Florida's Take of Removal of Barriers in Existing Facilities

[jar546]

Florida takes the ANSI A117.7 and makes it their own by removing Chapter 11 from the IBC and placing scoping in the beginning of their edited version of the ANSI, calling it the FBC Accessibility. Most of it is verbatim with some changes. Here is 101.2 of the FBC Accessibility with some verbiage you may not see in the ANSI A117.1.

101.2 Effect of Removal of Barriers in Existing Facilities​

Removal of architectural barriers, pursuant to 28 C.F.R. s. 36.304, from buildings, structures or facilities shall comply with this code’s requirements for alterations unless compliance would render the removal not readily achievable. In no instance shall the removal of an architectural barrier create a significant risk to the health or safety of an individual with a disability or others.

This code applies to alterations to existing facilities that are subject to the barrier removal requirement under Title III of the ADA to the extent required by regulations issued by the Department of Justice incorporated in 202.6.1 and to alterations undertaken by Title II entities to provide program access.

This document does not address existing facilities unless altered at the discretion of a covered entity. The Department of Justice has authority over existing facilities that are subject to the requirement for removal of barriers under Title III of the ADA. Any determination that this document applies to existing facilities subject to the barrier removal requirement is solely within the discretion of the Department of Justice and is effective only to the extent required by regulations issued by the Department of Justice.

 

[steveray]

But how DO they handle alterations

shall comply with this code’s requirements for alterations unless compliance would render the removal not readily achievable.

as that is not in ANSI? Still use IEBC?

 

[Yikes]

I can’t think of any hypothetical examples where removing a barrier would create a significant risk of health and safet… except maybe adding landing handrail extensions that reduce the minimum required MOE width?
Any others?

 

[jar546]

But how DO they handle alterations


as that is not in ANSI? Still use IEBC?

FBC-Existing Says This:

 

[steveray]

FBC-Existing Says This:
View attachment 14087

But ANSI doesn't have the 20% or technically infeasible or any of that stuff....?

 

[jar546]

But ANSI doesn't have the 20% or technically infeasible or any of that stuff....?

202.4.1​

Alterations made to provide an accessible path of travel to the altered area will be deemed disproportionate to the overall alteration when the cost exceeds 20% of the cost of the alteration to the primary function area. Costs that may be counted as expenditures required to provide an accessible path of travel may include: (i) costs associated with providing an accessible entrance and an accessible route to the altered area; (ii) costs associated with making restrooms accessible, such as installing grab bars, enlarging toilet stalls, insulating pipes, or installing accessible faucet controls; (iii) costs associated with providing accessible telephones, such as relocating the telephone to an accessible height, installing amplification devices, or installing a text telephone (TTY); (iv) costs associated with relocating an inaccessible drinking fountain.

 

[jar546]

But ANSI doesn't have the 20% or technically infeasible or any of that stuff....?

Advisory 202.4 Alterations Affecting Primary Function Areas. An area of a building or facility containing a major activity for which the building or facility is intended is a primary function area. Department of Justice ADA regulations state, “Alterations made to provide an accessible path of travel to the altered area will be deemed disproportionate to the overall alteration when the cost exceeds 20% of the cost of the alteration to the primary function area.” (28 CFR 36.403 (f)(1)). See also Department of Transportation ADA regulations, which use similar concepts in the context of public sector transportation facilities (49 CFR 37.43 (e)(1)).

There can be multiple areas containing a primary function in a single building. Primary function areas are not limited to public use areas. For example, both a bank lobby and the bank’s employee areas such as the teller areas and walk-in safe are primary function areas.

Also, mixed use facilities may include numerous primary function areas for each use. Areas containing a primary function do not include: mechanical rooms, boiler rooms, supply storage rooms, employee lounges or locker rooms, janitorial closets, entrances, corridors, or restrooms.

