ADOPTED RULES
 
 An agency may take final action on a section 30 days after a proposal has been 
published in the Texas Register. The section becomes effective 20 days after the 
agency files the correct document with the Texas Register, unless a later date 
is specified or unless a federal statute or regulation requires implementation 
of the action on shorter notice. 
 If an agency adopts the section without any changes to the proposed text, only 
the preamble of the notice and statement of legal authority will be published. 
If an agency adopts the section with changes to the proposed text, the proposal 
will be republished with the changes. 
 
   
  TITLE 16. ECONOMIC REGULATION 
 Part IV. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation 
  Chapter 68. Elimination of Architectural Barriers 
  
  16 TAC sec.68.100 
 
  The Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation adopts new sec.68.100, 
concerning accessibility standards for the elimination of architectural barriers 
encountered by persons with disabilities in buildings and facilities subject to 
the Architectural Barriers Act, Article 9102, Texas Civil Statutes, with changes 
to the proposed text as published in the July 6, 1993, issue of the Texas 
Register (18 TexReg 4374). 
 The section allows for the adoption of new accessibility standards intended to 
be consistent with those adopted under federal law in accordance with sec.5(c) 
of the Act. 
 The format of the adopted standards differs from the Administrative Code format 
and does not appear in this notification. This deviation was necessary to 
maintain the numbering sequence of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act 
Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) and the capability to distinguish between the 
ADAAG and language added by the department using italics. Copies of the adopted 
Texas Accessibility Standards (TAS) are available from the Office of the 
Secretary of State, Texas Register Division, P.O. Box 13824, Austin, Texas 
78711-3824; 1019 Brazos, Room 245, Austin, Texas 78701; (512) 463-5561, TTD 
(800) 735-2989, FAX (512) 463-5569. Cost is $10 per copy. Check, Visa and 
MasterCard accepted. 
 During the months of July and August 1993, the department invited written 
comments and held six public hearings throughout the state to receive comments, 
views, and testimony concerning the proposed new standards. The following 
groups, associations, and corporations made comments in favor of the new 
standards: Austin Chapter of the American Institute of Architects; The 
Governor's Committee on People with Disabilities; Coalition of Texans with 
Disabilities; Advocacy Incorporated; ADAPT of Texas; Texas Paralyzed Veterans, 
Austin Chapter; Accessibility Consultants, Inc.; Resource Center for Independent 
Living in Fort Worth; Texas Tech University; Disabled Ability Resource 
Environment; State of Texas General Services Commission, Lease and Rental 
Section; Texas Historical Commission; Adling Associates, Architects; Texas Mini 
Storage Association; Texas Building Owners and Managers Association; Texas 
Institute of Building Design; Texas Apartment Association; City of San Antonio 
Planning Department Disabled Access Office; AC Associates; and Bower-Downing 
Partnership, Inc. 
 The following groups, associations, and corporations made comments in 
opposition to the proposed standards: Texas Society of Architects (with separate 
comments by the Governmental Affairs Committee and the Codes and Standards 
Committee); Dallas Chapter of the American Institute of Architects; City of El 
Paso Building Official; HT and T; RTKL Associates; F and S Partners, Inc.; Brown 
Reynolds Watford Architects; Steve Waddill and Company; J. L. Brentley, Inc., 
Architects; Chris Consultants; Brinkley Sargent Architects; Corgan Associates 
Architects; and Dickson-Edson-McMahon Architects and Interior Designers. 
 The following groups, associations, and corporations, also made comments 
without stating either support or opposition to the proposed standards: Wayne 
Hatchell; HKS, Inc.; Brooks/Collier; Inter Systems Architects, Inc.; Texas 
Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation; and the Texas Department of 
Transportation. 
 Several grammatical and other nonsubstantive changes have been made to the 
standards for clarity. Those changes are not discussed here. Substantive 
comments received and any revisions to the standards made in response to those 
comments are discussed in the following narrative. 
 COMMENT: Consider increasing the minimum depth of a clear floor space from 48 
inches to 52 inches to accommodate motorized wheelchairs and scooters. 
