Assessment of Benefits and Costs of
Final Accessibility Guidelines for Recreation Facilities

September 2002

CONTENTS

• Executive Summary
• Chapter 1: Background
• Chapter 2: Methodology
• Chapter 3: Benefits
• Chapter 4: Amusement Rides
• Chapter 5: Boating Facilities
• Chapter 6: Fishing Piers and Platforms
• Chapter 7: Golf Courses
• Chapter 8: Miniature Golf Courses
• Chapter 9: Exercise Equipment, Bowling Lanes, and Shooting Facilities
• Chapter 10: Swimming Pools, Wading Pools, and Spas
• Chapter 11: Miscellaneous Amendments
• End Notes

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this assessment is to discuss and, where possible, quantify the benefits and costs of the final accessibility guidelines for recreation facilities issued by the Access Board under the authority of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The final guidelines supplement the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) and provide additional guidance to designers, owners, and operators of recreation facilities on meeting their statutory obligations to make newly constructed and altered portions of facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. The final guidelines address amusement rides, boating facilities, fishing piers and platforms, golf courses, miniature golf courses, exercise equipment, bowling lanes, shooting facilities, swimming pools, wading pools, and spas. The final guidelines apply to new construction and alterations.

The benefits of the final guidelines are not quantifiable, but are significant and are consistent with the President’s New Freedom Initiative for Americans with Disabilities. The primary benefit is the fulfillment of civil rights realized by individuals with disabilities. There are 52.5 million Americans with disabilities. Almost one in five adults has some type of disability. Among individuals 15 years old and over, 25 million have difficulty walking or using stairs. The final guidelines will result in newly constructed and altered recreation facilities that are accessible to individuals with disabilities and will enable them to participate in a wide range of recreational opportunities. Individuals with disabilities can also realize significant health benefits by participating in the range of recreational opportunities made accessible as a result of the final guidelines.

Designing facilities to be accessible from the beginning generally has minimal impact on the total construction costs of a new facility. Most of ADAAG does not add features or space to facilities, but rather requires that features commonly provided meet certain specifications so individuals with disabilities are included. In quantifying the costs of the final guidelines, the assessment has focused on requirements that add features to or have space impacts on recreation facilities. The total annual costs of the final guidelines are shown below. The assessment also discusses how the final guidelines affect small entities and steps taken to minimize significant economic impacts on them.

CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND

1.1 Introduction

Executive Order 12866 requires Federal agencies to submit a significant regulatory action to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review before publishing the regulatory action in the Federal Register.1 The agency must provide OIRA the text of the regulatory action, together with an assessment of the potential benefits and costs of the regulatory action.2 The assessment must describe the need for the regulatory action and how the regulatory action will meet that need. The assessment must also explain how the regulatory action is consistent with statutory mandates, promotes the President’s priorities, and avoids undue interference with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Federal agencies to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis for a final rule. The analysis may be performed as part of the assessment required by Executive Order 12866. The analysis must state the need for and objectives of the rule, and identify the small entities to which the rule will apply and estimate their number if possible. The analysis must also summarize and assess significant comments raised during the public comment period, and identify any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of the comments. Finally, the analysis must describe significant alternatives considered by the agency for achieving the objectives of the legislation and minimizing the significant economic impact on small entities, including the reasons for selecting the alternatives adopted in the final rule and why other significant alternatives were rejected.3

The Access Board prepared this assessment of the final accessibility guidelines for recreation facilities to meet the above requirements.

1.2 Statutory Authority

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a landmark law that extends civil rights to individuals with disabilities, was enacted on July 26, 1990. The purpose of the law is “to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities . . . and clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” ADA, § 2(b)(1) and (2).

The ADA requires, among other things, that newly designed and constructed State and local government facilities and places of public accommodation be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. Portions of existing facilities that are altered are also required to be accessible. The ADA requires that the Access Board issue minimum guidelines to ensure that newly constructed and altered portions of facilities covered by the law are accessible in terms of architecture and design, and communication.4

The Department of Justice is responsible for issuing regulations to implement the ADA with respect to State and local government programs, and public accommodations. The ADA requires that the Department of Justice regulations include accessibility standards for newly constructed and altered portions of facilities that are consistent with the guidelines issued by the Access Board.

1.3 ADA Accessibility Guidelines

The ADA established a nine month statutory deadline for the Access Board to issue accessibility guidelines for newly constructed and altered portions of facilities covered by the law. The Access Board issued the ADA Accessibility Guidelines, or ADAAG, on July 26, 1991. ADAAG was based on an earlier accessibility standard, the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards, that was developed for federally financed facilities covered by the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968. ADAAG contains scoping and technical requirements that are to be applied to the design of all types of facilities covered by the ADA.5 The scoping and technical requirements address specific features such as parking spaces, toilet rooms, public telephones, and fire alarm systems, as well as general features such as accessible routes, ground and floor surfaces, clear floor or ground space for wheelchairs, wheelchair turning space, protruding objects, and reach ranges for controls and operating mechanisms.

1.4 Need for Supplemental Guidelines

Parks, zoos, amusement parks, gymnasiums, health spas, bowling alleys, golf courses, and other places of exercise or recreation are expressly covered by the ADA.6 Congress directed the Access Board to develop supplemental accessibility guidelines for these recreation facilities.7 Due to the short statutory deadline established for initially issuing ADAAG and the need for additional information to develop supplemental accessibility guidelines for the various types of recreation facilities, additional scoping and technical requirements for recreation facilities were not included in ADAAG when it was issued in 1991.

The Department of Justice, which is responsible for enforcing the ADA, has provided the following guidance to designers, owners, and operators of recreation facilities:

“What if ADAAG has no standards for a particular type of facility — such as bowling alleys, golf courses, exercise equipment, pool lifts, amusement park rides . . .?

“In such cases, the ADAAG standards should be applied to the extent possible. Where appropriate technical standards exist, they should be applied. If there are no applicable scoping requirements (i.e., how many features must be accessible), then a reasonable number, but at least one, must be accessible.”8

Recreation facilities have some unique features for which additional guidance is needed in order to apply ADAAG. For example,

• How do you apply ADAAG to provide access on and off an amusement ride?

