Should standards that become a part of a law be free to the public?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by skipmac

If an individual is required by law to comply with a standard then that standard should be available to the individual.

Originally Posted by skipmac

Very few car owners are doing work on his/her own car that requires compliance with a safety standard;

* * *

Boaters on the other hand are frequently doing such things and if they are required by law to comply with some standard, especially if there is a potential penalty involved, then my opinion, that standard should be readily available.

It's been stated several times during the course of the thread that most (all?) of the ABYC standards, despite being incorporated into US law, do not apply to recreational boaters. They are certainly recommended, and are often required by surveyors per private insurance contracts, but compliance with them doesn't generally appear to have the force of law.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by wsmurdoch

Post #65 of this thread...

... is someone's assertion of a law based on an ABYC spec, but no link or quote of the offending law.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I can answer this one: the concept that laws are by and for the people, so they must be freely available.

Can you cite any legislation that supports this claim?

Not trying to be a jerk, but in this thread alone we have seen some state info as a fact that simply isn’t.

Re the fusing of a battery cable - (E-11.10.1.1.1 ) the 7" spec can be met with an integral fuseholder in the battery clamp, an inline fuseholder, or a bulkhead-mounting fuseholder... or

Agreed 100%. Rhe claim by the other poster that this standard was to support a specific manufacturer was completely false. It was the standard BEFORE MRBF fuseholders were available. This is a case where a manufacturer invented a very good product to make it even easier to comply with a good standard.

Questions to the active providers and surveyors:

1. is this spec rigidly enforced - eg would an 8.5" run to the fuseblock be labelled noncompliant.

1. A good surveyor would correctly cite this as a B or C class non-compliance (or what ever rating they use to indicate that it’s not compliant, but it isn’t likely life or death immediately (though it is very remotely possible).
   
   

   would added protection like an extra layer of rubber or vinyl hose count as a "sheath", permitting a longer run to the fuse?

As long as it meets the material (impervious to petroleum) and temp spec of the cable insulation 105C) I would consider it fine, however, it is not wise to make your surveyor have to determine this, so it would be wiser to use a product specifically designed to be a compliant cable sheath.

The easiest way to comply would be to completely wrap it, over the length beyond 7” and up to 72” with electrical tape. I don’t like this solution as the tape could unravel over time and then it would be non-compliant, but as long as it is there, compliant.

Self draining plastic spiral cable loom would be a valid choice. This is good in the way that the cable remains very flexible so any vibration between the last cable security clamp and the battery terminal will be easily absorbed without damage.

While we’re on the topic of battery fuses, some people realize that the house bank is supposed to be fused, and the start battery need not be, but few realize that as soon as their start battery can be combined with the house bank (A/B/Both/off switch or ACR for example) such that the start battery can supply house loads, over-current protection (eg fuse or breaker) must be included.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Exile

It's been stated several times during the course of the thread that most (all?) of the ABYC standards, despite being incorporated into US law, do not apply to recreational boaters. They are certainly recommended, and are often required by surveyors per private insurance contracts, but compliance with them doesn't generally appear to have the force of law.

There is a problem with this statement that could be confusing.

ABYC standards most certainly do apply for to recreational vessels.

There are some laws that refer to ABYC standards.

Standards that are not referenced by law are considered “voluntary”.

But as stated before, be very careful here.

If one performs a modification to make their boat non-compliant to ABYC standards, and someone gets hurt as a result (property damage or injury) the owner may well be determined personally liable, for not making reasonable attempt to keep the boat reasonably safe. If the modifications are performed in compliance with ABYC standards:

1) The boat may be less likely to hurt someone in the first place.

2) It May be determined that the owner took reasonable steps to keep the boat safe and therefore was not liable for the incident.

In other words, if your boat blows up because you installed a portable gas generator in an enclosure on the sternrail, and did not make it ABYC compliant, the survivors or families could sue the pants off you and likely win (and rightfully so in my opinion). 100% owner, 0% manufacturer (if they can reasonably show it was not installed in compliance with their instructions or modified in an unauthorized way.)

However if you installed a generator intended for marine applications in a way that was ABYC compliant, you operated it properly, and yet it still blew up and hurt someone, the manufacturer would likely be found 100% liable, 0% to the boat owner.

