facebookgoogle+
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 for email alerts by using the Subscribe to blog link above.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Login
    Login Login form

Posted on

Please take a look at my article in this month's edition of Marine News Magazine. (The article begins on page 20 of the magazine, page 22 of the electronic format.)  It's important information about surveying your vessel for Subchapter M compliance.

There are only 14 months left to get ready. If you need assitance with Regualtory Compliance Surveys, Towing Vessel Record/ Compliance Management Systems, Towing Safety Management Systems, or our Subchapter M Self-Study Course, please don't hesitate to contact us.

0517postimage

 

Last modified on
Hits: 396 0 Comments
0

Posted on
Congratulations to E.N. Bisso & Son for its recent ISM certfication by ABS. The company has worked hard to achieve this goal with VP Mike Vitt leading the effort for the company. E.N. Bisso & Son partnered with Maritime Compliance International a decade ago. When they made the decision to seek ISM certification we developed their safety management system (SMS) into the ISM format, provided safety management workbooks for all captains to complete and learn the company's SMS, and conducted quarterly visits to each vessel to ensure steady progress. The ISM manual was approved with no deficiencies, the Document of Compliance was issued to the company following a successful audit, and now the vessels are being audited and issued their Safety Management Certificates. It is a pleasure to work with such dedicated clients.
b2ap3_thumbnail_ENB.ISM.JPG
Last modified on
Hits: 865 0 Comments
0

Posted on
There are now 18 months left to get towing vessels into compliance with Subchapter M. According to our Subchapter M Strategic Plan, by now all captains should have read Subchapter M, as well as all managers, who should also have read the Subchapter M Preamble in the Federal Register. Additionally, companies should have decided which compliance option they will go with. We developed a Compliance Option Decision Tool to help in this process. It takes into account seven important factors for towing vessel companies to consider, free of spin and sales pitches. So, if you haven’t done that much yet, you should consider catching up.

January 1 is the date set for companies to begin getting their boats into compliance by getting a comprehensive Subchapter M survey for each vessel. We recently completed our first two Subchapter M surveys for a client.  In order to do this properly, the company must first make some important decisions: the vessel route; number of persons in the crew; number of persons in addition to the crew; warm or cold water operation; excepted vessel or not; and the compliance option. The survey should be based upon these assumptions. Once the company has a comprehensive regulatory compliance survey report, they can budget and plan out the timing of upgrades throughout the year. 

April 1 is the date set to establish how the requirements for written records, operational policies and procedures, and training will be met. Some of our clients are getting ahead of the game by implementing our comprehensive Towing Vessel Record/ Compliance Management System, which includes all required records, policies and procedures. With a good survey, our comprehensive system, and some training, these clients are all set for Subchapter M. 

The items discussed above apply to all towing vessels, regardless of the compliance option. For those companies choosing the Third Party Option, they have a number of other considerations. More on that next time.

Last modified on
Hits: 892 0 Comments
0

Posted on

My article on Subchapter M was just published in the Maritime Executive Magazine. It starts on page 34.

See you at the Workboat Show Booth 2308.

Last modified on
Hits: 1479 0 Comments
0

Posted on

We now have 20 months to get into compliance with Subchapter M. Hopefully, you have a solid plan and are on track.

But you can never have enough information, so I wanted to let you know of these resources: The International Workboat Show will be held in New Orleans from November 30 through December 2. If you are attending the conference series at the show, please try to make my Subchapter M Compliance Management session on Thursday afternoon. I guarantee you will hear things you haven’t heard before and will learn something new.

If you’re at the Workboat Show and have questions, please come by our booth 2308, say hello, and pick up a free copy of our Subchapter M Compliance Option Decision Matrix and our Subchapter M Strategic Plan for Towing Vessel Companies.

If you haven't already done so, I recommend you enter your email address, free of charge, in the subscribe box at the top of this page. You will only get an email notiication when something important has been posted.

Finally, please be on the lookout for my article on Subchapter M in the upcoming Maritime Executive Magazine. If you don’t get it delivered, be sure to pick up a free copy at the Workboat Show, or look for it online. We are looking forward to seeing you and helping to make your transition as painless as possible.

Last modified on
Hits: 2921 0 Comments
0

Posted on
On October 4, 2016, I attended a joint Subchapter M conference in New Orleans put on by the American Waterways Operators (AWO) and the U.S. Coast Guard. The AWO representative gave a great overview of Subchapter M, with particular emphasis on issues of concern to industry that they have been working on with the Coast Guard. Both parties should be commended for their efforts and results.