DOJ regulation 28 CFR 36.403(c) gives the following examples of alterations that effect the usability of or access to an area containing a primary function. Such areas include but are not limited to: remodeling merchandise display areas or employee work areas in a department store; replacing an inaccessible floor surface in the customer service or employee work areas of a bank; redesigning the assembly line area of a factory; or, installing a computer center in an accounting firm.

Florida vertical accessibility requirements of s.553.509, F.S., as incorporated in section 201.1.1 of the code, apply to the path of travel upgrades required by 202.4. Florida requirements may be waived down to the ADA Standards requirements.

 

[Jean Tessmer-HI]

Florida takes the ANSI A117.7 and makes it their own by removing Chapter 11 from the IBC and placing scoping in the beginning of their edited version of the ANSI, calling it the FBC Accessibility. Most of it is verbatim with some changes. Here is 101.2 of the FBC Accessibility with some verbiage you may not see in the ANSI A117.1.

101.2 Effect of Removal of Barriers in Existing Facilities​

Removal of architectural barriers, pursuant to 28 C.F.R. s. 36.304, from buildings, structures or facilities shall comply with this code’s requirements for alterations unless compliance would render the removal not readily achievable. In no instance shall the removal of an architectural barrier create a significant risk to the health or safety of an individual with a disability or others.

This code applies to alterations to existing facilities that are subject to the barrier removal requirement under Title III of the ADA to the extent required by regulations issued by the Department of Justice incorporated in 202.6.1 and to alterations undertaken by Title II entities to provide program access.

This document does not address existing facilities unless altered at the discretion of a covered entity. The Department of Justice has authority over existing facilities that are subject to the requirement for removal of barriers under Title III of the ADA. Any determination that this document applies to existing facilities subject to the barrier removal requirement is solely within the discretion of the Department of Justice and is effective only to the extent required by regulations issued by the Department of Justice.

To me, this is the key phrase: " The Department of Justice has authority over existing facilities that are subject to the requirement for removal of barriers under Title III of the ADA. Any determination that this document applies to existing facilities subject to the barrier removal requirement is solely within the discretion of the Department of Justice and is effective only to the extent required by regulations issued by the Department of Justice." To me according to the 101.2, the DOJ is the only one with the authority for alterations that are covered by the ADA. The enforcement is not the Florida building code for barrier removal or alterations to be made accessible. ADA caps the cost at 20% going directly to path of travel and all elements attached to the route going to the altered location, including parking.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

To me, this is the key phrase: " The Department of Justice has authority over existing facilities that are subject to the requirement for removal of barriers under Title III of the ADA. Any determination that this document applies to existing facilities subject to the barrier removal requirement is solely within the discretion of the Department of Justice and is effective only to the extent required by regulations issued by the Department of Justice." To me according to the 101.2, the DOJ is the only one with the authority for alterations that are covered by the ADA. The enforcement is not the Florida building code for barrier removal or alterations to be made accessible. ADA caps the cost at 20% going directly to path of travel and all elements attached to the route going to the altered location, including parking.

The federal Department of Justice enforces the ADA (and apparently a few states have formally adopted the ADA as their accessibility standard, so there may be overlap in those states). In most states, accessibility is required under chapter 11 of the IBC and the technical standards are found in ICC/ANSI A117.1. For those states that have not deleted IBC chapter 11 when they adopted the IBC, accessibility under the building code operates entirely independently from the ADA.

Under the ICC codes, the 20% rule is found in IEBC 306.7.1, Exception #1. Again, for those states that have adopted the IEBC, this operates entirely independently from the ADA, but the ADA still applies and is enforced by the federal DOJ. This actually creates double jeopardy, because making the same mistake under the ICC codes and under the ADA legally constitutes two violations.

For states that have adopted the ADA instead of chapter 11 of the IEBC and ICC/ANSI A117.1, I would read the adopting language VERY carefully before deciding that only the [federal] DOJ has jurisdiction/oversight.