So because there are these two really good reasons to make
Modifications compliant with applicable marine standards, I don’t understand any good reason not to.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

There is a problem with this statement that could be confusing.

ABYC standards most certainly do apply for to recreational vessels.

There are some laws that refer to ABYC standards.

Standards that are not referenced by law are considered “voluntary”.

But as stated before, be very careful here.

If one performs a modification to make their boat non-compliant to ABYC standards, and someone gets hurt as a result (property damage or injury) the owner may well be determined personally liable, for not making reasonable attempt to keep the boat reasonably safe. If the modifications are performed in compliance with ABYC standards:

1) The boat may be less likely to hurt someone in the first place.

2) It May be determined that the owner took reasonable steps to keep the boat safe and therefore was not liable for the incident.

In other words, if your boat blows up because you installed a portable gas generator in an enclosure on the sternrail, and did not make it ABYC compliant, the survivors or families could sue the pants off you and likely win (and rightfully so in my opinion). 100% owner, 0% manufacturer (if they can reasonably show it was not installed in compliance with their instructions or modified in an unauthorized way.)

However if you installed a generator intended for marine applications in a way that was ABYC compliant, you operated it properly, and yet it still blew up and hurt someone, the manufacturer would likely be found 100% liable, 0% to the boat owner.

So because there are these two really good reasons to make
Modifications compliant with applicable marine standards, I don’t understand any good reason not to.

I completely agree, and also agree that a civil suit for negligence could very well utilize ABYC standards to determine the appropriate "standard of care" from which a defendant may be held liable for failing to meet. My comment was confined to whether or not ABYC or other applicable standards -- once incorporated into US law -- necessarily become mandatory for recreational vessels. I think the answer is no, absent specific language making it such.

Let's not conflate the lack of enforceability of nonbinding standards vs. the ability of a plaintiff to use those standards in seeking redress for a boatowner's negligence. The latter is obviously why insurance cos. protect themselves and their customers by requiring surveys. Your comments in support of adhering to ABYC standards are well taken, but let's not confuse two completely separate applications of the law.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... is someone's assertion of a law based on an ABYC spec, but no link or quote of the offending law.

No, the law itself is linked to in post #65 as 46 U.S.C. § 4312 - Engine cut-off switches.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/46/4312

But the law itself puts the burden of compliance on manufacturers, distributors & dealers, and not boatowners.

(a) Installation Requirement.—
A manufacturer, distributor, or dealer that installs propulsion machinery and associated starting controls on a covered recreational vessel shall equip such vessel with an engine cut-off switch and engine cut-off switch link that meet American Boat and Yacht Council Standard A–33, as in effect on the date of the enactment of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2017.

I may be wrong, but it's my understanding -- and has been asserted here many times -- that there are no ABYC standards that boatowners are required by US law to adopt. Whether they should so adopt is pretty obvious but a different matter, as is whether a private insurance contract requires them to do so.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

If one becomes a member of ABYC (US$99/yr for a general membership) you get free access to all standard and technical papers online. I simply don’t understand why everyone is making such a big deal.

It’s about the same cost as a dozen flares, far more likely to be needed, and in my opinion about 100 times better value.

And for everyone with the opinion a boater doesn’t need the standards, my opinion is “You are wrong.” Left to their own devices, most DIY boaters will find several ways to make a perfectly safe boat, patently unsafe, mostly because they simply don’t know any better, because they have never read the standards that explain how to do it safely.

My apologies; I don’t frequent the recreational boater side of the ABYC website.

From the industrial side, my business membership is $265. A tech working for a business member, pays $99/yr

A recreational boater pays $185/yr for ABYC membership.

For any boater who performs considerable DIY work, this is very inexpensive and excellent value for money in the grand scheme.

The likelihood is the membership will pay for itself many times over, if the standards (available to members for free) are adhered to, by avoid rework due to cited non-compliance’s, in the next survey,

[rbk]

The other side of the original post by thinwater is any certification required by law to complete a project or continue to operate in the future. For instance UL’s many requirements for ongoing monitoring by certified techs conveniently offered at great expense by UL with on going accreditation program required every year or few years. There shouldn’t be a monopoly on the training as well when these standards are enacted into public law, this is guaranteed income for UL in perpetuity with no opportunity for another institution to certify technicians like colleges, tech institutes or universities.

