Good day ladies and gentlemen and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Segways, Golf Carts, Four-Wheelers, Oh My! Conference. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later we will conduct a questions and answers session and instructions will be given at that time. As a reminder this conference is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Robin Jones. Maam you may begin your conference.
Thank you and greetings everyone and we do apologize that weve had a little bit of a glitch with our sound today in the webinar platform. With all things technology is never perfect and were trying the best we can to make sure everyone is connected. We do have the visuals still taking place in the webinar platform, as well as captioning, for those of you that want to and need to use those various options. So, again, we have people connected through the telephone for audio as well as captioning through the webinar platform and all visuals are being provided through the webinar platform. Were glad that youre able to join us for todays session. Its an interesting topic and one that people say - different people have different perspectives on this issue so it should be interesting to see how your comments are and your thoughts are based on your experiences with this program. Let me just go through closed captioning is offered with the CC icon at the top of the screen in the webinar platform if youre using it, or control F8 if you are using a keyboard. For those of you in the webinar platform, you can customize your view, to view from the dropdown menu at the top menu bar. It gives you different options, you can customize that and that will be only for you. It doesn''t change everybody else''s. Questions will be taken through the chat area for those that are in the chat area but also because you are on the telephone, you can just use the cueing that''s offered by the operator who will be giving us instructions when it is time to take questions. Those of you in the platform if you are having difficulty, I am sorry, we ask you to not use the hand raising emotions portions of this program because it can be distracting for participants unless you are asked to do so. So at this time, I am going to go ahead and turn it over to our presenter today. The session today is being offered by Sandy Lahmann who is with the Rocky Mountain Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) center. She is an accessibility specialist with them. And her bio and everything was on the website so I won''t take time since we have lost some time today to go through that but Ive known Sandy now for several years and have worked with her nationally. And she is a resource to our technical specialists around the ADA national network, nationally as well. So at this time we will go ahead and turn it over to Sandy Lahmann. Go ahead Sandy.
Thank you so much Robin and thanks for inviting me to give this presentation. I am excited to have the opportunity to do so. The Rocky Mountain ADA center is one of the ten ADA national network members. We serve the six state region of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. And I have the good fortune of being able to attend the Department of Justice internal training that went on in September of 2010 and they also invited some of the staff members from the ADA national network to participate in that internal training that -- training was focused on the revised regulations for Title II and Title III. And so one of the big topics during that training was the wheelchairs and other power driven mobility devices. And so I have got some good information that came out of that training that I would like to share with you today. The new regulations that have gone in to effect recently did include a new section on wheelchairs and other power driven mobility devices that have not been in the previous regulations. Since the inception of the ADA, the mobility devices that have been used has started to change significantly. There has been new technological developments and individuals with disabilities who are having some new innovative uses of devices, and so individuals with disabilities were showing up using segways and ATVs and golf carts and all manner of new mobility devices. So there became a need for addition guidance and that''s why the Department of Justice decided they would develop these new regulations. These regulations went in to effect on March 15, 2011 and they apply to Title II, state and local government programs, and Title III, which are the places of public accommodation. They are only in Title II and Title III. These regulations do not affect the Title V regulations that are related to federal wilderness areas. So the definition of wheelchair as it applies to federal wilderness areas, in Title V, remains un-affected. So today we are only going to be talking about this Title II and Title III regulations. And you will find that those regulations related to other power driven mobility devices and wheelchairs are identical in Title II and Title III. So everything I am going through today will apply equally to Title II and Title III. I really encourage you to go directly to the regulations because they are very readable and at this point, this is actually - these regulations are actually - your best resource. So I have on the slide both the Title II regulations. The -- and I am showing the use regulations, how these devices can be used and that''s section 35.137 in Title II and Title III regulations at 36.311 and I have links for both of those. But what I did not put on the slide is theres also the definition component. So if you look on the definitions in Title II 35.104 and the definitions in Title III at 36.104, they will include the definitions for wheelchairs and other power driven mobility devices. My powerpoint is going to follow those regulations pretty closely but I want to point out where to find guidance on these regulations because they are very new, we are not yet seeing any settlement agreements or consent decrees. Very often we go to those as a resource to look at how these regulations are being interpreted. As of yet we have no settlement agreements or consent decrees that include these. We also don''t have any Project Civic Access agreements that are including these regulations either. So we can''t go to those at this point. There a few publications out there but not a lot. The only publication we currently have from the Department of Justice is a small section within their publication, the ADA update, A Primer for Small Business. You will find that in one of my last slides if you are looking for that link. So there is just a very small section in that publication. We also - and these are also on the end of my presentation - we have a publication from the ADA national network that gives information on the regulations. And the Northwest ADA Center has a publication that''s available. Those are basically all the publications that are out there at this time so were not having a lot of written materials on this. But I would really encourage you to go back to those regulations because those regulations have a section of guidance in section by section analysis that are included within those. And that is your best resource of guidance at this point. So I really encourage you to dig in to that. Now that''s a huge long section that are included with those regulations. Sometimes you look at that and youre like, wow where am I going to find anything in here? But if you utilize a search and search for mobility devices, you will find both the section by section analysis on the definitions and the section by section analysis on the use requirements in there. And so I really encourage you to go to those as a prime resource and I am going to be including a lot of information in that guidance in this presentation as well. Okay to give you a basic overview, what the Department of Justice decided to do is to create a two tiered approach to this situation. They created one tier that includes wheelchairs. We have a definition of wheelchair and the provisions for use. We have a separate tier, a separate section on other power driven mobility devices and their definition and their provisions for use and these are very separate. Wheelchairs are allowed to be used almost everywhere, everywhere that pedestrians are allowed, wheelchairs can be used. But other power driven mobility devices we have assessment factors that determine their use and so we really have to separate these in our minds. What we are going to do today in this presentation is we are -- we are going to start by looking at the definition of wheelchair, the provisions for use for wheelchair, and then we will move in to other power driven mobility devices and we are going to look at when reasonable modifications need to be made to permit the use of these devices. Let''s start with the definition of wheelchair. And the exact definition in the regulations states that wheelchair is a manually operated or power driven device designed primarily for use by an individual with a mobility disability for the main purpose of indoor or both indoor and outdoor locomotion. Lets really look at pieces of that definition. The area I have in bold there is a key point. Designed primarily for