Annual Report on Port State Control 2001...ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001 Foreword This annual PSC report summarizes deficiencies identified by Port State Control

Annual Report on Port State Control

2001

NIPPON KAIJI KYOKAI

LLiiffee SSaavviinngg AApppplliiaanncceess

PPhhoottooggrraapphhss ooff DDeeffiicciieenncciieess oonnPPoorrtt SSttaattee CCoonnttrrooll

HHoollee iinn sshheellll ppllaattee ooff lliiffee bbooaatt

LLiiffeebbooaatt ddeeffoorrmmeedd sshheellll

UUnnaauutthhoorriizzeedd bbooaarrddiinngg llaaddddeerr

BBrrookkeenn wwiirree ffoorr rreelleeaassee ggeeaarr

FFiirree FFiigghhttiinngg AApppplliiaanncceess

FFiirree ddoooorr wwiitthh hhooookk

BBrrookkeenn ffiirree ddeetteeccttoorr

HHuullll SSttrruuccttuurraall MMeemmbbeerrss iinn CCaarrggoo HHoollddss

WWaasstteedd hhoolldd ffrraammeess

LLooaadd LLiinneessDDeeffeeccttiivvee aaiirr ppiippee hheeaadd

LLooaadd LLiinneess

CCeemmeenntt bbooxx oonn ssttoorrmm vvaallvvee

CCoorrrrooddeedd aaiirr ppiippee WWaasstteedd vveenntt hheeaadd

SShhiipp’’ss DDrriillll

MMaacchhiinneerryy iinn EEnnggiinnee RRoooomm

BBiillggee ooiill oonn eennggiinnee rroooomm fflloooorr

PPllaassttiicc ttuubbee oonn bbiillggee sseeppaarraattoorr

TTeesstt ooff aann eemmeerrggeennccyy ffiirree ppuummpp

LLiiffeebbooaatt lloowweerriinngg tteesstt

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control 2001

Foreword

This annual PSC report summarizes deficiencies identified by Port State Control (PSC)inspections carried out in various countries of the world. This report is prepared with theobjective of building awareness of the present state of PSC and to improve futuremaintenance and surveys, and is complied into the following Chapters.

“Chapter 1”: the status of implementation and recent developments in PSC world-wide“Chapter 2”: the statistical analysis of ships classed by NK, detained in 2001“Chapter 3”: the statistical data of 2001 from Tokyo MOU, Paris MOU, USCG and

other port States

Port State control has been considered as a very effective tool in eliminating substandardships and ensuring maritime safety and pollution prevention. In recent years, there hasbeen a significant increase in PSC activity worldwide accompanied by a number ofamendments to relevant international conventions. The importance of port State controlhas been more widely recognized and there has been important movement in variousregions toward establishing a harmonized approach to the effective implementation of thecontrol provisions.

The procedures of port State control inspections have been improved to cover not onlyships’ hardware and documents but also operational requirements of the relevantconventions. This movement is to be accelerated after phase II of ISM Code came intoeffect on 1 July 2002. The latest MOUs in the advanced regions now treat ISMdeficiencies in the same category as statutory surveys.

In view of this background, ClassNK will try to increase the transparency of informationrelated to PSC issues and make it more difficult for substandard ships to survive in themarket place.

August 2002

Note: ClassNK can not be held responsible for any incorrect judgement or conclusion in this report,in cases were the information we had available should prove to be incomplete or incorrect incertain respects.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 Status of Implementation and Recent Developmentsin PSC World-wide

1.1 Amendments to the relevant conventions1.1.1 May 1999 amendments to SOLAS ････････････････････････････････11.1.2 July 1999 amendments to MARPOL 73/78 ････････････････････････11.1.3 Amendments to MARPOL 73/78･･････････････････････････････････11.1.4 STCW 78 as amended in 1995 ･･･････････････････････････････････11.1.5 International Safety Management (ISM) Code･････････････････････21.1.6 2000 Amendments to SOLAS ････････････････････････････････････21.1.7 Amendments to ESP Guidelines Res. A.744(18) ････････････････････31.1.8 Amendments to MARPOL Annex I Regulation 13G･････････････････3

1.2 Recent world developments1.2.1 MOUs around the world Paris MOU ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････4 Tokyo MOU ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････5 Vina del Mar, Caribbean MOU, Mediterranean MOU ･････････････6 Indian MOU, Abja MOU, Black Sea MOU････････････････････････71.2.2 Agreements under development ･････････････････････････････････81.2.3 U.S.C.G. ･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････81.2.4 Equasis ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････9

1.3 Measures to be adopted by NK1.3.1 Measures for eliminating substandard ships ･････････････････････101.3.2 Meetings and informal gatherings with ship owners ･･････････････111.3.3 Visits to Port States ･･･････････････････････････････････････････111.3.4 Other activities ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････11

Chapter 2 Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships,Registered with ClassNK

2.1 General ･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････12

2.2 Data on Detentions2.2.1 Detentions by flag state ････････････････････････････････････････122.2.2 Detentions by ship type ････････････････････････････････････････142.2.3 Detentions by ship’s age････････････････････････････････････････162.2.4 Detentions by tonnage ･････････････････････････････････････････172.2.5 Detentions by Port State ･･･････････････････････････････････････18

2.3 Analysis of detainable deficiencies2.3.1 Detainable Deficiencies per Category ･･･････････････････････････192.3.2 Deficiencies reported frequently ････････････････････････････････202.3.3 Fire Fighting Appliances･･･････････････････････････････････････212.3.4 Life Saving Appliances ････････････････････････････････････････212.3.5 MARPOL-ANNEX I ･･･････････････････････････････････････････212.3.6 Stability Structure and Related Equipment･･････････････････････222.3.7 Navigation ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････22


2.3.8 Load Lines ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････222.3.9 Propulsion & Aux. Machinery ･･････････････････････････････････232.3.10 Ship’s Certificate ････････････････････････････････････････････232.3.11 ISM Related Defects･･････････････････････････････････････････232.3.12 Radio ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････23

2.4 Analysis of detainable deficiencies by Port State2.4.1 Japan････････････････････････････････････････････････････････242.4.2 Australia ･････････････････････････････････････････････････････242.4.3 Singapore ････････････････････････････････････････････････････242.4.4 Korea ････････････････････････････････････････････････････････252.4.5 U.S.A. ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････252.4.6 China････････････････････････････････････････････････････････252.4.7 Spain ････････････････････････････････････････････････････････252.4.8 Hong Kong ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････262.4.9 Italy ･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････262.4.10 Canada ･････････････････････････････････････････････････････262.4.11 India ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････272.4.12 Germany････････････････････････････････････････････････････272.4.13 Russia ･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････272.4.14 Chile ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････272.4.15 United Kingdom ･････････････････････････････････････････････272.4.16 Belgium･････････････････････････････････････････････････････282.4.17 France ･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････282.4.18 Netherlands ･････････････････････････････････････････････････28

Chapter 3 Statistical Data from Tokyo MOU, Paris MOU, USCGand AMSA

3.1 Tokyo MOU3.1.1 Tokyo MOU Targeting System･･････････････････････････････････293.1.2 Tokyo MOU 2001 Statistics ････････････････････････････････････303.1.3 Tokyo MOU Concentrated Inspection Campaign･･････････････････34

3.2 Paris MOU3.2.1 Paris MOU Targeting System ･･････････････････････････････････353.2.2 Paris MOU 2001 Statistics ･････････････････････････････････････363.2.3 Paris MOU Concentrated Inspection Campaign ･･････････････････40

3.3 USCG3.3.1 USCG Boarding Priority Matrix ････････････････････････････････413.3.2 USCG 2001 Statistics ･････････････････････････････････････････423.3.3 USCG Strict Enforcement of PSC Inspection･････････････････････46

3.4 Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA)3.4.1 AMSA 2001 Statistics ･････････････････････････････････････････473.4.2 AMSA Focused Inspection Campaign････････････････････････････50


1

Chapter 1

Status of Implementation and Recent Developmentsin PSC World-wide

1.1 Amendments to the relevant conventionsMajor amendments to the conventions and to the relevant regulations that came intoeffect or will do in 2001 and 2002 are as follows.

1.1.1 May 1999 amendments to SOLAS (Res. MSC 87(71))Date: 1 January 2001The International Code for the Safe Carriage of Packaged Irradiated Nuclear Fuel,Plutonium and High-Level Radioactive Wastes on Board Ships (INF Code) becamemandatory, following amendments adopted to Chapter VII of SOLAS (Carriage ofdangerous goods).

1.1.2 July 1999 amendments to MARPOL 73/78 (Res. MEPC 78(43))Date: 1 January 2001 [Refer to NK Technical Information No.376]Amendments to MARPOL 73/78 make existing oil tankers between 20,000 and30,000 tons deadweight carrying persistent product oil, including heavy diesel oil andfuel oil, subject to the same construction requirements as crude oil tankers.Regulation 13G requires, in principle, existing tankers to comply with therequirements for new tankers in Regulation 13F, including double hull requirementsfor new tankers or alternative arrangements, not later than 25 years after date ofdelivery. Currently, the regulation applies to crude oil tankers of 20,000 tonsdeadweight and above and product carriers of 30,000 tons deadweight and above, butdoes not currently apply to product tankers between 20,000 and 30,000 tonsdeadweight which carry heavy diesel oil or fuel oil.

1.1.3 Amendments to MARPOL 73/78 Annex II (Res. MEPC 85(44))Date: 1 January 2001 [Refer to NK Technical Information No.390]The new requirements adopted as Reg.16 of MARPOL 73/78 Annex II require thatevery tanker of 150 gross tonnage and above which is certified to carry noxioussubstances in bulk shall carry onboard a Shipboard Marine Pollution EmergencyPlan (SMPEP) approved by the Administration by not later than 1 January 2003.

1.1.4 STCW 78 as amended in 1995Date: 1 February 2002STCW95 refers to the 1995 amendments to the International Convention onStandards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), 1978.The 1995 amendments, which completely revised the Convention, entered into forceon 1 February 1997. However, the STCW95 requirements were being phased inunder a transitional period until 1 February 2002. So, until 1 February 2002,Parties could continue to issue, recognize and endorse certificates which appliedbefore 1 February 1997 in respect of seafarers who began training or seagoing servicebefore 1 August 1998.From 1 February 2002, every master and officer must hold a valid certificatecomplying with the regulations of STCW95 and an endorsement issued by the flagState.For the time being, the IMO has issued advice to port State control officers that, for aperiod of six months after the 1 February 2002 the implementation deadline for the


2

STCW95, ships whose officers do not hold STCW95 certificates or flag Stateendorsements need not be detained.The Paris MOU, the Tokyo MOU, USCG and some other MOUs and port Statesannounced that when the IMO’s period of grace ended on 1 August 2002 theprovisions of the new STCW95 Convention would be strictly enforced by port States.

1.1.5 International Safety Management (ISM) Code [Second Phase]Date: 1 July 2002The International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and forPollution Prevention (ISM Code) became mandatory for most ships tradinginternationally on 1 July 2002. Compliance with the Code has been mandatory fortankers, passenger ships and bulk carriers since July 1998, under the first phase ofISM implementation, and now all other vessels covered by the SOLAS Convention,which includes all but the smallest internationally-trading vessels, including generalcargo ships and container ships and mobile offshore drilling units of 500 grosstonnage and above must comply.Previously, the IMO's attempts to improve shipping safety and to prevent pollutionfrom ships had been largely directed at improving the hardware of shipping, forexample, the construction of ships and their equipment. The ISM Code, bycomparison, concentrates on the “software” of shipping companies.The ISM Code addresses the responsibilities of the people who manage and operateships and provides an international standard for the safe management and operationof ships and for pollution prevention. The application of the ISM Code should supportand encourage the development of a safety culture in shipping.

1.1.6 2000 Amendments to SOLAS (Res. MSC.99(73))Date: 1 July 2002 [Refer to NK Technical Information No.406]Among the amendments, Chapter II-2 “Fire Safety” and Chapter V “SafetyNavigation” have been comprehensively amended. Some of the amendments are to beapplied to existing ships constructed before 1st July 2002. Following is a summary ofthe main requirements in Chapter II-2 and Chapter V, which should be applied toexisting ships.

Chapter II-2 “Construction – Fire Protection, Fire Detention and Fire Extinction”Requirements for existing ships Regulations Due Date Notes

Emergency Escape BreathingEquipment (EEBD)

Part DReg.13.3.4Reg.13.4.3

not later than the firstsurvey after 1 July2002

Operational Requirements(1) Maintenance plans(2) Training manuals(3) Fire safety operational booklets

Part EReg.14.2.2Reg.15.2.3Reg.16.2

not later than the firstsurvey after 1 July2002

Protection of Cargo Pump Room(1) Temperature sensing system(2) CH gases monitoring system(3) Bilge level monitoring device

Part BReg.4.5.10

The first scheduleddry-docking after 1July 2002, but notlater than 1 July2005

Tankers only

Fixed local application fire-extinguishing systems

Part CReg.10.5.6

1 October 2005 Passenger ships(2,000 gt and above)

Deep-fat cooking equipment Part CReg.10.6.4

When the equipmentis newly installed.

New installationonly


3

Chapter V “Safety of Navigation”Requirements for

existing ships Regulations Due Date

Global PositioningSystem (GPS)

Reg.19.2.1.8 not later than the first survey after 1 July 2002

AutomaticIdentification System(AIS)

Reg.19.2.4 i) Passenger ships engaged on international voyages:not later than 1 July 2003

ii) Tankers engaged on international voyages: not laterthan the first survey after 1 July 2003

iii) Other ships engaged on international voyages - 50,000≦GT: not later than 1 July 2004 - 10,000≦GT<50,000: not later than 1 July 2005 - 3,000≦GT<10,000: not later than 1 July 2006 - 300≦GT<3,000: not later than 1 July 2007iv) The following ships not engaged on international

voyages: not later than 1 July 2008 -Passenger ships -Other ships of 500 gt and over

Voyage DataRecorder (VDR)

Reg.20 i) Roro passenger ships engaged on internationalvoyages: not later than the first survey on or after 1July 2002.

ii) Passenger ships other than Roro passenger ships:not later than 1 January 2004

Application to existing cargo ship will be furtherconsidered by IMO’s NAV Sub-Committee inaccordance with Resolution MSC. 109(73).

