How do participating countries coordinate port state control and inspection

Port State Control

Port State Control (PSC) is the inspection of foreign ships in national ports to verify that the condition of the ship and its equipment comply with the requirements of international regulations and that the ship is manned and operated in compliance with these rules.

Many of IMO’s most important technical conventions contain provisions for ships to be inspected when they visit foreign ports to ensure that they meet IMO requirements.

These inspections were originally intended to be a back up to flag State implementation, but experience has shown that they can be extremely effective. The Organization adopted resolution A.682(17) on Regional co-operation in the control of ships and discharges promoting the conclusion of regional agreements. A ship going to a port in one country will normally visit other countries in the region and it can, therefore, be more efficient if inspections can be closely coordinated in order to focus on substandard ships and to avoid multiple inspections.

IMO hosted six Workshops for PSC MoU/Agreement Secretaries and Database Managers. The Workshops were funded by the IMO Technical Cooperation Fund and aimed to provide support to regional port State control regimes by establishing a platform for cooperation and also providing a forum for the people involved to meet and exchange ideas and experiences. They also aimed to encourage harmonization and coordination of PSC activities and the development of practical recommendations which can be forwarded to IMO for further examination by the Organization’s relevant Committees and Sub-Committees.

The reports of the six past workshops are available on IMODOCS under «meeting documents/others/PSCWS».

Port State Control

Port State Control (PSC) is the inspection of foreign ships in national ports to verify that the condition of the ship and its equipment comply with the requirements of international regulations and that the ship is manned and operated in compliance with these instruments and ensure maritime safety and security and prevent pollution.

PSC inspections are intended to be a backup to flag State implementation, a “second line of defence” against substandard shipping, and experience has shown that they can be extremely effective. The Organization adopted resolution A.682(17) on Regional co-operation in the control of ships and discharges promoting the conclusion of regional agreements.

Many IMO conventions contain provisions for Governments to inspect foreign ships that visit their ports to ensure that they meet IMO standards contained in instruments to which the port State is a Party, taking into account the concept of no-more favourable treatment. If they do not, they can be delayed or detained until repairs are carried out and be subject to targeting.

For ships travelling to different countries in the same region, a regional coordinated inspection that focuses on substandard ships and avoids multiple inspections can be more efficient and cost effective to member States, as well as providing a level playing field to ports of the region. The harmonization of PSC inspections aims at ensuring that as many substandard ships as possible are inspected and at preventing ships from being subjected to multiple inspections. The primary responsibility for ensuring ships’ standards rests with the flag States.

When a PSC Officer (PSCO) inspects a foreign ship, any such inspection should be limited to verifying that there are on board valid certificates and other relevant documentation, unless there are «clear grounds» for believing that the condition of the ship or its equipment does not correspond substantially with the particulars of the certificates.

If the PSCO identifies clear grounds for believing that the condition of the ship or its equipment does not correspond substantially with the particulars of the certificates or that the master or crew is not familiar with essential shipboard procedures, a more detailed inspection should be carried out. When exercising control, all possible efforts should be made to avoid a ship being unduly detained or delayed.

For more details, please refer to the Procedures of Port State Control, 2019 (resolution A.1138(31)).

Legal Framework of Port State Control

Article 218 (1), Enforcement by port States, of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) states, “When a vessel is voluntarily within a port or at an off-shore terminal of a State, that State may undertake investigations and, where the evidence so warrants, institute proceedings in respect of any discharge from the vessel outside the internal waters, territorial sea or exclusive economic zone of that State in violation of applicable international rules and standards established through the competent international organization or general diplomatic conference.”. Article 219, Measures relating to seaworthiness of vessels to avoid pollution, stipulates that “States which, upon request or on their own initiative, have ascertained that a vessel within one of their ports or at one of their off-shore terminals is in violation of applicable international rules and standards relating to seaworthiness of vessels and thereby threatens damage to the marine environment shall, as far as practicable, take administrative measures to prevent the vessel from sailing. Such States may permit the vessel to proceed only to the nearest appropriate repair yard and, upon removal of the causes of the violation, shall permit the vessel to continue immediately”.

The requirements contained in IMO conventions comprise SOLAS 1974 regulations I/19, IX/6.2, XI-1/4 and XI-2/9, as modified by SOLAS PROT 1988; article 5 and 6, regulation 11 of Annex I, regulation 16.9 of Annex II, regulation 9 of Annex III, regulation 14 of Annex IV, regulation 9 of Annex V and regulation 10 of Annex VI of MARPOL; article X of STCW 1978; article 12 of TONNAGE 1969, article 11 of AFS 2001 and article 9 of BWM 2004, on control procedures be followed by a Party of a relevant convention with regard to foreign ships visiting their ports. Effective use of these provisions by the authorities of port States can identify deficiencies onboard foreign ships which may render them substandard and ensure that remedial actions are taken.

Port State Control Regimes

Currently, there are ten PSC regimes, comprising eight regional Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs), and one Agreement on port State control covering specific regions (i.e. Europe and the north Atlantic (Paris MoU); Asia and the Pacific (Tokyo MoU); Latin America (Acuerdo de Viña del Mar); Caribbean region (Caribbean MoU); West and Central Africa (Abuja MoU); Black Sea (Black Sea MoU); Mediterranean Sea (Mediterranean MoU); Indian Ocean (Indian Ocean MoU); and Persian Gulf (Riyadh MoU)) and the United States Coast Guard forming the tenth PSC regime. Some member countries belong to more than one PSC regime. All regional PSC regimes have acquired the observer status at IMO, as intergovernmental organizations (IGOs). Their representatives attend IMO meetings and, in particular, introduce vast amounts of information on their annual activities in the form of documents submitted to every session of the Sub-Committee on Implementation of IMO Instruments (III Sub-Committee, formerly the Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation (FSI)). The information provided can support the assessment of the fitness of and compliance with IMO standards, and the IMO rule-making process.

