port state control annual report august 2015 - english

Port State Control Annual Report

[English]

August 2015

PPhhoottooggrraapphhss ooff DDeeffiicciieenncciieess iiddeennttiiffiieedd dduurriinngg PPoorrtt SSttaattee CCoonnttrrooll

LLiiffee SSaavviinngg

Broken safety belt

Cracked window of lifeboat

Poor condition of lifeboat hull

Seize of on-load release gear by

excessive paint Side view

FFiirree SSaaffeettyy

MMAARRPPOOLL

Oily inside of discharge pipe

Oily water separator clogged

Leaked fire line

UUnnaacccceeppttaabbllee hhoolldd--bbaacckk hhooookk

ffoorr ddoooorr ((rreeqquuiirreedd ttoo bbee

sseellff--cclloossiinngg))

Illegal remove of self-closing device

MMaacchhiinneerryy SSppaaccee

LLooaadd LLiinnee

WWaasstteedd hhaattcchh ccoovveerr sseeccuurriinngg

ddeevviiccee

Oily and dirty engine room

Oily lagging of F.O. piping

Holed ventilator body

OOtthheerrss

GGaapp ooff hhaattcchh ccoovveerr

WWaasstteedd mmoooorriinngg lliinnee

CCoorrrroossiioonn hhoolleess ooff ssttrreennggtthh ddeecckk

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

ForewordForewordForewordForeword This annual Port State Control (PSC) report summarizes deficiencies identified by PSC inspections carried out in various countries around the world. This report is prepared with the objective of building awareness of the present state of PSC as well as to improve future maintenance and inspections, and also Safety Management System is compiled into the following Chapters. “Chapter 1Chapter 1Chapter 1Chapter 1”: Status of Implementation and Recent Developments in PSC Worldwide “Chapter 2Chapter 2Chapter 2Chapter 2”: Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships registered to ClassNK “Chapter 3Chapter 3Chapter 3Chapter 3”: Statistics & Analysis of ISM Deficiencies raised to NKSMC Ships “Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter 4444”: Statistical Data from Tokyo MOU and Paris MoU Port State Control has been found to be a very effective tool in reducing the number of substandard ships as well as improving maritime safety and pollution prevention. There has been a significant increase in PSC activity worldwide in concert with a number of amendments to relevant international conventions. In order to carry out the effective implementation of PSC provisions, many countries have already signed and accepted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for regional cooperation in PSC for many regions, and have established a centralized computerized database system and/or a harmonized approach. PSC inspection procedures have been improved to cover not only a ships’ hardware or documents, but also the operational requirements of the relevant conventions or shipboard maintenance under the ISM Code. In light of this background, ClassNK is working hard to increase the transparency of information related to PSC issues and to make it even more difficult for substandard ships to survive in the market place.

August 2015

Note: Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information presented in this report.

However, as information is collected from a variety of sources, ClassNK cannot be held responsible

for any erroneous data, judgements or conclusions that may appear in this report, in cases were the

information available should prove to have been incomplete or incorrect in any respect.


TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 Chapter 1 Chapter 1 Chapter 1 Status of Implementation and Recent Developments in PSC WorldwideStatus of Implementation and Recent Developments in PSC WorldwideStatus of Implementation and Recent Developments in PSC WorldwideStatus of Implementation and Recent Developments in PSC Worldwide 1.1 Amendments to the relevant conventions

1.1.1 Electronic Chart Display and Information System �� 1 1.1.2 Maritime Labour Convention,2006 �� 2 1.1.3 Plans and procedures for recovery of persons from the water �� 2 1.1.4 Means of recharging breathing apparatus �� 2 1.1.5 Fire-fighter’s communication �� 2 1.1.6 Types of fire-fighter’s outfits �� 2 1.1.7 Enclosed space entry and rescue drills �� 3

1.2 Recent global developments 1.2.1 MOUs around the world

(1) European and North Atlantic region (Paris MoU) �� 4 (2) Asia-Pacific region (Tokyo MOU) �� 5 (3) Latin-American region (Viña del Mar or Latin-America Agreement) �� 6 (4) Caribbean region (Caribbean MOU) �� 6 (5) Mediterranean region (Mediterranean MOU)�� 6 (6) Indian Ocean region (Indian Ocean MOU) �� 6 (7) Black Sea region (Black Sea MOU) �� 7 (8) West and Central Africa region (Abuja MOU)�� 7 (9) Arab States of the Gulf (Riyadh MOU) �� 7

1.2.2 Port State Control in the United States (USCG) �� 7 1.2.3 Equasis �� 8

1.3 Measures adopted by ClassNK 1.3.1 Treatment of the Deficiencies Identified by Port State Control Inspections

(1) Cooperative assistance with Port States and treatment of the deficiencies �� 9 (2) Treatment of inspection reports by PSC officers �� 9

1.3.2 Minimizing the number of detained ships in order to reduce substandard ships (1) Special training at several in-house meetings �� 9 (2) Meetings and informal gatherings with ship owners �� 10

1.3.3 Visits to Port States �� 10

Chapter 2Chapter 2Chapter 2Chapter 2 Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships Registered Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships Registered Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships Registered Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships Registered totototo ClassNKClassNKClassNKClassNK 2.1 General �� 11 2.2 Data on Detentions 2.2.1 Detentions by Flag State �� 11 2.2.2 Detentions by ship type �� 13 2.2.3 Detentions by ship’s age �� 14 2.2.4 Detentions by ship size (Gross Tonnage) �� 15 2.2.5 Detentions by Port State �� 16 2.2.6 Detentions by MOU(and USCG) �� 17

2.3 Analysis of Detainable Deficiencies 2.3.1 Detainable Deficiencies per Category �� 18 2.3.2 Frequently Reported Deficiencies �� 19


2.4 Analysis of Detainable Deficiencies by Port State 2.4.1 China �� 25 2.4.2 Australia �� 26 2.4.3 U.S.A. �� 26 2.4.4 Japan �� 27 2.4.5 India �� 27 2.4.6 Russian Federation �� 27 2.4.7 Italy �� 28 2.4.8 United Kingdom �� 28 2.4.9 Republic Korea �� 28 2.4.10 Egypt �� 29 2.4.11 Turkey�� 29 2.4.12 Germany �� 29

ChaChaChaChapter 3pter 3pter 3pter 3 StatisStatisStatisStatistics &tics &tics &tics & Analysis of ISM Deficiencies raised to NKSMC ShipsAnalysis of ISM Deficiencies raised to NKSMC ShipsAnalysis of ISM Deficiencies raised to NKSMC ShipsAnalysis of ISM Deficiencies raised to NKSMC Ships 3.1 Statistics of ISM deficiency cases

3.1.1 Total number and average rate �� 30 3.1.2 Statistics of NKSMC Ships and ISM Deficiencies �� 30 3.1.2.1 Analysis per Property of ship �� 30 3.1.2.2 Analysis per Factors related to Company �� 34 3.1.2.3 Analysis per Port State �� 36

3. 2 Analysis of Detainable ISM Deficiencies 3.2.1 Trends of Detainable ISM Deficiencies per Region �� 37 3.2.2 Trends of Detainable Deficiencies raised in Major Port States

in Paris MoU and in Tokyo MOU �� 40

Chapter 4Chapter 4Chapter 4Chapter 4 Statistical Data from TokyoStatistical Data from TokyoStatistical Data from TokyoStatistical Data from Tokyo MOU and MOU and MOU and MOU and Paris MoUParis MoUParis MoUParis MoU 4.1 Tokyo MOU

4.1.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Authorities �� 44 4.1.2 Black List of Flag States �� 45 4.1.3 Detentions by Recognized Organization �� 46 4.1.4 Deficiencies by Category�� 47

4.2 Paris MoU 4.2.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Authorities �� 48 4.2.2 Black List of Flag States �� 49 4.2.3 Deficiencies by Category�� 50 4.2.4 Recognized Organization Performance Table �� 51 4.2.5 Maritime Labour Convention,2006 (MLC,2006) �� 52


1

Chapter 1Chapter 1Chapter 1Chapter 1

Status of Implementation and Recent DevelopmentsStatus of Implementation and Recent DevelopmentsStatus of Implementation and Recent DevelopmentsStatus of Implementation and Recent Developments in PSC Worldwidein PSC Worldwidein PSC Worldwidein PSC Worldwide

1.1 Amendments to the relevant conventions1.1 Amendments to the relevant conventions1.1 Amendments to the relevant conventions1.1 Amendments to the relevant conventions Major amendments to international conventions and to the relevant regulations that came into effect from 2012 through 2014 are summarized below. 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1111 Electronic Chart Display and Information System (SOLAS V/19)Electronic Chart Display and Information System (SOLAS V/19)Electronic Chart Display and Information System (SOLAS V/19)Electronic Chart Display and Information System (SOLAS V/19) Entry into forceEntry into forceEntry into forceEntry into force: 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 JulyJulyJulyJuly 2222012012012012 [Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC----0000907907907907]]]] Paragraphs 2.1.4 and 2.10, 2.11 relating to the Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS) were revised and newly added to SOLAS Chapter V/19. An Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS) and back-up arrangement will be phased in from 1 July 2012. （１） Passenger ship

(i) Passenger ship constructed on or after 1 July 2012, not later than the initial safety equipment survey.

(ii) Passenger ship constructed before 1 July 2012, not later than the first safety equipment survey on or after 1 July 2014.

（２） Tanker (i) Tanker constructed on or after 1 July 2012, not later than the initial safety

equipment survey. (ii) Tanker constructed before 1 July 2012, not later than the first safety

equipment survey on or after 1 July 2015. （３） Cargo ship other than tanker

(i) Cargo ship, of 10,000GT and upwards constructed on or after 1 July 2013, not later than the initial safety equipment survey.

(ii) Cargo ship, of 3,000GT and upward but less than 10,000GT constructed on or after 1 July 2014, not later than the initial safety equipment survey.

(iii) Cargo ship, of 50,000GT and upward constructed before 1 July 2013, not later than the first safety equipment survey on or after 1 July 2016

(iv) Cargo ship, of 20,000GT and upward but less than 50,000GT constructed before 1 July 2013, not later than the first safety equipment survey on or after 1 July 2017.

(v) Cargo ship, of 10,000GT and upward but less than 20,000GT constructed before 1 July 2013, not later than the first safety equipment survey on or after 1 July 2018.

（４） Ship constructed under the conditions of above (1)(ii), (2)(ii), (3)(iii), (iv) and (v), but delivered after the applicable due date, not later than initial safety equipment survey.

1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2222 Maritime Labour Convention, 2006Maritime Labour Convention, 2006Maritime Labour Convention, 2006Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 Entry into forceEntry into forceEntry into forceEntry into force: : : : 20 August20 August20 August20 August 2012012012013333 Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 was established by consolidating and updating of 68 Maritime Conventions and Recommendations that International Labour Organization (ILO) has adopted since 1920. Minimum requirements on working and livening condition for seafarers who work on board a ship are provided in this Convention. Ships which are 500 gross tonnages or over, engaged in international voyage are to take an inspection to verify compliance with the requirements of the


2

flag state’s national laws and regulations implementing MLC, 2006 and to issue Maritime Labour Certificate (MLC). And the MLC and Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance which is attached to MLC shall be kept on board the ship.

1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3333 Plans and procedures for recovery of persons from thePlans and procedures for recovery of persons from thePlans and procedures for recovery of persons from thePlans and procedures for recovery of persons from the water (SOLAS III/17water (SOLAS III/17water (SOLAS III/17water (SOLAS III/17----1)1)1)1) Entry into forceEntry into forceEntry into forceEntry into force: 1 July 2014: 1 July 2014: 1 July 2014: 1 July 2014 [Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC----0909090985858585]]]] SOLAS chapter III was amended to add new regulation 17-1 and this new regulation states that "Plans and procedures for recovery of persons from the water" shall be provided for all ships engaged in international voyage (all passenger ships other than ro-ro passenger ships and cargo ships of not less than 500 tons). Application: 1) New ships constructed (keel-laid) on or after 1 July 2014: Classification survey at new building stage

2) Existing ships (ships constructed before 1 July 2014): By the first periodical or renewal safety equipment survey of the ship, whichever comes first after 1 July 2014

1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.4444 Means of recharging breathing apparatus (SOLAS IIMeans of recharging breathing apparatus (SOLAS IIMeans of recharging breathing apparatus (SOLAS IIMeans of recharging breathing apparatus (SOLAS II----2/152/152/152/15.2.2.6.2.2.6.2.2.6.2.2.6)))) Entry into forceEntry into forceEntry into forceEntry into force: 1 July 2014: 1 July 2014: 1 July 2014: 1 July 2014 [Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC----0947094709470947 & 0990& 0990& 0990& 0990]]]] SOLAS regulation II-2/15 was amended to add new paragraph 2.2.6 and this new paragraph states that an onboard means of recharging breathing apparatus used during drills or a suitable number of spare cylinders shall be carried on board to replace those used. Application: 1) New ships constructed (keel-laid) on or after 1 July 2014: Classification survey at new building stage

2) Existing ships (ships constructed before 1 July 2014): By 1 July 2014 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.5555 FireFireFireFire----fighterfighterfighterfighter’’’’s communication (SOLAS IIs communication (SOLAS IIs communication (SOLAS IIs communication (SOLAS II----2/10.2/10.2/10.2/10.10.10.10.10.4) 4) 4) 4) Entry into forceEntry into forceEntry into forceEntry into force: 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 JulyJulyJulyJuly 2222014014014014 [Ref[Ref[Ref[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TECer to ClassNK Technical Information TECer to ClassNK Technical Information TECer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC----0000947947947947 & 0990& 0990& 0990& 0990]]]] SOLAS regulation II-2/10 was amended to add new paragraph 10.4. This new paragraph states that a minimum of two two-way portable radiotelephone apparatus for each fire party for fire-fighter’s communication shall be carried on board and those two-way portable radiotelephone apparatus shall be intrinsically safe or of an explosion-proof type. Application: 1) New ships constructed (keel-laid) on or after 1 July 2014: Classification survey at new building stage

