A part of the collaboration between Carnegie Mellon University and the IDeA Center is the establishment of the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Accessible Transportation (RERC-APT). The mission of the RERC-APT is to “Research and develop methods to empower consumers and service providers in the design and evaluation of accessible transportation, equipment, information services, and physical environments.” Please see the RERC-APT website: www.rercapt.org for additional information.

Accessibility Services staff will be part of this worthwhile project and will focus on improving accessible transportation by working toward the development of enhanced transportation regulations and standards for building codes and federal requirements.

Currently, Accessibility Services staff is developing a course that will be included in the IDeA Center’s online training program. The course will include links to a podcast, readings, quiz questions and a discussion board. AIA credit is currently pending for the course.

Update: Accessible Transportation Facility Design & Compliance with the Revised ADA/ABA Accessibility Guidelines

The goal of this course is to enable participants to learn the minimum requirements for accessibility at transportation facilities covered under the US Department of Transportation regulations using the Revised ADA/ABA Accessibility Guidelines.

This course will provide an overview of the accessibility requirements that affect transportation facilities that fall under US DOT jurisdiction, including:

• Basic “building blocks” of accessibility (i.e. reach ranges)
• Exterior and interior accessible routes
• Ramps
• Curb ramps
• Elevators and lifts
• Accessible parking
• Doors
• Plumbing (toilet rooms, drinking fountains)
• Bus Boarding and Alighting Areas
• Bus Shelters
• Bus Signs
• Rail Platforms
• Detectable Warnings
• Rail Station Signs

Accessibility Services staff is looking forward to working on this exciting project. To register for this online course, please go to http://www.udeworld.com/training/continuing-education/registration.html

To learn more about the IDeA Center’s online continuing education program, please visit: http://www.udeworld.com/training/continuing-education.html

The remedy for this is committing to yearly accessibility training seminars, perhaps one of the most important tools Accessibility Services offers. The design professional is responsible for almost everything in our built environment: homes, offices, schools, parks, stadiums, neighborhoods, and even cities. Therefore it is very important for them to understand accessibility and to be aware of the accessibility requirements and references that govern there work. Knowledgeable architects and engineers insure that our world is a place that is accessible to all.

We encourage Architectural teams to schedule training seminars on a yearly basis for themselves, their associates, and there staff. It is necessary for accessibility to be fresh in the minds of those creating our built environment. Training classes will highlight the important elements of accessible design, clarify often confusing sections of code, and point out the references that govern our regions. It also provides an opportunity for architects and engineers to ask specific questions regarding there current projects. Seminars can be as short as one hour, designed around a lunch break. We also provide day long classes that focus on commercial or residential requirements. Many of or seminars are AIA accredited. Even more help can be achieved by bringing Accessibility Services on as an accessibility consultant. As part of your design team our staff will review plans at every level of the architecture process.

Accessibility Services is unique amongst other accessibility organization because we understand the design process and focus on working directly with those creating the built environment. Architects, engineers and design professionals including interior designers and landscape architects can all benefit from a training seminar by Accessibility Services. Please contact us to schedule a seminar in your work place today.

The final action hearings for the next generation of codes will be held next fall (October 28-November 1, 2010 in Charlotte, North Carolina). For the IEBC Committee decision to be overturned, 2/3 of the code officials present will have to vote against the historic initiative.

“Not likely,” said James Bartl Director of Code Enforcement for Mecklenburg County Government in Charlotte, North Carolina. “Our state just adopted Chapter 11 of the International Building Code and A117.1 which made people with disabilities feel as if they lost some of the benefits of the old North Carolina Accessibility Code (Volume 1C) thus they will want to support this historic initiative.”

United Spinal Association’s Accessibility Services staff introduced proposal “EB14″ mandating that “Type B” requirements be provided in residential occupancies when alterations exceed 50% of the total building area. “Type B” is the name that the International Building Code (IBC) and the American National Standard for Accessible and Usable Building & Facilities (A117.1) give to the adaptable dwelling units required to comply with the FH Act.

Testimony provided by Marsha Mazz from the US Access Board and Cheryl Kent from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) convinced the 15 person IEBC committee and the voting members in the audience.

