proposed 
that priority seats for passengers with disabilities be identified by 
signs informing other passengers to make such seats available for 
passengers with disabilities. These signs would be required to comply 
with the technical requirements in T702. (Section T702, in turn, 
addresses such matters as character style and height, line spacing, and 
contrast.) See 2010 NPRM, Sections T203.10.2, T702. No commenters 
expressed disagreement with these scoping provisions. However, several 
persons with disabilities noted their frustration that priority seats 
on buses are often occupied by passengers who may not need them or 
filled with other passengers' personal belongings (such as packages or 
strollers), and urged the Access Board to address this issue in the 
final rule.
    While the Board acknowledges that ensuring the availability of 
priority seats for passengers with disabilities is a frequent problem, 
resolution lies beyond this final rule. This is a programmatic and 
service issue that falls outside the Access Board's jurisdiction and, 
in any event, is a matter best left to DOT and transit operators. 
Disabilities are not always visible or apparent, and it can be 
difficult to discern whether a passenger has priority to use a 
designated seat. The requirement for signage at priority seats is aimed 
at helping to ensure that people with disabilities have priority use of 
these seats. However, there is nothing in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle 
Guidelines (or, for that matter, current DOT regulations) requiring 
other passengers to make the seats available, or mandating that vehicle 
operators make passengers move from priority seats when, in their view, 
such passengers do not need them. Nonetheless, transit operators are 
encouraged to make efforts, as appropriate for their systems and 
localities, to ensure that priority seats are available for passengers 
with disabilities when needed.
    Section T215 in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines also 
establishes several new communication-related scoping requirements for 
OTRBs. These new provisions, as applied to OTRBs, relate to: 
Identification of priority seats (with signs) and wheelchair spaces and 
accessible doorways (with the International Symbol of Accessibility) 
(T215.2.1, T215.2.2, and T215.2.3); exterior route or destination signs 
(T215.2.4); public address systems (T215.3.1); and stop request systems 
(T215.3.3). While these requirements are new to OTRBs, they have all 
been in effect for buses and vans since the existing guidelines were 
first promulgated in 1991. No comments were received on these scoping 
provisions as newly applied for OTRBs. The expected costs for these new 
OTRB requirements are discussed below in Section V.A (Regulatory 
Process Matters--Final Regulatory Assessment (E.O. 12866)).
    Lastly, T215.3 in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines sets forth 
scoping

[[Page 90613]]

requirements for announcement systems on large non-rail vehicles 
operating in fixed route service that stop at multiple designated 
stops. These requirements address: Public address systems, stop request 
systems, and automated route identification and stop announcement 
systems. The Access Board received a substantial number of comments 
relating to the issue of whether large transit agencies should be 
required to equip their large fixed route buses with automated 
announcement systems, and these comments are addressed above in Section 
III (Major Issues). Several other commenters sought clarification on 
how this requirement would apply in particular settings. These comments 
are discussed below.
    First, a large transit agency, while noting that its fixed route 
bus fleet was already equipped with automated announcement systems, 
nonetheless expressed concern about the cost of complying with the 
automated announcement system requirement to the extent it would apply 
to its small fleet of large paratransit vehicles, which do not have 
such equipment installed. This commenter urged the Access Board to 
expressly exempt paratransit vehicles from the automated announcement 
system requirement. The Board declines to adopt this suggestion because 
no such exception is needed. By its terms, the automated announcement 
system requirement applies only to large non-rail vehicles operating in 
fixed route service with multiple designated stops. See T215.3, 
T215.3.2, and T215.4. Fixed route service, in turn, is defined as 
``[o]peration of a non-rail vehicle along a prescribed route according 
to a fixed schedule.'' T103. Paratransit service, by nature, does not 
operate on either prescribed routes or fixed schedules. Accordingly, 
paratransit service does not qualify as ``fixed route service,'' and, 
therefore, is not subject to the automated announcement system 
requirement.
    Second, a state-wide association of transit managers asked the 
Access Board to clarify how the VOMS 100 threshold applies to 
contractors that provide fixed route bus service for public transit 
agencies. ``Large transit entity,'' which is a newly defined term in 
T103, refers to providers of public transportation services that 
``operat[e] . . . 100 or more buses in annual maximum service for all 
fixed route service bus modes collectively, through either direct 
operation or purchased transportation.'' Thus, for purposes of 
determining whether a transit operator is a ``large transit entity'' 
subject to the automated announcement system requirement, both directly 
operated and purchased (i.e., contracted) transportation services 
``count'' towards the VOMS 100 threshold. This approach is consistent 
with DOT's current accessibility standards for ADA-covered 
transportation vehicles, which specify that public entities entering 
into contractual arrangements with private entities for provision of 
fixed route service must ensure that the private entity satisfies the 
same accessibility requirements that would be applicable as if the 
public entity directly provided that same service. See 49 CFR 37.23; 
see also 49 CFR 37.3 (defining the term ``operates'' to include both 
directly operated and purchased transportation services).
    Third, a number of commenters, including APTA and several transit 
agencies, sought clarification concerning application of the automated 
announcement system requirement to existing buses. APTA stressed that 
restricting the scope of this requirement to new (or newly acquired) 
buses was important to ensure that large transit agencies that do not 
yet have automated announcement systems would be able to acquire needed 
equipment through their regular procurement cycles, and smaller transit 
agencies nearing the VOMS 100 threshold were not inadvertently limited 
from expanding their fixed route service.
    As discussed at the outset of this section (see T201 Scope), 
determining whether (or to what extent) the automated announcement 
system requirement will apply to existing buses falls within the 
purview of DOT, not the Access Board. The 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle 
Guidelines, as with our existing guidelines, establish minimum 
accessibility guidelines for buses, OTRBs, and vans acquired or 
remanufactured by entities covered by the ADA. See T101.1, T201.1. 
These revised guidelines, however, only become enforceable standards 
upon adoption by the Department of Transportation (DOT). Whether DOT 
elects to make its regulations applicable to then-existing ADA-covered 
transportation vehicles, and, if so, to what extent, remains within its 
sole discretionary authority. Consequently, views on the application of 
the automated announcement system requirement to existing buses are 
best directed to DOT, once it commences its own rulemaking to adopt the 
2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines as enforceable accessibility 
standards. Regulated entities will not be required to comply with the 
2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines until DOT completes its rulemaking 
efforts.

D. Chapter 3: Building Blocks

    Chapter 3 in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines has been 
significantly reorganized from the proposed rule. Chapter 3 in the 2016 
Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines contains the technical requirements related 
to three areas--walking surfaces (T302), handrails, stanchions, and 
handholds (T303), and operable parts (T304)--that formerly were located 
in a different chapter in the 2010 NPRM. See 2010 NPRM, Sections T802 
(Surfaces), T804 (Additional Requirements for Handrails, Stanchions, 
and Handholds), and T805 (Operable Parts). While relatively few 
commenters addressed the proposed technical requirements in the 2010 
NPRM relating to these three areas, some of these comments did lead the 
Board, as discussed below, to slightly revise the provisions in Chapter 
3 of the final rule.
T302 Walking Surfaces
    The technical requirements for walking surfaces include provisions 
on slip resistance, the maximum size of surface openings, and the 
maximum height of vertical surface discontinuities (i.e., changes in 
level), with and without edge treatment. Exceptions are also provided 
for certain openings in wheelchair securement system components affixed 
to walking surfaces and for manual placement and removal of ramps and 
bridgeplates (as, for example, on small buses or vans in cases of 
emergency), as well as walking surfaces on steps that are not part of 
onboard passenger access routes.
    With respect to slip resistance, a bus manufacturer urged the 
Access Board to incorporate specific measures for slip resistance 
(i.e., maximum and minimum friction coefficients) in the final rule. 
The Board declines to adopt this recommendation. As with our other 
existing accessibility guidelines for the built environment and other 
areas, we do not specify in this rule any coefficients of friction 
because a consensus method for rating slip resistance still remains 
elusive. While different measurement devices and protocols have been 
developed over the years for use in the laboratory or the field, a 
widely accepted method has not yet emerged. Since rating systems are 
unique to the test method, specific levels of slip resistance can only 
be meaningfully specified according to a particular measurement 
protocol. Some flooring products are labeled with a slip resistance 
rating based on a laboratory test procedure.
    Another commenter, a transportation research center, noted that the

[[Page 90614]]

wheelchair securement systems used in many non-rail vehicles--
especially small buses and vans--are floor mounted and have openings 
that allow wheelchair tie downs to be attached using the openings. As a 
consequence, this commenter observed that most securement systems would 
not satisfy the proposed maximum opening in walking surfaces (i.e., 
passage of a sphere no more than \5/8\ inch or 16 mm in diameter). See 
2010 NPRM, Section T802.3). To address this concern, an exception has 
been added to the final rule that allows a larger opening (\7/8\ inch 
width maximum) for wheelchair securement system components affixed to 
walking surfaces, provided that, where such openings are greater than 
\5/8\ inch in width, they visually contrast with the rest of the 
walking surface. See 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines, T302.3, 
Exception 1. We do not, however, adopt this commenter's additional 
suggestion that wheelchair securement system components be exempted 
from the surface discontinuity requirements, which, in their view, was 
needed due to concerns about the commercial availability of products 
that meet this standard. We have identified several recessed or flush-
mounted securement systems currently on the market that would comply 
with the requirements in the final rule. Accordingly, the final rule 
does not exempt wheelchair securement systems from compliance with the 
technical requirements for surface discontinuities in T302.4.
T303 Handrails, Stanchions, and Handholds
    The technical requirements for handrails, stanchions, and handholds 
include specifications on edges, cross sections, and clearances (i.e., 
space between gripping surface and adjacent surface). We received only 
one comment on the proposed technical requirements in the 2010 NPRM 
related to the cross section of seat-back handholds. In the 2010 NPRM, 
we proposed that gripping surfaces with circular cross sections (such 
as those used on seat-back handholds) have an outside diameter of 1\1/
4\ inches minimum and 2 inches maximum. A seating manufacturer 
expressed concern that larger diameter handholds would result in 
significant industry-wide expense and lead to potential safety issues 
because greater rigidity would be less likely to absorb energy on 
impact. This commenter suggested that the Access Board instead 
harmonize with specifications for seat-back handholds in APTA's model 
bus procurement guidelines, which provide a \7/8\ inch diameter 
(minimum) handhold with quantification of minimum energy absorption for 
the seat back and handhold.\16\ APTA's model bus procurement guidelines 
are well-established in the public transportation industry, and the 
Board is unaware of any concerns regarding the smaller seat-back 
handhold minimum specified in those guidelines. Accordingly, in the 
final rule, the Board has lowered the minimum dimension for seat-back 
handhold cross sections from 1\1/4\ inches (32 mm) to \7/8\ inches (22 
mm). See T303.3.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, e.g., APTA, Standard Bus Procurement Guidelines RFP 
2013 Sec.  TS 78-13 (May 2013) (available on APTA Web site).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

T304 Operable Parts
    The technical requirements for operable parts in the 2016 Non-Rail 
Vehicle Guidelines remain the same as in the proposed rule; however, 
they have been slightly reorganized so that all requirements are 
consolidated into a single section, T304. The technical requirements 
for operable parts include provisions on height, location, and 
operation. Operable parts on fare collection devices serving passenger 
access routes, stop request systems, wheelchair spaces, and priority 
seats must comply with these technical requirements.
    In the 2010 NPRM, the Access Board proposed to raise the minimum 
height of operable parts in non-rail vehicles from 15 inches to 24 
inches. See 2010 NPRM, Section T805.2. A commenter to the 2008 Draft 
Revised Vehicle Guidelines noted that some operable parts--such as 
those on stop request devices--are small and difficult to reach for 
some transit users. To address the problem, the commenter suggested 
raising the specified minimum height for operable parts. No commenters 
objected to the revised minimum height (24 inches) for operable parts 
in the proposed rule. A transit agency did note that, based on a survey 
of its existing bus fleet, all operable parts on its buses were already 
mounted higher than 24 inches. Accordingly, the Access Board believes 
that compliance with this revised minimum height for operable parts--
which has been retained in the final rule (see T304.2)--is unlikely to 
cause transit agencies to incur new costs or significantly alter 
existing practices.

