International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL)
Access Board Docket 2004-1 and 2004-2
Draft Passenger Vessel Accessibility Guidelines
DOT Docket OST - 2004-19700
ANPRM re: Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Disability: Passenger Vessels
Comments by
International Council of Cruise Lines
The International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL) is a non-profit trade association that represents
the interests of l6 of the largest cruise lines operating in the North American cruise market and
over 90 Associate Member companies that are cruise industry business partners and suppliers.
ICCL member cruise lines serve major ports in the United States and call at over 70 ports in the
United States and at more than 600 ports around the world. Last year, ICCLs member lines
carried more than 10.5 million passengers on approximately 120 vessels.
These proposed guidelines are of critical significance to ICCL members, as will be the
operational and other issues that are to be addressed by DOT. The following submission reflects
the comments of our members and is structured as follows:
1. General Comments
2. Detailed Comments on PVAG proposals
3. Response to Questions raised by DOT
4. Economic Analysis
5. Regulatory Impact
6. Appendix with Picture
The effort to develop guidelines for ensuring access onboard passenger vessels has been in
progress now for approximately eight years. Despite this, there are numerous unresolved issues
and unanswered questions. In the spirit of moving forward with guidelines that will reasonably
address these issues, we recommend the following:
- The various segments of the passenger vessel industry, together with the Access Board
and staff, should identify those elements over which there is little or no disagreement
either in scope or requirement and go forward with these elements in a process that would
set these rules in place as soon as administrative processes allow. We believe that this
covers the majority of the elements.
- For the on/off issue at the port/ship interface, the Access Board, the passenger vessel
industry, and port representatives should work together to develop an acceptable
performance standard that recognizes safety, feasibility and operational responsibilities.
- For those elements where there is serious disagreement and unresolved matters due to
technical or practical constraints, the Access Board and the passenger vessel industry
should establish working groups of experts or other processes to resolve these issues.
ICCL notes once again that notices published in the Federal Register, together with the Draft
Guidelines, posed to the industry over 150 questions of a significant nature. We remain
extremely concerned that many of these questions are unresolved. Because this rulemaking will
have a major impact on the passenger vessel industry as a whole, it is imperative that the Board
and DOT resolve these matters correctly before proceeding with the rulemakings.
ICCL appreciates the opportunity to comment on this most important matter and the efforts of
the Board members and staff to learn about the cruise ship industry. We look forward to
working with the US Access Board and DOT in developing the final guidelines for access
onboard passenger vessels.
T.E. Thompson
Executive Vice President
Table of Contents
- Section 1: ADA Commentary ICCL General Comments
- Section 2: ICCL Comments On U.S. Access Board Draft Passenger Vessel
Accessibility Guidelines
- Section 3: ICCL Comments on Passenger Vessel Access DOT ANPRM
- Section 4: Preliminary Report of Findings - ICCL Data Collection Project
- Section 5: ICCL Comments on the Access Board Draft Plan
for Regulatory Assessment
- Section 6: Appendix
Images Demonstrating the Complexity of On/Off Access at the
Ship/Port Interface and Justifying the Need for a Performance Standard
Section 1:
ADA Commentary
ICCL General Comments
ADA Commentary
ICCL General Comments
Ships as a Safety System:
In developing accessibility guidelines and regulations for passenger ships, it is essential that
there is a basic understanding that ships are not buildings. Indeed, ships are more than buildings,
in that they are subject to a stringent set of safety requirements and conventions specifically
designed for a maritime environment. Wholesale application of accessibility rules developed for
and applied to land-based facilities to passenger ships and smaller vessels, in many instances, is
not appropriate and in some cases, may be unsafe e.g., directional emergency signage and
removal of sills on external doors in some locations as discussed in detail in our submission.
Therefore, accessibility rules for passenger vessels must take into account all of the features,
operations, and safety standards unique to those vessels while continuing to provide a high level
of service to persons with disabilities.
Ships are not fixed structures built to local building codes and do not use similar construction
techniques that mostly rely on concrete, rebar, wooden joists and sheetrock. Ships are complex
structures that must survive in a sometimes hostile environment and are subject to forces and
accelerations in six degrees of freedom or motion roll, pitch, heave, surge, sway and yaw.
Movement of the ship in a seaway, even in only minor storms, is significantly greater than those
movements that even an earthquake proof building would withstand. Recently, the news carried
a number of reports of a rogue wave that damaged a large cruise ship. This was only one of
three such instances to occur to passenger ships in the past few months. On one of these
occasions, the water shorted out propulsion and control systems for the ship.
When a window breaks in a building and water intrudes, the water will flow down the stairs and
into the basement or out a lower door with little damage other than soaked rugs and sheetrock. A
ship must be able withstand this type of damage and not only stay afloat, but also remain a viable
shelter for both passengers and crew. As noted above, a ship must also be able to keep the water
from entering in the first place; thus, the need for weathertight and watertight doors, and
associated sills. These closing devices and other safety features, such as fire doors, are designed
to close and stay closed in an emergency. They are constructed to maintain the integrity of the
hull in a dynamic environment and are paramount for the safety of passengers and crew. Unlike
emergency situations occurring in buildings, a ship cannot simply call 911 to summon external
help. It is imperative that a ship (both in its structure and operation) be a self-contained safety
system, able to handle all emergencies.
Whereas it may be beneficial for a hotel to have a lip or sill on exterior doorways to prevent
water damage to carpet, ships have more serious concerns. Existing requirements for
weathertight and watertight integrity of the ship are based on safety concerns and not whether or
not cosmetic damage may occur. Water entry into a ship not only causes stability concerns but
also can adversely impact the safety of the ship in other ways such as loss of power and control.
Unlike buildings which remain in one location throughout their life and whose occupants must
rely on external support from fire, police and local medical services in an emergency, ships must
be able to survive an incident and provide services from within until reaching port or until
outside assistance arrives to the ships location at sea. In emergency situations on land, building
owners and managers have little responsibility in regards to responding to an actual emergency.
In hotels, staff have little responsibility for evacuation. The hotel guests have to make their way
out of the building on their own or await rescue by the local fire department. Guests have
minimal instruction in the form of an information card posted on the back of a door. Onboard
passenger ships however, the passengers are actually instructed and drilled by trained crew in
emergency procedures as required by SOLAS Chapter III Regulations 19.2.3; 19.3.3.1; and 30.2.
Drills are required to be conducted within 24 hours from departing port when on an international
voyage. On ICCL member cruise ships, the instructions are normally provided continuously on
the TV set in passenger cabins and required drills are conducted prior to getting underway.
Participation in these drills is mandatory for all passengers and designated crew.
The ship itself must be designed, constructed and operated as an integrated safety system. As
stated before, there is no external 911. Where the primary response to a fire or other emergency
situation in a building is to have everyone depart the building, this is not possible with a ship at
sea. Exiting the ship in an emergency is the very last and most desperate option. In these
instances, a ship must be self supporting and every member of the crew must be trained and
competent to fulfill his or her duties.
Training requirements for crew members are contained in the International Convention for
Standards on Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW). This Convention
spells out required training, knowledge requirements and proficiency skills necessary for
certification in their assigned emergency duty. In an emergency at sea, all passengers receive
assistance and direction, not just those with disabilities. Additionally, every passenger cruise
ship has extensive emergency response plans for every major contingency and these plans are
exercised regularly.
Because safety at sea is critical and the ship is a safety system in itself, the operational aspects of
the ship are an integral part of the design and operation. Accordingly, the rules, regulations,
codes of practice, building techniques and building materials for ships and rules for ship
operations are themselves complex and voluminous. They are contained in multiple sets of rules
that interlink to provide a series of safety nets for the ship, crew and passengers that allow these
ships to operate independently around the globe. The rules for design, construction and
operation include, but are not limited to:
- The International Convention on Safety Of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and associated safety
codes; Resolutions, Circulars, Guidelines, and Unified Interpretations;*
- The International Loadlines Convention;
- The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping
for Seafarers (STCW);
- Shipping Classification Society Rules;
- International Engineering Standards (IEEE, ISO);
- National Engineering Standards: (ASTM, ASME, DIN, JIS);
- Flag State regulations; and
- Shipyard standard construction practices.
* Safety Codes, Resolutions, Circulars, Unified Interpretations and other guidance may be
adopted as mandatory or not. Often times, flag state administrations and port states will
incorporate the non-mandatory documents into their own regulatory framework. All these
form a body of expert opinion that is ignored at great risk.
Since ships travel around the world, these rules are internationally accepted. This acceptance has
evolved from more than a hundred years of experience in safety of life at sea. Often these rules
have been written in blood and lost lives. Accessibility rules, while important, are one more set
of rules that must be woven into the fabric of ship safety and operability. Rules for accessibility
can not be permitted to conflict with or emasculate rules whose very existence is to save lives
and the environment. This concept is supported by the recent Supreme Court decision regarding
access onboard cruise ships (Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Lines, 2005).
This safety system has worked very effectively to protect the lives and safety of persons onboard
passenger ships. In the past 35 years, since 1970, there has not been a single passenger death on
an ICCL member ship resulting from a marine related casualty (fire, explosion, collision,
grounding). ICCL does not have information pre-dating 1970.
Concern has been expressed that an injured passenger or passengers with disabilities may be
unable to respond to an emergency and may thus be forgotten and left in their room. While this
is a legitimate concern for a hotel guest, SOLAS and STCW specifically address this matter for
passenger vessels. Passengers are instructed and drilled by trained crewmembers in what action
to take when they hear the emergency alarm, where to go (their assembly/muster station), how to
get there, and what route to take. When gathered at the assembly/muster station, procedures are
undertaken to assure that all passengers are accounted for.
Additionally, SOLAS Chapter III Regulation 37.2 states that Each passenger ship shall have
procedures in place for locating and rescuing passengers trapped in their staterooms.
Regulations in STCW (Regulation V/2 and V/3) require training and demonstration of
competency assisting passengers, and have specific training in crowd management, passenger
safety, and crisis management and human behavior. Requirements for the training are also
specified and mandatory requirements regarding persons designated to assist passengers in
emergency situations are found in STCW Regulations and Mandatory Code sections A-V/2 and
A-V/3. Thus, no one is left in his or her cabin.
Specifically, the regulations address the following:
- Knowledge of muster lists, emergency instructions, emergency exits and restrictions
on the use of elevators
- The ability to assist passengers to muster stations by:
These safety requirements are further expanded in SOLAS Chapter IX which mandates an
onboard and shoreside safety management system to identify who is responsible for assuring
compliance with every aspect of these regulations and how the regulations are carried out for
every type of shipboard emergency. Further, it specifies that these elements are subject to both
internal and external audit. To assure compliance with the numerous safety rules, ships must
undergo pre-construction plan review and approval, continuous inspection during build, and
regular examination by various safety agencies including the US Coast Guard every 90 days
throughout the life of the ship (when the ship is in U.S. service). These numerous inspections
and audits assure that the ship structure and operating systems as well as crew qualifications are
maintained ensuring that all operations are conducted in accordance with the equally detailed
operational rules and regulations. On a large passenger cruise ship, these inspections average
more than one a week by numerous agencies.
Accordingly, we believe that any Regulations or Guidelines relating to passenger vessels should
recognize and incorporate the operational aspects of carrying passengers onboard a ship. Crew
training and crew assistance/response should be recognized and taken into account.
Existing Vessels:
The draft Guidelines are replete with provisions and exceptions addressing elements on existing
vessels. While ICCL agrees that requirements for alterations to existing vessels should be
differentiated from new construction, the wording in these provisions implies that they will be
applicable to unaltered existing vessels and elements. The draft Guidelines do not have existing
vessels and elements within its scope. Therefore, the term existing should be amended to
address alterations to existing vessels or elements.
Engineering Standards:
Marine construction standards must be referenced and utilized in the proposed guidelines. It
makes no sense to reference shoreside building standards when those standards are not
recognized or accepted by the countries in which the ships are built or when those standards do
not account for the dynamic loads that the systems must withstand. Referencing such standards,
meant for shoreside building construction in the United States, has no relevance to a ship being
designed and built in a non US ship yard.
Technical Terminology:
Each industry has its own set of jargon or the specialized technical language of the trade. The
maritime industry is no different. Accordingly, referencing a collegiate or standard dictionary
for terms specific to the marine industry is inappropriate and will lead to miscommunications,
misunderstandings, and missed opportunity in trying to develop and apply accessibility rules for
passenger vessels. This confusion frustrates providing access. Terms specific to the marine
industry must be utilized and those terms are found in maritime dictionaries and other maritime
professional publications. It is these reference materials that must be utilized if ship designers,
construction yards and operators are to understand what is being proposed or required.
Alterations, Modifications and New Construction:
Application of accessibility guidelines to construction of new vessels is appropriate provided the
building sequence is recognized and the final rules are not applied to existing vessels or vessels
that are already designed and contracted. Because of the lead time necessary for vessel design,
plan review and approval by multiple agencies, as well as contract penalties for design changes,
it will not be practicable or economically feasible to require compliance by vessels that have
already been designed and contracted for construction at the time the Guidelines become legally
effective. This is particularly true for a company that intends to build a series of identical vessels
from the same approved drawings without major modification. These sister vessels are often
part of a companys overall economic long term plan and major changes, which cause extensive
contract price increases due to change orders, may severely impact the economic viability of a
company.
With regards to major modifications such as lengthening of a ship by inserting a whole new
section, adding a whole new deck or deck section, these new sections generally can be made
accessible; however, it may not always be feasible for some or all pathways of travel to the new
sections to be rebuilt so as to be fully accessible. This is because ship construction, unlike
building construction, relies on an integrated system and it is rarely possible to modify one part
of a ship, widening a passageway for example, to be undertaken without impacting the whole of
the surrounding integrated structure. Thus, extending the major modification to the entire ship
may not be feasible or practicable.
The term alterations must be very specifically defined. Bringing certain portions of an altered
element into compliance may be reasonably accomplished while full compliance of an altered
element may not be possible due to shipboard construction limitations and adverse impact on the
ship as a system. For example: If an elevator car is changed out or modernized, it will certainly
be possible to properly locate the call buttons, update the floor announcements, adjust rail
heights and floor surface. However, it will not be possible to change the physical dimensions of
the elevator car to bring it into compliance with accessibility guidelines for width and depth
requirements. Attempting such a feat would necessitate making significant structural
modifications around the new elevator car which may adversely impact compliance with main
vertical fire zone requirements, and escape path width requirements. Additional steel
requirements, the additional weight of the larger car and the larger lift machinery would impact
the stability of the ship, which must also meet very stringent requirements, and would impact the
electrical load capacity of the ship. This may, in turn, require re-engineering of the generators
and the electrical distribution switchboards.
