32 APRIL 2018 • FOGHORN REGULATORYREPORT By Peter Lauridsen, PV A Regulatory Affairs Consultant M uch has been made of the U.S. Coast Guard’s use of third parties in delegate roles for compliance with federal rules in a series of major marine casualty investigations. The Coast Guard Commandant (the Office of the Commandant, not neces- sarily the incumbent) has either rejected a Marine Board of Investigation’s (MBI) recommendation for alteration/ elimination of existing delegations based on programmatic analysis or did not support a recommendation due to other factors seeming to limit the Commandant’s discretion. The Alternative Compliance Program (ACP) addresses delegation of Coast Guard inspection responsibility under federal regulations to a vessel’s classification society. The theory is that class rules closely parallel the federal regulations and Coast Guard specific areas or interpretations are addressed in each ACP’s annex. Parallel is the operative word. Classification entities create rules that when complied with give insurance underwriter’s confi- dence in a vessel/company’s insurabil- ity--a risk-based decision. Congress has defined the Coast Guard’s duty to prevent loss of life and property at sea. That body and others such as the National Transportation Safety Board and the media tend to see that authority as requiring absolute ac- countability. The Coast Guard itself Effective Inspections by Third Parties