[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 117 (Monday, June 20, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-14304]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: June 20, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
_______________________________________________________________________
36 CFR Part 1191
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accssibility Guidelines for
Buildings and Facilities; State and Local Government Facilities;
Interim Final Rule
ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD
36 CFR Part 1191
[Docket No. 92-2]
RIN 3014 AA12
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for
Buildings and Facilities; State and Local Government Facilities
AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
ACTION: Interim final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
(Board) is issuing interim final guidelines to provide additional
guidance to the Department of Justice and the Department of
Transportation in establishing accessibility standards for new
construction and alterations of State and local government facilities
covered by title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of
1990. The guidelines will ensure that newly constructed and altered
State and local government facilities are readily accessible to and
usable by individuals with disabilities in terms of architecture,
design, and communication. The standards established by the Department
of Justice and the Department of Transportation must be consistent with
and may incorporate the guidelines.
In addition to the provisions for State and local governments, the
Board has also made some editorial changes to the Americans with
Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines to further clarify the
guidelines. These editorial changes are not substantive.
DATES: Effective date: December 20, 1994.
Comment date: New comments responding to this Interim Final Rule,
which have not already been sent in response to the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking for State and Local Government Facilities published on
December 21, 1992, should be received by December 20, 1994. (See
Comments, Supplementary Information). Comments received after this date
will be considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the Office of the General
Counsel, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board,
1331 F Street NW., suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Where
possible, the comments should reference specific section in the interim
final guidelines. Comments which are six (6) pages or less may be faxed
to (202) 272-5447. Comments will be available for inspection at this
address from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on regular business days.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Stewart, Office of the
General Counsel, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board, 1331 F Street NW, suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111.
Telephone (202) 272-5434 ext. 52 (Voice) or (202) 272-5449 (TTY). This
is not a toll-free number. This document is available in accessible
formats (cassette tape, braille, large print, or computer disc) upon
request.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments
Comments received in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
for State and Local Government Facilities published on December 21,
1992 (57 FR 60612) will be considered along with new comments received
in response to this Interim final rule. It is not necessary therefore
to resubmit comments which were forwarded in response to the previous
notice of rulemaking.
Statutory Background
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101
et seq.) extends to individuals with disabilities comprehensive civil
rights protections similar to those provided to persons on the basis of
race, sex, national origin, and religion under the Civil Rights Act of
1964.
Title II of the ADA, which became effective on January 26, 1992,
prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in services,
programs and activities provided by State and local government
entities, and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak).
Section 202 of the ADA extends the nondiscrimination policy of section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, (29 U.S.C. 794)
which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in Federally
assisted programs and activities to all State and local governmental
entities regardless of whether such entities receive Federal funds.
Most programs and activities of State and local governments are
recipients of financial assistance from one or more Federal agencies
and are already covered by section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973.
Title III of the ADA, which also became effective on January 26,
1992, prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by private
entities who own, lease, lease to, or operate a place of public
accommodation. Title III establishes accessibility requirements for new
construction and alterations in places of public accommodation and
commercial facilities.
Section 504 of the ADA requires that the Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Board) issue minimum
guidelines to assist the Department of Justice and the Department of
Transportation in establishing accessibility standards under titles II
and III. Under sections 204(a) and 306(b) of the ADA, the Department of
Justice is responsible for issuing final regulations, consistent with
the guidelines issued by the Board, to implement titles II and III
(except for transportation vehicles and facilities). Sections 229 and
306(a) of the ADA provide that the Department of Transportation is
responsible for issuing regulations to implement the transportation
provisions of titles II and III of the ADA. Those regulations must also
be consistent with the Board's guidelines.
Rulemaking History
On July 26, 1991, the Board published the Americans with
Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) to assist the
Department of Justice in establishing accessibility standards for new
construction and alterations in places of public accommodation and
commercial facilities. See 56 FR 35408, as corrected at 56 FR 38174
(August 12, 1991) and 57 FR 1393 (January 14, 1992), 36 CFR Part 1191.
ADAAG contains scoping provisions and technical specifications
generally applicable to buildings and facilities (sections 1 through
4.35) and additional requirements specifically applicable to certain
types of buildings and facilities covered by title III of the ADA:
restaurants and cafeterias (section 5); medical care facilities
(section 6); mercantile and business facilities (section 7); libraries
(section 8); and transient lodging (section 9).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On September 6, 1991, the Board amended ADAAG to include
additional requirements specifically applicable to transportation
facilities (section 10). See 56 FR 45500, 36 CFR 1191.1. On that
same date, the Board also published separate final guidelines to
assist the Department of Transportation in establishing
accessibility standards for transportation vehicles. See 56 FR
45530, 36 CFR Part 1192. The Department of Transportation has
incorporated ADAAG and the Board's guidelines for transportation
vehicles and facilities in its final regulations. See 56 FR 45584
(September 6, 1991), 49 CFR Parts 37 and 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 26, 1991, the Department of Justice published its final
regulations implementing title III of the ADA which incorporated ADAAG
as the accessibility standards for newly constructed and altered places
of public accommodation and commercial facilities covered by title III.
See 56 FR 35544, 28 CFR Part 36. On that same date, the Department of
Justice published its final regulations implementing title II of the
ADA. See 56 FR 35694, 28 CFR Part 35. The Department of Justice's title
II regulations give State and local governments the option of choosing
between designing, constructing or altering their facilities in
conformance with the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards
(UFAS)2 (Appendix A to 41 CFR 101-19.6) or with ADAAG (Appendix A
to 28 CFR Part 36), except that if ADAAG is chosen, the elevator
exemption contained in title III of the ADA does not apply.3 See
28 CFR 35.151.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\UFAS was developed by the General Services Administration,
Department of Defense, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
and the United States Postal Service to implement the Architectural
Barriers Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4151 et seq.) which requires certain
Federally financed buildings to be accessible. Most Federal agencies
reference UFAS in the accessibility standards for buildings and
facilities constructed or altered by recipients of Federal financial
assistance for purposes of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, as amended. (29 U.S.C. 794).
\3\In new construction and alterations, title III of the ADA
does not require elevators if a facility is less than three stories
or has less than 3000 square feet per story, unless the facility is
a shopping center or mall; a professional office of a health care
provider; or a terminal, depot or other station used for specified
public transportation or an airport passenger terminal. See 28 CFR
36.401(d) and 36.404.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the Department of Justice published its title II regulations,
it noted that the Board would be supplementing ADAAG in the future to
include additional guidelines for State and local government
facilities. The Department of Justice further stated that it
anticipated that it would amend its title II regulations to adopt ADAAG
as the accessibility standards for State and local government
facilities after the Board supplemented ADAAG. 56 FR 35694, 35711 (July
26, 1991). Adopting essentially the same accessibility standards for
titles II and III of the ADA will ensure consistency and uniformity of
design in the public and private sectors throughout the country.
To further the goal of uniform standards, the Board intends to use
ADAAG as the accessibility guidelines for Federally financed facilities
covered by the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4151 et
seq.) since the Federal government owns or operates many of the same
type of facilities as State and local governments which are addressed
in this interim final rule. Under section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792), the Board is responsible for establishing
guidelines for accessibility standards issued by other Federal agencies
pursuant to the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968. See note 2 supra.
The Board anticipates initiating action to adopt ADAAG with special
provisions as appropriate for Federal buildings (e.g., post offices,
military facilities) in place of its current guidelines for Federally
financed facilities. Standards issued by other Federal agencies
pursuant to the Architectural Barriers Act must be consistent with the
Board's guidelines. Those Federal agencies responsible for issuing
accessibility standards under the Architectural Barriers Act will
initiate separate rulemaking to adopt standards consistent with ADAAG
as supplemented in place of UFAS. Commenters, including Federal
agencies, were encouraged to comment on the notice of proposed
rulemaking for State and local government facilities in the context of
how the proposed guidelines will also affect Federal facilities and to
specify any particular Federal building types which would require
special provisions. A number of the comments received in response to
the NPRM supported having a single standard for all facilities,
including State, local and Federal.
Proposed Guidelines
On December 21, 1992, the Board published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register which proposed to add four
special application sections to the Americans with Disabilities Act
Accessibility Guidelines specifically applicable to certain types of
buildings and facilities covered by title II of the ADA:
11. Judicial, Legislative, and Regulatory Facilities.
12. Detention and Correctional Facilities.
13. Accessible Residential Housing.
14. Public Rights-of-Way.
The NPRM also proposed requirements and asked questions regarding
the addition of miscellaneous provisions specifically applicable to
State and local government facilities, including swimming pools, text
telephones, automatic doors, airport security systems, entrances,
elevator exemptions, building signage, assistive listening systems, and
sales and service counters.
Public Hearings and Comments
The Board held five public hearings in various locations between
February 22, 1993 and March 15, 1993. A total of 148 people presented
testimony on the proposed guidelines at the hearings. In addition, 447
written comments were submitted to the Board by the end of the comment
period on March 22, 1993. Another 127 comments were received after
March 22, 1993. Although those comments were not timely, the Board
considered them to the extent practicable. In all, the Board received
nearly 7000 pages of comments and testimony on the proposed guidelines.
The Board received comments and testimony from a broad range of
interested individuals and groups, including individuals who identified
themselves as having a disability; organizations representing persons
with disabilities; State or local code administrators; State, local and
Federal government agencies; manufacturers; design professionals; and
national professional and trade associations.
The comments and testimony were sorted by section and analyzed. A
large number of commenters expressed support for the guidelines as
proposed. Some comments requested changes and others requested
clarifications. As a result of the comments, a number of provisions
were revised. In particular, ADAAG 14 (Public Rights-of-Way) was
extensively reorganized. With respect to those commenters who
recommended changes, a few submitted data or studies in support of
their recommendations. Some commenters asked questions regarding the
application of the guidelines to specific situations. The application
of those provisions is discussed in the section-by-section analysis
which follows.
Due to the large number of comments received, it is not possible
for the Board to respond to each comment in this preamble. The Board
has made every effort to respond to significant comments in the general
issues and section-by-section analysis. As discussed under general
issues and in ADAAG 14 (Public Rights of Way), the Board has reserved
action in some areas pending further study or research. The Board has
an on-going research and technical assistance program and plans to
periodically review and up-date the guidelines to ensure that they
remain consistent with technological developments and changes in model
codes and national standards, and meet the needs of individuals with
disabilities.
Interim Final Rule
As discussed above, the Board's guidelines provide guidance to the
Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation in
establishing accessibility standards for new construction and
alterations of State and local government facilities covered by title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. The standards
established by the Department of Justice and the Department of
Transportation must be consistent with and may incorporate the
guidelines. The Department of Justice and the Department of
Transportation are each publishing notices of proposed rulemaking to
incorporate the Board's guidelines as the standards for State and local
government facilities in this issue of the Federal Register. The
notices published by the Department of Justice and the Department of
Transportation seek comment from the public on its proposal to
incorporate the Board's guidelines. Consistent with the requests by the
Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation for comment
on its proposed actions, the Board has chosen to issue these guidelines
as an interim final rule and is also soliciting comment. All three
agencies have requested in their notices that comments on the
amendments to ADAAG be forwarded to the Board for consideration. The
simultaneous publication of rules and the coordination of the review
process between the three agencies is expected to both facilitate and
expedite the review process.
In finalizing the guidelines, the Board, the Department of Justice
and the Department of Transportation will consider all comments
previously received in response to the Board's Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking for State and local government facilities published on
December 21, 1992, as well as comments received on this interim final
rule. Accordingly, those commenters who have previously responded to
the Board's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking need only submit new comments
on the interim final rule.
Editorial Amendments
In order to further clarify the guidelines, the Board has made a
number of editorial revisions to ADAAG. The editorial changes are not
substantive and therefore do not require the issuance of an additional
proposed rule.
General Issues
Chemical and Environmental Sensitivities
The Board received a number of comments relating to chemical and
environmental sensitivities. The Board is studying this issue and will
be issuing a report before undertaking the next major rulemaking on
ADAAG Buildings and Facilities.
Unisex Toilet and Bathing Facilities
The Board received several comments regarding the need to include
requirements for unisex toilet and bathing facilities to accommodate
people using personal assistants of the opposite sex. The Board and the
Department of Justice will be examining the issue of unisex facilities
in the near future.
Automatic Door Openers
The NPRM asked whether automatic or power assisted doors should be
required at entrances to State and local government facilities and if
so, whether this provision should be limited to specific types of State
or local government facilities. The NPRM also asked for information
regarding alternative methods of providing accessibility at exterior
doors; power assisted door activating mechanisms; automatic doors and
maneuvering clearances during power failures; and maximum opening
forces.
Comment. The majority of commenters supported a requirement for
automatic or power assisted doors at entrances. Several commenters
including the National Park Service, the National Conference of State
Historic Preservation Officers, and the New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation, and Historic Preservation supported a requirement for
automatic or power assisted doors as a means for making historic
buildings with heavy doors more accessible. Responses varied on whether
the requirement should apply to one primary entrance, or to all doors
in State or local government buildings and facilities.
Many commenters stated that, rather than requiring automatic or
power assisted doors, the Board should establish technical provisions
for acceptable door opening pressure and allow State and local
government entities flexibility in meeting the provision. Commenters
suggested that allowing entities the flexibility to choose the means by
which they achieve this door pressure may lead to the development and
application of new technology and prevent reliance on electronic
devices. Commenters' views on the location and type of operating
mechanisms to be used varied greatly. Other commenters indicated that
there may be security problems with requiring automatic or power
assisted doors for detention and correctional facilities.
Response. Recently, the Board sponsored a research project to
provide recommended scoping and technical provisions for automatic or
power assisted doors applicable to both State and local government
facilities and private entities. The Board has decided not to consider
issuing guidelines in this area until the results of the study have
been analyzed. The final report is available from the Board. Currently,
State and local government facilities and private entities are
encouraged to exercise the option, consistent with ADAAG 4.13.12
(Automatic Doors and Power Assisted Doors), to use automatic or power
assisted doors to increase accessibility.
Alterations
Based on comments received in response to the initial rulemaking
for ADAAG, the NPRM proposed that ADAAG 4.1.6(2) apply to facilities
subject to title II of the ADA. (See 56 FR 2319, January 22, 1991).
ADAAG 4.1.6(2) requires that where alterations affect or could affect
the usability of or access to an area containing a primary function,
the entity shall make the alteration in such a manner that, to the
maximum extent feasible, the path of travel to the altered area and the
restrooms, telephones, and drinking fountains serving the altered area
are accessible to the extent that the costs of these accessibility
features are not disproportionate to the overall alterations in terms
of cost and scope as determined under criteria established by the
Attorney General.
Comment. The Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund and a few
other commenters requested a change to the path of travel requirement
that would combine the requirements of ADAAG and UFAS. The commenters
noted that UFAS 4.1.6(3) contains minimum accessibility requirements
for a building or facility that is substantially altered, regardless of
disproportionate costs. These commenters also noted that the Department
of Justice title III regulations provide a list of priorities that
should be followed when choosing which accessible elements to provide
in the event of disproportionality. Since the Department of Justice
title II regulations do not contain such a priority list for providing
accessible elements, the commenters requested that the title III
priority list be incorporated into ADAAG so that the priorities would
apply to State and local government entities.
Response. ADAAG 4.1.6(2), by itself, yields a substantial level of
accessibility. The addition of the UFAS provision to the requirements
of ADAAG 4.1.6(2), will not, in most cases, result in greater
accessibility than that currently required by the Department of
Justice's title III regulations. Further, incorporating the UFAS
provision into ADAAG 4.1.6(2) would result in a requirement for State
and local government entities which is different from the ADAAG
requirements for private entities. The requirements for public and
private entities should be uniform unless there is a compelling reason
for them to be different. With regard to setting priorities for
accessible elements in the event of disproportionality, the Department
of Justice has proposed to amend its title II regulations to address
this and other issues. See 28 CFR Part 35. Based on these reasons, no
changes to the requirements of ADAAG 4.1.6(2) have been made.
Polling Places, Voting Booths, and Equipment
The NPRM asked whether polling places operated by State or local
governments utilize fixed voting booths and equipment and how these
fixed voting booths and devices currently meet the accessibility needs
of persons with visual impairments, reach range limitations, and
limitations in manipulating or operating controls. In addition, the
NPRM requested information regarding existing and new technologies
which would enable people with disabilities to use voting equipment and
booths without assistance. The NPRM also requested comment on the cost
information of such technologies.
Comment. A large number of commenters recommended various means
which may be used to make voting booths and equipment accessible. These
include such auxiliary aids as computers, touch tone phone systems,
touch screen technology with voice output through earphones, tactile
markings, voting equipment with audio capabilities, and the use of
push-button controls instead of levers. Other suggestions for providing
access to the voting process include the use of taped, brailled, or
large print ballots. None of the comments indicated that technology is
currently in use to provide independent access for individuals who are
blind. No information was provided regarding the costs associated with
the recommended technology.
Some commenters noted that access to the voting process could be
achieved through absentee balloting procedures. A large number of
commenters pointed out that existing Federal and many State laws allow
people who are blind or visually impaired who need assistance to choose
their own personal assistants to help them in the voting process.
Several commenters stressed the importance of an accessible area which
surrounds the voting equipment and an accessible route to the polling
place. Only one commenter knew of a jurisdiction which had fixed voting
booths.
Response. To the degree fixed voting booths are constructed and
altered, they are subject to ADAAG requirements. In addition, as
buildings and facilities covered by ADAAG are newly constructed or
altered, accessibility will be required in these buildings and
facilities, thereby improving access to polling places which may occupy
these buildings or facilities.
Although portable booths and equipment would not be covered by the
construction and alteration requirements contained in ADAAG, such
portable items and the voting process is subject to the Department of
Justice regulations implementing title II of the ADA. These regulations
require program accessibility and auxiliary aids and services (see 28
CFR 35.149 and 35.160).
Assembly Areas
The NPRM sought comment on the design issues associated with
providing integrated and dispersed accessible seating locations in
arenas, stadiums or other sports facilities. In September 1992 the
Board initiated a research project on assembly area accessibility.
Through post-occupancy evaluations of sports and performing arts
facilities, the Board is examining numerous issues related to current
ADAAG provisions. The Board intends to address issues associated with
assembly areas in a separate rulemaking once this research is
completed.
Comment. One commenter requested that the Board clarify whether the
required number of wheelchair locations in the chart at ADAAG
4.1.3(19)(a) refers to one or two wheelchair spaces.
Response. The chart at ADAAG 4.1.3(19)(a) refers to the required
number of single wheelchair spaces. ADAAG 4.33.2 (Size of Wheelchair
Locations) references Figure 46 (Space Requirements for Wheelchair
Seating Spaces in Series) which illustrates two wheelchair spaces and
specifies the clear floor space required depending on whether a side,
rear, or forward approach is provided. Figure 46 is only illustrative
of wheelchair seating spaces in a series and does not require that all
wheelchair locations provide two wheelchair spaces. No changes were
made to this provision.
Audible Announcements and Effective Communication for Persons With
Hearing Impairments
ADAAG 10.3.1(14) and 10.4.1(6) (Transit Facilities) require that
when transportation facilities provide information through a public
address system, equivalent information be provided to persons who are
deaf or hearing impaired. In the NPRM, a similar requirement was
considered for State and local government facilities which also provide
audible announcements to the public. The NPRM sought information on
what types of State and local government facilities typically provide
audible announcements to the public and what alternative means are
available for providing this information to persons who are deaf or
hearing impaired. Information on the costs of audible systems and
alternatives was also sought.
Comment. Commenters indicated that a broad range of facilities such
as public schools, welfare and motor vehicle departments, correctional
and medical facilities, and convention centers often use audible
announcements. Commenters from State and local governments indicated
that the use of a system of audible announcements depends on the
programs and services provided, the nature of the information, and the
number of people served by the facility.
Self Help for Hard of Hearing People (SHHH), which represents
persons with hearing impairments, noted that in order to determine
which announcement system best serves the public, the information being
provided must be evaluated and the methods of communication selected
accordingly. Another commenter indicated that it may be necessary to
provide a number of methods to ensure effective communication. Some
commenters suggested providing video monitors, electronic message
boards, or tactile pagers as a means of providing equivalent
information to persons with hearing impairments. Commenters suggested
that if a provision requiring equivalent information is added to ADAAG,
the requirement should be flexible enough to facilitate compliance with
the Department of Justice regulations requiring effective communication
and program access. Little cost data on audible announcement systems
and other alternatives was received.
Response. The comments suggested that the nature of the information
provided in State and local government facilities differs from the
information provided in transit facilities. In the view of commenters
representing State and local governments, the information provided by
the audible announcements in State and local government facilities
varies depending on the programs and services provided and may be
primarily directed to the employees, not to the public. On the other
hand, the information provided through the public address system in
transit facilities is integral to the use of the transit system.
Audible announcements in transit facilities provide critical
information on arrivals, departures, boarding, destinations, and delays
or cancellations. Although commenters recommended various methods for
providing equivalent information to persons with hearing impairments
when audible announcements are used, there was no consensus as to the
most effective means of providing such information to the public.
Therefore, no ADAAG provision has been included.
The Department of Justice regulations implementing title II of the
ADA, however, does require State and local government entities to
ensure that communications with applicants, participants, and members
of the public with disabilities are as effective as communications with
others, unless the public entity can demonstrate that action would
result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program,
or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. See 28
CFR 35.160(a) and 35.164.
Assistive Listening Systems
ADAAG 4.1.3(19)(b) requires permanently installed assistive
listening systems to be provided where audible communications are
integral to the use of an assembly area, if the assembly area
accommodates at least 50 people or has an audio-amplification system,
and has fixed seating. ADAAG 11.9 requires that permanently installed
assistive listening systems be provided in certain rooms in judicial,
legislative and regulatory facilities, regardless of the number of
persons accommodated or whether there is an amplification system and
fixed seating is provided. The NPRM asked whether there are additional
types of State and local government facilities where requirements for
permanently installed assistive listening systems should be based on
the type of room rather than the criteria in ADAAG 4.1.3(19)(b).
Comment. Commenters responded that assistive listening systems
should be provided in educational facilities, large public waiting
rooms, job-applicant testing and professional-licensing testing
facilities, gymnasiums and emergency shelters. Many other commenters
recommended that assistive listening systems be provided in all
facilities available to the general public for meetings, hearings and
other facilities available for public use. In addition, a few
commenters requested that ADAAG 11.9(2) be clarified so that rooms used
for public policy hearings are considered legislative or regulatory
facilities.
A number of commenters stated that the criteria of ADAAG
4.1.3(19)(b) should be applied and that no additional requirements for
assistive listening systems are necessary. However, other commenters
recommended a change to ADAAG 4.1.3(19)(b) so that assistive listening
systems are provided in rooms without fixed seating.
Many commenters recommended that portable devices be permitted to
allow for more flexibility, less cost and retrofitting. No supporting
documentation on portable systems or cost information was provided.
Response. Certain rooms and spaces recommended by commenters such
as job applicant testing sites and gymnasiums are already required to
provide assistive listening systems if they meet the criteria in ADAAG
4.1.3(19)(b). As commenters pointed out, facilities that do not have
fixed seating do not meet these criteria. However, those facilities
listed in ADAAG 11.9 are required to provide permanently installed
assistive listening systems even if they do not have fixed seating.
Some of those areas recommended by commenters in judicial, legislative
and regulatory facilities are addressed in ADAAG 11.9. For example, one
of each type of hearing room is required to be equipped with an
assistive listening system. Rooms in other types of facilities are not
required to provide assistive listening systems based on the occupancy
or type of room. However, all State and local government entities are
subject to the Department of Justice's title II regulations requiring
that programs and services provide effective communications, including
auxiliary aids unless it can be demonstrated that such action would
result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program,
or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. See 28
CFR 35.160(a) and 28 CFR 35.164. To facilitate the use of portable
systems, ADAAG 11.8 requires electrical outlets, wiring, and conduit
for communications systems in judicial, legislative and regulatory
facilities. No changes were made to ADAAG 4.1.3(19)(b).
Comment. The NPRM asked questions regarding areas or spaces in
State or local government facilities which require protection from
electronic eavesdropping. The NPRM also sought technical options for
solving security-related problems and asked whether one type of system
is more secure than another. Commenters were requested to provide cost
information for providing a secure assistive listening system. Finally,
the NPRM asked whether any areas should be exempt from the requirement
of an assistive listening system due to risks associated with
electronic eavesdropping.
Many commenters expressed general concern about assistive listening
systems in areas where sensitive communications require strict
security. The commenters provided programmatic and technical solutions
including training people to turn assistive listening systems on or
off, installing hard-wired communications systems, constructing
soundproof areas that require security and confidentiality and using
computer aided transcription or real-time captioning. The installation
of an infrared listening system which cannot penetrate the confines of
a room was a highly recommended solution. Some commenters noted that
since infrared signals can travel through windows, solid window
coverings would be necessary for total confidentiality.
Very little cost information was provided. A few commenters stated
that the cost of a secure assistive listening system would vary due to
the type of areas or space and the number of transmitters required to
serve the space.
In the view of many commenters, certain spaces such as control
centers, armories, legal visiting areas, pharmacies and medical service
areas should be exempt from the assistive listening system requirement
due to the risk of electronic eavesdropping. An equal number of
commenters stated that no areas should be exempt because technology is
available that satisfies the accessibility requirement and provides
protection from electronic eavesdropping. Several commenters noted that
legislatures and similar types of facilities employ safeguards such as
monitoring hallways and establishing procedures for checking out
receiver units to ensure that electronic eavesdropping does not take
place. One commenter pointed out that equipment unrelated to assistive
listening devices is readily available to persons wishing to eavesdrop.
Response. Based on the comments received, sensitive communications
can be protected from electronic eavesdropping through existing
technology, careful design of the facility, and operational policies.
No provisions or exemptions were added.
Section by Section Analysis
This section of the preamble contains a concise summary of the
significant comments received on the NPRM, the Board's response to
those comments, and any changes made to the guidelines.
1. Purpose
This section was amended to delete the reference to specific
special application sections currently in ADAAG and replace it with a
general reference to special application sections.
3. Miscellaneous Instructions and Definitions
3.5 Definitions
Alterations
The proposed reference to a State or local government entity, as
well as the existing reference to a place of public accommodation or
commercial facility, has been deleted from the definition of an
alteration. This definition now applies to any facility covered by
ADAAG. An alteration is defined as a change to a building or facility
that affects or could affect its usability. Normal maintenance,
cosmetic changes, or changes to mechanical systems are not alterations
unless they affect the usability of the building or facility. New
language has been added to the definition to clarify that alterations
include changes to pedestrian facilities within the public right-of-
way. Such changes may include, but are not limited to, the alteration
or reconstruction of pedestrian routes, or the addition of street
furniture, landscaping, or other fixed elements along a pedestrian
route. These changes were added to be consistent with the addition of
ADAAG 14 (Public Rights-of-Way).
The original preamble to ADAAG stated: ``If a parking lot is
resurfaced and does not have the number of accessible parking spaces
required by 4.1.2(5) or the parking spaces do not comply with 4.6.3,
those requirements must be met with unless it is technically
infeasible.'' See 56 FR 144 at 35427. The addition of the word
resurfacing to this definition is not intended as a new interpretation
of what constitutes an alteration, but rather to reinforce the original
intent that the resurfacing of streets, sidewalks, parking lots, and
other outdoor surfaces is considered an alteration.
Although commenters generally supported the application of the
alteration definition to State and local government entities, several
commenters requested that language be added in ADAAG ``stating that
usability is to be interpreted broadly''. The preamble to the
Department of Justice's title III regulation states that: ``The
Department remains convinced that the Act requires the concept of
`usability' to be read broadly to include any change that affects the
usability of the facility, not simply changes that relate directly to
access by individuals with disabilities.'' 56 FR 144 at 35581.
Continuous Passage
This definition remains in ADAAG 14.1.1. See the discussion of this
definition and appendix material at ADAAG 14.1.1 (Definitions).
Curb Ramp
A reference to ADAAG 14.1.1 (Public Sidewalk Curb Ramps) has been
added to the definition for the convenience of the reader.
Dwelling Unit
This term is defined in ADAAG 13.1(1). See the discussion of this
term and appendix material at ADAAG 13.1 (General.)
Principal Public Entrance
A new definition for principal public entrances has been added to
ADAAG 3.5 (Definitions). See the discussion of this new definition at
ADAAG 4.1.3(8) (Entrances).
Public Right-of-Way
A reference to this new definition has been added to ADAAG 3.5
(Definitions). See the discussion of this new definition at ADAAG
14.1.1 (Definitions).
Public Sidewalk
The word ``public'' has been added to this definition for
clarification. The definition remains in ADAAG 14.1.1. See the
discussion of this definition and appendix material at ADAAG 14.1.1
(Definitions).
Public Sidewalk Curb Ramp
A reference to this new definition has been added to ADAAG 3.5
(Definitions). The definition remains in ADAAG 14.1.1. See the
discussion of this definition at ADAAG 14.1.1 (Definitions).
Site Infeasibility
This definition remains in ADAAG 14.1.1. See the discussion of this
definition at ADAAG 14.1.1 (Definitions).
Technically Infeasible
A reference to the definition of ``technically infeasible'' in
ADAAG 4.1.6(1)(j) has been added here for the convenience of the
reader.
Transient Lodging
Comment. In the NPRM, the words ``one or more dwelling units'' were
deleted from the ADAAG definition for transient lodging because
``dwelling unit'' only refers to residential facilities covered in
ADAAG 13. Transient lodging includes facilities used on a transient
basis and excludes residential facilities or medical care facilities.
Resorts, hotels, motels, and dormitories used on a transient basis are
examples of transient lodging. Some commenters requested that the
guidelines distinguish between the terms transient lodging and dwelling
unit.
Response. The definition of dwelling unit in ADAAG 3.5 has been
deleted to reduce confusion and a new definition of dwelling unit has
been added at ADAAG 13.1(1). For clarification of the term dwelling
unit, see ADAAG 13.1. As proposed in the NPRM, the definition of
transient lodging has been changed to clarify that a transient lodging
facility is not considered a residential facility. With respect to the
operation of certain types of facilities, either ADAAG 9 (Accessible
Transient Lodging) or ADAAG 13 (Accessible Residential Housing), or
both, may be applicable. An appendix note has been added to clarify
that the Department of Justice's policy and rules will further define
what is covered as transient lodging.
4. Accessible Elements and Spaces: Scope and Technical Requirements
4.1 Minimum Requirements.
4.1.1 Application.
4.1.1(1) General.
4.1.1(2) Application Based on Building Use.
As proposed in the NPRM, specific references in ADAAG 4.1.1(1) to
the scoping requirements for accessible sites and exterior facilities
(4.1.2), newly constructed buildings (4.1.3), and alterations (4.1.6)
have been deleted. ADAAG 4.1.1(2) has been amended to delete the
reference to specific special applications sections currently in ADAAG.
These modifications do not change the substance of this provision but
merely remove unnecessary references for clarity.
4.1.1(5) General Exceptions
ADAAG 4.1.1(5)(b), as revised, exempts from the requirements for
accessibility prison guard towers, fire towers, fixed life guard
towers, and other areas raised for purposes of security or life or fire
safety; non-occupiable spaces accessed only by tunnels and frequented
by service personnel for maintenance or occasional monitoring of
equipment; and single-occupancy structures accessed by passageways
above or below grade.
Comment. The NPRM asked for comment on the basis or rationale for
any recommended exception. There was no clear consensus among
commenters responding to this question. Recommendations were made for
exceptions based on the nature, use, or size of the facility, the cost
of providing accessibility, occupancy load, and the safety and security
of occupants. Some commenters, including several disability
organizations, noted that certain facilities may merit exemption. For
example, the Disability Rights and Education Defense Fund, stated that
``very small occupancy facilities * * * which house only one or two
persons could be treated differently (possibly exempted).'' Several
commenters, however, cautioned that any exception should be carefully
and specifically written so as not to be interpreted more broadly than
was intended. A few comments suggested that exceptions list specific
facilities and structures while others recommended exceptions that
would allow facilities to be considered for exception on a case-by-case
basis. Some comments urged that no further exception be provided.
Response. Exceptions that list specific facilities are more easily
interpreted than exceptions stated in general terms. However,
exceptions based on specific facilities may exclude other facilities of
a more unique nature that were not noted in comments or considered
during rulemaking. Consequently, exceptions have been provided in ADAAG
4.1.1(5) (General Exceptions) according to the structural limitations
that make accessibility infeasible. These exceptions contain examples
of specific facilities.
Comment. Prison operators and corrections officials recommended
that prison guard towers and other raised security posts be exempt. In
addition, it was recommended that access not be required to upper level
prison cells where multi-tier housing is provided since elevator and
other confined spaces present security risks.
Response. Prison guard towers and other elevated security areas are
similar in nature and use to ``observation galleries used primarily for
security purposes'' currently exempt in ADAAG 4.1.1(5)(b)(i) and have
been incorporated into this exception. With respect to upper level
prison cells, ADAAG 12 (Detention and Correctional Facilities) requires
that only a percentage of prison cells be accessible. An accessible
route is not required to all cells, including those that may be located
on upper tiers accessed only by stairs. See ADAAG 12.
Comment. The NPRM asked whether design solutions are available for
making certain structures accessible such as fire towers and fixed life
guard stands. These facilities are typically not considered to be
``multi-story'' according to building codes or the definition of
``story'' in ADAAG 3.5 (Definitions) and thus are not subject to the
requirement in ADAAG 4.1.3(5) for a passenger elevator. However, such
facilities are otherwise subject to the requirements for accessibility,
including the requirement for an accessible route in ADAAG 4.1.3(1).
Ramps and, in some cases platform lifts, may be part of an accessible
route. A majority of commenters recommended that fire towers and life
guard stands be exempt due to the lack of design solutions to provide
access.
Response. The standard design and elevation of fire towers
typically prohibit installation of a ramp or elevator in accordance
with appropriate local or State building codes. Similarly, fixed life
guard stands by their design and construction cannot easily sustain
platform lifts or ramps. The exception in ADAAG 4.1.1(5)(b)(i) which
addresses ``raised areas used primarily for purposes of security'' has
been revised to cover those areas that are raised for purposes of life
or fire safety, such as fire towers and fixed life guard towers which
are listed in this provision as examples.
Comment. ADAAG 4.1.1(5)(b)(ii) exempted ``non-occupiable spaces
accessed only by ladders, catwalks crawl spaces, very narrow
passageways, or freight (non-passenger) elevators, and frequented only
by service personnel for repair purposes.'' Commenters recommended that
this exception be revised to address certain limited use utility
facilities often found in the public sector. Such facilities include
water and sewage treatment pump rooms and stations, electric
substations, transformer vaults, and highway and tunnel utility
facilities. These facilities do not qualify for the existing exception
because they may be frequented not only for repair purposes but for
maintenance and monitoring of equipment as well. Further, some of these
facilities may be accessed by tunnels instead of ladders, catwalks,
crawl spaces, very narrow passageways, or freight elevators.
Response. The existing exception has been revised to include non-
occupiable spaces accessed by tunnels. In addition, the phrase
``frequented only for repair purposes'' has been modified to include
``maintenance'' and ``occasional monitoring of equipment.'' Water and
sewage treatment pump rooms and stations, electric substations,
transformer vaults, and highway and tunnel utility facilities are
listed as examples of the exception.
Comment. The NPRM asked whether design solutions exist for
providing access to toll booths. The response to this question was
mixed. Several commenters indicated that toll booths are currently
required to be accessible in the State of California. In addition, the
Institutional and Municipal Parking Congress noted that cashier booths,
such as those found in large parking facilities, are ``virtually
indistinguishable'' from toll booths, and have been made accessible
according to ADAAG. However, other commenters noted that some toll
booths are accessed from below through underground tunnels so that toll
booth operators need not cross vehicular traffic. While access is
considered feasible from grade level, access from tunnels or
passageways below grade would be difficult according to existing toll
booth design. Some State transportation departments noted that
requiring grade-level access would compromise employee safety.
Response. An exception has been provided in ADAAG 4.1.1(5)(b)(iii)
for single occupant structures accessed only by passageways above or
below grade, such as toll booths that are required to be accessed from
tunnels below grade. This exception does not apply to toll booths
accessed at grade level.
Comment. Other facilities recommended by commenters for exception
include: cashier booths, border station inspection booths, guard
booths, and portable classroom structures.
Response. These recommendations did not point to specific
structural conditions that would make access infeasible. Consequently,
such facilities would not be exempt unless the conditions listed in
ADAAG 4.1.1(5) (General Exceptions) are met.
Comment. A few comments recommended exceptions for remote outdoor
structures such as research stations and observation posts used by
naturalists, hikers, and researchers.
Response. The Board is addressing various outdoor recreational
facilities in separate rulemaking. However, raised observation posts
may qualify for exception under ADAAG 4.1.1(5)(b)(i) only if their
primary use is for purposes of security or life or fire safety.
4.1.3(5) Elevators
ADAAG 4.1.3(5) contains exceptions from the requirement for a
passenger elevator in certain facilities and circumstances. Exception 1
has been modified to address State and local government facilities that
are less than three stories and not open to the public where the floor
above the accessible ground floor houses no more than five persons and
is less than 500 square feet. In addition, an exception to the
requirement that elevators serve each level of multi-story buildings is
provided for at air traffic control towers. Under Exception 5, elevator
access is not required to serve the cab and the floor immediately below
the cab since an elevator serving such levels would obstruct the
required 360 degree clear view. While commenters noted that lifts may
provide a feasible alternative means of access to these levels, the
Board wishes to further assess the impact a requirement for vertical
access, such as a platform lift complying with ADAAG 4.11 (Platform
Lifts), would have on these facilities. Under NFPA 1010--1991 Life
Safety Code section 30-2.4.1, air traffic control towers are required
to provide only one means of egress. According to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), a vertical means of access to the cab will
require the provision of a second means of egress from the cab to the
ground level of the tower. Since air traffic control towers are
typically built or operated by the FAA, a Federal entity, the Board
plans to further consider this issue during adoption of ADAAG as the
accessibility guideline for Federally financed facilities covered by
the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4151 et seq.)
Title III of the ADA states that elevators are not required in
facilities that are less than three stories or that have less than 3000
square feet per story unless the building is a shopping center or mall,
the professional office of a health care provider, or another type of
facility as determined by the Attorney General. Title II of the ADA
does not specify a similar exception for State and local government
facilities. The NPRM asked whether an exemption from the requirement
for an elevator based on the presumed physical abilities of occupants
is justified for certain State and local government facilities, such as
firehouses with upper floors that are used only by firefighters.
Comment. A majority of commenters opposed an elevator exception
based on the presumed physical capabilities of employees or other
occupants of the facility. Most of these commenters argued that such an
exception would limit the employment opportunities of persons with
disabilities. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which
enforces title I of the ADA, stated that:
Title I of the ADA stresses a case-by-case determination of
whether an individual with a disability can perform the essential
functions of the job. Myths, fears, and stereotypes about disability
are irrelevant to this determination. Consistent with this premise,
blanket exclusions of individuals based on disability will be
closely scrutinized under Title I of the ADA and in most cases, will
probably be struck down as discriminatory * * * As a practical
matter, a case-by-case determination of whether an individual with a
disability can perform the essential functions of a job with
reasonable accommodation will be moot if the employer can show that
providing the reasonable accommodation will impose an undue
hardship. While it will always depend on the particulars of the
case, where certain levels of accessibility are not built in at the
design stage of new construction, an employer is more likely to be
able to prove an undue hardship defense based upon the need to make
significant structural changes to the relevant work area.
Some commenters also noted that exemptions based on physical
qualifications of facility occupants or employees can be confusing or
difficult to interpret. Several commenters argued against such an
exception because the occupancy of a facility may change or because
access may be needed by other persons, such as supervisory personnel.
Response. Exceptions based on essential job requirements may not
only be inconsistent with the ADA, as noted by the EEOC, but are also
inconsistent with existing ADAAG provisions applicable to public
accommodations and commercial facilities in the private sector. While
full accessibility is not required in employee work areas, ADAAG 4.1.3
does require in section 4.1.1(3) access so that persons with
disabilities can ``approach, enter, and exit'' such areas. Neither this
provision nor existing ADAAG exceptions exempt accessibility based on
the physical capabilities of employees or occupants. Exceptions based
on structural factors or limitations are more consistent with ADAAG and
the ADA. Thus, the NPRM asked whether design solutions exist for
providing access to certain multi-story facilities where installation
of an elevator may be infeasible or impractical. Examples include
drawbridge and boat traffic towers, lock and dam control stations, and
air traffic control towers, which require a clear 360 degree view that
cannot be obstructed by an elevator shaft.
Comment. Most commenters identified lifts, including vertical and
incline lifts, as feasible alternatives to elevators, particularly with
respect to air traffic control towers. The response concerning
drawbridge and boat traffic towers and lock and dam control stations
was less conclusive, although a slight majority recommended that such
facilities not be exempt. Several other comments noted that limited use
or limited access elevators may provide a solution since they require
less space than do passenger elevators meeting the requirements of
ADAAG 4.10 (Elevators). Other comments considered available solutions
as cost prohibitive or impractical and recommended further study.
Response. Existing exceptions in ADAAG 4.1.3(5) allow the use of
platform lifts complying with ADAAG 4.11 (Platform Lifts) in lieu of an
elevator in limited circumstances, such as ``incidental spaces and
rooms which are not open to the general public and which house no more
than five persons'' or ``where existing site constraints or other
constraints make use of a ramp or elevator infeasible.'' (See Exception
4(c) and (d)). While platform lifts may be an effective solution in
addressing changes in level of a certain distance, their use in
providing access between floors may not always be feasible. For
example, platform lifts complying with ADAAG 4.11 (Platform Lifts) must
meet the ASME A17.1 Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators, Section
XX, 1990, which prohibits vertical wheelchair lifts from traveling more
than twelve feet or from penetrating floors (Rule 2000.7a).
The existing exception for facilities subject to title III of the
ADA that are less than three stories or that have less than 3000 square
feet per story is contained in ADAAG 4.1.3(5) Exception 1. As noted in
the NPRM, the applicability of this exception to places of public
accommodation and commercial facilities was clarified. In addition, as
part of this rulemaking, this provision has been lettered (a). An
exception has been added in Exception 1, paragraph (b) for facilities
subject to title II of the ADA. This exemption is narrower in scope
than the existing exception for title III facilities in paragraph (a)
and applies only to facilities that are less than three stories and not
open to the general public where the floor above the accessible ground
floor houses no more than five persons and is less than 500 square
feet. Examples include drawbridge towers, boat traffic towers, lock and
dam control stations, and train dispatching towers. The maximum
occupancy of five persons is derived from ADAAG 4.1.3(5) Exception 4(c)
which allows the use of a platform lift instead of an elevator in
providing access to incidental occupiable spaces. Since a platform lift
may not always be a feasible alternative to an elevator in providing
access between floors, Exception 1(b) does not contain a requirement
for platform lifts in exempting elevator access. The 500 square foot
maximum is based on a floor area allowance of 100 square feet per
occupant, which is consistent with model building code requirements for
business and industrial occupancies used in determining the occupant
load for purposes of egress.
In addition, an exemption is provided for air traffic control
towers in Exception 5. Under this exception, elevator access is not
required to serve the cab of air traffic control towers since an
elevator serving the cab would obstruct the necessary 360 degree clear
view. This exception also applies to the floor immediately below the
cab since the machinery above the elevator may obstruct the 360 degree
clear view required in the cab. However, with respect to the floor
immediately below the cab, this exception applies only where
maintenance of the 360 degree clear view is not feasible. For example,
a hydraulic elevator, which may be used in air traffic control towers
up to a certain height, will enable an elevator car to serve the floor
immediately below the cab without obstructing the 360 degree clear view
in the cab. Thus, the exemption from elevator access to the floor
immediately below the cab applies only to those air traffic control
towers that cannot accommodate a hydraulic elevator. While relieved of
the requirement for elevator access to the cab and possibly the floor
immediately below the cab, air traffic control towers must be designed
to be adaptable under this exception so that an accessible vertical
means of access, such as a platform lift complying with ADAAG 11
(Platform Lifts), can be installed after construction as an adaptable
feature when needed by a person with a disability to serve the cab and,
where necessary, the floor immediately below the cab.
4.1.3(5) Exception 4 (Platform Lifts)
This exception permits the use of platform lifts or wheelchair
lifts complying with 4.11 and applicable State or local codes in new
construction specific conditions. As further discussed in ADAAG 11
(Judicial, Legislative and Regulatory Facilities) and ADAAG 13
(Accessible Residential Housing), this exception has been revised to
allow platform lifts or wheelchair lifts to provide access to raised
judges' benches, clerks' stations, speakers' rostrums, and raised
daises, jury boxes and witness stands and to connect levels within an
individual dwelling unit.
4.1.3(8) Entrances
ADAAG 4.1.3(8) requires that, at a minimum, 50 percent of all
public entrances be accessible. In addition, where provided, one direct
entrance to an enclosed parking garage and one entrance to a pedestrian
tunnel or elevated walkway, must be accessible. The provision also
states that, ``where feasible, accessible entrances shall be those used
by the majority of the people visiting or working in the building''
(i.e., a principal entrance). The interim final guidelines provide that
facilities subject to title II of the ADA must include all principal
public entrances when meeting this requirement. This provision does not
require that the number of accessible entrances exceed 50 percent of
all public entrances or require an increase in the total number of
principal public entrances planned for a facility. ADAAG 3.5
(Definitions) defines principal public entrances as any public entrance
to a building or facility which is designed and constructed to
accommodate a substantial flow of pedestrian traffic to a major
function in the facility. For example, entrances of facilities subject
to title II of the ADA which are designed to be heavily used by the
public and connect exterior facilities with interior amenities and
services must be included in the calculation of accessible entrances.
This definition includes criteria to consider when determining which
entrances are principal public entrances.
Comment. A few commenters stated that a clear definition of
``principal entrance'' should accompany the requirement if one were
adopted.
Response. The guidelines define a ``principal public entrance'' as
any public entrance to a building or facility which is designed and
constructed to accommodate a substantial flow of pedestrian traffic to
a major function of the facility. For example, an entrance with
multiple doorways is generally intended to accommodate a greater flow
of pedestrian traffic. The definition also provides criteria for
distinguishing principal public entrances from other entrances (e.g.,
the embellishment of an entryway, the size of the doorway or any other
design strategy which would make one entrance stand out prominently
from another entrance).
Comment. The NPRM presented eight options for requiring accessible
entrances in facilities which are subject to title II of the ADA. The
options ranged from no additional requirements to the existing ADAAG to
requiring all entrances to be accessible. The NPRM sought comment on
these options and asked that commenters state their preference and
justification for a particular option.
The majority of comments favored some modification of ADAAG for
State and local governments. State and local government agencies and
code officials favored options one and two, which are described below.
Organizations representing persons with disabilities and State and
local government agencies representing persons with disabilities
favored options six and eight, which are described below. Design
professionals and national professional organizations were divided
between these two groups of options.
Option one was to retain the requirements of ADAAG 4.1.3(8) as
written without any additional requirements for principal entrances.
Commenters supporting option one were concerned that providing
additional accessible principal entrances would result in problems with
site constraints (e.g. sloping streets in urban areas) and increase
construction costs.
Option two required that at least one principal entrance must be
among those entrances required to be accessible by ADAAG 4.1.3(8).
Commenters supporting this option acknowledged the importance of at
least one accessible principal entrance. These commenters favored this
option because it also allowed for greater design flexibility.
