flag state control in the united states ......on flag state control in the united states, which...

12 0 1 7 D O M E S T I C A N N U A L R E P O R T

D E P A R T M E N T O F H O M E L A N D S E C U R I T Y

U N I T E D S T A T E S C O A S T G U A R D

FLAG STATE CONTROL IN THE UNITED STATES

2017 DOMESTIC ANNUAL REPORT

Rear Admiral John P. NadeauA s s i s t a n t C o m m a n d a n t f o r P r e v e n t i o n P o l i c y

U n i t e d S t a t e s C o a s t G u a r d

It is my pleasure to present the first annual Coast Guard Domestic Vessel Inspection Annual Report on Flag State Control in the United States, which provides regulatory compliance statistics for the current fleet of U.S. flag vessels. In 2017, Coast Guard Marine Inspectors conducted 18,424 inspections on 12,189 U.S. flag vessels. There were 21,629 deficiencies documented during these inspections, which is an average of 1.77 deficiencies per vessel. Over the last 5 years, the number of inspections and deficiencies have increased 7.5% and 3%, respectively.

These numbers were compiled using data from the Coast Guard Marine Information Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database, which is used to record details about U.S. flag vessels, inspections, deficiencies issued, and reportable marine casualties.

The Coast Guard is responsible for ensuring that minimum safety standards are met. The Commandant’s Final Action Memo on the sinking of the steam ship EL FARO concluded that the “casualty did not occur due to lack of standards or requirements; rather it was the result of poor seamanship compounded by failure of the safety framework that should have triggered a series of corrective actions that likely would have prevented it.” The Coast Guard is the fi nal el ement in the safety framework and will conduct more effective oversight of third parties, increase focus on improving Safety Management Systems, and promote a healthy safety culture.

As a part of our effort to reform our oversight of Th ir d Pa rt y Organizations wo rk ing on our behalf, the policy an d capability to document the Flag State detentions and Recognized Organization (RO) performance metrics were significantly revised in early 2018. Data on these new measures is not available for the 2017 report, but we believe these changes will make future annual reports even more useful.

It is difficult to normalize the casualty and deficiency data to account for the amount of vessel operations, activity level, or risk exposure. But it is worth noting that at any given moment of any given day, there are thousands of U.S. flag vessels safely transiting our inland rivers, Intra-coastal Waterway, coastal waters, or the high seas. U.S. flag vessels move billions of dollars of goods and millions of people every year and serve a vital role in the Marine Transportation System. The Coast Guard is committed to working with U.S. seafarers, vessel owners and operators, Third Party Organizations that conduct work on our behalf, and other maritime industry stakeholders, to ensure waterborne commerce and U.S. flag vessel operations continue to be safe, efficient, and a resilient means of transportation.

Lastly, I want to thank the talented men and women serving at Coast Guard Headquarters, our field units, and other locations across the Service for their commitment to ensuring the safety, security, and environmental compliance of the U.S. flag fleet.

Domestic Vessel Fleet Overview Chapter 1

Executive Summary 3

Domestic Marine Inspector Workforce 4

2017 Fleet Overview 5

Outlook and Developments Chapter 2

Towing Vessel National Center of Expertise 8

Focus on Safety Management Systems (SMS) 9

Chapter 3

12

13

15

17

19

21

23

24

Fleet Description and Performance

Alternate Compliance (ACP) and Maritime Security (MSP) Programs

Barge

Cargo Vessels

Passenger Vessels

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)

Research and School Vessels

Fishing Vessels

Domestic Vessel Contact Information

The Office of Commercial Vessel Compliance (CG-CVC) reports statistics on foreign vessels trading in U.S. ports within the U.S. Port State

Control Annual Report which can be found on the U.S. Coast Guard website: CG-CVC Annual Reports

Table of ContentsF l a g S t a t e C o n t r o l i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

2 0 1 7 D o m e s t i c A n n u a l R e p o r t

Please direct all questions about this report to [email protected]

https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Prevention-Policy-CG-5P/Inspections-Compliance-CG-5PC-/Commercial-Vessel-Compliance/CVCmms/

mailto:CG-CVC%40uscg.mil?subject=

C H A P T E R

1 2



C H A P T E R 1D O M E S T I C V E S S E L F L E E T O V E R V I E W

This Report collates data from the Coast Guard’s Marine Information Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database regarding vessel population, inspections conducted, and deficiencies issued for the 2017 calendar year.

In 2017, the Coast Guard’s fleet of responsibility contained 12,189 vessels with active COIs. There were 905 Marine Inspectors (MIs) assigned to field units who conducted 18,424 inspections. As this is the first annual report for the U.S. Flag fleet, 2017 will serve as a baseline to study trends, identify key performance indicators, and bring attention to issues in the fleet.

Since this report covers the 2017 calendar year, and the compliance date for implementation of towing vessels was July 20, 2018, the Coast Guard will include preliminary data for inspected towing vessels within the 2018 Domestic Annual Report.

If there are questions regarding any of the fleet data reported, points of contact are listed on the back page of this report.

Figure 1 shows the number of inspections conducted and deficiencies issued for the entire U.S. flag fleet over the last 5 years.

The vessel populations used within this document are defined in the following categories:

BARGES: Non self-propelled vessels inspected under 46 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Subchapters D (Tank Barges), I (Freight/Industrial Barges), and O (Certain Bulk Dangerous Cargo Barges).

CARGO VESSELS: Vessels inspected under Subchapter I (Freight/ Industrial), Subchapter D (Tank) and Subchapter O (Certain Bulk Dangerous Cargo) that are not covered by any other category.

PASSENGER VESSELS: Vessels carrying passengers in accordance with 46 CFR Subchapter T (passenger vessels under 100 gross tons), H (passenger vessels greater than 100 gross tons) or K (passenger vessels carrying more than 150 passengers or with overnight accommodations for more than 49 passengers).

UNITS ON THE OCS: Offshore Supply Vessels inspected under 46 CFR Subchapter L and Floating Production

Systems (FPS). Others include, jack-ups and crew boats.

