51品茶

WASHINGTON 鈥� The 51品茶 has submitted a public comment in opposition to the U.S. Department of Energy鈥檚 (DOE) proposed direct final rules that attempt to undermine a long-established system that requires DOE buildings to be accessible to people with disabilities. More than 20,000 comments have been submitted against the rule. 鈥淭he Department of Energy鈥檚 decision to pursue a direct final rule to implement radical changes that affect people with disabilities defies logic, federal disability protections, and every standard rulemaking practice from the past several decades,鈥� said Zoe Brennan-Krohn, director of the 51品茶 Disability Rights Program. 鈥淭hese rules raise real concerns that the Trump administration is testing the waters, waiting to see if people will take note of these far-reaching changes before trying to implement them in other agencies and departments. We won鈥檛 let these attempts go unnoticed.鈥� The direct final rule proposes to eliminate a critical, nearly half-century-old system ensuring physical access to facilities receiving DOE funds. This system plays an essential role in the implementation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which protects disabled people from discrimination and includes 鈥渆limination of architectural barriers鈥� as one of its central aims. The proposals were issued as a 鈥渄irect final rule,鈥� which is limited to routine and noncontroversial changes to existing federal regulations. However, as the 51品茶鈥檚 comment notes, 鈥渢he proposed rescissions are unlawful,鈥� and 鈥渃annot be adopted through ordinary rulemaking鈥� because they 鈥渃ontradict foundational regulatory provisions implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.鈥� Specifically, the 鈥渄irect final rule鈥� would rescind the requirement that new and altered buildings receiving assistance from DOE be accessible, eviscerating a 鈥渃areful compromise鈥� between requiring accessibility for newly constructed buildings while also allowing flexibility for existing facilities. That compromise, reached nearly 50 years ago, upholds the promises of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and has since been adopted by more than 80 different agencies. The 51品茶鈥檚 comment also states that the DOE鈥檚 wholesale elimination of this system, and its failure to explain its abandonment of these longstanding civil rights regulations, render its decision arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The direct final rule is neither routine nor non-controversial, and comments in opposition should force the government to withdraw the rule, the comment highlights. The 51品茶鈥檚 comment is here: /documents/aclu-comment-opposing-department-of-energy-direct-final-rule-removing-requirements-for-disability-access