Option six required all principal entrances to be accessible and
allowed those principal entrances to be counted toward satisfying the
requirements of ADAAG 4.1.3(8). Commenters supporting this option
stated that relegating persons with disabilities to the ``side'',
``back'', or even basement entries does not afford them the same choice
in accessing a building as other individuals, and that the use of these
other entrances might force them to use a long and isolated route to
gain entry to a building.
Option eight required that all entrances be accessible. Commenters
supporting this option considered it to be the best option to satisfy
the intent of the legislation to stop discrimination against persons
with disabilities while at the same time improving emergency egress.
However, other commenters stated that this option would create
difficult design problems when constructing new facilities on existing
sites with steep terrain or restricted boundaries. Additionally,
commenters pointed out that to require more public entrances to be
accessible would decrease the design flexibility in constructing a
facility.
Response. The Board has adopted option six which requires
facilities subject to title II of the ADA to include all principal
public entrances when meeting the 50% requirement for accessible
entrances in ADAAG 4.1.3(8)(a)(i). This option provides greater
assurance that persons with disabilities will have access to the
``front'' entrance and may prevent excessive travel distances along
isolated routes. The provision does not require an increase in the
number of entrances planned for a facility. The number of planned
entrances will be determined by the design of the facility. For
example, if a new facility is planned with four principal public
entrances, then ADAAG 4.1.3(8)(a)(i) would require only two of the four
principal public entrances to be accessible.
It would be unreasonable to require all entrances to be accessible
in cases where new construction, within existing urban areas, had to
contend with existing slopes and other site considerations, such as
existing sidewalks and nearby property lines. 56 FR 35419. The
legislative history makes clear that not every feature of every
building needs to be accessible but rather a high level of convenient
access is contemplated. H. Rept. 101-485, pt.2, at 118. ADAAG
Sec. 4.1.1(5)(a) describes the conditions when structural
impracticability due to terrain would prevent full compliance with
requirements for accessibility. Structural impracticability is a very
narrow exception and, as explained in the legislative history, does not
apply to situations where a building is constructed on ``hilly''
terrain or on a plot of land with steep slopes. H. Rept. 101-485, pt.2,
at 120. This provision will provide a greater level of convenient
access as contemplated in the legislative history.
Comment. Several commenters thought these options would require
expensive remodeling or destruction of historically significant
elements of existing buildings and facilities. Other commenters wanted
clarification that the existing sections of ADAAG covering alterations
and historic preservation would prevail over these options with regard
to existing buildings.
Response. The requirements of ADAAG 4.1.3(8) apply only to new
construction. Alterations to existing buildings are covered by ADAAG
4.1.6 (Alterations) and alterations to qualified historic structures
are covered by ADAAG 4.1.7 (Accessible Buildings: Historic
Preservation). No changes have been made to either section.
Comment. The NPRM proposed guidelines for restricted and secured
entrances in judicial, legislative, and regulatory facilities, and in
detention and correctional facilities. The NPRM asked whether there
were other types of State and local government facilities which have
restricted and secured entrances, and if so, whether the guidelines
should require that one or more of the restricted or secured entrances
in those facilities be accessible. The NPRM also requested information
on the cost impact of such a requirement. Commenters recommended
several facilities where restricted and secured entrances should be
accessible such as colleges, universities, museums, libraries,
performing areas in auditoriums, laboratories in research facilities,
police stations, social service offices, and National Guard weapons
storage areas.
Response. The restricted and secured entrances of the facilities
recommended by the commenters generally are public entrances already
covered by ADAAG 4.1.3(8) (Entrances) and are addressed by existing
requirements for accessibility. Additionally, some of the commenters
were referring to interior doors and accessible routes, not exterior
entrances covered by this section. The interim final rule contains
appendix language recommending that accessible entrances be distributed
among all types of entrances. Additional appendix material has been
included to clarify some of the different types of entrances that
should be considered. Specific requirements for restricted and secured
entrances are addressed in ADAAG 11.5 (Restricted and Secured
Entrances).
Comment. The NPRM asked whether the guidelines should include a
distribution requirement for accessible entrances and, if so, should
such a provision require that an accessible entrance be located on each
side of the building where entrances are provided. The NPRM suggested a
requirement based on criteria such as proximity to elevators,
information centers or public streets, and asked whether a distribution
requirement should apply only to buildings above a certain size.
Finally, the NPRM asked whether such a distribution provision should
apply to all types of State and local government facilities and what
additional cost, if any, would be associated with such a requirement.
Commenters were divided on the question of whether a distribution
requirement should be added to the guidelines. Several of the
commenters favoring a distribution provision stated that accessible
entrances should be provided on each side of a building where entrances
are provided. Some commenters stated that accessible entrances should
be provided close to exterior facilities and building amenities and
services. Other commenters stated that the function and occupancy of a
building should be the determining factors in the location of
accessible entrances, and that architectural programming should be used
to determine those locations. The majority of commenters stated that
size should not be a determining factor for such a requirement and that
any requirement for distribution should apply to all State and local
government facilities. Very few commenters offered specific criteria
for determining the minimum size of a building to be included in such a
provision.
Response. ADAAG 4.3.2 (Accessible Route: Location) currently
requires that an accessible route connect public transportation stops,
parking, passenger loading zones, public streets and public sidewalks
to an accessible entrance and accessible spaces within a building.
ADAAG 4.6.2 (Parking and Passenger Loading Zones: Location) requires
that parking spaces be located closest to an accessible entrance.
Numerous variables must be considered when establishing a
distribution requirement. These variables include: the size of the
building, planned entrances on more than one side of the building, the
distance between accessible entrances, the distance from entrances to
exterior facilities, and the distance from entrances to interior
amenities and services. The provision for principal public entrances
may achieve distribution of accessible entrances around large buildings
with multiple entrances. Appendix language has been added recommending
that accessible entrances be included on each side of a facility where
entrances are planned.
4.1.3(16) Building Signage
Comment. The NPRM asked whether State and local government
facilities should be required to provide tactile or audible
directories, audible signs, or other wayfinding devices for persons
with vision impairments. Comment was sought on the types of facilities
that should provide such directories and signs. Additionally, cost
information and information about the reliability of currently
available technologies was sought. The majority of commenters supported
providing equal access to information about the accessible services,
activities and facilities for persons with vision impairments. However,
there was no clear consensus on the best means of achieving access.
Numerous commenters, including individuals with vision impairments and
sign manufacturers, considered tactile directories impractical.
Commenters noted that although audible directories and audible signs
for wayfinding may be viable options, there may be capital and
maintenance costs associated with this technology. Commenters raised
concerns regarding vandalism, maintenance, and updating temporary
information, as well as the time required to read tactile directories.
Very little cost data was received. Some manufacturers and researchers
responded that the technology for providing effective communication is
available and it has many applications such as listing stations in new
transportation facilities.
A majority of commenters suggested that alternatives to requiring
audible or tactile directories such as providing a fully staffed
information or security desk, a telephone in lieu of an accessible
directory, and a hand-held Braille directory should be included in the
guidelines. Commenters representing State and local governments, local
organizations representing people with disabilities, and design
professionals suggested that establishing a performance standard for
providing effective communication would provide greater flexibility. In
their view, a performance standard would permit a number of options to
be considered depending on the type, level of public access to, and use
of buildings and facilities.
Finally, a number of groups representing persons with vision
impairments suggested that no further requirements should be added.
They commented that merely asking directions was the most efficient and
convenient means of obtaining needed information for both blind and
sighted individuals.
Response. Although commenters favored various options which may
have the potential for providing effective communication, no provisions
for audible directories, audible signs or other wayfinding devices are
included at this time. The Department of Justice regulations
implementing title II of the ADA require State and local governments to
ensure that persons with vision impairments can obtain information
about the existence and location of accessible services, activities,
and facilities unless it can be demonstrated that such action would
result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program,
or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. See 28
CFR 35.163(a) and 28 CFR 35.164.
Comment. The NPRM asked about individuals' experiences with raised
and incised characters on tactile signs. An overwhelming majority of
commenters, including signage manufacturers, stated that raised
characters are more readable than incised characters and the guidelines
should not be revised to include a provision permitting incised
characters. Persons with vision impairments stated that incised
characters are very difficult to read.
The American Foundation for the Blind was concerned that changes to
the technical requirements for tactile signage were being contemplated
solely on the basis that raised characters, as opposed to incised, may
be more costly. In the view of designers, certain manufacturers, State
and local governments, and persons with vision impairments, the
technical requirements for tactile signage should be based on the
readability of signs. A commenter representing the engraving industry
encouraged the Board to sponsor further research to evaluate
appropriate technical specifications for incised characters.
The NPRM also asked questions regarding the impact of current ADAAG
requirements on engraving businesses that primarily manufacture
building signage. Comments from industry representatives indicated that
the technologies for producing tactile signs are readily available and
that the acquisition costs are not prohibitive, even for small to
medium-sized business. A number of manufacturers pointed out that they
could supplement or modify existing equipment to produce tactile signs
for $50 to $2000, and that minimal training was required. With respect
to the signs, one commenter estimated that the costs of certain custom
tactile signs with raised characters could equal or double the cost of
the same sign with incised characters. Building owners and design
professionals commented that signs with incised characters are more
difficult to maintain than signs with raised characters.
Response. Comments received confirm that incised characters are not
generally readable and therefore do not provide an acceptable level of
accessibility. Additionally, sign manufacturers indicated that they
incurred little financial hardship in retrofitting equipment to produce
raised rather than incised character signs. Although certain custom
signs may cost more, the cost of most signs with raised characters is
sufficiently comparable to the cost of signs with incised characters.
No change to the technical provisions for tactile signage have been
made.
Comment. The Department of Justice issued technical assistance
letters stating that the only signs subject to the tactile sign
requirements of ADAAG 4.1.3(16)(a) are room numbers, exit signs, and
signs designating men's and women's rooms and locker rooms containing
men's and women's rooms. In light of this interpretation, the NPRM
asked whether State and local government facilities should be required
to provide tactile signs when signs are provided which give information
about the function or use of a room or space. A few commenters
suggested that all building signs should be tactile to ensure
unassisted access to buildings and facilities. Many commenters
requested that a sign such as ``Courtroom'' also be required to be
tactile even when it does not include a room number. The Awards and
Recognition Association, which represents members of the engraving
industry, commented that a tactile room number, alone, is of little use
unless one has prior knowledge of the room's function. A number of
commenters stated that they interpreted ADAAG 4.1.3(16)(a) to require
that signs be tactile even if only a name or single character, such as
``A'', is the designation of a permanent room or space. In their view,
permanent rooms and spaces often are designated by names, in which
case, these signs are required to be tactile.
Other commenters urged that the scope of the tactile provisions not
be expanded to cover signs, or portions of signs, which provide
information about a room's function. They responded that information
about room function is ancillary to room designation, and therefore
should not be required to be tactile.
Comments from design professionals, trade associations, sign
manufacturers, and organizations representing persons with vision
impairments strongly urged that the signage requirements covering title
II and title III entities be the same.
Response. Commenters interpreted ADAAG to require tactile signs
even where permanent signs use only characters (names or letters) to
designate a permanent room or space. The current scoping language in
ADAAG 4.1.2(7) and 4.1.3(16)(a) require that those permanent rooms or
spaces that are designated by permanent signs comply with the technical
provisions in ADAAG 4.30.1 and 4.30.4 through 4.30.6 for raised and
Brailled characters, finish and contrast, and mounting height and
location. No changes have been made to the scoping requirements in this
section of ADAAG.
In response to the comments received in this rulemaking, the
Department of Justice has reconsidered its policy regarding tactile
signs, particularly whether to include room names in addition to room
numbers, exit signs, and signs designating men's and women's rooms and
locker rooms containing men's and women's rooms. Because the NPRM
addressed entities covered by title II, the Department of Justice plans
to include room names for title II facilities. The Department of
Justice will consider amending its title III policy to apply the
broader interpretation to title III facilities in the future.
4.1.3(17)(c) TTYs
ADAAG 4.1.3(17)(c) (ii) requires that in stadiums, arenas and
convention centers subject to title II of the ADA, at least one public
TTY shall be provided on each floor level having a public pay
telephone. ADAAG 4.1.3(17)(c)(iv) provides that if an interior public
pay telephone is provided in a public use area of a facility covered by
title II of the ADA, then at least one interior public TTY shall be
provided in at least one public use area. ADAAG 4.1.3(17)(c)(v)
requires that if an interior public pay telephone is provided in a
secured area of a detention or correctional facility, then at least one
public TTY shall be provided in at least one secured area. ADAAG
4.1.3(17)(d) provides that where a bank of telephones in the interior
of a building consists of three or more public pay telephones, at least
one public pay telephone in each such bank shall be equipped with a
shelf and outlet in compliance with ADAAG 4.31.9(2). This provision
contains an exception for the secured areas of detention or
correctional facilities where outlets are prohibited for purposes of
security or safety.
Comment. The NPRM proposed that at least one interior public TTY be
provided in the public areas of judicial, legislative and regulatory
facilities, and in detention and correctional facilities, if one
interior public pay telephone is available. The NPRM asked whether
these provisions were adequate to address the need for public TTYs in
these facilities. Information on the cost impact of these requirements
was also requested. A large number of commenters supported the proposed
provisions for TTYs in judicial, legislative and regulatory facilities
and in detention and correctional facilities. Several commenters
requested that each level of security in correctional and detention
facilities having a pay telephone, be equipped with a TTY. A few
commenters regarded the proposed provisions as too restrictive and
inflexible, citing high costs and problems such as TTY equipment being
used as weapons in secured areas. Numerous commenters stated that
portable TTYs should be permitted. Commenters noted that permanent pay
TTYs are now accessible, secure, and vandal resistant. Commenters
reported that the cost for portable and permanently installed pay TTYs
ranges from $239 to $995.
Several comments were received regarding ADAAG 4.1.3(17)(d) which
was referenced in the NPRM. ADAAG 4.1.3(17)(d) requires that interior
phone banks with three or more public pay telephones must have at least
one phone that is equipped with a shelf and outlet for use of a
portable TTY. The NPRM proposed to exempt secured areas in detention
and correctional facilities from the requirement for outlets and
shelves due to security reasons. A few commenters asked that the
exemption be limited to outlets but not to shelves, and two other
commenters requested that both an outlet and shelf be required to
accommodate portable TTYs.
Response. ADAAG 4.1.3(17)(c)(iv) requires that at least one public
TTY be provided in facilities subject to title II of the ADA where a
public pay telephone is provided in a public use area. The requirement
that at least one public TTY be provided in at least one secured area
in a detention or correctional facility has been retained.
ADAAG 4.31.9(3) includes a provision for equivalent facilitation
which permits the use of portable devices, in lieu of permanently
installed public TTYs, if the portable device is readily available to
users. This provision ensures equal access, and allows the entity
greater flexibility in selecting a secure and cost effective method of
providing access. The exemption for secured areas from the requirement
of shelves and outlets has been retained since a detached shelf and an
electrical outlet may be security hazards in detention and correctional
facilities.
Comment. The NPRM asked whether the existing scoping requirements
for TTYs in ADAAG 4.1.3(17)(c)(ii) which covers stadiums, arenas,
convention centers, hotels with a convention center and covered malls,
and ADAAG 4.1.3(17)(c)(iii) which covers emergency, recovery and
waiting rooms in hospitals, are sufficient with respect to TTYs in
State and local government facilities. Commenters generally supported
the existing ADAAG requirements for State and local government
facilities. Other commenters stated that the requirement would be
sufficient if a TTY is also required on each floor level that has
public pay telephones. A few commenters stated that ADAAG 4.1.3(17)(c)
(ii) and (iii) are too restrictive for State and local government
facilities. Commenters did not suggest any alternative scoping
requirements or provide justification data for alternative scoping. A
few commenters asked that the rule clarify whether stadiums, arenas,
convention centers, hotels with a convention center, covered malls,
areas serving a hospital emergency room, a hospital recovery room or a
hospital waiting room which are owned or operated by State or local
government entities are subject to the same requirements as the
facilities of private entities.
Response. ADAAG 4.1.3(17)(c)(ii) provides that stadiums, arenas,
convention centers, covered malls and hotels with a convention center
subject to title III of the ADA shall provide at least one public TTY
in the facility if a public pay telephone is provided. Where stadiums,
arenas, and convention centers are subject to title II of the ADA, at
least one public TTY on each floor level having a public pay telephone
shall be provided. ADAAG 4.1.3(17)(c)(iii) requires that if a public
pay telephone is provided at areas serving hospital emergency, recovery
or waiting rooms, then at least one public TTY shall be provided at
each such location. This requirement includes those facilities which
are subject to titles II or III of the ADA.
Comment. The NPRM asked whether there are other specific State and
local government buildings which should be required to have a public
TTY. The NPRM also asked whether all State and local government
facilities should be required to provide a public TTY if an interior
public pay telephone is available. Over half of the commenters
requested that public facilities be equipped with a public TTY whenever
a public pay telephone is available. Several commenters recommended
that each floor and/or pay phone location be equipped with a public
TTY. A few commenters requested that a public TTY be required in
schools, dormitories, student unions, libraries and State archives.
Many of these commenters expressed concern that there is a greater need
for telecommunication access in the public sector than in the private
sector because public entities are frequented on a daily basis by the
general public. Some of the commenters noted that public TTY technology
has recently improved and is now available at a much lower cost.
Commenters reported similar improvements for portable TTYs.
Response. Over half of the commenters requested that public TTYs be
provided in all State and local government facilities. Without a public
TTY, an individual with a hearing impairment or speech impairment,
would not be able to make the important calls others make from public
telephones in State and local government facilities. The intent of the
Americans with Disabilities Act is to provide the accessibility
necessary to enable every individual to be independent. For these
reasons, a requirement has been added to ADAAG at 4.1.3(17)(c)(iv) that
at least one interior public TTY be provided in a public use area of a
State or local government facility when an interior public telephone is
provided in a public use area of that facility.
Comment. The NPRM asked whether the scoping for public TTYs should
take into account the size of buildings or facilities. Some commenters
suggested that scoping be based on the size of the facility, but others
stated that scoping should take building occupancy, quantity and
dispersion of public telephones, or program accessibility into account.
The various suggestions included providing public TTYs at a ratio of 1
per 4 telephones, or one per each 1,000 building occupants, whichever
is greater; providing public TTYs at a ratio of 1 per 3 telephones; and
requiring at least 10 percent of all public telephones, but not less
than one to be equipped with a TTY. A number of commenters requested
that directional signage for public TTYs be required.
Response. Commenters' recommendations varied as to which factors
should be taken into account to determine scoping. Therefore, no
provisions based on building or facility size have been included.
Directional signage is required by ADAAG 4.30.7(3). Although commenters
recommended that scoping provisions be based on program access, the
guidelines do not address program access, but only new construction and
alterations of buildings and facilities.
4.1.3(22) Swimming Pools
This provision requires at least one means of access into the water
in swimming pools covered by title II of the ADA if such swimming pools
are intended for recreational purposes and are not intended solely for
diving or wading.
Comment. The NPRM asked whether guidelines should require access
into swimming pools subject to title II of the ADA. Also, the NPRM
asked whether there is a single means of access into swimming pools
that would be usable by a range of individuals with disabilities. If
such a single means does not exist, the NPRM asked whether more than
one means of access should be required.
A majority of the commenters stated that ADAAG should require
access into swimming pools subject to title II of the ADA. Local
jurisdictions and several States (Oregon, California, New Jersey, and
Massachusetts) indicated that they require access into swimming pools.
Other commenters supporting such a provision noted that the technology
for providing access into swimming pools is currently available and is
being used by individuals with disabilities.
Commenters varied greatly on what means of access into swimming
pools should be required. Most maintained that there is no single means
of access that meets the needs of a range of individuals with
disabilities. Some commenters recommended that swimming pools have
permanently-installed manual lifts, wide stairs, low risers, and
handrails. Other commenters recommended pool ramps and pool lifts,
stairs with raised transfer platforms, broad-stepped areas, zero-grade
entry, moveable floors, and raised pool copings with grab bars. While
some commenters favored requiring more than one means of access into a
swimming pool, others favored a provision requiring a single means of
access, but allowing for flexibility in determining the specific means.
Commenters from State and local governments along with groups
representing individuals with disabilities expressed the need to ensure
``independent'' access when requiring a means of access into the water.
Response. The majority of commenters supported the need to require
access into swimming pools. A provision has been added which requires
that a means of access be provided for those swimming pools subject to
title II of the ADA. This provision applies to pools which are intended
for recreational purposes and not designed solely for diving or wading.
This application is consistent with certain definitions contained in
ANSI-NSPI-1 1991 (American National Standard for Public Swimming Pools)
and therefore does not include diving and wading pools, spas, and
therapy tanks. These and other types of facilities will be considered
in future rulemaking.
While commenters addressed the need to ensure ``independent''
access into the water, this has not been included in the provision
since many of the currently available means of access cannot be used
independently by all persons with disabilities. For example, some pool
lifts must be operated by an attendant due to the location of controls
or because the lift is not permanently installed.
Specific technical provisions regarding the means of access are not
included. This will allow covered entities flexibility to determine
which means is most appropriate based on the specific design and use of
the swimming pool. Additionally, the Board has established a Recreation
Access Advisory Committee which will provide recommendations for the
development of accessibility guidelines for swimming pools, other
recreational facilities, and outdoor developed areas. The advisory
committee is evaluating various means of access into the different
types of swimming pools and aquatic facilities.
The Board will consider the advisory committee's recommendations
when it conducts a separate rulemaking in the future to address
recreational facilities. These future guidelines will apply to entities
covered by both titles II and III of the ADA and may specify a
particular means of access for each application. At this time, ADAAG
does not include a specific requirement for access into swimming pools
for entities covered under title III of the ADA. Entities covered by
title III, however, have an obligation to ensure ``equal opportunity''
for individuals with disabilities to participate in and benefit from
the services offered by places of public accommodation such as places
of recreation. With respect to newly constructed facilities, both the
ADA and the Department of Justice title III regulation require that
newly constructed facilities be ``readily accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities.'' That phrase means that a facility or a
portion of a facility must be constructed so that ``it can be
approached, entered, and used by individuals with disabilities . . .
easily and conveniently.'' When a particular type of facility is not
specifically addressed by the guidelines, the preamble to Department of
Justice title III regulation states that the language of section 36.401
(a) (i.e., ``readily accessible to and useable by individuals with
disabilities'') ``is the safest guide.'' (56 FR 35576, July 26, 1991).
The Department of Justice has taken the position that, in cases where
ADAAG does not contain requirements for a particular type of
facilities, ADAAG or other appropriate technical standards should be
applied to the extent possible.
4.1.6 Accessible Buildings: Alterations
4.1.6(1)(k) Elevator Exception
This paragraph states that the exception to the requirement for an
elevator in ADAAG 4.1.3(5) for newly constructed facilities also
applies to altered facilities. The existing language has been clarified
by adding a reference to ADAAG 4.1.3(5).
4.1.7 Accessible Buildings: Historic Preservation
4.1.7(1)(a) Exception
Comment. During the initial rulemaking for ADAAG, the Board
received comments recommending that an exception be established in
ADAAG 4.1.7(1)(a) where compliance with the alternative minimum
requirements in ADAAG 4.1.7(3) would threaten or destroy the
characteristics that qualify the building as a historic property. In
response to these comments, the Board stated that it would consult with
the National Park Service and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
on this issue and propose an exception in the next rulemaking.
Consequently, ADAAG 4.1.7(1)(a) was reserved for an exception. See 56
FR 35430 (July 26, 1991). However, the Department of Justice issued its
final regulations for titles II and III of the ADA which included
sections in each of those regulations on alterations to historic
properties. These regulations permitted alternative methods of access
to be provided where compliance with the alternative minimum
requirements in ADAAG 4.1.7(3) would threaten or destroy the historic
significance of a building or facility. See 28 CFR 35.151(d)(2) and 28
CFR 36.405(b). In effect, the Department of Justice regulations have
created exceptions. The NPRM proposed to incorporate these provisions
as an exception in ADAAG 4.1.7(1)(a).
Many commenters, including State historic preservation
organizations, supported this exception for certain historic properties
and its inclusion in ADAAG. Some commenters expressed concern that the
exception in proposed ADAAG 4.1.7(a) did not accurately reflect the
distinction between ``program access'' requirements for ``historic
programs'' in the Department of Justice title II regulations (see 28
CFR 35.150(b)(2)) and the alterations provisions for historic buildings
and facilities in ADAAG. In these commenters' view, the ``program
access'' requirements for ``historic programs'' in the Department of
Justice title II regulations is more stringent than the alteration
provisions for historic properties in ADAAG.
Response. The exception incorporated in ADAAG 4.1.7(1)(a) retains
the reference to the Department of Justice regulations but has been
clarified as applying to entities covered by title II and title III of
the ADA. The Department of Justice title II regulations also contain
requirements for ``program access'' to ``historic programs'' which are
in addition to ADAAG. No other change has been made to this provision.
7. Business, Mercantile and Civic
The word ``civic'' has been added to the title of this section to
clarify that this section applies to buildings and facilities or
portions thereof that are civic administration facilities such as
departments of motor vehicles, licensing bureaus, or social service
agencies. The Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS), as well
as certain model building codes, include this term under business
occupancy classifications.
7.2 Sales and Service Counters, Teller Windows, Information Counters
ADAAG 7.2(3) provides for access at sales and service counters,
teller windows and information counters for State and local government
facilities where goods or services are sold or distributed to the
public.
Comment. There was general support from a majority of commenters
for providing access to such counters. The NPRM asked questions
regarding the appropriateness of applying the examples of equivalent
facilitation contained in ADAAG 7.2.(2)(iii) to State and local
facilities. Those examples included a folding shelf or space on the
side of a counter in lieu of a lowered counter. Commenters were divided
on this issue. The commenters who favored including the examples viewed
the examples as effective alternatives for access to sales and service
counters, teller windows, and information counters. Some commenters
stated that a great deal of writing may be required at counters in some
State and local government facilities. For example, testing, licensing
and, applications for building permits require completing forms and
other paperwork. In these instances, commenters viewed a folding shelf
and certain other alternative means as not constituting equivalent
facilitation. Many commenters opposed including the examples for new
construction. They recommended they be applied only where alterations
are made to existing counters.
Response. Many commenters did not support including specific
examples of equivalent facilitation and no such examples have been
included for sales and service counters, teller windows and information
counters in State and local government facilities. While counters in
State and local government facilities may physically resemble those in
places of public accommodation and in commercial facilities, specific
examples of equivalent facilitation in 7.2.(3)(iii) have not been
included because activities at counters covered in this section may
require more writing or face-to-face contact with personnel on the
opposite side of the counter. However, it should be noted that ADAAG
2.2 provides an option for equivalent facilitation which applies to all
technical and scoping provisions including those in this section. A
folding shelf, in certain circumstances, may provide equal or greater
access while it will not in others. The reference to ADAAG 7.2(2) was
removed from proposed ADAAG 7.2(3) and the text was rewritten so as not
to include examples of equivalent facilitation.
Comment. The NPRM also proposed that where counters or teller
windows have solid partitions, a method for facilitating voice
communication such as a grille, talk-through baffle, or an intercom be
provided. The majority of commenters supported the provision and
regarded it necessary to facilitate voice communication at counters or
windows with solid partitions. The NPRM asked whether there were other
design solutions that could facilitate voice communication. Commenters
offered a number of options including portable or hardwired assistive
listening systems and TTYs for meeting this requirement.
Response. No substantive changes were made to ADAAG 7.2(3)(iii).
Language has been added to the appendix to clarify that where counters
are used only by persons in a seated position a method to facilitate
communication for standing persons is not necessary.
Comment. The NPRM asked whether there should be specific
requirements for mounting equipment that displays information. It
further asked whether an eye level range of 43 inches to 51 inches
would be sufficient in providing access for persons using wheelchairs
or mobility aids. Few commenters provided specific information
regarding the effect of a requirement for mounting equipment.
Response. Requirements for the mounting height of equipment have
not been included in the absence of supporting technical data.
10. Transportation Facilities
10.4 Airports
10.4.1 New Construction
10.4.1(8) Security Systems
This provision requires an accessible route complying with ADAAG
4.3 to be provided at each single security barrier or group of security
barriers (i.e., two or more security barriers, adjacent to each other,
at a single location) in airports covered by title II of the ADA.
Comment. Commenters from national, State, and local organizations
representing persons with disabilities supported the provision as
written. Airport operators and State governmental agencies also
generally supported the provision. One designer suggested that
providing an accessible route could increase cost, but did not provide
any cost information. One comment recommended that the provision cover
non-fixed security systems.
The NPRM sought comment on the availability of any technologies
which would accommodate more persons with disabilities and limit the
need for individual security searches. Commenters who responded to the
question supported the use of metal detector ``wands'' and hand
searches but did not have any information on alternative technologies.
An airport operator pointed out that the screening devices are
specifically designed to react to metal, such as might be found in
braces and wheelchairs; and that, if devices did not so react, it would
not be long before a terrorist pretended to be a person with a
disability to circumvent security.
Response. ADAAG contains design and construction requirements for
accessibility and does not cover equipment. This does not mean,
however, that portable or non-fixed equipment is not covered by the
ADA. Equipment and operational issues are covered by the Department of
Justice regulations implementing titles II and III (28 CFR Parts 35 and
36) and by the Department of Transportation regulations implementing
the Air Carrier Access Act (14 CFR Part 382). No changes were made to
this provision.
11. Judicial, Legislative and Regulatory Facilities
This section addresses those facilities where judicial,
legislative, and regulatory functions occur. Judicial facilities
consist of courthouses. Legislative facilities include town halls, city
council chambers, city or county commissioners' meeting rooms, and
State capitols. Typically, a State capitol would contain Senate and
House chambers if bicameral, or one chamber if unicameral; and
committee rooms, public meeting rooms, and other assembly areas.
Regulatory facilities are those which house State and local entities
whose functions include regulating, governing, or licensing activities.
For example, this section would address those rooms where school board
meetings, zoning appeals, and adjudicatory hearings (e.g., drivers
license suspensions) are held.
Comment. In the proposed rule, the Board discussed tradition and
the symbolic relationship of elements that pose unique design
challenges peculiar to courtrooms. In its comment, the Design Guide
Subcommittee of the U.S. Judicial Conference Committee on Space and
Facilities (Design Guide Subcommittee) added that there are other
factors involved, apart from symbolism, which give rise to the
requirements for the distinctive design features of courtrooms:
To understand properly courtroom design, and ultimately the
design of any structure devoted to court facilities, it is essential
to recognize that the judicial process in the United States courts
is purposefully adversarial and confrontational. * * *
It is the nature of controlled adversarial conduct used to find the
truth that dictates much of courtroom design. The judge's pre-eminent
physical position at trial, robed and on a raised bench in an imposing
high-ceilinged room, distanced from the other participants, is, indeed,
an aspect of symbolism. But these design features also are important
types of visual cues which significantly reinforce and enhance the
ability of the judge to deal effectively with the often emotional drama
played out in federal and State courts. Real life dramas involving the
lives, freedom, fortune, and fundamental rights of the litigants.
The practical need for the visual identification of the judge's
authority requires a deliberate use of space and scale for
psychological impact. This psychological element is extremely critical.
It is perhaps the major factor in aiding the judge to control the
activities of trial participants and spectators in the courtroom.
Response. The Board recognizes the symbolic and the psychological
elements in the courtroom as well as the fundamental right of all
citizens to participate equally in the legal process. The Board
believes that accessibility can be incorporated into the design of the
courtroom without adversely affecting the spatial, symbolic, or
psychological relationship between the participants.
Comment. Several organizations representing persons with vision
impairments requested that the Board develop guidelines for lighting
levels in public spaces. Other organizations representing persons with
hearing impairments requested that the Board develop guidelines for
acoustics.
Response. The Board acknowledges that lighting and acoustics are
important issues that affect the accessibility of all facilities, not
just those covered in this section, for persons with hearing and vision
impairments. Additional information is needed before the Board can
consider establishing guidelines in these areas.
11.1 Judicial, Legislative and Regulatory Facilities
This section is a scoping provision which applies all the
provisions of ADAAG 4 (Accessible Elements and Spaces: Scope and
Technical Requirements) for buildings and facilities to judicial,
legislative and regulatory facilities, in addition to the applicable
requirements of this section.
Comment. Few comments were received regarding this provision. One
commenter noted the lack of requirements in section 11 for visible
alarms. Another commenter noted the lack of requirements for counters
for the filing of deeds, wills or other public documents.
Response. This section is a scoping provision which applies all the
provisions of ADAAG 4 (Accessible Elements and Spaces: Scope and
Technical Requirements) for buildings and facilities to judicial,
legislative, and regulatory facilities, in addition to the applicable
requirements of this section. All public and common use areas would be
subject to the applicable requirements contained in section 4 and
examples of public and common use areas are given in appendix note
A11.1. Accordingly, the scoping provisions for visible alarms contained
in ADAAG 4.1.3(14) and the technical provisions contained in ADAAG 4.28
(Alarms) would apply. Likewise, the scoping and technical provisions
for counters referenced in ADAAG 7.2 (Sales and Service Counters,
Teller Windows, Information Counters) would apply.
11.2 Courtrooms, Hearing Rooms, and Chambers
ADAAG 11.2.1 requires that where doors or gates, jury boxes,
witness stands, fixed seating, speakers' rostrums, raised daises,
litigants', court reporters', and bailiffs' stations, and lecterns are
provided, each must be accessible and on an accessible route complying
with ADAAG 4.3 (Accessible Route). It allows judges' benches and
clerks' stations to be either accessible or adaptable. This provision
further requires that the accessible route to each element coincide
with the circulation path provided for all persons using the elements.
Comment. One commenter requested that the guidelines allow a
witness with a disability to enter the witness stand from a restricted
corridor outside the courtroom. Concern was raised that a jury,
watching a witness with a disability wheel up a ramp within the
courtroom, would not treat the witness in the same manner as a witness
without a disability.
Response. Since all witnesses enter the witness stand from the
courtroom, it would be inappropriate to require a witness with a
disability to access the witness stand from a restricted corridor. No
changes were made to this provision.
Comment. One commenter requested clarification on the requirement
that all elements except judges' benches and clerks' stations be on an
accessible route.
Response. As stated above, ADAAG 11.2.1 requires that where doors
or gates, jury boxes, witness stands, fixed seating, litigants', court
reporters', and bailiffs' stations, lecterns, speakers' rostrums and
raised daises are provided, each must be accessible and on an
accessible route complying with ADAAG 4.3 (Accessible Route). ADAAG
11.2.1(4) allows fixed judges' benches and clerks' stations to be
either accessible or adaptable. Language has been added at ADAAG 11.2.1
to clarify that fixed judges' benches, and clerks' stations are not
required to be on an accessible route if those elements are designed to
be adaptable. If those elements are designed to be adaptable, they are
not required to be on an accessible route until they are modified at a
later date. For example, in new construction, a judge's bench may be
designed with appropriate maneuvering clearances so that a ramp can
easily be provided at a later date. Therefore, the judge's bench is not
required to be on an accessible route until the ramp is installed.
11.2.1(1) Doors or Gates
This paragraph requires doors or gates designed to allow passage
into the well of the courtroom, the witness stand, the jury box, and
the speaker's rostrum and other areas to comply with ADAAG 4.13
(Doors). Few comments were received regarding this provision and no
changes were made to this section.
11.2.1(2) Jury Boxes and Witness Stands
This provision requires all jury boxes and witness stands to be
accessible and provide an unobstructed turning space complying with
ADAAG 4.2.3 (Wheelchair Turning Space). It further requires controls
and operating mechanisms where provided for use by the witness or juror
to be mounted at a maximum height of 48 inches and comply with 4.27.3
(Height) and 4.27.4 (Operation). It also contains an exception for
alterations where it is technically infeasible to provide a fixed means
of vertical access to the witness stand or jury box.
Comment. The NPRM sought comment on whether maneuvering space
should be required in the jury box, witness stand, judge's bench,
clerk's station, speaker's rostrum, raised dais, bailiff's station and
court reporter's station and the costs associated with such a
requirement. The majority of commenters supported a requirement for
maneuvering space in all areas. Included in these was the City of New
York who submitted architectural plans designed by the New York
Department of General Services showing how they have provided full
accessibility in new construction. A few commenters felt the
requirement for full maneuvering clearances was excessive. Other
commenters supported a requirement for maneuvering space only in public
areas (i.e., jury box, witness stand, litigant stations and spectator
area) and providing an exception for work stations which would be
covered under title I of the ADA. One architecture firm experienced in
designing judicial facilities, thought that requiring maneuvering space
would expand the well of the courtroom and result in reduced sight and
hearing intelligibility of the participants.
Response. As further discussed under 11.2.1(4), due to the
complexity of courtroom and legislative chamber design and the
difficulty of providing an accommodation which may require a structural
change, requiring maneuvering clearances will significantly increase
the accessibility and usability of the element and, in some cases,
facilitate a reasonable accommodation for an employee in the future.
The interim final rule contains a requirement for maneuvering
clearances complying with ADAAG 4.2.3. The provision requires that the
maneuvering space serve each area and allows either a 60 inch diameter
turning radius or a 60 inch by 60 inch T-shaped space for a pivoting
180-degree turn. For example, maneuvering space for the witness box may
be provided within the witness box or at a landing outside the witness
box.
Comment. The proposed rule required the wheelchair accessible space
in a jury box or witness stand comply with ADAAG 4.33.2 (Size of
Wheelchair Locations). One commenter questioned whether the 60 inch
depth illustrated for a side approach to a wheelchair accessible space
in an assembly area is appropriate to apply to the accessible space in
a jury box.
Response. ADAAG 4.33.2 references Figure 46 which illustrates
different clear floor space requirements depending on the direction of
approach to the wheelchair accessible space. If a forward or rear
approach is provided to the accessible space, the minimum depth of the
space is 48 inches. If a side approach is provided to the accessible
space, the minimum depth of the space is 60 inches. The extra depth for
a side approach is needed to accommodate the turn required to maneuver
into and out of the space. These clear floor space requirements apply
whether seating is in assembly areas, spectator seating in a courtroom,
a witness stand, jury box, or other similar areas.
Comment. One commenter suggested that portable lifts be included in
the exception.
Response. Language has been added in the exception to allow the use
of portable lifts complying with ADAAG 4.11 (Platform Lifts (Wheelchair
Lifts)) in alterations where it is technically infeasible to provide a
fixed means of vertical access. ADAAG 4.11 references ASME A17.1 Safety
Code for Elevators and Escalators, Part XX, 1990 to incorporate its
safety requirements for platform lifts (wheelchair lifts). The Board
recognizes that ASME A17.1 does not apply to portable equipment other
than portable escalators. However, in requiring portable lifts to
comply with this standard, a minimum level of safety will be ensured.
Furthermore, the applicable exception under 4.1.3(5) (Accessible
Buildings: New Construction) has been revised to permit the use of
platform lifts or wheelchair lifts to provide access to raised judges'
benches, clerks' stations, speakers' rostrums, raised daises, jury
boxes and witness stands.
Comment. The Design Guide Subcommittee recommended that the witness
box be exempt from the requirements for accessibility as accommodations
could be made on an as needed basis through such alternatives as a
portable witness box, portable lift or ramp. The commenter further
stated that, at the discretion of the presiding judge, any witness may
testify from the well of the courtroom as opposed to within the defined
area of the witness box. The commenter felt that an alternative
location does not inherently carry an implication of non-accommodation.
Response. A fixed means of vertical access to the witness stand via
ramp or lift can easily be provided in new construction without
adversely affecting the spatial or psychological relationship between
the participants. In alterations, the provision allows the use of a
portable ramp or portable lift where it is technically infeasible to
provide a fixed means of vertical access to the witness stand or jury
box as long as jurors or witnesses with disabilities are inside the
defined area of the jury box or witness stand. The provision does not
prohibit the use of portable witness boxes. However, if portable
witness boxes are used, they should be used by all witnesses, not just
those with disabilities.
Comment. With respect to the exception for alterations to jury
boxes and witness stands, one commenter questioned how clear floor
space can be provided in alterations for a portable ramp and yet be
technically infeasible to provide a permanently installed ramp. Other
commenters requested that the technical specifications for portable
ramps be clarified.
Response. In altering existing courtrooms it may be technically
infeasible to provide a fixed means of vertical access to the jury box
or witness stand. For example, if providing a permanent ramp to a
witness stand would result in reducing seating needed to meet the
minimum legal requirements for jurors in a criminal case, only clear
floor space to accommodate a portable ramp would be required. In the
above example, the clear floor space provided for the portable ramp may
result in the ramp projecting into the well of the courtroom. It may be
inconvenient and, in some cases, hazardous to have a permanently
installed ramp project into the well of the courtroom at all times. In
allowing the exemption in alterations, the interim final rule is
accommodating structural conditions while ensuring that accessibility
is provided. Portable ramps stored under the witness box is one
solution for alterations as long as such ramps meet all the technical
specifications in ADAAG 4.8 (Ramps).
All ramps, whether portable or permanently installed, are required
to meet the technical specifications in ADAAG 4.8 (Ramps). However, in
existing buildings or facilities where space limitations prohibit the
use of a 1:12 slope, ADAAG 4.1.6(2)(a) (Accessible Buildings:
Alterations) does allow a slope between 1:10 and 1:12 for a maximum
rise of 6 inches and a slope between 1:8 and 1:10 for a maximum rise of
3 inches. This provision has been clarified by referencing ADAAG 4.8
(Ramps).
Comment. One commenter stated that control of the microphone is
maintained by the judge or other court employees and that the reference
to ADAAG 4.27.3 (Height) and 4.27.4 (Operation) should be eliminated.
Response. The provision has been clarified to require controls and
operating mechanisms to comply with ADAAG 4.27.3 (Height) and 4.27.4
(Operation) where provided for use by the witness or juror.
11.2.1(3) Spectator, Press and Other Areas with Fixed Seats
This provision specifies the number of wheelchair spaces required
where spectator, press, or other areas with fixed seats are provided.
Where spectator seating capacity exceeds 50 and is located on one level
that is not sloped or tiered, the accessible spaces must be provided in
more than one seating row.
Comment. A number of commenters from organizations representing
individuals with disabilities felt that spectator seating areas should
be required to have dispersed seats regardless of the number of seats.
Response. ADAAG 4.1.3(19)(a) (Assembly Areas) requires two
wheelchair spaces where the seating capacity is 26-50 but does not
require dispersal. The interim final rule does not require dispersal
where only two accessible spaces are provided to allow persons with
disabilities to sit next to each other. No changes were made to this
provision.
11.2.1(4) Fixed Judges' Benches, Clerks' Stations, Speakers' Rostrums,
and Raised Daises
This provision requires that fixed judges' benches, and clerks'
stations be either accessible or adaptable and clear floor space for a
forward position be provided at each space. As discussed in 11.2.1(2),
a requirement for maneuvering clearances has been added.
Comment. Several commenters were concerned about the feasibility of
providing a front approach to the judge's bench, and clerks' stations,
and requested clarification of the requirement.
Response. The circulation route to the judge's bench and clerks'
stations will either be from a restricted corridor behind the courtroom
or from the side of these work areas. The requirement for clear floor
space for a front approach does not refer to the circulation route to
these areas. However, clear floor space must be provided within each
work area to allow a person using a wheelchair to position themselves
at the work station in a forward position. The interim final rule
clarifies the location of the clear floor space requirement for a front
approach.
Comment. Several commenters requested clarification of whether all
or only a percentage of judges' benches are required to be adaptable.
Other commenters recommended a requirement for 100 percent accessible
judges' benches in new construction as required by the State of
California. Commenters stated that once a design is proposed for
providing adequate space for full accessibility, there is no reason to
require adaptability. Several commenters requested that the provision
should provide examples of adaptability and require the purchase of
lifts or ramps for future installation to ensure that it is not an
undue burden to make judges' benches fully accessible at a later date.
Response. The legislative history of the ADA states that areas used
only by employees as work areas are covered by the guidelines, but
individual work stations are not required to be constructed in a fully
accessible manner. H. Rept. 101-485, pt. 3, at 63. The requirement for
adaptability for judges' benches and other work areas is consistent
with the legislative history and ADAAG 4.1.1(3) (Areas Used Only by
Employees as Work Areas) which requires areas used only by employees as
work areas be designed and constructed so that individuals with
disabilities can approach, enter, and exit the area. This provision
requires all judges' benches and clerks' stations to be either
accessible or adaptable and describes how adaptability is applied to
these areas. Adaptability means that maneuvering clearances and other
features (e.g., fixed controls) shall be designed into the space so
that accessibility can easily be provided at a later date. For example,
an adaptable judge's bench which is designed for a future installation
of a ramp or lift would have the required maneuvering clearances to
approach, enter, and exit the ramp or lift, to maneuver at the bench
(e.g., knee clearance), and to reach any fixed controls (e.g., alarm
buttons) already designed into the space. If adaptability is provided,
the installation of a ramp or lift at a later date should not require
any additional structural modifications and therefore should not be an
undue burden. An appendix note further recommends that equipment such
as a ramp be available so that accessibility can be accomplished to at
least one judge's bench and clerk's station to accommodate court
proceedings. Unlike typical office work stations, judges' benches and
clerks' stations are typically elevated 6 inches to 21 inches. Due to
the complexity of courtroom and legislative chamber design and the
difficulty of accommodating subsequent physical change, the Board
believes that requiring either accessible or adaptable judges' benches
and clerks' stations will significantly facilitate a reasonable
accommodation for an employee in the future.
Comment. One commenter requested clarification that where doors or
gates are provided at a lift, maneuvering space is required by ADAAG
4.13 (Doors), and controls and operating mechanisms must comply with
the reach ranges in 4.2 (Space Allowance and Reach Ranges).
Response. As previously discussed, ADAAG 11.2.1(1) requires doors
or gates designed to allow passage into the well of the courtroom, the
witness stand, the jury box, and the speaker's rostrum and other areas
to comply with ADAAG 4.13 (Doors). Gates provided at lifts must also
comply with the applicable provisions of ADAAG 4.13 (Doors). Additional
maneuvering clearances may need to be provided to ensure that the lift
is accessible and usable by persons with disabilities. For example,
many persons using wheelchairs entering and exiting a platform lift in
one direction can be accommodated on a minimum 30 inch by 48 inch lift.
However, if a person is required to make a 90 degree turn either
entering or exiting the platform lift, additional maneuvering
clearances at the lift gate, and an increase in the platform size will
need to be provided. Applying the minimum maneuvering clearances at
doorways and gates illustrated in Figures 25 and 26 show that the
required clear floor space depends on whether the lift door can be
approached straight on or at right angles, and whether the door has
both a latch and a closer. For a direct approach, straight through the
lift, Figure 26 shows that a lift platform with a minimum clear space
of 48 inches in the direction of travel is required. If a right angle
turn must be made on the platform to exit, Figure 25(b) shows that a
minimum clear width of 54 inches perpendicular to the direction of
approach is needed to accommodate the turn. However, these minimum
clearances only illustrate the clearances needed to operate the gate
from a front approach, assuming the gate has an operating mechanism. A
front approach is preferred but would not necessarily be required at
lift doors that automatically unlatch, since they do not have operating
mechanisms. However, the referenced clearances above do not take into
account the difficulty of making a 90 degree turn while backing out of
the lift, a particularly difficult maneuver for a person who uses a
motorized wheelchair. Ideally, the platform lift should allow
sufficient space for a person to make a 360 degree turn in order to
approach the gate from a forward position. Widening the gates to
provide a 36 inch to 42 inch clear width will provide additional
maneuvering clearance.