RESEARCH VESSELS AND SCHOOL SHIPS: Research vessels inspected under 46 CFR Subchapter U and School ships inspected under 46 CFR Subchapter R.

TOWING VESSELS: Vessels whose primary service is towing and are inspected under 46 CFR Subchapter M. For the purpose of this report, towing vessel inspections are not included in the inspection data.

FISHING VESSELS: Vessels examined under 46 CFR Part 28 that are commercial fishing, fish processing, or fish tender vessels. For the purpose of this report, fishing vessel exams are not included in the inspections data.

REPORTABLE MARINE CASUALTY: Any marine casualty resulting in one or more deaths; an injury to a person which requires professional medical treatment; damage to property in excess of $100,000, total loss of a vessel; a discharge of oil of 10,000 gallons or more; or a discharge or release of a reportable quantity of a hazardous substance into the navigable waters. 46 CFR Subpart 4.01.

INSPECTION: All scheduled vessel inspection activities recorded in MISLE which require physical attendance onboard by a Marine Inspector. For example, a Certificate of Inspection (COI) activity may include multiple sub-activities, but would be counted as one inspection in this report. Solely administrative activities that do not require a vessel visit are excluded from this report.

Report Overview

■ Inspections ■ Deficiencies

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

201317,137

2014

2015

2016

2017

20,991

18,13021,072

18,17521,855

17,91420,627

18,42421,629

F I G U R E 1 | Inspections/Deficiencies


C H A P T E R 1 D O M E S T I C V E S S E L F L E E T O V E R V I E W

PA

MN

NJ

D8: 368MARINE INSPECTORS








ACTIVITIESFAR EAST 8

ACTIVITIESEUROPE 9


Domestic Marine Inspector WorkforceThe Coast Guard is committed to developing and maintaining a professional and reliable workforce. The optimal Marine Inspector is a confident and competent member of the maritime community, who has an in-depth technical knowledge of the maritime transportation system including vessel components, policy and regulations; demonstrates thorough understanding and correct application of regulations, policies, and technical information; and is capable of balanced decisions with consideration for how they affect commerce, public safety and environmental risk.

The current Marine Inspector workforce consists of Apprentice (AMI), Journeyman ( JMI), and Advanced Journeyman (AJMI) Marine Inspectors. The qualification process requires attainment of specific inspection compentencies and work experience levels that are discussed in more detail within Marine Safety Manual, Volume II, COMDINST M16000.7B (series) and CG-CVC Policy Letter 15-02.

61% TI: T-Boat Inspector

52%BI: Barge Inspector

9%MS: Machinery Steam Inspector

26% MI: Machinery Inspector

10% HT: Hull Tank Inspector

29% HI: Hull Inspector

4%MU: MODU Inspector

23%DI: Drydock Inspector

34%KI: K-Boat Inspector

14%OI: OSV Inspector

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

AMI JMI

■ Workforce Strength

AJMI

282

65

383

Figure 4 displays the number of Marine Inspectors assigned to the field units within each Coast Guard District. These totals include AMI, JMI, and AJMI positions, as well as those in Chief Inspection Division (CID), Marine Inspector Training Officer (MITO), Marine Safety Detachment (MSD) Supervisor, and Vessel Examiner positions.

Figure 2 displays the percentage of Marine Inspectors qualified for different vessel inspection types. Figure 3 displays the work-force strength, or personnel assigned, to AMI, JMI and AJMI positions.

F I G U R E 2 F I G U R E 3

F I G U R E 4

61% TI: T-Boat Inspector

52%BI: Barge Inspector

9%MS: Machinery Steam Inspector

26% MI: Machinery Inspector

10% HT: Hull Tank Inspector

29% HI: Hull Inspector

4%MU: MODU Inspector

23%DI: Drydock Inspector

34%KI: K-Boat Inspector

14%OI: OSV Inspector

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

AMI JMI

■ Workforce Strength

AJMI

282

65

383

https://media.defense.gov/2017/Mar/29/2001723817/-1/-1/0/CIM_16000_7B.PDF%22

https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/5p/CG-5PC/CG-CVC/Policy%20Letters/2015/CG-CVC_pol15-02.pdf

https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/5p/CG-5PC/CG-CVC/Policy%20Letters/2015/CG-CVC_pol15-02.pdf


C H A P T E R 1D O M E S T I C V E S S E L F L E E T O V E R V I E W

2017 Fleet OverviewDomestic FleetOf the 18,424 inspections conducted by MIs in 2017, 21,629 deficiencies were identified on the 12,189 active vessels in the US fleet of responsibility. Passenger vessels account for 81% of those deficiencies. However, based on the overall vessel population, Cargo vessels received a higher ratio of deficiencies per vessel, with an average of 5.17.

Figure 5 displays the number of U.S. inspected vessels of each type in calendar year 2017.

F I G U R E 5 | Vessel Types

4,865 Barge | 325 Cargo | 6,353 Passenger | 595 OCS | 51 Research and School

■ Barge ■ Cargo ■ Passenger ■ OCS ■ Research and School

0.31BARGE DEFICIENCIES

1

6

3

5

2 4

0

5.17CARGO DEFICIENCIES

1

6

3

5

2 4

0

2.74 PASSENGER DEFICIENCIES

1

6

3

5

2 4

0

1.58 OCS DEFICIENCIES

1

6

3

5

2 4

0

1.22 RESEARCH AND SCHOOL DEFICIENCIES

1

6

3

5

2 4

0

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

5,7581,518

9351,681

10,80317,425

806943

12262

INSP.DEF.

INSP.DEF.

INSP.DEF.

INSP.DEF.

INSP.DEF.

Barge

Cargo

Passenger

OCS

Research & School

F I G U R E 6 | Inspections and Deficiencies

Figure 6 associates the number of inspections with the number of deficiencies for each vessel type.

