ML23156A111

PR-004 - 54FR09966 - Enforcement of Nondiscrimination of the Basis of Handicap in Federally Assisted Programs

ML23156A111
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/08/1989
From:	Office of Administration
To:
References
PR-004, 54FR09966
Download: ML23156A111 (1)

Text

DOCUMENT DATE:

TITLE:

CASE

REFERENCE:

KEYWORD:

ADAMS Template: SECY-067 03/08/1989 PR-004 - 54FR09966 - ENFORCEMENT OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAP IN FEDERALLY ASSISTED PROGRAMS PR-004 54FR09966 RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

STATUS OF RULEMAKING PROPOSED RULE:

PR-004 RULE NAME:

ENFORCEMENT OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAP IN FEDERALLY ASSISTED PROGRAMS PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE:

54FR09966 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE:

03/08/89 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 05/08/89 NUMBER OF COMMENTS:

EXTENSION DATE:

I I

FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE:

FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE:

3 I

I NOTES ON DEPARTMENT OP JUSTICE IS COORDINATING THIS ACTION AMONG A NUMBER 0 STATUS F AGENCIES. PINAL ACTION UNDETERMINED PER REGULATORY AGENDA OF 10/

OF RULE

89. FILE LOCATED ON Pl.

TO FIND THE STAFF CONTACT OR VIEW THE RULEMAKING HISTORY PRESS PAGE DOWN KEY HISTORY OF THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PR-004 RULE TITLE:

ENFORCEMENT OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAP IN FEDERALLY ASSISTED PROGRAMS PROPOSED RULE PROPOSED RULE DATE PROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER:

SRM DATE:

I I

SIGNED BY SECRETARY:

I I

FINAL RULE FINAL RULE DATE FINAL RULE SECY PAPER:

SRM DATE:

I I

SIGNED BY SECRETARY:

I I

STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE CONTACTl: EDWARD TUCKER CONTACT2:

MAIL STOP: MNBB7217 PHONE: 492-7697 MAIL STOP:

PHONE:

Delbert 0. Lewis, CRC 2400 Riverfront Drive, Suite 2423 Little Rock, AR 72202-2206 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

• sg MAY 11 PS :01 02 May 1989 RE:

"Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Federally Assisted Programs; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 11

Dear Mr. Secretary:

• -This is in response to your request for comments on proposed change~ to your agency regulations for enforcement of Section 504 of the,. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, publ ished in the Federal Reg~ster March 8, 1989, pages 9965 - 9973 (10 CFR Part 4).

We appreciate the need for uniformity of federal handicapped access regulations and standards and general ly endorse the proposal to substitute the Uniform Federal Access Standards in lieu of the much outdated ANSI A117.1 - 1961 (R1971) and appreciate your noting that ANSI has been revised twice (in 1980 and 1986) since the original 504 regulations were publ ished by the old HEW in 1977.

The use of the obsolete 1961 version actual ly causes the construction of costly unnecessary inconvenient (and frequently dangerous) architectural barriers that preclude maximum independence and productivity of our nation's most underutil ized resource, citizens with disabi l ities.

Although we are pleased that the mi nimum access standards are being updated/modernized, we have grave reservations about the wisdom of some of your proposed official "interpretations" of UFAS.

Permit us to preface our remarks by noting that the latest (1986) ANSI minimum access specifications have been agreed to by no less than 53 national organizations with a direct interest in achievi ng accessibility for disabled citizens. Likewise, much empirical research was performed and significant public comment was solicited from disabled people, industry, design professionals, advocates and agency representatives in developing the ATBCB Minimum Guidelines and UFAS which fol lowed.

The 1986 ANSI standards and UFAS, to the extent that it agrees with ANSI, are looked upon almost universally as the definition of "minimum accessibil ity for the handicapped".

America should be committed to achieving a totally "barrier-free man-made environmentthat is safe and convenient for al l citizens, and one that actively facilitates and encourages maxi mum independence and productivity of all persons, including those workers and others who happen to be experiencing

mobility, sensory or communications impairments.

In order to work toward this implied goal, it is necessary to guarantee at least "minimum access " by enforcing minimum architectural standards and specifications.

U. 5. Nl/('(.fft.~ RtG: 'lAT0RY COMMISSIOJII DOCVf"' 'G B, '.:f"V!CE SECTION 0

i:-E r-

H[ ~ECC:f:T, W OF TH£ C )."/MISSION Dncu e"t St.-.t1.;r 1ct Postmark Date C:apiP5 Rfl,,.;v..,J Add' I Co,.ic: ~e:,roduced -=-- - -,,.--..

5pecial Distribution

/J j? I( R / J.J...f fu L/(~r 1

Comments, 02 May 1989, page 2.

If \<Je really must 11compromise 11 down from a totally barrier-free environment I suppose we must, but we must never ever compromise down from or do less than the 11mi nirnum standards II require or we begin to sacrifice safety and/or convenience to the point where it is too dangerous, too inconvenient or is just too much trouble and takes too much energy from the people who have the least energy to spare for them/us to make the substantial investment in time and/or energy to a chi eve personal, social and vocat i ona 1 independence \<Jhen it would be much easier to remain dependent and on the welfare rolls.

Architectural/environmental barriers precluding independence or enjoyment of the opportunities in our society do much to eliminate the 11incentive 11 to become independent, productive, educated and employed.

With the Arkansas unemployment rate exceeding 66% of working age disabled persons (ages 16-64 only) in a new but mostly inaccessible environment, it is obvious that is exactly what is now happening in our state and nation.

We estimate that if 100% of all m1n1mum standards were met everywhere the environment would then accommodate perhaps only 95% of the disabled population. There will probably always be persons who use extraordinary, bulky equipment that we may be unable to accommodate but those situations should be extremely rare.

When we do less than the minimum standards require {as is being done daily in Arkansas) we are increasing the number of people who cannot use, or cannot independently

~. or be productive j_tJ_ the man-made environment thus we are forcing people into dependency, unemployment and even into expensive nursing homes and other facilities just because an essential element of the environment is too inaccessible or inconvenient to use (such as a tiny kitchen or tiny elevator).

If a ramp ends in a step, a strong paraplegic using a manual wheelchair could probably "bump" it easily but that step could be totally insurmountable to a potentially employable quadraplegic using an electric wheelchair.

Like\<Jise, a manual wheelchair user able to load the chair into a sports car could easily use the small inappropriately located "handicapped parking spaces II that abound in our state but such space is tot a 11 y i nadequare for a lift-equipped van carrying a non-collapsable, heavy electric wheelchair used by the people 1-1ith the greatest mobility limitation.

With the existing misinterpretation of 11minimum 11 access requirements at all levels of government and in the private sector, we are only accommodating the disabled population that least need access and accommodations; we should do nothing to make this existing terrible situation even worse.

Arkansas has had a long history of achieving 11essentially equivalent 11 access to new and renovated buildings.

Since our original state architectural barriers act was passed in 1967, the enforcing agencies (first the state Department of Health and now the state architect and the State Building Services agency) have permitted departures from the supposed 1 egall y mandatory minimum access specifications.

