49 CFR Parts 37 & 38 - Department of Transportation (DOT) ADA Regulations

Subpart C—Transportation Facilities

Section 37.41 Construction of Transportation Facilities by Public Entities

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 37.42 Service in an integrated setting to passengers at intercity, commuter, and high-speed rail station platforms constructed or altered after February 1, 2012.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 37.43 Alteration of Transportation Facilities by Public Entities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 37.47 Key Stations in Light and Rapid Rail Systems

[sic]

Section 37.49 Designation of Responsible Person(s) for Intercity and Commuter Rail Stations

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

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

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

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

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

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

The private freight railroad drops out of the calculation of who is responsible. All of the responsibility would be allocated among four public entities: the city (a public entity who does not operate railroad service), Amtrak, and the two commuter railroads. Half the responsibility would go to public entity owners of the station (whether or not they are railroads who run passenger service through the station). The other half of the responsibility would go to railroads who run passenger service through the station (whether or not they are station owners).

On the ownership side of the equation, the city and Commuter A each own half of that portion of the station that is not owned by the private freight railroad. Therefore, the two parties divide up the ownership half of the responsibility equally. Based on their ownership interest, each of these two parties bears 25 percent of the responsibility for the entire station. Note that, should ownership percentages or owners change over the period during which the station is to be made accessible, these percentages may change. It is ownership percentage over this entire period that ultimately determines the percentage of responsibility.

On the passenger rail operations side of the equation, 50 percent of passenger boardings are attributable to Commuter A and 25 percent each to Commuter B and Amtrak. Therefore, half of this portion of the responsibility belongs to Commuter A, while a quarter share each goes to the other railroads. This means that, based on passenger boardings, 25 percent of the responsibility goes to Commuter A, 12.5 percent to Commuter B, and 12.5 percent to Amtrak. Again, it is the proportion of passenger boardings over the entire length of the period during which the station is made accessible that ultimately determines the percentage of responsibility.

In this hypothetical, Commuter A is responsible for a total of 50 percent of the responsibility for the station. Commuter A is responsible for 25 percent of the responsibility because of its role as a station owner and another 25 percent because of its operation of passenger rail service through the station.

The Department recognizes that there will be situations in which application of this scheme will be difficult (e.g., involving problems with multiple owners of a station whose ownership percentages may be difficult to ascertain). The Department again emphasizes that agreement among the parties is the best way of resolving these problems, but we are willing to work with the parties to ensure a solution consistent with this rule.

Section 37.51 Key Stations in Commuter Rail Systems

These sections require that key stations in light, rapid, and commuter rail systems be made accessible as soon as practicable, but no later than July 26, 1993. Being made accessible, for this purpose, means complying with the applicable provisions of appendix A to this part. “As soon as practicable” means that, if modification can be made before July 26, 1993, they must be. A rail operator that failed to make a station accessible by July 1993 would be in noncompliance with the ADA and this rule, except in a case where an extension of time had been granted.

What is a key station? A key station is one designated as such by the commuter authority or light/rapid rail operator, through the planning process and public participation process set forth in this section. The five criteria listed in the regulation are intended to guide the selection process but, while the entity must take these criteria into account (and this consideration must be reflected in the planning process and documents), they are not mandatory selection standards. That is, it is not required that every station that meets one of the criteria be designated as a key station. Since the criteria are not mandatory selection standards, the understanding of their terms is also a matter appropriately left to the planning process. A tight, legalistic definition is not necessary in the context of factors intended for consideration. For instance, what constitutes a major activity center or how close a station needs to be to another station to not be designated as key depend largely on local factors that it would not be reasonable to specify in this rule.

Given the wide discretion permitted to rail operators in identifying key stations, there would be no objection to identifying as a key station a new (presumably accessible) station now under construction. Doing so would involve consideration of the key station criteria and would be subject to the planning/public participation process.