• Do gangways that connect to a floating pier have to comply with the technical requirements in ADAAG 4.8 for ramps, including a1:12 maximum slope and 30 inch maximum rise for any run, where gangways are part of an accessible route?

• How many boat slips must be accessible and what technical requirements apply to accessible boat slips?

• How do you provide an accessible route on a golf course where the route of play for a golfer depends on where the ball lands?

• How do you make miniature golf courses accessible without fundamentally altering the game?

• What means are available for providing access into swimming pools and spas?

• Do raised diving boards and water slides have to be served by an accessible route?

• Do baseball fields, ice skating rinks, and other areas where the play or practice of a sport occurs have to comply with the technical requirements in ADAAG 4.5 for ground and floor surfaces, including providing stable, firm and slip-resistant surfaces?

The objective of the final guidelines is to answer questions like these, and to provide additional guidance to designers, owners, and operators of recreation facilities on meeting their statutory obligations under the ADA to make newly constructed and altered portions of facilities accessible.

In the absence of the final guidelines, there will be a lack of clarity, certainty, and consistency regarding how to design, construct, and alter recreation facilities to comply with the ADA. It will be left up to enforcement actions by the Department of Justice and the Department of Interior, and private litigation to determine what is required.9 This would be an inefficient use of resources, and expose public and private entities to the risk of additional costs to redesign and reconstruct recreation facilities. It would also result in unequal levels of access across the country for individuals with disabilities.

1.5 Rulemaking History

The Access Board convened a Recreation Access Advisory Committee in 1993 to make recommendations for supplemental accessibility guidelines for recreation facilities.10 More than 250 people participated on subcommittees that reported to the committee. The Recreation Access Advisory Committee issued a report in1994 recommending additional guidelines for sports facilities, places of amusement, play areas, golf courses, boating and fishing facilities, and outdoor developed areas.11The Access Board issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in 1994 requesting public comment on the Recreation Access Advisory Committee’s report.12 More than 600 comments were received on the ANPRM. The comments were generally supportive of the Recreation Access Advisory Committee’s recommendations.13 The Access Board also sponsored research on access to swimming pools in 1995; and conducted information meetings and site visits on access to miniature golf courses in 1996.

The Access Board issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in 1999 that proposed to supplement ADAAG by adding new sections for amusement rides, boating facilities, fishing piers and platforms, golf courses, miniature golf courses, exercise equipment, bowling lanes, shooting facilities, and swimming pools, wading pools, and spas.14 The NPRM also proposed some miscellaneous amendments to ADAAG to address certain recreation facilities. Public hearings were held on the NPRM in Dallas and Boston. Approximately 300 comments were received on the NPRM.

After the comment period ended on the NPRM, additional information meetings and site visits were conducted with the amusement park and miniature golf industries. The Access Board also issued a summary of the draft final guidelines for public review in 2000, and held additional information meetings in Washington, DC and San Francisco.15 Approximately another 70 comments were received on the draft final guidelines. This extensive public involvement has resulted in a consensus on the major issues presented by the rulemaking, and helped the Access Board produce fair and reasonable final guidelines that will improve access to recreation facilities for individuals with disabilities, and will minimize significant economic impacts on small entities.

1.6 President’s Priorities

On February 1, 2001, President George W. Bush announced his New Freedom Initiative for Americans with Disabilities. The objectives of this presidential initiative are to increase access to assistive and universally designed technology, expand educational opportunities for individuals with disabilities, integrate individuals with disabilities into the workforce, and promote full access to community life. In announcing the initiative, the President acknowledged the importance of the ADA in removing barriers to full and independent lives for Americans with disabilities, and committed his Administration to full implementation of the ADA. The final guidelines promote the President’s New Freedom Initiative and will ensure that individuals with disabilities enjoy greater access to the full range of recreational opportunities afforded by the public and private sectors.

1.7 Federalism

The final guidelines implement Federal civil rights legislation that was enacted pursuant to the Congress’ authority to enforce the fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce.16 Ensuring the civil rights of groups who have experienced irrational discrimination has long been recognized as a national issue and a proper function of the Federal government. The ADA was enacted “to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities . . . and to ensure that the Federal Government plays a central role in enforcing the standards established in this chapter on behalf of individuals with disabilities.” ADA, § 2(b)(1) and (3). The ADA recognizes the authority of State and local governments to enact and enforce laws that “provide greater or equal protection for the rights of individuals with disabilities than are afforded by this chapter.” ADA, § 501(b). States and local governments can adopt accessibility standards that provide individuals with disabilities equal or greater access to recreation facilities.

The final guidelines adhere to the fundamental federalism principles and policy making criteria in Executive Order 13132. The Access Board has consulted with State and local governments throughout the rulemaking process. The National Recreation and Park Association, States Organization for Boating Access, New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, San Francisco Department of Public Works, and Hawaii Commission on Persons with Disabilities represented the interests of State and local governments on the Recreation Access Advisory Committee. State and local governments participated in the public hearings and information meetings held on the NPRM and the draft final guidelines, and submitted more than 70 comments. Most of the comments were centered on boating facilities. The California Department of Boating and Waterways, Oregon State Marine Board, and Michigan Department of Natural Resources were actively involved in providing information and alternative proposals for consideration during the rulemaking. Approximately 30 other State and local governments joined in supporting the various proposals submitted by those States.

1.8 Alternatives for Achieving ADA Objectives and Minimizing Impacts on Small Entities

Many of the recreation facilities covered by the final guidelines are owned or operated by small entities.17 The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to consider significant alternatives during rulemaking for achieving the objectives of the legislation and minimizing the significant economic impact on small entities.18 The Access Board has considered significant alternatives throughout the rulemaking, including recommendations submitted by the Recreation Access Advisory Committee, proposals submitted during the public comment periods and informational meetings, and discussions with owners and operators during site visits. For almost every type of recreation facility, the Access Board adopted alternatives in the final guidelines that differ from those considered in the proposed guidelines and that achieve the objectives of the ADA and minimize the economic impacts on small entities.19 The significant alternatives are summarized below.20

Amusement Rides

Proposed Guidelines - New rides must provide at least one wheelchair space and one transfer seat for each 100 seats on the ride. Two transfer seats are permitted for each 100 seats where it is not structurally or operationally feasible to provide wheelchair spaces on a ride.

