Passenger Vessel Association
801 North Quincy Street, Suite 200
Arlington, VA 22203
July 28, 2005
Office of Technical and Information Services
Architectural and Transportation Compliance Board
1331 F Street NW
Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20004-1111
Re: Docket No. 2004-1 and 2004-2 - “Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Passenger Vessels; Large Vessels” and “Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Passenger Vessels; Small Vessels”
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Passenger Vessel Association – the national trade association representing U.S.-flag passenger vessels of all types – submits these comments to the Access Board in response to the above-named dockets, both published in the Federal Register of November 26, 2005.
The Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) represents the interests of owners and operators of dinner cruise vessels, sightseeing and excursion vessels, passenger and vehicular ferries, water taxis, private charter vessels, whalewatching operators, windjammers, gaming vessels, amphibious vessels, and overnight cruise ships. PVA has been in operation for over 30 years and currently has nearly 600 vessel and associate members. Its vessel-operating members range from small family businesses with a single boat to companies with several large vessels in different locations to governmental agencies operating ferries. We estimate that of the approximately 1,380 vessels owned or operated by PVA members, over 50 percent will be covered by your “large” passenger vessel guidelines.
PVA’s associate members are key suppliers to the passenger vessel industry, including marine architects, vessel builders and decorators, insurance companies, publishers, food supply companies, computer software vendors, marine equipment suppliers, engine manufacturers, and others.
In our comments below, we discuss particular items of the draft guidelines for “large” passenger vessels, the advance notice of proposed rulemaking for “small” passenger vessels, and plans for your required economic assessment. Generally, we are concerned about the following areas and urge careful consideration in your process of developing reasonable and responsible guidelines:
We have included the three statements presented by PVA to the Access Board at public hearings this year. We have also included a copy of our submission to the Department of Transportation in Docket OST-2004-19700 entitled “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability: Passenger Vessels.” We request that these documents be included as an official part of this docket.
Key points made during our testimony at your July 25 hearing are:
The U.S. Department of Transportation makes several statements in its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) that are worth placing in this docket. The Department correctly noted:
In its ANPRM, the Department observes, “The DOT believes that access onboard passenger vessels involves issues similar to those in other modes but that this mode also has unique issues due to the fact that vessels operate in a dynamic, waterborne environment. For example, accessibility in other modes does not need to contend with transitions from dock or gangway to vessel, transitions between decks, or the variable motion of passenger vessels. Many of these issues are likely to become increasingly difficult with smaller vessels. Moreover, the unique environment in which passenger vessels operate imposes several constraints on access solutions. For example, the safety of crew and passengers depends upon a stable and watertight platform and a structure capable of responding to dynamic loads and sustaining damage from collisions and groundings. Perhaps the classic example is that of coamings in doorways that increase the watertight integrity of vessels but present barriers to wheelchair users.” PVA agrees with all of these perceptive statements.
Docket No. 2004-1
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Passenger Vessels; Large Vessels
The comments below are intended to highlight key provisions in the draft guidelines that PVA believes are likely to cause difficulty in implementation or that are in need of reconsideration. We have deliberately chosen to discuss only a select number of the provisions of the highest importance. When the revised draft guidelines are published in a future Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we will provide even more detailed comments.
V201.1 Scope
PVA endorses the statement that compliance is required for passenger areas of newly designed and constructed passenger vessels. Use of this term recognizes that there are numerous portions or areas of a vessel not open to passengers; these latter areas are not required to be accessible.
Too frequently through the remainder of the guidelines, the clarifying term passenger areas is left out. Its omission might raise questions as to whether the particular provision applies to the portions of areas of the vessel not open to passengers.
As an example, V201.1 states “altered portions of existing passenger vessels … shall comply with these requirements. A more accurate statement would be “altered portions of passenger areas of existing passenger vessels.” There are numerous provisions throughout the draft guidelines where the term “passenger areas of” needs to precede the term “passenger vessels.”
V201.4 Application - Passenger Amenities
The Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee recommended that there should be instances in which vertical access between decks is not required. Elsewhere in the draft guidelines (V206.2.1), there are exceptions to the general requirement of vertical access between decks.
V201.4 apparently has the effect of “trumping” the vertical access exceptions of V206.2.1. For example, there is a vertical access exception in the instance of a deck measuring less than 300 square feet; the rationale is that the “footprint” of the elevator or device providing the vertical access would take up a significant portion of the small deck. However, if this deck were the only open air deck, the application of V201.4 would apparently require vertical access to it, notwithstanding the physical dimensions difficulty that justified the vertical access exception in the first place.
The vertical access exceptions of V206.2.1 should take precedence over the provisions of V201.4.
V202.3 Existing Passenger Vessels – Alterations
The draft guidelines provide several exceptions to the general requirement that alterations must comply with the standards for new construction. The third exception allows compliance only to the maximum extent feasible where compliance would otherwise cause “a violation of the minimum requirements established by the administrative authority for the structural integrity or fire resistance of a Class A or B bulkhead or deck surface.”
The draft guidelines fail to fully embrace the recommendation of the Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee on this point. The Advisory Committee recommended that the exception be available when compliance would cause a reduction in the structural integrity or fire resistance of the bulkhead or deck surface. It was not a requirement for the exception for the reduction to be so severe that it violated minimum regulatory requirements.
The Access Board should return to and embrace the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. In vessel operations, safety is paramount to any other consideration. Any reduction of structural integrity or fire resistance is by definition a reduction in safety. A vessel designer or builder who chooses to exceed the regulatory minimum no doubt has good reasons for doing so. The Access Board should not substitute its judgment that the regulatory minimum provides a sufficient level of safety.
V206.2.1 Onboard Accessible Routes – Multi-Deck Passenger Vessels
The draft guidelines require an onboard accessible route connecting each entry deck in a vessel with multiple entry decks. There should be an exception to cover the situation when the passenger is able to embark and disembark the vessel from the same entry deck. There is a recognized need to connect two entry decks in the situation in which the passenger embarks on one entry deck and must disembark on another entry deck. However, when a passenger on a two-deck vessel can embark and disembark from the same deck (notwithstanding the fact that the second deck is also an entry deck), there need not be an onboard accessible route connecting the two entry decks.
PVA supports the vertical access exceptions for a passenger vessel with fewer than three decks or with decks of less than 3000 square feet per deck. The Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee recommended such an exception. There are equivalent vertical access exceptions for landside structures.
V206.4 Onboard Accessible Routes – Entry and Departure Points
The draft guidelines depart from those made by the Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee recommended that at least one entry and departure point used by passengers be on an onboard accessible route. The draft guidelines specify that every entry and departure point used by passengers be on an onboard accessible route. The Board suggests that the change embraced in the draft guidelines are needed to ensure that accessible routes are provided at landside facilities that the vessel may stop at in the future.
The Board should return to the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. It ensures that every passenger will have an accessible route to an entry and departure point at every port of call, now and in the future. It avoids unnecessary redundancy in designing accessible routes.
