Section 6 - Guidelines for PSC Procedures

Table of contents

SECTION 6 – GUIDELINES FOR PSC PROCEDURES

Table of contents
Section 6-1 Guidelines on Port State Control for Compliance with ISM Code
Section 6-2 Guidelines for STCW 95 during PSC
Section 6-3 Guidelines for Port State Control Officers on Security Aspects
Section 6-4 Guidelines for the Responsibility Assessment of the Recognized
Organization
Section 6-5 List of Certificates and Documents to be Carried on Board Ships
Section 6-6 Guidelines for Rectifying Deficiencies and Detentions in accordance
with paragraphs 3.6-3.9 of the Memorandum
Section 6-7 Guidelines for Port Sate Control additional to Resolution A.787(19)
and Sections 1-4 of this Manual
Section 6-8 Guidelines for Completing Inspection Reports
Section 6-9 Principles of Safe Manning (IMO Resolution A.890(21), as amended)
Section 6-10 2009 Guidelines for Port State Control Under the Revised MARPOL
Annex VI (Resolution MEPC.181(59))
Section 6-11 Action Taken Codes User Guide
Section 6-12 Guidelines for the Detention Review Panel
Section 6-13 Code of Good Practice for Port State Control Officers
Section 6-14 Interim Guidelines for Inspection of Anti-Fouling System on Ships
Section 6-15 Guidance for Port State Control Officers on Checking for
Compliance with Long Range Identification and Tracking

Revision 1/2010
 Guidelines for compliance with ISM Code
Section 6-1
GUIDELINES ON PORT STATE CONTROL FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE ISM CODE*

Purpose

To assist the Port State Control Officer (PSCO) to assess the suitability of a ship’s Safety Management System
when undertaking port State control inspections.

References

• SOLAS Chapter IX.

• Resolution A.741(18) - International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution
Prevention (ISM Code).

• Resolution A.788(19) - Guidelines on implementation of the ISM Code by Administrations.

• ICS/ISF Guidelines on the application of the ISM Code.

• Section 3.7 of Resolution A.787(19)

Application

Inspections will not be carried out specifically to confirm compliance with the ISM Code. Compliance will be
determined during normal port State control inspections.

All commercial ships, regardless of the date of construction, are to comply with the ISM Code from the following
dates:

1 July 1998 Passenger ships.

1 July 1998 Oil tankers, chemical tankers, gas carriers, bulk carriers and cargo high-speed craft
of 500 gross tonnage and above.

1 July 2002 All ships and mobile offshore drilling units 500 gross tonnage and above.

Note:

For the purpose of application date of the ISM Code a bulk carrier is defined as:

1. ships constructed with single deck, top-side tanks and hopper side tanks in cargo spaces and
intended primarily to carry dry cargo in bulk; or

2. Ore carriers; or
“Ore carrier” means a sea-going single deck ship having two longitudinal bulkheads and a double
bottom throughout the cargo region and intended for the carriage of ore cargoes in the centre holds
only.

3. Combination carriers
“Combination carrier is a tanker designed to carry oil or alternatively solid cargoes in bulk.”

1 Initial Inspection

1.1 During all routine PSC inspections, a check should be made that the ship has in place a safety
management system in accordance with the ISM Code. The ship should hold a valid Safety Management Certificate
(SMC) and have on board a copy of the company’s Document of Compliance (DOC). The PSCO should check that
the DOC is applicable to the type of ship being inspected and that the required audits and endorsements have been
made to the certificates.

1.2 The PSCO should also check that all relevant ISM Code documentation is on board. In particular, the
PSCO should make random checks/use professional judgement to ensure that relevant functional requirements of
the company’s safety management system are documented and that relevant ship’s staff are aware of their

*
The text of the Guidelines was adopted by the Committee at its 7th meeting in June 1998.
Page S6-1-1
 Guidelines for compliance with ISM Code
Section 6-1
responsibilities and duties, in accordance with the ship’s documented procedures and instructions. A list of typical
documentation is contained in Annex 2.

1.3 Where interim ISM Code certificates have been issued the PSCO should check that they have been issued
in accordance with IMO Res. A.788(19), and that a safety management system is in place. A copy of the relevant
provisions in the guidelines pertaining to the issue of interim ISM Code certificates is contained in Annex 1.

1.4 Where it is detected that

• the crew may not be aware of their responsibilities under the ISM Code,

• the ship’s SMC, DOC or other statutory certificates are not in order,

• a major non-conformance is observed or

• the ship, its machinery and/or equipment are not in a satisfactory condition.

then a detailed PSC inspection should be carried out. This detailed inspection should include an assessment of the
ship’s safety management system (SMS) in accordance with Section 2 of these guidelines.

1.5 A combination of deficiencies of a less serious nature may also be an indication of a deficient safety
management system. In such cases the PSCO should use professional judgement to decide if a more detailed
inspection is warranted.

2 Detailed Inspection

2.1 During a detailed inspection the PSCO will perform a more comprehensive review of the ISM Code
documentation and check to ensure that the documented procedures are in place and are being properly
implemented. The PSCO should verify compliance with a sufficient number of the following items during the detailed
inspection. This may be done by interviewing relevant ship’s personnel, having the crew perform relevant tasks or
drills and examination of the relevant documents:

.1 Is the company safety and environmental protection policy in place and are the crew familiar with it?
(2.2 of ISM Code)

e.g. - provision of safe practices in ship operations;

- safety assessment done and risks identified;

- safeguards against all identified risks;

- provision of a safe working environment;

- means for continuously improving crew’s safety management skills and preparation for
safety and pollution emergencies.

- compliance with mandatory rules and regulations.

- account taken of applicable codes, guidelines and standards.

.2 Who is responsible for the operation of the ship. (3.1)

.3 Are the crew aware of their responsibilities and functions and are these responsibilities and functions
documented? (3.2)

- Documentation to define the responsibility, authority and interrelationship of personnel who

manage, perform and verify work relating to and affecting safety and pollution prevention.

.4 Who is the designated person and how can this person be contacted? (4)

.5 Can the master provide documents detailing his responsibilities and explain responsibilities regarding:
(5.1)

- implementing the safety and environmental protection policy.

- issuing orders and instructions.

Page S6-1-2
 Guidelines for compliance with ISM Code
Section 6-1
- verifying that specified requirements are observed, and

- reviewing the SMS and reporting its deficiencies to the shore based management.

.6 Can the deck and engineer officers and relevant members of the crew provide documents detailing
their functions and responsibilities?

.7 Can the master demonstrate and explain his overriding authority? (5.2)

- produce documentation describing the masters authority.

.8 Are new personnel or personnel transferred to new assignments made familiar with their functions
and duties? Are instructions which are essential prior to sailing documented and in place? (6.3)

.9 Can operational deficiencies be linked to resources or personnel? (6.4, 6.5, 6.6 & 6.7)

.10 Are appropriate plans and instructions for key shipboard operations available on board? (7)

- the various tasks involved should be defined and assigned to qualified personnel.

- documented procedures should be available for the appropriate tasks listed in Annex 3.

.11 Is a list indicating telephone numbers and/or contact points of the responsible person to be reached
during/outside office hours available. (8.1, 8.3)

.12 Are there procedures, programmes and drills on board to respond to potential emergency shipboard
situations? (8.2)

- the type of emergency situations which should, where appropriate, be covered are listed in
Annex 4.

.13 Are non-conformities, accidents and hazardous situations reported to the company? (9.1) Have timely
corrective actions been implemented by the company? (9.2)

.14 Is there a planned maintenance system being implemented? (10.1 & 10.2)

.15 Are operational maintenance routines and inspections of all equipment and technical systems being
followed? (10.3 & 10.4)

.16 Are procedures for maintaining the relevant documentation being followed? (11)

- look at documentation, note revision status and randomly check that all copies are being
kept up-to-date.

.17 Are procedures in place for internal audits and have these been carried out? (12)

- sight reports of audits and check whether timely corrective action is being taken on
deficiencies found.

.18 For a passenger ship, are documents detailing the responsibilities with respect to crowd control,
passenger safety, evacuation, fire fighting and damage control on board. Check also for clear chain of
command, authority and responsibility, and action in case of an incident.

.19 For a tanker and bulk carrier check documents detailing responsibilities with respect to the loading,
safe carriage and discharge of the cargo. Check clear chain of command, authority and responsibility,
for both normal and emergency operations and in case of incidents.

3 Actions taken as a result of PSC Inspections

3.1 General

Major deficiencies in a ship’s structure, main and auxiliary machinery, safety equipment, and crew competence may
indicate a serious failure or breakdown within the ship’s Safety Management System.

Page S6-1-3
 Guidelines for compliance with ISM Code
Section 6-1
Where there is objective evidence for believing that there is not an appropriate safety management system in
operation i.e. the master and crew are not familiar with essential shipboard procedures relating to the safety of the
ship, serious deficiencies or major non-conformities are found on the ship or that the ship’s certificates, including
ISM Code certificates, are not in order, then the PSCO will hold the ship to be in breach of the international
regulatory requirements. In such cases the PSCO is to notify the flag State, the organisation(s) which issued the
ISM Code and other ship certificates and implement the following actions as appropriate.

3.2 Ships without ISM Code certification

The absence of appropriate certification is prima facie evidence that a ship does not have in place the required
Safety Management System. A ship without appropriate ISM Code certification is to be given a detailed inspection of
its hull, machinery, equipment and Safety Management System.

Before allowing the ship to proceed to sea the PSCO will require:

(a) any serious deficiencies to be rectified;

(b) all major ISM Code non-conformities to be rectified; and

(c) confirmation from the flag State administration that the ship and its company have an appropriate
Safety Management System in place or that the flag State clears the vessel to sail without the
required ISM certification.

3.3 Ships with invalid certificates

A ship with expired or otherwise invalid ISM certificates is to be given a detailed inspection of its hull, machinery,
equipment and Safety Management System.

Before allowing the ship to proceed to sea the PSCO will require:

(a) any serious deficiencies to be rectified;

(b) all major ISM Code non-conformities to be rectified;

(c) the vessels Safety Management System to be audited and its certification revalidated; and

(d) confirmation from the flag State administration that the ship and its company have an appropriate
Safety Management System in place.

3.4 Major non-conformity

Where a major non-conformity is found during a port State control inspection the ship may be detained and given a
detailed inspection of its hull, machinery, equipment and its Safety Management System.

Before allowing the ship to proceed to sea the PSCO will require:

(a) any serious deficiencies to be rectified;

(b) all major non-conformities to be rectified; and

(c) confirmation from the flag State administration that the ship and its company have an appropriate
Safety Management System in place.

3.5 Whenever possible serious deficiencies and major non-conformities are to be rectified to the satisfaction of
the organisation which issued the relevant certificate, and in all cases to the satisfaction of the PSCO.

4 Definition of Major non-conformity

4.1 “Major non-conformity” means an identifiable deviation which poses a serious threat to personnel or ship
safety or a serious risk to the environment and requires immediate corrective action; in addition, the lack of effective
and systematic implementation of a requirement of the ISM Code is also considered as a major non-conformity.

4.2 Examples of Possible Major non-conformities of ISM Code Requirements:

.1 lack of a safe working environment (1.2.2.1 of ISM Code)

Page S6-1-4
 Guidelines for compliance with ISM Code
Section 6-1
.2 lack of safeguards against identified risks (1.2.2.2)

.3 lack of compliance with rules and regulations and account not being taken of applicable codes
guidelines and recommendations by IMO, the administration, classification society and the maritime
industry (1.2.3)

.4 lack of appropriate instructions and procedures (1.4.2) (1.4.5) (10.1)

.5 lack of adequate lines of communication (1.4.3) (6.7)

.6 contact person ashore cannot be identified or readily contacted(4)

.7 there is no statement on board emphasising the master’s authority and/or the master is not aware of
his/her overriding authority and responsibility with respect to safety and pollution prevention (5)

.8 the vessel is not manned with the required qualified, certified and medically fit seafarers (6)

.9 key shipboard operations not defined and assigned to appropriately qualified persons (7)

.10 lack of procedures to respond to emergency situations or programmes for drills and exercises (8)

.11 lack of suitable maintenance procedures and recording system (10)

.12 documentation relevant to maintaining the safety management system is not on board or not being
properly updated and controlled (11)

.13 risks not identified/assessed

4.3 The PSCO will need to use professional judgement in determining the seriousness of a non-conformity (i.e.
minor or major). Account should be taken of the ship’s documentation and interviews of the master and crew.

5 Subsequent Action to be taken against Ships detained for ISM violation

(i) Forward details of the ship and its deficiencies to all other Tokyo MOU States.

(ii) The ship may be subjected to a detailed ISM Code inspection when it visits other countries which are
members of Tokyo MOU.

(iii) All other ships of that company (refer DOC) are to be given priority for PSC inspections.

Page S6-1-5
 Guidelines for compliance with ISM Code
Section 6-1
ANNEX 1

GUIDELINES FOR ISSUE OF INTERIM DOC AND SMC

IMO RESOLUTION A.788(19)

In cases of change of flag of Company, special transitional arrangements should be made in accordance with these
Guidelines.

An interim DOC may be issued to facilitate initial implementation of the ISM Code and implementation where a
Company is newly established or where new ship types are added to an existing DOC.

An Administration may issue an Interim DOC, valid for no more than twelve months, to a Company following a
demonstration that the Company has an SMS that meets the objectives of paragraph 1.2.3 of the ISM Code. The
Administration should require the Company to demonstrate plans to implement an SMS meeting the full
requirements of the ISM Code within the period of validity of the Interim DOC.

An Interim SMC, valid for not more than six months, may be issued to new ships on delivery, and when a Company
takes on the responsibility for the management of a ship which is new to the Company. In special cases the
Administration may extend the validity of the Interim SMC for a further six months.

Before issuing an Interim SMC, the Administration should verify that:

.1 the DOC, or the Interim DOC, is relevant to that ship;

.2 the SMS provided by the Company for the ship includes key elements of the ISM Code and has been
assessed during the audit for issuance of the DOC or demonstrated for issuance of the Interim DOC.

.3 the master and relevant senior officers are familiar with the SMS and the planned arrangements for its
implementation;

.4 instructions which have been identified as essential to be provided prior to sailing have been given;

.5 plans for Company audit of the ship within three months exist; and

.6 the relevant information on the SMS is given in a working language or languages understood by the
ship’s personnel.

Page S6-1-6
 Guidelines for compliance with ISM Code
Section 6-1
ANNEX 2

SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION

Documentation will vary between companies due to the different ways in which a SMS can be developed and
implemented, as well as the need for special systems to accommodate the various types of ships and different
management and operational procedures and arrangements.

The following is a non-exhaustive list of the typical documentation which would be required under a Safety
Management System. Such documentation could be maintained as a single manual, as separate manuals or as a
combination of a number of documents into one or more manuals or in electronic form (e.g. computer, CD-ROM).

Safety Management Manual

Ship Safety Manual

Logbooks

Statutory and other Maritime Documents and Certificates

Navigational Procedures

Deck Operations

Engine Room Operations

Cargo Operations

Emergency Procedures

Pollution Prevention Precautions and Procedures

Communication Procedures

Ship and Machinery Maintenance Plans

List and Safety Equipment

Crew Training Plans

Page S6-1-7
 Guidelines for compliance with ISM Code
Section 6-1
ANNEX 3

PLANS FOR SHIPBOARD OPERATIONS

The following typical tasks, as applicable to a particular ship, should be documented and be assigned to responsible
qualified personnel.

When referring to this list the PSCO should treat the task headings as examples only. The PSCO should use
professional judgement, experiences and common sense in determining whether a particular requirement is covered
by one or a combination of two or more of the listed tasks or by some other plan or arrangement being implemented
on the vessel.

General

shipboard organisation

functional responsibilities

reporting procedures

passenger control

communications between ship and company

inspections by master, chief engineer and senior officers

provision and maintenance of documents and records

medical arrangements

fitness for duty and avoidance of excessive fatigue

alcohol and other drug policies and procedures

operational and maintenance instructions for equipment

checklists for sea worthiness and cargo worthiness

The Ship in Port

accepting cargo and passengers

loading and discharging procedures

harbour watches and patrols

liaison with shore authorities

monitoring trim and stability

procedures when the ship is temporarily immobilised

accidental spillage of liquid cargoes and ship’s bunkers

use of reception facilities for oil, noxious liquids and garbage

response to pollution incidents

Preparing for Sea

verification of passenger numbers

checking and recording draughts

checking stability condition

Page S6-1-8
 Guidelines for compliance with ISM Code
Section 6-1
assessment of weather conditions

securing cargo, hatches and all openings in the hull

tests of engines, steering gear, navigation and communications equipment, generators, emergency
lighting and anchoring equipment

harbour stations

documentation of sailing condition

verification of pollution prevention equipment and arrangements

verifying that up-to-date nautical charts and publication are carried as per SOLAS, Chapter 5, regulation
20.

The Ship and Sea

bridge and engine room watch-keeping arrangements

special requirements in bad weather and fog

radio communications, including use of VHF

manoeuvring data

emergency procedures

security patrols, fire patrols and other arrangements for surveillance

discharge into the sea of oily water from machinery space bilges, cargo residues from oil tankers, noxious
liquid substances and garbage

Preparing for Arrival in Port

tests of engines, steering gear, navigation and communication equipment, generators and anchoring
equipment

harbour stations

pilotage

port information and communications

assessment of weather conditions

sailing directions, tide tables and charts

ballast operations

helicopter operations

stability and watertight integrity

Page S6-1-9
 Guidelines for compliance with ISM Code
Section 6-1
ANNEX 4

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

Potential typical emergency shipboard situations for which procedures should be available and/or drills and
exercises should be held.

When referring to this list the PSCO should treat the items as examples only. The PSCO should use professional
judgement, experiences and common sense in determining whether a particular requirement is covered by one or a
combination of two or more of the listed items or by some other procedure or arrangement being implemented on
the vessel.

fire and boat drills

use of emergency equipment

procedures to be followed in response to different types of accidents or hazardous occurrences

the availability of ship particulars, plans, stability information, and safety and environmental protection
equipment carried on board

back up arrangements for the company’s initial response in the event of a protracted emergency

actions taken to gain control of a situation

maintenance of communications between the ship and shore

operational tests and running of the life boat engines

loss of steering and use of emergency steering drills

emergency medical procedures/evacuations

confined space rescue

ship response procedures to a pollution incident

search and rescue

charging of fresh air breathing apparatus bottles

ship safety inspections

hazardous substances clean up

salvage procedures

engine room flooding

maintenance of fire fighting equipment, life saving appliance and personal protection equipment

contingency plans should be on board ship to describe how to deal with emergency situation related to
damage, fire, pollution, personnel, security and cargo, and may include:

structural failure

main engine failure

steering gear failure

loss of electrical power

fire

collision
Page S6-1-10
 Guidelines for compliance with ISM Code
Section 6-1
grounding/stranding

shifting of cargo and cargo jettisoning

flooding

entry into enclosed spaces

serious injury

abandoning ship

heavy weather damage

man overboard/search and rescue.

Emergency drills and exercises should be carried out regularly to test the effectiveness and clarity or the emergency
plans and to develop the confidence and competence of the personnel who may be involved in actual emergencies.
The drills should, as appropriate, mobilise the shore-based management emergency contingency plans under
simulated conditions.

Records of these drills and exercises should be maintained and be available for verification purposes.

Page S6-1-11
 Guidelines for STCW 95
Section 6-2
GUIDELINES FOR STCW 95 DURING PSC*

The transitional provisions contained in Regulation I/15 of the amended 1978 STCW Convention operated until 1
February 2002. The period of grace recommended by STCW.7/Circ.12 expires on 31 July 2002. The following notes
are intended to assist those undertaking port State control inspections from that date. These guidelines are not
intended to be a substitute for the PSCO’s knowledge of the relevant Convention requirements and IMO
Resolutions and Circulars.

Please note the following recent clarifications issued by MSC:

• MSC/Circ.1030 – Confirmed that the holder of a certificate of competency issued under II/1, II/2, II/3, III/1,
III/2, III/3 or VII/2 does not need to hold separate documentary evidence of competency under VI (except
for fast rescue boat proficiency) as these competencies are a prerequisite to issue of the certificate of
competency.

• MSC/Circ.1031 – Updated “White List”

• MSC/Circ.1032 – Acceptance by IMO that the wording “Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended” is an acceptable alternative to “Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended in 1995” on certificates of competency or
recognition, while documentary evidence of training required under V or VI need not refer to the
Convention title at all, only relevant regulations of sections of the STCW Code.

Control is permitted under Article X of the Convention and is to be carried out in accordance with the procedures
contained in Reg.I/4. Control is initially limited to verification that seafarers serving on board who are required to be
certificated under the Convention are in fact certificated (Reg.I/4 paragraph 1.1) and the manning meets the
minimum safe manning specified by the flag State (in accordance with the ship’s safe manning document).

Regulation I/4 1.3 also permits assessment of seafarer’s competence to maintain watchkeeping standards (using
the standards contained in the STCW Code) where clear grounds have indicated that such competencies may be in
doubt (clear grounds are listed in Reg.I/4 paragraphs 3.1 to 3.4). However, the Convention is very specific that the
only possible grounds for detention are (Regulation I/4, paragraph 2):

1. Failure of seafarers to hold a certificate, to have an appropriate certificate, to have a valid

dispensation or to provide documentary proof that an application for an endorsement has been
submitted to the Administration in accordance with regulations I/10, paragraph 5;

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

3. Failure of navigational or engineering watch arrangements to conform to the requirements

specified for the ship by the Administration;

4. Absence in a watch of a person qualified to operate equipment essential to safe navigation, safety
radio-communications or the prevention of marine pollution; and

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

Failure to correct any of the deficiencies referred to above, in so far as it has been determined by the Party carrying
out the control that they pose a danger to persons, property or the environment, shall be the only grounds under
article X on which a party may detain a ship.

The following table and notes would cover the majority of ships subject to PSC.

*
The revised Guidelines are approved by MOU-SWG in March 2008.
Page S6-2-1
Revision 1/2008
 Guidelines for STCW 95
Section 6-2
Cargo Ships Over 500 GRT and 750 kW

Valid national COC1 Valid Flag Tanker GMDSS5

2
endorsement Endorsement3
Master II/2 V/14 GOC/ROC
Chief Officer II/2 V/14 GOC/ROC
Officer NW II/1 V/1 GOC/ROC
Ratings NW II/4 V/1
C/Engineer III/2 V/14
C/Eng <3000kW III/3
2/Engineer III/2 V/14
2/Eng <3000kW III/3
Officer EW III/1 V/1
Rating EW III/4 V/1

Notes
1. The certificate of competency must include an English translation (Reg.I/2 paragraph1) and may be in
any format, but the STCW endorsement required by Art.VI paragraph 2 shall be in the format
prescribed in A-I/2 by Reg.I/2, except that MSC recently agreed the term. The original must be kept on
board (Reg.I/2 paragraph 9) and must be revalidated at a minimum of five yearly intervals (Reg.I/11).
Where valid STCW 78 format certificates are held by officers, these should be accepted if revalidated
in compliance with I/11 of STCW 95. If such certificates are issued by an Administration other than the
flag State then an STCW 95 certificate of recognition would be required (see Note 2).

2. The flag State is required to recognise any certificate issued by another party for a master or officer
serving on a vessel under it’s flag (Reg I/10) by issuing an endorsement in the format prescribed (Reg
I/2.5, A-I/2 paragraph 3). Such endorsements shall expire as soon as the certificate endorsed expires
or is withdrawn, suspended or cancelled by the Party which issued it and, in any case, not more than
five years after their date of issue (Reg.I/2 paragraph 6.3). The capacity in which the endorsement
authorises the holder to serve shall be in terms identical to those used on the vessel’s safe manning
document (Reg.I/2 paragraph 7). Three months are allowed for an officer to obtain the required
recognition and during this period the seafarer must have a valid national certificate and “documentary
proof” that the application for endorsement has been submitted to the flag State (Reg.I/10, paragraph
5). There is no guidance provided on what constitutes “documentary proof”, but it may be useful to
check how long a seafarer producing such “documentary proof” has been on board a ship.