F I G U R E 7 | Deficiencies/Vessel



1

6

3

5

2 4

0


1

6

3

5

2 4

0


1

6

3

5

2 4

0


1

6

3

5

2 4

0


1

6

3

5

2 4

0

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

5,7581,518

9351,681

10,80317,425

806943

12262

INSP.DEF.

INSP.DEF.

INSP.DEF.

INSP.DEF.

INSP.DEF.

Barge

Cargo

Passenger

OCS

Research & School

Figure 7 displays the ratio of deficiencies to the num-ber of vessels for each type.

F I G U R E 8 | Average Age of Vessel Fleets

22 Years

AVERAGE AGE DOMESTIC

FLEET30 YearsRESEARCH AND SCHOOL

15 YearsBARGE

28 YearsCARGO

27 YearsPASSENGER

17 YearsOCS



1

6

3

5

2 4

0


1

6

3

5

2 4

0


1

6

3

5

2 4

0


1

6

3

5

2 4

0


1

6

3

5

2 4

0

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

5,7581,518

9351,681

10,80317,425

806943

12262

INSP.DEF.

INSP.DEF.

INSP.DEF.

INSP.DEF.

INSP.DEF.

Barge

Cargo

Passenger

OCS

Research & School

Figure 8 displays the average age of the domestic fleet and of each vessel type.


C H A P T E R 1 D O M E S T I C V E S S E L F L E E T O V E R V I E W

2017 Fleet OverviewMarine Casualties

Top 3 Reportable Marine Casualties

BARGE CARGO PASSENGER OCSRESEARCH AND SCHOOL

Allision 24.8%

Grounding 19.8%

Pollution 18.3%

Material Failure/ Malfunction 49.5%

Loss/Reduction of Propulsion/ Steering 26.2%

Loss of Electrical Power 9.3%



Flooding 11.8%


Allision 17.9%

Fire 10.7%



Allision 16.7%

There were 685 reportable marine casualties reported in 2017, with the highest percentage involving Cargo vessels, at 46.9%.

Figure 9 lists the number of reportable marine casualties for each vessel type and the percentage occurring among each compared to the total for all U.S. inspected vessels.

F I G U R E 9 | Marine Casualties

Figure 10 lists the top three reportable marine casualty types for each vessel type and the percentage that each represents compared to the marine casualty total for that type. For example, 24.8% of all barge reportable marine casualties were defined as allisions.

F I G U R E 1 0 | Top 3 Reportable Marine Casualties

46.9%, 321 Cargo

4.9%, 34*Passenger

4.1%, 28 OCS

3.5%, 24Research and School

40.6%, 278Barge

*This number has decreased in recent years due primarily to the change in definition of reportable marine casualties.

C H A P T E R

27



C H A P T E R 2 O U T L O O K A N D D E V E L O P M E N T S

Towing Vessel National Center of ExpertiseAs of July 20, 2018, towing vessels will be required to meet the applicable portions of 46 CFR Subchapter M. The Towing Vessel National Center of Expertise (TVNCOE) will play a key role in the transition of this fleet from uninspected to inspected towing vessels. Their mission is to deliver strategic counsel, leadership, and technical competence to promote the safe and secure management of the towing vessel industry. The TVNCOE prioritizes efforts in the following areas:

FIELD SUPPORT: Provide support for towing vessel inspections.

REGULATORY/POLICY SUPPORT: Provide counsel in the development of policy, standards, and guidance relating to the towing vessel industry.

TPO AND INDUSTRY SUPPORT: Build trust and strong rapport with industry Third Party Organizations (TPOs) through continuous formal and informal collaboration.

TPO APPROVAL AND OVERSIGHT: Approve TPOs that demonstrate compliance with 46 CFR 139 and provide effective, sustainable TPO oversight.

TRAINING: Serve as Accomplished Performers,

Subject Matter Experts, and National Verifying Offi-cers to support workforce development and promote consistent application of all relevant policies and standards.

The focus in 2017 was on continued preparations for the implementation of Subchapter (Sub) M and the Inspected Towing Vessel (ITV) regulatory project. The TVNCOE reviewed 14 TPO applications, led the development and implementation of TugSafe, and completed extensive work in partnership with CG-CVC to develop Sub M policy letters as well as Coast Guard workforce policy documents. The TVNCOE led the design and development of all Sub M MISLE elements in coordination with OSC Martinsburg and CG-CVC, and is working with TRACEN Yorktown and CG-CVC to develop a Sub M training curriculum. TPO support demands have greatly increased, and the TVNCOE anticipates field inquiries to significantly increase as we near imple-mentation. Towing vessel owners and operators as well as TPOs are encouraged to use the TVNCOE as a resource and a means to share information. See below for contact information.

How to Contact UsWebsite: http://www.dco.uscg.mil/tvncoe/ Phone: (270) 444-7715

Supervisor Towing Vessel National Center of Expertise 504 Broadway St Suite 101 Paducah, KY 42001


C H A P T E R 2O U T L O O K A N D D E V E L O P M E N T S

A safety culture refers to the attitudes, beliefs, percep-tions, and values that employees share in relation to safety. An effective QMS should support and encour-age a “safety culture” to address issues of human error and omissions while continually improving compliance with the applicable regulations. Additionally, a strong safety culture promotes an environment where all employees share the responsibility for safety in the workplace and the company has an established policy to protect employees from retribution for speaking up to prevent a hazardous occurrence. The effective implementation and integration of management systems is critical to the overall functionality of the tri-party compound that forms the U.S. flag State. Guided by the IMO Instruments Implementation (III) Code and the Recognized Organization (RO) Code, and the requisite Quality and Safety management systems of key stakeholders, an integrated system of feedback loops is established to identify potential non-conformities and trigger corrective actions within each component of the safety framework.