V206.6 Onboard Accessible Routes – Elevators
This provision deals with allowable types of elevators. A passenger vessel of less than 10,000 ITC tons may use an elevator complying with V408. A LULA-type elevator is appropriate for a vessel of this size.
All newly constructed U.S.-flagged passenger vessels will have ITC tonnage. Please note that there may be some older U.S.-flag passenger vessels that have not been admeasured under the ITC; the guidelines should establish a comparable threshold under the domestic regulatory tonnage system (GRT) for these vessels and allow the use of LULA-type elevators in the event they undergo alteration.
V206.6 Onboard Accessible Routes – Security Barriers
After the Access Board began its process of developing vessel accessibility guidelines, Congress enacted the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 and the International Maritime Organization adopted the International Ship and Port Security Code. As a result, passenger vessel operators now must undertake security measures on a scale unimaginable just a few years ago. The demands of these security laws and conventions may conflict with this provision. PVA recommends that the Access Board consult with the U.S. Coast Guard to determine whether this portion of the draft guidelines should be modified or dropped in its entirety.
V208 Passenger Vessel Boarding
The draft guidelines have not embraced the recommendation of the Advisory Committee that “undeveloped land” sites be exempt from the general requirement that there must be an accessible passenger boarding system connecting the entry deck with the landside site. The Access Board should recall photos of PVA vessels disembarking passengers directly on an undeveloped sand beach in Central America or on a forested shoreline in southeast Alaska. Other operators on rivers may disembark passengers on a levee or riverbank far from any man-made facilities. In these situations, accessibility cannot be designed but must be provided by means of crew assistance. The Access Board needs to restore the “undeveloped land” exemption recommended by the Advisory Committee.
PVA appreciates and agrees with the Access Board’s suggestion that reliance on the judgment and expertise of a vehicle-carrying ferry’s crew is the best way to ensure a passenger with a disability will have an accessible path from the vehicle to an elevator or other feature of the vessel. The Board’s suggestion, as articulated in the discussion of the draft guidelines, departs from the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. PVA generally supports the recommendations of the Advisory Committee, but in this case, we believe that the Board has properly analyzed the situation. The Board recognizes that the crew of a vehicle-carrying ferry assigns loading and parking patterns to maximize space and ensure proper distribution of weight. The Access Board suggests that the best approach is for the vessel’s crew to use its judgment to ensure that a vehicle with a disabled passenger is loaded and parked in a manner to ensure an accessible path of travel to an elevator or other portion of the vessels. Thus, there is no need for designation of a special lane or parking spot for this purpose. To ensure that the vessel crew is aware of the presence and needs of the disabled passenger, it is desirable for that person to alert the crew of those needs as early as possible upon arrival or even prior to arrival.
V213.2 Toilet Facilities and Bathing Facilities – Toilet Rooms and Bathing Rooms
Exemption 1 is totally confusing. It appears to introduce a new requirement for alteration to an existing vessel.
PVA understands that an alteration to an existing vessel will trigger the new construction guidelines for the altered element or space, unless it is technically infeasible to do so. In the event of technical infeasibility, the alteration must comply with the guidelines to the maximum extent practical.
Your provision here seems to introduce a new standard of technical infeasibility. It appears to suggest that the technical infeasibility exception can be invoked only if the vessel has a compliant unisex toilet room in the same area and on the same deck as the inaccessible toilet room.
The Access Board should clarify this provision. The general standard of technically infeasible should apply to alteration of toilet facilities and bathing facilities.
V219 Assistive Listening Systems
Technology for assistive listening systems is evolving quickly, especially in the area of wireless communications. The Access Board should ensure that its guidelines are flexible enough to allow the use of evolving technology or technology that becomes available after the effective date of the guidelines. It should not “lock in” a requirement for hard-wired systems.
Clarification is needed for a number of issues raised by the wording in this section. For instance, in the maritime industry an assembly area has quite a different meaning form the land-based ADAAG use of that same term. On passenger vessels, the term assembly area refers to a muster station. Further, while some vessel circumstances may help to provide effective communication, other circumstances categorized by type of ship, type of activity, interior and/or exterior location on board, and accompanying high noise circumstances may further exacerbate the situation. PVA therefore requests that the Access Board examine the numerous marine industry applications to glean information regarding viability of these systems.
V224 Passenger Guest Rooms
The issue of accessible cabins will present a serious problem for operators of smaller U.S.-flag overnight cruise vessels. The number of cabins in these vessels typically ranges from under 50 to slightly more than 100. The Access Board’s proposed guidelines would establish a minimum number of accessible cabins for a newly constructed vessel of this size. As an accessible cabin will have to be larger than a typical cabin (thereby resulting in a likely net decrease in the total number of revenue-generating cabins), the figure chosen for the required number of accessible rooms, if not based on actual demand, could result in a very serious loss of revenue-generating capacity for such a vessel.
As the number of companies operating such U.S.-flag smaller overnight cruise vessels is just slightly more than half a dozen, PVA recommends that the Access Board consult with them individually regarding this issue. It is essential to obtain what records they have regarding number of passengers requesting accessible cabins. These companies are PVA members, so we can facilitate such consultations.
PVA appreciates the Access Board’s discussion of the difficulties that would be encountered in an effort to make the doorways of all guest cabins accessible to passengers using wheelchairs. The Board properly has chosen to concentrate its efforts on cabins to be occupied by passengers with disabilities, a task that is challenging enough in its own right.
V224.4: Passenger Guest Rooms - Communication Features
The proposed requirement for permanently installed visual alarms on vessels seems seriously dated. Discussions and activities since the mid-1990’s focus similar situations on more modern approaches using portable-wireless devices (e.g., PDA, two-way pagers, etc.). These activities have gained credibility and standing as the products cost has decreased, while their capacity increased, and their use in natural and man-made industries were credited with saving lives. The use of wireless portable devices assures that a signal or message may be received at any location on the vessel.
V405.2 Ramps
PVA recommends that the Access Board return to the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. The PVAAC permits slopes steeper than 1:12, employing a sliding scale depending of the vertical rise. This recommendation came after extended discussions about the need for balancing slope requirements with space considerations on decks, particularly with regard to approaches to doors with required coamings. The Advisory Committee recommendation promotes accessibility but recognizes that a strict adherence to the traditional landside guideline is not desirable in the marine environment.
V413 Gangways
The issue of slopes for gangways is perhaps as thorny as any confronting the Access Board and the passenger vessel industry.
The Advisory Committee noted the need for further economic and physical data. In an advisory appendix, it noted the need for certain exceptions to a 1:12 requirement and suggested the allowance of steeper slopes for water levels above and below the “accessible slope design range.” The Advisory Committee suggested the need for an exemption for water levels above the ordinary high water level on inland waterways, an exemption for gangways permanently attached or carried onboard vessels, a “sliding scale” for slope requirements based on gangway length, and no requirement for level landings on gangway runs of certain slopes.
The draft guidelines appear to depart from the recommendations of the Advisory Committee in important particulars.
