Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles; Rail Vehicles

Published date14 February 2020
Record Number2020-02843
SectionProposed rules
CourtArchitectural And Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 31 (Friday, February 14, 2020)
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 2020)]
                [Proposed Rules]
                [Pages 8516-8520]
                From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
                [FR Doc No: 2020-02843]
                =======================================================================
                -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD
                36 CFR Part 1192
                [Docket No. ATBCB-2020-0002]
                RIN 3014-AA42
                Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for
                Transportation Vehicles; Rail Vehicles
                AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
                ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
                -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                SUMMARY: We, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance
                Board (hereafter, ``Access Board'', ``Board'', or ``we''), are issuing
                this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to begin the process
                of updating our existing accessibility guidelines for rail vehicles
                covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). By this ANPRM,
                the Access Board invites public comment on the substance of
                recommendations contained in the report issued by its Rail Vehicles
                Access Advisory Committee (RVAAC) and poses related questions. The
                Board will consider comments received in response to this ANPRM, along
                with the recommendations in the RVACC report, to develop proposed
                updates to our rail vehicle accessibility guidelines in a future
                rulemaking.
                DATE: Submit comments by May 14, 2020.
                ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number (ATBCB-
                2020-0002), by any of the following methods:
                [[Page 8517]]
                 Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
                Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
                 Email: board.gov">[email protected]board.gov. Include docket number
                ATBCB-2020-0002 in the subject line of the message.
                 Fax: 202-272-0081.
                 Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: Office of Technical and
                Information Services, U.S. Access Board, 1331 F Street NW, Suite 1000,
                Washington, DC 20004-1111.
                 Instructions: All submissions must include the docket number
                (ATBCB-2020-0002) for this regulatory action. All comments received
                will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including
                any personal information provided.
                 Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
                comments received, go to www.regulations.gov/docket?D=ATBCB-2020-0002.
                FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technical information: Juliet Shoultz,
                (202) 272-0045, Email: board.gov">[email protected]board.gov. Legal information:
                Wendy Marshall, (202) 272-0043, board.gov">[email protected]board.gov.
                SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
                I. Legal Authority
                 The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) charges the Access Board
                with developing and maintaining minimum guidelines to ensure the
                accessibility and usability of covered transportation vehicles,
                including rail passenger cars, for persons with disabilities. See 42
                U.S.C. 12204; see also 29 U.S.C 792(b)(3)(B) & (b)(10) (authorizing the
                Access Board to ``establish and maintain'' minimum guidelines for
                standards issued pursuant to titles II and III of the ADA). These
                Access Board guidelines serve as the basis for legally enforceable
                accessibility standards issued by the Department of Transportation
                (DOT), which is the federal entity responsible for implementing and
                enforcing the ADA's non-discrimination provisions related to
                transportation vehicles. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 12149(b), 12163, 12186(c)
                (accessibility standards in DOT regulations implementing ADA titles II
                and III must be ``consistent with'' the Access Board's minimum
                guidelines).
                II. Background: Rulemaking History and Rail Vehicles Access Advisory
                Committee
                 In 1991, the Access Board first issued accessibility guidelines for
                ADA-covered transportation vehicles, which addressed minimum
                requirements for buses, vans, and rail vehicles. 56 FR 45756 (Sept. 6,
                1991) (codified at 36 CFR part 1192) (hereafter, ``ADA Accessibility
                Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles''). That same day, DOT adopted
                the Board's ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles as
                enforceable accessibility standards applicable to new, used, or
                remanufactured ADA-covered vehicles. See 56 FR 45584, 45619-20 (Sept.
                6, 1991) (codified at 49 CFR part 38).
