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.
Maritime Compliance Report
TSMS Workshop
Some seats are still available. Register 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.
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.
While many are already aware of this date, it is interesting to note that Subchapter M is expected to be released as a Final Rule. Many had speculated that due to the large volume of comments, that Subchapter M may be changed significantly and therefore put back out for further comments. But, based upon the current information, when it is published, the rule will be final.
Additionally, the Coast Guard passed on that interested parties should become intimately familiar with the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) which is available for viewing in the Federal Register. Reading between the lines, one might conclude that while changes will surely be made, the NPRM may not be far from the Final Rule once published. While it may not be time to invest great sums of money in order to get ready, it is certainly time to read the NPRM if you haven't done so already. If you wait for the Final Rule before you start figuring it out, you will surely end up behind the learning curve.
The regulatory agenda will be updated in August. That will be our next opportunity to get a Subchapter M update. Stay tuned.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Back in the late 1980s I served aboard the Coast Guard Cutter Wedge. She was a 75 foot push boat with a 68 foot crane barge known as a construction tender. Even though it was a small crew with a relaxed atmosphere, I had been trained on my previous cutters to make a round every hour when on duty. During one round of the engine room I noticed the fluid in the bilge ripple from a drip. I found that the source was diesel dripping from the bottom of the generator. I traced the stream of diesel around the generator to the top of the engine but could not tell where it was originating. As I stared at the components for a while it finally came into focus. It was a thread of diesel, barely visible to the naked eye, shooting out of a pin hole in one of the fuel lines. The engineers replaced the fuel line quickly and the Wedge, I am happy to say, is still in operation today.
When we set up companies with a safety management system we proved a number of vessel inspection job aids. Conducting proactive inspections of equipment in order to uncover problems before they become major is a basic concept of safety management. In some cases we have had the inspection job aids hard-laminated, to be used in the engine room with a grease pencil. After all, the idea is not to generate paper to cover our behinds. The idea is to ensure that nothing is missed during the inspection. During one of our quarterly visits to a client's boat, the engineer informed me that he didn't use the job aid, he went from memory. I said Okay, and asked him to imagine going through the engine room as he does, and to explain all the things he checks. When he was done remembering everything he could, I did some quick math and wrote in the inspection report that his failure to use the job aids provided by the company resulted in him checking only 14 percent of the items on the job aid. He got the point, and now makes sure to use the job aids. We get complacent because the likely hood that a similar situation will happen to us is extremely small, but the severity of the consequence in this type of scenario dictates that the threat must be mitigated.
There is a lot of chatter these days about what is the best and easiest path forward for Subchapter M compliance. There should be more focus on the quality of the TSMS itself, and the training on what safety management is really all about, rather than focusing on convenient and easy solutions. The easiest way is not always the best way to go. It takes hard work to be excellent. As a wise man once said, "If you do what is easy in life, your life will be hard; but if you do what is hard in life, your life will be easy."
Major Point of Confusion - Subchapter M is the subchapter of Title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) which has been established by the U.S. Coast Guard to regulate the inspection of U.S. flagged towing vessels. In addition to the standard protocol of having the Coast Guard send a marine inspector to inspect and certify a towing vessel, the proposed rule for Subchapter M offers an option for towing vessel operators to adopt a Towing Safety Management System (TSMS). Vessel operators should understand that this is only an option. There is no requirement in the proposed rule for any towing vessel to have a safety management system of any kind, including a TSMS. Even if a company already operates under a safety management system, there is no requirement in the proposed rule for such a company to choose that option for their Subchapter M compliance. Such companies can continue to operate under their safety management system, but choose the standard Coast Guard vessel inspection option in order to obtain their certificates of inspection (COIs).
Liability - The TSMS option in Subchapter M allows for certain third party organization to conduct audits and surveys on behalf of the government. There are some unanswered questions regarding the liability of third party organizations and surveyors under the Subchapter M. While there have been some interesting discussions, we are far from having an answer. Those answers are best left to the attorneys. But as a non-attorney, I offer these few recent instances to consider: after ten years of litigation, American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) was cleared of liability in the case of the M/V Prestige, a vessel that broke apart creating a large oil spill on the coast of Spain; a case was dismissed against the U.S. Coast Guard, where the Coast Guard was being sued for alleged errors made during certification of a vessel which eventually capsized resulting in loss of life; but a third party flag surveyor was sentenced to prison for making false statements and certifying a vessel as safe, which was subsequently found to be deficient by the Coast Guard. So what will be the liability issues for third party organizations acting on behalf of the government? I hope that Coast Guard headquarters will come forth with some guidance on this issue.
It remains to be seen if Subchapter M will be a gold mine, or a land mine, for third parties. But one thing is certain, towing vessel operators should proceed with caution and understand all the facts before choosing their course action.
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.
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.