A typical organizational structure of a regional PSC regime has three components: the Port State Control Committee, the Secretariat, and the database or information system. Each regional PSC regime holds its Committee meeting annually with its member Authorities, co-operating member Authorities, and observer organizations. IMO is an observer organization to all regional PSC regimes. Several technical cooperation activities are implemented in cooperation with PSC regimes in the context of outreach partnership. In this context, IMO sponsored the participation of PSCOs from developing PSC regimes at training courses organized by the Tokyo, Paris and Indian Ocean MoUs, the most recent one being the Ninth General Training Course, organized by the Tokyo MoU in Japan, from 19 August to 13 September 2019.

The Organization signed electronic data exchange agreements with PSC regimes so that the regional information system can provide relevant inspection data to the Global Integrated Shipping Information System (GISIS) PSC module on behalf of the member countries.

IMO is also a member of the Editorial Board and an observer of the Supervisory Committee of the Equasis (Electronic Quality Shipping Information System) which compiles PSC data.

Sub-Committee on Implementation of IMO Instruments (III) and Measures to Harmonize PSC Activities and Procedures Worldwide

The III Sub-Committee usually establishes, as per its agenda, the Correspondence and Working Groups on Measures to Harmonized Port State Control (PSC) Activities and Procedures Worldwide.

The Groups are tasked to develop and update PSC procedures and guidelines with a view to harmonizing PSC activities globally. They also consider and discuss issues raised in the context of PSC activities, such as implementation of IMO instruments and amendments thereto, concentrated inspection campaigns, PSC data management and information exchange, statistics and analysis of PSC activities and data and PSCO training activities. For more details about progress of the Groups, please refer to relevant documents under the III Sub-Committee on IMO IMODOCS website.

Procedures of Port State Control

The Organization has always recognized that efforts by port States have greatly contributed to enhance maritime safety and security, and prevention of marine pollution. The Organization adopted resolution A.1138(31) on Procedures for Port State Control, 2019, following successive revocation of resolutions A.1052(27), A.882(21), A.787(19), A.742(18), A.597(15) and A.466(XII), to provide basic guidance on the conduct of PSC inspections in support of the control provisions contained in relevant conventions and in the IMO Instruments Implementation Code (III Code) (resolution A.1070(28)). Procedures for PSC afford consistency in the conduct of these inspections, the identification of deficiencies of a ship, its equipment, or its crew, and the application of PSC procedures.

Following the continuous updating of the Procedures for PSC carried out by the Correspondence and Working Groups on Measures to Harmonized Port State Control (PSC) Activities and Procedures Worldwide, an Assembly resolution containing an updated version of the Procedures for PSC is adopted every two years.

IMO Workshop for PSC MoU/Agreement Secretaries and Database Managers (PSCWS)

In order to further harmonize PSC activities, the Organization convenes, usually every two years, workshops for PSC MoU/Agreement Secretaries and Database Managers (PSC Workshops), in the form of open meetings. The seventh PSC Workshop was held from 24 to 26 October 2017 at IMO Headquarters. Workshops have been funded by under IMO Technical Cooperation Programme and, more recently by the Voyage Together Trust Fund and aiming at providing support to developing regional PSC regimes and establishing a platform for cooperation and sharing experience. PSCWS successfully encourage harmonization and coordination of PSC activities and development practical recommendations which have triggered further examination by the Organization’s relevant Committees and Sub-Committees. The reports of the seven workshops are available on IMODOCS under «meeting documents/others/PSCWS».

Reporting

Parties to a relevant convention, when they have exercised control giving rise to detention, should submit to the Organization reports in accordance with SOLAS 1974 regulation I/19, article 11 of MARPOL, or article X(3) of STCW 1978. On receiving a report on detention, the flag State should, as soon as possible, report the Organization of remedial action taken in respect of the detention

The fulfilment of reporting requirements on PSC-related matters should be carried out electronically by PSC regimes, on behalf of the member countries and flag States through the GISIS module on PSC.

In the context of reporting on alleged deficiencies relating to the provisions of MARPOL, under the provisions of MARPOL article 6, summary reports and analysis of mandatory reports under MARPOL, including information collected under part 4 of MEPC.1/Circ.318 on the total number of ships boarded in 2018 by PSC, are circulated regularly (MEPC.1/Circ.888/Rev.12).

IMO’s response to COVID-19 Pandemic

In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Secretary-General convened two video meetings with all PSC regimes, held on 8 April 2020 and 17 June 2020, respectively. The first video meeting reviewed emergency response and measures taken by the Organization and recommended taking a “pragmatic, practical and flexible” approach to tackle these challenging times. A joint statement was issued in annex 1 of Circular Letter No.4204/Add.8. The second video meeting, in cooperation with the International Labour Organization and the International Association of Classification Societies, centred on the new IMO Guidance on surveys and renewals of certificates in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. A press release was issued to reflect the outcome of the second video meeting with the PSC regimes.

How do participating countries coordinate port state control and inspection

Purpose

A ship going to a port in one country will normally visit other countries in the region and it can, therefore, be more efficient if inspections can be closely coordinated in order to focus on substandard ships and to avoid multiple inspections.

This ensures that as many ships as possible are inspected but at the same time prevents ships being delayed by unnecessary inspections. The primary responsibility for ships’ standards rests with the flag State – but port State control provides a “safety net” to catch substandard ships.