Final Guidelines - Designers and operators have choice of providing at least one wheelchair space, or one ride seat designed for transfer, or one transfer device on new rides. Greater flexibility is provided for designing wheelchair spaces, transfer seats, and transfer devices. Exceptions included for mobile or portable rides, kiddie rides, rides without seats, and rides controlled or operated by the rider. Application to existing rides that are altered is limited.

Boating Facilities

Proposed Guidelines - New gangways are permitted to exceed a 1:12 maximum slope in accordance with a table based on the distance between design high point and water level, and the square footage of fixed and floating piers. At least 3 percent of new boat slips must be accessible.

Final Guidelines - New gangways are permitted to exceed a 1:12 maximum slope where the total length of gangways serving as part of an accessible route is at least 80 feet. Small facilities with fewer than 25 boat slips are permitted to exceed a 1:12 maximum slope where the total length of gangways serving as part of an accessible route is at least 30 feet. Existing gangways that are altered or replaced are not required to be lengthened unless triggered by alterations to primary function areas. Number of new boat slips that must be accessible ranges from at least 1 accessible slip for facilities with 25 or fewer slips, to 12 accessible slips for facilities with 901 to 1000 slips (plus 1 additional accessible slip for each 100 slips over 1000). Alternative technical requirements are provided for altered boat slips.

Fishing Piers and Platforms

Proposed Guidelines - New gangways are permitted to exceed a 1:12 maximum slope in accordance with a table based on the distance between design high point and water level, and the square footage of fixed and floating piers. Where railings are provided, at least 25 percent of the railings must be 32 inches maximum above the deck.

Final Guidelines - New gangways are permitted to exceed a 1:12 maximum slope where the total length of gangways serving as part of an accessible route is at least 30 feet. Existing gangways that are altered or replaced are not required to be lengthened unless triggered by alterations to primary function areas. Where railings are provided, at least 25 percent of the railings must be 34 inches maximum above the deck. Higher guards complying with the International Building Code height and opening requirements are permitted.

Golf Courses

Proposed Guidelines - On new courses, a golf car passage is permitted in lieu of an accessible route. Where one teeing ground is provided for a hole, a golf car must be able to enter and exit the teeing ground. Where two or more teeing grounds are provided for a hole, a golf car must be able to enter and exit at least two of the teeing grounds.

Final Guidelines - On new courses, a golf car passage is permitted in lieu of an accessible route. Where two or fewer teeing grounds are provided for a hole, a golf car must be able to enter and exit at least one of the teeing grounds. Where three or more teeing grounds are provided for a hole, a golf car must be able to enter and exit at least two of the teeing grounds. A golf car must be able to enter and exit the forward teeing ground. Existing teeing grounds that are altered are exempt where compliance is not feasible due to terrain.

Miniature Golf Courses

Proposed Guidelines - On new courses, each hole must be accessible. Where holes are elevated, at least 50 percent of the elevated holes must be accessible.

Final Guidelines - On new courses, at least 50 percent of holes must be accessible. Accessible holes must be consecutive. One break in the sequence of consecutive accessible holes is permitted, provided the last hole on the course is the last hole in the sequence. Greater flexibility provided for designing accessible holes.

Swimming Pools, Wading Pools, and Spas

Proposed Guidelines - New pools with less than 300 linear feet of pool wall must provide a pool lift or slopped entry. New pools with 300 or more linear feet of pool wall must provide two accessible means of entry. The primary means must be a pool lift or slopped entry. The secondary means must be different than the primary means.

Final Guidelines - New pools with less than 300 linear feet of pool wall must provide a pool lift or slopped entry. New pools with 300 or more linear feet of pool wall must provide two accessible means of entry. The primary means must be a pool lift or slopped entry. Wave action pools, leisure rivers, sand bottom pools, and other pools where user access is limited to one area are permitted to provide at least one accessible means of entry. Diving boards, water slides, and catch pools are exempt. Water play components are permitted to use transfer systems to connect elevated play components.

1.9 Program Accessibility and Barrier Removal in Existing Facilities

The final guidelines apply to new construction and alterations. The ADA gives authority to the Department of Justice, and not the Access Board, to issue regulations regarding program accessibility and barrier removal in existing facilities. ADA, §§ 204(b) and 306(b). Since the authority for issuing regulations for program accessibility and barrier removal in existing facilities rests with the Department of Justice, this assessment examines only the impacts of the final guidelines on new construction and alterations. The Access Board has not taken into account the costs of the Department of Justice regulations regarding program accessibility and barrier removal in existing facilities. The ADA requirements and Department of Justice regulations regarding program accessibility and barrier removal in existing facilities are explained below.

The ADA requires State and local governments to provide program accessibility.21 ADA, § 204(b). The Department of Justice regulations regarding program accessibility require State and local governments to operate each program in existing facilities so that the program, when viewed in its entirety, is accessible.22 The Department of Justice regulations provide for a number of methods to achieve compliance. The methods include providing services at alternative accessible sites, removing barriers in existing facilities, and constructing new facilities. State and local governments are not required to take any action that would result in a fundamental alteration of the nature of a program or in undue financial and administrative burdens. Federal funds are available under the Community Development Block Grant Program to assist State and local governments remove barriers in existing facilities.23

The ADA requires public accommodations to remove barriers in existing facilities where the action is readily achievable. ADA, § 302(b)(2)(A)(iv). The ADA defines “readily achievable” as “easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense” and sets out factors to be considered in determining whether an action is readily achievable. ADA, § 301(9). The Department of Justice regulations provide examples of barrier removal, and establish priorities for and limitations on barrier removal.24 Small businesses that have revenues of $1 million or less, or 30 or fewer full-time employees, can claim a 50 percent tax credit for expenses to remove barriers in existing facilities, up to a maximum expenditure of $10,250 a year.25 Businesses can also claim a tax deduction of up to $15,000 a year for barrier removal expenses, regardless of their size.26

The Department of Justice is expected to amend its ADA regulations to make the accessibility standards for new construction and alterations consistent with the final guidelines. At that time, the Department of Justice will assess the costs and benefits of program accessibility and barrier removal in existing facilities and, if necessary, conduct a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis in relationship to the final guidelines.

