<html><body><font face="Helvetica">Before we go further down the road of speculation we should probably check with Marion Gwizdala, the NAGDU president. I am working on convention arrangements for the next day or so but I can call him later in the week. I will post an update as soon as I talk with him anyone is free to call him.<br><br>Marci<br><br>Sent from XFINITY Connect Mobile App<br><br><br>------ Original Message ------<br><br>From: Michael Forzano via WASAGDU<br>To: Washington Association of Guide Dog Users<br>Cc: Michael Forzano<br>Sent: October 3, 2016 at 1:31 PM<br>Subject: Re: [Wasagdu] air carrier change<br><br>I wouldn't think accommodating a dog should be an issue unless you<br>want/need a seat with extra space, etc. It's totally reasonable to<br>request that in advance. My concern is that this is a requirement, and<br>could result in you missing your flight if you don't fill it out or<br>some other mix-up. It's one of those things that doesn't seem like a<br>big deal, but could easily become one.<br><br>Mike<br><br>On 10/3/16, Becky Frankeberger via WASAGDU <wasagdu@nfbnet.org> wrote:<br>> Seems to me when I traveled using my wheelchair I had to call the airline<br>> ahead of time. They were able to store the chair in the closet in the<br>> cabin.<br>> Since our dogs like medical equipment have to be accounted for, maybe this<br>> is why they want notice just once hopefully ahead of time. Just throwing<br>> ideas out, not making conclusive remarks.<br>><br>> Wonder what Marion thinks, as NAGDU is on the committee as well.<br>><br>> I already heard an ACB person object for many of the same reason you gave,<br>> smile.<br>><br>> Becky and Jake<br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: WASAGDU [mailto:wasagdu-bounces@nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Michael<br>> Forzano via WASAGDU<br>> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 12:05 PM<br>> To: Washington Association of Guide Dog Users <wasagdu@nfbnet.org><br>> Cc: Michael Forzano <michaeldforzano@gmail.com><br>> Subject: Re: [Wasagdu] air carrier change<br>><br>> This is not good. Fake service dogs are a problem everywhere, but we aren't<br>> required to fill out a form to access other public places, public<br>> transportation or even for housing accommodation. So why should flying be<br>> any different? They may be trying to account for all scenarios like<br>> canceled/changed flights and standby, but airline employees can be<br>> incompetent and I'm sure this will hurt us.<br>><br>> And, even if we put these restrictions in place, what about the high<br>> percentage of the work we do with our dogs that is outdoors, where dogs<br>> will<br>> always be allowed? What will this really solve for us?<br>><br>> Of course the airlines want this put in place so they can charge fees for<br>> pets, but I think we should be opposing this. We never have had to pay the<br>> price for the public's ignorance, why start now?<br>><br>> Mike<br>><br>> On 10/3/16, Becky Frankeberger via WASAGDU <wasagdu@nfbnet.org> wrote:<br>>> Yes I know this is from the other group. But this is vital you read<br>>> and re-read to understand the change that will take place.<br>>><br>>> Becky and Jake<br>>><br>>> Dear GDUI Members and Friends, The information included in Jenine<br>>> Stanley's update below will be interesting to everyone who travels via<br>>> U. S. air carriers with their guide dogs. I thank Jenine Stanley for<br>>> sharing this update with our members. It will also be included in the<br>>> upcoming PawTracks issue. Please don't hesitate to contact Jenine, or<br>>> me, or Tony Stephens with any concerns or suggestions that you may<br>>> have. We're closing in on the date of the final committee meetings, by<br>>> which time we will either succeed in improving the regulations that<br>>> guarantee our civil rights when we fly or the RegNeg process will end<br>>> in a stalemate. I hope that the disability community succeeds in<br>>> improving the regulations which implement the Air Carrier Access Act.<br>>> Making the kind of progress that will diminish the number of<br>>> encounters with untrained pets we may have to endure while traveling<br>>> through airports and flying is especially important to those of us who<br>>> depend on our guide dogs and service animals to improve our safety and<br>>> comfort in all environments, whether on the ground or in the air.