Examples of how this inappropriate policy has harmed achieving access goals are far too numerous to mention but perhaps listing a few samples will illustrate the problem:

a fairly new

Comments, 02 May 1989, page 3.

private building near our state capital was purchased by the state for use of the Department of Finance and Administration and is the location for major state civil service examinations and the location where our state grievance committee holds hearings about employee problems; the five story building has only one (rear) accessible entrance, farthest possible distance on an unmarked route to the elevator, has only one "accessible" restroom per sex (of course, inaccessible restrooms on upper floors (nearest training/meeting rooms used by a number of state agencies) have no indication that they are not accessible nor is there any sign or indication where the single accessible restroom is located) and the "accessible" restroom has an awkvmrd but barely useable toilet stall without grab bars but it does have an oversized "handicapped lavatory" that precludes reaching the soap and paper towels ( !); three major downtown buildings v1ere 1 eased from a private foundation and remodeled to state specifications and even "skywalks" \!Jere constructed to interconnect the structures, one building was "gutted" and com letel rebuilt for the huge state human services agency; the remodele building has narrow inaccessible doors to the training area used by disabled employees and has its single public telephone mounted at an inaccessible height; the men's restroom has a single inconvenient toilet stall (listed as an "alternate" design in ANSI) \\\\lith inadequate wheelchair turning space in front of its outward swinging stall door; another remodeled building housing the administrative offices of the state vocational rehabilitation agency suffers from similar problems plus has high inaccessible fire extinguishers, inadequate audible only fire a 1 arms and smoke detectors and inadequate dangerous fire escape plan v1here disabled employees are required to remain in the burning bui 1 ding due to inadequate emergency egress path\11ays other than elevators disabled workers are prohibited from using in an emergency.

A 11 these inadequacies meet the general mi si nterpretat ion of "mini mum access" and do provide "essentially equivalent access" to disabled workers and visitors but make the environment terribly inconvenient and dangerous.

A 1 though Arkansas has the highest per capita number of working age (16-64) disabled people in the nation today (almost 13% of the working age population), the state human services department overall has only one or tvJO percent of its vJorkforce who are disabled employees; even that number is largely due to the high number of disabled employees in the voe rehab division which has about 11% of its employees who are disabled.

Obviously, most disabled people (even those with advanced education) are unable and/or unwilling to "overcome" the tremendous barriers caused by requiring only "equivalent access" rather than meeting a 11 the mini mum access standards.

Considering the above listed reflection of everyday reality of disabled citizens we have specific comments on some sections of your proposed regulations.

All comments are oriented toward achieving the maximum level of access possible to facilitate and encourage independence and productivity of disabled Americans:

1.

Your "Summary" section on page 9966 mentions the "possibility that recipients of Federal financial assistance would face conflicting enforcement standards" (emphasis added).

Such alleged

Comments, 02 May 1989, page 4.

"conflicting standards" are frequently used by bureaucrats, design professionals and builders/contractors to evade achieving even the most "minimum" of inadequate access standards.

After lengthy experience with access issues \<le have found the "conflicting standards" situation seldom actually exists if the designer and/or builder actually has an appropriate understanding of the INTENT of access specifications, which is se l dam the case.

An example we use is that the obsolete 1961 (R1971)

ANSI standards permit control mechanisms to be located as high as 71 inches si nee that is within the "reach" of a person sitting in a \vheelchair while UFAS permits the maximum height of such mechanisms to be 54 inches if parallel approach is possible, 48 inches for forward approach and 44 inches if one must reach over an obstacle.

Si nee the intent is to bring controls vlithin "reach" and 54, 48 and 44 inches are a 11 below 71 inches ( or even 54 inches) there i s actually no conflict between the standards.

We can easily ensure the lower height of contra ls ( even below 44" if necessary) and that lower height would approach a "barrier-free environment" because everyone could reach them but we must never put anything above 54 inches maximum height because the higher it is the fewer people can reach it thus forcing increased dependence and decreased productivity and independence!

Such departure from the "minimum standards" are all too commonplace in current design and construction methods.

2.

~*Je are concerned about your statement in the "Background" section on page 9967 that "The agencies have determined that they will not require the use of UFAS, or any other standard, as sole means by which recipients can achieve compliance with the requirement that new construction and alterations be accessible",

that same "would restrict recipients' ability to design for particular circumstances 11, "might create conflicts with State or local accessibility requirements" and "It is expected that in some instances recipients will be able to satisfy the section 504 new construction and alteration requirements by f o 11 owing applicable State or local codes, and vice versa." (Emphasis added.)

We can appreciate the exceptionally rare situation where a "particular circumstance" might be impossible to meet the "minimum" standards thus denying opportunity to disabled citizens, employees, visitors or clients but considering the discriminatory exclusion from such buildings or facilities every effort should be made to facilitate equivalent access for all citizens, not just ambulatory people, athletes or strong "wheelchair jocks".

The concept of extraordinary circumstances precluding access is commonly used in our area to permanently exclude handicapped persons from some or a 11 of many "mainstream" activities.

If you would adopt the afore-mentioned concept of ~,iork i ng toward a "barrier-free man-made environment", mandating use of the best "most restrictive" access specifications, laws or regulations available or that apply to any given circumstance (e. g. whenever a project is covered by more than one code or regulation, mandate use of the one that provides the greatest degree or amount of access), and never (or almost never) permit doing less than the 11minimum 11 mandatory

Comments, 02 May 1989, page 5.

access specifi cati ans, then builders 1\foul d, in the vast majority of cases, automatically comply with the other, less restrictive laws that permit less access and we would seldom face such alleged "conflicts".

There is no "shortage of funds" to achieve minimum access but only a shortage of creativity to solve long-standing problems and the inability to learn from previous experience of overcoming the supposed obstacles in "particular circumstances 11 We encourage you to expand this section to indicate that approval will be granted to do less than the "minimum" UFAS requires only in the most extraordinary circumstances rather than sane ti oni ng sacrifice of minimum access/safety standards whenever it is merely inconvenient or cost an extra few hundred dollars in a multi -

million dollar project as is currently everyday practice in new or remodeled construction in Arkansas.

3.

vJe appreciate your attempt to accommodate both contractors and disabled people on page 9967 "that departures from particular UFAS technical and scoping requirements are permitted so long as the alternative methods used will provide substantially equivalent or greater access to and utilization of the building" and "some provisions of applicable State and local accessibility requirements will provide

'substantially equivalent" access."

(Emphasis added.)

However, this concept by itself is dangerous and opens the door to substantial abuse.

An illustration of this fact is that ANSI specifies what we call a "preferred" design for restroom stalls (1986 ANSI A117.1, Figure 30 page 48) but permits "alternate 11 designs in some circumstances ( such as renovation projects) that are less convenient and useable by fewer people (1986 ANSI A117.1, Figure 30 continued, page 49); UFAS calls these confi gurat i ans II Standard Sta 11 s 11 (Figure 30, page

39) and 11 Al tern ate Sta 11 s 11 (Figure 30, page 39 11 )

• De pending on other factors, the standard or preferred stall is either 60" x 59" or 60 11 x 95" 1-,hile the less desired alternate stall is only 36" x 69 11 or 48 11 x 69 11 ; both designs require 42" or 48" clear turning space in front of the stall door.

In

Arkansas, the standard configuration is practically never used in either new construction or in major renovation projects where space is not a limiting factor; practically none of the stalls have the 42" or 48 11 turning space in front of the door even though this precludes convenient use of the stalls by many disabled people/employees.

This is what "equivalent or greater access II has meant in Arkansas si nee our state access law was passed in 1973, the federal access law was passed in 1968 and Section 504 was passed in 1973.

I also sugg1:}st deleting th,2 "state lav1 11 reference since practically no state or local jurisdiction's laws, regulations or building codes require greater access than UFAS or the 1986 ANSI.

It will only "confuse" an already hostile audience looking for a way to evade even the most mini mum of inadequate, 1 east desired access specifications and standards.

The majority of disabled people in Arkansas do not have "equal access" to opportunities even though we have had supposedly mandatory access requirement since 1967; we greatly fear (and

Comments, 02 May 1989, page 6 expect) that if your now "stringent" regulations are liberalized to permit "substantially equivalent" access while disregarding the 11minimum" requirements that provide the absolete least acceptable degree of physical accessibility then ever fewer opportunities will present themselves to our most disenfranchised citizens.

