This article is provided as a courtesy service of the Great Lakes ADA News Service under a subcontract with the Disability News Services and funded by the U.S. Department of Education, NIDRR #133D60011. Please review the Conditions for Reproduction of this Article.
(984 words, posted January 31, 2000)
Two wheelchair-users, Marilyn Golden and Jack Catlin, who are members of the Access Board, agree that the proposed rules generally improve existing standards, but caution that some areas raise concerns and warrant the attention of disability rights advocates.
The existing ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) were issued in 1991 and amended in 1998 to include standards for state and local government facilities and building elements designed for use by children. The ADAAG Review Advisory Committee, which is comprised of 22 representatives from the design and construction industry, as well as the building code and disability communities was established in 1994 to make recommendations to the Board on ADAAG revisions. The Access Board used the committee's 1996 recommendations to prepare the proposed guidelines.
Golden, who is a policy analyst for the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) in Berkeley, California, and a former member of the advisory committee, says the Access Board gave considerable deference to the advisory committee's recommendations.
Catlin, a partner in the Chicago firm LCM Architects, says another major purpose of revising the existing guidelines was to “harmonize” ADAAG with model building codes. Because ADAAG differs from local building codes, architects are frequently confused about which standards apply. The confusion leaves the standards too open to interpretation, which leads to design inconsistencies.
“It's difficult to get architects to follow one standard, let alone two,” asserts Catlin. “The more you clarify accessibility, the more you're going to get.”
Golden says the new guidelines were also necessary because of the great technological advances made since ADAAG was first issued, and cites assistive listening devices and automatic teller machines (ATMs) as examples.
Golden says one of the strongest aspects of the proposed standards is communication access. For example, privately-owned commercial facilities or places of public accommodation with public telephone banks of four or more, must provide a TTY at each bank. TTY's must also be available at a highway rest plaza or an emergency service area which offers a regular public telephone.
Also significant in Golden's assessment is a proposed requirement that signage for blind and visually impaired people meet standards for both visual and tactile accessibility. One sign in both formats or two different signs at the same location would satisfy this requirement.
The proposed rules also make ATMs more accessible, especially for blind or visually impaired people by, among other things...
Both Golden and Catlin warn, however, that the proposed rules still leave unresolved issues regarding workplace access. Although the proposed rules and ADAAG require access to common work areas such as lounges and locker rooms, neither require accessible routes to work areas or accessible work stations.
Catlin notes that making work stations accessible is not always possible. “Some people's work station is the bottom of a grease pit.”
The ADA regards work station access as a matter of individual reasonable accommodation, but the Board declined to include an advisory committee's recommendation that all work stations have an accessible route. Golden says accessible routes are important. For example, although someone with a disability may not be able to perform certain automobile assembly line functions, he or she may be able to work as a supervisor.
“A person with a disability should be able to circulate through the room,” she asserts.
The Access Board has requested public comment on how the failure to require accessible routes has adversely affected workers with disabilities, and expressed a willingness to include accessible routes in the final rule if it receives sufficient supporting evidence.
Golden points to another area of concern which also is the subject of recent litigation — accessible seating in small venues such as movie theaters. The Access Board does not propose lowering the existing 300-seat threshold for dispersal of accessible seating. If the existing threshold remains, many small venues could continue to segregate accessible seating in sections with poor lines of sight. Again, the Board leaves open the possibility of changing the final rule by seeking comments on why the existing threshold should or should not be lowered.
Golden says, “No law, regulation or set of standards is perfect. They are outcomes of a political process. Advocates do the best we can, but we don't win on every issue.”
A crucial part of that process, she says, is the comment period. The disability community's input is absolutely necessary to get a good final result. Comments should both suggest changes and express support for positive aspects, because the other side will attack them, Golden says. “People should feel empowered to act because it does make a difference.”
Comments must be submitted by March 16 either electronically, by mail or at public hearings scheduled for...
Send written comments to the Office of Technical and Information Services, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street N.W., Washington, D.C, 20004-1111; docket@access-board.gov (e-mail).
More Great Lakes ADA News Service Articles