28 CFR Part 36 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities (2010 ADA Title III Regulations with amendments issued through Dec. 2016)

Supplementary Information

The Roles of the Access Board and the Department of Justice

The Access Board was established by section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 29 U.S.C. 792. The Board consists of 13 public members appointed by the President, the majority of whom must be individuals with disabilities, and the heads of 12 Federal departments and agencies specified by statute, including the heads of the Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation (DOT). Originally, the Access Board was established to develop and maintain accessibility guidelines for facilities designed, constructed, altered, or leased with Federal dollars under the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (ABA). 42 U.S.C. 4151 et seq. The passage of the ADA expanded the Access Board’s responsibilities.

The ADA requires the Access Board to ‘‘issue minimum guidelines that shall supplement the existing Minimum Guidelines and Requirements for Accessible Design for purposes of subchapters II and III of this chapter * * * to ensure that buildings, facilities, rail passenger cars, and vehicles are accessible, in terms of architecture and design, transportation, and communication, to individuals with disabilities.’’ 42 U.S.C. 12204. The ADA requires the Department to issue regulations that include enforceable accessibility standards applicable to facilities subject to title II or title III that are consistent with the ‘‘minimum guidelines’’ issued by the Access Board, 42 U.S.C. 12134(c), 12186(c), but vests in the Attorney General sole responsibility for the promulgation of those standards that fall within the Department’s jurisdiction and enforcement of the regulations.

The ADA also requires the Department to develop regulations with respect to existing facilities subject to title II (Subtitle A) and title III. How and to what extent the Access Board’s guidelines are used with respect to the barrier removal requirement applicable to existing facilities under title III of the ADA and to the provision of program accessibility under title II of the ADA are solely within the discretion of the Department.

Enactment of the ADA and Issuance of the 1991 Regulations

On July 26, 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed into law the ADA, a comprehensive civil rights law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability.¹ The ADA broadly protects the rights of individuals with disabilities in employment, access to State and local government services, places of public accommodation, transportation, and other important areas of American life. The ADA also requires newly designed and constructed or altered State and local government facilities, public accommodations, and commercial facilities to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. Section 306(a) of the ADA directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations for demand responsive or fixed route systems operated by private entities not primarily engaged in the business of transporting people (sections 302(b)(2)(B) and (C)) and for private entities that are primarily engaged in the business of transporting people (section 304). See 42 U.S.C. 12182(b), 12184, 12186(a). Section 306(b) directs the Attorney General to promulgate regulations to carry out the provisions of the rest of title III. 42 U.S.C. 12186(b).

Title II applies to State and local government entities, and, in Subtitle A, protects qualified individuals with disabilities from discrimination on the basis of disability in services, programs, and activities provided by State and local government entities. Title II extends the prohibition on discrimination established by section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 794 (section 504), to all activities of State and local governments regardless of whether these entities receive Federal financial assistance. 42 U.S.C. 12131–65.

Title III, which this rule addresses, prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the activities of places of public accommodation (businesses that are generally open to the public and that fall into one of 12 categories listed in the ADA, such as restaurants, movie theaters, schools, day care facilities, recreation facilities, and doctors’ offices) and requires newly constructed or altered places of public accommodation—as well as commercial facilities (privately owned, nonresidential facilities such as factories, warehouses, or office buildings)—to comply with the ADA Standards. 42 U.S.C. 12181–89.

On July 26, 1991, the Department issued rules implementing title II and title III, which are codified at 28 CFR part 35 (title II) and part 36 (title III). Appendix A of the 1991 title III regulation, which is republished as Appendix D to 28 CFR part 36, contains the ADA Standards for Accessible Design (1991 Standards), which were based upon the version of the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (1991 ADAAG) published by the Access Board on the same date. Under the Department’s 1991 title III regulation, places of public accommodation and commercial facilities currently are required to comply with the 1991 Standards with respect to newly constructed or altered facilities.

The Access Board’s publication of the 2004 ADA/ABA Guidelines was the culmination of a long-term effort to facilitate ADA compliance by eliminating, to the extent possible, inconsistencies among Federal accessibility requirements and between Federal accessibility requirements and State and local building codes. In support of this effort, the Department is amending its regulation implementing title III and adopting standards consistent with ADA Chapter 1, ADA Chapter 2, and Chapters 3 through 10 of the 2004 ADA/ABA Guidelines. The Department is also amending its title II regulation, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in State and local government services, concurrently with the publication of this rule in this issue of the Federal Register.

Development of the 2004 ADA/ABA Guidelines

In 1994, the Access Board began the process of updating the 1991 ADAAG by establishing an advisory committee composed of members of the design and construction industry, the building code community, and State and local government entities, as well as individuals with disabilities. In 1998, the Access Board added specific guidelines on State and local government facilities, 63 FR 2000 (Jan. 13, 1998), and building elements designed for use by children, 63 FR 2060 (Jan. 13, 1998). In 1999, based largely on the report and recommendations of the advisory committee, the Access Board issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to update and revise its ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines. See 64 FR 62248 (Nov. 16, 1999). In 2000, the Access Board added specific guidelines on play areas. See 65 FR 62498 (Oct. 18, 2000). The Access Board released an interim draft of its guidelines to the public on April 2, 2002, 67 FR 15509, in order to provide an opportunity for entities with model codes to consider amendments that would promote further harmonization. In September of 2002, the Access Board set forth specific guidelines on recreation facilities. 67 FR 56352 (Sept. 3, 2002).

By the date of its final publication on July 23, 2004, the 2004 ADA/ABA Guidelines had been the subject of extraordinary review and public participation. The Access Board received more than 2,500 comments from individuals with disabilities, affected industries, State and local governments, and others. The Access Board provided further opportunity for participation by holding public hearings.

The Department was involved extensively in the development of the 2004 ADA/ABA Guidelines. As a Federal member of the Access Board, the Attorney General’s representative voted to approve the revised guidelines. ADA Chapter 1 and ADA Chapter 2 of the 2004 ADA/ABA Guidelines provide scoping requirements for facilities subject to the ADA; ‘‘scoping’’ is a term used in the 2004 ADA/ABA Guidelines to describe requirements that prescribe which elements and spaces—and, in some cases, how many—must comply with the technical specifications. ABA Chapter 1 and ABA Chapter 2 provide scoping requirements for facilities subject to the ABA (i.e., facilities designed, built, altered, or leased with Federal funds). Chapters 3 through 10 of the 2004 ADA/ABA Guidelines provide uniform technical specifications for facilities subject to either the ADA or the ABA. This revised format is designed to eliminate unintended conflicts between the two sets of Federal accessibility standards and to minimize conflicts between the Federal regulations and the model codes that form the basis of many State and local building codes. For the purposes of this final rule, the Department will refer to ADA Chapter 1, ADA Chapter 2, and Chapters 3 through 10 of the 2004 ADA/ABA Guidelines as the 2004 ADAAG.

These amendments to the 1991 ADAAG have not been adopted previously by the Department as ADA Standards. Through this rule, the Department is adopting revised ADA Standards consistent with the 2004 ADAAG, including all of the amendments to the 1991 ADAAG since 1998. For the purposes of this part, the Department’s revised standards are entitled ‘‘The 2010 Standards for Accessible Design’’ and consist of the 2004 ADAAG and the requirements contained in subpart D of 28 CFR part 36. Because the Department has adopted the 2004 ADAAG as part of its title II and title III regulations, once the Department’s final rules become effective, the 2004 ADAAG will have legal effect with respect to the Department's title II and title III regulations and will cease to be mere guidance for those areas regulated by the Department. In 2006, DOT adopted the 2004 ADAAG. With respect to those areas regulated by DOT, these guidelines, as adopted by DOT, have had legal effect since 2006.

Under this regulation, the Department of Justice covers passenger vessels operated by private entities not primarily engaged in the business of transporting people with respect to the provision of goods and services of a public accommodation on the vessel. For example, a vessel operator whose vessel departs from Point A, takes passengers on a recreational trip, and returns passengers to Point A without ever providing for disembarkation at a Point B (e.g., a dinner or harbor cruise, a fishing charter) is a public accommodation operated by a private entity not primarily engaged in the business of transporting people. This regulation covers those aspects of the vessel’s operation relating to the use and enjoyment of the public accommodation, including, for example, the boarding process, safety policies, accessible routes on the vessel, and the provision of effective communication. Persons with complaints or concerns about discrimination on the basis of disability by vessel operators who are private entities not primarily engaged in the business of transporting people, or questions about how this regulation applies to such operators and vessels, should contact the Department of Justice.