1.1.7 Amendments to ESP Guidelines Res. A.744(18) (Res. MSC.105(73))Date: 1 July 2002 [Refer to NK Technical Information No.406](1) For ships of 15 years of age and over to which the enhanced survey program (ESP)

applies, inspection of the outside of the ship’s bottom must be carried out with theship in dry dock, inspection while the ship is afloat will not be allowed.

(2) For tankers of 130m in length and upwards, the ship’s longitudinal strength mustbe evaluated when the ship has reached 10 years of age.

1.1.8 Amendments to MARPOL Annex I Regulation 13G (Res. MEPC 95(46))Date: 1 September 2002 [Refer to NK Technical Information No.404 & 457]Originally, phasing out periods for existing single hull tankers were given as 25 yearsfor Pre-MARPOL and 30 years for MARPOL tankers respectively. However, theplanned phasing out periods have been amended to accelerate the phasing out ofthese tankers. Under the new scheme, existing tankers are categorised as follows:(a) “Category 1 oil tanker” = Pre-MARPOL tankers (20,000/30,000 DWT or over)(b) “Category 2 oil tanker” = MARPOL tankers (20,000/30,000 DWT or over)(c) “Category 3 oil tanker” = oil tankers of 5,000 tons deadweight and above but less

than that specified in above (a) or (b)The phase out scheme for these tankers has been re-developed based on the year ofdelivery. In principle, all single-hull tankers are to be completely phased out in 2015.Further, Category 1 oil tankers operating beyond 2005, and Category 2 oil tankersoperating beyond 2010 are required to comply with a Condition Assessment Scheme(CAS). However, accepting a CAS is up to the discretion of each respective flagAdministration.


4

1.2 Recent world developments

1.2.1 MOUs around the worldIn order to carry out PSC effectively, “the recommendation concerning regional co-operation in the control of ships and discharges” was adopted by the IMO as aresolution. In July 1982, European countries signed the Paris Memorandum ofUnderstanding on Port State Control (Paris MOU), and today many of the countrieshave signed and accepted MOUs. Currently, eight MOUs exist in the world and theirstatus in implementing PSC is described below.

(1) European region（Paris MOU）

Established：1 July 1982Members：Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,

Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, RussianFederation, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom

Note:Under the agreement each country undertakes to inspect 25% of individual foreignflagged ships visiting their ports, to pool inspection information and harmoniseprocedures. The co-ordinated effort results in inspection coverage of 90% to 100% ofindividual ships visiting the region.

The Paris MOU Port State Control Committee (PSCC) held its 34th meeting inBruges, Belgium, from 8 to 11 May 2001. It was agreed that a dialogue should beopened with the Tokyo MOU and United States Coast Guard (USCG) with a view toestablishing harmonized criteria to evaluate the performance of classificationsocieties. Recognizing the need for the introduction of a reward system to encouragequality operators, the Committee instructed a Task Force to develop such a system.The Committee also instructed Task Forces to undertake a detailed analysis ofdeficiencies related to the human element and consider further harmonization ofdetention criteria. The Committee agreed on a common policy to respond toappeal/complaints from flag States, classification societies and operators and to aimto make this response within 10 working days.

The Paris MOU Advisory Board decided on 28 January 2002 to take account of therecommendations of the IMO Sub-Committee on STCW. If a seafarer'sdocumentation did not comply with STCW95 then a Letter of Warning was issuedand details of the ship were published on the Paris MOU internet site. Letters ofWarning were issued until 31 July 2002. From the beginning of August a ship towhich a Letter of Warning has been issued is to be subject to priority inspection andmay be detained if the documentation of the crew does not comply with therequirements of STCW95.

The Paris MOU Committee 35th meeting was held in Halifax, Canada from 4 to 10May 2002. In a major review of the Memorandum they agreed on banning procedureswhich could result in 'two strikes and out' for many sub-standard ships. The banningprovisions mean that oil, chemical and gas tankers, bulk carriers and passengerships flying a flag featured on the MOU's 'black list' and with a poor detention recordwill be refused access to MOU ports. Ships from flags in the 'high' and 'very high' riskcategories will be banned if they are detained more than once in a three year period.For ships from 'medium' to 'medium to high' risk flags the ban will take effect afterthe third detention in two years. The black list is available in the Annual Report on


5

the Paris MOU website.　(Refer to Table 3.2.2-3)Also added to Memorandum is the International Labour Organisation's Protocol toILO 147 which covers the checking of new requirements for seafarers hours of workand rest. These new provisions will enter into force on 22 July 2003.The meeting confirmed its intention to carry out a 3-month concentrated inspectioncampaign (CIC) on the International Safety Management (ISM) Code from 1 July2002 when all ships will be required to have safety management systems in place.Latvia was welcomed as the latest co-operating member of the MOU.

(2) Asia-Pacific region（Tokyo MOU）

Established：2 December 1993Members：Australia, Brunei Darussalam*, Canada, Chile, China, Fiji, Hong Kong,

Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea,Philippines, Russian Federation, Singapore, Solomon Islands*, Thailand,Vanuatu and Vietnam (* : signed but not accepted)

Note:The project for exchanging information between the database of the Tokyo MOU,APCIS and the database of the Paris MOU, SIRENAC has been completed andstarted operation in April 2001. Through this inter-regional data exchange, PSCofficers in both regions can access the databases of each other to make searches andview inspection details of ships by way of the Internet.

The tenth meeting of the Tokyo MOU Port State Control Committee (PSCC) tookplace in Tokyo, Japan from 15 to 18 October 2001. The PSCC agreed upon a numberof amendments to the text of the MOU and the PSC Manual. In an effort toharmonize regional PSC procedures, one inter-sessional group was tasked toincorporate some of the contents of the Paris MOU Manual into the Tokyo MOUManual and another inter-sessional group on target factors was re-established toliase with the Paris MOU to ensure that target factors in both regions were as closeas possible, all the while ensuring that they met the particular requirements of theregions. The PSCC noted that preparatory work for the conduct of a concentratedinspection campaign (CIC) on ISM Code implementation scheduled for July-September 2002 had been completed. During the Committee meeting, an open forumwas organized to exchange views between the PSCC members and industryrepresentatives on matters of mutual interest. The International Association ofClassification Societies (IACS), Japan Shipowners’ Association and ClassNKattended this session.

The eleventh meeting of the Tokyo MOU PSCC took place in Manila, the Philippinesfrom 10 to 13 June 2002. The PSCC welcomed Chile as the eighteenth member of theTokyo MOU. The PSCC confirmed the arrangements for the CIC on the ISM Codecompliance. Furthermore, the PSCC planned to conduct the next CIC on bulk carriersafety during the period of September - November 2003. The PSCC approved theTokyo MOU ship targeting system. The element of the targeting system is basicallysimilar to the targeting factors used by the Paris MOU. The PSCC decided to start toimplement the targeting system on a trial basis from the beginning of 2003.


6

(3) Latin-American region（Vina del Mar or Latin-America Agreement)Established：5 November 1992Members：Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Honduras,

Mexico, Panama, Peru, Uruguay and VenezuelaNote:

The Viña del Mar Agreement held its eighth PSCC meeting in Mexico, from 3 to 5September 2001. The agenda included the control of fishing craft and passenger ships,procedures for the notification of detentions to the captain of the detained ships, safecargo stowage and securing procedures, training of Port State Control Officers(PSCO), status of relevant conventions under the Agreement and relevant decisionsof other regional agreements and international organizations. Concentratedinspection campaigns for the period 2001-2002 relating to bulk carriers and the entryinto force of the STCW Convention and ISM Code were also discussed. Arepresentative of Honduras attended the meeting to present its candidature to joinAgreement, which was unanimously accepted by the Committee.

(4) Caribbean region（Caribbean MOU）

Established: 9 February 1996Members: Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, British

Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Commonwealth of Dominica, Cuba, Grenada,Guyama, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, Netherlands Antilles (Curacao, St.Maarten), Suriname, St. Kitts Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenadines,Turks & Caicos Island and Trinidad & Tobago

Note:The sixth meeting of the Caribbean PSC Committee was scheduled to be held inAntigua from 5 to 7 March 2002.

(5) Mediterranean region（Mediterranean MOU）

Established: 11 July 1997Members: Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Tunisia,

Turkey and Palestinian AuthoritiesNote:

The fourth PSCC meeting of the Mediterranean MOU took place in Valletta, Malta,from 14 to 18 July 2001. The Committee accepted and thanked the EuropeanCommission for its offer to provide the Secretariat with an advanced trainingprogramme for PSCOs on CD ROM for use by Member States of the MediterraneanMOU. The Committee also discussed the issue of a target factor system and decidedthat the establishment of such a system would be premature at this stage and shouldbe deferred for the time being. Recommendations were made relating to charges forPSC services subsequent to the first inspection, appeal proceedings and the sharingof regional information between MOUs. The Committee agreed that charges forverification visits should only be levied if they were carried out outside normalworking hours at the request of the shipowners/operators/agent; that a Sub-Committee on Detention Disputes (SCDC) should be set up within theMediterranean MOU to consider appeals by flag States; and that ships which hadbeen subject to an expanded inspection by PSC authorities of the Paris MOU, TokyoMOU and United States Coast Guard within six months prior to their calling at portsof the Mediterranean MOU would not have to be reinspected by the Member States ofthe Mediterranean MOU, unless clear grounds were established which warranted orjustified their further inspection.


7

(6) Indian Ocean region（Indian Ocean MOU）

Established: 5 June 1998Members: Australia, Bangladesh, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Kenya,

Maldives, Mauritius, Mozambique, Myanmar, Oman, Seychelles, SouthAfrica, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tanzania and Yemen

Note:The fourth session of the Indian Ocean MOU (IOMOU) PSCC was held in Colombo,Sri Lanka, from 3 to 6 September 2001. The Committee discussed Certificates ofCompetency issued by an Authority not included in the list of parties that havecomplied with all the requirements of STCW Convention and decided that if the flagState, on whose ships these persons are employed, accept these certificates, the sameshould be accepted for PSC purposes. The Committee discussed the possibility ofpurchasing a host site on the Asia-Pacific Computerized Information System (APCIS)and the development of an IOMOU web site.

(7) West and Central Africa region（Abuja MOU）

Established: 22 October 1999Members: Angola, Benin, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Equatorial

Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Mauritania, Namibia,Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa and Togo

Note:The first Committee meeting of the West and Central African MOU (Abuja MOU)took place in Abuja, Nigeria, from 11 to 15 June 2001. Rules of Procedure for theCommittee meetings were adopted. Members who had signed the MOU were urged toconfirm their acceptance in writing to the Secretariat. The Committee’s agendaincluded training issues, financial and administrative matters relating to theSecretariat and the Information Centre, status of relevant Conventions, co-operationwith other regional PSC MOUs and Agreements. The Committee also considered apresentation by the Director of APCIS on the information system being used by theTokyo MOU. The Committee also discussed charges for PSC services and wereadvised of IMO’s recommendation that the first visit should not be charged.

(8) Black Sea region (Black Sea MOU)Established: 7 April 2000Members: Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, the Russian Federation, Turkey and UkraineNote:

The Black Sea MOU held its second Committee meeting in Varna, Bulgaria from 2 to4 May 2001. The Committee was advised that the Black Sea MOU came into force on19 December 2000, at which time official acceptance had been received from Bulgaria,Georgia and Turkey. The Committee considered and approved a number ofamendments to the text of the MOU and noted a presentation on the proposed budget,functionality and other matters relating to the Information Centre. The Agendaincluded items on the administrative and financial operation of the Black Sea MOU,co-operation with other regional memoranda, the development of a PSC manual andcommon coding systems and training issues. Correspondence groups wereestablished to deal the development of a PSC manual and training matters.


8

1.2.2 Agreements under developmentThough the Persian Gulf region is not covered by an MOU at present, preparationsare being made for the establishment of an MOU with the support of the IMO.The Marine Emergency Mutual Aid Centre (MEMAC) of the Regional Organizationfor the Protection of the Marine Environment (ROPME) is still actively involved inprogressing this issue and a second regional training course on port State control willbe organized in 2002.

1.2.3 U.S.C.G.In the 1970's, the U.S. Coast Guard increased its emphasis on the examination offoreign vessels. Although this emphasis was primarily driven by requirements toensure compliance with the then new U.S. pollution prevention and navigation safetyregulations, boarding officers also exercised Port State authority when instances ofnon-compliance with SOLAS and MARPOL were noted. In 1994, the U.S. introducedrisk-management methodologies into the Port State Control program in order toallocate limited inspection resources to where they could do the most good, byidentifying those ships, ship owners, classification societies and flag Administrationsthat were most often found lacking in meeting their international Conventionresponsibilities.

In 2002, the classification society performance criteria were changed recognizing thatthe current method of comparing individual classification society performanceagainst the average performance was becoming overly restrictive. Keeping in mindthat demonstrated sustained high performance is the goal, the U.S.C.G. modified themethodology used to evaluate classification society performance by defining a fixeddetention ratio level. Additionally, the U.S.C.G. has made significant strides towardsthe targeting of charterers. The Coast Guard is currently collecting information oncharterers associated with detained vessels, and this information is being posted onthe Port State Control Web site on the Internet.

