|
PLG-1140
SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF MARITIME REGULATIONS
Official Log
by
Robert A. Dykes
Prepared for
SHIP OPERATIONS COOPERATIVE PROGRAM
May 1997
2 Description of the Problem 3
2.1 Rationale for Regulation Selection 3
3.1 Preliminary Hazards Assessment Methodology 6
3.2 Preliminary Safety Assessment 8
3.3 Official Log Analysis Methodology 10
3.3.8 Evaluate and Document the Results 13
3.3.9 Review Risk Ranking and Prepare Recommended Actions 13
3.4 Participants in the Study 13
4.1 Purpose of the Official Log 14
4.2.1 Importance of the Subparts 16
5 Conclusions and Recommendations 21
5.1.2 Costs 22
5.2.2 Conduct of the Mariner 23
Appendix A. List of Acronyms A-1
Appendix B. 46 CFR, Subpart 35.07 B-1
Appendix C. Questionnaire — Official Log C-1
Appendix D. Selected Pages from Official Log Books D-1
Appendix E. Representative Samples of Returned Questionnaires and
Interviews E-1
1 Importance of the Required Official Log Entries 17
1 Inputs and Outputs for a Successful PrHA 7
2 Inputs and Outputs Required for Completing a PrHA 8
4 Process Flow Diagram for the Processing and Handling of the Official Log 11
5 Interrelationships of the Purposes for Recording Information or Data 15
6 Logic for Safety Evaluation 16
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.
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, Subpart 35.07, "Logbook Entries", with the specific problem being how the Official Log, impacts on the safe operation of the ship and protects the mariner.
In evaluating 46 CFR, Subpart 35.07, several underlying safety criteria were established:
· Qualification of the mariner, where the Official Log is used to record the mariner's performance.
· Sea worthiness, where the Official Log is used to record the draft, stability, security, etc., of the ship.
· Emergency systems, where the Official Log is used to record the required tests and inspections of the ship's safety systems.
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 Official Log was changed or no longer required. Therefore, it was decided to concentrate on the safety aspects of the regulation.
In completing the study, a questionnaire was developed and sent to several ship Masters and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) 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 or eliminated.
The purpose of the Official Log is to record those actions required by laws and regulations. There are several reasons to record information. This includes legal requirements as stated in rules and regulations, commercial performance to evaluate the cost of operation, and safety. These three reasons are inter-related and many of the items that are required to be logged in the Official Log encompasses more than one safety requirement.
The findings of the study are as follows:
· Almost all of the required Official Log entries are either legal or safety related. The one exception is the requirement to log fuel oil data upon receipt onboard.
· There are many Official Log entries that have legal ramifications and the owners/ operators should be concerned about where and how these records are maintained. However, since this study is to evaluate the safety implications of the Official Log, the legal ramifications are not addressed.
· A major safety item, and the only place it is recorded and recognized by the courts, is the Master's report on the conduct of the mariner. In cases of poor performance, the Master's comments are noted and play an important part in litigation cases against the mariner.
· There is value added by having the Master validate that the required test, inspections, and drills have been completed. However, many of the entries required in the Official Log are duplicated in other logs, book, records, etc., that are maintained on the ship. Many of the entries are also made in the Deck Log.
· There is no apparent safety value in forwarding the completed Official Log to the USCG in which the entries are verified as complete and meet the requirements of existing laws and regulations.
· There appears to be no standardization between USCG offices as to the degree of review the Official Log is subjected to. What could be questioned by one office, would not be by another.
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 depending on whether the regulation is changed or eliminated. Detailed calculations were not made for the entire fleet since this level of 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 operations conducted.
Based on the results of the study, the following recommendations were presented:
· That the owners/operators approach the USCG and request that the Official Log no longer be forwarded to the USCG.
· That the regulation be changed to allow the Official Log be retained aboard ship, for a specified time, subject to review by the USCG during routine inspections.