Comment. One commenter thought that providing accessible judges'
benches might ``significantly alter the nature or design of the
facility'' and therefore should be exempt.
Response. Several commenters provided architectural plans
illustrating fully accessible courtrooms. Accessible judges' benches do
not significantly alter the nature or design of the facility. No
changes were made to this provision.
Comment. One commenter preferred the T-shaped space for 180 degree
turns rather than the 60 inch diameter turning radius.
Response. This provision references maneuvering clearances
complying with ADAAG 4.2.3 (Wheelchair Turning Space) which allows
either a 60 inch diameter turning radius or a 60 inch by 60 inch T-
shaped space for a pivoting 180-degree turn.
11.2.1(5) Fixed Bailiffs' Stations, Court Reporters' Stations,
Litigants' and Counsel Stations
This provision specifies the minimum clear floor space, table
height, and knee clearance requirements for fixed or built-in stations
including tables for bailiffs', court reporters', litigants' and
counsel stations.
Comment. One commenter questioned whether the requirement applied
to counsel tables.
Response. Counsel stations were included in the proposed rule by
use of the term litigants' stations. The provision has been clarified
to specifically reference counsel tables.
11.2.1(6) Fixed Lecterns
This provision requires fixed lecterns to provide adjustable
heights. At least one height shall be between 28 inches to 34 inches
above the floor and have knee clearance to accommodate litigants and
speakers who use wheelchairs.
Comment. One commenter requested clarification on whether portable
lecterns can be provided in addition to fixed lecterns in new
construction.
Response. The provision does not prohibit the use of portable
lecterns. However, if portable lecterns are used, they should be used
by all persons, not just those with disabilities. Therefore, there
would be no need for an additional fixed lectern. No changes were made
to this provision.
11.2.1(7) Fixed Speakers' Rostrums and Daises
This provision requires fixed speakers' rostrums and at least one
fixed dais to be accessible and comply with ADAAG 4.32 (Fixed or Built-
in Seating and Tables). An unobstructed turning radius and clear floor
space for a forward position must be provided serving each area.
Comment. The proposed rule required that fixed speakers' rostrums
and at least one dais be adaptable. One commenter questioned why
speaker's rostrums are not considered common use areas and required to
be fully accessible.
Response. Fixed daises and speakers' rostrums are commonly provided
in legislative meeting rooms in a State capitol building, city council
chambers and other city and county commission meeting rooms. Such
meeting rooms may be made available for use by the public or guests may
be invited to address the assembly. In such cases, the speaker's
rostrum or raised daises would not be an area used only by employees as
a work area. Consequently, the proposed requirement at 11.2.1(4) for
adaptable speakers' rostrums and raised daises was deleted and a new
provision has been added at ADAAG 11.2.1(7) requiring fixed daises and
speakers' rostrums to be accessible.
11.3 Jury Assembly Areas and Jury Deliberation Areas
This provision requires that all jury assembly areas and jury
deliberation rooms be accessible. No comments were received on this
provision and no changes were made.
11.4 Courthouse Holding Facilities
This section applies a scoping requirement to courthouse holding
facilities including central holding cells and court-floor holding
cells serving courtrooms. Language has been added to clarify that at
least one cell must be accessible where central-holding cells are not
separated by age or sex.
11.4.2 Requirements for Accessible Cells
This section contains the minimum requirements for accessible
cells.
11.4.2(1) Doors and Doorways
Paragraph (1) requires that doors to accessible spaces on an
accessible route comply with ADAAG 4.1.3(7) (Doors). However, doors to
accessible spaces and on an accessible route are exempt from the
requirements pertaining to 4.13.6 (Maneuvering Clearances), 4.13.9
(Door Hardware), 4.13.10 (Door Closers), 4.13.11 (Door Opening Force)
and 4.13.12 (Automatic Doors and Power-Assisted Doors).
Comment. Several correctional officials and design professionals
indicated that design requirements may necessitate use of 300 to 500
pound doors. Such doors cannot meet the specification for closing and
opening forces in ADAAG 4.13.10 (Door Closers) and 4.13.11 (Door
Opening Force) without, at a minimum, power-assist devices.
Response. In the interim final rule, a reference to the
specifications for door closers (ADAAG 4.13.10) has been added in the
exception at ADAAG 11.4.2(1) (Doors and Doorways).
11.4.2(2) Restrooms
Paragraph (2) requires toilet facilities to comply with ADAAG 4.22
(Toilet Rooms) and bathing facilities to comply with ADAAG 4.23
(Bathrooms, Bathing Facilities, and Shower Rooms).
Comment. The NPRM sought comment on grab bar design, security
concerns, and the potential for suicides in holding cells and detention
and correctional facilities. A majority of the commenters indicated
that grab bars in accessible cells do not pose any more of a suicide or
security risk than other cell features such as cell grills, bed frames
and air circulation vents. The Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement
and Criminal Justice stated that:
Effective suicide prevention is not accomplished solely by
rendering a cell protrusion-free. A jail's physical plant cannot be
designed, constructed or altered to ensure it is ``suicide-proof''.
Effective suicide prevention is a function of screening at
admission, appropriate classification, adequate staff training and
vigilant staff supervision as well as physical plant design.
None of the commenters cited a specific case in which an inmate
used a grab bar to commit suicide. However, at least one commenter
stated that this could be a result of the under-reporting of jail
suicides throughout the country and the fact that grab bars are not yet
predominantly provided. Several commenters were less concerned about
persons with disabilities misusing the grab bars than other detainees
or inmates who, due to overcrowding, could be occupying the accessible
cells. Most commenters felt grab bars can be designed and installed in
new construction without posing a security risk. Commenters provided
several examples such as designing an infill welded plate to close the
gap between the grab bar and wall and using ``embeds with welded
connections or embeds with security screws.'' The latter method would
allow the removal of the grab bars when a person with a disability was
not using the cell. One commenter further suggested that where an
infill welded plate is used, the outside diameter should be enlarged to
two inches to compensate for the inability to totally wrap one's
fingers around the bar's surface. Several commenters added that
clustering the accessible cells would enhance the ability to
effectively monitor detainees and inmates and further minimize security
risks. Other suggestions included limiting the accessible cells only to
detainees or inmates with disabilities; locating the accessible cell in
the infirmary or other health care unit; or requiring grab bars only in
institutions with sentenced inmates where behavior is more predictable.
Response. Based on the responses to this provision, grab bars can
be properly designed and installed in new construction without posing a
security risk. No changes were made to this provision.
Comment. Several commenters suggested that an exemption be provided
for alterations. One commenter stated that the use of steel embeds is
structurally impracticable insofar as the installation of embeds would
require reconstruction of the entire wall into which the embed was
installed. The commenter further stated that a grab bar could be welded
to a steel plate bolted through an existing wall to another steel plate
on the back of the wall. However, several factors would determine the
feasibility of this solution including whether the back of the wall is
available to hold a steel plate as well as the type of existing wall
upon which the steel plate is installed.
Response. If compliance with alterations requirements is
technically infeasible, ADAAG 4.1.6(1)(j) requires that the alteration
provide accessibility to the maximum extent feasible. Technically
infeasible means, with respect to an alteration of a building or a
facility, that it has little likelihood of being accomplished because
existing structural conditions would require removing or altering a
load-bearing member which is an essential part of the structural frame;
or because other existing physical or site constraints prohibit
modification or addition of elements, spaces, or features which are in
full and strict compliance with the minimum requirements for new
construction and which are necessary to provide accessibility. Any
elements or features of the building or facility that are being altered
and can be made accessible are required to be made accessible within
the scope of the alteration. There may be circumstances in an
alteration to holding cells where grab bars cannot be securely attached
to meet security requirements due to structural conditions in an
existing wall. In such cases, the installation of grab bars would not
be required because it would be technically infeasible.
Comment. Several combination stainless steel water closet and
lavatory units are available that cannot incorporate a 36 inch grab bar
behind the water closet. The NPRM asked whether standard combination
units are available which meet the requirements of the proposed
guidelines and whether combination units are required to the exclusion
of separate fixtures by any State, local or other codes. Manufacturers
acknowledged that the standard design of combination units, including
those otherwise considered accessible by the industry, do not fully
meet ADAAG specifications. One commenter stated that combination units
are preferred because only one wall opening is required for plumbing
connections, rather than two wall openings if separate fixtures are
provided. Another commenter added that a typical cell design provides a
single plumbing chase which will serve two cells. These chases are
built on an angle in order to maximize the space available and can
easily accommodate a combination unit. One manufacturer stated that
although the combination unit does not fully comply with the proposed
guidelines, the design of combination units provides maximum strength
and security within the practical limits of manufacturing. The
commenter was concerned that lengthening the combination unit to
accommodate a 36 inch long grab bar would make the unit less able to
withstand the stresses it may be subjected to through vandalism. The
commenter further noted that a shorter grab bar can be provided.
Several correctional agencies commented that combination units are used
primarily because they require less space than separate fixtures. The
only source identified as actually requiring combination units was
Virginia's ``Guide of Minimum Standards in Design and Construction of
Jail Facilities'' which requires such units in maximum security cells.
A few commenters took the position that if combination units are not
accessible, then separate fixtures should be required. A number of
commenters recommended that an exception be provided for a reduced grab
bar length in alterations to mitigate the structural and plumbing chase
modifications required in making the cell accessible.
Response. Comments indicated that although the use of combination
units are preferred for space efficiency and security and required by
at least one State's guidelines for jail facilities, they are not
mandatory. An exception for the length of the rear grab bar on
combination units has not been provided in new construction or
alterations since separate, accessible lavatories and toilets are
readily available.
In an alteration to toilet and lavatory fixtures, ADAAG 4.1.6(1)(b)
requires that accessible fixtures be provided in compliance with the
applicable provisions for new construction. However, as described
above, if compliance with the alteration requirements is technically
infeasible, ADAAG 4.1.6(1)(j) requires that the alteration provide
accessibility to the maximum extent feasible. For example, if providing
separate accessible fixtures would necessitate combining two cells to
create one accessible cell or where the existing plumbing chase
construction would preclude recessing connections for separate
fixtures, combination units may be utilized. ADAAG 4.1.6(1)(j) still
requires that the alteration provide accessibility to the maximum
extent feasible. Therefore, the combination unit that most closely
complies with the technical provisions for toilets and lavatories
should be provided.
11.4.2(3) Beds
11.4.2(4) Drinking Fountains and Water Coolers
11.4.2(5) Fixed or Built-in Seating and Tables
ADAAG 11.4.2(3) requires that accessible clear floor space be
provided on one side of beds. ADAAG 11.4.2(4) requires drinking
fountains and water coolers serving accessible cells to be accessible
to individuals who use wheelchairs and those who have difficulty
bending or stooping. ADAAG 11.4.2(5) requires fixed or built-in seating
to be accessible. No comments were received regarding these provisions
and no changes were made.
11.4.2(6) Fixed Benches
This provision requires that fixed benches be mounted between 17
inches and 19 inches above the finish floor and meet minimum structural
requirements.
Comment. The proposed rule required that fixed benches be a minimum
of 24 inches by 48 inches. One commenter noted that benches with
excessive depth force a slouched posture, and place an uncomfortable
pressure on the backs of the knees. The commenter further stated that
commercial benches are typically 18 to 21 inches deep.
Response. The Board agrees with the commenter and recognizes that
the proposed dimensions were derived from specifications for dressing
room benches in ADAAG 4.35 (Dressing and Fitting Rooms) which take into
account the use of benches for dressing and undressing. Since benches
in holding cells are not specifically intended for this purpose, the
proposed requirement for a minimum size has been deleted. The interim
final rule has retained the requirements for mounting height and
structural strength.
11.4.3 Visiting Areas
This section requires that where fixed cubicles are provided, at
least 5 percent, but not less than one, must have the maximum counter
height and knee clearance underneath as required by ADAAG 4.32 (Fixed
or Built-in Seating or Tables) on both the public and detainee sides.
It also requires a method to facilitate voice communication if solid
partitions or security glazing separates visitors from detainees.
Comment. The NPRM asked whether at least one cubicle should be
accessible on both sides to accommodate those situations where both the
detainee and visitor require accessible features. The majority of
commenters supported a requirement that at least one cubicle be
accessible on both sides. Several commenters from organizations
representing persons with disabilities proposed that all cubicles be
accessible. One commenter felt accommodations should be mandated, but
discretion should be given to the facility to design the best remedy.
Response. The Board agrees with the majority of the commenters.
This provision has been changed to require that at least one cubicle be
accessible on both sides.
Comment. One commenter thought the scoping of 5 percent was
excessive considering most visiting areas use non-fixed tables and
chairs and that the percentage of the inmate population that have
disabilities is low.
Response. The scoping and technical specification is consistent
with ADAAG 4.1.3(18) (Fixed or Built-in Seating) which requires that 5
percent, but not less than one, of the built-in seating areas or tables
and counters in public and common use areas have a maximum height of 34
inches and knee clearance underneath. A visiting area would have to
have twenty built-in cubicles to trigger a second accessible cubicle.
No changes were made to this scoping provision.
Comment. One commenter recommended that the reference to ``safety
glass'' be substituted with ``safety glazing''.
Response. The interim final rule has been modified to reference
``security glazing''. The change in terminology is more inclusive and
includes, but is not limited to, glass, safety glass, and
polycarbonate.
Comment. The proposed rule required that the accessible cubicle be
identified on each side by the international symbol of accessibility.
Several commenters were concerned about vandalism and pointed out that
such signage was unnecessary as visitors and detainees are escorted to
the cubicle area.
Response. The Board agrees with the concern raised by the
commenters. The requirement for signage identifying the accessible
cubicle has been deleted in the interim final rule.
11.5 Restricted and Secured Entrances
This provision requires that, where provided, at least one
restricted and at least one secured entrance be accessible. Restricted
entrances differ from public entrances in that they are used by judges,
court personnel and other authorized parties, such as jurors, on a
controlled basis. Secured entrances are used by detainees and detention
officers.
Comment. The NPRM sought comment on the cost impact of requiring at
least one restricted entrance and at least one secured entrance to be
accessible. The majority of commenters considered the cost negligible.
One commenter stated that cost was not relevant as separate entrances
are a mandatory program requirement. Two commenters recommended that
all secured entrances be accessible. Several correctional officials and
design professionals indicated that design requirements may necessitate
use of 300 to 500 pound doors. Such doors cannot meet the specification
for closing and opening forces in ADAAG 4.13.10 (Door Closers) and
4.13.11 (Door Opening Force) without, at a minimum, power-assist
devices.
Response. The NPRM included an exception at 11.6 for doors on an
accessible route through fixed security barriers. Under this exception,
doors operated only by security personnel were exempt from the
requirements for maneuvering clearance at doors (4.13.6), accessible
door hardware (4.13.9), opening forces (4.13.11), and specifications
for automatic doors (4.13.12) if provided. This exception has been
moved to ADAAG 11.5 (Restricted and Secured Entrances) to apply to
secured entrances. In addition, a reference to the requirements for
door closers (4.13.10) has been added to the exception.
Comment. In the NPRM, at least one restricted and secured entrance
was required to be accessible according to ADAAG 4.14 (Entrances).
ADAAG 4.14.1 requires, in part, that accessible entrances ``shall be
connected by an accessible route to public transportation stops, to
accessible parking and passenger loading zones, and to public streets
or sidewalks if available * * *'' One comment indicated that entrances
used by inmates or detainees and not the public should not be required
to be connected by an accessible route to such elements since inmates
usually arrive from system-operated vehicles and not from public
transportation stops, parking spaces, or public streets and sidewalks.
Response. ADAAG 4.14 requires accessible entrances to be connected
by an accessible route to public transportation stops, accessible
parking, passenger loading zones and public streets or sidewalks if
available. The interim final rule contains an exemption at secured
entrances for a connecting accessible route to public transportation
stops, parking spaces, or public streets and sidewalks but not
passenger loading zones. An example of a passenger loading zone at a
secured entrance would be where detainees arrive or depart from a
system-operated vehicle. The provision clarifies that such passenger
loading zones, where provided, must comply with ADAAG 4.6.6 (Passenger
Loading Zones).
11.6 Security Systems
This provision requires an accessible route complying with 4.3
(Accessible Route) to be provided through fixed security barriers at
required accessible entrances. Where security barriers incorporate
equipment such as metal detectors, fluoroscopes, or other similar
devices which cannot be made accessible, an accessible route is
required adjacent to such security screening devices to facilitate an
equivalent path of travel. Few comments were received regarding this
provision and no changes were made.
The interim final rule has been clarified to require an accessible
route through fixed security barriers at required accessible entrances.
Where additional accessible entrances with security systems are
provided, it is recommended that an accessible route be provided
through those security systems as well. As discussed under section 11.5
(Restricted and Secured Entrances) the exception for doors and doorways
has been moved to section 11.5.
11.7 Two-way Communication Systems
This provision requires that where a two-way communication system
is provided to gain admittance to a facility or to restricted areas
within the facility, the system shall provide both visible and audible
signals and shall comply with 4.27 (Controls and Operating Mechanisms).
Few comments were received regarding this provision and no changes were
made.
11.8 Electrical Outlets, Wiring and Conduit
This provision requires that electrical outlets and appropriate
wiring, conduit, or raceways be provided in specific areas to support
communication equipment for persons with disabilities. State and local
codes may contain provisions for the number and general placement of
convenience outlets. This provision would require additional outlets to
accommodate specific use requirements for communication access.
Examples of current technology which assists persons with hearing
impairments include assistive listening systems, or computer assisted
real-time transcription. Examples of current technology which assists
persons with vision impairments includes computerized reading devices
with braille or magnification capability or closed circuit television
reading or viewing devices. Where State and local codes specifically
require outlets to support communication equipment, this provision
would be satisfied if such outlets are provided in the specific
locations required by this provision.
Comment. The NPRM sought comment on the cost of providing wiring,
conduit or raceways in new construction. Several commenters considered
the cost minimal in new construction. The majority of commenters
supported the provision. A few comments from individuals with
disabilities and their organizations recommended including spectator
areas, bailiffs' stations, speakers' rostrums, raised daises and all
meeting rooms, not just those designated for public use, to the
provision. Other commenters questioned the need for this provision as
future technology may utilize infrared/wireless or fiber optics.
Response. Language has been added to this provision to include
spectator areas. While technology such as infrared/wireless or fiber
optics is rapidly developing, it is not yet readily available. However,
this provision would not prohibit the use of technology utilizing
infrared, wireless or fiber optics when it is readily available.
Comment. One commenter requested clarification on whether the
recommendations for duplex outlets in the U.S. Courts Design Guide
satisfies the ADAAG requirements in section 11.8 (Electrical Outlets,
Wiring and Conduit).
Response. The U.S. Courts Design Guide recommends that adequate
power outlets be provided to support a wide variety of automated and
regular office equipment. This provision specifically requires
electrical outlets to support communication equipment for persons with
disabilities.
Comment. One commenter requested that persons with speech/language
disabilities be mentioned as benefiting from this provision as
augmentative or alternative communication devices may need recharging.
Response. The Board agrees with the commenter that persons other
than those with hearing and vision impairments will benefit from this
provision. The interim final rule deletes the specific reference to
persons with hearing and vision impairments.
11.9 Permanently Installed Assistive Listening Systems
This section requires certain areas in judicial, legislative and
regulatory facilities to have a permanently installed assistive
listening system.
Comment. The NPRM asked whether the proposed requirement for 50
percent permanently installed assistive listening systems met the needs
of persons with hearing impairments and on the costs associated with
providing permanently installed assistive listening systems. One
commenter requested clarification that the other 50 percent must be
accessible with portable assistive listening systems. Several
commenters recommended a requirement for 100 percent permanently
installed assistive listening systems. These commenters cited
operational problems such as scheduling and the inability of staff to
locate and set up portable systems. Other commenters preferred portable
systems because they believe them to be more flexible, cost effective
and easier to replace as technology evolves. Other commenters were
concerned that other methods to facilitate communication would not be
provided.
Response. The guidelines facilitate greater flexibility in the
types of assistive listening devices a facility may offer by requiring
50 percent permanently installed assistive listening systems and
requiring electrical outlets in 11.8 (Electrical Outlets, Wiring, and
Conduit for Communication Systems) and allowing the remaining 50
percent of the rooms to utilize portable devices. The provisions for
permanently installed assistive listening systems in this section and
for electrical outlets, wiring, and conduit in ADAAG 11.8 is intended
to enable a facility to maximize its choices in selecting the most
effective method of assistive communication equipment to accommodate
persons with disabilities. However, the requirement for 50 percent
permanently installed assistive listening systems should not be
interpreted as the only method of communication a facility is required
to provide. For example, computer-aided transcription might be a more
appropriate auxiliary aid for a person who is deaf or has a severe
hearing loss. The Department of Justice regulations implementing title
II of the ADA require public entities to take such steps as may be
necessary to ensure effective communication for individuals with
hearing impairments, unless it would result in a fundamental alteration
in the nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial
and administrative burdens. (28 CFR 35.160(a) and 28 CFR 35.164). No
changes were made in the interim final rule.
Comment. One commenter suggested that language be added to ensure
that 50 percent of each type of hearing room designated for public use
in regulatory facilities be required to have a permanently installed
assistive listening system. The commenter thought that different
departments such as zoning or motor vehicles may have their own hearing
room. One commenter suggested that mediation rooms be required to have
a permanently installed assistive listening system. Several commenters
recommended a requirement for assistive listening systems with two
channel receiver units to allow a second channel to be used for real
time video description for persons with vision impairments.
Response. Different departments in regulatory facilities may have
their own hearing rooms. If the interim final rule required 50 percent
of each type of hearing room designated for public use in regulatory
facilities to have a permanently installed assistive listening system,
it may result in 100 percent coverage. For reasons cited above, the
interim final rule allows some degree of flexibility in accommodating
persons with hearing impairments. Mediation rooms would be covered
under the requirement for hearing rooms. A hearing room or mediation
room is a room where deliberation occurs.
In most instances, court proceedings are primarily verbal. However,
in those instances where an accommodation needs to be provided to both
a person with a hearing impairment and a person with a vision
impairment, an additional portable system can be provided.
Comment. One commenter requested clarification on what type of
alteration in judicial facilities would trigger a permanently installed
assistive listening system.
Response. If existing elements, spaces, or common areas are
altered, ADAAG 4.1.6(b) requires that each such altered element, space,
feature, or area meet the new construction requirements. For example,
an alteration replacing the public announcement system in a courtroom
would require the installation of an assistive listening system. An
alteration limited to replacing the judge's bench would not trigger the
requirement for a permanently installed assistive listening system.
However, if alterations of single elements, when considered together,
amount to an alteration of a room or space in a building or facility,
ADAAG 4.1.6(c) requires that the entire space meet the new construction
requirements. Facilities are encouraged to consider each project as an
opportunity to further the accessibility of its facility and should not
unnecessarily restrict the scope of work so as to avoid the
requirements for new accessible elements or construction.
Comment. One commenter thought the language ``designated for public
use'' was confusing.
Response. As provided in the appendix note at A11.9(2), this
section does not require permanently installed assistive listening
systems in conference rooms restricted to use by employees, consultants
and other invited guests. Nor does this section require such systems in
a space which is only occasionally or sporadically used for legislative
or regulatory business such as a town meeting held in a high school
cafeteria. The term ``designated for public use'' refers only to those
areas of a facility in which public debate, discussion or regulation
takes place. Examples of hearing rooms or meeting rooms in regulatory
facilities would include rooms in which hearings are held on zoning
applications or waivers or where town council meetings or school board
meetings are conducted. On the State level, a hearing or meeting room
might be the committee room in a State legislative facility. In
judicial facilities, a hearing or meeting room might be the judge's
chambers or a mediation room. No changes were made to this provision.
Comment. Several comments were received regarding the number of
required receivers. Some commenters felt the required number of
receivers should not be tied to the occupant load of each covered room.
Other commenters were concerned that the proposed four percent may not
accurately reflect the size of the population that may use assistive
listening systems and cited a paper on ``Hearing Impairment and Elderly
People'' issued in 1986 by the Office of Technology Assessment.
Response. The four percent figure is based on a Bureau of the
Census estimate of the number of persons aged 15 and over who have
difficulty hearing what is said in a normal conversation with another
person, excluding those who cannot hear at all. See ``Bureau of Census,
Disability Functional Limitation and Insurance Coverage'' (1984-85).
However, it should be noted that the guidelines are minimum
requirements. If there is a greater demand for more receivers, the
Department of Justice regulations implementing title II of the ADA
requires public entities to take such steps as may be necessary to
ensure effective communication with individuals with hearing
impairments, unless it would result in a fundamental alteration in the
nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial and
administrative burdens. See 28 CFR 35.160(a) and 28 CFR 35.164. No
changes were made in the interim final rule.
Comment. Several commenters stated that many people do not know
what an assistive listening system is or how to use it. The commenters
suggested that in addition to indicating the availability of such
equipment, signage should also be required to indicate an office where
persons can receive additional information and instructions on the use
of the equipment.
Response. The provision requires an informational sign to be posted
in a prominent place indicating the availability of assistive listening
systems, computer-aided transcription systems, or other communication
equipment for persons with vision or hearing impairments. This sign
must include the international symbol of access for hearing loss. It is
recommended that signage also indicate the location of such systems and
that instructions be provided on how to use the equipment. No changes
were made to this provision.
Comment. The National Center for Law and Deafness recommended that
the chart in Table A2 of the appendix (Summary of Assistive Listening
Devices) be changed to reflect recent technological developments.
Response. The Board agrees with the commenter and has included a
more recent comparison chart.
Comment. The NPRM sought comment on how issues of confidentiality
and privacy can be addressed while providing accessibility for persons
with vision and hearing impairments. The majority of the commenters did
not consider confidentiality a problem. The Design Guide Subcommittee
expressed concern that assistive listening systems in jury deliberation
and grand jury suites pose potential problems of improper and illegal
remote monitoring, but did not recommend that such areas be exempt from
providing assistive listening systems. Commenters offered several
solutions such as requiring transcriptions to be destroyed by proper
authorities (similar to the current practice of requiring jurors to
return writing tablets); confiscating disks or utilizing security
programs in computers. For example, one commenter stated that State
telecommunications relay services use software which deletes the
message typed by the communication assistant at the end of each page or
wherever designated. Similar software can be utilized for a judicial
setting.
Response. Solutions to concerns regarding confidentiality and
privacy are available and can be addressed by the facility. No changes
were made to this provision.
12. Detention and Correctional Facilities
This section addresses detention facilities where persons
apprehended or arrested for alleged violations of law are temporarily
detained and correctional facilities where persons convicted and
sentenced for such violations are housed. Facilities covered by this
section include holding areas in police stations and sheriff's offices
and facilities housing persons for security reasons, including jails,
prisons, reformatories, and juvenile detention centers. This section
specifies minimum requirements for accessible cells or rooms and non-
contact visiting areas.
State and local government agencies, particularly those that
oversee or operate detention and correctional systems, comprised a
significant proportion of the commenters on this section. Extensive
comments were received from a number of State correctional agencies,
including those from the Illinois Department of Corrections, which were
supported by correctional agencies of 22 other States and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. In addition, the Association of State
Correctional Administrators (ASCA) submitted the results of a survey it
conducted based on questions and issues raised in the NPRM. A total of
30 State correctional officials responded to the ASCA survey. All
together, the views of 44 different States were expressed either in
comments submitted directly to the Board, through the ASCA survey, or
through the Illinois Department of Corrections. These comments focused
primarily on State prison systems and facilities.
Comments addressing local and county facilities were also received.
Responses from the operators of local detention or correctional systems
represented a more modest portion of the comments and ranged from the
cities of New York and Las Vegas to the villages of Arlington Heights
and Schaumburg in Illinois. In addition, several State agencies that
oversee or regulate local and county detention and correctional
facilities provided information.
Although this section applies to facilities owned or operated by
State and local governments, information and comment was submitted by
Federal government agencies, including the Bureau of Prisons, which
operates the Federal prison system, and the National Institute of
Correction, which provides leadership and assistance in the field of
corrections.
Besides agencies involved in the detention or corrections field,
comments were also received from individuals, State and local
government agencies (including those concerned with accessibility),
code administrators, local and national disability groups, such as the
Paralyzed Veterans of America, design professionals, and various trade
or professional associations.
An overall concern raised by many State and local correctional
administrators both in written comments and at the public hearings
addressed the degree to which these guidelines rely on specific design
requirements in establishing a minimum level of accessibility. These
guidelines, many correctional authorities maintained, should not
address accessibility solely in terms of design criteria but should
take into account operational and program alternatives and
considerations that are inherent within State and local detention and
correctional systems. Further, commenters argued that these guidelines
should afford operators the flexibility and discretion considered
necessary to effectively and efficiently provide access. Many
correctional systems already have certain procedures and policies in
place that determine how and where access is provided within the
system. Thus, many corrections administrators considered it important
that the guidelines acknowledge existing alternatives, including those
of an operational nature, instead of mandating access strictly in terms
of architectural specifications for buildings and facilities. This
point was emphasized in relation to the required number and location of
accessible cells and is further discussed below in ADAAG 12.4 (Holding
and Housing Cells or Rooms: Minimum Number and Dispersion).
It is understood that correctional administrators may oversee an
entire State- or city-wide system and are responsible for its programs
and services, not just its buildings and facilities. Accessibility is
not solely a matter of architectural design. However, the Board's
statutory mandate is to ensure accessibility of the built environment
in the case of new construction or alterations. Consequently, these and
other guidelines the Board has issued under the ADA must address
accessibility in terms of architectural design in new construction and
alterations. The ADA does not give the Board the authority to address
programs or services or existing buildings, except in the case of
alterations. The Department of Justice is responsible under the ADA for
addressing programs and services in the public sector. See 28 CFR part
35. The Department of Justice's regulation, consistent with the
statute, focuses on program access and allows the level of flexibility
and discretion desired by detention and corrections operators in
providing accessibility in existing buildings and facilities.
Still, some comments stressed that flexibility was essential in new
construction as well. For example, some corrections officials were
concerned about the guidelines requiring accessibility in new jails or
prisons that, under current assignment policies or procedures, would
not be intended to house inmates with disabilities. The Board's
statutory mandate severely limits the degree to which operational or
procedural alternatives can be addressed in guidelines that must
specify a minimum level of architectural accessibility. Existing inmate
assignment or placement policies may have to be reconsidered in
relation to general prohibitions of discrimination based on disability
set forth in the ADA and the Department of Justice's regulation.
Some comments recommended that these guidelines outline a minimum
level of accessibility in general terms by specifying the desired
result or ``end'' and allowing operators the opportunity to determine
the ``means'' or methods of meeting it. Such an approach would be
inconsistent with the requirements of other special application
sections of this rule as well as those guidelines previously issued for
the private sector under title III of the ADA. Furthermore,
incorporating flexibility into a design guideline must be weighed
against clearly and precisely detailing the requirements for building
access for the benefit of architects and designers.
12.1 General
This section covers both detention facilities, such as holding
cells in police stations, and correctional facilities, such as prisons
and reformatories. Generally, detention facilities are used to hold
persons apprehended or arrested for alleged violations of law, whereas
correctional facilities typically house those persons who have been
found guilty of a crime and have been incarcerated.
Comment. Several comments called attention to the differences that
exist between the types of facilities covered by this section. Basic
differences between detention facilities and correctional facilities in
their mission and use lead to differences in fundamental aspects of
their design, as well as their size, and the populations they serve.
Response. In both proposing and issuing these interim final
guidelines, the Board recognized the wide range of facilities covered
by this section, from small jails in rural areas to major prisons in
extensive State systems such as California's which, according to its
Department of Corrections, house over 100,000 inmates and feature large
self-contained sites that operate like a ``small city.'' Comments on
how a requirement may impact facilities of a certain type in particular
were carefully considered and proposed provisions altered accordingly.
For example, specifications for certain elements, such as beds, which
are typically provided in correctional housing cells but not detention
holding cells, are applicable only where the element is provided;
additionally, exceptions to certain requirements based on necessary
security considerations are stated generally even though in practice
they may be applicable only to correctional facilities, or portions
thereof, with a significant level of security. Consequently, this
section has not been subdivided according to facility type.
Comment. The types of facilities covered by this section include
those institutional occupancies where occupants other than employees
are under some degree of restraint or restriction for security reasons.
The NPRM asked whether certain mental institutions, such as those
housing persons considered to be criminally insane, should be addressed
by this section or by ADAAG 6 (Medical Care Facilities), which contains
a reference to ``psychiatric facilities.'' A majority of the responses
recommended that these facilities should be covered by ADAAG 6. This
opinion was shared by State and local government agencies, the National
Institute of Corrections, and several design professionals. Some State
correctional authorities indicated that inmates may receive psychiatric
treatment in State hospital facilities that are clearly medical care
occupancies.
A slightly smaller number of responses recommended that the
guidelines address mental institutions in both ADAAG 6 and ADAAG 12 or
allow use of either section. For example, the Paralyzed Veterans of
America recommended using ADAAG 6 for such occupancies in general and
ADAAG 12 for institutions serving persons found criminally insane.
Several comments from the operators of correction systems and the
Bureau of Prisons recommended coverage of these facilities in ADAAG 12
due to certain security considerations more typical of a detention or
correctional facility than of a medical occupancy. The City of New York
shared this opinion and noted that its Department of Corrections has
jurisdiction over such facilities.
Response. The mixed response among commenters suggests that there
may be facilities or portions of facilities that are operated or used
by correctional systems to provide psychiatric care to inmates or that
have levels of security appropriate for the restraint and confinement
of persons determined to be criminally insane. ADAAG 6 would not
adequately cover these areas since issues of security are addressed in
ADAAG 12. While psychiatric facilities are subject to ADAAG 6, certain
facilities or areas within them may require higher levels of security
and thus more closely approximate the definition of detention and
correction facilities of ADAAG 12.1 than the definition of medical care
facilities of ADAAG 6.1. In such instances, ADAAG 12 may be used for
those specific areas or portions of a facility. This is consistent with
the use of other special application sections where facilities contain
areas subject to different sections. For example, a hotel is subject to
ADAAG 9 (Accessible Transient Lodging) but may also contain retail
space subject to ADAAG 7 (Business, Mercantile and Civic) and dining
areas covered by ADAAG 5 (Restaurants and Cafeterias).
Comment. ADAAG 12.1 notes that public and common use areas are to
be accessible. A corresponding appendix note clarifies the application
of ``common use'' areas to detention and correctional facilities by
listing various examples, such as exercise yards and recreation areas,
workshops and areas of instruction and vocational training, counseling
centers, cafeterias, commissaries, and medical facilities. Although
this list was meant to be illustrative and not exhaustive, the NPRM
asked whether further clarification was needed on this subject and if
there were other types of common use areas that should be specifically
addressed in the appendix note. A slight majority of the comments
recommended further clarification, usually by naming certain specific
types of rooms or spaces that should be considered ``common use
areas.'' Most of these recommendations fall within the types listed in
the appendix note. For example, comments recommended specifying
classrooms, work areas and job sites, which would fall under the term
``areas of instruction or vocational training'' or recommended day
rooms, television rooms, libraries, and multi-purpose rooms which would
be covered by ``exercise yards and recreation areas.'' The Board sought
to list more generalized and inclusive terms. Areas recommended by
comments but not referenced in the proposed list include areas for
finger-printing and booking, intake and release, questioning and
hearing or meeting rooms; laundry facilities; religious areas, such as
chapels; and barber or beauty shops.
Response. Various administrative areas, such as those used for
intake and release, are common areas used by inmates. However, only
that portion of such areas used by inmates would be considered common
use space as defined in this section. In many cases these areas are
comprised primarily of employee work areas. In view of this, areas of
this type have not been specifically listed as common use areas
although spaces within them may be commonly used by inmates and thus be
required to be accessible. Many of the other areas recommended for
inclusion in the list but not originally covered in the appendix note
should be considered common use areas. Since an almost equal number of
commenters felt that further clarification was not necessary, these
areas have been addressed by including a reference to ``any other
rooms, spaces, or elements that are made available for the use of a
group of inmates or detainees.'' This language is derived from the
existing ADAAG definition of ``common use.''
Comment. Typical prison design often includes some common use
areas, such as dayrooms, that in the restricted and secured environment
serve a specific group of cells and are used only by the inmates of
those cells. Thus, the proposed requirement for the accessibility of
common use areas was limited to those ``serving accessible cells or
rooms.'' Several comments supported this provision as proposed but
almost an equal number expressed concern about visitors or staff
members, such as social workers or clergy, who may need access to such
areas, including those serving inaccessible cells or rooms.
Response. ADAAG 4.1.1(3) requires that areas used only by employees
as work areas be accessible to the extent a person with a disability
can ``approach, enter, and exit the areas.'' Detention and correctional
facilities are not exempt from this provision. Thus, common use areas
that contain work areas would have to be on an accessible route. This
requirement also applies to common use areas that do not serve
accessible cells or rooms. For example, a counseling center serving a
portion of a facility with no accessible cells would have to be on an
accessible route so that the area used by counselors as a work area can
be approached, entered, and exited by persons with disabilities.
Language has been added to the appendix note to 12.1 emphasizing that
common use areas that contain or function as work areas or public use
areas are still subject to applicable ADAAG requirements.
Areas that serve members of the public, such as waiting rooms and
contact and non-contact visiting areas, are considered public use areas
and are subject to the requirements for accessibility. This provision
has been clarified so that the reference to ``areas serving accessible
cells or rooms'' applies only to common use areas and not public use
areas.
Comment. Several commenters were concerned about the applicability
of certain existing ADAAG requirements to detention and correctional
facilities. Corrections officials recommended an exemption to the
requirement for areas of rescue assistance in ADAAG 4.1.3(9) since
inmates do not evacuate the facility independently. Further, areas of
rescue assistance may also compromise security. Several commenters
noted that signage, particularly that which is raised and brailled, can
pose a security risk since it can be removed from walls. Consequently,
it was recommended that the requirements for signage apply only to
public use areas.
Response. An exception to the requirement for areas of rescue
assistance has been provided. This exception references both scoping
requirements in ADAAG 4.1.3(9) and technical requirements in ADAAG
4.3.10 and 4.3.11 for areas of rescue assistance. This exception
applies only to the requirement for areas of rescue assistance in ADAAG
4.1.3(9) and not to the requirement for accessible means of egress.
With respect to signage, the exception clarifies that the scoping
requirements for accessible signage in ADAAG 4.1.3(16) apply only to
public use areas.
Comment. The American Public Communications Council, a trade
association representing the manufacturers, distributors, and operators
of pay telephone equipment, expressed concerns about requirements
applicable to inmate-use telephones. Such telephones are typically
provided in common use areas and must be properly secured to withstand
vandalism and removal. Additional features, such as a volume control,
which is highly vulnerable to vandalism, can dramatically increase the
cost, perhaps up to 66 percent. The Council correctly assumed that
general scoping requirements for telephones in ADAAG 4.1.3(17) would
apply only to those common use areas serving accessible cells. The
Council also raised concern about ADAAG technical requirements for
telephones. Specifically, ADAAG 4.31.2 requires sufficient clear floor
space at telephones, and ADAAG 4.31.8 requires handset cords to be at
least 29 inches long. However, according to the Council, phones for
inmate use may be located near cell bars and thus not provide adequate
clear floor space. In addition, security requires that the length of
handset cords not exceed 15 inches. Thus, the Council recommended that
the guidelines allow other alternatives, such as providing phones that
are accessible at supervised locations.
Response. The requirements for accessible telephones and volume
control in ADAAG 4.1.3(17) would apply only to public use areas and to
those common use areas serving accessible cells or rooms. Certain
security considerations, such as short phone cord lengths, underscore
the request for allowable alternatives to ADAAG scoping and technical
requirements for telephones. Under ADAAG 2.2 (Equivalent Facilitation)
alternatives to ADAAG requirements are allowed as long as greater or
equal access is provided. This provision may allow flexibility in
providing access to inmate-use telephones.
12.2 Entrances
ADAAG 4.1.3(8) primarily addresses those entrances serving the
public. Other entrances not intended for public use are not required to
be accessible under ADAAG in most cases. Correctional and detention
facilities may contain entrances that inmates or detainees must use for
security purposes and that are not open to the public. In order to
ensure facility access to inmates with disabilities, this section
contains, as originally proposed, a requirement that at least one such
entrance be accessible. The proposed requirement had referred to these
entrances as ``secured entrances'' defined as ``those entrances used
only by inmates or detainees and security personnel and not the general
public.'' This was intended to distinguish such entrances from public
entrances already addressed by ADAAG.
Comment. Several correctional administrators indicated that the
proposed definition and use of the term ``secured entrances'' is
inconsistent with industry usage of the term. Specifically, entrances
located within secured perimeters, and thus considered ``secured'' by
corrections officials, may in fact serve visitors and other members of
the public. Basically, the terms ``secured entrance'' and ``public
entrance'' are defined to be mutually exclusive in the guidelines when
this is not necessarily the case in practice.
Response. The Board considers distinction between entrances used by
the public and those used by inmates or detainees necessary to ensure
an accessible route into the facility for inmates, particularly in
those cases where visitors and inmates use separate entrances. ADAAG
12.2.1 has been revised to clarify that entrances serving the public,
including those that are secured, are required to be accessible by
ADAAG 4.1.3(8). Security requirements at such entrances have been taken
into account as further discussed below.
The requirement for the accessibility of entrances used by inmates
and detainees but not the public has been relocated to ADAAG 12.2.2 to
distinguish them from entrances considered public entrances covered in
ADAAG 12.2.1. The provision's heading has been changed from ``Secured
Entrances'' to ``Other Entrances.'' The requirement that, where
entrances serving inmates or detainees only are provided, at least one
be accessible is substantively similar to the proposed provision. Thus,
while the term ``secured'' has been removed from this provision it
still covers the same type of entrances as the proposed requirement.
The term ``secured'' has been retained in ADAAG 11 which covers
judicial, regulatory, and legislative facilities since commenters did
not express any concern about its usage with respect to such
occupancies.
12.2.1 Public Entrances
Comment. A design firm discussed certain security considerations
that may conflict with full compliance for doors and entrances.
According to this commenter, secured entrances or sallyports may be
equipped with swinging doors weighing between 300 to 500 pounds that
would need power assist openers and closers to meet the requirements
for door closers in ADAAG 4.13.10 (Door Closers) and the maximum 5 lbf
opening force required in ADAAG 4.13.11 (Door Opening Force). In
addition, this commenter noted that some accessible types of door
hardware used to meet ADAAG 4.13.9 (Door Hardware), such as lever
handles, are considered a security threat in that they can be more
easily removed or broken and used as a weapon.
Response. In the proposed rule, the requirement for access through
or around security systems or screening devices included an exception
for doors at such locations. Under this exception, doors operated only
by security personnel were exempt from the requirements for maneuvering
clearance at doors (4.13.6), accessible door hardware (4.13.9), opening
forces (4.13.11), and specifications for automatic doors if provided
(4.13.12). This exception has been revised to apply to both entrances
used by the public and those entrances used by inmates or detainees.
This revision is consistent with an exception in ADAAG 11.5 (Restricted
and Secured Entrances).
In addition, a reference to the requirements for door closers
(4.13.10) has been added to the exception. While the exception as
proposed was limited only to doors operated by security personnel, it
is implicit that the security considerations raised by comments also
apply to those doors that may not be operated by security personnel.
Consequently, the exception has been broadened to cover not only doors
and doorways operated by security personnel, but also those doors and
doorways subject to security requirements that prohibit full compliance
with these provisions. This would apply to those doors that may be
operated by visitors or inmates, as well as security personnel. The
independent use of doors is, of course, a critical component of
accessibility. This exception applies only where security requirements
prohibit compliance with the specific provisions listed. Where security
requirements prohibit full compliance, the applicable specifications
are to be met to the maximum extent feasible.
12.2.2 Other Entrances
This provision requires that where entrances serving only inmates
or detainees are provided, then at least one must be accessible.
Comment. One commenter stated that the entrance required to be
accessible under this provision should count as part of the total
number of entrances required to be accessible under ADAAG 4.1.3(8).
Also, the Illinois Department of Corrections noted that State
correctional facilities typically do not provide entrances used only by
inmates and recommended clarification that in such instances, an
additional accessible entrance for inmates or detainees is not
required.
Response. The requirement that at least one accessible entrance
used by detainees or inmates be accessible applies only where such
entrances are provided. It does not require that such an entrance be
provided where none is intended for a facility. Entrances that are used
by both inmates or detainees and the public are considered public
entrances and subject to ADAAG 4.1.3(8).
Comment. Entrances covered by ADAAG 12.2.2 must be accessible
according to ADAAG 4.14 (Entrances) which requires, in part, that
entrances ``be connected by an accessible route to public
transportation stops, to accessible parking and passenger loading
zones, and to public streets or sidewalks if available * * *'' As noted
in ADAAG 11.5, one corrections official indicated that entrances used
only by inmates or detainees should not be required to be connected by
an accessible route to such elements since inmates usually arrive from
system-operated vehicles and not from public transportation stops,
parking spaces, or public streets and sidewalks.
Response. As discussed under ADAAG 11.5 (Restricted and Secured
Entrances), language has been added to the exception indicating that
entrances used only by inmates or detainees are not required to be
connected by an accessible route to public transportation stops,
accessible parking, or to public streets or sidewalks. However, such
entrances are subject to a requirement in ADAAG 4.14 that accessible
entrances be connected to passenger loading zones if provided. Language
has been added to this provision clarifying that where passenger
loading zones are provided at such entrances, they must comply with
ADAAG 4.6.6 (Passenger Loading Zones).
Comment. In existing or altered facilities, it was recommended that
public entrances or alternative entrances be allowed to serve as
entrances for inmates or detainees.
Response. These guidelines apply only to new construction or
alterations. In either case, an entrance serving only inmates or
detainees is not required to be provided. Rather, if such entrances are
provided, then at least one is required to be accessible under ADAAG
12.2.2. In the case of alterations, this requirement would be triggered
only where such an existing entrance is to be altered or where a new
one is to be installed as part of the planned scope of work. If so,
then at least one entrance of this type would have to be accessible to
the extent technically feasible under alteration provisions in ADAAG
4.1.6. In addition, under ADAAG 4.1.6(3), such an entrance may be
required to be accessible if it is part of the path of travel to an
altered primary function area.
Comment. The NPRM asked for information on the new construction
cost of making accessible at least one entrance used only by inmates or
detainees. Almost all responses to this question characterized the cost
as either ``minimal,'' ``negligible,'' or ``insignificant.'' Several
operators of correctional systems, including New York City and the
State of California, indicated that this requirement would have little
or no impact on their facilities since the accessibility of such
entrances is already required. Few comments provided actual cost
estimates. One State disability organization estimated a new
construction cost of $450, and a local government entity estimated a
cost of $3,000 for ``altering'' a secured entrance but did not provide
a new construction cost estimate.
Response. A more detailed discussion of the cost involved is
contained in the Regulatory Impact Analysis.
12.2.3 Security Systems
This section requires that an accessible route be provided through
or around security screening devices. These devices, which may be
similar to those used at airports, may not allow passage of certain
mobility aids, such as wheelchairs. This provision originally addressed
only those systems located at public entrances required to be
accessible.
