U.S.ACCESS BOARD

REGULATORY ASSESSMENT

PROPOSED PASSENGER VESSELS ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES

MAY 20132 TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................3

CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND ......................................................................................8

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ ..... 8 1.2 Statutory and Regulatory Background ......................................................................... 8 1.3 Rulemaking History ......................................................................................................9 1.4 Overview of Proposed Guidelines ............................................................................. 11

CHAPTER 2. FERRIES, MULTI-PURPOSE VESSELS, AND SMALL CRUISE SHIPS ................................................................................................ 12

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. ... 12 2.2 Replacement Vessels ................................................................................................. 12

2.3 Case Studies ............................................................................................................. .. 14 2.4 Estimated Compliance Costs for Replacement Vessels ............................................ 19

CHAPTER 3. LARGE CRUISE SHIPS ...................................................................... 35

3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. ... 35 3.2 Proposed Scoping Provision for Guest Rooms with Mobility Features .................... 35 3.3 Mobility Device Use Among U.S. Population........................................................... 36 3.4 Alternative Scoping Provisions.................................................................................. 38

3.5 Estimated Guest Room Loss ...................................................................................... 38

3.6 Estimated Revenue Loss ............................................................................................ 42

CHAPTER 4. TOTAL ESTIMATED COMPLIANCE COSTS ............................... 45

CHAPTER 5. ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING VESSELS ...................................... 46

5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. ... 46 5.2 Proposed Exceptions .................................................................................................. 46 5.3 Type and Frequency of Alterations ............................................................................ 48

CHAPTER 6. BENEFITS ............................................................................................. 49

6.1 Nature of Benefits ...................................................................................................... 49

6.2 Persons Who Benefit fr om Proposed Provisions ....................................................... 49

CHAPTER 7. INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS ................... 513 APPENDIX I. FERRIES, MULTI-PURPOSE VESSELS, AND SMALL CRUISE SHIPS OPERATIN G IN U.S. PORTS AS OF 2010 .................... 61

APPENDIX II. LARGE CRUISE SHIPS OPERATING IN U.S. PORTS AS OF 2011 ............................................................................................... 83

APPENDIX III. LARGE CRUISE SH IPS CONSTRUCTED OR UNDER CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION BETWEEN 2012 & 2015 ............................. 904 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

“We” and “our” in this document refer to th e Architectural and Tr ansportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board).

We are required by section 502 of the Re habilitation Act and section 504 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to estab lish 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 individual s with disabilities. We are issuing proposed accessibility guidelines for the construction and alte ration of passenger vessels pursuant to this authority. The U.S. Department of Transportati on (DOT) and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) are required to issue accessibility standards fo r 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 unt il 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 es timate the costs and benefits of the proposed guidelines. We request comment on all aspects of the regulat ory assessment to improve our estimates of the costs and benefits of the propos ed guidelines. We include questions in the preamble to the notice of proposed rulemaking that request informa tion on specific issues relating to the regul atory assessment.

The proposed guidelines would apply to th e 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 othe r considerations. The proposed guidelines, themselves, would not require existing passenge r 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 feat ures 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 t echnical 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 sy stems; general emergency alarms; guest rooms; and other passengers amenities. The proposed gu idelines include proposed technical provisions for accessible passenger boarding systems. Howe ver, we defer to DOT and DOJ to address when accessible passenger boarding systems wo uld be required since passenger boarding systems can be provided at landside facilities and involve operational is sues between the owner5 or operator of the landside facili ty and the passenger vessel owner or operator that DOT and DOJ are authorized to address.

We estimate the compliance costs separately fo r: (1) ferries, multi-purpose vessels such as dinner vessels and excursion vessels, and small cruise ship s; and (2) large cruise ships operating in U.S. ports. We consider crui se 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-pu rpose vessels, and 32 small cruise ships in the size categories covered by the proposed guid elines operating in U.S. ports as of 2010. These 832 vessels are listed in A ppendix 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 e nd of their service life over 20 years. We assume these vessels would be re placed 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 assu me the total number of vessels would be stable over 20 years. We conducted case studies of ten vessels to develop estimat es of the incremental

costs to construct vesse ls in compliance with the proposed guidelines, and the additional operation and maintenance costs du e 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 st udy vessels to these vessel s. 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 estimat ed cost would require an elevator, or on certain vessels a limited use-limited application el evator (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 plat form lift to connect de cks, 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 el evator, 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 estimat e 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 additi on, 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 sa les and service counters would also6 have a cost impact on ferries, multi-purpose vessels, and small cruise ships. Some of the new vessels would need to be redesigned and lengt hened to maintain their passenger and vehicle capacity.

Large Cruise Ships

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

New large cruise ships provide many accessibl e features that would be required by the proposed guidelines, including elevators to connect passenger decks; guest rooms with mobility features; guest rooms with communication featur es; 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 propos ed guidelines on the vessels. However, we could not find large cruise ship owners and operators to participate in th e case studies. Due to the lack of information, we did not estimate the incremen tal 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 w ith mobility features are typically larger than other guest rooms to accommodate passengers w ho use wheelchairs and scooters. The cruise industry is concerned about th e loss of guest rooms and reve nue 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 ro oms with mobility features. We estimate the 113 large cruise ships operating in U.S. por ts as of 2011 contained 123,516 guest rooms, including 2,392 guest rooms with m obility features (1.9% of the to tal 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 percen t annually. Based on these assumptions, we estimate 786 guest rooms would be lost ove r 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 reve nue 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 percen t, 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, wh ich 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 transpor t passengers for nonemergency purposes between passenger vessels and shore-side facilities. We do not estimate any compliance costs for tenders becaus e new tenders meet the provisions.

Alterations to Existing Passenger Vessels7 We propose three general exceptions and seve ral specific exceptions for alterations to existing passenger vessels. We requested comme nt 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 benef its 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 pr oposed guidelines would address the discriminatory effects of architec tural, transportation, a nd communication barriers encountered by individuals with mobility, hearin g, and vision disabilities on passenger vessels. The proposed guidelines would affo rd these individuals equal oppor tunity to travel on passenger vessels for employment, transportation, public accommodation, and leisure. The proposed guidelines would enable these indi viduals to achieve greater partic ipation in society, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency. The be nefits are difficult to quantify, but include important national values that are recognized in Executive Order 13563 such as equity, human dignity, and fairness.

Table 1. Primary Estimates of Costs a nd Benefits of Proposed Guidelines Annualized Over 20 Years (2011 Dollars)

Costs 7% Discount Rate 3% Discount Rate $66 million $74 million

Benefits The proposed guidelines would addre ss the discriminatory effects of architectural, transportation, and communication barriers encountered by individuals with mobility, hearing, and vi sion disabilities on passenger vessels. The proposed guidelines would afford th ese individuals equal opportunity to travel on passenger vessels for em ployment, transportation, public accommodation, and leisure. The benefits are difficult to quantify, but include important national values that are re cognized in Executive Order 13563 such as equity, human dignity, and fairness.8 CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Introduction

We prepared this regulatory assessment of the proposed accessibility guidelines for passenger vessels in accordance with Ex ecutive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) and Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). Among other things, Executive Order 13563 directs agenci es 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 th e regulatory objectives ; and, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those ap proaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 recognizes that some benefits are difficult to quantify a nd provides that, where appropriate and permitted by law, agencies may cons ider and discuss qualitatively values that are difficult or impossible to quan tify, 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 T itle III of the ADA applies to places of public accommodation operated by private entities. 1 The ADA covers designa ted public transportation services provided by state and local governments and specified public transportation services provided by private entities that are primarily en gaged 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 tr ansportation services or specified public transportation services such as ferries and excursion vessels, and pa ssenger 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 Reha bilitation Act and sect ion 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

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

2 The definitions of the terms designated public transpor tation and specified public tr ansportation are similar and mean transportation by bus, rail, or any other conveyance that provides the general public with general or special service, including charter service, on a regular and con tinuing basis. See 42 U.S.C. 12141 (2) and 12181 (10).9 services by private entities that are primarily en gaged in the business of transporting people and whose operations affect commer ce. See 49 CFR part 39.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is res ponsible for issuing regul ations 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, a nd dinner vessels. See 28 CFR parts 35 and 36.

Titles II and III of the ADA require DOT and DO J to issue accessibility standards for the construction and alteration of passenger vessels c overed by the law that are consistent with our guidelines. See 42 U.S.C. 12134 (c), 12149 (b), a nd 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 guidel ines 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 th e past 15 years to address the un ique constraints of the marine environment and adapt the guidelines for la ndside facilities to passenger vessels.

Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee

In 1998, we convened a Passenger Vessel Acce ss Advisory Committee comprised of passenger vessel owners and operators, industry trade groups, disability advocacy groups, and state and local government agencies to recomm end how to adapt the gu idelines 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 committ ee’s report, we developed dr aft 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 Guidelines10 Based on the comments on the 2004 draft guide lines 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 comme nts 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 vesse l 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 change s, and considered the impact of the design changes on the passenger vessel’s space, fuel cons umption, and stability. We prepared reports on the case studies. We updated the case study re ports to reflect changes to the proposed guidelines from earlier drafts and to adju st 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 grou ps, organizations representing individuals who are deaf or have a hearing loss, and standard se tting organizations to address the comments. The advisory committee submitted a report with its recommendations in 2008. The advisory committee recommended that general emergency alar m systems include visibl e elements to alert passengers who are deaf or have a hearing loss, and recommended safeguards against triggering photosensitive seizures in individuals with ep ilepsy. The advisory committee recommended that the visible element on U.S. flag ships comply w ith 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 vesse ls. The International Maritime Organization approved non-mandatory guidelines for including vi sible elements in general emergency alarm systems in 2012. 3

2008 Draft Guidelines

Based on the comments on the 2006 draft guideli nes and the case studies, we revised the draft guidelines in 2008. The 2008 dr aft 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.

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

.11 The advisory committee reports, ANPRM, earlier drafts of the guidelines, comments on the ANPRM and earlier drafts of the guidelines, updated ca se study reports, and other background information on the propose d guidelines are available at: http://www.accessboard.gov/pvag/ . We used all this information to develop the proposed guidelines.

1.4 Overview of Proposed Guidelines

The proposed guidelines would apply to th e 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 othe r considerations. The proposed guidelines, themselves, would not require existing passenge r 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 feat ures 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 t echnical 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 sy stems; general emergency alarms; guest rooms; and other passenger amenities. The proposed guid elines include proposed technical provisions for accessible passenger boarding systems. Howe ver, we defer to DOT and DOJ to address when accessible passenger boarding systems wo uld be required since passenger boarding systems can be provided at landside facilities and involve operational is sues between the owner or operator of the landside facili ty and the passenger vessel owner or operator that DOT and DOJ are authorized to address.12 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 perm itted 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 da ta on each vessel, including vessel name, year constructed, number of passengers , and number of passenger decks. As shown in Table 2, we estimate that about 25 percent of the vessels are owned by state or local governments, and the rest are owned by private entities.

Table 2. Existing Vessels in Size Categories Covered by Proposed Guidelines as of 2010 Vessel Type Number State or Local Government Private Ferry 454 197 257 Multi-Purpose Vessel 346 8 338 Small Cruise Ship 32 0 32 Total 832 205 627

2.2 Replacement Vessels

We estimate the compliance costs over 20 years for new vessels that replace the existing vessels. As shown in Table 3, we assume the exis ting vessels have an exp ected service life of 25 to 40 years based on the vessel t ype 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 amen ities, and number of passenger decks as the vessels they replace. We also assume the total nu mber of vessels would be stable over 20 years.

Table 3. Expected Service Life of Vessels

Vessel Type & Size Expected Service Life Number of Existing Vessels That Reach End of Expected

Service Life Over 20 Years Multi-Hull Ferries 100-124 passengers only 25 years 4 145-150 passengers only 25 years 41 151-600 passengers only 30 years 32 Mono-Hull Ferries 100-150 passengers only 30 years 70 100-150 passengers plus vehicles 30 years 67 151-1000 passengers only 30 years 7213 Table 3. Expected Service Life of Vessels

Vessel Type & Size Expected Service Life Number of Existing Vessels That Reach End of Expected

Service Life Over 20 Years 151-1000 passengers plus vehicles 30 years 82 1001 or more passengers plus vehicles 40 years 19 Multi-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels 151-600 passengers 30 years 13 Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels 151-499 passengers 30 years 181 500-1000 passengers 30 years 86 1001 or more passengers 40 years 6 Small Cruise Ships 50-299 passengers 40 years 23 Total 696

Table 4 shows the number of new vessels we assume to be constructed each year to replace the existing vessels. About 33% of the existing vessel s (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 fi rst year than in the other years.

Table 4. New Vessels Assumed to be Co nstructed to Replace Existing Vessels

Year 1 Ferries Multi-Purpose Vessels Small Cruise Ships Total 1 163 110 2 275 2 9 9 0 18 3 10 12 0 22 4 9 20 0 29 5 8 14 1 23 6 13 13 0 26 7 13 16 0 29 8 20 15 1 36 9 13 7 1 21 10 10 14 1 25 11 9 4 2 15 12 10 5 2 17 13 13 6 3 22 14 10 7 0 17 15 18 4 0 22 16 13 3 1 17 17 16 9 2 27 18 9 11 3 23 19 6 5 2 13 20 15 2 2 1914 Table 4. New Vessels Assumed to be Co nstructed to Replace Existing Vessels

Year 1 Ferries Multi-Purpose Vessels Small Cruise Ships Total Total 387 286 23 696 Note: 1. Year 1 is 2012.

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 ve ssels. We worked with the ve ssel owners and operators, naval architects, and ship builders to re view the original designs of th e vessels and to identify design changes that would be needed to meet the dr aft guidelines. The naval architects and ship builders estimated the cost of the design change s, and considered the impact of the design changes on the passenger vessel’s space, fuel cons umption, and stability. We prepared reports on the case studies. We updated the case study re ports to reflect changes to the proposed guidelines from earlier drafts and to adju st the cost estimates to 2011 dollars. 4 The updated case study reports are available at: http://www.access-board.gov/pvag/ . Table 5 lists the case study vessels and abbreviations used to refer to the case study vessels in tables 6 through 8.

Table 5. Case Study Vessels & Abbreviation s Used to Refer to Case Study Vessels Case Study Vessel Abbreviation 108 Passenger High-Speed Ferry 108 pax ferry 149 Passenger High-Speed Ferry 149 pax ferry 399 Passenger Traditional Ferry 399 pax ferry 450 Passenger High-Speed Ferry 450 pax ferry 150 Passenger & 20 Vehicle Ferry 20 car ferry 300 Passenger & 40 Vehicle Ferry 40 car ferry 4,400 Passenger & 30 Vehicle Ferry 4400 pax ferry 300 Passenger Tour Vessel 300 pax tour vessel 600 Passenger Dinner Vessel 600 pax dinner vessel 120-passenger Cruise ship 120 pax cruise ship

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

4 Some of the case study reports discuss provisions in earlier drafts of the guidelines that are modified (e.g., accessible means of escape) or deleted (e.g., stairs) in the proposed guidelines.15 Table 6. Proposed Provisions Identified in Case Studies That Would Have Cost Impact

Proposed Provision 108
pax ferry 149
pax ferry 399
pax ferry 450
pax ferry 20

car ferry 40

car ferry 4400
pax ferry 300
pax tour vessel 600
pax dinner vessel 120
pax cruise ship Protruding Objects V204, V307 X X X X X X X Onboard Accessible Routes 1 V206, V402 -V409 X X X X X X X X X Accessible Means of Escape V207 X X X X X Drinking Fountains V211, V602 X X Toilet Rooms V213, V603-V608 X X X X X X X X X General Emergency Alarms V215, V702 X X Assistive Listening Systems V219, V706 X X X X X X X X X X Transportation Seating Areas V222, V802.1 X X X X X X X Medical Care Facilities V223, V805 X Guest Rooms V224, V806 X Storage V225, V807 X X X X X Sales and Service Counters V227, V904 X Note: 1. Onboard accessible routes include proposed pr ovisions for elevators, limited use-limited application elevators (LULA), and platform lifts to connect passenger decks on vessels with more than one deck; onboard accessible routes to c onnect passenger amenities within decks; and doorways and coamings. Some of these proposed provisions would not have a cost impact on some of the case study vessels.

