The new regulation adds MDMA ­ known on the street as Ecstasy ­ to the list of drugs screened for in DOT mandated drug tests. For initial tests, the agency lowered the cutoff levels for detecting the presence of cocaine and amphetamines, and heroin was added to the list. Initial tests are the first tests done on samples. If a sample shows positive results for illegal drugs, it is then put through a confirmation test.

Drugs that will be screened for once the regulation goes into effect include:

Marijuana

Cocaine

Opiate metabolites of codeine and/or morphine

6-Acetylmorphine, which is heroin

Phencyclidine, commonly referred to as PCP

Amphetamines of AMP and/or MAMP, such as speed

MDMA, street name Ecstasy

For more on the final rule, CLICK HERE for the U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Drug & Alcohol Policy & Compliance.

Ask and you shall recieve!  As reported earlier, the USCG has been working on a service allowing mariners to download a traditional 8×11 paper license that is suitable for printing and framing.  Well now it’s here!  U.S. Licensed Merchant Mariners can now go to the USCG Homeport website to download their very own paper license, just like we used to do in the old days (circa May 2009!).

Since the release of the Merchant Mariner Credential final rule, which consolidated the previously issued licenses, Merchant Mariner Documents and STCW certificates into a single passport-style Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC), licensed mariners have not been able to recieve the traditional paper license as a symbol of ones professional achievement and status.

You can now download you Merchant Mariner Credential by following THIS LINK to the USCG Homeport webisite.

While this new service seems to be a step in the right direction, there is one catch; the printouts are suitable for display only!

UPDATE:

Our Co-Founder, John Konrad, did a test run of the service today and was not able to print, or even, view his license. Instead he got a chance to print the following error message:

Return those scanners and Photoshop for Dumbies books everyone, the USCG set to release a printable, frameable and traditional MMC!

After what we’re sure was the result of numerous requests and complaints from U.S. mariners and much consideration from the powers that be, the USCG is working on finalizing the development of a Merchant Mariner Certificate that is downloadable from the USCG website and suitable for framing.

There has been a lot of discussion over this issue since replacing the traditional paper license with a the new passport-style Merchant Marine Credential (MMC), which consolidated the previously issued licenses, Merchant Mariner Documents and STCW certificates.  The new passport-style MMC has been stated as “flimsy and cheap” and even “un-seaworthy” in comparison to a U.S. Passport.  Not only that, but U.S. Mariners deserve the right to proudly display a traditional paper license to showcase their hardwork and dedication to an industry and profession, same as would a doctor, a Ph.D., college or even highschool graduate.

Now, the USCG is taking a step in the right direction and tells us:

Later this summer, the Coast Guard will launch an Internet-based service where mariners will visit a Coast Guard web site, enter their mariner reference number, or other verifiable identification data, and request to download a “Merchant Mariner Certificate” that would include the officer and rating endorsements that are contained in the mariner’s MMC. This service will not have the ability to reproduce legacy license, MMD or STCW credentials. The request, similar to that used to verify credentials in the Coast Guard’s Merchant Mariner Credential Verification (MMCV) function, would populate a “certificate” that the mariner could save and print from a personal computer or other Internet-capable devices. The certificate, which would be used for display purposes only, would not be authorized as a substitute for a valid MMC and will not substitute for the MMC where the requirement to post a credential exists. There will be no fee for downloading the certificate. Additional information will be provided before the system is released.

While this may seem great for some, there is still one catch.  Capt. Fran tells us on the gCaptain forum:

Here’s the kicker though. The certificate, suitable for display, would NOT be authorized as a substitute for the MMC where the required to post a credential exists. Whaaa?

Capt. Fran has already emailed her comments and she, and the USCG, encourage you to do the same: nmc-mmc-certificates@uscg.mil

Join the discussion on this issue int the gCaptain forum HERE.

• Thanks to the sheepsfoot blade I know I’m not going to acciently stab myself in bad weather
• It has a built in (really loud) whistle in case I go overboard.
• It’s designed to open with one hand
• Sypderco are simply the best quality knifes.
• The combotip allows you to have the benefits of both a straight and serrated edge.
• See the ridges on the back of the blade and again on the front of the handle? If you open the blade just enough to get a line in then squeeze the blade against the handle you’ll very safely cut the line.

How sharp does the knife have to be for the last “trick”? Very sharp but spyderco has Free Sharpening for life and a broken blade will never cost you more than $25 to replace. If you are looking for a simpler/thinner knife be sure to check out the Leatherman Rescue.

