Guidance on the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design

Subpart D - Title III Regulation at the time that the final rule is published. the same reasons, and one commenter According to these commenters, large argued that there should be a tolling of the projects take several years from design to effective date for those businesses that occupancy, and can be subject to delays are in the midst of the permitting process from obtaining zoning, site approval, third- if the necessary permits are delayed party design approval (i.e., architectural due to legal challenges or other circum- review), and governmental permits. To stances outside the business’s control. the extent the new standards necessitate changes in any previous submissions or Several commenters took issue with the permits already issued, businesses might Department’s characterization of the 2004 have to expend significant funds and incur ADAAG and the 1991 Standards as two delays due to redesign and resubmission. similar rules. These commenters argued that many provisions in the 2004 ADAAG repre- Some commenters also expressed sent a “substantial and significant’’ departure concern that a six-month period would be from the 1991 Standards and that it will take hard to implement given that many renova- a great deal of time and money to identify tions are planned around retail selling peri- all the changes and implement them. In ods, holidays, and other seasonal concerns. particular, they were concerned that small For example, hotels plan renovations during businesses lacked the internal resources their slow periods, retail establishments to respond quickly to the new changes and avoid renovations during the major holiday that they would have to hire outside experts selling periods, and businesses in certain to assist them. One commenter expressed parts of the country cannot do any major concern that regardless of familiarity with construction during parts of the winter. the 2004 ADAAG, since the 2004 ADAAG standards are organized in an entirely differ- Some commenters argued that ent manner from the 1991 Standards, and chain establishments need additional contain, in the commenter’s view, extensive time to redesign their “master facil- changes, it will make the shift from the old ity’’ designs for replication at multiple to the new standards quite complicated. locations, taking into account both the new standards and applicable State Several commenters also took issue with and local accessibility requirements. the Department’s proffered rationale that by adopting a six-month effective date, the Other commenters argued for extend- Department was following the precedent of ing the effective date from six months other Federal agencies that have adopted to a minimum of 12 months for many of the 2004 ADAAG for facilities whose 44 - Guidance on 2010 Standards: Title III Department of Justice