use by an individual with a mobility disability. So wheelchairs are meant for individuals with mobility disabilities. If it is not originally designed for an individual with a mobility disability it is not considered a wheelchair. So that''s the first question you have to ask yourself is if it meets that criteria or not. Then the second part of that main purpose of indoor or both indoor and outdoor locomotion. Im seeing some folks who are starting to blur those and trying to put indoor or outdoor and it is not indoor or outdoor. It is a device thats meant to be used indoor or its a device thats meant to be used both used indoor and outdoor. At some point in time this device has to be able to be utilized indoors. If its a device that is only meant to be utilized outdoors, it is not a wheelchair. Both of those are really important parts of the definition. Now this definition does include mobility scooters. Mobility scooters are designed primarily for use by an individual with a mobility disability and it can be used indoor or it can be used indoor and outdoor. So mobility scooters fit that definition. You will note that there is no restriction in the size or weight of the device. There is nothing that says that must be within a certain size. This definition has no size or weight restrictions. Now when we look at mobility disability, keep in mind that we are not having a narrow definition of mobility disability. Mobility disability includes a wide range of disabilities including circulatory, respiratory disabilities that make walking difficult or impossible. So when we look at the use of a wheelchair, we are not looking at a small group of individuals with a specific type of disability like a spinal cord injury. We are looking at a wide range of individuals who may have a variety of different types of disabilities that make walking difficult or impossible. Okay. Now once we have identified that a type of device is a wheelchair, what the use regulations indicate is that cover entities must permit individuals with mobility disabilities to use wheelchairs in any area open to pedestrian use. So if it is open to pedestrians the individual can use their wheelchair in that location. In addition, the regulations tell us that we must allow individuals mobility disabilities to use manually powered mobility aids in areas open to pedestrian use. This may include walkers, crutches, canes, braces and other similar devices. That is a nonexhaustive list though, there could be other types of manually powered mobility aids that might be developed in the future that people will start using and they can be included in this category too. So whether somebody is in a wheelchair, walker, crutches, cranes, braces they are able -- they are able to use those devices in any area open to pedestrian use. Now we are going to switch over to other power driven mobility devices. Now we are going in to an entirely different thought pattern here. We want to keep wheelchairs in our minds separate from other power driven mobility devices. And now with other power driven mobility devices we have a new acronym OPDMD. So that gives you a new acronym to kind of think about and try to memorize. But our definition of other power driven mobility device, is any mobility device, powered by batteries, fuel, or other engines, whether or not designed primarily for use by individuals with mobility disabilities, that is used by an individual with a mobility disability for the purpose of locomotion. And a key factor is it is not a wheelchair. So thats the first thing you need to do when you are looking at a mobility device and trying to determine, do I treat this as a wheelchair? Or do I treat this as another power driven mobility device. First you have to ask yourself, does it fit the definition of a wheelchair? If it fits the definition of a wheelchair you apply those criteria. If it does not fit the definition of a wheelchair, now we are looking at the other power driven mobility device. You will note in that definition that other power driven mobility devices may not necessarily be designed primarily for use by individuals with mobility disabilities. For example, the segway PT is a device that was originally intended for - to have a recreational use. But individuals with mobility disabilities started using them as a mobility device, same thing could be said for a lot of the others. We have some examples of other power driven mobility devices that would be included in this type of definition. Golf carts, segway PTs come under a broader category that we are now getting another acronym opportunity. Electronic personal assistance mobile devices or EPAMDs. And you will see those starting to appear in a lot of policies. So make note of that acronym so you know what it is when you are looking at it but theres other devices that fit into that category in addition to segways. So in addition, Electric Assisted Bicycles, were now seeing that acronym, maybe, EAB. So we are adding a bunch of acronyms to our list. Also ATVs. All of those types of devices are included under that definition. All of these devices were originally not planned - designed for use by an individual with a mobility disability. They all started out with this recreational type of component they were meant for the general population. But then individuals with mobility disabilities decided that they would be a good mobility tool. Also included this definition is any mobility device designed to operate in areas without defined pedestrian routes. So what we are -- what we are getting is some of these new types of devices that are being designed, they are meant for individuals with mobility disabilities to be able to go out in natural areas. There is no defined pedestrian route. Maybe they are going out on beaches in the sand or theyre going out just cross country. Those devices are specifically meant for outdoors. They are not meant for indoors. And that would fall under the definition of other power driven mobility device. Now once we have determined we have other power driven mobility device, now we need to look at the regulations that identify how they are to be used. And those regulations indicate that covered entities must make reasonable modifications to permit individuals with mobility disabilities to use these devices unless the entity can demonstrate that such use would fundamentally alter program services or activities, create a direct threat, or create a safety hazard. Now I want to really stress the point that this is making is that the default is that Title II and Title III entities must permit these devices unless they can demonstrate that there is a safety hazard. A fundamental alteration. So the default is to permit the use unless they can identify that exception, a valid exception. Now what I am starting to see by some entities that are developing policies, is that they are starting with a, you can''t use the device unless we decide you can use the device and we haven''t mentioned it in our policy. So you can''t use it because we haven''t mentioned it. That is backwards. According to the regulations, that individuals are - should be permitted to use these devices unless the Title II or Title III entity has demonstrated that there is an exception that they cannot allow their use. So that''s an important point. Okay. Now the entity has to demonstrate there is a legitimate safety requirement associated with providing this exception. If there is a legitimate safety reason that the device should not be used in a particular facility, in a particular setting, then they can exclude the use. But what the regulations are clear on is that it must be based on actual risks, not on speculation, stereotypes, or generalizations about a particular class of devices, about individuals with disabilities, or about how such individuals will use the device. So there can''t be any paternalistic kind of ideas of, oh it just wouldnt be safe for people with special needs to use this device. That doesnt work. They have to be actual objective evidence of a legitimate safety risk for an exception to be used. Now when you are -- one of the things you also have to do when you are looking at those legitimate safety issues, is you have to look at whether safety requirements can be established for safe operation. One of the key points in the big items that we got from Department of Justice in their training was that you can''t exclude a device simply because it has the capacity to go fast. And I am seeing a lot of violations of this. So say that there is a device that actually has the capacity to go 25 miles per hour and Title II or Title III entities, worry, we can''t have that going 25 miles an hour. You can''t exclude the device based on that. What you do is you set a speed limit. Okay. So the burden is on the Title II or the Title III entity to show that if use is not reasonable, the burden is not on the individual with a disability to prove that it is reasonable to use the device. The burden is on the Title II or Title III entity to show that it is not reasonable. Additional guidance is that we need to make sure that when assessment is made, it is made regarding a class of devices. Not the individual''s use of the device. So if you have one person who is recklessly using a