Maritime Compliance Report

Here's a quiz: What are the three words on the triangle at the center of all TWICs? If a person granting access to a secure area has actually been examining TWICs each time as required, then surely they would remember that those three words are: "privacy, security and commerce." And by the way, poor eyesight is not a good excuse for not complying with a federal regulation. If they cannot see what they are required to check by regulation, they have no business being posted at such a position. Reading glasses or a magnifying glass would come in handy in those situations. Also, you'd also be surprised with what an inexpensive black light will show on a TWIC. 

It's Mardi Gras time once again in New Orleans. If you have been to New Orleans' Mardi Gras parades you know that the edges of the curbs along the parade route are lined with ladders. These ladders are no ordinary ladders. They have three foot long bench seats attached to the very top where we precariously place our precious babies. It's enough to give an OSHA inspector a heart attack. How could this be legal?  On very rare occasion a cop will tell people they need to move their ladders back away from the curb. Of course, the parents respond that they do this every year and it has never been a problem before. They are reluctant to move because they will lose their spot and someone else will quickly place their ladder on the edge of the same curb. It is highly unlikely that another cop will come along and tell them to move. This causes a little deja vu for me. As a Coast Guard inspector, I was that cop. I always enforced the regulations accurately and consistently. I encountered much of the same arguments and resistance. One inspector training me had told me that the regulations were written in blood. That is, some catastrophe had happened that caused the regulations to be written.  I took that to heart. Even though I didn't know what the catastrophe was for each regulation, I enforced them all. After all, that's what the tax payers were paying me to do. Maybe those few New Orleans cops that occasionally tell confused parents to move their ladders back from the curb remember the story of Christian Lambert. According to a recent article in local Gambit newspaper, it turns out that putting our ladders on the curb is not legal. In 1985 the New Orleans City Council passed an ordinance which requires all ladders to be "placed as many feet back from the curb as the ladder is high." That's because of a tragedy that occurred in 1981 at the Krewe of Orleanians parade. Christian was an eight year old boy who was launched from his ladder and was crushed under float number 48 when the crowd surged forward. Accurate and consistent enforcement is a critical component to ensuring compliance. Understanding the origin and intent of regulations is an essential motivator. 

Good companies may choose to wait and see if any of what I have addressed rises to the surface this year. Excellent companies will not take that gamble and will leave nothing to chance. Have an excellent and prosperous New Year. 

We are proud to announce a strategic partnership with Boatracs to provide an electronic Subchapter M compliance product. Please click here to read the full article: Maritime Executive.

 As I read the indictment of two BP officials, Robert Kaluza and Donald Vidrine, on 11 counts of seaman's manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter, I couldn't help but think about Subchapter M and the future of the towing vessel industry. Mr. Vidrine and Kaluza were Well Sight Leaders on the Deepwater Horizon rig the day of the explosion which resulted in the deaths of 11 people. According to the indictment, these Well Sight Leaders were responsible for, among other things, "supervising the implementation of BP's drilling plan." To draw an analogy, under Subchapter M, should a company operate under a Towing Safety Management System (TSMS), the captain will be responsible for "supervising the implementation of the company TSMS."

 Time flies. It's hard to believe that many TWICs are reaching their expiration date. Thankfully, there is an alternative process to renew a TWIC for those whose cards are now expiring. As long as you are a U.S. citizen or U.S. national and your TWIC is expiring before December 31, 2014, all you have to do is call 1-866-347-8942 and pay $60, to order a new TWIC which will be good for another three years.  A client recently did this over the phone with all their employees and found it to be a very simple process. Of course, once the TWIC is ready, it will require a trip to a TWIC center to pick it up and activate it.

Another expiration which is coming up is the first batch of Bridging Program Uninspected Towing Vessel (UTV) examination stickers. Some vessel operators are under the impression that they must renew their examination sticker. This is not the case. UTVs are still uninspected until the Final Rule of Subchapter M goes into effect. The UTV examination program had been around for many years before the Bridging Program, a program which is similar to the commercial fishing vessel voluntary examination program. The Coast Guard decided to use the UTV examination program as part of the Bridging Program to ease the transition to inspected towing vessel status. Once a towing vessel has been examined and has received a sticker, it has fulfilled its obligation under the Bridging Program and there is no further requirement to have the sticker renewed.

