1.1 Background 1

1.2 Report Organization 2

2.1 Rationale for Regulation Selection 3

2.2 Problem Statement 4

2.3 Applicable Regulations 5

2.4 Safety Criteria 5

3.1 Preliminary Hazards Assessment Methodology 7

3.2 Preliminary Safety Assessment 9

3.3 Shipping Articles Analysis Methodology 11

3.3.1 46 CFR, Part 14 12

3.3.2 Questionnaire 12

3.3.3 Interviews 12

3.3.4 Hazards 12

3.3.5 Identify Scenarios 13

3.3.6 Consequences 13

3.3.7 Likelihood 13

3.3.8 Evaluate and Document the Results 14

3.3.9 Review Risk Ranking and Prepare Recommended Actions 14

3.4 Participants in the Study 14

4.1 Safety Analysis 15

4.2 Findings 17

4.2.1 Potential Consequences 17

4.2.2 Safety Assessment 19

4.2.3 Analysis 19

5.1 Conclusions 27

5.1.1 Safety Aspects 27

5.1.2 Costs 29

5.2 Recommendations 31

5.2.1 Shipping Articles 31

5.2.2 Discharge Certificates 31

5.2.3 Consul 32

5.2.4 Conduct of the Mariner 33

5.3 Summary 33

1 Consequence Analysis 13

2 Potential Consequences 18

3 Evaluation of Each Section of 46 CFR, Part 14 20

1 Inputs and Outputs for a Successful PrHA 8

2 Inputs and Outputs Required for Completing a PrHA 9

3 Shipping Articles Methodology 11

4 Areas with Direct Impact on Safety 16

5 Shipping Articles Analysis Process 17

6 Current Handling of the Shipping Articles 19

Over the years, federal, state, and local governments have implemented an increasing number of marine safety and environmental regulations. These regulations have grown almost exponentially as government and industry alike have attempted to allay public concern as to safety and environmental impact of ship/vessel operations. These regulations take a significant financial toll on the marine industry, since, most of the time, they do little to reduce or mitigate the underlying risks.

What is needed is a structured approach that allows management to analyze systems or problems and develop solutions to complex problems. The use of risk-based technology (RBT) is a potential solution to address this problem. RBT allows the analyst to define and prioritize the major risk contributors on a top-down basis; provides a logical, risk-based perspective for streamlining the regulation process; and provides a method by which ship/vessel owners, operators, and regulators can justify potential changes to regulations while not compromising safety or increasing risk. Therefore, the owners/operators can approach the regulators and request relief from those regulations that have no safety or risk value, yet increase the cost of operation.

The purpose of this study is demonstrate to the Ship Operations Cooperative Program (SOCP) members how RBT can be used to analyze regulations that add a high cost of compliance to the ship/vessel operator. The regulation selected to accomplish this is 46 CFR Part 14, "The Shipment and Discharge of Seamen," with the specific problem being how the shipping articles, certificates of discharge, and other forms mentioned in 46 CFR Part 14 impact on the safe operation of the ship and protect the mariner.

In evaluating 46 CFR, Part 14, one underlying safety criteria was established, the qualification of the mariner. Mariners present their licenses and qualifications to the Master before signing the shipping articles to certify that they are qualified for the billet they are shipping for. The discharge certificates are used by the U.S. Coast Guard for recertification and licensing. Adhering to this regulation should prevent unqualified personnel from serving in billets for which they are trained to perform. Also, the regulation helps protect the mariner by setting certain minimum standards for the owners and operators to comply too.

The problem in performing this assessment on the shipping articles is that they do not directly involve the physical hazards normally encountered in a process or system. Rather, they involve the hazards related to what could occur if the required forms and paperwork were not properly completed and forwarded to the proper authorities. Therefore, it was decided to concentrate on the safety aspects of the regulation. The assessment evaluated the safety impacts of the shipping articles, discharge certificates, consul being present during the shipping and discharge of mariners, and recording the conduct of the mariner.

In completing the study, a questionnaire was developed and sent to several ship Masters and U.S. Coast Guard employees. Additionally, interviews were conducted, both in person and by telephone. The results of the questionnaire and interviews were used to validate current practices and provide information on problems that could exist should the regulation be changed.

The shipping articles have a direct impact on safety by the licensing and certification of mariners. This includes the required periodic training each mariner is required to complete to maintain their qualifications. The shipping articles can also have an indirect impact on safety in the areas of wages, living, and working conditions, etc. It is this latter impact that is frequently overlooked, as unhappy or discontented employees are a potential source of accidents.

The findings of the study are as follows:

• Having the Master validate the license and certification of the mariner prior to signing on to a specific billet has a direct safety impact. This ensures that the mariner is qualified to perform the duties required for that class of ship. However, there is no apparent safety value in forwarding the completed shipping articles to the USCG. Therefore, it is recommended that the SOCP approach the USCG and request that the shipping articles no longer be forwarded to the USCG.

• The discharge certificate has a direct safety impact. The discharge certificates are an internationally recognized method of establishing the billets, class of ship, and tonnage experience of the mariner. It is how the mariner proves his experience for recertification or licensing. However, it appears that forwarding the certificates of discharge to the USCG is duplicative of other records that are maintained. Other flag countries expect the mariner to maintain their own records and present them when requesting recertification or licensing. Recommend that the regulation be changed to make the mariners responsible for their own discharge certificates.

• The requirement for consul to be present during the shipping and discharge of mariners has no apparent safety impact. It is only required in ports where a consul is present and some companies have waivers to comply with this part of the regulation. Recommend that the requirement for consul to be present at the shipping and discharge of a mariner be dropped from the regulation.

• Reporting on the conduct of the mariner has a safety impact. A report of poor conduct can provide the USCG with the information it needs to disqualify a mariner and/or pull their license. This can prevent a mariner from serving on and hazarding other ships in the future. There should be a method to report the poor conduct of a mariner.

Certain aspects of the regulation were further evaluated for potential cost savings for the owners/operators. Examples are presented that demonstrate how the cost saving can be figured for various sections of the regulation. Detailed calculations were not made for the entire fleet since the detailed information was beyond the scope of this study, and the cost savings will vary widely depending on the size of the SOCP member’s fleet and the type of operations they conduct.