Recognized Organization (RO) and Third Party Organization (TPO) Oversight The use of third parties can be traced back to the ear-liest days of vessel inspection. As these programs ma-tured, they have become an integral part of the entire maritime safety system. As the speed and complexity of maritime commerce and operations has increased, third-parties have been one of the key enablers that have allowed the regulatory regime to evolve and keep

pace with the increasing demands. The Coast Guard, as the lead federal agency of the U.S. Flag Adminis-tration, must maintain a robust oversight program. Since its original inception in 1914, the International Convention on Safety of Life at Sea, has included the provision that the Flag State shall fully guarantee the completeness and efficiency of the inspection and survey. Recently, the Coast Guard and National Transportation Safety Board investigations into the loss of the steam ship EL FARO, identified gaps in the Coast Guard’s oversight of ROs as it relates to the ACP. Recognizing that the ACP is only one program among many that rely on statutory certification and services performed by third parties, the Coast Guard is commit-ted to ensuring that the lessons learned from the steam ship EL FARO are universally applied to all programs that rely on a similar structure.

Focus on Quality Management Systems (QMS)

4 QMS4 RO/TPO Oversight4 CG-CVC-44 CG-835V

What’s NEW!

NC, PR/17

Flag State

III CodeMMS

ACS/RO/TPO III Code

QMS

Vessel/CompanyISM Code

SMS

TRI-

PARTY

COMPOUND

QUALITYCASE CG-835

Audits P/CARs IMO

MSAS

1 02 0 1 7 D O M E S T I C A N N U A L R E P O R T

C H A P T E R 2 O U T L O O K A N D D E V E L O P M E N T S

Flag State Control Division (CG-CVC-4)The Commandant’s Final Action Memo required the estab-lishment of a third party oversight office, and the promul-gation of supplementary guidance to ensure the ISM Code is effectively implemented on applicable U.S. flagged vessels. The Office of Commercial Vessel Compliance (CG-CVC), in order to meet this goal, established the Flag State Control Division (CG-CVC-4), to monitor and assess the entirety of U.S. Flag State performance. Some of the duties of the Flag State Control Division are:

n Maintain policy, procedures, and guidance to ensure Recognized Organization (RO) service complies with International Maritime Organization (IMO) and Coast Guard requirements.

n Conduct oversight, auditing, and monitoring, as defined in the IMO Instruments Implementation Code (III Code) and the IMO Code for Recognized Organizations (RO Code).

n Serve as primary liason with all ROs acting on behalf of the Coast Guard in support of the Alternate Compliance Program (ACP), Streamlined Inspection Program (SIP), Maritime Security Program (MSP) and any other vessel compliance programs that requires oversight of Third Party Organizations (TPOs).

Marine Vessel Inspection Requirements (CG-835V)The Coast Guard updated the form, CG-835V: Vessel In-spection Requirements. The CG-835V was developed in conjunction with corresponding enhancements to the Coast Guard’s internal database, MISLE, in order to support better data analytics and the development and monitoring of Key Performance Indicators for the U.S. flag fleet and the ROs that perform statutory certification and services on the Coast Guard’s behalf. To harmonize the Coast Guard’s deficiency data with globally accepted Port State Control (PSC) meth-odologies, the CG-835V includes deficiency codes and vessel control actions similar to those found on the PSC Form B. For example, the CG-835V includes the addition of Code 30 – “Ship Detained” as well as Code 17 - “Rectify deficiencies prior to departure,” which will replace the traditional “No-Sail” control action. A Code 30 – “Ship Detained” constitutes a Flag State Detention and is reserved for those serious deficiencies that indicate a serious failure, or lack of effectiveness, of the implementation of the SMS or Towing Safety Management System (TSMS). For vessels that are not required to have an SMS or TSMS, a Code 30 - “Ship Detained” is used when a substandard condition exists that is not being proactively man-aged by the company, vessel owner, or operator. Other serious deficiencies that must be rectified prior to the vessel sailing but are not serious enough to warrant a detention may be assigned a Code 17 - “Rectify deficiencies prior to departure.”

4�CVC-WI-003, USCG Oversight of Safety Management Systems on U.S. Flag Vessels.

4�Mission Management System Work Instruction (MMS WI): CVC-WI-004, U.S. Flag Interpretations on the ISM Code

4�CVC-WI-005 (1), Request for RO Internal Quality Management System (QMS) Review

4�Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 02-95 Ch-3, The Alternate Compliance Program

NEW PUBLICATIONS

4�Mission Management System Work Instruction (MMS WI): CVC-WI-004, U.S. Flag Interpre-tations on the ISM Code

4�CVC-WI-003, USCG Oversight of Safety Management Systems on U.S. Flag Vessels.4�CVC-WI-005 (1), Request for RO Internal Quality Management System (QMS) Review –4�Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 02-95 Ch-2, The Alternate Compliance

Program
















https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/5p/5ps/NVIC/1995/n2-95ch3.pdf





C H A P T E R

31 1


4�Mission Management System Work Instruction (MMS WI): CVC-WI-004, U.S. Flag Interpre-tations on the ISM Code

4�CVC-WI-003, USCG Oversight of Safety Management Systems on U.S. Flag Vessels.4�CVC-WI-005 (1), Request for RO Internal Quality Management System (QMS) Review –4�Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 02-95 Ch-2, The Alternate Compliance

Program


C H A P T E R 3 F L E E T D E S C R I P T I O N A N D P E R F O R M A N C E

Fire Fighting■ STRUCTURAL A CLASS DIVISIONS■ VENTILATION SYSTEMS

Lifesaving■ LAUNCHING APPLIANCES■ LIFEBOAT

Operations/Management■ DRILLS/ INSTRUCTION■ VESSEL SAFETY MANAGEMENT

Steering GearSystem

Construction/Loadline ■ STRUCTURES

Electrical Distribution System

Occupational Safety

Alternate Compliance Program (ACP) & Maritime Security Program (MSP) Description & PerformanceACP is a voluntary program that promotes flexibility in vessel construction, reduces duplicative inspections/surveys, and is designed to maintain an equivalent level of safety to the standards required in the Code of Federal Regulations. Vessels enrolled in the ACP must comply with the international conventions, classification society rules, and the U.S. Supplement. There are 421 vessels enrolled in the ACP.