<br>>><br>>> [BEGINNING OF ARTICLE]<br>>> An Update Regarding the Air Carrier Access Act<br>>> Regulations-Negotiations Process Jenine Stanley<br>>><br>>> [GDUI President's Introduction: Early in 2016, the U. S. Department of<br>>> Transportation announced and convened a formal process for negotiating<br>>> changes in the regulations which implement the Air Carrier Access Act<br>>> (ACAA), the law that guarantees certain civil rights protections to<br>>> people with disabilities who wish to fly on American air carriers, and<br>>> allows people with disabilities to acquire the accommodations they<br>>> need in order to fly safely. Although GDUI applied for membership - as<br>>> a stakeholder - on the formal committee which is negotiating changes<br>>> in ACAA regulations, the Department did not grant our request to<br>>> participate as members of the formal committee. Fortunately, Anthony<br>>> Stephens, Director of Advocacy and Legislation for the American<br>>> Council of the Blind, and Jenine Stanley, a former president of GDUI<br>>> and an employee of the Guide Dog Foundation, have been representing<br>>> our needs and our positions admirably at formal committee meetings and<br>>> during the negotiations process. I have been participating as a member<br>>> of the Service Animals Working Group, which meets via conference call<br>>> in-between formal committee meetings and which serves to advise<br>>> committee members.<br>>><br>>> The first formal ACAA RegNeg Committee meeting was held in early May,<br>>> and the Committee has been meeting for several days each month since<br>>> then. The U. S. Department of Transportation ruled, from the very<br>>> beginning, that all negotiations would be completed in October. The<br>>> next, and final committee meeting will take place on October 12-14.<br>>><br>>> Below is Jenine's summary of the negotiation process that has taken<br>>> place thus far. GDUI appreciates hers and Tony's active participation<br>>> and advocacy on our behalf. By the time you read this article, the<br>>> negotiation process will have ended, and hopefully, we will be able to<br>>> anticipate changes in the regulations regarding Service Dogs,<br>>> Psychiatric Service Animals, and Emotional Support Animals that will<br>>> make flying safer and more comfortable for us and for our guide dogs.<br>>> Below you will find Jenine's update. I encourage you to contact me or<br>>> Tony Stephens or Jenine, or the U. S. Department of Transportation,<br>>> with any concerns that you may have about the negotiations or their<br>>> outcome. Thank you, Jenine, for your hard work on our behalf and for<br>>> providing this update for PawTracks readers.]<br>>><br>>> Several people have asked about the meetings I'm participating in<br>>> regarding the Air Carrier Access Act changes. Here's the long and<br>>> short of this process which began in May.<br>>><br>>> The Department of Transportation (DOT) put out a call for<br>>> representatives of the disability community, organizations and<br>>> airlines to take part in a Negotiated Regulation process called,<br>>> strangely enough, a "Reg-Neg process." This system is designed to pull<br>>> together experts in the subject matter to craft proposed regulatory<br>>> language for the DOT to review and use in its Notice of Proposed Rule<br>>> Making (NPRM) for given issues. This particular Reg-Neg is unusual in<br>>> that there are 3 separate issues being discussed, access to In-Flight<br>>> Entertainment (IFE), provision of accessible lavatories on<br>>> single-aisle aircraft (Lav) and definition of Service Animals (SA).<br>>> The reason I'm using abbreviations here is that this is how we refer<br>>> to the 3 groups.<br>>><br>>> In this Reg-Neg, 25 people have been convened to form the ACCESS<br>>> Committee. I represent the Guide Dog Foundation and America's VetDogs<br>>> and in essence, the organized service animal training community. Other<br>>> representatives include American Council of the Blind, National<br>>> Federation of the Blind, Psychiatric Service Dog partners and National<br>>> Alliance on Mental Illness, among a host of others from the airline<br>>> industry. If any one would like a link to the site established for<br>>> this committee, let me know privately. I do not think I have the<br>>> authority to post it here.<br>>><br>>> In the beginning of this process we assembled based on several<br>>> factors. DOT recognizes that the system of defining service animals<br>>> under the ACAA is not working in practice. As a result, safety<br>>> concerns regarding service animal handlers, fraud by members of the<br>>> public who either do not have qualifying disabilities or just want to<br>>> fly their pets at no cost, and the erosion of civil rights for people<br>>> with disabilities who work with service animals are rampant.<br>>><br>>> Our goal on the 19-member Service Animal Working Group (that's 19<br>>> voting members) is to come up with a proposal that changes the<br>>> definition of service animal in ways that eliminate as much risk of<br>>> fraud, while minimizing damage to our animals and our civil rights.<br>>> The Working Group (SAWG) is made up of voting members of the ACCESS<br>>> Committee and many others from the service animal community. The list<br>>> of SAWG members is available. There are 5 people serving as co-chairs<br>>> of this committee from the "Advocate" side, me among them. The groups<br>>> represented besides mine are: Paralyzed Veterans of America,<br>>> Psychiatric Service Dog Partners, National Alliance of Mental Illness<br>>> and Independent Association of Canine Professionals. (We've been<br>>> working from a list of around 15 points involving this definition for<br>>> the past 5 months now. Below, I will try to explain the key, or tent<br>>> pole issues of this list and why it's taking so long to do something<br>>> you'd think was not rocket science.