Amendment of Health Code Provisions Relating to Requests for Modification
Rule status: Adopted
Agency: DOHMH
Effective date: July 13, 2025
Proposed Rule Full Text
Modification-NOI_to-include-a-consistent-modification-provision_3-31-25.pdf
Adopted Rule Full Text
Modification-Provisions-NOA_6-13-25.pdf
Adopted rule summary:
The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (“Department”) has the authority to modify the application of certain provisions of the Health Code in response to a request by an entity subject to such provisions under certain circumstances. Generally, those circumstances arise when the requestor demonstrates a practical difficulty complying with a particular requirement in a specific instance and the purpose of the Health Code provision can be satisfied without adherence to that requirement. Many, though not all, articles of the Health Code contain provisions granting the Department the authority to modify the application of Health Code terms. These provisions are not consistent. For example, there is variation as to the showing that an entity requesting a modification must make, the ability of the Health Commissioner to designate others to make determinations concerning such requests, and whether a denial of a request can be appealed. The differing language is likely a result of inconsistent drafting over time, rather than due to an intention to adopt different approaches or analyses. To eliminate these inconsistencies, the Board amends the provisions applicable to sections 11.27, 173.13 and 173.14 and to Articles 43, 45, 47, 48, 48-A, 49, 51, 81, 88, 89, 131, 141, 143, 161, 165, 167, 175 and 177 of the Health Code to include a consistent modification provision.
Comments are now closed.
Online comments: 2
-
Welson Chang
Comment added April 30, 2025 12:04pmThe proposed rule is unacceptable in its current form. Is there an overwhelming reason why the “undue, unusual or unreasonable hardships” provisions are being removed? All the provisions can be standardized with the language included. “Practical difficulties” and “Undue Hardships” are different levels of standards. The removal of the “Undue Hardships” provisions will generate endless administrative headaches for the public.
Giving credit to AI:
In the context of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), “practical difficulties” and “undue hardship” refer to different levels of employer burden related to reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities. While practical difficulties might describe minor challenges or inconveniences, undue hardship signifies a significant burden, potentially requiring substantial costs or disruption to the employer’s operations. Essentially, employers are obligated to provide reasonable accommodations unless they would cause undue hardships.Elaboration:
Practical Difficulties: These are less severe challenges that might arise from providing an accommodation. They could include minor adjustments to the workplace, like rearranging furniture or providing assistive technology.Undue Hardship: This is a more significant burden on the employer. It means the accommodation would cause a substantial difficulty or expense, considering factors like the size of the employer, the nature of their operations, and their financial resources. Examples of undue hardship might include excessive costs, significant disruption to the business, or fundamental changes to job requirements.
ADA Requirement:
The ADA mandates employers to provide reasonable accommodations unless doing so would cause undue hardship.Examples:
Practical Difficulty: Providing a quiet workspace for an employee with anxiety to better focus might be a practical difficulty.Undue Hardship: If an employee’s accommodation request involves extensive changes to the workplace, like a major renovation, that could constitute undue hardship.
Key Considerations:
Nature and Cost of Accommodation: The cost and difficulty of providing the accommodation are key factors.
Employer’s Resources: The size, financial resources, and type of operation of the employer are also relevant.
Impact on Operations: How the accommodation will affect the employer’s ability to operate is another important factor. -
Dana Dice
Comment added April 30, 2025 1:13pmI dot agree with changing the wording from “undue, unusual or unreasonable hardships.” All the provisions can be standardized with the language included. “Practical difficulties” and “Undue Hardships” are different levels of standards. The removal of the “Undue Hardships” provisions will generate endless administrative headaches for the public. I don’t want the changes to be done.