Unfortunately, few public or private entities think of access specifications as "minimum" requirements but rather think of them as the "best" requirements "for those people" and have no understanding that such an attitude leads to back-door second class citizenship for America's largest minority; developers and bureaucrats are dead set on continuing their historical (and inaccessible) "business as usual" performing the very least, most inadequate level of access they can get away with rather than be committed to the "barrier-free environment" discussed earlier.

These incorrect interpetation and attitude are the root causes of all access deficiencies today and your proposed regulations \-Jill on 1 y encourage it to continue rather than he 1 ping a chi eve first class citizenship in a convenient, safe environment which facilitates independence and productivity.

4.

We respectfully disagree with your statement on page 9967 that "it would be permissible to depart from the technical requirement of UFAS section 4.10.9 that the inside dimensions of an elevator car be at lease 68 inches or 80 inches... by 54 inches... [and that such] departure is permissible because it results in access that is

safe, convenient, and independent, and therefore substantially equivalent to that provided by UFAS."

It has been knmm since the original ANSI was developed in 1961 (and is now reflected in UF AS and the 1986 ANS I) that it takes at least 60 inches for a standard manual wheelchair to pivot in a360° circle or cl ear corridors 36 inches v.Ji de in a "T shaped" space to turn 180°.

Technology of wheelchairs and essential "extras" (such as respirators

, cellular telephones and communication devices (including personal computers) mounted to wheelchairs has improved dramatically since 1961 and we expect continued advancement in both the near and far future enabling "severely disabled" people to be independent and/or employable..if. the environment will permit their freedom of movement.

UFAS already permits the elevator car to be as smallas 51 inches deep by 68 inches \vide (Fig. 22, page 31 ).

Present requirements mandate critical but very inconvenient turning and "screwing" movements be accomplished to get the v,heelchair into the corner within reach of the control panel as illustrated.

Since 48 inches is taken up by the standard wheelchair itself, it leaves only 3 inches maneuvering clearance; powerful electric wheelchairs already have trouble making such maneauvers even assuming the severely disabled person has such fine motor movements to manipulate the chair controls to accomplish such movements; many disabled people have such a high degree of "spas ti city" that such fine motor movements are not possible and the chair \\\\/ill bump the walls of such tight spaces thus possibly damaging the chair and the elevator interior.

Of course, we could go back to procedures in very recent history when wheelchair users were required to use only padded freight elevators but we do not believe this is a good plan for the

Comments, 02 May 1989, page 7.

future.

Large/

11oversi ze 11 wheel chairs and accessories used by people with the most mobility limitations are already readily available; while the 11 standard 11 manual v1heelchair seat is 19 inches vnde and requires the 48 11 x 30 11 space, the major wheelchair manufacturing company in the United States, Everest & Jennings, Inc., offers a "wide adult" model with a 20 11 or larger seat, the 21st Century Sci enti fi c Company offers a 24 11 wide seat!

A member of our staff already has a cellular telephone (complete \vith auto antenna) mounted on the back of his electric \vhee 1 chair which makes the seatback extend to the rear of the large ti res, the former director of the California vocational rehabilitation agency (and now a highly paid consultant and v,orld traveler) has a respirator mounted to the back of his electric \vheelchair which extends to the rear even further than the cellular telephone; many 11severly disabled" children at the local Easter Seals Rehabilitation Center have communications and personal computers mounted on electric wheelchairs both to communicate and to control movement of the chair.

Federal policy mandates that all state rehabilitation agencies give first priority to serving the "severely disabled" population and we agree vith this priority.

We do recognize that more and more "severely disabled" people will be attempting to live in the 11ma i nstream 11, work and provide for their families and exercise their Constitutional right to be "abroad in the land 11 \vanting and needing to go everywhere j_!! the man-made environment their (temporarily),!J.Q.!l-disabled peers want and need to go.

These potentially productive citizens (along with older peopleattempting to remain independent and out of nursing homes) will be using more and more expensive, complicated, space-devouring equipment.

The 51" currently permitted is al ready too small and very inconvenient and to permit it to get even smaller is encouraging the exact opposite of what we should be encouraging if we are to accommodate the current population let alone plan the future man-made environment to accommodate the growing population of elderly and disabled people in the immediate future.

As previously noted, anything larger than the minimum size elevator should be permitted and could accommodate more disabled people but to make it smaller would merely increase inconvenience to the point of prohibition of use by the people that need access the most!

We do not concur that this is a good policy and suggest your regulations should not permit this situation to get even worse; the elevator illustration is especially inappropriate.

5.

~Je also disagree \vith your statement on page 9967 that 11it would be permissible in some circumstances to depart from UFAS new construction requirement of one accessible principal entrance at each grade floor level of a building... if safe, convenient, and independent access is provided to each level of the new facility by a wheelchair user from an accessible principal entrance.

11 We appreciate your following caveats about long distances and substantially less convenience precluding waiver of the "minimum standards II but such as not been the Arkansas experience.

Under present 11stringent 11 state and federal lm1s, the University of Arkansas at Little Rock has constructed and altered many campus buildings since the effective date of the access laws and original 504 regulations.

The new huge Fine Arts Building has grade-level access to its main entrance and a level sidewalk surrounding the

Comments, 02 May 1989, page 8.

building leading to a loading dock several feet about the ground which is accessible only by a flight of steps to their paved student parking area where handicapped parking spaces are designated; the only thing accessible from the main (level) entrance is t he Planatariu~ and an inacc9ssible stairway; anyone wishing to use the elevator to gain access to upper floors or visit any area of the building other than the Planatarium must travel almost three city blocks completely around the large structure to the loading dock; the loading dock is only a few feet from the designated parking spaces but connected to them only by steps; a portion of the sidewalk also travels down a narrow, dark path between the building and an embankment that could cause serious security concerns at night but because this is a "primary" entrance (\\\\lhere tractor-trailer trucks load equipment and near their elevator) this has been permitted to achieve 11access 11 to advanced education for people who have the greatest mobility limitations and the least energy to travel long distances.

We expect such situations will only get worse under your proposed liberalized regulations.

We hope you will be able to "learn from experience".

Another serious concern is for 11safety 11 in a large building with only one ground level egress/escape path.

Would you or any responsible fire department permit only one 11fire exit 11 for a large number of people in any large building?

I suspect any local fire department would strenuously object to such a concept; but perhaps disabled people are more expendable than more worthwhile and valuable ambulatory people.

An example of how safety can be achieved at all ground level entrances with no significant additional cost is the Multi-Agency Compl ex 11 built on the side of a large hill on our state capitol grounds.

This huge structure has several stories each of which has a main entrance/exit at "grade level 11 ; in an emergency or fire, egress from each floor would be quick and easy and was achieved at no significant additional cost because the hilly terrain made it possible to have access at different points around the structure so entrances were placed wherever ground met the building.

Handicapped parking is available at each entrance even though the parallel spaces are on such a slope they cannot be used by many disabled people; there is also only one accessible restroom for each sex on each floor and it is located as far as possible from meeting rooms used by visitors/trainees (both able-bodied and disabled) from all over the state. This building is essentially safe and accessible but terribly inconvenient for disabled persons to use.

(Incidentally, it houses the state Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped and the state computer system which could be an ideal employment opportunity for disabled workers if it were not so inconvenient -- even though it is 11safe 11.)

l.Je suggest your proposed regulations further explain what modifications to access requirements are not acceptable and perhaps give further illustrations of "inconvenience" (such as it being unacceptable to require the people with the greatest mobility problem to travel the longest distances).

Comments, 02 May 1989, page~-

6.