During the process of conducting the safety assessment a proposed rule was issued. In the interest of evaluating the existing regulation and proposed rule, a comparison was made, and the differences noted. However, the basis of this report is on the existing regulation.

Once the new rule is issued, it is recommended that the SOCP members determine exactly how the actual rule varies from the proposed rule.

Over the years, federal, state, and local governments have implemented an increasing number of marine safety and environmental regulations. The purpose of these regulations generally has been to reduce or mitigate the likelihood that people, property, or the environment will be harmed by some event arising from the construction, existence, or operation of ships, vessels, and supporting facilities. These regulations and standards have grown almost exponentially as government and industry alike have attempted to allay public concern as to safety and environmental impact of ship/vessel operations.

Most safety and environmental regulations are enacted in response to incidents or accidents, without a complete understanding of the risk and economic impact of the regulation. As a result, regulations are promulgated that impose additional compliance costs on industry while having little or no affect on increasing safety or decreasing risk. Likewise, there are regulations that have been previously implemented that are no longer applicable due to changes in technology or how operations are conducted. These regulations take a significant financial toll on the marine industry, since they do little to reduce or mitigate the underlying risks.

What is needed is an approach that:

• Defines/prioritizes major risk contributors on a top-down, system-by-system basis, thus enabling allocation of limited resources to major safety and environmental issues.

• Provides a logical, risk-based perspective for streamlining the regulation process, thereby reducing the economic impact on industry.

• Provides a risk-based framework by which ship/vessel owners and operators can justify alternative technologies and operating methods as a means to reduce costs while not compromising safety or increasing risk.

As an initial study into evaluating risk-based technologies (RBT), the Ship Operations Cooperative Program (SOCP) has identified three topical areas that will be evaluated using this approach. The scope of this evaluation will include:

• Articles of Agreement (per 46 CFR, Part 14)
• Official Log Book (per 46 CFR, Subpart 35.07)
• Effective Navigation Watchkeeping

The purpose of this report is to evaluate how the articles of agreement (shipping articles), mentioned in 46 CFR, Part 14, impact on the safe operation of the ship. Upon completion of the safety assessment, recommendations are provided that could reduce the costs, either in time or resources, while not compromising safety.

This report has been prepared as a stand-alone document. All aspects of the study related to the shipping articles are documented in this report.

Section 2 documents the problem statement and describes the relevant issues that are pertinent to the shipping articles. The various regulations and safety criteria as they apply to the shipping articles are also discussed.

Section 3 describes the methodology used in the performance of this study. It documents a detailed description of the safety assessment methodology and details how the methodology was applied to the shipping articles.

Section 4 describes the findings of this study. The results are summarized and the safety assessment and cost findings are documented.

Section 5 lists the final conclusions and recommendations.

The appendices provide the detailed information developed during the shipping articles analysis.

This section documents and describes the problem and relevant issues that are pertinent to the rules for shipping and discharge of mariners on certain U.S. vessels. The various regulations and safety criteria that apply to the shipping articles are also described.

The purpose of this RBT study is to provide the member organizations with a methodology to analyze those U.S. regulations that add a high cost of compliance to the ship/vessel operator. Several regulations were identified by the SOCP membership as being unnecessarily burdensome and worthy subjects for a RBT study. One of these is 46 CFR, Part 14, "The Shipment and Discharge of Seamen." The specific rationale for selecting this regulation is:

• There are numerous forms that need to be completed at a significant cost in time and money to the Masters, owners, operators, and mariners. These forms may or may not add to the safety of the mariner or the vessel.

• The procedures that have been implemented for filling out the forms and forwarding them to the government are time consuming and costly.

• Other flag countries do not require their Masters, owners, or operators to forward their required forms to a central filing location, such as the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), allowing them to operate at a lower cost.

• To evaluate if there is actually value added, either by decreasing the risk or increasing the safety for mariners, of the various sections of the regulation.

• Evaluate any potential savings to the owners/operators by recommending changes to the regulation.

Any recommendations that evolve from this safety assessment will examine the safety and/or risk impact of eliminating or changing the regulation to make it less of a burden on the Masters and owners/operators of the vessels. Whenever possible, cost estimates are made to evaluate the economic impact on the owners/operators. Any proposed changes to the regulation should be accomplished with no increase of risk or decrease in safety to the mariner as they complete their contracts.

The USCG is the custodian of the program for the protection of merchant mariners. This is to:

• Ensure that the merchant mariners are employed of their own free will.
• The mariners are properly paid for their services.
• The mariner’s time is properly documented.

To accomplish this, the mariners and the Masters, others in charge of their vessels, or their representatives, sign contracts known as shipping articles. The shipping articles consist of three parts:

• Features of the voyage and of several reciprocal duties, clear down to the caloric value of the food.

• Particulars of the mariner’s engagement.

• Particulars of discharge.

46 CFR, Part 14 requires the owners and operators to forward to the USCG copies of the articles of agreement, supplementary reports of crew changes, and certificates of discharge. The specific forms used for each vessel will depend on how and where the vessel is employed.

The USCG states that it needs the information gathered from these documents to protect the merchant mariners by ensuring that the mariner’s records of their employment, wages, and next of kin are accurate and are available for their review. Examples of some of the forms used are presented in Appendix E.

The USCG also uses this information to promote safety aboard domestic merchant vessels by:

• Ensuring that the merchant mariners qualify by training and service for original or upgraded credentials.

• Maintaining sea-service data toward retirement benefits.

• Furnishing data in litigation cases involving collisions, injuries, or asbestosis.

The applicable regulation that was evaluated in this safety assessment is 46 CFR, Part 14, "Shipment and Discharge of Seamen."

During the process of this safety assessment, a proposed change to the regulation "Shipment and Discharge to Merchant Mariners" dated March 28, 1996, was issued. In the interest of evaluating the differences between the existing regulation and proposed rule, a comparison was made, and the differences noted. However, the basis of this report will be on the existing regulation.

