Page 1/16

A TOOL DEVELOPED BY RINA

TO ASSIST OWNERS PREPARE THEIR SHIPS
FOR PORT STATE CONTROL INSPECTIONS
Guide to
port State control
APRIL 1998
FIRST EDITION
Background
Definitions
Legal basis
Port State control regimes
Targeting schemes
Inspection procedures
Detention
Right of appeal
Banning
Notification
Publication of detentions
Tables
The scope of this guide is to provide an overall view
of the present stage of development of port State
control and the relevant basic principles and
procedures. It is not exhaustive and makes
particular reference to the Paris Memorandum of
Understanding and the United States Coast Guard.
RINA declines all responsibility for any damage
derived from the use of the Guide to Port State
Control.
Guide to Port State Control
Page 2/16
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Background....................................................................... Page 2
2. Definitions......................................................................... Page 2
3. Legal basis........................................................................ Page 3
3.1 SOLAS 74 and MARPOL 73/78
3.2 ILLC 66
3.3 STCW 78
3.4 ILO 147
4. Port State control regimes ................................................ Page 3
5. Targeting schemes ........................................................... Page 5
5.1 Paris MoU
5.2 United States Coast Guard
6. Inspection procedures ...................................................... Page 7
6.1 Initial inspection
6.2 More detailed inspection
6.3 Expanded inspection (Paris MoU only)
7. Detention .......................................................................... Page 8
8. Right of appeal ................................................................. Page 8
9. Banning (Paris MoU only) ................................................. Page 8
10. Notification........................................................................ Page 9
10.1 To the master
10.2 To the flag State
10.3 To the classification society
10.4 To other port States
11. Publication of detentions .................................................. Page 10
Tables
1. BACKGROUND
Port State control is the process by which a nation exercises its authority
over foreign vessels when those vessels are in waters subject to its
jurisdiction. Through port State control inspections, port States verify the
compliance of ships calling at their ports with the applicable international
conventions and local legislation. Targeting schemes have been
developed to optimise the use of resources based on ships intrinsic
characteristics (type and age) and their previous port State control history.
If the ship is not found in compliance with the applicable rules and
regulations, corrective actions are requested to be taken according to a
given schedule. If the nature of the deficiencies found is such as to impair
the overall safety of the ship and threaten the marine environment, the
ship is detained in the port and is not allowed to sail until the deficiencies
have been rectified to the satisfaction of the port State control officer.
2. DEFINITIONS
Appl i cabl e i nst r ument s, the following regulatory instruments, against
which checks of compliance are carried out during port State control
inspections:
the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966 (ILLC 66)
Guide to Port State Control
Page 3/16
the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974
(SOLAS 74)
the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships, 1973 and the 1978 Protocol relating thereto (MARPOL
73/78)
the International Convention on Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers 1978 (STCW 78)
the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing
Collisions at Sea (COLREG 72)
the International Convention on Tonnage Measurements of
Ships, 1969
the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976
(ILO No.147)
domestic laws or regulations of the port
Cl ear gr ounds, evidence that the ship, its equipment or crew do not
correspond substantially to the requirements of the applicable instruments
or that the master or crew members are not familiar with essential
shipboard procedures relating to the safety of the ship or the prevention of
pollution.
Def i ci ency, an item found not in compliance with the provisions of the
applicable instruments.
Det ent i on, a control action which restricts a vessels right of free
movement. The imposition of a restriction on the movement of a vessel
constitutes a detention regardless of whether or not it causes delay to the
ship.
I nspect i on, a visit on board a ship in order to check its compliance with
the applicable instruments.
I nt er vent i on, an action taken following an inspection to bring a ship into
compliance with the applicable instruments. This may include requiring the
immediate or future rectification of deficiencies, detaining the ship or
allowing the ship to proceed to another port for repairs.
