International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL)
July 28, 2005 [Email]

Access Board Docket 2004-1 and 2004-2
Draft Passenger Vessel Accessibility Guidelines
DOT Docket OST - 2004-19700
ANPRM re: Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Disability: Passenger Vessels

Comments by International Council of Cruise Lines

The International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL) is a non-profit trade association that represents the interests of l6 of the largest cruise lines operating in the North American cruise market and over 90 Associate Member companies that are cruise industry business partners and suppliers. ICCL member cruise lines serve major ports in the United States and call at over 70 ports in the United States and at more than 600 ports around the world. Last year, ICCL’s member lines carried more than 10.5 million passengers on approximately 120 vessels.

These proposed guidelines are of critical significance to ICCL members, as will be the operational and other issues that are to be addressed by DOT. The following submission reflects the comments of our members and is structured as follows:

1. General Comments
2. Detailed Comments on PVAG proposals
3. Response to Questions raised by DOT
4. Economic Analysis
5. Regulatory Impact
6. Appendix with Picture

The effort to develop guidelines for ensuring access onboard passenger vessels has been in progress now for approximately eight years. Despite this, there are numerous unresolved issues and unanswered questions. In the spirit of moving forward with guidelines that will reasonably address these issues, we recommend the following:

1. The various segments of the passenger vessel industry, together with the Access Board and staff, should identify those elements over which there is little or no disagreement either in scope or requirement and go forward with these elements in a process that would set these rules in place as soon as administrative processes allow. We believe that this covers the majority of the elements.
2. For the on/off issue at the port/ship interface, the Access Board, the passenger vessel industry, and port representatives should work together to develop an acceptable performance standard that recognizes safety, feasibility and operational responsibilities.
3. For those elements where there is serious disagreement and unresolved matters due to technical or practical constraints, the Access Board and the passenger vessel industry should establish working groups of experts or other processes to resolve these issues.

ICCL notes once again that notices published in the Federal Register, together with the Draft Guidelines, posed to the industry over 150 questions of a significant nature. We remain extremely concerned that many of these questions are unresolved. Because this rulemaking will have a major impact on the passenger vessel industry as a whole, it is imperative that the Board and DOT resolve these matters correctly before proceeding with the rulemakings.

ICCL appreciates the opportunity to comment on this most important matter and the efforts of the Board members and staff to learn about the cruise ship industry. We look forward to working with the US Access Board and DOT in developing the final guidelines for access onboard passenger vessels.

T.E. Thompson
Executive Vice President

Table of Contents

• Section 1: ADA Commentary ICCL General Comments
• Section 2: ICCL Comments On U.S. Access Board Draft Passenger Vessel Accessibility Guidelines
• Section 3: ICCL Comments on Passenger Vessel Access DOT ANPRM
• Section 4: Preliminary Report of Findings - ICCL Data Collection Project
• Section 5: ICCL Comments on the Access Board Draft Plan for Regulatory Assessment
• Section 6: Appendix

  Images Demonstrating the Complexity of On/Off Access at the Ship/Port Interface and Justifying the Need for a Performance Standard

Section 1: ADA Commentary ICCL General Comments

ADA Commentary
ICCL General Comments

Ships as a Safety System:

In developing accessibility guidelines and regulations for passenger ships, it is essential that there is a basic understanding that ships are not buildings. Indeed, ships are more than buildings, in that they are subject to a stringent set of safety requirements and conventions specifically designed for a maritime environment. Wholesale application of accessibility rules developed for and applied to land-based facilities to passenger ships and smaller vessels, in many instances, is not appropriate and in some cases, may be unsafe e.g., directional emergency signage and removal of sills on external doors in some locations – as discussed in detail in our submission. Therefore, accessibility rules for passenger vessels must take into account all of the features, operations, and safety standards unique to those vessels while continuing to provide a high level of service to persons with disabilities.

Ships are not fixed structures built to local building codes and do not use similar construction techniques that mostly rely on concrete, rebar, wooden joists and sheetrock. Ships are complex structures that must survive in a sometimes hostile environment and are subject to forces and accelerations in six degrees of freedom or motion – roll, pitch, heave, surge, sway and yaw. Movement of the ship in a seaway, even in only minor storms, is significantly greater than those movements that even an earthquake proof building would withstand. Recently, the news carried a number of reports of a “rogue” wave that damaged a large cruise ship. This was only one of three such instances to occur to passenger ships in the past few months. On one of these occasions, the water shorted out propulsion and control systems for the ship.

When a window breaks in a building and water intrudes, the water will flow down the stairs and into the basement or out a lower door with little damage other than soaked rugs and sheetrock. A ship must be able withstand this type of damage and not only stay afloat, but also remain a viable shelter for both passengers and crew. As noted above, a ship must also be able to keep the water from entering in the first place; thus, the need for weathertight and watertight doors, and associated sills. These closing devices and other safety features, such as fire doors, are designed to close and stay closed in an emergency. They are constructed to maintain the integrity of the hull in a dynamic environment and are paramount for the safety of passengers and crew. Unlike emergency situations occurring in buildings, a ship cannot simply call 911 to summon external help. It is imperative that a ship (both in its structure and operation) be a self-contained safety system, able to handle all emergencies.

Whereas it may be beneficial for a hotel to have a lip or sill on exterior doorways to prevent water damage to carpet, ships have more serious concerns. Existing requirements for weathertight and watertight integrity of the ship are based on safety concerns and not whether or not cosmetic damage may occur. Water entry into a ship not only causes stability concerns but also can adversely impact the safety of the ship in other ways such as loss of power and control.

Unlike buildings which remain in one location throughout their life and whose occupants must rely on external support from fire, police and local medical services in an emergency, ships must be able to survive an incident and provide services from within until reaching port or until outside assistance arrives to the ship’s location at sea. In emergency situations on land, building owners and managers have little responsibility in regards to responding to an actual emergency. In hotels, staff have little responsibility for evacuation. The hotel guests have to make their way out of the building on their own or await rescue by the local fire department. Guests have minimal instruction in the form of an information card posted on the back of a door. Onboard passenger ships however, the passengers are actually instructed and drilled by trained crew in emergency procedures as required by SOLAS Chapter III Regulations 19.2.3; 19.3.3.1; and 30.2. Drills are required to be conducted within 24 hours from departing port when on an international voyage. On ICCL member cruise ships, the instructions are normally provided continuously on the TV set in passenger cabins and required drills are conducted prior to getting underway. Participation in these drills is mandatory for all passengers and designated crew.

The ship itself must be designed, constructed and operated as an integrated safety system. As stated before, there is no external 911. Where the primary response to a fire or other emergency situation in a building is to have everyone depart the building, this is not possible with a ship at sea. Exiting the ship in an emergency is the very last and most desperate option. In these instances, a ship must be self supporting and every member of the crew must be trained and competent to fulfill his or her duties.

Training requirements for crew members are contained in the International Convention for Standards on Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW). This Convention spells out required training, knowledge requirements and proficiency skills necessary for certification in their assigned emergency duty. In an emergency at sea, all passengers receive assistance and direction, not just those with disabilities. Additionally, every passenger cruise ship has extensive emergency response plans for every major contingency and these plans are exercised regularly.

Because safety at sea is critical and the ship is a safety system in itself, the operational aspects of the ship are an integral part of the design and operation. Accordingly, the rules, regulations, codes of practice, building techniques and building materials for ships and rules for ship operations are themselves complex and voluminous. They are contained in multiple sets of rules that interlink to provide a series of safety nets for the ship, crew and passengers that allow these ships to operate independently around the globe. The rules for design, construction and operation include, but are not limited to:

• The International Convention on Safety Of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and associated safety codes; Resolutions, Circulars, Guidelines, and Unified Interpretations;*
• The International Loadlines Convention;
• The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW);
• Shipping Classification Society Rules;
• International Engineering Standards (IEEE, ISO);
• National Engineering Standards: (ASTM, ASME, DIN, JIS);
• Flag State regulations; and
• Shipyard standard construction practices.

* Safety Codes, Resolutions, Circulars, Unified Interpretations and other guidance may be adopted as mandatory or not. Often times, flag state administrations and port states will incorporate the non-mandatory documents into their own regulatory framework. All these form a body of expert opinion that is ignored at great risk.

Since ships travel around the world, these rules are internationally accepted. This acceptance has evolved from more than a hundred years of experience in safety of life at sea. Often these rules have been written in blood and lost lives. Accessibility rules, while important, are one more set of rules that must be woven into the fabric of ship safety and operability. Rules for accessibility can not be permitted to conflict with or emasculate rules whose very existence is to save lives and the environment. This concept is supported by the recent Supreme Court decision regarding access onboard cruise ships (Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Lines, 2005).

This safety system has worked very effectively to protect the lives and safety of persons onboard passenger ships. In the past 35 years, since 1970, there has not been a single passenger death on an ICCL member ship resulting from a marine related casualty (fire, explosion, collision, grounding). ICCL does not have information pre-dating 1970.

Concern has been expressed that an injured passenger or passengers with disabilities may be unable to respond to an emergency and may thus be forgotten and left in their room. While this is a legitimate concern for a hotel guest, SOLAS and STCW specifically address this matter for passenger vessels. Passengers are instructed and drilled by trained crewmembers in what action to take when they hear the emergency alarm, where to go (their assembly/muster station), how to get there, and what route to take. When gathered at the assembly/muster station, procedures are undertaken to assure that all passengers are accounted for.

Additionally, SOLAS Chapter III Regulation 37.2 states that “Each passenger ship shall have procedures in place for locating and rescuing passengers trapped in their staterooms.” Regulations in STCW (Regulation V/2 and V/3) require training and demonstration of competency assisting passengers, and have specific training in crowd management, passenger safety, and crisis management and human behavior. Requirements for the training are also specified and mandatory requirements regarding persons designated to assist passengers in emergency situations are found in STCW Regulations and Mandatory Code sections A-V/2 and A-V/3. Thus, no one is left in his or her cabin.