Subpart 14.20, "Special Provisions for Oceanographic Research Vessels," is not addressed since it relates specifically to exemptions to certain requirements contained in Title 53 of the revised statute that are not relevant to the employment of mariners on oceanographic research vessels.

A copy of the existing regulation and proposed rule can be found in Appendix D.

Safety criteria are requirements or conditions that are specified to prevent loss or damage to the ship or cargo, death or injury to the crew or public, or environmental damage. In evaluating the CFRs, it was determined that there is one underlying safety criteria for the shipping articles:

• Qualification of the Mariner. Shipping articles are the documents describing the training and service experience of each merchant mariner. The USCG uses the shipping articles to promote safety aboard domestic merchant vessels by requiring that merchant mariners be qualified by training and service for their original and upgraded credentials. This method provides the owners/operators with the assurance that the merchant mariners they hire are qualified for the service the mariners are signed on to perform.

For the mariner, the shipping articles describe the billet, pay, date, place of engagement and discharge, etc., they are signing on for. It is the contract with the Master for the services performed. Upon release, the discharge certificate documents the time of service, class, tonnage, etc. This protects the mariner while providing the USCG with the necessary documentation for recertification or licensing.

The regulations also address the detailed handling of the forms, when shipping articles are required, procedures for signing on and discharging seamen, and any special circumstances that must be considered. Detailed descriptions of the process for handling the shipping articles prior to commencing a voyage and updating them during the voyage are also provided. Mishandling or incorrect entries on the forms would not result in additional safety criteria but could have some impact on the certification of the mariner.

Although not a safety criteria in the truest sense, there should be a method that ensures that the owners/operators have on record the current crew composition and their next-of-kin information. This ensures that the mariner’s family can be properly notified in case of an accident.

The above safety criteria was used during the safety assessment to determine what impact changing the shipping articles would have on safety and risk to the mariner, owner/operator, ship, public, environment, and the USCG.

This section describes the methodology used in the performance of the shipping articles study. It documents a detailed description of performing a preliminary hazards analysis (PrHA), the methodology used in the shipping articles regulation analysis, and the PrHA team qualifications.

The primary reason a PrHA is performed is to identify the dominant risk contributors to the system and facilitate management decision-making. A PrHA, whether a detailed quantitative analysis or a qualitative expert judgment evaluation, has the purpose of identifying the actions necessary to reduce the overall risk of the system to acceptable levels.

The PrHA is a top-down approach that defines the hazards, accident scenarios, and risks of a particular process or system. Its purpose is to develop a rank-ordered list of major risk contributors to the system being studied. The results from the PrHA allow management to concentrate efforts and resources on those areas that have the highest consequence and frequency of failure. It provides management with a logical basis for balancing the risk and economic impact of regulations.

A PrHA is performed to answer three questions:

1. What can go wrong?
1. What is the likelihood that it will go wrong?
1. What are the consequences if it does go wrong?

A PrHA can be conducted for many different phases of an operation including research and development (R&D); conceptual design; initial operations; detailed engineering; or modification of a process. It is preferable to perform a PrHA during the early stages of conceptual design and R&D development phase because risk reduction measures can be implemented cost effectively. However, a PrHA can also be performed on an existing facility or operation when a broad brush analysis of hazards and potential accident scenarios is desired. In the case of the shipping articles, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety impact of the various forms Masters are required to complete to comply with 46 CFR, Part 14.

The PrHA is a formal, systematic, and in-depth method for assessing the entire set of possible scenarios for the problem being studied. Whenever possible, frequency estimates of occurrence of all scenarios are assessed along with estimates of the damage level. Credit is taken for any existing protective features for reducing the likelihood of occurrence of each scenario. Each scenario is assigned a "risk rank" based on the estimates of the frequency of occurrence and the damage level. The entire set of scenarios can then be sorted by the severity of the risk rank.

Those scenarios identified by the PrHA to be of relatively high risk can be studied in more detail or be subjected to a quantitative analysis. The results of the PrHA can be used to develop or modify guidelines and policies for the operations being considered.

The success of a PrHA relies on the composition of the analysis team and the team’s access to any data that clarifies the various aspects of the operations being studied. These factors must be considered before the start of the PrHA. Each team member must be knowledgeable in some facet of the operations being studied. Regular participation in the PrHA sessions is necessary to have a successful PrHA. Thus, availability of key personnel must be considered when choosing team members.

Many questions that arise during the PrHA can be resolved by gathering information related to the topic of the PrHA. This includes a description of the operations, studies on similar operations, incident histories, and other empirical information. This is supplemented by expert judgment throughout the PrHA.

A thorough understanding of basic topics being studied is necessary, and any potential hazards involved in any step of the operations must be identified. In addition, knowledge of the operating environments provides insight into potential hazards and guidance on how to reduce the risk. Acquiring the basic background information before beginning the PrHA allows the sessions to be very productive.

A recording medium must be established to systematically evaluate hazard scenarios. One PrHA team member, the scribe, is assigned the responsibility to record all data associated with each hazard scenario using a defined format. It is most convenient to use a computer program, such as PLG’s HAZMAN for Windows, to store the information, although a handwritten log is also acceptable. The goal is to create a complete record of the PrHA sessions. Figure 1 presents the inputs and outputs for a successful PrHA.

The methodology, along with the inputs and outputs in completing a PrHA, are presented in Figure 2. Each step is described below.

• Identify the Major Hazards. A hazard is a physical or chemical characteristic of a material, system, process or operation that has the potential for causing harm. Thus, hazard identification involves the following steps:

• Identify Accident Scenarios. A PrHA focuses on identifying accident scenarios by asking the fundamental question, "What can go wrong?" This is a condition or a series of events that might allow the hazard to cause damage or personnel injury. For each activity, the hazards are reviewed for applicability from a prepared process flow diagram. Scenarios are identified and if the team agrees that the scenario does create a problem, the team records the scenario. The results of this step is a list of potential accident scenarios that need to be further evaluated.