As can be seen from this example, ships are not as easily altered as buildings due to the
integrated structure of a ship and associated safety systems, weight restrictions and the impact on
stability. Thus, the overall safety of the ship with regard to its response to given sea states and
ability to survive a flooding casualty may be adversely impacted.
Potential Conflict with Standards of Other Countries:
ICCL notes that administrations of several countries, where ICCL member ships either make port
calls or embark passengers, are either in the process of or have indicated the intent to adopt
accessibility requirements for passenger ships. These include, but are not limited to: United
Kingdom, Australia, Japan, Italy and the European Union. It is not clear how ships calling at all
these countries can comply with differing standards if each administration elects to press its own
accessibility scheme on passenger ships not otherwise subject to its jurisdiction. To avoid
conflict, ICCL recommends a harmonized approach to the development of these guidelines.
On/Off Access and Gangways:
Access for all persons on and off a passenger vessel must be a responsibility that is shared
between the ship and the port. Primary concern for embarking and debarking passengers under
all weather and tidal conditions must be the safety of all passengers and crew.
ICCL members call upon over 70 ports in the United States and over 600 ports world wide.
Access on and off any passenger vessel will vary depending on many factors including the port
infrastructure, the type of operation--whether it be a turn around port or a port of call--and tidal
influences. Some ports are well developed with good infrastructure for accommodating the
boarding of vessels while others are remote and have little infrastructure.
In many instances, an ICCL cruise ship must anchor away from the port and use either the ships
tendering vessels or local passenger boats to ferry the passengers between the ship and the port
landing. In these situations, the dynamic motions between the tendering vessel and the ship
and/or ships boarding platform must be considered, in addition to the actual interface between
the platforms. Due to these motions and the overall safety of transferring between two vessels,
we recommend that the guidelines expressly exempt the actual transfer interface or operation.
In other ports, embarkation may be by means of a sophisticated boarding bridge, similar to a
jetway that one encounters in boarding an airplane at a major airport. In still other ports, access
to the ship will be via a gangway type arrangement. These gangways vary in construction,
length, width, and walking surface and may or may not have some sort of transition between the
end of the gangway and the shore or ship. In many instances, these gangways are provided by
the port of call; in others, the ships limited gangway is used to augment port facilities.
In large ports utilizing a boarding bridge, the slope of the boarding ramp can be controlled and is
usually very slight. In other situations, the slope of a boarding gangway varies significantly
depending upon the shore structure relative to the boarding location on that ship. The slope will
also vary greatly within a given port facility if there are large tidal fluctuations that must be
contended with. In many instances this may be minimized by operational practices and utilizing
different boarding ports located on different decks. Even with these efforts, it is not always
possible to ensure a gentle slope for unassisted access. Add to this the use of articulated stair
steps or cross bars on a gangway to ensure safe footing in adverse weather and for steeper slopes,
and it becomes impossible to ensure unassisted safe on/off access for wheelchair users and other
persons with mobility disabilities. In many instances, during tendering operations, especially
where there is a poor port infrastructure, high tidal fluctuations or bad weather, all persons are
offered or receive assistance in getting on or off the ship safely. This is seen as an operational
and safety necessity.
A detailed, prescriptive requirement addressing an issue that is readily recognized as not having
a commonly accepted solution is inappropriate. Therefore, on/off accessibility guidelines should
be in the form of a performance standard.
To take account of the wide variation in ship designs, port facilities and tidal ranges, a pragmatic
approach is essential. We recommend a performance standard that considers the following:
a) A means of transfer is to be provided between a passenger vessel and regular ports of call
on an itinerary.
b) In all transfers, the safety of both passengers and crew must be the primary concern.
c) The interface between the ship and the means of access both inside the vessel and on the
quayside is to be suitable for passengers with reduced mobility.
d) Due to safety concerns, independent access may not be possible in adverse tidal or
weather conditions.
e) Gangway surfaces are to have a non-slip finish and be suitable for the marine
environment.
Given the constraints we have discussed, it is evident that the currently drafted exception for
gangways with a length equal to the beam of the vessel is unrealistic and unworkable. Please see
photos located in the Appendix.
Extraterritorial Application with regards to On/Off matters:
Access on and off a vessel is extremely dependent upon many factors including the port
infrastructure, the remoteness of a port, and tidal variations. The interface between a ship and
port facilities therefore varies widely from port to port. While this is an extremely difficult issue
to properly and reasonably address within United States ports where US jurisdiction is clear, the
matter of on/off access can not be addressed by US law or regulation when it involves a port not
subject to US jurisdiction and a non-US flag passenger vessel. ICCL members strive to provide
reasonable access both on and off their vessels in all ports as this is in the best interests of our
guests. However, the application of US law and regulation to non-US flag ships operating in
non-US ports is unacceptable.
Application to Shore Excursions:
Guidelines for accessibility onboard passenger vessels by its definition cannot include
requirements for shore excursions or extraterritorial ports of call.
With regards to shore excursions, the majority of excursions are provided by independent, third
party vendors. When these excursions and vendors are located within US jurisdiction, they
themselves are subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and must comply with
applicable accessibility requirements for their operations. Thus, cruise ships and cruise operating
companies cannot be responsible for compliance by third parties.
General Footnote:
ICCL suggests that a general provision be included in the Guidelines which clarifies that certain
items such as door closing speeds and opening forces, slopes of ramps, maximum cross slopes of
decks, etc., are to be measured when the ship is in the static design condition. Thus, any changes
due to ship motions, wind, change in operating condition (trim or heel) would not be cause for
these parameters to be considered out of compliance.
These elements must also be harmonized with SOLAS mandatory safety requirements.
Advisory Notes:
ICCL recommends that Advisory Notes be included throughout the final text to include
commentary that has been useful or necessary in clarifying or explaining the various
requirements so that this vital information will not be lost in final publication.
Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee (PVAAC):
The Board specifically asked for expert opinion assistance in developing guidelines for
accessibility on passenger ships. To this end, the Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee
was established. The committee included experts and representatives from the maritime industry,
vessel operations, disabled professionals, and various associations representing the groups listed
above. Over the course of several years and many meetings, the professional advice of this group
was sought and obtained. It is disappointing to note that where PVAAC noted specific safety
issues and potential conflict with international standards, this advice was rejected, apparently on
the simple basis that it was necessary to maintain consistency with ADAAG. This is extremely
disappointing when one realizes that the Committee was formed in recognition of the fact that
shoreside accessibility standards written for construction of land-based facilities were
inappropriate for passenger vessels. The goal is to create accessibility without compromising
safety, and PVAG raises certain critical safety issues and conflicts with international standards.
The Way Forward
The effort to develop guidelines for ensuring access onboard passenger vessels has been in
progress now for approximately eight years. Despite this, there are numerous unresolved issues
and unanswered questions. In the spirit of moving forward with guidelines that will reasonably
address these issues, we recommend the following:
- The various segments of the passenger vessel industry, together with the Access Board
and staff, should identify those elements over which there is little or no disagreement
either in scope or requirement and go forward with these elements in a process that would
set these rules in place as soon as administrative processes allow. We believe that this
covers the majority of the elements.
- For those elements where there is serious disagreement and unresolved matters due to
technical or practical constraints, the Access Board and the passenger vessel industry
should establish working groups of experts or other processes to resolve these issues.
- For the on/off issue at the port/ship interface, the Access Board, the passenger vessel
industry, and port representatives should work together to develop an acceptable
performance standard that recognizes safety, feasibility and operational responsibilities.
Section 2:
ICCL COMMENTS ON
U.S. ACCESS BOARD
DRAFT
PASSENGER VESSEL ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES
U.S. ACCESS BOARD
DRAFT
PASSENGER VESSEL ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES
Discussion of Provisions
- V101 Purpose: ICCL recommends that the term additions be removed as in the
maritime industry these are referred to as alterations.
- V104 Conventions: A convention in the maritime industry refers to such regulations as
the International Convention on Safety of Life at Sea (1974), the International Loadlines
Convention (1966) and other international regulatory documents. A different term should
be selected for this heading.
- V104 Dimensions: The notation referencing minimum, maximum and absolute
dimensions does not, in many cases, permit sufficient leeway for design, construction
tolerance and operations for floating versus land-based facilities. Given the multiple layers
and elements involved in welded steel construction, dimensions of the finished structures
and elements within may differ slightly from design dimensions by an inch or more. This
point is illustrated by the diagram below.
TYPICAL SHIP BUILDING TOLERANCES
- V104.1.2 Slopes: Should read static design condition. While the Board recognizes that
vessels move in six degrees of freedom, slopes are measured from the static design
condition. Such consideration also should be made clear for other items that may be
impacted by the ship movement or weather conditions such as door opening and closing
forces and times.
- V105 Referenced Standards: The guidelines call for compliance with U.S. engineering
standards such as ANSI, BHMA, ASTM, ANSI and NFPA. As previously noted, non-US
flag cruise ships are built in non-US shipyards using mostly non-U.S. equipment. Foreign
countries, shipyards, certifying governments, manufacturers etc. may not recognize or even
accept U.S. engineering standards over their own. German shipyards use DIN or other EU
recognized standards and Japan yards use JIS. The same is true for equipment procured
from non-U.S. manufacturers. If it is only a matter of certification inspection, it is one
issue; if it is a matter of changing materials standards for the equipment or changing
tolerances or other physical properties of the equipment, it may be impossible for the non-
U.S. manufacturers to meet the referenced U.S. engineering standards. This can also
negatively impact issuance of a warranty by the manufacturer.
ICCL recommends that construction of the ship and manufacture of its components be
permitted to utilize recognized non-U.S. engineering standards common to the maritime
industry.
- V105.2.4 IMO: This is incorrectly refers to SOLAS as a standard. It is not. These are
international regulations and have a different legal standing. SOLAS and other
international regulatory conventions also reference mandatory and non-mandatory
interpretations, codes, and implementation guidelines, such as Resolutions, Circulars,
Unified Interpretations and Guidelines.
- V105.2.5 NFPA: IMO Regulations take precedence over NFPA standards unless the
NFPA Standard is referenced by an IMO document.
- V106 Definitions: ICCL recommends that the guidelines utilize the correct nautical
terms that are applicable to ship construction and used throughout the maritime industry.
These nautical terms may not be found in collegiate dictionaries or the existing definitions
therein may differ from maritime usage. See comments at General Comments, Technical
Terminology.
- V106.5 Addition: This definition should be deleted, as it is included within the concept
of alteration.
- V106.5 Administrative Authority: In as much as these guidelines apply to non-U.S. Flag
ships, this definition is not accurate for these foreign vessels and must be modified
accordingly.
- V106.5 Assembly Area: In the marine context, the term assembly areas refers to
muster stations. In the proposed rule, the term is used to describe places of gathering, such
as lounges and theaters. Therefore, the use of this term can result in confusion. Clear
differentiation must be made in the definitions section regarding this terminology and
clearly stating the Boards intent versus SOLAS intent. ICCL recommends that the term
in the guidelines be changed to program area, passenger gathering area, or some other
term that is not likely to be confused with the SOLAS safety term.
- V106.5 Camber: The definition should state that this is the transverse slope of the deck
for the purpose of shedding water. Increase in strength, headroom etc. is not the purpose or
definition of camber.
- V106.5 Ground Level: In as much as ships are not buildings or shoreside facilities, the
term ground level is misleading, inappropriate, and could be confusing. We recommend
the term be changed to deck level in keeping with commonly accepted nautical/maritime
vocabulary.
- V106.5 Mezzanine: This should be referred to as tween-deck space which is the
accepted nautical term.
- V106.5 Occupant Load: Occupant loading for various areas on a ship or passenger vessel
are not defined in this manner. This will cause problems in design of vessel escape routes
in accordance with SOLAS. USCG regulations determine occupancy load may be based
on a number of different criteria, including:
- Rail length
- Seating capacity
- Deck space (sq. ft. per person)
- Stability limitations
- Size of exit doors from the interior space
- V201.1 Scope: Newly designed and newly constructed are not defined terms. There
needs to be a determination as to when these requirements would apply. The only
flexibility provided in application of new regulations for the ship owner is before the
contract is signed. Therefore, the application date for any regulations should be for classes
of ships contracted on or after MONTH XX, 20XX. Changes for subsequent ships in a
series due to new or changed regulations will result in a significant cost increase.
Application vis-à-vis the number of passengers or overnight passengers appears to be
correctly stated here. The other statements in the Guidelines should be brought in line with
this so as to be clear.
- V202.1 and .2 Additions: Consistent with ICCLs previous comment, these references to
additions should be deleted.
- V202.3 Alterations: ICCL notes that some maintenance and repair could be considered
alterations and trigger requirements for compliance. The term alteration should be
defined in the context of the terminology used in the maritime industry. See also General
Comments concerning alterations.
- V203 General Exceptions: The Passenger Vessel Accessibility Guidelines (PVAG)
should contain an express exception clearly stating that the PVAG do not apply to crew
areas. ICCL acknowledges that V201.1 references only passenger areas. However, a
more explicit statement of the inapplicability of PVAG to crew areas is warranted,
particularly given that the land-based accessibility guidelines (in particular the recently
revised guidelines) are replete with exceptions for employee work areas.
Given the Supreme Courts pronouncement in Spector that Title IIIs requirements do not
extend to matters that interfere with the internal affairs of a foreign-flag vessel, nor
adversely affect shipboard safety or conflict with international requirements, a complete
exception for crew areas is mandated. There can be no issue more clearly related to the
internal affairs of a foreign flag vessel than the terms and conditions under which crew
reside onboard the vessel. Moreover, international requirements, such as SOLAS, STCW
and ILO establish strict physical and health requirements for all crew members and require
that all crew members be capable of responding to emergency situations.
- V203.2 Limited Access Spaces: This section should be deleted since it does not deal
with passenger spaces that are the subject of this proposed rule. A clear statement to this
effect should be inserted at the front of the Guidelines under applicability.
- V203.4 Raised Refereeing, Scoring and Judging Areas: This exception should also be
extended to temporary and/or raised areas that are constructed for a specific purpose
similar to the above and are not for passenger use. For example, as discussed by the
PVAAC, when a raised Jacuzzi type pool has a temporary platform placed over it for
entertainment purposes.