Specifically, the regulations address the following:

• Knowledge of muster lists, emergency instructions, emergency exits and restrictions on the use of elevators
• The ability to assist passengers to muster stations by:
  Giving clear reassuring orders
  Controlling passenger flow in corridors, staircases and passageways
  Maintaining escape routes clear of obstructions
  Assisting the evacuation of “disabled persons and persons needing special assistance”
  Searching accommodation spaces

These safety requirements are further expanded in SOLAS Chapter IX which mandates an onboard and shoreside safety management system to identify who is responsible for assuring compliance with every aspect of these regulations and how the regulations are carried out for every type of shipboard emergency. Further, it specifies that these elements are subject to both internal and external audit. To assure compliance with the numerous safety rules, ships must undergo pre-construction plan review and approval, continuous inspection during build, and regular examination by various safety agencies including the US Coast Guard every 90 days throughout the life of the ship (when the ship is in U.S. service). These numerous inspections and audits assure that the ship structure and operating systems as well as crew qualifications are maintained ensuring that all operations are conducted in accordance with the equally detailed operational rules and regulations. On a large passenger cruise ship, these inspections average more than one a week by numerous agencies.

Accordingly, we believe that any Regulations or Guidelines relating to passenger vessels should recognize and incorporate the operational aspects of carrying passengers onboard a ship. Crew training and crew assistance/response should be recognized and taken into account.

Existing Vessels:

The draft Guidelines are replete with provisions and exceptions addressing elements on existing vessels. While ICCL agrees that requirements for alterations to existing vessels should be differentiated from new construction, the wording in these provisions implies that they will be applicable to unaltered existing vessels and elements. The draft Guidelines do not have existing vessels and elements within its scope. Therefore, the term “existing” should be amended to address alterations to existing vessels or elements.

Engineering Standards:

Marine construction standards must be referenced and utilized in the proposed guidelines. It makes no sense to reference shoreside building standards when those standards are not recognized or accepted by the countries in which the ships are built or when those standards do not account for the dynamic loads that the systems must withstand. Referencing such standards, meant for shoreside building construction in the United States, has no relevance to a ship being designed and built in a non US ship yard.

Technical Terminology:

Each industry has its own set of “jargon” or the specialized technical language of the trade. The maritime industry is no different. Accordingly, referencing a collegiate or standard dictionary for terms specific to the marine industry is inappropriate and will lead to miscommunications, misunderstandings, and missed opportunity in trying to develop and apply accessibility rules for passenger vessels. This confusion frustrates providing access. Terms specific to the marine industry must be utilized and those terms are found in maritime dictionaries and other maritime professional publications. It is these reference materials that must be utilized if ship designers, construction yards and operators are to understand what is being proposed or required.

Alterations, Modifications and New Construction:

Application of accessibility guidelines to construction of new vessels is appropriate provided the building sequence is recognized and the final rules are not applied to existing vessels or vessels that are already designed and contracted. Because of the lead time necessary for vessel design, plan review and approval by multiple agencies, as well as contract penalties for design changes, it will not be practicable or economically feasible to require compliance by vessels that have already been designed and contracted for construction at the time the Guidelines become legally effective. This is particularly true for a company that intends to build a series of identical vessels from the same approved drawings without major modification. These “sister vessels” are often part of a company’s overall economic long term plan and major changes, which cause extensive contract price increases due to change orders, may severely impact the economic viability of a company.

With regards to major modifications such as lengthening of a ship by inserting a whole new section, adding a whole new deck or deck section, these new sections generally can be made accessible; however, it may not always be feasible for some or all pathways of travel to the new sections to be rebuilt so as to be fully accessible. This is because ship construction, unlike building construction, relies on an integrated system and it is rarely possible to modify one part of a ship, widening a passageway for example, to be undertaken without impacting the whole of the surrounding integrated structure. Thus, extending the major modification to the entire ship may not be feasible or practicable.

The term “alterations” must be very specifically defined. Bringing certain portions of an altered element into compliance may be reasonably accomplished while full compliance of an altered element may not be possible due to shipboard construction limitations and adverse impact on the ship as a system. For example: If an elevator car is changed out or modernized, it will certainly be possible to properly locate the call buttons, update the floor announcements, adjust rail heights and floor surface. However, it will not be possible to change the physical dimensions of the elevator car to bring it into compliance with accessibility guidelines for width and depth requirements. Attempting such a feat would necessitate making significant structural modifications around the new elevator car which may adversely impact compliance with main vertical fire zone requirements, and escape path width requirements. Additional steel requirements, the additional weight of the larger car and the larger lift machinery would impact the stability of the ship, which must also meet very stringent requirements, and would impact the electrical load capacity of the ship. This may, in turn, require re-engineering of the generators and the electrical distribution switchboards.

As can be seen from this example, ships are not as easily altered as buildings due to the integrated structure of a ship and associated safety systems, weight restrictions and the impact on stability. Thus, the overall safety of the ship with regard to its response to given sea states and ability to survive a flooding casualty may be adversely impacted.

Potential Conflict with Standards of Other Countries:

ICCL notes that administrations of several countries, where ICCL member ships either make port calls or embark passengers, are either in the process of or have indicated the intent to adopt accessibility requirements for passenger ships. These include, but are not limited to: United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, Italy and the European Union. It is not clear how ships calling at all these countries can comply with differing standards if each administration elects to press its own accessibility scheme on passenger ships not otherwise subject to its jurisdiction. To avoid conflict, ICCL recommends a harmonized approach to the development of these guidelines.

On/Off Access and Gangways:

Access for all persons on and off a passenger vessel must be a responsibility that is shared between the ship and the port. Primary concern for embarking and debarking passengers under all weather and tidal conditions must be the safety of all passengers and crew.

ICCL members call upon over 70 ports in the United States and over 600 ports world wide. Access on and off any passenger vessel will vary depending on many factors including the port infrastructure, the type of operation--whether it be a turn around port or a port of call--and tidal influences. Some ports are well developed with good infrastructure for accommodating the boarding of vessels while others are remote and have little infrastructure.

In many instances, an ICCL cruise ship must anchor away from the port and use either the ship’s tendering vessels or local passenger boats to ferry the passengers between the ship and the port landing. In these situations, the dynamic motions between the tendering vessel and the ship and/or ship’s boarding platform must be considered, in addition to the actual interface between the platforms. Due to these motions and the overall safety of transferring between two vessels, we recommend that the guidelines expressly exempt the actual transfer interface or operation.

In other ports, embarkation may be by means of a sophisticated boarding bridge, similar to a jetway that one encounters in boarding an airplane at a major airport. In still other ports, access to the ship will be via a gangway type arrangement. These gangways vary in construction, length, width, and walking surface and may or may not have some sort of transition between the end of the gangway and the shore or ship. In many instances, these gangways are provided by the port of call; in others, the ship’s limited gangway is used to augment port facilities.

In large ports utilizing a boarding bridge, the slope of the boarding ramp can be controlled and is usually very slight. In other situations, the slope of a boarding gangway varies significantly depending upon the shore structure relative to the boarding location on that ship. The slope will also vary greatly within a given port facility if there are large tidal fluctuations that must be contended with. In many instances this may be minimized by operational practices and utilizing different boarding ports located on different decks. Even with these efforts, it is not always possible to ensure a gentle slope for unassisted access. Add to this the use of articulated stair steps or cross bars on a gangway to ensure safe footing in adverse weather and for steeper slopes, and it becomes impossible to ensure unassisted safe on/off access for wheelchair users and other persons with mobility disabilities. In many instances, during tendering operations, especially where there is a poor port infrastructure, high tidal fluctuations or bad weather, all persons are offered or receive assistance in getting on or off the ship safely. This is seen as an operational and safety necessity.

A detailed, prescriptive requirement addressing an issue that is readily recognized as not having a commonly accepted solution is inappropriate. Therefore, on/off accessibility guidelines should be in the form of a performance standard.

To take account of the wide variation in ship designs, port facilities and tidal ranges, a pragmatic approach is essential. We recommend a performance standard that considers the following:

a) A means of transfer is to be provided between a passenger vessel and regular ports of call on an itinerary.
b) In all transfers, the safety of both passengers and crew must be the primary concern.
c) The interface between the ship and the means of access both inside the vessel and on the quayside is to be suitable for passengers with reduced mobility.
d) Due to safety concerns, independent access may not be possible in adverse tidal or weather conditions.
e) Gangway surfaces are to have a non-slip finish and be suitable for the marine environment.

Given the constraints we have discussed, it is evident that the currently drafted exception for gangways with a length equal to the beam of the vessel is unrealistic and unworkable. Please see photos located in the Appendix.

Extraterritorial Application with regards to On/Off matters:

Access on and off a vessel is extremely dependent upon many factors including the port infrastructure, the remoteness of a port, and tidal variations. The interface between a ship and port facilities therefore varies widely from port to port. While this is an extremely difficult issue to properly and reasonably address within United States ports where US jurisdiction is clear, the matter of on/off access can not be addressed by US law or regulation when it involves a port not subject to US jurisdiction and a non-US flag passenger vessel. ICCL members strive to provide reasonable access both on and off their vessels in all ports as this is in the best interests of our guests. However, the application of US law and regulation to non-US flag ships operating in non-US ports is unacceptable.

Application to Shore Excursions:

Guidelines for accessibility onboard passenger vessels by its definition cannot include requirements for shore excursions or extraterritorial ports of call. With regards to shore excursions, the majority of excursions are provided by independent, third party vendors. When these excursions and vendors are located within US jurisdiction, they themselves are subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and must comply with applicable accessibility requirements for their operations. Thus, cruise ships and cruise operating companies cannot be responsible for compliance by third parties.

General Footnote:

ICCL suggests that a general provision be included in the Guidelines which clarifies that certain items such as door closing speeds and opening forces, slopes of ramps, maximum cross slopes of decks, etc., are to be measured when the ship is in the static design condition. Thus, any changes due to ship motions, wind, change in operating condition (trim or heel) would not be cause for these parameters to be considered out of compliance.

