Port State Control - 2014

8/9/2019 Port State Control - 2014

1/69

Port State Control Annual Report[English]

August 2014


2/69

PP hh oott ooggrr aa pp hh ss oof f DDeef f iicc iieenn cciieess iidd eenn tt iif f iieedd dd uu rr iinn gg PP oorr tt SStt aa tt ee CC oonn tt rr ooll

LLiif f ee SSaavviinngg

Broken safety belt

Damaged lifeboat seat

Poor condition of lifeboat hull

Inappropriate resetting of on-loadrelease gear


3/69

FFiir r ee SSaaf f eettyy

MM AAR R PPOOLL

Oily inside of discharge pipe

Oily water separator clogged

Cracked fire door

Noncombustible compound missingon A-class bulkhead

UU nn aa cccceepp tt aa bb llee hh oolldd --bb aa cck k hh ooook k f f oorr AA --ccllaa ssss f f iirr ee dd oooorr


4/69

MM aacchhiinneer r yy SS p paaccee

LLooaadd LLiinnee

WW aa sstt eedd hh aa tt cchh ccoovveerr sseeccuu rr iinn gg dd eevviiccee

Oily and dirty engine room

Oily lagging of F.O. piping

Holed ventilator top


5/69

OO tt hh ee r r ss

GG aa pp oof f hh aa tt cchh ccoovveerr ssiidd ee cclleeaa tt

HH eeaa vviillyy ww aa sstt eedd oonn --dd eecck k pp iipp iinn gg

WW aa sstt eedd mm oooorr iinn gg lliinn ee


6/69

ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control

Forewo rd

This annual Port State Control (PSC) report summarizes deficiencies identified by PSCinspections carried out in various countries around the world. This report is prepared withthe 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 thefollowing Chapters.

“Chapte r 1”: Status of Implementation and Recent Developments in PSC Worldwide“Chapte r 2”: Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships registered to ClassNK“Chapte r 3”: Statistics & Analysis of ISM Deficiencies raised to NKSMC Ships“Chapte r 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 ofsubstandard ships as well as improving maritime safety and pollution prevention. Therehas been a significant increase in PSC activity worldwide in concert with a number ofamendments to relevant international conventions.

In order to carry out the effective implementation of PSC provisions, many countries havealready signed and accepted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for regionalcooperation in PSC for many regions, and have established a centralized computerizeddatabase system and/or a harmonized approach.

PSC inspection procedures have been improved to cover not only a ships’ hardware ordocuments, but also the operational requirements of the relevant conventions or shipboardmaintenance under the ISM Code.

In light of this background, ClassNK is working hard to increase the transparency ofinformation related to PSC issues and to make it even more difficult for substandard shipsto survive in the market place.

August 2014

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 responsiblefor 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.


7/69


TA BL E OF CON TENTS

Chapter 1Status of I mplementat ion a nd Re cent Developments i n P SC Worldw ide1.1 Amendments to the relevant conventions

1.1.1 Electronic Chart Display and Information System········································ 11.1.2 Plans and procedures for recovery of persons from the water··························11.1.3 Means of recharging breathing apparatus ··················································· 21.1.4 Fire-fighter’s communication ···································································· 21.1.5 Types of fire-fighter’s outfits ····································································· 2

1.2 Recent global developments1.2.1 MOUs around the world

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

1.2.2 Port State Control in the United States (USCG)···········································61.2.3 Equasis ································································································· 7

1.3 Measures adopted by ClassNK1.3.1 Treatment of the Deficiencies Identified by Port State Control Inspections

(1) Cooperative assistance with Port States and treatment of the deficiencies ····· 7(2) Treatment of inspection reports by PSC officers ········································ 81.3.2 Minimizing the number of detained ships in order to reduce substandard ships

(1) Special training at several in-house meetings ··········································· 8(2) Meetings and informal gatherings with ship owners ·································· 8

1.3.3 Visits to Port States·················································································9

Chapter 2Stat istica l A na lysis o f Deta ined Sh ips R eg ist er ed t o ClassNK2.1 General····································································································· 102.2 Data on Detentions2.2.1 Detentions by Flag State ········································································· 102.2.2 Detentions by ship type ··········································································· 122.2.3 Detentions by ship’s age··········································································· 132.2.4 Detentions by ship size (Gross Tonnage) ····················································· 142.2.5 Detentions by Port State·········································································· 15