E. Chapter 4: Boarding and Alighting

    Chapter 4 in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines, which sets forth 
the technical requirements for ramps and bridgeplates, accessible means 
of level boarding and alighting, lifts, and steps, has been 
significantly reorganized and revised from the proposed rule. All 
technical provisions related to boarding and alighting--including level 
boarding bus systems and steps (which formerly appeared in Chapters 2 
and 5 respectively in the proposed rule)--are now consolidated in this 
chapter. Several provisions have also been revised at the behest of 
commenters. Responses to comments on the Board's proposal in the 2010 
NPRM to revise the technical requirements for the slope of ramps in 
non-rail vehicles by specifying a single standard (1:6) for maximum 
running slope applicable to ramps deployed to roadways or curb-height 
bus stops are discussed in Section III (Major Issues). Discussed below 
are significant comments on other technical requirements for ramps, 
bridgeplates, and lifts, as well as other revisions to Chapter 4 in the 
final rule. (We received no comments on two provisions in Chapter 4--
Level Boarding and Alighting (T404) and Steps (T405)--which are 
unchanged from the 2010 NPRM.)
T402 Ramps and Bridgeplates
    The technical requirements for ramps and bridgeplates in the 2016 
Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines include provisions on design load, 
installation and operation, emergency operation, surfaces, clear width, 
edge guards, running slope, transitions, visual contrast, gaps, and 
stowage. These technical requirements are organized in similar fashion 
to the proposed rule; they also remain the same substantively as in the 
proposed rule, with the exception of the requirements for maximum ramp 
running slopes. Section T402 has been slightly revised to clarify that 
the ramps and bridgeplate barriers must be a minimum height of 2 
inches, but allows them to be reduced to less than 2 inches when they 
are within 3 inches of the boarding end of the device. This 
accommodates wheelchair users' need to turn as they enter and exit the 
ramp and reduces the likelihood that passersby will trip on the 
barrier.
    The Access Board received several comments relating to technical 
specifications for the design load of ramps. In the 2010 NPRM, the 
Board proposed to retain the existing requirement that ramps and 
bridgeplates longer than 30 inches (as well as lifts) be required to 
have design loads of 600 pounds (273kg) minimum. See 2010 NPRM, T303.2. 
These commenters--including a transit agency, an advocacy organization, 
and two transportation research centers--urged the Board to update 
(i.e., increase) the specified design loads for lifts and ramps 
because, over time, occupied wheeled mobility

[[Page 90615]]

devices have gotten heavier (e.g., larger or more complex devices, 
growing obesity rates).
    While the Board acknowledges the trend towards heavier wheeled 
mobility devices and other factors having a tendency to increase the 
weight of various potential ramp-based boarding and alighting 
scenarios, we do not believe a revision in the existing minimum design 
load for ramps and bridgeplates is advisable at this time. Additional 
research directed at evaluating design loads for ramps in buses and 
vans, as well as potential effects of increase in minimum design load 
on vehicle design or operation is needed. Moreover, it is also 
important that any potential revision of requirements for minimum 
design loads for ramps be coordinated with design loads for public 
lifts specified in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), 
which are incorporated by reference in the technical specifications for 
lifts in the final rule. See 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines, T403.1. 
The Board also notes that the design load specified in T403.1 is a 
minimum requirement. Ramp manufacturers and transit operators are free 
to develop and use ramps with increased design loads as they deem 
appropriate. Indeed, there are several commercially available ramp 
models that have rated load capacities that exceed 600 pounds.
    A bus manufacturer commented that the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards (FMVSS) permit marking of the sides of the barriers to 
indicate the surface boundaries and warn passersby of a tripping 
hazard. Nothing in the final rule prevents this additional high 
contrast marking.
T403 Lifts
    The technical requirements for lifts have been substantially 
revised in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines. In the 2010 NPRM, the 
technical requirements for lifts were set forth in five enumerated 
provisions, with one section (T302.5) having eleven subsections. See 
2010 NPRM, Sections T302.1-T302.5. These provisions addressed design 
load, controls, manual operation, platform characteristics, gaps, 
threshold ramps, contrast, deflection, movement, boarding direction, 
standees, and handrails. Id. Several commenters, including transit 
operators and a bus manufacturer, expressed concern with certain 
aspects of these proposed technical provisions, including 
specifications for interior and exterior manual releases in the event 
of a power failure. These commenters urged the Access Board to instead 
reference existing standards for public vehicular lifts set forth in 
the FMVSS, which are issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration. See 49 CFR 571.403, 571.404.
    After considering this recommendation, the Board has determined 
that the public lift standards in the FMVSS provide a similar level of 
accessibility relative to the proposed rule, and, as well, provide 
measurable testing requirements that ensure both accessibility and 
safety for lift users. Section T403 of the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle 
Guidelines has thus been revised to incorporate the technical 
requirements for public use lifts specified in Standards 403 and 404 of 
the FMVSS, which are codified at 49 CFR 571.403 and 571.404. We do, 
however, carry forward the requirement from the proposed rule that lift 
platforms be designed to permit passengers who use wheelchairs to board 
the platforms facing either toward or away from the vehicle. The public 
lift standards in the FMVSS are silent on boarding direction, so this 
requirement is set forth in a separate, stand-alone provision in the 
final rule. See 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines, T403.2.

F. Chapter 5: Doorways, Circulation Paths, and Fare Collection Devices

    Chapter 5 in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines contains the 
technical requirements for doorways, illumination at doorways and 
boarding and alighting areas, passenger access routes, and, where 
provided, fare collection devices. Chapter 5 has been significantly 
reorganized since the proposed rule, with two sections being moved out 
of this chapter and located elsewhere in the final rule (i.e., former 
T505 addressing handrails, stanchions, and handholds moved to scoping 
provisions in Chapter 2, and former T504 addressing steps moved to 
Chapter 4), and two other sections, which were formerly housed in other 
chapters of the proposed rule, now being located in this chapter (i.e., 
T503 Illumination, T505 Fare Collection Devices). The Board believes 
that this reorganization makes for a more cohesive presentation of the 
technical requirements in this chapter. Additionally, in the final 
rule, the technical requirements for vertical clearances at doorways 
with lifts or ramps and for illumination at doorway areas have been 
restated using text in lieu of the tabular formats in the proposed 
rule. Compare, e.g., 2010 NPRM, Table T503.1 (Vertical Clearance at 
Doorways with Lifts or Ramps) and Table T803 (Areas Illuminated and 
Illuminance Levels) with 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines, Sections 
T502 (Doorways) and T503 (Illumination). Other provisions in this 
chapter have also undergone modest editorial changes aimed at 
clarifying or simplifying the regulatory text. Despite the foregoing 
organizational changes and editorial revisions to Chapter 5, the 
substance of the underlying technical requirements remains largely the 
same as in the proposed rule, with the exception of the requirements 
for passenger access routes.
T503 Passenger Access Routes
    In the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines, passenger access routes 
(which were referred to as ``accessible circulation paths'' in the 
proposed rule) must provide clearances sufficient to permit passengers 
using wheelchairs to move between doorways with accessible boarding and 
alighting features and wheelchair spaces, and to maneuver in and out of 
wheelchair spaces. This requirement essentially mirrors the current 
provisions in the existing guidelines applicable to buses, OTRBs, and 
vans. See 36 CFR 1192.23(a) (``All [covered] vehicles . . . shall 
provide . . . sufficient clearances to permit a wheelchair or other 
mobility aid user to reach a securement location.''), 1192.159(a)(1) 
(establishing same requirement for OTRBs). In the 2010 NPRM, the Access 
Board proposed prescribing a specific dimensional standard (34 inches) 
for the clear width of passenger access routes. See 2010 NPRM, Section 
T502.2. For the reasons discussed previously, see Section III (Major 
Issues), the Board decided not to move forward with this proposal in 
the final rule. It is hoped that, in the near future, ongoing research 
on interior circulation on public transportation vehicles will yield a 
performance standard that will serve the needs of transit operators, 
bus and equipment manufacturers, and persons with disabilities alike. 
At present, however, no such performance standard exists that can be 
referenced in the final rule.
T504 Fare Collection Devices
    Section T504 in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines establishes 
specifications for the location of fare collection devices (to ensure 
that such devices do not impede wheelchair movement along passenger 
access routes), as well as their operable parts (to ensure such devices 
are reachable and usable by passengers with disabilities). These 
technical requirements mirror those proposed in the 2010 NPRM. However, 
the Access Board did not retain a proposed specification--which also 
appears in the existing guidelines for buses and vans--requiring fare 
collection devices, where

[[Page 90616]]

provided, to be located ``as close to the dashboard as practicable.'' 
See 2010 NPRM, Section T502.3; see also 36 CFR 1192.33 (``Where 
provided, the farebox shall be located as far forward as 
possible[.]''). This change recognizes the possibility that some bus 
systems may also provide fare collection devices at center or rear 
doors. Wherever located, however, fare collection devices must not 
interfere with passenger circulation.
    A transit agency expressed concern that application of the 
requirements in this section, in conjunction with the maximum mounting 
height for operable parts specified in T304 (i.e., operable parts 
cannot be located higher than 48 inches above the vehicle floor), would 
require fare collection devices to be mounted higher than the industry 
norm of 45 inches. The Access Board believes such concerns are 
misplaced, and has not modified the specified height range for operable 
parts on fare collection devices (or any other devices). Forty-eight 
inches is the maximum height at which parts intended for use by 
passengers may be located; it is not the required height for operable 
parts. Under the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines, operable parts may 
be located at any point within the specified range of 24 inches minimum 
and 48 inches maximum. Transit operators may thus continue to follow 
industry norm and mount fare collection devices such that their 
operable parts are located 45 inches above the vehicle floor.

G. Chapter 6: Wheelchair Spaces and Securement Systems

    Chapter 6 in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines establishes 
technical requirements for wheelchair spaces, wheelchair securement 
systems, and seat belts and shoulder belts provided for passengers who 
use wheelchairs. (In the 2010 NPRM, these provisions appeared in 
Chapter 4 of the proposed rule.) With the exception of two areas, this 
chapter has been neither significantly reorganized nor substantively 
revised from the proposed rule. The two areas in which the requirements 
in this chapter differ substantially from the proposed rule--wheelchair 
space maneuvering clearances and forward excursion barriers for rear-
facing wheelchair containments systems--are detailed in Section III 
(Major Issues) above. Comments related to proposed technical 
requirements in these two areas are also discussed in that section, and 
are not repeated here. Discussed below are significant comments on 
other aspects of the technical requirements for wheelchair spaces and 
securement systems.
T602 Wheelchair Spaces
    The technical requirements for wheelchair spaces include provisions 
on surfaces, approach, and size. Under the final rule, as with the 
existing guidelines, one full unobstructed side of each wheelchair 
space must adjoin or overlap a passenger access route. See T602.3. 
Wheelchair spaces must also be 30 inches minimum in width and 48 inches 
minimum in length. See T602.4. Because mobility devices vary widely in 
their respective dimensions and maneuverability, we note that it may be 
beneficial for transit operators to consider providing wheelchair 
spaces larger than this minimum size to meet the needs of all transit 
users.
    An exception has been added to T602.4 in the final rule that 
permits the space occupied by wheelchair footrests to be located under 
an adjacent seat, provided that the space under such seat meets 
specified size requirements. See T602.4 Exception. This exception is 
also found in the existing guidelines. See 36 CFR 1192.23(d)(2) 
(providing that ``[n]ot more than 6 inches of the required clear floor 
space [for wheelchair spaces in buses and vans] may be accommodated for 
footrests under another seat''), 1192.159(d)(2) (setting forth same 
exception for wheelchair spaces in OTRBs). Because the 2010 NPRM 
proposed additional maneuvering clearances for wheelchair spaces, this 
exception was not germane and, therefore, did not appear in the 
proposed rule. See 2010 NPRM, Section T402. However, since these 
proposed maneuvering clearances have not been retained in the final 
rule, this exception is once again needed to permit an overlap between 
wheelchair spaces and the space under adjacent seats, provided such 
overlap satisfies certain conditions.
T603 Wheelchair Securement Systems
    The technical requirements in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines 
for wheelchair securement systems include provisions on orientation, 
design load, movement, and rear-facing wheelchair securement systems. 
In the 2010 NPRM, with respect to requirements for orientation of 
wheelchair spaces and their accompanying securement systems, the Access 
Board essentially restated requirements in the existing guidelines: 
Wheelchair securement systems must secure a wheelchair so that the 
occupant is facing the front or rear of the vehicle (i.e., no ``side 
facing'' securement is permitted), and, on large non-rail vehicles, at 
least one securement system must be forward facing. See 2010 NPRM, 
Section 403.2 & Advisory T403.2 Orientation.
    A joint comment submitted by a consortium of transportation 
research centers urged the Access Board, for safety reasons, to 
restrict rear-facing wheelchair securement systems to large or slower-
moving vehicles, such as large intra-city transit buses. Based on this 
comment, the orientation requirement for wheelchair securement systems 
has been revised in the final rule. Section T603.2 establishes a 
general requirement that wheelchair securement systems must be front 
facing. A new exception to T603.2 permits rear-facing securement 
systems ``on large non-rail vehicles designed for use by both seated 
and standing passengers,'' provided that at least one other wheelchair 
securement system is front facing.
    Two commenters also suggested that the Access Board clarify (or 
define) what ``normal operating conditions'' means in the context of 
the requirement that wheelchair securement systems limit movement of 
occupied wheelchairs. See 2010 NPRM, T403.4 (providing that wheelchair 
securement systems must limit movement of occupied wheelchairs when, 
among other things, ``the vehicle is operating in normal conditions''). 
In the 2010 NPRM, the text of this proposed section was accompanied by 
an advisory that states, in pertinent part: ``Normal operating 
conditions are specific to the area where the vehicle operates. 
Vehicles that operate in hilly terrain or on winding roads will have 
more severe constraints than those operating in flat areas.'' See 2010 
NPRM, Advisory T403.4 Movement. These advisory materials are posted on 
the Access Board's Web site.\17\ A similar advisory will accompany the 
text of T603.4 in the final rule, and will also be available on the 
agency's Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Office of the Federal Register does not permit advisory 
materials to be published in the Code of Federal Regulations. 
Consequently, only the version of the proposed rule posted on the 
Access Board's Web site includes advisory text and figures. The 
online version of the proposed rule, as well as other materials 
related to this rulemaking, can be found here: https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/transportation/vehicles/update-of-the-guidelines-for-transportation-vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, a few commenters responded to Question 15 in the 2010 
NPRM, which sought input on whether the Access Board should address 
four safety-related matters in subsequent rulemakings. See 2010 NPRM, 
75 FR at 43753-54, Question No. 15. These recommendations related to: 
Potential incorporation of forthcoming standards on wheelchair tiedown 
and occupant restraint systems used in motor vehicles

