USCG won't conform with SOLAS on container weights?


#41

[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, you’re working theory of the ‘fucking obvious’ here is that the US is doing it right, but isn’t checking, and the foreign world is not doing it right but will freeze in their tracks if the IMO passes a regulation that the US won’t pass in their territory nor fully implement even on their ships that would have to load in those foreign ‘clearly cheating’ ports. Well, have fun with that.


#42

[QUOTE=ombugge;180510]So if FOREIGN ports are not complying why should we?? Sounds like the same excuse used to avoid anti-pollution requirements.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Jamesbrown;180513]So, you’re working theory of the ‘fucking obvious’ here is that the US is doing it right, but isn’t checking, and the foreign world is not doing it right but will freeze in their tracks if the IMO passes a regulation that the US won’t pass in their territory nor fully implement even on their ships that would have to load in those foreign ‘clearly cheating’ ports. Well, have fun with that.[/QUOTE]

No. The US has been weighing containers for years and lobbied the IMO to make the rest of the world do the same. Nothing needs to be implemented here because it’s already standard practice.

Edit: as has been pointed out, containers get trucked to the terminal. Commercial vehicle weight is strictly regulated so the container weight is required to be accurately known. I doubt there are very many instances where containers shipped out of this country have an incorrect weight.


#43

[QUOTE=Jamesbrown;180513]the US is doing it right, but isn’t checking[/QUOTE]

Check what? There is no requirement in the new SOLAS rule for anyone to check anything. The shipper is required to weigh the container or is contents and sign a form to that effect. THAT’S IT! End of requirement.

[QUOTE=Jamesbrown;180513]the IMO passes a regulation that the US won’t pass in their territory nor fully implement even on their ships[/QUOTE]

Again I don’t know what you’re talking about. There is nothing for the government or USCG to “implement”. Have you read the resolution? I posted it earlier…


#44

[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;180527]Check what? There is no requirement in the new SOLAS rule for anyone to check anything. The shipper is required to weigh the container or is contents and sign a form to that effect. THAT’S IT! End of requirement.

Again I don’t know what you’re talking about. There is nothing for the government or USCG to “implement”. Have you read the resolution? I posted it earlier…[/QUOTE]

So you’re replying to your own replies to my earlier reply? You must be bored.

I’ve read the resolution and references and I understand it well. You have stated there is nothing to check, the US has been weighing for years and that is ‘standard’. This is not what the CG is saying. Nor the terminals. http://www.joc.com/port-news/terminal-operators/maher-terminals/give-verified-weight-edi-or-box-will-be-rejected-terminal-tells-lines_20151221.html

If it’s standard and weighing has been going on for years, why hasn’t the terminal in the article been doing it? What standard are your referring to, is there a regulation already? What is it?


#45

Just a thought and a question here; was all the containers and rolling stock loaded onto the El Faro weighed prior to loading in JAX???


#46

[QUOTE=Jamesbrown;180528]What standard are your referring to, is there a regulation already? What is it?[/QUOTE]

At a minimum, the commercial vehicle regulations on maximum weight require carriers to verify the weight.

But as I said earlier, there is nothing for the USCG to enforce, if they even had jurisdiction against shippers. Capitalism will enforce the SOLAS rules.


#47

Hi All,

My first post so be gentle! I have been quite heavily involved in looking at physical solutions for the updated SOLAS legislation over the past six months or so. We are an international freight forwarder with offices in the UK, US, Ireland, India and Hong Kong, so it has been very interesting to see the varying opinions globally.

In the UK we have been lucky in that our international trade body (BIFA) have been well on top of this since it was approved in 2014 and have held many seminars, etc., more recently. When I initially contacted our other offices, no-one had heard of it!

I’ll try and stay out of the whole US/SOLAS debate as what I have read has not come straight from the horses mouth so to speak. Let’s be frank, no-one is truly ready for the new legislation, but it has been on the table since 2014 so my take on the whole thing is it’s here, let’s get on with it.

My main concern is that this seems to have not been promoted to the export shipping industry. We sent out some notices a while back to our client base and very few had heard of it. Secondly, although forwarders have in the main been keeping up to speed, carriers and ports/terminals seems to have had their heads in the sand. In fact, we are still waiting to hear what action most, if not all of them will be taking with regard to this.

