By Roger Yu, USA TODAY

Dogs need to go, too. So airports are adding doggie restrooms.Airports say “pet relief areas” enhance customer service. But they’re also being nudged by a federal rule that orders airlines to work with airports to install facilities for travelers who have service dogs.

 Among airports with new dog bathrooms: Atlanta, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington Dulles, Washington National, Chicago O’Hare and Phoenix.

 The facilities are typically outside, within walking distance of the terminal. The federal rule requires they be kept clean, free of odor, contain a gravel or sand surface and have adequate drainage. Some airports have added synthetic grass, fire hydrants and benches.

 ”Many of our members travel,” says Melanie Brunson, executive director of the American Council of the Blind, which pushed for the rule. “Increasingly, you don’t get much time between flights. You don’t have a whole lot of time to take care of your dog’s needs.”

 About 2 million pets and other animals fly each year in the U.S., according to the Transportation Department. But convenient relief areas weren’t required until the department published changes last year to the Air Carrier Access Act, which spells out travel rights for people who have physical disabilities.

 ”If there was one (before),” she says, “it was in the boondocks, and (travelers) didn’t have much time to get there.”

 Neva Fairchild of Carrollton, Texas, who has a service dog and is an American Foundation for the Blind employee, says it can be embarrassing for owners of dogs that relieve themselves at an airport curb.

 ”I can understand if people are offended by dogs relieving themselves at a pole 20 feet from the airport,” she says. “But when the dog has to go, it has to go.”

 Fairchild says she’d like to see more relief inside security zones at airports to avoid clearing security-screening checkpoints again for connecting flights.

 Washington Dulles is one of the few airports with indoor facilities within its security zone, in addition to three relief areas outside. Engineers designed them after studying other dog parks. They contain ventilation and wall-mounted water-distribution systems for cleaning, Dulles spokeswoman Courtney Mickalonis says.

 Before assigning a new pet area, Atlanta had “maintenance issues” with travelers who let their dogs use landscaped areas without cleaning up, says Gary Summerlin, an engineer at the world’s busiest airport, where about 6,000 animals are flown annually in cargo. But pet owners using the “formal” area have been more responsible, he says.

WSANA met on August 10,2010 with Oak Park, Illinois Chief of Police in regards to Illinois Public Act 096–1167 which provides a mandatory $500 fine and also a mandatory Class A misdemeanor for any person who denies a pedestrian with a disability the right of use of sidewalks, highways and walkways in the State. This includes crosswalks. The Act requires an operator of a vechile to stop it before approaching closer than 10 feet to a pedestrian with a disability who is using a mobility device, accompanieds by a visibly identifiable service animal, or carrying or using a white cane, and to take all precautations that may be necessary to avoid an accident or injury to the pedestrian with a disability.

This Public Act will help for individuals with disabilities to be independent in the community in which they live 

Below is a notice the Federal Communications commission published last week seeking comments on further actions the agency can take in increasing compliance with existing FCC regulations that most in the industry don’t follow. The current regulations pertain to access to voice calling and related services not wireless data services, such as e-mail, text messages, web browsing, and GPS navigation and mapping.http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments.www.bcpiweb.com, or by calling 1-800-378-3160. A copy of the submission may also be found by searching on the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) at http://www.fcc.gov.cgb/ecfs.

The data access issues are addressed in legislation currently before Congress. I plan to draft some comments, which are due in September.

I would enjoy working with others who are also planning on filing comments. The FCC videotaped the May 13 wireless workshop mentioned in the notice. I plan to capture the video and convert it into an MP3 file for easier review. If others are interested in this file, let me know and I can share it.

Kelly

?

?

DA 10-1324

Released: July 19, 2010

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

And Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Seek Comment on Accessible Mobile Phone Options for People who are Blind, Deaf-blind, or Have Low Vision

Comment Date: September 13, 2010

Reply Comment Date: September 30, 2010

On May 13, 2010, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau held a workshop on “Expanding Disability Access with Wireless Technologies” (Wireless Access

Workshop) to learn more about mobile communications issues facing people with disabilities and the ways in which new technologies can offer opportunities to meet the communications access needs of this community. Participants included stakeholders from the disability community, industry, academia, and non-profit organizations. On June 15, 2010, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau met with twelve members of the deaf-blind community, along with representatives of the Helen Keller National Center and the American Association of the

Deaf-Blind.1 The purpose of this meeting was to discuss telecommunications and Internet barriers experienced by this population.