[[Page 90617]]

(SAE Recommended Practice J2249 (June 1999)), wheelchair securement 
systems in small non-rail vehicles, movement under emergency driving 
conditions, and rear-facing compartmentalization.\18\ Several 
commenters, including a joint comment submitted by a consortium of two 
transportation research centers, recommended that the Access Board 
should adopt the standards in SAE Recommended Practice J2249 (June 
1999) for front-facing wheelchair securement systems. Several other 
commenters expressed views on compartmentalization of rear-facing 
wheelchair positions. A large transit agency encouraged the Access 
Board to consider addressing specifications for rear-facing 
compartmentalization, which, it believes, offers the benefits of 
increasing independent access, reducing occupational hazards for 
vehicle operators, and reduces dwell times. Two other commenters, 
including a disability rights organization and a transportation 
research center, noted safety concerns and a need for further study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ SAE Recommended Practice J2249, Wheelchair Tiedown and 
Occupant Restraint Systems for Use in Motor Vehicles (June 9, 1999), 
as noted in the 2010 NPRM, was in the process of being updated and 
published as a voluntary consensus standard. See 75 FR at 43753 n. 
18. In 2012, this recommended practice was indeed formally published 
as ANSI/RESNA WC-4: 2012, Section 18 ``Wheelchair tiedown and 
occupant restraint systems for use in motor vehicles.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Access Board appreciates the input provided by these commenters 
on these areas, and will take their views under advisement in future 
rulemakings concerning transportation vehicles.

H. Chapter 7: Communication Features

    Chapter 7 in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines establishes 
technical requirements for characters on signs, the International 
Symbol of Accessibility, and vehicular announcement systems. With the 
exception of requirements addressing announcement systems in T704, this 
chapter has been neither reorganized nor substantively changed from the 
proposed rule. Section T704 in the final rule has been reorganized and 
editorially revised to improve clarity; these modifications, however, 
did not materially alter its terms. We received no comments on two of 
the three sections in Chapter 7--namely, Signs (T702) and International 
Symbol of Accessibility (T703)--and so these sections are not addressed 
below.
T704 Announcement Systems
    The technical requirements for announcement systems include 
provisions on automated route identification announcement systems, 
automated stop announcement systems, and stop request systems. These 
requirements are intended to ensure that passengers with disabilities 
have the critical information needed to make public bus transportation 
systems accessible, usable, and safe for independent use by persons 
with disabilities.
    Stop request systems must provide audible and visible notification 
onboard the non-rail vehicle indicating that a passenger has requested 
to disembark at the next stop. See T704.3. Audible notifications may be 
verbal or non-verbal signals, while visible notifications must include 
either signs (complying with T702), lights, or other visually 
perceptible indicators. Id. There are also specifications addressing 
when stop request notifications must extinguish. Id. Parts on stop 
request systems intended for passenger use must comply with the 
technical requirements for operable parts (T304), including height, 
location, and ease of use. The technical requirement in the final rule 
for stop request systems on buses and vans are similar to the existing 
guidelines. See 36 CFR 1192.37. At the request of a transit agency, the 
final rule does clarify that a mechanism for requesting stops must be 
located within reach of each wheelchair and priority seat. See 
T704.3.2.
    Automated announcement systems must also provide both audible and 
visible notifications. See T704.2, T704.4. Automated route 
identification systems must audibly and visibly identify the route on 
which the bus is operating. Automated stop announcement systems must 
provide audible and visible notification of upcoming stops on fixed 
routes. For both types of automated announcement systems, audible 
messages must be delivered using synthesized, recorded or digitized 
speech. For stop announcement systems, such messages must be audible 
within the bus, while, for route announcement systems, audible messages 
must be broadcasted externally at boarding and alighting areas. With 
respect to visible components, route identification systems are 
required to provide signs displaying route information on the front and 
boarding sides of the vehicle. For stop announcement systems, signs 
must be provided onboard and be viewable from all wheelchair spaces and 
priority seats. (Signs for each type of automated announcement system 
must also comply with T702.)
    The vast majority of comments received in response to the Access 
Board's proposed requirements for automated announcement systems in the 
2010 NPRM related to the scoping for these requirements (i.e., 
automated announcement systems must be provided by large transit 
agencies that operate 100 or more buses in annual maximum service in 
fixed route bus modes), rather than the technical specifications for 
such systems. Comments related to the scoping requirements for 
automated announcement systems are addressed at length in Section III 
(Major Issues) and IV (Summary of Comments and Responses on Other 
Aspects of the Proposed Rule--Chapter 2: Scoping Requirements).
    Several commenters, including a public transportation organization, 
a transit agency, and individuals with disabilities, recommended that 
the Access Board include standards for the volume or quality (clarity) 
of audible components of automated announcement systems in the final 
rule. Other commenters, while not specifically opining on audibility 
standards, noted that the volume of announcements can sometimes be 
inconsistent or need adjustment in real-time to account for ambient 
noise.
    While the Access Board shares these commenters' view that the 
audibility of stop and route information is a critical aspect of 
announcement systems, we are not aware of any national standards that 
would provide clear, objective, and consistent measures to assess 
compliance. Indeed, in the 2010 NPRM, the Board requested information 
on standards for audio quality that could be referenced in the final 
rule or, in the alternative, recommended in advisory materials. See 
2010 NPRM, 75 FR at 43754 (Question 19). No commenters suggested or 
cited any referenceable standards for audio quality. Absent such 
standards, the Board declines at this time to include specifications 
for audio volume or quality in the technical requirements for automated 
announcement systems. However, should referenceable standards for audio 
quality of announcements in public transportation vehicles be 
developed, the Board will certainly consider referencing such standards 
in future rulemakings. Additionally, when DOT initiates its own 
rulemaking process to adopt these revised guidelines as enforceable 
standards for buses, OTRBs, and vans, it may find that inclusion of 
programmatic standards for announcement audibility (which are beyond 
the Board's jurisdiction) would be both appropriate and useful.
    With respect to the requirement that automated stop announcement 
systems must have signage viewable onboard from all wheelchair spaces 
and priority

[[Page 90618]]

seats, APTA expressed concerns about the cost of providing signs for 
rear-facing wheelchair positions. For several reasons, we do not 
believe that, in practice, such signs will pose a significant expense. 
First, rear-facing wheelchair spaces are not required by the 2016 Non-
Rail Vehicle Guidelines. Rather, the default orientation for wheelchair 
spaces is front facing, with the rear-facing position being an 
exception permitted only on certain large non-rail vehicles so long as 
at least one wheelchair securement system is front facing. See T603.2. 
Second, while rear-facing wheelchair spaces are prevalent throughout 
Europe and Canada, they are still relatively uncommon in the United 
States. Only a handful of transit agencies employ rear-facing 
wheelchair spaces for bus transit, and, when used, it is generally on 
bus rapid transit systems. Together, these considerations augur against 
significant costs for provision of stop announcements signs for rear-
facing wheelchair spaces. Moreover, we believe it is beneficial for 
non-rail vehicles with any rear-facing passengers to provide this 
important communication feature.

V. Regulatory Process Matters

A. Final Regulatory Assessment (E.O. 12866)

    Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to propose or 
adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits 
justify its costs; tailor the regulation to impose the least burden on 
society, consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives; and, in 
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those 
approaches that maximize net benefits. Important goals of regulatory 
analysis are to (1) establish whether Federal regulation is necessary 
and justified to achieve a market failure or other social goal and (2) 
demonstrate that a range of reasonably feasible regulatory alternatives 
have been considered and that the most efficient and effective 
alternative has been selected. Executive Order 13563 also recognizes 
that some benefits are difficult to quantify and provides that, where 
appropriate and permitted by law, agencies may consider and discuss 
qualitatively those values that are difficult or impossible to 
quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive 
impacts.
    The Access Board prepared a final regulatory impact analysis (Final 
RA) that assesses the likely benefits and costs of the 2016 Non-Rail 
Vehicle Guidelines. Expected benefits are discussed and likely 
incremental. Compliance costs for new requirements are monetized for 
the projected 12-year regulatory timeframe, including potential costs 
to small businesses offering OTRB-provided transportation, charter, and 
sightseeing services. The Final RA also incorporates several ``stress 
tests'' to assess the relative impact of hypothetical adjustments to 
selected cost-related assumptions on overall results. A complete copy 
of this final regulatory assessment is available on the Access Board's 
Web site (www.access-board.gov), as well the Federal Government's 
online rulemaking portal (www.regulations.gov).
1. Costs: Summary of Methodology and Results
    On the cost side, the Final RA estimates the economic impact of new 
or revised requirements in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines that 
are expected to have an incremental impact relative to the existing 
guidelines or current transit industry practices. As with the proposed 
rule, most of the changes in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines are 
stylistic or editorial only, and thus not expected to have an 
incremental cost impact. There are, however, five requirements (or 
related sets of requirements) in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines 
for which regulated entities are expected to incur incremental 
compliance costs. One of these requirements (i.e., automated stop and 
route announcement systems) applies only to certain large transit 
agencies. The other four requirements--signage for accessible seating 
and doorways, exterior destination or route signs, public address 
systems, and stop request systems--while applicable to non-rail 
vehicles, are only ``new'' for OTRBs. (Such requirements have been in 
effect for buses and vans since 1991.)
    For purposes of assessing the likely cost impact of these five 
requirements over the 12-year regulatory time horizon, the Final RA 
uses a unit cost approach that reflects both initial costs (e.g., 
equipment, installation, and training) and ongoing costs (e.g., 
operation and maintenance), as applicable for each respective 
requirement. While the cost methodology used in the Final RA builds on 
the cost methodology used in the regulatory assessment that accompanied 
the proposed rule, see U.S. Access Board, Cost Estimates for Automated 
Stop and Route Announcements (July 2010) (copy available on agency Web 
site), it also incorporates revisions to certain estimates, assumptions 
and modelling approaches. These changes were made to, among other 
things, address comments, reflect changes in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle 
Guidelines, and incorporate updated research or data. Revisions and 
updates reflected in the Final RA's cost methodology include: Use of 
three (rather than two) sets of cost assumptions--low, medium, and 
high--when estimating incremental costs of the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle 
Guidelines; incorporation of the four new accessibility requirements 
for OTRBs into the cost model; evaluation of the cost impact of the 
automated announcement systems requirement using three size-based 
``tiers'' (Tiers I, II and III) for large transit entities; and, 
addition of a small business analysis.
    In sum, the Final RA estimates annual costs of the five new or 
revised accessibility requirements in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle 
Guidelines with incremental impacts for each of the twelve ``regulatory 
years'' and, within each of these years, separately for each of three 
(i.e., ``high,'' ``medium/primary,'' and ``low'') cost scenarios. 
(Annual costs estimates under each cost scenario are generated by 
respectively indulging all applicable ``high'' cost assumptions, all 
``medium'' cost assumptions, and all ``low'' cost assumptions.) 
Generally speaking, the ``medium'' cost estimates collectively serve as 
the primary scenario in the Final RA when calculating incremental costs 
because it models the most likely set of cost assumptions, while the 
``low'' and ``high'' cost estimates respectively provide the lower- and 
upper-bound cost projections.
    In terms of results, the Final RA evaluates the cost impact of the 
new accessibility requirements in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines 
from three main perspectives: Total costs; annualized costs to large 
transit entities for automated announcement systems; and annualized 
costs for the four accessibility requirements that are newly applicable 
to OTRBs. The results for each of these three cost perspectives are 
summarized below.
Annualized Cost of New or Revised Accessibility Requirements in the 
2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines
    Table 3 below provides the annualized cost, under each of the Final 
RA's three cost scenarios, for the five new or revised accessibility 
requirements in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines that are expected 
to have an incremental cost impact. All monetized costs were estimated 
over a 12-year time horizon using discount rates of 3% and 7%.