Exception 1 is particularly confusing. It appears to introduce a 1:12 gangway slope requirement on an existing passenger vessel, unless steeper slopes are necessary due to space limitations. Does this in fact impose an affirmative duty on an existing vessel, even in the absence of alterations? If so, this is contrary to the philosophy that the guidelines will affect only newly constructed vessels and existing vessels to the extent they are altered. The Access Board should clarify its intentions.
PVA recommends that the Access Board reject the proposed V413.2 and make a new effort for Gangway Slope requirements. That effort should be based on the recommendations of the Advisory Committee.
Docket No. 2004-2
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Passenger Vessels; Small Vessels
In this docket, the Access Board considers “small” vessels to be vessels which are permitted to carry 150 or fewer passengers or 49 or fewer overnight passengers.
This proposed line of demarcation between “large” and “small” passenger vessels makes sense. It follows a longstanding “regulatory break” established by the Coast Guard for safety and manning requirements. Vessels authorized to carry more than 150 passengers have additional safety and manning standards, over and above the equivalent rules for vessels with a passenger capacity below this threshold. More recently, in implementing the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, the Coast Guard chose the “more than 150 passengers” threshold for certain security rules; every vessel with a passenger capacity above this point must have a Coast Guard-approved maritime security plan.
It is appropriate for the Access Board to choose a traditional “regulatory break point” long used by the Coast Guard; setting up a new or different threshold will only cause confusion and complexity for vessel designers, builders, and operators.
In this advance notice of proposed rulemaking, the Access Board posed questions about four different options for guidelines for “small” passenger vessels. PVA strongly opposes Options 1 and 4. PVA recommends further consideration of Options 2 and 3.
Option 1 assumes that the guidelines for “large” passenger vessels will be applied to small passenger vessels, except where it is not operationally or structurally feasible, in which case compliance would be to the maximum extent practicable. This option departs dramatically from the contrary recommendations of the Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee, a panel of experts from the maritime industry and the disability community that examined this question for three years and which concluded that differing guidelines for “large” and “small” vessels were justified. There are simply too many differences between an oceangoing cruise ship with a capacity of thousands of passengers and a water taxi that might carry two dozen persons to impose the same guidelines to each. A realistic analysis would likely show that most, if not all, guidelines for “large” vessels would be operationally or structurally infeasible. In such an instance, the only guidance would be the rather vague requirement of compliance to the maximum extent practicable. As is commonly the case for Coast Guard safety, manning, and security requirements, a set of standards designed specifically for “small” passenger vessels is preferable.
Option 4 would establish a new passenger capacity threshold lower than 150 passengers (or 49 overnight passengers) and apply the “large” passenger vessel guidelines to vessels with a capacity over this new threshold. PVA strongly opposes Option 4. It is essential that vessel designers, builders, and operators conduct their business in a consistent regulatory environment. The Coast Guard has established “regulatory break points” of 150 passengers (or 49 overnight passengers). The Access Board should be consistent with the Coast Guard’s regulatory framework, not create a separate regulatory structure for purposes of accessibility guidelines.
Option 2 would require “small” passenger vessels to comply with the guidelines recommended by the Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee. For most “small” passenger vessels, these guidelines differ from those recommended for “large” vessels. They also provide for different requirements for sailing and power vessels.
Option 3 calls for the development of general performance standards for “small” passenger vessels. In contrast to the other three options, this option would permit various construction features that accomplished the same result in providing accessibility. While providing the opportunity for vessel designers to be creative in meeting the accessibility goals, performance standards may not provide a vessel owner or operator as much assurance as desired regarding compliance with the legal and regulatory requirements.
The Passenger Vessel Association gives great weight to the recommendations of the Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee. However, PVA recognizes that the challenges of providing accessibility on “smaller” vessels may warrant further consideration of the advisability of general performance standards. PVA recommends that the Access Board keep both Option 2 and Option 3 “on the table” for future consideration. In addition, the possible use of a guidelines that set out an allowable range of specifications is worthy of additional review. The Access Board should consider the four levels of access to small vessels found in the report of the Volpe Center; this is an example of blending general performance standards and specific guidelines.
In its presentation at the July 25, 2005, hearing of the Access Board, PVA recommended that the Access Board concentrate its current energy and resources to completing guidelines for “large” passenger vessels, holding in abeyance additional work on the “small” passenger vessel guidelines until that work is completed. PVA renews that proposed course of action here. In making this recommendation, PVA is by no means proposing a course of action that would result in most PVA vessels being removed from the scope of the rulemaking. Of the approximately 1,380 vessels owned or operated by PVA members, over 50 percent will be covered by your “large” passenger vessel guidelines.
The development of “large” passenger vessel guidelines is noticeably further along than guidelines for “small” passenger vessels. The Access Board has already implicitly set in motion a two-step regulatory process. Its November 26, 2004 Federal Register notices provided the public with draft guidelines for comment but only posed general scoping questions for “small” passenger vessels. PVA believes that the experience gained in the completion of the “large” passenger vessel guidelines will be of eventual value to further consideration of “small” passenger vessel guidelines.
PVA Comments on the Draft Plan for Regulatory Assessment
With regard to a baseline, its components must include: (1) a reasonable “snapshot” of the numbers and types of vessels constructed in an average recent year; (2) representative construction costs for each type of vessel; and (3) representative operating costs of each type of vessel.
With regard to proposed case studies, PVA agrees that a variety of ferry types needs to be evaluated. In addition to the four vessels listed in the chart, the Access Board should include a case study of a traditional-speed, passenger-only ferry. PVA agrees that the case studies should include two dinner cruise/sightseeing vessels of different sizes. PVA disagrees with the proposal to omit a case study of a gaming vessel. An issue unique to such vessels is the extent to which requirements for accessible paths of travel might reduce the number of gambling machines that can be placed on the vessel and thereby affect its revenue-generating capacity. PVA assumes that the excursion/tour classification might include whalewatching and other eco-tour vessels. Is this assumption correct? If it is not correction, then there should be a separate case study for such vessels. Finally, PVA supports a case study for an overnight cruise vessel -- for this type of vessel, the route of the vessel (coastal or river) matters little. PVA would be willing to work with the Access Board to identify appropriate recently constructed vessels and encourage the entities associated with the vessels to cooperate with the case studies.
PVA notes that all of these case studies (other than the overnight cruise vessel) involve vessels with a passenger capacity exceeding 150. PVA recommends that the Access Board undertake case studies of “small” vessels but not until work on the “large” vessel guidelines has been completed.
The Access Board will not be able to conduct a thorough case study by simply consulting with the owner and operator of the vessel. The vessel’s builder (shipyard) and the designer (naval architect) must also be consulted. In some instances, the shipyard may have used in-house naval architects. A more likely scenario is that the naval architect and the shipyard will be distinct entities. PVA counts among its associate members most U.S. naval architectural firms and shipyards engaged in the design and construction of passenger vessels.
The Board’s draft plan is silent on an evaluation of how the accessibility features might impinge on the revenue-raising capacity of the studied vessel. This is a factor that must be evaluated. It is conceivable that the inclusion of accessibility features may use space that could otherwise be devoted to revenue production, such as cabins on overnight cruise vessels, seats at tables on dinner boats, gambling machines on gaming vessels, and paying passengers on ferries or whalewatching vessels.
