Port State Control A/W - UK P&I Members Area

Port State ControlA guide for Members

CONTENTS1 IntroductionThe Growing Importance of Port State ControlWhat is Port State Control?OriginsRegional Development of Port State ControlThis Manual4 International Developments – ISM, STCW and Resolution A787 (19)6 Geographical Overview of Regional Development in Port State Control7 Outline of each Principal Regional Agreement on Port State Control8 Paris Memorandum of Understanding (Paris MOU)16 Asia-Pacific Memorandum of Understanding (Tokyo MOU)22 Latin American Agreement (Acuerdo de Viña del Mar)28 Port State Control and the USA39 Acknowledgements and BibliographyCarrie Greenaway, the author of thisguide, studied law and lived in the Far Eastfor several years. On returning to the UK,she began work in the London InsuranceMarket and has worked for members ofboth the broking and underwritingcommunities. She specialises in marineliabilities and related insurances.Internet: carrie.greenaway@catlin.co.ukPublished by Thomas Miller & Co Ltd.© Copyright Thomas Miller & Co Ltd 1998

PORT STATE CONTROLINTRODUCTIONTHE GROWING IMPORTANCE OF PORT STATE CONTROLPort State Control is the process by which a nation exercises authority over foreign ships whenthose ships are in waters subject to its jurisdiction. The right to do this is derived from bothdomestic and international law. A nation may enact its own laws, imposing requirements onforeign ships trading in its waters, and nations which are party to certain international conventionsare empowered to verify that ships of other nations operating in their waters comply with theobligations set out in those conventions.The stated purpose of Port State Control in its various forms is to identify and eliminate shipswhich do not comply with internationally accepted standards as well as the domestic regulationsof the state concerned. When ships are not in substantial compliance, the relevant agency of theinspecting state may impose controls to ensure that they are brought into compliance.Recently, IMO adopted a resolution providing procedures for the uniform exercise of Port StateControl, and regional agreements have been adopted by individual countries within Europe,the European Union, and various East Asian and Pacific nations. A number of North AfricanMediterranean nations have recently expressed their intention to set up a separate regionalagreement in their own area of the world. In addition, some countries such as the United States ofAmerica have adopted a unilateral approach to the subject, which nevertheless has the same aims.Shipowners and operators should take measures to reduce the likelihood that their ships willbe subjected to intervention or detention, bearing in mind that increasingly efficient databaseswill enable the maritime authorities who participate in the growing range of internationalagreements, memoranda and conventions to exchange information. Being inspected by one stateand given a clean bill of health will not necessarily prevent further inspections being made byanother maritime authority – and, as information is exchanged between various organisations, noncompliantships will find it increasingly difficult to continue operations.1

PORT STATE CONTROLINTRODUCTIONWHAT IS PORT STATE CONTROL?Port State Control (PSC) is a method of checking the successfulenforcement of the provisions of various internationalconventions covering safety, working conditions and pollutionprevention on merchant ships. Under international law theshipowner has prime responsibility for ensuring compliance,with much of the work involved being carried out by the statewhose flag the ship flies. However, not all flag states are ableto check their ships on a continuous basis when they are awayfrom their own ports, so PSC provides a back-up for monitoringthe implementation of international and domestic shippingregulations. Whilst Port State Control as a concept is not new,the increasing number of inspections and the coordination andexchange of data generated from them is a significantdevelopment, as is the stated intention of governments andmaritime authorities who see it as an effective means ofmonitoring and implementing international conventions.ORIGINSIt is the owner who is ultimately responsible for all compliancewith international and national obligations but it is incumbentupon any state which allows the registration of ships underits flag effectively to exercise jurisdiction and control inadministrative, technical and social matters. A flag state isrequired to take such measures as are necessary to ensuresafety at sea with regard to construction, maintenance andseaworthiness, manning, labour conditions, crew, training andof these developments are as much matters of perception asof reality, but insofar as their impact on the viability of theinternational maritime regime is appreciable, the effect ofthese perceptions should not be underestimated. They are:INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONSWhile there is a growing web of international regulations,its development is dependent upon consensus andagreement. Consequently, it has sometimes been necessaryto proceed at the pace of the slowest, which leads to delayin implementation. However, it is acknowledged that IMOhas achieved impressive and much speedier results inrecent years.THE FLAG STATESSome flag states are seen as not fulfilling their function ofensuring that the owner complies with his obligations. Inparticular, the growth of registers which have no capabilityand even less intention of monitoring compliance has led toconsiderable criticism.THE CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIESThe work of the classification societies has been seen as tooeasily undermined, although in recent years IACS have donemuch to improve both perception and reality in this area.All of this has led to the burgeoning development in PortState Control, not as an alternative to “Flag State Control” butas an additional means of compelling owners to comply withinternational regulations.prevention of collisions of ships flying its flag.Specifically, ART 94 of UNCLOS (United NationsConvention on the Law of the Sea) imposes a duty upon flagstates to take any steps which may be necessary to securecompliance with generally accepted international regulations,procedures and practices. This obligation is repeated at Article27 in relation to oil pollution. This is achieved in the mainby the flag state issuing safety certificates often via theclassification societies indicating compliance with the principalinternational conventions. It is these certificates, together withrelated manning, crew and environmental requirements, whichform the basis of Port State Control.Historically one of a ship’s most important attributes is theflag which it flies and trades under, but recent developmentshave highlighted the weaknesses inherent in this system. SomeREGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF PORT STATE CONTROLPort State Control as a concept is developing worldwide as ameans of dealing with the problem of substandard shipping.However, it is important that its development is not viewed inisolation, as it remains one of a series of positive steps whichare being taken to ensure that the shipowner trades his shipsin a safe and environmentally responsible manner.The first regional Port State Control agreement, coveringEurope and the North Atlantic, was signed in 1982 and isknown as the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (ParisMOU). The Latin American Agreement (Acuerdo de Viña delMar) was signed in 1992; the Asia Pacific Memorandum ofUnderstanding (Tokyo MOU) was signed in 1993.2

The Caribbean MOU and the Mediterranean MOU are in theearly states of implementation, the latter being signed in July1997. The Port State Control Committee of the CaribbeanMOU, the body charged with implementing the administrativeframework necessary to give effect to the agreement, iscurrently working on the programme needed to collateinformation, establish a database and technical co-operationoperational and management purposes on all developmentsaround the world on what is set to be an increasinglyimportant subject.Each chapter in this Manual has been written as an integraldocument which may be read separately from the rest, so thatthose who trade continuously in one area of the world needonly read the chapter which deals with that particular area.programme, as well as train the surveyors and inspectors ofthe countries involved. The Mediterranean MOU allows for aninterim establishment period of two years and the first sessionof its Port State Control Committee has been scheduled for theend of February 1998.Earlier this year the Indian Government announced plans tolead a scheme for the Indian Ocean area.It would appear that the accepted view is that Port StateControl works most effectively if implemented on a regionalbasis. However, there are examples of nations that are notsignatories to a regional agreement but who neverthelesspursue the same aims. For example, the USA exercises its PortState Control authority through the US Coast Guard’s longstandingforeign ship boarding programme, which is nowreferred to as the Port State Control Programme.THIS MANUALThis is one of two companion manuals specially prepared forUK Club Members to guide ship operators, managers andships’ officers through the intricacies of the various PSC regimes.This volume serves to highlight and explain the key provisionsof the agreements in some detail, whilst the other (shorter)volume sets out the principal features of each agreement inoutline form and is suited to shipboard use.This publication covers each of the three “mature” regionalagreements – the Paris MOU, the Tokyo MOU and the LatinAmerican Agreement – and, given the importance of the USAas a trading nation and that it often leads the world byexample – an outline of the key provisions of the Port StateControl programme implemented by the US Coast Guard.It is clear that Port State Control will continue to bestrengthened in existing areas and expanded into new ones.Consequently we intend to update this publication as and whennecessary by providing supplements so that our Members haveavailable to hand the latest information available for both3

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTSISM, STCW AND RESOLUTION A787 (19)THE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CODE FORTHE SAFE OPERATION OF SHIPS AND FORPOLLUTION PREVENTION (“THE ISM CODE”)Important developments have recently taken place in severalinternational fora which will have a bearing on the operationand implementation of Port State Control.Under the ISM Code, all passenger ships, oil tankers,chemical carriers, gas tankers, bulk carriers and high speedcargo craft of 500gt and above will have to be certified by 1stJuly 1998. For other cargo ships and mobile offshore drillingunits of 500gt and above, enforcement will take effect on 1stJuly 2002.The Code provides for a universal standard of safety andenvironmental protection which is subject to a formal “audit”procedure which must be conducted by qualified auditors inaccordance with internationally agreed criteria.Under the ISM Code and the Safety Management System asafety and environmental protection policy must be formulatedand specific written procedures have to be available aboardeach ship. Non-comformity and accident reporting procedureshave to be established and management review arrangementsdeveloped. Full identification details of the ship’s operatormust be communicated to the flag state.The principal areas in which the ISM Code sets out to applystandards are:Port State Control will be undertaken to verify compliance withthe certification requirements under the ISM Code.Maritime authorities around the world are defining andrefining their approach, and some take a more aggressivestance than others. For example, the secretariat of theEuropean Memorandum of Understanding (the Paris MOU), aregional agreement which encompasses the majority ofEuropean maritime authorities, as well as Canada and theRussian Federation, has stated that it is currently preparing acampaign on inspection of ships and crews under the ISM Code.In the first instance, it can be anticipated that ships which havenot started their certification process will be issued with a letterof warning, and after 1st July 1998 such ships will be detainedfor reasons of non-conformity. Such a detention could be liftedfor a single voyage if no other deficiencies are found, but theship will be refused entry in the same port thereafter, (statedin the Annual Report 1996, of the Paris MOU).In addition, the European Union is taking an interest and hasmade repeated statements to the effect that it intends to ensurethat the ISM Code effective 1st July 1998 will be enforcedby means of enhanced Port State Control inspections. TheEuropean Commission has already warned that if Port StateControl inspections and detentions fail to keep out substandardships from its jurisdiction then the owners and charterers ofsubstandard ships could face severe financial penalties. In hisaddress to delegates at the Norshipping conference in June●●●Operating ships and transporting cargo safely and efficiently.Conserving and protecting the environment.Avoiding injuries to personnel and loss of life.1997, Mr Roberto Salvarani of the Marine Safety Agency ofthe European Union said shipping had to accept tough policingof existing regulations designed to stamp out what he termedthe culture of evasion.●●●Complying with statutory and rules and requirements, asset out in the applicable International Conventions.Continuous development of skills and systems related tosafe operation and pollution prevention.Preparation of effective emergency response plans.“This is to ensure that quality pays and that the evasion culturedoes not, This means ensuring a real economic return, at leastin the longer term, on operating quality shipping. The role ofgovernments, therefore – to use the example of football – is togive a red card to the bad players. Then and only then will aprice be given to quality. If we can succeed in this we will haveIt is readily apparent from the foregoing that the ISM Codeand the ever increasing and coordinated approach toinspections known generically as Port State Control addressthe same concerns. Since the ISM Code is regarded bymaritime authorities as an important additional tool inimproving the safety consciousness of both shore based andlaid the foundations for industrial self-regulation.”In 1998 inspections in Europe are expected to tighten, first withintense scrutiny of all ISM certificates after the 1st July deadline,focusing on bulk carriers later in the year. Task forces are beingformed to streamline the operation and implementation ofPort State Control checks, each with a particular brief.ship based management, it is to be anticipated that stringent4

The Asia Pacific Memorandum on Port State Control (the TokyoMOU) encompasses a wide geographical area. They take theirlead from the Paris group, adopting measures which have beendeveloped by the Paris MOU.The USA will be particularly vigilant, having intimatedalready that ships which are not in full compliance by July1998 will not be permitted to enter US ports. The US CoastGuard has stated that they intend to strictly enforce the ISMCode requirements as part of their Port State Controlprogramme. From January 1998, the US Coast Guard isissuing letters to the masters of foreign ships who visit a USport without ISM Code certification. As of 1st July 1998, forthose ships for which the ISM Code is applicable, the US CoastGuard will deny port entry to any ship without it. If a shipwithout the required ISM Code certification is found in a USport, it will be detained, cargo operations restricted and besubject to a civil penalty action.STANDARDS OF TRAINING, CERTIFICATION ANDWATCHKEEPING CONVENTION – 1995 AMENDMENTSOf all the recent developments the adoption in 1995 ofextensive amendments to the STCW Convention is perhapsthe most significant.The amendments, which came into force on 1st February1997, add considerably to the role of Port State Control.Prior to the 1995 amendments to the convention, Port Stateinspections were based upon an interconnecting web of nonmandatoryprovisions which were at times a challenge toenforce. However, the revised STCW, especially Regulation 4in the new chapter XI, strengthens the legal basis for Port Stateinspections and contains very precise control procedures,including specification of clear grounds for believing that“Following publication of the list, certificates issued bycountries not included in the list will not be accepted as primafacia evidence that the holders have been trained and meet thestandards of competency required by the convention.”The consequence of this will be that ships on which suchseafarers are sailing may suffer costly delays in ports whileinspectors verify that they are competent to safely man theships, and this may in turn lead to an unwillingness by foreignshipowners to employ such seafarers.These amendments will facilitate the role of the Port StateControl inspector as well as provide greater transparency indecision making, which is helpful because an oft cited criticismof port inspections is that decisions sometimes appear to bemade in an arbitrary and/or inconsistent manner. The actual orperceived inconsistency between the decisions of differentinspectors is amplified when the different jurisdictions andpractices appertaining to the hundreds of different maritimeauthorities are taken into account.RESOLUTION A787 (19)At the 19th Assembly of IMO in November 1995, theamalgamated resolution (A.787(19)) relating to Port Stateinspection procedures was adopted. The amalgamatedresolution includes all substantive provisions of A.466 (XII) asamended, A.542 (13), A.597 (15), MEPC.26 (23) and A.742(18) and contains comprehensive guidance for the detention ofships, the qualification and training requirements of inspectorsand procedural guidelines covering ship safety, pollutionprevention and manning requirements. Consequently thisresolution will play an increasingly important part in theimplementation of Port State Control.appropriate standards are not being maintained.In addition, the revisions made gives IMO, for the first time,the ability and responsibility to verify the capability of traininginstitutions. It will issue a list of countries which are found tobe conducting their maritime training and certification inaccordance with the new requirements.Those who are compliant will be put on a “White List”. Theimplications for countries which do not appear on the “White List”have been commented upon by the Secretary-General of IMO.5

