U.S.ACCESS BOARD 

REGULATORY ASSESSMENT 

PROPOSED PASSENGER VESSELS ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES

MAY 2013 
   

2 

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 from Proposed Provisions ....................................................... 49 

CHAPTER 7. INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS ................... 51 
   

3 

APPENDIX I. FERRIES, MULTI-PURPOSE VESSELS, AND 

SMALL CRUISE SHIPS OPERATING 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 SHIPS CONSTRUCTED OR UNDER 

CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION BETWEEN 2012 & 2015 ............................. 90
   

4 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

 “We” and “our” in this document refer to the Architectural and Transportation Barriers 

Compliance Board (Access Board). 

We are required by section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act and section 504 of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to establish and maintain accessibility guidelines for the 

construction and alteration of passenger vessels covered by the ADA to ensure that the vessels 

are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. We are issuing proposed 

accessibility guidelines for the construction and alteration of passenger vessels pursuant to this 

authority. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) 

are required to issue accessibility standards for the construction and alteration of passenger 

vessels covered by the ADA that are consistent with our guidelines. Passenger vessel owners 

and operators would not be required to comply with the guidelines until they are adopted by 

DOT and DOJ as accessibility standards for the construction and alteration of passenger vessels 

covered by the ADA. 

We prepared this regulatory assessment to estimate the costs and benefits of the proposed 

guidelines. We request comment on all aspects of the regulatory assessment to improve our 

estimates of the costs and benefits of the proposed guidelines. We include questions in the 

preamble to the notice of proposed rulemaking that request information on specific issues 

relating to the regulatory assessment. 

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

vessels, other than ferries and tenders, permitted to carry more than 150 passengers or more than 

49 overnight passengers; ferries permitted to carry more than 99 passengers; and tenders 

permitted to carry more than 59 passengers. The proposed guidelines would not apply to smaller 

passenger vessels because providing accessible features on those vessels present greater 

challenges due to space constraints and other considerations. The proposed guidelines, 

themselves, would not require existing passenger vessels to be made accessible except where 

altered. 

The proposed guidelines contain proposed scoping and technical provisions. The 

proposed scoping provisions specify what passenger vessel features would be required to be 

accessible. Where multiple features of the same type are provided, the proposed scoping 

provisions specify how many of the features would be required to be accessible. The proposed 

technical provisions specify the design criteria for accessible features. The passenger vessel 

features addressed by the proposed scoping and technical provisions include onboard accessible 

routes connecting passenger decks and passenger amenities within decks; accessible means of 

escape; doorways and coamings; toilet rooms; wheelchair spaces in assembly areas and 

transportation seating areas; assistive listening systems; general emergency alarms; guest rooms; 

and other passengers amenities. The proposed guidelines include proposed technical provisions 

for accessible passenger boarding systems. However, we defer to DOT and DOJ to address 

when accessible passenger boarding systems would be required since passenger boarding 

systems can be provided at landside facilities and involve operational issues between the owner 
   

5 

or operator of the landside facility and the passenger vessel owner or operator that DOT and DOJ 

are authorized to address. 

We estimate the compliance costs separately for: (1) ferries, multi-purpose vessels such 

as dinner vessels and excursion vessels, and small cruise ships; and (2) large cruise ships 

operating in U.S. ports. We consider cruise ships permitted to carry between 50 and 299 

overnight passengers small cruise ships, and cruise ship permitted to carry 300 or more 

passengers large cruise ships. 

Ferries, Multi-Purpose Vessels, and Small Cruise Ships 

We estimate there were 454 ferries, 346 multi-purpose vessels, and 32 small cruise ships 

in the size categories covered by the proposed guidelines operating in U.S. ports as of 2010. 

These 832 vessels are listed in Appendix I, along with the data sources. We estimate 387 of the 

ferries (85%), 286 of the multi-purpose vessels (83%), and 23 of the small cruise ships (72%) for 

a total of 696 of the vessels (84%) are expected to reach the end of their service life over 20 

years. We assume these vessels would be replaced by new vessels and the new vessels would 

have the same passenger and vehicle capacity, passenger amenities, and number of passenger 

decks as the vessels they replace. We also assume the total number of vessels would be stable 

over 20 years. We conducted case studies of ten vessels to develop estimates of the incremental 

costs to construct vessels in compliance with the proposed guidelines, and the additional 

operation and maintenance costs due to the proposed guidelines. We divided the 696 vessels that 

we assume to be replaced over 20 years into 13 groups by type and size of vessel and 

extrapolated the compliance costs from the case study vessels to these vessels. We estimate the 

total compliance costs for the vessels annualized over 20 years are $16 million discounted at 7 

percent and 3 percent. 

 

The proposed provision with the highest estimated cost would require an elevator, or on 

certain vessels a limited use-limited application elevator (LULA) or platform lift, to connect 

passenger decks. Ten exceptions are proposed to this provision. For the 696 vessels that we 

assume to be replaced over 20 years, we estimate 124 of the new vessels (18%) would be 

required to provide an elevator, LULA, or platform lift to connect decks, and the proposed 

exceptions would apply to 431 of the new vessels (62%). We estimate 62 vessels (9%) currently 

provide an elevator, LULA, or platform lift, and assume the new vessels that replace these 

vessels would also provide an elevator, LULA, or platform lift in the absence of the proposed 

guidelines. Eleven of these vessels are small cruise ships that would be required to provide 

larger elevators on the new vessels. We estimate the other 79 vessels (11%) have only one 

passenger deck, and assume the new vessels that replace these vessels would not need an 

elevator, LULA, or platform lift. In addition, we estimate 23 small cruise ships would be 

required to provide a platform lift to connect to a tender boarding platform at the stern of the new 

vessels. 

The proposed provisions for protruding objects; onboard accessible routes to connect 

passenger amenities within decks; doorways and coamings: accessible means of escape; drinking 

fountains; toilet rooms; general emergency alarms; assistive listening systems; wheelchair spaces 

in transportation seating areas; guest rooms; storage; and sales and service counters would also 
   

6 

have a cost impact on ferries, multi-purpose vessels, and small cruise ships. Some of the new 

vessels would need to be redesigned and lengthened to maintain their passenger and vehicle 

capacity. 

Large Cruise Ships 

We estimate there were 113 large cruise ships operating in U.S. ports as of 2011. These 

large cruise ships are listed in Appendix II, along with the data sources. 

New large cruise ships provide many accessible features that would be required by the 

proposed guidelines, including elevators to connect passenger decks; guest rooms with mobility 

features; guest rooms with communication features; wheelchair spaces and assistive listening 

systems in assembly areas; and pool lifts. We proposed to conduct case studies of new large 

cruise ships to examine the impact of the proposed guidelines on the vessels. However, we could 

not find large cruise ship owners and operators to participate in the case studies. Due to the lack 

of information, we did not estimate the incremental costs to construct large cruise ships in 

compliance with the proposed guidelines, and the additional operation and maintenance costs 

due to the proposed guidelines. 

The proposed guidelines would require cruise ships to provide a minimum number of 

guest rooms with mobility features. Guest rooms with mobility features are typically larger than 

other guest rooms to accommodate passengers who use wheelchairs and scooters. The cruise 

industry is concerned about the loss of guest rooms and revenue due to the proposed scoping 

provision for guest rooms with mobility features. According to the cruise industry, two guest 

rooms with mobility features occupy the same square footage as three guest rooms resulting in 

the loss of one guest room for every two guest rooms with mobility features. We estimate the 

113 large cruise ships operating in U.S. ports as of 2011 contained 123,516 guest rooms, 

including 2,392 guest rooms with mobility features (1.9% of the total number of guest rooms). 

We assume 5 percent of the guest rooms in the cruise fleet are replaced annually and the total 

number of guest rooms increases by 3 percent annually. Based on these assumptions, we 

estimate 786 guest rooms would be lost over 20 years under the proposed scoping provision 

against the baseline of the cruise industry practice in the absence of the guidelines. According to 

the cruise industry, each guest room produced $140,000 gross revenue in 2005. Adjusting this 

figure for inflation to $161,250 in 2011 dollars, we estimate the gross revenue loss annualized 

over 20 years is $50 million discounted at 7 percent, and $58 million discounted at 3 percent. We 

note, however, that gross revenue loss overstates the cost. The correct measure for estimating 

the cost of lost guest rooms is net revenue, which is gross revenue less the costs to serve the 

passengers who would occupy the guest rooms. 

Tenders 

We propose minimal provisions for tenders that are used to transport passengers for nonemergency purposes between passenger vessels and shore-side facilities. We do not estimate any 

compliance costs for tenders because new tenders meet the provisions. 

Alterations to Existing Passenger Vessels 
   

7 

 We propose three general exceptions and several specific exceptions for alterations to 

existing passenger vessels. We requested comment on the frequency and types of alterations to 

existing passenger vessels when we released an earlier draft of the guidelines. Based on the 

proposed exceptions and responses received from passenger vessel owners and operators, we 

expect the proposed guidelines to have little or no impact on alterations to existing passenger 

vessels. 

Primary Estimates of Costs and Benefits 

The primary estimates of the costs and benefits of the proposed guidelines are shown in 

Table 1. We estimate the total compliance costs annualized over 20 years are $66 million 

discounted at 7 percent, and $74 million discounted at 3 percent. We do not quantify the benefits 

of the proposed guidelines due to the nature of the benefits. The proposed guidelines would 

address the discriminatory effects of architectural, transportation, and communication barriers 

encountered by individuals with mobility, hearing, and vision disabilities on passenger vessels. 

The proposed guidelines would afford these individuals equal opportunity to travel on passenger 

vessels for employment, transportation, public accommodation, and leisure. The proposed 

guidelines would enable these individuals to achieve greater participation in society, independent 

living, and economic self-sufficiency. The benefits are difficult to quantify, but include 

important national values that are recognized in Executive Order 13563 such as equity, human 

dignity, and fairness. 

Table 1. Primary Estimates of Costs and Benefits of Proposed Guidelines 

Annualized Over 20 Years (2011 Dollars) 

Costs 

7% Discount Rate 3% Discount Rate 

$66 million $74 million 

Benefits 

The proposed guidelines would address the discriminatory effects of 

architectural, transportation, and communication barriers encountered by 

individuals with mobility, hearing, and vision disabilities on passenger vessels. 

The proposed guidelines would afford these individuals equal opportunity to 

travel on passenger vessels for employment, transportation, public 

accommodation, and leisure. The benefits are difficult to quantify, but include 

important national values that are recognized in Executive Order 13563 such as 

equity, human dignity, and fairness. 

 
   

8 

CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Introduction 

We prepared this regulatory assessment of the proposed accessibility guidelines for 

passenger vessels in accordance with Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review) and Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). Among 

other things, Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to propose or adopt a regulation only upon 

a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs; tailor the regulation to impose the least 

burden on society, consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives; and, in choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive 

Order 13563 recognizes that some benefits are difficult to quantify and provides that, where 

appropriate and permitted by law, agencies may consider and discuss qualitatively values that are 

difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive 

impacts. 

1.2 Statutory and Regulatory Background 

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a civil rights law that prohibits 

discrimination against individuals with disabilities. See 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. Title II of the 

ADA applies to state and local governments and Title III of the ADA applies to places of public 

accommodation operated by private entities.1

 The ADA covers designated public transportation 

services provided by state and local governments and specified public transportation services 

provided by private entities that are primarily engaged in the business of transporting people and 

whose operations affect commerce.2 See 42 U.S.C. 12141 to 12147 and 12184. Passenger vessels 

that provide designated public transportation services or specified public transportation services 

such as ferries and excursion vessels, and passenger vessels that are places of public 

accommodation such as vessels that provide dinner or sightseeing cruises are covered by the ADA. 

We are required by section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act and section 504 of the ADA to 

establish and maintain accessibility guidelines for the construction and alteration of passenger 

vessels covered by the ADA to ensure that the vessels are readily accessible to and usable by 

individuals with disabilities. See 29 U.S.C. 792 (b) (3) and 42 U.S.C. 12204. 

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is responsible for issuing regulations to 

implement the transportation provisions of Titles II and III of the ADA. See 42 U.S.C. 12149 

and 12186 (a). DOT has issued regulations for passenger vessels used to provide designated 

public transportation services by state and local governments and specified public transportation 

                                                            

1

 Title III of the ADA covers twelve categories of places of public accommodation, including places of lodging, 

establishments serving food or drink, and places of exhibition or entertainment. See 42 U.S.C. 12181 (7). 

2

 The definitions of the terms designated public transportation and specified public transportation are similar and 

mean transportation by bus, rail, or any other conveyance that provides the general public with general or special 

service, including charter service, on a regular and continuing basis. See 42 U.S.C. 12141 (2) and 12181 (10). 
   

9 

services by private entities that are primarily engaged in the business of transporting people and 

whose operations affect commerce. See 49 CFR part 39. 

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is responsible for issuing regulations to implement 

the other provisions of Titles II and III of the ADA. See 42 U.S.C. 12134 and 12186 (b). DOJ 

has issued regulations for state and local governments and places of public accommodation 

operated by private entities, including public accommodations provided on passenger vessels 

such as cruise ships, gaming vessels, and dinner vessels. See 28 CFR parts 35 and 36. 

Titles II and III of the ADA require DOT and DOJ to issue accessibility standards for the 

construction and alteration of passenger vessels covered by the law that are consistent with our 

guidelines. See 42 U.S.C. 12134 (c), 12149 (b), and 12186 (c). DOT has reserved a subpart in 

its regulations for accessibility standards for passenger vessels in anticipation of our issuing 

these guidelines. See 49 CFR part 39, subpart E. Passenger vessel owners and operators would 

not be required to comply with the guidelines until they are adopted by DOT and DOJ as 

accessibility standards for the construction and alteration of passenger vessels covered by the 

ADA. 

1.3 Rulemaking History 

 We have developed and maintained accessibility guidelines for landside facilities for over 

30 years. The guidelines for landside facilities represent the state-of-the-art for accessible 

design. We worked with passenger vessel owners and operators, the disability community, and 

other interested parties over the past 15 years to address the unique constraints of the marine 

environment and adapt the guidelines for landside facilities to passenger vessels. 

Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee 

In 1998, we convened a Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee comprised of 

passenger vessel owners and operators, industry trade groups, disability advocacy groups, and 

state and local government agencies to recommend how to adapt the guidelines for landside 

facilities to passenger vessels. The advisory committee submitted a report with recommended 

guidelines in 2000. 

2004 Draft Guidelines and ANPRM 

Based on the advisory committee’s report, we developed draft guidelines for passenger 

vessels permitted to carry more than 150 passengers or more than 49 overnight passengers. In 

2004, we released the draft guidelines for comment and issued an advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPRM) on small passenger vessels permitted to carry 150 or fewer passengers, or 

49 or fewer overnight passengers. See 69 FR 69244 and 69245, November 26, 2004. The 

ANPRM requested comment on whether and how to develop accessibility guidelines for small 

passenger vessels. We held hearings in Washington, DC and Los Angeles on the 2004 draft 

guidelines and the ANPRM, and received more than 90 comments. 

2006 Draft Guidelines 
   

10 

Based on the comments on the 2004 draft guidelines and ANPRM, we revised the draft 

guidelines in 2006 to include all ferries; other passenger vessels permitted to carry more than 150 

passengers or 49 overnight passengers; and tenders permitted to carry more than 59 passengers. 

We released the 2006 draft guidelines for comment. See 71 FR 38563, July 7, 2006. We 

received more than 175 comments on the 2006 draft guidelines. 

Case Studies 

 Between 2005 and 2008, we conducted case studies of ten passenger vessels to identify 

the impact of the draft guidelines on the vessels. We worked with vessel owners and operators, 

naval architects, and ship builders to review the original designs of the vessels and to identify 

design changes that would be needed to meet the draft guidelines. The naval architects and ship 

builders estimated the cost of the design changes, and considered the impact of the design 

changes on the passenger vessel’s space, fuel consumption, and stability. We prepared reports 

on the case studies. We updated the case study reports to reflect changes to the proposed 

guidelines from earlier drafts and to adjust the cost estimates to 2011 dollars. 