The Access Board also indicates that it will focus on two additional issues: increased generator capacity required to power accessibility amenities such as elevators and the issue of coamings that may be in the path of travel on accessible routes or accessible means of escape. In addition, the proposed case studies will look at the impact of the guidelines on the weight, speed, and stability of the vessels. These last issues are critical for the 700 or more existing U.S.-flag vessels which carry more than 150 passengers and are operated by PVA members. Increased generating capacity and increased weight coupled with the need to maintain standard operating speeds imply the possible need for larger and more powerful engines, higher fuel consumption, and higher operating costs. All of these elements should be explicitly discussed in the case studies.
One can expect that alteration costs for an existing vessel can be substantial. It will be challenging to develop a sound economic analysis of alterations of existing vessels. To PVA’s knowledge, there is no governmental or industry organization that tracks alterations to existing passenger vessels. It might be possible for the Access Board to survey the two dozen or so U.S. shipyards that work with these vessels to learn their recent history of contracts to do alteration work. However, one can not assume that all or even a majority of alterations are actually performed in shipyards.
In July 1996, acting on behalf of the Access Board and the U.S. Department of Transportation, the John Volpe National Transportation Systems Center produced the report “Access for Persons with Disabilities to Passenger Vessels and Shore Facilities.” A portion of this report sought to provide an analysis of the economic costs of including accessibility features in newly constructed vessels and incorporating them in existing passenger vessels when alterations occurred.
PVA knows of no other document of this scope and quality. Although some of the inputs used by the Volpe Center in its analysis are either dated or outside the scope of the current Access Board undertaking (for example, Volpe included “small” passenger vessels in its calculations), the methodology used in 1996 appears both comprehensive and sound.
PVA recommends that the Access Board commission the Volpe Center to do an updated economic analysis of the current rulemaking using the methodology employed in the 1996 report. This would be a route by which the Access Board could obtain a defensible and comprehensive economic analysis to accompany a proposed rule.
PVA reminds the Access Board that many owners and operators of the affected vessels are small businesses, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration. As such, the Board should anticipate that the Regulatory Flexibility Act rules will bear on this rulemaking.
Final Remarks/Invitation to Visit PVA Vessels
In conclusion, the Passenger Vessel Association wishes to express its sincere appreciation to the members and staff of the Access Board for the extensive opportunities made available to us and our members to provide comments on this undertaking. We assure you of our commitment to working with you to complete the development of reasonable and workable vessel accessibility guidelines. We renew our hope that you will visit and ride more “small” passenger vessels to foster better understanding, and we offer our assistance in setting up such visits to vessels on the Potomac River or in Annapolis Harbor during an upcoming Board meeting in Washington, D.C.
Sincerely,
John R. Groundwater |
Peter Lauridsen |
Edmund B. Welch |
July 28, 2005
Docket Management System
U.S. Department of Transportation
Room PL-401
400 7th Street NW
Washington, DC 20590
Re: Docket No. OST-2004-19700
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Passenger Vessel Association – the national trade association representing U.S.-flag passenger vessels of all types – submits these comments to the Department of Transportation’s (the “Department” or “DOT”) Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPRM”), entitled “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability: Passenger Vessels,” as published in the Federal Register of November 26, 2005.
The Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) represents the interests of owners and operators of dinner cruise vessels, sightseeing and excursion vessels, passenger and vehicular ferries, private charter vessels, whalewatching operators, windjammers, gaming vessels, amphibious vessels, and overnight cruise ships. PVA has been in operation for over 30 years and currently has nearly 600 vessel and associate members. Its vessel-operating members range from small family businesses with a single boat to companies with several large vessels in different locations to governmental agencies operating ferries.
PVA’s associate members are key suppliers to the passenger vessel industry, including marine architects, vessel builders and decorators, insurance companies, publishers, food supply companies, computer software vendors, marine equipment suppliers, engine manufacturers, and others.
We have included the three statements presented by PVA to the Access Board at public hearings this year. We will also submit a copy of the PVA’s written comments submitted to the Access Board as part of its rulemaking that parallels your docket and copies of the many comments individual PVA members have submitted to the Access Board. We request that these documents be included as an official part of the docket.
The “background” statement in the ANPRM contains several items with which we agree and some items that we feel need further clarification
and/or consideration. The Department correctly noted:
● “The marine industry’s unique missions and operating environment make implementing ADA nondiscrimination requirements particularly challenging.”
● The Department’s eventual rule and the Access Board’s rulemaking are “closely intertwined,” necessitating the two agencies to work closely together.
We encourage this coordination and cooperation. DOT should not hesitate to make its views known on vessel guidelines under consideration by the Access Board.
DOT should also pledge to “coordinate closely with the Coast Guard” because of that body’s “extensive experience in passenger vessel matters.” Of course, when initial efforts to develop passenger vessel accessibility guidelines first got underway, the Coast Guard was a part of DOT. Even now, the Coast Guard is the day-to-day regulatory authority for U.S.-flag passenger vessels generally and in particularly for review and approval of vessel construction and reconstruction plans. Proceeding with this rulemaking or with the development of guidelines by the Access Board without extensive Coast Guard participation would be folly.
The ANPRM correctly notes, “The Department must also ensure that its rules are compatible with Coast Guard safety rules for vessels.” In the marine environment, safety is paramount, and the pursuit of any other objective, no matter how worthy, cannot be allowed to compromise safety.
Further on in the ANPRM, the Department observes, “The DOT believes that access onboard passenger vessels involves issues similar to those in other modes but that this mode also has unique issues due to the fact that vessels operate in a dynamic, waterborne environment. For example, accessibility in other modes does not need to contend with transitions from dock or gangway to vessel, transitions between decks, or the variable motion of passenger vessels. Many of these issues are likely to become increasingly difficult with smaller vessels. Moreover, the unique environment in which passenger vessels operate imposes several constraints on access solutions. For example, the safety of crew and passengers depends upon a stable and watertight platform and a structure capable of responding to dynamic loads and sustaining damage from collisions and groundings. Perhaps the classic example is that of coamings in doorways that increase the watertight integrity of vessels but present barriers to wheelchair users.” PVA agrees with all of these perceptive statements.
Please allow us to offer comments on several subjects to enable DOT to better frame the forthcoming notice of proposed rulemaking.
Vessel Sizes
The Access Board proposes to delineate between “large” and “small” passenger vessels on the basis of passenger capacity (the “break point” would be more than 150 passengers or more than 49 overnight passengers). PVA believes that this is a workable and defensible “break point.” It comports generally with existing Coast Guard rules for safety, manning, and security. As noted in the ANPRM, another method would be to use Coast Guard classifications (subchapters H, K, C, and T of Title 46, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations). The Access Board correctly points out that foreign-flag passenger vessels do not have such Coast Guard classifications, so the passenger capacity threshold is a method that can be used for both foreign and U.S. passenger vessels.