- V204.1 Protruding Objects: This requires that all circulation paths (not just accessible
routes) used by passengers comply with V307. ICCL recommends that this be changed to
read circulation paths normally meant to be used by passengers. As currently written, it
could be misinterpreted to mean than crew circulation spaces (stairways, service corridors,
elevators etc.) not for use by passengers but which could be used by passengers either
intentionally (against prohibition) or mistakenly in an emergency, would have to comply
with the referenced section.
- V205.1, Exception 1 General: This is a sensible exception.
- V205.1, Exception 3 General: ICCL recommends that the term kitchen be changed to
pantry to conform to shipboard terminology.
- V206.2.1 and Exceptions thereto Onboard Accessible Routes, Multi-Deck Vessels: The
draft PVAG have significantly narrowed the application of the exceptions recommended by
the Access Boards own Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee (PVAAC) to the
vertical access requirements set forth in V206.2, by excluding entry decks from the
exceptions. Whereas PVAAC did not require vertical access between passenger decks on
vessels with fewer than three decks, on vessels with less than 3000 square feet per deck, or
to any deck with less than 300 square feet, PVAG excludes all entry decks from these
exceptions. The draft PVAG thus establish an absolute requirement for vertical access
between all entry decks on a vessel.
It is unclear whether, or the extent to which, this vertical access requirement would extend
to the small tender platforms or side pontoon door decks on cruise ships. Because this passenger deck is probably less than 300 sq ft. it appears that it may indeed be exempt
under Exception 2. However, V206.4 appears to require that each entry and departure
point used by passengers be on an accessible route. This should be clarified as these
openings are, to our understanding, below the bulkhead deck and have special provisions
for watertightness etc. Given this, safety feature/ requirement, it would appear that an
elevator could not provide direct access to this deck. Also, any doors at this level would
have to be watertight and thus have substantial sills if they were even allowed. This issue
can be overcome with lifts and should be acceptable.
Cruise ships may provide multiple platforms, to facilitate efficient loading and unloading of
passengers. Platforms typically are provided on each side of the ship, to accommodate
tender approach to either side of the ship. Because multiple tender platforms may be
provided, and individuals with mobility impairments can be assigned/directed to the tender
platform with vertical access, vertical access should not be required to all such decks.
ICCL respectfully submits that it would be more appropriate to require vertical access only
to one such tender platform on each side of the ship (where such platforms are provided on
both sides of the ship).
- V206.2.1.1 Stairs and Escalators: The term additions should be deleted per previous
comments.
- V206.2.2, Exception 1 Spaces and Elements: Please refer to previous comments
regarding the SOLAS definition of assembly area.
- V206.2.3, Exceptions thereto Restaurants and Cafeterias: Exception 1 does not require
an onboard accessible route on vessels that otherwise are not required to provide onboard
vertical access to mezzanine dining areas that contain less than 25% of the total combined
dining and seating area, where the same décor and services are provided in the accessible
area. Exception 2 does not require an onboard accessible route to raised or sunken dining
areas in existing vessels, irrespective of the size of the area or whether the vessel is
otherwise required to provide onboard vertical access, again provided the same décor and
services are provided in the accessible area and the accessible are is not restricted to use by
persons with disabilities.
These exceptions should be extended to raised and/or sunken dining areas on newly
constructed cruise vessels as well. Raised dining areas may be created in dining areas for a
multitude of design reasons, such as conditions stemming from use of the space below the
dining area or even maintaining views through portals or of a focal point in the room. Such
levels may not be served by an elevator (particularly if the raised area does not qualify a
higher deck or even a tween deck). Such levels also may not be served by an accessible
route, as space constraints in combination with the necessary dining capacity may make
stepped access the more viable solution. In such circumstances, where there truly is no
difference in the experience being offered on the different levels of the dining area, and the
areas have the same décor and service, these exceptions should apply irrespective of
whether the vessel is otherwise exempt for the requirements for vertical access or is an
existing vessel. It is also significant that in most main dining areas onboard a cruise vessel,
passengers are assigned to a specific table and do not get to choose the particular table at
which they sit.
- V206.4 Entry and Departure Points: Where ships have multiple tendering platforms that
may be considered entry decks, it is unreasonable to require each to be accessible. Because
access to the ship via these decks is controlled through the use of tendering vessels,
operational methods can be employed to assure that persons needing an accessible route are
brought to the correct platform that is so provided on each side of the ship. Also, see
previous comment in response to V206.2.1.
- V206.2.9 Play Areas: ICCL recommends changing the term to deck level per prior
comment relating to the term ground level.
- V206.6 Elevators: See comments in response to V407.4.
- V206.6.1 Existing Elevators: The Guidelines contain numerous exceptions and
provisions for existing vessels or elements. This labeling is confusing in that it appears
to suggest that these requirements are applicable to existing vessels and/or elements
irrespective of whether they have otherwise been altered. All exceptions labeled existing
should be revised or amended to alterations to existing. By their own terms, these
guidelines only apply to newly constructed or altered vessels.
- V207.1 General: It should be made clear that accessible means of escape can be provided
only to a certain point where escape must involve the use of lifeboats or other emergency
methods of evacuation.
- V207.2 Accessible Means of Escape, Number Required: This section needs to be
clarified. ICCL recommends that the requirements of SOLAS be adopted and that one of
the two required means of escape be accessible in as much as SOLAS also requires all
accommodation spaces be equipped with automatic sprinkler systems. Draft PVAG could
have the unintended effect of requiring means of escape in excess of that required by
SOLAS. SOLAS 2.2 states: Lifts shall not be considered as forming one of the means of
escape as required by this regulation. While IMO Circular 846 permits lifts to be used as
an additional means of escape (provided such lifts are crew-operated and have emergency
power), such means of escape does not count toward satisfying the number required under
SOLAS. This section and Exception 1 must be clarified.
V208.1 Passenger Vessel Boarding: This requires that at least one passenger boarding
system must be provided that complies with V412. While this may be possible in a
terminal with a bridge-way, this is not possible for a vessel carried gangway and in many
instances, for gangways provided by the ports. Because of tidal fluctuations and the
variation in vessels calling at a facility, and because of the design of gangways for safety
purposes in all weather conditions, the requirements of V412 are not achievable. For
example, gangways provided by ports such as Juneau and other Alaskan or New England
ports where tidal changes may reach as much as 30 feet, can exceed the proposed slope
requirements. While some ships may be able to minimize the impact by moving the
boarding location from deck to deck, this will not always provide the shallow slopes
desired. Additional relief in these situations may be provided by the shoreside
infrastructure and any platforms and additional ramps available at specific ports as well as
the physical space available for providing this equipment. All of this will vary however
from port to port and ship to ship in an infinite combination. Thus, a single prescriptive
requirement can not address each and every circumstance. Please see also the discussion in
General Comments.
To take account of the wide variation in ship designs, port facilities and tidal ranges, a
pragmatic approach is essential. ICCL recommends a performance standard that considers
the following:
a) A means of transfer is to be provided between a passenger vessel and regular ports
of call on an itinerary.
b) In all transfers, the safety of both passengers and crew must be the primary concern.
c) The interface between the ship and the means of access both inside the vessel and
on the quayside is to be suitable for passengers with reduced mobility.
d) Due to safety concerns, independent access may not be possible in adverse tidal or
weather conditions.
e) Gangway surfaces are to have a non-slip finish and be suitable for the marine
environment.
Additionally, in establishing requirements for accessible boarding systems, both the Access
Board and DOT must be cognizant of the extraterritoriality issues that arise in extending
these requirements to foreign ports of call. Attempting to impose requirements on a
foreign-flag vessel docking at a foreign port is clearly an extraterritorial application of Title
III. Moreover, there are serious legal issues regarding U.S. jurisdiction to impose
accessibility requirements on foreign ports of call. We strongly encourage that PVAG
adopt a performance standard for boarding systems and such standard should only apply
with respect to U.S. ports. We note that DOTs implementation of the Air Carriers Act has
essentially adopted a performance standard for boarding issues not withstanding the fact
that the distance between the aircraft and the ground is essentially fixed (unlike the variable
ship/port interface). See 14 C.F.R. §§ 382.40(a), 382.40a(a). Furthermore, the performance
standard is applicable only at larger airports receiving in excess of a given number of
flights per year. See Id. (requirement to provide boarding assistance in situations where
passengers are not boarded by level-entry loading bridges or accessible passengers
lounges applies only to air carriers conducting passenger operations with aircraft having
a seating capacity of 31 or more passengers at airports with 10,000 or more annual
enplanements).
A passenger boarding system carried by the vessel can not possibly meet the proposed
requirement for all ports visited that may not or do not have the shoreside system that
meets these requirements. Even if the largest vessels were to carry a gangway equal to the
beam of the ship (approximately 105 feet) this would only permit use in a 9 foot (if a 1:12
slope is permitted) difference between the ship and the shore landing point. Aside from
the practical matter of constructing a strong enough gangway of this length that could be
carried onboard a ship, there are many ports where the difference between the exit portal on
the ship and the shore level are greater than this distance due to the interface between the
ship and the port and/or extreme rise and fall of the tides. Additionally, some ports will not
physically have the room for such a long gangway. The on/off matter has been identified
as potentially the most complex and problematic for both the ships and the shore facilities.
This matter is further complicated by extra-territorial concerns. Please see our previous
comments.
- V210 Rinsing Showers: V210.1 provides that where rinsing showers are provided at a
location, at least one shall be accessible, i.e., comply with the requirements of V608. This
scoping should be modified to provide greater clarity as to the meaning of location. For
example, if rinsing showers are provided on both the port or starboard sides of a pool area,
or alternatively are located at the forward and aft portions of the pool area, does this qualify
as two different locations or simply one location? While it is appropriate that at least
one accessible rinsing shower be provided in the pool area, ICCL questions the need to
provide more than one in a single pool area simply because the rinsing showers are
distributed around the pool area rather than clustered together at a single spot.
- V212 Kitchens, Kitchenettes, and Sinks: Kitchen and kitchenettes for guest use are
referred to by their nautical name as pantries and should be referred to as such.
- V211 Drinking Fountains: Delete reference to detention facility, as these are not
passenger spaces.
- V215.1 Alarms: As an alternative to a visible alarm, technologies such as personal text
pagers should be permitted. This text capable device, which is currently being employed
on vessels, can provide the user with notification, instructions and other information. We
believe that this and other technologies should be accepted as alternative compliance.
Please see General Comments Ships as a Safety System and comments in response to
V217 and V224.4.
It should be noted that modern ships no longer utilize separate bells or other devices to
sound an alarm. Modern systems utilize the public address system that has very specific
performance requirements in SOLAS. The public address system power is insufficient to
also power a visual alert and thus would require a dedicated electrical system throughout
the vessel that must be fed from the emergency system.
Unlike shoreside facilities, passenger ships have crewmembers that are trained and tasked
with assisting persons in the event of an emergency. Therefore, we consider the existing
SOLAS regulations for transmitting alarms when supplemented by alternative technologies
and operational practices, to be sufficient for assuring the safety of everyone onboard a
passenger vessel.
- V215.3 Guest Rooms: See comments in response to V215.1.
- V216 Signs: ISO, at the direction of IMO, is currently preparing a directive with regard
to signage onboard ships. These signs will be required to be certain sizes and contain
certain safety information with regards to Assembly Stations. These signs are required to
use international symbols which do not lend themselves to Braille or tactile lettering.
Given the operational safety requirement onboard ship and the extent of crew training and
intervention in an emergency, we do not believe that these signs should be required to have
either Braille or tactile characteristics. The Board should also ensure that there are no
additional conflicting requirements.
- V216.4.1 Signs: SOLAS requirements for Low Location Lighting (LLL) require a
lighted sign at each emergency exit. It would be more reasonable to require that each of
these LLL exit locations also be equipped with the sign envisioned by this requirement.
Such an emergency exit indicator could be molded into the LLL fixture. The requirements
in V703 should be adjusted to conform to the SOLAS technical standard for location,
height etc.
- V216.4.2 Areas of Temporary Refuge: On a large passenger ship with sprinkler systems,
and complex requirements for ventilation, etc., areas of temporary refuge are a misnomer
when considering passenger ships that are in compliance with SOLAS and other
international safety requirements.
ICCL recommends that an exception be included for those vessels that comply with
SOLAS fire protection and sprinkler system requirements. See SOLAS Chapter II-2.
- V216.4.3 Directional Signs: ICCL recommends that this paragraph be deleted. Whereas
the purpose of ADA is to ensure independent access, in an emergency onboard ship, safe
egress is not an individual or independent function. The safety of ALL passengers onboard
dictates that ALL will be assisted. The location of the safe means of escape will depend
upon the circumstances of the emergency. Thus, the concept of directional signs onboard a
ship to designate the direction of safe egress is inappropriate and such signs could easily
misguide a person into danger rather than away from it.
Safe escape from any space onboard ship is a complex matter. For this reason, maritime
experts such as the USCG and IMO are charged with assuring the safety of crew and
passengers. Given current regulatory signage requirements, shipboard safety systems, and
crew emergency procedures, the proposed signage will be counterproductive and may very
well promote confusion. Moreover, SOLAS specifically prohibits the use of directional
LLL. See SOLAS Chapter II-1 Regulation 13.3.2.5 Marking of Escape Routes and
associated guidance.
- 45. V217 Telephones: This would imply by the definition that every single house phone
would have to have a TTY. This is clearly in excess of shore side facility requirements.
For private/non-government facilities, Revised ADAAG requires only one TTY per
facility/floor/bank where 4 or more phones are provided in a facility/floor/bank. No
persuasive rationale for requiring significantly greater scoping of TTYs onboard vessels
has been offered. ICCL recommends that no more than one TTY equipped phone be
required per deck. Additionally, current technology already provides for effective
communications and renders the requirement for TTY at all courtesy telephone locations
unnecessary. See General Comments Ships as a Safety System and comments in
response to V215.1 and V224.4.
- Commentary to V217 Relay Systems: The Board notes that the draft PVAG do not
address whether third party relay systems must be provided by vessel operators and
states that questions regarding such services should be directed to the Department of
Justice. ICCL notes that that onboard phone systems/ communications are self-contained
systems, and access to land-side relay systems is not available to any guest. Cruise ships
staff the pursers desk on a 24/7 basis, and such staff are available to transmit
communications to guest services departments or other passenger cabins not equipped with
a TTY. Although this is a somewhat informal relay service, we believe it meets the intent
of any requirement for a third party relay system. Additionally, the emergency 911
number on a ship rings in a space that is required by SOLAS regulations to be continually
manned when there are passengers onboard. (SOLAS Chapter II-2 Regulation 22.1 and
22.2 as referenced in other regulations such as II-2-40.7.1; 41-2.4.2; and others.) We
believe that this meets the intent of the requirement.