These elements must also be harmonized with SOLAS mandatory safety requirements.

Advisory Notes:

ICCL recommends that “Advisory Notes” be included throughout the final text to include commentary that has been useful or necessary in clarifying or explaining the various requirements so that this vital information will not be lost in final publication.

Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee (PVAAC):

The Board specifically asked for expert opinion assistance in developing guidelines for accessibility on passenger ships. To this end, the Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee was established. The committee included experts and representatives from the maritime industry, vessel operations, disabled professionals, and various associations representing the groups listed above. Over the course of several years and many meetings, the professional advice of this group was sought and obtained. It is disappointing to note that where PVAAC noted specific safety issues and potential conflict with international standards, this advice was rejected, apparently on the simple basis that it was necessary to maintain consistency with ADAAG. This is extremely disappointing when one realizes that the Committee was formed in recognition of the fact that shoreside accessibility standards written for construction of land-based facilities were inappropriate for passenger vessels. The goal is to create accessibility without compromising safety, and PVAG raises certain critical safety issues and conflicts with international standards.

The Way Forward

The effort to develop guidelines for ensuring access onboard passenger vessels has been in progress now for approximately eight years. Despite this, there are numerous unresolved issues and unanswered questions. In the spirit of moving forward with guidelines that will reasonably address these issues, we recommend the following:

1. The various segments of the passenger vessel industry, together with the Access Board and staff, should identify those elements over which there is little or no disagreement either in scope or requirement and go forward with these elements in a process that would set these rules in place as soon as administrative processes allow. We believe that this covers the majority of the elements.
2. For those elements where there is serious disagreement and unresolved matters due to technical or practical constraints, the Access Board and the passenger vessel industry should establish working groups of experts or other processes to resolve these issues.
3. For the on/off issue at the port/ship interface, the Access Board, the passenger vessel industry, and port representatives should work together to develop an acceptable performance standard that recognizes safety, feasibility and operational responsibilities. 

Section 2: ICCL COMMENTS ON U.S. ACCESS BOARD DRAFT PASSENGER VESSEL ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES

U.S. ACCESS BOARD DRAFT PASSENGER VESSEL ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES

Discussion of Provisions

1. V101 – Purpose: ICCL recommends that the term “additions” be removed as in the maritime industry these are referred to as alterations.
2. V104 – Conventions: A convention in the maritime industry refers to such regulations as the International Convention on Safety of Life at Sea (1974), the International Loadlines Convention (1966) and other international regulatory documents. A different term should be selected for this heading.
3. V104 – Dimensions: The notation referencing minimum, maximum and absolute dimensions does not, in many cases, permit sufficient leeway for design, construction tolerance and operations for floating versus land-based facilities. Given the multiple layers and elements involved in welded steel construction, dimensions of the finished structures and elements within may differ slightly from design dimensions by an inch or more. This point is illustrated by the diagram below.

TYPICAL SHIP BUILDING TOLERANCES

4. V104.1.2 – Slopes: Should read “static design condition.” While the Board recognizes that vessels move in six degrees of freedom, slopes are measured from the static design condition. Such consideration also should be made clear for other items that may be impacted by the ship movement or weather conditions such as door opening and closing forces and times.
5. V105 – Referenced Standards: The guidelines call for compliance with U.S. engineering standards such as ANSI, BHMA, ASTM, ANSI and NFPA. As previously noted, non-US flag cruise ships are built in non-US shipyards using mostly non-U.S. equipment. Foreign countries, shipyards, certifying governments, manufacturers etc. may not recognize or even accept U.S. engineering standards over their own. German shipyards use DIN or other EU recognized standards and Japan yards use JIS. The same is true for equipment procured from non-U.S. manufacturers. If it is only a matter of certification inspection, it is one issue; if it is a matter of changing materials standards for the equipment or changing tolerances or other physical properties of the equipment, it may be impossible for the non- U.S. manufacturers to meet the referenced U.S. engineering standards. This can also negatively impact issuance of a warranty by the manufacturer. ICCL recommends that construction of the ship and manufacture of its components be permitted to utilize recognized non-U.S. engineering standards common to the maritime industry.
6. V105.2.4 – IMO: This is incorrectly refers to SOLAS as a standard. It is not. These are international regulations and have a different legal standing. SOLAS and other international regulatory conventions also reference mandatory and non-mandatory interpretations, codes, and implementation guidelines, such as Resolutions, Circulars, Unified Interpretations and Guidelines.
7. V105.2.5 – NFPA: IMO Regulations take precedence over NFPA standards unless the NFPA Standard is referenced by an IMO document.
8. V106 – Definitions: ICCL recommends that the guidelines utilize the correct nautical terms that are applicable to ship construction and used throughout the maritime industry. These nautical terms may not be found in collegiate dictionaries or the existing definitions therein may differ from maritime usage. See comments at General Comments, “Technical Terminology”.
9. V106.5 – Addition: This definition should be deleted, as it is included within the concept of alteration.
10. V106.5 – Administrative Authority: In as much as these guidelines apply to non-U.S. Flag ships, this definition is not accurate for these “foreign” vessels and must be modified accordingly.
11. V106.5 – Assembly Area: In the marine context, the term “assembly areas” refers to muster stations. In the proposed rule, the term is used to describe places of gathering, such as lounges and theaters. Therefore, the use of this term can result in confusion. Clear differentiation must be made in the definitions section regarding this terminology and clearly stating the Board’s intent versus SOLAS’ intent. ICCL recommends that the term in the guidelines be changed to “program area”, “passenger gathering area”, or some other term that is not likely to be confused with the SOLAS safety term.
12. V106.5 – Camber: The definition should state that this is the “transverse” slope of the deck for the purpose of shedding water. Increase in strength, headroom etc. is not the purpose or definition of camber.
13. V106.5 – Ground Level: In as much as ships are not buildings or shoreside facilities, the term “ground level” is misleading, inappropriate, and could be confusing. We recommend the term be changed to “deck level” in keeping with commonly accepted nautical/maritime vocabulary.
14. V106.5 – Mezzanine: This should be referred to as “tween-deck” space which is the accepted nautical term.
15. V106.5 – Occupant Load: Occupant loading for various areas on a ship or passenger vessel are not defined in this manner. This will cause problems in design of vessel escape routes in accordance with SOLAS. USCG regulations determine occupancy load may be based on a number of different criteria, including:
    • Rail length
    • Seating capacity
    • Deck space (sq. ft. per person)
    • Stability limitations
    • Size of exit doors from the interior space
16. V201.1 – Scope: “Newly designed” and “newly constructed” are not defined terms. There needs to be a determination as to when these requirements would apply. The only flexibility provided in application of new regulations for the ship owner is before the contract is signed. Therefore, the application date for any regulations should be for classes of ships “contracted on or after MONTH XX, 20XX”. Changes for subsequent ships in a series due to new or changed regulations will result in a significant cost increase. Application vis-à-vis the number of passengers or overnight passengers appears to be correctly stated here. The other statements in the Guidelines should be brought in line with this so as to be clear.
17. V202.1 and .2 – Additions: Consistent with ICCL’s previous comment, these references to additions should be deleted.
18. V202.3 – Alterations: ICCL notes that some maintenance and repair could be considered alterations and trigger requirements for compliance. The term “alteration” should be defined in the context of the terminology used in the maritime industry. See also General Comments concerning alterations.
19. V203 – General Exceptions: The Passenger Vessel Accessibility Guidelines (“PVAG”) should contain an express exception clearly stating that the PVAG do not apply to crew areas. ICCL acknowledges that V201.1 references only “passenger areas.” However, a more explicit statement of the inapplicability of PVAG to crew areas is warranted, particularly given that the land-based accessibility guidelines (in particular the recently revised guidelines) are replete with exceptions for employee work areas.

Given the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Spector that Title III’s requirements do not extend to matters that interfere with the “internal affairs” of a foreign-flag vessel, nor adversely affect shipboard safety or conflict with international requirements, a complete exception for crew areas is mandated. There can be no issue more clearly related to the “internal affairs” of a foreign flag vessel than the terms and conditions under which crew reside onboard the vessel. Moreover, international requirements, such as SOLAS, STCW and ILO establish strict physical and health requirements for all crew members and require that all crew members be capable of responding to emergency situations.

20. V203.2 – Limited Access Spaces: This section should be deleted since it does not deal with passenger spaces that are the subject of this proposed rule. A clear statement to this effect should be inserted at the front of the Guidelines under applicability.
21. V203.4 – Raised Refereeing, Scoring and Judging Areas: This exception should also be extended to temporary and/or raised areas that are constructed for a specific purpose similar to the above and are not for passenger use. For example, as discussed by the PVAAC, when a raised Jacuzzi type pool has a temporary platform placed over it for entertainment purposes.
22. V204.1 – Protruding Objects: This requires that all circulation paths (not just accessible routes) used by passengers comply with V307. ICCL recommends that this be changed to read “circulation paths normally meant to be used by passengers.” As currently written, it could be misinterpreted to mean than crew circulation spaces (stairways, service corridors, elevators etc.) not for use by passengers but which could be used by passengers either intentionally (against prohibition) or mistakenly in an emergency, would have to comply with the referenced section.
23. V205.1, Exception 1 – General: This is a sensible exception.
24. V205.1, Exception 3 – General: ICCL recommends that the term “kitchen” be changed to “pantry” to conform to shipboard terminology.
25. V206.2.1 and Exceptions thereto – Onboard Accessible Routes, Multi-Deck Vessels: The draft PVAG have significantly narrowed the application of the exceptions recommended by the Access Board’s own Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee (“PVAAC”) to the vertical access requirements set forth in V206.2, by excluding “entry decks” from the exceptions. Whereas PVAAC did not require vertical access between passenger decks on vessels with fewer than three decks, on vessels with less than 3000 square feet per deck, or to any deck with less than 300 square feet, PVAG excludes all “entry decks” from these exceptions. The draft PVAG thus establish an absolute requirement for vertical access between all entry decks on a vessel.