• Assess Accident Scenarios. Determining the consequences and the likelihood estimates are important steps in developing scenario assessments. This is accomplished as follows:

• Evaluate and Document the Results. For those scenarios deemed by the PrHA team to pose a potential problem in terms of consequences or likelihood of occurrence, a qualitative assessment of the risk is automatically assigned by the software, based on a matrix developed by the team’s consensus judgment. After all the scenarios have been evaluated using the above procedure, the analyst will compare all the scenarios by sorting them by the various attributes under evaluation. The results are documented and presented in risk ranking reports.

• Review Risk Rankings and Recommend Possible Mitigation Actions. The final risk rankings determine which further actions, if any, should be taken to mitigate or eliminate selected scenarios. Scenarios with a risk ranking of 1 or 2 are reviewed to identify if immediate or near-term mitigation actions are warranted. Accident scenarios with lower risk rankings are also reviewed, and recommendations are made for possible risk reduction wherever appropriate. As a part of the PrHA, new estimates of the consequence severity, likelihood, and risk can be evaluated and assigned by completing a mini PrHA on that specific scenario, given that the recommended actions are implemented.

After all of the accident scenarios are identified, possible mitigation actions incorporated, and the assets in time and money that management has available can be utilized, the results are organized into reports. These results can be prioritized by risk, consequence severity, and/or likelihood of occurrence. Each ranking parameter provides a unique perspective on how hazards affect the operation being studied. These results are the basis for determining if a more detailed, quantitative risk assessment of one or more accident scenarios is required to better assess the risk of possible consequences associated with selected hazard scenarios.

The problem presented in the shipping articles study did not directly involve the physical hazards normally encountered in a process or system. Rather, they involved the hazards related to what could occur if the required forms and paperwork were not properly completed and forwarded to the proper authorities. Therefore, the analysis concentrated on the intended results of the forms and paperwork and the short- and long-term consequences of the question, "What can go wrong?" The PrHA methodology was designed to answer this question and provide recommendations. This methodology is presented in Figure 3.

As can be seen in Figure 3, it was decided that the most appropriate method for the PrHA was in the form of a safety assessment.

Process flow charts were developed to understand the procedures involved in complying with 46 CFR, Part 14, and the requirements for filling out, signing, and submitting the various required forms. Each required step was plotted so that its place in the overall process could be understood in relation to all the forms and operations required to be completed by the Master, mariner, owners/operators, and the USCG. These process flow diagrams are presented in Appendix B.

A proposed 46 CFR, Part 14 was published during this study. To determine how the new rule differed from the one being studied, it was also plotted. The proposed changes are reflected in Appendix B as either italicized or bold text, depending upon whether it was an addition or deletion to the original 46 CFR, Part 14.

After completing the process flow charts, a questionnaire was developed to sample Masters, owners/operators, and the USCG. A questionnaire was used due the wide geographic distribution of the potential respondents that could provide experienced input to the study. A copy of the questionnaire is presented in Appendix C. A representative sample of responses to the questionnaire are presented in Appendix F.

Interviews were conducted either in person or over the telephone. The questionnaire was used as the basic document for conducting the interview. In some cases, telephone interviews were made as follow-up discussions to some of the responses to the questionnaire. Masters, company representatives, and USCG employees were interviewed during the process of completing this study. A representative sample of interview responses is presented in Appendix F.

In identifying the hazards related to 46 CFR, Part 14, the problem was trying to determine what the impact would be if the paperwork was not properly completed. Although there are no specific hazards that would normally be identified with a system or process, there are hazardous situations that could evolve due to incomplete paperwork. These hazards are as follows:

• Mariner. The ship, its equipment, and the operating environment are the hazards that can cause personnel injury or damage. Furthermore, by not having the shipping articles, the mariner could be subjected to unfair or poor treatment, poor living and working conditions, and an unfair wage.

• Master, Owners/Operators, Public, or Environment. It is the mariner, who is not qualified for the billet or job they are fulfilling, that can cause damage to the ship, cargo, public, and/or environment.

In this step, the question, "What can go wrong?," is considered. This process describes the actions or events that could lead to a failure to comply or cause a mariner to not be properly qualified. Using the process flow diagrams, an evaluation of what could go wrong during each step of the process was completed. From this evaluation, systematic lists of events were developed and recorded that could cause a potential future problem.

In the shipping articles safety assessment, the consequences are associated with what physical damage could occur if the 46 CFR, Part 14 paperwork is not properly completed. The significant sections in 46 CFR, Part 14 are related to the certification of the mariner, either checking prior to employment or documenting the time spent aboard in a specific billet. The judgmental estimates of a range of consequences that could result due to unqualified mariners is presented in Table 1. This estimate was then used as input into arriving at a relative risk ranking for the form being evaluated.

The next step is to ask the question, "How likely is it?" In this safety assessment, the number of times each of the forms is required to be completed was addressed and numbered in the thousands of events each year. This made it very likely that either entry errors or submission errors could occur at least once a year. However, the interviews and responses to the questionnaire indicated that specific events that could cause harm to the mariner appeared to be few and far between. For this study, the likelihood of the events, if it brings any harm or damage to the mariner or ship, are considered to be low; therefore, the consequences are the dominant factor in the safety assessment.

The results of the interviews and the questionnaires were reviewed and tabulated to determine if there was a trend in the responses. Scenarios previously developed were screened against the responses to see if and how often they occurred. If they did occur, what was a specific consequence and to what degree did damage occur. Finally, the results were evaluated against a final question, "What would be the impact if 46 CFR, Part 14 were changed to reduce the regulatory burden on the Master/owner/operator?"

Once all of the scenarios were recorded and ranked, they were compared to determine each scenario’s relative importance and its degree of risk to the ship, crew, and cargo. A rank-ordered risk ranking list is produced and the effects of recommended mitigating actions are evaluated to determine if, in the case of high risk ranking scenarios, they are sufficient to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. In the shipping articles safety assessment, the essential questions being asked are, "Does changing the regulation make a significant reduction in the overall risk?" and, "How does this change impact the owners/operators?" The details of this analysis can be found in Section 4.

