Wednesday, July 10, 2013

PVAG NPRM Hearing

(Not a Verbatim Transcript)

>> KAREN BRAITMAYER: My name is Karen Braitmayer and I am the Chair 

of the U.S. Access Board. On behalf of the Board, I’d really like to 

welcome you to our public hearing today on the proposed rule on accessible 

passenger vessels. As many of you know, the Access Board is an 

independent federal agency responsible for developing and maintaining 

guidelines and standards for accessible buildings and facilities, 

transportation vehicles, information and communications technologies, 

and medical diagnostic equipment. In addition, the Board enforces the 

Architectural Barriers Act, the ABA, and provides technical assistance 

and training on our guidelines and standards.

The Board developed the proposed rule we will discuss today under our 

authority in the Americans with Disabilities Act. The proposed rule 

addresses newly constructed and altered passenger vessels. When 

finalized, these guidelines will form the basis for enforceable standards 

promulgated by the Departments of Justice and Transportation.

The proposed guidelines were issued for public comment on June 25, 2013. 

The purpose of this hearing is to allow members of the public to address 

comments on the proposed rule directly to members of the Board. This 

is our opportunity to listen to you. These proposed guidelines are 

available on a thumb drive in the back of the room and on the Board’s 

website at www.access-board.gov. The comment period closes on September 

23, 2013.

The Board has been working for some time to develop this rule with active 
participation from the public. In 1998, we established the Passenger 

Vessels Access Advisory Committee. In 2004, we published draft 

guidelines for public comment. In 2006, we published revised draft 

guidelines for public comment. In 2008, we made available further 

revised draft guidelines to collect cost and other impact information. 

Between 2009 and 2012, we conducted the regulatory assessment and 

Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis. And as you know, just a few weeks 

ago, we published the proposed guidelines for public comment. 

So our plan today is to allow individuals who signed up to speak for about 

five minutes. But we recognize as well we have a small number of people 

who have signed up, so we would like to extend that to 10 minutes each. 

We invite everybody who is going to speak to come to the microphone and 

at that time we will also indicate who's going to follow that speaker. 

After all the registered speakers have presented, if time is available, 

anybody else can testify. Is there anybody else here who hasn't signed 

up and who would like to speak? 

Well, if you change your mind, you can certainly notify the staff at the 

registration desk back in the back of the room. Let them know that you 

would like to testify, and, oh, I forgot to say this at the very 

beginning...please remember to turn off or silence your cell phones. 

A transcript of this hearing will be kept and it will be entered into 

the docket. Written remarks or PowerPoint shows should be given to the 

staff at the back desk. Please refrain from reacting publicly to witness 

presentations or to board member statements. 

And remember, if you wish to provide written comment on the proposed 

guideline, you may do so through September 23, 2013 when the comment 

period closes. 
There are directions for how to submit those comments on the proposed 

rule. 

Before we get started, I would like to have each of our board members 

introduce themselves with their names and their city and state where they 

live. Michael, can we start with you. 

>> MICHAEL GRAVES: Michael Graves, public member from Princeton, 

New Jersey. 

>> REGINA BLYE: Regina Blye, public member from Austin, Texas. 

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Chris Hart, --- from Boston. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Nancy Starnes, Arlington, Virginia. 

>> MARC GUTHRIE: Marc Guthrie, Newark, Ohio. 

>> SACHIN PAVITHRAN: Sachin Pavithran, public member, --- . 

>> HOWARD ROSENBLUM: My name is Howard Rosenblum from Silver 

Spring, Maryland, public member. 

>> HANS VAN WINKLE: Hans van Winkle, public member from Chicago, 

Illinois. 

>> DEBBIE RYAN: Debbie Ryan, public member from Boston, Mass. 

>> JOHN BOX: John Box, public member from --- California. 

>> KAREN BRAITMAYER: We'd also like to acknowledge today members 

of the Access Board's Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee who are 

in attendance today. The committees were provided an excellent 

foundation for the proposed rule, which is the subject of today's hearing 

and we are indebted to the committee for its hard work, so please indicate 

if you are a member of the committee today by raising your hand. 

[Applause]. 
>> KAREN BRAITMAYER: Thank you. 

>> ROSE BUNALES: Madam chair, we also have members of the committee 

on the teleconference listening. 

>> KAREN BRAITMAYER: So our thanks go to all the committee who are 

in earshot or reading or in attendance today. Really we know it's a lot 

of work and we very much appreciate it. So to run today's hearing I would 

like to turn the microphone over to my fellow board member, Nancy Starnes, 

who's chair of the Board's passenger vessel ad hoc committee. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Thank you, ma da chair. I'd like to begin with 

a couple of points about the Board's role in developing the guidelines 

under the Americans with Disabilities Act. As you heard from our chair, 

the ADA authorizes the Access Board to develop and maintain accessibility 

guidelines for new and altered passenger vessels. Enforcement of these 

guidelines will begin once the standards are adopted by the Department 

of Justice or the Department of Transportation. We want to clarify that 

the guidelines themselves do not require owners and operators of existing 

passenger vessels to undertake alterations for accessibility. 

However, the Department of Justice ADA regulations currently do require 

public accommodations to remove barriers in existing facilities where 

doing so is readily achievable. 

Likewise the DOJ regulations also require state and local governments 

to ensure that their programs, services, and activities are accessible 

to individuals with disabilities. 

We understand that some of our commenters may have concerns about how 

the Department of Justice is going to enforce its requirements for readily 

achievable barrier removal and program accessibility. But once DOJ 
establishes our accessibility standards based on our guidelines, the 

issue is completely removed from the Board's purview. Therefore, we're 

asking that your comments focus on the guidelines themselves and that 

you go to the appropriate agency with issues regarding enforcement of 

the ADA. 

Now, that's going to include comments about how the operator of a vessel 

might modify policies or practices to better serve individuals with 

disabilities. 

Our proposed guidelines for passenger vessels have a high degree of 

similarity to the ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines and the Department 

of Justice’s 2010 ADA Standards for building and facilities. 

Now, the Board obviously recognizes that passenger vessels are not 

buildings. We have developed the proposed guidelines to specifically 

address the unique elements found on passenger vessels. 

These proposed guidelines address three types of passenger vessels, the 

large ones that carry more than 150 passengers. Those are large 

passenger vessels or more than 49 overnight passengers. 

Ferries that carry 100 or more passengers. And tenders that carry 60 

or more passengers. 

Now, if you listen to the PowerPoint presentation as part of your 

comments, would you please describe the pictures in your slides for the 

participants who can't see them. And for those of you who didn't provide 

advance copies of your PowerPoint, please see staff at the registration 

desk so they have a copy of your presentation and it's included in the 

docket. 

All the comments submitted and the transcript of this hearing is going 

to be available at WWW.regulations.gov. 
Now, we're ready to start, and our first presenter is going to be 

Mr. Edmund Welch, if you'd make your way to the commenter table. And 

following him will be Mr. Ted Thompson. 

As each of you provides comments, would you please remain at the table 

in case the board have any questions for you. 

And with that, Mr. Welch, the floor is yours. 

>> EDMUND WELCH: Well, thank you, madam chair and good morning, 

ladies and gentlemen. Let's try it again. Good. 

Well, good morning, madam chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I'm Edmund 

Welch, Legislative Director for the Passenger Vessel Association. 

PVA is a national trade association representing owners and operators 

of U.S. flag passenger vessels of all types and we appreciate this 

opportunity to provide initial comments on the proposed guidelines. 

PVA has been working with the Access Board to develop and complete these 

accessibility guidelines for over 15 years. The Americans with 

Disabilities Act very clearly applies to our members’ vessels and their 

operations and we take seriously our legal obligation to provide 

nondiscriminatory treatment to our passengers that have disabilities. 

We want to thank the Access Board members and staff for visiting two PVA 

ferry vessels in San Francisco during their recent visit, meeting there 

out in May. We hope this visit plus some similar ones that were taken 

by your predecessor board members will help underscore the fact that these 

guidelines and this rulemaking don't just affect what many people 

consider to be cruise ships. In fact, vessels such as ferries, dinner 

boats, sightseeing boats, whale watching vessels, gaming vessels and 

small ship overnight cruise vessels actually outnumber large ocean cruise 
ships. 

And we also take note and we say thanks to the Board for the fact that 

the proposed guidelines in many of their aspects reflect industry input 

that has been provided over the past 15 years, so there are a number of 

things in the proposed guidelines that we see that we are glad that are 

in there. 

We have several -- we have some issues today and I'll highlight those. 

But first I will ask that you consider extending the comment period for 

the rulemaking. We endorse the written request that's been submitted 

by the Cruise Lines International Association to extend the comment 

period significantly beyond the September 23rd date, given the protracted

time that the Access Board has taken in drafting the guidelines, we don't 

think that additional time for comment will appreciably slow the process 

to getting to a completed rulemaking. 

Furthermore, have posed over 40 questions to us. Many of them require 

some significant research on our part in order to develop a meaningful 

response, and finally the public comments, those guidelines became public 

during our member's high season, the summer season is really their busiest 

and that's going the make it difficult for these entities, most of them 

that are small businesses, to provide detailed input either to you or 

to us as their trade association so that we can share it with you. 

So we do ask that you would consider an extension beyond September the 

23rd. 

We will also send more detailed comments to you in a written submission. 

We need additional time beyond today to analyze the rulemaking and 

proposed guidelines more fully. So today we're going to highlight only 

a few issues of concern and we'll address some of the others in our written 
comment. 

Our first issue, suggestion that we would like you to consider is to 

restore the passenger threshold for ferries back to 150. Like it is for 

other types of passenger vessels. 

When it provided its recommendations to you, the Passenger Vessel Access 

Advisory Committee, which is as chairman Braitmayer said, your own 

committee and it consisted of members of the disability community, and 

members of the passenger vessel industry. 

That committee recommended that this rulemaking apply to vessels that 

don't have overnight accommodations with a capacity of 150 passengers 

or more. And that embraced ferries as well as other types of vessels 

and we ask that you consider restoring that for ferries. For two 

principal reasons: Number one, the advisory committee recognize that 

as the size of the vessel diminishes, the challenge of designing in 

accessibility features increases, becomes significantly greater. 

This is just as true for a ferry vessel as it is for a dinner boat or 

a whale watching vessel. A vessel is a vessel. So the challenge is the 

same. The design challenge is the same. 