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY

2.1 Overview

The benefits of the final guidelines are discussed in the next chapter. The costs are discussed in the remaining chapters. A separate chapter is devoted to amusement rides; boating facilities; fishing piers and platforms; golf courses; miniature golf courses; exercise equipment, bowling lanes, and shooting facilities; and swimming pools, wading pools, and spas. In each cost chapter, we estimated the number of existing facilities and new facilities constructed annually, and the percentage operated by small entities. We summarized the final guidelines and discussed the alternatives considered. We identified requirements that have cost impacts for new construction and alterations, estimated unit costs per facility, and calculated total annual compliance costs for the industry. The miscellaneous amendments to ADAAG are discussed in the last chapter.

2.2 Benefit - Cost Analysis

A benefit - cost analysis is typically an incremental analysis that compares a regulatory action with a baseline of “no regulatory action.”27 The benefits of the final guidelines are the fulfillment of civil rights experienced by individuals with disabilities, and the potential health benefits individuals with disabilities can realize by participating in recreational activities. These benefits cannot be monetized or quantified in units that can be compared for each alternative.28 It is also difficult to assess the baseline of what would occur in the absence of regulatory action. Regulatory action is needed because ADAAG does not currently provide sufficient guidance on how to make certain unique features of recreation facilities accessible. Entities covered by the ADA have a statutory obligation to make newly constructed and altered facilities accessible and many are using the draft final guidelines as “best practices” until the final guidelines are issued. This is particularly true for State and local government programs that are also covered by section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in federally assisted programs. Section 504 regulations requiring program accessibility have been in effect for 25 years. State and local government programs receiving Federal financial assistance are required to have section 504 coordinators and written plans for achieving program accessibility, which help promote compliance. Many private entities have discovered through the ADA the benefits of marketing their goods and services to individuals with disabilities and are using the draft final guidelines as “best practices.” Of course, there are entities who will wait for the final guidelines to be issued and adopted as enforceable standards by the Department of Justice. It is beyond the Access Board’s resources to survey the industries covered by the ADA to measure their current levels of compliance. However, where information is available on current levels of compliance, it is used in the assessment.

2.3 Number of Facilities

The U.S. Census Bureau conducts an Economic Census of economic activity in the United States every five years. We compared data in the1992 and 1997 Economic Census, and used the average annual rate of growth for each industry to project the number of existing and newly constructed facilities.29 The are several limitations to using the Economic Census data. The 1992 Economic Census used the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual and the 1997 Economic Census used the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) to organize data on the economy. Because of differences between how the SIC and NAICS classify industries, it is not always possible to compare data from the 1992 and 1997 Economic Census. The ADA covers public and private entities. The Economic Census provides data on private entities only. The Economic Census classifies private entities by the one kind of activity that accounted for the major portion of their receipts and may undercount the number of private entities that operate more than one recreational facility at the same location or that operate a recreation facility as an ancillary activity to a principal business.

2.4 Small Entities

The Small Business Administration adjusted the standards for defining small private entities that operate recreation facilities from a maximum of $5 million to $6 million in annual receipts, effective February 22, 2002.30 The 1997 Economic Census reports the number of private entities with annual receipts under $5 million, and the number with annual receipts between $5 million and $10 million. For private entities with annual receipts between $5 million and $10 million, we assumed 20 percent had a maximum of $6 million in annual sales. We estimated the percentage of small private entities that operated each type of recreation facility in 1997 and assumed the percentage is the same in 2002. Some recreation facilities are seasonal. The 1997 Economic Census only provides data on annual receipts for facilities that operate the entire year. We assumed the percentage of small private entities in each industry that operate on a seasonal basis is the same as the percentage that operates for the entire year.

Counties, municipalities, towns, and special districts are considered small governmental jurisdictions if they have a population of less than 50,000.31 The number of these public entities that are small governmental jurisdictions is shown in Table 2.1. Where public entities operate recreation facilities, we assumed the percentage that are small governmental jurisdictions is the same as in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 - Small Governmental Jurisdictions

U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Census of Governments

2.5 Assumptions

Where no data was available, we interviewed professionals in the affected industries and made assumptions based on the interviews. The assumptions are disclosed in the assessment. Some of the assumptions cannot be validated and may not reflect the real world. For example, to calculate the total cost for boating facilities to comply with the requirements for gangways that connect to accessible boating slips, we assumed that: (a) the maximum vertical level change from land to the pier would be less than 2.5 feet at 20 percent of the facilities; (b) the maximum vertical level change from land to the pier would be between 2.5 feet and 10 feet at 40 percent of the facilities; and (c) the maximum vertical level change from land to the pier would be more than 10 feet at 40 percent of the facilities. The assumptions may result in under or overestimating the impacts of the final guidelines.

2.6 New Construction

The cost chapters focus on the impacts of the final guidelines on new construction. We assumed newly designed and constructed recreation facilities comply with the applicable scoping and technical requirements currently in ADAAG such as providing an accessible route to the facility. There are two types of recreation facilities where we modified this assumption. In amusement parks, an accessible route may not currently be provided to the load and unload areas of new platform type amusement rides with stepped entrances. In boating facilities, where a gangway is part of an accessible route to a floating pier, new gangways may not currently comply with the maximum slope and rise requirements for ramps depending on the water level.