Comment. The NPRM asked whether there were any existing security or
screening procedures that could not be effectively carried out under
this requirement. Practically all comments, including those from
correction or detention officials and the Bureau of Prisons, indicated
that there were no existing security or screening procedures that could
not be carried out under this requirement. Some indicated that security
systems may already have an adjacent route around the system for staff
use. Also, several commenters noted that hand-held metal detection
devices are used to screen persons using wheelchairs or other mobility
aids that cannot pass through the system.
Response. This provision remains substantively unchanged. However,
it has been clarified to apply to security systems located at either
public entrances covered by ADAAG 12.2.1 or inmate or detainee
entrances covered by ADAAG 12.2.2. As noted above, the exception
originally proposed for doors and gates at security systems has been
revised and is applicable to entrances themselves, not just the doors
or gates that may be provided along alternative routes around security
systems.
12.3 Visiting Areas
The requirements of this section for visiting areas are similar to
those addressed in ADAAG 11 (Judicial, Legislative, and Regulatory
Facilities). The section requires that in non-contact visiting areas, a
minimum of 5 percent, but not less than one, of fixed cubicles be
accessible on both the visitor and the inmate or detainee sides.
Comment. As discussed under ADAAG 11.4.3 (Visiting Areas), the NPRM
asked whether this provision should further specify that an accessible
cubicle on each side be paired in order to accommodate those situations
in which both the inmate or detainee and the visitor need an accessible
cubicle. A majority of the comments to this question, including its
applicability to visiting areas in detention and correctional
facilities, supported such a requirement.
Response. As discussed under ADAAG 11.4.3 (Visiting Areas), this
provision clarifies that counters and cubicles must be accessible on
both the visitor side and on the inmate or detainee side.
Comment. Several commenters recommended that the guidelines address
contact visiting areas.
Response. Both contact and non-contact visiting areas, as public or
common use areas, are required to be accessible under ADAAG 12.1. Non-
contact visiting areas are addressed in this section since they contain
elements, such as safety glass or security glazing, that may pose
barriers to communication. Requirements for fixed cubicles are based on
ADAAG 4.32 (Fixed or Built-in Seating and Tables) which is referenced
in this section for clarity.
Comment. One commenter considered the five percent scoping
requirement to be excessive.
Response. The five percent scoping is consistent with ADAAG
requirements for fixed seating in ADAAG 11.4.3 (Visiting Areas).
However, since the secured side of a visiting area functions as a
common use area among inmates or detainees, an exception has been added
that is consistent with ADAAG 12.1 which states that only those common
use areas serving accessible cells or rooms are required to be
accessible. Under this exception, non-contact visiting areas serving
areas of a facility where no accessible cells or rooms are located are
not required to have accessible cubicles on the inmate or detainee
side.
Comment. Non-contact visiting areas typically have safety glass or
security glazing to separate visitors and inmates or detainees. ADAAG
12.3(2) references ADAAG 7.2(3) which covers a similar situation at
teller windows or counters and requires that at least one provide a
method to facilitate voice communication. ADAAG 7.2(3)(iii) indicates
that various methods may include grilles, talk-thru baffles, intercoms
or telephone handset devices. If telephone handset devices are used,
this provision further requires that at least one such device be
equipped with a volume control complying with ADAAG 4.31.5. One State
correctional agency noted that it currently uses hand-held intercoms
that are equipped with telephone-style volume controls, which is
preferred over the use of an assistive listening system.
Response. Telephone handset devices are acceptable under this
provision so long as at least one is equipped with a volume control.
Assistive listening devices are not required at these locations. The
appendix note to ADAAG 12.3 indicates that if an assistive listening
system is provided, consideration should be given to the intended users
and the setting in determining the most suitable type of system. The
use of assistive listening systems is not recommended over other
communication methods. Also, as noted in ADAAG 11.4.3 (Visiting Areas),
``security glazing'' has been substituted for ``safety glass'' as was
recommended by one correctional authority.
Comment. The proposed rule contained a requirement that accessible
cubicles be identified with the International Symbol of Accessibility.
As noted in ADAAG 11.4.3, several comments questioned the need for such
identification since users are typically escorted to visiting areas by
security personnel. Further, signage which can be vandalized or removed
may pose a security hazard.
Response. The requirement for identifying signage has been removed
in this section, consistent with ADAAG 11.4.3.
12.4 Holding and Housing Cells or Rooms: Minimum Number and Dispersion
12.4.1 Holding Cells and General Housing Cells or Rooms
Questions and issues raised in the NPRM about the minimum number
and dispersion of accessible cells evoked more comment than any other
in this section. The NPRM requested survey data on the percentage of
inmates with disabilities in State and local prisons and jails. Most of
the comments providing survey data were submitted by State correctional
agencies. Among those State agencies responding to the NPRM, the
percentage of inmates with mobility impairments or who used wheelchairs
in State prisons systems ranged from .12 to 1.35 percent with an
average of .46 percent. The Illinois Department of Corrections also
shared the results of a national survey it completed in 1990 which
indicate that among 27 responding States and the Bureau of Prisons, the
percentage of the inmate population with ``ambulation problems'' ranged
from .04 to 1.2 percent and also averaged .46 percent. In addition, the
Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) surveyed its
members on this question but did not specify a breakout according to
disability type. The results of this survey contained significantly
higher percentages, suggesting that a wider range of disabilities, not
just mobility or ambulatory impairments, were included in the
percentages. Among 23 responding States, the average percentage of the
inmate population identified as having a disability was 3.39 percent.
Survey data were also received on local prison and jail
populations. Three State agencies that oversee local or county jails
and prisons provided survey results. A survey of 10 Nebraska county
jails identified .07 percent of the 1991 population as having a
mobility impairment. In a survey of 204 county facilities, the Texas
Commission on Jail Standards determined that on average .48 percent of
the daily population has a mobility impairment. According to California
Board of Corrections, a daily average of 1 to 1.5 percent of the
population ``requires a physical accommodation'' in county facilities
among a representative sampling of 11 counties. In addition, several
comments from county correctional authorities estimated that less than
1 percent of the population in their systems have mobility impairments,
and one other noted that 2 percent of the population has a disability.
At the local level, the City of New York submitted data indicating that
.25 percent of the population in its system use wheelchairs.
The Bureau of Prisons indicated that a 1992 survey of inmates in
the Federal prisons system identified 1.25 percent of the inmates as
having some type of disability and approximately .5 percent as having
``manual'' impairments.
To further assess the need for accessible cells, the NPRM asked
whether there are any instances in which inmates with disabilities are
not housed among the general population but are housed in other areas,
such as infirmaries, or are located to another facility entirely, such
as a halfway house, due to a lack of accessible cells or rooms.
Most comments from State correctional systems noted that inmates
may be housed in other areas of facilities but that this was not
necessarily due to the absence of accessible cells. A comment made by
the Illinois Department of Correction is representative of many of
these comments:
There are instances where inmates with disabilities are housed
in areas other than [the] general population. This is a reflection
not as much of whether an accessible cell is available in [the]
general population, but rather of the Department's conclusion that
in many instances programs and services can be more effectively
delivered to disabled inmates who are clustered, rather than
dispersed. In some instances disabled inmates are housed in
infirmaries where the level of supervision is generally greater and
where medical services are more readily available.
A majority of the States responding to the ASCA survey indicated
that inmates with disabilities are housed in areas other than housing
for the general population because accessible cells are not available.
Like the Illinois Department of Corrections, some States base this
practice on what they believe is a more effective provision of
services, including medical care. Several States noted that the area
used was an infirmary or medical unit.
Information received on county facilities indicates that there are
instances where detainees or inmates have been transferred to other
facilities due to the insufficient number of accessible cells. Of 11
counties surveyed by the California Board of corrections, four
expressed a need for more accessible cells, and the operators of Texas
county jails surveyed indicated that inmates with disabilities are
relocated when accessible cells are full.
The NPRM also asked whether there are instances in which persons
with a disability are sentenced or assigned to facilities other than a
prison or jail due to a lack of accessibility. A few comments indicated
that this does occur. One State agency noted that some prison operators
may house persons with disabilities in State or local hospitals or
medical centers. Among States responding to the ASCA, only one State
noted that persons with disabilities are housed in facilities other
than jails or prisons.
The issues of scoping and dispersion are closely related. For
clarity, however, this discussion first addresses the minimum number of
accessible cells and then addresses issues of dispersion.
The NPRM sought recommendations on the minimum number or percentage
of general housing cells in correctional facilities and holding cells
in detention facilities that should be accessible.
Comment. A strong majority of the comments, most from State
correctional agencies, recommended minimum percentages of either one
percent or two percent. The Illinois Department of Corrections, whose
comments were supported by 22 States and Puerto Rico, recommended a
maximum of two percent scoping for general housing cells. A few
comments recommended less than one percent, and several commenters
recommended either three, four, or five percent. The Bureau of Prisons
recommended that three percent of the cells be adaptable, which means
that the cell can be easily converted to an accessible cell when
needed, but which is not fully accessible as part of new construction.
Information provided by commenters on existing State codes indicates
that the minimum percentage among States varies, ranging from
Washington State's one percent to Wisconsin's five percent. The Florida
Department of Corrections noted that its facilities are designed so
that two percent of the housing cells are accessible, which it
considers adequate, if not excessive, for the determined need.
Comments concerning detention facilities, most at the local level,
recommended one cell for each facility, such as a police station, or
recommended percentages of one or two percent.
Response. The Board has specified in ADAAG 12.4.1(1) that a minimum
of three percent, but not less than one, of holding or general housing
cells or rooms be accessible in new construction. This requirement is
consistent with the recommendation made by the Bureau of Prisons,
although it had recommended adaptable, as opposed to fully accessible,
cells. The Board has not specified adaptable cells or rooms because it
considers the concept of adaptability impractical in the jail or prison
environment. Even if adaptability were required, the clear floor space
necessary for accessible cells would most likely be provided as part of
new construction due to the structural requirements of cells. Further,
other elements often provided as adaptable features in other types of
facilities, such as grab bars, would most likely be installed as part
of construction so that they could be secured to the degree necessary
in the prison environment. A few commenters stated that while grab bars
are easy to secure in new construction, to do so as an alteration or
retrofit may necessitate reconstruction of cell walls.
The three percent scoping requirement, which is slightly higher
than the percentage recommended by a majority of commenters, is also
based on certain additional considerations. One consideration involves
the aging of the prison population and existing data demonstrating that
the prevalence of disability increases with age. A few comments,
including one from a State disability agency, called attention to this
consideration, but they did not provide any survey data or
documentation on the aging of the prison population. One State
correctional authority commented: ``There are very few instances where
the inmate's disability occurred while incarcerated * * * [but] because
of lengths of sentences, we are beginning to deal more and more with an
aging population.''
Another concern stems from comments made on retrofit and
alterations in detention and correctional occupancies. These comments,
which are further discussed below under ADAAG 12.4.5 (Alterations to
Cells or Rooms), raised concerns about the significant structural
difficulties that exist in making existing jail or prison cells
accessible. Consequently, it is particularly essential that a
sufficient level of access be provided in such occupancies as part of
new construction. A guideline that ensures that the need for accessible
holding or general housing cells is met in new construction will
undoubtedly facilitate detention and corrections operators in
fulfilling their obligations under the ADA.
The dispersion of accessible cells is another issue of strong
concern to many detention and corrections officials. The Board
indicated in the NPRM that it may require cells to be dispersed within
facilities consistent with ADAAG requirements for the integration of
accessible spaces and elements. The concept of an integrated
environment may be limited in the restricted environment of prisons and
jails. The NPRM sought information in this area in order to determine
whether dispersion of accessible cells or rooms was necessary or
justified and, if so, to what degree. The NPRM asked questions about
dispersion within an entire facility and within individual housing
units or buildings. A third level of dispersion, raised by many
corrections officials, concerned dispersion within an entire prison
system at the State or local level.
Comment. Many State and some local correctional officials felt that
flexibility and discretion were necessary in determining where inmates
with disabilities are housed within a correctional system. It was
recommended that these guidelines take into account existing assignment
policies or practices, including those that determine which facilities
will house inmates with disabilities. Some systems have certain
locations or facilities which are considered more suitable for such
inmates because programs, services, supervision, and necessary medical
treatment are more effectively provided in some locations. Certain
assignment policies could make it unlikely that an inmate with a
disability will be assigned to a specific facility, including one that
is newly constructed. A corrections system may have a policy of
assigning persons with certain severe disabilities to a prison more
fully served by, or in closer proximity to, a major medical center.
Representative of this concern was a comment from the City of New York
indicating that its correctional system already has or is in the
process of constructing facilities that will accommodate inmates with
disabilities. They indicated that other facilities, including those
that may be constructed in the future, should not be required to
provide accessible cells since inmates with disabilities will not be
assigned to these locations under current policy. Many of these
commenters argued that accessibility should be addressed in regard to a
city or State's correctional system as a whole instead of at each
building or facility.
Response. The Board under its ADA mandate is responsible for
developing a minimum level of accessibility in the construction and
alteration of buildings and facilities, including those of a detention
or correctional system. The programs and services of such a system lie
beyond the Board's legislative mandate and the scope of these
guidelines. This is also true of a system's existing buildings and
facilities, except in cases of alteration. As previously noted, the
operational aspects of State or local systems, and its existing
buildings, are subject to regulations issued by the Department of
Justice. See 28 CFR part 35. Consistent with the ADA, the Department of
Justice's regulations prohibit discrimination on the basis of
disability in a public entity's programs and services but may well
afford some of the flexibility and discretion desired by corrections
operators in addressing accessibility through operational or
programmatic methods. Under its statutory authority, the Board finds
that it can only address these concerns with respect to the location of
accessible cells in new construction or alterations.
The ADA and its legislative history require a level of
accessibility in new construction that ensures that the features,
elements, and amenities of a facility are available to all, including
persons with disabilities, in an integrated setting. Thus, in
developing ADAAG, the Board has sought to ensure that various facility
elements and spaces are not only accessible, but integral to the
overall design. Similar requirements for integration are found in ADAAG
requirements pertaining to the dispersion of accessible seating in
assembly areas, restaurants and cafeterias and accessible rooms in
transient lodging. The restricted environment of detention and
correctional facilities may bring into question the concept of an
integrated setting with respect to accessibility, but it is an
important principle of the ADA. Consequently, the NPRM sought
information on various issues critical in determining whether
accessible cells should be dispersed throughout a facility. A
dispersion requirement was not proposed although the NPRM noted that
such a requirement might be included in the final rule. Since issues of
safety and security may have bearing on the question of dispersion, the
NPRM also asked whether inmates with disabilities are generally at
greater risk of violence in the general population than are other
inmates.
Comment. A majority of comments stated that inmates with
disabilities could be at greater risk among the general population,
although many admitted to a lack of evidence or documentation to
support this. Still, some of these comments argued against any
requirement to ``mainstream'' inmates with disabilities into the
general population. On the other hand, a significant number of
comments, many from State corrections officials, stated that inmates
with disabilities are not considered to be less safe in the prison
environment. It was noted that assessing an inmate's degree of safety
depends on a variety of factors and should not be based solely on
disability.
The NPRM also asked whether inmates with disabilities present less
of a security risk. A majority of the responses felt that inmates could
not be considered less of a security risk based solely on their
physical condition or level of disability. Assessing the potential
threat to security, posed by inmates, must take into account other
factors, such as their personality and criminal history. Furthermore,
some correctional authorities noted that inmates with disabilities may
present more of a threat to security since mobility aids may be used as
weapons or to hide contraband.
A comment from the California Department of Corrections (CDC), is
representative of many comments on safety and security risks:
The CDC finds that disabled inmates are not necessarily at a
greater risk. However, dependent upon their degree and type of
disability a security or safety problem could exist which places
them in jeopardy . . . The Department has not found that disabled
inmates, as a whole, can be considered to be less of a security
risk. Rather, the degree of an individual inmate's security risk
must be determined by classification on a case-by-case basis taking
into consideration the inmate's criminal history, commitment
offense, individual case factors, medical/psychological history and
overall institutional behavior. Disabled inmates, although they may
appear to be less of a security risk, have assaulted staff and other
inmates.
Response. It is clear from comments that generalizations regarding
risk factors associated with inmates with disabilities cannot be
substantiated. Such assumptions do not provide sufficient rationale for
fully exempting accessible cells or rooms from any kind of dispersion.
Comment. In addition to questions regarding safety and security
risks, the NPRM asked whether accessible cells should be required to be
dispersed among all categories of housing or levels of security. The
NPRM further asked whether housing of a certain security level, such as
maximum security, should be exempt from a requirement to contain
accessible cells.
A majority of the responses supported some kind of exception to a
requirement for dispersion. Most of these comments, represented by the
Illinois Department of Corrections and the 22 States that endorsed its
comments, supported an exception that would be applicable to all
categories of housing, not just maximum security areas. Several
commenters, including the Bureau of Prisons, supported an exception
limited to maximum security. Support for an exception was based on the
supervision and safety of inmates with disabilities, effective
provision of programs and services, security, and cost. The Paralyzed
Veterans of America regarded the importance of dispersion of accessible
cells as secondary to the safety of inmates.
Some corrections officials, as well as several State and local
government agencies, local disability groups, and a design professional
supported a requirement for accessible cells in all categories or
security levels. Since assumptions on an inmate's safety or perceived
risk to security cannot be made on disability alone, the California
Department of Corrections recommended that accessible cells be required
among all categories of housing. Several State correctional agencies in
responding to the ASCA survey supported dispersion, including South
Dakota which stated that: ``a majority of inmates move to different
classification levels over time, which necessitates accessibility at
each level,'' and Kansas, which stated that: ``Inmates should be
mainstreamed with the general population as much as possible. Once the
disabled inmates are released from prison they must interact with the
general population in society.''
Some comments supported dispersion with respect to county or local
facilities. The California Board of Corrections, which oversees all
city and county correctional agencies and facilities, surveyed
operators of 11 county systems and found that eight considered
accessible cells necessary in all classification categories while three
did not.
Response. In view of recommendations from some correctional
authorities that accessible cells be provided among all housing
categories or security levels, as well as the information received on
safety and security issues concerning inmates with disabilities, a
provision has been added that requires accessible cells to be located
in all categories or types of cells. However, this requirement does not
specify the amount or percentage that must be provided in each category
or security level. Dispersion is not required to be proportionate to
the total number of cells in each category or security level. Thus, at
facilities with multiple levels of security, at least one accessible
cell or room must be located in each security level. For example, a
300-cell prison that is evenly divided into three categories or levels
of security would be required to have three percent or nine of its
cells accessible with at least one accessible cell, not necessarily
three, in each security level; one cell could be provided in maximum
security while the remaining eight could be distributed among the other
two security levels. However, this flexibility would not extend to
those facilities comprised of only one security level.
Comment. Regarding local detention and correctional facilities,
several commenters were concerned about the effect of dispersion on
small facilities. The Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement and
Criminal Justice supported an exception based not on security factors,
but on facility size for temporary holding facilities in local jails.
In Nebraska, three housing separations are mandated for county
facilities by code: male/female, adult/juvenile, and intoxicated/non-
intoxicated. In small holding facilities, dispersion among each holding
category or classification would in many instances require 100 percent
accessibility among cells, thus causing a disproportionate impact.
Response. The requirement for the dispersion of accessible cells or
rooms among all ``categories and types'' in ADAAG 12.4.1(2) is required
only to the extent possible under the minimum percentage required to be
accessible for the facility overall. The provision states that
dispersion does not require an increase in the minimum three percent
scoping specified for the facility overall. For example, if a small
jail is required under the three percent specification to have one
accessible cell, but has four holding classifications or ``types,''
only one accessible cell is required. An appendix note clarifies that
the minimum number required for the facility overall overrides the
requirement for dispersion among all categories or types of holding or
housing cells.
Comment. The NPRM asked whether accessible cells should be required
to be dispersed throughout individual housing units or buildings that
are of the same housing category or security level. A majority of
responses to this question were against dispersion of cells within a
unit or building. This includes comments from individuals with
disabilities, State and local government agencies, correctional
authorities, the Bureau of Prisons, several designers and associations.
Reasons given by commenters for not dispersing cells and allowing them
to be clustered within a unit or building included: safety of inmates
with disabilities especially during emergency evacuation, more
effective supervision of inmates with disabilities, more efficient
provision of programs and services including proximity of accessible
cells to certain common use areas, as well as cost and administrative
benefits for prison operators. One correctional agency noted that the
inmates with disabilities interviewed preferred being housed in the
same area as inmates with similar disabilities.
Several disability groups argued against an exception to
dispersion. The Paralyzed Veterans of America, while urging safety
considerations over dispersion, also felt that there should be a firm
test for an exception so that it functions as an exception, not the
rule. Otherwise, inmates with disabilities would be ``located in one
cluster of cells or on a designated tier, thereby effectively
segregating them from the rest of the prisoner/inmate population.''
Response. The reasons outlined by commenters for clustering cells
make a compelling case for not requiring dispersion of accessible cells
among a building or housing unit. Unlike cells in different housing
categories or security levels, those within the same category or
housing unit would most likely all share the same amenities or
features. Consequently, a requirement for the dispersion of accessible
cells or rooms within buildings or housing units of the same category
or security level has not been included.
12.4.2 Special Holding and Housing Cells or Rooms
Detention and correctional facilities typically have cells used for
special purposes such as protective custody, disciplinary detention,
detoxification, and medical isolation. Since inmates with disabilities
might require or need the services provided in these cells, it is
essential that some of each type be accessible. The NPRM requested
additional information on these cells, including whether special
housing cells should be held to the same level of scoping as general
housing cells.
Comment. A majority of commenters recommended using the same level
of scoping as specified for general housing cells. Other commenters
recommended at least one of each type or one percent should be
accessible. The Bureau of Prisons indicated that it rarely places
inmates with disabilities in such cells and recommended that only one
such cell per institution be required to be adaptable, not fully
accessible.
Response. The number of special housing cells required to be
accessible is in addition to the three percent required for general
housing cells. In view of this and the fact that special housing cells
are occupied for shorter periods of time, ADAAG 12.4.2 specifies that
at least one special holding or housing cell serving each purpose be
accessible in a facility. However, constructing more than one of each
type to be accessible will facilitate access at large facilities which
may have a number of each type serving different holding areas or
housing units.
Comment. The NPRM asked whether space and cost impacts of
accessibility could be limited if one accessible cell served a variety
of special purposes. Some commenters, including a few prison operators
and several disability groups, supported the use of one cell for
multiple purposes. One commenter indicated that small jail facilities
usually have one cell serving different uses such as protective
custody, administrative segregation, and detoxification. However, a
majority of the comments, most from the operators of State correctional
systems and designers, considered the idea impractical if not
infeasible. In some cases, for example, special housing cells may be
located in different locations of the facility according to their use.
Response. It is clear from the comments that using special housing
cells for different uses may not be practical at all facilities,
especially those in State correctional systems. Since this may be a
viable alternative in other facilities, and since the period of stay in
these cells is limited, ADAAG 12.4.2 notes that accessible special
housing or holding cells may serve more than one purpose. Where
multiple use is not feasible, then at least one special housing or
holding cell serving each purpose is required to be accessible.
12.4.3 Accessible Cells or Rooms for Persons with Hearing Impairments
This section requires that, where applicable, a minimum percentage
of cells or rooms be accessible to persons with hearing impairments and
comply with 12.6 (Visible Alarms and Telephones). ADAAG 12.6 includes
specifications for visible alarms and telephone volume controls where
alarm systems and permanently installed telephones are provided to
serve inmates of holding or housing cells.
Comment. Several commenters questioned the need for such a
requirement since holding or housing cells or rooms are rarely equipped
with telephones or alarms. They were concerned that alarms within cells
may be vandalized or tampered with by inmates or detainees. Moreover,
since emergency evacuation is done under controlled or supervised
circumstances, alarms directly serving inmates or detainees are usually
unnecessary.
Response. Many detention or correctional facilities may not have
cells equipped with the type of devices, such as alarms and permanently
installed phones, that would trigger the requirements of ADAAG 12.6.
The NPRM noted:
Generally, most correctional facilities do not provide these
kinds of elements in cells, but some facility types, such as minimum
security prisons, may in fact be equipped with such devices. If
permanently installed phones are provided in one category of
housing, the minimum number or percentage, if specified, would be
based on the total number of cells or rooms provided within that
category of housing, not on the total number of cells or rooms of
the facility. 57 FR 60632
As noted previously, this section covers a wide variety of
facilities, including those facilities with lower levels of security
that may have cells or rooms containing telephones or alarms.
Comment. The NPRM asked for information on the number or percentage
of persons with hearing impairments in detention and correctional
facilities. A number of State correctional authorities provided survey
data with results that ranged from .01 percent to 5 percent. Most
figures, including several estimates, fell below 1 percent and the
average among them was .65 percent. At the local level, one corrections
official indicated that .5 percent of jail inmates have hearing
impairments, and among county facilities, one State agency provided a
figure of .10 percent. From its survey, the Bureau of Prisons found
that .5 percent of inmates within its system were identified as having
a hearing impairment.
Two organizations provided information on studies that suggest that
this percentage is considerably higher. According to the National
Center on Law and Deafness, ``[i]ndependent studies have identified
from 8.9 to 47 percent of inmates as having some degree of hearing
impairment.'' The American Speech-Language Hearing Association stated
that studies place the range from between 15 to 50 percent depending on
the age group, and that the prevalence of hearing, speech, and language
impairments is two to five times higher among the inmate population
than among the general population.
Response. Information received from the comments does not account
for the wide discrepancy between survey results submitted by detention
or correctional authorities and studies referenced by certain
organizations. One reason may be a variable working definition of
hearing impairment used in different studies and surveys. Based on this
information and considerations that were taken into account with
respect to fully accessible cells or rooms covered in ADAAG 12.4.1,
ADAAG 12.4.3 requires that a minimum of three percent of holding or
general housing cells or rooms be accessible to persons with hearing
impairments. This percentage, as noted in the appendix, is not based on
the total number of cells or rooms provided at a facility but on the
total number of cells or rooms equipped with permanently installed
telephones or audible emergency warning systems. If cells or rooms of
this type are not provided at a facility, the requirements of ADAAG
12.6 do not apply. Additionally, this requirement only applies to
housing or holding cells equipped with permanently installed telephones
or alarms. These elements are typically located in common use areas,
such as dayrooms, instead of individual cells. In this case,
permanently installed telephones and alarms are required to be
accessible according to ADAAG requirements for common use areas. See
ADAAG 12.1 and the appendix note at A12.4.3.
12.4.4 Medical Care Facilities
This section applies the requirements of ADAAG 6 (Medical Care
Facilities) to medical care facilities in detention and correctional
facilities. Facilities covered by ADAAG 6 are defined as those ``in
which people receive physical or medical treatment or care and where
persons may need assistance in responding to an emergency and where the
period of stay may exceed twenty-four hours.'' ADAAG 12.4.4 is intended
to address the same range of medical facilities covered by ADAAG 6.
Other medical facilities that do not meet this definition, such as
physicians' offices, must be accessible to the extent required for
common use areas. ADAAG 6 contains scoping and technical requirements
for patient bedrooms and toilet rooms. Medical care facilities in
detention and correctional facilities covered by ADAAG 12.4.4 are
subject to the scoping requirements of ADAAG 6.1. For example, ADAAG
6.1(1) requires that 10 percent of patient bedrooms be accessible in
certain facilities, including those used for detoxification. The
patient bedrooms of a prison detoxification unit would be subject to
this 10 percent scoping requirement.
Comment. The NPRM asked whether further clarification was needed in
applying the requirements of ADAAG 6 to detention or correctional
medical care facilities or whether there were certain kinds of medical
care facilities that are not clearly addressed by the requirements of
ADAAG 6. A majority of comments felt that further clarification was
unnecessary and that the requirement, as stated by the National
Institute of Corrections, ``adequately addresses the kinds of medical
facilities found in detention and correctional facilities.'' Those
comments recommending further clarification identified specific types
of medical facilities, such as first aid rooms, that are not clearly
addressed by ADAAG 6.
Response. Those areas recommended for specific consideration,
including first aid rooms, do not typically provide overnight care or
patient bedrooms and thus would not meet the definition of ``medical
care facilities'' in ADAAG 6. Medical care units not covered by ADAAG 6
would be considered common use areas and would be required to be
accessible under ADAAG 12.1.
Comment. A few commenters felt clarification was necessary with
respect to small detention facilities which may not contain medical
care facilities.
Response. This provision does not require that jails or prisons
provide medical care units. Thus, detention and correctional facilities
not containing the type of medical care facilities addressed by ADAAG 6
would not be subject to this provision.
Comment. ADAAG 6.1 requires that in general purpose hospitals,
psychiatric facilities, and detoxification facilities, at least 10
percent of patient bedrooms shall be accessible. Several comments,
including those from the Illinois Department of Corrections, considered
this scoping excessive for medical care facilities in detention and
correctional facilities.
Response. The minimum number of accessible patient bedrooms
required in ADAAG 6.1 recognizes that the incidence of disability,
either permanent or temporary, is greater in medical care facilities.
While information and survey data received in this rulemaking suggests
that the prevalence of disability is lower among the inmate population
than the general population, none was received indicating that the
incidence of disability is lower in detention or correctional medical
care facilities. In fact, in view of certain existing policies of
housing inmates with disabilities in infirmaries, it may be greater.
Consequently, the reference to ADAAG 6.1, which includes the 10 percent
scoping requirement for patient bedrooms, has been retained. One
corrections official stated that the scoping requirements of ADAAG 6.1
are ``an affirmation of good architectural practice.''
Comment. ADAAG 6.2 addresses entrances to medical care facilities
and requires that at least one accessible entrance ``be protected from
the weather by canopy or roof overhang.'' In addition, this provision
requires that such entrances also be served by an accessible passenger
loading zone. One State correctional agency indicated that canopy or
roof overhangs may compromise security by obstructing surveillance.
This commenter further recommended an exception for required clear
floor space alongside beds in existing facilities and an exception
allowing the location of toilet and bathing facilities within patient
cells instead of separate toilet or bathrooms.
Response. This provision has been revised to reference all sections
of ADAAG 6 (Medical Care Facilities) except ADAAG 6.2, which requires
canopy or roof overhangs. An exception has not been provided for clear
floor space alongside beds in existing facilities since these
guidelines pertain only to new construction and alterations. In the
case of an alteration, the necessary clear floor space required in
ADAAG 6.3 would be required only to the extent technically feasible.
Regarding the requirement in ADAAG 6.4 for accessible patient toilet
rooms and bathrooms, the references to ADAAG 4.22 (Toilet Rooms) and
ADAAG 4.23 (Bathrooms, Bathing Facilities, and Shower Rooms) do not
preclude placement of toilet or bathing fixtures within patient cells
or rooms as long as the requirements for toilet rooms and bathrooms,
including maneuvering space, are met.
Comment. Special holding or housing cells required to be accessible
by ADAAG 12.4.2 may include those used for purposes of medical
isolation. Since cells used for this purpose may be located within
medical care facilities, the NPRM asked whether they should be counted
as part of, or in addition to, the number of patient bedrooms or cells
required to accessible under ADAAG 6. A majority of the responses to
this question felt that medical isolation cells should be accessible in
addition to the percentage of patient bedrooms or cells required to be
accessible by ADAAG 6. In fact, several comments from corrections
officials indicated that all medical isolation cells should be
accessible.
Response. In view of the response to this question, language has
been added to the provision and the appendix clarifying that medical
isolation cells required to be accessible by ADAAG 12.4.2 shall not be
counted as part of the minimum number of patient bedrooms or cells
required to be accessible under ADAAG 6.1. Thus, if a medical care
facility has both types of cells, at least one medical isolation cell
must be accessible under ADAAG 12.4.2 in addition to the number of
patient bedrooms or cells, in most cases 10 percent, required to be
accessible by ADAAG 6.1. Consistent with the requirement for special
purpose cells in ADAAG 12.4.2, at least one medical isolation cell per
facility is required to be accessible. However, in view of the opinion
expressed by some prison operators, it is recommended that
consideration be given to ensuring the accessibility of all medical
isolation cells.
12.4.5 Alterations to Cells or Rooms
ADAAG 4.1.6 requires that if existing spaces or elements are
altered, then each such altered element or space shall be made
accessible. ADAAG 12.4.5 clarifies that the percentage of cells that
must be made accessible as part of an alteration is based on the total
number of cells altered and not on the total number of cells in the
facility. This would apply to all subsequent alterations until such
time as the minimum percentage required in new construction for the
facility overall is met. The three percent figure is consistent with
the minimum percentage specified for new construction.
Comment. Similar to a concern raised with respect to new
construction, some State correctional agencies requested that the
guidelines be flexible in requiring accessible cells or rooms as part
of an alteration. Some correctional systems contain prisons that under
current policies or assignment procedures are not intended to house
persons with disabilities.
Response. The concern raised by corrections officials is
understandable in light of current policies, but the underlying
rationale involves operational considerations, such as inmate placement
and assignment procedures, that lie beyond the Board's purview. As
noted previously, the Board's statutory mandate requires a minimum
level of accessibility in alterations and new construction. Operators
of correctional systems may question the practicality of making cells
accessible as part of an alteration at certain facilities not intended
to house inmates with disabilities. However, the ADA and its
legislative history recognize alterations as opportunities for
providing access. Such opportunities are to be taken even in situations
where the altered element or space may not be made fully accessible to
or usable by persons with disabilities. Further, additional alterations
may eventually lead to full accessibility of an existing facility, and,
with respect to correctional systems, assignment policies may change.
Such policies are subject to review by the Department of Justice under
title II of the ADA which prohibits discriminatory policies, practices,
and procedures.
Comment. In discussing requirements for accessible cells, various
commenters expressed concern about compliance in cases of alteration.
For example, requirements for toilet and bathing facilities include
specifications for grab bars. Commenters indicated that grab bars may
be properly mounted and secured to the degree necessary in new
construction but not necessarily as part of an alteration. In fact, one
commenter noted that the proper securement of grab bars in prison cells
may actually necessitate reconstruction of cell walls.
Response. The concerns raised about specific requirements in cases
of alteration involve issues already addressed by existing provisions
in ADAAG 4.1.6 (Accessible Buildings: Alterations). ADAAG 4.1.6 states
that where compliance is ``technically infeasible, the alteration shall
provide accessibility to the maximum extent feasible.'' ``Technically
infeasible,'' as defined in ADAAG 4.1.6, recognizes ``existing
structural conditions [that] require removing or altering a load-
bearing member which is an essential part of the structural frame'' and
``other existing physical or site constraints [that] prohibit
modification or addition of elements, spaces, or features'' in
compliance with ADAAG. Technical infeasibility, which is specific to
alterations, is intended to cover various situations that often must be
considered on a case-by-case basis. The specific concerns shared by
commenters, including those with respect to grab bars, may constitute
``technical infeasibility'' in many cases.
12.5 Requirements for Accessible Cells or Rooms
This section contains the minimum requirements for accessible cells
or rooms. These requirements, which are similar to those for holding
cells in judicial facilities in ADAAG 11.4.2, are based in part on
specifications in ADAAG 9 for rooms in transient lodging. The NPRM
asked whether any of these requirements, as proposed, conflicted with
existing security requirements inherent in cell design. Relatively few
commenters responded to this question. Most comments addressed
requirements for doors in ADAAG 12.5.2(1) or responded to specific
issues raised in the NPRM concerning toilet and bathing facilities
addressed in ADAAG 12.5.2(2) which are discussed below.
Comment. In the NPRM, the requirements of ADAAG 12.5 were intended
to apply to those elements or spaces that may be provided within cells
or in adjacent common use areas such as dayrooms. These requirements
have been clarified to apply only to those elements or spaces provided
within housing or holding cells or rooms. Elements and spaces provided
in common use areas, such as dayrooms, are subject to ADAAG
requirements for common use areas according to ADAAG 12.1.
12.5.2(1) Door and Doorways
This provision requires that all doors and doorways on an
accessible route comply with ADAAG 4.13 (Doors). As proposed, this
requirement contained an exemption from the requirements for
maneuvering clearances (4.13.6), door hardware (4.13.9), opening force
(4.13.11), and automatic or power-assisted operation (4.13.12) where
detainees or inmates are escorted by security personnel at all times.
Comment. As discussed in ADAAG 11.4.2, corrections officials and
several design professionals indicated that design requirements may
necessitate use of 300 to 500 pound doors. Such doors cannot meet the
specification for closing and opening forces in ADAAG 4.13.10 (Door
Closers) and 4.13.11 (Door Opening Force) without, at a minimum, power-
assist devices. In addition, commenters noted that security
requirements may prohibit the use of certain door hardware often used
in meeting the specifications for door hardware in ADAAG 4.13.9 (Door
Hardware). Accessible door hardware, such as lever handles, may be more
easily removed than doorknobs and other types of door hardware.
Response. Consistent with provisions for entrances in ADAAG 12.2,
the exception has been revised to include doors and doorways subject to
security requirements that prohibit full compliance with ADAAG 4.13.6
(Maneuvering Clearances at Doors), 4.13.9 (Door Hardware), 4.13.11
(Door Closers), and 4.13.12 (Automatic Doors and Power-Assisted Doors).
In addition, a reference to the specifications for door closers (ADAAG
4.13.10) has been added.
12.5.2(2) Restrooms
This provision requires that toilet facilities comply with ADAAG
4.22 (Toilet Rooms) and that bathing facilities comply with ADAAG 4.23
(Bathrooms, Bathing Facilities, and Shower Rooms). This provision
further notes that privacy screens, where provided, not encroach upon
the clear floor space required at fixtures.
Comment. One commenter recommended that this provision reference
ADAAG 4.16 (Toilets) and 4.19 (Lavatories) instead of ADAAG 4.22
(Toilet Rooms) since such fixtures are often located within housing or
holding cells and not separate toilet rooms.
Response. References to ADAAG 4.22 and 4.23 do not preclude the
installation of either toilet or bathing fixtures within cells as long
as the specifications, including those for clear floor space, are met.
These references clarify that the maneuvering space and other
requirements found in ADAAG 4.22 and 4.23 apply even if the room
functions primarily as a housing or holding cell. Since requirements
for the cell itself, including necessary maneuvering space, may be used
to meet the maneuvering space required by ADAAG 4.22 or 4.23, these
references do not have substantially greater impact than do references
to the specifications for specific fixtures. This is clarified in an
appendix note to this provision.
As discussed under ADAAG 11.4.2, many holding and housing cells are
equipped with a combination toilet and lavatory unit. These combination
units maximize space and are easier to install than separate fixtures.
The NPRM asked whether these type of units are actually required in
cells and whether combination units that fully meet ADAAG requirements
are available.
Comment. Several corrections officials indicated that they were
unaware of any combination unit that fully complies with ADAAG.
Corrections officials of some States, such as California, Florida, and
Michigan, noted that separate fixtures are used in accessible cells.
Manufacturers confirmed that the standard design of combination units,
including those otherwise considered accessible by the industry, do not
fully meet ADAAG requirements. Specifically, the standard design of
these units cannot easily incorporate the 36 inch long rear grab bar
required by ADAAG. Several commenters, including a design firm, thought
that it may be possible to install a grab bar of shorter length,
perhaps up to 24 to 26 inches, on some units. According to one
correction official, however, mounting a 26 inch grab bar on the unit
would double the amount of space required and quadruple the cost.
Several corrections agencies indicated that combination units are
not required but are used frequently, primarily because they require
less space than separate fixtures. One design professional noted that
their use is preferred in police station holding cells for security
reasons. The only source identified as actually requiring combination
units was Virginia's ``Guide of Minimum Standards in Design and
Construction of Jail Facilities'' which requires such units in maximum
security cells.
Response. Based on the comments, it is apparent that the use of
combination units are generally not required, but they are often
preferred for more efficient use of space and greater security. The
requirement for toilet rooms complying with ADAAG 4.22 remains
unchanged.
Comment. One corrections official expressed concern about
installing combination units that meet ADAAG specifications or separate
toilet and lavatory fixtures in existing cells as part of a renovation.
Installation of these elements would require converting two standard
cells into one accessible cell in order to provide the necessary clear
floor space at fixtures.
Response. Structural conditions and site constraints that prohibit
compliance with ADAAG in the case of alterations are addressed by ADAAG
4.1.6 (Accessible Buildings: Alterations). ADAAG 4.1.6 notes that where
it is ``technically infeasible'' to comply with ADAAG as part of an
alteration, compliance is only required ``to the maximum extent
feasible.'' Compliance with ADAAG that necessitates the removal of
walls may constitute ``technical infeasibility'' in many cases. The
term ``technical infeasibility'' is further discussed under ADAAG
12.4.5 (Alterations to Cells or Rooms).
Comment. The specifications for toilet rooms in ADAAG 4.22 and for
bathing facilities in ADAAG 4.23 include requirements for grab bars at
toilets, showers, and tubs. In the prison environment, such elements
must be properly secured so that they cannot be removed and used as
weapons. As discussed in ADAAG 11.4.2, the NPRM asked whether grab bars
can be installed without creating a security risk. A majority of
comments, including those from corrections officials, indicated that
grab bars do not pose a risk to security if mounted properly. Several
State corrections agencies offered certain methods of securement, such
as the use of steel imbeds. Some of these suggestions were qualified as
being able to reduce, but not necessarily eliminate, risks to security.
Several commenters considered grab bars more of a security risk in
maximum security facilities.
Response. Based on the comments, various alternatives do exist for
mounting grab bars so that they do not pose a risk to security.
Another question raised in the NPRM was whether grab bars can
facilitate suicide attempts among inmates or detainees. The NPRM asked
about the experiences detention and correctional authorities have had
with respect to grab bars and suicide attempts. This issue was raised
with respect to holding cells in judicial facilities covered by ADAAG
11.4.2 and to holding and housing cells in detention and correctional
facilities addressed by this section.
Comment. No information was received indicating that grab bars had
indeed been used in any recorded suicide attempt. However, the National
Center on Institutions and Alternatives notes that this ``could have
more to do with not only the problem of under-reporting of jail
suicides * * * but also the fact that grab bars are not yet
predominantly found in jails throughout the country.'' Several comments
did consider grab bars a suicide risk, particularly in police holding
cells, maximum security cells, and psychiatric facilities.
Most of the comments, however, particularly those from State
corrections officials, indicated that while they may pose some risk,
suicide prevention cannot be based solely on cell design. Some comments
considered it impossible to design a cell that is ``suicide-free'' and
noted that the risk posed by grab bars is not very different from the
risk already posed in many existing prisons or holding cells by cell
grillage, bed frames, and air circulation vents. Many of these
commenters stressed the importance of appropriate supervision and
classification of inmates and detainees in curbing the risk of suicide.
The California Board of Corrections, which oversees local and county
facilities, stated that:
The best deterrent to such activity is staff supervision and
appropriate classification of inmates to identify possible suicide
candidates. Another consideration is that grab bars are often
located in open areas where staff visibility is optimum. Finally,
California requires grab bars adjacent to all water closets in
detoxification cells due to the potential for injury to intoxicated
arrestees and there is no information to indicate an increase[d]
suicide potential in these cells due to grab bars.
Response. The response from a majority of corrections officials
indicates that supervision and classification of inmates are necessary
in preventing suicide. The operators of correctional facilities may
rely on these methods since correctional systems utilize extensive
evaluation and classification of inmates. However, this may not be the
case in detention facilities which may house persons immediately after
arrest. Information gathered by the Board indicates that, in general,
the chance of suicide is greatest during the first 24 or 48 hours
following arrest. This is consistent with the opinion expressed by a
few commenters that the suicide risk is greater in detention facilities
such as police station holding cells. However, commenters indicated
that appropriate supervision is necessary in these facilities in order
to effectively reduce the risk of suicide, especially since holding
cells may already contain elements, such as cell bars, that can
facilitate suicide attempts. An exception to the requirement for grab
bars in ADAAG 4.22 and 4.23 has not been included. The specifications
for grab bars in ADAAG 4.26 (Handrails, Grab Bars, and Tub and Shower
Seats) allow various design alternatives, and some designs were
suggested in the NPRM as possible alternatives. These included grab
bars that are recessed into the wall or that have infill welded plates
attached to the bottom. Several corrections officials stated that such
designs may help reduce but would not necessarily eliminate the risk of
suicide. Further, they may compromise security by providing space in
which contraband can be hidden. One State correctional agency advised
that operators ``should retain the flexibility of determining the grab
bar design suitable for a particular application.'' Current ADAAG
specifications do provide some degree of flexibility in the design of
grab bars. In addition, ADAAG 2.2 (Equivalent Facilitation) allows
departures from, or alternatives to, specific technical requirements in
ADAAG so long as equal or greater access is provided.
12.5.2(3) Beds
This provision requires that clear floor space 36 inches wide be
provided along one side of beds. The specifications for beds do not
preclude the use of upper bunks, which may be installed particularly in
cases of overcrowding. However, sufficient clearance must be provided
between bunks so that the transfer from wheelchairs to lower bunks is
not restricted. ADAAG does not currently specify such clearances, but
an appendix note recommends consideration of the standard human
dimensions associated with the use of wheelchairs in Appendix Fig. A3.
Comment. One comment from an individual with a disability
considered the clear floor space specified alongside beds to be
insufficient, while a corrections official considered the 36 inch width
excessive and recommended that 32 inches be the minimum. Further, this
commenter felt that certain cell elements, such as writing desks and
storage units, should be allowed to encroach upon this space up to 18
to 24 inches.
Response. The 36 inch wide specification is based on requirements
for patient bedrooms in ADAAG 6 (Medical Care Facilities). This is in
addition to the wheelchair turning space and connecting accessible
route required for the cell. Clear floor space required at fixed
elements, such as writing desks, may overlap the maneuvering space
required at beds; however, the fixed elements themselves may not
obstruct or reduce this maneuvering space. This provision remains
unchanged except for editorial revisions made for further
clarification.
Comment. A design professional questioned what the height of beds
should be in order to facilitate a transfer from wheelchairs.
Response. ADAAG specifies a range of 17 to 19 inches for the height
of toilet seats and shower seats in order to facilitate the necessary
transfer. This height is appropriate for beds as well. However,
determining this height for fixed beds should include non-fixed
elements such as bedding or mattresses so that the bed surface to which
one transfers is within the range of 17 to 19 inches from the finish
floor. Where upper bunks are provided, the height of the beds is
particularly important in ensuring sufficient headroom for transfer.
This information, including the recommended 17 to 19 inch height for
beds, has been added to the appendix.
12.5.2(4) Drinking Fountains
This provision requires that drinking fountains be accessible for
persons using wheelchairs and to those that may have difficulty bending
or stooping. This provision is consistent with ADAAG 4.1.3(10)(a).
Comment. One design professional disapproved of ADAAG 4.1.3(10)(a)
since it contains a performance standard. Another comment from a State
corrections authority supported the requirement for drinking fountains
accessible at both ``hi-lo'' heights.
Response. This provision allows use of ``hi-lo'' fountains, water
coolers, or ``other such means as would achieve the required
accessibility'' for both wheelchair users and persons who have
difficulty bending or stooping. This provision has not been revised.
12.5.2(5) Fixed Seating and Tables
This provision requires fixed seating and tables be accessible
according to ADAAG 4.32. This applies to fixed seating and tables
provided within, or serving, accessible cells. This requirement is
intended to address seating that may be provided in adjacent common use
spaces such as dayrooms.
Comment. One comment noted that this provision, if it is to apply
to areas such as dayrooms, should be stipulated in ADAAG 12.1 which
covers common use areas.