@ B€ ‚À Â, y@@ AA€€ÀÀ ÁÁ,, yy zzB‚ÂB‚Â{B‚ÂB‚Â{B‚ÂB‚Â{,@A€ÀÁ,@A€ÀÁ,yz,@€À,@€À,y, B‚ÂB‚Â{,@€À,@€À,y,@€À,@€À,yB‚ÂB‚Â{,@€À,@€À,yAÁAÁzAÁAÁzAÁAÁzAÁAÁz,@€À,@€À,y,@€À,@€À,y,@€À,@€À,y,@€À,@€À,y , AAA BB ‚‚ ˆˆÀÀ ÁÁÁ  zzz {{ @@ €€ ,, yyPORT STATE CONTROLGEOGRAPHICAL OVERVIEW OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENTS IN PORT STATE CONTROL (as discussed in the manual)F†ÆF†ÆCC DD EFF GG Hƒƒ„„ …†† ‡‡ ˆÃÃÄÄ ÅÆÆ ÇÇ È ||}} ~FG †‡ ÆÇ € F†ÆF†ÆF†ÆF†ÆFG†‡ÆÇFG†‡ÆÇ€G‡ÇG‡Ç€ ICELANDSWEDENNORWAYFINLANDR U S S I A N F E D E R A T I O NC A N A D AUNITED KINGDOMDENMARKNETH.IRELANDPOLANDDDD EEFF GGG HH „„„ ……†† ‡‡‡ ÄÄÄ ÅÅÆÆ ÇÇÇ ÈÈ }}} ~~ €€€BEL. GERMANYCC ƒƒ Ãà || F†ÆF†ÆFRANCECROATIAPORTUGAL SPAIN ITALYC H I N AG‡ÇG‡Ç€G‡ÇG‡Ç€G‡ÇG‡Ç€DG„‡ÄÇDG„‡ÄÇ}€G‡ÇG‡Ç€D„ÄD„Ä}G‡ÇG‡Ç€G‡ÇG‡Ç€G‡ÇG‡Ç€G‡ÇG‡Ç€D„ÄD„Ä}CƒÃCƒÃ|CƒÃCƒÃ|CƒÃCƒÃ|CƒÃCƒÃ|CƒÃCƒÃ|JAPANGREECEU S AREPUBLIC OF KOREACUBA BAHAMASMEXICOTURKS & CAICOS IS.HONG KONGCAYMAN IS.PUERTO RICAJAMAICAVIRGIN IS. (US)PHILIPPINESANGUILLA BRITISH VIRGIN IS.MONSERRAT ANTIGUA & BARBUDATHAILANDNORTHERN MARIANAARUBADOMINICABARBADOSVIETNAMISLANDSNETHERLANDS ANTILLES GRENADATRINIDAD & TOBAGOGUAMHAWAII€€ ,,PANAMA VENEZUELAGUYANACOLOMBIASURINAMSINGAPOREPAPUAECUADORNEWINDONESIAGUINEASOLOMANISLANDSMALAYSIAPERUB R A Z I LAMERICANSAMOAVANUATUFIJICHILEA U S T R A L I AURUGUAYARGENTINANEWZEALANDFULL PARTICIPATING MEMBERS OF MOUPARIS MOUTOKYO MOUACUERDO DECARIBBEAN MOUUSA AND TERRITORIESCanada*AustraliaVIÑA DEL MARAntigua & BarbudaBelgiumCanada*ArgentinaArubaCroatiaDenmarkFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceIrelandItalyNetherlandsNorwayPolandPortugalRussian Federation*SpainChina, including Hong KongSpecial Administrative RegionFijiIndonesiaJapanRepublic of KoreaMalaysiaNew ZealandPapua New GuineaPhilippinesRussian Federation*SingaporeThailandVanuatuBrazilChileCubaColombiaEcuadorMexicoPanamaPeruUruguayVenezuelaBahamasBarbadosCayman IslandsGrenadaJamaicaTrinidad & TobagoSwedenUnited Kingdom*Canada and the Russian Federation adhere to both the Paris MOU and the Tokyo Mou.SIGNED AUTHORITIES – NOT YET FULL PARTICIPATING MEMBERS OF MOUPARIS MOUTOKYO MOUACUERDO DECARIBBEAN MOUIcelandSolomon IslandsVIÑA DEL MARAnguillaVietnam-DominicaGuyanaBritish Virgin IslandsMonserratNetherlands AntillesSurinamTurks & Caicos Islands6

PORT STATE CONTROLOUTLINE OF EACH PRINCIPAL REGIONAL AGREEMENT ON PORT STATE CONTROLPARIS MOU TOKYO MOU ACUERDO DE VIÑA CARIBBEAN MOUDEL MARAUTHORITIES WHICH ADHERE Canada, Belgium, Croatia, Australia, Canada, China, Fiji, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Antigua & Baruda, Aruba,TO THE MOU Denmark, Finland, France, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Bahamas, Barbados, CaymenGermany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, Islands, Grenada, Jamaica,Netherlands, Norway, Poland, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Venezuela Trinidad & TobagoPortugal, Russian Federation, Philippines, Russian Federation,Spain, Sweden, UKSingapore, Thailand, VanuatuAUTHORITIES WHICH HAVE Iceland Solomon Islands, Anguilla, Dominica, Guyana,SIGNED BUT NOT YET BECOME Vietnam British Virgin Islands,FULL PARTICIPATING MEMBERSMonserrat, Netherland Antilles,Surinam, Turks & Caicos IslandsOBSERVER AUTHORITY - United States (14th District - Anguilla, Monserrat,USCG)Turks & Caicos IslandsOBSERVER ORGANISATION IMO, ILO IMO, ILO, ESCAP IMO, ROCRAM Paris MOU, Tokyo MOU, Viñadel Mar, Canada, USA,Netherlands, CARCOM,Secretariate, ILO, IMO, IACSOFFICIAL LANGUAGE English, French English Spanish, Portuguese EnglishSIGNED 26 January 1982 1 December 1993 5 November 1992 9 February 1996EFFECTIVE DATE 1 July 1982 1 April 1994 - -GOVERNING BODY Port State Control Committee Port State Control Committee Committee of the Viña del Caribbean Port State ControlMar AgreementCommitteeSECRETARIAT Provided by the Netherlands Tokyo MOU Secretariat (Tokyo) Provided by Prefectua Naval (Anticipated) BarbadosMinistry of Transport andArgentina (Buenos Aires)Public Works The HagueDATABASE CENTRE Centre Administratif des Asia-Pacific Computerised Centre de Informacion del Asia-Pacific ComputerisedAffaires Maritimes (CAAM) Information System Acuerdo Latinamericano (CIALA) Information System(St. Malo, France) (APCIS)(Ottawa, Canada) (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (APCIS)(Ottawa, Canada)ADDRESS OF SECRETARIAT Paris MOU Secretariat Tokyo (MOU) Secretariat Secretariat del AcuerdoPO Box 2094 Toneoecho Annex Bld, Prefectura Naval2500 Ex Den Haag Toranoman Minato-ku ArgentinaThe Netherlands 6th Floor, 3-8-26 Tel: +541 318 7433/7647Tel: +31 70 351 1508 Tokyo 105, Japan Fax: +541 318 7847/314 0317Fax: +31 70 351 1599 Tel: +81 3 3433 0621 Website: http://www.sudnet.com.Website: http://www.parismou.org Fax: +81 3 3433 0624 ar/cialaWebsite: http://www./iijnet.or.jp/toymouThe US Port State Control programme is not susceptible to the same tabular treatment and is covered on pages 28 to 38.7

PARIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING(PARIS MOU)ICELANDNORWAYSWEDENFINLANDR U S S I A N F E D E R A T I O NC A N A D AUNITED KINGDOMDENMARKNETH.IRELANDPOLANDBEL. GERMANYPORTUGALFRANCESPAINITALYCROATIAGREECEThe information contained in the following section provides anoutline of Port State Control procedures under the ParisMemorandum of Understanding, the “Paris MOU”.MEMBER STATESThe current member states of the Paris MOU region are:OUTLINE STRUCTUREThe executive body of the Paris MOU is the Port State ControlCommittee. This is composed of the representatives of the 18participating maritime authorities and meets once a year, or atshorter intervals if necessary.Representatives of the European Commission, theBelgiumCanadaCroatiaDenmarkFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceIrelandItalyNetherlandsNorwayPolandPortugalRussian FederationSpainSwedenUnited Kingdom of GreatBritain & Northern IrelandInternational Maritime Organisation (IMO) and the InternationalLabour Organisation (ILO) participate as observers in themeetings of the Port State Control Committee, as dorepresentatives of co-operating maritime authorities and otherregional agreements (eg., the Tokyo MOU).BASIC PRINCIPLESThe Paris MOU maintain that the prime responsibility forcompliance with the requirements laid down in theinternational maritime conventions lies with theIn 1996 the Maritime Authority of Iceland was granted thestatus of “Co-operating Maritime Authority” and it isanticipated that this status should allow Iceland to achieveaccess as a full member of the Paris MOU in due course.shipowner/operator and the responsibility for ensuring suchcompliance remains with the flag state. Port State Control isseen as a safety net, as the language of the recitals indicates:“Mindful that the principal responsibility for the effectiveapplication of standards laid down in international instrumentsrests upon the authorities of the state whose flag a ship isentitled to fly”, but “recognising nevertheless that effective8

action by port states is required to prevent the operation of substandardships...” but “convinced of the necessity for these...of an improved and harmonised system of Port State Control”.Directive is enshrined in the Memorandum, and whilst theDirective provisions are not obligatory to non EU members, thefact that they too have to fulfil these obligations if they are toconform to the Paris MOU means that there is in effect aTHE CONVENTIONSInternationally accepted conventions are monitored duringPort State Control inspections. These conventions are called‘relevant’ instruments in the Memorandum and are:significant raising of inspection standards within all of thosecountries who are participating members of the Paris MOU.Consequently, the scope and application of Port StateControl is extended by the provision of EC Directive 95/21/EC.For example, the Directive:●●●●International Convention on Load Lines 1966, as amended,and its 1988 Protocol, (LOADLINES 66/88)International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea(SOLAS), 1974, its Protocol of 1978, as amended, and theProtocol of 1988, (SOLAS 74/78/88)International Convention for the Prevention of Pollutionfrom Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978, asamended (MARPOL 73/78)International Convention on Standards of Training,Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers 1978, asamended (STCW 78)i. gives Member States the power to inspect and detainships anchored off a port or an offshore installation,although most inspections continue to be carried out onships alongside. It requires that, as a minimum, theinspector checks all relevant certificates and documentsand satisfies himself as to the overall condition of the shipincluding the engine room and crew accommodation.ii. permits the targeting of certain categories of ship. TheParis MOU now includes general ship selection criteria whichenable the inspectors to choose and review certain shipswith a view to “priority inspection” (see later comments).●●Convention on the International Regulations for PreventingCollisions at Sea 1972, as amended (COLREG 72)International Convention on Tonnage Measurements ofShips 1969 (TONNAGE 1969)INSPECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE REGION1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996NUMBER OF SHIPS INSPECTED 9842 10101 10455 11252 10694 10563 10256NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS 13955 14379 14783 17294 16964 16381 16070Source: Annual Report and Accounts, the Paris Memorandum of Understanding 1996● Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976(ILO Convention 147)Since its inception date, the Paris MOU has been amendedseveral times to accommodate new safety and marineenvironmental requirements stemming from the IMO, as wellas other important developments such as the EC Directivereferenced below.iii. provides that where there are “clear grounds” for adetailed inspection of some ships, the Authorities mustensure that an “expanded inspection” is carried out, (seelater comments).The Paris MOU has recently established an Advisory Boardwhich, among other things, co-ordinates the legal relationshipbetween the EU Directive and the Paris MOU.EU DEVELOPMENTSTARGET RATE FOR INSPECTIONOn 1 July 1996 the EU Council Directive 95/21/EC on PortState Control entered into effect and made Port StateControl mandatory in those states who are members of theEuropean Union.During 1996 the Paris Port State Control Committeecompleted the necessary amendments in order to bring theParis MOU in line with the EU Directive. Countries who aremembers of the European Union are consequently obliged togive effect to the Paris MOU, by virtue of the fact that theUnder the Paris MOU Member States have agreed to inspect25% of the estimated number of individual foreign merchantships which enter their ports.“Each authority will achieve, within a period of three years fromthe coming into effect of the Memorandum, an annual total ofinspections corresponding to 25% of the estimated number ofindividual foreign merchant ships, which entered the ports of itsstate during a recent representative period of 12 months.”SECTION 1.3 OF PARIS MEMORANDUM9

PARIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING(PARIS MOU)Interestingly, a review of the inspection efforts of individualParis MOU Members reveals that some countries exceed theaverage by a considerable margin while some fall below it.deficiencies are found or the ship is reportedly not complyingwith the regulations, a more detailed inspection may becarried out. A ship may be detained and the master instructedto rectify the deficiencies before departure.“NO MORE FAVOURABLE TREATMENT” PRINCIPLEIn applying a relevant instrument, the authorities will ensurethat no more favourable treatment is given to ships entitled tofly the flag of a state which is not a party to that Convention.In such a case ships will be subject to a detailed inspectionand the port inspectors will follow the same guidelines as if theflag state was a party to the Convention.SELECTING A SHIP FOR INSPECTIONEvery day a number of ships are selected for inspectionthroughout the region. To facilitate selection, a centralOn a first inspection, the inspector has to ensure that as aminimum the ship’s certificates and documents are on boardand are satisfactory. He must satisfy himself of the overallcondition of the ship, including the engine room andaccommodation and hygiene conditions. Thereafter, if thereare clear grounds for believing that the condition of a ship, itsequipment or its crew does not substantially meet the relevantrequirements of a convention, a more detailed inspection willbe carried out, including further checking of compliance withon board operational requirements.The non-mandatory guidelines which assist the inspectorscan be found at Annex 1 of the Paris MOU. See in particularAPPROXIMATE INSPECTION EFFORTS BY INDIVIDUAL PARIS MOU MEMBERS (1996)35%37%36%36%35%24%23.5%25.5%29% 29%26%27%% OF SHIPS19%CALLING INSPECTED14%11%7.5%4%BelgiumCanadaDenmarkFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceIrelandItalyNetherlandsNorwayPolandPortugalRussianFederationSpainSwedenUKAdapted from data in the Annual Report and Accounts, the Paris Memorandum of Understanding 1996computer database, known as SIRENAC is consulted byinspectors for data on ships’ particulars and for the reports ofprevious inspections carried out within the Paris MOU regionwhich assist the authorities in determining which kinds of shipsto target. As this database grows and develops, the targetingof ships is becoming increasingly sophisticated.Section 2 – Examination of Certificates and Documents – andSection 3 – Items of General Importance.In addition, the Paris MOU, stipulates the first inspectionrequirements for the STCW 78 and the ILO 147, stating, atSections 5 and 6 respectively of Annex 1, that inspectionrequirements for these important conventions shall be as follows:FIRST INSPECTIONCONTROL UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF STCW 78The inspector shall look for:Port State Control is carried out by properly qualified PortState Control officers (PSCO’s) acting under the responsibilityof the member state’s maritime authority. Inspections aregenerally unannounced and usually begins with verification ofcertificates and documents, moving on to check crew, manningand various onboard operational requirements. When●verification that all seafarers serving on board, who arerequired to be certificated, hold an appropriate certificateor a valid dispensation, or provide documentary proof thatan application for an endorsement has been submitted tothe flag state administration;10