If I don’t have my spyderco on me it means I’m carrying my second favorite knife; the Leatherman Wave. A great multipurpose knife since leatherman has an excellent warranty, each knife has both a straight edge and serrated blade. These blades are located on the outside of the knife so they are easily accessible with one hand.

With the Spyderco Assist being sold at Amazon for $59 and the Leatherman Wave on sale for $65 you can probably afford both and thank us the next time a storm rolls through during lines.

Amazon Links:

• Spyderco Assist
• Leatherman Wave
• Leatherman Rescue

For more on this topic, check out the “Mariners Carrying Knives” discussion on gCaptains FORUM

Since the first tree was carved by our ancestors for the purpose of water borne transportation risk has been associated with our industry. Vessel build quality, the training of mariners, a culture supporting safety are all elements under the control of a shipping company but despite great strides being made in every element under our control, ship still happens.  To mitigate risk, shipping companies take out hull, P&I and various other types of Marine Insurance. They also insure their work force by purchasing health, dental and accident insurance from medical providers. Those looking to ship cargo take are also well protected against loss, if they fail to insure the cargo a shipper might accept the goods for transport but accepts little liability if, say, a container gets washed overboard.

With multiple types of insurance working together to protect every element of a voyage their is currently one looming gap; insuring the maritime officers against the revocation or suspensions of their license. To make matters worse some license holders are allowing the U.S.C.G. to serve as judge, jury and executioner by signing a “Settlement Agreement” in which they prematurely – and needlessly – surrender their licenses in the confusing moments following a marine casualty. This happened immediately after the Empress Of the North grounded on a rock near Juneu Alaska. The 3rd mate had been asked to cover the watch of the 2nd mate and, despite knowing a difficult turn would occur on his watch, the captain provided no direct supervision or guidance. This occurred 2 weeks after the mate had graduated from California Maritime Academy.  Luckily this individual had the foresight to ask our opinion in the matter and it was quickly resolved.  But if the USCG is making demands, you may not have time to find a lawyer and if you do the costs will be high.

Ralph  Mellusi is an admiralty lawyer specializing in this field and has represented a high number of mariners on behalf of MOPS, the leading provider of Marine License Insurance in the United States. We sat down with Ralph to ask a few questions.

A recent study in Tradewinds predicts a 20-30% increase in maritime casualties over the next 5 years. 2009 has been a banner year for accidents worldwide, how does the future look from your perspective?
The future trend is towards more aggressive administrative actions against licensed mariners. Heightened environmental vigilance, and awareness of the public create added pressures on the Coast Guard to maintain high levels of professional competence. Another contributing factor is the increase in ship size transiting pilotage routes. Dredging has not been able to maintain pace with deeper ship drafts.  Larger vessels, less underwater clearance and narrow channel widths at times stretch the safe limits of ship maneuverability. Technology is also moving rapidly. It is not unusual for pilots to encounter new propeller and rudder designs which have unique maneuvering characteristics which at times are not adequately described in the Pilots cards. Freshly minted Third Mates/Engrs from our maritime academies will assume watches and responsibility on vessels having technology which is often above and beyond what was taught at school. The schools do a great job but there are limits to what can be taught in a four year period which in part utilize training ships which are less than modern. The Coast Guard believes that one of the best ways to maintain minimum professional standards  is to conduct public hearings in which mariners are held accountable for their actions. In instances in which a mariner is determined to have acted negligently, appropriate remedial measures are taken to meet the circumstances. This could include license revocation, suspension, probation, required classroom instruction, simulator training or observer time in the wheel house.

Who are the most at risk of having their licenses revoked, the entry level 3rd mate, captain, Chief Engineer? Are premiums adjusted by experience and position?
Certainly the novice Mates and Engineers for the reasons I described above are particularly at risk until they reach the point where they have acquired a sufficient degree of familiarity with the vessel and their duties.

Taking over a watch on a ship you have never seen before is a frightening proposition.  It takes a few months to learn a power plant, i.e. to scope out the system  and to know where the key valves and components are located and how to start up and shut down pumps, systems etc.  You no sooner come up to speed and your tour is over.  The next ship may have a different power plant and you sweat out the process all over. The same is true on the bridge.  Beyond this point, those most at risk are the department heads because of the greater responsibility.   Location has a lot to do with this as well.   Have the misfortune to be involved in an incident in New York Harbor which is written up in the local papers more or less guarantees maximum Coast Guard, NTSB response.

