Insights

Deutsch Kerrigan Article /

An Overview of Subchapter M Compliance Requirements

August 31, 2018

share this page

As the owner of a marine company, or the operator of one or more tugboats or other towing vessels, your company and vessels may face compliance issues regarding 46 CFR Subchapter M, Parts 136-144. Since the regulations’ adoption, our marine attorneys regularly field Subchapter M questions from our clients.

Subchapter M represents a new approach to Coast Guard inspections. Not only does it displace Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) jurisdiction, it also preempts state regulations pertaining to the following:

  • Vessel design
  • Vessel construction
  • Vessel alteration
  • Vessel equipping, repair and maintenance
  • Vessel operation and manning
  • Personnel qualifications

Coverage

Subchapter M covers virtually all aspects of your company and vessels, including:

  • Certification
  • Vessel compliance
  • Towing Safety Management System (TSMS)
  • Third-party organizations
  • Operations
  • Lifesaving
  • Fire protection
  • Machinery and electrical systems and equipment
  • Construction and arrangement

Applicability

Subchapter M applies to all U.S.-flag towing vessels except the following:

  • Vessels less than 26 feet long unless they are engaged in moving barges carrying oil or hazardous materials
  • Assistance towing vessels
  • Work boats operating within a work site
  • Seagoing tugboats over 300 Gross Registered Tonnage (GRT)
  • Other inspected vessels that perform occasional towing

Compliance Options

Two options are available to comply with Subchapter M methodology: (1) the Coast Guard option or (2) the TSMS option. Under the former, the Coast Guard annually inspects each vessel you own. Under the latter, two sub-options are available: (a) your company can perform its own surveys and examinations as a one-time event or over a period of time, or (b) your company can engage a third-party organization (TPO) to perform them and issue you serial five-year compliance certificates. The TPO must perform an internal audit of your management and towing vessels plus an external TSMS vessel audit once every five years. It also must conduct an external management audit twice every five years.

Compliance Dates

Given that Subchapter M became effective on July 20, 2016, most of the vessels owned at that time should have been in compliance by July 20, 2018 unless there was or is a problem with the vessel’s initial certificate of inspection (COI). Any new vessel acquired since July 20, 2016, must comply with the regulations before it can enter service.

In terms of your COI vessels, if you own a single vessel, that vessel must be in compliance by July 20, 2020. If you the company owns have a fleet of more than one vessel, however, your company must adhere to the following compliance schedule:

  • 25 percent compliance by July 22, 2019
  • 50 percent compliance by July 20, 2020
  • 75 percent compliance by July 19, 2021
  • 100 percent compliance by July 19, 2022

Whenever you need help resolving a maritime issue or dispute, contact the maritime team at Deutsch Kerrigan. Our attorneys have been involved in maritime matters and litigation in New Orleans and on the Gulf Coast and are ready to help you achieve your goals.

Firm Highlights

  • Insight

    No Mercy for Employers in Louisiana Supreme Court’s Recent Magill Decision

    In its recent per curiam opinion, Magill v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. of Nebraska[1], the Louisiana Supreme Court has foreclosed a routine defense strategy to shield employers from direct negligence claims. The high court has extended their 2022 decision in Martin v. Thomas[2], and now allows plaintiffs to pursue direct negligence claims against an employer despite the employer’s stipulation that its employee was in the course-and-scope of employment and caused the accident. Essentially, employers who fail to implement better employment practices will permit plaintiffs to ramp up potential exposure with evidence, if such exists, that heretofore they were routinely barred from introducing at trial. The Supreme Court’s Magill holding should encourage employers to update where needed their policies and procedures pertaining to hiring, training, supervising, and entrusting duties and property to employees, not only for the safety of their employees and customers in this state, but also eliminate employer’s exposure to direct negligence claims. Prior to Martin, a litigation strategy had taken shape where employers stipulated to 1) an employee being in course-and-scope of employment at the time of the accident, 2) that the employee was at fault for the accident being caused, or 3) both. By stipulating these facts, employers were largely able to exclude evidence of any direct negligence on part of the employer and/or narrow the scope of trial to only a contest of the plaintiff’s injuries. The Supreme Court in Martin held that despite an employer admitting their employee was in course and scope when the accident occurred, plaintiffs could pursue direct negligence claims against the employer—as the issue of liability had not been admitted. Accordingly, employers found success by admitting both course and scope and liability—as seen in the Western District of Louisiana’s holding in Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona[3]. In Ferguson, the defendants stipulated that their employee was acting in course-and-scope at the time of the accident and their employee was 100% at fault for the accident being caused. Due to the employer’s stipulation of fault, Judge Wicks of the Western District of Louisiana held that Martin did not apply and that plaintiffs could not pursue direct negligence claims. In Magill, the Louisiana Supreme Court provided scarce reasoning for their decision. The high court simply affirmed the District Court’s expansion of the holding in Martin and that the employer’s reliance on the Western District’s Ferguson holding was a misapplication of Louisiana law. The Supreme Court also cited the decision in Tardo v. Farrell.[4] where the Fifth Circuit held that even if an employer and employee stipulate to course and scope and fault, those admissions do not eliminate direct-negligence claims because those claims remain separate issues for the trier of fact. The Fifth Circuit notably stated, “the societal decisions as to who actually pays does not change the manner of assessing fault to all parties as required by law.” This statement raises concern, as plaintiffs may now attempt to challenge employer stipulations that historically narrowed trials. The Supreme Court did not explain its reliance on Tardo, so future litigation will likely clarify the decision’s full impact. Under Magill, plaintiffs are permitted to pursue direct negligence claims against the employer despite the employer admitting that their employee was acting in course and scope at the time of the accident and their employee was 100% at fault for the accident being caused. The full effect of the Supreme Court’s decision remains to be seen. In praxis, Magill will permit plaintiffs to put on evidence of direct negligence by an employer in front of a jury who cannot assign fault—as fault has already been stipulated to by the defendants. Employers now face the practical risk that plaintiffs will encourage juries to increase damages as a form of punishment against an employer that admits fault but contests the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries. Employers should use this moment to rigorously review and strengthen policies and procedures related to hiring and training in order to limit exposure when plaintiffs assert direct-negligence claims.  [1] Magill v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. of Nebraska, 2025-00892 (La. 11/12/25) [2] Martin v. Thomas, 21-01490 (La. 6/29/22), 346 So.3d 238 [3] Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona, 17-1570, 2023 WL 173413 (W.D. La. Jan. 12, 2023) [4] Tardo v. Ferrell, 25-123 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/28/25), 2025 WL 1516837 (unpublished).
  • Experience