- V218 Two-Way Communication Systems: This section should be deleted since it has no
relevance with regard to access to the ship or to restricted areas.
- V219.3 Assistive Listening Receivers: The minimum number of receivers is excessive
based on experience that currently provided systems are seldom requested and therefore
underutilized.
- V221 et seq. Assembly Areas: Please see ICCLs previous comment regarding the
SOLAS definition of assembly area.
- V221.2.2 Integration of Wheelchair Spaces in Assembly Areas: Given the difference
between ship construction and shore-side theater, stadium or building construction, such as
the maximum permitted length and area of fire zones and beam of the ship, full dispersion
of seats horizontally and on all vertical levels, is not feasible.
Even the largest cruise ships feature theaters that are steeply sloped relative to slopes found
in land-based theaters. Given the steepness of the slope, ramps that would be required to
provide full vertical dispersion of wheelchair accessible and companion seats would be
exceptionally long, to provide a maximum ramp slope of 1:12. Introducing such long
ramps would mean excessive loss of non-accessible seating in the areas covered by the
ramps. Although it is difficult to precisely define the number of non-accessible seats that
would be lost without reference to the specifics of a particular ship and theater, land based
experience in arenas which feature similar slopes indicate that somewhere between five and
eight non-accessible seats would be lost for every accessible seat gained. In a 500 seat
theatre, dispersing six seats would, therefore, imply a loss of 30 to 48 seats in order to meet
vertical and horizontal dispersion criteria suggested by the Access Board. Providing
accessible seating to entry levels (usually found at top, middle or bottom levels of the
shipboard theater) allows adequate sightlines and access to the activities occurring in the
theater and minimizes the loss of other seating.
Exception 1 for horizontal dispersion is also complex and should be clarified.
- V221.2.3.2 Vertical Dispersion: Ships are not large enough to have playing fields,
especially fields accompanied by seating in the classically accepted understanding of this
concept. Therefore, reference to this should be deleted.
- V223.1.1 Alterations: Remove the term added as this is an alteration.
- V224.1.1 Alterations: Remove added. This paragraph as drafted is ambiguous. The
intent is that cabins within the altered section are counted in the scoping calculation in
Table V224.2. As currently written, one could infer that accessible cabins must be added
until the requirement for the entire ship is met. This would result in the majority of
accessible cabins being located in only the altered area. ICCL recommends that scoping be
clarified to reflect the above explanation.
- V224.2 Guest Rooms with Mobility Features: Based on ICCLs preliminary study
regarding actual usage of accessible cabins, the scoping scoping requirement for mobility
accessible cabins is excessive. Please see Section 4 Preliminary Report of Findings -
ICCL Data Collection Project.
- V224.4 Guest Rooms with Communication Features: In addition to the comments noted
previously, the Board should take into account the impact of hardwiring cabins on stability
and electrical requirements (i.e., the weight of certified marine cable, the size of emergency
generators, the rating of the emergency switchboard, etc.).
Provision of equivalent or better capability on a request basis through portable equipment
or personal communications devices will not only result in broader access but it can be
achieved in a more cost effective manner without affecting the stability and electrical
requirements of the ship.
Given the safety and emergency procedures in place on a vessel, the Boards concern with
individuals potentially being left in cabins, or in any public space, is without basis. See
General Comments Ships as a Safety System.
- V224.5 Dispersion: See comments in response to V806.3.
- V226.1 Dining Surfaces: In show lounges and entertainments areas, lounges etc., small
cocktail tables are provided. These tables are not intended to provide knee clearance or
approach. These tables should be included in the exception under V226.1.
- V227.3 Counters: See comment in response to V904.4.
- V230 Detention Facilities: This section should be deleted, as detention cells are located
in crew areas. These cells are intended for crew detention.
- V233.2 Play Components: See ICCLs comments regarding the term ground level.
Also, shore-side playground requirements should not automatically apply to shipboard play
components.
- V235.2 Swimming Pools: Swimming pools on passenger vessels are limited in size due
to stability requirements. It is simply not safe to place a large amount of water with a free
surface at the top of a ship. To contain the waves that are set up during the natural roll and
pitch of the vessel also means that we need to provide a beach area around the pool. The
proposed guidelines allow either a ramp or a chair lift - given the limitations we already
have in size, introducing a ramp will significantly reduce the pool area and become an
obstacle for other swimmers. Chair lifts may not be the best solution on a moving platform
and therefore ICCL recommend that the use of transfer benches also be considered. This
would allow discrete access on a stable platform and they can be extended to include other
pool features such as Jacuzzis.
- V235.2, Exception 4: ICCL recommends that a Cluster be defined as where two or
more pools or spas are located in adjacent areas.
- V235.3 Wading Pools: Sloped entries are not feasible given shipboard size limitations.
- V236 Shooting Facilities: ICCL members no longer provide this amenity onboard their
ships due to security concerns.
- V302.3 Openings: Given the requirements for efficient drainage, where grates
employing such openings would be required, square or circular openings greater than ½
inch should be permitted. We recommend that such openings be permitted to be 3/4 inch
square/diameter.
- V305.2 Deck Surfaces: When ramps are employed to overcome sills required for
weathertight doors, it will be necessary to provide clamshell type design ramps extending
beyond the edges of the door in order to avoid creating tripping hazards. The edges of
these clamshell ramps will of necessity be of greater slope than 1:48.
- V403.5.3 Passing Spaces: Stair lobbies are located at the ends of fire zones. Since two
fire zones are typically placed together, lobbies may be separated by the length of two fire
zones or approximately 90 meters. Therefore for shipboard construction, this requirement
should be consistent with these construction arrangements.
- V403.6 Handrails: It should be made clear that this provision does not apply to guard
rails installed for safety purposes which are specifically addressed by both SOLAS and
USCG regulations.
- V404 Doors, Doorways and Gates: The Board has the erroneous impression that a
weathertight door requiring a substantial coaming or sill may be replaced with a watertight
door that does not require the coaming or sill. This is not correct. The requirement for the
depth of the coaming or sill is dependent on the location of the door on the ship and not the
type of door. In this regard, the Boards discussion of third configuration of access
indicates that a watertight door with a sill/threshold of only 1-1/4 inches could be used
versus a weathertight door with 3-6 inch coamings/threshold. For example, this would not
be acceptable for position 1 (forward quarter of the ships length above the bulkhead deck)
doors under international regulations.
The study ADA Access to Passenger Vessels: Finding Safety Equivalence Solutions for
Weathertight Doors with Coamings Parts 1 and 2, prepared for the Board by the U.S.
Department of Transportation Research and Special Programs Administration John A.
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, does not address the circumstances and
conditions under which cruise ships operate. The Board has drawn vast, overly broad and
improper conclusions based on the results of this very limited case study.
This study only considered small passenger vessels (Subchapter T and K vessels) on a very
limited operating route restricted to protected waters of the United States. The doors
involved were required to be kept closed at all times while underway and involved
arrangements that were permitted to be operated by crewmembers only. Additionally, the
possibility of downflooding (flowing of water from the ingress point to other lower parts of
the vessel) onboard the vessel was precluded by the watertight main deck which protected
the machinery spaces and essential systems from damage due to water ingress. There is no
rational basis to extend the studys conclusions, based on these route restrictions and small
passenger vessel design elements, to other vessels, particularly cruise ships that operate on
unrestricted ocean service routes and to doors serving areas where passenger access is
specifically permitted even while the ship is underway.
The safety philosophy as stated in Part 2, of the study is to:
Keep water off the decks, through assignment of freeboard, i.e. the height of the
deck above the water
Get water off the decks, via freeing ports and other drainage features, and
transverse and longitudinal deck slopes, known as camber and sheer
Keep water out of interior spaces by proper design of structures and closures
Control any water that does get in through protection of downflooding paths,
subdivision of compartments below, and pumping arrangements
It is apparent that none of these restrictions are applicable to a vessel that is certified for
full ocean service, has the possibility of downflooding in the event of water ingress at
higher levels, and is significantly more complex in its design, construction and operation.
The overly simplistic discussion contained in the Draft Guidelines regarding sills and
coamings on weathertight doors, proposes an alternative presumed to apply to cruise ships,
without mention or reference to the very limited nature of the study and vessels involved in
that study. At issue is a very critical and major element of ship survivability that is being
lightly dismissed for a so-called equivalent arrangement that would not be applicable on
oceangoing ships. The fact that the doors considered in the study are required to be kept
closed when the vessel is underway and operated only by crew members, renders the
studys conclusions wholly inapplicable to doors intended for passenger utilization.
- V404.2.5 Thresholds: The Board provides an exception for circumstances in which the
administrative authority determines that space limitations make it infeasible to provide
double or single ramp access at doors with coamings and water tight doors are provided
instead of weathertight doors equipped with coamings, the threshold on the side of the
watertight door containing the seal may have a non-beveled threshold 1¼ high max. In
the preamble, the Board states that marine door manufacturers indicate that 1¼ is the
minimum height necessary to form a watertight seal. Exception 1 is very narrow and
unsuitable in light of maritime regulations. An exception should be made where high
coamings are required by Loadline Convention regulations. Also, please refer to previous
comments.
- V404.2.5.1 Doors without Coamings, Exception: The proposed rule does not have
existing facilities within its scope and should not be addressed. Therefore, the term
existing should be deleted in all locations.
- V404.2.5.2 Doors with Coamings, Exception: This statement appears to state that instead
of a weathertight door with a sill and coaming, that a watertight door without a coaming
may be used.
A watertight door or weathertight door in these locations on a passenger vessel certified for
full ocean service would not normally be permitted to dispense with the coaming as this
safety feature is dependent on the location of the door on the ship and not dependent upon
the type of door. Also, please refer to previous comments.
- V404.2.5.2.1 & .2 Double and Single Ramp Access: The administrative authority
requires coamings to prevent the ingress of water into the ship. It is not clear how the ramp
requirements shown in the associated figures will maintain the integrity required. Installing
a solid surface ramp on the exterior of a weather door also provides a ramp for water to
travel into the space. This negates the purpose of the sill. An ICCL member installed
grated ramps to avoid this situation and found that they soon needed to be removed for
safety purposes. Experience showed that items such as womens shoe heels and canes
became stuck in the holes/slots provided for drainage resulting in twisted ankles, falls, and
damaged personal property. Also, individuals not wearing shoes on the main pool deck
suffered cut feet.
- V404.2.8 Closing Speed: This section should be harmonized with SOLAS requirements
found in Chapter II-2 Regulation 9.4.1.1.4. which states the approximate time of closure
for hinged fire doors shall be no more than 40 [seconds] and no less than 10 [seconds] from
the beginning of their movement with the ship in upright position. The approximated
uniform rate of closure for sliding doors shall be of no more than 0.2 m/s and no less than
0.1 m/s with the ship in upright position. Furthermore, additional considerations apply to
door closing such as vessel trim and list and the ability to close against wind or dynamic
ship roll. A note should be included qualifying this for static design conditions.
- V404.2.9 Opening Force, Subparagraphs 1 & 2 reference wording: If the opening force
is too light, it could result in doors swinging in heavy weather or wind causing injury.
Therefore, this requirement should be deleted (i.e., delete everything after the words
administrative authority).
- V404.3 Automatic and Power Assisted Doors and Gates: Reference to U.S. engineering
standards is inappropriate per previous comment.
- V405.2 Slope: Slope limits for minor differences in deck height are necessary because of
shipboard arrangements such as corridor widths that limit the length of the run. The
obvious solution would be to add width to the corridors. However, what may be perceived
to be a minor adjustment, will have a substantial, cumulative, negative effect on the design
of the ship. For example, adding to the ramp run will increase the total corridor width in
order to maintain the minimum clear width mandated by SOLAS. This issue also relates to
cabin balcony access.
ICCL recommends following the technical standard that was initially agreed upon by the
PVAAC (405.2, p. 11). It is as follows:
PVAAC 405.2 Slope: Ramp runs shall have a running slope not steeper than:
a. 1:4 if the rise is 3 inches (75 mm) maximum;
b. 1:6 if the rise is 6 inches (150 mm) maximum;
c. 1:8 if the rise is 9 inches (230 mm) maximum; or
d. 1:12 if the rise is greater than 9 inches (230 mm).
- V405.2, Exception 1 and Table V405.2 Slope: The exception should read in alterations
to existing passenger vessels.
- V405.6 Rise: Rise for any ramp run shall be 30 inches. This means the longest run of a
ramp can be 30 feet. This will not be possible in theaters and show lounges in existing
vessels due to fixed boundaries, such as fire zone bulkheads, and limitations in structural
modifications that would impact the basic structure of the ship. Therefore, an exception
should be included for existing ships undergoing alteration.
- V405.7.3 Landings, Length: For the same reasons stated in response to V405.6 above,
there should be an exception for alterations to existing vessels. The length of the landing in
these cases should uniformly be 48 inches.
- V407.2.1 et al. Height of Elevator Key Pads, Exceptions for existing installations: ICCL
recommends that this be reworded to apply to alterations to existing vessels.
- V407.4 Elevator Car Requirements: The draft PVAG contain minimum interior
dimensions of elevators that are identical to those set forth in the revised ADAAG for landbased
facilities. Significantly, the Access Board has omitted two alternate minimum
elevator configurations recommended by the PVAAC for elevators with a centered 36
wide door:
1) 65 side-to-side width, with a depth 54 back-to- front return, and 57 from the back
to the inside face of the door; and
2) 54 side-to-side width, with a depth 65 back-to-front return, and 68 from the back
to the inside face of the door.
The Boards stated reason for omitting the first alternative was a desire for consistency
with ADAAG and that the exception under V407.4.1 for existing vessels would permit
these dimensions. The Boards stated reasons for omitting the second alternative was again
consistency with ADAAG. The Board also noted that the second alternative was intended
primarily to address issues pertaining to casing widths in ferries, which the Board
concluded could satisfactorily be addressed with one of the four configurations already
contained in ADAAG for elevator cars with a 36 wide door: 54 side-to-side width, with a
depth 80 back-to-front return, and 80 from the back to the inside face of the door. The
Board dismissed that additional 15 depth requirement as not critical in the casings of
large passenger ferries.