· Recommend to the USCG that 46 CFR, Subpart 35.07, be changed to state what entries the owners/operators are required to maintain; however, the owners/operators can designate what ship's records they will be entered into. The subject logs and records would be available for USCG review during routine visits and inspections.
· A method must be maintained for the Master to record the poor performance of mariners. Litigation experts should be consulted as to the validity of written correspondence between the Master and the USCG in fulfilling this need.
In summary, the entries in the Official Log do have a definite safety value. However, implementing the recommendations will maintain the safety value of the entries while decreasing the costs to the owners/operators.
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 the 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 regulator 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 Official Log, mentioned in 46 CFR, Subpart 35.07, Logbook Entries, impacts 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 Official Log are documented in this report.
Section 2 documents the problem statement and describes the relevant issues that are pertinent to the Official Log. The various regulations and safety criteria as they apply to the Official Log 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 Official Log.
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 Official Log analysis.
This section documents and describes the problem and relevant issues that are pertinent to the Official Log. The various regulations and safety criteria that apply to the Official Log 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, Subpart 35.07, "Logbook Entries." The specific rationale for selecting this regulation is that:
· The Official Log takes the Master’s time to complete and forward to the USCG. This document is completed at a significant cost in time and money to the Masters, owners, and operators. Many of the Official Log entries are duplicated in other ship’s logs, reports, records, and books.
· Maintaining the Official Log may or may not have a direct impact on the safety of the ship.
The objectives for this RBT study are to:
· Determine if there is actually value added, either by decreasing the risk or increasing the safety for mariners, by having an Official Log.
· 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 federal agency responsible for the safe operation of U.S. flag ships. The USCG is also the custodian of the program for the protection of merchant mariners. In this capacity, the USCG uses the Official Log to determine:
· The completeness of all required entries.
· That all required inspections, tests, and drills have been logged in accordance with existing regulations and instructions.
Furthermore, in cases of mariner misconduct or negligence, the USCG uses the Official Log to evaluate future licensing or certification. The Official Log is recognized by the courts as an official document in litigation cases and has been used as such by the USCG.
46 CFR, Subpart 35.07 requires "every vessel making voyages from a port in the United States to any foreign port, or being of the burden of 75 tons and upward, from a port on the Atlantic to a port on the Pacific, or vice versa, shall have an Official Logbook. When the voyage is completed, the Official Logbook shall be filed with the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspector, at or nearest the port where the vessel may be." The Official Log currently used is CG 706B (Rev. 6-67), which is "Supplied Gratuitously by the Government of the United States to American Vessels in the Foreign Trade and the Trade between the Atlantic and Pacific Ports of the United States." Typical entries that are required in the Official Log are:
· Maintenance of watertight integrity.
· Crew list and report of character.
· Other miscellaneous entries such as illnesses, injury, death, births, marriages, etc., relative to the crew and passengers.
The USCG uses the information in the Official Log to:
· Verify that the required entries have been completed.
· Review for mariner misconduct or negligence.
· Furnish data for litigation cases.
· Review log entries stating that life saving equipment has been properly tested in accordance with existing laws and regulations.
The problem this safety assessment addresses is to determine how the Official Log impacts the safe operation of the ship and protects the mariner. Once this is completed, recommendations are made on how 46 CFR, Subpart 35.07 could be changed so that the regulatory burden on the Masters, owners, and operators could be reduced in a cost-effective manner, while not decreasing safety or increasing risk.
The applicable regulation that was evaluated in this safety assessment is 46 CFR, Subpart 35.07, "Logbook Entries." A search of 46 CFR yielded several other subparts that specifically require Official Log entries. Furthermore, the guidance presented in the Official Log provides additional entries that are also required. All of the subparts and additional guidance were evaluated in this safety assessment. For the purposes of this study, all sections are referenced as 46 CFR, Subpart 35.07. A copy of 46 CFR, Subpart 35.07 is presented in Appendix B.
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 Code of Federal Regulations, it was determined that there are several underlying safety criteria for the Official Log:
· Qualification of the Mariner. To record the mariner’s performance. In cases of poor performance, the Official Log can be used in decertification and litigation cases.