●●verification that the numbers and certificates of the seafarerson board are in conformity with the applicable safemanning requirements of the flag state administration; and,assess the ability of the seafarers of the ship to maintainwatchkeeping standards as required by the Convention if thereare clear grounds for believing that such standards are notbeing maintained because any of the following have occurred:a. the ship has been involved in a collision, grounding orstranding, orb. there has been a discharge of substances from the shipwhen underway, at anchor or at berth which is illegal underany international convention, orc. the ship has been manoeuvred in an erratic or unsafemanner whereby routing measures adopted by the IMO orsafe navigation practices and procedures have not beenfollowed, ord. the ship is otherwise being operated in such a manner asto pose a danger to persons, property or the environment.In addition to the above, any participating member, upon requestby another participating member, will endeavour to secureevidence relating to suspected violations of the requirements onoperational matters of Rule 10 of COLREG 72 and MARPOL73/78. The procedures for investigation into contravention ofdischarge provisions are listed in Annex I of the Memorandum.“BELOW CONVENTION SIZE” SHIPSIn the case of ships below 500 gross tonnage, ie., below“convention size”, the Paris MOU states that the inspectors willapply those requirements of the relevant instruments as areapplicable and will, to the extent that a relevant instrumentdoes apply,“take such action as may be necessary to ensure that those shipsare not clearly hazardous to safety, health or the environment”.Therefore, below convention size ships are subject to port stateinspections under the Paris MOU and the inspectors follow thesame inspection procedures set out at Annex I.OVERALL NUMBER OF SHIPS DETAINEDCONTROL UNDER THE PROVISION OF THEMERCHANT SHIPPING (MINIMUM STANDARDS)CONVENTION 1976, (NO. 147)The inspectors shall be guided by:1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996NUMBER OF SHIPS INSPECTED 441 525 588 926 1597 1837 1719DETENTION AS A PERCENTAGE 4.48 5.2 5.62 8.23 14.93 17.34 16.76*OF SHIPS INSPECTED*AVERAGE DETENTION PERCENTAGE 1994-1996 = 16.35%Source: Annual Report and Accounts, the Paris Memorandum of Understanding 1996●●●the Minimum Age Convention 1973 (No.138): orthe Minimum Age (Sea) Convention (Revised 1938 (No.58): orthe Minimum Age (Sea) Convention 1920 (No.7);PRIORITY INSPECTIONSIf a ship has been inspected within the Paris MOU region duringthe previous six months and on that occasion was found to● the Medical Examination (Seafarers) Convention 1946(No.73);● the Prevention of Accidents (Seafarers) Convention, 1970(No.134) (Articles 4 and 7):● the Accommodation of Crews Convention (Revised), 1949comply, the ship will in principle be exempt from furtherinspection unless, on a subsequent inspection, there areclear grounds to warrant more detailed investigations, or ifdeficiencies have been reported from a previous inspection.However, the Paris MOU provides that the following ships willbe subject to “priority inspections”.(No.92);● the Food and Catering (Ships’ Crews) Convention, 1946(No.68) (Article 5);●Ships visiting a port of a state, the Authority of which is asignatory to the Memorandum, for the first time after anabsence of 12 months or more.● the Officers’ Competency Certificates Convention, 1936(No.53)(Articles 3 and 4).●Ships flying the flag of a state appearing in the 3 year rollingaverage table of above-average detention and delays.When carrying out an inspection the inspectors are asked totake into account the considerations given in the ILO publication“Inspection of Labour Conditions on board Ship: Guidelinesfor procedures”.●Ships which have been permitted to leave the port of astate, the Authority of which is a signatory on the conditionthat the deficiencies noted must be rectified within aspecified period, on expiry of such period.11

PARIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING(PARIS MOU)●●Ships which have been reported by pilots or portauthorities as having deficiencies which may prejudice theirsafe navigation. (93/75/EU Directive).Ships whose statutory certificates on the ship’sconstruction and equipment, have been issued by anorganisation which is not recognised by the MaritimeAuthority concerned.CONCENTRATED INSPECTION CAMPAIGNSThe participating maritime authorities of the Paris MOU haverecently adopted, on an experimental basis, the idea ofconcentrating on a particular aspect of inspection and control,using the developing SIRENAC database.Such campaigns, announced in the professional press andthrough other relevant channels, concentrate for a period ofusually three months on inspection of a limited number ofFLAG STATES WITH DETENTION PERCENTAGES EXCEEDING THREE-YEAR ROLLINGAVERAGE PERCENTAGE, TO BE CATEGORISED AS PRIORITY CASES IN 1997-1998FLAG STATES NO. OF NO. OF DETENTIONS EXCESS OFINDIVIDUAL DETENTIONS AVERAGE %SHIPS INVOLVED 1994-1996 1994-1996*1994-1996SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC 129 79 61.24 44.89ROMANIA 287 158 55.05 38.70HONDURAS 378 203 53.70 37.35BELIZE 83 39 46.99 30.64TURKEY 855 385 45.03 28.68CUBA 73 32 43.84 27.49MOROCCO 99 43 43.43 27.08LEBANON 77 29 37.66 21.31EGYPT 134 46 43.33 17 98ALGERIA 130 42 32.31 15.96ST VINCENT & GRENADINES 796 235 31.78 15.43MALTA 1695 469 27.67 11.32IRAN 68 17 25.00 8.65PORTUGAL 117 25 21.37 5.02CYPRUS 2625 541 20.61 4.26BULGERIA 170 34 20.59 4.24ESTONIA 252 50 19.84 3.49CROATIA 92 18 19.57 3.22BARBADOS 77 15 19.48 3.13PANAMA 2412 464 19.24 2.89CHINA PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC 344 61 17.73 1.38LITHUANIA 247 43 17.41 1.06GREECE 1363 228 16.73 0.38UKRAINE 673 112 16.64 0.29Average Detention Percentage 1994-96 = 16.35%Source: Annual Report and Accounts, the Paris Memorandum of Understanding 1996items during all inspections. Selection of items forconcentrated inspection campaigns is either based on thefrequency of deficiencies noted in the subject areas, or on therecent entry into force of new international requirements. Forexample, during 1996, a concentrated inspection campaignwas carried out on compliance with the requirements ofMARPOL 73/78 to keep an accurate Oil Record Book.A “CLEAN” INSPECTION REPORTIf a ship is found to comply, the inspector will issue a “clean”inspection report (Form A) to the Master of the ship. Relevantship data, ship and the inspection result will be recorded onthe central computer database, SIRENAC located in SaintMalo, France. The “Inspection A” Report must be retained onboard for a period of two years and be available forexamination by Port State Control officers at all times.GROUNDS FOR “MORE DETAILED INSPECTION”If valid certificates or documents are not on board, or if there are“clear grounds” to believe that the condition of a ship, itsequipment, its on board operational procedures and compliance,or its crew does not substantially meet the requirements of arelevant Convention, a more detailed inspection will be carried out.Clear grounds for a more detailed inspection are set out atAnnex 1, Section 4 and include:1. a report or notification by another Maritime Authority2. a report or complaint by the Master, a crew member, orany person or organisation with a legitimate interest in thesafe operation of the ship, shipboard living and working●●●Ships carrying dangerous or polluting goods, which havefailed to report all relevant information to the Authority ofthe port and coastal state.Ships which are in a category for which expandedinspection has been decided.Ships which have been suspended from their class forsafety reasons in the course of the preceding six months.conditions or the prevention of pollution, unless theAuthority concerned deems the report or complaint to bemanifestly unfounded. The identify of the person lodgingthe report or the complaint must not be revealed to theMaster or the shipowner of the ship concerned3. the ship has been accused of an alleged violation of theprovisions on discharge of harmful substances or effluents4. the ship has been involved in a collision, grounding orstranding on its way to the port12

5. the emission of false distress alerts not followed by propercancellation procedures6. the ship has been identified as a priority case for inspection●●passenger shipsgas/chemical tankers older than 10 years of age all as setout at Annex 1, Section 8 of Paris MOU.7. the ship is flying the flag of a non-party to a relevantinstrument8. inaccuracies and other inadequacies have been revealed inthe ship’s documents9. the absence of principal equipment or arrangementsrequired by the conventionsDEFICIENCIES, SUSPENSION OF INSPECTIONAND RECTIFICATIONWhen deficiencies are found during an inspection, the natureof the deficiencies and the corresponding action taken arefilled in on the inspection report.10. evidence from the Port State Control officer’s generalimpressions and observations that serious hull orstructural deterioration or deficiencies exist that mayDETENTION PER SHIP TYPEGeneral dry cargo ships24.54%24.84%place at risk the structural, watertight or weathertightintegrity of the shipBulk carriers17.92%17.45%11. excessively unsanitary conditions on board the ship:12. information or evidence that the Master or crew is notfamiliar with essential shipboard operations relating to theTankers/combination carriersGas carriers4.78%2.22%14.68%11.84%safety of ships or the prevention of pollution, or that suchoperations have not been carried outChemical tankers13.22%13.17%13. indications that the relevant crew members are unableto communicate appropriately with each other, or withother persons on board, or that the ship is unable toPassenger ships/ferriesRefrigerated cargo ships6.77%9.57%13.87%13.45%communicate with the shore-based authorities either in acommon language or in the language of those authorities14. evidence of cargo and other operations not beingconducted safely or in accordance with IMO guidelines15. clear grounds under the provision of STCW 78, asset out above.The above list is not exhaustive. If an inspector decides that amore detailed inspection is called for, he may:Ro-ro/container shipsOther types1995 19969.19%6.56%12.56%12.69%Source: Annual Report and Accounts, the Paris Memorandum of Understanding 1996Action which may be requested by the inspector can be foundon the reverse side of Form B of the inspection report and are:●●conduct a more detailed inspection in the area where “cleargrounds” have been established;carry out a more detailed inspection on other areas atrandom;00 no action taken10 deficiency rectified12 all deficiencies rectified15 rectify deficiency at next port16 rectify deficiency within 14 days● include further checking of compliance with on boardoperational equipment.“EXPANDED INSPECTIONS”Certain categories of ships are automatically subject to an“expanded inspection” if they do not “pass” the first inspection.The types of ships which fall into this category are:17 Master instructed to rectify deficiency before departure20 grounds for delay25 ship allowed to sail after delay30 grounds for detention35 ship allowed to sail after detention36 ship allowed to sail after follow-up detention40 next port informed●●oil tankersbulk carriers older than 12 years of age45 next port informed to re-detain50 flag state/consul informed13

PARIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING(PARIS MOU)55 flag state consulted60 region state informed70 classification society informed80 temporary substitution of equipment85 investigation of contravention of discharge provisions(MARPOL)95 letter of warranty issuedappropriate conditions determined by the maritime authority ofthe port of departure, with a view to ensuring that the ship canso proceed without unreasonable danger to safety, health orthe environment. In this case a follow up inspection willnormally be carried out in the “follow up” port.If the inspector does allow the ship to proceed to a repairyard and the ship sails:96 letter of warranty withdrawn99 other (specify in clear text)In principle all deficiencies must be rectified before departureof the ship and the above list is not restrictive. Note the●●without complying with the conditions set by the authorityin the port of inspection; orrefuses to comply by not calling into the indicated repair yard,general catch-all at Clause 3.2.“Nothing in these procedures will be construed as restrictingthe power of the Authorities to take measures within itsjurisdiction in respect of any matter…”the ship will be refused access to any port within a country who isa signatory to the Paris Memorandum until the owner or operatorhas provided evidence to the satisfaction of the authority wherethe ship was inspected, that the ship fully complies with all theapplicable requirements of the relevant instruments.MAJOR CATEGORIES OF DEFICIENCIES IN RELATION TO INSPECTION/SHIPS121231207711408862280787812757675437026632360215799393429502801305630312523312130802899258825182357141713811172152515201369Life savingappliancesFirefightingappliancesSafetyin generalNavigationMarine PollutionAnnex 1ShipscertificatesLoad linesProp/AuxMachineryAccommodationCrewSource: Annual Report and Accounts, the Paris Memorandum of Understanding 1996CATEGORY19941995 1996DETENTION“Where the deficiencies are clearly hazardous to safety, healthor the environment, so that the maritime authorities concernedneed to ensure that the hazard is rectified before the ship isallowed to proceed to sea. For this purpose appropriate actionwill be taken, which may include detention... due to establisheddeficiencies which, individually or together, would render thecontinued operation hazardous.”In addition the inspectors and/or the repair yard will alert allother authorities nearby ensuring that the ship is denied entrythroughout the region of the Paris MOU (Clause 3.9.1). Beforedenying entry, the Authority in whose state the repair yard liesmay request consultations with the flag administration of theship concerned.The only exceptions as regards entry in the circumstancescontemplated by Clause 3.9.1 are:CLAUSE 3.7.1If the deficiencies cannot be remedied in the port of inspection,the inspector may allow the ship to proceed to another port, asdetermined by the Master and the inspector, subject to any●●●●force majeureover-riding safety considerationsto reduce or minimise the risk of pollutionto have deficiencies rectified14