Passenger Vessel Emergency Alarms Advisory Committee 

Comments on the 2006 draft guidelines raised issues about emergency alarm systems on 

passenger vessels alerting passengers who are deaf or have a hearing loss. We convened a 

Passenger Vessel Emergency Alarms Advisory Committee in 2007 comprised of passenger 

vessel owners and operators, industry trade groups, organizations representing individuals who 

are deaf or have a hearing loss, and standard setting organizations to address the comments. The 

advisory committee submitted a report with its recommendations in 2008. The advisory 

committee recommended that general emergency alarm systems include visible elements to alert 

passengers who are deaf or have a hearing loss, and recommended safeguards against triggering 

photosensitive seizures in individuals with epilepsy. The advisory committee recommended that 

the visible element on U.S. flag ships comply with the NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm Code. The 

advisory committee recommended that the U.S. Coast Guard work with the International 

Maritime Organization to develop guidelines for including visible elements in general 

emergency alarm systems on foreign flag vessels. The International Maritime Organization 

approved non-mandatory guidelines for including visible elements in general emergency alarm 

systems in 2012.3

2008 Draft Guidelines 

Based on the comments on the 2006 draft guidelines and the case studies, we revised the 

draft guidelines in 2008. The 2008 draft guidelines covered ferries permitted to carry more than 

99 passengers; other passenger vessels permitted to carry more than 150 passengers or more than 

49 overnight passengers; and tenders permitted to carry more than 59 passengers. 

                                                            

3

 International Maritime Organization, Guidelines for the Design and Installation of a Visible Element to the 

General Emergency Alarm System on Passenger Ships, MSC.1/Circ.1418, June 13, 2012 at: 

http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Circulars/Pages/IMODOCS.aspx. 
   

11 

The advisory committee reports, ANPRM, earlier drafts of the guidelines, comments on 

the ANPRM and earlier drafts of the guidelines, updated case study reports, and other 

background information on the proposed guidelines are available at: http://www.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 the construction and alteration of passenger 

vessels, other than ferries and tenders, permitted to carry more than 150 passengers or more than 

49 overnight passengers; ferries permitted to carry more than 99 passengers; and tenders 

permitted to carry more than 59 passengers. The proposed guidelines would not apply to smaller 

passenger vessels because providing accessible features on those vessels present greater 

challenges due to space constraints and other considerations. The proposed guidelines, 

themselves, would not require existing passenger vessels to be made accessible except where 

altered. 

The proposed guidelines contain proposed scoping and technical provisions. The 

proposed scoping provisions specify what passenger vessel features would be required to be 

accessible. Where multiple features of the same type are provided, the proposed scoping 

provisions specify how many of the features would be required to be accessible. The proposed 

technical provisions specify the design criteria for accessible features. The passenger vessel 

features addressed by the proposed scoping and technical provisions include onboard accessible 

routes connecting passenger decks and passenger amenities within decks; accessible means of 

escape; doorways and coamings; toilet rooms; wheelchair spaces in assembly areas and 

transportation seating areas; assistive listening systems; general emergency alarms; guest rooms; 

and other passenger amenities. The proposed guidelines include proposed technical provisions 

for accessible passenger boarding systems. However, we defer to DOT and DOJ to address 

when accessible passenger boarding systems would be required since passenger boarding 

systems can be provided at landside facilities and involve operational issues between the owner 

or operator of the landside facility and the passenger vessel owner or operator that DOT and DOJ 

are authorized to address. 

 
   

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 permitted to carry between 

49 and 299 overnight passengers that operate in U.S. ports. We estimate there were 454 ferries, 

346 multi-purpose vessels, and 32 small cruise ships in the size categories covered by the 

proposed guidelines operating in U.S. ports as of 2010. Appendix I lists these 832 vessels, along 

with the data sources. The appendix provides data on each vessel, including vessel name, year 

constructed, number of passengers, and number of passenger decks. As shown in Table 2, we 

estimate that about 25 percent of the vessels are owned by state or local governments, and the 

rest are owned by private entities. 

Table 2. Existing Vessels in Size Categories Covered by Proposed Guidelines as of 2010 

Vessel 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 existing vessels have an expected service life of 25 

to 40 years based on the vessel type and size. We estimate 696 of the existing vessels (84%) 

would reach the end of their expected service life over 20 years beginning in 2012. We assume 

these vessels would be replaced by new vessels and the new vessels would have the same 

passenger and vehicle capacity, passenger amenities, and number of passenger decks as the 

vessels they replace. We also assume the total number of vessels would be stable over 20 years. 

Table 3. Expected Service Life of Vessels 

Vessel Type & 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 72 
   

13 

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 vessels (275 vessels) would reach or 

exceed their expected service life in the first year. This results in the estimated compliance costs 

for the new vessels being higher in the first year than in the other years. 

Table 4. New Vessels Assumed to be Constructed to Replace Existing Vessels

Year1 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 19 
   

14 

Table 4. New Vessels Assumed to be Constructed to Replace Existing Vessels

Year1 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 vessels. We worked with the vessel owners and operators, naval 

architects, and ship builders to review the original designs of the vessels and to identify design 

changes that would be needed to meet the draft guidelines. The naval architects and ship 

builders estimated the cost of the design changes, and considered the impact of the design 

changes on the passenger vessel’s space, fuel consumption, and stability. We prepared reports 

on the case studies. We updated the case study reports to reflect changes to the proposed 

guidelines from earlier drafts and to adjust the cost estimates to 2011 dollars.4

 The updated case 

study reports are available at: http://www.access-board.gov/pvag/. Table 5 lists the case study 

vessels and abbreviations used to refer to the case study vessels in tables 6 through 8. 

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

Case Study 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, accessible means of escape, drinking fountains, 

general emergency alarms, transportation seating areas, medical care facilities, guest rooms, 

storage, and sales and service counters would have a cost impact on only some of the case study 

vessels. 

                                                            

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 

Routes1 

V206, V402 -V409 X X X X X X X X X 

Accessible Means of 

Escape 

V207 X X X X X 

Drinking Fountains 

V211, V602 X X 

Toilet Rooms 

V213, V603-V608 X X X X X X X X X 

General Emergency 

Alarms 

V215, V702 X X 

Assistive Listening 

Systems 

V219, V706 X X X X X X X X X X 

Transportation 

Seating Areas 

V222, V802.1 X X X X X X X 

Medical Care 

Facilities 

V223, V805 X 

Guest Rooms 

V224, V806 X 

Storage 

V225, V807 X X X X X 

Sales and Service 

Counters 

V227, V904 X 

Note: 

1. Onboard accessible routes include proposed provisions for elevators, limited use-limited 

application elevators (LULA), and platform lifts to connect passenger decks on vessels with more 

than one deck; onboard accessible routes to connect passenger amenities within decks; and 

doorways and coamings. Some of these proposed provisions would not have a cost impact on 

some of the case study vessels.

Incremental Construction Costs 

 The case study reports estimate the incremental construction costs for the vessels, which 

is the difference between the cost of constructing the vessel in the absence of the proposed 
   

16 

guidelines (pre-guidelines construction cost) and the cost of constructing the vessel in 

compliance with the guidelines (post-guidelines construction cost). The case study reports 

estimate the following incremental construction costs: 

 Vertical Access Construction Cost. This is the cost of installing an elevator, 

limited use-limited application elevator (LULA), or platform lift to connect passenger decks on a 

vessel with more than one deck. 

 Other Accessible Feature Costs. This includes the cost to expand toilet rooms; 

modify doors and thresholds; install automatic doors at doorways with coamings and double 

ramps; add assistive listening systems; and provide protected waiting areas as part of an 

accessible means of escape where passengers with disabilities wait for crew assistance during 

emergencies. 

 Lengthening Cost. This is the cost of increasing the length of a new vessel to 

accommodate the accessible features and maintain the passenger and vehicle capacity, and the 

passenger amenities such as fixed seating and toilet rooms provided on the existing vessel. 

 

 Redesign Cost. This is the cost for architectural design drawings for a new vessel 

that differs in design from the existing vessel it replaces. The estimated redesign cost for the 

case study vessels ranged from 3 percent to 10 percent of incremental construction costs. 

Table 7 shows the pre-guidelines construction costs and incremental construction costs 

for the case study vessels in dollars, and also shows the incremental construction costs as a 

percent increase in construction costs. The construction costs would increase by less than 1 

percent to 12.5 percent for nine of the case study vessels. The construction costs would increase 

by 24.5 percent for the 108 passenger high-speed ferry because the vessel owner wanted to 

lengthen the ferry by 10 feet based on the owner’s experience with a larger ferry, instead of the 5 

feet minimum needed to maintain the vessel’s seating and storage capacity. If the replacement 

ferry is lengthened by 5 feet, instead of 10 feet, the construction costs would increase by 14 

percent to 17 percent, instead of 24.5 percent. 

Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs 

The case studies identified the following additional annual operation and maintenance 

costs due to the proposed guidelines: 

 Vertical Access Maintenance Cost. This is the annual cost of maintaining an 

elevator, LULA, or platform lift to connect passenger decks. 

 Automatic Door Maintenance Cost. This is the annual cost of maintaining and 

replacing automatic doors at doorways with coamings and double ramps. 

 Engine Maintenance Cost. This is the annual cost for additional engine 

maintenance due to added weight from the accessible features and vessel lengthening. 
   

17 

 Fuel Cost. This is the annual cost for additional fuel consumption due to 

installing an elevator, LULA, or platform lift to connect passenger decks and vessel lengthening. 

Table 7 shows the additional operation and maintenance costs for the case study vessels.
18 

Table 7. Estimated Compliance Costs for Case Study Vessels (Thousands of dollar

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 

Pre-Guidelines

Construction 

Costs 

$2,270 $3,110 $5,970 $11,650 $4,630 $9,560 $62,700 $2,450 

Incremental 

Construction 

Costs 

$556 $390 $134 $487 $38 $289 $787 $79 

Percent Increase 

in 

Construction 

Costs 24.5%1 12.5% 2.2% 4.2% < 1%2 3.0% 1.3% 3.2%3 

Additional 

Annual 

Operation and 

Maintenance 

Costs 

18% 

increase in fuel 

consumption 

3% to 6.6% 

increase in 

fuel 

consumption 

None 

10% 

increase in 

fuel 

consumption 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

$1,100 to 

$1,300 per 

automatic 

door 

Not 

Significant 

Notes:1. The owner of the 108 passenger high-speed ferry wanted to lengthen the ferry by 10 feet based on the owner’larger ferry, instead of the 5 feet minimum needed to maintain the vessel’s seating and storage capacity. If the f5 feet, instead of 10 feet, the construction costs would increase by 14% to 17%, instead of 24.5%. 2. The owner of the 150 passenger and 20 vehicle mono-hull ferry wanted to lose a vehicle space instead of leng

replacement ferry by 16 feet to maintain its vehicle capacity. This would result in an annual revenue loss of $51the replacement ferry is lengthened by 16 feet, the construction costs would increase by 6.7%, instead of less tha

3. The 300 passenger tour vessel has two entry decks and currently provides an inclined platform lift to connect 

The inclined platform lift is included in the pre-guidelines construction cost. If the vessel did not provide an inc

the construction costs would increase by 5.3% if an inclined lift is provided, and 8.1% if a vertical platform lift i
   

19 

2.4 Estimated Compliance Costs for Replacement Vessels 

We worked with the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center to extrapolate the 

incremental construction costs and additional annual operation and maintenance costs from the 

case study vessels to the replacement vessels. As shown in Table 8, we divided the replacement 

vessels into 13 groups and matched each group by type and size with one or more of the case 

study vessels. We used the elevator cost from the 600 passenger dinner vessel for replacement 

vessels that would be required to provide an elevator. We developed cost estimates for the 

incremental construction costs and additional annual operations and maintenance costs for the 

replacement vessels in each group based on the case study vessel costs. We erred on the side of 

overestimating compliance costs when matching the replacement vessels with the case study 

vessels. All estimates are 2011 dollars. 

Table 8. Replacement Vessels Matched to Case Study Vessels 

Vessel Type & 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; 600 pax dinner vessel 

Multi-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels 

151-600 passengers 13 450 pax ferry 

Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels 

151-499 passengers 181 300 pax tour vessel; 600 pax dinner vessel 

500-1000 passengers 86 600 pax dinner vessel 

1001 or more passengers 6 4,400 pax ferry; 600 pax dinner vessel 

Small Cruise Ships 

50-299 passengers 23 120 pax cruise ship; 600 pax dinner vessel 

Total 696 

Vertical Access Cost 

The proposed guidelines would require an elevator, limited use-limited application 

elevator (LULA), or platform lift to connect passenger decks on a vessel with more than one 

deck. A LULA is a passenger elevator that is limited in use and application by size, capacity, 

speed, and rise. The maximum rise of a LULA is 25 feet and it can be used to connect three or 
   

20 

fewer passenger decks.5 The maximum rise for a platform lift is 14 feet and it can be used to 

connect two passenger decks.6

Ten exceptions are proposed. Exceptions 1, 2, and 3 would reduce the compliance costs 

for small passenger vessels. Exception 1 would not require an onboard accessible route to 

connect the decks on passenger vessels that have only two passenger decks unless both decks are 

entry decks. Exception 2 would not require an onboard accessible route to connect decks that are 

not entry decks where each passenger deck is less than 3,000 square feet. Exception 3 would not 

require an onboard accessible route to connect decks where a passenger vessel that is otherwise 

eligible to use Exceptions 1 or 2 has more than one entry deck and at least one designated entry 

deck: (1) serves each stop used for embarking and disembarking passengers; and (2) contains 

drinking fountains, toilet rooms, transportation seating areas, and guest rooms with mobility 

features, where such amenities are provided on the vessel. 

Exceptions 4 and 5 would reduce the compliance costs for high-speed passenger vessels 

that cannot use Exceptions 1, 2, or 3. Exception 4 would not require an onboard accessible route 

to connect decks on high-speed passenger vessels that have only three passenger decks and do 

not transport vehicles or overnight passengers provided that at least one designated entry deck: 

(1) serves each stop used for embarking and disembarking passengers; (2) contains drinking 

fountains, toilet rooms, transportation seating areas, and guest rooms with mobility features, 

where such amenities are provided on the vessel; and (3) contains at least one exterior passenger 

area that is not covered by other decks, where an uncovered exterior passenger area is provided 

on the vessel. Exception 5 would not require an onboard accessible route to connect to the sun 

deck on a high-speed passenger vessel that does not transport overnight passengers where the sun 

deck has no enclosed passenger spaces and is not an entry deck provided that at least one exterior 

passenger area that is not covered by other decks is provided on an entry deck or a deck 

connected to an entry deck by an onboard accessible route. 

Exceptions 6 and 7 would reduce the compliance costs for vehicle ferries that are 

designed to accommodate vehicles with high clearances. Where a passenger deck, other than an 

entry deck, is divided into two separate segments and no horizontal circulation path is provided 

between the two segments, Exception 6 would require an onboard accessible route to connect to 

only one segment of the divided deck. Where decks containing vehicle parking lanes are 

designed to be raised and lowered and do not provide any other passenger amenities, Exception 7 

would not require an onboard accessible route to connect to such decks. 

Exception 8 would not require an onboard accessible route to connect to decks, other than 

entry decks, that are less than 300 square feet. Exception 9 would not require an onboard 

accessible route to connect to decks below the bulkhead deck. Exception 10 would apply to 

alterations to qualified historic passenger vessels and would not require an onboard accessible 

route to connect the decks on such vessels where the State Historic Preservation Officer or 

                                                            

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 determines that it would threaten or destroy the 

historic significance of a qualified historic passenger vessel. 

We make the following assumptions to determine whether the replacement vessels that 

have more than one deck would need an elevator, LULA, or platform lift: 

 A deck is assumed to be a passenger deck unless information is available indicating 

the deck is used only by crew. 

 A vessel is assumed to have only one entry deck unless information is available 

indicating there is more than one entry deck. 

 If information on the vessel width is unavailable, we assume all the decks are less 

than 3,000 square feet when the vessel length is less than 100 feet. 

 If an existing vessel provides an elevator, LULA, or platform lift, we assume the 

replacement vessel would provide an elevator, LULA, or platform lift in the absence 

of the proposed guidelines. 

 Where an exception would not apply, we assume a two deck vessel with two entry 

decks would provide a platform lift at a cost of $108,700; a three deck vessel would 

provide a LULA at a cost of $297,400; and a vessel with four or more decks would 

provide an elevator at a cost of $371,700. The costs are average unit costs based on 

the case studies.7

 All small cruise ships would need to provide a platform lift at a cost of $27,100 to 

connect to a tender boarding platform at the stern of the vessel based on the matched 

case study vessel. 

