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.

Safety Management – The Right Way

While there are plenty of examples of how safety management can be implemented incorrectly, I'd like to share with you an example of how to do it right, from scratch.


Last fall we contracted with American Tugs, Inc. in Puerto Rico, to develop and implement a safety management system.  Not just any safety management system, but a Towing Safety Management System (TSMS) which would meet the requirements laid out in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) for 46 CFR Subchapter M. Here's how we did it:

 


Developing the TSMS – We followed the format laid out in 46 CFR part 138.220, and determined that the TSMS would have five major sections. We left Section 4 - Compliance with Subchapter M "reserved for the Final Rule." The company provided their standard operating procedures and we included our recommended policies and procedures and standard industry practices in the appropriate sections. We drafted the TSMS in accordance with our company philosophy that the policies and procedures must be concise and written in a way that can be read, understood, and followed by all.


Company review – The draft TSMS was then passed along to American Tugs, with the instructions to have all responsible parties, including company personnel and vessel captains, to read through the draft, provided input and edits. The company did an outstanding job of reading the entire draft and questioning many of the policies and procedures. They requested a number of changes, all which had to be checked against the regulations to ensure full compliance. It was critical to achieve buy-in from the captains by ensuring their expertise on the policies and procedures was included.


Coaching program – At the same time American Tugs contracted with us for a comprehensive coaching program for the two company personnel responsible for compliance, health, safety, security and environment issues. The coaching program was essential for them to understand where all the regulations come from, USCG, EPA, OSHA, etc.., and why such policies and procedures were required. The three month coaching also included the essential leadership and management skills to ensure the program is successfully implemented over the long term.


Implementation – The Company is now entering into the implementation phase. We will continue to assist them throughout the year with on board inspection; training and drills to ensure the captains and crews understand the importance of the program and how to properly execute it.


It has been a very rewarding experience working with American Tugs, Inc., a company fully dedicated to a program which will surely reap substantial benefits from their hard work in the years to come.

Previously published in my worlboat.com blog: Regulatory Roundup 

  3869 Hits

Towing Vessel Inspections and the Cruise Ship Disaster

 While we don't know when the towing vessel inspection regulations contained in Subchapter M will officially come into force, we do know it could be as soon as within the next year, and if published as proposed, it will drastically change the industry forever. Whether a company is dreading the day, or is confident in their readiness, it is interesting to take a look at what we know about the recent Costa Concordia cruise ship disaster and draw some parallels, which may provide some insight into the future.


 


What could the Costa Concordia disaster possibly have to do with Subchapter M? It would be a stretch to call it lessons learned, but it does provide some interesting food for thought.  Despite the history of how Subchapter M came to be, in reading the proposed rule it became obvious to me that the Coast Guard had put this concept of the use of safety management and third parties into a "box" they are familiar and comfortable with. The use of safety management systems and third party organizations, auditors and surveyors outlined in Subchapter M is designed very similarly to the International Safety Management (ISM) system.


Let's compare: While we wait on the official investigation report, almost all would agree that the Concordia ran into the rocks. This appears to have been a navigational error. We can argue as to why, but navigating a cruise ship is high risk and therefore navigation standards should be provided by the company to ensure prudent navigation and minimize human error.  These policies and procedures would be included in accordance with the ISM code, Section 7, "Shipboard Operations." The similar requirement in Subchapter M for the Towing Safety Management System (TSMS) is found in 46 CFR part 138.220(c)(2) – "proper management of the navigational watch."


So who, besides the company itself, is suppose to make sure the ISM policies and procedures are adequate? Concordia is an Italian flag ship. As allowed by the ISM code, it used surveyors from the classification society RINA to conduct external audits of their safety management system on behalf of the flag. Did the auditor anticipate such a scenario when auditing the company's policies and procedures? If so, did he ensure the crew and shore side company personnel were following them? Subchapter M also allows for third party auditors to conduct third party audits on behalf of the flag.