2.3 Analysis of Detainable Deficiencies2.3.1 Detainable Deficiencies per Category······················································· 162.3.2 Frequently Reported Deficiencies ···························································· 17

2.4 Analysis of Detainable Deficiencies by Port State

2.4.1 China·································································································· 232.4.2 Australia ····························································································· 242.4.3 Japan·································································································· 24


8/69


2.4.4 U.S.A. ··················································· ·············································· 252.4.5 India······ ························································· ···································· 252.4.6 Republic of Korea····················································· ····························· 252.4.7 Indonesia····························································· ································ 262.4.8 Canada······························································································· · 26

2.4.9 Russian Federation ······················································· ························ 262.4.10 Italy ··················································· ··············································· 272.4.11 Netherlands ··················································· ···································· 27

Chapt er 3St at ist ics & A na lys is o f ISM De f icien cies ra ise d to NK SMC Sh ips3.1 Statistics of ISM deficiency cases

3.1.1 Total number and average rate ····················································· ········· 283.1.2 Statistics of NKSMC Ships and ISM Deficiencies ······································· 28

3.1.2.1 Per Property of ship ······················································ ··················· 283.1.2.2 Per Factors related to Company ······················································· ·· 333.1.2.3 Per Port State·················································································· · 36

3. 2 Analysis of ISM Deficiencies3.2.1 Number of ISM deficiencies sorted by relevant ISM Code requirement ········· 373.2.2 ISM Deficiencies and Detentions per Port State ········································ 383.2.3 ISM Deficiencies and PSC Action Code ················································· ···· 39

Appendix: Sample of PSC inspection reports ················································· 43

Chapt er 4St at ist ica l Dat a f rom Tok yo MOU a n d Pa r is MOU

4.1 Tokyo MOU4.1.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Authorities········································ 524.1.2 Black List of Flag States ···················································· ···················· 534.1.3 Detentions by Recognized Organization ···················································· 544.1.4 Deficiencies by Category········································································· 55

4.2 Paris MOU4.2.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Authorities········································ 564.2.2 Black List of Flag States ···················································· ···················· 574.2.3 Deficiencies by Category········································································· 584.2.4 Recognized Organization Performance Table ············································· 59


9/69


10/69


1

Chapter 1

Status of Implement ation a nd R ecent Developmentsin PSC Worldw ide

1.1 A mendment s to the re levant conv ent ionsMajor amendments to international conventions and to the relevant regulations thatcame into effect from 2012 through 2014 are summarized below.

1.1.1 E lectron ic Cha rt Display and In formation Syst em (SOL A S V/19) Ent ry int o force: 1 Ju ly 2012[ R e fe r t o Cl a s s N K Te ch n i c a l I n fo r mat ion T EC-0907]Paragraphs 2.1.4 and 2.10, 2.11 relating to the Electronic Chart Display andInformation System (ECDIS) were revised and newly added to SOLAS Chapter V/19.

An Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS) and back-uparrangement 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, notlater than the initial safety equipment survey.

(ii) Cargo ship, of 3,000GT and upward but less than 10,000GT constructed on orafter 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 laterthan the first safety equipment survey on or after 1 July 2016

(iv) Cargo ship, of 20,000GT and upward but less than 50,000GT constructedbefore 1 July 2013, not later than the first safety equipment survey on or after1 July 2017.

(v) Cargo ship, of 10,000GT and upward but less than 20,000GT constructedbefore 1 July 2013, not later than the first safety equipment survey on or after1 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 equipmentsurvey.

1.1.2 Plans and pr ocedure s for recove ry of pe rsons f rom the w ate r (SOL A S III /17-1)Ent ry int o force: 1 Ju ly 2014[ R e f e r t o Class N K Te c h n i c a l In fo r mat ion T EC-0 98 5]SOLAS chapter III was amended to add new regulation 17-1 and this new regulationstates that "Plans and procedures for recovery of persons from the water" shall beprovided for all ships engaged in international voyage (all passenger ships other thanro-ro passenger ships and cargo ships of not less than 500 tons).

