ASM ORALS

Resolution A.1052 (27)

Page 19

NITIN MAHAJAN

PROCEDURES FOR PORT STATE CONTROL, 2011

REVOKES resolutions A.787 (19) and A.882 (21)

Adopted on 30 November 2011

Earlier: 6 Chapters & 7 Appendices (amended to 9 appendices by A.882 (21)

40 Certificates & Documents required.
Now: 5 Chapters & 18 Appendices; Additionally, applicable to ships under AFS (Anti-Fouling Systems).
66 Certificates & Documents required and 6 References
Fundamental Aim of PSC: To eliminate sub-standard ships to ensure Safe Ships & Cleaner Seas.
Main Purpose of PSC: To prevent a ship proceeding to sea, if it is unsafe or presents an unreasonable threat of
harm to the Marine Environment.
In Case of Detention: Notification in writing to Flag State Administration & Organization (issuing Certificate)
Information to include: Ship Name, IMO no., Copy of Form A and Form B (App.13), Time of Detention &
Copies of any Detention Order
In Case of Release: Notification in writing to Flag State Administration & Organization (issuing Certificate)
Information to include: Ship Name, IMO no., Copy of Form B (App.13), Date &Time of Release
List of PSC MOUs:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Tokyo MOU (Asia-Pacific MoU)

Riyadh MoU (Gulf Region)
Indian Ocean MOU
VASCO DA GAMA (GOA)
Paris MOU NIR
Caribbean MOU
Latin American Agreement on Port State Control of Vessels (Acuerdo de Via del Mar Agreement)
Abuja MOU (West and Central Africa MoU)
Mediterranean MOU
Black Sea MOU

CIC Concentrated Inspection Campaign

1. Focus on specific areas where high levels of deficiencies have been encountered by PSCOs or where
new convention requirements have recently entered into force;
2. When boarding a ship, PSC Inspector will check certain equipment and documentation onboard besides
the general routine PSC Inspection;
3. Typically concentrated over period of 3 months;
4. Usually announced in press and on web-site.

ASM ORALS

Page 19

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 20

NITIN MAHAJAN

CHAPTER 1 GENERAL
1.1 Purpose

1.2 Application

1.3 Introduction

1.4 Provision for port State control

1.5 Ships of non-Parties

1.6 Ships below convention size

1.7 Definitions

1.8 Professional profile of PSCOs

1.9 Qualification and training requirements of PSCOs

CHAPTER 2 PORT STATE INSPECTIONS

2.1 General

2.2 Initial Inspections

2.3 General procedural guidelines for PSCOs
2.4 Clear grounds
2.5 More detailed inspections

CHAPTER 3 CONTRAVENTION AND DETENTION

3.1 Identification of a substandard ship
3.2 Submission of information concerning deficiencies
3.3 Port State action in response to alleged substandard ships
3.4 Responsibilities of port State to take remedial action
3.5 Guidance for the detention of ships
3.6 Suspension of inspection
3.7 Procedures for rectification of deficiencies and release

ASM ORALS

Page 20

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 21

NITIN MAHAJAN

CHAPTER 4 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

4.1 Port State reporting
4.2 Flag State reporting
4.3 Reporting of allegations under MARPOL
CHAPTER 5 REVIEW PROCEDURES
5.1 Report of comments
APPENDICES
Appendix 1

Code of Good Practice for port State control officers conducting inspections within the
framework of the regional Memoranda of Understanding and Agreement on Port State
Control (MSC-MEPC.4/Circ.2)

Appendix 2

Guidelines for the detention of ships

Appendix 3

Guidelines for investigations and inspections carried out under Annex I of MARPOL

Appendix 4

Guidelines for investigations and inspections carried out under Annex II of MARPOL

Appendix 5

Guidelines for discharge requirements under Annexes I and II of MARPOL

Appendix 6

Guidelines for more detailed inspections of ship structural and equipment requirements

Appendix 7

Guidelines for control of operational requirements

Appendix 8

Guidelines for port State control related to the ISM Code

Appendix 9

Guidelines for port State control related to LRIT

Appendix 10

Guidelines for port State control under the 1969 Tonnage Convention

Appendix 11

Minimum manning standards and certification

Appendix 12

List of certificates and documents

Appendix 13

Report of inspection in accordance with IMO port State control procedures

Appendix 14

Report of deficiencies not fully rectified or only provisionally repaired

Appendix 15

Report of action taken to the notifying authority

Appendix 16

Format for the Report of contravention of MARPOL (article 6)

Appendix 17

Comments by flag State on detention report

Appendix 18

List of instruments relevant to PSC procedures

ASM ORALS

Page 21

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 22

NITIN MAHAJAN

CHAPTER 1 GENERAL
1.1

PURPOSE

This document is intended to provide basic guidance on the conduct of port State control inspections and
afford consistency in the conduct of these inspections, the recognition of deficiencies of a ship, its
equipment, or its crew, and the application of control procedures.
1.2

APPLICATION: These Procedures apply to ships falling under the provisions of:
SOLAS;

SOLAS Protocol 1988;

Load Lines;

Load Lines Protocol 1988;

MARPOL, 1973, modified by Protocols of 1978 & 1997;

STCW;

Tonnage;

AFS.

1.2.3

In exercising port State control, Parties should only apply those provisions of the conventions which are
in force and which they have accepted.

1.2.4

If a port State exercises port State control based on International Labour Organization (ILO)
Convention No.147, "Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976", guidance on
the conduct of such control inspections is given in the ILO publication "Inspection of Labour
Conditions on board Ship: Guidelines for Procedure".

1.3

INTRODUCTION

1.3.1

Under the provisions of the applicable conventions set out in section 1.2 above, the Administration (i.e.
the Government of the flag State) is responsible for promulgating laws and regulations and for
taking all other steps which may be necessary to give the applicable conventions full and complete
effect so as to ensure that, from the point of view of safety of life and pollution prevention, a ship is
fit for the service for which it is intended and seafarers are qualified and fit for their duties.

1.3.2

In some cases it may be difficult for the Administration to exercise full and continuous control over
some ships entitled to fly the flag of its State, for instance those ships which do not regularly call at a
port of the flag State. The problem can be, and has been, partly overcome by appointing inspectors at
foreign ports and/or authorizing recognized organizations to act on behalf of the flag State
Administration.

1.6

SHIPS BELOW CONVENTION SIZE

1.6.2

To the extent a relevant instrument is not applicable to a ship below convention size, the PSCO's task
should be to assess whether the ship is of an acceptable standard in regard to safety and the environment.
In making that assessment, the PSCO should take due account of such factors as the length and
nature of the intended voyage or service, the size and type of the ship, the equipment provided and
the nature of the cargo.

ASM ORALS

Page 22

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 23

NITIN MAHAJAN

1.7

DEFINITIONS

1.7.2

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. Examples of clear grounds are included in section 2.4.

1.7.3

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

1.7.4

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.

1.7.5

Inspection: A visit on board a ship to check both the validity of the relevant certificates and other
documents, and the overall condition of the ship, its equipment and its crew.

1.7.6

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.

1.7.7

Port State Control Officer (PSCO): A person duly authorized by the competent authority of a Party to
a relevant convention to carry out port State control inspections, and responsible exclusively to that
Party.

1.7.8

Recognized organization: An organization which meets the relevant conditions set forth by resolution
A.739(18), as amended by resolution MSC.208(81), and resolution A.789(19), and has been authorized
by the flag State Administration to provide the necessary statutory services and certification to ships
entitled to fly its flag.

1.7.9

Stoppage of an operation: Formal prohibition against a ship to continue an operation due to an

identified deficiency (ies) which, singly or together, render the continuation of such operation
hazardous.

1.7.10 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.
1.7.11 Valid certificates: A certificate that has been issued directly by a Party to a relevant convention or on
its behalf by a recognized organization and contains accurate and effective dates meets the provisions of
the relevant convention and to which the particulars of the ship, its crew and its equipment correspond.

ASM ORALS

Page 23

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 24

NITIN MAHAJAN

CHAPTER 2 PORT STATE INSPECTIONS

2.1

GENERAL

2.1.1

In accordance with the provisions of the applicable conventions, Parties may conduct inspections by
PSCOs of foreign ships in their ports.

2.1.2

Such inspections may be undertaken on the basis of:

.1 the initiative of the Party;
.2 the request of, or on the basis of, information regarding a ship provided by another Party; or
.3 information regarding a ship provided by a member of the crew, a professional body, an
association, a trade union or any other individual with an interest in the safety of the ship, its crew
and passengers, or the protection of the marine environment.

2.1.4

All possible efforts should be made to avoid a ship being unduly detained or delayed. If a ship is unduly
detained or delayed, it should be entitled to compensation for any loss or damage suffered.

2.2

INITIAL INSPECTIONS

2.2.1

In the pursuance of control procedures under the applicable conventions, which, for instance, may arise
from information given to a port State regarding a ship, 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.

2.2.2

At the earliest possible opportunity, the PSCO should 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.

2.2.3

On boarding and introduction to the master or the responsible ship's officer, the PSCO should
examine the ship's relevant certificates and documents, as listed in appendix 12. When examining
1969 International Tonnage Certificates, the PSCO should be guided by appendix 10.

2.2.4

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, if any.

2.2.5

In conducting an initial inspection, the PSCO should 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.

2.2.6

In pursuance of control procedures under chapter IX of SOLAS in relation to the International

Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (ISM Code), the
PSCO should utilize the guidelines in appendix 8.