device and causing problems, that doesn''t mean that you can eliminate that entire class of devices. You can use the direct threat provision to -- to eliminate, okay that individual is recklessly causing problems with this. You can assess that to the individual. But what the Title II and Title III entities must do is look at the class of devices. Let''s look at the segways in general. All segways in general. Are we going to allow segways in this facility, in this setting? Let''s look at ATVs in general. Are we going to allow use of ATVs in general in this facility in this setting? But with all of this we continue to use our same concepts of fundamental alteration, direct threat, and undue burden. All of those still apply. Now what the regulations have done is given us specific assessment factors that are to be used to determine if a device can be excluded. So those sections in Title II, 35.137 B2 and in Title III, 36.311 B2 they include this assessment factors and again, these are going to be the same for Title II and Title III. They are the same assessment factors. And these assessment factors that Title II and Title III entities must look at, to determine whether they should be allowing a specific other power driven mobility device, a class of those devices, if those should be allowed in a specific facility as a reasonable modification. Ok lets look at each of these assessment factors. The first one is that the entity can look at the type, size, weight, and dimensions and speed of the device. Keep in mind as we are looking at these assessment factors we are not applying these to wheelchairs. That is a whole different game. We said that wheelchairs are allowed in any area open to pedestrian use. So when we are looking at these assessment factors, we are applying them only to other power driven mobility devices. So with this first one, we are looking at type, size, weight, dimension, and speed of the device. And entity does not need to accommodate a device that''s too big. So say that we have a Title III entity. There is a store and this store has complied with either the 1991 ADA standards or the 2010 ADA standards and they have done everything that they need to do on that, but somebody comes along with another power driven mobility device that is too large and doesn''t fit through the door. That entity does not need to exceed the standards. As long as they follow the standards, they are okay. So somebody comes along with another power driven mobility device that''s too big to get in the front door it is not up to that Title III entity to create a larger door. They can exclude that device based on size. It is too big. Remember that speed issue again, you can''t exclude based on it has the capacity of a high speed. What you do is you set the speed limit. The assessment factor, the second assessment factor has to do with the facility''s volume of pedestrian traffic. Which may vary at different times of the day, week, month or year. So this is when we are really making an individual evaluation of the situation. So we determine if we are looking at a particular class of other power driven mobility devices, so we are looking at segways, we determine if this will fit -- if this will work in a particular facility, and that may differ between different facilities. There may be certain facilities that its use would be appropriate. Other facilities its use would not be appropriate. And that may vary depending on the volume of pedestrian traffic. So say you have a shopping mall and generally, that shopping mall could accommodate a segway. But during the Christmas season, the pedestrian traffic is so heavy that it develops safety concerns. You can develop a policy during it time of the the year or this time of the week or this time of the day. We will accept this device. But during these other times of the year or the week or the day we will not accept this device. So you can vary it in that way. Okay. Let''s go to assessment factor No. 3. Looking at the facility''s design and operational characteristics. For example, whether it is service program or activities conducted indoors, its square footage, the density, and placement of stationary devices, and availability of storage for the device if requested by the user. The size of the facility may make a big difference on whether another power driven mobility device can be accepted or not. So what one store may accept another store may not. This indoors versus outdoors things can be very important. Generally fuel powered devices are not going to be allowed in indoor areas because there is safety factor in that. So but it might be appropriate in an outdoor setting. So we look at the specific characteristics of the facility to make the determination. Okay. Assessment factor 4, whether legitimate safety requirements can be established to permit the safe operation of the other power driven mobility device in a specific facility. So if a Title II or Title III entity has determined, okay we have a safety concern, there is an issue here. The next question then must automatically be can we establish some requirements that would allow safe use. Setting the speed limit might allow safe use in that situation. Can we make requirements that they need to be limited to a certain area of the facility?. That type of thing. Now again when you are looking at legitimate safety requirements, these must be based on actual legitimate objective evidence that these are needed and they should not be based on generalizations or stereotypes about individuals with disabilities. So you don''t look at, oh, gee, do I - I think an individual with a disability should be using it in this fashion. You just look at those objective criteria to make that determination. Okay. The fifth assessment factor and this is the last one, is whether the use of another power driven mobility device creates a substantial risk of serious harm to the immediate environment or natural or cultural resources or poses a conflict with federal land management laws and regulations. This can tie in to some of those weight and size factors in the first assessment factor. There are certain devices that because of its weight, may create a greater harm to the environment and so looking at the weight might make a difference. We can accept these devices that weigh under this amount but not those that weigh over that amount. And then we also look at any other type of conflict that there could be with any other federal land management laws. Okay. Now when an individual with a mobility disability brings another power driven mobility device onto a facility, the entity may not ask an individual using the wheelchair or other power driven mobility device questions about the nature and extent of the individual''s disability. This is the same factor that we see everywhere else in the ADA. You can''t ask probing questions to determine the nature and extent of the disability. You can''t get in to an analysis of whether this individual really needs to use the -- this device or not. That is not the type of questions that you can ask. However you can ask for credible assurance. So if somebody comes using another power driven mobility device, you can ask for credible assurance that the device is required because of the person''s mobility disability. Now this does not apply to wheelchairs. This only applies to other power driven mobility devices. So some of the questions that an entity could ask, they could ask, are you using this device because of a mobility disability? Or they can ask, why are you using this device? And then there needs to be credible assurance that it is related. And what I would like to bring up at this point is the idea that you can have separate policies for the general public compared to the individual with a disability. So there could be, for the general public, we don''t allow segways. But we make a reasonable modification for individuals with mobility disabilities who are using them as a mobility device. And at that point in time you can ask for credible assurance that this is related to mobility disability. In the regulations we have indication of two types of credible assurance that can be offered. The first one is the -- if the individual provides a valid disability parking placard or card or other state issued proof of disability, that that should be always accepted as a credible assurance. Now a valid disability parking placard or card is one that is presented by the individual to whom it was issued and is otherwise in compliance with the state of issuance''s requirements for disability placards or cards. So there should not be any tradings of placards going on but it should be one that is being used by the individual to whom it is issued. Now not everyone with a mobility disability has that type of parking placard. It could be an individual who is - uses public transportation and doesn''t have a disability parking placard of any sort. In that case then, the regulations indicate that a verbal representation by the individual with a disability must be used, must be considered as a valid credible assurance, unless it is contradicted by observable fact - excuse me, while I trip over myself. Now what this means is not that the entity, the Title II or the Title III entity can really dig in