24 NOVEMBER 2017 • FOGHORN By Peter Lauridsen, PV A Regulatory Affairs Consultant REGULATORYREPORT A Bit of His Story W ho is he? Well, “he” is me. I served in the U.S. Coast Guard for 29 years and two months. As of this writing, I have been part of NAPVO/PVA for precisely 29 years and 2 months. So as you read this, I now have more time with the Passenger Vessel Association than my active duty time in the Coast Guard. I have seen the Coast Guard through feast and famine and from the Departments of Treasury to Transportation to Homeland Security. I have seen marine inspection from the marine inspection office to marine safety office to activity to sector. I have worked with the famous and the infamous – which is sometimes the same individual. I entered a program where my fellow lieutenants were licensed masters and chief engineers who came ashore and were commis- sioned through the “219 program.” I have seen the Coast Guard from the peaks to the valleys, from partner to martial law and back. Like all marriages (more like a shotgun wedding), the Coast Guard and industry cycle back and forth emotionally, professionally, cooperatively, but in the end we need each other, if not mutually acknowl- edged then because quite simply the law says so. When I was hired by the National Association of Passenger Vessel Owners’ Board of Directors, the associa- tion was under the guidance of a small business that provided association man- agement. The association membership was truly made up of owners, with few exceptions where a senior employee was the representative. The associa- tion started in the Western Rivers, the Mississippi, Missouri and Ohio Rivers, and except for a small operator on the West Coast, were primarily inland river operations. When I came aboard, the industry was beginning to be proactive as far as development of national reg- ulations and policy was concerned. I was hired to aid in that interaction. The industry was starting to push the envelope in the 1980s with small cruise vessels and higher passenger counts built as small passenger vessels. Stability and fire protection were being addressed by NVIC and local OCMI decisions. Tonnage admeasurement was being exploited through excep- tions and inefficient hull structures thereby permitting larger and more complex vessels to be regulated as small passenger vessels (less than 100 GRT). The list of items that met me at the door, or soon thereafter, were drug testing, small passenger vessel manning, Subchapter T revision, Subchapter W, casino riverboats, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and a goal of supporting and empower- ing owners to interact with their Coast Guard Officers-in-Charge, Marine Inspection. Several of these issues brought NAPVO new members and visibility within the Coast Guard. We mutually developed NVIC 1-91, which deals with small passenger vessel manning. With Subchapter W develop- ment, we gained visibility with major ferry systems such as Washington State Ferries. With riverboat casinos, our as- sociation and its owners were relied on to give casino operators maritime cred- ibility. The real catalyst that matured our organization and brought national rec- ognition was the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Subchapter T. NAPVO members came together in an Ad Hoc regulatory committee. We worked hard to understand and react to what was being presented. As a former Coast Guard officer and newly minted NAPVO staffer, I had some interest- ing times. More than once I had to withstand a withering incoming of