 RESPONSE: Such a change would result in a significantly more stringent 
requirement than ADAAG; however, the depth dimension of Figure A3(a) located in 
the appendix was modified from 48 inches to 48 inches-52 inches as a 
recommendation to call the attention of designers to the specifications of 
motorized wheelchairs. 
 COMMENT: Consider lowering by 6 inches the maximum reach ranges for forward and 
parallel approaches. 
 RESPONSE: This, too, would be more stringent than ADAAG. While the department 
appreciates and encourages efforts to improve accessibility, it is felt the 
state standards should not vary too far from ADDAG without significant 
justification. 
 COMMENT: Ramps longer than 15 feet should be at least 48 inches wide to allow 
opposing pedestrian traffic adequate passing room. 
 RESPONSE: The department agrees that long ramps should be wider than 36 inches; 
however, to apply a stricter standard to ramps under 30 feet in length could 
create difficulty to designers. Section 4.8.3 was revised to require 48 inches 
minimum width at ramps in excess of 30 feet in length. 
 COMMENT: The exception for valet parking is not always appropriate since many 
vehicles have been modified for wheelchair users by removing the drivers seat. 
 RESPONSE: The department feels the comments in A4.1.2(5)(e) adequately address 
this issue and that conscientious designers will follow the recommendations. 
 COMMENT: No matter what the state or local jurisdiction does, the federal 
government still takes precedence and ultimately the courts take precedence. 
 RESPONSE: For purposes of the ADA, the commenter is correct. However, adoption 
of the TAS, which is based on the ADAAG, will allow for a degree of uniformity 
not currently provided and will go a long way toward ensuring compliance with 
the ADA and state law. 
 COMMENT: ADAAG, UBC, and TAS have conflicting specifications for handrail 
diameter. What does the architect specify? 
 RESPONSE: The handrail specification in these three documents may be worded 
somewhat differently but they are not in conflict with each other. The 
department advises adherence to the most stringent requirement. 
 COMMENT: Reconsider your proposed ADAAG modified language and substitute the 
ANSI-1992. 
 RESPONSE: The department believes TAS, which has ADAAG as it's base document, 
has a better chance for equivalency certification by the U.S. Department of 
Justice (DOJ). 
 COMMENT: Reconsider any action that would overturn the adoption of a model 
code. 
 RESPONSE: The commenter is referring to ANSI-1992 as the model code. The state 
is taking no action to "overturn" this or any other code. 
 COMMENT: What you propose offers a lot of room for subjective interpretations. 
 RESPONSE: The word "shall" is prevalent in TAS; however, all codes leave some 
room for interpretation. Since there is no typical construction project, it is 
virtually impossible to write a viable, workable and enforceable standard that 
would not allow for some flexibility in interpretation. 
 COMMENT: There is a likelihood that very shortly after TAS is adopted, if it 
proceeds, the requirement for detectable warnings will be removed from ADDAG. 
 RESPONSE: In the final version of TAS, sec.4.29.5 and  sec.4.29.6 have been 
reserved. 
 COMMENT: The issue of equivalent facilitation is going to generate a lot of 
paperwork and a lot of time by owners and architects responding to the variance 
process. 
 RESPONSE: Provisions for equivalent facilitation generally will not require 
variance applications provided the standard is exceeded. The department believes 
where equivalent facilitation is provided and the minimum standard is not met a 
process needs to be in place to ensure equivalency is accomplished. 
 COMMENT: Requiring variance applications to support "structural 
impracticability" and "technical infeasability" is cumbersome for practitioners. 
 RESPONSE: The department believes it's important to maintain control over 
various opinions of what might and might not be structurally impracticable or 
technically infeasible. With out this control, application of standards and 
degrees of accessibility may vary widely from project to project throughout the 
state. 
 COMMENT: According to an attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice, states 
are not required or authorized to enforce ADA. However, when a state code has 
been certified as equivalent to ADAAG, then you are in effect enforcing ADA, but 
only under the authority of state law. 
 RESPONSE: All notifications of approval, disapproval, compliance and 
noncompliance issued by the department include the disclaimer that 
determinations do not address requirements of any other state or federal law. 