Based on the above assumptions, we estimate 124 of the replacement vessels (18%) 

would be required to provide an elevator, LULA, or platform lift to connect decks, and the 

proposed exceptions would apply to 431 of the replacement vessels (62%). We estimate 62 

vessels (9%) currently provide an elevator, LULA, or platform lift, and assume the replacement 

vessels would provide an elevator, LULA, or platform lift in the absence of the proposed 

guidelines. Eleven of these vessels are small cruise ships that would be required to provide 

larger elevators on the replacement vessels. We estimate the other 79 vessels (11%) have only 

one passenger deck, and assume the replacement vessels would not need an elevator, LULA, or 

platform lift.

                                                            

7

 Nine two deck vehicle ferries that were matched with the 300 passenger and 40 vehicle ferry case study needed to 

provide a means of vertical access from the entry deck to the transportation seating areas on another deck since 

space was not available on the entry deck for a transportation seating area. The 300 passenger and 40 vehicle ferry 

case study used an exterior vertical platform lift with additional deck surface at an estimated cost of $209,000 to 

provide a means of vertical access between the decks. To simplify the assessment and to err on the side of 

overestimating compliance costs, we used a LULA at a cost of $297,400 for the nine ferries.   
22 

Table 9. Estimated Number of Replacement Vessels That Would Be Required to Provide Elevator, LULA

Vessel Type & Size

Number 

of Vessels

Vessels 

Affected 

Cost per Vessel 

(thousands of 

dollars) Assumptions & Exp

Multi-Hull Ferries100-124 passengers only 4 0 0 2 have one deck Exception 1 applies to the other vessels 145-150 passengers only 41 0 0 7 have one deck Exception 1 or 2 applies to the other ves151-600 passengers only 32 2 $109 2 with two entry decks need a platform 

Exception 1, 2, or 4 applies to the other 

Mono-Hull Ferries100-150 passengers only 70 0 0 9 have one deck Exception 1 or 2 applies to the other ves100-150 passengers plus vehicles 67 0 0 33 have one deck Exception 1 applies to the other vessels 151-1000 passengers only 72 7 $297 

7 need a LULA 3 currently provide an elevator, LULA, 6 have one deck Exception 1 or 2 applies to the other ves

151-1000 passengers plus vehicles 82 

19 $297 19 need a LULA 

9 need an elevator 19 currently provide an elevator, LULA8 have one deck Exception 1 applies to the other vessels 

9 $372 

1001 or more passengers plus vehicles 19 0 0 17 currently provide an elevator, LULA

Exception 1 applies to the other vessels 

Multi-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels151-600 passengers 13 0 0 Exception 1 or 4 applies to all vessels Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels151-499 passengers 181 

18 $297 18 need a LULA 

3 need an elevator 3 currently provide an elevator, LULA, 12 have one deck Exception 1 or 2 applies to the other ves

3 $372 
23 

Table 9. Estimated Number of Replacement Vessels That Would Be Required to Provide Elevator, LULA

Vessel Type & Size

Number 

of Vessels

Vessels 

Affected 

Cost per Vessel 

(thousands of 

dollars) Assumptions & Exp

500-1000 passengers 86 

30 $297 30 need a LULA 

20 need an elevator 7 currently an provide elevator, LULA, 2 have one deck Exception 1 or 2 applies to the other ves

20 $372 

1001 or more passengers 6 

2 $297 2 need a LULA 

2 need an elevator 2 are currently provide an elevator, LUL

2 $372 

Small Cruise Ships50-299 passengers 23 

1 $27 1 needs a stern platform lift only 

11 need to enlarge existing elevators plu7 need a LULA plus a stern platform lif4 need an elevator plus a stern platform 

11 $30 

7 $325 4 $399 

Total 696 135 
   

24 

Other Accessible Features Costs 

The proposed guidelines would require the replacement vessels to provide other 

accessible features that have incremental construction costs, including expanding toilet 

rooms; modifying doors and thresholds; installing automatic doors at doorways with 

coamings and double ramps; adding assistive listening systems; and providing protected 

waiting areas as part of an accessible means of escape.8   

The owner of the 450 passenger high-speed ferry in the case study noted that the 

engine system would need to be upgraded due to the accessible features and vessel 

lengthening. The incremental cost to upgrade the engine system is included in the other 

accessible features costs for the multi-hull ferries and multi-purpose vessels permitted to 

carry 151 to 600 passengers matched with the case study of the 450 passenger high-speed 

ferry. The owners and operators of the other case study vessels did not note a need to 

upgrade the engine systems. 

The naval architect who worked on the 600 passenger dinner vessel in the case 

study noted that the electric generator system would need to be upgraded due to the 

addition of an elevator. The incremental cost to upgrade the electric generator system is 

included in the other accessible features costs for the mono-hull multi-purpose vessels 

permitted to carry 500 to 1,000 passengers matched with the case study of the 600 

passenger dinner vessel. We request comment on whether the electric generator system 

on other replacement vessels would need to be upgraded in the preamble to the proposed 

guidelines. 

The incremental construction costs to provide the other accessible features on the 

replacement vessels are shown in Table 10. The costs range from $19,000 for mono-hull 

ferries permitted to carry 151 to 1,000 passengers plus vehicles to $631,000 for 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 the case study matched to these vessels 

wanted to provide automatic sprinkler systems instead of protected waiting areas as part 

of an accessible means of escape even though the automatic sprinkler systems are more 

costly. The costs would be lower if protected waiting areas are provided. 

                                                             8

 Where the administrative authority requires a passenger vessel to have a means of escape, the proposed 

guidelines would require an accessible means of escape that provides a substantially equivalent level of 

protection from hazards as is required by the administrative authority for the means of escape. Where 

passengers with disabilities have to wait for crew assistance at or near stairways or exit doors with coamings or 

for elevators or platform lifts to be crew operated during emergencies, the waiting area would need to be 

sufficiently protected from hazards in order to provide the occupants a level of protection that is substantially 

equivalent to the level of protection afforded to passengers who can use the means of escape unassisted. A 

protected waiting area would not be needed where another equivalent method of protection is provided, such as 

where passenger vessels are protected by automatic sprinkler systems or the area is open to the weather. 
25 

Table 10. Estimated Compliance Costs to Provide Other Accessible Features Costs on Replaceme

Vessel Type & Size

Number of 

Vessels

Vessels 

Affected 

Cost Per Vessel 

(thousands of 

dollars) Assumptions & E

Multi-Hull Ferries100-124 passengers only 4 4 $25 

Modifying doors and thresholds Expanding toilet room Adding accessible lockers and assistiv

145-150 passengers only 41 41 $38 

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

151-600 passengers only 32 32 $153 

Expanding vertical clearances at doors Adding drinking fountain and assistive Providing protected waiting areas for aUpgrading engine system 

Mono-Hull Ferries100-150 passengers only 70 70 $39 Modifying doors and thresholds Adding accessible lockers and assistiv100-150 passengers plus vehicles 67 34 $54 Lengthening seating cabin Adding accessible lockers and assistiv151-1000 passengers only 72 72 $116 

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

151-1000 passengers plus vehicles 82 82 $19 

Expanding toilet room Adding guardrails under stairway, drinlistening system 

1001 or more passengers plus vehicles 19 19 $6311 

Installing automatic doors and door drwith coamings Adding assistive listening system Providing automatic sprinkler system areas for accessible means of escape 

Multi-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels151-600 passengers 13 13 $153 

Expanding vertical clearances at doors Adding drinking fountain and assistive Providing protected waiting areas for aUpgrading engine system 
26 

Table 10. Estimated Compliance Costs to Provide Other Accessible Features Costs on Replaceme

Vessel Type & Size

Number of 

Vessels

Vessels 

Affected 

Cost Per Vessel 

(thousands of 

dollars) Assumptions & E

Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels151-499 passengers 181 181 $78 Expanding toilet rooms Adding assistive listening system 500-1000 passengers 86 

36 $112 

Modifying doors and thresholds Adding assistive listening system Providing protected waiting areas for a

50 $125 

Modifying doors and thresholds, and sAdding assistive listening system Providing protected waiting areas for aUpgrading electric generator system 

1001 or more passengers 6 

2 $2221 Installing automatic doors at doorway

Adding assistive listening system 

4 $6311 

Installing automatic doors at doorwayAdding assistive listening system Providing automatic sprinkler system areas for accessible means of escape 

Small Cruise Ships50-299 passengers 23 23 $95 

Modifying doors, thresholds, and medAdding accessible guest rooms, rampslistening system 

Total 696 6632

Notes: 1. The cost shown is the average total cost for vessels in the group since vessels in the group had some variation in the other acces2. Thirty-three (33) of the existing mono-hull ferries carrying 100 to 150 passengers plus vehicles currently provide the other accethat the replacement vessels for these 33 ferries would be the same design and would not incur any compliance costs for the other 
   

27 

Lengthening Cost 

Some of the case study vessels needed to be lengthened to accommodate the accessible 

features and to maintain passenger and vehicle capacity. The larger vessels in the case studies 

could accommodate the accessible features, and maintain passenger and vehicle capacity without 

being lengthened. It is more costly to lengthen multi-hull vessels than mono-hull vessels. 

 We make the following assumptions to determine how many feet to lengthen the 

replacement vessels that needed to be lengthened: 

 Multi-hull ferries permitted to carry 100 to 124 passengers would be lengthened by 5 

feet since the owner of the matched case study vessel (108 passenger high-speed 

ferry) wanted to lengthen the replacement vessel by more than 5 feet for reasons 

unrelated to the accessible features. 

 Mono-hull ferries permitted to carry 100 to 150 passengers plus vehicles that have 

two decks would be lengthened by 16 feet to maintain vehicle capacity. The owner of 

the matched case study vessel (150 passenger and 20 vehicle mono-hull ferry) wanted 

to lose a vehicle space instead of lengthening the replacement vessel by 16 feet to 

maintain its vehicle capacity. We assume other ferry owners would lengthen the 

vessel to maintain the vehicle capacity. 

 11 of the small cruise ships are smaller than the matched case study vessel (120 

passenger cruise ship) and the lengthening cost is adjusted proportionally to the vessel 

size. 

Based on the above assumptions, we estimate 267 of the replacement vessels (38 percent) 

would need to be lengthened as shown in Table 11. The lengthening cost would range from 

$60,000 for mono-hull ferries permitted to carry 100 to 150 passengers to $2,117,000 for some 

small cruise ships. We assume lengthening the vessels would not impact their use of docking 

areas. We request comment on this issue in the preamble to the notice of proposed rulemaking. 

Table 11. Estimated Lengthening Cost for Replacement Vessels 

Vessel Type & 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 

151-1000 passengers plus vehicles 82 0 0 None (same as case study) 

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 assumption, we estimate 575 of the 696 replacement vessels 

(83 percent) would incur redesign costs as shown in Table 12. We estimate the redesign cost is 

10 percent of the incremental construction costs, and would range from $2,000 for some 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 $631 

Multi-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels 

151-600 passengers 13 13 $37 

10% of 

incremental 

construction 

costs 

Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels 

151-499 passengers 181 

3 $45 

10% of 

incremental 

construction 

costs 

18 $38 

156 $8 

500-1000 passengers 86 

17 $70 

26 $63 

34 $11 

1001 or more passengers 6 4 $871 

2 $411

Small Cruise Ships 

50-299 passengers 23 

10 $1351 10% of 

incremental 

construction 

costs 

9 $2321 

Total 696 575 

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 operational and maintenance costs for the replacement 

vessels based on the case study vessels, additional information provided by vessel owners and 

operators, and input from the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. We estimate the 

following additional operation and maintenance costs for the replacement vessels in Tables 13 

and 14: 

 The annual maintenance cost for a platform lift is $2,800, and for a LULA or elevator 

is $5,500. 

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

 The annual cost for additional engine maintenance due to added weight from the 

accessible features or vessel lengthening is $22,000 per vessel for multi-hull ferries 

carrying 150 or fewer passengers. For mono-hull vessels and small cruise ships that 

operate at slower speeds than multi-hull vessels, and larger multi-hull vessels carrying 

more than 150 passengers, we assume there is no additional engine maintenance cost. 

 The additional fuel consumption varies based on the vessel characteristics and ranges 

from none for mono-hull ferries permitted to carry more than 150 passengers plus 

vehicles and mono-hull multi-purpose vessels permitted to carry more than 1,000 

passengers to 10 percent for some multi-hull vessels carrying passengers only. Future 

diesel price estimates are based on the U.S. Energy Information Administration 

Annual Energy Outlook 2010 with Projections to 2035.9

 Fuel is estimated to be $3.89 

per gallon, the price forecasted for 2031 at the end of the 20 year period. 

                                                            

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 696 135 111 
32 

Table 14. Estimated Engine Maintenance Cost & Fuel Cost for Replacement Vessels 

Engine Maintenance Cost Fue

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) 

Multi-Hull Ferries 100-124 passengers only 4 4 $22 Due to lengthening without engine 

upgrade (estimate based on the case study vessel) 

4 $37 

145-150 passengers only 41 41 $22 41 $13 151-600 passengers only 32 0 0 None 32 $214 Mono-Hull Ferries 100-150 passengers only 70 0 0 

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

70 $5 

100-150 passengers plus vehicles 67 0 0 34 $5 151-1000 passengers only 72 0 0 7 $6 151-1000 passengers plus vehicles 82 0 0 0 0 1001 or more passengers plus vehicles 19 0 0 0 0 Multi-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels 151-600 passengers 13 0 0 None 13 $214 Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Vessels 151-499 passengers 181 0 0 None assumed for slow-speed vessels; 21 $6 
33 

Table 14. Estimated Engine Maintenance Cost & Fuel Cost for Replacement Vessels 

Engine Maintenance Cost Fue

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) 

500-1000 passengers 86 0 0 

lengthening has no or little effect on engine maintenance in a slow-speed vessel 

50 $5 

1001 or more passengers 6 0 0 0 0 Small Cruise Ships50-299 passengers 23 0 0 

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

11 $7 12 $16 

Total 696 45 295 
   

34 

We estimate the total compliance costs for the replacement vessels annualized over 20 

years are 16 million dollars discounted at 7 percent and 3 percent as shown in Table 15. The 

total estimated compliance costs are higher in the first year because about 33% of the existing 

vessels (275 vessels) would reach or exceed their expected service life in the first year, and we 

assume these vessels are replaced by new vessels in the first year. See Table 4.

Table 15. Total Estimated Compliance Costs for 

Replacement Vessels Over 20 Years 

(millions of dollars) 

Year1 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 ships operating in U.S. ports as of 2011. Appendix II lists these large 

cruise ships, along with the data sources. The appendix provides data on each cruise ship, 

including vessel name, year constructed, total guest rooms, and guest rooms with mobility 

features. 

New large cruise ships provide many accessible features that would be required by the 

proposed guidelines, including elevators to connect passenger decks; guest rooms with mobility 

features; guest rooms with communication features; wheelchair spaces and assistive listening 

systems in assembly areas; and pool lifts. We proposed to conduct case studies of new large 

cruise ships to examine the impact of the proposed guidelines on the vessels.11 However, we did 

not conduct case studies of large cruise ships because we could not find cruise ship owners and 

operators to participate in the case studies. Due to the lack of information, we did not estimate 

the incremental costs to construct large cruise ships in compliance with the proposed guidelines, 

and the additional operation and maintenance costs due to the proposed guidelines. 

The cruise industry is concerned that the proposed scoping provision for guest rooms 

with mobility features would result in a loss of guest rooms and revenue. This chapter discusses 

the impact of the proposed scoping provision for guest rooms with mobility features on large 

cruise ships. 

3.2 Proposed Scoping Provision for Guest Rooms with Mobility Features 

The proposed scoping provision for guest rooms with mobility features is based on the 

scoping provision for hotels in the guidelines for landside facilities and would require cruise 

ships to provide a minimum number of guest rooms with mobility features based on the total 

number of guest rooms in accordance with Table V224.2 set out below. For instance, a cruise 

ship with 501 to 1,000 guest rooms would be required to provide a minimum of 3 percent of 

guest rooms with mobility features. A cruise ship with more than 1,000 guest rooms would be 

required to provide a minimum of 30 guest rooms with mobility features for the first 1,000 guest 

rooms (3%), plus 2 guest rooms with mobility features for each additional 100 guest rooms or 

fraction thereof over 1,000 (2%). The proposed scoping provision would require a portion of the 

guest rooms with mobility features to provide a roll-in shower. The proposed scoping provision 

                                                            

10 Large cruise ships operating in U.S. ports usually are registered in other countries and are referred to as foreign 

flag vessels. The DOT regulations, which eventually will include accessibility standards for passenger vessels 

covered by the ADA based on the proposed guidelines, apply to foreign flag vessels that pick up passengers in the 

United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths. See 49 CFR 39.5 (b). 