Vessels operated by private entities primarily engaged in the business of transporting people and that provide the goods and services of a public accommodation are covered by this regulation and the Department of Transportation’s passenger vessel rule, 49 CFR part 39. A vessel operator whose vessel takes passengers from Point A to Point B (e.g., a cruise ship that sails from Miami to one or more Caribbean islands, a private ferry boat between two points on either side of a river or bay, a water taxi between two points in an urban area) is most likely a private entity primarily engaged in the business of transporting people. Persons with questions about how this regulation applies to such operators and vessels may contact the Department of Justice or the Department of Transportation for guidance or further information. However, the Department of Justice has enforcement authority for all private entities under title III of the ADA, so individuals with complaints about noncompliance with part 39 should provide those complaints to the Department of Justice.

The provisions of this rule and 49 CFR part 39 are intended to be substantively consistent with one another. Consequently, in interpreting the application of this rule to vessel operators who are private entities not primarily engaged in the business of transporting people, the Department of Justice views the obligations of those vessel operators as being similar to those of private entities primarily engaged in the business of transporting people under the provisions of 49 CFR part 39.

The Department’s Rulemaking History

The Department published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on September 30, 2004, 69 FR 58768 for two reasons: (1) To begin the process of adopting the 2004 ADAAG by soliciting public input on issues relating to the potential application of the Access Board’s revisions once the Department adopts them as revised standards; and (2) to request background information that would assist the Department in preparing a regulatory analysis under the guidance provided in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A–4 sections D (Analytical Approaches) and E (Identifying and Measuring Benefits and Costs) (Sept. 17, 2003), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (last visited June 24, 2010). While underscoring that the Department, as a member of the Access Board, already had reviewed comments provided to the Access Board during its development of the 2004 ADAAG, the Department specifically requested public comment on the potential application of the 2004 ADAAG to existing facilities. The extent to which the 2004 ADAAG is used with respect to the barrier removal requirement applicable to existing facilities under title III (as well as with respect to the program access requirement in title II) is within the sole discretion of the Department. The ANPRM dealt with the Department’s responsibilities under both title II and title III.

The public response to the ANPRM was substantial. The Department extended the comment deadline by four months at the public’s request. 70 FR 2992 (Jan. 19, 2005). By the end of the extended comment period, the Department had received more than 900 comments covering a broad range of issues. Many of the commenters responded to questions posed specifically by the Department, including questions regarding the Department’s application of the 2004 ADAAG once adopted by the Department and the Department’s regulatory assessment of the costs and benefits of particular elements. Many other commenters addressed areas of desired regulation or of particular concern.

To enhance accessibility strides made since the enactment of the ADA, commenters asked the Department to focus on previously unregulated areas, such as ticketing in assembly areas; reservations for hotel rooms, rental cars, and boat slips; and captioning. They also asked for clarification on some issues in the 1991 regulations, such as the requirements regarding service animals. Other commenters dealt with specific requirements in the 2004 ADAAG or responded to questions regarding elements scoped for the first time in the 2004 ADAAG, including recreation facilities and play areas. Commenters also provided some information on how to assess the cost of elements in small facilities, office buildings, hotels and motels, assembly areas, hospitals and long-term care facilities, residential units, recreation facilities, and play areas. Still other commenters addressed the effective date of the proposed standards, the triggering event by which the effective date is calculated for new construction, and variations on a safe harbor that would excuse elements built in compliance with the 1991 Standards from compliance with the proposed standards.

After careful consideration of the public comments in response to the ANPRM, on June 17, 2008, the Department published an NPRM covering title III. 73 FR 34508. The Department also published an NPRM on that day covering title II. 73 FR 34466. The NPRMs addressed the issues raised in the public’s comments to the ANPRM and sought additional comment, generally and in specific areas, such as the Department’s adoption of the 2004 ADAAG, the Department’s regulatory assessment of the costs and benefits of the rule, its updates and amendments of certain provisions of the existing title II and III regulations, and areas that were in need of additional clarification or specificity.

A public hearing was held on July 15, 2008, in Washington, DC. Forty-five individuals testified in person or by phone. The hearing was streamed live over the Internet. By the end of the 60-day comment period, the Department had received 4,435 comments addressing a broad range of issues, many of which were common to the title II and title III NPRMs, from representatives of businesses and industries, State and local government agencies, disability advocacy organizations, and private individuals.

The Department notes that this rulemaking was unusual in that much of the proposed regulatory text and many of the questions asked across titles II and III were the same. Consequently, many of the commenters did not provide separate sets of documents for the proposed title II and title III rules, and in many instances, the commenters did not specify which title was being commented upon. As a result, where comments could be read to apply to both titles II and III, the Department included them in the comments and responses for each final rule.

Most of the commenters responded to questions posed specifically by the Department, including what were the most appropriate definitions for terms such as ‘‘wheelchair,’’ ‘‘mobility device,’’ and ‘‘service animal’’; how to quantify various benefits that are difficult to monetize; what requirements to adopt for ticketing and assembly areas; whether to adopt safe harbors for small businesses; and how best to regulate captioning. Some comments addressed specific requirements in the 2004 ADAAG or responded to questions regarding elements scoped for the first time in the 2004 ADAAG, including recreation facilities and play areas. Other comments responded to questions posed by the Department concerning certain specific requirements in the 2004 ADAAG.

Relationship to Other Laws

The Department of Justice regulation implementing title III, 28 CFR 36.103, provides the following:

(a) Rule of interpretation. Except as otherwise provided in this part, this part shall not be construed to apply a lesser standard than the standards applied under title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791) or the regulations issued by Federal agencies pursuant to that title.

(b) Section 504. This part does not affect the obligations of a recipient of Federal financial assistance to comply with the requirements of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) and regulations issued by Federal agencies implementing section 504.

(c) Other laws. This part does not invalidate or limit the remedies, rights, and procedures of any other Federal, State, or local laws (including State common law) that provide greater or equal protection for the rights of individuals with disabilities or individuals associated with them.

These provisions remain unchanged by the final rule. The Department recognizes that public accommodations subject to title III of the ADA may also be subject to title I of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment; section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and other Federal statutes that prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in the programs and activities of recipients of Federal financial assistance; and other Federal statutes such as the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA), 49 U.S.C. 41705 et seq., and the Fair Housing Act (FHAct), 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq. Compliance with the Department’s title II and title III regulations does not ensure compliance with other Federal statutes.

Public accommodations that are subject to the ADA as well as other Federal disability discrimination laws must be aware of the requirements of all applicable laws and must comply with these laws and their implementing regulations. Although in many cases similar provisions of different statutes are interpreted to impose similar requirements, there are circumstances in which similar provisions are applied differently because of the nature of the covered entity or activity, or because of distinctions between the statutes. For example, emotional support animals that do not qualify as service animals under the Department’s title III regulations may nevertheless qualify as permitted reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities under the FHAct and the ACAA. See, e.g., Overlook Mutual Homes, Inc. v. Spencer, 666 F. Supp. 2d 850 (S.D. Ohio 2009). Public accommodations that operate housing facilities must ensure that they apply the reasonable accommodation requirements of the FHAct in determining whether to allow a particular animal needed by a person with a disability into housing and may not use the ADA definition as a justification for reducing their FHAct obligations. In addition, nothing in the ADA prevents a public accommodation subject to one statute from modifying its policies and providing greater access in order to assist individuals with disabilities in achieving access to entities subject to other Federal statutes. For example, a quick service restaurant at an airport is, as a public accommodation, subject to the title III requirements, not to the ACAA requirements. Conversely, an air carrier that flies in and out of the same airport is required to comply with the ACAA, but is not covered by title III of the ADA. If a particular animal is a service animal for purposes of the ACAA and is thus allowed on an airplane, but is not a service animal for purposes of the ADA, nothing in the ADA prohibits an airport restaurant from allowing a ticketed passenger with a disability who is traveling with a service animal that meets the ACAA’s definition of a service animal to bring that animal into the facility even though under the ADA’s definition of service animal the animal lawfully could be excluded.

Organization of This Rule

Throughout this rule, the original ADA Standards, which are republished as Appendix D to 28 CFR part 36, will be referred to as the ‘‘1991 Standards.’’ The original title III regulation, codified at 28 CFR part 36 (2009), will be referred to as the ‘‘1991 regulation’’ or the ‘‘1991 title III regulation.’’ ADA Chapter 1, ADA Chapter 2, and Chapters 3 through 10 of the 2004 ADA/ABA Guidelines, 36 CFR part 1191, app. B and D (2009), will be referred to as the ‘‘2004 ADAAG.’’ The Department’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 73 FR 34508 (June 17, 2008), will be referred to as the ‘‘NPRM.’’ As noted above, the 2004 ADAAG, taken together with the requirements contained in subpart D of 28 CFR part 36 (New Construction and Alterations) of the final rule, will be referred to as the ‘‘2010 Standards.’’ The amendments made to the 1991 title III regulation and the adoption of the 2004 ADAAG, taken together, will be referred to as the ‘‘final rule.’’