3. Tanker endorsements or certificates are required for officers and certificates for ratings assigned
specific duties and responsibilities related to cargo operations on tankers (Reg.V/1 paragraph 1 and
4), following three months seagoing service or a tanker familiarization course. Such a familiarization
endorsement or certificate is suitable for gas, oil and chemical tankers.

4. Masters, Chief Engineers, Chief Officers and Second Engineers and any person with immediate
responsibility for loading, discharge and care in transit and handling of cargo require a tanker
endorsement (or certificate) to show compliance with Reg V/1 paragraph 2, which is specialized for the
tanker type concerned (gas, oil or chemical).

5. From an STCW 95 perspective (ignoring for the moment what may be required on the ship’s Safety
Radio Certificate, for example) for a ship operating in Sea Area A3, the minimum requirement for radio
qualifications would be met if one Navigation Watchkeeping Officer holds a valid GMDSS GOC and all
others hold a GMDSS ROC (See A-II/1 paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3).

Certificate of Proficiency for Ship Security Officer (SSO)

In accordance with Regulation VI/5, every Ship Security Officer shall hold a certificate of proficiency, even though
endorsement of flag state administration may not be required. This regulation came into force on 1 January 2008.
However, until 1 July 2009, personnel who hold or can document qualifications as ship security officers before the
entry into force of this regulation, as specified in paragraph 5 of STCW Code A-VI/5, may continue to be recognized
by a Party.

Passenger Ships and Ro-Ro Passenger Ships

Regulations V/2 and V/3 require documentary evidence of the required training for masters, officers, ratings and
other personnel having specific responsibilities.

Page S6-2-2
Revision 1/2008
 Guidelines for STCW 95
Section 6-2
Crew without Designated Safety or Pollution Prevention Duties

Such crew members must undergo approved familiarisation training as required by A-VI/1, but evidence of this is not
specified.

Near-coastal Certificates

General principals are that any party defining “near-coastal” limits shall communicate such limits to the IMO (Reg
I/3). Also, referring to B-I/3 of the STCW Code, which, while non-mandatory provides guidance on the application of
the Convention:

A Party which includes voyages off another Party's coast within the limits of its near-coastal voyage
definition, may enter into a bilateral agreement with the Party concerned. It is not intended that ships
engaged on near-coastal voyages should extend their voyages world-wide, under the excuse that they are
navigating constantly within the limits of designated near-coastal voyages of neighbouring Parties.

Dispensations

Referring to Article VIII:

• Dispensations shall be for no more than six months

• They shall only be given to persons qualified to fill the post immediately below, and only until the
position can be filled by an appropriately certificated person

• Dispensations shall only be granted for Masters / Chief Engineers in cases of force majeure and
for minimum of time necessary.

• Parties issuing dispensations shall communicate such activity to the IMO

Action to be taken

1. The Convention is very clear on what constitutes possible grounds for detention (Refer to paragraph 2 of
Regulation I/4, reproduced above). Where an officer or rating does not hold the necessary certificate, that
officer or rating is not to be counted toward the vessel’s safe manning. Should the vessel then not be able
to comply with the minimum safe manning specified by the flag State, it may be subject to detention (Reg
I/4 paragraphs 2.1, 2.2). Should the vessel still meet the minimum safe manning requirements a defect
should be issued stating that the officer or rating involved may not maintain a watch on the ship until the
situation is rectified (Code 99) and next port notified.

2. Where an officer does not hold a valid certificate of recognition or endorsement by the flag State or
documentary proof of application for same, a similar situation applies as for point 1. There are no
guidelines regarding what constitutes “documentary proof”. This proof could be a written confirmation from
the flag State that an application has been received from an individual. However, the written confirmation
reissued for the purpose of extending or revalidating a period beyond three-month limit could not be
acceptable. Alternatively a copy of the seafarers written application to the flag State with receipt stamp by
the administration, clearly showing name, certificate number, date of issue and validity would be accepted,
if doubt exists it may be necessary to confirm the flag Administration requirements. When considering the
three month limit, is may be necessary to check documents available on board to confirm the date the
seafarer joined the ship.

3. Where the minimum radio qualification requirements outlined above are not met, then the vessel may be
subject to detention (Reg.I/4 paragraph 2.4). Where the radio qualifications available on board do not
comply with that specified on the Safety Radio Certificate then this is also grounds for detention.

4. For tankers, where the Master, Chief Engineer, Chief Officer or Second Engineer do not hold the
appropriate certificate or endorsement for specialised tanker training as required by Regulation V/1
paragraph 2, the ship may be subject to detention. Where any other officer or rating believed to have
immediate responsibility for cargo operations does not hold the specialised tanker endorsement, a
deficiency is to be issued to the effect that such a person is not to be given immediate charge of cargo
operations until the situation is rectified (Code 99) and next port notified. The reason for this is that some
Administrations interpret the convention to say that only the Master or Mate ever has “immediate
responsibility” for cargo operations.

Page S6-2-3
Revision 1/2008
 Guidelines for STCW 95
Section 6-2
5. For passenger ships and ro-ro passenger ships where the required documentary evidence is not available,
this will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

6. Defects in all of the above areas and failure to comply with STCW 95 may also indicate a failure of the
vessel’s safety management system related to Resources and Personnel (Code 2530).

7. The above are guidelines only and the PSCO must above all consider the possible threat a vessel may
pose to safety or the environment in deciding whether to detain a ship.

Example

Ship’s Minimum Safe Manning Document requires 1 – Master (II/2), 1 – Chief Officer (II/2), 2 x Watchkeeping
Officers (II/1).

During PSC it is found that the Chief Officer does not hold a valid Certificate of Competency. If this certificate is
discounted, ship does not meet minimum safe manning requirements.

Code Description Con Ref Action

0221 C/Off certificate invalid STCW/RII/2 30
0239 Manning not in accordance with SMD SOLASV/14 30
2530 SMS does not ensure vessel adequately manned with 18
qualified personnel

Page S6-2-4
Revision 1/2008
 Guidelines for PSC Officers on Security Aspects
Section 6-3

GUIDELINES FOR PORT STATE CONTROL OFFICERS ON SECURITY ASPECTS*

1. Selection of ships to be inspected

.1 This guidance applies only to ships mentioned in regulation 2.1 of SOLAS74 ChXI-2

.2 PSCOs should follow the current criteria for targeting ships as adopted by PSCC12 (PSCC12/REP,
Annex 7)

.3 The PSCO should be aware of the security level of the port facility at which a ship is to be inspected.

.4 Reports or complaints which relate to security received by PSCOs prior to boarding the ship should be
passed to the competent security authority1 who will decide on priority for security inspection by an
Officer Duly Authorised for Security.

.5 While the master of a ship has discretion for ship security he is not entitled to deny access to a duly
authorised PSCO to carry out an inspection. There may be cases when it is mandatory to carry out a
port state control inspection but the master attempts to limit the inspection on grounds of security. If
the PSCO considers this to be unreasonable he should consult the competent security authority.

.6 PSCOs should be aware that on a ship at security level 3 the protective measures set up may restrict
the scope of the “safety” port state control inspection. For example a full emergency drill may not be
allowed. There may also be circumstances where the competent security authority restricts port state
control activity.

2. Initial inspection

During the initial inspection the PSCO should:

.1 while approaching and boarding the ship and moving around the ship take note of the security aspects
listed in Annex taking into account the security level imposed by the port and ship. PSCOs are not
required to test the security system and should only consider those aspects which arise during the
course of their normal business on board.

.2 check that the International Ship Security Certificate (ISSC) or the Interim ISSC is on board, valid and
has been issued by the ship’s Administration, an organisation authorised by it or by another
Contracting Government at the request of the Administration.

.3 check that the ship security officer (SSO), designated by the Company, holds a certificate of
proficiency for SSO2.

.4 ask the master with which security level the ship is complying and confirm that this is at least the level
imposed by the port.

.5 when checking other documentation ask for evidence that security drills have been carried out at
appropriate intervals – at least every 3 months but also after certain crew changes - (ISPS Code Part A
section 13 and Part B paragraphs 13.6 and 13.7) and seek information on any exercise involving the
ship.

.6 check the records of the last 10 calls at port facilities including any ship/port or ship/ship interfaces
which should include for each interface:

- security level at which ship operated

- any special or additional security measures that were taken
- that appropriate ship security measures were maintained during any ship/ship activity

Note: The requirements under regulations XI-2/9.2.3 to keep records of past calls at port facilities
commences on 1 July 2004 and only applies to calls on or after that date

* The revised Guidelines are approved by MOU-SWG in March 2008.

1
The Authority designated by the state for the application of security measures.
2
Until 1 July 2009, personnel who hold or can document qualifications as ship security officers before the entry into force of this
regulation, as specified in paragraph 5 of STCW Code A-VI/5, may continue to be recognized.
Page S6-3-1
Revision 1/2008
 Guidelines for PSC Officers on Security Aspects
Section 6-3
.7 assess whether key members of the ship’s personnel are able to communicate effectively with each
other.

3. Clear grounds

.1 The PSCO may establish clear grounds during the initial PSC inspection as follows:

.1 ISSC is not valid or it has expired (ISPS Code Part B para. 4.33.1, ISPS Code Part A section
19)

.2 SSO does not hold a valid certificate of proficiency (STCW 78 Regulation VI/5)2

.3 The ship is at a lower security level than the port (ISPS Code Part B para. 4.33.2, SOLAS74 Ch
XI-2 reg 4.3)

.4 Drills related to the security of the ship have not been carried out (ISPS Code Part B para.
4.33.4, ISPS Code Part A section 13.4)

.5 Records for the last 10 ship/port or ship/ship interfaces are incomplete (ISPS Code Part B para.
4.33.2, SOLAS74 Ch XI-2 reg 9.2.3)

.6 Evidence or observation that key members of ship’s personnel cannot communicate with each
other (ISPS Code Part B para. 4.33.5)

.7 Evidence from observations of aspects listed in Annex that serious deficiencies exist in security
arrangements (ISPS Code Part B para 4.33.2)

.8 Information from third parties such as a report or a complaint concerning security related
information (ISPS Code Part B para 4.33.3)

.9 The ship holds a subsequent, consecutively issued Interim International Ship Security
Certificate (ISSC) and in the professional judgement of the PSCO one of the purposes of the
ship or Company in requesting such a certificate is to avoid full compliance with SOLAS74 Ch
XI-2 and part A of the ISPS Code, beyond the period of the initial Interim Certificate (ISPS Code
Part B para 4.33.8). ISPS Code Part A para 19.4.1 and 19.4.2 specify the circumstances
when an Interim Certificate may be issued.

.2 If clear grounds as described above are established the PSCO will immediately inform the competent
security authority (unless the PSCO is also an Officer Duly Authorised for Security). The competent
security authority will then decide on what further control measures are necessary taking into account
the security level in accordance with Regulation 9 of SOLAS Ch.XI-2.

.3 Clear grounds other than those above are a matter for the Officer Duly Authorised for Security and are
detailed in ISPS Code Part B paragraph 4.33.

4. Further control measures

.1 If there is no valid International Ship Security Certificate (ISSC) or Interim ISSC onboard the PSCO will
detain the ship.

.2 All other control measures will be decided by the competent security authority. These are listed in
SOLAS74 Ch XI-2 regulation 9 and may include:

- a (more detailed) inspection of the ship

- delay of the ship
- detention of the ship
- restrictions of operations including movement within the port
- expulsion of the ship from the port
- additional or alternative lesser administrative or corrective measures.

2
Until 1 July 2009, personnel who hold or can document qualifications as ship security officers before the entry into force of this
regulation, as specified in paragraph 5 of STCW Code A-VI/5, may continue to be recognized.
Page S6-3-2
Revision 1/2008
 Guidelines for PSC Officers on Security Aspects
Section 6-3
.3 Subject to national legislation and arrangements the competent security authority may request the
PSCO to make further verifications before coming to a decision or until Officers Duly Authorised for
Security can board the ship. These verifications should be limited to:

.1 verifying that a security plan is on board and that a ship security officer (SSO) is on board.

.2 verifying that the master and ship’s personnel, in particular the SSO, duty officer and person(s)
controlling access, are familiar with essential shipboard security procedures.

.3 verifying that communication has been established between the SSO and the Port Facility
Security Officer.

.4 verifying that records exist for maintaining the ship’s security system including:

- internal audits and reviews of security activities

- periodic review of the ship security assessment
- periodic review of the ship security plan
- implementation of any amendments to the ship security plan
- maintenance, calibration and testing of any security equipment provided on board
including testing of the ship security alert system

.5 checking records of any:

- security threats
- breaches of security
- changes in security levels
- communications relating to the direct security of the ship

.4 limited access to specific sections of the Ship Security Plan as per section 9.8.1 of Part A of the ISPS
Code. Where the only means to verify or rectify the non compliance is to review the relevant
requirements of the ship security plan, limited access to specific sections of the plan relating to the non
compliance is exceptionally allowed, but only with the consent of the Contracting Government, or the
master, of the ship concerned. These specific sections are listed in the table below:

Areas of Plan which may be inspected with consent of Contracting

Government of ship or Master of ship
Area of Plan ISPS Ref.
Prevention of introduction of non-authorised articles A/9.4.1
Prevention of unauthorised access to the ship A/9.4.3
Evacuation of the ship A/9.4.6
Auditing security activities A/9.4.8
Training, drills and exercises A/9.4.9
Interfacing with port facility security activities A/9.4.10
Review of ship security plan A/9.4.11
Reporting security incidents A/9.4.12
Identification of the ship security officer A/9.4.13
Identification of the company security officer A/9.4.14
Frequency of testing or calibration of security equipment A/9.4.16
Security of Ship Security Assessment and Plan A/9.6
Security activities not covered by ISPS code B/9.51

.5 Provisions of the plan relating to certain confidential information cannot be subject to inspection unless
agreed by the Contracting Government concerned. These specific sections are listed in the table
below:

Areas of Plan which may be inspected ONLY with consent of Contracting Government of ship
Area of Plan ISPS Ref.
Restricted areas A/9.4.2
Responding to security threats or breaches of security, including frequency of A/9.4.4
inspection data
Responding to any security instructions at security level 3 A/9.4.5
Duties of those assigned security responsibilities A/9.4.7
Procedures for maintenance of security equipment A/9.4.15
Ship security alert system A/9.4.17&18
Page S6-3-3
Revision 1/2008
 Guidelines for PSC Officers on Security Aspects
Section 6-3
.6 If the competent security authority takes further control actions which limit the scope of or prevent the
completion of the “safety” port state control inspection, the PSCO should liaise with the competent
security authority and endeavour to complete the safety inspection when the ship has been cleared.
The principle of not unduly delaying a ship still applies. However the fact that security breaches have
been found would normally justify the PSCO completing the initial safety inspection or continuing
where clear grounds for a more detailed inspection of non-security aspects have been found.

.7 If the competent security authority decides to expel the ship the PSCO should ensure that the
competent security authority is made fully aware of the possible safety and/or environmental
consequences of the ship leaving the berth and/or putting to sea. This may include risks arising from
the interruption of cargo operations. The competent security authority should decide on the
necessary action taking account of all risks.

.8 Where a port State control inspection is carried out and deficiencies found, and the ship is
subsequently expelled on security grounds, the inspection should be recorded on Forms A and B and
in APCIS, in accordance with the provisions of the Manual, with additional use of the inspection action
code “27 – Ship expelled on security grounds”. It may be the case that such a ship may have
outstanding safety deficiencies which will require rectification at the next port, the procedures in the
Manual for notification to the next port should be followed. If the PSCO takes control measures under
the maritime security, then the PSCO should inform in writing to the Administration and RSOs in
accordance with SOLAS regulation XI-2/9.3.1 under the procedures similar to those contained in the
Manual.

5. Reports and input to APCIS

.1 Any security deficiencies found by the PSCO should be recorded on Form B of the Report of
Inspection issued by the PSCO using the following codes:

Code Defective Item Nature of defect

0160 International Ship Security
Certificate
0231 Certificate for Ship security officer
2705 Ship Security defects Nature of deficiencies should be described
2715 Ship security alert system
2720 Ship security plan
2725 Ship security officer
2730 Access control to ship
2735 Security drills
2799 Other (Maritime security) Nature of deficiencies should be described

.2 Details of the ISSC or interim ISSC should be recorded in Form A under code 0160 in the same
manner as recording of other certificates.

.3 If there is any deficiency on maritime security, the report should indicate either codes 0160 and/or
2705, or alternatively, codes 0160 and/or any relevant codes of 2715, 2720, 2725, 2730, 2735 and
2799.

.4 If the competent security authority is informed the inspection action taken “26 - competent security
authority informed” should be recorded in Form A.

.5 Deficiencies relating to certification/qualification of ship security officer should be recorded under code
0231, e.g. the SSO does not hold appropriate certificate or qualification as required by STCW.
Deficiencies concerning functioning of SSO should be recorded under code 2725, e.g. there is no SSO
onboard or the SSO fails to carry out its duty.

Page S6-3-4
Revision 1/2008
 Guidelines for PSC Officers on Security Aspects
Section 6-3
ANNEX

Security Aspects at Initial Inspection

As a guide the PSCO should take note of the following security aspects during the initial inspection, taking into
account the security level imposed by the ship and the port:

Note: Non-compliance with one or more particular aspects may not necessarily constitute a failure to
comply with mandatory requirements of Chapter XI-2 or Part A of the ISPS Code.

1. ACCESS TO SHIP WHEN IN PORT

Ships at Security Level 1

Ramps, walkways or any access points to a vessel should be controlled.

.1 Is there some form of control on the walkways or access points to the vessel? (ISPS Code Part A,
section 7.2.2)

.2 Is it noticeable that the ship has controls in place as you approach it? (ISPS Code Part A, section
7.2.4)

.3 Is the identity of all persons seeking to board the ship checked? (ISPS Code Part A, section 7.2.4 and
Part B, section 9.14.1)

Additionally for passenger ships control at Security Level 1

.4 In liaison with port facility have designated secure areas been established for searching? (ISPS Code
Part B, section 9.14.2)

.5 Are checked persons and their personal effects segregated from unchecked persons and their effects?
(ISPS Code Part B, section 9.14.4)

.6 Are embarking passengers segregated from disembarking passengers? (ISPS Code Part B, section
9.14.5)

.7 Has access been secured to unattended spaces adjoining areas to which passengers and visitors
have access? (ISPS Code Part B, section 9.14.7)

Ships at Security Level 2

.8 Has the number of access points been limited? (ISPS Code Part B, section 9.16.2)

.9 Have steps been taken to deter waterside access to the ship, which may be implemented in
conjunction with the port facility? (ISPS Code Part B, section 9.16.3)

.10 Has a restricted area on the shore-side of the ship been established, which may be implemented in
conjunction with the port facility? (ISPS Code Part B, section 9.16.4)

.11 Are visitors escorted on the ship? (ISPS Code Part B, section 9.16.6)

.12 Can the master confirm that full or partial searches of the ship have been carried out? (ISPS Code Part
B, section 9.16.8)

.13 Can the master confirm that an additional security briefing has been carried out? (ISPS Code Part B
paragraph 9.16.7)

2. ACCESS TO BRIDGE, ENGINE ROOM AND OTHER SENSITIVE AREAS

Ships at Security Level 1

.1 Is the bridge and engine room capable of being locked or secured? (ISPS Code Part B, section 9.21.1)

Page S6-3-5
Revision 1/2008
 Guidelines for PSC Officers on Security Aspects
Section 6-3
.2 Is the bridge and engine room locked or is access otherwise controlled (e.g. by being manned or using
surveillance equipment to monitor the areas)? (ISPS Code Part B, section 9.22.2)

.3 Are doors to sensitive areas locked (steering gear, machinery spaces, air conditioning plants, etc)?
(ISPS Code Part B, sections 9.21.1 – 9)

Additionally for passenger ships at Security Level 1

.4 Are Restricted Areas marked? (ISPS Code Part B, section 9.20)

Additionally for passenger ships at Security Level 2

.5 Have Restricted Areas been established adjacent to access points in order to avoid a large number of
persons congregating in those areas? (ISPS Code Part B, section 9.23.1)

3. MONITORING THE SECURITY OF THE SHIP

Ships at Security Level 1

.1 Is it noticeable that there are deck watches in place during your inspection or that guards or security
patrols are being undertaken in the locality of the vessel or that surveillance equipment is being used
to monitor the areas? Security watches provided by shore services are acceptable (ISPS Code Part
B, sections 9.22.2 and 3)

.2 Do the deck watches take account of both landward and seaward approaches? (ISPS Code Part B,
section 9.46.1 and 2)

Ships at Security Level 2

.3 If surveillance equipment is being used is it being monitored at frequent intervals? (ISPS Code Part B,
section 9.23, 9.47.2)

.4 Are there additional personnel dedicated to guard and patrol restricted areas in place? (ISPS Code
Part B, section 9.16.1, 9.47.3)

4. CHECKS AND SEARCHES OF SHIPS' STORES AND PROVISIONS

(if these aspects are observable while on board)

Ships at Security Level 1

.1 Are ships stores being checked before being loaded for signs that they have been tampered or
interfered with? (ISPS Code Part B, section 9.33.3)

.2 Are checks made to ensure stores match the order prior to being loaded (ISPS Code Part B, section
9.35.1)

.3 Are stores securely stored once loaded (ISPS Code Part B, section 9.35.2)

Page S6-3-6
Revision 1/2008
 Guidelines for the responsibility assessment of RO
Section 6-4

GUIDELINES FOR THE RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT OF

THE RECOGNIZED ORGANIZATION (RO)*

Introduction:

RO means a Recognized Organization or other private body carrying out surveys1 and issuing or endorsing
Statutory Certificates on behalf of a flag State.

There should be a careful distinction between a RO who issues or endorses Statutory Certificates on behalf of an
administration and a Classification Society who issues hull and machinery and other non-statutory or ship related
certificates.

Caution should be applied where there is no survey date on a certificate. An indication of the Initial or Renewal
survey date is to count back five years from date of expiry and for anniversary survey windows count back each year
from expiry date applying +/-3 months to the relevant anniversary/intermediate date. Note the date of issue of the
certificate is not necessarily the date of the survey.

Regarding the Safety Management Certificate if only one intermediate verification (audit) is to be carried out and the
period of validity of the certificate is five years then the intermediate verification should take place between the
second and third anniversary dates of the Safety Management Certificate. Hence the last audit may have taken
place up to three years ago. Note, however, the date of the last audit could include an additional verification for
example following a port State control or flag State inspection.

In all cases of detention the notification procedure in 3.7 of the Memorandum shall be followed. In addition where an
RO or RO(s) have been deemed responsible then the RO(s) should be notified of the detention in writing as soon as
reasonably practicable. All notifications should make it clear whether or not the RO is deemed responsible. There
may be more than one RO deemed responsible, for example, different ROs may have issued or endorsed an ISM
SMC, ISPS Certificate and other convention certificates on behalf of the flag State.

Applying Criteria:

1. The criteria should be applied to each detainable deficiency including a major nonconformity.

2. If one or more detainable deficiencies meets the criteria in sections 3 and 4 below then the detainable
deficiency should be listed on Form B as RO responsible and entered into APCIS accordingly.

3. These criteria apply only to detainable deficiencies that are:

(i) covered by a statutory certificate that has been issued or endorsed by the RO with a date of
survey; and

(ii) the RO has carried out the last survey or verification audit for the relevant certificate(s).