Designing facilities to be accessible from the beginning generally has minimal impact on the total construction costs of a new facility. Most of the scoping and technical requirements in ADAAG do not add features or space to facilities, but rather require that features commonly provided meet certain specifications so individuals with disabilities are included. Most designs are produced today with the assistance of computers. Designers can simply incorporate ADAAG into their computer assisted design (CAD) programs. In assessing the costs of the final guidelines, we focused on requirements that add features to or have space impacts on recreation facilities. When estimating unit costs per facility, we obtained estimates from more than one source.

2.7 Alterations

The cost chapters also examine the impact of the final guidelines on alterations to existing facilities. ADAAG requires that when an existing element or space is altered, it must comply with the applicable scoping and technical requirements for new construction.32 Where compliance with the new construction requirements would require removing or altering a load bearing member that is an essential part of the structural frame, or where existing physical or site constraints prohibit the modification or addition of elements or spaces, there is an exception for technical infeasibility.33 The final guidelines include additional exceptions that limit the impact on alterations to existing facilities.

An accessible route is not required to be provided to an altered element or space unless the alteration is to a primary function area and the cost of providing an accessible route is not disproportionate to the cost of the overall alterations.34 A primary function is a major activity for which the facility is intended, and does not include entrances and circulation paths.35 The cost of providing an accessible route to an altered primary function area is deemed disproportionate when the cost exceeds 20 percent of the cost of the overall alterations.36 If alterations are done in stages, the total costs of alterations within a three year period are considered in determining whether the cost is disproportionate.37

2.8 Professional Review

We requested professionals in the affected industries to review the assessment. The International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions reviewed the information in Chapter 4 - Amusement Rides. The California Department of Boating and Waterways, Oregon Marine Board, Revitalize Our Waterways/Clean Harbor Action, and a private marine consultant reviewed the information in Chapter 5 - Boating Facilities. The National Park Service reviewed the information in Chapter 6 - Fishing Piers and Platforms. The American Society of Golf Course Architects reviewed the information in Chapter 7 - Golf Courses. The Miniature Golf Association United States reviewed the information in Chapter 8 - Miniature Golf Courses. The International Health, Racquet and Sportsclub Association reviewed the information in Chapter 9 - Exercise Equipment, Bowling Lanes, and Shooting Facilities. We incorporated information provided by these organizations in the assessment.

CHAPTER 3: BENEFITS

3.1 Civil Rights

The primary benefit of the final guidelines is the fulfillment of civil rights realized by individuals with disabilities.38 The U.S. Census Bureau reports there are 52.5 million Americans with disabilities. Almost one in five adults has some type of disability. Among individuals 15 years old and over, 25 million have difficulty walking or using stairs. The final guidelines will result in newly constructed and altered recreation facilities that are accessible to individuals with disabilities and will enable them to participate in a wide range of recreational opportunities. They will be able to go boating and fishing with their families and friends. They will be able to enjoy swimming and relax in a spa. They will be able to play golf or putt on a miniature golf course. They can stay fit at the gym and use a variety of exercise equipment. They can go bowling. They can go on amusement rides with their families and friends. In the absence of the final guidelines, architectural barriers will exist that deny individuals with disabilities the civil right to participate in these recreational opportunities.

3.2 Health

Individuals with disabilities can realize significant health benefits by participating in recreational opportunities made accessible as a result of the final guidelines. The 1996 Surgeon General’s Report on Physical Activity and Health presents evidence that regular physical activity greatly reduces the risk of dying from coronary heart disease; reduces the risk of developing diabetes, hypertension, and colon cancer; fosters healthy muscles, bones, and joints; enhances mental health; and helps maintain function and preserve independence in older adults.39 Additional studies support the benefit of regular physical activity for individuals with disabilities.40 In the absence of the final guidelines, there will be fewer opportunities for individuals with disabilities to engage in regular physical activity.

Congress determined that the benefits of making newly constructed and altered recreation facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities justify the costs when it enacted the ADA by overwhelming bipartisan majorities. In adopting the final accessibility guidelines for recreation facilities, the Access Board has also made a reasoned determination that the benefits of the final guidelines justify the costs.

CHAPTER 4: AMUSEMENT RIDES

4.1 Number of Facilities

Existing Facilities

Using the methodology described in Chapter 2, we estimated there were 372 amusement parks in 2001.41 We conducted an internet search to find more information about the amusement parks and divided the facilities into the following categories based on the number of amusement rides: large (generally more than 30 rides), medium (16 to 30 rides), small (6 to 15 rides), and very small (less than 6 rides).42 See Table 4.1.43

Table 4.1 - Existing Amusement Parks

We estimated the number of new amusement rides that these amusement parks add to their facilities each year based on the internet search.44 See Table 4.2.45

Table 4.2 - New Rides: Existing Amusement Parks

New Construction

Very few new amusement parks are constructed each year. Three new large facilities, three new medium facilities, and one new small facility opened between 1999 and 2001. Most of the new very small facilities operate kiddie rides. For purposes of this assessment, we assumed one of each size facility would be constructed each year. We estimated these new amusement parks would have 75 new amusement rides based on the following assumptions: the large facility would have 40 amusement rides, the medium facility would have 25 amusement rides, the small facility would have 10 amusement rides, and the very small facility would have 5 amusement rides. See Table 4.3.46

Table 4.3 - New Rides: Existing and New Amusement Parks

Small Entities

Using the methodology described in Chapter 2, we estimated small entities operate 81 percent of amusement parks.

4.2 Final Guidelines

Table 4.4 summarizes the final guidelines for amusement rides.

Table 4.4 - Final Guidelines: Amusement Rides (text version)

4.3 Alternatives

Table 4.5 presents the alternatives considered in the proposed guidelines and final guidelines. The significant comments raised during the public comment period are summarized in the preamble to the final rule, along with the Access Board’s assessment of the comments and the reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final guidelines. The Access Board minimized the significant economic impact of the final guidelines by allowing designers and operators of new and altered amusement rides the choice of providing at least one wheelchair space, or an amusement ride seat designed for transfer, or a transfer device. The final guidelines also allow designers and operators greater flexibility in applying ADAAG to new and altered amusement rides. No other significant alternatives were considered or rejected.