2) Existing ships (ships constructed before 1 July 2014): By the first survey after 1 July 2018

1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.6666 Types of fireTypes of fireTypes of fireTypes of fire----fighterfighterfighterfighter’’’’s outfits (Amendments to SOLAS IIs outfits (Amendments to SOLAS IIs outfits (Amendments to SOLAS IIs outfits (Amendments to SOLAS II----2/1 & 102/1 & 102/1 & 102/1 & 10.1.1.1.1)))) Entry into forceEntry into forceEntry into forceEntry into force: 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 JulyJulyJulyJuly 2222014014014014 [Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC----0000947947947947 & & & & 0990099009900990]]]] SOLAS II-2/1 & 10.1 were amended and due to these amendments, compressed air breathing apparatus shall be fitted with an audible alarm and a visual or other device which will alert the user before the volume of the air in the cylinder has been reduced to no less than 200 l. Application:


3

1) New ships constructed (keel-laid) on or after 1 July 2014: Classification survey at new building stage

2) Existing ships (ships constructed before 1 July 2014): By 1 July 2019 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.7777 Enclosed space entry and rescueEnclosed space entry and rescueEnclosed space entry and rescueEnclosed space entry and rescue drills (SOLAS III/19 etc.) drills (SOLAS III/19 etc.) drills (SOLAS III/19 etc.) drills (SOLAS III/19 etc.) Entry into forceEntry into forceEntry into forceEntry into force: 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 JanuaryJanuaryJanuaryJanuary 2222010101015555 [Refer to Cla[Refer to Cla[Refer to Cla[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TECssNK Technical Information TECssNK Technical Information TECssNK Technical Information TEC----0000965965965965]]]] To require that crew members with enclosed space entry or rescue responsibilities shall participate in an enclosed space entry and rescue drill to be held on board the ship at least once every two months on and after 1 January 2015.

New amendments to conventions are also introduced on the ClassNK Website in the section, ‘IMO International Convention Calendar’. (http://www.classnk.or.jp)


4

1.2 Recent 1.2 Recent 1.2 Recent 1.2 Recent globalglobalglobalglobal developmentsdevelopmentsdevelopmentsdevelopments 1.2.1 1.2.1 1.2.1 1.2.1 MOUMOUMOUMOUs around the worlds around the worlds around the worlds around the world In order to carry out PSC effectively, a recommendation concerning regional co-operation in the control of ships and discharges was adopted as a resolution by the IMO. In July 1982, fourteen European countries signed the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control (Paris MoU), and today many countries have signed and accepted similar MOUs around the world. Currently, nine MOUs exist around the world and their respective activities in terms of implementing PSC are described below. European and North Atlantic region ：Paris MoU (http://www.parismou.org/)

Asia-Pacific region ：Tokyo MOU (http://www.tokyo-mou.org/)

Latin American region ：Viña del Mar (http://www.acuerdolatino.int.ar/)

Caribbean region ：Caribbean MOU (http://www.caribbeanmou.org/)

Mediterranean region ：Mediterranean MOU (http://www.medmou.org/)

Indian Ocean region ：Indian Ocean MOU (http://www.iomou.org/)

Black Sea region ：Black Sea MOU (http://www.bsmou.org/)

West and Central Africa region ：Abuja MOU (http://www.abujamou.org/)

Arab States of the Gulf ：Riyadh MOU (http://www.riyadhmou.org/)

(1) Europe(1) Europe(1) Europe(1) Europeanananan anananand North Atlantic regiond North Atlantic regiond North Atlantic regiond North Atlantic region ((((Paris MoUParis MoUParis MoUParis MoU)))) 1) Activity1) Activity1) Activity1) Activity Established: 1 July 1982 Members: Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,

France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom

-1 The Paris MoU consists of 27 participating maritime Administrations and covers the waters of the European coastal States and the North Atlantic basin from North America to Europe. The Paris MoU states that their aim is to eliminate the operation of sub-standard ships through a harmonized system of port State control.

-2 Press releases have announced the recent activities of the Paris MoU as follows. Press release dated 17 November 2014 The Paris MoU announced 113 ships were detained for MLC related

deficiencies during the first year since entry into force of MLC2006 and this corresponded to 17.4% of the total number of detentions (649) in the Paris MoU area in this period. Press release dated 22 January 2015 The Paris MoU announced the preliminary results of the Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC) on STCW hors of rest, which was conducted from 1 September to 30 November 2014.

- 16 ships (14% of detentions during CIC) were detained over the 3 month period as a direct result of the CIC for deficiencies related to hours of rest.

Press release dated 2 June 2015 The Paris MoU announced that the Paris MoU held its 48th Committee meeting in the Netherlands from 18-22 May 2015. Committee decided on carrying out a CIC in 2016 to verify compliance with MLC2006.

Press release dated 8 June 2015 The Paris MoU announced new performance lists for flag and Recognized


5

Organizations. These lists will take effect from 1 July 2015.

2222) ) ) ) New Inspection Regime (NIR)New Inspection Regime (NIR)New Inspection Regime (NIR)New Inspection Regime (NIR) -1 Classification of the Ship Risk Profile A Ship Risk Profile is based on the flag, Recognized Organization and company performance, the number of deficiencies and detentions recorded for the ship, past inspection records of the ship, as well as the ship’s age and ship type. The Ship Risk Profile classifies ships into Low Risk Ships (LRS), Standard Risk Ships (SRS), and High Risk Ships (HRS). The time window is set according to the Ship Risk Profile as follows: - HRS: between 5-6 months after the last inspection - SRS: between 10-12 months after the last inspection - LRS: between 24-36 months after the last inspection

-2 Banned Ships The banning criteria for the first and second ban have been amended as follows: - If the ship flies a black listed flag, it will be banned after more than 3 detentions

in the last 36 months - If the ship flies a grey listed flag, it will be banned after more than 3 detentions

in the last 24 months Any subsequent detention after the 2nd banning will lead to a ban, regardless of

the flag of the ship. -3 Reporting obligations The ETA72 (a 72 hour pre-arrival) notification requirement has been widened to

include all ships with a HRS profile as well as all bulk carriers, chemical tankers, gas carriers, oil tankers, and passenger ships 12 years of age or older subject to an expanded inspection.

Further, all ships are required to notify their ETA24 (a 24 hour pre-arrival), ATA (the actual time of arrival), and ATD (the actual time of departure).

(2) Asia(2) Asia(2) Asia(2) Asia----Pacific regionPacific regionPacific regionPacific region ((((Tokyo Tokyo Tokyo Tokyo MOUMOUMOUMOU)))) 1) Activity1) Activity1) Activity1) Activity Established: 1 December 1993 Members: Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Fiji, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan,

Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Russian Federation, Singapore, Thailand, Vanuatu, and Vietnam

-1 The main objectives of the Memorandum have been announced as follows: 1. to establish an effective Port State control regime in the Asia-Pacific region through the co-operation of its members and the harmonization of their activities,

2. to eliminate substandard shipping so as to promote maritime safety, 3. to protect the marine environment, and 4. to safeguard working and living conditions onboard ships.

-2 Press releases announced the activities of the Tokyo MOU as follows. Press release dated 17 November 2014 The Tokyo MOU announced that the 25th meeting of the PSC Committee of the Tokyo MOU was held in Queenstown, New Zealand . - The new inspection regime (NIR) has been implemented from 1 January 2014 successfully.

- The Committee approved the arrangements for the CIC on Crew familiarization for Enclose Space Entry that will be carried out from 1


6

September to 30 November 2015 with the Paris MoU jointly. - The 26th meeting of the PSC Committee will be held in Malaysia in October 2015.

Press release dated 18 May 2015 The Tokyo MOU announced the preliminary results of the Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC) on STCW Hours of Rest, which was conducted from 1 September to 30 November 2014. - A total of 16 detentions (7.77% detentions during CIC) were recorded during the CIC inspections, as a direct result of the CIC for deficiencies related to hours of rest.

- A detailed analysis of the results of the CIC will be considered by the PSC Committee in October 2015, after which a full report will be submitted to the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

2222)))) New Inspection Regime (NIR)New Inspection Regime (NIR)New Inspection Regime (NIR)New Inspection Regime (NIR) The NIR entered into force from 1 January 2014. A Ship Risk Profile is based on the flag, Recognized Organization and company performance, the number of deficiencies and detentions recorded for the ship, past inspection records of the ship, as well as the ship’s age and ship type. The Ship Risk Profile classifies ships into Low Risk Ships (LRS), Standard Risk Ships (SRS), and High Risk Ships (HRS). The time window is set according to the Ship Risk Profile as follows: - LRS: 9 to 18 months after the last inspection - SRS: 5 to 8 months after the last inspection - HRS: 2 to 4 months after the last inspection

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

Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela (4) Caribbean region(4) Caribbean region(4) Caribbean region(4) Caribbean region ((((Caribbean Caribbean Caribbean Caribbean MOUMOUMOUMOU)))) Established: 9 February 1996 Members: Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Cayman Islands,

Cuba, Curacao, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Netherlands Antilles, St. Kitts and Nevis, Suriname, and Trinidad & Tobago

(5) Mediterranean region(5) Mediterranean region(5) Mediterranean region(5) Mediterranean region ((((MediterraneMediterraneMediterraneMediterranean an an an MOUMOUMOUMOU)))) Established: 11 July 1997 Members: Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Tunisia,

and Turkey (6) Indian Ocean region(6) Indian Ocean region(6) Indian Ocean region(6) Indian Ocean region ((((Indian Ocean Indian Ocean Indian Ocean Indian Ocean MOUMOUMOUMOU)))) Established: 5 June 1998 Members: Australia, Bangladesh, Djibouti, Eritrea, France (La Reunion Island), India,

Iran, Kenya, Maldives, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sultanate of Oman, Tanzania, Union of Comoros and Yemen

-1 In 2014, the Indian Ocean MOU carried out a Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC) on STWC Hours of Rest from 1 September to 30 November 2014 in line with the CIC carried out by the Tokyo MOU and the Paris MoU.

-2 According to Annual Report 2014 of the Indian Ocean MOU, a total of 6,059


7

inspections were carried out and 379 vessels were detained in 2014. -3 CIC on Crew Familiarization for Enclosed Space Entry is scheduled to be carried out from 1 September to 30 November2015.

((((7777) Black Sea region (Black Sea ) Black Sea region (Black Sea ) Black Sea region (Black Sea ) Black Sea region (Black Sea MOUMOUMOUMOU)))) Established: 7 April 2000 Members: Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russian Federation, Turkey, and Ukraine -1 In 2014, the Black Sea MOU carried out a Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC) on STCW Hours of Rest from 1 September to 30 November 2014 in line with the CIC carried out by the Tokyo MOU and the Paris MoU.

-2 According to Annual Report 2014 of the Black Sea MOU, a total of 5,080 inspections were carried out and 151 vessels were detained in 2014.

-3 CIC on Crew Familiarization for Enclosed Space Entry is scheduled to be carried out from 1 September to 30 November2015.

((((8888) West and Central Africa region) West and Central Africa region) West and Central Africa region) West and Central Africa region ((((Abuja Abuja Abuja Abuja MOUMOUMOUMOU)))) Established: 22 October 1999 Members: Angola, Benin, Cote d’Ivoire, Gabon, Ghana, Nigeria, Republic of Congo,

Republic of Guinea, Sao Tome & Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa、The Gambia and Togo

(9(9(9(9) Arab States of the Gulf ) Arab States of the Gulf ) Arab States of the Gulf ) Arab States of the Gulf (Riyadh (Riyadh (Riyadh (Riyadh MOUMOUMOUMOU)))) Established: 30 June 2004 Members: The Kingdom of Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,

The Sultanate of Oman, and United Arab Emirates

1.2.1.2.1.2.1.2.2222 Port State Control in the United States (USCG)Port State Control in the United States (USCG)Port State Control in the United States (USCG)Port State Control in the United States (USCG) 1) Activity1) Activity1) Activity1) Activity Although the United States Coast Guard (USCG) is not a member of any MOU, it is an observer at a number of MOUs, and undertakes effective PSC in cooperation with other MOUs. In the 1970's, the U.S. Coast Guard increased its emphasis on the examination of foreign vessels. Although this emphasis was primarily driven by requirements to ensure compliance with the then new U.S. pollution prevention and navigation safety regulations, boarding officers also exercised Port State authority when instances of non-compliance with SOLAS and MARPOL were noted. In 1994, the U.S. introduced risk-management methodologies into the Port State Control program in order to allocate limited inspection resources to where they could do the most good, by identifying those ships, ship owners, classification societies and Flag Administrations that were most often found lacking in meeting their international Convention responsibilities. On 1 January 2001, the USCG implemented an initiative to identify high-quality ships, called Qualship 21, quality shipping for the 21st century. This program has since proven to be very effective in recognizing well operated and maintained ships of good quality and continues in use today.

2) 2) 2) 2) PSC Safety Targeting MatrixPSC Safety Targeting MatrixPSC Safety Targeting MatrixPSC Safety Targeting Matrix The USCG uses the Port State Control Safety and Environmental Protection Compliance Targeting Matrix which enables the Coast Guard to rationally and systematically determine the probable risk posed by non-U.S. ships calling at U.S.


