1

600 Pax Dinner Vessel Case Study (Private Entity)

June 25, 2013

Introduction

The dinner boat was constructed in 2002 and carries a maximum of 600 passengers. 

Figure 1. Dinner Boat Profile – Original Design

The dinner boat has three passenger decks.

 Main Deck – The main deck is approximately 4752 square feet and contains an 

enclosed dining area with dance floor. There is a serving pantry, bridal suite, and 

single-user toilet room at the rear of the dining area. There are open deck areas at 

each end of the vessel. There are two boarding gates at the front and rear on each 

side of the vessel. There is an exterior door at the front on one side of the vessel 

that leads from the open deck area to the dining area, and two exterior doors at the 

rear of the vessel that lead from the open deck area to the dining area. The doors 

have 6 inch coamings that are required by the US Coast Guard. There is a main 

interior stairway in the rear centerline of the dining area, and exterior stairways at 

the open deck areas on each end of the vessel that connect to the second deck.

There is a recessed swim platform at the rear of the vessel that is connected to the 

main deck by two stairways.

Figure 2. Main Deck – Original Design
2

 Second Deck – The second deck is approximately 3465 square feet and contains 

an enclosed dining area. There are toilet rooms for men and women at the front 

of the dining area, and a bar/serving pantry wrapped around the main interior 

stairway at the rear of the dining area. There is a pilot house and open deck area 

at the front of the vessel that is for employees only. There is an open deck area at 

the rear of the vessel with two exterior stairways that connect to the third deck. 

There are two boarding gates at the rear on each side of the vessel. There are two 

doors at the front of the vessel: one leads from the top of the exterior stairway to 

the dining area; and the other leads from the dining area to the open deck area at 

the front of the vessel. There are two doors at the rear of the vessel that lead from 

the open deck area to the dining area. There are fire doors at the top of the main 

interior stairway. There are two exterior stairways at the rear open deck area that 

connect to the third deck.

Figure 3. Second Deck – Original Design

 Third Deck – The third deck is approximately 1950 square feet and is entirely

open.

Figure 4. Third Deck – Original Design

The dinner boat has a lower deck that is for employees only and contains the engine 

room, galley, storeroom, and other equipment. There are stairways leading from the 

galley to the main deck serving pantry and from the storeroom to the main deck dining 

area.
3

Figure 5. Lower Deck – Original Design

Methodology

The Access Board contracted with a marine architect to review the original designs of the 

dinner boat and to identify passenger features that would not meet the draft accessibility

guidelines.1 The contractor proposed new designs for the passenger features that would 

meet the draft guidelines. The contractor chose designs that would have the lowest 

capital cost and still meet the functional demands of the vessel owner/operator. The 

contractor also examined the impact of the new designs on the vessel’s space, electrical 

power, fuel consumption, and stability. The contractor did not evaluate boarding systems 

for embarking and disembarking passengers from the vessel. The contractor prepared a 

report describing the new designs and their impacts on the vessel. The company that 

designed the dinner boat and the vessel owner/operator were given an opportunity to 

review and comment on the contractor’s report, but no response was provided.

The Access Board has updated the study to represent the requirements in the proposed 

passenger vessel accessibility guidelines. The 2005 costs recorded in the 2008 draft of 

the study (available on the Board’s website) that applied to the proposed guidelines were 

multiplied by 1.27292to produce 2011 values. The contractor involved in the initial draft 

of the study was not involved in the updates.

The vessel cost approximately $4.5 million to construct in 2002. The contractor 

estimated the cost in 2005 dollars for constructing a new dinner boat based on the 

original designs, and a new dinner boat based on the new designs that would meet the 

draft guidelines. The contractor used a parametric approach based on the contractor’s 

company data on passenger vessels to estimate the cost for constructing the new dinner 

boats. The cost estimates include labor hours, materials, a 15 percent surcharge for 

materials, and a 10 percent contingency. The contractor estimated the cost for 

constructing a new dinner boat based on the original designs to be approximately $5.1 

million, updated to $6.49 million in 2011. 