Additionally, a client of mine recently returned for the UTV examiner course at the Coast Guard Training Center in Yorktown, VA. The week-long course is mainly for Coast Guard personnel, but a number of seats are dedicated for industry personnel. The course was reportedly, very informative and the binder of training material I reviewed contained a great deal of useful information. My client said one of the most important things that he got out of the course was to witness the Coast Guard's approach compliance which was a real eye opener. If you can get into one of these courses it will definitely be worth the trip. 

 After many years of being involved with compliance issues for the maritime industry, I have developed a comprehensive model on how to manage compliance. If you would like to learn about this methodology which will help you develop confidence and peace of mind regarding compliance, you should make it a point to try to attend one of these conference sessions where I will be presenting the model:

 When I was training to become a Coast Guard marine inspector years ago, I noticed the doorway on a crewboat was 28 inches wide. When I looked up the regulation, I found that the door for a passenger compartment is required to be 32 inches wide. The other inspector breaking me in was reluctant to make the owner enlarge the doorway.  All I could imagine was some very large passengers getting stuck in the capsized boat that we had certified.

Some say that regulations are written in blood. To have an effective compliance program, there must be an understanding of the intent of the regulations. Research is often necessary, but some owner/operators don't have the time, manpower, or desire to figure out if a certain regulation applies, or what the intent of the regulation is. As a result, many companies end up "chasing their tails" by relying solely on others' opinions and interpretations.

 Did you know that vessel owners are required to manage rain run-off? That crewmembers are required to screen their shore-side bosses if they come aboard a vessel? That push-boats are required to have a bell of a certain size in case they anchor or run aground in the fog? This is only the tip of the regulatory iceberg. Some regulations seem so ridiculous that vessel owners have a hard time believing that they could be true, or that they will ever be enforced, or that someone won't come to their senses and make them go away. A common strategy used once a vessel owner becomes aware of a regulation is to call around to some friendly competitors to see what they are doing. They may end up convincing each other to adopt a "wait and see" approach. After all, the Coast Guard always gives 30 days to correct a deficiency, right? Some companies call the Coast Guard to ask about a particular issue, and because the Coast Guard person who answers the phone isn't familiar with the particular requirement, the company may say, "The Coast Guard doesn't even know about this," and use that as an excuse to do little or nothing to comply. This is not good.

 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.

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

 http://homeport.uscg.mil/cgi-bin/st/portal/uscg_docs/MyCG/Editorial/20110211/543 Policy ltr 11-01 VGP with enclosure.pdf?id=ee9784ac8e8fecf217d43d6fa6662f42f8c7d2ba 

 As we wait for the results of the investigation into the BP/ Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, one thing appears fairly certain based upon currently published information, and that is that corners may have been cut and unnecessary risks may have been taken. This is not really surprising. We cut corners and take calculated risks every day, often with no negative consequences. Who has never exceeded the speed limit while driving? The natural reaction of politicians and bureaucrats is to make more laws and regulations to fix the problems before we know for sure what the problems are. We may find that the problem wasn't a lack of adequate laws and regulations, but perhaps it was the lack of enforcement, oversight and compliance with the existing laws and regulations. If so, why would the level of enforcement, oversight and compliance drop to a level where an accident like this might occur? Perhaps because they had not had a major accident with similar operations in the recent past to remind them of the threat. BP was reportedly celebrating a safety milestone at the time of the disastrous blowout. If people have not experienced a major accident in quite some time, their minds allow them to believe the threat has become diminished. In actuality the threat has not diminished with the passage of time, but still corners are cut and unnecessary risks are taken, because the precautions that once seemed necessary may now seem like overkill.  Following the attacks of 9/11, the international community passed the ISPS code. Ships, boats, ports and facilities around the world are required to implement security plans which address all relevant threat scenarios. As the years go by without major successful attacks, it is human nature to let our guard down because in our minds the threat has diminished. It has not. Even after six years of full implementation of maritime security plans, many do not understand the threat or the requirements. Do enforcement personnel understand their roles and give full attention to the security programs, or are they still focused mostly on signage and paperwork? Do industry members have good plans that address specific threat scenarios and give clear and concise guidance to those charged with implementing them? Are proper screening, monitoring and drilling conducted as intended by the regulations? We can't go back in time and make those involved in the BP/ Deepwater Horizon disaster make different decisions, but going forward we can ensure we do not lose sight of the threats to our security in the maritime industry. Imagine the answers that would be given to Anderson Cooper on CNN in the weeks following a terrorist attack involving your vessel or port facility. Would they be adequate? Or would it be déjà vu?