In performing the required periodic review of its existing regulation, the Department has reviewed the title III regulation section by section, and, as a result, has made several clarifications and amendments in this rule. Appendix A of the final rule, ‘‘Guidance on Revisions to ADA Regulation on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities,’’ codified as Appendix A to 28 CFR part 36, provides the Department’s response to comments and its explanations of the changes to the regulation. The section entitled ‘‘Section-by-Section Analysis and Response to Comments’’ in Appendix A provides a detailed discussion of the changes to the title III regulation. The Section-by-Section Analysis follows the order of the 1991 title III regulation, except that regulatory sections that remain unchanged are not referenced. The discussion within each section explains the changes and the reasoning behind them, as well as the Department’s response to related public comments. Subject areas that deal with more than one section of the regulation include references to the related sections, where appropriate. The Section-by-Section Analysis also discusses many of the questions asked by the Department for specific public response. The section of Appendix A entitled ‘‘Other Issues’’ discusses public comment on several issues of concern to the Department that were the subject of questions that are not specifically addressed in the Section-by-Section Analysis.

The Department’s description of the 2010 Standards, as well as a discussion of the public comments on specific sections of the 2004 ADAAG, is found in Appendix B of this final rule, ‘‘Analysis and Commentary on the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design,’’ codified as Appendix B to 28 CFR part 36.

The provisions of this rule generally take effect six months from its publication in the Federal Register. The Department has determined, however, that compliance with the requirements related to new construction and alterations and reservations at a place of lodging shall not be required until 18 months from the publication date of this rule. These exceptions are set forth in §§ 36.406(a) and 36.302(e)(3), respectively, and are discussed in greater detail in Appendix A. See discussions in Appendix A entitled ‘‘Section 36.406 Standards for New Construction and Alterations’’ and ‘‘Section 36.302(e) Hotel Reservations.’’

This final rule only addresses issues that were identified in the NPRM as subjects the Department intended to regulate through this rulemaking proceeding. Because the Department indicated in the NPRM that it did not intend to regulate certain areas, including equipment and furniture, accessible golf cars, and movie captioning and video description, as part of this rulemaking proceeding, the Department believes it would be appropriate to solicit more public comment about these areas prior to making them the subject of a rulemaking. The Department intends to engage in additional rulemaking in the near future addressing accessibility in these areas and others, including next generation 9-1-1 and accessibility of Web sites operated by covered public entities and public accommodations.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

Regulatory Process Matters (SBREFA, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Executive Orders)

The Department must provide two types of assessments as part of its final rule: An analysis of the costs and benefits of adopting the changes contained in this rule, and a periodic review of its existing regulations to consider their impact on small entities, including small businesses, small nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. See E.O. 12866, 58 FR 51735, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 638, as amended; Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 610(a); OMB Circular A–4, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf (last visited June 24, 2010); E.O. 13272, 67 FR 53461, 3 CFR, 2003 Comp., p. 247.

In the NPRM, the Department kept open the possibility that, if warranted by public comments received on an issue raised by the 2004 ADAAG or by the results of the Department’s Initial Regulatory Impact Analysis (Initial RIA), available at http://www.ada.gov/NPRM2008/ria.htm, showing that the likely costs of making a particular feature or facility accessible were disproportionate to the benefits (including both monetized and nonmonetized benefits) to persons with disabilities, the Attorney General, as a member of the Access Board, could return the issue to the Access Board for further consideration. After careful consideration, the Department has determined that it is unnecessary to return any issues to the Access Board for additional consideration.

Executive Order 12866

This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866. The Department has evaluated its existing regulations for title II and title III section by section, and many of the provisions in the final rule for both titles reflect its efforts to mitigate any negative effects on small entities. A Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (Final RIA or RIA) was prepared by the Department’s contractor, HDR|HLB Decision Economics, Inc. (HDR). In accordance with Executive Order 12866, as amended, and OMB Circular A–4, the Department has reviewed and considered the Final RIA and has accepted the results of this analysis as its assessment of the benefits and costs of the final rules.

Executive Order 12866 refers explicitly not only to monetizable costs and benefits but also to ‘‘distributive impacts’’ and ‘‘equity,’’ see E.O. 12866, section 1(a), and it is important to recognize that the ADA is intended to provide important benefits that are distributional and equitable in character. The ADA states, ‘‘[i]t is the purpose of this [Act] (1) to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities; [and] (2) to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities[.]’’ 42 U.S.C. 12101(b). Many of the benefits of this rule stem from the provision of such standards, which will promote inclusion, reduce stigma and potential embarrassment, and combat isolation, segregation, and second-class citizenship of individuals with disabilities. Some of these benefits are, in the words of Executive Order 12866, ‘‘difficult to quantify, but nevertheless essential to consider.’’ E.O. 12866, section 1(a). The Department has considered such benefits here.

Final Regulatory Impact Analysis

The Final RIA embodies a comprehensive benefit-cost analysis of the final rules for both title II and title III and assesses the incremental benefits and costs of the 2010 Standards relative to a primary baseline scenario (1991 Standards). In addition, the Department conducted additional research and analyses for requirements having the highest negative net present values under the primary baseline scenario. This approach was taken because, while the 1991 Standards are the only uniform set of accessibility standards that apply to public accommodations, commercial facilities, and State and local government facilities nationwide, it is also understood that many State and local jurisdictions have already adopted IBC/ANSI model code provisions that mirror those in the 2004 ADAAG. The assessments based on this approach assume that covered entities currently implementing codes that mirror the 2004 ADAAG will not need to modify their code requirements once the rules are finalized. They also assume that, even without the final rules, the current level of compliance would be unchanged. The Final RIA contains specific information, including data in chart form, detailing which States have already adopted the accessibility standards for this subset of six requirements. The Department believes that the estimates resulting from this approach represent a reasonable upper and lower measure of the likely effects these requirements will have that the Department was able to quantify and monetize.

The Final RIA estimates the benefits and costs for all new (referred to as ‘‘supplemental’’) requirements and revised requirements across all types of newly constructed and existing facilities. The Final RIA also incorporates a sophisticated risk analysis process that quantifies the inherent uncertainties in estimating costs and benefits and then assesses (through computer simulations) the relative impact of these factors when varied simultaneously. A copy of the Final RIA will be made available online for public review on the Department’s ADA Home Page (http://www.ada.gov).

From an economic perspective (as specified in OMB Circular A–B4), the results of the Final RIA demonstrate that the Department’s final rules increase social resources and thus represent a public good because monetized benefits exceed monetized costs—that is, the regulations have a positive net present value (NPV). Indeed, under every scenario assessed in the Final RIA, the final rules have a positive NPV. The Final RIA’s first scenario examines the incremental impact of the final rules using the ‘‘main’’ set of assumptions (i.e., assuming a primary baseline (1991 Standards), that the safe harbor applies, and that for title III entities barrier removal is readily achievable for 50 percent of elements subject to supplemental requirements).

Under this set of assumptions, the final rules have an expected NPV of $9.3 billion (7 percent discount rate) and $40.4 billion (3 percent discount rate). See Final RIA, table ES–1 & figure ES–2.

Expected Impact of the Rules² (in billions)

Water Closet Clearances

The Department gave careful consideration to the costs and benefits of its adoption of the standards relating to water closet clearances in single-user toilet rooms. The primary effect of the Department’s proposed final rules governing water closet clearances in single-user toilet rooms with in-swinging and out-swinging doors is to allow sufficient room for ‘‘side’’ or ‘‘parallel’’ methods of transferring from a wheelchair to a toilet. Under the current 1991 Standards, the requisite clearance space in single-user toilet rooms between and around the toilet and the lavatory does not permit these methods of transfer. Side or parallel transfers are used by large numbers of persons who use wheelchairs and are regularly taught in rehabilitation and occupational therapy. Currently, persons who use side or parallel transfer methods from their wheelchairs are faced with a stark choice at establishments with single-user toilet rooms—i.e., patronize the establishment but run the risk of needing assistance when using the restroom, travel with someone who would be able to provide assistance in toileting, or forgo the visit entirely. The revised water closet clearance regulations would make single-user toilet rooms accessible to all persons who use wheelchairs, not just those with the physical strength, balance, and dexterity and the training to use a front-transfer method. Single-user toilet rooms are located in a wide variety of public and private facilities, including restaurants, fast-food establishments, schools, retail stores, parks, sports stadiums, and hospitals. Final promulgation of these requirements might thus, for example, enable a person who uses a side or parallel transfer method to use the restroom (or use the restroom independently) at his or her local coffee shop for the first time.