We are also concerned about your statement on page 9968 that the UFAS 11Alterations 11 section 11be interpreted to exempt from the requirements of UFAS only mechanical rooms and other spaces that, because of their intended use, will not require accessibility to the pubic or beneficiaries, or result in the employment or residence therein of persons with handicaps."

On the surface this seems reasonable and straight-forward but we would like to relate an experience which will provide a caveat to this simple notion.

A few years ago the central administrative offices of the Arkansas rehabilitation agency occupied an old building converted for office space.

Access changes were made but for some reason the security system key operated control box in the "mechanical room" was not lowered to the proper height.

The mechanical room contained a photocopier and control mechanisms and operating equipment for a large heating and air conditioning system as well as the security system so the space was well traveled by many employees.

A disabled staff person \*ias promoted to "consumer coordinator 11 which necessitated after hours and weekend meetings vdth disabled vi5 *;,,-:ws-, guests and consur -_,.* ]dvisors from all over the state. Th{s wheelchair user was frequently the only agency staff person in the building and was responsible for arming and disarming the secutity system that was mounted at an inaccessible height. It may have been reasonable in the past to assume that disabled people will not work around mechanical rooms but modern "control room(s) 11 of many new facilities do lend themselves to employment opportunities for disabled workers and disabled professional staff may have many legitimate reasons to visit 11mechanial rooms" so many need to be "accessible" if we are to empower disabled workers to "get ahead" and be able to handle progressively more responsible tasks required of supervisors and administrators.

We suggest this should be noted in regulations; it may be unnecessary to make the "mechanical equipment" "accessible" but there are numerous situations where access is desperately needed to control areas and equipment, especially in an emergency or outside regular working hours.

We believe it vmuld be helpful to note that if "control mechanisms" are located in a "mechanical room" they should be on an accessible path and mounted at the proper height required of other "control mechanisms" such as thermostats, switches or alarms that may be useable by both disabled and able-bodied staff and suggest your regulations should more clearly explain this situation.

7.

We strongly disagree with the wording used by the Department of State on page 9970 that "compliance with UFAS is no longer mandated, but is merely encouraged".

(Emphasis added.) This is exactly the type of abuse of access standards we feared would happen.

If efforts to achieve access under supposedly mandatory federal laws and regulations have been such a dismal failure, is it reasonable to assume that we will get more access if compliance is merely "encouraged"?

We believe not.

Between 1968 (P. L.90-480) and 1973 when Section 502 establishing the ATBCB was made part of the Rehabilitation Act, federal standard setting agencies were "encouraged" to comply \\\\lith federal law; of course, none of them did so the ATBCB enforcement authority was created to enforce the law.

We have a long history of evading access requirements by

Comments, 02 May 1989, page 10.

is merely 11encouraged 11 ?

\.Je believe not.

Betvmen 1968 (P. L.90-480) and 1973 when Section 502 establishing the ATBCB was made part of the Rehabilitation Act, federal standard setting agencies were 11encouraged 11 to comply with federal la\1; of course, none of them did so the ATBCB enforcement authority was created to enforce the law.

We have a long history of evading access requirements by able-bodied designers, disinterested bureaucrats and developers, contractors and builders.

We should not let history repeat itself and then 11rediscover 11 the access problems in another future decade.

Non-compliance with 504 and access provisions must no longer be permitted by the Department of State or any other 11recipient 11 of federal financial assistance and the same will surely happen if you permit agencies to uselessly 11encourage 11 compliance.

We suggest that the primary consideration should be given to achieving meaningful access to all parts of the man-made environment by all people.

Regulations should not be changed and access, safety and convenience sacrificed merely to save the hostile building industry a few hundred dollars in a multi-million dollar project while denying first class citizenship to any group of Americans, including citizens who happen to experience a disability.

To continue this historical path (as your proposed regulatory changes would ecourage) wastes human resources, talent, creativity and productivity our nation can ill-afford to waste in these dramatically changing economic times.

It is estimated that by the year 2000 America will find itself some 50,000 workers short of what it needs to fill all available jobs.

Various professions are evaluating this projection in light of retirement age expectations (and especially questioning the concept of 11mandatory retirement age" for most jobs),

immigration

policy, encouraging elderly workers to take jobs historically held by teenagers and how to get dependent non-productive disabled people off the welfare rolls and into the work force and contributing their/our/my rightful fair share to the qua l i ty of life in our society and to the economy!

If buildings or facilities are built to deny employment opportunities, if we cannot get to the corner store to buy food or cannot get into places of recreation to spend our hard earned income, it will only exacerbate existing productivity problems and continued construction of inaccessible,

unsafe, inconvenient facilities will be a

great disservice to our nation as well as disabled people now and in the forseeab 1 e future.

We hope you wi 11 consider the broad, 1 ong-range implications of forced dependency of otherwise independent productive, potentially employable disabled people who are ready and able to work and who actually want to work, be independent and productive v.Jhen you propose changes that will encourage more inappropriate,

costly, unnecessary inaccessible construction.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your well-intentioned proposed regulation changes.

We encourage you to find ways of securing more and better access to a safe, convenient man-made environment, and not to make things even worse for disabled Americans.

Sincerely, 7

<j)_f)_~cO. ~

Delbert 0. Lewis Certified Rehabilitation Counselor cc:

Jay Rochlin, President's Committee on People with Disabilities Wade Blank, Americans Disabled for Accessible Public Transit Jack Duncan, National Rehabilitation Association Files

DOCKET NUMBER

~.*

PROPOSED c.ri Ff< q '7 /, £ )

COMMISSION ON THE HANDICAPPED Old Federal Building

• 335 Merchant Street

• Room 353

• Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

• Phone 548-7606 April 25, 1989 c.,C.:1

~

Secretary c....,

< ) ~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission rs.

3:

Washington, D.C. 20555 llJ -

~

, 2"

("'

• .,,c-

~<~

z I

? "

A1TENTION:

Docketing and Service Branch r,

c::-.:

.l.,

--0

Dear Sir or Madam,

~

- ~ -:

The Commission on the Handicapped would like to comment on the proposed regulatfzm that would amend the regulations issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for enforcement of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, in federally assisted programs or activities to include a cross-reference to the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) in place of the current American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards.

The Commission is in strong support of this proposed regulation for several reasons. First, some facilities which are subject to the Section 504 regulations of certain agencies for new construction or alteration are required to use ANSI standards. These same facilities are also subject to the Section 504 regulations of other federal agencies which require UFAS and could create confusion as to which standards should be used. Therefore, a government-wide reference to UFAS would eliminate the confusion and will increase the likelihood that architects will be able to design properly to meet the needs of persons with disabilities.

Similarly, if all federal funding agencies referred to UF AS, potential conflicts would be reduced when a buildint; is subject to the Section 504 regulations of more than one federal agency.

Furthermore, UFAS is the higher standard. The ANSI standards provide only the graphics for barrier-free design and do not contain guidelines governing such things as the appropriate number of parking spaces or water closets to be accessible to persons with disabilities. Thus, they afford insufficient direction to architects and public officials in need of accessibility information.

Finally, the State of Hawaii enacted legislation this year which recognizes UFAS as the standards to be followed for the construction of all new state and county government buildings. Thus, the replacement of ANSI with UF AS by federal agencies will lend more consistency to our state and county programs which are also bound by Section 504.

The Commission therefore urges the adoption of the proposed regulation.

Thank you for considering our position.

