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

**Ac cess Realtime Translation (CA** **RT) system used in the**  **Communications Subcommittee Meeting # 12** **and is generall** **y unedited.**  **T he C** **ART s yst** **em was 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.** 

Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee Communications Subcommittee Meeting #12 U.S. Access Board Thursday, March 26, 2015

Staff Location: United States Access Board

1331 F Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004

Reporter: Sandra GartrellPAUL BEATTY: Okay. This is Paul Beatty. We

will go ahead and start now.

Good afternoon. This is the 12th meeting of the Communications Subcommittee.

As you know, since anyone may participate in subcommittee, as no time of public comment has been scheduled during this two

-hour call.

I don't believe the CART system chatbox is available. So for those only using the CART system to participate and desire to make a statement or raise a question, please use the RVAAC email address at RVAAC@access

-board.gov. I will be monitoring that from my office and will communicate that to either the subcommittee chair or to Jim Pecht, if you say something on there.

If you don't need to use CART to participate, don't use it to send email information to that address.

When speaking,remembertogiveyournameandalso please keep your phones mute when you are not speaking.

Right now there is no additional subcommittee meeting scheduled and we made the introductions. So we will turn the call over to you, Terry, to get the ball

rolling.TERRY PACHECO: Okay. Thanks, Paul. Hello, everyone. I don't know how many people

are on, but I assume we have a good number of members of the subcommittees on here now. I'm sorry?

PAUL BEATTY: I'm sorry, Terry. I was interrupting.

TERRY PACHECO: Okay. Has everyone had a chance to look at, first of all, the draft that went out on the 17th of March? Has everyone had a chance to look at Frank Maldari's comments that came out the night before last?

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: I have not. I would suggest if folks post stuff they just let us know. Because we are not all constantly checking, it would be nice to have an email come out that there is an update.

TERRY PACHECO: Yeah, that is one of my recommendations. I agree with you.

And then there was also an email version an hour ago, roughly, I'm going to say two hours, anyway, today from Lise Hamlin with some more recommendations in it. Has anyone had a chance to read that one yet?

FRANKMALDARI: The one that Lise Hamlin sent, is that part of the meeting material because there is two markups on there? Is that part of the meeting materials?

TERRY PACHECO: I'm not sure. Lise, are youhere? I know Lise has a the flu. JIM PECHT: All the materials is on the web. LISE HAMLIN: I don't see it. Marsha was just saying it was there, but, Marsha, I don't see it.

MARSHA MAZZ: You may need to refresh your view. It is right on themain page with the committee materials. And it looks like it is also integrated into a document where it says "comments received," if you click on that. And it is under induction loops A, proposed new language, wherever audio announcements are provided. That is your new language, correct?

LISE HAMLIN: Correct. MARSHA MAZZ: It's there. I'm looking at it

online right now. Try refreshing your view.

JIM PECHT: If you find that document, if you scroll down further, you will find Frank's comments.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: I guess my comment, I know there is a section on call buttons with audible and visual feedback. What is thebutton doing? Just calling someone? I am not sure what that is.

TERRY PACHECO: Whenwe lookedat it,that iswhat our thinking was. This had come up through one of the other committees, the in

-person committee meeting. This

cameup in rooms and spaces, Ithink itwas. For instance,whenyouhavea callbuttonto call forthe

-- I keep saying

the flight attendant

-- crew staff member, that kind of thing. Like when you are on a plane, there is the little button up overhead to call for the flight attendant. It is not doing anything, except getting someone to respond to you. JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: That is great. Because that doesn't need a loop if you have a visual way to see it. TERRY PACHECO: Exactly.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Okay. Just wanted to make sure.

FRANK MALDARI: Terry, are we going to discuss (inaudible)?

TERRY PACHECO: I think that is a great idea. I honestly cannot read them well enough.

Maybe what we should do, you know, go through yours first and we can do those and then Lise's as well. Does that work for people? Hearing no disagreement, go for it, Frank.

FRANK MALDARI: I will do mine first. The comment is in relation to where audible announcements are made. They must also be provided visually. And mycomment was to add to the extent practical. I think we

recognize the fact that we don't have tests being done reliably. That statement as listed, that that is requirement will not be able to make any PA announcements that are not coming over the visual, the VMS system.

So I think there are times when they are going to need to make announcements and they may not be capable of being transmitted on the VMS system and they should not be permitted. Not to say you should not have a VMS matching the PA system. But I think there are times it is not possible and it should be an exception to that. So that is why I wanted to add "to the extent practical."

TERRY PACHECO: My thought on that is if it is going to be audible, then it should also be at least, at least looped, be able to be

-- if you go with the requirement with the induction loop, that be included at least on the loop.

FRANK MALDARI: The hearing loop will be automatic.

<<<: I just want to all

-- we have to

-- the question what is announced is ultimately determined by DOT, not by us as a board. You guys are -- provide visual and audio technologies.

LISE HAMLIN: I hear what you're saying but, I amwondering about the language. I wonder "if the extent

practical"

-- is this a term? I'm not sure it is a term I have ever heard before. I heard technologically feasible, I have heard undue burden, but is it something

we should justdecideamongourselvesortosstotheAccess Board to make a determination about how to fit that into language that works under guidelines.

TERRY PACHECO: Youmake avery goodpoint, Lise. Because if you go and look at the other guidelines in the past,theAccessBoard seemstohavethingsthathavetheir

own language and the Department of Justice seems to have

some things that is their own language and maybe that is exactlywherewe shouldbeputting it,ontheAccessBoard.

We are just advising the

-- we are giving them the idea. We arenothaving towrite theguidelineshere. So maybe we should be getting the point across.

MARSHA MAZZ: Terry, I think that Frank's point is that he doesn't want this requirement to be 100 percent. He wants some wiggle room here.

What do you say "to the extent practicable" or practicable or feasible? We will probably change the words, so it doesn't really matter.

As long as we understand your intent, that there be

-- and you should probably outline what you mean bythis. For example, is the practicability going to be

based on what is technically possible or is it going to be based on what doesn't cost toomuch? I mean, these are the factors that, you know, you want us to embrace when we let somebody off the hook for the requirement.

So I think there should be something about the intent behind that so that we capture it properly when and if the board goes forward with the requirement.

FRANK MALDARI: Yeah. I tried to do that, Marsha, with what I wrote up when I was trying to give an example. We have the VMS system on our cars and all the canned announcements are repeated visually that are repeated audibly.

Butwealsohavethe PA system. And for instances that are not covered by a canned announcement and we make unscheduled PA announcements, we don't have anything that is a speech

-to-text conversion. So those do not get displayed on the VMS side. I know we experienced issues with CART and it is not 100 percent. You don't want a technology that is not available. No one is trying to do this. I know you are trying to limit it to the circumstances where you really can't have the two being the same, the VMS, the speech. That is my point. Whenit is an unplanned announcement, then you don't have

speech

-to-text capability. That is the point in which you should not have them being the same. Otherwise you

are saying "you can'tprovide an audio announcementunless there is a visual string that follows it and because there is not an existing technology that does it reliably, I don't think you should require it."

MARSHA MAZZ: There is not a speech

-to-text requirement here in your proposal, anyway. It simply says it has to be produced visually when it is produced audibly. FRANK MALDARI: So if I make a PA announcement does ithavetobe reproducedaudibly? Ithinkwhen I read that, I think it says that.

MARSHA MAZZ: I read it as saying it has to be produced visually whether you do it using speech to text

or you do it typing something into a keyboard in a train, is not addressed here.

FRANK MALDARI: Right. I'm saying that is not practical to have a crew member

--

TERRY PACHECO: This is something we have gone

over several times in thesemeetings. What it againboils down to, Marsha, and it has come up, I think, with you in some of the calls in the past is that it may not betechnically doable today, but it very well may be in three

or five years or something like thatbecause of technology changes so quickly.

