ClassNK PSC Report

August 2015
Port State Control Annual Report

[English]
Photographs of Deficiencies identified during

Port State Control
Life Saving
Broken safety belt
Cracked window of lifeboat
Side view
Poor condition of lifeboat hull
Seize of on-load release gear by

excessive paint
Fire Safety
Leaked fire line
Illegal remove of self-closing device
Unacceptable hold-back hook

for door (required to be
self-closing)
MARPOL
Oily inside of discharge pipe
Oily water separator clogged
Machinery Space
Oily and dirty engine room
Oily lagging of F.O. piping
Load Line
Holed ventilator body
Wasted hatch cover securing

device
Gap of hatch cover
Others
Corrosion holes of strength deck
Wasted mooring line
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
Foreword
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
Chapter 1:
1 Status of Implementation and Recent Developments in PSC Worldwide
Chapter
Chapter 2:
2 Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships registered to ClassNK
Chapter
Chapter 3:
3 Statistics & Analysis of ISM Deficiencies raised to NKSMC Ships
Chapter
Chapter 4: 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 CONTENTS
Chapter 1
Status 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-fighters communication 2
1.1.6 Types of fire-fighters 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 (Via 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 2
Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships Registered to ClassNK
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 ships 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
Chapter
Chapter 3
Statistics
Statistics & Analysis 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 4
Statistical Data from Tokyo MOU and Paris 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
Chapter 1
Status of Implementation and Recent Developments
in PSC Worldwide
1.1 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 Electronic Chart Display and Information System (SOLAS V/19)
Entry into force:
force: 1 July 2012
TEC--0907]
[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC
907]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1.1.2
1.1.2 Maritime Labour Convention, 2006
Entry into force:
force: 20 August 2013
2013
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
1
flag states 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.
1.1.3
1.1.3 Plans and procedures for recovery of persons from the water (SOLAS III/17III/17-1)
Entry into force:
force: 1 July 2014
TEC--0985
0985]
85]
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
1.1.4
1.1.4 Means of recharging breathing apparatus (SOLAS IIII-2/15.2.2.6
2/15.2.2.6)
.2.2.6)
Entry into force:
force: 1 July 2014
TEC--0947 & 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:
2) Existing ships (ships constructed before 1 July 2014): By 1 July 2014
1.1.5
1.1.5 FireFire-fighter
fighters communication (SOLAS IIII-2/10.10.
2/10.10.4)
10.4)
Entry into force:
force: 1 July 2014
[Refer
TEC--0947 & 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-fighters communication shall be carried on board and
those two-way portable radiotelephone apparatus shall be intrinsically safe or of an
explosion-proof type.
Application:
2) Existing ships (ships constructed before 1 July 2014): By the first survey after 1
July 2018
1.1.6
1.1.6 Types of firefire-fighter
fighters outfits (Amendments to SOLAS IIII-2/1 & 10.1
10.1)
.1)
Entry into force:
force: 1 July 2014
TEC--0947 & 0990]

0990]
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:
2
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
1.1.7
7 Enclosed space entry and rescue drills (SOLAS III/19 etc.)
1.1.
Entry into force:
force: 1 January 2015
015
ClassNK
TEC--0965]
[Refer to Cla
ssNK Technical Information TEC
965]
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)
1.2 Recent global developments

1.2.1 MOUs
MOUs 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
Asia-Pacific region
Latin American region
Caribbean region
Mediterranean region
Indian Ocean region
Black Sea region
West and Central Africa region
Arab States of the Gulf
Paris MoU
Tokyo MOU
Via del Mar
Caribbean MOU
Mediterranean MOU
Indian Ocean MOU
Black Sea MOU
Abuja MOU
Riyadh MOU
(http://www.parismou.org/)
(http://www.tokyo-mou.org/)
(http://www.acuerdolatino.int.ar/)
(http://www.caribbeanmou.org/)
(http://www.medmou.org/)
(http://www.iomou.org/)
(http://www.bsmou.org/)
(http://www.abujamou.org/)
(http://www.riyadhmou.org/)
(1) European
European and
and North Atlantic region (Paris MoU)
MoU)
1) 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
4
Organizations. These lists will take effect from 1 July 2015.

2) 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 ships 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) AsiaAsia-Pacific region (Tokyo MOU)
MOU)
1) 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
5
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).
2) 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 ships 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) LatinLatin-American region (Via del Mar or LatinLatin-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 (Caribbean MOU)
MOU)
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 (Mediterranean
Mediterranean MOU)
MOU)
Established: 11 July 1997
Members: Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Tunisia,
and Turkey
(6) Indian Ocean region (Indian Ocean MOU)
MOU)
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
6
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.
(7) Black Sea region (Black Sea MOU)

MOU)
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.
(8) West and Central Africa region (Abuja MOU)

MOU)
Established: 22 October 1999
Members: Angola, Benin, Cote dIvoire, Gabon, Ghana, Nigeria, Republic of Congo,
Republic of Guinea, Sao Tome & Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South
AfricaThe Gambia and Togo
(9)
(9) Arab States of the Gulf (Riyadh MOU)
MOU)
Established: 30 June 2004
Members: The Kingdom of Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,
The Sultanate of Oman, and United Arab Emirates
1.2.2
1.2.2 Port State Control in the United States (USCG)
1) 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) PSC 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.
7
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/)
3) Banning 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.
1.2.3
1.2.3 Equasis
Equasis is a unique database that collects safety-related information on the worlds
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.
1.3 Measures adopted by ClassNK

1.3.1 Handling of the Deficiencies Identified by Port State Control Inspections
(1) Cooperative assistance with Port States and treatment of deficiencies
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
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 reduce substandard ships
(1) Special training at several inin-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.
(2) Meetings and informal

informal 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 ships 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 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
China
Canada
New Zealand
U.S.A.
Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA)

Maritime Safety Administration (MSA)
Transport Canada (TC)
Maritime New Zealand(MNZL)
United States Coast Guard (USCG)
In 2015, the ClassNK Head Office is planning as well for visit major Port States
members of Paris MoU.
10
Chapter 2
Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships Registered to ClassNK
2.1 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 Detentions
Detentions
2.2.1 Detentions by Flag State
Table 2.2.1 Detentions by Flag State (NK)
Flag State
Panama
Detention Ratio (%)