Sincerely,

~~i. ~~

MARKT. OBA TAKE lfar Chairperson MAY 2 5 198~

J. 5. NUCUJ,'.'. ~:,..' 11 '1r:'ff coWMI SSIO~

DOCi'fTi:; & cF:.l\rE ~[(1\0t-t

.**\ **. tis:iCS 4f ) 1§

____,_1 -

DOCKET NUMBER New York State BRO~OSED RULE

~'~;OCA TE for the DISABLED ( S'I f I(

EMPIRE STATE PLAZA ALBANY, NY 12223-0001 Frances G. Berle&', t.D., M.A.

State Advocate (518) 473-4129 I

(800T89Z-4ffl? 21 p 3 :1 5 April 18, 1989 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing & Service Branch

Dear Sir or Madam:

The New York State Office of Advocate for the Disabled strongly supports your agency's proposal to reference the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) for enforcement of Section 504 accessibility requirements, as proposed in the Federal Register, Vol. 54, No. 44, Wednesday, March 8, 1989, pp. 9966, et seq.

Most state codes reference ANSI All7.1 1980 or 1986.

UFAS is consistent with ANSI 117.1, 1980 format and either meets or exceeds those specifications.

As the model building code organizations are currently developing scoping provisions for ANSI 117.1, 1986, the standardization in use of UFAS across all federal agencies will greatly help to reduce confusion for architects, developers and building officials.

/lp We look forward to the expeditious issuance of the final rule.

Sincerely, Frances G. Berka State Advocate

J. S. NUCLEA!l REGULATORY COMMISSIOB OOCKHING & SERVICE SECTIO OFFICE Of THE SKRET ARY Of THE COMMISSION

• t ICS Y-19-~

J - _

_J pec1al Cii),,..,u h>, _/J))i Yi)/L. __ _

wr f-PI

DOCKET NUMBER PR LJ_

PROPOSED RULE copy to secy-*

Original sent to the Office of the Federal Reg\ster for publication

( S-lJ IR CJ 9 t /)

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 4 Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Handicap in Federally Assisted Programs; AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Proposed rule; correction.

[7590-01]

9

SUMMARY

This document corrects a proposed rule appearing in the Federal Register on March 8, 1989 (54 FR 9966) which would amend regulations issued for the enforcement of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, in Federally assisted programs or activities.

This action is necessary to correct the address and hours of operation presented for the NRC Public Document Room.

The information in the ADDRESSES section for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on page 9968 should be corrected to read as set forth below.

DATE:

Comments must be received by May 8, 1989.

ADDRESSES:

Comments should be sent to:

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch.

Comments received will be available for public inspection at the NRC Public Document Room 2120 L Street, NW.,

lower level of the Gelman Building, Washington, DC 20555 from 7:45 am to 4:15 pm except legal holidays.

r i

I t-tUCU:AR REGUl A TORY coMMISS DOCKETING & SERVICE SECT IQt,j OFF ICE Or THE c.E( RET,RY OF THE ccw~ I ~s ION Document St t i~t i cs Postmark Da te __!J}J)__ _ _

Copies Received

)

_J Add' I Copies Repr~d~ced J _

£.0& t 1p1 -

Jt., ( I( f' 'r Special Distribution

2 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Edward E. Tucker, Manager, Civil Rights Program, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization/Civil Rights, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Telephone:

(301) 492-7697 (voice) or (800) 638-8282 (TDD).

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 10th day of March 1989.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

4/1~_,); /(. /7!~

Donnie H. Grimsley} Director Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Administration

l)OCKET NUMBER P.ROPQSED(5 LE;: R 9q66 -

Federal Register / Vol 54, No. 44 / wei'.'iesday, March 8, 1989 / Proposed Rules 9966 13 CFR PART 113

• NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 14' CFR PART 1211 DEPARTMENT OF STATE CFR PART 1'2

~RNATIONALDEVELOPMENT COOPERATION AGENCY Environmental Protection Agency.*

Intemational Development Cooperatiun

~"\.l'Ull!eDC:V, National Aeronautics an* :. :

ace Administration, National undation on the Arts and the anities, National Endowmentfnr Arts and National Endowment for Humanities, National Science* - **

undation. Nuclear Regulatory om.mission. Small Business

~ dministration. Veterans Administration.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemakiq.

SUMMARY

This proposed regulatian would amend the regulations issued.by the agencies listed above for enforcement of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, in federally assisted programs or.

activities to include a cross-refermu:e to the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standard* (UFAS). Because aome

• facilities su'Jject to new construction er alteration l'f.quirements und~on Agency for International Development 22 CFR PART 217 504 are also subject to the Architectmal Barriers Act. govemmentwide reference to UF AS will diminish the possibility that recipients of Federal financial * :*

assistance would face conflicting enforcement standards. In additian, reference to UF AS by all Federal.

funding agencies will reduce potential -

conflicta when a building is subject to the section 504 regulations of more than one Federal agency.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MCFR*ARTIM *,

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION 31 CFII PART 11 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 4'0 CFR PART 7 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MAN SERVICES CFRPARTM NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 4'5 CFR PART IOI NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES National Endowment for the Ar.ts

'5 CFR PART tti1 National Endowment for the Humanltln

'5 CFR PART 1170 ACTION

'5 CFR PART 1232 Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Buis of Handicap In Federally Assisted Programs AGENCIES: ACTION, Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, and State, DATE Comments must be received by Maya, 1989.

ADDRESSES: See individual agencies below.

Copies of this notice are available on tape for persons with impaired vision.

They may be obtained from the Coordination and Review Section. Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice, Washington. DC 20530; (202) 724-.2222 (voice} or 7~7678 rroD).

FOR FUR111ER INFORMATION CONTACT:

See individual agencies below.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section.

504 of the Rehabilitation Act ort973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794), providea in part that No otherwise qualified individual with handicap, in the United Statea * *

• aull.

aolely by naaon of hie handicap, he exchtded from the participation in. be denied the benefitl of, or be aubjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial a11i1tance * * *.

The above listed agencies' existing section 504 regulations for federally assisted programs or activities require that new construction be designed and built to be accessible and that alterations of facilities be made in an accessible manner. Except as otherwise noted in the additional supplementary infonnation. the regulations state that

• .llflW construction or alteration accomplished in accordance with the "American National Standard Specifications for Maldng Buildings and Facilities Accessible to, and Usable by, the Physically Handicapped" published by the American National Standards lnatitute, Inc. (ANSI A117.1-1961 (R1971)

{ANSI}) meets the requirements of section 504. Three agencies (the Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Small Business Administration) reference the 1980 edition, ANSI A117.1-1980. The proposed revision set forth in

• this document will reference UF AS in

. place of the current standard.

On Allgust 7, 1984, UFAS was issued by the four agencies establishing standards under the Architectural Bamers Act (49 FR 31528 (see diacussion infra)). The Department of Justice (DOJ), as the agency responsible

• . under Executive Order 12250 for coordinating the enforcement of section 504. has recommended that agencies amend their section 504 regulations for federally assisted programs or activities to establish that, with respect to new comtruction and alterations, compliance with UFAS shall be deemed to be compliance with section 504. Because some facilities subject to new construction or alteration requirements under section 504 are also subject to the Architectural Barriers Act.

govemmentwide reference to UF AS will diminish the possibility that recipients of Federal financial assistance would face conflicting enforcement standards.

In addition, reference to UF AS by all Federal funding agencies will reduce potential conflicts when a building is subject to the section 504 regulations of more than one Federal agency.

Background of Accessibility Standards The Architectural Barriers Act of 1968.