It is unclear whether, or the extent to which, this vertical access requirement would extend to the small tender platforms or side pontoon door decks on cruise ships. Because this “passenger deck” is probably less than 300 sq ft. it appears that it may indeed be exempt under Exception 2. However, V206.4 appears to require that each entry and departure point used by passengers be on an accessible route. This should be clarified as these openings are, to our understanding, below the bulkhead deck and have special provisions for watertightness etc. Given this, safety feature/ requirement, it would appear that an elevator could not provide direct access to this deck. Also, any doors at this level would have to be watertight and thus have substantial sills if they were even allowed. This issue can be overcome with lifts and should be acceptable.

Cruise ships may provide multiple platforms, to facilitate efficient loading and unloading of passengers. Platforms typically are provided on each side of the ship, to accommodate tender approach to either side of the ship. Because multiple tender platforms may be provided, and individuals with mobility impairments can be assigned/directed to the tender platform with vertical access, vertical access should not be required to all such decks. ICCL respectfully submits that it would be more appropriate to require vertical access only to one such tender platform on each side of the ship (where such platforms are provided on both sides of the ship).

26. V206.2.1.1 – Stairs and Escalators: The term “additions” should be deleted per previous comments.
27. V206.2.2, Exception 1 – Spaces and Elements: Please refer to previous comments regarding the SOLAS definition of assembly area.
28. V206.2.3, Exceptions thereto – Restaurants and Cafeterias: Exception 1 does not require an onboard accessible route on vessels that otherwise are not required to provide onboard vertical access to mezzanine dining areas that contain less than 25% of the total combined dining and seating area, where the same décor and services are provided in the accessible area. Exception 2 does not require an onboard accessible route to raised or sunken dining areas in existing vessels, irrespective of the size of the area or whether the vessel is otherwise required to provide onboard vertical access, again provided the same décor and services are provided in the accessible area and the accessible are is not restricted to use by persons with disabilities.

These exceptions should be extended to raised and/or sunken dining areas on newly constructed cruise vessels as well. Raised dining areas may be created in dining areas for a multitude of design reasons, such as conditions stemming from use of the space below the dining area or even maintaining views through portals or of a focal point in the room. Such levels may not be served by an elevator (particularly if the raised area does not qualify a higher deck or even a tween deck). Such levels also may not be served by an accessible route, as space constraints in combination with the necessary dining capacity may make stepped access the more viable solution. In such circumstances, where there truly is no difference in the experience being offered on the different levels of the dining area, and the areas have the same décor and service, these exceptions should apply irrespective of whether the vessel is otherwise exempt for the requirements for vertical access or is an existing vessel. It is also significant that in most main dining areas onboard a cruise vessel, passengers are assigned to a specific table and do not get to choose the particular table at which they sit.

29. V206.4 – Entry and Departure Points: Where ships have multiple tendering platforms that may be considered entry decks, it is unreasonable to require each to be accessible. Because access to the ship via these decks is controlled through the use of tendering vessels, operational methods can be employed to assure that persons needing an accessible route are brought to the correct platform that is so provided on each side of the ship. Also, see previous comment in response to V206.2.1.
30. V206.2.9 – Play Areas: ICCL recommends changing the term to “deck level” per prior comment relating to the term “ground level”.
31. V206.6 – Elevators: See comments in response to V407.4.
32. V206.6.1 – Existing Elevators: The Guidelines contain numerous exceptions and provisions for “existing” vessels or elements. This labeling is confusing in that it appears to suggest that these requirements are applicable to existing vessels and/or elements irrespective of whether they have otherwise been altered. All exceptions labeled “existing” should be revised or amended to “alterations to existing”. By their own terms, these guidelines only apply to newly constructed or altered vessels.
33. V207.1 – General: It should be made clear that accessible means of escape can be provided only to a certain point where escape must involve the use of lifeboats or other emergency methods of evacuation.
34. V207.2 – Accessible Means of Escape, Number Required: This section needs to be clarified. ICCL recommends that the requirements of SOLAS be adopted and that one of the two required means of escape be accessible in as much as SOLAS also requires all accommodation spaces be equipped with automatic sprinkler systems. Draft PVAG could have the unintended effect of requiring means of escape in excess of that required by SOLAS. SOLAS 2.2 states: Lifts shall not be considered as forming one of the means of escape as required by this regulation. While IMO Circular 846 permits lifts to be used as an additional means of escape (provided such lifts are crew-operated and have emergency power), such means of escape does not count toward satisfying the number required under SOLAS. This section and Exception 1 must be clarified.

V208.1 – Passenger Vessel Boarding: This requires that at least one passenger boarding system must be provided that complies with V412. While this may be possible in a terminal with a bridge-way, this is not possible for a vessel carried gangway and in many instances, for gangways provided by the ports. Because of tidal fluctuations and the variation in vessels calling at a facility, and because of the design of gangways for safety purposes in all weather conditions, the requirements of V412 are not achievable. For example, gangways provided by ports such as Juneau and other Alaskan or New England ports where tidal changes may reach as much as 30 feet, can exceed the proposed slope requirements. While some ships may be able to minimize the impact by moving the boarding location from deck to deck, this will not always provide the shallow slopes desired. Additional relief in these situations may be provided by the shoreside infrastructure and any platforms and additional ramps available at specific ports as well as the physical space available for providing this equipment. All of this will vary however from port to port and ship to ship in an infinite combination. Thus, a single prescriptive requirement can not address each and every circumstance. Please see also the discussion in General Comments.

To take account of the wide variation in ship designs, port facilities and tidal ranges, a pragmatic approach is essential. ICCL recommends a performance standard that considers the following:
a) A means of transfer is to be provided between a passenger vessel and regular ports of call on an itinerary.
b) In all transfers, the safety of both passengers and crew must be the primary concern.
c) The interface between the ship and the means of access both inside the vessel and on the quayside is to be suitable for passengers with reduced mobility.
d) Due to safety concerns, independent access may not be possible in adverse tidal or weather conditions.
e) Gangway surfaces are to have a non-slip finish and be suitable for the marine environment.

Additionally, in establishing requirements for accessible boarding systems, both the Access Board and DOT must be cognizant of the extraterritoriality issues that arise in extending these requirements to foreign ports of call. Attempting to impose requirements on a foreign-flag vessel docking at a foreign port is clearly an extraterritorial application of Title III. Moreover, there are serious legal issues regarding U.S. jurisdiction to impose accessibility requirements on foreign ports of call. We strongly encourage that PVAG adopt a performance standard for boarding systems and such standard should only apply with respect to U.S. ports. We note that DOT’s implementation of the Air Carriers Act has essentially adopted a performance standard for boarding issues not withstanding the fact that the distance between the aircraft and the ground is essentially fixed (unlike the variable ship/port interface). See 14 C.F.R. §§ 382.40(a), 382.40a(a). Furthermore, the performance standard is applicable only at larger airports receiving in excess of a given number of flights per year. See Id. (requirement to provide boarding assistance in situations where passengers are not boarded by “level-entry loading bridges or accessible passengers lounges” applies only to air carriers “conducting passenger operations with aircraft having a seating capacity of 31 or more passengers at airports with 10,000 or more annual enplanements”).

A passenger boarding system carried by the vessel can not possibly meet the proposed requirement for all ports visited that may not or do not have the shoreside system that meets these requirements. Even if the largest vessels were to carry a gangway equal to the beam of the ship (approximately 105 feet) this would only permit use in a 9 foot (if a 1:12 slope is permitted) difference between the ship and the “shore” landing point. Aside from the practical matter of constructing a strong enough gangway of this length that could be carried onboard a ship, there are many ports where the difference between the exit portal on the ship and the shore level are greater than this distance due to the interface between the ship and the port and/or extreme rise and fall of the tides. Additionally, some ports will not physically have the room for such a long gangway. The on/off matter has been identified as potentially the most complex and problematic for both the ships and the shore facilities. This matter is further complicated by extra-territorial concerns. Please see our previous comments.

36. V210 – Rinsing Showers: V210.1 provides that where rinsing showers are provided “at a location,” at least one shall be accessible, i.e., comply with the requirements of V608. This scoping should be modified to provide greater clarity as to the meaning of “location.” For example, if rinsing showers are provided on both the port or starboard sides of a pool area, or alternatively are located at the forward and aft portions of the pool area, does this qualify as two different “locations” or simply one “location?” While it is appropriate that at least one accessible rinsing shower be provided in the pool area, ICCL questions the need to provide more than one in a single pool area simply because the rinsing showers are distributed around the pool area rather than clustered together at a single spot.
37. V212 – Kitchens, Kitchenettes, and Sinks: Kitchen and kitchenettes for guest use are referred to by their nautical name as pantries and should be referred to as such.
38. V211– Drinking Fountains: Delete reference to detention facility, as these are not passenger spaces.
39. V215.1 – Alarms: As an alternative to a visible alarm, technologies such as personal text pagers should be permitted. This text capable device, which is currently being employed on vessels, can provide the user with notification, instructions and other information. We believe that this and other technologies should be accepted as alternative compliance. Please see General Comments “Ships as a Safety System” and comments in response to V217 and V224.4.
    
    It should be noted that modern ships no longer utilize separate bells or other devices to sound an alarm. Modern systems utilize the public address system that has very specific performance requirements in SOLAS. The public address system power is insufficient to also power a visual alert and thus would require a dedicated electrical system throughout the vessel that must be fed from the emergency system.
    
