The International WorkBoat Show is a great event every year, not only for generating business leads, but for what you can learn from the conversations you have. I had a very interesting conversation with one member of the Coast Guard which is definitely worth sharing and learning from. First, some background: a few months ago we held a public forum on Subchapter M. In preparation for the forum, I met with Coast Guard investigators and inspectors. The plan for the forum, in addition to presenting what was in the proposed regulations, was that I was going to do a presentation on developing and implementing a safety management system (SMS) including all the difficulties and repercussions of not doing so correctly. The intent was to educate the industry on making the best possible decision. One inspector did not like this idea because he thought the SMS option was best and he didn't want to deter companies from that option. The investigator I met with, however, was more in line with my train of thought, which is that a company should know what they are getting into. The investigator explained that it is part of the curriculum to teach Coast Guard investigators to look into the company's SMS following an accident and see if the procedures were adequate to prevent the situation and if those procedures had been fully implemented. Of course, to drive the point home, the investigator added that a captain who does not follow regulations or policies and procedures could be charged with misconduct and be subject to suspension and revocation. I shared this important information with those who attended our forum back in September. At the WorkBoat Show a senior Coast Guard investigator came to our booth and saw our draft of a Towing Safety Management System (TSMS). He said he had wanted to discuss an issue with companies that develop SMSs. He explained that as a Coast Guard investigator he was currently working a case involving a serious personal injury and that he was in the process of going through the company's SMS to see if the written policies and procedures were adequate and if they had been followed. He suggested that should be kept in mind when developing and implementing an SMS. When I told him I agreed and had the exact same conversation with a Coast Guard investigator a couple of months ago, he quickly realized that I was a former Coastie and on the same page. We were both relieved to know there were other like minded individuals dedicated to ensuring the industry understands the intent and prepares for the worst. It seems in this industry there are three levels a company can prepare for when it comes to compliance and conformance. The lowest level is to prepare for an audit by an auditor who the audited is paying to conduct. The mid-level is to prepare for a government inspection where the inspector may or may not look at everything with a critical eye, and even if discrepancies are found, 30 days are typically given to prove compliance. The highest level however, is to prepare for the worst case scenario, such as following a serious accident where Coast Guard investigators, insurance people, expert witnesses and attorneys are paid to look at what went wrong and compare it to the company's policies and procedures. Accordingly, the only prudent action for an excellent company to take is to prepare for the worst and hope for the best by having the best possible policies and procedures and ensure they are properly implemented 100% of the time.
Maritime Compliance Report
For those of you attending the International WorkBoat Show in New Orleans this week, I would like to invite you to come by and visit with us at our booth:2255 In working with other companies we understand one of the greatest challenges is keeping up with all the regulatory requirements, and establishing and maintaining a truly compliant program which represents the optimum level of compliance for a company. I have some ideas on how companies can increase profitability be achieving excellence through compliance and management systems. In our work with other clients they have been able to achieve this in a relatively short period of time. Please stop by our both to discuss our innovative programs including our very successful management coaching program, safety management system implementation assessments, Safety Management Workbooks, and our Towing Safety Management System (TSMS). I won't be speaking at the conference this year. Instead, Workboat has assigned me a Professional Series Webinar. Please tune in for lots of good insight on the new towing vessel regulation which could only come from a former Coast Guard inspector such as, why you should invest now in a "quick acting watertight door" company… New Towing Vessel Inspection Regulations Wednesday December 21, 2011, 1:00pm EST Thank you and we look forward to seeing you at the show.
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.
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.
Dear NPDES vessel program stakeholders,
The one time report electronic system is now available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/vessels/vesselsreporting.cfm
For each vessel, owner/operators are required to submit a one time report between 30 months and 36 months after obtaining permit coverage. EPA is requiring this information to assure permittees are complying with the provisions of the permit, to learn how owner/operators are implementing the permit, and to gain a better understanding about the universe of permittees. The one time report is due February 6, 2012 for those vessels that had coverage on or before September 19, 2009.
We thank everyone for their patience these last few months. EPA delayed releasing the system due to some major glitches in earlier versions of the system. If you identify any other shortcomings or bugs in the system, please contact
If you have any questions about the one time report system, please contact the NOI center at
Thank you,
The Vessel Team
It was interesting to find that not everyone was aware that the Subchapter offers a clear choice for operators between tradition Coast Guard inspections and the third party Towing Safety Management System option.