3. LEGAL BASIS
3.1 SOLAS 74 and MARPOL 73/78
According to Regulation I/19 of SOLAS 74 and Article 5(2) of MARPOL
73/78, port States are given the authority to board foreign vessels to
determine the validity of their SOLAS certificates and to check if the ship
is in compliance with the applicable requirements. If deficiencies are
found, the port State is authorised to take such steps as may be
necessary to ensure that the vessel does not leave the port until safety
and environmental hazards have been brought within acceptable limits.
3.2 ILLC 66
According to Article 21(1)-(2) of ILLC 66, port States are given the
authority to board foreign vessels to verify the validity of the ILLC
certificate and to determine that the ship is not loaded beyond the
allowable limits, that the position of the load line corresponds with the
Guide to Port State Control
Page 4/16
certificate and that alterations do not make it unsafe to proceed to sea.
The port State is authorised to take such steps as may be necessary to
ensure that the ship does not leave the port until safety and environmental
hazards have been brought within acceptable limits.
3.3 STCW 78
According to Article X and Regulation I/4 of the STCW 1978
Convention, port States are given the authority to verify that all seafarers
are properly certified. The port State may also make an assessment of the
watchkeeping ability of the seafarers when the ship is involved in an
accident, illegal discharge or unsafe movement. Port States are
authorised to detain the ship when seafarers are not provided with valid or
appropriate certificates.
3.4 ILO 147
According to Article 4 of the ILO 147 Convention, port States are given
the authority to take measures necessary to rectify any conditions on
board which are clearly hazardous to safety or health.
4. PORT STATE CONTROL REGIMES
In order to implement port State control, port State administrations have
taken different approaches. Some of them have decided to act individually
and have therefore developed their own programs. This is the case of the
United States Coast Guard (USCG).
Other administrations have decided to combine efforts and resources to
ensure uniformity and consistency of application. For this purpose, they
have developed specific regional agreements of co-operation, which
define common inspection targets, criteria and procedures.
Yet other administrations initially developed and implemented their own
regimes and eventually became members of a regional agreement. This is
the case of Canada (which is a member of both the Paris MoU and Tokyo
MoU) and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA, member of the
Tokyo MoU).
As of today, the following 5 Memoranda are effective worldwide:
i. The Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control
(Paris MoU), now consisting of 18 members. The written
agreement was signed in March 1978. The Paris MoU is
governed by a Committee, consisting of representatives from
Members, the European Commission and some observers, and
is co-ordinated by a Secretariat. Inspection data are stored in a
database. The Paris MoU was the first agreement of this kind
ever signed, and all the other agreements in force today are
governed by the same principles and procedures. The same
basic principles are also being considered for the memoranda
presently under development.
The principles governing the Paris MoU have been incorporated
in the European Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995,
whose provisions are to be implemented by Member States
Guide to Port State Control
Page 5/16
through legislative and administrative instruments. This makes
port State control compulsory by law in Europe. Both the Paris
MoU and the European Council Directive incorporate the
provisions of Resolution A.787(19) Procedures for Port State
Control adopted at the 19
th
Session of the Assembly of the
International Maritime Organisation (IMO).
ii. The Latin American Agreement (Acuerdo de Via del Mar)
signed in Via del Mar, Chile, in November 1992 and consisting
of 11 members.
iii. The Memorandum of Understanding on port State control for the
Asia and Pacific Region (Tokyo MoU), signed in Tokyo in
December 1993 and consisting of 16 members.
iv. The Memorandum of Understanding on port State control for the
Caribbean region (Caribbean MoU), signed in Barbados in
February 1996 and consisting of 20 members.
v. The Memorandum of Understanding on port State control for the
Mediterranean region (Mediterranean MoU), signed in Malta in
July 1997 and consisting of 8 members.
The following initiatives are presently under discussion:
vi. Persian Gulf area
vii. West and Central Africa.
The main characteristics of the Memoranda presently in force are
summarised in Table 1.
