|
1-5 of 5 messages
|
Page 1 of 1
|
|
Disab. act tighten definition of service animal
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on June 16, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is crazy, monkeys can be serious helpers for seriously disabled, more so then dogs since they can be trained to open cabinets, etc…
To others allergic to fur, reptiles can be ‘service’ animals so to speak, as having animals can be relaxation for many...is is not good.
I know of a local guy who has wolf hybrids, he is Vietnam disabled veteran and the canines help him deal with the stress.
Z
=
==
<snip>
The new standards would, for example, affect the location of light switches, the height of retail service counters and the use of monkeys as service animals.
<snip>
Limits on service animals
The proposed rules affirm the right of people with disabilities to use guide dogs and other service animals in public places, but they tighten the definition to exclude certain species.
When the existing rules were adopted in the early 1990s, the Justice Department said, few people anticipated the current trend toward "the use of wild, exotic or unusual species" as service animals.
The proposed rules define a service animal as "any dog or other common domestic animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks" for a person with a physical or mental disability.
Under this definition, monkeys would not qualify as service animals. The proposed rules also would exclude snakes and other reptiles; amphibians; rabbits, ferrets and rodents; and farm animals such as horses, pigs and goats.
<snip>
==============
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004479214_ada16.html
Monday, June 16, 2008 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
E-mail article Print view Share: Digg Newsvine
Sweeping ADA update would affect millions
The Bush administration is about to propose far-reaching rules that would give people with disabilities greater access to tens of thousands...
By ROBERT PEAR
The New York Times
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is about to propose far-reaching rules that would give people with disabilities greater access to tens of thousands of courtrooms, swimming pools, golf courses, stadiums, theaters, hotels and stores.
The proposal would substantially update and rewrite federal standards for enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act, a landmark civil-rights law passed with strong bipartisan support in 1990.
The new rules would set more stringent requirements in many areas and address some issues for the first time, in an effort to meet the needs of an aging population and growing numbers of disabled war veterans.
More than 7 million businesses and all state and local government agencies would be affected. The proposal includes some exemptions for parts of existing buildings, but any new construction or renovations would have to comply.
The new standards would, for example, affect the location of light switches, the height of retail service counters and the use of monkeys as service animals.
The Bush administration approved the proposal in May after a five-month review. It is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, with 60 days for public comment. After considering those comments, the government would issue final rules with the force of law.
The proposal is stirring concern. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says it would be onerous and costly, but advocates for disabled people say it does not go far enough.
The Census Bureau says more than 51 million Americans have a disability, with nearly two-thirds reporting severe impairments.
Proposed requirements
The proposed rules, under development for more than four years, flesh out the meaning of the 1990 law, which set forth broad objectives. The 215,000-word proposal includes these new requirements:
• Courts would have to provide a lift or ramp to ensure that people in wheelchairs could get into the witness stand.
• Auditoriums would have to provide a lift or ramp so wheelchair users could "participate fully and equally in graduation exercises and other events."
• Any sports stadium with a seating capacity of 25,000 or more would have to provide safety and emergency information by posting written messages on scoreboards and video monitors to alert people who are deaf or hard of hearing.
• Light switches in hotel rooms could not be more than 48 inches high. The current maximum is 54 inches.
• A new swimming pool with a perimeter of more than 300 feet would have to provide "at least two accessible means of entry," such as a gentle sloping ramp or a chair lift.
The Justice Department estimated the changes would cost $23 billion.
Under the 1990 law, businesses are supposed to remove barriers to people with disabilities if the changes are "readily achievable," meaning they can be "carried out without much difficulty or expense."
The Bush administration is proposing a safe harbor for small businesses. They could meet their obligations in a given year if, in the prior year, they had spent at least 1 percent of their gross revenues to remove barriers.
Curtis Decker, executive director of the National Disability Rights Network, a coalition of legal advocates, said: "Safe harbors make us very nervous. A small business could spend the requisite amount of money and still not be accessible."
Randel Johnson, a vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the proposed rules "are so long and technically complex that even the best-intentioned small business could be found out of compliance by a clever lawyer looking to force a settlement."
Limits on service animals
The proposed rules affirm the right of people with disabilities to use guide dogs and other service animals in public places, but they tighten the definition to exclude certain species.
When the existing rules were adopted in the early 1990s, the Justice Department said, few people anticipated the current trend toward "the use of wild, exotic or unusual species" as service animals.
The proposed rules define a service animal as "any dog or other common domestic animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks" for a person with a physical or mental disability.
Under this definition, monkeys would not qualify as service animals. The proposed rules also would exclude snakes and other reptiles; amphibians; rabbits, ferrets and rodents; and farm animals such as horses, pigs and goats.
The rules confirm that people with disabilities can use traditional wheelchairs, power wheelchairs and electric scooters in any public areas open to pedestrians. But shopping centers and other public places could impose reasonable restrictions on Segway vehicles, golf carts and similar devices.
|
| |
|
RE: Disab. act tighten definition of service anima
|
Reply
|
|
by earthguy on June 16, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I wonder if this legislation would prevent the use of a lame duck as a service animal? :)
|
| |
|
RE: Disab. act tighten definition of service anima
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on June 16, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think it is way past time to throw all the law makers out of office, and start over.
