Arnold Ralph Marten

Re: USCG-2007-0030 Passenger Weight and Inspected Vessel Stability Requirements: Proposed Rule Duluth Superior Excursion currently operates three passenger vessels on Lake Superior. Two vessels fall under the provisions of Subchapter K, and one vessel falls under the provisions of Subchapter T. We are a seasonal company employing approximately 65 people during the high point of our season. While we support the pursuit of safety, we do not support many of the decisions and additional requirements found in the proposed rule. 1. PASSENGER WEIGHT DECISION The assumption that the weight of our passengers has increased to 185 is not valid for all operations. We run a sightseeing tour that can contain as many as 30- 40 percent children. Children do count against the passenger count. When averaged with "heavier" adults I am sure the average would remain less than 185 lbs. If 185 lbs is accepted, it should remain that weight until a substantial change in the CDC weight number is released, (10%) In addition, if the average assumed weight is raised, a simple math amendment to the stability letter should suffice. Saving the boat owner/operator the cost of the stability test. 2. STABILITY TEST VALIDATION REQUIREMENT UNREALISTIC Neither the Coast Guard or Small Vessel owner or operators has the capacity to perform a new stability test on every passenger vessel in the country within the first year. The flow chart that is provided, while showing the ability to avoid a new stability test is too open to interpretion and will most assuredly lead to the CG inspectors requiring a new stability test to "error on the side of safety". The cost of a new stability test is financial prohibitive to most Passenger Vessel companies, it is estimated that we would loose 2-3 days of service on each boat during our already short season (lost revenue could reach as high as tens of thousands of dollars per day for some businesses) plus the labor cost and the cost of the naval engineer ($3-5000). If the rule is needed, more clarification must be placed in the determining flowchart and guidance given to the inspector to use common sense in requiring a new stability test. The rule should be phased in over 5 years to coincide with next dry dock exam. 3. 10 YEAR REVALIDATION REQUIREMENT This requirement is redundant and unneeded when consider with the annual CG inspection and 5 year dry dock inspection. CONCLUSION As stated earlier, we fully support policy changes in the effort for safer operations. We do not support the proposed rule changes that would require additional stability tests, we feel that the current safety policies and practices do cover the issues at hand and need no further amendments or changes. We do further suggest that the Coast Guard seek the assistance of the Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) in making the final ruling. I add our full support to any submission they make to the docket on this issue. Sincerely, Arnie Marten General Manager