Operational Excellence through Leadership and Compliance

Maritime Compliance Report

Welcome. Staying in compliance takes dedication, diligence and strong leadership skills to stay on top of all the requirements which seem to keep coming at a rapid pace. With this blog I hope to provide visitors with content that will help them in their daily work of staying in compliance. I hope you find it a resource worthy of your time and I look forward to your feedback, questions, comments and concerns. Thanks for stopping by. To avoid missing critical updates, don’t forget to sign up by clicking the white envelope in the blue toolbar below.

Spraying Fuel Fires

A common cause of engine room fires is fuel spraying onto a hot surface, such as a turbo charger. This can happen when fuel line connections become loose, or chafe through. Many inspected vessels are required to have shields installed on fuel line connections to mitigate this threat. Flexible fuel lines should be inspected regularly for chafing, and should be replaced if they show signs of wear.

Companies operating with a safety management system should conduct a risk assessment to determine which high threat scenarios require mitigation. The threat of a spraying fuel fire is a high threat for all vessels. Therefore, mitigation strategies should be included in the safety management system. There should be a procedure to regularly inspect fuel lines, and a job aid, in the form of an inspection checklist, can be used to ensure no items are missed. Crewmembers must be trained on how, and why, to inspect fuel lines. If a crewmember is just handed a checklist that says "fuel lines," they may just check it off thinking, "Yep, we have fuel lines." That sounds like a joke, but it has happened more than once.

As more technology makes its way into the industry, companies may look for inspection checklists to be done on a computer. However, careful consideration should be given to this practice. The point of a job aid is to use it while conducting the job, to make sure nothing is overlooked, not to check boxes before, or after, the fact on a computer screen.

During a recent survey a vessel's flexible fuel lines were inspected by a surveyor, and one was found to be chafed almost all the way through. The vessel was dangerously close to experiencing a spraying fuel fire. The real shame was, there were stacks of completed daily checklists on board with "fuel lines" checked off. 

  4966 Hits

No sVGP For Three More Years

 The sVGP is once again on the back burner. The moratorium on vessels less than 79 feet has been extended. According to Sen Vitter's officer, a compromise was reached while working on a larger bill regarding vessel discharge requirements. The language was inserted into the Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014 (S.2444), which extends the expiration date of the moratorium for vessels less than 79 feet from December 18, 2014 to December 18, 2017. That bill was signed into law by the President on December 18. Under the moratorium, NPDES permits are not required for discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial fishing vessels and other non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet, except for ballast water. I have verified this with the folks at EPA Headquarters and they have asked that I spread the word. Merry Christmas.

  5986 Hits

Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP)

 There is currently a moratorium against permitting incidental discharges on vessels less than 79 feet. Translation – the current vessel general permit does not apply to vessels less than 79 feet. However, the current moratorium expires on December 18, 2014. According to the website govtrack.us, on November 19, 2014, Sen Marco Rubio introduced a bill to extend the moratorium, Public Law 110-299. The website gives the bill only a 7% chance of being enacted.

If the moratorium is not extended, on December 19, 2014 the Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) will go into effect. Non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet will have to comply with the provisions of the sVGP beginning on that date. Here are some of the highlights. Vessel owner/operators will have to: read the permit, sign and carry a copy of the Permit Authorization and Record of Inspection (PARI) form on each vessel, comply with the best management practices for specific discharges, conduct inspections of certain items "frequently, daily, or quarterly," as required by the permit. They will have to keep track of all instances of non-compliance and submit them in a noncompliance report to the EPA each year prior to February 28. All this, of course, under the penalty of severe fines and/or imprisonment. All sVGP records must be kept for three years. The Coast Guard is charged with evaluating VGP compliance during vessel inspections. With Subchapter M's expected Final Rule date set for March of 2015, prudent vessel operators will recognize the potential threat and ensure full compliance beginning on December 19, 2014.
  5723 Hits

Subchapter M Fatigue

Don't let your guard down. I have noticed many in the towboat industry are suffering from Subchapter M fatigue. Understandably, many are sick of the constant hype and have become desensitized at best, and disgusted at worst, at the mention of Subchapter M. I have deliberately backed off from bring it up myself, but the truth is the industry should not totally let their guard down either. According to the regulatory agenda, as of this writing, the expected publish date for the Subchapter M Final Rule is still March 2015. In anticipation of the possibility that Subchapter M will become final in 2015, don't miss out on this important presentation: Subchapter M - Top 10 Things You Need to Know. You can attend this presentation that I will be giving at the Pacific Marine Expo in Seattle on November 19; or the panel discussion at the International Workboat Show in New Orleans on December 3. If you haven't had a chance to go through the Proposed Rule yet, this is your chance to get the highlights. If you've been well versed and are suffering from Subchapter M fatigue, this is your chance to get back in tune, just in case. 