The case study estimates the (updated) cost for constructing a new dinner boat based on 

 

1

 The contractor used the draft guidelines that the Access Board made available for public review in 2004. 

69 FR 69244 (November 26, 2004). This report has been updated to reflect the proposed guidelines. 

2

1.272884538
4

new designs that would meet the proposed guidelines to be approximately $7.13 million. 

It is estimated that the proposed guidelines would add $642,200 to the (updated) 

construction costs of the new vessel, or a 10 percent increase. 

The new designs proposed to meet the draft guidelines are discussed below, as updated to 

reflect the requirements of the proposed guidelines. The designs are identified as having 

significant impacts; incurring additional costs but not having significant impacts; or 

having minimal impacts. A design is identified as having a significant impact where the 

design would add more than 0.5 percent to vessel’s construction costs; would 

substantially reduce the vessel’s usable space or necessitate an increase in the vessel’s 

size; or would present major operational issues. A design is identified as incurring an 

additional cost but not having a significant impact where a specific cost can be attributed 

to the design but it does not meet the criteria for a significant impact. A design is 

identified as having a minimal impact where a specific cost cannot be attributed to the 

design and it will have little impact on new construction of the vessel. 

Designs That Have Significant Impacts

1. Accessible Route Between Passenger Decks

The dinner boat has three passenger decks. The proposed guidelines require an 

accessible route to connect each passenger deck. V206.2.1. The guidelines permit vessels 

that are less than 10,000 ITC gross tons to use limited-use/limited-application (LULA) 

elevators to connect passenger decks. V206.6 Exception 2. LULA elevators are smaller 

and less expensive than standard size elevators. The dinner boat is less than 10,000 ITC 

gross tons, and the contractor proposed to use a LULA elevator to connect the three 

passenger decks. The contractor estimated the LULA elevator to cost $297,372.

The contractor proposed to locate the elevator adjacent to the interior stairway in the rear 

centerline of the dining areas. This location is in proximity to the general circulation 

path, and allows one side of the elevator shaft to share a steel bulkhead of the existing 

stair tower. 

Figure 6. Dinner Boat Profile – New Design
5

The elevator pit would be located in the overhead of the engine room, in front of a major 

transverse watertight bulkhead. The elevator machinery would be located in a cage under 

the pit and not impact the space in the galley. The contractor assumed that there is 

sufficient space within the engine room to fit the elevator machinery and that the elevator 

pit would not cause interference with running exhaust piping, ducting, or electrical 

cabling.3 The contractor proposed to change the location of the door between the engine 

room and the galley to the other side of the stairway leading from the lower deck to the 

main deck. The contractor assumed that the new door location would not adversely 

impact the equipment arrangement in the galley. 

Figure 7. Lower Deck – New Design

On the main deck, the serving pantry counter on the side of the stairway where the 

elevator is located would be lost. The contractor proposed to increase the serving pantry

counter on the other side of the stairway by moving the counter forward approximately 4 

feet in order to compensate for the loss of counter space due to the elevator. The case 

study estimates the additional counter space to cost $3,988. 

Figure 8. Main Deck – New Design

 

3

 The company that designed the dinner boat commented that the size of the engine room should be 

increased due to the elevator pit and machinery. 
6

The elevator shaft would have minimal impact on sight lines for passengers in the dining 

areas on the main and second decks. The elevator shaft would create a substantial box on 

the third deck that would adversely impact the appearance of the vessel and interfere with 

panoramic views.4The top of the elevator shaft is below the fixed portion of the vessel’s 

mast so the elevator shaft would not impact the air draft of the vessel.