[Dsanduril]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

...Interestingly, I asked the question way back in the thread, “What law declares that a standard must be free, if it is referenced by a law...

1 CFR 51 is the law that covers IBR materials. 1 CFR 51.7 says the following about material that is IBRed into law:

(3) Is reasonably available to and usable by the the class of persons affected. In determining whether a publication is usable, the Director will consider...

The questions before the courts at the current moment are the definitions of the two terms highlighted in red. What is meant by “reasonably available” and who is the “class of persons affected”? For the second, is a consumer who buys a product from a manufacturer part of the class?

The Office of the Federal Register has decided that a paper copy at the main office of the agency incorporating the standard meets the “reasonably available” requirement. For ABYC standards this mostly means the USCG Engineering Office in Washington DC. Alternatively, a copy can also be read at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), again in Washington DC. To access NARA copies:

Legal record copies are available for public inspection and limited photo-copying. If you would like to inspect material incorporated by reference at OFR's downtown Washington, DC location, you must submit a written request and make an appointment for a specific day and time.

So the standards that have been IBRed are technically available (for free) and can be photocopied (despite copyright) from the agency files. But that requires a trip to Washington. The question then becomes “does requiring a trip to Washington meet the standard of reasonably available?”

I’m sure that reasonable people can disagree on whether or not that trip to Washington is reasonable.

However, the whole point of this thread is whether or not the current regulation is sufficient. Some of us (me) think that once it goes into law the standard should be published in full as part of the law. The original reason for allowing IBR to be just referenced was the extra quantity of paper that would be required to publish a complete CFR with all of the full standards included. That’s an antiquated reason, the CFR, with full standards could be published online with little additional cost to the government. The government argues that they are still legally obligated to publish the CFR on paper and so that reason still applies.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

No, the law itself is linked to in post #65 as 46 U.S.C. § 4312 - Engine cut-off switches.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/46/4312

Thanks, I missed that.


Interesting link from NMMA, from when the kill switch regs were being formulated.

But the law itself puts the burden of compliance on manufacturers, distributors & dealers, and not boatowners.

(a) Installation Requirement.—
A manufacturer, distributor, or dealer that installs propulsion machinery and associated starting controls on a covered recreational vessel shall equip such vessel with an engine cut-off switch and engine cut-off switch link that meet American Boat and Yacht Council Standard A–33, as in effect on the date of the enactment of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2017.

I may be wrong, but it's my understanding -- and has been asserted here many times -- that there are no ABYC standards that boatowners are required by US law to adopt. Whether they should so adopt is pretty obvious but a different matter, as is whether a private insurance contract requires them to do so.

That was my impression also. IF the boat owner chooses to, or is being pressured by insurance to have one, it's just a matter of buying a compliant switch/lanyard and installing it. You don't need to see the spec to do this, you just need basic electrical chops, and maybe some advice on the best location... neither of which are contained in the spec.

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

...the whole point of this thread is whether or not the current regulation is sufficient. Some of us (me) think that once it goes into law the standard should be published in full as part of the law.

Making the standard free to all would bring what benefit, exactly?


Doing what you ask would effectively mean that there's no incentive for independent and voluntary standards-setting by the more responsible members of an industry. Besides robbing the standards body of revenue to sustain its continued operation, you've now eliminated the independence, efficiency and ability to innovate of the standards body, because changing standards that are referenced in law will now be as hard as changing any law, because in effect that's what it now is.

An unintended consequence, perhaps? Or do you think that the job of all standards-setting should only be done or managed by government?

The best marine maintenance books already provide enough information to comply with the most important and common ABYC specs and practices. Having the actual spec in hand wouldn't make much difference.

[Dsanduril]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

...Making the standard free to all would bring what benefit, exactly?


Doing what you ask would effectively mean that there's no incentive for independent and voluntary standards-setting by the more responsible members of an industry. Besides robbing the standards body of revenue to sustain its continued operation, you've now eliminated the independence, efficiency and ability to innovate of the standards body, because changing standards that are referenced in law will now be as hard as changing any law, because in effect that's what it now is...