Coast Guard comments
The presentation by the Coast Guard was given by Captain Verne Gifford, Chief of Inspections and Compliance at Coast Guard Headquarters. Much of Captain Gifford’s presentation focused on the Coast Guard’s efforts to incentivize the Third Party TSMS option. The Coast Guard is concerned about manpower issues to inspect the 5,719 towing vessels in the U.S.

I took the opportunity during the Q&A session to ask Captain Gifford to address some of the concerns I had heard from industry in response to the latest round of Subchapter M frequently asked questions (FAQs) issued by headquarters. I told the Captain that the FAQs seemed so one-sided in their attempt to incentivize the Third Party TSMS option that I have heard comments such as, “I don’t even think the Coast Guard wrote these,” and “This sounds like intimidation!” Captain Gifford assured us that it was not the Coast Guard’s intent to intimidate anyone, one way or the other, but that the Coast Guard does have concerns about available manpower to get the inspections done in a timely fashion. He estimated that half of the towing vessel fleet will go with the Coast Guard option. Other senior officers on the panel chimed in and explained that currently, inspections in the Eighth District are scheduled several weeks in advance, and sometimes only a few days. They stated, if you can deal with that, the Coast Guard option may be for you. Rear Admiral Callahan, Commander of the Eighth Coast Guard District, added that if you want to go with the Coast Guard option, they would do their best to accommodate you, but he just couldn’t promise how timely they would be in doing so.

Biggest takeaway
Rear Admiral Callahan also provided the biggest takeaway for me at the end of his introductory remarks. He said he was going off-script when he gave us three things to ponder (paraphrased): 1. Does your safety management system (SMS) foster compliance, or a safety culture? 2. Is your SMS implemented, or is it just sitting on the shelf? 3. If your SMS is implemented, is it implemented across all levels of the company: top management, middle management, and on the deck plates?

Normally, I might consider these comments standard Coast Guard SMS philosophy, but taken in the context of this conference where much of the talk was centered on going with the Third Party TSMS option, I took it as a warning. A warning to towing vessel companies to ensure, before they jump on this Third Party TSMS option, that everyone in the company is ready, from the deckhands on up.

Last modified on
Hits: 2694 1 Comment
0

Posted on
Having worked for, or with, the Coast Guard for over 30 years, I found the latest round of Subchapter M “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)” quite strange. I understand that the Coast Guard is having to deal with quite a few new vessels to inspect, and that they may be trying to appease those who wanted the third party TSMS option to be the only option, but this latest round of FAQs dated August 31, 2016 reads more like a talking points memo with plenty of spin to sway readers in one direction. 

Having discussed it with some clients, I am not alone in having this perception. One of my clients stated after reading them, “This sounds like intimidation!” I have nothing to base this on other than my gut, but my gut tells me these FAQs were not written by the Coast Guard.

Great! TPO doesn’t have to go on my individual boats?
The first question I have is, what qualifies these to be frequently asked questions? Some of these questions seem pretty obscure, designed solely to be able to provide an answer with an agenda. For example: What must a TPO do before issuing a TSMS Certificate? Really? Even if all the TPOs asked this, I’m not sure it would qualify as a FAQ. But the last line of the answer explains the question: The TPO is not required to visit individual vessels before issuing a TSMS certificate. Reading this one might think: Oh, great, that’s what I was worried about. I know the office has it down pat, but the boats have me concerned. What the answer doesn’t say is the boats still have to pass a third party external audit in order to get a COI.

Great! Third Party Option takers have greater flexibility in scheduling and less down time.
When I was a Coast Guard marine inspector the vessel company called us up, we asked what day they wanted, we marked it in our book. Every morning we checked the book, divided up the jobs and went and did them. Only those who were not ready for inspection had problems. 

Great! Third Party Option takers get a de-scoped COI inspection and the Coast Guard option people get the full business.
I’m no lawyer, but the regulations are usually in line with the law, and the policy is usually in line with the regulations. The regulations clearly state what the COI inspection “will include.” Only the annual inspection, according to the regulations, “will cover less detail.” This is standard operating procedure, but a de-scoped COI inspection seems to be a stretch. 

How will the Coast Guard ensure compliance for vessels taking the Coast Guard only option? 
This answer is so over the top, I only have one suggestion: remove the words “ensure compliance for” and replace them with the word “punish.”

Will the Coast Guard use Petty Officers for Subchapter M?
What a curious “frequently” asked question. I have never heard anyone ask this. Most people don’t know an enlisted person from an officer. On the other hand, I have heard many unfortunate stories about the inconsistency and lack of knowledge demonstrated by enlisted towing vessel examiners during the bridging program. One towboat owner assured me he would not be using the Subchapter M Coast Guard option due to his experience with the enlisted towing vessel examiners. Oh, wait. I get it now. That’s why this was included as an FAQ…

It’s interesting that there were no FAQs about the strong language in the regulations regarding Coast Guard oversight of the TPOs and vessels under the TSMS option.