Secondly, there is a compelling need for the federal government to have 

consistency in the way it regulates U.S. flag passenger vessels. And 

the U.S. Coast Guard is the primary federal agency regulating U.S. 

vessels. And it uses the 150-passenger threshold as its primary break 

point for all of its safety and its security regulations. 

Passenger vessel operators, designers, and ship builders are very 

familiar with this 150-passenger break point, introducing a different 

break point for ferries deviates from that for other vessels is going 

to introduce inconsistency and introduce potential confusion. 
Not only did the advisory committee recommend the 150 passenger threshold 

for ferries, you, the Access Board, incorporated that recommendation in 

your draft 2004 draft guidelines, subsequent drafts dropped the threshold 

and now as its proposed it applies to ferries that carry 99 passengers 

-- more than 99 passengers, so we urge you to consider the 150 threshold 

for ferries as well. 

Secondly, there could be some significantly and perhaps unnecessary cost 

impacts imposed by some aspects of the requirement for assisted listening 

systems. PVA vessels already by regulation issued by the Department of 

Justice and the Department of Transportation must ensure that they have 

effective communication with persons who are deaf or hard of hearing. 

This mandate is in effect now and is embraced in ADA service rules that 

Justice and Transportation have written and that apply to us. 

And these rules list a variety of methods that may be used depending on 

the circumstances to ensure effective communications. 

Your proposed guidelines call for the installation of an assisted 

listening system in transportation seating areas is the term that the 

guidelines use with audio amplification systems or where emergency 

information is communicated. 

Now, this system must have a minimum number of required receivers and 

that minimum number is determined by the vessel's passenger capacity. 

For example, as I read it, it appears that a vessel with a passenger 

capacity of 500, seating capacity, must have 20 receivers. We're 

investigating this a little bit further. But it appears to us that the 

proposed number of required receivers will far exceed any reasonably 

expected demand for them. 
And we believe that you ought to look at that and we should certainly 

require receivers to the extent that they are needed but we shouldn't 

require a larger number than can reasonably be expected to use. 

Another issue...the impact of the proposed guidelines on small ship, U.S. 

flag overnight cruise vessels could be very severe. 

The typical ocean going cruise ship that many of us are familiar with 

commonly carries thousands of passengers. And all but one of these 

large, giant vessels that call at American ports are flagged in nations 

other than the United States. But there is a niche market of what we 

call small ship, overnight cruise vessels that carry between 50 and 400 

passengers and that operate on coastal routes and go into ports that the 

large cruise vessels can't get into. Because these vessels sail in what 

is known as the U.S. coast-wide trade, they must by law be U.S. flagged. 

These companies are U.S. owned. The companies pay U.S. income taxes. 

All of their vessel workers are U.S. citizens and their vessels, unlike 

foreign-registered vessels, must be built in U.S. shipyards. And there 

are perhaps maybe two dozen such U.S. vessels that are in service now. 

There were a number of years in which no new small ship cruise vessels 

were built. And certainly when the rulemaking started there were none 

being built. 

But in the last few years, several new small ship cruise vessels had been 

built in U.S. shipyards. 

The Access Board did try to undertake a case study of what the draft 

guidelines might mean for a small ship overnight cruise vessel. 

But that was a foreign vessel and it was one that was built 20 years or 

so ago. 

We fear that the proposed guidelines in some aspects may kill off the 
possibility that there will be further new construction, of U.S. flag, 

small ship overnight cruise vessels in U.S. shipyards. 

And that's because the draft guidelines call for a specified number of 

state rooms that must be accessible to persons with mobility 

disabilities. 

And that number is based on the vessel's passenger capacity. And your 

guidelines, in effect, will require a higher percentage of mobility 

accessibility state rooms on a smaller overnight vessel than a larger 

overnight vessel. 

And because U.S. flag vessels, overnight vessels are almost exclusively 

small ship vessels, your proposed requirement is going to be tougher on 

U.S. flag operators than it is foreign flag operators. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Mr. Welch, forgive me for interrupting you, I 

just want to let you know that we are watching time and you are about 

at your 10 minutes. Do you think in two minutes you can finish --

>> EDMUND WELCH: I certainly can. 

>> NANCY STARNES: I appreciate that. Thank you. 

>> EDMUND WELCH: We're concerned about the impact on the U.S. 

operators and this is because the physical footprint of a mobility 

accessible room is larger than for a standard state room. 

And finally, we're concerned that the number of suggested state rooms, 

accessible state rooms for a smaller vessel appears to exceed the number 

that would be reasonably needed to accommodate what we think will be the 

demand. 

And we should certainly not require more than what the actual demand is. 

So before proceeding further, we would ask that the Access Board consider 

trying to do a case study on a recently constructed U.S. flag small ship 
overnight cruise vessel to determine the various impacts, estimated 

impacts, including financial ones that might be imposed on American small 

ship overnight cruise vessels. 

You should make every effort not to disadvantage American made, American 

crewed vessels operated by companies that pay U.S. income tax. 

So in conclusion, other portions of the draft guidelines could have some 

significant impacts on PVA members. 

For example, we want to look for carefully about when elevators may or 

may not be required. We want to look at the slope requirements for 

boarding ramps to see if they take into account the fact that some of 

our operators must contend with seasonal water fluctuations or tidal 

fluctuations. We want to look at the definition of alteration to see 

if it's reasonable. 

These and other issues we'll address in our written comments. 

So thank you very much to you and the staff for your many opportunities 

for us to interact with you during the development of these draft 

guidelines, and we, again, ask that you encourage this public 

participation by extending the deadline by which comments must be 

submitted. 

And I'd be glad to respond to questions at the appropriate time. 

Thank you very much. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Thank you. Mr. Welch, this is Nancy Starnes. I 

do have one question for you and then we'll see if there are other members 

of the board that have questions as well. 

You had referenced in your comments that you needed the additional time 

to provide, to do some research and do it outside of your heavy travel 

season. 
And you also referenced that you're very well aware that this effort has 

been going on since 1998. 

My question is why wasn't the -- or is there some reason that the research 

and all of this information as the process has proceeded wasn't already 

done? 

I'm just curious. 

>> EDMUND WELCH: Well, first a lot of research and information has 

been provided to you. But there are some questions that you had posed 

that are I think introducing some new elements, and frankly, and we 

certainly don't want to sound like we're, you know, crying poor us, but 

our trade association consist of a staff of six people. We don't have 

any economic specialists on it. We depend on volunteers from our 

membership. Just about every member of the PVA is a small business under 

U.S. SBA Administration activities. We have just finished dealing with 

a Coast Guard proposed rulemaking that will have even more impacts on 

us than this one will. That just finished a month ago. You could only 

ask us to do so much at one time. And that would be our response. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Thank you. I appreciate that. Any other 

questions from the board? Yes, sir, Hans Winkle. 

>> HANS VAN WINKLE: Thank you for coming here and your comments are 

very helpful to us. Two questions really and probably a bit technical 

or data driven and you may not be able to answer, but I'm interested to 

your thoughts. Your first suggestion is that we conform to the Coast 

Guard standards of moving from 99 back to 150. I wonder if you can tell 

us just roughly what percentage of vessels that would change -- in other 

words, were we to go up to the 150, would that be a large percentage of 

the fleet? Would that be a fairly small number? 
And also any sort of thoughts about certainly I think our concerns 

compared to the Coast Guard are a little different. Obviously the Coast 

Guard is concerned with safety and we're concerned with accessibility. 

But if it has a substantial impact and I think we would have to consider 

that. And conformity is nice, but on the other hand we're concerned with 

accessibility but if you have any thoughts about sort of what impact that 

might have in terms of would that exclude a large number of vessels and 

would that not then provide accessibility that's required? 

>> EDMUND WELCH: Of course. Let me make two or three comments about 

that. There are some estimated numbers in the federal register that the 

Access Board staff has produced and of course they were looking at the 

existing fleet of ferries. This rulemaking is primarily going to apply 

to new construction. Let's start with new construction. I think a 

majority and I'll try to get more information to you in the written 

comments. Most ferries being constructed these days probably exceed 

150, most. Not all. 

There would be only that would not be covered, new construction. 

And of course one of the things that we are trying to say and we will 

elaborate more on is that it just becomes -- as you shrink the size of 

the vessel, you shrink its length, you shrink its width and that's what 

happens when passenger capacity goes down, it becomes somewhat harder 

to design in to some of the accessibility features that we all want to 

see. And that's why when you chose to break the rulemaking into two 

parts, the larger passenger vessel and then some time in the future 

smaller passenger vessels. Because you realize some things you can do 

in larger vessels you won't be able to do on physically smaller vessels. 

So what we're talking about now is the threshold between the two rule 
makings. 

For existing vessels, the assumption is that this rulemaking will apply 

when and if they are altered, and there are going to be a substantial 

number of existing vessels that are in that 99 to 150 range. There's 

no question about that. There's probably going to be a couple hundred 

of them. But the question is how many of them are going to be altered? 

That's awfully hard to predict. There are not a lot of alterations of 

ferry vessels going on these days. 

I suspect there will be fewer if you have a 99 threshold. 

So I'll try to get you more information. It will -- but we're looking 

at this primarily in the eyes of new construction and I don't think it 

will materially exclude a lot of the new construction. 

>> HANS VAN WINKLE: Okay. Thank you. And a second question I had 

concern of your comments on small overnight vessels. 

>> EDMUND WELCH: Yes. 

>> HANS VAN WINKLE: And the question there I think is really, do 

you have again any rough ideas for the demand for accessible state rooms 

on those vessels currently and what impact would that have as well? 

>> EDMUND WELCH: That's one of the things that we want to try to 

get from our -- there are only a handful -- excuse me. There are only 

a handful of companies that operate these U.S. flag small ship vessels. 

And maybe six companies. 

>> HANS VAN WINKLE: Okay. 

>> EDMUND WELCH: So I will try to get information from them on their 

experience about demand. We will have to recognize that most of those 

vessels are older and they aren't particularly accessible, so that may 

just by itself depress the demand. So we all need to recognize that. 
But I do want to -- so I'll try to get that information for you and having 

a little bit more time to try to get that will enable me to get defensible 

statistics or information. 

But if I might, I might refer you to your chart on page 38136 of your 

Federal Register notice. 

And the way I read it on some U.S. flag vessels -- say for example if 

you have between 76 and 100 state rooms, so if you had a 200-passenger 

vessel, that might fall within that group, you're asking for at least 

four accessible state rooms out of that number. 

That's over 5% of the state rooms. 

That's going to reduce -- because the state rooms are a little bit some--

somewhat larger, that's going to reduce the income capacity of the vessel. 