Figure 9. Third Deck – New Design

The elevator and new design of the toilet rooms on the second deck would reduce the 

usable space in the dining areas. The contractor proposed to lengthen the dinner boat by 

four feet to retain the same square footage of usable space in the dining areas. The case 

study estimates the lengthening of the vessel to cost $204,467, plus $8,904 for additional 

generator capacity. The costs for lengthening the vessel and the additional generator 

capacity are discussed below in “vessel space impacts” and in the following section.

2. Accessible Route to Swim Platform

The recessed swim platform at the rear of the main deck is used occasionally for boarding 

passengers. The proposed guidelines require an accessible route to connect passenger 

entry points and accessible passenger features within a deck. V206.2.2 and V206.4. The 

swim platform is approximately 30 inches below the level of the main deck. The 

contractor noted that designing a ramp to connect the main deck and the swim platform 

would increase the length of the dinner boat by approximately 7 feet, and would be 

excessive given the limited use of the swim platform as a tender boarding platform. 

 

4

 The company that designed the dinner boat commented that the elevator shaft on the third deck would 

have an extremely negative impact on the appearance of the vessel. The contractor responded that the 

visual impacts of the elevator shaft could be mitigated by paint, fairings or other designs. The third deck is 

1950 square feet. The proposed guidelines permit a platform lift to be used to provide access to decks that 

are less than 3000 square feet. V206.7.1. A platform lift would not have the same adverse visual impact 

on the third deck as an elevator shaft. The contractor considered using an elevator to connect the main 

deck and second deck, and using a platform lift to connect the second deck and third deck. The contractor 

chose to connect all the passenger decks with an elevator because the marginal cost of extending the 

elevator from two to three decks was less than the cost of an elevator and a platform lift.
7

Since the contractor noted that the swim platform lift would be regularly exposed to 

waves, the proposed guidelines allow a manually powered boarding lift to be used to 

connect the swim platform, at a cost5of $15,000. V206.7.6 Exception. To provide space 

for the boarding lift in the new designs, the designs eliminate one of the stairways 

connecting the swim platform and the main deck, and moved the swim platform 

approximately 18 inches to one side of the vessel and approximately 6 inches forward in 

order to fit the boarding lift where the stairway was located. 

3. Doors with Coamings6

The dinner boat has three weather tight exterior doors on the main deck with 6 inch 

coamings that are required by the US Coast Guard7. One door is at the front of the main 

deck, and two doors are at the rear of the main deck. The proposed guidelines require at 

least one accessible route to connect passenger entry points at both the front and rear of 

the main deck, and the dining area. V206.2.2 and V206.4. Where doors on accessible 

routes are required to have coamings, the guidelines permit ramps to be used.8 

V404.2.5.2. The contractor proposed the following designs to meet the guidelines. See 

Figure 8 for the Main Deck – New Design.

 Door at Front of Main Deck. The contractor proposed to use a 1:12 ramp on each 

side of the coaming (i.e., double ramp access) and an automatic door opener for 

the door at the front of the main deck.9 V404.2.5.2.2. The contractor estimated 

the double ramp access to cost $4,673 and the automatic door opener to cost 

$13,806.

 Door at Rear of Main Deck Near Toilet Room. The contractor proposed to use a 

1:10 ramp10 on the side of the coaming that faces the open deck area (i.e., single 

 

5

 The 2008 draft case study had a platform lift connecting the swim platform ($24,695 in 2005). In the 

proposed guidelines, a new exception (V206.7.7 Exception) allows a manually powered boarding lift at this 

location. The updated case study assumes the work needed in the new designs to install a platform lift 

would be the same work to install the boarding lift but at a reduced cost of $15,000.

6

 The proposed guidelines require thresholds at doors without coamings to be 1⁄2 inch high maximum, 

beveled. V404.2.5.1. The case study assumes that this requirement would have minimal impact in new 

construction.

7

 The doors have a 32 inch minimum clear opening in the original design and meet the clear width 

requirement of the proposed guidelines. V404.2.3. 

 

8

 The proposed guidelines do not require landings at the tops of ramps at doors with coamings. 

V404.2.5.2 Exception 1.