Because of the complex nature of its cost-benefit analysis, the Department is providing ‘‘plain language’’ descriptions of the benefits calculations for the two revised requirements with the highest estimated total costs: Water closet clearance in single-user toilet rooms with out-swinging doors (RIA Req. #28) (section 604.3 of the 2010 Standards) and water closet clearance in single-user toilet rooms with in-swinging doors (RIA Req. #32) (sections 604.3 and 603.2.3 Exception 2 of the 2010 Standards). Since many of the concepts and calculations in the Final RIA are highly technical, it is hoped that, by providing ‘‘lay’’ descriptions of how benefits are monetized for an illustrative set of requirements, the Final RIA will be more transparent and afford readers a more complete understanding of the benefits model generally. Because of the widespread adoption of the water closet clearance standards in existing State and local building codes, the following calculations use the IBC/ANSI baseline.

General description of monetized benefits for water closet clearance in single-user toilet rooms—out-swinging doors (Req. #28).

In order to assess monetized benefits for the requirement covering water closet clearances in single-user toilet rooms with out-swinging doors, a determination needed to be made concerning the population of users with disabilities who would likely benefit from this revised standard. Based on input received from a panel of experts jointly convened by HDR and the Department to discuss benefits-related estimates and assumptions used in the RIA model, it was assumed that accessibility changes brought about by this requirement would benefit persons with any type of ambulatory (i.e., mobility-related) disability, such as persons who use wheelchairs, walkers, or braces. Recent census figures estimate that about 11.9 percent of Americans ages 15 and older have an ambulatory disability, or about 35 million people. This expert panel also estimated that single-user toilet rooms with out-swinging doors would be used slightly less than once every other visit to a facility with such toilet rooms covered by the final rules (or, viewed another way, about once every two hours spent at a covered facility assumed to have one or more single-user toilet rooms with out-swinging doors) by an individual with an ambulatory disability. The expert panel further estimated that, for such individuals, the revised requirement would result in an average time savings of about five and a half minutes when using the restroom. This time savings is due to the revised water closet clearance standard, which permits, among other things, greater flexibility in terms of access to the toilet by parallel or side transfer, thereby perhaps reducing the wait for another person to assist with toileting and the need to twist or struggle to access the toilet independently. Based on average hourly wage rates compiled by the U.S. Department of Labor, the time savings for Req. #28 is valued at just under $10 per hour.

For public and private facilities covered by the final rules, it is estimated that there are currently about 11 million single-user toilet rooms with out-swinging doors. The majority of these types of single-user toilet rooms, nearly 7 million, are assumed to be located at ‘‘Indoor Service Establishments,’’ a broad facility group that encompasses various types of indoor retail stores such as bakeries, grocery stores, clothing stores, and hardware stores. Based on construction industry data, it was estimated that approximately 3 percent of existing single-user toilet rooms with out-swinging doors would be altered each year, and that the number of newly constructed facilities with these types of toilet rooms would increase at the rate of about 1 percent each year. However, due to the widespread adoption at the State and local level of model code provisions that mirror Req. #28, it is further understood that about half of all existing facilities assumed to have single-user toilet rooms with out-swinging doors already are covered by State or local building codes that require equivalent water closet clearances. Due to the general element-by-element safe harbor provision in the final rules, no unaltered single-user toilet rooms that comply with the current 1991 Standards will be required to retrofit to meet the revised clearance requirements in the final rules.

With respect to new construction, it is assumed that each single-user toilet room with an out-swinging door will last the life of the building, about 40 years. For alterations, the amount of time such a toilet room will be used depends upon the remaining life of the building (i.e., a period of time between 1 and 39 years).

Summing up monetized benefits to users with disabilities across all types of public and private facilities covered by the final rules, and assuming 46 percent of covered facilities nationwide are located in jurisdictions that have adopted the relevant equivalent IBC/ ANSI model code provisions, it is expected that the revised requirement for water closet clearance in single-user toilet rooms with out-swinging doors will result in net benefits of approximately $900 million over the life of these regulations.

General description of monetized benefits for water closet clearance in single-user toilet rooms—in-swinging doors (Req. # 32).

For the water closet clearance in single-user toilet rooms with the in-swinging door requirement (Req. #32), the expert panel determined that the primary beneficiaries would be persons who use wheelchairs. As compared to single-user toilet rooms with out-swinging doors, those with in-swinging doors tend to be larger (in terms of square footage) in order to accommodate clearance for the in-swinging door and, thus, are already likely to have adequate clear floor space for persons with disabilities who use other types of mobility aids such as walkers and crutches.

The expert benefits panel estimated that single-user toilet rooms with in-swinging doors are used less frequently on average—about once every 20 visits to a facility with such a toilet room by a person who uses a wheelchair—than their counterpart toilet rooms with out-swinging doors. This panel also determined that, on average, each user would realize a time savings of about 9 minutes as a result of the enhanced clearances required by this revised standard.

The RIA estimates that there are about 4 million single-user toilet rooms with in-swinging doors in existing facilities. About half of the single-user toilet rooms with in-swinging doors are assumed to be located in single-level stores, and about a quarter of them are assumed to be located in restaurants. Based on construction industry data, it was estimated that approximately 3 percent of existing single-user toilet rooms with in-swinging doors would be altered each year, and that the number of newly constructed facilities with these types of toilet rooms would increase at the rate of about 1 percent each year. However, due to the widespread adoption at the State and local level of model code provisions that mirror Req. #32, it is further understood that slightly more than 70 percent of all existing facilities assumed to have single-user toilet rooms with in-swinging doors already are covered by State or local building codes that require equivalent water closet clearances. Due to the general element-by-element safe harbor provision in the final rules, no unaltered single-user toilet rooms that comply with the current 1991 Standards will be required to retrofit to meet the revised clearance requirements in the final rules.

Similar to the assumptions for Req. #28, it is assumed that newly constructed single-user toilet rooms with in-swinging doors will last the life of the building, about 40 years. For alterations, the amount of time such a toilet room will be used depends upon the remaining life of the building (i.e., a period of time between 1 and 39 years). Over this time period, the total estimated value of benefits to users of water closets with in-swinging doors from the time they will save and decreased discomfort they will experience is nearly $12 million.

Additional benefits of water closet clearance standards.

The standards requiring sufficient space in single-user toilet rooms for a wheelchair user to effect a side or parallel transfer are among the most costly (in monetary terms) of the new provisions in the Access Board’s guidelines that the Department adopts in this rule—but also, the Department believes, one of the most beneficial in non-monetary terms. Although the monetized costs of these requirements substantially exceed the monetized benefits, the additional benefits that persons with disabilities will derive from greater safety, enhanced independence, and the avoidance of stigma and humiliation— benefits that the Department’s economic model could not put in monetary terms—are, in the Department’s experience and considered judgment, likely to be quite high. Wheelchair users, including veterans returning from our Nation’s wars with disabilities, are taught to transfer onto toilets from the side. Side transfers are the safest, most efficient, and most independence-promoting way for wheelchair users to get onto the toilet. The opportunity to effect a side transfer will often obviate the need for a wheelchair user or individual with another type of mobility impairment to obtain the assistance of another person to engage in what is, for most people, among the most private of activities. Executive Order 12866 refers explicitly not only to monetizable costs and benefits but also to ‘‘distributive impacts’’ and ‘‘equity,’’ see E.O. 12866, section 1(a), and it is important to recognize that the ADA is intended to provide important benefits that are distributional and equitable in character. These water closet clearance provisions will have nonmonetized benefits that promote equal access and equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities, and will further the ADA’ s purpose of providing ‘‘a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.’’ 42 U.S.C. 12101(b)(1).

The Department’s calculations indicated that, in fact, people with the relevant disabilities would have to place only a very small monetary value on these quite substantial benefits for the costs and benefits of these water closet clearance standards to break even. To make these calculations, the Department separated out toilet rooms with out-swinging doors from those with in-swinging doors, because the costs and benefits of the respective water closet clearance requirements are significantly different. The Department estimates that, assuming 46 percent of covered facilities nationwide are located in jurisdictions that have adopted the relevant equivalent IBC/ANSI model code provisions, the costs of the requirement as applied to toilet rooms with out-swinging doors will exceed the monetized benefits by $454 million, an annualized net cost of approximately $32.6 million. But a large number of people with disabilities will realize benefits of independence, safety, and avoided stigma and humiliation as a result of the requirement’s application in this context. Based on the estimates of its expert panel and its own experience, the Department believes that both wheelchair users and people with a variety of other mobility disabilities will benefit. The Department estimates that people with the relevant disabilities will use a newly accessible single-user toilet room with an out-swinging door approximately 677 million times per year. Dividing the $32.6 million annual cost by the 677 million annual uses, the Department concludes that for the costs and benefits to break even in this context, people with the relevant disabilities will have to value safety, independence, and the avoidance of stigma and humiliation at just under 5 cents per visit. The Department believes, based on its experience and informed judgment, that 5 cents substantially understates the value people with the relevant disabilities would place on these benefits in this context.

