Oil Record Book Violation Cases 

Written By CDR M. Hammond

One of the of the more challenging types of civil penalty cases the 

Hearing Office receives are Oil Record Book violation cases. Such 

cases typically arise from the discovery during a Port State Control 

Examination of an apparent overboard discharge of oily waste 

through the misuse of the vessel’s oily water separator, or via a 

bypass configuration (sometimes referred to as a “magic pipe”), and 

the failure to properly record such discharges in the Oil Record Book. 

Oil Record Book violation cases tend to be complex, very technical in 

nature and, depending on the circumstances of the case, may require 

the analysis of a significant amount of evidence.

This article is intended to provide a review the legal basis for the 

requirements pertaining to Oil Record Books, and highlight 

important considerations regarding jurisdiction when foreign-flagged 

vessels are involved. It will also discuss the different maximum 

penalties applicable to violations of certain oil record book 

requirements as opposed to violations involving false or fraudulent 

statements relating to the Act to Prevent Pollution From Ships 

(APPS) and the International Convention for the Prevention of 

Pollution From Ships (MARPOL) requirements.

The Requirements 

APPS both implements MARPOL and makes it unlawful to violate 

MARPOL. 33 U.S.C. § 1907. Oil Record Book entry and maintenance 

requirements can be found in regulations 17 and 36 and Appendix 3 

of Annex I of MARPOL. Regulation 17 covers the requirements for 

machinery space operations, while Regulation 36 discusses the 

cargo/ ballast operations. The corresponding U.S. regulations 

pertaining to Oil Record Books can be found at Title 33 Code of 

Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Part 151. The regulations in 33 C.F.R. 
§ 151.25, which mirror the regulations and requirements in Annex I, 

require that each oil tanker of 150 gross tons and above, ship of 400 

gross tons and above other than an oil tanker, and manned fixed or 

floating drilling rig or other platform maintain an Oil Record Book 

for machinery space operations. Oil tankers of 150 gross tons and 

above, or a non oil tanker that carries 200 cubic meters or more of oil 

in bulk, must also maintain a separate Oil Record Book on 

cargo/ballast operations. 

The regulations describe the specific operations, depending on vessel 

type, for which entries in the Oil Record Book are required. The 

described operations are required to be fully recorded without delay 

in the Oil Record Book. Each entry in the Oil Record Book must be 

signed by the person or persons in charge of the operations 

concerned and each completed page shall be signed by the master or 

other person having charge of the ship. Additionally, accidental or 

other exceptional discharges of oil or oily mixture must also be 

described in the Oil Record Book, including the circumstances of, 

and the reasons for, the discharge. The Oil Record Book must be 

kept in such a place as to be readily available for inspection at all 

reasonable times and shall be kept on board the ship and maintained 

by the master or other person having charge of a ship.

Jurisdiction (Foreign vessels and the date of violation) 

Jurisdictional elements should be given careful attention in Oil 

Record Book violation cases involving foreign flagged vessels. It is 

very important to clearly lay out the evidence supporting jurisdiction 

and to allege a violation date that relates to acts occurring while the 

vessel is subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Oil Record Book requirements 

may be enforced against foreign flagged vessels only for violations 

that occur within the navigable waters of the United States or at a 

port or terminal under the jurisdiction of the United States. 33 

U.S.C. § 1902(a). See also 33 C.F.R. § 151.09. When a foreign flag 

vessel is involved, the jurisdictional elements should focus on the 

date that the Oil Record Book was presented to the boarding team 

for inspection while the vessel was at a port or terminal subject to 

U.S. jurisdiction. While the improper entry or failure to record a 

required entry in the Oil Record Book may have occurred outside 
U.S. waters, it is when the vessel entered U.S. waters and presented 

an improperly maintained Oil Record Book that matters. 

This position is consistent with court decisions addressing the issue: 

U.S. v. Ionia Management S.A.,555 F.3d 303 (2d Cir. 2009); U.S. v. 

Jho, 534 F.3d398 (5th Cir. 2008); U.S. v. Petraia Maritime, Ltd.,483 

F. Supp.2d 34 (D.Me. 2007). In U.S. v. Jho, the court stated, at page 

403: “...[W]e read the requirement that an oil record book be 

‘maintained’ as imposing a duty upon a foreign-flagged vessel to 

ensure that its oil record book is accurate (or at least not knowingly 

inaccurate) upon entering the ports of the navigable waters of the 

United States . . .” [Emphasis added.] Think about this when putting 

together a civil penalty case involving a foreign flagged vessel’s 

failure to make required oil record book entries related to use of a 

“magic pipe,” improper use of the oily water separator, or overboard 

discharges. While those acts may have occurred outside U.S. 

jurisdiction and the acts themselves may not be cognizable 

violations, they may be used to prove the elements of an Oil Record 

Book violation. Nevertheless, however relevant those acts maybe to 

the substantive Oil Record Book violations, they are not what you 

should be focusing on for meeting the jurisdictional elements of the 

Oil Record Book violations under 33 C.F.R. § 151.25. For that 

purpose, focus instead on presentment of the Oil Record Book after 

the vessel arrived in the U.S.