    Unlike shoreside facilities, passenger ships have crewmembers that are trained and tasked with assisting persons in the event of an emergency. Therefore, we consider the existing SOLAS regulations for transmitting alarms when supplemented by alternative technologies and operational practices, to be sufficient for assuring the safety of everyone onboard a passenger vessel.
40. V215.3 – Guest Rooms: See comments in response to V215.1.
41. V216 – Signs: ISO, at the direction of IMO, is currently preparing a directive with regard to signage onboard ships. These signs will be required to be certain sizes and contain certain safety information with regards to Assembly Stations. These signs are required to use international symbols which do not lend themselves to Braille or tactile lettering. Given the operational safety requirement onboard ship and the extent of crew training and intervention in an emergency, we do not believe that these signs should be required to have either Braille or tactile characteristics. The Board should also ensure that there are no additional conflicting requirements.
42. V216.4.1 – Signs: SOLAS requirements for Low Location Lighting (LLL) require a lighted sign at each emergency exit. It would be more reasonable to require that each of these LLL exit locations also be equipped with the sign envisioned by this requirement. Such an emergency exit indicator could be molded into the LLL fixture. The requirements in V703 should be adjusted to conform to the SOLAS technical standard for location, height etc.
43. V216.4.2 – Areas of Temporary Refuge: On a large passenger ship with sprinkler systems, and complex requirements for ventilation, etc., “areas of temporary refuge” are a misnomer when considering passenger ships that are in compliance with SOLAS and other international safety requirements.
    
    ICCL recommends that an exception be included for those vessels that comply with SOLAS fire protection and sprinkler system requirements. See SOLAS Chapter II-2.
    
44. V216.4.3 – Directional Signs: ICCL recommends that this paragraph be deleted. Whereas the purpose of ADA is to ensure independent access, in an emergency onboard ship, safe egress is not an individual or independent function. The safety of ALL passengers onboard dictates that ALL will be assisted. The location of the safe means of escape will depend upon the circumstances of the emergency. Thus, the concept of directional signs onboard a ship to designate the direction of safe egress is inappropriate and such signs could easily misguide a person into danger rather than away from it.
    
    Safe escape from any space onboard ship is a complex matter. For this reason, maritime experts such as the USCG and IMO are charged with assuring the safety of crew and passengers. Given current regulatory signage requirements, shipboard safety systems, and crew emergency procedures, the proposed signage will be counterproductive and may very well promote confusion. Moreover, SOLAS specifically prohibits the use of directional LLL. See SOLAS Chapter II-1 Regulation 13.3.2.5 – Marking of Escape Routes and associated guidance.
45. 45. V217 – Telephones: This would imply by the definition that every single “house” phone would have to have a TTY. This is clearly in excess of shore side facility requirements. For private/non-government facilities, Revised ADAAG requires only one TTY per facility/floor/bank where 4 or more phones are provided in a facility/floor/bank. No persuasive rationale for requiring significantly greater scoping of TTY’s onboard vessels has been offered. ICCL recommends that no more than one TTY equipped phone be required per deck. Additionally, current technology already provides for effective communications and renders the requirement for TTY at all courtesy telephone locations unnecessary. See General Comments “Ships as a Safety System” and comments in response to V215.1 and V224.4.
46. Commentary to V217 – Relay Systems: The Board notes that the draft PVAG do not address whether “third party relay systems” must be provided by vessel operators and states that questions regarding such services should be directed to the Department of Justice. ICCL notes that that onboard phone systems/ communications are self-contained systems, and access to land-side relay systems is not available to any guest. Cruise ships staff the pursers desk on a 24/7 basis, and such staff are available to transmit communications to guest services departments or other passenger cabins not equipped with a TTY. Although this is a somewhat informal relay service, we believe it meets the intent of any requirement for a third party relay system. Additionally, the emergency “911” number on a ship rings in a space that is required by SOLAS regulations to be continually manned when there are passengers onboard. (SOLAS Chapter II-2 Regulation 22.1 and 22.2 as referenced in other regulations such as II-2-40.7.1; 41-2.4.2; and others.) We believe that this meets the intent of the requirement.
47. V218 – Two-Way Communication Systems: This section should be deleted since it has no relevance with regard to access to the ship or to restricted areas.
48. V219.3 – Assistive Listening Receivers: The minimum number of receivers is excessive based on experience that currently provided systems are seldom requested and therefore underutilized.
49. V221 et seq. – Assembly Areas: Please see ICCL’s previous comment regarding the SOLAS definition of “assembly area”.
50. V221.2.2 – Integration of Wheelchair Spaces in Assembly Areas: Given the difference between ship construction and shore-side theater, stadium or building construction, such as the maximum permitted length and area of fire zones and beam of the ship, full dispersion of seats horizontally and on all vertical levels, is not feasible.
    
    Even the largest cruise ships feature theaters that are steeply sloped relative to slopes found in land-based theaters. Given the steepness of the slope, ramps that would be required to provide full vertical dispersion of wheelchair accessible and companion seats would be exceptionally long, to provide a maximum ramp slope of 1:12. Introducing such long ramps would mean excessive loss of non-accessible seating in the areas covered by the ramps. Although it is difficult to precisely define the number of non-accessible seats that would be lost without reference to the specifics of a particular ship and theater, land based experience in arenas which feature similar slopes indicate that somewhere between five and eight non-accessible seats would be lost for every accessible seat gained. In a 500 seat theatre, dispersing six seats would, therefore, imply a loss of 30 to 48 seats in order to meet vertical and horizontal dispersion criteria suggested by the Access Board. Providing accessible seating to entry levels (usually found at top, middle or bottom levels of the shipboard theater) allows adequate sightlines and access to the activities occurring in the theater and minimizes the loss of other seating.
    
    Exception 1 for horizontal dispersion is also complex and should be clarified.
    
51. V221.2.3.2 – Vertical Dispersion: Ships are not large enough to have “playing fields”, especially fields accompanied by seating in the classically accepted understanding of this concept. Therefore, reference to this should be deleted.
52. V223.1.1 – Alterations: Remove the term “added” as this is an alteration.
53. V224.1.1 – Alterations: Remove “added”. This paragraph as drafted is ambiguous. The intent is that cabins within the altered section are counted in the scoping calculation in Table V224.2. As currently written, one could infer that accessible cabins must be added until the requirement for the entire ship is met. This would result in the majority of accessible cabins being located in only the altered area. ICCL recommends that scoping be clarified to reflect the above explanation.
54. V224.2 – Guest Rooms with Mobility Features: Based on ICCL’s preliminary study regarding actual usage of accessible cabins, the scoping scoping requirement for mobility accessible cabins is excessive. Please see Section 4 “Preliminary Report of Findings - ICCL Data Collection Project”.
55. V224.4 – Guest Rooms with Communication Features: In addition to the comments noted previously, the Board should take into account the impact of hardwiring cabins on stability and electrical requirements (i.e., the weight of certified marine cable, the size of emergency generators, the rating of the emergency switchboard, etc.).
    
    Provision of equivalent or better capability on a request basis through portable equipment or personal communications devices will not only result in broader access but it can be achieved in a more cost effective manner without affecting the stability and electrical requirements of the ship.
    
    Given the safety and emergency procedures in place on a vessel, the Board’s concern with individuals potentially being left in cabins, or in any public space, is without basis. See General Comments “Ships as a Safety System”.
    
56. V224.5 – Dispersion: See comments in response to V806.3.
57. V226.1 – Dining Surfaces: In show lounges and entertainments areas, lounges etc., small cocktail tables are provided. These tables are not intended to provide knee clearance or approach. These tables should be included in the exception under V226.1.
58. V227.3 – Counters: See comment in response to V904.4.
59. V230 – Detention Facilities: This section should be deleted, as detention cells are located in crew areas. These cells are intended for crew detention.
60. V233.2 – Play Components: See ICCL’s comments regarding the term “ground level”. Also, shore-side playground requirements should not automatically apply to shipboard play components.
61. V235.2 – Swimming Pools: Swimming pools on passenger vessels are limited in size due to stability requirements. It is simply not safe to place a large amount of water with a free surface at the top of a ship. To contain the waves that are set up during the natural roll and pitch of the vessel also means that we need to provide a beach area around the pool. The proposed guidelines allow either a ramp or a chair lift - given the limitations we already have in size, introducing a ramp will significantly reduce the pool area and become an obstacle for other swimmers. Chair lifts may not be the best solution on a moving platform and therefore ICCL recommend that the use of transfer benches also be considered. This would allow discrete access on a stable platform and they can be extended to include other pool features such as Jacuzzis.
62. V235.2, Exception 4: ICCL recommends that a “Cluster” be defined as “where two or more pools or spas are located in adjacent areas.”
63. V235.3 – Wading Pools: Sloped entries are not feasible given shipboard size limitations.
64. V236 – Shooting Facilities: ICCL members no longer provide this amenity onboard their ships due to security concerns.
65. V302.3 – Openings: Given the requirements for efficient drainage, where grates employing such openings would be required, square or circular openings greater than ½ inch should be permitted. We recommend that such openings be permitted to be 3/4 inch square/diameter.
66. V305.2 – Deck Surfaces: When ramps are employed to overcome sills required for weathertight doors, it will be necessary to provide “clamshell” type design ramps extending beyond the edges of the door in order to avoid creating tripping hazards. The edges of these clamshell ramps will of necessity be of greater slope than 1:48.
67. V403.5.3 – Passing Spaces: Stair lobbies are located at the ends of fire zones. Since two fire zones are typically placed together, lobbies may be separated by the length of two fire zones or approximately 90 meters. Therefore for shipboard construction, this requirement should be consistent with these construction arrangements.
68. V403.6 – Handrails: It should be made clear that this provision does not apply to guard rails installed for safety purposes which are specifically addressed by both SOLAS and USCG regulations.
69. V404 – Doors, Doorways and Gates: The Board has the erroneous impression that a weathertight door requiring a substantial coaming or sill may be replaced with a watertight door that does not require the coaming or sill. This is not correct. The requirement for the depth of the coaming or sill is dependent on the location of the door on the ship and not the type of door. In this regard, the Board’s discussion of “third configuration of access” indicates that a watertight door with a sill/threshold of only 1-1/4 inches could be used versus a weathertight door with 3-6 inch coamings/threshold. For example, this would not be acceptable for position 1 (forward quarter of the ship’s length above the bulkhead deck) doors under international regulations.
    