Now, you got 70 state rooms and you lose let's say two that are income 

capacity, that's going to affect your business plan. 

Now, do we need four accessible -- mobility accessible state rooms to 

meet the demand? 

That's the question. And if we don't, maybe we should consider a lower 

number or a lower percentage. 

But, you know, as -- so that's one of the things that we want to elaborate 

on as we try to develop our written comments. 

>> NANCY STARNES: I know that there may be other questions from the 

board. I'm getting some indication that there are. Mr. Welch, would 

you be able to remain during the process? 

>> EDMUND WELCH: I'd be delighted to. 

>> NANCY STARNES: That would be great. We would like to call you 

back a little bit later so that other commenters can provide their 

information to us. 
All right. Mr. Ted Thompson. And following Mr. Thompson will be Jan 

Tuck, if she's in the room. I don't see her at the moment. She is on 

the phone. I understand. Thank you. We may be down to 7 minutes for 

your testimony, Mr. Thompson. Thank you. 

>> TED THOMPSON: I hope not. Good morning, madam chairman, ladies 

and gentlemen. I'm Captain Ted Thompson, U.S. Coast Guard, retired. 

Thank you for this opportunity to address this hearing and 

congratulations on publication of the Passenger Vessel Accessibility 

Guidelines. As an NPRM, it has indeed been a long process. I represent 

the members of the Cruise Line International Association. CLIA is the 

world's largest cruise industry trade association with representation 

in North and South America, Europe, Asia and Austra-Asia and CLIA

represents about 98% of the global capacity of cruise ships. CLIA

members carry more than 20 million passengers every year. 

We as the cruise industry have been involved in this process and working 

together with members of the Access Board and staff for the past 15 years. 

Our mutual goal is and always has been development of standards that will 

be effective for both passengers with disabilities as well as ship 

operators. 

Recognizing that ships are not buildings and standards need to be 

reasonable and achievable in the maritime environment -- wrong emphasis 

there, but you get the idea -- to achieve that goal, we have provided 

educational sessions, tours of cruise ships and detailed comments to past 

documents. 

During the last 15 years, CLIA discussed with the Board and reached 

compromise on numerous aspects of the proposal. In reviewing the 

elements of the NPRM, we are disappointed to find that after all this 
time, discussion and our provision of technical information there appears 

to be little change to fundamental elements which have been of great 

concern and deliberation. 

For example, there has been little understanding and acceptance of 

information that CLIA has provided concerning existing international 

requirements for ship construction as well as the engineering ability 

to accomplish in a maritime environment that which is envisioned by the 

Access Board's staff. 

We continue to have significant concerns with numerous proposed 

requirements such as theater seating and dispersion, watertight and 

weathertight doors, balcony design and construction, lifts for pools and 

spas, communication elements, and on and off access. 

CLIA members remain committed to providing access onboard cruise ships. 

That is a fact. 

In fact, the cruise industry continues to proactively improve access to 

meet the needs of our guests and does so in the absence of regulations. 

CLIA is disappointed in the NPRM in several other aspects. We're 

disappointed with the way the Access Board has framed the NPRM with 

statements such as and I quote, industry claims that accessible state 

rooms are half again as large as normal state rooms. Calling into 

question the integrity of our comments when the board and staff have been 

given -- have been aboard and seen this and had the opportunity to measure 

and verify for themselves this fact on numerous occasions. 

We are disappointed with the statement of the NPRM regarding economic 

impact of only $66 to $74 million. In this regard, we will be making 

separate comments with regard to our economic impact statement and the 

Volpe memorandum responding to that. We are disappointed in the comments 
from the staff that our study have been dismissed out of hand, citing 

unavailability of the database and other information. 

In fact, we offer to provide the database and answer questions. 

In addition, in our view, there can be absolutely no justification for 

a dismissal of economic impact and of lost revenue to the industry as 

based on our study. 

The NPRM continues to assert 3% scoping is necessary, even in the face 

of continued industry evidence that this is overreaching. 

The Access Board staff has presented no actual data, study or 

justification for this 3% number. 

We are disappointed with the assumptions and calculations which have been 

included in the NPRM. And in a preliminary analysis, we have significant 

questions with the data provided and the mathematics indicated. We need 

to study these numbers and their origin more closely since they differ 

significantly from our own analysis. 

CLIA reiterates that our members are committed to building the number 

of accessible rooms that are actually necessary to meet the needs of the 

traveling public. But building more than necessary presents an 

unjustified, economic burden on the industry. 

In this regard, we recognize question 29 as requesting comment on a second 

type of accessible cabin for passengers with mobility disabilities who 

use wheelchairs. Who use a wheelchair or scooter for distance travel 

only and not in guest rooms. 

We are disappointed with the deletion of the use of portable kits for 

hearing assistance in the way in which it was presented in the NPRM. 

In fact, the advisory committee recommended that portable devices be 

permitted in guest rooms and that the Cruise Lines International 
Association develop guidelines to ensure that portable devices would be 

effective and reliable in alerting and awakening passengers who are deaf 

or have a hearing loss when the general emergency alarm sounds or the 

guest room's smoke alarm detector sounds. 

The NPRM states, "Cruise Lines International Association convened a group 

to develop guidelines for portable devices, but after the group met, it, 

quote, concluded that it did not have the expertise for the task." 

This is absolutely a misrepresentation of what we stated. 

We stated, "as research was conducted into existing standards, further 

questions were identified. In fact, we are unable to find consensus on 

exact criteria to effectively awake and alert passengers. At this point, 

CLIA is not in a position to conduct additional research necessary 

regarding all the technical and performance elements needed to work 

effectively to meet the goal established by the advisory committee." 

Further we stated, "CLIA recognizes that having a visible in-room element 

of the vessel's general alarm remains an important issue for the deaf 

and hard-of-hearing community. However, research into all of the 

outstanding questions is well beyond the expertise and ability of the 

passenger vessel industry." 

Quoting only part of our letter is misleading. 

We support this requirement and ask that research be conducted in order 

to develop the standards. 

We're disappointed in receiving only 90 days to evaluate and provide 

comment on the NPRM. 

We have submitted a request to the docket for a substantial increase in 

the time period to comment to the docket based on the 7-year length of 

time since the previous document was published for comment. 
The NPRM incorporates extensive changes, lengthy discussion in the 

preamble and 45 questions, many of which are in multiple parts seeking 

additional information from the regulated industry and public. 

CLIA contends that it will be extremely challenging, if not impossible, 

to fully and adequately review and comment on the plethora of information 

and provide the requested responses to the questions within the 

90-daytime frame. 

This is an extremely complex rule. It has been under discussion for 15 

years. Even now it appears that some of the vocabulary is still not clear 

as coamings are traditionally and in literature referred to from water 

type -- excuse me. 

Referred to for --

>> NANCY STARNES: Mr. Thompson, will you be able to complete your 

--

>> TED THOMPSON: I'm on the last paragraph. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Thank you, sir. 

>> TED THOMPSON: In the NPRM, coamings are referred to for watertight 

and weathertight doors. Coamings are traditionally and in literature 

referred to protect against down-flooding in openings and decks while 

sills are referred to by openings in bulkheads or doors. Other 

vocabulary terms are also of great concern and need significant 

discussion. We are disappointed after all this time so much remains and 

the recognition that ships are not buildings and the standards needs to 

be reasonable and achievable in the maritime environment. 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide this comment. 

We look forward to further participating in this process. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Are there questions 
from the board members? Mr. Guthrie? 

>> MARC GUTHRIE: Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Thank you, madam chair. 

I was going to ask this to the previous witness, but I think you can 

probably speak for the entire industry on it and that is that-- you know, 

I know a lot of folks with disabilities who really like to travel and 

love to have the opportunity to cruise and to fly and do all the things 

that the rest of us can do, but in lots of ways feel deterred from doing 

that because of access issues. 

So it seems to me that the more welcoming that your vessels are, the more 

people with disabilities are going to want to access your vessels. 

Is that something that has been considered as you have looked at the 

economic impact of these rules? 

I mean, it just seems to me that the more welcoming you are, the more 

people with disabilities are going to want to take cruises. I mean, like 

today, we're seeing people with disabilities become more and more 

concerned about, for instance, trying to fly. And so I hope that is a 

factor that you're considering and you're not just looking at the down 

side of the expense I have compliance. 

>> TED THOMPSON: No. Thank you for that question, sir. 

This is a very important aspect of cruising. 

Our members and the cruise industry in general recognize the very 

important segment of the American population that has some sort of a 

disability and that wants to travel and wants to see exotic locations 

and experience new and different things. 

And I think you will find that in looking at the newer cruise ships that 

they have become considerably more accessible. 

It's important to us to be able to draw persons with disabilities with 
the idea that they can come to a location and unpack once and visit many 

different venues and experience many different cultures and varieties 

of life. 

It's a very important issue and I think our commitment to improving the 

access onboard our ships can be readily seen in the difference between 

the accessibility on the newer ships than on the older ships. 

And in our efforts to refit the older ships as they are indeed modified. 

It's a very important aspect of our industry. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Thank you, sir. 

I hope you will be able to remain just in case there are additional 

questions that come up. We appreciate your comments. 

>> TED THOMPSON: You mean remain all day or --

>> NANCY STARNES: As long as we can keep you. Thank you very much. 

Is Ms. Tuck on the phone? 

>> JAN TUCK: I am. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Thank you. And following her also from the phone 

will also be Ms. Janice Schacter Lintz. 

>> JAN TUCK: This is Jan Tuck. I am the Manager of Access Compliance 

for Princess Cruises -- I was supposed to be there. But I'm unable to 

travel. So I was just going to pass my time on to Mr. Thompson as a member 

of the CLIA group. So I will pass my time then to Janice Schacter. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Thank you very much. Is Ms. Schacter on the

phone? 

>> JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: I am. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Thank you very much. Following Ms. Schacter, we 

would like to hear from Ms. Jennifer Dexter. Please proceed. 

>> JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Hi. Thank you. The Hearing Access 
Program commends the Access Board for developing these guidelines. They 

do not however go far enough for people with hearing loss. My testimony 

is based and my work with over 70 organizations including the National 

Park Service, our families with disasterist experiences, on cruises such 

as Canard, Holland American and Royal Caribbean cruises. In addition 

I was a member of the PVAC committee, the only member on a committee who 

represented people with hearing loss who had actually taken a cruise. 