Nine regional agreements on port State control Memoranda of Understanding or MoUs – have been signed:

Europe and the north Atlantic (Paris MoU);

Asia and the Pacific (Tokyo MoU);

Latin America (Acuerdo de Viña del Mar);

Caribbean (Caribbean MoU);

West and Central Africa (Abuja MoU);

Black Sea region (Black Sea MoU);

Mediterranean (Mediterranean MoU);

Indian Ocean (Indian Ocean MoU);

The United States Coast Guard maintain the tenth PSC regime.

AMSA INSPECTOR

Application

These Procedures apply to ships falling under the provisions of:

.1 the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended (SOLAS);

.2 the Protocol of 1988 relating to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS Protocol 1988);

.3 the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966 (Load Lines);

.4 the Protocol of 1988 relating to the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966 (Load Lines Protocol 1988);

.5 the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocols of 1978 and 1997 relating thereto, as amended (MARPOL);

.6 the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended (STCW);

.7 the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969 (Tonnage); and

.8 the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships (AFS),

Ship Of Non Parties

The conditions of and on such a ship and its equipment and the certification of the crew and the flag State’s minimum manning standard should be compatible with the aims of the provisions of the conventions; otherwise, the ship should be subject to such restrictions as are necessary to obtain a comparable level of safety and protection of the marine environment.

Definitions

Clear grounds:

Evidence that the ship, its equipment, or its crew does not correspond substantially with the requirements of the relevant conventions or that the master or crew members are not familiar with essential shipboard procedures relating to the safety of ships or the prevention of pollution.

Deficiency:

A condition found not to be in compliance with the requirements of the relevant convention.

Detention:

Intervention action taken by the port State when the condition of the ship or its crew does not correspond substantially with the applicable conventions to ensure that the ship will not sail until it can proceed to sea without presenting a danger to the ship or persons on board, or without presenting an unreasonable threat of harm to the marine environment, whether or not such action will affect the normal schedule of the departure of the ship.

More detailed inspection:

An inspection conducted when there are clear grounds for believing that the condition of the ship, its equipment or its crew does not correspond substantially to the particulars of the certificates.

Substandard ship:

A ship whose hull, machinery, equipment or operational safety is substantially below the standards required by the relevant convention or whose crew is not in conformance with the safe manning document.

Initial Inspection

a) PSCO may proceed to the ship and, before boarding, gain, from its appearance in the water, an impression of its standard of maintenance from such items as the condition of its paintwork, corrosion or pitting or unrepaired damage.

b) At the earliest possible opportunity, the PSCO will ascertain the type of ship, year of build and size of the ship for the purpose of determining which provisions of the conventions are applicable.

c) On boarding and introduction to the master or the responsible ship’s officer, the PSCO should examine the ship’s relevant certificates and documents.

d) If the certificates are valid and the PSCO’s general impression and visual observations on board confirm a good standard of maintenance, the PSCO should generally confine the inspection to reported or observed deficiencies.

e) PSCO will check both the validity of the relevant certificates and other documents and the overall condition of the ship, including its equipment, navigational bridge, decks including forecastle, cargo holds/areas, engine-room and pilot transfer arrangements.

f) If, however, the PSCO from general impression or observations on board has clear grounds for believing that the ship, its equipment or its crew do not substantially meet the requirements, the PSCO will proceed to a more detailed inspection.

Accidental Damage

Where the grounds for detention are the result of accidental damage suffered on the ship’s voyage to a port, no detention order should be issued, provided that:

a) Due account has been given to the convention requirements regarding notification to the flag State Administration, the nominated surveyor or the recognized organization responsible for issuing the relevant certificate;

b) Prior to entering a port, the master or company has submitted to the port State Authority details of the circumstances of the accident and the damage suffered and information about the required notification of the flag State Administration;

c) Appropriate remedial action, to the satisfaction of the port State Authority, is being taken by the ship; and

d) The port State Authority has ensured, having been notified of the completion of the remedial action, that deficiencies which were clearly hazardous to safety, health or environment have been rectified.

Clear Grounds

When a PSCO inspects a foreign ship which is required to hold a convention

certificate, and which is in a port or an offshore terminal under the jurisdiction of the port State, any such inspection should be limited to verifying that there are on board valid certificates and other relevant documentation and the PSCO forming an impression of the overall condition of the ship, its equipment and its crew, unless there are “clear grounds” for believing that the condition of the ship or its equipment does not correspond substantially with the particulars of the certificates.

“Clear grounds” to conduct a more detailed inspection include:

.1 the absence of principal equipment or arrangements required by the applicable conventions;

.2 evidence from a review of the ship’s certificates that a certificate or certificates are clearly invalid;

.3 evidence that documentation required by the applicable conventions is not on board, incomplete, not maintained or falsely maintained;

.4 evidence from the PSCO’s general impressions and observations that serious hull or structural deterioration or deficiencies exist that may place at risk the structural, watertight or weathertight integrity of the ship;

.5 evidence from the PSCO’s general impressions or observations that serious deficiencies exist in the safety, pollution prevention or navigational equipment;

.6 information or evidence that the master or crew is not familiar with essential shipboard operations relating to the safety of ships or the prevention of pollution, or that such operations have not been carried out;

.7 indications that key crew members may not be able to communicate with each other or with other persons on board;

.8 the emission of false distress alerts not followed by proper cancellation procedures; and

.9 receipt of a report or complaint containing information that a ship appears to be substandard.

More Detailed Inspection

b) It is not envisaged that all of the equipment and procedures would be checked during a single port State control inspection, unless the condition of the ship or the familiarity of the master or crew with essential shipboard procedures necessitates such a detailed inspection.

