Guide to Preparing Your Remarks for the Towing Vessel Inspection NPRM Public Meetings
General Instructions:

Plan on speaking for no more than 5 minutes. The Coast Guard often establishes a time limit for commenters. Even if there is no time limit, the agency and the audience will appreciate comments that are short and to the point.

The purpose of speaking at a public meeting is to demonstrate (via your presence) the importance of this rulemaking to your company/our industry and to flag for the Coast
Guard (via your remarks) the issues that are most important to you. Don’t worry about being comprehensive – that’s what your/our subsequent written comments are for.

Your remarks will be most effective if they sound like you. There is no need to be uncomfortably formal. Speak in a way that is natural for you and personalize your remarks with references to your company or other relevant experience wherever possible.
(For example, if you participated in the TSAC working group that provided input to the
Coast Guard during development of the NPRM, feel free to refer to that experience in making your points.)
 Don’t expect the Coast Guard to respond to your remarks at the public meeting. They may ask a question to clarify a point but will usually simply say, “Thank you.” After the meeting or during a break, feel free to approach the Coast Guard officials running the meeting to thank them, reiterate any key points, and/or offer yourself as a resource to them.

Use the guide below as a template for preparing your remarks.
Template for Preparing Your Remarks:
 Introduce yourself and briefly describe your company: where you’re located, what business lines you’re in, number of towing vessels you operate, number of employees, etc. It’s always effective to personalize the contribution your company makes to the local or regional economy (e.g., “We deliver the [raw material] that keeps the ABC Plant operational.”)

Thank the Coast Guard for holding the meeting. Tell them, in your own words, what you hope this rulemaking will do (examples might include: make all companies in our industry safer, reduce risks that lead to towing vessel accidents, adopt a modern and flexible approach that improves on traditional Coast Guard inspection, etc.) and what it should not do (examples: impose unnecessary regulatory burdens that don’t address real risks, require substantial modifications to existing towing vessels that have operated safely for many years, cut and paste from requirements applicable to other classes of inspected vessels, etc.). (You don’t have to mention all of these – pick the ones that resonate most with you.)

-2-

Tell the Coast Guard that a Towing Safety Management System should be required for all towing companies and should not be an option. Use these points to make your case as appropriate based on your experience: o Safety management systems address the biggest cause of towing vessel casualties: human error. Briefly describe how an SMS has made your company safer. If you have statistics or an anecdote that illustrates this, include it. o Safety management systems are scalable and need not be cost-prohibitive for small companies. A small company’s safety management system doesn’t need to be as comprehensive or detailed as a big company’s. If you’re a small operator, personalize this point with an example from your own experience. If you’re a big company, you can use an example from your experience with your small company vendors, if appropriate.

Thank the Coast Guard for its concern about the cost impacts of the proposed rule, especially on small companies. Tell the Coast Guard it would be short-sighted to make the TSMS requirement optional because of concern about costs: safety management systems are cost-beneficial. Instead, the Coast Guard should focus on reducing unnecessary costs by eliminating requirements that aren’t justified by risk or casualty history. Highlight one or more examples from the following list as ways the Coast Guard can and should reduce unnecessary costs and regulatory burdens: o Independent redundant means of propulsion, steering and related controls for towing vessels moving tank barges. Proposed requirements will far exceed costs of TSMS and go well beyond current industry best practices. Not justified by casualty history. (If you can supply even a very rough cost estimate for your company, do so. It would be especially effective to put these costs in the context of your company’s spill history. For example: “Our towing vessels moving tank barges haven’t been involved in a single oil spill for ten years. None of our vessels meets the proposed requirements for independent redundant systems, and we estimate that doing so would cost us more than $xx fleetwide.”) o Electrical system requirements for existing towing vessels. The proposed rule takes the wrong approach to existing vessels that have operated safely for many years. The Coast Guard should be focused on eliminating manifestly unsafe situations on existing vessels, not requiring wholesale retrofitting (even on a delayed compliance schedule). Again, any references to your safety record and highlights of any provisions that would be particularly problematic for you would be helpful. (For example: “We have never experienced a fire on board one of our towing vessels as a result of a problem with electrical wiring. But, the proposed rule would require us to make substantial changes to electrical systems on our existing boats, at a cost of more than $xx for just one vessel.”)

-3- o Administrative requirements associated with TSMS. All towing vessels should be required to have a TSMS, but some of the proposed requirements are overkill.
Fixing these will help all companies achieve the benefits of a TSMS without imposing undue cost and administrative burdens. Examples: training requirements for internal auditors and restrictions on who may serve as an internal auditor.

Choose two or more of the following issues to address briefly, depending on your company’s priorities and concerns: o The Coast Guard should accept the AWO Responsible Carrier Program as a
Towing Safety Management System, as well as the ISM Code. The RCP is the most widely used safety management system in the towing industry and has measurably improved the safety performance of companies that use it. (Again, personalize with your own example(s).) o Relying heavily on Coast Guard-approved third parties to conduct management and vessel audits is a crucial way to leverage scarce Coast Guard resources. The
Coast Guard can’t wait until Subchapter M compliance is imminent to put in place a process to approve third parties or it will be too late. Need to develop a process that allows third parties to be pre-qualified or approved well in advance of the final rule so that the Coast Guard can make sure that the supply of approved third parties is sufficient to meet demand. o Use of limited Coast Guard inspection resources should be based on risk. A company with a good safety record, a fully functioning Towing Safety
Management System and “clean” management and vessel audits should not receive the same degree of hands-on Coast Guard oversight as a company whose casualty history and audit performance demonstrates the need for closer scrutiny.
By targeting its inspection and enforcement resources in this way, the Coast
Guard can reduce the risks posed by marginal operators and avoid unnecessary disruption and administrative burden for the majority of companies and vessels that are operating safely. o The Coast Guard should not require a minimum 7-8 hours of uninterrupted sleep for personnel on towing vessels. No watchstanding system used in any sector of the maritime industry by vessels operating round-the-clock meets this standard.
The towing vessel inspection rule is not the right place to address an issue that has implications for the entire maritime industry, not just towing vessels. o The concept of “excepted vessels” is a good one. Towing vessels that operate exclusively in fleeting and harbor services should not be required to meet all the same equipment requirements as inland and coastal towing vessels that operate in long-distance service. The Coast Guard should refine the definition of excepted vessels to make sure it captures the full range of typical fleeting and harbor services operations and make some additional changes to the equipment requirements for excepted vessels. (For example: no need for distress flares.
Don’t need more than two lifebuoys on a harbor tug.)

-4- o Express support for proposed equipment requirements that cost-effectively reduce demonstrated risks, such as pilothouse alerter systems and AEDs on live-aboard towing vessels. These are relatively simple additions that can save lives.

Thank the Coast Guard for listening to your concerns. Offer yourself and your company as a resource. Tell them you’ll submit more detailed written comments to the docket.