The Boards omission of these two alternative elevator car configurations is problematic
for several reasons. First, the mere desire to make PVAG consistent with ADAAG is an
insufficient basis for rejecting the recommendations of the PVAAC. The Access Board
convened the PVAAC precisely because passenger vessels pose unique design issues that
differ significantly from the design of land-based facilities, and because the Board itself
lacks sufficient expertise to assess these issues. Accordingly, disregarding the informed
and experienced recommendations of the several naval architects who participated on the
PVAAC based upon a primary desire to keep PVAG consistent with ADAAG is improper.
Secondly, it appears that the Board does not fully appreciate the full-range of factors
necessitating these alternative configurations. These elevator configurations have
implications for both existing vessels and newly constructed vessels. The overall deck
space provided within these two alternate car configurations is substantially the same as
those configurations in draft PVAG for cars with 36 centered doors. The key difference is
the two different configurations provide slightly different width and depth dimensions to
address complications that typically arise in vessel design (in addition to ferry casing issues
and alterations to existing vessels.) The alternative designs accepted by the PVAAC are
important when considering the orientation of elevators in the ship (transversely or
longitudinally) and given the constraints on construction imposed by design requirements
such as length of fire zones, required corridor width based on evacuation flow calculations
and other parameters. For example, depending on the orientation of the elevator, the need
to maintain the required width of adjacent corridor may necessitate providing a car
configuration that is slightly narrower or shallower than the land-based ADAAG permit. In
developing these configurations, the PVAAC addressed these concerns while substantially
maintaining the overall clear deck space within the elevator.
These design factors and other limitations (such as having to fit through the Panama Canal)
for the entire ship must be considered. For example, an extra width on each elevator will
cause the elevator bank to be that much wider. This will impact on the corridor width,
which, because of safety regulations must be maintained, will cause the cabins to be that
much smaller. Larger openings in the deck and bulkheads to accommodate larger elevators
will have a direct impact on the structure. Increased scantling requirements (the amount
and thickness of the steel framework) will directly increase the weight and may influence
the ships stability. Because of the impact on the structure, and the cabin economics, ship
designers may opt to reduce the number of elevators, resulting in reduced overall
accessibility.
- V407.4.6 Elevator Car Controls: ICCL recommends that this be reworded to apply to
alterations to existing vessels.
- V409.1 Platform Lifts, General: Given the range of operational uses onboard ship, this is
too restrictive, as it does not reflect all the situations in which a platform lift may be used.
The requirement that the lift not be attendant operated is inappropriate. Examples include:
access to performance stages; lifts to tendering platform decks, etc.
- V409.6 Doors and Gates: This requirement does not recognize that some lifts do not
require the use of doors and gates: e.g. use of lifts with edge protection for low-rise
applications; for example, such as used on buses.
The requirement for low energy power operated doors or gates, where doors or gates are
provided, introduces technical criteria which should be specified by the designer and not a
part of an access requirement.
- V410 Means of Escape: Exception 2 under V410 applies to exit stairways where vessels
are protected by an automatic sprinkler system. We recommend that this exception be
extended to all parts of the vessel that are protected by an automatic sprinkler system.
Please see also comments in response to V207.
- V411 Areas of Temporary Refuge: There should be a specific exception stating that the
requirements for Areas of Temporary Refuge do not apply to passenger ships that comply
with the fire safety standards of SOLAS including the installation of sprinkler systems.
- V412 Passenger Boarding Systems: See General Comments regarding on/off issues and
in response to V208.1.
- V413 Gangways: See General Comments regarding on/off issues.
- V502.2 Treads and Risers: This needs to be consistent with SOLAS and Flag
Administration requirements.
- V602.6 Drinking Fountains, Water Flow: This should give a range versus specific
dimensions and angles as non-U.S. flag ships built in non-U.S. ship yards using non-U.S.
equipment may not specifically meet these dimensions etc.
- V604 Water Closets and Toilet Compartments: General comment it is apparent that
these clearances are inappropriate onboard ship. Also, these dimensions should be
consistent with the IMO Guidelines.
- V604.3.2 Overlap: In addition to the overlap elements already permitted, the Guidelines
should expressly permit required clearances at fixtures and turning space within the
bathroom to overlap with clear deck space provided in standard configuration roll-in
showers.
- V604.5.1 Grab Bars: The IMO Guidelines specify a rising side bar on the wide or open
side of the water closet. This element has also been adopted in European recommendations.
ICCL recommends that this type of grab bar be allowed.
1. Exception: This exception should be deleted. See previous comments
regarding detention facilities.
- V604.6 Flush Controls: All modern cruise vessels use a vacuum toilet flushing system.
For safety reasons, the flush control is mounted behind the toilet where it is protected from
accidental operation while the toilet is in use and not on the open side as required by this
section. The wording must be modified to recognize actual shipboard practice and safety
concerns.
- V604.9 Water Closets for Childrens Use, Location etc.: This needs to be consistent with
the USPHS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Construction guidelines
and guidelines in the Vessel Sanitation Program (VSP) Operations manual.
- V604.9.5 Flush Controls: All modern cruise vessels use a vacuum toilet flushing system.
For safety reasons, the flush control is mounted behind the toilet where it is protected from
accidental operation while the toilet is in use and not on the open side as required by this
section. The wording must be modified to recognize actual shipboard practice and safety
concerns.
- V607 & 608 Bathtubs and Showers: These standards reflect installations typically found
in shore facilities. The dimensions are not appropriate for shipboard facilities. We suggest
that standards be modified or included to address installations as encountered onboard ship.
- V609.3 Grab Bars, Spacing: It is noted that the spacing requirement is absolute. Given
construction issues in shipbuilding, a range for this spacing would be more appropriate. We
recommend 1¼ inches to 2 inches.
- V612.3 Saunas and Steam Rooms, Turning Space: It is an unreasonable requirement to
provide a turning circle in these confined spaces. Providing a turning space will
significantly reduce the usable area in the sauna. In our experience wheelchair users will
use a transfer bench, as it would be a safety hazard to the passenger to stay in their metal
wheelchair or leave the wheelchair inside the sauna while in operation. Providing
wheelchair access into the sauna and a transfer area is appropriate.
- V702 Emergency Alarm Systems: The PVAAC identified a conflict between ADAAG
and USCG regulations. The Board concluded that there is no conflict. How did the Board
come to this conclusion over that of the Committee? The Board should justify and explain
its conclusion and how they arrived at such a conclusion.
Additionally, the Board addressed only whether or not there is a conflict with USCG
Regulations. How does this apply to conflicts with international requirements? In general,
IMO does not recognize NFPA standards unless specifically adopted. While ICCL is
aware that USCG rules recognize NFPA, we are not aware of international acceptance of
the standard referenced.
The Board and staff should recognize that the requirements in SOLAS are expanded in
IMO Assembly, MSC and Subcommittee Resolutions, Circulars, and Guidelines as well as
in Codes and referenced international engineering standards such as those published by the
International Standards Organization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEEE). These too are an extension of the regulatory scheme and part of the
safety system which govern the construction and operation of ships and can not be ignored.
For instance, was the IMO Code on Alarms and Indicators reviewed by the Board?
While there may or may not be a direct conflict with the wording of a specific SOLAS
regulation, further in-depth research must be conducted before the Board can conclude,
without any reference or justification, that there is no conflict. This section needs further
comparison to IMO and associated requirements to assure there is no conflict.
- V702.1 General: Installed alarms are required to comply with SOLAS Resolution
A830(19) Code on Alarms and Indicators.
1. NFPA is not appropriate for ships that have to comply with SOLAS
2. Please reference earlier comments regarding visual and audible alarms.
- V703.2.4 & .5 Characters: This needs to be compared to the ISO standard for shipboard
signs that will soon be adopted by IMO.
- V703.5.1. Finish and Contrast: This conflicts with the SOLAS requirements for Low
Location Lighting signs that may be photoluminescent or photointumescent.
- V706 Assistive Listening Systems: These requirements should only apply to
permanently installed local entertainment systems.
- V707.5.2 ATM Machines: The requirement should be to provide machines that meet
accessibility requirements. It is the manufacturers responsibility to provide machines that
meet the standards, thus the requirements should be for the machines and directed to the
machines manufacturers or the third party owner, and not the ships.
- V804 Kitchens and Kitchenettes: See our previous comment that these should be
referred to as pantries- Section 212.
- V806.2.2 Exterior Spaces: This would require a full turning circle on balconies. This is
not possible given space restrictions limited by the ships breadth. Balconies can not be
simply hung off the side of the ship.
- V806.2.3 Sleeping Areas: The flexible nature of cabin bed configurations permits
arranging the bed to provide an accessible route with either a right-side or left-side
approach to the bed according to the passengers need or preference, thus obviating the
need for a permanent accessible route to both sides of a single bed. See also response to
DOTs ANPRM.
- V806.2.7 Doors to Adjacent Guest Rooms: It should be clarified that accessibility into
the adjacent non-accessible room is enter and exit only without maneuvering clearance.
- V807 [Detention] Cells: This is a crew space requirement and should not be included.
See comments in response to V203.
- V904.3.2 Counter: The requirement to provide a low level sales counter (36 inches
high), 30 inches in length is disproportionate to the limited size of the shipboard stores on
passenger vessels and current use of point of sale counters. At these locations, the counter
is the entire selling space. ICCL recommends that the length of this low level counter be
limited to a length of 24 inches with a parallel approach. We believe that this is
commensurate with the space available in these stores where further expansion is not
appropriate. Alternatively, the use of clipboards or other portable or moveable counters
should be allowed. The current proposal is appropriate for other shipboard counters such as
at the Pursers desk, shore tour bookings, etc. It should also be noted that cruise ships are
cashless and any onboard purchases will be made using the cabin keycard.
- V104.2.6.1 & .2 Accessibility and Use Zones: Again, reference is made to US
engineering standards which may not be recognized in locations where passenger ships are
designed, the design is approved and where the ship is constructed.
- V1004 Play Area, general comment: Due to the limited space available in childrens play
areas it will not be possible to incorporate the listed requirements for access and transfer.
Childrens shipboard play areas are usually densely packed with play components. Most
of these components would qualify as ground level components usable by children in
wheelchairs. The path of travel to and between some play components may not be
achieved in all circumstances given the number of components available and the total space
limitations in the childrens play areas.
Generally speaking, the incidence of disabilities increases with age. Only 0.2 percent of
children between the ages of six and 14 use a wheelchair, for example. Only 2.1 percent
have any difficulty walking or running (Bureau of the Census- 1997 data).
- V1005 Swimming Pools: Swimming pools on passenger vessels are limited in size due
to stability requirements. It is simply not safe to place a large amount of water with a free
surface at the top of a ship. To contain the waves that are set up during the natural roll and
pitch of the vessel also means that we need to provide a beach area around the pool. The
proposed guidelines allow either a ramp or a chair lift - given the limitations we already
have in size, introducing a ramp will significantly reduce the pool area and become an
obstacle for other swimmers. Chair lifts may not be the best solution on a moving platform
and therefore ICCL recommend that the use of transfer benches also be considered. This
would allow discrete access on a stable platform and they can be extended to include other
pool features such as Jacuzzis.
- V1005.5.5 Surface: Please clarify the definition of a sharp surface.
- V1005.6 Pool Stairs: Please include an express exception for pool ladders.
- V1006 Shooting Positions: In accordance with current security provisions, shooting is no
longer an option onboard cruise ships.
Section 3:
ICCL COMMENTS ON
PASSENGER VESSEL ACCESS
DOT ANPRM
Comments on: DOTs ANPRM: Non-discrimination on Passenger Vessels 49 CFR Part 37
- The Extent to Which the Passenger Vessel Accessibility Guidelines will Apply to Foreign-
Flag Vessels Requires Further Clarification:
ICCL Comment: In its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) issued
November 26, 2004, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) stated its position
that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to foreign-flag cruise ships that
call at U.S. ports. While the U.S. Supreme Courts recent decision in Spector v. Norwegian
Cruise Line Ltd., 125 S. Ct. 2169 (June 6, 2005), ultimately held that the Fifth Circuit erred
in concluding that Title III of the ADA does not apply foreign-flag cruise vessels, the Court
did so, however, only on the grounds that the Fifth Circuits decision was so broad it would
apply to every facet of the business and operations of foreign-flag ships not only removal
of physical barriers but also non-architectural issues such as ticket pricing and eligibility
for sailing and thus was contrary to prior Supreme Court precedent that a clear
statement of Congress intent to apply a statute of general application to foreign-flag
vessels temporarily in U.S. waters is required only when such application would interfere
with the internal affairs of that vessel. Significantly, the Court stated that its prior case
precedent could limit Title IIIs application in some instances, when it requires removal of
physical barriers
. Id. at 2175 (emphasis added). The plurality opinion of Justice
Kennedy (in which Justices Stevens and Souter joined) further suggests that many
structural modifications arguably required under Title III could easily be construed as
relating to internal ship affairs, thus triggering the clear statement rule.
The Court also emphasized that Title III of the ADA does not require a foreign-flag vessel
to undertake any physical modification that: 1) would bring a vessel into noncompliance
with the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), Nov. 1, 1974,
[1979-1980], 32 U.S.T. 47, T.I.A.S. No. 9700 or any other international legal obligation; or
2) when it would jeopardize shipboard safety.
Spector thus makes it abundantly clear that safety requirements mandated by international
laws/regulations such as SOLAS supercede accessibility requirements that conflict with
international requirements, whether those requirements are set forth in the SOLAS
regulations themselves or in accompanying IMO interpretations and circulars that are
equally binding on vessels operating in international waters. Though not specifically
addressed by the Court in Spector, ICCL respectfully submits that requirements imposed by
the vessels flag state also supercede conflicting Title III requirements.
Pursuant to Spector, Title III (and any accessibility guidelines for passenger vessels issued
thereunder) may not apply to foreign-flag vessel to the full degree that it pertains to U.S.-
flagged vessels. Although Spector was decided in the context of barrier removal on an
existing vessel, its rationale is equally applicable to the promulgation of accessibility
requirements for newly constructed and altered passenger vessels. Thus, issuance of a
single set of accessible design requirements that pertain equally to U.S. and foreign-flag
vessels alike may be inappropriate. DOT, in particular, must clarify the manner and extent
to which specific requirements will apply to foreign flag vessels, delineating between those
that affect the ships internal affairs and those that do not. Finally, both DOT and the
Access Board must exercise great care in ensuring that none of the accessibility
requirements they issue for foreign-flag vessels creates any conflict with international
requirements or with the requirements of the vessels flag state.