4. A detainable deficiency is associated with the RO if it is:

(i) a serious structural deficiency including corrosion, wastage, cracking and buckling unless it is
clear that the deficiency has occurred since the last survey conducted by the RO; or

* The text of the Guidelines was adopted by the Committee at its 8th meeting in February 2000 and amended at the 14th meeting in
November 2004, the 15th meeting in November 2005, the16th meeting in September 2006, the 18th meeting in November 2008 and the 19th meeting
in August 2009 respectively.
1 For further guidance refer to current Resolution A.948(23) on Revised Survey Guidelines Under the Harmonized System of Survey and
Certification.
Page S6-4-1
Revision 2/2009
 Guidelines for the responsibility assessment of RO
Section 6-4

(ii) a serious deficiency in equipment or non-structural fittings (such as fire main, air pipes, cargo
hatches, rails, masts etc.) AND it is less than 90 days since the last survey conducted by the RO,
unless it is clear that the deficiency has occurred since the last survey conducted by the RO; or

(iii) a serious deficiency in equipment or non-structural fittings which clearly would have existed at the
time of the last survey; or

(iv) a serious deficiency associated with out-of-date equipment which was out-of-date at the time of
the last survey; or

(v) a missing approval or endorsement of Plans and Manuals if required to comply with the provisions
for issuance of statutory certificates which clearly would have existed at the time of the last survey;
or

(vi) a major non-conformity where there is clear evidence of a lack of effective and systematic
implementation of a requirement of the ISM Code AND there is clear evidence that it existed at the
last audit conducted by the RO. It may also include operational drills and operational control and
there is clear supporting evidence of failure.

5. A detainable deficiency is not associated with the RO if it is:

(i) the result of accidental or voyage damage;

(ii) missing equipment that is likely to have been stolen except when it is a large quantity and the PSC
inspection is taking place within 90 days since the last survey conducted by the RO; or

(iii) an expired certificate unless the certificate was improperly issued by the RO following a survey
conducted on behalf of the flag State.

Page S6-4-2
Revision 2/2009
 List of certificates and documents to be carried on board
Section 6-5
CERTIFICATES AND DOCUMENTS REQUIRED TO BE CARRIED ON BOARD SHIPS∗
(Note: All certificates to be carried on board must be originals)

Reference
1 All ships

International Tonnage Certificate (1969) Tonnage Convention,

An International Tonnage Certificate (1969) shall be issued to every ship, article 7
the gross and net tonnage of which have been determined in accordance
with the Convention.

International Load Line Certificate LL Convention,

An International Load Line Certificate shall be issued under the provisions article 16;
of the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966, to every ship which 1988 LL Protocol,
has been surveyed and marked in accordance with the Convention or the article 18
Convention as modified by the 1988 LL Protocol, as appropriate.

International Load Line Exemption Certificate LL Convention,

An International Load Line Exemption Certificate shall be issued to any article 6;
ship to which an exemption has been granted under and in accordance 1988 LL Protocol,
with article 6 of the Load Line Convention or the Convention as modified article 18
by the 1988 LL Protocol, as appropriate.

Intact Stability Booklet SOLAS 1974,

Every passenger ship regardless of size and every cargo ship of 24 m and regulation II-1/22 and
over shall be inclined on completion and the elements of their stability II-1/25-8;
determined. The master shall be supplied with a Stability Booklet 1988 LL Protocol,
containing such information as is necessary to enable him, by rapid and regulation 10
simple procedures, to obtain accurate guidance as to the stability of the
ship under varying conditions of loading. For bulk carriers, the information
required in a bulk carrier booklet may be contained in the stability booklet.

Damage control booklets SOLAS 1974,

On passenger and cargo ships, there shall be permanently exhibited plans regulations II-1/23, 23-1, 25-8
showing clearly for each deck and hold the boundaries of the watertight
compartments, the openings therein with the means of closure and
position of any controls thereof, and the arrangements for the correction of
any list due to flooding. Booklets containing the aforementioned
information shall be made available to the officers of the ship.

Minimum safe manning document SOLAS 1974

Every ship to which chapter I of the Convention applies shall be provided (1989 amdts.),
with an appropriate safe manning document or equivalent issued by the regulation V/13(b)
Administration as evidence of the minimum safe manning.

Certificates for masters, officers or ratings STCW 1978,

Certificates for masters, officers or ratings shall be issued to those 1995 (amendments)
candidates who, to the satisfaction of the Administration, meet the article VI,
requirements for service, age, medical fitness, training, qualifications and regulation I/2;
examinations in accordance with the provisions of STCW Code annexed STCW Code,
to the Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Section A-I/2
Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978. Formats of certificates are given in
section A-I/2 of the STCW Code. Certificates must be kept available in
their original form on board the ships on which the holder is serving.

∗
This part is extracted from Annex 2 of Part 2 of 2001 consolidated edition of SOLAS 1974.
Page S6-5-1
 List of certificates and documents to be carried on board
Section 6-5
Reference

International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate MARPOL 73/78,

An International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate shall be issued after annex I,
survey in accordance with regulation 4 of annex I of MARPOL 73/78, to regulation 5
any oil tanker of 150 gross tonnage and above and any other ships of 400
gross tonnage and above which are engaged in voyages to ports or
offshore terminals under the jurisdiction of other Parties to MARPOL
73/78. The certificate is supplemented by a Record of Construction and
Equipment for Ships other than Oil Tankers (Form A) or a Record of
Construction and Equipment for Oil Tankers (Form B), as appropriate.

Oil Record Book MARPOL 73/78,

Every oil tanker of 150 gross tonnage and above and every ship of 400 annex I,
gross tonnage and above other than an oil tanker shall be provided with an regulation 20
Oil Record Book, Part I (Machinery space operations). Every oil tanker of
150 gross tonnage and above shall also be provided with an Oil Record
Book, Part II (Cargo/ballast operations).

Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan MARPOL 73/78,

Every oil tanker of 150 gross tonnage and above and every ship other than Annex I,
an oil tanker of 400 gross tonnage and above shall carry on board a regulation 26
Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan approved by the Administration.

Garbage Management Plan MARPOL 73/78,

Every ship of 400 gross tonnage and above and every ship which is Annex V,
certified to carry 15 persons or more shall carry a garbage management regulation 9
plan which the crew shall follow.

Garbage Record Book MARPOL 73/78,

Every ship of 400 gross tonnage and above and every ship which is Annex V,
certified to carry 15 persons or more engaged in voyages to ports or regulation 9
offshore terminals under the jurisdiction of other Parties to the Convention
and every fixed and floating platform engaged in exploration and
exploitation of the sea-bed shall be provided with a Garbage Record Book.

Cargo Securing Manual SOLAS 1974,

Cargo units, including containers, shall be loaded, stowed and secured regulation VI/5, VII/6;
throughout the voyage in accordance with the Cargo Securing Manual MSC/Circ.745
approved by the Administration. The Cargo Securing Manual is required
on all types ships engaged in the carriage of all cargoes other than solid
and liquid bulk cargoes, which shall be drawn up to a standard at least
equivalent to the guidelines developed by the Organization.

Document of Compliance SOLAS 1974,

A document of compliance shall be issued to every company which regulation IX/4;
complies with the requirements of the ISM Code. A copy of the document ISM Code,
shall be kept on board. paragraph 13

Safety Management Certificate SOLAS 1974,

A Safety Management Certificate shall be issued to every ship by the regulation IX/4;
Administration or an organization recognized by the Administration. The ISM Code,
Administration or an organization recognized by it shall, before issuing the paragraph 13
Safety Management Certificate, verify that the company and its shipboard
management operate in accordance with the approved safety
management system.

Page S6-5-2
 List of certificates and documents to be carried on board
Section 6-5
Reference

2 In addition to the certificates listed in section 1 above,

passenger ships shall carry:

Passenger Ship Safety Certificate∗ SOLAS 1974,

A certificate called a Passenger Ship Safety Certificate shall be issued regulation I/12, as amended by
after inspection and survey to a passenger ship which complies with the the GMDSS amendments;
requirements of chapters II-1, II-2, III and IV and any other relevant 1988 SOLAS Protocol,
requirements of SOLAS1974. A Record of Equipment for the Passenger regulation I/12
Ships Safety Certificate (Form P) shall be permanently attached.

Exemption Certificate∗∗ SOLAS 1974,

When an exemption is granted to a ship under and in accordance with the regulation I/12;
provisions of SOLAS 1974, a certificate called Exemption Certificate shall 1988 SOLAS Protocol,
be issued in addition to the certificate listed above. regulation I/12

Special trade passenger ships

A form of safety certificate for special trade passenger ships, issued under STP Agreement,
the provisions of the Special Trade Passenger Ships Agreement, 1971 Regulation 6

Special Trade Passenger Ships Space Certificate issued under the SSTP 73,
provisions of the Protocol on Space Requirements for Special Trade rule 5
Passenger Ships, 1973

Search and rescue co-operation plan SOLAS 1974,

Passenger ships to which chapter I of the Convention applies, trading on (1995 Conference
fixed routes, shall have on board a plan for co-operation with appropriate amendments),
search and rescue services in event of an emergency. regulation V/15(c)

List of operational limitations SOLAS 1974

Passenger ships to which chapter I of the Convention applies shall keep (1995 Conference
on board a list of all limitations on the operation of the ship, including amendments),
exemptions from any of the SOLAS regulations, restrictions in operating regulation V/23
areas, weather restrictions, sea state restrictions, restrictions in
permissible loads, trim, speed and any other limitations, whether imposed
by the Administration or established during the design or the building
stages.

Decision support system for masters SOLAS 1974,

In all passenger ships, a decision support system for emergency regulation III/24-4
management shall be provided on the navigation bridge.

3 In addition to the certificates listed in section 1 above, cargo

ships shall carry:

Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate∗∗∗ SOLAS 1974,

A certificate called a Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate shall be regulation I/12, as amended by
issued after survey to a cargo ship of 500 gross tonnage and over which GMDSS amdts.
satisfies the requirements for cargo ships on survey, set out in regulation 1988 SOLAS Protocol,
I/10 of SOLAS 1974, and complies with the applicable requirements of regulation I/12
chapters II-1 and II-2, other than those relating to fire-extinguishing
appliances and fire control plans.

∗
The form of the certificate and its Record of Equipment may be found in the GMDSS amendments to SOLAS 1974.
∗∗
SLS.14/Circ.115 and Add.1 refers to the issue of exemption certificates.
∗∗∗
The form of the certificate may be found in the GMDSS amendments to SOLAS 1974.
Page S6-5-3
 List of certificates and documents to be carried on board
Section 6-5
Reference

Cargo Ship Safety Equipment Certificate∗ SOLAS 1974,

A certificate called a Cargo Ship Safety Equipment Certificate shall be regulation I/12, as amended by
issued after survey to a cargo ship of 500 gross tonnage and over which GMDSS amdts.
complies with the relevant requirements of chapter II-1, II-2 and III and any 1988 SOLAS Protocol,
other relevant requirements of SOLAS 1974. A Record of Equipment for regulation I/12
the Cargo Ship Safety Equipment Certificate (Form E) shall be
permanently attached.

Cargo Ship Safety Radio Certificate∗∗ SOLAS 1974,

A certificate called a Cargo Ship Safety Radio Certificate shall be issued regulation I/12, as amended by
after survey to a cargo ship of 300 gross tonnage and over, fitted with a GMDSS amdts.
radio installation, including those used in life-saving appliances which 1988 SOLAS Protocol,
complies with the requirements of chapters III and IV and any other regulation I/12.
relevant requirements of SOLAS 1974. A Record of Equipment for the
Cargo Ship Safety Radio Certificate (Form R) shall be permanently
attached.

Cargo Ship Safety Certificate 1988 SOLAS Protocol,

A certificate called a Cargo Ship Safety Certificate may be issued after regulation I/12
survey to a cargo ship which complies with the relevant requirements of
chapters II-1, II-2, III, IV and V and other relevant requirements of SOLAS
1974 as modified by the 1988 SOLAS Protocol, as an alternative to the
above cargo ship safety certificates.

Exemption Certificate∗∗∗ SOLAS 1974,

When an exemption is granted to a ship under and in accordance with the regulation I/12
provisions of SOLAS 1974, a certificate called an Exemption Certificate 1988 SOLAS Protocol,
shall be issued in addition to the certificate listed above. regulation I/12

Document of compliance with the special requirements for ships SOLAS 1974,
carrying dangerous goods regulation II-2/54.3
An appropriate document as evidence of compliance with the construction
and equipment requirements of that regulation.

Dangerous goods manifest or stowage plan SOLAS 1974,

Each ship carrying dangerous goods shall have a special list or manifest regulation VII/5(5)
setting forth, in accordance with the classification set out in regulation MARPOL 73/78
VII/2, the dangerous goods on board and the location thereof. A detailed annex III,
stowage plan which identifies by class and sets out the location of all regulation 4
dangerous goods on board, may be used in place of such a special list or
manifest. A copy of one of these documents shall be made available
before departure to the person or organization designated by the port
State authority.

∗
The form of the certificate and its Record of Equipment may be found in the GMDSS amendments to SOLAS 1974.
∗∗
The form of the Certificate and its Record of Equipment may be found in the GMDSS amendments to SOLAS 1974.
∗∗∗
SLS.14/Circ.115 and Add.1 refers to the issue of exemption certificates.
Page S6-5-4
 List of certificates and documents to be carried on board
Section 6-5
Reference

Document of authorization for the carriage of grain SOLAS 1974,

A document of authorization shall be issued for every ship loaded in regulation VI/9;
accordance with the regulations of the International Code for the Safe International Code for the Safe
Carriage of Grain in Bulk either by the Administration or an organization Carriage of Grain in Bulk,
recognized by it or by a Contracting Government on behalf of the section 3
Administration. The document shall accompany or be incorporated into
the grain loading manual provided to enable the master to meet the
stability requirements of the Code.

Certificate of insurance or other financial security in respect of civil CLC 69,

liability for oil pollution damage article VII
A certificate attesting that insurance or other financial security is in force
shall be issued to each ship carrying more than 2,000 tons of oil in bulk as
cargo. It shall be issued or certified by the appropriate authority of the
State of the ship’s registry after determining that the requirements of
article VII, paragraph 1, of the CLC Convention have been complied with.

Enhanced survey report file MARPOL 73/78,

Bulk carriers and oil tankers shall have a survey report file and supporting Annex I,
documents complying with paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of annex A and annex regulation 13G;
B of resolution A.744(18), Guidelines on the enhanced programme of SOLAS 1974,
inspections during surveys of bulk carriers and oil tankers. regulation XI/2

Record of oil discharge monitoring and control system for last MARPOL 73/78,
ballast voyage Annex I,
Subject to provisions of paragraphs (4), (5), (60 and (7) of regulation 15 of regulation 15(3)(a)
Annex I of MARPOL 73/78, every oil tanker of 150 gross tonnage and
above shall be fitted with an oil discharge monitoring and control system
approved by the Administration. The system shall be fitted with a recording
device to provide a continuous record of the discharge in litres per nautical
mile and total quality discharged, or the oil content and rate of discharge.
This record shall be identifiable as to time and date and shall be kept for at
least three years.

Bulk Carrier Booklet SOLAS 1974 (1996

To enable the master to prevent excessive stress in the ship’s structure, amendments)
the ship loading and unloading of solid bulk cargoes shall be provided with regulation VI/7;
a booklet referred to in SOLAS regulation VI/7.2. As an alternative to a the Code of Practice for the Safe
separate booklet, the required information may be contained in the intact Loading and Unloading of Bulk
stability booklet. Carriers (BLU Code)

4 In addition to the certificates listed in sections 1 and 3

above, where appropriate, any ship carrying noxious liquid
chemical substances in bulk shall carry:

International Pollution Prevention Certificate for the Carriage of MARPOL 73/78,

Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk (NLS Certificate) annex II,
An International Pollution Prevention Certificate for the Carriage of regulations 12 and 12A
Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk (NLS Certificate) shall be issued, after
survey in accordance with the provisions of regulation 10 of Annex II of
MARPOL 73/78, to any ship carrying noxious liquid substances in bulk and
which is engaged in voyages to ports or terminals under the jurisdiction of
other Parties to MARPOL 73/78. In respect of chemical tankers, the
Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk and
the International Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Dangerous
Chemicals in Bulk, issued under the provisions of the Bulk Chemical Code
and the International Bulk Chemical Code, respectively, shall have the
same force and receive the same recognition as the NLS Certificate.

Page S6-5-5
 List of certificates and documents to be carried on board
Section 6-5
Reference

Cargo Record Book MARPOL 73/78,

Every ship to which Annex II of MARPOL 73/78 applies shall be provided annex II,
with a Cargo Record Book, whether as part of the ship’s official log-book or regulation 9
otherwise, in the form specified in appendix IV to the Annex.

Procedures and Arrangements Manual (P& A Manual) Resolution MEPC.18(22),

Every ship certified to carry noxious liquid substances in bulk shall have on chapter 2
board a Procedures and Arrangements Manual approved by the MARPOL 73/78 Annex II,
Administration. regulation 5, 5A and 8

Shipboard Marine Pollution Emergency Plan for Noxious Liquid MARPOL 73/78,
Substances Annex II,
Every ship of 150 gross tonnage and above certified to carry noxious liquid regulation 16
substances in bulk shall carry on board a ship board marine pollution
emergency plan for noxious liquid substances approved by the
Administration. This requirement shall apply to all such ships not later than
1 January 2003.

5 In addition to the certificates listed in sections 1 and 3

above, where applicable, any chemical tanker shall carry:

Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Dangerous Chemicals in BCH Code,

Bulk section 1.6;
A certificate called a Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Dangerous BCH Code as modified by
Chemicals in Bulk, the model form of which is set out in the appendix to the resolution MSC.18(58)
Bulk Chemical Code, should be issued after an initial or periodical survey section 1.6
to a chemical tanker engaged in international voyages which complies
with the relevant requirements of the Code.

Note: The Code is mandatory under Annex II of MARPOL 73/78 for

chemical tankers constructed before 1 July 1986.

or

International Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Dangerous IBC Code,

Chemicals in Bulk section 1.5;
A certificate called an International Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of IBC Code as modified by
Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk, the model form of which is set out in the resolutions MSC.16(58) and
appendix to the International Bulk Chemical Code, should be issued after MEPC.40(29),
an initial or periodical survey to a chemical tanker engaged in international section 1.5
voyages which complies with the relevant requirements of the Code.

Note: The Code is mandatory under both chapter VII of SOLAS 1974 and
Annex II of MARPOL 73/78 for chemical tankers constructed on or
after 1 July 1986.

Page S6-5-6
 List of certificates and documents to be carried on board
Section 6-5
Reference
6 In addition to the certificates listed in sections 1 and 3
above, where applicable, any gas carrier shall carry:

Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Liquefied Gases in Bulk Gas Carrier Code,
A certificate called a Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Liquefied section 1.6
Gases in Bulk, the model form of which is set out in the appendix to the
Gas Carrier Code, should be issued after an initial or periodical survey to a
gas carrier which complies with the relevant requirements of the Code.

or

International Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Liquefied IGC Code,

Gases in Bulk section 1.5;
A certificate called an International Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of IGC Code as modified by
Liquefied Gases in Bulk, the model form of which is set out in the appendix resolution MSC.17(58),
to the International Gas Carrier Code, should be issued after an initial or section 1.5
periodical survey to a gas carrier which complies with the relevant
requirements of the Code.

Note: The Code is mandatory under chapter VII of SOLAS 1974 for gas
carriers constructed on or after 1 July 1986.

7 In addition to the certificates listed on sections 1 and 3,

where applicable, high-speed craft shall carry:

High-Speed Craft Safety Certificate SOLAS 1974,

A certificate called a High-Speed Craft Safety Certificate should be issued regulation X/3;
after completion of an initial or renewal survey to a craft which complies HSC Code,
with the requirements of the High-Speed Craft (HSC) Code in its entirety. paragraph 1.8

Permit to Operate High-Speed Craft HSC Code,

A certificate called a Permit to Operate High-Speed Craft should be issued paragraph 1.9
to a craft which complies with the requirements set out in paragraphs
1.2.2 to 1.2.7 and 1.8 of the HSC Code.

8 In addition to the certificates listed on sections 1 and 3,

where applicable, any ship carrying INF cargo shall carry:

International Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of INF Cargo∗ SOLAS 1974 (1999
A ship carrying INF cargo shall comply with the requirements of the amendments),
International Code for the Safe Carriage of Packaged Irradiated Nuclear regulation 16;
Fuel, Plutonium and High-Level Radioactive Wastes on Board Ship (INF INF Code (resolution
Code) in addition to any other applicable requirements of the SOLAS MSC.88(71)),
regulations and shall be surveyed and be provided with the International paragraph 1.3
Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of INF Cargo.

Other miscellaneous certificates

Special purpose ships

Special Purpose Ships Safety Certificate Resolution A.534(13),as

In addition to SOLAS certificates as specified in paragraph 7 of the amended by MSC/Circ.739;
Preamble of the Code of Safety for Special Purpose Ships, a Special SOLAS 1974
Purpose Ship Safety Certificate shall be issued after survey in accordance regulation I/12;
with the provisions of paragraph 1.6 of the Code of Safety for Special 1988 SOLAS Protocol,
Purpose Ships. The duration and validity of the certificate should be regulation I/12
governed by the respective provisions for cargo ships in SOLAS 1974. If a
certificate is issued for a special purpose ship of less than 500 gross
tonnage, this certificate should indicate to what extent relaxations in
accordance with 1.2 were accepted.

∗
Subject to anticipated entry into force (1 January 2001) of the amendments to SOLAS 1974, adopted by resolution
MSC.87(71) on 27 May 1999.
Page S6-5-7
 List of certificates and documents to be carried on board
Section 6-5
Reference
Offshore support vessels

Certificate of Fitness for Offshore Support Vessels Resolution A.673(16)

When carrying such cargoes, offshore support vessels should carry a MARPOL 73/78,
Certificate of Fitness issued under the provisions of the “Guidelines for the Annex II,
transport and handling of limited amounts of hazardous and noxious liquid regulation 13(4)
substances in bulk on offshore support vessels”.

If an offshore support vessel carries only noxious liquid substances, a

suitable endorsed International Pollution Prevention Certificate for the
Carriage of Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk may be issued instead of
the above Certificate of Fitness.

Diving systems

Diving System Safety Certificate Resolution A.536(13),

A certificate should be issued either by the Administration or any person or section 1.6
organization duly authorized by it after survey or inspection to a diving
system which complies with the requirements of the Code of Safety for
Diving Systems. In every case, the Administration should assume full
responsibility for the certificate.

Dynamically supported craft

Dynamically Supported Craft Construction and Equipment Resolution A.373(X),

Certificate section 1.6
To be issued after survey carried out in accordance with paragraph
1.5.1(a) of the Code of Safety for Dynamically Supported Craft.

Mobile Offshore Drilling Units

Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit Safety certificate Resolution A.414(XI),

To be issued after survey carried out in accordance with the provisions of section 1.6;
the Code for the Construction and Equipment of Mobile Offshore Drilling resolution A.649(16),
Units, 1979, or, for units constructed on or after 1 May 1991, the Code for section 1.6;
the Construction and Equipment of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units, 1989. resolution A.649(16) as
modified by resolution
MSC.38(63),
section 1.6

Noise levels

Noise Survey Report Resolution A.468(XII),

A noise survey report should be made for each ship in accordance with the section 4.3
Code on Noise Levels on Board Ships.

Page S6-5-8
 Procedures for rectifying deficiencies and detentions
Section 6-6
PROCEDURES FOR RECTIFYING DEFICIENCIES AND DETENTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPHS
3.6 - 3.9 OF THE MEMORANDUM*

1 The procedures described below should be observed accordingly when deficiencies not fully rectified,
notifying the flag State of a detention and allowing a ship under detention to proceed to the repair port.

2 In the case of deficiencies not fully rectified or only provisionally repaired, no matter detention or not, a
message should be sent to the Authority of the ship’s next port of call in the form contained in Section 2-2
of the Manual or using e-mail notification generated by the APCIS, together with Forms A and B or with
reference to the inspection report in the APCIS. Such message would be forwarded by fax or e-mail.

3 The Authority receiving such report should inform the notifying Authority of action taken in the form
contained in Section 2-3 of the Manual or using e-mail notification generated by the APCIS with reference
to the inspection report in the APCIS. Such information would be forwarded by fax or e-mail.

4 In the event of a detention, the Authority will immediately notify the flag State** by using the forms contained
in Section 2-4 of the Manual, together with the report of inspection (Forms A and B) specified in Section 2-1
of the Manual. Like wise, the recognized organization which has issued the relevant certificates on behalf of
the flag State Administration will be notified, where appropriate. The parties above will also be notified in
writing of the release of detention by using the form contained in Section 2-5 of the Manual.

