36 CFR Parts 1190 and 1191 ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines - Preamble (Discussion of Comments and Changes)

Comment. The Board sought information on the new construction cost impact of the proposed increased scoping and also asked whether exceptions should be provided for altered facilities or additions (Question 14). The hotel and motel industry strongly opposed increasing scoping for rooms providing communication access to 50%, which it considered unsubstantiated and unsupported by the assessed need. The industry considers the original ADAAG specification, which is substantially lower than 50%, to be excessive in view of its assessments on the usage rate of such rooms by persons with disabilities. People who have photosensitive epilepsy also opposed the proposed increase because the potential for triggering seizures would be too great. On the other hand, many comments from persons who are deaf or hard of hearing voiced strong support for maintaining or further increasing the proposed 50% requirement. In the belief that some transient lodging facilities have adopted voluntary policies requiring permanently installed visual alarms in all or a majority of newly constructed guest rooms, the Board sought information on such cases (Question 15). Commenters responded that they were unaware of any such corporate policies.

Response. In the final rule, the Board has reduced the scoping for guest rooms with accessible communication features to the level specified by the original ADAAG. The Board has included some limited changes from the original ADAAG scoping for consistency with the International Building Code (IBC). The minimum number required to comply is based on the number of rooms provided: 2 - 25 (2), 26 - 50 (4), 51 - 75 (7), 76 - 100 (9), 101 - 150 (12), 151 - 200 (14), 201 - 300 (17), 301 - 400 (20), 401 - 500 (22), 501 - 1,000 (5% of total), 1,001 and over (50, plus 3 for each 100 over 1,000). These levels slightly differ from the original ADAAG at the higher levels (401 rooms and above). The numbers are consistent with the IBC except that the IBC scoping does not apply to facilities with less than 6 guest rooms.

Comment. The industry also objected to requiring alarm appliances to be permanently installed. One hotel chain commented that their deaf and hard of hearing guests preferred portable appliances because these can be used in any guest room. This point was contradicted by comments from deaf and hard of hearing commenters and advisory committee members who urged permanent installation.

Response. The Board has elected to reference the NFPA 72‒1999 National Fire Alarm Code and has included a requirement that appliances be permanently installed. The Board believes that the hospitality industry can best guarantee deaf and hard of hearing guests the same level of protection as hearing guest by providing them visual devices that are part of the same fire alarm system that alerts hearing guests. Fire alarm systems must pass rigorous installation standards and frequent inspections. To date, the Board is unaware of any portable equipment that satisfies the requirements of the referenced standard. Even if portable equipment satisfying this standard were available, there is still a key concern that their installation, when not supervised by a trained professional, would not guarantee proper location and visibility of the signal. The NFPA 72 includes criteria for the appropriate location of the visual alarm appliance within the guest room. Deaf and hard of hearing travelers have reported that hotel staff have installed portable alarms on the floor, under furniture, and in other locations that do not satisfy the requirements of the referenced standard.