|
|
|
|
Adoption
of Final Guidelines |
Fair
Housing Accessibility Guidelines
Table of Contents
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
-
Adoption of Final Guidelines
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (Department) is
adopting as its Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines, the design
and construction guidelines set forth in this notice (Guidelines).
Issuance of this document follows consideration of public comments
received in response to an advance notice of intention to develop
and publish Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines, published in
the Federal Register on August 2, 1989 (54 FR 31856), and in response
to proposed accessibility guidelines published in the Federal
Register on June 15, 1990 (55 FR 24730).
-
The Department is adopting as final Guidelines, the guidelines
designated as Option One in the proposed guidelines published
on June 15, 1990, with modifications to certain of the Option
One design specifications. In developing the final Guidelines,
the Department was cognizant of the need to provide technical
guidance that appropriately implements the specific accessibility
requirements of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, while
avoiding design specifications that would impose an unreasonable
burden on builders, and significantly increase the cost of new
multifamily construction.
The Department believes that the final Guidelines adopted by this
notice
-
are consistent with the level of accessibility envisioned
by Congress;
-
simplify compliance with the Fair Housing Amendments Act by
providing guidance concerning what constitutes acceptable
compliance with the Act; and
-
maintain the affordability of new multifamily construction
by specifying reasonable design and construction methods.
The Option One design specifications substantially revised in
the final Guidelines include the following:
-
Site impracticality. The final Guidelines provide that
covered multifamily dwellings with elevators shall be designed
and constructed to provide at least one accessible entrance
on an accessible route regardless of terrain or unusual characteristics
of the site. Every dwelling unit on a floor served by an elevator
must be on an accessible route, and must be made accessible
in accordance with the Act's requirements for covered dwelling
units.
For covered multifamily dwellings without elevators, the final
Guidelines provide two alternative tests for determining site
impracticality due to terrain. The first test is an individual
building test which involves a two-step process: measurement
of the slope of the undisturbed site between the planned entrance
and all vehicular or pedestrian arrival points; and measurement
of the slope of the planned finished grade between the entrance
and all vehicular or pedestrian arrival points. The second test
is a site analysis test which involves an analysis of the existing
natural terrain (before grading) by topographic survey with
2 foot contour intervals, with slope determination made between
each successive contour interval.
A site with a single building (without an elevator), having
a common entrance for all units, may be analyzed only under
the first test -- the individual building test. All other sites,
including a site with a single building having multiple entrances
serving either individual dwelling units or clusters of dwelling
units, may be analyzed either under the first test or the second
test. For sites for which either test is applicable (that is,
all sites other than a site with a single nonelevator building
having a common entrance for all units), the final Guidelines
provide that regardless of which test is utilized by a builder
or developer, at least 20% of the total ground floor units in
nonelevator buildings, on any site, must comply with the Act's
accessibility requirements.
-
An accessible route into and through covered dwelling units.
The final Guidelines distinguish between (i) single-story dwelling
units, and (ii) multistory dwelling units in elevator buildings,
and provide guidance on designing an accessible entrance into
and through each of these two types of dwelling units.
-
Single-story dwelling units. For single-story dwelling
units, the final Guidelines specify the same design specifications
as presented in the proposed Option One guidelines, except
that design features within the single-story dwelling unit,
such as a loft or a sunken living room, are exempt from
the access specifications, subject to certain requirements.
Lofts are exempt provided that all other space within the
unit is on an accessible route. Sunken or raised functional
areas, such as a sunken living room, are also exempt from
access specifications, provided that such areas do not interrupt
the accessible route through the remainder of the unit.
However, split-level entries or areas will need ramps or
other means of providing an accessible route.
-
Multistory dwelling units in buildings with elevators.
For multistory dwelling units in buildings with elevators,
the final Guidelines specify that only the story served
by the building elevator must comply with the accessible
features for dwelling units required by the Fair Housing
Act. The other stories of the multistory dwelling unit are
exempt from access specifications, provided that the story
of the unit that is served by the building elevator (1)
is the primary entry to the unit; (2) complies with Requirements
2 through 7 with respect to the rooms located on the entry/accessible
level; and (3) contains a bathroom or powder room which
complies with Requirement 7.
