PLEASE STAND BY. 

>> GENTLEMEN, PLEASE TAKE YOUR SEATS. WE ARE GOING TO BEGIN OUR LAST PANEL PRESENTATION. OUR NEXT PRESENTATION WILL BE DONE BY COAST GUARD. THEY ARE GOING TO DISCUSS THEIR COAST GUARD GUIDELINES, POLICY AND PLAN APPROVAL. THE PRESENTATION WILL BE DONE BY TWO GENTLEMEN FROM COAST GUARD. KEVIN HAS A BACKGROUND IN SHIP BOARD ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING AND NAVAL ARCHITECTURE. HE SERVED AS AN INSPECTOR IN CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND AS A STUDENT ENGINEER ON THE COAST GUARD HIGH ENDURANCE CUTTER IN SAN FRANCISCO. HE HAS A MASTERS IN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA WHERE HE DID RESEARCH WITH ELECTRIC SHIP RESEARCH AND DESIGN CONSORTIUM. HE'S A 2008 GRADUATE FROM THE U.S. COAST GUARD ACADEMY WITH A BACHELOR'S OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN NAVAL ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING. WE ALSO HAVE STEVEN . HE'S FROM GEORGIA. HE HAS SERVED IN THE COAST GUARD FOR EIGHT YEARS. HE GRADUATED FROM THE COAST GUARD IN 2009. EARNING A B.S. IN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING. HE HAS SERVED IN SEVERAL CAPACITIES IN THE COAST GUARD INCLUDING AS A DECK WATCH OFFICER. OK. THANKS. PREVIOUSLY IN CALIFORNIA. INSPECTOR IN JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA AND CURRENTLY STAFF ENGINEER IN WASHINGTON, D.C. PRIOR TO SERVING AT THE SAFETY CENTER, LIEUTENANT LOUISE ATTENDED SCHOOL AT TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY WHERE HE EARNED A MASTERS DEGREE IN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING WITH A CONCENTRATION IN POWER SYSTEMS AND POWER ELECTRONICS. LIEUTENANT LOUISE'S INTEREST IN ELECTRICAL AND HYBRID TECHNOLOGY BEGAN AT TEXAS A&M WHERE HE TOOK COURSES ON ELECTRICAL AND HYBRID VEHICLE DESIGN. LIEUTENANT LOUISE IS M.S.C.'S LEAD STAFF ENGINEER FOR PLAN REVIEW INVOLVING DESIGNS THAT -- 

>> HELLO. YOU CAN HEAR ME. WOW. IT'S TRUE WHAT EVERYONE SAID THAT YOU CAN'T TELL FROM UP HERE. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU, ALL, FOR MAKING IT BACK FROM LUNCH. WE'RE THRILLED TO BE HERE. THE COAST GUARD IN GENERAL, WE PRIDE OURSELVES WITH THE WAY WE WORK WITH INDUSTRY AND NOT AGAINST INDUSTRY. SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND KICK IT OFF WITH THAT. 

>> SO ONCE AGAIN, I'M STEVE LOUIS. I WORK AT THE MARINE SAFETY CENTER. THE RESPONSIBILITY IS TO CONDUCT COMMERCIAL VESSEL PLAN REVIEW. SO WHEN YOU START TO DESIGN A VESSEL AND HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING WHO TO SUBMIT TO AND WHO TO ASK THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT DESIGN, PLEASE CONTACT US. I'LL GO OVER SOME MORE OF THAT INFORMATION LATER ON. BUT SOME OTHER THINGS WE DO, WE'RE STAFFED BY ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, NAVAL ARCHITECTS, CHEMICAL ENGINEERS AND ARE FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERS PRIMARILY, BUT WE HAVE THREE DIFFERENT DIVISIONS. WE HAVE PLANS FOR FOUR AND WE ALSO ADMINISTER THE U.S. MEASURE PROGRAM. IN ADDITION WE APPROVE VESSEL SECURITY PLANS. AND THEN WE ALSO ASSIST CAPTAIN OF THE FORCE WITH SALVAGE AND ENGINEERING RESPONSE. SHOULD IT OCCUR IN THEIR PORT THAT REQUIRES ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE. 

>> AND I'M KEVIN AND I WORK IN COAST GUARD HEADQUARTERS OFFICE OF DESIGN AND ENGINEERING STANDARDS. WE HAVE MANY NAMES FOR THE SAME OFFICE. WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF U.S. REGULATIONS THROUGH THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, AND COAST GUARD POLICY AND WE ALSO DO A LOT OF WORK WITH THE I.M.O. TO DEVELOP INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS ON VARIOUS ISSUES. SO WE HAVE DIVISIONS FOR HUMAN FACTORS, ENGINEERING, SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, NAVAL ARCHITECTURE, LIFESAVING AND FIREFIGHTING AND HAZMAT AND HAZARDOUS CARGO. SO LOTS OF DIFFERENT TOPICS. WE HAVE ABOUT 50 PEOPLE. ABOUT HALF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES, HALF ACTIVE DUTY AND A RANGE FROM PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, INSPECTOR BACKGROUND AND ALSO SOME PROFESSIONAL MARINERS AS WELL. HERE'S AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT. WE'RE GOING TO START OFF WITH OUR COAST GUARD AUTHORITIES AND OUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS IT PERTAINS TO LITHIUM EYEON BATTERIES, PARTICULARLY. -- ION BATTERIES, PARTICULARLY. WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE PLAN REVIEW AND THE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS THROUGH THE COAST GUARD AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO FUTURE EFFORTS AND WHERE WE SEE THIS GOING IN THE FUTURE FOR THE COAST GUARD AND THE INDUSTRY. SO TO START OUT WITH THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT THAT WE'RE INTERESTED IN, MANY OF YOU KNOW THIS VERY WELL, BUT SOME MAY NOT SO U.S. FLAG VESSELS FALL INTO 46 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, AND THE DIFFERENT SUBCHAPTERS THAT APPLY TO THE MAJORITY OF VESSELS THAT WE DEAL WITH ARE LISTED HERE. SUBCHAPTER T BEING COMMERCIAL SMALL PASSENGER VESSELS RANGING FROM SIX PASSENGERS TO 150 TO 149 PASSENGERS. SUBCHAPTER K SMALL PASSENGER VESSELS, 150 PASSENGERS AND GREATER. AND SUBCHAPTER H FOR PASSENGER VESSELS OVER 100 TONS BUT THERE AREN'T TOO MANY OF THOSE. THEN YOU SEE, ALSO, SUBCHAPTERS I AND D FOR TANK VESSELS. AND THEN VERY IMPORTANTLY, SUBCHAPTER J WHICH IS ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS. AND THE IMPORTANT THING FOR THIS AUDIENCE TO KEEP IN MIND BOTH SUBCHAPTER T AND SUBCHAPTER K HAVE SPECIFIC ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS IN THEM. EVEN MORE SPECIFICALLY, BATTERY INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. HOWEVER, WHEN A VESSEL IS -- HAS ELECTRIC PROPULSION, BOTH SUBCHAPTER T AND K VESSELS ARE REFERRED BACK TO SUBCHAPTER J WHICH HAS THE OVERALL ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS WHICH ARE MORE DETAILED THAN THE REQUIREMENTS FOR T OR K VESSELS AND THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND. ANOTHER THING THAT WE'LL GET INTO THROUGHOUT OUR PRESENTATION IS THE FACT THAT OUR REGULATIONS FOR BATTERIES AND BATTERY COMPARTMENTS, THEY WERE WRITTEN IN -- T AND K WERE WRITTEN IN 1996. J WAS BEFORE THAT. SO THIS WAS BEFORE LITHIUM ION WAS A THING. SO TRYING TO EQUATE THE REGULATIONS IN THESE SUBCHAPTERS LINE BY LINE TO REQUIREMENTS FOR LITHIUM ION BATTERIES DOESN'T WORK VERY WELL. SO THE APPROACH WE TAKE IS A HOLISTIC RISK MANAGEMENT APPROACH THAT WE WANT TO SEE THE INSTALLATION WITH LITHIUM ION BATTERIES MEETS AN EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY TO THE INTENT OF THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS IN T, K OR J. SO AS YOU GET INTO THE -- AND WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT THIS IN THE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS, BUT WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO PICK AND CHOOSE AND CROSS-CONNECT THESE REGULATIONS LINE BY LINE. WE'RE LOOKING FOR AN OVERALL HOLISTIC RISK MANAGEMENT APPROACH. SO THIS SLIDE HERE SHOWS THE PROCESS FOR HOW THE COAST GUARD REVIEWS NEW OR NOVEL DESIGNS THAT DON'T FIT VERY WELL IN THE REGULATIONS. SO THIS IS FOR LITHIUM ION BATTERIES OR FOR HYBRID PROPULSION SYSTEMS OR FOR HYDROGEN OR VERY GENERAL PROCESS HERE. THE PLANS ARE SUBMITTED TO THE MARINE SAFETY CENTER, AND THOSE PLANS CAN BE DETAILED PLANS, BUT THEY CAN ALSO BE CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THE DESIGNS TOTALLY WORKED OUT. YOU CAN SUBMIT A CONCEPT, AND WE'LL WRITE YOU BACK AND WITHIN 30 DAYS AND HOPEFULLY SHORTER THAN THAT, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THESE NOVEL DESIGNS TO ENGAGE WITH US VERY EARLY IN THE PROCESS AND WE MAINTAIN A TRANSPARENT, OPEN DIALOGUE THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. IT DOESN'T WORK WELL FOR INDUSTRY OR FOR US FOR YOU TO GET 95% COMPLETE OF THE DETAILED DESIGN AND THEN SUBMIT IT TO US AND HAVE A BIG ISSUE WITH IT. THAT IS NOT HOW IT SHOULD WORK WITH NOVEL DESIGNS LIKE THIS. WE WANT TO START ENGAGING WITH YOU EARLY IN THE PROCESS SO WE CAN FIND A GOOD SOLUTION THAT WORKS FOR ALL OF US. THE MARINE SAFETY CENTER, THEY ARE THE FRONT DOOR FOR THE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRY TO TALK TO SOMEBODY AT THE COAST GUARD. MARINE SAFETY CENTER IS EITHER GOING TO DECIDE IT WILL REVIEW THE PLANS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS OR EQUIVALENCY, OR FOR VERY UNIQUE DESIGNS THEY MIGHT KICK IT TO ENG, MY OFFICE, TO REVIEW ON A DESIGN BASIS TO SAY THIS IS SO FAR OUTSIDE OF OUR REGULATIONS THAT WE WANT TO GET THE HEADQUARTERS, THE COMMANDANT OFFICE, TO DETERMINE IS THIS AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL DESIGN TO APPROVE. 

>> ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PLAN REVIEW EXPERIENCE. WE HAVE BEEN REVIEWING A BATTERY PLAN WAS PROPOSAL FOR THE USE OF LITHIUM ION BATTERIES SINCE ABOUT 2012. THERE IS THAN ONE CERTIFICATE IN 2014, THE HYBRID VESSEL. WE HAVE RECEIVED PLANS FOR ALL ELECTRIC VESSELS AS EARLY AS 2012 AND MORE IN 2015. WE HAVE DEALT WITH THESE ELECTRIC PLANS BEFORE AS WELL. NUMEROUS OTHER CONFIGURATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN PREVIOUS PRESENTATIONS. NUMEROUS OTHER CONFIGURATIONS INVOLVING OTHER BATTERY CHEMISTRIES AND TYPES. ONE IMPORTANT NOTE BEFORE WE GET INTO THE LAND REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS HERE IS THE CONSIDERATIONS WE TALK ABOUT NEXT ARE NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. THEY DO NOT ADDRESS ALL THE CONCERNS FOR EVERY TYPE OF VESSEL THAT ONE MIGHT DESIGN. THERE IS EQUIVALENCY PROCESS AND THAT HAS EVOLVED OVER TIME AND WILL CONTINUE TO EVOLVE AS WE GET SMARTER ABOUT LITHIUM-ION BATTERIES IN WAYS TO DEAL WITH THEM SAFETY. AS WE MOVE FORWARD, THE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS I AM GOING TO DISCUSS HERE MAINLY APPLIED TO SUBCHAPTER K VESSELS, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE HAD THE MOST EXPERIENCE WITH. THROUGHOUT THIS WORKSHOP, WE HAVE DISCUSSED HOW THE POTENTIAL FOR OFFSHORE SUPPLIES AND ALL THESE OTHER VESSEL TYPES, BUT WE HAVE NOT SEEN AS TYPES YET. OUR MAJOR CONCERN IS THERMAL RUNAWAY. HERE IS AN IMAGE THAT SHOWS YOU WHAT CAN HAPPEN AS A RESULT OF THE THERMAL RUNAWAY. ONE OF OUR BIGGEST WAYS TO TRY TO PREVENT THERMAL RUNAWAY IS A THOUGHT THAT BATTERY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS WOULD HELP US PREVENT THE SCENARIO. WE HAVE A PHILOSOPHY THAT WE TAKE IN THAT WE TRY TO PROVIDE AN -- PREVENT THERMAL RUNAWAYS FROM OCCURRING AND SHOULD THAT OCCUR -- WHAT THAT ENTAILS IS FIRE MITIGATION. ON A SMALL VESSEL, THAT IS NOT TRADITIONALLY REQUIRED TO HAVE STRUCTURAL FIRE DETECTION, BATTERY COMPARTMENT. YOU MAY HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT -- THOSE ARE VERY CONTRARY TO TRADITIONAL DESIGNS. HERE IS AN IMAGE OF A BATTERY MODULE THAT WENT TO A THERMAL RUNAWAY. THERE IS ALSO AN IMAGE OF THE AFTERMATH. 46 CFR, SUBCHAPTER T, SUBCHAPTER J , FOR THOSE INTENDING TO DESIGN K VESSELS FOR THESE LITHIUM-ION BATTERIES, IS A VERY CLOSE TO T. I WILL TALK ABOUT T AND J HERE. THOSE REGULATIONS DID NOT ENVISION LITHIUM IRON TECHNOLOGY. WE ARE USING THE EQUIVALENCY PROCESS, 46 CFR , 175 BY 40. WHAT THAT BASICALLY SAYS IS THE MARINE SAFETY CENTER WILL REVIEW A PLAN AND WE CAN APPROVE IT IF IT MEETS THE EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY . IN THE PROCESS OF SUBMITTING A PLAN AND DESIGN FOR REVIEW, ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS WE WANT TO MAKE SURE -- YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU DO IS SUBMIT AN ELECTRICAL ONE-LINE DIAGRAM THAT BASICALLY DETAILS THE POWER DISTORTION SYSTEM, AND THEN YOU WANT TO SUBMIT A LOAD ANALYSIS. WE HAVE FOLKS WHO SUBMITTED -- OH, HEY, WE WANT TO PUT THESE BATTERIES ON OUR VESSEL. IT TOLD US ABOUT THE IDEA BUT THEY HAVE NOT SHOWN AS THE DETAILS OF THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. REMEMBER THAT THE BATTERY SYSTEM IS A VERY IMPORTANT PIECE OF THAT SO WE CANNOT REVIEW JUST THE BATTERY SYSTEM WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM. THE PLAN REVIEW GUIDES CAN BE FOUND. FOR SMALL VESSELS, THOSE ARE SUBCHAPTER T AND K. THE PLAN REVIEW GUIDES ARE E22 -23, FOR VESSELS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH SUBCHAPTER J, PLEASE REFER TO THE PLAN REVIEW GUIDE E2-07. ALL RIGHT. THE BATTERY INSTALLATION IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT ON SUBCHAPTER T VESSELS FROM WHAT WE ARE USED TO. SO WHAT DOES THAT ENTAIL? THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT VESSEL TYPES THAT WE SEE. NOT ALL OF THOSE FIT THE SAME OLD, PER SE. THERE ARE OPEN DECK VESSELS WHICH PROVIDE CHALLENGES THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM VESSELS THAT ARE LARGER AND MAY NOT HAVE AS MANY CHALLENGES WITH PROVIDING BATTERY COMPARTMENT. WHAT DO WE WANT TO SEE FROM YOU IN ORDER TO CONVEY WHAT YOUR INSTALLATION LOOKS LIKE? WE WANT TO SEE A GENERAL ARRANGEMENT  WEAR THE BATTERIES LOCATED -- WHERE ARE THE BATTERIES LOCATED AND WHAT KIND OF COMPARTMENT IS IT IN. WE WANT TO KNOW THAT BECAUSE WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION STRATEGY IS THERE. WE WANT TO KNOW, YOU KNOW, ARE THE BATTERIES LOCATED UNDERNEATH THE PASSENGER SPACE . ONE OF THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH WHERE THE BATTERIES ARE. WE EVALUATE THAT ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. WE TALKED ABOUT GENERAL ARRANGEMENT. FOR PREVENTION AND MITIGATION, WE MAY BE LOOKING AT, DEPENDING ON YOUR DESIGN, SOME SORT OF FIRE DETECTION, FIXED FIREFIGHTING SYSTEM. TRADITIONALLY ON SMALL PASSENGER VESSELS WE DON'T SEE FIRE DETECTION, WE DON'T SEE LARGE FIXED FIREFIGHTING SYSTEMS. WE SEE PRE-ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, IF THAT IS EVEN REQUIRED. THESE ARE SOME THINGS TO CONSIDER. THE NEXT THING, MANAGEMENT OF ATMOSPHERE. TRADITIONALLY, UNLESS YOU HAVE A BATTERY COMPARTMENT, YOU ARE NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRED TO HAVE FORCED VENTILATION SYSTEM -- FAN COMMUNAL LUCK, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. WITH LITHIUM-ION BATTERIES, WE MAY CONSIDER THAT AS A NECESSITY BASED ON WHAT THE DESIGN IS. ONCE AGAIN, THAT IS ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. THAT IS NOT ALL-INCLUSIVE. ONE THING TO REALLY TAKE NOTE OF , AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT -- SUBCHAPTER T AND K VESSELS, FOR VESSELS USING ELECTRIC COMPULSION -- ELECTRIC PROPULSION, PERIODIC SAFETY TEST PROCEDURE MUST BE SUBMITTED. I THINK THAT IS ONE PLACE THAT PEOPLE NEED -- THAT IS ONE POINT WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF BECAUSE THIS IS VERY UNTRADITIONAL FOR SMALL-PASSENGER VESSELS. A QUALITATIVE FAILURE ANALYSIS WILL IDENTIFY WHAT THE FAILURE MODES OF YOUR SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ARE, WHAT YOUR SPECIFIC PROPULSION SYSTEM IS, AND THE DESIGN VERIFICATION TEST PROCEDURE GOES ON AND SHOWS HOW YOU PLAN TO MITIGATE THOSE FAILURES. AND THE PERIODIC SAFETY TEST PROCEDURES SIMILAR TO WHAT THAT THE SAFETY TEST PROCEDURE IS DONE ON MORE OF A PERIODIC TURNAROUND OF THEM AT COMMISSIONING. AND FOR MORE GUIDANCE ON THAT, PLEASE REFER TO THE TECHNICAL NOTE 02-11. THAT MARINE SAFETY CENTER TECHNICAL NOTE WILL SPEAK ABOUT DYNAMIC POSITIONING SYSTEMS AND AUTOMATION. PLEASE DISREGARD THE DYNAMIC POSITIONING SYSTEM PORTION. THE NEXT THING THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER IS A MAINTENANCE PLAN. WHAT IS THIS GOING TO REQUIRE? THIS IS GOING TO REQUIRE A LOT OF COMMUNICATION WITH YOU AS THE OWNER OPERATOR, VESSEL DESIGNER, BUILDER. THAT COMMUNICATION HAS TO OCCUR IN ORDER TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE VESSEL SPECIFICS OF -- THE VESSEL-SPECIFIC HAZARDS AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS OF YOUR SYSTEM. WE HAVE FOLKS WHO HAVE SUBMITTED THE MANUFACTURER -- THE MANUFACTURERS AREN'T DESIGNING TO A VESSEL-SPECIFIC SCENARIO. THEY ARE DESIGNING TO A SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT DOESN'T ALWAYS FIT A VESSEL-SPECIFIC SCENARIO. THE NEXT THING WE NEED TO CONSIDER IS THE BATTERY MODULES. AS YOU ARE SEEING IN SOME OF THE PRESENTATIONS, YESTERDAY THERE WAS A PRESENTATION WITH SOME OF OUR COMMENTS IN THE LETTERS WE'RE FOR IT. IT TALKS ABOUT MONITORING THE CELL TEMPERATURE -- UNDERVOLTAGE, OVERVOLTAGE, THOSE DIFFERENT THINGS. THAT ALL IS RELATED TO THE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. FOR ALL ELECTRIC VESSELS FROM A VERY IMPORTANT NOTE HERE. SUBCHAPTER T REQUIRES YOU TO HAVE 2 SOURCES OF POWER AND FOR AN ALL-ELECTRIC VESSEL, USING LITHIUM-ION BATTERIES, WE HAVE CONSIDERED -- ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, BUT AS YOU HAVE SEEN IN ONE OF THE COMMENTS, THERE WAS A COMMENT THAT TALKED ABOUT BASICALLY HAVING 2 SEPARATE BATTERY TYPES TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS ALSO A NEW THING, BUT SOMETHING THAT WE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT BASED ON THE INTENT OF 183-310. 