5 In the case that deficiencies which caused a detention cannot be remedied in the port of inspection, the
ship may be allowed to proceed to the nearest appropriate repair port, on condition that the following
procedures be observed:

.1 The ship under detention should be in a condition to safely undertake the voyage to the repair port on
its own or with external assistance.

.2 In order to undertake the voyage to the selected repair port, the ship should comply with the following
requirements:

(i) The ship should prepare a voyage plan, which shall be acceptable to the port State. The voyage
plan should determine the most appropriate safest route for the ship to proceed to the repair
port.

(ii) The ship should proceed to the repair port that has been duly agreed by the port State and the
flag State or the classification society acting on behalf of the flag State in accordance with the
voyage plan as agreed for the purpose. The flag State or the classification society shall be
notified that any changes to the terms of the voyage plan may only be made in consultation with
and agreement of the detaining port State.

.3 The flag State or the classification society acting on behalf of the flag State shall issue single voyage
certificate or preferably endorse existing certificate (to proceed to a repair yard, normally in ballast).
The terms of release are to be acceptable to the port State.

.4 The PSC inspection form and any release notice shall make clear to which port the ship is allowed to
sail.

.5 If possible the master shall provide written confirmation from the yard of the repair contract.

.6 The detaining port State shall alert the repair port and request that the message is acknowledged.
Before releasing the ship, the PSCO should obtain confirmation from the relevant port State that the
ship will be accepted.

.7 The detaining port State shall advise all other MOU authorities that the ship has been allowed to sail
to an agreed repair yard, giving its ETA. This advice should be amended if the itinerary change. The
repair port State shall alert all MOU authorities if the ship does not arrive when expected. An Authority
shall alert the detaining port State if the ship arrives in one of its ports instead of the agreed repair
port.

* Last update was made in November 2004, based on decision of the Committee at its 14th meeting.
** Refer to MSC/Circ.926 and MEPC6/Circ.5 “National contact points of Members for safety and pollution prevention” (annexes
1 and 2). The up-to-date list is available at the IMO web-site (http://www.imo.org).
Page S6-6-1
 Procedures for rectifying deficiencies and detentions
Section 6-6
.8 In the absence of timely response from the flag State the port State may take actions as appropriate
to safe guard the safety of the ship, the port and the environment.

6 The exchange of messages among Authorities referred to above should take effect through the use of the
Asia-Pacific Computerized Information System (APCIS) as described in paragraph 6.6 of the Memorandum
and/or by facsimile.

Page S6-6-2
 Guidelines addition to Resolution A.787(19)
Section 6-7
GUIDELINES FOR PORT STATE CONTROL ADDITIONAL TO RESOLUTION A.787(19) AND SECTION 1-4 OF
THIS MANUAL*

1 Detention of ships

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 These guidelines should be used if deficiencies are found during the course of a ship inspection. They are
intended for guidance of the port State control officer and should not be considered as a checklist.

1.1.2 For the purpose of these guidelines, the term “detention” means the steps taken by the port State control
officer to ensure that a ship with a serious deficiency found will not proceed to the sea until such deficiency has been
rectified, whether or not such action will affect the normal schedule of the departure of the ship.

1.2 Main criteria

1.2.1 Ships which are unsafe to proceed to sea should be detained upon the first inspection irrespective of the
time of the ship will stay in port or time that will be required to rectify the deficiency.

1.2.2 When exercising his professional judgement as to whether or not a ship should be detained, the port State
control officer should detain the ship in accordance with the provisions of Appendix 1 to resolution A.787(19) if a
serious deficiency that requires rectification prior to the ship proceeding to sea is found.

1.2.3 In the case of serious deficiency as the result of accidental damage suffered on the ship’s voyage to port,
procedures prescribed in 2.6.7 of resolution A. 787(19) should apply.

1.2.4 In the case of malfunctioning or routine maintenance of machinery or equipment while the ship is in port,
the following criteria should apply:

.1 the ship will not be detained if the master has initiated rectification action and advised the PSCO of
this situation prior to the start of the inspection;

.2 if the ship intends to sail before the completion of satisfactory repair, the conditions stipulated in
1.2.1 and 1.2.2 of above should apply.

1.3 Guidelines for the detention

1.3.1 With respect to the procedures for the detention of ships, port State control officers should be guided by
Appendix 1 to resolution A.787(19) and also by paragraph 4.7 in respect of the ILO Convention No. 147.

2 Extent of inspection after “clear ground” has been established

2.1 After the establishment of “clear ground” in accordance with paragraph 3.2 of the Memorandum, the port
State control officer should:

.1 conduct a more detailed inspection in the area(s) where clear grounds were established; and

.2 carry out a more detailed inspection in other areas at random, including further checking of
compliance with on-board operational requirements.

3 Control procedure for ships below convention size

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

3.2 In the exercise of his functions under paragraph 3.1 of these guidelines the port State control officer will be
guided by any certificates and other documents issued by or on behalf of the flag State Administration. The port
State control officer will, in the light of such certificates and documents and in his general impression of the ship, use
his professional judgement in deciding whether and in what respects the ship will be further inspected. When

*
Last update was made in August 2009, based on decision of the Committee at its 19th meeting.
Page S6-7-1
Revision 2/2009
 Guidelines addition to Resolution A.787(19)
Section 6-7
carrying out a further inspection the port State control officer will, to the extent he deems necessary, pay attention to
the items listed in paragraph 3.3 of these guidelines. The list is not considered exhaustive but is intended to give an
exemplification of relevant items.

3.3 Items of general importance

3.3.1 Items related to the conditions of assignment of load lines:

.1 weathertight (or watertight as the case may be) integrity of exposed decks;

.2 hatches and closing appliances;

.3 weathertight closures to openings in superstructures;

.4 freeing arrangements;

.5 side outlets;

.6 ventilators and air pipes;

.7 stability information.

3.3.2 Other items related to the safety of life at sea:

.1 life saving appliances;

.2 fire fighting appliances;

.3 general structural conditions (i.e. hull, deck, hatch covers, etc);

.4 main machinery and electrical installations;

.5 navigational equipment including radio installations.

3.3.3 Items related to the prevention of pollution from ships:

.1 means for the control of discharge of oil and oil mixtures e.g. oily water separating or filtering
equipment or other equivalent means (tank(s) for retaining oil, oily mixtures, oil residues);

.2 means for the disposal of oil, oily mixtures or oil residues;

.3 presence of oil in the engine room bilges.

3.4 In the case of deficiencies which are considered hazardous to safety, health or the environment the port
State control officer or Authority, as appropriate, will take such action, which may include detention as may be
necessary, having regard to the factors mentioned in paragraph 3.1 of these guidelines, to ensure that the deficiency
is rectified or that the ship, if allowed to proceed to another port, does not present a clear hazard to safety, health or
the environment.

4 Control procedure under the ILO Convention No.147

4.1 Inspections on board ships under the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 (ILO
Convention No. 147) should relate to:

.1 the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138); or

the Minimum Age (Sea) Convention (Revised), 1936 (No. 58); or
the Minimum Age (Sea) Convention, 1920 (No. 7);

.2 the Medical Examination (Seafarers) Convention, 1946 (No. 73);

.3 the Prevention of Accidents (Seafarers) Convention, 1970 (No. 134) (Articles 4 and 7);

.4 the Accommodation of Crews Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 92) except for structural and
facilities modifications;

Page S6-7-2
Revision 2/2009
 Guidelines addition to Resolution A.787(19)
Section 6-7
.5 the Food and Catering (Ships' Crews) Convention, 1946 (No. 68) (Article 5);

.6 the Officers' Competency Certificates Convention, 1936 (No. 53) (Articles 3 and 4).

Inspection regarding certificates of competency is dealt with under 3.6 of resolution A.787(19). In the exercise of
control of the conventions listed in .1 to .5 above, the port State control officer will decide, on the basis of the clear
grounds found and his professional judgement, whether the ship will receive a more detailed inspection. All
complaints regarding conditions on board will be investigated thoroughly and action taken as deemed necessary. He
will also use his professional judgement to determine whether the conditions on board give rise to a hazard to the
safety or health of the crew which necessitates the rectification of conditions, and may if necessary detain the ship
until appropriate corrective action is taken.

4.2 The port State control officer, when carrying out an inspection as referred to in 4.1 of these guidelines, will
further take into account the considerations given in the ILO publication "Inspection of Labour Conditions on board
Ship: Guide-lines for procedure" contained in Section 1-4 of this Manual.

4.3 The conventions relevant in the framework of the provisions of paragraph 4.4 of these guidelines are:

.1 the Seamen's Articles of Agreement Convention, 1926 (No. 22);

.2 the Repatriation of Seamen Convention, 1926 (No. 23);

.3 the Shipowners' Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen) Convention, 1936 (No. 55); or
the Sickness Insurance (Sea) Convention, 1936 (No. 56); or
the Medical Care and Sickness Benefits Convention, 1969 (No. 130);

.4 the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87);

.5 the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98);

4.4 If the port State control officer receives a report, notification or complaint to the effect that the standards laid
down in the conventions listed in paragraph 4.3 of these guidelines are not met, the matter will be reported by the
Authority, if possible with evidence, to the flag State Administration for further action, with a copy to the ILO.

4.5 Those parts of the ILO publication "Inspection of Labour Conditions on board Ship: Guide-lines for
procedure" which deal with:

.1 control procedures for its own ships;

.2 vocational training;

.3 officers' certificates of competency;

.4 hours of work and manning;

are not considered as relevant provisions for the inspection of ships but as information to port State control officers
only.

4.6 “Excessively unsanitary condition on board the ship” is an example of “clear ground” for a more detailed
inspection.

4.7 The following are examples of deficiencies which warrant detention:

.1 insufficient food for voyage to next port;

.2 insufficient potable water for voyage to next port;

.3 excessively unsanitary conditions on board;

.4 no heating in accommodation of a ship operating in areas where temperatures may be excessively

low;

.5 excessive garbage, blockage by equipment or cargo or otherwise unsafe conditions in

passageways/accommodation.

Page S6-7-3
Revision 2/2009
 Guidelines addition to Resolution A.787(19)
Section 6-7
5 Procedure for initial and follow-up inspection

5.1 There are two types of inspections are recognized:

- Initial inspection – a visit on board a ship to check validity of the relevant certificates and other
documents and the overall condition of the vessel, its equipment, and its crew including, when
necessary, a more detailed inspection. The initial inspection is normally conducted when the
vessel is defined as eligible for PSC inspection in accordance with the criteria stipulated by 3.3 of
the Memorandum.

- Follow-up inspection – a visit on board a ship to check rectification of deficiency(ies) found during
previous initial inspection(s) of the vessel. The follow-up inspection is conducted when the vessel
has outstanding deficiency(ies) according to the APCIS records.

5.2 To decide on the inspection type the PSC officer should verify information provided in the APCIS on the
vessel in question (APCIS user guide is provided in Section 4-2 of the Manual). If the vessel has outstanding
deficiencies the follow-up inspection should be conducted as much as possible.

5.3 Only one initial inspection report should be issued for one port call of the ship.

5.4 If the vessel has outstanding deficiency(ies) and is subject to an initial inspection at the same time, the
follow-up inspection should be conducted first to check rectification of outstanding deficiency(ies).

5.5 If during a follow-up inspection a new deficiency(ies) is found the new initial inspection with separate report
should be initiated.

5.6 The initial inspection may be conducted after or simultaneously with the follow-up one.

5.7 The new initial inspection report should not reiterate deficiency(ies) already recorded in the previous initial
inspection reports.

5.8 Conducting a follow-up inspection the PSC officer should check rectification of all outstanding deficiencies
as much as possible.

5.9 Rectification is to be recorded in the paper inspection report(s) kept on the vessel by adding code 10
(deficiency rectified). This record should be confirmed by a signature of the officer against each record marked as
rectified.

6 Additional Guidance for Inspection of Unauthorized Oily Bilge Discharge Bypass

6.1 No connections/pipelines in the engine room are permitted to bypass the oil filtering equipment (OFE), the
15 ppm alarm, the 3-way-return valve or the automatic stopping device, to allow bilge or sludge to be discharged
directly overboard.

6.2 In case of any question or doubt, the PSC officer should:

.1 verify the original drawing of the piping systems; and

.2 if the original drawing is not available, carry out careful visual inspection of piping in the engine
room for evidence of tampering or modification.

Page S6-7-4
Revision 2/2009
 Guidelines addition to Resolution A.787(19)
Section 6-7

6.3 If the PSC officer suspects that there may be illegal discharge, he should check flanges, bolts, connections
and on-line connecters to the OFE. He could compare the paint colour of the pipe line in question with the paint
colour of pipe line fitted originally for evidence of painting over after disassembly and reassembly of pipes. Where
appropriate and necessary, he may request the crew to disconnect the overboard pipeline from the OFE to examine
the inner part of the pipeline for evidence of oil. Water with less than 15 ppm of oil is unlikely to heavily stain the
inner part of the pipeline with oil.

6.4 The PSC officer should also look out for a “magic pipe”, a piece of fabricated piping, which is sometimes
used to bypass the OFE.

6.5 PSC officers should not confuse the emergency bilge pumping system mentioned in SOLAS Chapter II-1
with the bilge pipeline referred to in MARPOL Annex I. The bilge discharge piping system required under SOLAS
regulation II-1/21 is for emergency situations such as flooding or fire and they should not ask the ship’s crew to blank
them off (refer to MSC-MEPC.4/Circ.3 dated 19 Dec 2008).

6.6 As an example, the following diagram shows a typical engine room bilge system.

Page S6-7-5
Revision 2/2009
 Guidelines addition to Resolution A.787(19)
Section 6-7
ENGINE ROOM BILGE SYSTEM

6.7 In the diagram below, the ballast system has a direct suction connection to the engine room bilge wells; the
ballast pump (or fire and general service pump) may be used to pump water in the bilge wells directly overboard in
an emergency situation in case of flooding or fire. The blanking of the ballast system from the bilge system, even
with the intent to prevent bypassing of the OFE, is a safety contravention of SOLAS regulation II-1/21.

Page S6-7-6
Revision 2/2009
Guidelines addition to Resolution A.787(19)
Section 6-7

Page S6-7-7
Revision 2/2009
 Guidelines for completing inspection reports
Section 6-8

GUIDELINES FOR COMPLETING INSPECTION FORMS*

1 General

When a port State control inspection is conducted, a report of inspection (Form A and B) is required to be completed
by the port State control officer to record and distribute the results of inspection. Form A of report of inspection is to
be completed for every inspection, except for follow-up inspections. Form B of report of inspection is to be
completed when deficiencies are discovered. The model forms of the report are set out in Section 2-1 of the Manual.
As a general principle, information provided in the report should be accurate, clear and simple. For the purpose of
establishing common understanding and achieving harmonization, following guidance would be of use for
completion of report of inspection by port State control officers.

It is recommended and encouraged that port State control officers would input the results of inspection conducted to
the Asia-Pacific Computerized Information System (APCIS) immediately after each visit to a ship (i.e. on a daily
basis) but not later than 5 days from the date of inspection.

2 Form A

Contact information about the reporting Authority (head office), including name, address, telephone number,
facsimile number and e-mail address, should be given at top left part, below the heading. It is preferable such
information is pre-printed in place. An indication should be given at top right part or other appropriate place to
specify to whom the copy of report is to be sent, i.e. master’s copy, head office copy, port State control officer
(PSCO) copy and etc.

Item 1 -- name of reporting authority

The name of the Authority should be given under this item. Such information could be pre-printed.

Item 2 -- name of ship

The ship’s name should be given in capital letters under this item. The name should be taken from the registration
document, or in its absence from the International Tonnage Certificate. Inclusion of text other than the name itself,
such as “M.V.” or “ex……”, should be avoided.

Item 3 -- flag of ship

The name of the State or territory whose flag the ship is flying at the moment of inspection, as listed in Section 5-1 of
the Manual, should be given in capital letter under this item. If the ship is registered in a territory not listed in Section
5-1 of the Manual, the code for the parent country should be given, instead of code 899 (other). In cases of doubt
about the correct parent country, code 899 may be used, but the name of the territory in the text form should be
given to the APCIS for verification of correct country name.

Item 4 -- type of ship

The ship’s type in accordance with categories (codes) indicated in Section 5-4 of the Manual should be given under
this item. The type to be indicated based on ship’s certificates.

Item 5 -- call sign

The ship’s call sign should be recorded under this item. And, in case that the ship’s Maritime Mobile Service Identity
(MMSI), consisting of 9 digits, is available from the ship’s certificate, both of them would be recorded.

* Last update was made in August 2009, based on decision of the Committee at its 19th meeting.
Page S6-8-1
Revision 2/2009
 Guidelines for completing inspection reports
Section 6-8
Item 6 -- IMO number

The ship’s IMO number (consisting of 7 digits) should be recorded under this item.

In accordance with 1994 Amendments of SOLAS, ships (passenger ship: 100 gross tonnage and upwards, cargo
ship: 300 gross tonnage and upwards) constructed on or after 1 January 1996 shall be provided with the IMO ship
identification number (IMO number) in their SOLAS certificates. Ships constructed before 1 January 1996 shall be
provided with IMO number when a certificate is renewed on or after 1 January 1996.

If the ship's IMO number is not available or unknown, "0000000" should be entered to the APCIS to indicate such
situation and detailed information (including first ex-name of the ship, port of registry, net tonnage, length overall,
length between perpendiculars, moulded breadth, moulded depth, date of keel laying, date of launch, date of
completion, builder, hull No., draught, number of main engines, engine type, engine manufacture, total break horse
power and number of screws) should be collected as much as possible and forwarded to the APCIS Manager to
facilitate verification of the ship's IMO number.

Item 7 -- gross tonnage

The ship’s gross tonnage, as indicated in the International Tonnage Certificate (1969), should be recorded under
this item.

Attention should be paid to that the gross tonnage indicated in the International Tonnage Certificate (1969) is not
always the same as that indicated in the other certificates such as SOLAS certificates due to interim schemes.
Guidelines for port State control under the 1969 Tonnage Convention is given in appendix 4A of IMO Resolution
A.787(19), as amended, contained in Section 1-3 of this Manual.

Item 8 -- deadweight

The ship's deadweight, as indicated in the ship's certificates, should be recorded under this item for tankers (not
otherwise specified), combination carriers, oil tankers, gas carriers and chemical tankers. For other types of ships,
recording of the deadweight is optional.

Item 9 -- year keel laid

The year when the ship’s keel was laid down, as specified in the ship’s certificates, should be recorded in yyyy
format under this item.

Item 10 -- date of inspection

The inspection date should be given in dd-mm-yyyy format under this item. The date of inspection is the date of first
visit of the port State control officer for the inspection.

Item 11 -- place of inspection

The name of place of inspection as indicated in Section 5-2 of the Manual should be given under this item.

Item 12 -- classification society

The name of the classification society under which the ship is classed should be recorded under this item. The name
and abbreviation of classification societies (RO - recognized organizations) contained in Section 5-3 of the Manual
could be used.

Page S6-8-2
Revision 2/2009
 Guidelines for completing inspection reports
Section 6-8
Item 13 -- date of release from detention

The date when the detention is lifted should be given in dd-mm-yyyy format under this item.

Item 14a -- IMO company number

The IMO company number (consisting of 7 digits) as provided in the ship’s ISM certificate should be recorded under
this item, if available.

Item 14b -- particulars of company

The company particulars should be recorded for the ships subject to the ISM Code (500 gross tonnage and above)
for every inspection and information of shipowner/operator/company for ships between 100 and 500 gross tonnage
(non-ISM ships) should also be recorded under this item based on the information provided by the master, with
counter sign by the master under item 15 in Form A.

Item 15 -- name and signature of master

The name and signature of the master are to be provided to certify that information under item 14b is correct, in case
of non-ISM ships.

Item 16 -- details of ship certificates

Port State control officers would be encouraged to record, as much as possible, information of all statutory
certificates which are required to be carried by the ship under the relevant conventions, i.e. SOLAS, Load Lines,
MARPOL and Tonnage conventions. In case of detention, information of the relevant certificate relating to the
detainable deficiencies should always be recorded. In case the recognized organization is found to be responsible
for a detainable deficiency under the relevant certificate (see Section 5-5 of the Manual), item 23 on responsible RO
in Form B should be recorded accordingly.

(a) title (column)

For the purpose of recording the certificate profile of the ship at the time of inspection the details of at least the
following certificates, as relevant to the ship type, should be given. If the vessel is detained, details of any other
relevant certificate/document relevant to the detainable deficiencies should also be given.

0112 Passenger Ship Safety Certificate

0110 Cargo Ship Safety Equipment Certificate
0111 Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate
0113 Cargo Ship Safety Radio Certificate
0114 Cargo Ship Safety Certificate
0116 Document of Compliance (DoC/ISM Code)
0117 Safety Management Certificate (SMC/ISM Code)
0120 International Load Line Certificate
0130 Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Liquefied Gases in Bulk (CoF/GC Code)
0131 International Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Liquefied Gases in Bulk (CoF/IGC Code)
0135 Minimum Safe Manning Document
0140 Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (CoF/BCH Code)
0141 International Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (CoF/IBC)
0150 International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate (IOPP)
0155 International Pollution Prevention Certificate for the Carriage of Noxious Liquid Substances in
Bulk (INLS)
0157 International Sewage Pollution Prevention Certificate
0160 International Ship Security Certificate
0165 International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate (IAPP)
Page S6-8-3
Revision 2/2009
 Guidelines for completing inspection reports
Section 6-8
0172 High Speed Craft Safety Certificate
0180 International Tonnage Certificate, 1969

For reference of port State control officers, certificates required for different types of ships are given in the table
below:

Types of ships
Certificate Passenger High speed Cargo Oil Chemical Gas
ship craft ship tanker tanker carrier
Passenger ship safety x
Cargo Ship Safety Equipment x x x x
Cargo Ship Safety Construction x x x x
Cargo Ship Safety Radio x x x x
Cargo Ship Safety1) x x x x
DOC (ISM) x x x x x x
SMC (ISM) x x x x x x
Load Line x [x]3) x x x x
IGC/GC Code x
Minimum Safe Manning x x x x x x
IBC/BCH Code x
IOPP x x x x x x
IAPP x x x x x x
NLS2) x
ISPP x x x x x x
High Speed Craft x
Ship Security x x x x x x
Tonnage x x x x x x
1) Alternative to Cargo Ship Safety Construction, Equipment and Radio Certificates.
2) Chemical tankers carrying IBC or BCH Code Certificate need not carry NLS Certificate in addition.
3) The Load Line Exemption Certificate may be issued (see MSC/Circ.652).

(b) issuing authority (column)

Under this column, the name of flag State or recognized organization issued relevant certificate should be recorded
corresponding to each certificate.

(c) date of issue and expiry (column)

Under this column, dates of issue and expiry of each certificate should be recorded in dd-mm-yyyy format.

(d) information on last intermediate or annual survey (columns)

Information on date, surveying authority and place of last intermediate or annual survey of relevant certificate should
be given in this part.

Item 17 -- deficiencies

Under this item, the port State control officer should tick the squares as appropriate. Ticking “no” square means no
deficiency discovered in the inspection. Ticking “yes” square indicates Form B is attached to show the deficiencies.

Item 18 -- ship detained

Ticking “no” or “yes” square to indicate whether the ship is detained.

Page S6-8-4
Revision 2/2009
 Guidelines for completing inspection reports
Section 6-8
Item 19 -- supporting documentation

Ticking “no” or “yes” square to indicate whether any supporting documentation is attached.

The name of issuing office, telephone number and facsimile number should be given at left bottom part of this form.
The name and signature of the port State control officer should be provided at right bottom part.

3 Form B

Items 2, 6, 10 and 11 should be provided with the same information as in Form A.

Item 20 -- number (column)

Sequential number of the deficiencies should be given under this column.

Item 21 -- code (column)

The deficiency code given in Section 5-6 of the Manual should be used under this column. Codes ending with "00"
should not be used as deficiency codes.

nature of deficiency (column)

Under this column, deficiencies should be recorded with accurate, clear and simple words. The APCIS electronic
form of inspection report should as much as possible correspond to the paper inspection report issued to the ship in
the item “nature of deficiency”.