<br>>><br>>> Before we get started, let's get one thing clear. The ADA does not<br>>> apply in any way, other than for comparison, to what we will discuss.<br>>> The Air Carrier Access Act is the set of regulations to which we<br>>> refer. OK, got that? Got it.<br>>><br>>> So, why is the ACAA service animal definition broken you ask? Right<br>>> now it allows for animals of a wide variety of species to be<br>>> recognized as service animals. This means turkeys, birds and yes, even<br>>> pigs, fly...free...as service animals, if the passenger says they are<br>>> service animals.<br>>><br>>> That's at least true for the majority of animals trained to do work or<br>>> perform tasks to help with someone's disability. This training also<br>>> includes public exposure or access training so the animal not only<br>>> does things for us but also is accustom to behaving properly in public<br>>> places and chaotic environments like airports and airplane cabins.<br>>><br>>> There are 2 subcategories of the broad definition of service animal<br>>> that some people may not understand. Each of these has different<br>>> requirements.<br>>><br>>> Psychiatric Service Animals (PSAs) are exactly like my guide dog in<br>>> that they have been trained to do work and perform tasks to help<br>>> someone with a psychiatric disability. They have also had public<br>>> access/exposure training as part of their ability to be with their<br>>> handlers in public places. Nowhere else in civil rights access law are<br>>> people who work with dogs that perform such functions forced to<br>>> provide the proof they are under the ACAA. PSA handlers must provide<br>>> the airline with a letter, on the letterhead of a mental health<br>>> professional, which includes a stated diagnosis from the Diagnostic<br>>> and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-V (DSm5) as a justification<br>>> for the animal.<br>>><br>>> This same letter must be provided if someone has the last category of<br>>> animal, and Emotional Support Animal or ESA. ESAs have no formal<br>>> training to do work or tasks and though some may have degrees of<br>>> public access/exposure training, not all do. ESAs do though help their<br>>> users through their presence, keeping the person calm, grounded, etc.,<br>>> during the stressful time of flying or during activities at their<br>>> destination.<br>>><br>>> Given those definitions, you can see how confusing this is already.<br>>> Add to that a growing industry of on-line providers of vests,<br>>> certificates, medical letters and more to be able to get your pet<br>>> deemed a PSA or ESA or even a standard service animal, to avoid the<br>>> $150 and up fees for bringing pets aboard air carriers, and you have a<br>>> recipe for disaster.<br>>><br>>> There is also very little ability to enforce control over animals that<br>>> misbehave either at the airport or on the plane due to fear of social<br>>> media reprisal against the airlines.<br>>><br>>> We've identified 3 tent pole issues in this situation. A tent pole<br>>> issue is one that is critical to continuing the process, i.e., we<br>>> can't go to sleep until we put up the tent and we can't put up the<br>>> tent until we find and work together to erect the tent poles. Hope<br>>> that makes sense because many people aren't familiar with that term in<br>>> a process like this apparently.<br>>><br>>> Our 3 issues are: Species limitations, whether or not to even include<br>>> ESAs, and what type of documentation/verification/justification people<br>>> would provide to claim their accommodation of having an animal travel<br>>> with them.<br>>><br>>> Species limitations sounds like a simple thing on which to agree. Not<br>>> so. There have been several proposals put forward by both airlines and<br>>> advocates. Both industry and advocate groups agreed initially that<br>>> Psychiatric Service Dogs (PSAs) should be melted into the general<br>>> definition of service animal without documentation requirement. Both<br>>> sides also agreed that there should be 2 distinct and separate<br>>> definitions, one for "service animal" and one for Emotional Support<br>>> Animal (ESA). This would allow for different treatment of each type of<br>>> animal and lessen the confusion and stigma associated for ESA and PSA<br>>> users. DOT also provided us with "springboard language" from which to<br>>> work. Unfortunately, DOT did not see our distinction of separating the<br>>> definitions but does say that if this is something both sides support,<br>>> it can't be ignored.<br>>><br>>> All of these proposals limit the types of animals to dogs. Some<br>>> proposals add cats as there seem to be some advocates who can cite<br>>> examples of service cats.