- Vessel Sizes:
ICCL Comment: Both the Access Board and DOT seek public comment regarding
whether, or the extent to which, the draft Guidelines should be applied to small passenger
vessels. The Access Board proposes four alternatives. Option 1 lists fewer than 150
passengers or fewer than 49 overnight passengers while Option 4 lists vessels carrying
more than 150 passengers or more than 49 overnight passengers. Vessels carrying exactly
150 passengers or exactly 49 passengers are not covered.
Should state: passenger vessels carrying more than 150 passengers or more than 49
overnight passengers.
- Rules Being Published by DOT:
ICCL Comment:
Specific recognition of the ship to tender issue should be made clear. In
particular, the relative motion between tendering vessels and the mother ship makes the
transfer of all persons between the two vessels a very important operation that must be
conducted with great care to assure the safety of both passengers and crew. In many
instances, this relative motion is such that safe transfer of mobility assist devices such as
wheelchairs and scooters is not possible without great risk of injury to either the user or
crew members who are assigned to assist. In some instances, all tendering operations are
canceled.
ICCL recommends, due to the complexity of this issue involving transfer between two
different vessels, each subject to their own varying motions in a seaway, that the guidelines
and any future rules expressly exempt requirements for transfer between two vessels.
- Coamings for Watertight Integrity:
ICCL Comment:
While the Draft Guidelines appear to recognize the need for Watertight
and Weather tight doors with associated sills and coamings, in another location it appears
that the Board accepts coamings only up to 1½ inch in height. This does not satisfy the
safety regulations for doorways in certain locations. Please see our detailed comments at
Section V404.2.5.2 of the Draft Guidelines.
- Readily Achievable Barrier Removal and Program Accessibility:
ICCL Comment:
DOT is seeking public comment on whether greater barrier removal is
required in light of a longer service life than other types of facilities and vehicles. Vessels
do not have longer life span than buildings, and, in fact, they typically have shorter ones.
For ICCL member operators, most vessels will be transferred out of US service and into a
different trade or secondary foreign market within 25 to 30 years. Thus, passenger ships
should not be held to a higher standard.
Additionally, costs applying to retrofit of ships will be significantly higher than for shorebased
facilities due to structural constraints, complexity of design, and safety requirements
(e.g. stability, arrangement of fire bulkheads, structural fire protection, design requirements
for emergency escape, etc.).
- Shore to Vessel Transition:
ICCL Comment:
This is a major concern for all vessels regardless of size or location.
Specific comments are set forth in the General Comments and commentary on the
guidelines.
- Securement:
ICCL Comment:
We are not aware of any studies that support the need for securement
systems onboard small or large passenger vessels. Without this background such a
requirement is not reasonable. On some vessels, such as cruise ship tendering vessels, tiedowns
or other means of securement may be provided for safety reasons. We suggest that
the Board provide supporting data for this proposed requirement.
On larger vessels, such as cruise ships, where wide circulation is generally available and
expected between public areas and program areas, such a system may be counter
productive to accessibility. Also, because the decks are so large and accessible, it is not
practical to provide tie-downs at every possible location so the question would become
where would they be placed. It should be noted that in extremely heavy seas, all
passengers are requested to stay in their cabins. For vessels that merely transport
passengers from point to point, and where seats are provided, securement may be
appropriate. However, on a cruise ship where the purpose is to promote circulation
throughout the vessel, securement devices are inappropriate.
- Accessible Cabins:
ICCL Comment:
DOT indicated in the ANPRM that it is reasonable to follow the
requirements imposed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for accessible lodging in
establishing requirements for accessible cabins for passenger vessels with overnight
accommodations. DOT is specifically seeking comment regarding the appropriateness of
doing so not only with respect to scoping and technical requirements for accessible cabins,
but also availability and pricing.
Cabin Configurations are more Flexible than Hotel Room Arrangements
ICCL respectfully submits that there are numerous differences between cruise operations
and land-based lodging operations that render wholesale application of land-based
accessible lodging requirements to cruise vessels inappropriate. Unlike land-based
lodging, cruises uniformly require advance reservations. An individual cannot simply walk-in off the street, as he/she can in obtaining a hotel or motel room. Accordingly,
cruise vessels have greater ability and flexibility than do land-based lodging facilities to
arrange or reconfigure a room for the particular needs of an individual with a disability.
Cabins on cruise ships typically are furnished with modular furnishings that can easily be
rearranged in advance of the passengers arrival. For example, the beds used in cabins can
be arranged as a single bed or separated to provide two twin beds. As part of their regular
duties, assigned cabin stewards routinely configure the bed according to the stated
preference of the passenger, rearranging other cabin furniture as necessary. This differs
significantly from the practice of lodging facilities, which offer separate rooms with
multiple bed types in set configurations (e.g., 1 king, 1 queen, 2 queens, 2 doubles, etc.),
rather than reconfiguring the room for the guests preferred bed configuration.
In setting specific requirements for accessible cabins, DOT and the Access Board should
take into account the more flexible nature of a cruise vessels cabin layout. This greater
flexibility renders certain technical requirements unnecessary in the cruise context. For
example, DOJs current Standards for Accessible Design, 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, app. A, require
that where a lodging room contains only a single room, an accessible route must be
provided to both sides of the bed. The flexible nature of cabin bed configurations permits
arranging the bed to provide an accessible route with either a right-side or left-side
approach to the bed according to the passengers need or preference, thus obviating the
need for a permanent accessible route to both sides of a single bed. This issue also can be
addressed through other operational means, such as cabin assignment. Cabins located port
and starboard typically have mirror layouts. Thus, the cruise operator can assign an
individual with a disability to an accessible cabin located either port or starboard,
depending on whether he/she requires a left or right side approach.
Dispersion of Cabins
DOT has inquired whether cabins accessible to individuals using wheelchairs can be
provided in all classes of service. For newly constructed cruise ships, it generally is
possible to provide accessible cabins among the basic cabin types provided on the vessel,
cruise lines essentially categorize cabins into the following four basic types:
standard
inside, standard outside, outside with balcony, and suite. For existing facilities, providing
additional accessible cabins is not practical.
It is important to note, however, that within cabin type there can be more than one rate
category. Cabin rates are based not only on the type of cabin, but also the cabins location,
both vertically and horizontally within the ship. Given the multitude of rate categories that
may exist on a vessel, which may change over time, accessible cabins should not be
required in all rate categories, even on newly constructed vessels.
Accessible cabins generally are positioned on the vessel in order to facilitate egress in the
event of an emergency as well as locating the cabins on convenient routes to ship amenities
in particular elevator banks. Design concerns also often lead to the stacking of accessible
cabins, (i.e. concentration within certain vertical zones of the vessel) to facilitate the
provisions of plumbing lines, etc.
- Vision and Hearing Impairments:
ICCL Comment:
Please see the General Comments regarding ships as a safety system and
the recognition of operational aspects including crew actions in an emergency and crew
training.
Specifically, an accessibility requirement, such as the one for hardwired communications
assistance systems, is based on the erroneous belief that someone may get left in their
stateroom in the event of an emergency. International regulations require a system for
trained crew to search every space on the ship to assure that no one is left behind (as noted
in the testimony presented by ICCL member, Jeff Frier, at the July 25, 2005 public hearing
in Washington, D.C.).
Hearing assistance systems should be permitted to be portable and other technology should
be permitted as developed. These technologies may include wireless text messaging and
alerting by handheld devices, such as PDAs. The benefit of portable technology is that it
can be used in any shipboard location, and can be used for both emergencies and for
communication of other general announcements.
The requirements specified by the Board (V224.4) assume that there is an effective
demand for communication features on the part of people who have severe hearing loss.
(In economics, effective demand is defined to mean that the individuals expressing the
demand have sufficient funds to purchase the item being demanded. In this case, the
effective price is zero, since no charge can be made for amenities which contribute to
increasing access.) Even at a zero price, however, there is a very limited demand for TTY
kits on the part of people with impaired hearing. To test this hypothesis, we examined the
experience of 12 ships during their voyages in the first three months of 2005. During this
period the ships carried approximately 200,000 passengers on 86 cruises. On 81 of 86
cruises no passenger requested that a TTY kit be placed in a cabin. On two of 86 cruises,
one passenger requested that a TTY kit be placed in the cabin. In two cases, six individuals
on a cruise requested TTYs. To put it simply there is ample evidence that the demand for
portable TTY kits is extremely low. Currently the usage level is so low that the kits are not
used in 94 percent of all voyages. The fact that groups of individuals may sometimes
request kits does indicate that ships should have ready access to such kits. It would be
most efficient to maintain kits in home ports, making them available on an on-call or rental
basis as needed for specific cruises. Ships might carry one or two TTYs for emergency
purposes but, as noted, these will go unused approximately 95 percent of the time. Current practice is to provide a portable hearing assist kit that may be installed in any
stateroom onboard ship. This kit is installed by a ships electrician and tested for proper
operation. Even with the use of personal communications devices, appropriate elements of
these kits will also be provided. Kits include:
- Lights that flash when the doorbell is rung or someone knocks on the door
- An under pillow bed shaker that serves as an alarm
- A portable TTY hookup for the cabin telephone with the assurance that the
pursers desk is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
Therefore, ICCL recommends that requirements be drafted to permit the use of portable
equipment in lieu of hardwired devices.
- Shore Excursions:
ICCL Comment:
DOT has specifically requested comment on the provision of
accommodations at ports of call, specifically cruise ship arranged tours or activities,
commonly referred to as shore excursions within the cruise industry. Although DOT has
raised this issue within the context of vision and hearing impairments, it has potential
application for individuals with mobility impairments as well. DOTs query raises two
substantial concerns that require careful consideration:
1) third-party operators; and 2)
extraterritorial application to foreign territory.
Shore excursions typically are operated by independent third-party vendors. Even though
the shore excursion is operated by a third party, cruise lines typically facilitate the booking
of shore excursions by providing a means whereby such reservations can be made in
advance and payment conveniently made. Though passengers may erroneously perceive
shore excursions to be operated by the cruise line, this does not change the fact that the
excursions typically are operated by independent third parties. Most cruise lines publish
express notices on their websites, in general promotional materials and in specific shore
excursion informational materials alerting passengers that the cruise line has no legal
liability for damages or claims stemming from shore excursions operated by third party
vendors. Transportation at the port of call and the nature of the accommodations provided
as part of the shore excursion are the sole responsibility of the third party operator. Any
requirement imposed by DOT regarding shore excursions should expressly exclude those
operated by third-party vendors. For example, provision of auxiliary aids and services on
excursions to historical sites or cultural entertainment are the responsibility of the
excursion operator.
Secondly, there is no legal authority for imposing accessibility requirements with respect to
shore excursions at non-U.S. ports of call. With respect to cruise vessels, the
overwhelming majority of shore excursions occur on foreign soil. (Some domestic shore
excursions are available, depending on a vessels itinerary, in places such as Alaska, New
Orleans, Florida, New York, Baltimore etc.) Extending Title III requirements to shore
excursions that take place outside the United States would clearly be an extraterritorial
application of the ADA. Nothing in Spector or in the ADA itself extends applicability of
Title III to activities conducted outside of the United States on foreign soil.
In addition to the lack of any legal authority for extending Title III to foreign shore
excursions, there are also practical issues that make regulating foreign shore excursions
improper. Accessibility and availability of accommodations and auxiliary aids and services
at foreign ports of call and in foreign countries varies widely. The level of accessibility
that has become the norm in the United States and the availability of auxiliary aids and
services (such as sign language interpreters) are not necessarily characteristic of that in
foreign locations.
Finally, ICCL notes that to its knowledge, the Department of Justice has not taken a similar
approach in interpreting Title III and its accessibility standards for land-based facilities.
For example, several large hotel chains either own, operate or are affiliated with lodging
facilities in foreign countries and enable individuals to make reservations at such facilities
through central reservations systems. To ICCLs knowledge, however, the Department of
Justice has never interpreted Title III as requiring that such lodging facilities located on
foreign soil comply with Title IIIs requirements and the design standards for land-based
facilities. A different interpretation should not apply to foreign shore excursions.
For all the foregoing reasons, ICCL respectfully submits that it would be improper for DOT
to issue a regulation that renders passenger vessel operators responsible for the accessibility
of shore excursions. Given that foreign shore excursions are clearly extraterritorial in
nature and that domestic shore excursion operators are already subject to the land-based requirements of Title III that are enforced by the Department of Justice, ICCL questions the
need for DOT to address this issue at all.
- Service Policies:
ICCL Comment:
Any regulations DOT promulgates to address non-discrimination
obligations in the context of service and operational policies must take into account both
the unique issues presented onboard cruise vessels and the significant differences between
cruise vessel travel and travel via other means, such as airplanes. Additionally, with
respect to foreign-flag vessels, DOT must also consider the extent to which the
requirements it ultimately promulgates will interfere with or affect the internal affairs of
the vessel.
Eligibility Criteria and Direct Threat
One of the most critical issues pertains to eligibility criteria for cruising and direct threat.
For the safety of the individual with a disability and in the interest of other cruise
passengers, it is absolutely imperative that cruise vessels be able to impose eligibility
criteria and employ the direct threat defense to ensure that all passengers, including
passengers with disabilities, are fit to travel and do not pose a risk to themselves, other
passengers, or disruption of the cruise. Spector makes clear that the direct threat defense is
equally applicable in the cruise context, and that Title III does not require cruise vessel
operators to take actions that jeopardize shipboard safety and that safety risks can stem not
only from the individual with a disability, but also from accommodations requested.
Sea/ocean travel poses very different risks than air travel, especially in the context of direct
threat. The trips are several days, a week or longer, rather than just a few hours, with only
limited medical service available onboard the vessel during that time. In the event that any
passenger suffers a medical emergency that cannot be safely handled by the limited
medical facilities onboard, the only available options are medical evacuation by helicopter
or alternatively diverting the ship to the nearest port (which, given the distances vessels can
travel between ports, can be a considerable distance away). When time is of the essence,
both options still present a considerable risk that appropriate medical treatment will not be
obtained in time. For this reason, cruise lines strictly require that all passengers be
sufficiently fit to travel safely within the maritime environment. This requirement applies
both to individuals with and without disabilities. For example, women in advanced stages
of pregnancy and individuals with certain contagious diseases typically are not permitted to
sail.