>> ALL RIGHT, SO, MANY OF YOU ARE WONDERING WHERE WE GO FROM HERE. THE COAST GUARD HAS BEEN CHALLENGED HERE BECAUSE OUR POLICIES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING LITHIUM-ION RANGE SUCH A WIDE BREADTH OF VESSELS WE HAVE TO BE THINKING ABOUT EVERYTHING FROM A 20-FOOT CAROLINA SKIFF OF THE GUY TOOK THE SECOND MORTGAGE OUT ON HIS HOUSE TO AFFORD, AND KNOW HE WANTS TO PUT A LITHIUM-ION OUTBOARD ON THE BACK OF IT. AND WE HAVE DEEP-DRAFT VESSELS, OFFSHORE SUPPLY VESSELS, THAT ARE GOING TO BE COMING HERE IN THE FUTURE VERY SOON. THIS IS A CHALLENGE. IN THE SHORT TERM, OUR GOAL IS TO NOT INHIBIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS TECHNOLOGY. WE WANT TO WORK WITH INDUSTRY TO ALLOW IT. THE WAY WE ARE DOING AND THAT IN THE SHORT TERM IS THROUGH THE EQUIVALENCY PROCESS. THIS PROCESS ALLOWS FOR A GREAT DEAL OF INNOVATION BECAUSE IT IS REALLY THE BUILDERS, DESIGNERS, INTEGRATORS, AND OWNERS PRESENTING TO US THEIR SOLUTION, HOW THEY SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS. WE VOICE OUR CONCERNS, AND THEN IT IS YOUR JOB TO TELL US HOW YOU ARE GOING TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS. IT IS VERY OPEN AND ALLOWS FOR A GREAT DEAL OF INNOVATION. BUT THERE IS A VERY SIGNIFICANT ENGINEERING BURDEN TO THE PROCESS THAT THE SMALLER OPERATORS MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD, ESPECIALLY WITHOUT ANY GOVERNMENT GRANTS FOR THAT SORT OF THING. HOW DO WE GET TO A POINT WHERE WE ARE READY TO PUBLISH A POLICY LETTER THAT WOULD THEN OPEN THE DOOR FOR SOME OF THE SMALLER OPERATORS TO SAY , WE ARE GOING TO MEET THESE CONCERNS BY FOLLOWING THE COAST GUARD POLICY LETTER THAT ADDRESSES LITHIUM-ION INSTALLATIONS. WE HAVE HAD A POLICY LETTER DRAFTED FOR A LONG TIME, BUT EVERY TIME CLASS ASSOCIATION COMES OUT WITH A NEW RECOMMENDED PRACTICE, OR THERE IS A NEW ACADEMIC PLAYER THAT HIGHLIGHTS A NEW METHOD FOR FIREFIGHTING, WE GO BACK AND LOOK AT OUR POLICY LETTER AND SAY, WELL, WE DIDN'T THINK ABOUT THIS, LET'S MAKE SOME CHANGES. THAT IS WHY WE HAVEN'T PUBLISHED ANYTHING YET. THE STATE OF THE INDUSTRY IS GETTING CLOSE TO A POINT WHERE THERE WAS A PRETTY GOOD CONSENSUS ON IDENTIFYING ONE METHOD FOR SATISFYING ALL THESE SAFETY CONCERNS. HE DOESN'T CLOSE THE DOOR -- IT DOESN'T CLOSE THE DOOR ON THERE BEING OTHER INNOVATIVE OFFICE TO APPROVE THOSE PLANS, BUT PUTTING OUT A POLICY LETTER, WHAT WE ARE DOING IS SAYING THIS IS ONE ACCEPTABLE METHOD FOR SATISFYING THESE SAFETY CONCERNS. THAT IS GOING TO BE OUR MEDIUM-TERM SOLUTION. I THINK WE ARE GETTING PRETTY CLOSE TO THAT, THE STATE OF THE INDUSTRY AND THE TECHNOLOGY, THE CONSENSUS STANDARDS THAT ARE COMING OUT. WE ARE ALL HIGHLIGHTING THE SAME SAFETY CONCERNS AND THERE IS A LOT OF REPETITION WITH THE WAY WE ARE ADDRESSING THOSE CONCERNS APPEARED FROM THE COAST GUARD'S POINT OF VIEW, THE ULTIMATE GOAL IS THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT CAN WE ARE GETTING CLOSE TO THAT POINT. THE LONG-TERM WILL BE THE REGULATORY UPDATE, BECAUSE AS SOON AS WE GET INTO THESE REGULATIONS, YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY DON'T ADAPT WELL TO LITHIUM-ION AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO ADAPT WELL TO WHATEVER THE NEXT THING IS. THE GOAL WITH THAT READERS WERE UPDATE WILL BE TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE THOSE REGULATIONS ADAPTABLE TO CHANGING TECHNOLOGIES. THAT IS GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE, AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE THERE FOR IT, PROBABLY NOT WHILE I AM AT HEADQUARTERS. WE ARE GOING TO PUSH IT OFF TO THE NEXT GUY. WHAT I DO WANT TO STRESS IS OUR GOAL IS VERY MUCH TO ENABLE THIS TECHNOLOGY, BUT ULTIMATELY WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC, ESPECIALLY ON THE PASSENGER VESSELS. WE WANT OUR PROCESS TO BE TRANSPARENT, AND IT DOESN'T HELP ANYBODY OUT WHEN WE GET INTO BAD SITUATIONS WHERE CONSTRUCTION HAS STARTED ON A VESSEL AND NOW THE COAST GUARD IS SAYING THIS IS GOING TO WORK. ENGAGE WITH THIS EARLY. WE HAVE AN OPEN LINE OF COMMUNICATION. THAT IS ALL WE HAVE FOR TODAY, AND WE WILL OPEN IT UP TO ALL YOUR QUESTIONS, AND WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO GET INTO MORE SPECIFICS BASED ON YOUR QUESTIONS. [APPLAUSE] 

>> WE OPEN IT UP FOR OUR QUESTION AND ANSWERS. 

>> LINE MIGHT BE UP -- MINE MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT IN THE WEEDS  YOU SET FOR SUBCHAPTER T AND K, LINE MIGHT BE UP -- REFERRED TO J FOR BATTERY INSTALLATION. DO YOU REFER TO J FOR ALL THE ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS AS WELL, KICK EVERYTHING OVER TO J, OR JUST A PROPULSION SYSTEM? OR DOES IT MAKE MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE? 

>> THAT IS AN ANSWER THAT -- LIKE KEVIN WAS SAYING EARLIER, WE CAN'T TAKE EVERY REGULATION AND TRY TO LINE BY LINE MAKE IT ADAPT TO THE SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGY . ONE THING TO CONSIDER IS YOUR PROTECTION SCHEME. IN SUBCHAPTER T, TRADITIONALLY, SOME OF THE APPROVAL RATINGS ON CIRCUIT BREAKERS ARE SOME OF THE SECONDARY BREAKERS, AND THE REQUIREMENT IS A LITTLE LESS STRINGENT. HOWEVER, WITH THE USE OF ELECTRICAL PROPULSION, WE NEED TO BE A LITTLE MORE STRINGENT . 

>> THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. I HAD A QUICK QUESTION -- YOU ARE REFERRING TO USING THE TERM "NOVEL DESIGN ." IS THAT ANYTHING WITH THE LITHIUM-ION BATTERY? 

>> I WILL TAKE A STAB AT IT. THAT IS AN EVOLVING THING. 5 YEARS AGO , ANYTHING WITH A LITHIUM-ION BATTERY WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED A NOVEL DESIGN. WE ARE GETTING TO THE POINT WHERE -- TO BACKUP, NOVEL DESIGN ISN'T A TECHNICAL TERM IN THE CFR. IT IS OPEN TO INTERPRETATION OF THE COMMANDING OFFICER AND THE COMMANDANT FOR POLICIES. ULTIMATELY, THEY ARE THE ONES THAT MAKE THE DECISION . THE DESIGN FALLS INTO THE CURRENT REGULATION, THAT IS ONE OPTION. OR THAT IS -- IT WOULD FALL UNDER AN EQUIVALENCY PROCESS THROUGH THE MARINE SAFETY CENTER. THE THIRD THING IS FOR THE NOVEL DESIGNS THAT ARE GENERALLY OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE REGULATION AND THE EQUIVALENCY DOESN'T WORK VERY WELL, THEN WE LOOK AT THESE AS NOVEL AND WE FIND SOME KIND OF ALTERNATIVE MEANS FOR SHOWING IT MEETS THE EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY. SOMETIMES WHAT THAT CAN MEAN IS IDENTIFYING OTHER STANDARDS THAT WOULD APPLY. AND THEN WE CAN WORK WITH THE DESIGNERS TO SAY THIS DOESN'T COME CLOSE TO MATCHING UP WITH THE CFR OR ANY POLICIES, FOR THERE IS THESE STANDARDS THAT OTHER COUNTRIES OR CLASS ASSOCIATIONS HAVE MATCHUP PRETTY WELL. SO CAN WE FOLLOW THOSE INSTEAD OF THE SIX CFR? -- INSTEAD OF 46 CFR? AND WE MAKE THE DETERMINATION OF THAT. SPECIFICALLY WITH LITHIUM-ION, AS WE LEARN MORE ABOUT THE TECHNOLOGIES IN THE STATE OF THE INDUSTRY AND THE CONSENSUS STANDARDS OUT THERE THOSE IMPROVE, BECOMING LESS NOVEL, AND ULTIMATELY, IT WILL BECOME LIKE A PLAN REVIEW PROCESS LIKE ANY OTHER VESSEL. 