On 1 January 2001, the U.S.C.G. implemented an initiative to identify high-qualityships, so-called Qualship 21, quality shipping for the 21st century. The eligibilitycriteria for Qualship 21 were evaluated in these years. Recognizing that the currentdetention ratio that a flag state must meet is a moving target, as well as havingreached a level commensurate with high quality performance, the detention ratiocriterion was fixed in 2002.

Beginning 1 August, 2002,U.S.C.G. will enforce full compliance with therequirements of the STCW 95 Convention upon the ships entering U.S. ports. (Referto 3.3.3) Although the U.S.A. is not a member of any MOU, the U.S.C.G. carry out effectivePSC through co-operation with other MOUs.

1.2.4 EquasisOn 17 May 2000, the maritime administrations of France, Japan, United Kingdom,United States Coast Guard, Spain, Singapore and the European Commission signedthe 'Memorandum of understanding on the establishment of the Equasis InformationSystem' at the IMO Headquarters in London in conjunction with the 72nd MaritimeSafety Committee meeting.Equasis is a unique database collecting safety-related information on the world’s


9

merchant fleet from both public and private sources and making it easily accessibleon the internet. ( http://www.equasis.org/ ) It displays information from publicauthorities (Port State inspection and detention information from the threeparticipating port State Control regions, i.e. Paris MOU, Tokyo MOU and the USCoast Guard) and industry players (such as information on class, insurance,participation in industry inspection schemes and quality organizations), all free ofcharge.


10

1.3 Measures to be adopted by ClassNK

1.3.1 Measures for eliminating substandard ships(1) Treatment of the Deficiencies Identified by Port State Control Inspections

When surveyors are notified of the detention of ships classed with NK, they activelyco-operate as follows:・ Surveyors liaise with port state control authorities to ensure that they are called in

as soon as appropriate when deficiencies related to class and statutory matters areidentified.

・ Surveyors liaise with PSC officers to ensure uniformity of interpretation of classand statutory requirements.

・ Surveyors provide PSC officers with background information, extracts from reportspertinent to the inspection and details of outstanding recommendations of classand statutory items when so requested by a port state.

Attending surveyors examine not only the condition of the deficiencies identified bythe PSC officers but also the general condition of hull, machinery and equipment, tothe extent of an annual survey, considering the seriousness of the deficiencies whenthey attend ships intervened with under port state controls.

When surveyors receive inspection reports from port state authorities, the report aresent to the Survey Department of ClassNK head office by fax/e-mail. The report isexamined for causes of the deficiencies by staff who are exclusively engaged indealing with ships subject to intervention by PSC. The examination is carried out forall ships, for which reports are received, and the results are circulated to all directorsof the board and reflected in the ClassNK PSC database that has been developed forthe purpose of providing surveyors with PSC related electronic information.The result of this examination is submitted to the flag State of the ship.A letter is sent to owner(s) of the ship for the purpose of making them aware of theirultimate responsibility regarding the safety of their ships and protection of themarine environment, and advising them to improve routine maintenance of theirships.In cases where the intervention is judged as being related to the previous surveysconducted by our society’s surveyors, the surveys are treated as non-conformingservice and appropriate corrective/preventive actions are taken in accordance withour quality system.

(2) Special Training at several in-house meetingsSpecial training on PSC related issues was held at several meetings held in 2001 forgeneral managers and managers to ensure surveyors carry out proper and sufficientsurveys with an uncompromising attitude toward ensuring the quality and safety ofthe ships classed with our Society.Special re-training was also carried out under observation of Head Office and theregional managers, for the surveyors who conducted the surveys judged as seriousnon-conforming services.

(3) ClassNK Concentrated Inspection CampaignA concentrated inspection campaign by our Society’s surveyors on closing devices andremote control devices provided on board the ships classed with our Society wascarried out from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2001 in order to increase the uniformityof surveys and the consistency of actions between our surveyors. Our surveyors were


11

instructed to carry out the relevant surveys even more carefully than usual using aspecial checklist. Those items were selected as targets of the internal campaignbecause deficiencies concerning closing devices and remote control devices wereidentified as being most common among the detainable deficiencies reported by portStates in 2000 following the deficiencies of lifeboats and emergency fire pumps, forwhich the first concentrated inspection campaign had been undertaken in 2000.In 2002, a concentrated inspection campaign is being carried out to examine oily-water separators and related equipment/documents required under MARPOL AnnexI. This campaign was decided on taking account of the fact that the detainabledeficiencies of oily-water separating equipment, piping & discharge arrangements,retention of oil on board and 15ppm alarm arrangements, which were pointed out bythe PSC officers in 2001, were ranked in 4th, 17th, 22nd and 25th in the mostcommon detainable deficiencies and total number of these deficiencies went up by 83cases in 2001. (referred to in paragraph 2.3.2)

1.3.2 Meetings and informal gatherings with ship owners

At informal gatherings and technical committee meetings with ship owners, PSC hasbeen discussed; explanations have been given and documents presented, pointing outthe importance of the proper maintenance of ships and education of crew to preventthe detention of ships.Special seminars for shipowners focused on PSC related issues were held in Japan,Hong Kong and Singapore in 2001.The “ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control” was distributed to all registeredshipowners/operators in our fleet. A check list (Good Maintenance On Board Ships)was also prepared as electronic information, which can be used by the ship’s crew forquick and easy inspection of a ship before she enters port.

1.3.3 Visits to Port StatesPersonnel from ClassNK Head Office or survey offices were assigned to visitheadquarters or offices of port States with the objectives of introducing ClassNK,exchanging views and collecting information.The organizations in the major port States, which were visited by our executives in2001 and 2002, are listed below.

Australia: Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA)Canada:Transport CanadaHong Kong: Marine Department Hong Kong Special Administrative RegionJapan: The Maritime Administration of Japan (JG)New Zealand: Maritime Safety Authority (MSA) of New ZealandSingapore: Maritime and Port Authority (MPA) of SingaporeU.K.: Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA)U.S.A.: United States Coast Guard (USCG)

1.3.4 Other activitiesPersonnel from ClassNK Head Office were assigned as lecturers to Training Coursefor PSC Officers promoted by the Tokyo MOU which have been held every year inJapan.


12

Chapter 2Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships Registered to ClassNK

2.1 GeneralThe data in this chapter, on ships detained due to deficiencies identified during PSCinspections, is based on the following:(1) Notifications from port States in accordance with IMO Resolution A.787(19)

“Procedure for Port State Control” amended by Resolution A. 882(21)(2) Publications related to detained ships issued by the USCG, the Paris MOU and the

Tokyo MOU.

From January to December 2001, 406 detentions under PSC were reported concerning354 ships classed by NK. This included cases not related to activities conducted by NK.The total number of NK-registered ships was 6,416 at the end of December 2001.Therefore the number of 354 ships detained represents about 5.5% of the total.

2.2 Data on Detentions2.2.1 Detentions by flag State

Table 2.2.1 Detentions by flag State with 10 or more NK classed ships

Detentions Detentions / TotalDetentions (%)

Detention Ratio (%)(= Detentions / Registered

Number in each year)Flag StateRegistered

Number2001 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001

Panama 2447 176 166 218 49.0 44.4 54.5 7.5 7.0 8.9Malta 174 24 22 29 6.7 5.9 7.3 15.6 12.9 16.7Cyprus 150 26 19 22 7.2 5.1 5.5 17.6 12.3 14.7Singapore 819 21 30 19 5.8 8.0 4.8 2.4 3.6 2.3Philippines 186 27 19 11 7.5 5.1 2.8 11.6 9.0 5.9St. Vincent 54 4 18 11 1.1 4.8 2.8 7.1 29.5 20.4Bahamas 135 7 12 10 1.9 3.2 2.5 5.5 9.2 7.4Liberia 222 14 19 10 3.9 5.1 2.5 5.4 8.4 4.5Turkey 52 15 15 10 4.2 4.0 2.5 30.0 31.9 19.2Hong Kong 132 8 11 8 2.2 2.9 2.0 8.7 9.6 6.1Belize 28 2 1 6 0.6 0.3 1.5 6.9 3.6 21.4Indonesia 34 4 3 6 1.1 0.8 1.5 8.7 8.3 17.6Japan 1175 4 3 6 1.1 0.8 1.5 0.3 0.3 0.5Marshall Is. 14 0 0 6 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 42.9Malaysia 382 7 9 5 1.9 2.4 1.3 1.7 2.3 1.3Thailand 80 11 8 5 3.1 2.1 1.3 12.4 10.3 6.3Vanuatu 31 2 1 3 0.6 0.3 0.8 6.3 3.4 9.7Viet Nam 16 1 2 3 0.3 0.5 0.8 5.6 14.3 18.8Greece 36 2 4 2 0.6 1.1 0.5 5.0 11.1 5.6India 18 1 0 2 0.3 0.0 0.5 5.6 0.0 11.1Taiwan, China 33 1 0 2 0.3 0.0 0.5 2.3 0.0 6.1Bangladesh 30 0 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 3.3Kuwait 10 0 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 10.0Brunei 14 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Honduras 10 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Saudi Arabia 11 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0UAE 11 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Others 112 2 12 10 0.6 3.2 2.5 0.9 8.1 8.9Total 6416 359 374 406 5.5 5.8 6.3


13

The following flag State Administrations were identified as having a detention ratiohigher than 10% in 2001 among the Administrations with 10 or more NK classed ships.

Marshall Islands, Belize, St. Vincent and Grenadines, Turkey, Vietnam, Indonesia,Malta, Cyprus, India and Kuwait

The detention ratios were determined by dividing detentions by the number of NK fleetships registered in each flag State.

176

24 2621

27

4 714 15

82 4 4

07

112 1 2 1 1 0 0

166

22 19

30

19 1812

1915

11

1 3 3 09 8

1 2 40 0 0 0

218

2922 19

11 11 10 10 10 8 6 6 6 6 5 5 3 3 2 2 2 1 1

0

50

100

150

200

250

Pana

ma

Mal

ta

Cyp

rus

Sing

apor

e

Philip

pine

s

St. V

ince

nt

Baha

mas

Libe

ria

Turk

ey

Hon

g Ko

ng

Beliz

e

Indo

nesi

a

Japa

n

Mar

shal

l Is.

Mal

aysi

a

Thai

land

Vanu

atu

Viet

Nam

Gre

ece

Indi

a

Taiw

an, C

hina

Bang

lade

sh

Kuw

ait

199920002001

8

1618

2

12

76 5

30

97

9

0 02

12

6 6 5 6

2

0 0

7

13 12

4

9

30

9 8

32

10

4

8

0 0

2

10

3

14

11

0 0 0 0

9

1715

2

6

20

7

5

19

6

21

18

1 1

6

10

19

6

11

6

3

10

43

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

Pana

ma

Mal

ta

Cyp

rus

Sing

apor

e

Philip

pine

s

St. V

ince

nt

Baha

mas

Libe

ria

Turk

ey

Hon

g Ko

ng

Beliz

e

Indo

nesi

a

Japa

n

Mar

shal

l Is.

Mal

aysi

a

Thai

land

Vanu

atu

Viet

Nam

Gre

ece

Indi

a

Taiw

an, C

hina

Bang

lade

sh

Kuw

ait

199920002001

Fig. 2.2.1-1 Detentions by Flag (NK)D

eten

tion

s

Flag State

Fig. 2.2.1-2 Detention Ratio by Flag (NK)

Det

enti

on R

atio

(%

)

Flag State


14

2.2.2 Detentions by ship type

Table 2.2.2 Detentions by ship type (NK)

DetentionsDetention Ratio (%)(= Detentions / Registered

Number in each year)Ship TypeShips inNK Fleet

2001 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001

Bulk Carrier 1,512 128 130 131 9.3 9.1 8.7

Ore Carrier 18 3 2 5 15.0 9.5 27.8

General Cargo 742 114 116 140 13.0 14.8 18.9

Container Carrier 396 18 24 24 4.6 6.2 6.1

Chip Carrier 112 6 1 6 5.6 0.9 5.4

Cement Carrier 134 5 2 7 3.9 1.5 5.2

Ro-Ro Ship 90 2 9 1 2.2 10.2 1.1

Reefer Carrier 316 38 33 35 11.2 10.1 11.1

Vehicles Carrier 305 13 15 12 4.4 4.9 3.9

Oil Tanker 926 7 17 17 0.7 1.8 1.8

Chemical Tanker 437 22 23 20 5.2 5.3 4.6

Gas Carrier 363 2 2 7 0.6 0.6 1.9

Others 1,065 1 0 1 0.1 0.0 0.1

Total 6,416 359 374 406

Ore carriers, General cargo carriers and Reefer carriers were identified as having adetention ratio higher than 10% in 2001. The detention ratios were determined bydividing detentions by the number of ships of each ship type in the NK fleet.