Incremental Construction Costs

The case study reports estimate the incremental construction costs for the vessels, which is the difference between the cost of construc ting the vessel in the ab sence of the proposed16 guidelines (pre-guidelines cons truction 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 incl udes the cost to expand toilet rooms; modify doors and thresholds; in stall automatic doors at doorw ays with coamings and double ramps; add assistive listening systems; and pr ovide 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 arch itectural 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 pe rcent of incremental co nstruction costs.

Table 7 shows the pre-guidelines constructi on 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 c onstruction 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 e xperience 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 f eet, the construction costs would increase by 14 percent to 17 percent, in stead of 24.5 percent.

Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs

The case studies identified the following addi tional annual operation and maintenance costs due to the pr oposed guidelines:

 Vertical Access Maintenance Cost. This is the annual cost of maintaining an elevator, LULA, or platform lif t 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 th e accessible features and vessel lengthening.17  Fuel Cost. This is the annual cost for additional fuel consumption due to installing an elevator, LULA, or platform lift to connect passenger deck s and vessel lengthening.

Table 7 shows the additional operation and ma intenance costs for the case study vessels.18Table 7. Estimated Compliance Costs for CaseStudy Vessels (Thousands of dollars)108 paxferry149 paxferry399paxferry450 paxferry20 carferry40 carferry4400paxferry300paxtourvessel600 paxdinnervessel120 paxcruiseshipPre-GuidelinesConstructionCosts$2,270$3,110$5,970$11,650$4,630$9,560$62,700$2,450$6,490$70,580IncrementalConstructionCosts$556$390$134$487$38$289$787$79$642$2,242Percent IncreaseinConstructionCosts24.5%112.5%2.2%4.2%< 1%23.0%1.3%3.2%39.9%3.2%AdditionalAnnualOperation andMaintenanceCosts18%increase in fuelconsumption3% to 6.6%increase infuelconsumptionNone10%increase infuelconsumptionNotSignificantNotSignificant$1,100 to$1,300 perautomaticdoorNotSignificant5% to 10%increase infuelconsumptionNotSignificantNotes:1. The owner of the 108 passenger high-speed ferry wanted to lengthen the ferry by 10 feet basedon the owner’s experience withalarger ferry, instead of the 5 feet minimumneeded to maintain the vessel’s seating and storage capacity.If the ferry is lengthened by5 feet, instead of 10 feet, the construction costs would increase by14% to 17%, instead of 24.5%.2. The owner of the 150 passenger and 20 vehicle mono-hull ferry wanted to lose a vehicle space instead of lengthening thereplacement ferry by 16 feet to maintainits vehicle capacity. This would result in an annual revenue loss of $51,000 to $86,000. Ifthe replacement ferry is lengthened by16 feet, the construction costs would increase by 6.7%, instead of less than 1%.3. The 300 passenger tour vessel has two entrydecks and currently provides an inclinedplatform lift to connect the two entrydecks.The inclined platform lift is included in the pre-guidelines construction cost. If the vessel did not provide an inclined platform lift,the construction costs would increase by 5.3% ifan inclined lift is provided, and 8.1% ifa vertical platform lift is provided.19 2.4 Estimated Compliance Cost s for Replacement Vessels

We worked with the Volpe National Transpor tation Systems Center to extrapolate the incremental construction costs and additional an nual 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 t ype and size with one or more of the case study vessels. We used the elevator cost fr om 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 an nual operations and maintenance costs for the replacement vessels in each group based on the case study vessel costs. We erred on the side of overestimating compliance costs when matching the replacement vessels with the case study vessels. All estimates are 2011 dollars.

Table 8. Replacement Vessels Ma tched to Case Study Vessels

Vessel Type & Size Number of Vessels Case Study Vessel

Multi-Hull Ferries 100-124 passengers only 4 108 pax ferry 145-150 passengers only 41 149 pax ferry 151-600 passengers only 32 450 pax ferry Mono-Hull Ferries 100-150 passengers only 70 149 pax ferry; 399 pax ferry 100-150 passengers plus vehicles 67 20 car ferry 151-1000 passengers only 72 399 pax ferry; 600 pax dinner vessel 151-1000 passengers plus vehicles 82 40 car ferry; 600 pax dinner vessel 1001 or more passengers plus vehicles 19 4,400 pax ferry; 60 0 pax dinner vessel Multi-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels 151-600 passengers 13 450 pax ferry Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels 151-499 passengers 181 300 pax tour vessel; 600 pax dinner vessel 500-1000 passengers 86 600 pax dinner vessel 1001 or more passengers 6 4,400 pax ferry; 60 0 pax dinner vessel Small Cruise Ships 50-299 passengers 23 120 pax cruise ship; 600 pax dinner vessel Total 696

Vertical Access Cost

The proposed guidelines would require an elevator, limited use-limited application elevator (LULA), or platform lift to connect passenger decks on a vessel with more than one deck. A LULA is a passenger elevator that is limited in use and applic ation by size, capacity, speed, and rise. The maximum rise of a LULA is 25 feet and it can be used to connect three or20 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 woul d not require an onboard accessible route to connect the decks on passenger vessels that have only two passenger deck s unless both decks are entry decks. Exception 2 would not require an onboard accessible r oute to connect decks that are not entry decks where each passenger deck is le ss 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, transportati on seating areas, and guest rooms with mobility features, where such amenities are provided on the vessel.

Exceptions 4 and 5 would reduce the complia nce 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 thr ee passenger decks and do not transport vehicles or overnig ht 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; a nd (3) contains at least one exterior passenger area that is not covered by other decks, where an uncovered exterior pa ssenger 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 vess el that does not transport overn ight passengers where the sun deck has no enclosed passenger spac es and is not an entry deck provi ded that at least one exterior passenger area that is not covere d 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 complia nce costs for vehicle ferries that are designed to accommodate vehicles with high cleara nces. Where a passenger deck, other than an entry deck, is divided into two separate segmen ts and no horizontal circul ation path is provided between the two segments, Exception 6 would requ ire an onboard accessible route to connect to only one segment of the divided deck. Wher e decks containing vehicle parking lanes are designed to be raised and lowered and do not pr ovide 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 c onnect to decks, other than entry decks, that are less than 300 square f eet. 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 vesse ls and would not requir e an onboard accessible route to connect the decks on such vessels wher e the State Historic Pr eservation Officer or

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

6 ASME 18.1-2011 Safety Standard for Platform Lifts and Stairway Chairlifts, section 2.7.1.21 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation determin es that it would threaten or destroy the historic significance of a qualifie d historic passenger vessel.

We make the following assumptions to dete rmine 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 entr y deck unless information is available indicating there is more than one entry deck.

 If information on the vessel width is unava ilable, we assume all the decks are less than 3,000 square feet when the vess el 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 a ssume 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 pl atform at the stern of th e 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 ab sence 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 ve ssels would not need an elevator, LULA, or platform lift.

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

.22Table 9. Estimated Number of ReplacementVessels That Would Be Required to Provide Elevator, LULA, or Platform LiftVessel Type & SizeNumberof VesselsVesselsAffectedCost per Vessel(thousands ofdollars)Assumptions & ExplanationsMulti-Hull Ferries100-124 passengers only4002 have one deckException 1 applies to the other vessels145-150 passengers only41007 have one deckException 1 or 2 applies to the other vessels151-600 passengers only322$1092 with two entry decks need a platform liftException 1, 2, or 4 applies to the other vesselsMono-Hull Ferries100-150 passengers only70009 have one deckException 1 or 2 applies to the other vessels100-150 passengers plus vehicles670033 have one deckException 1 applies to the other vessels151-1000 passengers only727$2977 need a LULA3 currently provide an elevator, LULA, or platform lift6 have one deckException 1 or 2 applies to the other vessels151-1000 passengers plus vehicles8219$29719 need a LULA9 need an elevator19 currently provide an elevator, LULA, or platform lift8 have one deckException 1 applies to the other vessels9$3721001 or more passengers plus vehicles190017 currently provide an elevator, LULA, or platform liftException 1 applies to the other vesselsMulti-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels151-600 passengers1300Exception 1 or 4 applies to all vesselsMono-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels151-499 passengers18118$29718 need a LULA3 need an elevator3 currently provide an elevator, LULA, or platform lift12 have one deckException 1 or 2 applies to the other vessels3$37223Table 9. Estimated Number of ReplacementVessels That Would Be Required to Provide Elevator, LULA, or Platform LiftVessel Type & SizeNumberof VesselsVesselsAffectedCost per Vessel(thousands ofdollars)Assumptions & Explanations500-1000 passengers8630$29730 need a LULA20 need an elevator7 currently an provide elevator, LULA, or platform lift2 have one deckException 1 or 2 applies to the other vessels20$3721001 or more passengers62$2972 need a LULA2 need an elevator2 are currently provide an elevator, LULA, or platform lift2$372Small Cruise Ships50-299 passengers231$271 needs a stern platform lift only11 need to enlarge existing elevators plus a stern platform lift7 need a LULA plus a stern platform lift4 need an elevator plus a stern platform lift11$307$3254$399Total69613524 Other Accessible Features Costs

The proposed guidelines would require the replacement vessels to provide other accessible features that have incremental co nstruction costs, including expanding toilet rooms; modifying doors and thresholds; in stalling automatic doors at doorways with coamings and double ramps; adding assistiv e listening systems; a nd 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 fe rries 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 othe r case study vessels did not note a need to upgrade the engine systems.

The naval architect who worked on th e 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 re quest 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 provi de 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 passe ngers plus vehicles to $631,000 for monohull 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 th e case study matched to these vessels wanted to provide automatic sprinkler systems instead of protected wa iting 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.

8 Where the administrative authority requires a passe nger vessel to have a means of escape, the proposed guidelines would require an accessible means of escape that provides a substantially equivalent level of protection from hazards as is required by the admini strative authority for the means of escape. Where passengers with disabilities have to wait for crew assistance at or near stairways or exit doors with coamings or for elevators or platform lifts to be crew operated during emergencies, the waiting area would need to be sufficiently protected from hazards in order to provide the occupants a level of protection that is substantially equivalent to the level of protection afforded to passengers who can use the means of escape unassisted. A protected waiting area would not be needed where another equivalent method of protection is provided, such as where passenger vessels are protected by automatic sprinkl er systems or the area is open to the weather.25Table 10. Estimated Compliance Costs to Provide Other Accessible Features Costs on Replacement VesselsVessel Type & SizeNumber ofVesselsVesselsAffectedCost Per Vessel(thousands ofdollars)Assumptions & ExplanationsMulti-Hull Ferries100-124 passengers only44$25Modifying doors and thresholdsExpanding toilet roomAdding accessible lockers and assistive listening system145-150 passengers only4141$38Increasing ceiling heightModifying doorsAdding assistive listening systemAdjusting overhead grab rails151-600 passengers only3232$153Expanding vertical clearances at doorsAdding drinking fountain and assistive listening systemProviding protected waiting areasfor accessible means of escapeUpgrading engine systemMono-Hull Ferries100-150 passengers only7070$39Modifying doors and thresholdsAdding accessible lockers and assistive listening system100-150 passengers plus vehicles6734$54Lengthening seating cabinAdding accessible lockers and assistive listening system151-1000 passengers only7272$116Adding assistive listening systemProviding automatic sprinkler system instead of protected waitingareas for accessible means of escapeProviding visible alarms151-1000 passengers plus vehicles8282$19Expanding toilet roomAdding guardrails under stairway, drinking fountain, and assistivelistening system1001 or more passengers plusvehicles1919$6311Installing automatic doors and door drainage systems at doorwayswith coamingsAdding assistive listening systemProviding automatic sprinkler system instead of protected waitingareas for accessible means of escapeMulti-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels151-600 passengers1313$153Expanding vertical clearances at doorsAdding drinking fountain and assistive listening systemProviding protected waiting areasfor accessible means of escapeUpgrading engine system26Table 10. Estimated Compliance Costs to Provide Other Accessible Features Costs on Replacement VesselsVessel Type & SizeNumber ofVesselsVesselsAffectedCost Per Vessel(thousands ofdollars)Assumptions & ExplanationsMono-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels151-499 passengers181181$78Expanding toilet roomsAdding assistive listening system500-1000 passengers8636$112Modifying doors and thresholdsAdding assistive listening systemProviding protected waiting areasfor accessible means of escape50$125Modifying doors and thresholds, and service counterAdding assistive listening systemProviding protected waiting areasfor accessible means of escapeUpgrading electric generator system1001 or more passengers62$2221Installing automatic doors at doorways with coamingsAdding assistive listening system4$6311Installing automatic doors at doorways with coamingsAdding assistive listening systemProviding automatic sprinkler system instead of protected waitingareas for accessible means of escapeSmall Cruise Ships50-299 passengers2323$95Modifying doors, thresholds, and medical care facilitiesAdding accessible guest rooms, ramps, visible alarms, and assistivelistening systemTotal6966632Notes:1. The cost shown is the average total cost for vessels in the group since vessels inthe group had some variation in the otheraccessible feature costs.2. Thirty-three (33) of the existing mono-hull ferries carrying 100to 150 passengers plus vehicles currently provide the otheraccessible features. We assumethat the replacement vessels for these 33 ferries would be the samedesign and would not incur any compliance costs for the other accessible features.27 Lengthening Cost

Some of the case study vessels needed to be lengthened to accommodate the accessible features and to maintain passenge r and vehicle capacity. The larg er vessels in the case studies could accommodate the accessible features, and main tain passenger and vehicle capacity without being lengthened. It is more costly to leng then multi-hull vessels than mono-hull vessels.

We make the following assumptions to de termine 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 length ening 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 smalle r 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 Ta ble 11. The lengthening cost would range from $60,000 for mono-hull ferries permitted to carry 100 to 150 passengers to $2,117,000 for some small cruise ships. We assume lengthening the vessels would not impact their use of docking areas. We request comment on this issue in the preamble to the notice of proposed rulemaking.

Table 11. Estimated Lengthening Cost for Replacement Vessels

Vessel Type & Size Number of Vessels Vessels Affected Cost Per Vessel (thousands of dollars) Assumptions & Explanations

Multi-Hull Ferries 100-124 passengers only 4 4 $261 Lengthen 5 feet (modified from case study) 145-150 passengers only 41 41 $90 Lengthen 3 feet (same as case study) 151-600 passengers only 32 32 $217 Lengthen 4 feet (same as case study) Mono-Hull Ferries
100-150 passengers only 70 70 $60 Lengthen 3 feet (same as case study)28 Table 11. Estimated Lengthening Cost for Replacement Vessels

Vessel Type & Size Number of Vessels Vessels Affected Cost Per Vessel (thousands of dollars) Assumptions & Explanations

100-150 passengers plus vehicles 67 34 $270 Lengthen 16 feet for 34 vessels with two decks; no lengthening for the rest of vessels with only one deck 151-1000 passengers only 72 0 0 None (same as case study) 151-1000 passengers plus vehicles 82 0 0 1001 or more passengers plus vehicles 19 0 0 Multi-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels 151-600 passengers 13 13 $217 Lengthen 4 feet (same as case study) Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels 151-499 passengers 181 0 0 None (same as case study)

500-1000 passengers 86 50 $205 Lengthen 4 feet for 50 vessels that need vertical access (same as case study) 1001 or more passengers 6 0 0 None (same as case study) Small Cruise Ships

50-299 passengers 23 11 $974 Length adjusted proportionally to vessel size

12 $2,117 Lengthen 8 feet (same as case study) Total 696 267

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 assumpti on, 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 monohull ferries permitted to carry 151 to 1000 passengers plus vehicles to $261,100 for some small cruise ships.29 Table 12. Redesign Cost for Replacement Vessels

Vessel Type & Size Number of Vessels Vessels Affected Cost Per Vessel (thousands of dollars) Assumptions & Explanations Multi-Hull Ferries 100-124 passengers only 4 4 $29

10% of incremental construction

costs 145-150 passengers only 41 26 $13

151-600 passengers only 32 2 $48

25 $37

Mono-Hull Ferries

100-150 passengers only 70 64 $10

10 % of incremental construction

costs 100-150 passengers plus vehicles 67 27 $32

151-1000 passengers only 72 6 $41

51 $12

151-1000 passengers plus vehicles 82 8 $39

12 $32

50 $2 1001 or more passengers plus vehicles 19 8 $63 1 Multi-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels

151-600 passengers 13 13 $37 10% of incremental construction

costs Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels

151-499 passengers 181 3 $45

10% of incremental construction

costs 18 $38

156 $8

500-1000 passengers 86 17 $70

26 $63

34 $11

1001 or more passengers 6 4 $87 1

2 $41 1 Small Cruise Ships

50-299 passengers 23 10 $135 1 10% of incremental construction

costs 9 $232 1

Total 696 575
Note: 1. The average of total redesign costs is shown for all vessels in the group.30 Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs

We estimate the additional annual operationa l 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 main tenance 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 vess els, and larger multi-hull vessels carrying more than 150 passengers, we assume there is no additional engine maintenance cost.