Response. As previously noted, this section has been revised to
apply to elements, including fixed seating and tables, that are
installed within housing or holding cells or rooms. Under ADAAG 12.1,
common use spaces, including dayrooms, serving accessible cells are
required to be accessible according to the applicable requirements of
ADAAG 4.1 through 4.35. This would include the five percent scoping
requirement and technical specifications for accessible fixed seating
and tables in ADAAG 4.1.3(18) and ADAAG 4.32, respectively.
12.5.2(6) Benches
This provision requires that benches be 17 to 19 inches high and
meet existing structural strength requirements in ADAAG 4.26.3
(Structural Strength). This requirement as proposed specified that
benches be a minimum of 24 inches in depth and at least 48 inches long.
As discussed in ADAAG 11.4.2(6), the specified minimum dimensions have
been removed.
12.5.2(7) Storage
This provision requires that fixed or built-in storage units be
accessible according to ADAAG 4.25 (Storage).
Comment. One commenter recommended coverage of inmate lockers.
Response. Under this provision, lockers that are fixed or built-in
would be subject to the applicable requirements of ADAAG 4.25. This
provision has been clarified to apply to fixed or built-in storage
units located within housing or holding cells or rooms.
12.5.2(8) Controls
This provision requires that controls intended for operation by
inmates be accessible according to ADAAG 4.27 (Controls and Operating
Mechanisms). This provision has not been revised.
12.5.2(9) Accommodations for Persons With Hearing Impairments
Under this provision, accessible cells are also required to be
accessible to persons with hearing impairments and comply with ADAAG
12.6. Cells or rooms addressed by this section are required to comply
with ADAAG 12.6 in addition to the three percent of cells or rooms
addressed by ADAAG 12.4.3. This provision is intended to address access
for those persons with both mobility and hearing impairments. The NPRM
asked whether this provision was necessary or appropriate with respect
to detention and correctional facilities.
Comment. A majority of the commenters, most from disability
organizations, supported this requirement. However, corrections
officials and the Bureau of Prisons recommended that this requirement
be removed. Most of these comments indicated that the elements required
to be accessible under this provision, alarms and permanently installed
telephones, are typically not provided or needed in cells. These
comments noted that staff supervision and controlled means of egress
preclude the need for alarms serving inmates.
Response. As discussed under ADAAG 12.4.3, alarms and permanently
installed telephones are not typically provided to serve individual
cells. Thus, the specifications referenced by this provision apply only
where such devices are provided. In addition, the requirement for
auxiliary visible alarms, as discussed under ADAAG 12.6 (Visible Alarms
and Telephones), does not apply where inmates or detainees are not
allowed independent egress. No changes were made to this provision.
12.6 Visible Alarms and Telephones
This section contains technical requirements for cells that are
accessible to persons with hearing impairments. ADAAG 12.6.1 requires
that if audible emergency warning systems serving cells or rooms are
provided, a visible alarm complying with ADAAG 4.28.4 (Auxiliary
Alarms) shall also be provided. Further, permanently installed
telephones, where provided within housing or holding cells or rooms,
are required to have volume controls complying with ADAAG 4.31.5
(Hearing Aid Compatible and Volume Control Telephones). TTYs in
detention and correctional facilities are not addressed by this section
but by requirements at ADAAG 4.1.3(17)(c)(v). ADAAG 12.6 clarifies that
portable devices may be used in lieu of permanent devices if necessary
wiring and outlets are provided.
Comment. As discussed under ADAAG 12.4.3, some corrections
officials, including the Bureau of Prisons, stated that such
specifications are unnecessary since the type of alarms and telephones
addressed by this section are typically not provided in cells. These
comments further stated that supervision of inmates and controlled
evacuations obviate the need for visible alarms and that, since alarms
may be vandalized or tampered with, their placement should not be
required within cells.
Response. These requirements, as stated in the corresponding
scoping provision at ADAAG 12.4.3 and reiterated in this section, apply
only where alarms and permanently installed telephones are installed
within housing or holding cells or rooms. With respect to the need for
alarms where evacuation of inmates is controlled, the proposed rule
noted that visible alarms are only required where ``inmates or
detainees . . . are allowed independent means of egress.'' For clarity,
this language has been restated as an actual exception to the
requirement for visible alarms. Thus, where independent egress is not
allowed, visible alarms would not be required even if an audible
emergency warning system is provided. With respect to alarms being
vandalized or tampered with, ADAAG 12.6.2 allows the use of portable,
instead of permanent, alarms as long as the necessary wiring and
outlets are provided. Operators can then install portable devices
according to need as required by the Department of Justice title II
regulation, which addresses the provision of auxiliary aids and
services. See 28 CFR part 35. This information is provided in an
appendix note to ADAAG 12.6.2.
Comment. An almost equal number of comments, primarily from
disability groups and State and local government agencies, supported
these requirements. Some commenters recommended additional
requirements, such as specifications for vibrating alarms, signals of
announcements or summons, and other notification devices.
Response. Auxiliary aids and devices, such as vibrating alarms are
not within the purview of these guidelines since such devices are
typically not built-in or addressed as part of facility design and
construction. Such devices, however, are not precluded by these
guidelines and, as noted above, are addressed by the Department of
Justice title II regulation as noted above.
13. Accessible Residential Housing
13.1 General
ADAAG 13.1 outlines the types of residential facilities addressed
by this section. These facilities include newly constructed or altered
single-family and multifamily dwelling units which are subject to title
II of the ADA. The term ``dwelling unit'' is defined in this section
and has been incorporated here to apply only to residential housing and
not transient lodging. The term ``dwelling unit'' as used in ADAAG 13
specifically applies only to those facilities used as a residence which
contain rooms and spaces for living, bathing, and sleeping and may
provide a kitchen or food preparation area. An appendix note at A13.1
clarifies that this section does not obviate responsibility for
compliance with Federal laws such as the Fair Housing Amendments Act of
1988 (42 U.S.C 3604 et seq.) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 (29 U.S.C 794). The appendix also discusses certain
characteristics that distinguish residential dwelling units addressed
by this section from those considered transient lodging. Specifically,
residential dwelling units typically contain accommodations, including
kitchens, bathrooms, living and sleeping areas. A discussion of the
definition of transient lodging is found in ADAAG 3.5.
ADAAG 13 contains specific requirements for accessible residential
housing which are in addition to those contained in ADAAG 4.1 through
4.35. This section defines ``public use areas'' and ``common use
areas.'' The definition of ``public use area'' is consistent with ADAAG
3.5. The definition of ``common use area'' is consistent with the
definition in ADAAG 3.5, but is more specific to residential facilities
covered by this section and applies to rooms, spaces or elements used
by residents or their guests, such as hallways, lounges, lobbies,
laundry rooms, refuse rooms, mail rooms, storage facilities, areas used
for official functions, recreational areas and passageways among and
between buildings. The term ``common use'' excludes spaces wholly
within a dwelling unit. An appendix note has been added to clarify this
requirement. An exception provides that elevators are not required in
residential facilities that are less than four stories if the
requirements of 13.1(2), 13.2 and 13.3 are met. A second exception has
been included for common use areas that serve a recreational purpose.
Under this exception, where multiple recreational facilities, such as
tennis courts, are provided, at least one of each type must be
accessible. An appendix note encourages that a sufficient number of
accessible multiple common use recreation facilities should be provided
to ensure equitable opportunities for persons with disabilities.
Comment. A commenter asked whether a facility which provides a
single room occupancy, is a dwelling unit. The commenter noted that
meals are provided on a congregate basis at these facilities, if at
all. Other commenters, including some colleges and universities,
requested a clarification as to whether the accommodations they provide
are dwelling units or transient lodging.
Response. Where a tenant rents only a sleeping room on a transient
basis it is not a dwelling unit as defined in ADAAG 13. Some sleeping
rooms have modest food storage facilities. However, these rooms are not
generally intended to be dwelling units. Such accommodations are more
similar to hotels and motels and if so, would be considered transient
lodging subject to ADAAG 9 (Accessible Transient Lodging). Language has
been added to ADAAG 13.1 which states that this section does not apply
to transient lodging. An appendix note makes it clear that other
residential housing for live-in employees or apartments for students
would be covered by ADAAG 13.1 if they contain dwelling units as
defined by this section.
Comment. A large number of commenters including, the Camden County
Office for the Disabled, the State of Washington Building Code Council,
the National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards, the
Montgomery County, (Maryland) Housing Opportunities Commission and, the
State of New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, expressed concern
regarding the application of these guidelines to single-family dwelling
units constructed or altered ``by or on behalf of'' a State or local
government entity. New Jersey noted that ``this requirement would have
an adverse impact on governmental single-family housing programs that
include low rate mortgages, zero down payment, closing cost assistance,
and construction financing to developers of for-sale single-family
homes.'' Other commenters supported coverage of single-family
residences such as official residences, those provided for governors
and State university presidents, and single-family housing provided as
public housing. The City of Chicago Mayor's Office commented ``The fact
that the ATBCB guidelines now require State and local governments to
apply access standards to single-family dwellings is highly
commendable.''
Response. Section 202 of the ADA prohibits public entities from
discriminating on the basis of disability. ``Public entity'' includes
any State or local government, any department, agency, special purpose
district, or instrumentality of a State or local government. See 42
U.S.C. 12131 and 12132. Thus, facilities which are subject to title II
of the ADA are covered by these guidelines. Single-family dwellings
such as a president's house at a university are included in this
definition and such dwellings are addressed in these guidelines. This
provision has been revised to indicate that these guidelines apply to
residential housing subject to title II of the ADA.
Comment. The NPRM asked whether an exemption for National Guard
facilities and other similar dwelling units in addition to dwelling
units for unaccompanied personnel should be included. The majority of
commenters did not support such an exception. A few suggested that the
Board might contemplate an exemption if there was clear linkage between
employee job descriptions which preclude persons with disabilities and
employee housing. One State's department of fish and game requested an
exemption for very remote cabins and dwellings used by seasonal
employees. They stated:
* * * the nature of the work at these remote sites is such that
employees must be `able-bodied' * * * Common sense dictates the
Department not assign employees with mobility or sight impairments
to these facilities for the safety of the employee as well as the
safety of his/her coworker(s).
A number of commenters, including the National Conference of States on
Building Codes and Standards, the State of Hawaii Architectural Access
Committee, and the City of New York, opposed such an exemption since
the facility occupancy and use may change. The Hawaii Commission for
People with Disabilities and the Kentucky Office of the Governor both
pointed out that National Guard facilities are used to house the
general public in the event of a disaster and neither supported an
exemption.
Response. The guidelines do not contain an exemption for National
Guard housing facilities or other similar dwelling units for
unaccompanied personnel. The majority of the commenters did not support
such an exception. Several commenters pointed out that in times of
disaster, these facilities are used to shelter or provide other
assistance to the public. This is a compelling reason to require
accessibility.
Additionally, the Board has not provided any exceptions based on
the presumed physical capabilities of building occupants or employees.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), commented that such
exceptions may be inconsistent with title I of the ADA as it pertains
to access for employees with disabilities. Title I of the ADA states
that employers must accommodate employees with disabilities unless
doing so would impose an undue hardship. Issues relating to other
exceptions are further discussed in relation to ADAAG 4.1.1(5) (General
Exceptions).
Comment. A few commenters, including the University of California
and the National Association of Home Builders suggested that in lieu of
the proposed rule, the Board should adopt the Fair Housing
Accessibility Guidelines issued by Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
pursuant to the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 3604 et
seq.). Commenters were concerned that overlapping federal guidelines
would cause confusion among facility owners and developers. The New
Jersey Department of Community Affairs suggested that the Board adopt
``the reasonable and effective approach'' in the Uniform Federal
Accessibility Standards (UFAS). A number of commenters including the
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) and the World
Institute on Disability strongly supported the proposed rule. DREDF
commented: ``It is highly commendable that the Board has chosen to
apply ADAAG and UFAS to housing for its basic requirements * * * This
approach must remain unchanged in the final standards.''
Response. Nothing in ADAAG 13 obviates the necessity for compliance
with the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines. This section, although
generally more stringent than the Fair Housing Accessibility
Guidelines, is compatible with those guidelines. Furthermore, this
section is consistent with standards referenced by HUD's regulations
implementing section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.
794) which reference UFAS (24 CFR 8.32). A discussion of the
relationships between these regulations and their applicable standards
is contained in the NPRM. (See 57 FR 60633).
Comment. The NPRM asked if an exception should be included similar
to that in UFAS for elevators in low-rise structures. The NPRM did not
include such an exception. UFAS 4.1.3(1) provides that all the
accessible dwelling units may be located on one accessible level if at
least one of each type of common area and amenity provided for use of
residents and visitors is available on the accessible level. Most
commenters supported such an exception. They noted that certain model
building codes require elevators in multifamily structures that are
four stories or more. These commenters also cited cost and maintenance
factors as reasons for supporting an exception. The Eastern Paralyzed
Veterans Association noted that the cost of each elevator provided in a
three story walk-up apartment would approximate the cost of one
dwelling unit, potentially resulting in the construction of fewer
units. If elevators are required in low-rise residential facilities,
the National Association of State Facilities Administrators expressed
concern that ``* * * public sector housing could lose much of its cost
advantage over exempt private sector housing, driving designs back to
high density, high rise dwellings.''
A few commenters objected to an elevator exception on the basis of
ensuring integration, security, and choice for people with
disabilities. One commenter strongly urged that smaller facilities be
required to have an elevator since the trend in development of publicly
owned housing is toward smaller facilities. Otherwise, the commenter
reasoned, accessible units will be provided only on the ground floor in
smaller facilities. Ground floor units, according to several other
commenters are more susceptible to burglary and other criminal
activities.
Some of the commenters who favored an elevator exception suggested
that it should be narrowly drawn so as not to include larger buildings.
In the interest of integration, the City of New York offered a
compromise provision under which buildings with less than twenty-five
dwelling units would not be required to have an elevator.
Response. While the concerns for greater choice and integration are
very important, requiring elevators in low-rise residential facilities
is likely to result in fewer affordable dwelling units due to the added
cost. The Board is well aware of the problems of all homeless persons,
including those with disabilities. While elevators facilitate
integration, there are associated costs. Requiring elevators in smaller
buildings will force redesign of the typical walk-up garden apartment
building, and the capital cost for each elevator is roughly equivalent
to one dwelling unit. Balancing social goals and economic realities
benefits all homeless people. Therefore, a provision has been added to
ADAAG 13.1(2) exempting residential facilities that are less than four
stories from the requirement for an elevator, provided that the
requirements of ADAAG 13.1(2) (Public and Common Use), 13.2 (Minimum
Number and Dispersion) and 13.3 (Requirements for Accessible Dwelling
Units) are satisfied. An elevator may be required if the requirements
of ADAAG 13.1(2), 13.2 and 13.3 cannot be met without providing
vertical access. For example, in a facility having only one building, a
designer may elect to locate all one bedroom units on the first floor
and all two bedroom units on the second floor. In this case, if more
than one accessible dwelling unit is required, an elevator may be
necessary to meet the dispersion requirements in ADAAG 13.2.2. This
exception does not decrease the minimum number of dwelling units that
must be accessible in a facility.
Comment. EPVA recommended inclusion of the 1993 BOCA National
Building Code requirement that where there are multiple facilities of
one type, 25 percent, but at least one, must be accessible.
Response. The proposed rule has been revised by deleting the term
``public use'' so that all newly constructed and altered recreational
facilities for use by the general public must comply with ADAAG 4. In
addition, at least one of each type of common use recreational facility
provided must be accessible. This provision is written to be consistent
with the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines which state: ``Where
multiple recreational facilities (e.g., tennis courts) are provided,
sufficient accessible facilities of each type to assure equitable
opportunity for use by persons with handicaps is required''. See 24 CFR
Ch. 1, App. II, sec. 5, req. 2. An appendix note indicates that one
accessible recreational facility may be insufficient to ensure
equitable opportunity by persons with disabilities.
13.2 Minimum Number and Dispersion
13.2.1 Minimum Number
This section outlines minimum scoping guidelines for accessible
residential dwelling units. Five percent of the total number of
dwelling units in a facility (i.e. on a common site) shall comply with
ADAAG 13.3 and 13.4. In a facility with more than two dwelling units,
25 percent, but not less than one of the accessible units complying
with ADAAG 13.3 and 13.4, shall have a roll-in shower. In addition,
where special purpose residences are provided for specific employee
positions and are not interchangeable (e.g., Governor's mansions and
university President's residences) each shall comply with 13.2.1(1).
Where special purpose residences are interchangeable, five percent, or
at least one shall be accessible. Examples of special purpose
residences that are interchangeable include, but are not limited to,
housing set aside for university faculty having similar rank and live-
in residences for museum curators and other professional staff. In
addition to these units, two percent of the total number of dwelling
units in a facility shall comply with ADAAG 13.4. This section also
provides that, when the total number of dwelling units is one, that
dwelling unit shall meet the requirements of ADAAG 13.2.1(1). An
appendix note clarifies that at least one of each type of unit size,
according to the number of bedrooms provided must be accessible
according to 13.2.2(2). Even when the minimum number requirements of
13.2.1 must be exceeded, access to all types of units, particularly
according to the number of bedrooms provided, will ensure a minimum
level of program access and may reduce future costs associated with
accommodating individuals with varying needs. Because existing units
can be made accessible to persons with hearing impairments with little
or no structural alteration, a similar provision is not included for
those units required to be accessible by 13.2.1(2).
Comment. The NPRM asked whether the scoping provisions were
appropriate and sought any information or survey results on the need
for accessible units in existing residential facilities which are owned
or operated by State or local governments, especially those that have
complied with UFAS. Although a number of commenters supported the
provision, many requested an increase in the percentages specified at
ADAAG 13.3.2(1). The City of New York recommended 8.5 percent
accessible dwelling units for New York based on recent census data.
DREDF, Independent Housing Services of San Francisco, California, and
others recommended ten percent accessible dwelling units under ADAAG
13.3.2(1). Conversely, a few commenters took the position that even
five percent accessible dwelling units is too great a burden. The City
of Boston, Public Facilities Department reported that where data are
available, the demand has consistently been between two and three
percent. They noted that accessible housing is not always occupied by
people with disabilities and that the demand does not support the five
percent requirement. On the other hand, a number of commenters
suggested that a lack of outreach to people with disabilities was the
reason for low occupancy rates of accessible units by persons with
disabilities.
With respect to ADAAG 13.3.2(2), the National Center for Law and
Deafness pointed out that the two percent scoping for dwelling units
accessible to persons with hearing impairments was less than the
scoping for transient lodging.
Response. The requirement for five percent accessible dwelling
units, is consistent with the requirements of HUD's regulation
implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 for
multifamily facilities. Also, the legislative history of the ADA
directs the Board not to set lesser accessibility requirements than
those included in the Minimum Guidelines and Requirements for
Accessible Design (MGRAD). H. Rept. 101-485, pt. 2, at 139. MGRAD
requires five percent of the total number of units of a facility, or at
least one dwelling unit, whichever is greater, to be accessible. See 36
CFR 1190.31(u)(2).
As with ADAAG 9.1.3 (Sleeping Accommodations for Persons with
Hearing Impairments), some dwelling units are required to be accessible
only to persons with hearing impairments. Where possible, consistency
with HUD's section 504 regulation is preserved. HUD's regulation
requires that an additional two percent of the dwelling units be
``accessible for persons with hearing or vision impairments.'' See 24
CFR 8.22.
Comment. The NPRM requested comment on the percentage of roll-in
showers that should be required. In addition, the NPRM asked whether
the requirement for roll-in showers in residential housing should
parallel the provision for transient lodging found in ADAAG 9.1.2. The
majority of the commenters supported a requirement for roll-in showers.
While some commenters such as the City of Pasadena, California
suggested that most persons with disabilities do not prefer roll-in
showers, commenters in support of requiring roll-in showers noted that
roll-in showers allow greater independence and may be used by a wide
range of persons. A few commenters raised concerns that roll-in showers
might cause water damage if improperly drained. Suggestions for scoping
ranged from no scoping to one hundred percent of the accessible units
in a facility. Most of those who recommended roll-in showers supported
requiring 25 percent of the accessible dwelling units have roll-in
showers. Regarding whether the scoping should parallel that for
transient lodging, there was clear consensus for applying the
requirement for roll-in showers to facilities with fewer than fifty
dwelling units. However, a number of commenters noted that a facility
having one single-family dwelling unit should not be required to
provide a roll-in shower.
Response. The guidelines do not apply the requirement for roll-in
showers to facilities having only one or two dwelling units. Doing so
might cause these facilities to be less desirable to persons who have a
need or preference for a bathtub. In a facility with more than two
dwelling units, requiring a roll-in shower to be provided in only 25
percent of the dwelling units complying with ADAAG 13.2.1(1) means that
a facility must have more than 80 dwelling units before a second roll-
in shower is required. For example, a facility with 81 dwelling units
is required to have five percent accessible units, which is five.
Therefore, of these five accessible units, 25 percent, or two, must
have a roll-in shower. The provision is similar to ADAAG 9.1.2
(Accessible Units, Sleeping Rooms and Suites) in that only very large
facilities are required to have more than one roll-in shower. It
differs in that the requirement for at least one roll-in shower applies
to smaller facilities. As for the issue of water damage caused by
improperly drained roll-in showers, roll-in showers can be designed,
installed, and maintained without presenting such drainage problems.
Comment. The NPRM asked whether a provision for bathtubs complying
with ADAAG 4.20 should be included. The NPRM also asked what percentage
of a facility's accessible dwelling units should contain such bathtubs.
There was no clear consensus among commenters regarding the need for
accessible bathtubs. Percentages suggested by commenters ranged from
zero to fifty. A number of commenters noted that bathtubs are
particularly useful to persons needing to immerse joints and muscles. A
very few commenters suggested that the guidelines require a particular
adaptable tub which can be made into a roll-in shower. One commenter
pointed out that adaptable dwelling units which are covered by the Fair
Housing Amendments Act are likely to have bathtubs.
Response. Experience suggests that roll-in showers are not provided
unless they are required. Where roll-in showers are not provided in
accessible units, accessible bathtubs or accessible shower stalls are
required by ADAAG 13.3.2(11). Further, adaptable dwelling units covered
under the Fair Housing Amendments Act are likely to have bathtubs and
are required to have support for grab bars. Therefore a specific
scoping provision for bathtubs is viewed to be unnecessary.
Comment. The NPRM asked whether basing the minimum number of
accessible dwelling units on the number of dwelling units in each
``facility'' is the most appropriate means of determining an adequate
level of accessibility. A very few commenters recommended that each
building in a facility or on a site should have accessible units. Most
commenters recommended using ``facility.'' Some preferred ``site''
because they believed that use of that term would affect dispersion of
accessible dwelling units giving the designer more flexibility in
determining the location of required accessible dwelling units within a
facility. A few commenters recommended scoping according to dwelling
units owned by a State or local government and used for a specific
program. Most of these commenters were concerned that scattered site
single-family housing which is used for certain social service programs
such as residential group homes would be required to be one hundred
percent accessible. Although many noted that they did not oppose such a
scoping requirement for new construction, they were concerned that
accessibility requirements, when applied to renovated or existing
housing, would be cost prohibitive.
Response. ADAAG 3.5 defines ``facility'' as ``[a]ll or any portion
of buildings, structures, site improvements, complexes, equipment,
roads, walks, passageways, parking lots, or other real or personal
property located on a site.'' The term ``site'' is defined at ADAAG 3.5
as ``[a] parcel of land bounded by a property line or a designated
portion of a public right of way.'' Given that these definitions are so
similar, there is no rationale for departing from the use of
``facility'' when referring to buildings on a single parcel of land. A
change from ``facility'' to ``site'' would not affect the dispersion of
accessible dwelling units.
13.2.2 New Construction: Dispersion
This provision requires that accessible dwelling units be
dispersed throughout a facility so as to provide people with
disabilities the housing choices comparable to and integrated with
those available to other members of the public. The provision also
requires certain factors to be considered when dispersing accessible
units. These factors include: vertical dispersion in buildings where
elevators are provided; unit size; rental or sale price; amenities
provided within dwelling units; and the availability and proximity of
amenities serving dwelling units. In addition, when units of different
size in terms of number of bedrooms are provided, at least one of each
such unit must be accessible. This provision may necessitate that the
minimum number of units required to be accessible by 13.2.1(1) be
exceeded. Additionally, if the minimum number has not been met, units
shall be dispersed throughout the facility according to the number of
bedrooms provided to the maximum extent feasible.
Comment. The NPRM asked whether there were overriding factors which
are more significant than a dispersed location for certain types of
facilities. Commenters were also asked whether accessible units should
be located close to entrances, amenities such as parking, or common use
areas. Most commenters supported the dispersion provisions included in
this section. They expressed a number of preferences for the location
of accessible units including: proximity to parking, recreation, and
laundry facilities; more secure areas; and more remote and secluded
areas. A few commenters noted that clustering accessible units in large
facilities with centrally located amenities may be preferable to
dispersing them in a manner that would not necessarily provide greater
geographic separation between units but would result in great travel
distances to those amenities for some occupants.
Some commenters were concerned that dispersion according to unit
configuration would force construction of accessible multi-story
dwelling units where multi-story units such as townhouses are provided.
Similarly, others were concerned that a requirement for dispersion
according to configuration would be interpreted strictly and that
accessible units would be required to have exactly the same footprint
as inaccessible units.
Response. The proposed requirement that units be dispersed
according to configuration has been deleted. Multi-story dwelling unit
construction is not uncommon and dispersion according to unit
configuration could limit viable design solutions such as constructing
one ``flat'' unit between two multi-story units. Provided that the
single-story unit includes the same elements and spaces as the multi-
story unit, it is an acceptable design. In light of commenters' diverse
preferences, especially concerning the location of accessible dwelling
units, the guidelines generally do not limit or restrict the method
used to achieve dispersion except that vertical dispersion must be
considered in elevator buildings.
13.2.3 Alterations: Minimum Number and Dispersion
ADAAG 13.2.3(1) provides that the minimum number of dwelling units
required to be accessible be based on the requirements of 13.2.1 in
relation to the total number of units being altered. This requirement
remains in effect and applies to each subsequent alteration until such
time as the total number of accessible dwelling units required by ADAAG
13.2.1 for the entire facility is achieved. An appendix note
illustrates this requirement. ADAAG 13.2.3(2) takes into account that
existing conditions or the scope of the alteration may limit full
dispersion of accessible units throughout the facility. This provision
only requires altered units that are made accessible to be dispersed to
the maximum extent feasible in accordance with ADAAG 13.2.2. An
appendix note clarifies that merely replacing an oven is not generally
considered an alteration, unless the oven in an accessible apartment is
replaced. In that case, the oven must meet the requirements of ADAAG
13.3.4(7) (Ovens).
Comment. Few comments were received for this section. Most of the
commenters were concerned with the application of these guidelines to
renovation of older existing single-family dwellings. The State of New
York Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities noted
that accessible features ``result in an `institutional looking' home''.
They were concerned that such homes would not serve the goal of
community integration of people with developmental disabilities.
Further, some commenters expressed concern that the cost of complying
with these guidelines would limit the selection of homes purchased for
renovation. A commenter requested assurance that the provisions of
ADAAG 4.1.7 are applicable to renovations of historic properties such
as a governor's residence.
Response. References in this provision to proposed ADAAG 13.5
(Dwelling Units Accessible to Persons with Vision Impairments) have
been removed because that reserved section has been deleted. As regards
aesthetics, application of these guidelines does not necessarily result
in institutional looking facilities. Architects and designers have
demonstrated the ability to incorporate accessible features in a manner
that reflects the overall style of the neighboring community. A number
of factors must be considered in the selection of homes purchased for
renovation. Although certain styles of existing dwellings lend
themselves more readily to renovations for accessibility, ADAAG
contains no requirement that these be selected. In fact, ADAAG
4.1.6(1)(j) contains an exception from full compliance with these
guidelines if alteration work is technically infeasible. Additionally,
the Department of Justice regulations implementing title II of the ADA
require that alterations to each facility covered under title II be
made in a manner that the facility is readily accessible to and usable
by individuals with disabilities, to the maximum extent feasible. See
28 CFR 35.151(b). Renovation of historic properties is covered in ADAAG
4.1.7.
13.3 Requirements for Accessible Dwelling Units
13.3.1 General
13.3.2 Minimum Requirements
This section provides that dwelling units required to be accessible
by ADAAG 13.2.1(1) shall comply with ADAAG 13.3.
13.3.2(1) Ancillary Areas
This provision applies the requirements of ADAAG 4.1 through 4.35
to those spaces and facilities serving accessible dwelling units which
comply with 13.2.1(1). These include entry walks, trash disposal
facilities, storage areas, and mail boxes. Few comments were received
on this provision. However, a change has been made to clarify that
these requirements apply only to fully accessible dwelling units and
not to those accessible only to persons with hearing impairments.
13.3.2(2) Maneuvering Space
This provision requires both wheelchair turning space complying
with ADAAG 4.2.3 and ground and floor spaces complying with ADAAG 4.5
in accessible spaces. Few comments were received on this provision and
no changes have been made.
13.3.2(3) Accessible Route
This provision requires an accessible route complying with ADAAG
4.3 to connect all accessible spaces and elements within accessible
dwelling units. The provision emphasizes that an elevator is not
required within multi-level dwelling units as long as required
accessible elements are provided on an accessible level. Few comments
were received on this provision and no changes have been made.
13.3.2(4) Parking
This provision provides the minimum requirements for accessible
parking spaces regardless of whether they are connected to dwelling
units or provided in a lot or other facility. The provision requires
one accessible parking space complying with ADAAG 4.6, or the universal
parking space design, for each accessible dwelling unit if resident
parking is provided. If more than one parking space is provided for
each dwelling unit, accessible parking spaces must be distributed among
all types of parking spaces. An exception provides that where parking
spaces are assigned to specific dwelling units, the parking sign
identifying the accessible space is not required to be provided until
the dwelling unit is occupied by a resident with a disability. The
provision further provides that two percent of the total parking
provided on a site in excess of one parking space per dwelling unit
shall be accessible.
Comment. The NPRM asked whether the guidelines should include a
requirement for accessible van parking and a requirement that every
accessible parking space in tenant lots be van accessible. Most
commenters supported a requirement for tenant parking spaces to be one
hundred percent accessible to tenants driving vans. A few suggested a
lower percentage. The Minnesota Council on Disability recommended
providing van parking for every dwelling unit having a roll-in shower.
Others, including the National Parking Association, suggested that an
adjacent parking space might be used as an access aisle for a van if
needed by a tenant. The National Conference of States on Building Codes
and Standards and a few other commenters supported the existing scoping
for van parking at ADAAG 4.1.2(5)(b).
Response. Although the need for tenant van parking could be greater
than the need for van parking for other occupancies covered by ADAAG
4.1.2(5)(b), commenters did not provide a rationale for a scoping
provision exceeding that already in ADAAG. Although some commenters
felt the costs were minimal, little cost information was provided. For
this reason, the scoping for van spaces in ADAAG 4.1.2(5)(b) has been
included for residential facilities.
Comment. The NPRM asked whether it should specify the universal
parking space design or the van accessible type for tenant parking.
Responses were divided among the two options. Very little cost data or
other information was provided for the choices selected. The Illinois
Department of Rehabilitation Services reported that accessible parking
spaces in Illinois are required to be sixteen feet wide and that access
aisles are not shared.
Response. ADAAG permits a designer to elect to provide a
combination of accessible car and van spaces or universal design
parking spaces. As commenters were so divided regarding design choices,
and because some States and localities have established code
requirements consistent with existing ADAAG, the guidelines do not
limit the options, but have retained the flexibility of choosing which
design option is preferred.
Comment. One commenter was concerned that signs identifying
accessible parking spaces would expose tenants to greater risk of
crime. The commenter noted that signs which identify spaces by
apartment or other identification number would serve the same purpose
as those which identify accessible reserved spaces since they both
restrict parking by unauthorized people.
Response. It is possible that signs designating spaces as reserved
for particular units are as effective as those signs which indicate
that spaces are reserved for accessible parking only. However, many
States and localities strictly enforce violations of properly
designated accessible spaces and law enforcement personnel may find it
more difficult to control misuse of spaces merely reserved for tenants.
Regarding concerns that parking signs will increase the potential for
crime, accessible spaces are configured differently from inaccessible
spaces and there already is an indication that the space serves an
accessible dwelling unit. For these reasons, signs are required.
Comment. The NPRM proposed that where parking is provided for
visitors, two percent of the spaces, but not less than one, must be
accessible. Very few comments were received regarding this provision.
However, the National Conference of States on Building Codes and
Standards and the New Mexico Governor's Committee on Concerns of the
Handicapped recommended clarifying the provision so that two percent of
all parking on a site in excess of one parking space per dwelling unit
be accessible.
Response. This provision is modified by dropping the term
``visitor'' parking and including a provision requiring two percent of
parking in excess of one parking space per dwelling unit to be
accessible.
13.3.2(5) Elevators
This provision requires that, if provided, elevators shall comply
with ADAAG 4.10. In addition, there are exceptions allowing the
installation of an accessible private residence elevator or a platform
lift complying with ADAAG 4.11 to connect levels within an individual
dwelling unit.
Comment. Commenters generally supported requiring elevators in
public spaces to comply with ADAAG 4.10. However, with regard to a
means of accessing different levels within a dwelling unit, a number of
commenters noted that they find platform lifts undesirable. Most
objected to their use in new construction. The California Department of
Rehabilitation noted that lifts should not be allowed in new
construction and that there are other alternatives such as elevators
and ramps. In addition, EPVA objected to viewing platform lifts used in
lieu of an elevator complying with ADAAG 4.10 as ``equivalent
facilitation.'' They noted, however that ``. . . economic and space
constraints suggest equivalent facilitation can be provided within
individual dwelling units by private residence elevators * * *'' No
commenters suggested that an elevator complying with ADAAG 4.10 should
be required within a single dwelling unit.
Response. The use of platform lifts in dwelling units is consistent
with the limited circumstances in which they may be used in other types
of facilities addressed in ADAAG 4.1.3(5) EXCEPTION 4. However,
accessible private residence elevators are also a viable design
alternative for dwelling units. Application of each of the exceptions
must be considered carefully during the design of the dwelling unit.
For example, inclined platform lifts may not reduce the width of an
exit stair and their use may greatly increase the space consumed by a
stair complying with State and local codes. Alternatively, private
residence elevators may require less square footage. Generally, the
initial costs of platform lifts are lower than those of accessible
private residence elevators. Finally, applicable State and local codes
should be considered when selecting a means of vertical access.
With regard to commenters' concerns regarding the equivalent
facilitation provision in the NPRM, ADAAG 2.2 does not invite elements
to be used in lieu of other required elements unless they provide equal
or greater access. For this reason, the provision allowing platform
lifts has been revised and is included as an exception. The new text
permitting accessible private residence elevators is also an exception
to this provision because elevators complying with ADAAG 4.10 are
designed for public, not residential, use.
13.3.2(6) Doors
This provision requires doors provided for passage in and to
accessible spaces to comply with ADAAG 4.13. In addition, where
peepholes are provided in other dwelling units, entry doors to dwelling
units are required to have a peephole for use by a seated person.
Although comments were received regarding bathroom door swing, few
comments were received on this provision. A commenter noted that
persons with hearing impairments would benefit from a peephole for
security purposes. This requirement has been added. Doors in bathrooms
are addressed at ADAAG 13.3.3(1).
13.3.2(7) Entrances
This provision requires at least one principal entrance to the
dwelling unit to comply with ADAAG 4.14. Where provided, additional
entrances should also be accessible.
Comment. There were few comments on this provision. Of the comments
received, the majority supported requiring all of the entrances to be
accessible. An architect noted that the guidelines should specify that
the accessible entrance be the ``primary'' entrance to the dwelling
unit. Independent Housing Services of San Francisco, California
supported requiring all entrances to be accessible, unless technically
infeasible. One commenter indicated that a dwelling unit with only one
means of egress is a fire hazard.
Response. Entrances to dwelling units usually serve as means of
egress. An appendix note at A13.3.2 indicates that a second means of
egress from a dwelling unit is recommended for emergency evacuation
purposes. In addition, language has been added to this provision
indicating that additional entrances, where provided, should be
accessible. This does not require these additional entrances to be
accessible, but rather urges designers to consider both the safety and
convenience of residents.
A requirement that all entrances be accessible may be extremely
costly. For example, the designer of a single-family dwelling unit may
wish to access a basement from the exterior by a flight of stairs. In
this example, the designer might have to forego an exterior entrance to
the basement. A multifamily dwelling unit may have a secondary entrance
or exit from the kitchen. If this secondary entrance is required to be
accessible, a latch side clearance of eighteen inches is required
adjacent to a door with a 32 inch clear width. In this example, a
galley kitchen might have to be significantly wider than planned due to
the added requirement for latch side clearance. As for technical
infeasibility, this term applies only to alterations, not new
construction. Technical infeasibility is very narrowly applied to
existing structural or site constraints.
13.3.2(8) Storage
This provision requires that at least one of each type of fixed or
built-in storage facility in accessible spaces in dwelling units,
including cabinets, shelves, closets, and drawers comply with ADAAG
4.25. No comments were received on this provision and no changes have
been made. Comments regarding kitchen storage are addressed at ADAAG
13.3.4(10).
13.3.2(9) Controls
This provision requires that controls in accessible spaces and
controls requiring regular or periodic maintenance or adjustments by
residents and electric circuit breaker panels comply with ADAAG 4.27.
This provision clarifies that controls may be inaccessible as long as
accessible redundant controls are provided in close proximity. An
exception to this provision provides that controls such as those on air
distribution registers that are placed on or close to ceilings or
floors are not required to be accessible.
Comment. EPVA recommended that the guidelines permit inaccessible
redundant controls such as switches for range hoods. They noted that
certain building codes require range hood switches to be built into the
unit face. In addition, they suggested that the guidelines specify that
circuit breaker panels are ``controls'' as defined by this provision.
Response. Redundant controls are permitted so that certain building
codes are not violated by these guidelines. Additionally, electric
circuit breaker panels are controls that must be accessible. The
interim final guidelines have been amended to reflect these changes.
13.3.2(10) Alarms
This provision requires that where emergency warning systems are
provided, they must include both audible alarms complying with ADAAG
4.28.2 and visible alarms complying with ADAAG 4.28.3.
Comment. The NPRM proposed to require auxiliary visible alarms
complying with ADAAG 4.28.4. The National Center for Law and Deafness
urged consideration of the fact that single station alarms, including
smoke detectors, generally are provided in residential dwelling units.
They suggested that the provisions of ADAAG 4.28.3 which address both
single station alarms and building-wide systems are more appropriate
for this section. They noted that the term ``auxiliary visible alarm''
implies that the alarm appliance is used in conjunction with or to
supplement a building's alarm system.
Response. Auxiliary visible alarms are used more appropriately to
supplement another alarm system. They have particular characteristics
that make them desirable in sleeping rooms in transient lodging
facilities where the room occupant is presumed to be asleep during much
of the time the room is occupied. This, however, is not the case in
residential dwelling units where persons are awake much of the time.
For this reason, the section is revised to reference ADAAG 4.28.3
(Visible Alarms). In addition, reference to single station alarms has
been removed from this provision because ADAAG 4.28.3 covers both
building-wide alarm systems and single station alarms which are not
integrated into a building's alarm system. There appears to be some
confusion regarding the difference between an emergency warning system
and a building-wide alarm. Both a building-wide alarm system and an
individual single station alarm are considered emergency warning
systems and providing either would require compliance with this
provision.
13.3.2(11) Bathrooms
This provision requires at least one full bathroom to comply with
ADAAG 13.3.3. It defines a full bathroom as having, at a minimum, a
water closet, a lavatory, and a bathtub, a shower, or a combination tub
and shower.
Comment. A number of national, State and local organizations
representing persons with disabilities indicated that all full
bathrooms on accessible floors should be accessible. One commenter
noted that two people using wheelchairs might share one dwelling unit
which has two bathrooms.
Response. Providing only one accessible full bathroom where more
than one bathroom is provided inconveniences some families. However,
where the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines are applicable,
blocking is required in the walls to support grab bars and doors are
required to provide sufficient clearance for entry into those
additional bathrooms that are not covered by this provision.
13.3.2(12) Kitchens
This provision requires kitchens to comply with ADAAG 13.3.4. No
comments were received on this provision and no changes have been made.
Comments regarding technical provisions for kitchens are discussed at
ADAAG 13.3.4.
13.3.2(13) Living Spaces
This provision requires the following spaces to be accessible and
to be on an accessible route: living areas; dining areas; sleeping
areas; and, if provided, patios, terraces, balconies, decks, carports,
and garages. With respect to sleeping areas in a dwelling unit with one
bedroom, that bedroom must be accessible. In dwelling units with more
than one bedroom, at least two bedrooms must be accessible. An
exception allows for a higher threshold at doors on patios, decks,
terraces, or balconies when it is necessary to protect the integrity of
the unit from wind or water damage if equivalent facilitation is
provided.
Comment. Some commenters requested that all living spaces on
accessible floors be required to be on an accessible route. Other
commenters requested that all bedrooms be required to be on an
accessible route. Commenters reasoned that persons with disabilities
should have full use and enjoyment of their dwelling units. Commenters
cited the example that parents with disabilities would need to access
children's bedrooms for a variety of reasons.
Response. With respect to new construction of certain multifamily
housing, ADAAG overlaps the requirements of the Fair Housing
Accessibility Guidelines. Those guidelines address requirements for an
accessible route into and through the covered dwelling unit. See 24 CFR
100.205. Elements and spaces which are addressed in ADAAG meet or
exceed the requirements of the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines.
Accessible living spaces should be designed to provide the required
clearances when the dwelling unit is furnished. For example, the
required accessible route in a master bedroom should not be obstructed
by a full size bed. In addition, the design of the unit will, to a
great degree, dictate furniture placement. If no wall space
accommodates a sofa or couch in a living room due to the placement of
doors then the furniture may, of necessity, obstruct maneuvering
clearances.
Comment. A number of commenters representing persons with
disabilities, including DREDF, objected to the exception for patios,
decks, terraces, or balconies. Independent Housing Services of San
Francisco, California urged that these guidelines not allow an
exception which gives people with disabilities less access than others
to the open air portion of dwelling units.
Response. The exception did not intend that access would not be
provided. It did, however, intend to permit higher thresholds where
equivalent facilitation using ramps, raised decking, or other means is
provided. This provision is based on ADAAG 9.2.2(6)(d) and the
exception has not been changed.
Comment. The proposed rule included carports and garages along with
patios, decks, terraces, and balconies in the list of spaces which were
required to be accessible. The exception for level changes however, did
not include carports and garages which are on an accessible level and
which serve the dwelling unit. A few commenters felt that this needed
clarification.
Response. Carports and garages are listed separately to clarify
that the exception for level changes does not apply to all these
spaces. Carports and garages serving accessible dwelling units as well
as their routes or connections to the dwelling unit must be accessible.
13.3.2(14) Laundry Facilities
This provision requires laundry facilities to be accessible in
compliance with ADAAG 13.3.5. Few comments were received on this
provision and no changes have been made.
13.3.3 Bathrooms
This section establishes minimum requirements for accessible
bathrooms within dwelling units.
13.3.3(1) Doors
This provision requires that bathroom doors comply with ADAAG 4.13.
The door swing may overlap required clear floor space for fixtures
provided that maneuvering clearance is beyond the arc of the door
swing.
Comment. The NPRM proposed a provision based on ADAAG 4.22.2 that
would prohibit the door swing from intruding on clear floor space
required for any fixture. A number of commenters opposed this
requirement based on the rationale that bathrooms in dwelling units are
for individual use. They reasoned that the additional space required to
accommodate a door swing outside of the clear floor space could be as
much as twelve square feet. Several commenters noted that the ANSI
A117.1-1992 standard for Accessible and Usable Buildings allows the
door to swing into the clear floor space in single user toilet rooms
provided that maneuvering clearance is provided beyond the arc of the
door swing. One commenter believed that in order to reduce costs, a
person using a wheelchair or other mobility device should back out of a
residential bathroom.
Response. The Board agrees that fixtures in residential bathrooms
are still usable if doors are permitted to swing into the required
clear floor space. However, residents with disabilities should not be
required to back out of their bathrooms. This would require that they
must use the facility with the door open. Permitting this design
alternative would constitute an intrusion into the privacy of
individuals with disabilities. In order to facilitate a turn within the
bathroom, and to accommodate commenters' concerns, the original
language in the NPRM prohibiting doors from swinging into required
clear floor space has been revised. The new language is consistent with
ANSI A117.1-1992 section 4.16.2 in that the arc of the door swing may
overlap required clear floor space at fixtures as long as it does not
intrude into required maneuvering clearance within the room. This
change allows greater flexibility in the layout of a residential
bathroom and does not greatly compromise its usability.
13.3.3(2) Water Closets
This provision requires water closets to be accessible in
compliance with ADAAG 4.16 and allows a water closet height range of 15
to 19 inches measured to the top of the seat. ADAAG 4.16 includes
requirements for a grab bar 36 inches in length behind the water closet
and a grab bar 42 inches in length beside the water closet and contains
requirements for toilet paper dispensers and requirements for flush
controls.
Comment. Several commenters raised concerns over the provision
allowing the height of toilet seats to range from 15 to 19 inches. Some
commenters supported the use of lower water closets noting they have
difficulty using higher water closets and others felt they would find
lower water closets less accessible.
Response. Because there was no clear consensus among commenters for
a specific height, no changes were made to this provision.
13.3.3(3) Lavatories and Mirrors
This provision requires lavatories and mirrors to be accessible in
compliance with ADAAG 4.19. If medicine cabinets are provided, at least
one must have a usable shelf no higher than 44 inches and provide clear
floor space complying with ADAAG 4.2.4.
Comment. A few commenters suggested that removable base cabinets
should be permitted under lavatories.
Response. These guidelines provide requirements for accessible
dwelling units. Adaptability, which permits removable base cabinets, is
provided in all units covered by the Fair Housing Accessibility
Guidelines.
13.3.3(4) Bathtubs
This provision requires that bathtubs, where provided, comply with
ADAAG 4.20. Few comments were received regarding this provision and no
changes were made.
13.3.3(5) Showers
This provision requires that showers, if provided, comply with
ADAAG 4.21.
Comment. A few commenters noted that the California State building
code uses different dimensions for accessible showers. Several
commenters were particularly concerned that 30 by 60 inch roll-in
showers were too shallow to properly contain water. No comments were
received regarding the relative usability of roll-in showers complying
with ADAAG versus other designs such as those complying with
California's requirements.
Response. The 30 by 60 inch dimensions of roll-in showers are a
minimum dimension. Nothing prohibits a designer from making a deeper
shower. Furthermore, ADAAG 2.2 allows equivalent facilitation where
alternative designs provide substantially equivalent or greater access
to and usability of an element of a facility. No changes were made to
this provision.
Comment. One commenter recommended that bathtubs and showers have a
means of preventing scalding from hot water surges.
Response. Such devices may be beneficial to all residents. However,
there is no reason to believe that these devices are more desirable in
an accessible dwelling unit than in other units.
13.3.3(6) Bathtub and Shower Enclosures
This provision provides that enclosures for bathtubs or shower
stalls do not obstruct controls or the transfer from wheelchairs onto
shower or bathtub seats. In addition, it provides that enclosures on
bathtubs shall not have tracks mounted on the tub's rims.