Failure to maintain vs. false, fictitious statements 

APPS and the regulations thereunder address both the failure to 

maintain an oil record book and false, fictitious or fraudulent 

statements. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1908(b)(1), a person is liable for 

a civil penalty of up to $40,000 per violation per day, including the 

failure to maintain an oil record book. See also 33 C.F.R. § 151.04(a). 

Additionally, 33 U.S.C. § 1908(b)(2) makes a person liable for 

making a false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in any statement 

or representation that is required to be made under MARPOL, 

APPS, or the regulations there under. 33 C.F.R. 151.04(b). The civil 

penalty for this violation can be up to $8,000 for each statement or 

representation made. (See 33 C.F.R. §27.3, Penalty Adjustment 

Table).
It is important to consider the nature of the violations for which civil 

penalties may be assessed under 33 U.S.C. § 1908(b)(1) and (2), and 

to decide if you want to allege a violation of the requirement to 

maintain the Oil Record Book, for which the maximum penalty is 

$40,000, or allege a false statement type violation, for which the 

maximum penalty is $8,000. Although the facts of a case may 

support alleging either type of violation or both, it is important to 

understand the different nature of the violations that come within 

one penalty provision or the other. First, in order for a violation of 33 

C.F.R. § 151.25 to have occurred, the evidence must show that a 

required Oil Record Book entry was not fully recorded without delay. 

Second, in order to have a violation for a false, fictitious or 

fraudulent statement, the evidence must show that the oil record 

book was presented as true, even though it was false, fictitious or 

fraudulent, during the course of the investigation to inspectors or 

investigators as required by MARPOL or APPS.

In cases where there clearly is evidence that the chief engineer and 

master made false or fraudulent entries in the oil record book, for 

example, it may be possible to charge either a failure to maintain 

type violation or a false statement type violation, or both. If the 

party is charged pursuant to 33 USC 1908(b)(1) or 33 C.F.R. § 

151.25, then the factual elements of the case file should clearly show 

a failure to comply with the requirement to fully record without 

delay certain required operations. Evidence of the Oil Record Book 

entry and the dates of entry are important to show that the entry 

was not fully recorded; meaning it was incomplete or inaccurate. If 

no entry was made, then the evidence must show what entry should 

have been made and why. 

If the party is charged pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1908 (b)(2) or 33 

C.F.R. § 151.04(b), the evidence in the case file should show the 

false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation made that 

was required to be made as part of the port state control 

examination. The dates of this incident should be the dates of the 

boarding when the Oil Record Book was presented as true to 

inspectors or investigators (or any other statement made to 

inspectors/ investigators as part of the administrative inspection). 

The evidence must show that the statement or representation made 

was one that was required to be made as part of the port state 
control exam. If one charged party is charged with a failure to 

maintain type of violation and a false statement type violation, 

based on the same Oil Record Book entries, the Hearing Officer may 

decide that it is fair to assess just one penalty for the violations 

arising from a single act or transaction. On the other hand, if the 

chief engineer or master make false statements about the Oil Record 

Book or related operations to investigators during a Port State 

Control examination, in addition to presenting an inaccurate Oil 

Record Book, it may be appropriate to allege both of the violations. If 

a unit believes that the circumstances surrounding a Single act or 

transaction warrants more than one violation and one penalty, they 

should contact their servicing legal office for assistance. 

Supporting evidence (more is not always better)

Oil Record Book violation cases usually contain a significant amount 

of evidence. For the most part this evidence is relevant, but 

oftentimes units include extraneous, irrelevant information. When 

putting a case together, careful consideration should be given to 

what evidence should be included in the case file. As always, the 

focus should be on that evidence that clearly supports jurisdiction, 

the elements of the violation, and any aggravating or mitigating 

factors. 

Including irrelevant information can be a distraction and is not 

helpful for the Hearing Officer in determining whether the violation 

as alleged did or did not occur. Also, if copies of an entire Oil Record 

Book, Tank Sounding Logs or other large documents are included 

the case file, it should be made clear which specific portion(s) of each 

document has/have probative value. (For further discussion on case 

evidence, see Hearing Office Newsletter Vol. XII, July 2011 article 

“Finding the Happy Medium.” You can also find useful information 

in the Civil Penalty Case Guide found on the Hearing Office 

website.) A clear understanding of the regulation that was allegedly 

violated is helpful when determining the details necessary to be 

documented to constitute prima facie evidence in support of each 

element of the violation. This will not only aid in the Hearing 

Officer’s decision, but will also provide the charged party with a 

clear understanding of the alleged violation and the basis upon 
which to make an informed decision when responding to the 

allegations.