Can you tell us a bit more about the trend of “Settlement Agreements” seen over the past few years?
Settlement agreements are relatively new in the area of Administrative License Procedures. This came about as a result of changes in the authority given to the Administrative Law Judges  (ALJs).  In past times, the ALJs had no authority to discuss or entertain settlement. This meant that the only opportunity for settlement discussions was before the CG filed the formal charges.  Now that the authority has been given to the ALJs,  settlement discussion are always available. This is a good thing for the mariner because once formal charges are presented, the mariner has a powerful weapon of “Discovery” which means he/her attorney can demand documents, statements and other relevant materials from the CG.  It is often the case that when all the information is made available through discovery that the mariner and the CG are in a better position to discuss a settlement. The strengths and weakness of the case are now exposed.  The issues become fine tuned.

_____________

Click HERE to continue reading part 2 of this interview.

_____________

The above comments are intended to provide a general overview of my experiences as a MOPS attorney and agent. Conditions and terms contained in the MOPS Policy control.

Ralph J. Mellusi Esq.
Tel: 212 962-1590 Fax 212 962-1590

Email  Rjmellusi@ Sealawyers.com
www.MarineLicenseInsurance.Com

What does the insurance provide the mariner? What is not covered by this type of insurance?
The amount and extent of coverage depends on what the Mariner selects. Mariners face multiple exposures, the first is to the license, the second is Civil liability and the third is Criminal Liability. In any one incident, one exposure or all three can be present.

Starting with Coverage for the first exposure, – the license- a mariner can purchase coverage which only pays for the legal expenses of an Admiralty Attorney. Under the Mops Policy which I am associated and familiar with, the coverage is unlimited which means there is no cap on the amount of attorney fees which the policy will cover. The premium cost increases with higher license grades.

The next level can be more accurately described as an expansion of the License Protection. This provides reimbursement for loss of income (in addition to payment of legal fees) if the license is suspended or revoked or reduced in grade. The limit here is 12 months. The premium varies with the grade of license and the level of monthly income insured.
The next level provides coverage outside the context of CG/NTSB hearings. This is the world of Civil Litigation. Mariners are held civilly liable and accountable for any harm resulting from negligence or violation of law. Mariners are not protected under the cover of the shipowners insurance policy. Shipowners have liability policies which protect the owner and the vessel but not the mariner. As a practical manner, a vessel owner will provide an attorney to represent a mariner because under tort law the vessel owner is vicariously responsible for the acts of its employees. So from a business viewpoint it makes sense in many instances for the vessel owner/operator to defend the mariner. But there are times when a mariner is working for a company that only has one vessel and perhaps is considering filing bankruptcy. In that case there is no incentive to provide a defense for the mariner. The mariner could find him/herself adrift. Ships are expensive items with potential for catastrophic damages. Pilots often face the greatest exposure and for this reason have the highest premiums for coverage. Recently (Sept 18, 2008) a Federal Court in Mississippi found a Bar Pilot Negligent and Personally Liable for Over $800,000 in Damages. The Court held that he failed to review the plans for the entire voyage and mistakenly relied on a floating buoy to fix his position allowing the ship to veer outside of the intended channel and strike a submerged submarine launch structure. The case is a reported decision,

The third area of exposure is Criminal Liability. Here environmental activities comprises the majority of litigation. The federal government and the coastal states have numerous laws and regulations which unfortunately impose a strict liability for harm resulting from mishaps which allow oil products and other contaminants into navigable waters. The Exxon Valdez grounding is the classic example of the issues involved. Mops has coverage to provide payment for a Criminal Attorney to work with Admiralty Counsel on matters of this nature.

Lets say a mariner with MOPS insurance runs aground, what steps should he take?
The first concern is for the safety of the vessel. The Master must use good and proper seamanship principles to do what must be done to minimize damage and properly secure the vessel.  The circumstances will dictate what must be done. The next step would be to report the incident to the Coast Guard, or VTS etc. and to follow instructions. In reporting the incident, the mariner should  provide factual information that will assist the authorities in the immediate safety of the vessel, personnel and the environment.  It should not be necessary to provide opinions or speculations as to why or how the incident occurred. Once vessel and environmental safety considerations are under control, the Mariner assuming he is a MOPS insured, should contact Mops to report the incident. One this is done, a Mops  attorney will contact the mariner and provide specific instructions.

