DJ 202-PL-0015 JUN 26 1992

M. D. Lindeman
U.S. West Business Resources, Inc.
188 Inverness Drive West
Edgewood, Colorado 80112

Dear M. D. Lindeman:

I am responding to your request for clarification of the

requirements of title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (ADA), Pub. L. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (July 26, 1990), 42
U.S.C.A. SS 12101 et seq., and this Department's regulation
implementing title III, 56 Fed. Reg. 35544 (July 26, 1991), to be
codified at 28 C.F.R. pt. 36. Specifically, you have asked how
to determine the appropriate basis on which to determine the
amount of money that must be spent on alterations to provide an
accessible path of travel when the "overall" cost of an
alteration to a telephone switching facility includes expenses
associated with renovations to electrical or mechanical systems.

The ADA authorizes the Department to provide technical

assistance to individuals and entities having rights or
responsibilities under the Act. This letter provides informal
guidance to assist you in understanding the ADA. However, this
technical assistance does not constitute a determination by the
Department of Justice of your rights or responsibilities under
the ADA and it is not binding on the Department of Justice.

Under the ADA, alterations to commercial facilities such as

telecommunications centers must, to the maximum extent feasible,
be made accessible to individuals with disabilities. An
alteration is any change that affects or could affect the
usability of the facility. Normal maintenance, reroofing,
painting or wallpapering, asbestos removal, or changes to
mechanical and electrical systems are not alterations unless
they affect the usability of the building or facility.

cc: Records Chrono Magagna Blizard:ada.interpretation.uswest

arthur T. 6/25/92

01-00971

-2-
 In addition, alterations that affect the usability of or
access to an area of a facility that contains a primary function
must include alterations to ensure that, to the maximum extent
feasible, the path of travel to the altered area is accessible,
unless the cost and scope of such alterations is disproportionate
to the cost of the overall alteration. Alterations made to
provide an accessible path of travel to the altered area will be
deemed disproportionate to the overall alteration when the cost
exceeds 20% of the cost of the alteration to the primary function
area.

You have asked if in determining the amount of money to be

spent on alterations to the path of travel, you should consider
the cost of the total alteration, including the amount spent on
modernizing electrical and mechanical equipment, or only the
cost of physical alterations to the area housing the equipment.
Because changes in electrical systems are not included in the
regulation's definition of "alterations," you need not include
the cost of changes to the electrical and mechanical equipment in
calculating the total cost of an alteration in the circumstances
you describe where useability is not affected.

This Department recently issued a technical assistance

manual to assist individuals and entities subject to the ADA to
understand the requirements of title III. I have enclosed a copy
for your information. I hope that this information is helpful to
you.

Sincerely,

Joan A. Magagna
Deputy Director
Office on the Americans with Disabilities Act
Civil Rights Division

Enclosure

01-00972
​U S WEST Business Resources, Inc.
188 Inverness Drive West
Englewood, Colorado 80112
USWEST
January 13, 1992

Ms. Janet Blizzard, General Counsel

The Office of the Americans with Disabilities Act
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P. O. Box 66118
Washington DC 20035-6118

Dear Ms. Blizzard,

As an introduction, I work for U S WEST, Inc. and manage the

building design and construction program for U S WEST
Communications, our telecommunications subsidiary, throughout
its fourteen state territory. Your name was given to me by Jay
Murdoch of BOMA International. He agreed with the following
interpretation, but suggested I ask you to confirm that our
interpretation of ADA and its application in telephone switching
environments is correct.

We have an aggressive network modernization plan which involves

replacing old central office switching machines with digital
switches, upgrading facilities from copper to fiber optic
technology and other network related improvements. A major
effort is to upgrade our rural offices with new technology. A
typical central office in the rural program has less than 2000
access lines and a typical renovation might cost $100,000. Of
this amount, $90,000 would be spent to upgrade HVAC, electrical
systems, central office grounding systems, asbestos abatement,
and standby power plants, and $10,000 might be spent building a
drywall compartment for the new switch. The equipment is
compartmentalized for two reasons. One is to provide a very
clean, highly filtered environment for the digital equipment,
and the second is to provide additional fire protection since
these buildings do not have sprinkler systems.

My question is whether the 20% path of travel requirement would

be applied to the total project cost of $100,000 or just to the
non-electrical mechanical part of the job; the $10,000 amount.

01-00973

Page 2
January 13, 1992
As I read the regulations, I interpret the 20% requirement to
apply to the $10,000 amount by using the following logic: In
section 36.402 (b) (1) it states "Normal maintenance,
reroofing, painting or wallpapering, asbestos removal, or
changes to mechanical and electrical systems are not alterations
unless they affect the usability of the building or facility."
(My underlining.) The facility was and continues to be a
telecommunications switching facility and its use was not
changed.

Section 36.403 (f) (1) reads, "Alterations made to provide an

accessible path of travel to the altered area will be deemed
disproportionate to the overall alteration when the cost exceeds
20% of the cost of the alteration to the primary function area."
It would seem that the 20% clearly would apply only to that part
of the job which fits the definition in 36.402 of an alteration.

Clearly, the drywall compartment and any other architectural

changes would need to be built in accordance with the new
construction requirements of the law.

These buildings are frequently not work reporting locations for

any employees. It would seem clear that the intent of the Act
is to improve accessibility for people with disabilities to
public accommodations and improve accessibility for employees.
It is our intention, if this interpretation is correct, to focus
our efforts toward improving accessibility in locations which
meet the definition of a public accommodation and the commercial
facilities in which our 58,000 employees work and to prioritize
our investments to impact the work environment positively for
the highest number of employees with disabilities.

Thank you for your help in clarifying this matter.

Sincerely,

cc. Barb Japha

Ted Williams
Jerry Weldon
Sherry Jackson

01-00974