9

 The company that designed the dinner boat commented that ramps would add to the vessel’s tonnage. 

The contractor responded that the ramps can be designed so they are removable and not counted in tonnage. 

10 The proposed guidelines would not allow a 1:10 slope at a door coaming where single ramp access is 

provided if the largest deck of a vessel is 3,000 square feet or greater (as in this dinner vessel). The case 

study has not been adjusted to reflect the outcomes of a 1:12 ramp but suspects the additional 12 inches of 

ramp length could be provided by moving the coaming door 12 inches toward the bow. This change in the 
8

ramp access) and to raise the decking 6 inches on the other side of the coaming 

for the door at the rear of the main deck near the toilet room. V404.2.5.2.1. The 

raised decking would extend approximately 14 feet into the corridor adjacent to 

the toilet room and through the toilet room. The contractor proposed to use a 1:12 

ramp at the end of the corridor where the raised decking transitions down to the 

dining area deck. The contractor estimated the single ramp access and raised 

decking for the door near the toilet room to cost $31,806.

 Door at Rear of Main Deck Near Bridal Suite. Although the proposed guidelines 

do not require both exterior doors at the rear of the main deck to be accessible, the 

contractor proposed to use single ramp access and raised decking for the door 

near the bridal suite to make the vessel more functional. The raised decking 

would extend approximately 17 feet into corridor adjacent to bridal suite and 

through the bridal suite and serving pantry. The contractor proposed to use a 1:12 

ramp at the end of the corridor where the raised decking transitions down to the 

dining area deck. The contractor estimated the single ramp access and raised 

decking for the door near the bridal suite to cost $39,230.

Designs That Incur Additional Costs But Do Not Have Significant 

Impacts

4. Toilet Rooms on Second Deck

The toilet rooms on the second deck have four toilet compartments (stalls) in the 

women’s room, and three toilet compartments and three urinals in the men’s room. The 

proposed guidelines require an accessible toilet compartment in each toilet room, and an 

accessible urinal in the men’s room. V213.2, V213.3, V213.3.1, and V213.3.3. The 

contractor proposed to increase the floor area of each toilet room by 27 square feet, 

increase the door width by 2 inches, and reconfigure the fixtures to meet the guidelines. 

The new design resulted in an increase in the number of toilet compartments in the 

women’s room from four to five, and a decrease in the number of urinals in the men’s 

room from three to two.11 The contractor estimated the new design to add $11,400 to the 

cost of the second deck toilet rooms.

 

new designs is assumed to produce insignificant cost increases beyond what is recorded in the study.

11

 The proposed guidelines require an ambulatory accessible toilet compartment in toilet rooms with six or 

more fixtures. V213.3.1 and V604.8.2. In the new design, neither the men’s room nor women’s room 

would be required to have an ambulatory accessible toilet compartment because each toilet room has less 

than six fixtures. 
9

Figure 10. Second Deck – New Design

5. Emergency Communications

The dinner boat has a combined public address, entertainment, and emergency alarm 

system.

12

 The proposed guidelines require an assistive listening system because the 

public address system is used for entertainment. V219.2.1. In addition, because public 

address system is assumed to be used to provide emergency information to passengers, 

the proposed guidelines require that a vessel-wide assistive listening system be provided 

to serve passenger areas. V219.2.2. The case study estimates assistive listening systems 

for all passenger areas on all three decks to cost13 $9,800.

As the original vessel is reported to have no audible general emergency alarm, visual 

alarms in passenger areas are not required in the new designs. V215.1.

6. Signs

The proposed guidelines require certain signs to have raised characters and braille, and/or 

visual characters that meet minimum requirements.14 V216 and V703. The contractor 

estimated signs meeting the proposed guidelines to cost $1,040.

Designs That Have Minimal Impacts

 

12

 The draft case study noted the vessel had a general emergency alarm, but further discussion with the 

vessel designer indicated the vessel had no audible general emergency alarm.