 The additional fuel consumption varies ba sed 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-purp ose vessels permitted to carry more than 1,000 passengers to 10 percent for some multi-hul l vessels carrying passengers only. Future diesel price estimates are based on the U.S. Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook 2010 w ith 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.

9 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2010 with Projections to 2035 (April 2010) at: http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2010).pdf

.31 Table 13. Estimated Vertical Access Maintenance Cost & Automatic Door Maintenance Cost for Replacement Vessels

Vertical Access Maintenance Cost Automatic Door Maintenance Cost

Vessel Type & Size Number of Vessels Vessels Affected Annual Cost Per

Vessel (thousands of dollars) Assumptions & Explanations Vessels Affected Annual Cost Per

Vessel (thousands of dollars) Assumptions & Explanations

Multi-Hull Ferries 100-124 passengers only 4 0 0 None 0 0

None 145-150 passengers only 41 0 0 0 0

151-600 passengers only 32 2 $3 Vessels with platform lift 0 0

Mono-Hull Ferries

100-150 passengers only 70 0 0 None 0 0

None 100-150 passengers plus vehicles 67 0 0 0 0

151-1000 passengers only 72 7 $6 Vessels with LULA or elevator 0 0 151-1000 passengers plus vehicles 82 28 $6 0 0

1001 or more passengers plus vehicles 19 0 0 None 3 $4 Four new doors per vessel

16 $6 Six new doors per vessel

Multi-Hull Multi- Purpose Vessels 151-600 passengers 13 0 0 None 0 0 None Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels 151-499 passengers 181 21 $6

Vessels with LULA or elevator 0 0 None

500-1000 passengers 86 50 $6 86 $1 One new door per vessel (same as in the case study) 1001 or more passengers 6 4 $6 6 $6 Six new doors per vessel Small Cruise Ships

50-299 passengers 23 12 $3 Vessels with platform lift only 0 0 None

11 $8 Vessels with platform lift plus LULA or elevator

Total 696 135 11132Table 14. Estimated Engine Maintenance Cost & Fuel Cost for Replacement VesselsEngine Maintenance CostFuel CostVessel Type & SizeNumber ofVesselsVesselsAffectedAnnual CostPer Vessel(thousands ofdollars)Assumptions &ExplanationsVesselsAffectedAnnual CostPer Vessel(thousands ofdollars)Assumptions & ExplanationsMulti-Hull Ferries100-124 passengers only44$22Due to lengtheningwithout engineupgrade (estimatebased on the casestudy vessel)4$379% increase in fuel consumption(modified from case study vessel)145-150 passengers only4141$2241$134.8% increase in fuelconsumption (same as case studyvessel)151-600 passengers only3200None32$21410% increase in fuel consumption(same as case study vessel)Mono-Hull Ferries100-150 passengers only7000None assumed forslow-speed vessels;lengthening has noor little effect onenginemaintenance in aslow-speed vessel70$51.5% increase in fuelconsumption due to lengtheningand added weight related tovertical access and otheraccessibility features100-150 passengers plusvehicles670034$5151-1000 passengers only72007$6151-1000 passengers plusvehicles820000No increase in fuel consumptiongiven the current size of vessel1001 or more passengers plusvehicles190000Multi-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels151-600 passengers1300None13$21410% increase in fuel consumption(same as case study vessel)Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels151-499 passengers18100None assumed forslow-speed vessels;21$61.5% increase in fuelconsumption due to lengthening33Table 14. Estimated Engine Maintenance Cost & Fuel Cost for Replacement VesselsEngine Maintenance CostFuel CostVessel Type & SizeNumber ofVesselsVesselsAffectedAnnual CostPer Vessel(thousands ofdollars)Assumptions &ExplanationsVesselsAffectedAnnual CostPer Vessel(thousands ofdollars)Assumptions & Explanations500-1000 passengers8600lengthening has noor little effect onenginemaintenance in aslow-speed vessel50$5and added weight related tovertical access and otheraccessible features1001 or more passengers60000No increase in fuel consumptiongiven current size of vesselSmall Cruise Ships50-299 passengers2300None assumed;lengthening has noor little effect onenginemaintenance.11$72.75% increase in fuelconsumption due to lengthening12$161% increase in fuel consumptiondue to lengtheningTotal6964529534 We estimate the total compliance costs for the replacement vessels annualized over 20 years are 16 million dollars discounted at 7 percen t and 3 percent as shown in Table 15. The total estimated compliance costs are higher in th e first year because about 33% of the existing vessels (275 vessels) would reach or exceed their e xpected service life in the first year, and we assume these vessels are replaced by new vessels in the first year. See Table 4.

Table 15. Total Estimated Compliance Costs for Replacement Vessels Over 20 Years (millions of dollars)

Year 1 Incremental Construction Costs Additional Operation & Maintenance Costs Total Costs Not Discounted 7% Discount Rate 3% Discount Rate
1 $47 $1 $48 $45 $46
2 $4 $1 $5 $4 $4
3 $5 $1 $7 $6 $6
4 $8 $2 $11 $8 $9 5 $7 $3 $10 $7 $9

6 $5 $3 $8 $5 $7

7 $7 $4 $11 $7 $9
8 $10 $5 $15 $9 $12
9 $7 $5 $13 $7 $10
10 $11 $6 $16 $8 $12
11 $8 $6 $14 $7 $10
12 $7 $6 $14 $6 $10
13 $11 $7 $18 $7 $12
14 $3 $7 $10 $4 $7 15 $5 $8 $13 $5 $8
16 $6 $9 $15 $5 $10
17 $11 $10 $22 $7 $13
18 $12 $12 $24 $7 $14 19 $8 $12 $20 $6 $12
20 $9 $13 $22 $6 $12 Annualized Over 20 Years $16 $16 Note: 1. Year 1 is 2012. Estimates are 2011 dollars.35 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 ship s operating in U.S. ports as of 2011. Appendix II lists these large cruise ships, along with the data sources. Th e appendix provides data on each cruise ship, including vessel name, year cons tructed, total guest rooms, a nd guest rooms with mobility features.

New large cruise ships provide many accessibl e features that would be required by the proposed guidelines, including elevators to connect passenger decks; guest rooms with mobility features; guest rooms with communication featur es; 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 cr uise 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 maintenan ce costs due to the proposed guidelines.

The cruise industry is concerned that th e 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 Gu est 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 a nd would require cruise ships to provide a minimum number of guest room s with mobility features based on the total number of guest rooms in accordance with Tabl e V224.2 set out below. For instance, a cruise ship with 501 to 1,000 guest rooms would be re quired 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 fe atures for each additional 100 guest rooms or fraction thereof over 1,000 (2%). The proposed sc oping provision would re quire a portion of the guest rooms with mobility features to provide a roll-in shower. The proposed scoping provision

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

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

.36 would also require guest rooms with mobility feat ures to be dispersed among the various classes of guest rooms.

Table V224.2. Proposed Scoping Provision for Guest Rooms with Mobility Features

Total Number of

Guest Rooms Provided Minimum Required Number

of Rooms With Tubs or Showers Minimum Number of Required Rooms With Roll-In Showers Total Number of Required Rooms 1 to 25 1 0 1 26 to 50 2 0 2 51 to 75 3 1 4 76 to 100 4 1 5 101 to 150 5 2 7 151 to 200 6 2 8 201 to 300 7 3 10 301 to 400 8 4 12 401 to 500 9 4 13 501 to 1000 2 percent of total 1 per cent of total 3 pe rcent of total

1001 and over 20, plus 1 for each 100, or fraction thereof, over 1000 10, plus 1 for each 100, or fraction thereof, over 1000 30, plus 2 for each 100, or fraction thereof, over 1000

Guest rooms with mobility features are typi cally 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 d oorways; 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 ba thtub 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 Particip ation (SIPP) sponsored by the U.S. Census Bureau has asked questions about use of mob ility devices, including wheelchairs, scooters, canes, crutches, and walkers, by persons ag ed 15 and older since 1990. The SIPP provides stability in measuring disability over a long period with a large samp le 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 fo r vacation and leisure travel. 12 This report is referred to as the household report.

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

.37 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 assu me households with a member w ho 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 me mber who uses a cane, cr utches, 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 pr ovided in guest rooms w ith mobility features, regardless of whether they rent a wheelchair or sc ooter 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 passe ngers may have used wheelchairs or scooters for distance travel on the cruise ship s 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 cons ider 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 di sabilities. 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 pa ssengers with disabilitie s from reserving guest rooms with mobility features. DOT issued regula tions in 2010 that require cruise lines to hold guest rooms with mobility features for passengers with disabilities until all other rooms in the

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

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

.

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

.38 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 mob ility 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 re quire 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 to tal number of guest rooms to provide mobility features. As noted above, a linea r 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 ro oms with mobility feat ures 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 mobilit y 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 crui se 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

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

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

18 The cruise industry report is referenced in footnote 14.

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

.39 cruise ships in Appendix II opera ting 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 re placed after 20 to 25 years. We assume the cruise ship fleet is replaced over 20 years and 5 per cent of the guest rooms are repl aced 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 cr uise industry report assu med 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 colu mns 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 th e 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 averag e 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 gues t rooms with mobility features at this rate in the absence of the proposed guide lines. Under this baseline, we estimate the cruise industry would provide 4,240 guest rooms with mobility f eatures 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 th at would be required under the proposed scoping provision based on th e average number of guest rooms on large cruise ships constructed or unde r contract for construction between 2012 and 2015. As shown in Appendix III, the average number of guest rooms on these cruise sh ips 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 requi re 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 m obility features over 20 years as shown in the seventh column of Table 16. Thus, the proposed scoping provision woul d 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 ro oms 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 ni nth column of Table 16, the number of guest rooms that would be lost under the proposed scopi ng provision would range from 35 in Year 1 to 45 in Year 20 for a total of 786 guest rooms over 20 years.40Table 16. Estimated Guest Room Loss Over 20Years Under Proposed Scoping Provision1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Year1New GuestRoomsAssuming5% AnnualReplacement1New Guest Rooms Assuming3% Annual GrowthTotalNewGuestRooms3Number of GuestRooms withMobility FeaturesNumber of GuestRooms LostGuest Rooms inCruise ShipFleet1New GuestRooms2Baseline(1.9%)4ProposedScoping(2.6%)5Annual6Cumulative0123,5161 6,176 127,221 3,705 9,881 188 257 35 352 6,176 131,038 3,817 9,992 190 260 35 703 6,176 134,969 3,931 10,107 192 263 36 1064 6,176 139,018 4,049 10,225 194 266 36 1425 6,176 143,189 4,171 10,346 197 269 36 1786 6,176 147,485 4,296 10,471 199 272 37 2157 6,176 151,909 4,425 10,600 201 276 38 2538 6,176 156,466 4,557 10,733 204 279 38 2919 6,176 161,160 4,694 10,870 207 283 38 32910 6,176 165,995 4,835 11,011 209 286 39 36811 6,176 170,975 4,980 11,156 212 290 39 40712 6,176 176,104 5,129 11,305 215 294 40 44713 6,176 181,387 5,283 11,459 218 298 40 48714 6,176 186,829 5,442 11,617 221 302 41 52815 6,176 192,434 5,605 11,781 224 306 41 56916 6,176 198,207 5,773 11,949 227 311 42 61117 6,176 204,153 5,946 12,122 230 315 43 65418 6,176 210,278 6,125 12,300 234 320 43 69719 6,176 216,586 6,308 12,484 237 325 44 74120 6,176 223,084 6,498 12,673 241 330 45 786Total 123,51699,568223,0844,2405,802786Notes:411. Year 0 is 2011; Year 1 is 2012. We estimate there were 123,516 guest rooms in thecruise ship fleet operating in U.S.ports as of 2011. See Appendix II. We assume the cruise ship fleet is replaced over 20 years and 5 percent of the guestrooms are replaced annually. We further assume the total numberof guest rooms in the cruise ship fleet would increase by3% annually.2. The number of new guest rooms is calculated by subtractingthe number of guest rooms in the cruise ship fleet for theprior year from the given year.3. The total number of new guest rooms is the sum of columns 2 and 4.4. The baseline (1.9%) is the average percent of guest roomswith mobility features provided in the cruise ship fleetoperating in U.S. ports as of 2011 in the absence of the proposed guidelines. See Appendix II.5. The proposed scoping (2.6%) is basedon the average number of guest rooms (1,700 guest rooms) provided on largecruise ships constructed or under contract for construction between 2012 and 2015. See Appendix III. The proposedscoping in Table V224.2 would require a cruise ship with1,700 guest rooms to provide 44 guest rooms with mobilityfeatures (2.6% of guest rooms).6. The number of guest rooms lost is based on the cruise industry’s premise that two guestrooms with mobility featuresoccupy the same square footage as three guest rooms resulting inthe loss of one guest room for every two guest rooms withmobility features. The annual number ofguest rooms lost is calculated by subtracting the number of guest rooms withmobility features provided under the baseline (1.9%) from the number of guest rooms with mobility features that would berequired under the proposed scoping (2.6%) and dividing the remainder by two.42 We estimate the number of guest rooms that would be lost under the alternative scoping provisions the same way as we did for the pr oposed 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. U nder the proposed scoping, we estimate 786 guest rooms would be lost over 20 years. Under the 2 percent alternativ e scoping, we estimate 114 guest rooms would be lost over 20 years. Unde r the 4 percent alternative scoping, we estimate 2,346 guest rooms would be lo st over 20 years.

Table 17. Estimated Cumulative Guest Room Loss Over 20 Years Under Proposed and Alternative Scoping Provisions

Year 1 Proposed Scoping (2.6%) 2% Alternative Scoping 4% Alternative Scoping 1 35 5 104 2 70 10 209 3 106 15 315 4 142 20 423 5 178 25 532 6 215 30 642 7 253 36 754 8 291 42 867 9 329 47 981 10 368 53 1,097 11 407 59 1,214 12 447 65 1,333 13 487 71 1,453 14 528 77 1,575 15 569 83 1,699 16 611 89 1,825 17 654 95 1,953 18 697 101 2,082 19 741 108 2,213 20 786 114 2,346 Note: 1. Year 1 is 2012.

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

20 The cruise industry report notes that cruise ships rarely travel with empty guest rooms. In 2011, 39 percent of cruise ships with fewer than 2,000 passengers had utilization above 100 percent, and 86 percent of cruise ships with 2,000 or more passengers had utilizati on above 100 percent according to the U. S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration North American Cruise Statistical Snapshot, 2011 at:43 includes passenger fares based on double occupa ncy per room plus expenditures on other goods and services purchased on the cruise ship. Th e 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 info rmation 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 re venue loss for lost guest rooms. 21 If we were to use net revenue per guest room, and all our other assump tions 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 th e 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 ve ssels based on the same design without major modification. Each new class of crui se ships is generally la rger than the previous class. As shown in Appendix II, cruise ship s 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 in creasing the number of guest rooms when designing ne w classes of cruise ships.

http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/North_America n_Cruise_Statistics_Quarterly_Snapshot.pdf. Since some guest rooms can accommodate more than two passenge rs, utilization can be above 100 percent.

