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

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

My mistake, not Wisconsin. It is Minnesota. https://www.tradeonlytoday.com/indus...ystem-on-boats

I suggest you re-read that article, that is not at all what it says.
No ABYC Standard is required by law in Minnesota.

[sailingharry]

Well, isn't that interesting. Going back to the original subject of this thread. If the text that Dsanduril posted is an accurate representation of the law, it does not reference any standard. It simply says a "marine CO detector" and leaves the definition of that as an individual interpretation. I could mark "Marine" with a Sharpie on a canary and meet the law. Hey, he's still singing, we are OK. A cheap boater, interested in diligently complying, will go to West, see it is UL2034, see the price, and recoil. Then go to Home Depot, see the units at half the price still listed as UL2034, and think "umm.. so what's the difference? Just boat store markup?"

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

By the way, the fire extinguishers? Both meet USCG for pleasure boats. But the one sold by West doesn't meet USCG for inspected boats. If I hadn't looked it up, I wouldn't know that the one sold in West wasn't compliant (in order to comply, it has to have an optional special mounting bracket that West doesn't sell).

Just to clarify ..... the one at West Marine is compliant for pleasurecraft.

[sailingharry]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

I suggest you re-read that article, that is not at all what it says.
No ABYC Standard is required by law in Minnesota.

You are correct in a literal sense. They did not specifically call out ABYC, or any other standard. But, it's worse. While I can (and have) obtained copies of ABYC legally and ethically, I have no way of getting UL. And while the law didn't even cite UL, it did vaguely state "marine detector" which, we all know (and the prosecution knows), is only defined by UL, using their secret (and in this case very vague) standards.


And so, back to the thread -- in Minnesota, you are legally required to comply with a secret standard, and must pay to see what you are required to do.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

You are correct in a literal sense. They did not specifically call out ABYC, or any other standard. But, it's worse. While I can (and have) obtained copies of ABYC legally and ethically, I have no way of getting UL. And while the law didn't even cite UL, it did vaguely state "marine detector" which, we all know (and the prosecution knows), is only defined by UL, using their secret (and in this case very vague) standards.


And so, back to the thread -- in Minnesota, you are legally required to comply with a secret standard, and must pay to see what you are required to do.

I won't be responding to you anymore so go for it.
I see it as a waste of time as you continually twist facts to suit your narative.

[Dsanduril]

The actual Minnesota law is here. And, indeed the only mention of ABYC is in regard to the required stickers (does ABYC approve stickers?).

In fairness to SailingHarry, the DNR (a state agency) does put out a pamphlet (linked above) for boaters specifically about complying with Sophia’s Law and that pamphlet does mention A-24 and at least implies that compliance with the installation requirement found there is required.

[sailingharry]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

I won't be responding to you anymore so go for it.
I see it as a waste of time as you continually twist facts to suit your narative.

OK. I'm not sure which facts. Perhaps in MI, I am reading too much in. Perhaps they meant what they said when they simply said "marine detector" and truly did not mean any specific standard.


And, to the collective users. My apologies. It's a sensitive point for me, because I watched as MD worked toward a standard that was ABYC based, and appeared to legally require the purchase of one brand of CO detector (but since the standard was not clear, I felt that many boaters would unintentionally break the law, even if they tried to comply).


I have annoyed boatpoker, which probably means others as well. I'll go back to my cave (or, more factually since it is after midnight, off to bed.)


Apologies again,


Harry

[ranger58sb]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

I have the ABYC standard, and have read it carefully. Here's what it means:
* The detector has to say "marine detector" -- Huh? Really? That's all?
* The detector has to meet UL 2034 and applicable marine sections. How is that even marked, and what do I look for? Not like an RV unit, which has to meet 2034RV.

But try an experiment.
* Go to Google and search "A-24 CO detector" and see how many pages you have to go to get one.
* Go to Amazon and search "Marine CO Detector" and see if you get one on the first page. This one, https://www.amazon.com/Marine-Techno.../dp/B00F6EWHEM, by "Marine Technologies" doesn't meet the criteria (it doesn't have a label saying "Marine Detector"). In fact, it doesn't say "marine" anywhere, and the description doesn't mention the UL "applicable marine sections"
* Defender doesn't sell any that show the word "marine" on the device..

FWIW... when we last replaced our MTI CO detectors (originals, and well past end of life) I shopped for new Safe-T-Alert units, mostly to make mounting the replacement easiest...

