• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Combining Chapter 11 and the ANSI A117.1

jar546

jar546

CBO
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
13,100
Location
Not where I really want to be
Florida left Chapter 11 blank and combined it with the ANSI A117.1 to create the Florida Building Code, Accessibility. This way everything is in one book.

What are your thoughts on this? Should the ICC do the same?

2020 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, ACCESSIBILITY, 7TH EDITION | ICC DIGITAL CODES

ICC Digital Codes is the largest provider of model codes, custom codes and standards used worldwide to construct safe, sustainable, affordable and resilient structures.
codes.iccsafe.org codes.iccsafe.org
 
I worked for a state that had one code years ago. The building code deleted ch. 11 entirely and referenced the state accessibility code, which covered scope and technical provisions. Personally, I loved it. Just like the state building codes, it was less problematic to get specific answers without the answerer worrying about what the other 49 states would think. However, I think they have done away with that accessibility code, and reintroduced ch. 11 with reference to the 117.1 standard, so maybe it wasn't working. I need to research that a little more, as the state accessibility code was a great code IMHO.
 
Should the sprinkler standard be incorporated? What about fire doors and windows? Based on the size of A117.1 and the number of interested parties, and the lengthy development cycle, I think it's better off as its own standard.
 
The problem is the current ANSI standard is not compliant with DOJ interpretations of ADA, FHA, etc. For instance ANSI allows 16-18" for toilet offset from wall but it has to be exactly 18" for FHA (ANSI Type B Units) with the allowable tolerances. There are many items like that. Typically states use Chapter 11 to fix those items. Seems like Florida is putting people at risk for lawsuits. Safe Harbor is only recognized with the older versions of ANSI.

What would be really great is coming together with only set of standards. UFAS, ADA, ANSI etc. should all be one book. It's problematic having to overlap the most stringent when sometimes there are times when neither is better or more stringent. They are just different.
 
northside1 said:
The problem is the current ANSI standard is not compliant with DOJ interpretations of ADA, FHA, etc. For instance ANSI allows 16-18" for toilet offset from wall but it has to be exactly 18" for FHA (ANSI Type B Units) with the allowable tolerances. There are many items like that. Typically states use Chapter 11 to fix those items. Seems like Florida is putting people at risk for lawsuits. Safe Harbor is only recognized with the older versions of ANSI.

What would be really great is coming together with only set of standards. UFAS, ADA, ANSI etc. should all be one book. It's problematic having to overlap the most stringent when sometimes there are times when neither is better or more stringent. They are just different.
Click to expand...
As a member of the ANSI A117.1 committee, I assure you a great deal of effort is spent to harmonize ANSI with ADA. Unfortunately, the federal regulatory process is just too slow and cumbersome, and doesn't allow for real and meaningful public participation in the process, and is short on practical experience. The exactly 18" is an example of the lack of real world experience. It would be great if the Feds would turn over the building regulation to the building professionals. That's what should happen.
 
UFAS, ADA, & ANSI were the same back in 2010. ANSI has added or enhanced some requirements since then. The FHA standards are based on ANSI standards from the 1980s.
 
ADA is a minimum "guide", not a code. The intent was for "each" state to amend their codes to use it as a minimum with local amendments.
there in continues to be the issue of DOJ lacking manpower/ budget to review and accept each states code.
 
ADAguy said:
ADA is a minimum "guide", not a code. The intent was for "each" state to amend their codes to use it as a minimum with local amendments.
there in continues to be the issue of DOJ lacking manpower/ budget to review and accept each states code.
Click to expand...
Guide or code, isn't it a law under which a violator can be prosecuted?

Has any other code been deemed as meeting the ADA guide minimums?

Wouldn't it make sense (not a federal strength) for the major model code - IBC - that so many jurisdictions use to be that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top