  5108 Hits

TSMS Workshop August 8

Don't miss out on this important workshop.

TSMS Workshop

Some seats are still available. Register today. 

  5361 Hits

TSMS Workshop - Book a Room Today

For those of you travelling from out of town for the TSMS Workshop who want to stay at Hilton, now is the time to book a room. The Hilton is only holding the block of rooms until this Friday. Please forward this information to anyone you think would benefit from it. See you on August 8th. 

  5448 Hits

Subchapter M Update

The update to the DHS regulatory agenda now shows the expected publish date of the Final Rule for Subchapter M, towing vessel inspection regulations, to be March of 2015. While some find the moving goal post frustrating, it also buys time for preparation.

Anyone who may be impacted by this regulation should take the time to read over the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Some things to consider are: what equipment and other changes may be required for each company vessel based on the 17 "sub-applicabilities;" and, is it best for the company to choose the Coast Guard compliance option or the third party TSMS option.

Towing vessel captains should not be forgotten when considering this important compliance option. It might be interesting if companies asked a sampling of captains how they feel about passing an audit where the auditor is required by regulation to determine, by gathering objective evidence, if the company has, "effectively implemented its TSMS throughout all levels of the organization, including onboard its vessels." Even if the answer is a resounding, "bring it on!" on board implementation of all company policies and procedures would be a good topic to focus on over the next six months. 

  6759 Hits

Nontank Vessel Response Plans

 Hopefully you made the deadline of January 30th to submit your Nontank Vessel Response Plan (NTVRP) to the Coast Guard. According to Coast Guard Headquarters, on January 31, 2014, all old nontank vessel response plans were to be deactivated. That's because the long awaited final rule for the nontank vessel response plan regulations was published a few months ago. The old nontank vessel response plans were drafted based upon Coast Guard guidance, which is now superseded by the regulation.

The regulation applies to any vessel operating in U.S. water that is measured 400 gross tons or more, regulatory or ITC. From there, the sub-applicabilities get a little complicated based upon capacities. Some of the additional service requirements include fire-fighting and salvage, dispersants, aerial surveillance, shoreline protection and shoreline clean-up. If applicable, evidence of signed contracts for these services must be submitted with the NTVRP.

In conducting a gap analysis on one of our own plans, there didn't appear to be much difference between the old guidance and the new regulation with regards to the actual content of the plan. However there were some additional requirements to be added to the NTVRP.  If you have an existing plan that was fully compliant there shouldn't be too much work involved. Some companies may have not have conducted a thorough gap analysis between their existing NTVRP and the new regulations in trying to meet the deadline. If so, the Coast Guard will notify those companies that their current NTVRP are inadequate.

The Coast Guard has many NTVRPs to review. It will take some time for all the interim operating letters to go out, and even longer for approval letters to be issued.
  5116 Hits

EPA Vessel General Permit 2013

vgp The 2008 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Vessel General Permit (2013 VGP) expires on December 19, 2013. On the same day the new EPA VGP 2013 will go into effect. The following is a summary of most of the issues vessel operators might be concerned with. However, this summary will not be comprehensive, and vessel operators should refer to the permit itself to ensure compliance.

The new 2013 EPA VGP applies to non-recreational vessels 79 feet or greater, just as the previous 2008 permit did. In order to receive coverage under the new EPA VGP vessels 300 tons or greater, or with the capacity of 8 cubic meters of ballast water, must submit a Notice of Intent. This is the same requirement that was included in the 2008 permit, but now it must be done through the EPA's eNOI system.  Many vessels which were not required to, submitted a Notice of Intent for the 2008 permit. According to the EPA website, "It is important to understand that operators must submit an NOI for coverage under the 2013 VGP even if they had submitted an NOI for coverage under the 2008 VGP."