If an extension to a rail system (e.g., a commuter system) is made, such that the system comes to include existing inaccessible stations that have not previously been part of the system, the Department construes the ADA to require application of key station accessibility in such a situation. The same would be true for a new start commuter rail system that began operations using existing stations. Key station planning, designation of key stations, and with being consistent with the ADA would be required. The Department would work with the commuter authority involved on a case-by-case basis to determine applicable time limits for accessibility, consistent with the time frames of the ADA.

The entity must develop a compliance plan, subject to the public participation and planning process set forth in paragraph (d) of each of these sections. Note that this plan must be completed by July 26, 1992, not January 26, 1992, as in the case of paratransit plans. The key station plans must be submitted to FTA at that time. (The statute does not require FTA approval of the plans, however.).

A rail operator may request an extension of the July 1993 completion deadline for accessibility modifications to one or more key stations. The extension for light and rapid rail stations can be up to July 2020, though two thirds of the key stations (per the legislative history of the statute, selected in a way to maximize accessibility to the whole system) must be accessible by July 2010.

Commuter rail stations can be extended up to July 2010.

Requests for extension of time must be submitted by July 26, 1992. FTA will review the requests on a station-by-station basis according to the statutory criterion, which is whether making the station accessible requires extraordinarily expensive alterations. An extraordinarily expensive alteration is raising the entire platform, installing an elevator, or making another alteration of similar cost and magnitude. If another means of making a station accessible (e.g., installation of a mini-high platform in a station where it is not necessary to install an elevator or to provide access to the platform for wheelchair users), then an extension can be granted only if the rail operator shows that the cost and magnitude of the alteration is similar to that of an elevator installation or platform raising.

The rule does not include a specific deadline for FTA consideration of an extension request. However, since we are aware that, in the absence of an extension request, accessibility must be completed by July 1993, we will endeavor to complete review of plans as soon as possible, to give as much lead time as possible to local planning and implementation efforts.

Once an extension is granted, the extension applies to all accessibility modifications in the station. However, the rail operator should not delay non-extraordinarily expensive modifications to the station. The key station plan and any extension request should include a schedule for phasing in non-extraordinarily expensive modifications to the station. For example, even if a key station is not going to be accessible to wheelchair users for 15 years, pending the installation of an elevator, the rail operator can improve its accessibility to persons with visual impairments by installing tactile strips.

An extension cannot be granted except for a particular station which needs an extraordinarily expensive modification. An extension cannot be granted non-extraordinarily expensive changes to Station B because the extraordinarily expensive changes to Station A will absorb many resources. Non-extraordinarily expensive changes, however costly considered collectively for a system, are not, under the statute, grounds for granting an extension to one or more stations or the whole system. Only particular stations where an extraordinarily expensive modification must be made qualify for extensions.

The FTA Administrator can approve, modify, or disapprove any request for an extension. For example, it is not a forgone conclusion that a situation for which an extension is granted will have the maximum possible extension granted. If it appears that the rail operator can make some stations accessible sooner, FTA can grant an extension for a shorter period (e.g., 2005 for a particular station rather than 2010).

Section 37.53 Exception for New York and Philadelphia

Consistent with the legislative history of the ADA, this section formally recognizes the selection of key stations in two identified litigation settlement agreements in New York and Philadelphia as in compliance with the ADA. Consequently, the entities involved can limit their key station planning process to issues concerning the timing of key station accessibility. The section references also §37.9, which provides that key station accessibility alterations which have already been made, or which are begun before January 26, 1992, and which conform to specified prior standards, do not have to be re-modified. On the other hand, alterations begun after January 25, 1992 (including forthcoming key station modifications under the New York and Philadelphia agreements), must meet the requirements of appendix A to this part.

This is an exception only for the two specified agreements. There are no situations in which other cities can take advantage of this provision. Nor are the provisions of the two agreements normative for other cities. Other cities must do their own planning, with involvement from local citizens, and cannot rely on agreements unique to New York and Philadelphia to determine the appropriate number of percentage of key stations or other matters.

