Guidance on the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design

Subpart D - Title III Regulation Public Accommodations altering its facility, there should be a legal and Commerical Facilities: requirement that individuals with disabili- ties are entitled to increased accessibil- Guidance on the Revisions to ity provided by the 2004 ADAAG for path 28 CFR part 36, Subpart D of travel work. These commenters also stated that they did not believe there was Subpart D establishes the title III require- a statutory basis for “grandfathering’’ facili- ments applicable to new construction and ties that comply with the 1991 Standards. alterations. The Department has amended Another commenter argued that the this subpart to adopt the 2004 ADAAG, updates incorporated into the 2004 ADAAG set forth the effective dates for implemen- provide very substantial improvements for tation of the 2010 Standards, and make access, and that since there already is a 20 related revisions as described below. percent cost limit on the amount that can be expended on path of travel alterations, Section 36.403 Alterations: there is no need for a further limitation. Path of Travel Some commenters supported the safe In the NPRM, the Department proposed harbor as lessening the economic costs of one change to Sec. 36.403 on alterations implementing the 2004 ADAAG for existing and path of travel by adding a path of travel facilities. One commenter also stated that safe harbor. Proposed Sec. 36.403(a) without the safe harbor, entities that already (1) stated that if a private entity has have complied with the 1991 Standards will constructed or altered required elements have to make and pay for compliance twice, of a path of travel in accordance with the as compared to those entities that made no 1991 Standards, the private entity is not effort to comply in the first place. Another required to retrofit such elements to reflect commenter asked that the safe harbor be incremental changes in the 2010 Standards revised to include pre-ADA facilities that solely because of an alteration to a primary have been made compliant with the 1991 function area served by that path of travel. Standards to the extent “readily achiev- able’’ or, in the case of alterations, “ to the A substantial number of commenters maximum extent feasible,’’ but that are not objected to the Department’s creation of in full compliance with the 1991 Standards. a safe harbor for alterations to required elements of a path of travel that comply The final rule retains the safe harbor with the current 1991 Standards. These for required elements of a path of travel to commenters argued that if a public accom- altered primary function areas for private modation already is in the process of entities that already have complied with Department of Justice Guidance on 2010 Standards: Title III - 41