Identification of Substandard Ship

In general, a ship is regarded as substandard if the hull, machinery, equipment or operational safety, is substantially below the standards required by the applicable conventions or if the crew is not in conformance with the safe manning document, owing to, inter alia:

a) The absence of principal equipment or arrangement required by the conventions;

b) Non-compliance of equipment or arrangement with relevant specifications of the conventions;

c) Substantial deterioration of the ship or its equipment, for example, because of poor maintenance;

d) Insufficiency of operational proficiency, or unfamiliarity of essential operational procedures by the crew; and

e) Insufficiency of manning or insufficiency of certification of seafarers.

Suspension Of Inspection

In exceptional circumstances where, as a result of a more detailed inspection, the overall condition of a ship and its equipment, also taking into account the crew conditions, are found to be obviously substandard, the PSCO may suspend an inspection.

b) The suspension of the inspection may continue until the responsible parties have taken the steps necessary to ensure that the ship complies with the requirements of the relevant instruments.

c) In cases where the ship is detained and an inspection is suspended, the port State Authority should notify the responsible parties without delay. The notification should include information about the detention, and state that the inspection is suspended until that authority has been informed that the ship complies with all relevant requirements.

Procedures For Rectification Of Deficiencies And Release

a) The PSCO should endeavour to secure the rectification of all deficiencies detected

b) In the case of deficiencies which are clearly hazardous to safety or the environment, the PSCO should, ensure that the hazard is removed before the ship is allowed to proceed to sea.

d) If a ship proceeds to sea without complying with the conditions agreed to by the Authority of the port of inspection that port State Authority should immediately alert the next port, if known, the flag State and all other authorities it considers appropriate.

e) If a ship does not call at the nominated repair port, the port State Authority of the repair port should immediately alert the flag State and detaining port State, which may take appropriate action, and notify any other authority it considers appropriate.

Reporting Requirements

a) Port State authorities should ensure that, at the conclusion of an inspection, the master of the ship is provided with a document showing the results of the inspection, details of any action taken by the PSCO, and a list of any corrective action to be initiated by the master and/or company.

Likewise, the recognized organizations which have issued the relevant certificates on behalf of the flag State should be notified, where appropriate. The parties above should also be notified in writing of the release of detention. As a minimum, this information should include the ship’s name, the IMO number, the date and time of release and a copy of Form B.

c) If the ship has been allowed to sail with known deficiencies, the authorities of the port State should communicate all the facts to the authorities of the country of the next appropriate port of call, to the flag State, and to the recognized organization,

LEAKING FIRE HYDRANT

Areas under SOLAS

1 Failure of proper operation of propulsion and other essential machinery, as well as electrical installations.

2 Insufficient cleanliness of engine-room, excess amount of oily-water mixture in bilges, insulation of piping including exhaust pipes in engine-room contaminated by oil, and improper operation of bilge pumping arrangements.

3 Failure of the proper operation of emergency generator, lighting, batteries and switches.

4 Failure of proper operation of the main and auxiliary steering gear.

5 Absence, insufficient capacity or serious deterioration of personal life-saving appliances, survival craft and launching and recovery arrangements.

6 Absence, non-compliance or substantial deterioration to the extent that it cannot comply with its intended use of fire detection system, fire alarms, fire-fighting equipment, fixed fire-extinguishing installation, ventilation valves, fire dampers, and quick-closing devices.

7 Absence, substantial deterioration or failure of proper operation of the cargo deck area fire protection on tankers.

8 Absence, non-compliance or serious deterioration of lights, shapes or sound signals.

9 Absence or failure of the proper operation of the radio equipment for distress and safety communication.

10 Absence or failure of the proper operation of navigation equipment, taking the relevant provisions of SOLAS regulation V/16.2 into account.

11 Absence of corrected navigational charts, and/or all other relevant nautical publications necessary for the intended voyage, taking into account that electronic charts may be used as a substitute for the charts.

12 Absence of non-sparking exhaust ventilation for cargo pump-rooms.

14 Number, composition or certification of crew not corresponding with safe manning document.

15 Non-implementation or failure to carry out the enhanced survey programme in accordance with SOLAS regulation XI-1/2 and resolution A.744(18), as amended.

Areas under IBC Code

1 Transport of a substance not mentioned in the Certificate of Fitness or missing cargo information.

2 Missing or damaged high-pressure safety devices.

3 Electrical installations not intrinsically safe or not corresponding to the Code requirements.

4 Sources of ignition in hazardous locations.

5 Contravention of special requirements.

6 Exceeding of maximum allowable cargo quantity per tank.

7 Insufficient heat protection for sensitive products.

8 Pressure alarms for cargo tanks not operable.

9 Transport of substances to be inhibited without valid inhibitor certificate.

Areas under the IGC Code

1 Transport of a substance not mentioned in the Certificate of Fitness or missing cargo information.

2 Missing closing devices for accommodations or service spaces.

3 Bulkhead not gastight.

4 Defective air locks.

5 Missing or defective quick-closing valves.

6 Missing or defective safety valves.

7 Electrical installations not intrinsically safe or not corresponding to the Code requirements.

8 Ventilators in cargo area not operable.

9 Pressure alarms for cargo tanks not operable.

10 Gas detection plant and/or toxic gas detection plant defective.

11 Transport of substances to be inhibited without valid inhibitor certificate.

Areas under the Load Lines Convention

1 Significant areas of damage or corrosion, or pitting of plating and associated stiffening in decks and hull affecting seaworthiness or strength to take local loads, unless properly authorized temporary repairs for a voyage to a port for permanent repairs have been carried out.

2 A recognized case of insufficient stability.

3 The absence of sufficient and reliable information, in an approved form, which by rapid and simple means, enables the master to arrange for the loading and ballasting of the ship in such a way that a safe margin of stability is maintained at all stages and at varying conditions of the voyage, and that the creation of any unacceptable stresses in the ship’s structure are avoided.

4 Absence, substantial deterioration or defective closing devices, hatch closing arrangements and watertight/weathertight doors.

