Comment NumberOL-100136
OrganizationDade Aviation Consultants
Received02/07/2005 02:57:03 PM
Commenter
First NameLast NameState/Province
JamesArmstrongFL
AgencyU. S. Department of Justice
Docket IDCRT Docket No. 2004-DRS01
RuleNondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services; Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities
AttachmentsNo Attachments
CommentsAnswers to Specific Questions


1-Model the effective date on the eighteen-month precedent. This will give the designers of large projects with long design periods sufficient time to incorporate the new standards into their designs in an efficient manner.

3-Absolutely! Option I, the safe harbor for “any elements of existing facilities that are in compliance with the specific requirements (scoping and technical specifications) of the current ADA Standards,” is by far the preferable option. All of the other options risk ambiguity at best and things falling into cracks at worst.

4a-No. It may be difficult or impossible to anticipate all of the elements that might need to be included under any set of “reduced scoping requirements” under Option II or elements subject to “exemption from specified requirements” under Option III, other than a blanket safe harbor as in Option I. Also, as per the second paragraph under Option I, having to lower light switches, thermostats, room identification signage, paper towel dispensers and other operating controls in a facility with hundreds and even thousands of these elements would indeed not “be an efficient use of resources” and could very well create “a strong disincentive to comply with the readily achievable barrier removal requirement.” As a suggestion, a fourth option might be considered, if it were determined that Option I could not be adopted. Such a fourth option could entail creating a set of only those new ADA Standards, if any, that significantly increases accessibility for one or all of the disabled constituencies and should therefore trigger barrier removal. It would seem to be far easier to identify elements for such a set, if there are any, than the other way around.

11-Yes, because adding this feature in high-rise buildings would not significantly increase the accessibility but would cost significant amounts of money. That amount would of course depend on how many stairs and how many stories there are in a facility, as well as whether or not any of the existing rails are already compliant.

14-The Miami International Airport Terminal is not an office building per se, but it is a multi-use facility that does contain a large amount of space devoted to offices as well as to other functions related to an airport terminal. In it, there are a very large number of toilet rooms. Although the facility is large, in most cases the demands for space for other uses has typically forced toilet rooms to be built to the minimum dimensions and fixture count allowed under the governing codes. Many of these toilet rooms do not have six or more toilet compartments, alone, but do have six or more toilet compartments and urinals combined. In most cases, the existing, non-accessible toilet compartments are narrower than the range between 35” and 37” wide and may not be 60” deep. Therefore, there is no excess space into which to enlarge an existing non-accessible compartment or to add an additional ambulatory accessible compartment. Therefore, the only alternatives would be to co-opt space from an adjacent toilet compartment or urinal space, thus reducing the fixture count below the minimum, or to enlarge the toilet room into adjacent space that is already dedicated to other important functions. The cost of the former option would likely be manageable but the fixture count deficiency would not be. The cost of the latter option would be substantially greater, as would the impact on adjacent functions. However, in most cases, accessible unisex toilet rooms have been provided in the vicinity of multi-fixture toilet rooms. Does 213.2 Exception 1 apply in this situation, such that where accessible unisex toilet rooms are nearby, the newly-expanded scope for ambulatory accessible toilet compartments in multi-fixture toilet rooms would not apply? If not, this would be a perfect justification for the adoption of the safe harbor.
General Comments
The above input was prepared by Dade Aviation Consultants, the General Consultant to the Miami-Dade County, Florida, Aviation Department (MDAD), and is fully endorsed by that Department. They urge DOJ to consider this input as having the same degree of force and importance to them as if they had supplied it themselves. The safe harbor concept is especially important to MDAD because it has long had an active barrier removal and ADA compliance program that has been quite successful at making the Miami International Airport Terminal accessible in accordance with the regulations in effect at each step along the way. MDAD is currently in the midst of a $4.8 Billion Capital Improvement Program (CIP),that will bring the new and newly remodeled portions of the facility into full compliance with the current ADAAG. Additionally, MDAD's aggressive program of barrier removal has removed virtually all of the readily removable barriers identified in the existing facility, which was built incrementally since the 1950's. Without the safe harbor, new barriers will in effect be created long after previous efforts achieved barrier-free conditions, placing owners such as MDAD in a double-jeopardy situation despite their long-time good faith efforts.