View Rule

Statement of Need: This regulation is necessary to bring the Commission's regulations into compliance with the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, which became effective January 1, 2009, and explicitly invalidated certain provisions of the existing regulations. The Amendments Act retains the terminology of the ADA's basic definition of "disability" as an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. However, it changes the way that these statutory terms should be interpreted in several ways, therefore necessitating revision of the existing regulations and interpretive guidance contained in the accompanying "Appendix to Part 1630--Interpretive Guidance on Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act," which are published at 29 CFR part 1630. The proposed revisions to the title I regulations and appendix are intended to enhance predictability and consistency between judicial interpretations and executive enforcement of the ADA as now amended by Congress.

Summary of the Legal Basis: Section 506 of the Amendments Act, 42 U.S.C. section 12205a, gives the EEOC the authority to issue regulations implementing the definitions of disability in section 12102 of this title (including rules of construction) and the definitions in section 12103 of this title, consistent with the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.

Alternatives: None: Congress mandated issuance of regulations.

Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The EEOC anticipates economic and other benefits from the rule in many areas. For example, applicants and employees will be entitled to reasonable accommodation absent undue hardship to perform jobs for which they are qualified, whereas they may have been deemed not to meet the ADA's definition of disability prior to the Amendments Act and denied accommodations as a result. Also, employers will incur benefits from their ability to retain, hire, and promote qualified personnel; increased employee attendance and productivity; avoidance of costs associated with under-performance, workplace injury, and turnover; and benefits from savings in workers' compensation and related insurance. Finally, definitional clarity brought by the amended regulation will have the economic benefit of reducing litigation and the need for costly experts to address "disability," and will streamline the issues requiring judicial attention. To the extent that employers may in some cases need to revise internal policies and procedures to reflect the broader definition of disability under the Amendments Act and train personnel to ensure appropriate compliance with the revised regulation, the Commission will continue to provide free technical assistance and outreach, including presentations and materials targeted specifically to small employers. Costs would be incurred by employers with 15 or more employees that are covered by the ADA. Applying the broader Amendments Act interpretation of when an impairment "substantially limits" a major life activity, more applicants and employees will meet the definition of disability and thus be potentially entitled to reasonable accommodations that do not pose an undue hardship. Available cost data is limited. However, using research indicating that the average cost of an accommodation is $462, the NPRM estimated the additional cost of accommodations as a result of the Amendments Act and the EEOC regulations at $74 million. Assuming these requests occur over 5 years, since it is reasonable to assume that not all new requests will occur in the same year, the annual estimated cost would be $15 million. The NPRM noted that it is possible that these estimates are at least twice as great as the actual costs would be, given research indicating that prior to the Amendments Act, fewer than half of the accommodation requests were granted. It is also important to note that both government-sponsored and private studies have repeatedly found that more than 50 percent of accommodations have zero costs for employers, both large and small.

Risks: The proposed rule imposes no new or additional risk to employers. The proposal does not address risks to public health, safety, or the environment.