Private businesses should not be required to make my life easier at their own expense. Even though advances have been made, the needs of the disabled in assimilating with an ablebodied society are still great. And the ADA is a response to this need. However, it is still wrong to sacrifice the legitimate rights of others to meet this apparent need. The ends do not justify the means. Moreover, with time, much of the need will be addressed by businesses choosing to provide accommodations.

This "quick fix" may provide a surface cure for the problem, but it could result in a discriminatory attitude--and more importantly, it will undermine the constitutional rights of many. I would love to wave a magic wand and make my life and the lives of fellow disabled individuals easier. But not if it means requiring others to sacrifice their constitutional freedom. And the one tie that binds both disabled and able-bodied alike in this country is this freedom.

On behalf of The American Institute of Architects, the professional
association representing the nation's architects, I would like to suggest
improvements to the Americans with Disabilities Act, S.933/H.R.2273 (the ADA
bill), specifically to the alterations section of Title II concerning public
services, and to Title III, the public accommodations title.

The AIA supports the legislation's intent, and believes that Congress should
act to accomplish it. We are concerned, however, that it needs clarification
and revision to facilitate compliance and to reduce unnecessary liability for
architects.

1. Readily Achievable Removal of Architectural Barriers

The legislation requires existing buildings and facilities to remove
architectural barriers, upon enactment, if the removals are "readily
achievable" which means that they would not cost very much and would not be
difficult to do. The AIA is concerned that whereas many barriers singly are
easy and inexpensive to remove, many facilities may have a combination of
barriers or multiple barriers of the same type, for which removal could impose
a significant cost. The legislation could clear up this problem by requiring
that removals of combinations of barriers or of multiple barriers of the same
type within a single facility could be phased over time or handled as an
alteration.

2. Alterations vs. Major Structural Alterations

The ADA bill requires that 12 months after enactment, alterations to a
building or facility must make the altered area readily accessible and usable,
and that major structural alterations in addition must include an accessible
path of travel to the altered area. The reason for setting forth the
differences in types of alterations was so that a small renovation would not
by itself trigger a much more costly project to make the path of travel
accessible. Unfortunately, the legislation fails to accomplish its purpose.

The legislation provides no way of determining when an alteration becomes a
major structural alteration, although the report language attempts to make a
distinction by describing the structural elements that would be considered to
fall under the provisions for major structural alterations. The ADA fails to
distinguish between structural elements (load-bearing walls, beans, etc.) and
architectural elements (doors and windows), and thus it is possible that a
small scale, inexpensive alteration that consists of dropping a ceiling or
replacing windows, could trigger a much more complex and costly project to
make the route to the altered area accessible.

- 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. · WASHINGTON, DC. 20006 • (202) 626-7310 • FACSIMILE (202) 783-8247

36-873 0-91-15

Page Two

October 26, 1989

The legislation should refer to "major alterations" not "major structural alterations" and base the difference between a minor and a major alteration on the cost and scope of the alteration, and the degree to which it affects a facility's usability and accessibility.

Historic Preservation

The ADA bill makes no provision for historic properties. The Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) provides that when an alteration is undertaken for an historic property, certain accessibility features should be incorporated, unless to do so would threaten or destroy its historical integrity. Other accessibility alternatives must then be substituted. ADA bill should apply such a standard for historic properties it covers, if they are listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, or designated historic pursuant to state or local law. A reference to UFAS or an equivalent standard should suffice.

Transition Rule

The

When the ADA becomes law, it will apply to many projects already under design, but not yet constructed. These projects may be required to comply, and thus undergo costly and complicated redesign. Because the regulations will not yet be promulgated, the projects' architects will be unclear as to what must be done to make the projects comply. The AIA proposes that all projects currently under design should be exempt from requirements of the act, but those receiving a design contract after the date of enactment should comply by the effective dates established in the bill for new construction and alteration. In addition, to provide a safe harbor for architects designing projects after enactment of the bill but before issuance of final regulations, the bill should provide that conformance to the standards of the American National Standards Institute Al17.1 1986 or the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standard (UFAS) should be deemed sufficient, though not necessary, for compliance with the legislation. These standards for handicapped access design are well-understood and accepted within the design profession.

Enforcement/Liability

The ADA bill passed by the Senate permits courts to consider good faith efforts to comply with the legislation, in hearing complaints brought against individuals under the measure. This is not enough. Architects should have some official determination that they have complied with the legislation, and this determination should constitute a defense against charges of discrimination. This protection can be easily accomplished. The Department of Justice, on the application of a state or locality, could certify that the state or local ordinance meets the minimum standards of the legislation.

Page Three

October 26, 1989

The legislation should also provide that architects and others who receive state or local certification that their projects have complied with a DOJ-certified state or local handicapped access law should have a strong defense against complaints of discrimination.

The AIA believes that the above revisions are important to the successful achievement of the ADA's objectives. I appreciate your consideration of our suggestions.

Sincerely,

mes P. Cramer, Hon. AIA Executive Vice President/CEO

JPC/dr

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES:
TELECOMMUNICATIONS RELAY SERVICES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND FINANCE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIRST CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

Title V of H.R. 2273

A BILL TO ESTABLISH A CLEAR AND COMPREHENSIVE PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY

SEPTEMBER 27, 1989

Serial No. 101-96

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

25631

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1990

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402