# exempting ANSI 117.7



## Rick18071 (Feb 2, 2010)

It's intresting that different states have different codes for accessablity. Here in PA we use the IBC which refers to ANSI 117.7. Do other states that use something different for accessiblity but use the IBC exempt ch. 11, and sec. 1007 (means of accessible egress), and appendix E (supplementry accessible requirments) :?:  Or do they just replace ANSI 117.1 with somthing else :?:

It's to bad that we are not on the same boat with this. :roll:


----------



## JBI (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7

Rick - Here in NYS we use the provisions in the Code as modified by Ansi A-117._*1*_ (not 117.7    ). The more restrictive provisions apply in the case of a conflict.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7

Most likely if you are not going to reference ANSI A117.1 in your code, you will be replacing much of Chapter 11.

For exampe without A117.1 it doesn't make any sense to refer to TYPE A and B dwelling units.


----------



## Plans Approver (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7

I was going to post this in the thread "Ramp that's not a ramp", but, this looks just as good. ADA questions of the month come out as often as revisions to the ADA. The following is the only question of the month that exists at ada.gov.

(Don't peek at the answer.)

*ADA Certification Question of the Month  July 2003*

Which authority listed below can architects, builders and building owners in your jurisdiction rely upon in order to design and construct buildings and facilities that are accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities as required by title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?

*(a)* _The title III ADA accessibility requirements for new construction and alterations of buildings and facilities, which include the ADA Standards for Accessible Design at 28 C FR Part 36, Appendix A._

*(b)* _A state/local building code with accessibility requirements that have been certified by the Department of Justice as meeting or exceeding the title III ADA requirements for the accessibility of buildings and facilities._

*©* _A state/local building code with accessibility requirements that have not been certified by the Department of Justice as meeting or exceeding the title III ADA requirements for accessibility of buildings and facilities._

*(d)* _either a or b._

Answer: *d*.

_"In jurisdictions that have received certification from the Department of Justice, design and construction professionals, and building owners can generally refer to the accessibility requirements of the certified code to determine what is required in order to comply with the accessible design standards of the ADA._

_In those jurisdictions that do not have a code that has been certified as ADA equivalent by the Department of Justice, reference must be made to the federal ADA accessibility requirements, which include the ADA Standards for Accessible Design, to determine what is required to comply with the ADA._

_Design and construction professionals, and building owners who rely solely on the accessibility provisions of an uncertified state/local building code, i.e., one that has not been certified by the Department of Justice to be equivalent with the ADA accessibility standards, risk noncompliance with the ADA._

_The bottom line: Designing and constructing buildings and facilities in compliance with ADA certified state/local codes will result in greater compliance with the ADA and significantly fewer ADA lawsuits. And, should someone file an ADA lawsuit, compliance with a certified code is rebuttable evidence of compliance with the ADA."_

Link to ADA QOM: http://www.ada.gov/certqom.htm

Clear as MUD.


----------



## Glennman CBO (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7

Is the ANSI 117.1 a "certified code", considered as equivalent to the ADA by the DOJ?


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7

Not "officaily" but the DOJ is heading that way.  That is one reason the updated 2004 ADA and ABA guidelines have not been formally adopted. The new ANSI A 117.7 is supposed to be the final solution, but it is having difficulting getting into final approval.  This has been ongoing for several years.


----------



## TJacobs (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7

In our latest adoption, we adopted the Illinois Accessibility Code (state code) plus we left in IBC Chapter 11 which references ANSI.  We had deleted Chapter 11 previously.  Since the IAC hasn't been updated since 1997 we felt better with both available.  We also added a statement that the most restrictive applies.


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7

Here is a link to a state by state guide provided by the Access Board.  As you can see, adoption is not at all consistient.

http://www.access-board.gov/links/statecodes.htm


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7

From the Deptartment of Justice ADA website:

The Department has certified as equivalent to the ADA Standards for Accessible Design the Washington State Regulations for Barrier-Free Facilities, the Texas Accessibility Standards, the Maine Human Rights Act, as implemented by the Maine Accessibility Regulations, the Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction, the Maryland Accessibility Code and the North Carolina Accessibility Code. Currently Texas, Maine, Florida, Maryland and North Carolina have in place ADA-certified accessibility requirements.

