
                       September 3, 1993 

Mr. James G. Raggio, General Counsel 
Office of the General Counsel
Architectural and Transportation 
 Barriers Compliance Board
1331 F Street, N. W. 
Suite 1000
Washington D. C. 20004-1111

Dear Mr. Raggio: 

     This is the official comment of the National Federation of
the Blind, responding to the notice published at 58 FR 37052 on
July 9, 1993, concerning the proposed suspension of the
guidelines for detectable warnings.  As explained in the detailed
comments below, we support the proposed suspension but request
more decisive action.  We also feel that the action being taken
by the Board, the Department of Justice, and the Department of
Transportation does not go nearly far enough.  In light of the
information which now exists and the information which is likely
to be assembled through further study, we favor the eventual
elimination of detectable warnings from the guidelines.
 
STATEMENT OF ORGANIZATIONAL INTEREST AND EXPERTISE

     The National Federation of the Blind is a membership
organization "of" blind people.  As such, virtually all of our
members will be affected directly by the decisions made on this
matter.  The Federation has a total national membership exceeding
50,000, and the vast majority of the members are blind.  State
affiliates of the NFB exist in each of the fifty states, the
District of Columbia, and in Puerto Rico.  Local chapters of the
Federation can be found in most sizable population areas. 
Because of its widespread and large membership the Federation is
often referred to as "the voice of the nation's blind."  

     It is an organizational requirement in the NFB that a
majority of the active members must be blind.  This is true at
all levels.  Only blind persons may hold elective office at the
national level.  Therefore, the NFB is not an organization
speaking for the blind; it is the blind speaking for themselves. 
In the present instance, the views expressed in this comment
reflect the Federation's officially adopted position concerning
detectable warnings. NFB policies on matters such as this are
determined by national convention vote, and the convention is the
organization's supreme authority.  

     The presence or absence of detectable warnings in all of the
areas specified in the guidelines has a direct impact on blind
people.  Therefore, of those affected by the proposed rule, those
whom we represent are the most directly affected.  Also, our
experiences in traveling about both with and without detectable 
warnings provide the most relevant testimony concerning the need
or lack thereof for the warnings.  As both the notice and logic
indicate, detectable warnings have been intended for blind and
visually impaired people.  Therefore, in making its decision on
the proposed rule, the Board should rely most heavily on the
expressed views of persons who are blind or visually impaired.  

STATEMENT OF POSITION 

     The NFB supports suspension of the detectable warnings
guidelines.  However, we oppose a time-limited suspension. In
point of fact, a suspension with an announced reinstatement date
is not really a suspension.  Building and facility operators must
assume that the detectable warnings guidelines are actually still
in effect although not currently being enforced.  Therefore,
there is not really a suspension at all.  The Federation supports
eventual elimination of the guidelines.  With respect to
transportation facilities, the Federation opposes continued
application of the guidelines to newly constructed or altered
platforms.  We also oppose reinstatement of the guidelines on
existing platform edges at key rail stations on January 26, 1995
or at any later date.  

     Detectable warnings should not be included in ADAAG or any
other standards or guidelines for the following reasons: (1) in
assessing the need for a detectable warnings guideline it is
sound public policy to apply an "individual responsibility test"
to determine whether it is reasonable to expect blind persons to
travel without detectable warnings; (2) a safety need for the
warnings is not supported by factual evidence; (3) the warnings
communicate no information about the environment that is not
already available to blind persons and routinely used by them;
and (4)  detectable warnings actually create a threat to safe
mobility for blind persons and others 

     (1) In assessing the need for a detectable warnings
guideline it is sound public policy to apply an "individual
responsibility" standard.  Traveling about in a safe and
efficient manner is and must remain a matter of individual
responsibility.  Access guidelines must acknowledge this fact. 
The guidelines should also acknowledge the methods--use of cane
or dog--which are effective and safe for blind people.  The
guidelines should not disregard these methods and in any way
encourage blind people to reject them.  Use of effective travel
methods is an individual responsibility.  If a blind person
elects not to use effective methods, the guidelines should not
condone such behavior. Furthermore, it is not a responsibility
for the government under the ADA to insure access for individuals
who do not use the methods available to live independently.  