to trying to determine whether the individual really needs to use this device. What it means is that if -- when questioned about the use of the device, the individual indicates they need it for their mobility disability and the way they represent themselves in that discussion, they are later seen to be engaging in a physical activity that''s contrary to that representation, then that could be a contradiction in that case. Okay. Now when you look in to the guidance that is included in the regulations, going in to the guidance in the section by section analysis on other power driven mobility devices, we have guidance from the Department of Justice that indicates that it is -- that it would be a good idea to create other power driven mobility device policies. So this is not in the regulations themselves. But it is -- so it is not a requirement. But it is suggested in the interpretive guidance that these types of policies be developed. And these types of policies should indicate that reasonable modifications can be made to allow the use of certain classes of other power driven mobility device, and that it states the circumstances under which the use of those devices will be permitted. And it would then indicate what class of devices will not be permitted. It may indicate information like the types and sizes that are permitted, the place and time and circumstances that are permitted, speed limits and other safety rules, storage availability, and the policy related to credible assurance. And developing these policies in advance is really a good idea. Having -- if entities look through this in advance and start to go through those assessment factors for other power driven mobility devices in advance, decide what devices are going to be allowed, what devices are not going to be allowed, making sure that their staff is well trained in all of these areas is going to prevent a lot of problems. But if Title II or Title III entity has not done this in advance, and you have one individual who shows up with another power driven mobility device and that individual is excluded from using that device, now there is an opportunity for problems for the entities because that is going to look like the entity is not followed through on really looking at what is required and may not be applying the regulations in the way that they were intended to be applied. So the development of these policies are really a good idea. We have a couple of sample policies. The Department of Justice in their guidance that is included with the regulations, has offered this sample policy. And this is also a policy that was given to us in the Department of Justice internal training and included the link to it as well. This is the U.S. General Services Administration, the GSA sample policy, allowing the use of segways in federal buildings. So this is the federal policy so it is not an ADA situation, nevertheless, the policy that the GSA has developed is a good sample of the type of policy that the Department of Justice is looking for to comply with these new Title II and Title III regulations. So if you look at this GSA policy, you will see that it covers the information regarding the devices that are included in the policy, it sets out requirements for safe operation, it sets a speed limit, it prohibits use on escalators as a legitimate safety concern, and in federal buildings oftentimes the security screenings are of issue. So the GSA also includes the security screening information and how that is needed to be conducted. So this is a really great sample policy to see how it is done. I would also recommend, I previously mentioned the northwest ADA center document on other power driven mobility devices, and they have some brief example policies as well. So I would recommend looking at that as well. One of the bits of guidance that we received from the Department of Justice is that you need to be careful about not bunching everything together in one policy. And I have seen this done too much. You need to look at each class separately. So you need to look at, okay, what are we going to do about segways in this facility? What are we going to do about ATVs in this facility? And you may have more than one facility that you need to look at. Ok, we are going to allow segways in these locations, we are not going to allow them in that location. We are going to allow golf carts in these facilities and they are not going to be allowed in that facility. You go through each of those assetment factors and use those assessment factors to make the determination as to whether they can be used or not. Some of the policies that I have seen thus far are trying to blob everything together in one. And that can cause a lot of problems. We are still -- we are just in the phase now where Title II and Title III entities are starting to create policies. And in fact, I have seen more Title II policies than I have Title III. So we are really in a place where these entities are just starting to try to develop a policy and we don''t have an exact formula to follow for that. I can''t tell you it has to be done this way and follow this exactly. This is going to be a learning process for everyone to figure out the best way to go about it. But if you try to blob everything in to one and then say, ok we are going to accept these things only and these types of devices only and if we have not mentioned it we are not going to accept it, that is going get you in trouble. Because remember we said the regulations say that the default is, you must allow a device as a reasonable modification unless you have identified a specific reason why it should not be allowed when utilizing those assessment factors. So there is going to be new types of devices that technology brings us and new types of things will be invented and you cannot automatically exclude these new devices if you have not taken it through that process of looking at assessment factors. So you need to think about each type of -- each type of device. Each class of device to see what -- what can be -- what is a reasonable modification and what you can exclude as reasonable modification. Okay. What I want to do now is I want to start looking at some problem policies that I found. Since I am located in Colorado I just kind of grabbed a bunch of policies that I have seen different entities develop in my home state of Colorado. So I am not going to tell you where each of them came from but I am finding a lot of problems within each of these policies and I wanted to bring some examples. So I brought four different examples for you that have some problems in them. And what I would like to do is, I would like to read a portion of each of these four policies that have a problem in them and then I would like to invite all the participants to be able to identify the section the portion that is a problem, that this policy could get that entity into trouble. So what I am going to do is I am going to read the first one and then we are going to start asking people to chime in.
Hold on for a second. Tammy will give instructions to people on how to do that through the telephone and/or individuals can write into the chat area if you are in the webinar platform and we will repeat that information. Just so they know how they are going to chime in, so, ok go ahead, Sandy.
Excellent. So the first problem policy is this one. I took this directly out of a policy that I saw on a website. The following policies govern the use of other power driven mobility devices on assets and easements. Mobility devices used on trails designated as restricted, must fit the following design requirements. Less than 32 inches wide, design speed of 20 miles per hour or less, must be electrically powered, vehicle weight of 60 pounds or less, not including the weight of the rider. Now would be the time, chime in and let me know what problem you see with this policy.
And Tammy do you want to give instructions on how they can do that via the phone?
Certainly. Ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to ask a question over the phone lines, please press star and then the No. 1 on your touch tone telephone.
So Sandy while we are waiting for people to kind of gear up for that and respond, when you have seen this kind of a thing, do you think it is that individuals don''t understand the guidance and the factors that were given or do you think it is still a mindset of what can or traditionally is used on from a wheelchair perspective?
I think what they are doing is they are not reading the guidance. I think they are looking at just the regulations and then trying to do some of their own interpretation of the regulations. And they are not going into the guidance, because a lot of this is in that section by section analysis and that''s why I really stress that they go back into that and really read it. And it takes a little time but it is very worthwhile and they will start to see the difficulty with it.
Well, while we are waiting on it, we will go back to the phone in a second, we do have a couple of people weighed in on the webinar platform. One person says that no length requirement is listed and regarding the weight are they going to measure the weight? I mean do they have a scale or something is probably what they are alluding to there.