MSP established a fleet of commercially viable and military useful vessels to meet national defense and other security requirements as well as to maintain a U.S. presence in international commercial shipping. By law, there is a maximum of 60 vessels that can be enrolled in the MSP. However, in order to promote further participation in this national defense program, the U.S. Coast Guard and MARAD agree that receipt of the MSP payment is not a precondition for requesting a COI under MSP law. As such, there are 74 vessels inspected under the terms of the MSP. The remaining 14 vessels are enrolled in the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA), which provides on demand strategic sealift capacity to the Department of Defense. This year we saw 8 vessels reflagged into the U.S. fleet. The data in this section only represents Coast Guard inspections and issued deficiencies, and

does not include inspections, surveys or deficiencies issued by Third Party Organizations on our behalf.

The Coast Guard conducted 1,459 inspections on ACP/MSP vessels in 2017, during which 1,168 deficiencies were identified at a ratio of 2.36 deficiencies per vessel. In comparison to the overall flag state fleet totals, the ACP/MSP fleet accounted for 7.9% of all inspections and 5.4% of all Coast Guard issued deficiencies.

Figure 11 displays the total number and percentage of ACP/MSP vessels in comparison to the rest of the U.S. inspected fleet. F I G U R E 11 | Number of Inspected ACP/ MSP Vessels

3,428

928213

138147

11

7,5564,865 {

■ Other Inspected Vessels/Barges ■ DO ■ D ■ I ■ IO ■ Unspecified ■ Other

495 Total ACP/MSP Vessels

11,694 Total All Other U.S. Inspected Vessels

4%96%


1,459 1,168

Fleet Totals

1,51

8 D

EFIC

IENCIES 16,042 INSPECTIO

NS

9%Fleet Totals

4

DE

FIC

IENCIES 38 INSPECTIONS 11%

ATB/ITB29%

Containers

1

7 D

EFI

CIE

NCIES 58 INSPECTIONS

42 D

EFI

CIENCIES 160 INSPECTIONS

26%Deck

6

DE

FIC

IEN

CIES 199 INSPECTIONS

3%Gas

8%Tanks

127

7 D

EFIC


NS

29%Other

172

DEF

ICIE

NCIES 587 INSPECTION

S

0.80DEFICIENCIES

PER INSPECTION

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

0.0

Figure 13 displays the ratio of deficiencies to the number ACP/MSP inspections.

F I G U R E 1 3 | Deficiencies per Inspection

Figure 12 associates the number of inspections with the number of deficiencies for ACP/MSP vessels.

F I G U R E 1 2 | Inspections & Deficiencies

Figure 14 displays the top 10 ACP and MSP inspection deficiencies.

F I G U R E 1 4 | Top 10 Most Prevalent Deficiencies by Sub-System


C H A P T E R 3F L E E T D E S C R I P T I O N A N D P E R F O R M A N C E

3,428

928213

138147

11

7,5564,865 {


495 Total ACP/MSP Vessels


4%96%

Barge Description & Performance

3,428

928213

138147

11

7,5564,865 {


4,865 Total Barges


40%60%

Year in ReviewIn 2017, the barge fleet consisted of 4,865 active vessels, which represented 40% of the overall U.S. domestic fleet. Of this total, 36.1% (1,758) are enrolled in the Streamlined Inspection Program (SIP).

Barges may be classified under three regulatory categories based on their cargoes.

46 CFR Part 30 (Subchapter D) Tank Vessels - Flammable and combustible products in bulk. Tank barge inspections are outlined in 46 CFR 31.

46 CFR Part 90 (Subchapter I) Cargo and Miscellaneous Vessels - Non-flammable and non-combustible products. Freight barge inspections are outlined in 46 CFR 91.

46 CFR Part 151 (Subchapter O) Hazardous Material Cargoes in Bulk - Chemicals and Noxious Liquid Substances (NLS). Barges that carry hazardous material in bulk inspections are outlined in 46 CFR 151.04.

5,758 inspections were conducted on barges in 2017, during which 1,518 deficiencies were identified at a

ratio of 0.31 deficiencies per vessel. In comparison to the overall flag state fleet totals, barge inspections accounted for 31% of all inspections and 7% of all deficiencies.

Of the 685 reportable marine casualties in 2017, 278 or 41% of these events involved a barge. The top reportable marine casualty events involving the barge fleet were an allision, grounding or pollution event.

Figure 15 displays the total number and percentage of barges in comparison to the rest of the U.S. inspected fleet.

F I G U R E 1 5 | Number of Inspected Barges



Certificates & Documentation■ COI Vapor Control Systems

■ PIPING/HOSES

Cargo Transfer Lightering■ PIPING■ CARGO PUMP

Holds/Tanks■ BULKHEAD

Cargo Heating

Hull■ PLATING■ SIDE SHELL■ WELD■ BOTTOMPLATING

Barge Description & Performance0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

Fleet Totals ATB/ITB Tank


Container Deck Gas Other

1,000500250100


5,758

1,518

10 4 20 17 73 42 77 6

1,277

5,379

199 172

Fleet Totals ATB/ITB TankContainer Deck Gas Other

1,51

8 D

EFIC


NS

9%Fleet Totals

4

DE

FIC


ATB/ITB29%

Containers

1

7 D

EFI

CIE


42 D

EFI

CIENCIES 160 INSPECTION

S

26%Deck

6

DE

FIC

IEN


3%Gas

8%Tanks

127

7 D

EFIC


NS

29%Other

172

DEF

ICIE


S

0.86DEFICIENCIES

(OTHER)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

0.0

0.24DEFICIENCIES

(TANK)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

0.0

0.08DEFICIENCIES

(GAS)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

0.0

0.58DEFICIENCIES

(DECK)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

0.0

0.40DEFICIENCIES

(ATB/ITB)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

0.0

0.85DEFICIENCIES(CONTAINER)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

0.0

0.26DEFICIENCIES

(ENTIRE FLEET)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

0.0

1.0 2.0


Figure 16 associates the number of inspections with the number of deficiencies for each barge category.