My daughter who is hard of hearing is now 19 years old. Our experiences 

on cruises has sadly not improved over the years despite my sitting on 

the PVAC committee and having access to access coordinators for all the 

ships. I have come to the conclusion without clear black and white 

regulations for people with hearing loss similar to those for people with 

mobility issues that access for people with hearing loss will not change. 

Access coordinators for the ships do not fully understand or do not choose 

not to fully understand what effective access is. The coordinators are 

also placed in a position sometimes of not being able to implement access 

that they know would work because of directives from their supervisors. 

The coordinators sometimes rely on cheapest and easiest to install and 

sometimes that is at the direction of the cruise ships themselves. Other 

issues are just ignored. What people with hearing loss want or if access 

is used appears to be irrelevant. The ships just want to be in compliance 

and will do the barest minimum to accomplish that goal. Contrary to what 

I have just heard, we have yet to sail on a single cruise that has had 

effective access for people with hearing loss on all aspects of the ship. 

I am tired of being the person that works on my -- I apologize. There 

is police. 

I am tired of every single cruise having to work to fix the access or 
meeting with cruise personnel while I'm paying for a cruise. 

There were numerous instances where even during a PVAC meeting I discussed 

our daughter's need for an upcoming cruise only to arrive at the ship 

and find the assistive listening system broken, not working in certain 

sections of the skating rink, the access not available and no one knowing 

how to resolve the issue. On that cruise, I worked my entire cruise, 

someone had to be flown in because the system in the main auditory was 

broken. Imagine if I was not on the PVAC committee and did not have access 

to people in charge, the entire situation would be unmanageable. People 

with hearing loss should not need a deep rolodex or a mother who is

fearless to receive the access they're legally entitled to under the ADA. 

Hearing access is a human right and a civil right. 

I'm going to be filing detailed comments but just as an overview on some 

of the specifics, the issues I have are, one, the hearing -- the 

International Symbol of Accessibility is inappropriate, antiquated and 

needs to be updated. The symbol does not represent people who are deaf, 

hard of hearing, visually impaired, or those who have mental 

disabilities. It does represent people who use wheelchair. The 

International Symbol of Accessibility is thus attitudinally 

discriminatory and flies in the face of common sense frankly. 

Assistive Listening Symbol, V703.7.2.2, the ear symbol with a slash, is 

also inappropriate and while this umbrella symbol might work for people 

who use wheelchairs, it does not work for people who are hard of hearing 

or deaf because it doesn't delineate the type of access that's available 

the proposed guidelines are intended to reflect a wide range of access 

available that is inconsistent with the one size fits all symbol. For 

example, a person with no residual hearing who cannot use an assist 
listening device will think there is appropriate access for them on the 

ship when they see the ear with the slash. That person will be frustrated 

when they discover that the movie onboard only offer ALDs and not 

captioning. There is no ability to anticipate the access available since 

the umbrella symbol does provide clarity the passenger needs. A 

universal symbol forces consumers to rely on employees to learn what is 

available and that is imperfect and impossible to ensure that the entire 

staff is fully informed and the appropriate knowledge of what is actually 

available. It also assumes the passenger is informed of various types 

of access so that the passenger can even ask the appropriate question. 

We have yet to sail on a ship where the staff is fully informed on access 

available. 

Assistive Listening Systems, V706. The benefits of induction loops 

while highlighted and are not fully highlighting including the most 

crucial part which is the elimination of the stigma that there's less 

breakage of the equipment and the batteries don't need to be charged. 

Passengers who have telecoils for an induction loop since it is invisible 

and discreet. No one is aware that they are using an assistive listening 

system and the passenger vessel also doesn't need to buy, distribute,

or replace as many pieces of equipment. While we are cognizant that the 

committee cannot recommend one type of equipment over another type of 

equipment, we feel there needs to be an emphasis on the least evasive 

equipment used, similar to the least restrictive classrooms being used 

in education settings. 

V904, self- and service counters. An induction loop needs to be 

required. This is standard protocol in the United Kingdom and of course 

a person will not ask a question if you cannot hear the answer. It is 
impossible to get information if you cannot hear, and service desks tend 

to be in noisy areas. 

Tenders, an ALS needs to be mandated for all tenders. In an emergency 

situation, audible communication is paramount. In addition on cruise 

ships, tenders are used to transport passengers to docks when large ship 

access is not possible. And instructions on departure, embarkation, and 

general information are routinely provided during this transition. 

Information needs to be provided in an audible manner via ALS, such as 

an induction loop. 

Additional areas that need addressing. Guidelines have failed to 

provide information on the following subject areas and is not clear that 

the guidelines do not apply to these areas in effective communication 

standards still apply since some of the areas are not built in. Tours, 

movies, audio guides which some ships like the Queen Mary offer, back 

portable assistive listening systems in case the system breaks --

>> NANCY STARNES: Excuse me, I know, I just ask that you please to 

slow down a little bit. We're having trouble keeping up with your --

>> JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Sorry. I'm trying to stay to my time 

limit. I apologize. Websites, advertisements, daily programs, 

brochures, including the information so you can plan ahead, having 

captioning and assistive listening systems on in-room televisions and 

for shipboard announcements. In summary, we can commend the US Access 

Board for incorporating many of the suggestions we previously proposed 

and we feel the new guidelines while an improvement still need improvement 

for people with hearing loss. The current guidelines do not achieve

appropriate access or effective access for people who are hard of hearing 

or deaf. We respectfully request that the above recommendations and 
formal submitted comments are incorporated into the proposed passenger 

vessel access guidelines. Being aboard a ship can be a terrific 

experience but I can personally tell you from the personal experience 

and someone who is fully informed on what is available can be available 

and what their child needs. It is extremely frustrating when there is 

inappropriate access, the access is broken, the people are not trained, 

and you try to prepare in advance and it's still not there. Unlike other 

situations such as a hotel, a passenger can be trapped on a vessel for 

an extended period of time. In addition, safety is paramount. Many 

times the passenger is not traveling with someone and even if they are, 

they're not glued and attached to the hip. The current proposed 

guidelines do not afford passengers with hearing loss the same 

appropriate access or effective access as passengers with other 

disabilities. We assume this was an oversight but the situation must 

be corrected. 

Thank you. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Thank you. Are there questions from members of 

the board? Seeing none in the room, we want to thank you, Ms. Schacter 

Lintz, for your continued interest in this topic and expect to hear from 

you at a later date. 

>> JANICE SCHACTER LINTZ: Great. Thank you. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Is Ms. Dexter available? 

She's available. Thank you very much. Ms. Jennifer Dexter? 

And then I hope we can take maybe a 10-minute break. 

>> Jennifer Dexter: Good morning, everybody. 

Thanks for this opportunity to come before you today. I'm Jennifer 
Dexter, Assistant Vice President for Government Relations at Easter Seals 

and also a co-chair for -- I want to come today to make a few points in 

person today. 23 years after the passage of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act it is still critical that we provide the kind of specific 

guidance on what constitutes access and the long process that it's led 

to these proposed guidelines is a critical part of this. 

I think the most important thing I can say today is that it is absolutely 

critical that the guidance be finalized so we can begin the important 

work of making access to this mode of transportation consistent and 

reliable for all people with disabilities. 

Easter Seals fully appreciate the many unique features that passenger 

vessels have and the challenges that this presents to creating standards 

that will work on a variety of vessels. The Board has done a solid job 

of building strengths and making sure that access while not going beyond 

feasibility. In addition, the readily achievable standard provides an 

added layer of protection as it has for so many other industries and 

transportation modes through the life of the ADA. There should be no 

expectation that these guidelines should be implemented any differently. 

It is important to understand the technological realities of the vessels 

and to identify economic impacts. But also to keep in mind that the ADA 

is first and foremost a civil rights law. 

And that has to be kept front and center. 

The scaling that's built into the guidelines is appropriate and will help 

build some flexibility into those guidance. 

I made some notes on the side of my piece about the threshold for the 

passenger numbers on ferries. And was thinking about the fact that 

ferries are a different mode often used for people to access work, their 
home, their communities. And it is appropriate I think to stretch the 

guidelines particularly for that aspect of this ruling because they are 

such a different mode. 

The one area where there could also be no short cuts is in emergency 

preparedness. Once we implement the guidelines and get people with 

disabilities on to vessels and be able to maneuver around, we need to 

be able to get them off. 

The emergency alarms advisory committee lays out an appropriate frame 

work for ensuring alarms are appropriate for people with different 

sensory disabilities. We encourage the Board to apply the alarm standard 

to be applied to as many vessels as possible including this foreign flag

vessels operating in U.S. ports. 

Alternate escape paths need to be available and clearly identified in 

multiple ways, and finally that information about alternative paths needs 

to be included in all communications and emergency drills that are 

regularly provided to passengers. I recognize that that's probably a 

part that takes part after the guidelines take place but I wanted to put 

that in my comments. 

The last point I would like to make that is unlike buildings, sidewalks, 

etcetera, the maritime world include unique language and facilities that 

most passengers are not familiar with. 

While the language in the guidance is relatively clear, I encourage the 

Board to take extra care in translating into standard language. Coamings 

is a great example. I had to look it up. 

In the overview there was a great explanation, but a layperson looking 

at the guidelines may not understand what they are, what to expect, where 

they are, what their purpose is. 
A glossary, a simple glossary attached to this may be very helpful. 

There's also a tremendous need, I think, as there was with building 

standards and all other standards for technical assistance once these 

guidelines are put into place. 

As we did with buildings groups like Easter Seals and both PVAs, paralyzed

veterans and passenger vessels, the Access Board, the Department of 

Justice needs to work together to make sure we get clear and concise 

information about this out to the public and out to the industry and I 

wanted to offer Easter Seals as a resource to help in that process once 

we get up and running. 

So thank you very much. As I said there will be further comments coming 

but I did want to come today and do a little bit of cheer leading to get 

to the finish line. 

Thank you. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Your cheer leading was well received. 

Are there questions from board members? Not seeing -- Mr. Hart? 

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Are there any additional definitions or other 

things that need to be addressed because I notice that didn't comply with 

the coamings and quite a sensor... 

>> Jennifer Dexter: Do you mean another definitional issues -- the 

language issues or --

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Yeah. 

>> Jennifer Dexter: There are. I mean, something as simple as 

tenders, people don't know what they are, how they're used. People don't 

understand the differences about what flag a ship flies under. So that 
very basic information is going to be a pretty vital part of this and 

I'd be happy to in the written comments go through and find a few more 

examples or opportunities where I think we need some clarification. 

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: And, are you able to perhaps provide 

additional data on ferry commuter ----.