11 2004 Draft Plan for Regulatory Assessment and 2006 Draft Guidelines, Passenger Vessel Case Studies at: 

http://www.access-board.gov/pvag/. 
   

36 

would also require guest rooms with mobility features to be dispersed among the various classes 

of guest rooms. 

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

Total Number of 

Guest Rooms 

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 percent of total 3 percent of total 

1001 and over 

20, plus 1 for each 

100, or fraction 

thereof, over 1000 

10, plus 1 for each 

100, or fraction 

thereof, over 1000 

30, plus 2 for each 

100, or fraction 

thereof, over 1000 

Guest rooms with mobility features are typically larger than other guest rooms to 

accommodate passengers who use wheelchairs or scooters. The proposed technical provisions 

for guest rooms with mobility features would require wider doorways; turning space within the 

guest room; clear deck space on both sides of a bed or between two beds and at the closet; 

turning space within the bathroom and clear deck space at the bathtub or shower, lavatory or 

sink, and toilet (the turning space and clear deck spaces can overlap); and grab bars at the toilet 

and at the bathtub or shower. 

3.3 Mobility Device Use Among U.S. Population

The Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) sponsored by the U.S. Census 

Bureau has asked questions about use of mobility devices, including wheelchairs, scooters, 

canes, crutches, and walkers, by persons aged 15 and older since 1990. The SIPP provides 

stability in measuring disability over a long period with a large sample that is representative of 

the U.S. population. We had a report prepared that converted the SIPP data on individuals who 

used mobility devices to households that have a member who used a mobility device because 

families typically go on cruises for vacation and leisure travel.12 This report is referred to as the 

household report. 

                                                            

12 Mitch P. LaPlante and H. Stephen Kaye, Mobility Device Use and Hearing Impairments Among Individuals and 

Households: 1990 – 2010 (February 15, 2013) at: http://www.access-board.gov/pvag/. 
   

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 assume households with a member who uses a wheelchair or scooter 

would need a guest room with mobility features. 

The household report also shows households with a member who used a cane, crutches, 

or walker grew from 4.5 percent in 1990 to 7 percent in 2010. If past trends continue, a linear 

extrapolation to 2025 projects about 9 percent of households will have a member who uses a 

cane, crutches, or walker. Households with a member who uses a cane, crutches, or walker may 

rent a wheelchair or scooter for distance travel on a cruise ship and for shore excursions.13 We 

assume these households may need a guest room with mobility features. We assume households 

with a member who uses a cane, crutches, or walker may also need features such as grab bars at 

toilets and at bathtubs or showers that are provided in guest rooms with mobility features, 

regardless of whether they rent a wheelchair or scooter for distance travel on a cruise ship and 

for shore excursions. 

The cruise industry submitted a report indicating that about 70 percent of the passengers 

who used wheelchairs or scooters on 45 cruise ships in 2005 did not occupy a guest room with 

mobility features.14 The report suggested that these passengers may have used wheelchairs or 

scooters for distance travel on the cruise ships and for shore excursions, and may not have 

needed a guest room with mobility features. The entry doorway to guest rooms is typically 22 to 

24 inches wide and is too narrow for a wheelchair or scooter to pass through.15 The proposed 

guidelines would require 32 inches minimum clear opening at the entry doorway to guest rooms 

with mobility features. The report did not consider other possible reasons why a significant 

percent of passengers who used wheelchairs or scooters did not occupy a guest room with 

mobility features. Passengers who do not have a disability may have reserved guest rooms with 

mobility features because they are larger than other guest rooms resulting in the rooms not being 

available to passengers with disabilities. Some cruise lines had a practice of requesting 

passengers with disabilities to provide a doctor’s note to reserve a guest room with mobility 

features. This practice may have discouraged passengers with disabilities from reserving guest 

rooms with mobility features. DOT issued regulations in 2010 that require cruise lines to hold 

guest rooms with mobility features for passengers with disabilities until all other rooms in the 

                                                            

13 Cruise ship passengers can rent wheelchairs and scooters from Special Needs at Seas at: 

http://www.specialneedsatsea.com/. 

14 Cruise Lines International Association, Passenger Vessel Access Guidelines Access Scoping Economic Impact 

Study (June 23, 2008) at: http://www.access-board.gov/pvag/. 

15 A sample of about 500 wheeled mobility devices shows that the minimum clear width needed for a manual 

wheelchair user ranges from 27 to 31 inches; for a power wheelchair user ranges from 27 to 33 inches; and for a 

scooter user ranges from 24 to 33 inches. Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access, Design Resources 

DR-15 Clear Floor Area for Wheeled Mobility: Redefining the “common wheelchair” (January 4, 2011) at: 

http://udeworld.com/documents/designresources/pdfs/CFA.pdf . 
   

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 mobility features. See 49 CFR 39.39 (b) (2) and (f). 

3.4 Alternative Scoping Provisions 

 We consider two alternative scoping provisions along with the proposed scoping 

provision for guest rooms with mobility features. The first alternative scoping provision was 

recommended by the cruise industry and would require a minimum of 2 percent of the total 

number of guest rooms to provide mobility features.16 The second alternative scoping provision 

would require a minimum of 4 percent of the total number of guest rooms to provide mobility 

features. As noted above, a linear extrapolation of data on households with a member who uses 

a mobility device projects about 4 percent of households will have a member who uses a 

wheelchair or scooter in 2025, and about 9 percent of households will have a member who uses a 

cane, crutches, or walker in 2025. The second alternative scoping provision assumes future 

increases in the percentage of the households with a member who uses a mobility device would 

result in a need for an increase in the number of guest rooms with mobility features. 

3.5 Estimated Guest Room Loss 

 According to the cruise industry, two guest rooms with mobility features occupy the same 

square footage as three guest rooms resulting in the loss of one guest room for every two guest 

rooms with mobility features. This may be valid for interior guest rooms, which tend to be 

smaller than other guest rooms, but may not be valid for guest rooms with a balcony and suites, 

which tend to be larger than interior guest rooms.17 As noted above, the proposed scoping 

provision would require guest rooms with mobility features to be dispersed among the various 

classes of guest rooms. 

 The cruise industry submitted a report estimating the number of guest rooms that would 

be lost applying various scoping provisions to 192 cruise ships that contained a total of 225,364 

guest rooms as of 2005.18 The cruise industry report did not identify the 192 cruise ships. As 

shown in Appendix II, we estimate there were 113 large cruise ships operating in U.S. ports as of 

2011 that contained a total of 123,516 guest rooms.19 We estimate the number of guest rooms 

that would be lost over 20 years applying the proposed scoping provision to the fleet of large 

                                                            

16 Letter from T.E.Thompson, Cruise Lines International Association, to Lawrence W. Roffee, Access Board, dated 

June 23, 2008. The letter was submitted with the cruise industry report referenced in footnote 14. 

17 A deck plan at: http://www.cruisedeckplans.com/DP/Main/decks.php?ship=Independence%20of%20the%20Seas

for a large cruise ship shows that the guest room sizes vary from 152 square feet for an interior room; 200 square 

feet for a deluxe balcony room; and 317 square feet for a junior suite. The size of different classes of guest rooms 

varies by cruise ship. 

18 The cruise industry report is referenced in footnote 14. 

19 The Volpe National Transportation Systems Center reviewed the cruise industry report and identified other 

problems with the report. See Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Review of “PVAG Access Scoping 

Economic Impact Study” (February 18, 2010) at: http://www.access-board.gov/pvag/. 
   

39 

cruise ships in Appendix II operating in U.S. ports as of 2011. The proposed scoping provision 

would apply as the cruise ship fleet is replaced. The cruise industry report noted that cruise ships 

operating in the U.S. market are replaced after 20 to 25 years. We assume the cruise ship fleet is 

replaced over 20 years and 5 percent of the guest rooms are replaced annually. Based on this 

assumption, we estimate 6,176 guest rooms per year would be replaced by new guest rooms as 

shown in the second column of Table 16. The cruise industry report assumed the total number of 

guest rooms in the cruise ship fleet would increase by 3 percent annually. Based on this 

assumption, we estimate 99,568 new guest rooms would be added to the cruise ship fleet over 20 

years as shown in the third and fourth columns of Table 16. Assuming a 5 percent annual 

replacement rate and 3 percent annual growth rate, we estimate the total number of new guest 

rooms would range from 9,881 in Year 1 to 12,673 in Year 20 for a total of 223,084 new guest 

rooms over 20 years as shown in the fifth column of Table 16. 

 We estimate the number of guest rooms that would be lost under the proposed scoping 

provision against the baseline of the cruise industry practice in the absence of the proposed 

guidelines. As shown in Appendix II, the average percent of guest rooms with mobility features 

in the fleet of large cruise ships operating in U.S. ports as of 2011 was 1.9 percent. We assume 

the cruise industry would continue to provide guest rooms with mobility features at this rate in 

the absence of the proposed guidelines. Under this baseline, we estimate the cruise industry 

would provide 4,240 guest rooms with mobility features over 20 years in the absence of the 

proposed guidelines as shown in the sixth column of Table 16. 

We estimate the number of guest rooms with mobility features that would be required 

under the proposed scoping provision based on the average number of guest rooms on large 

cruise ships constructed or under contract for construction between 2012 and 2015. As shown in 

Appendix III, the average number of guest rooms on these cruise ships is 1,700 guest rooms. We 

assume cruise ships constructed over 20 years would have the same average number of guest 

rooms. The proposed scoping provision would require a cruise ship with 1,700 guest rooms to 

provide 44 guest rooms with mobility features (2.6% of guest rooms). See Table V224.2. 

Applying the proposed scoping provision in this manner, we estimate the cruise industry would 

be required to provide 5,802 guest rooms with mobility features over 20 years as shown in the 

seventh column of Table 16. Thus, the proposed scoping provision would require the cruise 

industry to provide 1,562 (5,802 - 4,240) additional guest rooms with mobility features than it 

would provide in the absence of the proposed guidelines. 

Applying the cruise industry’s premise that two guest rooms with mobility features 

occupy the same square footage as three guest rooms resulting in the loss of one guest room for 

every two guest rooms with mobility features, we estimate the number of guest rooms that would 

be lost under the proposed scoping provision based on the additional number of guest rooms with 

mobility features that would be required under the proposed scoping provision, and divide this 

number by two. As shown in the eighth and ninth column of Table 16, the number of guest 

rooms that would be lost under the proposed scoping provision would range from 35 in Year 1 to 

45 in Year 20 for a total of 786 guest rooms over 20 years. 
40 

Table 16. Estimated Guest Room Loss Over 20 Years Under Proposed Scoping Provision 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Year1

New Guest 

Rooms 

Assuming 

5% Annual 

Replacement1

New Guest Rooms Assuming 

3% Annual Growth Total 

New 

Guest 

Rooms3

Number of Guest 

Rooms with 

Mobility Features

Number 

Room

Guest Rooms in 

Cruise Ship 

Fleet1

New Guest 

Rooms2 

Baseline 

(1.9%)4

Proposed 

Scoping

(2.6%)5 Annual6 

0 123,5161 6,176 127,221 3,705 9,881 188 257 35 2 6,176 131,038 3,817 9,992 190 260 35 3 6,176 134,969 3,931 10,107 192 263 36 4 6,176 139,018 4,049 10,225 194 266 36 5 6,176 143,189 4,171 10,346 197 269 36 6 6,176 147,485 4,296 10,471 199 272 37 7 6,176 151,909 4,425 10,600 201 276 38 8 6,176 156,466 4,557 10,733 204 279 38 9 6,176 161,160 4,694 10,870 207 283 38 

10 6,176 165,995 4,835 11,011 209 286 39 11 6,176 170,975 4,980 11,156 212 290 39 12 6,176 176,104 5,129 11,305 215 294 40 13 6,176 181,387 5,283 11,459 218 298 40 14 6,176 186,829 5,442 11,617 221 302 41 15 6,176 192,434 5,605 11,781 224 306 41 16 6,176 198,207 5,773 11,949 227 311 42 17 6,176 204,153 5,946 12,122 230 315 43 18 6,176 210,278 6,125 12,300 234 320 43 19 6,176 216,586 6,308 12,484 237 325 44 20 6,176 223,084 6,498 12,673 241 330 45 

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

Notes: 
41 

1. Year 0 is 2011; Year 1 is 2012. We estimate there were 123,516 guest rooms in the cruise ship fleet operatin

ports as of 2011. See Appendix II. We assume the cruise ship fleet is replaced over 20 years and 5 percent of throoms are replaced annually. We further assume the total number of guest rooms in the cruise ship fleet would 3% annually. 2. The number of new guest rooms is calculated by subtracting the number of guest rooms in the cruise ship flee

prior year from the given year. 3. The total number of new guest rooms is the sum of columns 2 and 4. 4. The baseline (1.9%) is the average percent of guest rooms with mobility features provided in the cruise ship foperating in U.S. ports as of 2011 in the absence of the proposed guidelines. See Appendix II. 5. The proposed scoping (2.6%) is based on the average number of guest rooms (1,700 guest rooms) provided o

cruise ships constructed or under contract for construction between 2012 and 2015. See Appendix III. The propscoping in Table V224.2 would require a cruise ship with 1,700 guest rooms to provide 44 guest rooms with mofeatures (2.6% of guest rooms). 6. The number of guest rooms lost is based on the cruise industry’s premise that two guest rooms with mobility 

occupy the same square footage as three guest rooms resulting in the loss of one guest room for every two guest mobility features. The annual number of guest rooms lost is calculated by subtracting the number of guest roommobility features provided under the baseline (1.9%) from the number of guest rooms with mobility features tharequired 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 proposed scoping provision. The cumulative numbers 

of guest rooms that would be lost over 20 years under the proposed and alterative scoping 

provisions estimated against the baseline of the cruise industry practice in the absence of the 

proposed guidelines are shown in Table 17. Under the proposed scoping, we estimate 786 guest 

rooms would be lost over 20 years. Under the 2 percent alternative scoping, we estimate 114 

guest rooms would be lost over 20 years. Under the 4 percent alternative scoping, we estimate 

2,346 guest rooms would be lost over 20 years. 

Table 17. Estimated Cumulative Guest Room Loss Over 20 Years Under 

Proposed and Alternative Scoping Provisions 

Year1

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 utilization 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 occupancy per room plus expenditures on other goods 

and services purchased on the cruise ship. The correct measure for estimating revenue loss for 

lost guest rooms is net revenue per guest room (i.e., gross revenue minus labor, food, and other 

operating costs), but we lack information to estimate net revenue. We use the cruise industry’s 

figures for gross revenue per guest room ($140,000 in 2005 dollars) adjusted for inflation 

($161,250 in 2011 dollars) to estimate revenue loss for lost guest rooms.21 If we were to use net 

revenue per guest room, and all our other assumptions are unchanged, our estimates of revenue 

loss for lost guest rooms would be lower. 

The estimated gross revenue loss over 20 years for the guest rooms lost under the 

proposed and alternative scoping provisions is shown in Table 18. Under the proposed scoping, 

we estimate the gross revenue loss annualized over 20 years is $50 million discounted at 7 

percent, and $58 million discounted at 3 percent. Under the 2 percent alternative scoping, we 

estimate the gross revenue loss annualized over 20 years is $7 million discounted at 7 percent, 

and $8 million discounted at 3 percent. Under the 4 percent alternative scoping, we estimate the 

gross revenue loss annualized over 20 years is $149 million discounted at 7 percent, and $172 

million discounted at 3 percent. 

Cruise lines construct classes of cruise ships or sister vessels based on the same design 

without major modification. Each new class of cruise ships is generally larger than the previous 

class. As shown in Appendix II, cruise ships constructed in 2010 and 2011 have over 50 percent 

more guest rooms than cruise ships constructed in the 1990’s. Cruise lines can mitigate the loss 

of revenue due to providing guest rooms with mobility features by increasing the number of 

guest rooms when designing new classes of cruise ships. 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                               

http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/North_American_Cruise_Statistics_Quarterly_Snapshot.pdf. Since some 

guest rooms can accommodate more than two passengers, utilization can be above 100 percent. 