42 U.S.C. 4151-4157, requires certain Federal and federally funded buildings to be designed. constructed. and altered in accordance with accessibility standards. It also designates four

.agencies (the General Services Administration, the Departments of Defense, and Housing 11.nd Urban Development. and the U.S. Postal Service) to prescribe the accessibility standards. Section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 established the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (ATBCB). In 1978 the Rehabilitation Act was

. amended to require the ATBCB, inter alia, to issue minimum guidelines and requirements for the standards to be issued by the four standard-setting

. r,iULL£Al1 RCG LAlO~Y co MISSI 00r 11 G & SER ICE SECTIOl'l ri * *C OF i E S:CREl />.Y Of 1P,t CO

~.I $ION ost-nark O te C r

~.e ed Ad, I C.o. 1cs ep* d ced ~:;;..J _____ _

Special Distribution p ))]L {;) DJ

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 8, 1989 / Proposed Rules 9967 agencies. The minimum guidelines were published on August 4, 1982 (47 FR 33862), and are codified at 36 CFR Part 1190.1 On August 7, 1984, the four standard-setting agencfes issued UF AS as an effort to minimize the differences among their Barriers Act standards, and among those*etandards and accessibility standards used by the private sector.

The General Services Administration (GSA) and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) have incorporated UF AS into their Barriers Act regulations (see 41 CFR Subpart 101-19.6 (GSA) and 24 CFR Part 40 (HUD)). In order to ensure uniformity, UFAS was designed to be consistent with the scoping and technical provisions of the ATBCB's minimum guidelines and requirements, as well as with the technical provisions of ANSI A117.1-1980. ANSI is a private, national organization that publishes recommended standards on a wide variety of subjects. The original ANSI A117.1 was adopted in 1961 and reaffirmed in 1971. The current edition, issued in 1986, is ANSI A117.1-1986. The 1961, 1980, and 1986 ANSI standards are frequently used in private practice and by State and local governments.

This proposed amendment would amend the agencies' section 504 regulations to refer to UFAS.

The agencies have determined that they will not require the use of UF AS, or any other standard, as the sole means by which recipients can achieve compliance with the requirement that new construction and alterations be accessible. To do so would unneceHarily restrict recipients' ability to design for particular circumstances.

In addition, it might create conflicts with State or local accessibility requirements that may also apply to recipients' buildings and that are intended to achieve ready access and use. It is expected that in some instances recipients will be able to satisfy the section 504 new construction and alteration requirements by following applicable State or local codes, and vice

. versa.

Effect of Amendment Except as otherwise noted in the additional supplementary information for individual agencies, the agencies' current section 504 rules require that 1 The ATBCB Office of Technical Service* ii available to provide technical u1i1wice to recipients upon requeat relating to the elimination of architectural barriera. Ill addre11 ii: U.S. ATBCB, Office of Technical Service,. 111118th Street. NW..

Suite &00. Waehington. DC 20038. The telephone number ii (202) ~7834 {voice/TDD]. Thie i* not a toll free number.

new facilities be.designed and constructed to be readily accessible to and usable by persons with handicaps and that alterations be accessible to the maximum extent feasible. The amendment would not affect the current requirement but would merely provide that compliance with UFAS with respect to buildings (as opposed to "facilities," a broader term that encompasses buildings as well as other types of property) shall be deemed compliance with these requirements with respect to those buildings. Thus, for example, an alteration is accessible "to the maximum extent feasible" if it is done in accordance with UFAS. It 11:tiould be noted that UFAS contains special requirements for alterations where meeting the general standards would be impracticable or infeasible (see, e.g.,

UFAS sections 4.1.6(1)(b), 4.1.6(3),

4.1.6(4), and 4.t.7).

The amendment also includes language providing that departures from particular UF AS technical and scoping requirements are permitted so long as the alternative methods used will provide substantially equivalent or greater access to and utilization of the building. Allowing these departures from UF AS will provide recipients with necessary flexibility to design for special circumstances and will facilitate the application of new technologies that are not specified in UFAS. A8 explained under "Background of Accessibility Standards," the agencies anticipate that compliance with some provisions of applicable State and local accessibility requirements will provide "substantially equivalent" access. In oome circumstances, recipients may choose to use methods specified in model building codes or other State or local codes that are not necessarily applicable to their buildings but that achieve substantially equivalent access.

The amendment requires that the alternative methods provide "substantially" equivalent or greater access, in order to clarify that the alternative access need not be precisely equivalent to that afforded by UFAS.

Application of the "substantially equivalent access" language will depend on the nature, location. and intended use of a particular building. Generally, alternative methods will satisfy the requirement if in material respects the access is substantially equivalent to that which would be provided by UFAS in such respects as safety. convenience, and independence of movement. For example, it would be permissible to depart from the technical requirement of UFAS section 4.10.9 that the inside dimensions of an elevator car be at least 68 inches or 80 inches (depending on the location of the door) on the door opening side, by 54 inches, if the clear floor area and the configuration of the car permits wheelchair users to enter the car, make a 360° turn, maneuver within reach of controls, and exit from the car. This departure is permissible because it results in access that is safe, convenient, and independent. and therefore

.substantially equivalent to that provided byUFAS. '

With respect to UFAS scoping requirements, it would be permissible in some circumstances to depart from the UF AS new construction requirement of one accessible principal entrance at each grade floor level of a building (see UF AS section 4.1.2(8)), if safe, convenient. and independent access is

. provided to each level of the new facility by a wheelchair user from an

. accessible principal entrance. This departure would not be permissible if it required an individual with handicaps to travel an extremely long distance to reach the spaces served by the inaccessible entrances or otherwise provid~d access that was substantially less convenient than that which would be provided by UFAS.

It would not be permissible for a recipient to depart from UFAS' requirement that. in new construction of a long-term care facility, at least 50'N. of all patient bedrooms be accessible (see UFAS section 4.t.4(9)(b)), by using large accessible wards that make it possible for 50% of all beds in the facility to be accessible to individuals with handicaps. The result is that the population of individuals with handicaps in the facility will be concentrated in large wards, while able-bodied persons will be concentrated in smaller, more private rooms. Because convenience for persons with handicaps is therefore compromised to such a great extent, the degree of accessibility provided to persons with handicaps is not substantially equivalent to that intended to be afforded by UFAS.

It should be noted that the amendment does not require that existing buildings leased by recipients meet the standards for new construction and alterations. Rather, it continues the current Federal practice under section 504 of treating newly leased buildings as subject to the program accessibility standard for existing facilities.

Buildings under design on the effective date of this amendment will be governed by the amendment if the date that bids were invited falls after the effective date. This interpretation is consistent with GSA's Architectural

j j

• 9968 Federal Register. / Vol. 54. No. 44 / Wednesday. Maa:h 8, 1989 / Proposed Rules Barriers Act regwatioa incorporating UF AS, at 41 CPR ~ubpart 101-19.8..

The proposed reYilion includes language modifying the effect of UP.AS

• section U6(1){g), which provides an exception to UF AftUB. Accessible bw1dinga: Alterations. Section 4.1.6(1)(g) of UFAS states that "mechanical rooms and other spaces which normally are not frequented by the public or employees of the building or facility or which by nature of their use are nat required by the Architectural Barriers Act to be accessible are excepted from the requirement& of U.6." Particularly after the development of specific UFAS provisions for housing alterations and additions, UFAS section 4.1.6{1)(g) could be read to exempt alterations to privately owned residential housing, which is not awered by the Architecttrral Baniers Achmless leased by the Federal Government for subsidized housing programs. This exception, however, is not appropriate under section 504, which protects beneficiaries of housing provided as part of a federally assisted program.

Consequently, the proposed amendment provides that. for JJW1)08es of this section, eection4.1.6{1}{g) ofUFAS shall be interpreted to exempt from the requiremenn of UP AS only mechanical rooms and other spaces that, because of their intended uae, will not require aa:essibility to the public or beneficiaries. or result in the employment or residence therein of.

persona with handicaps.