Deficiencies under the same deficiency code will generally be recorded individually on Form B, e.g. 0620-Port
inflatable liferaft not float free and 0620-Starboard inflatable liferaft overdue for servicing. However, if deficiencies
with similar pieces of equipment are found in the same nature, the PSCO may use their professional judgment to
record those deficiencies as a single deficiency, e.g. 0620-Port and Starboard inflatable liferafts not float-free,
1275-Air pipe floats on No3 and 5 tanks defective.

Convention references (column)

The convention references should be given if the deficiency is detainable (i.e. when deficiency action code 30 is
used). Information on Convention references is provided in Section 5-8 of the Manual.

Item 22 -- action taken (column)

Actions against each deficiency should be given in the form of action code under this column. The action codes are
provided in Section 5-7 of the Manual. For procedures on practical use of action taken codes, port State control
officers should follow the Action Codes User Guide contained in Section 6-9 of the Manual.

Item 23 -- responsible RO (column)

In case of detainable deficiency, the port State control officer should decide whether the recognized organization
(RO) concerned is responsible for such deficiency based on "Guidelines for the responsibility assessment of the
recognized organization" (see Section 6-3 of the Manual) and give the code and abbreviation of the relevant RO
which is responsible for the detainable deficiency.

4 Examples

For ready reference of port State control officers, a sample of completed Form A and B is enclosed hereafter.

Page S6-8-5
Revision 2/2009
 Guidelines for completing inspection reports
Section 6-8

FORM A (example)

REPORT OF INSPECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MEMORANDUM OF

UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION 1)
(reporting authority) :Maritime Technology and Safety Bureau, Ministry of Transport, JAPAN copy to: master
(address) :2-1-3, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan head office
(telephone) :+81-3-1234-5678 PSCO
(telefax) :+81-3-1234-5678 if ship is detained, copy to:
(e-mail address) : flag State
IMO
recognized organization, if applicable

1 name of reporting authority JAPAN 2 name of ship EXAMPLE SHIP

3 flag of ship FLAG STATE 4 type of ship GENERAL CARGO 5 call sign ABCD
6 IMO number ####### 7 gross tonnage 3,000 8 deadweight (where applicable) 5,000
9 year keel laid 1986 10 date of inspection 01-01-1996 11 place of inspection KOBE, JAPAN
2)
12 classification society XYZ 13 date of release from detention
14a IMO company number 14b particulars of company

15 name and signature of master to certify that the information under 14b is correct:
name signature

16 details of ship certificates

a title b issuing authority c date of issue and expiry

1 Load Line Cert. XYZ 01-06-1994 01-06-1999

2 Cargo Ship Safety Construction Cert. XYZ 01-06-1994 01-06-1999
3 Cargo Ship Safety Equipment Cert. FLAG STATE 31-06-1994 31-06-1999
4 Cargo Ship Safety Radio Cert. FLAG STATE 01-07-1995 01-07-1996
5 IOPP Cert. XYZ 05-07-1994 05-07-1999
6 Minimum Safe Manning Document FLAG STATE 01-08-1994
7 International Tonnage Cert. FLAG STATE 01-08-1994
8
9
10
11
12

d information on last intermediate or annual survey

date surveying authority place

1 20-05-1995 XYZ SINGAPORE

2 20-05-1995 XYZ SINGAPORE
3 27-08-1995 FLAG STATE HONG KONG
4 27-08-1995 FLAG STATE HONG KONG
5 20-05-1995 XYZ SINGAPORE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

17 deficiencies no ; yes (see attached FORM B)

18 ship detained ; no yes 3)
19 supporting documentation ; no yes (see annex)

issuing office Kobe District Transport Bureau name XXXX XXXX

(duly authorized PSCO of reporting authority)
telephone +81-78-123-4567
telefax +81-78-123-4567 signature ) sign here

This report must be retained on board for period of two years and must be available for consultation by Port State Control Officers at all times.

1)
This inspection report has been issued solely for the purpose of informing the master and other port State that an inspection by the port State,
mentioned in the heading, has taken place. This inspection report cannot be construed as a seaworthiness certificate in excess of the
certificates the ship is required to carry.
2)
To be completed in the event of a detention.
3)
Masters and companies are advised that detailed information on a detention may be subject to future publication.
Page S6-8-6
Revision 2/2009
 Guidelines for completing inspection reports
Section 6-8

FORM B (example)

REPORT OF INSPECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MEMORANDUM OF

UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION
(reporting authority) :Maritime Technology and Safety Bureau, Ministry of Transport, JAPAN copy to: master
(address) :2-1-3, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan head office
(telephone) :+81-3-1234-5678 PSCO
(telefax) :+81-3-1234-5678 if ship is detained, copy to:
(e-mail address) : flag State
IMO
recognized organization, if applicable

2 name of ship EXAMPLE SHIP 6 IMO number #######

10 date of inspection 01-01-1996 11 place of inspection KOBE, JAPAN

20 number 21 code nature of deficiency 4) convention 5) 22 action taken 6) 23 responsible RO 5)

reference

1) 2035 FIRE CONTROL PLAN NOT KEPT IN GOOD 16

ORDER
2) 0650 MOB BUOYS ON BRIDGEWINGS 17, 10
CANNOT BE LAUNCHED
(RECTIFIED WHILST ON BOARD)
3) 1550 LENSES OF LIGHTS ON THE MASTHEAD 17
DIRTY/FILLED WITH WATER
4) 0611 NO BOWSING GEAR AVAILABLE FOR 16
LIFEBOATS
5) 0611 NO RETROREFLECTIVE TAPE ON 16
LIFEBOAT KEEL
6) 1710 OIL RECORD BOOK, 16
REVISED CODES NOT AVAILABLE

name XXXX XXXX

(duly authorized PSCO of reporting authority)

signature ) sign here

4)
This inspection was not a full survey and deficiencies listed may not be exhaustive. In the event of a detention, it is recommended that full
survey is carried out and all deficiencies are rectified before an application for re-inspection is made.
5)
To be completed in the event of a detention.
6)
Applicable Deficiency Action Codes (see reverse side of copy) to be entered.
Page S6-8-7
Revision 2/2009
 The Principles of Safe Manning (IMO Res. A.890(21))
Section 6-9
PRINCIPLES OF SAFE MANNING*

Adopted on 25 November 1999

Agenda item 9

THE ASSEMBLY,

RECALLING Article 15(j) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of
the Assembly in relation to regulations and guidelines concerning maritime safety and the prevention and control of
marine pollution from ships,

RECALLING ALSO Article 28(a) of that Convention which requires the Maritime Safety Committee to consider, inter
alia, the manning of seagoing ships from a safety standpoint,

NOTING that safe manning is a function of the number of qualified and experienced seafarers necessary for the
safety of the ship, crew, passengers, cargo and property and for the protection of the marine environment,

RECOGNIZING the importance of the requirements of the pertinent IMO instruments as well as those adopted by
ILO, ITU and WHO relevant to maritime safety and protection of the marine environment,

MINDFUL of the provisions of SOLAS regulation V/13 with respect to the issue of an appropriate safe manning
document or equivalent as evidence of minimum safe manning,

BEING AWARE that the ability of seafarers to maintain observance of these requirements is dependent upon their
continued efficiency through conditions relating to training, hours of work and rest, occupational safety, health and
hygiene and the proper provision of food,

BELIEVING that international acceptance of broad principles as a framework for administrations to determine the
safe manning of ships would materially enhance maritime safety and protection of the marine environment.

HAVING CONSIDERED the recommendation made by the Maritime Safety Committee at its seventy-first session,

1. ADOPTS the Principles of safe manning, the Guidelines for the application of principles of safe manning and
the Guidance on contents and model form of minimum safe manning document, set out respectively in
Annexes 1, 2 and 3 to the present resolution;

2. RECOMMENDS that Governments, in establishing the minimum safe manning levels for ships flying their
countries' flag, observe the Principles set out in Annex 1 and take into account the Guidelines set out in
Annex 2;

3. URGES Governments to ensure that minimum safe manning documents contain, as a minimum, the
information given in Annex 3;

4. URGES FURTHER Governments, when exercising port State control functions under international
conventions in force with respect to foreign ships visiting their ports, to regard compliance with such
documents as evidence that such ships are safely manned;

5. REQUESTS the Maritime Safety Committee to keep this resolution under review;

6. REVOKES resolution A.481(XII).

* The Principles of Safe Manning contained in this section is consolidated text of IMO Resolution A.890(21) as amended by Resolution
A.955(23).

Page S6-9-1
 The Principles of Safe Manning (IMO Res. A.890(21))
Section 6-9

ANNEX 1

PRINCIPLES OF SAFE MANNING

1 The following principles should be observed in determining the minimum safe manning of a ship:

.1 the capability to:

.1.1 maintain safe navigational, engineering and radio watches in accordance with regulation VIII/2 of
the 1978 STCW Convention, as amended, and also maintain general surveillance of the ship;

.1.2 moor and unmoor the ship safely;

.1.3 manage the safety functions of the ship when employed in a stationary or near-stationary mode at
sea;

.1.4 perform operations, as appropriate, for the prevention of damage to the marine environment;

.1.5 maintain the safety arrangements and the cleanliness of all accessible spaces to minimize the risk
of fire;

.1.6 provide for medical care on board ship;

.1.7 ensure safe carriage of cargo during transit;

.1.8 inspect and maintain, as appropriate, the structural integrity of the ship; and

.1.9 operate in accordance with the approved Ship’s Security Plan; and

.2 the ability to:

.2.1 operate all watertight closing arrangements and maintain them in effective condition, and also
deploy a competent damage control party;

.2.2 operate all on-board fire-fighting and emergency equipment and life-saving appliances, carry out
such maintenance of this equipment as is required to be done at sea, and muster and disembark
all persons on board; and

.2.3 operate the main propulsion and auxiliary machinery and maintain them in a safe condition to
enable the ship to overcome the foreseeable perils of the voyage.

2 In applying such principles, Administrations should take proper account of existing IMO, ILO, ITU and WHO
instruments in force which deal with:

.1 watchkeeping;

.2 hours of work or rest;

.3 safety management;

.4 certification of seafarers;

.5 training of seafarers;

Page S6-9-2
 The Principles of Safe Manning (IMO Res. A.890(21))
Section 6-9
.6 occupational health and hygiene; and

.7 crew accommodation.

3 The following on-board functions, when applicable, should also be taken into account:

.1 ongoing training requirements for all personnel, including the operation and use of fire-fighting and
emergency equipment, life-saving appliances and watertight closing arrangements;

.2 specialized training requirements for particular types of ships;

.3 provision of proper food and drinking water;

.4 need to undertake emergency duties and responsibilities; and

.5 need to provide training opportunities for entrant seafarers to allow them to gain the training and
experience needed.

Page S6-9-3
 The Principles of Safe Manning (IMO Res. A.890(21))
Section 6-9

ANNEX 2

GUIDELINES FOR THE APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES OF SAFE MANNING

1. Introduction

1.1 These guidelines should be used in applying the principles of safe manning set out in Annex 1 to this
resolution to ensure the safe operation of, and the prevention of pollution from, ships to which article III of the
1978 STCW Convention, as amended, applies and to ensure the security of ships to which chapter XI-2 of
1974 SOLAS Convention, as amended, applies.

1.2 The Administration may retain or adopt arrangements which differ from the provisions herein recommended
and which are especially adapted to technical developments and to special types of ships and trades.
However, at all times the Administration should satisfy itself that the detailed manning arrangements ensure
a degree of safety at least equivalent to that established by these guidelines.

2 Hours of work or rest

2.1 Every company is obliged to ensure that the master, officers and ratings do not work more hours than is safe
in relation to the performance of their duties and the safety of the ship. The same responsibility is placed on
the master in relation to the members of the ship's complement. Manning levels should be such as to
ensure that the time and place available for taking rest periods are appropriate for achieving a good quality of
rest. Further guidance about fitness for duty is contained in section B-VIII/1 of the STCW Code.

2.2 A record of the actual hours of work performed by the individual seafarer should be maintained on board, in
order to verify that the minimum periods of rest required under relevant and applicable international
instruments in force have been complied with.

3 Determination of minimum safe manning levels

3.1 The purpose of determining the minimum safe manning level of a ship is to ensure that its complement
includes the grades/capacities and number of persons required for the safe operation and the security of the
ship and for the protection of the marine environment.

3.2 The minimum safe manning level of a ship should be established taking into account all relevant factors,
including the following:

.1 size and type of ship;

.2 number, size and type of main propulsion units and auxiliaries;

.3 construction and equipment of the ship;

.4 method of maintenance used;

.5 cargo to be carried;

.6 frequency of port calls, length and nature of voyages to be undertaken;

.7 trading area(s), waters and operations in which the ship is involved;

.8 extent to which training activities are conducted on board;

Page S6-9-4
 The Principles of Safe Manning (IMO Res. A.890(21))
Section 6-9

.9 applicable work hour limits and/or rest requirements; and

.10 the provisions of the approved Ship’s Security Plan.

3.3 The determination of the minimum safe manning level of a ship should be based on performance of the
functions at the appropriate level(s) of responsibility, as specified in the STCW Code, which include the
following:

.1 navigation, comprising the tasks, duties and responsibilities required to:

.1 plan and conduct safe navigation;

.2 maintain a safe navigational watch in accordance with the requirements of the STCW Code;

.3 manoeuvre and handle the ship in all conditions; and

.4 moor and unmoor the ship safely;

.2 cargo handling and stowage, comprising the tasks, duties and responsibilities required to:

.1 plan, monitor and ensure safe loading, stowage, securing, care during the voyage and
unloading of cargo to be carried on the ship;

.3 operation of the ship and care for persons on board, comprising the tasks, duties and responsibilities
required to:

.1 maintain the safety and security of all persons on board and keep life-saving, fire-fighting and
other safety systems in operational condition;

.2 operate and maintain all watertight closing arrangements;

.3 perform operations, as appropriate, to muster and disembark all persons on board;

.4 perform operations, as appropriate, to ensure protection of the marine environment;

.5 provide for medical care on board the ship; and

.6 undertake administrative tasks required for the safe operation and the security of the ship;

.4 marine engineering, comprising the tasks, duties and responsibilities required to:

.1 operate and monitor the ship’s main propulsion and auxiliary machinery and evaluate the
performance of such machinery;

.2 maintain a safe engineering watch in accordance with the requirements of the STCW Code;

.3 manage and perform fuel and ballast operations; and

.4 maintain safety of the ship’s engine equipment, systems and services;

.5 electrical, electronic and control engineering, comprising the tasks, duties and responsibilities
required to:

.1 operate the ship’s electrical and electronic equipment; and

Page S6-9-5
 The Principles of Safe Manning (IMO Res. A.890(21))
Section 6-9

.2 maintain the safety of the ship’s electrical and electronic systems;

.6 radiocommunications, comprising the tasks, duties and responsibilities required to:

.1 transmit and receive information using the radio equipment of the ship;

.2 maintain a safe radio watch in accordance with the requirements of the ITU Radio Regulations
and the 1974 SOLAS Convention, as amended; and

.3 provide radio services in emergencies;

.7 maintenance and repair, comprising the tasks, duties and responsibilities required to:

.1 carry out maintenance and repair work to the ship and its machinery, equipment and systems,
as appropriate to the method of maintenance and repair used.

3.4 In addition to the factors and functions in paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3, the determination of the minimum safe
manning level should also take into account:

.1 the management of the safety functions of a ship at sea when not under way;

.2 except in ships of limited size, the provision of qualified deck officers to ensure that it is not necessary
for the master to keep regular watches by adopting a three-watch system;

.3 except in ships of limited propulsion power or operating under provisions for unattended machinery
spaces, the provision of qualified engineer officers to ensure that it is not necessary for the chief
engineer to keep regular watches by adopting a three-watch system;

.4 the maintenance of applicable occupational health and hygiene standards on board; and

.5 the provision of proper food and drinking water for all persons on board, as required.

3.5 In determining the minimum safe manning level of a ship, consideration should also be given to:

.1 the number of qualified and other personnel required to meet peak workload situations and conditions,
with due regard to the number of hours of shipboard duties and rest periods assigned to seafarers;
and

.2 the capability of the master and the ship's complement to co-ordinate the activities necessary for the
safe operation and for the security of the ship and for the protection of the marine environment.

4 Responsibilities of companies

4.1 The Administration may require the company responsible for the operation of the ship to prepare and submit
its proposal for the minimum safe manning level of a ship in accordance with a form specified by the
Administration.

4.2 In preparing a proposal for the minimum safe manning level of a ship, the company should apply the
principles, recommendations and guidelines contained in this resolution and should be required to:

.1 make an assessment of the tasks, duties and responsibilities of the ship’s complement required for its
safe operation, for its security, for protection of the marine environment, and for dealing with
emergency situations;

Page S6-9-6
 The Principles of Safe Manning (IMO Res. A.890(21))
Section 6-9

.2 make an assessment of numbers and grades/capacities in the ship’s complement required for its safe
operation, for its security, for protection of the marine environment, and for dealing with emergency
situations;

.3 prepare and submit to the Administration a proposal for the minimum safe manning level based upon
the assessment of the numbers and grades/capacities in the ship’s complement required for its safe
operation, for its security and for protection of the marine environment, justifying the proposal by
explaining how the proposed ship’s complement will deal with emergency situations, including the
evacuation of passengers, where necessary;

.4 ensure that the minimum safe manning level is adequate at all times and in all respects, including
meeting peak workload situations, conditions and requirements, and is in accordance with the
principles, recommendations and guidelines contained in this resolution; and

.5 prepare and submit to the Administration a new proposal for the minimum safe manning level of a ship
in the case of changes in trading area(s), construction, machinery, equipment or operation and
maintenance of the ship, which may affect the safe manning level.

5 Approval by the Administration

5.1 A proposal for the minimum safe manning level of a ship submitted by a company to the Administration
should be evaluated by the Administration to ensure that:

.1 the proposed ship’s complement contains the number and grades/capacities of personnel to fulfill
the tasks, duties and responsibilities required for the safe operation of the ship, for its security, for
protection of the marine environment and for dealing with emergency situations; and

.2 the master, officers and other members of the ship’s complement are not required to work more hours
than is safe in relation to the performance of their duties and the safety of the ship and that the
requirements for work and rest hours, in accordance with applicable national regulations, can be
complied with.

5.2 The Administration should require a company to amend a proposal for the minimum safe manning level of a
ship if, after evaluation of the original proposal submitted by the company, the Administration is unable to
approve the proposed composition of the ship’s complement.

5.3 The Administration should only approve a proposal for the minimum safe manning level of a ship and issue
accordingly a minimum safe manning document if it is fully satisfied that the proposed ship’s complement is
established in accordance with the principles, recommendations and guidelines contained in this resolution,
and is adequate in all respects for the safe operation and the security of the ship and for the protection of the
marine environment.

5.4 The Administration may withdraw the minimum safe manning document of a ship if the company fails to
submit a new proposal for the ship’s minimum safe manning level when changes in trading area(s),
construction, machinery, equipment or operation and maintenance of the ship have taken place which affect
the minimum safe manning level.

5.5 The Administration should review and may withdraw, as appropriate, the minimum safe manning document
of a ship which persistently fails to be in compliance with rest hours requirements.

Page S6-9-7
 The Principles of Safe Manning (IMO Res. A.890(21))
Section 6-9

ANNEX 3

GUIDANCE ON CONTENTS AND MODEL FORM OF MINIMUM SAFE MANNING DOCUMENT

1 The following information should be included in the minimum safe manning document issued by the
Administration specifying the minimum safe manning level:

.1 a clear statement of the ship's name, port of registry, distinctive number or letters, IMO number, gross
tonnage, main propulsion power, type and trading area and whether or not the machinery space is
unattended;

.2 a table showing the number and grades/capacities of the personnel required to be carried, together
with any special conditions or other remarks;

.3 a formal statement by the Administration that, in accordance with the principles and guidelines set out
in Annexes 1 and 2, the ship named in the document is considered to be safely manned if, whenever it
proceeds to sea, it carries not less than the number and grades/capacities of personnel shown in the
document, subject to any special conditions stated therein;

.4 a statement as to any limitations on the validity of the document by reference to particulars of the
individual ship and the nature of service upon which it is engaged; and

.5 the date of issue and any expiry date of the document together with a signature for and the seal of the
Administration.

2 It is recommended that the minimum safe manning document be drawn up in the form corresponding to the
model given in the appendix to this Annex. If the language used is not English, the information given should include
a translation into English.

Page S6-9-8
 The Principles of Safe Manning (IMO Res. A.890(21))
Section 6-9

APPENDIX

MODEL FORM OF MINIMUM SAFE MANNING DOCUMENT

MINIMUM SAFE MANNING DOCUMENT

(Official seal) (State)

Issued under the provisions of regulation V/13(b) of the

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA, 1974, as amended

under the authority of the Government of

…………………………………………………………………..
(name of the State)

by …………………………………………………………………..
(Administration)

Particulars of ship*

Name of ship ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Distinctive number or letters ……………………………………………………………………………………….

IMO number ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Port of registry ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Gross tonnage:

National ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

International Tonnage Convention, 1969 ……………………………………………………………………

Main propulsion power (kW) ……………………………………………………………………………………….

Type of ship ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Periodically unattended machinery space yes/no

* Alternatively the particulars of the ship may be placed horizontally.

Page S6-9-9
 The Principles of Safe Manning (IMO Res. A.890(21))
Section 6-9

Trading area**

The ship named in this document is considered to be safely manned if, when it proceeds to sea, it carries not less
than the number and grades/capacities of personnel specified in the table(s) below.

Grade/capacity Certificate (STCW regulation) Number of persons

Special requirements or conditions, if any:

Issued at ………………………… on the ………………… day of …………………………………..

(month and year)

Date of expiry (if any) …………………………………………………………………………………………….

(Seal of the Administration)

………………………………………………………….
(Signature for and on behalf of the Administration)

** Where a trading area other than unlimited is shown, a clear description or map of the trading area should be included in the
document.
Page S6-9-10
 Guidelines for PSC under MARPOL Annex VI
Section 6-10

2009 GUIDELINES FOR PORT STATE CONTROL UNDER THE REVISED MARPOL ANNEX VI*
(Resolution MEPC.181(59))

Adopted on 17 July 2009

THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE,

RECALLING Article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of
the Marine Environment Protection Committee conferred upon it by the international conventions for the prevention
and control of marine pollution,

RECALLING ALSO that MARPOL Annex VI entered into force on 19 May 2005,

RECALLING FURTHER resolution MEPC.129(53) by which the Committee adopted the Guidelines for port State
control for MARPOL Annex VI,

NOTING that the revised MARPOL Annex VI was adopted by resolution MEPC.176(58) which is expected to enter
into force on 1 July 2010,

NOTING ALSO that articles 5 and 6 of the MARPOL Convention and regulations 10 and 11 of MARPOL Annex VI
provide control procedures to be followed by a Party to the 1997 Protocol with regard to foreign ships visiting its
ports,

RECOGNIZING the need to revise the Guidelines for port State control for MARPOL Annex VI, in accordance with
provisions of the revised MARPOL Annex VI,

HAVING CONSIDERED the 2009 Guidelines for port State control under the revised MARPOL Annex VI prepared
by the Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases at its thirteenth session and reviewed by the Sub-Committee on
Flag State Implementation at its seventeenth session,

1. ADOPTS the 2009 Guidelines for port State control under the revised MARPOL Annex VI, as set out in the
Annex to the present resolution;

2. INVITES Governments, when exercising port State control for the revised MARPOL Annex VI, to apply the
revised Guidelines from 1 July 2010; and

3. AGREES that, at a later stage, the 2009 Guidelines be adopted as amendments to resolution A.787(19) on
Procedures for port State control, as amended by resolution A.882(21).

* The guidelines in this Section are the revised text adopted at MEPC59.
Page S6-10-1
Revision 1/2010
 Guidelines for PSC under MARPOL Annex VI
Section 6-10

ANNEX

2009 GUIDELINES FOR PORT STATE CONTROL UNDER THE

REVISED MARPOL ANNEX VI

Chapter 1 GENERAL

1.1 This document is intended to provide basic guidance on the conduct of port State control inspections for
compliance with MARPOL Annex VI (hereinafter referred to as “the Annex”) and afford consistency in the conduct of
these inspections, the recognition of deficiencies and the application of control procedures.