[[Page 90619]]



   Table 3--Annualized Cost of New Accessibility Guidelines in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines for Buses,
                                      Vans, and OTRBs, All Regulatory Years
                                           [3% and 7% discount rates]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Low scenario     Primary scenario    High scenario
                     Discount rate                          ($millions)        ($millions)        ($millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3%.....................................................               $2.6               $5.0               $8.0
7%.....................................................                2.3                4.5                7.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These results show that annualized costs of the 2016 Non-Rail 
Vehicle Guidelines will, most likely range from $4.5 million to $ 5.0 
million, depending on the discount rate. Notably, even under the high 
scenario, annualized costs are not expected to exceed $8 million. 
Results from the Final RA thus demonstrate that the expected cost 
impact of the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines falls far below the 
threshold for economic (monetary) significance of regulatory actions 
provided in E.O. 12866. See E.O. 12866, Sec.  3(f)(1) (defining 
``significant regulatory action'' as, among other things, a rule that 
would likely have an ``annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
more'').
Annualized Costs to Large Transit Entities for Automated Announcement 
Systems
    Second, the Final RA also examines likely annualized costs related 
to the requirement that large transit entities provide automated 
announcement systems for stop and route identification on their large 
vehicles operating in fixed route bus service. Large transit agencies, 
in turn, are defined in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines as public 
transportation providers operating 100 or more buses in annual maximum 
service in fixed route bus modes, through either direct operation or 
contract, based on annual data required to be reported to the National 
Transportation Database [hereafter, ``VOMS 100 threshold'']. See T104.4 
(defining ``large transit entity''); see also 49 CFR pt. 37 
(regulations governing the DOT-administered National Transportation 
Database). While the scope of the automated announcement systems 
requirement is thus necessarily limited to larger transit entities, 
there are still--relatively speaking--a wide range of ``sizes'' within 
the community of covered transit agencies, which can range in fleet 
size from just over 100 buses operating in fixed route bus service to 
hundreds.
    Accordingly, to provide a more refined picture of estimated costs 
to large transit entities for automated announcement systems, the Final 
RA separately models costs for this requirement based on three 
prototypical size-based ``tiers''--Tiers I, II & III--with Tier I being 
on the smaller end of the size spectrum and Tier III on the larger end. 
These three size-based tiers are intended to represent the typical 
range of ``sizes'' of large transit agencies covered by the automated 
announcement system requirement. Assumptions about relevant cost-
modeling characteristics for each of these three tiers of large transit 
agencies--namely, the number of large buses in annual maximum service 
in fixed route bus modes, fixed routes, garages, vehicle operators, and 
mechanics--along with estimates concerning the status and nature of 
current ITS deployments (if any) by these transit entities, serve as 
the framework for modeling costs.\19\ As detailed in the Final RA, 
assumptions about the number of transit agencies per tier, as well as 
their respective fixed route bus fleets and current state of ITS 
deployments, were developed from research by Access Board staff and 
data reported in the 2014 National Transportation Database. See Final 
RA, Section 5.1.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For example, under Tier I, it is assumed that the transit 
agency operates a fleet of 130 buses in fixed route service, while 
Tier III assumes a fleet of 530 vehicles in fixed route bus service. 
For a detailed discussion of the assumed characteristics for each of 
the three tiers, see Final RA, Section 5.1.1 & Appendix B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It also bears noting that the Final RA's cost model for the 
automated announcement systems requirement accounts for potential 
growth by public transit agencies over time. That is, it is assumed 
that, every third year during the 12-year regulatory timeframe, one 
transit agency will ``cross'' the VOMS 100 threshold, and, thereby, 
become newly subject to the requirement for automated announcement 
systems. These ``new'' large transit agencies are assumed to have 
characteristics similar to--though slightly smaller than--large transit 
agencies in ``Tier I,'' based on the assumption that transit entities 
crossing the VOMS threshold will do so in an incremental fashion. See 
Final RA, Section 5.1.1.
    Presented in Table 4 below are per-agency annualized costs for the 
automated announcement systems requirement under each of the Final RA's 
three cost scenarios. These annualized costs range from about $44,000 
(for a Tier I agency under the low scenario) to about $430,000 (for a 
Tier III agency under the high scenario). Under the primary scenario, 
which models the most likely set of cost assumptions, per-agency costs 
for announcement systems are estimated to be as follows: Tier I--
$80,659; Tier II--$154,985; and, Tier III: $264,968.

  Table 4--Annualized Per Agency Costs of Automated Announcement Systems Requirement for Large Transit Agencies
                                               [Tiers I, II & III]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Low scenario     Primary scenario    High scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Transit Agency--Tier I...........................            $44,208            $80,659           $129,305
Large Transit Agency--Tier II..........................             76,678            154,985            248,313
Large Transit Agency--Tier III.........................            129,444            264,968            429,715
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 90620]]

    These annualized cost figures underscore the logical cost corollary 
that per-agency costs directly relate to agency size, with the 
``smallest'' large transit agencies (Tier I) experiencing the lowest 
annualized costs under all scenarios, and, conversely, the ``largest'' 
large transit agencies (Tier III) having the highest annualized costs. 
Nonetheless, even for Tier III agencies, costs are not estimated to 
exceed $450,000 annually under even the high scenario.
Annualized Costs of New Accessibility Requirements for OTRBs
    The third set of cost results presented in the Final RA relates to 
the four new OTRB-related accessibility requirements in the 2016 Non-
Rail Vehicle Guidelines. Because various transportation-related 
industry sectors use OTRBs for scheduled transportation services, 
charter services, sightseeing, and other services, these accessibility 
requirements (unlike the automated announcement systems requirement) do 
not affect a discrete a set of regulated entities. Consequently, 
reliable estimates of per-firm costs related to the new OTRB 
accessibility requirements cannot be made. Instead, the Final RA 
examines costs for these four requirements on a per-vehicle and per-
requirement basis.
    With respect to per-requirement costs, the Final RA evaluates the 
respective costs of each of the four new OTRB accessibility 
requirements under the three cost scenarios over the projected 12-year 
term of the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines. For each cost scenario, 
results are broken down separately (in nominal dollars) by requirement 
for each year, and then presented as rolled-up annualized values for 
all requirements at 3% and 7% discount rates. In sum, the annualized 
cost for these four new requirements collectively across all OTRBs is 
estimated to be $0.9 million under the primary scenario at a 7% 
discount rate, while the low and high scenarios respectively project 
$0.5 million and $1.4 million in annualized costs using the same 
discount rate. For a complete presentation of cost-per-requirement 
results, see Final RA, Section 7.1.3 & Appendices F-1 to F-3.
    Second, in terms of per-vehicle costs, the Final RA examines likely 
costs related to the four new OTRB accessibility requirements. 
Annualized costs of these new requirements are examined under each of 
the three cost scenarios, with results presented on a per-vehicle basis 
using 3% and 7% discount rates. The results from these per-vehicle 
annualized cost analyses are presented below in Table 5.

                Table 5--Per-Vehicle Annualized Costs of New Accessibility Requirements for OTRBs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Low scenario     Primary scenario    High scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount Rate.......................................               $631             $1,124             $1,754
7% Discount Rate.......................................                549                971              1,513
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As this table demonstrates, the cost of the new OTRB accessibility 
requirements are expected to be quite modest, when viewed from a per-
vehicle perspective, under all three cost scenarios. Indeed, annualized 
costs per vehicle are only expected to be about $1,100 or less 
(depending on the discount rate) under the primary scenario.
2. Benefits: Qualitative Summary of Benefits
    Benefits of the revised accessibility requirements in the 2016 Non-
Rail Vehicle Guidelines to persons with disabilities (and others)--
while significant--are not quantified or monetized in the Final RA, but 
instead described from a qualitative perspective. Such benefits are 
particularly challenging to quantify or monetize due to a variety of 
considerations. These challenges include: (a) A lack of current, 
reliable statistics on ridership by persons with specific disabilities 
on transit buses and OTRBs; (b) the fact that persons with disabilities 
will experience benefits differently, depending on the nature of their 
respective disabilities, and the current level of accessibility 
provided by the transit system or OTRB they wish to use; (c) the 
unknown extent to which improved accessibility of transit buses and 
OTRBs may either spur new demand among persons with disabilities who do 
not currently use such vehicles due to accessibility barriers that are 
addressed by the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines, or increase demand 
among current passengers with disabilities; (d) the extent to which 
persons with disabilities have reliable access to transportation, 
since, even when accessible, vehicles cannot be used if a potential 
passenger cannot reach them; (e) personal transportation preferences of 
persons with disabilities, who, like all individuals, make transit 
decisions for multiple reasons, some of which are unrelated to 
accessibility; and (f) the inherent challenges posed by monetization of 
key benefits of the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines, such as equity, 
fairness, independence, and better integration into society.
    While the foregoing factors make formal quantification or 
monetization of the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines' benefits 
inherently difficult, their significant benefits can still be amply 
described. The most significant benefits from the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle 
Guidelines are expected to flow from the automated stop and route 
announcement systems requirement. The failure to announce stops and 
other identifying route information has been a recurring problem under 
the existing regulatory regime. See Final RA, Section 3.2. By requiring 
audible and visible notification of upcoming stops and identifying 
route information through automated announcements, the new requirement 
is expected to deliver significant benefits to passengers with vision- 
or hearing-related disabilities who use fixed route buses and OTRBs, or 
who would use such services absent communications barriers. Id. at 
Section 6.
    Consistent and intelligible stop and route announcements, for 
example, may enable passengers who are blind or have low vision--for 
the first time--to use fixed route service independently, or permit 
them to do so more reliably and with greater frequency. Automated 
announcements are also expected to generate time savings by lessening 
(if not preventing) situations in which passengers with vision- or 
hearing-related disabilities disembark at the wrong stop, and then must 
wait for another bus (or other means of transportation) to transport 
them to their desired destination. In sum, the automated announcement 
systems requirement will not only deliver direct and substantial 
benefits to fixed route passengers with vision- or hearing-related 
disabilities, but will also promote fairness by ensuring a more 
consistent approach to announcements on fixed route buses across the 
country.
    Individuals with other types of disabilities may also experience 
benefits

[[Page 90621]]

from the automated announcement system requirement. Studies have shown 
that individuals with cognitive or intellectual disabilities also 
frequently face communications barriers when using fixed route transit, 
and, thus will benefit from consistent, reliable stop and route 
announcements, such as those provided by automated announcement 
systems.\20\ Additionally, for individuals with significant mobility 
impairments, automated stop announcements may mean the difference 
between getting off at the correct stop and getting off at the wrong 
stop--due to unintelligible (or non-existent) stop or route 
announcements--to face a physically arduous or hazardous journey to his 
or her intended destination (or other location that gets the trip back 
on track). See Final RA, Section 6 (summarizing findings from 
transportation research studies on the importance of consistent and 
intelligible stop and route announcements to passengers with 
disabilities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Arizona State Univ., Morrison Institute for Public Policy, 
Stuck at Home: By-Passing Transportation Roadblocks to Community 
Mobility and Independence 3 (2013), available at: https://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/products/stuck-home-passing-transportation-roadblocks-community-mobility-and-independence; 
National Council on Disability, Current State of Transportation for 
People with Disabilities in the United States 13-14 (June 13, 2005), 
available at: http://www.ncd.gov/policy/current-state-transportation-people-disabilities-united-states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the new OTRB-related requirements, benefits are expected to be 
similar to, though perhaps more incremental than, the benefits accruing 
from automated announcement systems. These four new accessibility 
requirements--identification of wheelchair spaces and accessible 
doorways (with the International Symbol of Accessibility) and priority 
seats (with signs), exterior destination or route signage, public 
address systems, and stop request systems--are all aimed at addressing 
communication barriers to use of, or use of accessible features on, 
OTRBs. Signage of wheelchair spaces and priority seats is expected to 
enable passengers with disabilities to more readily locate these 
accessibility features. Signage for accessible seating may also aid in 
deterring passengers without disabilities from using priority seating 
or setting packages or strollers in wheelchair spaces (when such spaces 
are not otherwise occupied by flip-down seating), thereby keeping them 
available for passengers with disabilities. Similarly, having 
accessible stop request mechanisms within reach of passengers seated in 
accessible seating on fixed-route OTRBs ensures that passengers with 
disabilities who use such seating can independently indicate their 
desire to disembark at the next designated stop. Public address 
systems, in turn, enable passengers with hearing-related disabilities 
(as well as other passengers) to better understand information conveyed 
by the vehicle operator, which, in the event of an emergency, could be 
of urgent significance. Lastly, having exterior route or destination 
signage on the front and boarding sides of OTRBs aids passengers with 
disabilities by making it easier to ascertain a given vehicle's route, 
destination, or identity. Having such signage in both locations is 
particularly important, for example, at transit hubs, bus terminals, 
areas where multiple vehicles are parked simultaneously, or other 
locations where traffic or terrain make circling to the front of the 
vehicle difficult or hazardous.
    Additionally, it bears noting that other individuals and entities, 
including transit agencies, may benefit indirectly from new 
accessibility requirements in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines. 
Several research studies on ITS deployments and automated announcement 
systems have shown that such systems often have the beneficial effect 
of increasing both customer satisfaction and ridership.\21\ For large 
transit agencies that do not yet have automated announcement systems, 
compliance costs incurred in deploying such systems might thus be 
offset in part by increases in fixed route ridership and fare revenue. 
Additionally, bus passengers who are unfamiliar with a particular 
route, or who are visiting from outside the area, may find the 
wayfinding assistance provided by automated stop and route 
announcements to be helpful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See, e.g., Transportation Research Board, TCRP Synthesis 
73--AVL System for Bus Transit: Update 3, 3, 13-43, 64-66 (2008) 
(noting that, among other benefits, automated stop announcements 
enable vehicle operators to focus on safe vehicle operation, reduce 
customer complaints, and ensure better compliance with ADA 
regulations and other legal requirements); Delaware Center for 
Transportation, University of Delaware, Costs and Benefits of 
Advanced Public Transportation Systems at Dart First State 23-32 & 
App. A (July 2004) (general benefits of ITS deployments include: 
Increased transit ridership and revenues from passenger fares; 
improved transit service; increased customer satisfaction; and, 
enhanced compliance with ADA requirements); DOT, ITS Joint Program 
Office, Evaluation of Acadia National Park ITS Field Operational 
Test: Final Report 4-13--4-17 (2003) (strong majority of visitors 
surveyed about automated on-board stop announcements on buses in 
Acadia National Park indicated that these announcements made it 
easier for them to get around, reduced uncertainty about bus stops, 
helped save them time, and played an influential role in their 
decision to use bus transit); see also National Council on 
Disability, Transportation Update: Where We've Gone and What We've 
Learned 39 (2015) (discussing the importance of effective stop 
announcements to persons with disabilities, and noting that ``lack 
of an effective stop announcement and route identification program 
can force riders onto ADA paratransit'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Alternative Regulatory Approaches: Automated Announcement Systems
    In promulgating a 100-bus VOMS threshold for large transit agencies 
subject to the automated announcement systems requirement, the Access 
Board considered other potential regulatory alternatives. Ideally, when 
determining the most appropriate numeric VOMS threshold for large 
transit agencies subject to the automated announcement system 
requirement, the Access Board would have evaluated the net (monetized) 
benefits of potential alternate thresholds as part of the regulatory 
calculus were such data available. See, e.g., OMB, Circular A-4, 
Regulatory Analysis 2-3, 7-9, 16-17 (Sept. 17, 2003). However, as noted 
above, data constraints, along with the inherent challenges posed by 
formal assessment of key benefits of the final rule for persons with 
disabilities (e.g., equity, fairness, independence, and better 
integration into society) precluded monetization of benefits 
attributable to the automated announcement systems requirement, or, 
more generally, the final rule. Accordingly, it was not possible to 
determine, from the perspective of economic efficiency, which VOMS 
threshold would be the most beneficial to society. The Access Board 
thus used other available information and considerations--such as 
analyzing NTD annual data--to tailor a VOMS threshold that reduces the 
burden of the automated announcement systems requirement on small 
entities, while, at the same time, ensuring that automated announcement 
system-equipped transit buses will be available to greatest number of 
persons with disabilities who use these vehicles.
    As originally proposed, automated announcement systems requirement 
would have applied to all transit agencies regardless of the size of 
their large, fixed-route bus fleets. See Sections II (Regulatory 
History) & III (Major Issues--Automated Stop Announcements). The VOMS 
100 threshold was initially added to the 2008 Draft Revised Guidelines 
at the behest of commenters who sought an exemption for smaller transit 
agencies. Id. Specification of this particular threshold was intended 
as a means of tailoring coverage of the automated systems requirement 
to larger, urbanized transit entities that were most likely to serve a 
significant population of persons with disabilities, as well as