There are substantially fewer single-user toilet rooms with in-swinging doors, and substantially fewer people with disabilities will benefit from making those rooms accessible. While both wheelchair users and individuals with other ambulatory disabilities will benefit from the additional space in a room with an out-swinging door, the Department believes, based on the estimates of its expert panel and its own experience, that wheelchair users likely will be the primary beneficiaries of the in-swinging door requirement. The Department estimates that people with the relevant disabilities will use a newly accessible single-user toilet room with an in-swinging door approximately 8.7 million times per year. Moreover, the alteration costs to make a single-user toilet room with an in-swinging door accessible are substantially higher (because of the space taken up by the door) than the equivalent costs of making a room with an out-swinging door accessible. Thus, the Department calculates that, assuming 72 percent of covered facilities nationwide are located in jurisdictions that have adopted the relevant equivalent IBC/ANSI model code provisions, the costs of applying the toilet room accessibility standard to rooms with in-swinging doors will exceed the monetized benefits of doing so by $266.3 million over the life of the regulations, or approximately $19.14 million per year. Dividing the $19.14 million annual cost by the 8.7 million annual uses, the Department concludes that for the costs and benefits to break even in this context, people with the relevant disabilities will have to value safety, independence, and the avoidance of stigma and humiliation at approximately $2.20 per visit. The Department believes, based on its experience and informed judgment, that this figure approximates, and probably understates, the value wheelchair users place on safety, independence, and the avoidance of stigma and humiliation in this context.

Alternate Scenarios

Another scenario in the Final RIA explores the incremental impact of varying the assumptions concerning the percentage of existing elements subject to supplemental requirements for which barrier removal would be readily achievable. Readily achievable barrier removal rates are modeled at 0 percent, 50 percent, and 100 percent levels. The results of this scenario show that the expected NPV is positive for each readily achievable barrier removal rate and that varying this assumed rate has little impact on expected NPV. See Final RIA, figure ES–3.

A third set of analyses in the Final RIA demonstrates the impact of using alternate baselines based on model codes instead of the primary baseline. The IBC model codes, which have been widely adopted by State and local jurisdictions around the country, are significant because many of the requirements in the final rules mirror accessibility provisions in the IBC model codes (or standards incorporated therein by reference, such as ANSI A117.1). The actual economic impact of the Department’s final rules is, therefore, tempered by the fact that many jurisdictions nationwide have already adopted and are enforcing portions of the final rules—indeed, this was one of the goals underlying the Access Board’s efforts to harmonize the 2004 ADAAG Standards with the model codes. However, capturing the economic impact of this reality poses a difficult modeling challenge due to the variety of methods by which States and localities have adopted the IBC/ANSI model codes (e.g., in whole, in part, and with or without amendments), as well as the lack of a national ‘‘facility census’ establishing the location, type, and age of existing ADA-covered facilities.

As a result, in the first set of alternate IBC baseline analyses, the Final RIA assumes that all of the three IBC model codes—IBC 2000, IBC 2003, and IBC 2006—have been fully adopted by all jurisdictions and apply to all facilities nationwide. As with the primary baseline scenarios examined in the Final RIA, use of these three alternate IBC baselines results in positive expected NPVs in all cases. See Final RIA, figure ES–4. These results also indicate that IBC 2000 and IBC 2006 respectively have the highest and lowest expected NPVs. These results are due to changes in the make-up of the set of requirements that is included in each alternative baseline.

Additionally, a second, more limited alternate baseline analysis in the Final RIA uses a State-specific and requirement-specific alternate IBC/ANSI baseline in order to demonstrate the likely actual incremental impact of an illustrative subset of 20 requirements under current conditions nationwide. For this analysis, research was conducted on a subset of 20 requirements in the final rules that have negative net present values under the primary baseline and readily identifiable IBC/ANSI counterparts to determine the extent to which they each respectively have been adopted at the State or local level. With respect to facilities, the population of adopting jurisdictions was used as a proxy for facility location. In other words, it was assumed that the number of ADA-covered facilities respectively compliant with these 20 requirements was equal to the percentage of the United States population (based on statistics from the Census Bureau) currently residing in those States or local jurisdictions that have adopted the IBC/ANSI counterparts to these requirements. The results of this more limited analysis, using State-specific and requirement-specific alternate IBC/ANSI baselines for these 20 requirements, demonstrate that the widespread adoption of IBC model codes by States and localities significantly lessens the financial impact of these specific requirements. Indeed, the Final RIA estimates that, if the NPVs for these 20 requirements resulting from the requirement-specific alternate IBC/ANSI baseline are substituted for their respective results under the primary baseline, the overall NPV for the final rules increases from $9.2 billion to $12.0 billion. See Final RIA, section 6.2.2 & table 10.

Benefits Not Monetized in the Formal Analysis

Finally, the RIA recognizes that additional benefits are likely to result from the new standards. Many of these benefits are more difficult to quantify. Among the potential benefits that have been discussed by researchers and advocates are reduced administrative costs due to harmonized guidelines, increased business opportunities, increased social development, and improved health benefits. For example, the final rules will substantially increase accessibility at newly scoped facilities such as recreation facilities and judicial facilities, which previously have been very difficult for persons with disabilities to access. Areas where the Department believes entities may incur benefits that are not monetized in the formal analysis include, but may not be limited to, the following:

Use benefits accruing to persons with disabilities. The final rules should improve the overall sense of well-being of persons with disabilities, who will know that public entities and places of public accommodation are generally accessible, and who will have improved individual experiences. Some of the most frequently cited qualitative benefits of increased access are the increase in one’s personal sense of dignity that arises from increased access and the decrease in possibly humiliating incidents due to accessibility barriers. Struggling to join classmates on a stage, to use a bathroom with too little clearance, or to enter a swimming pool all negatively affect a person’s sense of independence and can lead to humiliating accidents, derisive comments, or embarrassment. These humiliations, together with feelings of being stigmatized as different or inferior from being relegated to use other, less comfortable or pleasant elements of a facility (such as a bathroom instead of a kitchen sink for rinsing a coffee mug at work), all have a negative effect on persons with disabilities.

Use benefits accruing to persons without disabilities. Improved accessibility can affect more than just the rule’s target population; persons without disabilities may also benefit from many of the requirements. Even though the requirements were not designed to benefit persons without disabilities, any time savings or easier access to a facility experienced by persons without disabilities are also benefits that should properly be attributed to that change in accessibility. Curb cuts in sidewalks make life easier for those using wheeled suitcases or pushing a baby stroller. For people with a lot of luggage or a need to change clothes, the larger bathroom stalls can be highly valued. A ramp into a pool can allow a child (or adult) with a fear of water to ease into that pool. All are examples of ‘‘unintended’’ benefits of the rule. And ideally, all should be part of the calculus of the benefits to society of the rule.

Social benefits. Evidence supports the notion that children with and without disabilities benefit in their social development from interaction with one another. Therefore, there will likely be social development benefits generated by an increase in accessible play areas. However, these benefits are nearly impossible to quantify for several reasons. First, there is no guarantee that accessibility will generate play opportunities between children with and without disabilities. Second, there may be substantial overlap between interactions at accessible play areas and interactions at other facilities, such as schools and religious facilities. Third, it is not certain what the unit of measurement for social development should be.

Non-use benefits. There are additional, indirect benefits to society that arise from improved accessibility. For instance, resource savings may arise from reduced social service agency outlays when people are able to access centralized points of service delivery rather than receiving home-based care. Home-based and other social services may include home health care visits and welfare benefits. Third-party employment effects can arise when enhanced accessibility results in increasing rates of consumption by disabled and non-disabled populations, which in turn results in reduced unemployment.

Two additional forms of benefits are discussed less often, let alone quantified: Option value and existence value. Option value is the value that people with and without disabilities derive from the option of using accessible facilities at some point in the future. As with insurance, people derive benefit from the knowledge that the option to use the accessible facility exists, even if it ultimately goes unused. Simply because an individual is a nonuser of accessible elements today does not mean that he or she will remain so tomorrow. In any given year, there is some probability that an individual will develop a disability (either temporary or permanent) that will necessitate use of these features. For example, the 2000 Census found that 41.9 percent of adults 65 years and older identified themselves as having a disability. Census Bureau figures, moreover, project that the number of people 65 years and older will more than double between 2000 and 2030—from 35 million to 71.5 million. Therefore, even individuals who have no direct use for accessibility features today get a direct benefit from the knowledge of their existence should such individuals need them in the future.

