T.

2-1-93

DJ 202-PL-00055
FEB 9 1993

Ms. Melanie Brown, AIA

Burt Hill Kosar Rittelmann Associates
1056 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20007

Dear Ms. Brown:

This letter is in response to your inquiry regarding the

requirements for detectable warnings applicable under title III
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The ADA authorizes the Department of Justice to provide

technical assistance to individuals and entities that are subject
to the Act. This letter provides informal guidance to assist you
in understanding the ADA accessibility standards. However, this
technical assistance does not constitute a legal interpretation
of the application of the statute, and it is not binding on the
Department.

In developing the ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings

and Facilities (ADA Guidelines), the Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board)
considered extensive public comment (14 public hearings and more
than 10,000 pages of written comments submitted to the docket).
It also considered research studies and documented field
experience with detectable warnings materials. Comments
submitted to the docket, available research, and the rationale
for requiring the type of detectable warning surfaces specified
in the guidelines are detailed on pages 35,437-38 of the preamble
to the Access Board's ADA Guidelines. Copies of these pages are
enclosed.

Your letter states there should "be some provision for an

alternative means of providing a detectable warning surface."
Section 2.2 of the ADA Guidelines contains a general equivalent
facilitation provision that allows departures from particular
technical and scoping requirements by the use of other designs
and technologies that provide substantially equivalent or greater
cc: Records, Chrono, Wodatch, Breen, Lusher, FOIA, Library
udd:mercado:policy.letters.certif:lusher.wodatch.brown

01-01903

-2-

accessibility. This provision is discussed at pages 54-55 of the

enclosed Title III Technical Assistance Manual. However, it is
important to point out that the detectable warning surface
required by the ADA Guidelines has unique characteristics that
make it readily identifiable as a warning surface.

For projects undertaken by State or local government, title

II of the ADA allows a public entity to use either the Uniform
Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) or the ADA Guidelines
without the elevator exemption. Both UFAS and the ADA Guidelines
are enforceable standards under title II of the ADA.

Furthermore, since many cities and towns also receive

Federal funds in one form or another, it is possible that section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 may also be applicable.
Regulations issued by most agencies under section 504 identify
UFAS as the operative standard to signify compliance with new
construction and alteration provisions.

There are specific differences between the two standards

with regard to detectable warnings. UFAS does not require any
type of detectable warnings on curb ramps or other walking
surfaces, whereas the ADA Guidelines, as you discussed in your
letter, require a very specific pattern of raised truncated domes
on curb ramps and at hazardous vehicular areas. However, when a
public entity chooses to use either standard for a building,
facility or project, it must follow that standard completely.
Please refer to the Department's Title II Technical Assistance
Manual (enclosed) to review other major differences between UFAS
and ADAAG.

The Access Board issued proposed accessibility guidelines

for newly constructed or altered facilities covered by title II
of the ADA on December 21, 1992 (57 FR 60612). Final adoption of
these guidelines by the Department of Justice will eliminate the
current choice under title II between UFAS and the ADA
Guidelines. In this notice, the Access Board briefly discusses
the issue of detectable warnings (57 FR 60645) and announces the
Access Board's intention to issue a separate notice proposing to
suspend certain ADAAG provisions for detectable warnings. The
public comment period for this proposed change to the guidelines
will provide an excellent opportunity to address your concerns
about detectable warnings and we encourage you to participate.
For further information about the Access Board's efforts, please
contact Mr. James J. Raggio, General Counsel, Access Board, 1331
F Street, N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, D.C. 20004-1111, (202)
272-5434.

01-01904

-3-

I hope that you find the above information helpful. If you

have further questions about the application of the Department's
ADA regulations, please call our ADA Information Line on (202)
514-0301.

Sincerely,

John L. Wodatch
Chief
Public Access Section

Enclosures

Selected preamble pages to ADA Guidelines (pp. 35,437-38)

Title II and Title III Technical Assistance Manuals
01-01905

1056 Thomas Jefferson St., NW

Washington, DC 20007
202-333-2711
Burt Hill Kosar Rittelmann Associates FAX: 202-333-3159
Architecture
Engineering
Interior Design
Research

March 19, 1992

John Wodatch, Director

Office on the Americans with Disabilities Act
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Mr. Wodatch;

I am an architect at the firm of Burt Hill Kosar Rittelmann Associates in

Washington, D.C. Our firm designs large mixed-use commercial projects as well
as institutional, health-care and residential projects. Our expertise also
includes commercial renovation and historic preservation. Much of our work is
subject to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the associated
Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG).

The ADAAG contain a requirement for detectable warnings (Ref. 4.29) which I
wish to discuss. The specifications require raised truncated domes, about 1"
in diameter, with a height of about 1/4", spaced approximately 2 1/2" on
center. This detectable warning surface is to be installed at areas which
generally occur within pedestrian walkways and sidewalks. I have received
samples of materials which meet the specified criteria. Based upon these
samples it is my belief that these materials pose a hazard to able-bodied
pedestrians, especially those who wear heeled shoes, due to tripping or
stumbling over the irregular relief surface.

As an architect who practices in a litigious society, I am concerned about the

ADAAG specifications for detectable warnings. It is common experience within
my profession that individuals have filed lawsuits against architects claiming
injury resulting from tripping on sidewalks with less textural relief than
specified in the ADAAG. For this reason, I would not have recommended such a
paving material to my clients. However, it is now required by the ADAAG.

01-01906

Mr. John Wodatch

Page Two
19 March 1992

We find ourselves in a compromising situation: advise our clients to comply to

the letter of the ADAAG and risk an injury lawsuit or not to comply and risk
civil suit? For the time-being, we have been advising our clients to pose the
question to their counsel and advise us accordingly in an effort to address
the issue as best as possible. I have discussed these issues with various
people at both the ADA Information Line and the Architectural and
Transportation Barrier Compliance Board. All agree that the detectable
warnings are a potential hazard. It was their advice that you be consulted on
this matter.

There must be a more direct way to handle this issue. There should also be
some provision for an alternate means of providing a detectable warning
surface. Your response to this issue and any advice, interpretation or
direction you can offer would be most appreciated.

Very truly yours,

BURT HILL KOSAR RITTELMANN ASSOCIATES

Melanie Brown, AIA

Associate

01-01907