(= Detentions /
Registered Number
in each year)
2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014
Number of
Registered Ships
(500GT or over)
Number of
Detentions
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
2.5
5.3
4.8
Vanuatu
47
48
53
8.5
8.3
13.2
Bahamas
134
144
149
6.7
4.9
4.0
Viet Nam
89
91
89
9.0
2.2
6.7
Thailand
72
67
73
10
13.9
11.9
6.8
Turkey
68
69
66
4.4
10.1
6.1
Philippines
89
87
73
9.0
5.7
5.5
Cyprus
85
86
89
7.1
5.8
3.4
Others
37
41
51
7,319 7,620 7,986
437
443
429
6.0
5.8
5.4
Total
11
300.0
Detentions
2012
258
246
250.0
228
2013
200.0
2014
150.0
100.0
50.0
36
51
43
17
37 35
16
21 21
19 21 19
17 14 14
21
17
10
9 8
4 4 7
9 7 6
10 8
5
3 7 4
8 5
4
6 5 3
Pa
na
m
a
Li
be
ria
M
ar
M
sh
al
ta
al
lI
sl
a
Ho nd s
ng
Ko
n
Si
ng g
ap
or
e
In
do
ne
si
Va a
nu
at
u
Ba
ha
m
as
Vi
et
Na
m
Th
ai
la
nd
Tu
rk
Ph
e
ilip y
pi
ne
s
Cy
pr
us
O
th
er
s
0.0
Flag State
Fig 2.2.1-1 Detention by Flag (NK)
20.0
15.0
2013
13.9
2014
13.2
11.9
10.5
10.0
9.1 9.2
8.2
10.1
9.7
8.7
6.7
6.2 6.1
5.3
4.9
5.0
8.5 8.3
7.8
7.1
4.8
4.7
3.9
3.1 3.2
9
6.7
2.5
2.5
6.1
4.9
4
3.2
7.1
6.8
5.7
5.5
4.4
1.4
Fig 2.2.1-2 Detention Ratio by Flag (NK)
12
Cy
pr
us
Tu
rk
ey
Ph
ilip
pi
ne
s
a
Li
be
ria
M
ar
al
sh
ta
al
lI
sl
an
ds
Ho
ng
Ko
ng
Si
ng
ap
or
e
In
do
ne
sia
Va
nu
at
u
Ba
ha
m
as
Vi
et
Na
m
Th
ai
la
nd
M
Flag State
5.8
3.4
2.2
0.0
Pa
na
m
Detention Ratio (%)
2012
2.2.2 Detentions by ship type

Table 2.2.2 Detentions by Ship Type (NK)
Number of
Detention Ratio (%)
Registered
Number of Detentions (= Detentions / Registered
Ship Type
Ships in 2014
Number in each year)
(500GT or
2012
2013
2014
2012
2013
2014
over)
216
7.2
7.6
7.2
Bulk Carrier
3,409
243
246
100
13.6
10.3
9.3
General Cargo
809
79
75
38
6.5
5.9
4.2
Container Carrier
615
35
26
9
6.5
4.7
4.0
Chip Carrier
125
6
5
0
1.0
1.8
0
Cement Carrier
113
1
2
6
12.8
13.6
6.8
Ro-Ro Ship
44
6
3
18
12.1
12.7
10.4
Reefer Carrier
134
18
14
10
2.8
4.0
4.0
Vehicles Carrier
350
14
14
6
0.8
1.3
1.2
Oil Tanker
751
10
9
27
4.2
3.3
3.0
Oil/Chemical Tanker
690
22
21
6
1.7
1.6
2.4
Gas Carrier
381
6
9
0.2
0.6
0.9
1
Others
565
3
5
437
Total
7,986
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.)
243
246
2012
2013
2014
216
150
100
100
79
75
38 35
50
0
27 22
26
6
18
10 14 14
18 14
10
21
r
en
er
al
C
ar
C
on
go
ta
in
er
C
ar
ri e
r
C
hi
p
C
ar
rie
C
r
em
en
tC
ar
ri e
r
R
oR
o
Sh
R
ip
ee
fe
rC
ar
Ve
rie
r
hi
cl
es
C
ar
rie
r
O
il
Ta
O
il/
nk
Ch
er
em
ic
al
Ta
nk
er
G
as
C
ar
rie
r
Bu
lk
th
er
s
250
200
C
ar
rie
Detentions
300
13.6
13.6
12.8
12.1
10.3
2012
12.7
2013
10.4
9.3
7.2
7.6
7.2
6.5
4.2
2014
6.8
6.5
5.9
4.7
4
4.2
3.3
2.8
1
0.8
1.3 1.2
1.7 1.6
0.2
Fig. 2.2.2-2 Detention Ratio by Ship Type (%)

13
th
er
s
O
en
er
al
C
ar
C
go
on
ta
in
er
C
ar
ri e
r
C
hi
p
C
ar
ri e
C
r
em
en
tC
ar
ri e
r
R
oR
o
Sh
ip
R
ee
fe
rC
ar
rie
Ve
r
hi
cl
es
C
ar
ri e
r
O
il
Ta
O
il/
nk
Ch
er
em
ic
al
Ta
nk
er
G
as
C
ar
rie
r
3
2.4
1.8
C
ar
rie
r
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Bu
l
Detention Ratio(%)
Fig. 2.2.2-1
1 Detentions by Ship Type (NK)
0.6
0.9
2.2.3 Detentions by ships age

Table 2.2.3 Detentions by Ships Age (NK)
Detention Ratio (%)
Number of
Registered
Ships in 2014
(500GT or over) 2012
2013
2014
2012
2013
2014
Ships age
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
1,162
98
100
102
10.4
9.5
8.8
445
35
43
43
9.2
10.6
9.7
Over 25
343
73
53
47
18.8
15.5
13.7
7,986
437
443
429
Detentions
Total
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
114
102
98 100
98
86
78
67
56
77
2012
79
2013
73
60
53
43
43
47
2014
35
Up to 5
Over 5 and
up to 10
Over 10 and Over 15 and Over 20 and

up to 15
up to 20
up to 25
Over 25
Detention Ratio (%)
Fig. 2.2.3-1
1 Detentions by Ship's Age (NK)
18.8
20.0
15.5
13.7
15.0
10.4
10.0
5.4
5.0
7.4
6.9
2.2 1.8
9.5 8.8
9.2
10.6
2013
9.7
7.3
2014
0.0
Up to 5
Over 5 and
up to 10
2012
Over 10 and Over 15 and Over 20 and

up to 15
up to 20
up to 25
Fig. 2.2.3-2 Detention Ratio by Ship's Age (NK)
14
Over 25
2.2.4 Detentions by ship size