Best Regards John Z
|
| |
|
RE: Disab. act tighten definition of service anima
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on June 17, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
http://regulations.justia.com/view/113212/
,snip>
DATES: All comments must be received by August 18, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments and other data to http://
www.regulations.gov. Address written comments concerning this NPRM to:
ADA NPRM, P.O. Box 2846, Fairfax, VA 22031-0846. Overnight deliveries
should be sent to the Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division,
U.S. Department of Justice, located at 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Suite
4039, Washington, DC 20005. All comments will be made available for
public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet L. Blizard, Deputy Chief,
Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of
Justice, at (202) 307-0663 (voice or TTY). This is not a toll-free
number. Information may also be obtained from the Department's toll-
free ADA Information Line at (800) 514-0301 (voice) or (800) 514-0383
(TTY).
This rule is also available in an accessible format on the ADA Home
Page at http://www.ada.gov. You may obtain copies of this rule in large
print or on computer disk by calling the ADA Information Line at the
number listed above.
<snip>
In addition, the Department believes that it is necessary to
eliminate from coverage all wild animals, whether born or bred in
captivity or the wild. Some animals, such as nonhuman primates, pose a
direct threat to safety based on behavior that can be aggressive and
violent without notice or provocation. The American Veterinary Medical
Association (AVMA) issued a position statement against the use of
monkeys as service animals, stating, ``[t]he AVMA does not support the
use of nonhuman primates as assistance animals because of animal
welfare concerns, the potential for serious injury, and zoonotic
[animal-to-human disease transmission] risks.'' See the AVMA 2005
position statement, Nonhuman Primates as Assistance Animals, available
at http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/nonhuman_primates.asp. The
potential for nonhuman primates to transmit dangerous diseases to
humans has been documented in scientific journals.
Although unusual species make up a very small percentage of service
animals as a collective group, their use has engendered broad public
debate and, therefore, the Department seeks comment on this issue.
Question 10: Should the Department eliminate certain species from
the definition of ``service animal''? If so, please provide comment on
the Department's use of the phrase ``common domestic animal'' and on
its choice of which types of animals to exclude.
[[Page 34479]]
Question 11: Should the Department impose a size or weight
limitation for common domestic animals, even if the animal satisfies
the ``common domestic animal'' prong of the proposed definition?
Comfort animals. It is important to address the concept of comfort
animals or emotional support animals, which have become increasingly
popular. The increased use of comfort animals is primarily by
individuals with mental or psychiatric impairments, many of which do
not rise to the level of disability. Comfort animals are also used by
individuals without any type of impairment who claim the need for such
an animal in order to bring their pets into facilities of public
entities.
The difference between an emotional support animal and a
psychiatric service animal is the service that is provided, i.e., the
actual work or task performed by the service animal. Another critical
factor rests on the severity of the individual's impairment. For
example, only individuals with conditions that substantially limit them
in a major life activity qualify for coverage under the ADA, and only
those individuals' use of a service animal will be covered under the
ADA. See definition of disability, 42 U.S.C. 12102(2) and 28 CFR
35.104. Major life activities include functions such as caring for
one's self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing,
speaking, breathing, learning, and working. Many Americans have some
type of physical or mental impairment (e.g., arthritis, anxiety, back
pain, imperfect vision, etc.), but establishing a physical or mental
disability also requires a substantial limitation of a major life
activity. Traditionally, service dogs worked as guides for individuals
who were blind or had low vision. Since the original regulations were
promulgated, service animals have been trained to assist individuals
with different types of disabilities. As a result, individuals with
minor impairments may mistakenly conclude that any type of impairment
qualifies them for ADA coverage.
Change ``service animal'' to ``assistance animal.'' Some commenters
asserted that ``assistance animal'' is a term of art and should replace
``service animal.'' While some agencies, like the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD), use the term ``assistance animal,'' that
term is used to denote a broader category of animals than is covered by
the ADA. The Department believes that changing the term used under the
ADA would create confusion, particularly in view of the broader
parameters for coverage under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) (cf., HUD
Handbook No. 4350.3 Rev-1, Chg-2, Occupancy Requirements of Subsidized
Multifamily Housing Programs (June 2007), available at http://
www.hudclips.org.) Moreover, the Department's proposal to change the
definition of ``service animal'' under the ADA is not intended to
affect the rights of people with disabilities who use assistance
animals in their homes under the FHA.
In addition, the term ``psychiatric service animal'' describes a
service animal that does work or performs a task for the benefit of an
individual with a psychiatric disability. This contrasts with
``emotional support'' animals that are covered under the Air Carrier
Access Act, 49 U.S.C. 41705 et seq., and its implementing regulations,
14 CFR 382.7, see also 68 FR 24874, 24877 (May 9, 2003) (guidance on
accommodation of service animals and emotional support animals on air
transportation) and qualify as ``assistance animals'' under the FHA,
but do not qualify as ``service animals'' under the ADA.
<snip>
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