ASM ORALS

Page 24

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 25

NITIN MAHAJAN

2.2.7

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 should proceed to a more detailed inspection

2.3

GENERAL PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES FOR PSCOs

2.3.2

When boarding a ship, the PSCO should present to the master or to the representative of the owner, if
requested to do so, the PSCO identity card. This card should be accepted as documented evidence that
the PSCO in question is duly authorized by the Administration to carry out port State control
inspections.

2.3.3

If the PSCO has clear grounds for carrying out a more detailed inspection, the master should be
immediately informed of these grounds and advised that, if so desired, the master may contact the
Administration or, as appropriate, the recognized organization responsible for issuing the
certificate and invite their presence on board.

2.3.4

In the case that an inspection is initiated based on a report or complaint, especially if it is from a crew
member, the source of the information should not be disclosed.

2.3.5

When exercising control, all possible efforts should be made to avoid a ship being unduly detained or
delayed. It should be borne in mind that the main purpose of port State control is to prevent a ship
proceeding to sea if it is unsafe or presents an unreasonable threat of harm to the marine
environment. The PSCO should exercise professional judgement to determine whether to detain a ship
until the deficiencies are corrected or to allow it to sail with certain deficiencies, having regard to the
particular circumstances of the intended voyage.

2.3.6

It should be recognized that all equipment is subject to failure and spares or replacement parts may not
be readily available. In such cases, undue delay should not be caused if, in the opinion of the PSCO, safe
alternative arrangements have been made.

2.3.7

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:
.1 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;
.2 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;
.3 appropriate remedial action, to the satisfaction of the PS Authority, is being taken by the ship;
.4 the PS Authority has ensured, having been notified of the completion of the remedial action,
that deficiencies which were clearly hazardous to safety, health / environment have been rectified.

ASM ORALS

Page 25

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS
2.3.8

Page 26

NITIN MAHAJAN

Since detention of a ship is a serious matter involving many issues, it may be in the best interest of the
PSCO to act together with other interested parties (see paragraph 4.1.3).
For example, the officer may request the owner's representatives to provide proposals for correcting the
situation. The PSCO should also consider cooperating with the flag State Administration's
representatives or the recognized organization responsible for issuing the relevant certificates, and
consulting them regarding their acceptance of the owner's proposals and their possible additional
requirements. Without limiting the PSCO's discretion in any way, the involvement of other parties could
result in a safer ship, avoid subsequent arguments relating to the circumstances of the detention and
prove advantageous in the case of litigation involving "undue delay".

2.3.9

Where deficiencies cannot be remedied at the port of inspection, the PSCO may allow the ship to
proceed to another port, subject to any appropriate conditions determined. In such circumstances,
the PSCO should ensure that competent authority of next port of call & the flag State are notified.

2.3.10 Detention reports to the flag State should be in sufficient detail for an assessment to be made of the
severity of the deficiencies giving rise to the detention.
2.3.11 The Company or its representative have a right of appeal against a detention taken by the Authority of a
port State. The appeal should not cause the detention to be suspended. The PSCO should properly
inform the master of the right of appeal.
2.3.12 To ensure consistent enforcement of PSC requirements, PSCOs should carry an extract of section 2.3
(General procedural guidelines for PSCOs) for ready reference when carrying out any PSC inspections.
2.3.13 PSCOs should also be familiar with the detailed guidelines given in the appendices to these Procedures.
2.4

CLEAR GROUNDS

2.4.1

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.

2.4.2

"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(s) are clearly invalid;
.3 evidence that documentation required by the applicable conventions and listed in appendix 12 is
not on board, incomplete, not maintained or falsely maintained;

ASM ORALS

Page 26

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 27

NITIN MAHAJAN

.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.
CHAPTER 3 CONTRAVENTION AND DETENTION
3.1

IDENTIFICATION OF A SUBSTANDARD SHIP

3.1.1

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:
.1 the absence of principal equipment or arrangement required by the conventions;
.2 non-compliance of equipment or arrangement with relevant specifications of the conventions;
.3 substantial deterioration of the ship or its equipment, for example, because of poor
maintenance;
.4 insufficiency of operational proficiency, or unfamiliarity of essential operational procedures by
the crew; and
.5 insufficiency of manning or insufficiency of certification of seafarers.

3.1.2

If these evident factors as a whole or individually make the ship unseaworthy and put at risk the ship or
the life of persons on board or present an unreasonable threat of harm to the marine environment if it
were allowed to proceed to sea, it should be regarded as a substandard ship. The PSCO should also take
into account the guidelines in appendix 2.

3.5

GUIDANCE FOR THE DETENTION OF SHIPS

Notwithstanding the fact that it is impracticable to define a ship as substandard solely by
reference to a list of qualifying defects, guidance for the detention of ships is given in appendix 2.

ASM ORALS

Page 27

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 28

NITIN MAHAJAN

3.6

SUSPENSION OF INSPECTION

3.6.1

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.

3.6.2

Prior to suspending an inspection, the PSCO should have recorded detainable deficiencies in the areas
set out in appendix 2, as appropriate.

3.6.3

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.

3.6.4

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.

CHAPTER 4 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

4.1

PORT STATE REPORTING

4.1.1

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. Such
reports should be made in accordance with the format in appendix 13.

4.1.2

Where, in the exercise of port State control, a Party denies a foreign ship entry to the ports or offshore
terminals under its jurisdiction, whether or not as a result of information about a substandard ship, it
should forthwith provide the master and flag State with reasons for the denial of entry.

4.1.3

In the case of a detention, at least an initial notification should be made to the flag State
Administration as soon as practicable (see paragraph 2.3.8). If such notification is made verbally,
it should be subsequently confirmed in writing. As a minimum, the notification should include
details of the ship's name, the IMO number, copies of Forms A and B as set out in appendix 13,
time of detention and copies of any detention order. 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 as set out in appendix 13.

4.1.4

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, where appropriate.

ASM ORALS

Page 28

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 29

NITIN MAHAJAN

4.1.5

Parties to a relevant convention, when they have exercised control giving rise to detention, should
submit to the Organization reports in accordance with SOLAS regulation I/19, article 11 of MARPOL,
article 21 of Load Lines, or article X(3) of STCW. Such deficiency reports should be made in
accordance with the form given in appendix 13 or 16, as appropriate, or may be submitted electronically
by the port State or a regional PSC regime.

4.1.6

Copies of such deficiency reports should, in addition to being forwarded to the organization, be sent by
the port State without delay to the authorities of the flag State and, where appropriate, to the recognized
organization which had issued the relevant certificate.
Deficiencies found which are not related to the applicable conventions, or which involve ships of nonconvention countries or below convention size, should be submitted to flag States and/or to appropriate
organizations but not to IMO.

4.1.7

Relevant telephone numbers and addresses of flag States Headquarters to which reports should be sent
as outlined above, as well as addresses of flag State offices which provide inspection services should be
provided to the Organization.

4.3

REPORTING OF ALLEGATIONS UNDER MARPOL

4.3.1

A report on alleged deficiencies or on alleged contravention of the discharge provisions relating to

the provisions of MARPOL should be forwarded to the flag State as soon as possible, preferably
no later than sixty days after the observation of the deficiencies or contravention. Such reports
may be made in accordance with the format in appendix 13 or 16, as appropriate. If a
contravention of the discharge provisions is suspected, then the information should be
supplemented by evidence of violations which, as a minimum, should include the information
specified in parts 2 and 3 of appendices 3 and 4 of these Procedures.

4.3.2

On receiving a report on alleged deficiencies or alleged contravention of the discharge provisions,

the flag State and, where appropriate, the recognized organization through the flag State
Administration, should, as soon as possible, inform the Party submitting the report of immediate
action taken in respect of the alleged deficiencies or contravention. That Party and the
Organization should, upon completion of such action, be informed of the outcome and details,
where appropriate, be included in the mandatory annual report to the Organization.

ASM ORALS

Page 29

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 30

NITIN MAHAJAN

APPENDIX 1
CODE OF GOOD PRACTICE FOR PORT STATE CONTROL OFFICERS CONDUCTING
INSPECTIONS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE REGIONAL MEMORANDA OF
UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENT ON PORT STATE CONTROL (MSC-MEPC.4/Circ.2)
Introduction: This document provides guidelines regarding the standards of integrity, professionalism and
transparency that regional port State control (PSC) regimes expect of all port State control officers (PSCOs)
who are involved in or associated with port State control inspections.
Objective: The object of this Code is to assist PSCOs in conducting their inspections to the highest professional
level. PSCOs are central to achieving the aims of the regional PSC regime. They are the daily contact 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.
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:
.1 integrity is the state of moral soundness, honesty and freedom from corrupting influences or motives;
.2 professionalism is applying accepted professional standards of conduct and technical knowledge. For
PSCOs standards of behaviour are established by the maritime Authority and the general consent of the
port State members; and
.3 transparency implies openness and accountability.

APPENDIX 2

GUIDELINES FOR THE DETENTION OF SHIPS

1 Introduction
1.1

When deciding whether the deficiencies found in a ship are sufficiently serious to merit detention, the
PSCO should assess whether:
.1 the ship has relevant, valid documentation; and
.2 the ship has the crew required in the minimum Safe Manning Document.