The fact that cruises are typically longer in duration than air flights and that aircraft
generally can more quickly deliver a passenger in medical distress to an appropriate
medical facility underscore that cruise lines must be given greater latitude in establishing
eligibility criteria and utilizing the direct threat defense. Additionally, DOT should also
take into consideration the interests of other passengers, aside from just safety issues.
There typically is considerably less disruption to other passengers when an aircraft is
diverted due to medical emergency than when a ship is. In the context of aircraft, the
diversion typically just results in arrival at the intended destination simply being delayed by
a few hours. In the case of a cruise vessel, however, diversion can result in passengers
being deprived of stopping at one or more scheduled ports entirely and in missing shore
excursions planned for those ports.
Requirements for Attendants
For passenger vessels, the circumstances under which a passenger can be required to be
accompanied by an attendant must encompass more than just the passengers ability to
evacuate. For cruises of any duration, the ability to care for ones self and see to ones own
personal needs is of paramount importance. Cruise vessels are not attendant care facilities,
and consequently must require that all passengers who do not have sufficient physical or
mental capacity to see to their own personal needs be accompanied by an attendant to do
so. Instances where passengers board cruises anticipating that their cabin steward can
provide personal assistance, or where passengers are booked on cruises under the
assumption that onboard staff will look out for them, pose risks to those passengers
safety and well-being, and interferes with the stewards ability to perform his/her job
responsibilities. It also creates significant difficulty in the vessel arranging for the
passenger to be disembarked and safely transported home.
Mobility Aids and Services
DOT notes in its ANPRM that it is considering prohibiting any limits on the size or number
of mobility aids that passengers may bring on board, including power wheelchairs and
scooters. As an initial matter, ICCL requests that DOTs forthcoming regulation make
clear that cruise vessels are not required to provide passengers with personal mobility
devices, including wheelchairs, while onboard ship or for use off ship in ports of call.
Cruise vessels typically carry a number of wheelchairs on board for use in medical
emergencies and also utilize wheelchairs in assisting passengers with special needs in
embarking and disembarking the vessels. Some passengers,1 however, erroneously believe
that cruise vessels are obligated under the ADA to provide them with wheelchairs or
scooters for use throughout the duration of the cruise (both on and off the ship).2
Given space limitations on board and safety risks posed by mobility aid equipment being
left in corridors, cruise vessels must require that all such devices be capable of being
stowed in the passengers cabin. Passengers often attempt to leave wheelchairs and power
scooters in the ship corridors, elevator lobbies and sometimes in crew stairways given
space limitations in their cabins. (Again, these typically are passengers who use such
mobility aids only for distance.) Doing so obstructs required emergency routes and creates
a safety risk for all passengers. Given their larger size, power-scooters are particularly
troublesome in this regard. (Passengers using power wheelchairs generally prefer to keep
them close at hand in the cabin.)
Cruise vessels do not restrict the number of mobility aids that a passenger may bring. They
typically advise passengers traveling with wheelchairs or scooters that such equipment
must be stowed in their cabin and recommend appropriate-size equipment that can be
accommodated in the cabin.
There is limited ability to recharge batteries for power wheelchairs or scooters onboard.
The power equipment must be compatible with the electrical supply provided onboard the
vessel. For newer vessels, the equipment typically can be recharged by the passenger in
his/her cabin. For older vessels, in cabin electrical supply may not be compatible with the
equipment. On those vessels, there is limited ability to recharge the equipment at the
pursers station. Depending on the number of passengers requiring this service, however,
not all passengers will be able to recharge the batteries of their power wheelchairs or
scooters at their preferred times. Wet cell batteries are not permitted onboard due to safety
considerations of hydrogen gas generation when this type of battery is charged.
DOTs Guidance on Service Animals Issued under the Air Carrier Access Act is not
Appropriate for Application to Passenger Vessels Absent Modification.
ICCL respectfully submits that the differences between cruise travel and air travel render
DOTs policy regarding service animals, issued under the Air Carrier Access Act,
inappropriate for application to cruise vessels without significant modification. Again,
ICCL must emphasize that cruises are of significantly longer duration than air flights.
Consequently, the accommodation of service animals on cruise vessels raises several
concerns not associated with air travel, such as provision of food and a sufficient relief
area for the animal. Foreign ports have varying restrictions regarding entry of animals into
port, and have differing requirements regarding the necessary documents and health
certificates when entry is permitted. Moreover, for the welfare and safety of the service
animal, other passengers and crew, service animals generally cannot be left unattended on
the cruise vessel, even in the guests stateroom. DOTs service animal policy for aircraft
must be modified to address these concerns, and also to more appropriately balance the
concerns raised in providing access for individuals with disabilities against the limitations
inherent in cruise travel. Significantly, it is extremely important that DOTs service animal
guideline not conflict with applicable Public Health requirements restricting animal
presence in pools, pool beach areas(that flat area around shipboard pools that contains
sloshing), and whirlpools.
For passengers traveling with service animals, cruise vessels typically require that
passengers make their own arrangements for delivery of appropriate food for the animal.
DOTs service animal policy should affirm this practice. To the extent that a cruise
operator chooses to supply food for the animal, there should be no prohibition against
charging an additional fee for this service. DOTs current air carrier guidance prohibits
charging carriage fees for service animals, this prohibition should not extend to
additional fees for items such as food.
Cruise vessels typically require that service animals be housed within the passengers guest
room. While cruise vessels typically do not restrict the number of service animals that an
individual brings or impose a strict size limitation, the number and size brought must be
safely accommodated within the passengers cabin. A relief area is established either on an
exterior deck or alternatively, where the passenger is booked into a cabin with a balcony,
on the balcony.
ICCL also wishes to note that due to the limited space available onboard and the extended
length of the voyage, there is a limit to the number of service animals that can be
accommodated on a particular voyage. Cruise vessels typically operate at full passenger
capacity and are designed to maximize the number of passengers that can be
accommodated in the available space. For any given voyage, typically few passengers
bring service animals. While the presence of relatively few service animals is not
disruptive to the ships operations, in those circumstances where a group of individuals
using service animals books passage, the number of service animals onboard can be
disruptive to onboard ship operations and the quality of the cruise experience for other
guests.3 DOTs current guidance regarding service animals on air craft states that
inconvenience to other guests is an insufficient basis upon which to deny transport of a
service animal in the aircraft cabin. Whereas individuals purchase airline tickets for
transport, individuals purchase cruises both for transport and the quality of the onboard
experience. In those situations where the presence of a large number of service animals is
disruptive to shipboard operations, the overall experience and quality of service provided
for all passengers is adversely impacted. Consequently, cruise lines should be permitted to
establish reasonable limits on the aggregate number of service animals permitted on a
single voyage.
Furthermore, the guidance should address in greater detail situations wherein the service
animal exhibits threatening behavior or otherwise causes a significant disruption to the
cruise. Unlike land facilities or aircraft, cruise vessels have only a limited means of
addressing the situation. Land-based facilities can simply evict the animal from the
premises. Aircraft can refuse the animal carriage in the passenger cabin, instead
transporting the animal in the baggage compartment in an appropriate traveling container.
These options are not available onboard a ship. There is no appropriate space in which to
sequester the animal away from other passengers and crew. Additionally, as noted above,
the safety and well-being of the service animal preclude leaving the animal unattended.
The only option available is to disembark the animal at the next port. This, however, does
not solve the question of what to do with the animal in the interim.
Finally, DOTs recognition of emotional support animals as service animals, severely
complicates the ability to deny passengers the ability to travel with pets. It also is not
entirely consistent with DOJs limited guidance on the issue (i.e., that service animals must
be trained to perform a specific function or task for the individual with a disability). ICCL
disagrees with DOTs conclusion that emotional support animals are in fact proper
service animals within the meaning of the ADA and DOT should adopt DOJs decision on
this issue.
- Economic Considerations:
ICCL Comment:
DOT discusses the economic evaluation done by the Volpe Center in
July 1996. DOT also seeks comment on the benefit of the accessibility requirements by
stating that more of the population base could then benefit. The cost basis used for the
evaluation was understated in terms of costs of modifications and typical salaries paid
workmen and crew members even at the time the study was conducted. Overall, that Volpe
study is out of date and inappropriate for modern cruise ships. This very limited study did
not consider any modern, large cruise vessels. Those considered were constructed decades
ago and the information is inaccurate. See also ICCL response to Regulatory Assessment
Plan, Section 5.
- This issue typically has arisen with passengers who use such devices for mobility over distances, but do not require such devices for all mobility.
- Similarly, ship board medical supplies are maintained for unanticipated medical needs and medical emergencies.
Passengers who routinely require medical supplies, such as dialysis equipment and fluid, oxygen supply, insulin
injections, etc., are required to bring a sufficient supply for the duration of the cruise. While cruise lines typically
assist such passengers in locating an appropriate medical supply company and in coordinating delivery at the pier,
provision of the supplies remains the responsibility of the passenger. DOTs regulations should make clear that
cruise vessels are not required to provide such maintenance medical supplies and can deny passage to a passenger
when such medical supplies are not timely delivered to the port.
- One ICCL member reports receiving an inquiry from a large group seeking to bring an estimated 100 service
animals onboard a single cruise.
Section 4:
Preliminary Report of Findings - ICCL Data Collection Project
Introduction
In the year 2004, the ICCL and its member cruise line companies initiated a data collection
project to provide a factual basis for discussion of an appropriate scoping level for accessible
cabins on cruise ships. The data collection process was to generate two data sets: the first data
set is longitudinal data collected for as long a period as could be found. This data set would be
used to identify changes in the demand for accessible cabins over time, by passengers using
wheelchairs. The data would also serve as a basis for projecting the growth of demand for
accessible cabins into the future - over the 25 to 30 year expected lifetime of a cruise ship.1 The
second data set was to be a representative sample of use of accessible and non-accessible cabins
by passengers using wheelchairs during the 2005 cruise year. Data collection began on January
1, 2005 and will be carried out throughout the year. This is a preliminary report based on data
collected from voyages during the first half of the year.2
Caveats
Good data collection is expensive and time consuming. All data collectors have to follow
standardized procedures and utilize standardized definitions. Incoming data is reviewed as it is
entered into a growing data base, and data observations are checked for accuracy and
completeness. While the data being submitted is of high quality, there are some observations
which may over-count and some which may undercount wheelchair use. For the purpose of this
study, any individual who requested and booked an accessible cabin was counted as a wheelchair
user. Also counted were any individuals who used a wheelchair (or scooter) in relation to the
cruise even if only for embarkation and/or debarkation. In most cases, observations on the
number of wheelchair users are taken from reports of special needs passengers prepared by the operator as passengers board the ship. In this circumstance, the ships staff is aware of both
wheelchair users who requested and booked into accessible cabins, and arriving wheelchair users
who did not notify the cruise line of any special need prior to sailing. All lines ask that
passengers identify special needs as part of the reservation process, so that necessary
arrangements can be made to provide appropriate assistance, equipment or supplies.3 It should
also be noted that the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Chapter III
Regulation 27.2 requires that Details of persons who have declared a need for special care or
assistance in emergency situations shall be recorded and communicated to the master prior to
departure.
In some cases, lines have reported wheelchair usage based on the reservation reports. These
reports list special needs for all passengers identifying themselves as having a special need.
These counts would not include any passengers who reported onboard with a wheelchair (or
some other disability) but provided no prior notification. Typically the majority of passengers
using wheelchairs who require an accessible cabin provide prior notification. Therefore, while
limited reliance on data from reservation reports may result in a slight undercount, it should not
have a major effect on the findings of the study. As the data collection continues, the data will
be reviewed to identify and eliminate potential data collection errors. In the meantime, the data
set being developed on wheelchair usage is statistically large enough and robust enough to
warrant a preliminary report.
Description of the Initial Survey Counts
To date, the survey has collected the following information.
Number of Voyages: 1159
Passenger Capacity for these Voyages: 2,403,326
Actual Passengers Carried: 2,583,824 4
Total Number of Wheelchair Users: 6,129
Total Wheelchair Users in Accessible Cabins: 2,223 5
Total Wheelchair Users in Non-Accessible Cabins: 3,906
Total Accessible Cabin Voyages Available: 18,909 6
CHART 1
Accessible Cabins and Cabin Use, Initial 2005
Sample
Some of these numbers may be somewhat surprising. Many people are unaware that actual
onboard counts of passengers are greater than published capacity.7 It should be noted that most
ships on most cruises sell out all cabins. Only rarely do ships sail with empty cabins.8 It may be
surprising that the number of accessible cabins occupied by passengers using wheelchairs
(2,223) is so small relative to the number of accessible cabins available (18,909) on the sample
voyages. It appears that many passengers using wheelchairs actually request and use nonaccessible
cabins (3,906). There are several possible reasons for this relatively high usage of
non-accessible cabins by individuals using wheelchairs. One reason is that many individuals use
wheelchairs for embarkation and debarkation only, and do not otherwise use a wheelchair while
onboard. Another reason is that not all passengers using wheelchairs do not do so full time and
therefore, do not request an accessible cabin.
Whatever the reason, 63.7 percent of individuals using wheelchairs on the sample voyages chose
to occupy non-accessible cabins. Only 36.3 percent requested and occupied accessible cabins.
Chart 2
Percentage of WC Users in AC and Non-AC
The Basic Data Matrix - Table 1 (Attached)
The data totals for the number of ships, number of voyages, number of wheelchair users in
accessible cabins, number of wheelchair users in non-accessible cabins, total wheelchair users,
and total passengers were discussed briefly above. Table 1 provides the detail behind the total
and provides a view of the variance in usage among the ships included in the sample. This
section briefly describes the structure of the Table and provides a few preliminary observations
about the data. No attempt is made to extrapolate from this data to an implied or preferred
scoping level. This scoping analysis will be provided when the final data collection, review and analysis is completed.
- Column A numbers the ships in the sample from 1 through 65.
- Column B lists the number of voyages for each ship in the sample.
- Column C indicates whether the vessel has more or less than 1000 cabins. (To preserve
confidentiality of the subject vessels, actual cabin counts have not been listed in the
table.)
- Column D indicates the number of accessible cabins available, as identified by the cruise
line providing the information.9
- Column E provides the number of wheelchair users occupying an accessible cabin
traveling on a given ship during the voyages noted in Column B. For ship number one,
for example, there were a total of 28 wheelchair users in accessible cabins over a total of
12 voyages.
- Column F provides similar data for wheelchair users in non-accessible cabins.