size Gross Tonnage)
onnage)
Table 2.2.4 Detentions by Ship Size Gross Tonnage) (NK)
Detention Ratio (%)
Number of
Registered
Gross Ton (x 1,000)
Ships in 2014
(500GT or over) 2012 2013 2014
2012
2013
2014
4.9
Up to 10
2,682
147
136
131
5.8
5.3
7.5
1,327
97
100
100
7.8
7.9
7.1
958
64
54
68
7.4
5.9
5.3
1,111
68
74
58
6.9
7.0
4.0
658
26
20
26
4.6
3.4
3.0
330
8
16
10
2.6
4.8
3.7
216
9
14
8
4.3
6.6
4.0
Over 80
704
18
29
28
2.8
4.4
7,986
Detentions
Total
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
437
443
429
147
136131
2012
97 100 100
2013
64
68
54
68
74
2014
58
26
20
29 28
26
8
Up to 10
16 10
18
9 14 8
Over 10
Over 20
Over 30 Over 40
Over 50
Over 60
and up to and up to and up to and up to and up to and up to
20
30
40
50
60
80
Over 80
x 1,000 GT
Fig.2.2.4-1 Detentions by Gross Tonnage (NK)
9.0
7.8 7.9
Detention Ratio (%)
8.0
7.5
7.4
7.1
7.0
6.0
5.0
2012
6.9 7
6.6
2013
5.9
5.8
5.3
5.2
4.9
4.8
4.6
4.0
3.7
3.4
2.6
3.0
4.4
4.3
4
3
2014
4
2.8
2.0
1.0
0.0
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
x 1,000 GT
Fig. 2.2.4-2 Detention Ratio by Gross Tonnage (NK)

15
2.2.5 Detentions by Port State
Port State
China
2012 2013 2014

95
Australia
77
79
82
U.S.A.(*1)
18
23
32
Japan
31
27
22
India
32
20
21
Italy
Russian Federation
14
17
United Kingdom
Italy
15
Republic Korea
United Kingdom
15
Egypt
15
15
10
Turkey
Egypt
10
Germany
Turkey
10
Indonesia
Spain
3
24
2
14
32
23
18
Japan
22
India
21
20
27
31
32
17
Russian Federation
9
14
15
9
2
15
6
6
10
15
15
10
5
6
10
10
Chile
Chile
Hong Kong,China
Hong Kong,China
Greece
Greece
Cyprus
Cyprus
Iran
Iran
Netherlands
Netherlands
France
Poland
Singapore
2
6
1
4
4
3
0
27
437
1
46
443
3
17
429
France
Poland
2012
24
8
3
11
7
10
6
7
4
4
7
2
7
7
0
4
6
0
1
5
5
6
4
7
8
4
6
2
4
1
2
3
4
6
Singapore
Taiw an
2013
14
Canada
Canada
10
8
8
2014
2
3
Spain
10
4
5
Indonesia
11
Taiwan
Others
Total
82
79
77
U.S.A.(*1)
141
Germany
141
120
Australia
120
Republic of Korea
95
China
Table 2.2.5
Detentions by Port State (NK)
3
1
0
Fig. 2.2.5 D etenti ons by Port Sta te ( N K )
(*1) Including Puerto Rico
Number of ships detained by China Port State in 2014 decrease approximately two
thirds of that of 2013.
16
2.2.6
2.2.6 Detentions by MOU(and USCG)
Table 2.2.6
Detentions by MOU (and USCG)(NK)
500
MOU(and USCG)
400
2012 2013 2014

292
304
243
Paris MoU
50
59
87
USCG
18
23
32
Others
77
57
67
437
443
429
Total
Detentions
Tokyo MOU
437
300
443
429
Paris MOU
292
Tokyo MOU
304
243
200
100
0
NK Total
USCG
87
50
18
2012
59
23
2013
32
2014
Fig. 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.
17
2.3 Analysis of Detainable Deficiencies

2.3.1 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 ships 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.
221
214
215
FIRE SAFETY
ISM
119
137
LIFESAVING APPLIANCES
122
123
118
SAFETY OF NAVIGATION
65
PROPULSION AND AUXILIARY MACHINERY
49
CERTIFICATE AND DOCUMENTATION -CREW CERTIFICATE
97
93
65
61
65
51
25
27
2014
2013
43
43
42
RADIO COMMUNICATIONS
CERTIFICATE AND DOCUMENTATION -SHIP CERTIFICATE
27
37
36
36
WATER / WEATHERTIGHT CONDITIONS
35
24
21
POLLUTION PREVENTION - MARPOL ANNEX
23
STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS
ALARMS
2012
51
35
30
34
20
14
18
24
20
WORKING AND LIVING CONDITIONS - WORKING CONDITIONS
17
10
11
CERTIFICATE AND DOCUMENTATION -DOCUMENTS
LABOUR CONDITIONS-HEALTH
PROTECTION,MEDICAL CARE SOCIAL
LABOUR CONDITIONSHEALTH PROTECTION,MEDICAL
CARE SOCIAL SECURITY
SECURITY
50
39
POLLUTION PREVENTION - MARPOL ANNEX
LABOUR CONDITIONSLABOUR CONDITIONS-ACCOMMODATION,RECREATIONAL

ACCOMMODATION,RECREATIONAL
FACILITIES,FOOD AND CATERING
FACILITIES,FOOD AND CATERING
166
109
EMERGENCY SYSTEMS
LABOUR CONDITIONS-CONDITIONS OF EMPLOY MENT
163
129
13
12
2
0
11
1
0
WORKING AND LIVING CONDITIONS - LIVING CONDITIONS
10
12
POLLUTION PREVENTION - MARPOL ANNEX VI
10
6
OTHER
18
11
10
50
100
150
Deficiencies
Fig. 2.3.1 Deficiencies per Category (NK)
18
200
250
2.3.2 Frequently Reported Deficiencies

Deficiencies
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.
72
ISM
33
57
Lifeboats
78
50
41
Emergency Fire Pump and its pipes
53
57
31
Oil filtering equipment
20
24
30
Fire-dampers
35
38
30
Charts
23
20
Development of plans for shipboard operations
28
21
21
27
Fire pump and its pipes
12
Other (machinery)
17
2014
22
11
2013
21
Fixed fire extinguishing installation

Sew age treatment plant
21
16
24
20
Emergency souce of pow er- Emergency Generator
2012
32
26
32
15
20
Fire detection
15
Auxiliary engine
18
19
12
12
19
Fire drills
11
Means of control(opening,pumps ventilation,etc)
21
18
13
19
18
Endorsement by flag State
9
17
Maintenance of the ship and equipment

Propulsion main engine
22
30
16
16
Fire fighting equipment and appliances
15
14
10
14
Ventilators ,air pipes ,casings
19
12
14
Launching arrangements for survival craft
10
19
20
30
40
Deficiencies
Fig. 2.3.2 Deficiencies reported Frequentry (NK)
19
50
60
70
80
(1) Fire Safety

