6. Regulatory Analyses

We prepared a preliminary regulatory assessment discussing the cost and benefits of the proposed accessibility guidelines for pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis of the impacts on small governmental jurisdictions with a population of less than 50,000 when the NPRM was issued. These regulatory analyses are available on our Web site at: http://www.access-board.gov/prowac/.

There is no database available on the number of shared use paths in the United States. AASHTO surveyed five state transportation departments when preparing comments on the ANPRM. The responding departments reported approximately 1,500 to 3,000 miles of existing shared use paths in their states. The Alliance for Biking and Walking surveyed more than 50 large cities about their bicycle and pedestrian facilities.⁴ The average number of miles of existing shared use paths per city was 70 miles, and ranged from 3.1 miles in Milwaukee to 328 miles in New York City. The cities used federal funds to construct many of the shared use paths.

⁴ Alliance for Biking and Walking, ‘‘Bicycling and Walking in the United States 2012 Benchmarking Report.’’ The report is available at: http://www.peoplepoweredmovement.org/site/.

As discussed above, the proposed technical provisions applicable to shared use paths are consistent with the AASHTO Guide. State and local government entities that design and construct shared use paths generally use the AASHTO Guide. The SNPRM is not expected to increase the costs of constructing shared use paths for state and local government entities that use the AASHTO Guide.

We request comments on the following to assess the impacts of the SNPRM:

• The extent to which the AASHTO Guide, or other design guides and standards are used for shared use paths.

• Whether any of the proposed provisions applicable to shared use paths would result in additional costs for design work, materials, earthmoving, retaining structures, or other items compared to construction practices or design guides and standards currently used? Commenters are encouraged to identify the specific provisions that would result in additional costs and estimate the additional costs on a per mile basis to the extent possible.

• Whether any of the proposed provisions applicable to shared use paths would result in any additional costs, such as maintenance and operational costs, compared to current practices? Commenters are encouraged to identify the specific provisions that would result in additional costs and estimate the additional costs on a per mile basis to the extent possible.

• What are the benefits of the proposed provisions applicable to shared use paths?

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 1190

Buildings and facilities, Civil rights, Individuals with disabilities, Transportation.

Susan Brita,

Chair.

[FR Doc. 2013–03298 Filed 2–12–13; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8150–01–P