-
Thresholds at patio, deck or balcony doors. The final
Guidelines provide that exterior deck, patio, or balcony
surfaces should be no more than 1/2 inch below the floor
level of the interior of the dwelling unit, unless they
are constructed of impervious materials such as concrete,
brick or flagstone, in which case the surface should be
no more than 4 inches below the floor level of the interior
dwelling unit, unless the local building code requires a
lower drop. This provision and the following provision were
included in order to minimize the possibility of interior
water damage when exterior surfaces are constructed of impervious
materials.
-
Outside surface at entry door. The final Guidelines
also provide that at the primary entry door to a dwelling
units with direct exterior access, outside landing surfaces
constructed of impervious materials such as concrete, brick,
or flagstone should be no more than 1/2 inch below the interior
of the dwelling unit. The Guidelines further provide that
the finished surface of this area, located immediately outside
the entry door, may be sloped for drainage, but the sloping
may be no more than 1/8 inch per foot.
-
Usable bathrooms. The final Guidelines provide two alternative
sets of specifications for making bathrooms accessible in accordance
with the Act's requirements. The Act requires that an accessible
or "usable" bathroom is one which provides sufficient space
for an individual in a wheelchair to maneuver about. The two
sets of specifications provide different approaches as to how
compliance with this maneuvering space requirement may be achieved.
The final Guidelines for usable bathrooms also provide that the
usable bathroom specifications (either set of specifications)
are applicable to powder rooms (i.e., a room with only a toilet
and a sink) when the powder room is the only toilet facility on
the accessible level of a covered multistory dwelling unit.
The details about, and the reasons for these modifications, and
additional minor technical modifications made to certain design
specifications of the Option One guidelines, are discussed more
fully in the section-by- section analysis which appears later
in this preamble.
Principal features of the Option One guidelines that were not
changed in the final Guidelines include the following:
-
Accessible entrance and an accessible route. The Option
One guidelines for these two requirements remain unchanged in
the final Guidelines.
-
Accessible and usable public and common use areas. The
Option One guidelines for public and common use areas remain
unchanged in the final Guidelines.
-
Doors within individual dwelling units. The final Guidelines
recommend that doors intended for user passage within individual
dwelling units have a clear opening of at least 32 inches nominal
width when the door is open 90 degrees.
-
Doors to public and common use areas. The final Guidelines
continued to provide that on accessible routes in public and
common use areas, and for primary entry doors to covered units,
doors that comply with ANSI 4.13 meet the Act's requirement
for "usable" doors.
-
Thresholds at exterior doors. Subject to the exceptions
for thresholds and changes in level at exterior areas constructed
of impervious materials, the final Guidelines continue to specify
that thresholds at exterior doors, including sliding door tracks,
be no higher than 3/4 inch.
-
Reinforced walls for grab bars. The final Guidelines
for bathroom wall reinforcement remains essentially unchanged
from the Option One guidelines. The only change made to these
guidelines has been to subject powder rooms to the reinforced
wall requirement when the powder room is the only toilet facility
on the accessible floor of a covered multistory dwelling unit.
The
text of the final Guidelines follows the preamble, which includes
a discussion of the public comments received on the proposed guidelines,
and the section-by-section analysis referenced above. The design
specifications presented in the Fair Housing AccessibilityGuidelines
provide technical guidance to builders and developers in complying
with the specific accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing
Amendments Act of 1988. The Guidelines are intended to provide
a safe harbor for compliance with the accessibility requirements
of the Fair Housing Amendments Act, as implemented by 24 CFR §100.205
of the Department's Fair Housing regulations. THE GUIDELINES ARE
NOT MANDATORY. Additionally, the Guidelines DO NOT prescribe specific
requirements which must be met, and which, if not met, would constitute
unlawful discrimination under the Fair Housing Amendments Act.
Builders and developers may choose to depart from the Guidelines,
and seek alternate ways to demonstrate that they have met the
requirements of the Fair Housing Act.
-
Statutory and Regulatory Background
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 makes it unlawful to
discriminate in any aspect relating to the sale, rental or financing
of dwellings, or in the provision of brokerage services or facilities
in connection with the sale or rental of a dwelling, because of
race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The Fair Housing
Amendments Act of 1988 (Pub.L. 100-430, approved September 13,
1988) (Fair Housing Act or the Act) expanded coverage of Title
VIII (42 U.S.C. 3601-3620) to prohibit discriminatory housing
practices based on handicap and familial status. As amended, Section
804(f)(3)(C) of the Act provides that unlawful discrimination
includes a failure to design and construct covered multifamily
dwellings for first occupancy after March 13, 1991 (30 months
after the date of enactment) in accordance with certain accessibility
requirements. The Act defines "covered multifamily dwellings"
as "(a) buildings consisting of 4 or more units if such buildings
have one or more elevators; and (b) ground floor units in other
buildings consisting of 4 or more units" (42 U.S.C. 3604).