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
Wasted and holed fire-dampers
30
Operation failure of fire-dampers
Fire-dampers
35
38
Fire pumps and its pipes
17
12
27 Wasted and holed fire main line
Fixed fire extinguishing

system
26
32
Corroded and holed CO2 lines

21 Operation failure of fire extinguishing
systems
Fire detection
18
15
20 Inoperable fire detection units
19
13
18 Inoperable quick closing valves
10
14
15 Wasted and holed fire hoses
Fire prevention
12
18
12
Ventilation
11
11
Doors within main vertical

zone
10
11
10
Quick closing valves, Remote

control devices
Fire fighting equipment and
appliances
Means of escape
Deteriorated non-combustible materials for

cable penetrations in A-class divisions
Corroded and holed ventilator casings
12
Malfunction of mechanical ventilators
12 Malfunction of self-closing devices
8 Escape route blocked
(2) ISM 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.
Item
Table 2.3.2-(2) ISM Related Deficiencies

2012 2013 2014
Noted Deficiencies
15
33
72 Implementation of SMS failed generally
21
21
28
30
22
Resources and personnel
21
12
Other (ISM related)
13
Emergency preparedness
12
ISM
Development of plans for
shipboard operations
Maintenance of the ship and
equipment
Record of rest hours management not

followed SMS
Inadequate implementation of SMS by crew
17
Inadequate maintenance of ships equipment
Ships crew not familiar with operation of
12
ships equipment
12 ISM system does not ensure etc.
6
20
Failure of demonstrate emergency steering

Not familiar with fire fighting equipment
(3) Life Saving Appliances

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
Item
2012 2013 2014
Noted Deficiencies
Lifeboat engine not started
50 78 57 Poor maintenance of rechargeable batteries
Lifeboats
Inadequate resetting of on-load release gears
Launching arrangements for
9 19 14 Wasted / Holed davit
survival craft
Rescue boats
Operational readiness of
lifesaving appliances
14
13
Rescue boat engine not started

Rescue boat rudder control inoperable
Inoperable / Inadequate resetting of on-load
8
release gear
11
(4) Emergency 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
Item
2012 2013 2014
Noted Deficiencies
Emergency Fire Pump and its
Inoperable and unable to pressure the fire
57 53 41
pipes
main
Emergency source of power15 32 20 Emergency generator unable to start
Emergency Generator
Fire drills
21
11
Emergency lighting, batteries

and switches
Abandon ship drills
10
19 Fire drill failed

Deficient batteries/emergency generator
13 Inoperable emergency lighting
10 Abandon ship drill failed
(5) Safety 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
Item
2012 2013 2014

20
23
Nautical publications
10
Lights, shapes, sound

-signals
13
12
Charts
Voyage date recorder(VDR)

Voyage or passage plan
Noted Deficiencies
Navigation charts not updated
30 Navigation charts for intended voyage not
available
Nautical publications (tide table, list of lights,
13
list of radio signals, etc.) not updated
Inoperable navigation lights
13
Navigation lights not supplied by batteries
Defective VDR/S-VDR
9
Alarm panel showing system error
5 Previous passage plan missing
21
(6) Propulsion 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
Item
2012 2013 2014
Other (machinery)
11
Auxiliary engine
12
12
16
Noted Deficiencies
Excessive oil and bilge in engine room
22
Oil leakage around auxiliary engines
Inoperable Auxiliary engines
19
Leakage of oil
Defective oil mist detectors
16
Leakage of cooling water
(7) MARPOL Annex I

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of MARPOL Annex I
Table 2.3.2-(7) MARPOL Annex I
Item
(Oily-Water Separating
Equipment)
2012 2013 2014
24
20
15PPM alarm arrangements
12
Oil discharge monitoring and

control system
Noted Deficiencies
Inoperable oily water separator
Inoperable bilge pump
31 Oily water inside overboard discharging line
Ships crew not familiar with operation of oil
filtering equipment
11 Failure of 15PPM alarm
6 Defective automatic stopping device
(8) Crew Certificate

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of Crew Certificate
Table 2.3.2-(8) Crew Certificate
Item
2012 2013 2014
Certificates for master and

officers
14
12
Manning specified by the

minimum safe manning doc
Noted Deficiencies
Endorsement by flag State for officer
18
expired or missing
Missing of endorsement on STCW
8 certificates by flag state
Valid certificates expired
Undermanned against Minimum Safety
6
Manning Certificate
22
(9) Radio 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
Item
2012 2013 2014
Noted Deficiencies
Defective MF/HF radio apparatus
13 Not operable by DC power
MF/HF radio installation
16
14
Reserve source of energy
12
9 GMDSS reserve source of energy failed
EPIRB
Not operable
Annual test overdue
(10)
10) Ship 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
Item
Safety Management
Certificate(SMC/ISM Code)
Other (certificates)
Document of
Compliance(DOC/ISM Code)
Civil liability for bunker oil
pollution damage cert.
International Ship Security
Certificate
2012 2013 2014
Noted Deficiencies
7 Valid certificate expired
5 Valid certificate expired
4 Only copy onboard and expired
3 Original certificate not available and expired
DOC certificate onboard copy

Vailed certificate expired
(11)
11) Water/ 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
Item
2012 2013 2014
Noted Deficiencies
Wasted/Holed ventilators and air pipes
12 19 14 Damaged float of air pipe heads
Ventilators, air pipes, casings
Damaged closing devices
Wasted / Holed hatch covers
6 14
6 Wasted hatch cover cleats
Hatch Covers
Deteriorated rubber packing
Doors
5 Doors not closed tightly
23
(12
(12) MARPOL Annex IV
Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of MARPOL Annex IV
Table 2.3.2-(12) MARPOL Annex IV
Item
2012 2013 2014

24
Sewage treatment plant
16
Noted Deficiencies
21 Not operable
(13)
13) Structural Conditions
Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of Structural
Conditions are shown in Table 2.3.2-(13) below.
Item
Table 2.3.2-(13) Structural Conditions

2012 2013 2014
Noted Deficiencies
Ballast, fuel, and other tanks
5 Hold and fuel leakage
Steering gear
Inoperable emergency steering

4 Not familiar with operation of emergency
steering
(14
(14) Alarm
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
2012 2013 2014
Item
Noted Deficiencies
Machinery controls alarm
4 Main engine alarm inoperative
Fire alarm
3 Manual call point for fire alarm inoperative
Boiler alarm
3 Boiler low water level alarm inoperative
Steering gear alarm
Pump and phase failure alarm for steering

gear out of order
(15
(15) Working Conditions
Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of Working Conditions
Table 2.3.2-(15) Working Conditions
Item
Cleanliness of engine room
2012 2013 2014