FRANK MALDARI: Right, but if you put

-- TERRY PACHECO: By the time these rules are promulgated, it very well may be something that could be done. And that is where this whole

-- that is the whole catch 22 in all of this.

FRANK MALDARI: And yeah, and that is why my suggestion was to put "to the extent practicable." I don'thave aproblemwiththeAccessBoardtryingto figure out exactly what the right wording is, but the idea is to have some flexibility, should the capability not be present. That is all.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Frank, see, that is not going to work because the MTA will say it is not practicable and will determine. For example, loops are practical and possible on buses; we know it because it has been done on our buses. And now the MTA chairman has says it is not practicable. It is his opinion. The onus is

on the person with the disabilities to sue the Department of Transportation and find out where the right place is.

FRANK MALDARI: I think you are taking it out of context. You are taking it out of context and I'm tiredof you complaining what the chairman said to you

privately. You are really taking up time. It's not the

cause you are making. I don't think it is fair you keep doing it.

MARSHA MAZZ: This is Marsha

-- JANICE SCHACTERLINTZ: Can I finishmy sentence? I don't knowwhy Frank is theperson that gets to talk over people. We don't have this on any call or any meeting.

MARSHA MAZZ: Everybody take a deep breath, everybody.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Frank,what is said tome is same publicly because I'm an advocate and not paid. And I was not a consultant with an MBA. What I want to say is my opinion and what I heard. And you know what, I'm tired for having to fight battles because people determine it is not practicable and then it falls on the people with the disability.

There is no stop gap to determine what the term "possible" means.

MARSHA MAZZ: Janice, if I can interject. Frank, if it is your intent to say where it would be necessary to type the message in onboard, you regard that as not being practicable, then I think your recommendation should say that.In other words, if that is your intent, you know,

it is practicable up unto the point where somebody has to be live typing it in as they speak or right after they speak, if that is your intent, then it would be good to have it clearly stated.

DAVID NELSON: I have been trying to make a comment. I wanted to mention that not only do we use canned message, but we can use ad hoc messages where the

crew canhavea lotofadhocmessageswheretheyhaveparts of it filled in and they canbasically fill in the keywords that need to be filled in.

So really if we use ad hoc, then I think there is a higher chance

-- I'm sorry, little to no chance that there will be an announcement over the PA system by the actual crew themselves, if they use the ad hoc messages.

And keep mindful that this technology can be operatedby an operating system remotely. So I think that

we need to keep it open as much as possible with all the different options that are already available currently.

And also can you please make sure you're announcing your name before you speak.

TERRY PACHECO: Thank you, David. I'm sorry we have not been doing it.

LISEHAMLIN: IthinkDavid's suggestionmayworkbecause I don't see anywhere where we put verbatim

-- I

mean,we could at somepoint say "verbatimwherepossible" or "technically feasible."

And I'm hearing what you are saying, Frank. It sounds to me to say "technically feasible" to put in. I also like what Marsha said; what you don't want is to have

crew there typing things in. Maybe that iswhatwe should put in. Make it real clear what you mean because I think it is true that "practicable" can mean one thing to one person and a different thing to a different person.

FRANK MALDARI: I have no problem clarifying it inthat regard. Iwillwrite somethingupand send it into you and you can look at it.

JIM PECHT: If you look at how this document is structured, number one, "general" is just that. It is general. It is setting up the principle that if it is visual it should be audible; if it is audible it should be visual. That is the general principle.

If you then look down at variable message sign, A and B, I think that answers your concern. Because the first one says if you have a prerecorded or canned audio message it has to be on the VMS. And the second one says if it is real time or dynamic, you do it to the extent practicable.FRANK MALDARI: I see your point. It's the

question how you put the two together. That is a good point. JIMPECHT: Canwejustputinanotethereto see, cross reference them?

FRANK MALDARI: I think when I'm reading this, I'm not sure I'm reading rule text or general information that is going to turn into a rule. And I kind of lean on the fact this is exactly what the rule is going to say.

I take the interpretation that the rule says this and you have to do this. I know there is a clarifying requirement and I also believe it is not going to look exactly like this in its final context anyhow.

If that is the intent of B and the wording will be addressed as such, I think it is fair enough the way you are saying it.

JIM PECHT: I don't think this is rule text. I don't want it to be rule text. I think what we want from you is not rule text. What we want from you is what you want in the rule, the idea, that is, what you are trying to get across to us. How you put it in the rules is up to you guys.

JACKSON XUE: I also understand Frank's concern regarding the language that is currentlyposted. In a lotof cases where we see the word "shall"

-- and maybe it is

just a question of semantic. Where we see the word "shall," it is typically thou should do this. If we want to clarify it, maybe we should change it to "should be provided typically." When we say "the rule shall," that is typically something we have to abide to.

FRANK MALDARI: I'm okay putting this as a reference in there. As further clarified before. Because you're right, you do have it in there, but the two apartmight be requiring different things. So that being said, I think the intent is to allow some flexibility and that is what you are doing.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: My only concern is I don't want the person with the disability being placed in

a position of having to prove that it is possible in that the train company is not complying with something that they are because the onus is very high burden for a person with a disability.

So I'm not sure -- we can't require obviously any technology that is not possible. But I'm tired of being placed in a position of something being possible and the place not complying with it and falls on people like me to get the place to comply because we have seen it is not possible. It sounds wonderful in theory that of coursethey are going to comply and they don't. So I just want to use the correct language that doesn't force people like me to have to do this forever.

FRANK MALDARI: I can understand your concern about that. There are some things that are obvious. It is obvious now that you can have a VMS system with canned messages that displays exactly what is being audibly provided. You can't argue thatpoint. The flexible area is

-- as stated here, in dynamic and audible messages.

It is not saying people can't do it. There are things already industry standard and canbedone. I think the obvious ones are the ones you want to make sure you are getting.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: The problem is, Frank, what is obvious is only obvious once it is implemented by someone. And the problem is not all of

-- not everyone travels and sees what is obvious in other countries.

So the problem we have that it is obvious, for example, to me what is possible and what can be done but it is not obvious to other people. So when we have the gap between obvious, that is where the problem lies.

I don't know how to do that without me always havingto forcethingstogetdone. Weneedto removethat

or literally I get hit by a train. This whole thing fallsapart because I'm tired of being the one who is the point

on the sword.

TERRY PACHECO: Do we have anything else, any other new comments? This is Terry. Any other new comments on this issue or shallwemove on to the next one?

Not hearing anything, Frank, would you continue on with your recommendations, please.

FRANK MALDARI: The second one is the visual announcements match. This may be a question of exactly verbatim or not.

Let me give an example. I will tell you a statement where visual announcement is made via variable message, or other means they should be provided audibly. That is the requirement. Let me say that is not a good idea. On our cars we typically display the end destination on the outside of the car consistently and at the station there is more information. When you come to

a station, people can see if that is their train and they

can prepare to get on it. But the speakers on the outside of the train is not saying "this is the train to Ronkonkoma" and over and over, but the outside signs do and I think that is helpful to people. If you take this requirement as it's stated, you won't be able to do that.

That is the example of something I was trying tosay -- I don't know if that is the intent ofwhat this says

but I think that is what it does say.

TERRY PACHECO: If I can jump in on this since this is one of my pet issues. Again, this is Terry.

I think we run into this same issue in a couple of different places in here. And perhaps the solution is that it should come on when the VMS comes on and maybe we should be putting in a time frame that if it is on -- that it should repeat every minute or every 45 seconds, something like that. Maybe we should be coming with something along those lines, because it is going to vary.