21 The cruise industry report assumed that gross revenue per guest room would increase by 3 percent per year. The 

Office of Management and Budget requires federal agencies to use both 7 percent and 3 percent annual discount 

rates expressed as a present value, as well as annualized, for regulatory analysis. The 7 percent discount rate is an 

estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to private capital in the U.S. economy. The 3 percent discount rate 

is appropriate when regulation primarily and directly affects private consumption (e.g., through higher consumer 

prices for goods and services) and is the rate at which society discounts future consumption flows to their present 

value. These rates discount costs in constant dollars and exclude the expected rate of future price inflation. See 

Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4 Regulatory Analysis (September 17, 2003) at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/regulatory_matters_pdf/a-4.pdf. 
44 

Table 18. Estimated Gross Revenue Loss in Millions Over 20 Years Under Proposed and Alternative Scoping P

Year1

Proposed Scoping (2.6%) 2% Alternative Scoping 4% Alternative 

Not 

Discounted

7% 

Discount 

Rate

3% 

Discount 

Rate

Not 

Discounted

7% 

Discount 

Rate

3% 

Discount 

Rate

Not 

Discounted

7% 

Discou

Rate

1 $6 $5 $5 $1 $1 $1 $17 $16 2 $11 $10 $11 $2 $1 $2 $34 $29 3 $17 $14 $16 $2 $2 $2 $51 $41 4 $23 $17 $20 $3 $2 $3 $68 $52 5 $29 $20 $25 $4 $3 $3 $86 $61 6 $35 $23 $29 $5 $3 $4 $104 $69 7 $41 $25 $33 $6 $4 $5 $122 $76 8 $47 $27 $37 $7 $4 $5 $140 $81 9 $53 $29 $41 $8 $4 $6 $158 $86 

10 $59 $30 $44 $9 $4 $6 $177 $90 11 $66 $31 $47 $10 $5 $7 $196 $93 12 $72 $32 $51 $10 $5 $7 $215 $95 13 $79 $33 $53 $11 $5 $8 $234 $97 14 $85 $33 $56 $12 $5 $8 $254 $98 15 $92 $33 $59 $13 $5 $9 $274 $99 16 $99 $33 $61 $14 $5 $9 $294 $100 17 $105 $33 $64 $15 $5 $9 $315 $100 18 $112 $33 $66 $16 $5 $10 $336 $99 19 $119 $33 $68 $17 $5 $10 $357 $99 20 $127 $33 $70 $18 $5 $10 $378 $98 

Annualized over 20 years $50 $58 $7 $8 $149 

Note: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 cruise ships discussed in Chapter 3 are shown in 

Table 19. We estimate the total compliance costs for these passenger vessels annualized over 20 

years are $66 million discounted at 7 percent, and $74 million discounted at 3 percent. 

Table 19. Total Estimated Compliance Costs in Millions Over 20 Years 

for New Passenger Vessels Covered by Proposed Guidelines 

Year1 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 passenger vessels, the proposed guidelines would 

require the alterations to comply with the proposed provisions for new construction. An 

alteration would be defined as a change to a passenger vessel that affects or could affect the 

usability of the passenger vessel or portion thereof. Alterations would include, but are not 

limited to, remodeling, renovation, rehabilitation, reconstruction, historic restoration, changes or 

rearrangement of the structural parts or elements, and changes or rearrangement in the plan 

configuration of bulkheads and partitions. The definition would exclude normal maintenance, 

painting or wallpapering, or changes to propulsion, mechanical, and electrical systems unless 

they affect the usability of the vessel. 

Only the portions of a passenger vessel that are altered would be required to comply with 

the proposed provisions for new construction. For example, if a toilet room on a passenger 

vessel is altered, the altered portions of the toilet room would be required to comply with the 

applicable proposed provisions for new construction. Earlier drafts of the proposed guidelines 

included a provision that would have required a path of travel to altered areas containing a 

primary function. This provision is not included in the proposed guidelines because the DOJ 

regulations require a path of travel to altered areas containing a primary function. See 28 CFR 

35.151 (b) and 36.403. 

5.2 Proposed Exceptions 

Three general exceptions are proposed for alterations to existing passenger vessels. 

Exception 1 would not require an onboard accessible route where elements or spaces are altered 

but the circulation path to the altered elements or spaces is not altered. 

Exception 2 would require alterations to comply with the proposed guidelines to the 

maximum extent feasible where compliance is technically infeasible. Technically infeasible 

would be defined with respect to an alteration as something that has little likelihood of being 

accomplished because existing structural conditions would require removing or altering an 

essential structural member; or because other existing physical or vessel constraints prohibit 

modification or addition of elements, spaces, or features that are in full and strict compliance 

with the guidelines. 

Exception 3 would require alterations to provide accessibility to the maximum extent 

feasible where compliance with the proposed guidelines would result in any of the following: 

 An increase in tonnage that changes the passenger vessel’s classification from 46 

CFR Chapter I, Subchapter T (Small Passenger Vessels (Under 100 Gross Tons)) or 46 CFR 

Chapter I, Subchapter K (Small Passenger Vessels Carrying More Than 150 Passengers or With 

Overnight Accommodations For More Than 49 Passengers) to 46 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter H 
   

47 

(Passenger Vessels);22 

 A violation of the minimum requirements established by the administrative 

authority for the stability of the vessel; 

 A reduction in the structural integrity or fire resistance of a Class A or B bulkhead 

or deck surface; or 

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

Specific exceptions are also proposed in certain proposed provisions for alterations to 

existing passenger vessels, including: 

 Platform lifts would be permitted as a component of onboard accessible routes in 

alterations to existing passenger vessels. V206.7 Exception. 

 An accessible means of escape would not be required in alterations to existing 

passenger vessels. V207.1 Exception 2. 

 A unisex toilet room would be permitted in alterations to existing passenger 

vessels where it is technically infeasible for existing toilet rooms to comply with the proposed 

guidelines provided the unisex toilet room is located in the same area and on the same deck as 

the existing non-complying toilet rooms. V213.2 Exception 2. 

 Visible alarms in public areas would not be required in alterations to existing 

passenger vessels unless an existing alarm system is upgraded or replaced, or a new alarm 

system installed. V215.1 Exception 2. 

 Thresholds 3/4 inch high maximum would be permitted at doorways without 

coamings in alterations to existing passenger vessels provided the thresholds have a beveled edge 

on each side with a slope not steeper than 1:2. V404.2.5.1 Exception. 

 Running slopes not steeper than 1:8 for a maximum rise of 3 inches and not 

steeper than 1:10 for a maximum rise of 6 inches would be permitted in alterations to existing 

passenger vessels where necessary due to space limitations. V405.2 Exception. 

 Elevator cars in altered elevators would not be required to comply with the 

proposed provision for car dimensions where the existing elevator car configuration provides a 

clear deck area 16 square feet minimum; an inside clear depth of 54 inches minimum; and an 

inside clear depth 36 inches minimum. V407.4.1 Exception. 

                                                            

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 sales and service counters in alterations 

to existing passenger vessels where compliance with the proposed provisions would result in a 

reduction of the number of existing counters at work stations. V904.4 Exception. 

5.3 Types and Frequency of Alterations 

We requested comment on the types and frequency of alterations to existing passenger 

vessels when the 2006 draft guidelines were released. The Cruise Lines International 

Association (formerly International Council of Cruise Lines) responded that when a new deck or 

mid-section is added to an existing cruise ship, it may not always be feasible for existing 

circulation paths on the vessel to comply with the proposed provisions for onboard accessible 

routes. The proposed guidelines would not require existing circulation paths that are not 

otherwise altered to comply with the proposed provisions for onboard accessible routes when a 

new deck or mid-section is added to a cruise ship. 

Individual passenger vessel owners and operators commented that alterations generally 

involve installing new motors and pumps; redecorating toilet rooms; and changing chairs and 

equipment such as the beverage dispenser and dish washing machine on a dinner vessel. These 

changes would not trigger a need to comply with the proposed guidelines. The Passenger Vessel 

Association responded that passenger vessels generally do not undergo major alterations if there 

is no change in ownership because it would trigger a need to comply with subsequently 

developed U.S. Coast Guard regulations. According to the Passenger Vessels Association, small 

cosmetic changes are made when a passenger vessel is transferred to a new owner in similar 

service. Small cosmetic changes generally would not trigger a need to comply with the proposed 

guidelines. The Passenger Vessel Association noted that if a passenger vessel changes service, 

more extensive changes may be undertaken. For example, if an excursion vessel changes service 

to a dinner vessel, a galley would be added, passenger space lay outs would be changed, 

bulkheads may be moved, and stairways may be added or relocated. 

Based on the proposed exceptions and responses received from passenger vessel owners 

and operators, we expect the proposed guidelines to have little or no impact on alterations to 

existing passenger vessels. 

 
   

49 

CHAPTER 6. BENEFITS 

6.1 Nature of Benefits 

We do not quantify the benefits of the proposed guidelines due to the nature of the 

benefits. The proposed guidelines would address the discriminatory effects of architectural, 

transportation, and communication barriers encountered by individuals with mobility, hearing, 

and vision disabilities on passenger vessels. Accessible passenger boarding systems would 

enable passengers with mobility disabilities to independently board and disembark from 

passenger vessels. Wheelchair spaces in seating areas would enable passengers who use 

wheelchairs or scooters to sit with other passengers. Passengers with mobility disabilities would 

be able to use toilet rooms and guest rooms on passenger vessels and cruise ships. Assistive 

listening systems would enable passengers who have difficulty hearing to listen to a narrated tour 

delivered on the public address system of an excursion vessel. Passengers who have difficulty 

seeing or are blind would be able to walk around passenger vessels without encountering 

protruding objects. The proposed guidelines would afford these individuals equal opportunity to 

travel on passenger vessels for employment, transportation, public accommodation, and leisure. 

The proposed guidelines would enable these individuals to achieve greater participation in 

society, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency. The benefits are difficult to quantify, 

but include important national values that are recognized in Executive Order 13563 such as 

equity, human dignity, and fairness. 

6.2 Persons Who Benefit From Proposed Provisions 

The Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) sponsored by the U.S. Census 

Bureau asks questions about whether persons have difficulty performing a specific set of 

functional activities.23 The SIPP provides estimates of disability prevalence that are 

representative of the civilian non-institutionalized population living in the United States. We 

recognize that not all these individuals are likely to directly benefit from the proposed guidelines 

because some may not use passenger vessels covered by the proposed guidelines. We do not 

have information to estimate the number of people with mobility disabilities or their family 

members who would directly benefit from the proposed guidelines. We provide the data below 

for illustrative purposes. 

Persons with Mobility Disabilities 

The proposed provisions for accessible passenger boarding systems, onboard accessible 

routes, accessible means of escape, accessible toilet rooms, wheelchair spaces in assembly areas 

and transportation seating areas, and guest rooms with mobility features would directly benefit 

persons with mobility disabilities who use passenger vessels covered by the proposed guidelines. 

The SIPP data show among persons aged 15 and older 30.6 million (12.6%) had limitations 

associated with ambulatory activities of the lower body, including difficulty walking, climbing 

stairs, or using mobility devices. This number includes: 

                                                            

23 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 climbing a flight of stairs; 

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

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

Persons Who Have Difficulty Hearing or Are Deaf 

The proposed provisions for assistive listening systems, general emergency alarms, and 

guest rooms with communication features would directly benefit persons who have difficulty 

hearing or are deaf and use passenger vessels covered by the proposed guidelines. The SIPP data 

show among persons aged 15 and older 7.6 million (3.1%) had difficulty hearing, including 5.6 

million (2.3%) used a hearing aid and 1.1 million (0.5%) were deaf. 

The SIPP reports fewer persons with hearing impairments compared to the National 

Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES). NHANES includes audiometric testing 

of participants. NHANES data for persons aged 12 and older show 30 million (12.7%) had a 

bilateral hearing loss and the number increases to 48.1 million (20.3%) when unilateral hearing 

loss is included.24 

Persons Who Have Difficulty Seeing or Are Blind 

 The proposed provisions for protruding objects, elevator call buttons and signals, 

and tactile and visual characters on signs would directly benefit persons who have difficulty 

seeing or are blind and use passenger vessels covered by the proposed guidelines. The SIPP data 

show among persons aged 15 and older 8.1 million (3.3%) had difficulty seeing, including 2.0 

million (0.8%) were blind. 

                                                            

24 Frank R. Lin, John K. Niparko, and Luigi Ferrucci, Hearing Loss Prevalence in the United States, JAMA Internal 

Medicine (November 14, 2011) at: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1106004.
   

51 

CHAPTER 7. INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS 

We are required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act to consider the impact of regulatory 

proposals on small entities; analyze alternatives that minimize the impact on small entities; and 

make the analysis available for comment. We prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

to meet the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

 

Why Are We Issuing the Proposed Guidelines? 

We are required by section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act and section 504 of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to issue accessibility guidelines for the construction and 

alteration of passenger vessels covered by the ADA. We are issuing the proposed guidelines 

pursuant to this statutory authority. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and U.S. 

Department of Justice (DOJ) are required to issue accessibility standards for the construction and 

alteration of passenger vessels covered by the ADA that are consistent with our guidelines. 

Passenger vessel owners and operators would not be required to comply with the proposed 

guidelines until they are adopted by DOT and DOJ as accessibility standards for the construction 

and alteration of passenger vessels covered by the ADA. 

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

The objective of the proposed guidelines is to ensure that newly constructed and altered 

portions of passenger vessels are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. 

The legal basis for the proposed guidelines is section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act and section 

504 of the ADA. 

How Many Small Entities Would Be Affected by Proposed Guidelines? 

The proposed guidelines would affect small businesses identified by the North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes listed in Table 24 and small governments with a 

population of 50,000 or less that own or operate passenger vessels, other than ferries or tenders, 

permitted to carry more than 150 passengers or more than 49 overnight passengers; ferries 

permitted to carry more than 99 passengers; and tenders permitted to carry more than 59 

passengers. 

Table 20. Small Business Administration Size Standards 

NAICS Code Small Business Size 

483112 Deep Sea Passenger Transportation 500 or fewer employees 

483114 Coastal and Great Lakes Passenger Transportation 500 or fewer employees 

483212 Inland Water Passenger Transportation 500 or fewer employees 

487110 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Water $7 million or less annual receipts 

713210 Casinos (except Casino Hotels) $7 million or less annual receipts 

We estimate small entities own or operate 635 vessels in the size categories covered by 

the proposed guidelines. This includes 372 small businesses that own or operate 257 ferries, 338 
   

52 

multi-purpose vessels, and 23 small cruise ships permitted to carry 50 to 299 overnight 

passengers; and 9 small governments that own or operate 16 ferries and 1 multi-purpose vessel. 

What Are the Proposed Compliance Requirements? 

The proposed guidelines would apply when small entities replace their existing vessels 

with new vessels or add new vessels to their fleet. The proposed guidelines, themselves, would 

not require existing vessels to be made accessible except where altered. The proposed guidelines 

contain proposed scoping and technical provisions. The proposed scoping provisions specify 

what features would be required to be accessible. Where multiple features of the same type are 

provided, the proposed scoping provisions specify how many of the features would be required 

to be accessible. The proposed technical provisions specify the design criteria for accessible 

features. The passenger vessel features addressed by the proposed scoping and technical 

provisions include onboard accessible routes connecting passenger decks and passenger 

amenities within decks; accessible means of escape; doorways and coamings; toilet rooms; 

wheelchair spaces in assembly areas and transportation seating areas; assistive listening systems; 

general emergency alarms; guest rooms; and other passenger amenities. The proposed 

guidelines include proposed technical provisions for accessible passenger boarding systems. 

However, we defer to DOT and DOJ to address when accessible passenger boarding systems 

would be required since passenger boarding systems can be provided at landside facilities and 

involve operational issues between the owner or operator of the landside facility and the 

passenger vessel owner or operator that DOT and DOJ are authorized to address. 

What Are the Compliance Costs for Small Entities 

We estimate the compliance costs for small entities that construct new vessels to replace 

existing vessels. As shown in Table 21, we estimate 533 vessels owned or operated by small 

entities would reach the end of their expected service life over 20 years beginning in 2011. We 

assume small entities would construct new vessels to replace these vessels. The estimated 

compliance costs are based on case studies and are adjusted to 2011 dollars. 