Based on the input that Commission staff received during these events, along with the record developed in conjunction with the National Broadband Plan,2 we are concerned that people who are blind or have other vision disabilities have few accessible and affordable wireless phone options.3 More specifically, according to statements made at the workshop, the vast majority of mobile telephones are not accessible to this population without the addition of expensive software. We are also concerned that many wireless technologies may not be compatible with Braille displays needed by individuals who are deaf-blind. In addition, according to the participants of the June 15th meeting, many specialized technologies needed to enable wireless telecommunications access for the deaf-blind community are cost prohibitive and difficult to find.

In order to be fully informed on the issues raised by consumers and determine appropriate next steps to achieve telecommunications access for these populations, we seek input from all stakeholders on the

following:

(1) The wireless phone features and functions in the current marketplace that are not accessible for people who are blind, have vision loss, or are deaf-blind and the extent to which gaps in accessibility are preventing wireless communication access by these populations;

(2) The cost and feasibility of technical solutions to achieve wireless accessibility for these populations;

(3) Reasons why there are not a greater number of wireless phones – particularly among less expensive or moderately-priced handset models

- that are accessible to people who are blind or have vision loss;

(4) Technical obstacles, if any, to making wireless technologies compatible with Braille displays, as well as the cost and feasibility of technical solutions to achieve other forms of compatibility with wireless products and services for people who are deaf-blind;

(5) Recommendations on the most effective and efficient technical and policy solutions for addressing the needs of consumers with vision disabilities, including those who are deaf-blind.

(6) Recommendations on actions that our bureaus or the Commission should take to address the current lack of access. For example, is additional guidance needed on specific access features that should be included in wireless products? Should we facilitate a dialogue among stakeholders in order to reach a specific agreement to address the accessibility concerns outlined above?

Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, interested parties may file comments on or before September 13, 2010 and reply comments on or before September 30, 2010. Comments may be filed using: (1) the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

* Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS:

* Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

* Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S.

Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

* The Commission’s contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary at

236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.

* Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

* U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW, Washington DC 20554.

A copy of this document and any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0270. This document and any subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be purchased from the Commission’s duplicating contractor at their website,

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Lyle, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-1776; TTY (202) 418-1169 or email at Elizabeth.Lyle@fcc.gov.

Department of Justice

June 29, 2010

 We write to express concern on the part of the Department of Justice and the Department of Education that colleges and universities are using electronic book readers that are not accessible to students who are blind or have low vision and to seek your help in ensuring that this emerging technology is used in classroom settings in a manner that is permissible under federal law. A serious problem with some of these devices is that they lack an accessible text-to-speech function. Requiring use of an emerging technology in a classroom environment when the technology is inaccessible to an entire population of individuals with disabilities – individuals with visual disabilities – is discrimination prohibited by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) unless those individuals are provided accommodations or modifications that permit them to receive all the educational benefits provided by the technology in an equally effective and equally integrated manner.

 The Departments of Justice and Education share responsibility for protecting the rights of college and university students with disabilities. The Department of Justice is responsible for enforcement and implementation of title III of the ADA, which covers private colleges and universities, and the Departments of Justice and Education both have enforcement authority under title II of the ADA, which covers public universities. In addition, the Department of Education enforces Section 504 with respect to public and private colleges and universities that receive federal financial assistance from the Department of Education. As discussed below, the general requirements of Section 504 and the ADA reach equipment and technological devices when they are used by public entities or places of public accommodation as part of their programs, services, activities, goods, advantages, privileges, or accommodations.

