or facility that have been previously constructed or altered in accordance with the April 1, 1994 Texas Accessibility Standards (TAS) are not required to be retrofitted to reflect the incremental...
Search Results "Incremental Change"
-
106.5.57 Safe Harbor
-
Final Regulatory Impact Analysis
The Final RIA embodies a comprehensive benefit-cost analysis of the final rules for both title II and title III and assesses the incremental benefits and costs of the 2010 Standards relative...
-
Safe harbor and other proposed limitations on barrier removal.
One of the most important issues that the Department must address is the effect that supplemental or changed ADA Standards will have on the continuing obligation of public accommodations...
-
202.4 Alterations Affecting Primary Function Areas
previously constructed or altered in accordance with the April 1, 1994 Texas Accessibility Standards (TAS) they will enjoy safe harbor and are not required to be retrofitted to reflect the incremental...
-
§ 36.403(a)(2)
of public accommodation or commercial facility in accordance with the specifications in the 1991 Standards, the private entity is not required to retrofit such elements to reflect the incremental...
-
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The vast majority of the new requirements are incremental changes subject to a safe harbor....
-
Section 35.151(b)(4)(ii)(C) Path of travel--safe harbor
stated that public entities that have brought required elements of path of travel into compliance with the 1991 Standards are not required to retrofit those elements in order to reflect incremental...
-
Section 36.304 Removal of Barriers (Section-by-Section Analysis)
Requirements for which there are revised technical or scoping specifications in the 2010 Standards are referred to in the NPRM as ‘‘incremental changes.''...
-
Element-by-element safe harbor for public accommodations. (Section-by-Section Analysis)
These incremental changes were made to address technological changes that have occurred since the promulgation of the 1991 Standards, to reflect additional study by the Access Board, and...
-
Section 36.403 Alterations: Path of Travel (Section-by-Section Analysis)
Section 36.403 Alterations: Path of Travel (Section-by-Section Analysis) In the NPRM, the Department proposed one change to Sec. 36.403 on alterations and path of travel by adding a path...
-
§ 35.150(b)(2)
(2)
-
§ 35.151(b)(4)(ii)(C) Safe harbor
specifications in either the 1991 Standards or the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards before March 15, 2012, the public entity is not required to retrofit such elements to reflect incremental...
-
Side reach (Section-by-Section Analysis)
If the pay phones comply with the 1991 Standards, the adoption of the 2010 Standards does not require retrofitting of these elements to reflect incremental changes in the 2010 Standards....
-
202.4 Alterations Affecting Primary Function Areas
changes in the proposed standards solely because of an alteration to a primary function area served by that path of travel. 3....
-
Section 36.403 Alterations: Path of Travel
Section 36.403 Alterations: Path of Travel In the NPRM, the Department proposed one change to Sec. 36.403 on alterations and path of travel by adding a path of travel safe harbor....
-
§ 35.150(b)(2) Safe harbor
Uniform Federal Accessibility Standard, such public entity is not, solely because of the Department's adoption of the proposed standards, required to retrofit such elements to reflect incremental...
-
Section 35.150(b)(2) Safe harbor (Section-by-Section Analysis)
These revised requirements reflect incremental changes that were added either because of additional study by the Access Board or in order to harmonize requirements with the model codes....
-
Section 35.151(b)(4)(ii)(C) Path of travel—safe harbor (Section-by-Section Analysis)
stated that public entities that have brought required elements of path of travel into compliance with the 1991 Standards are not required to retrofit those elements in order to reflect incremental...
-
Side reach (Section-by-Section Analysis)
If the pay phones comply with the 1991 Standards or UFAS, the adoption of the 2010 Standards does not require retrofitting of these elements to reflect incremental changes in the 2010 Standards...
-
§ 35.151(b)(4)(ii)(C) Safe harbor
in accordance with the specifications in either the 1991 Standards or the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards, the public entity is not required to retrofit such elements to reflect incremental...
-
Alterations Affecting Primary Function Areas: ADA Standard Section 202.4
Section 202.4 covers the most current ADA Standards for alterations affecting primary function area.
-
A. Executive Order 13563 and 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review
to the ADA and to provide additional guidance on how to apply those changes....
-
ADA Safe Harbor Provisions
Where the 2010 Standards made incremental improvements to require greater accessibility, elements built or altered to be in compliance with the 1991 Standards do not have to be altered or...
-
Safe Harbor
in compliance with the accessibility requirements of the immediately preceding edition of the California Building Code, it shall not be required to retrofit such elements to reflect the incremental...