F I G U R E 1 6 | Barge Inspections & Deficiencies

Figure 17 displays the ratio of deficiencies to the number of inspections for each barge category.

Figure 18 displays the top 10 barge inspection deficiencies.





Cargo Vessels Description & Performance

Year in ReviewIn 2017, the cargo vessel fleet consisted of 325 active vessels, which represented 3% of the overall fleet size. Of this total, 60.6% (197) are enrolled in the Alter-nate Compliance Program (ACP) and 22.8% (74) are enrolled in the Maritime Security Program (MSP).

Included in the total number of cargo vessels are ships inspected under 46 CFR Subchapters I, D, and/or O. Subchapter I vessels consisted primarily of Industrial vessels carrying freight bulk cargoes, general dry cargo and roll-on roll-off cargo vessels. Those inspected under Subchapter D and/or O were tank vessels. It is important to note that a majority of the cargo vessels are enrolled in inspection programs where a Recognized Organization (RO) conducts statutory services and certification on behalf of the Coast Guard. The data in this section only represents Coast Guard inspections and issued deficiencies, and does not include deficiencies identified by ROs working on the Coast Guard’s behalf.

The Coast Guard conducted 935 inspections in 2017, during which 1,681 deficiencies were identified at a ratio of 5.17 deficiencies per vessel. Cargo vessel

inspections accounted for 5% of the total inspections and 8% of the overall Coast Guard issued deficiencies.

Of the total number of 685 reportable marine casu-alties in 2017, 321 or 47% of these events involved a cargo vessel. The top three most prevalent types of re-portable marine casualty events involving cargo vessels were material failure/malfunction, loss/reduction of propulsion/steering, or loss of electrical power.

Figure 19 displays the total number and percentage of deep draft vessels in comparison to the rest of the U.S. inspected fleet.

F I G U R E 1 9 | Number of Inspected Cargo Vessels

325 Total Cargo Vessels


3%

97%



Structures■ DOOR

Electrical Generation Source■ GENERATOR

Ventilation Systems■ FIRE DAMPERS

Launching AppliancesManning

Vessel Safety Management■ MAINTENANCE

Seawater System■ PIPING

Prevention Equipment■ OILY WATER SEPARATOR

Electrical Distribution System■ WIRING

Occupational Safety■ GUARDS FOR EXPOSED HAZARDS

Cargo Vessels Description & Performance0

500

1000

1500

2000

Fleet Totals Bulk Tank


General Dry Cargo Ro-Ro Other


935

1,681

106 93

485

957

351179 152

42 128123

Fleet Totals Bulk TankGeneral Dry Cargo Ro-Ro Other

1,51

8 D

EFIC


NS

9%Fleet Totals

4

DE

FIC


ATB/ITB29%

Containers

1

7 D

EFI

CIE


42 D

EFI


S

26%Deck

6

DE

FIC

IEN


3%Gas

8%Tanks

127

7 D

EFIC


NS

29%Other

172

DEF

ICIE


S

1.80DEFICIENCIES

(ENTIRE FLEET)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

0.0

3.05DEFICIENCIES

(OTHER)

.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

0.0

0.85DEFICIENCIES

(TANK)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

0.0

2.85DEFICIENCIES

(RO-RO)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

0.0

0.88DEFICIENCIES

(BULK)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

0.0

1.97DEFICIENCIES

(GENERAL DRY CARGO)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

0.0

Figure 20 associates the number of inspections with the number of deficiencies for each cargo vessel category.


Figure 21 displays the ratio of deficiencies to the number of inspections for each cargo category.


Figure 22 displays the top 10 cargo vessel inspection deficiencies.





Passenger Vessels Description & PerformanceYear in ReviewIn 2017, the inspected passenger vessel fleet consisted of 6,353 active vessels, which represented 52% of the overall fleet. Of this total, 0.6% (41) are enrolled in the Streamlined Inspection Program (SIP).

Included in the total number of passenger vessels are those inspected in accordance with 46 CFR Subchapter T (small passenger vessels under 100 gross tons), H (Passenger Vessels) or K (small passenger vessels carrying more than 150 passengers or with overnight accommodations for more than 49 passengers).

There were 10,803 passenger vessel inspections conducted in 2017, during which 17,425 deficiencies were identified at a ratio of 2.74 deficiencies per vessel. In comparison to the overall flag state fleet totals, passenger vessel inspections accounted for 59% of the inspections and 81% of the deficiencies.

Of the 685 reportable marine casualties in 2017, 34 or 5% of these events involved an inspected passenger vessel. The top three reportable marine casualty events involving the inspected passenger vessel fleet, were material failure, reduction of propulsion/steering, or flooding.

Figure 23 displays the total number and percentage of passenger vessels in comparison to the rest of the U.S. inspected fleet.

F I G U R E 2 3 | Number of Inspected Passenger Vessels

6,353 Total Passenger Vessels


52%48%



Passenger Vessels Description & Performance■ Inspections ■ Deficiencies

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

Fleet Totals T K H Other


17,425

10,803

14,718

9,067

860 1,642860 926750 139126


Figure 24 associates the number of inspections with the number of deficiencies for each passenger vessel category.


1,51

8 D

EFIC


NS

9%Fleet Totals

4

DE

FIC


ATB/ITB29%

Containers

1

7 D

EFI

CIE


42 D

EFI


S

26%Deck

6

DE

FIC

IEN


3%Gas

8%Tanks

127

7 D

EFIC


NS

29%Other

172

DEF

ICIE


S

1.17DEFICIENCIES

(ENTIRE FLEET)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

0.0

1.16DEFICIENCIES

(OSV)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

0.0

1.29DEFICIENCIES

(FPS)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

.0 0.0

1.06DEFICIENCIES

(OTHER)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

1.62DEFICIENCIES

(ENTIRE FLEET)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

.0

1.91DEFICIENCIES

(T)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

.0

1.62DEFICIENCIES

(K)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

.0 .0

1.23DEFICIENCIES

(H)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

.0

1.10 DEFICIENCIES

(OTHER)

.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

Figure 25 displays the ratio of deficiencies to the number of inspections for each passenger vessel category.