13 The draft case study showed the 2005 cost as $4,349. Based on new information for assessing assistive 

listening system (ALS) costs, the cost was updated. As the original vessel spaces would probably be 

classified as assembly areas, the number of receivers, per V219.3, would be determined by the passenger 

capacity of the vessel which is 600. The ALS’s estimated cost is $9.800; it requires 24 quality receivers 

with headseats/neckloops ($6,800), one FM transmitter with related support material ($1,400), and 

engineering, installation, and other expenses ($1,600). Maintenance of the system is estimated to be less 

than $120 per year.

14

 Signs required to comply with the proposed guidelines include signs identifying permanent rooms and 

spaces, directional and information signs, and signs for means of escape. Where all the exterior doors are 

not accessible, the accessible doors are required to be identified by the International Symbol of 

Accessibility, and the inaccessible doors are required to have directional signs indicating the location of the 

nearest accessible door.
10

7. Accessible Means of Escape

The proposed guidelines require the dinner boat to have at least two accessible means of 

escape (AMOE) from each passenger deck to an evacuation station based on US Coast 

Guard requirements for means of escape (MOE). V207.1. Two stairways provide the 

MOE and connect the three decks. The guidelines permit MOE stairways to be part of 

an AMOE, but do not establish any requirements for these stairways. Advisory V207.1. 

8. Toilet Room on Main Deck

The proposed guidelines require the single-user toilet room on the main deck to be 

accessible. V213.2. The toilet room meets the proposed guidelines except that the sink 

overlaps the clearance around the water closet. V604.3.1.2. The contractor proposed to 

locate the sink next to the door between the toilet room and the bridal suite to meet the 

proposed guidelines.15 The contractor assumed that the design would have minimal 

impact on new construction.

9. Maneuvering Clearances at Doors 

The proposed guidelines require maneuvering clearances at doors on onboard accessible 

routes and on accessible means of escape. V206, Advisory V207.1, V402.1(b), and 

V404.2.4. The contractor proposed to change the location of several doors by 18 inches 

to 22 inches to meet the proposed guidelines.16 The contractor assumed that the designs 

would have minimal impact on new construction.

10. Bar Counter

The proposed guidelines require a portion of the bar counter on the second deck to be 

lowered to 36 inches maximum. V227.3 and V904.4.1. The contractor assumed that 

lowering a portion of the bar counter would have minimal impact on new construction.

Vessel Space Impacts

The elevator and new design of the second deck toilet rooms would reduce the usable 

space in the dining areas. The contractor proposed to lengthen the hull of the dinner boat 

 

15

 The door between the toilet room and the bridal suite would not be required to meet the proposed 

guidelines because the rooms are connected by at least one accessible route and is not part of a required 

accessible means of escape. V206.2.2 and V206.5.2. 

16

 The contractor proposed to change the location of the two exterior doors at the rear of the main deck; the 

doors to the bridal suite and the toilet room on the main deck; the door connecting the corridor outside the 

bridal suite and the dining area on the main deck; one exterior door at the rear of the second deck; and the 

door at the exterior exit stairway at the front of the second deck.
11

by two frames or four feet to retain the same square footage of usable space in the dining 

areas. The two frames would be added around the storeroom at approximately frames 24 

to 26. The company that designed the dinner boat used a combination of tonnage frames 

below the main deck and tonnage openings on the main deck to keep the vessel under 100 

gross tons and subject to US Coast Guard regulation under 46 CFR Chapter 1, 

Subchapter K. The contractor proposed to introduce partial tonnage frames in the engine 

room and decrease the useable portion of the storeroom in order to keep the lengthened 

vessel under 100 gross tons.17 The contactor also proposed to add a tonnage opening into 

the elevator trunk on the main deck. The elevator mechanism would have to be located 

so as to not interfere with the tonnage opening. The tonnage opening may severely limit 

the selection of elevators.