In addition to an overview of the regulations, I presented a session on "Safety Management Systems – Intent and Implications." It is important for all owners and operators to be fully educated on these issues so that they can make the best choice for their company.
Some of the comments made to be posted on the docket include:
One commenter mentioned the pilothouse alerter system initial alarm must be set to a volume which will be effective in alerting the operator, but not loud enough to disturb the other captain and crew sleeping immediately below the wheelhouse.
One commenter remarked that during certain TSAC meetings it was mentioned that Subchapter M would be similar to Subchapter T and L, and that he didn't find it similar to either.
One commenter mentioned that this proposed rule was very restrictive as to which company employees could conduct internal audits, which seemed to be in conflict with ISM protocol which is not so restrictive.
One commenter suggested that clarification was needed on reporting visitors on board and excursion requirements, to allow for standard industry practice.
One commenter expressed great disappointment in the fact that there were no requirements to address fatigue, such as manning and working hours.
New Orleans Riverside Hilton – Friday September 9, 2011Forum is free. Please let us know if you plan on attending by emailing us
I'm on my second reading of the 76 page Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). As a retired Coast Guard marine inspector who has issued many COIs, much of it looks very familiar, but it also leaves many questions unanswered. I spoke with the program manager at Coast Guard headquarters about many of the issues and he stressed the importance of raising all of these questions by posting them to the docket so the Coast Guard has the opportunity to consider them and respond to them before the final rule is published.That's why we are sponsoring this free public forum to have a candid discussion about:
What is in the proposed rule?
What does it mean to operate under a certificate of inspection?
What are the implications of operating under a safety management system which is required by regulation?
How will third party organizations truly avoid any conflict of interest?
How will a third party surveyor know what is an acceptable repair and who will get to say so?
Are towboat captains really ready and willing to operate their vessels according to a set of written procedures?
The purpose of this forum is to learn from others points of view, engage in debate, and formulate constructive feedback for the Coast Guard which our recorder will post to the docket.
There will be other public meetings on this topic, but none like this. We look forward to seeing you there. Please don't forget to shoot us an email if you plan to attend.
New Orleans Riverside HiltonFriday September 98:45am – 1:00pm
[embed=videolink]{"video":"http://youtu.be/ljGG9Pahu0o","width":"400","height":"225"}[/embed]Additionally, below are the scenarios posed to HQ and the answers received back:
Existing non-NOI vessels: The 30-36 month clock started on the permit effective date: December 19, 2008.
Existing NOI vessels: The 30-36 month clock started on the date permit authorization was granted after the submission of a NOI (can assume Sept. 19, 2009 as the date the NOI grace period ended).
Newly built non-NOI vessels: The 30-36 month clock starts the day sea-trials begin (or the vessel starts discharging waste streams covered by the permit)
Newly built NOI vessels: The 30-36 month clock starts the date permit authorization was granted after the submission of a NOI (normally before sea trials)
Existing non-NOI vessels where ownership was transferred: The 30-36 month clock started on the permit effective date of December 19, 2008.
Existing NOI vessels where ownership was transferred: The 30-36 month clock started on the date of original NOI (vessels first NOI coverage date)
**NOTE: For vessels where the 30-36 month time frame falls after December 19, 2013, a one time report is not required to be submitted. See the last FAQ on the above referenced website
Since the majority of accidents are related to human factors, the Coast Guard is proposing a towing safety management system with specific procedures for crewmembers and shore side personnel to follow that will most likely ensure safe operations. The safety management system will be required to be audited by third party auditors to ensure that all vessels and employees within the company follow written protocols.
According to the Coast Guard, in May of 2002 a towboat hit the I-40 bridge when the operator became medically incapacitated resulting in 14 deaths and $60 million dollars in bridge damage. There were also eight other incidents over a ten-year period where towing vessel operators died while operating a vessel. As a result, the Coast Guard is proposing to require a "pilothouse alerter system" which sounds an alarm if there is no rudder movement over a period of time.
The Coast Guard proposed rule references a study which shows that typical towing industry watch systems of six-hours-on and six-hours-off can have a degrading trend with alertness and performance levels comparable to someone with a blood alcohol concentration of up to 0.1%. As a result the Coast Guard is considering regulating working hours and adopting crew endurance management programs.
This is going to be a major change for the towing industry. The greatest challenge for companies will be getting captains and crews to conform to a system of written policies and procedures. Click here to read to proposed rule.