[[Page 90622]]

have the financial and technological resources to deploy automated 
announcement system functionality. Id. In this way, the Access Board 
views the VOMS 100 threshold as striking a reasonable balance between 
competing interests (e.g., improved communication accessibility versus 
not overburdening smaller transit agencies) while also remaining 
consistent with the ADA's goals of reducing transportation barriers, 
and, more generally, ensuring consistent accessibility standards 
nationwide. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 12101.
    Establishment of a VOMS 100 threshold for automated announcement 
systems in the final rule--as opposed to specification of a different 
numeric threshold--was based on not only these policy and legal 
considerations, but also quantitative analysis of data from the 
National Transportation Database (NTD). As detailed in the Final RA, 
the Access Board downloaded pertinent information from the 2014 NTD 
annual data to assess how drawing different numeric lines for the VOMS 
threshold might impact transit agencies of various sizes. See Final RA, 
Section 8. In sum, the resulting dataset encompassed nearly 700 urban 
transit entities of all sizes that reported operating one or more 
fixed-route bus modes. Id. Based on this data, the Access Board 
conducted comparative analyses of potential alternate VOMS thresholds 
(i.e., VOMS 50 and VOMS 250 thresholds) from several perspectives, 
including projected population of persons with disabilities in transit 
agencies' respective service areas, estimated bus ridership by disabled 
passengers, and potential availability of Federal funds for ADA-related 
capital expenditures (such as deployment of automated announcement 
systems). Id. These comparative analyses of potential alternate VOMS 
thresholds showed, from a quantitative perspective, that the VOMS 100 
threshold struck a reasonable, middle-ground metric in terms of the 
scope of covered large, urban transit agencies.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires Federal agencies to 
analyze the impact of regulatory actions on small entities, unless an 
agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 604, 605 (b). Based 
on the results from the Final RA, the Access Board does not believe 
that the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines will have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Nonetheless, to 
promote better understanding of the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines as 
applied to small entities operating in transportation-related business 
sectors, the Access Board provides below a final regulatory flexibility 
analysis consistent with section 604 of the RFA.
    Summary of the need for, and objectives of, the 2016 Non-Rail 
Vehicle Guidelines. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mandates 
that the Access Board establish accessibility guidelines for 
transportation vehicles that are acquired or remanufactured by entities 
covered by the ADA. See 42 U.S.C. 12204, 12149(b). The Access Board's 
guidelines for transportation vehicles were initially promulgated in 
1991, and thereafter amended in 1998 to include accessibility 
requirements for OTRBs. Given the passage of nearly two decades, these 
existing guidelines are in need of a ``refresh'' for two primary 
reasons: to incorporate new accessibility-related technologies, such as 
automated announcement systems and level boarding bus systems, and 
ensure that the transportation vehicle guidelines are consistent with 
the agency's other guidelines and standards issued since 1998.
    Most of the revisions in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines are 
editorial only. These revised guidelines use a new organizational 
format that is modelled after the Access Board's current guidelines for 
buildings and facilities that were issued in 2004. Additionally, as 
part of its efforts to update the existing guidelines, the Board has 
also endeavored to write the final rule in terms that make its 
requirements simpler and easier to understand. There are, however, five 
areas in which technical requirements in the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle 
Guidelines have substantively changed relative to the existing 
guidelines. One of these requirements (i.e., automated stop and route 
announcement systems) only applies to large transit entities and, 
therefore, does not impact any small entities. The other four 
requirements--identification of wheelchair spaces and accessible 
doorways (with the International Symbol of Accessibility) and priority 
seats (with signs), exterior destination or route signage, public 
address systems, and stop request systems--while applicable to all non-
rail vehicles, are only ``new'' for OTRBs. (Such requirements have been 
in effect for buses and vans since 1991.) The revisions in the 2016 
Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines will help ensure that buses, vans, and 
OTRBs are readily accessible to, and usable by, individuals with 
disabilities. Compliance with the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines is 
not required until the Department of Transportation (DOT) adopts these 
revised guidelines as enforceable accessibility standards for ADA-
covered buses, OTRBs, and vans.
    Summaries of significant issues raised by public comments in 
response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis and discussion 
of regulatory revisions made as a result of such comments. Commenters 
did not raise any issues related to the initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis presented in the 2010 NPRM.
    Estimates of the number and type of small entities to which the 
2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines will apply. Small governmental 
jurisdictions (i.e., state or local government units with a population 
of less than 50,000) and small businesses (i.e., small private entities 
that meet the size standards established by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA)) will be affected by the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle 
Guidelines only to the extent they are subject to DOT's ADA regulations 
covering transportation services for individuals with disabilities (49 
CFR part 37), which, in turn, must be ``consistent with'' the Access 
Board's accessibility guidelines.
    The Final RA also provides a small business analysis that evaluates 
the number of small entities potentially affected by the 2016 Non-Rail 
Vehicle Guidelines, and the likely economic impact on such entities. 
See Final RA, Sections 4.3 & 8. In sum, the Final RA's small business 
analysis finds as follows. First, the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines 
are only expected to have an economic impact on small (private) firms 
that operate OTRBs in fixed route service. No small governmental 
jurisdictions are expected to incur compliance costs under the 2016 
Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines given that the automated announcement 
systems requirement only applies to large transit entities (i.e., 
transit agencies operating 100 or more buses in annual maximum service 
in fixed route bus modes). According to the current (2014) National 
Transit Database, none of transit entities that report operating 100 or 
more buses in annual maximum service in fixed route bus modes have 
service areas or urbanized area (UZA) populations under 50,000.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Federal Transit Administration, 2014 National 
Transportation Database--Agency Information, http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/datbase/2013_database/NTDdatabase.htm 
(last visited Jan. 11, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Final RA's small business analysis evaluates the number 
of small businesses that potentially may be affected by the 2016 Non-
Rail Vehicle Guidelines. Small firms operate OTRBs

[[Page 90623]]

for a variety of purposes, but predominant uses include: provision of 
fixed route passenger service within or among cities, passenger charter 
services, airport shuttle services, sightseeing tours, and packaged 
tours. While these services do not squarely align with any single 
business sector the under the 2012 North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS), they best ``map'' to the following four 
6-digit NAICS codes: 485113 (Bus and Other Motor Transit Systems); 
485210 (Interurban and Rural Bus Transportation); 485510 (Charter Bus 
Industry); and 487110 (Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, 
Land).\23\ Data were compiled from the 2012 U.S. Economic Census 
(released in June 2015) to determine the number of small OTRB firms 
within each of these four transportation-related NAICS codes. The 
Economic Census data show that firms within these four transit/
transportation/charter/sightseeing industry sectors are, based on SBA-
defined size standards, overwhelmingly small businesses. The number and 
percentage of small businesses in each of the four NAICS codes are 
provided below in Table 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See U.S Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions (undated), 
available at: http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/2012NAICS/2012_Definition_File.pdf (last visited: Jan. 11, 2016).

            Table 6--Number and Percentage of Small Businesses in Four OTRB-Related Business Sectors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Small  business
        2012 NAICS code              NAICS  description        Total firms     Small  business     firms (% of
                                                                                    firms         total firms)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
485113.........................  Bus and Other Motor                     625               584              93.4
                                  Vehicle Transit Systems.
485210.........................  Interurban and Rural Bus                397               369              92.9
                                  Transportation.
485510.........................  Charter Bus Industry.....             1,265             1,211              95.7
487110.........................  Scenic and Sightseeing                  543               517              95.2
                                  Transportation, Land.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It bears noting, however, that firm data in Table 6 above likely 
overestimates the number of small firms affected by the 2016 Non-Rail 
Vehicle Guidelines. This is due to the fact that the four listed NAICS 
codes encompass transportation, charter, and sightseeing services 
provided by vehicles other than OTRBs, such as trolley buses, transit 
buses, or historic rail cars. In other words, these NAICS codes are not 
restricted to transportation services provided exclusively by OTRBs. 
There are no NAICS codes, however, directed solely to OTRB-provided 
transportation or other services. Accordingly, despite their 
limitations, these four NAICS codes nonetheless provide the best 
available framework (given current data limitations) for estimating the 
number of small firms that may operate OTRBs and, thereby, potentially 
incur compliance costs under the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines.
    Description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other 
compliance requirements of the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines. As 
noted below in Section V.E., discussing the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines impose no reporting or record-
keeping requirements on any entities, regardless of size. The Access 
Board acknowledges that there may be other minor, indirect 
administrative costs incurred by regulated entities--including small 
businesses--as a result of the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines, 
including such tasks as becoming familiar with the 2016 Non-Rail 
Vehicle Guidelines, or keeping track of the operational status of 
onboard equipment for automated announcement systems. However, such 
compliance costs are expected to be neither significant nor 
disproportionately borne by small entities.
    Description of the steps taken by the Access Board to minimize the 
economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives 
of the ADA. In the 2007 Draft Revised Guidelines, the Access Board 
considered requiring all public transit agencies to provide automated 
announcement systems on large fixed route buses, regardless of the size 
of the agency. Several commenters, including the American Public 
Transit Association, expressed concern that the cost of providing such 
announcement systems would be prohibitive for small transit agencies. 
Consequently, in the NPRM, the Access Board proposed to limit 
application of the automated announcement system requirement to large 
transit agencies. This limitation, as noted above, has the practical 
effect of excluding all small public transit agencies from the 
automated announcement systems requirement.

C. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    The final rule adheres to the fundamental federalism principles and 
policy making criteria in Executive Order 13132. The 2016 Non-Rail 
Vehicle Guidelines are issued pursuant to the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA is civil rights legislation that was 
enacted by Congress pursuant to its authority to enforce the Fourteenth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and to regulate commerce. The ADA 
prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of 
transportation services. See 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. The ADA requires 
transportation vehicles acquired or remanufactured by covered entities 
to be readily accessible to, and usable by, individuals with 
disabilities. The ADA recognizes the authority of state and local 
governments to enact and enforce laws that provide for greater or equal 
protection for the rights of individuals with disabilities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not apply to proposed or 
final rules that enforce constitutional rights of individuals or 
enforce statutory rights that prohibit discrimination on the basis of 
race, color, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or disability. Since 
the 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines are issued pursuant to the ADA, 
which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, an 
assessment of the rule's effect on state, local, and tribal 
governments, and the private sector is not required.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), Federal agencies are 
generally prohibited from conducting or sponsoring a ``collection of 
information'' as defined by the PRA, absent OMB approval. See 44 U.S.C. 
3507 et seq. The 2016 Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines do not impose any new 
or revised collections of information within the meaning of the PRA.