    The study ADA Access to Passenger Vessels: Finding Safety Equivalence Solutions for Weathertight Doors with Coamings – Parts 1 and 2, prepared for the Board by the U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Special Programs Administration John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, does not address the circumstances and conditions under which cruise ships operate. The Board has drawn vast, overly broad and improper conclusions based on the results of this very limited case study.
    
    This study only considered small passenger vessels (Subchapter T and K vessels) on a very limited operating route restricted to protected waters of the United States. The doors involved were required to be kept closed at all times while underway and involved arrangements that were permitted to be operated by crewmembers only. Additionally, the possibility of downflooding (flowing of water from the ingress point to other lower parts of the vessel) onboard the vessel was precluded by the watertight main deck which protected the machinery spaces and essential systems from damage due to water ingress. There is no rational basis to extend the study’s conclusions, based on these route restrictions and small passenger vessel design elements, to other vessels, particularly cruise ships that operate on unrestricted ocean service routes and to doors serving areas where passenger access is specifically permitted even while the ship is underway.
    
    The safety philosophy as stated in Part 2, of the study is to:
    • Keep water off the decks, through assignment of freeboard, i.e. the height of the deck above the water
    • Get water off the decks, via freeing ports and other drainage features, and
    transverse and longitudinal deck slopes, known as camber and sheer
    • Keep water out of interior spaces by proper design of structures and closures
    • Control any water that does get in through protection of downflooding paths, subdivision of compartments below, and pumping arrangements
    
    It is apparent that none of these restrictions are applicable to a vessel that is certified for full ocean service, has the possibility of downflooding in the event of water ingress at higher levels, and is significantly more complex in its design, construction and operation. The overly simplistic discussion contained in the Draft Guidelines regarding sills and coamings on weathertight doors, proposes an alternative presumed to apply to cruise ships, without mention or reference to the very limited nature of the study and vessels involved in that study. At issue is a very critical and major element of ship survivability that is being lightly dismissed for a so-called equivalent arrangement that would not be applicable on oceangoing ships. The fact that the doors considered in the study are required to be kept closed when the vessel is underway and operated only by crew members, renders the study’s conclusions wholly inapplicable to doors intended for passenger utilization.
70. V404.2.5 – Thresholds: The Board provides an exception for circumstances in which the “administrative authority” determines that space limitations make it infeasible to provide double or single ramp access at doors with coamings and water tight doors are provided instead of weathertight doors equipped with coamings, the threshold on the side of the watertight door containing the seal may have a non-beveled threshold 1¼” high max. In the preamble, the Board states that “marine door manufacturers” indicate that 1¼” is the minimum height necessary to form a watertight seal. Exception 1 is very narrow and unsuitable in light of maritime regulations. An exception should be made where high coamings are required by Loadline Convention regulations. Also, please refer to previous comments.
71. V404.2.5.1 – Doors without Coamings, Exception: The proposed rule does not have existing facilities within its scope and should not be addressed. Therefore, the term “existing” should be deleted in all locations.
72. V404.2.5.2 – Doors with Coamings, Exception: This statement appears to state that instead of a weathertight door with a sill and coaming, that a watertight door without a coaming may be used.
    
    A watertight door or weathertight door in these locations on a passenger vessel certified for full ocean service would not normally be permitted to dispense with the coaming as this safety feature is dependent on the location of the door on the ship and not dependent upon the type of door. Also, please refer to previous comments.
    
73. V404.2.5.2.1 & .2 – Double and Single Ramp Access: The administrative authority requires coamings to prevent the ingress of water into the ship. It is not clear how the ramp requirements shown in the associated figures will maintain the integrity required. Installing a solid surface ramp on the exterior of a weather door also provides a ramp for water to travel into the space. This negates the purpose of the sill. An ICCL member installed grated ramps to avoid this situation and found that they soon needed to be removed for safety purposes. Experience showed that items such as women’s shoe heels and canes became stuck in the holes/slots provided for drainage resulting in twisted ankles, falls, and damaged personal property. Also, individuals not wearing shoes on the main pool deck suffered cut feet.
74. V404.2.8 – Closing Speed: This section should be harmonized with SOLAS requirements found in Chapter II-2 Regulation 9.4.1.1.4. which states “the approximate time of closure for hinged fire doors shall be no more than 40 [seconds] and no less than 10 [seconds] from the beginning of their movement with the ship in upright position. The approximated uniform rate of closure for sliding doors shall be of no more than 0.2 m/s and no less than 0.1 m/s with the ship in upright position.” Furthermore, additional considerations apply to door closing such as vessel trim and list and the ability to close against wind or dynamic ship roll. A note should be included qualifying this for static design conditions.
75. V404.2.9 – Opening Force, Subparagraphs 1 & 2 reference wording: If the opening force is too light, it could result in doors swinging in heavy weather or wind causing injury. Therefore, this requirement should be deleted (i.e., delete everything after the words “administrative authority”).
76. V404.3 – Automatic and Power Assisted Doors and Gates: Reference to U.S. engineering standards is inappropriate per previous comment.
77. V405.2 – Slope: Slope limits for minor differences in deck height are necessary because of shipboard arrangements such as corridor widths that limit the length of the run. The obvious solution would be to add width to the corridors. However, what may be perceived to be a minor adjustment, will have a substantial, cumulative, negative effect on the design of the ship. For example, adding to the ramp run will increase the total corridor width in order to maintain the minimum clear width mandated by SOLAS. This issue also relates to cabin balcony access.
    
    ICCL recommends following the technical standard that was initially agreed upon by the PVAAC (405.2, p. 11). It is as follows:
    
    PVAAC – 405.2 – Slope: Ramp runs shall have a running slope not steeper than:
    a. 1:4 if the rise is 3 inches (75 mm) maximum;
    b. 1:6 if the rise is 6 inches (150 mm) maximum;
    c. 1:8 if the rise is 9 inches (230 mm) maximum; or
    d. 1:12 if the rise is greater than 9 inches (230 mm).
    
78. V405.2, Exception 1 and Table V405.2 – Slope: The exception should read “in alterations to existing passenger vessels”.
79. V405.6 – Rise: Rise for any ramp run shall be 30 inches. This means the longest run of a ramp can be 30 feet. This will not be possible in theaters and show lounges in existing vessels due to fixed boundaries, such as fire zone bulkheads, and limitations in structural modifications that would impact the basic structure of the ship. Therefore, an exception should be included for existing ships undergoing alteration.
80. V405.7.3 – Landings, Length: For the same reasons stated in response to V405.6 above, there should be an exception for alterations to existing vessels. The length of the landing in these cases should uniformly be 48 inches.
81. V407.2.1 et al. – Height of Elevator Key Pads, Exceptions for existing installations: ICCL recommends that this be reworded to apply to alterations to existing vessels.
82. V407.4 – Elevator Car Requirements: The draft PVAG contain minimum interior dimensions of elevators that are identical to those set forth in the revised ADAAG for landbased facilities. Significantly, the Access Board has omitted two alternate minimum elevator configurations recommended by the PVAAC for elevators with a centered 36” wide door:
    
    1) 65” side-to-side width, with a depth 54” back-to- front return, and 57” from the back to the inside face of the door; and
    2) 54” side-to-side width, with a depth 65” back-to-front return, and 68” from the back to the inside face of the door.
    
    The Board’s stated reason for omitting the first alternative was a desire for consistency with ADAAG and that the exception under V407.4.1 for existing vessels would permit these dimensions. The Board’s stated reasons for omitting the second alternative was again consistency with ADAAG. The Board also noted that the second alternative was intended primarily to address issues pertaining to casing widths in ferries, which the Board concluded could satisfactorily be addressed with one of the four configurations already contained in ADAAG for elevator cars with a 36” wide door: 54” side-to-side width, with a depth 80” back-to-front return, and 80” from the back to the inside face of the door. The Board dismissed that additional 15” depth requirement as not “critical” in the casings of large passenger ferries.
    
    The Board’s omission of these two alternative elevator car configurations is problematic for several reasons. First, the mere desire to make PVAG consistent with ADAAG is an insufficient basis for rejecting the recommendations of the PVAAC. The Access Board convened the PVAAC precisely because passenger vessels pose unique design issues that differ significantly from the design of land-based facilities, and because the Board itself lacks sufficient expertise to assess these issues. Accordingly, disregarding the informed and experienced recommendations of the several naval architects who participated on the PVAAC based upon a primary desire to keep PVAG consistent with ADAAG is improper.
    
    Secondly, it appears that the Board does not fully appreciate the full-range of factors necessitating these alternative configurations. These elevator configurations have implications for both existing vessels and newly constructed vessels. The overall deck space provided within these two alternate car configurations is substantially the same as those configurations in draft PVAG for cars with 36” centered doors. The key difference is the two different configurations provide slightly different width and depth dimensions to address complications that typically arise in vessel design (in addition to ferry casing issues and alterations to existing vessels.) The alternative designs accepted by the PVAAC are important when considering the orientation of elevators in the ship (transversely or longitudinally) and given the constraints on construction imposed by design requirements such as length of fire zones, required corridor width based on evacuation flow calculations and other parameters. For example, depending on the orientation of the elevator, the need to maintain the required width of adjacent corridor may necessitate providing a car configuration that is slightly narrower or shallower than the land-based ADAAG permit. In developing these configurations, the PVAAC addressed these concerns while substantially maintaining the overall clear deck space within the elevator.
    
    These design factors and other limitations (such as having to fit through the Panama Canal) for the entire ship must be considered. For example, an extra width on each elevator will cause the elevator bank to be that much wider. This will impact on the corridor width, which, because of safety regulations must be maintained, will cause the cabins to be that much smaller. Larger openings in the deck and bulkheads to accommodate larger elevators will have a direct impact on the structure. Increased scantling requirements (the amount and thickness of the steel framework) will directly increase the weight and may influence the ships stability. Because of the impact on the structure, and the cabin economics, ship designers may opt to reduce the number of elevators, resulting in reduced overall accessibility.
    
