Regulatory Assessement and Initial Flexibility Act Analysis

Regulatory Assessment of Proposed Accessibility Guidelines

May 2013

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CHAPTER 1.  BACKGROUND
1.1  Introduction
1.2  Statutory and Regulatory Background
1.3  Rulemaking History
1.4  Overview of Proposed Guidelines
CHAPTER 2.  FERRIES, MULTI-PURPOSE VESSELS, AND SMALL CRUISE SHIPS
2.1  Introduction
2.2  Replacement Vessels
2.3  Case Studies
2.4  Estimated Compliance Costs for Replacement Vessels
CHAPTER 3.  LARGE CRUISE SHIPS
3.1  Introduction
3.2  Proposed Scoping Provision for Guest Rooms with Mobility Features
3.3  Mobility Device Use Among U.S. Population
3.4  Alternative Scoping Provisions
3.5  Estimated Guest Room Loss
3.6  Estimated Revenue Loss
CHAPTER 4.  TOTAL ESTIMATED COMPLIANCE COSTS
CHAPTER 5.  ALTERATIONS TO EXISTNG VESSELS
5.1  Introduction
5.2  Proposed Exceptions
5.3  Type and Frequency of Alterations
CHAPTER 6.  BENEFITS
6.1  Nature of Benefits
6.2  Persons Who Benefit from Proposed Provisions
CHAPTER 7.  INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS
APPENDIX I.  FERRIES, MULTI-PURPOSE VESSELS, AND SMALL CRUISE SHIPS OPERATING IN U.S. PORTS AS OF 2010
APPENDIX II.  LARGE CRUISE SHIPS OPERATING IN U.S. PORTS AS OF 2011
APPENDIX III.  LARGE CRUISE SHIPS CONSTRUCTED OR UNDER CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION BETWEEN 2012 & 2015
End Notes

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

“We” and “our” in this document refer to the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board).

We are required by section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act and section 504 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to establish and maintain accessibility guidelines for the construction and alteration of passenger vessels covered by the ADA to ensure that the vessels are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.  We are issuing proposed accessibility guidelines for the construction and alteration of passenger vessels pursuant to this authority.  The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) are required to issue accessibility standards for the construction and alteration of passenger vessels covered by the ADA that are consistent with our guidelines.  Passenger vessel owners and operators would not be required to comply with the guidelines until they are adopted by DOT and DOJ as accessibility standards for the construction and alteration of passenger vessels covered by the ADA.

We prepared this regulatory assessment to estimate the costs and benefits of the proposed guidelines.  We request comment on all aspects of the regulatory assessment to improve our estimates of the costs and benefits of the proposed guidelines.  We include questions in the preamble to the notice of proposed rulemaking that request information on specific issues relating to the regulatory assessment.

The proposed guidelines would apply to the construction and alteration of passenger vessels, other than ferries and tenders, permitted to carry more than 150 passengers or more than 49 overnight passengers; ferries permitted to carry more than 99 passengers; and tenders permitted to carry more than 59 passengers.  The proposed guidelines would not apply to smaller passenger vessels because providing accessible features on those vessels present greater challenges due to space constraints and other considerations.  The proposed guidelines, themselves, would not require existing passenger vessels to be made accessible except where altered.

The proposed guidelines contain proposed scoping and technical provisions.  The proposed scoping provisions specify what passenger vessel features would be required to be accessible.  Where multiple features of the same type are provided, the proposed scoping provisions specify how many of the features would be required to be accessible.  The proposed technical provisions specify the design criteria for accessible features.  The passenger vessel features addressed by the proposed scoping and technical provisions include onboard accessible routes connecting passenger decks and passenger amenities within decks; accessible means of escape; doorways and coamings; toilet rooms; wheelchair spaces in assembly areas and transportation seating areas; assistive listening systems; general emergency alarms; guest rooms; and other passengers amenities.  The proposed guidelines include proposed technical provisions for accessible passenger boarding systems.  However, we defer to DOT and DOJ to address when accessible passenger boarding systems would be required since passenger boarding systems can be provided at landside facilities and involve operational issues between the owner or operator of the landside facility and the passenger vessel owner or operator that DOT and DOJ are authorized to address.

We estimate the compliance costs separately for: (1) ferries, multi-purpose vessels such as dinner vessels and excursion vessels, and small cruise ships; and (2) large cruise ships operating in U.S. ports.  We consider cruise ships permitted to carry between 50 and 299 overnight passengers small cruise ships, and cruise ship permitted to carry 300 or more passengers large cruise ships.

Ferries, Multi-Purpose Vessels, and Small Cruise Ships

We estimate there were 454 ferries, 346 multi-purpose vessels, and 32 small cruise ships in the size categories covered by the proposed guidelines operating in U.S. ports as of 2010.  These 832 vessels are listed in Appendix I, along with the data sources.  We estimate 387 of the ferries (85%), 286 of the multi-purpose vessels (83%), and 23 of the small cruise ships (72%) for a total of 696 of the vessels (84%) are expected to reach the end of their service life over 20 years.  We assume these vessels would be replaced by new vessels and the new vessels would have the same passenger and vehicle capacity, passenger amenities, and number of passenger decks as the vessels they replace.  We also assume the total number of vessels would be stable over 20 years.  We conducted case studies of ten vessels to develop estimates of the incremental costs to construct vessels in compliance with the proposed guidelines, and the additional operation and maintenance costs due to the proposed guidelines.  We divided the 696 vessels that we assume to be replaced over 20 years into 13 groups by type and size of vessel and extrapolated the compliance costs from the case study vessels to these vessels.  We estimate the total compliance costs for the vessels annualized over 20 years are $16 million discounted at 7 percent and 3 percent.

The proposed provision with the highest estimated cost would require an elevator, or on certain vessels a limited use-limited application elevator (LULA) or platform lift, to connect passenger decks.  Ten exceptions are proposed to this provision.  For the 696 vessels that we assume to be replaced over 20 years, we estimate 124 of the new vessels (18%) would be required to provide an elevator, LULA, or platform lift to connect decks, and the proposed exceptions would apply to 431 of the new vessels (62%).  We estimate 62 vessels (9%) currently provide an elevator, LULA, or platform lift, and assume the new vessels that replace these vessels would also provide an elevator, LULA, or platform lift in the absence of the proposed guidelines.  Eleven of these vessels are small cruise ships that would be required to provide larger elevators on the new vessels.  We estimate the other 79 vessels (11%) have only one passenger deck, and assume the new vessels that replace these vessels would not need an elevator, LULA, or platform lift.  In addition, we estimate 23 small cruise ships would be required to provide a platform lift to connect to a tender boarding platform at the stern of the new vessels.

The proposed provisions for protruding objects; onboard accessible routes to connect passenger amenities within decks; doorways and coamings: accessible means of escape; drinking fountains; toilet rooms; general emergency alarms; assistive listening systems; wheelchair spaces in transportation seating areas; guest rooms; storage; and sales and service counters would also have a cost impact on ferries, multi-purpose vessels, and small cruise ships.  Some of the new vessels would need to be redesigned and lengthened to maintain their passenger and vehicle capacity.

Large Cruise Ships

We estimate there were 113 large cruise ships operating in U.S. ports as of 2011.  These large cruise ships are listed in Appendix II, along with the data sources.

New large cruise ships provide many accessible features that would be required by the proposed guidelines, including elevators to connect passenger decks; guest rooms with mobility features; guest rooms with communication features; wheelchair spaces and assistive listening systems in assembly areas; and pool lifts.  We proposed to conduct case studies of new large cruise ships to examine the impact of the proposed guidelines on the vessels.  However, we could not find large cruise ship owners and operators to participate in the case studies.  Due to the lack of information, we did not estimate the incremental costs to construct large cruise ships in compliance with the proposed guidelines, and the additional operation and maintenance costs due to the proposed guidelines.

The proposed guidelines would require cruise ships to provide a minimum number of guest rooms with mobility features.  Guest rooms with mobility features are typically larger than other guest rooms to accommodate passengers who use wheelchairs and scooters.  The cruise industry is concerned about the loss of guest rooms and revenue due to the proposed scoping provision for guest rooms with mobility features.  According to the cruise industry, two guest rooms with mobility features occupy the same square footage as three guest rooms resulting in the loss of one guest room for every two guest rooms with mobility features.  We estimate the 113 large cruise ships operating in U.S. ports as of 2011 contained 123,516 guest rooms, including 2,392 guest rooms with mobility features (1.9% of the total number of guest rooms).  We assume 5 percent of the guest rooms in the cruise fleet are replaced annually and the total number of guest rooms increases by 3 percent annually.  Based on these assumptions, we estimate 786 guest rooms would be lost over 20 years under the proposed scoping provision against the baseline of the cruise industry practice in the absence of the guidelines.  According to the cruise industry, each guest room produced $140,000 gross revenue in 2005.  Adjusting this figure for inflation to $161,250 in 2011 dollars, we estimate the gross revenue loss annualized over 20 years is $50 million discounted at 7 percent, and $58 million discounted at 3 percent. We note, however, that gross revenue loss overstates the cost.  The correct measure for estimating the cost of lost guest rooms is net revenue, which is gross revenue less the costs to serve the passengers who would occupy the guest rooms.

Tenders

We propose minimal provisions for tenders that are used to transport passengers for non-emergency purposes between passenger vessels and shore-side facilities.  We do not estimate any compliance costs for tenders because new tenders meet the provisions.

Alterations to Existing Passenger Vessels

We propose three general exceptions and several specific exceptions for alterations to existing passenger vessels.  We requested comment on the frequency and types of alterations to existing passenger vessels when we released an earlier draft of the guidelines.  Based on the proposed exceptions and responses received from passenger vessel owners and operators, we expect the proposed guidelines to have little or no impact on alterations to existing passenger vessels.

Primary Estimates of Costs and Benefits

The primary estimates of the costs and benefits of the proposed guidelines are shown in Table 1.  We estimate the total compliance costs annualized over 20 years are $66 million discounted at 7 percent, and $74 million discounted at 3 percent.  We do not quantify the benefits of the proposed guidelines due to the nature of the benefits.  The proposed guidelines would address the discriminatory effects of architectural, transportation, and communication barriers encountered by individuals with mobility, hearing, and vision disabilities on passenger vessels.  The proposed guidelines would afford these individuals equal opportunity to travel on passenger vessels for employment, transportation, public accommodation, and leisure.  The proposed guidelines would enable these individuals to achieve greater participation in society, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.  The benefits are difficult to quantify, but include important national values that are recognized in Executive Order 13563 such as equity, human dignity, and fairness.

Table 1.  Primary Estimates of Costs and Benefits of Proposed Guidelines
Annualized Over 20 Years (2011 Dollars)
Costs7% Discount Rate3% Discount Rate
$66 million $74 million
Benefits The proposed guidelines would address the discriminatory effects of architectural, transportation, and communication barriers encountered by individuals with mobility, hearing, and vision disabilities on passenger vessels.  The proposed guidelines would afford these individuals equal opportunity to travel on passenger vessels for employment, transportation, public accommodation, and leisure.  The benefits are difficult to quantify, but include important national values that are recognized in Executive Order 13563 such as equity, human dignity, and fairness.

 

CHAPTER 1.  BACKGROUND

1.1  Introduction

We prepared this regulatory assessment of the proposed accessibility guidelines for passenger vessels in accordance with Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) and Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review).  Among other things, Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs; tailor the regulation to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives; and, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits.  Executive Order 13563 recognizes that some benefits are difficult to quantify and provides that, where appropriate and permitted by law, agencies may consider and discuss qualitatively values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.

1.2  Statutory and Regulatory Background

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities.  See 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.  Title II of the ADA applies to state and local governments and Title III of the ADA applies to places of public accommodation operated by private entities.[1]  The ADA covers designated public transportation services provided by state and local governments and specified public transportation services provided by private entities that are primarily engaged in the business of transporting people and whose operations affect commerce.[2]  See 42 U.S.C. 12141 to 12147 and 12184.  Passenger vessels that provide designated public transportation services or specified public transportation services such as ferries and excursion vessels, and passenger vessels that are places of public accommodation such as vessels that provide dinner or sightseeing cruises are covered by the ADA.

We are required by section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act and section 504 of the ADA to establish and maintain accessibility guidelines for the construction and alteration of passenger vessels covered by the ADA to ensure that the vessels are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.  See 29 U.S.C. 792 (b) (3) and 42 U.S.C. 12204.

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is responsible for issuing regulations to implement the transportation provisions of Titles II and III of the ADA.  See 42 U.S.C. 12149 and 12186 (a).  DOT has issued regulations for passenger vessels used to provide designated public transportation services by state and local governments and specified public transportation services by private entities that are primarily engaged in the business of transporting people and whose operations affect commerce.  See 49 CFR part 39.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is responsible for issuing regulations to implement the other provisions of Titles II and III of the ADA.  See 42 U.S.C. 12134 and 12186 (b).  DOJ has issued regulations for state and local governments and places of public accommodation operated by private entities, including public accommodations provided on passenger vessels such as cruise ships, gaming vessels, and dinner vessels.  See 28 CFR parts 35 and 36.

Titles II and III of the ADA require DOT and DOJ to issue accessibility standards for the construction and alteration of passenger vessels covered by the law that are consistent with our guidelines.  See 42 U.S.C. 12134 (c), 12149 (b), and 12186 (c).  DOT has reserved a subpart in its regulations for accessibility standards for passenger vessels in anticipation of our issuing these guidelines.  See 49 CFR part 39, subpart E.  Passenger vessel owners and operators would not be required to comply with the guidelines until they are adopted by DOT and DOJ as accessibility standards for the construction and alteration of passenger vessels covered by the ADA.

1.3  Rulemaking History

We have developed and maintained accessibility guidelines for landside facilities for over 30 years.  The guidelines for landside facilities represent the state-of-the-art for accessible design.  We worked with passenger vessel owners and operators, the disability community, and other interested parties over the past 15 years to address the unique constraints of the marine environment and adapt the guidelines for landside facilities to passenger vessels.

Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee

In 1998, we convened a Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee comprised of passenger vessel owners and operators, industry trade groups, disability advocacy groups, and state and local government agencies to recommend how to adapt the guidelines for landside facilities to passenger vessels.  The advisory committee submitted a report with recommended guidelines in 2000.

2004 Draft Guidelines and ANPRM

Based on the advisory committee’s report, we developed draft guidelines for passenger vessels permitted to carry more than 150 passengers or more than 49 overnight passengers.  In 2004, we released the draft guidelines for comment and issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on small passenger vessels permitted to carry 150 or fewer passengers, or 49 or fewer overnight passengers.  See 69 FR 69244 and 69245, November 26, 2004.  The ANPRM requested comment on whether and how to develop accessibility guidelines for small passenger vessels.  We held hearings in Washington, DC and Los Angeles on the 2004 draft guidelines and the ANPRM, and received more than 90 comments.

2006 Draft Guidelines

Based on the comments on the 2004 draft guidelines and ANPRM, we revised the draft guidelines in 2006 to include all ferries; other passenger vessels permitted to carry more than 150 passengers or 49 overnight passengers; and tenders permitted to carry more than 59 passengers.  We released the 2006 draft guidelines for comment.  See 71 FR 38563, July 7, 2006.  We received more than 175 comments on the 2006 draft guidelines.

Case Studies

Between 2005 and 2008, we conducted case studies of ten passenger vessels to identify the impact of the draft guidelines on the vessels.  We worked with vessel owners and operators, naval architects, and ship builders to review the original designs of the vessels and to identify design changes that would be needed to meet the draft guidelines.  The naval architects and ship builders estimated the cost of the design changes, and considered the impact of the design changes on the passenger vessel’s space, fuel consumption, and stability.  We prepared reports on the case studies.  We updated the case study reports to reflect changes to the proposed guidelines from earlier drafts and to adjust the cost estimates to 2011 dollars.

Passenger Vessel Emergency Alarms Advisory Committee

Comments on the 2006 draft guidelines raised issues about emergency alarm systems on passenger vessels alerting passengers who are deaf or have a hearing loss.  We convened a Passenger Vessel Emergency Alarms Advisory Committee in 2007 comprised of passenger vessel owners and operators, industry trade groups, organizations representing individuals who are deaf or have a hearing loss, and standard setting organizations to address the comments.  The advisory committee submitted a report with its recommendations in 2008.  The advisory committee recommended that general emergency alarm systems include visible elements to alert passengers who are deaf or have a hearing loss, and recommended safeguards against triggering photosensitive seizures in individuals with epilepsy.  The advisory committee recommended that the visible element on U.S. flag ships comply with the NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm Code.  The advisory committee recommended that the U.S. Coast Guard work with the International Maritime Organization to develop guidelines for including visible elements in general emergency alarm systems on foreign flag vessels.  The International Maritime Organization approved non-mandatory guidelines for including visible elements in general emergency alarm systems in 2012.[3]

2008 Draft Guidelines

Based on the comments on the 2006 draft guidelines and the case studies, we revised the draft guidelines in 2008.  The 2008 draft guidelines covered ferries permitted to carry more than 99 passengers; other passenger vessels permitted to carry more than 150 passengers or more than 49 overnight passengers; and tenders permitted to carry more than 59 passengers.

The advisory committee reports, ANPRM, earlier drafts of the guidelines, comments on the ANPRM and earlier drafts of the guidelines, updated case study reports, and other background information on the proposed guidelines are available at: http://www.access-board.gov/pvag/.  We used all this information to develop the proposed guidelines.

1.4  Overview of Proposed Guidelines

The proposed guidelines would apply to the construction and alteration of passenger

vessels, other than ferries and tenders, permitted to carry more than 150 passengers or more than 49 overnight passengers; ferries permitted to carry more than 99 passengers; and tenders permitted to carry more than 59 passengers.  The proposed guidelines would not apply to smaller passenger vessels because providing accessible features on those vessels present greater challenges due to space constraints and other considerations.  The proposed guidelines, themselves, would not require existing passenger vessels to be made accessible except where altered.

The proposed guidelines contain proposed scoping and technical provisions.  The proposed scoping provisions specify what passenger vessel features would be required to be accessible.  Where multiple features of the same type are provided, the proposed scoping provisions specify how many of the features would be required to be accessible.  The proposed technical provisions specify the design criteria for accessible features.  The passenger vessel features addressed by the proposed scoping and technical provisions include onboard accessible routes connecting passenger decks and passenger amenities within decks; accessible means of escape; doorways and coamings; toilet rooms; wheelchair spaces in assembly areas and transportation seating areas; assistive listening systems; general emergency alarms; guest rooms; and other passenger amenities.  The proposed guidelines include proposed technical provisions for accessible passenger boarding systems.  However, we defer to DOT and DOJ to address when accessible passenger boarding systems would be required since passenger boarding systems can be provided at landside facilities and involve operational issues between the owner or operator of the landside facility and the passenger vessel owner or operator that DOT and DOJ are authorized to address.

CHAPTER 2.  FERRIES, MULTI-PURPOSE VESSELS, AND SMALL CRUISE SHIPS

2.1  Introduction

This chapter discusses the impact of the proposed guidelines on ferries permitted to carry more than 99 passengers; multi-purpose vessels such as dinner vessels and excursion vessels permitted to carry more than 150 passengers; and small cruise ships permitted to carry between 49 and 299 overnight passengers that operate in U.S. ports.  We estimate there were 454 ferries, 346 multi-purpose vessels, and 32 small cruise ships in the size categories covered by the proposed guidelines operating in U.S. ports as of 2010.  Appendix I lists these 832 vessels, along with the data sources.  The appendix provides data on each vessel, including vessel name, year constructed, number of passengers, and number of passenger decks.  As shown in Table 2, we estimate that about 25 percent of the vessels are owned by state or local governments, and the rest are owned by private entities.

Table 2.  Existing Vessels in Size Categories Covered by Proposed Guidelines as of 2010
Vessel TypeNumberState or Local GovernmentPrivate
Ferry

454

197

257

Multi-Purpose Vessel

346

8

338

Small Cruise Ship

32

0

32

Total 832 205 627

2.2  Replacement Vessels

We estimate the compliance costs over 20 years for new vessels that replace the existing vessels.  As shown in Table 3, we assume the existing vessels have an expected service life of 25 to 40 years based on the vessel type and size.  We estimate 696 of the existing vessels (84%) would reach the end of their expected service life over 20 years beginning in 2012.  We assume these vessels would be replaced by new vessels and the new vessels would have the same passenger and vehicle capacity, passenger amenities, and number of passenger decks as the vessels they replace.  We also assume the total number of vessels would be stable over 20 years.

Table 3.  Expected Service Life of Vessels
Vessel Type & SizeExpected Service LifeNumber of Existing Vessels That Reach End of Expected Service Life Over 20 Years
Multi-Hull Ferries
100-124 passengers only

25 years

4

145-150 passengers only

25 years

41

151-600 passengers only

30 years

32

Mono-Hull Ferries
100-150 passengers only

30 years

70

100-150 passengers plus vehicles

30 years

67

151-1000 passengers only

30 years

72

151-1000 passengers plus vehicles

30 years

82

1001 or more passengers plus vehicles

40 years

19

Multi-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels
151-600 passengers

30 years

13

Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels
151-499 passengers

30 years

181

500-1000 passengers

30 years

86

1001 or more passengers

40 years

6

Small Cruise Ships
50-299 passengers

40 years

23

Total 696

Table 4 shows the number of new vessels we assume to be constructed each year to replace the existing vessels.  About 33% of the existing vessels (275 vessels) would reach or exceed their expected service life in the first year.  This results in the estimated compliance costs for the new vessels being higher in the first year than in the other years.