F. Availability of Materials Incorporated by Reference

    Regulations issued by the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) 
require Federal agencies to describe in their regulatory preambles the 
steps taken to ensure that

[[Page 90624]]

incorporated materials are reasonably available to interested parties, 
as well as summarize the contents of referenced standards. See 1 CFR 
part 51.
    The final rule incorporates by reference one voluntary consensus 
standard in T603.5, a standard from the International Organization for 
Standardization (ISO) concerning securement systems for rear-facing 
wheelchair positions in transportation vehicles. In keeping with OFR 
regulations, the Access Board provides below the requisite information 
on the availability of this standard and a summary of its contents. ISO 
10865-1:2012(E), Wheelchair containment and occupant retention systems 
for accessible transport vehicles designed for use by both sitting and 
standing passengers--Part 1: Systems for rearward facing wheelchair-
seated passengers, First Edition, June 5, 2012 [ISO Standard 10865-
1:2012(E)]. The primary purpose of this standard is to limit movements 
of rear-facing wheelchairs and other mobility devices that could result 
in hazardous contact with vehicle interiors or injury to other 
passengers. The standard is applicable to vehicular securement systems 
used mainly in fixed route service when operated under normal and 
emergency driving conditions, where passengers are permitted to travel 
both sitting and standing. Specifications include design and 
performance requirements and associated test methods. Availability: 
This standard is available for inspection at either the U.S. Access 
Board, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111, (202) 
272-0080 (voice), (202) 272-0082 (TTY), or the National Archives and 
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of 
this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. Additionally, the American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI) has agreed to make an online read-only version of this 
standard available to the public without charge. This standard is also 
available for purchase from the International Organization for 
Standardization, ISO Central Secretariat, 1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, CP 
56, CH-1211, Geneva 20, Switzerland (http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store.htm).

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 1192

    Civil rights, Incorporation by reference, Individuals with 
disabilities, Transportation.

    Approved by vote of the Access Board on May 23, 2016.
David M. Capozzi,
Executive Director.
    For reasons stated in the preamble, 36 CFR part 1192 is amended as 
follows:

PART 1192--AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) ACCESSIBILITY 
GUIDELINES FOR TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES

0
1. The authority citation for part 1192 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  29 U.S.C. 792 (b) (3); 42 U.S.C. 12204.

Subpart A--General


Sec.  1192.3  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  1192.3 as follows:
0
a. In the definition of ``Bus,'' remove the phrase ``other than an 
over-the-road bus,''; and
0
b. Remove the definitions of ``Common wheelchairs and mobility aids,'' 
``Demand responsive system,'' ``Designated public transportation,'' 
``Fixed route system,'' ``New vehicle,'' ``Remanufactured vehicle,'' 
``Specified public transportation,'' and ``Used vehicle.''

0
 3. In Sec.  1192.4, revise paragraph (b), remove paragraph (c), and 
redesignate paragraph (d) as paragraph (c).
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  1192.4   General.

* * * * *
    (b) Dimensional tolerances. All dimensions are subject to 
conventional engineering tolerances for manufacturing processes, 
material properties, and field conditions, including normal anticipated 
wear not exceeding accepted industry-wide standards and practices.
* * * * *

Subpart B--Buses, Over-the-Road Buses, and Vans

0
4. Revise the heading for subpart B to this part to read as set forth 
above.

0
5. Revise Sec.  1192.21 to read as follows:


Sec.  1192.21  General.

    The accessibility guidelines for buses, over-the-road buses, and 
vans are set forth in Appendix A to this part.


Sec. Sec.  1192.23, 1192.25, 1192.27, 1192.29, 1192.31, 1192.33, 
1192.35, 1192.37, NS 1192.39  [Removed]

0
6. Remove 1192.23, 1192.25, 1192.27, 1192.29, 1192.31, 1192.33, 
1192.35, 1192.37, NS 1192.39.

Subpart G--[Removed and Reserved]

0
7. Remove and reserve subpart G, consisting of Sec. Sec.  1192.151 
through 1192.161.

0
 8. Redesignate the appendix to part 1192 as appendix A to part 1192 
and revise it to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 1192--Accessibility Guidelines for Buses, Over-the-
Road Buses, and Vans

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Application and Administration

T101 Purpose
T102 Conventions
T103 Definitions

Chapter 2: Scoping Requirements

T201 General
T202 Accessible Means of Boarding and Alighting
T203 Steps
T204 Doorways
T205 Illumination
T206 Handrails, Stanchions, and Handholds
T207 Circulation Paths
T208 Passenger Access Routes
T209 Fare Collection Devices
T210 Wheelchair Spaces
T211 Wheelchair Securement Systems
T212 Seat Belts and Shoulder Belts
T213 Seats
T214 Operable Parts
T215 Communication Features

Chapter 3: Building Blocks

T301 General
T302 Walking Surfaces
T303 Handrails, Stanchions, and Handholds
T304 Operable Parts

Chapter 4: Boarding and Alighting

T401 General
T402 Ramps and Bridgeplates
T403 Lifts
T404 Level Boarding and Alighting
T405 Steps

Chapter 5: Doorways, Passenger Access Routes, and Fare Collection 
Devices

T501 General
T502 Doorways
T503 Illumination
T504 Passenger Access Routes
T505 Fare Collection Devices

Chapter 6: Wheelchair Spaces and Securement Systems

T601 General
T602 Wheelchair Spaces
T603 Wheelchair Securement Systems
T604 Stowage
T605 Seat Belts and Shoulder Belts

Chapter 7: Communication Features

T701 General
T702 Signs
T703 International Symbol of Accessibility
T704 Announcement Systems

[[Page 90625]]

Chapter 1: Application and Administration

T101 Purpose

    T101.1 Purpose. These Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines, which consist 
of Chapters 1 through 7, contain scoping and technical requirements 
for new, used or remanufactured non-rail vehicles to ensure their 
accessibility to, and usability by, individuals with disabilities. 
The Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines apply to the extent required by 
regulations issued by the Department of Transportation under the 
Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 12101 et 
seq.).

T102 Conventions

    T102.1 Calculation of Percentages. Where the determination of 
the required size or dimension of an element involves ratios or 
percentages, rounding down for values less than one half shall be 
permitted.
    T102.2 Units of Measurement. Measurements are stated in U.S. and 
metric customary units. The values stated in each system (U.S. and 
metric customary units) may not be exact equivalents, and each 
system shall be used independently of the other.
    T102.3 Vehicle Length. The length of non-rail vehicles shall be 
measured from standard bumper to standard bumper.

T103 Definitions

    T103.1 Terms Defined in Referenced Standards. Terms defined in 
referenced standards and not defined in T103.4 shall have the 
meaning as defined in the referenced standards.
    T103.2 Undefined Terms. Terms not specifically defined in T103.4 
or in regulations issued by the Department of Transportation (49 CFR 
part 37) shall be given their ordinarily accepted meaning in the 
sense that the context implies.
    T103.3 Interchangeability. Words, terms, and phrases used in the 
singular include the plural; and words, terms, and phrases used in 
the plural include the singular.
    T103.4 Defined Terms. For the purpose of the Non-Rail Vehicle 
Guidelines, the following terms have the indicated meaning.
    Boarding platform. A platform in a level boarding bus system 
raised above standard curb height in order to align vertically with 
the transit vehicle entry for level boarding and alighting.
    Fixed route service (or fixed route). Operation of a non-rail 
vehicle along a prescribed route according to a fixed schedule.
    Large transit entity. A provider of public transportation that 
is required to report to the National Transportation Database (49 
U.S.C. 5335), and that, for an any given calendar year, reports to 
such database the operation of 100 or more buses in annual maximum 
service for all fixed-route service bus modes collectively, through 
either direct operation or purchased transportation.
    Large non-rail vehicle. Non-rail vehicles that are more than 25 
feet (7.6 m) in length.
    Level boarding bus system. A system in which buses operate where 
some or all of the designated stops have boarding platforms and the 
design of boarding platforms and non-rail vehicles are coordinated 
to provide boarding having little or no change in level between the 
vehicle floor and the boarding platform.
    Non-rail vehicle. A self-propelled, rubber-tired vehicle used to 
provide transportation services and intended for use on city 
streets, highways, or busways that constitutes either a bus, over-
the-road bus, or van.
    Operable part. A component of a device or system used to insert 
or withdraw objects, or to activate, deactivate, adjust, or connect 
to the device or system. Operable parts include, but are not limited 
to, buttons, levers, knobs, smart card targets, coin and card slots, 
pull-cords, jacks, data ports, electrical outlets, and touchscreens.
    Small non-rail vehicle. Non-rail vehicles that are equal to or 
less than 25 feet (7.6 m) in length.
    Surface discontinuities. Differences in level between two 
adjacent surfaces. Elevation changes due to ramps or stairs do not, 
themselves, constitute surface discontinuities. However, abrupt 
changes in level on the walking surface of ramps or stairs are 
surface discontinuities.

Chapter 2: Scoping Requirements

T201 Scope

    T201.1 General. Non-rail vehicles purchased, leased or 
remanufactured by entities covered by the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA) shall comply with the requirements in the 
Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines to the extent required by regulations 
issued by the Department of Transportation in 49 CFR Part 37.
    T201.2 Reduction in Access Prohibited. No modifications to a 
non-rail vehicle shall be taken that decrease, or have the effect of 
decreasing, the net accessibility or usability of the vehicle below 
the requirements of the Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines.

T202 Accessible Means of Boarding and Alighting

    T202.1 General. Non-rail vehicles shall provide at least one 
means of accessible boarding and alighting that serves each 
designated stop on the fixed route to which the vehicle is assigned. 
Non-rail vehicles shall also provide at least one means of 
accessible boarding and alighting that can be deployed to the 
roadway. Provision of accessible boarding and alighting shall be 
made through one or more of the following methods: ramps or 
bridgeplates complying with T402, lifts complying with T403, or a 
means of level boarding and alighting complying with T404.

T203 Steps

    T203.1 General. Steps on non-rail vehicles shall comply with 
T405.

T204 Doorways

    T204.1 General. Doorways on non-rail vehicles shall comply with 
T204.
    T204.2 Doorways with Lifts, Ramps or Bridgeplates. Doorways with 
lifts or ramps shall comply with T502.2.
    T204.3 Doorways with Level Boarding and Alighting. Doorways with 
level boarding and alighting shall comply with T502.3.
    T204.4 Doorways with Steps on Over-the-Road Buses. On over-the-
road-buses, doorways with steps shall comply with T502.4.

T205 Illumination

    T205.1 General. Non-rail vehicles shall provide illumination 
complying with T503 at ramps, bridgeplates, doorways, and boarding 
and alighting areas.

T206 Circulation Paths

    T206.1 General. Circulation paths in non-rail vehicles shall 
comply with T302.

T207 Handrails, Stanchions, and Handholds

    T207.1 General. Non-rail vehicles shall provide handrails, 
stanchions, and handholds in accordance with T207. Handrails, 
stanchions, and handholds shall comply with T303.
    T207.2 Passenger Doorways. Handrails or stanchions shall be 
provided at passenger doorways in a configuration that permits 
grasping and use from outside the non-rail vehicle and throughout 
the boarding and alighting process.
    T207.3 Fare Collection Devices. Handrails shall be provided at 
fare collection devices and shall be configured so that they can be 
used for support when at the fare collection device.
    T207.4 Circulation Paths. Handrails, stanchions, and handholds 
shall be provided along circulation paths in accordance with T207.4.
    T207.4.1. Small vehicles. Handrails, stanchions, or handholds 
shall be provided within small non-rail vehicles in a configuration 
that permits onboard circulation and assistance with seating and 
standing.
    T207.4.2. Large vehicles. Handholds or stanchions shall be 
provided within large non-rail vehicles on all forward- and rear-
facing seat backs located directly adjacent to the aisle.
    Exception: Where high-back seats are provided, handrails located 
overhead or on overhead luggage racks shall be permitted instead of 
stanchions or handholds.

T208 Passenger Access Routes

    T208.1 General. Non-rail vehicles shall provide passenger access 
routes that permit boarding and alighting, onboard circulation, and 
seating by passengers with disabilities. A passenger access route 
shall consist of a route complying with T208.2 between wheelchair 
spaces and doorways, walking surfaces complying with T302, and 
clearances complying with T504.
    T208.2 Connection to Doorways. A passenger access route shall 
connect each wheelchair space to doorways that provide a means of 
accessible boarding and alighting in accordance with T208.2.
    T208.2.1 Doorways on One Side of vehicle. Where non-rail 
vehicles have doorways on one side, a passenger access route shall 
connect each wheelchair space to a doorway that provides a means of 
accessible boarding and alighting in accordance with T202.
    T208.2.2 Doorways on Two Sides of vehicle. Where non-rail 
vehicles have doorways on two sides, a passenger access route shall 
connect each wheelchair space to

[[Page 90626]]

doorways on both sides of the vehicle that provide a means of 
accessible boarding and alighting in accordance with T202.
    T208.2.3 Deployment to Roadway. A passenger access route shall 
connect each wheelchair space to a doorway providing a means of 
accessible boarding and alighting that can be deployed to the 
roadway in accordance with T202.