83. V407.4.6 – Elevator Car Controls: ICCL recommends that this be reworded to apply to alterations to existing vessels.
84. V409.1 – Platform Lifts, General: Given the range of operational uses onboard ship, this is too restrictive, as it does not reflect all the situations in which a platform lift may be used. The requirement that the lift not be attendant operated is inappropriate. Examples include: access to performance stages; lifts to tendering platform decks, etc.
85. V409.6 – Doors and Gates: This requirement does not recognize that some lifts do not require the use of doors and gates: e.g. use of lifts with edge protection for low-rise applications; for example, such as used on buses.
    
    The requirement for low energy power operated doors or gates, where doors or gates are provided, introduces technical criteria which should be specified by the designer and not a part of an access requirement.
    
86. V410 – Means of Escape: Exception 2 under V410 applies to exit stairways where vessels are protected by an automatic sprinkler system. We recommend that this exception be extended to all parts of the vessel that are protected by an automatic sprinkler system. Please see also comments in response to V207.
87. V411 – Areas of Temporary Refuge: There should be a specific exception stating that the requirements for Areas of Temporary Refuge do not apply to passenger ships that comply with the fire safety standards of SOLAS including the installation of sprinkler systems.
88. V412 – Passenger Boarding Systems: See General Comments regarding on/off issues and in response to V208.1.
89. V413 – Gangways: See General Comments regarding on/off issues.
90. V502.2 – Treads and Risers: This needs to be consistent with SOLAS and Flag Administration requirements.
91. V602.6 – Drinking Fountains, Water Flow: This should give a range versus specific dimensions and angles as non-U.S. flag ships built in non-U.S. ship yards using non-U.S. equipment may not specifically meet these dimensions etc.
92. V604 – Water Closets and Toilet Compartments: General comment – it is apparent that these clearances are inappropriate onboard ship. Also, these dimensions should be consistent with the IMO Guidelines.
93. V604.3.2 – Overlap: In addition to the overlap elements already permitted, the Guidelines should expressly permit required clearances at fixtures and turning space within the bathroom to overlap with clear deck space provided in standard configuration roll-in showers.
94. V604.5.1 – Grab Bars: The IMO Guidelines specify a rising side bar on the wide or open side of the water closet. This element has also been adopted in European recommendations. ICCL recommends that this type of grab bar be allowed.
    
    1. Exception: This exception should be deleted. See previous comments regarding detention facilities.
    
95. V604.6 – Flush Controls: All modern cruise vessels use a vacuum toilet flushing system. For safety reasons, the flush control is mounted behind the toilet where it is protected from accidental operation while the toilet is in use and not on the open side as required by this section. The wording must be modified to recognize actual shipboard practice and safety concerns.
96. V604.9 – Water Closets for Children’s Use, Location etc.: This needs to be consistent with the USPHS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Construction guidelines and guidelines in the Vessel Sanitation Program (VSP) Operations manual.
97. V604.9.5 – Flush Controls: All modern cruise vessels use a vacuum toilet flushing system. For safety reasons, the flush control is mounted behind the toilet where it is protected from accidental operation while the toilet is in use and not on the open side as required by this section. The wording must be modified to recognize actual shipboard practice and safety concerns.
98. V607 & 608 – Bathtubs and Showers: These standards reflect installations typically found in shore facilities. The dimensions are not appropriate for shipboard facilities. We suggest that standards be modified or included to address installations as encountered onboard ship.
99. V609.3 – Grab Bars, Spacing: It is noted that the spacing requirement is absolute. Given construction issues in shipbuilding, a range for this spacing would be more appropriate. We recommend 1¼ inches to 2 inches.
100. V612.3 – Saunas and Steam Rooms, Turning Space: It is an unreasonable requirement to provide a turning circle in these confined spaces. Providing a turning space will significantly reduce the usable area in the sauna. In our experience wheelchair users will use a transfer bench, as it would be a safety hazard to the passenger to stay in their metal wheelchair or leave the wheelchair inside the sauna while in operation. Providing wheelchair access into the sauna and a transfer area is appropriate.
101. V702 – Emergency Alarm Systems: The PVAAC identified a conflict between ADAAG and USCG regulations. The Board concluded that there is no conflict. How did the Board come to this conclusion over that of the Committee? The Board should justify and explain its conclusion and how they arrived at such a conclusion.
     
     Additionally, the Board addressed only whether or not there is a conflict with USCG Regulations. How does this apply to conflicts with international requirements? In general, IMO does not recognize NFPA standards unless specifically adopted. While ICCL is aware that USCG rules recognize NFPA, we are not aware of international acceptance of the standard referenced.
     
     The Board and staff should recognize that the requirements in SOLAS are expanded in IMO Assembly, MSC and Subcommittee Resolutions, Circulars, and Guidelines as well as in Codes and referenced international engineering standards such as those published by the International Standards Organization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEEE). These too are an extension of the regulatory scheme and part of the safety system which govern the construction and operation of ships and can not be ignored. For instance, was the IMO Code on Alarms and Indicators reviewed by the Board?
     
     While there may or may not be a direct conflict with the wording of a specific SOLAS regulation, further in-depth research must be conducted before the Board can conclude, without any reference or justification, that there is no conflict. This section needs further comparison to IMO and associated requirements to assure there is no conflict.
102. V702.1 – General: Installed alarms are required to comply with SOLAS Resolution A830(19) Code on Alarms and Indicators.
     1. NFPA is not appropriate for ships that have to comply with SOLAS
     2. Please reference earlier comments regarding visual and audible alarms.
     
103. V703.2.4 & .5 – Characters: This needs to be compared to the ISO standard for shipboard signs that will soon be adopted by IMO.
104. V703.5.1. – Finish and Contrast: This conflicts with the SOLAS requirements for Low Location Lighting signs that may be photoluminescent or photointumescent.
105. V706 – Assistive Listening Systems: These requirements should only apply to permanently installed local entertainment systems.
106. V707.5.2 – ATM Machines: The requirement should be to provide machines that meet accessibility requirements. It is the manufacturers responsibility to provide machines that meet the standards, thus the requirements should be for the machines and directed to the machines manufacturers or the third party owner, and not the ships.
107. V804 – Kitchens and Kitchenettes: See our previous comment that these should be referred to as “pantries”- Section 212.
108. V806.2.2 – Exterior Spaces: This would require a full turning circle on balconies. This is not possible given space restrictions limited by the ship’s breadth. Balconies can not be simply “hung” off the side of the ship.
109. V806.2.3 – Sleeping Areas: The flexible nature of cabin bed configurations permits arranging the bed to provide an accessible route with either a right-side or left-side approach to the bed according to the passenger’s need or preference, thus obviating the need for a permanent accessible route to both sides of a single bed. See also response to DOT’s ANPRM.
110. V806.2.7 – Doors to Adjacent Guest Rooms: It should be clarified that accessibility into the adjacent non-accessible room is enter and exit only without maneuvering clearance.
111. V807 – [Detention] Cells: This is a crew space requirement and should not be included. See comments in response to V203.
112. V904.3.2 – Counter: The requirement to provide a low level sales counter (36 inches high), 30 inches in length is disproportionate to the limited size of the shipboard stores on passenger vessels and current use of point of sale counters. At these locations, the counter is the entire selling space. ICCL recommends that the length of this low level counter be limited to a length of 24 inches with a parallel approach. We believe that this is commensurate with the space available in these stores where further expansion is not appropriate. Alternatively, the use of clipboards or other portable or moveable counters should be allowed. The current proposal is appropriate for other shipboard counters such as at the Pursers desk, shore tour bookings, etc. It should also be noted that cruise ships are cashless and any onboard purchases will be made using the cabin keycard.
113. V104.2.6.1 & .2 – Accessibility and Use Zones: Again, reference is made to US engineering standards which may not be recognized in locations where passenger ships are designed, the design is approved and where the ship is constructed.
114. V1004 – Play Area, general comment: Due to the limited space available in children’s play areas it will not be possible to incorporate the listed requirements for access and transfer. Children’s shipboard play areas are usually densely packed with play components. Most of these components would qualify as ground level components usable by children in wheelchairs. The path of travel to and between some play components may not be achieved in all circumstances given the number of components available and the total space limitations in the children’s play areas.
     
     Generally speaking, the incidence of disabilities increases with age. Only 0.2 percent of children between the ages of six and 14 use a wheelchair, for example. Only 2.1 percent have any difficulty walking or running (Bureau of the Census- 1997 data).
     
115. V1005 – Swimming Pools: Swimming pools on passenger vessels are limited in size due to stability requirements. It is simply not safe to place a large amount of water with a free surface at the top of a ship. To contain the waves that are set up during the natural roll and pitch of the vessel also means that we need to provide a beach area around the pool. The proposed guidelines allow either a ramp or a chair lift - given the limitations we already have in size, introducing a ramp will significantly reduce the pool area and become an obstacle for other swimmers. Chair lifts may not be the best solution on a moving platform and therefore ICCL recommend that the use of transfer benches also be considered. This would allow discrete access on a stable platform and they can be extended to include other pool features such as Jacuzzis.
116. V1005.5.5 – Surface: Please clarify the definition of a sharp surface.
117. V1005.6 – Pool Stairs: Please include an express exception for pool ladders.
118. V1006 – Shooting Positions: In accordance with current security provisions, shooting is no longer an option onboard cruise ships.