5. TARGETING SCHEMES
In order to optimise the use of resources and concentrate on specific
ships, port states have developed targeting schemes, based on the
combination of a certain number of parameters and aimed at assigning
ships a certain priority of inspection.
5.1 Paris MoU
Ships are selected and prioritised for inspection based on the combination
and comparison of the following items:
i. Oil tankers 5 years or less from the date of phasing out in
accordance with Regulation 13G of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78.
ii. Bulk carriers, older than 12 years of age.
iii. Passenger ships.
iv. Gas and chemical tankers older than 10 years of age.
v. Ships visiting a port of a member state for the first time or after
an absence of 12 months or more.
vi. Ships flying the flag of a state appearing in the three-year rolling
average table of above-average detentions published in the
Annual Report of the Paris MoU.
vii. Ships which have been permitted to leave the port of a State,
member of the Paris MoU, on condition that the deficiencies
Guide to Port State Control
Page 6/16
noted are rectified within a specified period, upon expiry of this
period.
viii. Ships which have been reported by pilots or port authorities as
having deficiencies which may prejudice their safe navigation.
ix. Ships whose statutory certificates have been issued on behalf of
the flag State by an organisation which is not recognised by the
port state.
x. Ships carrying dangerous or polluting goods, which have failed to
report all relevant information concerning the ships particulars,
the ships movements and concerning the dangerous or polluting
goods being carried, to the competent authority of the port State.
xi. Ships which have been suspended from class for safety reasons
in the course of the preceding six months.
The most updated three-year rolling average table of flag States and the
full text of the Annual Report can be found in the Paris MoU Internet Web
Site at the following address:
http://www.parismou.org
5.2 United States Coast Guard
The USCG targeting scheme is based on a risk assessment methodology
which takes the following factors into account:
i. Tar get ed owner s/ oper at or s, i.e. owners/operators who
have had more than one vessel detained by the USCG within the
last 12 month period.
ii. Tar get ed f l ag St at es, i.e. flag States whose detention ratio
exceeds the average detention ratio for all flag States whose
vessels call at US ports. The detention ratio is computed by
dividing the number of its ships which have been detained in the
last three years by the total number of its ships which have called
at US ports within the same period. The average detention ratio
for all flag States is computed by dividing the total number of
detentions by the number of total distinct arrivals, for the last
three years. The flag list is updated annually on 1 April and
remains in effect for the following twelve months.
iii. Tar get ed cl assi f i cat i on soci et i es, i.e. classification
societies whose detention ratio is higher than the average
detention ratio. The class detention ratio is computed by dividing
the number of class related detentions (i.e. detentions for which
the classification society is considered responsible due to its
poor performance when acting on behalf of the flag State) and
the number of distinct arrivals for that society over the last three
years.
iv. Shi p t ype, i.e. oil and chemical tankers, gas carriers,
passenger ships, bulk carriers more than ten years old, ships
carrying low value commodities in bulk.
v. Shi p s hi st or y, i.e. detentions within the previous 12 months,
other operational control within the previous 12 months, casualty
Guide to Port State Control
Page 7/16
within the previous 12 months, violation within the previous 12
months.
The most updated lists of targeted owners, flag States and classification
societies can be found in the USCG Internet Web Site at the following
address:
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/psc/psc.htm
The above factors are summarised in the PSC Boarding Priority Matrix
(Table 2), in which points are assigned in each column. Points are then
summed for a total point score, which identifies the priority inspection
(Table 3).
6. INSPECTION PROCEDURES
6.1 InitiaI inspection
The initial inspection consists of a visit on board a ship in order to check
that its major systems are in compliance with the applicable instruments,
and that the crew possesses sufficient proficiency to safely operate the
ship. This is usually accomplished by a check of certificates and
documents and a general examination of the ship, including the deck, the
engine room and accommodation, as well as examination of hygienic
conditions. The visual assessment of the various components may be
accompanied by limited testing of systems and the crew. According to the
USCG, the main items of the initial inspection (walk through) are those
summarised in Table 4.
