- Joined
- Jun 16, 2019
- Messages
- 56,571
- Reaction score
- 65,486
- Location
- Tucson
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
1) The clause in 10 CFR 1040.1(a) stating, “or when the delivery of services is affected by the recipient's employment practices.” Importantly, the rescission of this clause in no way disturbs the following clauses stating that, “under section 504, all grantee and subgrantee employment practices are covered regardless of the purpose of the program” and, “Employment coverage may be broader in scope when section 16, section 401, or Title IX are applicable.” As to these undisturbed clauses, it is further noted that the employment practices covered by DOE's section 504 regulations at subpart D are not affected by this direct final rule. Additionally, the remedies available under section 16 and section 401 are not exclusive to subpart B of 10 CFR part 1040, and thus, do not prejudice any other legal remedies available to any persons alleging sex discrimination in a programs authorized by the Federal Energy Administration Act or the Federal Energy Organization Act that are not covered by 10 CFR part 1040. Finally, the coverage of employment under title IX, which is enforced by DOE regulations at 10 CFR part 1042, is not affected by this direct final rule.
he purpose of this part is to implement Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. 88-352; section 16 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended, Pub. L. 93-275; section 401 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-438; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, Pub. L. 92-318, Pub. L. 93-568 and Pub. L. 94-482; section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, Pub. L. 93-112; the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Pub. L. 94-135; Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Pub. L. 90-284; and civil rights provisions of statutes administered pursuant to authority under the DOE Organization Act, Pub. L. 95-91, so no person shall, on the ground of race, color, national origin, sex (when covered by section 16 and section 401), handicap, or age, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, be subjected to discrimination under, or be denied employment, where a primary purpose of the Federal financial assistance is to provide employment or when the delivery of services is affected by the recipient's employment practices (under section 504, all grantee and subgrantee employment practices are covered regardless of the purpose of the program), in connection with any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Energy (after this referred to as DOE or the Department). Employment coverage may be broader in scope when section 16, section 401, or Title IX are applicable.
If the proposed changes move forward, newly constructed or renovated federally funded buildings may no longer be required to meet specific accessibility standards such as the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS). This could mean that features like ramps, elevators, accessible restrooms, and other elements that support equitable access would not consistently be included in federally funded projects.
The DOE published two Direct Final Rules (DFRs) on May 16, 2025. In the rule rescinding 10 CFR 1040.73, which addresses accessibility in new construction, the agency noted that Section 504 already prohibits discrimination based on disability in federally funded programs and activities and expressed the view that additional construction-specific requirements may be redundant.
The DOE stated, “Given the general prohibition on discriminatory activities and related penalties … DOE finds these additional provisions unnecessary and unduly burdensome.”
Now, here's the fun part. 10 CFR part 1040:
Which means this:
Public Comment Period Closes on Proposed DOE Rule Change Affecting Building Accessibility Protections - Disability Belongs™
According to Regulations.gov, 20,711 public comments were submitted in response to the rule on new construction requirements.www.respectability.org
Wheelchair ramps are "burdensome."
This is what MAGAs voted for.
Has he tried being less burdensome?Will be interesting to see how Texas Governor Maggot Abbott, who is wheelchair-bound, responds to this.
Has he tried being less burdensome?
They can be.https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...-in-federally-assisted-programs-or-activities
Now, here's the fun part. 10 CFR part 1040:
Which means this:
https://www.respectability.org/2025/06/doe-rule-change/
Wheelchair ramps are "burdensome."
That's true.This is what MAGAs voted for.
Now, here's the fun part. 10 CFR part 1040:
Which means this:
Public Comment Period Closes on Proposed DOE Rule Change Affecting Building Accessibility Protections - Disability Belongs™
According to Regulations.gov, 20,711 public comments were submitted in response to the rule on new construction requirements.www.respectability.org
Wheelchair ramps are "burdensome."
This is what MAGAs voted for.
In this case, it is "the entirety of new DOE construction."They can be.
As a long-time Union Steward, I have considerable practical experience with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the related rules and regulations. Demanding that all areas be made wheelchair friendly is a non-starter. The question has always been where to drae the line.
Disapproving. There is no point to this whatsoever except to **** with disabled people.That's true.
Are you approving or disapproving.
Until someone lands in a wheelchair.Demanding that all areas be made wheelchair friendly is a non-starter.
I knew you'd be okay with this.No ramps where I live, but never a problem getting a lift when needed.
Some people are just bad.Until someone lands in a wheelchair.
On this ONE subject you shouldn't care about whether this idea fits within your political viewpoint, the idea of removing wheelchair access ANYWHERE should be an abhorrent idea to you no matter what your politics.
If it isn't abhorrent to you I think that speaks loudly, very loudly, to how you view all things through a political spectrum. Period.
We've seen how Trump has difficulty navigating ramps. They must be abolished.
Now, here's the fun part. 10 CFR part 1040:
Which means this:
Public Comment Period Closes on Proposed DOE Rule Change Affecting Building Accessibility Protections - Disability Belongs™
According to Regulations.gov, 20,711 public comments were submitted in response to the rule on new construction requirements.www.respectability.org
Wheelchair ramps are "burdensome."
This is what MAGAs voted for.
Bad is a broad term. I prefer to say small-minded, selfish, and cold-hearted.Some people are just bad.
How about "defective primates"?Bad is a broad term. I prefer to say small-minded, selfish, and cold-hearted.
The ADA allows for accommodation for existing buildings. For instance, if a ramp can’t be installed for a business, service can be provided by other means, such as curb side delivery. The “burdensom” test is not new.They can be.
As a long-time Union Steward, I have considerable practical experience with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the related rules and regulations. Demanding that all areas be made wheelchair friendly is a non-starter. The question has always been where to drae the line.
That's true.
Are you approving or disapproving.
Well, yes. That would fit the pattern.Give these assholes a minute, they’ll get back to wanting to lock disabled people up in homes and keep them out of the public eye.
When they show you who they are, believe them.Well, yes. That would fit the pattern.
Where did I say I was okay with this, just making a comment about the people where I live.I knew you'd be okay with this.
They learned it from Taco Daddy.Give these assholes a minute, they’ll get back to wanting to lock disabled people up in homes and keep them out of the public eye.
They don’t see them as worth anything.
How about accessible restrooms? Should those be eliminated as well?No ramps where I live, but never a problem getting a lift when needed.
Until someone lands in a wheelchair.
On this ONE subject you shouldn't care about whether this idea fits within your political viewpoint, the idea of removing wheelchair access ANYWHERE should be an abhorrent idea to you no matter what your politics.
If it isn't abhorrent to you I think that speaks loudly, very loudly, to how you view all things through a political spectrum. Period.
cruelHow about "defective primates"?
Where did mention eliminating anything? My comment was solely speaking about the people where I live, who help one another without being divided by political views.How about accessible restrooms? Should those be eliminated as well?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?