15

3

114

18

6 5 2

38

137

2 12

24

1 29

23

2 05

140

6 71

1217

71

22

128

1715

33

116130

20

35

24

131

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Bulk C

arrier

Ore Carr

ier

Genera

l Carg

o

Contai

ner C

arrier

Chip C

arrier

Cemen

t Carr

ier

Ro-Ro S

hip

Reefer

Carr

ier

Vehicle

s Carr

ier

Oil Tan

ker

Chemica

l Tan

ker

Gas C

arrier

Others

Det

entio

ns 199920002001

15.0

4.65.6

3.9

2.2

11.2

4.4

0.7 0.6 0.1

9.1 9.5

14.8

0.9 1.5

10.2 10.1

4.9

1.8

5.3

8.7

27.8

18.9

6.15.4 5.2

1.1

11.1

3.9

1.8

4.6

1.9

0.1

9.3

13.0

5.2

6.2

0.60.00

5

10

15

20

25

30

Bulk C

arrier

Ore Carr

ier

Genera

l Carg

o

Contai

ner C

arrier

Chip C

arrier

Cemen

t Carr

ier

Ro-Ro S

hip

Reefer

Carr

ier

Vehicle

s Carr

ier

Oil Tan

ker

Chemica

l Tan

ker

Gas C

arrier

Others

Det

entio

n R

atio

(%)

199920002001

Fig. 2.2.2-1 Detentions by Ship Type (NK)

Fig. 2.2.2-2 Detention Ratio by Ship Type (NK)


16

2.2.3 Detentions by ship’s age

Table 2.2.3 Detentions by ship’s age

DetentionsDetention Ratio (%)

(= Detentions / RegisteredNumber in each year)Ship's age

Ships inNK Fleet

2001 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001

upto 5 years old 1,674 40 34 43 2.0 1.9 2.6

over 5 and up to 10 1,762 51 50 60 3.3 3.0 3.4

over 10 and up to 15 1,005 65 40 55 6.3 4.1 5.5

over 15 and up to 20 1,100 132 151 144 12.2 13.6 13.1

over 20 and up to 25 571 57 79 74 9.1 13.2 13.0

over 25 304 14 20 30 5.9 7.6 9.9

Although the number of ships aged over 15 years makes up only about 31% of the total ofthe registed ships in the NK fleet, they make up a large part (about 61%) of the totalnumber of the detained ships in 2001. The detention ratios were determined by dividingdetentions by the number of ships belong to each range of age in the NK fleet.

4 05 1

6 5

1 3 2

5 7

1 4

3 45 0

4 0

1 5 1

7 9

2 0

4 36 0 5 5

1 4 4

7 4

3 0

02 04 06 08 0

1 0 01 2 01 4 01 6 0

U p to 5 o v e r 5a n d u p

to 1 0

o v e r1 0 a n d

u p to1 5

o v e r1 5 a n d

u p to2 0

o v e r2 0 a n d

u p to2 5

o v e r2 5

Det

entio

ns 1 9 9 92 0 0 02 0 0 1

2.03.3

6 .3

12.2

9 .1

5 .9

1 .93 .0

4 .1

13.6 13.2

7 .6

2 .63 .4

5 .5

13.1 13.0

9 .9

02468

10121416

U pto 5 over 5and upto 10

over 10and upto 15

over 15and upto 20

over 20and upto 25

over 25

Det

entio

n R

atio

(%)

199920002001

Fig. 2.2.3-1 Detentions by Ship’s Age (NK)

Fig. 2.2.3-2 Detention Ratio by Ship’s Age (NK)


17

2.2.4 Detentions by tonnageTable 2.2.4 Detention by tonnage (NK)

DetentionsDetention Ratio (%)

(= Detentions / Registered Number ineach year)Gross Ton (x 1,000)

Ships inNK Fleet

2001 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001up to 10 3,645 184 187 226 5.0 5.1 6.2over 10 and up to 20 957 100 94 72 10.4 9.8 7.5over 20 and up to 30 550 32 41 32 5.8 7.5 5.8over 30 and up to 40 464 20 26 37 4.3 5.6 8.0over 40 and up to 50 263 9 11 16 3.4 4.2 6.1over 50 and up to 60 196 4 8 6 2.0 4.1 3.1over 60 and up to 80 100 5 5 7 5.0 5.0 7.0over 80 241 5 2 10 2.1 0.8 4.1

The detention ratios of ships of tonnage more than 30,000 gross tons increased from thatof 2000. The detention ratio of ships less than 10,000 gross tons is relatively low because alarge number of these ships are not operating in international waters (in comparison toall other NK-registered ships). The detention ratios were determined by dividingdetentions by the number of ships belong to each range of tonnage in the NK fleet.

5 .0

1 0 .4

5 .8

4 .3

3 .4

2 .0

5 .0

2 .1

5 .1

9 .8

7 .5

5 .6

4 .2 4 .1

5 .0

0 .8

6 .2

7 .5

5 .8

8 .0

6 .1

3 .1

7 .0

4 .1

0

2

4

6

8

1 0

1 2

u p to 1 0 o v e r 1 0a n d u p to

2 0

o v e r 2 0a n d u p to

3 0


4 0


5 0


6 0


8 0

o v e r 8 0

Det

entio

n R

atio

(%)

1 9 9 92 0 0 02 0 0 1

(x 1,000 ton)

1 0 0

3 22 0

9 4 5 5

1 8 7

9 4

4 12 6

1 1 8 5 2

2 2 6

7 2

3 2 3 7

1 66 7 1 0

1 8 4

0

5 0

1 0 0

1 5 0

2 0 0

2 5 0

u p to1 0

o v e r1 0 a n d

u p to2 0

o v e r2 0 a n d

u p to3 0

o v e r3 0 a n d

u p to4 0

o v e r4 0 a n d

u p to5 0

o v e r5 0 a n d

u p to6 0

o v e r6 0 a n d

u p to8 0

o v e r8 0

Det

entio

ns

1 9 9 92 0 0 02 0 0 1

Fig. 2.2.4-1 Detentions by Tonnage (NK)

Fig. 2.2.4-2 Detention Ratio by Tonnage (NK)

(x 1,000 ton)


18

2.2.5 Detentions by Port State

Table 2.2.5

Detentions by Port State (NK)

Port State 1999 2000 2001Japan 54 49 73Australia 40 45 37Singapore 22 26 37Korea 11 25 35USA 60 31 25China 12 11 20Spain 9 14 20Hong Kong 39 18 19Italy 9 6 16Canada 17 14 15India 11 21 14Germany 11 16 10Russia 6 9 10Chile 0 2 9United Kingdom 5 6 9Belgium 9 13 7France 1 7 7Netherlands 13 8 6Viet Nam 3 2 6Brazil 2 3 4Portugal 2 9 4Israel 3 3 3Philippines 0 5 3Turkey 0 0 3Greece 2 2 2Poland 2 2 2Romania 0 0 2Cuba 0 0 1Denmark 1 2 1Finland 0 0 1Iran 0 0 1Jamaica 0 0 1New Zealand 7 3 1South Africa 3 4 1Thailand 2 13 1Argentina 0 1 0Croatia 0 1 0Ireland 1 1 0Malaysia 0 1 0Norway 1 1 0Uruguay 1 0 0Total 359 374 406The number of the ships detainedby port States in some Asiancountries such as Japan,Singapore, Korea, Chinaincreased in 2001.

1

1

0

1

0

0

2

3

7

0

0

0

1

0

0

2

2

0

0

3

2

2

3

13

1

9

5

0

6

11

11

17

9

39

9

12

60

11

22

40

54

0

1

1

1

1

1

13

4

3

0

0

0

2

0

0

2

2

0

5

3

9

3

2

8

7

13

6

2

9

16

21

14

6

18

14

11

31

25

26

45

49

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

3

3

3

4

4

6

6

7

7

9

9

10

10

14

15

16

19

20

20

25

35

37

37

73

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Uruguay

Norw ay

Malaysia

Ireland

Croatia

Argentina

Thailand

South Africa

New Zealand

Jamaica

Iran

Finland

Denmark

Cuba

Romania

Poland

Greece

Turkey

Philippines

Israel

Portugal

Brazil

Viet Nam

Netherlands

France

Belgium

United Kingdom

Chile

Russia

Germany

India

Canada

Italy

Hong Kong

Spain

China

USA

Korea

Singapore

Australia

Japan

2001

2000

1999

Fig. 2.2.5 Detentions by Port State (NK)


19

2.3 Analysis of detainable deficiencies

2.3.1 Detainable Deficiencies per CategoryIn 2001, 1252 detainable deficiencies were reported concerning 406 detentions, i.e.deficiencies which were serious enough to jeopardise the ship’s seaworthiness, safety ofthe crew on board or to present an unreasonable threat of harm to the environment andtherefore warranted detention of ships. While there was an increase in detained ships in2001, the total number of detainable deficiencies decreased from the 1519 observed onships in 2000. The deficiencies are categorised as shown in Figure 2.3.1.

Deficiencies in this category that are related to fire-fighting and life-saving appliancesaccount for approximately 40% of the total in 2001.

Fig.2.3.1 Deficiencies per Category (NK)

1

3

3

5

6

5

24

12

5

9

28

54

52

13

38

63

125

111

91

92

200

214

1

13

6

16

14

8

31

43

15

16

37

34

46

28

40

86

141

117

222

142

214

249

1

1

4

5

6

10

14

15

16

17

24

28

45

46

56

67

95

111

120

121

215

235

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

OTHER DEFICIENCIES

MARPOL-ANNEX III

TANKERS

MARPOL-ANNEX II

WORKING SPACES

ALARMS-SIGNALS

CARGO

FOOD AND CATERING

CERTIFICATION AND WATCHKEEPING

ACCIDENT PREVENTION

MARPOL OPERATIONAL DEFECTS

MOORING ARRANGEMENTS

CREW AND ACCOMMODATION

SOLAS OPERATIONAL DEFECTS

RADIO

ISM RELATED DEFECTS

SHIP'S CERTIFICATE

PROPULSION & AUX. MACHINERY

LOAD LINES

NAVIGATION

STABILITY AND STRUCTURE

MARPOL-ANNEX I

LIFE SAVING APPLIANCES

FIRE FIGHTING APPLIANCES

200120001999

Deficiencies


20

2.3.2 Deficiencies reported frequentlyFigure 2.3.2 shows the items for which more than 10 detainable deficiencies werereported in conjunction with the detention of ships in the NK fleet. Lifeboats, emergencyfire pumps and closing appliances continue to be the major items where most detainabledeficiencies were found.The items reported in 1999 to 2001 are explained in detail in paragraphs 2.3.3 to 2.3.12.

Fig.2.3.2 Most Common Deficiencies (NK)

6

11

2

8

5

10

12

11

24

6

3

6

15

1

13

13

16

24

10

10

18

13

12

10

20

32

51

26

45

21

36

65

56

77

9

11

8

11

11

22

16

16

20

27

8

14

17

8

27

16

19

17

12

16

35

31

19

14

23

30

39

26

51

31

49

60

78

68

11

11

11

11

11

11

12

12

12

12

13

13

13

14

14

15

15

15

16

16

17

17

20

23

25

26

33

34

38

39

43

60

68

76

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Maintenance of the ship and equipment

Satellite EPIRB 406MHz/1.6GHz

MF/HF Radio Installation

Propulsion Main Engine

Embarkation Arrangement for Survival Craf t

Certif icate of Competency

15 PPM Alarm Arrangements

Auxiliary Engine

Cargo & Other Hatchw ays

Beams, Frames, Floors-Corrosion

Garbage

Retention of Oil on Board

Covers (Hatchw ays, Portable, Tarpaulins, etc.)

Muster and Drills

Lifebuoys

Pumping, Piping & Discharge Arrangements

Doors

Lifeboat Inventory

Personal Equipment

Prevention

Other (Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery)

Emergency Lighting, Batteries & Sw itches

Appliances (General Equipment)

Inf latable Liferafts

Cleanliness of Engine Room

Launching Arrangements for Survival Craft

Charts

Nautical Publications

Ventilators, Air Pipes, Casings

Fire Fighting Equipment

Oily-Water Separating Equipment

Fire-Dampers, Valves, Quick Closing Devices, Remote Control, etc.

Fire Pumps

Lifeboats

2001

2000

1999


21

2.3.3 Fire Fighting Appliances

The breakdown of deficiencies under the category “Fire Fighting Appliances” is shown inTable 2.3.3.

Table 2.3.3 Fire Fighting Appliances

Item 99 00 01 Remarkable deficiencyFire Pumps 56 78 68 Deficient emergency fire pumpsFire-Dampers, Valves, Quick ClosingDevices, Remote Control, etc.

65 60 60 Seized closing devices; fire damper, door self-closer,emergency shut-off valves on FO tanks

Fire Fighting Equipment 21 31 39 Service Report of Fire Extinguishers missingUnserviceable fire hose and nozzle

Appliances (General Equipment) 12 19 20 Leakage of fire main line and hydrantsDefective hose/nozzle

Prevention 10 16 16 Defective fire doorPersonal Equipment 10 12 16 Defective Fireman’s outfit

Unserviceable Breathing Apparatus

2.3.4 Life Saving Appliances

The breakdown of deficiencies under the category “Life Saving Appliances” is shown inthe Table 2.3.4.

Table 2.3.4 Life Saving Appliances

Item 99 00 01 Remarkable deficiencyLifeboats 77 68 76 Inoperable lifeboat engine

Wasted/holed shellInoperable on load release gear

Launching Arrangements for SurvivalCraft

32 30 26 Wasted/holed davitWasted sheaves

Inflatable Liferafts 10 14 23 Service certificate expiredLifeboat Inventory 24 17 15 Equipment missing/expiredLifebuoys 13 27 14 Defective attachment to man overboard lifebuoy

Smoke signal / light unit expiredEmbarkation Arrangement forSurvival Craft

5 11 11 Rotten embarkation ladderShort embarkation ladder

2.3.5 MARPOL-ANNEX I

The breakdown of deficiencies under the category “MARPOL-ANNEX I” is shown in theTable 2.3.5.

Table 2.3.5 MARPOL-ANNEX I

Item 99 00 01 Remarkable deficiencyOily-Water Separating Equipment 36 49 43 Inoperable separator

Wasted and holed separator casingPumping, Piping & DischargeArrangements

13 16 15 Direct discharge piping from oily water separatorBy passing line of oily water separator

Retention of Oil on Board 6 14 13 Much bilge in the engine room15 PPM Alarm Arrangements 12 16 12 Malfunction of 15 ppm alarm


22

2.3.6 Stability, Structure and Related Equipment

The breakdown of deficiencies under the category “Stability, Structure and RelatedEquipment” is shown in the Table 2.3.6.