Is insurance offered by MOPS to non-US licensed mariners and does a US licensed mariner working aboard a foreign flagged vessel need your insurance?
MOPS does not insure foreign licenses.  MOPS does provide a certain level of legal assistance to US mariners who are required to appear in foreign courts and tribunals inquiring into vessel mishaps occurring in their waters. Today, many US Mariners are sailing on foreign flag vessels.  Mariners working under the authority of their US license on a foreign flag vessel, are still subject to Coast Guard oversight.  A mariner’s license is at all times subject to the mariner’s ability to demonstrate his/her fitness to retain the license.  The Coast Guard has the same authority to investigate an “incident” on a foreign vessel which raises the issue as to the competence of the mariner as it does on US flag vessels.

Who is the most at risk? (e.g. tanker mates, cruise ship, those on short domestic runs…)?
I would say that environmental and cruise ship incidents present the greatest exposure.  Environmental mishaps trigger criminal liability and have the greatest potential for long term harm.  There are not  many cruise ships under US flag and there has not been a major cruise ship incident in many years, but the catastrophic potential for loss of human life is obvious given the numbers carried on these megaships. Apart from those categories, there is also a greater risk of collision and allision associated with the inland as opposed to deep sea transits because of traffic, and congested waterways and complexity of piloting in inclement weather.

Any final comments to add?
Yes, there are several misconceptions among mariners about License Insurance which I would like to put to rest;

The first misconception is that the Policy Coverage is voided if a mariner is negligent.  Quite the contrary, the precise reason one buys this policy is to protect themselves when they are in fact negligent.

The second misconception  is that License Insurance is really  for mediocre or less-than- average mariners.   This is totally false. Highly competent, top of the class, stellar mariners need it just as much.  I have seen this demonstrated numerous times. One story that stands out was the allision of the container ship Jean Lykes with a fuel barge that occurred in New York  Harbor in the mid 1990.s  The Jean was under the command of  a docking pilot and was making a turn into the Kill Van Kull which developed into a ” white- knuckles” situation. The master who was on the bridge, agonized as to whether or not to relieve the pilot or trust in his judgment to save the day with the tugs under his command. That did not happen.  The Jean’s bow glanced off the stern of the barge.  Both the master and pilot were charged with numerous counts of negligence.  The case went to trial. There was media present because the incident occurred in New York Harbor and was written up in the papers. When he testified, it soon became evident to everyone in the court room that the master was the brightest guy there and that he knew more than the experts who were called to testify by both sides.  This came as no surprise to me because I got to know him very well in pre-trial preparation. He graduated No 1 from a State maritime college and  whenever he took professional courses at MITAG, he was always No 1. Etc. etc.   I could go on.  To make a long story short, the judge dismissed all eight specifications charged against him.  The point to be made here is very simple, location, location, location.  The point being made is that you can be the brightest of the brightest but if you are involved in a high profile incident, you will likely be needing legal talent.

The third point is the misconception that License Insurance is very expensive. In reality, a bare bones policy costs less than a dollar a day, so don’t lose sleep as to whether you not you can afford it.
The fourth and last point is that MOPS really has the best product out there. They deliver what they say and they have an excellent network of fine Admiralty attorneys around the country who meet yearly in New York to discuss strategy and cases of interest.  When a call for legal assistance comes, Mops attorneys act immediately.  In the case of the Jean Lykes, which was assigned to me for defense, I was up the pilot ladder before the Coast Guard boarded the ship.

_____________

Did you read Marine License Insurance -Part 1?

_____________

The above comments are intended to provide a general overview of my experiences as a MOPS attorney and agent. Conditions and terms contained in the MOPS Policy control.

Ralph J. Mellusi Esq.
Tel: 212 962-1590 Fax 212 962-1590

Email  Rjmellusi@ Sealawyers.com
www.MarineLicenseInsurance.Com

On Friday, May 15th, the D.C. Court of Appeals decided a case that is styled BNSF Railway Company v. United States Department of Transportation, which determined important privacy rights for aviation, rail, motor carrier, mass transit, maritime and pipeline industries’ workers.

The Department of Transportation requires that workers who violate drug testing policies must successfully complete a drug treatment program and pass a follow up urine analysis before returning to safety-sensitive work.

At issue in this case is whether the Department of Transportation can utilize a direct observation technique of watching the urine specimen leave the examinee’s body in administering the initial and subsequent follow up drug tests.

One of the interesting factual determiners in this case was the advent of devices marketed to falsify the results of random drug tests.  The “wizzinator,” a device the Court particularly highlighted, was designed to closely resemble the male genitalia and to dispense either an artificial urine sample or a previously collected clean urine sample.  The Department argued that such devices necessitate the direct observation of urine sample collections.

Indeed, the Court sided with the Department in outweighing the worker’s right to privacy by comparison to the Department’s goal of creating a drug-free transportation workplace.

