5-3-94

DJ 202-PL-750

May 13 1994

Mr. Belk Null

Production Manager
Berger Iron Works, Inc.
P.O. Box 7628
Houston, Texas 77270

Dear Mr. Null:

I am responding to your letter concerning the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA).

The ADA authorizes the Department of Justice to provide

technical assistance to individuals and entities that have rights
or responsibilities under the Act. Pursuant to that authority,
this letter provides informal guidance to assist you in
understanding the ADA. However, this technical assistance does
not constitute a legal interpretation of the statute, and it is
not binding on the Department.

Your letter requests a clarification of Section 4.26.2 of

the ADA Standards for Accessible Design (ADA Standards), which
provides: "The diameter or width of the gripping surfaces of a
handrail or grab bar shall be 1-1/4 in to 1-1/2 in (32 mm to 38
mm) or the shape shall provide an equivalent gripping surface."
As Figure 39 of the Standards illustrates, this measurement
applies to the outer diameter of the handrail. Section 4.26.2
does not, however, purport to establish the only acceptable
design for accessible handrails.

The ADA is a civil rights law, not a building code. This

Department established the ADA Standards in order to eliminate
discrimination in the built environment. Those Standards
establish minimum guidelines for achieving accessible building
design. They do not constitute a strict formula for design and
they are not intended to prohibit alternative designs that
provide equal or greater access. Section 2.2 of the Standards
specifically provides that "[d]epartures from particular
technical and scoping requirements of this guideline by the use
of other designs and technologies are permitted where the
alternative designs and technologies used will provide
substantially equivalent or greater access to and usability of

cc: Records, Chrono, Wodatch, Blizard, Hill, FOIA, Friedlander

n:\udd\hille\policylt\null.1tr

01-03089

-2-

the facility." Therefore, alternate designs are not prohibited

if the available data shows that such alternate designs are, in
fact, substantially equivalent to the Standards. However, in any
ADA enforcement action, the covered entity would bear the burden
of proving the equivalency of any alternate design.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

John L. Wodatch
Chief
Public Access Section
01-03090