     As a matter of public policy it is the responsibility of
society as a whole to provide a safe environment, but a rule of
reason must also apply.  Not all people--sighted as well as 
blind--will travel entirely safely at all times.  The physical
environment cannot possibly be built in such a way that no one is
ever injured.  Quite apart from that the aim of access guidelines
issued under the ADA is to insure access.  Safety is a broader
social responsibility, and safe movement within facilities that
are safe is an individual responsibility.  The goals of the ADA
have been met as long as individuals with disabilities have equal
access.   The absence of detectable warnings provably does not
limit the mobility of blind persons who are employing responsible
methods of independent travel.  

     (2) A safety need for the warnings is not supported by
factual evidence.  Buildings and facilities that are covered by
the ADA are now as safe for use by blind people as they are for
use by sighted people.  This is the critical consideration.  As
stated above personal safety is largely a matter of individual
responsibility.  Access guidelines and their enforcement cannot
assure safety for each person in all places at all times.  The
guidelines can assure that facilities are designed to be safe for
society as a whole, including for blind individuals.  It is
demonstrably the case that without detectable warnings buildings
and facilities covered by the ADA are on the whole no less safe
for blind people than they are for sighted people.  

     Safety is certainly an appropriate concern, but in the
making of public policy concerns about unwarranted actions and
expenditures are also appropriate.  Therefore, the safety concern
cannot be based on fear; it must be based on fact.  Fear of being
unsafe because of blindness is an understandable feeling for
sighted people, but it leads to conclusions based on emotional
responses, not factual information.  Emotionally it is hard to
accept the fact that sight is not an essential sense to protect
against most hazards in the physical environment.  Blind people
now move about safely.  Daily this provides empirical evidence
that fears of falling or being injured are groundless since
hazards can be identified in advance. 

     (3) The warnings communicate no information about the
environment that is not already available to blind persons and
routinely used by them.  Detectable warnings do not add to the
information now available about the location of building hazards
or environmental characteristics.  The hazards or characteristics
can be located, with or without the warning, by means of the cane
or guide dog.  In addition, the warning does not indicate the
nature of the hazard ahead.  Therefore, further exploration by
the blind individual is always needed.  The warning on its own is
confusing.  It does not provide any form of assurance that vital
information is communicated to the blind person.  

     The legal premise for including detectable warnings in ADAAG
is that such warnings allegedly assure blind persons of
accessible communications about environmental characteristics. 
However, characteristics of the physical environment already
provide essential information and the warnings, themselves, add
nothing. Consequently, the legal premise for requiring detectable
warnings must fall. The warnings do not insure an environment
that is discrimination-free for blind people and are therefore
not justified under the ADA. 
 
     (4) Detectable warnings actually create a threat to safe
mobility for blind persons and others.  If detectable warnings
are ever accepted as an appropriate travel aide for the blind,
there is no rational argument for limiting their application. 
Yet, if their use is not limited, the initial cost and continuing
maintenance costs would be prohibitively expensive.  If as a
matter of policy one accepts the need for detectable warnings,
why should any obstacle in the path of travel not be bounded by
such a warning?  If only some hazards are marked by warnings,
inconsistency is likely to be a serious (even dangerous) concern.

How can the average blind traveler have any confidence that a
warning will be provided against apparent dangers, if only some
warnings are required at only some locations?  

      If detectable warnings are as effective as their proponents
believe them to be, it is reasonable to expect that blind people
will come to rely upon them.  That would be a dangerous outcome. 
The guidelines do not require warnings to protect against every
hazard, but the average blind individual cannot be expected to be
an expert in the guidelines.  For example, if warnings are only
on the platforms of key rail stations, what will happen to the
blind person who uses or travels to a station that is not key. 
How is the individual to know whether to expect or not to expect
the warnings?  The assumption that a warning must be present
could be deadly in either a subway station or on a street.  

     For people who are not blind detectable warnings themselves
pose new obstacles and dangers.  For example, persons with
mobility impairments, including people who use wheelchairs,
walking canes, crutches, walkers, or other mobility aids, find
these warnings to obstruct their smooth, level path of travel. 
Injuries can be caused when the integrity of the surface is
disrupted.  So, rather than creating greater access for
individuals with disabilities, detectable warnings are additional
barriers.  In that sense they defeat the purpose of the ADA. 


SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS RELEVANT TO TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES

     The current suspension of the detectable warnings
requirements on platforms of key rail stations until January 26,
1995 is patently absurd.  If one accepts the need for the
warnings on platform edges, then the need exists now.  If one
does not accept the need, then the need will not exist to any
greater degree in 1995 than it does at present.  Since the Board
has decided to submit the matter of detectable warnings to 
further study, it would make far more sense for the Department of
Transportation to join in that study.  Meanwhile, the guidelines
applicable to platforms at key rail stations should be postponed
indefinitely.  

     Training methods are definitely available for blind people
to use raised transit platforms safely and confidently.  Unlike a
slight slope at a ramped street crossing, the platform edge is a
sharp drop-off.  It is a natural, detectable warning which can be
found by cane or dog.  Blind travelers locate the platform edge
(using either cane or guide dog) and orient themselves to it. 
The traveler knows with confidence that the train will arrive at
a platform edge and therefore wishes to be safe by deliberately
locating the edge immediately upon arrival on the platform.  

     For the blind person a detectable warning along the edge
presents nonspecific information about a change in the floor
surface.  It also interferes with effective use of the cane at a
critical point, causing the cane to jump and lose contact with
the floor surface. It does not establish that the edge has been
reached, and in fact can cause a blind person to miss the edge
with the touch of a cane.  With or without the warning the blind
person must find the edge of the platform and do so at a safe
distance with cane or guide dog.  The only way that the traveler
knows for certain that the edge has been found is positively to
identify the edge, not the warning.  The procedure just described
is safe and efficient.  

     Concern has been raised about two tragic deaths in major
urban transit stations (Boston and New York) which occurred in
June and July 1993.  The women killed in each instance were blind
and using guide dogs.  They both proceeded to step off of the
raised platform after their dogs had already stopped.  Proponents
of detectable warnings have used these deaths as evidence for the
need.  They say that detectable warnings on the platforms of each
station in question could have prevented the tragedies.  

     As to whether the deaths could have been prevented by the
warnings, that is a question of fact.  Although the deaths cause
feelings of sadness for all of us, the facts which led to the
deaths must be examined in making public policy.  Since she lived
for several days after her fall, Peggy McCarthy, who was killed
in Boston, reportedly told her friends that she realized her
mistake in proceeding after her dog had stopped.  Thus the dog
provided Ms. McCarthy with an appropriate warning, which she
apparently misinterpreted, at least to some extent. 
Unfortunately, tragedies of human error such as this cannot be
prevented.  Ms. McCarthy could misinterpret a detectable warning
just as she misinterpreted her dog's warning.  

     Pamela Schneider, who was killed in New York, had found the
edge of the platform, her dog had stopped to inform her of the
edge, and witnesses reported that she continued to walk, weaving 
along the edge with the dog.  Finally she lost her balance and
fell as a train was arriving in the station.  The temperature in
that station at the time was said to be 110 degrees, and Ms.
Schneider was diabetic.  The observers' reports suggest that
physical instability was the likely cause of the fall from the
platform.  The platform itself had a detectable warning.  

     In one sense, decisions to require or not to require
detectable warnings come down to matters of genuine human
concern.  Therefore, there is an almost inescapable draw toward
accepting the emotional response to tragedies such as these.  The
successful experiences of blind people using transit systems
everyday can help to balance the perspective and cannot be
ignored.  In point of fact, finding raised platform edges is
something that any blind traveler who uses a train must do as a
routine matter of daily life.  

     The best way to travel with safety and confidence is to
employ deliberate measures to find the platform edge and not to
shy away from doing so.  Unlike some other characteristics of the
built environment the edges of raised train platforms cannot be
hidden or obscured by other surroundings.  They can be found with
certainty by cane or dog.  Transit operators and government
regulators alike can be assured that these techniques work
safely.  This statement represents the informed view of blind
people who for reasons of self-interest have absolutely no desire
to be unsafe.  

CONCLUSION

     For the reasons set forth in this comment, the National
Federation of the Blind requests the indefinite suspension of all
detectable warnings guidelines.  The partial and time-limited
suspensions contemplated will simply add to the confusion and
send a signal of government uncertainty.  If the agencies
responsible are in fact now in doubt about the efficacy of
continuing to enforce guidelines for detectable warnings, they
should say so in a straightforward manner.  This policy would be
far more responsible than taking the partial and indefinite
action proposed.  This is not to say that the matter should not
receive further study if the agencies decide to do so.  

                         Respectfully submitted,


                         James Gashel
                         Director of Governmental Affairs 
                         NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND 

JG/lar 