However, this list was dated 2006, so if any of these jurisdictions have updated thier accessibility code, it may no longer "conform"

The bottom line is that the new ANSI will be the standard if ICC and the Access Board can ever get it finished.


----------



## FredK (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7

Thanks for the link CD.

It's we all do it this way because we have uniform codes unless admended. :roll:  The answer varies by where one is enforcing the rules, where the plan was drawn and who's building the project.

Like I said in a previous post only had one group refuse doing it.  Most want the place very accessible for all it's members.


----------



## MarkRandall (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7

Coug Dad,

At least for Washington State, that is no longer valid. When Washington State moved to the I-codes, we are now using ANSI. Washington State Regulations for Barrier-Free Facilities was publish in 1989 and it was very nice having it approved by the DOJ while it lasted, but now we're in the same boat as everyone else (waiting for official approval of ANSI). I believe Washington was the first jurisdiction to get approval by DOJ. We had very good set of barrier free regulations, so transition to ANSI was not much of an issue.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7



			
				Coug Dad said:
			
		

> Not "officaily" but the DOJ is heading that way.  That is one reason the updated 2004 ADA and ABA guidelines have not been formally adopted. The new ANSI A 117.7 is supposed to be the final solution, but it is having difficulting getting into final approval.  This has been ongoing for several years.


Highly unlikely to be certified, in my opinion.

First because A117.1 does not contain scoping provisions.

Second because A117.1 has sections relating to dwellings which don't fall under ADA Title III.

Third because portions of A117.1 are not compliant with ADA Title III as implimented through ADAAG.

Finally, because "The Ick" could never avoid fiddling with it every three years.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7

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).


----------



## Plans Approver (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7



			
				Gene Boecker said:
			
		

> Ohio keeps 1007 but dumps Chapter 11 and slips in an unmodified ADAAG.


Ohio dropped Chapter 11 in the 2000 ICC issue, but now, Ohio does use Chapter 11 with modifications to tighten up the language and bring it in line with existing Ohio law for building types eg. agricultural buildings (U) are not regulated by the building code. We do use the July, 1994 ADAAG as adopted by DOJ.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7

Sorry, Dan.  You're right (of course)!    

I forgot that the change happened recently.  A while back, we were trying to use the pending reg's as basis for an appeal with the state (didn't go well, but you probably figured that if you know the state board).    :shock:

<<< See just goes to show what a mess the states have made of the whole thing. . . . .  >>>


----------



## JBI (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7

Gene - One relatively minor error in an incredibly informative post... Not bad for a guy who's been on the bench for a few weeks!     In case anyone had any doubts...

Heeeeeeeeeeee's Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!


----------



## brudgers (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7

deleted


----------



## brudgers (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7



			
				Gene Boecker said:
			
		

> 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
> 
> ...


1.  DOJ can certify local codes.  They need not be at the state level.

2.  A117.1 is a safe harbor under the Fair Housing Act because the FHA falls outside the scope of ADA.

3.  Florida's accessiblity requirements are far more straight forward to enforce because there are fewer of them and they don't change every few years.

4.  Florida's requirements are far far easier to design to because the match Federal law which architects and engineers are required to follow.

5. The initial reason for "the Ick" was to protect the petty empires of the various code bodies in the face of NFPA 5000.  The AIA and construction industries got behind it because "the Ick" was far easier to manipulate than NFPA.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7



			
				Plans Approver said:
			
		

> \ said:
> 
> 
> 
> > Ohio keeps 1007 but dumps Chapter 11 and slips in an unmodified ADAAG.


Ohio dropped Chapter 11 in the 2000 ICC issue, but now, Ohio does use Chapter 11 with modifications to tighten up the language and bring it in line with existing Ohio law for building types eg. agricultural buildings (U) are not regulated by the building code. We do use the July, 1994 ADAAG as adopted by DOJ.[/quote:3tt9dx3p]

Do you find it hard to enforce?


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> 1.  DOJ can certify local codes.  They need not be at the state level.
> 
> 2.  A117.1 is a safe harbor under the Fair Housing Act because the FHA falls outside the scope of ADA.
> 
> ...