8

ports. The matrix is used to decide which ships Port State Control Officers should examine on any given day, in any given port. The numerical score, along with other performance based factors, determines a ship's priority for examination. (reference: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cgcvc/)

3333) ) ) ) Banning of foreign vesselsBanning of foreign vesselsBanning of foreign vesselsBanning of foreign vessels All foreign flagged vessels operating in U.S. waters are required to be maintained in compliance with U.S. regulations, international conventions and other required standards. However, when a vessel has been repeatedly detained by the USCG (totaling three detentions within a twelve month period) and it is determined that failure to effectively implement the SMS onboard may be a contributing factor for the substandard conditions that led to the detentions, the USCG Headquarters (USCG-HQ) will issue a Letter of Denial prohibiting the ship from further entering any U.S. port until such time as certain actions have been taken to rectify the situation. However, even if a vessel has less than three detentions in twelve months, a Letter of Denial may be issued to any vessel which, in the option of the USCG; 1. may pose a significant risk to the safety of the vessel, crew or the marine environment; or

2. has a history of accidents, pollution incidents, or serious repair problems which creates reason to believe that such a vessel may be unsafe or create a threat to the marine environment; or

3. has discharged oil or other hazardous material in violation of any law of the United States or in a manner or quantities inconsistent with the provisions of any treaty to which the United States is a party.

1.2.1.2.1.2.1.2.3333 EquasisEquasisEquasisEquasis Equasis is a unique database that collects safety-related information on the world’s merchant fleet from both public and private sources and makes it easily accessible on the Internet (http://www.equasis.org/). It displays information from public authorities (Port State inspection and detention information from the three participating PSC regions, i.e. the Paris MoU, Tokyo MOU, and USCG) and industry players (such as information on class, insurance, participation in industry inspection schemes, and quality organizations), all free of charge.


9

1.3 Measures adopted by ClassNK1.3 Measures adopted by ClassNK1.3 Measures adopted by ClassNK1.3 Measures adopted by ClassNK 1.3.1 1.3.1 1.3.1 1.3.1 HandlingHandlingHandlingHandling of the Deficiencies Identified by Port State Control Inspectionsof the Deficiencies Identified by Port State Control Inspectionsof the Deficiencies Identified by Port State Control Inspectionsof the Deficiencies Identified by Port State Control Inspections (1) (1) (1) (1) Cooperative assistance with Port States and Cooperative assistance with Port States and Cooperative assistance with Port States and Cooperative assistance with Port States and ttttreatment reatment reatment reatment of of of of deficienciesdeficienciesdeficienciesdeficiencies When surveyors of the Society are notified of the detention of a ship classed with ClassNK, the Society actively co-operates with the reporting PSC Authority in a number of ways. The more direct of these steps include the following. - Surveyors liaise with port state control authorities to ensure that they are called in as soon as appropriate when deficiencies related to class and/or statutory matters are identified.

- Surveyors liaise with PSC officers to ensure uniformity of interpretation of class and statutory requirements.

- Surveyors provide PSC officers with background information, extracts from reports pertinent to the inspection, and details of outstanding recommendations of class and statutory items whenever so requested by the port state.

- Attending surveyors examine not only the condition of the deficiencies identified by the PSC officers but also the general condition of the hull, machinery and equipment of the subject ship to the extent of an annual survey, carefully considering the seriousness of any deficiencies when they attend ships that have been subject to an intervention action by the port state.

(2) Treatment of inspection reports by PSC officers(2) Treatment of inspection reports by PSC officers(2) Treatment of inspection reports by PSC officers(2) Treatment of inspection reports by PSC officers When a surveyor receives an inspection report from a port state authority, the report is sent to the ClassNK Head Office. The report is immediately examined by experienced staff to identify the causes of the deficiencies. This examination is carried out for all ships for which such reports are received, and the results are circulated to all sections concerned, including all members of the board of directors, as necessary. The results are also reflected a ClassNK PSC database that has been developed for the purpose of providing surveyors with PSC related information electronically. The results of this examination are also submitted to the Flag State Administration of the ship, as required. Further, visits may also be made to the ship owner or manager, when deemed appropriate, to advise them of the relevant deficiencies noted and to encourage them to more proactively improve the routine maintenance of their ships and take other measures as necessary to ensure the highest levels of safe and environmentally friendly operation. In cases where the deficiencies pointed out by the port state authority are determined to be related to previous surveys conducted by surveyors of the Society, those surveys are treated as a non-conforming service, and appropriate corrective and preventive actions are taken in accordance with the ClassNK quality system.

1.3.2 Minimizing the number of detained ships in order to 1.3.2 Minimizing the number of detained ships in order to 1.3.2 Minimizing the number of detained ships in order to 1.3.2 Minimizing the number of detained ships in order to reducereducereducereduce substandard shipssubstandard shipssubstandard shipssubstandard ships (1) Special training at several in(1) Special training at several in(1) Special training at several in(1) Special training at several in----house meetings house meetings house meetings house meetings Special training on PSC related issues is conducted at several meetings held regularly for general managers and managers, to ensure that surveyors carry out full and effective surveys with an uncompromising attitude towards ensuring the quality and safety of the ships classed with the Society. Special re-training is also carried out under the supervision of the Head Office and regional managers, as needed, for those surveyors who have conducted any surveys determined to be a non-conforming service under the quality system of the Society.


10

(2) (2) (2) (2) Meetings and informaMeetings and informaMeetings and informaMeetings and informal gatherings with ship ownersl gatherings with ship ownersl gatherings with ship ownersl gatherings with ship owners (a) Visiting Management Companies When a ship classed with ClassNK is detained by a Port State, if deemed necessary, a senior surveyor or manager of the Society visits the owner or the company managing the ship to discuss what steps can be taken to improve the routine maintenance of the ships in their fleet, so as to prevent both a recurrence of the deficiencies noted and the occurrence of similar problems in the future.

(b) Meetings and seminars PSC related issues are regularly discussed at informal gatherings and technical committee meetings held with ship owners. At such times, explanations are given and documents presented, with emphasis placed on the importance of proactively ensuring the proper maintenance of ships and education of crew in order to prevent the detention of ships.

(c) Publications The “ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control” is distributed to all registered shipowners and operators in the ClassNK fleet. A checklist entitled “Good Maintenance on board Ships” has also been prepared in electronic format, which can be used by the ship’s crew for quick and easy inspection of a ship before entering port. The first “ClassNK PSC Bulletin” was sent to Company managed ClassNK fleet on 11 May 2015 by e-mail. This new, non-regular bulletin provides timely information on particularly notable deficiencies pointed out during PSC inspections of NK classed ships, accordingly.

1.3.3 Visits to Port States1.3.3 Visits to Port States1.3.3 Visits to Port States1.3.3 Visits to Port States Personnel from the ClassNK Head Office as well as local survey offices are assigned to visit the headquarters or offices of various Port States with the aim of introducing ClassNK and exchanging views on matters of mutual concern. In 2014, the ClassNK Head Office visited the following Port States for the above-mentioned purpose. Australia Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) China Maritime Safety Administration (MSA) Canada Transport Canada (TC) New Zealand Maritime New Zealand(MNZL) U.S.A. United States Coast Guard (USCG)

In 2015, the ClassNK Head Office is planning as well for visit major Port States members of Paris MoU.


11


Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships Registered to ClassNKStatistical Analysis of Detained Ships Registered to ClassNKStatistical Analysis of Detained Ships Registered to ClassNKStatistical Analysis of Detained Ships Registered to ClassNK 2.1 General2.1 General2.1 General2.1 General The data in this chapter, on ships detained due to deficiencies identified during PSC inspections, is based on the following sources: (1) Notifications from Port States issued in accordance with IMO Resolution

A.1052(27) “Procedure for Port State Control, and (2) Publications related to detained ships issued by the USCG, the Paris MoU, and

the Tokyo MOU. From January to December 2014, 429 PSC detentions were reported relating to 386 ships classed by NK. This included cases of detention for reasons not related to class or to NK itself. The total number of NK-registered ships (500 GT or over) was 7,986 at the end of December 2014. Therefore, the 386 ships detained represent about 4.8% of the total number of ships in the NK fleet. Further, detention ratio (Detentions/Registered number in 2014) of the NK fleet in 2014 is about 5.4%. 2.2 Data on D2.2 Data on D2.2 Data on D2.2 Data on Detentionsetentionsetentionsetentions 2.2.1 Detentions by Flag State2.2.1 Detentions by Flag State2.2.1 Detentions by Flag State2.2.1 Detentions by Flag State

Table 2.2.1 Detentions by Flag State (NK)

Flag State

Number of Registered Ships (500GT or over)

Number of Detentions

Detention Ratio (%) (= Detentions /

Registered Number in each year)

2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014

Panama 3,160 3,160 3,194 258 246 228 8.2 7.8 7.1

Liberia 349 396 468 17 36 43 4.9 9.1 9.2

Malta 184 200 216 16 21 21 8.7 10.5 9.7

Marshall Islands 307 343 402 19 21 19 6.2 6.1 4.7

Hong Kong 435 458 432 17 14 14 3.9 3.1 3.2

Singapore 649 691 729 21 17 10 3.2 2.5 1.4

Indonesia 160 170 168 4 9 8 2.5 5.3 4.8

Vanuatu 47 48 53 4 4 7 8.5 8.3 13.2

Bahamas 134 144 149 9 7 6 6.7 4.9 4.0

Viet Nam 89 91 89 8 2 6 9.0 2.2 6.7

Thailand 72 67 73 10 8 5 13.9 11.9 6.8

Turkey 68 69 66 3 7 4 4.4 10.1 6.1

Philippines 89 87 73 8 5 4 9.0 5.7 5.5

Cyprus 85 86 89 6 5 3 7.1 5.8 3.4

Others ‐ ‐ ‐ 37 41 51 ‐ ‐ ‐

Total 7,319 7,620 7,986 437 443 429 6.0 5.8 5.4


12

Fig 2.2.1-2 Detention Ratio by Flag (NK)

8.7

6.77.1

9.1

10.5

2.5

8.3

5.7 5.8

9.2

6.7

3.2

13.9

8.2

6.2

3.92.5

8.5 9

4.4

9

4.9

11.9

7.8

6.1

3.1

5.34.9

2.2

10.1

7.1

9.7

4.7

3.2

1.4

4.8

13.2

4

6.8 6.1

5.5

3.4

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

Panama

Liberia

Malta

Marshall Islands

Hong Kong

Singapore

Indonesia

Vanuatu

Bahamas

Viet Nam

Thailand

Turkey

Philippines

Cyprus

Flag State

Dete

ntio

n Ra

tio (%

)

2012

2013

2014

Fig 2.2.1-1 Detention by Flag (NK)

258

17 16 19 17

4 49 8

38 6

37

246

36

21 2114 17

94 7

27 5 5

3543

21 1914 10 8 7 6 6 5 4 4 3

51

2110 8

228

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

Panama

Liberia

Malta

Marshall Islands

Hong Kong

Singapore

Indonesia

Vanuatu

Bahamas

Viet Nam

Thailand

Turkey

Philippines

Cyprus

Others

Flag State

Dete

ntio

ns

2012

2013

2014


13

2.2.2 Detentions by ship type2.2.2 Detentions by ship type2.2.2 Detentions by ship type2.2.2 Detentions by ship type Table 2.2.2 Detentions by Ship Type (NK)

Ship Type

Number of Registered Ships in 2014 (500GT or over)

Number of Detentions Detention Ratio (%)

(= Detentions / Registered Number in each year)

2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014

Bulk Carrier 3,409 216 243 246 7.2 7.6 7.2

General Cargo 809 100 79 75 13.6 10.3 9.3

Container Carrier 615 38 35 26 6.5 5.9 4.2

Chip Carrier 125 9 6 5 6.5 4.7 4.0

Cement Carrier 113 0 1 2 0 1.0 1.8

Ro-Ro Ship 44 6 6 3 12.8 13.6 6.8

Reefer Carrier 134 18 18 14 12.1 12.7 10.4

Vehicles Carrier 350 10 14 14 2.8 4.0 4.0

Oil Tanker 751 6 10 9 0.8 1.3 1.2

Oil/Chemical Tanker 690 27 22 21 4.2 3.3 3.0

Gas Carrier 381 6 6 9 1.7 1.6 2.4

Others 565 1 3 5 0.2 0.6 0.9

Total 7,986 437 443 429

A detention ratio of Reefer carriers was more than 10% and they were identified as having a higher detention ratio than other ship types noted. (‘Detention ratio’ was determined by dividing the number of detentions by the number of ships of each respective ship type in the NK fleet.)