If you justgot a sign on the outside of your train that says Ronkonkoma, that is not a VMS; it is a lighted sign. There is a difference between those two things. The point is when that train is coming into the station,

as that train is arriving already in the station, that is when it should be announcing it so someone who is on the platform who cannot read it as it is going by actually knows that is the train they want to get and not the one to Timbuktu that uses the same platform. I think that is what we need to be very careful to deal with because there

are somanyplaceswheremultipleplacesareusing a shared track. JACKSONXUE: I couldprobably give an example ofwhere this may potentially be a concern. Typically when

you look at high speed trains internationally, when you first enter a train they will have variable message signs that are saying, for example, restrooms are located in car such and such.

Then when the car starts operating you see variable message signs every few seconds, signs that say current speed 100

-miles an hour, current speed, 150

-miles

an hour. Okay to announce it once in a while. I guess where it comes to a certain

-- you know, when you are havingthose signsvaryevery few seconds, it isa concern, especially when you have a PA announcement announcing it every few seconds.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: My concern is on the subway, not long

-term rails. Regularly we see trains switching from local to express. The announcements are saying it but the sign is still showing the original destination and the original number on the train.

So if you can't hear, you have no idea that the train just went express or local and you are suddenly in anotherdestination. And there are times I can'thear the announcement; I'm on the wrong train. It is on a local track and it suddenly goes express orvisaversa. I don't think we can be 100 percent dependent on justannouncements. TERRY PACHECO: I think we can come up with half dozen reasons why situations it needs to be

-- this needs to be in place.

Again, I do think we could look at how often it needs to be reiterated.

FRANK MALDARI: I think your idea of tying it to the door operation is a good one, at least for the exterior sign. Typically at the stations when the door operates it keys to VMS sign to change. And if it is just saying Ronkonkoma and stops at a lot of stations and that would be announced and

-- at least tying it to the door operation, at least for the exterior sign is a good idea.

The other problem is along the lines of what Jackson was saying. Typically on our trains he will make the announcement of saying "this is the train to Ronkonkoma and stops at the next few stations and identify them. After that the audio announcements stops and up on the interior it will say where the train is headed to and it will stay stationary again until you get to the next station.

It's the kind of information as that when the information is changing, then the audio announcementshould be matching the sign. But when it is static it

shouldn't. Does that make sense?

TERRY PACHECO: When it is static it

-- it shouldn't continuously. I think that is the important word there. It shouldn't continuously.

You know, I'm trying to think of an example associating it with WMATA. If the sign was going to come on, I'm going to say, in Silver Spring and I'm not getting on until I get to Union Station but that sign is still there, I should still know that it is there. So maybe it should repeat at each station stop, something like that; or, you know, 15 seconds before each station stop, it should repeat so that people getting on in between would know that it is on there.

Does that make sense? FRANK MALDARI: I think it does. I think now we are fine tuning the rule. The concept is it doesn't continuously repeat. I would agree with that. If we can define a way of how often it needs to repeat, that is the task at hand, if everyone else agrees. I think that is a good idea.

TERRY PACHECO: Anyoneelsehaveanythingto say? JIM PECHT: It seems like if you are on a train and you want to go someplace, the first time you ought tomake the announcement when you get on the train: "This

is the train to blank. Next stop blank." You probably want at least somewhere in the middle of the trip, "This is the train to blah

-blah. Next stop blah

-blah." And the next time youwant it at aminimumwhen you are -- just before you are pulling into a station.

TERRY PACHECO: Right. JIM PECHT: "The station we are pulling into is so and so. This is the station is so and so." At a minimum that is what you want.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: That may be accurate for long trips, but on New York City subways the train repeatedly are chugging along and all of a sudden becomes express or local trains for apparently no reason and that happens on a regular basis these days.

So that type of requirement may work for a long haul train where it is a more predictable schedule, but for New York City subways

-- and I repeatedly find myself turningtopeopleonthe subway, "isthis localorexpress" and it just randomly changes.

But we need to create rules that take that into

account because New York City subway situation may differ from other trains across the country, and I have no idea.

CHRISTOPHER HART: We have that condition inBoston on a regular basis. It is not uncommon for our

green line trains to go to rushhour. So ithappens a lot. It is not just heavy rail; it is light rail as well.

Again, going back, it is thinking about a criteria. And I will also note that one criteria you may want to figure out is where you draw

-- sharing the same platform, announcing it oncemaynot actuallybe adequate. So it is food for thought there as well.

TERRY PACHECO: Announcing it once is about all you are going to be able to do on that train. I thinkwhat you're sayingmakesperfect sense for announcing it in the station, like the MVTA is doing so much now, largely on the red line, announcing it more than once within the station but we don't have the purview on that.

But once the train has arrived into the station, by the time you are getting people on and off, especially in automated systems or higher, faster speed trains like the WMATA, for instance, you don't have time to make a second announcement and listen to a second announcement and get on that train. That is the one difference I think there. But I think basically you make a very good point, largely when you get shared platforms. But I think that is a station's issue and not the train's issue.CHRISTOPHER HART: And I think it may be reason

to think about this. Like inBostonwewill automatically have different lines sharing the same platform, so

--

TERRY PACHECO: Yeah, yeah. CHRISTOPHER HART:

-- your poor conductor is repeating himself every 10 minutes. As he gets in the station and people still don't get the message that this is a Providence change, not another train. So the conductor basically ends up repeating until they get everyone onboard. And inevitably there are a couple of people that are still lost.

TERRY PACHECO: That is a good point. I was thinking more like 10 more where you have four different green lines going through. Like the commuter rail, you do perhaps need more routes like a commuter rail, something like that.

FRANK MALDARI: I think a minimum requirement is like what Jim was offering before. Let me try to expand on it. When you get on the train after the doors have opened you should get an announcement, like you said, whereyouaregoingandwhatthe stopsare. Andthenagain right before you get to the next station you make an announcement this is the station coming up. We typicallydo that now. The only thing I think could be trouble is the intermediate one. Because depending on how close the stations are, you can't always have enough time to do the intermediate announcement. Although the sign can be stationary and continue to scroll, you don't always have time to repeat it in between the stations.

So if you make it a minimum, which I think is a reasonable thing to do, I would think you would say when you get on and right before you get off. Right now for

us we use GPS and we have geo fences to identify when you

aregetting closetothe stationsandthat iswhat triggers the announcement, and that and knowing when the train is scheduled to stop.

As far as unplanned changes to the train, generally speaking, I ride the train every day. We typically only add station stops at the Long Island and don't skip station stops. So

-- and Iunderstand youwant to know that, but it is surprisingly a difficult thing to do, unless you have speech to text,becausewhich stations you are adding is not known unless the emergency occurs. If it is a Ronkonkoma train, typically does not stop at Maryland Avenue and all of a sudden today it is stopping at Maryland Avenue because the train at Maryland Avenuegot stuck and it is picking up those passengers. Not as

easy as you think to create aVMS announcement to say that, especially if you are on your way to Maryland Avenue and you open the door in two minutes or less. So it is not

an easy thing to do with text but it is relatively easy thing to do audibly.

I know you mentioned this before. You are going to get whatever

-- whatever audible announcement, you are going to get a hearing loop information. Hopefully some of those people will be able to get quick information.

JANICE SCHACTERLINTZ: On

-- thishappens inthe subways regularly. So, I mean, daily basis

-- multiple times a week basis. Somehow there is a verbal message strip on the subway that changes the time and various things. And it is even on the subway platform, there is something that changes when the next train is coming and it isupdated. So ifwe canupdate that,we shouldbe able to update this and there is too many people who cannot use

an induction loop, for example, me. And I can't hear the announcement because the clarity is really poor. There is music on the train, there is people talking, it is hard to hear. And it doesn't help people who are deaf who have no benefit in an induction loop.

So we need to figure out how the MTA can changethe time when the next train is coming and not change the

message. And I think this is a completely solvable problem and we can't just say there is an induction loop and leave out the community who is deaf or people who don't wear hearing aids because they are in denial of their hearing loss and Mayor Bloomberg fits in that category.