Figure 26 displays the top 10 passenger vessel inspection deficiencies.


Medical/First Aid

Collision/Grounding AvoidanceNAVIGATION LIGHTS ■

Radio Communications

Piloting/SteeringMARINE CHARTS ■

Certificates/DocumentsCOI ■

Hull■ PLATING

Alarms/Indicators■ BILGE ALARM


Radio Communication■ EPIRB

Lifebuoys■ SELF-IGNITING LIGHTS




Year in ReviewIn 2017, the outer continental shelf (OCS) fleet consisted of 595 active vessels, which represented 5% of the overall fleet size. Of this total, 41.3% (180) are Offshore Supply Vessels (OSV), which are enrolled in the Alternate Compliance Program (ACP).

Included in the total number of OCS vessels are vessels inspected under 46 CFR Subchapter L (Offshore Supply Vessels) and Floating Production Systems (FPS). Similar to cargo vessels, vessels in this category have certain statutory services completed by an RO. For this report, only Coast Guard inspection data is presented.

There were 806 OCS inspections conducted in 2017, during which 943 deficiencies were identified at a ratio of 1.58 deficiencies per vessel. In comparison to the overall flag state fleet totals, OCS inspections accounted for 4% of inspections and 4% of deficiencies.

Of the 685 reportable marine casualties in 2017, 28 or 4% of these events involved a member of the OCS fleet. The top three reportable marine casualty events involving the OCS fleet, were material failure/malfunction, allision, or fire.

Figure 27 displays the total number and percentage of OCS vessels in comparison to the rest of the U.S. inspected fleet.

F I G U R E 2 7 | Number of Inspected Outer Continental Shelf Vessels

Outer Continental Shelf Vessels Description and Performance

595 Total OCS Vessels


5%95%



Safety/ResponsePlans/Programs■ RESPONSE■ FIRE CONTROL

EmergencyLighting

Certificates/Documents ■ COI

Radio Communications EPIRB ■

Launching Appliances DAVIT ■


Electrical Supply System■ CABLE

Electrical Generations Source■ GENERATOR

Fuel Oil Service System■ HOSE

Outer Continental Shelf Vessels Description and Performance

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Fleet Totals O�shore Supply Vessels


Floating Production System Other


806

943

687798

58 1784

6108

35 37

Fleet Totals O�shore Supply Vessels Floating Production Systems Other

Figure 28 associates the number of inspections with the number of deficiencies for each OCS category.

F I G U R E 2 8 | Outer Continental Shelf Inspections & Deficiencies

1,51

8 D

EFIC


NS

9%Fleet Totals

4

DE

FIC


ATB/ITB29%

Containers

1

7 D

EFI

CIE


42 D

EFI


S

26%Deck

6

DE

F IC

IEN


3%Gas

8%Tanks

127

7 D

EFIC


NS

29%Other

172

DEF

ICIE


S

1.17DEFICIENCIES

(ENTIRE FLEET)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

0.0

1.16DEFICIENCIES

(OSV)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

0.0

1.29DEFICIENCIES

(FPS)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

.0 0.0

1.06DEFICIENCIES

(OTHER)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

1.62DEFICIENCIES

(ENTIRE FLEET)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

.0

1.91DEFICIENCIES

(T)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

.0

1.62DEFICIENCIES

(K)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

.0 .0

1.23DEFICIENCIES

(H)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

.0

1.10 DEFICIENCIES

(OTHER)

.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

Figure 29 displays the ratio of deficiencies to the number of inspections for each OCS category.


Figure 30 displays the top 10 OCS inspection deficiencies.





Year in ReviewIn 2017, this fleet consisted of 51 active vessels, which represented 0.4% of the overall fleet size. Included in the total number of vessels are those inspected under 46 CFR Subchapters U (research vessels) and R (school ships).

There were 122 inspections conducted in 2017, during which 62 deficiencies were identified at a ratio of 1.22 deficiencies per vessel. In comparison to the overall flag state fleet totals, research and school ship inspections accounted for 0.7% of inspections and 0.3% of deficiencies.

Of the total number of 685 reportable marine casualties in 2017, 24 or 3.5% of these events involved a research vessel or school ship. The top three reportable marine casualty events involving this

fleet were reduction of propulsion/steering, material failure, or allision.

Figure 31 displays the total number and percentage of research vessels and school ships in comparison to the rest of the U.S. inspected fleet.

F I G U R E 3 1 | Number of Inspected Research Vessels and School Ships

Research Vessels and School Ships Description and Performance

51 Total Research and Schools


0.4%99.6%



Research Vessels and School Ships Description and Performance

0

30

60

90

120

Fleet Totals Research


School

Fleet Totals School


Research

122

62

418

42

31

91

44

Figure 32 associates the number of inspections with the number of deficiencies for each vessel category.

F I G U R E 3 2 | Research Vessels and School Ships Inspections & Deficiencies

1,51

8D

EFIC


NS9%

Fleet Totals

4D

EFI

CIE


11%ATB/ITB

29%Containers

17D

EFI

CIE


42D

EFI


S

26%Deck

6D

EFI

CIE

N

CIES199 INSPECTIONS

3%Gas

8%Tanks

1277

DEF

IC


NS 29%

Other

172

DEF

ICIE


S

0.51DEFICIENCIES

(ENTIRE FLEET)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

.0

0.48DEFICIENCIES

(SCHOOL)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

.0

0.58DEFICIENCIES(RESEARCH)

0.5

3.0

1.5

2.5

1.0 2.0

.0

Figure 33 displays the ratio of deficiencies to the number of inspections for each vessel category.


Figure 34 displays the top 10 research vessel and school ship inspection deficiencies.


