NVIC 02-08: Evaluating Crew Endurance Management System implementation

Commandant 2100 Second Street, S.W. United States Coast Guard Washington, DC 20593-0001 Staff Symbol: CG-5211 Phone: (202) 372-1355 Fax: (202) 372-1925 COMDTPUB P16700.4 NVIC 02-08 MAR 21 2008 NAVIGATION AND VESSEL INSPECTION CIRCULAR NO. 02-08 Subj: CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CREW ENDURANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CEMS) IMPLEMENTATION Ref: (a) Crew Endurance Management Practices; A Guide for Maritime Operations, U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center Report CG-D-01-03 (b) Crew Endurance Management Practices: A Guide for Maritime Operations, Addendum, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters (c) MSC/Circ. 1014 Guidance on Fatigue Mitigation and Management (d) Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 5-99; Guidance Regarding Voluntary Compliance with the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (International Safety Management [ISM] Code) (e) 33 CFR Part 96 Rules for the Safe Operation of Vessels and Safety Management Systems (f) Marine Safety Manual, Volume III, Marine Industry Personnel, COMDTINST M16000.8B (g) Report to Congress on Demonstration Project: Implementing the Crew Endurance Management System on Towing Vessels

Criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of a Crew Endurance Management System (CEMS) implementation. A CEMS provides a system of proven practices for managing endurance risk factors that affect operational safety and crewmember efficiency in the maritime industry. — Purpose. The Crew Endurance Management System (CEMS), as described in reference (a)

and Enclosure (1), provides a system of proven practices for managing endurance risk factors that affect operational safety and crewmember efficiency in the maritime industry. The process of implementing CEMS is intended to be flexible enough to enable a vessel or company to incorporate these practices into their current Safety Management System. The system is, at its heart, a continuous-improvement process which allows an organization to focus efforts towards those factors that are most feasibly mitigated and present the greatest possible reduction of risk (see Enclosure (2)). While it is left entirely to the practicing organization to determine how and DISTRIBUTION SDL No. 144 a b c d e f g h I j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z A B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C 1 1 D 1 1 1 E F G H NAVIGATION AND VESSEL INSPECTION CIRCULAR NO. 02-08 when to address specific risk factors, CEMS requires that certain process elements be present to ensure an effective implementation scheme. Those elements are summarized in Figure 1 of Enclosure (1). Increasing numbers of vessels and operating companies continue to adopt crew endurance management practices, each in a way to suit its unique situation. As CEMS becomes an essential element of many companies’ Safety Management Systems, those evaluating these programs will need standard criteria upon which to base their assessment. This Circular provides guidelines for use by vessel owners, operators, third-party auditors, Coast Guard Officers in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI), marine casualty investigators, and others to aid in their assessment of the veracity and effectiveness of a company’s or vessel’s CEMS program.

Criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of a Crew Endurance Management System (CEMS) implementation. A CEMS provides a system of proven practices for managing endurance risk factors that affect operational safety and crewmember efficiency in the maritime industry. — Action.

a. Vessel Masters, Owners, and Operators: All masters, owners, and operators of vessels considering implementing CEMS, as well as those already practicing it, should familiarize themselves with the criteria in this NVIC. This information may be used in conjunction with references (a) and (g) to establish a fully developed CEMS program. These criteria may also be useful for to develop measurements for an ongoing CEMS program. b. Third-Party Auditors, Vetting Agents, and Other Independent Evaluators: All persons responsible for evaluating CEMS programs or Safety Management Systems that include CEMS, should familiarize themselves with these guidelines. These criteria may be useful for assessing the veracity and effectiveness of a company’s or vessel’s CEMS program. c. U.S. Coast Guard: Officers in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMIs) , Chiefs of Inspections Department and Senior Investigating Officers (SIOs) should: 1. Bring this circular to the attention of vessel masters, owners, and operators, auditors, vetting agents, and others who may benefit from an improved understanding and awareness of CEMS program evaluation criteria. 2. Use these criteria when evaluating the contribution of fatigue to a marine casualty and to assess the effectiveness of a company’s CEMS program in managing or mitigating fatigue or endurance risk factors.

Criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of a Crew Endurance Management System (CEMS) implementation. A CEMS provides a system of proven practices for managing endurance risk factors that affect operational safety and crewmember efficiency in the maritime industry. — Directives Affected. None.

Directives Affected. None.

Criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of a Crew Endurance Management System (CEMS) implementation. A CEMS provides a system of proven practices for managing endurance risk factors that affect operational safety and crewmember efficiency in the maritime industry. — Background. The causes for the vast majority of marine-related casualties are rooted in

human factors.

A large number of casualties have been specifically attributed to the human factor of crew fatigue.

Fatigue is also known to play a contributing role in casualties where other types of human factors are present (e.g., situational awareness, operator decision making).

This problem is not unique to the maritime industry.

Fatigue is an issue for any 24-hour-a-day operation, particularly those involving shift work (medical, transportation, manufacturing, etc.).

There is an abundance of scientific research to support the fact that fatigue increases the risk of NAVIGATION AND VESSEL INSPECTION CIRCULAR NO. 02-08 accidents and adversely impacts alertness and cognitive abilities.