>> Jennifer Dexter: Absolutely. 

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: That would be good. 

>> Jennifer Dexter: The usage and why they're different? 

Absolutely. 

>> NANCY STARNES: All right. It's interesting that you mentioned 

tenders for people who don't travel to a good bit of a public, that means 

chicken. 

( LAUGHTER ) 

>> Jennifer Dexter: Exactly. Exactly. 

>> NANCY STARNES: All right. Thank you very much for your 

testimony. We are going to take a 10-minute break and then resume our 

testimony hopefully with Ms. McCloskey and later after her will be Ted 

Bell. Thank you. 

(Break) 

>> ROSE BUNALES: Can we have just one more minute for the CART to 

continue streaming.

>> NANCY STARNES: We certainly can.

>> ROSE BUNALES: Just so there is no awkward dead space. Just for 

the record, we have 18 lines. I have Disney Cruise Line, UDC, Workboat, 
California State, Kitsap Transit, US Coast Guard, members from CLIA, City 

of Boston, Princess Cruises, Moffatt & Nichol, LA Developmental 

Disabilities Council, Marine Systems Corporation. They have been with 

us since the beginning. All your lines are muted by the way.

>> NANCY STARNES: I apologize for the delay. We are still waiting 

for CART services to be restored. 

>> NANCY STARNES: We have CART services now. Ms. McCloskey, when 

you're ready, provide us with your comments. 

>> MAUREEN MCCLOSKEY: Good morning. Thank you to the Access Board. 

I'm Maureen McCloskey, I am Advocacy Director for the Paralyzed Veterans 

of America or the serious PVA. As I understand the Passenger Vessels 

Association is also part of this hearing. 

I'm always interested in reading the standards and information that is 

provided by the Access Board and commenting on them because they certainly 

affect our members. We have over 20,000 members throughout the country, 

all of whom have spinal cord injuries and virtually all of whom use 

wheelchairs for mobility purposes. One thing I learned while reading 

this is I should be starting a lot earlier because there is a lot of 

information in here and that is going to be one thing that I am going 

to stress hugely for the Access Board is that this is a rulemaking that 

is going to need a tremendous amount of technical assistance for people 

with disabilities. 

During the standard development process for the built environment, we 

had access to architects on and off staff and every day exposure to know 

exactly what it is that we needed and the passenger vessel environment 

it is a very different story. I believe and I'm not sure what they're 
called marine architects or engineers or whatever, this is a pretty 

specialized area. When you get into the built rooms and it's one thing. 

But when you're talking about coamings and sheer and things that are not 

part our everyday life, it is something we have to be educated about and 

strongly advocating a marine access design for dummies when you come 

around to doing a technical assistance portion of this. 

Lots of this needs explanation. 

That having been said and being based on a fairly quick and not very 

thorough and definitely not all of the supporting documents, things, I 

would like to state that PVA does have and we will be looking into this. 

All of these are very preliminary responses, has some concern about 

scoping. It seems that the size of the vessels that are not going to 

be covered could be some concern and I am sure that this was raised at 

or was dealt with at a level that's way above my technical experience, 

but to cover only ferries that carry 100 passengers or more seems to me 

that there may be many ferries that do not ply coastal waters but maybe 

intra-coastal that may not be covered and I am not certain on that not 

having read all of the supporting documents and I know you all have done 

a great deal of research on this. Secondly with tender that is are 

transporting people on and off of cruise lines, they have to have 60 or 

more people before they're covered and that's my quick understanding of 

this also seems to be allowing an awful lot that may not be covered and 

particularly when you have got cruise lines that actually own islands 

and things like that and that's the way they have to get to and from is 

that everybody onboard is going on. It seems that that may give some 

lines of means of getting out of compliance with providing accessible 

tenders by just hitting that 59 and above or 60 and above. 
I believe that we need to also get some definitions of stuff. There is 

a reference in there to high-speed passenger vessels and requiring an 

onboard access route. Not clear exactly what a high-speed passenger 

vessel is. It may be somewhere in the supporting materials but that is 

a, maybe, I don't know, but it may be a loophole in there. I would also 

like to address the idea of the escape, evacuation, whatever you call 

it. We have always called it evacuations in buildings and in airplanes. 

Obviously there is a concern on a ship and especially with the way things 

have happened in the last number of years that there have been a number 

of required evacuations on ships and as we see in buildings people with, 

who use wheelchairs are left behind because there's no accessible way 

out. 

And I understand that there are limited space requirements on vessels, 

but in the case that you are having what is called a protective waiting 

area, I believe that in the ADAAG in general that there are standards 

for, for instance, the fire doors that are required and that sort of thing. 

Saying just a substantial -- you have to have a substantial equivalent 

services and protections available in a protected waiting area. I 

believe is -- you need more structure in there. We need to have some 

specific requirements as to what is going to be required in there. I 

also there need to be scope to saying at least one. And I have to get 

used to the language, the wheelchair deck space. It's not a wheelchair 

deck someplace. It's a clear deck space. There's got to be more than 

one as people here know here may be couples both of whom use wheelchairs. 

Sharing a cabin and who are suddenly being forced to evacuate and having 

to wait in an area where there's only one space for somebody -- one person 

with a wheelchair and again with the protected waiting areas it's 
specifically the signage, the training, and again the training -- the 

evacuation -- it's been a long time since I've been on a cruise line but 

if I remember everybody has to go through an evacuation drill, an escape 

drill. It's all held by the lifeboats and if somebody in a wheelchair 

is not going to be able to get the lifeboat with everybody else in there 

has to know where they will be able to evacuate the boat. There are many 

things in there that I'm sure that PVA will comment on and I'm actually 

glad for the advance opportunity to take a look at it because now I'm 

going to have to start reading to actually get our comments together and 

to submit them in September. 

And there may be many answers in there that I have not been able to find 

on a fairly quick basis but I thank the Access Board for all its work 

for all its consideration for people with disabilities and in particular 

for people who use wheelchairs and a lot of people love cruising because 

it's all right there. 

It's all right there and it's a wonderful place if it's accessible. It's 

a wonderful place for a vacation and I know many of our members enjoy 

that and would like to continue enjoying that to an even greater extent. 

So I thank you for the opportunity. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Are there questions from the board for Ms. 

McCloskey? Mr. Hart? 

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: I would like to understand to what degree do 

you think that the demand for accessibility is...have you begun to see 

reports of wounded warriors having issues with --

>> MAUREEN MCCLOSKEY: Answering the second first, no, we haven't 

had reports from Wounded Warriors. What we're just assuming going by 

Wounded Warriors for injuries of a way of -- our population generally 
is older, but that having been said, there's also within PVA's population 

probably a little bit more established and some access to money and time 

and willingness to get out and do this. Our member's average age is a 

high 50s, 58 or so. 

So I think cruising is obviously having a huge boom. Everybody wants 

to cruising and you can take families and all sorts of things on it so

I'm not sure what the demand has been stated to be. I imagine that it 

is growing and will continue to grow and particularly as I said if it's 

accessible, everything is in one place and your hotel is moving around 

and it's a good thing and it can make it very, very easy for people who 

use wheelchairs. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Thank you. Other questions? Mr. Van Winkle? 

>> HANS VAN WINKLE: I wanted to follow up a little bit on Chris's 

-- Mr. Hart's question and that is if you can provide data, we had some 

discussion about the cost and also about the benefits of putting up people 

with accessibility needs on these ships. So if your organization, 

particularly as you said I think veterans of that age and ability level 

enjoy cruising, if you would give us more information about the demand 

side and in particular if there's data on the lack of accessibility causes 

demand to be restricted and we get some more information I think that 

will help us a lot in terms of making these very difficult decisions. 

>> MAUREEN MCCLOSKEY: Right. I will see what we can do. We can 

put out a survey to our membership but as you know how surveys go what 

you can anticipate. But we can see what we can do and I will at least 

get some anecdotal experience from our members who have traveled. 

>> HANS VAN WINKLE: Thank you. 

>> MAUREEN MCCLOSKEY: Thank you. 
>> NANCY STARNES: Other questions? Seeing none at this time, thank 

you very much for your comments. We appreciate you being here. 

>> MAUREEN MCCLOSKEY: Thank you, Ms. Starnes. 

>> NANCY STARNES: At this point, is Mr. Bell available to come 

forward? Thank you, Mr. Bell. I understand that you also have some 

colleagues on the phone? 

>> TED BELL: Yes, I do have some colleagues. I'm representing the 

Golden Gate Ferry system today. I understand they may be on the line 

with some of the engineering staff in the San Francisco Bay area. 

>> ROSE BUNALES: And that is confirmed. 

>> TED BELL: Give you some quick background on myself. I've been 

working in the specialized area of passenger accessibility for ferries 

for over 20 years. I began that process when I was the Director of 

Terminal Engineering for Washington State Ferries where I was responsible 

for their 20 ferry terminals in regards to their capital maintenance 

programs. 

I chaired their ADA implementation committee in the early 1990s. 

Since then, I've worked with many of the ferry operators as a marine 

engineer designing passenger boarding systems for ferries, many of the 

operators in North America. Today I'm going to get into some details 

of the guidance that you issued. As we have been working with that 

guidance very diligently for 10 or 15 years I think it was since it was 

originally issued. This is in relationship to a project that the Golden 

Gate Bridge which operates bus transit and ferry system on the San 

Francisco Bay and some of the detailed projects they have and some of 

the details we would like clarified in the final rules that are issued. 
Like I said I'll be representing the Golden Gate Ferry System, John Eberle 

who is the Deputy District Engineer is on the line too. The District 

operates one of the largest ferry systems in the U.S., carrying about 

2.2 million passengers last year and about 7,000 passengers on a weekday. 

They have three terminals that they're in the process of reconstructing 

and attempting to follow the guidance that you have issued in draft form 

along with the state and local laws. 

It's a very expensive project. It's tens of millions of dollars 

addressing accessibility at the terminals has required essentially 

reconstruction of those terminals. They were originally designed and 

built in the 1970s and although accessibility laws had already begun at 

the state level at that time, no one envisioned the application to 

passenger ferries then. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Mr. Bell, pardon me just a second. As you show 

these illustrative slides that have photos on them, will you please 

explain what's on the slide? 

>> TED BELL: Sure. These are photos of some of the terminals that 

were in use since the 1970s by the Golden Gate Ferry system and -- is 

it best to point back here? 

>> NANCY STARNES: As long as you can still be heard on the mic. 

