USCG won't conform with SOLAS on container weights?


#21


#22

[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;180479]No one said we’re not going to weigh them, just that the USCG isn’t getting involved. The shippers know it’s required and if they choose to ignore that then their container might legally be refused by the ship. They’ll then either need to pay 5x the normal rate for a last minute weight certification or their shipment will sit in the dock. He’ll, they might even still be required to pay for carriage on the ship even though the container was left on the dock. The terminal will also probably charge a fee for the container to sit there for who knows how long, and the clients at the other end will be pissed.

That’s all much more of a deterrent that a fine by the USCG.[/QUOTE]

And what deters giving the wrong weight (heavy or light)? No one says they are going to weigh them, nor how. There’s already a declared weight. It’s just not necessarily correct and there is no reason the carrier would fail to accept the shipper’s declaration.


#23

[QUOTE=Jamesbrown;180483]And what deters giving the wrong weight (heavy or light)? No one says they are going to weigh them, nor how. There’s already a declared weight. It’s just not necessarily correct and there is no reason the carrier would fail to accept the shipper’s declaration.[/QUOTE]

If containers already have declared weights then that’s fine. Are those weights estimated or are the containers actually weighed? The SOLAS requirement is that they be actually weighed and the shipper has to sign a statement attesting to this.

The requirement seems to be simply making shippers accept some responsibility and/or liability. Just have the truck roll on a scale or use a load meter on the fork lift that puts it on the truck to be shipped.

I guess the deterrent is that if a container is found to not weigh what was declared then the ship will refuse it and the shipper gets hosed.

http://www.worldshipping.org/industry-issues/safety/WSC_Summarizes_the_Basic_Elements_of_the_SOLAS_Container_Weight_Verification_Requirement___February_2015.pdf


#24

Are we talking metric or fantasy numbers

:smiley:


#25

[QUOTE=Jamesbrown;180483]And what deters giving the wrong weight (heavy or light)? No one says they are going to weigh them, nor how. There’s already a declared weight. It’s just not necessarily correct and there is no reason the carrier would fail to accept the shipper’s declaration.[/QUOTE]

How will they do it in the rest of the world? Maybe set up a new government agency? Like the TCA (transportation container agency). Then people who sign the VGM certificates could be required to have training in scale operation and maybe background checks and carry CWIX cards.


#26

[QUOTE=PineappleOranges;180464]With all the technology we have today, why would the weight not be known before loading? If not already in place, could RFIDs be installed on each container and scanned at port entry by land or sea?

The scanned containers get weighed by a truck scale, or crane, and are automatically entered into a computer system that is relayed in real-time to the respective ships bridge, into a stability management program.[/QUOTE]

Yes it is important to know the ACTUAL weight of a container before it is loaded. But if you cannot thrust Shippers to declare correct weight each container has to be checked. In fact that is what the new SOLAS Rules requires.
Once it is hanging in the crane ready to be loaded it is a bit late to determine the actual weight. That should be done when arriving at the terminal.

Other ports in the world are gearing up to comply with the latest IMO rules. Why is this not the case for US ports?
When the US demanded that all containers bound for US ports be screened to ensure the security of “the Homeland” (i.e. USA. The rest of the world doesn’t count) they threatened to boycott ports that did not comply instantly and at very high cost and/or refuse entry to ships carrying unscreened containers.

If the US is not prepared to accept all IMO conventions, rules and guidelines, how can they be a signatory to IMO? It should not be allowed to cherry pick and sign up only to what suites you and disregard the rest. If the much despised FOCs can accept and sign up to all IMO rules why not the US?

There is nothing in any IMO Convention that say you cannot set stricter rules for ships under individual Flag States, or have special rules for inland waters etc., but to set weaker rules for ships in international trade should automatically lead to boycott of vessels flying that nation’s flag and thus not complying to IMO requirements. The function to do so already exists in the the Paris and Tokyo MOU.
The consequences of an accident caused by vessels not complying can be costly for other nations. If the vessel involve meet Flag State rules but is not in compliance with IMO, who do you blame? (Beside arresting the Master)

The arrogance of US authorities know no bounds. Not only USCG, but to an even higher degree the Homeland Security and Finance authorities.
How much this cost the US in goodwill and money is one thing, but how much does it cost other countries and businesses to comply with arbitrary rules set by those authorities, is more to the point.


#27

[QUOTE=KPChief;180486]How will they do it in the rest of the world?.[/QUOTE]

hmm, I suppose they would do it in accordance with the internationally agreed upon requirement–you know, as called for in SOLAS.

Particulars will be per National approaches:

http://www.worldshipping.org/industry-issues/safety/faqs/SOLAS_VGM__Industry_FAQs_Dec_2015_US_letter_WEB.pdf


#28

When the US demanded that all containers bound for US ports be screened to ensure the security of “the Homeland” (i.e. USA. The rest of the world doesn’t count) they threatened to boycott ports that did not comply instantly and at very high cost and/or refuse entry to ships carrying unscreened containers.