Table 4.  New Vessels Assumed to be Constructed to Replace Existing Vessels
YearFerriesMulti-Purpose VesselsSmall Cruise ShipsTotal

Note:

1.  Year 1 is 2012.

163

110

2

275

2

9

9

0

18

3

10

12

0

22

4

9

20

0

29

5

8

14

1

23

6

13

13

0

26

7

13

16

0

29

8

20

15

1

36

9

13

7

1

21

10

10

14

1

25

11

9

4

2

15

12

10

5

2

17

13

13

6

3

22

14

10

7

0

17

15

18

4

0

22

16

13

3

1

17

17

16

9

2

27

18

9

11

3

23

19

6

5

2

13

20

15

2

2

19

Total 387 286 23 696

2.3  Case Studies

Between 2005 and 2008, we conducted case studies of ten vessels to identify the impact of the draft guidelines on the vessels.  We worked with the vessel owners and operators, naval architects, and ship builders to review the original designs of the vessels and to identify design changes that would be needed to meet the draft guidelines.  The naval architects and ship builders estimated the cost of the design changes, and considered the impact of the design changes on the passenger vessel’s space, fuel consumption, and stability.  We prepared reports on the case studies.  We updated the case study reports to reflect changes to the proposed guidelines from earlier drafts and to adjust the cost estimates to 2011 dollars.[4]  The updated case study reports are available at: http://www.access-board.gov/pvag/.  Table 5 lists the case study vessels and abbreviations used to refer to the case study vessels in tables 6 through 8.

Table 5.  Case Study Vessels & Abbreviations Used to Refer to Case Study Vessels
Case Study VesselAbbreviation

108 Passenger High-Speed Ferry

108 pax ferry

149 Passenger High-Speed Ferry

149 pax ferry

399 Passenger Traditional Ferry

399 pax ferry

450 Passenger High-Speed Ferry

450 pax ferry

150 Passenger & 20 Vehicle Ferry

20 car ferry

300 Passenger & 40 Vehicle Ferry

40 car ferry

4,400 Passenger & 30 Vehicle Ferry

4400 pax ferry

300 Passenger Tour Vessel

300 pax tour vessel

600 Passenger Dinner Vessel

600 pax dinner vessel

120-passenger Cruise ship

120 pax cruise ship

The proposed provisions identified in the case studies that would have a cost impact are shown in Table 6.  The proposed provisions for onboard accessible routes, toilet rooms, and assistive listening systems would have a cost impact on almost every case study vessel.  The proposed provisions for protruding objects, accessible means of escape, drinking fountains, general emergency alarms, transportation seating areas, medical care facilities, guest rooms, storage, and sales and service counters would have a cost impact on only some of the case study vessels.

Table 6.  Proposed Provisions Identified in Case Studies That Would Have Cost Impact
Proposed Provision108 pax ferry149 pax ferry399 pax ferry450 pax ferry20 car ferry40 car ferry4400 pax ferry300 pax tour vessel600 pax dinner vessel120 pax cruise ship

Note:

1.  Onboard accessible routes include proposed provisions for elevators, limited use-limited application elevators (LULA), and platform lifts to connect passenger decks on vessels with more than one deck; onboard accessible routes to connect passenger amenities within decks; and doorways and coamings.  Some of these proposed provisions would not have a cost impact on some of the case study vessels.

Protruding Objects
V204, V307

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

X

   
Onboard Accessible Routes¹
V206, V402 -V409

X

X

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Accessible Means of Escape
V207
   

X

X

   

X

 

X

X

Drinking Fountains
V211, V602
     

X

 

X

       
Toilet Rooms
V213, V603-V608

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

X

X

X

General Emergency Alarms
V215, V702
         

X

     

X

Assistive Listening Systems
V219, V706

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Transportation Seating Areas
V222, V802.1

X

X

X

X

X

 

X

X

   
Medical Care Facilities
V223, V805
                 

X

Guest Rooms
V224, V806
                 

X

Storage
V225, V807

X

X

X

 

X

   

X

   
Sales and Service Counters
V227
               

X

 

Incremental Construction Costs

The case study reports estimate the incremental construction costs for the vessels, which is the difference between the cost of constructing the vessel in the absence of the proposed guidelines (pre-guidelines construction cost) and the cost of constructing the vessel in compliance with the guidelines (post-guidelines construction cost).  The case study reports estimate the following incremental construction costs:

Vertical Access Construction Cost.  This is the cost of installing an elevator, limited use-limited application elevator (LULA), or platform lift to connect passenger decks on a vessel with more than one deck.

Other Accessible Feature Costs.  This includes the cost to expand toilet rooms; modify doors and thresholds; install automatic doors at doorways with coamings and double ramps; add assistive listening systems; and provide protected waiting areas as part of an accessible means of escape where passengers with disabilities wait for crew assistance during emergencies.

Lengthening Cost.  This is the cost of increasing the length of a new vessel to accommodate the accessible features and maintain the passenger and vehicle capacity, and the passenger amenities such as fixed seating and toilet rooms provided on the existing vessel.

Redesign Cost.  This is the cost for architectural design drawings for a new vessel that differs in design from the existing vessel it replaces.  The estimated redesign cost for the case study vessels ranged from 3 percent to 10 percent of incremental construction costs.

Table 7 shows the pre-guidelines construction costs and incremental construction costs for the case study vessels in dollars, and also shows the incremental construction costs as a percent increase in construction costs.  The construction costs would increase by less than 1 percent to 12.5 percent for nine of the case study vessels.  The construction costs would increase by 24.5 percent for the 108 passenger high-speed ferry because the vessel owner wanted to lengthen the ferry by 10 feet based on the owner’s experience with a larger ferry, instead of the 5 feet minimum needed to maintain the vessel’s seating and storage capacity.  If the replacement ferry is lengthened by 5 feet, instead of 10 feet, the construction costs would increase by 14 percent to 17 percent, instead of 24.5 percent.

Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs

The case studies identified the following additional annual operation and maintenance costs due to the proposed guidelines:

Vertical Access Maintenance Cost.  This is the annual cost of maintaining an elevator, LULA, or platform lift to connect passenger decks.

Automatic Door Maintenance Cost.  This is the annual cost of maintaining and replacing automatic doors at doorways with coamings and double ramps.

Engine Maintenance Cost.  This is the annual cost for additional engine maintenance due to added weight from the accessible features and vessel lengthening.

Fuel Cost.  This is the annual cost for additional fuel consumption due to installing an elevator, LULA, or platform lift to connect passenger decks and vessel lengthening.

Table 7 shows the additional operation and maintenance costs for the case study vessels.

 

Table 7.  Estimated Compliance Costs for Case Study Vessels
 108 pax ferry149 pax ferry399 pax ferry450 pax ferry20 car ferry40 car ferry4400 pax ferry300 pax tour vessel600 pax dinner vessel120 pax cruise ship

Notes:

1.  The owner of the 108 passenger high-speed ferry wanted to lengthen the ferry by 10 feet based on the owner’s experience with a larger ferry, instead of the 5 feet minimum needed to maintain the vessel’s seating and storage capacity.  If the ferry is lengthened by 5 feet, instead of 10 feet, the post-guidelines incremental construction costs would increase by 14% to 17%, instead of 24.5%.

2.  The owner of the 150 passenger and 20 vehicle mono-hull ferry wanted to lose a vehicle space instead of lengthening the replacement ferry by 16 feet to maintain its vehicle capacity.  This would result in an annual revenue loss of $51,000 to $86,000.  If the replacement ferry is lengthened by 16 feet, the post-guidelines incremental construction costs would increase by 6.7%, instead of less than 1%.

3.  The 300 passenger tour vessel has two entry decks and currently provides an inclined platform lift to connect the two entry decks.  The inclined platform lift is included in the pre-guidelines construction cost.  If the vessel did not provide an inclined platform lift, the construction costs would increase by 5.3% if an inclined lift is provided, and 8.1% if a vertical platform lift is provided.

Pre-Guidelines Construction Cost

$2,270

$3,110

$5,970

$11,650

$4,630

$9,560

$62,700

$2,450

$6,490

$70,580

Incremental Construction Cost

$556

$390

$134

$487

$38

$289

$787

$79

$642

$2,242

Percent Increase in Construction Costs

24.5%¹

12.5%

2.2%

4.2%

< 1%²

3.0%

1.3%

3.2%³

9.9%

3.2%

Additional Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs

18% increase in fuel consumption

3% to 6.6% increase in fuel consumption

None

10% increase in fuel consumption

Not Significant

Not Significant

$1,100 to $1,300 per automatic door

Not Significant

5% to 10% increase in fuel consumption

Not Significant

 

2.4  Estimated Compliance Costs for Replacement Vessels

We worked with the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center to extrapolate the incremental construction costs and additional annual operation and maintenance costs from the case study vessels to the replacement vessels.  As shown in Table 8, we divided the replacement vessels into 13 groups and matched each group by type and size with one or more of the case study vessels.  We used the elevator cost from the 600 passenger dinner vessel for replacement vessels that would be required to provide an elevator.  We developed cost estimates for the incremental construction costs and additional annual operations and maintenance costs for the replacement vessels in each group based on the case study vessel costs.  We erred on the side of overestimating compliance costs when matching the replacement vessels with the case study vessels.  All estimates are 2011 dollars.

Table 8.  Replacement Vessels Matched to Case Study Vessels
Vessel Type & SizeNumber of VesselsCase Study Vessel
Multi-Hull Ferries
100-124 passengers only

4

108 pax ferry

145-150 passengers only

41

149 pax ferry

151-600 passengers only

32

450 pax ferry

Mono-Hull Ferries
100-150 passengers only

70

149 pax ferry; 399 pax ferry

100-150 passengers plus vehicles

67

20 car ferry

151-1000 passengers only

72

399 pax ferry; 600 pax dinner vessel

151-1000 passengers plus vehicles

82

40 car ferry; 600 pax dinner vessel

1001 or more passengers plus vehicles

19

4,400 pax ferry; 600 pax dinner vessel

Multi-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels
151-600 passengers

13

450 pax ferry

Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels
151-499 passengers

181

300 pax tour vessel; 600 pax dinner vessel

500-1000 passengers

86

600 pax dinner vessel

1001 or more passengers

6

4,400 pax ferry; 600 pax dinner vessel

Small Cruise Ships
50-299 passengers

23

120 pax cruise ship; 600 pax dinner vessel

Total 696  

Vertical Access Cost

The proposed guidelines would require an elevator, limited use-limited application elevator (LULA), or platform lift to connect passenger decks on a vessel with more than one deck.  A LULA is a passenger elevator that is limited in use and application by size, capacity, speed, and rise.  The maximum rise of a LULA is 25 feet and it can be used to connect three or fewer passenger decks.[5]  The maximum rise for a platform lift is 14 feet and it can be used to connect two passenger decks.[6]

Ten exceptions are proposed.  Exceptions 1, 2, and 3 would reduce the compliance costs for small passenger vessels.  Exception 1 would not require an onboard accessible route to connect the decks on passenger vessels that have only two passenger decks unless both decks are entry decks.  Exception 2 would not require an onboard accessible route to connect decks that are not entry decks where each passenger deck is less than 3,000 square feet.  Exception 3 would not require an onboard accessible route to connect decks where a passenger vessel that is otherwise eligible to use Exceptions 1 or 2 has more than one entry deck and at least one designated entry deck: (1) serves each stop used for embarking and disembarking passengers; and (2) contains drinking fountains, toilet rooms, transportation seating areas, and guest rooms with mobility features, where such amenities are provided on the vessel.

Exceptions 4 and 5 would reduce the compliance costs for high-speed passenger vessels that cannot use Exceptions 1, 2, or 3.  Exception 4 would not require an onboard accessible route to connect decks on high-speed passenger vessels that have only three passenger decks and do not transport vehicles or overnight passengers provided that at least one designated entry deck: (1) serves each stop used for embarking and disembarking passengers; (2) contains drinking fountains, toilet rooms, transportation seating areas, and guest rooms with mobility features, where such amenities are provided on the vessel; and (3) contains at least one exterior passenger area that is not covered by other decks, where an uncovered exterior passenger area is provided on the vessel.  Exception 5 would not require an onboard accessible route to connect to the sun deck on a high-speed passenger vessel that does not transport overnight passengers where the sun deck has no enclosed passenger spaces and is not an entry deck provided that at least one exterior passenger area that is not covered by other decks is provided on an entry deck or a deck connected to an entry deck by an onboard accessible route.

Exceptions 6 and 7 would reduce the compliance costs for vehicle ferries that are designed to accommodate vehicles with high clearances.  Where a passenger deck, other than an entry deck, is divided into two separate segments and no horizontal circulation path is provided between the two segments, Exception 6 would require an onboard accessible route to connect to only one segment of the divided deck.  Where decks containing vehicle parking lanes are designed to be raised and lowered and do not provide any other passenger amenities, Exception 7 would not require an onboard accessible route to connect to such decks.

Exception 8 would not require an onboard accessible route to connect to decks, other than entry decks, that are less than 300 square feet.  Exception 9 would not require an onboard accessible route to connect to decks below the bulkhead deck.  Exception 10 would apply to alterations to qualified historic passenger vessels and would not require an onboard accessible route to connect the decks on such vessels where the State Historic Preservation Officer or Advisory Council on Historic Preservation determines that it would threaten or destroy the historic significance of a qualified historic passenger vessel.

We make the following assumptions to determine whether the replacement vessels that have more than one deck would need an elevator, LULA, or platform lift:

• A deck is assumed to be a passenger deck unless information is available indicating the deck is used only by crew.

• A vessel is assumed to have only one entry deck unless information is available indicating there is more than one entry deck.

• If information on the vessel width is unavailable, we assume all the decks are less than 3,000 square feet when the vessel length is less than 100 feet.

• If an existing vessel provides an elevator, LULA, or platform lift, we assume the replacement vessel would provide an elevator, LULA, or platform lift in the absence of the proposed guidelines.

• Where an exception would not apply, we assume a two deck vessel with two entry decks would provide a platform lift at a cost of $108,700; a three deck vessel would provide a LULA at a cost of $297,400; and a vessel with four or more decks would provide an elevator at a cost of $371,700.  The costs are average unit costs based on the case studies.[7]

• All small cruise ships would need to provide a platform lift at a cost of $27,100 to connect to a tender boarding platform at the stern of the vessel based on the matched case study vessel.

Based on the above assumptions, we estimate 124 of the replacement vessels (18%) would be required to provide an elevator, LULA, or platform lift to connect decks, and the proposed exceptions would apply to 431 of the replacement vessels (62%).  We estimate 62 vessels (9%) currently provide an elevator, LULA, or platform lift, and assume the replacement vessels would provide an elevator, LULA, or platform lift in the absence of the proposed guidelines.  Eleven of these vessels are small cruise ships that would be required to provide larger elevators on the replacement vessels.  We estimate the other 79 vessels (11%) have only one passenger deck, and assume the replacement vessels would not need an elevator, LULA, or platform lift.

 

Table 9.  Estimated Number of Replacement Vessels That Would Be Required to Provide Elevator, LULA, or Platform Lift
Vessel Type & SizeNumber of VesselsVessels AffectedCost per Vessel (thousands of dollars)Assumptions & Explanations
Multi-Hull Ferries

100-124 passengers only

4

0

0

2 have one deck
Exception 1 applies to the other vessels

145-150 passengers only

41

0

0

7 have one deck
Exception 1 or 2 applies to the other vessels

151-600 passengers only

32

2

$109

2 with two entry decks need a platform lift
Exception 1, 2, or 4 applies to the other vessels

Mono-Hull Ferries

100-150 passengers only

70

0

0

9 have one deck

Exception 1 or 2 applies to the other vessels

100-150 passengers plus vehicles

67

0

0

33 have one deck

Exception 1 applies to the other vessels

151-1000 passengers only

72

7

$297

7 need a LULA

3 currently provide an elevator, LULA, or platform lift

6 have one deck

Exception 1 or 2 applies to the other vessels

151-1000 passengers plus vehicles

82

19

$297

19 need a LULA

9 need an elevator

19 currently provide an elevator, LULA, or platform lift

8 have one deck

Exception 1 applies to the other vessels

9

$372

1001 or more passengers plus vehicles

19

0

0

17 currently provide an elevator, LULA, or platform lift

Exception 1 applies to the other vessels

Multi-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels

151-600 passengers

13

0

0

Exception 1 or 4 applies to all vessels

Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels

151-499 passengers

181

18

$297

18 need a LULA

3 need an elevator

3 currently provide an elevator, LULA, or platform lift

12 have one deck

Exception 1 or 2 applies to the other vessels

3

$372

500-1000 passengers

86

30

$297

30 need a LULA

20 need an elevator

7 currently an provide elevator, LULA, or platform lift

2 have one deck

Exception 1 or 2 applies to the other vessels

20

$372

1001 or more passengers

6

2

$297

2 need a LULA

2 need an elevator

2 are currently provide an elevator, LULA, or platform lift

2

$372

Small Cruise Ships

50-299 passengers

23

1

$27

1 needs a stern platform lift only

11 need to enlarge existing elevators plus a stern platform lift

7 need a LULA plus a stern platform lift

4 need an elevator plus a stern platform lift

11

$30

7

$325

4

$399

Total 696 135  

 

Other Accessible Features Costs

The proposed guidelines would require the replacement vessels to provide other accessible features that have incremental construction costs, including expanding toilet rooms; modifying doors and thresholds; installing automatic doors at doorways with coamings and double ramps; adding assistive listening systems; and providing protected waiting areas as part of an accessible means of escape.[8]

The owner of the 450 passenger high-speed ferry in the case study noted that the engine system would need to be upgraded due to the accessible features and vessel lengthening.  The incremental cost to upgrade the engine system is included in the other accessible features costs for the multi-hull ferries and multi-purpose vessels permitted to carry 151 to 600 passengers matched with the case study of the 450 passenger high-speed ferry.  The owners and operators of the other case study vessels did not note a need to upgrade the engine systems.

The naval architect who worked on the 600 passenger dinner vessel in the case study noted that the electric generator system would need to be upgraded due to the addition of an elevator.  The incremental cost to upgrade the electric generator system is included in the other accessible features costs for the mono-hull multi-purpose vessels permitted to carry 500 to 1,000 passengers matched with the case study of the 600 passenger dinner vessel.  We request comment on whether the electric generator system on other replacement vessels would need to be upgraded in the preamble to the proposed guidelines.

The incremental construction costs to provide the other accessible features on the replacement vessels are shown in Table 10.  The costs range from $19,000 for mono-hull ferries permitted to carry 151 to 1,000 passengers plus vehicles to $631,000 for mono-hull ferries permitted to carry 1,001 or more passengers plus vehicles and mono-hull and multi-purpose vessels permitted to carry 1,001 or more passengers. The costs are higher for mono-hull ferries permitted to carry 1,001 or more passengers plus vehicles and multi-purpose vessels permitted to carry 1,001 or more passengers because the owner of the 4,400 passenger and 30 vehicle ferry in the case study matched to these vessels wanted to provide automatic sprinkler systems instead of protected waiting areas as part of an accessible means of escape even though the automatic sprinkler systems are more costly.  The costs would be lower if protected waiting areas are provided.

 

Table 10.  Estimated Compliance Costs to Provide Other Accessible Features Costs on Replacement Vessels
Vessel Type & SizeNumber of VesselsVessels AffectedCost Per Vessel (thousands of dollars)Assumptions & Explanations

Notes: 

1.  The cost shown is the average total cost for vessels in the group since vessels in the group had some variation in the other accessible feature costs.

2.  Thirty-three (33) of the existing mono-hull ferries carrying 100 to 150 passengers plus vehicles currently provide the other accessible features.  We assume that the replacement vessels for these 33 ferries would be the same design and would not incur any compliance costs for the other accessible features.