1.2

During inspection, the PSCO should further assess whether the ship and/or crew, throughout its
forthcoming voyage, is able to:
.1 navigate safely;
.2 safely handle, carry and monitor the condition of the cargo;
.3 operate the engine-room safely;
.4 maintain proper propulsion and steering;
.5 fight fires effectively in any part of the ship if necessary;

ASM ORALS

Page 30

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 31

NITIN MAHAJAN

.6 abandon ship speedily and safely and effect rescue if necessary;

.7 prevent pollution of the environment;
.8 maintain adequate stability;
.9 maintain adequate watertight integrity;
.10 communicate in distress situations if necessary; and
.11 provide safe and healthy conditions on board.
1.3

If the result of any of these assessments is negative, taking into account all deficiencies found, the ship
should be strongly considered for detention. A combination of deficiencies of a less serious nature may
also warrant the detention of the ship. Ships which are unsafe to proceed to sea should be detained upon
the first inspection, irrespective of the time the ship will stay in port.

General
The lack of valid certificates as required by the relevant instruments may warrant the detention of
ships. However, ships flying the flag of States not a Party to a convention or not having
implemented another relevant instrument, are not entitled to carry the certificates provided for by
the convention or other relevant instrument. Therefore, absence of the required certificates should
not by itself constitute a reason to detain these ships; however, in applying the "no more favourable
treatment" clause, substantial compliance with the provisions and criteria specified in these Procedures
must be required before the ship sails.

Detainable deficiencies
To assist the PSCO in the use of these Guidelines, there follows a list of deficiencies, grouped under
relevant conventions and/or codes, which are considered to be 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
examples of relevant items.

Areas under the SOLAS Convention

Areas under the IBC Code
Areas under the IGC Code
Areas under the Load Lines Convention
Areas under the MARPOL Convention, Annex I
Areas under the MARPOL Convention, Annex II
Areas under the MARPOL Convention, Annex IV
Areas under the MARPOL Convention, Annex V
Areas under the MARPOL Convention, Annex VI
Areas under the STCW Convention
Areas which may not warrant a detention, but where, e.g. cargo operations have to be suspended
ASM ORALS

Page 31

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 32

APPENDIX 3
PART 1

NITIN MAHAJAN

GUIDELINES FOR INVESTIGATIONS AND INSPECTIONS CARRIED OUT

UNDER ANNEX I OF MARPOL
INSPECTION OF IOPP CERTIFICATE, SHIP AND EQUIPMENT

Ships required to carry an IOPP Certificate

1.1

On boarding and introduction to the master or responsible ship's officer, the PSCO should examine the
IOPP Certificate, including the attached Record of Construction and Equipment, and the Oil
Record Book.

Ships of non-Parties to the Convention and other ships not required to carry an IOPP Certificate

2.1

As this category of ships is not provided with an IOPP Certificate, the PSCO should be satisfied with
regard to the construction and equipment standards relevant to the ship on the basis of the
requirements set out in Annex I of MARPOL.

PART 2

CONTRAVENTIONS OF DISCHARGE PROVISIONS

PART 3

ITEMIZED LIST OF POSSIBLE EVIDENCE ON ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF THE

MARPOL ANNEX I DISCHARGE PROVISIONS

PART 4

GUIDELINES FOR IN-PORT INSPECTION OF CRUDE OIL WASHING PROCEDURES

APPENDIX 4

PART 1

GUIDELINES FOR INVESTIGATIONS AND INSPECTIONS CARRIED OUT

UNDER ANNEX II OF MARPOL
INSPECTION OF CERTIFICATE (COF OR NLS CERTIFICATE), SHIP AND EQUIPMENT

1 Ships required to hold a Certificate

The Certificate includes information on the type of ship, the dates of surveys and a list of the products which the
ship is certified to carry.
The Certificate's validity should be confirmed by verifying that the Certificate is properly completed and signed
and that required surveys have been performed.
Ships approved Procedures and Arrangements Manual (P and A Manual);
PART 2

CONTRAVENTIONS OF DISCHARGE PROVISIONS

PART 3

ITEMIZED LIST OF POSSIBLE EVIDENCE ON ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF THE

MARPOL ANNEX II DISCHARGE PROVISIONS

PART 4

PROCEDURES FOR INSPECTION OF UNLOADING, STRIPPING AND PREWASHING

OPERATIONS (MAINLY IN UNLOADING PORTS)

ASM ORALS

Page 32

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 33

NITIN MAHAJAN

APPENDIX 5

GUIDELINES FOR DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS UNDER ANNEXES I AND

II OF MARPOL

APPENDIX 6

GUIDELINES FOR MORE DETAILED INSPECTIONS OF SHIP STRUCTURAL

AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS

APPENDIX 7

GUIDELINES FOR CONTROL OF OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS

APPENDIX 8

GUIDELINES FOR PORT STATE CONTROL RELATED TO THE ISM CODE

To the extent applicable, the PSCO should examine the copy of the Document of Compliance (DOC),
issued to the company, and the Safety Management Certificate (SMC), issued to the ship. An SMC is
not valid unless the company holds a valid DOC for that ship type. The PSCO should in particular verify
that the type of ship is included in the DOC and that the company's particulars are the same on both the
DOC and the SMC.

During the examination of onboard documents and certificates, PSCOs should recognize:
.1 the common practice of issuing, after successfully completing an audit, SMCs and DOCs valid for a
period not exceeding 5 months, to cover the period between completion of the audit and issuance of the
full term certificate by either the Administration or the recognized organization; and
.2 that the current valid DOC with proper annual endorsements is normally only available in the
company to which it has been issued and that the copy on board may not reflect the annual endorsements
that exist on the valid DOC held by the company.

APPENDIX 9

GUIDELINES FOR PORT STATE CONTROL RELATED TO LRIT

APPENDIX 10

GUIDELINES FOR PORT STATE CONTROL UNDER THE 1969 TONNAGE

CONVENTION

APPENDIX 11

MINIMUM MANNING STANDARDS AND CERTIFICATION

APPENDIX 12

LISTS OF CERTIFICATES AND DOCUMENTS

List of certificates and documents which to the extent applicable should be checked during the inspection
referred to in paragraph 2.2.3 (as appropriate):
1

International Tonnage Certificate (1969);

Reports of previous port State control inspections;

Passenger Ship Safety Certificate (SOLAS reg.I/12);

Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate (SOLAS reg.I/12);

Cargo Ship Safety Equipment Certificate (SOLAS reg.I/12);

6
Cargo Ship Safety Radio Certificate (SOLAS reg.I/12);
ASM ORALS
Page 33

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 34

NITIN MAHAJAN

Cargo Ship Safety Certificate (SOLAS reg.I/12);

Special Purpose Ship Safety Certificate (SOLAS reg.I/12, SPS Code reg.1.7);

For ro-ro passenger ships, information on the A/A-max ratio (SOLAS reg.II-1/8-1.);

10

Damage control plans and booklets (SOLAS reg.II-1/19);

11

Stability information (SOLAS reg.II-1/5-1 and LLC 66/88 reg.10);

12

Manoeuvring Booklet and information (SOLAS reg.II-1/28);

13

Unattended machinery spaces (UMS) evidence (SOLAS reg.II-I/46.3);

14

Exemption Certificate and any list of cargoes (SOLAS reg.II-2/10.7.1.4);

15

Fire control plan (SOLAS reg.II-2/15.2.4);

16

Fire safety operational booklet (SOLAS reg.II-2/16.3.1);

17

Dangerous goods special list or manifest, or detailed stowage plan (SOLAS reg.II-2/19 and ILO
Convention No.134 art.4.3(h));

18

Document of compliance Dangerous Goods (SOLAS reg.II-2/19.4);

19

Ship's logbook with respect to the records of drills, including security drills, and the log for records of
inspection and maintenance of life-saving appliances and arrangements and fire-fighting appliances and
arrangements (SOLAS regs.III/19.5 and 20.6);

20

Minimum Safe Manning Document (SOLAS reg.V/14.2);

21

SAR coordination plan for passenger ships trading on fixed routes (SOLAS reg.V/7.3);

22

LRIT Conformance Test Report;

23

Copy of the Document of compliance issued by the testing facility, stating the date of compliance and
the applicable performance standards of VDR (voyage data recorder) (SOLAS reg.V/18.8);

24

For passenger ships, List of operational limitations (SOLAS reg.V/30.2);

25

Cargo Securing Manual (SOLAS reg.VI/5.6);

26

Bulk Carrier Booklet (SOLAS reg.VI/7.2);

27

Loading/Unloading Plan for bulk carriers (SOLAS reg.VI/7.3);

28

Document of authorization for the carriage of grain (SOLAS reg.VI/9);

29

INF (International Code for the Safe Carriage of Packaged Irradiated Nuclear Fuel, Plutonium and HighLevel Radioactive Wastes on Board Ships) Certificate of Fitness (SOLAS reg.VII/16 and INF Code
reg.1.3);

30

Copy of Document of Compliance issued in accordance with the International Management Code for the
Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (DoC) ISM Code (SOLAS reg.IX/4.2);

31

Safety Management Certificate issued in accordance with the International Management Code for the
Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (SMC) (SOLAS reg.IX/4.3);

32

High-Speed Craft Safety Certificate and Permit to Operate High-Speed Craft (SOLAS reg.X/3.2 and
HSC Code 94/00 reg.1.8.1);

33

Continuous Synopsis Record (SOLAS reg.XI-1/5);

34

International Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Liquefied Gases in Bulk, or the

ASM ORALS

Page 34

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 35

NITIN MAHAJAN

Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Liquefied Gases in Bulk, whichever is appropriate (IGC Code
reg.1.5.4);
35

International Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk, or the
Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk, whichever is appropriate (IBC
Code reg.1.5.4 and BCH Code reg.1.6.3);

36

International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate (MARPOL Annex I reg.7.1);