Table 2.3.6 Stability, Structure and Related Equipment

Item 99 00 01 Remarkable deficiencyEmergency Lighting, Batteries &Switches

13 31 17 Deficient battery/emergency generatorInoperable emergency lighting

Beam, Frames, Floors-Corrosion 6 27 12 Wasted frames in cargo holdsWasted longitudinals and transverse webs in WBTs

2.3.7 Navigation

The breakdown of deficiencies under the category “Navigation” is shown in the Table2.3.7.

Table 2.3.7 Navigation

Item 99 00 01 Remarkable deficiencyNautical Publications 26 26 34 Nautical publications (tide table, list of lights, list of

radio signals, etc.) not updated/correctedNautical publications incomplete/missing

Charts 51 39 33 Navigation charts not updated/correctedNavigation charts for intended voyage not available

2.3.8 Load Lines

The breakdown of deficiencies under the category “Load Lines” is shown in the Table2.3.8.

Table 2.3.8 Load Lines

Item 99 00 01 Remarkable deficiencyVentilators, Air Pipes, Casings 45 51 38 Wasted/holed ventilator

Wasted/holed air pipesClosing devices frozen

Doors 16 19 15 Doors not weather-tightWasted doors

Covers (Hatchways, Portable,Tarpaulins, etc.)

15 17 13 Wasted/holed coverSecuring device defective/missing

Cargo & Other Hatchways 24 20 12 Wasted/holed hatch coverSecuring device defective/missing


23

2.3.9 Propulsion & Aux. Machinery

The breakdown of deficiencies under the category “Propulsion & Aux. Machinery” isshown in the Table 2.3.9.

Table 2.3.9 Propulsion & Aux. Machinery

Item 99 00 01 Remarkable deficiencyCleanliness of Engine Room 20 23 25 Excessive oil in Engine RoomOther 18 35 17 Excessive leaking from pipes and pumps

Malfunction of miscellaneous machineryAuxiliary Engine 11 16 12 Leakage from generatorPropulsion Main Engine 8 11 11 Main engine failure

2.3.10 Ship’s Certificate

The breakdown of deficiencies under the category “Ship’s Certificate” is shown in theTable 2.3.10.

Table 2.3.10 Ship’s Certificate

Item 99 00 01 Remarkable deficiencyCargo Ship Safety Equipment 9 8 10 Certificate expired

2.3.11 ISM Related Defects

The breakdown of deficiencies under the category “ISM Related Defects” is shown in theTable 2.3.11.

Table 2.3.11 ISM Related Defects

Item 99 00 01 Remarkable deficiencyMaintenance of the ship andequipment

6 9 11 Shipboard SMS does not ensure adequatemaintenance of ship's structure and equipment

2.3.12 Radio

The breakdown of deficiencies under the category “Radio” is shown in the Table 2.3.12.

Table 2.3.12 Radio

Item 99 00 01 Remarkable deficiencyMF/HF Radio Installation 2 8 11 MF/HF DSC appears not operational


24

2.4 Analysis of detainable deficiencies by Port State

Tables 2.4.1 to 2.4.18 show the most common deficiencies that resulted in the detention ofthe vessels classed with NK under PSC inspections conducted by the top 18 port States,by number of detentions reported in 2001.

2.4.1 JapanTable 2.4.1 Japan

Type of Deficiency 1999 2000 2001Nautical Publications 8 0 11Oily-Water Separating Equipment 5 5 8Lifeboats 9 5 7Charts 15 4 7Pumping, Piping & Discharge Arrangements 2 3 6Hull-Cracking 0 2 5Emergency Preparedness 0 0 5Safety and Environmental Policy 0 2 4Masters Responsibility and Authority 0 3 4Prevention 2 5 3Total 373 detainable deficiencies concerning 176 detentions : about 2.1 detainable deficiencies/detention

2.4.2 AustraliaTable 2.4.2 Australia

Type of Deficiency 1999 2000 2001Fire-Dampers, Valves, Quick Closing Devices, Remote Control, etc. 23 15 18Ventilators, Air Pipes, Casings 8 9 9Pumps 5 6 7MF/HF Radio Installation 1 7 6Lifeboats 4 4 4Cargo & Other Hatchways 7 2 4Operation/Maintenance 3 0 3Maintenance of the ship and equipment 1 4 3Total 246 detainable deficiencies concerning 122 detentions : about 2.0 detainable deficiencies/detention

2.4.3 SingaporeTable 2.4.3 Singapore

Type of Deficiency 1999 2000 2001Lifeboats 8 3 10Garbage 0 2 10Suspected Discharge Violation 3 3 7Ventilators, Air Pipes, Casings 1 0 5Oily-Water Separating Equipment 0 0 5Rescue Boats 0 3 4Fire-Dampers, Valves, Quick Closing Devices, Remote Control, etc. 4 1 4Rescue Boat Inventory 0 0 3Inflatable Liferafts 2 2 3Line Throwing Appliances 0 1 3Readily availability of Fire Fighting Equipment 0 2 3Pumping, Piping & Discharge Arrangements 3 0 3Total 200 detainable deficiencies concerning 85 detentions : about 2.4 detainable deficiencies/detention


25

2.4.4 KoreaTable 2.4.4 Korea

Type of Deficiency 1999 2000 2001Lifeboats 2 10 11Emergency Lighting, Batteries & Switches 0 3 7Oily-Water Separating Equipment 0 1 6Pumps 0 0 5Embarkation Arrangement for Survival Craft 0 2 4Launching Arrangements for Survival Craft 1 1 3Fixed Fire Equipment 0 2 3Total 154 detainable deficiencies concerning 71 detentions : about 2.2 detainable deficiencies/detention

2.4.5 U.S.A.Table 2.4.5 U.S.A.

Type of Deficiency 1999 2000 2001Fixed Fire Equipment 7 2 7Fire Drills 23 12 7Lifeboats 16 2 5Launching Arrangements for Survival Craft 9 2 4Abandon Ship Drills 15 9 4Pumps 6 11 3Total 337 detainable deficiencies concerning 116 detentions : about 2.9 detainable deficiencies/detention

2.4.6 ChinaTable 2.4.6 China

Type of Deficiency 1999 2000 2001Pumps 5 7 10Fire-Dampers, Valves, Quick Closing Devices, Remote Control, etc. 1 2 10Ventilators, Air Pipes, Casings 2 0 6Oily-Water Separating Equipment 1 1 4Lifeboats 2 4 3Covers (Hatchways, Portable, Tarpaulins, etc.) 2 0 3Total 125 detainable deficiencies concerning 43 detentions : about 2.9 detainable deficiencies/detention

2.4.7 SpainTable 2.4.7 Spain

Type of Deficiency 1999 2000 2001Muster and Drills 0 1 5Retention of Oil on Board 2 1 5Cleanliness of Engine Room 2 1 4Total 104 detainable deficiencies concerning 43 detentions : about 2.4 detainable deficiencies/detention


26

2.4.8 Hong KongTable 2.4.8 Hong Kong

Type of Deficiency 1999 2000 2001Charts 14 8 9Lifeboats 6 5 6Pumps 13 11 5Nautical Publications 1 3 5Ventilators, Air Pipes, Casings 12 3 4Lights, Shapes and Sound Signals 0 0 4Lifeboat Inventory 1 0 3Lifejackets 2 1 3Fire Fighting Equipment 1 3 3Fire-Dampers, Valves, Quick Closing Devices, Remote Control, etc. 12 2 3Emergency Lighting, Batteries & Switches 2 1 3Total 244 detainable deficiencies concerning 76 detentions : about 3.2 detainable deficiencies/detention

2.4.9 ItalyTable 2.4.9 Italy

Type of Deficiency 1999 2000 2001Nautical Publications 0 0 7Other (Accommodation) 0 2 6Lifeboats 2 0 4Lifebuoys 0 3 4Charts 4 0 4Sanitary Facilities 0 1 3Fire-Dampers, Valves, Quick Closing Devices, Remote Control, etc. 0 1 3Other (Accident Prevention) 0 0 3Steering Gear 0 0 3Retention of Oil on Board 0 0 3Total 132 detainable deficiencies concerning 31 detentions : about 4.2 detainable deficiencies/detention

2.4.10 CanadaTable 2.4.10 Canada

Type of Deficiency 1999 2000 2001Beams, Frames, Floors-Corrosion 4 6 6Fire-Dampers, Valves, Quick Closing Devices, Remote Control, etc. 3 5 3Bulkheads-Corrosion 0 0 3Total 126 detainable deficiencies concerning 46 detentions : about 2.7 detainable deficiencies/detention


27

2.4.11 IndiaTable 2.4.11 India

Type of Deficiency 1999 2000 2001Other (Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery) 5 11 8Prevention 0 1 6Pumps 5 7 5Cargo & Other Hatchways 1 2 5Gangway, Accommodation Ladder 0 3 4Other (MARPOL - ANNEX I) 1 0 4Readily availability of Fire Fighting Equipment 1 0 3Other (Fire Fighting Appliances) 0 4 3Doors 3 5 3Total 423 detainable deficiencies concerning 46 detentions : about 9.2 detainable deficiencies/detention

2.4.12 GermanyTable 2.4.12 Germany

Type of Deficiency 1999 2000 2001Oily-Water Separating Equipment 4 5 5Nautical Publications 0 6 4Covers (Hatchways, Portable, Tarpaulins, etc.) 2 1 3Radar 1 1 315 PPM Alarm Arrangements 1 2 3Total 131 detainable deficiencies concerning 37 detentions : about 3.5 detainable deficiencies/detention

2.4.13 RussiaTable 2.4.13 Russia

Type of Deficiency 1999 2000 2001Other (Ship's Certificate) 1 1 2Fire Pumps 0 0 2Propulsion Main Engine 0 0 2Total 35 detainable deficiencies concerning 25 detentions : about 1.4 detainable deficiencies/detention

2.4.14 ChileTable 2.4.14 Chile

Type of Deficiency 1999 2000 2001Pumps 0 1 5Total 22 detainable deficiencies concerning 11 detentions : about 2.0 detainable deficiencies/detention

2.4.15 United KingdomTable 2.4.15 United Kingdom

Type of Deficiency 1999 2000 2001Lifeboats 4 0 4Launching Arrangements for Survival Craft 0 0 3Pumps 1 2 3Total 71 detainable deficiencies concerning 20 detentions : about 3.6 detainable deficiencies/detention


28

2.4.16 BelgiumTable 2.4.16 Belgium

Type of Deficiency 1999 2000 2001Fire Fighting Equipment 1 15 8Lifeboat Inventory 2 10 6Lifeboats 2 6 5Fire-Dampers, Valves, Quick Closing Devices, Remote Control, etc. 8 16 4Magnetic Compass 2 9 4Launching Arrangements for Survival Craft 0 5 3Pumps 1 3 3Ventilators, Air Pipes, Casings 3 9 3Winches & Capstans 1 5 3Total 563 detainable deficiencies concerning 29 detentions : about 19.4 detainable deficiencies/detention

2.4.17 FranceTable 2.4.17 France

Type of Deficiency 1999 2000 2001Fire Fighting Equipment 0 0 4Auxiliary Engine 0 1 4Minimum Safe Manning Certificate 0 1 3Other (Ship's Certificate) 0 0 3Sanitary Facilities 0 0 3Propulsion Main Engine 0 1 3Total 107 detainable deficiencies concerning 15 detentions : about 7.1 detainable deficiencies/detention

2.4.18 NetherlandsTable 2.4.18 Netherlands

Type of Deficiency 1999 2000 2001Lifeboats 13 7 10Launching Arrangements for Survival Craft 4 5 4Total 107 detainable deficiencies concerning 27 detentions : about 4.0 detainable deficiencies/detention


29

Chapter 3

Statistical Data from Tokyo MOU, Paris MOU, USCG and AMSA

3.1 Tokyo MOU (Source: Tokyo MOU web site)

3.1.1 Tokyo MOU Targeting SystemAfter eight years of operation and development, The Tokyo MOU in the Asia-Pacificregion is moving ahead steadily and has become better known as one of the most activeport state control regimes around the world as well as the Paris MOU.Each year since 1996 the Tokyo MOU has attained and maintained annual regionalinspection rates of over 50%. In 2000 the committee has adopted an amendment to theMemorandum to increase the regional annual target inspection rate from 50% to 75%.In selecting ships for inspection the Authorities will give priority to the following ships inaccordance with the MOU:

1. Passenger ships, roll-on/roll-off ships and bulk carriers;2. Ships which may present a special hazard, including oil tankers, gas carriers,

chemical tankers and ships carrying harmful substances in packaged form;3. Ships visiting a port of a State, the Authority of which is a signatory to the

Memorandum, for the first time or after an absence of 12 months or more;4. 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 Memorandum;5. Ships which have been permitted to leave the port of a State, the Authority of

which is a signatory to the Memorandum, on the condition that the deficienciesnoted must be rectified within a specified period, upon expiry of such period;

6. Ships which have been reported by pilots or port authorities as having deficiencieswhich may prejudice their safe navigation;

7. Ships carrying dangerous or polluting goods, which have failed to report allrelevant information concerning the ships' particulars, the ships movements andconcerning the dangerous or polluting goods being carried to the competentauthority of the port and coastal State;

8. Ships which have been suspended from their class for safety reasons in the courseof the preceding six months;

9. Ships proceeding to sea without complying with the conditions agreed by theAuthority of the port of inspection to proceed to the nearest yard available sincedeficiencies cannot be remedied in the inspection port.

10. Types of ships identified by the Committee from time to time as warrantingpriority inspections.

The Authorities will pay special attention to oil tankers and bulk carriers of 10 years ofage and over.


30

3.1.2 Tokyo MOU 2001 Statistics (Source: Tokyo MOU Annual Report on PSC)In 2001, 17,379 inspections were carried out in the Tokyo MOU region, and 1,349 shipswere detained because of serious deficiencies found on board.