>> TED BELL: These are the boarding ramps and as you can see they're 

quite steep. They have issues with guardrails and handrails. Many of 

the things that were better defined in the rules that you have identified. 

But one of the things that's different is this is a -- what we call a 

passenger gang plank. I think in your rules you call them gangways and 

they telescope in and out to meet the boat. Telescoping gangways are 

addressed in some areas of your rules or guidelines but not 
comprehensively and that's why I'm here today because there are certain 

details that we would like to point out to you that we believe would 

require additional clarification. 

And with the very large investment that the ferry operators are making, 

they would like to have that assurance in the guidelines in advance if 

at all possible. 

One of the things I'll point out to you to in these photos that these 

boarding systems are fairly wide. They are designed to load a large 

number of passengers very quickly. The vessels hold in this case about 

450 passengers and up to 700 passengers on the largest vessels and we 

have a very short amount of time to load the passengers. So it's 

important not only to have flatter slopes than people used in the old 

days, but also have very large structures. Too large a structure to be 

moved by hand. They have to be mechanized systems. 

This is a photo -- I'm working for the Steamship Authority in Woods Hole 

Massachusetts and I was actually up there yesterday and this is an example 

-- I didn't design this particular ramp, gangway that's shown on the left. 

But this is an example of a gangway that went through the design process 

looking at your draft regulations and the consultation that they had with 

the state board in Massachusetts. 

This is a fixed gangway. It is close to meeting the 1 in 12 slope 

requirements. It is close to meeting the handrail requirements. I 

think it's their best interpretation of what the rules were asking for. 

It does exceed under certain conditions the 1 in 12, depending on the 

tide and they have a variance from the state board for that issue. 

In your rules, that kind of a variance is not specifically addressed. 

I mean, there's no body that I'm aware of that could issue a variance. 
So that's one difference. 

To give you an illustration of what your rules have led to over the last 

10 or 15 years, in the lower right is a photo of a typical passenger gangway 

that would have been designed before the rules were replaced. 

And it has less attention to the guardrails, less attention to the 

handrails and is probably on the order of a 1 and 6 or 1 to 8 slope instead 

of a 1 to 12 slope. 

Back in the early days I think when you first issued your draft guidelines 

in, I want to say the first things I saw in the mid-90s, I was busy working 

for Washington State I was designing telescoping gangways which is the 

subject I am here today. 

These are some examples of projects that were built in the mid to late 

'90s in Washington State with telescoping gangways. We had trouble --

when the ramp telescopes in and out to go out to the boat, what do we 

do with that handrail? 

And that's why I'm here today and I'm going to get into some details on 

the Golden Gate Ferry project. In these cases the handrail is only a 

partial handrail. On the outer telescoping section, you can see there 

is a handrail here, but where the circle is, the handrail ends. It 

doesn't have proper returns on it. Here is another view of a slightly 

different ramp. 

Looking from the shore side as you move to the boat and you can see two 

overlapping guardrails in the circle that is a handrail. And again, it 

ends because the engineers did not know how to safely extend that handrail 

across the joint where it telescopes. In the early years before my time 

Washington State Ferries did attempt to do some telescope handrails and 

ran into some problems with those and I'm going to talk about that here 
in a minute. 

I know your time is limited and I'm not sure how much time you're going 

to have for me. I do have just a quick summary of what we're attempting 

to get across to the Board today. 

The Golden Gate Ferry system is undertaking major rehabilitation, going 

through extensive environmental and permit process and have designed 

details that know they have some technical concerns about the guidelines 

that you're proposing to issue. They have decided that it's necessary 

for their operation to use telescoping gangways that the propose 

accessibility guidelines did not specifically address telescoping 

handrails and we're asking that some additional clarity be provided in 

the guidelines to give them better direction and assurance on the 

investment that they're staged to make. 

Now, I have a series of more detailed figures that I can present I guess 

at the -- depending on availability of time. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Thank you very much. 

We can give you -- I don't know how much time you're going to require 

to present those. We can give you another three minutes if you can do 

it in three minutes. Otherwise we can always re-call you at the end of

this to provide the additional information. 

>> TED BELL: Okay. Why don't I go ahead and fast forward to a 

couple of slides, which is the proposal that we have concerning about 

and just illustrate the telescoping gangway to a little bit greater 

detail. This is a planned view looking down the end of one of the ramps. 

In this case it shows the gangway retracted and the handrail is shortened. 

On the right side it shows it extended and this blue line right there 
is the handrail and it telescopes in and out. You can imagine a tripod 

for a camera and how the sections telescope in and out. 

And that's how this handrail is proposed. In order to meet the continuity 

requirements that you have for handrails. 

There is a telescoping section which is detailed here where one pipe goes 

inside of another. The main concerns that we have if we were to -- this 

we believe meets your continuity requirements for handrails. The size, 

diameter, location, position of the handrail. But we have two concerns. 

One is the structural problems that happen in a marine environment where 

this sliding joint can lock and if it locks, the full weight of the boat 

will go against it and something's going to break which we don't want 

to do especially the passengers walking right next to it. 

The other is people are walking by with their hands on it. There's 

sweaters, hair, all kinds of things can get caught in this joint. It 

indelibly is going to wear. So we do, all of the systems for addressing 

this problem have some issues and we can get into detail of that if you 

have time at the end your meeting today. But we do have some concerns 

about this one. It has some good things about it. It has some negative 

things about it. And we think it's very important if we were to go in 

this direction to comply with your rules that there was a little more 

clarity if your rules. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Thank you very much. At this time, are there 

questions for Mr. Bell? Thank you. Mr. Graves? 

>> MICHAEL GRAVES: Mr. Bell, just on the last issue, I had the problem 

of that joint designing a folding chair, we switched to a rubber 

intersection and it solved the problem. So you might want to think about 

changing materials at that point so that things don't in fact pinch your 
hands and all the kinds of things I'm sure you're worried about. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Thank you, Mr. Graves. Mr. Hart.

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: I just wondered if...vertical change you have 

for a telescope ramp. 

>> TED BELL: Yes, there are, and in my business I'm on airplanes 

lot, so I spend a lot of time looking at how that's been solved in airports 

and one of the basic fundamental differences between salt water and 

airports is that with a telescoping gangway on a ferry, the telescoping 

action is always occurring. It's always moving. Where on an airport,

they can lock it into position. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Thank you. Mr. Van Winkle? 

>> HANS VAN WINKLE: Mr. Bell, thank you. I'm an engine as well,

and I always look to the more technical folks then myself, particularly 

structural engineers to come up with what I consider the eloquent 

solutions so I challenge you and your community to do such that. We 

typically like to, where we can provide performance objectives. So I 

think your work here is if we can get more of these details. Alternatives 

are always good and allow flexibility to our community. So if you can 

help us out and provide some more of these alternatives. So the benefits 

and some of the problems with each design is also helpful and I think 

at that point then designers, if we can provide that in terms of technical 

assistance to the community, then the people that design these and have 

to maintain them in particular because a lot of these issues that you're 

talking about are going to be maintenance issues. Once it's designed 

and then used, and every design will have a different maintenance 

requirement and I think that when people can make better choices as to 

how they want to proceed. So thank you for your input. And again, I 
look to the community to provide these eloquent solutions that I like. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Any other questions? Seeing none at this time 

we appreciate the fact that you made the trip to come and speak to us 

on this issue today. Thank you so much for being here, and if you don't 

mind staying, we'd be glad to re-call you so you can do more some 

discussion at the end of our hearing time should we have some time 

available. 

We want to give your colleagues on the phone an opportunity to comment 

also while you're at the table. 

>> ROSE BUNALES: Operator, can you unmute John Eberle. 

>> JOHN EBERLE: Hello. Am I on? 

>> ROSE BUNALES: Whenever you're ready. 

>> JOHN EBERLE: Yes. Good morning. Hello. This is John Eberle and 

I'm with the Golden Great Bridge Highway Transportation District, I’m

the Deputy District Engineer here at the Bridge and want to thank all 

of you for giving us this opportunity today to present the comments, 

questions, and concerns we had on this telescoping handrail. As Ted 

mentioned, we are undertaking a very large capital improvement project 

on our three facilities, and we're happy that the guidelines have 

clarified a number of questions that we had, but we do have a few other 

questions and giving us the opportunity to talk today to highlight those 

and also the opportunity for Ted to talk to you after is much appreciated 

so I wanted to thank you all for giving us the opportunity. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Thank you. Just in case that generated any 
additional questions from the board... I don't see any -- Mr. Hart, did 

you have something to say? 

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: My question to you if ferries are also .. 

emergency evacuation for the bay area; is that correct? 

>> TED BELL: Yes and also generally the question is yes, especially 

the Golden Gate Ferries in the 1998 earthquake functioned as an emergency 

evacuation transit system for the Bay Area. Since then and you may be 

thinking of the Water Emergency Transportation Authority, which operates 

other ferries in San Francisco Bay too and it has that specifically in 

their charter. 

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: You are actually trying to meet 504 and 

ADA...so I'm probably one trying ferret out maybe some discussion earlier 

from folks that there is a scoping matter and I just wonder if during 

Golden Gate's ..., is it directly related to its overarching understanding 

of civil rights and does that mean that you're more apt to go above and 

beyond? 

>> TED BELL: Well, some of that I would have to defer to John Eberle, 

but from a very technical engineer design standpoint, the projects that 

we're doing for the Golden Gate Ferry System are making every attempt 

to be fully usable and accessible, even during an emergency event for 

the vessels that they operate. If another operator would desire to use 

their facility because of an emergency, for instance, their companion 

in the bay area, the Water Emergency Transportation Authority which 

operates different vessels, there may be some discontinuities because 

of their system, but the Golden Gate Ferry System is intending to be fully 

accessible, 100% accessible and usable to the maximum degree during an 

emergency. 
>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Thank you. 

>> NANCY STARNES: All right. At this point, before you leave, sir, 

let me just check and see if there's anyone else in the audience that 

wishes to provide some comments. I'm not seeing anyone there. 

I know we also had Mr. Jensen on the phone. Did he wish to speak? 

Thank you. Mr. Jensen, please proceed. 

>> BO Jensen: Thank you. And, again, I want to reiterate John 

Eberle's comments about appreciating your input. I am wondering -- it 

sounds as if this conversation may continue on into the details a bit 

after the meeting and I'm wondering if there is a method to hold us on 

the phone so that we could participate during the detailed discussion. 

Hello? 

>> NANCY STARNES: Just a moment. We're going to get an answer for 

you. 

