| Initiative | Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) |
| Comment Number | OL-100220 |
| Status | Catalogued |
| Classification | Substantive |
| Submitted Type | CW Web Form |
| Commenter Type | Private Citizen |
| Organization | Systems & More Corp. |
| Received | 03/09/2005 04:55:22 PM |
| Document Date | |
| Remarks | |
| Pages | |
| Category | Standard Web Form |
|
| Commenter |
| First Name | Last Name | State/Province |
| Jeff | Bruening | PA |
|
|
| Comment Period Start | 9/30/2004 |
| Comment Period End | 5/31/2005 |
| Phase | Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) |
| Comment Instructions | NEW ALTERNATIVE PROCESS AVAILABLE: As described in its Announcement of Alternative ADA ANPRM Comment Process, as of May 16, 2005, the Department permits commenters who wish to restrict access to their identity to send their comments to a special new mailing or electronic address. At this address, commenters’ business and personal names and addresses will be removed before their comments enter the comment processing system. Comments must initially include the sender’s name and address and must follow all of the instructions set forth in the announcement.
The Department of Justice (Department) is issuing this ANPRM in order to begin the process of adopting revised ADA standards consistent with Parts I and III of the revised guidelines implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (ABA), published by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) on July 23, 2004, at 69 FR 44083. You may submit electronic comments though this form or through www.regulations.gov. The Department strongly encourages you to read the ANPRM before submitting your comments. Unless you use the new alternative process, you may address all written comments concerning this ANPRM to P.O. Box 1032, Merrifield, VA. 22116-1032; please note that courier and overnight deliveries will not be accepted at this address. Unless you use the new alternative process, comments submitted in written or electronic form are available to the public in their entirety, including personal information.
Using this form: The fields for your full name and address, marked with asterisks, are required fields. You cannot proceed with your comment unless you fill in these fields. You may select one or more of the 54 questions posed by the Department in the ANPRM and type your answer to the question in the space provided. There are two ways to select a question: you may either enter the number of the question that you want in the box provided and click on the "Retrieve Question" button, or you may scroll through the questions listed by topic, click the question you want to select, and then click on the "Retrieve Question" button. In addition, you may choose to type a comment in the "General Comments" box provided below (4,000 characters available). You may also submit a comment as an attachment at the end of this form.
Inspection of Comments: All comments will be available throughout the comment period to the public online at WWW.ADAANPRM.ORG and, by appointment, during normal business hours, at the office of the Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, located at 1425 New York Avenue, Suite 4039, Washington, D.C. 20005. To arrange an appointment to review the comments, please contact the ADA Information Line at (800) 514-0301 (voice) and (800) 514-0383 (TTY). |
| Initiative Type | Federal Rulemaking |
| Agency | U. S. Department of Justice |
|
| Initiative | Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) |
| Subject | Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) |
| Docket ID | CRT Docket No. 2004-DRS01 |
| Short Title | Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services; Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities |
| Rule | Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services; Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities |
| Rule Citation | 28 CFR Parts 35 and 36 |
| Published Info | September 30, 2004
View Announcement of Alternative ADA ANPRM Comment Process (HTML)
View ANPRM (HTML) View ANPRM (PDF)
View Notice to Extend Comment Period (HTML) View Notice to Extend Comment Period (PDF)
(Download Adobe Reader) |
| Description | Description??? |
|
| Attachments | No Attachments |
|
|
|
| File Name | OL-100220.htm |
| File Extension | .txt |
| File Size | 4253 |
| Comments | Answers to Specific Questions
General Comments
Great Concept... ADA but I've seen and heard of too many business being required to meet current ADA requirements from handicap people who never visited the business, never had any intention and/or the requirements were too costly and never provided the business any payback (ie handicap customers). Suppy and Demand should help solve this problem. Online ordering should greatly help people with disabilities... This is great for new construction, or when upgrades are being done. While it is obvious that I am not and greatful to not be handicap, sometimes I think we go to far to accomodate and not discriminate without looking at the bigger picture. Small business either closes down or accomodates the handicap. Jobs lost, business closes, family loses income, small towns 5-10 handicap people have to shop else where. The small business in the US are creating jobs, new opportunies etc.. We do not need new rules creating paper work, expense for the few... Perhaps if left to supply/demand retailers who catter to the handicap would create special stores, lower shelves etc... would increase their business. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposed revision to the Americans with Disabilities Act Standards and encourage the Department of Justice to consider the special challenges that small businesses would face under the proposed new standards. Although the ADA is national in scope, a small-business owner wishing to renovate his or her business must work through numerous city, state and federal building requirements. To truly ensure compliance, I would have to hire an attorney or ADA consultant who is familiar with the intricacies of the local building codes, zoning laws, and state and federal ADA requirements. Small businesses like me cannot afford this expense. Small businesses that are in compliance with the current ADA regulations should be exempted from any rule. Businesses like mine have spent significant amounts of money to meet existing ADA requirements. Significant additional costs would be incurred by my business and other small businesses unless the Department of Justice exempts small businesses that are already meeting current standards. The new ADA requirements contain changes that could affect many small businesses. In particular, the new requirement that there be an “accessible circulation path within employee work areas” will cost businesses a lot of money in construction and alteration costs. These modifications will lessen the space actually available for work areas and may force businesses like mine to cut back on the services we offer. The Department of Justice must exempt employee work areas from any requirement that deals with removing barriers. The Department of Justice must provide clearer guidance on what is required under the ADA barrier removal requirements. For existing businesses, removing barriers for disabled persons is both difficult and expensive due to differing opinions of what constitutes a barrier, the lack of useful guidance on what kind of barrier can be easily removed, and discrepancies between laws. DOJ should adopt regulations that provide certainty and direction to small businesses about how much they must spend on barrier removal in order to comply with the ADA. Currently, the slightest deviation from ADA guidelines can prove disastrous for a small business that is targeted by a plaintiffs’ trial lawyer. Many small businesses have become the targets of ADA lawsuits designed to generate quick settlements and/or the award of attorneys’ fees. A small business could spend tens thousands of dollars defending a lawsuit even though it has complied with the ADA. The high cost associated with lawsuits resulting from confusion over ADA requirements does nothing to improve access for disabled customers. The Department of Justice must prepare a “regulatory flexibility analysis” to assess the significant economic impact to small business as mandated by Congress in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act (SBREFA). DOJ should be certain that there is not a less costly way to achieve the ADA’s goals. |
| Version Date | 5/31/2005 |
| Remarks | |
| File MIME Type | text/html |
|