Please check out the following webpage where we have posted our Subchapter M products and services. Let us know if you have any specific concerns or needs. Thank you.
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.
4045 Hits
1 Comment
The Subchapter M Final Rule is finally here. Come join us for the Subchapter M Workshop in New Orleans on September 23.
Click here for more information and to register: Subchapter M Workshop
4166 Hits
According to informed sources we should see the Subchapter M final rule within a few months. Despite the fact that the proposed rule has been published for years, there is a great deal of misinformation and misunderstanding. Some operators are willing to pay consultants to tell them what to do, and others will try to make sense of it on their own. Still others will just wait until the Coast Guard shows up and see what happens.
There is no substitute for educating yourself. Understanding the ins and outs of operating as an inspected vessel empowers operators to protect themselves from costly compliance errors that arise from well intentioned, but misinformed, individuals. I have heard a great deal of misinformation lately on Subchapter M.Here are the Top Ten bits of Subchapter M misinformation:
- Under Subchapter M a towing vessel must have a towing safety management system (TSMS).
- If the company is currently operating under a voluntary safety management system, they must use the third party TSMS option.
- The masters will be insulated from the Coast Guard by sharp office employees.
- If a firefighting or lifesaving issue is found that the Coast Guard would shut a boat down for, a third party surveyor will be able to let the boat continue to operate.
- An audit involves a plan review and vessel survey only, not interviews with the crews to see if they know and follow the written policies and procedures.
- If a boat claims to be a fleet boat in order to minimize equipment requirements, the Certificate of Inspection (COI) will not restrict its operations to a particular fleet, potentially reducing its appraised value.
- Saying, "I don't know, but I know where to look it up," is typically a satisfactory answer for the Coast Guard.
- The Coast Guard wants you to use the third party TSMS option and may even retaliate if you don't because they are understaffed.
- A captain cannot have his license revoked for failure to follow the safety management policies and procedures.
- An auditor, or surveyor, cannot go to jail for passing a vessel audit or survey when the vessel or company does not meet the standard.
Don't begin at a disadvantage. Come join us for our Subchapter M Workshop on May 6th in New Orleans. Learn from retired Coast Guard marine safety personnel, with a combined 70 years of Coast Guard experience, and learn the truth and how to best prepare for success.
5027 Hits
If you are going to the Workboat Show this week, please come by and see us at Booth 1434.
If you are going to the conference sessions don't miss my presentation with ABS Consulting: Subchapter M - The Top Five Things You Need to Know and Do Now; Tuesday 2:30pm until 3:15pm, in the Rivergate Room. See you there.
5115 Hits
There are a number of changes going into effect on January 1, 2016 regarding AWO Responsible Carrier Program. The TVIB has a new management worksheet that reflects the new changes. I recently conducted a gap analysis of a client's RCP SMS that I had drafted years ago, using the new TVIB management worksheet. The new TVIB management worksheet is 136 pages long, with 506 items to check. An SMS should be checked to see if an item is addressed, if it meets the expectation listed in the worksheet, and if the item meets the TVIB definition of a policy, procedure, program, etc. At the end of my gap analysis, I came up with approximately 100 changes to make to the SMS.
Don't wait until your next external audit to find out what you are missing.
6003 Hits
An audit should not include a comprehensive manual review and comprehensive inspection of a vessel. These three functions should be kept separate and distinct in order to preserve the quality of the audit.
My experience as a Coast Guard marine inspector in verifying audited programs, was all based around International Safety Management (ISM). As proposed, Subchapter M offers a Towing Safety Management System (TSMS) option structured to look very much like ISM. For those readers unfamiliar with how ISM works, these are the basics of the program. Once a company chooses, or is required by regulation, to adopt ISM, a safety management manual is put together in accordance with the ISM Code (hopefully not bought off the shelf). The Company then contracts with a "recognized organization," such as an authorized classification society, who will review the manual, audit company and vessels, and issue the international certificates on behalf of the flag. This process is included in Subchapter M, however, the "recognized organization" is referred to a "third party organization."
The company takes time to refine their processes, and their manual, and works toward implementation. The SMS manual is then submitted to the recognized organization (authorized classification society) for review and approval. During this desktop review, the classification society makes sure that it includes all the requirements of, the ISM Code, the flag state, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and of that particular classification society. The safety management manual is then "approved." A comprehensive manual review does not occur every time the vessel is audited.