 COMMENT: Since Texas Civil Statutes, Article 9102, requires the state to adopt 
standards consistent with those adopted by ANSI, why is the state proposing to 
adopt a modified version of ADAAG rather than ANSI-1992? 
 RESPONSE: The commenter acknowledged in his statement that the statutory 
requirement goes further than his reference. Specifically, the statute requires 
the standards to be consistent in effect to ANSI or it's federally recognized 
successor in function , and that adopted standards and rules be consistent with 
those adopted under federal law. The department believes the ADAAG to be 
successor in function to ANSI. Further, the Texas Accessibility Standards are 
consistent with ADDAG, which was adopted under ADA. 
 COMMENT: The TAS defines accessible space as space that complies with TAS or 
earlier state standards. That's a shotgun statement. 
 RESPONSE: The reference to "earlier state standards" has been removed. This 
definition is now consistent with ADAAG. 
 COMMENT: The definitions of stages and performing areas says the definable 
portion of an assembly building. What definable portion and whose definition of 
definable portion are you going to use? 
 RESPONSE: The definition has been changed to: An area of an assembly building 
or assembly area that is designed or used for demonstrations or the presentation 
of theatrical, educational, musical, or other events. 
 COMMENT: You are mixing the fair housing amendments guideline with this 
proposed regulation. You will have to have the concurrence of HUD to do that. 
 RESPONSE: Various standards often overlap. So long as there is no conflict the 
more stringent requirement applies. 
 COMMENT: There's an exception that contains the word shall, which is mandatory 
language. That is not an exception, it is a requirement. 
 RESPONSE: In this instance, shall is appropriate to require compliance at an 
element that is otherwise exempted. 
 COMMENT: Several places reference determinations to be made by the commissioner 
under sec.68.31. What is that rule and when does it take effect? 
 RESPONSE: sec.68.31 will address procedures for variance applications. Until 
that rule is finally adopted, there is in place under current rules the 
procedure for requesting variances. 
 COMMENT: A footnote says "in all instances involving 'local authority', 'local 
requirements', 'local regulations' or 'local fire departments', evidence of such 
requirement, compliance, approval, or acceptance, appropriate for the condition, 
shall accompany the plans and specifications when submitted to the commission 
for review and approval"; however, another section states that evidence of local 
compliance doesn't mean anything. 
 RESPONSE: ADAAG, and TAS, permit some deviation based on local building code 
requirements. This footnote simply requires evidence of local acceptance when 
the deviation is desired. 
 COMMENT: Under Appropriate Number and Location, the commissioner has the 
authority to make adjustments to the minimum requirements when they may be 
insufficient for a particular need. When is he going to do that? 
 RESPONSE: If the design professional has not contacted the department prior to 
submittal of construction documents, any adjustment may appear on the review 
worksheet. And, the department is always available to consult with owners and 
designer prior to submittals. 
 COMMENT: Under Special Use Areas, areas of buildings not otherwise covered by 
the standards may be required to be accessible if they are considered Essential 
Features. Who makes that determination? 
 RESPONSE: That paragraph has been deleted. It must be noted, however, that 
Essential Features must be accessible and a definition of Essential Features, 
with examples, remains in the document. 
 COMMENT: Adopting the ANSI standard would be more benefit for all parties than 
the adoption of the modified version of ADAAG. 
 RESPONSE: The department feels that, with ADDAG as the base document, TAS more 
fully complies with statutory requirements, and that TAS is eligible for 
equivalency certification. 
 COMMENT: The ANSI document will soon achieve certification from the Department 
of Justice. Ultimately, ADAAG will disappear as the design standard for the ADA. 
 RESPONSE: After consulting with DOJ and the Access Board, the department 
believes otherwise. 
 COMMENT: I request that the state base standards on the 1992 version of the 
ANSI document rather than the 1980 and 1986 versions. 
 RESPONSE: Since ADAAG (and therefore TAS) is based on ANSI 117.1 (1980 or 1986 
or both), the department is obliged to acknowledge the American National 
Standards Institute. 
 COMMENT: I'm asking that the word "local" be struck from the eligibility 
requirements for special consideration for historic structures. 