Come to think of it; does US ports screen all OUTGOING containers?
There is no reason to believe that it is NOT possible that illegal weapons or dangerous materials to originate in USA and intended for use against other nations, or even against US interests and personnel abroad.


#29

[QUOTE=ombugge;180489]Come to think of it; does US ports screen all OUTGOING containers?
There is no reason to believe that it is NOT possible that illegal weapons or dangerous materials to originate in USA and intended for use against other nations, or even against US interests and personnel abroad.[/QUOTE]

Haven’t you been paying attention to your own anti-American screeds? We don’t export anything any more. The correct container weight loading aboard vessel at US ports is the tare weight. There, Yahtzee.


#30

[QUOTE=ombugge;180487]If the US is not prepared to accept all IMO conventions, rules and guidelines, how can they be a signatory to IMO?[/QUOTE]

What is there for the US government to accept and what makes you think they aren’t? The shipper (or terminal) are required to weigh each container. If they don’t sign a weight declaration then the container isn’t loaded on the ship. The ships and their SMS will enforce the treaty.


#31

you fool we cannot export illegal weapons, as you foreigners know any weapon is legal in the US. Tomorrow I’ll buy some metric hand grenades and ammo for my .50 machine gun I Have mounted to the roof of my GAS GUZZLING and 12" lifted truck, after my bacon breakfast/Donald trump rally at KFC. Maybe I’ll export those to a country where they’re needed more, and happen to be more illegal. How does Singapore do it? Norway?


#32

[QUOTE=Jamesbrown;180488]hmm, I suppose they would do it in accordance with the internationally agreed upon requirement–you know, as called for in SOLAS.

Particulars will be per National approaches [/QUOTE]

And what is wrong with th US national approach so far. The USCG has said they will not publish an acceptable variance figure. Sounds strict to me. They expect all to comply with SOLAS.

Of course the key question is whether the shippers (using either method 1or 2) are honestly providing the correct weight to the carriers. The SOLAS amendments seem to believe having shippers sign a form stating they have “verified” (by weighing) that weight is an improvement over simply “declaring” a weight.

Can anything out of IMO end up not being watered down or extremely, unrealistically out of touch? Different discussion and I don’t defend their regulatory skills.

What I am trying to point out is that some are basing their evaluation of US national approach on a second hand Internet news story of a guy’s remarks at a conference. Which “news” story seems designed to sensationalize the whole matter, witness the the title of this thread.

I will gladly stipulate that the USCG blog post meant to clarify the issue did just the opposite but the statements before the FMC gathering seem clear enough. Personally I have nothing against them taking a measured response to how the parties actually perform in meeting SOLAS requirements and getting involved more directly as needed. My sarcastic proposal was meant to show national approaches can sometimes be as extreme as international ones and still not be effective.

Just read post 26 above and you can see what I mean. He somehow knows exactly what the US national approach is, has convicted the US of not complying with “IMO” and prescribed the penalty (total ban or something).

I get you want correct weights reported and this whole “verified by weighing” is supposed to get that to happen. Are you saying you want the USCG to do the weighing? Do you want the USCG to regulate the carriers to do it (they sure don’t have powers over shippers)? Just what carriers need, more expenses. SOLAS says the shipper will verify by weighing. You want someone to weigh it again? I say I doubt many other national approaches will include 3rd party weighing. Just my guess but people have banned US from international trade on less.


#33

[QUOTE=KPChief;180490]Haven’t you been paying attention to your own anti-American screeds? We don’t export anything any more. The correct container weight loading aboard vessel at US ports is the tare weight. There, Yahtzee.[/QUOTE]

Screening isn’t the same as weighing. Different purpose all together.

      • Updated - - -

[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;180491]What is there for the US government to accept and what makes you think they aren’t? The shipper (or terminal) are required to weigh each container. If they don’t sign a weight declaration then the container isn’t loaded on the ship. The ships and their SMS will enforce the treaty.[/QUOTE]

I wasn’t referring only to this latest IMO rule, but to all IMO conventions, regulations and guidelines. If the US doesn’t export anything but empty containers then the problem of weight is solved, but I don’t think that is entirely true.

      • Updated - - -

[QUOTE=z-drive;180492]you fool we cannot export illegal weapons, as you foreigners know any weapon is legal in the US. Tomorrow I’ll buy some metric hand grenades and ammo for my .50 machine gun I Have mounted to the roof of my GAS GUZZLING and 12" lifted truck, after my bacon breakfast/Donald trump rally at KFC. Maybe I’ll export those to a country where they’re needed more, and happen to be more illegal. How does Singapore do it? Norway?[/QUOTE]

Ohh I like sarcasm!!


