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

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

...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?

I may be speaking out of turn, because I do not belong to ABYC, but I do belong to other SDOs.


The USCG is active in ABYC and probably active and represented on all of the significant committees. That is how most consensus SDOs work. There are members that are manufacturers, users, and general interest, and the rules require that each committee have some balance.


So there is a mechanism, though not unflawed. There can always be unintended consequences. Like Congress, the standards development process is convoluted, but it is all we have. We don't all get what we want. I just don't have a better suggestion.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

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.

That sounds like a pretty good reason to NOT include the text of referenced standards in law, doesn't it? Let the SDOs do what they do, as you seem to understand below...

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?

I think there's something in the ABYC stuff that newer schedules supercede older ones, and a changelog or similar that tracks that.

I doubt there'd be a genuine conflict between an earlier and later version of an electrical spec. Additions, deletions in most cases, It's not like a boat built to E8/E9 has suddenly become unsafe because there's now E11...

[Exile]

From the preamble of ABYC A-24 July, 2015

"ABYC reviews each standard at least every five years at which time it may be reaffirmed, revised, or withdrawn. ABYC welcomes any written comments on the Standards and Technical Information Reports."

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by 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)):



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).



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?

Me thinks thou should have better things to do on New Years Eve.

Don’t sweat it.

If the electrical system complies with ABYC E11, current version you’re golden.

[Dsanduril]

It's not quite New Year's Eve for me yet, so I have time to fiddle around with standards.

Here's an interesting paper on ground faults, swimming, and injury/death.

Note that the research in this paper, done by the ABYC and used to modify the requirements of the ABYC standard on AC Electricity - to require a whole boat ELCI, was paid for by a grant from the USCG.

1. It would be entirely legal in 2019 to build a commercial vessel without an ELCI because the law references a standard that does not include an ELCI. Even though both the USCG and the ABYC know better. And yet a non-regulated recreational vessel that voluntarily complies with ABYC E-11 could not do so (except..... as in the standard).
2. An ELCI got written into the ABYC standard based, at least in part, on research paid for by the public coffers. And yet the public must pay to see the standard that resulted.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

Here's an interesting paper on ground faults, swimming, and injury/death.

Note that the research in this paper, done by the ABYC and used to modify the requirements of the ABYC standard on AC Electricity - to require a whole boat ELCI, was paid for by a grant from the USCG.

1. It would be entirely legal in 2019 to build a commercial vessel without an ELCI because the law references a standard that does not include an ELCI. Even though both the USCG and the ABYC know better. And yet a non-regulated recreational vessel that voluntarily complies with ABYC E-11 could not do so (except..... as in the standard).
2. An ELCI got written into the ABYC standard based, at least in part, on research paid for by the public coffers. And yet the public must pay to see the standard that resulted.

Please, please stop with this fiction that information is deliberately or negligently being withheld from the public. And especially this idea that if you don't have access to the actual spec, you don't have access to the information.

Google ELCI. You'll find tons of hits.

The ABYC people weren't just sitting around tossing cards in a hat when a grant cheque from the USCG flew over the transom. They identified a serious issue (Electro-shock Drowning) that was not well studied, they proposed studying it, and the Coast Guard agreed and funded the study.

And the ABYC did a good job, and have been out front in researching publicising and educating about ESD. To the public, but especially to the marine professionals, to better enable them to detect and fix the problems that can cause ESD. This is all stuff that's far more useful to the average boater then just seeing the spec for free.

BTW - an ABYC instructor, Kevin Ritz, lost his son to ESD.

[video]

[Dsanduril]

It’s tragic that anyone lost a child (or anyone else) to ESD. If that was an impetus to updating the standard then that is sad, but understandable. However, it is not germane to the discussion of whether or not a standard should belong to the public.

And I’m getting tired of saying it, I absolutely respect and appreciate the work of the ABYC. I think it provides significant value to the industry. I didn’t make this conversation specifically about the ABYC, that was others. It’s understandable given our common interest, but my interest is in all SDOs that have their standards cast into law.

My objection is to the business model that takes public funds, lobbies to have standards incorporated into law, and then charges the public to read the standards. The ABYC wants to mix public funds with their private efforts and then charge the public to read the results. It could even be easy - it takes the law so long to catch up that the electrical standards referenced in law are E-9 1990 and E-8 2001. These were replaced by E-11 in 2008 (I think I have all those dates right). What would it cost ABYC to make the referenced standards available for free while keeping the current ones behind their paywall? Of course they muddle that a bit by using public funds for their research.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Please, please stop with this fiction that information is deliberately or negligently being withheld from the public. And especially this idea that if you don't have access to the actual spec, you don't have access to the information.

How can a standards document end up behind a paywall accidentally? To me it sure sounds like a deliberate act to demand payment for the right to download a document.

I haven't read any posts in this thread saying ABYC or any other SDO is evil or has bad intent. The SDOs are doing what they can to survive. The question is whether or not their business model comports with the rights of taxpayers. It's not a good vs. evil argument.