Existence value is the benefit that individuals get from the plain existence of a good, service or resource—in this case, accessibility. It can also be described as the value that people both with and without disabilities derive from the guarantees of equal treatment and non-discrimination that are accorded through the provision of accessible facilities. In other words, people value living in a country that affords protections to individuals with disabilities, whether or not they themselves are directly or indirectly affected. Unlike use benefits and option value, existence value does not require an individual ever to use the resource or plan on using the resource in the future. There are numerous reasons why individuals might value accessibility even if they do not require it now and do not anticipate needing it in the future.

Costs Not Monetized in the Formal Analysis

The Department also recognizes that in addition to benefits that cannot reasonably be quantified or monetized, there may be negative consequences and costs that fall into this category as well. The absence of a quantitative assessment of such costs in the formal regulatory analysis is not meant to minimize their importance to affected entities; rather, it reflects the inherent difficulty in estimating those costs. Areas where the Department believes entities may incur costs that are not monetized in the formal analysis include, but may not be limited to, the following:

Costs from deferring or forgoing alterations. Entities covered by the final rules may choose to delay otherwise desired alterations to their facilities due to the increased incremental costs imposed by compliance with the new requirements. This may lead to facility deterioration and decrease in the value of such facilities. In extreme cases, the costs of complying with the new requirements may lead some entities to opt to not build certain facilities at all. For example, the Department estimates that the incremental costs of building a new wading pool associated with the final rules will increase by about $142,500 on average. Some facilities may opt to not build such pools to avoid incurring this increased cost.

Loss of productive space while modifying an existing facility. During complex alterations, such as where moving walls or plumbing systems will be necessary to comply with the final rules, productive space may be unavailable until the alterations are complete. For example, a hotel altering its bathrooms to comply with the final rules will be unable to allow guests to occupy these rooms while construction activities are underway, and thus the hotel may forgo revenue from these rooms during this time. While the amount of time necessary to perform alterations varies significantly, the costs associated with unproductive space could be high in certain cases, especially if space is already limited or if an entity or facility is located in an area where real estate values are particularly high (e.g., New York or San Francisco).

Expert fees. Another type of cost to entities that is not monetized in the formal analysis is legal fees to determine what, if anything, a facility needs to do in order to comply with the new rules or to respond to lawsuits. Several commenters indicated that entities will incur increased legal costs because the requirements are changing for the first time since 1991. Since litigation risk could increase, entities could spend more on legal fees than in the past. Likewise, covered entities may face incremental costs when undertaking alterations because their engineers, architects, or other consultants may also need to consider what modifications are necessary to comply with the new requirements. The Department has not quantified the incremental costs of the services of these kinds of experts.

Reduction in facility value and losses to individuals without disabilities due to the new accessibility requirements. It is possible that some changes made by entities to their facilities in order to comply with the new requirements may result in fewer individuals without disabilities using such facilities (because of decreased enjoyment) and may create a disadvantage for individuals without disabilities, even though the change might increase accessibility for individuals with disabilities. For example, the new requirements for wading pools might decrease the value of the pool to the entity that owns it due to fewer individuals using it (because the new requirements for a sloped entry might make the pool too shallow). Similarly, several commenters from the miniature golf industry expressed concern that it would be difficult to comply with the regulations for accessible holes without significantly degrading the experience for other users. Finally, with respect to costs to individuals who do not have disabilities, a very tall person, for example, may be inconvenienced by having to reach further for a lowered light switch.

Section 610 Review

The Department also is required to conduct a periodic regulatory review pursuant to section 610 of the RFA, as amended by the SBREFA.

The review requires agencies to consider five factors: (1) The continued need for the rule; (2) the nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule from the public; (3) the complexity of the rule; (4) the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with State and local governmental rules; and (5) the length of time since the rule has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule. 5 U.S.C. 610(b). Based on these factors, the agency is required to determine whether to continue the rule without change or to amend or rescind the rule, to minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on a substantial number of small entities. See id. 610(a).

In developing the 2010 Standards, the Department reviewed the 1991 Standards section by section, and, as a result, has made several clarifications and amendments in both the title II and title III implementing regulations. The changes reflect the Department’s analysis and review of complaints or comments from the public, as well as changes in technology. Many of the amendments aim to clarify and simplify the obligations of covered entities. As discussed in greater detail above, one significant goal of the development of the 2004 ADAAG was to eliminate duplication or overlap in Federal accessibility guidelines, as well as to harmonize the Federal guidelines with model codes. The Department also has worked to create harmony where appropriate between the requirements of titles II and III. Finally, while the regulation is required by statute and there is a continued need for it as a whole, the Department proposes several modifications that are intended to reduce its effects on small entities.

The Department has consulted with the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy about this process. The Office of Advocacy has advised that although the process followed by the Department was ancillary to the proposed adoption of revised ADA Standards, the steps taken to solicit public input and to respond to public concerns are functionally equivalent to the process required to complete a section 610 review. Therefore, this rulemaking fulfills the Department’s obligations under the RFA.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

This final rule also has been reviewed by the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy (Advocacy) in accordance with Executive Order 13272, 67 FR 53461, 3 CFR, 2003 Comp., p. 247. Chapter Seven of the Final RIA demonstrates that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Department has also conducted a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) as a component of this rulemaking. Collectively, the ANPRM, NPRM, Initial RIA, Final RIA, and 2010 Standards include all of the elements of a FRFA required by the RFA. See 5 U.S.C. 604(a) (1)–(5).

Section 604(a) lists the specific requirements for a FRFA. The Department has addressed these RFA requirements throughout the ANPRM, NPRM, the 2010 Standards, and the RIA. In summary, the Department has satisfied its FRFA obligations under section 604(a) by providing the following:

1. Succinct summaries of the need for, and objectives of, the final rule. The Department is issuing this final rule in order to comply with its obligations under both the ADA and the SBREFA. The Department is also updating or amending certain provisions of the existing title III regulation so that they are consistent with the title II regulations and comport with the Department’s legal and practical experiences in enforcing the ADA.

The ADA requires the Department to adopt enforceable accessibility standards under the  ADA that are consistent with the Access Board’s minimum accessibility guidelines and requirements. Accordingly, this rule adopts ADA Chapter 1, ADA Chapter 2, and Chapters 3 through 10 of the 2004 ADA/ABA Guidelines as part of the 2010 Standards, which will give the guidelines legal effect with respect to the Department’s title II and title III regulations.

Under the SBREFA, the Department is required to perform a periodic review of its 1991 rule because the rule may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA also requires the Department to make a regulatory assessment of the costs and benefits of any significant regulatory action. See preamble sections of the final rules for titles II and III entitled ‘‘Summary’’; Department of Justice Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 69 FR 58768, 58768B70, (Sept. 30, 2004) (outlining the regulatory history, goals, and rationale underlying the Department’s proposal to revise its regulations implementing titles II and III of the ADA); and Department of Justice Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 73 FR 34508, 34508B14 (June 17, 2008) (outlining the regulatory history and rationale underlying the Department’s proposal to revise its regulations implementing titles II and III of the ADA).

2. Summaries of significant issues raised by public comments in response to the Department’s initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and discussions of regulatory revisions made as a result of such comments. The majority of the comments received by the Department addressing its IRFA set forth in the title III NPRM were submitted by the Advocacy. Advocacy acknowledged that the Department took into account the comments and concerns of small businesses; however, Advocacy remained concerned about certain items in the Department’s NPRM and requested clarification or additional guidance on certain items.

General Safe Harbor. Advocacy expressed support for the Department’s proposal to allow an element-by-element safe harbor for elements that now comply with the 1991 Standards and encouraged the Department to include specific technical assistance in the Small Business Compliance Guide that the Department is required to publish pursuant to section 212 of the SBREFA, 5 U.S.C. 610 et seq. Advocacy requested that technical assistance outlining which standards are subject to the safe harbor be included in the Department’s guidance. The Department has provided a list of the new requirements in the 2010 Standards that are not eligible for the safe harbor in § 36.304(d)(2)(iii)(A)–(L) of the final rule and plans to include additional information about the application of the safe harbor in the Department’s Small Business Compliance Guide. Advocacy also requested that guidance regarding the two effective dates for regulations also be provided, and the Department plans to include such guidance in its Small Business Compliance Guide.