And that is a good question. Yeah. The length requirement is usually not a big issue. In this particular policy, we are looking at outdoor areas and trails. And usually with trails the issue is how wide is the trail. And so if you get a device that is wider than the trail itself, that can cause damage to that. Generally, the length is not an issue. I suppose there could be some cases, you know, if there is a trail that has some really tight hair pin curves, that length might be an issue. I know in Colorado, we have some trails up on some fourteeners that are - that have boulders everywhere. And you can get into a situation where if the device - the length is too long, it can get stuck. At that point in time that would be a legitimate thing to add to that exclusion. As far as, is there going to be a scale? That is going to be an issue. I don''t know what -- what we are going to see with that. You know, they start to try to make that determination of how much does this device weigh, that''s something we are going to have to wait and see how that is -- how that is handled.
And I think the other person had a weight related issue, basically saying , what if the person has a body waist size, or obviously maybe, you know, a wider chair, I think is what they are alluding to, in excess of the measurement, what would then happen if it didn''t meet this policy. But I think what you were getting to is, this may not be a good policy in regards to those things.
I am actually okay on the width and the size limitations in this policy. As far as if the individual is wider than the device, that would, again, depend on the actual facility that we are talking about. It may be an outdoor area where the issue is, we don''t want the trail to become any wider than it already is or it is going to damage our natural resources. But if the individual is wider, that''s not going to be a problem. That''s not going to damage anything. So that''s not an issue. Or you could have a situation where, we have a trail where it is surrounded by boulders in very tight places and that could be an issue if the individual is wider. But that''s the same issue that happens with somebody that is ambulatory and I really encourage entities not to start developing policies that are applied to people with disabilities that are not applied to an ambulatory person.
Yeah, I think that gets to what that other person''s comment is. That these restrictions must be based on actual safety requirements.
Exactly and you can''t get new requirements that are not -- that should not be part of it.
Operator did we get anybody who weighed in on the phone?
Yes, we do. We have a question from Ron Thompson. Your line is open.
This is Linda Mucyer. I thought that it sounded weird that it was a 60 pound weight limit. I mean that would be like maybe a 6 or 7-year-old child and I don''t think those parents would take their child, have them go on a trail by themselves. Is that a realistic weight limit for a trail?
Ok now notice that was for the vehicle weight. It is not including the weight of the rider.
Oh, it is not including the weight of the rider.
They did not establish a weight limit to the rider itself, the individual with a disability. It was just on the vehicle. But, you know, the weight restrictions can come in to play in different situations. More often we see this in natural areas. Very often, you know, if I am just going in a shopping mall, it shouldn''t matter what the weight of my device is and the weight of myself and the device is. But what can happen is when you are in more sensitive natural areas, you know, if you have a device that, you know, with the device and the person, is weighing 700 pounds, that may make an impact on the natural area, that could be a problem. So but -- so I am actually in this policy, not seeing anything wrong with the size and weight restrictions that they have identified. We don''t know exactly what the natural area that they are looking at looks like. But I did see a comment in the chat room that -- from Francis Robertson -- that says, should set speed limit rather than address speed capacity of the device and that is exactly right. So good job Francis on that. I have seen a whole bunch of policies that say the design speed of -- can only have a design speed of a certain amount and you cannot do that. You cannot restrict any device based on the design speed. You have to set a speed limit. That is the No. 1 problem I am seeing and for some reason that''s just not clicking by people who are developing these policies. So let''s go to the next problem policy. I do have the answer there. You cannot exclude a device just because it is able to go fast. Instead you set a speed limit. You will notice these answers are not in the handout that you received before the session because we didn''t want to give the answers away but in the archived version, the answers will be included. So you can go back and get those at this time. Okay. Here is the next problem policy. This is another entity. And this portion of their policy says persons with a mobility disability may use any electric assisted bicycle or electronic personal assistance mobility device, common example is a segway, that has a maximum power drive speed equal or less than 20 miles per hour, is no wider than 36 inches, and has brakes that enable the operator to make the wheels skid on dry, level, and clean pavement. This one has two problems. Let me know what you see that are two problems.
Again go ahead and weigh in either through the telephone option or in to the webinar platform. We will give you a second there to add that comment. It was interesting somebody''s comment in relation to the other one -- that asking if it is based on an actual vehicle that they are comparing against. It may unnecessarily limit devices to one or two brands given the weight or other specifications.
Yeah and different brands on these electronic personal assistance mobility devices, there are several brands of those. So you want to make sure you don''t get too stuck on a certain brand. That you look at the class of devices as a whole as you are looking at whether you can respect that or not.
Do we have anybody on the phone at this one?
Once again if you would like to answer, press star and then 1 on your touch tone telephone.
I think somebody in the chat area is saying that as in the previous policy, the maximum speed issues or the maximum speed being an issue in this policy?
Correct. The first problem is they cannot say that there is a design speed that we are going to -- that we are going to set as a maximum. The design speed could be 50 miles an hour and that is fine. What you look at is -- you look at, can this device operate at a safe speed? Can we set a speed limit? Speed limit might be equal to an average walking speed. You could set it at a more specific thing. The average pedestrian walking speed is 3 to 4 miles per hour. So you might set a speed of four or five miles an hour and leave it at that. But you don''t look at what is the maximum design speed. So that is the first problem. There is another problem in there. Do we have anything else that anyone sees?
How about on the telephone? Was there anybody who had weighed in on the telephone?
We have no questions in the cue.
Ok, I think you have some other things in the chat area related to control and stopping.
I see several comments about skidding versus control and stopping. Let''s look at that whole section. Has brakes that enable the operator to make the wheels skid on dry level and clean pavement. The key problem with this, is the concept of brakes. Many of these electronic personal assistance mobility devices do not have brakes. Segways do not have brakes. I am going to go on to our answer here. The way you operate if you look in to a segway and how a segway works is it has this higher level of technology that doesn''t need brakes. You move segways by leaning forward and then it moves it forward. You stop by stopping your lean. So there is no brakes there. But it is still a safe device. People are not really looking at what new technologies bring in these devices and you can''t just make a general statement of, oh, it doesn''t have brakes. It is not safe. Because there are safe devices that don''t have brakes. So you have to really look at that to determine that, you know, is this device capable of being operated safely even if it doesn''t have brakes? Now there is probably some devices that don''t have brakes and need them. I have seen some individuals riding bicycles that really would have benefitted from some brakes. They had no means by which to stop. So certainly that would be of concern. But if you have a type of device that has a higher level of technology, that doesn''t require brakes, then you cannot get in to the brake issue. Okay. Let''s go on to your next example problem policy. This policy was utilized in a natural area. And that is - Im seeing -- most of the policies I am seeing coming out, and maybe it is just because I am looking in Colorado and this is what we are focused on in Colorado, is most of them are in Title II entities and they are focused on a lot of trails. I am sure there are Title III entities that are starting to get involved, I did see a couple of those but a lot of these are related -- that I found so far -- are these outdoor natural areas. So this was involved -- and this one is a Title III one. This was in a natural area. And their policy says the use of any, and I am emphasizing the word any, power driven devices or vehicles by the public, including other power driven mobility devices used by disabled individuals, creates a substantial risk of serious harm to the immediate environment and natural resources. Due to the need to address soil integrity, erosion, and vegetative concerns, along with guest safety, _______ resort has adopted a no motorized policy for the public during the summer season. Ok give me your input. What is the problem with this device?