15
Noted Deficiencies
Dirty and oily engine room due to oil
11 leakage etc.
A large quantity of oily bilge in engine room
24
2.4 Analysis of Detainable Deficiencies 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.
2.4.1
2.4.1 China
Table 2.4.1 China
Category of Deficiency
Fire Safety
Lifesaving Appliances
MARPOL Annex I
ISM
Emergency Systems
Radio Communications
MARPOL Annex IV
Alarms
Crew Certificates and Documents
Safety of Navigation
Propulsion and auxiliary machinery
Ships Certificates and Documents
Water/Weathertight conditions
ISPS
Documents
2012 2013 2014

84
67
69
41
58
40
17
19
19
23
18
17
33
42
16
8
13
12
12
7
12
4
0
12
6
7
10
11
14
8
3
11
7
8
15
5
11
24
4
1
6
3
0
4
3
Type of Deficiency
2012 2013 2014
Lifeboats
17
36
19
Fire prevention
6
10
12
10
11
11
8
4
10
24
22
9
Fire-dampers
13
11
7
Launching arrangements for survival craft
7
3
7
9
2
7
Quick closing valves
10
8
6
Ventilation
3
7
6
14
5
6
Fire fighting equipment and appliances
2
4
6
1
0
6
1
4
5
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)
25
2.4.2
2.4.2 Australia
Table 2.4.2 Australia
ISM
Emergency Systems
Fire safety
Water/Weathertight conditions
MARPOL Annex IV
MARPOL Annex I
2012 2013 2014

36
24
37
16
19
21
0
14
12
16
14
7
4
8
6
9
10
5
0
0
4
4
1
3
Type of Deficiency
2012 2013 2014
17
14
17
Lifeboats
1
3
10
Operational readiness of lifesaving appliances
13
11
8
Other(ISM)
1
4
8
3
9
6
ISM
0
0
6
Fire-dampers
7
6
5
Emergency source of power-Emergency Generator
3
3
5
7
2
5
7
6
4
Reserve source of energy
1
2
3
2.4.3
2.4.3 U.S.A.
Table 2.4.3 U.S.A.
Fire Safety
ISM
MARPOL Annex I
Emergency Systems
Living Conditions
2012 2013 2014

7
14
14
4
4
14
4
1
9
7
2
5
3
2
4
3
1
3
0
0
3
Type of Deficiency
2012 2013 2014
0
9
5
1
1
4
0
0
4
3
1
3
Rescue boats
0
0
3
26
2.4.4
2.4.4 Japan
Table 2.4.4 Japan
Emergency Systems
ISM
Fire safety
2012 2013 2014

14
7
10
11
10
9
11
9
7
Type of Deficiency
2012 2013 2014
Fire drills
11
6
7
6
6
6
Fire-dampers
3
0
4
2.4.5
2.4.5 India
Table 2.4.5 India
Fire Safety
Emergency Systems
Lifesaving appliances
2012 2013 2014

3
7
16
16
9
12
13
13
9
5
7
6
7
3
6
Type of Deficiency
2012 2013 2014
10
8
9
Other (machinery)
1
1
6
Auxiliary engine
0
3
5
0
3
5
2.4.6
2.4.6 Russian Federation
Table 2.4.6 Russian Federation
Fire Safety
Emergency Systems
2012 2013 2014

3
6
12
4
8
8
6
5
5
6
1
5
Type of Deficiency
2012 2013 2014
Lifeboats
4
6
5
Charts
0
0
5
4
1
3
27
2.4.7
2.4.7 Italy
Table 2.4.8 Italy
Fire Safety
ISM
Emergency Systems
2012 2013 2014

1
12
24
1
8
13
0
15
8
0
4
8
Type of Deficiency
2012 2013 2014
ISM
1
6
13
Quick closing valves, Remote control devices
0
1
8
Charts
0
6
5
2.4.8
2.4.8 United Kingdom
Table 2.4.7 United Kingdom
2012 2013 2014
4
6
11
ISM
2
3
10
Fire Safety
4
1
7
Emergency Systems
0
1
7
Living Conditions
Type of Deficiency
2012 2013 2014
ISM
3
6
11
Fire drills
2
0
3
2.4.9
2.4.9 Republic Korea
Table 2.4.9 Republic Korea
ISM
Fire Safety
2012 2013 2014

5
9
5
8
9
2
5
9
2
Type of Deficiency
2012 2013 2014
4
4
1
Lifeboats
2
3
1
Doors within main vertical zone
3
1
1
28
2.4.10 Egypt
Table 2.4.10 Egypt
Ship Certificates and Documents
2012 2013 2014

2
2
7
2
0
6
1
0
3
Type of Deficiency
2012 2013 2014
Other (machinery)
0
2
5
1
0
2
Voyage data recorder (VDR)
1
0
2
2.4.11 Turkey
Table 2.4.11 Turkey
Crew Certificates and Documents
Fire Safety
MARPOL Annex I
2012 2013 2014

1
1
8
2
3
7
0
0
7
Type of Deficiency
2012 2013 2014
0
0
5
0
0
3
MF/HF radio installation
1
1
2
Cleanliness of engine room
2
0
2
2.4.12
2.4.12 Germany
Table 2.4.12 Germany
ISM
Fire safety
2012 2013 2014

0
5
14
2
1
10
0
1
10
Type of Deficiency
2012 2013 2014
ISM
0
1
10
Charts
0
3
5
Lights, shapes, sound-signals
0
0
5
Nautical publications
0
2
3
29
Chapter 3
Statistics & Analysis 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
NKDOC company
ISM deficiency
ISM deficiency case
ISM deficiency rate*
:
:
:
:
ClassNK
Company holding a Document of Compliance issued by ClassNK
Deficiency related to the requirement of ISM Code
Case where any ISM deficiency was recorded in PSC inspection report
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
Statistics of ISM deficiency cases
3.1.1 Total 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
Year
ISM deficiency
cases (A)
NKSMC ships
total Nr.
Nr.B
ISM deficiency rate

A/B
A/B
2011
202
4505
4.5
2012
237
4677
5.1
2013
251
4868
5.2
2014
286
5104
5.6
3.1.2 Statistics of NKSMC Ships and ISM Deficiencies

3.1.2.1 Analysis per Property of Ship
(a)
Analysis
Analysis 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
30
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

