# A117.1 /2003



## RJJ (Mar 1, 2010)

section 404.2.10 Vision lites?

If an exist door or control door has a peep hole on an accessible route at 60" off the floor does it need one as well at 43"?


----------



## jar546 (Mar 1, 2010)

Re: A117.1 /2003

404.2.10 has absolutely nothing to do with peep-holes.  The language is very clear that they are referring to sidelites and glazing panels, nothing else.  This is beyond a stretch and is not required for peep-holes.  Put the peep-hole at 66-1/4" and there is no longer an issue although it is not one anyway.  A peep-hole is not a glazing panel.


----------



## RJJ (Mar 2, 2010)

Re: A117.1 /2003

I will wait my L & I report! This is interesting! Your thoughts are the same as mine! Hopefully Gene will see this post and have a response!


----------



## Coug Dad (Mar 2, 2010)

Re: A117.1 /2003

Are you citing a section in a state amended version of ANSI?


----------



## RJJ (Mar 2, 2010)

Re: A117.1 /2003

NO!


----------



## Gene Boecker (Mar 2, 2010)

Re: A117.1 /2003

Gene response:      

Nah!  That is not a requirement for a lower peep-hole (door viewer).  The A117.1 only addresses clear glazing - not security viewing.  Some jurisdictions (like New York City) have adopted separate rules that require a lower viewer but it's not a requirement in the A117.1 or the ADAAG or FHA guidelines.  The idea "makes sense" for accessible units and maybe even Type A units but not for Type B units since the idea there is that they are capable of being "adapted" as necessary - BUT, it's not required.     :geek:

Morning everyone!!!

*yawn!*  *stretch*


----------



## RJJ (Mar 2, 2010)

Re: A117.1 /2003

Gene: During my state audit this was pick out for none compliance! A security peep hole in an exist and access area had a viewer or peep hole. This was a new Bank! The note I was sited for was I did not require a peep hole at 43".  :roll: Well I'll be!

Now I did miss a few items on some other projects! A 1/4 here and an 1/8" there. Guess I need to wear my reading glasses or get a big tap! :lol:


----------



## Uncle Bob (Mar 2, 2010)

Re: A117.1 /2003

RJJ,

In Pennsylania, does the state send an inspector to review your inspection reports?  If so, do they, or are they required to specify code sections?

And, do they review all the reports or spot check?

Nosey old fart, ain't I?   

Uncle Bob


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 2, 2010)

Re: A117.1 /2003

I got this response 4 years ago from my contact at fair housing who is confined to a wheelchair. Basically a peephole is not required unless locally ammended except in a dwelling or sleeping unit.

1005.5.2 Identification.

A means for visually identifying a visitor without opening the unit entry door shall be provided. Peepholes, where used, shall provide a minimum 180-degree range of view.

I know the fair housing guidelines don't cover it. I also know whenever I use a hotel/motel it is always too high or too low, but I would recommend somewhere in the vicinity of 42" (give or take 2"). Some of it needs to determined by whether someone can get sideways to the door (44-46") or only front ways (probably 38-42"). If this is for an apartment, it is not mandated and would be something that would be considered a "reasonable modification", or the owner could put something in as someone moved in and meet their individual needs.

I found the following on various sites:

 From the ADAAG

        Doors [9.2.2(3), 9.4]

Compliance with 4.13 is required for all doors and doorways designed to allow passage into and within all sleeping suites or other units required to be accessible. /Recommendation:/ An additional peephole in the door for people who use wheelchairs or who are of short stature is not required but may be desirable especially if one offering a wide angle view of the hallway or exterior is used.

Because of the social interaction and visitation that often occurs in lodging facilities, an accessible door clear opening width (32 inches

minimum) is required to and within all sleeping rooms and suites, even those not required to be accessible. This applies to all doors, including bathroom doors, that allow full passage.

Doubletree Hotel & Executive Meeting Center - Portland - Lloyd Center   Here is how this hotel lets pwd know what to expect

********************************************

 > Would you please tell me what height you would recommend for a second front  > door viewer/peep hole for a person in a motorized wheelchair?

 > Thanks,

 > Susan Mack, OTR

 >

Susan, The Massachusetts Access Regs recommends:

   - a peephole mounted 42" AFF

OR - a vision panel in the door with it's bottom edge no higher than 42"

OR - a sidelight with it's bottom edge no higher than 42"

If you're installing peepholes, I trust that you'll install not just a "wide angle" peephole, but the ones that you can see out of from up to "6'" away. That's what I supply my clients with now, after a contractor that a family was using mistakenly went to HD and bought a standard wide angle peephole - but you still need to get up to the door to see out of those.