Fig. 2.2.2-1111Detentions by Ship Type (NK)

100

38

90 6 10 6 6 1

79

35

6 1 614 10 6 3

246

26

5 2 314 9 9 518

27

216

18

22

243

14

21

75

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Bulk Carrier

General Cargo

Container Carrier

Chip Carrier

Cement Carrier

Ro-Ro Ship

Reefer Carrier

Vehicles Carrier

Oil Tanker

Oil/Chemical Tanker

Gas Carrier

Others

Detentions

2012

2013

2014

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

7.2

13.6

6.5 6.5

0

12.812.1

2.8

0.8

4.2

1.7

0.2

7.6

10.3

5.9

4.7

1

13.6

12.7

4

1.3

3.3

1.6

0.6

7.2

9.3

4.2 4

1.8

6.8

10.4

4

1.2

32.4

0.9

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

Bulk Carrier

General Cargo

Container Carrier

Chip Carrier

Cement Carrier

Ro-Ro Ship

Reefer Carrier

Vehicles Carrier

Oil Tanker

Oil/Chemical Tanker

Gas Carrier

Others

Detention Ratio(%)

2012

2013

2014


14

2.2.3 Detentions by ship’s age2.2.3 Detentions by ship’s age2.2.3 Detentions by ship’s age2.2.3 Detentions by ship’s age

Table 2.2.3 Detentions by Ship’s Age (NK)

Ship’s age




2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014

Up to 5 years old 3,017 67 56 60 2.2 1.8 2.0

Over 5 and up to 10 1,944 78 114 98 5.4 6.9 5.0

Over 10 and up to 15 1,075 86 77 79 7.4 7.0 7.3

Over 15 and up to 20 1,162 98 100 102 10.4 9.5 8.8

Over 20 and up to 25 445 35 43 43 9.2 10.6 9.7

Over 25 343 73 53 47 18.8 15.5 13.7

Total 7,986 437 443 429

Fig. 2.2.3-1111Detentions by Ship's Age (NK)

67

7886

98

35

73

56

114

77

100

4353

60

98

79

102

4347

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Up to 5 Over 5 and

up to 10

Over 10 and

up to 15

Over 15 and

up to 20

Over 20 and

up to 25

Over 25

Detentions 2012

2013

2014

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

2.2

5.4

7.4

10.49.2

18.8

1.8

6.9 7

9.510.6

15.5

2

5

7.38.8

9.7

13.7

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

Up to 5 Over 5 and

up to 10

Over 10 and

up to 15

Over 15 and

up to 20

Over 20 and

up to 25

Over 25

Detention Ratio (%)

2012

2013

2014


15

2.2.4 Detentions by 2.2.4 Detentions by 2.2.4 Detentions by 2.2.4 Detentions by ship sship sship sship size ize ize ize （（（（Gross Gross Gross Gross TTTTonnageonnageonnageonnage))))

Table 2.2.4 Detentions by Ship Size （（（（Gross Tonnage) (NK)

Gross Ton (x 1,000)




2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014

Up to 10 2,682 147 136 131 5.8 5.3 4.9

Over 10 and up to 20 1,327 97 100 100 7.8 7.9 7.5

Over 20 and up to 30 958 64 54 68 7.4 5.9 7.1

Over 30 and up to 40 1,111 68 74 58 6.9 7.0 5.3

Over 40 and up to 50 658 26 20 26 4.6 3.4 4.0

Over 50 and up to 60 330 8 16 10 2.6 4.8 3.0

Over 60 and up to 80 216 9 14 8 4.3 6.6 3.7

Over 80 704 18 29 28 2.8 4.4 4.0

Total 7,986 437 443 429

Fig.2.2.4-1 Detentions by Gross Tonnage (NK)

147

97

64 68

26

8 918

136

100

54

74

20 16 14

29

131

100

6858

26

10 8

28

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Up to 10 Over 10

and up to

20

Over 20

and up to

30

Over 30

and up to

40

Over 40

and up to

50

Over 50

and up to

60

Over 60

and up to

80

Over 80

Detentions 2012

2013

2014

x 1,000 GT

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

5.8

7.87.4

6.9

4.6

2.6

4.3

2.8

5.3

7.9

5.9

7

3.4

4.8

6.6

4.44.9

7.57.1

5.2

4

3

3.74

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Up to 10 Over 10

and up to

20

Over 20

and up to

30

Over 30

and up to

40

Over 40

and up to

50

Over 50

and up to

60

Over 60

and up to

80

Over 80

Detention Ratio (%)

2012

2013

2014

x 1,000 GT


16

2.2.5 Detentions by Port State2.2.5 Detentions by Port State2.2.5 Detentions by Port State2.2.5 Detentions by Port State

Table 2.2.5

Detentions by Port State (NK)

Port State 2012 2013 2014

China 120 141 95

Australia 77 79 82

U.S.A.(*1) 18 23 32

Japan 31 27 22

India 32 20 21

Russian Federation 14 9 17

Italy 2 9 15

United Kingdom 6 6 15

Republic of Korea 15 15 10

Egypt 6 5 10

Turkey 5 4 10

Germany 3 2 10

Indonesia 24 14 8

Spain 11 3 8

Canada 6 10 7

Chile 4 4 7

Hong Kong,China 7 2 7

Greece 4 0 7

Cyprus 1 0 6

Iran 6 5 5

Netherlands 8 7 4

France 2 6 4

Poland 2 1 4

Singapore 6 4 3

Taiwan 0 1 3

Others 27 46 17

Total 437 443 429

(*1) Including Puerto Rico

Number of ships detained by China Port State in 2014 decrease approximately two thirds of that of 2013.

0

6

2

2

8

6

1

4

7

4

6

11

24

3

5

6

15

6

2

14

32

31

18

77

120

1

4

1

6

7

5

0

0

2

4

10

3

14

2

4

5

15

6

9

9

20

27

23

79

141

3

3

4

4

4

5

6

7

7

7

7

8

8

10

10

10

10

15

15

17

21

22

32

82

95

Taiw an

Singapore

Poland

France

Netherlands

Iran

Cyprus

Greece

Hong Kong,China

Chile

Canada

Spain

Indonesia

Germany

Turkey

Egypt

Republic Korea

United Kingdom

Italy

Russian Federation

India

Japan

U.S.A.(*1)

Australia

China

2014

2013

2012

Fig. 2.2.5 Detentions by Port State (NK Detentions by Port State (NK Detentions by Port State (NK Detentions by Port State (NK ))))


17

437 443 429

50 5987

292 304

243

18 23 320

100

200

300

400

500

2012 2013 2014

Detentions

NK Total

Paris MOU

Tokyo MOU

USCG

2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.6666 Detentions by Detentions by Detentions by Detentions by MOU(and USCG)MOU(and USCG)MOU(and USCG)MOU(and USCG)

Table 2.2.6

Detentions by MOU (and USCG)(NK)

Compared with number of 2013, number of detention at Tokyo MOU decrease about 20％, otherwise number of detention at Paris MoU and USCG increase in 2014.

MOU(and USCG) 2012 2013 2014

Tokyo MOU 292 304 243

Paris MoU 50 59 87

USCG 18 23 32

Others 77 57 67

Total 437 443 429

Fig. 2.2.6 Detentions by MOU(and USCG)(NK)


18

2.3 Analysis of 2.3 Analysis of 2.3 Analysis of 2.3 Analysis of DDDDetainable etainable etainable etainable DDDDeficiencieseficiencieseficiencieseficiencies 2.3.1 Detainable Deficiencies per Category2.3.1 Detainable Deficiencies per Category2.3.1 Detainable Deficiencies per Category2.3.1 Detainable Deficiencies per Category In 2014, a total of 1,195 detainable deficiencies were reported relating to 429 detentions, i.e., deficiencies which were serious enough to jeopardise the ship’s seaworthiness, safety of the crew onboard, or to present an unreasonable threat of harm to the environment and therefore warranted the detention of the ship. The deficiencies are categorized as shown in Figure 2.3.1 and categories in this figure are based on those of the Tokyo MOU. Deficiencies related to fire safety and life-saving appliances combined accounted for about one-third of the total in 2014.

Fig. 2.3.1 Deficiencies per Category (NK)

10

10

5

0

0

0

11

20

14

34

35

35

27

42

27

65

39

65

118

122

129

215

11

18

12

1

2

7

10

24

8

30

21

51

36

43

25

49

50

93

123

166

119

214

6

8

10

11

12

13

17

18

20

23

24

36

37

51

61

65

97

109

137

163

221

43

0 50 100 150 200 250

OTHER

POLLUTION PREVENTION - MARPOL ANNEX VI

WORKING AND LIVING CONDITIONS - LIVING CONDITIONS

LABOUR CONDITIONS-HEALTH PROTECTION,MEDICAL CARE SOCIAL

SECURITY

LABOUR CONDITIONS-ACCOMMODATION,RECREATIONAL

FACILITIES,FOOD AND CATERING

LABOUR CONDITIONS-CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

CERTIFICATE AND DOCUMENTATION -DOCUMENTS

WORKING AND LIVING CONDITIONS - WORKING CONDITIONS

ALARMS

STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS

POLLUTION PREVENTION - MARPOL ANNEX Ⅳ

WATER / WEATHERTIGHT CONDITIONS

CERTIFICATE AND DOCUMENTATION -SHIP CERTIFICATE

RADIO COMMUNICATIONS

CERTIFICATE AND DOCUMENTATION -CREW CERTIFICATE

POLLUTION PREVENTION - MARPOL ANNEX Ⅰ

PROPULSION AND AUXILIARY MACHINERY

SAFETY OF NAVIGATION

EMERGENCY SYSTEMS

LIFESAVING APPLIANCES

ISM

FIRE SAFETY

Deficiencies

2014

2013

2012

LABOUR CONDITIONS- ACCOMMODATION,RECREATIONAL FACILITIES,FOOD AND CATERING

LABOUR CONDITIONS- HEALTH PROTECTION,MEDICAL CARE SOCIAL SECURITY


19

2.3.2 2.3.2 2.3.2 2.3.2 Frequently Reported Frequently Reported Frequently Reported Frequently Reported DeficienciDeficienciDeficienciDeficiencieseseses Figure 2.3.2 shows those items of detainable deficiencies that were reported frequently, in conjunction with the actual detention of ships in the NK fleet. ISM became most frequent detainable deficiencies item for the first time in 2014. Lifeboats and emergency fire pumps continue to be the major items where most detainable deficiencies were found. The items reported from 2012 to 2014 are explained in detail in paragraphs (1) to (15) below.

Fig. 2.3.2 Deficiencies reported Frequentry (NK)

9

12

10

5

30

9

19

21

12

18

15

24

26

11

17

21

20

35

24

57

50

19

19

14

16

22

6

13

11

12

15

32

16

32

9

12

21

23

38

20

53

78

14

14

15

16

17

18

18

19

19

20

20

21

21

22

27

28

30

30

31

41

57

72

033

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Launching arrangements for survival craft

Ventilators ,air pipes ,casings

Fire f ighting equipment and appliances

Propulsion main engine

Maintenance of the ship and equipment

Endorsement by f lag State

Means of control(opening,pumps ventilation,etc)

Fire drills

Auxiliary engine

Fire detection

Emergency souce of pow er- Emergency Generator

Sew age treatment plant

Fixed f ire extinguishing installation

Other (machinery)

Fire pump and its pipes

Development of plans for shipboard operations

Charts

Fire-dampers

Oil f iltering equipment

Emergency Fire Pump and its pipes

Lifeboats

ISM

Deficiencies

2014

2013

2012


20

(1) Fire (1) Fire (1) Fire (1) Fire SafetySafetySafetySafety Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Fire Safety” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(1) below.

Table 2.3.2-(1) Fire Safety

Item 2012 2013 2014 Noted Deficiencies

Fire-dampers 35 38 30 Wasted and holed fire-dampers

Operation failure of fire-dampers

Fire pumps and its pipes 17 12 27 Wasted and holed fire main line

Fixed fire extinguishing

system 26 32 21

Corroded and holed CO2 lines

Operation failure of fire extinguishing

systems

Fire detection 18 15 20 Inoperable fire detection units

Quick closing valves, Remote

control devices 19 13 18 Inoperable quick closing valves

Fire fighting equipment and

appliances 10 14 15 Wasted and holed fire hoses

Fire prevention 12 18 12 Deteriorated non-combustible materials for

cable penetrations in A-class divisions

Ventilation 11 11 12 Corroded and holed ventilator casings

Malfunction of mechanical ventilators

Doors within main vertical

zone 10 11 12 Malfunction of self-closing devices

Means of escape 3 10 8 Escape route blocked

((((2222) ) ) ) ISM Related DeficienciesISM Related DeficienciesISM Related DeficienciesISM Related Deficiencies Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “ISM Related Deficiencies” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(2) below.

Table 2.3.2-(2) ISM Related Deficiencies


ISM 15 33 72 Implementation of SMS failed generally

Development of plans for

shipboard operations 21 21 28

Record of rest hours management not

followed SMS

Maintenance of the ship and

equipment 30 22 17

Inadequate implementation of SMS by crew

Inadequate maintenance of ship’s equipment

Resources and personnel 21 12 12 Ship’s crew not familiar with operation of

ship’s equipment

Other (ISM related) 13 7 12 ISM system does not ensure etc.

Emergency preparedness 12 8 6 Failure of demonstrate emergency steering

Not familiar with fire fighting equipment


21

((((3333) ) ) ) Life Saving Life Saving Life Saving Life Saving AppliancesAppliancesAppliancesAppliances Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Life Saving Appliances” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(3) below.

Table 2.3.2-(3) Life Saving Appliances


Lifeboats 50 78 57

Lifeboat engine not started

Poor maintenance of rechargeable batteries

Inadequate resetting of on-load release gears

Launching arrangements for

survival craft 9 19 14 Wasted / Holed davit

Rescue boats 8 7 11 Rescue boat engine not started

Rescue boat rudder control inoperable

Operational readiness of

lifesaving appliances 14 13 8

Inoperable / Inadequate resetting of on-load

release gear

((((4444) ) ) ) Emergency SystemsEmergency SystemsEmergency SystemsEmergency Systems Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Emergency Systems” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(4) below.

Table 2.3.2-(4) Emergency Systems


Emergency Fire Pump and its

pipes 57 53 41

Inoperable and unable to pressure the fire

main

Emergency source of power-

Emergency Generator 15 32 20 Emergency generator unable to start

Fire drills 21 11 19 Fire drill failed

Emergency lighting, batteries

and switches 6 6 13 Deficient batteries/emergency generator

Inoperable emergency lighting

Abandon ship drills 8 10 10 Abandon ship drill failed

((((5555) ) ) ) Safety of NavigationSafety of NavigationSafety of NavigationSafety of Navigation Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Safety of Navigation” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(5) below.