ISM deficiency rate
Nr of ISM
deficiency cases
2014 (A)
Nr of NKSMC
ships
2014 (B)
2011
2012
2013
2014
Bulk carrier
153
2263
5.3
4.7
5.8
6.8
Other cargo ship
108
1816
5.1
6.7
6.4
5.9
Tanker
17
754
2.0
2.3
2.0
2.3
Chemical tanker
24
3.8
12.0
3.7
8.3
Gas carrier
242
2.6
4.5
0.9
2.5
Passenger & MODU
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total
286
5104
4.5
5.1
5.2
5.6
Type of ship
A/B
A/B
*Definition of Type of ship is as per ISM Code. Tanker means a tanker which carries oil
or oil and chemical.
ISM deficiency rate (%)
14.0
2011
12.0
2012
10.0
2013
8.0
2014
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Bulk carrier
Other cargo ship
Figure 3.1.2.1 (a)
Tanker
Chemical tanker
Gas carrier
ISM deficiency rate per type of ship
31
Passenger
& MODU
(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 ships 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 ships age and ISM deficiency rate show positive
correlation throughout the ships age.
As for bulk carrier, the ships age and ISM deficiency rate show positive correlation
until the ships 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 ships age of oil tanker.
Table 3.1.2.1 (b)
Age
ISM deficiency rate (A/B) (%)
Nr of ISM deficiency cases A
Nr of NKSMC ships B
2011
2012
2013
2014
2011
2012
2013
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
202
237
251
286
4505
4677
4868
5104
Total
Number of ISM deficiency cases per age of ship
14.0
2011
12.0
2012
2013
10.0
2014
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
04
59
Figure
3.1.2.1 (b) -1
10 14
15 19
20 24
25
ISM deficiency rate per age of ship
20.0
Bulk carrier
15.0
Other cargo ship

Oil tanker
10.0
5.0
0.0
04
59
10 14
15 19
20 24
25
Figure 3.1.2.1 (b) -2 ISM deficiency rate (%) per ship type and age of ship
32
(c) Analysis per Gross Tonnage of ship

The numbers of ISM deficiency cases per ships 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 ships 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)
GT
x 1,000
1,000
Number of ISM deficiency cases per ships GT

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

2011
2012
2013
2014
2011
2012
2013
2014
- 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
10
12
12
241
275
302
313
60 - 80
171
176
175
173
80 -
10
11
14
15
547
586
601
642
202
237
251
286
4505
4677
4868
5104
Total
9.0
2011
8.0
2012
7.0
2013
6.0
2014
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0 10
10 20
20 30
30 40
40 50
50 60
60 80
80
GT ( x 1,000)
Figure
3.1.2.1 (c)
ISM deficiency rate per Ships GT
33
(d) Analysis 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.
Flag
Table 3.1.2.1 (d)

2011
Nr.
Rate
ISM deficiency rate per flag of ship

2012
2013
Nr.
Rate
Nr.
Rate
Nr.
2014
Rate
Antigua and
Barbuda
0.0
11.1
7.7
16.0
Bahamas
0.9
4.2
3.5
4.3
Cyprus
4.7
1.7
4.6
4.3
Greece
0.0
0.0
9.1
13.0
Hong Kong
3.6
13
5.0
14
4.9
11
3.5
Japan
1.6
4.4
1.4
3.9
Kiribati
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Liberia
11
5.1
3.1
14
6.2
27
9.5
Malaysia
2.6
7.9
0.0
0.0
Malta
5.8
6.7
6.6
10
6.3
Marshall Islands
4.6
3.7
13
4.7
16
5.4
Norway
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.1
Panama
126
5.1
143
5.6
151
5.8
152
5.8
Philippines
9.1
8.5
11.9
6.7
Saudi Arabia
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Singapore
16
3.1
21
4.0
14
2.5
27
4.6
Thailand
8.8
7.8
10.0
5.6
Turkey
5.3
1.2
11.0
6.1
Vanuatu
4.2
11.1
2.1
11.6
1
202
3.2
4.5
2
237
5.7
5.1
1
251
2.2
5.2
3
286
4.5
5.6
(Others)
Total/Average
* The flag states of less than 10 NKSMC ships are included in (Others).
3.1.2.2
Analysis 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
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.
34
Table 3.1.2.2(a) ISM deficiency rate per Number of ships which a company manages
Nr of ships
Nr of
Nr of
ISM
Nr of
under
ISM deficiency
deficiency
deficiency NKSMC ships
Companies
management
cases (A)
(B)
rate (A/B)
1-5
472
79
1080
7.3
6 - 10
109
53
831
6.4
11 - 15
47
54
600
9.0
16 - 20
28
14
499
2.8
21 - 30
27
26
672
3.9
31 - 40
10
261
3.8
41 - 50
11
17
489
3.5
51 -
33
672
4.9
709
286
5104
5.6
Total
(b) Analysis per Country/Region where Company is located

ISM deficiency rate per country/region of companys 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
Nr of
ISM deficiency
Nr of
Nr of
Country/Region
ISM deficiency
rate (A/B)
NKSMC ships
Companies
cases (A)
(B)
2013
2014
China
67
17
218
4.2
7.8
Germany
15
75
3.6
8.0
120
27
438
8.4
6.2
Hong Kong
18
12
377
3.3
3.2
India
15
93
1.6
5.4
Japan
182
108
1845
5.2
5.9
Korea
35
11
147
7.2
7.5
Malaysia
12
88
0.0
1.1
Philippines
28
11
242
7.3
4.5
Singapore
70
29
891
2.7
3.3
Taiwan
22
16
207
9.4
7.7
Turkey
(Others)
54
71
27
175
9.4
15.4
5.2
Greece
16
308
4.7
Total
709
286
5104
5.2
* The countries/ regions of less than 10 companies are included in (Others)
35
5.6
3.1.2.3
3.1.2.3 Analysis per 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
Nr of ISM deficiency cases (Nr of Detainable ISM def. cases)
Authority
2011
2012
2013
2014
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)
Total
202
237
251
286
(129
129)
129
* Authorities raised 3 or less ISM deficiencies are included in (Others).
36
3.2
Analysis of Detainable ISM Deficiencies
3.2.1 Trends 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) Paris 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)
Number of Detainable
Deficiency
ISM deficiency
Defective Item
Code
2011
2012
2013
2014
15150
ISM
3
25
45
-
ISM deficiency for which 15150 not used
Total
13
23
16
28
46
(b) Tokyo 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.
37
Table 3.2.1(b) Number of Detainable ISM deficiencies per Deficiency Code (Tokyo
MOU)
Deficiency
ISM deficiency
Defective Item
deficiency
Code
2011
2012
2013
2014
15100
ISM (Item not specified)
0
2
0
3
15101
Safety and environmental policy
15102
Company responsibility and authority
15103
Designated person(s)
15104
Master's responsibility and authority
15105
Resources & personnel
11
19
10
12
15106
Development of plans for shipboard

operations
14
19
18
23
10
15109
Reports and analysis of NCs, accidents

and hazardous occurrences
15
16
14
15110
Documentation - ISM
15111
15112
Company verification, review and

evaluation
Certification, verification and control
15150
ISM
15199
Other (ISM)
11
Total
57
76
62
68
15107
15108
38
(c) USCG
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)
Deficiency
ISM deficiency
Defective Item
Code
2011
2012
2013
2014
2011
15100
0
0
0
0
15101
15102
15103
15104
15105
15106

operations
15109

15110
Documentation ISM
15111
15112

evaluation
15150
ISM
15199
Other (ISM)
Total
10
15
15107
15108
39
(d) Other 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)
Deficiency
ISM deficiency
Defective Item
Code
2011
2012
2013
2014
15100
0
0
0
0
15101
15102
15103
15104
15105
15106

operations
15109

15110
Documentation - ISM
15111
15112

evaluation
15150
ISM
15199
Other (ISM)
Total
13
15107
15108
3.2.2
Trends of Detainable Deficiencies raised in Major Port States in Paris

MoU and in Tokyo MOU
(a) Paris 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.
40
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) Tokyo 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 Deficiencies raised with detainable ISM deficiency
(a) Port States in Paris MoU Region
N of
cases
cases
PSC
German
y
Italy
UK
Number of Detainable Deficiencies in Each Category*
01 02 03
3
2
3
04 05
2
11
11
3
2
5
3
2
2
06
1
1
07
8
08
1
09 10
1
7
11 12 13
14
2
15
8
1
6
4
5
11
11
17
5
7
3
1
3
16 17 18
4
99
5
(b) Australia
Australia
Nr. of cases
40
Number of Detainable Deficiencies in Each Category*

01
02
03
3
04
3
05
06
07
6
08
41
09
10
2
11
4
12
13
14
1
15
40
16
17
18
3
**
12
*: 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
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
99
Life saving appliances

Dangerous Goods
Pollution Prevention
ISM
ISPS
Other
MLC, 2006
Others or Not categorized
** Average number of deficiencies raised in each case.
42
Chapter 4
Statistical Data from Tokyo MOU and Paris 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
Paris MoU
http://www.tokyo-mou.org
http://www.parismou.org
43
4.1 Tokyo MOU

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.
4.1.1 Port 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
Australia
Canada 1)
Chile
China
Fiji
Hong Kong, China
Indonesia
Japan
Republic of Korea
Malaysia
Marshall Islands 1)
New Zealand
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Russian Federation 2)
Singapore
Thailand
Vanuatu
Vietnam
Total
No. of Inspection
2012
3,179
487
907
8,321
28
743
2,673
5,193
2,350
892
476
70
2,004
1,081
779
456
0
1,290
2013
3,342
416
896
8,078
27
740
2,784
5,365
2,214
898
1
329
106
2,128
972
782
499
3
1,438
No. of Detentions
Detention ratio (%)
2014 2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014

3,742
210
233
269
6.61
6.97
7.19
389
7
9
5
1.44
2.16
1.29
901
16
17
26
1.76
1.90
2.89
7,361
596
659
476
7.16
8.16
6.47
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
736
34
40
47
4.58
5.41
6.39
2,605
67
35
24
2.51
1.26
0.92
5,337
237
199
208
4.56
3.71
3.90
1,928
113
109
73
4.81
4.92
3.79
918
12
17
9
1.35
1.89
0.98
21
0
1
0
4.76
239
16
7
9
3.36
2.13
3.77
124
0
5
4
0
4.72
3.23
2,016
3
4
2
0.15
0.19
0.10
996
28
15
13
2.59
1.54
1.31
1,127
44
22
28
5.65
2.81
2.48
566
1
3
0
0.22
0.06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,397
37
21
9
2.87
1.46
0.64
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.
44
4.1.2 Black List of Flag States

States
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
Papua New Guinea
Tanzania
Mongolia
Sierra Leone
Korea, Democratic Peoples Republic
Cambodia
Indonesia
Bangladesh
Kiribati
Niue
Belize
Egypt
No. of
Inspections
2012-2014
38
84
410
706
630
4,502
528
169
692
35
1,319
47
45
No. of
Detentions
2012-2014
11
20
78
121
104
642
80
21
70
6
116
7
Black to
Grey limit
Black to
Grey limit
6
10
38
61
55
344
47
18
60
5
108
7
4.1.3 Detentions by Recognized Organizations

Organizations
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)
RO
No. of
No. of
No. of RO
Recognized
Detention
responsible
Inspections
Detentions
responsible
Organization
ratio (%)
detention
2012-2014
2012-2014
detentions
ratio (%)
ABS
9,630
259
15
2.69
0.16
BV
9,967
405
17
4.06
0.17
CCS
8,428
79
0.94
0.02
DNV
10,849
261
2.41
0.08
GL
9,419
406
18
4.31
0.19
KR
8,582
142
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
4.36
RS
1,338
76
5.68
0.15
(*1) According to the Tokyo MOU annual report, in cases where a ships 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.
6.00%
Detention
RO responsibility
Detention ratio
5.00%
4.00%
3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
ABS
BV
CCS
DNV
GL
KR
LR
NK
RINA
RS
4.1.3 Detention Ratio by Recognized Organization (Tokyo MOU)
46
4.1.4
.1.4 Deficiencies by Category
Figure 4.1.4 shows the number of deficiencies by category for the three years from 2012
through 2014.
10,515
11,507
12,070
2014
16,654
17,539
Fire safety measures
2013
20,522
2012
2,671
3,511
Stability, structure and

related equipment
3,593
5,812
5,899
Load lines
6,753
14,231
16,275
Safety of navigation
17,124
2,699
3,099
ISM related deficiencies
3,292
36,978
37,433
Others
36,976
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
Deficiencies
4.1.4 Deficiencies per Category (Tokyo MOU)
47
25,000
30,000
35,000
4.2 Paris 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.
4.2.1 Port State Inspections carried out 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
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Cyprus
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Malta
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russian Fed. 1)
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Total
No. of Inspections
2012
1,068
567
983
223
103
334
169
283
1,233
1,208
1,164
70
285
1,468
267
173
176
1,531
572
425
424
728
951
199
1,668
493
1,543
2013
1,003
536
890
200
100
379
151
294
1,305
1,325
1,027
63
313
1,420
204
160
190
1,496
609
376
400
747
822
185
1,554
398
1,540
No. of Detentions
Detention ratio (%)
2014 2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014

