Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities

Yes; accessibility by people with disabilities.

There is no real discussion of how accessibility is to be measured, other than complying with the standards. Theoretically, the "benefits" are measured which lead to the implicit outcome: "Benefits—the economic value people derive from accessibility—can be divided into three categories: Use value: the value that people with disabilities derive from the use of accessible facilities; Option value: the value that people both with and without disabilities derive from the opportunity to obtain the benefit of accessible facilities; and, Existence value: the value that people both with and without disabilities derive from the guarantees of equal protection and nondiscrimination that are accorded through the provision of accessible facilities." The RIA attempts to measure use value. The analysts deserve credit for finding a way to model the benefits as a price change via the use of time costs. Appendix 4 in particular does an excellent job of demonstrating how the regulation would affect the price of goods and services in addition to time cost monetized. This is a best practice.

It provides occasional references to the new standards resulting in easier access for disabled people, but this is assumed to be true by definition. The measurement of use value is based on a coherent and creative theory.

There are occasional discussion of previous standards improving access, but they are rare and not explicit.

It analyzes extensively the uncertainties in the benefit estimate, including sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo analysis.

The stated purpose is simply to implement the ADA.

There is no explanation of why facility owners cannot collect value from disabled people when benefits exceed costs. One can infer that the main problem is that facility owners cannot charge disabled people differentially high prices, either for transaction cost or civil rights reasons.

The analysis does not address this topic.

The analysis does not address this topic.

Alternatives and alternative baselines are discussed in the result section more thoroughly: "Several dimensions of uncertainty in how the proposed rule applies to actual facilities are captured as independent scenarios (21). These dimensions include: SH vs. No SH; readily achievable levels [0%, 50%, 100%]; and baselines [1991 ADA, IBC 2000, IBC 2003, IBC 2006]. These varying dimensions are shown in the results chapter."

Principal alternatives were safe harbor using 1991 guidelines vs. no safe harbor, which had significant cost-benefit differences. The rule mentions some other smaller tweaks to lessen impact on small entities and states that the federal regulation sets a floor and consulted extensively with state and local governments.

Analysis shows NPV for safe harbor vs. no safe harbor scenarios, but does not really break out benefits separately.

Yes, the analysis gives a couple different scenarios of baselines (2000, 2003, and 2006), and chooses the one it deems most appropriate. This could be seen as at least one example of a best practice.

Yes, but some of the cost breakouts get lost because comparisons often focus on NPV.

It appears to be pretty thorough. However, a lot of provisions are assumed to have no cost because they do not affect typical facilities. Cost figures used are fully covered in the appendices with full citations—there are definitely a couple best practices here.

It explicitly assumes no effect because the costs are presumed to be "small." This is unsupported and debatable, but at least it's transparent.

Behavior is rarely mentioned at all, therefore there's no examination of the costs that would stem from it—in this case, accessibility would decrease the cost since it's a benefit. Still, there's no explicit or relevant content on the subject.

Extensive analysis of uncertainties in input values, including sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo analysis. Results are displayed in graph format to indicate the sensitivities for many of the adjustments that would result from the regulation. This is a best practice.

Of the several scenarios offered (as a means of sensitivity analysis for the discount rate and differing base years), all appear to demonstrate that benefits exceed costs, but this is not evidence of net benefit maximization. While there's an explicit comparison of the net benefits of the safe harbor vs. non safe harbor approach, it is a pretty narrow range.

The analysis does not calculate dollar of value per dollar of cost, but one could do so using the results of the analysis.

The analysis includes an extensive breakdown of cost incidence by type of facility, public vs. private, etc. It identified three main cost drivers for each type of facility.

The analysis initially identified different types of disabled users but did not reveal how benefits would be divided among them. There is a discussion of the main drivers of the benefits which lends some clues into the parties receiving the benefits; however, there is no explicit discussion on this topic.