Lifebuoys■ SELF-IGNITING LIGHT■ MARKINGS

Means of Escape■ SIGNS

Hull■ BOTTOM PLATING■ PLATING

Watertight Integrity

Electric Generation Source

Alarms/Indicators■ BILGE

Fire Hoses

Occupational Safety■ DECK RAILS



Fishing Vessel Description and PerformanceThe Coast Guard estimates that there are nearly 58,000 commercial fishing vessels in domestic service. As the Coast Guard only maintains totals for vessels which are enrolled in the decal examination program, these numbers are based on a combina-tion of state and federal sources.

Included in the Commercial Fishing Vessel population are Fishing Vessels, Fish Processing Vessels, and Fish Tender Vessels. A Fish-ing Vessel is defined under 46 USC Section 2101 (11a) as a vessel that commercially engages in the catching, taking, or harvesting of fish or an activity that can reasonably be expected to result in the catching taking or harvesting of fish. Fish Processing Vessels are defined under 46 USC Section 2101 (11b) as a vessel that commercially prepares fish or fish products other than by gutting, decapi-tating, gilling, skinning, shucking, icing, freezing, or brine chilling. Fish Tender Vessels are defined under 46 USC Section 2101 (11c) as a vessel that commercially supplies, stores, refrigerates, or transports fish, fish products, or materials directly related to fishing or the preparation of fish to or from a fishing, fish processing, or fish tender vessel or a fish processing facility.

F I G U R E 3 5Initial

Dockside ExamDockside

Renewal ExamCFV Decals

IssuedExam

Deficiencies Issued

Fish Catching Vessel 3589 1153 2840 8462Fish Catching/Processing 31 2 23 235Fishing Support Vessel 28 17 29 115Total 3648 1172 2892 8812


0

5000

10000

15000

20000


010203040506070

■ Casualties Resulting in Total Loss of Vessel ■ Deaths

43

55 57

32

2008

43

57 58

35

72

35

60

3544

23

36

9 12 10

22

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

31 3226

Casualties Resulting in Total Loss of Vessel

F I G U R E 3 6 | Commercial Fishing Vessel Statistics

Fire Fighting ■ PORTABLE EXTINGUISHERS

Alarms/Indicators

Drills/Instruction

Collision/Grounding Avoidance ■ NAVIGATION LIGHTS/DAY SHAPES

Lifebuoys

Certficates/Documents Radio Communications Lifejackets/PFDs Immersion Suits Piloting/Steering■ CHARTS, PUBLICATIONS

Figure 37 displays the top 10 fishing vessel inspection deficiencies.



Captain Matt EdwardsChief, Office of Commercial Vessel Compliance (CG-CVC)

Mr. Scott Kuhaneck Maritime Transportation Specialist -

Domestic Vessels

Mr. Michael Rand Ballast Water Management Coordinator

Mr. Quentin Kent Maritime Transportation Specialist –

Outer Continental Shelf

Mr. Erik Johnson National Towing Vessel Coordinator

Lieutenant Commander Lee Bacon Cargo Vessel Coordinator

Lieutenant Commander Peter Bizzaro

Passenger Vessel Coordinator

Lieutenant Commander Joseph Hart

Outer Continental Shelf Coordinator

Lieutenant Commander Matthew Winland

Offshore Supply Vessel Coordinator

Lieutenant Benjamin Aaronson Barge Coordinator

The Coast Guard Blog for Maritime Professionals!http://mariners.coastguard.dodlive.mil/ FOLLOW US ON TWITTER: @maritimecommons

U.S. Coast Guard HeadquartersU.S. Coast Guard STOP 7501

2703 Martin Luther King Jr Ave S.E. Washington, D.C. 20593-7501

PH (202) [email protected]/cgcvc

Atlantic Area Atlantic Area Commander (Lant-5)

431 Crawford St. Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004

PH (757) [email protected]

http://www.uscg.mil/lantarea/

Pacific Area Pacific Area Commander

Coast Guard Island, Bldg 50-1 Alameda, CA 94501-5100

PH (510) 437-5839FAX (510) 437-5819

http://www.uscg.mil/pacarea/

U N I T E D S T A T E S D O M E S T I C V E S S E L C O M P L I A N C E C O N T A C T I N F O R M A T I O N

M A I N O F F I C E S

S U B S C R I B E T O M A R I T I M E C O M M O N S

1st408 Atlantic Ave

Boston, MA 02110 PH (617) 223-8555

FAX (617) 223-8117

5th 431 Crawford St.

Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004 PH (757) 398-6389

FAX (757) 391-8149

7th909 S.E. First Ave.

Miami, FL 33131-3050 PH (305) 415-6860/1 FAX (305) 415-6875

8thHale Boggs Federal Building

500 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70130

PH (504) 589-2105 FAX (504) 671-2269

9th1240 E. 9 St.

Cleveland, OH 44199-2060 PH (216) 902-6047

FAX (216) 902-6059

11thCoast Guard Island, Bldg 50-6

Alameda, CA 94501-5100 PH (510) 437-2945

FAX (510) 437-3223

13th915 Second Ave, Suite

3506 Seattle, WA 98174-1067 PH (206) 220-7210

FAX (206) 220-7225

14th300 Ala Moana Blvd. Room 9-212

Honolulu, HI 96850-4982 PH (808) 535-3421

FAX (808) 535-3404

17th709 West 9th Street

Juneau, AK 99802-5517 PH (907) 463-2802

FAX (907) 463-2216

D I S T R I C T O F F I C E S

Commander Jennifer L. Hnatow Chief, Domestic Vessel and Offshore Compliance Division

(CG-CVC-1)

Commander Michael Simbulan Chief, Flag State Control Division

(CG-CVC-4)

Mr. John Hannon Military Sealift Command

MARAD Liaison

Mr. David McCusker Marine Transportation Specialist

Lieutenant Commander Christopher Nichols

Deep Draft Vessel Coordinator

Lieutenant Commander Karima Hantal Class Society Liaison