1.2 The regulations of MARPOL Annex VI contain the following compliance provisions:

.1 an IAPP Certificate is required for all ships of 400 GT or above engaged in international voyages.
Administrations may establish alternative appropriate measures to demonstrate the necessary
compliance in respect of ships under 400 GT engaged in international voyages;

.2 new installations which contain ozone depleting substances, other than

hydro-chlorofluorocarbons, are prohibited on or after 19 May 2005. Each ship which has
rechargeable systems that contain ozone depleting substances is required to maintain an Ozone
Depleting Substances Record Book;

.3 in the case of the NOX controls, Tier I emission limits are applied to all applicable marine diesel
engines over 130 kW installed on ships constructed on or after 1 January 2000 and prior to 1
January 2011.

Emission limits equivalent to Tier I may apply to marine diesel engines with a power output of
more than 5,000 kW and a per cylinder displacement at or above 90 litres installed on a ship
constructed on or after 1 January 1990 but prior to 1 January 2000 according to regulation
VI/13.7.

Tier II emission limits are applied to all applicable marine diesel engines over 130 kW installed on
ships constructed on or after 1 January 2011 and prior to 1 January 2016.

Subject to the review set forth in regulation 13.10, Tier III emission limits are applied to all
applicable marine diesel engines over 130 kW installed on ships constructed on or after 1 January
2016. However, while these ships are operating outside of an Emission Control Area* established
for NOX control, Tier II limits are applied.

Marine diesel engines which are subject to major conversion are to be certified to the required Tier
of control according to regulation VI/13.2;

.4 SOX and particulate matter control should be achieved by either:

.1 the sulphur content of any fuel oil used on board ships, subject to the provisions of
regulation VI/18.2, is required not to exceed the following limits:

.1 4.50% m/m prior to 1 January 2012;

.2 3.50% m/m on and after 1 January 2012; and

* As of DD/MM/YYYY, there is no area designated as Emission Control Area under regulation VI/13.
Page S6-10-2
Revision 1/2010
 Guidelines for PSC under MARPOL Annex VI
Section 6-10
.3 0.50% m/m on and after 1 January 2020, subject to the review set forth in
regulations VI/14.8, VI/14.9 and VI/14.10.

However, while ships are operating within an Emission Control Area established for SOX and
particulate matter control, the sulphur content of fuel oil used on board ships is required not to
exceed the following limits:

.1 1.50% m/m prior to 1 July 2010;

.2 1.00% m/m on and after 1 July 2010; and

.3 0.10% m/m on and after 1 January 2015;

or,

.2 equivalent method as approved (regulation VI/4);

.5 only those incinerators installed on or after 1 January 2000 are required to comply with the
associated requirements (appendix IV to the Annex), however, the restrictions as to which
materials may be incinerated apply to all incinerators; and

.6 a tanker carrying crude oil is required to have on board and implement a VOC management plan
approved by the Administration. Tanker vapour emission control systems are only required where
their fitting is specified by the relevant authority.

1.3 Chapters 1 (General), 4 (Contravention and detention), 5 (Reporting requirements) and 6 (Review
procedures) of the Procedures for Port State Control adopted by resolution A.787(19), as amended by resolution
A.882(21), also apply to these Guidelines.

Chapter 2 INSPECTIONS OF SHIPS REQUIRED TO CARRY THE IAPP CERTIFICATE

2.1 Initial inspections

2.1.1 On boarding and introduction to the master or responsible ship’s officer, the port State control officer
(PSCO) should examine the following documents, where applicable:

.1 the International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate (IAPP Certificate) (regulation VI/6), including
its Supplement*;

.2 the Engine International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate (EIAPP Certificate) (paragraph 2.2 of
the NOX Technical Code) including its Supplement, for each applicable marine diesel engine;

.3 the Technical File (paragraph 2.3.4 of the NOX Technical Code) for each applicable marine diesel
engine;

.4 depending on the method used for demonstrating NOX compliance for each applicable marine
diesel engine:

* Under regulation 6(2) of MARPOL Annex VI, a ship constructed before the date of entry into force of MARPOL Annex VI shall
be issued with an International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate no later than the first scheduled dry-docking after the date of
such entry into force, but in no case later than three years after this date.
Page S6-10-3
Revision 1/2010
 Guidelines for PSC under MARPOL Annex VI
Section 6-10
.1 the Record Book of Engine Parameters for each marine diesel engine (paragraph 6.2.2.7
of the NOX Technical Code) demonstrating compliance with regulation VI/13 by means of
the marine diesel engine parameter check method; or

.2 documentation relating to the simplified measurement method; or

.3 documentation related to the direct measurement and monitoring method;

.5 the Approved Method File (regulation VI/13.7);

.6 written procedures covering fuel oil change over operations where separate fuel oils are used in
order to achieve compliance (regulation VI/14.6);

.7 approved documentation relating to any installed exhaust gas cleaning systems, or equivalent
means, to reduce SOX emissions (regulation VI/4);

.8 the bunker delivery notes and associated samples or records thereof (regulation VI/18);

.9 the copy of the type approval certificate of any shipboard incinerator installed on or after 1
January 2000 (for the incinerators with capacities up to 1,500 kW) (resolutions MEPC.76(40) and
MEPC.93(45));

.10 the Ozone Depleting Substances Record Book (regulation VI/12.6);

.11 the VOC Management Plan (regulation VI/15.6); and

.12 any notification to the ship’s flag Administration issued by the master or officer in charge of the
bunker operation together with any available commercial documentation relevant to
non-compliant bunker delivery.

The PSCO should ascertain the date of ship construction and the date of installation of equipment on board which
are subject to the provisions of the Annex, in order to confirm which regulations of the Annex are applicable.

2.1.2 As a preliminary check, the IAPP Certificate’s validity should be confirmed by verifying that the Certificate
is properly completed and signed and that required surveys have been performed.

2.1.3 Through examining the Supplement to the IAPP Certificate, the PSCO may establish how the ship is
equipped for the prevention of air pollution.

2.1.4 If the certificates and documents are valid and appropriate, and the PSCO’s general impressions and
visual observations on board confirm a good standard of maintenance, the PSCO should generally confine the
inspection to reported deficiencies, if any.

2.1.5 In the case where the bunker delivery note or the representative sample as required by regulation VI/18
presented to the ship are not in compliance with the relevant requirements, the master or officer in charge of the
bunker operation should have documented that through a Notification to the ship’s flag Administration with copies to
the port Authority under whose jurisdiction the ship did not receive the required documentation pursuant to the
bunkering operation and to the bunker deliverer. A copy should be retained on board the ship, together with any
available commercial documentation, for the subsequent scrutiny of port State control.

2.1.6 If, however, the PSCO’s general impressions or observations on board give clear grounds (see
paragraph 2.1.7) for believing that the condition of the ship or its equipment do not correspond substantially with the
particulars of the certificates or the documents, the PSCO should proceed to a more detailed inspection.

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

Page S6-10-4
Revision 1/2010
 Guidelines for PSC under MARPOL Annex VI
Section 6-10

.1 evidence that certificates required by the Annex are missing or clearly invalid;

.2 evidence that documents required by the Annex are missing or clearly invalid;

.3 the absence of principal equipment or arrangements specified in the certificates or documents;

.4 the presence of equipment or arrangements not specified in the certificates or documents;

.5 evidence from the PSCO’s general impressions or observations that serious deficiencies exist in
the equipment or arrangements specified in the certificates or documents;

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

.7 evidence that the quality of fuel oil, delivered to and used on board the ship, appears to be
substandard; or

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

2.2 More detailed inspections

2.2.1 The PSCO should verify that:

.1 there are effectively implemented maintenance procedures for the equipment containing
ozone-depleting substances; and

.2 there are no deliberate emissions of ozone-depleting substances.

2.2.2 In order to verify that each installed marine diesel engine with a power output of more than 130 kW is
approved by the Administration in accordance with the NOX Technical Code and maintained appropriately, the
PSCO should pay particular attention to the following:

.1 examine such marine diesel engines to be consistent with the EIAPP Certificate and its
Supplement, Technical File and, if applicable, Record Book of Engine Parameters or Onboard
Monitoring Manual and related data;

.2 examine marine diesel engines specified in the Technical Files to verify that no unapproved
modifications, which may affect on NOX emission, have been made to the marine diesel engines;

.3 examine marine diesel engines with a power output of more than 5,000 kW and a per cylinder
displacement at or above 90 litres installed on a ship constructed on or after 1 January 1990 but
prior to 1 January 2000 to verify that they are certified, if so required, in accordance with
regulation VI/13.7;

.4 in the case of ships constructed before 1 January 2000, verify that any marine diesel engine which
has been subject to a major conversion, as defined in regulation VI/13, has been approved by the
Administration; and

.5 emergency marine diesel engines intended to be used solely in case of emergency are still in use
for this purpose.

Page S6-10-5
Revision 1/2010
 Guidelines for PSC under MARPOL Annex VI
Section 6-10
2.2.3 The PSCO should check whether the quality of fuel oil used on board the ship conforms to the provisions
of regulations VI/14 and VI/18*, taking into account appendix IV to the Annex. Furthermore, the PSCO should pay
attention to the record required in regulation VI/14.6 in order to identify the sulphur content of fuel oil used while the
ship is within an Emission Control Area under regulation VI/14.3, or that other equivalent approved means have
been applied as required.

2.2.4 If the ship is a tanker, as defined in regulation VI/2.21, the PSCO should verify that the vapour collection
system approved by the Administration, taking into account MSC/Circ.585, is installed, if required under regulation
VI/15.

2.2.5 If the ship is a tanker carrying crude oil, the PSCO should verify that there is on board an approved VOC
Management Plan.

2.2.6 The PSCO should verify that prohibited materials are not incinerated.

2.2.7 The PSCO should verify that shipboard incineration of sewage sludge or sludge oil in boilers or marine
power plants is not undertaken while the ship is inside ports, harbours or estuaries (regulation VI/16.4).

2.2.8 The PSCO should verify that the shipboard incinerator, if required by regulation VI/16.6.1, is approved by
the Administration. For these units, it should be verified that the incinerator is properly maintained, therefore the
PSCO should examine whether:

.1 the shipboard incinerator is consistent with the certificate of shipboard incinerator;

.2 the operational manual, in order to operate the shipboard incinerator within the limits provided in
appendix IV to the Annex, is provided; and

.3 the combustion chamber flue gas outlet temperature is monitored as required (regulation VI/16.9).

2.2.9 If there are clear grounds as defined in paragraph 2.1.6, the PSCO may examine operational procedures
by confirming that:

.1 the master or crew are familiar with the procedures to prevent emissions of ozone-depleting
substances;

.2 the master or crew are familiar with the proper operation and maintenance of marine diesel
engines, in accordance with their Technical Files or Approved Method file, as applicable, and with
due regard for Emission Control Areas for NOX control;

.3 the master or crew have undertaken the necessary fuel oil changeover procedures, or equivalent,
associated with demonstrating compliance within an Emission Control Area for SOX and
particulate matter control;

.4 the master or crew are familiar with the garbage screening procedure to ensure that prohibited
garbage is not incinerated;

.5 the master or crew are familiar with the operation of the shipboard incinerator, as required by
regulation VI/16.6, within the limits provided in appendix IV to the Annex, in accordance with its
operational manual;

* It should be noted that in the case where bunker delivery note or representative sample as required by regulation VI/18 are not
in compliance with the relevant requirements, the master or crew should have documented that fact. Where fuel oil supply was
undertaken in a port under the jurisdiction of a Party to the 1997 Protocol, the PSCO should report that non-compliance to the
appropriate authority responsible for the registration of fuel oil suppliers (regulation VI/18.10.1).
Page S6-10-6
Revision 1/2010
 Guidelines for PSC under MARPOL Annex VI
Section 6-10

.6 the master or crew are familiar with the regulation of emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), when the ship is in ports or terminals under the jurisdiction of a Party to the 1997 Protocol
to MARPOL 73/78 in which VOCs emissions are to be regulated, and are familiar with the proper
operation of a vapour collection system approved by the Administration (in case the ship is a
tanker as defined in regulation VI/2.21);

.7 the master or crew are familiar with the application of the VOC Management Plan, if applicable;
and

.8 the master or crew are familiar with bunker delivery procedures in respect of bunker delivery notes
and retained samples as required by regulation VI/18.

2.3 Detainable deficiencies

2.3.1 In exercising his/her functions, the PSCO should use professional judgment to determine whether to
detain the ship until any noted deficiencies are corrected or to allow it to sail with certain deficiencies which do not
pose an unreasonable threat of harm to the marine environment. In doing this, the PSCO should be guided by the
principle that the requirements contained in the Annex, with respect to the construction, equipment and operation of
the ship, are essential for the protection of the marine environment and that departure from these requirements
could constitute an unreasonable threat of harm to the marine environment.

2.3.2 In order to assist the PSCO in the use of these Guidelines, there follows a list of deficiencies, which are
considered, taking into account the provisions of regulation VI/3, to be of such a serious nature that they may
warrant the detention of the ship involved:

.1 absence of valid IAPP Certificate, EIAPP Certificates or Technical Files*;

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

.3 a marine diesel engine, with a power output of more than 5,000 kW and a per cylinder
displacement at or above 90 litres, which is installed on board a ship constructed on or after 1
January 1990 but prior to 1 January 2000, and an Approved Method for that engine has been
certified by an Administration and was commercially available, for which an Approved Method is
not installed after the first renewal survey specified in regulation VI/13.7.2;

.4 depending on the method used for demonstrating SOX compliance, the sulphur content of any fuel
oil being used on board exceeds 4.5% m/m prior to 1 January 2012, 3.50% m/m on and after a
January 2012 and 0.50% m/m on and after 1 January 20201, taking into account the provisions of
regulation VI/18.2;

.5 non-compliance with the relevant requirements while operating within an Emission Control Area
for SOX and particulate matter control;

* Under regulation 6.2 of MARPOL Annex VI, a ship constructed before the date of entry into force of MARPOL Annex VI shall
be issued with an International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate no later than the first scheduled dry-docking after the date of
such entry into force, but in no case later than three years after this date.
1
Or 2025, depending on the results of the review of regulation VI/14.1.3, as described in regulation VI/14.8.
Page S6-10-7
Revision 1/2010
 Guidelines for PSC under MARPOL Annex VI
Section 6-10
.6 an incinerator installed on board the ship on or after 1 January 2000 does not comply with
requirements contained in appendix IV to the Annex, or the standard specifications for shipboard
incinerators developed by the Organization (resolutions MEPC.76(40) and MEPC.93(45));

.7 the master or crew are not familiar with essential procedures regarding the operation of air
pollution prevention equipment as defined in paragraph 2.2.9 above.

Chapter 3 INSPECTIONS OF SHIPS OF NON-PARTIES TO THE ANNEX AND OTHER SHIPS NOT
REQUIRED TO CARRY THE IAPP CERTIFICATE

3.1 As this category of ships is not provided with the IAPP Certificate, the PSCO should judge whether the
condition of the ship and its equipment satisfies the requirements set out in the Annex. In this respect, the PSCO
should take into account that, in accordance with article 5(4) of the MARPOL Convention, no more favourable
treatment is to be given to ships of non-Parties.

3.2 In all other respects the PSCO should be guided by the procedures for ships referred to in chapter 2 and
should be satisfied that the ship and crew do not present a danger to those on board or an unreasonable threat of
harm to the marine environment.

3.3 If the ship has a form of certification other than the IAPP Certificate, the PSCO may take such
documentation into account in the evaluation of the ship.

Page S6-10-8
Revision 1/2010
 Action Taken Codes User Guide
Section 6-11

ACTION CODES USER GUIDE*

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objectives
1.2 Action code types

2 DEFICIENCY ACTION CODES

2.1 10: deficiency rectified
2.2 15: rectify deficiency at next port
2.3 16: rectify deficiency within 14 days
2.4 17: rectify deficiency before departure
2.5 18: rectify deficiency within 3 months
2.6 30: detainable deficiency
2.7 99: other (specify)

3 PSC INSPECTION ACTION CODES

3.1 40: next port informed
3.2 45: rectify detainable deficiency at next port
3.3 50: flag State/consul informed
3.4 55: flag State consulted
3.5 70: recognized organization informed
3.6 85: investigation of contravention of discharge provisions (MARPOL)

4 ACTION CODES COMBINATIONS

4.1 Table of replacement values

* The Guide was adopted by the Committee at its 8th meeting in February 2000 and modified in accordance with decision of
the Committee at its 14th meeting in November 2004 and 19th meeting in august 2009.
Page S6-11-1
Revision 2/2009
 Action Taken Codes User Guide
Section 6-11

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Objectives

This user guide provides concise and practical assistance in the use of these codes in the context of port state
control procedures and business rules in the Asia-Pacific region.

1.2 Action code types

Action codes are divided into two groups, i.e. deficiency action codes and PSC inspection action codes.

1.2.1 Deficiency action codes

Deficiency action codes describe actions that have been or are to be performed on specific deficiencies.

1.2.2 PSC Inspection action codes

PSC Inspection action codes describe actions performed by the PSCO as a result of an inspection.

1.2.3 List of action codes by type (as specified in Section 5-7)

Deficiency Action Codes

10 deficiency rectified

15 rectify deficiency at next port

16 rectify deficiency within 14 days

17 rectify deficiency before departure

18 rectify deficiency within 3 months

30 detainable deficiency

99 other (specify)

PSC Inspection Action Codes

40 next port informed

45 rectify detainable deficiency at next port

50 flag state/consul informed

55 flag state consulted

70 recognized organization informed

85 investigation of contravention of discharge provisions (MARPOL)

Page S6-11-2
Revision 2/2009
 Action Taken Codes User Guide
Section 6-11
2 DEFICIENCY ACTION CODES

Deficiency Action Codes are to be allocated against specific deficiencies.

2.1 10 : deficiency rectified

Use this code when a deficiency has been rectified.

This code is used when a PSCO has checked that a noted deficiency has been rectified. This code is used to clear
codes 15, 16, 17, 18, 30 and 99 and should not be used alone.

If during a Follow-up PSC Inspection it is noted that a deficiency has been rectified, the previous action code is to be
crossed out on the inspection report and code 10 inserted. Similarly, code 10 will be allocated against that
deficiency in the APCIS record of that follow-up visit.

2.2 15 : rectify deficiency at next port

Use this code when a deficiency cannot be rectified in the port of inspection but warrants rectification or further
examination at the next port of call.

When a deficiency is rectified, action code 15 should be updated to code 10.

2.3 16 : rectify deficiency within 14 days

Although, in principle, all deficiencies should be rectified before departure, code 16 can be used in case of a minor
deficiency, which, in the professional judgement of the PSCO, is not hazardous to safety, health, or the environment
and does not require immediate rectification.

Code 16 is to be used for deficiencies which are generally less serious than those having code 17, but which
nonetheless must be rectified.

When a deficiency is rectified, action code 16 should be replaced with a code 10.

2.4 17 : rectify deficiency before departure

Code 17 is to be used for deficiencies that are hazardous to safety, health or the environment and warrant
rectification before the ship sails. Otherwise, deficiency action code of 15, 16 or 99 should be issued.

A follow-up visit will normally be required.

If, during a follow-up PSC inspection, the PSCO finds the deficiency has been rectified, then the code 17 will be
updated to a code 10.

Depending on the severity of the defect or the extend of repair or any other condition imposed, the deficiency may
be updated to code 15, 16, or 99, in cases where the ship intends to depart without the defect being rectified.

Where the combination of a number of deficiencies each with code 17 makes a ship unseaworthy or poses a threat
to the environment then the PSCO should consider whether the ship is necessary to be detained to rectify these
defects.

It is preferable that at least one code 30 to be used whenever a ship is detained. This will help avoid legal challenges
on ships detained with code 17s only.

Page S6-11-3
Revision 2/2009
 Action Taken Codes User Guide
Section 6-11
2.5 18 : rectify deficiency within 3 months

Although, in principle, all deficiencies should be rectified before departure, code 18 can be used in case of a minor
deficiency, which, to the professional judgement of the PSCO, is not hazardous to safety, health, or environment
and does not require immediate rectification.

For minor International Safety Management-related non-conformities (ISM deficiency category 2500 series), code
18 should be used.

When a deficiency is rectified, action code 18 should be updated to code 10.

For a major ISM non-conformity which is considered to pose serious threats to personnel or ship safety, or a serious
risk to the environment, and warrants a detention to ensure immediate corrective action, action code 30 is to be
used. When the necessary remedial action has been taken, the code can be changed to either 18 or 10, as
appropriate.

2.6 30 : detainable deficiency

Use code 30 when a deficiency is serious enough to jeopardise the ship’s seaworthiness, or is an immediate threat
to the safety of crew/passengers on board, or is an unreasonable threat of harm to the environment. In this
circumstance the severity of the deficiency warrants detention of the ship to ensure rectification of the defect prior to
departure.

When deficiencies with action code 30 are rectified they should be updated to code 10.

However, depending on the extent of repair or any other condition imposed, the vessel may be released and code
30 may be updated to code 99.

Code 30 may be updated to code 99 if temporary repair or temporary substitution of equipment sufficiently corrects
a detainable deficiency so the ship is no longer deemed unseaworthy. The PSCO should indicate when full repair is
to be carried out.

2.7 99 : other (specify)

Code 99 should only be used if it is not possible to assign any other action code.

Use action code 99 when rectification of defects is deferred beyond the next port of call or for any other actions that
cannot be described appropriately by the available codes.

Code 99 should include detailed comments on the inspection report as well as on the APCIS database. These
should also include whether a follow-up inspection is required or not.

If comments detailing action are omitted, code 99 is a meaningless code. The use of code 99 should be avoided as
far as possible.

3 PSC INSPECTION ACTION CODES

PSC Inspection action codes provide an indication of actions performed by the PSCO as a result of an inspection
and are not allocated against specific deficiencies.

3.1 40 : next port informed

Use this code whenever the next port is notified of outstanding deficiencies to be rectified at that next port.

Page S6-11-4
Revision 2/2009
 Action Taken Codes User Guide
Section 6-11
If the next port is under the administration of an Asia Pacific MOU member authority, and if the ship was not
detained at the first port, then code 40 is generally not required as the next port has access to view outstanding
deficiencies on the APCIS database.

If the next port is not under the administration of an Asia Pacific MOU member authority, and if the PSCO considers
it necessary to inform the next port, then code 40 should be used.

3.2 45 : rectify detainable deficiency at next port

This code is used when a ship is allowed to sail, under detention, to another port for repair and where the extent of
the defects would still warrant detention.

The second port involved in the continuation of the detention should be a port whose administration is a member of
the Asia-Pacific MOU.

The procedures stipulated by Section 6-6 of the Manual should be followed.

Code 45 is available only if the ship has been detained and not yet released from detention.

3.3 50 : flag state/consul informed

When a ship is detained, the respective port state Authority should notify the flag state/consul. The notification
should include forms A & B of the inspection report.

If the inspection report includes detainable deficiency, then code 50 should be used.

The PSCO may inform the flag state of any inspection details, even if the ship is not detained.

3.4 55 : flag state consulted

Use this code whenever the flag State is consulted with regard to relevant deficiencies. This code can be used only
if appropriate explanations are received from Flag State.

3.5 70 : recognized organization informed

Use this code whenever the recognized organization is contacted or informed about class-related deficiency.

The recognized organization should be informed if it has issued the certificate(s) relevant to the detainable
deficiency.

The PSCO may inform a recognized organization of any inspection details even if the ship is not detained.

3.6 85 : investigation or contravention of discharge provisions (MARPOL)

This code is used whenever an investigation is conducted in accordance with Article 6 of MARPOL 73/78.

4 ACTION CODE COMBINATIONS

4.1 Table of replacement values

The following table summarises valid combinations of Deficiency Action Codes. For example, code 16 may be
cleared with a code 10.

‘Y’ in any cell indicates that the action code may be updated as indicated.

Page S6-11-5
Revision 2/2009
 Action Taken Codes User Guide
Section 6-11
A grey cell indicates an inappropriate action code combination.