JIM PECHT: Frank, you had concern about the intermediate announcement because the trip might be too short. What sort of duration would you consider an intermediate one appropriate for after so many minutes or whatever?

FRANK MALDARI: That is a good question. I guess --JIM PECHT: Also talking about Amtrak with the long trips.

FRANK MALDARI: That is a good point, Jim. For long distance between stations the intermediate one wouldn'tbe aproblem. For short distance, I guesswe can

comeupwithanumber,maybe fiveminutesor something like that, iswhatyou could say. Ifthenext station iswithin five minutes of the next announcement, you wouldn't have to make an intermediate one. I think something like that can be used, some kind of time duration.TERRY PACHECO: Maybe we should look at it

instead of a time thing, a mileage or percentage.

MARSHA MAZZ: Terry, I don't understand the purpose of an intermediate announcement. There is nothing you can do. You are on the train, you are going to go to the next stop.

It seems tome that it isprobablymore vital that you have that information when you are on a shorter hop like our Metro system or the MTA where it is downtown, where the stations are fairly close together. If you happen to hop on the wrong train, you can get off and you can correct yourself.

But if I'm halfway to Philadelphia, I'm not going to be able to do anything about it if I happen to be on the wrong train, I mean, until I get to Philadelphia, I mean, you know.

Given thatwe are looking for a lot of information to be audible and given that, you know, you want to know when the restaurant car opens and youwant to know all this other information, potentially if you are on a high speed train how fast it is going and all this other stuff, I'm not sure that an intermediate announcement is something you want to mandate. But certainly any entity could choose to provide it if they think it is warranted.TERRY PACHECO: Yeah, we go with it as aminimum.

We certainly can add that on. I tend to agree with you, Marsha. I don't see a purpose for the middle one largely to be applied as a minimum.

FRANK MALDARI: I agree with you 100 percent, Marsha. It is a very good point. I think once you are

on there, you are stuck. So no point in knowing you are stuck there until it is too late anyway.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: I disagree, because, first off, you can get off the train and catch another trainback towhere you are,where you started and nothave to go all the way to, you know, the end

--

TERRY PACHECO: But you are not going all the way to the end. We are talking about going from Station A to Station B, in the middle making another announcement that you are going to stop at Station B. You already know you

are going to stop at Station B and it is going to announce when you get to Station B.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: It is not somuch you are stopping at Station B, but when it changes the amount of stations.

TERRY PACHECO: That is a different issue. JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: I don't want someone editing the information I have or don't have ormaking anydecisions for me. If it was important for anyone to have

an audible announcement, I want to have the visual announcement.

TERRY PACHECO: We agree with that. MARSHA MAZZ: Janice, if the information changes, that is a different deal. It is when you have already been given the information. You are on the train and you are going to get the information again as the train pulls into the next station. The question is whether it should be reiterated somewhere between Point A and Point B. And I, frankly, think that may be a bit of overkill.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: But don't you think it is telling someone to get ready, we are approaching the station? I don't understand what you're saying.

TERRY PACHECO: We are saying there will be one upon approach.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Right. TERRY PACHECO: There will be one when you are approaching the station. We

-- let's say you -- you are getting on at Point A.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Right. TERRY PACHECO: And PointB is fiveminutes away; okay? JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Right.TERRY PACHECO: When you get on at Point A, it is

going to tell you are on the train, the next stop is going be Point B station.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Right. TERRY PACHECO: In two more minutes do you need it to say then that the next stop is going to be Point B station,because in fourandahalfminutesbefore itpulls in it is going to say the next stop is Point B station? So do you need it to say it three different times instead of two? JANICE SCHACTERLINTZ: No. Ididn'tunderstand what you meant. No. Then you don't. No, you don't. I just want whatever announcement is being made, it'll be audible and visual.

TERRY PACHECO: Right. And I thinkwe are all on that page.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Fine. Then I misunderstood and sorry.

TERRY PACHECO: I think the other issue that you have been raising we are also in agreement with. We have not really touched on it completely here yet and that it is when there is a change, that that needs to be audible and visual, when there is actual a destination change, something like that, that needs to be made available aswell. JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Yeah, because I can't

tell you how many times I end up in another station and I'm like, when does this train switch. Thank you.

TERRY PACHECO: Like it was pointed out

-- I think I said

-- I forget who, doesn't matter. That all of a sudden it becomes an expression, we are going to skip the next four stations. Those kinds of things. What I'm calling changes and those we know need to be

-- also need to be audible and visual. So I think we are all covered on the same thing, is what I'm saying.

Anybody else have anything for the melting pot? Then let's move along.

FRANK MALDARI: Okay. The next question I had was about the designation of a high definition VMS. I didn't understand what the significance of that was.

TERRY PACHECO: As I recall, that was something that Andrew put in his comments. If in the future an HD VMS is being used, these are the other features that could be used, these are additional features that couldbe added in the case of HD VMS.

FRANK MALDARI: We already have the requirement that you have the VMS and you have it audibly as well.

TERRY PACHECO: Right. But if you look at the HDVMS could have the capability of doing ASL on it, for

instance, or video description. If you are doing more of

a VMS that can run videos at the same time, that kind of thing. Something that Blair had brought up about different points of interest they may have on a display on a long term distance Amtrak train, local points of interest that might come up, that kind of thing.

At some point in time if you are able to do videos

on it, thevideos could alsobe accessiblevia, like I say, via video description or ASL, something like that.

FRANK MALDARI: Unless I'm reading it incorrectly, I think if you have a video message or some kind of a special VMS sign, I think it is already required to have the other two things incorporated as it is, high definition or not. Why would it matter?

JIM PECHT: It has a lot to do with recommendations in the ANSI standard. The ANSI standard

as far as VMS signage is concerned differentiates between high resolution and low resolution. There is actually a definition that clarifies what it is. High resolution you are talking aboutplasma television. ANSI says if you

are high resolution, you basically have to meet the print sign requirement.

Low resolution is the kind of VMS sign that youfind in the stations at the Metro in D.C. That is a low

resolution. You can't do the kind of things you want to do of showing a picture of someone doing sign language on a low resolution VMS sign.

FRANK MALDARI: Okay. So the clarity would be added to this somewhere in the document?

JIM PECHT: Frank, if you reference the ANSI standard, we pull in all of it, plus the definition.

FRANKMALDARI: That is fine. Iwas not aware of it and I think I understand what the intent is now.

LISE HAMLIN: Just a point for clarification. Right now it sayswhere high definition isprovided, audio description and ASL should be incorporated. That it is not sign language; that is assistive listening system.

So if Andrew meant ASL and videos, that is different than listening system. So we have to clarify that. JIM PECHT: I thought he put in ASL and

--

DAVID NELSON: I kind of question that because I don't see the ASL should be in that section because it is already defined in the next section under "inductive loop." And inductive loop is part of the audio portion. So I think it should be ASL.

JIM PECHT: That was probably an editorial goofon my part. I think the intent was American Sign

Language.

FRANK MALDARI: So the audio description meant text-based audio description, right?

JIM PECHT: Audio description is a text

-based audio description, yes. That is describing what the video is showing. Also described to audio description and video description is the same.

FRANKMALDARI: Ithinkwehave itcovered. Just a little typo you have to fix, Jim, and that is it.

JIM PECHT: Okay. That change stays in with the typo change.

FRANK MALDARI: The next question I have is what do we do with the route maps. And it wasn't real clear to me about the audio version of a route map.

We discussed before about making an announcement audibly/visibly when the train doors close and when you

are getting to a station. A static or variable sign on the car, how much content do you want out of it?

DAVIDNELSON: Iwasactuallyquestioningthatas well. We have one that runs between Portland and Seattle where it is almost like a GPS map configuration where our train route is displayed and we have a dot that basically

moves and the dot is the train. And so it will show thename of a river here on the right side, the name of a town

on the right side we pass. I don't actually imagine how we do audio descriptions of that because that would be constantly running the full

-- I don't know if that would drive everybody crazy in the train car listening to that.