<br>>><br>>> The side that opposes adding cats does ask for a specific timeline for<br>>> DOT to review the use of other species. DOT can review aspects of<br>>> regulations any time it wants but by making a specific request to do<br>>> so within a time period, it's more likely to happen.<br>>><br>>> I'm on the no cats for now side and base my logic on the 2010 update<br>>> to species in the ADA. The Department of Justice chose dogs for a<br>>> number of reasons.<br>>><br>>> I can say with a fair amount of certainty that most service dog<br>>> training programs agree with this view.<br>>><br>>> We have also given handlers of miniature horses some access similar to<br>>> what is done under the ADA definition, because it has been done. We<br>>> included Capuchin Monkeys as having similar limited access so they may<br>>> fly with their handlers. Such monkeys are professionally trained to<br>>> provide disability mitigation in a person's home. The monkey *must*<br>>> remain in its carrier throughout the flight though as they do not have<br>>> public access/exposure training.<br>>><br>>> OK, that's issue 1. We all seem to agree on service animals having the<br>>> ADA type definition, doing work and performing tasks and having public<br>>> access/exposure training, and also being at the very least, dogs,<br>>> miniature horses and Capuchin monkeys.<br>>><br>>> Emotional Support Animals, should they be included and if so, what<br>>> species should be allowed?<br>>> The species question is, in part, key to the initial question, should<br>>> there still be a category of ESA?<br>>><br>>> Early in this process we asked the airlines to show us the scope, from<br>>> their data, of problems or incidents involving any type of "service<br>>> animal". We learned several things from this information. 1. Airlines<br>>> do not keep records of incidents involving service animals of any<br>>> stripe. They need to tease this information out of all incident<br>>> reports in many cases, which is why we don't call it data.<br>>><br>>> 2. Airlines often don't distinguish or even know the difference<br>>> between an ESA, a PSA and a service animal. They specifically have<br>>> difficulty between the first two types of animals as they both require<br>>> the same level of documentation, something the gate and flight crews<br>>> rarely see.<br>>><br>>> 3. The number and severity of incidents involving "ESAs" was<br>>> significantly higher than it was for traditional service animals.<br>>> Incidents primarily involved arguments about proper documentation but<br>>> also involved animal misbehavior, including biting flight crews and<br>>> other passengers. People with traditional service animals report<br>>> having their animals growled at, lunged at and yes, attacked by<br>>> animals whose owners claim they are ESAs.<br>>><br>>> This would tell many people that ESAs are a bad idea and should be<br>>> removed from consideration. Many airlines and advocacy groups have<br>>> this view, based on the fraud or lack of education of ESA owners.<br>>><br>>> The SAWG though wants to be sure not to penalize those who truly do<br>>> need an ESA and handle their animals responsibly. We are including<br>>> them but under a separate definition.<br>>><br>>> In our first straw pole on the issue, it appeared the airlines agree<br>>> with this point.<br>>><br>>> Where we all disagree is in the number of species represented and the<br>>> restrictions placed upon ESAs that are not placed upon traditional<br>>> service animals. Remember, we've pretty much agreed that Psychiatric<br>>> Service Animals are now included in the traditional service animal<br>>> definition.<br>>><br>>> There are several positions among the Advocates about species and<br>>> containment of ESAs. I'll outline them here with the designation AP1,<br>>> etc., as they are in our materials.<br>>><br>>> AP1. ESAs are dogs, cats and rabbits. All ESAs must fit into<br>>> FAA-approved pet carriers and must be in those carriers unless<br>>> providing disability mitigation. When doing so, they must be on the<br>>> person's lap and connected to the person by a leash or tether. If the<br>>> animal is not behaving according to the behavior standards laid out in<br>>> the ACAA (which are already there by the way, the flight crew can<br>>> require that the animal be put back into the pet carrier for the<br>>> remainder of the flight.<br>>><br>>> AP2. ESAs are dogs, cats and rabbits. Cats and rabbits must be in<br>>> FAA-approved pet carriers but can come out for disability mitigation.<br>>> They also can be required by the flight crew to be put back into the<br>>> carriers if misbehaving. Dogs have no size limitation but if they are<br>>> well-behaved, they can enter the aircraft and remain outside a<br>>> carrier. If they are knowingly not well behaved, they must remain in<br>>> the carrier, with the same rules as for cats and rabbits.<br>>><br>>> AP3. Only dogs that can fit into FAA-approved carriers are ESAs. ESAs<br>>> cannot be removed from carriers.<br>>><br>>> The DOT has a position in its "springboard document" similar to AP3<br>>> but dogs have no size limitation and no carrier restriction.