 RESPONSE: That phrasing was changed and references to local law were stricken. 
To be eligible for consideration as an historic structure or site, it must be 
listed in the National Register of Historic Places or designated as a Recorded 
Texas Historic Landmark or State Archeological Landmark. 
 COMMENT: Section 1.3.2 states that the application is to further the concept of 
equal treatment for people with disabilities to the maximum extent possible and 
reasonable. We recommend removing "and reasonable" to emphasize "maximum extent 
possible". 
 RESPONSE: The department believes some degree of reasonableness is necessary, 
especially when considering the structural limitations of older buildings and 
unusual site conditions. 
 COMMENT: Clarify the use of mounting heights in facilities used by both adults 
and children. 
 RESPONSE: Section 2.1 was modified as a result of this suggestion. 
 COMMENT: I strongly suggest that the state adopt ADA (ADAAG) without change. 
 RESPONSE: Changes are necessary to align ADDAG with state law, to clarify 
certain ADDAG guidelines, and to ensure accessibility requirements in the state 
are not reduced from current standards. 
 COMMENT: Consider additional descriptive illustrations, similar to current 
state standards. 
 RESPONSE: Most illustrations currently in state standards are repeated in TAS; 
and, in one or two instances, the department has incorporated previous 
illustrations into the TAS. 
 COMMENT: Consider bringing some of the information in the appendix of ADDAG 
into the main body of TAS. Specifically, slopes of ramps being between 1:16 and 
1:12 rather than 1:12 maximum. 
 RESPONSE: Some appendix suggestions were incorporated into TAS. However; since 
the appendix is intended to offer clarifying or additional information on a 
particular standard, that approach could result in TAS being considerably more 
stringent than ADDAG. In the case of ramp slopes, there might be conditions 
where 1:16 is impractical, and since 1:12 is acceptable under ADAAG, a change of 
this magnitude could be confusing to designers. 
 COMMENT: Suggest using 1/2-inch deep parallel groves in lieu of truncated domes 
as detectable warnings except at hazardous areas such as bus or train loading 
platforms. 
 RESPONSE: As a result of action taken by the United States Architectural and 
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board in November, 1993), 
detectable warnings have been reserved for curb ramps, hazardous vehicular 
areas, and reflecting pools. 
 COMMENT: Will TDLR be able to respond to changes to ADAAG so that TAS remains 
consistent? 
 RESPONSE: Yes. The department will publish changes to TAS in the Texas 
Register. 
 COMMENT: Recommend defining "variance" for those items which the department 
intends to cover. 
 RESPONSE: Since Article 9102 does not limit the standards on which variances 
may be requested, such a definition would be inappropriate in the rules. 
 COMMENT: The variance procedure is inappropriate in that it should not apply to 
all alternative designs and technologies. 
 RESPONSE: The variance application gives control to the on appropriate use of 
alternate designs and technologies. 
 COMMENT: Identify all factors to be considered for modifying minimum 
appropriate numbers and locations. 
 RESPONSE: The department feels that would be limiting, and possibly exclude 
viable arguments. 
 COMMENT: Define work areas. 
 RESPONSE: The department believes work areas are satisfactorily defined. 
 COMMENT: The additional accessible unisex toilet room in some larger assembly 
areas is inconsistent with the percentage based requirements of the entire code. 
 RESPONSE: Since all public and common use toilet rooms must be accessible, the 
department does not see the inconsistency. 
 COMMENT: Reconsider the requirement that all parking must be located adjacent 
to the building. 
 RESPONSE: There is no such requirement. 
 COMMENT: In the exception to sec.4.13.6, suggest inserting "as defined by the 
Texas Department of Health" after "bedrooms". 
 RESPONSE: The department believes the exception is clear as worded, and 
questions the need to bring another agency into the process of determination. 
 COMMENT: Consider including seclusion rooms in the exception to sec.4.13.6. 
 RESPONSE: Seclusion rooms are already exempted from this requirement if they 
are acute care bedrooms. 
 COMMENT: There are inconsistences in the requirements regarding Areas of Rescue 
Assistance. 