But, on the other hand, I want to make sure it is available for anybody who wants to know what the audio descriptions are.

So I would need guidance for how I would avoid situations where it is constantly running with audio description.

LISE HAMLIN: David, is that like

-- I'm trying to imagine how it is. Is it like a kiosk or monitor at one end of the train? How does it look?

DAVID NELSON: So it's actually at the end on a wall, end of the train car on the wall. And it looks like

a computermonitor, basically, with themap display. And there is a thick line ofbasically the track route and then the dot that displays

-- it is a display for the train. And it is GPS tracking. So it moves along the map as, you know, we move and it will show on the right side there are

mountains and on the left side a river or a cove or something we are passing by and then you can see maybe Seattle at thevery top so you know you arehalfwaybetweenPortland and Seattle. FRANKMALDARI: Sounds likeaGPS system. Ihave

seen it on planes. I know Amtrak does it through their website. I agree with David, I don't know how you would provide an audio complement to that type of information.

CHRISTOPHERHART: Onething IbelieveaJapanese

car tobe looking at is for high speed timeswhen they have monitors in the seat belt and they have headphone jacks tied inwithmonitors. Then you could likeyoudoathome, you could activate a particular area to get those descriptions. But that would only be in one car high speed environment where you have the seat belt video

screens.JACKSON XUE: I also agree with Frank and David with this potentially

-- as far as the audible announcements pertaining to the content of that map is concerned. I mean, it is used across the world in their high speed trains. For some trains these are TVmonitors, if you will, that sometimes are hanging from the roof and passengers can access and see the content collectively. It is inadditiontothevariable signagethat istypically at the end of the cars.

But David is correct. As far as the route maps it is a GPS tracking that shows where you are in thestation. It is more for, I don't want to say entertainment

service, for lack of a better term, but to provide some visual information to the passengers on where they are on the line.

DAVID NELSON: So I think that maybe it was Chris who made the point of having the ability to maybe plug in and that would be for the seat back sign or even -- if it is monitored you can see from that is mounted to the top of the train car, you can see from your seat. Then if we have capability we should be able to plug in with earbuds or headphone devices that they can have the option to select and listen to the audio discussions of that map as they watch it.

CHRISTOPHER HART: Iwas reminded right now I can go to Best Buy and I can buy a real Bluetooth seeker and I can control that on my cellphone 50 feet away. What is possible today, only via headphone jacks, may actually be completely wireless tomorrow.

DAVIDNELSON: That isanotherthing. Onewayor another Ithinkwehaveoptionsandthankyou for reminding me that technology is changing in the future.

JACKSONXUE: I am okay and I agree thatwe should accommodate change in technology, especially if we canaccommodate a headphone jack or Bluetooth, we should do

that. My concern is without clarification whether or not this would need to be provided via the PA system, for example. In that case it my become an issue for the passengers.

JIM PECHT: I just want to remind you, folks, we

are past the halfway point of this meeting so we need to sort of move along a bit.

TERRY PACHECO: This is not what I understood. And also in Andrew's comments, I thought what he was talking about was a route map, for instance, on a subway that shows all the stations from one end to the other, of the red line runs from this station toAshmont or whatever and listallthe stations inbetweenbecauseyouare saying they should light up as they go through.

That is what I

-- it also needs to be audible. That if we are going to take that

-- if that sign is included, then it needs to be audible and visual.

This other feature that David has brought up, I think two separate issues, both absolutely having value, but I'm not sure what we can do on either one of them at this point.

JACKSON XUE: With the subway cars, I understand the variable message signs at the end of the cars, theywill typically show the next stop and the destination.

With that we also have the tie-in for the audio announcements that go along with that. Is it absolutely necessary then that something that is for display, as far as that route map tracking as far as station stops are concerned, would it be required that be audible or a need for that to be audible?

TERRY PACHECO: That is one of those pieces of information for someone who is

-- especially someone who is not largely familiar with the city. I'm thinking largely in a subway situation to know that this train goes to Stations A through J and it is going in that direction, A through J and not J through A, that kind of thing. That is information that is very readily available to any nondisabled person that is on that train.

FRANK MALDARI: Trying to catch up with all this stuff. I think with the subway you do have some problems that a typical train stops at a lot of stations and it is hard to get every station that that subway train is going to stop at annunciated before you get to the next station because they are so close. So that becomes a problem. You could do it visually, but to do it audibly, I think is really kind of difficult, especially in the time frame, you are talking about from one station to another, thatcould be a few minutes, so. TERRY PACHECO: I agree with you. I'm thinking

more along the lines of a headphone type arrangement, of

a plug

-in type thing. The sign is just there showing all the red line or all the purple line or whatever. The sign is there showing all of the stations that this train

-- that this line runs through and that information is on the train. Might there be a way of doing like a plug

-in headphone, some way of making that information available? It is available to anyone that can see it. It is not available to anyone who can't see it. That is the point. JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: I just don't like anything that requires someone to carry a devicewith them because you are not always for subways, you may not know that you are going to be going on a subway andmay not have your device. I think any way there is some requirements that you can't require people to have things.

TERRY PACHECO: That isbasically true,but it is not practicable, that is the problem with that. For instance, if you are a blind person and you want to use an ATM you damn well should have an earphone with you.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: My only concern is in a subway, you don't know in New York City you will be on asubway. So you never know so you may not have it. TERRY PACHECO: It is real world as opposed to an ideal situation. If you don't have your thing with you, you may not need to use a sign. That kind of thing. If you don't have hearing aid with you, you can't use the loop. JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Right, doesn't require you to carry an additional device. You shouldn't place people in aposition to carry an additional devicebecause they are carrying the hearing aid already, wearing them.

FRANKMALDARI: Iunderstandwhatyouare saying, Janice. I agree with Terry, I don't think it is practicable to be able to repeat all the same information audibly. Having an opportunity or having the sign have

an audio component that you could plug in or possibly use Bluetooth. I don't know how the Bluetooth would work. It is a possibility that the information can be transmitted via othermeans. But in practicality wise in reality to go ahead and have that

-- a sign go on a continuous loop identifying 30 stations at every door opening is impracticable.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: The problem is you can't require someone -- if someone doesn't have it, does that

mean they don't have equal access? And that is aproblem.It is a problem to require someone to always have a device

with them to always have equal access to something so I disagree and that is not the law. So you can't rewrite the ADA.

MARSHA MAZZ: It is not exactly the law because the accessibility standards now require anyone who want to use an ATM without vision to carry earphones.

Being as it is, I notice you have 10more comments to do and you have three. So I'm going to urge you tomove on. Doesn't sound like you are going to resolve this.

TERRY PACHECO: That has brought up a new issue we have not talked about today.

I think you are right. We have to move on. We may not be able to address it.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: State that there is a disagreement.

TERRY PACHECO: We can put in there that there is a disagreement. Yeah, we can do that.

FRANK MALDARI: I can skim over the next ones if

we are short on time and spend as much time talking about them. I don't want to make it so Lise doesn't have a chance to make her comments.

TERRY PACHECO: Ifyoucandothat,that isgreat. FRANK MALDARI: The next item has to do withlighting and I was referencing an APTA standard that does

exist if we were considering requirements, certain amount of lumens and lighting in the car.

TERRY PACHECO: Andwe also

-- I thinkwe already referred

-- I think we agreed to refer that to the Access Board because of something else Marsha is working on.

JIM PECHT: Frank, you said you would send me a link and if you send me a link we will stick it in.

FRANK MALDARI: You got it. The next item was the fire alarms. I thought we discussed the fire alarms. They were only warranted for certain type of vehicles. Wasn't really clear how that was going to be applied. Is that the case?