There is a moratorium from the requirement to obtain coverage for vessels less than 79ft which will remain in place until December 18, 2014. At which time, if the moratorium expires, the EPA will release the final sVGP for vessel less than 79ft. However, the draft sVGP can be viewed now on the EPA VGP website.

Unlike the 2008 VGP, the 2013 VGP requires vessels which are not required to submit an NOI (79 feet or greater but less than 300 gross tons and ballast water capacity of less than 8 cubic meters) to complete and carry on board at all times a Permit Authorization and Record of Inspection (PARI) form.

It would be useful for vessel operators to conduct a one-time assessment of the applicable discharges for each vessel and document which best management practices, outlined in the permit, will be adopted. The best management practices are better defined in the 2013 permit. For example, where previously it was implied, the 2013 permit says, "Before deck washdowns occur, you must broom clean exposed decks or use comparable management measures and remove all existing debris."

The weekly inspection is more comprehensive than simply making sure there is no debris on deck, and those processes should be reevaluated. Also, there is now requirement for all crewmembers involved to be trained, and for the training to be recorded.

An annual report is now required, where the previous permit only required a report of non-compliance. The first annual report under the new permit will be due on February 28, 2015, and every February 28th thereafter.

Those are just the highlights. Don't allow yourself to be lulled into a false sense of security by the lack of enforcement. One thing hasn't changed; the penalties include six months in jail for each instance of pencil whipping.
  5525 Hits

Facility Security Officer (FSO) Training

Recently, a few clients have asked me about training and certification of facility security officers (FSOs). So, I will try to explain the current requirements and those expected in the future.

Ten years ago the MTSA regulations were published. The Coast Guard listed the requirements for FSO, stating the FSO must have "general knowledge, through training or on the job experience in the following:" and went on to list the topics.A subsection went on to say, that in addition the FSO must "have knowledge andreceive training in the following:" and went on to list further topics. Most designated FSOs realized they needed training, and a number of training providers developed courses, delivered training, and certified that individuals had been trained.

There is not now, and never was, a requirement for the training course to be "approved." However, at the time a program was established through theMaritime Administration (MARAD) to approve courses based on a model course developed by MARAD. A number of training providers decided to take advantage of this program to get their courses "approved" even though it was not required.

It should be noted that in 2009 STCW for Ship (Vessel) Security Officer (VSO)went into effect. Since this was an international requirement for mariner credentials, the course taken by VSOs, to get there document endorsed, needed to be an approved course. However, in the revision of that regulation, the Coast Guard recognized that many VSOs had already been trained through non-approved courses, and they made an allowance for those individuals to take a one-day refresher course instead of a full VSO training course.

Section 821 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 requires the development of comprehensive FSO training which will lead to certification. As a result, a revised model course for FSO has been developed, and a public meeting was held to discuss the model course and training requirements. It is expected that sometime in the future, the requirement for FSO training will be changed to required attendance at an approved course.

My clients have asked me if it makes since to spend the money to take an FSO course which is currently approved. If you are also wondering about this, I offer the following thoughts. Bear in mind, this is all pure speculation, as no one knows until we see the regulation:

  • the courses currently approved were approved on a voluntary basis, based upon a model course from years ago, not the model course currently being considered under this regulatory program. Therefore, it is unknown whether attendance at such a course will be accepted without condition under the new regulation.
  • the Coast Guard may only require a one-day refresher course for FSOs previously trained in an unapproved course, as they did for STCW-required VSOs in 2009
  • the Coast Guard may "grandfather" any FSO currently serving or who has received some sort of FSO training, and only require new FSOs to become certified under the new regulations
  • Subchapter M is still not final, 8 years after the law changed requiring towing vessels to be inspected.
  7789 Hits

Declaration of Security

 The maritime security regulations call for the use of a Declaration of Security (DOS) during certain times and situations when there a heightened security threat. The International Ship and Port Security (ISPS) Code takes a more general approach to the DOS than do the very specific U.S. Coast Guard regulations on the topic, which spell out which types of interfaces require a DOS at which MARSEC levels.