The proposed reviaion also provides that whether or not the recipient opts to A follow UFAS in satisfaction of the ready W access requirement, the recipient is not required to make building alterations that have little likelihood of being accomplished without removing or altering a load*bearing structural member. This provision does not relieve recipienta of their obligation under the current regulation to eDBUre program acceaaibility.

Several agencies' section 504 regulations for federally assisted programs are oontained. in parts entitled "Nondiscrimination on the basis of hamlicap in programs and activities receiving or benefiting from Federal financial*usistance." This document deletes tbe phrase "or benefiting from" from those ntles. The phrase is being deleted plD'Buant to Department of Transportation v. Paralyzed Veterans of America, 477 U.S. 597 (1986), which held that air trllllSportation aervicea provided by airlines were not part of the covered program or.activity because the airlines were not the intended recipient of the Federal financial usistance to airports, even if the.airlines benefited from that asaistuce...,1ie recent.passage of the Civil Rights Restoration Ad of 1987.

Pub. L ~259, doea not ov.emtle or

• alter this reaall S. Rep. No. 64. 100th Cong.. Isl Seas. 29 (1987).

This document has been reviewed by DOJ. It is an adaptation of a prototype prepared by DOJ under Executive Order 12250 of November 2. 1980. The ATBCB has been mnsulted in the development of thia document in accordance with.28 CFR41.7.

The proposed common rule is not a major rule for the purposes of Executive Order 12291 of February 17, 1981. Aa required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. it is hereby certified that thia proposed rule will not have a significant impad.on amall business entities.

Ado.,tioo.of the Common Rule The adoption of the common rule by the agencies in this doaunent appears below.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 7 CFR Part 15b ADDRESSES: Comment& should be sent to: The Associate Directm:. Equal Opportunity, Office of Advocacy and Enterprise. U.S. Department of Agricnltme, Washington, DC 20250.

Commentneceived will be available for public inspection in the Office of Advocacy and Enterprise, Equal Opportunity, Room 1226, South Bldg.,

14th and Independence Ave., SW.,

Washington, DC 20250 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday except legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James A. Westbrooks, Special Assistant, Equal Opportunity, Office of Advocacy and Enterprise, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, (202) 447-5681, TIY 382-1130.

ADDmONALSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice also revises the definition of "historic properties" in

§ 15b.3(q) in order to conform it to UFAS section,.t.7(1)(a). Historic properties under the current definition are limited to thoae listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

The special historic preservation section of UFAS applies additionally to buildings and facilities designated as historic under State and local law.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 15b Blind, Buildings. Civil rights, Employment. Equal employment opportunity, Grant programs, Handicapped,.Historic preservation, Loan programs.

For the reasons.atatediD the preamhle, Part 15b of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 151>-NONDISCRIIIINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAP IN PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES RECEIVING FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

1. The title for Part 15b is revised to read aa ttt forth above.

2. The aU1hority citation for Part15b is revised to read as follows:

Autlaarity.:29 U.S.C. 71J4.

Z. In § 15b.3,.OOefinitions," paragraph

• (q) is revised to read as follows:

§ 15b.3 Definition.

(q) For purposes of§ 15b.18{d),

"Historic properties" means those buildings or fa-cilities that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places..or such properties designated as historic.under a statute of the appropriate State or local government body.

§ 15b.19 (Amended)

4. In I 15b.19, *'Ne,v construction,"

paragraph (c) is revised to read as set forth at the end of this document.

William C. Payne, Jr..

Deputy Associate Director.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part4 ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington. DC 20555.

Attention: Docketing & Service Branch.

Comments received will be available for public inspection atThe NRC Public Docmmmt Room, 1717 H Street, NW.,

Washington. DC 20555 from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Monday through Friday except legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Edward E. Tucker, Manager, Civil Rights Program, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization/

Civil Rights, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington. DC 20555.Telepbone: (301) 492*7697 (voice) or (800) 638-8282 (TDD).

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 4 Administrative practice and procedure, Blind, Buildings, Civil rights, Employment, Equal employment opportunity, Federal aid programs,

Faleral Kqiater -, l/ol. M. No. 4' J Wednesd.ay.. March. ii, 1989 / Pnpoaed Rules 9969 Grant prqgrams. Handicapped, wan

.PfD8l'ams..Reportins and recordkeeping requir.eme11ts, Sex discrimination.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, Part 4 of title 10 of the Code of Federa1 Regula.flam ia propoaed to be amended u foliows:

PART..,_..ONDISCRIMINATIONtN FEDERALLY ASSISTED COMMISSION PROGRAMS

1. The authority-citationiar Part 4is

.revised -to.read.as follow a:.*..

AUTHO~

Sec.181. '118 Stat. lM8,.a1 amended (42 U.S.C. 22.lll);cec..274. 73 StaL 688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021): sec. 201, 88 Stat.1242. as amended-142-U.S.C. 5841):wec.

207,.Pub.J..95-604, 92 StaL 3033.

Subpart A also issued under eecs. 602-<<IS, Pub. L aa-:352. 78 Stat..252. 253 (42.U.S.C.

200CJd-1..;ZOIJOd-4); sec. 401, 88 Stat. 1254 {42 U.S.C. 5891). Subpart B alsoumed under sec. 504, Pub. L 93-112. 87 Stat. 39t (29 U.S.C.

7116); aec. 119, Pub. L 95-602. 92 Stat. 2984 (29 U.S.C. 794); sec. 122. Pub. L 9lH!02. 92 Stat.

2984 (29 U.S.C. 700[6)), Subpart C also issued under Title Ill of Pub. L 94-135, 89 Stat. 728, as amended (42 U.S.C. 8101).Subpart E also issued under 29 U.S.C. 794.

§ 4.128 l Amended]

2. ln ~ 4.128, "New construction,"

paragraph {aJ ia amended by,adding the hea~ '.'Design. construction, and alteration." to -the beginning of the parasraph.

3. Section 4.128 is further amended by revisiqs paragraph {b) to read as set forth at-the end of.this document.

\Tictor Stello, Jr.

Executive Director for Operazions.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 1040 ADORE~ Comments should be sent to: Marion A. Bowden. 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.. Rm. 4B-112, Washingt,m. DC 20585.

Comments received will be available for public inspection at 1000 Independence Avenue, 'SW., Rm. 4B-112, Washington, DC 20585 from 8 a.m. lo 5 p.m. Monday through Friday except legal holidays.

FOR FUR1'1Efl INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marion A. Bowden, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Wasbington, DC 20585, (202) ~2218 (voice) "Or 252-9"7 (TDDJ.

List of Subjects in 1.0 CFR Part l lM:O Aged. Blind, Buildings, Civil rights, Employment, Equal -employment opportunity, Grant programs, Handicapped, Loan programs, Sex disr.rimination.

For ihe m asent1 '8tated mithe preamble,.P.a.ct 1Q40.Qf title lOof the Code of Federal Res-,ilationa u p,opoaed to be amended as.f.oll&wa:

PART 1040-NONDISCRIMINATIOM 1N FEDERAUY..ASSIST£D PROGRAIIS

1. The authority-citation lvr Part.lCKO is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 20 U.S.-C. 1fl81-"19118; ZS US.C.

794, 794a., 794b.,-42 U.S.C. 2000d to 2000d--4, 3801---3631, '5891, 8101---61.07, 6870. nm. et seq.

§ 1040.73 [AmendedJ Z. hi J 1040.7.3, "New :conatroction."

paragraph {-0J is revised 10 reaa-ae,eel forth at the-end of this-dacumenL July 1, 1988.

Marion A. Bowden, Director, Office of Equol Gpportllnily.