The Act makes it unlawful to fail to design and construct covered
multifamily dwellings so that:
-
public use and common use portions of the dwellings are readily
accessible to and usable by persons with handicaps;
-
all doors within such dwellings which are designed to allow
passage into and within the premises are sufficiently wide
to allow passage by persons in wheelchairs; and
-
all premises within such dwellings contain the following features
of adaptive design:
-
an accessible route into and through the dwelling;
-
light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats, and other
environmental controls in accessible locations.
-
reinforcements in bathroom walls to allow later installation
of grab bars; and
-
usable kitchens and bathrooms such that an individual
in a wheelchair can maneuver about the space.
The Act provides that compliance with (1) the appropriate
requirements of the American National Standard for Buildings
and Facilities--Providing Accessibility and Usability for
Physically Handicapped People (commonly cited as "ANSI A117.1"),
or (2) with the laws of a State or unit of general local
government, that has incorporated into such laws the accessibility
requirements of the Act, shall be deemed to satisfy the
accessibility requirements of the Act. (See Section 804(f)(4)
and (5)(A).) The Act also provides that the Secretary of
the Department of Housing and Urban Development shall provide
technical assistance to States and units of local government
and other persons to implement the accessibility requirements
of the Act. (See Section 804(f)(5)(C).)
Congress believed that the accessibility provisions of the
Act would
-
facilitate the ability of persons with handicaps to enjoy
full use of their homes without imposing unreasonable
requirements on homebuilders, landlords and non-handicapped
tenants;
-
be essential for equal access and to avoid future de facto
exclusion of persons with handicaps; and
-
be easy to incorporate in housing design and construction.
Congress predicted that compliance with these minimal accessibility
design and construction standards would eliminate many of
the barriers which discriminate against persons with disabilities
in their attempts to obtain equal housing opportunities.
(See H.R. Rep. No. 711, 100th Cong. 2d Sess. 27-28 (1988)
("House Report").)
The Fair Housing Act became effective on March 12, 1989.
The Department implemented the Act by a final rule published
January 23, 1989 (54 FR 3232), and which became effective
on March 12, 1989. Section 100.205 of that rule incorporates
the Act's design and construction requirements, including
the requirement that multifamily dwellings for first occupancy
after March 13, 1991 be designed and constructed in accordance
with the Act's accessibility requirements. The final rule
clarified which multifamily dwellings are subject to the
Act's requirements. Section 100.205 provides, in paragraph
(a), that covered multifamily dwellings shall be deemed
to be designed and constructed for first occupancy on or
before March 13, 1991, if they are occupied by that date,
or if the last building permit or renewal thereof for the
covered multifamily dwellings is issued by a State, County
or local government on or before January 13, 1990. The Department
selected the date of January 13, 1990 because it is fourteen
months before March 13, 1991. Based on data contained in
the Marshall Valuation Service, the Department found that
fourteen months represented a reasonable median construction
time for multifamily housing projects of all sizes. The
Department chose the issuance of a building permit as the
appropriate point in the building process because such permits
are issued in writing by governmental authorities. The issuance
of a building permit has the advantage of being a clear
and objective standard. In addition, any project that actually
achieves first occupancy before March 13, 1991 will be judged
to have met this standard even if the last building permit
or renewal thereof was issued after January 13, 1990 (55
FR 3251).
Section 100.205 of the final rule also incorporates the
Act's provisions that compliance with the appropriate requirements
of ANSI A117.1, or with State or local laws that have incorporated
the Act's accessibility requirements, suffices to satisfy
the accessibility requirements of the Act as codified in
§100.205. In the preamble to the final rule, the Department
stated that it would provide more specific guidance on the
Act's accessibility requirements in a notice of proposed
guidelines that would provide a reasonable period for public
comment on the guidelines.
-
Proposed Accessibility Guidelines
On August 2, 1989, the Department published in the Federal Register
an advance notice of intention to develop and publish Fair Housing
Accessibility Guidelines (54 FR 31856). The purpose of this document
was to solicit early comment from the public concerning the content
of the Accessibility Guidelines, and to outline the Department's
procedures for their development. To the extent practicable, the
Department considered all public comments submitted in response
to the August 2, 1989 advance notice in its preparation of the
proposed accessibility guidelines.