To assist APCIS users, valid combinations are programmed in the system.

Table 1: Deficiency Action Code replacement values.

Deficiency
Action Code: Next available deficiency action codes:

10 15 16 17 18 30 99
10
15 Y
16 Y
17 Y Y Y Y
18 Y
30 Y Y* Y**
99 Y

* Only if the deficiency is related to the ISM Code.

** Only if the deficiency is not related to the ISM Code.

Page S6-11-6
Revision 2/2009
 Guidelines for the Detention Review Panel
Section 6-12

GUIDELINES FOR THE DETENTION REVIEW PANEL*

1. The purpose of this Guideline is to provide the standard procedure for Authorities of port States in
accordance with the Section 3.15 of the Memorandum.

2. The shipmaster should be advised to use the official national procedure if they wish to appeal against a
detention order.

3. If an owner or operator declines to use the official procedure but still wishes to complain about a detention
decision, such a complaint should be sent to the flag State or the recognized organization (acting on behalf of the
flag State).

4. The flag State or the recognized organization may then ask the port State to reconsider its decision to
detain the ship.

5. In such cases the port State should investigate the decision and inform the flag State or the recognized
organization of the outcome. If the port State agrees to reverse its decision it should also inform the Secretariat and
the APCIS Manager.

6. If the flag State or the recognized organization disagrees with the outcome, a request for review may be
sent to the Secretariat within 90 days from the date of release of the detention. Such a request should be
accompanied by all information relevant to the detention in electronic format (E-mail) and in the English language.

7. The Secretariat will set up a “Detention Review Panel” (hereafter referred to as the “Panel”) comprising of 3
Authorities chosen from the alphabetical order of Australia, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Republic of Korea,
Malaysia, New Zealand, Russian Federation and Singapore, excluding the port, flag State and the State where the
ship’s ISM company is registered (if applicable). The Secretariat, which provides the secretariat service, will also
inform the port State of the request for review by fax or E-mail (including a copy of the complaint letter) and invite the
port State to submit relevant information in electronic format (E-mail). In case the port State does not reply within 10
working days, the Panel will proceed with the review, based on the information submitted by the flag State and/or the
recognized organization.

8. The Panel will consider the procedural and technical aspects of the inspection based on the information
provided by the flag State and/or the recognized organization and the port State. The Panel members will return
their opinions per evaluation form in the Appendix in electronic format (E-mail) to the Secretariat within 10 days.
Should a Panel member require additional information, the Secretariat is to be contacted in order to ensure that all
members receive identical information. In case the opinions of the individual Panel members differ, a preliminary
summary will be circulated to the Panel members in order to reach a unanimous opinion. Further following a
preliminary summary the review panel is still not reached a unanimous opinion, the Secretariat will arrange for the
members of the panel to meet via conference call to discuss the case and come to a unanimous conclusion.

9. The Secretariat will prepare a final summary of the opinions of the Panel within 30 days of accepting the
request and will inform the flag State or the recognized organization, as appropriate, the port State and the
MOU-SWG. Copies will be sent to the Panel members. The detail of correspondence between the Panel and the
port State will be kept as an internal matter.

10. If the views of the Panel wholly support the flag State or the recognized organization’s complaint, the port
State will be requested to reconsider its detention decision again. When some of detainable deficiencies pointed out
by the port State are found by the Panel to be inappropriate, the port State will be requested to reconsider the
deficiencies accordingly.

* The amended review panel guidelines are incorporated in this Section, based on decision of the Committee at its 17th
meeting in September 2007.
Page S6-12-1
Revision 2/2007
 Guidelines for the Detention Review Panel
Section 6-12

11. The findings of the Panel are not binding but may provide justification for the port State to amend its
inspection data already inserted in the APCIS and to inform the Secretariat and the APCIS Manager accordingly.
The recommendation of the Panel could not be used as a ground for claiming a financial compensation. The
Secretariat will inform the flag State or the recognized organization, as appropriate on the action (not) taken by the
port State. Copies will be sent to the MOU-SWG and the Panel members to complete their files.

12. The Secretariat will prepare an ongoing overview for every Committee meeting about results/status of the
review.

13. The Secretariat will prepare an anonymous summary of the completed cases and publish it on the internal
web-site in order to improve harmonization of inspections.

***

Page S6-12-2
Revision 2/2007
 Guidelines for the Detention Review Panel
Section 6-12
Appendix

Tokyo MOU Detention Review Panel Evaluation Form

Review case: Received/filed on:
Between and

1. Ship Particulars
Name of ship: IMO number:
Callsign: Flag:
Ship type: Gross tonnage:
Year keel laid: Name and
location of ISM
company:
Recognized organization(s) (RO(s))
and certificate(s) related:

2. Inspection Particulars
Place of inspection: Reporting Authority:
Date of detention: Date of release:
Ground(s) for detention:

RO responsible deficiency (if any):

3. Reason(s) for requesting review

Page S6-12-3
Revision 2/2007
 Guidelines for the Detention Review Panel
Section 6-12
4. View(s) of the port State

Evaluated by:
5. OUTCOME OF REVIEW

Taking into account the Conventions and applicable IMO requirements, IMO Resolution
A.787(19) as amended and the Asia-Pacific Port State Control Manual, was the detention
order appropriate/justified?
Yes No (double click to activate the check box)
Please explain your decision (Enlarge the space as appropriate)

Should the Port State be advised to reconsider it's decision?

Yes No (double click to activate the check box)
Please indicate the reason(s) (Enlarge the space as appropriate)

Page S6-12-4
Revision 2/2007
 Code of Good Practice for PSC Officers
Section 6-13

CODE OF GOOD PRACTICE FOR PORT STATE CONTROL OFFICERS*

CONDUCTING INSPECTIONS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK
OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL
IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION (TOKYO MOU)

1 Introduction

This document provides guidelines regarding the standards of integrity, professionalism and transparency that the
Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Asia-Pacific Region (Tokyo MOU) expects of all Port
State Control Officers (PSCOs) who are involved in or associated with port State control inspections.

2 Objective

The Tokyo MOU was put in place in order to create a harmonized system of ship inspection aimed at eliminating the
operation of sub-standard foreign flag merchant ships visiting the Asia-Pacific region. Annually, over 20,000
inspections are conducted on board foreign ships in the Tokyo MOU ports, ensuring that these ships meet
international safety, security and environmental standards, and that crewmembers have adequate living and
working conditions.

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

3 Fundamental Principles of the Code

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

i) Integrity is the state of moral soundness, honesty and freedom from corrupting influences or motives.

ii) Professionalism is applying accepted professional standards of conduct and technical knowledge. For
PSCOs standards of behaviour are established by the maritime authority and the general consent of
the port State members.

iii) Transparency implies openness and accountability.

Annex 1 lists the actions and behaviour expected of PSCOs in applying these principles.

Adhering to professional standards provides greater credibility to PSCOs and places more significance on their
findings.

Nothing in the Code shall absolve the PSCO from following the Tokyo MOU guidelines and procedures and from
complying with the applicable national laws.

***

* The Code of Good Practice was adopted by the Committee at the 16th meeting in Canada in September 2006 and amended
at the 18th meeting in Indonesia in November 2008.
Page S6-13-1
Revision 2/2008
 Code of Good Practice for PSC Officers
Section 6-13
Annex 1

CODE OF GOOD PRACTICE FOR PORT STATE CONTROL OFFICERS

Actions and behaviour of PSCOs

PSCOs should:

1 Use their professional judgement in carrying out their duties;

Respect

2 Remember that a ship is a home as well as a workplace for the ship’s personnel and not unduly disturb their
rest or privacy;

3 Comply with any ship housekeeping rules such as removing dirty shoes or work clothes;

4 Not be prejudiced by the race, gender, religion or nationality of the crew when making decisions and treat
all personnel on board with respect;

5 Respect the authority of the Master or his deputy;

6 Be polite but professional and firm as required;

7 Never become threatening, abrasive or dictatorial or use language that may cause offence;

8 Expect to be treated with courtesy and respect;

Conduct of Inspection

9 Comply with all health and safety requirements of the ship and their administration e.g. wearing of personal
protective clothing, and not take any action or cause any action to be taken which could compromise the
safety of the PSCO or the ship’s crew;

10 Comply with all security requirements of the ship and wait to be escorted around the ship by a responsible
person;

11 Present their identity cards to the Master or the representative of the owner at the start of the inspection;

12 Explain the reason for the inspection – however where the inspection is triggered by a report or complaint
they must not reveal the identity of the person making the complaint;

13 Apply the procedures of PSC and the convention requirements in a consistent and professional way and
interpret them pragmatically when necessary;

14 Not try to mislead the crew, for example by asking them to do things that are contrary to the conventions;

15 Request the crew to demonstrate the functioning of equipment and operational activities, such as drills and
not make tests themselves;

16 Seek advice when they are unsure of a requirement or of their findings rather than making an uninformed
decision, for example by consulting colleagues, publications, the flag administration, the recognized
organization;

17 Where it is safe to do so accommodate the operational needs of the port and the ship;
Page S6-13-2
Revision 2/2008
 Code of Good Practice for PSC Officers
Section 6-13

18 Explain clearly to the master the findings of the inspection and the corrective action required and ensure
that the report of inspection is clearly understood;

19 Issue to the master a legible and comprehensible report of inspection before leaving the ship;

Disagreements

20 Deal with any disagreement over the conduct or findings of the inspection calmly and patiently;

21 Advise the master of the complaints procedure in place if the disagreement cannot be resolved within a
reasonable time;

22 Advise the Master of the Tokyo MOU appeal procedure as well as the national right of appeal in the case of
detention;

Impartiality

23 Be independent and not have any commercial interest in their ports and the ships they inspect or
companies providing services in their ports. For example, the PSCOs should not be employed from time to
time by companies which operate ships in their ports or the PSCOs should not have an interest in the repair
companies in their ports;

24 Be free to make decisions based on the findings of their inspections and not on any commercial
considerations of the port;

25 Always follow the rules of their administrations regarding the acceptance of gifts and favours e.g. meals on
board;

26 Firmly refuse any attempts of bribery and report any blatant cases to the maritime authority;

27 Not misuse their authority for benefit, financial or otherwise; and

Updating knowledge

28 Update their technical knowledge regularly.

Page S6-13-3
Revision 2/2008
 Interim Guidelines for Inspection of AFS on Ships
Section 6-14

INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR INSPECTION OF ANTI-FOULING SYSTEM ON SHIPS*

Guidelines for Inspection of Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships (Based on Resolution MEPC.105(49)

The right of the port State to conduct inspections of anti-fouling systems is in Article 11 of the AFS Convention (AFS
2001). Guidelines for conducting these inspections are described below.

Ships of 400 gross tonnage and above engaged in international voyages (excluding fixed or floating platforms, FSUs
and FPSOs) will be required to undergo an initial survey before the ship is put into service or before the International
Anti-fouling System Certificate is issued for the first time; and a survey when the anti-fouling systems are changed or
replaced.

Ships of 24 meters or more in length but less than 400 gross tonnage engaged in international voyages (excluding
fixed or floating platforms, FSUs and FPSOs) will have to carry a Declaration on Anti-fouling Systems signed by the
owner or authorized agent. Such Declaration shall be accompanied by appropriate documentation (such as a paint
receipt or a contractor invoice) or contain appropriate endorsement.

Differences in the interpretation of the Convention mean that some flag States could delay the issue of IAFS
certificates for up to two years from the 17 September 2008 (This interpretation of Annexes 1 and 4 of the
Convention was confirmed at IMO’s MEPC57 meeting in April 2008 - see report MEPC57/21 paragraphs
12.2-12.11)

Nevertheless the ship’s anti-fouling system must comply with the Convention requirements from 17
September 2008.

Lack of a valid certificate would not be a deficiency in itself or alone be grounds for detention.

A Statement of Compliance could be considered as providing sufficient evidence of compliance, subject to the
professional judgement of the PSCO.

PART 1 - INITIAL INSPECTION

1.1 Ships required to carry an IAFS Certificate or Declaration on Anti-Fouling System (Parties of AFS
2001)

1.1.1 The PSCO should check the validity of the IAFS Certificate or Declaration on Anti-Fouling System, and
the attached Record of Anti-Fouling Systems, if appropriate.

1.1.2 The only practical way to apply paint to the ship’s bottom (underwater part) is in a dry-dock. This means
that the date of application of paint on the IAFS Certificate should be checked by comparing the period of
dry-docking with the date on the certificate.

1.1.3 If the paint has been applied during a scheduled dry-dock period, it has to be registered in the ship’s
logbook (in order to be legal). Furthermore, this scheduled dry-docking can be verified by the endorsement date on
the (statutory) Safety Construction Certificate (required by SOLAS Regulation I/10).

1.1.4 In case of an unscheduled dry-dock period, it could be verified by the registration in the ship’s logbook (in
order to be legal).

1.1.5 It can be additionally verified by the endorsement date on the (Class) Hull Certificate, the dates on the
Manufacturer’s Declaration or by confirmation of the shipyard.

th
* The text of the interim guidelines was approved by the Committee at its 18 meeting in Indonesia in November 2008.
Page S6-14-1
Revision 2/2008
 Interim Guidelines for Inspection of AFS on Ships
Section 6-14

1.1.6 The IAFS certificate includes a series of tick-boxes indicating:

i) If an anti-fouling system controlled under Annex I of AFS 2001 has or has not been applied,
removed or been covered with a sealer coat; and

ii) if an anti-fouling system controlled under Annex I of AFS 2001 was applied on the ship prior to or
after the date specified in AFS 2001, i.e. 1 January 2003.

1.1.7 Particular attention should be given to verifying that the survey for issuing of the current IAFS certificate
matches the dry dock period listed in the ship’s log(s) and that only one tick-box is marked.

1.1.8 The Record of Anti-Fouling Systems should be attached to the IAFS Certificate and be up-to-date. The
most recent record must agree with the tick-box on the front of the IAFS Certificate.

1.2 Ships of Non-Parties to AFS 2001

1.2.1 Ships of non-Parties to AFS 2001 are not entitled to be issued with an IAFS Certificate. Therefore the
PSCO should ask for documentation that contains the same information as in an IAFS Certificate and take this into
account in determining compliance with the requirements. Resolution MEPC.102(48), paragraphs 5.2.2:

“If the existing anti-fouling system is declared not to be controlled under Annex 1of the Convention,
without being documented by an International Anti-Fouling System Certificate, a verification should
be carried out to confirm that the anti-fouling system complies with the requirements of the
Convention. This verification may be based on sampling and/or testing and/or reliable
documentation, as deemed necessary based on experience gained and the existing circumstances.
Documentation for verification could e.g. be MSDSs (Material Safety Data Sheets), or similar, a
declaration of compliance from the anti-fouling system manufacturer, invoices from the shipyard
and/or the anti-fouling system manufacturer.”

and 5.3.2:

“If the existing anti-fouling system is declared not to be controlled under Annex 1 of the
Convention, a verification should be carried out to confirm that the anti-fouling system complies
with the requirements of the Convention. This verification may be based on sampling and/or testing
and/or reliable documentation, as deemed necessary based on experience gained and the existing
circumstances. Such documentation could be MSDSs or similar, a declaration of compliance from
the anti-fouling system manufacturer, invoices from the shipyard and/or the anti-fouling system
manufacturer. If this information raises no reasonable doubt that the system applied is compliant
with Annex 1 of the Convention, the International Anti-fouling System Certificate may be issued on
this basis.”

1.2.2 In all other aspects the PSCO should be guided by the procedures for ships required to carry an IAFS
Certificate.

1.2.3 The PSCO should ensure that no more favourable treatment is applied to ships of non-Parties to AFS
2001.

PART 2 - MORE DETAILED INSPECTION

2.1 A more detailed inspection may be carried when there has been found clear grounds to believe that the
ship does not substantially meet the requirements of the AFS Convention. Clear grounds for a more detailed
inspection may be when:

.1 the ship is from a flag of a non-party to the convention and there is no AFS documentation;
Page S6-14-2
Revision 2/2008
 Interim Guidelines for Inspection of AFS on Ships
Section 6-14

.2 the ship is from a flag of a party to the convention but there is no valid IAFS Certificate (Note: see
also guidance highlighted on page 1);

.3 the painting date shown on the IAFS Certificate does not match the dry dock period of the ship;

.4 the ship’s hull shows excessive patches of different paints; and

.5 the IAFS Certificate is not properly completed.

2.2 If the IAFS Certificate is not properly completed the following questions may be pertinent:

.1 "When was the ship’s anti-fouling system last applied?”;

.2 "If the anti-fouling system is controlled under Annex 1 to AFS 2001 and was removed, what was the
name of the facility and date of the work performed?";

.3 "If the anti-fouling system is controlled under Annex 1 of AFS 2001 and has been covered by a
sealer coat, what was the name of the facility and date applied?";

.4 "What is the name of the anti-fouling/sealer products and the manufacturer or distributor for the
existing anti-fouling system?” and

.5 "If the current anti-fouling system was changed from the previous system, what was the type of
anti-fouling system and name of the previous manufacturer or distributor?”

2.3 SAMPLING

2.3.1 A more detailed inspection may include sampling and analysis of the ship’s anti-fouling system if
necessary to establish whether or not the ship complies with the AFS Convention. Such sampling and analysis may
involve the use of laboratories and detailed scientific testing procedures.

2.3.2 If sampling is carried out, the time to process the samples cannot be used as a reason to delay the ship.

2.3.3 Any decision to carry out sampling must be subject to practical feasibility or to constraints relating to the
safety of persons, the ship or the port.

See Annex 1 for sampling procedures.

2.4 Action taken under the AFS Convention

Detention

2.4.1 The Authority could decide to detain the ship following detection of deficiencies during an inspection on
board.

2.4.2 Detention could be appropriate in any of the following cases:

.1 certification is invalid or missing;

.2 the ship admits it does not comply (thereby removing the need to prove by sampling); and

.3 sampling proves it is non-compliant within the ports jurisdiction.

Page S6-14-3
Revision 2/2008
 Interim Guidelines for Inspection of AFS on Ships
Section 6-14
2.4.3 Further action would depend on whether the problem is with the certification or the AFS itself (see below).
If there are no facilities in the port of detention to bring the ship into compliance the Authority could use the
provisions of Section 3.8 of the Memorandum to allow the ship to sail to another port to bring the AFS into
compliance. This would require an agreement of that port.

Dismissal

2.4.4 The Authority could dismiss the ship, meaning that the Authority demands that the ship leaves port – for
example if the ship chooses not to bring the AFS into compliance but the Authority is concerned that the ship is
leaching TBTs into its waters.

2.4.5 Appropriate if the ship admits it does not comply or sampling proves it is non-compliant while the ship is
still in port. Since this would also be a detainable deficiency the PSCO can detain first and require rectification
before release. However, there may not be available facilities for rectification in the port of detention. In this case the
Authority could use the provisions of Section 3.8 of the Memorandum to allow the ship to sail to another port to bring
the AFS into compliance. This could require agreement of that port. However an Authority which has dismissed a
ship because of AFS non-compliance should write a ship related message in APCIS, so that other Authorities can
decide whether to target the ship and/or require the ship to provide evidence before entry that it now complies.

2.4.6 Dismissal could be appropriate in any of the following cases:

.1 certification is invalid or missing;

.2 the ship admits it does not comply (thereby removing the need to collect proof by sampling); and

.3 sampling proves that the ship is non-compliant with within the ports jurisdiction.

2.4.7 In these cases the ship will probably already have been detained. However, detention does force the ship
to bring the AFS into compliance (only if it wants to depart). In such a situation the Authority may be concerned that
the ship is leaching TBTs while it remains in its waters.

2.4.8 An Authority which has dismissed a ship because of AFS con-compliance should write a ship related
message into APCIS, so that other Authorities can decide whether to target the ship and/or require the ship to
provide evidence before entry that it now complies.

Exclusion

2.4.9 The Authority could decide to exclude the ship to prevent it entering its waters. Exclusion could be
appropriate if sampling proves that the ship is non compliant but the results have been obtained after it has sailed or
after it has been dismissed.

2.4.10 Appropriate if sampling proves that the ship is non-compliant but the results have been obtained after it
has sailed or after it has been dismissed. Article 11(3) of the AFS convention only mentions that the “party carrying
out the inspection” may take such steps. This means that if an Authority excludes a ship the exclusion cannot be
automatically applied by other Authorities. However an Authority which has excluded a ship because of AFS
non-compliance should write a ship related message in APCIS, so that other Authorities can decide whether to
target the ship and/or require the ship to provide evidence before entry that it now complies. The practical effect of
one Authority excluding a ship could be that the ship does not attempt to enter another port in the region fearing
further detention, dismissal or exclusions.

Reporting to flag State

2.4.11 Article 11(3) of AFS 2001 requires that when a ship is detained, dismissed or excluded from a port for
violation of the Convention, the Party taking such action shall immediately inform the flag Administration of the ship
and any recognized organization which has issued a relevant certificate.
Page S6-14-4
Revision 2/2008
 Interim Guidelines for Inspection of AFS on Ships
Section 6-14

PART 3 – AFS REPORT TO FLAG STATE IN RESPONSE TO ALLEGED CONTRAVENTIONS

3.1 Article 11(4) of AFS 2001 allows Parties to inspect ships on the request of another Party, if sufficient
evidence that the ship is operating or has operated in violation of the Convention is provided. Article 12(2) permits
port States conducting the inspection to send the Administration (flag State) of the ship concerned any information
and evidence it has that a violation has occurred. Information sent to the flag State is often inadequate for a
prosecution. The following details the sort of information which is needed.

3.2 The report to the authorities of the coastal or port State should include as much as possible of the
information listed in part 2. The information in the report should be supported by facts which, when considered as a
whole, would lead the port or coastal State to believe a contravention had occurred.

3.3 The report should be supplemented by documents such as:

.1 the port State report on deficiencies

.2 a statement by the PSCO, including his rank and organization, about the suspected non-conforming
anti-fouling system. In addition to the information required in part 2, the statement should include the
grounds the PSCO had for carrying out a more detailed inspection;

.3 a statement about any sampling of the anti-fouling system including:

.1 the ship’s location

.2 where the sample was taken from the hull, including the vertical distance from the boot
topping,
.3 the time of sampling
.4 person(s) taking the samples
.5 receipts identifying the persons having custody and receiving transfer of the samples

.4 reports of the analyses of any samples including:

.1 the results of the analyses

.2 the method employed
.3 reference to or copies of scientific documentation attesting the accuracy and validity of the
method employed
.4 the names of persons performing the analyses and their experience
.5 a description of the quality assurance measures of the analyses;

.5 statements of persons questioned

.6 statements of witnesses

.7 photographs of the hull and sample areas

.8 a copy of the IAFS Certificate, including copies of relevant pages of the Record of Anti-fouling
Systems, log books, MSDS or similar, declaration of compliance from the anti-fouling system
manufacturer, invoices from the shipyard and other dry dock records pertaining to the anti-fouling
system.

3.4 All observations, photographs and documentation should be supported by a signed verification of their
authenticity. All certifications, authentications or verifications should be in accordance with the laws of the State
preparing them. All statements should be signed and dated by the person making them, with their name printed
clearly above or below the signature.

Page S6-14-5
Revision 2/2008
 Interim Guidelines for Inspection of AFS on Ships
Section 6-14
3.5 The reports referred to under paragraphs 2 and 3 of this part should be sent to the flag State. If the
coastal State observing the contravention and the port State carrying out the investigation on board are not the
same, the port State carrying out the investigation should also send a copy of its findings to the coastal State.

Page S6-14-6
Revision 2/2008
 Interim Guidelines for Inspection of AFS on Ships
Section 6-14

Annex 1

SAMPLING

Considerations related to brief sampling may be found in Sub-part 2.1 of RESOLUTION MEPC.105(49).

Any obligation to take a sample must be subject to practical feasibility or to constraints relating to the safety of
persons, the ship or the port.

The PSCO should consider the following:

− Liaise with the ship on the location and time needed to take samples; the inspector should verify that the time
required will not unduly prevent the loading/unloading, movement or departure of the ship.

− Do not expect the ship to arrange safe access but liaise with the ship over the arrangements that the
Authority has made, for example boat, cherry-picker, staging, etc.