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Part i 13 ADDRESSES: Comments should be sem to: J. Arnold Feldman, Chief, Office of Civil Rights Compliance, 1441 L Street NW., "Suite !i01, Washington. OC 20416 Commen.ta received wi11 be avctilable for public inspection at 1441 L StJ:eet NW.*.Suite "501, Washington, UC. from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday lhro1J8'h Friday except legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONT.ACT:

J. Arnold Feldman, Chiet Office of Ci.-il Rights Compliance, S mall Buaineu Administration. 1441 L Stu!el.NW_ Sui~

501, Washington, DC 20416, (202J 6.'13-6054 (Voice), (202) 85:H>579 [TDDl These are not toll-fr-ee nwnbers ADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Small BuaineM Administration currently requires compliance with a particular standard (the 1980 edition of the ANSI). Under this amendment. compliance with a particular:atandard is -no fonger mandated. Rather, recipient* are eocouraged to follow lJFASfor-Oe1N construction and alterations aub;&-.t to the regulation List of Subjecta-in 13 CFR Part US Blind, "Buildings, Civil rights.

Discrimination based -on -race. Culm Religion, Sex, Marital status. A-ge Handicap or-national origin.

Employment. Equal employment opportunity, Grant programs.

Handicapped, Loan programs.

For the reasons stated.in !the preamble, Part ll3 of title 13-0f lhe Code of Federal Regulations is propOtled tobe amended as follows:

PART 113-NONDISCRIIIIIIAt'iOII tN FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROQRMIS OF SBA-EFFECTUATION OF

~

POUCIES-OFftDERALGOVERNMENT AND SBA ADIIINISn:IA T.OA

1. The authority citation for Part 113 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 5, '308, 72 Stat. "385, 894, -as amended: 1s u.s.c. *m, 634,687, 1891: 20 U.S.C. 1B81.-1888; 29U.S.C. m4.

§ 113.3-3 [AmendeclJ

t. In 113.3-3, "Structural acoommedaooM ler-kandicepi,ed clients," paragraph {al is amended by adding the heading..,,Existing facilities.*

al the beginning of the paragraph.

2. Section 113.3-3 is further amended by adding the heading "Design.

constmctian, and alteration. " at the beginning of paragraph {b) end by adding a new sentence after the heading to read as follows: "New facilities shall be designed and constructed to be readily accessible to and usable by persons with handicaps."

a Section 1.13.3-'3 is further amended by revisiff8 paragraph (c) to read WI set forth at the end of this document.

lames Abdnor, 4rlmtn-isuau,r.

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 14 CFR Part 1251 ADDRESS: M.s. Lynda Sampson.

Handicapped and Aged Employment P:rogram Manager, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Room 6111, Code UL-4-00Maryland Avenue SW.,

Washington. DC 2.0546.

Comment& received will be available for public iD.spection at the abov.e address fr-0m 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..

Monday through Friday. except 1~1

• boli.day.'i.

FOR FUATHEJI INFORIUTJOII CONTAC'r.

Ma. Lynda Sampson. ;(20ZI "53-n11

( voiceJ or {202) '26-H36 {TDD).

Lisi of Subjects in 11 CFR Part 1%51 Blind, Buildings, Civil rights.

Employment, Equal emp1/2oyment -

opportunity, Grant-programs, Handicapped, Loan programs.

For the re&M>ns 'Stated in the

-preamble, ]>art 1!51 uftitle "14 -of -the Oode of Federal R*tatiffll.1! is proposed to be amended as follows:

\:t.

I 1

• j:\ I; l

11 ;

I

,, 1

. 1l I

I

(

Ii

9970

-Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 8, 1989 / Proposed Rules PART 1251-NONDISCRIMINATION ON BASIS OF HANDICAP

t. The authority citation for Part 1251 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 29 tf.s.c. '*

f 1251.302 [Amended)

2. In I 1251.302, "New construction,

paragraph (c) is revised to read as set forth at the end of this document.

)IIIIIN C. Fletcber, Administrator.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Part 142 ADDIIEWI: Comments should be sent to: William O. Wallace, Attomey-Adviser, Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Civil Rights, Department of State, Room 4216, Washington, DC 20520.

Comments received will be available for public inspection at Room 4216, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520 from 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except legal holidays.

. FOll*PIIIITHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William 0, Wallace, Attorney-Adviser, Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Civil Rights, Department of State, Room 4216, Washington, DC 20520, (202) 647-8258 (voice or TDD).

ADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of State's existing section 504 requirement for alterations, contained at 22 CFR 142.17(b), mandates compliance with the standards set forth in 41 CFR subpart 101-19.6 (i.e., UFAS). Under this amendment. compliance with UFAS is no longer mandated, but is merely encouraged. This notice also amends paragraph (a), which incorrectly implies that all federally funded construction since 1968 is subject to the Architectural Barriers Act. In fact, only certain federally funded construction triggers Architectural Barriers Act coverage.

Llst of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 142 Blind. Buildings, Civil rights, Employment, Equal employment opportunity, Grant programs, Handicapped, Loan programs.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, Part 142 of title 22 of the Code of Federal regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 142-NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAP IN PROGRAMS AND ACTIVmES RECEIVING FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE l ; The title for Part 142 is revised to read as set forth above.

2. The authority citation for Part 142 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 794.

3. In§ 142.17, paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised to read as follows:

f 142.17 New construction.

(a) DesiJ;n and construction. Each facility or part of a facility constructed by, on behalf of, or for the use of a recipient shall be designed, constructed, and operated in a manner so that the facility or part of the facility is accessible to and usable by persons with handicaps, if the construction was commenced after the effective date of this part.

(b) Alteration. Each facility or part of a facility which is altered by, on behalf of, or for the use of a recipient after the effective date of this part in a manner that affects or could affect the usability of the facility or part of the facility shall, to the maximum extent feasible, be altered so that the altered portion of the facility is readily accessible to and usable by persons with handicaps.

3. Section 142.17 is further amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as set forth at the end of this document.

Kenneth Hunter, Auociate Director for Personnel, Department of State.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION AGENCY Agency for lntematlonat Development 22 CFR Part 217 ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to: Dennis G. Diamond. Acting Director, Office of Equal Opportunity Programs, Agency for International Development, Washington, DC 20523.

Comments received will be available for public inspection at Room 1224 SA-1, 2401 "E" Street NW., Washington, DC from 8:45 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday except legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leticia Peoples, 663-1340 (Voice) or 663-1337 (TDD),

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 217 Blind. Buildings, Civil rights, Employment, Equal employment opportunity, Grant programs, Handicapped, Loan programs.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, Part 217 of title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 217-NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAP IN PROGRAMS AND ACTIVmES RECEIVING FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

1. The title for Part 217 is revised to read as set forth above.

2. The authority citation for Part 217 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 794.

f 217.23 (Amended]

3. In I 217.23, "New construction,"

paragraph (c) is revised to read as set forth at the end of this document.

Dennis Diamond, Acting Director.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Part 104 ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to: LeGree S. Daniels, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Room 5000, Mary E. Switzer Building, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20202-1100.

Comments received will be available for public inspection at Office for Civil Rights Law Library, Room 5022, Mary E.

Switzer Building, 330 C Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20202-1100 from 9 a.m.

to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday except legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frederick T. Cioffi, Acting Director, Policy and Enforcement Service, Room 5046A. Mary E. Switzer Building, 330 C Street SW.* Washington, DC 20202-1100, 732-1635 (Voice) or ~2673 (TDD).

Ust of Subjects in M CFR Part 104 Blind, Buildings, Civil rights, Education, Educational facilities, Employment. Equal educational opportunity, Equal employment opportunity, Grant programs, Handicapped, Loan programs, School construction.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, Part 104 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 104-NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAP IN PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES RECEIVING FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

1. The title for Part 104 is revised to read as set forth above.

i

' f