Multi-Hull Ferries

100-124 passengers only

4

4

$25

Modifying doors and thresholds
Expanding toilet room
Adding accessible lockers and assistive listening system

145-150 passengers only

41

41

$38

Increasing ceiling height
Modifying doors
Adding assistive listening system
Adjusting overhead grab rails

151-600 passengers only

32

32

$153

Expanding vertical clearances at doors
Adding drinking fountain and assistive listening system
Providing protected waiting areas for accessible means of escape
Upgrading engine system

Mono-Hull Ferries

100-150 passengers only

70

70

$39

Modifying doors and thresholds
Adding accessible lockers and assistive listening system

100-150 passengers plus vehicles

67

34

$54

Lengthening seating cabin
Adding accessible lockers and assistive listening system

151-1000 passengers only

72

72

$116

Adding assistive listening system
Providing automatic sprinkler system instead of protected waiting areas for accessible means of escape
Providing visible alarms

151-1000 passengers plus vehicles

82

82

$19

Expanding toilet room
Adding guardrails under stairway, drinking fountain, and assistive listening system

1001 or more passengers plus vehicles

19

19

$631¹

Installing automatic doors and door drainage systems at doorways with coamings
Adding assistive listening system
Providing automatic sprinkler system instead of protected waiting areas for accessible means of escape

Multi-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels 

151-600 passengers

13

13

$153

Expanding vertical clearances at doors

Adding drinking fountain and assistive listening system

Providing protected waiting areas for accessible means of escape

Upgrading engine system

Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels 

151-499 passengers

181

181

$78

Expanding toilet rooms

Adding assistive listening system

500-1000 passengers

86

36

$112

Modifying doors and thresholds

Adding assistive listening system

Providing protected waiting areas for accessible means of escape

50

$125

Modifying doors and thresholds, and service counter

Adding assistive listening system

Providing protected waiting areas for accessible means of escape

Upgrading electric generator system

1001 or more passengers

6

2

$222¹

Installing automatic doors at doorways with coamings

Adding assistive listening system

4

$631¹

Installing automatic doors at doorways with coamings

Adding assistive listening system

Providing automatic sprinkler system instead of protected waiting areas for accessible means of escape

Small Cruise Ships

50-299 passengers

23

23

$95

Modifying doors, thresholds, and medical care facilities

Adding accessible guest rooms, ramps, visible alarms, and assistive listening system

Total696 663²  

 

Lengthening Cost

Some of the case study vessels needed to be lengthened to accommodate the accessible features and to maintain passenger and vehicle capacity.  The larger vessels in the case studies could accommodate the accessible features, and maintain passenger and vehicle capacity without being lengthened.  It is more costly to lengthen multi-hull vessels than mono-hull vessels.

We make the following assumptions to determine how many feet to lengthen the replacement vessels that needed to be lengthened:

• Multi-hull ferries permitted to carry 100 to 124 passengers would be lengthened by 5 feet since the owner of the matched case study vessel (108 passenger high-speed ferry) wanted to lengthen the replacement vessel by more than 5 feet for reasons unrelated to the accessible features.

• Mono-hull ferries permitted to carry 100 to 150 passengers plus vehicles that have two decks would be lengthened by 16 feet to maintain vehicle capacity.  The owner of the matched case study vessel (150 passenger and 20 vehicle mono-hull ferry) wanted to lose a vehicle space instead of lengthening the replacement vessel by 16 feet to maintain its vehicle capacity.  We assume other ferry owners would lengthen the vessel to maintain the vehicle capacity.

• 11 of the small cruise ships are smaller than the matched case study vessel (120 passenger cruise ship) and the lengthening cost is adjusted proportionally to the vessel size.

Based on the above assumptions, we estimate 267 of the replacement vessels (38 percent) would need to be lengthened as shown in Table 11.  The lengthening cost would range from $60,000 for mono-hull ferries permitted to carry 100 to 150 passengers to $2,117,000 for some small cruise ships.  We assume lengthening the vessels would not impact their use of docking areas.  We request comment on this issue in the preamble to the notice of proposed rulemaking.

Table 11.  Estimated Lengthening Cost for Replacement Vessels
Vessel Type & SizeNumber of VesselsVessels AffectedCost Per Vessel (thousands of dollars)Assumptions & Explanations
Multi-Hull Ferries

100-124 passengers only

4

4

$261

Lengthen 5 feet (modified from case study)

145-150 passengers only

41

41

$90

Lengthen 3 feet (same as case study)

151-600 passengers only

32

32

$217

Lengthen 4 feet (same as case study)

Mono-Hull Ferries

100-150 passengers only

70

70

$60

Lengthen 3 feet (same as case study)

100-150 passengers plus vehicles

67

34

$270

Lengthen 16 feet for 34 vessels with two decks; no lengthening for the rest of vessels with only one deck

151-1000 passengers only

72

0

0

None (same as case study)

151-1000 passengers plus vehicles

82

0

0

1001 or more passengers plus vehicles

19

0

0

Multi-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels

151-600 passengers

13

13

$217

Lengthen 4 feet (same as case study)

Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels

151-499 passengers

181

0

0

None (same as case study)

500-1000 passengers

86

50

$205

Lengthen 4 feet for 50 vessels that need vertical access (same as case study)

1001 or more passengers

6

0

0

None (same as case study)

Small Cruise Ships
50-299 passengers 23

11

$974

Length adjusted proportionally to vessel size

12

$2,117

Lengthen 8 feet (same as case study)

Total696267  

Redesign Cost

Some of the case study vessels needed architectural design drawings for the replacement vessel where it differed in design from the existing vessel.  Vessels that are nearly identical in design under the same owner’s fleet are considered sister ships.  We assume the redesign cost would be incurred only for the first vessel of each new design and there would be no redesign cost for sister ships.  Based on this assumption, we estimate 575 of the 696 replacement vessels (83 percent) would incur redesign costs as shown in Table 12.  We estimate the redesign cost is 10 percent of the incremental construction costs, and would range from $2,000 for some mono-hull ferries permitted to carry 151 to 1000 passengers plus vehicles to $261,100 for some small cruise ships.

 

Table 12.  Redesign Cost for Replacement Vessels
Vessel Type & SizeNumber of VesselsVessels AffectedCost Per Vessel (thousands of dollars)Assumptions & Explanations

Note: 

1.  The average of total redesign costs is shown for all vessels in the group.

Multi-Hull Ferries

100-124 passengers only

4

4

$29

10% of incremental construction costs

145-150 passengers only

41

26

$13

151-600 passengers only 32

2

$48

25

$37

Mono-Hull Ferries

100-150 passengers only

70

64

$10

10% of incremental construction costs

100-150 passengers plus vehicles

67

27

$32

151-1000 passengers only 72

6

$41

51

$12

151-1000 passengers plus vehicles 82

8

$39

12

$32

50

$2

1001 or more passengers plus vehicles

19

8

$63¹

Multi-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels

151-600 passengers

13

13

$37

10% of incremental construction costs

Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels
151-499 passengers 181

3

$45

10% of incremental construction costs

18

$38

156

$8

500-1000 passengers 86

17

$70

26

$63

34

$11

1001 or more passengers 6

4

$87¹

2

$41¹

Small Cruise Ships
50-299 passengers 23

10

$135¹

10% of incremental construction costs

9

$232¹

Total 696 575  

 

Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs

We estimate the additional annual operational and maintenance costs for the replacement vessels based on the case study vessels, additional information provided by vessel owners and operators, and input from the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.  We estimate the following additional operation and maintenance costs for the replacement vessels in Tables 13 and 14:

• The annual maintenance cost for a platform lift is $2,800, and for a LULA or elevator is $5,500.

• The annual maintenance cost for an automatic door is $1,100.

• The annual cost for additional engine maintenance due to added weight from the accessible features or vessel lengthening is $22,000 per vessel for multi-hull ferries carrying 150 or fewer passengers.  For mono-hull vessels and small cruise ships that operate at slower speeds than multi-hull vessels, and larger multi-hull vessels carrying more than 150 passengers, we assume there is no additional engine maintenance cost.

• The additional fuel consumption varies based on the vessel characteristics and ranges from none for mono-hull ferries permitted to carry more than 150 passengers plus vehicles and mono-hull multi-purpose vessels permitted to carry more than 1,000 passengers to 10 percent for some multi-hull vessels carrying passengers only.  Future diesel price estimates are based on the U.S. Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook 2010 with Projections to 2035.[9]  Fuel is estimated to be $3.89 per gallon, the price forecasted for 2031 at the end of the 20 year period.

 

Table 13.  Estimated Vertical Access Maintenance Cost & Automatic Door Maintenance Cost for Replacement Vessels
 Vertical Access Maintenance CostAutomatic Door Maintenance Cost
Vessel Type & SizeNumber of VesselsVessels AffectedAnnual Cost Per Vessel (thousands of dollars)Assumptions & ExplanationsVessels AffectedAnnual Cost Per Vessel (thousands of dollars)Assumptions & Explanations
Multi-Hull Ferries

100-124 passengers only

4

0

0

None

0

0

None

145-150 passengers only

41

0

0

0

0

151-600 passengers only

32

2

$3

Vessels with platform lift

0

0

Mono-Hull Ferries

100-150 passengers only

70

0

0

None

0

0

None

100-150 passengers plus vehicles

67

0

0

0

0

151-1000 passengers only

72

7

$6

Vessels with LULA or elevator

0

0

151-1000 passengers plus vehicles

82

28

$6

0

0

1001 or more passengers plus vehicles

19

0

0

None

3

$4

Four new doors per vessel

16

$6

Six new doors per vessel

Multi-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels

151-600 passengers

13

0

0

None

0

0

None

Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels

151-499 passengers

181

21

$6

Vessels with LULA or elevator

0

0

None

500-1000 passengers

86

50

$6

86

$1

One new door per vessel (same as in the case study)

1001 or more passengers

6

4

$6

6

$6

Six new doors per vessel

Small Cruise Ships

50-299 passengers

23

12

$3

Vessels with platform lift only

0

0

None

11

$8

Vessels with platform lift plus LULA or elevator

Total696135   111  

 

Table 14.  Estimated Engine Maintenance Cost & Fuel Cost for Replacement Vessels
 Engine Maintenance CostFuel Cost
Vessel Type & SizeNumber of VesselsVessels AffectedAnnual Cost Per Vessel (thousands of dollars)Assumptions & ExplanationsVessels AffectedAnnual Cost Per Vessel (thousands of dollars)Assumptions & Explanations
Multi-Hull Ferries

100-124 passengers only

4

4

$22

Due to lengthening without engine upgrade (estimate based on the case study vessel)

4

$37

9% increase in fuel consumption (modified from case study vessel)

145-150 passengers only

41

41

$22

41

$13

4.8% increase in fuel consumption (same as case study vessel)

151-600 passengers only

32

0

0

None

32

$214

10% increase in fuel consumption (same as case study vessel)

Mono-Hull Ferries

100-150 passengers only

70

0

0

None assumed for slow-speed vessels; lengthening has no or little effect on engine maintenance in a slow-speed vessel

70

$5

1.5% increase in fuel consumption due to lengthening and added weight related to vertical access and other accessibility features

100-150 passengers plus vehicles

67

0

0

34

$5

151-1000 passengers only

72

0

0

7

$6

151-1000 passengers plus vehicles

82

0

0

0

0

No increase in fuel consumption given the current size of vessel

1001 or more passengers plus vehicles

19

0

0

0

0

Multi-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels

151-600 passengers

13

0

0

None

13

$214

10% increase in fuel consumption (same as case study vessel)

Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels

151-499 passengers

181

0

0

None assumed for slow-speed vessels; lengthening has no or little effect on engine maintenance in a slow-speed vessel

21

$6

1.5% increase in fuel consumption due to lengthening and added weight related to vertical access and other accessible features

500-1000 passengers

86

0

0

50

$5

1001 or more passengers

6

0

0

0

0

No increase in fuel consumption given current size of vessel

Small Cruise Ships

50-299 passengers

23

0

0

None assumed; lengthening has no or little effect on engine maintenance.

11

$7

2.75% increase in fuel consumption due to lengthening

12

$16

1% increase in fuel consumption due to lengthening

Total 696 45   295  

 

We estimate the total compliance costs for the replacement vessels annualized over 20 years are 16 million dollars discounted at 7 percent and 3 percent as shown in Table 15.  The total estimated compliance costs are higher in the first year because about 33% of the existing vessels (275 vessels) would reach or exceed their expected service life in the first year, and we assume these vessels are replaced by new vessels in the first year.  See Table 4.

Table 15.  Total Estimated Compliance Costs for Replacement Vessels Over 20 Years
(millions of dollars)
Year¹Incremental Construction CostsAdditional Operation & Maintenance CostsTotal Costs
Not Discounted7% Discount Rate3% Discount Rate

Note:

1.  Year 1 is 2012.  Estimates are 2011 dollars.

1

$47

$1

$48

$45

$46

2

$4

$1

$5

$4

$4

3

$5

$1

$7

$6

$6

4

$8

$2

$11

$8

$9

5

$7

$3

$10

$7

$9

6

$5

$3

$8

$5

$7

7

$7

$4

$11

$7

$9

8

$10

$5

$15

$9

$12

9

$7

$5

$13

$7

$10

10

$11

$6

$16

$8

$12

11

$8

$6

$14

$7

$10

12

$7

$6

$14

$6

$10

13

$11

$7

$18

$7

$12

14

$3

$7

$10

$4

$7

15

$5

$8

$13

$5

$8

16

$6

$9

$15

$5

$10

17

$11

$10

$22

$7

$13

18

$12

$12

$24

$7

$14

19

$8

$12

$20

$6

$12

20

$9

$13

$22

$6

$12

Annualized Over 20 Years $16 $16

 

CHAPTER 3.  LARGE CRUISE SHIPS

3.1  Introduction

This chapter discusses the impact of the proposed guidelines on large cruise ships permitted to carry 300 or more overnight passengers that operate in U.S. ports.[10]  We estimate there were 113 large cruise ships operating in U.S. ports as of 2011.  Appendix II lists these large cruise ships, along with the data sources.  The appendix provides data on each cruise ship, including vessel name, year constructed, total guest rooms, and guest rooms with mobility features.

New large cruise ships provide many accessible features that would be required by the proposed guidelines, including elevators to connect passenger decks; guest rooms with mobility features; guest rooms with communication features; wheelchair spaces and assistive listening systems in assembly areas; and pool lifts.  We proposed to conduct case studies of new large cruise ships to examine the impact of the proposed guidelines on the vessels.[11]  However, we did not conduct case studies of large cruise ships because we could not find cruise ship owners and operators to participate in the case studies.  Due to the lack of information, we did not estimate the incremental costs to construct large cruise ships in compliance with the proposed guidelines, and the additional operation and maintenance costs due to the proposed guidelines.

The cruise industry is concerned that the proposed scoping provision for guest rooms with mobility features would result in a loss of guest rooms and revenue.  This chapter discusses the impact of the proposed scoping provision for guest rooms with mobility features on large cruise ships.

3.2  Proposed Scoping Provision for Guest Rooms with Mobility Features

The proposed scoping provision for guest rooms with mobility features is based on the scoping provision for hotels in the guidelines for landside facilities and would require cruise ships to provide a minimum number of guest rooms with mobility features based on the total number of guest rooms in accordance with Table V224.2 set out below.  For instance, a cruise ship with 501 to 1,000 guest rooms would be required to provide a minimum of 3 percent of guest rooms with mobility features.  A cruise ship with more than 1,000 guest rooms would be required to provide a minimum of 30 guest rooms with mobility features for the first 1,000 guest rooms (3%), plus 2 guest rooms with mobility features for each additional 100 guest rooms or fraction thereof over 1,000 (2%).  The proposed scoping provision would require a portion of the guest rooms with mobility features to provide a roll-in shower.  The proposed scoping provision would also require guest rooms with mobility features to be dispersed among the various classes of guest rooms.

Table V224.2.  Proposed Scoping Provision for Guest Rooms with Mobility Features
Total Number of Guest Rooms ProvidedMinimum Required Number of Rooms With Tubs or ShowersMinimum Number of Required Rooms With Roll-In ShowersTotal Number of Required Rooms

1 to 25

1

0

1

26 to 50

2

0

2

51 to 75

3

1

4

76 to 100

4

1

5

101 to 150

5

2

7

151 to 200

6

2

8

201 to 300

7

3

10

301 to 400

8

4

12

401 to 500

9

4

13

501 to 1000

2 percent of total

1 percent of total

3 percent of total

1001 and over

20, plus 1 for each 100, or fraction thereof, over 1000

10, plus 1 for each 100, or fraction thereof, over 1000

30, plus 2 for each 100, or fraction thereof, over 1000

Guest rooms with mobility features are typically larger than other guest rooms to accommodate passengers who use wheelchairs or scooters.  The proposed technical provisions for guest rooms with mobility features would require wider doorways; turning space within the guest room; clear deck space on both sides of a bed or between two beds and at the closet; turning space within the bathroom and clear deck space at the bathtub or shower, lavatory or sink, and toilet (the turning space and clear deck spaces can overlap); and grab bars at the toilet and at the bathtub or shower.

3.3  Mobility Device Use Among U.S. Population

The Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) sponsored by the U.S. Census Bureau has asked questions about use of mobility devices, including wheelchairs, scooters, canes, crutches, and walkers, by persons aged 15 and older since 1990.  The SIPP provides stability in measuring disability over a long period with a large sample that is representative of the U.S. population.  We had a report prepared that converted the SIPP data on individuals who used mobility devices to households that have a member who used a mobility device because families typically go on cruises for vacation and leisure travel.[12]  This report is referred to as the household report.

The household report shows households with a member who used a wheelchair or scooter doubled from 1.5 percent in 1990 to 3 percent in 2010.  If past trends continue, a linear extrapolation to 2025 projects about 4 percent of households will have a member who uses a wheelchair or scooter.  We assume households with a member who uses a wheelchair or scooter would need a guest room with mobility features.

The household report also shows households with a member who used a cane, crutches, or walker grew from 4.5 percent in 1990 to 7 percent in 2010.  If past trends continue, a linear extrapolation to 2025 projects about 9 percent of households will have a member who uses a cane, crutches, or walker.  Households with a member who uses a cane, crutches, or walker may rent a wheelchair or scooter for distance travel on a cruise ship and for shore excursions.[13]  We assume these households may need a guest room with mobility features.  We assume households with a member who uses a cane, crutches, or walker may also need features such as grab bars at toilets and at bathtubs or showers that are provided in guest rooms with mobility features, regardless of whether they rent a wheelchair or scooter for distance travel on a cruise ship and for shore excursions.

The cruise industry submitted a report indicating that about 70 percent of the passengers who used wheelchairs or scooters on 45 cruise ships in 2005 did not occupy a guest room with mobility features.[14]  The report suggested that these passengers may have used wheelchairs or scooters for distance travel on the cruise ships and for shore excursions, and may not have needed a guest room with mobility features.  The entry doorway to guest rooms is typically 22 to 24 inches wide and is too narrow for a wheelchair or scooter to pass through.[15]  The proposed guidelines would require 32 inches minimum clear opening at the entry doorway to guest rooms with mobility features.  The report did not consider other possible reasons why a significant percent of passengers who used wheelchairs or scooters did not occupy a guest room with mobility features.  Passengers who do not have a disability may have reserved guest rooms with mobility features because they are larger than other guest rooms resulting in the rooms not being available to passengers with disabilities.  Some cruise lines had a practice of requesting passengers with disabilities to provide a doctor’s note to reserve a guest room with mobility features.  This practice may have discouraged passengers with disabilities from reserving guest rooms with mobility features.  DOT issued regulations in 2010 that require cruise lines to hold guest rooms with mobility features for passengers with disabilities until all other rooms in the same class are sold, and ban the practice of requesting passengers with disabilities to provide a doctor’s note to reserve a guest room with mobility features.  See 49 CFR 39.39 (b) (2) and (f).

3.4 Alternative Scoping Provisions

We consider two alternative scoping provisions along with the proposed scoping provision for guest rooms with mobility features.  The first alternative scoping provision was recommended by the cruise industry and would require a minimum of 2 percent of the total number of guest rooms to provide mobility features.[16]  The second alternative scoping provision would require a minimum of 4 percent of the total number of guest rooms to provide mobility features.  As noted above, a linear extrapolation of data on households with a member who uses a mobility device projects about 4 percent of households will have a member who uses a wheelchair or scooter in 2025, and about 9 percent of households will have a member who uses a cane, crutches, or walker in 2025.  The second alternative scoping provision assumes future increases in the percentage of the households with a member who uses a mobility device would result in a need for an increase in the number of guest rooms with mobility features.

3.5  Estimated Guest Room Loss

According to the cruise industry, two guest rooms with mobility features occupy the same square footage as three guest rooms resulting in the loss of one guest room for every two guest rooms with mobility features.  This may be valid for interior guest rooms, which tend to be smaller than other guest rooms, but may not be valid for guest rooms with a balcony and suites, which tend to be larger than interior guest rooms.[17]  As noted above, the proposed scoping provision would require guest rooms with mobility features to be dispersed among the various classes of guest rooms. 

The cruise industry submitted a report estimating the number of guest rooms that would be lost applying various scoping provisions to 192 cruise ships that contained a total of 225,364 guest rooms as of 2005.[18]  The cruise industry report did not identify the 192 cruise ships.  As shown in Appendix II, we estimate there were 113 large cruise ships operating in U.S. ports as of 2011 that contained a total of 123,516 guest rooms.[19]  We estimate the number of guest rooms that would be lost over 20 years applying the proposed scoping provision to the fleet of large cruise ships in Appendix II operating in U.S. ports as of 2011.  The proposed scoping provision would apply as the cruise ship fleet is replaced.  The cruise industry report noted that cruise ships operating in the U.S. market are replaced after 20 to 25 years.  We assume the cruise ship fleet is replaced over 20 years and 5 percent of the guest rooms are replaced annually.  Based on this assumption, we estimate 6,176 guest rooms per year would be replaced by new guest rooms as shown in the second column of Table 16.  The cruise industry report assumed the total number of guest rooms in the cruise ship fleet would increase by 3 percent annually.  Based on this assumption, we estimate 99,568 new guest rooms would be added to the cruise ship fleet over 20 years as shown in the third and fourth columns of Table 16.  Assuming a 5 percent annual replacement rate and 3 percent annual growth rate, we estimate the total number of new guest rooms would range from 9,881 in Year 1 to 12,673 in Year 20 for a total of 223,084 new guest rooms over 20 years as shown in the fifth column of Table 16.