I like to warn clients to beware of the sales pitch. I guess sales pitches come from all angles these days.

Last modified on
Hits: 1346 1 Comment
0

Posted on
The revised MTSA regulations included in the recently published TWIC Final Rule go into effect on August 23, 2018. As usual, the final rule comes with an extensive preamble discussion of the Coast Guard’s response to comments received during the rule making process. The preamble, which contains essential information, is usually skipped over by most readers. In fact, seasoned Coast Guard marine inspectors know to look back at the Federal Register when a particular regulation was published in order to determine the intent of a regulation in question.

Headline
The headline for this final rule is clearly: “We clarify that this final rule only affects Risk Group A vessels and facilities, and that no changes to the existing business practices of other MTSA-related vessels and facilities are required.” Before you get too excited about that, you must understand this: when Coast Guard Headquarters makes that statement they are assuming you are currently doing everything correctly in accordance with the regulations and guidance. Hopefully, for you that is the case, but maybe not. Many compliance variations have been allowed over the years. Regardless, this new regulation will bring new scrutiny by the Coast Guard, and may bring some previously accepted practices into question. I will explain further below under “Potential impacts for non-Risk Group A Facilities.”

Which vessels are required to conduct electronic TWIC inspections?
Only Risk Group A vessels will be required to conduct electronic TWIC inspections. Risk Group A vessel are listed in 33 CFR 104.263: vessels carrying CDCs in bulk; vessels certificated to carry more than 1,000 passengers; and vessels engaged in towing vessels subject to (a)(1) and (a) (2). Now before you towing vessel folks get too excited, there’s an exemption from electronic TWIC inspection requirements for vessels with 20 or fewer TWIC-holding crewmembers. That number is determined by the minimum manning requirement specified on the COI. The Coast Guard estimates that only one vessel will be required conduct electronic TWIC inspections.

Which facilities are required to conduct electronic TWIC inspections?
Only Risk Group A facilities will be required to conduct electronic TWIC inspections. Risk Group A facilities are listed in 33 CFR 105.253: facilities that handles CDCs in bulk or receive vessels carrying CDCs in bulk; and facilities that receive vessels certificated to carry more than 1, 000 passengers. Now before you stop reading this, here are a couple of things to think about: How do you ensure the ship at your dock is not carrying CDCs in bulk even if that cargo has nothing to do with your facility? Also, “handling” includes CDCs in bulk being handled by truck or rail or other means on the facility, not just vessel related. The Coast Guard estimates that 525 facilities will have to conduct electronic TWIC verification. No OCS facilities are expected to have to conduct electronic TWIC verifications.

What is Certain Dangerous Cargo (CDC)? 
It is a short but complicated list of cargos contained in 33 CFR 160.202, including ammonium nitrate based fertilizer.

A TWIC reader or a PACS?
For Risk Group A the Coast Guard authorizes either TWIC readers or using Physical Access Control Systems (PACS) that meets the standard. 33 CFR 101.530 details PACS requirements specifically for Risk Group A. The preamble explains, “… we are providing greater flexibility on the type of equipment used, as long as the three parts of electronic TWIC inspection are performed satisfactorily.” Some existing PACS accepted by the Coast Guard may need upgrading for Risk Group A facilities. 

Barge Fleeting Facilities
The revised regulation contains an exemption for certain barge fleeting facilities. 33 CFR 105.110(e) “Barge fleeting facilities without shore side access are exempt from the requirements in 33 CFR 101.535(b)(1) (Electronic TWIC inspection requirements for Risk Group A)

Clearly, if a barge fleeting facility containing ammonium nitrate barges can be accessed from shore, without having to take a boat, it will not be exempt from these TWIC reader requirements. MTSA PAC 10-09 allows free floating barge fleeting facilities to be defined as areas in the water, in accordance with the regulatory definition. This allows barge fleeting facilities to define the tiers containing the MTSA regulated barges as the “facility,” and omit other tiers of non-MTSA regulated barges and shore side areas containing an office or wash dock. Therefore, if a barge fleeting facility is defined as in the FSP, for example, as mile 147.1 to 146.9, right descending bank of the Mississippi River, it may be able to claim this exemption.