6.2 More detaiIed inspection
When, following the initial inspection, some certificates or documents are
found missing or not valid and/or there are clear grounds for believing
that the condition of a ship or its equipment or crew does not substantially
meet the relevant requirements of an applicable instrument, the port State
control officer will:
i. conduct a more detailed inspection in the area(s) where clear
grounds were established
ii. carry out a more detailed inspection in other areas at random
iii. include further checking of compliance with on board operational
requirements.
Examples of clear grounds for a more detailed inspection are given in
Table 5.
6.3 Expanded inspection (Paris MoU onIy)
Where there are clear grounds for a more detailed inspection of a ship
belonging to the following categories:
i. Oil tankers 5 years or less from the date of phasing out in
accordance with Regulation 13G of Annex I to MARPOL 73/78
ii. Bulk carriers, older than 12 years of age
iii. Passenger ships
iv. Gas and chemical tankers older than 10 years of age
Guide to Port State Control
Page 8/16
an expanded inspection is carried out. In general, a ship is subject to an
expanded inspection only once during a period of 12 months. The items
which may be considered as part of an expanded inspection are
summarised, for the various ship types, in Table 6.
7. DETENTION
If deficiencies are found during the more detailed inspection or the
expanded inspection, the following situations may occur:
i. deficiencies do not adversely affect the ships seaworthiness or
do not pose unreasonable threat to the environment. In this
case, the ship is not detained and the deficiencies are requested
to be corrected within a specified time period (e.g. within 14
days, prior to the next port, prior to return to a certain port State,
etc.)
ii. some deficiencies are clearly hazardous to safety, health or the
environment. In this case, the ship is detained. The detention
order will not be lifted until the hazard has been removed, i.e.
those deficiencies which caused the detention have been
rectified or measures have been found ensuring that the ship can
proceed to sea without risk to safety, health or the environment.
A non exhaustive list of deficiencies which may warrant the
detention of the ship involved is given in Table 7.
iii. the deficiencies are clearly hazardous to safety, health or the
environment, but cannot be remedied in the port of inspection.
Also in this case the ship is detained, but the port State may
allow the ship to proceed to the nearest appropriate repair yard
available, provided that adequate measures are taken to ensure
that the risk is reduced to an acceptable level. These measures
are to be confirmed by the flag State or the recognised
organisation acting on its behalf and agreed with the port State.
The repair yard is to be agreed between the master and the port
State control officer.
8. RIGHT OF APPEAL
The owner or the operator of a ship has the right of appeal against a
detention decision according to procedures established in accordance with
the port State legislation. The appeal does not automatically cause the
suspension of the detention.
9. BANNING (Paris MoU onIy)
If a ship referred to in paragraph 7.iii:
i. proceeds to sea without complying with the measures requested
to bring the risk within acceptable limits; or
ii. does not proceed to the agreed repair yard,
Guide to Port State Control
Page 9/16
to a specific port may be permitted in the event of force majeure or
overriding safety considerations.
10. NOTIFICATION
10.1 To the master
On completion of an initial inspection, a more detailed inspection or an
expanded inspection, the master is provided by the port State control
officer with a document giving the results of the inspection and the list of
actions to be taken. The document is issued also when the inspection
does not reveal any deficiency, and consists of the following main parts:
i. ships identification and characteristics
ii. certificates involved, survey authority and date of the last survey
iii. information about the survey carried out and its result (as
concerns deficiencies and detention)
iv. description of deficiencies - if any
v. for each deficiency, relevant action taken by the port State
control officer or required to be taken by the owner.
The most important codes for actions taken used by the Paris MoU are
the following:
10 Deficiency rectified
15 Rectify deficiency at the next port
16 Rectify deficiency within 14 days
17 Master instructed to rectify deficiency before
departure
30 Grounds for detention
40 Next port informed
50 Flag State/Consul informed
70 Classification society informed
The inspection report form used by the Paris MoU is given in Annex 3 to
the Paris MoU agreement.