Section 37.57 Required Cooperation

This section implements §242(e)(2)(C) of the ADA, which treats as discrimination a failure, by an owner or person in control of an intercity rail station, to provide reasonable cooperation to the responsible persons' efforts to comply with accessibility requirements. For example, the imposition by the owner of an unreasonable insurance bond from the responsible person as a condition of making accessibility modifications would violate this requirement. See H. Rept. 101-485 at 53.

The statute also provides that failure of the owner or person in control to cooperate does not create a defense to a discrimination suit against the responsible person, but the responsible person would have a third party action against the uncooperative owner or person in control. The rule does not restate this portion of the statute in the regulation, since it would be implemented by the courts if such an action is brought. Since cooperation is also a regulatory requirement, however, the Department could entertain a section 504 complaint against a recipient of Federal funds who failed to cooperate.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee provided as an example of an action under this provision a situation in which a failure to cooperate leads to a construction delay, which in turn leads to a lawsuit by an individual with disabilities against the responsible person for missing an accessibility deadline. The responsible person could not use the lack of cooperation as a defense in the lawsuit, but the uncooperative party could be made to indemnify the responsible person for damages awarded the plaintiff. Also, a responsible person could obtain an injunction to force the recalcitrant owner or controller of the station to permit accessibility work to proceed. (Id.)

This provision does not appear to be intended to permit a responsible person to seek contribution for a portion of the cost of accessibility work from a party involved with the station whom the statute and §37.49 do not identify as a responsible person. It simply provides a remedy for a situation in which someone impedes the responsible person's efforts to comply with accessibility obligations.

Section 37.59 Differences in Accessibility Completion Date Requirements

Portions of the same station may have different accessibility completion date requirements, both as the result of different statutory time frames for different kinds of stations and individual decisions made on requests for extension. The principle at work in responding to such situations is that if part of a station may be made accessible after another part, the “late” part of the work should not get in the way of people's use of modifications resulting from the “early” part.

For example, the commuter part of a station may have to be made accessible by July 1993 (e.g., there is no need to install an elevator, and platform accessibility can be achieved by use of a relatively inexpensive mini-high platform). The Amtrak portion of the same station, by statute, is required to be accessible as soon as practicable, but no later than July 2010. If there is a common entrance to the station, that commuter rail passengers and Amtrak passengers both use, or a common ticket counter, it would have to be accessible by July 1993. If there were a waiting room used by Amtrak passengers but not commuter passengers (who typically stand and wait on the platform at this station), it would not have to be accessible by July 1993, but if the path from the common entrance to the commuter platform went through the waiting room, the path would have to be an accessible path by July 1993.

Section 37.61 Public Transportation Programs and Activities in Existing Facilities

This section implements section 228(a) of the ADA and establishes the general requirement for entities to operate their transportation facilities in a manner that, when viewed in its entirety, is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. The section clearly excludes from this requirement access by persons in wheelchairs, unless these changes would be necessitated by the alterations or key station provisions.

This provision is intended to cover activities and programs of an entity that do not rise to the level of alteration. Even if an entity is not making alterations to a facility, it has a responsibility to conduct its program in an accessible manner. Examples of possible activities include user friendly farecards, schedules, of edge detection on rail platforms, adequate lighting, telecommunication display devices (TDDs) or text telephones, and other accommodations for use by persons with speech and hearing impairments, signage for people with visual impairments, continuous pathways for persons with visual and ambulatory impairments, and public address systems and clocks.

The Department did not prescribe one list of things that would be appropriate for all stations. For example, we believe that tactile strips are a valuable addition to platforms which have drop-offs. We also believe that most larger systems, to the extent they publish schedules, should make those schedules readily available in alternative formats. We encourage entities to find this another area which benefits from its commitment to far-reaching public participation efforts.