I found some online, maybe Amazon or somewhere, somewhat less expensive than units direct from MTI... but what arrived were marked "RV Carbon Monoxide Alarm." I hadn't noticed the "RV" part of that when shopping...

Anyway, I called MTI and asked about it; their tech told me their marine version (marked "Marine Carbon Monoxide Alarm") was exactly the same product as the RV version, but with the different marking on the housing. And he offered to send me replacements.

Shopping direct from MTI would probably be easy enough...

-Chris

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

With a car, it is safe to assume that it is compliant with road regulations -- they don't sell things that look strongly like cars, but aren't compliant.

Wow. So a marine CO detector is something to stress about, but a car - something that most of us risk our lives in almost daily... all good?

The point of the car example is to show that it's absurd and unreasonable to put the text of every referenced standard into law.

With, for instance, the CO detector, it's a harder problem. There are dozens of reasonably priced units in Home Depot, that are not compliant. There are two units sold in boat stores that "look" to be compliant, but on the face of it aren't (to be honest, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming they are compliant -- but I can't tell).

I grant that there may be some confusion. Perhaps it's just too new a category and the industry has not yet brought out a broader line of compliant units.

... so you have to reach out. Do some research, ask in the right sort of store. (hint - not Home Depot), ask here in CF. Contact the manufacturer. Whether it's in the law, or elsewhere, you still need to go find it and read it.

So, to your point, do I need the standard, and do I need to look it up, to be a safe boater? Until I know another way to know, I look it up.

Yes, you look it up. The info can live elsewhere besides the CFR, yet still be easy to find.

Let's do a reality check, shall we? Safety is a relative measure, and meeting a legal mandate is no guarantee of safety. A spec is one committee's proposal for increased safety... but again, not a guarantee.

And so, back to the thread -- in Minnesota, you are legally required to comply with a secret standard, and must pay to see what you are required to do.

Absolutely not true, especially in this CO detector case. Please reread this, especially the second last paragraph, and the link it contains.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Wotname

One is not paying to know (and understand) the law, one is paying for the service to be undertaken as required by the law. Sort of like saying LEOs should be paid because they know the law rather than for enforcing it...

So look up the free standards for performing a safety check and DIY. Good luck.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

Lake,


With a car, it is safe to assume that it is compliant with road regulations -- they don't sell things that look strongly like cars, but aren't compliant.


With, for instance, the CO detector, it's a harder problem. There are dozens of reasonably priced units in Home Depot, that are not compliant. There are two units sold in boat stores that "look" to be compliant, but on the face of it aren't (to be honest, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming they are compliant -- but I can't tell). It smells a lot like fire extinguishers -- a Kidde unit sold in Home Depot is apparently not for marine use, but there is a Kidde unit sold in West for twice the price, obviously for marine use -- but the certification/regulatory/model numbers are identical. The challenge is, fire extinguishers bought in Home Depot are legal -- and CO detectors bought there are not. How is a consumer to know? Oh, and both CO detectors are UL2034 listed. Just one is suitable for marine use, and one isn't. Or, at least, one meets the Minnesota law, and one doesn't (I am not sure that the Home Depot one is any less suitable for marine use).

By the way, the fire extinguishers? Both meet USCG for pleasure boats. But the one sold by West doesn't meet USCG for inspected boats. If I hadn't looked it up, I wouldn't know that the one sold in West wasn't compliant (in order to comply, it has to have an optional special mounting bracket that West doesn't sell).


So, to your point, do I need the standard, and do I need to look it up, to be a safe boater? Until I know another way to know, I look it up.

For DIY work, to meet safety standards, one is likely best served to acquire the standards, read them, and learn them. It is not sufficient to just use them as a look-up reference, as one wouldn’t know when or where something needed to be looked up. When the standards are learned, then one knows when they need to look something up.

For what it’s worth, some of the worst DIY installations I come across are VHF radios and bilge pumps.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

. . . in this CO detector case. Please reread this, especially the second last paragraph, and the link it contains.

Good find L-E, and interesting that ABYC has made it free to the public. Maybe Steve D-Antonio helped sway them, or maybe because there have been some high-publicity incidents of CO poisoning involving boaters and they decided in was in the public's best interest. I wonder if there are others that are accessible without requiring payment?

