I read these regs, admittedly quickly. Right at the beginning I read that it applied to "public maritime vessels, including ferries”.
This is an unusual term, not usually found in CFRs. Reading on in both the docs it seems plain to me they are taking about ferries and vessels with passengers, not every single class of vessel in the maritime trades.
But maybe I’m wrong. If so, please point out where I am in error
From MarineLog
Executive Order (13998), Promoting COVID-19 Safety in Domestic and International Travel, uses the non-regulatory term “public maritime vessels, including ferries” for those vessels that must implement mask usage. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) order, Requirement for Persons to Wear Masks while on Transportation Hubs, 29JAN2021, further defined the applicability to all commercial vessels. Based on the this CDC order, all commercial vessels, which is inclusive of fishing vessels, uninspected passenger vessels, cargo ships, tankers, charter passenger vessels, ferries, towing vessels etc., should implement mask wear protocols onboard.
In the CDC directive they define conveyance as the same thing as vessel defined in 42 CFR 70.1. That CFR reads in part:
Vessel means any passenger-carrying, cargo, or towing vessel exclusive of:
Fishing boats including those used for shell-fishing;
Tugs which operate only locally in specific harbors and adjacent waters;
Barges without means of self-propulsion;
Construction-equipment boats and dredges; and
Sand and gravel dredging and handling boats.
Which would seem to be at odds with the Marine Log interpretation. Again, I admit I may be looking at the wrong CFR.
.…and I just saw my error so nevermind. 
But at least us fishing vessels are cool.
The process is the punishment. Now comply subject or face our wrath.
I don’t know if I should be happy for the fishermen who get to exercise their freedoms or sad because maybe they’re considered disposable by the CDC & fed. Maybe they are like the Proles in Orwell’s novel?
More like trying to get fishermen to do anything against their will is always a losing proposition.
Mask wearing on commercial vessels at sea with the same crew and passengers for more than 14 days will be implemented the same way as the roving patrol at night requirement was on California dive boats. On many boats it will be zero days.
But I wouldn’t.
Oh dear me there seems to have been some confusion here. My post was not aimed directly at @mixednuts so apologies dude. Took too many irony supplements this morning and passive-aggressive levels were peaking. If anything it was a lament at anticipating the what? Outlandish? So let me clear it up. It was meant to refer to the OP (cue William Wallace - “they will never take our freedom”) and your post. Really? Bolsheviks and big brother. Was the tone and tenor of your reply worthy of his “original question”? The simple truth may be this was only a poorly staffed effort to implement the executive order. That’s not surprising or indicative of the end of the world, democracy or freedom. If I just had to ride a ferry (big if) I wouldn’t mind if they were enforcing masking and distancing. And if I worked on one I would wear one while moving around the passengers or operations dictated having to work in groups in close quarters. Having said all that, my post did not elevate either, I violated my own rule to read it over before sending.
What if there was, like, a group of mariners who could quickly hash out mask wearing rules for mariners based on the available practical science out there, in regards to long duration voyages, then send this document out to the USCG and CDC for inclusion in a revised directive?
For example, on voyages of ten days or more, with no symptomatic crew members, masks do not need to worn if no non-crew personnel have boarded the vessel. If the crew has quarantined for fourteen days before sailing, no masks need be worn as long as non-crew personnel board the vessel. Etc, etc.
If this missive were used by the agencies to amend their directives it could help all. If it wasn’t used, it would give sailors yet another reason for griping… Seems like a win-win to me. 
Now, you got to stop using that logic and common sense, we just can’t have any of that!
There has been very little logic used in the current masking rules on land, so. . . . . .
An ample supply of “good Masks” was not available until many months into the pandemic. As for Australia, New Zealand and Taiwan they are islands and very easy to secure.
It is true that Americans are not a very compliant population as compared to many other countries. But even very compliant countries in Europe for example have very large outbreaks of the disease. Fools and crazy people are what make us interesting.
Covid is our first politicized pandemic. Instead of a commonsense science based response to a shared sacrifice societal problem, too many people reacted to hyper-partisan rhetoric on both sides, and chose to either take Covid precautions, or become proudly non-compliant Covid deniers based upon political affiliation. The politics overwhelmed everything else.
Seems like it would be in the interest of the current administration to solve the problem as quickly and as painlessly as possible. I don’t see how doing it any other way would give them some partisan advantage.
That’s right wing policies not the “far left”.
No it isn’t.
No such right exists.
There is nothing in the Constitution that bars the government from mandating masks. The Supreme Court has even set president on this in regards to vaccinations.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts , 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court’s decision articulated the view that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state.
ROFLMAO, you really think this?
Yes. The constitution allows the government to control the spread of deadly pandemics.
The Constitution does not empower crazy, foolish, or reckless people to infect the rest of us with a deadly disease that destroys the economy and forces the government to respond with multi-trillion dollar aid packages at taxpayer expense.
In fact, court interpretations (which I think have gone too far) have given the federal government enormous powers in many areas (some of which stretch credulity) based upon the Commerce Clause.
Then there is federal funding and access to federal programs.
Just as the federal government could lawfully withhold federal Highway funds from states that refused to raise the drinking age from 18 to 21 (i.e., Hawaii and Louisiana), the feds could withhold vaccine from states that refuse to impose a mask mandate.
Yes, I think that vaccine distribution should be prioritized to the states that have imposed successful Covid control measures. Those states, such as Vermont, and their people who have made the personal sacrifices, to control Covid deserve to be vaccinated first. What about the states that refused to impose Covid control measures, such as Alabama. Well, they have not helped to control the disease, so they deserve to have a lower priority to receive the vaccine.
Does the federal government have the authority to restrict travel between states that are Covid hot spots? Yes it does, and it should.
All non-essential foreign travel should be suspended. Non-essential travel to and from domestic Covid hot spots should be restricted. Nobody should be able to get on an airplane without a Covid test or proof of vaccination. Once vaccinations are available to anyone that is willing to have one, nobody should be allowed on public transportation without proof of vaccination. No one should be able to get any new license without proof of vaccination. Is it constitutional to refuse driver’s licenses to anti-vaxers? Yes, it is.
The big thing I’ve learned from this pandemic is how much more often I should’ve been wearing respiratory ppe at work