For the safety assessment, it was desired to obtain responses from personnel at all levels of management, both commercial and government. Responses to the questionnaires and interviews covered all the above-mentioned personnel and were based on anonymity. Participants included several Masters, owners/operators, mariners, and USCG representatives. Regardless of the source, the responses showed a remarkable degree of uniformity, building a high degree of confidence in the results of the questionnaire and interviews.

This section documents and describes the analysis and the findings that are pertinent to the rules for shipping and discharge of mariners on certain U.S. vessels. The safety implications for each of the sections in 46 CFR, Part 14 are compared with possible consequences that could result if the regulation was changed or not complied with. Where applicable, recommendations are made to mitigate the potential unacceptable consequences. Cost implications of the current and proposed rule are discussed where applicable.

Using the safety criteria described in Section 3, each section of 46 CFR, Part 14 was evaluated for its impact on safety. This section describes the process used to analyze the shipping articles and establish a rank-ordered list of the sections that are the most safety significant.

The only significant safety criteria is the certification of mariners to perform the duties they have been signed on to perform. This is important because:

• Personnel who perform duties they are not qualified for are more prone to cause an accident that results in damage or injury.

• Accidents involving ships are highly visible to the public and could lead to significant public harm and/or environmental damage.

Therefore, each section of the shipping articles was evaluated for its impact on the certification of the mariners.

The shipping articles also perform the valuable function of being the contract between the Master and the mariner. The contents of the shipping articles are required by statute and are there to protect the mariner and would remain necessary to ensure the terms of employment are properly complied with. Therefore, it is a given that the shipping articles contribute to the mariner’s safety.

Although, the mariner’s morale and welfare are not specific safety criteria, they could have an effect on the mariner’s performance of his or her duties. Personnel who feel that their employer does not care or have a concern that their families will not be taken care of should the mariner be injured or killed could be distracted or angry when performing their duties, increasing the potential for accidents causing damage or injury.

To determine the potential effect of each of the shipping articles on the certification of mariners and their morale and welfare, definitions were developed to evaluate the direct and indirect impact on the safety criteria.

The sections that relate to the certification of the mariners have a direct impact on safety. These include:

• Licensing.

• Training.

• The mariner’s time of required service is the time onboard a class of ship to qualify for advancement or be recertified in their current billet.

Figure 4 presents the areas that have a direct impact on safety.

The sections that have an indirect impact on safety include, but are not limited to, those that:

• Affect Wages
• Living Conditions
• Emergency Data
• Working Conditions

The sections that have no impact on safety are those that are not included in either of the above definitions.

Once the definitions were developed, each shipping article was evaluated as to its impact on the safety criteria. Figure 5 presents the analysis process.

The shipping articles that had a direct impact on safety were further evaluated using the question "What can go wrong?" and "What are the consequences if it does go wrong?" From this, it could be determined what sections of 46 CFR, Part 14 have the greatest impact on safety.

The findings are presented in two sections. The first section presents the potential consequences that can result from noncompliance with 46 CFR, Part 14. The second section presents the results of the safety assessment of the individual shipping articles.

The potential consequences to the mariners, owners/operators, ship, public, and the environment are presented in Table 2. For each scenario, the potential safety impact, consequence ranking, and remarks as to the seriousness of the consequence are recorded. The consequence ranking comparisons can be found in Table 1.

As can be seen in Table 2, most of the high consequence rankings result from a mariner serving in a billet they are not qualified for. This is not to say that a qualified mariner could not cause accidents or injuries, because they can and do. However, historical trends show that unqualified personnel have a higher potential to cause accidents or injuries than qualified personnel. One high consequence ranking resulted from not having shipping articles and the potential result of mistreatment of the mariner.

The objective is to have appropriate measures or procedures in place that prevent mariners from serving in billets for which they are not qualified. These measures include, but are not limited to, producing all of their documents, (i.e., licenses, certifications, training, etc.) to a demonstration of knowledge of ship-specific critical systems prior to sailing. This later principle is consistent with the International Safety Management Code that states that the owners/ operators are responsible for a crew that is qualified and medically fit.

The principle safety items in 46 CFR, Part 14 are:

• Verifying the mariners qualifications prior to signing on for a voyage.
• Proper completion of the discharge certificate upon the mariner’s completion of service.
• Documentation of character or performance that does not meet minimum standards.

These three items ensure the safety of the ship and other ships in which the mariner may be employed.

The detailed safety assessment is presented in Table 3.

The shipping articles are an internationally recognized method of establishing a contract between the Master and the mariner that protects both parties. Some companies’ shipping articles even incorporate items agreed upon with the various unions. Therefore, it was assumed that the shipping articles would exist even if there is a change in the regulation.

In considering the safety implications of the regulation, there is value added by having the Master validate the license and certification of the mariner prior to signing on to a specific billet. This ensures that mariners are indeed fully qualified to perform the duties required for that class of ship. The actual evolutions involved in the current handling of the shipping articles are presented in Figure 6. A detailed flow chart is presented in Appendix B.

However, there is no apparent safety value in forwarding the completed shipping articles to the USCG where the mariner’s citizenship is verified, the form is checked for completeness, and it is filed with the ship’s records.

The current costs for the owners/operators are:

• Master’s time to validate the mariner’s papers.

• Master’s time to complete the required forms (i.e., shipping articles), posting the shipping articles in the forecastle, and sending the completed copies to the USCG plus postage.

In the proposed rule, the requirement for forwarding the shipping articles is no longer required. Instead, the shipping articles are forwarded to the owner/operator for filing, are retained for 10 years, and then packaged and forwarded to the USCG.

The new rule would pass the cost of maintaining the shipping articles from the USCG to the owners/operators. The approximate costs incurred by the USCG in handling the shipping articles are:

• Personnel to file and maintain the records, approximately 450 hours or $10,000 per year.

• Contractor’s personnel to assist in filing and maintaining the records, an estimated 5 "positions," 9,000 hours, at a cost of $230,000.

• Storage space for up to 10 years. Approximately 7 to 10 cubic feet of storage space per year at a cost of $250 per year.