· Sea Worthiness. To record the draft, stability, cargo security, etc., of the ship before and during the voyage.
· Emergency Systems. To record routine/required tests and inspections of the ship’s safety systems, and to verify that the crew is being properly drilled in accordance with existing laws and regulations.
The above safety criteria were used during the safety assessment to determine what impact changing or eliminating the Official Log 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 Official Log safety assessment. It documents a detailed description of performing a preliminary hazards analysis (PrHA), the methodology of the Official Log regulation analysis, and the participants in the study.
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:
What is the likelihood that it will go wrong?
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 a 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 when a broad brush analysis of hazards and potential accident scenarios is desired. In the case of the Official Log, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety impact of the Master complying with 46 CFR, Subpart 35.07.
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 the 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.
Figure 1. 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.
Figure 2. Inputs and Outputs Required for Completing a PrHA
· Identify 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 the Specific Target of the PrHA. In this step, the scope of the problem that is being addressed in the PrHA is defined. This bounds the problem, allowing the team to focus on the system under consideration. The specific target of the PrHA is the requirement to maintain and forward an Official Log as presented in 46 CFR, Part 35.07.
— Identify Potential System Hazards. Using system data, operations data, and the bounded target as defined in the first step, the analyst will identify those specific hazards that can cause damage or personnel injury.
— Quantify the Hazard Characteristics. In this step, the analyst determines the quantity of a specific identified hazard necessary to cause damage or injury. Calculations are made to evaluate the various damage states that can be achieved with different quantities of a specific hazard. From this, management can evaluate what is acceptable and what is not. This helps the PrHA team focus on those scenarios that will produce the unacceptable quantities of the hazard being evaluated. This step is not really applicable in this study.
· 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:
— The first step is to determine the scenario consequences. This involves using the accident scenario and evaluating what effects it will have on the operation, personnel, the environment, and any other areas that are a concern to management. From this, the team will assess the expected damage level for the scenario. This step evaluates the consequences of the scenario without the benefit of mitigating factors.
— Using a predefined table, the consequences are ranked as to their severity; i.e., the degree of damage or injury that is incurred.
— The likelihood of the scenario is now evaluated. When doing this, the protective or mitigating features that are already installed in the system are evaluated as to their ability to reduce the likelihood of the scenario occurring. Procedures, training, society standards, etc., are additional items that can reduce the likelihood of a scenario occurring and are also evaluated for effectiveness.
— Using a predefined table, the likelihoods are ranked as to how often they can be expected to occur, given the installed mitigating features. This is normally a subjective judgment, based on the experience of the team.
· 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 of the scenarios have been evaluated using the above procedure, the analyst will compare 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 Official Log 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 Official Log was not required, the required entries were not properly completed, or the Official Log was not forwarded to the proper authorities. Therefore, the analysis concentrated on the intended purpose of the Official Log 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.
Figure 3. Official Log Methodology
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 35.07. Each required step was plotted so that its place in the overall process could be understood in relation to all of the actions required to be completed by the Masters, owners/operators, and the USCG. This process flow diagram is presented as Figure 4.
Figure 4. Process Flow Diagram for the Processing and Handing of the Official Log
The successful end state for the Official Log is the retention and filing of the Official Log by the USCG.
After completing the process flow chart, a questionnaire was developed to sample Masters, owners/operators, and the USCG. A questionnaire was used due to 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.
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 in the process of completing this study.
In identifying the hazards related to 46 CFR, Part 35.07, the problem was trying to determine what the impact would be if the Official Log was not completed or submitted to the USCG. Although there are no specific hazards that would normally be identified with a system or process, there are situations that could evolve if a change were to result in the requirement to maintain an Official Log. These include, but are not limited to the following:
· Mariner. Master should have an official place to record a mariner’s poor performance that the USCG can use for disqualifying a mariner for recertification or licensing.