Again Tammy, do you want to give instructions for those on the phone?
Absolutely, Once again that is star, then the No. 1 on your touch tone telephone. And we did have one from Yvonne Thompsons line - had cued up again.
Ok go ahead and bring her in, maybe she has something to say.
Yes, your line is open.
This is Yvonne. I was going to say that there would be no gas powered vehicles or motorized vehicles used.
That has to be judged on an individualized basis. Certainly, in an indoor environment, pretty much, there is not going to be any gas powered devices that are going to be allowed because of the safety factors dealing with indoor fumes. But in an outdoor area that needs to be judged on an individualized basis. There are some areas that it would be appropriate for and some areas that it would not be appropriate for, depending on what the natural area is, what type of use it has, if there is any conflicting federal laws that are related to that, that kind of thing. But on this particular policy they are trying to exclude any power driven device. And I am trying to keep track of what I am seeing in the chat box area. And I see that one person does have the direction that I am looking at with this and one person has indicated no wheelchairs. That is the exact problem. If you -- the way this is written is it says the use of any power driven devices. Well, there are wheelchairs that are power driven.
And exclude wheelchairs.
Yeah, you cannot exclude wheelchairs. Wheelchairs must be open to any area, open to pedestrian use.
There is a specific definition for wheelchair in the --
Exactly. So we have the information from the regulations that if a device fits the definition of a wheelchair and it is power driven, that has to be allowed in any area open to pedestrian use. This policy they are trying to -- it sounds like -- I betcha the way I am reading it, I betcha they didn''t realize the way that their wording came out. I betcha they were not really intending to exclude power driven wheelchairs but the way that their wording came out, it can exclude it. And you have to be really careful about that because then you have staff members who are perhaps putting a different interpretation that is intended. And so definitely when you are developing policies, the key is that you want to make sure you have several people read it. Have some different organizations read it and make sure that you have written it in a way that is going to be the way that it is intended. Okay. We have --
We also have two additional on the phone lines when you are ready.
Ok, go ahead.
Our next questioner is Rick Edwards. Your line is open.
I was just going to answer a question. She already dealt with it. Thanks.
Thank you.
And we also have Gary Edler. Your line is open sir.
You already answered it about the wheelchair. That''s what I was going to say. The power wheelchairs would have excluded them.
Okay, excellent. Sorry, I should have waited a little longer and got some telephone participation but I saw it in the chat box and jumped on it. Okay I will try to be more patient. We have one more problem policy. Okay. This problem policy is -- it is providing a definition of wheelchair. Now it is great in your policy to include information on the regulations. To include the definitions of wheelchair and other power driven mobility devices and to include the regulations that are related for this provisions for use. And this problem policy they have defined wheelchair and this is what it says: defines the wheelchair as a manually operated or power driven device designed primarily for use by an individual with a mobility disability, for the main purpose of indoor or outdoor locomotion. What''s the problem with that policy?
We do have Rick Edwards is cued up.
Okay.
I will go ahead and answer that one. How about the indoor or both indoor or outdoor locomotion.
Exactly. You got it. That language I guess sounds awkward and people are trying to get away from awkward. And they do this indoor or outdoor but that''s not the way that the regulation -- the definition reads in the regulations. It has to be indoor or both indoor and outdoor. And so they have shortened it in a way that is not intended to be used. Again to repeat what I had said earlier, if you are looking at a device that is only intended for outdoor use, that''s not going to fit the definition of wheelchair. With the definition of wheelchair being of indoor or both indoor and outdoor locomotion. It is going to have to be a device that is suitable for using indoors. In other words, it must be appropriate for use at an indoor shopping mall. So with the wheelchair you ask yourself is this device appropriate to take into the food court at the shopping mall? Now at this time, I would like to open it up to questions in general. So please give me any kind of topics you want for the discussion on or any more questions.
Go ahead.
Once again that would be star 1 on your touch tone telephone.
And I got a couple of -- I saw one here that I don''t think you responded to or got - the person was asking for more clarification. If you would talk anything specifically about problems or issues that are related to, specifically type of golf carts. Which obviously are a different kind of device than, you know, the segway that we kind of talked about a little bit with more examplewise. So, just wondering if you had any, I think they are asking if you have any insights to that.
Thank you for bringing that up because that is a good question. We tend to focus on segways a little more but golf carts are a device that is being used more and more. With golf carts we take it through the same process as we do with everything else. Now very often, the golf carts have a larger -- they are larger devices. So we have some size limitations on that. Now I would point out in the new 2010 ADA standards we have some requirements in golf courses that are specific to golf courses and those recreation sections that require a wider accessible route through those golf courses. And that way an individual can use a golf cart in a golf course in more areas. But once we leave the golf course and if an individual is attempting to use the golf cart, one of the - as a mobility device -- issues that comes up is size and the Title II or Title III entity doesn''t have to provide -- outside of the golf course -- does not have to provide any wider space for a golf cart. So you may have a facility where you can see well, a golf cart would fit nicely with our environment here and that would be no problem. So we can allow that. But you may discover with our facility this device just doesn''t fit. You know, we are in compliance with the ADA standards that we are required to comply with. But the golf cart doesn''t fit in our facility and so -- or it may be that certain sections it fits and other sections it doesn''t. A golf cart again, that speed limit issue is going to be really important. You can''t exclude the golf cart because it has a high design capacity for speed. But what you again do is you set the -- you set the speed limit. Ive seen the link on slide 28 of good sample policy does not exist any longer. I just checked that this week and I was able to get to it. But do let me know if people are having problems with that and I will wizard to that and make sure I get it to you. I did check that this week and did find it. You may also Google search it as well but let me know if there is a problem.
I am checking it right now also.
