apply to most other retailers as well. Thus in a relatively small outlet of 10,000 square feet of selling space, a mandated reconfiguration would cost the average retailer $25,000.

But there are other costs associated with re-layouts that would dwarf that not-inconsiderable sum. Many stores, especially older ones, have at least some aisles that are not wide enough for a wheelchair to navigate. It would be a drastic, and in some cases, ruinous step to impose four or five-foot aisles on stores which presently have two- or three-foot widths; this would mean that affected areas would lose anywhere from one-third to threefifths of their productive space, with consequent reductions in sales and employment.

Equally profound would be the impact if ADA could be interpreted as limiting the height of merchandise shelves and displays. Depending on the type of operation, mass retailers typically stock merchandise to a height of at least eight feet; some types of operations, such as warehouse-type retailers, may go significantly higher. There would be substantial costs in lowering existing shelves so as to be reachable by an individual using a wheelchair (between $3 and $5 per square foot in labor costs alone to lower existing shelves, and up to $10 per square foot in labor and equipment costs to acquire and install lower shelving).

The most enormous

costs, however, would be in lost

productivity, as retailers would forfeit one-half or more of their current shelf space with corresponding reductions in sales, profits and employment (but not in rental and most other overhead

costs).

-

Interpretations that would force across-the-board changes in such key productive factors as aisle width or shelf height would be the functional equivalent in lost sales and employment of closing a substantial fraction of the nation's stores, or even of outlawing some types of stores. The subcommittee would perform a

-

major service to making ADA better-understood and focused by making clear that advancing the rights and aspirations of disabled persons does not require re-formatting of store aisles, shelves, fixtures and displays.

IMRA wishes to raise one other question related to when retrofitting of existing stores is required. Section 302(b)(2)(vi) of ADA requires a higher degree of accessibility for existing buildings during alterations, and yet a higher standard for buildings where a "major structural alteration" is being undertaken. Yet nowhere in ADA is either of these significant terms defined. IMRA suggests that the subcommittee consider adopting the sensible delineations used in a Pennsylvania statute (Act 1988-166) on disabled accommodations enacted last year, wherein the degree of accessibility required is tied to a definite and ascertainable standard, the percentage of the building's value

affected by the remodeling or renovation.

Under the Pennsylvania statute, when the construction cost of remodeling is less than 30% of the building's worth, only the remodeled area or areas need by made accessible, and an accessible route to the remodeled area or areas is not required. When the construction cost is 30% or more, but less than 50%, of the building's worth, the remodeled area or areas must be accessible and an accessible route provided; a series of remodelings within a three-year period will be subject to this provision if their accumulated cost is 30% or more but less than 50%. Only if remodeling costs over a three-year period exceed 50% of the building's value must the entire building and site be made accessible.

Site-specific analysis in public accommodations

For multi-site companies such as mass retailers, whether or not an accommodation is "readily achievable" or creates an "undue burden" is judged on a very different basis than ADA currently provides.

Section 302(a) generally prohibits discrimination by a retail store or other public accommodation, and section 302 (2) contains a number of specific prohibitions. Among other items, these

communication barriers is not readily achievable,

failure to use alternative readily achievable methods of making available goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations (in section 302(b)(2)(v)].

Section 301(5)(A) defines "readily achievable" as:

easily accomplishable and able to be carried out
without much difficulty or expense.

Up to this point, IMRA can support this section fully, as long as architectural barriers are defined, as we believe they should be, to include a building's major structural features (such as walls, roofs, stairways, entranceways, and interior supports), not its non-structural items as merchandise displays, counters or

shelves.

The current

definition of "readily achievable, however, raises one major and, we believe, insufficiently considered difficulty, since its analysis differs in one important respect from the analysis used by companies with multi-site operations. If not remedied, this imbalance will have significant and unfortunate consequences.

Section 301(5)(B) defines the factors to be considered in determining whether an action is "readily achievable as including:

(i) the overall size of the covered entity with respect to the number of employees, number and type of facilities, and the size of the budget;

(ii) the type of operation of the covered entity,

including the composition and structure of the entity;

and

(iii) the nature and cost of the action needed.

When businesses such as ours analyze the continued economic viability of any particular facility, they do so not on the basis of the company's overall size or success, but on the basis of the particular site's performance. The same is true for assessing a change in operations, such as a remodeling, whether mandated by government or by competitive factors. Whether or not a company