JIM PECHT: It will be a "where provided" kind of thing, where you provide fire alarms, whatever.

FRANK MALDARI: Okay. The next comment has to dowith a door locked out. Currently when a door is locked out on our equipment, the light will blink indicating the door is locked out. I don't think you want to have a voice message repeating constantly as the train is in motion all day long that the door is locked out. I think that is what this implies. So I don't know if there is a way around it but that will be annoying to everyone on the train if that door isconstantly announcing it is out of service all day long. TERRY PACHECO: I thought what we had said it would announce with the station stop. Like, for instance, the one we are talking about kind of tied to the door or just before you pull into the station that "the next station is XYZ, the doors will be opening." Either the front doorswillbe opening or Door 3won'tbe opening, something

-- there would be some clarification at some point. That's the way I understood a discussion of this before. Someone else have a different recollection?

FRANK MALDARI: The problem I have if you are counting on the audio message because you can't see the light, how do you know what door it is pertaining to? I

mean typically in a vestibule there is one door on each side of the vestibule. So kind of makes it complicated if there is an announcement saying "this door is not working;" how do you know which one it is? Something to think about. I don't want to spend too much time on it. But Iwrote it in here and hopefullywewill havemore time to talk about it.

JIM PECHT: Frank, would adding only to the notification during the station stop would help?

FRANKMALDARI: Doesn'taddressthe issue,howdoyou know what door it is. <<<: They change at the next station. Sometimes the door on the left and sometimes the door on the right.

FRANK MALDARI: My biggest problem, for me the visual alarm is easy to do because it gives you the location and the door that it is at the same time telling you it's out of service. If it is just audio, how do you identify which door it is and that is the problem with the alarm. You have to know which door it is as well as it is out of service. I just thought it's an area that was not lending itself to have both means of communication. It is something to think about.

TERRY PACHECO: It really varies, depending on the type of vehicle too. If you have four doors on one side of the train, that is a good point. Door number 3 is not going to open as opposed to if you have a door on each end. Whether it is left and right, that is not too much issuebecause it shouldbe saying "thenext stopdoors open on the left" or what have you. Then you are just saying in this car it is only opening

-- the text of how to do that would not be that difficult in something that is just using like end doors. It is when you get into the subway type situation when you put three or four doors oneach side that you run into the issue and it would need

to be some text clarification for that. You make a good point. Do you have any other

-- is that the end of your comments?

FRANK MALDARI: I will try to summarize a couple

more comments and Jim may be able to explain it in more detail whether it is addressed or not.

The concern I have iswhatwe showed that one day, twomeetings ago when I showed the big emergency sign that covered the whole window. That still is a concern I'm trying to address here, that there are instances when you simply do not have enough space to make a sign be accessible. So you don't have the sign or it is covering the entire area and I didn't really see an allowance. You have something in here that says you can have handouts or other sorts of things to communicate that information. But I wasn't

-- it didn't seem like it made it into the main context area.

Jim, I don't know if you can answer the comment. The comment is I'm concerned that the requirements as listed require you to have a giant sign anywhere you have

a sign. And in certain instances, emergency window pull downhandles are generally small. Toput all the requiredinformation on that handle is really impracticable. To

put the instructions on the window that meet all the requirements is really impracticable too. So I was hoping there would be something around that.

You domention something inhere you canhave some alternate means of communications. Could that be expanded?

JIM PECHT: The alternatemeans of communication is more an issue of DOT because that is an operational issue that really doesn't effect how you build a rail car. The brochure behind the pocket, the apps, the Smart Phones, the website, those are all sort of out of our purview and also would be good things to sort of recommend as far as augmenting a lot of this stuff.

I'm trying to sort of get to the actual physical sign that is in the car. I don't know how you deal with this issue and it's up to the committee to sort of figure out how they want to tackle it.

MARSHA MAZZ: Even DOJ has to use the guidelines to formulate the standards

-- I'm sorry, DOT. There is nothing prohibiting DOT from saying in their regulation you don't have to comply with XYZ requirements in the standards if you do something else and specify what that something else is. It is just not up to us to say you haveto have an app for that. There wouldn't be anything

stopping DOT from saying if you have an app or if you have seat back message that is in braille and large print then you don't have to make certain signs accessible. They could certainly do that.

FRANK MALDARI: Okay. I don't know how you handle that in a standard, other than what you wrote, as long as DOT gets the information that they should put some allowance for alternate means of communication.

All right. Assuming youwouldbe able to address that, the other comment I had real quickly here is the equivalency of the audio and visualmessages. We touched on this a couple of times. I think we are starting to address it based on our conversation today. I think more clarity about the basic information could be the same but it might be slightly different. I don't know how to put that in words but that is kind of what I was -- it is an additional known recommendation that youhave and I'm kind of agreeing with it and explaining it that there are circumstances where you don't have to match exactly. A couple have been touched upon with the destination sign and the repeatability of it. So I thinkwe have addressed

some of them. More food for thought as far as additional notes.So I think I'm done with my comments. LISE HAMLIN: Let me just add that we put in the word "equivalency". We didn't again put the word "verbatim". The idea is if they get the meat of the message, get their message across, the precanned message doesn't give you the

-- gives you the information you need. It is equivalent or should be equivalent. That is the conceptwe are reaching for,notnecessarilyverbatim, except for where verbatim can be provided.

FRANK MALDARI: Okay. Thank you. I think that is a good clarification. I think I'm done with my section, Terry, if you want to move on to the next.

TERRY PACHECO: Thank you, Frank, and thank all of you coming up with all your comments and all the work you have done with this in general. That extends to everybody on the committee. This is our 14th call or something. You all have done yeoman's work on this.

Lise, can you go over your comments with us now. LISE HAMLIN: My comments are actually pretty brief. There is not that much. What I was trying to do at the last meeting

-- I forget who brought it up. But somebody said that we shouldn't be looking at specific technology when we make recommendations. So the loop technology is a real specific technology that may be inthe future supplanted by something else and we don't know

what it would be.

So what I was doing here is trying to take a stab at what loop technology does, hearing induction loop does for somebody with a hearing loss. You think of it as an example but not saying that is the only thing you have to use. So what I wrote was wherever audible announcements

are provided, hearing assistive technology that has the capability of coupling directly, that is, by that I mean, without an additional receiver, so it is couplingdirectly to the hearing aids and cochlear implants or other personal hearing devices. Again, this is where

-- I just want to say -- reading it out loud doesn't sound as good

as when I wrote it. Anybody who wants to play with this language, feel free.

But what we are trying to do is say an example of the kindoftechnologywe canuse ishearing induction loop

or future technology that benefit people who are deaf or hard ofhearing and those texts shouldbeprovided. There has got to be a best way to say it.

I was trying to get to the idea of let's look at another way not to say everything has to have a loop but it has to have a technology that connects directly with whatever personal hearing technology the person iswearing. FRANK MALDARI: I don't have any problem. I

think you tried to make it more of a performance standard than a specific item standard. The only problem I have is the way it is written is the last couple of words where you say "and future technologies". That is not something

as me as a provider or as an authority can identify or say I meet it.

The requirement you stated above is you need to have this device and then you say "future technologies". Well, how do I meet compliance with future technologies from a regulatory perspective?

TERRY PACHECO: You may not be able to today, but I might be able to three years from now.

FRANK MALDARI: I know. But I guess what I'm saying when you say "future technology" in a regulation, there is noway to know you aremeeting it or not. I think everything you need is what you wrote above that, the type of device. I don't think there is any need to say "future technologies benefiting the person..." I think it is clear in what you wrote. I think it is fine, the wording you had. And that is what you want, you want one of those things. MARSHA MAZZ: Lise, I had a question for you.Someone can use a loop with a headset, but the way I read

your rewrite it is not clear tome that youwould want some headsetsprovided for thosepeoplewho don't have a T-coil or don't have hearing aids.