The contractor estimated the vessel lengthening (updated) costs as follows.18

Hull and House Structure $69,459

Propulsion Machinery Wiring $1,204

Electrical System Wiring $5,623

Electronic Equipment Wiring $6,229

Auxiliary Systems (HVAC, Potable Water, Bilge Piping) $11,806

Outfitting & Furnishings $100,195

Deck Fittings & Deck Machinery $9,948

Total $204,467

Electrical Power, Fuel Consumption, and Vessel Stability Impacts

The dinner boat has two diesel generators rated at 170kW each that are sized to handle 

the electrical load for the vessel.19 The contractor calculated that the elevator, platform 

lift, and additional lighting and HVAC loads due to the lengthening of the vessel would 

require an increase in the generator capacity to 190 kW.20 The contractor estimated the 

 

17

 Without adjusting the tonnage frames, the lengthened vessel would be over 100 gross tons and would be 

subject to US Coast Guard regulation under 46 CFR Chapter 1, Subchapter H. The change in regulatory 

category would significantly increase the vessel’s capital and operating costs. 

18

 The company that designed the dinner boat commented that the engine room length should be increased 

by two feet. The contractor responded that the engine room size can be increased in the new design and 

estimated that adding two feet to the length of the engine room would cost $3,712 for additional structural 

fire insulation in the overhead of the engine room.

19

 The vessel is not required to have an emergency generator or final emergency power source under US 

Coast Guard regulations. 46 CFR 120.312.

20

 The contractor assumed that the assistive listening systems would demand no more electricity than the 

existing public address system. The contractor also assumed that the main switchboard has sufficient 

capacity to handle the larger generators. The company that designed the dinner boat questioned the 

switchboard assumption. The contractor estimated that a switchboard with a higher capacity to cost an 
12

increased generator capacity to cost $8,903. Assuming the vessel operates 2,000 hours 

per year, the contractor calculated the annual fuel consumption for the 190 kW generators

would be approximately 30,600 gallons, an increase of approximately 3,200 gallons from 

the 170 kW units in the original design. 

The dinner boat is propelled by two diesel engines rated at 440 hp. Each engine drives a 

fixed-pitch propeller via a reduction gear. The contractor calculated that the elevator, 

platform lift, and lengthening of the vessel would add approximately 9 long tons to the 

weight of the vessel for a full load displacement of 394 long tons. The contractor 

calculated that the power demand based on vessel resistance would decease by 0.7 

percent from 273 hp to 271 hp per propeller; and the power demand based on 

maneuvering would increase by 2.3 percent from 774 hp to 792 hp per propeller. The 

contractor determined that the existing engines have ample power to handle this slight 

change in demand. Assuming the vessel operates 2,000 hours per year at an average 

engine load factor of 60 percent, the contractor calculated that the annual fuel 

consumption for the engines would be approximately 55,300 gallons. Depending on the 

ratio of time maneuvering to time underway at speed, the contractor calculated that the 

elevator, platform lift, and lengthening of the vessel would affect the annual fuel 

consumption by -387 gallons to +1,272 gallons.

The dinner boat in original design is reported to have good margins for both intact and 

damaged stability, but is marginal for subdivision. The contractor noted that lengthening 

the hull at the aft part of the storeroom may cause the vessel to fail subdivision due to the 

increased volume of the storeroom if the watertight bulkhead at Frame 13 is damaged. 

The contractor noted that the problem could be corrected by relocating the watertight 

bulkhead at Frame 13, adding an additional watertight bulkhead, or increasing the hull 

depth by an additional 6 inches. The preferred solution would depend upon the actual 

shape of the floodable length curve. The contractor assumed that adjusting the bulkhead 

location would have minimal impact on new construction.