Access Board Draft Guidelines
The Department asks about defining a “new” vessel. An essential part of any guidelines or regulation for accessibility on passenger vessels must be that they apply prospectively to new vessels as of a date certain. Traditionally, when the federal government imposes a new safety or construction standard on passenger vessels, it uses the date when a vessel’s keel is laid to determine whether the new requirement affects the particular vessel. PVA suggests that this approach be used here. A new vessel should be defined as a vessel whose keel is laid two years from the effective date of the final regulation. This “lag time” is essential so that vessel designers and builders can familiarize themselves with the construction guidelines and incorporate them into their vessel plans. A two-year “lag time” should be sufficient for all but the largest oceangoing cruise ships (perhaps special consideration should be given to their unique construction timetables). It would not be satisfactory to choose a single date for both the effective date of the regulation and the date to determine a new vessel, as this would fail to provide designers and builders a reasonable notice period and lead time to incorporate the new requirements into their designs and construction.
In the ANPRM, DOT reiterates that the Access Board and the DOT must ensure that their work is consistent with Coast Guard safety requirements. Coast Guard regulations express what is absolutely required and necessary for safety. Vessel operators have no discretion as to whether they will comply with Coast Guard rules. PVA recommends that the Department incorporate a provision into its regulations that states, “In the event of a conflict between accessibility guidelines or standards and Coast Guard regulations, the Coast Guard regulations take precedence.”
Barrier Removal and Program Accessibility
PVA maintains that vessel accessibility rules should incorporate the traditional philosophy of application of ADA requirements; that is, they should apply only to new vessels and alterations to existing vessels. There is no justification for departing from this approach that has worked well for other modes of transportation.
The ANPRM is inaccurate where it suggests that the service life span of a passenger vessel may exceed that of other types of facilities and vehicles. This might be true with regard to some vessels, but it is far from true with regard to vessels as a whole. The life span of smaller vessels is not particularly long. The life spans of buildings and other landside facilities typically exceed the life span of a passenger vessel. As new technology (high-speed ferries, new hull forms, more environmentally friendly vessels) is introduced, older vessels are increasingly phased out of service before they are physically obsolete. Consumer demand for newer, more efficient, and more comfortable vessels may lead to replacement decisions prior to the end of service life.
Shore to Vessel Transition
The Department correctly notes the difficulties involved in allocating responsibility between vessel operators and operators of docks, terminals, and other shore-based facilities. As indicated in the ANPRM, there can be a variety of arrangements of ownership and responsibility in this regard. It is not uncommon for there to be multiple types of arrangements for a single vessel. For example, a ferry in Wisconsin travels between a publicly-owned facility at one location to a company-owned dock and terminal on an island. An excursion operator in Annapolis operates from a city-owned dock but often picks up private charter groups at homeowners’ private docks. Please review the individual submissions to this docket by members of the Passenger Vessel Association to get a sampling of the variety of arrangements in our industry segment.
PVA recommends that the Department commission a survey of vessel operators regarding their current arrangement for docks and terminals at which their vessels call. This would give a more accurate picture of the current situation. PVA would be glad to work with the Department to ensure the completeness and accuracy of such a survey.
The option of crew assistance in the case of smaller vessels should be retained. In fact, crew assistance is a commonly used technique to assist both able-bodied and passengers with disabilities, and it is PVA’s impression that disabled patrons as a whole recognize its value and necessity. The federal government should recognize that assistance from polite, well-trained crew members is an important method of promoting accessibility. In fact, crew assistance is common and appreciated for many patrons, not just those with disabilities, because vessels are usually a unique and unfamiliar environment. For many small vessels, crew assistance should be considered as an acceptable or even a preferred means of equivalent facilitation.
Accessible Paths
With regard to vehicle ferries, the Access Board has proposed that it is not necessary to establish guidelines for onboard parking spaces for vehicles with disabled persons (as had been recommended by the Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee). The Board recognizes that the crew of a vehicle-carrying ferry assigns loading and parking patterns to maximize space and ensure proper distribution of weight. The Access Board suggests that the best approach is for the vessel’s crew members to use their judgment to ensure that a vehicle with a disabled passenger is loaded and parked in a manner to ensure an accessible path of travel to an elevator or other portion of the vessels. Thus, there is no need for designation of a special lane for this purpose. To ensure that the vessel crew is aware of the presence and needs of the disabled passenger, it is desirable for that person to alert the crew of those needs as early as possible upon arrival or even prior to arrival.
Access to On-Board Facilities
The Department should be aware that wheelchair-securement devices may present their own set of hazards to disabled and able-bodied patrons, particularly if they are placed in the deck. PVA’s members consistently report that the most common type of passenger injury results from slips, trips, and falls. Anything that protrudes from or deviates from a level deck presents a serious tripping hazard. This is an example of an accessibility feature that might conflict with a safety parameter.
The issue of accessible cabins will present a serious problem for operators of smaller U.S.-flag overnight cruise vessels. The number of cabins in these vessels typically ranges from under 50 to slightly more than 100. The Access Board’s proposed guidelines would establish a minimum number of accessible cabins for each class of cabin for a newly constructed vessel. Yet, it is not uncommon to have several classes of cabins on even a smaller overnight cruise vessel. As an accessible cabin will have to be larger than a typical cabin (thereby resulting in a likely net decrease in the total number of revenue-generating cabins), imposing a requirement for an accessible cabin for every class of service in a smaller vessel will probably result in a very serious loss of revenue-generating capacity for such a vessel.
As the number of companies operating such small U.S.-flag overnight cruise vessels is just slightly more than half a dozen, PVA recommends that the Department consult with them individually regarding this issue. These companies are PVA members, so we can facilitate such consultations.
With regard to service policies, the Department should take note of the fact that smaller vessels have stability considerations that must be taken into account when their passenger capacities are established. These are based on assumptions of the typical weight of an adult passenger. Extremely heavy power-assisted wheelchairs or scooters may deviate so much from the assumed norm that there might be concern about stability, especially if several persons with such devices wish to embark on a smaller vessel.
Economic Considerations
In July 1996, acting on behalf of the Access Board and the U.S. Department of Transportation, the John Volpe National Transportation Systems Center produced the report “Access for Persons with Disabilities to Passenger Vessels and Shore Facilities.” A portion of this report sought to provide an analysis of the economic costs of including accessibility features in newly constructed vessels and incorporating them in existing passenger vessels when alterations occurred.
PVA knows of no other document of this scope and quality. Although some of the inputs used by the Volpe Center in its analysis are dated, the methodology used in 1996 appears comprehensive, sound, and appropriate for use as the Department of Transportation proceeds with its rulemaking.
PVA has suggested to the Access Board and it also recommends to the Department that it commission the Volpe Center to do an updated economic analysis of the current rulemaking using the methodology employed in the 1996 report. This would be a route by which both the Access Board and the Department could obtain a defensible and comprehensive economic analysis to accompany your proposed regulatory actions.
Thank you for this opportunity to submit comments on the ANPRM.
