Regulatory Assessment of Proposed Passenger Vessels Accessibility Guidelines

May 2013

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CHAPTER 1.  BACKGROUND

1.1  Introduction

1.2  Statutory and Regulatory Background

1.3  Rulemaking History

1.4  Overview of Proposed Guidelines

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

2.1  Introduction

2.2  Replacement Vessels

2.3  Case Studies

2.4  Estimated Compliance Costs for Replacement Vessels

 

CHAPTER 3.  LARGE CRUISE SHIPS

3.1  Introduction

3.2  Proposed Scoping Provision for Guest Rooms with Mobility Features

3.3  Mobility Device Use Among U.S. Population

3.4  Alternative Scoping Provisions

3.5  Estimated Guest Room Loss

3.6  Estimated Revenue Loss

CHAPTER 4.  TOTAL ESTIMATED COMPLIANCE COSTS

CHAPTER 5.  ALTERATIONS TO EXISTNG VESSELS

5.1  Introduction

5.2  Proposed Exceptions

5.3  Type and Frequency of Alterations

CHAPTER 6.  BENEFITS

6.1  Nature of Benefits

6.2  Persons Who Benefit from Proposed Provisions

CHAPTER 7.  INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

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

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

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

End Notes

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ferries, Multi-Purpose Vessels, and Small Cruise Ships

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

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

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

Large Cruise Ships

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

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

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

Tenders

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

Alterations to Existing Passenger Vessels

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

Primary Estimates of Costs and Benefits

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

CHAPTER 1.  BACKGROUND

1.1  Introduction

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

1.2  Statutory and Regulatory Background

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

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

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

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

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

1.3  Rulemaking History

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

Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee

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

2004 Draft Guidelines and ANPRM

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

2006 Draft Guidelines

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

Case Studies

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

Passenger Vessel Emergency Alarms Advisory Committee

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

2008 Draft Guidelines

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

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

1.4  Overview of Proposed Guidelines

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

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

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

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

2.1  Introduction

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

2.2  Replacement Vessels

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

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

2.3  Case Studies

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

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

Incremental Construction Costs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.4  Estimated Compliance Costs for Replacement Vessels

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

Vertical Access Cost

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Accessible Features Costs

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

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

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

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

Lengthening Cost

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redesign Cost

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

Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER 3.  LARGE CRUISE SHIPS

3.1  Introduction

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

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

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

3.2  Proposed Scoping Provision for Guest Rooms with Mobility Features

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

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

3.3  Mobility Device Use Among U.S. Population

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

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

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

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

3.4 Alternative Scoping Provisions

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

3.5  Estimated Guest Room Loss

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.6 Estimated Revenue Loss

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

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

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

CHAPTER 4.  TOTAL ESTIMATED COMPLIANCE COSTS

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

CHAPTER 5.  ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING VESSELS

5.1  Introduction

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

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

5.2  Proposed Exceptions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.3  Types and Frequency of Alterations

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

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

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

CHAPTER 6.  BENEFITS

6.1  Nature of Benefits

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

6.2  Persons Who Benefit From Proposed Provisions

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

Persons with Mobility Disabilities

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

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

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

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

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

Persons Who Have Difficulty Hearing or Are Deaf 

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

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

Persons Who Have Difficulty Seeing or Are Blind

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

CHAPTER 7.  INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

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

Why Are We Issuing the Proposed Guidelines?

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

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

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

How Many Small Entities Would Be Affected by Proposed Guidelines?

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

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

What Are the Proposed Compliance Requirements?

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

What Are the Compliance Costs for Small Entities

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

The compliance costs include the following components:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Significant Alternatives Did We Consider?

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

Are There Other Relevant Federal Rules?

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

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

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

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

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

3.  Specific vessel websites.

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