Initially, Ports were very clear that they did not want to get involved themselves with weighing containers. This was a concern because there are not a great deal of weighbridges in the UK - certainly not enough to handle a sudden influx of containers. However, one stepped up to the plate and said they would do this, and would you know, the rest are slowly following suit. For them it is an ongoing revenue stream that shippers will unfortunately have to foot the bill for.

As to the practicalities, as mentioned, weighbridges are not a workable option. I see the only real option worldwide as being the lifting equipment at the terminals being upgraded/calibrated to handle this. However, as we know, many ports will simply not be able to do this. For our consolidated services we are making a large investment in upgrading our weighing/dimension measuring systems to both cover this and future proof what we do going forward.

Let’s look at this rationally. This is about safety at sea. Not just overweight containers but underweight. So far the whole area of monitoring/penalties has been a bit of a grey one with no one really wanting to put anything in black and white. Rest assured though, the next time a stack of containers fall or a vessel goes down, you can imagine the lawsuits involved should the relevant authorities find that some of the verified gross masses involved are not accurate. Things will suddenly then get serious.

All the best,
Darren.


#48

[QUOTE=tugsailor;180462]Just another example of why a military agency with very high staff turnover that is focused on Homeland Security and drug interdiction, with little shipping expertise, should not be entrusted with regulating shipping.[/QUOTE]

I agree. This is a very myopic approach. To focus on containers with weight discrepancies is probably a good lead to illegal activities.


#49

From gcaptain newsletter:

US exporters are resisting the cost and disruption of additional safety at sea measures, which are being implemented globally. USCG argues that a carrier can add the TARE weight to the shipper’s gross weight of cargo, if it wants to comply with SOLAS.

So much for USCG being the protector of US nationals and other seafarers. If it can hurt the agricultural community and US exporters they just ignore international treaties and conventions that they have signed up to. Why should the rest of the world trust the US authorities on anything??

Link: https://gcaptain.com/us-exporters-exempt-from-solas-says-uscg/?utm_source=gCaptain+Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=aba70a5940-Mailchimp_RSS_CAMPAIGN&utm_term=0_f50174ef03-aba70a5940-139840365


#50

Well anyone’s free not to. But to that point, why should the rest of the world trust the Singaporean Authorities on anything??


#51

Don’t most containers get weighed at weigh stations before they even get to the terminal? I understand that obviously there’s cases where they end up on a route where they don’t need to get weighed, but am I wrong in my view that enforcement of commercial trucks is sufficient to discourage serious violations most of the time?


#52

The reasons for the new IMO rule explained and solutions to comply in a general context suggested by someone with an interest in the matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUq9Ebk5MFg

Yes, I know that the professional Mariners on the forum know this, but there are others who may not.


#53

[QUOTE=ombugge;180586]From gcaptain newsletter:

So much for USCG being the protector of US nationals and other seafarers. If it can hurt the agricultural community and US exporters they just ignore international treaties and conventions that they have signed up to. Why should the rest of the world trust the US authorities on anything??
[/QUOTE]

What the CG is saying here matches SOLAS

US exporters are resisting the cost and disruption of additional safety at sea measures, which are being implemented globally. USCG argues that a carrier can add the TARE weight to the shipper’s gross weight of cargo, if it wants to comply with SOLAS.

It’s method No. 2

5 Methods for obtaining the verified gross mass of a packed container
5.1 The SOLAS regulations prescribe two methods by which the shipper may obtain the verified gross mass of a packed container:
5.1.1 Method No.1: Upon the conclusion of packing and sealing a container, the shipper may weigh, or have arranged that a third party weighs, the packed container.
5.1.2 [U]Method No.2: The shipper (or, by arrangement of the shipper, a third party), may weigh all packages and cargo items, including the mass of pallets, dunnage and other packing and securing material to be packed in the container, and add the tare mass of the container to the sum of the single masses[/U]


#54

thank you x 1000 (metric kilo-times)!!!


#55

[QUOTE=ombugge;180586]From gcaptain newsletter:

So much for USCG being the protector of US nationals and other seafarers. If it can hurt the agricultural community and US exporters they just ignore international treaties and conventions that they have signed up to. Why should the rest of the world trust the US authorities on anything??