Small Business Safe Harbor. Advocacy expressed disappointment that the Department did not include a small business safe harbor in the final rule. In the NPRM, the Department proposed to include a small business safe harbor. Advocacy conceptually supported this safe harbor but had concerns regarding its application. Commenters from both the disability community and the business community uniformly, and quite adamantly, opposed the Department’s proposal. Some business commenters suggested alternative safe harbors, but there was no common thread among their suggestions that would enable the Department to craft a proposal that would draw support from the affected communities.

Advocacy recommended that the Department continue to study how the proposed small business safe harbor might be made workable in future rulemakings, and recommended that the Department also seek other alternatives that minimize the economic impact of the ADA rulemakings in the future. The Department is mindful of its obligations under the SBREFA and will be sensitive to the need to mitigate costs for small businesses in any future rulemaking; however, based on the information currently available, the Department has declined to commit to a specific regulatory approach in the final rule.

Indirect Costs. Advocacy and other commenters representing business interests expressed concern that businesses would incur substantial indirect costs under the final rule for accessibility consultants, legal counsel, training, and the development of new policies and procedures. The Department believes that such ‘‘indirect costs,’’ even assuming they would occur as described by these commenters, are not properly attributed to the Department’s final rule implementing the ADA.

The vast majority of the new requirements are incremental changes subject to a safe harbor. All businesses currently in compliance with the 1991 Standards will neither need to undertake further retrofits nor require the services of a consultant to tell them so. If, on the other hand, elements at an existing facility are not currently in compliance with the 1991 Standards, then the cost of making such a determination and bringing these elements into compliance are not properly attributed to the final rule, but to lack of compliance with the 1991 Standards.

For the limited number of requirements in the final rule that are supplemental, the Department believes that covered entities simply need to determine whether they have an element covered by a supplemental requirement (e.g., a swimming pool) and then conduct any necessary barrier removal work either in-house or by contacting a local contractor. Determining whether such an element exists is expected to take only a minimal amount of staff time. Nevertheless, Chapter 5 of the Final RIA has a high-end estimate of the additional management costs of such evaluation(from 1 to 8 hours of staff time).

The Department also anticipates that businesses will incur minimal costs for accessibility consultants to ensure compliance with the new requirements for New Construction and Alterations in the final rule. Both the 2004 ADAAG and the proposed requirements have been made public for some time and are already being incorporated into design plans by architects and builders. Further, in adopting the final rule, the Department has sought to harmonize, to the greatest extent possible, the ADA Standards with model codes that have been adopted on a widespread basis by State and local jurisdictions across the country. Accordingly, many of the requirements in the final rule are already incorporated into building codes nationwide. Additionally, it is assumed to be part of the regular course of business—and thereby incorporated into standard professional services or construction contracts—for architects and contractors to keep abreast of changes in applicable Federal, State, and local laws and building codes. Given these considerations, the Department has determined that the additional costs, if any, for architectural or contractor services that arise out of the final rule should be minimal.

Some commenters stated that the final rule would require them to develop new policies or manuals to retrain employees on the revised ADA standards. However, it is the Department’s view that because the revised and supplemental requirements address architectural issues and features, the final rule would require minimal, if any, changes to the overall policies and procedures of covered entities.

Finally, commenters representing business interests expressed the view that the final rule would cause businesses to incur significant legal costs in order to defend ADA lawsuits. However, regulatory impact analyses are not an appropriate forum for assessing the cost covered entities may bear, or the repercussions they may face, for failing to comply (or allegedly failing to comply) with current law. See Final RIA, Ch. 3, section 3.1.4, ‘‘Other Management Transition Costs’’; Ch. 5,‘‘Updates to the Regulatory Impact Analysis’’; and table 15, ‘‘Impact of NPV of Estimated Managerial Costs for Supplemental Requirements at All Facilities.’’

3. Estimates of the number and type of small entities to which the final rule will apply. The Department estimates that the final rule will apply to approximately three million small entities or facilities covered by title III. See Final RIA, Ch. 7, ‘‘Small Business Impact Analysis,’’ table 17, and app. 5, ‘‘Small Business Data’’; see also 73 FR 36964, 36996–37009 (June 30, 2008) (estimating the number of small entities the Department believes may be impacted by the NPRM and calculating the likely incremental economic impact of the rule on small facilities/entities versus ‘‘typical’’ (i.e., average-sized facilities/entities).

4. A description of the projected reporting, record-keeping, and other compliance requirements of the final rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record. The final rule imposes no new recordkeeping or reporting requirements. See preamble section entitled ‘‘Paperwork Reduction Act.’’ Small entities may incur costs as a result of complying with the final rules. These costs are detailed in the Final RIA, Chapter 7, ‘‘Small Business Impact Analysis’’ and accompanying Appendix 5, ‘‘Small Business Data.’’

5. Descriptions of the steps taken by the Department to minimize any significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of the ADA, including the reasons for selecting the alternatives adopted in the final rule and for rejecting other significant alternatives. From the outset of this rulemaking, the Department has been mindful of small entities and has taken numerous steps to minimize the impact of the final rule on small businesses. Several of these steps are summarized below.

As an initial matter, the Department— as a voting member of the Access Board—was extensively involved in the development of the 2004 ADAAG. These guidelines, which are incorporated into the 2010 Standards, reflect a conscious effort to mitigate any significant economic impact on small businesses in several  respects. First, one of the express goals of the 2004 ADAAG is harmonization of Federal accessibility guidelines with industry standards and model codes that often form the basis of State and local building codes, thereby minimizing the impact of these guidelines on all covered entities, but especially small businesses. Second, the 2004 ADAAG is the product of a 10-year rulemaking effort in which a host of private and public entities, including small business groups, worked cooperatively to develop accessibility guidelines that achieved an appropriate balance between accessibility and cost. For example, as originally recommended by the Access Board’s Recreation Access Advisory Committee, all holes on a miniature golf course would be required to be accessible except for sloped surfaces where the ball could not come to rest. See, e.g., ‘‘ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities—Recreation Facilities and Outdoor Developed Areas,’’ Access Board Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 59 FR 48542 (Sept. 21, 1994). Miniature golf trade groups and facility operators, who are nearly all small businesses, expressed significant concern that such requirements would be prohibitively expensive, would require additional space, and might fundamentally alter the nature of their courses. See, e.g., ‘‘ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities—Recreation Facilities,’’ Access Board Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 64 FR 37326 (July 9, 1999). In consideration of such concerns and after holding informational meetings with miniature golf representatives and persons with disabilities, the Access Board significantly revised the final miniature golf guidelines. The final guidelines not only reduced significantly the number of holes required to be accessible to 50 percent of all holes (with one break in the sequence of consecutive holes permitted), but also added an exemption for carpets used on playing surfaces, modified ramp landing slope and size requirements, and reduced the space required for start of play areas. See, e.g., Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities—Recreation Facilities Final Rule, 36 CFR parts 1190 and 1191.

The Department also published an ANPRM to solicit public input on the adoption of the 2004 ADAAG as the revised Federal accessibility standards implementing titles II and III of the ADA. Among other things, the ANPRM specifically invited comment from small entities regarding the proposed rule’s potential economic impact and suggested regulatory alternatives to ameliorate any such impact. See ‘‘Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities,’’ Department of Justice Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 69 FR 58768, 58778–79 (Sept. 30, 2004). The Department received over 900 comments, and small business interests figured prominently. See ‘‘Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities,’’ Department of Justice Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 73 FR 34508, 34511, 34550 (June 17, 2008).

Subsequently, when the Department published its NPRM in June 2008, several regulatory proposals were included to address concerns raised by the small business community in ANPRM comments. First, to mitigate costs to existing facilities, the Department proposed an element-by-element safe harbor that would exempt elements in compliance with applicable technical and scoping requirements in the 1991 Standards from any retrofit obligations under the revised title III rule. Id. at 34514–15, 34532–33. While this proposed safe harbor applied to title III covered entities irrespective of size, it was small businesses that especially stood to benefit since, according to comments from small business advocates, small businesses are more likely to operate in older buildings and facilities. The title III NPRM also offered for public comment a novel safe harbor provision specifically designed to address small business advocates’ request for clearer guidance on the readily achievable barrier removal requirement.

This proposal provided that qualified small businesses would be deemed to have satisfied their readily achievable barrier removal obligations for a given year if, during that tax year, they had spent at least 1 percent of their respective gross revenues undertaking measures in compliance with title III barrier removal requirements. Id. at 34538–39. Lastly, the NPRM sought public input on the inclusion of reduced scoping provisions for certain types of small existing recreation facilities (i.e., swimming pools, play areas, and saunas). Id. at 34515, 34534–37.

