In part description, remove: "building's main entrance". Add: "main building entrance"

Projects may include bike share docking stations toward the bike storage requirements of this feature. The docks must meet the same proximity requirements listed in the feature. The project must provide a minimum of 1 storage space for privately owned bicycles, with at least 1 additional storage space for every 6 bike share docks.

Add Owner Letter of Assurance as required documentation, remove Architect Letter of Assurance.

In 27 Apr, 2017 AAP, remove: "50 m (164 ft.)". Add: "200 m [650 ft]"

Add: "complimentary access to" after "exercise by providing"

Add Owner Letters of Assurance as required documentation, add on-site spot checks as required verification, remove visual inspections.

Add: "c. Pairs of fixed-height desks of standing and seated heights (which need not be located adjacent to each other)."

Add Owner Letters of Assurance as required documentation, add on-site spot checks as required verification, remove visual inspections.

Fukushino Machizukuri Johrei has been accepted as an alternative for the requirements of Feature 72 Part 1 for Japan.

The German standard Technical Rules for Workplaces: barrier-free design for workplaces ASR V3a.2 has been accepted as an alternative for the requirements of Feature 72 Accessible Design, Part 1a - Accessibility and Usability for Germany. Note that the ASR V3a.2 standard does not contain requirements for restrooms and/or drinking fountains; as a result, projects with these components must comply with the associated ADA Standards for Accessible Design requirements.

The Decree of the Ministry for Regional Development of the Czech Republic No. 398/2009 Coll. on General Technical Requirements for Barrier-Free Usage of Construction has been accepted as an equivalent for ADA Standards for Accessible Design of Feature 72 Part 1.

The UK Building Regulation Part M for Access to and use of buildings has been accepted as an equivalent for ADA Standards for Accessible Design of Feature 72 Part 1.

Irish Building Regulations TGD Part M has been accepted as an alternative for the requirements of Feature 72 Part 1.

The Taiwanese code for accessible design "Design Specifications of Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities" is an acceptable alternatives to the American Disabilities Act.

Previously published as an AAP:
Projects may utilize the Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), as amended January 1, 2015, as an equivalent local standard to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Previously published as AAP:
The UK Part M Volume 2 Standard (Buildings other than dwellings) may be used lieu of the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design as long as the following additional requirements are met: 1. Signage adheres to the requirements of BS 8300: Design of buildings and their approaches to meet the needs of disabled people, as referenced within the Part M Volume 2 Standard. 2. Drinking fountains adhere to the requirements of ADA Standards for Accessible Design, Sections 211 and 602 for Drinking Fountains.

Remove: "Appendix B: Standards"

The French Law regarding PMRs or 'personnes à mobilité réduite' (French Decree No 2006-555 of 17 May 2006, or the latest adoption in effect at the project's registration date) is an acceptable equivalent to the American Disabilities Act (ADA) design regulations. Note, similarly to the application of the ADA to buildings in the US, the code must apply to all buildings. Furthermore, all WELL buildings should be considered "accessible" building for the purposes of the law.

Replace the existing Part 1 text with the following:
"Part 1: Accessibility and Usability

The projects demonstrates compliance with one of the following:
a. Current ADA Standards for Accessible Design
b. ISO 21542:2011 - Building Construction - Accessibility and Usability of the Built Environment, Appendix B: Standards"

The Dutch Integral Accessibility Standard is an accepted equivalent for the American Disabilities Act (ADA) design regulations. Note, similarly to the application of the ADA to buildings in the US, the Dutch Integral Accessibility Standard must apply to all buildings. Furthermore, all WELL buildings should be considered "accessible" building for the purposes of the code.

The Building Requirements for Persons with Disabilities from British Columbia Building Code has been deemed equivalent to the ADA for Feature 72. Note, similarly to the application of the ADA to buildings in the US, the BC Building Code must apply to all buildings. Furthermore, all WELL buildings should be considered "accessible" building for the purposes of the code.

The Australian Disability Discrimination Act is an acceptable equivalent to the American Disabilities Act (ADA) design regulations. Note, similarly to the application of the ADA to buildings in the US, the Australian Disability Discrimination Act must apply to all buildings. Furthermore, all WELL buildings should be considered "accessible" building for the purposes of the code.

The UK Part M Volume 2 Standard (Buildings other than dwellings) may be used lieu of the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design as long as the following additional requirements are met:

1. Signage adheres to the requirements of BS 8300: Design of buildings and their approaches to meet the needs of disables people, as referenced within the Part M Volume 2 Standard.
2. Drinking fountains adhere to the requirements of ADA Standards for Accessible Design, Sections 211 and 602 for Drinking Fountains.

In Part 1a, change "Buildings" to "Projects"

In 06 May, 2016 AAP, remove: "For Part 3 (Seat Flexibility)". Add: "For Feature 73, Part 3"

For Part 1a, add: ", including laptops," after "screens"

IS 3663: 1991 - 'Dimensions of Tables and Chairs for Office Purposes (Second Revision)' has been accepted as an alternative for the requirements of Feature 73 Part 3

Remove: "employee". Add: "occupant"

In Part 4a, remove: "employees" after "reaching requirements for". Add: "occupants" after "reaching requirements for"

The European Standard EN-1335 and Dutch Standard NEN 1812, Type A and Type B only, have been approved as acceptable alternatives to HFES 100. Please note EN-1335 Type C has not been approved as an acceptable alternative.