                 Over the ensuing years, while the Access Board has issued updates
                to the ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles for
                non-rail vehicles, the Board has not yet revised the accessibility
                requirements applicable to rail vehicles since their initial
                promulgation.\1\ The existing guidelines for rail vehicles thus need to
                be updated to, among other things, incorporate new accessibility-
                related technologies that did not exist nearly three decades ago and to
                ensure consistency with the Board's other subsequently issued
                regulations. Indeed, in 2016, when the Board revised the accessibility
                guidelines for non-rail vehicles, we expressly noted that our existing
                guidelines for transportation vehicles that operated in fixed guideway
                systems (e.g., rapid rail, light rail, commuter rail, and intercity
                rail), which similarly needed updating, would be addressed in a future
                rulemaking. See Final Rule, 81 FR at 90600.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \1\ For example, in 1998, the Access Board and DOT issued a
                joint final rule specifying new accessibility requirements for over-
                the-road buses. See 63 FR 51670 (Sept. 28, 1998). Also, in 2016, the
                Access Board updated its existing guidelines for buses, over-the-
                road buses (OTRBs), and vans. These updated guidelines incorporated
                new accessibility-related technologies, such as automated
                announcement systems and level boarding bus systems, as well as
                additional changes to ensure that the Board's transportation vehicle
                guidelines remained consistent with its other regulations issued
                since 1998. See 81 FR 90600 (Dec. 14, 2016) (codified at 36 CFR
                1192.21 & App. A). DOT has not yet adopted these updated
                accessibility guidelines for non-rail vehicles as enforceable
                standards.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 In May 2013, as a first step in the process to update our existing
                rail vehicles guidelines, the Access Board convened the Rail Vehicles
                Access Advisory Committee (RVAAC or Committee). See Notice of
                Establishment; Appointment of Members, Rail Vehicles Access Advisory
                Committee, 78 FR 30828 (May 23, 2013). RVAAC was charged with
                ``mak[ing] recommendations to the Board on matters associated with
                revising and updating our [rail vehicle] accessibility guidelines.''
                Id. at 30829. The Committee was comprised of manufacturers of
                transportation vehicles that operate on fixed guideway systems,
                transportation providers that operated fixed guideway systems,
                organizations representing individuals with disabilities, and other
                entities whose interests may be affected by the accessibility
                guidelines.\2\ Id. Due to time constraints, the Committee decided to
                focus only on recommendations for new rail vehicles.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 \2\ The full list of organizations represented on the Rail
                Vehicles Access Advisory Committee is available at https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/transportation/vehicles/rail-vehicles-access-advisory-committee/advisory-committee-members.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 The RVAAC organized itself into the following four subcommittees:
                Communications; Boarding and Alighting; Onboard Circulation and
                Seating; and Rooms and Spaces. Committee members spent most of their
                time working in the subcommittees, which reported to the full
                Committee. The full Committee met seven times. The Committee adopted
                the following guiding principles to develop its recommendations:
                 Features providing access for people with disabilities
                must be equivalent to those provided to others in terms of
                functionality and aesthetics, and must not segregate individuals with
                disabilities;
                 Accessible features should be the norm for everyone;
                 There may not be restrictions on using any facilities or
                features until the train is stopped;
                 Safety concerns must be balanced with the underlying civil
                rights principles of the ADA;
                 Establishing policy mandates will drive the development of
                improved generations of technology;
                 All train cars should be accessible;
                 Access Board guidelines should promote the development of
                technology, and not freeze current technology in place; and
                 ``[G]rowing demographics (graying of America)'' must be
                considered when establishing scoping for accessible features.
                 In July 2015, the Committee formally presented its final report
                (hereinafter RVAAC Report) to the Access Board. The RVAAC Report, which
                totals 71 pages, consists of a ``main'' report that is broken down into
                five chapters (which, except for the introductory chapter, mirror the
                topics covered by the four subcommittees) and several accompanying
                appendices. The full RVAAC Report is available at https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/transportation/vehicles/rail-vehicles-access-advisory-committee.
                 In sum, the Report provides the Committee's recommendations for
                [[Page 8518]]
                updated accessibility requirements applicable to newly acquired rail
                vehicles, which are written using regulatory-style language
                interspersed with occasional textual discussion. The appendices provide
                supplementary information in the form of a reference copy of ADA
                provisions relating to transportation vehicles (Appendix A), a list of
                operational matters for DOT consideration that arose during committee
                deliberations but fall outside the Board's jurisdiction (Appendix B),
                and minority reports submitted by three Committee members (Appendix C).
                 It is important to emphasize that the RVAAC Report merely sets
                forth the Committee's non-binding recommendations for consideration by
                the Access Board. The Committee's recommendations should not be viewed
                as the Board's own proposed revisions to our existing rail vehicle
                accessibility guidelines. While we will consider the RVAAC Report when
                formulating proposed updates to the rail vehicle guidelines, other
                pertinent sources, including public comment received in response to
                this ANPRM, will be considered.
                III. Areas for Public Comment
                 Considering the significant public interest in the RVAAC Report and
                in anticipation of a future rulemaking to ``refresh'' the accessibility
                guidelines for rail vehicles, the Access Board issues this ANPRM.
                Specifically the Board seeks public comment in two areas: (a) The
                substance of the recommendations in the RVAAC Report; and (b) related
                questions about the feasibility or potential impact of specific
                recommendations (e.g., design, operations, cost), as well as current
                research, data, and technologies relating to the improvement of rail
                vehicle accessibility. The Access Board encourages all interested
                parties to provide comment, including governmental agencies, private
                entities that own or operate rail vehicles, individuals with
                disabilities, and advocacy organizations. Comments submitted in
                response to this ANPRM will be considered by the Access Board when
                developing any forthcoming notice of proposed rulemaking.
                 In reviewing and commenting on the RVAAC Report, we strongly
                encourage commenters to focus on the substance of the Committee's
                recommendations, rather than the specific wording of particular
                recommendations. In any future proposal to update the existing
                accessibility guidelines for rail vehicles, the Access Board will
                develop its own regulatory text and ensure consistency with the
                formatting used in other accessibility guidelines.
                 While this notice highlights certain sections of the RVAAC Report
                and poses related questions, the Access Board seeks comments on all
                recommendations presented in the RVAAC Report. More broadly, we also
                seek comment on cross-cutting issues including the potential impact of
                the Report's recommendations on the safety of rail passengers and
                personnel, implementation costs, and the ways that such costs might be
                minimized while still achieving an appropriate level of access for
                persons with disabilities.
                IV. Discussion of RVAAC Recommendations and Questions for Public
                Comment
                 Discussed below are some of the recommendations posed in the RVAAC
                Report that, if implemented, would represent changes from the Access
                Board's existing requirements for rail vehicles in the ADA
                Accessibility Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles (36 CFR part
                1192). The Board highlights these recommendations and poses related
                questions to the public for the purpose of obtaining additional
                information about recent research and current technology relevant to
                these recommended changes, and the potential costs of implementing such
                changes.
                A. Application
                 The Access Board's existing rail vehicle guidelines apply to all
                ADA-covered new, used, and remanufactured rail vehicles. However, due
                to time constraints, the RVAAC only addressed and provided
                recommendations pertaining to new rail vehicles. This limited scope of
                the RVAAC Report does not mean that, when the Access Board issues a
                proposed rule to update our existing accessibility guidelines, we will
                similarly limit our scope to new rail vehicles.
                 Question 1: Would it be feasible for remanufactured rail cars to
                meet the accessibility requirements recommended in the RVAAC Report?
                What would be the challenges and costs of applying the RVAAC's proposed
                accessibility requirements to remanufactured rail cars? For each
                challenge and or cost that you raise, please indicate the type of rail
                vehicle affected.
                 Question 2: What is the typical lifespan of different types of rail
                vehicles? How often is each type of existing rail vehicle replaced with
                a new or remanufactured vehicle?
                 Question 3: We are not aware of any small governmental
                jurisdictions that currently operate rail transportation systems
                covered by the ADA. With respect to small businesses, are there any
                specific issues or concerns that the Access Board should consider when
                developing any proposed regulatory updates to its existing
                accessibility guidelines for rail vehicles?
                B. Communication Access
                 Currently, the only provisions regarding communication for rail
                vehicles in the existing guidelines specify that each vehicle be
                equipped with a public address system permitting transportation system
                personnel, or recorded or digitized human speech messages, to announce
                stations and provide other information, with some exceptions. See 36
                CFR 1192.61, 1192.87, 1192.103 & 1192.121.
                 The RVAAC Report recommended a robust expansion of requirements for
                accessible communications, including provisions for variable message
                signage (VMS) and hearing induction loops. It also recommended
                requiring VMS and real-time route map tracking (where provided) to be
                located in at least two locations in each car, so that every seat has a
                view of one or more of the accessible signs. RVAAC Report, Chap. 2,
                Sec. Sec. I-XI.
                 Question 4: What solutions or technologies are commercially
                available that, if implemented, would be capable of providing access to
                public communications onboard rail vehicles?
                 Question 5: What solutions or technologies are commercially
                available that, if implemented on rail vehicles, would provide
                accessible emergency information to passengers in real-time?
                 Question 6: What are the design and cost impacts of the RVAAC's
                proposed requirement for variable messaging systems on rail cars?
                 Question 7: What are the design and cost impacts of the RVAAC's
                proposed requirement for hearing induction loops on rail cars?
                C. Boarding and Alighting
                 The RVACC Report stressed that ``full-length level or near level
                boarding should be the highest priority and most preferred method of
                boarding on all fixed guideway (e.g. rail) modes.'' RVAAC Report, Chap.
                3, Sec. I.A. But, when not required or possible, ``boarding should be,
                as often as possible, by ramp or bridge-plate as the primary means for
                boarding'' and mechanical lifts should only be used as a back-up
                alternative. See id. Sec. I.B.
                [[Page 8519]]
                1. Car-Borne Ramps, Bridge Plates, and Lifts
                 Currently, the existing guidelines for rail vehicles permit
                station-based ramps, bridge plates, and lifts for use in boarding and
                alighting in certain situations. See 36 CFR 1192.83, 1192.95 &
                1192.125. The Committee recommended requiring car-borne ramps, bridge
                plates, and lifts in certain instances. RVAAC Report, Chap. 3, Sec.
                I.B. Were this recommendation included in a proposed rule, it would, in
                most circumstances, prohibit the use of station-based lifts, and would
                instead require rail vehicles to provide car-borne ramps, bridge
                plates, and lifts. In a minority report, the Metropolitan
                Transportation Authority of the State of New York raised concerns with
                this recommendation, asserting that the new gap recommendations will
                require that the bridge plates installed on the cars be capable of
                traversing the largest vertical and horizontal gap at any station. The
                station with the largest gap will dictate the bridge plate design for
                all new cars. Consequently, the bridge plates carried on the cars may
                be very long to accommodate the largest gaps. These long bridge plates
                may create a safety hazard when deployed in confined areas at a
                station. Id. at App. C (MTA-SNY Minority Report, pp. 62-63).
                 Question 8: Please identify research studies or data that address
                the impact of car-borne ramps, bridge plates, or lifts on rail vehicle
                operation, maintenance, or rider safety.
                 Question 9: What would be the cost implications if ramps, bridge
                plates, and lifts were required to be mounted on rail vehicles instead
                of being based at stations?
                2. Lift Design Load
                 The RVAAC Report recommended increasing the lift design load from
                the existing requirement of 600 pounds to 800 pounds. See RVAAC Report,
                Chap. 3, Sec. IV.A; see also 36 CFR 1192.83(b), 1192.95(b) &
                1192.125(b) (existing Access Board specifications for design loads of
                rail vehicle-based lifts). In the Access Board's final rule
                promulgating updated accessibility requirements for non-rail vehicles,
                we retained the 600-pound design load for vehicle lifts based on the
                National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Federal Motor Vehicle
                Safety Standards for public use lifts, which are codified at 49 CFR
                571.403 and 571.404. See 36 CFR 1192.21, Appendix A, T402.2. However,
                the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards address lifts used on motor
                vehicles, not rail cars. The Access Board thus seeks additional
                information regarding design loads on rail vehicles.
                 Question 10: What would be the design and cost impacts if the
                design load requirement for rail vehicle-based lifts was increased to
                800 pounds minimum? Are there any types of rail vehicles requiring a
                lift to board for which an 800-pound minimum design load would not be
                feasible?
                 Question 11: What is the current design load of newly manufactured
                lifts used for rail vehicles?
                3. Platform Lift Service Size
                 Currently, the Access Board's rail vehicles guidelines require lift
                platforms to have a minimum clear width of 30 inches and a minimum
                clear length of 48 inches, as measured from 2 inches above the platform
                surface to 30 inches above the surface. The minimum clear width as
                measured at the platform surface to a height of 2 inches is permitted
                to be 28\1/2\ inches instead of 30 inches to accommodate the structure
                and frame of doors on some rail vehicles. See 36 CFR 1192.83(b)(6),
                1192.95(b)(6) & 1192.125(b)(6). The RVAAC Report recommended increasing
                the size of lift platform surfaces to a clear width of 32 inches
                minimum and a clear length of 54 inches minimum, both measured from the
                platform surface to 40 inches above the platform surface. See RVAAC
                Report, Chap. 3, Sec. IV.B.
                 Currently available research and the RVAAC's recommendations
                demonstrate a potential need to increase the size of the lift platform
                to accommodate larger wheeled mobility devices and advancement in their
                engineering and design. See Center for Inclusive Design and
                Environmental Access, Anthropometry of Wheeled Mobility Project--Final
                Report (Dec. 2010), available at http://www.udeworld.com/documents/anthropometry/pdfs/AnthropometryofWheeledMobilityProject_FinalReport.pdf.
                 Question 12: What would be the design impacts on rail vehicles if
                the required size of platforms on rail vehicle-based lifts was
                increased to a clear width of 32 inches minimum and clear length of 54
                inches minimum?
                4. Bi-Parting Side Doors
                 The existing guidelines require that accessible passenger doorways
                have a clear opening width of 32 inches. See 38 CFR 1192.53(a)(1),
                1192.73(a)(1), 1192.93(a)(1) & 1192.113(a)(1). The RVACC Report
                recommends that bi-parting side doors should have one leaf that
                provides a clear width opening of at least 32 inches. The purpose of
                this proposal is to ensure passengers can readily board and alight from
                vehicles, especially during high capacity periods and when alternative
                doorways are not available, including when one of the bi-parting doors
                fails to open. However, the Committee recommended this as a best
                practice and not a requirement because it recognized that larger panels
                can create unintended consequences and it did not want to inhibit more
                efficient, reliable, and safe designs. RVACC Report, Chap. 4,
                Sec. Sec. I.A & I.B(1)-(2).
                 Question 13: How prevalent is the situation where a single leaf of
                a bi-parting side door on a rail vehicle fails to open, thereby
                restricting the clear width to less than 32-inches?
                 Question 14: What would be the design implications of a requirement
                that one leaf of bi-parting doors on rail vehicles provide a clear
                width of 32 inches minimum?
                5. Between-Car Barriers
                 The existing guidelines for rail vehicles require between-car
                barriers for light and rapid rail systems and certain commuter rail
                systems. 36 CFR 1192.63, 1192.85 & 1192.109. This requires that a
                device or system be provided to prevent, deter, or warn individuals
                from inadvertently stepping off the platform between cars. Id.
                 The RVAAC Report recommends that between-car barriers also be
                required for rail vehicles used in intercity and high-speed rail
                systems. RVAAC Report, Chap. 4, Sec. V.A. Amtrak raised concerns about
                this proposal in a minority report, asserting that while between-car
                barriers are appropriate for high-platform, level-boarding, ``[b]i-
                level long intercity trains will see no benefit from adding the
                barriers, will add cost and may in fact create a safety hazard to
                railroad employees responsible for coupling and uncoupling cars.''
                RVAAC Report, Appendix C (Amtrak Minority Report, p. 53).
                 Question 15: What data or other evidence supports a need for
                between-car barriers on rail vehicles used for intercity or high-speed
                rail service, if any?
                 Question 16: If requirements for between-car barriers were extended
                to rail vehicles used for intercity or high-speed rail service, should
                there be a specified minimum between-car gap that would trigger
                application of such a requirement? If so, what size gap should be used
                to trigger any such requirement?
                 Question 17: What would be the cost of requiring between-car
                barriers on rail vehicles used for intercity or high-speed rail
                service?
                [[Page 8520]]
                D. On Board Accessibility
                1. Mobility Aid Seating Location Size
                 The Access Board's existing guidelines require clear floor space
                for mobility aid seating locations of 48 inches by 30 inches. See 36
                CFR 1192.83(a)(1), 1192.57(b), 1192.125(d)(2) & 1192.95(d)(2). In the
                RVAAC Report, the Committee recommended increasing required clear floor
                space to 54 inches by 32 inches where the space is confined on no more
                than two sides, and 59 inches by 32 inches where the space is confined
                on three sides. RVAAC Report, Chap 4, Sec. IV.A. See also Center for
                Inclusive Design and Environmental Access, Anthropometry of Wheeled
                Mobility Project--Final Report (Dec. 2010), available at http://www.udeworld.com/documents/anthropometry/pdfs/AnthropometryofWheeledMobilityProject_FinalReport.pdf. The Metropolitan
                Transportation Authority of the State of New York raised concerns in a
                RVAAC Minority Report about the loss of additional seats with the
                increased floor space. RVAAC Report, Appendix C (MTA-SNY Minority
                Report, p. 68).