Table 2.3.2-(5) Safety of Navigation


Charts 20 23 30

Navigation charts not updated

Navigation charts for intended voyage not

available

Nautical publications 5 10 13 Nautical publications (tide table, list of lights,

list of radio signals, etc.) not updated

Lights, shapes, sound

-signals 4 7 13

Inoperable navigation lights

Navigation lights not supplied by batteries

Voyage date recorder(VDR) 13 12 9 Defective VDR/S-VDR

Alarm panel showing ”system error”

Voyage or passage plan 2 3 5 Previous passage plan missing


22

((((6666) ) ) ) Propulsion and auxiliary machineryPropulsion and auxiliary machineryPropulsion and auxiliary machineryPropulsion and auxiliary machinery Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Propulsion and auxiliary machinery” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(6) below.

Table 2.3.2-(6) Propulsion and auxiliary machinery


Other (machinery) 11 9 22 Excessive oil and bilge in engine room

Oil leakage around auxiliary engines

Auxiliary engine 12 12 19 Inoperable Auxiliary engines

Leakage of oil

Propulsion main engine 5 16 16 Defective oil mist detectors

Leakage of cooling water

((((7777) ) ) ) MARPOL Annex IMARPOL Annex IMARPOL Annex IMARPOL Annex I Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “MARPOL Annex I” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(7) below.

Table 2.3.2-(7) MARPOL Annex I


Oil filtering equipment

(Oily-Water Separating

Equipment)

24 20 31

Inoperable oily water separator

Inoperable bilge pump

Oily water inside overboard discharging line

Ship’s crew not familiar with operation of oil

filtering equipment

15PPM alarm arrangements 9 12 11 Failure of 15PPM alarm

Oil discharge monitoring and

control system 5 4 6 Defective automatic stopping device

((((8888) ) ) ) Crew CertificateCrew CertificateCrew CertificateCrew Certificate Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Crew Certificate” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(8) below.

Table 2.3.2-(8) Crew Certificate


Endorsement by flag State 9 6 18 Endorsement by flag State for officer

expired or missing

Certificates for master and

officers 14 12 8

Missing of endorsement on STCW

certificates by flag state

Valid certificates expired

Manning specified by the

minimum safe manning doc 2 2 6

Undermanned against Minimum Safety

Manning Certificate


23

((((9999) ) ) ) Radio CommunicationsRadio CommunicationsRadio CommunicationsRadio Communications Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Radio Communications” are shown in the Table 2.3.2-(9) below.

Table 2.3.2-(9) Radio Communications


MF/HF radio installation 16 14 13 Defective MF/HF radio apparatus

Not operable by DC power

Reserve source of energy 12 9 9 GMDSS reserve source of energy failed

EPIRB 3 2 6 Not operable

Annual test overdue

((((10101010) ) ) ) Ship CertificateShip CertificateShip CertificateShip Certificate Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Ship Certificate” are shown in the Table 2.3.2-(10) below.

Table 2.3.2-(10) Ship Certificate


Safety Management

Certificate(SMC/ISM Code) 3 2 7 Valid certificate expired

Other (certificates) 2 3 5 Valid certificate expired

Document of

Compliance(DOC/ISM Code) 2 3 4

DOC certificate onboard copy

Vailed certificate expired

Civil liability for bunker oil

pollution damage cert. 0 0 4 Only copy onboard and expired

International Ship Security

Certificate 1 3 3 Original certificate not available and expired

((((11111111)))) Water/ Weathertight conditionsWater/ Weathertight conditionsWater/ Weathertight conditionsWater/ Weathertight conditions Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Water/ Weathertight conditions” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(11) below.

Table 2.3.2-(11) Water/ Weathertight conditions


Ventilators, air pipes, casings 12 19 14

Wasted/Holed ventilators and air pipes

Damaged float of air pipe heads

Damaged closing devices

Hatch Covers 6 14 6

Wasted / Holed hatch covers

Wasted hatch cover cleats

Deteriorated rubber packing

Doors 5 3 5 Doors not closed tightly


24

(1(1(1(12222) ) ) ) MARPOL Annex IVMARPOL Annex IVMARPOL Annex IVMARPOL Annex IV Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “MARPOL Annex IV” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(12) below.

Table 2.3.2-(12) MARPOL Annex IV


Sewage treatment plant 24 16 21 Not operable

((((13131313) ) ) ) Structural ConditionsStructural ConditionsStructural ConditionsStructural Conditions Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Structural Conditions” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(13) below.

Table 2.3.2-(13) Structural Conditions


Ballast, fuel, and other tanks 1 2 5 Hold and fuel leakage

Steering gear 9 4 4

Inoperable emergency steering

Not familiar with operation of emergency

steering

(1(1(1(14444)))) AlarmAlarmAlarmAlarm Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Alarm” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(14) below.

Table 2.3.2-(14) Alarm


Machinery controls alarm 3 2 4 Main engine alarm inoperative

Fire alarm 1 3 3 Manual call point for fire alarm inoperative

Boiler alarm 3 1 3 Boiler low water level alarm inoperative

Steering gear alarm 1 0 3 Pump and phase failure alarm for steering

gear out of order

(1(1(1(15555) ) ) ) Working ConditionsWorking ConditionsWorking ConditionsWorking Conditions Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Working Conditions” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(15) below.

Table 2.3.2-(15) Working Conditions


Cleanliness of engine room 15 9 11

Dirty and oily engine room due to oil

leakage etc.

A large quantity of oily bilge in engine room


25

2.4 Analysis of 2.4 Analysis of 2.4 Analysis of 2.4 Analysis of DDDDetainable etainable etainable etainable DDDDeficiencies by Port Stateeficiencies by Port Stateeficiencies by Port Stateeficiencies by Port State Most frequent detainable deficiencies per port state are shown in Tables 2.4.1 to 2.4.12 according to number of detentions reported from 2012 to 2014. 2.4.2.4.2.4.2.4.1111 ChinaChinaChinaChina

Table 2.4.1 China

Category of Deficiency 2012 2013 2014

Fire Safety 84 67 69

Lifesaving Appliances 41 58 40

MARPOL Annex I 17 19 19

ISM 23 18 17

Emergency Systems 33 42 16

Radio Communications 8 13 12

MARPOL Annex IV 12 7 12

Alarms 4 0 12

Crew Certificates and Documents 6 7 10

Safety of Navigation 11 14 8

Propulsion and auxiliary machinery 3 11 7

Ships Certificates and Documents 8 15 5

Water/Weathertight conditions 11 24 4

ISPS 1 6 3

Documents 0 4 3

Type of Deficiency 2012 2013 2014

Lifeboats 17 36 19

Fire prevention 6 10 12

Oil filtering equipment 10 11 11

Sewage treatment plant 8 4 10

Emergency Fire Pump and its pipes 24 22 9

Fire-dampers 13 11 7

Launching arrangements for survival craft 7 3 7

Fire pumps and its pipes 9 2 7

Quick closing valves 10 8 6

Ventilation 3 7 6

Fixed fire extinguishing installation 14 5 6

Fire fighting equipment and appliances 2 4 6

Endorsement by flag State 1 0 6

Development of plans for shipboard operations 1 4 5

Resources and personnel 10 3 5

Jacketed high pressure lines 5 6 4

Lights, shapes, sound-signals 1 3 4

Fire detection 6 2 4

15PPM alarm arrangements 3 2 4

A total of 244 detainable deficiencies relating to 95 detentions were noted in 2014. (2.6 detainable deficiencies/detention)


26

2.4.2.4.2.4.2.4.2222 AustraliaAustraliaAustraliaAustralia

Table 2.4.2 Australia


ISM 36 24 37



Fire safety 16 14 7


Water/Weathertight conditions 9 10 5

MARPOL Annex IV 0 0 4



Development of plans for shipboard operations 17 14 17

Lifeboats 1 3 10

Operational readiness of lifesaving appliances 13 11 8

Other(ISM) 1 4 8


ISM 0 0 6

Fire-dampers 7 6 5

Emergency source of power-Emergency Generator 3 3 5

Maintenance of the ship and equipment 7 2 5

Sewage treatment plant 7 6 4

Reserve source of energy 1 2 3


2.4.2.4.2.4.2.4.3333 U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.

Table 2.4.3 U.S.A.


Fire Safety 7 14 14

ISM 4 4 14





Living Conditions 0 0 3


Fixed fire extinguishing installation 0 9 5


Fire pumps and its pipes 0 0 4


Rescue boats 0 0 3



27

2.4.2.4.2.4.2.4.4444 JapanJapanJapanJapan

Table 2.4.4 Japan



ISM 11 10 9

Fire safety 11 9 7


Fire drills 11 6 7

Resources and personnel 6 6 6

Fire-dampers 3 0 4


2.4.2.4.2.4.2.4.5555 IndiaIndiaIndiaIndia

Table 2.4.5 India



Fire Safety 16 9 12


Lifesaving appliances 5 7 6




Other (machinery) 1 1 6

Auxiliary engine 0 3 5

Propulsion main engine 0 3 5


2.4.2.4.2.4.2.4.6666 Russian FederationRussian FederationRussian FederationRussian Federation

Table 2.4.6 Russian Federation




Fire Safety 6 5 5



Lifeboats 4 6 5

Charts 0 0 5




28

2.4.2.4.2.4.2.4.7777 ItalyItalyItalyItaly Table 2.4.8 Italy


Fire Safety 1 12 24

ISM 1 8 13




ISM 1 6 13

Quick closing valves, Remote control devices 0 1 8

Charts 0 6 5


2.4.2.4.2.4.2.4.8888 United KingdomUnited KingdomUnited KingdomUnited Kingdom Table 2.4.7 United Kingdom


ISM 4 6 11

Fire Safety 2 3 10


Living Conditions 0 1 7


ISM 3 6 11

Fire drills 2 0 3


2.4.2.4.2.4.2.4.9999 Republic Korea Republic Korea Republic Korea Republic Korea

Table 2.4.9 Republic Korea


ISM 5 9 5

Fire Safety 8 9 2




Lifeboats 2 3 1

Doors within main vertical zone 3 1 1



29

2.4.10 2.4.10 2.4.10 2.4.10 EgyptEgyptEgyptEgypt Table 2.4.10 Egypt




Ship Certificates and Documents 1 0 3


Other (machinery) 0 2 5

Propulsion main engine 1 0 2

Voyage data recorder (VDR) 1 0 2


2.4.112.4.112.4.112.4.11 TurkeyTurkeyTurkeyTurkey

Table 2.4.11 Turkey


Crew Certificates and Documents 1 1 8

Fire Safety 2 3 7



Endorsement by flag State 0 0 5


MF/HF radio installation 1 1 2

Cleanliness of engine room 2 0 2


2.4.12.4.12.4.12.4.12222 GermanyGermanyGermanyGermany

Table 2.4.12 Germany



ISM 2 1 10

Fire safety 0 1 10


ISM 0 1 10

Charts 0 3 5

Lights, shapes, sound-signals 0 0 5

Nautical publications 0 2 3



30


Statistics &Statistics &Statistics &Statistics & Analysis of ISM Deficiencies raised to NKSMC ShipsAnalysis of ISM Deficiencies raised to NKSMC ShipsAnalysis of ISM Deficiencies raised to NKSMC ShipsAnalysis of ISM Deficiencies raised to NKSMC Ships

The data in this chapter is based on the Port State Control Inspection Reports which were collected by or notified to ClassNK in 2014. A part of the collected records is introduced as “Monthly PSC Information” in the page “Safety Management Systems (ISM)”on ClassNK web-site ＜http://www.classnk.or.jp/＞. In this chapter, definition of the terms is as follows: NKSMC ship : Ship holding an International Safety Management Certificate issued by

ClassNK NKDOC company : Company holding a Document of Compliance issued by ClassNK ISM deficiency : Deficiency related to the requirement of ISM Code ISM deficiency case : Case where any ISM deficiency was recorded in PSC inspection report ISM deficiency rate* : Percentage of ISM deficiency cases to the whole NKSMC ships or a

group of NKSMC ships in consideration

* Defining ISM deficiency rate as percentage of ISM deficiency cases to NKSMC ships

that subjected to a PSC inspection is more meaningful. However, as the total number of

such NKSMC ships is unknown, the total number of the whole or a group of NKSMC

ships is used instead.

3. 1 3. 1 3. 1 3. 1 Statistics of ISM deficiency casesStatistics of ISM deficiency casesStatistics of ISM deficiency casesStatistics of ISM deficiency cases 3.1.13.1.13.1.13.1.1 Total number and average rateTotal number and average rateTotal number and average rateTotal number and average rate The total number of ISM deficiency cases and the average ISM deficiency rate in the last 4 years are shown in Table 3.1.1.1. Since 2011, the rate has been on the increase to 5.6% in 2014.

Table 3.1.1.1 Total number and rate of ISM deficiency cases

YearYearYearYear ISM deficiency ISM deficiency ISM deficiency ISM deficiency cases (A)cases (A)cases (A)cases (A)

NKSMC shipsNKSMC shipsNKSMC shipsNKSMC ships total Nr.total Nr.total Nr.total Nr.（（（（BBBB））））

ISM deficiency rateISM deficiency rateISM deficiency rateISM deficiency rate （（（（A/BA/BA/BA/B））））

2011 202 4505 4.54.54.54.5

2012 237 4677 5.15.15.15.1

2013 251 4868 5.25.25.25.2

2014201420142014 286286286286 5104510451045104 5.65.65.65.6

3.1.23.1.23.1.23.1.2 Statistics of NKSMC Ships and ISM DeficienciesStatistics of NKSMC Ships and ISM DeficienciesStatistics of NKSMC Ships and ISM DeficienciesStatistics of NKSMC Ships and ISM Deficiencies

3.1.2.13.1.2.13.1.2.13.1.2.1 Analysis per Property of ShipAnalysis per Property of ShipAnalysis per Property of ShipAnalysis per Property of Ship

(a)(a)(a)(a) AnalAnalAnalAnalysis per Type of Shipysis per Type of Shipysis per Type of Shipysis per Type of Ship ISM deficiency rate per type of ship is shown in Table 3.1.2.1 (a) and Figure 3.1.2.1(a). � The ISM deficiency rate of bulk carrier and other cargo ship was more than twice as much as the rate of oil tanker and gas carrier.

� The ISM deficiency rate of bulk carrier has been increasing substantially in 2013 and 2014.

� The ISM deficiency rate of the oil tanker shows steady value within the range


31

between 2.0% and 2.3%. � The ISM deficiency rate of chemical tanker shows fluctuation due to the minority in the number of ships.

Table 3.1.2.1 (a) ISM deficiency rate per type of ship

Type of shipType of shipType of shipType of ship

Nr of ISM Nr of ISM Nr of ISM Nr of ISM

deficiency casesdeficiency casesdeficiency casesdeficiency cases

2014 2014 2014 2014 (A)(A)(A)(A)

Nr of NKSMC Nr of NKSMC Nr of NKSMC Nr of NKSMC

shipsshipsshipsships

2014 2014 2014 2014 (B)(B)(B)(B)

ISM deficiency rateISM deficiency rateISM deficiency rateISM deficiency rate （％）（％）（％）（％）

（（（（A/BA/BA/BA/B））））

2011201120112011 2012201220122012 2013201320132013 2014201420142014

Bulk carrier 153153153153 2263 5.3 4.7 5.8 6.8

Other cargo ship 108108108108 1816 5.1 6.7 6.4 5.9

Tanker 17171717 754 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.3

Chemical tanker 2222 24 3.8 12.0 3.7 8.3

Gas carrier 6666 242 2.6 4.5 0.9 2.5

Passenger & MODU 0000 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

TotalTotalTotalTotal 286286286286 5104510451045104 4.54.54.54.5 5.15.15.15.1 5.25.25.25.2 5.65.65.65.6

*Definition of Type of ship is as per ISM Code. “Tanker” means a tanker which carries “oil”

or “oil and chemical”.

Figure 3.1.2.1 (a) ISM deficiency rate per type of ship

ISM deficiency rate (%)

Bulk carrier Other cargo ship Tanker Chemical tanker Gas carrier Passenger & MODU

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

2011

2012

2013

2014


32

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

0 ‐ 4 5 ‐ 9 10 ‐ 14 15 ‐ 19 20 ‐ 24 25 ‐

2011

2012

2013

2014

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

0 ‐ 4 5 ‐ 9 10 ‐ 14 15 ‐ 19 20 ‐ 24 25 ‐

Bulk carrier

Other cargo ship

Oil tanker

(b) Analysis per Age of ship(b) Analysis per Age of ship(b) Analysis per Age of ship(b) Analysis per Age of ship The number of ISM deficiency cases per age of ships in the last four years is shown in Table 3.1.2.1 (b) together with the number of NKSMC ships. Figure 3.1.2.1 (b)-1 shows ISM deficiency rates. Figure 3.1.2.1(b)-2 shows ISM deficiency rate per type and age of ships in 2014. � In general, the ship’s age and ISM deficiency rate show positive correlation until the ship’ age becomes 25 years. After that, the rate shows tendency of decreasing.

� As for other cargo ship, the ship’s age and ISM deficiency rate show positive correlation throughout the ship’s age.

� As for bulk carrier, the ship’s age and ISM deficiency rate show positive correlation until the ship’s age 15-19 years, then show decreasing after the age of 20 years. It seems that there is some influence of the chartering pattern of bulk carriers which is, in general, up to 20 years old.

� Comparing with the other ship types, there is less correlation between ISM deficiency ratio and the ship’s age of oil tanker.

Table 3.1.2.1 (b) Number of ISM deficiency cases per age of ship

AgeAgeAgeAge Nr of ISM deficiency cases Nr of ISM deficiency cases Nr of ISM deficiency cases Nr of ISM deficiency cases （（（（AAAA）））） Nr of NKSMC ships Nr of NKSMC ships Nr of NKSMC ships Nr of NKSMC ships （（（（BBBB））））

2011 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 2014 2014 2011 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 2014 2014

0 - 4 52 46 47 58 1803 1865 1849 1852

5 - 9 37 50 70 85 1064 1211 1391 1585

10 - 14 47 44 38 43 744 670 652 681

15 - 19 39 56 53 62 463 529 602 619

20 - 24 16 24 26 22 218 193 204 219

25 - 11 17 17 16 213 209 170 148

TotalTotalTotalTotal 202 237 251 286 4505 4677 4868 5104

Figure 3.1.2.1 (b) -2 ISM deficiency rate (%) per ship type and age of ship

Figure 3.1.2.1 (b) -1 ISM deficiency rate per age of ship ISM deficiency rate (A/B) (%)

ISM deficiency rate (A/B) (%)


33

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

0 ‐ 10 10 ‐ 20 20 ‐ 30 30 ‐ 40 40 ‐ 50 50 ‐ 60 60 ‐ 80 80 ‐

2011

2012

2013

2014

(c)(c)(c)(c) Analysis per Gross Tonnage of shipAnalysis per Gross Tonnage of shipAnalysis per Gross Tonnage of shipAnalysis per Gross Tonnage of ship The numbers of ISM deficiency cases per ship’s gross-tonnage the last four years are shown in Table 3.1.2.1(c) together with the number of NKSMC ships. Figure 1.2.1(c) shows ISM deficiency rate. � In general, the bigger the ship’s gross tonnage, the smaller ISM deficiency rate. � ISM deficiency rates of the ships within the groups of gross-tonnage 10-60 thousands have been increasing significantly since 2012.

Table 3.1.2.1 (c) Number of ISM deficiency cases per ship’s GT

GTGTGTGT （（（（ x 1,000x 1,000x 1,000x 1,000））））

Nr of ISM deficiency cases Nr of ISM deficiency cases Nr of ISM deficiency cases Nr of ISM deficiency cases （（（（AAAA）））） Nr of NKSMC ships (B)Nr of NKSMC ships (B)Nr of NKSMC ships (B)Nr of NKSMC ships (B)

2011201120112011 2012201220122012 2013201320132013 2014201420142014 2011201120112011 2012201220122012 2013201320132013 2014201420142014

- 10 67 90 70 78 1106 1083 1096 1069

10 - 20 43 46 62 61 815 804 850 870

20 - 30 24 31 31 43 515 567 605 665

30 - 40 34 31 38 48 672 695 731 813

40 - 50 17 14 22 25 438 491 508 559

50 - 60 4 10 12 12 241 275 302 313

60 - 80 3 4 2 4 171 176 175 173

80 - 10 11 14 15 547 586 601 642

TotalTotalTotalTotal 202 237 251 286 4505 4677 4868 5104

Figure 3.1.2.1 (c) ISM deficiency rate per Ship’s GT

GT ( x 1,000)GT ( x 1,000)GT ( x 1,000)GT ( x 1,000)

ISM deficiency rate (A/B) (%)


34

(d)(d)(d)(d) Analysis per Flag of shipAnalysis per Flag of shipAnalysis per Flag of shipAnalysis per Flag of ship ISM deficiency rate per flag of ships is shown in Table 3.1.2.1 (d) together with the number of ISM deficiency cases.

Table 3.1.2.1 (d) ISM deficiency rate per flag of ship

FlagFlagFlagFlag 2011201120112011 2012201220122012 2013201320132013 2014201420142014

Nr.Nr.Nr.Nr. RateRateRateRate Nr.Nr.Nr.Nr. RateRateRateRate Nr.Nr.Nr.Nr. RateRateRateRate Nr.Nr.Nr.Nr. RateRateRateRate Antigua and Barbuda 0

0.0 1

11.1 1

7.7 4

16.0

Bahamas 1 0.9 5 4.2 4 3.5 5 4.3

Cyprus 3 4.7 1 1.7 3 4.6 3 4.3

Greece 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 9.1 3 13.0

Hong Kong 9 3.6 13 5.0 14 4.9 11 3.5

Japan 3 1.6 9 4.4 3 1.4 9 3.9

Kiribati 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Liberia 11 5.1 7 3.1 14 6.2 27 9.5

Malaysia 1 2.6 3 7.9 0 0.0 0 0.0

Malta 7 5.8 8 6.7 9 6.6 10 6.3

Marshall Islands 9 4.6 9 3.7 13 4.7 16 5.4

Norway 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 7.1

Panama 126 5.1 143 5.6 151 5.8 152 5.8

Philippines 4 9.1 4 8.5 5 11.9 2 6.7

Saudi Arabia 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Singapore 16 3.1 21 4.0 14 2.5 27 4.6

Thailand 5 8.8 5 7.8 7 10.0 4 5.6

Turkey 4 5.3 1 1.2 9 11.0 4 6.1

Vanuatu 2 4.2 5 11.1 1 2.1 5 11.6

(Others) 1 3.2 2 5.7 1 2.2 3 4.5

Total/AverageTotal/AverageTotal/AverageTotal/Average 202 4.54.54.54.5 237 5.15.15.15.1 251 5.25.25.25.2 286 5.65.65.65.6

* The flag states of less than 10 NKSMC ships are included in (Others). 3.1.2.23.1.2.23.1.2.23.1.2.2 Analysis per Factors related to CompanyAnalysis per Factors related to CompanyAnalysis per Factors related to CompanyAnalysis per Factors related to Company Note: The analysis presented in this section covers only NKSMC ships under the management of NKDOC Companies.

(a) Analysis per Number of Ships under management by Company(a) Analysis per Number of Ships under management by Company(a) Analysis per Number of Ships under management by Company(a) Analysis per Number of Ships under management by Company ISM deficiency rate per number of ships which a company manages is shown in Table 3.1.2.2 (a). � The groups are separated into two by the number of ships of 15. In the group with over 15 ships the ISM deficiency rate is below 5.0%. In the group with 15 or less ships the ISM deficiency rate is above 5.0%.

� The ISM deficiency rate of the group of 51 or more ships increased from 2.1% in 2013 to 4.9% in 2014.


35

Table 3.1.2.2(a) ISM deficiency rate per Number of ships which a company manages

Nr of shipsNr of shipsNr of shipsNr of ships under under under under

managementmanagementmanagementmanagement

Nr ofNr ofNr ofNr of CompaniesCompaniesCompaniesCompanies

Nr ofNr ofNr ofNr of ISM deficienISM deficienISM deficienISM deficiencycycycy cases (A)cases (A)cases (A)cases (A)

Nr ofNr ofNr ofNr of NKSMC shipsNKSMC shipsNKSMC shipsNKSMC ships

(B)(B)(B)(B)

ISMISMISMISM deficiencydeficiencydeficiencydeficiency rate (A/B)rate (A/B)rate (A/B)rate (A/B)

1 - 5 472 79 1080 7.37.37.37.3

6 - 10 109 53 831 6.46.46.46.4

11 - 15 47 54 600 9.09.09.09.0

16 - 20 28 14 499 2.82.82.82.8

21 - 30 27 26 672 3.93.93.93.9

31 - 40 7 10 261 3.83.83.83.8

41 - 50 11 17 489 3.53.53.53.5

51 - 8 33 672 4.94.94.94.9

TotalTotalTotalTotal 709 286 5104 5.65.65.65.6

(b)(b)(b)(b) Analysis per Country/Region where Company is locatedAnalysis per Country/Region where Company is locatedAnalysis per Country/Region where Company is locatedAnalysis per Country/Region where Company is located ISM deficiency rate per country/region of company’s location is shown in Table 3.1.2.2 (b). � In 2014, ISM deficiency rate of the companies in Turkey was significantly higher than the rates of the companies in other countries/regions.

Table 3.1.2.2(b) ISM deficiency rate per country/region where company is located

Country/RegionCountry/RegionCountry/RegionCountry/Region Nr of Nr of Nr of Nr of

CompaniesCompaniesCompaniesCompanies

Nr ofNr ofNr ofNr of ISM deficiency ISM deficiency ISM deficiency ISM deficiency cases (A)cases (A)cases (A)cases (A)

Nr ofNr ofNr ofNr of NKSMC shipsNKSMC shipsNKSMC shipsNKSMC ships

(B)(B)(B)(B)

ISM deficiency ISM deficiency ISM deficiency ISM deficiency rate (A/B)rate (A/B)rate (A/B)rate (A/B) 2013201320132013 2014201420142014

China 67 17 218 4.2 7.87.87.87.8

Germany 15 6 75 3.6 8.08.08.08.0

Greece 120 27 438 8.4 6.26.26.26.2

Hong Kong 18 12 377 3.3 3.23.23.23.2

India 15 5 93 1.6 5.45.45.45.4

Japan 182 108 1845 5.2 5.95.95.95.9

Korea 35 11 147 7.2 7.57.57.57.5

Malaysia 12 1 88 0.0 1.11.11.11.1

Philippines 28 11 242 7.3 4.54.54.54.5

Singapore 70 29 891 2.7 3.33.33.33.3

Taiwan 22 16 207 9.4 7.77.77.77.7

Turkey 54 27 175 9.4 15.415.415.415.4

(Others) 71 16 308 4.7 5.25.25.25.2

TotalTotalTotalTotal 709 286 5104 5.25.25.25.2 5.65.65.65.6

* The countries/ regions of less than 10 companies are included in (Others)


36

3.3.3.3.1.2.31.2.31.2.31.2.3 AnalysisAnalysisAnalysisAnalysis per Port Stateper Port Stateper Port Stateper Port State The number of ISM deficiency cases per port state is shown in Table 3.1.2.3. � Throughout the last 4 years, the number of ISM deficiency cases in Australia is significantly large.

� In USA, the number of ISM deficiency cases increased significantly in 2014. � Numbers of ISM deficiency cases in Japan and Korea show the tendency of decreasing.

� Among EU countries, the numbers of ISM deficiency cases have increased in Italy since 2013, and in UK and Germany in 2014.

