Public entities who choose to follow ADAAG, however, are not entitled to the elevator exemption contained in title III of the Act and implemented in the title III regulation at §36.401(d) for new construction and §36.404 for alterations. Section 303(b) of title III states that, with some exceptions, elevators are not required in facilities that are less than three stories or have less than 3000 square feet per story. Section 501 of the ADA makes clear that nothing in the Act may be construed to apply a lesser standard to public entities than the standards applied under section 504.
Relevant Documents
Many commenters encouraged the Department to establish more explicit and specificrequirements for training. Onecommenter suggested that the Department should withhold Federal funding if certaintraining is not conducted. Many commenters stated that people with disabilities shouldbe involved in training so that public entities are able to draw from individuals’ livedexperiences. Such actions could include, for example, assisting patients withtransferring to the scan table so that they can receive a PET scan. The Department received many comments in support of the requirements set forth in§ 35.211(c), including comments from public entities and individuals with disabilities.Many commenters provided firsthand accounts of being unable to receive health care orreceiving substandard care because of a lack of accessible examination tables orweight scales. Commenters also described receiving incomplete physical examinationsbecause they could not transfer to an examination table, or forgoing routineexaminations, such as abdominal palpations and breast examinations, due to a lack ofaccessible examination tables.
A group with experience addressing inmate needs recommended the inmate’s input should be required to prevent inappropriate segregation or placement in an inaccessible or inappropriate area. The NPRM also did not propose language addressing the application of the 2004 ADAAG to medical and long-term care facilities in correctional and detention facilities. The provisions of the 2004 ADAAG contain requirements for licensed medical and long-term care facilities, but not those that are unlicensed. A disability advocacy group and a number of other commenters recommended that the Department expand the application of section 232.4 to apply to all such facilities in detention and correctional facilities, regardless of licensure.
The overwhelming majority of commenters responded that the 2 percent ADAAG requirement is inadequate to meet the needs of the incarcerated. Many commenters suggested that the requirement be expanded to apply to each area, type, use, and class of cells in a facility. They asserted that if a facility has separate areas for specific programs, such as a dog training program or a substance abuse unit, each of these areas should also have 2 percent accessible cells but not less than one. These same commenters suggested that 5–7 percent of cells should be accessible to meet the needs of both an aging population and the larger number of inmates with mobility disabilities. One organization recommended that the requirement be increased to 5 percent overall, and that at least 2 percent of each type and use of cell be accessible.
Private litigation as a viable alternative was rejected by the commenters because of the financial limitations of many complainants, and because in some scenarios legal barriers foreclose private litigation as an option. The Department recognizes that the need for effective communication is critical in emergency situations. After due consideration of all of these concerns raised by commenters, the Department has revised § 35.160(c) to narrow the exception permitting reliance on individuals accompanying the individual with a disability during an emergency to make it clear that it only applies to emergencies involving an “imminent threat to the safety or welfare of an individual or the public.” See § 35.160(c)(2)–(3). Arguably, all visits to an emergency room or situations to which emergency workers respond are by definition emergencies. Likewise, an argument can be made that most situations that law enforcement personnel respond to involve, in one way or another, a threat to the safety or welfare of an individual or the public.
Incontrast, if the public entity decided to edit the content of certain preexisting documentsin the process of moving them to the new content management system, such as byupdating the header of a benefits application form to reflect the public entity’s newmailing address, the updated documents would no longer be preexisting for thepurposes of the exception. The Department emphasizes that the purpose of theexception is to free up public entities’ resources that would otherwise be spent focusingdirectly on preexisting documents covered by the exception. Other commenters made alternative suggestions, such as making WCAG 2.1 Level AAcompliance recommended but not required. As discussed in the section entitled,“Inadequacy of Voluntary Compliance with Technical Standards,” and as the last fewdecades have shown, the absence of a mandatory technical standard for web contentand mobile apps has not resulted in widespread equal access for people withdisabilities. For subpart H of this part to have a meaningful effect, the Departmentbelieves it must set forth specific requirements so that both individuals with disabilitiesand public entities have clarity and predictability in terms of what the law requires.
The public entity may comply with the program accessibility requirement by delivering services at alternate accessible sites or making home visits as appropriate. Paragraph (c) provides that nothing in this part prohibits a public entity from providing benefits, services, or advantages to individuals with disabilities, or to a particular class of individuals with disabilities, beyond those required by this part. It is derived from a provision in the section 504 regulations that permits programs conducted pursuant to Federal statute or Executive order that are designed to benefit only individuals with disabilities or a given class of individuals with disabilities to be limited to those individuals with disabilities. Section 504 ensures that federally assisted programs are made available to all individuals, without regard to disabilities, unless the Federal program under which the assistance is provided is specifically limited to individuals with Moindes Limited disabilities or a particular class of individuals with disabilities.
Quality Management System Regulation (qmsr)
All MDE that public entities purchase, lease (including vialease renewals), or otherwise acquire after October 8, 2024, shall, subject to therequirements and limitations set forth in this section, meet the Standards forAccessible MDE, unless and until the public entity satisfies the scopingrequirements set forth in paragraph (b) of this section. (3) With respect to medical and long-term care facilities in jails, prisons, and other detention and correctional facilities, public entities shall apply the 2010 Standards technical and scoping requirements for those facilities irrespective of whether those facilities are licensed. The requirements setforth in sections 242 and 1009 of the 2010 Standards shall not applyuntil January 31, 2013, if a public entity chooses to make structural changesto existing swimming pools, wading pools, or spas built before March 15,2012, for the sole purpose of complying with the program accessibilityrequirements set forth in this section. A public entity shall not ask or require an individual with a disability to pay a surcharge, even if people accompanied by pets are required to pay fees, or to comply with other requirements generally not applicable to people without pets. A public entity shall not ask about the nature or extent of a person’s disability, but may make two inquiries to determine whether an animal qualifies as a service animal. A public entity may ask if the animal is required because of a disability and what work or task the animal has been trained to perform.
Fact Sheet #71: Internship Programs Under The Fair Labor Standards Act
- Commenters said that public entities have control over whichlinks they use when they organize these pages, and that public entities can and shouldtake care to only provide information leading to accessible web content.
- Commenters proposed a range of different requirements, including requirements foreach department or specialty; for every floor and building; for each facility; for everysubpart of a larger entity that has the capacity to manage its own booking system; andfor a particular geographic radius.
- The Department believes that providing other examples of major life activities, including major bodily functions, is within the Attorney General’s authority to both interpret titles II and III of the ADA and promulgate implementing regulations and that these examples provide helpful guidance to the public.
- The amended statute’s first list of major life activities includes, but is not limited to, “caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.” 42 U.S.C. 12102(2)(A).
In response to requests that NPRM factor 1 state more specifically that it requires an assessment of an other power-driven mobility device’s appropriateness under particular circumstances or in particular venues, the Department has added several factors and more specific language. In addition, although the NPRM made reference to the operation of other power-driven mobility devices in “specific venues,” the Department’s intent is captured more clearly by referencing “specific facility” in paragraph (b)(2). The Department also notes that while speed is included in factor 1, public entities should not rely solely on a device’s top speed when assessing whether the device can be accommodated; instead, public entities should also consider the minimum speeds at which a device can be operated and whether the development of speed limit policies can be established to address concerns regarding the speed of the device. Finally, since the ability of the public entity to stow the mobility device when not in use is an aspect of its design and operational characteristics, the text proposed as factor 4 in the NPRM has been incorporated in paragraph (b)(2)(iii).