We estimate the number of guest rooms that would be lost under the proposed scoping provision against the baseline of the cruise industry practice in the absence of the proposed guidelines.  As shown in Appendix II, the average percent of guest rooms with mobility features in the fleet of large cruise ships operating in U.S. ports as of 2011 was 1.9 percent.  We assume the cruise industry would continue to provide guest rooms with mobility features at this rate in the absence of the proposed guidelines.  Under this baseline, we estimate the cruise industry would provide 4,240 guest rooms with mobility features over 20 years in the absence of the proposed guidelines as shown in the sixth column of Table 16.

We estimate the number of guest rooms with mobility features that would be required under the proposed scoping provision based on the average number of guest rooms on large cruise ships constructed or under contract for construction between 2012 and 2015.  As shown in Appendix III, the average number of guest rooms on these cruise ships is 1,700 guest rooms.  We assume cruise ships constructed over 20 years would have the same average number of guest rooms.  The proposed scoping provision would require a cruise ship with 1,700 guest rooms to provide 44 guest rooms with mobility features (2.6% of guest rooms).  See Table V224.2.  Applying the proposed scoping provision in this manner, we estimate the cruise industry would be required to provide 5,802 guest rooms with mobility features over 20 years as shown in the seventh column of Table 16.  Thus, the proposed scoping provision would require the cruise industry to provide 1,562 (5,802 - 4,240) additional guest rooms with mobility features than it would provide in the absence of the proposed guidelines.

Applying the cruise industry’s premise that two guest rooms with mobility features occupy the same square footage as three guest rooms resulting in the loss of one guest room for every two guest rooms with mobility features, we estimate the number of guest rooms that would be lost under the proposed scoping provision based on the additional number of guest rooms with mobility features that would be required under the proposed scoping provision, and divide this number by two.  As shown in the eighth and ninth column of Table 16, the number of guest rooms that would be lost under the proposed scoping provision would range from 35 in Year 1 to 45 in Year 20 for a total of 786 guest rooms over 20 years.

 

Table 16.  Estimated Guest Room Loss Over 20 Years Under Proposed Scoping Provision
123456789
Year1New Guest Rooms Assuming 5% Annual Replacement1New Guest Rooms Assuming 3% Annual GrowthTotal New Guest Rooms3Number of Guest Rooms with Mobility FeaturesNumber of Guest Rooms Lost
Guest Rooms in Cruise Ship Fleet1New Guest Rooms2Baseline (1.9%)4Proposed Scoping (2.6%)5Annual6Cumulative

Notes:

1.  Year 0 is 2011; Year 1 is 2012.  We estimate there were 123,516 guest rooms in the cruise ship fleet operating in U.S. ports as of 2011.  See Appendix II.  We assume the cruise ship fleet is replaced over 20 years and 5 percent of the guest rooms are replaced annually.  We further assume the total number of guest rooms in the cruise ship fleet would increase by 3% annually.

2.  The number of new guest rooms is calculated by subtracting the number of guest rooms in the cruise ship fleet for the prior year from the given year.

3.  The total number of new guest rooms is the sum of columns 2 and 4.

4.  The baseline (1.9%) is the average percent of guest rooms with mobility features provided in the cruise ship fleet operating in U.S. ports as of 2011 in the absence of the proposed guidelines.  See Appendix II.

5.  The proposed scoping (2.6%) is based on the average number of guest rooms (1,700 guest rooms) provided on large cruise ships constructed or under contract for construction between 2012 and 2015.  See Appendix III.  The proposed scoping in Table V224.2 would require a cruise ship with 1,700 guest rooms to provide 44 guest rooms with mobility features (2.6% of guest rooms).

6.  The number of guest rooms lost is based on the cruise industry’s premise that two guest rooms with mobility features occupy the same square footage as three guest rooms resulting in the loss of one guest room for every two guest rooms with mobility features.  The annual number of guest rooms lost is calculated by subtracting the number of guest rooms with mobility features provided under the baseline (1.9%) from the number of guest rooms with mobility features that would be required under the proposed scoping (2.6%) and dividing the remainder by two.

0

 

123,516

           

1

6,176

127,221

3,705

9,881

188

257

35

35

2

6,176

131,038

3,817

9,992

190

260

35

70

3

6,176

134,969

3,931

10,107

192

263

36

106

4

6,176

139,018

4,049

10,225

194

266

36

142

5

6,176

143,189

4,171

10,346

197

269

36

178

6

6,176

147,485

4,296

10,471

199

272

37

215

7

6,176

151,909

4,425

10,600

201

276

38

253

8

6,176

156,466

4,557

10,733

204

279

38

291

9

6,176

161,160

4,694

10,870

207

283

38

329

10

6,176

165,995

4,835

11,011

209

286

39

368

11

6,176

170,975

4,980

11,156

212

290

39

407

12

6,176

176,104

5,129

11,305

215

294

40

447

13

6,176

181,387

5,283

11,459

218

298

40

487

14

6,176

186,829

5,442

11,617

221

302

41

528

15

6,176

192,434

5,605

11,781

224

306

41

569

16

6,176

198,207

5,773

11,949

227

311

42

611

17

6,176

204,153

5,946

12,122

230

315

43

654

18

6,176

210,278

6,125

12,300

234

320

43

697

19

6,176

216,586

6,308

12,484

237

325

44

741

20

6,176

223,084

6,498

12,673

241

330

45

786

Total 123,516   99,568 223,084 4,240 5,802 786  

 

We estimate the number of guest rooms that would be lost under the alternative scoping provisions the same way as we did for the proposed scoping provision.  The cumulative numbers of guest rooms that would be lost over 20 years under the proposed and alterative scoping provisions estimated against the baseline of the cruise industry practice in the absence of the proposed guidelines are shown in Table 17.  Under the proposed scoping, we estimate 786 guest rooms would be lost over 20 years.  Under the 2 percent alternative scoping, we estimate 114 guest rooms would be lost over 20 years.  Under the 4 percent alternative scoping, we estimate 2,346 guest rooms would be lost over 20 years.

Table 17.  Estimated Cumulative Guest Room Loss Over 20 Years Under Proposed and Alternative Scoping Provisions
Year¹Proposed Scoping (2.6%)2% Alternative Scoping4% Alternative Scoping

Note:

1.  Year 1 is 2012.

1

35

5

104

2

70

10

209

3

106

15

315

4

142

20

423

5

178

25

532

6

215

30

642

7

253

36

754

8

291

42

867

9

329

47

981

10

368

53

1,097

11

407

59

1,214

12

447

65

1,333

13

487

71

1,453

14

528

77

1,575

15

569

83

1,699

16

611

89

1,825

17

654

95

1,953

18

697

101

2,082

19

741

108

2,213

20

786

114

2,346

3.6 Estimated Revenue Loss

According to the cruise industry report, each guest room produced $400 gross revenue per day for 350 days per year in 2005, or $140,000 per year.[20]  Gross revenue per guest room includes passenger fares based on double occupancy per room plus expenditures on other goods and services purchased on the cruise ship.  The correct measure for estimating revenue loss for lost guest rooms is net revenue per guest room (i.e., gross revenue minus labor, food, and other operating costs), but we lack information to estimate net revenue.  We use the cruise industry’s figures for gross revenue per guest room ($140,000 in 2005 dollars) adjusted for inflation ($161,250 in 2011 dollars) to estimate revenue loss for lost guest rooms.[21]  If we were to use net revenue per guest room, and all our other assumptions are unchanged, our estimates of revenue loss for lost guest rooms would be lower.

The estimated gross revenue loss over 20 years for the guest rooms lost under the proposed and alternative scoping provisions is shown in Table 18.  Under the proposed scoping, we estimate the gross revenue loss annualized over 20 years is $50 million discounted at 7 percent, and $58 million discounted at 3 percent.  Under the 2 percent alternative scoping, we estimate the gross revenue loss annualized over 20 years is $7 million discounted at 7 percent, and $8 million discounted at 3 percent.  Under the 4 percent alternative scoping, we estimate the gross revenue loss annualized over 20 years is $149 million discounted at 7 percent, and $172 million discounted at 3 percent.

Cruise lines construct classes of cruise ships or sister vessels based on the same design without major modification.  Each new class of cruise ships is generally larger than the previous class.  As shown in Appendix II, cruise ships constructed in 2010 and 2011 have over 50 percent more guest rooms than cruise ships constructed in the 1990’s.  Cruise lines can mitigate the loss of revenue due to providing guest rooms with mobility features by increasing the number of guest rooms when designing new classes of cruise ships.

 

Table 18.  Estimated Gross Revenue Loss in Millions Over 20 Years Under Proposed and Alternative Scoping Provisions
Year¹Proposed Scoping (2.6%)2% Alternative Scoping4% Alternative Scoping
Not Discounted7% Discount Rate3% Discount RateNot Discounted7% Discount Rate3% Discount RateNot Discounted7% Discount Rate3% Discount Rate

1

$6

$5

$5

$1

$1

$1

$17

$16

$16

2

$11

$10

$11

$2

$1

$2

$34

$29

$32

3

$17

$14

$16

$2

$2

$2

$51

$41

$46

4

$23

$17

$20

$3

$2

$3

$68

$52

$61

5

$29

$20

$25

$4

$3

$3

$86

$61

$74

6

$35

$23

$29

$5

$3

$4

$104

$69

$87

7

$41

$25

$33

$6

$4

$5

$122

$76

$99

8

$47

$27

$37

$7

$4

$5

$140

$81

$110

9

$53

$29

$41

$8

$4

$6

$158

$86

$121

10

$59

$30

$44

$9

$4

$6

$177

$90

$132

11

$66

$31

$47

$10

$5

$7

$196

$93

$141

12

$72

$32

$51

$10

$5

$7

$215

$95

$151

13

$79

$33

$53

$11

$5

$8

$234

$97

$160

14

$85

$33

$56

$12

$5

$8

$254

$98

$168

15

$92

$33

$59

$13

$5

$9

$274

$99

$176

16

$99

$33

$61

$14

$5

$9

$294

$100

$183

17

$105

$33

$64

$15

$5

$9

$315

$100

$191

18

$112

$33

$66

$16

$5

$10

$336

$99

$197

19

$119

$33

$68

$17

$5

$10

$357

$99

$204

20

$127

$33

$70

$18

$5

$10

$378

$98

$209

Annualized over 20 years

$50

$58

 

$7

$8

 

$149

$172

 

CHAPTER 4.  TOTAL ESTIMATED COMPLIANCE COSTS

The total estimated compliance costs for ferries, multi-purpose vessels, and small cruise ships discussed in Chapter 2, and for large cruise ships discussed in Chapter 3 are shown in Table 19.  We estimate the total compliance costs for these passenger vessels annualized over 20 years are $66 million discounted at 7 percent, and $74 million discounted at 3 percent.

Table 19.  Total Estimated Compliance Costs in Millions Over 20 Years for New Passenger Vessels Covered by Proposed Guidelines
Year¹Not Discounted7% Discount Rate3% Discount Rate

Note:

1.  Year 1 is 2012.  Estimates are 2011 dollars.

1

$54

$50

$51

2

$16

$14

$15

3

$24

$20

$22

4

$34

$25

$29

5

$39

$27

$34

6

$33

$28

$36

7

$52

$32

$42

8

$62

$36

$49

9

$66

$36

$51

10

$75

$38

$56

11

$80

$38

$57

12

$86

$38

$61

13

$97

$40

$65

14

$95

$37

$63

15

$105

$38

$67

16

$114

$38

$71

17

$127

$40

$77

18

$136

$40

$80

19

$139

$39

$80

20

$149

$39

$82

Annualized over 20 Years

$66

$74

 

CHAPTER 5.  ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING VESSELS

5.1  Introduction

When alterations are made to existing passenger vessels, the proposed guidelines would require the alterations to comply with the proposed provisions for new construction.  An alteration would be defined as a change to a passenger vessel that affects or could affect the usability of the passenger vessel or portion thereof.  Alterations would include, but are not limited to, remodeling, renovation, rehabilitation, reconstruction, historic restoration, changes or rearrangement of the structural parts or elements, and changes or rearrangement in the plan configuration of bulkheads and partitions.  The definition would exclude normal maintenance, painting or wallpapering, or changes to propulsion, mechanical, and electrical systems unless they affect the usability of the vessel.

Only the portions of a passenger vessel that are altered would be required to comply with the proposed provisions for new construction.  For example, if a toilet room on a passenger vessel is altered, the altered portions of the toilet room would be required to comply with the applicable proposed provisions for new construction.  Earlier drafts of the proposed guidelines included a provision that would have required a path of travel to altered areas containing a primary function.  This provision is not included in the proposed guidelines because the DOJ regulations require a path of travel to altered areas containing a primary function.  See 28 CFR 35.151 (b) and 36.403.

5.2  Proposed Exceptions

Three general exceptions are proposed for alterations to existing passenger vessels.  Exception 1 would not require an onboard accessible route where elements or spaces are altered but the circulation path to the altered elements or spaces is not altered.

Exception 2 would require alterations to comply with the proposed guidelines to the maximum extent feasible where compliance is technically infeasible.  Technically infeasible would be defined with respect to an alteration as something that has little likelihood of being accomplished because existing structural conditions would require removing or altering an essential structural member; or because other existing physical or vessel constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces, or features that are in full and strict compliance with the guidelines.

Exception 3 would require alterations to provide accessibility to the maximum extent feasible where compliance with the proposed guidelines would result in any of the following:

• An increase in tonnage that changes the passenger vessel’s classification from 46 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter T (Small Passenger Vessels (Under 100 Gross Tons)) or 46 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter K (Small Passenger Vessels Carrying More Than 150 Passengers or With Overnight Accommodations For More Than 49 Passengers) to 46 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter H (Passenger Vessels);[22]

• A violation of the minimum requirements established by the administrative authority for the stability of the vessel;

• A reduction in the structural integrity or fire resistance of a Class A or B bulkhead or deck surface; or

• An increase in power load in excess of the existing power supply.

Specific exceptions are also proposed in certain proposed provisions for alterations to existing passenger vessels, including:

• Platform lifts would be permitted as a component of onboard accessible routes in alterations to existing passenger vessels.  V206.7 Exception.

• An accessible means of escape would not be required in alterations to existing passenger vessels.  V207.1 Exception 2.

• A unisex toilet room would be permitted in alterations to existing passenger vessels where it is technically infeasible for existing toilet rooms to comply with the proposed guidelines provided the unisex toilet room is located in the same area and on the same deck as the existing non-complying toilet rooms.  V213.2 Exception 2.

• Visible alarms in public areas would not be required in alterations to existing passenger vessels unless an existing alarm system is upgraded or replaced, or a new alarm system installed.  V215.1 Exception 2.

•  Thresholds 3/4 inch high maximum would be permitted at doorways without coamings in alterations to existing passenger vessels provided the thresholds have a beveled edge on each side with a slope not steeper than 1:2.  V404.2.5.1 Exception.

• Running slopes not steeper than 1:8 for a maximum rise of 3 inches and not steeper than 1:10 for a maximum rise of 6 inches would be permitted in alterations to existing passenger vessels where necessary due to space limitations.  V405.2 Exception.

• Elevator cars in altered elevators would not be required to comply with the proposed provision for car dimensions where the existing elevator car configuration provides a clear deck area 16 square feet minimum; an inside clear depth of 54 inches minimum; and an inside clear depth 36 inches minimum.  V407.4.1 Exception.

• Alternative dimensions are proposed for sales and service counters in alterations to existing passenger vessels where compliance with the proposed provisions would result in a reduction of the number of existing counters at work stations.  V904.4 Exception.

5.3  Types and Frequency of Alterations

We requested comment on the types and frequency of alterations to existing passenger vessels when the 2006 draft guidelines were released.  The Cruise Lines International Association (formerly International Council of Cruise Lines) responded that when a new deck or mid-section is added to an existing cruise ship, it may not always be feasible for existing circulation paths on the vessel to comply with the proposed provisions for onboard accessible routes.  The proposed guidelines would not require existing circulation paths that are not otherwise altered to comply with the proposed provisions for onboard accessible routes when a new deck or mid-section is added to a cruise ship.

Individual passenger vessel owners and operators commented that alterations generally involve installing new motors and pumps; redecorating toilet rooms; and changing chairs and equipment such as the beverage dispenser and dish washing machine on a dinner vessel.  These changes would not trigger a need to comply with the proposed guidelines.  The Passenger Vessel Association responded that passenger vessels generally do not undergo major alterations if there is no change in ownership because it would trigger a need to comply with subsequently developed U.S. Coast Guard regulations.  According to the Passenger Vessels Association, small cosmetic changes are made when a passenger vessel is transferred to a new owner in similar service.  Small cosmetic changes generally would not trigger a need to comply with the proposed guidelines.  The Passenger Vessel Association noted that if a passenger vessel changes service, more extensive changes may be undertaken.  For example, if an excursion vessel changes service to a dinner vessel, a galley would be added, passenger space lay outs would be changed, bulkheads may be moved, and stairways may be added or relocated.

Based on the proposed exceptions and responses received from passenger vessel owners and operators, we expect the proposed guidelines to have little or no impact on alterations to existing passenger vessels.

 

CHAPTER 6.  BENEFITS

6.1  Nature of Benefits

We do not quantify the benefits of the proposed guidelines due to the nature of the benefits.  The proposed guidelines would address the discriminatory effects of architectural, transportation, and communication barriers encountered by individuals with mobility, hearing, and vision disabilities on passenger vessels.  Accessible passenger boarding systems would enable passengers with mobility disabilities to independently board and disembark from passenger vessels.  Wheelchair spaces in seating areas would enable passengers who use wheelchairs or scooters to sit with other passengers.  Passengers with mobility disabilities would be able to use toilet rooms and guest rooms on passenger vessels and cruise ships.  Assistive listening systems would enable passengers who have difficulty hearing to listen to a narrated tour delivered on the public address system of an excursion vessel.  Passengers who have difficulty seeing or are blind would be able to walk around passenger vessels without encountering protruding objects.  The proposed guidelines would afford these individuals equal opportunity to travel on passenger vessels for employment, transportation, public accommodation, and leisure.  The proposed guidelines would enable these individuals to achieve greater participation in society, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.  The benefits are difficult to quantify, but include important national values that are recognized in Executive Order 13563 such as equity, human dignity, and fairness.

6.2  Persons Who Benefit From Proposed Provisions

The Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) sponsored by the U.S. Census Bureau asks questions about whether persons have difficulty performing a specific set of functional activities.[23]  The SIPP provides estimates of disability prevalence that are representative of the civilian non-institutionalized population living in the United States.  We recognize that not all these individuals are likely to directly benefit from the proposed guidelines because some may not use passenger vessels covered by the proposed guidelines.  We do not have information to estimate the number of people with mobility disabilities or their family members who would directly benefit from the proposed guidelines.  We provide the data below for illustrative purposes.

Persons with Mobility Disabilities

The proposed provisions for accessible passenger boarding systems, onboard accessible routes, accessible means of escape, accessible toilet rooms, wheelchair spaces in assembly areas and transportation seating areas, and guest rooms with mobility features would directly benefit persons with mobility disabilities who use passenger vessels covered by the proposed guidelines.  The SIPP data show among persons aged 15 and older 30.6 million (12.6%) had limitations associated with ambulatory activities of the lower body, including difficulty walking, climbing stairs, or using mobility devices.  This number includes:

• 23.9 million (9.9%) had difficulty walking a quarter of a mile;

• 22.3 million (9.2%) had difficulty climbing a flight of stairs;

• 11.6 million (4.8%) used a cane, crutches, or walker to assist with mobility; and

• 3.6 million (1.5%) used a wheelchair or scooter.

Persons Who Have Difficulty Hearing or Are Deaf 

The proposed provisions for assistive listening systems, general emergency alarms, and guest rooms with communication features would directly benefit persons who have difficulty hearing or are deaf and use passenger vessels covered by the proposed guidelines.  The SIPP data show among persons aged 15 and older 7.6 million (3.1%) had difficulty hearing, including 5.6 million (2.3%) used a hearing aid and 1.1 million (0.5%) were deaf.

The SIPP reports fewer persons with hearing impairments compared to the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES).  NHANES includes audiometric testing of participants.  NHANES data for persons aged 12 and older show 30 million (12.7%) had a bilateral hearing loss and the number increases to 48.1 million (20.3%) when unilateral hearing loss is included.[24]

Persons Who Have Difficulty Seeing or Are Blind

The proposed provisions for protruding objects, elevator call buttons and signals, and tactile and visual characters on signs would directly benefit persons who have difficulty seeing or are blind and use passenger vessels covered by the proposed guidelines.  The SIPP data show among persons aged 15 and older 8.1 million (3.3%) had difficulty seeing, including 2.0 million (0.8%) were blind.

 

CHAPTER 7.  INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

We are required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act to consider the impact of regulatory proposals on small entities; analyze alternatives that minimize the impact on small entities; and make the analysis available for comment.  We prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis to meet the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Why Are We Issuing the Proposed Guidelines?