· Owners/Operators, Masters. Verification that the Master is performing the required inspections, tests, and drills that are required by laws and regulations. Also, preventing unqualified mariners from serving on their ships.
· Public and Environment. No significant impact.
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 with a required entry. Using the process flow diagrams, an evaluation of what could go wrong if a required entry was not completed. Then an evaluation was made as to what could go wrong if the required step of the process was not completed. From this evaluation, systematic lists of events were developed and recorded that could cause a potential future problem.
In the Official Log safety assessment, the consequences that are associated with the failure to complete the required entries are related only to the failure to complete or forward the required paperwork. The failure to perform the required inspection, test, or drill is an entirely different matter and not the subject of this study. The failure to perform required inspections, tests, and drills could have a significant impact on ship safety. However, for the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the Masters and owners/operators are fulfilling their obligation of properly training the crew and maintaining the safety equipment. Based on this assumption, the consequences are concerned with warnings, fines, and litigation costs.
The next step is to ask the question, "How likely is it?" In this safety assessment, the Official Log will be completed for each voyage. There are multiple entries to be completed on each voyage and it is likely that some entry errors or errors of omission could occur at least once a year. However, the interviews and responses to the questionnaire indicated that since most of the Official Log entries are routine and reoccurring, the potential for errors or omissions are few and far between. For this study, the consequences of not requiring or not submitting the Official Log to the USCG is the dominant factor in the safety assessment.
3.3.8 Evaluate and Document the Results
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 35.07 were changed to reduce the regulatory burden on the Master/owner/operator?"
3.3.9 Review Risk Rankings and Prepare Recommended Actions
Since there are no significant risk rankings and the likelihood of the individual scenarios is low, no risk rankings have been developed for the Official Log safety assessment. In the Official Log 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 of the above-mentioned personnel and were based on anonymity. Participants included several Masters, owners/operators, and USCG representatives. Foreign flag countries were also interviewed to determine what their Official Log requirements are. 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 findings that are pertinent to the rules for maintaining and submitting the Official Log on certain U.S. vessels. The safety importance for each of the sections in 46 CFR, Part 35.07 were evaluated to determine which official log entries had a true safety significance. Where applicable, recommendations are made and cost implications of the rule are discussed whenever applicable.
Foreign flag personnel interviewed indicated that they do have a requirement to maintain an Official Log. The Official logs are normally retained on the ship and are subject to review during routine safety visits and inspections.
Selected pages from official logs are presented in Appendix D.
The purpose of the Official Log is to record those actions required by laws and regulations. To enforce the entries being made on time, the following fines shall be imposed:
· Every entry required in the Official Log shall be signed by the Master, by the Mate, or one of the crewman, and every entry shall be made as soon as possible after the occurrence to which it relates.
· Entries not made on time or in the manner directed, the Master shall, for each such offense, be liable to a penalty of not more than $25. For entries made more than 24 hours after a vessel arrives in its final port, those causing these late entries shall be subject to a fine of not more than $150.
There are several reasons to record information or data. These include:
· Legal. The responsibility for operation and safety.
· Commercial Performance. To determine the cost of operation.
· Safety. The reasons to log safety information include:
— Record the performance of safe operation, which is to prevent incidents/accidents.
— Record the data associated with unsafe operations (accidents/incidents), which helps develop future corrective actions.
— Record the performance of activities required for safety, which assists in preventing future accidents/incidents.
Figure 5. Interrelationships of the Purposes for Recording Information or Data
In analyzing 46 CFR, Part 35.07, each subpart was evaluated as to whether it had legal, commercial, or safety implications. The logic for this evaluation is presented in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Logic for Safety Evaluation
The findings are presented in two sections. The first section presents the implications for each subpart of 46 CFR, Part 35.07. The second section presents the results of the safety assessment of changing the current regulation.
4.2.1 Importance of the Subparts
The importance for each subpart of 46 CFR, Part 35.07 is presented in Table 1. As can be seen in Table 1, all of the required Official Log entries are either legal or safety related. The only commercial entry is the fuel data. There are many entries made in the other logs, records, and books maintained aboard ship that are commercially related, but they are not addressed as a part of this study.