6 Absence of, or impossibility to read, draught marks and/or Load Line marks.

Areas under Marpol

Annex I

1 Absence, serious deterioration or failure of proper operation of the oily-water filtering equipment, the oil discharge monitoring and control system or the 15 ppm alarm arrangements.

2 Remaining capacity of slop and/or sludge tank insufficient for the intended voyage.

3 Oil Record Book not available.

4 Unauthorized discharge bypass fitted.

Annex II

1 Absence, serious deterioration or failure of proper operation of the oily-water filtering equipment, the oil discharge monitoring and control system or the 15 ppm alarm arrangements.

2 Remaining capacity of slop and/or sludge tank insufficient for the intended voyage.

3 Oil Record Book not available.

4 Unauthorized discharge bypass fitted.

Annex V

1 Absence of the garbage management plan.

2 No garbage record book available.

3 Ship’s personnel not familiar with disposal/discharge requirements of garbage management plan.

Annex VI

1 Absence of valid IAPP Certificate and where relevant EIAPP Certificates and Technical Files.

2 A marine diesel engine, with a power output of more than 130 kW, which is installed on board a ship constructed on or after 1 January 2000, or a marine diesel engine having undergone a major conversion on or after 1 January 2000, which does not comply with the NOx Technical Code 2008.

3 The sulphur content of any fuel oil used on board ships exceeds the following limits:

.1 4.5% m/m prior to 1 January 2012;

.2 3.5% m/m on and after 1 January 2012; and

.3 0.5% m/m on and after 1 January 2020*.

4 The sulphur content of any fuel used on board exceeds the following limits while operating within a SOx emission control area:

.1 1.0% m/m on and after 1 July 2010; and

.2 0.1% m/m on and after 1 January 2015,

respectively, as per the amendments adopted by resolution MEPC.176(58).

5 An incinerator installed on board the ship on or after 1 January 2000 does not comply with requirements contained in appendix IV to the Annex, or the standard specifications for shipboard incinerators developed by the Organization (resolutions MEPC.76(40) and MEPC.93(45)).

6 The master or crew are not familiar with essential procedures regarding the operation of air pollution prevention equipment.

Areas under STCW

1 Failure of seafarers to hold a certificate, to have an appropriate certificate, to have a valid dispensation or to provide documentary proof that an application for an endorsement has been submitted to the Administration

2 Failure to comply with the applicable safe manning requirements of the Administration.

3 Failure of navigational or engineering watch arrangements to conform to the requirements specified for the ship by the Administration.

4 Absence in a watch of a person qualified to operate equipment essential to safe navigation, safety radiocommunications or the prevention of marine pollution.

5 Inability to provide for the first watch at the commencement of a voyage and for subsequent relieving watches persons who are sufficiently rested and otherwise fit for duty.

6 Failure to provide proof of professional proficiency for the duties assigned to seafarers for the safety of the ship and the prevention of pollution.

Port State Control (PSC) – An agreed regime for the inspection of foreign ships

Port State Control (PSC) is the inspection of foreign ships present in a nation’s port for the purpose of verifying that the condition of the ships and their equipment comply with the provisions of international conventions and codes and that the ships are manned and operated in compliance with those provisions.

Many of IMO’s most important technical conventions contain provisions for ships to be inspected when they visit foreign ports to ensure that they meet IMO requirements.

These inspections were originally intended to be a back up to flag State implementation, but experience has shown that they can be extremely effective, especially if organized on a regional basis. A ship going to a port in one country will normally visit other countries in the region before embarking on its return voyage and it is to everybody’s advantage if inspections can be closely co-ordinated.
This ensures that as many ships as possible are inspected, but at the same time prevents ships being delayed by unnecessary inspections. The primary responsibility for ships standards rests with the flag state but Port State Control provides a “safety net” to catch sub-standard ships.

Primary Responsibilities

The primary responsibility for maintaining ships standard rests with the flag states, as well as their owners and masters. However, many flag states do not, for various reasons, fulfill their obligations under international maritime conventions, and PSC provides a useful “safety net” to catch substandard ships. PSC effectively does what the Flag State control should, but in many cases fails, to do.

History

In 1978 the ‘Hague Memorandum’ between a number of maritime authorities in Western Europe was developed. It dealt mainly with enforcement of shipboard living and working conditions as required by ILO Convention no. 147.

However just as the memorandum was about to come into effect in March 1978 a massive oil spill occurred off the coast of Brittany (France) as a result of the grounding of the VLCC ‘Amoco Cadiz’.

This incident caused a strong political and public outcry in Europe for far more stringent regulations with regard to the safety of shipping. This pressure resulted in a more comprehensive memorandum which covered:

Subsequently, a new Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control was signed in January 1982 by fourteen European countries at a Ministerial Conference held in Paris, France. It entered into operation on 1 July 1982.

Since that date, the Paris Memorandum has been amended several times to accommodate new safety and marine environment requirements stemming from the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and requirements related to working and living conditions of seafarers.

The organization expanded to twenty-seven member States over the past years.

PSC regimes in operation worldwide

Nine regional agreements on port State control – Memoranda of Understanding or MoUs – have been signed:

The United States Coast Guard maintain the tenth PSC regime.

Who boards a ship to carry out Port State Control inspection?

A Port State Control Officer (PSCO) carries out port State control. The PSCO is a properly qualified person, authorized to carry out port State control inspections in accordance with the MoU, by the Maritime Authority of the port State and acts under its responsibility. All PSCO’s carry an identity card, issued by their maritime authorities.

The object of this Code is to assist PSCOs in conducting their inspections to the highest professional level. Port State Control Officers are central to achieving the aims of the MOU. They are the daily contact of the MOU with the shipping world. They are expected to act within the law, within the rules of their Government and in a fair, open, impartial and consistent manner.