COST/GUARANTEE FOR COSTS/APPEAL PROCESSWhen a ship has been detained all costs accrued by the portstate in inspecting the ship will be charged to the owner or theoperator of the ship or to his representative in the port state.The detention will not be lifted until full payment has beenmade or a sufficient guarantee has been given for thereimbursement of the costs (Clause 3.12).The owner or the operator of a ship has a right of appealagainst a detention taken by the port state authority. An appealwill not however result in the detention being lifted immediately(Clause 3.13).13. Year built14. Issuing authority of relevant certificate(s)15. Date of departure16. Estimated place and time of arrival17. Nature of deficiencies18. Action taken19. Suggested action20. Suggested action at next port of call21. Name and facsimile number of senderIn the event of detention, the Report from Inspectors is sent to:INSPECTION/DETENTION INFORMATIONAND BLACKLISTINGUnder the Paris MOU each Authority agrees, as a minimum, topublish quarterly information concerning ships detained duringthe previous 3-month period and which have been detained●●●●●Next portOwnersFlag state, or its ConsulClassification societyOther MOUmore than once during the past 24 months. The informationpublished includes the following:DEFICIENCIESNUMBER OF DEFICIENCIES1. name of the ship2. name of the shipowner or the operator of the ship3.14 4.983.32 5.153.36 5.263. IMO number4. flag state5. classification society, where relevant, and, if applicable, any53,12054,451 53,967other party which has issued certificates to such ship inaccordance with the relevant instruments6. reason for detention7. port and date of detentionIn the case of deficiencies not fully rectified or only provisionallyrepaired, a message will be sent to the competent Authority ofthe state where the next port of call of the ship is situated.Each message must contain the following information:1. Date2. From (country)3. Port4. To (country)5. Port1994Ratio of Deficiencies to Inspections1995GENERAL PUBLICITY AND DISSEMINATION OFINSPECTION INFORMATION TO OTHER REGIONALGROUPS AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONSEach Authority reports on all of its activities, including inspectionsand their results in accordance with procedures specified in theMemorandum, at Annex 3 (form A). Arrangements have beenmade for the exchange this information with other regionalMOU, as well as flag states and the various internationalorganisations such as the IMO, and the EU.1996Ratio of Deficiencies to Numberof Individual Ships InvolvedSource: Annual Report and Accounts, the Paris Memorandum of Understanding 19966. A statement reading deficiencies to be rectified7. Name of ship8. IMO identification number (if available)9. Type of ship10. Flag of ship11. Call sign12. Gross tonnage15

ASIA PACIFIC MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING(TOKYO MOU)R U S S I A N F E D E R A T I O NC A N A D AJAPANC H I N AREPUBLIC OF KOREAHONG KONGTHAILANDPHILIPPINESVIETNAMMALAYSIASINGAPOREINDONESIAPAPUANEWGUINEASOLOMANISLANDSVANUATUFIJIA U S T R A L I ANEWZEALANDThe success of the Paris MOU has led to a similar arrangementbeing established for the Asia-Pacific region. In December1993 sixteen maritime authorities met in Tokyo to sign theMEMBER STATESThe current member states of the Tokyo MOU are:Asia-Pacific Memorandum of Understanding on Port StateControl, (the “Tokyo MOU”). The Tokyo MOU came into effectfrom 1 April 1994. This MOU is not as developed as the ParisMOU, but it is making rapid progress.At its most recent Annual Meeting in Auckland the PortState Control Committee agreed a revised Agreement, briningthe Tokyo MOU up-to-date with the latest Paris MOU,incorporating a broader and more exacting regime ofAustraliaCanadaChina, including Hong KongSpecial Administrative RegionFijiIndonesiaJapanRepublic of KoreaMalaysiaNew ZealandPapua New GuineaPhilippinesRussian FederationSingaporeThailandVanuatuinspections, follow up procedures and publications etc. It isanticipated that this will be published shortly and at that timewe shall incorporate the amendments into this manual.For the time being the information in this section providesThe following states are already signatories to the agreementand it is anticipated that in time they will become fullparticipating members:an outline of Port State Control procedures currently in forceunder the Tokyo MOU.Solomon IslandsVietnam16

OUTLINE STRUCTURETARGET RATE FOR INSPECTIONThe executive body of the Tokyo MOU is the Port StateControl Committee, which became operational in April 1994.This is composed of the representatives of the participatingmaritime authorities and meets once a year, or at morefrequent intervals if necessary.Representatives of the International Maritime Organisation(IMO) and the International Labour Organisation (ILO)participate as observers at the meetings of the Port StateControl Committee, as do representatives of the Paris MOU.The fourteenth Coast Guard District (Hawaii) of the UnitedStates Coast Guard acts as Observer Authority.Each participating member of the Tokyo MOU must determinean appropriate annual average percentage of individual foreignmerchant ships to be inspected. As a preliminary target theCommittee has requested that they “endeavour to attain” aregional annual inspection rate of 50% of the total number ofships operating in the region by the year 2000 (Clause 1.4).The percentage is based on the number of ships which enteredregional ports during a base period observed by theCommittee. According to the latest Annual Report andAccounts published by the Port State Control Committee in1994 the overall regional inspection rate was 32% and theinspection rate of individual authorities was as follows:BASIC PRINCIPLESAs with the Paris MOU, the Tokyo MOU states in its recitalsthat the ultimate responsibility for implementing internationalconventions rests with owners and the flag states, but it isrecognised that effective action by port states is required toprevent the operation of sub-standard ships.Australia 23.7%Canada 3.18%China 10.04%Hong Kong 2.04%Japan 25.41%Indonesia 15.21%Republic of Korea 6.12%Malaysia 0.38%New Zealand 9.42%Papua New Guinea 0.02%Russian Federation 2.85%Singapore 1.62%Thailand 0.02%THE CONVENTIONSFigures taken from the Annual Report, Tokyo MOU 1996For the purpose of the Tokyo MOU, the following are the“Relevant Instruments” on which regional Port State Controlis based:● The International Convention on Load Lines, 1996, asamendedSUMMARY OF PORT STATE CONTROL RESULTSINSPECTIONS AS A % OF SHIPS VISITED32%39%524 (5.93%)282 (3.8%)53%689 (5.63%)●The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea1974 and its Protocol of 1978 (SOLAS 74/78)8000INSPECTIONS8834INSPECTIONS12,243INSPECTIONS●The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution199419951996from Ships 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978, asamended (MARPOL 73/78)Detentions 3 Year Rolling Average 5.25%Source: Annual Report of the Tokyo MOU 1996●●●The International Convention on Standards of Training,Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978; asamended (STCW 78)The Convention on the International Regulations forPreventing Collisions at Sea, as amended (COLREG 72)The Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention,1976 (ILO Convention No. 147)“NO MORE FAVOURABLE TREATMENT” PRINCIPLEIn implementing a convention standard the authorities haveto ensure that no more favourable treatment is given to shipsentitled to fly the flag of a state which is not party to thatconvention. Such ships are subject to the same inspectionsand the port inspectors follow the same guidelines.Note that, unlike the other regional agreements, the TonnageConvention is not listed, but it is understood that this isincorporated into the revised Agreement.17

ASIA PACIFIC MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING(TOKYO MOU)FIRST INSPECTIONUnder the Tokyo MOU Port State Control is carried out byinspectors acting under the responsibility of the participatingMaritime Authority to whom they report. The professionalrequirements and training of the surveyors are not so extensivelyset out as in the Paris MOU, simply stating at Clause 3.5 that“Inspections will be carried out by properly qualified persons....”.However, after more than two years of preparations, the TokyoPSC Manual has recently been published for use by inspectorsin the region. The manual is intended to provide guidance andinformation that will assist the inspectors in carrying out theirduties in a harmonised manner.PORT STATE INSPECTIONS CARRIED OUT BYINDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATING MEMBERSAUTHORITY NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF NO. OFINSPECTIONS SHIPS WITH DEFICIENCIES DETENTIONSDEFICIENCIESAUSTRALIA 2901 1976 13638 248CANADA 389 246 1263 51CHINA 1229 724 4048 32FIJI 0 0 0 0HONG KONG 250 232 3039 140INDONESIA 1862 559 1229 0JAPAN 3111 1204 3342 88REPUBLIC OF KOREA 749 291 1700 48believing that the condition of a ship or its equipment or its crewdoes not substantially meet the requirements of a relevantinstrument, a more detailed inspection will be carried out. Inaddition, the inspectors conduct an inspection of several areason board, to verify that the overall condition of the ship(including the engine room and accommodation, and includinghygienic conditions, tests, drills, musters etc) complies with thestandards required by various certificates. The Tokyo MOUsets out general inspection criteria in Annex 1, and alsospecifically references and incorporates the ILO 147 and theILO publication “Inspection of Labour Conditions on boardShip: Guidelines for Procedure”.In addition to the above, the document informs us that anyparticipating member will, when requested to do so by anotherparticipating member, endeavour to secure evidence relating tosuspected violations of the requirements on operational mattersof Rule 10 of COLREG 72 and MARPOL 73/78.SHIP SELECTION CRITERIAThe participating members of the Tokyo MOU seek to avoidinspecting ships which have been inspected by any otherparticipating member within the previous six months, unlessthey have clear grounds for inspection or they fall into thecategories of ships listed at Clause 3.3 to which they are asked topay special attention to, namely:MALAYSIA 47 27 158 4NEW ZEALAND 1153 418 1414 9PAPUA NEW GUINEA 3 3 40 1RUSSIAN FEDERATION 349 160 1249 54SINGAPORE 198 80 480 14THAILAND 2 0 0 0VANATU 0 0 0 0TOTAL 12243 5920 31600 689Source: Annual Report of the Tokyo MOU 1996, published September 1997Inspections are generally unannounced and usually begin withverification of certificates and documents. When deficienciesare found or the ship is reportedly not complying withregulations, a more detailed inspection may be carried out. As●●●●●passenger ships, roll-on/roll-off ships and bulk carriers;ships which may present a special hazard, including oiltankers, gas carriers, chemical tankers and ships carryingharmful substances in package form:groups of ships appearing in the three-year rolling averagetable of above average delays and detentions in the annualreport of the Memorandum:ships which have had several recent deficiencies:ships which, according to the exchanged information, havenot been inspected by any authorities within a previousperiod of six months.with the Paris MOU when serious deficiencies are found, a shipmay be detained and the Master ordered to rectify thedeficiencies before departure.More specifically, Clause 3.1 states that the inspector will visiton board a ship in order to check the certificates and documentsrelevant for the purposes of the Tokyo MOU. In the absence ofvalid certificates or documents, or if there are clear grounds forThe revised Tokyo MOU has adopted the ship selection criteriacurrently in force under the Paris MOU, but as statedpreviously, the revised Agreement is not available at the dateof publication of this manual.Concentrated inspection campaigns, currently undertakenby the Paris MOU on an experimental basis, will be consideredby the Tokyo PSC Committee at its next meeting in 1998.18

PORT STATE INSPECTIONS CARRIED OUT BY AUTHORITIES23.725.4115.21% OFINSPECTIONS10.049.42%6.123.182.040.380.022.851.620.0AustraliaCanadaChinaHong KongJapanIndonesiaRepublicof KoreaMalaysiaNew ZealandPapuaNew GuineaRussianFederationSingaporeThailandSource: Annual Report of the Tokyo MOU 1996, published September 1997A “CLEAN” INSPECTION REPORTIf a ship is found to comply with all matters, it is issued with a“clean” inspection report (Form A) to the Master of the ship. It isadvisable that this Report is kept onboard for a minimum of sixmonths. Relevant ship data and the inspection results arerecorded on the central computer base at Ottawa.GROUNDS FOR “MORE DETAILED INSPECTIONS”If valid certificates or documents are not onboard, or if thereare “clear grounds” to believe that the condition of a ship, itsequipment, its onboard operational procedures andcompliance or its crew does not substantially meet therequirements of a relevant convention, a more detailedinspection will be carried out.Clear grounds for a more detailed inspection are, amongstothers;2. Evidence of cargo and other operations not beingconducted safely or in accordance with IMO guidelines.3. Involvement of the ship in incidents due to failure tocomply with operational requirements.4. Evidence, from the witnessing of a fire and abandon shipdrill, that the crew are not familiar with essentialprocedures.5. Absence of an up-to-date muster list.6. Indications that key crew members may not be able tocommunicate with each other or with other persons onboard.As with the Paris MOU, however, note at Clause 3.2.3, thegeneral catch-all,“Nothing in these procedures will be construed as restrictingthe power of the Authorities to take measures within itsjurisdiction in respect of any matter…”1. Report or notification by another Authority.2. A report or complaint by the Master, a crew member, or anyperson or organisation with a legitimate interest in the safeoperation of the ship, ship board living and workingconditions or the prevention of pollution, unless theAuthority concerned deems the report or complaint to bemanifestly unfounded.3. Other indications of serious deficiencies having regard inparticular to Annex 1.TYPES OF SHIPS INSPECTEDGas carrier (198)Oil tankship/combination (960)Other (590)1.62%7.84%4.82%31.05%Ro-ro/container/vehicle (2521) 18.39%Bulk carrier (3802)For the purpose of control on compliance with onboardoperational requirements specific “clear grounds” are:Chemical tankship (355)Passenger ferry (158)2.9%1.29%28.11%3.98%Reefer cargo (487)1. Evidence of operational shortcomings revealed during PortState Control procedures in accordance with SOLAS 74,MARPOL 73/78 and STCW 1978.General dry cargo (3442)Source: Annual Report of the Tokyo MOU 1996, published September 199719