Barge fleeting facilities that did not take advantage of this PAC and include all shore side areas, and did not limit their secure area to regulated barge tiers, may find themselves missing out on the exemption provided above, regardless of whether one must take a boat to get to the regulated barges. The preamble discussion sheds some light on the topic: “These commenters raise important issues as to how we would apply the electronic TWIC inspection process to secure areas on water, such as barge fleeting facilities. Upon consideration, we do not believe that requiring electronic TWIC inspection prior to entering such areas would be practical, as there is no particular access point to such an area that can be controlled by a TWIC reader. Electronic TWIC inspection would instead be required at the barge fleeting facility’s shore side location.

Based on these comments its seems the verbiage of the exemption referring to “without shore side access,” means an isolated barge fleeting facility along a waterway with no shore side “location” from which one would go through first to gain access to the barge fleet. Not just a free floating tier of barges.

Note: On 09/07/16, this barge fleeting section was read and confirmed to be correct by the Coast Guard Headquarters’ P.O.C. named in the final rule.

Potential impacts for non-Risk Group A Facilities:

Incorporating TWIC checks into existing PACS
The guidance for incorporating TWIC checks into existing systems (PACS) is contained in NVIC 03-07 and PAC 08-09 CH1. The preamble explains those guidance documents will remain valid for non-Risk Group A facilities, but will be updated: “NVIC 03-07 and PAC 08-09 CH1 … because we are not making changes to the TWIC requirements for those vessels and facilities not in risk Group A, the guidance documents will retain their validity with regard to those entities. We will update and post these guidance documents online … prior to the effective date of the final rule.” So what will the updated guidance look like for non-Risk Group A facilities? Here’s the rub. 33 CFR 101.520, Electronic TWIC inspection, is not specific for Risk Group A facilities and outlines that the requirements must include: (a) Card authentication (b) card validity check (c) identity verification. Therefore, the revised guidance should be in line with the regulation and may not allow for issuing a facility swipe card to allow self-access to secure areas just because the person showed they possessed a valid TWIC, or even if a camera was added to monitor the person swipe themselves in.

Access point to Secure Area
The preamble sheds light onto a gray area, the physical place where the TWIC verification must take place: “Given the requirement that electronic TWIC inspection be conducted “prior to each entry” into a secure area (of facilities), we would anticipate that inspection points at facilities would be located at the access points to secure areas.” While this verbiage in the preamble is in regards to electronic TWIC inspection, it is essentially the same for all MTSA facilities as outlined in NVIC 03-07, but clearer with regards to the location of the TWIC verification process. Therefore, some compliance processes proposed in the past may be affected, such as: checking the TWIC at the front gate guard shack and then telling a visitor a punch code, or handing him a swipe card, to let himself into the secure area dock gate.

Restricted areas
There is an omission in the preamble discussion regarding the NVIC discussion of restricted areas, which might cause the reader to believe that the secure area must encompass all restricted areas. That is not the case. However, the preamble does contain an interesting comment regarding restricted area access control: “We note that a second round of electronic TWIC inspection is not required when passing from a secure area to a restricted area, although we would anticipate other security measures to be in place.” The implication is for more than signage, (33 CFR 105.260(c)).

Escorting
The preamble addresses escorting via CCTV and reiterates the standard put forth in the NVIC: “Where such monitoring is appropriate, the general principle applies that monitoring must enable sufficient observation of the individual with a means to respond if the individual is observed to be engaging in unauthorized activities or crossing into an unauthorized area.” This may give rise to the Coast Guard ensuring continuous monitoring non-TWIC personnel, which meets the intent of the regulation, not just having cameras installed.

Secure area access control
33 CFR 105.255(a)(4) implies the secure area should be fenced, but it doesn’t actually say that. If some secure areas within facilities were approved without fencing or additional access control, the new verbiage for Risk Group A facilities tacked onto this citation may bring some access control measure for secure areas into question.



Last modified on
Hits: 1587 0 Comments
0

Posted on
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.
Last modified on
Hits: 1334 0 Comments
0

Posted on

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

Last modified on
Hits: 1362 0 Comments
0

Posted on

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.

Last modified on
Hits: 2155 0 Comments
0

Posted on

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.

Last modified on
Hits: 2526 0 Comments
0

Posted on

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.

Last modified on
Hits: 2796 0 Comments
0

Posted on
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.
Continue reading Last modified on
Hits: 3076 0 Comments
0

Posted on
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?

Choose wisely.
Last modified on
Hits: 2927 0 Comments
0

Contact Us

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Phone: 504.249.5291 | Fax: 504.367.3308

Copyright ©
Maritime Compliance International
All rights reserved

Maritime Compliance Report Sign-Up

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

Stay Connected