Since they are specifically called out in 46 CFR or the Official Log, all entries in Table 1 have a legal requirement. The check marks in Table 1 refer to what aspect of record keeping the item is addressing.
There are many Official Log entries that have legal ramifications and the owners/operators should be concerned about where and how these records are maintained. However, it is not the purpose of this study to evaluate the legal reasons for Official Log entries.
Using the safety criteria described in Section 3, each section of 46 CFR, Part 35.07 was evaluated for its impact on safety. This section describes the process used to analyze the Official Log and determine what the safety impact would be if the requirement for maintaining or submitting it to the USCG were changed.
The significant safety criteria identified for the Official Log concerned the recording of data for later verification of the performance of the mariner, sea worthiness of the ship, or operation of emergency systems. Specifically,
· Qualification of the Mariner. To record the mariner’s performance. In cases of poor performance, the Official Log can be used in decertification and litigation cases.
· Sea Worthiness. To record the draft, stability, cargo security, etc., of the ship before and during the voyage.
· Emergency Systems. To record routine/required tests and inspections of the ship’s safety systems, and to verify that the crew is being properly drilled in accordance with existing laws and regulations.
The above safety criteria were used during the safety assessment to determine what the impact would be of changing or eliminating the recording of information in the Official Log, and its subsequent submission to the USCG would have on safety and risk to the mariner, owner/operator, ship, public, environment, and the USCG.
Table 1 (Page 1 of 2). Importance of the Required Official Log Entries
Table 1 (Page 2 of 2). Importance of the Required Official Log Entries
The Official Log has many required entries that are safety related. The recording of these entries verifies that the test, inspection, or drill has been conducted and satisfies the requirement that the various laws and regulations have been met.
Another major safety item, and the only place where it is recorded and recognized by the courts, is the Master’s report on the conduct of the mariner. In cases of poor performance, the Master’s comments are noted and play an important part in litigation cases against the mariner. Regardless of the status of the Official Log, there must be a method for the Master to record the conduct of the mariner and have it recognized by the courts.
In considering the safety implications of recording the information in the Official Log, there is value added by having the Master validate that the tests, inspections, and drills have been completed. However, many of the entries required in the Official Log are also duplicated in the other logs, books, records, etc., that are maintained on the ship. Specifically, many of the entries are also made in the Deck Log.
However, there is no apparent safety value in forwarding the completed Official Log to the USCG where the entries are verified as complete and meet the requirements of existing laws and regulations.
Discussions with companies and the USCG indicated the standardization of the review of the Official Log by the USCG varies from office to office. There appears to be no standardization between the offices and the degree of thoroughness in which the Official Log is verified can vary over time. Comments were received that indicated the primary discrepancy noted by the USCG was that the injury entries in the Official Log, Medical Log, and Injury Report did not correspond and the Official Log was returned to the owners/operators for comment. Another common comment was that the life boat drills are not conducted within the required 24 hours of leaving port.
The current costs for the owners/operators are:
· Master’s time to prepare and forward the Official Log. For many entries, these are duplicate entries that are made at the time of the event in other ship records; e.g., the deck log, engine room log, tour reports, bell books, and the other logs and records that are required should there be a casualty (46 CFR, Part 109.415).
· Master’s time to respond to queries by the USCG as to specific Official Log entries.
· Owners/operators time to respond to USCG queries to specific Official Log entries.
· Fines or warnings from the USCG for improper or untimely entries.
In all of the questionnaires and interviews, there were no cases where any owner/operator had been fined due to Official Log entries.
One viable alternative to the current requirement of forwarding the Official Log to the USCG is to retain it on board the ship. The Official Log would be subject to USCG inspection during routine visits to the ships. This would eliminate the requirement for forwarding the Official Log to the Marine Inspector responsible, yet retain the USCG’s ability to examine and verify the Official Log is being maintained in accordance with existing laws and regulations.