Sincerely,
John R. Groundwater
Executive Director
Legislative Director
Statement to the U.S. Access Board
Presented by the Passenger Vessel Association
Peter C. Lauridsen
PVA Regulatory Affairs Consultant
July 25, 2005
Washington, D.C.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Passenger Vessels; Large Vessels (Draft Guidelines)
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Passenger Vessels; Small Vessels
(Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking)
The Passenger Vessel Association – the national trade association representing U.S.-flag passenger vessels of all sizes and types – is pleased to appear before the Access Board yet again to comment on the development of guidelines for construction and alteration of passenger vessels to enhance access for persons with disabilities. This is our third appearance before you this year. We are committed to working with you to ensure the development of reasonable and workable accessibility guidelines.
I was pleased to spend several days with many of you last month in Alaska and California. We were especially glad that your delegation to Alaska visited vessels and facilities of PVA Member Allen Marine Tours in Ketchikan and Juneau and that you had the experience of a whalewatching cruise on the 150-passenger St. Aquilina. In California, all of you had the opportunity to visit with Mr. Ray Lyman of PVA Member Catalina Express and to see the 75-passenger AquaLink in the waters of Rainbow Harbor.
A DIVERSE U.S. PASSENGER FLEET
As I speak, my PowerPoint display will highlight photos of a number of vessels. The purpose is to impress upon you the tremendous diversity of types, sizes, and functions of vessels just within the membership of the Passenger Vessel Association, not to mention within the passenger vessel industry as a whole. I cannot emphasize too strongly this diversity. Too often, people use the term “cruise ship rule” to refer to your undertaking. While massive cruise ships are certainly affected (and there are some cruise ship operators in the PVA membership), the vast number of vessels covered by this rulemaking includes passenger-only ferries, car ferries, dinner boats, sightseeing vessels, whalewatching boats, windjammers, water taxis, smaller overnight coastal cruise vessels, and even amphibious craft.
My photos give you only a hint of the diversity of the U.S.-flagged passenger vessel industry. There is nothing like coming on board a passenger vessel -- especially one that is underway -- to learn firsthand about that diversity and the maritime challenges that face a small passenger vessel operator. As a Board, you have just “scratched the surface” in seeing and riding vessels.
We invite you to expand your knowledge and visit a wider range of passenger vessels in the coming weeks and months. PVA will work with the Access Board to schedule visits to vessels on the Potomac River or in Annapolis Harbor when you have your next meeting in Washington, D.C.
KEEP THE LARGE VESSEL/SMALL VESSEL DISTINCTION
Your rulemaking efforts to date have proposed a delineation point between “large” and “small” vessels. In your Federal Register notices of November 26 of last year, you issued draft guidelines for “large” vessels, and you defined that term as a vessel having a capacity for more than 150 passengers or overnight accommodations for more than 49 passengers.
You also issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for “small” vessels, that is, any passenger vessel with passenger capacities below the threshold for “large” vessels.
PVA supports this bifurcation of the rulemaking process. In fact, we request you to concentrate current efforts for the “large” vessel category and to proceed cautiously with regard to “small” vessels. The marine environment is a challenging one for adoption of accessibility guidelines, and the numerous types of smaller vessels increase those challenges dramatically.
The “more than 150 passengers” line of demarcation makes sense. It follows a longstanding “regulatory break” established by the Coast Guard for safety and manning requirements. Vessels authorized to carry more than 150 passengers have additional safety and manning rules, over and above the equivalent rules for vessels with a passenger capacity below this threshold. More recently, the Coast Guard chose the “more than 150 passengers” threshold as a standard under the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002; every vessel with a passenger capacity above this point must have a Coast Guard-approved maritime security plan.
It only makes sense for the Access Board to choose a traditional “regulatory break point” long used by the Coast Guard. Setting up a new or different threshold will only cause confusion for vessel designers, builders, and operators.
PROCEED WITH LARGER VESSELS; GO SLOW ON SMALLER VESSELS
I believe that you have come to realize that as vessels get smaller, the options for designing accessible features become exponentially more limited and challenging.
This was clearly illustrated at your hearing in January by the dramatic PowerPoint presentation made by our member Mr. Bob Bekoff of Water Taxi of Fort Lauderdale. Mr. Bekoff superimposed outlines of vessel hull cross sections on one another. He demonstrated that as the length of a vessel is reduced, there are corresponding reductions in the beam (width) of the vessel as well. The result is not only a lower passenger capacity, but also noticeably less square footage available for program areas, aisle widths, and spaces for transfer devices. Why is this significant to the operator of a small passenger vessel? It is important because the operator needs the vessel to be able to produce revenue by accommodating a certain number of passengers. If the operator loses too much revenue-generating capacity because of the amount of space reserved for accessibility functions (path of travel, heads, etc.), the viability of the small passenger vessel as a commercial enterprise may be severely jeopardized.
I think you are finding that the Access Board’s challenge of developing accessibility guidelines for “small” vessels is much more daunting than for “large” vessels. Your own Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee recognized this in its recommendations to you. I think you acknowledged this fact when you chose to have two separate Federal Register items last November. In that Federal Register notice, you posed questions about four different options for guidelines for “small” passenger vessels. PVA is not sure that any of the four approaches offers an ideal way to go. However, we generally we tend to support the recommendations of the Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee. Certainly, we disagree vehemently with Option 1 (apply the “large” passenger vessel guidelines to “small” vessels). We also oppose Option 4 (create a new passenger capacity threshold lower than 150 and apply the “large” passenger vessel guidelines to vessels with a capacity above this new threshold).
During and after your vessel inspection trips to Alaska and California last month, several of you shared with me your feelings that much more examination of “small” vessels needs to be undertaken to do the best job in coming up with workable guidelines. Also, to the best of our knowledge, with the exception of the four of you who last month rode on Allen Marine’s St. Aquilina, no current member of the Access Board has been on board a “small” passenger vessel in your official capacity.
For all these reasons, PVA strongly recommends that you continue your work on the “large” vessel rulemaking and concentrate your attention and your staff resources on that rulemaking only. At the same time, you should hold in abeyance additional action of the “small” vessel effort until the guidelines for “large” vessels are developed and further study of the unique challenges presented by “small” vessels is completed.
Let all of us, government and private sector together, focus our efforts on finishing the “large” vessel rule. When we have a meaningful, workable set of guidelines for “large” vessels, then we can turn our attention to “small” vessels. Let’s make sure we “get it right” and “get it done.”
LARGE VESSELS ARE A LARGE NUMBER
Ascertaining the number of “large” passenger vessels under the U.S. flag can be a frustrating exercise and the results may not be precise. Complicating the effort is the fact that the Access Board’s definitions of “small” and “large” passenger vessel do not comport with definitions used in the United States Code.
According to Coast Guard data, there are just below 6,000 passenger vessels of less than 100 gross tons. The majority, but by no means all, of this number would be considered to be “small” passenger vessels under the Access Board’s use of the word.
In addition, according to the Coast Guard, there are a few hundred U.S. Code “passenger vessels.” Thus, the current universe of U.S.-flagged passenger vessels (“large” and “small” according to the Access Board’s criteria) offering some form of commercial service numbers between 6,000 and 7,000.