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

.44Table 18. Estimated Gross Revenue Loss in Millions Over 20 Years Under Proposed and Alternative Scoping ProvisionsYear1Proposed Scoping (2.6%)2% Alternative Scoping4% Alternative ScopingNotDiscounted7%DiscountRate3%DiscountRateNotDiscounted7%DiscountRate3%DiscountRateNotDiscounted7%DiscountRate3%DiscountRate1$6$5$5$1$1$1$17$16$162$11$10$11$2$1$2$34$29$323$17$14$16$2$2$2$51$41$464$23$17$20$3$2$3$68$52$615$29$20$25$4$3$3$86$61$746$35$23$29$5$3$4$104$69$877$41$25$33$6$4$5$122$76$998$47$27$37$7$4$5$140$81$1109$53$29$41$8$4$6$158$86$12110$59$30$44$9$4$6$177$90$13211$66$31$47$10$5$7$196$93$14112$72$32$51$10$5$7$215$95$15113$79$33$53$11$5$8$234$97$16014$85$33$56$12$5$8$254$98$16815$92$33$59$13$5$9$274$99$17616$99$33$61$14$5$9$294$100$18317$105$33$64$15$5$9$315$100$19118$112$33$66$16$5$10$336$99$19719$119$33$68$17$5$10$357$99$20420$127$33$70$18$5$10$378$98$209Annualized over 20 years$50$58$7$8$149$172Note:1. Year 1 is 2012. Estimates are 2011 dollars.45 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 crui se ships discussed in Chapter 3 are shown in Table 19. We estimate the total compliance costs for th ese passenger vessels annualized over 20 years are $66 million discounted at 7 percent, and $74 million discounted at 3 percent.

Table 19. Total Estimated Compliance Costs in Millions Over 20 Years for New Passenger Vessels Covered by Proposed Guidelines Year 1 Not Discounted 7% Discount Rate 3% Discount Rate 1 $54 $50 $51 2 $16 $14 $15 3 $24 $20 $22 4 $34 $25 $29 5 $39 $27 $34 6 $33 $28 $36 7 $52 $32 $42 8 $62 $36 $49 9 $66 $36 $51 10 $75 $38 $56 11 $80 $38 $57 12 $86 $38 $61 13 $97 $40 $65 14 $95 $37 $63 15 $105 $38 $67 16 $114 $38 $71 17 $127 $40 $77 18 $136 $40 $80 19 $139 $39 $80 20 $149 $39 $82 Annualized over 20 Years $66 $74 Note: 1. Year 1 is 2012. Estimates are 2011 dollars.46 CHAPTER 5. ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING VESSELS

5.1 Introduction

When alterations are made to existing passe nger vessels, the proposed guidelines would require the alterations to co mply with the proposed provisions for new construction. An alteration would be defined as a change to a pass enger vessel that affect s or could affect the usability of the passenger vessel or portion thereof. Alterati ons would include, but are not limited to, remodeling, renovation, rehabilitation, r econstruction, historic re storation, changes or rearrangement of the structural parts or elements, and changes or rearrangement in the plan configuration of bulkheads and pa rtitions. The definition woul d exclude normal maintenance, painting or wallpapering, or changes to propulsi on, mechanical, and elec trical systems unless they affect the usability of the vessel.

Only the portions of a passenger vessel that ar e altered would be required to comply with the proposed provisions for new construction. Fo r example, if a toilet room on a passenger vessel is altered, the altered porti ons of the toilet room would be required to comply with the applicable proposed provisions for new constructi on. Earlier drafts of the proposed guidelines included a provision that would ha ve required a path of travel to altered areas containing a primary function. This provisi on is not included in the proposed guidelines because the DOJ regulations require a path of tr avel to altered area s containing a primary function. See 28 CFR 35.151 (b) and 36.403.

5.2 Proposed Exceptions

Three general exceptions are proposed for a lterations to existing passenger vessels. Exception 1 would not require an onboard accessibl e 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 comp ly with the proposed guidelines to the maximum extent feasible where compliance is te chnically infeasible. Technically infeasible would be defined with respect to an alteration as something th at has little likelihood of being accomplished because existing structural condit ions would require removing or altering an essential structural member; or because other existing physical or vess el constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces, or f eatures that are in full and strict compliance with the guidelines.

Exception 3 would require alterations to pr ovide accessibility to the maximum extent feasible where compliance with the proposed guidelines would re sult in any of the following:

 An increase in tonnage that changes the passenger vessel’s classification from 46 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter T (Small Passenge r Vessels (Under 100 Gro ss Tons)) or 46 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter K (Small Passenger Vessels Carrying More Than 150 Passengers or With Overnight Accommodations For More Than 49 Pa ssengers) to 46 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter H47 (Passenger Vessels); 22

 A violation of the minimum requireme nts 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 ex cess of the existing power supply.

Specific exceptions are also proposed in certa in 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 passenge r 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 in feasible for existing toilet rooms to comply with the proposed guidelines provided the unisex toile t 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 syst em is upgraded or replaced, or a new alarm system installed. V215.1 Exception 2.

 Thresholds 3/4 inch high maximum w ould be permitted at doorways without coamings in alterations to existing passenger vessel s 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 woul d not be required to comply with the proposed provision for car dimensions where the existing elevator car co nfiguration provides a clear deck area 16 square feet minimum; an insi de clear depth of 54 inches minimum; and an inside clear depth 36 inches minimum. V407.4.1 Exception.

22 U.S. Coast Guard regulations in 46 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter H that have different requirements for vessels than the regulations in 46 CFR Chapter I, Subchapters T and K.48  Alternative dimensions are proposed for sa les and service count ers in alterations to existing passenger vessels where compliance w ith the proposed provisions would result in a reduction of the number of existing counter s at work stations. V904.4 Exception.

5.3 Types and Frequency of Alterations

We requested comment on the types and fre quency of alterations to existing passenger vessels when the 2006 draft guidelines were re leased. The Cruise Lines International Association (formerly Internationa l Council of Cruise Lines) res ponded that when a new deck or mid-section is added to an existing cruise sh ip, 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 re quire existing circulation paths that are not otherwise altered to comply w ith the proposed provisions for onboa rd accessible routes when a new deck or mid-section is added to a cruise ship.

Individual passenger vessel owners and opera tors commented that alterations generally involve installing new motors a nd pumps; redecorating toilet r ooms; 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 passeng er vessels generally do not undergo major alterations if there is no change in ownership becau se it would trigger a need to comply with subsequently developed U.S. Coast Guard regulations. Acco rding to the Passenger Vessels Association, small cosmetic changes are made when a passenger vesse l is transferred to a new owner in similar service. Small cosmetic changes generally would not trigger a need to co mply with the proposed guidelines. The Passenger Vesse l Association noted that if a passenger vessel changes service, more extensive changes may be undertaken. For ex ample, if an excursio n vessel changes service to a dinner vessel, a galley would be adde d, passenger space lay outs would be changed, bulkheads may be moved, and stairway s 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 im pact on alterations to existing passenger vessels.49 CHAPTER 6. BENEFITS

6.1 Nature of Benefits

We do not quantify the benefits of the propos ed guidelines due to the nature of the benefits. The proposed guidelines would addres s the discriminatory effects of architectural, transportation, and communication barriers encountered by indivi duals 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 seatin g areas would enable passengers who use wheelchairs or scooters to sit w ith other passengers. Passengers with mobility disabilities would be able to use toilet rooms a nd guest rooms on passenger vessels and cruise ships. Assistive listening systems would enable passe ngers who have difficulty heari ng to listen to a narrated tour delivered on the public address system of an ex cursion vessel. Passengers who have difficulty seeing or are blind would be able to walk around passenger vessels without encountering protruding objects. The proposed guidelines woul d afford these individuals equal opportunity to travel on passenger vessels for employment, tran sportation, public accomm odation, and leisure. The proposed guidelines would enable these indi viduals to achieve great er participation in society, independent living, and eco nomic self-sufficiency. The be nefits 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 Particip ation (SIPP) sponsored by the U.S. Census Bureau asks questions about whether persons have difficulty perfor ming a specific set of functional activities. 23 The SIPP provides estimates of disability prevalence that are representative of the civilian non-institutionalized population livi ng in the United States. We recognize that not all these indivi duals are likely to di rectly benefit from the proposed guidelines because some may not use passenger vessels c overed by the proposed guidelines. We do not have information to estimate the number of people with mobility disabil ities or their family members who would directly benefit from the pr oposed guidelines. We provide the data below for illustrative purposes.

Persons with Mobility Disabilities

The proposed provisions for accessible passeng er boarding systems, onboard accessible routes, accessible means of escape, accessible toil et 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 passeng er 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 U.S. Census Bureau, Americans with Disabilities: 2010 at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf

.50  23.9 million (9.9%) had difficulty walking a quarter of a mile;

 22.3 million (9.2%) had difficulty c limbing 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 wh eelchair or scooter.

Persons Who Have Difficulty Hearing or Are Deaf

The proposed provisions for assistive listeni ng 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 co vered by the proposed guid elines. The SIPP data show among persons aged 15 and older 7.6 m illion (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 heari ng 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 increase s 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 obj ects, elevator call buttons and signals, and tactile and visual characters on signs woul d directly benefit persons who have difficulty seeing or are blind and use passe nger 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.

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

.51 CHAPTER 7. INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

We are required by the Regulat ory Flexibility Act to consid er 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 prep ared 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 Re habilitation Act and section 504 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to issu e accessibility guidelines for the construction and alteration of passenger vessels covered by the ADA. We are issuing the proposed guidelines pursuant to this statutory aut hority. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) are required to i ssue accessibility standards for the construction and alteration of passenger vessels covered by the ADA that are consistent w ith 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 vesse ls covered by the ADA.

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

The objective of the proposed gui delines 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 s ection 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 bus inesses identified by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes li sted in Table 24 and small governments with a population of 50,000 or less that own or operate passe nger vessels, other than ferries or tenders, permitted to carry more than 150 passengers or more than 49 overnight passengers; ferries permitted to carry more than 99 passengers; and tenders permitted to carry more than 59
passengers.

Table 20. Small Business Administration Size Standards NAICS Code Small Business Size 483112 Deep Sea Passenger Transportation 500 or fewer employees 483114 Coastal and Great Lakes Passenger Tr ansportation 500 or fewer employees 483212 Inland Water Passenger Transportation 500 or fewer employees 487110 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Water $7 million or less annual receipts 713210 Casinos (except Casino Hotels) $7 million or less annual receipts

We estimate small entities own or operate 635 vessels in the size categories covered by the proposed guidelines. This includes 372 sma ll businesses that own or operate 257 ferries, 33852 multi-purpose vessels, and 23 small cruise sh ips 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 Co mpliance Requirements?

The proposed guidelines would apply when sm all entities replace their existing vessels with new vessels or add new vesse ls to their fleet. The propos ed guidelines, themselves, would not require existing vessels to be made accessibl e except where altered. The proposed guidelines contain proposed scoping and technical provis ions. 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 provis ions specify how many of th e features would be required to be accessible. The proposed technical prov isions specify the design criteria for accessible features. The passenger vessel features addressed by the prop osed scoping and technical provisions include onboard accessible routes connecting passenger decks and passenger amenities within decks; accessible means of es cape; doorways and coamings; toilet rooms; wheelchair spaces in assembly areas and transporta tion seating areas; assistive listening systems; general emergency alarms; guest rooms; and other passenger amenities. The proposed guidelines include proposed technical provisio ns for accessible passenger boarding systems. However, we defer to DOT and DOJ to addr ess when accessible passenger boarding systems would be required since passenger boarding system s can be provided at landside facilities and involve operational issues between the owner or operator of the landside faci lity 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 year s beginning in 2011. We assume small entities would construct new vesse ls to replace these vessels. The estimated compliance costs are based on case studies and are adjusted to 2011 dollars.

Table 21. Small Entity Vessels Replaced by New Vessels

Vessel Number Number Replaced Over 20 Years

Ferries 273 238 Multi-Purpose Vessels 339 279 Small Cruise Ships 23 16 Total 635 533

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 en tities construct new vessels to replace existing vessels, we estimate 65 vessels would be required to provi de a LULA at a cost of $297,000; 29 vessels would be required to provide an elevator at a cost of $372,000; 5 sm all cruise ships that currently53 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 ship s would be required to provide a platform lift to tender boarding platforms at the stern of th e vessel at a cost of $27,700. See Table 22 for the types and sizes of the vessels that would incu r compliance costs for an elevator, LULA, or platform lift.

 Other Accessible Feature Costs. This incl udes the cost to expand toilet rooms; modify doors and thresholds; in stall automatic doors at doorw ays with coamings and double ramps; add assistive listening systems; and pr ovide 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 ve ssels to replace existing vessels, we estimate 516 vessels would incur compliance costs for othe r 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 t hough the automatic sprink ler systems are more costly. The costs would be lower if protected wa iting areas are provided. See Table 23 for the types and sizes of the vessels that would incu r 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 vess els that would incur compliance costs to lengthen the vessel.

 Redesign Cost. This is the cost for arch itectural 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 w ould range from $2,000 for some mono-hull ferries permitted to carry 151 to 1000 passengers plus vehi cles to $261,100 for some small cruise ships. See Table 23 for the types and sizes of the vesse ls 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 pass enger 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 ve ssels that would incur additional fuel costs.54  Vertical Access Maintenance Cost. This is the annual cost of maintaining an elevator, LULA, or platform lift to connect pass enger decks. When sma ll 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 ty pes 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 main tenance costs. The annual ma intenance cost would be $22,000 multi-hull ferries permitted to carry 100 to 150 pa ssengers. 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 cost s. 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 monohull multi-purpose vessels permitted to carry 1,001 or more passengers. See Table 24 for the types and sizes of the vessels that woul d incur these annual maintenance costs.

Table 22. Vertical Access Cost (thousands of dollars)

Vessel Type & Size Number of Vessels Vessels Affected LULA Cost Vessels Affected Elevator Cost

Multi-Hull Ferries 100-124 passengers only 4 145-150 passengers only 33 151-600 passengers only 22 Mono-Hull Ferries 100-150 passengers only 61 100-150 passengers plus vehicles 37

151-1000 passenger only 54 5 $297 151-1000 passengers plus vehicles 27 5 $297 1 $372

1001 or more passengers plus vehicles 0

Multi-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels

151-600 passengers only 13 Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels 151-499 passengers 176 18 $297 3 $37255 Table 22. Vertical Access Cost (thousands of dollars)

Vessel Type & Size Number of Vessels Vessels Affected LULA Cost Vessels Affected Elevator Cost

500-1000 passengers 84 28 $297 20 $372 1001 or more passengers 6 2 $297 2 $372 Small Cruise Ships 1 50-299 passengers 16 7 $297 3 $372

Total 533 65 29

Note: 1. The small cruise ships would be required to al so provide a platform lift to connect to the tender boarding platform at the st ern of the vessel at a cost of $27,100. Five small cruise ships that currently provide elevators would be required to provide la rger elevators at a cost of $2,700.

Table 23. Other Accessible Features, Lengthening, and Redesign Costs ( thousands of dollars)

Vessel Type & Size Number of Vessels Affected Vessels Other Access Feature

Costs Affected Vessels Length Cost Affected Vessels Redesign Cost

Multi-Hull Ferries 100-124 passengers only 4 4 $25 4 $261 4 $29 145-150 passengers only 33 33 $38 33 $90 21 $13 151-600 passengers only 22 22 $153 22 $217 18 $37

Mono-Hull Ferries 100-150 passengers only 61 61 $39 61 $60 56 $10 100-150 passengers plus vehicles 37 20 $54 20 $270 20 $32

151-1000 passengers only 54 54 $116 0 $0 42 $12 to $41 151-1000 passengers plus vehicles 27 27 $19 0 $0 27 $2 to $39

1001 or more passengers plus vehicles 0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

Multi-Hull Multi- Purpose Vessels 151-600 passengers only 13 13 $153 13 $217 13 $37 Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels 151-499 passengers 176 176 $78 0 $0 173 $8 to $45

500-1000 passengers 1 84 84 $112 to $125 48 $205 75 $11 to $70 1001 or more
passengers 2 6 6 $222 to $631 0 $0 6 $22 to $100 Small Cruise Ships56 Table 23. Other Accessible Features, Lengthening, and Redesign Costs ( thousands of dollars)

Vessel Type & Size Number of Vessels Affected Vessels Other Access Feature

Costs Affected Vessels Length Cost Affected Vessels Redesign Cost

50-299 passengers 16 11 $95 11 $974 15 $110 to $261 5 $95 5 $2,117

Total 533 516 217 470 Notes: 1. Thirty-six (36) multi-purpose vessels with 500-100 0 passengers have other accessible feature costs of $112,000. 2. Two (2) multi-purpose vessels with 1001 or more p assengers have other accessible feature costs of $222,000.