Another alternative is to eliminate the requirement for an Official Log to be maintained. Instead, 46 CFR could be changed to state what items the Master is required to record and let the owners/operators decide where the entries will be recorded. This alternative does not change the requirement for maintaining the entries and having them verified, it just allows the owners/operators the latitude of where to enter them. The USCG can inspect the appropriate logs, books, or records during normal inspection visits.
The conclusions presented in this section are divided into two sections. The first addresses the safety aspects of 46 CFR, Part 35.07; the second addresses the cost aspects as it pertains to the owners/operators.
The entries in the Official Log have a definite safety value and fill a valuable need. Specifically,
· They verify that the required tests, inspections, and drills have been conducted in accordance with existing laws and regulations.
· The report on the character of the mariner in the Official Log is recognized by courts of law and is used by the USCG in litigation cases documenting poor performance by the mariner.
· The Official Log serves as an official document for accidents/incidents. However, the Official Log is not one of the required records retained when a report of a casualty is made under 46 CFR, Part 109.411.
· The Official Log does not actually contribute to the safety of the ship, just the verification that the tests, inspections, and drills have been conducted. Recording the same entries in other logs could serve the same purpose.
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.
As of now, the USCG uses the Official Log to validate poor performance for recertification or litigation, whichever is deemed most appropriate. To change this, the USCG would have to recognize personnel letters or other official correspondence signed by the Master, Mate, and other appropriate ship’s officers that properly document the performance of the mariner and the steps taken to correct any poor performance documented during the voyage.
It appears that there could be a savings in time and money by eliminating the requirement for the Master to forward the completed Official Log to the USCG. The time saved would be the time required for the Master to mail the Official Log to the owner/operator, and for the owner/operator to forward it to the USCG. This would probably be about ½ hour for the Master and ½ to 1 hour for it to be turned around by the owner/operator.
Based on an average cost of $50 per hour for the Master and the person designated by the owner/operator to forward it to the USCG, the cost savings can be figured as:
$50 per hour * number of voyages per year * number of ships in the fleet = savings per year.
Therefore, if the fleet was composed of 20 ships, conducting 6 voyages per year (average of 2 months port to port for the voyage), the savings would be about $6,000 per year.
A more significant savings is changing the requirement to even maintain an Official Log. The Master spends approximately 8 to 16 hours per voyage making entries in the Official Log. Many of the entries are duplicates of entries made in other ship’s records. By eliminating the requirement to maintain an Official Log, the savings per year could be figured as follows:
$50 per hour * 12 (average number of hours) * number of voyages per year * number of ships in the fleet.
Therefore, if the fleet was composed of 20 ships, conducting 6 voyages per year (average of 2 months port to port for the voyage), the savings would be about $72,000 per year.
A potential savings for the USCG would result from either of the two alternatives. The USCG would save the person’s time now used to review the Official Logs. Instead, a random selection of Official Logs would be reviewed during routine visits. Should discrepancies be discovered a more detailed review could be conducted at that time.
Another USCG savings gained by not forwarding the Official Log to the Marine Inspector is the elimination of filing, retaining, and storage requirements. Although the savings are small, they could amount to several thousand dollars over a 10-year period.
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 some manner so the USCG can take the appropriate certification or litigation action.
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 35.07, the owners/operators are dealing with the processing of paperwork that verifies tests, inspections, and drills have been completed and, when necessary, the documentation of a mariner’s poor performance. It is the intent of the following discussion to take these factors into account.
The entries in the Official Log fill a valuable safety need. However, whether the entries are made in an Official Log or in other ship’s logs and records, they can be verified by the USCG during routine visits or inspections to the ship.
In view of the above, it is recommended that:
· The owners/operators approach the USCG and request that the Official Log no longer be forwarded to the USCG.
· The proposed rule be changed to allow the Official Log 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 Official Log could be transferred to the USCG for filing and retention.
