"The updates specifically dictate that the Navy fraternization policy prohibiting certain types of relationships is applicable to relationships with members of other U. armed services and with members of foreign military services," said Lt. Kim Dixon, spokesperson for the Navy's chief of personnel's diversity directorate which issued the change."As a result of a scheduled policy review, it was determined the policy needed to be updated," said Cmdr.Ships carrying massive quantities of petroleum and other flammables—not to mention toxins, dangerous chemicals, spontaneous combustibles and even nuclear materials—pose an unnecessarily high fire risk to Americans and the coastlines of major U. cities, according to a year-long assessment by ROR.The release of harmful radioactive materials and toxins into the air and sea, or a catastrophic oil spill after a ship fire, may be more possible than one might think because the U. Coast Guard has failed to enforce basic firefighting regulations since 2009. The rules, derived from the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, are meant to prevent a worst-case discharge resulting from fire or explosion aboard a vessel.
"Navy leadership wanted Navy personnel to be clear on the fact that the policy also applies to joint services, as well as foreign militaries." Fraternization, generally, refers to personal relationships between officer and enlisted members that are unduly familiar.(Ships subject to the Rule also have the option of transferring ballast water at a facility that will treat and dispose of the water, using potable water as ballast water, or not discharging any ballast water into U. waters.) The implementation of the USCG approval system for BWMS, however, is likely to take up to three years. Accordingly, the Rule provides for the temporary acceptance of BWMS that are approved by a foreign administration in accordance with the IMO standards under the BWC, provided that the USCG determines that the system is at least as effective as ballast water exchange. Department of Justice (DOJ) continues to make pollution from ships an enforcement priority, as seen in the many oil-water separator (OWS) cases brought over the past several years, and it is not a stretch to anticipate DOJ continuing that trend in future enforcement of the ballast water management requirements contained in the Rule. ports and sets out the federal ballast water management regulations pursuant to the National Aquatic Nuisance Prevention Control Act (NANPCA) and the National Invasive Species Act (NISA). (Exceptions include, for example, crude oil tankers engaged in coastwise trade and certain armed forces vessels.) The second group includes ships that do not operate beyond the U. Exclusive Economic Zone, but take on and discharge ballast water in more than one Captain of the Port Zone and are greater than 1,600 gross tons register.According to the USCG, the new requirements will be more effective than ballast water exchange and better protect ecosystems within U. The Rule, however, does provide for a case-by-case extension of the applicable compliance date where it can be documented that compliance is not possible within the specified timeframe (requests need to be made at least 12 months prior to the applicable compliance date).