menu
|

Accessology FAQs

Technical FAQs


  1. Legal Disclaimer
  2. Drinking Fountains
  3. Sinks in Countertops
  4. Renovations to areas of primary function.
  5. Variances
  6. Cabinet Doors

ADAAG FAQs

  1. Have there been any changes in ADAAG?
  2. What if there are no provisions in ADAAG or TAS for a facility type, element, or feature?
  3. The most confusing part to us is the requirements for existing facilities, can you help?
  4. How does barrier removal affect the different types of existing facilities?
  5. Exactly who is liable under these regulations?

 

Based Upon the Texas State Requirements

THE INFORMATION PROVIDED HEREIN IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A LEGAL INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS IN QUESTION. ALL RESPONSES ARE BASED UPON OUR EXPERIENCE TO DATE, AND DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT CHANGES OR LEGAL INTERPRETATIONS OR OTHER EXPERIENCES UNKNOWN TO US THAT MAY ALTER THE APPLICATION OF THIS INFORMATION. THIS INFORMATION IS LIMITED STRICTLY TO OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE ADA AND/OR TAS REGULATIONS AS PRINTED AT THE TIME AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR PURPOSES OF UNDERSTANDING ANY OTHER REGULATORY SCHEME REGARDLESS OF THE SIMILARITY IN LANGUAGE. FOR A LEGAL INTERPRETATION OF THIS INFORMATION, CONTACT AN ATTORNEY OR THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNING AGENCY.

1.  Drinking Fountains

When and why must the high side of a Hi-Lo unit be equipped with an apron/skirt?

Unless protected by wing walls or other obstructions, anything which extends more than 4” into a circulation area is a protruding object undetectable by a person who is blind or sight-impaired depending on cane detection, if the leading edge is between 27” and 80” a.f.f. Applying an apron/skirt, available from most manufacturers of drinking fountains, lowers the leading edge to 27”.

2. Sinks in Countertops

a) - Why was I cited because the counter next to the break room sink is higher than 34” a.f.f.? The sink is compliant.

This is a very common and often overlooked during design and construction. TAS includes specifications specific to both sinks (4.24) and counters (4.32.4). Both must be satisfied, each independent of the other.

b) - OK, I understand #2a, but the refrigerator I specified will not fit under a 34’ high counter.

Although sometimes difficult to locate, most major appliance manufacturers now market refrigerators, dishwashers, ice machines and other appliances designed to fit under 34” high countertops.

3. Renovations to areas of primary function. (The “Magic 5”.)

a) - I’ve heard the phrase “Magic 5” with respect to renovated buildings, especially tenant spaces. What does that mean?

The phrase itself is simply jargon, but it refers to the requirements of TAS 4.1.6(2). 4.1.6(2) which are triggered when an area of primary function is renovated, and stipulates that in such case, the parking serving the altered area comply with TAS 4.6, the route from the accessible parking to the altered area comply with 4.3, and the toilet rooms, drinking fountains and telephones serving the altered area comply with 4.22,4, 4.15, and 4.31, respectively.

b) - I was commissioned for work only within the demised premises of the tenant space. I was not hired to modify any rooms or spaces outside of the tenant space. Why were those issues raised on the plan review and or inspection report?

The cover letters accompanying our plan review reports include a recommendation that items related to spaces and elements which are outside of the designers scope of work be forwarded to the owner of the building or facility. As we understand it, it is not the intention of TDLR to require you to perform work beyond that for which you are hired.

That said, the owner (not the tenant) is ultimately responsible for compliance, and if such compliance is not confirmed during the plan review process, the owner will be cited for any non-complying conditions found during the on-site inspection.

4. Variances

I have a noncompliant condition which I believe cannot be brought into compliance, so I intend to apply to TDLR for a variance. Can Accessology help me with that?

TDLR rules and procedures prohibit the Registered Accessibility Specialist (RAS) performing the plan review or inspection from participating in the variance process. However, please contact us and perhaps we can recommend someone to assist you.

5. Cabinet Doors

Can cabinet doors be placed on sinks in break rooms and other common use areas if they are designed to either open all the way to the floor or slide back out of the way?

No. Cabinet doors have been designed to sit back far enough to allow the full clearance, and are generally only used for asthetic purposes. Section 4.24.5 of the Texas Accessibility Standards requires a forward approach at sinks. The space under an accessible sink shall therefore remain open at all times to allow a forward approach. Side approaches are not allowed at common use sinks.

ADAAG FAQs

Have there been any changes in ADAAG?