In the case of the Concordia, who is authorized to certify compliance with the ISM code on behalf of the flag?  The ISM code allows for "recognized organizations" to certify compliance with the ISM code, and in the case of the Concordia the recognized organization was the classification society RINA who had issued the Safety Management Certificate (SMC) for the Concordia on November 13, 2011. Subchapter M also allows for "third party organizations" to issue Towing Safety Management System Certificates on behalf of the flag as a requirement for obtaining a Coast Guard Certificate of Inspection (COI) under the TSMS option.


While we wait for the final rule to be published on Subchapter M, it will be interesting to watch how the Concordia investigation unfolds and where the "blame" is placed. One thing we know already is, three days after the disaster, after questioning the company's denial of knowledge of the Concordia's fatal maneuvers, the president of RINA resigned.
  3772 Hits

Towing Vessel Regulations – Freedom of Choice?

The Coast Guard has offered the industry a compliance option in the proposed towing vessel regulation: traditional Coast Guard inspections, or the Towing Vessel Safety Management System (TSMS). The TSMS was introduced to address the human element in towing vessel incidents, justified in the proposed rule by statistics which showed that human factors accounted for 54 percent of the medium and high severity towing vessel incidents. While the members of the Towing Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) recommended that the TSMS be the backbone of any inspection program, the Coast Guard has proposed to make the TSMS a choice and not mandatory.

 


The Coast Guard contracted with the American Bureau of Shipping Group (ABSG) in 2006 to study, among other things, the impact of an inspection program on the towing industry. The findings of that study were cited by the Coast Guard, along with input from the TSAC Economic Working Group, as their reasons for making the TSMS voluntary and not mandatory: "a safety management system may not [be] a very cost-effective way to achieve safer operations, "the industry personnel were clear that effective implementation of a safety management system was a very difficult task for a company that had not previously been highly structured and had not formally documented its policies and procedures.'' TSAC Economic Working Group report stated ''[A SMS] will likely have a larger and more devastating impact on smaller companies who do not have the economic means, manpower, or even time to implement a system.'' Therefore, the Coast Guard concluded: "…it is appropriate to propose that all towing vessels subject to this rulemaking have the option of operating within a company implemented TSMS." Federal Register/ Vol. 76, No.155/ Thursday August 11, 2011/ Proposed Rule, pg.49979


This seems like a fair and well-reasoned approach by the Coast Guard. Oddly enough however, there are some in the industry who are opposed to allowing this option and who want the TSMS to be mandatory for all. In fact, reports from the first public meeting on the topic were that there was virtually no support of the traditional Coast Guard inspection option! Perhaps, companies are not concerned about the economic impact projected, but they should heed the warning that, "effective implementation of an SMS was a very difficult task.." Indeed. It is a very difficult task for any company. Why would companies oppose such a choice? Perhaps they do not yet understand what the government means by "effective implementation." But surely they will find out.


If this choice is allowed to remain in the final rule, companies will be faced with a very important choice. I suggest that before companies choose the TSMS option they first ask their captains if they will be willing to operate their vessels in strict conformance with the company's written policies and procedures in the TSMS, and not simply rely upon their experience and license when operating the vessels. If the captains respond, "Of course we will, no problem," and the company is 100% confident in that response, then they should go ahead and bet their vessel's Certificate of Inspection (COI) on it by choosing the TSMS compliance option. Otherwise, a prudent risk-based approach would dictate going with the traditional Coast Guard inspection option.

  4256 Hits

Towing Vessel Regulations – Don’t Skip the “Discussion”

Hopefully all concerned parties have had a chance to study the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on towing vessel inspections, because the regulations will have a significant impact on the industry in the years to come. The Coast Guard public meetings scheduled over the next couple of months should spark some interesting commentary which will surely make the meetings worth the price of admission.

 


There are many controversial issues regarding the proposed regulations. One of the most prominent seems to be that many do not agree that towing vessels needed to be "inspected" vessels. Some feel that the bridging program and towing vessel examinations have been very successful in raising the level of compliance and are sufficient to ensure safe operations. While others maintain that the towing industry is safe, they agree with making towing vessels "inspected" in order to remove the stigma of "uninspected" vessels, and improve or eliminate shoddy operators. This discussion may seem moot at this point, but the "why" is important.