Once the manual is approved, audits are scheduled. First an office audit to ensure the company is following the requirements of the company's SMS manual. If the company passes the audit a Document of Compliance (DOC) is issued to the company. There is no equivalent to the DOC in Subchapter M. Then comes an audit of each vessel to ensure that the vessel is following the requirements of the company's SMS manual. The main players in this process are the master of the vessel and the auditor. Often times no one else from the company is present. If the vessel passes the audit, a Safety Management Certificate (SMC) is issued to the vessel. There is an equivalent to the SMC in Subchapter M, as it calls for a Towing Safety Management Certificate (TSMC) to be issued to the vessel.
Having been involved with towing industry audits since my retirement from the Coast Guard, I have found it strange that an "audit" usually includes an entire plan review and a comprehensive inspection of the vessel. During an ISM audit the auditor will walk-through the vessel with a focus on verifying certain items from the SMS manual policies and procedures. However, an entire inspection, or survey, of the vessel is not conducted. That is an entirely separate function conducted by flag state inspectors. These two separate processes are distinct in Subchapter M, as the proposed Subchapter calls for, if chosen, the use of third party surveyors to conduct the flag state inspection (survey) of the towing vessel, in addition to the use of third party auditors to audit implementation of the TSMS. However, the Subchapter does allow for getting the vessel survey items done under an audited program.
Hopefully, Subchapter M will follow ISM in that the TSMS manual will be reviewed and approved up front, and the survey function will be kept separate from the audit function. It is essential to not bog down an auditor with such repetitive duties, and allow him to focus on the task at hand: ensuring the vessel is being operated in accordance with the TSMS policies and procedures applicable to the vessel.
6152 Hits
Six months and counting… Perhaps this deadline for the Subchapter M Final Rule will be the final one. It certainly feels that way. Folks in the know seem to be more confident than ever before. I'm also starting to see the media buzz, and our company has received requests for assistance from five new towboat companies just in the past month. So, what should towboat companies be doing now to prepare? The first thing towboat companies should do is decide on their compliance option.
As proposed, 46 CFR 136.130 outlines that towing vessel companies have two options for obtaining a Certificate of Inspection (COI) for a vessel. The first option is inspection of the vessel by the Coast Guard. This is a traditional Coast Guard inspection of the vessel, not an audit. A health and safety plan will be required and there are significant record requirements contained in Subchapter M, but those items fall far short of a safety management system. Under the proposed Subchapter M, a safety management system is not required for towing vessels. In fact, under the U.S. flag, safety management systems are not required for any class of vessel other than a deep draft ship on an international voyage.
The second compliance option is to comply with the requirements of a Towing Safety Management System (TSMS) and to use approved third parties. Making this choice will be the single biggest decision for any towing vessel company, because the demands placed upon the company by voluntarily choosing to use a TSMS as a compliance option to obtain a vessel's COI will be much greater.
It makes no difference if a towing company is already operating under a safety management system. They may still choose to go with the Coast Guard option to get its COI, because, as proposed, safety management is not required by regulation for towing vessels. The proposed regulation requires vessel operators to fill out an application for inspection for each vessel, and each application will require the operator to check the compliance option for each vessel. Therefore, an operator may choose the TSMS option for some vessels and the Coast Guard option for others.
There are lots of opinions being expressed about this. Some sound like sales pitches disguised as sound advice. But even though our company develops TSMSs as a major part of our business, if I owned a towboat, I would check the Coast Guard compliance option. I would not bet my COI that the captain and crew are going to convince the auditor that the vessel is in compliance with proposed 46 CFR 140.205(b). That federal regulations states: "towing vessels with a TSMS must be operated in accordance with the TSMS applicable to the vessel." For example, the auditor finds a four-inch thick TSMS on board and asks the captain if he has read it yet. The captain responds that he has skimmed through it, which means no. Some auditors might not care. But who wants to bet that you won't get the auditor who says: How can I certify, under penalty of 18 USC 1001 (making false statements), that the vessel is being operated in accordance with the TSMS, if the captain admits he hasn't even read it yet?