Table 4.5 - Amusement Rides Alternatives (text version)

4.4 New Construction Impacts47

Load and Unload Areas: Accessible Route

The final guidelines require load and unload areas for new amusement rides to be served by an accessible route. The internet search showed that amusement parks are applying existing ADAAG scoping and technical requirements for an accessible route to the load and unload areas of most new amusement rides. Many large and medium amusement parks have brochures available for guests with disabilities describing the accessible ride features. Large and medium amusement parks usually have queues or waiting lines leading to the load areas that are ramped when there are changes in level. Many load and unload areas are at ground level and do not need ramping. Some new amusement rides are on platforms and have stepped entrances to the load and unload areas. These platform type amusement rides are more common at medium and smaller size amusement parks, but may be found at some large size amusement parks. In the absence of the final guidelines, we assumed an accessible route would not be provided to new platform type amusement rides with stepped entrances. We assumed 10 percent of new amusement rides in large amusement parks (18 new rides per year) and 30 percent of new amusement rides in medium and smaller amusement parks (50 new rides per year) would be platform type amusement rides with stepped entrances. We assumed half these amusement rides would have a vertical level change up to 3 feet and would need a ramp. The cost for an exterior ramp with a 3 foot vertical rise ranges from $4,000 to $6,700.48 We assumed the other half of these amusement rides would have a vertical level change between 3 feet and 5 feet and would need a platform lift. The cost for an exterior platform lift with a 5 foot vertical rise ranges from $12,000 to $15,000.49 The upper range of the total annual costs would be $0.73 million. See Table 4.6.

Table 4.6 - Costs: Accessible Route

Load and Unload Areas: Wheelchair Turning Space and Storage Space

The final guidelines require load and unload areas for new amusement rides to provide a wheelchair turning space. Where an amusement ride seat designed for transfer or a transfer device is provided, a wheelchair storage space must be provided in or adjacent to the unload area. Amusement parks are permitted to use the same area for accessible loading and unloading. Using the same area for accessible loading and unloading may provide greater wheelchair turning space adjacent to the amusement ride and eliminate the need to move a wheelchair from the load area to the unload area where an amusement ride seat designed for transfer or a transfer device is provided. We assumed providing a wheelchair turning space and a wheelchair storage space would have minimal impact on most new amusement rides. New platform type amusement rides with stepped entrances may need to provide additional space in the load and unload areas. The cost of providing the additional space is $1,175.50 Using the same assumptions as were used for providing an accessible route to the load and unload areas of new platform type amusement rides with stepped entrances, we estimated the total annual cost for 68 of these rides would be $0.08 million.

Amusement Rides: Wheelchair Access and Transfer Access

The final guidelines allow designers and operators to decide which of three types of access is appropriate for new amusement rides: a wheelchair space, an amusement ride seat designed for transfer, or a transfer device. A wheelchair space may be appropriate for less dynamic amusement rides with wider bases. An amusement ride seat designed for transfer may be appropriate where the ride seat is between 14 inches and 24 inches above the load and unload surface, allowing an individual to transfer directly from a wheelchair to the ride seat. A transfer device may be appropriate where the ride seat is outside the range for an amusement ride seat designed for transfer, and an individual needs something to facilitate the transfer from a wheelchair to the ride seat. A transfer device may be an integral part of the amusement ride such as a sill of the ride vehicle, or a separate piece of equipment such as a lift or a transfer platform and transfer steps. The seat of the transfer device must be between 14 inches and 24 inches above the load and unload surface. As manufacturers design new amusement rides, they will consider the feasability of incorporating wheelchair spaces and amusement ride seats designed for transfer into the new designs. The cost of incorporating accessibility into the design of a new amusement ride will be reflected in the cost of the ride. Many new amusement rides are manufactured from existing designs and it may not be feasible to modify those designs. For those new amusement rides, a transfer device may be appropriate.

For purposes of estimating the costs of providing access to new amusement rides, we assumed a transfer device would be provided for all new amusement rides. Several transfer devices have been developed for other applications and may be adapted for amusement rides.

• Transfer system for swimming pools. This device consists of a platform 16 to 18 inches above the pool deck that allows users to transfer from their wheelchair to a transfer platform and lower themselves into a pool by a series of transfer steps. A device with 7 transfer steps for use with a 4 feet deep pool costs $2,600. A device for use with an amusement ride would not need as many transfer steps.
• Lift for spas. This device can be used with above ground spas. It has 180 degree rotation and can clear a 42 inch high wall. It costs $2,000.
• Mechanized seat for airplane boarding. This device has a hydraulic system that can raise or lower the seat from heights between 18 inches to 28.5 inches above the floor. It costs $1,500.

The amusement ride industry is innovative and will develop appropriate transfer devices for new amusement rides. The development costs may be incurred by amusement ride manufacturers or other industries that develop the transfer devices and sell them to the amusement parks, and will be reflected in the cost of the product. For the purposes of this assessment, we estimated the transfer devices would cost $5,000, and the total annual cost for 343 new amusement rides would be $1.7 million.

Signs

The final guidelines require a sign at the entrance of the queue or waiting line for each new amusement ride indicating the type of access provided (e.g. wheelchair access, transfer access). Where an accessible unload area also serves as the accessible load area, the sign must indicate the location of the accessible unload area. The cost of providing a sign is $100 per ride, and the total cost for 343 new amusement rides per year is $0.03 million.

4.5 Alterations Impacts

The alterations impacts are minimal. A modification to an existing amusement ride is considered an alteration only if the ride’s structural or operational characteristics are changed to the extent that the ride’s performance differs from that specified by the manufacturer or the original design criteria; or if the load and unload area of the ride is newly designed and constructed. Amusement parks that relocate existing amusement rides at their facility, or purchase used amusement rides would have to comply with the final guidelines only if one of these conditions is met.

4.6 Total Costs

For amusement rides, the total annual compliance costs are $2.5 million. See Table 4.7.