Application:


11/69


2

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

2) Existing ships (ships constructed before 1 July 2014): By the first periodical orrenewal safety equipment survey of the ship, whichever comes first after 1 July2014

1.1.3 Mean s of recha rg ing bre ath ing appa ratus (SOL A S II-2 /15.2.2.6)Ent ry int o force: 1 Ju ly 2014[R e f e r t o Class N K Te c h n i c a l In fo r mat ion T EC-0 947 & 09 90]SOLAS regulation II-2/15 was amended to add new paragraph 2.2.6 and this newparagraph states that an onboard means of recharging breathing apparatus usedduring drills or a suitable number of spare cylinders shall be carried on board toreplace 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

1.1.4 F ire-f ight er’s commu nicat ion (SOL AS II-2 /10.10.4 )Ent ry into fo rce: 1 Ju ly 2014[R e fe r t o Class N K Te c hn i c a l In fo r mat ion T E C-0 947 & 09 9 0]SOLAS regulation II-2/10 was amended to add new paragraph 10.4. This newparagraph states that a minimum of two two-way portable radiotelephone apparatusfor each fire party for fire-fighter’s communication shall be carried on board andthose two-way portable radiotelephone apparatus shall be intrinsically safe or of anexplosion-proof type.

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

at new building stage2) Existing ships (ships constructed before 1 July 2014): By the first survey after 1

July 2018

1.1.5 T ypes o f f ire-f ight er’s out f its ( Amend ment s to SOL AS II-2 /1 & 10.1) Ent ry into fo rce: 1 Ju ly 2014[R e fe r t o Class N K Te c hn i c a l In fo r mat ion T E C-0 947 & 09 90]SOLAS II-2/1 & 10.1 were amended and due to these amendments, compressed airbreathing 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 beenreduced to no less than 200 l . Application:

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

2) Existing ships (ships constructed before 1 July 2014): By 1 July 2019

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


12/69


3

1.2 Re cent globa l development s

1.2.1 MOUs a round the wo rldIn order to carry out PSC effectively, a recommendation concerning regionalco-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 ofUnderstanding on Port State Control (Paris MOU), and today many countries havesigned and accepted similar MOUs around the world. Currently, nine MOUs existaround the world and their respective activities in terms of implementing PSC aredescribed 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) Eu ropea n a nd North At lant ic re gion (Pa ris MOU )1) Activit y

Established: 1 July 1982Members: Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,

France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,

Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, RussianFederation, 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 fromNorth America to Europe. The Paris MOU states that their aim is to eliminatethe operation of sub-standard ships through a harmonized system of port Statecontrol.

-2 Press releases have announced the recent activities of the Paris MOU as follows.Press release dated 14 October 2013

The Paris MOU announced that seven (7) ships were detained for MLC-relateddeficiencies during the first month since entry into force of MLC2006 and thiscorresponded to 10% of the total number of detentions (68) in the Paris MoUarea in this period.

Press release dated 17 February 2014The Paris MOU announced the preliminary results of the ConcentratedInspection Campaign (CIC) on Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, which wasconducted from 1 September to 30 November 2013.

- 68 ships (41% of all detentions) were detained over the 3 month period asa direct result of the CIC for deficiencies related to propulsion andauxiliary machinery.

- More than half (54%) of all CIC-topic related detentions involved ships of

20 years or more.Press release dated 16 June 2014- The Paris MOU announced new targeting lists Paris MOU which take effect

from 1 July 2014.


13/69


4

2) New Inspect ion Regime ( NIR)-1 Classification of the Ship Risk Profile

A Ship Risk Profile is based on the flag, Recognized Organization and companyperformance, 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 RiskShips (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 ShipsThe 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 2 nd banning will lead to a ban, regardless ofthe flag of the ship.

-3 Reporting obligationsThe ETA72 (a 72 hour pre-arrival) notification requirement has been widened toinclude 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 toan 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) A sia-Pac if ic reg ion (Tokyo MOU )1) Activit y

Established: 1 December 1993Members: 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 regionthrough the co-operation of its members and the harmonization of theiractivities,

2. to eliminate substandard shipping so as to promote maritime safety,3. to protect the marine environment, and4. to safeguard working and living conditions onboard ships.

-2 Press releases announced the activities of the Tokyo MOU as follows.Press release dated 1 November 2013

The Tokyo MOU announced that the 24th meeting of the PSC Committee of theTokyo MOU was held in Tokyo, Japan from 28 to 31 October 2013.

- The Tokyo MOU celebrated its 20 years anniversary during this meeting

and the relevant forum was organized.- The Committee approved the arrangements for the CIC on STCW Hours ofRest that will be carried out from 1 September to 30 November 2014 withthe Paris MOU jointly.


14/69


5

- The 25th meeting of the PSC Committee will be held in New Zealand inNovember 2014.

Press release dated 1 April 2014The Tokyo MOU announced the preliminary results of the ConcentratedInspection Campaign (CIC) on Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, which was

conducted from 1 September to 30 November 2013.- A total of 282 detentions were recorded during the CIC inspections, amongwhich 72 or 25.5% of them were detained as a direct result of the CIC.

- A detailed analysis of the results of the CIC will be considered by the PSCCommittee in November 2014, after which a full report will be submitted tothe International Maritime Organization (IMO).

2) New Inspect ion Regime ( NIR)The NIR will enter into force from 1 January 2014.

A Ship Risk Profile is based on the flag, Recognized Organization and companyperformance, the number of deficiencies and detentions recorded for the ship, pastinspection 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 RiskShips (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) Lat in-A merican re gion ( Viña de l Ma r or Lat in-A merica Agreement )Established: 5 November 1992Members: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador,

Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela

(4) Ca ribbean r egion (Ca r ibbe an MOU )Established: 9 February 1996Members: Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Cayman Islands,

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

(5) Medit err anean re gion (Medite rrane an MOU)Established: 11 July 1997Members: Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Tunisia,

and Turkey

(6) Ind ian Ocean re gion (Ind ian Oce an MOU )Established: 5 June 1998Members: 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 2013, the Indian Ocean MOU carried out a Concentrated Inspection Campaign

(CIC) on Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery from 1 September to 30 November

2013 in line with the CIC carried out by the Tokyo MOU and the Paris MoU.-2 According to Annual Report 2013 of the Indian Ocean MOU, a total of 5,320inspections were carried out and 376 vessels were detained in 2013.


15/69


6

(7) Black Sea re gion (Black Sea MOU )Established: 7 April 2000Members: Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russian Federation, Turkey, and Ukraine-1 In 2013, the Black Sea MOU carried out a Concentrated Inspection Campaign

(CIC) on Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery from 1 September to 30 November

2013 in line with the CIC carried out by the Tokyo MOU and the Paris MoU.-2 The 15th meeting of the PSC Committee of the Black Sea MOU was held in

Constanta, Romania from 8 to 10 April 2014.-3 According to Annual Report 2013 of the Black Sea MOU, a total of 5,080

inspections were carried out and 169 vessels were detained in 2013.-4 CIC on STCW Hours of Rest is scheduled to be carried out from 1 September to 30

November 2014.

(8) West a nd C ent ra l A f r ica reg ion ( A buja MOU )Established: 22 October 1999Members: 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) A rab Stat es o f the Gu lf (Riyadh MOU )Established: 30 June 2004Members: The Kingdom of Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,

The Sultanate of Oman, and United Arab Emirates

1.2.2 Port State C ont rol in the Un ited State s (USCG)1) Activit y

Although the United States Coast Guard (USCG) is not a member of any MOU, it isan observer at a number of MOUs, and undertakes effective PSC in cooperationwith other MOUs.In the 1970's, the U.S. Coast Guard increased its emphasis on the examination offoreign vessels. Although this emphasis was primarily driven by requirements toensure compliance with the then new U.S. pollution prevention and navigationsafety regulations, boarding officers also exercised Port State authority wheninstances of non-compliance with SOLAS and MARPOL were noted.In 1994, the U.S. introduced risk-management methodologies into the Port StateControl program in order to allocate limited inspection resources to where theycould do the most good, by identifying those ships, ship owners, classificationsocieties and Flag Administrations that were most often found lacking in meetingtheir international Convention responsibilities.On 1 January 2001, the USCG implemented an initiative to identify high-qualityships, called Qualship 21, quality shipping for the 21st century. This program hassince proven to be very effective in recognizing well operated and maintained shipsof good quality and continues in use today.

2) PSC Sa fet y Target ing Mat r ixThe USCG uses the Port State Control Safety and Environmental ProtectionCompliance Targeting Matrix which enables the Coast Guard to rationally andsystematically determine the probable risk posed by non-U.S. ships calling at U.S.