From a Constitutional Law perspective, this decision is a radical departure from the Fourth Amendment “search” law precedent because it sanctions a strip search of a U.S. Citizen in the United States who submits a urine sample.  The opinion, though, leaves the reader wondering if foregoing essential privacy, especially in the context of genitalia exposure, should be required of a transportation worker, even though the industry is highly regulated.

When juxtaposed to the need to have a drug free workplace in the area of public transportation, the final decision was foreseeable, but clearly it is highly intrusive.

Steve adds up with the following comment:

This very interesting case is one that weighs the constitutional right to privacy of a U.S. Citizen under the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution with the Government’s right to ensure safety in transportation. This case will most assuredly be discussed in law school Constitutional Law courses as it sets forth an example of sanctioning extreme intrusion literally into the genital regions without any real evidence to support such a search at that moment. The Department and the Court indicates that recidivism of drug use makes it with ‘some suspicion’ that warrants and supports this type of intrusive testing but I believe this is simply a sign of the times. That is, we, as U.S. citizens, have been losing protections since the end of the Warren court. There are many decisions involving “searches” from the Rehnquist Court that slowly shaved away our rights to privacy. This case’s result was easily foreseeable since drug usage in the workplace has become so rampant. The need to protect the public from the potential harm caused by a “Casey Jones” type is an argument that is impossible to refute.

When I asked Steve about the ramifications to gCaptain’s readers and professional mariners he replied that the rational of the case turns upon protecting the safety of the public from the transportation industry. Specifically, it could easily be applied to pilots that are charged with the responsibility of bringing in large ships into a harbor.  Whether it would apply to captains of tug boats going down the ditch, Steve believes it could because they carry hazardous material. So, though this case only applies at the moment to the railway industry, it is easily anticipated to be seen being utilized in the maritime industry.

With that in mind, do companies reserve the right to strip search when giving a urine sample to an employee on the basis of a previous infraction?

You can read more about this case, including the entire case review on Steve’s blog, JonesActQuestions.com

Gordon & Elias, L.L.P are a boutique law firm with a nationwide practice focusing on Jones Act, Admiralty and Maritime Law.  More information can be found at http://www.OffshoreInjuries.com, and the associated Jones Act Blog http://www.JonesActQuestions.com.

Image via Flickr user OneEighteen Photostream

While searching the web, I came across an article in the Chicago Tribune titled “Shipping Industry Runs Short of Mariners.”  Here is a brief introduction:

Long a symbol of romance and adventure, the seafaring life is attracting fewer young adults these days, creating a worsening personnel shortage for those hauling cargo across oceans and the Great Lakes.

Some shipping companies have told the U.S. Maritime Administration that the problem has forced them to dock or even sell vessels. Others said it has kept them from expanding fleets, or caused delayed voyages and lost contracts.

A cross-section of the maritime industry has been affected to varying degrees, from oil tankers and bulk cargo haulers to tugs, barges and ferries.

“It’s not limited to any region or any nation. It is a global challenge,” Maritime Administrator Sean Connaughton said. READ FULL ARTICLE

The author points to a number of factors contributing to this problem including tougher liscensing and training requirements, greater safety standards, technology that is increasing efficiency, but mainly, an aging workforce with less and less allure for young mariners entering the industry.

Ok enough from the article.  What we are interested in is what you, our readers and mariners, think of this mariner shortage and how it has effected you.  Be sure to let us know in the comments…

Here is a poll that we posted a while back to get things going:

In an unusual turn of events the TSA (United States’ Transportation Security Agency) has launched a blog! While the review on NPR‘s show “On The Media” was positive, with the agency reportedly solving problems identified by readers, you have to wonder about the name, “Evolution Of Security“, and the bloggers themselves. You can find the blogger profiles HERE but the following is an example;

Ethel
Hi! My name is Ethel and I’m from Wisconsin. I like music, I love ice cream, and I adore weird facts: Did you know that elephants can smell water from as far away as three miles? I joined the TSA about a year ago – prior to that I attended MIT where I earned degrees in Biology, Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, and had the amazing opportunity to work on projects like designing artificial gravity systems for NASA.

Noticeably missing is a total lack of coverage about issues related to TWIC - the Transortation Worker’s Identification card. We have also failed to find any discussion related to Maritime Affairs.

We only have two questions… When will the NMC or MARAD launch a blog? Will they be responsive to reader comments?

Related Links:

• Evolution Of Security Blog
• Maritime Licensing Blog
• NYTimes Review