777
September 16, 1998
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
Washington, DC 20510-0504
Dear Senator Feinstein:
This letter responds to your most recent inquiry on behalf
of your constituent, Ms. xxxxxxxxxxxxx. Ms. xxxxx requested your
support in repealing or modifying the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) based on her concerns that certain historic facilities
or noteworthy parts of those facilities were being closed to the
public because of ADA requirements. Specifically, Ms. xxxxx was
concerned that visitors were no longer able to view the second
story of a house at the Duke Tobacco Homestead in North Carolina
because the second story was not accessible to people with
mobility impairments. Ms. xxxxx had been told by a docent that
people with disabilities would be discriminated against if able
bodied people were permitted to visit the second story of the
house. Please excuse the delay in our response.
First of all, let me assure you that the ADA is a flexible
law that does not require a private entity to close part or all
of a historic house museum. The ADA provides a balance between
the rights of people with disabilities and the importance of the
preservation and use of historic facilities.
Historic museums such as the Duke Homestead are considered
"public accommodations" under the ADA, and, therefore, have
ongoing obligations under title III of the statute. Title III
requires private entities, including private museums, to provide
people with disabilities "full and equal enjoyment" of their
programs and services and may require a private entity to modify
its policies, practices or procedures; provide necessary
auxiliary aids and services; and remove barriers to access in
existing facilities when such removal is readily achievable.
Please see the enclosed title III regulation at sections 36.201,
and 36.301-36.305 (pages 471, and 474-477) for further
discussion.
The ADA provisions for qualified historic facilities exist
to achieve the goals of the ADA while protecting the significant
characteristics of America's historic resources. These
provisions may be used when an alteration to a qualified historic
facility, including modifications done for barrier removal, would
threaten or destroy its historic significance. Section 4.1.7 of
the ADA Standards for Accessible Design (Standards), 28 C.F.R.
part 36, Appendix A (page 504-505), specifically addresses
alterations to historic buildings. Please see the enclosed Title
III regulation for more information.
When it is not possible to remove certain barriers to
accessibility because it is not readily achievable to do so or
because the alteration would threaten or destroy the historic
significance of the qualified historic facility, the ADA requires
the use of alternative methods to provide access to the goods or
services, if it is readily achievable to do so. For example, if
the second floor of a historic house museum can only be reached
by climbing stairs, it may be appropriate for a docent to show a
set of photographs or a video that depicts the items, space and
information shown on the second floor to a person who is unable
to climb the stairs. The photographs or video would have to be
shown in an accessible location. This would permit people with a
mobility disability to obtain information about the items and
space on the upper level that others obtain who are able to climb
the stairs.
A copy of the Title III Technical Assistance Manual is
included to provide additional guidance on barrier removal
requirements and the requirements for historic preservation (see
pages 39 - 40 and 55 - 56).
I hope this information will assist you in responding to
your constituent. As you requested, I am responding in
duplicate.
Sincerely,
Bill Lann Lee
Acting Assistant
Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
Enclosures
Updated 2008-07-25