There are SDOs funded by the government such as NIST. Their standards are freely available as far as I know. So that seems to be a decent model.

[GordMay]

The majority of standards developing organization depend on the revenue from the sale of standards to support their programs and services. But a growing number of standards organizations make access to their standards for viewing or download available for no cost.

Standards Organizations that Offer Free Access to Their Standards ➥ https://www.nist.gov/standardsgov/st...heir-standards

ie:

ULC has announced that upon registering for their free account the latest ULC standards may be viewed free of charge.
Step by step instructions on how to access ULC standards ➥ https://www.cfaa.ca/Files/DocumentRe...e%20access.pdf

The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) has developed a website that allows users to access CSA Standards referenced in federal, provincial, and territorial OHS Regulations. The site allows users to view and/or purchase standards referenced in the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation.
Create an account on the CSA Communities website ➥ https://community.csagroup.org/login...r=%252Fwelcome

This is a free service where you can view and read ASTM safety standards incorporated in the United States regulations.
ASTM Reading Room ➥ https://www.astm.org/READINGLIBRARY/

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by GordMay

[SIZE=3]... a growing number of standards organizations make access to their standards for viewing or download available for no cost.

Thanks Gord. Don't get me wrong people; I agree in principle that more such information should be public, and the Internet certainly makes that much more possible. It's a good goal.

What gets me is this constant inference in this thread that in the case of recreational boating, the public has been significantly deprived by not having free access to the specs. But in the two main cases raised here (CO detectors, ESD) there is an abundance of information freely available, most of it in forms (articles, manuals, guidelines, etc) that are much more readable and useful to the average person than the spec documents themselves. In other areas in my professional and personal life, I've generally been able to find specs-based information without having to buy the spec. If it's an important spec, there's usually a herd of authors competing to sell you how-to books that are more helpful (and less expensive) than having just the spec itself. This is certainly the case in boating.

btw NIST is a government agency, not an independent standards group.

I think that a pretty thin principle is being pushed here, that would not really bring additional value to the average boater. You'd be dispensing with an independent, industry-created, efficient, self regulating standards body with a track record for producing sensible and achievable standards, and replacing it with ... more government. Not something I'm used to hearing from CF

I'll leave it there.

[transmitterdan]

I think all of us have experienced a “marine electrician” who either didn’t know the standards or claimed a great deal of money was required to correct a non-compliance. There are several threads here along those lines.

I have had insurance surveyors claim non-compliance and without ready access to the regulations I would not have been able to straighten it out with the insurer easily.

Plus there are more than just ESD and CO to worry about. Fire is still the number one danger and probably the area where the most cruisers are the least compliant with standards. Just this week two cruisers in Puerto Rico died in a fire aboard their Lagoon whilst tied up at the marina.


https://apple.news/AYUI1Xs-fTcSgB9oxFUD15A

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

Yes, the ABYC standard says that fuel hose in recreational vessels must meet USCG type A1 or A2 standards (I think I have that correct, but don't have the most recent standard in front of me so happy to be corrected). Those are contained in 33 CFR 183.540 (a regulation for commercial vessels, that through adoption by ABYC is being passed on to recreational vessels - although we are not required by law [in this case] to comply with ABYC recommendations). And 33 CFR 183.540 leads you to SAE Standard J1527DEC85 which is .... wait for it.... behind a paywall.

The hose company certifies that it meets ABYC... if that turns out to be false, you have a beef with the hose company.

Unless you are manufacturing your own fuel hose, it's really not relevant for the average person. If you are thinking of using non-certified hose that is "similar"...that's on you to do your research and the hose manufacturer (certified or non-certified) don't want any part in your escapades.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Your statement is correct regarding cars (and trucks, etc) but I think the situation with cars is very different than that with boats. Very few car owners are doing work on his/her own car that requires compliance with a safety standard; like installing a second gas tank or replacing the original. Haven't heard of anyone adding an AC generator to their Camry or a propane locker.

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 may not be as common as it once was but lots of people still work on cars and make modifications:
- Buddy installed a 2nd fuel tank in his 1 ton pickup to extend towing range.
- Lots of people do brake jobs themselves.
- Lots of people will replace shocks, struts, etc...themselves...even going so far as to do lifts for 4x4s.
- Generators...common in motorhomes along with propane lockers.

[transmitterdan]

I don’t know. We’ve got people doing some pretty unusual things with cars these days.

https://insideevs.com/news/322619/te...trailer-video/

Does that look safe to you?

[Dsanduril]

The argument has been made (many times) that the information is available in other places. Articles, books, magazines... But that is not the law, it is someone’s distillation of their understanding of the standard that is the law. How many times have we seen those be wrong? “Your honor, I read Joe’s article in XYZ, and it said....”

And “trust the manufacturer”? Philip Morris, Juul, Johns-Manville, USG?