ACT TODAY: June 16th (Last day to comment on crucial accessibility ruling for federally assisted programs)

Take 5 mins and comment on current legislation that could significantly undermine accessibility: Comment Here

What It Is, And What You Can Say:

What's being removed: The DOE is eliminating a rule that required all new buildings and major renovations funded with federal money to be accessible to people with disabilities. This rule had been in place since 1980 and required buildings to follow accessibility standards (like ramps, accessible bathrooms, etc.).

DOE's reasoning: They say the rule is "unnecessary and unduly burdensome" and that private entities should have "flexibility to comply with the law" in whatever way they think is most efficient. They argue that one-size-fits-all rules aren't the best approach.

Important Details

• These are "direct final rules," meaning they automatically become law unless enough people submit serious objections
• The comment period ends June 16, 2025
• Both changes apply to any program or organization that receives federal funding from the Department of Energy
• The document claims these changes will reduce regulatory burden and give more flexibility to local entities

Here are 10 example comments opposing the removal of accessibility requirements for new construction:

1. Legal Compliance Concern

Removing 10 CFR 1040.73 undermines compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Federal agencies should strengthen, not weaken, accessibility protections. The existing rule provides clear guidance that helps recipients avoid costly legal violations and ensures consistent implementation of disability rights laws.

2. Economic Impact on People with Disabilities

This change will create significant economic barriers for people with disabilities by forcing them to seek alternative facilities or pay for expensive retrofits. The DOE has not conducted any analysis of the costs this will impose on the disability community, who represent 27.7% of the U.S. population (CDC).

3. Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Accessible design benefits everyone, especially during emergencies. Features like wider doorways, ramps, and accessible exits are crucial for evacuation procedures. Removing these requirements could create life-threatening situations during fires, natural disasters, or other emergencies when people need to exit buildings quickly.

4. Contradiction of Federal Policy

This rule contradicts decades of federal policy promoting inclusion and equal access. The DOE provides no evidence that the current requirements are actually 'unduly burdensome,' and their elimination sends a message that disability rights are negotiable rather than fundamental civil rights.

5. Cost-Effectiveness of Universal Design

Universal design principles are most cost-effective when implemented during initial construction rather than as later modifications. Removing this requirement will likely result in higher overall costs as buildings will need expensive retrofits to accommodate employees, customers, and visitors with disabilities.

6. Lack of Flexibility Rationale

The DOE's claim that 'one-size-fits-all rules are rarely the best option' ignores that accessibility standards already include flexibility through equivalent facilitation provisions and alternative compliance methods. The Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards referenced in the current rule provide multiple ways to achieve compliance.

7. Workforce and Employment Impact

This change could limit employment opportunities for people with disabilities in federally-funded projects and facilities. Without guaranteed accessibility, qualified workers with disabilities may be excluded from job opportunities, contradicting federal employment equity goals and potentially violating equal employment opportunity requirements.

8. Inconsistency with Other Federal Agencies

This action creates inconsistency across federal agencies, as other departments maintain similar accessibility requirements. This patchwork approach will create confusion for recipients of federal funding and potentially undermine the effectiveness of federal disability rights enforcement.

9. Insufficient Justification and Analysis

The DOE has provided no empirical evidence, cost-benefit analysis, or stakeholder input to support their claim that these requirements are 'unnecessary and unduly burdensome.' This significant policy change affecting millions of Americans with disabilities deserves thorough analysis and public input, not summary elimination.

10. Constitutional and Civil Rights Concerns

This rule change may violate the Equal Protection Clause by creating a class of federally-funded buildings that are inaccessible to people with disabilities. It also conflicts with the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, which requires federal facilities to be accessible. The DOE lacks authority to effectively nullify other federal accessibility requirements through regulatory rescission."

Each comment addresses different aspects: legal compliance, economic impact, safety, policy consistency, cost analysis, employment effects, federal coordination, procedural concerns, and constitutional issues.