<br>>><br>>> All animals, service or ESA, must be under the control of their owners<br>>> and must have leashes or tethers unless providing disability<br>>> mitigation that prohibits them, such as distance retrieves. (This is<br>>> taken almost directly from the 2010 ADA wording on control, by the<br>>> way.)<br>>><br>>> Now, guess which position I hold? Yes, AP1. It makes little sense not<br>>> to allow animals whose purpose is to assist through their presence,<br>>> i.e., being able to hold and pet them. The rules for pet carriers are<br>>> the same as those for baggage that goes under the seats, so the<br>>> animals would not be available during the most stressful parts of the<br>>> flight. Requiring them to remain in carriers defeats their purpose and<br>>> stigmatizes them as "pets who fly free" or "fakes".<br>>><br>>> AP1 also allows for the animal to be returned to the carrier if it is<br>>> not providing a service to the person. Since most incidents we've<br>>> heard involve ESAs, we want a means of controlling them and removing<br>>> them from other service animals, passengers and flight crew. This<br>>> cannot be done for larger dogs if allowed.<br>>><br>>> Honestly, this particular aspect of the regulation definition has<br>>> split the Advocates in several directions. I'd urge anyone considering<br>>> commenting to remember why this Reg-Neg was convened. Safety for<br>>> service animal teams was one of the paramount concerns expressed by<br>>> advocates. Given that fraud, either intentional or through lack of<br>>> education, is also an issue, particularly with ESAs, we regret that<br>>> AP1 limits access for those with larger dogs as ESAs, but something<br>>> has to give to achieve the goals here. We do appreciate your support<br>>> for AP1.<br>>><br>>> Documentation/Verification/Attestation<br>>> This is by far the most controversial part of the entire definition.<br>>> The current state of play is that if you have a traditional service<br>>> animal, you are not required to do anything, other than possibly<br>>> answer the two questions allowed under the ADA as well as the ACAA,<br>>> which are:<br>>> "Is that a service animal required because of a disability?"<br>>> "How does that animal assist you with your disability?"<br>>> These two questions can be asked by airline staff. They cannot ask,<br>>> however, anything specific, such as "What is your disability?", "Can<br>>> you demonstrate the dog's work?", "What's the dog's breed, weight,<br>>> size, training provider,.<br>>><br>>> If you have a PSA or ESA, you must provide a letter, 48 hours in<br>>> advance of your flight, stating your diagnosis and that the animal is<br>>> necessary. This letter must be on the letterhead of a licensed mental<br>>> health professional and must include their name, address and license<br>>> number. The letter is good for 1 year.<br>>><br>>> In theory this sounds good enough to prevent fraud. In practice, it's<br>>> just the opposite. Many reading this post can show lots of examples of<br>>> where to get credentials for your pet on line to transform it into<br>>> either and ESA, with a real doctor's note, or a traditional service<br>>> animal.<br>>><br>>> AP1. Since the airlines feel more secure with some type of assurance<br>>> that we are who we say we are and that our animals are what we claim,<br>>> traditional service animals or ESAs, we have come up with a decision<br>>> tree concept. This is a form that goes something like this:<br>>><br>>> I am traveling with an animal. Yes/No<br>>><br>>> If yes: My animal is a(n( Pet/ESA/Service Animal<br>>><br>>> If Service Animal, then some language would appear that says you<br>>> attest to the fact that you do have a qualifying disability, not what<br>>> that disability is, but that you have one, and you require this animal<br>>> to assist with said disability.<br>>><br>>> You will also attest to the fact that the animal has been trained and<br>>> will remain under your control, and that you are responsible for<br>>> damages caused by the animal.<br>>><br>>> This short data form would be filled out as soon after your ticket<br>>> purchase has been confirmed as possible. Just how that will happen is<br>>> not yet clear but suggestions include the form being part of the<br>>> ticket reservation process on an airline's web site or 3rd party<br>>> ticket seller's site, an email being sent with the confirmation of<br>>> ticket purchase with a link to the form on the airline's entry site,<br>>> etc.<br>>><br>>> This data form would need to be completed by anyone traveling with a<br>>> service animals or ESA no less than 12 hours prior to the flight. If<br>>> you don't get it done prior to the flight, you may be required to do<br>>> so at the airport, may be asked for additional documentation or may be<br>>> asked to take another flight, giving you time to complete the form.<br>>><br>>> If you have done so ahead of time though the airline cannot ask you<br>>> anything else about your animal (dog in most cases). This does not<br>>> apply to any other type of assistance requested or offered by the<br>>> airline involving your disability, such as meet and assist. It just<br>>> means you won't get questions about your dog from the airline staff.