37

Survey Report Files (in case of bulk carriers or oil tankers) (SOLAS reg.XI-1/2);

38

Oil Record Book, parts I and II (MARPOL Annex I regs.17 and 36);

39

Shipboard Marine pollution emergency plan for Noxious Liquid Substances (MARPOL Annex II
reg.17);

40

(Interim) Statement of compliance Condition Assessment Scheme (CAS) (MARPOL Annex I regs.20.6
and 21.6.1);

41

For oil tankers, the record of oil discharge monitoring and control system for the last ballast voyage
(MARPOL Annex I reg.31.2);

42

Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (MARPOL Annex I reg.37.1);

43

International Pollution Prevention Certificate for the Carriage of Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk
(NLS) (MARPOL Annex II reg.9.1);

44

Cargo Record Book (MARPOL Annex II reg.15);

45

Procedures and Arrangements Manual (chemical tankers) (MARPOL Annex II reg.14.1);

46

International Sewage Pollution Prevention Certificate (ISPPC) (MARPOL Annex IV reg.5.1);

47

Garbage Management Plan (MARPOL Annex V reg.9.2);

48

Garbage Record Book (MARPOL Annex V reg.9.3);

49

International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate (IAPPC) (MARPOL Annex VI reg.6.1);

50

Logbook for fuel oil change-over (MARPOL Annex VI reg.14.6);

51

Type approval certificate of incinerator (MARPOL Annex VI reg.16.6);

52

Bunker delivery notes (MARPOL Annex VI reg.18.3);

53

Engine International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate (EIAPPC) (NOx Technical Code 2008
reg.2.1.1.1);

54

Technical files (NOx Technical Code 2008 reg.2.3.6);

55

Record book of engine parameters (NOx Technical Code reg.6.2.2.7.1);

56

International Load Line Certificate (1966) (LLC 66/88 art.16.1);

57

International Load Line Exemption Certificate (LLC 66/88 art.16.2);

58

Certificates issued in accordance with STCW Convention (STCW art.VI, reg.I/2 and STCW Code
section A-I/2);

59

Table of shipboard working arrangements (STCW Code section A-VIII/1.5 and ILO Convention No.180
art. 5.7);

60

Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit Safety Certificate (MODU Code 2009 chapter I section 6);

ASM ORALS

Page 35

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 36

NITIN MAHAJAN

61

Certificate of insurance or any other financial security in respect of civil liability for oil pollution
damage (CLC 69/92 art.VII.2);

62

Certificate of insurance or any other financial security in respect of civil liability for Bunker oil pollution
damage (BUNKERS 2001 art.7.2);

63

International Ship Security Certificate (ISSC) (ISPS Code part A/19.2);

64

Record of AFS (AFS 2001 Annex 4 reg.2);

65

International Anti-Fouling System Certificate (IAFS Certificate) (AFS 2001 Annex 4 reg.2); and

66

Declaration on AFS (AFS 2001 Annex 4 reg.5).

For reference:
1

Certificate of Registry or other document of nationality (UNCLOS art.9.1.2);

Certificates as to the ship's hull strength and machinery installations issued by the classification society
in question (only to be required if the ship maintains its class with a classification society);

Cargo Gear Record Book (ILO Convention No.32 art.9.2(4) and ILO Convention No.152 art.25);

Certificates loading and unloading equipment (ILO Convention No.134 art.4.3(e) and ILO Convention
No.32 art.9(4));

Medical certificates (ILO Convention No.73); and

Records of hours of work or rest of seafarers (ILO Convention No.180 part II art. 8.1).

APPENDIX 13

REPORT OF INSPECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH IMO PSC CONTROL

PROCEDURES*

FORM A
(Reporting authority) Copy to: Master
(Address) Head office
(Telephone) PSCO
(Telefax)
If ship is detained, copy to:
Flag State
IMO
Recognized organization, if applicable
This report must be retained on board for a period of two years and must be available for consultation by port
State control officers at all times.

ASM ORALS

Page 36

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 37

NITIN MAHAJAN

REPORT OF INSPECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH IMO PORT STATE CONTROL PROCEDURES

FORM B
(Reporting authority) Copy to: Master
(Address) Head office
(Telephone) PSCO
(Telefax)
If ship is detained, copy to:
Flag State
IMO
Recognized organization, if applicable
2 Name of ship ............................................ 6 IMO number .............................................

10 Date of inspection ..................................... 4 Place of inspection ..................................

21 Nature of deficiency1) Convention2) 22 Action taken3)

Name ......................................................

(duly authorized PSCO of reporting

authority)
Signature .................................................

1 This inspection was not a full survey and deficiencies listed may not be exhaustive. In the event of a
detention, it is recommended that full survey is carried out and all deficiencies are rectified before an
application for re-inspection is made.
2 To be completed in the event of a detention.
3 Actions taken include, i.e.: ship detained/released, flag State informed, classification society informed, next
port informed.
ASM ORALS

Page 37

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS
APPENDIX 14

Page 38

NITIN MAHAJAN

REPORT OF DEFICIENCIES NOT FULLY RECTIFIED OR ONLY

PROVISIONALLY REPAIRED

In accordance with the provision of paragraph 3.7.3 of IMO Port State Control Procedures (resolution
A.1052(27))

(Copy to maritime Authority of next port of call, flag Administration, or other certifying authority as
appropriate)
1 From (Country/region) .............................. 2 Port ............................................................
3 To (Country/region) .................................. 4 Port ............................................................
5 Name of ship ............................................ 6 Date departed ............................................
7 Estimated place and time of arrival ..........................................................................................
8 IMO number ............................................. 9 Flag of ship and POR ................................
10 Type of ship .............................................. 11 Call sign .....................................................
12 Gross tonnage .......................................... 13 Year of build ..............................................
14 Issuing authority of relevant certificate(s) .................................................................................
15 Nature of deficiencies to be rectified 16 Suggested action
(including action at next port of call)
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
17 Action taken
.
.
.
.
Reporting Authority ...................................... Office .......................................................
Name ....................................................... Telefax ....................................................
(duly authorized PSCO of reporting authority)
Signature ...................................................... Date ........................................................

ASM ORALS

Page 38

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS
APPENDIX 15

Page 39

NITIN MAHAJAN

REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN TO THE NOTIFYING AUTHORITY

In accordance with the provision of paragraph 3.7.3 of IMO PSC Procedures (resolution A.1052 (27))
(by Telefax and/or Mail)
1 To:
(Name) ...............................................................................................................
(Position) ............................................................................................................
(Authority) ..........................................................................................................
Telephone ........................................ Telefax ..............................................
Date: ................................................
2 From: (Name) ..............................................................................................................
(Position) ............................................................................................................
(Authority) ..........................................................................................................
Telephone ........................................ Telefax ..............................................
3 Name of ship .................................................................................................................
4 Call sign ....................................................... 5 IMO Number ..........................
6 Port of inspection ...........................................................................................................
7 Date of inspection ..........................................................................................................
8 Action taken
a) Deficiencies
....
....
....
9 Next port ......................................................
10 Supporting documentation No Yes
b) Action taken
........................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................
(Date) ................................................
(See attached)
Signature ...........................................

ASM ORALS

Page 39

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS
APPENDIX 16

Page 40

NITIN MAHAJAN

FORMAT FOR THE REPORT OF CONTRAVENTION OF MARPOL (article 6)

IMO PORT STATE CONTROL PROCEDURES (resolution A.1052(27))

(Issuing authority) Copy to: Master

(Address)
(Telephone)
(Telefax)
1 Reporting country ........................................................................................................
2 Name of ship ...............................................................................................................
3 Flag of ship ..................................................................................................................
4 Type of ship .................................................................................................................
5 Call sign ............................................... 6 IMO number ..................................
7 Gross tonnage ..................................... 8 Deadweight ................................... (where appropriate)
9 Year of build ........................................ 10 Classification society ....................
11 Date of incident ................................... 12 Place of incident ...........................
13 Date of investigation ....................................................................................................
14 In case of contravention of discharge provisions, a report may be completed in addition to port State report
on deficiencies. This report should be in accordance with parts 2 and 3 of appendix 3 and/or parts 2 and 3 of
appendix 4, as applicable, and should be supplemented by documents, such as:
.1 a statement by the observer of the pollution;
.2 the appropriate information listed under section 1 of part 3 of appendices 3 and 4 to the Procedures, the
statement should include considerations which lead the observer to conclude that none of any other possible
pollution sources is in fact the source;
.3 statements concerning the sampling procedures both of the slick and on board. These should include location
of and time when samples were taken, identity of person(s) taking the samples and receipts identifying the
persons having custody and receiving transfer of the samples;
.4 reports of analyses of samples taken of the slick and on board; the reports should include the results of the
analyses, a description of the method employed, reference to or copies of scientific documentation attesting to
the accuracy and validity of the method employed and names of persons performing the analyses and their
experience;
.5 if applicable, a statement by the PSCO on board together with the PSCO's rank and organization;
.6 statements by persons being questioned;
ASM ORALS

Page 40

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 41

NITIN MAHAJAN

.7 statements by witnesses;
.8 photographs of the slick; and
.9 copies of relevant pages of Oil/Cargo Record Books, logbooks, discharge recordings, etc.
Name and Title (duly authorized contravention investigation official)
........................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
Signature

APPENDIX 17

COMMENTS BY FLAG STATE ON DETENTION REPORT

Name of ship: ............................................................................................................................