However, the intent of the regulations is clear in both, which is for the two interfacing parties to get together and make a deal regarding who will take responsibility for what security measures during a particular interface. This contract, which is usually limited to a single page, is signed by both parties.

Unfortunately, as the years have passed since the publication of the Code and regulations, some of the intent and perceived value of such a document has been lost. It is not unusual to find that a DOS has been filled out and signed, but that the facility and the vessel personnel are unaware of its contents. It is also not unusual to find initials down both columns, including the vessel signing that it is taking responsibility for controlling access to the facility. Clearly, individuals responsible for fulfilling the obligations of the DOS should be aware of the contents.

According to the U.S. regulations, a DOS can be filled out and signed by a Facility or Vessel security Officer or their "designated representative." This should not necessarily be a third party tankerman or stevedore who has no control over the processes prescribed in either security plan. The designated representative should be properly trained as a "vessel and facility personnel with security duties." However, a designated representative does not have to be an alternate facility or vessel security officer who would be required to be trained to the level of an FSO or VSO under the regulations.

A Declaration of Security is a useful tool if used correctly. It continues to raise eyebrows each time we role-play filling one out during training sessions. Make good use of a DOS. The regulations have not gone away, and neither have the threats.
  11253 Hits

Workboat Show 2013 Wrap up

 The Workboat Show this year was a little warmer than most, as it is usually held in December, but the "Subchapter M" buzz has certainly cooled off since last year's show. As the years go by, with no word of when the final rule may come, many have become desensitized.

Despite the uncertainty surrounding the topic, we did fill the room for our conference session on Subchapter M. The panelist, including myself, shared our ideas on the need and methodology for training, compliance management, and preparation for the impending regulations. The session was well received and ended with spirited round of questions and answers that could have gone on for at least another thirty minutes.

As expected, a few people came by our booth to ask when we would see something on Subchapter M. If I had answered them, it would have been pure speculation. But surprisingly, no one asked about the new EPA VGP. We barely had a chance to show our 2013 VGP compliance management system.

The new permit (2013 VGP) goes into effect on December 19, 2013. There are some significant changes all operators of vessels subject to the permit should be aware of. For example, operators should know: what a PARI form is, what is now required annually which wasn't required previously, a weekly inspection is much more than walking around the boat, why your boats should carry a broom, what is an EUP inspection, and why is the date February 28, 2015 significant. If you are confused by any, or all, of these items now is the time to get up to speed. The 2013 VGP can be accessed on the EPA website.

So, while we wait for Subchapter M, don't forget about the VGP. One thing that hasn't changed is the severe penalties for noncompliance.
  4654 Hits

Workboat Show 2013

Don't miss the 2013 Workboat Show. It's not in December this year. In fact, it's only three weeks away. The International Workboat Show will take place at the Morial Convention Center in New Orleans from October 9th through October 11th.

Once again, there is a big demand for information regarding Subchapter M, the proposed towing vessel inspection regulations. On Wednesday October 9th, from 1:00pm until 2:00pm, I will be participating in a panel discussion on Subchapter M. The Workboat Show website describes the session as follows:

Solving Subchapter M Compliance Issues: There still are many unanswered questions surrounding Subchapter M — regulations for the inspection of towing vessels — and compliance. This session will review Subchapter M; look at where we are in the process and what we can expect moving forward. Join in this discussion with experts on the issue. Moderated by: Ken Hocke, Senior Technical Editor, WorkBoat Magazine Presented by: Gerald T. Frentz, E-Learning and IT Specialist, Seamens Church Institute Center for Maritime Education, Robert Russo, Owner, Maritime License Training Co& Kevin Gilheany, International Consultant, Maritime Compliance International,Michael F. Vitt, Vice President and General Counsel, EN Bisso & Son

During my portion of the program I will be discussing and demonstrating the use of our recently developed Subchapter M compliance management system. I will use practical examples to demonstrate how a management system can help companies, large and small, prepare for a successful transition to inspected vessel status.

This year we will be sharing booth 1228 with Boatracs and will be able to demonstrate the Subchapter M compliance management system's use, both on paper as well as Boatracs' electronic version. If you are a subscriber to the Maritime Compliance Report and you would like us to send you VIP floor passes for the Workboat Show, just let us know and we'll make sure you get them while they last.