Table 21. Small Entity Vessels Replaced by New Vessels 

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 entities construct new vessels to replace existing vessels, we 

estimate 65 vessels would be required to provide a LULA at a cost of $297,000; 29 vessels 

would be required to provide an elevator at a cost of $372,000; 5 small cruise ships that currently 
   

53 

provide elevators would be required to provide larger elevators when the vessels are replaced at a 

cost of $2,700; and 16 small entity small cruise ships would be required to provide a platform lift 

to tender boarding platforms at the stern of the vessel at a cost of $27,700. See Table 22 for the 

types and sizes of the vessels that would incur compliance costs for an elevator, LULA, or 

platform lift. 

 Other Accessible Feature Costs. This includes the cost to expand toilet rooms; 

modify doors and thresholds; install automatic doors at doorways with coamings and double 

ramps; add assistive listening systems; and provide protected waiting areas as part of an 

accessible means of escape where passengers with disabilities wait for crew assistance during 

emergencies. When small entities construct new vessels to replace existing vessels, we estimate 

516 vessels would incur compliance costs for other accessible features. The costs range from 

$19,000 for mono-hull ferries permitted to carry 151 to 1,000 passengers plus vehicles to 

$631,000 for mono-hull ferries permitted to carry 1,001 or more passengers plus vehicles. The 

costs are higher for mono-hull ferries permitted to carry 1,001 or more passengers plus vehicles 

because the estimate is based on the case study of a 4,400 passenger and 30 vehicle ferry where 

the owner wanted to provide automatic sprinkler systems instead of protected waiting areas as 

part of an accessible means of escape even though the automatic sprinkler systems are more 

costly. The costs would be lower if protected waiting areas are provided. See Table 23 for the 

types and sizes of the vessels that would incur compliance costs for other accessible features. 

 Lengthening Cost. This is the cost of increasing the length of a vessel to 

accommodate the accessible features and maintain passenger and vehicle capacity. When small 

entities construct new vessels to replace existing vessels, we estimate 217 vessels would need to 

be lengthened due to the proposed guidelines. The lengthening cost would range from $60,000 

for mono-hull ferries permitted to carry 100 to 150 passengers to $2,117,000 for some small 

cruise ships. See Table 23 for the types and sizes of the vessels that would incur compliance 

costs to lengthen the vessel. 

 Redesign Cost. This is the cost for architectural design drawings for a new vessel 

that differs in design from the existing vessel it replaces. When small entities construct new 

vessels to replace existing vessels, we estimate 470 vessels would need to be lengthened due to 

the proposed guidelines. The redesign cost would range from $2,000 for some mono-hull ferries 

permitted to carry 151 to 1000 passengers plus vehicles to $261,100 for some small cruise ships. 

See Table 23 for the types and sizes of the vessels that would incur compliance costs to redesign 

the vessel. 

 Additional Fuel Cost. This is the annual cost for additional fuel consumption due 

to installing an elevator, LULA, or platform lift to connect passenger decks and vessel 

lengthening. When small entities construct new vessels to replace existing vessels, we estimate 

243 vessels would incur additional fuel costs due to the proposed guidelines. The additional fuel 

costs would range from $5,000 annually for mono-hull vessels permitted to carry 151 to 1,000 

passengers to $214,000 annually for multi-hull vessels permitted to carry 151 to 600 passengers. 

See Table 24 for the types and sizes of the vessels that would incur additional fuel costs. 
   

54 

 Vertical Access Maintenance Cost. This is the annual cost of maintaining an 

elevator, LULA, or platform lift to connect passenger decks. When small entities construct new 

vessels to replace existing vessels, we estimate 100 vessels would incur these annual 

maintenance costs. The annual maintenance cost would be $5,500 for an elevator or LULA, and 

$2,800 for a platform lift. See Table 24 for the types and sizes of the vessels that would incur 

these annual maintenance costs. 

 Additional Engine Maintenance Cost. This is the annual cost for additional 

engine maintenance due to added weight from the accessible features or vessel lengthening. 

When small entities construct new vessels to replace existing vessels, we estimate 37 vessels 

would incur these annual maintenance costs. The annual maintenance cost would be $22,000 

multi-hull ferries permitted to carry 100 to 150 passengers. See Table 24 for the types and sizes 

of the vessels that would incur these annual maintenance costs. 

 Automatic Door Maintenance Cost. This is the annual cost of maintaining and 

replacing the automatic doors at doorways with coamings and double ramps. When small 

entities construct new vessels to replace existing vessels, we estimate 54 vessels would incur 

these annual maintenance costs. The annual maintenance cost would range from $1,000 for 

mono-hull multi-purpose vessels permitted to carry 500 to 1,000 passengers, to $6,000 for monohull multi-purpose vessels permitted to carry 1,001 or more passengers. See Table 24 for the 

types and sizes of the vessels that would incur these annual maintenance costs. 

Table 22. Vertical Access Cost (thousands of dollars) 

Vessel Type & 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 $372 
   

55 

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 Ships1

50-299 passengers 16 7 $297 3 $372 

Total 533 65 29 

  

Note: 

1. The small cruise ships would be required to also provide a platform lift to connect to the 

tender boarding platform at the stern of the vessel at a cost of $27,100. Five small cruise ships 

that currently provide elevators would be required to provide larger elevators at a cost of $2,700.

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 passengers1 84 84 $112 to 

$125 48 $205 75 $11 to $70 

1001 or more 

passengers2 6 6 $222 to $631 0 $0 6 $22 to $100 

Small Cruise Ships
   

56 

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 500-1000 passengers have other accessible feature costs of 

$112,000. 

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

$222,000. 

Table 24. Additional Operation and Maintenance 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 $6 
   

57 

Table 24. Additional Operation and Maintenance 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 accessibility guidelines for landside facilities. 

Table 25 compares the proposed guidelines for passenger vessels to the guidelines for landside 

facilities to show the exceptions and alternative provisions that we propose to reduce the impact 

on passenger vessels owners and operators, including small entities. 

Table 25. Exceptions and Alternative Provisions Proposed to Reduce Impact on 

Passenger Vessel Owners and Operators, Including Small Entities 

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 deck is less than 

3,000 square feet. 

Landside Facilities 

Elevator or LULA not required in 

certain facilities that have less than 

3,000 square feet per story. Exception 

does not apply to state and local 

governments. 
   

58 

Table 25. Exceptions and Alternative Provisions Proposed to Reduce Impact on 

Passenger Vessel Owners and Operators, 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 Provisions Proposed to Reduce Impact on 

Passenger Vessel Owners and Operators, 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 additional 

fuel 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 less than 121 guest Landside Facilities 
   

60 

Table 25. Exceptions and Alternative Provisions Proposed to Reduce Impact on 

Passenger Vessel Owners and Operators, 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 parking on ferries. Ferry operators need effective 

operational loading plans to identify vehicles needing accessible parking and to position the vehicles on 

the deck to access passenger amenities. 

Are There Other Relevant Federal Rules? 

DOT has issued regulations implementing the ADA for passenger vessels that provide 

designated public transportation services operated by state and local governments or specified 

public transportation services operated by private entities that are primarily engaged in the 

business of transporting people and whose operations affect commerce. DOT has reserved a 

subpart in the regulations for accessibility standards for the construction and alteration passenger 

vessels in anticipation of our issuing these guidelines. See 49 CFR part 39, subpart E. DOJ has 

issued regulations implementing the ADA for state and local governments and public 

accommodations, including those provided on passenger vessels such as cruise ships, gaming 

vessels, and dinner vessels. See 28 CFR parts 35 and 36. Passenger vessel owners and operators 

would not be required to comply with the guidelines until they are adopted by DOT and DOJ as 

accessibility standards for the construction and alteration of passenger vessels covered by the 

ADA. 
   

61 

APPENDIX I. FERRIES, MULTI-PURPOSE VESSELS, AND 

SMALL CRUISE SHIPS OPERATING IN U.S. PORTS AS OF 2010 

This appendix provides data on ferries permitted to carry more than 99 passengers; multipurpose vessels such as dinner or excursion vessels permitted to carry more than 150 passengers; 

and small cruise ships permitted to carry more than 49 but fewer than 300 overnight passengers 

operating in U.S. ports as of 2010. We compiled the data from the following sources: 

1. U.S. Coast Guard Port State Information eXchange (PSIX) System at: 

http://cgmix.uscg.mil/psix/. The PSIX System contains vessel specific information derived from 

the U.S. Coast Guard’s Marine Information and Law Enforcement System. 

2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2008 National Census of Ferry Operators at: 

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/subject_areas/ncfo/index.html. 

3. Specific vessel websites. 

The following symbols are used: (f) indicates foreign flag vessel; (g) indicates gaming vessel; 

(na) indicates no data available; and (*) indicates vessel currently provides elevator, limited uselimited access elevator (LULA), or platform lift. The last column in the table shows whether a 

new vessel that is constructed to replace an existing vessel and has the same number of decks 

would be required to provide an elevator, LULA, or platform lift to connect the decks. The last 

column does not show whether the small cruise ships would be required to provide a platform lift 

to a tender boarding platform. 

Vessel 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 No 
   

62 

ZELINSKY 1986 400 3 No 

CATALINA EXPLORER 1987 149 2 No 

MACKINAC EXPRESS 1987 346 3 No 

ISLAND ROCKET (f) 1988 149 2 No 

CATALINA FLYER 1988 600 3 No 

ISLAND EXPRESS 1988 380 3 No 

MELISSA ANN 1988 199 2 No 

BIMINI BREEZE II 1989 124 1 No 

AMELIA 1989 149 1 No 

COVADONGA 1989 149 1 No 

SEAJET I 1989 400 3 No 

VIEJO SAN JUAN 1990 149 1 No 

JESSICA W 1990 530 3 No 

VICTORIA CLIPPER III 1990 511 3 No 

VALLEJO 1991 300 3 No 

JET EXPRESS II 1992 395 3 No 

HARBOR BAY EXPRESS II 1993 149 1 No 

VICTORIA CLIPPER IV 1993 330 2 No 

BAY BREEZE 1994 250 2 No 

CHELSEA LANE TYLER 1995 117 2 No 

JET EXPRESS IV 1995 147 2 No 

STRAITS EXPRESS 1995 399 3 No 

FLYING CLOUD 1996 149 2 No 

LIGHTNING 1996 149 1 No 

FINEST 1996 349 2 No 

LADY MARTHA 1997 145 2 No 

MAKANA (f) 1997 149 2 No 

DEL NORTE 1997 390 2 Yes – 

Platform Lift 

M/V INTINTOLI 1997 301 2 No 

MARE ISLAND 1997 300 2 No 

AUTSHUMATO (f) 1998 149 2 No 

GOLDEN GATE 1998 350 2 No 

NORA VITTORIA 1998 400 3 No 

FIORELLO LAGUARDIA 1999 150 3 No 

FRANK SINATRA 1999 150 3 No 

YANKEE FREEDOM II 1999 149 2 No 

YOGI BERRA 1999 150 2 No 

AURORA 1999 400 3 No 

CATALINA JET 1999 440 3 No 

NAPA 1999 350 2 No 

STARSHIP EXPRESS 1999 298 2 No 

CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS 2000 150 3 No 
   

63 

SALACIA 2000 600 3 No 

FAIRWEATHER EXPRESS II 2001 150 2 No 

FLORENCE MARTUS 2001 149 1 No 

PEACEMAKER (f) 2001 149 2 No 

PETER R WEISS 2001 150 2 No 

ATHENA 2001 250 2 No 

MENDOCINO 2001 449 3 Yes – 

Platform Lift 

PERALTA 2001 331 2 No 

SEASTREAK NEW JERSEY 2001 399 3 No 

SEASTREAK NEW YORK 2001 399 3 No 

DOWNTOWN 2002 100 1 No 

B.V.I. PATRIOT (f) 2002 150 2 No 

BROOKLYN 2002 150 2 No 

HOBOKEN 2002 150 2 No 

JET EXPRESS III 2002 147 2 No 

U.S. SENATOR FRANK R 

LAUTENBERG 2002 150 2 No 

ADMIRAL RICHARD E 

BENNIS 2003 150 1 No 

BAYONNE 2003 150 2 No 

EXPEDITIONS FOUR 2003 149 2 No 

GOVERNOR THOMAS H. 

KEAN 2003 150 2 No 

ISLAND ADVENTURE 2003 149 2 No 

JERSEY CITY 2003 150 2 No 

OCEAN STATE 2003 149 2 No 

PATRIOT 2003 149 2 No 

ATLANTICAT 2003 442 3 No 

GREY LADY 2003 294 2 No 

SEASTREAK WALL STREET 2003 399 3 No 

PROVINCETOWN III 2004 149 2 No 

SPIRIT OF KINGSTON 2004 149 2 No 

WHALING CITY EXPRESS 2004 150 3 No 

BIG CAT EXPRESS 2004 377 3 No 

SEASTREAK HIGHLANDS 2004 399 3 No 

SOLANO 2004 300 2 No 

SEYMOUR B. DURST 2005 149 2 No 

JET CAT EXPRESS 2005 383 2 No 

EXPEDITIONS FIVE 2006 108 2 No 

ED ROGOWSKY 2006 149 2 No 

MARINA FLYER 2006 149 2 No 

RANGER 2006 149 2 No 
   

64 

KEY WEST EXPRESS 2006 199 2 No 

MV IYANOUGH 2006 393 2 No 

CATALINA ADVENTURE 2007 149 2 No 

LITTLE LADY II 2007 149 2 No 

MARIAN S HEISKELL 2007 149 2 No 

GEMINI 2008 149 2 No 

PISCES 2008 149 2 No 

KACHEMAK VOYAGER 2009 150 2 No 

SCORPIO 2009 199 2 No 

RICH PASSAGE 1 2010 118 1 No 

YORK 2010 148 2 No 

TAURUS 2010 285 3 No 

Multi-Hull Ferries (Passengers & Vehicles)

FAIRWEATHER 2003 250 2 (*) 

LAKE EXPRESS 2004 400 3 (*) 

M/V CHENEGA 2005 250 2 (*) 

Mono-Hull Ferries (Passengers Only)

CARLISLE II 1917 140 2 No 

THOMAS JEFFERSON 1942 794 1 No 

BADGER 1953 600 3 Yes - LULA 

BIDE-A-WEE 1955 150 2 No 

HOLIDAY 1957 150 2 No 

HIAWATHA 1959 150 2 No 

SACRE BLEU 1959 147 2 No 

OTTAWA 1959 600 2 No 

WENONAH 1960 144 2 No 

BONITA 1961 114 1 No 

MICHAEL COSGROVE 1961 149 1 No 

CHIPPEWA 1962 598 2 No 

MONITOR II 1963 105 2 No 

ZEE WHIZ 1964 150 2 No 

CABRILLO 1964 303 2 No 

FIRE ISLAND DUCHESS 1966 147 1 No 

ZEE LION 1966 150 2 No 

ST FRANCISVILLE 1967 143 2 No 

FAT CAT 1967 300 2 No 

NEIL HENLY 1967 380 2 No 

QUAIAPEN 1967 248 2 No 

MERRIMAC II 1968 107 2 No 

MT. MANSFIELD 1969 122 2 No 

THE WELCOME 1969 120 2 No 

STRAITS OF MACKINAC II 1969 295 2 No 
   

65 

ROYAL STAR 1970 650 3 No 

MOLOKAI PRINCESS 1971 149 2 No 

ALCATRAZ FLYER 1971 700 3 Yes - LULA 

FELICITY 1972 150 2 No 

PARADISE CHALLENGER (f) 1972 112 2 No 

CAPT PATTERSON 1972 299 2 No 

BRANT POINT 1973 603 3 No 

CATALINA KING 1973 686 3 Yes - LULA 

ISLAND ROMANCE 1973 299 2 No 

ALCATRAZ CLIPPER 1974 693 3 Yes - LULA 

ISLAND QUEEN 1974 354 2 No 

LADY VENTURE 1974 325 1 No 

CUMBERLAND QUEEN 1975 146 2 No 

VIKING SUPER STAR 1975 149 3 No 

ANGEL ISLAND 1975 396 2 No 

SAN FRANCISCO 1975 715 3 (*) 

SANS SOUCI 1976 149 2 No 

TAMALPAIS 1976 120 2 No 

THE HOPE 1976 150 2 No 

VICTORIA STAR2 1976 142 2 No 

BAY MONARCH 1976 414 2 No 

FIRE ISLAND MISS 1976 297 2 No 

MARIN 1976 624 3 (*) 

SONOMA 1976 715 3 (*) 