Comment. One comment was received that recommended minor rewording
of the provision for clarity.
Response. The provision has been amended to clearly indicate that
tracks shall not be mounted on the tub's rims. No substantive changes
have been made to this provision.
13.3.3(7) Fixtures and Controls
This provision notes that the clear floor space at fixtures and
controls and the accessible route may overlap. The provision also
reiterates that those fixtures and controls required in accessible
bathrooms must be on an accessible route.
Comment. One commenter objected to the provision's redundancy with
respect to the required accessible route.
Response. With respect to redundancy, experience has shown that
accessible route requirements frequently are overlooked. Therefore,
this provision has been retained as proposed.
13.3.3(8) Maneuvering Space
This provision requires a turning space complying with ADAAG 4.2.3
which requires that accessible spaces have a maneuvering space
complying with ADAAG 4.2.3. Under ADAAG 4.2.3 either a sixty inch
diameter turning space or a T-shaped space is allowed. See ADAAG Figure
3.
Comment. Few comments were received on this provision. However, as
noted at ADAAG 13.3.3(1), a small minority of commenters felt that the
maneuvering space could be eliminated.
Response. The guidelines address the issue of unobstructed
maneuvering clearance within a bathroom at ADAAG 13.3.3(1). Maneuvering
space is a prerequisite for access within and use of any space.
13.3.4 Kitchens
This section contains requirements for accessible kitchens, which
are required to be located on an accessible route. Accessible kitchens
and their components shall be designed to allow for the operation of
cabinet and/or appliance doors. This section has been clarified to
cover kitchens that are located within accessible dwelling units as
well as those that serve accessible dwelling units.
13.3.4(1) Maneuvering Clearance
This provision specifies clearances between all opposing base
cabinets, counter tops, appliances, or walls depending on the kitchen
layout.
Comment. Several commenters noted that the minimum 40 inch
clearance between base cabinets in a galley kitchen is insufficient for
maneuvering if the clear width of at least one work surface is less
than 36 inches. They pointed out that ADAAG 4.2.3 requires a minimum 36
inches in each portion of a T-shaped space to facilitate maneuvering.
Other commenters noted that the State of California requires a minimum
48 inches between base cabinets.
Response. Commenters' concerns regarding the width of the adjoining
portion of a T-shaped maneuvering space are addressed at ADAAG
13.3.4(4). This provision does not increase the 40 inch dimension
between base cabinets since doing so would then exceed the requirements
of ADAAG 4.2.3 with respect to that portion of a T-shaped turn.
Comment. A few commenters asked for clarification regarding the
definition of a U-shaped kitchen.
Response. Language has been added to clarify that a U-shaped
kitchen is a closed end space having fixtures, storage or other usable
elements on three sides. A kitchen that is open at both ends, or,
closed at one end which has no fixtures, storage, or other usable
elements at the closed end is not a U-shaped kitchen. In a U-shaped
kitchen, a person will need a 60 inch clear floor space for maneuvering
between elements located on three sides of a kitchen, while a T-turn
should provide sufficient maneuvering space if elements are only
located on two sides.
13.3.4(2) Clear Floor Space
This provision requires clear floor space that allows either a
forward or a parallel approach at fixtures and appliances in the
kitchen, including, but not limited to, the range or cooktop, oven,
refrigerator/freezer, dishwasher, and trash compactor. The provision
also requires that sinks shall have a forward approach. The provision
also requires that laundry equipment located in the kitchen comply with
ADAAG 13.3.5.
Comment. Very few comments were received on this provision,
however, an architect noted that some of the dimensions are redundant.
The commenter felt that dimensions should not be repeated unless they
are ``an exception to the referenced standard.'' Also, it was noted
that sinks should be required to have a forward approach. In addition,
the commenter noted that the requirement for maneuvering space in
compliance with ADAAG 4.2.3 duplicates requirements already stated in
ADAAG 13.3.2(2). The commenter recommended that redundant provisions be
deleted.
Response. Some redundancy is necessary as it is not uncommon for
requirements for maneuvering space to be overlooked. However, repeating
the dimensions along with the referenced section is unnecessary and the
provision has been changed accordingly. Further, language has been
added to clarify that accessible sinks must have a forward approach.
Comment. An architect requested that the guidelines clarify that
the provision also applies to kitchen fixtures. In addition, the
commenter recommended adding a number of fixtures to the list with an
indication that the list of fixtures and appliances is not exhaustive.
Response. The guidelines have been revised to add ``fixtures'' to
the requirement and indicate that the list is not exhaustive. Counter
work surfaces and sinks have not been added to the list because both
require knee clearance for a front approach. This provision allows
either a front or parallel approach. Adding kitchen sink or work
surfaces to this provision might be interpreted to mean that knee
clearance is not required at sinks or work surfaces. See ADAAG
13.3.4(4) and ADAAG 13.3.4(5).
13.3.4(3) Controls
This provision requires that all controls in kitchens comply with
ADAAG 4.27. No comments were received on this provision and no changes
have been made.
13.3.4(4) Counters
This provision requires at least one 36 inch section of a counter
for an accessible work surface. The provision allows the accessible
work surface to be either adjustable within a range from 28 to 36
inches or mounted at a fixed height not exceeding 34 inches. It also
requires that the counter thickness and supporting structure be two
inches maximum over the required knee clearance. Clear floor space at
the accessible work surface allowing for a forward approach is
required. This provision limits the amount of clear floor space that
may be provided under the work surface to 19 inches, and specifies that
knee space must be 30 inches wide and 19 inches deep.
Comment. The NPRM proposed to require a work surface 30 inches
long. As noted in ADAAG 13.3.4(1), a number of commenters pointed out
the inconsistency of requiring a T-shaped maneuvering clearance in a
kitchen when the clearance under the work surface is less than 36
inches. Further, an architect pointed out that ADAAG 7.2(1) requires a
36 inch wide counter for ``incidental use'' and only 30 inches for
spaces that affect a ``person's ability to be self-sufficient.''
Response. The Paralyzed Veterans of America conducted informal
research which may suggest that a T-turn is possible if corridors are
wider than 36 inches to compensate for doorways which are slightly
narrower than 32 inches clear. However, further study is necessary
before changes are made in this area. Although the work surface is not
required to be part of a T-shaped turn, it seems probable that it will
serve that purpose. Because a T-shaped turn is required by ADAAG
13.3.2(2) in accessible spaces, the required kitchen work surface
should be a minimum 36 inches in width. In addition, no other usable
surface required in ADAAG, including those for incidental use, is only
30 inches in width. It is likely that food preparation will require
some room for elbows in order to have adequate room to perform standard
kitchen operations. A change has been made to require a 36 inch work
surface.
13.3.4(5) Sinks
This provision requires that the sink and surrounding counter
comply with ADAAG 4.24. This provision allows for the sink to be
capable of being adjusted to alternative heights.
Comment. A few commenters suggested that the sink should be
required to be adjustable and not fixed. They reasoned that individuals
vary greatly in their seating, height, and reach ranges. One commenter
noted that the proposed guidelines, in specifying adjustable mounting
heights, had left out an option for 30 inches.
Response. The original proposal has been changed to specify that
the sink, if adjustable, must be adjustable at two inch increments from
28 to 36 inches. The Board recognizes that sinks that are adjustable
are preferred over those that are fixed by many people with
disabilities. However, very little information was received regarding
this option. The Board is reluctant to depart from UFAS 4.34.6.5(1) in
the absence of more detailed information, including costs and
availability.
Comment. EPVA and a few other commenters suggested that removable
base cabinets should be permitted under sinks to increase storage and
for aesthetics. They further suggested that ``the Department of Justice
can require that removal costs be assumed by the government landlord,
not the tenant.''
Response. ADAAG 13 requires fully accessible dwelling units.
Tenants often experience difficulty with elements that require
adaptation by the landlord. For this reason, cabinets are not permitted
to be constructed under sinks.
13.3.4(6) Cooktops
This provision requires that cooktops have accessible controls
which do not require reaching across burners. Cooktops with knee space
underneath must be insulated or otherwise protected on the exposed
contact surface to prevent burns, electrical shock, and abrasion.
Comment. Few comments were received on this provision. However, one
commenter did recommend that the cross-references to ADAAG 13.3.4(2)
and 13.3.4(3) be deleted.
Response. This change has been made since the referenced provisions
are in the same section.
13.3.4(7) Ovens
This provision requires ovens to be of the self-cleaning type or to
be located adjacent to an adjustable height counter with knee space
below. For side opening ovens, the door latch side is required to be
configured so that the oven interior is accessible to the counter
space. This provision requires a pull-out shelf under a side opening
oven extending the full width of the oven which can be pulled out not
less than 10 inches. Ovens are also required to have controls on front
panels or on either side of the door.
Comment. The Greater Burlington Disability Council of Winooski,
Vermont noted that the accident history of two Vermont public housing
authorities suggested that both floor ovens and wall ovens have serious
drawbacks with respect to accessibility. They, and other commenters,
characterized both as unsafe. One commenter suggested that wall ovens
with knee space under them are particularly hazardous because of risks
of being burned by hot items falling in the lap. A commenter suggested
that a combination convection/microwave oven was safer and more
accessible.
Response. Ovens are difficult for many people to use. However, no
safety data has been provided on which to base a requirement for an
alternative appliance. Knee space under wall ovens does not enhance
their accessibility and invites accidents and therefore, the guidelines
provide that wall-ovens shall not have knee space under them.
Comment. One commenter noted that controls on the top of a wall
oven may be within reach range, but may not be visible.
Response. There appear to be no reasonable alternatives.
Manufacturers offer very limited options for ovens with side controls
and the guidelines cannot limit design alternatives so severely at this
time. The Board acknowledges that the relationship between reach range
and line of sight is a pertinent area of study that may bear on many
other ADAAG provisions. For example, the ANSI A117.1 Task Force on
Automated Teller Machines is currently studying this issue.
13.3.4(8) Refrigerators and Freezers
This provision requires that refrigerators and freezers be either
the side-by-side type or the over and under type, with 50 percent of
the freezer within 54 inches. Where 100 percent of the freezer is not
within the reach ranges specified in ADAAG 4.2.5 and 4.2.6, it must be
a self-defrosting type of mechanism.
Comment. One commenter took the position that side by side
refrigerator-freezers were the only truly accessible units. Another
commenter felt that side by side units restricted accessibility. In
addition, a commenter questioned why bottom-mount freezers were not
permitted.
Response. Because very few comments were received regarding this
provision, and because only two commenters expressed a preference for a
certain style of refrigerator and freezer unit, the guidelines have not
restricted choices regarding the type of unit. Proposed ADAAG
13.3.4(8)(b)(ii) which required 100 percent of the refrigerator to be
no higher than 54 inches has been deleted to allow greater flexibility.
Consequently, refrigerators, especially those with bottom mounted
freezers, may have some portion of the refrigerator outside of the
reach ranges specified in ADAAG 4.2.5 and 4.2.6. However, a new
provision has been added to clarify that controls for refrigerator and
freezer compartments must be accessible as required by ADAAG 13.3.4(3).
13.3.4(9) Dishwashers
This provision requires that dishwashers be front loading machines.
Comment. One commenter noted that references to ADAAG 13.3.4(2) and
13.3.4(3) should be removed as they are redundant.
Response. These references have been removed.
13.3.4(10) Kitchen Storage
This provision requires that kitchen storage cabinets, drawers and
shelf areas comply with ADAAG 4.25. At least one shelf in all cabinets
and storage shelves mounted above work counters must have a maximum
height of 48 inches. Additionally, door pulls and handles are required
to be mounted at the top of a base cabinet and at the bottom of a
cabinet over a counter.
Comment. One commenter understood the reference to ADAAG 4.25 to
require all wall cabinets to be mounted with the top shelf no higher
than 54 inches.
Response. Reference to ADAAG 4.25 has been removed from this
provision for clarity. At least one shelf of each wall cabinet above
counters must be mounted at a maximum height of 48 inches. Other
shelves in the cabinet may exceed this limit. Other applicable
requirements contained in ADAAG 4.25 are duplicated in ADAAG 13.3.4(2)
and 13.3.4(3).
Comment. The NPRM noted that the Board was considering requiring
that a portion of the kitchen storage cabinets be provided with pull-
out shelving and requested comment on this subject. Responses varied
widely. Most individuals with disabilities and organizations
representing them favored a requirement; a few offered alternatives
such as shallow pantries and lazy susan devices. On the other hand,
State and local government housing providers felt that costs were too
high and several commenters noted that maintenance, not installation
costs, were of great concern. Some commenters felt features such as
pull-out shelving or lazy susans should be the responsibility of the
tenant. The American Society of Interior Designers noted that supplying
all base cabinets with pull-out shelving could add as much as one
thousand dollars to the cost of a kitchen. However, they added that
floor space could be used more efficiently and perhaps fewer shelves
would have to be accessible. One commenter suggested that pull-out
shelving in wall cabinets could cause injuries from falling objects.
Response. Because so many commenters had reservations about a
requirement for pull-out shelving, no provision has been added. This,
however, is considered a viable option for providing greater
accessibility to kitchen storage.
13.3.5 Laundry Facilities
This section contains requirements for accessible laundry
facilities. This provision requires laundry facilities and equipment
within or serving accessible dwelling units to be on an accessible
route. A minimum of one washing machine and clothes dryer provided in
each common use laundry room serving one or more accessible dwelling
units is to be front loading. The provision also requires that laundry
equipment controls comply with ADAAG 4.27. Few comments were received
on this section and no changes have been made.
13.4 Requirements for Dwelling Units Accessible to Persons With
Hearing Impairments
This section provides that dwelling units required to be accessible
by ADAAG 13.2(1) and 13.2(2) comply with ADAAG 13.4. Dwelling units
that are required to be fully accessible, as well as those required to
be accessible to persons with hearing impairments, must comply with
this section. This section provides that alarms comply with ADAAG
13.3.2(10) which requires that emergency warning systems include both
audible alarms complying with ADAAG 4.28.2 and visible alarms complying
with ADAAG 4.28.3. An equivalent facilitation provision permits the
installation of appropriate electrical outlets or connections so that
visible alarms can be provided by the operator of the facility when
they are needed by a tenant. An appendix note has been added which
provides some alternative methods of alerting residents of emergencies.
Such alternative methods may be required by the Department of Justice
title II regulation implementing title II of the ADA and by HUD's
regulation implementing section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
This section also requires permanently installed visible notification
devices serving all living, sleeping, dining, kitchen and bathrooms.
Notification devices must include visible signals to alert occupants of
incoming telephone calls or door knocks or bells. Such devices must
have controls for deactivation in sleeping rooms and may not be
connected to visible alarms. An equivalent facilitation provision
permits telephone and other wiring to be installed at the time of
construction to accommodate portable notification devices which are
provided by the operator of the facility when needed by a tenant with a
hearing impairment. Further, this section requires that permanently
installed telephones be hearing aid compatible, have volume controls,
and be equipped with a TTY.
Comment. In the NPRM, visible alarms were required to comply with
ADAAG 4.28.4 (Auxiliary Alarms) regardless of the type of emergency
warning system provided. The National Center for Law and Deafness
recommended referencing ADAAG 4.28.3 (Visible Alarms) because either
single station alarms, including smoke detectors, or building-wide
alarms may be provided in a residential dwelling unit. A few commenters
were concerned that single station alarms or smoke detectors would be
required to be connected to a facility's central alarm. They stated
that there would be a conflict in the technical provisions if no such
central alarm system existed and further were concerned that single
station alarms would be provided to persons with hearing impairments
when a building wide alarm was provided to other residents of the
facility. In the NPRM, equivalent facilitation provisions were combined
at proposed ADAAG 13.4(2) for all elements required in dwelling units
accessible to persons with hearing impairments. Commenters urged that
provisions for equivalent facilitation be clarified so that single
station visible alarms are provided when single station audible alarms
are provided. Further, commenters suggested that the requirement was
not clear as to what must be provided at the time of construction and
what may be provided as equivalent facilitation. Finally, commenters
questioned why permanently installed telephones were not required to be
hearing aid compatible or to be equipped with a TTY but are required to
have a volume control.
Response. The provisions for visible alarms have been revised to
reference ADAAG 13.3.2(10). For a more detailed discussion see ADAAG
13.3.2(10). Provisions for equivalent facilitation have been clarified
and relocated to follow applicable requirements. Visible alarm and
notification devices may be supplied by the operator of the facility
during the tenancy of a person with a hearing impairment provided that
appropriate outlets, connections and wiring are installed at the time
of construction. A clarification has been added so that electrical
outlets for single station visible alarms must be provided when single
station audible alarms are provided; and connections to the facility's
central alarm system must be provided to accommodate visible alarm
appliances where a central alarm system is provided. Language has been
added to clarify that an electrical outlet would not be sufficient to
accommodate a visible alarm appliance that is part of a building wide
alarm system.
Provisions have been added to the requirement for notification
devices so that all primary areas of the dwelling unit are adequately
served. This does not require a device in each area provided that the
signal is visible in the area. Additionally, for the convenience of the
occupant a provision has been added requiring controls for deactivating
notification devices in sleeping rooms.
With regard to telephones, this provision has been modified to
reference ADAAG 4.31.5(1) and 4.31.5(2) which require that permanently
installed telephones be both hearing aid compatible and have volume
controls. In addition, a requirement that a TTY be provided has been
added so as to ensure equal access by persons who are deaf or hard of
hearing.
Comment. A commenter urged that the guidelines include a
requirement for peepholes in doors to units that accommodate persons
with hearing impairments. The commenter reasoned that if a person
cannot hear a spoken greeting through the door it is necessary to open
the door to determine who may be seeking entry.
Response. A requirement for peepholes which are accessible to
standing individuals has been added to this section. The provision is
regarded as necessary to ensure a tenant's safety.
13.5 Requirements for Persons With Visual Impairments
Section 13.5 (Requirements for Dwelling Units Accessible to Persons
With Visual Impairments) was reserved in the NPRM. This section has
been eliminated in the interim final guidelines.
Comment. The NPRM asked what provisions, if any, are necessary for
residential housing to accommodate persons who are blind, as well as
those with low vision. The NPRM requested supporting data or other
information, including building codes, State or local requirements, and
cost information. Individuals and organizations representing persons
with disabilities were asked to provide recommendations based on their
experience or expertise. Commenters proposed requirements that
included: color schemes for baseboards, doors, and windows that
contrast with the color of walls and floors; standardizing placement
rather than color contrasting; controls to be located on the front, top
or side of stoves; lighting fixtures which can accommodate 150 watt
bulbs, with highly adjustable dimmers for tenants with residual vision;
elevators that have Braille and large print, as well as a voice
synthesizer to announce floors; tactile signage for car controls and
hoistways in white characters on black background; edged stairs and
handrails on both sides; signage in areas such as laundry facilities,
garbage areas, restrooms, and lounges; a 10 inch allowable height for
unlimited protruding objects rather than the 27 inch currently allowed;
and air and heat thermostats, security and fire alarms, and visitor
indicators and identifiers equipped with talking systems.
Several State and local chapters of the National Federation of the
Blind, other organizations, and many individuals took the position that
no adaptations are necessary for dwellings inhabited by persons who are
blind. These individuals and organizations maintain that issues such as
color contrast and controls with tactile markings are largely a matter
of individual preference and need, and that guidelines in these areas
could very easily interfere with some individuals' needs and accustomed
ways of functioning. These groups and individuals feel that
establishing guidelines for dwelling units would only serve to separate
blind persons from the rest of society.
Response. For each type of residential housing requirement
suggested by commenters, varied and numerous means by which to achieve
the requirement were proposed. For example, commenters suggested
various methods of providing color contrast. Individual preferences and
accommodations vary widely and it would therefore be difficult to
accommodate all people with vision impairments using one color.
Similarly, on the issue of controls with tactile markings, commenters
indicated a variety of individual preferences for controls with tactile
markings. Based on commenters' responses, no single tactile marking can
reasonably accommodate all individuals with vision impairments. The
same rationale is applied to types of lighting fixtures where
commenters' responses varied widely and no one type of fixture is
viewed as accommodating a significant number of persons with vision
impairments. A type of lighting that may be helpful for some persons,
may be harmful to others. Individuals with vision impairments may have
had different training or have different needs, so that any one
requirement may exclude as many people as it may serve. For these
reasons, the guidelines do not include provisions for this section.
Requirements for elevators, stairs, signage and protruding objects are
already addressed in ADAAG 4.1.3 and are applicable to residential
housing.
14. Public Rights-of-Way
ADAAG 14 adapts provisions for buildings and facilities to new
construction and alterations of pedestrian and related facilities in
the public right-of-way. This section covers work that involves
elements of pedestrian access, circulation, or use and that is
undertaken in the public right-of-way whether by intention or as a
consequence of other work. A right-of-way is a legal right of passage
and is distinguished from a site by its linear nature and connective
function.
Provisions of this section apply to public sidewalks, including
those on overpasses and bridges and in underpasses and tunnels, and
fixed street furnishings, such as benches, drinking fountains,
telephones, toilet facilities, bus shelters, and signage, that are
located on or along public sidewalks and to public sidewalk curb ramps
and street crossings that complete the pedestrian circulation network.
ADAAG 14 also contains provisions for on-street parking spaces, parking
meters and crossing controls, passenger loading zones on public
streets, and callboxes along roadways.
Modifications and specific requirements respond to the unique
nature and function of public rights-of-way. For example, natural
terrain, constrained width, the number and complexity of services that
must be accommodated within and along the public right-of-way, and the
demands of adjacent development offer little opportunity for the
establishment of accessible routes along public sidewalks. Thus, ADAAG
14 substitutes the concept of a continuous passage to connect public
sidewalks, public sidewalk curb ramps, and street crossings into a
pedestrian network that serves both adjacent sites and elements
intended for pedestrian use on and along the public sidewalk.
The NPRM addressed the overall framework for a pedestrian
circulation network, as well as the elements and components of such a
network. Almost 300 commenters responded to the proposed requirements
and questions with several thousand recommendations regarding public
rights-of-way. One third of these commenters represented State and
local governments. Over half of the State and local government comments
were submitted by transportation, streets and highways, and public
works agencies. Other commenters included: State code administrators,
the National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards, 10
Federal agencies, 70 individuals with disabilities, State and local
organizations representing people with disabilities, and national
organizations such as the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
(DREDF). Detailed comments were also received from the Paralyzed
Veterans of America (PVA) and the Eastern Paralyzed Veterans
Association (EPVA), as well as from national organizations representing
individuals who are blind or have vision impairments and organizations
expressing the views of individuals who are deaf or have hearing
impairments. Additionally, comments were received from architects,
civil and transportation engineers, national trade and professional
groups, and manufacturers of products and materials.
Comment. The NPRM proposed a specific set of requirements that
would apply to both new construction and alterations where feasible and
proposed a series of exceptions for a variety of conditions of site
infeasibility. Commenters suggested that such an approach might
encourage departures from the guidelines with claims of site
infeasibility that might not be warranted and might make enforcement
more difficult. Furthermore, opportunities to maximize the usability of
newly constructed pedestrian environments might be overlooked because
of the availability of lesser options.
Response. The interim final rule has been reorganized and clarified
to emphasize that public entities undertaking new work must provide a
high degree of accessibility in public rights-of-way. When making
alterations to existing work that involves pedestrian elements,
entities must provide the maximum feasible degree of compliance with
provisions for new construction. This reorganization more clearly
distinguishes between new construction and alterations and provides a
strong uniform set of accessibility requirements with few exceptions
for new construction. For example, the design of a new subdivision, new
town, or an expansion of jurisdictional limits to incorporate as yet
undeveloped land must be fully accessible according to provisions of
this section for new construction. A consistent approach to public
sidewalk, public sidewalk curb ramp, and intersection design is
described for implementation when such new work is undertaken.
Alterations provisions have been similarly reorganized to contain
the exceptions proposed throughout the NPRM. The interim final rule
includes special technical provisions for alterations to address
existing conditions and constraints. Guided by the new construction
requirements, which must be observed when feasible, entities making
alterations will be able to craft an alternative which best fits
existing conditions. The distinction between new construction and
alterations is more fully discussed at ADAAG 14.2 (New Construction)
and 14.3 (Alterations) and in appendix notes to these sections.
14.1 General
This section is a scoping provision which applies the requirements
of this section and those of ADAAG 4 (Accessible Elements and Spaces:
Scope and Technical Requirements) to pedestrian areas, elements, and
facilities in the public right-of-way which are subject to title II of
the ADA. Where the provisions of this section differ from the
requirements of ADAAG 4, the provisions of this special application
section prevail. An appendix note distinguishes between the public
right-of-way and adjacent sites, provides examples of work covered by
this section, and clarifies the application of ADAAG 4 provisions.
Comment. The NPRM proposed to cover only work provided as part of a
``public improvement project.'' Several commenters from the public
works agencies of local governments noted that work in the public
right-of-way may be accomplished in other ways, as, for example, in
urban areas, where public site improvements may be provided by
developers of sites adjacent to the public right-of-way. These and
other commenters also requested a clarification of the responsibilities
of private sector entities (such as utilities) undertaking work in the
public right-of-way by franchise or other agreement.
Response. The term ``public improvement project'' is not used in
the interim final rule. This clarifies that all work in the public
right-of-way is covered by this section. For example, these guidelines
must be applied to work undertaken in the public right-of-way by any
entity under contract, agreement, or other arrangement, such as
utilities, contractors, or developers. However, because new or altered
work in the public right-of-way will be constructed or installed within
the physical limits of a project area or the contractual limits of a
project scope of work, all elements, areas and facilities in the public
right-of-way that are required to be accessible by section 14 retain
the concept of the project as the basis for their scoping. For example,
the number of new on-street parking spaces required to be accessible by
ADAAG 14.2.6(1)(a) will be based upon the total number of new on-street
parking provided in the project area. The appendix note has been
expanded to include examples of covered projects.
Comment. Many commenters requested clarification of the differences
between pedestrian facilities on a site covered by ADAAG 4 (e.g., a
park, campus, plaza) and those in the public right-of-way covered by
this section (e.g., public sidewalks).
Response. Only work in the public right-of-way is covered by ADAAG
14. The public right-of-way is the strip of land over which a public
road and its appurtenances (e.g., shoulders, parkways, and public
sidewalks) are built. Most public rights-of-way are coincident with and
include roadways; some are established as easements to provide
pedestrian access to a public facility through private sites or
properties. Public rights-of-way are generally limited in width,
occupied below-grade by public services, such as utilities, and above-
grade by traffic control devices, signage, and other street
furnishings. A public or private site, however, is a parcel of land
bounded by a property line or a designated portion of a public right-
of-way. For example, a new park or campus containing sidewalks, curb
ramps, and street crossings, is a site covered by ADAAG 4.1.2
(Accessible Sites and Exterior Facilities: New Construction), whereas a
downtown pedestrian shopping street in the public right-of-way between
opposing property lines is covered by ADAAG 14. The appendix note at
A14.1 has been expanded to clarify the distinction between a public
right-of-way and a site.
In the future, the Department of Justice will consider whether to
amend its regulation implementing title III to apply ADAAG 14 to
streets and sidewalks within large, privately-developed sites and
subdivisions.
Comment. Commenters requested clarification of the differences
between ADAAG 14 and the technical provisions of ADAAG 4.2 through 4.35
for the same or similar elements, such as public sidewalk curb ramps,
passenger loading zones, parking spaces, and walks and sidewalks.
Response. Generally, the technical provisions in ADAAG 4.2 to 4.35
apply to public rights-of-way unless modified by ADAAG 14. ADAAG 14
modifies some technical provisions of ADAAG 4.2 to 4.35 to address site
constraints particular to the public right-of-way. For example, a
public sidewalk curb ramp in the public right-of-way is subject to the
technical provisions of ADAAG 14.2.4 (Public Sidewalk Curb Ramps), not
to ADAAG 4.7 (Curb Ramps). A public sidewalk in the public right-of-way
is subject to the technical provisions of ADAAG 14.2.1 (Public
Sidewalks), which substitutes a continuous passage for the accessible
route contained in ADAAG 4.3. Some technical provisions, however, such
as those contained in 4.2.4 (Clear Floor or Ground Space for
Wheelchairs), 4.9 (Stairs), and 4.27 (Controls and Operating
Mechanisms) apply without modification to public rights-of-way and are
referenced in the interim final guidelines. This has been clarified in
an appendix note.
14.1.1 Definitions
This section defines common elements of the public pedestrian
environment, including continuous passage, public sidewalk, public
sidewalk curb ramp, public right-of-way and site infeasibility.
Appendix notes clarify the definitions of continuous passage and public
sidewalk and explain that when a public sidewalk is used to satisfy a
requirement for an accessible route, the public sidewalk must comply
with ADAAG 4.3.
The definitions of marked crossing and walk included in the NPRM
have been deleted, as they are defined in ADAAG 3.5 (Definitions).
Comment. The NPRM defined a sidewalk as ``[a] walk in the public
right-of-way along a vehicular way that is part of a pedestrian
circulation network.'' The City of Portland (OR) urged that the
definition include walks in public rights-of-way or easements that may
not be contiguous with vehicular ways, noting that they are subject to
similar constraints of terrain, width, and adjacent development.
Commenters from design and engineering disciplines stated that both
paving and separation were integral to the concept of a sidewalk in
transportation and public works specifications. One commenter
encouraged use of a definition of sidewalk commonly recognized by
streets and highway authorities.
Response. Good engineering practice provides that public sidewalks
be both paved and separated, either horizontally or vertically, from
adjoining roadways. While this may be a more accurate technical
definition of public sidewalk, these guidelines are intended also to
cover pedestrian walkways that are not raised and separated, as for
example, roadway shoulders in rural areas improved for pedestrian use.
The definition of public sidewalk has therefore been modified to
broaden its application to include such pedestrian routes. Walkways in
public pedestrian easements have also been added. The word ``public''
has been added to clarify the distinction between sidewalks in the
public right-of-way and those within sites. The appendix note has been
expanded to provide other examples of public sidewalks.
Comment. The NPRM defined continuous passage as ``[a] continuous
unobstructed pedestrian circulation path within a sidewalk connecting
pedestrian areas, elements, and facilities covered by section 14.''
Several commenters asked if an accessible route was required on public
sidewalks or if the continuous passage was required to meet provisions
for an accessible route.
Response. The definition of continuous passage has been amended to
clarify that it is applied in the public right-of-way in lieu of an
accessible route. Continuous passage is discussed further below and in
appendix note A14.1.1. to differentiate between the requirements of an
accessible route and the requirements of a continuous passage.
Comment. Proposed ADAAG 14.5 (Curb Ramps and Other Sloped Areas)
required curb ramps or other sloped areas where pedestrian walkways
cross barriers at streets. ``Other sloped areas'' is found in the
Department of Justice regulations implementing title II of the ADA (28
CFR 35.150(d)(2)) and applies to elevation changes within public
sidewalks at street crossings that are not accomplished by means of a
curb ramp. Several commenters requested clarification of the term
``other sloped areas.''
Response. ADAAG 14.5 has been moved to ADAAG 14.2.4 (Public
Sidewalk Curb Ramps) and a new definition for ``Public Sidewalk Curb
Ramps'' has been added to ADAAG 14.1.1. The definition describes
perpendicular public sidewalk curb ramps, including diagonal public
sidewalk curb ramps, and parallel public sidewalk curb ramps and
clarifies that these are alternative means of achieving the transition
between curb height and street crossing. Although ADAAG currently
contains a definition and technical provisions for curb ramps on sites,
public sidewalk curb ramps must meet different requirements. For
example, public sidewalk curb ramps in a public right-of-way are
required to have level landings. Language was added to the definition
of Curb Ramp in 3.5 (Definitions) referencing Public Sidewalk Curb
Ramps. The phrase ``parallel public sidewalk curb ramp'' has been
substituted for ``other sloped areas.''
Comment. Several commenters requested a definition of vehicular
way. Other commenters asked if bicycles were considered vehicles and
whether bikeways, which are sometimes shared by pedestrians, were to be
considered vehicular ways.
Response. Vehicular way is defined in ADAAG 3.5 (Definitions).
Under the Uniform Vehicle Code, bicyclists are considered motorists.
When using a public sidewalk, however, a bicyclist has the same rights
and duties as a pedestrian (Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Traffic
Ordinance, Article XII, National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and
Ordinances, Revised 1992). If pedestrian use is intended, a bicycle
path in the public right-of-way must comply with the requirements for
public sidewalks.
Comment. The NPRM proposed a definition of site infeasibility
adapted from the definition of technical infeasibility in ADAAG
4.1.6(1)(j). Most commenters supported both the necessity for and the
definition of site infeasibility in the NPRM. One commenter asked for a
clarification of the difference between extremes of terrain discussed
in the NPRM and structural impracticability due to unique
characteristics of terrain, described in the preamble to the Department
of Justice final regulation implementing title III of the ADA. (56 FR
35577). A FHWA region recommended that constraints arising from common
practice in the geometric design of certain street and highway
structures, such as bridges and tunnels, be specifically included as
examples of site infeasibility.
Response. Site infeasibility is intended to be the basis for
exceptions to new construction guidelines for additions and alterations
in the public right-of-way. This definition has been clarified by
substituting the phrase ``site development conditions'' for ``physical
or site constraints'' in the NPRM. Extremes of terrain are recognized
in both new construction and alterations provisions by permitting
public sidewalks to take the running slope of adjacent roadways without
invoking an exception. Thus, steeply sloping terrain is not in itself
grounds for a finding of site infeasibility. Rather, it is adjacent
development and constrained right-of-way width that give rise to
exceptions for site infeasibility. Where newly-constructed bridges and
tunnels are intended to carry pedestrian traffic, they must incorporate
public sidewalks that meet section 14 provisions. This is further
discussed at ADAAG 14.2.5(4).
14.2 New Construction: Minimum Requirements
This section addresses the minimum requirements for new
construction. An appendix note provides examples of new construction
and emphasizes that it requires a high degree of accessibility and
usability in pedestrian public right-of-way improvements.
Comment. State and local departments of public works, members of
the site planning and engineering professions, and individuals with
disabilities and the organizations that represent them recommended that
the final rule distinguish between new construction and alterations.
Most jurisdictions were concerned that the proposed guidelines were too
restrictive for alterations. Commenters noted that provisions limiting
cross slope, requiring level landings at public sidewalk curb ramps, or
specifying counter slope at street crossings could be achieved in new
construction but not in every alteration. Persons with disabilities and
organizations representing them commented that the number of exceptions
provided in the NPRM to accommodate existing conditions could also be
used to excuse compliance in new construction. For example, one
commenter noted that although all accessibility standards require that
new public sidewalk curb ramps be constructed to the least possible
slope, most exceed the 1:12 maximum permitted slope. On the other hand,
as noted by one engineer, guidelines that are overly stringent may
discourage implementation.
Response. The interim final rule has been reorganized to
distinguish between new construction and alterations. The exceptions
previously permitted in new construction have been moved to ADAAG 14.3
(Alterations), which has been expanded.
Comment. Several municipalities and members of the Institute of
Traffic Engineers (ITE) suggested that a set of fixed requirements
could not be applied or enforced under the variety of site constraints
commonly encountered along public rights-of-way. Instead, they
advocated a performance standard that would allow more flexibility in
responding to local conditions. Some jurisdictions, however, requested
detailed guidance. The City of St. Louis commented that, ``In order to
assure access for persons with disabilities, clear and comprehensive
regulations are needed.''
Response. A performance specification or standard generally
describes a desired goal for new construction but does not prescribe a
methodology. For example, ADAAG 4.34.5 (Equipment for Persons with
Vision Impairments) requires that automated teller machine instructions
and information be made accessible to persons with vision impairments,
but it does not require a specific solution. A performance standard
might be useful in ADAAG 14, where most work will probably be
constructed or installed within an already well-developed public right-
of-way subject to a variety of differing needs, conditions, and
constraints that cannot be fully anticipated. A detailed specification
will be useful to public works agencies evaluating alternatives,
particularly where site constraints may appear to limit options.
Additionally, it might be more difficult to determine compliance with a
performance specification in such a complex application. Accordingly,
these guidelines establish specific requirements for both new
construction and alterations in the public right-of-way.
Comment. The NPRM included exceptions for site infeasibility within
specific provisions. Many commenters requested that an overall
exception for site infeasibility be included in a general provision.
Response. A blanket exception might have the effect of permitting
the least accessible alternative even in new construction when greater
accessibility might be achieved. Although the interim final rule
includes some limited exceptions for certain conditions in new
construction, there is no exception for site infeasibility. However,
alterations provisions include both general and specific exceptions for
conditions of site infeasibility when strict compliance with new
construction provisions cannot be achieved.
Comment. A few commenters misconstrued the preamble discussion in
the NPRM to require the construction of public sidewalks or continuous
pedestrian routes where none may now exist. Several jurisdictions
submitted estimates of costs to retrofit existing pedestrian elements
to meet the proposed guidelines. Others voiced concerns about their
obligations under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29
U.S.C. 794). Several commenters asked how the issuance of new
guidelines would affect their transition plans required by the
Department of Justice regulations implementing title II of the ADA. ITE
suggested that work done under a prior standard be exempted from
application of the final guidelines.
Response. ADAAG 14 covers newly-undertaken construction, the
addition of pedestrian elements, and the alteration of the existing
pedestrian environment. It does not require entities covered by title
II of the ADA to retrofit existing elements. If new construction,
additions, or alterations are undertaken, they must be constructed to
be accessible.
However, the Department of Justice regulations implementing title
II of the ADA (28 CFR 35.150) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) may impose additional requirements. Path of
travel obligations arising out of alterations to a public sidewalk,
public sidewalk curb ramp, or street crossing may require the
construction of accessible connections between these and other
pedestrian elements. This is discussed more fully at ADAAG 14.3.
Comment. A few commenters considered the NPRM provisions too costly
for the benefits achieved.
Response. Many commenters' concerns resulted from a
misunderstanding that the NPRM required a retrofit of existing
construction. The requirements of this section are consistent with
standard engineering practice in new construction, as detailed in the
Standard Plans and Specifications for Public Works Construction,
section 1 (American Public Works Association (APWA) and Associated
General Contractors (AGC). These provisions apply to alterations of
existing public sidewalks only to the extent feasible and therefore
excessive cost is not anticipated. A Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)
has been prepared which examines the monetary and non-monetary costs
and benefits to building owners, operators, and users of the
guidelines. The RIA is available to the public.
14.2.1 Public Sidewalks
This provision requires that a new public sidewalk and the
continuous passage within the public sidewalk connect to the accessible
route required on adjacent sites and to pedestrian elements installed
or constructed on and along the public sidewalk. Minimum requirements
for width, passing space, slope and cross slope, surface
characteristics, and separation are provided. Appendix notes provide
examples of public sidewalks, clarify the requirement for a continuous
passage, and provide guidance for the design of driveway aprons and
gratings.
Comment. The NPRM proposed that public sidewalks contain a
continuous passage that connects to accessible routes on adjacent sites
and to pedestrian elements on the sidewalk. Many commenters interpreted
the proposed rule to require a continuous passage connecting pedestrian
elements even when a public sidewalk did not exist. Several asked
whether the provision required the interconnection of existing public
sidewalk segments within a jurisdiction. A number of persons with
disabilities and groups representing persons with disabilities
suggested that public sidewalks should be required in all developed
zones of a jurisdiction, particularly in residential areas.
Response. As previously discussed at ADAAG 14.1 (General), the
construction of new public sidewalks is not required by this section.
New public sidewalk construction is typically initiated at the local
level, by individual or neighborhood request or as part of a public
improvement project.
Comment. Several State and local government jurisdictions asked who
was responsible for establishing and maintaining the continuous
passage. One commenter asked if the continuous passage needed to be
designated.
Response. Under the ADA, State and local government entities are
responsible for ensuring that their public pedestrian facilities are
accessible. The Department of Justice regulations implementing title II
of the ADA cover the maintenance of accessible features (See 28 CFR
35.133). ADAAG 14 does not require the marking of a continuous passage.
Comment. The NPRM proposed that public sidewalks, or a continuous
passage within them, connect to accessible routes on adjacent
properties. A number of commenters were concerned with the technical
difficulties of such connections along steeply sloping public
sidewalks. This is especially problematic along undeveloped sites where
the location of the accessible route or entrance has not yet been
established.
Response. Where entrance elevations can be fixed before public
sidewalk construction, a level platform can be provided by careful
engineering design. Where connections cannot be anticipated, a level
walkway diverging from the public sidewalk running slope can serve a
number of potential entrances. An appendix note further describes this
approach. Recessed entrances and building setbacks will provide the
necessary distance to achieve a smooth blending of the connection from
the public sidewalk to the building entrance.
Where walks containing an accessible route on an adjacent site must
connect to sloping public sidewalks, some warping and blending may be
necessary. This must be accommodated on the site if the public sidewalk
has already been constructed. However, when the developer of a property
is also responsible for new public sidewalk design and construction, as
is often the case in urban construction, the coordination of such
connections can be accomplished through careful site engineering.
These public/private interfaces are somewhat analogous to the
landlord/tenant responsibilities for accessibility under title III of
the ADA; each must comply where he has the authority to operate. The
appendix discussion has been expanded to clarify these issues. In many
cases, a developer will provide both public sidewalks and private walks
as part of the same project. Jurisdictions may require, through the
permitting process, that adjacent property owners blend accessible
routes at the continuous passage when sites are developed.
14.2.1(1) Width
Paragraph (1) requires that the continuous passage within a new
public sidewalk be a minimum of 36 inches in width or as shown in
Figures 7(a) and (b) when a turn must be made around an obstruction. It
further requires that passing spaces be provided at intervals that do
not exceed 200 feet when public sidewalk width is less than 60 inches
continuously.
Comment. The NPRM proposed that a public sidewalk, or a continuous
passage within its width, be a minimum of 36 inches in width. Most
commenters recommended that public sidewalks be a minimum of 48 inches
wide (and even wider in commercial areas). One county public works
agency submitted a copy of standard public works details and
specifications that illustrated a minimum sidewalk width of 48 inches
throughout. Other jurisdictions indicated similar or greater width
requirements for new construction. Most commenters also supported the
proposed requirement for passing spaces, although several questioned
the need for them in suburban and rural areas.
Response. The interim final rule requires a 36 inch minimum
continuous passage to ensure an unobstructed route, clear of street
furnishings, equipment, and other items commonly associated with public
sidewalks, along the pedestrian walkway. Although common street and
public sidewalk engineering practice support a 48 inch minimum width,
these guidelines represent minimum requirements. A requirement that the
width of the continuous passage be as shown in Figures 7(a) and (b) has
been added for consistency with ADAAG 4.3.3 (Width). A 60 inch wide
public sidewalk incorporating passing space will generally be provided
in commercial areas. Greater widths are recommended in current FHWA
guidelines and American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) standards for new construction in such areas
(AASHTO, ``A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets'',
1990). Residential neighborhoods, where pedestrian volume may be light,
and other low-pedestrian-volume zones such as rural and suburban areas,
office parks and similar developments, will commonly be served by 48
inch wide walkways, along which passing spaces must be provided.
Passing space may be available at intersecting walks, at building
entrances, at driveways, or even at bus stops and street crossings.
Additional public sidewalk width is commonly provided at regular
intervals to provide a structural surface for storm drainage inlets,
utility vaults, and similar below-grade construction. This common
practice can provide the required passing space, as well. Because these
guidelines apply to areas where pedestrian volumes may change radically
over time, public sidewalks must be designed to accommodate potential
as well as actual levels of use.
Narrow public sidewalks and rights-of-way without parkways will
generally require parallel public sidewalk curb ramps rather than
perpendicular public sidewalk curb ramps at street crossings because of
the lack of width for the landing required at the top of a
perpendicular public sidewalk curb ramp. Although the requirements for
width have been reorganized, no substantive changes have been made.
In new construction, where public sidewalks must have a consistent
cross slope across their full width, the 36 inch continuous passage (or
the additional maneuvering space described in Figures 7(a) and (b))
serve only to ensure that passage is not blocked by fixed or movable
items. In alterations, the continuous passage may be the only portion
of a wider public sidewalk in which cross slope can be maintained
within usable limits, as further discussed in ADAAG 14.3 (Alterations).
The continuous passage will also be a factor where public sidewalks
cross driveways, as only 36 inches must be provided at the 1:50 cross
slope. A driveway apron cannot be part of the continuous passage if its
slope to the street exceeds 1:50.
Furthermore, where gratings are installed in public sidewalks, a
continuous passage must be provided to bypass them. Where large areas
of gratings may be required to ventilate subsurface transformer vaults
or similar construction, designers should provide the necessary surface
area by increasing the length of a run of gratings so as to minimize
its width relative to the public sidewalk width.
Comment. Several comments misconstrued the requirement for a
continuous passage, believing that it could assist persons with vision
impairments in way finding through parking lots and other large
undifferentiated areas.
Response. The concept of a continuous passage applies only to
public sidewalks in the public right-of-way. The parking lot of a
shopping center, arena, or other facility is part of a site subject to
the requirements of ADAAG 4.3 for an accessible route.
14.2.1(2) Slope
Paragraph (2) permits new public sidewalks to have the same slope
as that established for adjacent roadways. It further limits cross
slope along a new public sidewalk to 1:50. This maximum applies in both
directions at intersecting public sidewalks.
Comment. The NPRM proposed that new public sidewalks have the least
possible running slope. Commenters noted that this could be interpreted
to require grading to a level plane. The NPRM also proposed an
exception for slopes steeper than 1:12. Commenters favored excepting
running slope limitations for public sidewalks.
Response. This provision has been revised to clarify its intent to
require the minimum feasible slope consistent with that of the adjacent
roadway. Therefore, the proposed exception is no longer needed and has
been eliminated. An appendix note discusses several design options for
steeply sloping public sidewalks.
Comment. A number of commenters expressed concerns about pedestrian
safety along steeply sloping public sidewalks.
Response. Public sidewalks that meet the provisions of this section
allow persons with disabilities to make the choice of whether to use
them or not. This is consistent with other applications of the ADA,
which clearly prohibit discrimination based upon assumptions about an
individual's abilities.
Comment. Individuals with disabilities and commenters from
organizations representing them strongly supported maintaining cross
slope limitations at 1:50, emphasizing the difficulty of negotiating
surfaces with cross and counter slopes. Travel along surfaces with a
severe cross slope is difficult for persons using wheelchairs and
mobility aids even when the running slope is imperceptible. However,
many municipalities requested that exceptions be permitted, citing the
infeasibility of achieving a maximum cross slope of 1:50 in alterations
to existing construction in the public right-of-way.
Response. Limited exceptions from the requirement for a maximum
cross slope of 1:50 have been included in the alterations section. The
1:50 maximum has been well-established in accessibility standards since
1961 and is also well-established in civil engineering standards as the
minimum necessary for positive drainage for exterior improved surfaces.
New development and adjacent public sidewalks should be planned with
this limitation clearly in mind. Providing landings with a minimum
cross slope at intersecting public sidewalks is standard design
practice in new construction and will simplify the later placement of
crossing controls and similar pedestrian elements that require a level
area for a wheelchair approach. No substantive changes have been made
in this requirement.