- Column G adds Columns E and F to provide total wheelchair users for the ship.
- Column H provides total passengers onboard.
- Column I is the ratio of the total number of passengers using wheelchairs to the total
number of passengers onboard. This should be interpreted for ship one as The
probability that the next person embarking on this ship is using a wheelchair is 0.00389
or slightly less than 4/10th of one percent.
- Column J shows the ratio of passengers using wheelchairs in accessible cabins to total
passengers.
- Column K is the ratio of wheelchair users in accessible cabins to the total number of
wheelchair users. For ship one, only 35 percent of wheelchair using passengers asked for
or used an accessible cabin.
A similar table could be prepared listing each voyage and the numbers of people using
wheelchairs (in both accessible and non-accessible cabins) but in the interest of brevity this list is
not provided here. As might be expected, the number of passengers using wheelchairs, and the
distribution of wheelchair using passengers between accessible cabins and non-accessible cabins
will vary by voyage as well as by ship. The data for each ship in the Table provides an average
usage rate. This rate may vary considerably on a trip by trip basis. Given this variance a mean
usage rate can be developed (divide the entries in columns E, F, and G, by the entries in Column
B) and a standard deviation around the mean can be calculated. To complete the standard
deviation analysis, the complete data listing for each voyage is necessary. The standard
deviations and the implications from the standard deviation analysis will be performed after the
data collection process is completed, reviewed and analyzed.
Longitudinal Data
A second data set was collected on an annual sample of 15 to 20 ships for each year from 2000
through 2005. Although the data from 2005 is incomplete, it is presented here in order to
provide the longest period of observation available. The underlying data set, not shown here, is
very large, containing approximately 1200 voyages per year on the 15 to 20 ships in the sample.
Between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 passengers are in each yearly sample. The number of ships
varies by year because new ships are entered in the sample as they come on line, and older ships
that are sold are removed from the sample. While the proportion of passengers using
wheelchairs varies across all cruise ships, the cruise ships in this longitudinal sample are
clustered at the high end of the range of average wheelchair usage. The high end range was
chosen so that the findings would reflect maximum wheelchair usage. The sub-sample of
longitudinal data is not completely representative since the ships in the sample generally exhibit
higher than average wheelchair usage rates than other ships in the cruise line domain. The
average for the whole industry will be somewhat lower, therefore. There may be sampling errors
introduced due to data collection methodology on some ships, as discussed in the Caveat section
above.
The longitudinal data set has been analyzed in many ways to look at the effect of length of
voyage (the longer the voyage, the higher the usage rate by people with wheelchairs, the shorter
the trip, the lower the usage rate), by itinerary (Caribbean trips show lower usage rates, partially
because there are more short trips in the Caribbean, and partially due to the demographics of the
passengers on these shorter voyages).
To capture the data in this large data set as simply as possible, the ratio of passengers using
wheelchairs (called total wheelchair usage in earlier tables) to total passengers has been
calculated for each year. This number is expressed as a percentage in Chart 3, below.
Chart 3
Passengers Using WC as a Percent of Total Passengers
(2000-2005)
The number for 2000, 0.292 or approximately 3/10th of one percent can be defined as the
probability that the next person arriving at the ship is using a wheelchair. If 300 people board a
ship in the year 2000, one of them could be expected to use a wheelchair. Note that the
proportion of passengers using wheelchairs increases significantly in the years 2001, 2002 and
2003. In 2004 the proportion increased again, but at a lower rate of increase compared to earlier
years. The 2005 year-to-date data indicates that the usage rate has leveled off. It should be
noted however, that this is partial-year data. The analysis of the complete data from earlier years
for the ships in the longitudinal sub-sample does indicate that there is a seasonal bias in
wheelchair usage rates, with rates likely to increase in the summer and fall, relative to the earlier
months. The data collection during the remainder of 2005 will probably indicate an increase in the annual wheelchair usage rate for the full year.
The increased rate of wheelchair use on cruise ships over time is due to several factors including
a growth in the proportion of the population using wheelchairs. This growth is expected to
continue. However, improvements in medical care and in general good health and hygiene
(better diets, more exercise, less smoking) may mitigate some of the effects in the growth of the
elderly population. However, the more likely explanation for the observed growth in the use of
wheelchairs from 2000 through 2005 is the quality of the cruise experience for individuals using
wheelchairs. In addition, the cruise industry in North America has expanded steadily through the
2000-2005 period, as reflected in the size of the sample, which increased by one-third over the
period. Prices for cruises have actually declined (very slightly), but given even the low inflation
rates experienced over the period, cruising has become a better buy. Even in the absence of any
accessibility standards specific to passenger vessels, ships have continued to be designed and
built to be more accessible to passengers using wheelchairs.
The Revenue Impacts of Accessible Cabins
Accessible cabins require more space than standard cabins. Two accessible cabins occupy the
footprint of three standard cabins; it takes three standard cabins to construct two accessible
cabins. Thus for each two accessible cabins that are built one standard cabin is lost for the life of
the ship along with the future income that would be generated by that cabin. Each cabin sold
produces revenue as reflected in the ticket price for the voyage. The rented cabin also produces
service income as passengers buy things such as spa treatments, beverages, etc. On average, the
typical cabin produces a revenue stream of approximately $400 per day for each day the cabin is
occupied.10 The typical ship sails with passengers 350 days per year. A typical cabin therefore
produces an annual income stream of $400 X 350 days or $140,000 per year.
Multiplying the $140,000 lost revenue per cabin per year times the expected 30 year life of the
ship results in $4.2 million unearned income per lost cabin over the life of the ship.
Assume 80 new ships are added to the fleet over the next 20 years to account for the industry
growth rate. This equates to 4 ships per year being added to the fleet and does not account for
additional ships that must be built to replace aging ships transferred to other markets.
Multiplying the $4.2 million times the 80 ships equals $336 Million lost in unearned revenue
over the aggregate life of the ships (30 years per each ship) for each lost cabin.
Assuming a net loss of 3 standard cabins per ship based on a 0.5% increase in scoping applied to
an average ship of 1200 cabins the above numbers yield a $1.008 Billion total revenue loss in unearned income. 11
It is important that excessive scoping requirements not be imposed on cruise ships, so that cruise
lines and their shareholders do not bear excessive costs. The data collection process described in
this report will help to develop an appropriate scoping level for accessible cabins.
Table 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratio of
Total WC to
Total Pax
|
Ratio of WC
Users in AC
to Total Pax
|
WC Users
in
AC/Total
WC users
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62 |
20 |
<1000 |
5 |
15 |
41 |
56 |
38872 |
0.0014 |
0.00039 |
0.2679 |
63 |
19 |
>1000 |
20 |
47 |
45 |
92 |
42560 |
0.00216 |
0.00110 |
0.5109 |
64 |
21 |
<1000 |
20 |
36 |
22 |
58 |
50400 |
0.00115 |
0.00071 |
0.6207 |
65 |
21 |
<1000 |
13 |
19 |
19 |
38 |
36708 |
0.00104 |
0.00052 |
0.5000 |
Totals |
1159 |
1201663 |
18909 |
2223 |
3906 |
6129 |
2583824 |
0.00237 |
0.00086 |
0.3627 |
- Cruise ships may be in use for as much as 40 years, but common industry practice is to operate a ship for 25-30 years in the North American market, and then sell or transfer the ship to other markets.
- The data collection process is not complete for the whole six months. Some observations cover trips for January through March, other observations cover voyages through May or June.
- There are many types of special needs. Diabetics for example may need refrigerators in their cabin to preserve insulin. They may also need Sharps Containers to safely dispose of used syringes. Other passengers may need accommodations such as bed boards, Dialysis supplies, Oxygen or Special Transfers. In this report we focus only on the use of wheelchairs, since this may require extensive modifications of cabins, particularly in the bathroom.
- This is a slight undercount, since some cruise lines identified only standard capacity. Standard capacity is defined as the total number of lower berths, with two lower berths per cabin. The actual onboard count may exceed rated capacity since some cabins may have upper berths or rollaway cots to accommodate more than two passengers in a cabin. The undercount is probably equal to no more than one percent of the total count.
- This assumes that there is one wheelchair user in each accessible cabin. In a very few cases there may be two wheelchair users sharing a cabin. Assuming only one person using a wheelchair in each cabin provides an upper bound on the measured demand for accessible cabins.
- Accessible Cabin Voyages is a summation of the number of accessible cabins on each ship times the number of voyages for each ship.
- ee explanation in footnote 4.
- n observation was made during the Washington hearing on July 25, 2005 that it is frustrating for an individual with a disability not to be able to obtain an accessible cabin on the dates for which they wish to travel. It should be noted that many passengers, both able-bodied and disabled face this frustration. Unlike hotels, ships do not have drop-ins or casual travelers arriving without reservations or asking for reservations at the last minute. Reservations are typically made six to 12 months in advance. Popular voyages, dates and seasonal/holiday periods sell out very quickly. Passengers, disabled or not, requesting reservations for particular time frames are frequently told that the voyage they want is already sold-out and are offered other available dates. If any cabins remain available as the sail date nears, the cruise lines aggressively market to fill these available cabins. The result is that there are rarely unsold (or unused) cabins available.
- Note that the term Accessible Cabin is not strictly defined prior to the completion of the rule-making process. Because no regulations exist at this time, each line operates with its own definition of an accessible cabin. It is therefore possible that some cabins would not provide all of the amenities that may be specified in a completed rule and the provided amenities may differ from line to line.
- Source: Compiled for ICCL by Business Research & Economic Advisors.
- This revenue stream is not discounted to present value.
Section 5:
ICCL Comments on
the Access Board Draft Plan for Regulatory Assessment
Question 1: Are the passenger vessels proposed for the case studies representative of the types
which may be constructed in the future or should other vessel types be included in the case
studies?
ICCL Comment:
Although it is difficult to predict how markets and products offered in markets will shift over
time, it is clear that there are at least four types of cruise ships that may be built in coming years.
These include the large cruise ship described in the Regulatory Assessment Plan. ICCL
recommends that case studies be developed for three additional types of cruise ships. The first of
these would be the post-panamax. This is a ship so large that it cannot move through the Panama
Canal, and containing somewhere from 1350 to 1600 cabins. The second type is an intermediate size cruise ship, carrying somewhere between 200 and 400 passengers, utilizing
100 to 200 cabins. The third type is a sailing ship carrying more than 50 passengers. Space on a
sailing ship is always at a premium and the potential impact of accessibility requirements on
sailing ships should be examined carefully. ICCL respectfully suggests that a total of four case
studies, as defined above be completed as part of the Regulatory Assessment Process. ICCL also
recommends that the studies be made in the context of the most recent additions to the cruise line
fleets, to reflect the accessibility that is already, in the absence of regulation, being designed and
built into new ships.
Potential Impacts
The Board notes that it will examine the potential impact of accessibility requirements on the
electrical power supply of a vessel. It also indicates that it will examine the impact of the
guidelines on doors which are required to have coamings. Lastly, the Board proposes to evaluate
the impact of the guidelines on the weight, speed, and stability of the vessels. We concur with
the examination of these potential impacts. We respectfully suggest that at least two more areas
of concern should be added to this explicit list. The first of these is the impact of accessibility
requirements on the space available for program use or other activities, and on the total
passenger capacity of a ship. Second, increases in weight (ship displacement), as well as
increases in electrical generating capacity, coupled with maintenance of speeds necessary for
maintaining and developing itineraries, may require larger engines, resulting in higher fuel
consumption. These are substantial effects on any passenger vessel and should be examined
carefully, particularly in relation to rapidly-rising fuel costs. For the smaller vessels listed in the
table on page two of the proposed Regulatory Assessment Plan, usable space, engine size and
fuel consumption may be critical variables.
Question 2: Will any scoping or technical provisions that are marked with the letter N in the
table below (beginning on page 3 of the Regulatory Assessment Plan) have potential impacts that
should be evaluated in the case studies?
ICCL Comment:
The following Scoping Provisions marked with an N may have a measurable impact on some
of the ships selected for case studies. ICCL recommends these provisions be reviewed and the
N changed to Y so that the impact of these provisions is included in the case studies.
- V204 - Protruding Objects: Safety equipment attached to bulkheads may narrow the path
of travel on some of the smaller ships suggested for review.
- V206.2.9 - Play Areas: This may create problems given the degree to which play
elements are squeezed into less total space on shipboard than on land-based facilities.
Path of travel considerations and restrictions on the mix of play elements in the
designated play areas may require extensive additional space, or the elimination of a
number of play elements, even on the largest ships. Note that Section V233, also dealing
with play areas, is marked as N.
- V206.5 - Doors: The provision of power assisted or whether tight sliding doors (if
required) may have significant cost impacts on some ships. Additionally, ramping
requirements and related features, such as sills on weathertight doors, will add
significantly to costs.
- V214 - Laundry Equipment: If laundry equipment refers to equipment usable by
passengers, then additional space requirements may force deletion of cabin space or loss
of cabins. Laundry rooms on ships are usually designed to minimize the space required
for use.
- V217 and V-224.4 - TTY and Communication Accessible Features: The Regulatory
assessment should also address these items that are not currently included in the plan.
Hard wiring these systems will not only heavily impact the cost but it will also increase
the weight of the ship. Because this weight will be added relatively high in the ship, the
stability will be impacted and will require a commensurate weight reduction elsewhere or
the addition of ballast lower in the ship. This will also require an increase in electrical
generating capacity. Hard wiring will also lock-in use of existing technology, when use
of wireless portable instruments (PDAs, two-way pagers) is increasing rapidly. Portable
instruments allow emergency information to be received anywhere on the ship as well as
text messaging of announcements. The use of wireless technology also enables
upgrading as new communication devices are developed.
- V227 - Sales and Service: This section will carry a heavy economic penalty if it requires
vendors to provide lowered counters or both parallel and direct approaches to counters.
Space is at a premium in sales areas on ships, and it may be appropriate to use equivalent
facilitation as opposed to rigid structural requirements. Clipboards could be used to
facilitate signing of sales slips or credit slips, since cash is not used for sales transactions.
- V234 - Saunas and Steam Rooms: These elements may take up considerably more space
which impact revenue earning capacity. Larger spaces also require higher operating costs.
These rules should be examined carefully to determine the implications on the number or
even on the availability of saunas and steam rooms.
Section 6:
APPENDIX
Images Demonstrating the Complexity of On/Off Access at the Ship/Port Interface and Justifying the Need for a Performance Standard