Summary

The contractor estimated the cost for constructing a new dinner boat based on the original 

design to be approximately $5.1 million, updated to $6.49 million in 2011. The 

contractor estimated the cost for constructing a new dinner boat based on a new design 

that would meet the proposed guidelines to be approximately $7.13 million. The case 

study estimates that the proposed guidelines would add about $642,200 to the vessel’s 

(updated) construction costs, or a 10 percent increase.21 About 80 percent of the 

additional costs are attributed to the elevator and the lengthening of the vessel. The cost 

estimates are summarized below.

 

additional $2,500

21

 The company that designed the dinner boat agreed that the draft guidelines would increase the vessel’s 

construction costs by 10 to 12 percent. The updated cost increases costs by 10 percent.
13

600 Pax Dinner Vessel 2005 Estimate 2011 Estimate

(rounded)

Construction Cost (original vessel) $5.1M $6.49M

Protected Waiting Area (updated attachment) 700

Elevator & Additional Serving Pantry Counter

 3-deck LULA: $233,618 ($297,400 in 2011)

 serving pantry counter: $3,133

236,751 301,400

Vessel Lengthening & Incr. Generator Capacity

 4 feet lengthening: $160,631 

 generating capacity: $6,995

167,626 213,400

Ramps, Raised Decking & Automatic Opener at 

Doors with Coamings (auto door: $13,800 in 2011)

70,323 89,500

Access to Swim Platform revised 15,000

Second Deck Toilet Room Additional Space 8,982 11,400

Assistive Listening Systems revised 9,800

Signs 817 1,000

Total (% increase) $513,543

(10.7%)

$642,200

(9.9%)

Note: Unable to get ownership to review and comment on the report.

Dinner Vessel Case Study Attachment

After the May 4, 2006, draft was completed, it was identified that the vessel was not 

protected by an automatic sprinkler system. Therefore, the accessible means of escape 

(AMOE) requirements for the second deck stairs needed further evaluation.

Forward Exit Stair ($700 Increase) - The forward stair on the second deck to be part of 

the forward AMOE needs one22 protected waiting area (PWA) having two clear deck 

spaces (CDS), one at least 30 by 48 inches and the other at least 30 by 60 inches. By

moving the port side stair landing entry door aft, flipping the hinge and latch sides of the 

door, and the widening of the landing to hold the two CDS, the landing can contain a 

PWA. This increase in landing size would move the toilet rooms toward the starboard 

side, such that the starboard side entry to the toilet room is about 42 inches wide instead 

of 60 inches. Costs related to fire and smoke protection for the PWA (e.g., A-60 

bulkheads) is estimated to increase the cost of the new vessel by $70023. 

 

22 No door is provided for the stair on the main deck and the bottom is open to the weather, so no PWA is 

expected even though (due to the main deck evacuation plan) an AMOE runs up the stair. Advisory 

V207.1. As the proposed rule has no non-pool stair requirements (excluding general protruding object 

requirements in V204), no adjustments to the stair is required in the new designs.

23 Estimate 11 feet of A-60 bulkhead needed at $60/linear foot ($605 in 2008 and $660 in 2011). 

According to the vessel designer, as the main deck has an internal area of refuge and the US Coast Guard 

does not require it to be equipped with a ventilation system to provide smoke projection, it is assumed the 
14

Stern Exterior Stair24 (No Impact) - It is understood from the evacuation plan that the 

internal stair connecting the main and second decks is not required for escape purposes, 

as the stern stair satisfies the need for the stern area MOE. Therefore, the stern stair can 

be used as part of the second AMOE. Advisory V207.1. Excluding the protruding object 

provisions in V204, no requirements in the proposed guidelines apply to these stairs. 

 

Protected Waiting Area (PWA) on the second deck would also not need a ventilation system and the 

estimated ventilation cost in the 2008 draft is not included in the updated study. To remove the 

requirement for a PWA, the vessel would need to be protected by an automatic sprinkler system which is 

roughly estimated to cost $150,000 in 2008.

24 The stern stair runs parallel with the beam of the vessel and is between two stairs on the sides of the 

vessel which connect the second deck to the third (sun) deck.