On June 15, 1990, the Department published proposed Fair Housing
Accessibility guidelines (55 FR 24370). The proposed guidelines
presented, and requested public comment on, three options for
accessible design:
-
Option one (Option One) provided guidelines developed by the
Department with the assistance of the Southern Building Code
Congress International (SBCCI), and incorporated suggestions
received in response to the August 2, 1989 advance notice;
-
Option two (Option Two) offered guidelines developed by the
National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and the National
Coordinating Council on Spinal Cord Injuries (NCCSCI); and
-
Option three (Option Three) offered "adaptable accommodations"
guidelines, an approach that provides for identification of
certain features in dwelling units that could be made accessible
to people with handicaps on a case-by-case basis.
In the June 15, 1990 notice of proposed guidelines, the Department
recognized that projects then being designed, in advance of
publication of the final Guidelines may not become available
for occupancy until after March 13, 1991. The Department advised
that efforts to comply with the proposed guidelines, Option
One, in the design of projects which would be completed before
issuance of the final Guidelines, would be considered as evidence
of compliance with the Act in connection with the Department's
investigation of any complaints. Following publication of the
June 15, 1990 notice, the Department received a number of inquiries
concerning whether certain design and construction activities
in connection with projects likely to be completed before issuance
of final Guidelines would be considered by the Department to
be in compliance with the Act.
In order to resolve these questions, the Department, on August
1, 1990, published in the Federal Register a supplementary notice
to the proposed guidelines (55 FR 31191). In the supplementary
notice, the Department advised that it only would consider efforts
to comply with the proposed guidelines, Option One, as evidence
of compliance with the Act. The Department stated that evidence
of compliance with the Option One guidelines, under the circumstances
described in the supplementary notice, would be a basis for
determination that there is no reasonable cause to believe that
a discriminatory housing practice under Section 804(f)(3) has
occurred, or is about to occur in connection with the investigation
of complaints filed with the Department relating to covered
multifamily dwellings. The circumstances described in the August
1, 1990 supplementary notice that the Department found would
be in compliance with the Act, were limited to:
-
Any covered multifamily dwellings which are designed in accordance
with the Option One guidelines, and for which construction
is completed before publication of the final Fair Housing
Accessibility Guidelines; and
-
Any covered multifamily dwellings which have been designed
in accordance with the Option One guidelines, but for which
construction is not completed by the date of publication of
the final Guidelines provided:
-
Construction begins before the final Guidelines are published;
or
-
A building permit is issued less than 60 days after the
final Guidelines are published.
On September 7, 1990, the Department published for public
comment a Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis on
the Department's assessment of the economic impact of
the Guidelines, as implemented by each of the three
design options then under consideration (55 FR 37072-37129).
-
Public Comments and Commenters
The proposed guidelines provided a 90-day period for the submission
of comments by the public, ending September 13, 1990. The Department
received 562 timely comments. In addition, a substantial number
of comments were received by the Department after the September
13, 1990 deadline. Although those comments were not timely filed,
they were reviewed to assure that any major issues raised had
been adequately addressed in comments that were received by the
deadline. Each of the timely comments was read, and a list of
all significant issues raised by those comments was compiled.
All these issues were considered in the development of the final
Guidelines.
Of the 562 comments received, approximately 200 were from disability
advocacy organizations, or units of State or local government
concerned with disability issues. Sixty-eight (68) additional
commenters identified themselves as members of the disability
community; 61 commenters identified themselves as individuals
who work with members of the disability community (e.g., vocational
or physical therapists or counselors), or who have family members
with disabilities; and 96 commenters were members of the building
industry, including architects, developers, designers, design
consultants, manufacturers of home building products, and rental
managers. Approximately 292 commenters supported Option One
without any recommendation for change. An additional 155 commenters
supported Option One, but recommended changes to certain Option
One design standards. Twenty-six (26) commenters supported Option
Two, and 10 commenters supported Option Three. The remaining
commenters submitted questions, comments and recommendations
for changes on certain design features of one or more of the
three options, but expressed no preference for any particular
option, or, alternatively, recommended final guidelines that
combine features from two or all three of the options.