NATIVE SON EXPRESS 1977 149 2 No 

VIKING STARSHIP 1977 144 2 No 

CAPT. NEVILLE LEVY 1977 999 3 Yes - LULA 

PATHFINDER II 1977 249 2 No 

STATUE OF LIBERTY V 1977 792 3 Yes - LULA 

TRAVELER 1977 297 1 No 

CARIBE TIME 1978 145 1 No 

SAPELO QUEEN 1978 147 2 No 

COL. FRANK X. ARMIGER 1978 402 2 No 

MUNNATAWKET 1978 209 2 No 

SEN. ALVIN T. STUMPF 1978 999 3 Yes - LULA 

MARQUETTE 1979 150 2 No 

STERLING (f) 1979 149 2 No 

VAGABOND 1979 150 1 No 

VICTORIA EXPRESS II 1979 147 2 No 

FIRE ISLAND CLIPPER 1979 343 2 No 

GOLDEN BEAR 1979 396 2 No 

OLD BLUE 1979 336 3 No 

OSKI 1979 396 3 No 
   

66 

WYANDOT 1979 265 2 No 

VENTURE PRIDE 1980 264 2 No 

CHESAPEAKE BREEZE 1981 147 2 No 

SPEEDY'S FANTASY (f) 1981 107 2 No 

VICTORIA EXPRESS 1981 147 2 No 

CAPITOL VENTURE 1981 248 2 No 

FIREBALL 1981 297 2 No 

FREEDOM 1981 599 2 No 

RITA 1982 149 2 No 

ANNA 1983 149 2 No 

LA SALLE 1983 150 2 No 

M/V CUTTYHUNK 1983 146 2 No 

KIKI 1983 297 2 No 

FIREBIRD 1984 395 2 No 

FORT INDEPENDENCE 1984 518 3 No 

MCNEIL 1984 260 2 No 

ISLANDER 1985 119 2 No 

NICOLET 1985 150 2 No 

STRANGER 1985 150 1 No 

TWO HARBORS 1985 149 2 No 

BAY MIST 1985 328 2 No 

ELIZABETH RIVER FERRY II 1986 150 2 No 

CAPT. SHEPLER 1986 265 1 No 

GULF ISLANDER 1986 360 2 No 

2TH FERRY 1987 150 1 No 

ADVENTURE 1987 149 2 No 

FLAMINGO 1987 100 1 No 

LA NINA 1987 150 (na) No 

LADY VIRGINIA 1987 307 3 No 

PORT IMPERIAL 

MANHATTAN 1987 492 2 No 

BALMY DAYS II 1988 145 2 No 

CUMBERLAND LADY 1988 147 2 No 

LA PINTA 1988 150 (na) No 

PORT IMPERIAL NEW 

JERSEY 1988 150 2 No 

CARIBE TIDE 1988 284 2 No 

RADISSON 1988 350 3 No 

GRAND ISLAND 1989 150 2 No 

SUPER EXPRESS 1989 149 2 No 

WEST NEW YORK 1989 150 2 No 

ABRAHAM LINCOLN 1989 399 2 No 

ALEXANDER HAMILTON 1989 399 2 No 
   

67 

GEORGE WASHINGTON 1989 399 2 No 

KALAMA 1989 250 1 No 

SKAGIT 1989 250 1 No 

THOMAS JEFFERSON 1989 399 2 No 

AVALON EXPRESS 1990 150 2 No 

CADILLAC 1990 150 2 No 

CUMBERLAND PRINCESS 1990 144 2 No 

ELIZABETH RIVER FERRY III 1990 150 2 No 

VOYAGER 1990 398 2 No 

PIED PIPER 1991 103 2 No 

EXPLORER 1991 398 2 No 

HENRY HUDSON 1992 305 2 No 

ANNEMARIE 1993 150 2 No 

JOLIET 1993 150 2 No 

EMPIRE STATE 1993 399 2 No 

ROBERT FULTON 1993 350 2 No 

CATALINA EXPRESS 1994 149 2 No 

ISLANDER EXPRESS 1994 149 2 No 

GARDEN STATE 1994 399 2 No 

ELIZABETH ANN 1995 149 2 No 

OUTWARD BOUND 1995 149 2 No 

CARIBE CAY 1995 277 2 No 

CULEBRA II 1996 523 3 No 

FAJARDO II 1996 272 3 No 

JOHN STEVENS 1996 399 2 No 

SOUTH BAY CLIPPER 1996 412 2 No 

VIEQUES II 1996 504 4 No 

ADMIRALTY WIND 1998 148 3 No 

ATLANTIS 1998 290 (na) No 

BRAVO 2001 107 1 No 

ORAL FREEMAN 2001 146 2 No 

FIRE ISLAND FLYER 2001 300 2 No 

ROYAL EXPRESS III 2001 270 2 No 

SUNRISE 2002 149 1 No 

WESTIN BREEZE 2002 132 1 No 

NORTHERN LIGHTS 2003 149 2 No 

POINT O' WOODS VII 2003 150 2 No 

SUSIE KING TAYLOR 2003 100 1 No 

CARIBENA 2004 272 2 No 

FIRE ISLAND EMPRESS 2004 270 2 No 

MV MARTHA'S VINEYARD 

EXPRESS 2005 150 2 No 

SAM HOLMES 2005 149 2 No 
   

68 

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 No 
   

70 

GUEMES 1979 100 1 No 

ROBERT NOBLE 1979 150 2 No 

NEW LONDON 1979 295 2 No 

SURRY 1979 354 2 No 

ISSAQUAH 1979 1200 3 (*) 

ACADIA 1980 143 1 No 

KITSAP 1980 1200 2 (*) 

KITTITAS 1980 1200 2 (*) 

GAY HEAD 1981 140 2 No 

PELICAN 1981 100 1 No 

CAPE HENLOPEN 1981 598 3 Yes - LULA 

NELSECO 1981 429 3 Yes - LULA 

SANKATY 1981 290 4 Yes - Elevator 

ANDREW J. BARBERI 1981 5992 3 (*) 

CATHLAMET 1981 1200 2 (*) 

CHELAN 1981 1198 3 (*) 

KATAMA 1982 143 2 No 

SAMUEL I. NEWHOUSE 1982 5997 3 (*) 

SEALTH 1982 1200 2 (*) 

ISLANDER 1983 443 2 No 

MARY ELLEN 1983 660 3 Yes - LULA 

WILLIAMSBURG 1983 349 1 No 

J B HUNT JR 1984 143 2 No 

MADELINE 1984 149 1 No 

PLATTSBURGH 1984 146 2 No 

CAROL JEAN 1984 797 4 Yes - Elevator 

CAPE MAY 1985 895 4 (*) 

RACE POINT 1985 245 2 No 

PRUDENCE FERRY 1986 149 1 No 

PARK CITY 1986 997 3 Yes - LULA 

ALICE AUSTEN 1986 1279 2 (*) 

JOHN A. NOBLE 1986 1271 2 (*) 

B. L. DEBERRY 1987 118 1 No 

CARLEE EMILY 1987 150 2 No 

J. C. DINGWALL 1987 118 1 No 

EAGLE 1987 799 5 (*) 

MACHIGONNE II 1987 399 3 Yes - LULA 

MARGARET CHASE SMITH 1987 221 1 No 

EVANS-WADHAMSWOLCOTT 1988 146 2 No 

FT. MORGAN 1988 149 1 No 

CARTERET 1988 300 2 Yes - LULA 

CAPE POINT 1989 149 2 No 
   

71 

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 No 
   

73 

JET EXPRESS 1989 380 3 No 

NAVATEK I 1989 422 2 No 

BRAVEST 1996 349 2 No 

FRIENDSHIP V 1996 366 3 No 

DEACON 1998 250 3 No 

MILLENNIUM 1998 367 3 No 

KLONDIKE EXPRESS 1999 342 3 No 

VOYAGER III 1999 349 2 No 

ROYAL MISS BELMAR 2000 300 3 No 

BISCAYNE LADY 2002 400 3 No 

ZEPHYR 2003 600 3 No 

ISLAND DISCOVERY 2005 200 2 No 

Mono-Hull Multi-Purpose Passenger Vessels

BELLE OF LOUISVILLE 1914 999 3 Yes - LULA 

CLIPPER WINNEBAGO 1922 300 2 No 

INTERNATIONAL 1927 200 2 No 

SIGHTSEER XII 1933 600 2 No 

CIRCLE LINE XVI 1934 585 2 No 

CIRCLE LINE XVII 1934 585 2 No 

INDIAN HARBOR 1937 251 2 No 

PAN AMERICAN CLIPPER 1937 200 1 No 

SILVERGATE 1940 296 2 No 

BAHIA BELLE 1942 195 3 No 

109 1943 205 1 No 

CIRCLE LINE X 1944 492 2 No 

NEWPORT PRINCESS 1944 250 2 No 

TEMPTRESS 1944 700 4 Yes - Elevator 

THE ISLANDER 1945 236 1 No 

ROMANCE 1946 400 3 No 

MAJESTIC 1950 1067 3 Yes - LULA 

DISCOVERY II 1953 391 3 No 

COEUR D'ALENE 1954 400 2 No 

HARBOR QUEEN 1954 444 2 No 

PRINCESS WENONAH 1954 249 2 No 

MISS LIBERTY 1954 827 2 No 

DIAMOND JACK 1955 254 3 No 

MEMPHIS QUEEN II 1955 308 2 No 

SAMUEL CLEMENS 1955 273 3 No 

DIAMOND QUEEN 1956 300 2 No 

MARIETTA 1957 269 2 No 

DIAMOND BELLE 1958 400 3 No 

HARBOR KING 1958 222 3 No 
   

74 

HARBOR PRINCESS 1959 444 2 No 

MONHEGAN 1959 190 1 No 

BELLE OF HOT SPRINGS 1960 224 3 No 

MISS CHRISTIN 1960 210 2 No 

SIGHTSEER 1960 250 2 No 

BECKY THATCHER 1961 237 2 No 

ISLAND BEACH 1961 339 2 No 

MARLYN 1961 260 3 No 

MARTHA WASHINGTON 1961 209 2 No 

LADY ST JOHNS 1962 300 2 No 

MOONCHASER 1962 257 2 No 

VIRGINIA C II 1962 215 2 No 

ROYAL PRINCE 1962 500 3 No 

BECKY THATCHER 1963 339 2 No 

HALF MOON 1963 230 2 No 

JUBILEE II 1963 194 3 No 

SENECA LEGACY 1963 265 2 No 

SPIRIT OF JEFFERSON 1963 300 3 No 

VIKING STARLINER 1963 348 2 No 

MARK TWAIN 1964 388 3 No 

NEW BOSTON 1964 395 2 No 

MISS CIRCLE LINE 1964 1035 3 Yes - LULA 

DUCHESS 1965 310 3 No 

PADDLEWHEEL QUEEN 1965 408 3 No 

TUNICA QUEEN (g) 1965 395 3 No 

CARRIE B 1966 300 2 No 

TOM SAWYER 1966 362 2 No 

FREEDOM 1967 430 2 No 

SPIRIT OF SACRAMENTO 1967 344 3 No 

SUMMER OF GEORGE 1967 200 3 No 

MISH-AN-NOCK 1968 400 2 No 

HARBOR EMPEROR 1968 500 2 No 

POINT LOMA 1969 400 3 Yes - LULA 

CAPE MAY WHALE 

WATCHER 1970 275 3 No 

JONATHAN PADELFORD 1970 200 2 No 

AMBASSADOR II (f) (g) 1970 1,600 5 (*) 

GENERAL BEAUREGARD 1971 311 2 No 

GOODTIME I 1971 347 2 No 

ISLAND WANDERER 1971 219 2 No 

JUNGLE QUEEN IV 1971 536 3 No 

RANGER 1971 514 2 No 

DANDY 1972 200 2 No 
   

75 

HARBOR QUEEN 1972 297 2 No 

MISS BUFFALO II 1972 226 2 No 

SHERYLL PRINCESS 1972 315 2 No 

CABANA 1973 366 2 No 

MUSETTE 1974 400 2 No 

RIVER ROSE 1974 215 1 No 

NATCHEZ 1975 1603 4 Yes - Elevator 

BENNIE ALICE 1976 195 2 No 

GOODTIME II 1976 437 2 No 

STAR OF PALM BEACH 1976 429 2 No 

UNCLE SAM 7 1976 226 2 No 

BAY STATE 1976 549 3 No 

ENDEAVOR 1977 350 1 No 

HURRICANE II 1977 295 2 No 

SPIRIT OF DUBUQUE 1977 375 2 No 

MISS FREEDOM 1977 564 2 No 

TEXAS STAR CASINO (f) (g) 1977 595 3 Yes - LULA 

CORNUCOPIA PRINCESS 1978 400 4 Yes - Elevator 

ESCAPADE 1978 440 3 Yes - LULA 

GOODTIME III 1978 223 2 No 

STAR OF THE NORTHWEST 1978 245 3 Yes - LULA 

VISTA KING 1978 255 2 No 

CARIBBEAN DREAM II 1979 295 1 No 

MEMPHIS QUEEN III 1979 401 2 No 

STEVEN THOMAS 1979 195 2 No 

MONTE CARLO (f) (g) 1980 315 3 No 

PRINCE CHARMING 1980 398 2 No 

RIP VAN WINKLE 1980 388 2 No 

PROVINCETOWN II 1980 713 3 Yes - LULA 

NAUTICA QUEEN 1981 407 3 Yes - LULA 

STARLITE MAJESTY 1981 399 3 No 

THE HARRIOTT II 1981 400 2 No 

AQUASINO 1981 600 5 Yes - Elevator 

CAPT CLARK'S FLAGSHIP 1982 364 3 No 

MYSTIQUE 1982 350 3 No 

PACIFIC HORNBLOWER 1982 271 2 No 

THE STAR 1982 305 2 No 

JOHN JAMES AUDUBON 1982 600 3 (*) 

MISS GATEWAY 1982 500 2 No 

CAPITOL HORNBLOWER 1983 223 2 No 

CARRIE B 1983 324 2 No 

GRAND DUCHESS 1983 350 3 Yes - LULA 

ISLAND QUEEN 1983 401 3 No 
   

76 

TAHOE QUEEN 1983 350 3 Yes - LULA 

VOYAGEUR 1983 230 1 No 

COLUMBIA GORGE 1983 599 2 No 

CREOLE QUEEN 1983 955 3 Yes - LULA 

FIRST LADY 1983 544 (na) No 

CAPT. ANDERSON III 1984 175 2 No 

CHERRY BLOSSOM 1984 408 3 No 

HARBOR LIGHTS 1984 400 3 No 

M/V INDIAN RIVER QUEEN 1984 261 3 No 

MAJESTY 1984 280 3 Yes - LULA 

MUSIC CITY QUEEN 1984 338 3 No 

PRINCESS 1984 399 3 No 

QUEEN OF SEATTLE 1984 275 3 Yes - LULA 

ALI'I KAI 1984 838 2 No 

AVALON 1984 602 3 Yes - LULA 

LORD HORNBLOWER 1984 800 3 Yes - LULA 

CAPT. JOHN & SON IV 1985 294 2 No 

CELEBRATION LADY 1985 299 3 No 

FT. DEARBORN 1985 200 2 No 

JEWEL 1985 337 2 No 

SPIRIT OF CHARLESTON 1985 422 2 No 

TAYLORS FALLS PRINCESS 1985 250 2 No 

COLONEL 1985 785 3 Yes - LULA 

DIAMOND ROYALE (g) 1985 600 3 Yes - LULA 

ENTERTAINER 1985 574 2 No 

FREDERICK L NOLAN JR 1985 550 3 No 

GEORGIA QUEEN 1985 600 3 No 

HENRIETTA III 1985 600 5 Yes - Elevator 

INNER HARBOR SPIRIT 1985 574 2 No 

OPUS CASINO (f) (g) 1985 800 3 Yes - LULA 

RESPECT 1985 499 3 Yes - LULA 

SOUTHERN BELLE 1985 507 3 No 

SPIRIT OF SAN DIEGO 1985 579 3 Yes - LULA 

GENERAL JACKSON 1985 1200 4 (*) 

CAPT. PETE 1986 300 2 No 

MARINA HORNBLOWER 1986 200 3 No 

QUEEN 1986 393 2 No 

ROYAL WINNER PRINCESS II 1986 396 3 No 

STARLITE PRINCESS 1986 339 3 No 

ANNA C 1986 647 4 Yes - Elevator 

CELEBRATION BELLE 1986 800 4 (*) 