During the NPRM comment period, the Department engaged in considerable public outreach to the small business community. A public hearing was held in Washington, D.C., during which nearly 50 persons, including several small business owners, testified in person or by phone. See Transcript of the Public Hearing on Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (July 15, 2008), available at www.ada.gov/NPRM2008/ public_hearing_transcript.htm. This hearing was also streamed live over the Internet. By the end of the 60-day comment period, the Department had also received nearly 4,500 public comments on the title III NPRM, including a significant number of comments reflecting small businesses’ perspectives on a wide range of regulatory issues.

In addition to soliciting input from small entities through the formal process for public comment, the Department also targeted the small business community with less formal regulatory discussions, including a Small Business Roundtable convened by the Office of Advocacy and held at the offices of the Small Business Administration in Washington, D.C., and an informational question-and-answer session concerning the titles II and III NPRMs at the Department of Justice in which business representatives attended in-person and by telephone. These outreach efforts provided the small business community with information on the NPRM proposals being considered by the Department and gave small businesses the opportunity to ask questions of the Department and provide feedback.

As a result of the feedback provided by representatives of small business interests on the title III NPRM, the Department was able to assess the impact of various alternatives on small businesses before adopting its final rule and took steps to minimize any significant impact on small entities. Most notably, the final rule retains the element-by-element safe harbor for which the small business community voiced strong support. See Appendix A discussion of removal of barriers (§ 36.304). The Department believes that this element-by-element safe harbor provision will go a long way toward mitigating the economic impact of the final rule on existing facilities owned or operated by small businesses. Indeed, as demonstrated in the Final RIA, the element-by-element safe harbor will provide substantial relief to small businesses that is estimated at $ 7.5 billion over the expected life of the final rule.

Additional regulatory measures mitigating the economic impact of the final rule on title III-covered entities (including small businesses) include deletion of the proposed requirement for captioning of safety and emergency information on scoreboards at sporting venues, retention of the proposed path of travel safe harbor, extension of the compliance date of the 2010 Standards as applied to new construction and alterations from 6 months to 18 months after publication of the final rule, and, in response to public comments, modification of the triggering event for application of the 2010 Standards to new construction and alterations from a unitary approach (commencement of physical construction) to a two-pronged approach (date of last application for building permit or commencement of physical construction) depending on whether a building permit is or is not required for the type of construction at issue by State or local building authorities. See Appendix A discussions of captioning at sporting venues (§36.303), alterations and path of travel (§ 36.403), and compliance dates and triggering events for new construction and alterations (§ 36.406).

Two sets of proposed alternative measures that would have potentially provided some cost savings to small businesses—the safe harbor for qualified small businesses and reduced scoping for certain existing recreation facilities—were not adopted by the Department in the final rule. As discussed in more depth previously, the safe harbor for qualified small businesses was omitted from the final rule because the general safe harbor already provides significant relief for small businesses located in existing facilities, the proposed safe harbor provision lacked support from the small business community and no consensus emerged from business commenters concerning feasible bases for the final regulatory provision, and commenters noted practical considerations that would potentially make some small businesses incur greater expense or administrative burden. See Appendix A discussion of the safe harbor for qualified small businesses (§ 36.304).

The Department also omitted the proposals to reduce scoping for certain existing recreation facilities in the final rule. While these proposals were not specific to small entities, they nonetheless might have mitigated the impact of the final rule for some small businesses that owned or operated existing facilities at which these recreational elements were located. See Appendix A discussion of reduced scoping for play areas and other recreation facilities (§ 36.304). The Department gave careful consideration to how best to insulate small businesses from overly burdensome barrier removal costs under the 2010 Standards for existing small play areas, swimming pools, and saunas, while still providing accessible and integrated recreation facilities that are of great importance to persons with disabilities. The Department concluded that the existing readily achievable barrier removal standard, rather than specific exemptions for these types of existing facilities, is the most efficacious method by which to protect small businesses.

Once the final rule is promulgated, small businesses will also have a wealth of documents to assist them in complying with the 2010 Standards. For example, accompanying the final rule in the Federal Register is the Department's‘‘Analysis [sic] and Commentary on the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design,’’ which provides a plain language description of the revised scoping and technical requirements in these Standards and provides illustrative figures. The Department also expects to publish guidance specifically tailored to small businesses in the form of a small business compliance guide, as well as to publish technical assistance materials of general interest to all covered entities following promulgation of the final rule. Additionally, the Access Board has published a number of guides that discuss and illustrate application of the 2010 Standards to play areas and various types of recreation facilities.

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255, 3 CFR, 2000 Comp., p. 206, requires executive branch agencies to consider whether a rule will have federalism implications. That is, the rulemaking agency must determine whether the rule is likely to have substantial direct effects on State and local governments, a substantial direct effect on the relationship between the Federal government and the States and localities, or a substantial direct effect on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the different levels of government. If an agency believes that a rule is likely to have federalism implications, it must consult with State and local elected officials about how to minimize or eliminate the effects.

Title III of the ADA covers public accommodations and commercial facilities. These facilities are generally subject to regulation by different levels of government, including Federal, State, and local governments. The ADA and the 2010 Standards set minimum civil rights protections for individuals with disabilities that in turn may affect the implementation of State and local laws, particularly building codes. The 2010 Standards address federalism concerns and mitigate federalism implications, particularly the provisions that streamline the administrative process for State and local governments seeking ADA code certification under title III.

As a member of the Access Board, the Department was privy to substantial feedback from State and local governments throughout the development of the Board’s 2004 guidelines. Before those guidelines were finalized as the 2004 ADA/ABA Guidelines, they addressed and minimized federalism concerns expressed by State and local governments during the development process. Because the Department adopted ADA Chapter 1, ADA Chapter 2, and Chapters 3 through 10 of the 2004 ADA/ABA Guidelines as part of the 2010 Standards, the steps taken in the 2004 ADA/ABA Guidelines to address federalism concerns are reflected in the 2010 Standards.

The Department also solicited and received input from public entities in the September 2004 ANPRM and the June 2008 NPRM. Through the ANPRM and NPRM processes, the Department solicited comments from elected State and local officials and their representative national organizations about the potential federalism implications. The Department received comments addressing whether the ANPRM and NPRM directly affected State and local governments, the relationship between the Federal government and the States, and the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The rule preempts State laws affecting entities subject to the ADA only to the extent that those laws conflict with the requirements of the ADA, as set forth in the rule.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) directs that, as a general matter, all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, which are private, generally non-profit organizations that develop technical standards or specifications using well-defined procedures that require openness, balanced participation among affected interests and groups, fairness and due process, and an opportunity for appeal, as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities. Public Law 104–113 section 12(d)(1) (15 U.S.C. 272 Note). In addition, the NTTAA directs agencies to consult with voluntary, private sector, consensus standards bodies and requires that agencies participate with such bodies in the development of technical standards when such participation is in the public interest and is compatible with agency and departmental missions, authorities, priorities, and budget resources. Id. section 12(d)1). The Department, as a member of the Access Board, was an active participant in the lengthy process of developing the 2004 ADAAG, on which the 2010 Standards are based. As part of this update, the Board has made its guidelines more consistent with model building codes, such as the IBC, and industry standards. It coordinated extensively with model code groups and standard-setting bodies throughout the process so that differences could be reconciled. As a result, an historic level of harmonization has been achieved that has brought about improvements to the guidelines, as well as to counterpart provisions in the IBC and key industry standards, including those for accessible facilities issued through the American National Standards Institute.

Plain Language Instructions

The Department makes every effort to promote clarity and transparency in its rulemaking. In any regulation, there is a tension between drafting language that is simple and straightforward and drafting language that gives full effect to issues of legal interpretation. The Department operates a toll-free ADA Information Line (800) 514–0301(voice); (800) 514–0383 (TTY) that the public is welcome to call at any time to obtain assistance in understanding anything in this rule. If any commenter has suggestions for how the regulation could be written more clearly, please contact Janet L. Blizard, Deputy Chief, Disability Rights Section, whose contact information is provided in the introductory section of this rule, entitled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (PRA) requires agencies to clear forms and recordkeeping requirements with OMB before they can be introduced. 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This rule does not contain any paperwork or recordkeeping requirements and does not require clearance under the PRA.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Section 4(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1503(2), excludes from coverage under that Act any proposed or final Federal regulation that ‘‘establishes or enforces any statutory rights that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or disability.’’ Accordingly, this rulemaking is not subject to the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

List of Subjects for 28 CFR Part 36

Administrative practice and procedure, Buildings and facilities, Business and industry, Civil rights, Individuals with disabilities, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

• By the authority vested in me as Attorney General by law, including 28 U.S.C. 509 and 510, 5 U.S.C. 301, and section 306 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101–336 (42 U.S.C. 12186), and for the reasons set forth in Appendix A to 28 CFR part 36, chapter I of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: