Port State Control

Port State Control

Background, Preparation and Prevention

Seminar Documentation

 Germanischer Lloyd 2010 page 1

Revision 18
 Port State Control

Contents

Contents.........................................................................................................................................................2

1 PSC Overview.....................................................................................................................................3
1.1 History.............................................................................................................................3
1.2 Legal Background ..........................................................................................................4
1.2.1 Instruments............................................................................................................................ 4
1.2.2 Conventions........................................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Regional Agreements.....................................................................................................5
1.3.1 Aims....................................................................................................................................... 7
1.3.2 Scope of Inspections ............................................................................................................. 7

2 Procedure of PSC ..............................................................................................................................8

2.1 Procedure onboard.........................................................................................................8
2.1.1 selecting of ships ................................................................................................................... 8
2.1.2 General Procedure ................................................................................................................ 8
2.1.3 Scopes of Inspection ............................................................................................................. 9
2.1.4 Detention ............................................................................................................................. 10
2.2 Special Inspection Campaigns ....................................................................................10
2.3 ISM Inspections............................................................................................................11
2.3.1 PSC activities....................................................................................................................... 11
2.3.2 Procedures in case of ISM deficiencies............................................................................... 11
2.4 ISPS Inspections ..........................................................................................................12

3 Statement of Deficiencies...............................................................................................................13
3.1 Definition of deficiencies ..............................................................................................13
3.2 Documentation of deficiencies.....................................................................................14
3.2.1 Information onboard............................................................................................................. 16
3.2.2 Co-operation Master - PSCO............................................................................................. 16
3.2.3 Information to third party...................................................................................................... 16
3.2.4 Costs ................................................................................................................................... 17
3.3 Possibilities for appeal .................................................................................................18
3.4 New regulations within PARIS MOU ...........................................................................19
3.5 Role of GL.....................................................................................................................20
3.5.1 Assistance on-scene............................................................................................................ 20

4 Preparation for PSC.........................................................................................................................21

4.1 Steps for preparation....................................................................................................21
4.2 Prevention.....................................................................................................................21
4.2.1 Use of GL Checklist ............................................................................................................. 21
4.3 Experiences / Statistics................................................................................................22
4.3.1 Germanischer Lloyd statistical data..................................................................................... 22
4.3.2 External Statistics ................................................................................................................ 23

5 Summary...........................................................................................................................................24

6 Attachments .....................................................................................................................................25

 Germanischer Lloyd 2010 page 2

Revision 18
 Port State Control

1 PSC Overview

1.1 History
As a result of the Titanic Conference on 12th November 1914 the implementation of international
regulations for the safety at sea had been started. Certain governments with a shipping industry in their
country demanded unified regulations about minimum standards for ship constructions.
Among these regulations the basis for mutual acceptance of certifications and rules about safety at sea
and control of ships was laid down. Due to the war these agreements had to be postponed.
Already with the ratification of SOLAS '29 (Safety of Life at Sea, 1929) the possibility was implemented
to inspect ships of foreign flags in port. Since that time the regulations for inspection of ships had been
amended and also copied within other international conventions.
In SOLAS 74/78, Chapter I, „General Provisions“ within Reg. 19 Port State Control is defined by
reference to IMO Resolution A.787(19). This regulation forms the legal basis for the work of PSCO’s
(Port State Control Officer’s).
In 1978 the first Agreement called „The Hague Memorandum of Understanding“ had been worked out
by a number of european shipping authorities. In March 1978, the "Amoco Cadiz" disaster happened at
the Britanny coast causing a catastrophic oil spill. This incident demanded even stronger political
activities towards safety at sea.
Consequently in Europe the "Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control" was signed
by European governments in 1982 with the aim to start unified regulations for watching
• Standards for improving the safety of life at sea,
• Standards for preventing environmental pollution and
• Standards for improving living conditions onboard.

 Germanischer Lloyd 2010 page 3

Revision 18
 Port State Control

1.2 Legal Background

Each coastal country has the right to inspect ships of foreign flag in their ports for checking whether they
comply with the international convention regulations.
Thus Port State Control is to be seen as a instrument
• to control safety standards,
• to protect the own territory against hazards from pollution
• to keep "substandard" – ships off their coasts.

1.2.1 Instruments
The legal background for carrying out Port State Control is laid down in the IMO Resolution A.787(19)
(amended by Res. A.882 (21)) which forms the foundation of world wide PSC activities.
Furthermore PSC is regulated by following agreements:
• Regional Agreements called "Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control",
• European Union Directive 95/21/EC dated 19.06.1995, as amended in 2001
• International Shipping Conventions in which the right for PSC inspections is laid down

1.2.2 Conventions
The right to inspect ships is laid down in following Conventions:
• SOLAS Convention 74/78 as amended
• MARPOL Convention 73/78 as amended
• Loadline Convention 1966 as amended
• STCW Convention 1995
• Collision Prevention Regulations 1972, (COLREG 72)
• International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships 1969 (TONNAGE 1969)
• Antifouling System Convention (AFS 2001)
• Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (PARIS MOU)
• Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 (ILO Convention), C 147

Consequently a port state can check compliance with these convention regulations on each inspected
ship.

 Germanischer Lloyd 2010 page 4

Revision 18
 Port State Control

1.3 Regional Agreements

In several areas in the world coastal countries have signed agreements about PSC, the so called
"MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PORT STATE CONTROL".
Following agreements are presently existing:
• 1982 PARIS MOU for the European region
• 1992 Vina del Mar MOU for Latin-America region
• 1993 TOKYO MOU for the East Asian region
• 1996 Caribbean MOU for the Caribbean region
• 1997 Mediterranean MOU for the East/South Med region
• 1998 Indian Ocean MOU
• 1999 Abuja MOU for the West African region
• 2000 Black Sea MOU
• 2004 RIAD MOU for Arabian Gulf
• United States Coast Guard for USA coasts
• Canada is member with PARIS MOU and TOKYO MOU
• Russia is member with PARIS MOU and TOKYO MOU and Black Sea MOU
• Australia is member with Tokyo and Indian Ocean MOU
• Chile is member of TOKYO MOU and Vina del Mar MOU
Some countries in Europe are members of 2 MOUs:
• Romania and Bulgaria are member of PARIS and BLACK SEA MOU
• Malta and Cyprus are member of PARIS and MEDITERRANEAN MOU

Some PSC-Organisations are publishing information about their work, aims and campaigns as well as
detained ship lists and other statistical data in the Internet:
• PARIS MOU: http://www.parismou.org
• TOKYO MOU: http://www.tokyo-mou.org
• USCG/PSC: http://homeport.uscg.mil/mycg/portal/ep/browse.do?channelId=-18371
• BLACKSEA MOU: http.//www.bsmou.org
• INDAIN OCEAN MOU: http.//www.iomou.org
• RIAD MOU http://www.riyadhmou.org
• Vina del Mar MOU http://200.45.69.62/

Generally the PSC authorities do not have a checklist but leave it to the judgement of the PSCO which
items are to be inspected.

 Germanischer Lloyd 2010 page 5

Revision 18
 Port State Control

PSC Agreement Areas in the world:

List of Members of the different MOU agreements:

PARIS MOU:
Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Great Britain, Ireland,
Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovenia,
Sweden, Spain
TOKYO MOU:
Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Fidschi, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea,
Philippines, Russian Federation, Salomon Islands, Singapore, Thailand, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Hongkong (China)
ViÑA DEL MAR MOU:
Argentine, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, Columbia, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela
CARIBBEAN MOU:
Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Bermudas, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Dominica,
Grenada, Guayana, Jamaica, Monserrat, Netherlands Antilles, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and the
Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands
MEDITERRANEAN MOU:
Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Libanon, Malta, Morocco, Tunesia, Turkey, Palestine Authority
INDIAN OCEAN MOU:
Australia, Eritrea, India, Iran, Kenia, Maledives, Mauritius, Oman, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tanzania, Yemen
ABUJA MOU:
Congo, Ghana, Guinea, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone (formal participants)
BLACK SEA MOU:
Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russian Federation, Turkey, Ukraine
RIYADH MOU:
Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates

 Germanischer Lloyd 2010 page 6

Revision 18
 Port State Control

1.3.1 Aims
The coastal countries have joined in the PSC Memoranda with following aims:
• Unified training of the PSCOs,
• Inspections under unified regulations,
• General agreement about criteria for deficiencies justifying a detention,
• Installation of a central data bank about inspected ships,
• Number of ships to be inspected per year and per member country; (i.e. in Europe each
country shall inspect 25% of all ships entering port(s)).

1.3.2 Scope of Inspections

Generally Port State Control is entitled to inspect ships under foreign flags in their port(s) only for
compliance with all mentioned international conventions.

Just the USCG as PSC authority in the USA is checking ships also for compliance with certain national
regulations:
• 33 CFR 154-156 and 164 (pollution prevention, safety of navigation)
These regulation within the "Federal Code of Regulations" of the USA are valid as national law also for
foreign ships trading in national US waters.

Furthermore some countries are checking non-convention ships for complying with national minimum
requirements for the safety equipment.

 Germanischer Lloyd 2010 page 7

Revision 18
 Port State Control

2 Procedure of PSC
2.1 Procedure onboard

2.1.1 selecting of ships

In the regional agreements it is agreed on the number of ships to be inspected per year per country In
the PARIS MOU area it is agreed to inspect 25% of the ships entering ports of a member state.
Ships are selected according to a targeting system. In the regional area's computer data base ships are
shown with certain priority for inspection according to the targeting points imposed on the ships due to
following rules:
• Type and age of ship
• PSC history of the ship
• PSC history of the company
• PSC history of the flag and class
• Claims about condition by received third party (crew, pilot, etc.)
• Outstanding rectification of deficiencies from last port's inspection
• Report by another PSC authority to inspect or re-detain a ship in port
Further information about the European targeting system you find in the Attachment and in the Target
Factor Calculator in the PARIS MOU webpage.

Ships without targeting points according o the above mentioned criteria which were inspected without
any deficiencies will generally not be inspected for the next 6 months within one MOU area.

The area PARIS MOU is developing a new risk based targeting system which will is going to reduce the
number of inspections on ships which are found without deficiencies possibly up to an interval of two
years. The implementation of the new system will still take some time and is scheduled for starting in
January 2011.

2.1.2 General Procedure

The PSCO has to announce his visit with the Master. On his way upstairs he will get a first general
impression about the ship’s condition.
He has to check the certificates of the ship and to get an impression of the conditions onboard. It is his
decision how he gets this impression: looking around on Deck, in the engine room, on the bridge etc..

 Germanischer Lloyd 2010 page 8

Revision 18
 Port State Control

2.1.3 Scopes of Inspection

Three different types of inspections regarding the scope can be carried out:
General Inspection:
The PSCO is boarding a ship without announcement. On his way to the Master he is gaining a first
impression about the ship's condition.
He introduces to the Master and in any case checks the ship's certificates and makes a tour around the
ship to get an impression about the condition of the ships and the state of maintenance.
"more detailed" inspection:
If The PSCO discovers reasons to suspect that the ship is substantially not complying with the
international convention regulations ("clear grounds") he should decide to carry out a "more detailed"
inspection.
Some PSC authorities have published checklists for the PSCOs as a basis of the inspection scope. A
detailed checklist however is not required by any international agreement.

According to the MOU agreements certain types of ships will be inspected once each year in the scope
of an"expanded inspection":
• Passenger ships,
• Bulk carrier with more than 12 years,
• Oil tanker over 20000GRT, Oil Product Carriers over 30000GRT and 20 years of age
• Gas- and Chemical tankers of more than 10 years of age
Within the area of PARIS MOU it is a rule that certain ships have to be controlled by an expanded
inspection on a fixed annual basis:
Oil tankers above 3000 GRT and over 15 years of age
Product- and Gascarrier over 10 years of age
Bulkcarrier over 12 years of age
Passenger ships over 15 years of age
Masters of those ships trading in the PARIS MOU area have to approach PSC annually if the next
scheduled expanded inspection is due. Regulations can be found in the PARIS MOU Internet page
under “Expanded Inspection Information”.

 Germanischer Lloyd 2010 page 9

Revision 18
 Port State Control

2.1.4 Detention
If the PSCO finds clear grounds that the ship by it's condition forms a major hazard to the safety
onboard and/or to the environment, he has the right to detain the ship until the hazardous deficiencies
have been rectified.
Within the agreements there is no detailed definition or list for ground for detention. Again there are only
examples mentioned which may lead to the conclusion that a ship is "substandard".

The PSCO again decides by his professional judgement which circumstances are justifying a
detention.
Where deficiencies definitely can not be remedied in the particular port, the PSCO may allow the ship to
proceed to another port for rectification. He will advise the next port about such decision and probably
ask for a re-detention.
Masters should carefully read the PSC report handed over by the PSCO and discuss the matters for
clarification about the regulations which are contravened. He should ask the PSCO to explain
deficiencies and shall not hesitate to discuss the justification of deficiencies which are possibly doubtful
for him.

2.2 Special Inspection Campaigns

The MOU – areas periodically decide to mount their inspections by a special inspection campaign
focussing on special items onboard.
Inspection campaigns lasting over a period of 3 months have already been carried out:
• focussing the ISPS implementation as being compulsory for all ships
• focussing on ILO requirements for living quarters
• focussing on MARPOL I arrangements
• focussing on ISM implementation (all MOUs)
• focussing on SOLAS Ch. V (navigation equipment) in 2008 (all MOUs)
Present Inspection Campaign:
• focussing of lifeboat launching arrangements in 2009
PSCOs will conduct the campaign within regular visits onboard and will use a checklist to carry out the
inspection. In 2009 the MOUs decided to publish their check list on the websites prior to starting the
campaign.

 Germanischer Lloyd 2010 page 10

Revision 18
 Port State Control

2.3 ISM Inspections

2.3.1 PSC activities

In accordance with IMO Res. A.882(21) PSC inspectors can check the ISM system onboard. As they
generally are no auditors, they just can check the documentation and ask questions in order to find out
whether the SMS is functioning. The presence of several technical deficiencies will give rise to the
presumption that the SMS is not satisfactorily working.
PSC Inspectors can list a deficiency stating that the SMS is possibly not working and that the owners
have to deal with the society auditing the system in order to find possible non-conformities.
The action codes used for determining the timeframe for rectification are names as “…non-conformity to
be rectified….” although the PSCO is not entitled to determine non-conformities.
In order to assist the PSCO in checking the system IMO has published a question list with 11 questions
to be asked to provide an overview about the implementation of the system.

2.3.2 Procedures in case of ISM deficiencies

PSC expects a reaction by the owners to arrange a verification of the ISM system onboard by an auditor
of the certifying authority within the given timeframe.
Owners should get in contact with the auditor if rectification is requested prior to departure. The report
made by auditor showing the results of the system verification including possible corrective actions to be
carried out has to be sent to PSC as a confirmation of actions requested.

 Germanischer Lloyd 2010 page 11

Revision 18
 Port State Control

2.4 ISPS Inspections

ISPS inspections
PSCOs are entitled to check also the adherence to the ISPS code onboard. The IMO Res. MSC.159(78)
gives guidelines how an “Officer duly authorized” has to deal with checks of the Security system . The
United States with the Coast Guard are doing a complete check, while other countries have nationally
decided that PSC is restricting their inspection to access control and certificate verification.

PSC will generally check the access control at the ship’s entrance, and the validity of the ISSC. The
inspectors are not entitled to review the complete Security Manual. If they find clear grounds that the
security system is not maintained onboard according to the regulations, they will call the Port Security
Facility Officer do carry out a more detailed inspection.
If the ship does not correspond substantially with the regulations, the port authority (PSC) may detain or
even expel the ship from the port, if an existing threat to the country’s security is presumed.

 Germanischer Lloyd 2010 page 12

Revision 18
 Port State Control

3 Statement of Deficiencies
3.1 Definition of deficiencies
Deficiencies are seen as non-conformities with the international convention regulation. They can be
defined as:
• technical deficiencies
• operational Deficiencies
• deficiencies in the documentation

For statistical purposes a coding system for listing the deficiencies is internationally in use.
The complete list of codes you can find in Attachment 5.
The time window for rectification stated by the PSCO for each deficiency is also mentioned in the report
in coded form.

Following Codes are in use:

10 deficiency rectified
12 all deficiencies rectified
15 rectify deficiencies at next port
16 rectify deficiency within 14 days
17 Master instructed to rectify deficiency before departure
18 rectify non-conformity within 3 months
19 rectify major non-conformity before departure
26 ISPS competent authority informed
27 ship expelled for security grounds
30 grounds for detention
40 next port informed
45 next port informed to re-detain
47 as in agreed class condition
50 flag state consul informed
55 flag state consulted
65 operation stopped
70 classification society informed
80 temporary substitution of equipment
81 temporary repair
85 investigation of contravention of discharge provisions (MARPOL)
99 other (specify in clear text)

Only some of the codes you will find in the PSC-Reports, the others are mainly used for the input in the
PSC computer data base.
Some areas are using some different action codes however the main codes are used worldwide.
The codes “A” – “Q” used presently by PARIS MOU are cancelled and the number codes used again!

 Germanischer Lloyd 2010 page 13

Revision 18
 Port State Control

3.2 Documentation of deficiencies

An official PSC – Report, which is handed over to the Master, consists of 2 parts (the format may look
different in different PSC areas):
Form A: (example see below)
• ship's data
• survey/certification data
example of handwritten format:

 Germanischer Lloyd 2010 page 14

Revision 18
 Port State Control

Form B:
• List of deficiencies, with respective coding
• relevant Convention Regulation
• time window for rectification
• description of deficiency
example of electronic format:

 Germanischer Lloyd 2010 page 15

Revision 18
 Port State Control

3.2.1 Information onboard

Finalizing a Port State Control the PSCO presents the report to the Master, in which he states the
deficiencies found with the time window for rectification for each deficiency.
In case the PSCO decides to detain the ship, the Master will receive an official note of detention. In the
report the PSCO determines whether the resurvey for verifying rectification of the detainable
deficiencies shall be carried out by the authority or whether a class surveyor shall be called to furnish
such report. In this case the PSC authority will raise the detention on receipt of the surveyor's report.
The PSCO has to inform the Master about the rights to appeal against a detention. The owner has the
right to appeal against the detention with the national PSC authority, which however does not suspend a
detention.
Addresses of the national PSC Authorities can be found updated in the Internet, but also to be found in
the Attachments .

3.2.2 Co-operation Master - PSCO

Masters shall be advised to co-operate with the PSCO when boarding in a friendly and open
atmosphere. Documentation and other evidence shall be provided as requested.
The Master should arrange an officer to accompany the PSCO on his tour having keys for any rooms
locked in port.
In case of doubt about a deficiency listed by PSC a question should be raised with the PSCO against
which convention regulation the ship is contravening. Unclear deficiencies or those which are found
unjustified should be discussed with the PSCO on receiving the PSC report.
The PSCO should not be seen as an enemy to the ship, but a colleague. In a friendly atmosphere
problems regarding deficiencies and/or time frames for rectification can and should be discussed
between the two parties.
In cases of dispute it is advisable to call in the local GL surveyor as he can check the circumstances
onboard and discuss if necessary with PSC about justification and/or the timeframe given for
rectification to the benefit of the owners.

3.2.3 Information to third party

According to IMO Res. A.787(19) the PSC authority has to inform following administrations about any
detention by forwarding a copy of the PSC report
• the flag state authority
• the classification society
• IMO
Within an MOU area the member state' PSC authorities receive information about PSC inspections by
entering the data of each inspection into the area's computer data base.
This information enables the PSC authorities of the members to check the PSC history of ships entering
their ports in view of a choice for inspection (Targeting!).

 Germanischer Lloyd 2010 page 16

Revision 18
 Port State Control

3.2.4 Costs
PSC - Inspections generally are free of charge.
In case of a detention the PSC authority is entitled to charge the costs for their duties to the owners.
The payment has to be settled prior to release from detention.
The right for charging the costs is laid down in the PSC agreements and for the European countries by
an EC directive.
In other regions it is up to the national legislation how fees can be levied.

 Germanischer Lloyd 2010 page 17

Revision 18
 Port State Control

3.3 Possibilities for appeal

The owner has the right to appeal against unjustified detention of his ship with the local PSC authority.
This right is laid down in the amendments to the IMO Resolution A. 787 (A.828 Para. 2.6.11). As also
mentioned the appeal is not automatically suspending the detention.

"2.6.11 The company or its representative have a right to appeal against a detention taken by the
Authority of a port State. The appeal should not cause the detention to be suspended. The PSCO
should properly inform the Master of the right to appeal."

If a ship unlawfully had been detained as has been proved, the owner has to right for reimbursement of
his costs by PSC.
Any appeals has to be clarified with the national PSC authority,either addressed to the local PSC office
or to the national PSC authority's office. Addresses are found on the PSC documents.
The addresses of the national PSC authorities in the European and Asian region you find in the
Attachments.
The updated address data you may find also in the Internet under following addresses:
PARIS MOU: http://www.parismou.org
TOKYO MOU: http://www.tokyo-mou.org

PARIS MOU as well as the other main MOUs have implemented a ”Review Panel”. This panel can be
approached via flag administrations and classification societies if a detention is seen as unjustified and
the local PSC authority is not willing to change it’s decision. The other MOUs have announced to install
such a panel as well.
The Secretariat will review the case with three members states’ representatives and decide about the
justification. His decision is forwarded to the involved PSC authority. However this decision is not
binding for the national authority!

 Germanischer Lloyd 2010 page 18

Revision 18
 Port State Control

3.4 Further regulations within PARIS MOU

Ships with Target Factor above 50:

Those ships will be inspected again after one month.
Compulsory annual Expanded Inspections:
• Oil tanker above 3000 GRZ and 15 years of age
• Product and Gas Carrier over 10 years of age
• Bulk carriers over 12 years of age
• Passenger ships over 10 years of age
The Master has to announce to PSC when the next annual inspection is due again. The local PSC
authority will decide whether the inspection is carried out in port or not.
On tankers the inspection of one ballast water tank is required.
Boat and fire drill has to be shown to PSC on passenger ships.
Details about how to announce that an inspection is due again is found on the PARIS MOU website.
Further details about carrying out these inspections, especially regarding feasibility, are not known.

Banning Rules:
Member states of the EC and of PARIS MOU have to implement EC Banning rules for banning certain
ships from EC waters und following circumstances:
• Valid for all oil tankers, bulk carriers, product and gas carriers an passenger ships
• Banning of ships flying a flag as per PARIS MOU “Black list”
After the second detention within 3 years under a “very high risk” flag
After the third detention within 2 years under a “medium high risk” flag

The number of detentions are counting from 22nd January 2002.

The banning can only be lifted after a thorough survey both by class and flag administration.

The owners have to send a formal request to the local PSC authority which issued the banning order,
together with a statement of the class and of the flag that the ship complies with all relevant class and
convention regulations. PSC finally will carry out another inspection to verify the compliance and lift the
ban.

Further banning can be stated if a ship jumps detention by leaving the port without release or if a ship
depite releasing it for a direct voyage to a repair yard is not calling this yard as agreed.

The new “New Inspection Regime” of PARIS MOU is still under construction will define new stricter
rules for the banning of ships from European waters.

 Germanischer Lloyd 2010 page 19

Revision 18
 Port State Control

3.5 Role of GL
GL can render assistance onboard if invited by the owners.
Furthermore GL is assessing each PSC case on GL classed ships with the aim to check the own survey
activities. The assessment is used for quality control of our duties as well as for conclusions about in
which areas onboard more attention has to be paid for in the future.
As carrying out surveys on behalf of the flag state authorities GL is obliged to report the authorities
about the cases and our responsibility.

3.5.1 Assistance on-scene

Assistence can be rendered at any time by a local surveyor in case of need. The surveyor can assist in
reporting about rectification of deficiencies to PSC and thereby possibly speed up the release.
Furthermore the surveyor may discuss with the PSCO about unclear deficiencies as well as about the
time frame for rectification to be given.
As mentioned previously the surveyor may discuss about legitimacy of deficiencies and time frames.
However it has to be clearly pointed out that the final decision definitely lies with the PSC
authority !

 Germanischer Lloyd 2010 page 20

Revision 18
 Port State Control

4 Preparation for PSC

4.1 Steps for preparation
The company should take appropriate steps to avoid problems with PSC inspections.
Following steps are to be taken onboard which to be checked by the company:
• Continuous maintenance of the equipment in accordance with manufacturer's
requirements, actual condition onboard and professional knowledge of the ship's command. . This
includes especially prevention of corrosion, periodical tests and check of validity data of respective
equipment in order to renew in time.
• Periodical training of the crew for emergency cases.
• Check of the ship's certificates in view of validity and dates of due surveys.
• Check of the general condition of the ship, especially the gangway and entrance area of
the ship (first impression to the PSCO!).
• Reporting to the harbour authorities prior arrival, if the ships arrives with major damages
(due bad weather, collision, etc.) which to be repaired in port. If such damages are repaired in port,
PSC shall not detain the ship (Res. A.787 Reg. 2.6.7).

4.2 Prevention
For preventing problems the company should implement a procedure which should verify that the
preventive measures have regularly been carried out onboard.

4.2.1 Use of GL Checklist

GL has published a "Maintenance Checklist" which could be used as documentation for preventive
steps onboard. It is based on the statistics in view of the frequency of deficiencies found by PSC on GL
classed ships. The list does however not claim to be complete.
It can be filled in onboard in regular intervals and be sent to the company as verification for the
preventive steps according to company order.
The checklist may be included into the ISM documentation as a verification for carried out maintenance
acc. to Para 10 ISM Code ("Maintenance")
The checklist is not required by PSC. It might be shown to a PSCO, but only in case a deficiency has
been discovered recently and taken or arranged steps to rectify can be shown to PSC in this way.
This checklist you find in the Attachment. An electronic format for printing or filling in electronically and
filing you find in the GL website under www.gl-group.com/en/sio/6197.php.

Furthermore GL has published a booklet showing “The Top Ten PSC Findings”. Most frequently
listed deficiencies can be found here and the information to be used for focussing during regular
maintenance onboard.
The Booklet can be downloaded in the GL webpages under the address:
www.gl-group.com/brochurepdf/0E035.pdf or ordered via GL Head Office.

 Germanischer Lloyd 2010 page 21

Revision 18
 Port State Control

4.3 Experiences / Statistics

4.3.1 Germanischer Lloyd statistical data

Since 14 years GL is analysing all known PSC cases on GL classed ships by a computerized system.
All cases are entered into the data base and statistics can be drawn about the kind and frequency of
deficiencies found in order to trace areas to be watched more carefully and generally to improve our
quality.
These figures are also used to prepare and update the Maintenance Checklist as well as the information
booklet “The Top Ten PSC Findings”.

Our internal analysis furthermore showed that more than 50% of the deficiencies obviously were caused
by lack of maintenance and care and lack of regular checking by the crew. Consequently it can be
highly recommended that maintenance and regular checks get top priority within the routine work
onboard.

 Germanischer Lloyd 2010 page 22

Revision 18
 Port State Control

4.3.2 External Statistics

Several MOU regions are publishing annual statistics which are listing the detentions by classes and
consequently evaluate the quality of the classification societies' duties.
Generally the statistics base on a ratio between the number of inspections and the number of detentions
in order to calculate a ranking. Further criteria are different within the areas:
The regions of PARIS MOU and TOKYO MOU are publishing class performance statistics on a 3 years’
basis calculating a ratio of inspections and class related detentions.
The USCG already publish statistics since more than 15 years, always basing on the average data of
the previous 3 years. A ratio is made by the number of ships entering US waters per year and the
number of class related detentions.
The region BLACK SEA MOU since 4 years is publishing data on the basis of inspections and
detentions including a 3-year class performance statistics.
A summary of the statistics of these four regions shows a quite positive record for GL in all regions.
According to a three year statistics GL is seen in the group of the top performer societies in all regions.

 Germanischer Lloyd 2010 page 23

Revision 18
 Port State Control

5 Summary

We hope that we have been able to assist you with our information so that you can take the necessary
steps to reach the aim that your ships in future will be found without deficiencies and consequently the
probability for an inspection on your ships is declining.

Don’t give PSC a chance to create problems for your ship!

We are prepared to render assistance for answering your questions.

Persons in charge in GLHO:
Peter Graaf Tel. +49 40 36149 189
Jens Plötz Tel. +49 40 36149 7913
Dirk Jasmand Tel. +49 40 36149 6708
Fax: +49 40 36149-7766
Email psc@gl-group.com
For special ISM matters:
Ingo Haverkamp Tel. +49 40 36149 1547
Fax: +49 40 36149 1702
Email: ism@gl-group.com

 Germanischer Lloyd 2010 page 24

Revision 18
 Port State Control

6 Attachments

Attachment 1: GL – Maintenance Checklist

Attachment 2+3: Addresses of PSC – Authorities
Attachment 4: Target Factor – Information published by the
European Region

 Germanischer Lloyd 2010 page 25

Revision 18