 RESPONSE: These are options. The department finds no inconsistencies. 
 COMMENT: Smoke compartments should be approved as Areas of Rescue Assistance. 
 RESPONSE: In some instances, smoke compartments can be considered Areas of 
Rescue Assistance. 
 COMMENT: Modify Figure 31 to clearly reflect bottom of lavatory apron. 
 RESPONSE: Figure 31 has been modified for clarity. 
 COMMENT: There is considerable conflict between the added (italicized) portion 
of sec.4.25.2 and the definitions of "Primary Function" and areas used only by 
employees as work areas. 
 RESPONSE: The standard applies only to storage areas required by sec.4.1 to be 
accessible. Storage areas would not be considered as Primary Functions (as 
defined), and storage areas are not considered work areas. 
 COMMENTS: Clarify inconsistencies between countertop mounting heights with and 
without sinks. 
 RESPONSE: Countertops and sinks are different elements with separate standards. 
If both are provided, compliance with both standards is required. 
 COMMENT: In TAS, clarify present department policy concerning minimum number of 
each type of bedrooms required to be accessible. 
 RESPONSE: This has been clarified. 
 COMMENT: ADA (ADDAG) does not consider occupancy a factor when considering 
bedroom type. 
 RESPONSE: The department believes occupancy must be considered to ensure 
equality in accommodations. 
 COMMENT: Isolation rooms should not be classified as a different type of room. 
 RESPONSE: Staff believes isolation rooms, by definition, are different from 
other bedrooms. 
 COMMENT: It is inappropriate to classify pregnancy as a disability, i.e., to 
include maternity homes in the list of Long Term Care Facilities. 
 RESPONSE: Maternity homes is a classification and only one of several health 
care facilities required to be accessible. 
 COMMENT: Simplify the General Rule (sec.4.1.7(1)) into two or three sentences. 
 RESPONSE: It is felt that the wording, which is taken directly from ADAAG, 
should remain as written. 
 COMMENT: Delete references to Texas Antiquities Committee (TAC). TAC has been 
absorbed into the Texas Historical Commission (THC). 
 RESPONSE: The reference to TAC has been deleted. 
 COMMENT: Suggest changing State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to THC, 
which is the designated SHPO for Texas. 
 RESPONSE: Because this designation is subject to change, the reference is 
unchanged. 
 COMMENT: For consistency, the wording "damage or destroy" should be change to 
"threaten or destroy." 
 RESPONSE: This change has been made. 
 COMMENT: Suggest "historic significance" be change to "historic character" to 
relate more directly to architectural features. 
 RESPONSE: This suggestion is held for future consideration to allow adequate 
time to research correct terminology. 
 COMMENT: Recommend rewording sec.4.1.7 to: (i) listed in or eligible for 
listing in the National Register of Historic Places; (ii) Designated as a 
Recorded Texas Historic Landmark or State Archeological Landmark; (iii) 
Designated as historic under local law. 
 RESPONSE: (ii) was reworded as recommended. 
 COMMENT: Reword sec.4.1.7(2)(a). 
 RESPONSE: This suggestion is held for future consideration pending further 
study. 
 The new section is adopted under Texas Civil Statutes, Article 9102 which 
provides the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation with the authority to 
adopt standards that are consistent with federal law. 
 
 
  sec.68.100. Technical Standards.  The Texas Department of Licensing and 
Regulation adopts by reference the Texas Accessibility Standards (TAS), April 1, 
1994 edition. Copies may be obtained from the Office of the Secretary of State, 
Texas Register Division, P.O. Box 13824, Austin, Texas 78711-3824; 1019 Brazos, 
Room 245, Austin, Texas 78701; (512) 463-5561, TTD (800) 735-2989, FAX (512) 
463-5569. Cost is $10 per copy. Check, Visa and MasterCard accepted. 
 
  This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by 
legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. 
 Issued in Austin, Texas, on December 30, 1993. 
 TRD-9334084 
  Jack W. Garison 
 Executive Director 
 Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation 
    Effective date: April 1, 1994 
 Proposal publication date: July 6, 1993 
 For further information, please call: (512) 463-3127