Comment. The NPRM asked whether level landings should be required
along steeply sloping public sidewalks, citing a requirement in the
California Accessibility Standards (title 24 part 2 section 712 (1989))
requiring landings at 400-foot intervals. Many persons with
disabilities, organizations representing persons with disabilities, and
even a few municipalities supported such a concept. Several noted that
this could be accomplished without appreciably increasing the running
slope of a public sidewalk. Others recommended level areas adjacent to
and along public sidewalks of extreme grade. Such areas would allow
persons with mobility impairments or low stamina to pause while
ascending or descending. Most municipalities, however, responded
negatively, citing excessive cost, custom construction, and limited
utility. Several commenters recommended handrails as being more useful
along steep slopes. Some commenters suggested that providing landings
along steeply sloping sites would be less useful to persons using
wheelchairs than would the development of alternative routes or
operational solutions.
Response. A requirement for a mid-block level landing where walkway
slope is extreme would not be onerous in new construction. However, few
commenters recommended specific public sidewalk slope limitations and
interval criteria that would help establish provisions. Most new
intersections will provide level landings at approximately 200-foot
intervals. No provision for intermediate level landings along a public
sidewalk has been included in the interim final rule. Operational
considerations, such as the development of alternative routes, are not
covered by these guidelines.
Comment. The NPRM asked about local accommodation to extremes of
terrain from jurisdictions where steeply sloping public sidewalks make
accessibility difficult. Little specific information was received in
response to this question, although almost every commenter was
interested in possible solutions.
Response. An appendix note has been added suggesting design and
construction approaches for extremes of slope.
14.2.1(3) Surfaces
Paragraph (3) requires that public sidewalk surfaces be stable,
firm, and slip-resistant and lie in a single plane with minimal
warping. It applies the requirements of ADAAG 4.3.8 (Changes in Level)
to changes in level, such as those that may occur between paving
squares or at expansion joints, and references ADAAG Fig. 7(c) to
illustrate its application to abrupt changes in level. This paragraph
also requires stairs within the public sidewalk to comply with ADAAG
4.9 (Stairs). Paragraph (3) further limits the size of openings in
gratings in the public sidewalk in the direction of travel and
prohibits gratings in the continuous passage and limits the vertical
and horizontal gaps permitted where public sidewalks cross railways at
grade.
Comment. The NPRM proposed that public sidewalk surfaces be stable,
firm and slip-resistant. Several commenters were concerned about the
requirement for slip resistance on public sidewalks, noting that
moisture, ice, and snow frequently compromise pedestrian traction on
public rights-of-way, particularly on sloping public sidewalks and
public sidewalk curb ramps. State and local government agencies were
concerned about liability in the event of a pedestrian fall if their
public sidewalks were not always slip-resistant because of
environmental conditions, particularly snow and ice.
Response. These guidelines cover only new construction and
alterations and thus can require only that State and local government
entities and their contractors specify slip-resistant surfaces and
finishes appropriate for exterior use when new work is put in place.
Operational issues are subject to the Department of Justice regulations
implementing title II of the ADA which require that jurisdictions
maintain accessible features (28 CFR 35.133). No change has been made
to this provision.
Comment. Several commenters raised concerns that the slopes of the
continuous passage and the public sidewalk that contains it might not
be consistent and noted that differences could be hazardous to
pedestrians. The California Accessibility Regulations (title 24 part 2
(1993)) require public sidewalks and public sidewalk curb ramps to have
a consistent slope. Standard details and specifications submitted by
several commenters contain similar language.
Response. The interim final rule has been changed to include a
requirement that new public sidewalks should be consistently graded.
This is standard practice in new construction. In alterations, the
warping of a continuous passage may be necessary to provide a usable
route to elements along an existing public sidewalk. Where a public
sidewalk in the right-of-way is contiguous with a paved walk on a site,
as is common in urban areas where their design and construction may be
undertaken as part of a single project, ADAAG 14 will apply to the
public sidewalk only. Transitions must be smoothly blended.
Comment. The NPRM proposed that gratings with elongated openings be
placed so that the long dimension is perpendicular to the dominant
direction of travel. Several individuals pointed out that gratings in
public sidewalks may be located where pedestrians will cross them in
two perpendicular directions, noting that those who use wheelchairs can
become stuck in the long openings in such situations. Commenters
reported on the difficulty of turning a wheelchair on grating surfaces.
Several others found gratings hazardous for persons using walkers,
crutches, and canes, even when the gratings comply with ADAAG 4.5.4
(Gratings). An architect noted that urban public sidewalks frequently
have large expanses of gratings over public sidewalk vaults where
transformers, utilities, and subway construction occur below grade. One
Department of Transportation regional engineer inquired whether public
sidewalk freight elevator covers and similar appurtenances should be
prohibited from the continuous passage.
Response. This provision has been revised to prohibit gratings in
the continuous passage in new construction. An appendix note clarifies
that grating proportions or location can be varied to ensure that
gratings do not encroach on the required continuous passage. Openings
in gratings can be no greater than \1/2\ inch wide when measured
perpendicular to the direction of travel. Where public sidewalks
intersect and travel is in two directions, openings may not exceed \1/
2\ inch in either direction. Gratings have also been prohibited in
landings and public sidewalk curb ramps and in adjacent surfaces at
street crossings (see ADAAG 14.2.4(8)). Elevator covers and similar
items located in a continuous passage must comply with surface
requirements.
Comment. A few commenters requested that the guidelines address
public sidewalks that cross railways at grade level, citing projects
currently under design.
Response. A provision derived from ADAAG 10 (Transportation
Facilities) has been added, limiting the horizontal gap in new public
sidewalk construction to the minimum necessary for passage of wheel
flanges, not to exceed 2\1/2\ inches. Horizontal surfaces must be
flush. Although the NPRM did not expressly include this provision, it
is taken from ADAAG 10.3.1(13) (New Construction), which was referenced
in the NPRM. The provision at ADAAG 14.2.1(3)(d) represents an
exception to surface requirements that might otherwise preclude public
sidewalk construction across rail lines.
Comment. Several commenters noted that the NPRM did not include a
provision requiring edge protection where the back-of-sidewalk edge may
be raised above adjacent grade, forming a drop-off.
Response. Edge protection should be provided in such circumstances.
A note recommending such practice has been added to the appendix. Codes
and standards affecting the design and construction of public sidewalks
will generally require a barrier at substantial drop-offs, such as when
a public sidewalk crosses a bridge or culvert. For example, the
California Accessibility Regulations (title 24 part 2 (1993)) require
back-of-sidewalk protection where there is a differential of more than
four inches in level.
14.2.1(4) Separation
Paragraph (4) requires that new public sidewalks be raised to curb
height or separated horizontally by a parkway or similar setback from
an adjacent roadway. An exception permits unseparated public sidewalks
along undeveloped frontages of rural roadways.
Comment. The NPRM proposed that all public sidewalks be separated
horizontally or vertically from the adjacent roadway with continuous
curbing, planted parkways, or other barriers to distinguish streets
from public sidewalks. Many suburban and rural jurisdictions were
concerned that public sidewalk provisions might be construed to require
separation in roadway shoulders, bikeways, and similar surfaces
sometimes used by pedestrians. Several commenters asked for
clarification of the meaning of ``other barrier'' and noted that some
types of barriers (e.g., guardrails) would make these routes more
dangerous for bicyclists and would preclude vehicular use of the
shoulder, a common practice in rural communities where oversize
equipment or slow moving farm vehicles commonly travel in this area. A
few commenters noted that non-pedestrian uses predominated along routes
of this type. However, a traffic engineer submitted photographs of
public sidewalks without separation at street grade along well-
developed commercial strips in Florida and indicated that public
sidewalks were still commonly constructed in this way even where
pedestrian use is substantial.
Response. This section considers all walkways established for
pedestrian use in the public right-of-way to be public sidewalks,
including those on roadway shoulders where pedestrian use is intended.
Many rural areas, where destinations are widely separated and
pedestrian use is low, simply pave a public right-of-way to include an
improved shoulder of six to eight feet in width for the use of cyclists
and pedestrians. There may be an intervening gutter that makes
continuous travel across intersections difficult for persons using
wheelchairs or walking aids. Cross slope may be fairly severe where the
roadway and shoulder cross-section is designed to drain to a swale or
ditch along the back of the public sidewalk. Differentiation between
vehicular and pedestrian areas is often no more than a painted line or
drainage ditch.
An exception to the requirement for separation has been added for
rural areas where roadway frontages are not developed. In other areas,
public sidewalks must be separated. The use of unseparated routes is
not safe for any pedestrian. Furthermore, curbs and changes in surface
material provide cues for pedestrians to distinguish between pedestrian
and vehicular areas. Good practice includes the construction of raised
or horizontally separated public sidewalks in all commercial areas and
along other routes when pedestrian volume is more than incidental.
The term ``other barriers'' includes material and texture changes,
physical barriers, such as planters or guardrails, or distinguishable
edges, such as wheelstops or guidestrips.
14.2.2 Historic and Special Use Sidewalks [Removed]
Comment. The NPRM reserved a section on historic and special use
sidewalks and sought comment on how the requirements for historic
preservation could be reconciled with provisions for new construction.
Organizations representing historic preservation interests generally
favored covering public sidewalks in historic neighborhoods and
districts in the same way as ADAAG currently covers historic buildings
and facilities, noting however that there is no designation for
``historic'' public sidewalks alone. Other commenters supported a
provision for an alternative route, although little information was
submitted on how such a route might be provided. Many commenters
requested clarification on whether walkways in historic landscapes were
covered by this section.
Response. No commenters made specific recommendations on
accessibility criteria appropriate to public sidewalks of historic
construction. Historic landscapes, parks, and gardens are covered under
ADAAG 4 as sites. Existing requirements that public sidewalk surfaces
be stable, firm, and slip-resistant are achievable in alterations to
public sidewalks of historic interest. Therefore, this section has been
removed.
14.2.2 Protruding Objects [14.2.4 in the NPRM]
These provisions parallel those of ADAAG 4.4 (Protruding Objects)
and are applied to public sidewalks and the areas adjacent to them. An
appendix note clarifies the application of these provisions to the full
public sidewalk.
Comment. The NPRM sought comment on the effectiveness of the 27
inch maximum height limitation for protruding objects on public
sidewalks and about the discernibility of wall-mounted and post-mounted
objects. Most comments on these provisions came from persons with
vision impairments, organizations representing persons who are blind or
have vision impairments, and from mobility instructors responsible for
training persons in wayfinding techniques. A majority felt that current
ADAAG requirements for buildings and facilities were not adequate for
public sidewalk environments, where pedestrians may be forced to adopt
a restricted cane sweep technique in congested areas. Several
commenters added that the speed with which people walk outdoors may
cause them to encounter protruding objects before the cane sweep can
detect them. Although there was considerable support for lowering the
maximum height of 27 inches, there was no clear consensus. Many
commenters urged further study of this issue.
A majority of commenters were opposed to the provision permitting
post-mounted objects to overhang their supports by up to 12 inches.
These commenters noted the common practice of installing telephones,
signs, and similar objects on poles, rather than projecting them from
building faces, where the four inch limitation on wall-mounted elements
would apply. Most felt that the determination of what was a protruding
object should not be affected by mounting conditions. Many commenters
recommended additional study of this issue as well.
However, almost a third of commenters who identified themselves as
persons who are blind or have vision impairments or who represented
local, State, and national organizations for persons with vision
impairments opposed any change in the requirements. They noted that
there is no compelling evidence of a need to change current ADAAG
provisions nor any data on which to base a change for conditions along
a public pedestrian right-of-way.
Commenters addressing the headroom provision recommended that
landscaping elements be included in coverage. Several noted that
overhanging tree branches are a major hazard along public sidewalks.
Commenters from State and local government jurisdictions were
largely concerned with policing and enforcement issues and requested
clarification of who would be responsible to ensure that clear headroom
was provided along a public sidewalk.
Response. The provision permitting a 12 inch overhang for post-
mounted objects is well-established in accessibility regulations and
has always been applied to frontal approaches only, as shown in Figure
8(d), and not to parallel or side approaches. Although ADAAG provisions
for protruding objects may not adequately serve all segments of the
pedestrian population, no data were provided on which to base a change
to the provision. The provision remains substantially unchanged, with
only editorial modifications. The appendix note has been expanded to
reference the provision regarding the maintenance of accessible
features in the Department of Justice regulation implementing title II
of the ADA (28 CFR 35.133).
14.2.3 Fixed Street Furnishings [14.2.3, 14.3 and 14.2.1(5) in the
NPRM]
This section contains scoping and technical provisions for items
installed on or adjacent to a public sidewalk. It covers drinking
fountains, telephones, toilet facilities, fixed seating, tables, and
benches, bus shelters and stops, pedestrian signage, and similar items,
where provided as a public improvement or private franchise, and
requires a connection to the continuous passage. Such items may not
reduce headroom or the width of the continuous passage.
14.2.3(1) Drinking Fountains
14.2.3(2) Public Telephones
Paragraph (1) requires that drinking fountains at a single location
provide accessibility both to persons who use wheelchairs and to
persons who have difficulty stooping or bending. Paragraph (2) requires
that all public pay telephones newly installed on or along public
sidewalks be hearing aid compatible and have volume controls. Where a
single unit is installed at a location, it must be accessible to a
person using a wheelchair. Where a bank of telephones is provided, one
unit per bank must be accessible to persons using wheelchairs.
The NPRM proposed that 50 percent of drinking fountains and public
telephones provided in a public improvement project be accessible. This
would have required that half of all such items installed in a project
be accessible and be dispersed throughout a project area. As noted
above, the term ``public improvement project'' has been deleted. When
drinking fountains, public telephones, and similar items are installed
along a public sidewalk, they are typically dispersed rather than
clustered and are considered public and common use elements. Therefore,
the scoping provision has been changed to require accessibility at each
location where a drinking fountain or public telephone is provided.
Comment. One municipality indicated that its outdoor drinking
fountains were largely provided in parks and playgrounds and sought
guidance on whether ADAAG 14 applied to such installations.
Response. Drinking fountains in parks and playgrounds are located
on public sites and are therefore covered by the scoping provisions in
ADAAG 4.1.3 (Accessible Buildings and Facilities: New Construction) and
4.1.6 (Accessible Buildings and Facilities: Alterations) and not by
this section.
Comment. The NPRM proposed that 75 percent of public telephones
have volume controls. One municipality and several organizations
representing persons with hearing impairments recommended that all
public telephones installed along public sidewalks have volume controls
because of the high incidence of hearing loss in an aging population.
Other commenters noted that the cost of such an adaptation is low.
Providing public telephones with volume controls is becoming common
practice in noisy environments such as public rights-of-way. Several
other comments from organizations representing persons who are deaf
recommended that public telephone scoping be expanded to require
exterior TTYs. A manufacturer of such units submitted technical data
and encouraged the Board to require TTYs on public sidewalks, noting
that interior installations in buildings and facilities are not
generally available after business hours.
Response. The interim final provision has been changed to require
that all public telephones have volume controls and be hearing aid
compatible. The requirement for signage in ADAAG 4.30.7 (Symbols of
Accessibility) applies only to telephones required to be accessible by
ADAAG 4.1.3(17)(b) (Accessible Buildings and Facilities: New
Construction) and therefore does not apply to this section. Hearing aid
compatibility is already required of these telephones by the Hearing
Aid Compatibility Act of 1988. (See 47 CFR part 68). Advances in TTY
technology that make exterior installations feasible are being tested
in several States. Requirements for exterior installations will be
considered in future rulemaking.
14.2.3(3) Single User Toilet Facilities
Paragraph (3) requires that a single user toilet facility installed
on or along a public sidewalk at a single location be accessible
according to ADAAG 4.22.2 through 4.22.7.
Comment. The NPRM proposed that 50 percent of single user toilet
facilities installed on or along a public sidewalk as part of a public
improvement project comply with ADAAG 4.22 (Toilet Rooms) and sought
comment on whether such scoping was appropriate in light of concerns
for public safety, cost, and limited access procedures. The proposed
provision would have required that half of all such items installed in
a project be accessible and be dispersed throughout a project area.
One manufacturer of single user toilet facilities proposed that
only a percentage of units (e.g., one in four) in a ``cluster'' be
accessible and that a definition of cluster be provided that would
establish a maximum distance between units in a cluster, such as at the
same intersection, within several blocks, or ``within sight'' of each
other. However, almost all comments from persons with disabilities and
organizations representing persons with disabilities supported full
accessibility to all toilet units placed on public sidewalks, citing
the ADAAG requirement that all new public and common use toilet rooms
on sites and in buildings be accessible.
Other commenters, including many municipalities and one
manufacturer of public toilet units, supported a 50 percent or lesser
requirement. These commenters stated that the accessible units, which
are larger than inaccessible units, would be quickly vandalized and
rendered unusable. Many commenters agreed that the larger accessible
units could be used for shelter or illicit activities, but felt that
this was not a reason to limit accessibility. Other commenters noted
that both accessible and inaccessible units would be subject to
vandalism and abuse.
The City of San Francisco required that firms responding to its
recent Request for Proposals for public toilet facilities provide only
accessible units. Information provided by the City of New York
indicates that they will give preference to proposals that provide 100
percent accessible public toilet facilities.
Many commenters were opposed to special access requirements, such
as cards and tokens, if they were required only of persons with
disabilities. Several suggested that the logistics of a card
distribution program would be complex and discriminatory. A number of
commenters noted that providing separate adjacent facilities for
persons with disabilities and persons without disabilities was wasteful
of resources and space and could not ensure maintenance of either unit.
Response. Single-user public toilet facilities are fixed common use
elements. ADAAG 4.1.2 (6) requires all fixed public and common use
toilet facilities located on a site to be accessible. Therefore, the
scoping provision in this section has been changed to require the same
degree of accessibility at each location in the public right-of-way
where a single user toilet facility is provided on a public sidewalk.
The concept of clustering (e.g., units spaced a block or street width
apart) suggested by some commenters is not consistent with the current
ADAAG concept, which assumes that accessible and inaccessible units are
immediately adjacent. As discussed above, the term ``public improvement
project'' has been deleted in the interim final rule.
14.2.3(4) Fixed Seating, Tables, and Benches
Paragraph (4) requires that at least five percent, but not less
than one, of fixed seating and tables provided at a single location be
accessible. It further requires at least 50 percent of any installation
or grouping of sidewalk benches fixed at a single location have a back
and armrest and that space for a wheelchair be provided at the end of
at least one bench.
Comment. The NPRM proposed that five percent of fixed seating,
tables, and benches provided in a public improvement project be
accessible and be dispersed throughout a project area. Commenters
supported a requirement for both backs and armrests on at least some
benches, although a few noted that armrests could interfere with
transfer from wheelchairs. Several wheelchair users indicated that they
would be unlikely to transfer from their wheelchairs to benches along a
public sidewalk, although they might do so in a park or plaza setting.
Scoping percentages for benches with arms and backrests between 20 and
50 percent were recommended. The NPRM also sought comment on ADAAG
specifications for benches. Many commenters noted that backs and
armrests are needed so that ambulatory persons with mobility or stamina
impairments can use them. Although there was no consensus about back,
seat, or armrest height, most commenters recommended that the reference
to ADAAG 4.35.4 (Dressing and Fitting Rooms: Bench) be removed because
it is not applicable to benches of the type generally placed along
public rights-of-way. A few commenters recommended that a space be
required at the end of a bench for the positioning of a wheelchair to
allow shoulder-to-shoulder seating. One commenter recommended that
benches be located only within a strip reserved for street furnishings
along a curb and clear of the pedestrian circulation path.
Response. As discussed above, the term ``public improvement
project'' has been deleted. This provision has been changed to require
that 50 percent of benches installed at a single location have both a
back and armrests. The reference to ADAAG 4.35.4 has been removed. The
requirements for fixed seating and tables are unchanged. Where a group
of adjacent benches is provided, 50 percent of the benches must have a
back and armrests. A requirement for a wheelchair space has been added.
An appendix note recommends that street furnishing zones be established
on public sidewalks to improve the predictability of pedestrian
environments.
14.2.3(5) Bus Shelters and Stops
Paragraph (5) requires that bus stop pads comply ADAAG 10.2.1(1)
and bus stop shelters comply with ADAAG 10.2.1(2).
This provision has been relocated from proposed 14.2.1 (Sidewalks)
in the NPRM. Few comments were received regarding this provision and
only editorial changes were made.
14.2.3(6) Street Identification and Other Pedestrian Signage
Paragraph (6) requires that pedestrian signage comply with ADAAG
4.30.2 (Character Proportion), 4.30.3 (Character Height), and 4.30.5
(Finish and Contrast). It further requires that bus route
identification signs provided on or adjacent to a public sidewalk
comply with ADAAG 10.2.1(3).
Comment. The NPRM sought comment on whether certain types of
pedestrian signage should be made accessible to persons who are blind
or have vision impairments and what technologies, such as audible
signage, are available to provide orientation information. Although
many comments were received from individuals with vision impairments
and organizations representing them, no clear consensus emerged. Many
commenters, including one national organization representing persons
who are blind, stated that properly trained individuals with vision
impairments did not need and could not use tactile signs in the public
right-of-way because of the lack of standardized placement. These
commenters also stated that audible signage might mask other
environmental cues and strongly opposed any change to current ADAAG
requirements. Other commenters, including three national organizations
representing individuals with vision impairments, supported both
tactile and audible signage and submitted detailed recommendations and
data on currently available technologies. Several commenters noted that
tactile bus route signage would be useful.
Response. Demonstration projects of audible signage employing fixed
transmitters and portable receivers have been well received by persons
with vision impairments. Future rulemaking may consider data resulting
from such projects. ADAAG 14.2.3(6) has been clarified by adding
requirements for bus route identification signs from ADAAG 10.2.1 (New
Construction).
14.2.3(7) Other Elements
Paragraph (7) requires that miscellaneous fixed street furnishings
and equipment not otherwise covered by prior paragraphs be accessible
with respect to approach area, reach ranges, controls, and operating
mechanisms and that they be connected to the continuous passage.
Comment. Department of Transportation and FHWA comments requested
guidance on items of street furniture not specifically addressed in the
NPRM. Several commenters recommended the inclusion of fire alarm boxes
and information kiosks.
Response. Any fixed object intended for pedestrian use that is
installed in the public right-of-way should be accessible. Therefore, a
new provision has been added to cover miscellaneous items, such as fire
alarm boxes, information kiosks, fixed vending equipment, and trash
cans.
14.2.4 Public Sidewalk Curb Ramps [14.2.5 in the NPRM]
This section requires that newly constructed public sidewalks
incorporate a public sidewalk curb ramp at each street crossing where
there is a curb or other change in level. This provision clarifies that
ADAAG 4.7 (Curb Ramps) and ADAAG 4.8 (Ramps) do not apply to public
rights-of-way. It also covers public sidewalk curb ramps provided at
other locations (e.g., at accessible on-street parking spaces,
passenger loading zones, and similar locations). Technical requirements
for location, type, landings, slope, width, edges, surfaces and
adjacent surfaces, and obstructions to public sidewalk curb ramp
construction are provided. Appendix notes clarify the requirements for
landings, the types of public sidewalk curb ramps, and recommendations
for uniform applications. A note also explains that application of
these guidelines does not require greater right-of-way width than that
established by State or local plan or practice.
Comment. The NPRM proposed a series of sequential exceptions for
public sidewalk curb ramp construction and an alternative method of
measuring ramp slopes to allow for conditions of site infeasibility.
Many commenters found the sequence difficult to follow and apply.
Response. As discussed above, this section has been reorganized to
place new construction and alterations requirements in separate
provisions and to clarify that site infeasibility applies only to
alterations.
Comment. Many commenters, including all of those from organizations
representing persons with disabilities, supported the approach outlined
in the NPRM that requires public sidewalk curb ramps to serve all
street crossings, regardless of the slope of the adjacent public
sidewalk. As DREDF stated in its response, ``Even on steep sites,
persons using motorized chairs or receiving assistance can use ramps,
and they should be available if there is a pedestrian walkway.'' Others
were concerned about the safety of persons using steeply sloping public
sidewalk curb ramps.
Response. Public sidewalks and public sidewalk curb ramps that meet
the provisions of this section allow persons with disabilities to make
the choice of whether to use them or not. This is consistent with other
applications of the ADA, which clearly prohibit discrimination based
upon assumptions about an individual's abilities. Therefore, even under
extreme site conditions, access must be provided.
14.2.4(2) Types of Public Sidewalk Curb Ramps
Paragraph (2) requires that a new street crossing be served by a
perpendicular public sidewalk curb ramp and provides an exception
allowing a parallel public sidewalk curb ramp or a combination of the
two types where right-of-way width cannot accommodate a perpendicular
public sidewalk curb ramp. Diagonal public sidewalk curb ramps,
including depressed corners, and built-up (e.g., projected) public
sidewalk curb ramps are permitted only in alterations.
Comment. A variety of public sidewalk curb ramp details and
standards for their application were submitted by commenters. Detailed
technical comments were received from the U.S. Department of
Transportation and several of its regional divisions and from the
transportation departments of four States. Many of these comments
recommended that exceptions be provided for various conditions in
existing developed rights-of-way. Commenters from public works agencies
noted that a perpendicular public sidewalk curb ramp and landing for a
six-inch curb height would require at least 10 feet of public sidewalk
width and recommended that other alternatives be permitted. However,
most indicated that public pedestrian rights-of-way already established
in central business districts and commercial areas were sufficiently
wide to accommodate a perpendicular public sidewalk curb ramp and
landing. Other jurisdictions indicated that they provide similar or
greater right-of-way width in intensively developed zones. One county
submitted a copy of the standard details and specifications for public
sidewalk curb ramps developed jointly by APWA and AGC that showed a
minimum landing of 48 inches connecting to a perpendicular public
sidewalk curb ramp as a basic standard. Perpendicular public sidewalk
curb ramps were greatly preferred by people with disabilities,
including people with mobility impairments and those with vision
impairments. Parallel public sidewalk curb ramp construction was
suggested as a secondary option. However, parallel public sidewalk curb
ramps were preferred to perpendicular public sidewalk curb ramps
without landings or with 36 inch landings when right-of-way width is
limited.
Response. A 10 to 15 foot right-of-way between curb face and
property line is common in existing commercial districts. A 12 foot
minimum can be easily accommodated in new land use planning as a first
step in standardizing public sidewalk and street crossing details in
areas of significant pedestrian activity. Public sidewalk curb ramps
must be perpendicular to the curb where right-of-way width permits
their installation. Parallel public sidewalk curb ramps or combinations
of parallel and perpendicular public sidewalk curb ramps are permitted
where right-of-way width may be narrower, as in residential
neighborhoods and other low pedestrian volume zones. Other alternatives
suggested by commenters, such as diagonal and built-up public sidewalk
curb ramps, will be permitted in alterations. No substantive change has
been made to this requirement.
Comment. A diverse group of commenters recommended that a separate
public sidewalk curb ramp be required for each crossing direction
(e.g., crosswalk) rather than a single diagonal public sidewalk curb
ramp serving two perpendicular crossings. One city is discontinuing the
installation of diagonal public sidewalk curb ramps in response to the
concerns of pedestrians. Several commenters with vision impairments
submitted accounts of difficulty with diagonal public sidewalk curb
ramps and blended intersections. Other comments noted that diagonal
public sidewalk curb ramps at intersections require that a turn be made
to use either crosswalk. This is time-consuming for many and makes it
difficult to complete a street crossing in the time allotted by
crossing signals. Diagonal public sidewalk curb ramps may also require
persons using wheelchairs to travel in lanes of moving traffic as they
leave the public sidewalk. Depressed corners, as proposed in Figure
58(a) of the NPRM, were considered both hazardous and difficult to
drain. Many commenters recommended that each street crossing in a
narrow right-of-way be served by a parallel public sidewalk curb ramp
instead of a perpendicular public sidewalk curb ramp without a landing.
Negotiating two consecutive parallel public sidewalk curb ramps was
preferred over negotiating the cross slope of a perpendicular public
sidewalk curb ramp that did not have a landing.
Response. Public sidewalk curb ramps that are perpendicular to a
street crossing provide direct access to the crosswalk and do not
require pedestrians to cross into perpendicular traffic lanes. The
interim final rule prohibits diagonal public sidewalk curb ramps and
depressed corners in new construction. Diagonal public sidewalk curb
ramps are, however, permitted in alterations.
14.2.4(3) Width
Paragraph (3) requires public sidewalk curb ramps to have a minimum
width of 36 inches. Few comments were received on this section and no
substantive changes were made.
14.2.4(4) Landings
Paragraph (4) requires a 48 inch deep landing at the top of, and
equal to the width of, a perpendicular public sidewalk curb ramp. A
similar landing, 60 inches in length, is required at the bottom of a
parallel public sidewalk curb ramp. Cross slope and surface criteria
are also specified. An appendix note clarifies the use of level
landings.
Comment. Comments from persons with disabilities supported the
requirement for a 48 inch landing at the top of public sidewalk curb
ramps. Many objected to perpendicular public sidewalk curb ramps that
do not have landings and which require pedestrians to negotiate across
a complex cross slope. Commenters cited three major concerns regarding
the lack of a level landing at the top of a public sidewalk curb ramp:
(1) lack of a space to turn when approaching a public sidewalk curb
ramp; (2) lack of a space to bypass the public sidewalk curb ramp, and
(3) lack of a level area to rest and turn after ascending the public
sidewalk curb ramp. The NPRM provided an exception that would permit a
36 inch deep landing under conditions of site infeasibility. Comments
from persons with disabilities did not support the exception, noting
that a 36 inch landing was too narrow to be useful.
Response. This provision is consistent with ADAAG 4.2.1 (Size and
Approach) specifications for clear floor or ground space for
wheelchairs, which requires a 30 inch wide by 48 inch long area for a
single wheelchair. Unlike ADAAG 4.8.4 (Ramps), which requires a landing
60 inches in length where ramps change direction, additional space
available on and adjacent to a public sidewalk will provide adequate
clearance for footrests and longer motorized wheelchairs. While a 36
inch landing would provide an adequate passage for a person using a
wheelchair bypassing a public sidewalk curb ramp, it will not
accommodate a 90 degree turn with all wheels on level ground.
Consistent with comments discussed at 14.2 (New Construction: Minimum
Requirements), the exception proposed in the NPRM to allow a 36 inch
wide landing in cases of site infeasibility has been limited to
alterations.
14.2.4(5) Slope
Paragraph (5) requires that the minimum feasible running slope be
used for a public sidewalk curb ramp and establishes a 1:12 maximum
slope when measured from a level plane. An exception permits parallel
public sidewalk curb ramps constructed along sloping public sidewalks
to be steeper than a slope of 1:12 if a ramp at 1:12 would extend more
than 96 inches in length.
To simplify field application, the exception proposed in the NPRM
to permit an alternative method of measuring public sidewalk curb ramp
slope has been replaced by a limitation on the length that might result
from strict application of the maximum slope requirement for parallel
public sidewalk curb ramps only. Where a running slope of 1:12 would
result in a parallel public sidewalk curb ramp more than 96 inches long
when measured from a level plane, the public sidewalk curb ramp need
not exceed 96 inches in length.
Where public sidewalks intersect, as at corners where public
sidewalk curb ramps are necessary to serve street crossings, the cross
slope limitation will apply in both directions, thus providing a level
landing from which to measure curb ramp slope. Perpendicular public
sidewalk curb ramp slope and the slope of the parallel public sidewalk
curb ramp segment adjacent to the corner can therefore be measured from
a level plane. Thus, where parallel public sidewalk curb ramps are
located at public sidewalk intersections, the ramp up or down to the
landing from the intersection will be no steeper than 1:12. On the
other side of the landing, the slope may be that of the public sidewalk
itself, unconstrained along sloping rights-of-way. Where a parallel
public sidewalk curb ramp is constructed at a midblock crossing along a
sloping public sidewalk, the parallel public sidewalk curb ramp may be
the sloping public sidewalk itself connecting on either side to the
landing.
14.2.4(6) Edges
Paragraph (6) requires side flares of perpendicular public sidewalk
curb ramps to have a maximum slope of 1:10 if adjacent to a public
sidewalk.
Comment. The NPRM limited side flares to a maximum slope of 1:12
where the landing at the top of the perpendicular public sidewalk curb
ramp was less than 48 inches in length. Several commenters noted that
the 1:12 limitation on side flare slope was unnecessary in new
construction since a minimum 48 inch level landing is required at the
top of a curb ramp. Two commenters recommended steeper side flares as
being more distinguishable by persons with vision impairments and
suggested a 1:8 maximum. Others supporting a steeper slope for side
flares noted that this would make additional public sidewalk area
available for signals, utilities, and street furnishings.
Response. This section of the interim final rule applies only to
new construction, where public sidewalk curb ramps must have a minimum
48 inch long landing. Side flares may therefore have a maximum slope of
1:10. This will make curb ramps more distinguishable. In alterations,
where a 36 inch long landing is permitted, side flares must have a
maximum slope of 1:12.
14.2.4(7) Surfaces
Paragraph (7) requires that the surfaces of public sidewalk curb
ramps be stable, firm and slip-resistant and provide a visual contrast
to surrounding public sidewalk areas. Each public sidewalk curb ramp
and landing surface shall lie generally in a continuous plane. Gratings
are prohibited on public sidewalk curb ramps. Detectable warnings
provisions have been reserved.
Consistent with comments discussed at ADAAG 14.2.1(3) (Public
Sidewalks: Surfaces), provisions have been added to this section
requiring that surfaces of public sidewalk curb ramps lie generally in
a single plane and prohibiting gratings in public sidewalk curb ramps.
An appendix note at A14.1.2(3) clarifies this requirement.
Comment. Several commenters noted that reserving detectable
warnings provisions in the NPRM eliminated a requirement for visual
contrast on public sidewalk curb ramps. These commenters noted that a
visual contrast was helpful to pedestrians, particularly at night.
Response. A provision has been added requiring that the surface of
the public sidewalk curb ramp shall contrast visually with adjoining
public sidewalk surfaces, either light-on-dark or dark-on-light. An
appendix note at ADAAG A4.29.2 (Detectable Warnings on Walking
Surfaces) contains recommended contrast values.
Comment. Numerous comments were received on the reservation of
detectable warnings on public sidewalk curb ramps in the public right-
of-way. On July 9, 1993, the Board, the Department of Justice, and the
Department of Transportation issued a joint Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking proposing to suspend temporarily the requirement for
detectable warnings on curb ramps and at reflecting pools and hazardous
vehicle crossings (58 FR 37052). If adopted, the provisions of ADAAG
4.7.7 (Detectable Warnings), 4.29.5 (Detectable Warnings at Hazardous
Vehicular Areas), and 4.29.6 (Detectable Warnings at Reflecting Pools)
would be suspended until January 1995. The Board is conducting further
research on detectable warnings. The requirement for detectable
warnings for elements covered by ADAAG sections 4 through 10 remains in
effect unless and until the Board, the Department of Justice, and the
Department of Transportation adopt the proposed suspension and publish
a final rule in the Federal Register. Comments on detectable warnings
submitted to the docket for this rulemaking were considered along with
comments submitted to the docket for the July 9, 1993 NPRM.
14.2.4(8) Transitions
Paragraph (8) requires that counter slopes where gutters and
streets connect to public sidewalk curb ramps be limited to 1:20 for a
distance of 24 inches and prohibits gratings in the area at the base of
the public sidewalk curb ramp. It also requires that transitions be
flush and smoothly blended.
Comment. The NPRM proposed that the counter slope of adjacent
surfaces be limited to a maximum of 1:20. Many commenters objected to
this limitation for existing gutters, which may have a slope as steep
as 1:12. A few commenters noted, however, that a 1:20 slope would be
achievable in new construction. Other commenters noted that some
designs of street cross sections would preclude maintaining this slope
consistently across a street crossing and suggested a limitation in
length.
Response. The angle of incidence between a wheelchair descending a
public sidewalk curb ramp and the counter slope of the gutter must be
limited to avoid catching the wheelchair footrest. The 1:20 maximum
required in the interim final rule is consistent with ADAAG 4.7.2
(Slope). The interim final rule adds a requirement that the area of
1:20 slope extend for a 24 inch distance (the length of the wheelbase
of most wheelchairs) from the edge of the public sidewalk curb ramp.
Comment. Several commenters expressed concern about the
difficulties of travelling over gratings in public sidewalks.
Response. Consistent with prohibitions within the continuous
passage and on public sidewalk curb ramp landings, gratings may not be
installed in street crossings where public sidewalk curb ramps or
landings meet adjacent surfaces. Additional discussion can be found in
ADAAG 14.2.3 (Public Sidewalks).
Comment. Several jurisdictions recommended that raised edges be
permitted at the bases of public sidewalk curb ramps to facilitate
street cleaning and surface drainage.
Response. The interim final rule is consistent with ADAAG 4.7.2
(Slope), which requires that transitions be flush and free of abrupt
changes. Even a small level change at the base of a public sidewalk
curb ramp can stop a wheelchair, particularly on ascent where it may be
necessary to take a run at the ramp slope. No change has been made to
the requirement that transitions be smoothly blended.
14.2.4(9) Obstructions
Paragraph (9) requires that public sidewalk curb ramps be protected
from obstructions by parked vehicles. No comments were received on this
provision and no changes were made.
14.2.5 Pedestrian Street Crossings [14.2.5(13), 14.2.6, 14.2.7, and
14.2.8 in the NPRM]
This section requires that street crossings connect to the
continuous passage by means of a public sidewalk curb ramp and that
related crossing controls, marked crossings, islands, and overpasses
and underpasses be accessible where provided.
14.2.5(1) Crossing Controls
Paragraph (1) adapts ADAAG requirements for control button size,
operating force, mounting height, and location. It requires a control
button to be raised or flush and a minimum of two inches in its
smallest dimension and limits the force required to operate controls to
5 lbf (22.2 N). This paragraph also requires that controls be located
as close as practicable to the public sidewalk curb ramp or landing
serving the crossing at a maximum height of 42 inches above the
finished surface of the public sidewalk. It further requires a 30 inch
by 48 inch level area within 10 inches horizontally of the control and
centered on the control for a parallel approach and centered on and
abutting the control for a forward approach.
Comment. The NPRM sought comment on the size, usability and
maintenance of crossing control buttons. Commenters stated that
recessed or hooded buttons and very small membrane-enclosed buttons
were difficult for many persons to operate. A few commenters supported
the proposed 3/4 inch provision, derived from ADAAG 4.10 (Elevators),
for reasons of consistency. Other commenters stated that they had had
no problems or complaints from the \3/4\ inch diameter buttons
installed in their jurisdictions. A number of municipalities indicated
that larger buttons were more prone to freezing and vandalism. However,
the State of Oregon, and the Douglas County (OR) Public Works
Department both indicated that two inch buttons with integral guards
posed minimal problems in cold wet climates. EPVA recommended a two
inch diameter button as being easier to operate on public sidewalks
where site conditions may be less than adequate and the relationship of
the button, the public sidewalk curb ramp and landing, and the street
crossing may not be optimal. Most individuals with disabilities and
organizations representing them strongly supported a button two inches
or larger in diameter. The Hawaii Commission on Persons with
Disabilities noted that controls should be operable with a closed fist.
Several State and local government transportation and public works
agencies submitted manufacturers' specifications on crossing controls.
An Australian traffic engineer submitted data on a three inch by five
inch oval button with raised arrows that indicate crossing direction.
Large buttons and plates, tactile signage, and raised crossing
direction indicators were also recommended by a number of individuals
who are blind. A few commenters, including the Lighthouse for the Blind
and the American Council of the Blind, suggested that a color contrast
at the button would also be useful for pedestrians with vision
impairments. Other recommendations included convex and raised buttons
rather than flush installations and lever and vertical bar operators
for maximum usability by persons with upper body mobility impairments.
Response. The interim final rule requires that crossing control
buttons be larger than elevator call buttons given their outdoor
locations and the likelihood that surface conditions and location may
not allow as controlled an approach as is possible to a wall-mounted
elevator button in the lobby of a building. Small buttons require
greater fine motor control to operate. A larger button that can be
actuated by a slight motion or closed fist will be usable by more
persons. This is particularly important where a crossing cycle can only
be actuated by operating the control. Additional issues, such as
contrast, tactile directions for use, and other button designs may be
considered in future rulemaking.
Comment. Several commenters from organizations representing persons
with disabilities noted that operating force is more significant to
usability than button size, recommending as little as two pounds of
force to actuate a crossing control.
Response. No data were submitted in support of a lesser operating
force nor was information supplied on the availability of controls with
lesser requirements. The larger button requirement and lower mounting
height now required of crossing controls should facilitate operation by
a larger number of persons. No change has been made in this
requirement.
Comment. The NPRM proposed that the control button be located as
close as possible to a public sidewalk curb ramp. Few comments were
received on the location of the control button relative to the approach
area and public sidewalk curb ramp or level landing serving the street
crossing. However, a few commenters suggested that greater specificity
was required to ensure usability within standard crossing times.
Response. The interim final rule requires that the horizontal
distance between the approach space and the control be no more than 10
inches for a parallel approach. This requirement is derived from ADAAG
4.2 (Space Allowance and Reach Ranges). Both forward and parallel
approaches are permitted. An appendix note recommends placing the
controls out of the path of travel along the public sidewalk.
Comment. The NPRM sought comment on the proposed 48 inch maximum
mounting height for crossing controls. Most commenters favored a lower
height, in some cases as low as 32 inches. Heights of 36 inches and 42
inches were supported by organizations representing persons with
mobility impairments. EPVA recommended a 42 inch mounting height, as
required for an elevator button in ADAAG 4.10 (Elevators). MUTCD
recommends a range between 42 and 48 inches. Commenters noted that
controls are mounted on a slip ring and can be easily installed at a
lower height.
Response. Where it is necessary to operate the control in order to
initiate the crossing cycle, it is important that the button be
installed within a reach range that serves the greatest number of
people. Therefore, the mounting height in the interim final rule has
been changed to a maximum of 42 inches.
Comment. The NPRM sought comment on specifications for audible
crossing signals for persons with vision impairments and vibro-tactile
controls for those with vision and hearing impairments. A large number
of comments and technical data were received. Commenters with vision
impairments cited locations and types of equipment that facilitated
unassisted street crossing. Departments of public works and similar
State and local government agencies and transportation engineers from
private industry submitted reports, recommendations, warrants for
installation, studies, and cost data for audible pedestrian signals.
Organizations representing persons with vision impairments, mobility
instructors, and individuals who are blind supported and opposed
audible crossing signals. Some commenters noted that audible signals
facilitated safe and independent travel, particularly by those with
late-onset vision impairments. Other commenters were concerned that
audible signals would mask environmental cues and stigmatize persons
who are blind as needing special accommodations in order to travel
about on public sidewalks.
Response. The interim final rule does not contain technical or
scoping provisions for audible or vibro-tactile crossing signals
because of a lack of consensus on the need for these devices and the
specifications they should be required to meet. However, the material
received may be of value to the Board in future rulemaking and
technical assistance. Furthermore, emerging wayfinding and broadcast
signage technologies may have applications to pedestrian street
crossing. Technology that makes pedestrian information audible is being
tested in several communities and facilities.
Comment. Several municipal governments were concerned about the
need to change the button size or lower the height of existing crossing
controls and the potential costs of such changes.
Response. New, added, and altered installations must comply with
ADAAG 14 requirements. Existing facilities are addressed by the
Department of Justice regulations implementing title II of the ADA (28
CFR 35.150).
14.2.5(2) Marked Crossings
Paragraph (2) requires that markings at pedestrian crossings
provide visual contrast.
Comment. The NPRM included an appendix note recommending locations
for marked crossings such as at State and local government facilities,
transportation facilities, places of public accommodation, irregular
intersections and mid-block crossings. Commenters suggested deference
to recommendations in the MUTCD for the location of marked crossings.
Response. The interim final rule does not contain recommendations
on where marked crossings should be located. The appendix has been
amended to include information on marked crossings derived from MUTCD
and AASHTO recommendations.
Comment. The proposed rule required marked crossings to be
delineated with contrasting markings or materials. Comments from
organizations representing persons with vision impairments supported
contrast requirements for marked crossings and recommended that the
final rule contain more specific requirements. Many commenters
suggested additional features for crosswalk design, including raised
guidestrips, textured and resilient surfaces, and flashing lights to
increase their identifiability. Other commenters noted that the
examples provided did not include any of the standard methods of
marking crosswalks.
Response. Methods of measuring color contrast in and between
exterior paved surfaces are not sufficiently well-developed to
establish a requirement at this time. No substantive changes have been
made to this provision. However, the examples have been removed. A new
appendix note on contrast has been added to clarify recommendations in
the absence of a technical specification. Other crossing features
recommended by commenters have been included in the appendix note.
14.2.5(3) Islands
Consistent with ADAAG 4.7.11 (Curb Ramps), paragraph (3) requires
that islands in pedestrian crossings be cut through to allow an at-
grade passage or be provided with public sidewalk curb ramps and a
landing.
Comment. Few comments were received on this provision. Several
commenters expressed concern that islands with cut-through passages at
street grade did not provide cues to persons with vision impairments.
One commenter noted that islands that are marked or cut through often
do not provide enough space for a person using a wheelchair to wait
safely through a traffic light cycle if his crossing is interrupted by
a light change.
Response. An appendix note has been added recommending a visual
contrast for the at-grade surface of an island in a street crossing and
adequate space for a wheelchair to be out of traffic lanes.
14.2.5(4) Pedestrian Overpasses and Underpasses
Paragraph (4) requires ramps complying with ADAAG 4.8 (Ramps) or
elevators complying with ADAAG 4.10 (Elevators) where a public sidewalk
crosses over or under a street. It also requires that stairs serving
overpasses and underpasses comply with ADAAG 4.9 (Stairs).
An appendix note clarifies that overpasses and underpasses in hilly
terrain may be approached at or near grade by public sidewalks with a
slope at or less than 1:20. Since the construction of an overcrossing
or undercrossing facility offers the opportunity to provide slopes that
could not be achieved adjacent to roadways, however, grade-separated
segments must be connected to the continuous passage at each end by
means of ramps or elevators.
Comment. The NPRM sought comment on whether there were constraints
specific to overpasses and underpasses for which an exception should be
allowed. Few commenters opposed accessible pedestrian overpasses and
underpasses in new construction. Several commenters, including DREDF,
recommended allowing a circular ramp if site constraints made that the
only feasible option. The National Association of State Facilities
Administrators (NASFA) favored an exception from accessibility
requirements where the grade differential exceeds 14 feet. ITE members
and several State transportation agencies noted that high spans may be
too costly to construct to be accessible. One architect suggested that
pedestrian actuated crossing signals and crosswalks be permitted in
lieu of ramps and elevators where equivalent access could be achieved.
The State of Illinois Department of Transportation recommended an
exception for underpasses and overpasses serving remote transit parking
if accessible spaces were provided at the station.
Response. The Architectural Barriers Act (42 U.S.C. 4151, et seq.)
and the Department of Transportation regulation (49 CFR 27.75)
implementing section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act require that
Federally funded highway construction comply with UFAS standards.
Therefore, ramps have been provided in most new grade-separated
pedestrian crossings in recent years. By their nature, overcrossings
and undercrossings are costly to plan and construct. Careful planning
in new construction can provide full accessibility. Furthermore,
providing accessible ramps does not have a major cost effect on overall
project expenditures. An alternative at-grade crossing for extreme
differentials in grade does not seem practicable, as most overpasses
and underpasses are provided where roadways are wide, speed is high,
and vehicle volume is heavy. Additionally, studies have shown that, if
an alternate shorter route is available, pedestrians will choose it in
favor of a longer grade-separated structure even if it is more
dangerous. This would defeat the purpose of providing separated
crossings. No exception is included for new construction. An appendix
note has been added to include information on circular ramps, which do
not meet the requirements of ADAAG 4.8 (Ramps). Transit stations are
covered by ADAAG 10 (Transportation Facilities) and not as public
rights-of-way under section 14.