10.2 To the fIag State
If the ship is detained, the port State immediately informs, in writing, the
flag State of the ship or the Consul or, in his absence, the nearest
diplomatic representative of the flag State.
10.3 To the cIassification society
If the ship is detained, the recognised organisation responsible for the
issue of the ships certificates on behalf of the flag State should also be
notified where relevant. The classification society may be explicitly
requested to attend the ship in those cases where the deficiencies found
are relevant to certificates issued by it and are of a particularly serious
nature. In such cases, the classification society is requested to confirm to
the port State that the deficiencies have been corrected under its
supervision and to its satisfaction.
Guide to Port State Control
Page 10/16
10.4 To other port States
In order to correctly apply their targeting schemes, which often refer to the
previous history (in terms of inspections and detentions) of the ship, the
most important port State control regimes have developed electronic
databases, where information on inspections is collected and made
available to all other members.
In particular, if the ship is detained and allowed to proceed to the nearest
appropriate repair yard, the port State notifies the competent authority of
the State where the repair yard is situated. If in the above case the ship
proceeds to sea without complying with the measures requested to bring
the risk within acceptable limits or does not call at the agreed repair yard,
the port State immediately alerts the other members of the Paris MoU.
11. PUBLICATION OF DETENTIONS
The list of port State administrations which have decided to make
information relevant to detentions public through Internet, the relevant
address and details are given in Table 8.
Guide to Port State Control
Page 11/16
Tables
Table 1
Comparative port State control agreements
Paris MoU Vina del Mar Tokyo MoU Caribbean MoU Mediterranean MoU
Participating
countries
18
Belgium, Canada,
Croatia, Denmark,
Finland, France,
Germany, Greece,
Ireland, Italy,
Netherlands,
Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Russian
Federation, Spain,
Sweden, United
Kingdom
11
Argentina, Brazil,
Chile, Colombia,
Cuba, Ecuador,
Mexico, Panama,
Peru, Uruguay,
Venezuela
16
Australia, Canada,
China, Fiji,
Indonesia, Japan,
Republic of Korea,
Malaysia, New
Zealand, Papua
New Guinea,
Philippines,
Russian
Federation,
Singapore,
Thailand, Vanuatu,
Hong Kong (China)
For Solomon Islands
and Vietnam
acceptance is
pending
20
Anguilla, Antigua &
Barbuda, Aruba,
Bahamas,
Barbados,
Bermuda, British
Virgin Islands,
Cayman Islands,
Dominica,
Grenada, Guyana,
Jamaica,
Montserrat,
Netherlands
Antilles, Saint Kitts
and Nevis, Saint
Lucia, Saint Vincent
& the Grenadines,
Suriname, Trinidad
& Tobago, Turks
and Caicos Islands.