Okay, thank you.
We do have three on the phone lines.
Okay, go ahead.
First we have Rick Edwards again. Your line is open sir. CALLER 1: Thank you very much Sandy. On that link you have to make sure you get the whole link because I tried that and it --
Yes, I was just going to say. I just tried it and it didn''t but when I go back and copy and paste the entire link it does work fine. So that is often something that happens when you have a link show up on a page. So go ahead and maybe even try typing the entire thing in if you want to but it is still there.
My question was for Sandy, do you understand that pursuant to the definition of strict interpretation of the definition of OPDMDs that the person with a disability has to be the one operating the OPDMD and can you talk a little bit about passengers?
Yes. Now definitely the person with the mobility disability should be the one who is operating the other power driven mobility device as -- I can see the rioted scenarios with this. The purpose of the other power driven mobility device is as a mobility device for the individual with the mobility device disability. Certainly that person should be utilizing it but I can see a situation on say a golf cart where the individual with a disability is a passenger and there is somebody else driving it. I think you would still be under the same requirement to consider it as a potential reasonable modification. And if going through the assessment factors it is determined that -- that its use could be safe and appropriate for the facility it should be allowed regardless of who is doing the driving. So that is certainly something that would be appropriate for a situation with a golf cart. Now maybe another type of device, say a segway, that may not be safe. You know, that type of device is intended to have one user. And if there is more than one user on it, then I immediately start to question the safety of that. So there could be concerns in that regard but you would have to look at going through the assessment factors and, you know, have a real analysis of is this allowing access for the individual with the mobility disability in a safe way.
Okay. And speaking of the assessment factors, can we consider state laws not just federal laws?
What with the ADA being a federal law that''s going to have the priority over everything else. So if you have a state of law that is trying to exclude a device that the ADA would allow, that''s going to be a problem. So you are going to want to go with the ADA since it is the federal law. Now if you have a state law that allows for greater access, then you can allow -- certainly you can certainly allow -- greater access but you can''t limit access to be less than what the ADA intends.
Well what I am saying is, if we have a state law that prohibits the use of say golf carts or unlicensed motor vehicles on a road, can we point to that as saying that that is the reason for not allowing golf carts on roads -- public roads that are in a park system, for example?
Yes, definitely with public roads there are some safety factors involved and when you are looking at, you know, that it would not be a safe situation to have some of these devices, you know, in the middle of the road, that totally fits in with the assessment factors that you can identify that, you know, this is a safety issue and we can''t allow it.
And also, I think, just the other thing to remember, that we are talking about pedestrian pathway areas and a road is traditionally where somebody without a disability would not be allowed to walk.
Right but we allow people -- we allow pedestrians, Im saying, to walk on the side of the road but we don''t allow golf carts on our public roads.
Looking at that, if you are allowing pedestrians to walk on the side of the road, certainly somebody is using a wheelchair, then they are allowed anywhere pedestrians are allowed so the individual with a wheelchair is allowed on the side of the road as well. Now if you are excluding a golf cart, you are going to have to look at that. Well, is the golf cart somehow different than the wheelchair or the pedestrian? If the space allows the golf cart to go on the side of the road, I would say you more likely are going to have to allow it but if you are looking at well, the golf cart is actually wider than the lane that we have available, okay don''t allow. So you look at each individual factor and determine what is the factor that is creating a safety issue. If there is no factor creating a safety issue you are going to have to allow it. CALLER : Thanks Sandy.
Do we have another question?
Yes we do. Our next question comes from Julia Sang. Your line is open.
Hello. This is Robert Kimrey. I have a question that''s really a couple of questions on segway. If -- I was just wondering how you looked at the issue of segways being used on a city bus as multi part question. The use also what if segways are allowed and a persons using the segway who is not using it for mobility purposes, just because they want to use their segway, and the only place to put the segway is in the accessible area. A person in a wheelchair comes up or another segway that''s being used for mobility purposes and needs to use that area, does the person in the segway not for mobility purposes have to move? That''s it.
Okay, I knew there was going to be a question like that and I am prepared. You have asked a question that''s in a much more complicated area. In transit situations, such as that we are bound by the Department of Transportation and they have not taken exactly what the Department of Justice has done with these definitions and put it directly in to transit. They are approaching it with their own analysis. So you can''t just do an automatic transfer on that. What the Department of Transportation has done, is they published their rules in the federal register that''s dated September 19th of 2011. And they have made their comments on what they are going to do regarding these issues. They had previously developed a segway policy in September of 2005 and now - and these rules that were published on September 19, 2011, they are saying that they are modifying that 2005 guidance to more closely go in to the Department of Justice approach. That becomes a whole other topic and you really have to look at it separately. You have to look at a transit topic. And it becomes a similar type of situation that you have is what if a parent is using a stroller for their child who does not have a disability and that stroller is in section that is the securement section. And what do you do. You apply it in the same fashion. So what I would encourage you to do, is to get on the -- and you can just Google. Look for the Department of Transportation information in that federal register and September 19th, 2011 and read through that.
Thank you.
Uh-huh.
I have a question that was submitted by e-mail. What current federal laws will protect a person with a disability from any type of civil, administrative, criminal, or traffic charges if they occupy a drive? One of these devices on the streets or parking lots or sidewalks?
Okay. Now let''s separate the idea of the street from a sidewalk. Because those are two very different things and certainly there are state laws that regulate traffic and use of roads and streets. That is still applying no matter what. The use of sidewalks though, that is using a public right-of-way. Public rights of way are part of Title II programs. We have information based on project civic access agreements that indicate that sidewalks are a Title II program. And there need to be accessibility options for that. And then what we look at is, you know, an individual who is operating another power driven mobility device or operating a wheelchair, has the same potential for causing problem as an ambulatory person. You know, I have definitely seen ambulatory persons who go running down sidewalks without any consideration for anyone and causing harm in that situation. I have seen individuals with no disabilities who use skateboards who cause problems, individuals with no disabilities who use bikes on sidewalks and cause problems. So it is not going to be any different than that situation. What we cannot do is we cannot exclude individuals with disabilities because we assume that they are going to create a greater hazard than any other pedestrian. Certainly that Title II entity -- a city might determine that having an ATV on the city sidewalks may not be safe. Based on the size of the sidewalks and the quantity of pedestrian traffic that they will go through those assessment factors and determine it is not save to have an ATV used as a mobility device on our sidewalks and that can be excluded in those regards -- in that regard. But if it is determined that this -- a type of mobility device is safe to be used on the sidewalks then the individual bears no more responsibility than any other pedestrian.
Okay. Great. I think -- somebody, I don''t know if Marilyn is there but-- a question of --
Yes, She is on the phone line.
Great. If you could bring her in please.
Certainly, Marilyn Golden your line is open.
Hi Sandy and Robin, this is a great program. I wanted to just check in about ATVs, All Terrain Vehicles, which are a subset of off-road vehicles or Off Highway Vehicles, OHVs, and you know, youve -- I appreciate the last question which discussed them to some degree and when you talk about the definition, I think they are a category that many, you know, parks and wilderness areas have had great concerns about people using off-road vehicles and ATVs having a destructive potential to the environment and of course, you have gone over that criterion that can be applied to the -- if it is shown to make that threat. But I just thought it might deserve -- to see if you had any other comments. Robin, I bet will remember, other people may remember that there was a time some years ago when the boundaries of Section 504 were -- wanted to use ATVs in the wilderness and notwithstanding the importance of protecting the rights of people with disabilities. But not to think that in some cases, you know, one had to wonder if it was a way to, you know, there was an additional political agenda going on besides disability rights as a way to, you know, get more of these vehicles in to the wilderness to use 504. So there was a tight rope that had to be walked and I think Department of Justice (DOJ) did a good job in giving parks and wildernesses those criteria to use to exclude the vehicles when it is legitimate. So I just thought -- I just wanted to see if you had any other comment. It has been an area of great concern to Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF), to really balance the legitimate rights of people with disabilities using ATVs from situations where they are just being used but they don''t have to be used by the person with a disability.
Thank you. That''s a really good point to bring up and I am remembering having a conversation exactly about that issue in the Department of Justice internal training that we attended. There was an example given of a natural area that somebody came up and said I am a person with disability and I want to use this ATV as a mobility device. And they just automatically went, oh, well we can''t violate the rights of people with disabilities so let us let him in. And then pretty soon, all sorts of people with disabilities showed up and there were a lot of ATVs and it actually just destroyed this natural area. And so - but I am very confident of the assessment factors in being able to give us the opportunity to limit those kinds of issues. We have with the assessment factors, in particular the assessment factor 5, creating a substantial risk of serious harm to the immediate environment or natural resources. ATVs and many natural areas first of all, are going to really destroy the natural resources on the ground if you have a skinny little trail and the ATV is much wider than that and is destroying the natural resources along the side. It also can create a fundamental alteration of the wilderness experience and I am expecting to go out in to the wilderness and I am expecting to be in the wilderness and have a quiet natural area but all the noise and the fumes that could be considered a fundamental alteration. It could also cause serious harm to wildlife in the area. All those factors are allowed to be considered when we look at this. However, if I am looking at a situation where I have Jeep roads that Jeeps are going down. Certainly then it would be difficult to argue that an ATV would not be appropriate in that situation if there is a Jeep road on it as well.
I think there is also the difference whether it is gas powered or whether it is, you know, battery powered, et cetera, and there is nothing to also say that there would not be legitimate to have a process to which there was a limit of how many could be out at any one time, too. So I think it is that all or none or is there some kind of a brokering in regards to, at what point does that straw break that camel''s back, type of a thing so that you could also look at that potentially as an issue in going through those factors.
And I have seen a lot of Title II entities who what they are doing is they are doing an audit of all their trails and they are determining that, okay it is appropriate to use them on these trails, you cannot use them on these trails and that is really an outstanding way to develop a policy. Is looking at each individual trail and making sure what devices are allowed where.
Okay, do we have any other questions?
Yes we do, our next question comes from Rick Edwards. Your line is open.
Sorry to dominate here.
No worries.
Can you talk a little bit about posting of signs. Do we need to know what kinds of means do we provide public notification of these policies.
Definitely for a Title II entity you are getting into the notice category for sure. So certainly on websites, whenever you have any type of material on websites that indicate any type of information that''s related to the ADA, you are going to want to put that information on there if you have trails, including that information on there. So websites, written materials, if you have written handbooks, that kind of thing, that information could be in there. But you also may have -- and this is entirely up to you. There is no regulations that really say you have to do this a certain way but it may be a good idea, you know, if you want to have a sign on the door. We allow these devices. We don''t allow those devices. For information please contact, you know, an information on where they can -- the ADA coordinator or whoever else would be appropriate for them to contact to get that full policy. Do know that you want to have your policies available for public viewing. So make sure that people know where they can get those policies to review those.
And I think anywhere that you have things already posted, you should include language. So that it does not say that -- it is not required of the ADA that you have a sign posted but if you have a sign posted that has anything that discusses types of vehicles or anything that are allowed or not allowed, you definitely should include the language related to any of your policies that would modify or be modified because of disability related issues.
Thank you Robin.
So we are at the bottom of the hour and that''s always a tough time because you often are leaving things where people can''t get or leaving people off with things. But anyway I would like to thank you Sandy for your session today. You have got some resources here that you gave. We just buzzed by but you did provide some resources in there and so that should be in your handout materials. And as Sandy had said, we will be updating the handout materials that are posted with the published archive of this session that will then have her responses to the problem questions that were not on your handouts that were handed out today. And that was just to not give you all the answers before you had actually got a chance to discuss them but we will post the final ones on the archive page for anybody who wants to go back and get those. Sandy has provided her contact information. If anyone wants to follow up directly with her in relationship to anything that she has presented today or ask her any additional questions, by putting it out here, she is opening herself up to the fact that she is willing to take questions from you. So we do invite you to do that. We are concluding this session. We do invite you to join us for our next session which is our last in the series from October to September of 2012 and giving that we are in the election year, whether you like or don''t like, depending on how you are feeling about it, we are going to be focusing on accessibility of polling places. That sesesion will be held on September 18 of 2012 and you can register online or call our offices and that information is given here. So we hope that you will join us for the next session. Again thank you everyone and the archive will be up within 48 hours on our website at www.ada-audio.org. I am not even remembering it myself and choose the audio conference section and you will get to our archive. Again we will be sending you an e-mail to ask you to fill out our evaluation and please make sure that if you are requesting any continuing education or anything of that nature that you go through the appropriate process to request that as well. So again to disconnect from todays session, if you are on the phone, just go ahead and hang up the phone. If you are on the webinar platform you can just close your browser. And again, thank you very much everybody.
Thanks Robin.
Thank you.
Ladies and Gentlemen, that does conclude our webinar conference. You may all disconnect this time. Everyone have a great day.