LISE HAMLIN: That is not what I intended. MARSHA MAZZ: Just wanted to be sure and understand that your intentwould stillbe toprovide some receivers for those people who need them?

LISE HAMLIN: No. My understanding is we can't write regulations that say the real authority should provide headsets.

MARSHA MAZZ: Actually, you can. I mean, we do it in thebuiltenvironment. There isnothinghere saying that you can't because it is part of this system, it is part of thebuilt

-in system. Each, though it isportable, but it is part of that system and it is how we justify it in the built environment because the system for someone who doesn'thave the ability to connect to a loopvia their hearing aid is useless without a receiver.

LISE HAMLIN: In that case, then, I would be in favor of it because it would give more people access to it. So I have no problem with including that. But the concept should be if somebody already has

-- essentially the hearing aid is a receiver and when they don't have tocarry around an additional receiver. So I'm not asking

for more receivers to be

-- I want the person who has already got the hearing aid or hearing device that can connect directly to a listening system to be able to use that. If in addition it is okay for the rail company to also deliver headsets, I have no problem with that.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Marsha, I have a question. From a practicable point of view, I just don't

see how you are going to distribute headsets at subways.

MARSHA MAZZ: Probably not. JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: I think at that point realistically, if a person doesn't have the T

-coil capability, I think that is where the visual signs come in. I'm not sure on a braille perspective on a subway you can distribute a headset.

MARSHA MAZZ: I'm more concerned about scenic rail tours.

JANICE SCHACTERLINTZ: I'mtalkingaboutonvery short term, not when you are doing the flat top trains

across the Rockies or whatever. On subways, I don't see it as being realistic or feasible in distributing and collecting headsets. I think that is why the visual, the messages are so critical, can act as a stop gap. I'm not going to argue the rail side on this.LISE HAMLIN: Not only that, with loop receivers

they are pretty much universal. So if I really wanted to hear it, I could buy my own loop receiver if I didn't want to buy a hearing aid.

MARSHA MAZZ: Fine with me if you don't intend to require receivers and you only intend to require this connection with your hearing aids. I just needed to understand your intent.

LISE HAMLIN: Okay. That wasmy intent. If the committee feels

-- I think Janice is right. I think it is hard to then say on long distance trains they should provide receivers and on subways theyget awaiver. Maybe you can say that, actually.

CHRISTOPHER HART: What you need to bear in mind that there are two different entities providing oversight. And the FTA has oversight over the long distance scenic railways, whereas things like transit is STA. So it may actually be worth some thought as to providing this. Again, I do think in the case of Amtrak where they run movies in certain cars and whatnot, I may want to think about some suggestions on a route. I don't

see any value in, quote, STA oversight transit agencies.

DAVID NELSON: I wanted to answer about Frank's concern regarding the part about future technologies.Now, what my intent or what my understanding of that would

be so the last time that anything was written for this was back in 1991 and we might not revisit this again for the next 25 plus years. So if we kept future technologies in there, it would be able to keep it open ended so the DOT could do an issue of a statement providing what type of technologies would need to be available on the train fleets for us to use. Does that make sense?

FRANK MALDARI: The way I read this, the first part says you have to have some kind of hearing assistive technology device that communicates directly with an implant. Doesn't exactly say what the device is or how it should work. And in the future if they come up with

somebetterwayofdoing it,thatdoesn'tprohibityou from using the new technology. So I just don't see where you need to say "future technologies" at the end. You are not defining the product that is used to communicate to the implant. You are just saying it has to be a device that

communicates directly with the implant without giving you any criteria of how that has to happen.

TERRY PACHECO: Don't we need the one at the end forpeoplewho

-- additional technologieswhomaynothave an implant?

FRANKMALDARI: Howwould Imeetthatrequirementif I don't know what it is? Right now I know they have

hearing loops and I think I could meet this requirement.

TERRY PACHECO: What I'm saying, a hearing loop could be used by someone using hearing aids but who has not had a cochlear implant. It freely acknowledges my ignorance. I'm not sure why we are putting the cochlear implant inthere. I'm surethere is some kindofverygood reason for it. I'm just saying we want to cover both people who have and have not had cochlear implants.

LISE HAMLIN: Cochlear implants have T-coils in them as well and can receive signals from a loop. The

reason Iwas trying tomake it asbroad aspossiblebesides addressing the concern

-- and I think you are right, Frank. What I'm saying, I'm addressing the concern about naming a particular technology, but what I'm hearing in the field is that Bluetooth could become wide area. That is one possibility. But they are also talking about all kinds of new technology that a hearing aid or cochlear implant or other implantablehearing technology,personal hearing technology could get a direct link to. That is another reason why I really wanted that broad.

I think you are right, Frank. That addresses the question of something in the futurebecause I'm not saying only loops.JACKSON XUE: When we say "all other personal

devices", wouldn't that already cover?

LISE HAMLIN: I was referring to hearing aids, cochlear implants. There is something called the BAHA, which is a bone implanted device. There has been in the past something called a SoundBite, which is literally a hearing aid in your teeth. There are other devices coming. There is a hearing aid that is now implantable. There are other devices. There is constant change in the market. I wanted to make the distinction. Is it something somebody carries themselves, their personal device? Not like someone provides them like a receiver, where they let go when they are done.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: I thinkwe can cover that by saying "including but not limited to", which I think is standard language which allows for the involvement of technology and going forward.

FRANKMALDARI: I think that is fine. I think if you just end the sentence, you know, examples include hearing induction loops or other devices or exactly what Janice said is fine.

JANICE SCHACTERLINTZ: Ithinkthat is standard. I think based on the Passenger Vessel Committee, that wastold tomeby someone on the committee and I have seen that

now. If you do "including but not limited to", it allows for expansion. And you put what the goal is like you did to achieve. So it measures what you need to achieve.

I think somewhere among us we need to have ANSI standards and include standards within it. If we include the goal, then it doesn't really matter what the device is in wanting to achieve the goal and the goals won't change. The device may.

TERRY PACHECO: Okay. Areweall inagreementon that, the last few words and changing the punctuation?

FRANK MALDARI: Yes. TERRY PACHECO: Go for it, Lise. LISE HAMLIN: The next one I was trying to make it sync with the number A. The hearing technology should be instead of "accessible", I said "available". I thought it was more clear. I thought "available".

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: My only concern is we have not proven the whole train can be looped so I'm not comfortable until we come back with Caltran and Amtrak to be told we are self

-limiting.

TERRY PACHECO: That we are what? I'm sorry? JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Self

-limiting. If the whole train canbe looped, I don'twant to create ahearingghetto in telling people where they have to sit if that

entire car can be looped and we don't know that until Amtrak and Caltran do their pilot. My understanding is the entire car can be looped because we have already done that on the buses. So I'm not sure why an entire train car can't.

Now, I'm not an engineer. If we find out it can't, that is a different story. I don't want to limit it. Because if you go on a train and someone is sitting in a seat, it is difficult and not everybody wants to sit in special seating or where someone from the train designer decides you should be sitting. The loop area is in the back of the car and I like being in the middle and why should I be told where to sit if I don't have to. If they can accomplish it, that is a different story.

FRANKMALDARI: It sayswithintwo seatingareas. So you always have the opportunity to put more. I don't thinkwhatCaliforniaorCaltran isdoing cantellyouwhat you can do in every instance.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: I don't think that two willendupbeing two. Be realistic. Wehave -- noteven the MTA push forward and do more than required. If I saw that we wouldn't need to have this conversation. It is not like anyone anywhere in the country has said, "We aredoing this because we think it is right." When we start to see that, then we can have that conversation. But so far I have not seen it anywhere in the country by anyone. Since I'm the one battling everyone across the country, I'm the one having the conversations and I don't want to have the conversations anymore. I want life to be easy.