ASIA PACIFIC MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING(TOKYO MOU)DETENTIONS FOR FLAG IN RESPECT OF FLAGS WITHDETENTION PERCENTAGES EXCEEDING 3-YEAR ROLLINGAVERAGE DETENTION PERCENTAGEFLAGNO. OFINSPECTIONS1994-1996NO. OFDETENTIONS1994-1996DETENTIONPERCENTAGE1994-1996DEFICIENCIES, SUSPENSION OF INSPECTIONEXCESS OFAVERAGEDETENTIONPERCENTAGE1994-1996VIETNAM 109 41 37.61 32.36INDONESIA 182 24 13.19 7.84BELIZE 430 54 12.56 7.31CHINA, PEOPLE’S REP. OF 1393 167 11.99 6.74TURKEY 180 19 10.56 5.31UKRAINE 86 9 10.47 5.22THAILAND 241 21 8.71 3.46HONDURAS 620 53 8.55 3.30CYPRUS 1148 95 8.28 3.03INDIA 284 22 7.75 2.50MALTA 488 37 7.58 2.33ST VINCENT & GRENADINES 733 55 7.50 2.25IRAN 123 8 6.50 1.25TAIWAN, CHINA 316 20 6.33 1.08EGYPT 64 4 6.25 1.00KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 913 52 5.70 0.45GREECE 1050 59 5.62 0.373-year rolling average detention percentage 1994-1996 = 5.25Source: Annual Report of the Tokyo MOU 1996, published September 199770 classification society informed80 temporary substitution of equipment85 investigation of contravention of discharge provisions(MARPOL)99 other (specify in clear text)In principle all deficiencies must be rectified prior to departureof the ship, and the above list is not restrictive.DETENTIONThe following are the main criteria for the detention of a ship,per Clause 3.7,“In the case of deficiencies which are clearly hazardous tosafety, health or the environment, the Authority will, except asprovided in paragraph 3.8, ensure that the hazard is removedbefore the ship is allowed to proceed to sea and for thispurpose will take appropriate action, which may includedetention. The Authority will, as soon as possible, notify theflag Administration through its counsel or, in their absence, itsnearest diplomatic representative or its maritime authority ofthe action taken. Where the certifying authority is anorganisation other than a maritime administration, the formerwill also be advised.”Clause 3.8 states that, if deficiencies cannot be remedied inthe port of inspection, the inspector may allow the ship toAND RECTIFICATIONIf deficiencies are found, then, per Clause 3.6, each Authorityis asked to endeavour to secure the rectification of deficienciesdetected. The nature of the deficiencies and the correspondingaction taken are filled in on the inspection report. Action whichmay be requested by the inspector can be found on thereverse side of Form B of the inspection report and are:DETENTION PER SHIP TYPE7.55%7.39%Average Detention percentage = 5.63%5.06%Codes00 no action taken10 deficiencies rectified2.89%3.38%3.08%2.6%3.9%15 rectify deficiency at next port16 rectify deficiency within 14 days1.01%17 master instructed to rectify deficiency before departure30 ship detained35 detention raised40 next port informed50 flag administration/consul/flag maritime authority informedBulk carrierGeneral dry cargoRo-ro/container/vehicleOil tankship/combinationReefer/cargoChemical tankshipGas carrierPassenger ferryOther55 flag administration/maritime authority consulted60 region authority informedSource: Annual Report of the Tokyo MOU 1996,published September 199720

proceed to another port, as determined by the Master and theinspector, subject to any appropriate conditions determined bythe maritime authority of the port of departure, with a view toensuring that the ship can so proceed without unreasonabledanger to safety, health or the environment. In this case afollow up inspection will normally be carried out in therespective “follow up” port.In addition the inspectors and/or the repair yard will alertall other authorities nearby, thereby ensuring that the ship isdenied entry throughout the region of the Tokyo MOU. Beforedenying entry, the Authority in whose state the repair yard liesmay request consultations with the flag administration of theship concerned.9. Type of ship;10. Flag of ship;11. Call sign;12. Gross tonnage;13. Year of build;14. Issuing authority of relevant certificate(s);15. Date of departure;16. Estimated place and time of arrival;17. Nature of deficiencies;18. Action taken;19. Suggested action;20. Suggested action at next port of call;21. Name and facsimile number of sender.COMPARISON OF NUMBER OF DEFICIENCIES BY MAIN CATEGORIES82907938518552484601376931604067251717043441261619961429 147596831424384Life savingappliancesFirefightingappliancesSafetyin generalLoad linesNavigationOthersCATEGORY19941995 1996Source: Annual Report of the Tokyo MOU 1996, published September 1997INSPECTION/DETENTION INFORMATIONAND BLACKLISTINGEach Authority undertakes to report on its inspections underthe Tokyo MOU and their results, in accordance with theAs for the publication of a quarterly detention list, the TokyoPSC Committee decided at its most recent meeting tointroduce this in the near future and to encourage individualparticipating members to publish their own statistics as well.procedures specified in the Memorandum.In the case of deficiencies not fully rectified or onlyprovisionally repaired, a message will be sent to the Authorityof the ship’s next port of call. Each message must contain thefollowing information:1. Date;2. From (country or region);3. Port;4. To (country or region);5. Port;6. A statement reading: deficiencies to be rectified;GENERAL PUBLICITY AND DISSEMINATION OFINSPECTION INFORMATION TO OTHER REGIONALGROUPS AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONSArrangements have been made for the exchange of inspectioninformation with other regional organisations working under asimilar Memorandum of Undertaking. For reporting and storingPort State inspection results and facilitating exchange ofinformation in the region, a computerised database system,APCIS, has been established in Ottawa under the auspices ofTransport Canada.7. Name of ship;8. IMO identification number (if available);21

LATIN AMERICAN AGREEMENT(ACUERDO DE VIÑA DEL MAR)MEXICOCUBAPANAMAVENEZUELACOLOMBIAECUADORPERUB R A Z I LCHILEURUGUAYARGENTINAThe information contained in the following section providesan outline of Port State Control procedures under the LatinAmerican Agreement on Port State Control (the “Viña Delstatistics as well as the development of a regional databasehave been arranged under the auspices of the ArgentinianCoast Guard based in Buenos Aires.Mar Agreement”).BASIC PRINCIPLESMEMBER STATESThe current member states are:ArgentinaChileCubaMexicoPeruVenezuelaBrazilColombiaEcuadorPanamaUruguayThe recitals of the Latin American Agreement emphasises thatthe main responsibility for effective enforcement of internationalconventions lies with the owners and the flag states, but as withthe other regional agreements it recognises the “need foreffective action of Port States in order to prevent the operationof deficient ships.”The recitals also acknowledge the objectives of ROCRAMand other South American regional resolutions and heralda harmonisation role for the Agreement when it states “isOUTLINE OF THE STRUCTURE OF THEVIÑA DEL MAR AGREEMENTThe executive body of the Latin American Agreement on PortState Control is the Port State Control Committee. This iscomposed of representatives of the Member states whichnecessary to avoid differences in the treatment given to shipsby the different courts and that said practices may distortcompetition between ports”. As with the other regionalagreements it regards its primary role as one of “back up”to the roles of the flag states and coordination, as it states inthe recitals:meets once a year, or at shorter intervals if necessary.Administrative procedures, co-ordination and publication of22

“to implement an efficient harmonic control system by port● 1972 Collision Regulations (COLREG 72)states and to strengthen co-operation and interchange ofinformation.”●International Convention on Tonnage Measurement ofShips (TONNAGE 1969)PERTINENT INSTRUMENTSFor the purposes of the Agreement, the internationally acceptedConventions monitored by the Agreement are called “PertinentInstruments” and are:● International Convention on Load Lines, 1966(LOADLINES 1996)● International convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974(SOLAS 1974)TARGET RATE FOR INSPECTIONEach participating maritime authority is asked to make effortsto reach, within a maximum three-year term as from date ofenforcement of this Agreement, a survey minimum of 15% offoreign ships that may have entered the ports of its stateduring a recent representative period of 12 months. As withthe other regional agreements, some individual countries areexceeding this target, others are falling below it.●●●1978 Protocol relating to the International Convention forthe Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS Protocol)International Convention for the Prevention of Pollutionfrom Ships, 1973, amended by 1978 Protocol(MARPOL 73/78)International Convention on Standards of Training,Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978(STCW 1978)“NO MORE FAVOURABLE TREATMENT” PRINCIPLEWhen applying the provisions of pertinent instruments, theparticipating maritime authorities are asked to enforce theprovisions in such a manner that the ships authorised to fly theflag of a state that is not a party to the Convention concernedshall not be granted more favourable treatment than shipswhich are not.INSPECTIONS7335642379379530391175812435 341403714NOT AVAILABLEArgentinaBrazilChileColombiaCubaEcuadorPanamaPeruUruguayVenezuela1996 (1239) 1997 (First Quarter) (893)Source: Acuerdo Latin American Sobre Control de Burques pour el Estando Rector del Puerto, Estadisticas, 1996 and 199723

LATIN AMERICAN AGREEMENT(ACUERDO DE VIÑA DEL MAR)“BELOW CONVENTION SIZE” SHIPSIn the case of ships under 500 gross registered tons,●Ships which may have recently suffered repeateddeficiencies.participating maritime authorities are asked to use theapplicable provisions of the pertinent instruments and, to theextent they are not applicable, to take the measures necessaryto ensure that the ships concerned are not an obvious hazardto the safety or the marine environment.In addition Annex 1 has the following specific guidelines:“Although a pertinent instrument is not applied to vessels under500 registered tons, it is the surveyor’s task to determinewhether a vessel has an acceptable level as regards safety orthe marine environment. When considering this, the surveyorshould take into account factors such as length and nature ofthe intended trip or service, size and type of vessel, itsequipment and the characteristics of the cargo.When performing the functions established in paragraph4.2, the surveyor shall take as a guide any of the certificatesand other documents issued by the vessel’s flag state. Fromthe analysis of the said certificates and documents and fromhis general impression of the vessel, the surveyor shall use hisprofessional judgment to determine whether the vessel should besubjected to a more detailed survey and in which aspects, takinginto account factors mentioned in paragraph 4.2. Should a moredetailed survey be carried out, the surveyor should, as far ashe deems it necessary, take into account the aspects set forthin paragraph 4.4. Although such enumeration is not complete,it can be used as an example of the most relevant aspects.”FIRST INSPECTIONClause 3.1 states that in fulfilling their obligations, theinspectors initially carry out a survey which consists of a visitonboard the ship in order to check the validity of the pertinentcertificates and documents, as well as the general condition ofthe ship, its equipment and crew. In these initial reviews andcontrol procedures, the inspectors include compliance withonboard operational requirements. In the absence of validcertificates or documents, or should there exist clearindications to consider that the ship, its equipment or crew donot meet the provisions of a pertinent instrument, a moredetailed survey is then carried out.The initial surveys are carried out in accordance with theprocedures set out in Annex 1, which provides detailedguidelines for the surveyors. In particular at Clause 1.2 theguidelines state:“When taking the decision to correct a deficiency or detain avessel, the surveyor shall take into account the results of themore detailed survey performed pursuant to the provision ofSection 3.The surveyor shall use his professional judgement todetermine whether it is convenient to detain the vessel until thedeficiencies be corrected, or authorise the vessel to sail withcertain deficiencies, should this not pose an excessive hazardto safety or the marine environment, taking into account thespecial circumstances of the intended trip. As regards minimumSELECTING A SHIP FOR INSPECTIONClause 3.4 states that the Maritime Authorities should try toavoid surveying ships inspected by any of the otherparticipating Maritime Authorities during the preceding 6months, “unless there exist clear indications of the need forsurveying them” or if the ships are of the type mentioned inClause 3.3 of the Memorandum, in which case the inspectors“shall carry out surveys as may deem proper”.Clause 3.3 provides that when selecting ships for survey,the inspectors should pay special attention to:manning criteria, the special procedures set forth in Section 3shall be taken into account.”Section 3 provides guidelines as to manning and certificationcriteria which, in an interesting variant to the other regionalagreements, states:“The basic principle for the survey of a foreign vessel crewconducted by a port state shall take into account the minimummanning requirements of the vessel flag state… detainment, asa port state measure shall be decided solely upon the groundsset forth in the pertinent instruments and used in conjunction●●Passenger ships, ro-ro ships, and bulk grain carriers.Ships which may pose a special risk, such as oil tankers,gas carriers, chemical tankers and ships carrying dangerousand/or harmful substances and goods in packages.with the opinion of the flag state. Should a prompt answer bedifficult to obtain, and should the deficiency be of such a natureas to render the vessel obviously unsafe for the intended trip orservice, detainment shall be applied”24

This interrelationship between flag state and Port State Controlis evidenced further at Clause 3.2 (Manning Control) andClause 3.3 (Certification Control), of Annex l:3.2. Manning Controls3.2.1. Should the ship be manned in accordance with theminimum manning document or an equivalent one issuedby the ship Flag state, the inspector should accept that theship is manned safely unless the document has been issuedwithout taking into account the principles contained in thePertinent Instruments and in IMO guidelines for theapplication of Minimum Manning Principles. If this is so, theinspector must consult with the Flag state.3.2.2. Should the crew number or composition not complywith the provisions of the minimum manning document, thePort state should request the ship Flag state its opinionwhether the ship may or may not sail with its current crewnumber and composition. The request should be made assoon as possible. Should the crew number and compositiondiffer from the minimum manning document, or should theship Flag state not confirm that it may sail under suchcondition, the ship may be detained.3.2.3. Should the ship not have a minimum manningdocument or an equivalent one, the Port state shouldrequest the Flag state to specify the number of crewmembers required and their composition, and to issue adocument in this respect as soon as possible.Should the crew number and composition not complywith the directions received from the Flag state, actionshould be taken pursuant to paragraph 3.2.2. Should theFlag state not answer the request, this should be construedas a clear indication to conduct a more detailed survey of3.3.2. In ships engaged in the transport of liquiddangerous cargo in bulk, certification control should bemore stringent. The inspector should ensure that officersresponsible for cargo handling and operation have a validdocument certifying that they have received an adequatetraining and have the proper experience. No exemptions areaccepted. Should a deficiency be detected, the Master isinformed and the deficiency should be corrected.A “CLEAN” INSPECTION REPORTIf a ship is found to comply, the inspector will issue a “clean”inspection report (Form A) to the Master of the ship. Relevantship data and the inspection result will be recorded on thecentral computer database located in Buenos Aires. The“Inspection A” Report must be retained and be made availablefor examination by Port State Control officers at all times.DEFICIENCIESCOUNTRY INSPECTIONS NO.OF INSPECTIONS WHEREDEFICIENCIES WERE FOUND1996 1997 1996 1997(FIRST QUARTER)(FIRST QUARTER)ARGENTINA 237 93 142 48BRAZIL 733 564 315 205CHILE 79 53 55 27COLOMBIA 0 39 0 14CUBA 117 58 106 56ECUADOR 1 24 1 1PANAMA 35 14 12 8PERU 0 34 0 2URUGUAY 37 14 19 8TOTAL 1239 893 893 369Source: Acuerdo Latin American Sobre Control de Burques pour el EstandoRector del Puerto, Estadisticas 1996 and 1997the ship. The ship may be authorised to sail only if it can doit safely, taking into account the detainment criterium set outin the Agreement.The minimum rules to be applied should not be morestringent than those applied to ships flying the flag of thePort state. In case of lack of a minimum manning documentthis should be reported as a deficiency.3.3. Certification Controls3.3.1. The general control of ship certification should bemade pursuant to the procedures set forth in Articles X andREASONS AND PROCEDURES FOR MOREDETAILED SURVEYSIf valid certificates or documents are not on board, or if thereare “clear grounds” to believe that the condition of a ship, itsequipment, its on board operational procedures andcompliance, or its crew does not substantially meet therequirements of a relevant Convention, a more detailedinspection will be carried out.Regulation J/4 of the STCW Convention, 1978.25