>> IF YOU CAN SHOW EQUIVALENCY, IT DOESN'T FALL UNDER THE NOVEL DEFINITION? DON'T WANT TO HOLD YOU TO IT. 

>> RIGHT, SO, THE EQUIVALENCY PROCESS WOULD BE FOR VESSELS THAT DON'T -- THEIR SYSTEMS DON'T MATCH THE WAY THE CFR IS WRITTEN. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, A LITHIUM-ION, OR DIRECTOR VESSEL, THAT WOULD BE WITHOUT ANYTHING ELSE THAT IS UNUSUAL, AND EQUIVALENCY PROCESS . A VESSEL THAT USES FLOW BATTERIES -- FLOW BATTERIES OR HAS A COMBINATION OF DIFFERENT NEW TECHNOLOGIES, AND THEY ARE ALL WORKING TOGETHER, AND WITH THE POWER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM THAT SHARES LOADS AND DOES FANCY STUFF LIKE THAT, IT WOULD BE HARDER TO DO AND EQUIVALENCY FOR THAT. WE WOULD LOOK AT THAT MORE AS A NOVEL DESIGN. THE PROCESS FOR THAT WOULD FINALIZE WITH THE DESIGN BASES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ENG OFFICE AND THE DESIGNER, SAYING THAT THIS DESIGN CAN FOLLOW THESE OTHER STANDARDS AS A WAY OF SHOWING AN EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY. 

>> CAN I ASK ANOTHER? THANK YOU. SO I HAD THE PLEASURE OF GOING FOR THE DESIGN VERIFICATION TEST PROCEDURE, P ERIODIC SAFETY TEST PROCEDURE FOR CONTROLS. WE UPGRADED FROM PNEUMATIC TO ELECTRONIC. IT WAS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. ACTUALLY, I COMPLETELY REFURBISHED THE VESSEL. THIS WAS THE MOST ETHICAL THING TO DO -- DIFFICULT THING TO DO. INSPECTORS, WHEN I GAVE THEM THE DESIGN, THEY WERE AT A LOSS. I WENT TO FIND ANOTHER OPERATOR THAT HAVE THE BENEFIT AND I COULD NOT FIND ANY -- WELL, I FOUND ONE, BUT IT WAS DIFFICULT TO FIND A MODEL FOR THIS. IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THE COAST GUARD -- NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE TECHNICAL NOTES COULD JUST AS A REQUEST, IF THERE IS A DESIGN OR PREFERRED MODEL OF THE COAST GUARD -- I WOULD REACH OUT TO THE PDA AND MAYBE IT WOULD HELP BUILDING MODELS FOR THINGS LIKE THAT. THANK YOU. 

>> MORE OF A 30,000-FOOT LEVEL, AGAIN. AS YOU ARE WORKING TO YOUR SHORT, MEDIUM, AND LONG-TERM GOALS TO GET TO REGULATION CHANGE, WHAT WOULD YOU SAY YOU NEED FROM INDUSTRY OR THE CLASS SOCIETIES TO HELP ALONG THAT PROCESS? 

>> YEAH, THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION, THANKS. AND IT IS AN EASY ANSWER. CONSENSUS STANDARDS. CLASS-RECOMMENDED PRACTICES -- IF ALL OF THOSE ARE SAYING THE SAME THING, IT IS EASY FOR US. WE WILL EITHER MATCH WHAT THEY ARE SAYING OR A LOT OF TIMES WE WILL INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE THE THIRD-PARTY STANDARDS. THAT MAKES IT EASY. 

>> JUST WONDERING WHERE YOU GUYS ARE LEANING IN TERMS OF -- WITH TRADITIONAL LEAD ACID BATTERIES, THE ENTIRE BATTERY ROOM GETS CATEGORIZED, CLASS ONE DIVISION ONE, AND ANYTHING HAS TO BE INTRINSICALLY SAFE. THAT MAKES SENSE BECAUSE HYDROGEN GAS, THE LIKELIHOOD IS VERY HIGH IF YOU OVERCHARGE THE BATTERIES. THAT REQUIREMENT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THERE. WE HAVE BEEN GETTING A LOT OF QUESTIONS WITH THE SAME LINE OF THOUGHT APPLIED TO THE BATTERY ROOM OR JUST A ROOM -- A BANK OF LITHIUM-ION BATTERIES IS INSTALLED, THE PUSHBACK IS THAT THEY DON'T NORMALLY RELEASE ANY GAS. CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, BUT UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS, THERE IS NO RISK OF THE HAZARDOUS GAS IT WOULD ONLY BE IF THERE IS A THERMAL RUNAWAY, WHICH IS NOT NORMAL. YOU COULD TAKE THE APPROACH THAT, WELL, SINCE COMBUSTIBLE GAS IS NOT NORMALLY PRESENT, CAN WE CONSIDER IT A SAFE AREA OR CLASS ONE, SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE YET GO -- SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE? I'VE NOT BEEN ABLE -- EVERYBODY IS BEING OVERLY CONCERNED AS SAYING LET'S JUST MAKE IT CLASS ONE, PROVED TO ME WHY IT SHOULDN'T BE. IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER -- I WRITE RULES ALL THE TIME, SO IF YOU GUYS ARE STILL WORKING ON THAT, THAT'S FINE, TOO. 

>> THE SHORT ANSWER IS WE DON'T HAVE A SOLID ANSWER FOR THAT. LIKE YOU SAID, THE EASIEST THING IS TO GO TO THE MOST PRUDENT REQUIREMENTS AND CLASSIFY THEM ALL AS LARGE, AND THEN YOU GET INTO THE INTRINSICALLY SAFE AND ALL THAT. WE ARE WORKING OUT THAT ISSUE. I THINK OUR -- AS FAR AS WHAT WE ARE LEANING TOWARDS, HARD TO SAY , BECAUSE OF THE RANGE OF DIFFERENT VESSELS WE ARE LOOKING AT. ONE THING WE NEED TO DO IS CHANGE THE WAY WE DEFINE MEDIUM AND SMALL BATTERY INSTALLATIONS. THE CFR NOW IS BASED ON CHARGING CURRENT, WHICH MADE SENSE FOR HYDROGEN BUT NO SENSE FOR LITHIUM-ION. WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THAT ONE. MAYBE WE DO IT BASED ON THE ENERGY CAPACITY OF THE BATTERY OR MAYBE THE FIRE LOAD, IF THERE WERE A THERMAL RUNAWAY. THOSE ARE 2 THINGS WE ARE WORKING OUT. AND THEN IN THE MEANTIME LOAD, OUR TENDENCY WOULD BE TO GO TO THE MOST PRUDENT STANDARD AND LEAVE IT UP TO THE DESIGNER TO PROVE OTHERWISE THAT THE INSTALLATION IS SAFER. 

>> ANYMORE QUESTIONS? 

>> I HAVE 2 QUESTIONS. ONE IS, AT WHAT POINT DO THESE DESIGNS HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED, OR DO WE NEED TO SUBMIT IT TO THE CAPTAIN? 

>> I WILL TAKE THAT QUESTION. YOU ARE RIGHT ABOUT THE DESIGNS NEEDING TO BE SUBMITTED. I WILL TAKE THATIN THE INITIAL STAGES OF THE DESIGN, GENERALLY THE DESIGNER AND OWNER OPERATOR WOULD CONTACT A LOCAL REINSPECTION -- OFFICER IN CHARGE OF MARINE INSPECTION . THEY WILL NOTIFY THEM OF SPECIFIC PLANS, AND THEN THE OFFICER IN CHARGE WILL DIRECT THEM TO SUBMIT TO THE MARINE SAFETY CENTER. THAT IS HOW WE WORK, WE ASSIST THAT LOCAL OCMI BY CONNECTING PLAN REVIEW. ULTIMATELY, THE OCMI HAS THE FINAL AUTHORITY ON APPROVAL OF SUCH PLANS. WE JUST SAY, HEY, THEY HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THE MARINE SAFETY CENTER, THEY ARE APPROVED, AND IT IS UP TO THEM TO ISSUE THE COI BASED ON THE APPROVAL. THEY CAN AGREE WITH US, DISAGREE WITH US, BUT THE ULTIMATELY RESTS ON THE. 

>> THANKS. THE OTHER QUESTION, IF YOU KNOW WHAT STANDARDS IN THE LITHIUM-ION BATTERIES? 

>> THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION AND MAYBE OTHER PEOPLE IN THE ROOM WOULD KNOW BETTER THAN I. WE HAVE VOICED CONCERN ABOUT LITHIUM-ION BATTERIES. I KNOW THE LAST 2 YEARS THROUGH THE MARITIME SAFETY COMMITTEE , BUT I DON'T KNOW OF MUCH ACTION GOING ON THERE. EACH TIME THE MARITIME SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETS, THE COAST GUARD PROVIDES -- I FORGET WHAT THEY CALL THE DOCUMENT, BUT IT IS LIKE THE TOP 10 CONCERNS, AND LITHIUM-ION HAS BEEN ON THERE FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS NOW. BUT SHORT OF THAT, I DON'T KNOW OF ANY WORKING GROUPS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. 