#34

[QUOTE=KPChief;180493]And what is wrong with th US national approach so far. The USCG has said they will not publish an acceptable variance figure. Sounds strict to me. They expect all to comply with SOLAS.

Of course the key question is whether the shippers (using either method 1or 2) are honestly providing the correct weight to the carriers. The SOLAS amendments seem to believe having shippers sign a form stating they have “verified” (by weighing) that weight is an improvement over simply “declaring” a weight.

Can anything out of IMO end up not being watered down or extremely, unrealistically out of touch? Different discussion and I don’t defend their regulatory skills.

What I am trying to point out is that some are basing their evaluation of US national approach on a second hand Internet news story of a guy’s remarks at a conference. Which “news” story seems designed to sensationalize the whole matter, witness the the title of this thread.

I will gladly stipulate that the USCG blog post meant to clarify the issue did just the opposite but the statements before the FMC gathering seem clear enough. Personally I have nothing against them taking a measured response to how the parties actually perform in meeting SOLAS requirements and getting involved more directly as needed. My sarcastic proposal was meant to show national approaches can sometimes be as extreme as international ones and still not be effective.

Just read post 26 above and you can see what I mean. He somehow knows exactly what the US national approach is, has convicted the US of not complying with “IMO” and prescribed the penalty (total ban or something).

I get you want correct weights reported and this whole “verified by weighing” is supposed to get that to happen. Are you saying you want the USCG to do the weighing? Do you want the USCG to regulate the carriers to do it (they sure don’t have powers over shippers)? Just what carriers need, more expenses. SOLAS says the shipper will verify by weighing. You want someone to weigh it again? I say I doubt many other national approaches will include 3rd party weighing. Just my guess but people have banned US from international trade on less.[/QUOTE]

OK I admit I wrote my post #26 before I read your post #15. That clarified the issue of USCG involvement with container weighing.For that I apologize.
I agree that USCG have no business getting involved in the way this SOLAS requirement are met, only in cases where it is NOT met.

My general opinion is that the USCG should guard the coast and not being the regulatory authority on maritime matters. I believe that is an opinion shared with many here.

As for compliance with IMO, I believe that all flag states should adapt and accept the regulations agreed upon in that forum for vessels operating outside their own territorial waters. (I.e 12 n.m from base line, not within EEZ)


#35

So how do they verify weight in Norway and Singapore? Who overseas it?

I personally think their lack of detailed policy creates a stricter environment to operate in.


#36

In Norway the navy is responsible for inspections.


#37

[QUOTE=KPChief;180493]And what is wrong with the US national approach so far. The USCG has said they will not publish an acceptable variance figure. Sounds strict to me. They expect all to comply with SOLAS.

Of course the key question is whether the shippers (using either method 1or 2) are honestly providing the correct weight to the carriers. The SOLAS amendments seem to believe having shippers sign a form stating they have “verified” (by weighing) that weight is an improvement over simply “declaring” a weight.

Can anything out of IMO end up not being watered down or extremely, unrealistically out of touch? Different discussion and I don’t defend their regulatory skills.

What I am trying to point out is that some are basing their evaluation of US national approach on a second hand Internet news story of a guy’s remarks at a conference. Which “news” story seems designed to sensationalize the whole matter, witness the the title of this thread.

I will gladly stipulate that the USCG blog post meant to clarify the issue did just the opposite but the statements before the FMC gathering seem clear enough. Personally I have nothing against them taking a measured response to how the parties actually perform in meeting SOLAS requirements and getting involved more directly as needed. My sarcastic proposal was meant to show national approaches can sometimes be as extreme as international ones and still not be effective.

Just read post 26 above and you can see what I mean. He somehow knows exactly what the US national approach is, has convicted the US of not complying with “IMO” and prescribed the penalty (total ban or something).

I get you want correct weights reported and this whole “verified by weighing” is supposed to get that to happen. Are you saying you want the USCG to do the weighing? Do you want the USCG to regulate the carriers to do it (they sure don’t have powers over shippers)? Just what carriers need, more expenses. SOLAS says the shipper will verify by weighing. You want someone to weigh it again? I say I doubt many other national approaches will include 3rd party weighing. Just my guess but people have banned US from international trade on less.[/QUOTE]

That’s not an accurate restatement of the SOLAS regulation, and carriers will have to comply anyway as will US terminals serving foreign vessels by one of the options to obtain a verified gross mass. What I’m pointing out is that there is a reason for the IMO action, as noted in the compiled history of the action at IMO provided by the World Shipping Council–and by the way, just exceptional documentation, WSC, outstanding research and detail and very well presented. And I’m pointing out that there is an obligation for the US to follow through on the requirement and specific measures to take to do so, and the comments made suggest less than full implementation, and agreement with the premises, which is particularly suprising since the CG sponsored some of the language!