LATIN AMERICAN AGREEMENT(ACUERDO DE VIÑA DEL MAR)Clauses 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 provide that the inspectors shallconsider “clear indications” for a more detailed survey to beamong others, the following:●Evidence of operational failures verified during Port StateControl procedures of ships, pursuant to SOLAS 74,MARPOL 73/78 and STCW 78.●A report or notification from another Maritime Authority;●Evidence that the loading and other operations were not●A report or complaint from the Master of the ship, amade safely or according to IMO guidelines.member of the crew or any other person or organisation●Ship involvement in incidents arising from non-complianceinterested in maintaining the safety operations in the shipwith operational requirements.or in preventing marine pollution, unless the respectiveMaritime Authority considers that the report or thecomplaint are evidently groundless;●Ascertained evidence, during fire fighting drills and/or shipdeserting drills, that the crew is not familiar with basicprocedures.●Other signs of serious deficiencies (taking Annex 1 intospecial account).●Lack of an updated muster plan.●For the purpose of verifying compliance with operationalrequirements on board, “clear indications” may be thefollowing:●Indications that it is impossible for the key members of thecrew to communicate among themselves or with otherpersons on board.Note, also, the general catch all at Clause 3.3.3, stating that“none of the above provisions shall be construed as a limitationto the Maritime Authorities’ power to take measures withinDETENTIONStheir jurisdiction as regards any case connect to the pertinentArgentina10instruments.”Brazil618SUSPENSION OF INSPECTION, DETENTIONAND RECTIFICATIONChile38When deficiencies are found during an inspection, the natureof the deficiencies and the corresponding action taken areColombiaDATA NOT AVAILABLEfilled in on the inspection report.Cuba2854Action which may be requested by the inspector can befound on the reverse side of Form B of the inspection report.EcuadorPanamaPeruUruguayVenezuelaDATA NOT AVAILABLE34DATA NOT AVAILABLE11DATA NOT AVAILABLE1996 (85) 1997 (First Quarter) (42)Clause 3.6 states that “each and every Maritime Authorityshall make efforts to ensure that deficiencies are corrected.”Clauses 3.7 and 3.8 set out the detention criteria. In thecase of deficiencies posing a clear risk to safety or the marineenvironment the inspectors have to ensure that the risk iseliminated before authorising the ship to sail“…and to such ends, it will take the necessary steps, whichmay include the ships detainment. However, should it not bepossible to remedy the defects at the survey port, the vesselSource: Acuerdo Latin American Sobre Control de Burquespour el Estando Rector del Puerto Estadisticas, 1996 and 1997may be authorised to sail to another port subject to anyadequate condition, stated by that Maritime Authority, so that26

COMPARISON OF INSPECTIONSDEFICIENCIES AND DETENTIONS 1995 – 19971239INSPECTION/DETENTION INFORMATIONAND BLACKLISTINGIn the case of deficiencies not fully rectified or onlyprovisionally repaired, a message will be sent to the893893competent Authority of the region state where the nextport of call of the ship is situated.504297647DATA NOT AVAILABLE8542Inspections Deficiencies DetentionsEach message must contain the following information:1. Date2. From (country)3. Port4. To (country)5. Port6. A statement reading deficiencies to be rectified19951996 1997 (First Quarter)7. Name of ship8. IMO identification number (if available)Source: Acuerdo Latin American Sobre Control de Burquespour el Estando Rector del Puerto, Estadisticas, 1996 and 19979. Type of ship10. Flag of ship11. Call signthe vessel may continue its trip without posing an excessiverisk to safety or to the environment. In such cases, theMaritime Authority shall notify the competent MaritimeAuthority of the region where the next port of call of the vesselis located, the parties mentioned in paragraph 3.7 and anyother authority it may deem proper.”In accordance with Section 3.4 of Annex 1, when decidingwhether to detain, the inspectors are asked to consider:12. Gross tonnage13. Year built14. Issuing authority of relevant certificate(s)15. Date of departure16. Estimated place and time of arrival17. Nature of deficiencies18. Action taken19. Suggested action20. Suggested action at next port of call●Length and nature of the intended services or trip21. Name and facsimile number of sender●●Whether or not deficiencies pose a risk for the ship, peopleon board or the marine environmentWhether adequate rest periods for crew members can beIn the event of detention, the Report from Inspectors is sent to:● Next port ● Owners● Flag state, or its Consul ● Classification societydetermined or not●Other MOU●●Size and type of ship and its equipmentCharacteristics of the cargoGENERAL PUBLICITY AND DISSEMINATION OFINSPECTION INFORMATION TO OTHER REGIONALThe absence of a deck officer or an engine room officer whosecertification be a requirement should not constitute a reasonto justify the ship detainment, when this be in agreement withany provisions accepted as an exception by the ship flag state.GROUPS AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONSArrangements have been made for the exchange of informationwith other regional MOU’s, as well as the flag states andvarious international organisations such as the IMO and the ILO.27

PORT STATE CONTROL AND THE USAU S AHAWAIIPUERTO RICAVIRGIN IS. (US)NORTHERN MARIANAISLANDSGUAMAMERICANSAMOAThe information contained in this section is taken from theUS Coast Guard’s web site and provides an overview of PortState Control within the territorial waters of the United Statesof America.The USA is not a participating member of any of theregional agreements currently in force, but it does take a proactiveunilateral stance on the subject of the monitoring andenforcement of international conventions and regards it as anincreasingly important component in the policing andenforcement of maritime regulations.OUTLINE STRUCTURESince the Coast Guard’s Port State Control programme islargely non-regulatory, it is not generally reflected in the Codeof Federal Regulations. Instead, the programme is set out inDEVELOPMENTUntil 1994, boardings to ensure compliance with USregulations for tank ships, passenger ships, navigation safetyand pollution prevention constitued the US Coast Guard’s maininvolvement with non-US ships and only in the most extremeor obvious cases did the Coast Guard intervene under theinternational Conventions (eg., SOLAS, MARPOL, Loadline) todetain non-US ships.However, in 1994, the US Congress recognised that thereexisted a number of substandard ships amongst the 8000non-USA ships arriving in the USA every year and directed theCoast Guard to develop a programme to eliminate them fromthe nation’s waters, and to submit annual reports on the statusof this mandated programme which has come to be called thePort State Control Programme.the Coast Guard’s Marine Safety Manual (“the MSM”) whichcontains seven chapters devoted to different aspects of thePort State Control programme. These chapters deal with● the general concept of foreign ship examinationsBASIC PRINCIPLESThe USA Government maintains that the prime responsibility forcompliance with the requirements laid down in the international●●procedures applicable to different types of shipsthe procedures utilised to target foreign ships for boarding,for exercising control over foreign ships, and procedures toensure accountability.maritime conventions lies with the shipowner/operator. It alsocontinues to maintain that the responsibility for ensuring suchcompliance lies with the flag states, but the language contained inthe various statements, papers etc issued by the USCG indicatesthat while Port State Control is seen as a safety net, it is to be28

egarded as a proactive one and the USCG has recently begun todemonstrate, both by statements and by action, that it intends toenforce international standards stringently.JURISDICTIONForeign ships operating in US waters are subject to inspectionunder Title 46 United State Code (USC) Chapter 33.Reciprocity is accorded to ships of countries that are partiesto the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea(SOLAS)(46 USC 3303(a)). In addition, certain provisions ofthe pollution prevention and navigation safety regulations(33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 154-156 and 164respectively) apply to foreign ships operating in US waters.As there is no Agreement or Memorandum specificallydedicated to Port State Control, there is no conclusive list of theconventions enforced by the USCG under their Port State Controlregime. However, it can be said that detentions and interventionsmay be undertaken by the USCG under the authority of:APPLICABLE DOMESTIC STATUTES● 46 United States Code (USC) 5101-5116. Load linerequirements for foreign ships.● 46 USC 2101 (12) 3306(a)(5) and 49 USC 1801-1812.Safety requirements for carriage of dangerous articles andsubstances aboard foreign ships.● 46 USC 2101 (12) (21) and (35), 3504 and 3505.Safety requirements for foreign ships carrying passengersfrom any US port to any other place or country.● 46 USC 2101 (12), (21), (22) and (35), and Chapter 35.Inspection and certification requirements for all foreign●●●●●a. Flammable or combustibleb. Oil of any type or in any form, including petroleum, fueloil, sludge, oil refuse and oil mixed with wastes, exceptdredged spoilc. Designated as a hazardous substance under Section311(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA)(33 USC 1321); ord. Designated as hazardous materials under Section 104of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA)(49 USC 1803)46 USC 2101 (21) and 3304. Permission for US shipstransporting cargo to carry a limited number of individualswithout being considered a “passenger ship” for mostinspection purposes, and extension of this privilege to cargoships of those nations that accord reciprocal treatment.46 USC 2101 (33) and 3301 (7). Directs that safetyrequirements of 46 USC Chapter 33 are applicable toseagoing motor ships of 300 or more gross tons.46 USC 2101 (35) and 3301 (8). Safety requirements forforeign small passenger ships carrying more than sixpassengers from a US port.50 USC 191. Requirements for security of ships, harboursand waterfront facilities, and provision for control of themovement of foreign ships in US waters by the localOCMI/COTP.33 USC 1221-1232. Statutes for advance notice of arrivaland navigation safety regulations.passenger ships which embark passengers at and carrythem from a US port. (These statutes are also relevant forships having valid SOLAS 74/78 Certificates or CanadianCertificates of Inspection, that must be examined to verifycompliance with the flag administration’s safety verificationrequirements.)APPLICABLE REGULATIONSMost US regulations applicable to US and foreign ships maybe found in Titles 33, 46 and 49 Code of Federal Regulations.APPLICABLE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS● International Convention on Load Lines 1966, as amended,and its 1988 Protocol, (LOADLINES 66/88).● 46 USC 2101 (12) and (39), 3301 (10) and Chapter 37.Safety requirements that apply, with certain stipulations, toall foreign ships regardless of tonnage, size, or manner ofpropulsion, whether or not carrying freight or passengersfor hire, that enter US navigable waters while carrying liquidbulk cargoes that are:●●International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea(SOLAS), 1974, its Protocol of 1978, as amended, and theProtocol of 1988, (SOLAS 74/78/88).International Convention for the Prevention of Pollutionfrom Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978, asamended (MARPOL 73/78).29

PORT STATE CONTROL AND THE USA●●International Convention on Standards of Training,Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers 1978, asamended (STCW 78).Convention on the International Regulations for PreventingCollisions at Sea 1972, as amended (COLREG 72).Booklets covering hull or machinery qualifications. In addition,marine inspectors and/or boarding officers must havecompleted the appropriate Marine Safety Training &Qualification Booklets for the type of ship being examined.Boarding teams conducting Priority I boardings, annualfreight, tanker and passenger ship examinations, biennial● Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976(ILO Convention 147).Certificate of Compliance examinations and quarterlypassenger ship re-examinations must include a marine●International Convention Relating to Intervention on theHigh Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1975 and theProtocol relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Casesof Marine Pollution by Substances other than Oil, 1983.inspector. At a minimum, such boarding teams should consistof at least two Coast Guard members, at least one of whommust be a qualified Port Safety Boarding Officer (E1), or aqualified Assistant Marine Inspector (FA or FB).When conducting at-sea boardings in cooperation with AreaPORT STATE CONTROL EXAMINATIONSForeign ship examinations may be initiated by the USCG,requested by another flag state administration on the basis ofinformation regarding a potential substandard ship, or basedon information regarding a substandard ship provided by amember or members of a ship’s crew, a professional body, anor Group commands outside of the Marine Safety Programme,boarding teams will be provided by the Marine Safety Office, orjointly by the Captain of the Port and Marine Inspection Office.However, operational commanders have the discretion to makeup the boarding teams to meet operational situations,including the use of law enforcement qualified personnel, asnecessary, to ensure the safety of the boarding team.association, a trade union or any other involved individual. TheUSCG, on their website, go on to explain:“Port State Control examinations are not intended to beanalogous to an inspection for certification of a US flaggedvessel. Rather, they are intended to be of sufficient breadth anddepth to satisfy a boarding team that a ship’s major systemsare in compliance with applicable international standards anddomestic requirements, and that the crew possesses sufficientproficiency to safely operate the vessel.”The initial examination is designed to verify whether therequired certificates are aboard and valid, and whether theship conforms to the conditions required for issuing therequired certificates. This is accomplished by a walk throughexamination and visual assessment of a ship’s relevantcomponents, certificates and documents, and may beaccompanied by limited testing of systems and the crew. If thisexamination reveals questionable equipment, systems, or crewincompetence, the boarding team may conduct furtheroperational tests and examinations.SELECTING A SHIP FOR INSPECTION – THEBOARDING PRIORITY MATRIXUntil 1994, the USCG’s ship boarding programme was largely adhoc, but they now have developed a Boarding Priority Matrix aspart of their effort to systematically determine the probable riskposed by non-US ships calling at US ports. This Matrix is used todecide which ships Port State Control inspectors should boardon any given day, in any given port. Ships are assessed in eachcategory and then summed for a total point score. Thisnumerical score, along with other performance based factors,determines a ship’s boarding priority from Priority I through IV.In developing this points system, the US Coast Guard hasidentified five features which directly influence a ship’soperational condition and compliance with international safetyand environmental protection standards. These are,1. Flag states2. Classification societies3. Owner and Operators List4. Ship Type, andBOARDING TEAMS5. HistoryBoarding teams usually consist of a marine inspector and oneor more boarding officers. As a minimum, a marine inspectorThe first three are particularly significant and are dealt with asexplained below:must have completed the Marine Safety Training & Qualification30