>> OK. OTHER QUESTIONS? 

>>. THANKS. IT WAS A GOOD PRESENTATION. I APPRECIATE IT. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS DIFFICULT TO GET MY MIND AROUND IS WHAT IS AN APPROPRIATE TYPE OF FIRE PROTECTION, FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM? I HAVE HEARD THE USE OF WATER, BUT MAYBE THE USE OF WATER ALONG WITH SOME SORT OF FIREFIGHTING AGENT, ALONG WITH ALL THESE SAFETY MEASURES, BUT IT HASN'T BEEN CLEAR TO ME WHAT THE FIRE PROTECTION -- I MEAN , IT IS REALLY DIFFICULT AS A DESIGNER WHEN YOU CAN'T GET CLEAR ANSWERS , BECAUSE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE HAS A SIGNIFICANT DESIGN IMPACT, EVEN AT THE FEASIBILITY LEVEL. WATER-BASED SYSTEM, SUBCHAPTER T , WATER SPRAY SYSTEM, SUBCHAPTER T VESSEL, WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT BURDEN. FRANKLY, HAVING A FIXED FIREFIGHTING SYSTEM ON THE VESSEL WOULD BE CERTAINLY DOABLE . MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE HYBRID VESSELS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED ARE USING SOMETHING LIKE THE PROTECTION SYSTEM, BUT ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT ? WHAT A PROJECT DESIGNERS SHOULD TAKE OTHER THAN THE USUAL PLANS AND LETTING US USE THE ANSWER, OR HOW DO YOU GUYS LOOK AT IT, WOULD BE HELPFUL. 

>> I WILL TAKE THAT QUESTION AND SPEAK FROM MY EXPERIENCE. ONCE AGAIN, IT IS A CASE-BY-CASE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION. WE DEAL WITH THE OPEN DECK PONTOON BOATS TO SOMETHING THAT IS A LITTLE LARGER AND HAS MORE QUITMAN, WHAT HAVE YOU. -- MORE EQUIPMENT, WHAT HAVE YOU. SOME OF THE THINGS WE HAVE GIVEN AS GUIDANCE IS TO ENSURE THAT THE FIREFIGHTING AGENT MATCHES THE BATTERY CHEMISTRY. WHAT WE DO TO VERIFY THAT IS TO LOOK AT THE SAFETY DATA SHEET. IF IT SAYS USE SUCH AND SUCH FIREFIGHTING AGENT, THAT IS KIND OF WHAT WE GO WITH. AND SO WE HEAR YOU ON THE FIXED FIREFIGHTING SYSTEM BEING OVERBURDENED SOME, BUT THAT IS A CASE-BY-CASE ANSWER. 

>> AND IT IS EVOLVING, TOO, AS THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE RESEARCH EVOLVES. OUR ANSWER FIVE YEARS AGO IS PROBABLY DIFFERENT FROM OUR ANSWER TODAY AND MAYBE ANOTHER YEAR FROM NOW WE WILL HAVE A BETTER ANSWER. 

>> [INDISCERNIBLE] 

>> IT MIGHT BE A GOOD PLACE TO START, BUT LOOKING AT WHAT YOU DID BEFORE AND LOOKING AT WHAT RESEARCH HAS COME OUT SINCE THEN TO INFORM THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SAME THINGS. WE DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO DO THE RESEARCH OURSELVES. WE LOOK AT THE OTHER ACADEMIC AND INDUSTRY RESEARCH. 

>> OK, I THINK WE NEED TO STOP. BIGHAND -- BIG HAND FOR THE 2 PRESENTERS. [APPLAUSE] AND I NOW TURN OVER TO MITCH FOR THE LAST GROUP DISCUSSION. 

>> WE HAVE 2 PARTS TO THIS. WE HAD YESTERDAY THE DISCUSSION OF THE COMMONALITY OF REGULATIONS. THIS FIRST SECTION OF OUR DISCUSSION IS REALLY ABOUT RELATIONS AND STANDARDS -- REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS AND HOW WE CAN DRIVE TO THAT LEVEL OF COMMONALITY. BEFORE YOU WENT HOME LAST NIGHT I ASKED EVERYONE TO THINK ABOUT THE WAYS TO IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS AND DECREASE THE COST AND THE CERTIFICATION TIME . WHAT I WANT YOU GUYS NOW TO DO IS TO SIT UNDER TABLES AND SHARE IDEAS ABOUT THAT. YOU HAVE 5 MINUTES TO DO SO. AND THEN WE WILL DISCUSS THEM. FOR -- OR I WILL ADD TO THAT -- IT WASN'T ON THE ORIGINAL LIST -- DRIVE COMMONALITY AMONG THE GROUPS. THERE IS THE EXISTING CLASS COLLABORATION. SUGGESTIONS AND IDEAS ON HOW TO DRAW THE COMMONALITY MORE QUICKLY, YOU CAN PRESENT THOSE AS WELL. FIVE MINUTES TO DISCUSS AMONGST YOUR TABLES. YOU CAN -- WE LOST SOME PEOPLE OVER LUNCH, SO YOU CAN CONSOLIDATE INTO GROUPS OF 546. -- 5 OR 6. ALL RIGHT, YOU GUYS CAN START WRAPPING UP YOUR DISCUSSIONS, AND WE WILL SHARE YOUR INPUT. WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO FIRST? I THINK BEN IS READY TO TALK. 

>> WE GOT STUCK. UNIFIED STANDARDS COLLABORATIVELY ARRIVED AT FROM THE DIFFERENT GROUPS. 

>> UNIFIED STANDARDS. 

>> THAT WOULD BE UNDER REDUCING CERTIFICATION. 

>> ANY IDEAS HOW YOU GET THERE? VERY DIVERSE PROCESS TODAY. 

>> SMALL ROOM. [LAUGHTER] 

>> WHAT YOU WANT TO -- [INDISCERNIBLE] 

>> [INDISCERNIBLE] THE COAST GUARD REPRESENTED SAYING IF WE GET STANDARDS OUT THERE, REGULATIONS AREN'T THERE TO ADDRESS THE NOVEL DESIGNS AND APPLICATIONS TO TECHNOLOGY. INDUSTRY COULD GET IN THERE AND DEVELOP ISSUES BEFORE THE REGULATIONS ARE DEVELOPED. ONCE THEY ARE DEVELOPED, THE COAST GUARD REFERENCE D -- INCLUDE THEM AS A REFERENCE IN THE REGULATION. 

>> THE COMMENT I HAD -- I THINK IT WAS A MINORITY VIEW -- MINORITY OF ME -- DON'T WAIT TO MAKE THE PERFECT REGULATION. YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE REGULATION THAT ALLOWS THE BOAT TO GET OUT THERE TO THE EXTENT THAT THE TESTING ALLOWS YOU NOW AND ALLOWS YOU TO GET EXPERIENCE WITH THE BOATS. AND MAYBE THE REGULATIONS ARE COMPLETELY SATISFACTORY, BUT MAYBE NOT. THERE ARE THINGS THAT COME UP YOU HAD NOT ANTICIPATED THAT ALLOWS YOU TO CHANGE REGULATIONS AND MODIFY THEM. THE AVIATION WENT THROUGH A PROCESS OF THE AIRCRAFT OUT THERE, LOTS OF MECHANICAL ISSUES . METICULOUSLY DOCUMENTED. YOU HAVE TO GIVE YOURSELF A CHANCE TO HAVE THE EXPERIENCE AND CANNOT WAIT FOR THE PERFECT REGULATION. BY WAITING TO HAVE THE PERFECT REGULATION, YOU ARE INHIBITING GAINING THE EXPERIENCE YOU NEED TO GET. THAT WAS MY PERSONAL VIEW OF IT. 

>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION -- IN TERMS OF THE STANDARDS, FOR THOSE YOU MORE INVOLVED THAN I AM, HOW DO YOU GET ALL THESE GROUPS TO SORT OF DRIVE TOWARDS THE COMMON -- I NOTICED FROM THE PRESENTATION THERE WAS -- THAT WAS A DIFFICULT CHALLENGE. 

>> HONESTLY, THEY DON'T . 

>> MY FIRST RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TAKING AN INVENTORY OF ALL THE STANDARDS THAT ARE OUT THERE , AND EVEN THE CLASS SOCIETY HAS INFORMATION OUT THERE. TAKE AN INVENTORY OF EVERYTHING THAT IS OUT THERE, CATALOG BUT WE HAVE AND WHAT IT APPLIES TO. WE DON'T WANT TO REINVENT BUT THEN START COLLABORATIVELY DEVELOPING STANDARDS. WHETHER IT IS OVERALL SYSTEM OPERATION AND SAFETY, OR THE MODULES, BATTERY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, DEVELOPED STANDARDS TO MEET THOSE GAPS, IT IS UP TO THE STANDARDS ORGANIZATION. THAT CAN BE MANAGED SOMEWHAT BY COAST GUARD AND OTHER SUPER PARTICIPATE IN DIFFERENT STANDARD ORGANIZATIONS. BOTTOM LINE, WE WANT TO PORTFOLIO STANDARDS FROM DIFFERENT STANDARDS ORGANIZATIONS THAT BEN COULD BE LEVERAGED IN THE REGULATIONS WHEN THEY ARE ULTIMATELY PRODUCED. INVENTORIES, EXISTING STANDARDS, AND THEN TRIED TO USE THE STANDARD DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS TO FILL IN THE GAPS FOR THE MANAGEMENT, TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE WELL COORDINATED. 

>> DO PEOPLE HAVE THE COMMON STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS? OR IS THAT JUST RIDICULOUS? 

>> NOT A WHOLE LOT, ALTHOUGH I KNOW WE HAVE MEMBERS PARTICIPATING IN BOTH. THERE IS COAST GUARD THAT PARTICIPATES, AND THE SAME WITH THE INDUSTRY FOLKS. I DON'T THINK AST M HAS INTERNATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE IS THE REPRESENTATIVE TO ISO. WE HAVE THAT LINK THERE, BUT NOT REALLY OFFICIAL COLLABORATIVE MEETINGS FOR THE WORKING GROUPS OR ORGANIZATIONS. THEN THERE IS A LOT -- 

>> AND THERE IS A LOT OF OVERLAP THAT RESULTS. 