We are required by section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act and section 504 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to issue accessibility guidelines for the construction and alteration of passenger vessels covered by the ADA.  We are issuing the proposed guidelines pursuant to this statutory authority.  The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) are required to issue accessibility standards for the construction and alteration of passenger vessels covered by the ADA that are consistent with our guidelines.  Passenger vessel owners and operators would not be required to comply with the proposed guidelines until they are adopted by DOT and DOJ as accessibility standards for the construction and alteration of passenger vessels covered by the ADA.

What is the Objective of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed Guidelines?

The objective of the proposed guidelines is to ensure that newly constructed and altered portions of passenger vessels are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.  The legal basis for the proposed guidelines is section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act and section 504 of the ADA.

How Many Small Entities Would Be Affected by Proposed Guidelines?

The proposed guidelines would affect small businesses identified by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes listed in Table 24 and small governments with a population of 50,000 or less that own or operate passenger vessels, other than ferries or tenders, permitted to carry more than 150 passengers or more than 49 overnight passengers; ferries permitted to carry more than 99 passengers; and tenders permitted to carry more than 59 passengers.

Table 20.  Small Business Administration Size Standards

NAICS Code

Small Business Size

483112

Deep Sea Passenger Transportation

500 or fewer employees

483114

Coastal and Great Lakes Passenger Transportation

500 or fewer employees

483212

Inland Water Passenger Transportation

500 or fewer employees

487110

Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Water

$7 million or less annual receipts

713210

Casinos (except Casino Hotels)

$7 million or less annual receipts

We estimate small entities own or operate 635 vessels in the size categories covered by the proposed guidelines.  This includes 372 small businesses that own or operate 257 ferries, 338 multi-purpose vessels, and 23 small cruise ships permitted to carry 50 to 299 overnight passengers; and 9 small governments that own or operate 16 ferries and 1 multi-purpose vessel.

What Are the Proposed Compliance Requirements?

The proposed guidelines would apply when small entities replace their existing vessels with new vessels or add new vessels to their fleet.  The proposed guidelines, themselves, would not require existing vessels to be made accessible except where altered.  The proposed guidelines contain proposed scoping and technical provisions.  The proposed scoping provisions specify what features would be required to be accessible.  Where multiple features of the same type are provided, the proposed scoping provisions specify how many of the features would be required to be accessible.  The proposed technical provisions specify the design criteria for accessible features.  The passenger vessel features addressed by the proposed scoping and technical provisions include onboard accessible routes connecting passenger decks and passenger amenities within decks; accessible means of escape; doorways and coamings; toilet rooms; wheelchair spaces in assembly areas and transportation seating areas; assistive listening systems; general emergency alarms; guest rooms; and other passenger amenities.  The proposed guidelines include proposed technical provisions for accessible passenger boarding systems.  However, we defer to DOT and DOJ to address when accessible passenger boarding systems would be required since passenger boarding systems can be provided at landside facilities and involve operational issues between the owner or operator of the landside facility and the passenger vessel owner or operator that DOT and DOJ are authorized to address.

What Are the Compliance Costs for Small Entities

We estimate the compliance costs for small entities that construct new vessels to replace existing vessels.  As shown in Table 21, we estimate 533 vessels owned or operated by small entities would reach the end of their expected service life over 20 years beginning in 2011.  We assume small entities would construct new vessels to replace these vessels.  The estimated compliance costs are based on case studies and are adjusted to 2011 dollars.

Table 21.  Small Entity Vessels Replaced by New Vessels
VesselNumberNumber Replaced Over 20 Years

Ferries

273

238

Multi-Purpose Vessels

339

279

Small Cruise Ships

23

16

Total635533

The compliance costs include the following components:

Vertical Access Cost.  This is the cost of installing an elevator, limited use-limited application elevator (LULA), or platform lift to connect passenger decks on a vessel with more than one deck.  When small entities construct new vessels to replace existing vessels, we estimate 65 vessels would be required to provide a LULA at a cost of $297,000; 29 vessels would be required to provide an elevator at a cost of $372,000; 5 small cruise ships that currently provide elevators would be required to provide larger elevators when the vessels are replaced at a cost of $2,700; and 16 small entity small cruise ships would be required to provide a platform lift to tender boarding platforms at the stern of the vessel at a cost of $27,700.  See Table 22 for the types and sizes of the vessels that would incur compliance costs for an elevator, LULA, or platform lift.

Other Accessible Feature Costs.  This includes the cost to expand toilet rooms; modify doors and thresholds; install automatic doors at doorways with coamings and double ramps; add assistive listening systems; and provide protected waiting areas as part of an accessible means of escape where passengers with disabilities wait for crew assistance during emergencies.  When small entities construct new vessels to replace existing vessels, we estimate 516 vessels would incur compliance costs for other accessible features.  The costs range from $19,000 for mono-hull ferries permitted to carry 151 to 1,000 passengers plus vehicles to $631,000 for mono-hull ferries permitted to carry 1,001 or more passengers plus vehicles. The costs are higher for mono-hull ferries permitted to carry 1,001 or more passengers plus vehicles because the estimate is based on the case study of a 4,400 passenger and 30 vehicle ferry where the owner wanted to provide automatic sprinkler systems instead of protected waiting areas as part of an accessible means of escape even though the automatic sprinkler systems are more costly. The costs would be lower if protected waiting areas are provided.  See Table 23 for the types and sizes of the vessels that would incur compliance costs for other accessible features.

Lengthening Cost.  This is the cost of increasing the length of a vessel to accommodate the accessible features and maintain passenger and vehicle capacity.  When small entities construct new vessels to replace existing vessels, we estimate 217 vessels would need to be lengthened due to the proposed guidelines.  The lengthening cost would range from $60,000 for mono-hull ferries permitted to carry 100 to 150 passengers to $2,117,000 for some small cruise ships.  See Table 23 for the types and sizes of the vessels that would incur compliance costs to lengthen the vessel.

Redesign Cost.  This is the cost for architectural design drawings for a new vessel that differs in design from the existing vessel it replaces.  When small entities construct new vessels to replace existing vessels, we estimate 470 vessels would need to be lengthened due to the proposed guidelines.  The redesign cost would range from $2,000 for some mono-hull ferries permitted to carry 151 to 1000 passengers plus vehicles to $261,100 for some small cruise ships. See Table 23 for the types and sizes of the vessels that would incur compliance costs to redesign the vessel.

Additional Fuel Cost.  This is the annual cost for additional fuel consumption due to installing an elevator, LULA, or platform lift to connect passenger decks and vessel lengthening.  When small entities construct new vessels to replace existing vessels, we estimate 243 vessels would incur additional fuel costs due to the proposed guidelines.  The additional fuel costs would range from $5,000 annually for mono-hull vessels permitted to carry 151 to 1,000 passengers to $214,000 annually for multi-hull vessels permitted to carry 151 to 600 passengers.  See Table 24 for the types and sizes of the vessels that would incur additional fuel costs.

Vertical Access Maintenance Cost.  This is the annual cost of maintaining an elevator, LULA, or platform lift to connect passenger decks.  When small entities construct new vessels to replace existing vessels, we estimate 100 vessels would incur these annual maintenance costs.  The annual maintenance cost would be $5,500 for an elevator or LULA, and $2,800 for a platform lift.  See Table 24 for the types and sizes of the vessels that would incur these annual maintenance costs.

Additional Engine Maintenance Cost.  This is the annual cost for additional engine maintenance due to added weight from the accessible features or vessel lengthening.  When small entities construct new vessels to replace existing vessels, we estimate 37 vessels would incur these annual maintenance costs.  The annual maintenance cost would be $22,000 multi-hull ferries permitted to carry 100 to 150 passengers.  See Table 24 for the types and sizes of the vessels that would incur these annual maintenance costs.

Automatic Door Maintenance Cost.  This is the annual cost of maintaining and replacing the automatic doors at doorways with coamings and double ramps.  When small entities construct new vessels to replace existing vessels, we estimate 54 vessels would incur these annual maintenance costs. The annual maintenance cost would range from $1,000 for mono-hull multi-purpose vessels permitted to carry 500 to 1,000 passengers, to $6,000 for mono-hull multi-purpose vessels permitted to carry 1,001 or more passengers.  See Table 24 for the types and sizes of the vessels that would incur these annual maintenance costs.

Table 22.  Vertical Access Cost
(thousands of dollars)
Vessel Type & SizeNumber of VesselsVessels AffectedLULA CostVessels AffectedElevator Cost

Note:

1.  The small cruise ships would be required to also provide a platform lift to connect to the tender boarding platform at the stern of the vessel at a cost of $27,100.  Five small cruise ships that currently provide elevators would be required to provide larger elevators at a cost of $2,700.

Multi-Hull Ferries

100-124 passengers only

4

       

145-150 passengers only

33

       

151-600 passengers only

22

       
Mono-Hull Ferries

100-150 passengers only

61

       

100-150 passengers plus vehicles

37

       

151-1000 passenger only

54

5

$297

   

151-1000 passengers plus vehicles

27

5

$297

1

$372

1001 or more passengers plus vehicles

0

       
Multi-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels

151-600 passengers only

13

       
Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels

151-499 passengers

176

18

$297

3

$372

500-1000 passengers

84

28

$297

20

$372

1001 or more passengers

6

2

$297

2

$372

Small Cruise Ships¹

50-299 passengers

16

7

$297

3

$372

Total

533

65

 

29

 

 

Table 23.  Other Accessible Features, Lengthening, and Redesign Costs
(thousands of dollars)
Vessel Type & SizeNumber of VesselsAffected VesselsOther Access Feature CostsAffected VesselsLength CostAffected VesselsRedesign Cost

Notes:

1.  Thirty-six (36) multi-purpose vessels with 500-1000 passengers have other accessible feature costs of $112,000.

2.  Two (2) multi-purpose vessels with 1001 or more passengers have other accessible feature costs of $222,000.

Multi-Hull Ferries

100-124 passengers only

4

4

$25

4

$261

4

$29

145-150 passengers only

33

33

$38

33

$90

21

$13

151-600 passengers only

22

22

$153

22

$217

18

$37

Mono-Hull Ferries

100-150 passengers only

61

61

$39

61

$60

56

$10

100-150 passengers plus vehicles

37

20

$54

20

$270

20

$32

151-1000 passengers only

54

54

$116

0

$0

42

$12 to $41

151-1000 passengers plus vehicles

27

27

$19

0

$0

27

$2 to $39

1001 or more passengers plus vehicles

0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

Multi-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels

151-600 passengers only

13

13

$153

13

$217

13

$37

Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels

151-499 passengers

176

176

$78

0

$0

173

$8 to $45

500-1000 passengers¹

84

84

$112 to $125

48

$205

75

$11 to $70

1001 or more passengers²

6

6

$222 to $631

0

$0

6

$22 to $100

Small Cruise Ships

50-299 passengers

16

11

$95

11

$974

15

$110 to $261

 

5

$95

5

$2,117

 
Total

533

516

 

217

470

 
Table 24.  Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs
(thousands of dollars)
Vessel Type & SizeNumber of VesselsVessels AffectedFuel CostVessels AffectedVert. Access Maint. CostVessels AffectedEngine Maint. CostAuto Door Maint. Cost
Multi-Hull Ferries

100-124 passengers only

4

4

$37

   

4

$22

 

145-150 passengers only

33

33

$13

   

33

$22

 

151-600 passengers only

22

22

$214

         
Mono-Hull Ferries

100-150 passengers only

61

61

$5

         

100-150 passengers plus vehicles

37

20

$5

         

151-1000 passengers only

54

5

$6

5

$6

     

151-1000 passengers plus vehicles

27

   

6

$6

     

1001 or more passengers plus vehicles

0

             
Multi-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels

151-600 passengers only

13

13

$214

         
Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels

151-499 passengers

176

21

$6

21

$6

     

500-1000 passengers

84

48

$5

48

$6

48

 

$1

1001 or more passengers

6

   

4

$6

6

 

$6

Small Cruise Ships

50-299 passengers

16

11

$7

9

$8

     
   

2

$3

     

5

$16

1

$8

     
   

4

$3

     
Total

533

243

 

100

 

91

   

What Significant Alternatives Did We Consider?

We based the proposed guidelines on our accessibility guidelines for landside facilities.  Table 25 compares the proposed guidelines for passenger vessels to the guidelines for landside facilities to show the exceptions and alternative provisions that we propose to reduce the impact on passenger vessels owners and operators, including small entities.

Table 25.  Exceptions and Alternative Provisions Proposed to Reduce Impact on Passenger Vessel Owners and Operators, Including Small Entities
FeatureProposed Passenger Vessel GuidelinesReduced Impacts

Employee-only areas

Access not required to areas used only by employees.

Landside Facilities

Access required in areas used only by employees.

Passenger Vessels

Reduces impact by not requiring access in areas used only by employees.

Elevator or limited access-limited application elevator (LULA)

Elevator or LULA not required on vessels with only two passenger decks, unless both decks are entry decks.

Landside Facilities

Elevator or LULA not required in certain facilities that are less than 3 stories.  Exception does not apply to state and local governments.

Passenger Vessels

Reduces impact by applying exception to vessels owned or operated by private entities and state and local governments.

Elevator or LULA not required to connect decks that are not entry decks where each deck is less than 3,000 square feet.

Landside Facilities

Elevator or LULA not required in certain facilities that have less than 3,000 square feet per story.  Exception does not apply to state and local governments.

Passenger Vessels

Reduces impact by applying exception to vessels owned or operated by private entities and state and local governments.

In vessels otherwise eligible to use the above exceptions, elevator or LULA not required to connect entry decks where at least one designated entry deck serves each stop used for embarking and disembarking passengers and provides the same passenger amenities.

Landside Facilities

No comparable exception.

Passenger Vessels

Reduces impact by allowing exception where vessels have more than one entry deck and meet certain conditions.

Elevator or LULA not required in high-speed vessels with 3 decks that meet certain conditions.

Landside Facilities

No comparable exception.

Passenger Vessels

Reduces impact of additional weight and fuel consumption in high-speed vessels with 3 decks that meet certain conditions.

Elevator or LULA not required to connect to sundecks on high-speed vessels that meet certain conditions and non-enclosed spaces are available on other accessible decks.

Landside Facilities

No comparable exception.

Passenger Vessels

Reduces impact of additional weight and fuel consumption in high-speed vessels with sundecks that meet certain conditions.

Elevator or LULA not required to connect to one segment of decks divided into two segments by vehicle lanes on vehicle ferries.

Landside Facilities

No comparable exception.

Passenger Vessels

Reduces impact by requiring vertical access to only one deck segment.

 

Elevator or LULA not required to connect to decks containing vehicle parking lanes that are designed to be raised and lowered and do not provide any other passenger amenities on vehicle ferries.

Landside Facilities

No comparable exception.

Passenger Vessels

Reduces impact by not requiring vertical access to certain decks used only for vehicle parking.

Elevator or LULA not required to connect to decks, other than entry decks, that are less than 300 square feet.

Landside Facilities

No comparable exception.

Passenger Vessels

Reduces impact by not requiring access to small decks that are not entry decks.

Elevator or LULA not required to connect to decks below the bulkhead deck.

Landside Facilities

No comparable exception.

Passenger Vessels

Reduces impact by not requiring vertical access below the bulkhead deck.

Platform Lifts

Platform lifts permitted to connect decks less than 3,000 square feet, and to tender boarding platforms.

Landside Facilities

Platform lifts permitted only in limited situations in new construction.

Passenger Vessels

Reduces impact by allowing platform lifts to be used instead of elevator or LULA.  Reduces weight and additional fuel consumption impacts in high-speed vessels.

Location of onboard accessible routes

Onboard accessible route not required to coincide with or be located in the same area as general passenger circulation paths on small vessels where largest deck is less than 3,000 square feet.

Landside Facilities

No comparable exception.

Passenger Vessels

Provides flexibility in designing onboard accessible routes on small vessels.

Single-user toilet rooms in a cluster

On high-speed vessels that do not transport overnight passengers, 5 percent of single user toilet rooms clustered in a single location would be required to be accessible.

Landside Facilities

50 percent of single user toilet rooms clustered in a single location required to be accessible.

Passenger Vessels

Reduces impact of additional weight and fuel consumption in high-speed vessels.

Wheelchair spaces in transportation seating areas

Companion seat not required for wheelchair spaces in seating areas on ferries.  Reduces number of wheelchair spaces that would be required in seating areas on small ferries with 240 or less fixed seats.

Landside Facilities

Companion seat required for each wheelchair space.

Passenger Vessels

Reduces impact by not requiring companion seats and reducing the number of wheelchair spaces on small ferries.

Guest rooms with mobility features

Vessels with less than 121 guest rooms would be required to provide not more than 5 percent of guest rooms with mobility features.

Landside Facilities

Facilities with 101 to 121 guest rooms required to provide 7 guest rooms with mobility features.

Passenger Vessels

Reduces impact on small vessels.

Vehicle Ferries

Walking surfaces on onboard accessible routes, accessible means of escape, and accessible passenger boarding systems on ferries permitted to overlap vehicle ways.¹

Landside Facilities

No comparable provision.

Passenger Vessels

Reduces impact on vehicle ferries.

Doorways with coamings

Alternative provisions proposed for coamings greater than ½ inch in height.

Landside Facilities

Door thresholds cannot exceed ½ inch in height.

Passenger Vessels

Resolves conflicts with coaming requirements.

Note: 

1.  The proposed guidelines do not address vehicle parking on ferries.  Ferry operators need effective operational loading plans to identify vehicles needing accessible parking and to position the vehicles on the deck to access passenger amenities.

Are There Other Relevant Federal Rules?

DOT has issued regulations implementing the ADA for passenger vessels that provide designated public transportation services operated by state and local governments or specified public transportation services operated by private entities that are primarily engaged in the business of transporting people and whose operations affect commerce.  DOT has reserved a subpart in the regulations for accessibility standards for the construction and alteration passenger vessels in anticipation of our issuing these guidelines.  See 49 CFR part 39, subpart E.  DOJ has issued regulations implementing the ADA for state and local governments and public accommodations, including those provided on passenger vessels such as cruise ships, gaming vessels, and dinner vessels.  See 28 CFR parts 35 and 36.  Passenger vessel owners and operators would not be required to comply with the guidelines until they are adopted by DOT and DOJ as accessibility standards for the construction and alteration of passenger vessels covered by the ADA.

APPENDIX I.  FERRIES, MULTI-PURPOSE VESSELS, AND SMALL CRUISE SHIPS OPERATING IN U.S. PORTS AS OF 2010

This appendix provides data on ferries permitted to carry more than 99 passengers; multi-purpose vessels such as dinner or excursion vessels permitted to carry more than 150 passengers; and small cruise ships permitted to carry more than 49 but fewer than 300 overnight passengers operating in U.S. ports as of 2010.  We compiled the data from the following sources:

1.  U.S. Coast Guard Port State Information eXchange (PSIX) System at: http://cgmix.uscg.mil/psix/. The PSIX System contains vessel specific information derived from the U.S. Coast Guard’s Marine Information and Law Enforcement System.

2.  U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2008 National Census of Ferry Operators at: http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/subject_areas/ncfo/index.html.

3.  Specific vessel websites.

The following symbols are used: (f) indicates foreign flag vessel; (g) indicates gaming vessel; (na) indicates no data available; and (*) indicates vessel currently provides elevator, limited use-limited access elevator (LULA), or platform lift.  The last column in the table shows whether a new vessel that is constructed to replace an existing vessel and has the same number of decks would be required to provide an elevator, LULA, or platform lift to connect the decks.  The last column does not show whether the small cruise ships would be required to provide a platform lift to a tender boarding platform.