� In 2014 in Italy, UK and Germany, ISM deficiencies resulted in detentions of the ships with a high probability. They were 78.6%, 78.6% and 66.7%, respectively.

Table 3.1.2.3 ISM deficiency case per Port State

AuthorityAuthorityAuthorityAuthority Nr of ISM deficiency cases (Nr of Detainable ISM def. cases)Nr of ISM deficiency cases (Nr of Detainable ISM def. cases)Nr of ISM deficiency cases (Nr of Detainable ISM def. cases)Nr of ISM deficiency cases (Nr of Detainable ISM def. cases)

2011201120112011 2012201220122012 2013201320132013 2014201420142014 Australia 63 53 55 73 (40) China 17 38 37 36 (15) U.S.A. 22 23 20 36 (11) Japan 36 34 29 22 (6) Italy 4 3 11 14 (11) U.K. 7 5 8 14 (11) Germany 1 5 5 12 (8) Korea 5 15 12 9 (2) Spain 6 4 7 8 (1) Russia 2 5 4 8 (1) Netherlands 3 7 4 7 (3) Canada 0 1 4 5 (1) Belgium 2 1 3 5 (2) Singapore 1 5 3 4 (0) Turkey 0 0 1 4 (2) (Others) 33 38 48 29 (15)

TotalTotalTotalTotal 202202202202 237237237237 251251251251 286286286286 (129129129129) * Authorities raised 3 or less ISM deficiencies are included in (Others).


37

3.23.23.23.2 Analysis of Detainable ISM DeficienciesAnalysis of Detainable ISM DeficienciesAnalysis of Detainable ISM DeficienciesAnalysis of Detainable ISM Deficiencies 3.2.13.2.13.2.13.2.1 Trends of Detainable ISM Deficiencies per RegionTrends of Detainable ISM Deficiencies per RegionTrends of Detainable ISM Deficiencies per RegionTrends of Detainable ISM Deficiencies per Region The number of detainable ISM deficiencies pointed out in each region is shown in Tables 3.2.1 (a) thru (d). As two or more detainable ISM deficiencies were raised at one PSC inspection in some cases, the number of deficiency and the number of detention are not equal. In Paris MoU, the deficiency code relevant to ISM has been combined into one code “15150 -ISM” since September 2012. Therefore the table 3.2.1 (a) shows only two items “15150” and “ISM deficiency for which 15150 not used”. In USA (USCG), the deficiency codes with 4 digits are used. For easy comparison of the data of various regions, instead of USCG deficiency codes, the corresponding codes used by Tokyo MOU are used in the table 3.2.1 (c). Deficiency Code 15100 is not an official code given by PSC, but is provided by ClassNK. This code is used for the ISM deficiency in the PSC inspection report without specifying deficiency code. (a)(a)(a)(a) Paris MoUParis MoUParis MoUParis MoU

� The number of detainable ISM deficiencies has increased significantly in 2013 and

2014. The rate of increasing in each year is 75% and 60.7%, respectively.

� For 44 out of 45 detainable ISM deficiencies with Code 15150, the description of the

nature of deficiency was ”The deficiencies marked (ISM) are objective evidence of a

failure or luck of effectiveness of implementation of ISM.” That is to say, in most cases,

hardware (structure, equipment, etc.), documentary (charts, nautical publications,

records, etc.) and/or operational (drills, etc.) deficiencies became objective evidences of

the detainable ISM deficiency. (See 3.2.2)

Table 3.2.1(a) Number of Detainable ISM deficiencies per Deficiency Code (Paris MoU)

Deficiency Deficiency Deficiency Deficiency

CodeCodeCodeCode Defective ItemDefective ItemDefective ItemDefective Item

Number of Detainable Number of Detainable Number of Detainable Number of Detainable IIIISM deficiencySM deficiencySM deficiencySM deficiency

2011201120112011 2012201220122012 2013201320132013 2014201420142014

15150 ISM - 3 25 45 - （ISM deficiency for which 15150 not used） - 13 3 1

TotalTotalTotalTotal 23 16 28 46

(b)(b)(b)(b) Tokyo MOUTokyo MOUTokyo MOUTokyo MOU

� Although there are differences among the port states, in general the number of

detainable ISM deficiencies has been increasing.

� Detainable ISM deficiencies have been frequently raised with Code 15106

“Development of plans for shipboard operations” in recent years. 23 detainable ISM

deficiencies were raised with this code in 2014.

� In 2014, the number of detainable deficiencies with Code 15109 “Maintenance of the

ship and equipment” has significantly decreased to 6.


38

Table 3.2.1(b) Number of Detainable ISM deficiencies per Deficiency Code (Tokyo

MOU)



Number of Detainable Number of Detainable Number of Detainable Number of Detainable ISM defISM defISM defISM deficiencyiciencyiciencyiciency

2011201120112011 2012201220122012 2013201320132013 2014201420142014

15100 ISM (Item not specified) 0 2 0 3 15101 Safety and environmental policy 1 0 4 0 15102 Company responsibility and authority 0 0 0 0 15103 Designated person(s) 0 0 1 0 15104 Master's responsibility and authority 7 4 0 0 15105 Resources & personnel 11 19 10 12 15106 Development of plans for shipboard

operations 14 19 18 23

15107 Emergency preparedness 3 10 3 5 15108 Reports and analysis of NCs, accidents

and hazardous occurrences 0 2 0 1

15109 Maintenance of the ship and equipment 15 16 14 6 15110 Documentation - ISM 2 0 2 0 15111 Company verification, review and

evaluation 1 2 2 2

15112 Certification, verification and control 0 0 1 0 15150 ISM 0 1 1 5 15199 Other (ISM) 3 1 6 11 TotalTotalTotalTotal 57 76 62 68


39

(c)(c)(c)(c) USCGUSCGUSCGUSCG

� In 2012 and 2013, the number of detainable ISM deficiencies was 4 and 2, respectively.

In 2014, the number has increased to 15, which is larger than the number (10) in 2011.

� However, the total number of detainable ISM deficiencies is not sufficient for analysis

on tendency of the deficiencies.

Table 3.2.1(c) Number of Detainable ISM deficiencies per Deficiency Code (USCG)



Number of Detainable Number of Detainable Number of Detainable Number of Detainable ISM deficiencyISM deficiencyISM deficiencyISM deficiency

2012012012011111 2012201220122012 2013201320132013 2014201420142014


operations 4 0 0 0



15109 Maintenance of the ship and equipment 2 1 2 3 15110 Documentation – ISM 2 0 0 2 15111 Company verification, review and

evaluation 0 0 0 2



40

(d)(d)(d)(d) Other regionsOther regionsOther regionsOther regions

� In the other regions, total 7 detainable ISM deficiencies were raised in 2014. The

number is clearly low in comparison to the numbers in Paris MoU, Tokyo MOU and

USCG.

Port states and the number of detainable ISM deficiencies are Brazil x1, Egypt x1,

India x2 and Turkey x3.

Table 3.2.1(d) Number of Detainable ISM deficiencies per Deficiency Code (Other

Regions)



Number of Detainable Number of Detainable Number of Detainable Number of Detainable ISM deficiencyISM deficiencyISM deficiencyISM deficiency

2011201120112011 2012201220122012 2013201320132013 2014201420142014


operations 0 2 0 3



15109 Maintenance of the ship and equipment 1 7 1 2 15110 Documentation - ISM 0 1 0 2 15111 Company verification, review and

evaluation 1 0 0 0


3.2.23.2.23.2.23.2.2 TTTTrends of Detainable Deficiencies raised in Major Port States in rends of Detainable Deficiencies raised in Major Port States in rends of Detainable Deficiencies raised in Major Port States in rends of Detainable Deficiencies raised in Major Port States in Paris Paris Paris Paris

MoUMoUMoUMoU and in Tokyo MOUand in Tokyo MOUand in Tokyo MOUand in Tokyo MOU

(a)(a)(a)(a) Paris MoUParis MoUParis MoUParis MoU Table3.1.2.3 also shows that a considerable numbers of ISM deficiency cases were occured in 3 countries; Germany, Italy and UK. Also, as mentioned in 3.2.1, hardware, documentary and/or operational deficiencies became objective evidences of detainable ISM deficiencies. Herewith, Table 3.2.2 (a) shows the number of the hardware, documentary and operational detainable deficiencies, which were raised concurrently with the detainable ISM deficiency, sorted by their categories,. � In Germany and Italy, there was no case where the ship was detained due to only ISM deficiency.


41

� In two cases in UK, the ships were detained due to only ISM deficiency. In each case, numbers of non-detainable deficiencies in the same categories were raised concurrently. They were Safety of Navigation (10 deficiencies) and Fire Safety (6 deficiencies), respectively.

� In Germany, concurrent with detainable ISM deficiencies, the detainable deficiencies in the categories of “Fire Safety (07)” and “Safety of Navigation (10)” were raised in 5 cases out of 8 cases.

� In Italy, concurrent with detainable ISM deficiencies, the detainable deficiencies in the category of “Fire Safety (07)” were raised in 8 cases out of 11 cases.

(b)(b)(b)(b) Tokyo MOUTokyo MOUTokyo MOUTokyo MOU As Table 3.1.2.3 shows, Australia occupies about half of the number of ISM deficiency cases in the Tokyo MOU region in recent years. Herewith, Table 3.2.2 (b) shows the number of the hardware, documentary and operational deficiencies, which were raised concurrently in the cases of detainable ISM deficiency, sorted by their categories. � In 25 cases out of 40 cases, the ships were detained due to only ISM deficiency. � Number of deficiencies raised concurrent with detainable ISM deficiency was 12.25 in average. That is to say, finding of many deficiencies was regarded as objective evidence of detainable ISM deficiencies.

� However, notwithstanding the total number of deficiencies, the detainable ISM deficiency was raised in case where the deficiencies related to the following matters were found. ・Working & Rest Hours ・Voyage Plan

� There is no clear tendency in the category of detainable deficiencies related to structural, documentary and/or operational matters raised concurrently with detainable ISM deficiencies. However, the number of the deficiencies in the category of “Fire Safety” was 6, which was the biggest number. Table 3.2.2 Table 3.2.2 Table 3.2.2 Table 3.2.2 Deficiencies raised with detainable ISM deficiencyDeficiencies raised with detainable ISM deficiencyDeficiencies raised with detainable ISM deficiencyDeficiencies raised with detainable ISM deficiency

(a)(a)(a)(a) Port States in Port States in Port States in Port States in Paris MoUParis MoUParis MoUParis MoU RegionRegionRegionRegion

PSCPSCPSCPSC NNNNｒｒｒｒ of of of of cacacacasessessesses

Number of Detainable Deficiencies in Each Category*Number of Detainable Deficiencies in Each Category*Number of Detainable Deficiencies in Each Category*Number of Detainable Deficiencies in Each Category*

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15151515 16 17 18 99 GermanGermanGermanGermanyyyy

8888 3333 2222 3333 2222 8888 1111 1111 7777 2222 8888 4 5555

ItalyItalyItalyItaly 11111111 3333 2222 5555 1111 17171717 1111 7777 4444 1111 3333 11111111

UKUKUKUK 11111111 2222 2222 2222 3333 1111 5555 6666 3333 5555 2222 3333 11111111

(b)(b)(b)(b) AuAuAuAustraliastraliastraliastralia

Nr. of casesNr. of casesNr. of casesNr. of cases Number of Detainable Deficiencies in Each Category*Number of Detainable Deficiencies in Each Category*Number of Detainable Deficiencies in Each Category*Number of Detainable Deficiencies in Each Category*

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15151515 16 17 18 **

40404040 3333 3333 6666 2222 4444 1111 40404040 3333 12121212


42

*: Category of Deficiency 01 Certificates & Documentation 02 Structural Condition 03 Water/ Weathertight condition 04 Emergency Systems 05 Radio communication 06 Cargo operations including equipment 07 Fire safety 08 Alarms 09 Working and Living Conditions 10 Safety of Navigation

11 Life saving appliances 12 Dangerous Goods 13 Propulsion and auxiliary machinery 14 Pollution Prevention 15 ISM 16 ISPS 17 Other 18 MLC, 2006 99 Others or Not categorized

** Average number of deficiencies raised in each case.


43

Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter 4444

Statistical Data from Tokyo Statistical Data from Tokyo Statistical Data from Tokyo Statistical Data from Tokyo MOUMOUMOUMOU andandandand Paris MoUParis MoUParis MoUParis MoU Several regional MOUs and Port States publicly announce their PSC data on their websites and publish Annual Reports every year. Based on these public data available, this Chapter introduces abstracts of the recent results of detentions by the Tokyo MOU and the Paris MoU in 2013. The full text of each respective Annual Report can be obtained from the following websites.

Tokyo MOU http://www.tokyo-mou.org Paris MoU http://www.parismou.org


44

4444.1 Tokyo .1 Tokyo .1 Tokyo .1 Tokyo MOUMOUMOUMOU In 2014, 30,405 inspections were carried out in the Tokyo MOU region, and 1,203 ships were detained due to serious deficiencies found onboard. 4444.1.1 .1.1 .1.1 .1.1 Port State Inspections carried out by AuthoritiesPort State Inspections carried out by AuthoritiesPort State Inspections carried out by AuthoritiesPort State Inspections carried out by Authorities Table 4.1.1 shows the numbers of Port State inspections carried out by each Port State from 2012 through 2014.