8
Algeria, Cyprus,
Egypt, Israel,
Malta, Lebanon*,
Morocco, Tunisia,
Turkey, Palestinian
Authorities*
For Lebanon and
Palestinian
Authorities,
acceptance is
pending
Observers Japan, United
States, IMO, ILO,
Tokyo MoU
IMO, CEPAL United States, IMO,
ILO, ESCAP, Paris
MoU
IMO, ILO,
CARICOM, IACS
IMO, ILO, EC
Target
inspection
rate
25% annual
inspection rate per
country within 3
years
15% annual
inspection rate per
country within 3
years
50% annual
regional inspection
rate by the year
2000 (achieved in
1996)
15% annual
inspection rate per
country within 3
years
15% annual
inspection rate per
country within 3
years
Special
attention
Passenger
ships, ro-ro
ships, bulk
carriers
ships which
may present a
special hazard
ships which
have had
recent
deficiencies
ships flying the
flag of a
targeted flag
State
Passenger
ships, ro-ro
ships, bulk
carriers
ships which
may present a
special hazard
ships which
have had
recent
deficiencies
Passenger
ships, ro-ro
ships, bulk
carriers
ships which
may present a
special hazard
ships which
have had
recent
deficiencies
ships flying the
flag of a
targeted flag
State
ships not
inspected
within 6
months
Passenger
ships, ro-ro
ships, bulk
carriers
ships which
may present a
special hazard
ships which
have had
recent
deficiencies
ships flying the
flag of a
targeted flag
State
Ships visiting
the port for the
first time or
after an
absence of 12
months or
more
ships with
pending
deficiencies to
be rectified
ships which
may present a
special hazard
ships detained
in the previous
6 months
Secretariat Provided by the
Netherlands
Ministry of
Transport and
Public Works,
office in Rijswijk
(the Netherlands)
Provided by the
Prefectura Naval
Argentina, Buenos
Aires
Tokyo, Japan Barbados,
Barbados
Alexandria, Egypt
Information
centre
Centre
Administrative des
Affairs Maritime
(CAAM), Saint
Malo, France
Centro de
Informacion del
Acuerdo
Latinoamericano
(CIALA), Prefectura
Naval Argentina,
Buenos Aires
Information Centre
Vancouver, Canada
Information Centre
Curacao,
Netherlands
Antilles
Information Centre
Casablanca,
Morocco
Signed 2 March 1978 5 November 1992 2 December 1993 9 February 1996 11 July 1997
Guide to Port State Control
Page 12/16
Table 2
Boarding Priority Matrix
(United States Coast Guard)
OWNER FLAG CLASS HISTORY SHIP
TYPE
5 points
Targeted
Owner or
Operator
7 points
Targeted Flag State
Priority I
10 arrivals with detention
ratio more than 4 times the
average
OR
<10 arrivals and with at
least one detention in the
previous 2 years
5 points each
detention within the
previous 12 months
1 point
Oil or
chemical
tanker
5 points
10 arrivals with a detention
ratio between 3 and 4 times
the average
1 point each
other operational
control within the
previous 12 months
1 point
Gas carrier
3 points
10 arrivals with a detention
ratio between 2 and 3 times
the average
1 point each
casualty within the
previous 12 months
2 points
Bulk
freighter
over 10
years old
1 point
10 arrivals with a detention
ratio between the average
and twice the average
1 point each
violation within the
previous 12 months
1 point
Passenger
ship
0 points
10 arrivals with a detention
ratio below the average
OR
<10 arrivals with no
detentions in the previous 2
years
2 points
Ship
carrying low
value
commodities
in bulk
Table 3
Priority Inspection
(United States Coast Guard)
Sum Priority Action
17
I Port entry may be restricted until vessel is examined
by the USCG
7 < 17
II Cargo operations may be restricted until vessel is
examined by the USCG
4 < 7
III No operational restriction imposed; vessel will most
likely be inspected
< 4 IV Ship will not be boarded
Guide to Port State Control
Page 13/16
Table 4
General examination (walk through)
(United States Coast Guard)
Structure Deck portion Ladderways, guardrails, firemain, piping, hatchcovers, closures, deck
plating
Hull portion Damage, cracking, wastage, corrosion, internal structural members
visible from deck in open hold/tanks
Load lines Closing appliances
Machinery
spaces
Operation Emergency and standby electrical power sources, auxiliary steering
gear, bilge and fire pumps
Maintenance Temporary repairs, disconnected wires, water and oil leaks,
inoperable pressure gauges, inoperative safety devices, etc.