>> RIDICULOUSLY INEFFICIENT PROCESS FROM THE INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING STANDPOINT. 

>> THE ONE THING I WANT TO SAY, TOO, JUST TO FRAME THE DISCUSSION OR PUT IT IN THERE, JUST FROM A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING -- FOR INSTANCE, ON A SHIP CAN WE HAVE A FIRE IN A ROOM, CLOSE ALL VENTILATION. YOU DON'T WANT TO SPREAD CO2. WHEN WE HAVE A BATTERY FIRE, WE WANT TO START VENTILATING. THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE FROM THE WAY WE DESIGN AND PROTECT VESSELS. AT THE VERY ONSET, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT STANDARDS -- YOU KNOW, FROM A PHILOSOPHICAL STANDPOINT, WHAT THE HELL? LIKE, HOW DO YOU ADDRESS THOSE KINDS OF THINGS? IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT. IT GETS BACK TO WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, TO -- YOU NEED TO ORDER 50 KILOWATTS, YOU BUY A 300-KILOWATT SET. IT IS REALLY A PHENOMENAL DIFFERENCE. IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY CONTRADICTORY IN SOME WAYS, THE SHIP PROTECTION SYSTEMS AND STANDARDS. AND I DON'T SAY THAT TO AUTOMATICALLY BE DEFENSIVE TO BEGIN WITH, BUT IN THINKING THROUGH THIS, THAT IS THE HEART OF A LOT OF IT. 

>> WOULD THAT BE AN ARGUMENT OF TRYING TO PUT THINGS THROUGH THE PROCESS, THE CURRENT OPEN-ENDED EQUIVALENCY TYPES COME TO GET THOSE OUT THERE TO HAVE A REFERENCE? 

>> I THINK THAT IS WHAT WE DID, REALISTICALLY, TOO. I HAVE SOME OTHER POINT I FORGOT. 

>> DID YOU GUYS HAVE ANOTHER IDEA? 

>> WE ACTUALLY WERE ALONG THE LINES OF THE FIRST ONE, LEVERAGING COMMERCIAL STANDARDS AND MAKING SURE THAT THERE IS SOME OVERLAP OR AGREEMENT. ONE OF THE CHALLENGES I MENTIONED EARLIER IS AS A VENUE RATE -- BATTERY MANUFACTURER, YOU NEED TO GET CERTIFICATION STANDARDS. 

>> I WILL COME OUT AND SAY IT MORE DIRECTLY, THE COMMERCIAL STANDARDS, YOU NEED TO HAVE EQUIVALENCY. A GREAT EXAMPLE IS THE IEC STANDARDS. THEY ARE ALMOST THE SAME, OR NOT, BUT FOR YEARS THAT USED TO ACCEPT THE STANDARD -- IN 2015 OR SOMETHING THEY STOPPED. 5% OF THE STANDARDS WERE DIFFERENT. FROM THE VENDORS PERSPECTIVE, IT HAS COST TO YOUR SYSTEMS. THAT IS ONE OF THE ISSUES WE ARE HIGHLIGHTING. THIS IS A WAY TO ADDRESS THAT. MAKE THEM MATCH THE OTHER GUYS. 

>> OUR GROUP RECOMMENDED THE PUBLISHING REQUIREMENTS. THE SECOND ITEM I WOULD RECOMMEND TO ANY VENDOR, MANUFACTURER, OR EVEN THE SYSTEM DESIGNER, YOU CAN ALWAYS GET THE APPROVAL WITH THE DIFFERENT CLASS SOCIETIES, AND THAT WAY, IF YOU HAVE THE APPROVAL OR PRODUCT DESIGN ASSESSMENT, THAT MAKES IT EASIER THE NEXT TIME YOU WANT TO SELL THE PRODUCT TO OUR CLASS VESSEL, WHETHER IT IS WITH US OR -- IF YOU GET THE APPROVAL, IT WILL MAKE IT MUCH EASIER TO SELL THAT THE NEXT TIME AROUND. THE OTHER OPTION IS WHAT WE CALL THE APPROVING PRINCIPLE. THAT IS MORE FOR A SYSTEM-LEVEL APPROVAL OR IF YOU HAVE HYBRID VESSEL DESIGN , WE DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR IT, YOU CAN PURSUE THE PRINCIPAL FOR ANY NOVEL CONCEPT. THE LAST THING IS TO CATEGORIZE -- ONE THING THAT WOULD HELP -- [INDISCERNIBLE] 

>> LATE ENTRY INTO THE CONVERSATION. IT CAME OUT IN HEARING THE COAST GUARD PRESENTATION, THE CHALLENGE THAT EXISTS BY HAVING ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT FRIDAYS OF VESSELS. ONE THOUGHT IS MAYBE WE COULD MAKE THIS GREAT BINS -- MAKING DISCREET -- DISCRETE BINS AND HAVING A DISCUSSION OF WHERE THE TRANSITIONS ARE. I KNOW THAT DNV HAD A THRESHOLD OF, I BELIEVE, 50 KILOWATT HOURS . THERE IS ONE THAT DOES EXIST. I'M NOT SAYING IT IS GOOD, BAD, OR OTHERWISE. BUT AT LEAST IT IS SOMETHING. BEGIN TO THINK ABOUT HOW TO DIVIDE THE PROBLEM. I THINK WE MIGHT SEE THAT ULTIMATELY, IF YOU MOVE TO THOSE BINS, YOU SAW THAT ALL SMALL SYSTEMS SHARED THE SAME TRAIT AND COULD BE SHARED THE SAME WAY FROM A PROTECTION POINT OF VIEW. I DID HAVE ONE OTHER POINT. I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH WHAT LENNY WAS SAYING IT WOULD GET STUFF OUT THERE. I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY FOR ANALYSIS PARALYSIS YEAR. IT WON'T BE THE FIRST TIME. DON'T KID YOURSELF THAT IT WILL BE RIGHT THE FIRST TIME TO GET STUFF OUT THERE. AS LONG AS YOU ARE MEETING CERTAIN BARRIERS, THERE CAN'T BE INHERENT SHORTCUTS IN SAFETY. OTHERWISE, GET STUFF OUT THERE AND WE WILL LEARN ALL KINDS OF GOOD STUFF. ONE OTHER THING -- ONE OTHER THING, IF YOU WILL ALLOW ME TO HAVING COLLECTED APPROVAL ON EMS SYSTEMS THE LAST FOUR YEARS, I WAS PRESENTLY SURPRISED -- PLEASANTLY SURPRISED THAT THE APPROVAL RULES WERE NICELY HARMONIZED. AND I DON'T KNOW WHO THE CREDIT FOR THAT GOES TO. BUT IT WAS ACTUALLY -- THERE WAS REAL POTENTIAL LANDMINE THERE, AND IT WAS NICELY AVOIDED. IT WAS NOT -- I STILL COULD HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THOSE THINGS, HONESTLY. THAT WAS A SUCCESS STORY. IT DOES EXIST. WE CAN GET THERE. 

>> HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THAT. U.S. AND THE OLDER MODEL TO THE NEWARK -- YOU WENT FROM THE OLDER MODEL TO THE NEWER MODEL. WAS HER A LOT YOU COULD LEVERAGE, OR DID YOU REPEAT THE ENTIRE EXERCISE? 

>> NO, THE SYSTEM WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE DRAWING BOARD. WHAT WE LEVERAGED WAS OUR KNOWLEDGE OF EXACTLY HOW TO STEP THROUGH THOSE. I WOULD SAY THAT FROM FOUR YEARS AGO, WHEN WE DID THE FIRST ONE, THE WHOLE PROCESS IS HAS BEEN STREAMLINED A LOT. WHEN I THINK BACK TO THE ORIGINAL TYPES OF APPROVAL, I GET THE NUMBERS WRONG A LITTLE BIT, BUT THIS WAS COVERING THE ENTIRE SYSTEM. FOR OUR SYSTEM WE HAD THE MODULES, AND AT THE TIME WE HAD THE MANAGER. THREE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS, ESSENTIALLY, MAKING UP THE SYSTEM. EACH OF THOSE APPROVALS BASICALLY INVOLVES SUBMITTING PROBABLY BETWEEN 100 AND 150 PDF DOCUMENTS, WHETHER THOSE BECAUSE PLANS, REPORTS ON THE TEST PLANS , RISK ASSESSMENT DOCUMENTS, EVERYTHING. NO SHORTAGE. I DO ENVISION GOING THROUGH IT NOW WITH WHAT WE KNOW, TAKING A BETTER APPROACH TO DOCUMENTATION AND MAKING IT MORE THOROUGH. WE KNOW FROM THE GET-GO WHAT WE ARE GOING TO NEED AND THAT HELPS US TO STREAMLINE AND AT THE SAME TIME, THE QUESTIONS BEING ASKED BY -- I WILL SAY DNV -- THEY HAVE ALSO STREAMLINED THE PROCESS. WE ARE ALL GETTING BETTER AT THIS. 

