JUNE 2018 • FOGHORN 25 REGULATORYREPORT incident reporting and $200,000 for sig- nificant marine incidents. At our most recent partnership meeting in April 2018, we received notice of the issuance CG-INV Policy Letter 1-81, “Required Notification of Personnel Investigation.” The policy letter establishes a process and guide- lines for informing mariners that “minimizes surprise and improves transparency” of the investigative processes. The Marine Safety Manual will now require that Investigating Officers (IOs) generate notification letters to credentialed mariners being considered for possible suspension and revocation enforcement under 46 CFR 5, Marine Investigation Regulations – Personnel Action as result of an in- vestigation begun 46 CFR 4 Marine Casualties and Investigation. There is an exception if “doing so would be contrary to law, regulation, or signifi- cant Coast Guard interest”. Too often, over the last many years credentialed mariners complained that they would submit a CG Form 2692 and, with little or no subsequent inter- action with the Coast Guard, receive a letter in the mail giving them 30 days to accept or reject a proposed Letter of Warning or Suspension and Revocation (S&R) Complaint. The letter also made a point of stating the most severe possible outcome of an unsuccessful challenge should the recipient choose to pursue to reject the civil penalty action or action against his/her license. There is a distinct difference between an investigation to determine cause of a reported accident/incident and one leading to a remedial action such as a civil penalty or suspension and revocation case. The two processes and purposes are actually two separate parts of the Code of Federal Regulations with separate goals. Wi t h u n e q u i v o c a l t i m e l y notice, the mariner can now better participate in the processes provided by regulation and anticipate potential actions. The 30-day surprise and ensuing scramble to make career- controlling decisions under duress, often in a vacuum, will cease to confound the relationship between the Coast Guard and credentialed mariners. Interestingly, the idea for this initiative was born in the PVA con- ference room during a discussion between the PVA staff and the Coast Guard’s Chief Administrative Law Judge Walter Brudzinski. The baton was then passed to the Quality Partnership for its ability to support and track progress of products. I am pleased to note that this series of four major products and actions that resolved years of concern and ad hoc address of problems in investiga- tion that always seemed too little or too late was accomplished under the leadership of CAPT Jason Neubauer, USCG. This was so even as the El Faro investigation consumed months of his and the organization’s time and energy. Bravo Zulu. n