Hope those MA regs help.

Jackie

********************************************************************

I hope this helps..give a call if you have furhter questions.

bob liston

Jeff wrote:

> Bob

> The question from a builder came up as to what height does he install

> the peephole viewer in the door. I cannot find this answer in ANSI or

> ADAAG. I did find a maximum height of 46 inches from Canada. This

> seemed high for most people. Does the fair housing manual have a

> recommended height. Even a common sense recommended height would be

> appreciated  Thank you

>


----------



## Coug Dad (Mar 2, 2010)

Re: A117.1 /2003

IBC (2006) Section 1109.13 requires an accessible view port, if a view port is provided.


----------



## RJJ (Mar 2, 2010)

Re: A117.1 /2003

Well CD that is a good find! I need to read that section!

UB: The state audits us inspectors for ada! So you better have your paper work in order and your plans correct. I missed a few things I should not have missed. A few things had been changed since CO. The peep hole is one I never picked up on!

The state inspector looked over about 45 different plans from the last three years. He then pick 2 completely new buildings and one A2 tenant change/ alteration.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 2, 2010)

Re: A117.1 /2003

This is a peephole in a security door and is not required. I think 1109.13 would be a real stretch to apply it to a peephole.

Now if an employee working in the secured area needed a peephole as a reasonable accomodation to do his/her job then the bank could be required to put in the additional peephole at that time.

RJJ I believe your auditor has made an error maybe you can show them the error of their ways.

Invite them onto this site


----------



## Gene Boecker (Mar 2, 2010)

Re: A117.1 /2003



			
				\ said:
			
		

> Gene: During my state audit this was pick out for none compliance! A security peep hole in an exist and access area had a viewer or peep hole. This was a new Bank! The note I was sited for was I did not require a peep hole at 43".  :roll: Well I'll be!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## RJJ (Mar 2, 2010)

Re: A117.1 /2003

No! The plan review part was fine and in fact I was complemented on organization,review comments etc. It was in during the field examination that different issue came up. A few I missed! my bad! The peep hole caught me by surprise. That's why I posted it and am reviewing it. If it ends up on my letter I will appeal. Oh He still has three plans,so I may have some issues, but I don't believe so!

CD: I disagree! 1109.13 has no bearing. I read over it and find nothing that could apply.!


----------



## Coug Dad (Mar 2, 2010)

Re: A117.1 /2003

RJJ

If the view port is part of a public use element, then Section 1109.13 would apply as "hardware."  If it is not public use, then it becomes an employee issue and an additonal view port can be added as a reasonable accomodations at that time.


----------



## RJJ (Mar 2, 2010)

Re: A117.1 /2003

CD: I don't disagree with the concept! This would fall under a workspace not public space. Hardware interesting !


----------



## Gene Boecker (Mar 2, 2010)

Re: A117.1 /2003

CD, I think you're in the minority here.  I can't find anyone else who woudl consider something you look through to be "hardware."  The provisions in 1109.13 are for operational elements.  There isn't anything in there for this sort of thing.  Besides, who says that 43 inches woudl be the right height for a viewer?  That works for teh bottom edge of a piece of glazing but I could tilt my head to look through that.  I'd want a viewer closer to the center of my head.  If you'd put it in a door for accessibility it probably needs to be lower than 43 inches.


----------



## Coug Dad (Mar 2, 2010)

Re: A117.1 /2003

I agree it was not clear in the older versions of the accessiblity codes.  However, there are those who argue that it has always been the intent.  The revised ABA for residential dwelling units is clear that a view port is required for both standing persons and wheelchair users.


```
809.5.5.2 Identification. A means for visually identifying a visitor without opening the residentialdwelling unit entry door shall be provided and shall allow for a minimum 180 degree range ofview.Advisory 809.5.5.2 Identification. In doors, peepholes that include prisms clarify theimage and should offer a wide-angle view of the hallway or exterior for both standingpersons and wheelchair users. Such peepholes can be placed at a standard height andpermit a view from several feet from the door.
```

FWIW, view ports are included in the "hardware" section of the specifications


----------



## Gene Boecker (Mar 2, 2010)

Re: A117.1 /2003

CD, When the new ADAAG gets adopted, you're right, it WILL be a requirement.  That same provision is currently in Section 1005.5.2 of the A117.1 but there is no scoping provision in chapter 11 of the IBC that requires it since the lead-in is 1005.1 which begs the "where required" question.  Even Appendix Section E104.3 doesn't include the viewer in the current requirements for communication.