Table 24. Additional Operation and Ma intenance Costs (thousands of dollars)

Vessel Type & Size Number of Vessels Vessels Affected Fuel Cost Vessels Affected Vert. Access Maint.

Cost Vessels Affected Engine Maint.

Cost Auto Door Maint.

Cost

Multi-Hull Ferries 100-124 passengers only 4 4 $37 4 $22

145-150 passengers only 33 33 $13 33 $22

151-600 passengers only 22 22 $214

Mono-Hull Ferries 100-150 passengers only 61 61 $5

100-150 passengers plus vehicles 37 20 $5

151-1000 passengers only 54 5 $6 5 $6

151-1000 passengers plus vehicles 27 6 $6

1001 or more passengers plus vehicles 0

Multi-Hull Multi- Purpose Vessels 151-600 passengers only 13 13 $214

Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels 151-499 passengers 176 21 $6 21 $6 500-1000 passengers 84 48 $5 48 $6 48 $1

1001 or more
passengers 6 4 $6 6 $657 Table 24. Additional Operation and Ma intenance Costs (thousands of dollars)

Vessel Type & Size Number of Vessels Vessels Affected Fuel Cost Vessels Affected Vert. Access Maint.

Cost Vessels Affected Engine Maint.

Cost Auto Door Maint.

Cost Small Cruise Ships

50-299 passengers 16 11 $7 9 $8

2 $3

5 $16 1 $8

4 $3

Total 533 243 100 91

What Significant Alternatives Did We Consider?

We based the proposed guidelines on our accessi bility guidelines for landside facilities. Table 25 compares the proposed guidelines for pa ssenger vessels to the guidelines for landside facilities to show the exceptions and alternative provi sions that we propose to reduce the impact on passenger vessels owners and opera tors, including small entities.

Table 25. Exceptions and Alternative Provi sions Proposed to Reduce Impact on Passenger Vessel Owners and Operato rs, Including Small Entities

Feature Proposed Passenger Vessel Guidelines Reduced Impacts

Employee-only areas Access not required to areas used only by employees. Landside Facilities Access required in areas used only by employees.

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

Elevator or limited access-limited application elevator (LULA) Elevator or LULA not required on vessels with only two passenger decks, unless both decks are entry decks. Landside Facilities Elevator or LULA not required in certain facilities that are less than 3 stories. Exception does not apply to state and local governments.

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

Elevator or LULA not required to connect decks that are not entry decks where each d eck is less than 3,000 square feet. Landside Facilities Elevator or LULA not required in certain facilities that have less than 3,000 square feet per story. Exception does not apply to state and local governments.58 Table 25. Exceptions and Alternative Provi sions Proposed to Reduce Impact on Passenger Vessel Owners and Operato rs, Including Small Entities

Feature Proposed Passenger Vessel Guidelines Reduced Impacts

Passenger Vessels Reduces impact by applying exception to vessels owned or operated by private entities and state and local governments. In vessels otherwise eligible to use the above exceptions, elevator or LULA not required to connect entry decks where at least one designated entry deck serves each stop used for embarking and disembarking passengers and provides the same passenger amenities. Landside Facilities No comparable exception.

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

Elevator or LULA not required in high-speed vessels with 3 decks that meet certain conditions. Landside Facilities No comparable exception.

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

Elevator or LULA not required to connect to sundecks on high-speed vessels that meet certain conditions and non-enclosed spaces are available on other accessible decks. Landside Facilities No comparable exception.

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

Elevator or LULA not required to connect to one segment of decks divided into two segments by vehicle lanes on vehicle ferries. Landside Facilities No comparable exception.

Passenger Vessels Reduces impact by requiring vertical access to only one deck segment. Elevator or LULA not required to connect to decks containing vehicle parking lanes that are designed to be raised and lowered and do not provide any other passenger amenities on vehicle ferries. Landside Facilities No comparable exception.

Passenger Vessels Reduces impact by not requiring vertical access to certain decks used only for vehicle parking. Elevator or LULA not required to connect to decks, other than entry decks, that are less than 300 square Landside Facilities No comparable exception.59 Table 25. Exceptions and Alternative Provi sions Proposed to Reduce Impact on Passenger Vessel Owners and Operato rs, Including Small Entities

Feature Proposed Passenger Vessel Guidelines Reduced Impacts

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

Elevator or LULA not required to connect to decks below the bulkhead deck. Landside Facilities No comparable exception.

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

Platform Lifts Platform lifts permitted to connect decks less than 3,000 square feet, and to tender boarding platforms. Landside Facilities Platform lifts permitted only in limited situations in new construction.

Passenger Vessels Reduces impact by allowing platform lifts to be used instead of elevator or LULA. Reduces weight and additionalfuel consumption impacts in highspeed vessels.

Location of onboard accessible routes Onboard accessible route not required to coincide with or be located in the same area as general passenger circulation paths on small vessels where largest deck is less than 3,000 square feet. Landside Facilities No comparable exception.

Passenger Vessels Provides flexibility in designing onboard accessible routes on small vessels.

Single-user toilet rooms in a cluster On high-speed vessels that do not transport overnight passengers, 5 percent of single user toilet rooms clustered in a single location would be required to be accessible. Landside Facilities 50 percent of single user toilet rooms clustered in a single location required to be accessible.

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

Wheelchair spaces in transportation seating

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

Passenger Vessels Reduces impact by not requiring companion seats and reducing the number of wheelchair spaces on small ferries. Guest rooms with Vessels with l ess than 121 guest Landside Facilities60 Table 25. Exceptions and Alternative Provi sions Proposed to Reduce Impact on Passenger Vessel Owners and Operato rs, Including Small Entities

Feature Proposed Passenger Vessel Guidelines Reduced Impacts

mobility features rooms would be required to provide not more than 5 percent of guest rooms with mobility features. Facilities with 101 to 121 guest rooms required to provide 7 guest rooms with mobility features.

Passenger Vessels Reduces impact on small vessels.

Vehicle Ferries Walking surfaces on onboard accessible routes, accessible means of escape, and accessible passenger boarding systems on ferries permitted to overlap vehicle ways. 1 Landside Facilities No comparable provision.

Passenger Vessels Reduces impact on vehicle ferries.

Doorways with coamings Alternative provisions proposed for coamings greater than 1/2 inch in height. Landside Facilities Door thresholds cannot exceed 1/2 inch in height.

Passenger Vessels Resolves conflicts with coaming requirements. Note: 1. The proposed guidelines do not address vehicle park ing on ferries. Ferry operators need effective operational loading plans to identify vehicles needi ng accessible parking and to position the vehicles on the deck to access passenger amenities.

Are There Other Releva nt Federal Rules?

DOT has issued regulations implementing the ADA for passenger vessels that provide designated public transp ortation services operate d by state and local governments or specified public transportation services operated by privat e entities that are primarily engaged in the business of transporting people and whose operations affect co mmerce. DOT has reserved a subpart in the regulations for accessibility sta ndards for the constructi on and alteration passenger vessels in anticipation of our i ssuing these guidelines. See 49 CF R part 39, subpart E. DOJ has issued regulations implementing the ADA fo r 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 guide lines until they are adopted by DOT and DOJ as accessibility standards for the construction and alteration of passenger vessels covered by the ADA.61 APPENDIX I. FERRIES, MULTI-PURPOSE VESSELS, AND SMALL CRUISE SHIPS OPERATIN G IN U.S. PORTS AS OF 2010

This appendix provides data on ferries permitted to carry more than 99 passengers; multipurpose vessels such as dinner or excursion vess els 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 comp iled 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, Re search and Innovative T echnology 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 fore ign flag vessel; (g) indicates gaming vessel; (na) indicates no data available; and (*) indicate s vessel currently provides elevator, limited uselimited access elevator (LULA), or platform lift. The last column in the table shows whether a new vessel that is constructed to replace an ex isting 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 sh ips would be required to provide a platform lift to a tender boarding platform.

Vessel Type Number of Vessels Multi-Hull Ferry (Passengers Only 96 Multi-Hull Ferry (Passengers & Vehicles) 3 Mono-Hull Ferry (Passengers Only) 160 Mono-Hull Ferry (Passengers & Vehicles) 195 Multi-Hull Multi-Purpose Passenger Vessel 16 Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Passenger Vessel 330 Small Cruise or Charter Ship 32 Total 832

Multi-Hull Ferries (Passengers Only)

Vessel Name Year Constructed Passengers Passenger Decks Elevator LULA Platform Lift ENCINAL 1985 388 3 No CAT EXPRESS 1986 360 2 No VICTORIA CLIPPER (f) 1986 >150 2 No62 ZELINSKY 1986 400 3 No CATALINA EXPLORER 1987 149 2 No MACKINAC EXPRESS 1987 346 3 No ISLAND ROCKET (f) 1988 149 2 No CATALINA FLYER 1988 600 3 No ISLAND EXPRESS 1988 380 3 No MELISSA ANN 1988 199 2 No BIMINI BREEZE II 1989 124 1 No AMELIA 1989 149 1 No COVADONGA 1989 149 1 No SEAJET I 1989 400 3 No VIEJO SAN JUAN 1990 149 1 No JESSICA W 1990 530 3 No VICTORIA CLIPPER III 1990 511 3 No VALLEJO 1991 300 3 No JET EXPRESS II 1992 395 3 No HARBOR BAY EXPRESS II 1993 149 1 No VICTORIA CLIPPER IV 1993 330 2 No BAY BREEZE 1994 250 2 No CHELSEA LANE TYLER 1995 117 2 No JET EXPRESS IV 1995 147 2 No STRAITS EXPRESS 1995 399 3 No FLYING CLOUD 1996 149 2 No LIGHTNING 1996 149 1 No FINEST 1996 349 2 No LADY MARTHA 1997 145 2 No MAKANA (f) 1997 149 2 No

DEL NORTE 1997 390 2 Yes – Platform Lift M/V INTINTOLI 1997 301 2 No MARE ISLAND 1997 300 2 No AUTSHUMATO (f) 1998 149 2 No GOLDEN GATE 1998 350 2 No NORA VITTORIA 1998 400 3 No FIORELLO LAGUARDIA 1999 150 3 No FRANK SINATRA 1999 150 3 No YANKEE FREEDOM II 1999 149 2 No YOGI BERRA 1999 150 2 No AURORA 1999 400 3 No CATALINA JET 1999 440 3 No NAPA 1999 350 2 No STARSHIP EXPRESS 1999 298 2 No CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS 2000 150 3 No63 SALACIA 2000 600 3 No FAIRWEATHER EXPRESS II 2001 150 2 No FLORENCE MARTUS 2001 149 1 No PEACEMAKER (f) 2001 149 2 No PETER R WEISS 2001 150 2 No ATHENA 2001 250 2 No

MENDOCINO 2001 449 3 Yes – Platform Lift PERALTA 2001 331 2 No SEASTREAK NEW JERSEY 2001 399 3 No SEASTREAK NEW YORK 2001 399 3 No DOWNTOWN 2002 100 1 No B.V.I. PATRIOT (f) 2002 150 2 No BROOKLYN 2002 150 2 No HOBOKEN 2002 150 2 No JET EXPRESS III 2002 147 2 No U.S. SENATOR FRANK R LAUTENBERG 2002 150 2 No

ADMIRAL RICHARD E BENNIS 2003 150 1 No

BAYONNE 2003 150 2 No EXPEDITIONS FOUR 2003 149 2 No GOVERNOR THOMAS H. KEAN 2003 150 2 No

ISLAND ADVENTURE 2003 149 2 No JERSEY CITY 2003 150 2 No OCEAN STATE 2003 149 2 No PATRIOT 2003 149 2 No ATLANTICAT 2003 442 3 No GREY LADY 2003 294 2 No SEASTREAK WALL STREET 2003 399 3 No PROVINCETOWN III 2004 149 2 No SPIRIT OF KINGSTON 2004 149 2 No WHALING CITY EXPRESS 2004 150 3 No BIG CAT EXPRESS 2004 377 3 No SEASTREAK HIGHLANDS 2004 399 3 No SOLANO 2004 300 2 No SEYMOUR B. DURST 2005 149 2 No JET CAT EXPRESS 2005 383 2 No EXPEDITIONS FIVE 2006 108 2 No ED ROGOWSKY 2006 149 2 No MARINA FLYER 2006 149 2 No RANGER 2006 149 2 No64 KEY WEST EXPRESS 2006 199 2 No MV IYANOUGH 2006 393 2 No CATALINA ADVENTURE 2007 149 2 No LITTLE LADY II 2007 149 2 No MARIAN S HEISKELL 2007 149 2 No GEMINI 2008 149 2 No PISCES 2008 149 2 No KACHEMAK VOYAGER 2009 150 2 No SCORPIO 2009 199 2 No RICH PASSAGE 1 2010 118 1 No YORK 2010 148 2 No TAURUS 2010 285 3 No Multi-Hull Ferries (Passengers & Vehicles) FAIRWEATHER 2003 250 2 (*) LAKE EXPRESS 2004 400 3 (*) M/V CHENEGA 2005 250 2 (*) Mono-Hull Ferries (Passengers Only) CARLISLE II 1917 140 2 No THOMAS JEFFERSON 1942 794 1 No BADGER 1953 600 3 Yes - LULA BIDE-A-WEE 1955 150 2 No HOLIDAY 1957 150 2 No HIAWATHA 1959 150 2 No SACRE BLEU 1959 147 2 No OTTAWA 1959 600 2 No WENONAH 1960 144 2 No BONITA 1961 114 1 No MICHAEL COSGROVE 1961 149 1 No CHIPPEWA 1962 598 2 No MONITOR II 1963 105 2 No ZEE WHIZ 1964 150 2 No CABRILLO 1964 303 2 No FIRE ISLAND DUCHESS 1966 147 1 No ZEE LION 1966 150 2 No ST FRANCISVILLE 1967 143 2 No FAT CAT 1967 300 2 No NEIL HENLY 1967 380 2 No QUAIAPEN 1967 248 2 No MERRIMAC II 1968 107 2 No MT. MANSFIELD 1969 122 2 No THE WELCOME 1969 120 2 No STRAITS OF MACKINAC II 1969 295 2 No65 ROYAL STAR 1970 650 3 No MOLOKAI PRINCESS 1971 149 2 No ALCATRAZ FLYER 1971 700 3 Yes - LULA FELICITY 1972 150 2 No PARADISE CHALLENGER (f) 1972 112 2 No CAPT PATTERSON 1972 299 2 No BRANT POINT 1973 603 3 No CATALINA KING 1973 686 3 Yes - LULA ISLAND ROMANCE 1973 299 2 No ALCATRAZ CLIPPER 1974 693 3 Yes - LULA ISLAND QUEEN 1974 354 2 No LADY VENTURE 1974 325 1 No CUMBERLAND QUEEN 1975 146 2 No VIKING SUPER STAR 1975 149 3 No ANGEL ISLAND 1975 396 2 No SAN FRANCISCO 1975 715 3 (*) SANS SOUCI 1976 149 2 No TAMALPAIS 1976 120 2 No THE HOPE 1976 150 2 No VICTORIA STAR2 1976 142 2 No BAY MONARCH 1976 414 2 No FIRE ISLAND MISS 1976 297 2 No MARIN 1976 624 3 (*) SONOMA 1976 715 3 (*) NATIVE SON EXPRESS 1977 149 2 No VIKING STARSHIP 1977 144 2 No CAPT. NEVILLE LEVY 1977 999 3 Yes - LULA PATHFINDER II 1977 249 2 No STATUE OF LIBERTY V 1977 792 3 Yes - LULA TRAVELER 1977 297 1 No CARIBE TIME 1978 145 1 No SAPELO QUEEN 1978 147 2 No COL. FRANK X. ARMIGER 1978 402 2 No MUNNATAWKET 1978 209 2 No SEN. ALVIN T. STUMPF 1978 999 3 Yes - LULA MARQUETTE 1979 150 2 No STERLING (f) 1979 149 2 No VAGABOND 1979 150 1 No VICTORIA EXPRESS II 1979 147 2 No FIRE ISLAND CLIPPER 1979 343 2 No GOLDEN BEAR 1979 396 2 No OLD BLUE 1979 336 3 No OSKI 1979 396 3 No66 WYANDOT 1979 265 2 No VENTURE PRIDE 1980 264 2 No CHESAPEAKE BREEZE 1981 147 2 No SPEEDY'S FANTASY (f) 1981 107 2 No VICTORIA EXPRESS 1981 147 2 No CAPITOL VENTURE 1981 248 2 No FIREBALL 1981 297 2 No FREEDOM 1981 599 2 No RITA 1982 149 2 No ANNA 1983 149 2 No LA SALLE 1983 150 2 No M/V CUTTYHUNK 1983 146 2 No KIKI 1983 297 2 No FIREBIRD 1984 395 2 No FORT INDEPENDENCE 1984 518 3 No MCNEIL 1984 260 2 No ISLANDER 1985 119 2 No NICOLET 1985 150 2 No STRANGER 1985 150 1 No TWO HARBORS 1985 149 2 No BAY MIST 1985 328 2 No ELIZABETH RIVER FERRY II 1986 150 2 No CAPT. SHEPLER 1986 265 1 No GULF ISLANDER 1986 360 2 No 2TH FERRY 1987 150 1 No ADVENTURE 1987 149 2 No FLAMINGO 1987 100 1 No LA NINA 1987 150 (na) No LADY VIRGINIA 1987 307 3 No PORT IMPERIAL MANHATTAN 1987 492 2 No

