Guidance on the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design

Section 35.151 -- Title II Regulation The purpose of the proposed six-month that the effective date be extended to at least delay in requiring compliance with the 2010 18 months after the publication of the rule. Standards was to allow covered entities a One of these commenters expressed con- reasonable grace period to transition between cern that the kinds of bureaucratic organiza- the existing and the proposed standards. For tions subject to the title II regulations lack that reason, if a title II entity preferred to use the internal resources to quickly evaluate the the 2010 Standards as the standard for new regulatory changes, determine whether they construction or alterations commenced within are currently compliant with the 1991 stan- the six-month period after the effective date dards, and determine what they have to do of the final rule, such entity would be consid- to comply with the new standards. The other ered in compliance with title II of the ADA. commenter argued that 18 months is the minimum amount of time necessary to ensure The Department received a number of that projects that have already been designed comments about the proposed six-month and approved do not have to undergo costly effective date for the title II regulation that design revisions at taxpayer expense. were similar in content to those received on this issue for the proposed title III regula- The Department is persuaded by the con- tion. Several commenters supported the six- cerns raised by commenters for both the month effective date. One commenter stated title II and III regulations that the six-month that any revisions to its State building code compliance date proposed in the NPRM for becomes effective six months after adop- application of the 2010 Standards may be tion and that this has worked well. In addi- too short for certain projects that are already tion, this commenter stated that since 2004 in the midst of the design and permitting ADAAG is similar to IBC 2006 and ICC/ANSI process. The Department has determined A117.1-2003, the transition should be easy. that for new construction and alterations, By contrast, another commenter advocated compliance with the 2010 Standards will for a minimum 12-month effective date, argu- not be required until 18 months from the ing that a shorter effective date could cause date the final rule is published. Until the substantial economic hardships to many cit- time compliance with the 2010 Standards is ies and towns because of the lengthy lead required, public entities will have the option time necessary for construction projects. of complying with the 2010 Standards, the This commenter was concerned that a six- UFAS, or the 1991 Standards. However, month effective date could lead to projects public entities that choose to comply with having to be completely redrawn, rebid, and the 2010 Standards in lieu of the 1991 rescheduled to ensure compliance with the Standards or UFAS prior to the compliance new standards. Other commenters advocated date described in this rule must choose Department of Justice Guidance on 2010 Standards: Title II - 13