Making the standards free (only those that are incorporated into law) would allow we, the citizens, to review and understand the law.

The voluntary standards industry is a good thing. But when the standards body gets their standards cast into law then it is no longer voluntary. That’s a choice any standards body can make, to remain independent and voluntary or to be part of government.

There are really only two reasons a standards body would submit/request/accede to their standard being law.

1. Altruism - they believe their standards are the bees knees and will save lives, reduce injuries, protect the environment, whatever... If they are being altruistic about this then they’d be happy to provide free standards in order to get them widely distributed and adopted.
2. Business - their business model includes using the government to get them a legally mandated monopoly so they can sell their standards without interference or competition.

The third model is to let the market drive adoption without government requirements. There are perfect examples in this thread of ABYC standards being adopted in the market because otherwise you can’t get insurance coverage. Standards can be private and behind a paywall, and the standards body can try to build consensus in industry and with consumers. ABYC widely does this, and if this was extent of their business model then all would be good, but instead they have elected to ask the government to give them a monopoly under certain conditions.

Lastly, when standards are incorporated into law only the specific version incorporated becomes law. Nothing stops the standards body from updating their standards. When they do the revised/new standards do not become law unless the law is revised through the normal channels. This results in the law being hopelessly behind. Indeed, they ABYC standards referenced in this thread as IBR are old versions. The standards body (ABYC) has decided that they need updating, but these updates have not (yet) made it to law. This means that those who comply voluntarily are complying with a different standard than those who are compelled to comply.

[thinwater]

A standard is adopted into law. A person (or company) has to comply with it. Why are we drawing a distinction between a person and company (which may be one person)?

Standards that affect a builder affect the product. We're arguing those standards do not affect the boat you are buying?

These are red herring, drawing us far away from the central issue, which is once a document is offered for use in public law, the copyright is logically vacated. That's all.

Person or company, direct or indirect regulation, there is no difference in this principle. The issue is the continuing validity of the copyright.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by thinwater

A standard is adopted into law. A person (or company) has to comply with it. Why are we drawing a distinction between a person and company (which may be one person)?

Standards that affect a builder affect the product. We're arguing those standards do not affect the boat you are buying?

These are red herring, drawing us far away from the central issue, which is once a document is offered for use in public law, the copyright is logically vacated. That's all.

Person or company, direct or indirect regulation, there is no difference in this principle. The issue is the continuing validity of the copyright.

OK, I am still having trouble understanding your 3rd paragraph.

Who says?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

Making the standards free (only those that are incorporated into law) would allow we, the citizens, to review and understand the law.

This is a theoretical benefit only; in reality the information required to implement the referenced standard is widely known in the affected community and readily available. I don't think that many CFers need to see A-33 to understand what an emergency engine cutoff device is or how to add one. If you're a professional... no excuses, you should know the standard that's expected (or legislated).

To achieve this theoretical benefit, you would seriously upend the whole current system of standards bodies. Boating is small potatoes; think of UL, CE, ISO, the electrical and plumbing codes.

Originally Posted by thinwater

A standard is adopted into law. A person (or company) has to comply with it. Why are we drawing a distinction between a person and company (which may be one person)?

A professional in any field should know and understand the standards and best practices of their field.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by thinwater

These are red herring, drawing us far away from the central issue, which is once a document is offered for use in public law, the copyright is logically vacated. That's all.

Person or company, direct or indirect regulation, there is no difference in this principle. The issue is the continuing validity of the copyright.

It cannot be that if a law mandates use of a patented or copyrighted work that the work immediately falls into the public domain and the IP holder loses their monopoly. Such a determination would have an immediate chilling effect on many aspects of the economy. It would also be inconsistent with international treaties governing intellectual property rights.

The US government goes to some pains to ensure that the monopoly powers created by patents or copyrights cannot be used when making laws incorporating intellectual property. They invariably require the IP holder to give up their monopoly rights by signing an agreement with the government that they will license their IP to anyone and everyone on a non-discriminatory and equitable basis. I am not aware of any IP incorporated into law that does not have such an agreement. But that’s as far as the government needs to go. To go further would stifle innovation, break international agreements and wreck the economy. The courts will see it that way too.