Pic Courtesy: Class NK Port State Control Annual Report

If deficiencies are found the PSCO must:

In principle, all deficiencies should be rectified before the departure of the ship. This does not
mean that every deficiency must be checked as rectified by the PSCO.

Fundamental Principles of the Code

The Code of Good Practice encompasses three fundamental principles against which all actions of PSCOs are judged: integrity, professionalism, and transparency. These are defined as follows:

Please find Code of Good Practice as per Paris MOU.

General Criteria as laid down by the PSC MOUs to carry out Inspection

If there are other conditions, it must be specified. Ships above 13 years are to be in the overall targeting factor of PSC.

Certificates and Documents are to be inspected for the PSC

Detention of Ships under PSC code

Where a ship in port appears to be dangerously unsafe or in the case of deficiencies which are clearly hazardous to safety, health or the environment, she can be detained.
When a ship is in clear contravention with the IMO codes or the health and the well-being of the people on board is in danger, she can be detained. Pollution offenses would also detain the ship.

When deciding whether the deficiencies found in a ship are sufficiently serious to merit detention the PSCO will assess whether:

If the result of any of these assessments is negative, taking into account all deficiencies found, the ship will be strongly considered for detention. A combination of deficiencies of a less serious nature may also warrant the detention of the ship.

Detainable deficiencies

To assist the PSCO in the use of the procedures follows a list of deficiencies, grouped under relevant Conventions and/or Codes, which are considered of such a serious nature that they may warrant the detention of the ship involved. This list is not considered exhaustive but is intended to give an exemplification of relevant items:

General

The lack of valid certificates and documents as required by the relevant instruments.

However, ships flying the flag of States not a party to a Convention (relevant instrument) or not having implemented another relevant instrument, are not entitled to carry the certificates provided for by the Convention or another relevant instrument.
Therefore, the absence of the required certificates will not by itself constitute a reason to detain these ships, however, in applying the ‘no more favorable treatment’ clause, substantial compliance with the provisions must be required before the ship sails.

Areas under SOLAS

Areas under the IBC Code

Areas under the IGC Code

Areas under LOADLINES

Areas under Annex I to MARPOL

Areas under Annex II to MARPOL

Areas under Annex III to MARPOL

Areas under Annex IV to MARPOL

The absence of a Sewage treatment system not functioning Sewage comminuting and disinfecting system absence of a Sewage discharge connection.

Areas under Annex V to MARPOL

Areas under Annex VI to MARPOL

As per Guidelines for port State control inspections for compliance with Annex VI of MARPOL regulations for the prevention of air pollutions from ships.

Areas under STCW

Areas under ILO Conventions

Under ILO147:

Under MLC, 2006:

As per Guidance for inspection on Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 and Guideline for the Port State Control Officer on the inspection of hours of work/rest and fitness for duty.

Areas under AFS Convention

Equasis & its Main Principles

Pic Courtesy: icsclass.org

Equasis is a database holding safety-related details of more than 87,233 ships (as of 2015 – Source), including a record of port state control inspections. It is on the Internet and may be viewed by any member of the public.

Equasis aims at collecting and disseminating high quality, safety-related information on the world’s merchant fleet that has been provided by the holders of such information. Equasis believes that, by providing factual information, its users will be able to build their own opinions on ships and/or companies and act accordingly.

Equasis displays information from public authorities and industry organizations, and the whole list of the present providers is available under the menu tab ‘Providers’. Even though data is regularly updated in order to help ensure that information remains as reliable as possible, Equasis does not aim to be or to become a “real-time” system. The frequency of updates varies from provider to provider, whereby 80% of the data contained in Equasis is refreshed on a weekly basis.

The main principles behind the Equasis information system are that:

It will promote the exchange of unbiased information, transparency in maritime transport and allow persons involved in maritime transport to be better informed about the performance of ships and maritime organizations with which they are dealing.

The role of the industry in promoting quality and safety in marine transport was at the heart of the Quality Shipping Campaign, launched by the European Commission and the UK Government in November 1997. The Campaign’s aim was to bring together all players involved in the various fields of marine business in an effort to improve maritime safety. It was based on dialogue between all the marine industry and public authorities and its tools were, primarily, voluntary measures. As the Quality Shipping Campaign demonstrated, one of the greatest impediments to a genuine quality culture in shipping is the lack of transparency in the information relating to the quality of ships and their operators.

While much relevant information is collected and available, it is scattered and often difficult to access. One of the main conclusions of the Quality Shipping Conference in Lisbon in June 1998, was a unanimous call from the participants representing the whole range of industry professionals (including shipowners, cargo owners, insurers, brokers, classification societies, agents, ports, and terminals), to make such information more accessible.

In response to this call, the European Commission and the French Maritime Administration decided to cooperate in developing an information system which collates existing safety-related information on ships from both public and private sources and makes it available on the Internet.

At the beginning, the two founding members, France and the European Commission, shared the cost of developing and running Equasis. In 2002, the first Equasis “Memorandum of Understanding” (MoU) was signed by a small number of quality-minded Maritime Administrations as a first step towards the progressive incorporation of other administrations with a similar philosophy. Since then, other Maritime Administrations have indeed joined the project. The “members” of the Supervisory Committee are designated by the Maritime Administrations that have signed the Equasis Memorandum of Understanding.

The Supervisory Committee decides and finances the Equasis project, and its composition aims to ensure an appropriate geographical spread. Equasis is therefore financed exclusively by public money and is made available to all users worldwide, free of charge. Those two characteristics are unique in the maritime world and give Equasis a special role in the marine industry.

At the moment, the members of the Supervisory Committee are as follows:

In the past, Equasis also benefited from the participation of the following maritime authorities:

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) currently has observer status in Equasis.