Vessel TypeNumber of Vessels

Multi-Hull Ferry (Passengers Only

96

Multi-Hull Ferry (Passengers & Vehicles)

3

Mono-Hull Ferry (Passengers Only)

160

Mono-Hull Ferry (Passengers & Vehicles)

195

Multi-Hull Multi-Purpose Passenger Vessel

16

Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Passenger Vessel

330

Small Cruise or Charter Ship

32

Total832

 

Multi-Hull Ferries (Passengers Only)
Vessel NameYear ConstructedPassengersPassenger DecksElevator
LULA
Platform Lift

Note:

1.  Vessel is an overnight deep sea charter fishing vessel.

ENCINAL

1985

388

3

No

CAT EXPRESS

1986

360

2

No

VICTORIA CLIPPER (f)

1986

>150

2

No

ZELINSKY

1986

400

3

No

CATALINA EXPLORER

1987

149

2

No

MACKINAC EXPRESS

1987

346

3

No

ISLAND ROCKET (f)

1988

149

2

No

CATALINA FLYER

1988

600

3

No

ISLAND EXPRESS

1988

380

3

No

MELISSA ANN

1988

199

2

No

BIMINI BREEZE II

1989

124

1

No

AMELIA

1989

149

1

No

COVADONGA

1989

149

1

No

SEAJET I

1989

400

3

No

VIEJO SAN JUAN

1990

149

1

No

JESSICA W

1990

530

3

No

VICTORIA CLIPPER III

1990

511

3

No

VALLEJO

1991

300

3

No

JET EXPRESS II

1992

395

3

No

HARBOR BAY EXPRESS II

1993

149

1

No

VICTORIA CLIPPER IV

1993

330

2

No

BAY BREEZE

1994

250

2

No

CHELSEA LANE TYLER

1995

117

2

No

JET EXPRESS IV

1995

147

2

No

STRAITS EXPRESS

1995

399

3

No

FLYING CLOUD

1996

149

2

No

LIGHTNING

1996

149

1

No

FINEST

1996

349

2

No

LADY MARTHA

1997

145

2

No

MAKANA (f)

1997

149

2

No

DEL NORTE

1997

390

2

Yes – Platform Lift

M/V INTINTOLI

1997

301

2

No

MARE ISLAND

1997

300

2

No

AUTSHUMATO (f)

1998

149

2

No

GOLDEN GATE

1998

350

2

No

NORA VITTORIA

1998

400

3

No

FIORELLO LAGUARDIA

1999

150

3

No

FRANK SINATRA

1999

150

3

No

YANKEE FREEDOM II

1999

149

2

No

YOGI BERRA

1999

150

2

No

AURORA

1999

400

3

No

CATALINA JET

1999

440

3

No

NAPA

1999

350

2

No

STARSHIP EXPRESS

1999

298

2

No

CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS

2000

150

3

No

SALACIA

2000

600

3

No

FAIRWEATHER EXPRESS II

2001

150

2

No

FLORENCE MARTUS

2001

149

1

No

PEACEMAKER (f)

2001

149

2

No

PETER R WEISS

2001

150

2

No

ATHENA

2001

250

2

No

MENDOCINO

2001

449

3

Yes – Platform Lift

PERALTA

2001

331

2

No

SEASTREAK NEW JERSEY

2001

399

3

No

SEASTREAK NEW YORK

2001

399

3

No

DOWNTOWN

2002

100

1

No

B.V.I. PATRIOT (f)

2002

150

2

No

BROOKLYN

2002

150

2

No

HOBOKEN

2002

150

2

No

JET EXPRESS III

2002

147

2

No

U.S. SENATOR FRANK R LAUTENBERG

2002

150

2

No

ADMIRAL RICHARD E BENNIS

2003

150

1

No

BAYONNE

2003

150

2

No

EXPEDITIONS FOUR

2003

149

2

No

GOVERNOR THOMAS H. KEAN

2003

150

2

No

ISLAND ADVENTURE

2003

149

2

No

JERSEY CITY

2003

150

2

No

OCEAN STATE

2003

149

2

No

PATRIOT

2003

149

2

No

ATLANTICAT

2003

442

3

No

GREY LADY

2003

294

2

No

SEASTREAK WALL STREET

2003

399

3

No

PROVINCETOWN III

2004

149

2

No

SPIRIT OF KINGSTON

2004

149

2

No

WHALING CITY EXPRESS

2004

150

3

No

BIG CAT EXPRESS

2004

377

3

No

SEASTREAK HIGHLANDS

2004

399

3

No

SOLANO

2004

300

2

No

SEYMOUR B. DURST

2005

149

2

No

JET CAT EXPRESS

2005

383

2

No

EXPEDITIONS FIVE

2006

108

2

No

ED ROGOWSKY

2006

149

2

No

MARINA FLYER

2006

149

2

No

RANGER

2006

149

2

No

KEY WEST EXPRESS

2006

199

2

No

MV IYANOUGH

2006

393

2

No

CATALINA ADVENTURE

2007

149

2

No

LITTLE LADY II

2007

149

2

No

MARIAN S HEISKELL

2007

149

2

No

GEMINI

2008

149

2

No

PISCES

2008

149

2

No

KACHEMAK VOYAGER

2009

150

2

No

SCORPIO

2009

199

2

No

RICH PASSAGE 1

2010

118

1

No

YORK

2010

148

2

No

TAURUS

2010

285

3

No

Multi-Hull Ferries (Passengers & Vehicles)

FAIRWEATHER

2003

250

2

(*)

LAKE EXPRESS

2004

400

3

(*)

M/V CHENEGA

2005

250

2

(*)

Mono-Hull Ferries (Passengers Only)

CARLISLE II

1917

140

2

No

THOMAS JEFFERSON

1942

794

1

No

BADGER

1953

600

3

Yes – LULA

BIDE-A-WEE

1955

150

2

No

HOLIDAY

1957

150

2

No

HIAWATHA

1959

150

2

No

SACRE BLEU

1959

147

2

No

OTTAWA

1959

600

2

No

WENONAH

1960

144

2

No

BONITA

1961

114

1

No

MICHAEL COSGROVE

1961

149

1

No

CHIPPEWA

1962

598

2

No

MONITOR II

1963

105

2

No

ZEE WHIZ

1964

150

2

No

CABRILLO

1964

303

2

No

FIRE ISLAND DUCHESS

1966

147

1

No

ZEE LION

1966

150

2

No

ST FRANCISVILLE

1967

143

2

No

FAT CAT

1967

300

2

No

NEIL HENLY

1967

380

2

No

QUAIAPEN

1967

248

2

No

MERRIMAC II

1968

107

2

No

MT. MANSFIELD

1969

122

2

No

THE WELCOME

1969

120

2

No

STRAITS OF MACKINAC II

1969

295

2

No

ROYAL STAR

1970

650

3

No

MOLOKAI PRINCESS

1971

149

2

No

ALCATRAZ FLYER

1971

700

3

Yes – LULA

FELICITY

1972

150

2

No

PARADISE CHALLENGER (f)

1972

112

2

No

CAPT PATTERSON

1972

299

2

No

BRANT POINT

1973

603

3

No

CATALINA KING

1973

686

3

Yes – LULA

ISLAND ROMANCE

1973

299

2

No

ALCATRAZ CLIPPER

1974

693

3

Yes – LULA

ISLAND QUEEN

1974

354

2

No

LADY VENTURE

1974

325

1

No

CUMBERLAND QUEEN

1975

146

2

No

VIKING SUPER STAR

1975

149

3

No

ANGEL ISLAND

1975

396

2

No

SAN FRANCISCO

1975

715

3

(*)

SANS SOUCI

1976

149

2

No

TAMALPAIS

1976

120

2

No

THE HOPE

1976

150

2

No

VICTORIA STAR2

1976

142

2

No

BAY MONARCH

1976

414

2

No

FIRE ISLAND MISS

1976

297

2

No

MARIN

1976

624

3

(*)

SONOMA

1976

715

3

(*)

NATIVE SON EXPRESS

1977

149

2

No

VIKING STARSHIP

1977

144

2

No

CAPT. NEVILLE LEVY

1977

999

3

Yes – LULA

PATHFINDER II

1977

249

2

No

STATUE OF LIBERTY V

1977

792

3

Yes – LULA

TRAVELER

1977

297

1

No

CARIBE TIME

1978

145

1

No

SAPELO QUEEN

1978

147

2

No

COL. FRANK X. ARMIGER

1978

402

2

No

MUNNATAWKET

1978

209

2

No

SEN. ALVIN T. STUMPF

1978

999

3

Yes – LULA

MARQUETTE

1979

150

2

No

STERLING (f)

1979

149

2

No

VAGABOND

1979

150

1

No

VICTORIA EXPRESS II

1979

147

2

No

FIRE ISLAND CLIPPER

1979

343

2

No

GOLDEN BEAR

1979

396

2

No

OLD BLUE

1979

336

3

No

OSKI

1979

396

3

No

WYANDOT

1979

265

2

No

VENTURE PRIDE

1980

264

2

No

CHESAPEAKE BREEZE

1981

147

2

No

SPEEDY’S FANTASY (f)

1981

107

2

No

VICTORIA EXPRESS

1981

147

2

No

CAPITOL VENTURE

1981

248

2

No

FIREBALL

1981

297

2

No

FREEDOM

1981

599

2

No

RITA

1982

149

2

No

ANNA

1983

149

2

No

LA SALLE

1983

150

2

No

M/V CUTTYHUNK

1983

146

2

No

KIKI

1983

297

2

No

FIREBIRD

1984

395

2

No

FORT INDEPENDENCE

1984

518

3

No

MCNEIL

1984

260

2

No

ISLANDER

1985

119

2

No

NICOLET

1985

150

2

No

STRANGER

1985

150

1

No

TWO HARBORS

1985

149

2

No

BAY MIST

1985

328

2

No

ELIZABETH RIVER FERRY II

1986

150

2

No

CAPT. SHEPLER

1986

265

1

No

GULF ISLANDER

1986

360

2

No

2TH FERRY

1987

150

1

No

ADVENTURE

1987

149

2

No

FLAMINGO

1987

100

1

No

LA NINA

1987

150

(na)

No

LADY VIRGINIA

1987

307

3

No

PORT IMPERIAL MANHATTAN

1987

492

2

No

BALMY DAYS II

1988

145

2

No

CUMBERLAND LADY

1988

147

2

No

LA PINTA

1988

150

(na)

No

PORT IMPERIAL NEW JERSEY

1988

150

2

No

CARIBE TIDE

1988

284

2

No

RADISSON

1988

350

3

No

GRAND ISLAND

1989

150

2

No

SUPER EXPRESS

1989

149

2

No

WEST NEW YORK

1989

150

2

No

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

1989

399

2

No

ALEXANDER HAMILTON

1989

399

2

No

GEORGE WASHINGTON

1989

399

2

No

KALAMA

1989

250

1

No

SKAGIT

1989

250

1

No

THOMAS JEFFERSON

1989

399

2

No

AVALON EXPRESS

1990

150

2

No

CADILLAC

1990

150

2

No

CUMBERLAND PRINCESS

1990

144

2

No

ELIZABETH RIVER FERRY III

1990

150

2

No

VOYAGER

1990

398

2

No

PIED PIPER

1991

103

2

No

EXPLORER

1991

398

2

No

HENRY HUDSON

1992

305

2

No

ANNEMARIE

1993

150

2

No

JOLIET

1993

150

2

No

EMPIRE STATE

1993

399

2

No

ROBERT FULTON

1993

350

2

No

CATALINA EXPRESS

1994

149

2

No

ISLANDER EXPRESS

1994

149

2

No

GARDEN STATE

1994

399

2

No

ELIZABETH ANN

1995

149

2

No

OUTWARD BOUND

1995

149

2

No

CARIBE CAY

1995

277

2

No

CULEBRA II

1996

523

3

No

FAJARDO II

1996

272

3

No

JOHN STEVENS

1996

399

2

No

SOUTH BAY CLIPPER

1996

412

2

No

VIEQUES II

1996

504

4

No

ADMIRALTY WIND

1998

148

3

No

ATLANTIS

1998

290

(na)

No

BRAVO

2001

107

1

No

ORAL FREEMAN

2001

146

2

No

FIRE ISLAND FLYER

2001

300

2

No

ROYAL EXPRESS III

2001

270

2

No

SUNRISE

2002

149

1

No

WESTIN BREEZE

2002

132

1

No

NORTHERN LIGHTS

2003

149

2

No

POINT O’ WOODS VII

2003

150

2

No

SUSIE KING TAYLOR

2003

100

1

No

CARIBENA

2004

272

2

No

FIRE ISLAND EMPRESS

2004

270

2

No

MV MARTHA’S VINEYARD EXPRESS

2005

150

2

No

SAM HOLMES

2005

149

2

No

AUCOCISCO III

2005

399

4

(*)

MARQUETTE II

2005

330

2

No

KATIE UNDERWOOD

2006

149

2

No

YUNQUE PRINCESS

2006

148

2

No

GENE FLATOW

2008

149

1

No

MANHANSETT

2008

149

2

No

SOUTHSIDE

2008

150

1

No

CAYO BLANCO

2009

596

3

Yes – LULA

JERSEY

2010

148

2

No

Mono-Hull Ferries (Passengers & Vehicles)

ADIRONDACK

1913

219

2

No

CHAMPLAIN

1930

368

2

No

GOLDEN EAGLE FERRY

1934

149

1

No

VIRGINIA

1936

144

1

No

LOUIS B. PORTERIE

1937

794

4

Yes – Elevator

CAPE HENLOPEN

1944

660

4

(*)

NEEBISH ISLANDER II

1946

112

1

No

RHODODENDRON

1947

546

2

No

VALCOUR

1947

219

2

No

SAINT CHARLES

1951

136

2

No

BAYFIELD

1952

149

1

No

GRAND ISLE

1953

149

2

No

EVERGREEN STATE

1954

984

2

No

GOVERNOR

1954

250

2

No

HURON

1955

341

2

No

FELICIANA

1956

143

1

No

LT SAMUEL S. COURSEN

1956

1242

2

No

CAPT VIC

1957

149

2

No

IBERVILLE

1958

143

2

No

KLAHOWYA

1958

800

3

(*)

NORTH HAVEN

1959

124

1

No

COHO

1959

975

1

No

TILLIKUM

1959

1192

2

No

SHELTER ISLAND

1961

150

1

No

NICHEVO II

1962

149

2

No

WHATCOM CHIEF

1962

100

1

No

BEAVER ISLANDER

1962

200

2

No

MALASPINA

1963

499

5

(*)

MATANUSKA

1963

499

6

(*)

TAKU

1963

370

4

(*)

CAMERON NO II

1964

261

1

No

SUSAN ANNE

1964

585

5

(*)

TUSTUMENA

1964

174

3

Yes – LULA

PAMLICO

1965

300

2

Yes – LULA

SILVER LAKE

1965

300

2

Yes – LULA

JOHN F. KENNEDY

1965

3515

3

(*)

ISLAND QUEEN

1966

149

2

No

NORTH CHANNEL

1967

100

1

No

EVERETT LIBBY

1967

174

1

No

HIYU

1967

199

2

No

POINTE A LA HACHE

1967

174

2

No

HYAK

1967

2000

6

(*)

KALEETAN

1967

2000

6

(*)

YAKIMA

1967

2000

6

(*)

GOVERNOR CURTIS

1968

221

1

No

NORTH STAR

1968

300

2

No

ELWHA

1968

2000

6

(*)

ISLANDER

1969

147

1

No

JULIET ALICA

1969

149

2

No

MANITOU

1969

202

2

No

EYRARBAKKI

1970

147

2

No

FT GAINES

1970

149

1

No

KAYLA MARIE

1970

149

1

No

MARISSA MAE NICOLE

1970

149

2

No

ROANOKE

1970

133

2

No

CARIBBEAN FERRY

1971

120

2

No

BOB ELLIS

1972

100

2

No

SPOKANE

1972

2000

5

(*)

LECONTE

1973

247

5

(*)

WALLA WALLA

1973

2000

5

(*)

GREENPORT

1974

132

2

No

COLUMBIA

1974

600

7

(*)

DELAWARE

1974

898

4

Yes – Elevator

NANTUCKET

1974

752

4

(*)

NEW JERSEY

1974

598

3

Yes – LULA

GOV GEORGE D. AIKEN

1975

117

2

No

TWIN CAPES

1975

895

4

(*)

ISLA GRANDE

1976

149

1

No

NEW ROADS

1976

143

1

No

ASCENSION

1977

113

2

No

BOONE NO. 9

1977

138

1

No

AURORA

1977

300

5

(*)

GIBB GILCHRIST

1977

491

1

No

GOVERNOR EDWARD HYDE

1977

300

2

No

ST. JOHN

1977

233

2

No

GUEMES

1979

100

1

No

ROBERT NOBLE

1979

150

2

No

NEW LONDON

1979

295

2

No

SURRY

1979

354

2

No

ISSAQUAH

1979

1200

3

(*)

ACADIA

1980

143

1

No

KITSAP

1980

1200

2

(*)

KITTITAS

1980

1200

2

(*)

GAY HEAD

1981

140

2

No

PELICAN

1981

100

1

No

CAPE HENLOPEN

1981

598

3

Yes – LULA

NELSECO

1981

429

3

Yes – LULA

SANKATY

1981

290

4

Yes – Elevator

ANDREW J. BARBERI

1981

5992

3

(*)

CATHLAMET

1981

1200

2

(*)

CHELAN

1981

1198

3

(*)

KATAMA

1982

143

2

No

SAMUEL I. NEWHOUSE

1982

5997

3

(*)

SEALTH

1982

1200

2

(*)

ISLANDER

1983

443

2

No

MARY ELLEN

1983

660

3

Yes – LULA

WILLIAMSBURG

1983

349

1

No

J B HUNT JR

1984

143

2

No

MADELINE

1984

149

1

No

PLATTSBURGH

1984

146

2

No

CAROL JEAN

1984

797

4

Yes – Elevator

CAPE MAY

1985

895

4

(*)

RACE POINT

1985

245

2

No

PRUDENCE FERRY

1986

149

1

No

PARK CITY

1986

997

3

Yes – LULA

ALICE AUSTEN

1986

1279

2

(*)

JOHN A. NOBLE

1986

1271

2

(*)

B. L. DEBERRY

1987

118

1

No

CARLEE EMILY

1987

150

2

No

J. C. DINGWALL

1987

118

1

No

EAGLE

1987

799

5

(*)

MACHIGONNE II

1987

399

3

Yes – LULA

MARGARET CHASE SMITH

1987

221

1

No

EVANS-WADHAMS-WOLCOTT

1988

146

2

No

FT. MORGAN

1988

149

1

No

CARTERET

1988

300

2

Yes – LULA

CAPE POINT

1989

149

2

No

CHICAMACOMICO

1989

149

2

No

DRUMMOND ISLANDER III

1989

149

2

No

FRISCO

1989

149

2

No

KINNAKEET

1989

149

2

No

MARK G GOODE

1989

118

1

No

WASHINGTON

1989

150

2

No

M. V. JOHN H.

1989

1000

4

(*)

SOUTH BASS

1989

500

2

No

OCRACOKE

1990

149

2

No

SANTA MARIA

1990

149

1

No

SHIRLEY IRENE

1991

149

2

No

ROBERT C LANIER

1991

495

4

Yes – Elevator

CAPTAIN HENRY LEE

1992

221

2

No

GOVERNOR DANIEL RUSSELL

1992

300

2

Yes – LULA

VERMONT

1992

221

2

No

R E STOTZER JR

1993

118

1

No

CAPTAIN CHARLES PHILBROOK

1993

221

2

No

CAPTAIN NEAL BURGESS

1993

221

2

No

WM. MARKET

1993

500

2

No

MARTHA’S VINEYARD

1993

1376

3

(*)

ROANOKE

1994

149

2

No

CEDAR ISLAND

1994

300

2

Yes – LULA

CHRISTINE ANDERSON

1994

250

2

No

DEWITT C. GREER

1994

494

5

Yes – Elevator

MAQUOIT II

1994

399

3

(*)

GENERAL II

1995

149

2

No

SUGAR ISLANDER II

1995

138

1

No

THOMAS A BAUM

1995

149

2

No

CAYO NORTE

1995

205

2

No

POCAHONTAS

1995

444

4

Yes – Elevator

ARNOLD W. OLIVER

1996

118

1

No

MIDDLE CHANNEL

1996

149

1

No

THE HICKMAN

1996

148

1

No

JEAN RIBAULT

1996

199

1

No

RAY STOKER, JR.