>> BO JENSEN: Thank you. 

>> NANCY STARNES: All right. We do have a specified time limit for 

our hearing today, but we certainly are glad to be in touch with you after 

that and provide opportunity for you to give us additional input, discuss 

your comments and any of the information that you want to provide. We 

are interested in getting as much of your knowledge on this subject as 

we can. So I hope that satisfies your need. 

>> BO JENSEN: Okay. Thank you very much. 

>> NANCY STARNES: I appreciate that. Mr. Bell, do you want to 

finish up with your slides? Have you given us enough information that 

you feel we understand what your issues are today? 
>> TED BELL: Well, I do have a couple of other alternative systems 

that we have looked at that don't meet -- they don't necessarily meet 

100% of the continuity requirements for handrails depending on how your 

guidelines are interpreted. So I can present those. There is a few more 

slides. 

>> NANCY STARNES: I think we would be interested in seeing the 

alternative ideas that you engineering folks have come up with. 

>> TED BELL: Okay. I'm going to go back to the beginning of this 

section right here and, again, I have worked with all these different 

kinds of systems for 20 years, and we have not found anything that's 

perfect. As a matter of fact, I've been in design litigation several 

times over these kinds of issues. So I would love to be able to come with 

a perfect alternative. I know it would be much easier today if I could 

say if the Board would just adopt a certain process, it would work. 

Here are the ones that we have been looking at and the alternatives A 

and B are fixed, folding handrail, what we call a fixed folding handrail. 

It doesn't telescope, so it's attached solidly to the intersection of 

the ramp and the outer section goes in and out but the handrail doesn't 

move. 

And again what we call a shorter fixed holding rail which addresses some 

safety problems that are created on the boat if the ramp is the full length 

and what we call a discontinuing overlapping handrail. And then finally 

the continuous telescoping. 

Here is an example in the photo of the folding handrail, and this would 

meet full requirements in terms of continuity of the handrail position 

and placement. The only questions we might have in some of the details 

of whether that's required to have that over the transition plate and 
the transition plate at the end of the ramp is talked about in your 

guidelines. 

So in this photo right here, again, it's a planned view, the blue line, 

those are the handrail sections that are folded back when the ramp is 

not deployed on to the vessel. See, these ramps telescope so that they 

can be lifted and raised and pulled back so that the ferry can come in 

and out of the dock without hitting the structure. 

The diagram on the left has the crew has now deployed the handrail. It's 

hinged and it folds into place and now I have a graphic here which is 

preliminary. It's part of our preliminary design process to develop this 

3D model of how this gangway works and in this model the little man on 

the left has just walked through the threshold on to the boat and he's 

just walked across the telescoping gangway and the folding sections are 

right here (INDICATING) and what you see is a little folding section of 

structure with a handrail that would be supported beneath, according to 

your rules --

>> NANCY STARNES: When you say the handrail is right here, I mean, 

we can see it right here. But for the folks who are on the phone, can 

you explain where the here is? 

>> TED BELL: It extend on to the ferry through the telescoping 

gangway. So as you walk down the gangway and step on to the boat, the 

handrail continues on to the boat and it's made long enough such that 

it can -- it will be addressing the different conditions which I'll show 

in a moment, of when the ramp telescopes in and out. 

When it's in normal operating conditions, the boat is pressed up against 

the dock and that handrail extends pretty far on to the boat and that's 

what's shown in this diagram here. So that's a section of structure with 
handrail on it and it is fixed more or less, but the boat is moving and 

we have people walking next to it and we have crews standing next to it 

and that section of structure can move back and forth up to three feet, 

depending on how the boat heaves in the water. So under normal conditions 

the boat would be hard pressed against the dock and wouldn't move very 

much; maybe a couple of inches but it is possible for it to move more 

and that creates a safety concern for us. 

This diagram shows the different levels of movement of the ramp relative 

to the boat. 

So in the lower left diagram we have the normal condition. I'm trying 

to point at the edge of the ferry pressed against the fender, rubber 

fenders on the dock and the ramp is laid on to the boat, and this is a 

more simple diagram, but the handrail, which would be designed to meet 

all your requirements extends on to the boat. 

And in the lower right diagram, the ferry has been pushed away from the 

boat by a passing ship wake, by wind or waves and it is extended out three 

feet away from the ferry. For safety we have allowed the ramp to 

telescope out this three feet, but when it does do that, you can see the 

very end, the handrail doesn't make it to the very bottom of the transition 

plate. 

And there is some details here in terms of telescoping gangways and 

transition plates and just what is required and how far does that handrail 

need to go, some additional clarification would be helpful. 

This is what's called a discontinuous overlapping handrail, and the 

current system that the Golden Gate Ferries has is a combination guardrail 

and handrail, not allowed today, but it's what they used at the time. 

And those sections overlap one another with a few inches of clearance 
in between so that if it moves, you can't have someone get pinched in 

it. 

However, with this condition -- with this situation, although it works 

from the standpoint of the end of the handrail, it doesn't extend on to 

the boat too far under certain conditions. It doesn't move around where 

it can hit someone. There is a discontinuity in the handrail of about 

four inches or so where we would assume you would separate them 

approximately four inches at the overlap in order to prevent pinching 

but not too much that something can go behind it and that overlap is shown 

right here. So --

>> NANCY STARNES: Right here meaning? 

>> TED BELL: At the section where the two sections of telescoping 

ramp come together, the two handrails overlap. So if you were going up 

or down the gangway and you use a handrail, I use a handrail because I 

have nerve damage in my feet. I don't have good balance. And you would 

have to move your hand from one rail to the other. You would have to 

move it over about four inches and so certainly doesn't meet your 

continuity requirements to do that. Although it does have some safety 

benefits of not extending onto the vessel too far and potentially hitting 

someone under certain conditions. 

And then finally it was the telescoping alternative that I've already 

explained meeting the continuity requirements, but it does have some 

maintenance issues but just as importantly some safety concerns that we 

have also. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Thank you. Did the additional information 

generate questions from the board? Apparently not. So we want to thank 

you very much for the interesting information that you provided to us 
and appreciate your interest in this topic. 

>> TED BELL: Thank you very much. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Thank you. This actually concludes our formal 

list of people who had signed up to speak. Is there anybody else in the 

audience here that -- whose interest was sparked by something that you 

might have heard? Are there individuals on the phone that are waiting 

to speak? 

>> ROSE BUNALES: Operator, will you poll the callers to see if 

anyone's wanting to testify? 

>> OPERATOR: Thank you. If you would like to testify at this time, 

press star then 1 please. Once again, that's star 1 if you would like 

to testify. 

>> NANCY STARNES: We're not hearing anyone and we take that as a 

no, that everybody has provided all of the information that they want 

from us today. We have about another five minutes or so. I know that 

Ms. Blye --

>> ROSE BUNALES: Madam chair, I do have Stephen Spinetto. --- And 

operator, when he's ready, will you unmute his line, please. 

>> STEPHEN SPINETTO: Am I on? 

>> NANCY STARNES: Yes, sir, you are. 

>> STEPHEN SPINETTO: Thank you for allowing me to comment. I really 

wish I could be there in person. But circumstances didn't allow me to 

get down there. When I served as chair other passenger vessel committee 

I was the commissioner for persons --.

>> NANCY STARNES: Excuse me just one moment. Mr. Spinetto, would 
you provide us your name and affiliation. 

>> STEPHEN SPINETTO: Yeah. I was just in the process. 

When I was -- I served on the passenger vessel committee as chair. My 

name is Stephen Spinetto and I at that time was commissioner for persons 

with disabilities for the city of Boston. I retired about two years ago 

so I am no longer speaking for them. Although I've been asked to speak 

to the group --- as a member of the multicultural independent living 

center of Boston for which I am vice president. 

I was very proud to work with the committee last century -- and represented 

a very wide range of interest and we worked really hard. It was almost 

two years that we worked on them and came to a very reasonable consensus 

to some very difficult issues. So a lot of us needed to learn the 

language. As you can see there is a lot of different language in terms 

of vessels. 

And I will say at this point am disappointed on how long it has taken. 

It's been a very -- almost 15 years since we first started off and things 

have changed since then. That's one of the things that I want to talk 

about and very happy that they have lowered the limit on ferries down 

to 100. But ferries have becoming increasingly important component in 

our national transportation system. Here in Boston they have grown 

tremendously during that time and the 100 passenger cut-off even for us 

here for the number of vessels that we're currently operating within the 

Boston transportation system would actually except for our own state 

regulations but by Federal regulations would no longer be within the 

scope. 

When I was chair I made a presentation down in New Orleans concerning 

the on/off requirements and in my presentation I highlighted the service 
here in Boston that was actually in operation back then, relatively new 

at that time. It serves the south shore of Boston including Logan 

International from downtown. 

And it -- there are 89 passenger vessels so they would not meet the --

not fall under the scope of the proposed regulations. 

These are high-speed catamarans and they are front loading, and even with 

that the fact that Boston has a mean tide of nine and a half feet which 

is one of the highest tides for any major city, in the country, not 

including Alaska. These vessels work within that mean high tide and 

obviously -- we had a tide this year of almost close to almost 14 feet 

at one point I believe, so it doesn't work at that end and doesn't include 

when the tide drops to below zero. 

I would love to see the changes, take into account the fact that this 

component of transportation is a growing one and that it's a very public 

component where people, part of our transportation systems and 

increasingly in cities like Boston and waterfront communities connecting 

the various communities in the city, so our ferry systems connect the 

various neighborhoods now that are on different sides of the harbor and 

it's well used and very important part of that, our basic transportation 

system. 

So hopefully that some time we will be looking at cutting down, lowering 

the number below 100. I think we can do it here with our tide and in 

the harbor and things that it can be done in other places also. 

I'm also very disappointed that the employed areas were taken off the 

large vessels. I think it's somewhat short sighted. I believe it should 

have included. We worked hard on it. The committee spent a lot of time 

on that issue we literally went down to Piney Point. Maryland at one point 
as a group to see how the training proceeded for the people that are going 

to be working in the cruise industry. I think really just can't cut up 

a whole category of employment for people with disabilities and just 

believe that that's a very large missed opportunity and I don't believe 

it was an undue burden. I think that what we opt for is the cost of common 

area and the 1.5% of the cabins for employees. 