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


16/69


7

3) Ba nn ing of fore ign ve ssels All foreign flagged vessels operating in U.S. waters are required to be maintained incompliance with U.S. regulations, international conventions and other requiredstandards. 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 forthe substandard conditions that led to the detentions, the USCG Headquarters(USCG-HQ) will issue a Letter of Denial prohibiting the ship from further enteringany U.S. port until such time as certain actions have been taken to rectify thesituation. However, even if a vessel has less than three detentions in twelvemonths, a Letter of Denial may be issued to any vessel which, in the option of theUSCG;1. may pose a significant risk to the safety of the vessel, crew or the marine

environment; or2. 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 tothe marine environment; or

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

1.2.3 Equa sisEquasis is a unique database that collects safety-related information on the world’smerchant fleet from both public and private sources and makes it easily accessible onthe Internet ( http://www.equasis.org/ ). It displays information from public authorities

(Port State inspection and detention information from the three participating PSCregions, i.e. the Paris MOU, Tokyo MOU, and USCG) and industry players (such asinformation on class, insurance, participation in industry inspection schemes, andquality organizations), all free of charge.

1.3 Me asu re s adopt ed by C la ssN K

1.3.1 Hand ling of the Def icienc ies Identi f ied by Port State C ont rol Inspect ions(1) Cooperat ive assistance w ith Po rt Stat es and t reatment o f de f icienc ies

When surveyors of the Society are notified of the detention of a ship classed withClassNK, the Society actively co-operates with the reporting PSC Authority in anumber 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 mattersare identified.

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

- Surveyors provide PSC officers with background information, extracts from reportspertinent to the inspection, and details of outstanding recommendations of classand statutory items 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 andequipment of the subject ship to the extent of an annual survey, carefullyconsidering the seriousness of any deficiencies when they attend ships that havebeen subject to an intervention action by the port state.


17/69


8

(2) Tre atment of inspe ct ion reports by PSC of f icersWhen a surveyor receives an inspection report from a port state authority, the reportis sent to the ClassNK Head Office. The report is immediately examined byexperienced 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 toall 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 forthe purpose of providing surveyors with PSC related information electronically. Theresults of this examination are also submitted to the Flag State Administration of theship, 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 toencourage them to more proactively improve the routine maintenance of their shipsand take other measures as necessary to ensure the highest levels of safe andenvironmentally friendly operation. In cases where the deficiencies pointed out by theport state authority are determined to be related to previous surveys conducted bysurveyors of the Society, those surveys are treated as a non-conforming service, andappropriate corrective and preventive actions are taken in accordance with theClassNK quality system.

1.3.2 M inimizing the number of deta ined sh ips i n order t o reduce substa nd ard sh ips(1) Specia l tr ain ing at seve ra l in-house meet ing s

Special training on PSC related issues is conducted at several meetings held regularlyfor general managers and managers, to ensure that surveyors carry out full andeffective surveys with an uncompromising attitude towards ensuring the quality andsafety of the ships classed with the Society.

Special re-training is also carried out under the supervision of the Head Office andregional managers, as needed, for those surveyors who have conducted any surveysdetermined to be a non-conforming service under the quality system of the Society.

(2) Meet ings and i nforma l gathe rings w ith sh ip owne rs(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 companymanaging the ship to discuss what steps can be taken to improve the routinemaintenance of the ships in their fleet, so as to prevent both a recurrence of thedeficiencies noted and the occurrence of similar problems in the future.

(b) Meetings and seminarsPSC related issues are regularly discussed at informal gatherings and technicalcommittee meetings held with ship owners. At such times, explanations are givenand documents presented, with emphasis placed on the importance of proactivelyensuring the proper maintenance of ships and education of crew in order to preventthe detention of ships.

(c) PublicationsThe “ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control” is distributed to all registered

shipowners and operators in the ClassNK fleet. A checklist entitled “GoodMaintenance on board Ships” has also been prepared in electronic format, whichcan be used by the ship’s crew for quick and easy inspection of a ship beforeentering port.


18/69


9

1.3.3 Visits t o Port St ate sPersonnel from the ClassNK Head Office as well as local survey offices are assigned tovisit the headquarters or offices of various Port States with the aim of introducingClassNK and exchanging views on matters of mutual concern. In 2013, 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)India Indian Maritime Administration


19/69


10

Chapter 2

Stat istica l A na lysis of Deta ined Sh ips Reg istered to ClassNK

2.1 Gene ra lThe data in this chapter, on ships detained due to deficiencies identified during PSCinspections, 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, andthe Tokyo MOU.