PVA estimates that approximately 10 percent of these vessels are “large” passenger vessels as defined by the Access Board (that is, carrying more than 150 passengers). We can tell this because (1) PVA has issued 659 Security Certificates to members (and each certificate represents a vessel carrying more than 150 passengers); and (2) we know of some non-PVA entities that operate “large” passenger vessels (for example, state-run ferries in Texas and Virginia).
We offer these numbers to reassure you that by going forward with the “large” passenger vessel rule, the Access Board will be developing guidelines that will affect a significant number of passengers who ride
U.S.-flag passenger vessels.
VOLPE REPORT AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PASSENGER VESSEL ACCESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
It seems to us that your proposed rule has unfortunately given short shrift to two excellent prior work products that you, the Access Board, sponsored and that would be highly useful in this process.
In 1996, the Access Board jointly commissioned a comprehensive report by the John Volpe National Transportation Systems Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts. This research institution is affiliated with the U.S. Department of Transportation. The report is entitled “Access for Persons with Disabilities to Passenger Vessels and Shore Facilities.”
The Volpe Center report not only provides excellent insight into the nature of the domestic passenger vessel industry, it does a good job of highlighting which access features will be the most challenging for vessel operators. It also provides an excellent methodology for calculating the economic costs of accessibility guidelines as they apply to passenger vessels.
Although the Volpe Center’s report is a part of your docket, it seems to us that its observations and conclusions need to be given more attention, particularly as it addresses “small” passenger vessels. We believe that Access Board members should familiarize themselves with it. The quality of the analysis by the Volpe Center is outstanding; in fact, the Access Board recently commissioned the Volpe Center to produce a study of how coamings on passenger vessels might be minimized to increase accessibility.
The methodology used in the Volpe Center report remains as strong now as it was when it the document was written, but its statistics are becoming a bit dated. As the Access Board proceeds with its required economic analysis of this rulemaking, PVA recommends that you employ the Volpe Center to use its methodology to update the results of the 1996 report.
Also, PVA commends to your attention the recommendations of the Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee submitted to the Access Board in the year 2000. The Advisory Committee was your own creation. Its 24 members were evenly distributed between individuals from the disability community and the maritime industry. Following your charge, these individuals undertook intense study and work spanning three years.
We believe that the Access Board should think long and hard before you depart from the Advisory Committee’s suggestions, and then only if the reason for doing so can be documented as most compelling and unassailable.
VERTICAL ACCESS
One example of where your proposed rule departs from the recommendations of the Advisory Committee has to do with vertical access for passenger vessels.
The biggest challenge for new vessel construction and especially alteration to existing vessels is vertical access (elevators and lifts).
This is particularly true for elevators because they are heavy and can be located only in certain portions of the vessel. An improperly placed elevator will jeopardize the stability of the vessel, thus creating an unacceptable safety hazard. Even a properly placed elevator may destabilize a smaller vessel. An elevator’s weight will either decrease the vessel’s speed or impose a need for more powerful (and more expensive) propulsion systems. It may also reduce fuel efficiency (thereby increasing operating costs). Its placement may take away space that could otherwise be devoted to customer amenities or revenue-generating activities.
A lift may not have the same weight considerations as an elevator, but its placement alongside stairs presents its own space challenges.
The Volpe Report (page 2) confirms that, “Multi-deck access for wheelchairs is the critical issue, from the standpoints of cost, safety, and operations.”
The Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee’s recommendations also took note of the challenges relating to vertical access. The general recommendation is for vertical access on larger passenger vessels with certain exceptions. Those exceptions include: (1) no vertical access requirement for a vessel with less than three decks or one with decks that measure less than 3,000 square feet per deck; I believe that this exception is equivalent to one found in ADAAG for buildings; (2) no requirement for vertical access for a high speed ferry if all passenger amenities are offered on a fully accessible deck; and (3) no requirement for vertical access to any deck of less than 300 square feet.
Your proposed rule departs from the vertical access recommendations of the Advisory Committee in several respects. Yet the Access Board offers no justification for casting aside the three-year work of the Advisory Committee.
CONCLUSIONS
The Passenger Vessel Association will submit detailed written comments to your docket later this week. Today, I want to thank you for your attention and your interest in the U.S.-flag passenger vessel industry.
To summarize our points today:
● Keep in mind the wide diversity of types, sizes, and functions of passenger vessels in the U.S. domestic passenger vessel fleet.
● Use the proposed 150-passenger delineation between “large” and “small” passenger vessels.
● Concentrate efforts on completing the guidelines for “large” passenger vessels, holding in abeyance your work on “small” passenger vessels. A successful rulemaking for “large” vessels will be a substantial achievement.
● Rely on the Volpe Center report and the recommendations of your own Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee, as they are well- thought-out and should provide the bedrock on which your rulemaking should rely.
Thank you for your courtesy and attention.
Statement to the U.S. Access Board
Presented by the Passenger Vessel Association
Peter C. Lauridsen
PVA Regulatory Affairs Consultant
June 24, 2005
Los Angeles, CA
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Passenger Vessels; Large Vessels (Draft Guidelines)
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Passenger Vessels; Small Vessels
(Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking)
The Passenger Vessel Association – the national trade association representing U.S.-flagged passenger vessels of all sizes and types – is pleased to appear before the Access Board for a second time this year to comment on the development of guidelines for construction and alteration of passenger vessels to enhance access for persons with disabilities.
PVA has worked with the Access Board in this rulemaking process from the beginning, and we remain committed to this process. PVA has a deep interest in providing guidance to passenger vessel owners as to how they can achieve accessibility on their vessels to enable them to better serve customers with disabilities. We want this rulemaking to result in reasonable and realistic guidelines that recognize the diversity of small passenger vessels and enhance our customers’ ability to enjoy the services and amenities offered by the domestic passenger fleet.
Our efforts have included and will include:
• Representation on your Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee. Individuals from four PVA member companies served on this group, and professional staff from our organization participated in the Advisory Committee’s meetings and activities;
• Making PVA vessels available for the Access Board and its staff to visit in places such as Seattle, Maine, New Orleans, and this week, in Alaska and southern California;
• Presentations by several PVA members at the Access Board hearing in Washington, D.C. last January 10 - a copy of the statement made by PVA’s Legislative Director, Ed Welch, is provided again here for your convenience;
• Further testimony to be provided at your next hearing scheduled for
July 25;
• Detailed written comments to be submitted to your dockets on the draft guidelines for large passenger vessels and the advance notice of proposed rulemaking for accessibility guidelines for small passenger vessels;
• Compilation of economic and statistical information on the domestic U.S. passenger vessel industry, to be submitted to you later this summer.
Today, we want to emphasize four important points for your consideration.
(1) Most vessels to be affected by your guidelines are actually small vessels.
You can count the number of U.S.-flagged oceangoing cruise ships on the fingers of one hand. Within PVA’s membership, there are thousands of U.S.-flagged passenger-carrying vessels of moderate and small sizes and of a wide variety of class types. In addition, there are thousands of other passenger vessels not within PVA’s membership (for the most part smaller in passenger capacity than vessels represented by PVA).