The
Commenters
The commenters included several national, State and local organizations
and agencies, private firms, and individuals that have been
involved in the development of State and local accessibility
codes. These commenters offered valuable information, including
copies of State and local accessibility codes, on accessibility
design standards. These commenters included: the Southern Building
Code Congress International (SBCCI); the U.S. Architectural
and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (ATBCB); the Building
Officials & Code Administrators International, Inc. (BOCA);
the State of Washington Building Code Council; the Seattle Department
of Construction and Land Use; the Barrier-free Subcode Committee
of the New Jersey Uniform Construction Code Advisory Board;
the Department of Community Planning, Housing and Development
of Arlington County, Virginia; the City of Atlanta Department
of Community Development, Bureau of Buildings; and members of
the Department of Architecture, the State University of New
York at Buffalo. In addition to the foregoing organizations,
a number of the commenters from the building industry submitted
detailed comments on the proposed guidelines.
The commenters also included a number of disability organizations,
several of which prepared detailed comments on the proposed
guidelines. The comments of two disability organizations also
were submitted as concurring comments by many individuals and
other disability advocacy organizations. These two organizations
are the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, and the
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD). The CCD represents
the following organizations: the Association for Education and
Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired, Association
for Retarded Citizens of the United States, International Association
of Psychological Rehabilitation Facilities, National Alliance
for the Mentally Ill, National Association of Protection and
Advocacy Systems, National Association of Developmental Disabilities
Councils, National Association of State Mental Health Program
Directors, National Council of Community Mental Health Centers,
National Head Injury Foundation, National Mental Health Association,
United Cerebral Palsy Associations, Inc. Both the Disability
Rights Education and Defense Fund and the CCD were strongly
supportive of Option One.
A coalition of 20 organizations (Coalition), representing both
the building industry and the disability community, also submitted
detailed comments on the proposed guidelines. The members of
the Coalition include: American Institute of Architects, American
Paralysis Association, American Resort and Residential Development
Association, American Society of Landscape Architects, Apartment
and Office Building Association, Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers, Bridge Housing Corporation, Marriott Corporation,
Mortgage Bankers Association, National Apartment Association,
NationalAssisted Housing Management Association, National Association
of Home Builders (NAHB), National Association of Realtors, National
Association of Senior Living Industries, National Conference
of States on Building Codes and Standards, National Coordinating
Council on Spinal Cord Injury (NCCSCI), National Leased Housing
Association, National Multi Housing Council, National Organization
on Disability, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America.
The commenters also included U.S. Representatives Don Edwards,
Barney Frank and Hamilton Fish, Jr., who advised that they were
the primary sponsors of the Fair Housing Act, and who expressed
their support of Option One.
Comments
on the Three Options
In addition to specific issues and questions raised about the
design standards recommended by the proposed guidelines, a number
of commenters simply submitted comments on their overall opinion
of one or more of the options. Following is a summary of the
opinions typically expressed on each of the options.
Option
One. The Option One guidelines drew a strong reaction from
commenters. Supporters stated that the Option One guidelines
provided a faithful and clearly stated interpretation of the
Act's intent. Opponents of Option One stated that its design
standards would increase housing costs significantly -- for
everyone. Several commenters who supported some features of
Option One were concerned that adoption of Option One in its
entirety would escalate housing costs. Another frequent criticism
was that Option One's design guidelines were too complex and
cumbersome.
Option
Two. Supporters of Option Two stated that this option presented
a reasonable compromise between Option One and Option Three.
Supporters stated that the Option Two guidelines provided more
design flexibility than the Option One guidelines, and that
this flexibility would allow builders to deliver the required
accessibility features at a lower cost. Opponents of Option
Two stated that this option allowed builders to circumvent the
Act's intent with respect to several essential accessibility
features.
Option
Three. Supporters of Option Three stated that Option Three
presented the best method of achieving the accessibility objectives
of the Act, at the lowest possible cost. Supporters stated that
Option Three would contain housing costs, because design adaptation
only would be made to those units which actually would be occupied
by a disabled resident, and the adaptation would be tailored
to the specific accessibility needs of the individual tenant.
Opponents of Option Three stated that this option, with its
"add-on" approach to accessibility, was contrary to the Act's
intent, which, the commenters claimed, mandates accessible features
at the time of construction.
Comments
on the Costs of Implementation.