Newly constructed multi-family housing buildings with four or more units occupied on or after March 13, 1991 were required to comply with the FH Act. This new construction rule will be expanded to existing apartment buildings undergoing “Level III” alterations.

Residential developers have been targeted in lawsuits by State Attorney Generals in various states as well as by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and HUD for not complying with Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines and their local code. Accessibility Services works with residential designers, developers and builders in responding to these complaints. The new requirement should reduce the number of violations. If the residential developer missed complying with the FH Act during initial planning and construction, large alteration projects will now trigger compliance that will be enforced by code enforcement officials.

The 2009 edition of A117.1 will be referenced by the 2012 IBC and IEBC and expands on the original Fair Housing Guidelines by requiring maneuvering clearance on the interior of unit doors, clear floor space centered on both washer and dryer, and fuse boxes provided within accessible reach ranges.

Section 3604(f) of the FH Act prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of a dwelling and defines discrimination “in connection with the design and construction of covered multifamily dwellings” as “the “failure to design and construct those dwellings” so they are accessible. Numerous courts have held that an entity is not required to both design and construct a housing facility to be liable.

In United States v. Hartz Construction Co., Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 973 (N.D. Ill 1/26/98) the court stated that interpreting the FH Act so entities could insulate themselves from liability by segregating the design and construction “is a frank absurdity”. In 2001, the court in Doering v. Pontarelli Builders, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18856 (N.D. Ill 11/16/01) discussed all of the prior reported court decisions and concluded that the correct interpretation is that the FH Act applies to entities who either design or construct inaccessible facilities.

While the courts are more consistent in holding that architects and contractors are liable under the FH Act as long as they were involved in either the design or construction, the controversy under the FH Act seems to be when liability for the violation ends. Some courts have deemed a violation of FH Act to be a continuing violation which does not expire until the violations are corrected, Silver State v. ERGS., 362 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (2005) and Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Ass’n v. Lazarus Burman Associates, 133 F. Supp. 2d 203 (2001). Other courts have deemed a two year statute of limitations and have held different triggering events for when the two years begins to run.

Two decisions in 2008 found different triggering events when the two year statute of limitations begins to run under FH ACT in design and construction cases. The 9th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the two year limitations period started when the last certificate of occupancy for the development was issued, Garcia et al., v. Brockway, et al., 526 F.3d 456 (9th Cir. 2008). The Garcia court noted its decision was contrary to HUD guidance but noted they were not required to follow HUD’s guidance.

The United States District Court in Maryland in Kuchmas, et al. v. Towson University, et al., 553 F. Supp. 2d 556 (D. Md. 2008) refused to cut off FH ACT liability after specific events occurred. It specifically refused to follow an earlier decision rendered in 2002 in Moseke v, Miller & Smith, Inc., 292 F. Supp. 2d 492 (E.D. Va. 2002) which held that the existence of a FH ACT non-compliant building is not a continuing violation of the FH ACT and therefore claims brought against developers, architectural firms and community associations more than two years after the completion of the building’s construction were time barred. The Kuchmas court noted that all the defendants, other than the architect, remained involved in leasing the noncompliant apartments and continued to benefit from renting inaccessible units.

What these decisions provide is some guidance on when various jurisdictions begin to run the two year statute of limitations and what factors need to be considered in determining when the time begins to run.

One last word of caution, the United States Attorney General has the right to bring lawsuits in pattern and practice cases against a developer or architectural firm.

Again, the best course of action an architect or builder can take is to ensure that the design and/or construction of the housing development comply with the FH Act.

Craig has been active in the process of architecture throughout his career. His latest success was seeing the completion of Citi Field, the new ballpark for the New York Mets. His work with Populous (formerly HOK Sport) included review of the as built conditions to ensure compliance with the architectural drawings and applicable codes.

As an Architectural Specialist, Mr. Maniscalco brings important expertise and knowledge about the process of architecture including design, architectural documentation and construction administration. He is proficient in AutoCAD.

His duties at United Spinal Association include plan review, site assessments, accessibility design, accessibility training, technical assistance, and code development.

Mr. Maniscalco has a Bachelor of Architecture from the New York City College of Technology. He has won design awards including the 2007 SARA New York Design Award of Excellence for his work on the Brooklyn Ladder Company facility.

Craig can be reached at cmaniscalco@unitedspinal.org