Table 4.7 - Annual Compliance Costs for New Rides

CHAPTER 5: BOATING FACILITIES

5.1 Number of Facilities

Existing Facilities

The National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) estimated there were 11,500 marinas in 1999; 12,000 in 2000; and 12,000 in 2001.51 We assumed 60 percent of the marinas (7,200 facilities) are operated by public entities; and 40 percent (4,800 facilities) are operated by private entities.52

New Construction and Additions

The construction of new marinas has slowed due to environmental restrictions and budgetary constraints. The California Department of Boating and Waterways has constructed only one new marina a year since 1999. The Oregon Marine Board has not constructed any new marinas since 1997. Existing marinas are adding new piers and boat slips to their facilities. Based on the NMMA data and discussions with professionals in the industry, we assumed a 1 percent growth rate for new construction (120 new facilities per year) and a 1 percent growth rate for additions to existing marinas (120 additions per year). We assumed the percentage of new construction and additions by public entities and private entities is the same as the percentage of existing facilities owned and operated by these entities.

Small Entities

For the marinas operated by private entities, using the methodology described in Chapter 2, we estimated 99 percent are small entities . For marinas operated by public entities, we assumed the percentage operated by small governmental jurisdictions is the same as in Table 2.1.

5.2 Final Guidelines

Table 5.1 summarizes the final guidelines for boating facilities.

Table 5.1 - Final Guidelines: Boating Facilities (text version)

5.3 Alternatives

Table 5.2 presents the alternatives considered in the proposed guidelines and final guidelines. The significant comments raised during the public comment period are summarized in the preamble to the final rule, along with the Access Board’s assessment of the comments and the reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final guidelines. The Access Board minimized the significant economic impact of the final guidelines by permitting gangways that are part of an accessible route to exceed the 1:12 maximum slope requirement for ramps where the total length of the gangways is at least 80 feet (or 30 feet for smaller facilities with fewer than 25 boat slips), reducing the number of boat slips required to be accessible in new construction, and modifying the requirements for accessible boat slips in alterations so no more than one boat slip is lost. The final guidelines also allow designers and operators greater flexibility in applying ADAAG to new and altered boating facilities. Other alternatives regarding the maximum slope of gangways were recommended by the Recreation Access Advisory Committee, in the summary of the draft final rule, and during the public comment period, but were rejected because they were too difficult to implement or more costly than the alternative selected.

Table 5.2 - Boating Facilities Alternatives (text version)

5.4 New Construction Impacts

Gangways: Accessible Route

At marinas, gangways are used to connect land or fixed structures with piers where the boats are moored. Where water levels fluctuate widely due to tides or other conditions, the piers are typically floating structures. As the water levels rise and fall, the gangway slopes also rise and fall. Where gangways connect to accessible boat slips, the accessible route requirements in ADAAG require the maximum slope to be 1:12 and the maximum rise for any run to be 30 inches.53 Designing and constructing gangway systems that would maintain a 1:12 maximum slope and 30 inch maximum rise as water levels fluctuate can be cost prohibitive depending on the maximum vertical level change. The final guidelines provide exceptions for the maximum gangway slope and rise. Gangways are permitted to exceed the 1:12 maximum slope where the total length of gangways serving as part of an accessible route is at least 80 feet (or 30 feet for smaller facilities with fewer than 25 boat slips). Gangways are also permitted to exceed the 30 inch maximum rise.

There are no national codes or standards for the design of gangways. We used information provided by the Oregon State Marine Board. Oregon commonly provides a 30 foot gangway where the maximum vertical level change between land and the pier is less than 10 feet, and a 50 foot gangway where the maximum vertical level change between land and the pier is between 10 feet and 16 feet. We assumed 10 percent of the new marinas constructed each year (12 facilities) would have fewer than 25 boat slips, and these small marinas would provide at least a 30 foot gangway in the absence of the final guidelines and would not incur additional costs. We used three models to estimate the incremental costs for the other 108 new marinas constructed each year to comply with the final guidelines.54

• Model A: Maximum Vertical Level Change Less Than 2.5 Feet - Where the maximum vertical level change between land and the pier is less than 2.5 feet, we assumed the pier is a fixed structure and the gangway would comply with the accessible route requirements in ADAAG in the absence of the final guidelines. There are no incremental unit costs for new marinas to comply with the final guidelines in model A. We assumed 20 percent of the other 108 new marinas constructed each year (22 facilities) would be in model A.
• Model B: Maximum Vertical Level Change More Than 2.5 Feet But Less Than 10 Feet - Where the maximum vertical level change between land and the pier is more than 2.5 feet but less than 10 feet, we assumed a 30 foot gangway would be provided to a floating pier in the absence of the final guidelines. Depending on the maximum vertical level change at a specific site, the final guidelines would require a gangway ranging from 30.1 feet to 80 feet. The increase in cost based on gangway length is not a linear relationship. Professionals from different areas of the country estimated the average additional cost for constructing gangways in model B to comply with the accessible route requirements in ADAAG, as modified by the final guidelines, would range from $15,000 to $35,000. We used these amounts as lower and upper bounds. We assumed 40 percent of the other 108 new marinas constructed each year (43 facilities) would be in model B, and estimated the total annual compliance costs for these new marinas to range from $0.6 million to $1.5 million.
• Model C: Maximum Vertical Level Change More Than 10 Feet - Where the maximum vertical level change between land and the pier is more than 10 feet, we assumed a 50 foot gangway would be provided to a floating pier in the absence of the final guidelines. The final guidelines would require at least an 80 foot gangway. The Oregon State Marine Board estimated the additional cost for constructing an 80 foot gangway would be $33,000.55 Local factors will affect the costs. Professionals in other areas of the country estimated the additional cost would be $45,000 or more for some marinas. We used these amounts as lower and upper bounds. We assumed 40 percent of the other 108 new marinas constructed each year (43 facilities) would be in model C, and estimated the total annual compliance costs for these new marinas to range from $1.4 million to $1.9 million.