As I read the indictment of two BP officials, Robert Kaluza and Donald Vidrine, on 11 counts of seaman's manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter, I couldn't help but think about Subchapter M and the future of the towing vessel industry. Mr. Vidrine and Kaluza were Well Sight Leaders on the Deepwater Horizon rig the day of the explosion which resulted in the deaths of 11 people. According to the indictment, these Well Sight Leaders were responsible for, among other things, "supervising the implementation of BP's drilling plan." To draw an analogy, under Subchapter M, should a company operate under a Towing Safety Management System (TSMS), the captain will be responsible for "supervising the implementation of the company TSMS."
The indictment explains that Vidrine and Kaluza were grossly negligent in their duties for not doing what they were supposed to do, specifically: failing to call the BP engineers ashore during the negative testing about the multiple readings that the well was not secure, failing to adequately account for those abnormal readings, and for accepting a nonsensical explanation for those readings. They were not following the plan, and an explosion resulted in many deaths.A few years back the towing industry experienced a number of accidents when tows hit bridges. Bridge transit procedures were added to many safety management systems. The idea is, as with any written safety plan, if you follow it you will minimize the risk of human error. Many captains that I talk to can't explain the bridge transit procedures. Many protest that they don't need some book to tell them how to drive a boat. But what if one day a captain fails to account for wind and leeway on a big tow, and as a result he takes the bridge out and cars drive into the river? I'm sure Mr. Vidrine and Kaluza relied on their experience as well, and did not think that the rig would blow up, but it did. Had they followed the plan, perhaps those people would not have died, and they might not be looking at jail time.
If your towing company chooses a TSMS for Subchapter M, take the opportunity to make sure you have the best possible procedures and that your captains know they must follow them at all times. As a wise man once said, smart people learn from their mistakes, but really smart people learn from other people's mistakes.
For those of you in New Orleans, I want to let you know that our Safety Management Workbooks are now available at Baker Lyman in addition to our website. It is a great resource to get crews to learn what is in, as well as how to use, your own safety management system. The next time you are in Baker Lyman, please look for it.
A properly implemented safety management system (SMS) can be a tool for operational excellence, and companies should not be steered away from adopting one. More than one person have expressed some confusion about why I would write a four part blog that appears to discourage the adoption of a Towing Safety Management System (TSMS), since producing safety management systems is a large part of our consulting business. The answer is simple; we're in the business of helping clients by giving them all the facts, both good and bad, and helping them arrive at the decisions which will be best for their business, not ours. We are just explaining the implications and potential consequences of adopting an SMS and not fully implementing it. In future blogs I will outline the steps required to develop and implement an excellent safety management system. One point about the TSMS option in the Subchapter M proposed rule requires clarification. One of my clients was under the impression that since the company had already adopted a safety management system that it would have to use the TSMS option in Subchapter M. That is not the case. A company may have been operating under an SMS for many years, but that company can still choose straight Coast Guard inspections to obtain its Certificate of Inspection (COI). According to the proposed rule, the company will fill out an application for inspection and designate the compliance option for each vessel. The company may choose the TSMS option for some vessels and straight Coast Guard inspections for its other vessels. When Coast Guard inspectors show up to do the inspection, if they see an SMS on the bookshelf, they will not say, "Oh, you're on an SMS, we're outta here. Call a third party auditor." That option belongs to the company. We'll have to wait and see if that option survives in the final rule.
The Coast Guard will provide the check and balance for this program to ensure that the audits have been conducted thoroughly and accurately. There may be consequences for an auditor who is found to have conducted a less than adequate audit resulting in a Towing Safety Management Certificate being issued to a non-compliant vessel. For example, consider the recent case of Mr. Alejandro Gonzalez. According to a Department of Justice press release, Mr. Gonzalez, a Miami-based surveyor working on behalf of the flag of Bolivia, certified the M/V Cosette safe for sea. Shortly thereafter, when the vessel arrived in New York, Coast Guard inspectors found "fuel and exhaust pouring into the engine room." Since Mr. Gonzalez had certified the vessel safe for sea and the Coast Guard determined it was not, he was convicted by a federal jury on May 24 for "making a false statement." Mr. Gonzalez had other charges, but for this conviction he faces a maximum of five years in prison. He will be sentenced on August 2. Subchapter M auditors and surveyors could face the same fate as Mr. Gonzalez if the Coast Guard determines that "false statements" have been made. While this is a remote possibility, the take-away should be that, presumably auditors will be aware of their own exposure and therefore owners and operators should prepare for more stringent audits under Subchapter M.
Besides the auditor's exposure, attorneys Marc Hebert and Barrett Rice, in their paper, "Subchapter M from a Defense Lawyer's Perspective," weighed in on the importance of choosing an auditor with regards to owners' legal liabilities. "… For those vessel owners opting for the TSMS option, consider all theses legal implications when choosing your auditor or surveyor. What if the third party auditor fails to identify a portion of the TSMS plan which is not effectively being implemented? What if the surveyor misses an unsafe condition on the vessel, the knowledge of which will ultimately be attributed to you? While many vessel owners will seek out the auditor or surveyor who helped them obtain their certificate of insurance or certificate of compliance as quickly as possible, we urge you to find that third party auditor and/or surveyor who will scrutinize any aspect of your business and present you with the brutal truth." I couldn't agree more.