Link: https://gcaptain.com/us-exporters-exempt-from-solas-says-uscg/?utm_source=gCaptain+Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=aba70a5940-Mailchimp_RSS_CAMPAIGN&utm_term=0_f50174ef03-aba70a5940-139840365[/QUOTE]

I posted the actual text of the new SOLAS requirement earlier, why didn’t you actually read it?

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;180595]What the CG is saying here matches SOLAS.[/QUOTE]

I stop paying attention to the forum for an evening and you beat me to the punch…


#56

[QUOTE=LI_Domer;180592]Don’t most containers get weighed at weigh stations before they even get to the terminal? I understand that obviously there’s cases where they end up on a route where they don’t need to get weighed, but am I wrong in my view that enforcement of commercial trucks is sufficient to discourage serious violations most of the time?[/QUOTE]

It is not a question of what may happen “most of the time” but complying “all of the time” to protect the life of seafarers, regardless of nationality.

      • Updated - - -

[QUOTE=LI_Domer;180591]Well anyone’s free not to. But to that point, why should the rest of the world trust the Singaporean Authorities on anything??[/QUOTE]

On what basis do you doubt Singapore Authorities?? Do you have any specific reason to do so, or is it your prejudiced against anything “foreign”??


#57

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;180595]What the CG is saying here matches SOLAS

It’s method No. 2[/QUOTE]

Yes method #2 MAY work if you trust that every shipper (or Forwarders on their behalf) is honest and don’t just sign the paperwork to get their shipment on it’s way. Are they?? (I’m not just talking about US shippers here)
If you are sure of that, why have we had all the problems leading to this new requirements??


#58

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;180595]What the CG is saying here matches SOLAS

It’s method No. 2[/QUOTE]

Thats an incomplete description of Method 2, which is below. The certification, and apparent lack of intention, I say apparent, to promulgate any certified method(s) is the issue here with regard to CG implementation. The below, from the Guidelines are non mandatory, to allow flexibility while providing guidance on solving the issues of compliance with the mandatory regulation requirement for ‘verification’:

											5.1.2 Method No.2: The shipper (or, by arrangement of the shipper, a third party), mayweigh all packages and cargo items, including the mass of pallets, dunnage and otherpacking and securing material to be packed in the container, and add the tare mass of thecontainer to the sum of the single masses using a certified method as described inparagraphs 5.1.2.3 and 5.1.2.3.1. Any third party that has performed some or all of thepacking of the container should inform the shipper of the mass of the cargo items andpacking and securing material that the party has packed into the container in order tofacilitate the shipper's verification of the gross mass of the packed container under MethodNo.2. As required by SOLAS VI/2 and paragraph 5, the shipper should ensure that theverified gross mass of the container is provided sufficiently in advance of vessel loading.How such information is to be communicated between the shipper and any third party shouldbe agreed between the commercial parties involved.
				

				5.1.2.3 The method used for weighing the container's contents under Method No.2 issubject to certification and approval as determined by the competent authority of the State inwhich the packing and sealing of the container was completed.4
				5.1.2.3.1 How the certification is to be done will be up to the State concerned, and couldpertain to either the procedure for the weighing or to the party performing the weighing or both.

#59

[QUOTE=Jamesbrown;180605]Thats an incomplete description of Method 2, which is below. The certification, and apparent lack of intention, I say apparent, to promulgate any certified method(s) is the issue here with regard to CG implementation. The below, from the Guidelines are non mandatory, to allow flexibility while providing guidance on solving the issues of compliance with the mandatory regulation requirement for ‘verification’:[/QUOTE]

Here is the argument:

USCG argues that a carrier can add the TARE weight to the shipper’s gross weight of cargo, if it wants to comply with SOLAS.

So much for USCG being the protector of US nationals and other seafarers. If it can hurt the agricultural community and US exporters they just ignore international treaties and conventions that they have signed up to. Why should the rest of the world trust the US authorities on anything??

I’m pointing out that the argument is unsound becasue the premise is incorrect. Do you disagree?


#60

So you’re saying that if you play by the IMO’s rules you should still be thrown out of the IMO because you don’t think the rules that are being followed are sufficient?

Don’t hate the player (Us), hate the game (IMO).