Even if I have to say it one hundred times, I would say it.

Port state control inspections are the lifeblood of the maritime trade.

It isn’t that the responsibility of the ship safety lies with the port state control.

The responsibility of the ship safety primarily lies with the ship staff, ship owners/managers, and flag states.

But what if the people primarily responsible for the ship safety fail to do their job well.

In fact, in the ideal world, there should not be any port state control. But that is only if we lived in the ideal world.

And in 1976, with the grounding of Amoco Cadiz, it proved that we do not live in ideal world.

This is what happened to the tanker Amoco Cadiz.

In a way, this incident led to having port state inspections of the foreign ships in the national ports.

The idea of having Port state control has traveled a long way since then.

In this post, I will discuss port state control inspections from seafarers point of view.

What is port state control

If you have been to sea for even for a couple of years, you would most likely know about port state control.

After all these inspections can easily eat up our shore leave, don’t they.

But the things is why are they doing these inspections.

Take for example this ship.

Why would a port in Europe (say Rotterdam) want to inspect this ship when it arrives in that port? What do they get out of it?

Even though the ports may financially be covered for any ship related incidents but that would not be a reason enough to not prevent the accidents.

For example, you won’t accept someone to pay you after destroying your home furniture. You will be more interested in stopping someone to destroy your things.

So no country would want to welcome a sub-standard ship in their territory because of threat that these ships may possess.

But do the port state control have the legal powers to inspect a foreign ship. Yes, they do.

Various IMO conventions like SOLAS, Marpol, STCW defines the role of port state control in ensuring the implementation of these conventions.

Port State Control MoU

Before we discuss MOUs from the port state control point of view, let us understand what an MOU actually means.

A memorandum of understanding (MOU or MoU) is a formal agreement between two or more parties. Companies and organizations can use MOUs to establish official partnerships. MOUs are not legally binding but they carry a degree of seriousness and mutual respect, stronger than a gentlemen’s agreement.

In simple words, an MOU is a formal agreement between two or more parties which brings mutual benefits for them.

With respect to port state controls, the meaning is no different.

The countries in an area (for example Europe) come together to work as a team for inspecting the ships calling their ports.

Port state control MOU, in other words, is the harmonized system for the different port state controls.

As per the MOU between different port states,

Port state control MOUs offered many benefits, to the port states as well as to the ships and shipping companies.

Among many other things, it offers cost saving.

Let us take the example of Paris MOU which was the first MOU of the port state controls.

At this date, there are 27 countries that are the member of Paris MOU.

Belgium and Netherland are both the member countries of the Paris MOU.

A ship calls port of Antwerp (Belgium) and goes through the port state control inspection there. The inspection results were satisfactory.

Next, the ship is calling Rotterdam (Netherland). Having a common database under the Paris MOU means that PSC in Rotterdam would know that this ship has already been inspected.

This would not only save some costs in unnecessary inspection at Rotterdam but also save unnecessary burden on the ship staff.

A country can join any MoU that suits it. The MoU will accept the request from the country if the procedures of the PSC in that country are in line with the MoU procedures.

But it is most benefitting for the country to join their regional MoU because of common interest in the region.

For example, let us say a country in a far east joins the Paris MoU. A ship inspected in this country will not be inspected for the use of low sulphur fuel as per Annex VI special area.

When this ship arrives in Europe, ideally there should not any need to inspect this ship again as she has been inspected in a port under same MoU.

But the port in Europe would still want to inspect the ship for the marpol Annex VI compliance.

In fact, this is one of the few reasons as to Why we have regional MoUs and not one combine under IMO?

The port state control MOUs are established as per the region to have regional co-operation between different PSCs.

At present, there are nine PSC MOUs. Targeting the ships

One thing that we all understand is that we are all short of resources. And port state controls are no different.

No port state control can inspect all the ships calling their ports.

Having regional corporation between PSCs through MOU reduces some burden and need to inspect all the ships.

So if a ship has been recently inspected at a country that is part of the MOU, there would be no need to inspect that ship again.

But still, the number of ships that need to be inspected is no less considering in some ports there are hundreds of ships calling each day.

Consider this for a port.

Number of ships called in on a particular day = 30

Number of ships that have not been inspected by any MOU country = 23

Number of PSC inspectors available = 12

Number of ships that can be inspected on that day = 12

So out of 23 ships that need to be inspected, only 12 can be inspected on that day.

But which 12 ships from these 23 ships should the PSC inspect?

That is where calculating the ship’s risk profile helps.

Each ship is assigned a risk profile factor based upon the

So in the example we discussed, out of 23 ships, 12 ships with higher risk profiles will be inspected.

Not only the ship’s performance acts as a factor for ship risk profile but it also takes into account the performance of the company.

Type of PSC inspections

When a PSC inspector boards the vessel, he would conduct one of the four types of PSC inspections.

These inspection types are

Initial Inspection

An initial inspection is a general inspection of certificates and a round on deck, engine room, galley and other common areas.

Expanded inspection

Expanded inspection is the initial inspection with a wider scope.

It is generally carried out on ships that fall under higher risk category compared to other ships.

For example, for Paris MOU, the expanded inspection is done for ships

As expanded inspections would require more time compared to the initial inspections, Paris MOU requires the ships to report to the PSC before arrival if their ship falls under high-risk category.

More detailed inspection

During an initial inspection or expanded inspection of the ship, the PSC inspector may have certain findings (Clear grounds) that point out to the non-compliance with certain regulations.

In this case, the PSC inspector would change the scope of the inspection to more detailed inspection.

Concentrated inspection campaign

Port state control MoUs runs campaigns to concentrate their inspection on any one area of ship operation.

