| Initiative | Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) |
| Comment Number | OL-100660 |
| Status | Catalogued |
| Classification | Substantive |
| Submitted Type | CW Web Form |
| Commenter Type | Industry or Trade Association |
| Organization | Access Committee - Boston Society of Architects |
| Received | 05/31/2005 10:58:48 PM |
| Document Date | |
| Remarks | |
| Pages | |
| Category | Standard Web Form |
|
| Commenter |
| First Name | Last Name | State/Province |
| Kathy | Gips | MA |
|
|
| 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-100660.htm |
| File Extension | .txt |
| File Size | 3390 |
| Comments | Answers to Specific Questions
2-Triggering event should be when new construction or alterations begin. Title II and Title III facilities should be treated the same, if possible, within confines of statutory requirements.
3-We support Option 1 - Safe harbor for compliant elements. Picking and chosing particular elements for safe harbor (but not all) will extend and possibly delay rulemaking as people argue for different elements to be treated differently. Since readily achievable barrier removal is a legal standard, it can be applied to any element.
4a-We vote no for reduced scoping for particular elements. Title III entities can apply readily achievable barrier removal standard and Title II entities can apply program accessibility and undue burden to these situations.
4b-Again we believe this will drag out, delay or worse, prevent rulemaking as different sectors argue for elements to be in or out. The legals standards of readily achievable barrier removal and program accessibility/undue burden address the issues.
5-We support Option 2 - allowing flexibility. However we wold like to see accessible cells by type: womens, mens, juvenile, different security levels.
7-We believe the Department should issue regulations concerning accessible free-standing equipment since this equipment is so prevalent and can be a major barrier. From the design and users perspective, it often doesn't matter if equipment is fixed or not.
8-Option 1 provides the greatest flexibility. We believe that the obligation should be for stadium style lecture halls and other assembly areas, in addition to movie theaters.
11-We support Option 1. This is a basic life-safety issue. What's considered safe and accessible under new construction should be considered as a barrier removal obligations.
13-We believe there is an important benefit requiring two-way communication systems to have audible and visual signals. This issue impacts safety. From our experience it is commonplace in new construction and major alterations to have talking devices with a light that informs that help is on the way.
14-We do not have data but believe that this requirement will allow equal access to toilet facilities for men and women who need ambulatory stalls.
15-We believe that since there are fewer "banks" of phones with the increase in cell phones, it's best to require TTYs in more situations. TTYs are necessary to ensure telecommunications accessibility.
19-We believe that accessible guestrooms should provide equal or greater vanity counter space - this is a basic, equal access, equal opportunity issue. In fact a person with a disability is likely to have greater need for a place to put items close by than someone without a disability.
General Comments
We would like to see "safe harbor" status apply under Title II to program accessibility, under both Titles II and III to alterations and path of travel obligations as well as readily achievable barrier removal obligations under Title III. If a Title II entity conducted a self- evaluation, developed a transition plan and removed barriers by January 1995 as required under the Title II regulations, the entity should not be required to redo the process with new Standards. Same for alterations that were done under a legitamite standard. |
| Version Date | 6/10/2005 |
| Remarks | |
| File MIME Type | text/html |
|