May 12, 2000

Office of Technical and Information Services
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
1331 F Street, NW
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004-1111

Attention: ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and
Facilities; Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) Accessibility
Guidelines

Dear Sir or Madam:

The Office of Advocacy of the US Small Business
Administration (SBA) is charged under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) with assuring that agencies take
account of the impact that proposed regulations would have
on small entities.  We are pleased that in the preamble to
the above notice of proposed rulemaking (published in the
Federal Register November 16, 1999, at pps. 62248 - 62538),
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board (ATBCB) has noted its responsibility under the RFA.
However, we believe the ATBCB erred when it stated that the
proposed rule "will have an economic impact, but not a
significant economic impact, on small entities and therefore
a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared." 64
Fed. Reg. at 62284.

Given the extensive list of regulatory changes, ranging from
drinking fountains to alarm systems to listening devices,
which will apply to small businesses such as restaurants and
small hotel franchisees, the Board's assertion that no
significant economic impact will result is surprising.

The ATBCB asserts that small businesses are already covered
by the model building codes and industry standards as set
out by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
A117.1 Committee.  This is a national consensus standard
that provides technical requirements for accessible
buildings and facilities.  The ATBCB asserts that because
small businesses are covered by the ANSI in conjunction with
local building codes, they will not incur any additional
cost.  This may not be the case for the following reasons:
1) the ANSI standard is voluntary, and may be adopted,
rejected or modified by state or local jurisdictions and 2)
the 1998 version of the ANSI 117.1 Committee guidelines have
never been fully implemented and have actually been expanded
in conjunction with recent revisions in the Americans with
Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) so that
the two standards would be harmonized.  These points are
important because, for the Board to claim that the revisions
to the ADAAG set forth in this proposed rule would impose no
costs because the 1998 ANSI 117.1 Committee guidelines
already apply, ignores the fact that the ANSI guidelines are
voluntary and have actually been reworked together with the
ADAAG revisions.

Thus, the Board should not ignore the very real confusion
that will result from the fact that:

  1.   The ANSI guidelines are voluntary;
2.   The Board does not know how many businesses have
adopted the ANSI voluntary standards and;
  3.   The ANSI guidelines and the ADAAG guidelines have been
     harmonized to mirror each other.

The Board cannot assume that small businesses have adopted
the ANSI voluntary guidelines.  It needs to document with
facts its certification.  The ATBCB should use this notice
to collect information by asking specific questions directed
at measuring the impact of this proposed rule.  These
questions will elicit valuable information the Board needs
before finalizing the rule.

An impact analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act is
all the more critical because the Board's approach to
accessibility issues is prescriptive, imposing a number of
design requirements on public accommodations, instead of
employing the alternative approach of mandating
accessibility and permitting these businesses to develop
cost-efficient means of achieving the same end.

I hope these comments will assist you in any further review
of this proposed rule.  I look forward to helping you craft
a rule that will assure accessibility for all while not
imposing an unnecessary burden on small businesses.

Sincerely,


Jere Glover
Chief Counsel for Advocacy

Brendan McKeon
Assistant Advocate