IMO number/call sign: ...............................................................................................................
Flag State: ................................................................................................................................
Gross tonnage: ..........................................................................................................................
Deadweight (where appropriate): ..............................................................................................
Date of report: ...........................................................................................................................
Report by: .................................................................................................................................
Classification Society: ...............................................................................................................
Recognized Organization involved: ...........................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................................
Did you receive the notification of detention? (tick the box if the answer is 'yes')
Action taken
a) Deficiencies b) Cause c) Action taken
.. ..... ...
.. ..... ...
.. ..... ...
.. ..... ...
.. ..... ...
.. ..... ...
Additional Information: ...............................................................................................................

APPENDIX 18

ASM ORALS

LIST OF INSTRUMENTS RELEVANT TO PORT STATE CONTROL

PROCEDURES

Page 41

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 42

NITIN MAHAJAN

New port State control system from 1 January 2011

On 1 January 2011, a new port State control system will be introduced in the Paris MoU cooperation, which
includes in addition to the EU member States Canada, Iceland, Croatia, Norway and Russia.
The new system is called the New Inspection Regime (NIR).
In EU countries, the system will be implemented through the new directive on port State Control, 2009/16/EC.
In Iceland, the system will be implemented through the order on port State control.
The system replaces the previous PSC regime, which is based on random checks. NIR contains several new
elements, such as:

Periodic inspection of all ships calling at Paris MoU ports.

The inspections will be targeted according to a Ship Risk Profile so that risky ships are inspected
frequently, while good ships are inspected less frequently. More information about the Ship Risk
Profile is available and more information about the inspection intervals is available here.

New requirements on the notification of calls

As something new, the actual time of arrival and departure must also be notified in connection with
calls. Though the notifications are in principle the same in the entire Paris MoU region, the procedures
can vary from one country to another. In connection with calls at Icelandic ports, the notification
requirements are laid down in order no. 1021 of 26 August 2010 on technical regulation on a vessel
traffic monitoring and information system in Icelandic waters and ports. Lack of notification can result
in extra inspections and, possibly, fines.

Focus on Company Performance determined as deficiencies and detentions at port State Control
inspections in the Paris MoU region will be included in the overall evaluation of a Ship Risk Profile. A
list of shipping companies with a low performance rate will be published. The Company Performance
determined as deficiencies and detentions at port State Control inspections in the Paris MoU region
will be included in the overall evaluation of a Ship Risk Profile. A list of shipping companies with a low
performance rate will be published.
1. What is Port State Control?
Port State Control is the enforcement by Port States of rigid control measures to ensure that foreign
flag vessels entering their waters are in compliance with strict safety and anti-pollution standards
established by various international marine treaties
2. Why do you need to inform class in case of detention?
In cases of detention, it is important to request class surveyor to attend on board as soon as possible
because of:
1) The operator/owner has an obligation to notify the class society immediately in case of
deficiencies or discrepancies that significantly affect certificates issues by the society.
2) The class surveyor shall communicate and co-operate with the PSCO in order to expedite the
release of the ship. This may include clarification on applicability, interpretation, temporary
rectification and alternative solutions.

ASM ORALS

Page 42

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 43

NITIN MAHAJAN

3) The class surveyor can offer an acceptable mechanism (Conditions of Class) for following up
outstanding deficiencies that can not be rectified before leaving ports.
3. PSC Form A & Form B ? Validity of PSC certificate?
Form A indicate that an inspection has been carried out.
Form B where deficiencies are noted, a Form B is additionally completed.
Three types of Inspection:
1) Initial Inspection
(Random)
2) More Detailed Inspection
(Escalated)
3) Expanded Inspection (Targeted / Periodical)
No validity of PSC Inspection Reports; Inspection possible anytime, usually not within 6 months.
Ships are usually not inspected by PSC where inspection has been done in the previous 6
months, unless clear grounds;
ii. Ship visiting port for the first time or after interval of > 12 months
iii. Ships flying the flag of a State appearing in the three-year rolling average table of aboveaverage detentions and delays published in the annual report of the MOUs;
iv.
Ships which have been permitted to leave the port of a State, on the condition that the
deficiencies noted must be rectified within a specified period, upon expiry of such period;
v. Ships which have been reported by pilots or port authorities as having deficiencies which may
prejudice their safe navigation;
vi.
Ships whose statutory certificates on the ships construction and equipment, issued by an
organization which is not recognized by the Authority;
vii.
Ships carrying dangerous or polluting goods, which have failed to report all relevant inform- ation concerning the ships particulars, the ships movements and concerning the dangerous or
polluting goods being carried to the competent authority of the port and coastal State;
viii.
Ships which are in a category for which expanded inspection has been decided.
ix. Ships which have been suspended from their class for safety reasons in the course of the
preceding six months
4. What the various categories of PSC defeciencies?
i.

With the New Inspection Regime, which started Jan.2011, Paris MoU are using new set of 5-Digit
Deficiency Codes, applicable from Jan/Feb 2012:
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10

Certificates & Documentation

Structural condition
Water / Weather-tight Condition
Emergency Systems
Radio Communication
Cargo operations including Equipment
Fire-Safety
Alarms
Working & Living Conditions
Safety of Navigation

ASM ORALS

Page 43

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Page 44

NITIN MAHAJAN

LSA
Dangerous Goods
Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery
Pollution Prevention
ISM
ISPS
Other

ACTION TAKEN CODES: The Given Time Frame for rectification of each deficiency is commonly
given a Coded Form in the Inspection report - Action Code.
10
12
15
16
17
18
30
35
36
40
45
50
55
70
80
85
95
96
99

Deficiency Rectified
All Deficiencies Rectified
Rectify at next port of call
Rectify within 14 days
Master instructed to rectify deficiency before departure
Rectify deficiency within 3 months
Detainable deficiency
Ship Allowed to sail after Detention
Ship Allowed to sail after follow-up Detention
Next Port Informed
Next Port Informed to re-detain
Flag State / Consul informed
Flag State Consulted
Classification Society Informed
Temporary/ Provisional Substitution or Repair of Equipment or Exemption Granted
Investigation in Contravention of discharge provisions (MARPOL)
Letter of Warning issued
Letter of Warning withdrawn
Others (if impossible to code an action taken with existing codes

5. What are the types of PSC Inspections?

PSC inspections may be on random, targeted or periodical basis.
The following types of PSC inspections are used in PSC:
1. Initial Inspection (random)
2. More detailed inspection (escalated)
3. Expanded inspection (targeted/periodical)

1. Initial Inspection
The PSCO will normally examine the vessels relevant certificates and documents etc. and the overall
condition of the ship.
The certificates and documents listed above should therefore be readily available and presented to the
PSCO at his request.
ASM ORALS

Page 44

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 45

NITIN MAHAJAN

2. 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 comply with the requirements of the relevant conventions.
The inspection may focus on one area or be across various areas.
The following may be considered to be clear grounds for more detailed inspections by a PSCO:
1. the absence of principle equipment or arrangements required by the conventions;
2. evidence from the review of the ships certificates that a certificate or certificates are clearly
invalid;
3. evidence that the ships logs, manuals or other documentation are not on board, are not maintained,
or are falsely maintained;
4. in the opinion of the PSCOs general impression and observation serious hull or structural
deterioration or deficiencies exist that may place at risk the structural, watertight or weathertight
integrity of the ship;
5. in the opinion of the PSCOs general impression or observation 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 safety of ships or prevention of pollution, or that such operations have not been carried out
7. indication that key crew members may not be able to communicate with each other or with other
persons on board;
8. absence of an up-to-date muster list, fire control plan, & for passenger ships, a damage control
plan;
9. the emission of false distress alerts not followed by proper cancellation procedures;
10. receipt of a report or complaint containing information that a ship appears to be substandard;
11. the ship has been reported by pilots or port authorities or others as having deficiencies which may
prejudice safe navigation;
12. ships whose statutory certificates have been issued by an organisation which is not recognised
under the term of Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standards
for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime Administration;
13. the ship has been involved in a collision on its way to the port;
14. the ship is in a category for which expanded inspection has been decided;
15. the ship has been suspended from their class for safety reasons in the preceding six months;
16. the ship has been accused of an alleged violation of the provisions on discharge of harmful
substances or effluents
17. the ships statutory certificates on the ships construction and equipment, have been issued by an
organisation which is not recognised by the Authority
18. the ship flying the flag of a State appearing in the three-year rolling average table of above
average detentions in the annual report of MOU.

3. Expanded inspection
An inspection conducted according to non-mandatory guidelines only once during 12 months period
for certain types of ships (tankers, bulkers and passenger ships) and certain categories of age and size.
Oil tankers, bulk carriers, gas and chemical carriers & passenger ships are subject to expanded
inspections once during a period of 12 months. These inspections could be carried out in
accordance with provisions stated below:
Oil tankers, five years or less from the date of phasing out in accordance with MARPOL 73/78, Annex
I Regulation 13 G, i. e.