1996

495

4

Yes – Elevator

SOUTHPORT

1996

300

2

Yes – LULA

LT JOE THEINERT

1997

150

1

No

BLOCK ISLAND

1997

962

3

Yes – LULA

EMERALD ISLE

1997

293

3

(*)

PUT-IN-BAY

1997

500

2

No

M/V TACOMA

1997

2499

5

(*)

KENNICOTT

1998

499

4

(*)

LADY NAOMI (f)

1998

220

3

Yes – LULA

NEUSE

1998

300

2

Yes – LULA

ROBERT H. DEDMAN

1998

495

4

Yes – Elevator

PUYALLUP

1998

2499

5

(*)

WENATCHEE

1998

2499

5

(*)

WILLIAM G BURNETT

1999

118

1

No

PT BARNUM

1999

988

4

(*)

DRUMMOND ISLANDER IV

2000

149

2

No

CUMBERLAND

2000

203

3

Yes – LULA

FLOYD J. LUPTON

2000

300

2

Yes – LULA

FORT FISHER

2000

300

2

Yes – LULA

CHARLES HALL

2001

147

1

No

PRINCE OF WALES

2001

165

3

(*)

AMERICA

2002

150

1

No

HERON

2002

100

2

No

MASHOMACK

2002

149

1

No

ARNI J. RICHTER

2003

145

2

No

CROATOAN

2003

300

2

Yes – LULA

GRAND REPUBLIC

2003

988

4

(*)

W STANFORD WHITE

2003

300

2

Yes – LULA

GEES BEND

2004

149

1

No

LITUYA

2004

149

2

No

ISLENO

2004

208

2

No

PLAQUEMINES PRIDE

2004

200

1

No

GUY V. MOLINARI

2004

4400

5

(*)

SEN. JOHN J. MARCHI

2004

4400

4

(*)

MENANTIC

2005

149

1

No

SPIRIT OF AMERICA

2005

4400

4

(*)

MISTER B

2006

150

2

No

HATTERAS

2006

300

2

Yes – LULA

STEILACOOM II

2006

324

2

No

STIKINE

2006

195

3

(*)

ISLAND HOME

2007

1200

6

(*)

CAYO LARGO

2008

300

2

No

CHETZEMOKA

2010

750

3

Yes – LULA

RAYMOND C PECOR JR

2010

200

2

No

Multi-Hull Multi-Purpose Passenger Vessels

FREEDOM

1974

389

2

No

AMERICAN EAGLE

1984

152

2

No

GLACIER EXPRESS

1985

292

3

No

SPIRIT OF ADVENTURE

1985

240

3

No

JET EXPRESS

1989

380

3

No

NAVATEK I

1989

422

2

No

BRAVEST

1996

349

2

No

FRIENDSHIP V

1996

366

3

No

DEACON

1998

250

3

No

MILLENNIUM

1998

367

3

No

KLONDIKE EXPRESS

1999

342

3

No

VOYAGER III

1999

349

2

No

ROYAL MISS BELMAR

2000

300

3

No

BISCAYNE LADY

2002

400

3

No

ZEPHYR

2003

600

3

No

ISLAND DISCOVERY

2005

200

2

No

Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Passenger Vessels

BELLE OF LOUISVILLE

1914

999

3

Yes – LULA

CLIPPER WINNEBAGO

1922

300

2

No

INTERNATIONAL

1927

200

2

No

SIGHTSEER XII

1933

600

2

No

CIRCLE LINE XVI

1934

585

2

No

CIRCLE LINE XVII

1934

585

2

No

INDIAN HARBOR

1937

251

2

No

PAN AMERICAN CLIPPER

1937

200

1

No

SILVERGATE

1940

296

2

No

BAHIA BELLE

1942

195

3

No

109

1943

205

1

No

CIRCLE LINE X

1944

492

2

No

NEWPORT PRINCESS

1944

250

2

No

TEMPTRESS

1944

700

4

Yes – Elevator

THE ISLANDER

1945

236

1

No

ROMANCE

1946

400

3

No

MAJESTIC

1950

1067

3

Yes – LULA

DISCOVERY II

1953

391

3

No

COEUR D’ALENE

1954

400

2

No

HARBOR QUEEN

1954

444

2

No

PRINCESS WENONAH

1954

249

2

No

MISS LIBERTY

1954

827

2

No

DIAMOND JACK

1955

254

3

No

MEMPHIS QUEEN II

1955

308

2

No

SAMUEL CLEMENS

1955

273

3

No

DIAMOND QUEEN

1956

300

2

No

MARIETTA

1957

269

2

No

DIAMOND BELLE

1958

400

3

No

HARBOR KING

1958

222

3

No

HARBOR PRINCESS

1959

444

2

No

MONHEGAN

1959

190

1

No

BELLE OF HOT SPRINGS

1960

224

3

No

MISS CHRISTIN

1960

210

2

No

SIGHTSEER

1960

250

2

No

BECKY THATCHER

1961

237

2

No

ISLAND BEACH

1961

339

2

No

MARLYN

1961

260

3

No

MARTHA WASHINGTON

1961

209

2

No

LADY ST JOHNS

1962

300

2

No

MOONCHASER

1962

257

2

No

VIRGINIA C II

1962

215

2

No

ROYAL PRINCE

1962

500

3

No

BECKY THATCHER

1963

339

2

No

HALF MOON

1963

230

2

No

JUBILEE II

1963

194

3

No

SENECA LEGACY

1963

265

2

No

SPIRIT OF JEFFERSON

1963

300

3

No

VIKING STARLINER

1963

348

2

No

MARK TWAIN

1964

388

3

No

NEW BOSTON

1964

395

2

No

MISS CIRCLE LINE

1964

1035

3

Yes – LULA

DUCHESS

1965

310

3

No

PADDLEWHEEL QUEEN

1965

408

3

No

TUNICA QUEEN (g)

1965

395

3

No

CARRIE B

1966

300

2

No

TOM SAWYER

1966

362

2

No

FREEDOM

1967

430

2

No

SPIRIT OF SACRAMENTO

1967

344

3

No

SUMMER OF GEORGE

1967

200

3

No

MISH-AN-NOCK

1968

400

2

No

HARBOR EMPEROR

1968

500

2

No

POINT LOMA

1969

400

3

Yes – LULA

CAPE MAY WHALE WATCHER

1970

275

3

No

JONATHAN PADELFORD

1970

200

2

No

AMBASSADOR II (f) (g)

1970

1,600

5

(*)

GENERAL BEAUREGARD

1971

311

2

No

GOODTIME I

1971

347

2

No

ISLAND WANDERER

1971

219

2

No

JUNGLE QUEEN IV

1971

536

3

No

RANGER

1971

514

2

No

DANDY

1972

200

2

No

HARBOR QUEEN

1972

297

2

No

MISS BUFFALO II

1972

226

2

No

SHERYLL PRINCESS

1972

315

2

No

CABANA

1973

366

2

No

MUSETTE

1974

400

2

No

RIVER ROSE

1974

215

1

No

NATCHEZ

1975

1603

4

Yes – Elevator

BENNIE ALICE

1976

195

2

No

GOODTIME II

1976

437

2

No

STAR OF PALM BEACH

1976

429

2

No

UNCLE SAM 7

1976

226

2

No

BAY STATE

1976

549

3

No

ENDEAVOR

1977

350

1

No

HURRICANE II

1977

295

2

No

SPIRIT OF DUBUQUE

1977

375

2

No

MISS FREEDOM

1977

564

2

No

TEXAS STAR CASINO (f) (g)

1977

595

3

Yes – LULA

CORNUCOPIA PRINCESS

1978

400

4

Yes – Elevator

ESCAPADE

1978

440

3

Yes – LULA

GOODTIME III

1978

223

2

No

STAR OF THE NORTHWEST

1978

245

3

Yes – LULA

VISTA KING

1978

255

2

No

CARIBBEAN DREAM II

1979

295

1

No

MEMPHIS QUEEN III

1979

401

2

No

STEVEN THOMAS

1979

195

2

No

MONTE CARLO (f) (g)

1980

315

3

No

PRINCE CHARMING

1980

398

2

No

RIP VAN WINKLE

1980

388

2

No

PROVINCETOWN II

1980

713

3

Yes – LULA

NAUTICA QUEEN

1981

407

3

Yes – LULA

STARLITE MAJESTY

1981

399

3

No

THE HARRIOTT II

1981

400

2

No

AQUASINO

1981

600

5

Yes – Elevator

CAPT CLARK’S FLAGSHIP

1982

364

3

No

MYSTIQUE

1982

350

3

No

PACIFIC HORNBLOWER

1982

271

2

No

THE STAR

1982

305

2

No

JOHN JAMES AUDUBON

1982

600

3

(*)

MISS GATEWAY

1982

500

2

No

CAPITOL HORNBLOWER

1983

223

2

No

CARRIE B

1983

324

2

No

GRAND DUCHESS

1983

350

3

Yes – LULA

ISLAND QUEEN

1983

401

3

No

TAHOE QUEEN

1983

350

3

Yes – LULA

VOYAGEUR

1983

230

1

No

COLUMBIA GORGE

1983

599

2

No

CREOLE QUEEN

1983

955

3

Yes – LULA

FIRST LADY

1983

544

(na)

No

CAPT. ANDERSON III

1984

175

2

No

CHERRY BLOSSOM

1984

408

3

No

HARBOR LIGHTS

1984

400

3

No

M/V INDIAN RIVER QUEEN

1984

261

3

No

MAJESTY

1984

280

3

Yes – LULA

MUSIC CITY QUEEN

1984

338

3

No

PRINCESS

1984

399

3

No

QUEEN OF SEATTLE

1984

275

3

Yes – LULA

ALI’I KAI

1984

838

2

No

AVALON

1984

602

3

Yes – LULA

LORD HORNBLOWER

1984

800

3

Yes – LULA

CAPT. JOHN & SON IV

1985

294

2

No

CELEBRATION LADY

1985

299

3

No

FT. DEARBORN

1985

200

2

No

JEWEL

1985

337

2

No

SPIRIT OF CHARLESTON

1985

422

2

No

TAYLORS FALLS PRINCESS

1985

250

2

No

COLONEL

1985

785

3

Yes – LULA

DIAMOND ROYALE (g)

1985

600

3

Yes – LULA

ENTERTAINER

1985

574

2

No

FREDERICK L NOLAN JR

1985

550

3

No

GEORGIA QUEEN

1985

600

3

No

HENRIETTA III

1985

600

5

Yes – Elevator

INNER HARBOR SPIRIT

1985

574

2

No

OPUS CASINO (f) (g)

1985

800

3

Yes – LULA

RESPECT

1985

499

3

Yes – LULA

SOUTHERN BELLE

1985

507

3

No

SPIRIT OF SAN DIEGO

1985

579

3

Yes – LULA

GENERAL JACKSON

1985

1200

4

(*)

CAPT. PETE

1986

300

2

No

MARINA HORNBLOWER

1986

200

3

No

QUEEN

1986

393

2

No

ROYAL WINNER PRINCESS II

1986

396

3

No

STARLITE PRINCESS

1986

339

3

No

ANNA C

1986

647

4

Yes – Elevator

CELEBRATION BELLE

1986

800

4

(*)

EMPRESS ANDIAMO

1986

500

3

No

ISLANDER

1986

500

3

No

PORTLAND SPIRIT

1986

540

3

Yes – LULA

SPIRIT OF THE LOWCOUNTRY

1986

527

3

(*)

WILLIAM D. EVANS

1986

580

3

(*)

WORLD YACHTS DUCHESS

1986

600

3

Yes – LULA

WORLD YACHTS PRINCESS

1986

600

3

Yes – LULA

BEN FRANKLIN

1987

317

3

No

CAP STREETER

1987

300

2

No

KENAI STAR

1987

195

2

No

SHORELINE II

1987

350

2

No

SPIRIT OF SEATTLE

1987

461

3

No

THOMAS LAIGHTON

1987

346

3

No

VISTA STAR

1987

300

3

No

CAPT. JP

1987

593

4

No

CAPT. JP II

1987

600

3

Yes – LULA

DISCOVERY III

1987

900

4

Yes – Elevator

RIVER QUEEN

1987

500

2

No

SAVANNAH RIVER QUEEN

1987

600

3

No

STATUE OF LIBERTY IV (g)

1987

600

3

Yes – LULA

ALEXANDRIA BELLE

1988

425

3

No

AMERICAN PRINCESS

1988

220

2

No

ANSON NORTHRUP

1988

350

2

No

CAROLINA BELLE

1988

300

2

No

ISLAND DUCHESS

1988

439

3

No

MASSACHUSETTS

1988

346

2

No

QUEEN CITY CLIPPER

1988

208

1

No

SKYLINE PRINCESS

1988

450

3

No

SPIRIT OF PEORIA

1988

428

3

Yes – LULA

THE STAR

1988

300

3

No

ANNABEL LEE

1988

506

2

No

CITY OF CARUTHERSVILLE

1988

800

4

Yes – Elevator

EMPRESS HORNBLOWER

1988

500

3

No

GREAT POINT

1988

804

3

Yes – LULA

SPIRIT OF BALTIMORE

1988

600

4

Yes – Elevator

SPIRIT OF CHICAGO

1988

600

4

Yes – Elevator

AQUA (f)

1989

325

3

No

CALIFORNIA HORNBLOWER

1989

359

3

Yes – LULA

ISLAND GIRL

1989

296

2

No

LADY WINDRIDGE

1989

407

2

No

MAJESTIC PRINCESS

1989

353

2

No

PTARMIGAN

1989

196

2

No

VALLEY GEM

1989

295

2

No

VISTA JUBILEE

1989

428

3

Yes – LULA

CATALINA

1989

600

1

No

NAUTICAL EMPRESS

1989

600

3

(*)

SPIRIT OF NEW JERSEY

1989

579

3

Yes – LULA

SPIRIT OF NEW YORK

1989

600

4

Yes – Elevator

SPIRIT OF PHILADELPHIA

1989

600

4

Yes – Elevator

MISS MARQUETTE (g)

1989

1,200

4

Yes – Elevator

BETSEY NORTHRUP

1990

360

1

No

LAURA

1990

347

2

No

MATTHEW J. HUGHES

1990

347

2

No

THE ANITA DEE II

1990

400

4

No

GOODTIME III

1990

975

4

Yes – Elevator

SPIRIT OF BOSTON

1990

600

4

Yes – Elevator

SPIRIT OF MOUNT VERNON

1990

573

3

Yes – LULA

CATALINA DUCHESS

1991

292

2

No

CHICAGO’S FIRST LADY

1991

225

2

No

DESERT PRINCESS

1991

300

3

No

FUME BLANC COMMODORE

1991

450

3

No

GRAND ROMANCE

1991

350

3

Yes – LULA

PORTUGUESE PRINCESS II

1991

293

2

No

ROYAL PRINCESS

1991

242

3

Yes – LULA

SAN FRANCISCO SPIRIT

1991

355

4

Yes – Elevator

W. L. CALLAHAN

1991

260

2

No

BELLE OF CINCINNATI

1991

1000

3

Yes – LULA

MISS ELLIS ISLAND

1991

799

3

Yes – LULA

MISS NEW JERSEY

1991

799

3

Yes – LULA

MISSISSIPPI QUEEN

1991

840

4

Yes – Elevator

ODYSSEY

1991

800

4

Yes – Elevator

HORIZON STAR (g)

1992

285

4

Yes – Elevator

JAMES J DOHERTY

1992

348

2

No

INSPIRATION HORNBLOWER

1992

1000

4

Yes – Elevator

SPIRIT OF NORFOLK

1992

600

2

No

STAR OF HONOLULU

1992

1500

5

(*)

DISCOVERY

1993

212

2

No

BIG EASY

1993

1,000

4

Yes – Elevator

LADY ANDERSON

1993

500

3

Yes – LULA

MISS NEW YORK

1993

799

3

Yes – LULA

ODYSSEY II

1993

749

4

Yes – Elevator

ALTON BELLE CASINO II (g)

1993

1321

3

(*)

CATFISH BEND RIVERBOAT CASINO II (g)

1993

1,389

4

Yes – Elevator

CORNUCOPIA MAJESTY

1993

1200

4

(*)

DETROIT PRINCESS

1993

1636

5

(*)

SOUTHERN STAR I (g)

1993

1,200

4

Yes – Elevator

STAR CASINO (g)

1993

1,409

3

Yes – LULA

ARKANSAS QUEEN

1994

338

2

No

LADY MARY

1994

300

2

No

TAILS OF THE SEA

1994

293

2

No

ADVENTURE HORNBLOWER

1994

600

3

Yes – LULA

M.S. DIXIE II

1994

570

3

Yes – LULA

PHILADELPHIA BELLE

1994

1000

6

Yes – Elevator

ARGOSY III

1994

1555

3

(*)

CASINO ROUGE (g)

1994

1800

4

(*)

CROWN CASINO (g)

1994

1750

5

(*)

GRAND VICTORIA (g)

1994

1736

2

(*)

GRAND VICTORIA II (g)

1994

2700

6

(*)

HARRAHS NORTH STAR (g)

1994

1800

5

(*)

MARY’S PRIZE (g)

1994

1650

3

(*)

PAR-A-DICE (g)

1994

1654

4

(*)

PRIDE OF LAKE CHARLES (g)

1994

1,660

4

Yes – Elevator

SAN FRANCISCO BELLE

1994

2000

4

(*)

SHREVE STAR (g)

1994

1650

4

(*)

THE MARGARET MARY (g)

1994

2050

4

(*)

TREASURE CHEST CASINO (g)

1994

1725

4

(*)

TREBLE CLEF (g)

1994

1,900

4

Yes – Elevator

AMERICAN PRINCESS II

1995

168

2

No

DOLPHIN VIII

1995

292

2

No

DREAM ON

1995

260

2

No

STARSHIP

1995

343

3

No

ODYSSEY III

1995

600

1

No

SHOWBOAT BRANSON BELLE

1995

750

4

(*)

AMERISTAR II (g)

1995

2,710

2

No

BELLE OF ORLEANS (g)

1995

2450

2

(*)

BETTENDORF CAPRI (g)

1995

2,300

3

Yes – LULA

CITY OF EVANSVILLE (g)

1995

2700

4

(*)

GRAND PALAIS (g)

1995

2000

3

(*)

KANESVILLE QUEEN (g)

1995

2,352

3

Yes – LULA

EMERALD STAR

1996

250

1

No

THE BIG M CASINO

1996

400

3

Yes – LULA

DESTINY

1997

330

4

No

SPIRIT OF ETHAN ALLEN III

1997

424

3

Yes – LULA

LIBERTY BELLE

1997

600

3

Yes – LULA

ARGOSY VI

1997

4000

3

(*)

BLUE CHIP CASINO (g)

1997

3,000

4

Yes – Elevator

KING OF THE RED (g)

1997

2678

4

(*)

MAJESTIC STAR (g)

1997

3000

5

(*)

WINSTAR (g)

1997

3750

5

(*)

CELESTIAL

1998

374

1

No

FANTASEA ONE

1998

348

4

(*)

MIDNIGHT GAMBLER II (g)

1998

500

3

Yes – LULA

SPIRIT OF CAROLINA

1998

454

3

No

EMERALD PRINCESS II

1998

600

4

Yes – Elevator

JACKS OR BETTER CASINO (g)

1998

500

3

Yes – LULA

MYSTIC BLUE

1998

492

4

Yes – Elevator

GLORY OF ROME (g)

1998

4557

4

(*)

CAPRICE

1999

284

3

No

CATHERINE MARIE

1999

250

3

No

CORNUCOPIA DESTINY

1999

400

5

No

ETERNITY

1999

343

3

(*)

NINA’S DANDY

1999

286

2

No

ROYAL CASINO I (g)

1999

375

3

Yes – LULA

WHALE WATCHER

1999

393

2

No

STARSHIP

1999

600

3

Yes – LULA

CABERNET SAUVIGNON COMMODORE

2000

400

4

(*)

HORIZON ’S EDGE (g)

2000

500

3

Yes – LULA

ROYAL ARGOSY

2000

800

3

Yes – LULA

SPIRIT OF WASHINGTON

2000

600

4

(*)

HOLLYWOOD DREAMS (g)

2000

3100

4

(*)

MISS BELTERRA (g)

2000

2932

3

(*)

EVENING STAR

2001

305

2

No

OUILMETTE

2001

217

2

No

ENDLESS DREAMS

2002

468

3

Yes – LULA

KANAN

2002

400

4

(*)

ATLANTICA

2003

400

3

Yes – LULA

BRIGHT STAR

2003

336

2

No

M/V MAJESTIC

2003

375

3

Yes – LULA

ROYAL EXPRESS IV

2003

300

3

No

ATLANTIS

2004

319

2

No

THE GRAND FLORIDIAN

2004

300

4

(*)

CALIFORNIA SPIRIT

2004

600

3

Yes – LULA

BIG M CASINO (g)

2005

500

3

Yes – LULA

ISLAND EXPEDITION

2005

199

2

No

OVATION

2005

323

3

No

L ’AUBERGE DU LAC (g)

2005

3637

2

(*)

SIR WINSTON

2006

400

5

(*)

THE FLORIDIAN PRINCESS

2006

400

4

No

BLUE CHIP 2 (g)

2006

5914

3

(*)

WENDELLA

2007

340

2

No

GRAND LUXE

2007

600

3

(*)

CIRCLE LINE MANHATTAN

2008

600

2

No

CIRCLE LINE BROOKLYN

2009

600

2

No

CIRCLE LINE QUEENS

2009

600

2

No

LINNEA

2010

340

2

No

Small Cruise or Charter Ships (50 to 299 Overnight Passengers)

LA PESCA

1970

62

No

PACIFIC MONARCH

1971

136

3

Yes – LULA

WILDERNESS EXPLORER (ex-Spirit of Discovery)

1976

95

3

Yes – LULA

ADMIRALTY DREAM (ex-Spirit of Columbia)

1979

80

3

Yes – LULA

SPIRIT OF ALASKA

1980

86

3

Yes – LULA

NAT.GEOGRAPHIC SEA BIRD

1981

92

3

Yes – LULA

NAT.GEOGRAPHIC SEA LION

1982

92

3

Yes – LULA

NAT.GEOGRAPHIC EXPLORER (f)

1982

150

3

(*)

SAFARI ENDEAVOUR (ex-Spirit of Endeavor)

1983

109

5

Yes – Elevator

WILDERNESS ADVENTURER

1983

85

3

Yes – LULA

SAFARI LEGACY (ex-spirit of ’98)

1984

101

5

(*)

SEADREAM I (f)

1984

110

5

(*)

SEADREAM II (f)

1985

112

5

(*)

SEABOURN PRIDE (f)

1987

218

6

(*)

YORKTOWN (ex-Spirit of Yorktown)

1988

138

5

Yes – Elevator

WIND SPIRIT (f)

1988

150

4

Yes – Elevator

CLIPPER ODYSSEY (f)

1989

132

4

(*)

SILVER EXPLORER (ex-Prince Albert II) (f)

1989

132

6

(*)

SEABOURN SPIRIT (f)

1989

208

6

(*)

BREMEN (f)

1990

164

6

(*)

SEABOURN LEGEND (f)

1990

212

6

(*)

HANSEATIC (f)

1991

200

6

Yes – Elevator

SPIRIT OF OCEANUS (f)

1991

120

5

(*)

NIAGARA PRINCE

1994

90

3

Yes – LULA

SILVER CLOUD (f)

1994

296

6

(*)

QUEEN OF THE WEST

1995

140

5

(*)

SILVER WIND (f)

1995

296

6

(*)

GRANDE CARIBE

1997

98

4

Yes – Elevator

GRANDE MARINER

1998

100

4

Yes – Elevator

AMERICAN SPIRIT

2005

98

4

(*)

AMERICAN STAR

2007

98

4

(*)

INDEPENDENCE

2010

104

4

(*)

 

APPENDIX II.  LARGE CRUISE SHIPS OPERATING IN U.S. PORTS AS OF 2011

This appendix provides data on large cruise ships permitted to carry 300 or more overnight passengers operating in U.S. ports as of 2011.[25]  We compiled the data from the following sources:

1.  U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Cruise Detail Table at:

http://www.marad.dot.gov/library_landing_page/data_and_statistics/Data_and_Statistics.htm. The Cruise Detail Table contains data on cruises, passengers, and departure and destination ports derived from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Vessel Entrance and Clearance Documents for the period from January 1, 2004 to March 31, 2012.