Yep, it's a great idea and if the DoJ doesn't change it, the new ADAAG will require it but it's not a requirement in the current regs unless those regs are locally modified.


----------



## RJJ (Mar 2, 2010)

Re: A117.1 /2003

CD: the 805 section is interesting, but it has to do with sleeping units!

I hope this ends up on my state report card! I am going to fight hard for that c+! :lol:

Hey Jeff! make sure you get all those peep holes.  :lol:  :lol:


----------



## jar546 (Mar 2, 2010)

Re: A117.1 /2003

1109.13?  fuel dispensing systems?

I see nothing about peep holes / door viewers


----------



## Coug Dad (Mar 2, 2010)

Re: A117.1 /2003

Look in the 2006 IBC


----------



## Plans Approver (Mar 2, 2010)

Re: A117.1 /2003



> Advisory 809.5.5.2 Identification. In doors, peepholes that include prisms clarify theimage and should offer a wide-angle view of the hallway or exterior for both standing
> 
> persons and wheelchair users. Such peepholes can be placed at a standard height and
> 
> *permit a view from several feet from the door*.


Clear???

What does the underlined part above mean? Ability to see several feet outside the door or ability to look through the peephole from several feet in the room?

(Several = Being of a number more than two or three but not many.)


----------



## RJJ (Mar 3, 2010)

Re: A117.1 /2003

Plans Approver: That is a great point! How does one measure several? Is that with or without corrective glasses? One would suppose, that commen sense shall apply to the method of madness!

However, what would be commen to one inspector maybe uncommon to the next. :roll:


----------



## jar546 (Mar 3, 2010)

Re: A117.1 /2003

Went back to pre 2009 IBC and read 1109.13

My opinion is that a peephole is not "hardware intended for operation" as nothing gets operated, you simply look through it.

Still does not apply in my opinion.

If a challenged employee made a complaint then I could see the company have to accomodate but this is not required under IBC or ANSI 117.1

Again, my opinion.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Mar 3, 2010)

Re: A117.1 /2003

"Advisory 809.5.5.2 Identification. In doors, peepholes that include prisms clarify the image and should offer a wide-angle view of the hallway or exterior for both standing persons and wheelchair users. Such peepholes can be placed at a standard height and permit a view from several feet from the door."

I believe the key words here are; Advisory, should, and can be.

Great, now they are adding opinions in the code.  This belongs in the Commentary.

Not required.

Uncle Bob


----------



## Gene Boecker (Mar 3, 2010)

Re: A117.1 /2003



			
				Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> Great, now they are adding opinions in the code.  This belongs in the Comentary.


Yup!  The feds put their commentary in "advisory" notes rather than in a separate commentary.  At least it's better than the current ADAAG which has the commentary in the appendix.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 3, 2010)

Re: A117.1 /2003



			
				Gene Boecker said:
			
		

> \ said:
> 
> 
> 
> > Great, now they are adding opinions in the code.  This belongs in the Comentary.


Yup!  The feds put their commentary in "advisory" notes rather than in a separate commentary.  At least it's better than the current ADAAG which has the commentary in the appendix.     [/quote:rwsjbbk3]

Just another reason the proposed version is so bad.

You can see "the ick's" hand in it.

They'd never organize a code in the manner of the NFPA.

Heck that's only worked for a century or so.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Mar 3, 2010)

Re: A117.1 /2003



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> Gene Boecker said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just another reason the proposed version is so bad.

You can see "the ick's" hand in it.

They'd never organize a code in the manner of the NFPA.

Heck that's only worked for a century or so.[/quote:1n8s7e5a]

The NFPA is the only hold-out of the major organization in this country to refuse to abide by the numbering system recommended by the National Bureau of Standards.  Everyone else has been making the switch since 1978.  Oh, and I really like those references in the NFPA to Sections as in 7.12.3.2.12.1.1.1©.  (Easy to remember. . . . .      )


----------



## brudgers (Mar 3, 2010)

Re: A117.1 /2003



			
				Gene Boecker said:
			
		

> The NFPA is the only hold-out of the major organization in this country to refuse to abide by the numbering system recommended by the National Bureau of Standards.  Everyone else has been making the switch since 1978.  Oh, and I really like those references in the NFPA to Sections as in 7.12.3.2.12.1.1.1©.  (Easy to remember. . . . .      )


Gene, you shouldn't try to remember it.  You should  look it up and make sure you're right.  And you should do it every time.

Changing something that works for the sake of change is "the ick" way.

Fortunately the NFPA's mission is not "instituting standard nomenclature systems."


----------

