The ICC has been working with the DoJ to get the two documents coordinated. According to rules established at the federal level, the DoJ can only certify state "adopted" laws as being in compliance with the ADA guidelines. Hence, it cannot "certify" the ICC's IBC/A117.1 accessibility rules.However, the DoJ has agreed to evaluate the IBC/A117.1 in comparison to current and proposed ADA guidelines. An article that explains this was in the ICC magazine:
http://www.iccsafe.org/newsroom/bsjourn ... _66-80.pdf
(hopefully you can open the file without having to log in)
I think it was posted above but, here again is the explanation from the DoJ on certification:
http://www.ada.gov/certcode.htm
btw: there have been no additional state certifications since 2005 except for North Carolina which just dumped their old home-grown Accessibility code for teh Chapter 11/A117.1 combination (with a few local modifications based on historical preference - always more restrictive, never less). Thus far, the DoJ has reviewed and agreed that the 2003 and 2006 IBC with A117.1 meet the intent of the ADA but refuse safe harbor designation.
Interestingly, HUD
does grant safe harbor designation to the IBC/A117.1 combination but with one or two caveats depending on which edition is adopted. If the 2006 IBC with the 2003 A117.1 is adopted, then HUD grants them Safe Harbor status with the caveat that the designer must use the HUD guidelines if considering technical impracticalities for site access and usage.
* * * * *
Back to the original question:
Most areas in the country use the IBC/A117.1 combination is one edition combination or another. Even states where state law has some accessibility control but allows local adoption (Maine, Arizona, etc), most local adoptions use the IBC Chapter 11/A117.1 combination. For example: One town in Arizona recently adopted the 2006 IBC but stripped the Chapter 11 provisions to substitute a reference to the statewide Accessibility Rules only to discover that they were lessening the requirements from neighboring jurisdictions since that amendment did away with Type A and Type B dwelling unit designations. they went back to a straight line adoption.
Most states have statewide accessibility laws that are based on the ADA but which do not address plan review or inspection so they never get into the building code arena. New Jersey has its own Barrier Free Sub-code which is home grown but refers to the 2003 A117.1. Florida dumps the Accessible means of egress and Chapter 11 with a ADAAG substitution (with some modifications). Ohio keeps 1007 but dumps Chapter 11 and slips in an unmodified ADAAG. Texas has it's own Texas Accessibility Standards (TAS) with references to A117.1 while California has it's own highly detailed and uniquely sequenced set of accessibility rules. Some states have no statewide rules at all except to cover state projects and leave the whole thing to local jurisdictions to adopt (or not) any accessibility rules (e.g. Missouri).
So, as noted in a prior comment, it's a real mess. Fifty little countries doing whatever they want without consistency. Now you know why the feds were once considering mandating a national building code (oh, that WAS the initial reason why the ICC was created you may recall).