Accessible Boat Slips

Boat Launch Ramps: Accessible Boarding Piers

Where boarding piers are provided at boat launch ramps, the final guidelines require at least 5 percent of the boarding piers to be accessible. Gangways that connect to accessible boarding piers are permitted to exceed the 1:12 maximum slope where the total length of the gangways is at least 30 feet.

Accessible boarding piers must provide a minimum of 60 inches wide clear pier space for the length of the pier. Newly constructed fixed boarding piers are typically 4 feet to 6 feet wide; and newly constructed floating boarding piers are 6 feet to 8 feet wide. We assumed the requirements for accessible boarding piers at boat launch ramps would have minimal impact on new construction.

5.5 Additions Impacts

We assumed the 120 additions to existing marinas each year construct new gangways, piers, and boat slips. We assumed the marinas would have more than 25 boat slips after the additions. We used the same models as we used for new construction of gangways to estimate the incremental costs for the 120 additions to comply with the final guidelines. We estimated the total annual compliance costs to range from $2.3 million to $3.9 million.

5.6 Alterations Impacts

The final guidelines include two exceptions that will minimize the impacts on alterations to existing marinas. The first exception affects gangways. Where an existing gangway is altered or replaced, an increase in the length of the gangway is not required, unless a primary function area (e.g., boat slips) is altered or replaced. If the additional cost of providing a gangway complying with the accessible route requirements in ADAAG, as modified by the final guidelines, is disproportionate to the cost of the overall alterations, the duty to comply is limited.56 The second exception affects boat slips. Where at least one accessible boat slip has a minimum of 60 inches clear pier space for the length of the boat slip, and providing a minimum of 60 inches clear pier space for the length of additional boat slips would result in a reduction of the number of boat slips available or a reduction in the widths of existing boat slips, the clear pier space is permitted to be located perpendicular to the accessible boat slips.

We assumed a 20 year replacement schedule with 600 existing marinas being altered each year. We assumed 25 percent of existing marinas (150 facilities) have fewer than 25 boat slips.57 We assumed in the absence of the final guidelines these small marinas would provide at least 30 foot gangways when altering or replacing gangways and would not incur additional costs. We also assumed 25 percent of the existing marinas with 25 or more boat slips (112 facilities) would not have to alter gangways to meet the accessible route requirements in ADAAG, as modified by the final guidelines, because the cost would be disproportionate to the cost of the overall alterations, or because existing physical or site constraints would make compliance technically infeasible.58 We used the same models as we used for new construction of gangways to estimate the incremental costs for alterations to the remaining 337 existing marinas to comply with the final guidelines. We estimated the total annual compliance costs to range from $6.5 million to $10.7 million.

5.7 Total Costs

For marinas, the total annual compliance costs ranges from $10.8 million to $18.0 million. See Table 5.3.

Table 5.3 - Annual Compliance Costs for Marinas

CHAPTER 6: FISHING PIERS AND PLATFORMS 6.1 Number of Facilities

No data was available on the number of fishing piers and platforms operated by public and private entities. The new construction and alterations impacts of the final guidelines on these facilities are minimal, and we did not expend resources on developing models to estimate the number of existing and newly constructed fishing piers and platforms.

6.2 Final Guidelines

Table 6.1 summarizes the final guidelines for fishing piers and platforms.

Table 6.1 - Final Guidelines: Fishing Piers and Platforms (text version)

6.3 Alternatives

Table 6.2 presents the alternatives considered in the proposed guidelines and final guidelines. The significant comments raised during the public comment period are summarized in the preamble to the final rule, along with the Access Board’s assessment of the comments and the reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final guidelines. The Access Board minimized the significant economic impact of the final guidelines by permitting gangways that are part of an accessible route to exceed the 1:12 maximum slope requirement for ramps where the total length of the gangways is at least 30 feet, and by exempting guards that comply with certain sections of the International Building Code from the 34 inch maximum height requirement. No other significant alternatives were considered or rejected.

Table 6.2 - Fishing Piers and Platforms Alternatives (text version)

6.4 New Construction Impacts

The new construction impacts are minimal. Most fishing piers and platforms are fixed structures and must comply with the accessible route requirements in ADAAG. Gangways serving floating fishing piers and platforms are permitted to exceed the 1:12 maximum slope requirement where the gangways are at least 30 feet. Railings are not required. However, where railings are provided, at least 25 percent of the railings must be 34 inches maximum above the ground or deck surface in order not to interfere with fishing by individuals with disabilities. An exception permits guards complying with certain sections of the International Building Code to be higher to avoid conflicts where a local building code requires a guard, or where a designer or operator determines that enhanced safety measures are warranted.

6.5 Alterations Impacts

The alterations impacts are minimal.

6.6 Total Costs

We did not estimate any compliance costs for fishing piers and platforms.

CHAPTER 7: GOLF COURSES7.1 Number of Facilities

Existing Facilities

The National Golf Foundation (NGF) estimated 15,487 facilities operated 17,108 golf courses in 2000.59 Of these facilities, 2,438 are operated by public entities; 8,759 are operated by private entities and are open to the public; and 4,290 are operated by private entities and are restricted to members only. The NGF estimated 17 percent of existing golf facilities are part of a residential community.

No data was available on the number of driving ranges. The new construction and alterations impacts on these facilities are minimal, and we did not expend resources to develop models to estimate the number of existing and newly constructed driving ranges.

New Construction

The NGF estimated 524 new golf courses were constructed in 2000, and 87 percent of these courses are open to the public. Of the new golf courses constructed in 2000, 171 were additions to existing facilities and 251 were nine-hole layouts. The NGF estimated 377 new golf courses were constructed in 2001. The NGF estimated about 45 percent of golf course construction today is part of a residential community.60

Small Entities

For golf facilities operated by private entities, using the methodology described in Chapter 2, we estimated 97 percent are small entities. For golf facilities operated by public entities, we assumed the percentage operated by small governmental jurisdictions is the same as in Table 2.1.

7.2 Final Guidelines

Table 7.1 summarizes the final guidelines for golf courses.

Table 7.1 - Final Guidelines: Golf Courses (text version)