The Admiral’s blog comments basically said, ‘we believe the US carriers are complying now and we’re not going to do anything.’ Translation–no need for change, arguably no need for regulation at US, and therefore IMO, we don’t have a problem and neither do you! He further goes on, “USCG ensures compliance with SOLAS Reg VI-2, via domestic regulations. These existing regulations address ship strength, stability and other issues that ensure safe operation.” Translation–no need for change, no need for new regulation either in US or IMO.

I am not aware of an existing regulation that states, “If the shipping document, with regard to a packed container, does not provide the verified gross mass and the master or his representative and the terminal representative have not obtained the verified gross mass of the packed container, it shall not be loaded on to the ship. [VGM being established by methodology required by the Flag (possibly/probably) based on the developed IMO Guidelines]” So what does he mean?

The US went to IMO with a proposal–the US proposed exactly that regulation language i quote above (in concert with several parties) to IMO, why would they do that if the Admiral’s comments are accurate?

http://www.worldshipping.org/industry-issues/safety/IMO_DSC_17_submission_on_Container_Weighing_final.pdf

In the above link, a US co-sponsored proposal to IMO, there is a discussion of the shortfalls of the then proposed regulation at IMO (aimed at shippers alone), the challenge of regulating the shippers under SOLAS, and the need to impose a duty on the vessel and the terminal to gain compliance, in much the same manner as done in other parts of SOLAS (as referenced in the document). If ‘existing regulations’ address this all, why is anything being submitted as this proposal was (by the US and others) in 2012? The entire line of IMO based proposals, review, comment, amendment is a solid, measured and thoughtful move towards a regulation that everyone can live with, and a foundation for ensuring multiple approaches to accomplish the requirement (The guidelines on Method I and II–to form a basis of National establishment of standards to be employed.)

The addition of requirements on the terminals, as called for in the US/BIMCO/WSC etc. proposal above is not going to be carried out without additional regulation to put the onus called for on the US terminals. So it’s all on the master and vessel effectively (who can’t avoid the SOLAS requirement, but can’t comply without a US promulgated method and reg), if the US does not implement further regulation–which the Admiral suggests they won’t since they don’t think they’re not in compliance (not sure what that’s based on, especially if no method has been prescribed-which would be a regulation as well–but I think you get my point). Doesn’t it seem a bit ingenuous to avoid full implementation of what they co-sponsored at IMO? even if it’s as simple as publishing a binding domestic requirement in some fashion as called for in the SOLAS convention article I (with or without a rigorous enforcement effort)? But, you can’t publish the regulation without having answers for that, and the Admiral’s comments seem to walk a line. (This may have implicatins on cargo law stuff as well matters of liability and so on under US laws, I haven’t finished researching the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.)

Really, there should be no problem implementing a new regulation. The bulk of vessels calling at the US terminals are foreign flagged, and their requirements will absolutely mirror and require the SOLAS regulations be implemented even at US terminals (how will the Marshall Islands enforce issues on a US terminal?). Foreign flagged container vessels will be required to comply to the fullest, and the terminals serving them in the US as well (Admiral notes this in his comments–‘adjusting procedures for foreign flags’). But the US has to do it’s part, comments notwithstanding, SOLAS does not run on a business-to-business basis. If the CG doesn’t believe there is a shortfall in regulation to accomplish the safety end of the new SOLAS regulations, it should not co-sponsor proposals, it should insist there is no problem and make their case at IMO. If the regulation passes anyway, the US can file a reservation with IMO. Taking a third path–assuming everything is going fine as a basis for no action beyond what’s already going on seems wrong. I know this is all politics that the admiral is dealing with, but I don’t like the mis-match between what gets said at IMO and what gets said at home.


#38

The only reason the US would go to the IMO requesting this is if they thought FOREIGN ports weren’t properly declaring the weight like US ports already are. If they thought American shippers weren’t doing that and thought they should be they’d simply pass a law requiring them to, not go running to the IMO. Sorry, but that’s really kinda fucking obvious…


#39

[QUOTE=Fraqrat;180499]In Norway the navy is responsible for inspections.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3478198/Don-t-believe-just-watch-Norwegian-Navy-perform-Uptown-Funk-flash-mob-passing-ceremony.html[/QUOTE]

They are certainly weighing in on the discussion.


#40

[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;180503]The only reason the US would go to the IMO requesting this is if they thought FOREIGN ports weren’t properly declaring the weight like US ports already are. If they thought American shippers weren’t doing that and thought they should be they’d simply pass a law requiring them to, not go running to the IMO. Sorry, but that’s really kinda fucking obvious…[/QUOTE]

So if FOREIGN ports are not complying why should we?? Sounds like the same excuse used to avoid anti-pollution requirements.