ASM ORALS

Page 45

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 46

NITIN MAHAJAN

a) A crude oil tanker of 20.000 DWT and above or a product carrier of 30.000 DWT and above,
not meeting the requirements of a new oil tanker as defined in Regulation 1 (26) of Annex I of
MARPOL 73/78, will be subject to expanded inspection:
- 20 years after its date of delivery as indicated on the Supplement, Form B, to the IOPP
Certificate, or
- 25 years after that date, if the ships wing tanks or double bottom space not used for
carriage of oil meet the requirements of Regulation 13 G (4) of the Annex, unless it has
been reconstructed to comply with Regulation 13 F of the same Annex.
b) An oil tanker as mentioned above meeting the requirements of a new oil tanker as defined in
Regulation 1 (26) of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78 will be subject to expanded inspection:
- 25 years after its date of delivery as indicated on the Supplement, Form B, to the IOPP
Certificate, unless it complies with or has been reconstructed to comply with Reg. 13 F.
c) Bulk carrier, older than 12 years of age, as determined on the basis of the date of construction
indicated in the ships safety certificate. Such expanded inspection will be conducted only
ones during a period of 12 months by any of the competent authorities of the MOU.
d) Gas and chemical tankers older than 10 years of age, as determined on the basis of
construction indicated in the ships safety certificate
e) In case of passenger ship operating on a regular schedule in or out of a port in an EU member
state, the competent authority of the Member State shall carry out an expanded inspection of
each ship. When a passenger ship operates such a schedule between ports in Member States,
one of the States between which the ship is operating shall undertake the expanded inspection.
To the extent applicable, following examinations be considered as part of an expanded inspection.
However, when the examinations are carried out, the master and/or responsible officers should
remind the PSCO that it may jeopardise the safe execution of certain on-board operations, e. g.
cargo operation, if the tests having a direct effect thereon, and are required to be executed during
such operations.
a) execution of black-out and start of emergency generator;
b) inspection of emergency lighting and back up sources including batteries;
c) operation of emergency fire-pump with two firehouses connected to the main fireline;
d) operation of bilge pumps;
e) closing of watertight doors;
f) lowering of a seaside lifeboat to the water level and test the release mechanism;
g) inspection of fire dampers to engine room, cargo holds and accommodation;
h) test of remote emergency stop e. g. boiler, ventilation and fuel pumps;
i) testing of steering gear including auxiliary steering gear;
j) inspection and testing of emergency source of power to radio installations;
k) inspection and, to the extent possible, test of engine-room separators;
Additional expanded inspections, which might be carried out for oil tankers:
a) fixed-deck foam system;
b) fire-fighting equipment in general;
c) inspections of fire dampers to pump room;
d) Control of pressure of inert gas and oxygen content thereof; check of survey report file to
identify possible suspect areas requiring inspections.
ASM ORALS
Page 46
NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 47

NITIN MAHAJAN

Additional expanded inspections, which might be carried out for bulk carriers:
a) corrosion of deck machinery foundations
b) deformation and/or corrosion of hatch covers
c) cracks and/or local corrosion in transverse bulkheads
d) access to cargo holds
e) check of Survey Report File to identify possible suspect areas requiring further inspections
Additional expanded inspections, which might be carried out on gas and chemical carriers:
a) cargo tank monitoring and safety devices relating to temperature, pressure, gas detection, and
ullage
b) oxygen analysing and explosimeter devices, inc. their calibration
c) availability of chemical detection equipment (bellows) with an appropriate number of suitable
gas detection tubes for the specific cargoes being carried
d) cabin escape sets giving suitable respiratory and eye protection, for every person
e) onboard (if required by products listed on International Certificate of Fitness or Certificate of
Fitness for the Carriage of Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk or Liquefied Gases in Bulk as
Applicable)
f) check that the product(s) being carried is listed in the International Certificate of Fitness or
Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk or Liquefied Gases in
Bulk as applicable
g) the fixed fire fighting installations on deck whether they be foam or dry chemical or other as
required by the product(s) carried
Additional expanded inspections, which might be carried out on passenger ships;
a) testing of fire detection and alarm system
b) testing of proper closing of fire doors
c) testing of public address system
d) fire drill where, as a minimum, all sets of firemans outfits must be demonstrated and part of
the catering staff shall take part
e) demonstration that key crew members are acquainted with the damage control plan
6. What is the purpose of the Second Joint Ministerial Conference on Port State Control?
The purpose of the upcoming conference is to have a second Ministerial Declaration signed by
representatives for the countries who are members of the Paris and Tokyo Memoranda of
Understanding (MOU) on Port State Control. This declaration will reconfirm our commitment to
eliminating sub-standard shipping around the world and will serve as a framework for new global
policies and programs to facilitate our elimination efforts
7. When was the first Port State Control Conference held and what did it accomplish?
The First Joint Ministerial Conference of the Paris and Tokyo Memoranda of Understanding on Port
State Control was held in Vancouver on March 24 and 25, 1998. The declarations by the Ministers of
the countries represented, contributed to an improvement of shipping in the two MOU regions and
have helped toward eliminating sub-standard ships worldwide.
8. What do the Paris and the Tokyo Memorandum of Understanding seek to accomplish?
Canada has signed two agreements on Port State Control, the Paris MoU and the Tokyo MoU
These agreements established regional systems for the inspection of foreign ships. The objective of the
agreements on Port State Control is to detect sub-standard shipping and minimize the threat to life,
property and the marine environment that may result.
ASM ORALS
Page 47
NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 48

NITIN MAHAJAN

9. How does Canada manage to participate in two MOUs when the levels of inspections carried out
by them both are quite different?
Canada recognizes the difficulties of participating in two organizations in which the levels of service
vary significantly. This was one of the compelling reasons why we convened the Conference in the first
place. Any measures that serve to both harmonize and improve the inspection procedures within the
two MOU regions will go a long way towards the major objective of our two organizations - to
eliminate sub-standard shipping.
10. Which bans can be imposed according to the Directive 2009/16/EC?
The ban due to multiple detentions (Article 16), the ban for jumped detention (Article 21.4), and the
ban for not calling into the indicated repair yard (Article 21.4)
11. Which ship types can be banned under Article 16 (multiple detentions)?
All ship types.
12. What are the Black, Grey and White lists published by the Paris MOU?
The Black, Grey and White (BGW) lists present the full spectrum, from quality flags (White
list) to flags with a poor performance (Black list) that are considered: medium risk, medium to high
risk, high risk and very high risk.
It is based on the total number of inspections and detentions over a 3-year rolling period for flags with
at least 30 inspections in the period.
Flags with an average performance are shown on the Grey list. Their appearance on this list may
act as an incentive to improve and move to the White list.
13. Which lists are used as the reference for applying a ban under Article 16?
The Black and Grey lists in the Paris MOU annual report, which are applicable from 1st of July
of the year following the report until 30 June the year after (e.g. the 2009 lists are effective from
1/7/2010 until 30/6/2011).
For a ship flying a Black listed flag, more than two detentions or Prevention of Operations (PoOs)
are required within the previous 36 months for the ship to be banned and for a ship flying a Grey
listed flag, more than two detentions or PoOs are required within the previous 24 months.
14. What happens to ships which change flag during the 24/36 month period of reference?
Only the flag of the ship at the time of the latest detention is used to determine the flag risk category
and to apply the ban.
15. What happens if the ship changes to a lower risk category or to a non-Black or a non-Grey listed
flag after the ban is imposed?
The ban will still apply and can only be lifted following the normal procedures described in Annex VIII
to Directive 2009/16/EC.
16. Does a detention imposed by a non- EU member State count towards a ban decision?
The ban takes into account detentions issued by all states which are members of the Paris MOU on
port state control.
17. Can a State ban a vessel under Article 16 without having first detained her?
No. The banning authority can apply the refusal of access order only to vessels which have been
authorised to leave a port after a detention.
ASM ORALS

Page 48

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 49

NITIN MAHAJAN

18. What is the minimum duration of ban?

The minimum duration of ban is applied only for the ban due to multiple detentions (Article 16). When
the ship is banned for the first time, the ban can only be lifted after a minimum period of 3 months. If
the same ship is banned second time the ban can only be lifted after 12 months and if the same ship is
banned third time, the ban can only be lifted after 24 months. Any subsequent detention after the third
ban shall result in a permanent ban.
19. Notification of calls
The notification obligation of ships is laid down in two directives in the so-called monitoring
directive and in the port State directive. The monitoring directive and the notification obligation of the
port State directive have been implemented in Denmark through, among other things, order no. 1021
of 26 August 2010 on technical regulation on a vessel traffic monitoring and information system in
Danish waters and ports.
20. Expected time of departure and arrival
As has been the case until now, all ships calling at a port in the Paris MoU region must notify the port
of its expected time of arrival (ETA) and expected time of departure (ETD) no later than 24 hours
prior to the call.
21. Actual time of departure and arrival
As something new, ships must also notify the actual time of arrival and departure, i.e. the so-called
ATA (Actual Time of Arrival) and ATD (Actual Time of Departure). The ship must, no later than at its
departure from the port, have notified the port authority of the actual time of arrival and departure.
22. Special notifications for ships to be subjected to an expanded inspection
In addition to the ETA, ETD, ATA and ATD as mentioned above, ships that can be subjected to an
expanded inspection must notify the port of its arrival at least 72 hours prior to arrival. The
information to be notified is stipulated in section 4(2) and (3) of the order. The information is to make
it possible for the authority to plan the expanded inspection. This notification is, at the same time,
considered to effect compliance with the 24-hour notification, cf. above.
23. As regards ships engaged in regular services with several calls at the same port every day, the port
State control authority (the Danish Maritime Authority) can grant exemptions from the notification
requirement (cf. section 4(5) of the order).
Ships notifications to the port authority are transferred to SafeSeaNet, a database established in
connection with the monitoring directive. Subsequently, the notification information from SafeSeaNet
is transferred to THETIS, which is the Paris MoU database. Therefore, it is of importance to the PSC
authorities that the notification is correct and timely. If a ship does not make the mandatory
notifications, it can be fined, and the ship may be subjected to an extra port State control inspection
merely for this reason.
24. Scope of the inspections
The scope of the previous port State control inspections is not changed much under the New Inspection
Regime. For example, a typical inspection will still be started by going through the ships certificates.
Annex IV of the directive lists the certificates to be inspected. In addition, the port State control
inspector will move around on board to inspect its general condition. The port State control inspector
can decide to start a so-called more detailed inspection if there is any basis for this.

