[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