Operational
tests
Emergency generator
Main and emergency fire pump
Bilge pumps
Remote stops for boilers, ventilation and fuel pumps
Steering gear
Emergency source of power for radio installations
Oily water separator
Safety Lifesaving
appliances
Missing equipment, damage, disuse of launching equipment
Firefighting
appliances
Fire main, hydrants, hoses, fire extinguishers, lack of cleanliness,
escape routes
Navigation Logs, charts, publications, navigational equipment
Operational
tests
Fixed fire detection system
Watertight doors
Lowering of one seaside lifeboat
Table 5
Examples of clear grounds
(IMO Res. A.787(19), EU Directive 95/21/EC, Paris MoU)
General A report or notification by another authority
A report or complaint by the master, a crew member or any person or
organisation having a legitimate interest in the safety of the ship
The ship has been involved in a collision, grounding or stranding on its way to the
port
Evidence that a certificate is clearly invalid
Evidence that the ships log, manuals or other required documentation are not on
board, not maintained or falsely maintained
Absence of principal equipment or arrangements required by the Conventions
Evidence that serious hull or structural deterioration or deficiencies exist that may
place at risk the structural, watertight or weathertight integrity
Evidence that serious deficiencies exist in the safety, pollution prevention or
navigational equipment
Excessively unsanitary conditions on board the ship
Operational
aspects
Evidence of cargo and other operations not being conducted safely
Information or evidence that the master or crew is not familiar with essential
shipboard operations or that such operations have not been carried out
Evidence that the crew are not familiar with fire and abandon ship drill
procedures
Absence of an updated muster list
Indications that the relevant crew members are unable to communicate
appropriately with each other
The emission of false distress alerts not followed by proper cancellation
Illegal discharge of substances from the ship when underway, at anchor or at
berth
Ship manoeuvred in an erratic or unsafe manner
Ship operated in such a way as to pose danger to persons, property or the
environment
Guide to Port State Control
Page 14/16
Table 6
Items which may be considered as part of an expanded inspection
(EU Directive 95/21/EC, Paris MoU)
1 All ships for which an
expanded inspection is
required
Black-out and start of emergency generator
inspection of emergency lighting
operation of emergency fire pump with two fire hoses
connected to the fire main line
operation of bilge pumps
closing of watertight door
lowering of one seaside lifeboat to the water
test of remote emergency stops for boilers, ventilation and fuel
pumps
testing of steering gear including auxiliary steering gear
inspection of emergency source of power to radio installations
inspection and test of engine room separator
2 Oil tankers for which an
expanded inspection is
required
In addition to item 1 above
Fixed deck foam system
fire fighting equipment in general
inspection of fire dampers to engine room, pump room and
accommodation
control of pressure of inert gas and oxygen content thereof
check of the Survey Report File required by IMO Res.
A.744(18)
3 Bulk carriers for which an
expanded inspection is
required
In addition to item 1 above
Possible corrosion of deck machinery foundations
possible deformation and/or corrosion of hatch covers
possible cracks or local corrosion in transverse bulkheads
access to cargo holds
check of the Survey Report File required by IMO Res.
A.744(18)
4 Gas and chemical tankers
for which an expanded
inspection is required
In addition to item 1 above
Cargo tank monitoring and safety devices relating to
temperature, pressure and ullage
oxygen analysing and explosimeter devices, including their
calibration. Availability of chemical detection equipment
(bellows) with an appropriate number of suitable gas detection
tubes for the specific cargo being carried
cabin escape sets giving suitable respiratory and eye
protection, for every person on board
product being carried listed on the ICOF/COF certificate
fixed fire fighting installations on deck
5 Passenger ships
In addition to item 1 above
Testing of fire detection and alarm system
testing of proper closing of fire doors
test of public address system
fire drill where, as a minimum, all sets of firemens outfits must
be demonstrated and part of the catering crew take part
demonstration that key crew members are acquainted with the
damage control plan
Guide to Port State Control
Page 15/16
Table 7
Examples of deficiencies which may warrant detention
(IMO Res. A.787(19), EU Direct. 95/21/EC, Paris MoU)
SOLAS 74 Operational failure of propulsion and other essential machinery and electrical installation