    Successfully Defended Restaurant Operator and Food Distributor Against $50 Million Product Liability Claim

    Anne Medo successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of a restaurant operator and food distributor in a high-stakes product liability matter involving allegations that contaminated chicken nuggets caused a customer to develop severe medical complications. The plaintiff alleged that consumption of chicken nuggets purchased from a national food chain and distributed by Deutsch Kerrigan’s clients resulted in E. coli and Shigella infections, which he claimed led to significant cardiac issues and a stroke. The plaintiff sought $50 million in damages. Prior to trial, Anne moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish the required causal connection between the alleged foodborne illness and his subsequent health conditions. Specifically, the defense highlighted the absence of expert testimony necessary to support the plaintiff’s causation theories. In support of the motion, Anne presented testimony from an infectious disease expert and a cardiologist who opined that the alleged connection between the chicken nuggets and the plaintiff’s severe medical complications could not be established. The court agreed that the plaintiff lacked sufficient evidence to prove causation and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims prior to trial.
  • News

    Karina Shareen Named 2026 Top Young Lawyer by Louisiana State Bar Association

  • Experience

    Burnell Joseph v. Atalco Gramercy, LLC et al., No. 3:23-cv-505, United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

    Bob Kerrigan and Jose Ruiz successfully secured summary judgment dismissal for their client, Velan, Inc., in a complex intentional tort and products liability act involving catastrophic injury. The plaintiff, a precipitation batch tank operator working at the Atalco alumina refinery in Gramercy, Louisiana, suffered severe and debilitating chemical burn injuries to his face, eyes, and body when he was sprayed with caustic liquor while working underneath a tank at the refinery. He claimed that the valve that controlled the flow of liquor into the tank was leaking, which allowed the tank to become filled with liquor after it had been previously verified as empty. He filed suit against Velan, Inc., the manufacturer of the valve that controlled the flow of liquor into the tank, alleging that the valve was unreasonable dangerous in accordance with the Louisiana Products Liability Act. He also filed an intentional tort claim against his employer, Atalco Gramercy, LLC, alleging that Atalco knew the valve was leaking and continued to force employees to work underneath the tank. He claimed that under these conditions, an incident such as his was substantially certain to occur. Following the close of discovery, Velan moved for summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims was appropriate because: (1) the plaintiff’s injuries were a result of Atalco’s misuse of the valve; (2) the plaintiff lacked the expert testimony needed to prove his theory of liability under the Louisiana Product’s Liability Act; (3) the Velan valve at issue was not unreasonably dangerous as defined by the Louisiana Products Liability Act; and (4) the plaintiff was unable to prove proximate causation needed to establish his case of liability against Velan. The Hon. Brian Jackson found that under the undisputed facts presented by Velan, summary judgment was appropriate and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against it, with prejudice.
  • Experience

    Summary Judgment Granted Following Successful Challenge to Plaintiff’s Expert

    Doug Vaughn and Peyton Farve obtained a dismissal of a wrongful death product liability lawsuit against an assembly line manufacturer by successfully moving to exclude the plaintiff's expert who had a perfect track record before this case and thereafter obtaining summary judgment on all claims brought by the family of a worker who died after reaching into moving machinery. The case had been pending in federal court in North Mississippi.
  • Insight