See you at the show.
  4270 Hits

Checklists

When should a checklist be required?

Have you ever wondered why a watch relief checklist is common in the industry, but a bridge transit procedure checklist is not? I'm not sure the reason is given much thought. Consultants seem to think lots of forms make their manuals more professional, managers like the idea of having everything documented, and mariners feel they are the victims of a useless paperwork onslaught. A mariner, who was sick of all the foolish paperwork he was forced to do, once wrote about making a fake ISM form for how many sugar cubes were used by individuals at the ship's coffee mess. His point was proved when the crew did indeed; fill out the ISM sugar cube usage form.

Some in management feel making employees complete and turn in signed checklists is a good way of covering themselves. However, the value of that is questionable, and it may be counter-productive from a leadership stand point. After all, no one wants to have to complete a checklist just so their boss can cover his ass.

I recently read an excellent book on the topic of checklist usage. I highly recommend it to all individuals involved in the development of management systems and procedures. The book is The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right; by Atul Gawande. This book makes a compelling case for the use of the checklists, through case studies in the medical and aviation fields.

When inspections are done, the use of a checklist is a good quality control measure to make sure nothing is missed. An engineer once told me he stopped using the engineering inspection checklist because he could do it from memory. After I had him close his eyes and imagine going down to the engine room and listing all the items he checked, he only listed 14% of the items on the checklist.

Clearly doing a detailed inspection requires a job aid for quality control. It is the operational checklist which is more complicated to determine. The methodology that we use to determine when a checklist is required is based upon risk assessment. A checklist may be required when: the task is done infrequently and therefore the risk of skipping a step is likely; and/ or, the consequence for missing a step is serious.

Why do airline pilots, who take off and land constantly, complete a checklist? Think of the consequence for missing something. When it comes to these decisions, aviation has it easy. In the maritime industry it requires a little more thought to figure out which checklists are required, and which are not. But the paperwork requirements are a little less tough to swallow when the reasoning behind them can be explained logically. Conversely, if a good risk-based argument can't be made for a particular checklist, get rid of it.
  5204 Hits

Unraveling Subchapter M

 The level of understanding of Subchapter M runs the gamut from nonexistent to expertise. Some in the towing industry have been involved with the process for the past eight years, helping to steer the direction of the final rule. Others in the towing industry have still never heard of a TSMS or think Subchapter M is a pipe dream which will never come to fruition. So here's a basic recap for those who may have been too busy to pay attention.

Subchapter M is a subchapter of 46 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) which outlines the regulations pertaining to a new class of inspected vessel: towing vessels. The subchapter was created as a result of a change in the law which added towing vessels to the list of "inspected" vessels. The subchapter has been drafted and was published as a proposed rule a few years ago. The Coast Guard collected comments from industry, from those who were paying attention and had the time and ability to study the subchapter and provide constructive feedback to the government. The Coast Guard is now in the process of sorting through the comments, which it may already have completed. It has to go through a few more bureaucratic hurdles in the government before it is published as a "final rule." There is a great deal of speculation regarding when, or if ever, it will be published, and if it will be final or put back out for further comments. Only a few insiders know the truth about the status; the rest of us, when pressed, can only provide an educated guess. But rest assured, it is coming, because the law requires it.

By the way, that sticker on your towboat does not mean that the Coast Guard has already inspected your vessels. Inspected vessels are issued a Certificate of Inspection (COI). The sticker means your vessel has been "examined" and found compliant with the existing regulations pertaining to towing vessels, which has nothing to do with Subchapter M.

Subchapter M is unique in that it provides an option to adopt a Towing Vessel Safety Management System (TSMS) and to use third party surveyors and auditors to determine compliance on behalf of the Coast Guard. It is important to remember that this is only an option and that companies may opt, regardless of whether they use a safety management system or not, to choose the traditional Coast Guard inspection process for their compliance.