As proposed, 46 CFR 136.130 outlines that towing vessel companies have two options for obtaining a Certificate of Inspection (COI) for a vessel. The first option is inspection of the vessel by the Coast Guard. This is a traditional Coast Guard inspection of the vessel, not an audit. A health and safety plan will be required and there are significant record requirements contained in Subchapter M, but those items fall far short of a safety management system. Under the proposed Subchapter M, a safety management system is not required for towing vessels. In fact, under the U.S. flag, safety management systems are not required for any class of vessel other than a deep draft ship on an international voyage.
The second compliance option is to comply with the requirements of a Towing Safety Management System (TSMS) and to use approved third parties. Making this choice will be the single biggest decision for any towing vessel company, because the demands placed upon the company by voluntarily choosing to use a TSMS as a compliance option to obtain a vessel's COI will be much greater.
It makes no difference if a towing company is already operating under a safety management system. They may still choose to go with the Coast Guard option to get its COI, because, as proposed, safety management is not required by regulation for towing vessels. The proposed regulation requires vessel operators to fill out an application for inspection for each vessel, and each application will require the operator to check the compliance option for each vessel. Therefore, an operator may choose the TSMS option for some vessels and the Coast Guard option for others.
There are lots of opinions being expressed about this. Some sound like sales pitches disguised as sound advice. But even though our company develops TSMSs as a major part of our business, if I owned a towboat, I would check the Coast Guard compliance option. I would not bet my COI that the captain and crew are going to convince the auditor that the vessel is in compliance with proposed 46 CFR 140.205(b). That federal regulations states: "towing vessels with a TSMS must be operated in accordance with the TSMS applicable to the vessel." For example, the auditor finds a four-inch thick TSMS on board and asks the captain if he has read it yet. The captain responds that he has skimmed through it, which means no. Some auditors might not care. But who wants to bet that you won't get the auditor who says: How can I certify, under penalty of 18 USC 1001 (making false statements), that the vessel is being operated in accordance with the TSMS, if the captain admits he hasn't even read it yet?
Choose wisely.
5780 Hits
Towboat captains take pride in their craft: driving boats. That's what they enjoy, and that's what they signed up for. They are respected for their ability to handle boats, and are paid well for their experience. So why then do we put a big fat telephone book of a safety management system (SMS) on the boat and expect the captains to actually follow the procedures in that the telephone book?
The truth is, a safety management system for towing vessels does not have to be large and cumbersome, especially for small and mid-size companies. The format of having purpose, scope, definitions, and responsibility preceding every procedure may not be the best approach. If you are running a shipping company with 80 vessels across the globe, and offices on four continents, maybe that is the way to go. But for small and mid-sized towing companies, for the most part, these items can be addressed up front, significantly reducing the size and complexity for the end user.Years ago we came up with an SMS format intended to maximize the possibility that crews might actually use it. We removed all the extra verbiage, "bulletized" as many procedures as possible, and made it all 14 point font. We have applied this method successfully with all the different SMSs in our industry today, including helping a client get to TMSA stage 1.
With recent changes to industry SMS requirements I have heard from clients who think that these changes, including TMSA standards, will require them to revert to telephone book format. This could not be farther from the truth. The quality of an SMS is not measured by how many words it contains. An SMS which covers all requirements, and can actually be read and understood by crews is what each company should strive for.
A few years ago we developed an International Safety Management (ISM) SMS for a client. We kept to our streamlined format and included all standard industry policies and procedures, and it was still only 125 pages. Did the seasoned classification society surveyor say it wasn't comprehensive enough? On the contrary, he said it could be reduced further. Don't fall into the trap of thinking more is better to impress an auditor, or the Coast Guard. Streamline, and make sure your crews are actually following the written procedures. Now, that's impressive.
5250 Hits
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.
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.
4672 Hits
Under the first Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Vessel General Permit (VGP), an annual report was only required to report non-compliance. Under the current 2013 VGP, an annual report is required to be submitted for all vessels covered by the permit, which includes all commercial vessels 79 feet and greater, operating in U.S. waters, including the three mile territorial sea. The first annual report, which will cover calendar year 2014, is due on February 28, 2015. The annual report is included as Appendix H to the 2013 VGP and is three pages long. You can read it over to get an idea of the type of information you will have to submit, but the actual completion and submission of the annual report must be done online.
7343 Hits