We will discuss  them in more detail later in this report, but their general roles and  responsibilities are as follows:    The Access Board is an independent federal agency devoted to  accessibility for people with disabilities. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) informs  commercial bus companies of their ADA responsibilities and collects  data on ADA compliance. However, disability advocates have said (and  many federal agencies and industry associations agree) that there are still  problems. Much of the data for other modes,  however, are either unreliable or still being developed. Third, DOT officials indicate their enforcement options are  of limited use, which suggests a need for additional options. In a number  of instances, compliance has not come through federal agency  enforcement but through private citizens filing lawsuits and negotiating  settlements. Although some agencies have a framework in place that allows  comprehensive oversight, the lack of such a framework in other agencies  and the manner in which responsibility is shared results in gaps in  oversight and enforcement for intercity passenger rail and commercial bus  and to possible duplication of effort for public rights-of-way. The general lack of data about ADA compliance at FMCSA, FRA, and  FHWA is in marked contrast to those agencies’ use of data to target  oversight activities in other areas. For example, the ADA does not provide for punitive  damages. However, gaps exist in the current  federal regulations and guidance because they do not specify how to  include that information in the plans and, if a jurisdiction has a plan, when  it should update the plan. To increase coordination and communication among DOT’s modal  administrations and with DOJ, thereby improving DOT’s ability to oversee  and enforce the ADA, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation  direct the Administrators of FHWA, FMCSA, and FRA to enter into formal  agreements with DOJ to clearly delineate responsibility for enforcing the  provisions of the ADA pertaining to surface transportation and public  rights-of-way. Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report addresses the following three objectives: (1) what is known  about the extent of Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)  compliance for surface transportation and public rights-of-way, (2) what  difficulties, if any, the federal government faces in overseeing and  enforcing compliance with the ADA, and (3) the sources of federal  technical assistance that are available to help public transportation  providers, businesses, and state and local governments comply with ADA  requirements and what gaps, if any, exist. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access  Board); the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Rights Division; and  the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Office of Civil Rights and  modal administrations, including the Federal Highway Administration,  Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Federal Railroad  Administration, and Federal Transit Administration. To identify any difficulties the federal government faces in overseeing and  enforcing compliance with the ADA, we interviewed Access Board, DOJ,  and DOT officials (including officials from one of the Federal Transit  Administration’s regional offices) and analyzed documentation regarding  oversight requirements and activities, including information on the type  and frequency of activity, processes by which entities are selected for  review or investigation, and resulting enforcement activities, if applicable,  as well as the processes for receiving, processing, and responding to  complaints.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) provides people with disabilities the legal right to access transportation and public rights-of-way, including sidewalks and street crossings. The Department of Transportation (DOT) and Department of Justice (DOJ) share responsibility for overseeing ADA compliance. GAO was asked to review federal oversight and enforcement of ADA compliance, including (1) what is known about compliance, (2) difficulties the federal government faces in overseeing and enforcing compliance, and (3) the sources of federal help and any gaps in that help. GAO's work encompassed a wide range of federal agencies and other entities, such as industry associations, transportation providers, and disability advocacy groups, as well as detailed reviews in eight cities across the country.

What GAO Found

While data indicate accessibility is improving for public transit, the extent of ADA compliance for other modes of transportation and public rights-of-way is unknown due to the lack of reliable data. For example, there are no national data on compliance with requirements for ADA paratransit--transit service that complements bus or rail transit. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) solicits compliance data from registered commercial bus companies, but the response rate is low (13 percent in 2006), and the agency has not verified or analyzed the data. In other instances, such as the accessibility of Amtrak's train stations, data are still being developed. Federal agencies face three main difficulties overseeing and enforcing compliance. First, they differ greatly in the degree to which they have an oversight framework in place. For example, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has a memorandum of understanding in place with DOJ specifying each agency's responsibilities for public transit, while the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration have no formal mechanism for coordinating with DOJ. Second, federal agencies' lack of data about compliance limits DOT's ability to target its oversight and enforcement efforts. Only the Federal Transit Administration uses data in this manner. Third, DOT officials regard their enforcement options, such as withholding grant money, as lengthy and complex processes that would not be undertaken lightly. DOT officials said the authority to impose fines--an option they lack--would be more useful. Federal agencies provide a variety of technical assistance to help entities comply with the ADA, but gaps in regulations and guidance exist. For example, one gap involves a requirement for local governments to develop plans for identifying and correcting accessibility problems with public rights-of-way. As a result, GAO found confusion about which entities needed to develop the plans and how to use and update plans once they were developed. DOJ officials said most localities had not developed such plans, leaving themselves open to private lawsuits and federal enforcement action.