Disability Community Access Code Issues Teleconference Transcript
1:30 PM to 3:20 PM August 10, 2016
>> OPERATOR: Ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for standing by and welcome to the DSA/DOR access code public meeting. At this time, all parts participants are in a listen-only mode. Later we will conduct a question and answer session. Instructions will be given at that time. If you have a question, press * and 0. I would now like to turn the conference over to the host. Please go ahead, ma’am.
>> SUSAN MOE: Welcome. Welcome to the disability community access code issues meeting teleconference and thank you for standing by.
All participants will be on a listen-only mode until the comment and suggestion portion of today’s call. At that time, you can press *1 to speak from the phone lines. I’d also like to inform all parties that the call is being recorded. If you have any objections, you may disconnect at this time.
I would now like to turn the meeting over to our host, Dennis Corelis, the California State Division of the Architect
>> DENNIS CORELIS: Thank you. We are pleased to be sharing information on accessibility in the California Building Code.
We will be sharing the current list of potential code-change items and then asking the disability community for their suggestions on other code change items to be considered.
We have allocated a significant portion of the call time for your comments and suggestions and will very much welcome any thoughts or ideas you may have. I want to welcome our callers and our Department of Rehabilitation partners in the access code development process. This meeting is co-sponsored by the Division of the State Architect and the Department of Rehabilitation. Now I would like to turn the call over to the California Department of Rehabilitation Director – Joe Xavier.
>> JOE XAVIER: Thank you for the time that you’re making to join us and to provide input into this process. As you have heard from the Department of Rehabilitation, we certainly always prefer the face-to-face interaction and active dialogue, but when you have the size of the state that we do in California and you provide an opportunity for everybody to join without incurring travel expenses. With the ability to navigate many callers on the phone, this is the next-best option.
I wanted to acknowledge the Division of State Architect for holding the forum and the team that has done the work to plan this call and provide the information. And certainly, DOR and the Division of State Architect have a shared interest here. We have the interest in making our services accessible, to inform our stakeholders in the community, to be informed and educated by our communities and stakeholders and the work that we do and then of course, to use the information from our stakeholders to provide information for all our programs and services. Thank you for joining the call. Let me turn it back over to Dennis to continue.
>> DENNIS CORELIS: Thank you for your support and encouragement. I believe DSA and DOR share a common goal of making facilities throughout California accessible to all. The purpose of this meeting is to share information with the disability community and seek its input on potential code changes to the accessibility provisions of the California Building Code. As mentioned earlier, we will highlight key aspects of the code development process and seek suggestions, comments and issues from the meeting participants.
So, we are now at the beginning of the code adoption cycle and DSA has not yet drafted any proposed amendments. This event is the first in a series of meetings and discussions to assist DSA with the development of access code changes for consideration by the Building Standards Commission in June of 2017.
There will be a second teleconference similar to this one on August 23rd (rescheduled to 1 September 2016) and code change proposals may be sent at any time. The email address is DSAAccess2016@dgs.ca.gov. A transcript of this event with all comments and suggestions will be posted on the DSA website for future reference.
Access for individuals with disabilities to buildings and facilities is regulated at both the state and federal level. At the federal level, the Americans Disabilities Act is a Civil Rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all areas of public life. This includes jobs, schools, transportation, and all public and private spaces that are open to the general public. Among other things the ADA is intended to ensure access to the built environment. The ADA Standards establish design requirements for the construction and alteration of buildings and facilities subject to the law. The enforceable standards apply to places of public accommodation, commercial facilities, and state and local Government facilities.
Within California accessibility in the built-in environment is regulated by the state and enforced at the local level. There are 482 cities and 58 counties throughout California that have jurisdiction over building within their geographic areas. At the state level, some agencies enforce the building codes for special types of facilities. For example, the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development has oversight over health care facilities. The Department of Housing and Community Development is responsible for building standards for residential occupancies and privately funded multifamily dwellings and the Division of the State Architect is the enforcement agency for public schools, community colleges and state-owned facilities in California.
In addition to acting as the enforcement agency for over 11,000 public school and community college campuses, the Division of the State Architect also develops accessibility building standards for public accommodations, commercial facilities and public housing. Our accessibility provisions must provide a level of accessibility equal to that provided by the Americans with Disabilities Act standards. The regulations must be consistent with the model codes adopted by the Building Standards Commission and may contain additional requirements necessary to ensure access and usability for persons with disabilities.
In developing and revising these additional requirements, DSA consults with the Department of Rehabilitation, the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, private organizations representing and comprised of persons with disabilities and we also consult other stakeholders such as architects, building officials, contractors and the general public.
California building standards are created with oversight by the California Building Standards Commission. This process, referred to as rule making, is also governed by the Administrative Procedures Act and must be transparent and open to all stakeholders with significant public participation. The building standards process can be lengthy. It takes 24 to 30 months to go to from issue identification and consultation with stakeholders to the effective date of a new or amended building standard. The phases of the code adoption process include the pre-cycle activities phase, a public comment phase, an adoption phase and an implementation phase.
We are currently in the pre-cycle phase for the 2016 Intervening Code Adoption Cycle. This summer and fall we will be conducting meetings, workshops and public hearings. Code change proposals will then be submitted in December of 2016 to the Building Standards Commission for public hearings before its code advisory committee in February or March of 2017. After final revisions, the code changes will be resubmitted for the Public Comment Phase which will conclude with a public hearing before the Building Standards Commission in June of 2017.
State law also addresses the need for education and outreach on accessibility issues. I’m going to turn the meeting over to our senior architect Ida Clair to talk about some of these activities.
>> IDA CLAIR: Thank you, Dennis. California code requires state agencies to educate code users and the public on the accessibility regulations. Together with DOR, we work to prepare educational materials for business facility owners, architects, engineers, contractors and others.
DSA provides training classes on accessibility code requirements, public access code updates, public housing and housing at a place of education. DSA works with the California Commission on Disability Access to prepare educational materials for business and facility owners and jurisdictional agencies.
DSA also provides training and educational materials for certified access specialists.
We are now going to review possible code change items that have come to DSA’s attention. After this presentation, we will open up the teleconference line for your comments, suggestions and issues that can be addressed in the building code. Senior Architect Derek Shaw will present these items.
>> DEREK SHAW: Thank you, Ida. While the code change is on an 18-month cycle, DSA receives code change suggestions throughout the cycle. These come from several places such as code users, stakeholders and staff review and analysis. DSA is reaching out to the disability community for code change suggestions which can be provided during this meeting or sent to the Division of the State Architect via e-mail. I will repeat that address, DSAAccess2016@dgs.ca.gov or the suggestions can be submitted in writing through the end of August 2016. DSA staff reviews all code change suggestions to confirm that they are addressing a confirmed problem or issue within the purview of the California Building Code, within DSA’s authority under California statute, consistent with federal and state accessibility law, and consistent with the organization and format of the California and Building Code.
Code change items are then categorized to assist DSA with prioritization. We consider proposed changes based on State legislative mandates, changes to federal standards, petitions or items referred by the Building Standards Commission and issues identified by stakeholders and/or staff.
Other factors that are used to evaluate the proposals include the immediacy of the problem, the breadth of the benefit, and the complexity of the issue.
Finally, the availability of staff and stakeholders to work on the technical provisions affects the selection of these items as to whether they would be addressed within the current code cycle or within future code cycles.
Now I’ll present the proposed code change items we have received to date. Petition items include the definition of “accessible route”, “alteration”, “equivalent facilitation”, “reasonable portion”, and “technically infeasible”.
Code users have also requested a possible update for the definition of “accessible.” We also have several proposed changes to the path of travel upgrade requirements triggered by alterations, additions and structural repairs.
These include the reference to the immediately preceding edition of the California Building Code and a new exception for projects consisting only of seismic mitigation work, Additionally, the legislature has mandated the development of scoping and related technical requirements for adult changing tables.
Under the provisions for parking and vehicular areas, we have several proposals to address vehicle overhang of landscape areas at accessible parking spaces, add a new exception to permit 80 inches vertical clearance instead of 98 inches at all accessible parking spaces, access aisles and vehicular routes serving them within existing multi-story parking facilities and to address wheel-stop placement at the head of accessible parking spaces. We have requests to clarify the scoping and technical requirements for detectable warnings including hazardous vehicular areas and to add scoping requirements for pedestrian traffic control buttons.
We also have proposals to look at the provisions for accessible routes. These include the accessible route to a mezzanine when an elevator is exempted, eliminating the corridor and aisle width requirements within chapter 11B that duplicate information in Chapter 10 of the building code, provision of door landings at curb ramps similar to those provisions at ramp landings and to address handrail orientation at ramps.
We have several proposals to deal with reach range issues. One is to clarify scoping requirements for switches and receptacles in private offices and another to address the accessibility of manual fire alarm pull boxes.
There are also proposals for changes to other portions of the code. These include 1) requirements for buildings vacated and altered for use as public housing, 2) clarification of the terminology for public accommodations and commercial facilities, 3) revisions to the exceptions for required knee and toe clearances at all dining surfaces and picnic tables. Other provisions address visual contrast when geometric symbols are mounted on walls or other surfaces when a door is not available and address the clear space requirements at medical beds, exam tables, procedure tables, gurneys and lounge chairs.
We have recently received several proposals for which the proposers have asked to be read into the record during this teleconference. The first of those is to address the accessibility of camp shelters at campgrounds and camping facilities. Next is to address accessible routes by prohibiting them from passing behind parked vehicles There are then several additional proposals to address the knee clearance requirements at sinks, lavatories and drinking fountains, to address pocket-door design including the requirements for the use of pocket door locking and latching hardware, defining the force to open and close pocket doors and determine if pocket doors can be power operated.
The next item is location of accessible bathrooms in malls, asking us to address whether in open malls occupancies such as restaurants must have bathrooms within their spaces. Also, within a covered mall, what is an acceptable distance between the restaurant occupancy and an accessible public bathroom?
We also have suggested code changes for accessible pedestrian signal or APS design. APSs providing audio and/or vibro- or tactile signals coinciding with the visual walk signal. Standardizing the type and location of pedestrian signal control. ; defining the sound level or decibels for the finder tone and speak-out message and defining the triggers that will require the installation of APS.
This one proposer also noted several other future items which include telephone entry systems, speak-out signs for construction in the public right-of-way, barricade system design for construction in the public right of way, accessible cable cover design and accessible exits in sprinkler buildings where only one exit is required, for example, in a sprinklered movie theater addressing on-street parking and loading zones, the design features, number and location and finally, the clarification of accessible seating at bars. Does the hinged pull-down shelf work?
That is the extent of the items received to date. As mentioned earlier, there will be another code issues teleconference on the 23rd of August (rescheduled to 1 September 2016) open to all stakeholders and DSA will be accepting e-mail or written code change proposals through the end of August. We are now opening the call to participants on the teleconference line for their comments and suggestions on code changes.
These suggestions will be evaluated and added to the list of potential code changes. A transcript of this meeting will be provided and posted on the DSA and DOR websites. Back to Dennis.
>> DENNIS CORELIS: Thank you, Derek. We will now go to the teleconference line to receive comments and suggestions from those listening in. There is no a strict time limit for those calling in. We are asking callers to be mindful for those in the queue waiting to speak. Sue, please ask the operator to bring up the first caller.
>> OPERATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to ask a question, please press *1 on your touch-tone phone. You will hear a tone indicating you have been placed in queue and you may remove yourself from queue at any time by pressing the # key. If you’re using the speaker phone, please pick up the hand set before pressing the numbers. Once again, if you have a question, please press *1 at this time. And just a moment, please, for our first question.
And we first turn to the line of Gene Lozano. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
>> GENE LOZANO: My name is Gene Lozano from the California Council of the Blind and the California Council of Citizens With Low Vision. First, I have a question and that is to do with the presenter about the idea of bringing in some of the requirements for accessible pedestrian signals in – since that is currently under Cal-Trans’ authority, under the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, is this something that DSA has the area of authority, or is it being transferred from Cal-Trans to DSA to transferring the safe provisions? We would like to make certain that there’s harmonization between what California and the Feds already have. Not opposing the idea, just want to make that comment.
We also are very concerned about more and more new projects where the accessible route of travel is through hazardous – well, through parking lots and we would like to see that they be prohibited – that accessible route of travel be created so that you do not have to go through parking lots to get from the public right of way to a mall building – so forth. And if there has to be an exception that there be some clear guidelines for that.
We also would like to see that the updated formula for color contrasting – that is being – been worked on and still is with ANSI A117 be looked at for an update on that.
And last thing we would like to see is moving toward getting in the pedestrian refuge areas out in the medians of streets that the detectable warnings be clearly specified to meet the – the yellow requirement that does exist for hazardous vehicular ways right now. Thank you very much.
>> DENNIS: Thank you.
>> OPERATOR: We have a question from the line of HolLynn.
>> HOLLYN D’LIL: Hello. My name is Hollynn D’lil and I want to applaud DSA for involving us as you have failed to do in the development stages of your code changes. I also have a concern about Government Code 4459 which says that you can’t provide accessibility requirements in the California Building Standards Code that enhance or diminish access except as necessary for retaining existing regulations that provide greater accessibility and for features for meeting minimum federal accessibility standards.
So as you’re talking about changes, it sounds to me like you’re proposing changes that would violate Government Code 4459 and I want to know what you have to say about that.
>> DENNIS CORELIS: Can I speak to this?
>> DENNIS CORELIS: Hello. This is Dennis here. Thank you very much for calling in. We really appreciate your input. We are actually looking at an interpretation to make sure that we truly understand 4459 and what it allows us to do and what it would constrain us from doing. I know there’s been some discussions in the past on this, but we have been working with our legal office to clarify what we can do – when we’re enhancing or clarifying requirements that are in the federal standards is how far can we go and what that really means.
But that is a concern to us, too, because the federal government works on a different time scale than California does and we would like to address some issues that we feel are needed, but again, we do have this Government Code section to deal with. So thank you very much for bringing that up and it’s something that we’re going to be – you know, looking at with our legal office. Derek, did you have something you would like to add?
>> DEREK SHAW: Yes.
>> HOLLYNN D’LIL: May I ask one more question?
>> DENNIS CORELIS: Yes, please.
>> HOLLYNN D’LIL: I would like to know if DSA will be reinstituting the disability access advisory committee. And I understand that you’re doing outreach and education, but I have to tell you that the disability community is – they’re not professionals in the building industry in any respect and the trainings that you provide – and outreach you do – goes to design professionals – building professionals, architects, et cetera.
That does not meet the needs of the general public that is disabled. So we need two things. We need to have you reinstitute the disability access advisory committee so that we can have good representation on that committee that will send information out to their individual communities about progress, or any changes being made at DSA on our access code standards which impact our daily lives. And two, we need information, we need seminars, outreach, education, to a disability population that is not geared toward professionals, but is geared at a layperson’s level so a person with disabilities can understand what is going on. Thank you.
>> DENNIS CORELIS: Okay. Hello. This is Dennis again. Let me answer your question to the best of my ability. I’m going to go to your second point first about educational outreach and we do a lot of that as Ida has mentioned. We are working with the Building Standards Commission to build a code adoption class for the public. This is a class that is going to build on a document they have prepared which is a guide to the building standards process for the general public which attempts to put the process in a context that is not overly technical so people who aren’t code professionals understand how that process is going to work. We also have a lot classes that DSA gives. We work with DOR on some of their educational materials and we work with the California Commission on Disability Access. DSA is working at reconvening a group that will help with the code process as you suggest. For this cycle, we didn’t really have enough time to give it proper – its proper due and – but I believe for the 2018 code adoption cycle, there will be a group convened. It is something that is part of our strategic plan and something we are looking at. We can have further discussions as this group is put together, but I would like to let you know that we are looking at that.
>> HOLLYNN D’LIL: I appreciate that. I have another concern I would like to address. There were quite a few reductions – decreases in access standards promulgated, very important access – that were decreased by building code changes. We want to address those, of course. Is this an opportunity – the end-of-August deadline – for submitting code change proposals? Is this the opportunity to say “Wait a minute. You reduced access. Put it back the way it was,” or would that be a futile exercise.
>> DENNIS CORELIS: Again, this is Dennis. If there is a provision that you feel needs to be amended, we are open to any suggestion at this time. So it’s not a futile exercise and we will look at anything that people propose. As Derek mentioned, we have a lot of suggestions that have been given to us and if there are other ones – in specific – proposals that you would like to submit, you know, you have until the end of August to put them in. There’s no constraint on what you can propose.
>>: I thinkHOLLYNN D’LIL some of these are clear violations of Government Code 4459 that they should be flagged in some way and given precedence over other code changes.
>> DENNIS CORELIS: This is Dennis again. After our accumulating all the proposals, there is going to be a meeting – that I think I mentioned to you via e-mail – on the 13th of September (rescheduled to September 21, 2016) – to go over which items are of the highest priority. As you can see by the breadth and number of items we have, not all of these are going to be able to be considered during this intervening cycle. So from a prioritization standpoint, that would be one of the public meetings we are going to have to discuss what items should go forward. That would be a good time to raise these issues.
>> HOLLYNN D’LIL: And I also think that not only should they be brought back in future code cycles, but you need to send a bulletin out right away saying that it was an error in these reductions. I will send you a list of all the reductions you’ve made and that needs to be immediately addressed with all the code enforcement officials.
>> DENNIS CORELIS: I will definitely take a look at your e-mail – I will take a look at that.
>>HOLLYNN D’LIL: Thank you.
>> DENNIS CORELIS: You’re welcome.
> OPERATOR: Next we turn to the line of Tanya Little. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
>> TANYA LITTLE: Good afternoon. This is Tanya Little. I’m the General Services Disability Advisory Chair. Usually in October of every year, I go out to various facilities to hold our Disability Awareness Month event. My concern may not be addressed in your regulations, but is there any coordination between DSA and the Real Estate Services Division with regards to addressing tenants of State buildings to make sure they’re addressing accessibility needs of their staff? And then secondly, is there – if there is – is there a way that any of those employees can contact either DSA or [Indiscernible] in that process when their employers are not meeting their accessibility needs?
>> DENNIS CORELIS: This is Dennis, Tanya. Thank you for your comment. And I have a – it’s my understanding that you’re talking about employment accommodation issues which may be reflected in changes to the built environment. Is that correct?
>> TANYA LITTLE: Yes.
>> DENNIS CORELIS: Okay. Those are handled by – I think the Real Estate Services Division within the Department of General Services. We (DSA) approve projects that are submitted to modify the state-owned buildings. They all come to us for review for compliance with the access codes.
We don’t necessarily have any influence on the way an employer department would address a reasonable accommodation request, but we sometimes work with them to say, “Well, we do this, is this going to have a negative impact on other accessibility provisions?” In that sense, we can work with them on what they’re proposing as part of their project. But it’s my understanding that if someone is not getting the proper attention, they would first start with the disabled advisory committee in their actual department.
>>TANYA LITTLE: Right. And so the way I’ve gotten pulled in – because I am a member of the Department of General Services is that there is – in some cases, that disability advisory community chairperson is not getting the support. There is one recently where it’s gotten bounced around for about a year between real estate services division and that particular department.
And what I believe has happened is that they were trying to wait out – tack a job on current renovations to that particular facility. But the renovations that were being taken care of were not for employees.
>>DENNIS CORELIS: You raised some very valid points, but it is not directly related to this teleconference. That is something that we can talk about in a separate discussion. I think we are more than willing to see what we can do.
>> TANYA LITTLE: Okay. That’s great.
>>DENNIS CORELIS: I’ll get back to you sometime this week. I think one of my staff is on your committee as well. So we will definitely discuss this further in the future.
>> TANYA LITTLE: I think so.
>> DENNIS CORELIS: Thank you, Tanya.
>> OPERATOR: As a reminder, if you would like to queue up for a question or comment, we invite you to press *1 at this time. Next we turn to the line of John. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
>> JOHN: I did send some information to the e-mail that you just mentioned, but a couple of things I wanted to ask – even if it would be appropriate. That has to do with loop technologies for people who wear hearing aids for meetings in many of the state buildings that do not seem to exist in many of the ones that I have been in. I want to know about internal audible indicators that will let a person that is a cane user know in which direction to find, for example, the restrooms or maybe to a tactile – a tactile map that would show them the layout of the building. That would be interior audible indicators and whether or not that is something that is too specific and each building will have to do its own as they do for the Braille on the elevators.
So is that something that can be addressed through these regulations?
>> DENNIS CORELIS: John, this is Dennis, these are some – you know, relatively specific items, but we will note that you put them in as possible suggestions. We will make sure we evaluate them. Thank you for bringing them to our attention.
>> JOHN: Thank you.
>> OPERATOR: Please press *1 if you have a question or comment. Next we turn to the line of Michael Mankin.
>> MICHAEL MANKIN: Are you able to hear me?
>> DENNIS CORELIS: Yes. We can. Good afternoon.
>> MICHAEL MANKIN: I have a question about something I see on the screen, express terms related to 11B.25 accessible routes. Is that something that you put out as a proposed change? I guess – I’m worried about exceptions by – which goes – [Indiscernible] “shall be 44 inches, separate door opens with –“ that exception is deleted and I think that it should maybe only be deleted for single occupancy. In a multi-occupancy restroom, wheelchairs – sometimes if they only have 36 inches, there’s no way to pass people at the lavatories. The toilet facilities are usually at the end of the room. Everybody has to leave or stand on the sink or something to get out of the way for a power wheelchair to go through there.
So I think that exception is certainly not necessary and – you know, going by the statutory limitation, you have to be deemed necessary for compliance with ADA minimums or – you know, otherwise necessary as a current restrain on access. This decreases the amount of access. So that is my first item.
The second item I have is that there is a provision in – I think it might be in Part 1: Administrative Code and I don’t know if that is on the table – where a warning is only allowed until DSA approves the use of certain designs or colors. I think that is actually – applies to the law where a detectable warning is required under federal law. State law is being used by some people as a reason why they can’t install the detectable warnings.
So I think that – that language that says that – you know, until DSA approves no other detectable warning can be applied is actually under the access. So those are the two issues I have on the table.
>> DENNIS CORELIS: Okay Michael. This is Dennis. Thank you very much, Michael. Just as a point of information, we were – are looking at the entire question of detectable warnings and hazardous vehicular ways, but due to the fact that this is a fairly complex subject, we are going to need to convene a working group that will – you know, have the proper resources and time to thoroughly study it, this is probably an issue that could be considered for the next triennial cycle. We are aware of this issue and also the – you know, the completion of the certification for the detectable warnings is something that DSA needs to look at finishing. So those are items we are aware of. We want to thank you and we will add those to the list of items that we’ll take a look at.
>> MICHAEL MANKIN: I think it is pretty serious. Until DSA approves – all you have to do is just delete that language. That’s a pretty slam-dunk thing to do. I think that when you – when you make corrections like that is the – not even something to the – to the rule-making cycle. I think you can make that effective in 30 days when you’re making a change or a correction like that. Anyway, that is all I have to say about that. Anything you can do will help. Cities and counties, I’ve gotten several calls on this from downstate.
>> DENNIS CORELIS: This is Dennis. Thank you. We will take a look at that. I think you’re right. Changes to the administrative regs, while they have to do – consistent with the cycle, can be effective in a shorter timeframe than the one year it takes them to go into effect after they’re approved by the building standards commission. We will take a look at that.
>> MICHAE MANKIN: Thanks.
>> DENNIS MANKIN: Thank you.
>> OPERATOR: If there are any additional questions or comments, please press *1. We turn to the line of Gene Lozano. Your line is open.
>> GENE LOZANO: I was in a rush not knowing how much time I had earlier. I was wondering if you could respond to my question about the authority DSA has for generating requirements for accessible pedestrian signals light of Cal-Trans having specifications in its manual and uniform traffic control devices or as this authority been transferred from Cal-Trans to DSA?
>> DEREK SHAW: Hello, Gene, this is Derek Shaw.
>> GENE LOZANO: Hi.
>> DEREK SHAW: The presentation of the different code-change suggestions that I presented earlier in this meeting was a summarized – but direct presentation of those items as we’ve received them.
We’ve not yet taken the step – the steps necessary to review those and to determine whether they are even within DSA’s authority at this time. But it’s – it was shared with the participants in this meeting just as a point of reference so that folks know what kind of suggestions we have been receiving.
Certainly we would want to make sure that that was within our authority and that we weren’t unduly overlapping Cal-Trans’ authority.
>> GENE LOZANO: The question was not meant as opposition, but just as clarification as you provided.
One other thing which I am working on right now to get the information but – this may end up being the 2018 cycle, the Braille code – not the architecture code, but the actual Braille code that we refer to as “literary Braille” and contracted number 2 has been changed and called the Unified English Braille Code. I am now – in another capacity – trying to find out what impact it has on the architectural code and that is something that I was wondering if – I don’t know whether I would be able to meet this deadline at the end of August, but is that something – if our Braille code needs to be updated, that is something that could be considered at this time? I don’t know if you could respond to that.
>> SUSAN MOE: Just one moment, please.
>> GENE LOZANO: Pardon me?
>> SUSAN MOE: Are we ready to respond to Gene’s question on the unified English Braille? His question is: Can the code be updated at this time? Gene, do you want to repeat that question?
>> GENE LOZANO: Okay. We have our – the – our Braille code – architectural Braille code may be impacted and this is – I’m working on to clarify – by some changes in the literary Braille code and comes in terms of punctuation which is – we have a deal with punctuation right now. So if there needs – and if there needs to be some changes in punctuation, how the numbers are to be presented. Is this something that would be considered now possibly being that this uniform English Braille code went into effect January 1st of this year, or would this be something that would need to wait until 2018?
>> DENNIS CORELIS: Gene, this is Dennis. This sounds like – again, this is a very specialized subject and I think if – it’s something that I don’t think we can consider for the intervening cycle, but we definitely would be interested in looking at it for the 2018 cycle because I think it would take a – you know, some more – certain amount of study and discussion to see what is the best response for this.
Have the – do you know if the federal government is acting in response to these changes also? Or – have you heard anything on that?
>> GENE LOZANO: They are not. This is something that – if I get the confirmation on this, this is something that – there is – would a movement with the Department of Justice to make the change. Nor has ANSI been approached on this. Thank you. That gives me some idea of time parameters to work on this. Thank you.
>> DENNIS CORELIS: This is Dennis again, Gene. If this is one of the subjects we would decide to move forward with, we would have to convene to get the proper timeframe – we would be convening a working group in the summer of 2017. It is not that far away. Thank you very much for bringing this to our attention. I wasn’t aware of this change.
>> GENE LOZANO: Thank you.
>> OPERATOR: Again, if you have a question or a comment, please press *1 at this time. Speakers, we have no further questions in queue at this time.
>> OPERATOR: Speakers, we have no further questions in queue. Please continue.
>> DENNIS CORELIS: Go ahead. Again, this is Dennis. I want to thank everyone for the comments that have come in. We encourage you to bring any topics up now if you’d like, but again, this is not your sole opportunity to bring code change issues up. We will again be having another follow-up session on the 23rd of August (rescheduled to September 1, 2016) . We will be accepting issues and proposed code changes. We have the e-mail address that you can send information to. We would welcome any code changes or issues that can be identified. We encourage you to pass the invitations you get to these sessions along to any folks that might have something to contribute and again, at this time, we want to thank everybody for joining us and if you have any additional comments or questions, please give our operatoran indication of that. If not, we will be signing off in 5 or 10 minutes.
>> OPERATOR: Please press *1 if you have a comment. We have a question from Hollynn.
>>HOLLYNN D’LIL: When will we have a transcript?
>> DENNIS CORELIS: The transcript is prepared by AT&T. As soon as we get a copy from them, we will review it to make sure there aren’t any typos or any problems the names and things like that. But I anticipate within two weeks we should have a transcript up on our website.
>> HOLLYNN D’LIL: So that won’t be before the meeting on the 23rd (1st of September)
>> DENNIS CORELIS: What is today? We will make every effort to do so. Again, I don’t know how long it takes AT&T to get us their copy of the transcript. So if this is a new system for us, so I would appreciate your patience. We will get it up as quickly as we can.
>> HOLLYNN D’LIL: Thank you.
>> DENNIS: You’re welcome.
>> OPERATOR: If there are any additional questions or comments, we ask you to press *1. Speakers, allowing some time for folks to queue up. We have no questions at this time.
>> DENNIS CORELIS: All right. I think without any more questions and I don’t see anymore callers coming on the line, I want to thank everybody for their time and participation this afternoon and we look forward to future sessions where we can continue the discussion and again, I think the call will be ended now. Thank you all for your participation. Thank you, OPERATOR.
>> OPERATOR: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, the call is now complete. You may now disconnect.
Disability Community Access Code Issues Teleconference Transcript PAGE Of