1. Yep.  The original question was about states so that was what I was responding to.

2. (I thought that's what I said)

3. Disagree.  There are numerous areas where Florida is vague such as accessible means of egress.

4. Arguably true but both the Access Board and the DoJ agree that the current ADAAG guidelines are out of date.

5. Wrong!  NFPA started their 5000 effort after they took issue with ICC's "consensus process" and decided to play in their own sandbox.  Both industry and the AIA played in both sandboxes.  The adopting agencies across the country decided which was the better one to adopt and use.  Sorry, Brudgers.  I know this part too, too well.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7

3. Seeing as Florida's requirements for accessible means of egress are exactly the same as those of ADA, if you have trouble understanding Florida's requirements for Accessible means of egress, I advise you to stay out of the Accessibility design and consulting business.  Without a firm grasp of those requirements, it is hard to see how one could give competent comprehensive professional advice to any client anywhere regarding accessibility.

4. The Access board is not responsible for ADA.  The DOJ is obligated to abide by Congress's legislative intent.  It is difficult to see the weaker requirements in A117.1 can be constructed as consistent with that intent.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> 3. Seeing as Florida's requirements for accessible means of egress are exactly the same as those of ADA, if you have trouble understanding Florida's requirements for Accessible means of egress, I advise you to stay out of the Accessibility design and consulting business.  Without a firm grasp of those requirements, it is hard to see how one could give competent comprehensive professional advice to any client anywhere regarding accessibility.4. The Access board is not responsible for ADA.  The DOJ is obligated to abide by Congress's legislative intent.  It is difficult to see the weaker requirements in A117.1 can be constructed as consistent with that intent.


3.  :lol:     to you too!     

4. Not exactly.  The Access Board (formerly the Architectural Barriers and Transportation Barriers Removal Commission) is the body given authority for rule-making relative to accessibility issues at the federal level.  Hence they are responsible for the ADA guidelines.  They have no enforcement powers which are given to the DoJ for Title III - our primary area of concern.

The weaker requirements in the A117.1????

I suggest you look over the proposed ADA/ABA.  The text is almost exactly the same as the 2003 A117.1.  A117.1 has incorporated the more current thinking of the DoJ and Access Board (e.g. reach range, door approach, accessible egress).  Bring your head out into the sunshine a bit more.


----------



## Plans Approver (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> Do you find it hard to enforce?


Not at all. During plan review I go through ADAAG then 1007 and Ch. 11 as applicable citing whichever provides the greater accessibility. Because we adopted ADAAG (Appendix A only), religious facilities are not exempted, makes that part easier.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7



			
				Plans Approver said:
			
		

> brudgers said:
> 
> 
> 
> > Do you find it hard to enforce?


Not at all. During plan review I go through ADAAG then 1007 and Ch. 11 as applicable citing whichever provides the greater accessibility. Because we adopted ADAAG (Appendix A only), religious facilities are not exempted, makes that part easier.

Of course under ADAAG, any raised area under 3000 sf would typically be exempted.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7



			
				Gene Boecker said:
			
		

> The weaker requirements in the A117.1????I suggest you look over the proposed ADA/ABA.  The text is almost exactly the same as the 2003 A117.1.  A117.1 has incorporated the more current thinking of the DoJ and Access Board (e.g. reach range, door approach, accessible egress).  Bring your head out into the sunshine a bit more.


When you bring your head out, I suggest you read the original ADAAG.

The new one has a 1000 sf exception for employee work areas, doesn't require an accessible route in facilities that don't use "pedestrian paths" between buildings, etc.

The  problem with the new ADAAG was that it was designed to turn A117.1 into Federal regulation, not to insure that accessibility was not diminished.

Of course the other problem is that it's now two "Icks" old, being based on IBC 2003.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7

Does the "new" ADAAG have the vertical grab bar requirement in bathrooms that is required by ANSI 117.1? (lobbied by AARP)

Does the "new" ADAAG have the same clear space around a water closet as ANSI 117.1 for side transfer?


----------



## brudgers (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7

The idea of the new ADAAG was to turn the IBC 2003 and A117.1 into ADAAG.

In other words ADAAG was supposed to change to the building code.

The building code was to remain unmodified.

Of course since then, it's been modified twice.

Without the Federal rule making process.


----------



## Plans Approver (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> Of course under ADAAG, any raised area under 3000 sf would typically be exempted.