For Feature 73, Part 2, the project may provide a lower threshold of the required initial percentage of sit/stand workstations required by the feature, in conjunction with a future purchase commitment and an educational campaign. The campaign must encourage walking during the working day and highlight the benefits of sit-stand desks. The project must also provide instructions to occupants on how to request a sit-stand desk. The project must provide sit-stand desks in multiple options/styles (for trial use by occupants) and commit to accommodate all occupant requests for a sit-stand desk, even in exceedance of the feature requirement.

For Feature 73, Part 3, alternative seat height adjustability and seat depth adjustability ranges may be accepted if the average height of the expected occupants differs significantly from the average height of the US population.

In Part 3b, delete "or BIFMA G1 guidelines."

Building Bulletin 93 (BB93) 2015 has been approved as an acceptable method for spaces within education buildings to comply with Feature 74, Part 4 for projects in the United Kingdom. Note that Table 1 of BB93 also includes noise level limits for administration and ancillary spaces and states that “Where a type of room is not listed, the nearest approximation should be used."

Remove: "6,000 m²". Add: "1,900 m²"

In the Feature description, remove the second paragraph. Replace with the following text:
'Intent: To reduce acoustic disruptions by limiting external noise intrusion.'

Building Bulletin 93 (BB93) 2015 has not been accepted as an equivalent for the requirements of Feature 75, Part 6. Specifically, the requirements are performance-based but do not specifically require compliance with a standard to which BB93 may be compared.

NEN-EN 15251: 2007 has been accepted as an alternative for the requirements of Feature 75 Part 2.

Remove: "Visual Inspection". Add: "Performance Test"

Remove: "d. Teleconference rooms: maximum noise criteria (NC) of 20."

Remove: "major" after "occupants themselves can be"

Whereas Noise Criteria levels within a space is driven by sound produced by the HVAC and other mechanical systems which may be outside of a tenant’s control, New and Existing Interiors projects may achieve Feature 75 when achieving NC levels higher than listed, with the following conditions:
- Achieve NC levels of 5 higher, but the project is limited to Gold level of certification, no matter how many Optimization features are achieved.
- Achieve NC levels 10 higher, but the project is limited to Silver level of certification, no matter how many Optimization features are achieved.

Noise Rating curve values may be used in lieu of Noise Criterion curve values for the mechanical equipment sound levels required in Part 2 of this feature using the same maximum criteria values listed for each space type. The project team must indicate in their documentation application if Noise Rating is to be used in lieu of Noise Criterion.

Singapore Standard SS 554:2016 has not been accepted as an equivalent for ASHRAE 55-2013 of Feature 76. SS 554 does not appear to directly address metabolic rate or clothing insulation assumptions. Further, the submitted comfort analyses do not confirm that the design criteria listed in Table 1 meet ASHRAE 55-2013 requirements because the metabolic rate assumptions are inconsistent. Lastly, SS 554 does not appear to include design requirements because the limits listed in Table 1 are classified as recommended and are only referenced relative to audits of existing environments.
Please note that SS 554 Table 1 recommends using ISO 7730 as the analytical method for all thermal comfort parameters and ISO 7730 is already an approved equivalent. Please also note that it is acceptable for the project team to bring on another individual with experience using ASHRAE standards to verify design compliance and sign the LOA (e.g. as a peer review), if they wish and/or the engineer of record is unable to do so.

In 09 Feb, 2017 AAP, add: "for cooling" after "…or air conditioning units"

Previously published as AAP:
ISO 7730:2005 and/or CEN Standard EN 15251:2007 may be used in lieu of ASHRAE 55-2003 Sections 5.3 and 5.4. The requirements of these standards must be met in all spaces, rather than 75% of regularly occupied spaces in the project. When selecting either ISO 7730:2005 or CEN Standard EN 15251:2007, the most appropriate standard must be selected for the space. Note that some naturally ventilated spaces may not qualify to use CEN Standard EN 15251:2007 if certain criteria are not met.

In addition, when utilizing CEN Standard EN 15251:2007, the project must comply with either Category I or Category II as described in Table A.1 of the standard in order to be within +/- 0.5 of the PMV for the space.

Multifamily residential projects may certify when not supplying central-system air conditioning or air conditioning units for cooling in individual dwelling units, with the following conditions:
- Outdoor air is supplied at a volume to meet Feature 3 Part 4 and is filtered to meet Feature 5 Part 2.
- The developer allocates spaces for tenant-owned, supplemental air conditioning units to be installed.
- The developer supplies all occupants with tenant guidelines for selecting a high-performance air conditioner unit to maximize comfort and optimize efficiency. The guidelines should detail the importance of local thermal comfort standards including environmental factors of air temperature, humidity, radiant temperature, air speed; and personal factors of metabolic rate and clothing insulation.
- Projects using this option are limited to Gold level certification, no matter how many optimizations are achieved.

The Green Star Credit 14 is an accepted equivalent to the requirements of Feature 76: Thermal Comfort. Compliance with the Green Star credit is sufficient to comply with the requirements of Feature 76.

Inquiry: In residential units, are the requirements of Feature 76 met if individual unit controls for heating are provided?

Ruling: No, an exemption from ASHRAE 55 requirements may not be granted in residential units if individual unit controls are provided. It is typical for each unit in a multifamily residential development to have individual control over space temperatures with controls allowing occupants to adjust temperatures. In order to rely on the controllability of the systems as an alternative strategy, it must be demonstrated that the local controls allow occupants to set conditions within the unit to meet ASHRAE 55.

Core and Shell projects pursuing WELL compliance may submit Feature 77 as an Innovation feature under Features 101-105, provided all parts of the Feature are met for the whole building scope (i.e. The building core and shell and all parts of the interior finish-out that are completed by the project owner).

Remove: "6,000 m³". Add "570 m³"