Do all toilets require holding tanks.

[pskudlarski]

We are buying a beautiful HR in the Caribbean. One of two heads have it's holding tank removed to make space for AC. This seem to be a common solution in Caribbean. The law
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/159.7
seem to me quite ambiguous. I am not sure if I would be legal in US waters if I would simply wire the offending toilet outlet in closed position when entering coastal waters and use only the other one.

[Lodesman]

If you plan to flag the vessel as US, then it doesn't seem ambiguous:

(a) No person may operate any vessel equipped with installed toilet facilities unless it is equipped with:
(1) An operable Type II or III device that has a label on it under § 159.16 or that is certified under § 159.12 or § 159.12a; or
(2) An operable Type I device that has a label on it under § 159.16 or that is certified under § 159.12, if the vessel is 19.7 meters (65 feet) or less in length.

US law applies to US vessels everywhere, not just in the US.
Why not plumb this head to the remaining holding tank?

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

If you plan to flag the vessel as US, then it doesn't seem ambiguous:



US law applies to US vessels everywhere, not just in the US.
Why not plumb this head to the remaining holding tank?

You left out the part of the law which states that it’s OK to lock off the seacock of the toilet not is use.

And no... you won’t need a holding tank in most countries outside the US even if it’s a US flagged vessel. So, I’d just leave things as they are and lock the seacock to the toilet without a holding tank when in US waters.

[denverd0n]

What Kenomac said.


With the existing head and holding tank, you meet the requirements for U.S. waters. The other head just has to be locked/wired/secured/whatever so that you cannot use it when you are in waters that prohibit direct, overboard discharge.

[hpeer]

I have the exact same configuration. We lock it when needed. I’ve had several surveys, and the surveyor may not know boats but he knows all the leagalize. Not once have I been gigged for this arrangement.

[peghall]

US law applies to US vessels everywhere, not just in the US.

Sorry, not true. US law applies to ALL vessels regardless of national origin, but only while operating in the US. And all vessels, including US flagged, are required to obey the laws of each country in which they happen to be operating at the time.


Many vessels are plumbed to allow toilets to discharge directly overboard. US federal law 33 CFR 159.7 33 CFR 159.7 includes a list of acceptable means of securing the overboard discharge plumbing that would apply to all toilets on a boat whether connected to a holding tank or not.


--Peggie

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by peghall

US law applies to US vessels everywhere, not just in the US.

Sorry, not true. US law applies to ALL vessels regardless of national origin, but only while operating in the US. And all vessels, including US flagged, are required to obey the laws of each country in which they happen to be operating at the time.


Many vessels are plumbed to allow toilets to discharge directly overboard. US federal law 33 CFR 159.7 33 CFR 159.7 includes a list of acceptable means of securing the overboard discharge plumbing that would apply to all toilets on a boat whether connected to a holding tank or not.


--Peggie

That's not completely true either. There are several references in Title 46 Code of Federal Regulations that exempt foreign vessels temporarily visiting US waters from US requirements as long as they meet the requirements of their country of register.

[AKA-None]

Does wire tie include zip ties?

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

Does wire tie include zip ties?

I see you are in Minnesota ... In the Great Lakes under the Joint Commission, state and provincial laws require there be no physical connection between head/holding tank and any overboard discharge fitting. Locks or ties don't cut it. Incredibly, few water LEO's in US waters know this and I've never heard of a Canadian LEO knowing or ever checking.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by pskudlarski

We are buying a beautiful HR in the Caribbean. One of two heads have it's holding tank removed to make space for AC. This seem to be a common solution in Caribbean. The law
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/159.7
seem to me quite ambiguous. I am not sure if I would be legal in US waters if I would simply wire the offending toilet outlet in closed position when entering coastal waters and use only the other one.

I think you have it covered. That's all you need to do with a Y valve.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

...and I've never heard of a Canadian LEO knowing or ever checking.

BP, have you ever heard of any Canadian LEO checking boats for their heads? Maybe if there’s been an issue raised, but I’ve never heard of our LEOs including this in their random checks. Not in the nearly 20 years I’ve now been cruising on the Great Lakes, and now out in the Maritimes.

This focus (obsession?) with toilets on recreational boats seems to be an American thing. I’d say it makes sense, given the higher populations, but we have some pretty dense boating communities in the lower Great Lakes (Toronto, Hamilton, Kingston, etc.). Vancouver is very busy, as is Halifax, Quebec City, Montreal.

Maybe Canadian environmental awareness isn't as stringent?

[Exile]

Environmental awareness doesn't always comport with rules & regs that are necessarily good for the environment. There are apparently no rules requiring holding tanks in EU countries, for example. Direct discharge is apparently acceptable & normal in the Med and the Caribbean.

Another thread going on this here:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...de-207416.html

Btw, one of the posts on maybe the last page says that Annapolis is considering a ban on composting toilets. I had thought it was pretty well settled that, whatever the pros & cons, composting waste was subject to the same discharge rules but posed little if any threat if winding up in a dumpster.

[peghall]

Can you post links to the specific Title 46 sections?


--Peggie

[Shrew]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

That's not completely true either. There are several references in Title 46 Code of Federal Regulations that exempt foreign vessels temporarily visiting US waters from US requirements as long as they meet the requirements of their country of register.

If you could point out the Chapter, Sub-Chapter, and Part # that you're referring too, I would appreciate it.

CFR: Title 46: Shipping

CHAPTER I - COAST GUARD, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
CHAPTER II - MARITIME ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CHAPTER III - COAST GUARD (GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE), DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
CHAPTER IV - FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

###### REFERENCES ######

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/46

[keithw88]

What is a LEO?
As a moral point: surely no-one should ever think they can pump raw sewage into someone else's back yard?
Treat it, or get well offshore..