The overwhelming numbers of vessels and passengers that will be
affected by your guidelines are not from the oceangoing cruise ship sector.
And it’s still an open legal question as to how those foreign cruise ships
serving American ports will be affected by your efforts.
Different types of small passenger vessels present a wide variety of
differing challenges in providing access. In the same way that the original
ADAAG for land-based facilities did not appropriately address the full range
of the many different types of land-based facilities, a single set of guidelines
for “large passenger vessels” and a single set for “small passenger vessels”
will likely be inadequate to address the full range of vessel types in
existence. The Access Board should give serious consideration to
developing guidelines for specific types of vessels, not just “large” or
“small” vessels.
(2) Providing access in the marine and aquatic environments is more challenging than doing so on landside sites.
Your delegation to Southeast Alaska has seen how challenging on-off issues can be in an area having high tidal fluctuations, as did your group that went to Maine in the summer of 2002. Earlier this week, Ketchikan and Juneau had tidal ranges of more than 20 feet. Even here, in southern California, a supposedly “low tidal” area, we are seeing a tidal change in excess of eight feet this week.
Fluctuating water levels are not simply a problem along ocean coasts. Rivers regularly crest and flood. For instance, in the Cincinnati area over the past year, the water level of the Ohio River changed by as much as 30 feet. Lake levels also fluctuate. Last year the level of northern Lake Huron in Michigan dropped so much that PVA operators there could no longer use their normal docks and gangways to get to their vessels.
The challenges don’t end when the on-off issue is resolved. When a vessel is on the water, it moves. The types of vessel motion include: roll, (one side of the vessel rises while the other goes down toward the water), pitch (the bow of the vessel moves up and down), yaw (the bow of the vessel moves from side to side), sway (the entire vessel moves from side to side), heave (the vessel is lifted up and down), and surge (the vessel is pushed forwards and backwards). Sometimes, the vessel is subject to multiple types of motion at the same time.
Given the unique issues presented in providing accessibility onboard vessels, the application of standards for land-based facilities to vessels is inappropriate. The draft guidelines for large passenger vessels, which primarily apply the land-based standards to vessels, do not appropriately recognize the maritime distinction.
(3) In many instances, the PVA vessel operates from a dock or facility owned and controlled by some other entity.
You have been focusing on the on-off issue this week. In designing access solutions for a passenger to embark from a landside facility to a vessel, the best solution may involve adjustments to the docks and landside structures. Some PVA members operate their vessels from their own facilities. They have the legal right and ability to make structural modifications. But many other vessel operators have no ownership rights in the docks and facilities at which they call. In essence, they are tenants. In fact, at some marinas and facilities, they may be just one of many tenants. These vessel operators will have a limited ability, maybe even no ability, to require or persuade the owners of the docks and piers to undertake structural changes.
Additionally, any requirement to carry gangways onboard small passenger vessels may prove to be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
(4) As vessels get smaller, options for designing accessible features become exponentially more limited.
Those of you at the Washington, DC hearing in January will remember the dramatic powerpoint presentation made by Mr. Bob Bekoff of Water Taxi of Fort Lauderdale. He superimposed outlines of vessel hull cross sections on one another.
He demonstrated that as the length of a vessel was reduced, there were corresponding reductions in the beam (width) of the vessel as well. The result was not only a lower passenger capacity, but also noticeably less square footage available for program areas, aisle widths, and spaces for transfer devices. Why is this signficant to the operator of a small passenger vessel? It is important because the operator needs the vessel to be able to produce revenue by accommodating a certain number of passengers. If the operator loses too much revenue-generating capacity because of the amount of space reserved for accessibility functions (path of travel, heads, etc.), the viability of the small passenger vessel as a commercial enterprise may be severely jeopardized.
Also, as vessels get smaller, the required number of crew members is reduced as well. The smallest commercial vessels may have a master only, who is responsible for all aspects of the vessel’s safe operation.
PVA commends the Access Board on its continuing dedication to bringing together its Board members and staff with maritime owners and operators and with persons with disabilities. An excellent example of this was the Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee.
PVA believes that the recommendations made by the Passenger Vessel Advisory Committee should be the basis for your eventual guidelines. You should think long and hard before you depart from the Advisory Committee’s suggestions, and then only if the reason for doing so is most compelling and unassailable.
Keep in mind that the Advisory Committee was your own product. Its 24 members were evenly distributed between individuals from the disability community and the maritime industry. Following your charge, these individual put in weeks of intense study and work over a period of three years.
Your Proposed Rule for Larger Passenger Vessels departs from the recommendations of the Advisory Committee in various respects which we will identify in our July testimony. PVA encourages the Access Board to rethink the proposed departures from the Advisory Committee’s counsel. Our subsequent written comments to the docket will address specific points in this regard.
The Advisory Committee realized early on that it was neither desirable nor feasible to have guidelines that applied to larger and smaller passenger vessels alike. Therefore, its recommendations assumed that requirements for passenger vessels carrying fewer than 151 passengers will have to differ from those applying to larger-capacity vessels.
The Access Board needs to continually remind itself of the diversity of the domestic passenger vessel fleet. A great challenge in ensuring access within the domestic passenger vessel industry is the sheer diversity of its members.
Small passenger vessels come in all sizes, classes, and types, and are involved in a variety of services and uses. They include: small charter fishing boats (commonly called “6-packs”) because they carry half a dozen passengers; tourist submarines in Hawaii and Caribbean destinations; high-speed passenger-only ferries (such as the Catalina Express vessels you will see tomorrow); small water taxis carrying no more than 50 persons (again, you will see such a vessel tomorrow); whalewatching vessels (some of you have seen them in Alaska this week); dinner cruise boats (operating in many cities nationwide, including here in Los Angeles and Long Beach); car-carrying ferries; windjammers and day-sailers; and even amphibious DUKW vessels. The list and variety goes on and on.
In addition, consider the fact that these differing vessels operate in all sorts of environments – protected coastal harbors and bays; the open ocean; rivers; lakes, large and small. These vessels call at well-developed infrastructure (such as Rainbow Harbor in Long Beach, which you will visit tomorrow) and places with few or no facilities at all (such as a beach in southeast Alaska or a bank or levee on the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers).
Scores, if not hundreds, of shipyards, boatbuilders, and naval architects design and construct these vessels. Most are ordered and designed individually. Because of the great variations in service, area of operation, and function, the vessels very rarely are standardized.
All of these facts present challenges to the development of accessibility guidelines. It doesn’t mean that the task can’t be done. But a “one-size-fits-all” approach will not accomplish the goal. There must exist a willingness to be flexible and to recognize that the small passenger vessel fleet is diverse and achieving accessibility will require a variety of solutions.
Concluding Remarks
The Passenger Vessel Association and its members will continue to work with the Access Board to develop workable guidelines for promoting accessibility on vessels. We thank you for heeding our request made last January that you schedule more hearings and vessel visits. Our written comments will further delve into the specifics of your Federal Register proposals, and we hope you will continue to provide formal and informal opportunities for us to provide input.