ASM ORALS

Page 49

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 50

NITIN MAHAJAN

Annex V of the directive gives examples of conditions that may give rise to such clear grounds
which can justify a more detailed inspection. Finally, the following ships must be subjected to a socalled expanded inspection:

Ships with a high risk profile.

Passenger ships, oil tankers, gas or chemical tankers or bulk carriers, older than 12 years of age.

Ships with a high risk profile or passenger ships, oil tankers, gas or chemical tankers or bulk
carriers, older than 12 years of age, in cases of overriding or unexpected factors.

Ships subject to a re-inspection following a refusal of access order issued in accordance with
article 16 of the directive.

The owner or the master of the ship must ensure that sufficient time is available in the operating
schedule for the expanded inspection to the carried out.
As stated in the section on the notification obligation, these ships must notify the port authority of their
arrival at least 72 hours prior to arrival (ETA 72).
25. Inspection intervals
With NIR, all ships inside the Paris MoU region will be divided into three types: Low Risk Ships
(LRS), Standard Risk Ships (SRS), and High Risk Ships (HRS).
The type of ship is of importance to the intervals at which a ship is to be subjected to a port State
control inspection under the Paris MoU regime. To an LRS an interval of three years applies, and to
an SRS an interval of one year applies, while an HRS is to be inspected every six months. When an
interval has elapsed, the ship must be inspected at the first call hereafter.
However, it has become possible for a port State control authority to choose to inspect ships a little
earlier if it is convenient for the port State control authoritys arrangement of its work. Consequently,
an LRS can be inspected two years after the recent inspection, an SRS ten months after the recent
inspection and an HRS five months after the recent inspection.
When three years have passed since the recent inspection of an LRS, the ship will become a so-called
Priority I ship (P I) that must be inspected. In the period from two years after the recent PSC
inspection until three years after the recent PSC inspection (when the ship is open for inspection, cf.
the above), the ship is a Priority II ship (P II) and can but does not have to be inspected by the
PSC authority. The same applies to SRSs and HRSs.
When the ship has been inspected, it does not have any inspection priority for a period of time, cf. the
above (2 years for LRSs, ten months for SRSs and five months for HRSs).
However, a so-called unexpected factor can change the ships status from no priority to P II.
Furthermore, a so-called overriding factor can change a ships inspection priority to P I.
Ships with unexpected factors mean the following:

Ships that have not complied with the applicable version of the IMO Recommendation on navigation
through the entrances to the Baltic Sea.

Ships carrying certificates issued by a formerly recognised organisation whose recognition has been
withdrawn since the last inspection in the Community or in the Paris MoU region.

ASM ORALS

Page 50

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 51

NITIN MAHAJAN

Ships that have been reported by pilots or port authorities or bodies as having apparent anomalies
which may prejudice their safe navigation or pose a threat of harm to the environment, cf. article 23
of the directive.

Ships which have failed to comply with the relevant notification requirements referred to in article 9
of the PSC directive as well as in directive 2000/59/EC (on port reception facilities for shipgenerated waste and cargo residues), and directive 2002/59/EC (the monitoring directive) and, if
appropriate, in regulation (EC) no. 725/2004 (on enhancing ship and port facility security).

Ships that have been the subject of a report or complaint by the master, a crewmember, or any
person or organisation with a legitimate interest in the safe operation of the ship, on-board living
and working conditions or the prevention of pollution, unless the member State concerned deems the
report or complaint to be manifestly unfounded.

Ships that have previously been detained more than three months ago.

Ships that have been reported with outstanding deficiencies, except those for which defi-ciencies had
to be rectified within 14 days after departure, and for deficiencies which had to be rectified before
departure.

Ships that have been reported with problems concerning their cargo, in particular noxious and
dangerous cargoes.

Ships that have been operated in a manner posing a danger to persons, property or the
environment.

Ships where information from a reliable source became known to the effect that their risk
parameters differ from those recorded and the risk level is thereby increased.

Ships with overriding factors mean the following:

Ships that have been suspended or withdrawn from their class for safety reasons since the last
inspection in the Community or in the Paris MoU region.

Ships that have been the subject of a report or notification by another member State.

Ships that cannot be identified in the inspection database.

Ships that:
o

have been involved in a collision, grounding or stranding on their way to the port;

have been accused of an alleged violation of the provisions on discharge of harmful substances;

have manoeuvred in an erratic or unsafe manner whereby routing measures adopted by the
IMO or safe navigation practices and procedures have not been followed.

Ship Risk Profile

The Ship Risk Profile is the basis on which each individual ship is classified as an LRS, SRS or an HRS.
An HRS is a ship with 5 or more weighting points according to the following factors:
Type of ship: Chemical tanker, gas carrier, oil tanker, bulk carrier and passenger ship=" 2 points
Age of ship: Is the age of the ship > 12 years, irrespective of type of ship,=
ASM ORALS

Page 51

1 point
NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 52

NITIN MAHAJAN

Flag:
Is the flag on the blacklist in very high risk, high risk ,medium to high risk
areas="
Is the flag on the blacklist in medium risk areas =

2 points

Is the performance of the ships recognised organisation low or very low =

1 point

Is the performance of the shipping company low or very low =

2 points

If the ship has had 2 or more detentions within the previous 36 months =

1 point

1 point

To be classified as an LRS, the following criteria must be met:

The flag must be on the white list.

The flag State must have been subjected to the IMO voluntary member State audit.

The performance of the ships recognised organisation must be high.

The ships recognised organisation must be recognised by the EU.

The performance of the shipping company must be high.

The ship must have been inspected in the Paris MoU region at least once within the previous 36
months, and the number of deficiencies recorded in each inspection within the previous 36 months
must be 5 or fewer.

An SRS is a ship that is neither an HRS nor an LRS.

The Paris MoU database will be updated every night, and the inspections recorded could therefore lead
to changes of a Ship Risk Profile overnight.
The Ship Risk Profile is decisive for the inspection interval.
On the Paris MoU webpage, there is a calculator which will calculate the Ship Risk Profile when the
ship data are recorded.
26. Company Performance
A factor that affects the calculation of the Ship Risk Profile is the Company Performance.
The Company Performance is calculated by comparing the number of deficiencies and detentions
recorded for a shipping companys ships to the average value of deficiencies and detentions within the
Paris MoU system.
On the Paris MoU webpage, a calculator is available that will when the necessary data are recorded
calculate the Company Performance in terms of the following four results: very low, low,
medium or high.

27. Who is behind RightShip?

RightShip was initially created as a boutique joint venture company, operating independently but
backed by the resources of major shippers BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto.
The original Ship Vetting information System (SVIS) combined the data resources and knowledge the
two companies had developed over many years in their own in house expert vetting systems. The joint
venture partners aim was to improve their own vetting processes, and at the same time raise standards
across the industry so the commercial disadvantages of choosing quality ships were minimised.
ASM ORALS

Page 52

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 53

NITIN MAHAJAN

Since being formed in 2001, RightShip has grown substantially to serve a global client base far beyond
its parent companies. Cargill acquired a one third stake in RightShip in September 2006.
RightShips independent management team operates & improves the system in the interests of its broad
client base.
28. Why is ship vetting important?
Managing risk is about weighing up reliable information and making sound decisions. Given the scale
of risk in marine operations, it makes sense to vet get all the relevant information you can about
a ship you are considering using, or asked to accept.
The more reliable and comprehensive the information, the more useful the vetting process and the
faster and better designed the vetting process, the more useful it is in commercial decision-making.
29. Why does anyone need an external vetting system?
A good vetting system makes sure your marine risk is managed, and your decisions are consistent and
based on reliable information.
An in house system is very expensive and time-consuming to develop and maintain. With RightShip you
can have all the advantages of an in house system straight away, at a fraction of the cost; even put your
own vetting system on our secure host server to improve access and security and reduce costs.
30. What makes RightShip different to other systems?

Our system is the most comprehensive available, with extensive data about over 54000 dry bulk,
petroleum and liner ships.
The only system that gives you an acceptability rating for the ship, as well as more detailed data
about it.
Assesses each ships suitability for a specific task.
The fastest way to get this quality of information online.
Easy online access via web and simple user interface.
Low subscription rates for 24/7 access.
31. How do we get our ships included in RightShips vetting system for your clients to see?
All commercial vessels over 500 tonnes currently operating worldwide are listed in our database
automatically.
Owners dont need to take any action to have their ships available in the system for our clients to view.
RightShips vetting system draws data from reliable sources including IHS Fairplay, Port State Control
inspections, terminal records, and casualty data. The online vetting system evaluates all available data
to give prospective charterers & other interested parties an overview of the levels of risk for each ship.
32. Can I check your system to see how our ships have been evaluated?
RightShips online vetting system is available to all subscribing organisations, and we welcome
shipowners as subscribers.
We also offer a special shipowners module which helps owners track their ships performance.

