Opinion ID: 204900
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Maximum extent feasible

Text: The parties also differ over the meaning of the phrase maximum extent feasible. Again, this term is defined in the relevant DOT regulations: the phrase [`]to the maximum extent feasible[`] applies to the occasional case where the nature of an existing facility makes it impossible to comply fully with applicable accessibility standards. ... 49 C.F.R. § 37.43(b). DIA argues that feasible refers only to technical feasibility, relying on this definition's lack of explicit reference to costs. SEPTA, in turn, argues that feasible must refer to economic feasibility, as well. [9] We have never addressed the meaning of maximum extent feasible under the ADA as applied to alterations in public transit facilities. SEPTA's position that maximum extent feasible must refer to economic as well as technical feasibility might be plausible if that language stood alone. However, the narrowness of the exception established in 49 C.F.R. § 37.43(b), which contemplates that the infeasibility of making the altered portion of a facility will be only occasional and will arise from the nature of an existing facilitynot from the budget limitations of a transportation authority, which must be reckoned with at all timesweighs in favor of DIA's interpretation. In addition, both 42 U.S.C. § 12147(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 37.43 do contain provisions for the consideration of cost in making public transit facilities accessible, but only in different sections establishing requirements for certain additional changes (e.g., to the bathrooms and drinking fountains) that must be made to the maximum extent feasible if an area that serves a primary function is altered. The costs for those additional changes should not be disproportionate. See 42 U.S.C. § 12147(a); 49 C.F.R. § 37.43(a)(2). The sections addressing alterations in general contain no such language. The omission of any reference to costs there, when they are mentioned in closely-related sections, indicates that the ADA and the DOT regulations define feasibility primarily with respect to technical, not purely economic, concerns. [10] The Second Circuit recently reached the same conclusion with respect to identical language in Title III of the ADA and the relevant federal regulations (specifically, 42 U.S.C. § 12183 and 28 C.F.R. § 36.402(c)). Focusing on the language of the statute, it held that the ADA's `maximum extent feasible' requirement does not ask the court to make a judgment involving costs and benefits. ... The statute and regulations require that such facilities be made accessible even if the cost of doing sofinancial or otherwiseis high. Roberts v. Royal Atlantic Corp., 542 F.3d 363, 371 (2d Cir.2008). The reasoning of Roberts is sound and applicable in the Title II context as well.