These areas are chosen in the MoU meetings.

For example, Paris MoU and Tokyo MoU have started concentrated inspection campaign on navigation safety which will be carried out from September 2017 to November 2017.

During this campaign period, PSC inspector during usual ship inspections will check certain areas related to the campaign.

The information on areas to be checked are developed as a questionnaire. PSC inspector follows this questionnaire and he will answer each question based on the findings of the ship.

Here is the questionnaire for the navigation concentrated inspection campaign by Paris MoU.

At the end of the campaign, port state control MoU posts the detailed findings of the campaign.

At the beginning of the inspection, PSC inspector will let the master know about the type of inspection he would be conducting.

Even during an initial inspection, if the PSC inspector has the reasons for more detailed inspection, he will let the master know that the scope of inspection has now changed and now the inspection is “More detailed inspection”.

PSC inspection results

Irrespective of the type of PSC inspection carried out on board, either it will result in no deficiencies or some deficiencies.

If there are no deficiencies, we just file the PSC inspection report and inform the company about the PSC inspection.

If there are deficiencies, these deficiencies can fall under one of these three categories.

Detainable deficiency

If the ship is detained because of one or more observed deficiencies, the PSC inspector will provide a “notice of detention” to the master.

In this case, the Master of the ship cannot move the ship from the berth without the permission of port state control.

Once the detainable deficiencies are rectified, the master needs to contact the port state control officer for verification of the corrective actions.

The port state control officer will board the vessel and conduct the verification of the corrective action taken and rectification of deficiencies.

When satisfied, the PSC will issue the “notification of release” of the ship.

Master of the ship must ensure that a copy of the notice of release of the ship is on board before the vessel leaves the port.

Deficiency that needs to be corrected before departure

There can be a deficiency that PSC wants the ship to correct before departure. The action code for such deficiency is “Code 17″.

Upon receiving such deficiency, the master of the ship must clarify with the PSC inspector if re-verification this port will be required to close this deficiency.

For most of the port state controls, the statement of the master that the deficiency has been rectified is enough.

For example, PSCs under Paris MoU does not require the PSC inspector to verify the rectification of such deficiency.

Even then, it is a good practice to send an email to the Port state control informing them of the fact that the identified deficiency has been rectified.

A copy of this email can be attached to the PSC report.

Deficiency that needs to be corrected within a time range

Apart from detainable deficiency and Code 17 deficiencies, PSC inspector may give deficiencies with action code such as

In this case, if the next port is in same MoU, a request of re-inspection must be sent by the master to the port state control intimating that deficiency has been rectified.

If it is in different MoU, then an email should be sent to the PSC confirming that the deficiency has been rectified.

Again, for code 16 deficiencies too, the master must send an email to the PSC within 14 days confirming that deficiency has been rectified.

Conclusion

The whole idea of the port state control is to give no operating space to the sub-standard ships.

The only way to eradicate the sub-standard ships is to inspect the ships. But no port state can have so many resources to inspect each ship that call their ports.

Having regional cooperation between different port states (PSC MoUs) eliminated the need for inspecting each ship.

Port state controls under the same MoU shared the ship inspections results with a common database.

Assigning a risk factor to each ship set the priority for inspection of a ship. With this, the ships with higher risk profile were given a priority for inspection over the ships with lower risk profile.

Share this:

Related Blogs

Follow us Today on
our social network

About Capt Rajeev Jassal

Capt. Rajeev Jassal has sailed for over 19 years mainly on crude oil, product and chemical tankers. He holds MBA in shipping & Logistics degree from London. He has done extensive research on quantitatively measuring Safety culture onboard and safety climate ashore which he believes is the most important element for safer shipping.

Search Blog

81 Comments

Capt Rajeev, you are doing an awesome job for the seafarers by explaining everything simply and precisely. Kudos to you for all your articles

testimony of my life Good day everyone,my name is belin from USA i am here to testify about how i got a real and working blank ATM card from a good hacker on the internet, i was very poor before and i have been unemployed since 2020, i came across a post on the internet concerning the blank ATM card and i decided to give it a try,i agreed to the terms and conditions to receive the card. it worked like magic when i received this card and i was able to withdraw 5000$ daily with this card, i have a car of my own now and i have gotten a house too. if you need a real blank ATM card, contact this good hacker on his email globalatmcardhackingservices@gmail.com or his whatsap contact (+1 301-887-5071) i post this here because i know you can also be favoured by this testimony. thanks

thanks for explaining the topic in a easy way.

Thank you very much sir. This information is very easy to understanding and useful for me.

Glad you found it useful Peet.

Excellent Article, here are some further points to your article. Inspection rate for High Risk vessels is atleast 6months, Standard risk vessels is atleast 12 months and low risk vessels is atleast 36M, correct me if I am worng.

You are absolutely correct.

superb explanation sir. Thanks alot

Hello sir, This information was really helpful. Can you guide us on the actions to be taken by the master in case he doesn’t agree to the deficiency given by psc

Sir the explanation was so good, may God help you in your future venture’s.

Which convention cover for PSC inspection?

Talking and writing of standards in PSC is a myth. Go to Russia or Africa or south america and you can see dollars shining in their eyes.

Can you please give guidance on US PSC, how they work. Relation ship of USCG with other MOUs. How they can part with other MOUs as USCG is not part of any MOU. And most importantly how can US give QUALShip cert for other flag ships and MOUs trying to co-operate with USCG new rules And ideas, Why.

Nice share thanks for the details.

PSC inspection report retained onboard for how many years??

How Code 17 is differentiated from Code 30.

Wow Sir. Great explanation. Really veryy helpful. Wish you shall open your own maritime college. You explain and teach so welll.. Thanks again and keep posting when ever you get free time. Its very much useful info for us 🙂