FLAG STATESOWNER/OPERATOR LIST●The flag list is composed of those flag states whose●The US Coast Guard Headquarters Ship Compliance Divisiondetention ratios exceed the average detention ratios for all(G-MOC-21) compiles a list of owners and operatorsflag states whose ships call at US ports.associated with ships that have had more than one ship●A flag state’s detention ratio is ascertained by dividing thenumber of its ships which have been detained in the lastthree years by the total number of its ships which havecalled at US ports within the same period. For example, ifa flag has had three of its ships detained during the lastthree years, and a total of 60 of its ships have had US portdetained by the Coast Guard under the authority of aninternational Convention within the last twelve month period.Any ship making a US port call that is owned or operatedby a person or entity that has had that ship, or a differentship, subject to more than one intervention action withinthe last twelve months is accorded high priority status.calls in the same period, the detention ratio would be: 3/60●The owners’ list is updated monthly and is published onx 100% = 5%. The average detention ratio is ascertainedthe USCG website and sent to all Coast Guard Marineby dividing the total number of detentions by the totalSafety Offices.number of arrivals for all flag states.●The flag list is updated annually on 1 April and remains ineffect for twelve months and is sent to all Coast GuardMarine Safety Offices. The 1997 flag list is set out at page37. A flag state may be removed from the list when itsdetention average drops below the overall average flagstate detention average or when it is associated with lessBOARDING PRIORITY MATRIX – PRIORITIES I-IVAND EFFECTS THEREOFThe points are added up for a total point score and the ship’sBoarding priority determined as follows:PRIORITY I SHIPS:than two detentions within a twelve month period.●17 or more points on the Matrix, orCLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES●ships involved in a marine casualty, or●Beginning in 1998 this consists of a two-tier processwhereby any classification societies with less than tenarrivals in the previous year are eliminated from the process.●USCG Captain of the Port determines a ship to be apotential hazard to the port or the environment, or●Then, classification societies with more than ten distinctarrivals in the previous year are evaluated on theirPOINT SCORE SUMMARYOWNER LISTED OWNER5ptsperformance over the previous two years. Theirperformance is based on their detention ratio (number ofFLAGLISTED FLAG STATE7ptsdetentions divided by number of distinct arrivals). This ratiois then compared to the average detention ratio (totalnumber of detentions divided by the total number ofdistinct arrivals). Classification societies are then assignedpoints according to where their detention ratios fall inrelation to the average detention ratio.Below the Average Detention Ratio = 0 pointsBetween the average and 2 times the average = 1 pointBetween 2 times and 3 times the average = 3 pointsBetween 3 times and 4 times the average = 5 pointsMore than 4 times the average = Priority 1This list is sent to all Coast Guard Marine Safety offices andthe 1997 Priority I classification list is set out at page 37.CLASSHISTORYSHIP TYPEPRIORITY I (10 arrivals with detention ratio more than 4 times the averageOR

PORT STATE CONTROL AND THE USA●●Ships whose classification society has ten or more arrivalsthe previous year and a detention ratio more than fourtimes the average, orShips whose classification society has less than ten arrivalsthe previous year and have been associated with at leastSHIP INSPECTION PRINCIPLESIn addition to the Boarding Priority Matrix the USCG has alsopublished the 12 “principles” employed as guidance for itsship inspections. These are:one detention.Port entry may be restricted until ship is examined by theCoast Guard. Priority I ships are targeted for examinationprior to entry into US ports. Where feasible, these shipsare boarded prior to port entry to ensure deficiencies arecorrected. Otherwise, they are boarded upon entry and priorto commencement of cargo transfer operations or passengerembarkation.PRIORITY II SHIPS:● 7 to 16 points on the Matrix, or●●●●Detentions are conducted only when a ship is unfit toproceed to sea or poses a threat to the marine environment.Voyage damage will not be associated with a classificationsociety non-conformity unless other class-relateddeficiencies are noted during the course of the survey.Class non-conformities will only be associated withequipment covered by a survey, conducted by class, or inwhich class issued the certificate on behalf of the flag state.When multiple deficiencies are noted, only thosedeficiencies serious enough to justify detention will be●outstanding requirements from a previous boarding in thisevaluated to determine class non-conformities.or another US port, or the ship is overdue for an annualtank or passenger exam.Cargo operations may be restricted until ship is examined bythe Coast Guard. Priority II ships are targeted for boardingprior to commencement of cargo transfer operations orpassenger embarkation. An exemption to the requirementfor boarding prior to commencement of cargo transferoperations or passenger embarkation may be granted ifthere are clear indications that the ship is in substantialcompliance with applicable standards.PRIORITY III SHIPS:● 4 to 6 points on the Matrix, or●●●Outdated equipment, when the cause of an intervention,will not be associated with a class non-conformity unlessthe equipment was outdated at the time of the last surveyconducted by the class society on behalf of the flag state.The absence of easily stolen equipment, such as fire hosenozzles are extinguishers, will generally not be listed as aclass society non-conformity unless a large number aremissing and the inspection takes place within 90 days ofthe last survey by the class society for the flag state.Expired certificates will not be associated with a class nonconformityunless the certificates were not endorsed orwere improperly issued by the class society when it●alleged deficiencies reported, orconducted the last survey for the flag state.●the ship is overdue for an annual freight examination.●Interventions based on manning issues will not be listed asPriority III ships may be targeted for boarding after entryinto port, but no operational restrictions are imposed.PRIORITY IV SHIPS:● 3 or fewer points on the Matrix.Priority IV ships are not targeted for boarding, but maybe boarded and examined by the US Coast Guard at thediscretion of the local Captain of the Port or the Officer inCharge, Marine Inspection.●●class non-conformities.A time limit of 90 days will generally be placed onassociating non-conformities with equipment failures, suchas non-operational fire pumps and emergency generators,unless it is apparent that the deficiency is long standing.Failure of human-factor-related testing – such as fire drillsand abandon ship drills – will be associated with aclassification society non-conformity only when the classsociety issued the relevant certificate on behalf of the flagState within 30 days of inspection.32

●Serious wastage or other structural deficiencies not causedby voyage damage will be listed as a class society nonconformity.11. International Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage ofDangerous Chemicals in Bulk12. Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of DangerousNote: The class society will be notified in writing in all cases ofsociety non-conformities.TYPE OF PORT STATE CONTROL EXAMINATIONSUSCG Port State Control examinations consist of annualexaminations, and then re-examinations or deficiency follow-upexaminations. These examinations may be broadened in scopeor depth if clear grounds exist that lead a boarding team tobelieve that the condition of the ship or its equipment doesnot correspond with the certificates or the ship does notcomply with applicable laws or conventions.ANNUAL EXAMINATIONSAn annual examination consists of the specific proceduresChemicals in Bulk13. International Oil Pollution Prevention CertificateInternational Pollution Prevention Certificate for theCarriage of Noxious Liquid Substances in bulk14. International Load Line Certificate (1966)15. International Load Line Exemption Certificate16. Oil Record Book part 1 and II17. Cargo Record Book18. Minimum Safe Manning Document19. Crew Licenses or Certificate of Competency, MedicalCertificates, of ILO Convention No. 73 concerning MedicalExamination of Seafarers21. Stability informationAreas/Items/Operationsoutlined in the freight, tank, or passenger ship examinationchapters of the Marine Safety Manual. It includes anexamination of the ship’s certificates, licences and documentsfollowed by a general examination, i.e. “walk through” of theship to develop an impression of shell maintenance and thegeneral state of the deck and side shell of the ship todetermine its seaworthiness. It will also include examinationand testing of specific equipment as well as the conduct ofoperational testing and emergency drills to ensure the crew’sproficiency at carrying out critical tasks. As a minimum, thefollowing items are part of each annual examination and aretaken from the MSM Volume 1, Chapter 19, which sets out therequirements listed below in greater detail:Certificates, Licences and Documents1. International Tonnage Certificate (1969)2. Passenger Ship Safety Certificate3. Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate4. Cargo Ship Safety Equipment Certificate5. Cargo Ship Safety Radiotelegraphy Certificate6. Cargo Ship Safety Radiotelephony Certificate7. Cargo Ship Safety Radio Certificate8. Exemption Certificates9. International Certificate of Fitness for Carriage of LiquIfied1. Deck Portion2. Hull Portion3. Ballast Tank Entry4. Load Lines5. Seaworthiness6. Voyage Damage7. Machinery Spaces8. Operation9. Maintenance10. Tests and Trials11. Oil and Oil, Mixtures12. Sufficient Power13. Lifesaving Equipment14. Fire Safety Equipment15. Fire Doors16. Ventilation Systems17. Escape Routes18. Navigation Safety19. Cargo Ship SafetyConstruction Items20. Cargo Ship Safety RadioOperationRE-EXAMINATIONS21. Equipment in Excess ofConvention or Flag stateRequirements22. Garbage23. Manuals and Instructions24. Items to be Examinedor Tested25. Operational Tests26. Muster List27. Communication28. Fire and Abandon ShipDrills29. Damage Control Plan30. Bridge Operation31. Cargo Operation32. Loading, Unloading, andCleaning Procedures forCargo Spaces of Tankers33. Dangerous Goods andHarmful Substances inPackaged FormGases in Bulk10. Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Liquified Gasesin BulkA re-examination is an examination to ensure that a shipremains in compliance with appropriate US laws orinternational conventions between annual examinations. As33

PORT STATE CONTROL AND THE USAwith the annual examination, it usually consists of anSOLASexamination of the ship’s certificates, licences and documents,and a general examination conducted by walking through theship. Except aboard passenger ships, a re-examination will notnormally include operational testing or drills, but in the case offoreign passenger ship re-examinations, the re-examination willinclude the witnessing of fire and abandon ship drills to ensurethat the ship’s crew can adequately ensure the safety of thepassengers in an emergency.EXPANDED EXAMINATIONSAn expanded examination is a more detailed examination ortesting conducted when an annual examination, reexamination,or deficiency follow-up establishes “cleargrounds” for believing that the condition of a ship, itsequipment, or crew are not in compliance with applicable USlaws or international conventions. Expanded examinationsfocus on those areas where “clear grounds” have beenestablished and should not include other areas or systemsunless the general impressions or observations of the boardingteam support such examination.DEFICIENCY FOLLOW-UPA deficiency follow-up is an examination to ensure that previouslyidentified deficiencies have been corrected. A follow-upexamination should be limited in scope to an examination ofthe specific items identified as deficiencies during a previousboarding. If more than 30 days have passed since deficiencieswere detected, or evidence of additional deficiencies is observedduring the boarding, a re-examination will be conducted.●●●●●●●●●Failure of proper operation of propulsion and otheressential machinery as well as electrical installationsInsufficient cleanliness of engine room; excess amount ofoil-water mixture in the bilges; insulation of piping includingexhaust pipes in engine room contaminated by oil; andimproper operation of bilge pumping arrangements.Failure of the proper operation of emergency generator,lighting, batteries and switches.Failure of the proper operation of the main and auxiliarysteering gear.Absence, insufficient capacity, or serious deterioration ofpersonal lifesaving appliances, survival craft and launchingarrangements.Absence, noncompliance, or substantial deterioration to theextent that it can not comply with its intended use of firedetection system, fire alarms, fire fighting equipment, fixedfire extinguishing installation, ventilation valves, firedampers and quick-closing devices.Absence, substantial deterioration, or failure of properoperation of the cargo deck area fire protection on tankers.Absence, noncompliance, or serious deterioration of lights,shapes, or sound signals.Absence, or failure of the proper operation, of the radioequipment for distress and safety communication.“CLEAR GROUNDS” FOR ANEXPANDED EXAMINATIONTo assist the boarding team, a list of deficiencies that establish“clear grounds” to expand an examination has been developed.The following deficiencies, grouped under the relevantconventions and/or codes, are considered of such a seriousnature that they may warrant the detention of the shipinvolved. This list is not exhaustive.GENERALAbsent or invalid certificates required under applicableconventions.●●●●Absence, or failure of the proper operation of navigationequipment, taking the relevant provisions of SOLASChapter V/12(0) into account.Absence of navigation charts and/or all other relevantnautical publications necessary for the intended voyage,taking into account that electronic charts may be used as asubstitute for the charts.Absence of non-sparking exhaust ventilation for cargopump rooms (59.3.1).Serious noncompliance with procedures stipulated underthe Certified Safety Management System on ships requiredto comply with SOLAS Chapter IX.34

AREAS UNDER THE IBC CODEmaintained at all stages and at varying conditions of the●Transport of a substance not mentioned in the Certificate ofvoyage, and that the creation of any unacceptable stressesFitness of missing cargo information.in the ship’s structure is avoided.●Missing or damaged high pressure safety devices.●Absence, substantial deterioration, or defective closing●Electrical installations not intrinsically safe or notcorresponding to the code requirements.devices, hatch closing arrangements and watertight/weathertight doors.●Sources of ignition in hazardous locations.●Overloading.●Contravention of special requirements.●Absent or improper draft and/or Load Line Marks.●Exceeding of maximum allowable cargo quantity per tank.AREAS UNDER MARPOL ANNEX I● Absence, serious deterioration, or failure of properAREAS UNDER THE IGC CODEoperation of the oily-water filtering equipment, the oil●Transport of a substance not mentioned in the Certificate ofdischarge monitoring and control system, or the 15 ppmFitness or missing cargo information.alarm arrangements.●Missing closing devices for accommodations or service●Remaining capacity of slop and/or sludge tank insufficientspaces.for the intended voyage.●Bulkhead not gastight.●Oil record book not available.●Defective air locks.●Unauthorised discharge bypass fitted.●Missing or defective quick closing valves.AREAS UNDER MARPOL ANNEX II●Electrical installations not intrinsically safe or not●Absence of Procedures and Arrangements Manual.corresponding to the code requirements.●Cargo not categorised.●Ventilators in cargo area not operable.●No cargo record book available.●Pressure alarms for cargo tanks not operable.●Transport of oil-like substances without satisfying the●Gas detection plant and/or toxic gas detection plantdefective.requirements or without an appropriately amendedcertificate.●Transport of substances to be inhibited without valid●Unauthorised discharge bypass fitted.inhibitor certificate.AREAS UNDER STCWAREAS UNDER ICLL● Significant areas of damage or corrosion, or pitting of●Number, composition, or certification of crew notcorresponding with Safe Manning Document.plating and associated stiffening, in decks and hull affectingAREAS UNDER ILO 147seaworthiness or strength to take local loads. However, this●Insufficient food for voyage to next port.is waived if authorised temporary repairs for a voyage to aport for permanent repairs have been carried out.●Insufficient potable water for voyage to next port.●A recognised case of insufficient stability.●Excessively unsanitary conditions on board.●The absence of sufficient and reliable information in anapproved form, which by rapid and simple means, enables●No heating in accommodation of a ship operating in areaswhere temperatures may be excessively low.the master to arrange for the loading and ballasting of theship in such a way that a safe margin of stability isFor further details on the above points, consult MSM Volume 1,Chapter 19 at the USCG web site.35