>> WE HAD -- I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAD ANYTHING NEW FROM WHAT WAS ALREADY SAID. WE THOUGHT THE APPROVAL WAS REALLY IMPORTANT, STREAMLINED THINGS, GOING WITH ESTABLISHED RULES. DID YOU WANT TO -- [INDISCERNIBLE] 

>> WE ENDED UP DISCUSSING FIRE EXTINCTION. -- FIRE EXTINCTION COULD I CAN TELL YOU ABOUT THE RULES FOR BATTERY INSTALLATIONS. WE STARTED BACK IN 2011 AND THERE WAS AN UPCOMING PROJECT AND WE INVITED BATTERY MANUFACTURERS TO HELP US IN MAKING THE RULES, OR TEACH US ABOUT BATTERIES, AND IN A WAY , WE ARE DOING IT THE SAME WAY THE U.S. COAST GUARD, BECAUSE WHEN WE PUBLISHED THE RULES IN 2012, WE CALLED IT TENTATIVE RULES. IT WAS MORE LIKE GUIDANCE. YOU HAVE TO MAKE IT SAFE, CONSIDER THIS AND THIS AND THAT. IT WAS NOT PRESCRIPTIVE RULES. AND THEN YOU HAVE SOME PROJECT DOING APPROVAL. I HAVE STRUGGLED FOR A YEAR WITH THE APPROVAL OF THIS SYSTEM, BUT LEARNING FROM THAT PROCESS HELPED US TO MAKE RULES BACK IN 2015, THE RULES WE USE TODAY. BUT THE TECHNOLOGY IS EVOLVING AND ALSO THE KNOWLEDGE IS GETTING BETTER AND BETTER FOR EACH DAY. STILL YOU HAVE TO MAKE A SAFETY CASE, IN ADDITION TO FULFILL THE PRESCRIPTIVE RULES. I THINK THAT HAS WORKED. MAYBE -- YET, I THINK A PROCESS IS CORRECT -- YEAH, I THINK YOUR PROCESS IS CORRECT. WE HAVE BEEN NEVER HEARD 

>> THEY'LL HAD A GREAT SUGGESTION. PERHAPS THERE IS PERFORMANCE-BASED REGULATION WHERE NOT NECESSARILY BE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS BUT YOU TELL US THE THERMAL RUN MY PROFILE FOR YOUR SYSTEM. WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM LOAD YOU EXPECT TO HAVE AN SHOW US THEY STILL EXTEND THAT TO THE TIMEFRAME AND ALL THE DEVILS OUT . ALL THAT YOU CAN TAKE AND ACHIEVE WITH YOUR SPECIFIC DESIGN. THERE MIGHT BE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT REQUIREMENT TO ACHIEVE THAT. ALSO REALLY QUICKLY ON THE VENTILATION, I WANT TO PUSH BACK ON THE IDEA LITTLE BIT THAT VESSELS AS THEY ARE DESIGNED NOW I JUST DESIGNED TO SHUT THE THEY ARE DESIGNED NOW I JUST DESIGNED TO SHUT THE VENTILATION AND KEEP ALL THE GASES IN. WHEN WE ENCOUNTERED REAL FIRES OR FIRE DRILLS, THE VESSEL IS NOT DESIGNED IN A WAY TO MANAGE THE FUMES. THERE SHOULD BE A FUNDAMENTAL COMPONENT OF THE VENTILATION SYSTEM, THE ABILITY TO GET THOSE OUT OF THERE. MAYBE THOSE IDEAS ARE NOT TOTALLY AT ODDS. 

>> THANKS FOR YOUR INPUT THERE. WE ARE REACHING THE END OF THE CONFERENCE SO MICHAEL WILL WRAP IT UP FOR US. 

>> LET ME SHOW YOU THE WEBSITE. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO LOOK FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE WORKSHOP OR ABOUT OTHER PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON. BASICALLY , VERY EASY. IF YOU LOOK ACROSS THE TOP BAR, QC ENVIRONMENT SAFETY -- UC DROPPED  -- YOU SEE ENVIRONMENT SAFETY, DROP-DOWN MENU. YOU WILL SEE ON THE DROP-DOWN MENU. THIS IS OUR WEBSITE, AND IT GOES THROUGH WHAT WE ARE DOING IN THE VARIOUS DIFFERENT AREAS. HAS LINKS EMBEDDED FOR ALL THE DIFFERENT REPORTS AND DOCUMENTS AND THE SITES THAT HAVE SOME OF THE RESULTS. SO JUST KIND OF AN CONCLUSION HERE, WE HAVE HEARD A LOT TODAY AND YESTERDAY ABOUT BATTERIES. WE HAVE A MUCH BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS OUT THERE. OBVIOUSLY, BATTERIES HAVE COME A LONG WAY FROM THE TIME WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE OPERATING IN AUTOMOBILES. A LOT HAS GONE ON WITH CONSIDERATIONS AND THINKING ABOUT SAFETY. FIRE HAZARDS. ON ONE HAND, I WOULD MAYBE THINK ABOUT, FROM WHAT I HEARD, 2 ISSUES WITH REGARD TO THE FIRE HAZARD. ONE IS PUTTING OUT THE FIRE. THERE IS IN FACT A FIRE FLAMING. THE SECOND IS HOW DO YOU KEEP THE RUNWAY FROM HAPPENING. THEY ARE REALLY, IN A WAY, ALMOST 2 DIFFERENT ISSUES. WE TALKED ABOUT WATER COOLING , KEEPING THE TEMPERATURE DOWN OR GETTING THE TEMPERATURE DOWN. THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY TAKE AWAY OR TAKE CARE OF THE FIRE PROBLEM. MAYBE IF WE KIND OF FOCUS ON THE IN THOSE 2 DISTINCT PARTS, THERE MAY BE SOMETHING TO DO. WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT VARIOUS APPLICATIONS, WHETHER IT IS IN THE HYBRID TECHNOLOGY LANDSIDE OR WHAT HAVE YOU. WE HEARD FROM THE INTEGRATORS ABOUT SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THAT THEY FACED IN TRYING TO INTEGRATE INTO VESSELS. THE ONE THING I KNOW FROM BEING IN THIS INDUSTRY FOR A WHILE IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS IS YOU DON'T HAVE COOKIE CUTTERS IN THIS INDUSTRY. YOU MAY HAVE A FEW AND YOU MAY HAVE A FEW THAT LOOK THE SAME BUT THEY DON'T NECESSARILY OPERATE UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS. WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT TODAY. I THINK THE LESSON LEARNED THAT I TAKE FROM THIS IS THERE HAS TO BE AN ONGOING DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE INTEGRATORS, THE MANUFACTURERS OF THE BATTERIES, AND THE VESSEL OWNERS AND OPERATORS. IF WE ALL KEEP IN THE STOVEPIPES WE ARE NEVER GOING TO COME UP WITH SOME THE ANSWERS TO SOME OF THE CHALLENGES. IF THE BATTERY MANUFACTURERS DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THEY OPERATE -- HOW YOU ARE GOING TO BE OPERATING THE BATTERIES, THEY CAN'T THINK ABOUT HOW THE BATTERIES SHOULD BE DESIGNED AND MANUFACTURED. INTEGRATORS, THEY NEED TO BE THERE AT THE TABLE TALKING ABOUT HOW DO I INTEGRATE THESE BATTERIES IN THE REST OF THE POWER SYSTEM. THIS IS NOT UNLIKE EVEN THINGS LIKE FUEL CELLS . HOW DO WE INTEGRATE FUEL CELLS INTO THESE SYSTEMS? IT IS NOT DIFFERENT THAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES LIKE FUELS, ALTERNATIVE FUELS. THEY WILL WORK FOR SOME OPERATIONS AND NOT FOR OTHER OPERATIONS DEPENDING ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. I HOPE OUT OF THE WORKSHOP, WE HAVE STARTED TO PUSH THAT DISCUSSION ALONG. I'M GLAD PEOPLE WERE HERE TO SHARE FROM DIFFERENT AREAS. I HOPE WE WILL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE THAT DISCUSSION GOING FORWARD. I'M GOING TO LET MITCH TALK ABOUT TWO THINGS IN TERMS OF FOLLOW-UP FROM THIS, BUT BEFORE I DO THAT, I WANT TO GIVE A SHOUT OUT TO SUN JIT FOR ALL THE WORK HE DID AND FOR TOM WHO HELPED SET THIS UP AND HAS AN DEALING WITH THE LIVE STREAM, AND OF COURSE, MITCH FOR ALL THE WORK HE DID. [APPLAUSE] I WAS GOING TO NOTE RIGID, TOO, BUT SHE SLIPPED OUT. REGINA WAS THE ONE WHO DID A LOT OF THE FACILITATING AND GETTING YOU ALL HERE, NAMETAGS AND ALL THAT STUFF. SO THANK HER, TOO. 

>> [APPLAUSE] -- 

>> [INAUDIBLE] 

MICHAEL: SURE. FIRST OF ALL, ONE OF THE THINGS WE DO WITH THE SHIPYARD -- WE HAVE SMALL SHIPYARD GRANTS. I WAS TALKING TO SOMEONE YESTERDAY HERE ABOUT THOSE SHIPYARD GRANTS AND HOW THEY HAVE HELPED POSITION THERE SHIPYARD TO DEAL WITH THINGS SHIPYARD --LIKE THE HYBRIDS, SO THERE ARE THINGS THAT SHIPYARD GRANTS WERE ABLE TO DO. WE HAVE TITLE 11 LOAN GUARANTEED FINANCING . IT'S A MIXED BAG. MOST OF THE TIME, WE HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH BIG SHIPS AS OPPOSED TO SMALLER ONES, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE LOOKING AT IS IF WE CAN TAILOR THAT PROGRAM TO BE ABLE TO STREAMLINE IT FOR SMALLER OPERATIONS, SMALLER SHIPS. UNDER THE META-PROGRAM AND ONE OF THE REASONS WE HOSTED THIS WAS TO TRY TO GET SOME SENSE FOR WHERE WE COULD BE HELPFUL IN TERMS OF THE R&D OR EVEN JUST KEEPING THE COMMUNICATION GOING, SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE REALLY HOSTED THIS WORKSHOP. I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE DO NOT HAVE -- UNLIKE FTA AND HIGHWAYS, A BIG FUND FOR FAIRY OPERATIONS, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY HOPE TO LINK AND BRING THAT TOGETHER FOLKS FROM FTA AND FEDERAL HIGHWAYS. THIS IS AN AREA FOR INNOVATION. ONE OF THE THINGS WE WANT TO DO IS SPUR INNOVATION IN MARITIME. WE HAVE NOT DONE THAT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAS BEEN VERY AUGUST ON LANDSIDE ASSETS AND LANDSIDE OPERATIONS. SOMEBODY NEEDS TO STAND UP AND SAY WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE WATERSIDE, TOO, BECAUSE IT IS A CRITICAL COMPONENT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE. THESE ARE THE REASONS WE ARE DOING THESE KINDS OF EVENTS, TO TRY TO GET THE DIALOGUE GOING. AGAIN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER QUICKLY TO MITCH, AND THEN, YOU GUYS, SAFE TRAVELS HOME. SAFE JUST GETTING FROM HERE TO YOUR CAR OR TO THE METRO SINCE IT IS A LITTLE CHILLY OUT. BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 

>> [INAUDIBLE] 

>> I WILL ESCORT ANYBODY ELSE THAT NEEDS IT. 