And I also think -- just have one -- I kind of have a question for the 

industry because I couldn't find any real data. Maybe I was looking in 

the wrong place, but the infinite body last year with the cruise ship 

Concordia over in Italy, I wonder how much information was on it and there 

were a large number of passengers on there and some passengers with 

disabilities aboard that vessel I'm sure and the information on how they 

achieve the evacuations of those persons could be critical to the Board's 

decision making on how evacuation emergency procedures happen on those 

vessels so this is the real world. 

And particularly the fact that that ship began listing quite rapidly after 

it hit the rock which clearly makes, you know, person itself evacuating 

getting to their evacuation stations exceedingly difficult when the list 

becomes fairly steep and fairly quickly so I would be interested in any 

data on that which I think would be -- would help a lot. 

The other issue is and I'm trying to be quick I'm going to put some of 

these in writing and have it submitted by the deadline. 

But I also think there should be consideration in the regulations. I

won’t call it sunset reg. so much but at least to the point that where 

technology and other issues are changing so rapidly and that there should 

be a time frame, a reasonable time frame where there is an automatic review 

of the regulations and I think this works well for the industry and 
advocacy at the same time because technology changes quite rapidly and 

I think things are quite different now than they were when we finished 

the regulation. A whole different ball game now than it was back then. 

So I think that they need to be reviewed in a few years just to see if 

things are going first of all -- as to how they're working and if they 

are working well, and I think it should be a very specific date and look 

at it again and with all that, I'll let all this go and have something 

in writing for you in September. 

Thank you. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Thank you, Mr. Spinetto. Let me just see if 

anybody on the board wishes to ask you a question. 

Mr. Hart, are you trying to --

>> STEPHEN SPINETTO: Hi, Chris. 

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Steve, thank you for commenting. Currently 

in Boston we operate now four high-speed catamaran under 100 passengers? 

>> STEPHEN SPINETTO: That's correct. 

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Okay. And we also have a variety of tourist 

boats, whale watching, multi-deck boats? Correct?

>> STEPHEN SPINETTO: That's correct. There is quite a few of those. 

The ferries are part of our public transportation system. The others 

are private, you know, for-profit companies, small operators, that 

operate out of downtown Boston and also general Massachusetts, other 

places like Salem and Gloucester also. 

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Are you aware of issues where folks trying to 

access multi-deck vessels? 
>> STEPHEN SPINETTO: Yeah, there's -- you know, most of the for 

instance like the whale watching boats have multi-decks and there's 

generally for the small boats, ... there's none that I know of operating 

here that has lifts between the decks and it does put passengers with 

disabilities at a disadvantage because sometimes the lower deck is mostly 

the cabin deck, which is great if the weather goes bad. But if the weather 

is wonderful and the whales are jumping, you really want to be on the 

upper deck because generally it's limited deck and some of that deck is 

where the mooring lines and things that are not for the public. 

So on the lower deck, usually these vessels are two decks or at most three 

decks, vessels so if there's not any vertical -- mobility to move 

vertically. You're at a disadvantage particularly in the whale watching 

which are quite a few of them here. So it does make a difference. 

Even though, you know, the ferries going back and forth, they are small 

vessels and upper deck and on a summer night you can bet there's almost 

nobody in the cabin. Everybody on the upper deck. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Thank you. 

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Thank you. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Thank you thank you, Mr. Spinetto. I understand 

that Mr. Jensen is waiting to speak on the line from San Francisco. 

>> BO JENSEN: Yes. Can you hear me? 

>> NANCY STARNES: Yes, sir, we can. 

>> BO JENSEN: Okay. Thank you. I just had really a question as well 

as a comment. Ted [Bell] presented our alternatives. Did a nice job 

summarizing it and I'm sure as you can appreciate there's a lot more detail 

there about various factors in each of the alternatives. I am in the 

position of designing it and what I'm wondering is once -- now that we 
have had the presentation, what is the process at this point to assess 

these? How do we get some direction? What is the schedule to it? 

I heard Mr. Spinetto mention a deadline. Not sure exactly what this is. 

And then on a separate topic almost, if we had other questions regarding 

interpretation of the rules and as Ted alluded to there are a couple of 

others as well which he didn't bring out, how do we get those questions 

addressed in the future? 

Thank you. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Thank you. 

The only information I can provide for you now, Mr. Jensen, is that we 

are waiting to collect the remainder of the comments that we expect to 

come in before the September 23rd deadline as it's currently -- as it's 

currently made. 

If you do have some additional comments, questions, you can certainly 

call the Access Board and speak to Mr. Paul Beatty. He'd be glad to 

receive your call and discuss these things with you. 

>> BO JENSEN: And do we need to submit something in writing by 

September 23rd or is Ted's presentation in place of that? 

>> NANCY STARNES: Well, it's completely up to you. We're always 

interested in collecting testimony, comments, and that's certainly an 

open opportunity for anyone prior to the September 23rd close. 

>> BO JENSEN: Okay. Thank you very much. 

>> NANCY STARNES: All right. Of course if you want anything else 

added to the public record, you can proceed to provide that to us now. 

All right. 

Before we close out and we are getting close to the time for the end of 
our hearing, I want to go back to Ms. Blye and Mr. Guthrie. I know you 

all appeared to have some questions for a previous commenter. I want 

to give them the opportunity for them to come back so you can ask your 

question. Do you still have a question, Ms. Blye? 

>> REGINA BLYE: Thank you, madam chair. Regina Blye, public member. 

It's not so much a question. Maybe it is. It was for Mr. Thompson. You 

made the comment about there were several people that would use 

wheelchairs to get on to the cruise boats but they didn't necessarily 

request an accessible room and I was wanting to know did y'all do any 

follow-up as to see as to why there weren't any usage of the rooms? 

Because I think some of the comments and I think even Mr. Welch made the 

comment about trying to make sure that we have reasonable number of 

accessible rooms so I was just trying to see if y'all did any study over 

why people were/were not using the rooms? 

>> NANCY STARNES: Thank you. Mr. Thompson? 

>> TED THOMPSON: Thank you. We have not done a particular study. 

What I would do is refer to the SS -- or SIPP study that was referenced 

by the Access Board in the NPRM and note that in that SIPP study it 

indicates there are a tremendous number of people that use wheelchairs 

for long distance travel that would not necessarily need to use the chair 

within the room itself. And when we collected our database, I think that 

is what we were seeing in that analysis, the discussion that was provided 

that we have a tremendous number of people that come onboard that use 

scooters or wheelchairs for that purpose but don't necessarily need them 

for short distance travel within a room. 

Is that responsive or --
>> REGINA BLYE: That's good enough. Thank you. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Mr. Hart? 

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: So if that's the case, where does the scooter 

live? If they're not using their -- if they're not using the scooter, 

where is that scooter stored? 

>> TED THOMPSON: That is an excellent question and we are actually 

seeing an increase in the number of passengers that are using scooters 

and that type of mobility assistance. We normally expect to see those 

scooters to be able to fit through the door of the standard room and be 

stored within the room. However, we are seeing more and more that that's 

not the case, and it is an issue that we are dealing with on a daily basis. 

Our members dealing with this just how those scooters are handled if they 

can't be fit through the door and be stored in the cabin itself. 

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: And the scooters are typically your target 

population for customers? 

>> TED THOMPSON: No. We are very open and welcoming of every member 

of the traveling public. We welcome folks within -- with mobility 

disabilities of any type, whether it be a full-time wheelchair user or 

otherwise. However -- let me just stop there. 

We don't target any specific group. We try to make cruising available 

and accessible to absolutely everybody. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Thank you. All right. I understand 

Mr. Guthrie's question has already been answered. So this is your last 

chance if you want to say anything at this hearing, whether you're in 

the room with us or on the phone, speak now or forever hold your peace. 

Looks like everybody has provided all the comments --

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: There is one question for Ed. 
>> NANCY STARNES: And with that, it's my intention to conclude this 

hearing. 

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Ed, during the break, a couple of us got 

together and we were wondering your association as it references the 

ferry, your association, at what -- will provide alternate provisions 

with smaller vessels? 

>> EDMOND WELCH: Yes, Mr. Hart. In fact, I was noticing during 

Mr. Bell's testimony, I was referring to something that's in your rule 

that I think I might go along there and also might want to highlight and 

that's in 5101, purpose, you have got an equivalent facilitation section 

which is a little buried and it basically says "nothing in these 

requirements prevent the use of designs, products, or technologies as 

alternatives to these that are prescribed, provided that they result in 

substantial equivalent or greater accessibility." 

That's something you might want to unbury and highlight because that might 

provide an answer to sort of the dilemma that Mr. Bell is noticing --

he's saying, look, you have got sort of prescriptions for requirements 

to handrails but it doesn't necessarily fit this different type of 

technology we're looking at. 

This might be the type of thing that would allow the use of that technology 

if everybody agreed that it provide equivalent access. And there may 

be other technical types of problems that the engineers can identify that 

this could be used for. As far as the smaller ferries, I mean, I'm 

assuming there's going to be a second rulemaking coming down the road. 

You have always said that there would be applying to smaller vessels. 

And probably using this, but making modifications to it to apply to the 
smaller vessels. 

So, you know, maybe not in this rule, but eventually the Access Board 

and therefore ADA -- Justice and Transportation have indicated there are 

going to be mandatory construction rules for smaller vessels, including 

smaller ferries. So let's remember we're in a 2-stage process. And 

finally I would like to emphasize...just because this draft doesn't scope 

all vessels, you know, whether the cut-off for ferries is 99 or 150 or 

whatever, we're already covered by the ADA. All ferries have to comply 

with the ADA. All ferries have to provide nondiscriminatory treatment 

and access. There are in effect Justice Department rules and 

Transportation Department rules that apply to these vessels. 

So, you know, if your phase 1 rule doesn't cover a particular vessel or 

a particular ferry, that doesn't mean that they aren't providing 

accessibility to people with disabilities. It's just that they're doing 

it through operational measures as opposed to a vessel construction 

measure. So let's keep that in mind as we consider what the proper scope 

of the construction rules should be. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Thank you. 

>> EDMOND WELCH: Chris, did that respond appropriately? 

>> CHRISTOPHER HART: Yes. 

>> EDMOND WELCH: Thank you. 

>> NANCY STARNES: Thank you so much. Are there any last questions 

or comments? With that, I declare the hearing closed. And thank you 

all very much for your attention and your interest in this topic that's 

been going on for a long time and your interest has been sustained and 

we really appreciate that. Thank you. 
>> ROSE BUNALES: Operator, thank you for all your assistance today. 

The meeting is now closed. Please disconnect all lines. 

>> OPERATOR: Thank you. Thank you for participating. You may 

disconnect at this time. 

(End)