| Initiative | Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) |
| Comment Number | OL-100533 |
| Status | Catalogued |
| Classification | Form Letter |
| Submitted Type | CW Web Form |
| Commenter Type | Private Citizen |
| Organization | |
| Received | 05/31/2005 12:54:26 AM |
| Document Date | |
| Remarks | |
| Pages | |
| Category | Standard Web Form |
|
| Commenter |
| First Name | Last Name | State/Province |
| Bob | Alba | CA |
|
|
| 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-100533.htm |
| File Extension | .txt |
| File Size | 5865 |
| Comments | Answers to Specific Questions
General Comments
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Rights Division 28 CFR Parts 35 and 36 CRT Docket No. 2004-DRS01; AG Order No. 2736-2004 RIN 1190-AA46 and 1190-AA44 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services; Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodatons and in Commercial Facilities I. GENERAL COMMENT: We respectfully ask that the Department of Justice to send the proposed new ADAAB/ABA back to the U.S. Access Board with a request that the proposed changes which decrease access by persons with disabilities to the built environment be deleted. The decrease in access to and through building and facilities proposed by the U.S. Access Board will greatly damage disabled Americans. The justification used by the U.S. Access Board to decrease access for all Americans is based erroneously upon cost issues. The intent of the ADA is to make facilities accessible to and useable by PWD, not to justify a wholesale lack of access because there is no measure of the cost or the quantifiable use. With a population that has never experienced access to the built environment, justification for access cannot be based upon use. The Justice Department should reject regulations that do not carry out the clear intent of the law, which is to require businesses to justify not providing access, not requiring PWD to show that access is necessary based on some undefined and unmeasured cost analysis. The Department of Justice must soundly reject such a shift from providing access to ensuring access doesn't cost "too much." There was no cost analysis when the Department of Justice told restaurant owners they could not keep out blacks even if it would lose them business. Did the Department of Justice ask women to justifying a cost analysis before Title 9 money could be given to women's athletic programs in colleges? No. The Department of Justice requires colleges to provide access to athletic sports, even though men's programs were reduced. The results of Title 9 funds was a three fold rise of women in college sports. Cost can no no longer be the excuse to maintaining discrimination in public buildings. Focusing on the cost benefits of access (when there is no way to make that calculations) runs directly contrary to Congressional intent to provide enforceable regulations that eliminate discrimination. II. RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS General Comment: Questions related to Numbers. We are concerned about the request for data sources which call for numbers of users of accessibility features. Such a request seems to indicate that a particular access feature will be provided only if justified by an arbitrary determination of what constitutes a sufficient number of users. Because disability can, will and does occur at any time during the human life span, it seems inappropriate to base the provision of accessibility upon the number of persons with disabilities. Furthermore, the incident of disability is on the rise, due to (1) the increasing numbers of persons over 65, (2) the increasing number of U.S. military actions, (3) natural disasters, (4) terrorists’ actions and (5) the advancements in medical knowledge and technology that allow people to live productively and actively after the occurrence of a disabling condition. Any determination of user numbers today will undoubtedly be inadequate for decision making in a relatively short amount of time. In addition, much of the data being requested is not available. People with disabilities have always been undercounted in any population census. This is due to the inadequate structure of the census materials, as well as a reluctance of the population to self identify as disabled. Furthermore, using numbers upon which to decide what accessibility features should be provided can lead to discrimination against the more disabled of the disability population. An example is the ADAAG requirement for roll-in showers only in hotels with 50 or more total guest rooms. This requirements restricts people with disabilities who cannot use bathtubs too severely. They are able to stay in hotels in urban centers that support large hotels only. This precludes them opportunities to stay in small towns and more country-like settings. Questions Related to Costs. Questions related to costs, either to the building owner or related to cost benefits, are inappropriate for this type of regulations which implement civil rights legislation. Public Law 101-336, The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. (b) Purpose state, "It is the purpose of this Act-- (1) to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities; (2) to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities; (3) to ensure that the Federal Government plays a central role in enforcing the standards established in this Act on behalf of individuals with disabilities; and (4) to invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce the fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities. The ADA law requires that the Department of Justice provide "clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities." It does not state that such standards shall be provided only if cost effective. Issues of cost do not relate to minority rights, including the disability minority. Thank you for your time and concideration, and this opportunity to provide information for this most important moment in disability civil rights history. Respectfully submitted: Bob Alba Address |
| Version Date | 6/10/2005 |
| Remarks | |
| File MIME Type | text/html |
|