MITCH: FIRST OF ALL, WE NEED TO GIVE MICHAEL A ROUND OF APPLAUSE AND SUJIT. [APPLAUSE] WERE TALKING ABOUT TAKEAWAYS AND WHAT WE MIGHT TAKE FROM THE CONFERENCE AND WE HAVE KID OF IDEAS WE MIGHT SHARE, I WANT TO ASK SINCE IT IS AN OPEN FORUM, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU HAVE IN COMMON SINGLE REVIEW -- I THINK WE COVERED MOST OF THE THINGS ON THE TO DO LIST EXCEPT THE COST DRIVERS, AND WE DID HIT ALL THE GOALS YOU GUYS OUTLINED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING YESTERDAY, BUT IS THERE ANYTHING IN YOUR VARIOUS ROLES THAT YOU NEED AFTER YOU COME TO THIS CONFERENCE THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE THAT SOMEONE ELSE IN THIS ROOM MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP YOU TAKE WITH YOU OR GET AT A LATER DATE? ANY KIND OF INFORMATION? 

>> BATTERY RECYCLING AND LIFECYCLE AND ALL THAT WHILE WE STILL HAVE SOME BATTERY FOLKS IN THE ROOM. WHAT'S THE LONG-TERM IMPACT OF ALL OF THIS? 

>> THERE IS A ONE-DAY EVENT IN ANN ARBOR, AND THAT WAS THE ENTIRE TOPIC. THERE'S A LOT OF WORK TO BE DONE RIGHT NOW. THERE'S NO INFRASTRUCTURE FOR IT. ALL OF THE LIVING BATTERIES ARE RECYCLABLE, PHILOSOPHICALLY, BUT RIGHT NOW IN THE U.S., 95% TO 98%RIGHT NOW. THERE'S NO INFRASTRUCTURE FOR IT. OF ALL ß BATTERIES GOING TO THE RECYCLING THEN, SO INDUSTRY IS PUTTING STANDARDS IN PLACE. SAE IS WORKING ON MARKETING AND COLORATION SO YOU CAN MAKE SURE YOU DO NOT HAVE LITHIUM ION GOING INTO LEAD ASSET. IT'S ONE OR TWO COMPANIES OUT THERE WORKING ON IT. ONE OF THEM I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH, BUT I THINK THAT IS PROBABLY ANOTHER TWO-DATE EVENT, BUT IT IS THERE, BUT THE INDUSTRY HAS -- WE HAVE TO HAVE THE PRODUCT IN THE FIELD. IF YOU LOOK AT THE NISSAN LEAF AND THE CHEVY VOLT, THE FIRST TWO HIGH-VOLUME PRODUCTION VEHICLES IN THE U.S., BOTH LAUNCHED IN 2009, SO THEY HAVE NOT EVEN HIT THEIR FIRST END OF LIFE YET, SO YOU ARE NOT EVEN SEEING THOSE FIRST VEHICLE BATTERIES COME TO THE END-OF-LIFE YET. 

>> IF YOU GUYS HAVE MORE QUESTIONS PURSUANT TO RECYCLING, I WOULD SAY YOU CAN ALWAYS GRAB JOHN OR MYSELF OR BRIAN. 

>> THE ONE QUESTION I STILL HAVE IS I'M A LITTLE UNCLEAR OF THE EXPLOSIVE RISK. THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION YESTERDAY ABOUT GASSING UP AND THE BATTERY TECHNOLOGY HAS CHANGED AND THERE'S DIFFERENT SAFETY MEASURES, AND AS AN OPERATOR, I DON'T THINK I QUITE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE TRUE RISK IS . IT CAN BE DESIGNED OUT BUT STILL HAS TO BE CONSIDERED NOT A ZERO RISK. 

>> REALLY QUICKLY, WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS CORRECT. IT CAN BE DESIGNED OUT, BUT IT'S NOT ZERO RISK, BUT IT'S NOT NORMAL OPERATION. IT IS PART OF THE FAILURE PROCESS, SO IF A BATTERY IS BEING ABUSED, IT WILL GENERATE COMBUSTIBLE EXPLOSIVE GASES. MAYBE ANOTHER SIDE MEETING ON THE WAY TO THE AIRPORT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR MORE ON? I WOULD SAY WHAT DAVID PRESENTED AS MAY BE YOUR BEST REFERENCE FOR THAT. ANYTHING ELSE YOU WERE LOOKING FOR? ALL RIGHT. WE DO NOT THINK THERE'S A LOT OF NEED FOR A RECURRING WORKING GROUP , HOWEVER, THERE MIGHT BE SOME INTEREST IN SORT OF INFORMATION SHARING, SO IF YOU ARE ON AN INDUSTRY DISTRIBUTION LIST, THEN WE CAN TAKE YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION FROM THE CONFERENCE AND MAYBE HAVE QUARTERLY UPDATES , OR AS A NEW REGULATIONS ARE RELEASED THAT CAN GO OUT TO THAT GROUP. MIGHT NOT APPLY TO MOST OF YOU, BUT THE U.S. SMALL YACHT COUNCIL IS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STANDARDS PROCESS, AND I HAVE A STANDARDS REVIEW. YET ANOTHER PARALLEL PROCESS . THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT WAS THE ITEM WE TALKED THE LEAST ABOUT -- WELL, NOT THE LEAST ABOUT BUT I FELT LIKE WE DID NOT DO JUSTICE TO WAS COST STRUCTURE. WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT SAFETY. I THINK THERE IS GREAT WORK HAPPENING IN THE SAFETY SPACE. FRANKLY, THE COST SAVINGS ON THE BATTERIES, A LOT OF BASIC R&D WITH BIG BUDGETS FROM OTHER PEOPLE . MARKET DYNAMICS, WHICH ARE DRIVEN BY CARS AND GRIP STORAGE AND NOT BY BOTH, BUT THE REST OF THE SYSTEM COST I THINK IS A THING WE LEFT A LITTLE BIT UNADDRESSED. IF THERE'S AN INTEREST, IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS ABOUT THE AREAS OF THE COST VALUE CHAIN -- I KNOW WILL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT IN HIS PRESENTATION , WHERE MAYBE SOME RESEARCH OR INNOVATION ON A CERTAIN PART OF THE INNOVATION MIGHT DRIVE THE OVERALL IMPLEMENTATION DOWN, SO THIS IS REALLY KIND OF A QUESTION FOR THE GROUP. OR WHERE YOU FEEL LIKE YOU COULD LEARN IF SOMEBODY HAD SOME SORT OF COST MODEL. THERE IS A BIANNUAL REPORT THAT HAS ALSO ITS OF COST ESTIMATES FOR BATTERIES AND ELECTRONICS ACROSS THE SPECTRUM. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS YOU HAVE IS A TAKE AWAY? 

>> [INAUDIBLE] 

>> WILL CORRESPOND WITH THE GROUP THROUGH TASTY IN. THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA. -- THROUGH STM. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA. 

>> ANYTHING ELSE? 

>> I THINK DOE SPENDS A LOT OF TIME ON BATTERY RESEARCH. IF YOU HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS, YOU CAN APPROACH DOE. 

>> THE VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY OFFICE DOES A LOT OF WORK ON BATTERY TECHNOLOGY FUNDAMENTALS. I WOULD FIRST LOOK AT VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY OFFICE WORK. 

>> I THINK WHAT I MIGHT SAY IS I FEEL LIKE THE CAP ON THE COST SIDE THAT WE DID NOT ADDRESS IS NOT THE BATTERIES. YOU CAN GO OUT AND FIND A REPORT AND JUST GOOGLE THE COST OF THE BATTERY. WHAT WE DID NOT TALK ABOUT AND WHAT I THOUGHT WAS REMARKABLE IT CLEAR ON THE ONE PROJECT , $1.7 MILLION, THE BATTERY IS 5% THEY SHARED. THERE'S 95% OF THE BATTERY TO BE DISCUSSED. 45% WOULD BE PARITY. THAT'S THE PIECE THAT NEEDS TO BE PEELED BACK A BIT. IN GRID STORAGE, THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE ALL THE MONEY AND MAKES IT VERY EXPENSIVE ARE THE ENGINEERING SERVICES FIRMS WHO POUR THE CONCRETE, DRAW THE LINE, GO OUT THERE AND FIGURE OUT WHERE THE CABLES NEED TO GO IN THE GROUND, AND IT WAS IDENTIFIED THAT NEEDED TO BE COST REDUCED. SIMILAR TO THIS, WHO KNOWS WHAT THE LOW HANGING FRUIT IS, BUT THE BATTERY HAS BEEN FAIRLY WELL SQUEEZED . THERE'S LESS THINGS TO DO, BUT THE SOFT COSTS ARE THINGS THAT PROBABLY DESERVE SOME ATTENTION. 

>> ACTUALLY, WE DID NOT FORECAST TO MUCH ON ECONOMICS OF THE BATTERY. I THOUGHT THAT WAS A BIGGER PICTURE WE NEEDED TO HAVE MORE TIME TO DO. WE TRY TO FIT IN WITH THE TIME THAT WAS AVAILABLE. SO THAT IS A BIG QUESTION. HAVING SAID THAT, ANY FINAL THOUGHTS, FINAL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? I HOPE YOU ALL STAY BACK FOR THE NEXT MEETING. WE HAVE THE CHAIRMAN HERE. FLEX -- 

>> [CAPTIONING PERFORMED BY THE NATIONAL CAPTIONING INSTITUTE, -- 

>> [INAUDIBLE] 

>> HAPPY TO ESCORT YOU OUT. 

>> THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN, AND HAVE A SAFE FLIGHT THAT, WHOEVER IS FLYING. -- HAVE A SAFE FLIGHT BACK. [APPLAUSE]