FRANK MALDARI: Okay. I know you can't put it everywhere right now easily because it has not been done. So requiring something you know can't be done is not the right way to go either. So it has to be a compromise and I think what is written there is a reasonable compromise. And you can complain you don't think people will do what they should.

We have VMS system in our car and we have them in the 10 years and this rule is not even finalized yet. To say you people don't put things in there unless it is regulated is just wrong and to regulate something that doesn't exist is wrong. So you have to compromise and this is a reasonable compromise.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: I disagree with you. AndLARholdsoutthebids,the loops fromabideventhough an Australian rail company said they can put in a loop because LAR deemed it expensivewhen itwas not expensive.So you can't tell people with disabilities what you deem

as reasonable compromise. So Idisagree and the samewith the buses.

I just forwarded to the rail committee the pilot of induction loop onbuses. Ihave the report. Therewas an internal document and your city transit holds the induction loops claims it was not piloted. I have the report so you can't tell me what can and can't be done because the MTA and NYC transit is no longer an accurate reporter of what can be done.

Youmay not likewhat I'm saying,but youwill see when it is forwarded. So I disagree. The facts are just uncomfortable for the MTA and New York City Transit.

ANDRE GAGNE: To let you know we are in the process of implementing the loop in BART cars but we are limited on the amount of coverage we can have in the vehicles because of propulsion. The cars have a propulsion system on them. This is not the case for the Caltran cars, which are local. So I think we have to keep that in mind when we write this text.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: I have some really top people in the field who would be willing to work with you guys and let's bring them in and see what they can do because they have done some of the most complicated jobsin the country. And if you want to consult with them

because they have done the biggest and hardest jobs in the country -- if anyone can accomplish it, it is them. We can't go by people's internal stamp. We have to look to people who have done complicated projects already.

ANDRE GAGNE: There is, I believe, if my memory is good, there is only two suppliers of such systems for rail cars. We are getting one right now. That is fine. They are the system suppliers. So we have to obviously make sure their system is integrated properly in the vehicles. Again, when the cars have propulsion systems there is magnetic interference that is generated by some of the equipment, which is the reason why we have to limit the induction loop systemto certainareasofthe carwhere the propulsion system does not interfere.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Andre, I can't speak to who you are working with. I have worked with two installers who have done the toughest jobs in the country in a subway information booth, the Proxy and Intrepid. Let's bring them in and have them take a look. I can't say until people look at the drawing. I just know if they say it can't be done, it can't be done and they have never been not able to accomplish the goal. So they arewilling to work with you guys and let's have the conversation.TERRY PACHECO: Thank you. We did have an

opportunity to have someone that came on one of our early conversations from a committee about the induction loops and he was from the UK, as I recall. We

--

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Julian. TERRY PACHECO: Yes. I couldn't remember his

name for the life of me. We have done this

-- my head is going crazy at this point.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: But Julian

-- TERRY PACHECO: Janice, let me finish. Janice and Andre and anyone else, if you folks can do something, I think this needs to be a side issue. We have no time leftatthispointtotakeonanyadditionalprojectsunder the RVAAC committee at thispoint,we don't have it. This is our last call. We just don't have the time to do any more on that.

If you folks want to come up with something so it could come in, perhaps during the comment period under NPRM sometime in the future, we just don't have

-- we do nothavethewherewithaltoaddanythingmore inaboutthis before our report has to go to the committee itself. I think that would be really good for you to work together as an aside.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: I am not comfortablesupporting two areas, andwe canput in the recommendation

multiple opinions. It doesn't have to be a definitive. We have with the Passenger Vessel Recommendation Committee. These are recommendations and the law. And the industry may disagree with advocacy and that is where the Access Board comes in and sees what can be done.

MARSHAMAZZ: Iwould like to suggest, Janice, if you have wording

-- because it doesn't sound to me that you are saying that wouldn't accept some expert saying that it is not possible in certain places. Sounds like you are saying you can get the maximum coverage you can get within the realm of possibility.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Of course, yeah. MARSHA MAZZ: If there is a way to express that, maybe can you do that to offer the change.

As Terry said, your subcommittee report is about done but you do get another bite at the apple through the full committee process.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: I would do it the way you said it. TERRY PACHECO: Then please do and send it to us and we will put it in.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Say it as from what Marsha just said. I don't have the ability or skill towrite it. MARSHA MAZZ: I wasn't writing it. Either I was giving the thought.

JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: It must be in the CART report. MARSHA MAZZ: Again, the idea is there; not necessarily written in a way that you would like. If people accept the principle, then you can work on the wording. JANICE SCHACTERLINTZ: Idon't knowhowtodothe wording but that is the principle. So whoever is capable of writing the wording, that is exactly the principle. That is exactly what I'm saying, what you said Marsha.

MARSHA MAZZ: Frank, would you accept that principle?

FRANK MALDARI: To the extent practicable, yes, I would accept it to do it the best you can. I could suggest wording if you like. I have no problem doing it.

TERRY PACHECO: Fine. Can you email it to us when you get a chance?

FRANK MALDARI: Yes, I will do that. TERRY PACHECO: Okay. Lise. LISE HAMLIN: I'm sorry, I put myself on mute here, coughing away. Didn't think you needed to hearthat. I have one question at the end. Does not change

the language. The C is the Access Board should evaluate the feasibility of induction loopson rail carsand it says the majority of the subcommittee already thinks it is feasible and the question dowe need it if Caltran andBART is already doing it? Do we need the Access Board to look at it? Do we -- does the Access Board want us to put it in there?

TERRY PACHECO: I thinkwehadput that in onvery much the same topic we have been discussing now on just how much could be done, whether it could be the whole car

or if it had not included the area with the propulsion, that kindofthing. Weweretossing ittotheAccessBoard to delve deeper than we have been able to in this committee.

Anyone else have anything? LISE HAMLIN: I have no objection to it. I was just raising it as a question.

ANDRE GAGNE: I think there is not much value in that statement. I would remove, like it was mentioned, we are in the process of implementing.

TERRY PACHECO: Are you recommending that we

remove the statement, then? Is that what you're saying,Andre? ANDRE GAGNE: Yes, it is. TERRY PACHECO: So that means that we are not recommending that theAccessBoarddo any further research on it, as I understand it. Am I correct, everyone?

FRANK MALDARI: I think if there is anything to be done, it would be an understanding of howmuch coverage you canhave. And I don't know ifwe need theAccessBoard to do that. I think that is going to come out of the projects as they begin implementation. I agree, I don't think there is any value in that comment. I don't think it needs to be stated.

JIM PECHT: We have a minute left and I think we

are sort of done. Wehave tobe done. So I think the next step is, as far as I'm concerned, Terry is going to take the stuff you talked about today, reconstitute this document. I'm going to help edit it a little bit.

TERRY PACHECO: A whole lot. JIM PECHT: And we are going to send it back out to you guys. At that point I don't want you to send me

more comments. What I want you to send me is, "yes, I can live with this," or "no, I cannot live with this." If there are things you are uncomfortable with but you can live with the whole document, say that. If it makes youphysically ill and you can't live with it, we need more

meetings tells us. If most of you folks are comfortable with sending iton. Wewill send ittothe full committee.

TERRY PACHECO: One thing. If there is

something you can't live with or you have to put in there, don't use track changes, don't incorporate in into the current one. Reference what you're referring to and just give us what you think it should be. An additional sentence,giveusthat sentenceandtelluswhere youthink it belongs in it. It is just much easier for reediting. Please. Thank you.

JIM PECHT: Beforewego, iseveryonecomfortable with that path?

LISE HAMLIN: Yes. <<<: Yes. FRANK MALDARI: Yes. JIM PECHT: It is 3:00. Thank you, very much, folks. Meeting adjourned. (Whereupon, at 3:00 pm, the meeting was adjourned)