1,028
13
21
14
1.22
2.10
1.36
491
25
20
14
4.41
3.70
2.85
981
27
33
22
2.75
3.70
2.24
256
5
13
10
2.24
6.50
3.91
126
6
8
18
5.83
8.00 14.29
439
4
3
6
1.20
0.80
1.37
191
1
1
0
0.59
0.70
0.00
285
1
3
2
0.35
1.00
0.70
1,321
45
41
36
3.65
3.10
2.73
1,318
46
29
44
3.81
2.20
3.34
1,079
42
49
68
3.61
4.80
6.30
71
0
2
6
0.00
3.20
8.45
275
21
23
14
7.37
7.30
5.09
1,326
110
131
88
7.49
9.20
6.64
308
2
1
0
0.75
0.50
0.00
184
5
4
0
2.89
2.50
0.00
199
12
17
11
6.82
8.90
5.53
1,334
36
57
27
2.35
3.80
2.02
585
11
9
1
1.92
1.50
0.17
450
17
12
24
4.00
3.20
5.33
429
4
9
8
0.94
2.30
1.86
775
16
16
24
2.20
2.10
3.10
984
29
37
35
3.05
4.50
3.56
196
6
12
4
3.02
6.50
2.04
1,813
117
63
69
7.01
4.10
3.81
530
5
3
4
1.01
0.80
0.75
1,456
63
51
63
4.08
3.30
4.33
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
48
4.2.2
.2.2 Black List of Flag States
States
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)
Inspections
Detentions
Black to
2012-2014
2012-2014
Grey Limit
Tanzania, United Republic of
313
51
Moldova, Republic of
593
80
Togo
353
45
33
Cook Islands
310
39
30
Dominica
70
11
Comoros
280
34
Belize
591
59
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
861
79
73
Cambodia
442
43
40
Sierra Leone
316
32
30
Flag State
49
High Risk
30
Medium to
52
High Risk
Medium
Risk
27
52
4.2.3 Deficiencies by Category

Figure 4.2.3 shows the number of deficiencies by category for the three years from 2012
through 2014.
6195
6861
6816
6176
6657
Fire safety
7488
4016
4526
4393
3491
3069
3297
Certificates & Documentation-Documents
2640
2754
2856
Certificates & Documentation-Ship Certificates
2234
2710
2442

Working and Living Conditions (MLC,2006)-MLC,2006 Title4
2218
390
2195
Working and Living Conditions (ILO147)-Working Conditions

Emergency Systems
2092
2184
2029
Water/Weathertight condition
2015
2111
2121
4579
5067
2014
1904
2202
2216
Structural Condition
2013
1801
1821
1736
ISM
2012
1541
1013
1005
Certificates & Documentation-Crew Certificates

1352
258
1240
1301
1476
Radio communication
874
1060
1127
Pollution prevention -Marpol Annex
759
Working and Living Conditions (ILO147) -Living Conditions
1946
2182
596
889
303

458
492
449
Alarms
392
490
398
344
341
324

Other
339
424
570
ISPS
337
401
485
324
88
Cargo operations including equipment
234
329
319
107
100
98
Dangeorous goods
57
14
27
30
29
Pollution prevention -Anti Fouling
17
25
23
4
9
12
2000
4000
6000
Deficiencies
Fig. 4.2.3 Deficiencies per Category (Paris MOU)
50
8000
10000
4.2.4
.2.4 Recognized Organization Performance Table
Table
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
DNVGL
DNV
LR
ABS
CCS
RINA
KRS
BV
GL
NK
TL
RS
PRS
CRS
IRS
Inspections
2012-2014
Detentions
2012-2014
Medium /
High limit
0
7
10
4
0
6
1
37
47
24
2
23
3
0
0
24
181
205
89
8
48
11
200
227
118
9
65
4
0
0
1,718
10,219
11,485
5,327
769
3,072
936
11,239
12,674
6,894
776
4,011
471
169
73
51
Performance
Level
High
MEDIUM
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.
MLC,2006 Ship's certificates and documents

Area 1 Minimum age of seafarers
Area 2 Medical certification of seafarers
Area 3 Qualifications
of seafarers
Area 4 Seafarers' employment
agreements
% of Detainable
deficiencies of
MLC deficiencies
Nr MLC
Deficiencies
% of Total of Nr.
MLC deficiencies
MLC Deficiencies per Area
Nr Detainable
MLC Deficiencies
Table 4.2.5 (a) Maritime Labor Convention, 2006
137
2.49
3.6
0.05
0.0
160
2.91
2.5
17
0.31
0.0
238
4.33
22
9.2
15
0.27
0.0
1,152
20.94
28
2.4
81
1.47
24
29.6
436
7.92
26
6.0
0.11
0.0
792
14.39
27
3.4
2,059
37.42
50
2.4
191
3.47
4.2
94
1.71
5.3
121
2.20
60
49.6
5,502
100.00
259
4.7
Area 5 Use of any licensed or certified or regulated

private recruitment and placement service for seafarers
Area 6 Hours of Works or rest
Area 7 Manning
levels for the ship
Area 8 Accommodation
Area 9 On-board recreational facilities
Area 10 Food and catering
Area 11 Health and safety and accident prevention
Area 12 on-board
medical
care
Area 13 On-board complaint procedure

Area 14 Payment of wages
Grand Total
52
Table 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) 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
53
Port State Control Annual Report

[English]
ClassNK
Survey Operations Headquarters
3-3 Kioi-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-0094 Japan
Tel: +81-3-5226-2027, -2028
Fax: +81-3-5226-2029
E-mail: svd@classnk.or.jp
www.classnk.com
August 2015

ClassNK PSC Report

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ClassNK PSC Report

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

August 2015

Port State Control Annual Report

Photographs of Deficiencies identified during

Broken safety belt

Cracked window of lifeboat

Poor condition of lifeboat hull

Seize of on-load release gear by

Leaked fire line

Illegal remove of self-closing device

Unacceptable hold-back hook

Oily water separator clogged

Oily and dirty engine room

Oily lagging of F.O. piping

Holed ventilator body

Wasted hatch cover securing

Gap of hatch cover

Corrosion holes of strength deck

Wasted mooring line

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

2.4 Analysis of Detainable Deficiencies by Port State

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

TEC--0947 & 0990]

TEC--0947 & 0990]

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

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

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

1.2 Recent global developments

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

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

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

September to 30 November 2015 with the Paris MoU jointly.

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

(7) Black Sea region (Black Sea MOU)

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

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

1.3 Measures adopted by ClassNK

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

(2) Meetings and informal

Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA)

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

Detention Ratio (%)

3,160 3,160 3,194

7,319 7,620 7,986

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

Fig 2.2.1-1 Detention by Flag (NK)

Fig 2.2.1-2 Detention Ratio by Flag (NK)

Detention Ratio (%)

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

2.2.2 Detentions by ship type

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

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

2.2.3 Detentions by ships age

Over 10 and Over 15 and Over 20 and

Detention Ratio (%)

Over 10 and Over 15 and Over 20 and

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

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

2.2.4 Detentions by ship size