The Coast Guard provides justification for their regulations in the NPRM through statistics and studies, to explain why towing vessels are now required to be inspected. Regardless of what side of the argument you were on as to why towing vessels needed to be inspected or not, what matters at the end of the day, is the justification the Coast Guard writes in the Federal Register. Because when disputes arise regarding the intent of the regulations, which they always do, prudent Coast Guard inspectors and their supervisors refer back the "discussion" part of the Federal Register to determine the intent of the regulations.


For example: during a Coast Guard oversight inspection, a towing vessel company is found to be in noncompliance because the captain does not follow the written policies and procedures in the TSMS. The company argues to the Coast Guard that the procedures are guidelines for the captain to refer to if need be and not hard and fast rules. Besides, the company further explains that the only reason the TSMS is in the regulations is because the industry asked for it. The prudent Coast Guard inspector would respond that, according to the Federal Register: "the majority of towing vessel accidents are related to human factors," and the TSMS was included as a means to address human factors, and that "the TSMS will provide instructions and procedures for the safe operation of the vessel." Therefore, if the captain does not follow the written procedures provided by the company, the human factors remain unaddressed, and therefore the company is not operating in accordance with the intent of the regulations…. And while we're at it, who did your last audit?


You can influence the future content of the Federal Register discussion by commenting to the docket and participating in the public meetings. Don't miss the opportunity.


*Originally published in the Workboat blog Regulatory Roundup.
  4033 Hits

Increased Scrutiny of SMS Implementation by U.S. Coast Guard

 When it comes to what constitutes full implementation of a safety management system such as the International Safety Management (ISM) Code, there seems to be a disconnect between what different stakeholders believe to be adequate. Different flag states, recognized organizations, class societies, and port state control authorities enforce the code to their own standards, not to mention each individual auditor's experience and subjective opinions.  The real disparity becomes painfully clear during times of major accident investigations and litigation, when everything is put under a microscope and the level of implementation that was considered "satisfactory" at the last audit can now constitute alleged negligence.



A company may have an acceptable safety management system and a satisfactory level of implementation, that is, until there is a serious casualty.  Once there is a serious casualty, the implication can be that whatever was being done before the accident was obviously inadequate, regardless of how many enforcement officials and auditors had blessed the program previously.  This is not what the ISM was intended to be, but it is unarguably what it has evolved into.  Nowhere is this more apparent than in the U.S. Coast Guard's report of investigation on the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.  The report finds fault with all stakeholders and pulls no punches. 

There must be clear and consistent expectations if ISM is going to be implemented as designed.  It seems the U.S. Coast Guard may now be thinking in a similar fashion. In the Deepwater Horizon report the recommendations include an investigation to see if a change to the current inspection and enforcement methods is required to increase compliance with the ISM code. Increased scrutiny of adherence to policies and procedures may be on the horizon. Vessel operators, including towing vessel operators in the U.S. who will soon be required by regulation to implement a safety management system, should start now making sure that their policies and procedures are actually being followed.

Say what you do, do what you say, and be able to prove it!
  4548 Hits

RCP v. Subchapter M

The proposed rule containing regulations for the inspection of towing vessels, known as Subchapter M, is due to be published in a few months.  It is expected that these regulations will include a towing vessel safety management systems. Many towing vessel companies currently have a safety management system (SMS) in place known as the American Waterways Operators (AWO) Responsible Carrier Program (RCP).  Having been both a U.S. Coast Guard marine inspector and an AWO RCP auditor, I have noticed a different expectation regarding the level of implementation required between inspected vessel's SMS and RCP. I suspect that some RCP companies might have a difficult time with Subchapter M enforcement if they don't step up the level of implementation.