T209 Fare Collection Devices

    T209.1 General. Where non-rail vehicles provide onboard fare 
collection devices, at least one fare collection device shall serve 
a passenger access route and comply with T505.

T210 Wheelchair Spaces

    T210.1 General. Non-rail vehicles shall provide wheelchair 
spaces in accordance with T210.
    T210.2 Large non-rail vehicles. Large non-rail vehicles shall 
provide at least two wheelchair spaces complying with T602.
    T210.3 Small non-rail vehicles. Small non-rail vehicles shall 
provide at least one wheelchair space complying with T602.
    T210.4 Location. Wheelchair spaces shall be located as near as 
practicable to doorways that provide a means of accessible boarding 
and alighting.

T211 Wheelchair Securement Systems

    T211.1 General. Non-rail vehicles shall provide wheelchair 
securement systems complying with T603 at each wheelchair space.

T212 Seat Belts and Shoulder Belts

    T212.1 General. Non-rail vehicles shall provide seat belts and 
shoulder belts complying with T605 at each wheelchair space.

T213 Seats

    T213.1 General. Seats on non-rail vehicles shall comply with 
T213.
    T213.2 Priority Seats. Non-rail vehicles operated in fixed-route 
service shall designate at least two seats as priority seats for 
passengers with disabilities. Priority seats shall be located as 
near as practicable to a doorway used for boarding and alighting. 
Where non-rail vehicles provide both aisle-facing and forward-facing 
seats, at least one of the priority seats shall be a forward-facing 
seat.
    T213.3 Armrests at Aisle Seats on Over-the-Road Buses. Where 
armrests are provided on the aisle side of seats on over-the-road 
buses, folding or removable armrests shall be provided on the aisle 
side of at least 50 percent of aisle seats. Priority seats and 
moveable or removable seats permitted by T602.4.1 at wheelchair 
spaces shall be included among the fifty percent of seats with 
folding or removable armrests.

T214 Operable Parts

    T214.1 General. Where provided for passenger use, operable parts 
at wheelchair spaces and priority seats, stop request systems, and 
fare collection devices serving passenger access routes shall comply 
with T304.

T215 Communication Features

    T215.1 General. Communication features on non-rail vehicles 
shall comply with T215.
    T215.2 Signs. Signs shall comply with 215.2.
    T215.2.1 Priority Seats. Priority seats shall be identified by 
signs informing other passengers to make the seats available for 
persons with disabilities. Signs at priority seats shall comply with 
T702.
    T215.2.2 Wheelchair Spaces. Wheelchair spaces shall be 
identified by the International Symbol of Accessibility complying 
with T703.
    T215.2.3 Doorways. Doorways that provide a means of accessible 
boarding and alighting shall be identified on the exterior of the 
non-rail vehicle by the International Symbol of Accessibility 
complying with T703.
    T215.2.4 Destination and Route Signs. Where destination or route 
signs are provided on the exterior of non-rail vehicles, such signs 
shall be located at a minimum on the front and boarding sides of the 
vehicle. The signs shall be illuminated and comply with T702.
    T215.3. Public Address and Stop Request Systems. Large non-rail 
vehicles that operate in fixed route service with multiple 
designated stops shall provide public address and stop request 
systems in accordance with T215.3.
    T215.3.1 Public Address Systems. Public address systems shall be 
provided within non-rail vehicles to announce stops and other 
passenger information.
    T215.3.2 Stop Request Systems. Where non-rail vehicles stop on 
passenger request, stop request systems complying with T704.3 shall 
be provided.
    T215.4 Automated Announcement Systems. Large non-rail vehicles 
operated in fixed route service with multiple designated stops by 
large transit entities shall provide automated stop announcement 
systems and automated route identification systems in accordance 
with T215.4.
    T215.4.1 Automated Stop Announcement Systems. Automated stop 
announcement systems shall comply with T704.3.1.
    T215.4.2 Automated Route Identification Systems. Automated route 
identification systems shall comply with T704.3.2.

Chapter 3: Building Blocks

T301 General

    T301.1 Scope. The requirements in Chapter 3 shall apply where 
required by Chapter 2 or where otherwise referenced in any other 
chapter of the Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines.

T302 Walking Surfaces

    T302.1 General. Walking surfaces in non-rail vehicles shall 
comply with T302.
    Exception: Walking surfaces on lifts shall not be required to 
comply with T302.
    T302.2 Slip Resistant. Walking surfaces shall be slip resistant.
    T302.3 Openings. Openings in walking surfaces shall not allow 
the passage of a sphere more than \5/8\ inch (16 mm) in diameter. 
Elongated openings shall be placed so that the long dimension is 
perpendicular to the dominant direction of travel.
    Exceptions: 1. Wheelchair securement system components affixed 
to walking surfaces shall be permitted to have openings \7/8\ inch 
(22 mm) maximum in width provided that, where such openings are more 
than \5/8\ inch (16 mm) in width, they contrast visually with the 
rest of the walking surface either light-on-dark or dark-on-light.
    2. Ramp and bridgeplate surfaces shall be permitted to have one 
opening 1\1/2\ inches (38 mm) maximum in width and 4\1/2\ inches 
(115 mm) maximum in length to allow the operator to grasp the ramp 
or bridgeplate for manual operation.
    T302.4 Surface Discontinuities. Surface discontinuities shall be 
\1/2\ inch (13 mm) high maximum and shall be beveled with a slope 
not steeper than 1:2.
    Exceptions: 1. Surface discontinuities \1/4\ inch (6.4 mm) high 
maximum shall not be required to be beveled.
    2. Steps complying with T405 shall be permitted on walking 
surfaces that are not part of a passenger access route.

T303 Handrails, Stanchions, and Handholds

    T303.1 General. Handrails, stanchions, and handholds in non-rail 
vehicles shall comply with T303.
    T303.2 Edges. Edges shall be rounded or eased.
    T303.3 Cross Section. Gripping surfaces shall have a cross 
section complying with T303.3.
    T303.3.1 Seat-Back Handhold Cross Section. The cross section of 
seat-back handholds shall have an outside diameter of \7/8\ inches 
(22 mm) minimum and 2 inches (50 mm) maximum.
    T303.3.2 Handrail and Stanchion Circular Cross Section. 
Handrails and stanchions with a circular cross section shall have an 
outside diameter of 1\1/4\ inches (32 mm) minimum and 2 inches (50 
mm) maximum.
    T303.3.3 Handrail and Stanchion Non-Circular Cross Section. 
Handrails and stanchions with a non-circular cross section shall 
have a perimeter dimension of 4 inches (100 mm) minimum and 6\1/4\ 
inches (160 mm) maximum, and a cross section dimension of 2\1/4\ 
inches (57 mm) maximum.
    T303.4 Clearance. Clearance between gripping surfaces and 
adjacent surfaces shall be 1\1/2\ inches (38 mm) minimum.

T304 Operable Parts

    T304.1 General. Operable parts in non-rail vehicles shall comply 
with T304.
    T304.2 Height. Operable parts shall be located 24 inches (610 
mm) minimum and 48 inches (1220 mm) maximum above the floor of non-
rail vehicles.
    T304.3 Location. Operable parts provided at a wheelchair space 
shall be located adjacent to the wheelchair space 24 inches (610 mm) 
minimum and 36 inches (915 mm) maximum from the rear of the 
wheelchair space measured horizontally.
    T304.4 Operation. Operable parts shall be operable with one hand 
and shall not require tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the 
wrist. The force required to activate operable parts shall be 5 lbf 
(22.2 N) maximum.

[[Page 90627]]

Chapter 4: Boarding and Alighting

T401 General

    T401.1 Scope. The requirements in Chapter 4 shall apply where 
required by Chapter 2 or where otherwise referenced in any other 
chapter of the Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines.

T402 Ramps and Bridgeplates

    T402.1 General. Ramps and bridgeplates shall comply with T402. 
Ramps and bridgeplates shall be permitted to fold or telescope.
    T402.2 Design Load. Ramps and bridgeplates 30 inches (760 mm) or 
more in length shall be designed to support a load of 600 pounds 
(273 kg) minimum, placed at the centroid of the ramp distributed 
over an area of 26 inches by 26 inches. The design load of ramps and 
bridgeplates less than 30 inches (760 mm) in length shall be 300 
pounds (136 kg) minimum. The factor of safety for ramps and 
bridgeplates shall be 3 or more, based on the ultimate strength of 
the material.
    T402.3 Installation and Operation. When used for boarding and 
alighting, ramps and bridgeplates shall be firmly attached to the 
non-rail vehicle to prevent displacement. Ramps and bridgeplates 
provided on large non-rail vehicles shall be permanently installed 
and power operated.
    Exception: Ramps and bridgeplates on large non-rail vehicles 
that serve only designated stops with boarding platforms providing 
level boarding and alighting shall not be required to be permanently 
attached and power operated provided that portable ramps or 
bridgeplates capable of deployment to the roadway are carried 
onboard.
    T402.4 Emergency Operation. Power-operated ramps and 
bridgeplates shall be capable of manual operation in the event of a 
power failure.
    T402.5 Surfaces. Ramp and bridgeplate surface material shall 
comply with T302 and extend across the full width and length of the 
ramp or bridgeplate.
    T402.6 Clear Width. The clear width of ramps and bridgeplates 
shall be 30 inches (760 mm) minimum.
    T402.7 Edge Guards. Ramps and bridgeplates shall provide edge 
guards continuously along each side of the ramp or bridgeplate to 
within 3 inches (75 mm) of the end of the ramp or bridgeplate that 
is deployed furthest from the non-rail vehicle. Edge guards shall be 
2 inches (51 mm) high minimum above the ramp or bridgeplate surface.
    T402.8 Running Slope. The maximum running slope of ramps and 
bridgeplates shall comply with T402.8.1 or T402.8.2.
    T402.8.1 Deployment to Roadways or to Curb Height Boarding and 
Alighting Areas. The running slope of ramps and bridgeplates used 
for deployment to the roadway or to curb-height boarding and 
alighting areas shall be 1:6 maximum, as measured to ground level 
with the non-rail vehicle resting on a flat surface.
    T402.8.2 Deployment to Boarding Platforms. The running slope of 
ramps and bridgeplates used for deployment to platforms shall be 1:8 
maximum, as measured to the boarding platform with the non-rail 
vehicle resting on a flat surface.
    T402.9 Transitions. Vertical surface discontinuities at 
transitions from boarding and alighting areas to ramps and 
bridgeplates shall comply with T302.4.
    T402.10 Visual Contrast. The perimeter of the walking surface on 
ramps and bridgeplates shall be marked by a stripe. The stripe shall 
be 1 inch (25 mm) wide minimum and shall contrast visually with the 
rest of the walking surface either light-on-dark or dark-on-light.
    T402.11 Gaps. When ramps or bridgeplates are deployed for 
boarding and alighting, gaps between the ramp or bridgeplate surface 
and floor of non-rail vehicles shall not permit passage of a sphere 
more than \5/8\ inch (16 mm) in diameter.
    T402.12 Stowage. Where portable ramps and bridgeplates are 
permitted, a compartment, securement system, or other storage method 
shall be provided within the non-rail vehicle to stow such ramps and 
bridgeplates when not in use.

T403 Lifts

    T403.1 General. Lifts shall comply with T403 and the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards (FMVSS) for public use lifts at 49 CFR 571.403 and 
571.404.
    T403.2 Boarding Direction. Lift platforms shall be designed to 
permit passengers who use wheelchairs the option to board the 
platforms facing either toward or away from the non-rail vehicle.

T404 Level Boarding and Alighting

    T404.1 General. Boarding and alighting at boarding platforms in 
level boarding bus systems shall comply with T404.
    T404.2 Vehicle Floor and Boarding Platform Coordination. The 
design of non-rail vehicles shall be coordinated with the boarding 
platforms to minimize the gap between the vehicle floor and the 
boarding platforms.
    T404.3 Ramps and Bridgeplates. Where the space between the floor 
of non-rail vehicles and a boarding platform is greater than 2 
inches (51 mm) horizontally or 5/8 inch (16 mm) vertically when 
measured at 50 percent passenger load with the vehicle at rest, non-
rail vehicles shall provide ramps or bridgeplates complying with 
T402.

T405 Steps

    T405.1 General. Steps shall comply with T405.
    T405.2 Surfaces. Step tread surfaces shall comply with T302.
    T405.3 Visual Contrast. The outer edge of step treads shall be 
marked by a stripe. The stripe shall be 1 inch (25 mm) wide minimum 
and shall contrast visually with the rest of the step tread or 
circulation path surface either light-on-dark or dark-on-light.

Chapter 5: Doorways, Circulation Paths and Fare Collection Devices

T501 General

    T501.1 Scope. The requirements in Chapter 5 shall apply where 
required by Chapter 2 or where otherwise referenced in any other 
chapter of the Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines.

