Guidance on the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design

Section 35.151 -- Title II Regulation provide an accessible path of travel to the ensure that persons with disabilities can get altered area would be deemed dispropor- to the physical location in which programs tionate to the overall alteration when the are held. Otherwise, they will not be able to cost exceeds 20 percent of the cost of the access the public entity’s service, program, alteration to the primary function area). or activity. Such access is a cornerstone of Proposed Sec. 35.151(b)(2) provided that the protections provided by the ADA. Another the path of travel requirements do not apply commenter argued that it would be a waste of to alterations undertaken solely to comply money to create an accessible facility without with program accessibility requirements. having a way to get to the primary area. This commenter also stated that the International The Department received a substan- Building Code (IBC) requires the path of trav- tial number of comments objecting to the el to a primary function area, up to 20 percent Department’s adoption of the exemption for of the cost of the project. Another commenter the path of travel requirements when altera- opposed the exemption, stating that the trig- tions are undertaken solely to meet program ger of an alteration is frequently the only accessibility requirements. These comment- time that a facility must update its facilities to ers argued that the Department had no statu- comply with evolving accessibility standards. tory basis for providing this exemption nor does it serve any purpose. In addition, these In the Department’s view, the comment- commenters argued that the path of travel ers objecting to the path of travel exemption exemption has the effect of placing new limi- contained in Sec. 35.151(b)(2) did not under- tations on the obligations to provide program stand the intention behind the exemption. access. A number of commenters argued that The exemption was not intended to eliminate doing away with the path of travel require- any existing requirements related to acces- ment would render meaningless the concept sibility for alterations undertaken in order of program access. They argued that just as to meet program access obligations under the requirement to provide an accessible path Sec. 35.149 and Sec. 35.150. Rather, it was of travel to an altered area (regardless of the intended to ensure that covered entities did reason for the alteration), including making not apply the path of travel requirements in the restrooms, telephones, and drinking foun- lieu of the overarching requirements in this tains that serve the altered area accessible, Subpart that apply when making a facility is a necessary requirement in other altera- accessible in order to comply with program tions, it is equally necessary for alterations accessibility. The exemption was also intend- made to provide program access. Several ed to make it clear that the disproportionality commenters expressed concern that a read- test contained in the path of travel standards ily accessible path of travel be available to is not applicable in determining whether Department of Justice Guidance on 2010 Standards: Title II - 7