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