Comment. The NPRM sought comment on whether stairs serving
overpasses and underpasses that were also served by a ramp or elevator
should comply with ADAAG 4.9 (Stairs). Commenters supported such a
requirement, noting that its cost effect would be negligible because
standards in most public works construction codes are similar to ADAAG
4.9 (Stairs). Commenters noted that the benefits of increased
accessibility for persons who have difficulty traversing long ramped
approaches justified the inclusion of such a provision in section 14.
Response. The interim final rule has been revised to include a
requirement that stairs at overpasses and underpasses comply with ADAAG
4.9 (Stairs).
Comment. The NPRM proposed to include platform lifts where
permitted under 4.1.3(5) as a means of access to an overpass or
underpass. Several commenters noted that platform lifts were not a
realistic option in such locations because of the limitations on run
and operation imposed by ASME A17.1-1990 Safety Code for Elevators and
Escalators, referenced in ADAAG 4.11 (Platform Lifts (Wheelchair
Lifts)). EPVA also opposed platform lifts, noting that installation
would require a finding that an elevator was infeasible. EPVA further
noted that elevators could be provided in any location that could
accommodate a platform lift.
Response. Under ADAAG 4.1.3(5), a platform lift (wheelchair lift)
may be provided only when installation of an elevator is infeasible
because of site or other constraints. In new construction, access to
overpasses and underpasses can be designed to incorporate an elevator.
The reference to ADAAG 4.1.3(5) and 4.11 (Platform Lifts (Wheelchair
Lifts)) has therefore been removed.
Comment. One commenter requested clarification of the application
of ADAAG 14 to elevated pedestrian networks, such as the extensive
pedestrian network developed by public and private interests in
Minneapolis (MN) and below-grade networks, typically connecting subway
stations and major building complexes, in New York City.
Response. To the extent that these networks are: (1) developed
under the authority of a State or local government, (2) are intended
for public pedestrian access, circulation, and use, and (3) occupy,
along at least some of their length, air or ground rights in the public
right-of-way, they must be accessible under this section. Because
topography will not be a consideration, it should be possible in new
construction to provide a level route along the continuous passage,
which will typically connect to surface circulation networks by
elevators, which may be provided in private facilities or at transit
stations. ADAAG 4.3.1 requires skywalks and tunnels that are part of an
accessible route on a site or within a facility to comply with 4.3
(Accessible Route). Where such construction lies in the public right-
of-way and connects above or below grade to the accessible routes
required of facilities on private sites, these pedestrian circulation
networks must provide a continuous passage and comply with other
provisions of this section. Direct connections from transit facilities
are covered by ADAAG 10.3.1(3). Additionally, elements placed along
above-grade or below-grade public pedestrian routes must comply with
the requirements of ADAAG 14.
Comment. Comments from persons with vision impairments and several
organizations representing them were concerned about traffic provisions
such as ``right-turn-on-red'' and left/right turning phases, noting
that such practices make it difficult to accurately perceive traffic
cues at complex intersections. Other commenters recommended an extended
crossing time interval at crossing controls for persons who cannot
complete a crossing in the standard time allotted.
Response. These are operational issues more properly raised with
local departments of streets and engineering, public works, or similar
agencies. Many departments will install crossing devices upon
individual request.
14.2.6 Vehicular Ways and Facilities [14.4 in the NPRM]
This section requires on-street parking, parking meters, passenger
loading zones and motorist aid communications systems provided on or
adjacent to a public right-of-way for pedestrian use by motorists to be
accessible.
14.2.6(1) On-Street Parking
Paragraph (1) requires accessible parking spaces where on-street
public convenience parking is provided in commercial areas or at civic
buildings. Technical requirements are also provided for on-street
parallel, perpendicular, and angled parking spaces in such areas.
Appendix notes provide examples of new on-street parking and describe
parallel, perpendicular, and angled on-street parking spaces.
Requirements for on-street parking along existing public sidewalks are
addressed in ADAAG 14.3 (Alterations).
Comment. The NPRM required that new on-street parking in commercial
districts include accessible spaces and sought comment on how the chart
at ADAAG 4.2.1(5)(a) should be applied to on-street parking spaces.
Most commenters supported use of the table and suggested applying it in
a variety of ways, including block areas, block lengths (both one-sided
and two), parking districts, commercial and central business zones, or
the total inventory of on-street parking in a jurisdiction. Several
comments suggested a scoping based on demonstrated need. Some
commenters were concerned that applying the table to a series of small
projects with a limited number of spaces might result in an overall
requirement for more spaces. Persons with disabilities recommended
applying the table to small areas in order to provide broad dispersal,
maximum convenience, and the shortest possible routes of travel.
Several commenters suggested that scoping be expanded to include
parking at municipal buildings.
Response. In new development, parking will typically be provided as
part of a larger project, such as the widening of a street, the
improvement of a downtown commercial area, or the creation of a new
subdivision. Therefore, the interim final rule uses project as a basis
for scoping. A new on-street parking project may be established within
a discrete area defined by several blocks and include both sides of a
street or streets. Major street and public sidewalk reconstructions
will have similar characteristics. An urban block may provide as many
as sixty spaces around its perimeter; a block-long street length may
average thirty for both sides together. The interim final rule requires
that where new on-street parking is provided as part of a project in
commercial districts and at civic buildings, accessible spaces shall be
provided in accordance with the table at ADAAG 4.1.2(5)(a). Such spaces
shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the project area. A provision
has been added that requires accessible spaces to be located where
street and sidewalk slope is minimal, to the extent that this is
consistent with reasonable dispersal. A needs-based provision is not
feasible in new construction, where use levels will be initially low
until full development is achieved, at which time it might not be
practicable to add accessible spaces where needed. A requirement has
been added to include parking at civic buildings.
Comment. Many comments recommended that the length and width of
accessible parking spaces be specified.
Response. A requirement has been added that accessible parking
space length and width be no less than those provided for standard
spaces in a jurisdiction.
Comment. The NPRM proposed a 60 inch wide parallel access aisle and
a 36 inch wide perpendicular access aisle connecting to a public
sidewalk curb ramp. Two organizations representing the parking industry
provided detailed recommendations on different designs of accessible
parking spaces. Commenters were concerned about vehicle maneuverability
in indented spaces, sufficient access space to use a public sidewalk
curb ramp when spaces are occupied by vehicles, and provisions for
rear-loading vans. Several commenters also recommended that angled and
perpendicular on-street parking be addressed.
Response. The interim final rule provides technical provisions for
parallel, perpendicular, and angled parking and requires a wider
perpendicular access aisle. Where the public pedestrian right-of-way
exceeds 12 feet in width, parallel on-street parking spaces require
both perpendicular and parallel access aisles. A 60 inch wide
perpendicular access aisle must be located at the head or foot of an
accessible parking space and connect to a public sidewalk curb ramp.
The perpendicular access aisle will allow unobstructed travel from
accessible parking spaces to the public sidewalk and a more generous
vehicle maneuvering space. Side-loading vans may use the public
sidewalk area at a standard parking space, if unobstructed, or the
public sidewalk at an accessible parking space to deploy a lift and
thus are not specifically provided for here. Many rear-loading vans
will be able to use the perpendicular access aisle to deploy a lift.
A parallel access aisle provides an area for entering and exiting
the vehicle outside traffic lanes. The parallel access aisle is
required to enable the driver or passenger to transfer from the
vehicle. This access aisle can be located on either side of the
vehicle, depending on how the car is parked. Parallel on-street parking
spaces may be indented into the public sidewalk as are loading zones or
utilize space occupied by parkways or street furnishing zones along a
curb. An exception has been added for narrower rights-of-way, where
only the perpendicular access aisle and public sidewalk curb ramp must
be provided. Two parking spaces may be paired at one public sidewalk
curb ramp, although the requirement for dispersion may preclude larger
groupings. Perpendicular and angled spaces are specified similar to
ADAAG 4.6 (Parking and Passenger Loading Zones). The provision for
signage has been amended to include designation of van-accessible
perpendicular and angled parking spaces. Two angled parking spaces are
not permitted to share an access aisle because the parking approach may
preclude backing into the space so that the access aisle is on the side
necessary for transfer.
Comment. The NPRM asked whether additional parking spaces provided
in lots or garages could substitute for required on-street parking
spaces if greater convenience to commercial districts could be
achieved. Commenters noted that when new on-street parking is added,
regardless of its location and convenience, some accessible on-street
parking spaces should be provided. If accessible on-street parking is
not provided at the time of expansion, it will be difficult to add it
later, when it will be needed. One commenter noted that Washington, DC
and Los Angeles (CA) provide most of their municipal parking on streets
rather than in parking garages or lots.
Response. No provision has been included in the interim final rule
to allow additional accessible parking spaces in lots or garages to
substitute for required on-street parking spaces. When either is
provided, it must include the full number of accessible parking spaces
required by applicable ADAAG provisions.
Comment. An appendix note in the NPRM suggested that accessible on-
street parking spaces located adjacent to an intersection may be served
by a public sidewalk curb ramp at that intersection. A few commenters
were concerned about the safety of persons transferring from a vehicle
to a wheelchair in narrow rights-of-way where parallel access aisles
may not be provided.
Response. These are dangers faced by all motorists exiting on the
driver's side under some conditions. As in other sections of these
guidelines, access is nevertheless required to ensure choice. The
proposed appendix note has been deleted. The interim final rule permits
on-street parking spaces without access aisles in alterations where
site infeasibility precludes compliance with ADAAG 14.2.6(1).
Comment. Several commenters from regions with heavy winter snowfall
expressed concern about snow removal at indented curbs.
Response. Snow removal is a problem at every pedestrian feature,
particularly at public sidewalk curb ramps and intersections. The
construction of indented parking is similar to that of loading zones
provided on urban public sidewalks in many jurisdictions and should not
require different treatment.
14.2.6(2) Parking Meters
Paragraph (2) requires parking meters to meet ADAAG requirements
for controls, mounting height, and location requirements.
Comment. The NPRM required that all parking meters be accessible.
Most jurisdictions indicated that the parking meter they commonly
specify could not meet guidelines for operation without tight grasping
or twisting and reported having a program allowing free parking for
persons displaying appropriate license plates or placards. Other
commenters saw no need for accessible meters if exemptions were
available.
However, many commenters supported the requirement that these
parking meters be accessible and pointed out that some persons may have
disabilities that make it difficult to operate controls but are not
eligible for license plates allowing free parking. These commenters
further noted that only a few State programs provide full reciprocity
with other jurisdictions and that local policy on exemptions could
change at any time. Commenters asserted that it would be less costly to
have a standard specification for all meters than to have to install,
maintain, and collect money from both accessible and inaccessible
types.
Response. Meters with accessible controls are available from
several manufacturers at only slightly increased cost over standard
meters. Just as controls and operating mechanisms, such as door
hardware, light switches, and dispenser controls, located on an
accessible route must be accessible, the controls and operating
mechanisms of fixed street furnishings along a continuous passage must
also comply with ADAAG 4.27 (Controls and Operating Mechanisms). Since
motorists generally cannot choose a particular parking space, and
persons with disabilities that affect their ability to grasp and twist
operating mechanisms will not always be able or need to use an
accessible parking space, the requirement that all meters be accessible
has not been changed in the interim final rule.
Comment. The NPRM sought comment on the requirement for a 48 inch
mounting height for parking meters. Commenters recommended mounting
heights between 32 and 48 inches. A number of commenters noted that
some parking meters post hours of operation on a horizontal surface
within the casing, and that this information should be accessible to
persons in wheelchairs. Several jurisdictions noted that a lower
mounting height was feasible.
Response. Persons with disabilities may choose to use any on-street
parking space that is available, even though it may not meet the
requirements for an accessible space. Therefore, the interim final rule
requires a maximum mounting height of 42 inches to the operable parts
of controls, consistent with requirements in ADAAG 14.2.5(1). Where
accessible on-street parking spaces with access aisles are not
provided, this provision ensures that accessible meters will be
available.
Comment. Several commenters recommended a more specific requirement
for the location of the parking meter relative to the approach area at
accessible parking spaces. One commenter suggested that meters be
located within 10 inches horizontally of the space required for a
wheelchair to operate them, consistent with ADAAG side reach limits for
a parallel approach.
Response. The interim final rule includes a requirement that meter
controls be located within 10 inches horizontally of the clear ground
space and be centered on that space at accessible parking spaces.
14.2.6(3) Passenger Loading Zones
Paragraph (3) adapts ADAAG requirements for passenger loading zones
to the public right-of-way.
Comment. The NPRM referenced ADAAG 4.1 through 4.35, which included
4.6.6 (Passenger Loading Zones). One commenter sought a clarification
of the number of public sidewalk curb ramps required in a passenger
loading zone that serves several vehicles. The commenter noted that
block-long curbside drop-off and pick-up areas at transportation
facilities may have only a single public sidewalk curb ramp, which may
be difficult to identify, be obstructed by a car, or require a lengthy
route of travel to separate entrances.
Response. The interim final rule adds a provision that requires
additional public sidewalk curb ramps at reasonable intervals where
passenger loading zones serving multiple vehicle spaces are provided
along public rights-of-way.
14.2.6(4) Motorist Aid Communications Systems
Paragraph (4) requires that callboxes installed along public
roadways be accessible. It requires controls and operating mechanisms
to be operable by one hand without tight grasping, pinching or twisting
of the wrist. The force required to activate the controls cannot exceed
five pounds. The highest operable part of the callbox shall be no more
than 48 inches above the finished grade at the callbox. It also
requires the callbox to provide both visible and audible indicators and
precludes voice-only use. It further requires that a stable, firm, and
slip-resistant surface a minimum of 30 inches by 48 inches be provided
immediately adjacent to the callbox and that it be level and connect to
the roadway shoulder, or to a public sidewalk or pedestrian path, if
provided, by means of a continuous passage.
Comment. Several commenters suggested that the use of the word
``emergency'' in defining the coverage of this section might have legal
implications or restrict coverage to systems that offer police
communications only.
Response. This provision covers systems provided for motorist
communication along highways, whether they access a central control
station, a 911 service, or a law enforcement or other switchboard.
Although the term ``callbox'' is used throughout the provision, the
device in place may operate by cellular telephone, radio, or other
technology using a handset or push buttons. The section has been
retitled to clarify that it applies to all such systems.
Comment. The NPRM proposed that physical access be provided to
callboxes. A large number of comments were received from State and
local government agencies responsible for the design, installation, and
operation of motorist aid systems in California. The California Highway
Patrol submitted data on accidents involving patrol officers, disabled
vehicles, and pedestrians along high-speed roadways indicating that
persons travelling along a roadway shoulder or break-down lane are at
risk and present a hazard to motorists. Commenters from transportation
agencies were strongly opposed to accessible callboxes, citing safety
concerns and the difficulty of providing a continuous passage to
callboxes located along highways. Persons with disabilities and
organizations representing them supported physical access to callboxes,
noting that persons with disabilities should have the same choices as
other motorists needing assistance on the highway. However, several
persons with disabilities and two State organizations representing them
submitted comments favoring alternative methods of access, specifically
the provision of cellular telephones. A number of commenters favored
physical accessibility to new installations in combination with
alternative forms of access to existing systems.
Response. Callboxes that are physically accessible are available to
every motorist if the need arises, allowing each motorist to make a
judgment about the advisability of using it. In new installations, it
is possible, by the careful selection of location and the application
of standard engineering practices, to achieve an accessible approach
without compromising drainage, guardrail, abutment, and other criteria
of highway design. Although a continuous passage from the shoulder to
the callbox is required, there is no requirement that a passage along
the highway be provided. Access to existing facilities, including
callboxes, is subject to the Department of Justice regulation
implementing title II of the ADA (28 CFR 35.150(b)). No substantive
changes have been made in this requirement.
Comment. The New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)
raised the issue of access to callboxes installed in tunnels and on
bridges where structural and cost considerations encourage structural
design that occupies the least possible right-of-way width. MTA
suggested that an exception be given from the requirement for
accessible callboxes for such facilities.
Response. Because of the likelihood and serious effect of
breakdowns in tunnels or on bridges, AASHTO recommends full shoulders
in longer tunnels and a 30 inch curb or public sidewalk. A four foot
shoulder is the minimum recommended for bridges on arterials. Where
motorist aid communications systems are provided in new construction,
it should be possible to provide physical access from the roadway to
the callbox (e.g., with an indentation in the raised curb at the
callbox).
Comment. The NPRM asked whether callboxes were available that met
the five pound requirement for controls and operation. One manufacturer
of callboxes that utilize cellular telephone technology was confident
that its equipment could meet the force requirement, although it
acknowledged that some changes to their current specifications might be
necessary. Another manufacturer, whose radio signal callboxes are
powered by user actuation of a pull-down handle, asserted that the
mechanics of this process made it impossible to meet the five pound
force without increasing the range of motion required or impeding
system reliability. The manufacturer reported that its product had been
found usable by five persons with a range of mobility impairments
during independent testing by the Delaware Architectural Accessibility
Board in 1985. Several State highway agencies noted that callbox
technology is now focussed on cellular telephone communications because
of greater system reliability.
Response. Many industries have retooled to implement technological
advances. While some manufacturers may have difficulty achieving the
required operating force, accessible roadside callboxes are available
from several manufacturers. Moreover, the operating force requirements
in ADAAG are the same as those in UFAS, which has been in effect since
1984. Some units that do not currently comply with the operating force
requirements can be made accessible by the addition of mechanical
operating components. The increased range of motion which may be
necessary can be accommodated by a lower mounting height or by
reversing the direction of lever operation. No substantive change has
been made in operating force and control provisions.
Comment. The NPRM asked questions on the mounting height of
callboxes, inquiring about the feasibility of a 48 inch maximum height
rather than the standard 54 inch height. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) commented that callboxes as low as 42 inches
above finished grade would meet standards imposed by the Federal-Aid
Highway Act (23 U.S.C. 101, et seq.), ``* * * if callboxes are mounted
on the downstream side of their supports. A breakaway support with a
callbox mounted opposite the direction of traffic will carry the
callbox over the car on impact.'' While a few commenters anticipated
increased difficulty in snow removal at a lesser height and some noted
guardrail and other possible mounting impediments in existing
locations, no commenter furnished information that would preclude a
lower installation. Furthermore, several commenters noted that systems
currently installed in California are mounted with the highest operable
part at 54 inches, with the bottom of the receiver somewhat lower and
its armored cord within 46 inches of grade. Persons with disabilities
and groups representing them recommended a lower height, ranging from
36 to 48 inches.
Response. Callboxes are located outdoors where surface conditions
may not allow as controlled an approach as is possible to elements
installed in a building. Furthermore, persons using callboxes located
as recommended by the FHWA should be facing traffic and may be using a
front approach to the device. Therefore, the interim final rule
requires that the highest operable part of a callbox be mounted no more
than 48 inches above finished grade at the callbox. This height
requirement should ensure that the bottom of the callbox is at or above
the 42 inch minimum recommended by FHWA.
Comment. The NPRM requested comment on programs proposed in
California that would provide access to motorist aid communications
systems by means of cellular technology, and asked if these were an
acceptable alternative to physical accessibility at the callbox site.
Responses were received from many Service Authorities for Freeway
Emergencies (SAFE), several State and local transportation departments,
and many persons with disabilities and organizations representing them.
Although several persons with disabilities welcomed the access offered
by such a program, most commenters recommended that new callboxes be
physically accessible and noted that providing cellular telephones only
to persons with disabilities was discriminatory. Other commenters noted
that the logistics of such a program would be unmanageably complex and
could not guarantee cellular telephone availability to all who might
need them.
Response. As discussed above, newly installed callboxes must be
physically accessible. Access to existing facilities, including
callboxes and callbox systems, is covered by the Department of Justice
regulations implementing title II of the ADA (28 CFR 35.150(b)).
Comment. The NPRM proposed that callboxes not require voice-only
communications. Comments from individuals who have hearing impairments
and organizations representing them recommended that callboxes include
TTYs or provide for the use of a portable TTY.
Response. While some cellular telephone callboxes are compatible
with portable TTYs, no information on models that incorporate a TTY was
submitted. Furthermore, some callboxes do not use telephone technology.
The prohibition against voice-only communication has been maintained
but TTY technology is not specified. The provision has not been
changed.
14.3 Alterations [14.5 in the NPRM]
This section requires that altered pedestrian facilities comply
with requirements for new construction to the maximum extent feasible
under existing conditions of site development and provides exceptions
for site infeasibility. This requirement is consistent with ADAAG 4.1.6
(Accessible Buildings: Alterations). Special technical provisions for
alterations of elements covered by this section have also been
provided. Appendix notes provide examples of alterations and describe
conditions of site infeasibility.
Comment. The majority of commenters requested clarification of the
differences between new construction and alterations.
Response. Most of the construction in public rights-of-way will be
considered alterations and will therefore be covered by this section
rather than by ADAAG 14.2 (New Construction). Alterations occur in
existing developed areas of an improved public right-of-way where
existing construction is removed or altered, whether by intention or as
a consequence of other work. The new work must meet established grades
and existing construction at the project perimeter as well as at points
within its area, such as at intersecting public sidewalks, curbs and
street crossings, and at entrances to existing buildings and
facilities. Alterations may occur within the physical boundaries of a
project area or be described as a project scope of work. For example,
the reconstruction of a length of street and public sidewalk will occur
within a project area bounded by the limits of the public right-of-way
for a stipulated distance. Within this project area, all new work must
meet guidelines for new construction to the maximum extent feasible.
Other alterations projects may consist of the installation of a typical
element, such as benches or drinking fountains, dispersed throughout a
neighborhood or other general area. In such work, the scoping of
accessible elements is based on individual location. Where a single
item is placed at a location, it is a common use element and must
therefore be accessible.
Comment. The NPRM proposed that alterations to existing elements
constructed as a part of a public improvement project comply with ADAAG
4.1.6 (Accessible Buildings: Alterations) and section 14. Many
commenters requested clarification of the application of ADAAG 4.1.6 to
public rights-of-way.
Response. As discussed in ADAAG 14.1 (General), the entire section
has been reorganized to address new construction and alterations
separately. Provisions derived from ADAAG 4.1.6 (Accessible Buildings:
Alterations) have been added to this section to clarify applications to
public rights-of-way. These requirements (1) prohibit decreasing the
accessibility of existing pedestrian facilities; (2) require full
accessibility to public sidewalks, public sidewalk curb ramps, and
pedestrian street crossings within a project area if a series of small
alterations has the overall effect of a reconstruction; and (3) require
alteration projects involving public sidewalks, public sidewalk curb
ramps, and street crossings to include alterations necessary to connect
to adjacent portions of the continuous passage, to the extent it is not
disproportionate in cost and scope. The latter requirement is based
upon ADAAG 4.1.6(2) (Alterations to an Area Containing a Primary
Function), which requires that alterations that affect or could affect
the usability of or access to an area of primary function be made so as
to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible, the path of travel to
the altered area, and certain elements serving that area, be readily
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, unless such
alterations are disproportionate to the overall alterations in terms of
cost and scope. Public sidewalks, including the continuous passage,
public sidewalk curb ramps, and pedestrian street crossings are the
areas of primary function in a pedestrian circulation network.
Accordingly, when any of these elements is altered, the scope of work
may need to be expanded to include accessible connections to existing
work. For example, when a new public sidewalk curb ramp is constructed,
existing contiguous areas of the public sidewalk must be altered to
ensure that the newly-placed public sidewalk curb ramp complies to the
maximum extent feasible with the provisions required of public sidewalk
curb ramps in new construction, if it can be done by the expenditure of
an additional 20 percent of the cost of this alteration. However,
alterations in the public right-of-way that do not affect these
elements or the continuous passage would not incur a path of travel
obligation. For example, the addition of accessible benches at an
intersection will not require the provision of a continuous passage or
other accessible elements.
In order to ensure smooth transitions and structural integrity,
public works specifications typically require that finished surfaces
adjacent to altered work be removed and replaced beyond the minimum
necessary to perform the work. Therefore, most jurisdictions already
include improvements necessary to blend new work with existing
surfaces.
The replacement of one flag, square, or section of public sidewalk
paving within a larger area to remedy damage to, or deterioration of, a
limited area is considered maintenance and repair unless a substantial
area or significant element is involved. Alterations are generally
planned as improvement projects and will be placed or constructed
according to plans and specifications. Maintenance and repair items,
however, are typically governed by work orders that assume an in-kind
replacement of materials and surfaces that does not require detailed
planning. As required by ADAAG 14.4 (Temporary Work), temporary repairs
to public sidewalks must meet the surface requirements of this section.
Special technical provisions for alterations derived from ADAAG
4.1.6(3) (Special Technical Provisions for Alterations to Existing
Buildings and Facilities) have also been added to this section. These
technical provisions include exceptions which were applied to new
construction in the NPRM.
Comment. State and local government agencies responsible for public
rights-of-way construction recommended a general exception to cover all
instances of site infeasibility. A FHWA engineer noted:
Sidewalk reconstruction on ``continuous accessible routes'' in
central business districts is often difficult due to the need to
adjust the cross-slopes and the longitudinal grades to meet the
ADAAG requirements. Existing curb line grades and the need to meet
existing entrances in buildings abutting the back edge of the
sidewalks impose many physical restrictions. Also, there may be
underground structures (drainage, utilities, freight elevator
entrances, subway and subway access structures) or other obstacles
which may preclude full compliance with the ADAAG cross-slope
requirements.
Response. The NPRM proposed a series of exceptions for constrained
site conditions that applied to both new construction and alterations.
The interim final rule clarifies that site infeasibility applies only
to alterations and refers to existing improvements in public rights-of-
way and development on adjacent sites that prohibit compliance with
specific requirements for new construction.
Where site infeasibility precludes full compliance with provisions
for new construction, public entities must provide accessibility to the
maximum extent feasible, regardless of the accessibility of adjacent
areas or other features. For example, an existing narrow public
sidewalk being altered may be relieved of the obligation for a 36 inch
width, if site infeasibility precludes it, but must nevertheless comply
with limitations on cross slope, surface, and separation, to the
maximum extent feasible. The interim final rule contains technical
provisions for specific features that affect the accessibility of
public sidewalks, public sidewalk curb ramps, and on-street parking.
14.3.2 Special Technical Provisions for Alterations to Existing
Pedestrian Areas, Elements, and Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way
This section contains special technical provisions for alterations
to public sidewalks, public sidewalk curb ramps, and on-street parking
where site infeasibility precludes full compliance with requirements
for new construction.
14.3.2(1) Public Sidewalks
Paragraph (1) permits public sidewalks to be warped or blended
where necessary to provide a continuous passage, permits the minimum
feasible cross slope in a continuous passage, and permits existing
gratings to remain when surfaces are altered.
Comment. EPVA and other commenters noted that it may be necessary
to blend or warp the surfaces of public sidewalks to achieve access to
existing entrances and facilities on sites adjacent to a sloping public
sidewalk.
Response. ADAAG 4.1.2(1) (Accessible Sites and Exterior Facilities:
New Construction) requires that at least one accessible route be
provided from public streets and public sidewalks to an accessible
building entrance. ADAAG 4.3 (Accessible Route) limits cross slope on
accessible routes to 1:50. However, the public sidewalk or continuous
passage may have a running slope that exceeds 1:50. In practice, the
connection between sidewalks on sites and the public sidewalk is
commonly warped over a short distance to provide a smoothly blended
transition. In some cases, the warping can be accommodated on the
adjacent site. In others, however, it may be necessary to warp the
public sidewalk or continuous passage in order to provide level
landings at entrances and at other elements requiring access. A special
technical provision has been added to permit warping and blending of
existing public sidewalks where site infeasibility precludes a
continuous cross slope of 1:50. For example, the continuous passage
within an existing public sidewalk wider than 36 inches may be ramped
perpendicular to its run to serve existing entrances and other
accessible elements.
14.3.2(2) Public Sidewalk Curb Ramps
Paragraph (2) modifies the requirements of ADAAG 14.2.2 (Public
Sidewalk Curb Ramps) for type, width, landings, slope, and surfaces in
alterations. It requires the maximum feasible accessibility of each
public sidewalk curb ramp feature where site infeasibility precludes
full compliance with new construction provisions.
Paragraph (a) specifies the type of public sidewalk curb ramp
permitted in alterations depending on the width of existing right-of-
way and other existing conditions. Unlike new construction, this
section permits diagonal public sidewalk curb ramps and built-up public
sidewalk curb ramps. Paragraph (b) permits public sidewalk curb ramps
in narrow public sidewalks to be less than 36 inches wide where site
infeasibility precludes compliance with new construction requirements.
Paragraph (c) permits perpendicular public sidewalk curb ramps to have
a minimum 36 inch long landing at the top (where the landing of a
perpendicular public sidewalk curb ramp is less than 48 inches in
width, side flares may not exceed 1:12) and parallel public sidewalk
curb ramps to have a minimum 48 inch long landing at the bottom. Cross
slope may be measured perpendicular to the curb. Under conditions of
site infeasibility, the minimum feasible cross slope may be provided.
Paragraph (d) permits certain exceptions to slope limitations in public
sidewalk curb ramps. Paragraph (e) permits existing gratings and
appurtenances to be retained in public sidewalk curb ramps and landings
if relocation is infeasible and permits crowning or projecting public
sidewalk curb ramp surfaces at streets and gutters that exceed a 1:20
slope.
Comment. The NPRM proposed a sequential series of exceptions for
public sidewalk curb ramps based upon right-of-way width. Many
commenters recommended additional types of public sidewalk curb ramps,
such as combinations of parallel and perpendicular public sidewalk curb
ramps. Individuals with disabilities and groups representing them
strongly favored a requirement for a perpendicular public sidewalk curb
ramp in all cases where a landing could be provided. Where a
perpendicular public sidewalk curb ramp could not be provided with a
landing because of narrow public sidewalks, these commenters preferred
a requirement for a parallel public sidewalk curb ramp. Several
jurisdictions submitted standard curb ramp specifications that were
also based upon differences in right-of-way width.
Response. The interim final rule permits a sequential series of
public sidewalk curb ramps, including diagonal and built-up public
sidewalk curb ramps, to facilitate accessibility in constrained public
rights-of-way.
Comment. A few municipalities in Texas have noted that their
existing public sidewalks are elevated 18 to 27 inches above the level
of the surrounding streets. Street crossings are reached by steps that
may have risers of nine inches or more. The municipalities were
concerned about means of providing ramped access under such conditions.
Response. New construction and alterations provisions are based
upon a curb height of six inches, the common public works standard.
However, newly constructed curb heights may range between 2-1/2 inches
for a combination rolled curb and gutter section to as much as nine
inches on bridge and overpass construction, where future resurfacing
may have to be taken into account when establishing finished grades.
Alterations involving changes in level that exceed commonly-specified
curb heights cannot be accommodated by typical public sidewalk curb
ramp designs. In such cases it may be possible to provide access with
ramps complying with ADAAG 4.8 (Ramps) within the width of the public
sidewalk. Where public sidewalk levels diverge, a railing or other edge
protection is advisable.
Comment. Several commenters, including persons with disabilities,
supported a requirement for public sidewalk curb ramps even when
existing site conditions would require a steeply sloped or very narrow
parallel public sidewalk curb ramp. Most commenters supported a
requirement for a 36 inch continuous passage by a public sidewalk curb
ramp but did not support a 36 inch landing at the top of the public
sidewalk curb ramp because it was too narrow to make a turn. These
commenters also supported cross slope limitations at 1:50. Most State
and local governments, however, recommended that exceptions be provided
for narrow rights-of-way and existing public sidewalks with excessive
cross slope.
Response. The interim final rule permits a parallel public sidewalk
curb ramp in a public sidewalk that is less than 36 inches wide. It
also permits a minimum 36 inch landing in alterations to maximize the
usability of perpendicular public sidewalk curb ramps constructed in
existing developed rights-of-way. A 36 inch landing will accommodate
the wheelbase of most wheelchairs and additional maneuvering space for
a footrest may be available adjacent to public sidewalks to facilitate
a turn at the top landing. Consistent with ADAAG 4.7 (Curb Ramps), the
slope of side flares at public sidewalk curb ramps with landings less
than 48 inches in length has been limited to 1:12. Landing slopes may
be measured perpendicular to the curb face when a level landing cannot
be provided. When site constraints preclude a 1:50 slope, the minimum
feasible slope must be provided in both directions across a landing.
Comment. The NPRM proposed an alternate means of measuring public
sidewalk curb ramp slope in existing public sidewalks. Although
commenters supported this exception, they requested clarification of
how it was to be applied.
Response. The interim final rule permits public sidewalk curb ramps
to be steeper than permitted by 14.3.2(2)(d) (i) and (ii) if a ramp
complying with those provisions would extend more than 72 inches in
length. To simplify field application, the alternative form of
measurement has been eliminated and replaced by a straightforward
limitation on the length that might be required as a result of the
application of the maximum slope. Where the running slopes permitted in
the special technical provisions could result in a public sidewalk curb
ramp more than 72 inches long when measured from a level plane, the
public sidewalk curb ramp need not extend more than 72 inches in
length.
Comment. Many commenters requested clarification of whether special
technical provisions in ADAAG 4.1.6(3)(a) (Ramps) apply to public
rights-of-way.
Response. As discussed above, ADAAG 14.3 no longer explicitly
references ADAAG 4.1.6 (Accessible Buildings: Alterations). Instead,
the interim final rule includes special technical provisions derived
from ADAAG 4.1.6(3)(a) (Ramps) that permit public sidewalk curb ramps
to have be steeper than 1:12 under specified conditions in alterations.
Comment. Several commenters recommended that public sidewalk curb
ramps be crowned or projected (built-up) beyond the curb face where
existing gutter counter slope exceeds 1:20. This recommendation is also
included in the APWA/AGC Standard Plans for Public Works Construction.
This may avoid major alterations to adjacent gutters and curbs when a
public sidewalk curb ramp is installed in an existing public sidewalk.
Response. The interim final rule permits the installation of public
sidewalk curb ramps with crowned or projected surfaces where gutter
slopes exceed 1:20 in developed rights-of-way.
14.3.2(3) On-Street Parking
Paragraph (3) permits accessible on-street parking to use public
sidewalk curb ramps at intersections if motorists exiting their
vehicles do not have to cross into perpendicular traffic lanes to gain
access to a public sidewalk curb ramp.
Comment. The NPRM included an appendix note describing on-street
parallel parking spaces without access aisles that utilize adjacent
public sidewalk curb ramps. Several commenters from public works
agencies discouraged on-street parallel parking adjacent to
intersections, where sight distance may be limited, because of the
danger from turning vehicles to persons transferring from parked cars
into wheelchairs. However, persons with disabilities noted that even
though such spaces did not have access aisles, they were preferable to
none at all. Many municipalities indicated that they had provided such
spaces with a positive response from persons with disabilities.
Response. In existing developed rights-of-way, on-street parallel
parking spaces without access aisles may be the only spaces some
jurisdictions can provide. While such spaces do not provide a high
degree of accessible features, they are usable by many persons with
disabilities. The interim final rule includes the proposed appendix
note as a special technical provision.
14.4 Temporary Work [14.6 in the NPRM]
This section requires that construction and repair work in the
public right-of-way that affects pedestrian facilities comply with
ADAAG 4.1.1(4) (Temporary Structures). It further requires that
construction sites be protected with barriers against hazards along the
pedestrian circulation network and that temporary alternate circulation
paths, where provided, be accessible and clearly marked. Appendix notes
clarify accessibility requirements along temporary circulation paths.
Comment. The NPRM proposed that temporary work comply with ADAAG
4.1.1(4) (Temporary Structures), which applies the scope and technical
requirements of ADAAG, including those for an accessible route, to
temporary facilities. The NPRM further proposed that the temporary
circulation path from building entrances to accessible street crossings
be clearly marked. Several commenters from departments of public works
noted that it may not always be possible to provide an accessible
temporary route. Others recommended that an alternate route be
required, particularly to building entrances. One commenter stated that
the cost of providing an accessible alternate route might be excessive
in some situations.
Response. Consistent with ADAAG 14.2.1, which requires that public
sidewalks, where provided, be accessible, this section has been changed
to require that where a temporary alternate circulation path is
provided around construction in the public pedestrian circulation
network, the alternate path must be accessible. It also requires that
the temporary alternate circulation path comply with alterations
standards at ADAAG 14.3 (Alterations). The reference to ADAAG 4.1.1(4)
(Temporary Structures) has been removed as unnecessary. The provision
at ADAAG 14.1 (General) applies ADAAG 4.1 through 4.35, which includes
4.1.1(4), to ADAAG 14.
Comment. Several commenters noted that, where construction involves
the entire width of a public sidewalk, some pedestrians may choose to
bypass the work by using the adjacent roadway for a short distance.
These commenters requested clarification as to whether permitting the
use of a street or public sidewalk by pedestrians without disabilities
constituted the provision of an alternate circulation path that would
require the temporary installation of public sidewalk curb ramps to
allow persons using wheelchairs to travel in the street to detour
around an obstruction.
Response. Along developed rights-of-way, access to other existing
routes may already be available at nearby intersections where
pedestrians can choose to cross to another public sidewalk that will
provide temporary passage by the construction. This would not require
the provision of a temporary alternate circulation path. However, where
other existing routes are not available and where the sidewalk under
construction remains open to pedestrian travel but does not provide a
continuous passage, an accessible temporary path must be provided. The
temporary path must comply with provisions for alterations in ADAAG
14.3 and must therefore contain a continuous passage connecting to
public sidewalk curb ramps and street crossings, where necessary for
access. Furthermore, the temporary alternate path must be clearly noted
and, where there are hazardous conditions along the route, such as
excavations, construction materials, or equipment, they must be
protected by barriers.
Comment. The NPRM proposed that construction sites in the public
right-of-way be protected with barriers. Commenters from FHWA noted
that MUTCD contained requirements for street and highway construction,
including traffic and pedestrian barriers. (DOT/FHWA, ``Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices,'' 1988 edition.) These commenters
recommended that the requirements of this section be coordinated with
chapter 6C-9, Barricade Application, which recommends that, where it is
not possible to divert pedestrians to other public sidewalks when a
segment of a pedestrian route is impassable due to construction,
barricades be used to define an alternate path.
Response. Conformance with MUTCD standards, which include technical
guidelines for barricade design and designation, is required as a
condition for receiving funding under the Federal-Aid Highway Act (23
U.S.C. 101, et seq). Therefore, most jurisdictions will comply with
MUTCD guidelines. The interim final rule is consistent with MUTCD
recommendations and no changes have been made in this requirement.
Comment. The NPRM proposed that construction sites be protected
with barriers to warn pedestrians of hazards on the pedestrian
circulation network. Many persons with vision impairments and
organizations representing them submitted comments supporting this
requirement and recommending that barriers be required to be
discernible to persons with vision impairments. One commenter provided
information on guidelines developed for the installation of scaffolding
along public sidewalks in San Francisco.
Response. The appendix note has been expanded to emphasize the need
for barriers that provide both protection and travel cues for bypassing
construction hazards along a public sidewalk. A note has been added
recommending particular attention to scaffolding design.
Technical Assistance
Under both the Architectural Barriers Act and the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the Access Board provides technical assistance and
training for entities covered under the acts. The Access Board's toll-
free number allows callers to receive technical assistance and to order
publications. The Access Board conducts in-depth training programs to
advise and educate the general public, as well as architects and other
professionals on the accessibility guidelines and requirements. In
addition, the Board is developing two manuals for use by both technical
and general audiences. The first is a general manual on ADAAG
requirements that will be a useful tool in understanding ADAAG whether
for purposes of compliance or as a reference for accessible design. The
second is a technical assistance manual on the application of
accessibility requirements for public sidewalks, curb ramps, street
crossings and related pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way.
This manual will assist public works, streets and engineering, and
similar State and local government agencies responsible for street and
sidewalk improvements. The manual will also be of use to architects,
civil engineers, landscape architects and other professionals who
provide design services for pedestrian improvements under contract to
public agencies and to construction firms who make the physical
improvements. The manual on the application of accessibility
requirements for public rights-of-ways will be coordinated with the
publication of final rules by the Access Board and the Departments of
Justice and Transportation. The more general manual on ADAAG will be
available as soon as possible after the publication of the final rules.
Regulatory Process Matters
Regulatory Assessment
These guidelines are issued to provide guidance to the Department
of Justice and the Department of Transportation in establishing
accessibility standards for new construction and alterations of State
and local government facilities covered by title II of the ADA. The
standards established by the Department of Justice and the Department
of Transportation must be consistent with these guidelines. These
guidelines meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866 and this interim final rule has been reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to that order.
The Board has prepared a Regulatory Assessment (RA) which has been
placed in the docket and is available for public inspection at the
Board's office. The RA includes a cost impact analysis for certain
accessibility elements and a discussion of the regulatory alternatives
considered.
Accessibility does not generally add features to a building or a
facility but rather simply requires that features commonly provided
have certain characteristics. Some of the characteristics may add
marginally to the cost of an element; however, the cost for
installation is not usually increased. In addition, accessibility
generally adds little or no space to buildings and facilities. Several
studies discussed in the Regulatory Impact Analysis prepared for ADAAG
on January 9, 1992 have shown that designing buildings and facilities
to be accessible, from the conceptual phase onward, adds less than one
percent to the total construction costs.
For purposes of the RA, the Board analyzed those provisions that
pertain only to buildings and facilities which are covered by title II
of ADA. Included in the analysis were: adaptable fixed judges' benches
and clerk's stations, accessible jury boxes and witness stands,
speakers' rostrums and raised daises, security systems, wiring and
conduit for communication systems, restricted and secured entrances,
visiting areas, cells, cubicles, platform lifts and elevators, passing
space on sidewalks, crossing controls, motorist aid communication
systems, on-street parking, principal and primary entrances, and
swimming pools. The RA also discusses the indirect costs of the
accessibility elements such as maintenance, operation and opportunity
costs.
The Board is particularly interested in estimating the aggregate
(nationwide) annual cost of this rule. In order to do so, the Board
would need to calculate, for each category of facility, the product of
(1) the cost of each individual requirement and (2) the number of times
each requirement applies within the ``average'' facility and (3) the
number of facilities affected each year. The Board has included
reasonable estimates for the cost of individual requirements in the RA,
and is requesting, for each class of facility (i.e., courthouses,
correctional facilities, residential facilities, public rights-of-way),
data on the extent to which each specific requirement will apply within
the ``average'' facility. Additionally, the Board is requesting data on
the number of affected facilities.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the publication of a rule
requires the preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis if such
rule could have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. These guidelines will have such an impact. Section
605(A) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act permits an agency to satisfy
the flexibility analysis requirement by addressing the impacts of the
rule on small entities in the agency's RA. The Board has chosen to
exercise that option and has addressed the impact of the guidelines on
small entities as part of the RA. The economic impacts imposed upon the
small entities subject to the guidelines are the necessary result of
the ADA statute itself. Every effort has been made by the Board to
lessen the economic impact of this rule on small entities, but little
discretion was reserved to the Board in this area.
Federalism Statement
These guidelines will have some Federalism impacts. The impacts
imposed upon State and local government entities are the necessary
result of the ADA statute itself. Every effort has been made by the
Board to lessen the impact of these guidelines on State and local
government entities, but little discretion was reserved to the Board in
this area. The RA discusses the impact of these guidelines on public
entities. This discussion serves the purposes of a Federalism Statement
under Executive Order 12612 for purposes of this rule.
Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership
As discussed in the supplementary information above, on December
21, 1992, the Board published an NPRM in the Federal Register which
proposed to amend the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility
Guidelines (36 CFR part 1191) by adding four special application
sections and miscellaneous provisions specifically applicable to
buildings and facilities covered by title II of the ADA. Executive
Order 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, encourages
Federal agencies to consult with State and local governments affected
by the implementation of legislation. It has been determined that these
guidelines will have an economic impact on such entities. Accordingly,
following the issuance of the NPRM, the Board held five public hearings
in major cities across the country. Notices of the hearings and
invitations to attend were sent to major state and local government
entities in those areas. In addition, copies of the NPRM were mailed
directly to major associations of state and local governmental entities
across the country and various responsible agencies in individual
states. In response to the NPRM and the public hearings, a total of 148
people presented testimony on the proposed guidelines, 447 written
comments were submitted to the Board by the end of the comment period,
and an additional 127 comments were received after the close of the
comment period. Although the latter comments were not timely, the Board
considered them to the extent practicable. Two hundred and five of the
comments and testimony received were from affected State and local
governments. Those comments were carefully analyzed and the major
issues are discussed in the Section by Section Analysis, which also
indicates the Board's position on each issue. Additionally, cost
concerns raised by those entities are further addressed in the
Regulatory Assessment. A copy of the NPRMs published by the Departments
of Justice and Transportation, as well as the Access Board's Interim
Final Rule and the Regulatory Assessment prepared in connection with
the rule will be forwarded to major State and local government
associations and agencies for their review and comment. Additional
copies of the Regulatory Assessment are available on request.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 1191
Buildings and facilities, Civil rights, Individuals with
disabilities.
Authorized by vote of the Board on November 10, 1993.
Judith E. Heumann,
Chairperson, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board.
Editorial note: This document was received at the Office of the
Federal Register on June 8, 1994.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Part 1191 of title 36 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 1191--AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) ACCESSIBILITY
GUIDELINES FOR BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for 36 CFR Part 1191 is revised to read
as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12204.
2. Appendix A to part 1191 is amended by revising the title page,
pages i, ii, 1 through 15, 61, and 71; and by adding pages 14A, 61A and
72 through 92, as set forth below.
3. In Part 1191, the appendix to appendix A is amended by revising
pages A1, A2, A16 and A17; and by adding pages A1A, and A18 through
A30, as set forth below.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
BILLING CODE 8150-01-P
Appendix A to Part 1191--Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities
TR20JN94.000
TR20JN94.001
TR20JN94.002
TR20JN94.003
TR20JN94.004
TR20JN94.005
TR20JN94.006
TR20JN94.007
TR20JN94.008
TR20JN94.009
TR20JN94.010
TR20JN94.011
TR20JN94.012
TR20JN94.013
TR20JN94.014
TR20JN94.015
TR20JN94.016
TR20JN94.017
TR20JN94.018
TR20JN94.019
TR20JN94.020
TR20JN94.021
TR20JN94.022
TR20JN94.023
TR20JN94.024
TR20JN94.025
TR20JN94.026
TR20JN94.027
TR20JN94.028
TR20JN94.029
TR20JN94.030
TR20JN94.031
TR20JN94.032
TR20JN94.033
TR20JN94.034
TR20JN94.035
TR20JN94.036
TR20JN94.037
TR20JN94.038
TR20JN94.039
TR20JN94.040
TR20JN94.041
TR20JN94.042
TR20JN94.043
TR20JN94.044
TR20JN94.045
TR20JN94.046
TR20JN94.047
TR20JN94.048
TR20JN94.049
TR20JN94.050
TR20JN94.051
TR20JN94.052
TR20JN94.053
TR20JN94.054
TR20JN94.055
TR20JN94.056
TR20JN94.057
TR20JN94.058
TR20JN94.059
TR20JN94.060
[FR Doc. 94-14304 Filed 6-17-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8150-01-P