BALMY DAYS II 1988 145 2 No CUMBERLAND LADY 1988 147 2 No LA PINTA 1988 150 (na) No PORT IMPERIAL NEW JERSEY 1988 150 2 No

CARIBE TIDE 1988 284 2 No RADISSON 1988 350 3 No GRAND ISLAND 1989 150 2 No SUPER EXPRESS 1989 149 2 No WEST NEW YORK 1989 150 2 No ABRAHAM LINCOLN 1989 399 2 No ALEXANDER HAMILTON 1989 399 2 No67 GEORGE WASHINGTON 1989 399 2 No KALAMA 1989 250 1 No SKAGIT 1989 250 1 No THOMAS JEFFERSON 1989 399 2 No AVALON EXPRESS 1990 150 2 No CADILLAC 1990 150 2 No CUMBERLAND PRINCESS 1990 144 2 No ELIZABETH RIVER FERRY III 1990 150 2 No VOYAGER 1990 398 2 No PIED PIPER 1991 103 2 No EXPLORER 1991 398 2 No HENRY HUDSON 1992 305 2 No ANNEMARIE 1993 150 2 No JOLIET 1993 150 2 No EMPIRE STATE 1993 399 2 No ROBERT FULTON 1993 350 2 No CATALINA EXPRESS 1994 149 2 No ISLANDER EXPRESS 1994 149 2 No GARDEN STATE 1994 399 2 No ELIZABETH ANN 1995 149 2 No OUTWARD BOUND 1995 149 2 No CARIBE CAY 1995 277 2 No CULEBRA II 1996 523 3 No FAJARDO II 1996 272 3 No JOHN STEVENS 1996 399 2 No SOUTH BAY CLIPPER 1996 412 2 No VIEQUES II 1996 504 4 No ADMIRALTY WIND 1998 148 3 No ATLANTIS 1998 290 (na) No BRAVO 2001 107 1 No ORAL FREEMAN 2001 146 2 No FIRE ISLAND FLYER 2001 300 2 No ROYAL EXPRESS III 2001 270 2 No SUNRISE 2002 149 1 No WESTIN BREEZE 2002 132 1 No NORTHERN LIGHTS 2003 149 2 No POINT O' WOODS VII 2003 150 2 No SUSIE KING TAYLOR 2003 100 1 No CARIBENA 2004 272 2 No FIRE ISLAND EMPRESS 2004 270 2 No MV MARTHA'S VINEYARD EXPRESS 2005 150 2 No

SAM HOLMES 2005 149 2 No68 AUCOCISCO III 2005 399 4 (*) MARQUETTE II 2005 330 2 No KATIE UNDERWOOD 2006 149 2 No YUNQUE PRINCESS 2006 148 2 No GENE FLATOW 2008 149 1 No MANHANSETT 2008 149 2 No SOUTHSIDE 2008 150 1 No CAYO BLANCO 2009 596 3 Yes - LULA JERSEY 2010 148 2 No Mono-Hull Ferries (Passengers & Vehicles) ADIRONDACK 1913 219 2 No CHAMPLAIN 1930 368 2 No GOLDEN EAGLE FERRY 1934 149 1 No VIRGINIA 1936 144 1 No LOUIS B. PORTERIE 1937 794 4 Yes - Elevator CAPE HENLOPEN 1944 660 4 (*) NEEBISH ISLANDER II 1946 112 1 No RHODODENDRON 1947 546 2 No VALCOUR 1947 219 2 No SAINT CHARLES 1951 136 2 No BAYFIELD 1952 149 1 No GRAND ISLE 1953 149 2 No EVERGREEN STATE 1954 984 2 No GOVERNOR 1954 250 2 No HURON 1955 341 2 No FELICIANA 1956 143 1 No LT SAMUEL S. COURSEN 1956 1242 2 No CAPT VIC 1957 149 2 No IBERVILLE 1958 143 2 No KLAHOWYA 1958 800 3 (*) NORTH HAVEN 1959 124 1 No COHO 1959 975 1 No TILLIKUM 1959 1192 2 No SHELTER ISLAND 1961 150 1 No NICHEVO II 1962 149 2 No WHATCOM CHIEF 1962 100 1 No BEAVER ISLANDER 1962 200 2 No MALASPINA 1963 499 5 (*) MATANUSKA 1963 499 6 (*) TAKU 1963 370 4 (*) CAMERON NO II 1964 261 1 No SUSAN ANNE 1964 585 5 (*)69 TUSTUMENA 1964 174 3 Yes - LULA PAMLICO 1965 300 2 Yes - LULA SILVER LAKE 1965 300 2 Yes - LULA JOHN F. KENNEDY 1965 3515 3 (*) ISLAND QUEEN 1966 149 2 No NORTH CHANNEL 1967 100 1 No EVERETT LIBBY 1967 174 1 No HIYU 1967 199 2 No POINTE A LA HACHE 1967 174 2 No HYAK 1967 2000 6 (*) KALEETAN 1967 2000 6 (*) YAKIMA 1967 2000 6 (*) GOVERNOR CURTIS 1968 221 1 No NORTH STAR 1968 300 2 No ELWHA 1968 2000 6 (*) ISLANDER 1969 147 1 No JULIET ALICA 1969 149 2 No MANITOU 1969 202 2 No EYRARBAKKI 1970 147 2 No FT GAINES 1970 149 1 No KAYLA MARIE 1970 149 1 No MARISSA MAE NICOLE 1970 149 2 No ROANOKE 1970 133 2 No CARIBBEAN FERRY 1971 120 2 No BOB ELLIS 1972 100 2 No SPOKANE 1972 2000 5 (*) LECONTE 1973 247 5 (*) WALLA WALLA 1973 2000 5 (*) GREENPORT 1974 132 2 No COLUMBIA 1974 600 7 (*) DELAWARE 1974 898 4 Yes - Elevator NANTUCKET 1974 752 4 (*) NEW JERSEY 1974 598 3 Yes - LULA GOV GEORGE D. AIKEN 1975 117 2 No TWIN CAPES 1975 895 4 (*) ISLA GRANDE 1976 149 1 No NEW ROADS 1976 143 1 No ASCENSION 1977 113 2 No BOONE NO. 9 1977 138 1 No AURORA 1977 300 5 (*) GIBB GILCHRIST 1977 491 1 No GOVERNOR EDWARD HYDE 1977 300 2 No ST. JOHN 1977 233 2 No70 GUEMES 1979 100 1 No ROBERT NOBLE 1979 150 2 No NEW LONDON 1979 295 2 No SURRY 1979 354 2 No ISSAQUAH 1979 1200 3 (*) ACADIA 1980 143 1 No KITSAP 1980 1200 2 (*) KITTITAS 1980 1200 2 (*) GAY HEAD 1981 140 2 No PELICAN 1981 100 1 No CAPE HENLOPEN 1981 598 3 Yes - LULA NELSECO 1981 429 3 Yes - LULA SANKATY 1981 290 4 Yes - Elevator ANDREW J. BARBERI 1981 5992 3 (*) CATHLAMET 1981 1200 2 (*) CHELAN 1981 1198 3 (*) KATAMA 1982 143 2 No SAMUEL I. NEWHOUSE 1982 5997 3 (*) SEALTH 1982 1200 2 (*) ISLANDER 1983 443 2 No MARY ELLEN 1983 660 3 Yes - LULA WILLIAMSBURG 1983 349 1 No J B HUNT JR 1984 143 2 No MADELINE 1984 149 1 No PLATTSBURGH 1984 146 2 No CAROL JEAN 1984 797 4 Yes - Elevator CAPE MAY 1985 895 4 (*) RACE POINT 1985 245 2 No PRUDENCE FERRY 1986 149 1 No PARK CITY 1986 997 3 Yes - LULA ALICE AUSTEN 1986 1279 2 (*) JOHN A. NOBLE 1986 1271 2 (*) B. L. DEBERRY 1987 118 1 No CARLEE EMILY 1987 150 2 No J. C. DINGWALL 1987 118 1 No EAGLE 1987 799 5 (*) MACHIGONNE II 1987 399 3 Yes - LULA MARGARET CHASE SMITH 1987 221 1 NoEVANS-WADHAMSWOLCOTT 1988 146 2 No

FT. MORGAN 1988 149 1 No CARTERET 1988 300 2 Yes - LULA CAPE POINT 1989 149 2 No71 CHICAMACOMICO 1989 149 2 No DRUMMOND ISLANDER III 1989 149 2 No FRISCO 1989 149 2 No KINNAKEET 1989 149 2 No MARK G GOODE 1989 118 1 No WASHINGTON 1989 150 2 No M. V. JOHN H. 1989 1000 4 (*) SOUTH BASS 1989 500 2 No OCRACOKE 1990 149 2 No SANTA MARIA 1990 149 1 No SHIRLEY IRENE 1991 149 2 No ROBERT C LANIER 1991 495 4 Yes - Elevator CAPTAIN HENRY LEE 1992 221 2 No GOVERNOR DANIEL RUSSELL 1992 300 2 Yes - LULA

VERMONT 1992 221 2 No R E STOTZER JR 1993 118 1 No CAPTAIN CHARLES PHILBROOK 1993 221 2 No

CAPTAIN NEAL BURGESS 1993 221 2 No WM. MARKET 1993 500 2 No MARTHA'S VINEYARD 1993 1376 3 (*) ROANOKE 1994 149 2 No CEDAR ISLAND 1994 300 2 Yes - LULA CHRISTINE ANDERSON 1994 250 2 No DEWITT C. GREER 1994 494 5 Yes - Elevator MAQUOIT II 1994 399 3 (*) GENERAL II 1995 149 2 No SUGAR ISLANDER II 1995 138 1 No THOMAS A BAUM 1995 149 2 No CAYO NORTE 1995 205 2 No POCAHONTAS 1995 444 4 Yes - Elevator ARNOLD W. OLIVER 1996 118 1 No MIDDLE CHANNEL 1996 149 1 No THE HICKMAN 1996 148 1 No JEAN RIBAULT 1996 199 1 No RAY STOKER, JR. 1996 495 4 Yes - Elevator SOUTHPORT 1996 300 2 Yes - LULA LT JOE THEINERT 1997 150 1 No BLOCK ISLAND 1997 962 3 Yes - LULA EMERALD ISLE 1997 293 3 (*) PUT-IN-BAY 1997 500 2 No M/V TACOMA 1997 2499 5 (*)72 KENNICOTT 1998 499 4 (*) LADY NAOMI (f) 1998 220 3 Yes - LULA NEUSE 1998 300 2 Yes - LULA ROBERT H. DEDMAN 1998 495 4 Yes - Elevator PUYALLUP 1998 2499 5 (*) WENATCHEE 1998 2499 5 (*) WILLIAM G BURNETT 1999 118 1 No PT BARNUM 1999 988 4 (*) DRUMMOND ISLANDER IV 2000 149 2 No CUMBERLAND 2000 203 3 Yes - LULA FLOYD J. LUPTON 2000 300 2 Yes - LULA FORT FISHER 2000 300 2 Yes - LULA CHARLES HALL 2001 147 1 No PRINCE OF WALES 2001 165 3 (*) AMERICA 2002 150 1 No HERON 2002 100 2 No MASHOMACK 2002 149 1 No ARNI J. RICHTER 2003 145 2 No CROATOAN 2003 300 2 Yes - LULA GRAND REPUBLIC 2003 988 4 (*) W STANFORD WHITE 2003 300 2 Yes - LULA GEES BEND 2004 149 1 No LITUYA 2004 149 2 No ISLENO 2004 208 2 No PLAQUEMINES PRIDE 2004 200 1 No GUY V. MOLINARI 2004 4400 5 (*) SEN. JOHN J. MARCHI 2004 4400 4 (*) MENANTIC 2005 149 1 No SPIRIT OF AMERICA 2005 4400 4 (*) MISTER B 2006 150 2 No HATTERAS 2006 300 2 Yes - LULA STEILACOOM II 2006 324 2 No STIKINE 2006 195 3 (*) ISLAND HOME 2007 1200 6 (*) CAYO LARGO 2008 300 2 No CHETZEMOKA 2010 750 3 Yes - LULA RAYMOND C PECOR JR 2010 200 2 No Multi-Hull Multi-Purpose Passenger Vessels FREEDOM 1974 389 2 No AMERICAN EAGLE 1984 152 2 No GLACIER EXPRESS 1985 292 3 No SPIRIT OF ADVENTURE 1985 240 3 No73 JET EXPRESS 1989 380 3 No NAVATEK I 1989 422 2 No BRAVEST 1996 349 2 No FRIENDSHIP V 1996 366 3 No DEACON 1998 250 3 No MILLENNIUM 1998 367 3 No KLONDIKE EXPRESS 1999 342 3 No VOYAGER III 1999 349 2 No ROYAL MISS BELMAR 2000 300 3 No BISCAYNE LADY 2002 400 3 No ZEPHYR 2003 600 3 No ISLAND DISCOVERY 2005 200 2 No Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Passenger Vessels BELLE OF LOUISVILLE 1914 999 3 Yes - LULA CLIPPER WINNEBAGO 1922 300 2 No INTERNATIONAL 1927 200 2 No SIGHTSEER XII 1933 600 2 No CIRCLE LINE XVI 1934 585 2 No CIRCLE LINE XVII 1934 585 2 No INDIAN HARBOR 1937 251 2 No PAN AMERICAN CLIPPER 1937 200 1 No SILVERGATE 1940 296 2 No BAHIA BELLE 1942 195 3 No 109 1943 205 1 No CIRCLE LINE X 1944 492 2 No NEWPORT PRINCESS 1944 250 2 No TEMPTRESS 1944 700 4 Yes - Elevator THE ISLANDER 1945 236 1 No ROMANCE 1946 400 3 No MAJESTIC 1950 1067 3 Yes - LULA DISCOVERY II 1953 391 3 No COEUR D'ALENE 1954 400 2 No HARBOR QUEEN 1954 444 2 No PRINCESS WENONAH 1954 249 2 No MISS LIBERTY 1954 827 2 No DIAMOND JACK 1955 254 3 No MEMPHIS QUEEN II 1955 308 2 No SAMUEL CLEMENS 1955 273 3 No DIAMOND QUEEN 1956 300 2 No MARIETTA 1957 269 2 No DIAMOND BELLE 1958 400 3 No HARBOR KING 1958 222 3 No74 HARBOR PRINCESS 1959 444 2 No MONHEGAN 1959 190 1 No BELLE OF HOT SPRINGS 1960 224 3 No MISS CHRISTIN 1960 210 2 No SIGHTSEER 1960 250 2 No BECKY THATCHER 1961 237 2 No ISLAND BEACH 1961 339 2 No MARLYN 1961 260 3 No MARTHA WASHINGTON 1961 209 2 No LADY ST JOHNS 1962 300 2 No MOONCHASER 1962 257 2 No VIRGINIA C II 1962 215 2 No ROYAL PRINCE 1962 500 3 No BECKY THATCHER 1963 339 2 No HALF MOON 1963 230 2 No JUBILEE II 1963 194 3 No SENECA LEGACY 1963 265 2 No SPIRIT OF JEFFERSON 1963 300 3 No VIKING STARLINER 1963 348 2 No MARK TWAIN 1964 388 3 No NEW BOSTON 1964 395 2 No MISS CIRCLE LINE 1964 1035 3 Yes - LULA DUCHESS 1965 310 3 No PADDLEWHEEL QUEEN 1965 408 3 No TUNICA QUEEN (g) 1965 395 3 No CARRIE B 1966 300 2 No TOM SAWYER 1966 362 2 No FREEDOM 1967 430 2 No SPIRIT OF SACRAMENTO 1967 344 3 No SUMMER OF GEORGE 1967 200 3 No MISH-AN-NOCK 1968 400 2 No HARBOR EMPEROR 1968 500 2 No POINT LOMA 1969 400 3 Yes - LULA CAPE MAY WHALE WATCHER 1970 275 3 No