 Under title III, individuals with disabilities, including students with visual impairments, may not be discriminated against in the full and equal enjoyment of all of the goods and services of private colleges and universities; they must receive an equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from these goods and services; and they must not be provided different or separate goods or services unless doing so is necessary to ensure that access to the goods and services is equally as effective as that provided to others.

 Under title II, qualified individuals with disabilities may not be excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of, nor subjected to discrimination by, public universities and colleges. Both title II and Section 504 prohibit colleges and universities from affording individuals with disabilities with an opportunity to participate in or benefit from college and university aids, benefits, and services that is unequal to the opportunity afforded others.  Similarly, individuals with disabilities must be provided with aids, benefits, or services that provide an equal opportunity to achieve the same result or the same level of achievement as others. A college or university may provide an individual with a disability, or a class of individuals with disabilities, with a different or separate aid, benefit, or service only if doing so is necessary to ensure that the aid, benefit, or service is as effective as that provided to others. 

 The Department of Justice recently entered into settlement agreements with colleges and universities that used the Kindle DX, an inaccessible, electronic book reader, in the classroom as part of a pilot study with Amazon.com, Inc. In summary, the universities agreed not to purchase, require, or recommend use of the Kindle DX, or any other dedicated electronic book reader, unless or until the device is fully accessible to individuals who are blind or have low vision, or the universities provide reasonable accommodation or modification so that a student can acquire the same information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same services as sighted students with substantially equivalent ease of use. The texts of these agreements may be viewed on the Department of Justice’s ADA Web site, www.ada.gov. (To find these settlements on www.ada.gov, search for “Kindle.”) Consistent with the relief obtained by the Department of Justice in those matters, the Department of Education has also resolved similar complaints against colleges and universities.

 As officials of the agencies charged with enforcement and interpretation of the ADA and Section 504, we ask that you take steps to ensure that your college or university refrains from requiring the use of any electronic book reader, or other similar technology, in a teaching or classroom environment as long as the device remains inaccessible to individuals who are blind or have low vision. It is unacceptable for universities to use emerging technology without insisting that this technology be accessible to all students.

 Congress found when enacting the ADA that individuals with disabilities were uniquely disadvantaged in American society in critical areas such as education.6 Providing individuals with disabilities full and equal access to educational opportunities is as essential today as it was when the ADA was passed. In a Proclamation for National Disability Employment Awareness Month, President Obama underscored the need to “strengthen and expand the educational opportunities for individuals with disabilities,” noting that, “[i]f we are to build a world free from unnecessary barriers . . . we must ensure that every American receives an education that prepares him or her for future success.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-proclamation-national-disability-employment-awareness-month (September 30, 2009) (emphasis added).

 Technology is the hallmark of the future, and technological competency is essential to preparing all students for future success. Emerging technologies are an educational resource that enhances learning for everyone, and perhaps especially for students with disabilities. Technological innovations have opened a virtual world of commerce, information, and education to many individuals with disabilities for whom access to the physical world remains challenging. Ensuring equal access to emerging technology in university and college classrooms is a means to the goal of full integration and equal educational opportunity for this nation’s students with disabilities. With technological advances, procuring electronic book readers that are accessible should be neither costly nor difficult.

 We would like to work with you to ensure that America’s technological advances are used for the benefit of all students. The Department of Justice operates a toll-free, technical assistance line to answer questions with regard to the requirements of federal laws protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities. For technical assistance, please call (800) 514-0301 (voice) or (800) 514-0383 TTY). Specialists are available Monday through Friday from 9:30 AM until 5:30 PM (ET) except for Thursday, when the hours are 12:30 PM until 5:30 PM. These specialists have been trained specifically to address questions regarding accessible electronic book readers. Colleges, universities, and other stakeholders can also contact the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights for technical assistance by going to OCR’s Web site at http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/CFAPPS/OCR/contactus.cfm.  

We appreciate your consideration of this essential educational issue and look forward to working with you to ensure that our nation’s colleges and universities are fully accessible to individuals with disabilities. Sincerely,

 Thomas E. Perez
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice

 Russlynn Ali
Assistant Secretary
for Civil Rights
U.S. Department of Education

 Posted by Diana Z. on Jun 29, 2010 6:38:33 PM in Civil Rights, Education, Technology

Contact: Deane Beebe, Media Relations Director

June 10, 2010                                                                 718-928-2033 (office) 646-285-1039 (cell)

   dbeebe@phinational.org

Two-Thirds of States Lack Public Registries to

Help Consumers and Independent Home and Personal Care Aides Locate One Another

– Public Infrastructure is Needed to Support Trend in Consumer-Directed Care –

New York, NY— A national survey conducted by PHI to assess whether states have a public “matching services registry” to facilitate connections between consumers who receive self-directed care in their homes — and independent direct-care workers who provide that care — found that only one-third of the states have developed this type of registry.

Self-directed care allows elders and people with disabilities, or their families, to directly hire and supervise independent caregivers who provide personal care services and supports.

“Consumer-directed care is the fastest growing service delivery option,” said PHI Director of Policy Research Dorie Seavey, Ph.D., who conducted the survey, “yet there is little public infrastructure in place to help consumers and providers find each other for appropriate and efficient employment matches.

“Robust, public matching service registries can alleviate some of the challenges that both consumers and workers face. They can reduce unmet need due to difficulties that consumers encounter trying to locate independent providers. And for workers, they can play a valuable role in stabilizing employment and providing access points for training and other resources,” Dr. Seavey said.

Public “matching service registries” are interactive electronic databases that typically provide up-to-date detailed information about the consumer’s needs and preferences and the worker’s availability, skills, and preferences. They may also offer additional services such as worker screening and orientation, access to consumer and worker training, and recruitment and outreach to potential workers. Consumers and workers must each initiate their side of the transaction.

PHI’s state-by-state survey on public “matching services registries” found that:

• 16 states had statewide matching services
• 5 states had regional matching services
• 2 states had matching services under consideration or development
• 28 states had no statewide or regional matching service

A list of the states is below.

“The typical information and referral service offered by resource centers in aging and disability networks today is little more than a list pulled out of a drawer and the information may not be up to date,” said Dr. Seavey. “Matching service registries can play a significant role in building an infrastructure for the self-directed care that will be in even greater demand with the passage of the CLASS Act.”

There are two other types of public registries currently in use. “Quality assurance registries” –  such as the nurse aide registries that exist in every state – provide directories of individuals who have satisfactorily completed a state’s training requirements to work in nursing homes and other long-term care programs. Some states also maintain “safety registries” that list workers with criminal backgrounds or abuse findings.

Today there are over 3 million direct?care workers and over one million new positions are needed by 2018, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). A quarter of the nearly one million Personal and Home Care Aides in 2008 were either directly employed by private households or were self-employed, according to the BLS Employment Projections Program. However, a PHI Fact Sheet explains that this figure significantly underestimates the number of independent providers of direct-care services.

The PHI Public Matching Services Registry Project is a multi-year project that will continue to document and track matching service registries across the states; highlight what is learned from these efforts; and encourage policies that improve and support infrastructure for self-direction.

More information on public matching services registries is available on PHI’s website, including an interactive map that illustrates what states have these registries and provides a snapshot description of the service. The PHI Public Matching Services Registry Project is funded with support from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research through the Center for Personal Assistance Services at the University of California at San Francisco.

Statewide Matching Service Registries (16)

Arkansas

California (52 county-based registries)

Connecticut

Massachusetts

Maine

Michigan

North Dakota

New Hampshire

New Jersey

Ohio

Oregon

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Vermont

Washington

Wisconsin

Regional Matching Services Registries (5)

Idaho

Illinois

Kansas

New York

Pennsylvania

Recent Legislative Efforts to Launch Matching Services Registries (2)

Connecticut

Missouri

– end –

PHI works to improve the lives of people who need home and residential care—and the lives of the workers who provide that care. Using our workplace and policy expertise, we help consumers, workers, employers, and policymakers improve eldercare and disability services by creating quality direct-care jobs. Our goal is to ensure caring, stable relationships between consumers and workers, so that both may live with dignity, respect, and independence.