Whenever a new regulation is published, we study it and develop a compliance management system. The Subchapter M compliance management system that we have recently completed provides a good visual of the subchapter. Often complex applicabilities of different sections provide the most confusion for industry and inspectors alike. The applicability tool we have developed identified 17 different applicabilities which must be determined for each vessel. Additionally, we have determined that the subchapter lends itself to: 3 checklists, 9 records, 13 management forms and 5 additional management forms for those that choose the TSMS/third party option... 


Be not afraid. It is manageable. Stay tuned...
  6137 Hits

The Boy Who Cried Wolf

Sometimes I feel like the boy who cried wolf. I study all maritime related regulations and policies and warn my clients about the severe consequences of noncompliance. All too often the bark is much worse than the bite when it comes to these things due to minimal or nonexistent enforcement.  But when they do bite, it hurts. It hurts not only from the penalty, but from a sense of injustice. Vessel owners think, "Why am I being singled out? This was never an issue before? What about the company down the road?" For whatever reason, selective enforcement is a reality that we must live with. But every regulation ignored, or complied with in a half-assed manner, is a roll of the dice. To be fair, there are many companies who choose to minimize their risk by accepting responsibility and dedicate themselves to getting it right. However, there is no denying that the "wait and see" strategy works and has worked for many years.

Recently I have noticed a shift in the industry, not brought on by government enforcement, but by customers. Customer audits are proving a much greater motivator towards compliance and conformance than any government enforcement. This is most apparent in the red flag industry. Some companies are imposing the requirements of OCIMF SIRE and TMSA on their towing vessel subcontractors. Additionally, the new BSEE regulations require offshore industry subcontractors, including vessel operators, to include the specific policies and procedures of the offshore operator in the subcontractor's safety management system.

Compliance is key to profitability in the maritime industry. It used to be that compliance helped a company save money by avoiding fines and costly compliance errors. Now, compliance can actually help a company make money. Those companies that can satisfy these more stringent requirements will be in an excellent position moving forward. The changes being required by oil and offshore majors make Subchapter M look like small beans.

I hope the smaller operators are not scared off by it all. Complying with all these requirements really is an achievable goal, as long as a company has the commitment to compliance on all levels, a strategy to get into compliance and stay in compliance, and the leadership and management skills necessary to execute that strategy. And, remember, in "The Boy Who Cried Wolf," the wolf eventually shows up, with devastating consequences. 

  3707 Hits

No Deficiencies?

Many vessel operators claim that Coast Guard inspections are notoriously inconsistent. They claim such things as, "One Coast Guard guy came and told me it had to be this way, and next year another one came and told me to do something else, and the next year a third guy came back and told me to do it the way we had it in the first place." This unfortunately is true altogether too often, especially when it comes to dealing with inexperienced inspectors or examiners.

I recently was asked to discuss Coast Guard inspection issues with a towboat owner, and every time I mentioned a requirement he didn't like he would interrupt me and say that I was incorrect because the petty officer who examined his towboat either said he didn't have to, or he hadn't mention it during the exam. At the same time this owner complained about how inconsistent the Coast Guard is. This paradox is also too often true. "I'll rely on the Coast Guard to tell me what to do and I'll believe them when it's to my advantage."

Here's why this is not a good compliance management strategy. The Coast Guard rarely checks everything. There are many reasons for this, but just understand when the Coast Guard leaves the vessel and you have no deficiencies, it does not mean you are in compliance. According to a Times Picayune article, Bill Ambrose, Transocean's director of special projects testified during the BP/Deepwater Horizon trial that the rig was in "really good shape," and that during the July 2009 inspection of the rig the Coast Guard found "no deficiencies." However, in an interview about the accident, Wall Street Journal reporter Rebecca Smith characterized Coast Guard inspections as "often cursory." She stated that the Coast Guard did a, "pretty minimal job of inspecting that rig." According to the same Time Picayune article, an expert witness for the plaintiff's lawyers "singled out Transocean for failing to maintain the Deepwater Horizon, having an improperly trained crew, and a rig that was in poor shape."

Operators can rid themselves of the headaches associated with inconsistent inspectors and prepare themselves for litigation by insuring they know the regulations and that they manage their own compliance. 