    Navigating Louisiana’s New Litigation Landscape: Critical Updates for Insurance Companies

  • News

    Deutsch Kerrigan Recognized in 2026 Chambers USA Rankings

    Deutsch Kerrigan is proud to announce that five of our attorneys and two of our practice areas have been recognized in the 2026 edition of Chambers USA, one of the most prestigious and trusted legal directories in the country. Ranked Practice Areas • Louisiana – Construction (Band 1) • Louisiana – Insurance (Band 2) Ranked Attorneys • Kelly Theard – Construction (Louisiana), Band 1  • Keith Bergeron – Construction (Louisiana), Band 2 • Brian Schaps – Construction (Louisiana), Band 3  • Terrence Brennan – Construction (Louisiana), Senior Statespeople • Frederic Theodore “Ted” Le Clercq – Labor & Employment (Louisiana), Band 4  Chambers USA is widely considered the leading resource for identifying top legal talent. Its rankings are the result of extensive independent research and interviews with clients and legal peers, assessing factors such as legal ability, professional conduct, client service, commercial awareness, and commitment. We are honored to be recognized among the top in our field and remain committed to delivering the high-quality service our clients expect and deserve.
  • News

    44 Deutsch Kerrigan Attorneys Recognized by Best Lawyers® in 2027 Edition, Including Two “Lawyer of the Year” Honorees

    Deutsch Kerrigan proudly announces that 44 of our attorneys have been recognized by their peers in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. This year, 34 Deutsch Kerrigan attorneys were named to The Best Lawyers in America®, with an additional 10 attorneys recognized in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. In addition, John Jerry Glas and Kelly E. Theard were each named “Lawyer of the Year” in their respective practice areas—an honor awarded to only one attorney per practice area in each region. John Jerry Glas — Transportation Law, New Orleans Kelly E. Theard — Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants, New Orleans Below is the full list of Deutsch Kerrigan attorneys recognized in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. 2027 The Best Lawyers in America® Thirty-four Deutsch Kerrigan attorneys were recognized in the 2027 edition of The Best Lawyers in America®: New Orleans, Louisiana Jennifer Adams Litigation - Environmental Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Francis J. Barry, Jr. Admiralty and Maritime Law Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Keith J. Bergeron Construction Law Litigation - Construction Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Terrence L. Brennan Arbitration Construction Law Litigation - Construction Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Bertrand M. Cass, Jr. Admiralty and Maritime Law Energy Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Beverly Aloisio DeLaune Commercial Litigation Legal Malpractice Law - Defendants Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Catherine Filippi Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants John Jerry Glas Insurance Law Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Transportation Law David Groome, Jr. Litigation - Insurance Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants William C. Harrison, Jr. Aviation Law Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Carl "Chip" Hellmers Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Karen Holland Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Duris L. Holmes Banking and Finance Law Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships) Commercial Litigation Litigation - Bankruptcy Joshua G. Keller Insurance Law Litigation - Insurance Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Ryan D. Kelley Insurance Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Robert E. Kerrigan, Jr. Commercial Litigation Litigation - Environmental Litigation - Insurance Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Charles E. Leche Admiralty and Maritime Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Frederic Theodore Le Clercq Employment Law - Management Labor Law - Management Litigation - Labor and Employment Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Admiralty and Maritime Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Melissa M. Lessell Commercial Litigation Ethics and Professional Responsibility Law Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Raymond C. Lewis Insurance Law Litigation - Insurance Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Walter P. Maestri Admiralty and Maritime Law Energy Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Joseph L. McReynolds Appellate Practice Litigation - Construction Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Anne E. Medo Commercial Litigation Richard B. Montgomery III Commercial Transactions / UCC Law Litigation - Real Estate Real Estate Law Securitization and Structured Finance Law Sean P. Mount Commercial Litigation Insurance Law Litigation - Construction Litigation - Insurance Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Talbot M. Quinn Insurance Law Litigation - Insurance Joanne Rinardo Employment Law - Management Litigation - Labor and Employment Kermit L. Roux III Family Law Insurance Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Brian S. Schaps Construction Law Litigation - Construction A. Wendel Stout III Litigation - Environmental Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Kelly E. Theard Construction Law Litigation - Construction Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Marc J. Yellin Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Gulfport, Mississippi Richard Tubertini Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships) Commercial Litigation Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants R. Douglas Vaughn Health Care Law Insurance Law Litigation - Insurance Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants 2027 Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America Ten Deutsch Kerrigan attorneys were recognized in the 2027 edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. New Orleans, LA Gregory J. Angelico Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants   Chance Carter Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants   Colin Casciato Commercial Litigation   Peter-Raymond Graffeo Construction Law   Ethan King Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants   Jose Ruiz Insurance Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Transportation Law   Justine Ware Insurance Law   Casey Wendling Professional Malpractice Law Gulfport, Mississippi Peyton Farve Insurance Law Transportation Law   Keeton Thach Insurance Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Professional Malpractice Law
  • Insight

    New Tech Changing Consent Laws?

  • Insight

    The Betterment Doctrine and Property Damage Claims