These estimated costs were in the proposed rule. They have been reduced by one-half to reflect only the expected costs for the articles of agreement. The other half is shown as discharge certificate costs.

Granted, no one owner/operator will see cost of this magnitude, but the time to receive, file, and store the shipping articles could be significant for those with large fleets. The greatest cost would be for the personnel. The cost estimate in the proposed rule is one extra week for one person. Depending on the size of the fleet, this could vary from just paying one person overtime to hiring at least one extra person, who may or may not be fully employed maintaining the articles of agreement and discharge certificates (see Section 4.2.3.2). Once the 10-year retaining period has lapsed, the articles will have to be packaged and forwarded to the USCG, thereby requiring additional time by a company employee.

The proposed rule allows the electronic preparation of the articles. However, paper copies must still be printed, signed, and forwarded to the owners/operators. Very little time will be saved as it still takes time to fill out the form, print the original and 2 copies, sign, and forward the copies. Computers may make it easier; however, there will not be a significant savings in time.

One viable alternative to the proposed rule and the current method of handling the articles of agreement would be for the Master to retain the shipping articles on board the ship for the specified amount of time; i.e., 10 years. The articles would be subject to USCG inspection during routine visits to the ships. This would help the owners/operators by not increasing the administrative burden on them and assist the USCG by reducing their handling requirements. There may be a slight administrative requirement on the Masters; however, they have and will still have the requirement to maintain a copy in their possession, and this will not change. Instead, they will be released from the burden of forwarding copies to either the USCG or the owners/operators.

The owners/operators should consider one morale item for implementation; that is, having an up-to-date crew list on file for notification of next of kin should there be an emergency.

The discharge certificates are an internationally recognized method of establishing the billets, class of ship, and tonnage experience of the mariner. As can be seen in the safety assessment, the discharge certificate is the method by which the mariner documents his experience for recertification or licensing. Regardless of the regulation, there will be a necessity for the discharge certificate.

The Master’s responsibility for the discharge certificate is to sign, issue it to the mariner at the completion of the time the mariner has signed on for as stated in the shipping articles, and forward the completed copy to the USCG. This ensures that the mariner’s experience is properly recorded in their sea service database. The actual evolutions involved in the current handling of the shipping articles is presented in Appendix B.

The USCG reviews the discharge certificates to ensure they are complete and accurate. Typical errors that have been documented by the USCG are no signatures, entries are not complete, and social security numbers are incorrect. The value added is that potential errors or omissions are caught immediately after submission rather than when the mariner applies for recertification or licensing when the records are checked and verified. In this case, the USCG returns the discharge certificates to the Master for correcting. This occurs several times a month.

This issue was discussed with representatives from other flag countries. Those interviewed stated that they do not require the Masters to forward copies of the discharge certificate to a central office for review and verification. Instead, the responsibility for maintaining a proper record of discharge certificates lies with the mariner.

There is no apparent safety value in forwarding the completed discharge certificates to the USCG. Filing by the USCG provides a duplicate set of records for later verification of the mariner’s experience that the mariner will have to present for recertification any way.

The current costs for the owners/operators are:

• Master’s time to complete the discharge certificate.
• Master’s time to file and retain their own duplicate copy.
• Master’s time to send a completed copy to the USCG plus postage.

In the proposed rule, copies of all discharge certificates are also forwarded to the owner/operator for filing and retention for 10 years. The USCG will receive and record the discharge certificate (electronic or paper copy) and dispose of it once it has been entered into the sea service database. The certificates of discharge will be purged once the required 10-year retention period has been completed.

The new regulation would pass on the cost of maintaining copies of the discharge certificates to the owners/operators. The costs incurred by the USCG in handling the discharge certificates are:

• Personnel to file and maintain the records, approximately 500 hours or $10,000 per year.

• Contractor’s personnel to assist in filing and maintaining the records, an estimated 5 "positions," 10,000 hours, at a cost of $230,000.

• Storage space for up to 10 years. Approximately 7 to 10 cubic feet of storage space per year at a cost of $250 per year.

The cost for the owners/operators would be the same as for maintaining the shipping articles. The proposed rule allows the electronic preparation of the discharge certificate. However, paper copies still have to be printed, signed, and forwarded. As stated above in the shipping articles, very little of the Master’s time will be saved.

One viable alternative to the proposed rule and the current method of handling the discharge certificates is to make the mariner responsible for his or her own records. The Master would be responsible for maintaining a copy of the discharge certificate on board the ship for the specified amount of time; i.e., 10 years. The files of the discharge certificates would be subject to USCG inspection during routine visits to the ships. This would help the owners/operators by not increasing their administrative burden and assist the USCG by reducing their handling requirements. There may be a slight administrative requirement on the Master to maintain the files on the ship; however, they will be released from the burden of forwarding copies to either the USCG or the owners/operators.

In 46 CFR, Part 14, the release from the shipping articles in a foreign port shall be executed before the U.S. consul or his representative. When consul is not available, the release need only be executed by the Master and the mariner.

During normal ship’s operations, there will be occasions when mariners will be routinely discharged in foreign ports. There are also occasions when the Master may find it necessary, due to misconduct or injury, to discharge a mariner before the shipping articles have been completed. In the interest of safety, the Master should have the final determination on whether a mariner is discharged or retained on board. This should not be resolved by the consul as it overrides the authority of the Master. Rather, if there is a dispute on the rationale of the discharge, it can be resolved either by the union or litigation. Therefore, the safety value of the consul as a part of the regulation is minimal.

In fact, several companies have waivers on the requirement to use consul in foreign ports.

The primary considerations once the discharge in a foreign port has been completed is ensuring that the mariner has been properly paid for his/her services and providing transportation back to the U.S. Abuse of the mariner when discharging in a foreign port is probably the reason why the consul is in the current regulation.

The current costs for the owners/operators are:

• Master’s time to contact consul.

• Master’s time to write up a report if unable to meet with consul.

• Master’s time to meet with consul to either discharge the mariner, or discuss the reason(s) why the mariner should be discharged before his contract was completed.