EMPRESS ANDIAMO 1986 500 3 No 

ISLANDER 1986 500 3 No 
   

77 

PORTLAND SPIRIT 1986 540 3 Yes - LULA 

SPIRIT OF THE 

LOWCOUNTRY 1986 527 3 (*) 

WILLIAM D. EVANS 1986 580 3 (*) 

WORLD YACHTS DUCHESS 1986 600 3 Yes - LULA 

WORLD YACHTS PRINCESS 1986 600 3 Yes - LULA 

BEN FRANKLIN 1987 317 3 No 

CAP STREETER 1987 300 2 No 

KENAI STAR 1987 195 2 No 

SHORELINE II 1987 350 2 No 

SPIRIT OF SEATTLE 1987 461 3 No 

THOMAS LAIGHTON 1987 346 3 No 

VISTA STAR 1987 300 3 No 

CAPT. JP 1987 593 4 No 

CAPT. JP II 1987 600 3 Yes - LULA 

DISCOVERY III 1987 900 4 Yes - Elevator 

RIVER QUEEN 1987 500 2 No 

SAVANNAH RIVER QUEEN 1987 600 3 No 

STATUE OF LIBERTY IV (g) 1987 600 3 Yes - LULA 

ALEXANDRIA BELLE 1988 425 3 No 

AMERICAN PRINCESS 1988 220 2 No 

ANSON NORTHRUP 1988 350 2 No 

CAROLINA BELLE 1988 300 2 No 

ISLAND DUCHESS 1988 439 3 No 

MASSACHUSETTS 1988 346 2 No 

QUEEN CITY CLIPPER 1988 208 1 No 

SKYLINE PRINCESS 1988 450 3 No 

SPIRIT OF PEORIA 1988 428 3 Yes - LULA 

THE STAR 1988 300 3 No 

ANNABEL LEE 1988 506 2 No 

CITY OF CARUTHERSVILLE 1988 800 4 Yes - Elevator 

EMPRESS HORNBLOWER 1988 500 3 No 

GREAT POINT 1988 804 3 Yes - LULA 

SPIRIT OF BALTIMORE 1988 600 4 Yes - Elevator 

SPIRIT OF CHICAGO 1988 600 4 Yes - Elevator 

AQUA (f) 1989 325 3 No 

CALIFORNIA HORNBLOWER 1989 359 3 Yes - LULA 

ISLAND GIRL 1989 296 2 No 

LADY WINDRIDGE 1989 407 2 No 

MAJESTIC PRINCESS 1989 353 2 No 

PTARMIGAN 1989 196 2 No 

VALLEY GEM 1989 295 2 No 

VISTA JUBILEE 1989 428 3 Yes - LULA 
   

78 

CATALINA 1989 600 1 No 

NAUTICAL EMPRESS 1989 600 3 (*) 

SPIRIT OF NEW JERSEY 1989 579 3 Yes - LULA 

SPIRIT OF NEW YORK 1989 600 4 Yes - Elevator 

SPIRIT OF PHILADELPHIA 1989 600 4 Yes - Elevator 

MISS MARQUETTE (g) 1989 1,200 4 Yes - Elevator 

BETSEY NORTHRUP 1990 360 1 No 

LAURA 1990 347 2 No 

MATTHEW J. HUGHES 1990 347 2 No 

THE ANITA DEE II 1990 400 4 No 

GOODTIME III 1990 975 4 Yes - Elevator 

SPIRIT OF BOSTON 1990 600 4 Yes - Elevator 

SPIRIT OF MOUNT VERNON 1990 573 3 Yes - LULA 

CATALINA DUCHESS 1991 292 2 No 

CHICAGO'S FIRST LADY 1991 225 2 No 

DESERT PRINCESS 1991 300 3 No 

FUME BLANC COMMODORE 1991 450 3 No 

GRAND ROMANCE 1991 350 3 Yes - LULA 

PORTUGUESE PRINCESS II 1991 293 2 No 

ROYAL PRINCESS 1991 242 3 Yes - LULA 

SAN FRANCISCO SPIRIT 1991 355 4 Yes - Elevator 

W. L. CALLAHAN 1991 260 2 No 

BELLE OF CINCINNATI 1991 1000 3 Yes - LULA 

MISS ELLIS ISLAND 1991 799 3 Yes - LULA 

MISS NEW JERSEY 1991 799 3 Yes - LULA 

MISSISSIPPI QUEEN 1991 840 4 Yes - Elevator 

ODYSSEY 1991 800 4 Yes - Elevator 

HORIZON STAR (g) 1992 285 4 Yes - Elevator 

JAMES J DOHERTY 1992 348 2 No 

INSPIRATION HORNBLOWER 1992 1000 4 Yes - Elevator 

SPIRIT OF NORFOLK 1992 600 2 No 

STAR OF HONOLULU 1992 1500 5 (*) 

DISCOVERY 1993 212 2 No 

BIG EASY 1993 1,000 4 Yes - Elevator 

LADY ANDERSON 1993 500 3 Yes - LULA 

MISS NEW YORK 1993 799 3 Yes - LULA 

ODYSSEY II 1993 749 4 Yes - Elevator 

ALTON BELLE CASINO II (g) 1993 1321 3 (*) 

CATFISH BEND RIVERBOAT 

CASINO II (g) 1993 1,389 4 Yes - Elevator 

CORNUCOPIA MAJESTY 1993 1200 4 (*) 

DETROIT PRINCESS 1993 1636 5 (*) 

SOUTHERN STAR I (g) 1993 1,200 4 Yes - Elevator 
   

79 

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 No 
   

81 

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 11 No 

PACIFIC MONARCH 1971 136 3 Yes - LULA 

WILDERNESS 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 (ex-spirit of 

'98) 1984 101 5 (*) 

SEADREAM I (f) 1984 110 5 (*) 

SEADREAM II (f) 1985 112 5 (*) 

SEABOURN PRIDE (f) 1987 218 6 (*) 

YORKTOWN (ex-Spirit of 

Yorktown) 1988 138 5 Yes - Elevator 

WIND SPIRIT (f) 1988 150 4 Yes - Elevator 

CLIPPER ODYSSEY (f) 1989 132 4 (*) 

SILVER EXPLORER (ex-Prince 

Albert II) (f) 1989 132 6 (*) 

SEABOURN SPIRIT (f) 1989 208 6 (*) 

BREMEN (f) 1990 164 6 (*) 

SEABOURN LEGEND (f) 1990 212 6 (*) 

HANSEATIC (f) 1991 200 6 Yes - Elevator 

SPIRIT OF OCEANUS (f) 1991 120 5 (*) 

NIAGARA PRINCE 1994 90 3 Yes - LULA 

SILVER CLOUD (f) 1994 296 6 (*) 

QUEEN OF THE WEST 1995 140 5 (*) 

SILVER WIND (f) 1995 296 6 (*) 

GRANDE CARIBE 1997 98 4 Yes - Elevator 
   

82 

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, Maritime Administration, Cruise Detail Table at: 

http://www.marad.dot.gov/library_landing_page/data_and_statistics/Data_and_Statistics.htm. 

The Cruise Detail Table contains data on cruises, passengers, and departure and destination ports 

derived from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Vessel Entrance and Clearance Documents 

for the period from January 1, 2004 to March 31, 2012. 

 

2. Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA), Cruise Lines & Ships webpage at: 

http://www.cruising.org/vacation/cruise-lines-ships. The CLIA webpage provides data on the 

year the cruise ships were constructed, the total number of guest rooms, and the number of guest 

rooms with mobility features. 

3. Cruise ship deck plans available on the cruise line websites. The deck plans show the guest 

rooms on each deck and indicate the guest rooms with mobility features with a symbol. Where 

the number of guest rooms with mobility features shown on the cruise ship deck plan differs 

from the number on the CLIA webpage, the number on the cruise ship deck plan is used. 

Large Cruise Ships Operating in U.S. Ports as of 2011: 

Percent Guest Rooms with Mobility Features 

Cruise 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% 

Other1 18 9,5492 1462 1.5% 

Total 113 123,516 2,392 1.9% 

Notes:

1. Other cruise lines include AIDA Cruises, Azamara Club Lines, Costa Cruises, Crystal Cruises, 

Cunard Lines, MCS Cruises, Oceania Cruises, Regent Seven Sea Cruises, Seabourne Cruises, 

                                                            

25 The appendix includes the Legend of the Seas, Grandeur of the Seas, Brilliance of the Seas, Vision of the Seas, 

and Independence of the Seas, which did not operate in U.S. ports in 2011 but are scheduled to operate in U.S. ports 

in 2013. The appendix does not include the Celebrity Mercury, which was sold to TUI Cruises in February 2011, 

and the Royal Princess, which was sold to P&O Cruises in May 2011. 
   

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 1,028 251 2.4% 

Carnival Ecstasy 1991 1,026 251 2.4% 

Carnival Sensation 1993 1,026 251 2.4% 

Carnival Fascination 1994 1,026 24 2.3% 

Carnival Imagination 1995 1,026 251 2.4% 

Carnival Inspiration 1996 1,026 251 2.4% 

Carnival Elation 1998 1,026 251 2.4% 

Carnival Paradise 1998 1,026 251 2.4% 

Destiny Class 

Carnival Destiny 1996 1,321 28 2.1% 

Triumph Class 

Carnival Triumph 1999 1,379 311 2.2% 

Carnival Victory 2000 1,379 311 2.2% 

Spirit Class 

Carnival Spirit 2001 1,062 171 1.6% 

Carnival Pride 2001 1,062 171 1.6% 

Carnival Legend 2002 1,062 171 1.6% 

Carnival Miracle 2004 1,062 171 1.6% 

Conquest Class 

Carnival Conquest 2002 1,487 261 1.7% 

Carnival Glory 2003 1,487 271 1.7% 

Carnival Valor 2004 1,487 271 1.8% 

Carnival Liberty 2005 1,487 29 2.0% 

Carnival Freedom 2007 1,487 29 2.0% 

Splendor Class 

Carnival Splendor 2008 1,503 29 2.0% 

Dream Class 

Carnival Dream 2009 1,823 35 2.0% 

Carnival Magic 2011 1,845 35 1.9% 

Total 29,143 594 2.0% 

Note: 

1. The number of guest rooms with mobility features 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 690 211 3.0% 

Vista Class 

ms Zuiderdam 2002 958 28 2.9% 

ms Oosterdam 2003 958 28 2.9% 

ms Westerdam 2004 958 28 2.9% 

ms Noordam 2006 959 28 2.9% 

Signature Class 

ms Eurodam 2008 1,052 30 2.9% 

ms Nieuw Amsterdam 2010 1,053 30 2.9% 

Total 11,745 335 2.9% 

Note: 

1. The number of guest rooms with mobility features 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 51 0.5% 

Sun Class 

Norwegian Sky 1999 1,004 71 0.7% 

Norwegian Sun 2001 968 20 2.1% 

Dawn Class 

Norwegian Star 2001 1,146 221 1.9% 

Norwegian Dawn 2002 1,112 261 2.3% 

Other 

Norwegian Pride of America 2005 1,069 19 1.8% 

Jewel Class 

Norwegian Jewel 2005 1,188 271 2.3% 

Norwegian Pearl 2006 1,195 27 2.3% 

Norwegian Gem 2007 1,197 27 2.3% 

Epic Class 

Norwegian Epic 2010 2,114 411 1.9% 

Total 12,002 221 1.8% 

Note: 

1. The number of guest rooms with mobility features 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 987 201 2.0% 

Island Princess 2003 987 20 2.0% 

R Class 

Pacific Princess 1999 334 5 1.5% 

Grand Class 

Grand Princess 1998 1,300 271 2.0% 

Golden Princess 2001 1,300 261 2.0% 

Star Princess 2002 1,301 261 2.0% 

Diamond Princess 2004 1,337 27 2.0% 

Sapphire Princess 2004 1,337 27 2.0% 

Caribbean Princess 2004 1,557 25 1.6% 

Crown Class 

Crown Princess 2006 1,532 31 2.0% 

Emerald Princess 2007 1,532 31 2.0% 

Ruby Princess 2008 1,540 31 2.0% 

Total 16,994 333 2.0% 

Note: 

1. The number of guest rooms with mobility features 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 1,1952 4 0.3% 

Vision Class 

Legend of the Seas1 1995 902 17 1.8% 

Grandeur of the Seas1 1996 975 14 1.4% 

Enchantment of the Seas 1997 1,126 193 1.7% 

Rhapsody of the Seas 1997 999 14 1.4% 

Vision of the Seas1 1998 999 14 1.4% 

Radiance Class 

Radiance of the Seas 2001 1,056 15 1.4% 

Brilliance of the Seas1 2002 1,055 15 1.4% 
   

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 Seas1 2008 1,817 32 1.8% 

Oasis Class 

Oasis of the Seas 2009 2,706 46 1.7% 

Allure of the Seas 2010 2,706 46 1.7% 

Total 30,260 472 1.6% 

Notes:

1. The Legend of the Seas, Grandeur of the Seas, Brilliance of the Seas, Vision of the Seas, and 

Independence of the Seas did not operate in U.S. ports in 2011, but are scheduled to operate in 

U.S. ports in 2013. 

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

error. 

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

Other Cruise Ships 

Cruise Ship 

Year 

Constructed 

Total 

Guest 

Rooms 

Guest 

Rooms with 

Mobility 

Features 

Percent Guest 

Rooms with 

Mobility 

Features 

AIDACruises 

AIDAaura 2003 na1 na1 na1

AIDAluna 2009 na1 na1 na1

Azamara Club Cruises

Azamara Journey 2000 347 6 1.7% 

Costa Cruises 

Costa Atlantica 2000 1,057 8 0.8% 

Crystal Cruises 

Crystal Symphony 1995 461 4 0.9% 

Crystal Serenity 2003 535 8 1.5% 
   

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 1,296 302 2.3% 

HMS Queen Victoria 2007 1,007 20 2.0% 

HMS Queen Elizabeth 2010 1,046 20 1.9% 

MCS Cruises 

MCS Poesia 2008 1,275 17 1.3% 

Oceania Cruises 

Regatta 1998 342 3 0.9% 

Marina 2011 625 6 1.0% 

Regent Seven Seas Cruises 

Seven Seas Navigator 1999 245 4 1.6% 

Seven Seas Mariner 2001 350 6 1.7% 

Seven Seas Voyager 2003 350 4 1.1% 

Seabourn Cruise Line 

Seabourn Sojourn 2010 225 6 2.7% 

Silver Sea Cruises 

Silver Shadow 2000 194 2 1.0% 

Silver Whisper 2001 194 2 1.0% 

Total 9,549 146 1.5% 

Notes: 

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

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

 
   

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 Fascinosa1 1,506 

Disney Fantasy 1,250 

MSC Divina2 1,751 

Oceania Riviera 630 

2013 MSC Preziosa2 1,751 

5,536 

Norwegian Breakaway 1,985 

Royal Princess 1,800 

2014 Costa Diadema1 1,850 

7,685 

Norwegian Getaway 1,985 

Royal Princess 1,800 

Royal Caribbean Quantum of the Seas 2,050 

2015 Holland America Unnamed 1,330 

5,480 

Norwegian Unnamed 2,100 

Royal Caribbean Anthem of the Seas 2,050 

Total Number of Guest Rooms 27,198 27,198 

Average Number of Guest Rooms 1,700 1,700 

Source: Cruise Lines International Association, 2013 North American Cruise Industry Update 

at: http://www.cruising.org/sites/default/files/pressroom/CruiseIndustryUpdate2013FINAL.pdf. 

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

room. 

Notes:

1. Costa Cruises is based in Italy. There were 14 cruise ships in Costa Cruises’ fleet as of 2011. 

Only one of the cruise ships, the Costa Atlantica, operated in U.S. ports in 2011. The Costa 

Fascinosa is not scheduled to operate in U.S. ports in 2013. The Costa Diadema will be 

launched in October 2014. Information is not available on whether the Costa Diadema will 

operate in U.S. ports. 

2. MSC Cruises is based in Italy. There were 11 cruise ships in MSC Cruises’ fleet as of 2011. 

Only one of the cruise ships, the MSC Poesia, operated in U.S. ports in 2011. The MSC 

Divinia is scheduled to operate in U.S. ports in 2013; the MSC Preziosa is not scheduled to 

operate in U.S. ports in 2013. The 2013 North American Cruise Industry Update lists the 

capacity of the MSC Divina as 3,502 passengers and the MSC Preziosa as 2,502 passengers. 

The MSC Divina and MSC Preziosa are the same class cruise ship and have the same capacity 

of 3,502 passengers.