JONATHAN PADELFORD 1970 200 2 No AMBASSADOR II (f) (g) 1970 1,600 5 (*) GENERAL BEAUREGARD 1971 311 2 No GOODTIME I 1971 347 2 No ISLAND WANDERER 1971 219 2 No JUNGLE QUEEN IV 1971 536 3 No RANGER 1971 514 2 No DANDY 1972 200 2 No75 HARBOR QUEEN 1972 297 2 No MISS BUFFALO II 1972 226 2 No SHERYLL PRINCESS 1972 315 2 No CABANA 1973 366 2 No MUSETTE 1974 400 2 No RIVER ROSE 1974 215 1 No NATCHEZ 1975 1603 4 Yes - Elevator BENNIE ALICE 1976 195 2 No GOODTIME II 1976 437 2 No STAR OF PALM BEACH 1976 429 2 No UNCLE SAM 7 1976 226 2 No BAY STATE 1976 549 3 No ENDEAVOR 1977 350 1 No HURRICANE II 1977 295 2 No SPIRIT OF DUBUQUE 1977 375 2 No MISS FREEDOM 1977 564 2 No TEXAS STAR CASINO (f) (g) 1977 595 3 Yes - LULA CORNUCOPIA PRINCESS 1978 400 4 Yes - Elevator ESCAPADE 1978 440 3 Yes - LULA GOODTIME III 1978 223 2 No STAR OF THE NORTHWEST 1978 245 3 Yes - LULA VISTA KING 1978 255 2 No CARIBBEAN DREAM II 1979 295 1 No MEMPHIS QUEEN III 1979 401 2 No STEVEN THOMAS 1979 195 2 No MONTE CARLO (f) (g) 1980 315 3 No PRINCE CHARMING 1980 398 2 No RIP VAN WINKLE 1980 388 2 No PROVINCETOWN II 1980 713 3 Yes - LULA NAUTICA QUEEN 1981 407 3 Yes - LULA STARLITE MAJESTY 1981 399 3 No THE HARRIOTT II 1981 400 2 No AQUASINO 1981 600 5 Yes - Elevator CAPT CLARK'S FLAGSHIP 1982 364 3 No MYSTIQUE 1982 350 3 No PACIFIC HORNBLOWER 1982 271 2 No THE STAR 1982 305 2 No JOHN JAMES AUDUBON 1982 600 3 (*) MISS GATEWAY 1982 500 2 No CAPITOL HORNBLOWER 1983 223 2 No CARRIE B 1983 324 2 No GRAND DUCHESS 1983 350 3 Yes - LULA ISLAND QUEEN 1983 401 3 No76 TAHOE QUEEN 1983 350 3 Yes - LULA VOYAGEUR 1983 230 1 No COLUMBIA GORGE 1983 599 2 No CREOLE QUEEN 1983 955 3 Yes - LULA FIRST LADY 1983 544 (na) No CAPT. ANDERSON III 1984 175 2 No CHERRY BLOSSOM 1984 408 3 No HARBOR LIGHTS 1984 400 3 No M/V INDIAN RIVER QUEEN 1984 261 3 No MAJESTY 1984 280 3 Yes - LULA MUSIC CITY QUEEN 1984 338 3 No PRINCESS 1984 399 3 No QUEEN OF SEATTLE 1984 275 3 Yes - LULA ALI'I KAI 1984 838 2 No AVALON 1984 602 3 Yes - LULA LORD HORNBLOWER 1984 800 3 Yes - LULA CAPT. JOHN & SON IV 1985 294 2 No CELEBRATION LADY 1985 299 3 No FT. DEARBORN 1985 200 2 No JEWEL 1985 337 2 No SPIRIT OF CHARLESTON 1985 422 2 No TAYLORS FALLS PRINCESS 1985 250 2 No COLONEL 1985 785 3 Yes - LULA DIAMOND ROYALE (g) 1985 600 3 Yes - LULA ENTERTAINER 1985 574 2 No FREDERICK L NOLAN JR 1985 550 3 No GEORGIA QUEEN 1985 600 3 No HENRIETTA III 1985 600 5 Yes - Elevator INNER HARBOR SPIRIT 1985 574 2 No OPUS CASINO (f) (g) 1985 800 3 Yes - LULA RESPECT 1985 499 3 Yes - LULA SOUTHERN BELLE 1985 507 3 No SPIRIT OF SAN DIEGO 1985 579 3 Yes - LULA GENERAL JACKSON 1985 1200 4 (*) CAPT. PETE 1986 300 2 No MARINA HORNBLOWER 1986 200 3 No QUEEN 1986 393 2 No ROYAL WINNER PRINCESS II 1986 396 3 No STARLITE PRINCESS 1986 339 3 No ANNA C 1986 647 4 Yes - Elevator CELEBRATION BELLE 1986 800 4 (*) EMPRESS ANDIAMO 1986 500 3 No ISLANDER 1986 500 3 No77 PORTLAND SPIRIT 1986 540 3 Yes - LULA SPIRIT OF THE LOWCOUNTRY 1986 527 3 (*)

WILLIAM D. EVANS 1986 580 3 (*) WORLD YACHTS DUCHESS 1986 600 3 Yes - LULA WORLD YACHTS PRINCESS 1986 600 3 Yes - LULA BEN FRANKLIN 1987 317 3 No CAP STREETER 1987 300 2 No KENAI STAR 1987 195 2 No SHORELINE II 1987 350 2 No SPIRIT OF SEATTLE 1987 461 3 No THOMAS LAIGHTON 1987 346 3 No VISTA STAR 1987 300 3 No CAPT. JP 1987 593 4 No CAPT. JP II 1987 600 3 Yes - LULA DISCOVERY III 1987 900 4 Yes - Elevator RIVER QUEEN 1987 500 2 No SAVANNAH RIVER QUEEN 1987 600 3 No STATUE OF LIBERTY IV (g) 1987 600 3 Yes - LULA ALEXANDRIA BELLE 1988 425 3 No AMERICAN PRINCESS 1988 220 2 No ANSON NORTHRUP 1988 350 2 No CAROLINA BELLE 1988 300 2 No ISLAND DUCHESS 1988 439 3 No MASSACHUSETTS 1988 346 2 No QUEEN CITY CLIPPER 1988 208 1 No SKYLINE PRINCESS 1988 450 3 No SPIRIT OF PEORIA 1988 428 3 Yes - LULA THE STAR 1988 300 3 No ANNABEL LEE 1988 506 2 No CITY OF CARUTHERSVILLE 1988 800 4 Yes - Elevator EMPRESS HORNBLOWER 1988 500 3 No GREAT POINT 1988 804 3 Yes - LULA SPIRIT OF BALTIMORE 1988 600 4 Yes - Elevator SPIRIT OF CHICAGO 1988 600 4 Yes - Elevator AQUA (f) 1989 325 3 No CALIFORNIA HORNBLOWER 1989 359 3 Yes - LULA ISLAND GIRL 1989 296 2 No LADY WINDRIDGE 1989 407 2 No MAJESTIC PRINCESS 1989 353 2 No PTARMIGAN 1989 196 2 No VALLEY GEM 1989 295 2 No VISTA JUBILEE 1989 428 3 Yes - LULA78 CATALINA 1989 600 1 No NAUTICAL EMPRESS 1989 600 3 (*) SPIRIT OF NEW JERSEY 1989 579 3 Yes - LULA SPIRIT OF NEW YORK 1989 600 4 Yes - Elevator SPIRIT OF PHILADELPHIA 1989 600 4 Yes - Elevator MISS MARQUETTE (g) 1989 1,200 4 Yes - Elevator BETSEY NORTHRUP 1990 360 1 No LAURA 1990 347 2 No MATTHEW J. HUGHES 1990 347 2 No THE ANITA DEE II 1990 400 4 No GOODTIME III 1990 975 4 Yes - Elevator SPIRIT OF BOSTON 1990 600 4 Yes - Elevator SPIRIT OF MOUNT VERNON 1990 573 3 Yes - LULA CATALINA DUCHESS 1991 292 2 No CHICAGO'S FIRST LADY 1991 225 2 No DESERT PRINCESS 1991 300 3 No FUME BLANC COMMODORE 1991 450 3 No GRAND ROMANCE 1991 350 3 Yes - LULA PORTUGUESE PRINCESS II 1991 293 2 No ROYAL PRINCESS 1991 242 3 Yes - LULA SAN FRANCISCO SPIRIT 1991 355 4 Yes - Elevator W. L. CALLAHAN 1991 260 2 No BELLE OF CINCINNATI 1991 1000 3 Yes - LULA MISS ELLIS ISLAND 1991 799 3 Yes - LULA MISS NEW JERSEY 1991 799 3 Yes - LULA MISSISSIPPI QUEEN 1991 840 4 Yes - Elevator ODYSSEY 1991 800 4 Yes - Elevator HORIZON STAR (g) 1992 285 4 Yes - Elevator JAMES J DOHERTY 1992 348 2 No INSPIRATION HORNBLOWER 1992 1000 4 Yes - Elevator SPIRIT OF NORFOLK 1992 600 2 No STAR OF HONOLULU 1992 1500 5 (*) DISCOVERY 1993 212 2 No BIG EASY 1993 1,000 4 Yes - Elevator LADY ANDERSON 1993 500 3 Yes - LULA MISS NEW YORK 1993 799 3 Yes - LULA ODYSSEY II 1993 749 4 Yes - Elevator ALTON BELLE CASINO II (g) 1993 1321 3 (*) CATFISH BEND RIVERBOAT CASINO II (g) 1993 1,389 4 Yes - Elevator

CORNUCOPIA MAJESTY 1993 1200 4 (*) DETROIT PRINCESS 1993 1636 5 (*) SOUTHERN STAR I (g) 1993 1,200 4 Yes - Elevator79 STAR CASINO (g) 1993 1,409 3 Yes - LULA ARKANSAS QUEEN 1994 338 2 No LADY MARY 1994 300 2 No TAILS OF THE SEA 1994 293 2 No ADVENTURE HORNBLOWER 1994 600 3 Yes - LULA M.S. DIXIE II 1994 570 3 Yes - LULA PHILADELPHIA BELLE 1994 1000 6 Yes - Elevator ARGOSY III 1994 1555 3 (*) CASINO ROUGE (g) 1994 1800 4 (*) CROWN CASINO (g) 1994 1750 5 (*) GRAND VICTORIA (g) 1994 1736 2 (*) GRAND VICTORIA II (g) 1994 2700 6 (*) HARRAHS NORTH STAR (g) 1994 1800 5 (*) MARY'S PRIZE (g) 1994 1650 3 (*) PAR-A-DICE (g) 1994 1654 4 (*) PRIDE OF LAKE CHARLES (g) 1994 1,660 4 Yes - Elevator SAN FRANCISCO BELLE 1994 2000 4 (*) SHREVE STAR (g) 1994 1650 4 (*) THE MARGARET MARY (g) 1994 2050 4 (*) TREASURE CHEST CASINO (g) 1994 1725 4 (*)
TREBLE CLEF (g) 1994 1,900 4 Yes - Elevator AMERICAN PRINCESS II 1995 168 2 No DOLPHIN VIII 1995 292 2 No DREAM ON 1995 260 2 No STARSHIP 1995 343 3 No ODYSSEY III 1995 600 1 No SHOWBOAT BRANSON BELLE 1995 750 4 (*)
AMERISTAR II (g) 1995 2,710 2 No BELLE OF ORLEANS (g) 1995 2450 2 (*) BETTENDORF CAPRI (g) 1995 2,300 3 Yes - LULA CITY OF EVANSVILLE (g) 1995 2700 4 (*) GRAND PALAIS (g) 1995 2000 3 (*) KANESVILLE QUEEN (g) 1995 2,352 3 Yes - LULA EMERALD STAR 1996 250 1 No THE BIG M CASINO 1996 400 3 Yes - LULA DESTINY 1997 330 4 No SPIRIT OF ETHAN ALLEN III 1997 424 3 Yes - LULA LIBERTY BELLE 1997 600 3 Yes - LULA ARGOSY VI 1997 4000 3 (*) BLUE CHIP CASINO (g) 1997 3,000 4 Yes - Elevator KING OF THE RED (g) 1997 2678 4 (*)80 MAJESTIC STAR (g) 1997 3000 5 (*) WINSTAR (g) 1997 3750 5 (*) CELESTIAL 1998 374 1 No FANTASEA ONE 1998 348 4 (*) MIDNIGHT GAMBLER II (g) 1998 500 3 Yes - LULA SPIRIT OF CAROLINA 1998 454 3 No EMERALD PRINCESS II 1998 600 4 Yes - Elevator JACKS OR BETTER CASINO (g) 1998 500 3 Yes - LULA

MYSTIC BLUE 1998 492 4 Yes - Elevator GLORY OF ROME (g) 1998 4557 4 (*) CAPRICE 1999 284 3 No CATHERINE MARIE 1999 250 3 No CORNUCOPIA DESTINY 1999 400 5 No ETERNITY 1999 343 3 (*) NINA'S DANDY 1999 286 2 No ROYAL CASINO I (g) 1999 375 3 Yes - LULA WHALE WATCHER 1999 393 2 No STARSHIP 1999 600 3 Yes - LULA CABERNET SAUVIGNON COMMODORE 2000 400 4 (*)
HORIZON'S EDGE (g) 2000 500 3 Yes - LULA ROYAL ARGOSY 2000 800 3 Yes - LULA SPIRIT OF WASHINGTON 2000 600 4 (*) HOLLYWOOD DREAMS (g) 2000 3100 4 (*) MISS BELTERRA (g) 2000 2932 3 (*) EVENING STAR 2001 305 2 No OUILMETTE 2001 217 2 No ENDLESS DREAMS 2002 468 3 Yes - LULA KANAN 2002 400 4 (*) ATLANTICA 2003 400 3 Yes - LULA BRIGHT STAR 2003 336 2 No M/V MAJESTIC 2003 375 3 Yes - LULA ROYAL EXPRESS IV 2003 300 3 No ATLANTIS 2004 319 2 No THE GRAND FLORIDIAN 2004 300 4 (*) CALIFORNIA SPIRIT 2004 600 3 Yes - LULA BIG M CASINO (g) 2005 500 3 Yes - LULA ISLAND EXPEDITION 2005 199 2 No OVATION 2005 323 3 No L'AUBERGE DU LAC (g) 2005 3637 2 (*) SIR WINSTON 2006 400 5 (*) THE FLORIDIAN PRINCESS 2006 400 4 No81 BLUE CHIP 2 (g) 2006 5914 3 (*) WENDELLA 2007 340 2 No GRAND LUXE 2007 600 3 (*) CIRCLE LINE MANHATTAN 2008 600 2 No CIRCLE LINE BROOKLYN 2009 600 2 No CIRCLE LINE QUEENS 2009 600 2 No LINNEA 2010 340 2 No Small Cruise or Charter Ships (50 to 299 Overnight Passengers) LA PESCA 1970 62 1 1 No PACIFIC MONARCH 1971 136 3 Yes - LULAWILDERNESS EXPLORER (exSpirit of Discovery) 1976 95 3 Yes - LULA