· Consideration should be made as to changing 46 CFR, Part 35.07 to state what entries are required, but the owners/operators can designate what official ship’s records they are entered into. The subject logs and records would be available for USCG review during normal routine visits.
The above recommendations would still allow the USCG to verify the tests, inspections, and drills are being completed in accordance with existing laws and regulations, yet reduce the cost to the owner/operator in maintaining and forwarding them.
A method must be maintained for the Master to record the poor performance of mariners. This can be accomplished by a variety of methods. Litigation experts should be consulted as to the validity of written correspondence between the Master and the USCG fulfilling this need.
The entries in the Official Log as required by 46 CFR, Part 35.07 have a valid safety value. However, these safety values can still be observed and assist the owners/operators in decreasing costs by eliminating unnecessary forwarding, filing, and retention.
The most cost-effective alternative is for the USCG to eliminate the requirement for an Official Log and just direct the Master to record the entries required by 46 CFR, Subpart 35.07. The owners/operators will decide where the entries should be made and they can be reviewed during routine USCG visits and inspections.
A small reduction in cost can be gained by eliminating the requirement for forwarding the Official Log to the Marine Inspector. In this case, the Official Log can be reviewed during routine USCG visits and inspections. There also must be an approved method for the Master to record a mariner’s poor performance.
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
PrHA Preliminary Hazards Analysis
SOCP Ship Operations Cooperative Program
USCG U.S. Coast Guard
1. Does the company have a written policy or procedure for entries into the following logs or books?
|
Log or Book |
Yes |
No |
Reference(s)* |
|
Deck Log | |||
|
Engineering Log | |||
|
Bell Book | |||
|
Tour Book | |||
|
* If possible please provide a copy of the procedure. | |||
2. The Official Log Book has printed requirements included in the log. Does your deck log, engineering log, etc., have printed instructions that are included in the log?
Yes ____ No ____ If yes, can you provide a copy of the instructions? _____
3. Can you cite any official source that states the required entries for any of the logs or books in the above table?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
4. To your knowledge, has the Official Log Book provided any additional information to an accident/incident investigation board over and above what was in the logs and records required in the CFRs, either for your company investigation or the USCG investigation?
Yes ____ No ____ If yes, can you provide specific information?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
5. What actions does your company take when an Official Log Book is completed (i.e., make copies for the record, file, forward to USCG, etc.)?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
6. How long do you retain copies of the Official Log Book?
__________________________________________________________________
7. Has the USCG ever requested additional information from your company on a submitted Official Log Book?
Yes ____ No ____ If yes, what kind of information?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
8. Have you seen similar requests for information from the various Coast Guard offices your company interacts with?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
9. Do you see a similar number of requests from each office?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
10. Has the USCG taken any actions against the company as a result of the Official Log Book (i.e., fines, warnings, etc.)?
Yes ____ No ____ If yes, can you provide specific examples?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
11. Approximately how much time is spent per year responding to these requests?
Less than 40 hours _____ 40-160 hours _____ Greater than 160 hours _____
12. Approximately how much time is spent on an average voyage filling out an official log?
Less than 8 hours _____ 8-40 hours _____ Greater than 40 hours _____
13. The slop and cash account takes up about one-third of the official log.
a. Does your company have another form or method for maintaining the same information?
Yes ____ No ____ If yes, can you provide a copy of the form? _____
b. Does the USCG use this information?
Yes ____ No ____ If yes, can you site specific examples?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
14. Does the Union ever have a use for the Official Log Book?
Yes ___ No ___ If yes, can you provide specific information?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
15. To your knowledge, do any other countries require a document similar to the Official Log Book?
Yes ____ No ____ If yes, can you provide specific information?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
16. In your opinion, what would the company gain if there was no requirement for an Official Log Book? Can you provide specific examples?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
17. In your opinion, what would be lost to the company if there was no requirement for an Official Log Book? Can you provide specific examples?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
18. What is the company’s definition of a voyage?
__________________________________________________________________
D2 — Republic of Vanuatu