In addition to the comments on the specific features of the
three design options, one of the issues most widely commented
upon was the cost of compliance with the Act's accessibility
requirements, as implemented by the Guidelines. Several commenters
disputed the Department's estimate of the cost of compliance,
as presented in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
published with the proposed guidelines on June 15, 1990 (55
FR 24384-24385), and in the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis
published on September 7, 1990 (55 FR 37072-37129). The Department's
response to these comments is discussed in the Final Regulatory
Impact Analysis, which is available for public inspection during
regular business hours in the Office of the Rules Docket Clerk,
Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20410-0500.
-
Discussion of Principal Public Comment Issues, and Section-by-Section
Analysis of the Final Guidelines
The following presents a discussion of the principal issues raised
by the commenters, and the Department's response to each issue.
This discussion includes a section-by-section analysis of the
final Guidelines that addresses many of the specific concerns
raised by the commenters, and highlights the differences between
the proposed Option One guidelines and the final Guidelines. Comments
related to issues outside the purview of the Guidelines, but related
to the Act (e.g., enforcement procedures, statutory effective
date), are discussed in the final section of the preamble under
the preamble heading "Discussion of Comments on Related Fair Housing
Issues".
-
Discussion of General Comments on the Guidelines ANSI Standard.
Comment. Many commenters expressed their support
for the ANSI Standard as the basis for the Act's Guidelines,
because ANSI is a familiar and accepted accessibility standard.
Response. In developing the proposed and
final Guidelines, the Department was cognizant of the need
for uniformity, and of the widespread application of the ANSI
Standard. The original ANSI A117.1, adopted in 1961, formed
the technical basis for the first accessibility standards
adopted by the Federal Government, and most State governments.
The 1980 edition of that standard was based on research funded
by the Department, and became the basis for the Uniform Federal
Accessibility Standards (UFAS), published in the Federal Register
on August 4, 1984 (47 FR 33862). The 1980 edition also was
generally accepted by the private sector, and was recommended
for use in State and local building codes by the Council of
American Building Officials. Additionally, Congress, in the
Fair Housing Act, specifically referenced the ANSI Standard,
thereby encouraging utilization of the ANSI Standard as guidance
for compliance with the Act's accessibility requirements.
Accordingly, in using the ANSI Standard as a reference point
for the Fair Housing Act Accessibility Guidelines, the Department
is issuing Guidelines based on existing and familiar design
standards, and is promoting uniformity between Federal accessibility
standards, and those commonly used in the private sector.
However, the ANSI Standard and the final Guidelines have differing
purposes and goals, and they are by no means identical. The
purpose of the Guidelines is to describe minimum standards
of compliance with the specific accessibility requirements
of the Act.
Comment. Two commenters suggested that the Department
adopt the ANSI Standard as the guidelines for the Fair Housing
Act's accessibility requirements, and not issue new guidelines.
Response. The Department has incorporated
in the Guidelines those technical provisions of the ANSI Standard
that are consistent with the Act's accessibility requirements.
However, with respect to certain of the Act's requirements,
the applicable ANSI provisions impose more stringent design
standards than required by the Act. (In the preamble to the
proposed rule (55 FR 3251), and again in the preamble to the
proposed guidelines (55 FR 24370), the Department advised
that a dwelling unit that complies fully with the ANSI Standard
goes beyond what is required by the Fair Housing Act.) The
Department has developed Guidelines for those requirements
of the Act where departures from ANSI were appropriate.
Comment. A few commenters questioned whether the
Department would revise the Guidelines to correspond to ANSI's
periodic update of its standard.
Response. The ANSI Standard is reviewed at
five-year intervals. As the ANSI Standard is revised in the
future, the Department intends to review each version, and,
if appropriate, to make revisions to the Guidelines in accordance
with any revisions made to the ANSI Standard. Modifications
of the Guidelines, whether or not reflective of changes to
the ANSI Standard, will be subject to notice and prior public
comment.
Comment. A few commenters requested that the Department
republish the ANSI Standard in its entirety in the final Guidelines.
Response. The American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) is a private, national organization, and
is not connected with the Federal Government. The Department
received permission from ANSI to print the ANSI Standard in
its entirety, at the time of publication of the proposed guidelines
(55 FR 24404-24487), specifically for the purpose of assisting
readers of the proposed guidelines in developing timely comments.
In the preamble to the proposed guidelines, the Department
stated that since it was printing the entire ANSI Standard,
as an appendix to the proposed guidelines, the final notice
of the Accessibility Guidelines would not include the complete
text of the ANSI Standard (55 FR 24371). Copies of the ANSI
Standard may be purchased from the American National Standards
Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.