Table 3.1.2-1 Basic PSC figures (Tokyo MOU 2001)Year 1998 1999 2000 2001

Number ofinspections 14,545 14,921 16,034 17,379

Number ofindividual shipsvisited the region

24,266 24,474 24,537 24,590

Regionalinspection rate approx. 60% approx. 61% approx. 65% approx. 71%

Number ofdetained ships 1,061 1,071 1,101 1,349

Detention ratio 7.29% 7.18% 6.87% 7.76%

Table 3.1.2-2 shows the PSC inspections carried out by each port State.

Table 3.1.2-2 PSC by Authority (Tokyo MOU)

AuthorityNo. of

Inspection

No. of shipswith

deficiencies

No. ofdeficiencies

No. ofdetentions

No. ofindividual

ships 1)

Inspectionrate (%)

Detentionratio (%)

Australia 2,913 1,788 8,818 127 4,545 64.09 4.36

Canada 2) 510 365 2,231 59 1,836 27.78 11.57

China 1,728 1,288 7,758 107 8,122 21.28 6.19

Fiji 29 7 19 1 164 17.68 3.45

Hong Kong, China 890 693 5,413 98 5,479 16.24 11.01

Indonesia 934 494 1,976 3 5,216 17.91 0.32

Japan 4,498 3,335 18,297 465 10,917 41.20 10.34

Republic of Korea 2,344 1,687 7,778 116 9,162 25.58 4.95

Malaysia 380 201 1,236 34 5,298 7.17 8.95

New Zealand 691 298 1,234 10 1,112 62.14 1.45

Papua New Guinea 0 0 0 0 385 0.00

Philippines 359 202 1,445 17 2,381 15.08 4.74

Russian Federation 2) 650 505 4,601 103 866 75.06 15.85

Singapore 1,189 1,012 7,609 170 11,333 10.49 14.30

Thailand 76 46 242 18 3,448 2.20 23.68

Vanuatu 0 0 0 0 38 0.00

Vietnam 188 128 921 21 1,194 15.75 11.17

Total 17,379 12,049 69,578 1,349Regional

24,590

Regionalapprox.71%

Regional7.76%

1) LMIS data for 2001. (Sum of the number of individual ships visits during the first and second half of the year 2001)

2) Data are only for the Pacific ports.


31

Table 3.1.2-3 Detentions by Flag (1999-2001 3-year rolling average by Tokyo MOU)

Flag No. ofInspections

No. ofDetentions

3-year rollingdetention ratio

Korea, Dem. People's Rep. 343 140 40.82%Indonesia 407 116 28.50%Cambodia 1,567 435 27.76%Belize 1,402 342 24.39%Viet Nam 269 63 23.42%Honduras 840 109 12.98%Russia 1,191 149 12.51%Turkey 252 29 11.51%Malaysia 998 104 10.42%Thailand 615 61 9.92%Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 1,005 93 9.25%Taiwan, China 563 52 9.24%Myanmar 140 12 8.57%Korea, Republic of 1,660 131 7.89%Iran 172 13 7.56%Malta 1,089 80 7.35%

Note: Flags listed above are those flags whose ships were involved in at least 60 port State inspections in the period 1999-2001 and the detention percentage of which are above the regional 3-year rolling average detention percentage (7.28%).

Table 3.1.2-4 Detentions by Ship Type (1999-2001 Tokyo MOU)

No. of Inspections No. of DetentionsType of Ship

1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001

AverageDetention

Ratio(%)

Chemical tanker 586 574 694 22 26 39 4.69Gas carrier 274 315 352 4 12 12 2.98Oil tanker 614 831 1,036 35 46 72 6.17Combination carrier 42 159 155 0 7 3 2.81Ta

nker

Tanker, not otherwise specified 320 102 177 21 6 3 5.01Bulk carrier 4,189 4,541 4,867 195 206 191 4.35Containership 1,948 2,274 2,627 82 85 117 4.15General cargo/multi-purpose ship 4,942 5,261 5,343 611 625 811 13.17Heavy load carrier 17 28 28 1 0 2 4.11Livestock carrier 76 78 74 4 0 5 3.95Refrigerated cargo carrier 610 572 529 48 42 45 7.89Ro-Ro cargo ship 251 210 253 11 11 9 4.34Vehicle carrier 382 463 405 13 12 4 2.32

Dry

Car

go S

hip

Woodchip carrier 59 119 167 2 1 3 1.74Factory ship 2 1 2 0 0 0 0Fishing vessel 0 4 4 0 0 0 0High speed passenger craft 21 11 9 0 1 0 2.44MODU & FPSO 3 1 1 0 0 0 0Offshore service vessel 110 87 120 2 3 3 2.52Passenger ship 195 176 183 6 10 7 4.15Ro-Ro Passenger ship 22 23 26 2 1 2 7.04Special purpose ship 61 39 39 4 0 6 7.19Tugboat 117 85 209 4 4 9 4.14

Oth

er

Others 80 80 79 4 3 6 5.44Total 14,921 16,034 17,379 1,071 1,101 1,349 7.28


32

Table 3.1.2-5 Detentions by Class (Tokyo MOU)

Year 1999 2000 2001

Class Inspec-tions

Deten-tions

DetentionRatio(%)

Inspec-tions

Deten-tions

DetentionRatio(%)

Inspec-tions

Deten-tions

DetentionRatio(%)

ABS 863 52 6.0% 1,001 36 3.6% 1,155 47 4.1%

BV 714 59 8.3% 779 48 6.2% 835 61 7.3%

CCS 1,295 104 8.0% 1,190 69 5.8% 1,359 53 3.9%

DNV 962 35 3.6% 1,058 37 3.5% 1,133 44 3.9%

GL 780 39 5.0% 881 39 4.4% 1,007 57 5.7%

KR 854 60 7.0% 1,153 69 6.0% 1,313 72 5.5%

LR 1,443 53 3.7% 1,528 63 4.1% 1,488 72 4.8%

NK 5,354 229 4.3% 5,723 238 4.2% 5,860 246 4.2%

RINA 129 5 3.9% 115 9 7.8% 88 7 8.0%

RS 509 65 12.8% 486 57 11.7% 509 63 12.4%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

ABS BV CCS DNV GL KR LR NK RINA RS Non-IACS

Det

enti

on r

atio

199920002001

Fig. 3.1.2-1 Detentions per Class (Tokyo MOU)


33

50

36

307

93

145

260

462

517

638

521

531

814

1,951

83

2,204

1,555

2,641

2,504

2,944

3,844

5,550

5,813

6,407

10,266

15

35

771

119

179

251

410

523

603

472

719

967

739

695

75

2,602

1,602

1,991

2,573

3,784

4,381

7,331

7,066

8,758

11,774

17

21

73

128

157

203

330

419

590

639

649

792

804

860

939

1,542

2,643

2,694

2,833

3,300

4,916

5,236

6,475

8,742

10,988

13,588

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000

Bulk Carriers-additional safety measures

MARPOL-ANNEX III

MARPOL-ANNEX II

Other deficiencies

Oil, chemical tankers and gas carriers

Alarm signals

Working spaces

Food and catering

Carriage of cargo and dangerous goods

Mooring arrangements

Accident prevention

ISM related deficiencies

MARPOL related operational deficiencies

Certification and watchkeeping for seafarers

Crew and accommodation

MARPOL-ANNEX V

Ship's certificates and documents

Propulsion and auxiliary machinery

SOLAS related operational deficiencies

Radio communications

MARPOL-ANNEX I

Load lines

Stability, structure and related equipment

Safety of Navigation

Fire safety measures

Life saving appliances

Deficiencies

200120001999

Fig. 3.1.2-2 Deficiencies per Category (Tokyo MOU)


34

3.1.3 Tokyo MOU Concentrated Inspection Campaign

-1. Inspection Campaign on the ISM Code (from 1 July to 30 September 2002)The Port State Control Committee confirmed the arrangements for the concentratedinspection campaign on the ISM Code compliance which will run for three months.The inspection is to be carried out in accordance with the agreed procedures similar to theone of the Paris MOU referred to in 3.2.3-2.

-2. Strict Enforcement of STCW 95 (from 1 August 2002)The Paris and Tokyo MOU Committees have confirmed that when the IMO's period ofgrace ends on 1 August the provisions of the new STCW95 Convention are to be strictlyenforced by port States in the Regions. Ships issued with Letters of Warning since theConvention came into force in February 2002 will be a priority for inspection, but allships inspected are expected to comply.

Port State Control Officers (PSCO's) will verify that all seafarers required to becertificated do hold a valid certificate or dispensation. In addition officers are required tohave an appropriate certificate from the Administration and endorsement from the flagState, or have documentary proof that an application for endorsement has been made.This proof could be a written confirmation from the flag State that an application hasbeen received from an individual. Alternatively a copy of the seafarers written applicationto the flag State, clearly showing name, certificate number, date of issue and validity willbe accepted.

Ships with seafarers not properly certificated will face detention if the deficienciesrepresent an unreasonable danger to persons, property or the environment, taking intoaccount the length and nature of the voyage, the level of non-compliance and other factors.Such detainable deficiencies including:・ No Safe Manning Document or the manning is not in accordance with the Safe

Manning Document;・ Certificates of Competency are not available or not in accordance with the

requirements of the Safe Manning Document;・ No mandatory specialized training document or endorsement is available, where

required;・ No radio operator certificates available;・ No documentation for personnel with designated safety or pollution prevention duties

is available;・ No flag State endorsement or documentary proof of application available (noting that a

seafarer may only serve on board for a period not exceeding 3 months on the basis of anapplication and that the application should be made before serving in that capacity).

Deficiencies in the manning documentation will be considered as clear grounds for a moredetailed inspection which could include operational drills and an examination of theship’s safety management system, if appropriate.


35

3.2 Paris MOU (Source: Paris MOU web site)

3.2.1 Paris MOU Targeting SystemTo facilitate the selection of ships to be inspected throughout the Paris MOU region, thecentral computer database, known as ‘SIRENAC’ is consulted by PSC officers for data onships particulars and for the reports of previous inspections carried out within the region.If a ship has been inspected within the Paris MOU region during the previous six monthsand, on that occasion, was found to comply, the ship will in principle be exempted fromfurther inspection, unless there are clear grounds to warrant further investigation.In selecting ships for inspection the Paris MOU Authorities will give priority to:

1. Ships visiting a port of a State, the Authority of which is a signatory to the Memorandum, for thefirst time or after an absence of 12 months or more. In the absence of appropriate data for thispurpose, the Authorities will rely upon the available Sirenac data and inspect those ships whichhave not been registered in Sirenac following the entry into force of that database on 1 January1993;

2. Ships not inspected by any Authority within the previous 6 months;3. Ships whose statutory certificates on the ship’s construction and equipment, issued in accordance

with the Conventions, and the classification certificates, have been issued by an organizationwhich is not recognized by the Authority;

4. Ships flying the flag of a State appearing in the black-list as published in the annual report of theMOU;

5. Ships which have been permitted by the Authority to leave a port of its State on certainconditions:a) deficiency to be rectified before departureb) deficiency to be rectified at the next portc) deficiencies to be rectified within 14 daysd) deficiencies for which other conditions have been specifiede) if ship related action has been taken and all deficiencies have been rectified;

6. Ships for which deficiencies have been recorded during a previous inspection, according to thenumber of deficiencies;

7. Ships which have been detained in a previous port;8. Ships flying the flag of a non-Party to a relevant instrument;9. Ships with class deficiency ratio above average;10. Ships which are in a category for which expanded inspection has been decided;

a) Oil Tankers, 5 years or less from the date of phasing out in accordance with Regulation 13G ofAnnex I to MARPOL 73/78

b) Bulk Carriers, older than 12 years of agec) Passenger shipsd) Gas and Chemical Tankers older than 10 years of age

11. Other ships above 13 years old.


36

3.2.2 Paris MOU 2001 Statistics (Source: Paris MOU Annual Report 2001)

In 2001, 18,681 inspections were carried out in the Paris MOU region on 11,658 foreignships, and 1,699 ships were detained because of serious deficiencies found on board.

Table 3.2.2-1 Basic PSC figures (Paris MOU)Year 1998 1999 2000 2001

Number ofinspections 17,643 18,399 18,559 18,681

Number ofindividual shipsinspected

11,168 11,248 11,358 11,658

Overallinspection rate 26.5% 27.6% 28.6% 27.3%

Number ofdetained ships 1,598 1,684 1,764 1,699

Detention ratio 9.06% 9.15% 9.50% 9.09%

Table 3.2.2-2 shows the PSC inspections carried out by each port State.

Table 3.2.2-2 PSC by Authority (Paris MOU 2001)

Authority Estimatedship calls

No. ofInspections

Inspectionswith

deficienciesNo. of

detentionsDetentionratio (%)

Inspectionrate (%)

Belgium 5789 1679 849 102 6.08 29.00

Canada 1760 673 263 34 5.05 38.24

Croatia 964 410 213 37 9.02 42.53

Denmark 2400 612 230 29 4.74 25.50

Finland 1311 426 174 15 3.52 32.49

France 5792 558 359 69 12.37 9.63

Germany 6745 1469 845 111 7.56 21.78

Greece 2670 751 377 80 10.65 28.13

Iceland 323 114 60 5 4.39 35.29

Ireland 1330 280 170 15 5.36 21.05

Italy 5850 2547 1502 404 15.86 43.54

Netherlands 5645 1325 622 99 7.47 23.47

Norway 1800 464 210 28 6.03 25.78

Poland 1914 665 383 31 4.66 34.74

Portugal 2830 805 628 164 20.37 28.45

Russian Federation 6527 1750 1263 143 8.17 26.81

Spain 5594 1694 1113 208 12.28 30.28

Sweden 2850 658 285 12 1.82 23.09

United Kingdom 6457 1801 1213 113 6.27 27.89

Total 68551 18681 10759 1699 9.09 27.25


37

Figure 3.2.2-1 shows the flag States with a detention ratio exceeding the average

percentage in 2001. Only flags with more than 20 port State control inspections in 2001

are recorded in the figure.