From January to December 2013, 447 PSC detentions were reported relating to 411ships classed by NK. This included cases of detention for reasons not related to class orto NK itself. The total number of NK-registered ships (500 GT or over) was 7,620 atthe end of December 2013. Therefore, the 411 ships detained represent about 5.4% of

the total number of ships in the NK fleet. Further, detention ratio(Detentions/Registered number in 2013) of the NK fleet in 2013 is about 5.9%.

2.2 Data on Detent ions2.2.1 Detent ions by F la g St ate

Table 2.2.1 Detentions by Flag State (NK)

Number ofRegistered Ships(500GT or over)

Number ofDetentions

Detention Ratio (%)(= Detentions /

Registered Numberin each year)

Flag State

2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013Panama 3,048 3,160 3,160 246 258 249 8.1 8.2 7.9Liberia 299 349 396 26 17 36 8.7 4.9 9.1Marshall Islands 249 307 343 18 19 21 7.2 6.2 6.1Malta 181 184 200 18 16 21 9.9 8.7 10.5Singapore 610 649 691 21 21 17 3.4 3.2 2.5Hong Kong 422 435 458 18 17 14 4.3 3.9 3.1Indonesia 108 160 170 4 4 9 3.7 2.5 5.3Thailand 72 72 67 8 10 8 11.1 13.9 11.9Bahamas 131 134 144 14 9 7 10.7 6.7 4.9Turkey 58 68 69 7 3 7 12.1 4.4 10.1St. Vincent * 27 25 22 8 8 6 29.6 32.0 27.8Cook Islands 3 9 21 1 3 6 33.3 33.3 28.6Cyprus 86 85 86 7 6 5 8.1 7.1 5.8Japan 810 840 860 0 3 5 0 0.4 0.6Philippines 99 89 87 4 8 5 4.0 9.0 5.7Others ‐ ‐ ‐ 31 35 31 ‐ ‐ ‐ Total 6,914 7,319 7,620 431 437 447 6.2 6.0 5.9

* Refers to St. Vincent and the Grenadines. The same applies in all subsequent tables or figures.


20/69


11

Of those Flag State Administrations with ten (10) or more NK classed ships, thefollowing Administrations were identified as having a detention ratio higher than 10%in 2013: Malta, Thailand, Turkey, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Cook Islands.

Fig 2.2.1-2 Detention Ratio by Flag (NK)

7.2

10.7

0

44.9

6.2

3.9

13.9

7.1

0.4

99.1 10.1

8.78.1

33.3

12.111.1

3.73.4

9.9

8.1

29.6

4.3

33.3

4.4

6.7

2.53.2

8.78.2

32

5.7

0.6

5.8

28.6

27.8

4.9

11.9

5.3

3.12.5

10.5

6.17.9

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.025.0

30.0

35.0

P a n a

m a

L i b e r i

a

M a r s h

a l l I s l a m

d s M a

l t a

S i n g a

p o r e

H o n g

K o n g

I n d o n

e s i a

T h a i l a

n d

B a h a

m a s

T u r k e

y

S t . V i n c

e n t *

C o o

k I s l a

n d s

C y p r u

s J a

p a n

P h i l i p

p i n e s

Flag State

D e t e n t i o n

R a t i o

( % )

2011

2012

2013

Fig 2.2.1-1 Detention by Flag (NK)

246

2618 18 21

4 8 14

7 1 7 0 4

31

258

17 19 16 21 174

10 9 3 3 6 3 8

353621 21 17 14 9 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 5

31

818 8

249

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

P a n a

m a

L i b e r i

a

M a r s

h a l l I

s l a m d

s M a

l t a

S i n g a

p o r e

H o n g

K o n g

I n d o n

e s i a

T h a i l a

n d

B a h a

m a s

T u r k e

y

S t . V i n c

e n t *

C o o k

I s l a n

d s

C y p r u

s J a

p a n

P h i l i p

p i n e s

O t h e

r s

Flag State

D e

t e n

t i o n s

2011

2012

2013


21/69


12

2.2.2 Detent ions by sh ip t ypeTable 2.2.2 Detentions by Ship Type (NK)

Number of DetentionsDetention Ratio (%)

