Do additional bathrooms need to be accessible if accessible bathrooms already exist?

[jar546]

According to the 2018 IBC Section 1109.2, all toilet rooms and bathing rooms must be accessible. This requirement applies not only to the necessary plumbing facilities, but also extends to any additional restrooms provided. Each additional restroom is typically required to be accessible, not just those that are mandatory. There are specific exceptions outlined in Section 1109.2, but outside of these, both supplementary and convenience facilities must meet accessibility standards. Moreover, even areas that are not accessible by an accessible route must still provide accessible toilet, and bathing rooms. This inclusivity supports various individuals, including those with conditions like arthritis, who benefit from features such as grab bars and lever-handled faucets. This interpretation is relevant to the 2021 and 2024 versions of the IBC as well.

 

[mark handler]

RE: ADA, not IBC
There was an interpretation from DOJ, stating NEW Toilet rooms, only accessible from private offices shall be adaptable, (not accessible), All other New Toilet rooms SHALL be accessible.

 

[JPohling]

That just is not true. A new bathroom could be constructed that is not accessible as a part of the 50% grouping exception.

 

[arwat23]

2010 ADAS specifically allows 50% of single user toilet rooms that are clustered together with to not be accessible (the other 50% that are clustered with the non-accessible single-user toilet rooms must be accessible though). IBC states the same (see 2024 IBC 1110.2 exception 3).

 

[mark handler]

In the code All new elements are required to be accessible unless technically infeasible.

 

[Yikes]

In the code All new elements are required to be accessible unless technically infeasible.

Mark, in the past you’ve been pretty diligent about providing specific code references. This time, you are not getting specific with any citations. You are using generalities like “There was an interpretation from DOJ”, and “in the code all new elements are required to be accessible”, with no chapter or verse.
1. Please provide specific reference or links to the specific DOJ interpretation/wording that backs up your assertion.
2. Please critique my earlier post/response to you on the other thread about how to read Division 2 scoping.
3. Please tell me if under your interpretation every toilet stall in every new restroom added to an existing building will need to be a min. 5’ wide ADA stall. You did say “ALL new elements”, right?

 

[mark handler]

Mark, in the past you’ve been pretty diligent about providing specific code references. This time, you are not getting specific with any citations. You are using generalities like “There was an interpretation from DOJ”, and “in the code all new elements are required to be accessible”, with no chapter or verse.
1. Please provide specific reference or links to the specific DOJ interpretation/wording that backs up your assertion.
2. Please critique my earlier post/response to you on the other thread about how to read Division 2 scoping.
3. Please tell me if under your interpretation every toilet stall in every new restroom added to an existing building will need to be a min. 5’ wide ADA stall. You did say “ALL new elements”, right?

when I get back in town I will look through the DOJ interpretations i have to find it, or you can go to the DOJ website and look up the interp's on alterations and new construction.

 

[mark handler]

Cluster of restrooms

For nine years, I have been telling folks that "every restroom needs to be ADA accessible". And now I am being introduced to the cluster concept for the first time in nine years. Would everyone else concur with the idea that only two out of four restrooms need to be ADA accessible? See...

www.thebuildingcodeforum.com

 

[arwat23]

when I get back in town I will look through the DOJ interpretations i have to find it, or you can go to the DOJ website and look up the interp's on alterations and new construction.

I could be missing something, but I've been looking and nothing from any state or federal agency specifically requires all restrooms to comply with the technical requirements of Ch6 of ADAS. IBC has the 50% exception, as does ADAS. Here's what I've personally found so far:

• The California Commission on Disability Access (an arm of the DGS) states that "All new construction and modifications to public accommodations and commercial facilities must be built in compliance with the ADA’s requirements for accessible design." This is specific to Title III entities. Since this does not specify the technical requirements and is simply pointing to the ADA in general, the scoping requirement apply. Therefore, the 50% exception applies (at least in California, which implies that it's allowed by the ADA). Source
• 28 CFR § 35.151(a)(1) states that "Each facility or part of a facility constructed by, on behalf of, or for the use of a public entity shall be designed and constructed in such manner that the facility or part of the facility is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if the construction was commenced after January 26, 1992." This broadly points to ADAS and not a specific section or chapter. Therefor, the scoping requirements and applicable exceptions of ADAS Ch2 apply. If you follow the scoping requirements, not all restrooms need to be accessible.
• Per the ada.gov website (source), you need to follow the 2010 standard at minimum. The scoping requirements of Ch2 are part of the 2010 standards. "If the start date for construction is on or after March 15, 2012, all newly constructed or altered State and local government facilities must comply with the 2010 Standards. Before that date, the 1991 Standards (without the elevator exemption), the UFAS, or the 2010 Standards may be used for such projects when the start of construction commences on or after September 15, 2010." Nothing here states that you ignore the scoping requirements and jump right to the technical requirements.
• I was unable to find anything from the DOJ that states you should ignore the scoping requirements of Ch2. Everything I've found stated that you need to follow ADAS.

Yes, CFR does state that buildings and facilities shall be accessible. However, nothing seems to override the scoping requirements of Ch2. If Ch2 of ADAS determines what does and doesn't need to be accessible at a federal level, then wouldn't following Ch2 make a facility complaint with ADAS? If Ch2 can be ignored, then what's the point of Ch2?

I'll ask again since I didn't get a response on the other post. Why have that 50% exception in code if that doesn't apply to anything? That exception does not specify that it applies to only existing restroom or new restrooms, so it should apply to both new and existing restrooms.

Is it better design to have all restrooms be accessible? Of course! It is required? I'd argue no.

I am genuinely interested in the DOJ interpretations that you have that contractive what ADAS and IBC states. I'm looking forward to seeing what you have . I'm a CASp, so if I'm wrong about that I'd like to know as this impacts my inspections... But I need something other than just your word to believe you.

 

[Yikes]

when I get back in town I will look through the DOJ interpretations i have to find it, or you can go to the DOJ website and look up the interp's on alterations and new construction.

Didn't realize you were out of town. I couldn't find it on the DOJ's website, so I will await your return to get your specific citation.
Thanks!

 

[mark handler]

Didn't realize you were out of town. I couldn't find it on the DOJ's website, so I will await your return to get your specific citation.
Thanks!

Talking to the DOJ
The interpretations for the 2004 ADAAG, are no longer Valid.
I was told to Use the Verbiage in the 2010 ADASAD
So based on that, 50% shall be accessible.


U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
ADA Information Line
800-514-0301