The concept of limitation of liability under maritime law stems from a law passed in 1851 known as the Limitation of Shipowners Liability Act which was designed to protect U.S. shipping by allowing owners to limit their liability to the value of the vessel in instances where the company had no control. Today, many limitation of liability proceedings come down to whether the company had "privity or knowledge" of the circumstances which led to the incident in question. This becomes problematic when a company is operating under a safety management system such as the Towing Safety Management System (TSMS) under Subchapter M, where it could be argued that the intent of the regulations is to ensure that the company has "privity or knowledge" of almost all situations on the vessel at all times. Marc Hebert, in his previously referenced paper "Subchapter M from a Defense Lawyer's Perspective," writes, "In our opinion Subchapter M, particularly through a TSMS option, essentially requires that vessel owners/operators make themselves aware, through the implementation of a safety management system, of the daily minutia on each and every vessel. It may be argued that, by statute, your knowledge is mandated."
We have recently seen an example play out in the courts in the unfortunate case of the duck boat being run over by the tug and barge near Philadelphia, which resulted in two deaths. The mate on watch at the time of the incident, who is currently serving a one-year sentence for involuntary manslaughter, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, May 7, 2012, was on his cell phone handling a family emergency. The towing company attempted to limit its liability due to the fact that it had a cell phone policy, but argued that the mate had simply disobeyed the policy. However, according to the Workboat.com blog by Dale DuPont on May 14, 2012, the plaintiff attorney successfully argued that, "… the policy never worked, not once, not with a single person on this voyage, ever. Every single one of them used their cell phone on watch every single day. That is the definition of a failed policy." According to DuPont's blog post, two days later the sides in a trial that was expected to last for months, agreed to a $17 million dollar settlement for the victims and their families.
Choosing the TSMS option and establishing written policies and procedures, which must be followed, increases that probability that vessel operators will not be able to limit their liability as easily as those who do not choose the TSMS. Marc Hebert in his paper asks the question "… with Subchapter M, will the Limitation Act continue to be of use to the inland towing vessel owner?" Stay tuned for more…
The paper refers to the common defense strategy in Jones Act cases of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Hebert wrote, "In a standard answer to a Jones Act claim, every defendant pleads the affirmative defense of contributory negligence – that the accident or injury was caused, wholly or in part, by the actions or neglect of the Plaintiff." According to Hebert, with the legal principle of negligence per se, a violation of a safety law or regulation, such as those contained in Subchapter M, creates a presumption of negligence and liability which the vessel operator must overcome through evidence that the violation was not the proximate cause of the accident. This makes the defense of contributory negligence more difficult for the defense. Hebert explains in the paper, "Thus, if the personal injury attorney proves the violation of a regulation and some causal connection between the violation and injury, the vessel owner may well be absolutely liable."
Again, Subchapter M will increase the probability that a vessel will be found in non-compliance simply due to the vast number of regulations it contains. Choosing the TSMS option and establishing written policies and procedures, which must be followed, increases that probability even further. Stay tuned for more…
Hypothetically speaking, if two similar vessels were going through an inspection for certification at the same time, the one that chose the Coast Guard option would be done after the vessel itself was inspected and the captain was found to have a valid license to operate the vessel. However, for the vessel that chose the TSMS-third party option, after the vessel itself is surveyed for compliance, an auditor must come in and verify that the licensed captain is following all the company's policies and procedures. Essentially, by choosing the TSMS option, the company is betting a vessel's Certificate of Inspection on the captain's ability to follow written policies and procedures and not to rely solely on his experience to operate the vessel.
But compliance is not the only concern. Choosing the TSMS third party option will also have legal implications. Since the policies and procedures contained in a TSMS will have the force of a regulation, non-compliance may affect future litigation in a number of ways. Marc Hebert, an attorney at the Jones Walker law firm in New Orleans, along with Barrett Rice, prepared an excellent paper for the Greater New Orleans Barge Fleeting Association (GNOBFA) annual conference this year, entitled: "Subchapter M from a Defense Lawyer's Perspective." In the paper, Mr. Hebert outlines a number of legal concerns with Subchapter M and he has given me permission to discuss a few of them with you:
Pennsylvania Rule: Paraphrased from Mr. Hebert and Mr. Rice's paper: "…when a vessel violates a statute or regulation intended to protect a particular harm, that vessel is presumed to be at fault. The presumption results in a shift in the burden of proof. When an incident results, or even occurs within a short time after such a violation, the vessel owner may have to prove in court that each and every violation of a regulation could not have been a contributing factor in the incident in question." "How will the vessel owner prove, with a document, that his or her TSMS is being enforced?" "…Failure to demonstrate compliance will likely be a rule violation and under the Pennsylvania Rule, such a violation results in a presumption of liability under the law."
Subchapter M will increase the probability that a vessel will be found in non-compliance simply due to the vast number of regulations it contains. Choosing the TSMS option and establishing written policies and procedures, which must be followed, increases that probability even further. Stay tuned for more…