 


An interesting marine casualty report has been published by the Coast Guard regarding the unfortunate death of a U.S. merchant mariner. I recommend anyone involved in an SMS click on the link below, and/or if the link times out: go to Homeport, Investigations, & scroll down and open "S/R Wilmington Personnel Casualty," and take note of the emphasis placed on the SMS in this accident report, and how the Coast Guard intends to step up SMS enforcement.

http://homeport.uscg.mil/mycg/portal/ep/home.do?tabId=0&BV_SessionID=@@@@1323623537.1305732674@@@@&BV_EngineID=cccfad 

  5197 Hits

New Safety Management System Workbook Available

A common practice throughout the maritime industry, despite elaborate safety management systems (SMS) which have been put in place, is to simply rely on the credentials and experience of mariners to operate safely. But the expectation with Safety Management Systems (SMS) is that written policies and procedures are to be followed by employees, both ashore and afloat.   Just ask anyone who has been involved in a serious accident investigation, or litigation. 

The hard truth is, best way to learn the company's policies and procedures is to "hit the books" and actually look up the information and apply it to real-life situations.  The best way to ensure this is done is to provide a tool to shipboard and shore-side employees which will help them do the work.

 


We have recently published an SMS workbook, based upon a qualification process used in the U.S. Coast Guard.  The workbook contains 90 different scenarios, each of which must be researched by the trainee in the company's own SMS. Space is provided to write down, not only the answer, but the section, page and paragraph number where the answer is found.  The workbook covers just about any scenario intended to be covered by any maritime SMS.  It can be issued to each individual employee as a personal qualification guide, or used during group training exercises.

Anyone who completes this workbook will be fully familiar with the company's SMS and will fare much better during inspections, audits, investigations, administrative hearings and trials. It can also serve as a required "management review" as it will bring to light any inadequacies in the SMS which require revision. Finally, auditors will find this workbook an excellent tool to determine if crews know the company policies and procedures, or if the issue is even addressed in the SMS.

Many companies have ordered these workbooks for their entire fleets and have found them to be extremely beneficial. To order the Safety Management System Workbook simply click here. You can pay by credit card through the website, or simply place an order and request an invoice. 

  4362 Hits

What's the best way to get captains and crews to learn company policies and procedures?

These days there are many policies and procedures for crews to follow. As we have discussed in the past, many policies and procedures may be unreasonable or unrealistic, but once they have been customized and refined, what's the best way to get captains and crews to learn and follow them? Unfortunately, the answer is to "crack the books" which not too many people enjoy.  This is a true leadership challenge, but with the right skills and tools it can be done.

Please join us in New Orleans on April 29th for an important seminar on the proper implemenation of safety management systems.  Please follow the link below for further details:

https://marcomint.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24&Itemid=16 

  4041 Hits

Safety Management System or a Checklist for Negligence?

The latest trend in regulatory schemes is performance based regulations. This type of regulation usually requires the regulated entity to come up with a plan or system which will meet the performance based criteria in the regulations, such as International Safety Management (ISM) and the impending towing vessel inspection regulations. Some organizations also require member companies to implement a Safety Management System (SMS), such as the American Waterways Operators (AWO) Responsible Carrier Program (RCP). Regardless of the source, not fully implementing and complying with these plans can have serious consequences in the event of an accident.A conversation I had with an attorney after a serious accident really drove home the importance of "saying what you do, and doing what you say." I discussed my concerns with some SMSs which can never be complied with due to the way they are written. I explained that some companies seem to have brainstormed with a bunch of "old salts" and come up with every possible thing that could ever go wrong during any one evolution. While this is never a bad idea and produces excellent training material, it was how the information was incorporated into the SMS which created the problem. After the comprehensive list had been compiled, it was entered into the SMS and labeled, "The following items must be checked prior to conducting the following evolution…." I explained that the problem I have found as an auditor is, despite the SMS mandating that the entire extensive comprehensive list be completed every time, the crewmembers can only explain the two or three items they actually check. The attorney was well aware of this problem and explained that is why a company's SMS manual can serve as a "checklist for negligence" during litigation. 

  5265 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.