<br>>><br>>> Arguments on this point are quite vehement. People with traditional<br>>> service animals have not been asked to do anything extra to gain<br>>> access to flights with their animals. Many people feel that this is<br>>> discriminatory and that identifying themselves ahead of time to the<br>>> airlines as a person with a disability primes the staff for<br>>> inappropriate and often infantilizing treatment.<br>>><br>>> I can't argue that. It happens.<br>>><br>>> Unfortunately we are at the point though where the regulations<br>>> involving animals on flights have come to a tipping point of safety.<br>>> Cabin space is at a premium. In order to secure our rights, sadly, we<br>>> are going to have to start notifying the airline of a need for the<br>>> accommodation of having our service animals with us.<br>>><br>>> The airlines would rather we *all* got a 3rd party to verify that we<br>>> have disabilities and that we need our animals for said disability<br>>> mitigation.<br>>><br>>> What do we get by checking boxes on this form? Good question.<br>>><br>>> We, not a 3rd party, are responsible for the accommodation request.<br>>> The airlines can deal with us directly if there is any question about<br>>> our animals. Completing the form holds someone who is fraudulently<br>>> representing themselves or their animals to a legal standard for which<br>>> they can be punished by law if found guilty. For many people that<br>>> threat is enough to stop them from completing the form and taking<br>>> their pet, who has never been out of their yard, on an airplane.<br>>><br>>> The airlines do truly want to stop people who *are not disabled* from<br>>> claiming accommodations designed for those who are. Yes, there's a<br>>> financial component on their side but the people we deal with on the<br>>> ACCESS Committee and SAWG are very angry that people would disrespect<br>>> people with disabilities and the work that goes into maintaining the<br>>> training of a service dog, just to get something free. They see much<br>>> more of this rampant fraud than we do directly.<br>>><br>>> My final word on this is that we need to realize, unfortunate as the<br>>> "group slap" mentality is, that we are going to have to justify our<br>>> need for our animals in some form, across the board. People who use<br>>> other assistive devices have to do so as well under certain<br>>> conditions. No, a national registry of "legitimate service dogs" will<br>>> not work.<br>>><br>>> The airlines are looking into ways of voluntarily keeping your<br>>> information about your animal in some type of passenger profile, be it<br>>> your frequent flyer account or other information so you don't have to<br>>> check every box, every time. They are also looking at how you would<br>>> deal with canceled flights or stand-by situations, even switching<br>>> airlines during a trip. Trust me, thanks to discussing this with many<br>>> different people, we've tried to think of everything.<br>>><br>>> Finally, if we don't agree to this concept in some form, it will be<br>>> forced upon us by DOT. That's not necessarily a threat. It's just a<br>>> reality.<br>>><br>>> I appreciate any<br>>> questions regarding this process. the final meetings for this Reg-Neg<br>>> will take place October 12 - 14 in Washington, DC. The public is<br>>> welcome to attend.<br>>><br>>> Jenine Stanley<br>>> <Jeninems@icloud.com><br>>> NG<br>>><br>>><br>>> _______________________________________________<br>>> WASAGDU mailing list<br>>> WASAGDU@nfbnet.org<br>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/wasagdu_nfbnet.org<br>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for<br>>> WASAGDU:<br>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/wasagdu_nfbnet.org/michaeldforzano%4<br>>> 0gmail.com<br>>><br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> WASAGDU mailing list<br>> WASAGDU@nfbnet.org<br>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/wasagdu_nfbnet.org<br>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for<br>> WASAGDU:<br>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/wasagdu_nfbnet.org/b.butterfly%40comcast.n<br>> et<br>><br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> WASAGDU mailing list<br>> WASAGDU@nfbnet.org<br>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/wasagdu_nfbnet.org<br>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for<br>> WASAGDU:<br>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/wasagdu_nfbnet.org/michaeldforzano%40gmail.com<br>><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>WASAGDU mailing list<br>WASAGDU@nfbnet.org<br>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/wasagdu_nfbnet.org<br>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for WASAGDU:<br>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/wasagdu_nfbnet.org/mjc59%40comcast.net<br></font></body></html>