Section 3: ICCL COMMENTS ON PASSENGER VESSEL ACCESS DOT ANPRM

Comments on: DOT’s ANPRM: Non-discrimination on Passenger Vessels – 49 CFR Part 37

1. The Extent to Which the Passenger Vessel Accessibility Guidelines will Apply to Foreign- Flag Vessels Requires Further Clarification:
   
   ICCL Comment: In its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPRM”) issued November 26, 2004, the U.S. Department of Transportation (“DOT”) stated its position that the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) applies to foreign-flag cruise ships that call at U.S. ports. While the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 125 S. Ct. 2169 (June 6, 2005), ultimately held that the Fifth Circuit erred in concluding that Title III of the ADA does not apply foreign-flag cruise vessels, the Court did so, however, only on the grounds that the Fifth Circuit’s decision was so broad it would apply to every facet of the business and operations of foreign-flag ships – not only removal of physical barriers but also non-architectural issues such as ticket pricing and eligibility for sailing – and thus was contrary to prior Supreme Court precedent that a “clear statement” of Congress’ intent to apply a statute of general application to foreign-flag vessels temporarily in U.S. waters is required only when such application would interfere with the “internal affairs” of that vessel. Significantly, the Court stated that its prior case precedent “could limit Title III’s application in some instances, when it requires removal of physical barriers ….” Id. at 2175 (emphasis added). The plurality opinion of Justice Kennedy (in which Justices Stevens and Souter joined) further suggests that many structural modifications arguably required under Title III could easily be construed as relating to internal ship affairs, thus triggering the “clear statement” rule.
   
   The Court also emphasized that Title III of the ADA does not require a foreign-flag vessel to undertake any physical modification that: 1) would bring a vessel into noncompliance with the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (“SOLAS”), Nov. 1, 1974, [1979-1980], 32 U.S.T. 47, T.I.A.S. No. 9700 or any other international legal obligation; or 2) when it would jeopardize shipboard safety.
   
   Spector thus makes it abundantly clear that safety requirements mandated by international laws/regulations such as SOLAS supercede accessibility requirements that conflict with international requirements, whether those requirements are set forth in the SOLAS regulations themselves or in accompanying IMO interpretations and circulars that are equally binding on vessels operating in international waters. Though not specifically addressed by the Court in Spector, ICCL respectfully submits that requirements imposed by the vessel’s flag state also supercede conflicting Title III requirements.
   
   Pursuant to Spector, Title III (and any accessibility guidelines for passenger vessels issued thereunder) may not apply to foreign-flag vessel to the full degree that it pertains to U.S.- flagged vessels. Although Spector was decided in the context of barrier removal on an existing vessel, its rationale is equally applicable to the promulgation of accessibility requirements for newly constructed and altered passenger vessels. Thus, issuance of a single set of accessible design requirements that pertain equally to U.S. and foreign-flag vessels alike may be inappropriate. DOT, in particular, must clarify the manner and extent to which specific requirements will apply to foreign flag vessels, delineating between those that affect the ship’s “internal affairs” and those that do not. Finally, both DOT and the Access Board must exercise great care in ensuring that none of the accessibility requirements they issue for foreign-flag vessels creates any conflict with international requirements or with the requirements of the vessel’s flag state.
   
2. Vessel Sizes:
   
ICCL Comment: Both the Access Board and DOT seek public comment regarding whether, or the extent to which, the draft Guidelines should be applied to small passenger vessels. The Access Board proposes four alternatives. Option 1 lists fewer than 150 passengers or fewer than 49 overnight passengers while Option 4 lists vessels carrying more than 150 passengers or more than 49 overnight passengers. Vessels carrying exactly 150 passengers or exactly 49 passengers are not covered.

Should state: passenger vessels carrying “more than 150 passengers or more than 49 overnight passengers.”

3. Rules Being Published by DOT:
   
   ICCL Comment: Specific recognition of the ship to tender issue should be made clear. In particular, the relative motion between tendering vessels and the “mother ship” makes the transfer of all persons between the two vessels a very important operation that must be conducted with great care to assure the safety of both passengers and crew. In many instances, this relative motion is such that safe transfer of mobility assist devices such as wheelchairs and scooters is not possible without great risk of injury to either the user or crew members who are assigned to assist. In some instances, all tendering operations are canceled.
   
   ICCL recommends, due to the complexity of this issue involving transfer between two different vessels, each subject to their own varying motions in a seaway, that the guidelines and any future rules expressly exempt requirements for transfer between two vessels.
   
4. Coamings for Watertight Integrity:
   
   ICCL Comment: While the Draft Guidelines appear to recognize the need for Watertight and Weather tight doors with associated sills and coamings, in another location it appears that the Board accepts coamings only up to 1½ inch in height. This does not satisfy the safety regulations for doorways in certain locations. Please see our detailed comments at Section V404.2.5.2 of the Draft Guidelines.
   
5. “Readily Achievable” Barrier Removal and Program Accessibility:
   
   ICCL Comment: DOT is seeking public comment on whether greater barrier removal is required in light of a longer service life than other types of facilities and vehicles. Vessels do not have longer life span than buildings, and, in fact, they typically have shorter ones. For ICCL member operators, most vessels will be transferred out of US service and into a different trade or secondary foreign market within 25 to 30 years. Thus, passenger ships should not be held to a higher standard.
   
   Additionally, costs applying to retrofit of ships will be significantly higher than for shorebased facilities due to structural constraints, complexity of design, and safety requirements (e.g. stability, arrangement of fire bulkheads, structural fire protection, design requirements for emergency escape, etc.).
   
6. Shore to Vessel Transition:
   
   ICCL Comment: This is a major concern for all vessels regardless of size or location. Specific comments are set forth in the General Comments and commentary on the guidelines.
   
7. Securement:
   
   ICCL Comment: We are not aware of any studies that support the need for securement systems onboard small or large passenger vessels. Without this background such a requirement is not reasonable. On some vessels, such as cruise ship tendering vessels, tiedowns or other means of securement may be provided for safety reasons. We suggest that the Board provide supporting data for this proposed requirement.
   
   On larger vessels, such as cruise ships, where wide circulation is generally available and expected between public areas and program areas, such a system may be counter productive to accessibility. Also, because the decks are so large and accessible, it is not practical to provide tie-downs at every possible location so the question would become – where would they be placed. It should be noted that in extremely heavy seas, all passengers are requested to stay in their cabins. For vessels that merely transport passengers from point to point, and where seats are provided, securement may be appropriate. However, on a cruise ship where the purpose is to promote circulation throughout the vessel, securement devices are inappropriate.


8. Accessible Cabins:
   
   ICCL Comment: DOT indicated in the ANPRM that it is “reasonable” to follow the requirements imposed by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) for accessible lodging in establishing requirements for accessible cabins for passenger vessels with overnight accommodations. DOT is specifically seeking comment regarding the appropriateness of doing so not only with respect to scoping and technical requirements for accessible cabins, but also availability and pricing.
   

   Cabin Configurations are more Flexible than Hotel Room Arrangements

   ICCL respectfully submits that there are numerous differences between cruise operations and land-based lodging operations that render wholesale application of land-based accessible lodging requirements to cruise vessels inappropriate. Unlike land-based lodging, cruises uniformly require advance reservations. An individual cannot simply “walk-in” off the street, as he/she can in obtaining a hotel or motel room. Accordingly, cruise vessels have greater ability and flexibility than do land-based lodging facilities to arrange or reconfigure a room for the particular needs of an individual with a disability. Cabins on cruise ships typically are furnished with modular furnishings that can easily be rearranged in advance of the passenger’s arrival. For example, the beds used in cabins can be arranged as a single bed or separated to provide two twin beds. As part of their regular duties, assigned cabin stewards routinely configure the bed according to the stated preference of the passenger, rearranging other cabin furniture as necessary. This differs significantly from the practice of lodging facilities, which offer separate rooms with multiple bed types in set configurations (e.g., 1 king, 1 queen, 2 queens, 2 doubles, etc.), rather than reconfiguring the room for the guest’s preferred bed configuration.

   In setting specific requirements for accessible cabins, DOT and the Access Board should take into account the more flexible nature of a cruise vessel’s cabin layout. This greater flexibility renders certain technical requirements unnecessary in the cruise context. For example, DOJ’s current Standards for Accessible Design, 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, app. A, require that where a lodging room contains only a single room, an accessible route must be provided to both sides of the bed. The flexible nature of cabin bed configurations permits arranging the bed to provide an accessible route with either a right-side or left-side approach to the bed according to the passenger’s need or preference, thus obviating the need for a permanent accessible route to both sides of a single bed. This issue also can be addressed through other operational means, such as cabin assignment. Cabins located port and starboard typically have “mirror” layouts. Thus, the cruise operator can assign an individual with a disability to an accessible cabin located either port or starboard, depending on whether he/she requires a left or right side approach.

   Dispersion of Cabins

   DOT has inquired whether cabins accessible to individuals using wheelchairs can be provided in all classes of service. For newly constructed cruise ships, it generally is possible to provide accessible cabins among the basic cabin types provided on the vessel, cruise lines essentially categorize cabins into the following four basic types: standard inside, standard outside, outside with balcony, and suite. For existing facilities, providing additional accessible cabins is not practical.

   It is important to note, however, that within cabin type there can be more than one rate category. Cabin rates are based not only on the type of cabin, but also the cabin’s location, both vertically and horizontally within the ship. Given the multitude of rate categories that may exist on a vessel, which may change over time, accessible cabins should not be required in all rate categories, even on newly constructed vessels.

   Accessible cabins generally are positioned on the vessel in order to facilitate egress in the event of an emergency as well as locating the cabins on convenient routes to ship amenities in particular elevator banks. Design concerns also often lead to the “stacking” of accessible cabins, (i.e. concentration within certain vertical zones of the vessel) to facilitate the provisions of plumbing lines, etc.

9. Vision and Hearing Impairments:
   
   ICCL Comment: Please see the General Comments regarding ships as a safety system and the recognition of operational aspects including crew actions in an emergency and crew training.
   
   Specifically, an accessibility requirement, such as the one for hardwired communications assistance systems, is based on the erroneous belief that someone may get left in their stateroom in the event of an emergency. International regulations require a system for trained crew to search every space on the ship to assure that no one is left behind (as noted in the testimony presented by ICCL member, Jeff Frier, at the July 25, 2005 public hearing in Washington, D.C.).
   
   Hearing assistance systems should be permitted to be portable and other technology should be permitted as developed. These technologies may include wireless text messag