T502 Doorways

    T502.1 General. Doorways in non-rail vehicles shall comply with 
T502.
    T502.2 Doorways with Lifts, Ramps or Bridgeplates. The vertical 
clearance at doorways with lifts, ramps or bridgeplates shall comply 
with T502.2. Vertical clearance shall be measured from the inside 
finished edge of the door opening to the highest point of the 
deployed lift, ramp or bridgeplate below.
    T502.2.1 Over-the-Road Buses. For over-the-road buses, the 
vertical clearance at doorways shall be 65 inches (1650 mm) minimum.
    T502.2.2 Other Vehicles. For other non-rail vehicles, the 
vertical clearance at doorways shall be 56 inches (1420 mm) minimum 
on small non-rail vehicles and 68 inches (1725 mm) on large non-rail 
vehicles.
    T502.3 Doorways with Level Boarding. Doorways on non-rail 
vehicles designed for level boarding bus systems shall comply with 
T502.3.
    T502.3.1 Clear Width. Doorways shall provide a clear opening of 
32 inches (810 mm) minimum.
    T502.3.2 Thresholds. Thresholds at doorways shall be marked by a 
stripe. The stripe shall be 1 inch (25 mm) wide minimum and contrast 
with the rest of the walking surface either light-on-dark or dark-
on-light.
    T502.4 Doorways with Steps on Over-the-Road Buses. On over-the-
road buses, doorways with steps shall provide an opening with a 
clear width of 30 inches (760 mm) minimum.
    Exceptions: 1. The door opening clear width above a height of 48 
inches (1220 mm) measured from the lowest step tread shall be 
permitted to taper so as to reduce in width to 18 inches (457 mm) 
minimum.
    2. Where compliance with T502.4 is not structurally feasible, 
the door opening clear width shall be permitted to be 27 in (685 mm) 
minimum.
    3. Hinges and other door mechanisms shall be permitted to 
protrude 4 inches (100 mm) maximum into the door opening clear width 
at or below 48 inches (1220 mm) in height measured from the lowest 
step tread.

T503 Illumination

    T503.1 General. Illumination shall be provided at ramps, 
bridgeplates, doorways, and boarding and alighting areas in 
accordance with T503. Lights shall be shielded so as not to project 
directly into the eyes of entering and exiting passengers.
    T503.2 Ramps and Bridgeplates. When ramps or bridgeplates are 
deployed, the walking surface shall be lighted with 2 foot-candles 
(22 lux) minimum of illumination.
    T503.3 Steps at Front Doorways. The walking surface on steps 
serving the front doorway of non-rail vehicles shall be lighted with 
2 foot-candles (22 lux) minimum of illumination when the vehicle 
doors are open.
    T503.4 Steps at Other Doorways. The walking surface on steps 
serving all other non-rail vehicle doorways shall be lighted at all 
times with 2 foot-candles (22 lux) minimum of illumination.
    T503.5 Exterior Illumination for Boarding and Alighting Areas. 
Exterior lighting shall

[[Page 90628]]

be provided to illuminate walking surfaces of boarding and alighting 
areas when the doors of non-rail vehicles are open. Where doorways 
have steps, the illumination shall be 1 foot-candle (11 lux) minimum 
for a distance of 3 feet (915 mm) measured beyond the outside edge 
of the doorway or bottom step tread. Where doorways have ramps, 
bridgeplates or lifts, the illumination shall be 1 foot-candle (11 
lux) minimum for a distance of 3 feet (915 mm) measured beyond the 
edge of the ramp, bridgeplate or lift farthest from the non-rail 
vehicle.

T504 Passenger Access Routes

    T504.1 General. Passenger access routes shall provide clearances 
that are sufficient to permit passengers using wheelchairs to move 
between wheelchair spaces and doorways that provide accessible 
boarding and alighting, and to enter and exit wheelchair spaces.

T505 Fare Collection Devices

    T505.1 General. Fare collection devices in non-rail vehicles 
shall comply with T505.
    T505.2 Location. Fare collection devices shall be located so as 
not to interfere with wheelchair movement along passenger access 
routes.
    T505.3 Location of Operable Parts. Operable parts shall be 
located so that they are reachable by passengers using wheelchair 
when parked in a clear space 30 inches (760 mm) wide minimum and 48 
inches (1220 mm) long minimum. Operable parts shall be located 
adjacent to the toe end of the clear space or shall be located no 
more than 10 inches (255 mm) measured from the centerline of the 
long dimension of the clear space.

Chapter 6: Wheelchair Spaces and Securement Systems

T601 General

    T601.1 Scope. The requirements in Chapter 6 shall apply where 
required by Chapter 2 or where otherwise referenced in any other 
chapter of the Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines.

T602 Wheelchair Spaces

    T602.1 General. Wheelchair spaces in non-rail vehicles shall 
comply with T602.
    T602.2 Surfaces. Wheelchair space surfaces shall comply with 
T302.
    T602.3 Approach. One full unobstructed side of each wheelchair 
space shall adjoin or overlap a passenger access route.
    T602.4 Size. Wheelchair spaces shall be 30 inches (760 mm) 
minimum in width and 48 inches (1220 mm) minimum in length.
    Exception: The portion of the wheelchair space occupied by 
wheelchair footrests shall be permitted to be located beneath 
another seat provided that space beneath the seat is 30 inches (760 
mm) wide minimum, 9 inches (230 mm) high minimum, and 6 inches (150 
mm) deep minimum.
    T602. 5 Fold-Down or Removable Seats. Fold-down or removable 
seats shall be permitted in wheelchair spaces, provided that, when 
folded up or stowed, they do not obstruct the minimum size of the 
wheelchair space specified in T602.4.

T603 Wheelchair Securement Systems

    T603.1 General. Wheelchair securement systems in non-rail 
vehicles, including attachments, shall comply with T603.
    T603.2 Orientation. Wheelchair securement systems shall secure 
the wheelchair so that the occupant faces the front of the non-rail 
vehicle.
    Exception: On large non-rail vehicles designed for use by both 
seated and standing passengers, rear-facing wheelchair securement 
systems shall be permitted provided that at least one wheelchair 
securement system is front facing.
    T603.3 Design Load. Wheelchair securement systems shall comply 
with the design loads specified in T603.3.1 or T603.3.2, as 
applicable.
    T603.3.1 Non-Rail Vehicles with Gross Vehicle Weight Rating 
Equal to or Greater than 30,000 lbs. On non-rail vehicles with a 
gross vehicle weight rating equal to or greater than 30,000 pounds 
(13,608 kg), wheelchair securement systems shall restrain a force in 
the forward longitudinal direction of 2,000 lbf (8,800 N) minimum 
for each wheelchair.
    T603.3.2 Non-Rail Vehicles with Gross Vehicle Weight Rating Less 
than 30,000 lbs. On non-rail vehicles with a gross vehicle weight 
rating less than 30,000 pounds (13,608 kg), wheelchair securement 
systems shall restrain a force in the forward longitudinal direction 
of 5,000 lbf (22,000 N) minimum for each wheelchair.
    T603.4 Movement. Wheelchair securement systems shall limit the 
movement of an occupied wheelchair to 2 inches (51 mm) maximum in 
any direction when secured in accordance with the manufacturer's 
instructions and when the non-rail vehicle is operating in normal 
conditions.
    T603.5 Securement Systems for Rear-Facing Wheelchair Positions. 
Rear-facing wheelchair securement systems shall provide forward 
excursion barriers and padded head rests that comply with ISO 10865-
1:2012(E), Wheelchair containment and occupant retention systems for 
accessible transport vehicles designed for use by both sitting and 
standing passengers--Part 1: Systems for rearward facing wheelchair-
seated passengers, First Edition, June 5, 2012 [ISO Standard 10865-
1:2012(E)]. ISO Standard 10865-1:2012(E) is incorporated by 
reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the 
Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce 
any edition other than that specified in this section, a notice of 
change must be published in the Federal Register and the material 
must be made available to the public. All approved material is 
available for inspection at the U.S. Access Board, 1331 F Street 
NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111, (202) 272-0080 (voice), 
(202) 272-0082 (TTY) and is available from the International 
Organization for Standardization, ISO Central Secretariat, 1, ch. de 
la Voie-Creuse, CP 56, CH-1211, Geneva 20, Switzerland (http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store.htm). It is also available for inspection 
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For 
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 
741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

T604 Stowage

    T604.1 General. When wheelchair securement systems are not in 
use, the systems shall not protrude into the wheelchair space except 
as provided in T603.5, and shall not interfere with passenger 
movement or pose a hazard. Wheelchair securement systems shall be 
reasonably protected from vandalism, and shall be readily accessed 
then needed for use.

T605 Seat Belts and Shoulder Belts

    T605.1 General. Seat belts and shoulder belts provided for 
passengers who use wheelchairs shall comply with 49 CFR 571.209. 
Seat belts and shoulder belts shall not be used in place of 
wheelchair securement systems complying with T603.

Chapter 7: Communication Features

T701 General

    T701.1 Scope. The requirements in Chapter 7 shall apply where 
required by Chapter 2 or where otherwise referenced in any other 
chapter of the Non-Rail Vehicle Guidelines.

T702 Signs

    T702.1 General. Signs on non-rail vehicles shall comply with 
T702.
    T702.2 Character Style. Characters shall be displayed in sans 
serif fonts and shall not use italic, oblique, script, highly 
decorative, or other unusual forms.
    T702.3 Character Proportions. Characters shall use fonts where 
the width of the uppercase letter ``O'' is 55 percent minimum and 
110 percent maximum of the height of the uppercase letter ``I''.
    T702.4 Character Height. Character height shall comply with 
Table T702.4. Character height shall be based on the uppercase 
letter ``I''.

                     Table T702.4--Character Height
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Sign location                  Minimum character height
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exterior route or destination signs on      2 inches (51 mm).
 boarding side of non-rail vehicle.
Exterior route or destination signs on      4 inches (100 mm).
 front of non-rail vehicle.

[[Page 90629]]

 
Interior signs designating wheelchair       \5/8\ inch (16 mm).
 spaces or priority seats, where baseline
 of character is equal to or less than 70
 inches (1780 mm) above the non-rail
 vehicle floor.
Interior signs designating wheelchair       2 inches (51 mm).
 spaces, priority seats, stop
 announcements, or stop requests where
 baseline of character is more than 70
 inches (1780 mm) above the non-rail
 vehicle floor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    T702.5 Stroke Thickness. Stroke thickness of the uppercase 
letter ``I'' shall be 10 percent minimum and 30 percent maximum of 
the height of the character.
    T702.6 Character Spacing. Character spacing shall be measured 
between the two closest points of adjacent characters, excluding 
word spaces. Spacing between individual characters shall be 10 
percent minimum and 35 percent maximum of character height.
    T702.7 Line Spacing. Spacing between the baselines of separate 
lines of characters within a message shall be 135 percent minimum 
and 170 percent maximum of the character height.
    T702.8 Contrast. Characters shall contrast with their background 
with either light characters on a dark background or dark characters 
on a light background. Where provided, protective surfaces over 
signs shall have a non-glare finish.

T703 International Symbol of Accessibility

    T703.1 General. The International Symbol of Accessibility shall 
comply with Figure T703.1. The symbol shall have a background field 
height of 4 inches (100 mm) minimum. The symbol and its background 
shall have a non-glare finish. The symbol shall contrast with its 
background with either a light symbol on a dark background or a dark 
symbol on a light background.

Figure T703.1 International Symbol of Accessibility
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE16.024

T704 Announcement Systems

    T704.1 General. Non-rail vehicles shall provide announcement 
systems in accordance with T704.
    T704.2 Stop Request Systems. Stop request systems shall comply 
with T704.3.
    T704.2.1 Audible and visible notification. Audible and visible 
notification shall be provided onboard indicating when passengers 
have requested to disembark at the next stop on the fixed route. 
Audible notifications shall be verbal or non-verbal signals and 
sound only once for each stop. Visible components of stop request 
systems shall include signs complying with T702, lights, or other 
visually perceptible indicators. Visible components shall illuminate 
or activate with a stop request, be viewable onboard from all 
wheelchair spaces and priority seats for passengers with 
disabilities, and extinguish when the doors open at a stop on non-
rail vehicles.
    T704.2.2 Operation. A mechanism for requesting stops shall be 
located at each wheelchair space and priority seat for passengers 
with disabilities. Operable parts on stop request systems shall 
comply with T304.
    T704.3 Automated Announcement Systems. Automated systems for 
stop announcements and route identification announcements shall 
comply with T704.3.
    T704.3.1 Automated Stop Announcements. Automated stop 
announcement systems shall provide audible and visible notification 
of upcoming stops on fixed routes. Stop announcements shall use 
synthesized, recorded or digitized speech and be audible within non-
rail vehicles. Visible components of stop announcements shall 
consist of signs complying with T702. Signs shall be viewable 
onboard from all wheelchair spaces and priority seats for passengers 
with disabilities.
    T704.3.2 Automated Route Identification Announcements. Automated 
route identification systems shall audibly and visibly identify the 
fixed route on which the non-rail vehicle is operating. Audible 
route identification announcements shall be broadcast externally at 
boarding and alighting areas using synthesized, recorded or 
digitized speech. Signs displaying route identification information 
shall be provided on the front and boarding sides of non-rail 
vehicles. Signs shall comply with T702.

[FR Doc. 2016-28867 Filed 12-13-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8150-01-P