Insufficient cleanliness of engine room, excessive amount of oily-water mixtures in bilges,
insulation of piping including exhaust pipes in engine room contaminated by oil, improper
operation of bilge pumping arrangements
Operational failure of emergency generator, lighting, batteries and switches
Operational failure of the proper operation of the main and auxiliary steering gear
Absence, insufficient capacity or serious deterioration of personal lifesaving appliances,
survival craft and launching arrangements
Absence, non-compliance or substantial deterioration of fire detection system, fire alarms,
firefighting equipment, fixed fire-extinguishing installation, ventilation valves, fire dampers,
quick-closing devices
Absence/substantial deterioration/operational failure of the cargo deck fire protection
Absence, non-compliance or serious deterioration of lights, shapes or sound signals
Operational failure of the radio equipment for distress and safety communication
Absence or operational failure of navigation equipment
Absence of corrected navigational charts and/or all other nautical publications necessary
for the intended voyage
Absence of non-sparking exhaust ventilation for cargo pump rooms
IBC Code Transport of a substance not mentioned on the ICOF/COF certificate
Missing or damaged high-pressure safety devices
Electrical installations not intrinsically safe
Sources of ignition in hazardous locations
Contravention of special requirements
Insufficient heat protection for sensitive products
IGC Code Transport of a substance not mentioned on the ICOF/COF certificate
Missing closing devices for accommodation or service spaces
Bulkhead not gastight
Defective air locks
Missing or defective quick-closing valves
Missing or defective safety valves
Electrical installations not intrinsically safe
Ventilators in cargo area not operable
Pressure alarms for cargo tanks not operable
Gas detection plant and/or toxic gas detection plant defective
Transport of substances to be inhibited without valid inhibitor certificate
ILLC 66 Significant areas of damage or corrosion, or pitting of plating and associated stiffening in
decks and hull affecting seaworthiness or strength to take local loads
A recognised case of insufficient stability
The absence of sufficient and reliable information which enables the master to arrange for
the loading and ballasting of his ship with safe stability and stress margins
Absence, substantial deterioration or defective closing devices, hatch closing
arrangements and watertight doors
Overloading
Absence of draft mark or draft mark impossible to read
MARPOL
Annex I
Absence, serious deterioration or operational failure of the oily-water filtering equipment,
the oil discharge monitoring and control system or the 15 ppm alarm
Remaining capacity of slop and/or sludge tank insufficient for the intended voyage
Oil record book not available
Unauthorised discharge bypass fitted
MARPOL
Annex II
Absence of the P&A Manual
Cargo not categorised
No cargo record book available
Unauthorised discharge bypass fitted
STCW Crew number, composition or certification not in line with the safe manning certificate
ILO Insufficient food for voyage to next port
Insufficient potable water for voyage to next port
Excessively unsanitary conditions on board
No heating in accommodation
Excessive garbage and/or unsafe conditions in passageways/accommodation
Guide to Port State Control
Page 16/16
Table 8
Information relevant to detentions made public
through Internet
Type Internet web Site Information published about
the detention and the ship
Australian Maritime
Safety Authority
(AMSA)
Monthly list of
detentions
www.amsa.gov.au Ships name, IMO number, type,
classification society, flag,
deadweight, year of build, cargo
type, owner, manager, charterer,
charter type, port and date of
inspection, last psc inspection,
last special survey, serious
deficiencies, action
Marine Safety
Agency (UK MSA)
Monthly list of
detentions
www.detr.gov.uk Date and place of detention,
ships name, deadweight, type,
IMO number, flag, owner,
operator, charterer, class society,
number of previous detentions,
number of deficiencies
Paris MoU Quarterly list of
ships which have
been detained at
least twice during
the previous 24
months
www.parismou.org name, IMO number, flag,
classification society, port and
date of detention as well as the
list of deficiencies which caused
the detention
Transport Canada Quarterly list of
ships detained
www.tc.gc.ca Date and place of detention,
ships name, IMO number, year of
build, flag, classification society,
type, owner, deficiencies
United States
Coast Guard
Monthly list of
detentions
www.uscg.mil Ships name, IMO number, place
and date of detention, flag,
classification society and
deficiencies