PORT STATE CONTROL AND THE USADEFINITIONS AND TERMS OF REFERENCEAPPLICABLE TO THE US COAST GUARD PORTSTATE CONTROL PROGRAMMEThe following definitions are some of those employed by theUSCG in the implementation of its Port State ControlProgramme and are taken from the MSM Volume I, chapter 19.the crew or other persons responsible for a ship. Control maytake several forms including requiring corrective action prior toreturning to the US, requiring a ship to proceed elsewhere forrepairs, denying entry into port, or detaining a ship in port.Deficiency. A condition found not to be in compliance with theconditions of the relevant convention, law and regulation.Clear Grounds. Evidence that the ship, its equipment, or itscrew do not correspond substantially to the requirements ofthe relevant conventions or that the master or crew membersare not familiar with essential shipboard procedures relating tothe safety of ships or the prevention of pollution.Contravention. An act, procedure, or occurrence that is not inaccordance with a convention or other mandatory instrument,or its operational annex.Control. The process of imposing a port state’s or flag state’sauthority over a ship to ensure that its structure, equipment,operation and crew meet applicable standards. The process iseffected by any verbal or written directives of the Officer inCharge Marine Inspection (OCMI) or Captain of the Port (COTP)or their representatives which requires action or compliance byPERFORMANCE COMPARISONDetention. A control action which restricts a ship’s right of freemovement. The imposition of a restriction on the movement ofa ship constitutes a detention regardless of whether or not adelay from a ship’s normal or expected itinerary occurs.Detentions may be carried out under the authority of SOLAS1974 as amended, Regulation 19, ICLL Article 21; MARPOLArticle 5; STCW Article X and Regulation 1/4; ILO 147 Article4; the Ports and Waterways Safety Act; or a US Customs hold.Examination. The process of assessing a ship’s compliancewith the relevant provisions of applicable internationalconventions, domestic laws and regulations. The scope of anexamination shall be to the extent necessary to verify thevalidity of the relevant certificates and other documents, andto ensure no unsafe conditions exist. An examination mayinclude, but is not limited to, checks of documents, certificates,manuals, the ship’s structural integrity, machinery, navigation,pollution prevention, engineering and safety systems,CLASSIFICATION SOCIETYDETENTION RATIO1995DETENTIONRATIO %1996DETENTIONRATIO %AVERAGE %maintenance programmes and crew proficiency.Intervention. A control action taken by a port state in orderDET NORSKE VERITAS 0.53 1.34 0.94AMERICAN BUREAU OF SHIPPING 1.81 0.52 1.19LLOYD’S REGISTER OF SHIPPING 1.48 1.35 1.42NIPPON KAIJI KYOKAI 1.77 1.30 1.53REGISTRO ITALIANO NAVALE 2.87 1.37 2.11KOREAN REGISTER OF SHIPPING 2.23 2.72 2.48BUREAU VERITAS 2.91 2.08 2.50GERMANISCHER LLOYD 3.44 1.97 2.70BULGARSKI KORABEN REGISTER 0.00 7.14 3.70POLSKI REJESTR STATKOW 5.12 4.71 4.91CHINA CLASSIFICATION SOCIETY 3.75 7.32 5.56CHINA CORPORATION REGISTER OF SHIPPING 7.14 7.41 7.27CROATIAN REGISTER OF SHIPPING 9.52 5.88 7.89MARITIME REGISTER OF SHIPPING 7.09 9.65 8.33HELLENIC REGISTER OF SHIPPING 28.57 26.67 27.59ROMANIAN REGISTER OF SHIPPING 31.81 54.55 39.39Source: USGC Web site (July 1997)to bring a foreign flag ship into compliance with applicableinternational convention standards. Interventions areundertaken by a port state when a ship’s flag state has not,can not, or will not exercise its obligations under aninternational convention to which it is a party. This may includerequesting appropriate information, requiring the immediate orfuture rectification of deficiencies, detaining the ship, orallowing the ship to proceed to another port for repairs.Nonconforming Ship. Any ship failing to comply with one ormore applicable requirements of US law or internationalconventions is a nonconforming ship. A nonconforming ship isnot necessarily a substandard ship unless the discrepanciesendanger the ship, persons on board, or present anunreasonable risk to the marine environment.Substandard Ship. In general, a ship is regarded as substandardif the hull, machinery, or equipment, such as lifesaving, firefighting36

and pollution prevention, are substantially below the standardsrequired by US laws or international conventions, owing to:a. The absence of required principal equipment orarrangement;b. Gross noncompliance of equipment or arrangement withrequired specifications;c. Substantial deterioration of the ship structure or itsessential equipment;d. Noncompliance with applicable operational and/or manningstandards; ore. Clear lack of appropriate certification, or demonstratedlack of competence on the part of the crew.If these evident factors as a whole or individually endanger theship, persons on board, or present an unreasonable risk to themarine environment, the ship should be regarded as asubstandard ship.Valid Certificates. A certificate that has been issued directlyby a contracting government or party to a convention, or onthe behalf of the government or party by a recognisedorganisation, and contains accurate and effective dates, meetsthe provisions of the relevant convention, and corresponds tothe particulars of the ship and its equipment.INTERVENTIONS AND DETENTIONInterventions of the USCG may involveTARGET CLASSIFICATION SOCIETY LIST FOR 1997There were 16 classification societies with at least ten distinct arrivals in 1996. The average detentionratio over the period 1995-1996 is 2.12%. Ships classed by the following classification societies havebeen assigned Priority I status:CTM Inspection and Classification Co. S de RLHellenic Register of ShippingHonduras Bureau of ShippingHonduras International Naval Surveying and Inspection BureauInternational Naval Surveys BureauInternational Register of ShippingMERTMonserrat Shipping S de RLPanama Bureau of ShippingPanama Maritime Documentation ServicePanama Register CorporationPanama Shipping RegisterRomanian Naval RegisterRomanian Register of ShippingSource: USCG Web site (July 1997)APPEALS PROCEDUREA detention decision may be appealed under the provisions ofTitle 46, Code of Federal regulations (CFR), Park 1.03-20 ofTitle 33, CFR, Part 160.7. The appeal must be in writing within30 days after the decision is made or action is taken, andshould give reasons as to why the decision or action should be●●●allowing the ship to sail with the deficiency uncorrected(e.g., a warning),corrective action prior to returning to a US portallowing the ship to proceed to a specific port for repairsset aside or revised. It should be addressed to the CoastGuard officer in command where the decision was made oraction was taken, generally the Officer in Charge, MarineInspection (OCMI), Captain of the Port (COTP), or CommandingOfficer, Marine Safety Office (CO, MSO).If the initial appeal is unsuccessful, a formal appeal may be● denying port entry● detaining the ship in port until deficiencies are corrected.Detention is the severest form of intervention and it is to benoted that detention (regardless of duration or effect on theship’s schedule) will adversely affect the points assigned to theship under Boarding Priority Matrix (see later comments). Aspoints accumulate, the likelihood of future boarding rises. Asthe likelihood of future boarding rises, so to does the possibilityof still more deficiencies being discovered, thereby creating adownward spiral.made to the District Commander. A further formal appeal maybe made to Coast Guard Headquarters.Note: While a request for reconsideration or a formal appealis pending, the original decision or action remains in effect,unless specifically stayed the District Commander orHeadquarters.DETENTIONS – DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATIONIf a USCG inspector takes an intervention action against a ship,the flag state must be notified of all the circumstances, aswell as to the classification society and the International37

PORT STATE CONTROL AND THE USATARGETED FLAG STATES 199766.10%46.03%35.71%40.00%27.27%29.93%AverageDetention5.63%14.63%5.68% 7.16% 8.89%8.16%5.68%14.29%11.11%10.53% 10.09%10.73%15.67%10.42%AlgeriaAntigua& BarbudaBelizeChinaCyprusEcuadorEgyptHondurasIndiaKuwaitLithuaniaLatviaMoroccoMalta*RomaniaRussiaTurkeyUkraineSt VincentSource: USGC Web Site (July 1997) * Added to target list in 1997Maritime Organisation (IMO). If the ship is allowed to departwithout all identified deficiencies being corrected, the USCGmust also notify the authorities of the next port of call of theuncorrected deficiencies.The Ship Compliance Division produces a List of ShipsTARGET FLAG STATE LIST FOR 1997The above flag states had a detention ratio that was abovethe overall average of 5.42% and had more than onedetention in 1996.Detained. Under the authority of Titles 14, 33, and 46, UnitedStates Code.This List of Ships Detained includes the ship name, IMOnumber, date of detention, ship type, port, flag, classificationsociety and deficiency summary. The list is subject to changewithout notice based on appeals made by the owner, operator,and/or classification society.GENERAL PUBLICITY AND INFORMATIONThere is a lot of helpful information as to the criteria employedby the USCG published by the United States Coast Guard andavailable on the internet at:http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/psc/psc.htmThe US Coast Guard Headquarters’ Port State Control Branchmay be reached at the following address:Commandant (G-MOC-2)US Coast Guard2100 Second Street S.WWashington DC 20593-000138

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND BIBLIOGRAPHYOur grateful thanks are extended to the following organisationswho provided us with detail and commentary, including areview of the completed text.Secretariat, Paris Memorandum of Understanding, WilemWilzenplein 6, PO Box 2094. The Hague, The Netherlands.Secretariat, Asia-Pacific Memorandum of Understanding,Tokyo MOU Secretariat, Tomoecho 6th Floor, Annex Bldg 3-8-26 Toranomon, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan 105.Secretariat del Acuerdo de Viña del Mar, Prefectura NavalArgentina, AV.E Madero 235, P Baja, Buenos Aires, Argentina.12. Accident and Loss Prevention at Sea, the Nautical Institute.International Conference and Workshops, November 1993.13. Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas. Report of Lord Donaldson’sInquiry into the Prevention of Pollution from MerchantShipping 1994.14. Lord Donaldson’s Assessment (Derbyshire). A report bythe Right Honourable Lord Donaldson of Lymington to theSecretary of State for Transport to assess what furtherwork should be undertaken to identify the cause of thesinking of the MV Derbyshire, London HMSO 1995.US Coast Guard, US Coast Guard Headquarters, US PortState Control Program, Washington D.C.15. Port State Control – CDI inspections in chemical tankertrade, Mike Corkill, Lloyd’s List, 1997.The author wishes to acknowledge the help of Thomas Miller’sBusiness Intelligence Centre in researching this manual.Principal books and articles referred to are as follows:16. Port State Control: Study by Ship Inspectors, RichardPilley, UK Club.17. Port State Control – Legal Issues – Clifford Chance.1. Paris Memorandum of Understanding and related annexes.2. EC Directive 95/21/EC June 1995, official journal of theEuropean Communities.3. Paris MOU, Annual Report and Accounts 1996/7.4. Asia-Pacific Memorandum of Understanding (Tokyo MOU)and related annexes.5. Annual Report on Port State Control in the Asia-PacificRegion, 1996 Tokyo MOU Secretariat.6. Latin American Agreement on Port State Control of Vessels,(Viña Del Mar Agreement) 1992, as amended, and annexes.7. Acuerdo Latino Americano sobre Control de Burges purel Estato Rector del Puerto, 1996 and 1997 statistics aspublished by Secretaria del Acuerdo Centro delInformacion – ciala.8. United States’ Coast Guard – web site – various, but inparticular Marine Safety Manual, Volume 1, chapters 19-23.9. Haight Gardner Holland & Knight, Port State Control aspractised by the US Coast Guard.10. Port State Control, Mr Koskorides 1982.11. Guidance Manual for the Assessment of Tanker Structures.18. Port State Control – ISF Report on ILO conventionsNovember 1996.19. Present Position and Theme of PSC, Mr M Okada, TokyoMOU Secretariat.20. Brussels to Drive Out Unsafe Ships, Julian Bray, Oslo,Lloyd’s List, June 1997.21. Getting Shipshape – Changes to the International Regime –Derek Hodgson – Clyde & Co.22. Flag, Coastal and Port State Control – Closing the net onunseaworthy ships and their unscrupulous owners, JohnShore, Sea Changes 1994.23. Implementation: the MOU intentions as regards ISMInspections, Stephen Chapman, Baltic Magazine 1997.24. Implementation – State approach varies from port to port –Tradewinds 1997.25. Port State Control: Who is guarding the guards? –Lloyd’s List September 1997.26. Ships of Shame: Enquiry into ship safety. Report fromthe House of Representatives Standing Committee onTransport, Communications and Infrastructure –Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia 1992.Institute Chamber Shipping/Oil Companies InternationalMaritime Forum.39

THE UNITED KINGDOM MUTUAL STEAM SHIP ASSURANCE ASSOCIATION (BERMUDA) LIMITEDManagersThomas Miller (Americas) Inc.Hong KongThos. R. Miller & Son (Bermuda)Windsor Place, 18 Queen StreetPO Box HM665Hamilton HMCXBermudaTelephone: +1 441 292 4724Fax: +1 441 292 3694Thomas Miller (New Jersey)15 Exchange PlaceSuite 1020Jersey CityNJ 07302-3912Telephone: +1 201 557 7300Fax: +1 201 946 0167Transport Services Asia Limited16/F, Centre Point181-185 Gloucester RoadWanchaiHong KongTelephone: +852 2832 9301Fax: +852 2574 5062Managers’ AgentsThomas Miller P&I Ltd.International House26 Creechurch LaneLondon EC3A 5BATelephone: +44 171 283 4646Fax: +44 171 283 5614Thomas Miller (Miami) Inc.7205 North West19th StreetSuite 300Miami, Florida33126-1223Telephone: +1 305 715 9820Fax: +1 305 715 9097GreeceThomas Miller (Hellas) LimitedPO Box 800715th Floor, 117 Notara Str.Piraeus 18535Telephone: +30 1 4287420Fax: +30 1 4281122andThomas Miller P&I Ltd.3 Colima AvenueNorth Hylton, SunderlandTyne & Wear SR5 3XBTelephone: +44 191 516 0937Fax: +44 191 548 1851Thomas Miller (San Francisco) Inc.1 California StreetSuite 1910San Francisco, CA94111-5401Telephone: +1 415 956 6537Fax: +1 415 956 0685AustraliaTransport Mutual Services Pty Ltd.Suite 304, 37-49 Pitt StreetSydney NSW 2000Postal Address: PO Box R199Royal Exchange, Sydney NSW 2000Telephone: +61 2 92520911Fax: +61 2 92520922