ADMIRALTY DREAM (exSpirit of Columbia) 1979 80 3 Yes - LULA

SPIRIT OF ALASKA 1980 86 3 Yes - LULA NAT.GEOGRAPHIC SEA BIRD 1981 92 3 Yes - LULA NAT.GEOGRAPHIC SEA LION 1982 92 3 Yes - LULA NAT.GEOGRAPHIC EXPLORER (f) 1982 150 3 (*)

SAFARI ENDEAVOUR (exSpirit of Endeavor) 1983 109 5 Yes - Elevator

WILDERNESS ADVENTURER 1983 85 3 Yes - LULA SAFARI LEGACY (e x-spirit of '98) 1984 101 5 (*)

SEADREAM I (f) 1984 110 5 (*) SEADREAM II (f) 1985 112 5 (*) SEABOURN PRIDE (f) 1987 218 6 (*) YORKTOWN (ex-Spirit of Yorktown) 1988 138 5 Yes - Elevator

WIND SPIRIT (f) 1988 150 4 Yes - Elevator CLIPPER ODYSSEY (f) 1989 132 4 (*) SILVER EXPLORER (ex-Prince Albert II) (f) 1989 132 6 (*)

SEABOURN SPIRIT (f) 1989 208 6 (*) BREMEN (f) 1990 164 6 (*) SEABOURN LEGEND (f) 1990 212 6 (*) HANSEATIC (f) 1991 200 6 Yes - Elevator SPIRIT OF OCEANUS (f) 1991 120 5 (*) NIAGARA PRINCE 1994 90 3 Yes - LULA SILVER CLOUD (f) 1994 296 6 (*) QUEEN OF THE WEST 1995 140 5 (*) SILVER WIND (f) 1995 296 6 (*) GRANDE CARIBE 1997 98 4 Yes - Elevator82 GRANDE MARINER 1998 100 4 Yes - Elevator AMERICAN SPIRIT 2005 98 4 (*) AMERICAN STAR 2007 98 4 (*) INDEPENDENCE 2010 104 4 (*) Note: 1. Vessel is an overnight deep sea charter fishing vessel.83 APPENDIX II. LARGE CRUISE SHIPS OPERATING IN U.S. PORTS AS OF 2011

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

sources:

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Mari time Administration, Cruise Detail Table at: http://www.marad.dot.gov/library_landing_page/dat a_and_statistics/Data _and_Statistics.htm

. The Cruise Detail Table c ontains data on cruises, passengers, and departure and destination ports derived from the U.S. Customs and Border Prot ection Vessel Entrance and Clearance Documents for the period from January 1, 2004 to March 31, 2012.

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

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

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

Cruise Line Large Cruise Ships Total Guest Rooms Guest Rooms with Mobility Features Percent Guest Rooms with Mobility Features Carnival 23 29,143 594 2.0% Celebrity 9 10,819 234 2.2% Disney 3 3,004 57 1.9% Holland America 15 11,745 335 2.9% Norwegian 10 12,002 221 1.8% Princess 14 16,994 333 2.0% Royal Caribbean 21 30,260 472 1.6% Other 1 18 9,549 2 146 2 1.5% Total 113 123,516 2,392 1.9% Notes: 1. Other cruise lines include AIDA Cruises, Azamar a Club Lines, Costa Cruises, Crystal Cruises, Cunard Lines, MCS Cruises, Oceania Cruises, Regent Seven Sea Cruise s, Seabourne Cruises,

25 The appendix includes the Legend of the Seas, Grandeur of the Seas, Brilliance of the Seas, Vision of the Seas, and Independence of the Seas, which did not operate in U.S. ports in 2011 but ar e scheduled to operate in U.S. ports in 2013. The appendix does not include the Celebrity Mercury, which was sold to TUI Cruises in February 2011, and the Royal Princess, which was sold to P&O Cruises in May 2011.84 and Silver Sea Cruises. 2. Data on total number of guest rooms and guest rooms with mobility features are not available for the AIDAaura and AIDAluna.

Carnival Cruise Ships

Cruise Ship Year Constructed Total Guest Rooms Guest Rooms with Mobility Features Percent Guest Rooms with

Mobility Features Fantasy Class Carnival Fantasy 1990 1,028 25 1 2.4% Carnival Ecstasy 1991 1,026 25 1 2.4% Carnival Sensation 1993 1,026 25 1 2.4% Carnival Fascination 1994 1,026 24 2.3% Carnival Imagination 1995 1,026 25 1 2.4% Carnival Inspiration 1996 1,026 25 1 2.4% Carnival Elation 1998 1,026 25 1 2.4% Carnival Paradise 1998 1,026 25 1 2.4% Destiny Class Carnival Destiny 1996 1,321 28 2.1% Triumph Class Carnival Triumph 1999 1,379 31 1 2.2% Carnival Victory 2000 1,379 31 1 2.2% Spirit Class Carnival Spirit 2001 1,062 17 1 1.6% Carnival Pride 2001 1,062 17 1 1.6% Carnival Legend 2002 1,062 17 1 1.6% Carnival Miracle 2004 1,062 17 1 1.6% Conquest Class Carnival Conquest 2002 1,487 26 1 1.7% Carnival Glory 2003 1,487 27 1 1.7% Carnival Valor 2004 1,487 27 1 1.8% Carnival Liberty 2005 1,487 29 2.0% Carnival Freedom 2007 1,487 29 2.0% Splendor Class Carnival Splendor 2008 1,503 29 2.0% Dream Class Carnival Dream 2009 1,823 35 2.0% Carnival Magic 2011 1,845 35 1.9% Total 29,143 594 2.0% Note: 1. The number of guest rooms with mobility feat ures is from the cruise ship deck plans.85 Celebrity Cruise Ships

Cruise Ship Year Constructed Total Guest Rooms Guest Rooms with

Mobility Features Percent Guest Rooms with

Mobility Features Century Class Celebrity Century 1995 907 10 1.1% Millennium Class Celebrity Millennium 2000 1,019 26 2.6% Celebrity Summit 2001 1,085 26 2.4% Celebrity Infinity 2001 1,085 26 2.4% Celebrity Constellation 2002 1,019 26 2.6% Solstice Class Celebrity Solstice 2008 1,426 30 2.1% Celebrity Equinox 2009 1,426 30 2.1% Celebrity Eclipse 2010 1,426 30 2.1% Celebrity Silhouette 2011 1,426 30 2.1% Total 10,819 234 2.2%

Disney Cruise Ships

Cruise Ship Year Constructed Total Guest Rooms Guest Rooms with

Mobility Features Percent Guest Rooms with

Mobility Features Disney Magic 1998 877 16 1.8% Disney Wonder 1999 877 16 1.8% Disney Dream 2011 1,250 25 2.0% Total 3,004 57 1.9%

Holland America Cruise Ships

Cruise Ship Year Constructed Total Guest Rooms Guest Rooms with

Mobility Features Percent Guest Rooms with

Mobility Features Other ms Prinsendam 1988 419 10 2.4% Statendam Class ms Statendam 1993 630 15 2.4% ms Maasdam 1993 629 16 2.5% ms Ryndam 1994 630 15 2.4% ms Veendam 1996 675 17 2.5% Rotterdam Class ms Rotterdam 1997 702 25 3.6%86 Ms Volendam 1999 702 25 3.6% ms Zaandam 2000 716 22 3.1% ms Amsterdam 2000 690 21 1 3.0% Vista Class ms Zuiderdam 2002 958 28 2.9% ms Oosterdam 2003 958 28 2.9% ms Westerdam 2004 958 28 2.9% ms Noordam 2006 959 28 2.9% Signature Class ms Eurodam 2008 1,052 30 2.9% ms Nieuw Amsterdam 2010 1,053 30 2.9% Total 11,745 335 2.9% Note: 1. The number of guest rooms with mobility feat ures is from the cruise ship deck plan.

Norwegian Cruise Ships

Cruise Ship Year Constructed Total Guest Rooms Guest Rooms with

Mobility Features Percent Guest Rooms with

Mobility Features Other Norwegian Spirit 1999 1,009 5 1 0.5% Sun Class Norwegian Sky 1999 1,004 7 1 0.7% Norwegian Sun 2001 968 20 2.1% Dawn Class Norwegian Star 2001 1,146 22 1 1.9% Norwegian Dawn 2002 1,112 26 1 2.3% Other Norwegian Pride of America 2005 1,069 19 1.8% Jewel Class Norwegian Jewel 2005 1,188 27 1 2.3% Norwegian Pearl 2006 1,195 27 2.3% Norwegian Gem 2007 1,197 27 2.3% Epic Class Norwegian Epic 2010 2,114 41 1 1.9% Total 12,002 221 1.8% Note: 1. The number of guest rooms with mobility featur es is from the cruise ship deck plans.87 Princess Cruise Ships

Cruise Ship Year Constructed Total Guest Rooms Guest Rooms with

Mobility Features Percent Guest Rooms with

Mobility Features Sun Class Dawn Princess 1997 975 19 1.9% Sea Princess 1998 975 18 1.8% Coral Princess 2003 987 20 1 2.0% Island Princess 2003 987 20 2.0% R Class Pacific Princess 1999 334 5 1.5% Grand Class Grand Princess 1998 1,300 27 1 2.0% Golden Princess 2001 1,300 26 1 2.0% Star Princess 2002 1,301 26 1 2.0% Diamond Princess 2004 1,337 27 2.0% Sapphire Princess 2004 1,337 27 2.0% Caribbean Princess 2004 1,557 25 1.6% Crown Class Crown Princess 2006 1,532 31 2.0% Emerald Princess 2007 1,532 31 2.0% Ruby Princess 2008 1,540 31 2.0% Total 16,994 333 2.0% Note: 1. The number of guest rooms with mobility featur es is from the cruise ship deck plans.

Royal Caribbean Cruise Ships

Cruise Ship Year Constructed Total Guest Rooms Guest Rooms with

Mobility Features Percent Guest Rooms with

Mobility Features Sovereign Class Monarch of the Seas 1991 1,195 4 0.3% Majesty of the Seas 1992 1,195 2 4 0.3% Vision Class Legend of the Seas 1 1995 902 17 1.8% Grandeur of the Seas 1 1996 975 14 1.4% Enchantment of the Seas 1997 1,126 19 3 1.7% Rhapsody of the Seas 1997 999 14 1.4% Vision of the Seas 1 1998 999 14 1.4% Radiance Class Radiance of the Seas 2001 1,056 15 1.4% Brilliance of the Seas 1 2002 1,055 15 1.4%88 Royal Caribbean Cruise Ships

Cruise Ship Year Constructed Total Guest Rooms Guest Rooms with

Mobility Features Percent Guest Rooms with

Mobility Features Serenade of the Seas 2003 1,055 19 1.8% Jewel of the Seas 2004 1,055 19 1.8% Voyager Class Voyager of the Seas 1999 1,557 26 1.7% Explorer of the Seas 2000 1,557 26 1.7% Adventurer of the Seas 2001 1,557 26 1.7% Navigator of the Seas 2002 1,557 26 1.7% Mariner of the Seas 2003 1,557 26 1.7% Freedom Class Freedom of the Seas 2006 1,817 32 1.8% Liberty of the Seas 2007 1,817 32 1.8% Independence of the Seas 1 2008 1,817 32 1.8% Oasis Class Oasis of the Seas 2009 2,706 46 1.7% Allure of the Seas 2010 2,706 46 1.7% Total 30,260 472 1.6% Notes: 1. The Legend of the Seas, Grandeur of the Seas, Brilliance of the Seas, Vision of the Seas, and Independence of the Seas did not operate in U.S. ports in 2011, but are scheduled to operate in U.S. ports in 2013. 2. The CLIA webpage shows the total number of guest rooms as 1829. This appears to be an

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

Other Cruise Ships

Cruise Ship Year Constructed Total Guest Rooms Guest Rooms with

Mobility Features Percent Guest Rooms with

Mobility Features AIDACruises AIDAaura 2003 na 1 na 1 na 1
AIDAluna 2009 na 1 na 1 na 1
Azamara Club Cruises Azamara Journey 2000 347 6 1.7% Costa Cruises Costa Atlantica 2000 1,057 8 0.8% Crystal Cruises Crystal Symphony 1995 461 4 0.9% Crystal Serenity 2003 535 8 1.5%89 Other Cruise Ships

Cruise Ship Year Constructed Total Guest Rooms Guest Rooms with

Mobility Features Percent Guest Rooms with

Mobility Features Cunard Lines HMS Queen Mary 2 2003 1,296 30 2 2.3% HMS Queen Victoria 2007 1,007 20 2.0% HMS Queen Elizabeth 2010 1,046 20 1.9% MCS Cruises MCS Poesia 2008 1,275 17 1.3% Oceania Cruises Regatta 1998 342 3 0.9% Marina 2011 625 6 1.0% Regent Seven Seas Cruises Seven Seas Navigator 1999 245 4 1.6% Seven Seas Mariner 2001 350 6 1.7% Seven Seas Voyager 2003 350 4 1.1% Seabourn Cruise Line Seabourn Sojourn 2010 225 6 2.7% Silver Sea Cruises Silver Shadow 2000 194 2 1.0% Silver Whisper 2001 194 2 1.0% Total 9,549 146 1.5% Notes: 1. Data on total number of guest rooms and guest rooms with mobility features are not available. 2. The number of guest rooms with mobility feat ures is from the cruise ship deck plan.90 APPENDIX III. LARGE CRUISE SHIPS CONSTRUCTED OR UNDER CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION BETWEEN 2012 & 2015

Year Cruise Ship Guest Rooms Total Guest Rooms 2012 Carnival Breeze 1,845

8,497 Celebrity Reflection 1,515 Costa Fascinosa 1 1,506 Disney Fantasy 1,250 MSC Divina 2 1,751 Oceania Riviera 630 2013 MSC Preziosa 2 1,751

5,536 Norwegian Breakaway 1,985 Royal Princess 1,800 2014 Costa Diadema 1 1,850

7,685 Norwegian Getaway 1,985 Royal Princess 1,800 Royal Caribbean Quantum of the Seas 2,050 2015 Holland America Unnamed 1,330

5,480 Norwegian Unnamed 2,100 Royal Caribbean Anthem of the Seas 2,050 Total Number of Guest Rooms 27,198 27,198 Average Number of Guest Rooms 1,700 1,700 Source: Cruise Lines Internationa l Association, 2013 North Ameri can Cruise Industry Update

at: http://www.cruising.org/sites /default/files/pressroom/Cru iseIndustryUpdate2013FINAL.pdf

. The number of guest rooms is based on the pa ssenger capacity at two passengers per guest

room.

Notes: 1. Costa Cruises is based in Italy. There were 14 cruise ships in Costa Cr uises’ fleet as of 2011. Only one of the cruise ships, the Costa Atlant ica, operated in U.S. ports in 2011. The Costa Fascinosa is not scheduled to operate in U. S. ports in 2013. The Costa Diadema will be launched in October 2014. Information is not available on whether the Costa Diadema will operate in U.S. ports. 2. MSC Cruises is based in Italy. There were 11 cruise ships in MSC Crui ses’ fleet as of 2011. Only one of the cruise ships, the MSC Poes ia, operated in U.S. ports in 2011. The MSC Divinia is scheduled to operate in U.S. ports in 2013; the MSC Preziosa is not scheduled to operate in U.S. ports in 2013. The 2013 North American Cruise Industry Update lists the capacity of the MSC Divina as 3,502 passengers and the MSC Preziosa as 2,502 passengers. The MSC Divina and MSC Preziosa are the same cl ass cruise ship and have the same capacity of 3,502 passengers.