Comment. Another commenter requested that
the Department confirm that any ANSI provision not cited in
the final Guidelines is not necessary for compliance with
the Act.
Response. In the proposed guidelines, the
Department stated that: "Where the guidelines rely on sections
of the ANSI Standard, the ANSI sections are cited. * * * For
those guidelines that differ from the ANSI Standard, recommended
specifications are provided" (55 FR 24385). The final Guidelinesinclude
this statement, and further state that the ANSI sections not
cited in the Guidelines have been determined by the Department
not to be necessary for compliance with the Act's requirements.
Bias
Toward Wheelchair Users.
Comment. Two commenters stated that the proposed
guidelines were biased toward wheelchair users, and that
the Department has erroneously assumed that the elderly
and the physically disabled have similar needs. The commenters
stated that the physical problems suffered by the elderly
often involve arthritic and back problems, which make bending
and stooping difficult.
Response. The proposed guidelines, and
the final Guidelines, reflect the accessibility requirements
contained in the Fair Housing Act. These requirements largely
are directed toward individuals with mobility impairments,
particularly those who require mobility aids, such as wheelchairs,
walkers, or crutches. In two of the Act's accessibility
requirements, specific reference is made to wheelchair users.
The emphasis of the law and the Guidelines on design and
construction standards that are compatible with the needs
of wheelchair users is realistic because the requirements
for wheelchair access (e.g., wider doorways) are met more
easily at the construction stage. (See House Report at 27.)
Individuals with non- mobility impairments more easily can
be accommodated by later nonstructural adaptations to dwelling
units. The Fair Housing Act and the Fair Housing regulations
assure the right of these individuals to make such later
adaptations. (See Section 804(f)(3)(A) of the Act and 24
CFR 100.203 of the regulations. See also discussion of adaptations
made to units in this preamble under the heading "Costs
of Adaptation" in the section entitled "Discussion of Comments
on Related Fair Housing Issues".)
Compliance
Problems Due to Lack of Accessibility Guidelines
Comment. A number of commenters from the building
industry attributed difficulty in meeting the Act's March
13, 1991 compliance deadline, in part, to the lack of accessibility
guidelines. The commenters complained about the time that
it has taken the Department to publish proposed guidelines,
and the additional time it has taken to publish final Guidelines.
Response. The Department acknowledges that
the development and issuance of final Fair Housing Accessibility
Guidelines has been a time-consuming process. However, the
building industry has not been without guidance on compliance
with the Act's accessibility requirements. The Fair Housing
Act identifies the ANSI Standard as providing design standards
that would achieve compliance with the Act's accessibility
requirements. Additionally, in the preamble to both the
proposed and final Fair Housing rule, and in the text of
§100.205, the Department provided examples of how certain
of the Act's accessibility requirements may be met. (See
53 FR 45004-45005, 54 FR 3249-3252 (24 CFR Ch. I, Subch.
A, App. I, at 583-586 (1990)), 24 CFR 100.205.)
The delay in publication of the final Guidelines has resulted,
in part, because of the Department's pledge, at the time
of publication of the final Fair Housing regulations, that
the public would be provided an opportunity to comment on
the Guidelines (54 FR 3251, 24 CFR Ch. I, Subch. A, at 585-586
(1990)). The delay in publication of the final Guidelines
also is attributable in part to the Department's effort
to develop Guidelines that would
-
ensure that persons with disabilities are afforded the
degree of accessibility provided for in the Fair Housing
Act, and
-
avoid the imposition of unreasonable requirements on builders.
Comment.
Two commenters requested that interim accessibility guidelines
should be adopted for projects "caught in the middle", i.e.
those projects started before publication of the final Guidelines.
Response. The preamble to the June 15,
1990 proposed guidelines and the August 1, 1990 supplementary
notice directly addressed this issue. In both documents,
the Department recognized that projects being designed in
advance of publication of the Guidelines may not become
available for occupancy until after March 13, 1991. The
Department advised that efforts to comply with the Option
One guidelines, in the design of projects that would be
completed before issuance of the final Guidelines, would
be considered as evidence of compliance with the Act in
connection with the Department's investigation of any complaints.
The August 1, 1990 supplementary notice restated the Department's
position on compliance with the Act's requirements prior
to publication of the final Guidelines, and addressed what
"evidence of compliance" will mean in a complaint situation.
Back | Next
|
|
|