Yes, There have been a number of changes to the basic ADAAG since publication of the initial document in the Federal Register of July 26, 1991. Several typographical errors have been corrected and minor editorial changes made to clarify intent. Three major changes in the design standards should be noted:

  • On September 6, 1991 the Access Board’s guidelines for Section 10. Transportation Facilities and Transportation Vehicles were published as amendments (both have been adopted by DOJ and DOT as standards)
  • On August 16, 1993, in a joint rulemaking with DOJ and DOT, the Access Board published revisions to the reach ranges for ATM’s and fare vending machines to clarify that either a forward or a side approach was permissable. A table of values for reach over a horizontal obstruction was added.
  • On April 12, 1994 and July 26, 1996, in two successive joint rulemakings, the Access Board temporarily suspended (until July 26, 1998) the requirements for detectable warnings at curb ramps, reflecting pools, and hazardous vehicular areas. Note that requirements for detectable warnings at transit platforms remain in effect.
  • A fourth change to ADAAG, the Interim Final Rule for State and Local Government Buildings and Facilities published on June 20, 1994, contains provisions that have not been adopted by either DOJ or DOT and thus have not become enforceable.
What if there are no provisions in ADAAG or TAS for a facility type, element, or feature?

Facilities for which there are no specific design criteria are nevertheless subject to other TAS/ADA requirements, including the duty to provide equal access. In many cases, it will be feasible to provide access by incorporating basic elements specified in TAS/ADAAG, such as ramp and other parameters of an accessible route. Where appropriate standards exist, they should be applied. Scoping may be derived from similar occupancies or uses, considering the range of experiences provided; in general, a reasonable number, but at least one of each type of element should be designed to be accessible. Innovative approaches that provide substantially equivalent or superior access to and usability of a facility may be used.

The most confusing part to us is the requirements for existing facilities, can you help?

Sure. ADAAG and thus TAS were developed for new construction and alterations. Existing facilities not otherwise being altered are subject to requirements specified in the DOJ/DOT regulations, not in the guidelines. Title II entities must achieve program accessibility; Title III entities must pursue barrier removal - or alternatives - in existing places of public accommodation. Broadly viewed, ADA or TAS implementing regulations outline a hierarchy of obligations:

  • new construction must be fully accessible, in compliance with applicable provisions of ADAAG and TAS.
  • alterations must observe ADAAG/TAS new construction criteria where technically feasible; less stringent technical specifications may be applied where technical infeasibility is encountered but must be approved through the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation variance process; alterations to primary function areas carry an additional obligation to improve the path of travel to the altered area, including telephones, restrooms and drinking fountains that serve the altered area.
  • existing facilities must achieve a level of usability that balances user needs, the constraints of existing conditions, and the resources available for remedial work.

Thus the highest degree of accessibility is expected in new work, when the cost of providing accessible features is nominal compared to the overall cost of construction. Alterations and additions, constrained by work already in place, may default to an intermediate standard when structural and/or site conditions prohibit full accessibility, if an approved variance is provided through by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. Existing facilities must do the best they can with what they have, a flexibility that permits needs to be balanced against available resources. Anything other than full compliance must go through the variance procedures.

How does barrier removal affect the different types of existing facilities?

Barrier removal is the private sector (title III) obligation for existing facilities. Only those commercial facilities that are places of public accommodation must comply with this requirement to remove physical and communications barriers to the use of existing facilities by persons with disabilities. The regulation limits barrier removal to actions that are readily achievable, that is, projects that are relatively easy and inexpensive to accomplish. The DOJ rule provides both examples of and priorities for barrier removal and specifies criteria for assessing what is readily achievable. When a public accommodation can show that barrier removal is not readily achievable, as, for instance, the addition of an elevator to serve an inaccessible story, the public accommodation must make its goods and services available by other(readily achievable) means.

Exactly who is liable under these regulations?

The Supreme Court will ultimately decide this question. While we wait their interpretation of the relevant ADA provisions (Sections 302 and 303), the issue can be unresolved for quite a while. (See 'Legal Updates' for more information) Nearly all of the 400 architects and related professionals at the Universal Accessibility Conference learned that the ADA’s design and construction rules leave them open to liability. Lawyers, prosecutors, architects, contractors and disability advocates all share a role that will ultimately be decided by the courts, as noted above. However, Attorney General Janet Reno, a speaker at the conference, was quite clear in her interpretation. 'Everyone involved in the design and construction process has an obligation to comply and everyone may be liable. ' This vagueness does not offer much comfort for anyone and is creating many conflicts within the court system. Regardless of what the courts conclude, the risks for architects and other building professionals are likely to keep mounting in importance, as noted by one of the panels at the conference. As the battles begin, another quote from Attorney General Janet Reno may help decisions when your client is unwilling to comply with these regulations. She says, 'Any failure by an architect to 'stick to your guns' when a client builds or renovates without full regard to the ADA will bring the full litigating wrath of the federal government. ' She further said to the architects, 'You are licensed by the state to design buildings. Builders and building owners look to you for guidance. You have the power to explain to them how to provide full access while still meeting your clients design goals.'