For ship’s involved in overseas commerce, the number of discharges could be significant, involving many hours of the Master’s time. Where there is no consul available, the Master can discharge the mariner; therefore, there is no reason for a consul to be present even if there is one available in the port. The time and effort spent by the Master in meeting the consul requirement of the regulation can be saved if this section of 46 CFR, Part 14 is eliminated. There would be no decrease in safety or appreciable risk to the mariner.

The ability of the Master to document poor performance has a direct safety impact since it can impact the mariner’s recertification and licensing. The entry is made either in the Official Log or on the articles and the Master has the option of making or not making an entry.

The cost to owners/operators is minimal as it is not necessary to issue a certificate of character. In the proposed rule, this requirement no longer exists. Therefore, there are no significant cost savings or potential costs to the owners/operators.

This issue is further addressed in the Official Log publication.

The conclusions presented in this section are divided into two sections. The first addresses the safety aspects of 46 CFR, Part 14; the second addresses the cost aspects as it pertains to the owners/operators.

The shipping articles have a definite safety value both for the mariners and the Masters/owners/ operators. They are the contact between the Master and the mariner for the forthcoming voyage. The procedures involved in signing a mariner on for the voyage ensures that they are properly certified or licensed to perform their assigned duties. Regardless of 46 CFR, Part 14, there should be a method for the Master to verify the certification of the mariner. The present certification and licensing of mariners performed by the USCG completes this requirement.

However, the shipping articles do not actually contribute to the mariner’s certification as do the discharge certificates. Not forwarding the shipping articles to the USCG would have no safety impact on the operation of the ship.

For accountability reasons, there should be method for a current crew list with next-of-kin information to be maintained ashore by the owners/operators. This will provide the necessary data to management should injuries or death be incurred by a mariner during a voyage.

It is significant to note that in the proposed new rule, there is no requirement to forward the shipping articles to the USCG.

The discharge certificates also have a definite safety value. The discharge certificates record the completed service of each mariner’s service upon completion of the voyage. It provides the mariner’s voyage information and is used by the USCG for recertification and licensing of the mariner.

Although the discharge certificates provide the information necessary for recertification and licensing, the requirement to forward the certificates to the USCG appears to be duplicative of other records that are maintained. In other flag countries, mariners are required to maintain their own records and present them when requesting recertification or licensing. The USCG uses the discharge certificate to verify that the mariner’s records correspond with their files.

Other flag countries do not do this. The discharge certificates are checked and the mariner tested in accordance with their flag procedures.

It would seem appropriate that the mariner could be held responsible for maintaining their own records, and forwarding the discharge certificates to the USCG be discontinued. There would be no loss of safety as the mariners will still have to present their discharge certificates to the USCG and pass the required test prior to recertification or licensing.

The consul has no apparent safety value. The requirement for consul to be present during the shipping and discharge of mariners probably dates from the time when crews were obtained by less than honorable methods. In today’s environment aboard U.S. flag vessels and with the unions participation in the mariner’s welfare, this method of obtaining a crew or crew members is not very likely. The principle value of consul is to assist the Master in caring for injured mariners and this requirement has been removed from the proposed rule.

The requirement that a consul sign the shipping articles and discharge certificate of a mariner being discharged for cause overseas could be a safety hazard to the ship if the consul decided to decline the discharge of the mariner and return him or her to the ship. The Master should have the final say on who serves aboard his/her ship and returning a potentially disgruntled mariner to the ship could place the ship, mariner, crew, vessel, or cargo in jeopardy.

The consul section of 46 CFR, Part 14 could be eliminated from the regulation with no loss of safety.

There could be some risk to the mariner when being discharged overseas. However, regulations state that the mariner should be provided travel home and all pay and allowances. Although it is not thought to be necessary, a provision could be made in the rule that if the mariner feels that sufficient means are not provided to ensure they can return to the U.S., an audience with the consul could be requested.

Reporting on the conduct of the mariner has a safety value. A report of poor conduct can provide the USCG with the information it needs to disqualify a mariner and/or pull their license. This can prevent the mariner from serving on and hazarding other ships in the future.

Although there is a safety aspect in reporting the poor conduct of the mariner, the new regulation no longer addresses this requirement. As of now, the USCG uses the Official Log to validate poor performance for recertification or litigation, whichever is deemed most appropriate.

Regardless of where or how it is recorded or reported, there should be a method for Masters to report the poor performance of a mariner.

It appears that there could be a savings in time and money by eliminating the requirement for the Master to forward the completed shipping articles to the USCG. The time saved would be the time required to gather copies of the completed shipping articles into a package, verify that they are complete, and mail them to the USCG. This would probably be between ½ to 1 hour of the Master’s time per voyage. Although some of the costs could be eliminated by electronic generation of shipping articles, the time spent by the Master would still be about the same. Realistically, the savings per voyage are small, but over the fleet during the year, it could be significant and free the Master’s time up for the actual running of the ship.

Based on a cost of $50 per hour (a figure used in the proposed rule) for the Master, and the time saved by the Master during each voyage to be no more than 1 hour, the cost savings can be figured as:

Therefore, if the fleet was composed of 20 ships, conducting 25 voyages per year (average of 2 weeks port to port), the savings would be about $25,000 per year.

More significantly is the proposed rule in which the USCG is passing their current costs in retaining the records to the owners/operators. This amounts to thousands of dollars per year to the individual owner/operator at no increased safety value. It is a paper-keeping requirement and the owners/operators would be better off with the current rule rather than the proposed rule.

The savings in time and money by eliminating the requirement to forward the discharge certificates to the USCG would appear to be about the same as for the shipping articles. Most of the time saved would be in the time spent gathering, sending the discharge certificates, and the postage costs. Although some of these costs could be eliminated by electronic transmission to the USCG, the paper copies are still sent to the owners/operators. The time spent by the Master would still be about the same. Once again, the savings per voyage would be small, but the accumulative effects of the overall savings could be significant over the period of a year. This would be dependent on the number of ships in the fleet, length of the voyages, and crew turnover per voyage.