Here's where the link you referenced takes you, namely ABYC A-24 itself (July 2015). https://cdn.ymaws.com/abycinc.org/re...t/A-24_Pub.pdf. You're right that parts of the standard cover onboard mounting locations and installation, but also a list of standards covering the functioning of the alarm itself. (e.g. 24.5-1 to 24.5.7). There are also references requiring certification to UL 2034, including drip proof & watertight standards contained therein. (24.5.6).

Not long ago, and following an insurance survey, I had to try and figure out which CO detectors to purchase & install, and my experience echoes some of the frustration Sailingharry was referencing. Maybe I missed something obvious, but I also found it not really possible to determine which of the many CO detectors on the market met ABYC standards even if they were marked for "Marine" use. And as I recall, and since they all seemed to be marked as UL 2034 compliant, neither designation seemed to answer the question. I wound up going with Fireboy-Xintex, but only because they seemed like higher quality. I'm still not sure what the differences are; ditto for smoke detectors and fire extinguishers.

I think someone above mentioned that ABYC doesn't "approve" specific products as meeting their standards, so maybe this accounts for some of the confusion. In the case of CO detectors, however, one would have to access both the ABYC standard and the UL to figure it all out. I find it easier just to rely on recommendations from experts in the field like Steve D'Antonio and other resources previously mentioned.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Thank you for posting a law indicating that a law can reference copyright protected standards published by others, and available for sale.

Seeing that no/one had been able to cite a contradictory law, I conclude that all those declaring the reference standard “must” be free are stating their “wishes” or “opinion that is not supported by facts”.

Not trying to be a jerk; these are important distinctions in this type of discussion.

If it were so easy there'd be no reason for the issue to now be before the courts. A large portion of many courts' dockets is reviewing challenges to existing laws already on the books, and sometimes such laws get overturned regardless of how long they've existed. In this case there are a number of potentially conflicting laws in play, including the proper interpretation of the relevant CFR, the statute(s) which enables the existence of the regulations, potential constitutional due process guarantees, and prior caselaw. I'm not sure anyone without such insight can or should predict how these issues may or may not get resolved given the legal complexities involved.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

I suggest you re-read that article, that is not at all what it says.
No ABYC Standard is required by law in Minnesota.

The kill switch standards are USCG regulation.

https://uscgboating.org/library/boat...pring-2019.pdf


I don't know of others, but this I'm sure of. So broad statements about adoption by reference are probably a bad idea.


... recrea-tional boats manufactured after December 2019 (HINs that end with A020 or later) will be required to have an ABYC A-33 compliant engine cutoff switch installed.

[Dsanduril]

So here's a problem with the whole IBR process and standards as law. From 46 CFR 175.600 (Subchapter T - SMALL PASSENGER VESSELS (UNDER 100 GROSS TONS)):

e-CFR data is current as of December 27, 2019...

(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this subchapter...

(6) E-8, Alternating Current (AC) Electrical Systems on Boats, July 2001 (“ABYC E-8”), IBR approved for §§183.130(a) and 183.340(b).

(7) E-9, Direct Current (DC) Electrical Systems on Boats (May 28, 1990) (“ABYC E-9”), IBR approved for §§183.130(a) and 183.340(b)....

But the USCG, in evaluating vessel plans under Subchapters K and T uses their procedure E2-23, which calls for plans and designs to be in compliance with ABYC E-11, July 2008 and with 46 CFR 183 (which, as shown above, references E-8 and E-9).

c) 46 CFR 120/183 – Electrical Installation
d) 46 CFR Subchapter J – Electrical Engineering
e) IEEE Standard 45 (2002): Recommended Practice for Electrical Installations on Shipboard
f) American Boat and Yacht Council (ABYC), July 2008: E-11 AC and DC Electrical Systems on Boats; A-16 Electrical Navigation Lights

46 CFR 183.130 allows vessels under 65 feet and carrying 12 or fewer passengers to comply with ABYC E-8 and E-9 rather than with the full provisions of 46 CFR 183, and yet the organization that both incorporated E-8 and E-9 by reference and that does the compliance evaluation, by their own procedure says they evaluate with reference to E-11 instead of the standards referenced in law.

The law shouldn't (that's both opinion and current law) be automatically updated when an independent standard is updated - because that would effectively mean SDOs are writing law. At the same time, SDOs generally have a reason for updating standards, and as a consumer I would prefer that a vessel be built to the latest standard. What happens when there's a conflict between E-8/E-9 and E-11?