  4072 Hits

Written in Blood

It's Mardi Gras time once again in New Orleans. If you have been to New Orleans' Mardi Gras parades you know that the edges of the curbs along the parade route are lined with ladders. These ladders are no ordinary ladders. They have three foot long bench seats attached to the very top where we precariously place our precious babies. It's enough to give an OSHA inspector a heart attack. How could this be legal?  On very rare occasion a cop will tell people they need to move their ladders back away from the curb. Of course, the parents respond that they do this every year and it has never been a problem before. They are reluctant to move because they will lose their spot and someone else will quickly place their ladder on the edge of the same curb. It is highly unlikely that another cop will come along and tell them to move. This causes a little deja vu for me. As a Coast Guard inspector, I was that cop. I always enforced the regulations accurately and consistently. I encountered much of the same arguments and resistance. One inspector training me had told me that the regulations were written in blood. That is, some catastrophe had happened that caused the regulations to be written.  I took that to heart. Even though I didn't know what the catastrophe was for each regulation, I enforced them all. After all, that's what the tax payers were paying me to do. Maybe those few New Orleans cops that occasionally tell confused parents to move their ladders back from the curb remember the story of Christian Lambert. According to a recent article in local Gambit newspaper, it turns out that putting our ladders on the curb is not legal. In 1985 the New Orleans City Council passed an ordinance which requires all ladders to be "placed as many feet back from the curb as the ladder is high." That's because of a tragedy that occurred in 1981 at the Krewe of Orleanians parade. Christian was an eight year old boy who was launched from his ladder and was crushed under float number 48 when the crowd surged forward. Accurate and consistent enforcement is a critical component to ensuring compliance. Understanding the origin and intent of regulations is an essential motivator. 

  3635 Hits

Striving for Excellence - A New Year’s Resolution

Compliance is something that many only think of when forced to. At the Workboat Show many representatives from good companies pass by our booth and say hello, but when asked if they have any compliance questions or issues we can help with, the response is usually, "No thanks we've got all that under control." Perhaps they do, but chances are their issues just haven't risen to the surface yet. Many good companies pass inspections and audits and assume that they are in full compliance. They may be, or they may find out at the next inspection, audit or accident that they were not as compliant as they had assumed. But an excellent company has a proactive compliance management program as part of their regular routine and does not rely upon inspectors' and auditors' interpretations and opinions to determine their level of compliance.

With the coming of a new year, an opportunity arises to take your company from "good" to "excellent" in terms of compliance. If striving for excellence is part of your company culture, here are a few things to consider in the new year:

TWICs are expiring en masse this year. Don't procrastinate in getting those TWICs renewed. Even with the new 30 day grace period, there could be serious repercussions.

The effective anniversary date of the EPA VGP is February 19th. Each year a comprehensive VGP annual inspection is required to be done and any instances of noncompliance with the permit must be reported to the EPA. This annual inspection includes record keeping. For example, if there are not 52 weekly inspections on file, or records of all graywater discharges, or records of any painting and deck maintenance conducted, that may constitute noncompliance with the permit. Be aware that the permit also dictates who is qualified to conduct the annual VGP inspections.

Your uninspected towing vessel examination sticker may expire this year. While you are not required to renew it, if you do, you should be prepared for a much more knowledgeable batch of examiners who may find a number of deficiencies that were not addressed in the first go round. A comprehensive regulatory compliance survey is a good way to prepare for the Coast Guard.

Subchapter M may be published this year. When it is, companies will be scrambling to determine the best path forward. You can get ahead of the curve by discussing the compliance options for each vessel, and by getting captains and crews ready by intensive drills, as well as training on what operating a vessel according to safety management system really means. A thorough internal audit or assessment by an objective third party is a good way to prepare.


 

Good companies may choose to wait and see if any of what I have addressed rises to the surface this year. Excellent companies will not take that gamble and will leave nothing to chance. Have an excellent and prosperous New Year. 

  4519 Hits

Strategic Partnership with Boatracs

We are proud to announce a strategic partnership with Boatracs to provide an electronic Subchapter M compliance product. Please click here to read the full article: Maritime Executive.

  3652 Hits

Contact Us

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Phone: 504.249.5291

Copyright ©
Maritime Compliance International
All rights reserved | Privacy Policy

Maritime Compliance Report Sign-Up

Click here to subscribe to the Maritime Compliance Report blog for critical email updates on compliance issues.