                 Question 18: What would be the effect on the design and operation
                of rail cars if the required size of mobility aid seating locations
                were increased from 48 inches by 30 inches to a requirement of (1) 54
                inches by 32 inches where the space is confined on no more than two
                sides and (2) 59 inches by 32 inches where the space is confined on
                three sides?
                2. Vertical Access
                 There is no requirement in the existing guidelines to provide
                vertical access on rail cars. In the RVAAC report, the committee
                recommended adding a requirement for vertical access in new intercity
                bi-level lounge cars. The Committee explained that a lounge ``means any
                car with a primary function that is to enhance the passenger experience
                beyond the purchased coach or sleeper accommodation and is so designed
                to enhance viewing from the second level.'' Such lounge cars include
                open platform observation areas that are accessible to passengers,
                whether or not an extra fare is charged, and single level cars (known
                as ``dome cars) that offer an elevated area designed for viewing
                scenery. The Committee explained that the goal is to expand the full
                rail travel experience for passengers who might otherwise miss out on
                key features of the travel. This would include providing a lift, an
                accessible restroom (if an upper level restroom is provided), and
                accessible wheelchair spaces on the upper level. RVAAC Report, Chap 4,
                Sec. IX.
                 Question 19: Should vertical access be required on new intercity
                bi-level lounge cars? If so, should such a requirement apply only to
                certain types of intercity bi-level cars (such as those that provide a
                viewing dome on the upper level)?
                 Question 20: Is it technically feasible for platform lifts to serve
                the upper levels of bi-level rail cars?
                 Question 21: What are the likely costs, including both one-time
                equipment installation costs and ongoing maintenance, if vertical
                access was required on intercity bi-level rail cars?
                3. Handrails and Stanchions for Onboard Circulation
                 The Access Board's existing guidelines require that handrails and
                stanchions not encroach on the accessible routes and permit safe
                boarding, onboard circulation, seating and standing assistance, and
                alighting by persons with disabilities. 36 CFR 1192.57, 1192.77,
                1192.97 & 1192.115. The RVAAC recommended retaining the existing
                requirement for the diameter of the interior handrails and stanchions
                with additional specifications that (a) handrails or handholds be
                included on transverse passenger seats in all rail cars, and (b) in
                light and rapid rail systems, vertical stanchions be provided adjacent
                to, or as part of, seats on alternate rows and sides of the aisle.
                RVAAC Report, Chap. 4, Sec. VI.B. The current regulation does not
                address the visibility of handholds, handrails, and stanchions. The
                Access Board is interested in obtaining public comment on any potential
                need for visual contrast for handholds, handrails, or stanchions.
                 Question 22: Are additional types of handholds, handrails, or
                stanchions needed on rapid, light rail, intercity or commuter rail
                vehicles beyond those currently required? If so, please describe.
                 Question 23: Are handholds, handrails, or stanchions for rail
                vehicles currently designed with visual contrast?
                 Question 24: Is there a need for visual contrast on handholds,
                handrails, or stanchions? If so, please explain.
                E. Dining Cars
                 Regarding accessible seating in dining cars, the RVAAC proposed to
                increase the required wheelchair spaces and transfer seating at tables
                from one to two spaces. The Committee also noted that this requirement
                could be met with convertible spaces. RVAAC Report, Chap. 5, Sec.
                II.A. In response to this suggested requirement, Amtrak, in a minority
                report, indicated that when they attempted to use convertible spaces
                during the development of their new dining cars, the convertible spaces
                were criticized as ``making a spectacle'' of the arrival of someone
                using a wheelchair. RVAAC Report, Appendix C (Amtrak Minority Report,
                p. 54).
                 Question 25: What would be the advantages and disadvantages of
                having convertible/readily removable seating in dining cars on rail
                vehicles to accommodate passengers using wheelchairs.
                David M. Capozzi,
                Executive Director.
                [FR Doc. 2020-02843 Filed 2-13-20; 8:45 am]
                 BILLING CODE 8150-01-P
                

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT