**Note: The output shown below is from the Communication**

**Ac cess Realtime Translation (CA** **RT) system used in the**  **Communications Subcommittee Meeting # 11**  **and is generally unedited.**  **T he C** **ART s yst** **em w as used to provide an**  **accommodation to persons with hearing loss and persons who are deaf, and was streamed in real**  **- time and available to**  **the public on the internet during the meeting.**

**CA RT Operator:**  **B everl**  **y Earl**  **y**
Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee Commun ications Subcommittee Meeting #11 U.S. Access Board Thursday, January 8, 2015

>> Good afternoon, this is Jim Pecht, welcome to the 11th meeting of the Communications Subcommitte e. A s everyone may participate no public time has been scheduled during the two hour call there is no chat CART box if you are using the CART system, any participants who wish to use the

-- are using CART and desire to raise a question or make a statement , please send E

- mail to RVAAC @ access

- board.gov. We will monitor it and get the question into the subcommittee. P lease remember to give your name when speaking or before you speak betteryet. I will now turn the call over to the subcommittee chair,

Te rry. >> Terry: T hank you, Jim. We have done self introductions. I want to just for a quick second say hello to everyone and apologize. Last month Jim and I were both ill, the month before I got triple booked on the day of the call, so I haven't been on since October and I do apologize for that. B ut from the notes that I have gotten it looks like

-- like the committee has done quite a bit of work, which is great because we have more to get done and then we have to get our report ready for the February i n
- person meeting which is 26th and 27th in Washington. B efore we get started on all of that though, I would like to welcome Dr. Christian Vogler from Gallaudet who is going to give us a brief presentation on some possible new technologies for communicatio ns on rail vehicles for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. S o, with that, I would like to thank you for joining us today, Dr. Vogler, and turn it over to you. >> Hello everyone, this is Christian speaking. T hank you for inviting me to join the call today. I am very honored to be here. To start, I wanted to explain that I am speaking through a video relay interpreter service. A nd I hope I got a good interpreter. B ut sometimes the technology can go downhill quickly and sometimes there are some misu nderstandings thathappen, so I will be monitoring that but feel free to say

something if something isn't clear, and feel free to interrupt me if you have questions, okay? >> Fine. T hank you.
>> We will proceed. F irst, a brief summary about Gallaudet Uni versity. W hat I do there, I am part of the Tech Access Program. A nd my research focus is specifically on technologies for individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing. A lot of things happen in that area regarding telecommunication. A nd, you know, it's a very broad field and there are a lot of exciting new technologies for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. I am been following the research on technology and I am involved in the development of a
new
-- new prototype technology. S o that's been theeing biggest

-- that's been the biggest thing at this point. We have a lot of interactions together with government agencies. A nd we work also if the FCC and serve on the board there are a lot of interactions by deaf and hard of hearing people with t he group. For example, TDI, NAD, et cetera. We have a lot of interactions and activities with the industry various industries. W hat I am going to be doing is providing some guidance to those particular groups and we have developed some wonderful relatio nships so far and it's been great to serve on the board of the with that aside

-- one moment, if you wouldn't mind.Okay. M oving on, so before the call I had hadn't had a chance

to meet with David and Andrew and

-- who come together with this rail transp ortation information. S o, we are trying to get disseminate the information to the deaf and hard of hearing. First of all, I would like to say our perspective is the technology is constantly changing, there is not often new programs that appear on the mar ket. S o, we are not really looking at a specific technology, so to speak. B ut the rules are more focused on actual function. T he functionality. A nd the features. S o, that's our perspective. A nd it's a very important

-- >> This is Lise, can I interrupt? L ise Hamlin here. W hen you say the rules are focused on actual function, what rules are you referring to Christian? >> The government management association makes rules for example transportation rule s, rail rules, for access. F or communication access. S o does not

-- does that clarify the question? >> This is David Nelson here. I think what Dr. Vogler is speaking about is the regulations. >> Right. Again, sorry about that. >> Lise: W hich regulatio ns? >> The FCC regulations there. A pologize for that misinterpretation. S o, does that clarify that?>> This is Lise Hamlin again not really. B ecause are we

talking about the federal communications regulations here? I s that what you are referring to?
>> Well, that's just one example. I know that the Access Board hasn't actually

-- I am just talking about the FCC regulations in general. >> This is Lise again. O kay. I think you should move ahead maybe everything will become more clear to me as you
move forward. I was wondering if there was basically an interpreter issue here.
>> This is Christian again. S o, for people who are deaf and hard of hearing it's important that they make information available to a variety of

-- in a variety of formats. A nd bec ause our communication is various. I t varies. S ome people have a strong visual

-- strong visual piece. S ome people prefer the sign language, some people prefer to lip read or read in captions. Other individuals would rather hear auditorily via their he aring assistive technology. S o, there is a variety there. For me the important question is, how do you make it possible to provide equal access for all of those

-- that variety of deaf and hard of hearing individuals. S o, we feel that any technology that is chosen for the future has to take into consideration all of those various needs. S o, we expect that in the future we will use a variety of technologies to have that

-- tohave that full access. F or example, a few examples will be

provided of those various technologies. I n the railroad system itself, there could be some signage that would disseminate information. A nd that would be very valuable. B ecause if the

-- because of ease of use. A nyone who sees the signs can read it and automatically have access. I f there is an actual visual sign with the

-- in some sort of

-- it can disseminate information via the sign. H owever, that's not a perfect fit for all. F or example, if an individual has visual problems, perhaps we are losing their eyesight they wouldn't have access to that sign. Perhaps they don't read well. S o, similar technology would have a way to provide information directly to a person who cannot access that communication on the signage or, for example, another example if a person is deaf, and they might feel more comfortable using sign language. A nd so is there a way that we can think about how to provide or disseminate that information via sign language as well. S o, I understand that's

-- that's a difficult problem because it's an automated system. You can't do any automated system from English to ASL, it doesn't work well. H owever, from my perspective

-- with the rail system there is very standard or common situation, it happens frequently. S o, for example

-- (inaudible) announcement of the next stop, or the town that they have arrived in they are going to arrive in thetown in 5 minutes that announcement is a standard

announcement. T here are only two items that change. T he one would be the name of the town. A nd so they just have to
remace
-- switch out the name of the town. O r the time of arrival they just have to switch out the time of arrival. O r if the announcement

-- if they happen to announce that the train is late, that's another announcement that would happen if the train

was going to be late. H ow many minutes that would be late. So, there is very standard announcements so the only thing that would change is a few items. S o, even if the

-- if the rail is waiting, because the

-- there is perhaps the break down further up t he rail. Again, there is some common or standard announcements that are made. N ow, I am not an expert in any of those matters. H owever, it's my feeling that there is a lot of standard situations that arise, so I think that the technology can take advantage of that. F or example, when we had spoken about the signage earlier, if there is an automated message and you only put the name of the town that switches in that verbiage. S o, the whole message would be the same except the city, it seems like it would be an easy fix. So, I think the same concept could apply to making information accessible for all. I f you develop a standard message that could be translated into sign language which, theoretically, that sho uld be possible. A nd you should be able to provide that inreal time because the only thing that would change would be the

city or the time, so it seems like that's pretty easy to do. You wouldn't have to sign a whole new message from scratch. S o, it's my feeling that the technology should be

-- considered that, and there should be in my opinion some sort of standard

-- standardization, standard message format that's provided. A nd that's available to be disseminated to all of the passengers that you can just take out the few items that need to be switched out to accommodate all individuals. S o, my technology that I am suggesting is the signage, it's my vision that you would use some sort of also mobile communication. So, the sign information could be t ransmitted to my mobile device, for those people who need that there. F or example, if I am deaf and I have vision

-- if I have vision issues and I want to transfer rails, I can put that

-- I can have the signage feed

-- the information sent to my phone, t o my mobile device, and then on the plane there with is WI/FI that's available and there should be an app that can be downloaded and then I could, technically speaking, we could do that. S o, and in the app, the message would be communicated via sign langu age, that message that on the board would be transmitted into American Sign Language in that app. A nd that would be real time. S o that they would sign the message to me. Again, I see that this should be feasible theoretically. A nd I understand thetech nology is constantly changing and they are always making

new improvements, I am encouraging to look towards the future with this technology. Now, let me go back a little bit and emphasize a key point in regards to the sign. T he sign should be the primary way that information is disseminated. We are not forcing everyone to rely on the app. T he app is just a way to provide information. But there

-- the primary information dissemination wou ld be the signage. T hat would be there for all to see. A nd that should be effective. S o, we are not forcing these users to download an app it's up O to their discernment but we want to know that they have that app as an option. We are not going to get rid of the signage that's not the goal at all. B ut that's from my perspective. T he app would just be, for example, a fallback or alternative way to get that information. I think it's important to think about the system as we move on in the future and how we can make all of this accessible and compatible. A lso, if we could find a way to do that

-- think about the compatibility with regards to hearing aids. S o
-- >> Christian, may I ask a question? A nd that is: D o you have

-- I would like to know what your thoughts are on using

-- us using loops. Loops on the vehicles. >> Christian: Yeah, sure. F irst, can I ask who asked that question?>> I'm sorry, this is Terry Pacheco. >> Christian: O kay. Terry, thank you for identifying yourself, this is Christian. Yes, loops have a great

-- are very positive for ease of use. I f

-- if the loop is set up appropriately. It's not always easy to get the hearing aids to switch

-- to cha nge to the telecoil mode. To get that

-- get that hearing to happen. S o
-- >> This is Lise Hamlin, let me ask for clarification here. I t actually my understanding that it's very easy to switch a hearing aid into telecoil mode as long as the person has a hearing aid and a telecoil in the hearing aid. I s that what you were say trying to say? >> Christian: T hat's ease of use, so yes. Yeah. I am not
sure
-- but I am not familiar with that

-- that hearing aid use. But yes, I don't use the loop. S o Lise you are probably more an expert in that matter than I am. H owever, the basic concept is I believe that it is

-- it is easy to use. >> Lise: R ight. T his is Lise again. T he idea

-- it's really easy for the user and it's

-- it's no

-- there is no staffin g, in other words, it's not like you have to provide, in that way it comes under the umbrella of the Access Board because once it's installed it's there, there is no other equipment that has to be delivered to the user. S o from that perspective, it's easy to use and doable. B ut that's

-- I just wanted to make sure that thatwas clear to everyone. T hank you. >> Christian: Yes. S o this is Christian speaking. I will agree with you on that. S o, to emphasize again, it would be ease of use is very key. I have, for example, the sign that we were mentioning is very it

-- the ease of use applies there. A nd the loop ease of use is there for a person who is deaf or hard of hearing and has a loop system. N ow, there is no other technology that is as easy to use a s the loop system. T here is no other. U nfortunately, the loop setup is

-- I'm sorry if you could hold on one moment while the interpreter clarifies. So, talking about the actual company who builds the rail line, from their perspective, from the perspecti ve of the company who actually build the rail, the train, the rail cars it's a bit more complicated to have the setup appropriate when they are actually building the rail cars. S o I am sure that you would understand the loop system, the technology is base d on magnetic induction, so with that said, it's very sensitive to interference. I f there is a lot of metal and electrical wires surrounding that area it can be difficult and it can interfere with the loop. >> This is Lise Hamlin I have to interrupt beca use we lost the CART. I s there a problem? **NOTE: S hort recess. >> Rose Marie Bunales: We are testing the CART. I don'tsee anything coming across. I am going to refresh my screen. A nd I see your fingers moving I see nothing on my screen. D oes anybo dy see anything on the screen? **NOTE: Testing system connection. >> Rose Marie Bunales: Okay. D r. Vogler. >> Lise: Looks good. T hank you. S orry Christian, apologize. **NOTE: N o thank you for letting us know.
>> Christian: I understand. T hat's fin e. Technology sometimes has problems. A nd, again, yes I just want to clearly emphasize the point that technology should be easy.

(LAUGHTER) >> Christian: T hat's the important part. S ometimes things happen. S o, I will proceed. F rom the perspective of the company who builds the rail cars, there is a big challenge installing the loop system. B ecause of the magnetic induction technology. T here can be interference that occurs with the wiring in the rail car because if there is metal in the area and t here is risk of interference. S o, Lise Hamlin and I were in contact with people in Europe regarding some of the rail technologies they invested in regarding a loop system. S ome of them were successful installing the loop and were continuing to research for more information. I t seems that if they do it if theybuild it into the car, the rail car, then there is

-- then there will

be less metal. T here is more metal in the older cars. S o it would be more successful in the newer version of rail cars. That often is

-- that option is definitely worth pursuing. Now I want to back up a little bit again, and if you remember, you know, I

-- we have thought about how technology changes so much, and the issue of how diverse members of the community interact with each other. F or example, now, in Las Vegas, um, we have a custom electronic
consumer
-- electronic show. I am going to abbreviate that and call it CES. T here are a lot of things happening regarding how

-- how technologies interact with one another. S o, I want to emphasize that with these technologies, there is

-- there is no good loop. I n the future, when they make changes to technology, that they are looking for improvements rather than switching out the loop

-- looking for improvements rather than switching out the loop, that's not the near future the changes that we are seeing. T hat will happen somewhere down the line. The important thing that I want to emphasize is fun ctionality. And that is what we are working with today, to successfully set up communication access on the railways. A nd then you know, we want to tend to, announcements for individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing, those with hearing aids those with implants, you know, how can that technology be made available.Particularly the loop that was discussed.

In the near future, in the future perhaps something else will arise. I t's important, again I think it's important to loo k at the issue of functionality and access. A nd

-- so, this is the reason why we want them to have access to the announcement system that's our goal. We haven't given up yet on how to determine how to do that. We are trying to maintain flexibility and c hoose who is appropriate for diverse populations. L ise, I wanted to ask you, or I'm sorry Leslie, do you have anything that you would like to add at this point? >> This is Lise. T he only thing that I wanted to clarify is that at one point either you or t he interpreter said there is no good loop. A nd in fact there are many good loops out there
now. Even the intrepid, which is full of metal, clearly

-- >> This was an interpretation error. We know that there are good loop systems for various users. B ut I am talking about other technology that might be made available that might tie to the loop. N ew technologies. S o, currently, there are no good replacement for the current technologies that we have in place. I apologize for that error.
>> Lise: T hank yo u, that makes it more clear to me. >> Christian: S ure thing. >> Terry: Well, I hate to cut this short. I truly do, but I am afraid we can only do another four or five minutes, if there isanything else that you can

-- anymore wisdom that you would

impart to us or if anyone has any additional questions could we take care of them? I am afraid we are going to have to kind of move along with this, with everything that is on today's agenda. Though, I really have enjoyed getting your perspective on some of t hese issues that we have been talking about for so many months on these calls.
>> Thank you. Yes. T his is Christian. I don't want to take up a lot of your time. A nd I appreciate the wisdom I have shared with the group as well. T he point is, yeah, the perfect

-- (inaudible). T he perfect is the opposite option for the end play of the good. S o, yeah, the perfect is the opposite of the good. S o, what that means is technically that we want it to be accessible. O ur goal is acce ss. You know, perfection would be access for us. B ut we haven't found all of the answers. We are not striving for perfection we are striving for access. A nd we are not going to

-- we are not about to give up on this end. We are going to achieve our go als no matter what we encounter. We are going to strive to use technology as a

-- we are not going to use technology as an excuse to say we can't make it there. S o, yeah, we

-- but we can't wait for something to magically show up in the future, we have t o work on it today. >> This is David Nelson here. I wanted to make twopoints, if possible. S o Christian mentioned earlier about the

train cars that are older, which are true, FRA has regulation of what type of cars are needed in order to meet the thresh old of access and so forth, which is why the trains are heavier, but also there is a new request to change those types of cars to make them lighter and easier. S o I have no idea what type, and I am not sure if it would be similar to Europe, but you know, we do need to keep that in mind for future purposes. B ut, also, my friend Blair Slaughter, I don't know if he is on the call, but he is really skilled at what type of train cars that we have, what type of metal it is, whether it can be worked with, and al so what's been sent in to the FRA for the newer cars. S o, maybe that's something that if we had more knowledge on we would be able to work the loop with. B ut

-- and that's it, thank you. >> Terry: T hank you. >> Yes, hi, this is Andrew. I was wanting to thank Christian for joining us today. I really, really appreciate it. And, also, I wanted to clarify what Christian had said. I t seems that it

-- it was misstated. To perfect is the enemy of the good. I t's not the opposite, but it is the enemy. Yes, this is. >> Yes. T his is Christian. Well said. T hank you for your clarification, Andrew. >> Terry: Well, this is Terry again. A nd again, I very much appreciate what

-- you coming on with us today. Ibelieve everyone here on the call does as well. A nd I want to

thank you again for joining us and talking with us about all of these information

-- about all of the information regarding signage. I think we are all very much on the same page. We have been working very hard to make the communications on rail vehicles accessible to all

-- people of all disabilities, whether it's deaf, hard of hearing, blind, low vision, cognitive disabilities, mobility, any other one you want to add in there? We are trying to

-- we are really trying to come up with as much of a

-- kind of in a way, a universal design, as we possibly can. T he signage is wonderful. B ut we need to also be able to make it audible for people who are blind. We need to be able to have it at a level where people in a wheelchair can read it. T here is just so much going on with this. A nd we appreciate all of your thoughts on it as well. A nd I want to thank you very much for joining us today. >> Christian: You are very welcome. T hank you for inviting me. I would like to stay on the call so if a nyone has any thoughts that come up during the meeting today I look forward to addressing them.
>> Terry: T hank you very much. >> Frank: Terry, this is Frank. I was wondering if I could make a couple of comments about the presentation? >> Terry: S ure.>> Frank: O ne of the things questioned, what kind of

material the rail cars are made out of, you have carbon steel aluminum and stainless steel. T hey all have issues with magnetic and interference with the coil and they do make it difficult. M aybe not i mpossible but achieving good coverage in some areas and preventing coverage in areas where you don't want it is a challenge to do. I t's not as easy as you might think it to be, as Christian pointed out. T he other thing that I wanted to ask, possibly you mentioned the

-- that perfect is the enemy of good. A nd the question I am wondering here is, most people with hearing disabilities, I would suspect, have visual abilities hopefully. A nd that would

-- their communication with those individuals would proba bly best suited with a visual means. The question I am wondering, though, is what percentage of the hearing impaired could only communicate via hearing loop and would not get the benefit of you know visual signs. I s there

-- do you have any idea Christia n of what percentage of the population? >> Christian: T hat's an excellent question. We have struggled with that question. I n the past with the FCC in dealing with the FCC, the FCC had opened a process about

-- the emergency warning systems. E mergency a lerts. So, they had

-- I did some research on that, and in part of that study at the university the estimated amount of people who haveboth hearing loss and visual loss about 1 million.

Maybe

-- and I did not do the study myself. B ut I have a feeling, I have considered some numbers that make sense. S o, whatever that means, as far as that group, you can't ignore the group it's a significant group not to be

-- so, we have to figure out how to work with that group of people. A nd another thing that I want to mention is most of the people who have both hearing loss and visual loss are older individuals, older adults. And as you all know how the baby boomers are getting a bit older closer to retirement, so that's a huge population. T hat's a really growing number of population that

-- that will soon probably experience hearing loss. S o then will have those numbers greatly increase. I would just keep that in mind as well. >> Terry: I f I could just

-- see if I am muted or not. T his is Terry again. I f I co uld butt in here for a second. I can attest to that being a person who is legally blind and has a hearing loss, due to age

-- primarily due to age

- related issues. I

-- I would be shocked if it's only a million at this point. I am sure that number is growing exponentially with the aging of baby boomers. W ho are also going to be more user

-- more using hearing aids than likely to be using maybe sign language or something that

-- it's like with Braille. T he older people tend to be less likely to learn it. And they

-- you know, havesomewhat of a hearing loss that can be helped with hearing

aids. S o, that

-- I do think that that

-- that the loop

-- the population looking to use loops in the 10 and 20

-year future is going to drastically increase. >> Lise: This is Lise Hamlin. T he other piece of that, as people age into hearing loss, and would use a hearing aid and benefit from the loop, those people as they get older it's harder to process visual, text information. S o if there is a text sign may it not o nly be harder for the person to see it if they are older and losing their sight as well, but it's harder to process that information as they get older whereas processing the information coming in through the hearing aid is easier. I don't have statistics on that. B ut that group, plus the group of people

-- remember we are talking for people with hearing loss of a whole community is some 48 million people that's a lot of people. T here is a lot of people on both ends of the spectrum both with a mild loss j ust getting hearing aids to the ones who are profoundly deaf and using sign language. T here is a lot of people and I can tell you there is a lot of people who would benefit from this. B ut I can't pull out what you were looking for how many people who are just benefiting from the hearing loss who

-- hearing loop who wouldn't benefit from the visual what we call it a visual messaging system may not benefit

-- I just don't have those statistics.>> This is Andre Gagne from Bombardier. O ne comment I

would li ke to make the main issue we trying to install the loop on the Bombardier vehicles the main issue is not the car body itself but with the equipment they install on cars the break resistors antennas these are source of interference with the loop. T hat's wh y the loop has to be limited to some areas of the vehicle. >> This is Frank again. A long the same lines of what Andre was saying, depending where you are on the vehicle establishing a working loop is more difficult than other areas. In addition to what h e had mentioned is also the propulsion circuits there are other switching electronic devices that cause interference. T he concern I was bringing up, it's a little difficult

-- it's difficult to do. A nd, perhaps later on is how (inaudible). ( did we lose him?) >> Rose Marie Bunales: Operator, do we have Frank Maldari on the line? **NOTE: CART pausing we lost the line. >> Marsha: I think U.S. Access Board was cutoff, there was nothing coming through. (Please hold, attempting to re

- establish connection.) >> Rose Marie Bunales: Operator, this is Rose Marie, can anybody hear me? >> I am not hearing anything.**NOTE: P lease note CART operator at U.S. Access Board,

we may have lost phone system here at US Access Board. We are waiting. >> Marsha: You are back on. I don't have it

-- this is Lise. **NOTE: T his is a test. T his is a test. D o you see CART? >> Rose Marie Bunales: Calvin Gibson, are you there? Christian Vogler.
>> You are going in and out Rose Marie. C hristian Vogler? And I do not see

-- >> Yes, I'm sorry, I can

-- I can hear you, but what are you asking? >> Rose Marie Bunales: Just to see if anybody can hear me, if you are on the line as well. M ostly everybody is still connected. >> Yeah, I don't see captioning at the moment. **NOTE: T his is a test test test test can you see the captioning? >> Rose Marie Bunales: All right. CART is back here we go Frank had the floor when we disconnected. >> This is David Nelson Frank I am glad you did bring this up. D r. Vogler explained to me what I had a meeting with him he explained today with the loop it's analog. H owever, there is a standards group or currently working on standards forconverting to a digital loop. A nd digital conductive loop

whatever you want to call it hopefully it's not 100% true but it will go ahead and help reduce interference that were caused with the

-- >> This is Christian. T his is Christian speaking. Yes, the industry is becoming interested in that topic. H owever, we cannot proceed when

-- when don't know when it will hap pen effectively. M y prediction is we are talking a minimum 10, 15 years before whatever digital technology is put on the market for the loop. To switch it out to a digital loop. I do, just keep in mind, there is a big positive to the loop that ease of u se. With the current

-- with the current available digital technology, there is no equivalent ease of use available. S o, the loop has been the standard for while a while though.
>> This is David. T hank you. >> Terry: O kay. C an we
-- I hate to be the o ne pushing this, I know somebody has got to. A nd I guess that falls on me as the chair. G oing back to our agenda, we had number 3, it was a brief review of the November

-- the November teleconference. I believe everyone on here has already read this age nda. D oes anyone have any questions or any of the

-- or any other comments on the issues that were brought up on the November

-- in that section of item number 3

-- well, on it would be item number 2, I'm sorry. A re we all set with that?All right, great. T hat takes us down to discussing the

requirements for alarm systems for rail vehicles. A nd while I have the floor, I am just going to make my two comments on it which is alarm systems need to be audible as well as visual. B ut not to be

-- not to the point of being so loud that they interfere with the orientation of people who use sound as a mobility tool. In other words,, you don't want a fire alarm that is so loud that
someone
-- that is totally disorients someone for instance who is blind because t hey can't hear the things that they ordinary narrowly can because of the

-- ordinarily can because of the volume of it. I t's an issue that probably run into more in buildings than on a train. B ut it is something that I think to keep in mind. T he other t hing is exits need to somehow be audibly, in my view, need to be audibly findable. N ot just

-- it always drives me crazy on the plane when they never say that the exits are over rows 11 and 12 they say you can follow the lights on the floor if the power g oes out. T hat's totally useless to someone who is blind or visually impaired or if there is a lot of smoke in that situation. S o that we need to take those issues into account as well in coming up with recommendations as far as alarms are concerned in my view. W ith that, I will back off and anyone else with any other questions or comments on that please I would like

-- we would all like to hear them now.
>> Yes. T his is David Nelson. I have a question here.Do we have any kind of regulations currently in the ADA, ADAAG

with regards to how much audio for the wayfinding is there any regulations? I don't recall anything about that. >> This is Jim. D o you me an audibility for wayfinding? >> Yes.
>> Jim: N o.
>> Like access in doors.
>> Jim: N o.
>> Terry: B ut Jim, aren't there requirements as far as decibel levels for alarms? >> Correct, there are, but that's just for general fire alarms that tell you there i s a fire condition and you need to do something. >> David: O kay. T his is David Nelson again. D ue to the fact that we don't

-- we don't have the guidance or the regulation in the ADAAG now, so maybe we can go ahead and provide a recommendation and make

- - and make a reference to

-- until ADAAG goes ahead and adopts a new standard? >> Marsha: D avid, Terry's point that the audible alarms can overwhelm someone's ability to find direction. B ecause they can be terribly loud. A nd that's why the decibel level ADAAG does in fact limit the decibel level below what is actually permitted in the national fire alarm code. A lso, it's drew to concern for tinnitus which is a hearing disorder some peoplehave with ringing in the ears. >> David: Yes. T his is David. I am aware of that. I was talking about wayfinding for the access. T here is currently nothing out there so we can go ahead and recommend the language in our proposal that we need to have clarified and say this is just an interim until there is a formal sta ndard at deposited

-- adopted I am sure the Access Board would do some kind of induct study, research, to see how we can go ahead and establish that in the future. I think it's a

-- it would be great if we go ahead and establish it now but keep it as inte rim. >> Marsha: T his committee is to deal with rail vehicles not the ADAAG itself. S o any recommendations regarding rail vehicles you can go ahead and make. >> Terry: M arsha would you or anyone there be willing to give us an opinion on the

-- on the regul ation now whether you think it would actually work for rail vehicles? >> (inaudible) >> Terry: I f we just use similar language in this? >> Marsha: I really don't know. T he national fire protection association has a number of

-- >> I am not talking about

-- >> Standards, and they

-- I would have to look at their standards. T hey may have standards for alarms audible alarmson rail vehicles I don't know.
>> Terry: O kay, thanks. W hat I was asking about what I meant was not on the fire protection but the o ne
-- the other one that you just mentioned.
>> The NFPA 72, which is the national fire alarm code.
>> What was the other one the ADAAG, right? >> ADAAG I thought that's what I was asking. >> I thought it was ADAAG.
>> You said the ADAAG limited the level. >> ADAAG adopted the national fire alarm code and limits the number of decibels from 120 to 110.
>> That's what I was getting at that's what I was trying to get to. O kay. S o could we use similar

-- not say that we are using the ADAAG, or that expecting to change the ADAAG, but just use the same language as the ADAAG in this context? >> Marsha: Well, to start with, there is not a reference to the NFPA27 for rail vehicles in the current rail standards. A nd I don't know whether NFPA 72 is an appropriate s tandard for rail vehicles. I would have to look into that. N FPA has a lot of standards. T hey may in fact have one specific to rail vehicles. I know they have fixed guide way standards regarding safety and egress. S o, it's possible that there is an NFPA standard for audible and visual alarms on vehicles I just don't know. T hen we would have to decide whether it's

-- it's decibel level isappropriate or not. I t may have a different decibel level.
>> Terry: O kay. >> Marsha: B ut we can certainly find o ut whether NFPA have a standard Frank, you may know if you have audible alarms on the rail vehicles now, are you cite to go a standard in your specification? >> Frank: N ot NFPA standard. >> Okay. W hat standard?
>> Frank: Typically it's an internal standard.
>> Marsha: I nternal spec not a national standard.
>> Frank: N ot as far as the level of the alarms the loudness level of the alarms is not standard to NFPA standard. >> Do you know if there is applicable NFPA standard out there I could ask (inaudible) Robert Solomon. I can find that out pretty quickly.
>> Frank: N FPA is used for other things but with regard to loudness of the alarms

-- >> The NFPA standard applicable is 130 section 8 which is specific to the vehicles and I am looking through the standard now it does not appear that they do specify a decibel level for alarms within the vehicle.
>> Hello? >> Marsha: M aybe we want to find out why they have not done that. We can certainly inquire of the staff. We have goodrelationships with the staff at NFPA and we can find it out.
>> Great. I think that would be good to do. >> You said Section 8.
>> Section 8 of 130. >> Rose Marie Bunales: Jim Pecht are you reaching for something? >> David Nelson. A lso, if you could find out for egress or wayfinding so that you know, people would be able to follow where the sounds are coming, whichever, on an exit if it is not there

-- >> Marsha: I can tell you it's not in there NFPA

-- nobody has that information. >> if you

-- I mean, if people

-- >> Marsha: T hat information doesn't exist there is not a standard for sound level for wayfinding. I can tell you that right
now. >> Jim Pecht put himself on something on a shelf so everybody knows Jack Shinshou joined the line, D avid Martinez and Blair Slaughter joined the line. >> Terry: Welcome all of you. >> Rose Marie Bunales: Jim is flipping through the book right now.

(LAUGHTER) >> You don't have 130 there.>> Yes, I do, 2000 edition.
>> Great. >> Section 8 we were hold

. >> Jim: Yep. >> Marsha? T his is Blair. We have

-- we have referenced the marine standards put out by the Coast Guard some of the things that we were doing because the spatial situations are very much like those on board ship. A nd we have actually spe cked out fire alarms for the sleeping cars. A nd I can share that information with you guys. >> Marsha: Actually, unfortunately Paul is not here but he is our passenger vessels guy. A nd he most likely is very familiar with this. >> Blair: We are actuall y -- I can find out from the supplier we are working with a

-- there is a company called CONSILIUM, one of the large suppliers to the passenger vessel industry they are doing trains and things over in

-- >> Marsha: O kay. I think there is also a new stand ard for visible alarms on passenger vessels. S o, I will look into that. >> Jim: T his is Jim. T he copy of NFPA 130 I am looking at on the communications doesn't have any decibel requirements for anything of the things it cites in there. >> Marsha: Yeah, that's what he said. T here is no decibel requirements. I think it would be important to find out whythey don't. T here may be a reason that they elected not to

address decibel level in this type of application. >> Terry: A ll right. A nything else on t his topic? >> Jim: T his is Jim. I think you might want to separate the audible discerning of exit from the alarms because that's a kind of a different issue. >> Totally different. A nd there are no standards, none. >> Jim: B ut it's not to say you can't put a recommendation in that you want that to happen because there are sort of

-- there is stuff out there we do that is similar to that. T he first thing that comes to mind is the audible pedestrian signal has a locator tone that goes along with it that c ould possibly be picked in when there is only an emergency.
>> Marsha: Yeah. B ut that kind of

-- the kind of research that it would take to do that would be significant. We are talking about life safety here. S o although you can put it on the wish list I think it been on the wish list a long time. We are look at a significant investment in research. T here are some audible exit strategies that are out there. O ne was
-- one was done at a university in England in Great Britain. A nd there has been some research on it.
>> That one is no longer in existence if you are talking about the one that I think you are. >> Marsha: You
-->> University of Leeds about 10 years ago. >> That is not in existence anymore. >> I have not found anything on that I have looked and looked.
>> Marsha: N o, there were some issues from what I understand. B ut so, you know, there really isn't a standard at this point in time. T he Access Board is very unlikely to make one up out of whole cloth without research. S ignificant
research. >> Blair: T his is Blair again. I apologize for coming in late. T he concern is more like smoke and fire alarm that sort of alarming system? >> Marsha: T he rail vehicle the exits are much more logical place than they are in a building. >> Blair: R ig ht. H ere is just

-- I will give you some background on where the NTSB has been with these things. Their recommendation has been that we have you know fire alarms in cars that are compartmentalized where you could have a smoldering fire or people could be in a contained area and asphyxiated. I n open coaches it was seen

-- the opinion was that it really wouldn't do much for you because you are in a rather obvious situation. A nd where we have actually had fires on vehicles, say in a restroom, in an occupie d coach, the passengers and crew have responded and dealt with it becauseeverything is sort of right where you can see it. T he concern

has been in a car like a sleeper where you have compartmentalization and things can be going on for a while with no one knowing. You would monitor these rooms and have alarms and things to wake people up that's the big issue. >> Marsha: R ight. I will note that even in buildings the ADA doesn't require alarms. I t only says when you provide alarms, and usually you provid e them because you are required to by some code, then those alarms have to meet the audibility and visibility requirements of our reference standard. We are not in the business of deciding when an alarm gets provided. That's usually left to the life safe ty experts. B ut if there is an audible alarm out there for everybody else then promise the ADA is there is also one for people who can't hear it. >> Terry: T hank you, Marsha. I can't think I was going to create that big

-- this major an issue on that on e.

(LAUGHTER) >> Blair: O n
-- we go little further with our alarms. We actually have on the exterior of the vehicle a flashing indicator so that responders know that that is the vehicle

-- that has the fire alarm in it so

-- >> Marsha: T hat's great.
>> Terry: Yes, it is. A ll right. W here do we stand on the placement of the international symbol of accessibility? T hatmany places, huh? >> Jim: I have a question for Blair and Frank. T he actual guys who put trains together. P resumably when this th ing becomes final and it becomes a standard and there are cars being built to it, will there be situations where new cars that would comply with this hopefully upcoming standard would have to be coupled with older vehicles. I s there a situation where that might occur? >> Likely.
>> Very likely. >> Blair: M ore so probably in inner city than transit, but yeah. O nly in the cases where it was confined to a train set like Acela or something that is an independent set would be able to keep that from happening. >> Frank: Less likely with MU equipment because of communication between the cars but for coaches where it's a more standardized communication network it's a lot

-- very likely they would be intermingled.
>> Jim: T he reason I was asking that currently t he only place the international symbol is required is on the outside of cars that are, in fact, considered accessible. A nd so, I would say probably what you probably want to require is where trains contain cars that aren't accessible you need to have symb ol of accessibility on the accessible cars. A nd then I will shut up.>> Lise: T his is Lise Hamlin. I would want to see a

symbol not only on the outside of the car but on the inside of the car, particularly in trains where you, being a New Yorker going from one car to the next people you are not supposed to do that people do that. B ut even if you are in the car and you miss the sign coming in, if you would see it on the inside as well would be very helpful. >> Frank: W hat is the sign supposed to identif y specifically to the person walking through the car? >> Lise: T his is Lise again for me as soon as I saw a symbol like that then I would

-- immediately look to see, I see earlier discussions on whether there is a hearing loop available, whether there was visual signage available. A ll of the things that to me would make communication accessible to me.
>> Frank: I guess what I am thinking those visual indications are more or less obvious. I f you see visual

-- VMS sign, you know you have VMS in the car. If you see

-- ism just asking typically it's on the outside generally speaking, for me, personally, I think, when I see that sign it lets me know that there is a wheelchair parking area for the most part and not necessarily all of the other aspects associat ed with accessibility. There is lot of things that imply are implied by accessibility. But the one thing most people relate to is the wheelchair and having a parking area. S o, that's what I think it means.>> Jim: T he international symbol encompasses a ll of it. I t

encompasses all disabilities not just wheelchairs it encompasses visual, hearing, cognitive, everything. S o if there is a standard for it you would have to comply with the symbol would indicate all of it not just the wheelchair access stuff. >> Lise: R ight. T his is Lise again. W hen I talk into someplace I see this international symbol of accessibility I look around I try to see if it means wheelchair access or if it means some other kind of access. I f I see a sign that specifically says t here is a loop here I specifically know what that means or specifically a wheelchair sign I know what that means if it's a general sign I will look around say does it apply to me or not. I think for

-- the reason I say inside and out is because, again, if I
am
-- on the platform and I see the sign great if I am on the platform and miss that I go in, I didn't realize there is a loop again unless you want to have a separate sign or looping oh, there is looping sign on the inside if you are going to make it ge neral, then I would want to have it on both inside and out. >> Blair: T his is Blair. F rom a provider standpoint, if we equip cars today, you know, existing cars with loops, then we would put signs in to indicate people would know they were this and could turn the feature on. I f in the future, the if accessibility means that it includes that feature, then there would be really no need to have the additional sign for the loop.If the list of items that are relative to that environment be it a

car or whatever includes the loop why would we have an extra sign. You could have. M aybe this gets back to what sort of what Jim was thinking about too if you have an existing car that wasn't new and didn't have a feature that's going to be required in new vehicles, then people might have an expectation a level of accessibility when they walk into a car and that car isn't required to have that level. >> Lise: T his is Lise again. A re you saying that you prefer to have a specific sign, in other words, if you know that the

-- if the only access in a particular car is wheelchair access you want to put a wheelchair signage there and forget about other signage? >> Blair: W hat I am saying is if you take what Jim said the international symbol implies, that whatever is requ ired of that vehicle or building or whatever for

-- to be accessible is included. S o if I put that sign up on a car, today, then everything that goes with that as a rail vehicle should be included in that car. A nd in the Newt tour

-- in the future obviou sly that will be the same thing. B ut we could have a condition within a train made up of various age cars new and old ones, where going from a say a car built today, that doesn't meet the things that we are proposing, may not have a hearing loop in it. B ut I may be walking into a car in 10 years that, thatis a standard requirement. I t has a hearing loop. S o, but if I,

today, equipped cars with no guidelines

-- or no regulation that says rail cars must have hearing loops, I as a provider would indicate that there were hearing loops I would add the extra indication because I want people to use the system that I put in the car. T hat would be

-- from a clarification standpoint, you know, the whole new car versus old car and the symbol being
a
-- many plyin g that if it's there it's fully compliant. I am probably getting this scrambled up. B ut it is one of the nightmares that we have on the rail side because you can have old cars and new cars and they really have different standards because of that conditio n. >> Terry: T his is Terry. I think you make a very good point. T he thing is if we just went now with the universal

-- with the international symbol, we would actually be invalidating it because it's used on so many places now that are not what we are c onsidering fully accessible. I mean, how many people get on a subway car and it's got the symbol there that certainly the VMS is not accessible to someone who is blind. A s an example. O r it's got the symbol that's in space for the wheelchair but people don't think of it necessarily as being for the seats near that for people who have a mobility impairment that is not necessarily wheelchair requiring. T he other day I just on the way home from work I happened to get on a train carjust in my one car in th e one car on WMATA there were two

people

-- there was two people totally blind at least one with low vision since I was there. T here were two people on walkers, three on canes, and nobody in a wheelchair. B ut everyone of those people probably needed some kind of

-- would qualify for some type of accessibility. T he reality is that John Q. Public sees that international sign they think of it as wheelchair period. We really

-- to me, it seems we really do need to put

-- especially for something, a loop som ething that is not visible to anyone, I think we really do need to put a sign up or we are going to be devaluing the international symbol. >> Frank: T his is Frank I agree with you Terry I was going to say the same thing some of what you said anyhow. To m e and to most people that I have talked to the sign means there is a wheelchair parking area. I know it's not the right interpretation of the sign, but by the same token, I don't think the average person knows what all of the regulations are and what exac tly that means when you do have that sign on there even if you do recognize it meets all of the accessibility requirements. I f you are going to put a loop on there put a sign with a loop. T he designation of the wheelchair parking area is probably a good thing. D esignation more clearly defining the seating areas for people who are not confined to a wheelchair and wish to help those people or who have difficulty walkingthat's an area that is very well misunderstood. A nd those signs

could be made clearer which we are trying to do on newer equipment. I don't know. I don't see a lot of value in the signs. A s you said I think they got devalued because they are mainly misunderstood what they are attempting to imply. I don't know. A s far as that goes I don 't know the value of having them on there. To me if I was in a wheelchair I wanted to know where in the car there were wheelchair parking area if it was only one location

-- >> Terry: You at least want to know there is an area.
>> Frank: R ight.
>> You wouldn't wanted the sign on the outside.
>> All of the cars have them on the outside all of them have a wheelchair parking area. You know, the only difference is on some of the equipment it's one end of the car and not the other so I think that is helpful. But it's not for the intended purpose. T hat's where it gets misunderstood. B e that as it may, I would leave it on the outside. A nd mainly to identify the wheelchair parking area. B ecause all of the other, you know, things that we are adding in there are not located to a specific area in the entire car.
>> Terry: I think we are talking two different issues at this point. We are talking first of all do we want to put the sign on the inside and outside or where do we want to put it. A ndsecondly, then do we want a separate sign for the loop. A s I

understand it maybe I am off base that's the way that I am understanding it.
>> Frank: I think if you have the loop you should have a sign I believe Blair would agree with that.
>> This is Lise. I would agree with it too. L istening to what you are saying I agree that people won't know there is a loop there unless you make a very specific sign. S o, in that case, does that mean

-- are you saying that that you would want an outside sign for people who use whe elchairs only? I s that what you are saying? >> That's kind of what I am implying. I think to me the only use that you get out of the sign is knowing where there is a wheelchair parking area if you happen to be wound bound to wheelchair mobility device. Outside of that why do you need to know? >> Terry: B ecause then it's designated seating for people with disabilities and seniors. You know, if you have

-- somehow you have to designate the seating for the disabled people who are not in a wheelchair. >> F rank: We do that with interior signs now too. S o
-- >> Yeah. >> There is nothing wrong with that.
>> That's why we need to have it inside as well

-- you needto have at least the sign outside but you need to have it inside

for those purpose is what I am saying.
>> Lise: H ere is the question that I have then. I f you say some of the newer cars they do put a loop in and you have interior sign saying this is the area where the loop is how as a consumer do I know which car to get on? I don't know how the
ca rs are I am outside on the platform how do I know to go into the car with a loop.
>> That's a good point. We can put a sign on the outside too. I am saying if

-- >> I am good with that. >> I'm sorry. We currently have both international sign and then we also have a hearing loss sign that we have on the outside and inside of our vehicles so most people would know which cars in our train help them with announcements and delays things of that nature. >> Lise: Let me add something I am not sure this is part of the Access Board rules I think this is a lot of this sounds like education to me it should be on websites this is what the sign means this is what you should look for.
>> Blair: T his is Blair. I can guarantee you for example, when we added WI/FI to the train, we identified those trains as having WI/FI on the outside you know when you are getting on it's going to be there. A nd I would

-- would be pretty sure, Iknow we have just put a WI/FI sign next to the accessibility sign

because it's you know it 's one of the bits of information that you get as you board the train. I f we went out and equipped cars with hearing loops I would put them on there and there is a good chance I would put the hearing loop sign at doors that might not be wheelchair accessi ble or accessible to wheelchair accessible spaces. B ecause there is nothing that precludes someone from getting on in other places. T hat's just a bit of information yes if I get on here without walking 85 feet to the other end to see what's on the car I know that there is a hearing loop. S o, we would probably do that because if you spend the money to put the on the car we spend a couple more dollars to put the sign on the car. >> Lise: T hat makes sense to me.
>> Blair: I f we are going to do it we want people to use it. Otherwise

-- there should come a time it's not today it's not next year or five years probably, the international symbol of accessibility will be the catch out again that it was intended to be you know if it's on the side of the car that the car is going to be visual systems and it's going to have hearing loops and all of those things wrapped into one. A nd we won't have to think about it. B ut we are not at that point yet. I think we still have to indicate what we are providing. >> Fran k: T his is Frank again. To me maybe it's just tome. T here is no real benefit into putting the international

symbol on a car. Personally speaking. W hat are you gaining by that? I f you want to know if it has the loop, I would put that on the outside. If you want to know where the wheelchair location and priority seating is I put those signs on and specifically identify them they may be at one end of the car and not the other. People use it that international symbol of accessibility for that purpose n ow generally speaking if you ask the average person that that sign means they say it's a wheelchair location on the car. S o, I think it would be better to me if we were more specific about what the purpose of the decal is rather than to say, this is an ac cessible car. I f you have a hearing loop put it on the outside of the car. I f you have the wheelchair parking area on that end, you put it on the outside of the car. U nless the entire car both entrances or all four entrances depending how you look at it have a wheelchair parking area or accessible from both entrances, I would put it in the location where it provides the most useful information.
>> Blair: T his is Blair again. F rank, for us, it does

-- it's typically the B end of the car. I won't get in to that for the folks

-- for the folks not involved in railroad. B ut Frank knows. That happens to be

-- the other indicator is whether you are using it for accessibility you know if you ride the trains at all the restrooms are going to be near wherever t hat accessible spaceis. S o, maybe if you are ambulatory and you have an option of

being near the restroom or not, you are going to go and you are going to follow it because the sign is there you know you can sit anywhere in the general area you are going to be close are to the restroom than being at the other end of the car. I think it's

-- I think the international symbol is fine because

-- but I would say that when we start expanding what we are offering in the car beyond what is anticipated today, whi ch is not a lot more than the wheelchair accessible spaces, and seating, when we start expanding that that we do need to indicate to people that those devices are available, particularly if it's going to be clustered to one end so people you know, again, a re a
-- are aware of it. I f they need to turn a device on they do, or they need to go to the part of the vehicle that has the messaging system then you know, it

-- for now, to me it would be the international symbol and any of the auxillary symbols that sh ow expansion of accessibility. >> This is Dave Martinez again in Chicago. I s there a, currently a sign that will tell you if there is a loop in a train that is in use anywhere? >> Blair: T he T

- coil sign, yes.
>> The T

- coil.
>> Dave: O kay. >> Frank: T hi s is Frank again. F rom my point of view theinternational symbol is a wheelchair sign that means there is a

wheelchair parking area. T hat being said, you know, leaving it on the outside of the car is fine. I think the average person is going to continue to use that as an indication of where the wheelchair parking area is. I t would be better if it was clearer as an indication this is where the wheelchair parking area is. I don't think that that's important. I do agree with you Blair. I f you are going to have a hearing loop put the sign there and that's a good idea generally speaking. I thought we covered that to some extent or overall if you are going to have the hearing loop put a sign in the car put a sign on the outside we could add that to the sum mary that we have pretty easily I think. >> Terry: Well, Frank you have given us a good segue just then into the fact that we need to start putting together the

-- we need to put together the final report to the committee. I am thinking that we

-- well, let me ask this: First of all anybody want to volunteer to write this report? Okay. G oing from there. I am thinking that we perhaps get a few of us to small working group to work on getting this

-- getting the report put together. I am thinking let's start with remember way back we had Jim's list and his table with all of the different types of

-- types of things that needed to be signed or have

-- have signage and that? A nd what type and all of that? I think if we take that, we can absolutely paraph rase itand paraphrase a lot of what has taken place over our last, I

think Jim it's our this is our 11th call. A nd let's put it together. I can definitely do a bit within this incomes week.

-- within this next week. A nd anybody willing to review it, ed it it, add to it, delete it, um, I would like to see

-- I would love to see someone from the deaf and hard of hearing community that's on this committee help with it. I would love to see Frank and or Blair from their perspectives in designing and

-- in de signing cars. I would love to see somebody from

-- what am I try to go say I have trouble with the term

-- light rail, the light rail community, just so that we are sure that we covered everybody, every area if we could just, you know, put together an E

- m ail list that we could just get this thing done and then get it out to the committee for everybody to look at, make any last minute changes to. M ake any major changes, you know, present any major objections or minor ones so that we can have it ready for t he

-- for the committee meeting the in

- person committee meeting the 26th and 27th of February. We do actually have one more call before that I was thinking this was our last one. At least we would have it ready for the next call then. We have a call the

-- I don't have it calendar in front of me like the 3rd of February or something. A nybody have a calendar? I t would be the first Thursday in February whatever that is. I took off my glasses I can't read mine.>> The first Thursday is the 5th of February.
>> That would be our next call is February 5th. We could have it so that we can just dot the I's and cross the T's at that point, so we have it ready this time for the session on the 26th. Anybody that's willing to help with that? C an either let us k now now or if you can E

- mail me whichever way works anybody that doesn't who haven't heard it a hundred times already my E

- mail is TERRYPACH @ Verizon.net. D oes this make sense to everyone.
>> Terry, this is Frank. I was looking at the last summary docum ent, I don't know who put it together I think you did with the Access Board it has 90% of what we need to say. I don't know how much background

-- >> Terry: I think so we just need to basically put it all

-- make 100% out of something. We have several t hings that I think need

-- I will compile it

-- get it compiled and get it put into more than just phrases here and there we need to actually do language in it.
>> Frank: I s that what you are looking for? Let me ask the question to the Access Board. I m ean you have the summary document I think it has a very good outline are you looking for more than that? O r is that acceptable format.
>> Marsha: A s long as what you are wanting to communicate to us is clear and you think it's clear andunderstandable th at's the main thing. N ow, you know

-- that's

the main thing. N ow, one of the things we did ask you to do is give us if you know some background on what you think some of these things might cost. A nd if you are of a mind to give us some, you know more di scussion about some of these items in terms of their pros and cons or priorities. T hat's also useful. >> Terry: T hose are good points Marsha, thank you. >> Terry this is

-- >> It's entirely up to you guys. >> Terry, this is Jim I don't think we scheduled meeting that far in advance February 5 is open if that's okay with the committee no objections I will ask Rose to schedule it for that date. D oes anybody have a problem with February 5th at about the same time? H earing crickets I will ask Rose to schedu le that dated for the communications subcommittee. >> Same bat time, same bat channel.
>> Terry: I thought we had my mistake. T hat's all right. Thank you all. A nybody that's willing to help work on

-- to help you know get everything finalized please le t me know or you can just E

- mail me at the RVAAC E

- mail address and I will ask Paul to forward them. A nd let's just get things finished. It's been a long road. B ut I think we have come just an amazing distance on that group on this road with this group. And I thank you all. A nd Blair or David, um, David actually, yourE

- mail address can you remind me what it is David Nelson >> Sure. Das in David, J as in John, N as in Nelson @ Amtrak.com. >> DJN @ Amtrak. T hank you. I actually need to do inquiring about some lack of accessibility issues on Amtrak. Thank you.

(LAUGHTER) >> Terry: We now have a guide dog in the family, we took the northeast regional, they told me no, they could not stop the train to let us to let the dog relieve herself. T hey s aid there was no way that could be done. I t just didn't seem

-- why are we try to go put signs on trains about where the relief areas are going to be located.

(LAUGHTER) >> Terry: A nyway, because we were running an hour late on top of that it was a n 11

- hour trip. >> Okay. Were you going to Boston from here? >> Terry: Yes from Boston up

-- from Washington to Boston Christmas eve. >> Okay. Yeah. T hat's one

-- >> Terry: We don't need to tie up the committee with this. (LAUGHTER) >> Okay. >> Te rry: A nyhow. I how very much I look forward tohearing from you and with that I will entertain a motion to

adjourn. >> Motion to adjourn? >> Moved. (LAUGHTER) >> Terry: A nyone not in favor? (LAUGHTER) >> Terry: T hank you all very much, and I wi ll look