2.  Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA), Cruise Lines & Ships webpage at: http://www.cruising.org/vacation/cruise-lines-ships. The CLIA webpage provides data on the year the cruise ships were constructed, the total number of guest rooms, and the number of guest rooms with mobility features.

3.  Cruise ship deck plans available on the cruise line websites.  The deck plans show the guest rooms on each deck and indicate the guest rooms with mobility features with a symbol.  Where the number of guest rooms with mobility features shown on the cruise ship deck plan differs from the number on the CLIA webpage, the number on the cruise ship deck plan is used.

Large Cruise Ships Operating in U.S. Ports as of 2011:
Percent Guest Rooms with Mobility Features
Cruise LineLarge Cruise ShipsTotal Guest RoomsGuest Rooms with Mobility FeaturesPercent Guest Rooms with Mobility Features

Notes:

1.  Other cruise lines include AIDA Cruises, Azamara Club Lines, Costa Cruises, Crystal Cruises, Cunard Lines, MCS Cruises, Oceania Cruises, Regent Seven Sea Cruises, Seabourne Cruises, and Silver Sea Cruises.

2.  Data on total number of guest rooms and guest rooms with mobility features are not available for the AIDAaura and AIDAluna.

Carnival

23

29,143

594

2.0%

Celebrity

9

10,819

234

2.2%

Disney

3

3,004

57

1.9%

Holland America

15

11,745

335

2.9%

Norwegian

10

12,002

221

1.8%

Princess

14

16,994

333

2.0%

Royal Caribbean

21

30,260

472

1.6%

Other¹

18

9,549²

146²

1.5%

Total 113 123,516 2,392 1.9%

 

Carnival Cruise Ships
Cruise ShipYear ConstructedTotal Guest RoomsGuest Rooms with Mobility FeaturesPercent Guest Rooms with Mobility Features

Note:

1.  The number of guest rooms with mobility features is from the cruise ship deck plans.

Fantasy Class

Carnival Fantasy

1990

1,028

25¹

2.4%

Carnival Ecstasy

1991

1,026

25¹

2.4%

Carnival Sensation

1993

1,026

25¹

2.4%

Carnival Fascination

1994

1,026

24

2.3%

Carnival Imagination

1995

1,026

25¹

2.4%

Carnival Inspiration

1996

1,026

25¹

2.4%

Carnival Elation

1998

1,026

25¹

2.4%

Carnival Paradise

1998

1,026

25¹

2.4%

Destiny Class

Carnival Destiny

1996

1,321

28

2.1%

Triumph Class

Carnival Triumph

1999

1,379

31¹

2.2%

Carnival Victory

2000

1,379

31¹

2.2%

Spirit Class

Carnival Spirit

2001

1,062

17¹

1.6%

Carnival Pride

2001

1,062

17¹

1.6%

Carnival Legend

2002

1,062

17¹

1.6%

Carnival Miracle

2004

1,062

17¹

1.6%

Conquest Class

Carnival Conquest

2002

1,487

26¹

1.7%

Carnival Glory

2003

1,487

27¹

1.7%

Carnival Valor

2004

1,487

27¹

1.8%

Carnival Liberty

2005

1,487

29

2.0%

Carnival Freedom

2007

1,487

29

2.0%

Splendor Class

Carnival Splendor

2008

1,503

29

2.0%

Dream Class

Carnival Dream

2009

1,823

35

2.0%

Carnival Magic

2011

1,845

35

1.9%

Total 29,143 594 2.0%

 

Celebrity Cruise Ships
Cruise ShipYear ConstructedTotal Guest RoomsGuest Rooms with Mobility FeaturesPercent Guest Rooms with Mobility Features
Century Class

Celebrity Century

1995

907

10

1.1%

Millennium Class

Celebrity Millennium

2000

1,019

26

2.6%

Celebrity Summit

2001

1,085

26

2.4%

Celebrity Infinity

2001

1,085

26

2.4%

Celebrity Constellation

2002

1,019

26

2.6%

Solstice Class

Celebrity Solstice

2008

1,426

30

2.1%

Celebrity Equinox

2009

1,426

30

2.1%

Celebrity Eclipse

2010

1,426

30

2.1%

Celebrity Silhouette

2011

1,426

30

2.1%

Total 10,819 234 2.2%

 

Disney Cruise Ships
Cruise ShipYear ConstructedTotal Guest RoomsGuest Rooms with Mobility FeaturesPercent Guest Rooms with Mobility Features

Disney Magic

1998

877

16

1.8%

Disney Wonder

1999

877

16

1.8%

Disney Dream

2011

1,250

25

2.0%

Total 3,004 57 1.9%

 

Holland America Cruise Ships
Cruise ShipYear ConstructedTotal Guest RoomsGuest Rooms with Mobility FeaturesPercent Guest Rooms with Mobility Features

Note:

1.  The number of guest rooms with mobility features is from the cruise ship deck plan.

Other

ms Prinsendam

1988

419

10

2.4%

Statendam Class

ms Statendam

1993

630

15

2.4%

ms Maasdam

1993

629

16

2.5%

ms Ryndam

1994

630

15

2.4%

ms Veendam

1996

675

17

2.5%

Rotterdam Class

ms Rotterdam

1997

702

25

3.6%

Ms Volendam

1999

702

25

3.6%

ms Zaandam

2000

716

22

3.1%

ms Amsterdam

2000

690

21¹

3.0%

Vista Class

ms Zuiderdam

2002

958

28

2.9%

ms Oosterdam

2003

958

28

2.9%

ms Westerdam

2004

958

28

2.9%

ms Noordam

2006

959

28

2.9%

Signature Class

ms Eurodam

2008

1,052

30

2.9%

ms Nieuw Amsterdam

2010

1,053

30

2.9%

Total 11,745 335 2.9%

 

Norwegian Cruise Ships
Cruise ShipYear ConstructedTotal Guest RoomsGuest Rooms with Mobility FeaturesPercent Guest Rooms with Mobility Features

Note:

1.  The number of guest rooms with mobility features is from the cruise ship deck plans.

Other

Norwegian Spirit

1999

1,009

0.5%

Sun Class

Norwegian Sky

1999

1,004

0.7%

Norwegian Sun

2001

968

20

2.1%

Dawn Class

Norwegian Star

2001

1,146

22¹

1.9%

Norwegian Dawn

2002

1,112

26¹

2.3%

Other

Norwegian Pride of America

2005

1,069

19

1.8%

Jewel Class

Norwegian Jewel

2005

1,188

27¹

2.3%

Norwegian Pearl

2006

1,195

27

2.3%

Norwegian Gem

2007

1,197

27

2.3%

Epic Class

Norwegian Epic

2010

2,114

41¹

1.9%

Total 12,002 221 1.8%

 

Princess Cruise Ships
Cruise ShipYear ConstructedTotal Guest RoomsGuest Rooms with Mobility FeaturesPercent Guest Rooms with Mobility Features

Note:

1.  The number of guest rooms with mobility features is from the cruise ship deck plans.

Sun Class

Dawn Princess

1997

975

19

1.9%

Sea Princess

1998

975

18

1.8%

Coral Princess

2003

987

20¹

2.0%

Island Princess

2003

987

20

2.0%

R Class

Pacific Princess

1999

334

5

1.5%

Grand Class

Grand Princess

1998

1,300

27¹

2.0%

Golden Princess

2001

1,300

26¹

2.0%

Star Princess

2002

1,301

26¹

2.0%

Diamond Princess

2004

1,337

27

2.0%

Sapphire Princess

2004

1,337

27

2.0%

Caribbean Princess

2004

1,557

25

1.6%

Crown Class

Crown Princess

2006

1,532

31

2.0%

Emerald Princess

2007

1,532

31

2.0%

Ruby Princess

2008

1,540

31

2.0%

Total 16,994 333 2.0%

 

Royal Caribbean Cruise Ships
Cruise ShipYear ConstructedTotal Guest RoomsGuest Rooms with Mobility FeaturesPercent Guest Rooms with Mobility Features

Notes:

1.  The Legend of the Seas, Grandeur of the Seas, Brilliance of the Seas, Vision of the Seas, and Independence of the Seas did not operate in U.S. ports in 2011, but are scheduled to operate in U.S. ports in 2013.

2.  The CLIA webpage shows the total number of guest rooms as 1829.  This appears to be an error.

3.  The number of guest rooms with mobility features is from the cruise ship deck plan.

Sovereign Class

Monarch of the Seas

1991

1,195

4

0.3%

Majesty of the Seas

1992

1,195²

4

0.3%

Vision Class

Legend of the Seas¹

1995

902

17

1.8%

Grandeur of the Seas¹

1996

975

14

1.4%

Enchantment of the Seas

1997

1,126

19³

1.7%

Rhapsody of the Seas

1997

999

14

1.4%

Vision of the Seas¹

1998

999

14

1.4%

Radiance Class

Radiance of the Seas

2001

1,056

15

1.4%

Brilliance of the Seas¹

2002

1,055

15

1.4%

Serenade of the Seas

2003

1,055

19

1.8%

Jewel of the Seas

2004

1,055

19

1.8%

Voyager Class

Voyager of the Seas

1999

1,557

26

1.7%

Explorer of the Seas

2000

1,557

26

1.7%

Adventurer of the Seas

2001

1,557

26

1.7%

Navigator of the Seas

2002

1,557

26

1.7%

Mariner of the Seas

2003

1,557

26

1.7%

Freedom Class

Freedom of the Seas

2006

1,817

32

1.8%

Liberty of the Seas

2007

1,817

32

1.8%

Independence of the Seas¹

2008

1,817

32

1.8%

Oasis Class

Oasis of the Seas

2009

2,706

46

1.7%

Allure of the Seas

2010

2,706

46

1.7%

Total 30,260 472 1.6%

 

Other Cruise Ships
Cruise ShipYear ConstructedTotal Guest RoomsGuest Rooms with Mobility FeaturesPercent Guest Rooms with Mobility Features

Notes:

1.  Data on total number of guest rooms and guest rooms with mobility features are not available.

2.  The number of guest rooms with mobility features is from the cruise ship deck plan.

AIDACruises

AIDAaura

2003

na¹

na¹

na¹

AIDAluna

2009

na¹

na¹

na¹

Azamara Club Cruises

Azamara Journey

2000

347

6

1.7%

Costa Cruises

Costa Atlantica

2000

1,057

8

0.8%

Crystal Cruises

Crystal Symphony

1995

461

4

0.9%

Crystal Serenity

2003

535

8

1.5%

Cunard Lines

HMS Queen Mary 2

2003

1,296

30²

2.3%

HMS Queen Victoria

2007

1,007

20

2.0%

HMS Queen Elizabeth

2010

1,046

20

1.9%

MCS Cruises

MCS Poesia

2008

1,275

17

1.3%

Oceania Cruises

Regatta

1998

342

3

0.9%

Marina

2011

625

6

1.0%

Regent Seven Seas Cruises

Seven Seas Navigator

1999

245

4

1.6%

Seven Seas Mariner

2001

350

6

1.7%

Seven Seas Voyager

2003

350

4

1.1%

Seabourn Cruise Line

Seabourn Sojourn

2010

225

6

2.7%

Silver Sea Cruises

Silver Shadow

2000

194

2

1.0%

Silver Whisper

2001

194

2

1.0%

Total 9,549 146 1.5%

 

APPENDIX III.  LARGE CRUISE SHIPS CONSTRUCTED OR UNDER CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION BETWEEN 2012 & 2015

YearCruise ShipGuest RoomsTotal Guest Rooms

Source:  Cruise Lines International Association, 2013 North American Cruise Industry Update at: http://www.cruising.org/sites/default/files/pressroom/CruiseIndustryUpdate2013FINAL.pdf.

The number of guest rooms is based on the passenger capacity at two passengers per guest room.

Notes:

1.  Costa Cruises is based in Italy.  There were 14 cruise ships in Costa Cruises’ fleet as of 2011.  Only one of the cruise ships, the Costa Atlantica, operated in U.S. ports in 2011.  The Costa Fascinosa is not scheduled to operate in U.S. ports in 2013.  The Costa Diadema will be launched in October 2014.  Information is not available on whether the Costa Diadema will operate in U.S. ports.

2.  MSC Cruises is based in Italy.  There were 11 cruise ships in MSC Cruises’ fleet as of 2011.  Only one of the cruise ships, the MSC Poesia, operated in U.S. ports in 2011.  The MSC Divinia is scheduled to operate in U.S. ports in 2013; the MSC Preziosa is not scheduled to operate in U.S. ports in 2013.  The 2013 North American Cruise Industry Update lists the capacity of the MSC Divina as 3,502 passengers and the MSC Preziosa as 2,502 passengers.  The MSC Divina and MSC Preziosa are the same class cruise ship and have the same capacity of 3,502 passengers.

2012

Carnival Breeze

1,845

8,497

Celebrity Reflection

1,515

Costa Fascinosa¹

1,506

Disney Fantasy

1,250

MSC Divina²

1,751

Oceania Riviera

630

2013

MSC Preziosa²

1,751

5,536

Norwegian Breakaway

1,985

Royal Princess

1,800

2014

Costa Diadema¹

1,850

7,685

Norwegian Getaway

1,985

Royal Princess

1,800

Royal Caribbean Quantum of the Seas

2,050

2015

Holland America Unnamed

1,330

5,480

Norwegian Unnamed

2,100

Royal Caribbean Anthem of the Seas

2,050

Total Number of Guest Rooms 27,198 27,198
Average Number of Guest Rooms 1,700 1,700

 


[1]  Title III of the ADA covers twelve categories of places of public accommodation, including places of lodging, establishments serving food or drink, and places of exhibition or entertainment.  See 42 U.S.C. 12181 (7).

[2]  The definitions of the terms designated public transportation and specified public transportation are similar and mean transportation by bus, rail, or any other conveyance that provides the general public with general or special service, including charter service, on a regular and continuing basis.  See 42 U.S.C. 12141 (2) and 12181 (10).

[3]  International Maritime Organization, Guidelines for the Design and Installation of a Visible Element to the General Emergency Alarm System on Passenger Ships, MSC.1/Circ.1418, June 13, 2012 at: http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Circulars/Pages/IMODOCS.aspx.

[4]  Some of the case study reports discuss provisions in earlier drafts of the guidelines that are modified (e.g., accessible means of escape) or deleted (e.g., stairs) in the proposed guidelines.

[5]  ASME 17.1-2010 Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators, section 5.2.1.16.5.

[6]  ASME 18.1-2011 Safety Standard for Platform Lifts and Stairway Chairlifts, section 2.7.1.

[7]  Nine two deck vehicle ferries that were matched with the 300 passenger and 40 vehicle ferry case study needed to provide a means of vertical access from the entry deck to the transportation seating areas on another deck since space was not available on the entry deck for a transportation seating area.  The 300 passenger and 40 vehicle ferry case study used an exterior vertical platform lift with additional deck surface at an estimated cost of $209,000 to provide a means of vertical access between the decks.  To simplify the assessment and to err on the side of overestimating compliance costs, we used a LULA at a cost of $297,400 for the nine ferries.

[8]  Where the administrative authority requires a passenger vessel to have a means of escape, the proposed guidelines would require an accessible means of escape that provides a substantially equivalent level of protection from hazards as is required by the administrative authority for the means of escape.  Where passengers with disabilities have to wait for crew assistance at or near stairways or exit doors with coamings or for elevators or platform lifts to be crew operated during emergencies, the waiting area would need to be sufficiently protected from hazards in order to provide the occupants a level of protection that is substantially equivalent to the level of protection afforded to passengers who can use the means of escape unassisted.  A protected waiting area would not be needed where another equivalent method of protection is provided, such as where passenger vessels are protected by automatic sprinkler systems or the area is open to the weather.

[9]  U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2010 with Projections to 2035 (April 2010) at:

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2010).pdf.

[10]  Large cruise ships operating in U.S. ports usually are registered in other countries and are referred to as foreign flag vessels.  The DOT regulations, which eventually will include accessibility standards for passenger vessels covered by the ADA based on the proposed guidelines, apply to foreign flag vessels that pick up passengers in the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths.  See 49 CFR 39.5 (b).

[11]  2004 Draft Plan for Regulatory Assessment and 2006 Draft Guidelines, Passenger Vessel Case Studies at: http://www.access-board.gov/pvag/.

[12]  Mitch P. LaPlante and H. Stephen Kaye, Mobility Device Use and Hearing Impairments Among Individuals and Households: 1990 — 2010 (February 15, 2013) at: http://www.access-board.gov/pvag/.

[13]  Cruise ship passengers can rent wheelchairs and scooters from Special Needs at Seas at: http://www.specialneedsatsea.com/.

[14]  Cruise Lines International Association, Passenger Vessel Access Guidelines Access Scoping Economic Impact Study (June 23, 2008) at: http://www.access-board.gov/pvag/.

[15]  A sample of about 500 wheeled mobility devices shows that the minimum clear width needed for a manual wheelchair user ranges from 27 to 31 inches; for a power wheelchair user ranges from 27 to 33 inches; and for a scooter user ranges from 24 to 33 inches.  Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access, Design Resources DR-15 Clear Floor Area for Wheeled Mobility: Redefining the “common wheelchair” (January 4, 2011) at: http://udeworld.com/documents/designresources/pdfs/CFA.pdf .

[16]  Letter from T.E.Thompson, Cruise Lines International Association, to Lawrence W. Roffee, Access Board, dated June 23, 2008.  The letter was submitted with the cruise industry report referenced in footnote 14.

[17]  A deck plan at: http://www.cruisedeckplans.com/DP/Main/decks.php?ship=Independence%20of%20the%20Seas for a large cruise ship shows that the guest room sizes vary from 152 square feet for an interior room; 200 square feet for a deluxe balcony room; and 317 square feet for a junior suite.  The size of different classes of guest rooms varies by cruise ship.

[18]  The cruise industry report is referenced in footnote 14.

[19]  The Volpe National Transportation Systems Center reviewed the cruise industry report and identified other problems with the report.  See Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Review of “PVAG Access Scoping Economic Impact Study” (February 18, 2010) at: http://www.access-board.gov/pvag/.

[20]  The cruise industry report notes that cruise ships rarely travel with empty guest rooms.  In 2011, 39 percent of cruise ships with fewer than 2,000 passengers had utilization above 100 percent, and 86 percent of cruise ships with 2,000 or more passengers had utilization above 100 percent according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration North American Cruise Statistical Snapshot, 2011 at: http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/North_American_Cruise_Statistics_Quarterly_Snapshot.pdf.  Since some guest rooms can accommodate more than two passengers, utilization can be above 100 percent.

[21]  The cruise industry report assumed that gross revenue per guest room would increase by 3 percent per year.  The Office of Management and Budget requires federal agencies to use both 7 percent and 3 percent annual discount rates expressed as a present value, as well as annualized, for regulatory analysis.  The 7 percent discount rate is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to private capital in the U.S. economy.  The 3 percent discount rate is appropriate when regulation primarily and directly affects private consumption (e.g., through higher consumer prices for goods and services) and is the rate at which society discounts future consumption flows to their present value.  These rates discount costs in constant dollars and exclude the expected rate of future price inflation.  See Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4 Regulatory Analysis (September 17, 2003) at:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/regulatory_matters_pdf/a-4.pdf.

[22]  U.S. Coast Guard regulations in 46 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter H that have different requirements for vessels than the regulations in 46 CFR Chapter I, Subchapters T and K.

[23]   U.S. Census Bureau, Americans with Disabilities: 2010 at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf.

[24]  Frank R. Lin, John K. Niparko, and Luigi Ferrucci, Hearing Loss Prevalence in the United States, JAMA Internal Medicine (November 14, 2011) at: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1106004.

[25]  The appendix includes the Legend of the Seas, Grandeur of the Seas, Brilliance of the Seas, Vision of the Seas, and Independence of the Seas, which did not operate in U.S. ports in 2011 but are scheduled to operate in U.S. ports in 2013.  The appendix does not include the Celebrity Mercury, which was sold to TUI Cruises in February 2011, and the Royal Princess, which was sold to P&O Cruises in May 2011.