Since 1999 the Paris MOU produced “Black, Gray and White Lists” of flag Stateperformance as shown in the Table 3.2.2-3. The tables are based on performance of eachflag over a three-year rolling period.

Table 3.2.2-3 BLACK - GRAY - WHITE LISTS (Paris MOU 2001)

Category Flag State

very high risk

Albania, Bolivia, Sao Tome & Principe,Honduras, Algeria, Lebanon, Georgia,Cambodia, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey,Belize, Libyan Arab Jama, Tonga, Romania,Morocco

high risk St. Vincent & Grenadine, Egypt

medium high risk Ukrainia,

BLACK LIST

medium risk Malta, Panama, India, Cyprus, Azerbaijan,Bulgaria, Russian Federation

GRAY LIST

Kuwait, Portugal, Thailand, Croatia, Latvia, Cayman Islands,Lithuania, Qatar, Malaysia, Faeroe Islands, Brazil, Iran, U.A.E.,Tunisia, Tuvalu, Taiwan, Ethiopia, Estonia, Italy, Saudi Arabia,Gibraltar, Antilles Netherlands, Korea Republic of, Vanuatu,Philippines, Spain, U.S.A.

WHITE LISTBarbados, Poland, Greece, Bahamas, Marshall Islands, Hong Kong,Antigua and Barbuda, Austria, Japan, Bermuda, Luxembourg,Singapore, China, Isle of Man, Liberia, Israel, Norway, France,Ireland, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, U.K.

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

Sao

Tom

e an

d Pr

inci

peAl

bani

aLe

bano

nG

eorg

iaTo

nga

Hon

dura

s

Alge

riaM

oroc

coTu

rkey

Rom

ania

Cam

bodi

aSy

lian

Arab

Rep

ublic

Egyp

tSt

. Vin

cent

& G

rena

dine

sIn

dia

Bulg

aria

Iran

Ukr

aini

aLi

byan

Ara

b Ja

ma.

Beliz

eAz

erba

ijan

Pana

ma

Kore

a, R

epub

lic o

fTu

valu

Mal

ta

Fig.3.2.2-1 Detention by Flag in 2001 (Paris MOU)

Average: 9.09%


38

31

44

71

9

52

212

330

618

678

742

1031

878

929

1132

1179

836

1506

1963

2638

3465

3671

3816

4875

8055

8789

9243

44

71

9

52

212

330

618

678

742

1031

878

929

1132

1179

836

1506

1963

2638

3465

3671

3816

4875

8055

8789

9243

10942

33

43

50

65

151

326

456

703

758

876

1109

1239

1262

1302

1323

1586

2113

2703

3581

3713

3906

5116

8315

8547

8951

10516

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

ALL OTHER DEFECTS

MARPOL ANNEX II

BULK CARRIERS

NOT CLEARLY HAZARDOUS

OIL/CHEMICAL/GAS TANKERS

ALARM/SIGNALS

MARPOL OPERATIONAL DEFECTS

WORKING SPACES

MARPOL ANNEX V

FOOD AND CATERING

MOORING ARRANGEMENTS

ISM RELATED DEFECTS

SOLAS OPERATIONAL DEFECTS

TRAINING CERT & WATCHKEEPING

CARGO

ACCIDENT PREVENTION

CREW & ACCOMMODATION

RADIO COMMUNICATION

SHIPS' CERTIFICATES

PROPULSION/AUX. MACHINERY

LOAD LINES

MARPOL ANNEX I

SAFETY OF NAVIGATION

FIRE SAFETY MEASURES

SAFETY IN GENERAL

LIFE SAVING APPLIANCES

Deficiencies

200120001999

8.8%

13.3%

4.4%

8.3%

5.9% 6.2%

1.6%

5.1%

7.7%

9.2%

13.0%

4.8%

8.1%

5.5%

8.0%

2.0%

3.2%

7.0%

8.7%

11.8%

3.6%

7.7%

6.0%

7.7%

1.8%

7.5%

5.9%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

Bulk C

arrier

s

Genera

l Dry

Cargo

Ro-Ro /

Con

taine

r /Veh

icle

Refrige

rated

Carg

o

Tanke

rs / C

omb.

Carrier

Chemica

l Tan

kers

Gas C

arrier

s

Passe

ngers

Ships /

Ferries

Other T

ypes

Det

entio

n ra

tio1999

2000

2001

Fig. 3.2.2-2 Detentions by Ship Type (Paris MOU)

Fig. 3.2.2-3 Deficiencies by Category (Paris MOU)


39

Table 3.2.2-4 Detentions per Class (Paris MOU)

1999 2000 2001

ClassTotal

number ofinspections

No. ofClass-related

Detentions

Detentionratio

Totalnumber ofinspections

No. ofClass-related

Detentions

Detentionratio

Totalnumber ofinspections

No. ofClass-related

Detentions

Detentionratio

ABS 1,203 18 1.50% 1,168 11 0.94% 1,116 23 2.06%

BV 2,353 45 1.91% 2,305 40 1.74% 2,222 32 1.44%

CCS 175 4 2.29% 139 4 2.88% 134 3 2.24%

DNV 2,090 23 1.10% 2,100 24 1.14% 2,046 20 0.98%

GL 3,278 29 0.88% 3,202 27 0.84% 3,348 16 0.48%

KR 138 3 2.17% 127 3 2.36% 144 7 4.86%

LR 3,271 53 1.62% 3,127 52 1.66% 3,081 50 1.62%

NK 1,222 20 1.64% 1,219 27 2.21% 1,309 24 1.83%

RINA 778 31 3.98% 806 27 3.35% 600 11 1.83%

RS 1,706 41 2.40% 1,678 38 2.26% 1,701 24 1.41%

Note: The detention ratio was determined by dividing detentions of ships with class-related

detentions by number of inspections.

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

ABS BV CCS DNV GL KR LR NK RINA RS

199920002001

Fig. 3.2.2-4 Class-related Detention Ratio by Class (Paris MOU)


40

3.2.3 Paris MOU Concentrated Inspection Campaign

-1. Inspection Campaign on Securing Arrangements (from 1 March to 31 May 2001)The concentrated Inspection Campaign in 2001 was dedicated to cargo securing whichhas been a growing cause for concern following a number of incidents. The resultshighlight the poor quality of the lashing materials in use, lashing not carried outaccording to the lashing plan, or a lashing plan that does not conform to the CargoSecuring Manual. The Concentrated Inspection Campaign on Cargo Securing which tookplace in ports across the Paris MOU region was carried out on board all ships subject toPSC inspection and carrying cargo which required securing. A total of 1,072 inspectionswere carried out. Sixteen ships were detained for deficiencies related to cargo securing.The results indicate that:• In 31% the quality of the lashing material in use was moderate to poor, and especially

the quality of twistlocks which were often very poor.• In 1 out of 10 ships either the lashing plan was not in accordance with the Cargo

Securing Manual (CSM) and/or the cargo was actually not secured in accordance withthe CSM/lashing plan.

• Only 2% of the inspected ships did not carry an approved Cargo Securing Manual.• Authorities approving the CSM do not always ensure that all cargoes (e.g. timber deck

cargo, steel coils) which can be carried by the ship are included in the CSM.

-2. Inspection Campaign on ISM Code (from 1 July to 30 September 2002)The Paris MOU on Port State Control started strict enforcement of the ISM Code on 1July during a 3-month Concentrated Inspection Campaign. No extensions is to be grantedto the ship types which become compliant on 1 July 2002.Other ship types which already have been certified in accordance with the ISM Code arealso to be subject to the inspection campaign to verify that the safety management system(SMS) is actually working on board.Port State Control officers in the MOU countries use a standard inspection form to verifycritical areas of the management system. Deficiencies in any of these areas will beconsidered as "major non-conformities" which will lead to the detention of the ship.Ships which have not been certified in accordance with the Code will also be detained. Ifno other deficiencies are found the detention may be lifted and the ship will be refusedaccess to all Paris MOU ports until the ship and/or company have valid certificates.

-3. Strict Enforcement of STCW95 (from 1 August 2002)The action referred to in 3.1.3-2 is taken in harmony with the Tokyo MOU.


41

3.3 USCG (Source: USCG web site)

3.3.1 USCG Boarding Priority MatrixThe Boarding Priority Matrix enables the Coast Guard to rationally and systematicallydetermine the probable risk posed by non-U.S. ships calling at U.S. ports. The Matrix isused to decide which ships Port State Control Officers should board on any given day, inany given port. Points are assessed in each of the five columns and then added up for atotal point score. This numerical score, along with other performance based factors,determines a ship’s boarding priority. The following summarises the priority categoriesand associated operational restrictions which may be imposed on ships by U.S. CoastGuard Captains of the Port.

Table 3.3.1 USCG Boarding Priority Matrix

Category Points ApplicationOWNER 5 Points Listed Owner or Operator

FLAG 7 Points Listed Flag StatePriority I Class-related detention ratio equal to or greater than 2%5 Points Class-related detention ratio equal to 1% or less than 2%3 Points Class-related detention ratio equal to 0.5% or less than 1%

CLASS

0 Points Class-related detention ratio less than 0.5%5 Points Each Detention within the previous 12 months

Other operational control within the previous 12 monthsCasualty within the previous 12 monthsViolation within the previous 12 months

HISTORY1 Point Each

Not boarded within the previous 6 monthsBulk freighter over 10 years old

2 PointsCarrying low value commodities in bulkOil or Chemical TankerGas Carrier

SHIPTYPE

1 PointPassenger Ship

Priority I vessels:• 17 or more points on the Matrix, or• ships involved in a marine casualty that may have affected seaworthiness, or• USCG Captain of the Port determines a vessel to be a potential hazard to the port

or the environment, or• ships whose classification society has a detention ratio equal to or greater than

2%.Operational restrictions: Port entry may be restricted until vessel is examined by theCoast Guard.

Priority II vessels:• 7 to 16 points on the Matrix, or• outstanding requirements from a previous boarding in this or another U.S. port, or

the vessel is overdue for an annual tank or passenger exam.Operational restrictions: Cargo operations may be restricted until vessel is examinedby the Coast Guard.


42

Priority III vessels:• 4 to 6 points on the Matrix, or• alleged deficiencies reported, or• the vessel is overdue for an annual freight examination, or quarterly passenger

vessel re-exam.Operational restrictions: No operational restrictions imposed; vessel will most likely beexamined at dock.

Priority IV vessels:• 3 or fewer points on the Matrix.

Operational restrictions: Vessel is a low risk, and will probably not be boarded.

3.3.2 USCG 2001 StatisticsThe “Port State Control report for the year ending 2001” was publicly released in June2002. The total number of detained ships declined continuously from 1997 as shown inTable 3.3.2-1.

Table 3.3.2-1 Vessel Arrivals & Detentions

Year Distinct Vessel Arrivals* Vessel Detentions Detention Ratio

1997 7686 547 7.12%

1998 7880 373 4.73%

1999 7617 257 3.37%

2000 7657 193 2.52%

2001 7842 173 2.21%* Distinct Vessel Arrivals are the number of ships over 300GT that make at least one visit to a U.S. port.

In accordance with the Boarding Priority Matrix, Classification Societies are evaluatedon their PSC performance over the previous three(3) years. The evaluation for 2002 wasbased on the records for 1999, 2000 and 2001. The level of performance required to be inthe 0 point category is a three year average class-related detention ratio less than 0.5%. Aclassification society that has a class-related detention ratio between 0.5% and 1.0% willbe assigned 3 points; between 1.0% and 2.0% will be assigned 5 points and class-relateddetention ratios above 2.0% will be assigned a Priority I status. The table 3.3.2-2 and thegraph 3.3.2-1 list data for classification societies which are the IACS affiliated societiesamong those publicly announced by the USCG. The table shows detention ratios andwhether or not a classification society is a target class in consequence thereof. Accordingto the table, the IACS affiliated classification societies not targeted are ABS, BV, DNV,GL, LR, RINA and NK. Among the IACS members, RS is listed as a class assignedPriority I status. KR is listed as a targeted class given 5 points and CCS is listed as atargeted class given 3 points.


43

Table 3.3.2-2 2001 USCG’s Announced list of Targeted Class

Distinct Vessel Arrives Class-Related Detentions

Class 1999 2000 2001 Total 1999 2000 2001 Total Ave.Ratio

“Targeted”Points

ABS 937 941 886 2764 0 3 1 4 0.18% 0 points

BV 620 618 614 1852 1 0 2 3 0.16% 0 points

CCS 124 125 143 392 2 0 0 2 0.51% 3 points

DNV 1239 1202 1345 3786 1 0 1 2 0.05% 0 points

GL 714 742 744 2200 1 0 2 3 0.14% 0 points

KR 167 164 158 489 3 3 1 7 1.43% 5 points

LR 1439 1527 1340 4306 5 5 2 12 0.28% 0 points

NK 1705 1671 1683 5059 9 4 1 14 0.28% 0 points

RINA 167 158 146 471 0 1 0 1 0.21% 0 points

RS 166 180 137 483 7 4 3 14 2.90% Priority I

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

3.50%

ABS BV CCS DNV GL KR LR NK RINA RS

Dete

ntion R

atio

(%)

Fig. 3.3.2-1 USCG Class-related Detention Ratio by Class

0 point

3 points

5 points

Priority 1


44

The USCG publicly announced targeted flag states in May 2001. The three (3) year

overall average for the 2002 evaluation was 2.70%, down from 3.55% in 2001. The

following flag states with a detention ratio higher than the overall average were listed as

targeted.Table 3.3.2-3 USCG List of 2002 Targeted Flag States

Flag State DetentionRatio Flag State Detention

RatioAlgeria* 18.52% Lithuania* 6.25%Antigua & Barbuda 3.05% Malta 3.63%Belize 23.08% Mexico* 12.50%Bolivia 42.86% Panama 3.78%Brazil* 12.50% Portugal* 6.67%Bulgaria* 5.88% Republic of Korea* 3.43%Cambodia 30.77% Russia 3.27%Cayman Islands* 3.03% Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 6.11%Croatia* 5.77% Thailand* 4.69%Cyprus 3.21% Turkey 6.77%Honduras 18.18% Vanuatu* 2.92%India 7.58% Venezuela* 14.29%

Latvia* 11.11%

* Countries that were not on the list in 2001.