− Select sampling points covering representative areas

− Take photographs of the hull, sample areas and sampling process.

− Avoid making judgements on the quality of the paint (e.g. surface, condition, thickness, application).

− The need of inviting the ship representative’s presence during brief sampling to ensure that the evidence is
legally obtained.

− Complete and sign the inspection report form together with the included sampling record sheets (to be filled
in by the sampler), as far as possible, and leave a copy with the ship as a proof of inspection/sampling.

− Informing the next Authority where the inspected ship is to call.

− Agree with or advise the ship on to whom the ship’s copy of the finalized inspection report will be sent in
cases when it can not be completed in the course of the inspection.

Ensure that receipts identifying the persons having custody and receiving transfer of the samples accompany the
samples are filled in to reflect the transfer chain of the samples. PSCOs are reminded that the procedures set in
national legislation regarding custody of evidence are not affected by the regulation. These guidelines therefore do
not address this issue in detail.

1. Sampling methodologies

It is to the discretion of the Authority to choose the sampling methodology. The guidelines to the Convention allow
that any other scientifically recognized method of sampling and analysis of AFS controlled by the Convention than
those described in the appendix to the Guidelines may be used (subject to the satisfaction of the Administration or
the port State). The sampling methodology will depend, inter alia, on the surface hardness of the paint, which may
vary considerably. The amount of paint mass removed may vary correspondingly.

Sampling procedures based on the removal of paint material from the hull require the determination of paint mass. It
is important that procedures used are validated, produce unambiguous results and contain an adequate control.

The Authority can decide to contract specialist companies to carry out sampling. In this case the PSCO should
attend the ship during the sampling procedure to ensure the liaison and arrangements mentioned above are in
place.

Page S6-14-7
Revision 2/2008
 Interim Guidelines for Inspection of AFS on Ships
Section 6-14
If a specialist company is not used the Authority should provide appropriate training to the PSCO in the available
sampling methods and procedures and ensure that agreed procedures are followed.

The following general terms should be observed:

− The PSCO should choose a number of sample points preferably covering all the representative areas of the
hull, but it is desirable to have at least eight (8) sample points equally spaced down and over the length of the
hull, if possible divided over PS and SB (keeping in mind that different parts of the hull may be treated with
different anti-fouling systems).

− Triplicate specimens of paint at each sampling point should be taken in close proximity to each other on the
hull (e.g. within 10 cm of each other).

− Contamination of the samples should be avoided, which normally includes the wearing of non-sterilized
non-powdered disposable gloves of suitable impervious material – e.g. nitrile rubber.

− The samples should be collected and stored in an inert container (e.g. containers should not consist of
materials containing organotins or have the capacity to absorb organotins).

− Samples should be taken from an area where the surface of the anti-fouling system is intact, clean and free
of fouling.

− Loose paint chips coming from detached, peeled or blistered hull areas should not be used for sampling.

− Samples should not be taken from a heated or area where the paint is otherwise softened (e.g. heavy fuel
tanks).

− The underlying layers (primers, sealers, TBT containing AFS) should not be sampled if there is no clear
evidence of exposure of extended areas.

2. Validity of the sampling

In order to safeguard the validity of the sampling as evidence of non-compliance the following should be considered:

− Only samples taken directly from the hull and free of possible contamination should be used.

− All samples should be stored in containers, marked and annotated on the record sheet. This record sheet
must be submitted to the Administration.

− The receipts identifying the persons having custody and receiving transfer of the samples should be filled in
and accompany the samples to reflect the transfer chain of the samples.

− The PSCO should verify the validity of the instrument’s calibration validity date (according to the
manufacturer instruction).

− In cases when a contracted specialist company is used for carrying out sampling, the inspector should
accompany its representative to verify sampling.

− Photographs of the hull, sample areas and sampling process could serve as additional proof.

It is also the case that sampling companies and/or procedures can be certified.

3. Health and safety when sampling

Page S6-14-8
Revision 2/2008
 Interim Guidelines for Inspection of AFS on Ships
Section 6-14
Any obligation to take a sample must be subject to practical feasibility or any constraints relating to the safety of
persons, the ship or the port.

The PSCO is advised to ensure his safety taking the following points into account:

− General requirements enforced by the terminal or port authority and national health, safety and
environmental policy.

− Condition of the ship (ballast condition, ship’s operations, mooring, anchorage, etc...)

− Surroundings (position of ship, traffic, ships movement, quay operations, barges or other floating vessels
alongside)

− Safety measures for the use of access equipment (platforms, cherry picker, staging, ladders, railings,
climbing harness, etc...) e.g. ISO 18001.

− Weather (sea state, wind, rain, temperature, etc...)

− Precautions to avoid falling into the water between the quay and the ship. If in doubt a lifejacket and if
possible a safety line, should be worn when sampling.

Any adverse situation encountered during sampling that could endanger the safety of personnel, shall be reported to
the safety coordinator.

Care should be taken to avoid contact of the removed paint with the skin, the eyes, and no particles should be
swallowed or come into contact with foodstuffs. Eating or drinking during sampling is prohibited and hands must be
cleaned afterwards. Persons carrying out sampling should be aware that the AFS and solvents or other materials
used for sampling may be harmful and appropriate precautions should be taken. Personal protection should be
considered (long sleeve solvent resistant gloves, dust mask, safety glasses, etc...)

Standard (and specific, if applicable) laboratory safety procedures must be followed at all times when undertaking
the sampling procedures and subsequent analysis.

4. Conducting analyses

The IMO resolution envisages a two-stage analysis of samples for both methods presented in the appendix to the
Guidelines. The first stage is a basic test which can be carried out on site in case of the Method 2. The second stage
is carried out when the first stage results are positive. It is noted that in the IMO Guidelines, these stages are
referred to as Steps 1 and 2 in case of Method 1. It is to the discretion of the Authority to choose which analysis
methods are used.

Following points are presented for Authorities consideration below:

− Approval procedure for the recognition of laboratories meeting ISO 17025 standards or other appropriate
facilities should be set up by the Authorities following point 4.10 of the Guidelines. These procedures should
define the recognition criteria. Exchange of information between Authorities on these procedures, criteria and
laboratories/facilities would be beneficial i.e. for the purposes of exchange of best practices and possible
cross-border recognition and provision of services.

− The company who undertakes the analysis and/or samples should comply with national regulations and be
independent from paint manufacturers.

− The PSCO carrying out the AFS inspection of a ship should verify the validity of the ISO 17025 certificate
and/or the recognition of the laboratory.

Page S6-14-9
Revision 2/2008
 Interim Guidelines for Inspection of AFS on Ships
Section 6-14
− If more time is needed for analysis than available considering the ship’s scheduled time of departure, the
PSCO shall inform the ship and report the situation to the MS competent authority. However the time needed
for analysis does not warrant undue delay of the ship.

− PSCOs should ensure completion of the record sheets for the sampling procedure as proof of analysis. In
cases when the laboratory procedures prescribe presentation of the analyses’ results in a different format,
this technical report could be added to the record sheets.

5. The first-stage analysis

The first stage analysis serves to detect the total amount of tin in the AFS applied.

It is to the discretion of the Authority to choose the first-stage analysis methodology. However the use of a portable
X-ray fluorescence analyzer (mentioned under Method 2) or any other scientifically justified method allowing the
conduction of first-stage analyses on-site could be considered best practice.

The Authority has to decide whether the first-stage analysis should be carried out by PSCOs or by contracted
companies.

The Authority could provide PSCOs with this equipment (e.g. portable X-ray fluorescence analyzer) and provide the
appropriate training.

6. The second-stage analysis

The second-stage (final) analysis is used to verify whether or not the AFS system complies with the Convention
requirements i.e. whether organotin compounds are present in the AFS at a level which would act as a biocide.

The Authority could consider implementing only a second-stage analysis.

It is to the discretion of the Authority to choose the second-stage analysis methodology. In this respect it is hereby
noted that the second-stage analyses methodology for sampling Method 2 provided in the Guidelines is only
tentative and “should be thoroughly reviewed by experts based on scientific evidence” (point 5.1 of Method 2).

7. Conclusions on compliance

The Authority should only make conclusions on compliance based on the second stage (organotin) analysis of the
sample. In case the results indicate non-compliance at that stage, there are clear grounds to take further steps.

If considered necessary, more thorough sampling can be also carried out in addition or instead of brief sampling.

Sampling results should be communicated as soon as possible to the vessel (as part of the inspection report) and in
the case of non-compliance also to the flag State and Recognized Organization acting on behalf of the flag State if
relevant.

Authorities should, in accordance with point 5.2 of the Guidelines, develop and adopt procedures to be followed for
those cases where compliance with acceptable limits, or lack thereof, is unclear, considering additional sampling or
other methodologies for sampling.

Page S6-14-10
Revision 2/2008
 Interim Guidelines for Inspection of AFS on Ships
Section 6-14

FORM S/1

REPORT OF INSPECTION of a ship’s anti-fouling system (AFS)

SHIP PARTICULARS

1. Name of ship : 2. IMO number :

3. Type of ship : 4. Call sign :

5. Flag of ship : 6. Gross tonnage :

7. Date keel laid / major conversion commenced :

INSPECTION PARTICULARS

8. Date & time :

9. Name of facility:
(dry-dock, quay,
location )
Place & country:

10. Areas inspected Ship’s logbook Certificates Ship’s hull

11. Relevant certificate(s)

a title b issuing authority c dates of issue

1. IAFS Cert.

2. Record of AFS

3. Declaration of AFS

4.

12. Dry-dock period AFS applied :

13. Name of facility AFS applied :

14. Place & country AFS applied :

15. AFS samples taken : No Yes Nature of sampling : Brief Extent

16. Reason for sampling of AFS:

17. Record sheet attached :

(country-code / IMO number /
dd-mm-yy)

18. Copy to: PSCO Flag state Recognized Organization

Head office Master Other:

Page S6-14-11
Revision 2/2008
 Interim Guidelines for Inspection of AFS on Ships
Section 6-14
PORT STATE PARTICULARS

Reporting authority: District office:

Address:

Telephone/ Fax/ Mobile:

E-mail:

Name:
(duly authorized PSCO of reporting
authority)

Date: Signature:

Page S6-14-12
Revision 2/2008
 Interim Guidelines for Inspection of AFS on Ships
Section 6-14

FORM S/2

Record sheet for the sampling procedure for compliance with the convention in terms of the presence of
organotin acting as a biocide in anti-fouling systems on ship hulls (res. MEPC. 104(49))

(country-code / IMO number / dd-mm-yy)

RECORD NUMBER

Name of ship : IMO number :

SAMPLING PARTICULARS

1. Date & time initiated: 2. Date & time completed:

3. Name of paint manufacturer:

4. AFS product name & colour:

5. Reason for Sampling: Port State Control Survey & Certification Other flag State
Compliance inspection

6. Sampling Method:

7. Hull areas sampled: Port Side Starboard Side Bottom

Number of sampling points:

8. Back-up samples’ storage location:

(eg.Port State inspection office )

9. Photos taken of the sample points Comments:

10. Paint samples (wet) Comments:

11. First stage analysis Comments:

12. Second stage analysis Comments:

13. Comments concerning sampling procedure

14. Sampling company Name

Date

Signature

Page S6-14-13
Revision 2/2008
 Interim Guidelines for Inspection of AFS on Ships
Section 6-14

PORT STATE PARTICULARS

Reporting authority: District office:

Address:

Telephone/ Fax/ Mobile:

E-mail:

Name:
(duly authorized PSCO of reporting
authority)

Date: Signature:

Page S6-14-14
Revision 2/2008
 Interim Guidelines for Inspection of AFS on Ships
Section 6-14

FORM S/3
RECORD NUMBER

Name of ship: IMO number:

METHOD 1 ANALYSIS

1. Instrument I.D. : Calibration Expire Date :

2. Specimens “A” results total number of specimens “A” analysed:

3. No. Sample location mg Sn/ kg No. Sample location mg Sn/ kg

(Frame& distance from boot (Frame& distance from boot
topping) topping)

1 9
2 10
3 11
4 12
5 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
4. Results
Number of specimens exceeding 2,500 mg/kg: Step 2 required

1 ore more specimens exceeding 3,000 mg/kg Yes Compliance, NO further

No analysis

5. Additional comments concerning analysis of results from Specimens “A”

6. Company Name

Date

Signature

7. Instrument I.D.: Calibration Expire Date:

Page S6-14-15
Revision 2/2008
 Interim Guidelines for Inspection of AFS on Ships
Section 6-14
8. Specimens “B” results total number of specimens “B” analysed :

9. No. organotin No. organotin No. organotin No. organotin

(mg Sn/ kg) as Sn (mg Sn/ kg) as Sn (mg Sn/ kg) as Sn (mg Sn/ kg) as Sn

1 5 9 13
2 6 10 14
3 7 11 15
4 8 12 16
10. Results
Number of specimens exceeding 2,500 mg/kg: Non- compliance assumed

1 ore more specimens exceeding 3,000 mg/kg Yes No Compliance assumed

11. Additional comments concerning analysis of results from Specimens “B”

12. Company Name

Date

Signature

Page S6-14-16
Revision 2/2008
 Interim Guidelines for Inspection of AFS on Ships
Section 6-14

FORM S/4

RECORD NUMBER

Name of ship : IMO number :

METHOD 2 FIRST-STAGE ANALYSIS

1. Instrument I.D.: Calibration Expire Date:

2. Sample location Specimen Sample Disc Content of max min Average

Tin
(Frame& distance from I.D. (mg/ kg)
boot topping)
A A1 abrasive
A2 metal
A3 others Average
A4 abrasive
A5 metal mg/kg
A6 others >2,500 mg/kg
A7 abrasive >3,000 mg/kg
A8 metal
A9 others
B B1 abrasive
B2 metal
B3 others Average
B4 abrasive
B5 metal mg/kg
B6 others >2,500 mg/kg
B7 abrasive >3,000 mg/kg
B8 metal
B9 others
C C1 abrasive
C2 metal
C3 others Average
C4 abrasive
C5 metal mg/kg
C6 others >2,500 mg/kg
C7 abrasive >3,000 mg/kg
C8 metal
C9 others
D D1 abrasive
D2 metal
D3 others Average
D4 abrasive
D5 metal mg/kg
D6 others >2,500 mg/kg
D7 abrasive >3,000 mg/kg
D8 metal
D9 others

Page S6-14-17
Revision 2/2008
 Interim Guidelines for Inspection of AFS on Ships
Section 6-14
3. Results
First-Stage Analysis samples out of are above 2,500 mg/kg Compliant

Sample(s) is (are) above 3,000 mg/kg Second-stage required

4. Comments

5. Company Name

Date

Signature

Page S6-14-18
Revision 2/2008
 Interim Guidelines for Inspection of AFS on Ships
Section 6-14

FORM S/5
RECORD NUMBER

Name of ship : IMO number :

METHOD 2 SECOND-STAGE ANALYSIS

1. Instrument ID: Calibration Expire Date :

2. Specimen used Content of Tin Content of Tin Compliance

First-Stage (XRF Analysis) Second-Stage (as organotin)
(Specimen I.D.) (mg Sn / kg) (mg Sn / kg)
A
>2,500mg/kg
>3,000mg/kg
B
>2,500mg/kg
>3,000mg/kg
C
>2,500mg/kg
>3,000mg/kg
D
>2,500mg/kg
>3,000mg/kg

3. Results
Second-Stage
samples out of are above 2,500mg (Sn)/kg Compliant
Analysis (dry paint)

NOT Compliant
Sample(s) is (are) above 3,000mg(Sn)/kg (dry paint)
4. Comments

5. Laboratory Name

Date

Signature

Page S6-14-19
Revision 2/2008
 Interim Guidelines for Inspection of AFS on Ships
Section 6-14

PORT STATE PARTICULARS

Reporting authority: District office:

Address:

Telephone/ Fax/ Mobile:

E-mail:

Name:
(duly authorized PSCO of reporting
authority)

Date: Signature:

Page S6-14-20
Revision 2/2008
 Interim Guidelines for Inspection of AFS on Ships
Section 6-14

Annex 2

AFS INSPECTION PROCESS

Initial Inspection
Inspection of IAFS
Certificate/
Declaration

Clear grounds for NO

Stop
non-compliance

Y
E
S
More Detailed Inspection
Additional Additional Sampling of
documentation and/or verification of and/or AFS
AFS

NO
Violation? Stop

Y
E
S

Warn, detain, Document violation

dismiss, exclude and transmit report to
Administration and/or
next port

Page S6-14-21
Revision 2/2008
 Guidance on Checking for Compliance with LRIT
Section 6-15

GUIDANCE FOR PORT STATE CONTROL OFFICERS ON CHECKING

FOR COMPLIANCE WITH LONG RANGE IDENTIFICATION AND TRACKING*

I PURPOSE

1. This document is intended to provide basic guidance to PSCOs to verify compliance with the requirements of
SOLAS for Long Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT).

II APPLICATION

2. LRIT equipment is implemented through SOLAS Ch. V/19-1, and MSC Res 263(84) requires passenger ships,
cargo ships (including high speed craft) over 300 GT, and Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU), to send LRIT
position information at least every 6 hours. Ships fitted with Automatic Identification System (AIS) and operated
exclusively within sea area A1 are not required to comply with LRIT. Sea area A1 is defined by SOLAS Ch. IV/
2.1.12 as “an area within the radiotelephone coverage of at least one VHF coast station in which continuous
DSC alerting is available, as may be defined by a Contracting Government”. Ships constructed before 31
December 2008 must be fitted with LRIT equipment no later than the first radio inspection after 31 December
2008.

3. Flag States are expected to establish an LRIT Data Centre, either on a national basis, or on a regional or
cooperative basis with other flag States, and notify the IMO of it. In turn, these National Data Centres will
forward the LRIT data from ships entitled to fly their flag, to the International LRIT Data Exchange. When foreign
ships are not transmitting LRIT information there should be procedures to advise the port State in accordance
with paragraph 2.6.7 of IMO Resolution 787(19), as amended.

4. In most cases a stand-alone Inmarsat C or Inmarsat Mini-C terminal used for GMDSS or Ship Security Alert
System will function as the LRIT terminal, but other equipment may be employed for the LRIT function (example
Inmarsat D+ or Iridium).

III INSPECTION OF SHIPS REQUIRED TO CARRY LRIT

1 Initial inspection

5. The PSCO should first establish the sea area the ship is certified to operate in. This verification shall ensure that
the ship is subject to the LRIT regulation in relation to its ship type and tonnage.

6. After the certificate check, the PSCO shall verify that:

a) the Record of Equipment (Form E, P or C) has LRIT checked as required1;

b) a Statement of Conformity/ Conformance Test Report (see MSC.1/Circ.1307) is onboard; and

th
* The text of the guidance was approved by the Committee at its 20 meeting in Viet Nam in June 2010.
1
PSCOs should note that for vessels between 300 and 500 GT a Safety Equipment Certificate may not be available to reflect the
status of any LRIT installation. In such cases, the PSCO should ask the master to provide some form of evidence to indicate
compliance with the SOLAS LRIT requirements.
Page S6-15-1
Revision 1/2010
 Guidance on Checking for Compliance with LRIT
Section 6-15
c) the equipment identified by the ship’s representative as the designated LRIT terminal is switched on
and operational, noting that in exceptional circumstances and for the shortest duration possible, LRIT
shall be capable of being switched off or may transmit less frequently. In such cases, the PSCO should
inspect the “record of navigational activities” log to establish if and when the installation has been
switched off and if this has been reported to the flag administration (SOLAS Ch. V/19-1.7.2 and MSC
Res.263 (84) para 4.4.1). If considered appropriate, the PSCO may contact the flag state to establish
why this has occurred.

7. In case of a recent transfer of flag the PSCO may further ensure that:

a) A Conformance test report has been re-issued if the new flag State does not recognise the issuing
body of the existing conformance test report; or

b) A new Conformance test has been carried out by the Application Service Provider (ASP) on behalf of
the administration before issuance of a new test report and radio certificate.

8. PSCOs are reminded that a flag State may issue a short term Safety Equipment Certificate. This could happen
if, following a successful inspection for the issuance of a Conformity Test report, the ASP has not been able to
issue a document, or if the ASP is not able to perform a conformance test in due time upon request of the ship
owner.

2 More detailed inspection

9. In case of doubt or reports of malfunctioning of the LRIT installation the flag administration may be contacted to
determine if the ship’s LRIT information has been reliably relayed to the LRIT Data Centre.

10. Equipment used for the purpose of transmitting LRIT data, shall comply with the performance standards and
operational requirements.

11. If any issues are identified at the initial inspection, these will constitute Clear grounds to carry out a More
Detailed Inspection of equipment used for LRIT. A More Detailed Inspection may include the following:

a) Verification that the Master and responsible officers are able to demonstrate a familiarity with the
operational procedures of the onboard LRIT installation;

b) Verification of the power supply which should be connected to the main source of energy and the
emergency source of energy (there is no requirement for an uninterrupted power source. If the LRIT is
part of the GMDSS radio-installation the power supply should conform to GMDSS regulations);

c) Establishing, where the model offers the possibility, that automated messages have been sent at
intervals of no greater than 6 hours. In case of doubt or reports of malfunctioning of the LRIT
installation, the flag administration may be contacted to determine if the ship’s LRIT information has
been reliably relayed to the LRIT Data Centre;

d) Verifying, where the model offers the possibility: that LRIT equipment is interfaced directly to the ship
borne global navigation satellite system equipment, or has internal positioning capability.

Page S6-15-2
Revision 1/2010
 Guidance on Checking for Compliance with LRIT
Section 6-15

3 Deficiencies warranting detention

12. A PSCO should use their professional judgment to determine whether to detain the ship until any noted
deficiencies are corrected or to permit a vessel to sail with deficiencies2.

13. In order to assist the PSCO in the use of these guidelines, the following deficiencies should be considered to be
of such nature that they may warrant the detention of a ship:

a) Absence of a valid LRIT Conformance test report;

b) The master or the responsible officer are not familiar with essential shipboard operational procedures
relating to LRIT;

c) If there is evidence that the ship is not transmitting LRIT information (noting the ability to switch it off or
delay reporting periods allowed for under SOLAS Ch. V/19-1.7.2 and MSC Res.263 (84) para 4.4.1 or
through agreement with the flag state). Note: MSC87 invited Contracting Governments that except as
provided in SOLAS regulations I/7(b)(ii), I/8 and I/9, malfunctions of shipborne equipment should not
be considered as rendering the ship unseaworthy or as a reason for delaying the ship in port until the
equipment was repaired and a new conformance testing was satisfactorily completed, provided
suitable arrangements were made, to the satisfaction of the Administration and the port State
concerned, so that the issue would be dealt with as soon as practically possible.

14. PSCOs are also advised that ships should not be detained if the LRIT installation on board works, but the shore
side installation or organization is not able to receive, relay or process the information.

4 Coding

15. Where the equipment is required but is not fitted we suggest the deficiency code 0110, 0112 or 0114 is used as
applicable (Passenger or Cargo ship and separate Safety Equipment or all inclusive Safety Certificate).

16. Where a LRIT Conformance Test Report is required, but issues are identified with this, code 0195 may be used
for a deficiency.

17. Where the deficiency relates to the fitted equipment not operating correctly, Code 1568 is used.

18. When onboard personnel are unfamiliar with the operation of the LRIT equipment code 2099 is recommended.

2
SOLAS Ch.V/16: while all reasonable steps shall be taken to maintain the equipment required by this chapter in efficient working
order, malfunctions of that equipment shall not be considered as making the ship unseaworthy or as a reason for delaying the ship
in ports where repair facilities are not readily available, provided suitable arrangements are made by the master to take the
inoperative equipment or unavailable information into account in planning and executing a safe voyage to a port where repairs can
take place.
Page S6-15-3
Revision 1/2010
 Guidance on Checking for Compliance with LRIT
Section 6-15
Relevant documentation
SOLAS V 19-1
MSC 202 (81)
MSC 263(84)
MSC 694(17)
MSC.1/Circ.1307
MSC.1/Circ.1296
MSC.1/Circ.1298

Page S6-15-4
Revision 1/2010