ASM ORALS

Page 53

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 54

NITIN MAHAJAN

33. How can I check the information in the RightShip system about my ships?
As subscriber you can search for your ships any time and check the data and risk rating that the system
provides.
We also offer a shipowners module, so subscribing owners can get reports and other assistance in
tracking their own vessels performance.
34. How is the RightShip risk rating calculated?
The risk rating is determined by a computer-based algorithm. It calculates risk based on data collected
under about 50 risk factors, including as the following as well as other factors:

Flag Risk (determined by statistical assessment of PSC inspection, casualty and Incident
performance associated with the particular flag)

Class Risk (determined by statistical assessment of PSC inspection, casualty and Incident
performance associated with the particular class society)

Number of Changes of flag, class, owner or manager

The vessels casualty history

The vessels berth reports

The vessels terminal reports

The vessels PSC performance (including particular attention to multiple deficiencies and/or
detentions over a period of time)

The vessels age.

These and other risk factors go towards a score, which is then combined with other factors (such as
Port State Control performance) to determine the overall star rating. Ships rated as highest risk score
less than 72 through the system, while ships rated as lowest risk can score anywhere over 120. Ships
scoring 88 and over are likely to be rated as a satisfactory risk without further review.
Its also important to remember that data is updated every day and a rating is only valid for the
particular customer, for the particular task, on the particular day and time the vet is done.
35. How does RightShips rating system work?
RightShips system uses a computer-based algorithm to evaluate data under around 50 separate risk
factors. It uses this data to deliver a rating which shows whether, at the time to the vet is done, the
overall level of risk of the vessel for the nominated task is considered low or high.
The rating is in the form of stars, from one (highest risk) to five (lowest risk). A ship rated three stars
or more is generally passed without further review, while a vessel rated one or two stars will generally
need closer examination, often including a physical inspection, before RightShip will pass it as an
acceptable risk.
It is very important to remember that while RightShips rating shows the risk profile of a vessel, and is
based on solid data and proven analysis, it is not a definitive indicator of the vessels suitability.
Rather, it indicates the extent of review and follow-up with owners that may be required for the ship to
be passed as an acceptable risk. It is possible for ship the system rates as higher risk to ultimately be
passed as acceptable, provided all is found in order after closer review.
ASM ORALS

Page 54

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 55

NITIN MAHAJAN

36. How does Port State Control inspection affect the rating?
The number and severity (coding) of deficiencies recorded at Port State Control inspections will impact
on the vessels rating.
On review, RightShips rating may be improved if owners provide satisfactory information regarding
the outcome of root cause analysis, details of corrective actions taken and preventive actions taken to
prevent reoccurrence on this and other vessels in your fleet for each of the deficiencies. RightShip will
require substantiating evidence (photographs, copies of work instructions, Circulars etc) before
restoring the vessels risk rating
37. What other factors affect the rating?
As well as the key scoring risk factors, the rating can also be influenced by factors including:

Incidents Under Review

Casualty Under Review
Lloyds Reported Casualty
Laid-Up or Under Repair
Class Suspension / Withdrawal
Not IACS Classed
Derate (Target) Flag (designated by RightShip annually, based on poor MOU performance)

Close-out or change by RightShip to any of the factors above, after owners have provided satisfactory
information about the actions they have taken in response to these factors
38. Can people use RightShip to verify the rating of ships before they buy or charter them?
All RightShip subscribers can check the history and risk rating of any of about 70 000 vessels in the
system, and instantly get data and a risk rating
39. Who usually gets a ship recommended owner or charterer?
Vetting is generally done by charterers, shippers, suppliers or receivers, to check a nominated ship
before accepting it. RightShip customers also include terminals and ports, insurers, marine finance
organisations, agents and organisations from other parts of the industry who have a need to review
vessel data and risk ratings.
The owners role in the process is to make sure their ship performs against important risk criteria,
enhancing the prospects of the vessel being evaluated as acceptable by system users
40. Can you tell me more about how ships are vetted?
RightShip provides vetting services for our customers. Vetting is the assessment of vessels for the
purpose of identifying suitability for a specific customer and the intended use as nominated by that
customer.
The vetting process commences when a vetting request is submitted to our system online. RightShips
services include:
ASM ORALS

Page 55

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 56

NITIN MAHAJAN

Online vessel ratings and data

Approval or review of ratings and data by experienced technical staff
Clarification of any issues that may impact the vessels suitability or level of risk
Vetting questionnaires to owners
Vessel inspections.

41. How is recommendation for new vessels obtained?

RightShips system automatically includes all trading vessels including newly commissioned ships, once
they have been allocated an IMO number and been listed by IHS Fairplay.
42. When is inspection required for dry bulk vessels?
Many vessels are vetted and approved without the need for an inspection. The following are cases in
which RightShip may require a physical inspection of the ship by experienced inspectors before it will
consider recommending the vessel as suitable for our customers:

High risk vessels (as rated by the online vetting system)

A vessel that has recorded a detention resulting (or likely to result) in prosecution subsequent to
MARPOL or SOLAS infringement

A vessel that has had a change of owner or manager

A vessel that has undergone major repairs or modifications

The following are cases in which RightShip will require a physical inspection:

All Cape vessels at 18 years of age (inspection has 12 month validity)

All Panamax vessels at 18 years of age (inspection has 12 month validity)

All Handy vessels at 18 years of age (12 month validity)

Vessels which meet other criteria set by individual customers, or which a customer asks to be inspected.
43. Does RightShip have age limitations for dry bulk vessels?
RightShip reviews risk factors and assesses vessels on a case by case basis, so there is no absolute age
limit. We do however have triggers in the system so that when vessels reach set ages the system will
require further review including an inspection before the ship can be recommended for approval.
These trigger ages include:

o
o
o

RightShip Age Ceiling (General)

Handy: 30 Years of Age (<60,000 dwt)
Panamax: 30 Years of Age (>60,000 dwt <= 90,000 dwt)
Cape: 25 Years of Age (without CAP2) (>90,000 dwt)
Age limitations set by RightShip customers.

44. How do I arrange an inspection for a dry bulk vessel?

To apply for an inspection for a dry cargo vessel, you need to contact RightShip to get copies of:
RightShip Conditions which explains all requirements and includes information for the vessels Master
Agreement from owners/managers to RightShip conditions for a dry cargo vessel inspection. Read
these documents carefully and get back to RightShip with the required information, including:
ASM ORALS

Page 56

NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 57

NITIN MAHAJAN

a) Written confirmation of Owners agreement to RightShip Conditions for dry vessel inspection.
b) Contact details, including email address, of Person In Charge who is to receive the reports and
will provide corrective and preventative action plan
c) Contact details, including email address of person In charge who is to receive invoice of costs
(full style address for invoice)
d) Full style address of local agents
e) Vessel schedule.
45. How much does an inspection cost?
Dry vessel inspections cost approximately USD$7000 (USD$6000 for Handy Size), approximately.
46. Where can we get ships inspected?
RightShip does not inspect at load ports; Conducted in all major (discharge) ports worldwide.
47. Can inspection be conducted in a repair yard?
We do not normally conduct inspection during a repair period. While we are prepared to consider it,
we do not recommend it due to disruption of normal shipboard routines.
We strongly emphasize that we would be inspecting on the basis of a fully operational vessel and will
give no dispensation for equipment under repair, incomplete documentation, crew unfamiliarity or
inability to operate or demonstrate the vessel to be in a fully operational condition. Deficiencies will be
recorded and assessment made accordingly.
We highly recommend inspection at first discharge port after repair period.
48. How long does an inspection take?
Approximately 2 working days (1 to 1.5 days for Handy size vessels)
49. EEDI what is it?
EEDI stands for Energy Efficiency Design Index. In July 2011, the International Maritime
Organizations (IMO) Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) adopted mandatory
measures to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions from international shipping through
amendments to MARPOL Annex VI Regulations. These amendments include application of the EEDI for
new ships which will require new ships to meet a minimum level of energy efficiency.
The EEDI measures the CO2 emitted (grams of CO2 per tonne nautical mile) for new ships, calculated
from ship design and engine performance data. The intended application of the EEDI is to stimulate
innovation and technical development of all elements influencing the energy efficiency of a ship from its
design phase.
50. EVDI what is it?
EVDI stands for Existing Vessel Design Index and was developed by RightShip. The EVDI is the
core measure used to calculate the RightShip GHG Emissions Rating and is comparable across all
vessels in RightShips Ship Vetting Information System (SVIS) database.
ASM ORALS
Page 57
NITIN MAHAJAN

ASM ORALS

Page 58

NITIN MAHAJAN

Similar to the IMO MEPCs EEDI, RightShips EVDI measures a ships CO2 emissions, however
unlike the EEDI that is applied only to new ships the EVDI is designed for application with existing
ships.
51. GHG Emissions Rating what is it?
The GHG Emissions Rating is an innovative measure developed by RightShip that allows comparison of
a ships CO2 emissions relative to peer vessels of a similar size and type using a simple A - G scale.
The most efficient vessels rated A, the least efficient rated G.
Ship types are largely consistent with those used by IMO MEPC.
52. EEOI what is it?
EEOI stands for Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator and provides a measure of the mass of CO2
emitted per unit of transport work based on a vessels actual operational data. Unlike the EEDI and
EVDI, the EEOI will change depending on how the vessel is operated and what abatement measures
the owners/managers have retrofitted.
RightShip plan to incorporate the EEOI at some point in the future and the SVIS database has been
structured to enable easy comparison of EEOI & EVDI figures.
53. Top Rated Peers what is it?
Top Rated Peers shows the 5 highest performing vessels as hyperlinks based on EVDI Size Scores for
vessels of similar size and type. Clicking on one of these vessels provides a performance differential
between the original vessel and the most efficient vessels of a similar size and type.

ASM ORALS

Page 58

NITIN MAHAJAN