The deficiencies on the detained ships from 1999 to 2001 are categorized as shown inFigure 3.3.2-2.In 2001, fire fighting and lifesaving appliances, and the associated drills, accounted forone third of the overall deficiencies identified on detained vessels. Safety in generalremains a major contributor to detentions at 12%.

An increase in ISM related deficiencies was very remarkable in 2001. Despite a high rateof compliance with Phase I of the ISM code, vessels continue to arrive in the U.S. that donot have valid Safety Management Systems (SMS). Also, the total number of ISMdeficiencies identified aboard these vessels has risen. In the four years since 1998, over100 vessels have been detained for failing to adequately implement the ISM Code, andthe number of ISM deficiencies identified on Phase I vessels has risen to approximately128 which represents nearly 20% of the overall deficiencies identified on detained vessels.The breakdown of deficiencies under category “ISM Related Deficiencies” is shown inFigure 3.3.2-3.


45

2

0

0

1

0

20

2

4

2

4

11

38

40

32

19

41

133

98

99

73

34

1

1

0

1

1

5

7

6

3

12

7

15

18

32

29

43

79

104

93

75

60

0

1

1

3

3

3

5

8

9

10

12

20

20

41

51

61

63

82

84

84

128

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Mooring Arrangements

Alarm Signals

Working Spaces

Food and Catering

MARPOL Related (Operational)

Radio

Accommodation

Accident Prevention

Cargo

Tankers

Navigation

Certificates/Logbooks

Crew

MARPOL, Annex I

Load Lines

Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery

SOLAS Related Operational Deficiencies

Fire Fighting Appliances

Life Saving Appliances

Safety In General

ISM Related Deficiencies

Deficiencies

2001

2000

1999

1

2

1

10

2

4

4

10

1

4

2

4

16

0

7

12

14

1

4

5

5

7

8

12

12

18

20

36

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

ISM related deficiencies (General)Certification, verification and control

Company verification, review and evaluation

Company responsibility and authorityEmergency preparedness

DocumentationSafety and environmental policy

Resources and PersonnelDevelopment of plans for shipboard operation

Master Responsibility and Authority

Reports/analysis of non-conformitiesMaintenance of ship and equipment

2001

2000

1999

Fig.3.3.2-2 Deficiencies per Category (USCG)

Fig.3.3.2-3 ISM Related Deficiencies on Detained Ships (USCG)


46

3.3.3 USCG Strict Enforcement of PSC Inspection

-1 Strict Enforcement of STCW 95 (from 1 August 2002)

Vessels flagged by Administrations that are not party to the STCW 95 Convention will beassigned a Priority I boarding status upon arrival at each U.S. port and will be boarded atsea prior to entering the port. Also, vessels flagged by Administrations that are notincluded on the White List will be assigned a Priority II boarding status upon arrival ateach U.S. port and will be boarded at the pier. During these boardings for non-signatoryand non-white list countries, an expanded examination will be conducted to evaluate thecompetency of the crew with regard to the safe navigation and operation of the vessel. Inthose cases where the competencies of the mariners are found to be inadequate, the vesselwill be detained until the crewmembers identified as not meeting an equivalent level ofcompetency are replaced.


47

3.4 Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) (Source: AMSA web site)

3.4.1 AMSA 2001 StatisticsDuring the period January to December 2001, 2913 inspections were carried out and 127ships were detained because of serious deficiencies found during port state control (PSC)inspections in Australia.

Table 3.4.1-1 Total number of inspections by port (AMSA)Port 1999 2000 2001 Port 1999 2000 2001

Brisbane 181 200 252 Melbourne 172 155 137

Dampier 198 255 255 Newcastle 296 342 272

Fremantle 93 86 119 Port Botany 158 148 115

Geelong 95 117 122 Port Hedland 127 173 154

Gladstone 121 139 178 Port Kembla 132 150 120

Hay Point/Dalrymple Bay 149 126 173 Sydney 162 133 121

Kwinana 208 201 185 Other ports 661 701 710

Total 2753 2926 2913

Table 3.4.1-2 Detentions by Flag (AMSA 2001)

Flag Deten-tions

Inspec-tions

Deten-tionratio

Flag Deten-tions

Inspec-tions

Deten-tionratio

Panama 39 918 4.2% Belize 1 7 14.3%Cyprus 12 129 9.3% Bermuda 1 34 2.9%Liberia 9 231 3.9% Cayman Islands 1 10 10.0%Malta 6 73 8.2% Egypt 1 12 8.3%Singapore 6 129 4.7% France 1 17 5.9%Hong Kong 5 159 3.1% Greece 1 109 0.9%Germany 4 19 21.1% Indonesia 1 13 7.7%Malaysia 4 53 7.5% Kuwait 1 9 11.1%India 3 35 8.6% Marshall Islands 1 28 3.6%Iran 3 31 9.7% Myanmar 1 8 12.5%Italy 3 13 23.1% Netherlands 1 41 2.4%Korea, Republic of 3 47 6.4% Norway 1 72 1.4%Taiwan 3 48 6.3% Papua New Guinea 1 18 5.6%Turkey 3 32 9.4% Philippines 1 94 1.1%Antigua & Barbuda 2 21 9.5% Tonga 1 4 25.0%Bahamas 2 138 1.4% United Kingdom 1 27 3.7%Denmark 2 47 4.3% Others 0 269St. Vincent and theGrenadines

2 18 11.1% Total 127 2913


48

Table 3.4.1-3 Detentions by Ship Type (AMSA 2001)

Ship TypeNo. ofDeten-tions

No. ofInspec-tions

Deten-tion

RatioShip Type

No. ofDeten-tions

No. ofInspec-tions

Deten-tion

Ratio

Bulk Carrier 69 1757 3.9%ChemicalTanker 6 65 9.2%

Container Ship 17 236 7.2%CombinationCarrier 0 22 0.0%

GeneralCargo/ Multi-Purpose Ship 16 196 8.2% Gas Carrier 1 58 1.7%

Heavy LoadCarrier 1 8 12.5% Oil Tanker 7 208 3.4%

LivestockCarrier 5 69 7.2%

Tank

er

Tankship (nonspecified) 0 3 0.0%

RefrigeratedCargo Vessel 0 20 0.0%

High SpeedPassengerCraft 0 2 0.0%

Ro-Ro CargoShip 0 17 0.0%

OffshoreService Vessel 0 18 0.0%

Vehicle Carrier 1 113 0.9%PassengerShip 1 27 3.7%

Dry

Car

go S

hip

Wood ChipCarrier 2 58 3.4%

Oth

er

SpecialPurpose Ship 1 15 6.7%

Tugboat 0 5 0.0%

Other Type 0 16 0.0%

Total 127 2913 4.36%

Table 3.4.1-4 Detentions by Class (AMSA)

1999 2000 2001Class No. of

Detentions*No of

InspectionsDetention

RatioNo of

Detentions*No of


RatioNo of

Detentions*No of


Ratio

ABS 13 258 5.0% 13 308 4.2% 10 304 3.3%BV 16 174 9.2% 8 189 4.2% 13 195 6.7%

CCS 5 99 5.1% 2 101 2.0% 2 91 2.2%DNV 17 292 5.8% 11 311 3.5% 8 314 2.5%GL 6 162 3.7% 4 139 2.9% 12 158 7.6%

KR 6 129 4.7% 1 141 0.7% 4 130 3.1%LR 19 462 4.1% 13 507 2.6% 22 470 4.7%NK 34 1,014 3.4% 42 1,066 3.9% 37 1091 3.4%

RINA 1 39 2.6% 3 43 7.0% 5 38 13.2%RS 2 36 5.6% 0 25 0.0% 0 25 0.0%Notes: " * " Includes only ships which were detained because of deficiencies to items which were related tocertificates issued by classification societies.


49

0 .0 %

2 .0 %

4 .0 %

6 .0 %

8 .0 %

1 0 .0 %

1 2 .0 %

1 4 .0 %

A B S B V C C S D N V G L K R L R N K R IN A R S

1 9 9 9

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 1

Fig. 3.4.1-1 Detentions by Class (AMSA)

1,373

1

0

24

0

14

60

127

70

188

109

183

208

214

151

308

464

316

245

0

997

796

955

1,810

2,030

1,320

1

3

10

18

0

31

5

48

67

75

120

98

153

173

277

101

333

343

241

275

0

918

937

849

1,572

1,641

0

1

2

8

10

12

23

24

34

69

83

94

97

151

160

175

177

277

304

348

478

669

770

934

1,206

1,337

1,375

31

7

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

Safety in general

MARPOL-ANNEX III (Hurmhul Substances)

MARPOL-ANNEX II (Chemicals)

Oil, Chemical Tankers & Gas Carriers

Alarm signals

Bulk Carrier - Additional Safety Measures

MARPOL related operational deficiencies

All Other deficiencies

Working spaces

Certification & Watchkeeping for Seafarers

MARPOL-ANNEX V (Garbage)

Ship's certificates & Documents

Carriage of Cargo & Dangerous Goods

Mooring arrangements

Food and catering

ISM related deficiencies

Accident prevention

MARPOL-ANNEX I (Oil)

Propulsion and auxiliary machinery

Crew & Accommodation

SOLAS operational deficiencies

Stability, Structure & Related Items

Load lines

Navigation

Radio

Fire fighting appliances

Life saving appliances

Deficiencies

200120001999

Fig. 3.4.1-2 Deficiencies per Category (AMSA)


50

3.4.2 AMSA Focused Inspection CampaignSince 1 December 2000, a focused inspection regime has been implemented in addition tousual PSC activities. The program changes every four months allowing six areas to beaddressed over a period of two years. Each phase focuses on a specific area of concern. Phase 1 - Bridge visibility / Collision avoidance (1 December 2000 to 31 March 2001)AMSA surveyors inspected 1057 vessels of which 132 (12% of those inspected) had defectsin the following areas:・ Visibility from the ship’s bridge accounted for 4% of the deficiencies recorded.・ Radar operations accounted for 11% of deficiencies.・ However, navigation light defects and problems with their visibility accounted for 85%

of the deficiencies recorded.The high percentage of defective lights was primarily due to lack of maintenance. Twovessels warranted detention for aspects of this focused inspection campaign.

Phase 2 – GMDSS (1 April 2001 to 31 July 2001)During this phase, AMSA surveyors inspected 1114 vessels, of which 465 (42% of thoseinspected) recorded deficiencies in the following areas.・ The ability of members of the crew to use the GMDSS equipment, despite holding valid

and appropriate qualifications, accounted for 54% of the deficiencies recorded.・ Appropriate provisions onboard to support the operation of the GMDSS system

accounted for 36%,・ The qualifications of the operators accounted for 6%, and・ Understanding by the crew of operating procedures, particularly in relation to the

actions required when sending or receiving a distress alert accounted for 4%..Nine vessels were detained as a result of defects in relation to this campaign.

Phase 3 - Crew Living conditions / STCW95 (1 August 2001 to 30 November 2001)During this phase 1025 ships were inspected and 124 ships recorded deficiencies relatingto crew living conditions, with 78 vessels also recording deficiencies relating to STCW 95issues. The percentages were 12% and 8% respectively.The most prominent areas of deficiencies in crew living conditions related to sanitaryfacilities and food storage and preparation. Besides, many ships inspected were foundbeing manned by officers and crew whose certification was not in compliance with therequirements of STCW 95. Where certification of seafarers did not fully comply with theSTCW 95 requirements that would be in force after 31 January 2002, a “letter ofwarning” was issued to the 313 ships. No ships warranted a detention resulting from theitems inspected under the focused inspection campaign taking account of therecommendation made by IMO.

Phase 4 - Cargo Management (1 December 2001 to 30 March 2002)This campaign was divided in to two general areas - general/container and dry bulk, andexamined aspects of cargo management relating to SOLAS:i. Chapter VI - Carriage of Cargoes; andii. Chapter VII - Carriage of Dangerous Goods.


51

Phase 5 – MARPOL Issues (31 March 2002 to 31 July 2002)The fifth focused inspection program examined MARPOL issues, specifically:・ Oily Water Separators and disposal of oil residues;・ Oil Record Books; and・ Garbage Management.

Phase 6 – Compliance with STCW 95 (1 August 2002 to 30 November 2002)New requirements for mandatory training and certification of officers and ratings cameinto force from 1 February 2002. However a period of grace was applied until 31 July2002. As from 1 August, full compliance to the requirements of the STCW 95 Conventionis to be examined with reference to the following:・ the originals of all certificates are available on board・ certificate endorsements are in the correct format・ all persons performing GMDSS radio duties are appropriately qualified・ tanker and passenger ship crew hold appropriate endorsements; and/or documentary

evidence of training; and・ the arrangements of watch schedules and rest periods.

NIPPON KAIJI KYOKAI For more information on this publication,please contact the Survey Department

4-7, Kioi-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-8567, JapanTel: +81-3-5226-2027 FAX: +81-3-5226-2029 e-mail: [email protected]