OCT 18 1993






The Honorable Howard L. Berman
Member, U.S. House of Representatives
14600 Roscoe Boulevard, Suite 506
Panorama City, California 91402

Dear Congressman Berman:

     This letter is in response to your inquiry on behalf of your
constituent, Mr. David Bidna, Director of the Summer Academic
Enrichment Program ("SAEP"), who wants to know the extent to
which the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") requires a
private school to provide sign language interpreters to deaf
students.

     The ADA authorizes the Department to provide technical
assistance to entities that are subject to the Act. This letter
provides informal guidance to assist you in understanding how the
ADA may apply to the question raised by your constituent. This
technical assistance, however, does not constitute a
determination by the Department of Justice of your constituent's
rights or responsibilities under the ADA and does not constitute
a binding determination by the Department of Justice.

     Private schools are places of public accommodation subject
to the provisions of the ADA. As such, they are required to
provide auxiliary aids and services that will ensure that
individuals with disabilities are not excluded, denied services,
segregated or otherwise treated differently from other
individuals. A private school will only be excused from
providing these auxiliary aids and services if doing so would
either fundamentally alter the nature of the services it
provides, or would result in an undue burden in terms of
difficulty or cost.


cc: Records; Chrono; Wodatch; McDowney; Magagna; Kuczynski;
    FOIA, MAF.  X     udd\kuccynsk\magagna\congress\berman.let









01-02656

                                 - 2 -
     The Justice Department's implementing regulations detail
this requirement of non-discrimination, 28 C.F.R. 36.303(a), and
define auxiliary aids and services as including qualified sign
language interpreters.  28 C.F.R.   36.303(b)(1). Therefore,
SAEP would be required to provide a deaf student with an
interpreter, if necessary for effective communication, and if
doing so would not be too difficult or too costly.

     The regulations set out some guidelines for determining
whether the provision of an auxiliary aid or service would result
in an undue burden. They include: the nature and cost of the
aid or service needed; the overall financial resources of the
public accommodation; the effect on expenses and resources of
providing a certain auxiliary aid or service; the size, financial
resources, and type of operation of any parent corporation that
might exist; and the fiscal and administrative relationship of
the accommodation in question to a parent corporation. 28 C.F.R.
 36.104.

      It is important to bear in mind, however, that determining
what is necessary for effective communication and what
constitutes an undue burden requires a highly fact-specific
inquiry. The ADA might require that a place of public
accommodation, like SAEP, provide sign language interpreters for
two students, but might not require a different interpreter for
each of fifty students. However, the fact that this particular
accommodation might constitute an undue burden would not alone
justify denying admission to deaf applicants. The program would
need to investigate less expensive means of providing effective
communication. For example, although the program might not be
able to provide each student with an interpreter, perhaps several
deaf students in a classroom could benefit from the use of a
single interpreter. Forms of effective communication other than
interpreters might also be available, such as transcripts or
notes of class materials.

     Some alternatives might involve the modification of program
policies, practices, and procedures. The ADA requires places of
public accommodation to make such modifications where necessary
to afford persons with disabilities the opportunity to
participate in their goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, and accommodations.

     You should, therefore, advise your constituent that the
inability to provide interpreters for each deaf student in his
program does not relieve the program of the obligation to find
less burdensome means of providing effective communication. Nor
are auxiliary aids and services and the modifications mentioned
in this letter necessarily the only alternatives available or the
most appropriate ones for every circumstance. The information
concerning auxiliary aids found in the enclosed copies of the
Justice Department's title III implementing regulation and the
01-02657

                                  - 3 -

     Title III Technical Assistance Manual may help your constituent
formulate a plan for effective communication with students with
hearing impairments that will satisfy SAEP's obligations under
the ADA.

     I hope this information will be helpful to you in responding
to your constituent.

                                Sincerely,





                              James P. Turner
                         Acting Assistant Attorney General
                            Civil Rights Division

Enclosures













01-02658