Table 4.1.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Port Authorities (Tokyo MOU)

Authority No. of Inspection No. of Detentions Detention ratio (%)

2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014

Australia 3,179 3,342 3,742 210 233 269 6.61 6.97 7.19

Canada 1) 487 416 389 7 9 5 1.44 2.16 1.29

Chile 907 896 901 16 17 26 1.76 1.90 2.89

China 8,321 8,078 7,361 596 659 476 7.16 8.16 6.47

Fiji 28 27 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hong Kong, China 743 740 736 34 40 47 4.58 5.41 6.39

Indonesia 2,673 2,784 2,605 67 35 24 2.51 1.26 0.92

Japan 5,193 5,365 5,337 237 199 208 4.56 3.71 3.90

Republic of Korea 2,350 2,214 1,928 113 109 73 4.81 4.92 3.79

Malaysia 892 898 918 12 17 9 1.35 1.89 0.98

Marshall Islands 1) 1 21 0 1 0 4.76

New Zealand 476 329 239 16 7 9 3.36 2.13 3.77

Papua New Guinea 70 106 124 0 5 4 0 4.72 3.23

Philippines 2,004 2,128 2,016 3 4 2 0.15 0.19 0.10

Russian Federation 2) 1,081 972 996 28 15 13 2.59 1.54 1.31

Singapore 779 782 1,127 44 22 28 5.65 2.81 2.48

Thailand 456 499 566 1 3 0 0.22 0.06 0

Vanuatu 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vietnam 1,290 1,438 1,397 37 21 9 2.87 1.46 0.64

Total 30,929 31,018 30,405 1,421 1,395 1,203 4.59% 4.50% 3.96%

1) Data for the Marshall Islands is only for November and December 2013. 2) Data is only for the Pacific ports.


45

4444.1.2 Black List.1.2 Black List.1.2 Black List.1.2 Black List of Flag Stateof Flag Stateof Flag Stateof Flag Statessss Table 4.1.2 shows the Black List of Flag State announced in the Tokyo MOU Annual Report.

Table 4.1.2 Black List of Flag States (Tokyo MOU)

Flag State No. of

Inspections 2012-2014

No. of Detentions 2012-2014

Black to Grey limit

Black to Grey limit

Papua New Guinea 38 11

6

Tanzania 84 20 10

Mongolia 410 78

38

Sierra Leone 706 121 61

Korea, Democratic People’s Republic 630 104 55

Cambodia 4,502 642 344

Indonesia 528 80 47

Bangladesh 169 21

18

Kiribati 692 70 60

Niue 35 6 5

Belize 1,319 116 108

Egypt 47 7 7


46

4444.1.3 Detentions by .1.3 Detentions by .1.3 Detentions by .1.3 Detentions by Recognized OrganizationRecognized OrganizationRecognized OrganizationRecognized Organizationssss Table 4.1.3 and Figure 4.1.3 show the detention data of IACS affiliated Recognized Organization in the Tokyo MOU Annual Report. Table 4.1.3 Inspections and Detentions per Recognized Organization (Tokyo MOU) (*1)

Recognized Organization

No. of Inspections 2012-2014

No. of Detentions 2012-2014

No. of RO responsible detentions

Detention ratio (%)

RO responsible detention ratio (%)

ABS 9,630 259 15 2.69 0.16

BV 9,967 405 17 4.06 0.17

CCS 8,428 79 2 0.94 0.02

DNV 10,849 261 9 2.41 0.08

GL 9,419 406 18 4.31 0.19

KR 8,582 142 3 1.65 0.03

LR 11,992 349 10 2.91 0.08

NK 29,280 945 38 3.23 0.13

RINA 2,410 105 0 4.36 0

RS 1,338 76 2 5.68 0.15

(*1) According to the Tokyo MOU annual report, in cases where a ship’s certificates were issued

by more than one recognized organization (RO), the number of inspections would be counted

towards both of organizations, while the number of detentions would be counted only

towards the RO that issued the certificate relating to the detainable deficiency or

deficiencies.

図図図図 4.1.3 Detention Ratio by Recognized Organization (Tokyo MOU)

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

ABS BV CCS DNV GL KR LR NK RINA RS

Detention ratio

Detention

RO responsibility


47

4444.1..1..1..1.4444 Deficiencies by CategoryDeficiencies by CategoryDeficiencies by CategoryDeficiencies by Category Figure 4.1.4 shows the number of deficiencies by category for the three years from 2012 through 2014.

図図図図 4.1.4 Deficiencies per Category (Tokyo MOU)

36,976

17,124

6,753

3,593

20,522

12,070

37,433

3,099

16,275

5,899

3,511

17,539

11,507

36,978

14,231

5,812

2,671

16,654

10,515

3,292

2,699

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000

Others

ISM related deficiencies

Safety of navigation

Load lines

Stability, structure and

related equipment

Fire safety measures

Life saving appliances

Deficiencies

2014

2013

2012


48

4444.2 .2 .2 .2 Paris MoUParis MoUParis MoUParis MoU In 2014, 18,430 inspections were carried out in the Paris MoU region, and 612 ships were detained due to serious deficiencies found onboard. 4444....2222.1 .1 .1 .1 Port State Inspections carriedPort State Inspections carriedPort State Inspections carriedPort State Inspections carried out by Authoritiesout by Authoritiesout by Authoritiesout by Authorities Table 4.2.1 shows the numbers of Port State Inspections carried out by each respective Port State from 2012 through 2014.

Table 4.2.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Authorities (Paris MoU)

Authority No. of Inspections No. of Detentions Detention ratio (%)

2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014

Belgium 1,068 1,003 1,028 13 21 14 1.22 2.10 1.36

Bulgaria 567 536 491 25 20 14 4.41 3.70 2.85

Canada 983 890 981 27 33 22 2.75 3.70 2.24

Croatia 223 200 256 5 13 10 2.24 6.50 3.91

Cyprus 103 100 126 6 8 18 5.83 8.00 14.29

Denmark 334 379 439 4 3 6 1.20 0.80 1.37

Estonia 169 151 191 1 1 0 0.59 0.70 0.00

Finland 283 294 285 1 3 2 0.35 1.00 0.70

France 1,233 1,305 1,321 45 41 36 3.65 3.10 2.73

Germany 1,208 1,325 1,318 46 29 44 3.81 2.20 3.34

Greece 1,164 1,027 1,079 42 49 68 3.61 4.80 6.30

Iceland 70 63 71 0 2 6 0.00 3.20 8.45

Ireland 285 313 275 21 23 14 7.37 7.30 5.09

Italy 1,468 1,420 1,326 110 131 88 7.49 9.20 6.64

Latvia 267 204 308 2 1 0 0.75 0.50 0.00

Lithuania 173 160 184 5 4 0 2.89 2.50 0.00

Malta 176 190 199 12 17 11 6.82 8.90 5.53

Netherlands 1,531 1,496 1,334 36 57 27 2.35 3.80 2.02

Norway 572 609 585 11 9 1 1.92 1.50 0.17

Poland 425 376 450 17 12 24 4.00 3.20 5.33

Portugal 424 400 429 4 9 8 0.94 2.30 1.86

Romania 728 747 775 16 16 24 2.20 2.10 3.10

Russian Fed. 1) 951 822 984 29 37 35 3.05 4.50 3.56

Slovenia 199 185 196 6 12 4 3.02 6.50 2.04

Spain 1,668 1,554 1,813 117 63 69 7.01 4.10 3.81

Sweden 493 398 530 5 3 4 1.01 0.80 0.75

United Kingdom 1,543 1,540 1,456 63 51 63 4.08 3.30 4.33

Total 18,308 17,687 18,430 669 668 612 3.65% 3.78% 3.32%

1) Only movements to the Russian ports in the Baltic Azov, Caspian and Barents Sea are included


49

4444.2..2..2..2.2222 Black ListBlack ListBlack ListBlack List of Flag Stateof Flag Stateof Flag Stateof Flag Statessss Table 4.2.2 shows the Black List of Flag States announced by the Paris MoU.

Table 4.2.2 Black List of Flag States (Paris MoU)

Flag State Inspections

2012-2014

Detentions

2012-2014

Black to

Grey Limit

Tanzania, United Republic of 313 51 High Risk 30

Moldova, Republic of 593 80 Medium to

High Risk

52

Togo 353 45

Medium

Risk

33

Cook Islands 310 39 30

Dominica 70 11 9

Comoros 280 34 27

Belize 591 59 52

St. Vincent and the Grenadines 861 79 73

Cambodia 442 43 40

Sierra Leone 316 32 30


50

4444....2222....3333 Deficiencies by CategoryDeficiencies by CategoryDeficiencies by CategoryDeficiencies by Category Figure 4.2.3 shows the number of deficiencies by category for the three years from 2012 through 2014.

Fig. 4.2.3 Deficiencies per Category (Paris MOU)

6195

4016

3491

2640

2234

2218

2195

2092

2015

1904

1801

1541

1352

1240

874

759

596

458

392

344

339

337

324

234

107

57

27

17

4

6861

6657

4526

3069

2754

2710

390

4579

2184

2111

2202

1821

1013

258

1301

1060

1946

889

492

490

341

424

401

88

329

100

14

30

9

6816

4393

3297

2856

2442

5067

2029

2121

2216

1736

1005

1476

1127

2182

303

449

398

324

570

485

319

98

29

23

12

6176

25

7488

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Safety of Navigation

Fire safety

Life saving appliances

Certif icates & Documentation-Documents

Certif icates & Documentation-Ship Certif icates

Propulsion and auxiliary machinery

Working and Living Conditions (MLC,2006)-MLC,2006 Title4

Working and Living Conditions (ILO147)-Working Conditions

Emergency Systems

Water/Weathertight condition

Structural Condition

ISM

Certif icates & Documentation-Crew Certif icates


Radio communication

Pollution prevention -Marpol Annex Ⅰ

Working and Living Conditions (ILO147) -Living Conditions

Pollution prevention -Marpol Annex Ⅴ

Pollution prevention -Marpol Annex Ⅵ

Alarms

Pollution prevention -Marpol Annex Ⅳ

Other

ISPS


Cargo operations including equipment

Dangeorous goods


Pollution prevention -Marpol Annex Ⅱ

Pollution prevention -Anti Fouling

Pollution prevention -Marpol Annex Ⅲ

Deficiencies

2014

2013

2012


51

4444.2..2..2..2.4444 Recognized Organization Performance TRecognized Organization Performance TRecognized Organization Performance TRecognized Organization Performance Tableableableable Table 4.2.4 shows the PSC performance of IACS affiliated Recognized Organizations among those announced by the Paris MoU for the three years from 2012 through 2014.

Table 4.2.4 Recognized Organization Performance Table (Paris MoU)

Recognized Organization

Inspections 2012-2014

Detentions 2012-2014

Medium / High limit

Performance Level

DNVGL 1,718 0 24

High

DNV 10,219 7 181

LR 11,485 10 205

ABS 5,327 4 89

CCS 769 0 8

RINA 3,072 6 48

KRS 936 1 11

BV 11,239 37 200

GL 12,674 47 227

NK 6,894 24 118

TL 776 2 9

RS 4,011 23 65

PRS 471 3 4

CRS 169 0 0 MEDIUM

IRS 73 0 0


52

4.2.5 Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006)4.2.5 Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006)4.2.5 Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006)4.2.5 Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006) Paris MoU is the only MOU that officially announces the conduction of PSC inspections on MLC, 2006. Table 4.2.5 (a) shows the number of deficiencies by the areas of MLC, 2006. Tables 4.2.5 (b) and (c) show the top 5 of the category of deficiency and detainable deficiency, respectively.

Table 4.2.5 (a)4.2.5 (a)4.2.5 (a)4.2.5 (a) Maritime Labor Convention, 2006

MLC Deficiencies per Area

Nr MLC

Deficiencies

% of Total of Nr.

MLC deficiencies

Nr Detainable

MLC Deficiencies

% of Detainable

deficiencies of

MLC deficiencies

MLC,2006 Ship's certificates and documents 137 2.49 5 3.6

Area 1 Minimum age of seafarers 3 0.05 0 0.0

Area 2 Medical certification of seafarers 160 2.91 4 2.5

Area 3 Qualifications of seafarers 17 0.31 0 0.0

Area 4 Seafarers' employment agreements 238 4.33 22 9.2

Area 5 Use of any licensed or certified or regulated

private recruitment and placement service for seafarers 15 0.27 0 0.0

Area 6 Hours of Works or rest 1,152 20.94 28 2.4

Area 7 Manning levels for the ship 81 1.47 24 29.6

Area 8 Accommodation 436 7.92 26 6.0

Area 9 On-board recreational facilities 6 0.11 0 0.0

Area 10 Food and catering 792 14.39 27 3.4

Area 11 Health and safety and accident prevention 2,059 37.42 50 2.4

Area 12 on-board medical care 191 3.47 8 4.2

Area 13 On-board complaint procedure 94 1.71 5 5.3

Area 14 Payment of wages 121 2.20 60 49.6

Grand Total 5,502 100.00 259 4.7


53

Table 4.2.5 (b) 4.2.5 (b) 4.2.5 (b) 4.2.5 (b) MLC deficiencies top 5

Category of deficiencies Deficiencies % Deficiencies

Records of seafarers' daily hours of work or rest 626 0.27

Electrical 246 0.16

Shipboard working arrangements 212 0.13

Ropes and wires 202 0.04

Maximum hours of work or minimum hours of rest 200 0.09

Table 4.2.5 (c) 4.2.5 (c) 4.2.5 (c) 4.2.5 (c) MLC detainable deficiencies top 5

Deficiencies Detainable deficiencies % Deficiencies

Wages 52 20.08

Manning specified by the minimum safe manning doc 24 9.27

Seafarers' employment agreement (SEA) 22 8.49

Records of seafarers' daily hours of work or rest 15 5.79

Sanitary Facilities 14 5.41

Port State Control Annual Report

[English]

3-3 Kioi-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-0094 Japan Tel: +81-3-5226-2027, -2028 Fax: +81-3-5226-2029 E-mail: [email protected]

www.classnk.com August 2015

ClassNK Survey Operations Headquarters