Free Investigative Databases Searches - Search for Anyone, Find Anyone, Investigate Anyone
Numerous business groups have urged the Department not to adopt the
proposed ADAAG as the accessibility standards, because the requirements
established are too high, reflect the state of the art, and are
inflexible, rigid, and impractical. Many of these objections have been
lodged on the basis that ADAAG exceeds the statutory mandate to
establish minimum guidelines. In the view of the Department, these
commenters have misconstrued the meaning of the term minimum
guidelines. The statute clearly contemplates that the guidelines
establish a level of access--a minimum--that the standards must meet or
exceed. The guidelines are not to be minimal in the sense that they
would provide for a low level of access. To the contrary, Congress
emphasized that the ADA requires a high degree of convenient access. Education and Labor report at 117-18. The legislative history explains that the guidelines may not reduce, weaken, narrow or set less accessibility standards than those included in existing MGRAD and should provide greater guidance in communication accessibility for individuals with hearing and vision impairments. Id. at 139. Nor did Congress contemplate a set of guidelines less detailed than ADAAG; the statute requires that the ADA guidelines supplement the existing MGRAD. When it established the statutory scheme, Congress was
aware of the content and purpose of the 1982 MGRAD; as ADAAG does with respect to ADA, MGRAD establishes a minimum level of access that the Architectural Barriers Act standards (i.e., UFAS) must meet or exceed,
and includes a high level of detail.
(Just notes)