Where in ADAAG is that?  :?:  :?:  :?:


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7



			
				Plans Approver said:
			
		

> brudgers said:
> 
> 
> 
> > Of course under ADAAG, any raised area under 3000 sf would typically be exempted.


Where in ADAAG is that?  :?:  :?:  :?:

On behalf of Brudgers (what am I thinking?!   :lol: ), look up ADAAG 4.1.3(5), exception #1.


----------



## Plans Approver (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7



			
				Gene Boecker said:
			
		

> On behalf of Brudgers (what am I thinking?!   :lol: ), look up ADAAG 4.1.3(5), exception #1.


What *are* you thinking? :lol:

I wrote this in the ramp thread and will repeat in part here.



> 2. The exception in ADAAG does not require elevators to be installed to a story or stories above or below less than 3000 sf in buildings 3 stories or less (ADAAG 4.1.3(5)). It excepts elevators, but, does not except accessibility to those stories as stated further in ADAAG 4.1.3(5) "The elevator exemption set forth in this paragraph does not obviate or limit in any way the obligation to comply with the other accessibility requirements established in section 4.1.3. For example, floors above or below the accessible ground floor must meet the requirements of this section except for elevator service.".


----------



## brudgers (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7



			
				Plans Approver said:
			
		

> What *are* you thinking? :lol: I wrote this in the ramp thread and will repeat in part here.
> 
> 
> 
> > 2. The exception in ADAAG does not require elevators to be installed to a story or stories above or below less than 3000 sf in buildings 3 stories or less (ADAAG 4.1.3(5)). It excepts elevators, but, does not except accessibility to those stories as stated further in ADAAG 4.1.3(5) "The elevator exemption set forth in this paragraph does not obviate or limit in any way the obligation to comply with the other accessibility requirements established in section 4.1.3. For example, floors above or below the accessible ground floor must meet the requirements of this section except for elevator service.".


What that means is that you still have to make the toilet rooms, doors, etc. accessible.

In other words, just because you get a pass on the elevator it doesn't mean you get a pass on anything else.


----------



## JBI (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7

When the man is right, he's right... ouch, that hurt.  :lol:

The underlying philosophy is that eventually the accessible route will be provided to the accessible elements.


----------



## Plans Approver (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> What that means is that you still have to make the toilet rooms, doors, etc. accessible.In other words, just because you get a pass on the elevator it doesn't mean you get a pass on anything else.


That seems to be very different from:



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> Of course under ADAAG, any raised area under 3000 sf would typically be exempted.


----------



## TJacobs (Feb 5, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7



			
				Plans Approver said:
			
		

> brudgers said:
> 
> 
> 
> > What that means is that you still have to make the toilet rooms, doors, etc. accessible.In other words, just because you get a pass on the elevator it doesn't mean you get a pass on anything else.


That seems to be very different from:



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> Of course under ADAAG, any raised area under 3000 sf would typically be exempted.


 

“I know that you believe you understand what you think brudgers said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what brudgers meant.”  (Robert McCloskey)


----------



## JBI (Feb 5, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7

Good point Jake. What brudgers was saying is that you need not provide access *to* the 'platform' at this time, however any *features located upon* the platform still need to comply.

That feathers in with the point I made about _'eventually'_ having an accessible route to the platform.


----------



## Plans Approver (Feb 5, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7



			
				John Drobysh said:
			
		

> Good point Jake. What brudgers was saying is that you need not provide access *to* the 'platform' at this time, however any *features located upon* the platform still need to comply. That feathers in with the point I made about _'eventually'_ having an accessible route to the platform.


I will make my last point on this thread (hold the cheers to a faint murmur).    

If you have accessible elements, they need to be on an accessible route (1104.3). By definition, "ACCESSIBLE MEANS OF EGRESS. A continuous and unobstructed way of egress travel *from any accessible point* in a building or facility to a public way."

The accessible means of egress provides the accessible route and the access to the element.

I don't understand why accessible features would placed on a level that is not accessible.  :?:


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 5, 2010)

Re: exempting ANSI 117.7

Dan, I concur.

Besides, the whole point was that access IS provided by something that needed to be either a ramp or something else.  And I think we agree that it's in the something else (aka sloped floor) category.

Have a great weekend folks!


----------