There is also research indicating that shift work and fatigue contribute to chronic health problems.

While there is research describing solutions to various aspects of the fatigue problem, these methods are not considered as they relate to each other and the overall system.

Traditionally, regulators of transportation industries have used hours of service and manning requirements to address crew fatigue.

While these requirements form a critical part of an overall strategy to combat fatigue, they are unable to completely resolve the complex and interrelated factors that influence crew fatigue by themselves.

Normal maritime operations expose crewmembers to a variety of stressors and operational risk factors such as irregular work periods, temperature extremes, heavy workloads, and extended separations from family members.

Left unmanaged, these risk factors degrade crewmember endurance, and thereby both performance and safety.

In response to this situation, the U.

S.

Coast Guard Research and Development Center developed CEMS, a system of tools and practices maritime operators can use to increase productivity while managing risk factors affecting crew endurance.

CEMS specifically helps operators to identify the full spectrum of factors affecting crew endurance and control these risk factors by means of proven practices and procedures.

These proven practices and procedures apply to the full scope of endurance management, not simply to fatigue or sleep management.

In other words, CEMS encompasses the full range of environmental, physiological, operational, and psychological risk factors affecting performance and safety in normal maritime operations.

Criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of a Crew Endurance Management System (CEMS) implementation. A CEMS provides a system of proven practices for managing endurance risk factors that affect operational safety and crewmember efficiency in the maritime industry. — Discussion. While no process could guarantee the complete elimination of fatigue as a

concern, CEMS has been designed to ensure the greatest possible improvements in crew endurance. The efficacy of CEMS, as demonstrated by scientific field tests, originates from its systems approach addressing interrelated risk factors aboard maritime platforms. To ensure effectiveness, an organization’s CEMS implementation process should include certain elements deployed in the recommended order as described in reference (b) and in Enclosure (1). These elements or process steps, are fairly general in nature, allow considerable flexibility, and should fit within the implementing organization’s Safety Management System. One exception to the recommended order is to begin with the Crew Endurance Coach. An organization considering adopting CEMS may choose to first acquire a coach as he/she serves as a champion and provides consistent support for CEMS. The learning objectives for the CEMS Coaches course are provided in Enclosure (3). These objectives describe what a CEMS Coach or an acceptable alternative must know to demonstrate sufficient coaching skills. Enclosure (4) is a job aid that provides guidelines for evaluating an implementation effort. Due to the continuous-improvement nature of CEMS, the checklist can be used to document the progress that has been made and identify areas that can be improved.

Criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of a Crew Endurance Management System (CEMS) implementation. A CEMS provides a system of proven practices for managing endurance risk factors that affect operational safety and crewmember efficiency in the maritime industry. — Implementation. Effective immediately, individuals responsible for evaluating an

organization’s Crew Endurance Management program or Safety Management System that NAVIGATION AND VESSEL INSPECTION CIRCULAR NO. 02-08 includes CEMS should refer to the guidance in Enclosures (1) and (4). This guidance is intended to provide a relative basis upon which to evaluate a given implementation effort and to assist an organization in identifying and addressing areas for improvement. This guidance may also be useful to those investigating a marine casualty to consider the impact of a given CEMS program towards preventing, reducing the risk of, or mitigating the consequences of a casualty. When evaluating a CEMS program, the investigator should consider extenuating circumstances that might affect an organization’s progress, such as the length of time since its initial implementation began.

Criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of a Crew Endurance Management System (CEMS) implementation. A CEMS provides a system of proven practices for managing endurance risk factors that affect operational safety and crewmember efficiency in the maritime industry. — Disclaimer. This guidance is not a substitute for applicable legal requirements, nor is it itself

a rule. It is not intended to nor does it impose legally-binding requirements on any party. It represents the Coast Guard’s current thinking on this topic and may assist industry, mariners, the general public, and the Coast Guard, as well as other federal and state regulators, in applying statutory and regulatory requirements. You can use an alternative approach for complying with these requirements if the approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. If you want to discuss an alternative approach (you are not required to do so), you should contact the Chief, Human Element and Ship Design Division (CG-5211) at (202) 372- 1355 who is responsible for implementing this guidance.

Criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of a Crew Endurance Management System (CEMS) implementation. A CEMS provides a system of proven practices for managing endurance risk factors that affect operational safety and crewmember efficiency in the maritime industry. — Changes. The Coast Guard will post this NVIC on the web at www.uscg.mil/hq/g-

m/nvic/index00.htm and post changes as necessary. The Coast Guard will issue and post time- sensitive amendments as an “urgent change” message on the USCG website for the benefit of the industry. Please submit any suggestions for improvement of this circular in writing to Commandant (CG-5211). BRIAN M. SALERNO Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security and Stewardship Encl: (1) Critical Elements of an Effective Crew Endurance Management System: An Evaluation Criteria for Auditors (2) Endurance Risk Factors (3) Trained Coaches/Acceptable Alternatives (4) CEMS Program Evaluator Checklist/Job Aid