A Breakdown of the Preface in the Florida Building Code - Accessibility

[jar546]

Florida has essentially taken Chapter 11 out of the FBC (same as IBC Chapter 11) and placed it at the beginning of the FBC - Accessibility (ANSI A117.1). This was done to keep the Accessibility scoping requirements all in one place. Like all books, the FBC Accessibility has a preface that explains a bit of history. Here is a breakdown of the preface in a more detailed summary.

Historical Background and Legislative Actions​

1. 1993 Florida Legislature's Enactment: The "Florida Americans with Disability Accessibility Implementation Act" was passed, integrating the architectural accessibility requirements of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) into Florida law. This integration included maintaining Florida laws considered more stringent than the ADA's guidelines.
2. Amendments in 1997: The Florida Legislature amended the Act to address concerns from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding the equivalence or stringency of Florida's requirements compared to ADA architectural standards. This was done to obtain federal certification of Florida’s building code as substantially equivalent to the Federal ADA Standards.
3. Adoption of Revised Guidelines: The United States Access Board adopted revised ADA Accessibility Guidelines in 2004. The DOJ later published regulations in 2010, adopting these 2004 Guidelines with additional provisions as the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design.

Implementation and Updates in Florida​

1. Florida Building Commission's Updates (2011): The Florida Building Commission updated the Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction in 2011 to align with the 2010 ADA Standards and Florida law (Part II, Chapter 553, Florida Statutes).
2. Intent and Certification: The intent, as established by s.553.502 Florida Statutes, is to maintain DOJ certification of the Code as substantially equivalent to the ADA Standards. Compliance with the Code provides a presumption of compliance with the ADA Standards.
3. Certification Status: The 1997 Florida Accessibility Code was certified by the DOJ. However, the 2012 Florida Accessibility Code requires DOJ review and certification. Until this review is completed, compliance with both the 2010 ADA Standards and the 2012 Florida Accessibility Code is advised.
4. Implication of Certification: Code certification implies presumptive compliance with the ADA for private entities (Title III entities) but not for public entities (Title II entities).

Broader Context of Accessibility​

1. Accessibility as a Multifaceted Issue: The legislative actions of the 101st Congress and the Florida Legislature are combined in the subsequent pages, reflecting accessibility laws as they relate to construction in Florida, excluding areas of employment.
2. Responsibility of Employment-Related Accessibility: Employment-related accessibility and complaints fall under the jurisdiction of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Enforcement and Compliance​

1. Diverse Enforcement Agencies: No single agency is responsible for enforcing all aspects of accessibility due to the complexities involved. Various agencies have different statutory areas of responsibility for accessibility.
2. Responsibility for Compliance: It is the responsibility of design professionals and property owners to ensure compliance with any subsequent revisions to individual agency rules.

 

[bill1952]

DOJ certification of the Code as substantially equivalent

Is that the same as "safe haven"? If you comply with these you're as good as complying with the ADA Standards for Accessible Design?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Is that the same as "safe haven"? If you comply with these you're as good as complying with the ADA Standards for Accessible Design?

That's what it's supposed to mean. Now look up the case out of Texas (I think it was Cinemark theaters), in which a major theater chain built theaters that complied with the Texas accessibility code. Everyone agreed they did. And the DOJ had certified the Texas accessibility code as being substantially equivalent to the ADA. Yet, the DOJ sued the theater chain over something (sightlines, IIRC). When the theater chain argued in court that their design complied with the Texas accessibility code and that the Texas accessibility code had been certified by the DOJ, DOJ's response was (essentially) "Just kiddling. We said that but we didn't mean it." Remediation cost the theater chain big bucks.

As a result, my state's State Building Inspector decided that we would NOT submit our state building code to the DOJ for certification, and we have never done so.

 

[jar546]

That's what it's supposed to mean. Now look up the case out of Texas (I think it was Cinemark theaters), in which a major theater chain built theaters that complied with the Texas accessibility code. Everyone agreed they did. And the DOJ had certified the Texas accessibility code as being substantially equivalent to the ADA. Yet, the DOJ sued the theater chain over something (sightlines, IIRC). When the theater chain argued in court that their design complied with the Texas accessibility code and that the Texas accessibility code had been certified by the DOJ, DOJ's response was (essentially) "Just kiddling. We said that but we didn't mean it." Remediation cost the theater chain big bucks.

As a result, my state's State Building Inspector decided that we would NOT submit our state building code to the DOJ for certification, and we have never done so.

And this is exactly why the states should not have an accessibility advisory board that grants variances. Never. You may comply with state accessibility via an authorized variance, but you are still held accountable to the DOJ.

 

[bill1952]

And this is exactly why the states should not have an accessibility advisory board that grants variances. Never. You may comply with state accessibility via an authorized variance, but you are still held accountable to the DOJ.

It is problematic. The Access Board and DOJ seem unable to develop clear design requirements. ICC A117.1 and some of the states have tried to fill those voids to some extent, but clearly, as evidenced above.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

It is problematic. The Access Board and DOJ seem unable to develop clear design requirements. ICC A117.1 and some of the states have tried to fill those voids to some extent, but clearly, as evidenced above.

The best example of this is the sightlines issue in theaters and stadiums (stadia?). I've worked as an architect on theaters, I've been a code consultant in other theater design projects, and I can attest first-hand that everyone was concerned with sightlines for seated patrons to be able to see over the heads of other seated patrons. And, when the ADA came along, everyone tried conscientiously to take into account that accessible seating had to be distributed among various price levels of tickets and different sections of the seating.

However, until the DOJ sued Cinemark over their theaters and Ellerbe-Beckett over a couple of stadiums, nobody ever anticipated that the DOJ would claim the ADA "required" that people in wheelchairs have to be able to see the stage/field even when the people in front of them stand up.

Just to add insult to injury, the DOJ entered into evidence their commentary or advisory (or whatever they called it) that had a diagram showing a person in a wheelchair being able to see over a standing person. They used that to support their argument that that's what the language in the ADAAG about sightlines meant. There's only one little problem -- the DOJ produced that advisory diagram after the venues in question had been designed. Somewhere in my dungeon archives I have the old ADA advisories, and they don't include that diagram. That little gem was produced ex post facto.

And now a couple of states have adopted a new "active and engaged" wheelchair symbol, which they require in lieu of the long-standing and internationally-accepted international symbol of accessibility. The gotcha with that is that this new symbol has not been approved by the access board as a replacement or alternate symbol, and it is not allowed by any federal agency on any federal project. So what's an architect or building owner supposed to do if the project receives federal funding? My advice to anyone who asks is to install two signs, one with the standard international symbol of accessibility and another with the state-mandated "racing wheelchair" symbol.