Based on a cost of $50 per hour (a figure used in the proposed rule) for the Master, and the time saved by the Master during each voyage to be no more than 1 hour, the cost savings can be figured as:

Therefore, if the fleet was composed of 20 ships, conducting 25 voyages per year (average of 2 weeks port to port), the savings would be about $25,000 per year.

As in the shipping articles, the proposed rule passes some of the current costs of the USCG in retaining the records down to the owners/operators. This could amount to thousands of dollars per year for each owner/operator at no increased safety value. It is nothing more than a paper-keeping requirement and the owners/operators would be better off with the current regulation rather than the proposed rule.

The savings in time and money by eliminating the requirement to appear before consul when shipping or discharging mariners could be significant. The time required for contacting consul, traveling to and from consul’s office, and appearing before consul will vary from port to port, depending on the location of the consul’s office in relation to the port. If the Master does not appear before consul, the Master must prepare a statement concerning the reason(s) behind the discharge.

However, these savings will only be incurred in ports where a consul is located. In ports where there is no consul, this requirement is waived. Furthermore, some owners/operators already have in place a waiver to not appear before consul when shipping or discharging mariners.

For those owners/operators that have no waiver in effect, the cost can be figured as follows.

Based on a cost of $50 per hour (a figure used in the proposed rule) for the Master, and the time saved by the Master during each voyage to be an average of 3 hours (total time to contact the consul, travel, wait, and appear before consul), the annual cost savings could be figured as:

Therefore, if the fleet was composed of 20 ships, conducting 10 overseas voyages per year, the savings would be about $30,000 per year. Once again this would only be for those owners/ operators that do not have waivers in place.

The savings in time and money by eliminating the requirement to record the conduct of the mariner would appear to be insignificant. These entries only have to be made if they are called for by the mariner’s poor performance. It is highly likely that the Master will document the mariner’s poor performance in the Official Log so that the USCG can take the appropriate certification or litigation action.

The following recommendations are based on both safety and costs. New regulations are normally based on the public’s emotion following an accident or incident. Accidents/incidents normally are the result of safety violations. Therefore, when recommending or implementing changes to regulations, the safety aspect must remain paramount. However, in the case of 46 CFR, Part 14, the owners/operators are dealing with the processing of paperwork. Some of the forms (i.e., discharge certificates) have a greater impact on potential ship safety than some of the other forms. It is the intent of the following discussion to take these factors into account.

The shipping articles are necessary since they are the contract between the Master and the mariner and perform a basic safety function. However, no other industry is required to forward a similar agreement to the government.

In view of the above, it is recommended that the owners/operators approach the USCG and request that the shipping articles no longer be forwarded to the USCG, and for the owners/operators to establish a method to have a current crew list on file for next-of-kin notification should it be necessary.

The above recommendations would still protect the mariner by having the shipping articles in effect and available for review, yet minimize the owners/operators expenses.

In the proposed rule, it is no longer necessary to forward the shipping articles to the USCG; however, it does direct the Masters to forward copies of the shipping articles to the owners/operators for filing and retention. This passes current USCG costs on to the owners/operators.

Should the proposed rule be placed into effect in its current form, the SOCP members should approach the USCG and recommend that the proposed rule be changed to allow the shipping articles to be retained aboard ship, for the specified time, subject to review by the USCG during routine inspections. Should the ship be sold or placed out of commission, the shipping articles could be transferred to the USCG for filing and retention.

The discharge certificates record the necessary information for the mariner to be recertified or licensed. However, it should be the responsibility of the mariner to maintain his or her own records, not the USCG or the owner/operator. Sufficient control over recertification and licensing can be exercised by the USCG by reviewing the discharge certificates and ensuring the time and testing requirements are met by the mariner in accordance with existing instructions for the billet under consideration.

It is therefore recommended that:

• The regulation be changed to make the mariners responsible for maintaining their own discharge certificates.

• Copies of the discharge certificates be maintained aboard ship and be subject to USCG review during normal inspections. Should the ship be sold or placed out of commission, the discharge certificates could be sent to the USCG for filing and retention.

These recommendations would still protect the mariner by having the discharge certificates reviewed by the USCG, yet minimize the owners/operators expense. Furthermore, should there be a question on a mariner’s discharge certificate, a message to the ship in question should be able to provide the response as rapidly, if not more rapidly, as having the discharge certificates filed at the home office.

Although the consul probably fulfilled a useful function in the past by being present for the signing of the shipping articles and discharging mariners, it is no longer valid and rarely used. Some companies have waivers that allow them not to contact consul, even when one is available. Finally, the Master should be the final authority of who is allowed to serve on the ship.

Therefore it is recommended that:

• The requirement for consul being present when the mariner is released from the shipping articles no longer be required.

• To protect the mariner, wording could be added to the regulation stating that "upon the request of the mariner, consul be made available to hear the case of the mariner who feels he or she is being discharged unfairly."

• That the owners/operators have procedures in place to ensure that the discharged mariner is paid and has sufficient funds or transportation to return to the U.S.

There is a certain amount of risk should a mariner not be paid or have sufficient funds for transportation to the U.S. following an overseas discharge. In this case, the unions would probably get involved, and litigation would most likely result.

A method must be available for the Master to record and report a mariner’s poor performance. This issue is addressed in greater detail in the Official Log publication.

Once the new rule has been published, consideration should be given to evaluating whether safety has increased, risk decreased, or the financial costs changed.

46 CFR, Part 14 is an old rule that is currently being revised to reflect eliminated forms and the electronic age. Regardless of whether the old or new regulation is considered, there are still safety aspects that need to be considered, specifically checking the mariner’s certification prior to signing on and properly recording the service on the discharge certificate. These safety aspects can be observed without increasing costs by eliminating unnecessary forwarding, filing, and retention.

In an effort to cut their costs, the USCG has passed some of them on to the owners/operators. This can be minimized by retaining the shipping articles and discharge certificates on board the ship the mariner served on rather than in the home office of the owner/operator.

In summary, the shipping articles do have a definite safety value for both the mariner and the Masters/owners/operators. However, implementing the recommendations will maintain the safety value of the shipping articles while decreasing costs to the owners/operators.

Return to SOCP Homepage