(= Detentions / RegisteredNumber in each year)Ship Type

Number ofRegistered

Ships in 2013

(500GT orover) 2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013

Bulk Carrier 3,180 209 216 246 7.2 7.2 7.7General Cargo 766 93 100 80 14.3 13.6 10.4Container Carrier 594 31 38 35 5.3 6.5 5.9Chip Carrier 128 13 9 6 8.5 6.5 4.7Cement Carrier 105 1 0 1 1.0 0 1.0Ro-Ro Ship 44 9 6 6 9.8 12.8 13.6Reefer Carrier 142 15 18 18 8.6 12.1 12.7Vehicles Carrier 352 8 10 14 2.3 2.8 4.0Oil Tanker 752 10 6 10 1.4 0.8 1.3

Oil/Chemical Tanker 672 31 27 22 5.0 4.2 3.4Gas Carrier 365 9 6 6 2.5 1.7 1.6Others 520 2 1 3 1.0 0.2 0.6Total 7,620 431 437 447

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

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

93

3113

1 9 8 10 9 2

100

38

90 6

10 6 6 1

246

35

6 1 6 14 10 6 315

31

209

18

27

216

18

22

80

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

B u l k

C a r r i e

r

G e n e

r a l C a r g

o

C o n t a

i n e r C

a r r i e r

C h i p

C a r r i e

r

C e m e

n t C a

r r i e r

R o - R

o S h i p

R e e f e

r C a r r

i e r

V e h i c

l e s C a r r

i e r

O i l T a

n k e r

O i l / C

h e m i

c a l T

a n k e

r

G a s C

a r r i e r

O t h e

r s

D e

t e n

t i o n s 2011

2012

2013

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

7.2

14.3

5.3

8.5

1

9.8

8.6

2.3

1.4

5

2.5

1

7.2

13.6

6.5 6.5

0

12.812.1

2.8

0.8

4.2

1.7

0.2

7.7

10.4

5.9

4.7

1

13.6

12.7

4

1.3

3.4

1.6

0.6

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

B u l k

C a r r i e

r

G e n e

r a l C a r g

o

C o n t a i n e

r C a r r

i e r

C h i p

C a r r i e

r

C e m e

n t C a

r r i e r

R o - R

o S h i p

R e e f e

r C a r r

i e r

V e h i c l e

s C a r r

i e r

O i l T a

n k e r

O i l / C h e

m i c a

l T a n

k e r

G a s C

a r r i e r

O t h e

r s

D e

t e n

t i o n

R a

t i o ( % )

2011

2012

2013


22/69


13

2.2.3 Detent ion s by sh ip’s a ge

Table 2.2.3 Detentions by Ship’s Age (NK)


(= Detentions / Registered

Number in each year)Ship’s age

Number ofRegistered

Ships in 2013(500GT or over) 2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013Up to 5 years old 3,055 71 67 57 2.6 2.2 1.9

Over 5 and up to 10 1,663 68 78 116 5.3 5.4 7.0

Over 10 and up to 15 1,105 94 86 77 7.7 7.4 7.0

Over 15 and up to 20 1,050 88 98 101 10.5 10.4 9.6

Over 20 and up to 25 404 41 35 43 10.7 9.2 10.6

Over 25 343 69 73 53 16.5 18.8 15.5

Total 7,620 431 437 447

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

71 68

9488

41

696778

8698

35

73

57

116

77

101

4353

020406080

100120140

Up to 5 Over 5 andup to 10

Over 10 andup to 15

Over 15 andup to 20

Over 20 andup to 25

Over 25

D e

t e n

t i o n s 2011

2012

2013

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

2.6

5.3

7.7

10.5 10.7

16.5

2.2

5.47.4

10.49.2

18.8

1.9

7 7

9.610.6

15.5

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

Up to 5 Over 5 andup to 10

Over 10 andup to 15

Over 15 andup to 20

Over 20 andup to 25

Over 25 D e

t e n

t i o n

R a

t i o ( % )

2011

20122013


23/69


14

2.2.4 Detent ions by sh ip s ize Gross Tonnage)

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


(= Detentions / Registered

Number in each year)Gross Ton (x 1,000)

Number ofRegistered

Ships in 2013(500GT or over) 2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013Up to 10 2,586 164 147 137 6.6 5.8 5.3Over 10 and up to 20 1,273 89 97 100 7.4 7.8 7.9Over 20 and up to 30 910 63 64 55 8.1 7.4 6.0Over 30 and up to 40 1,051 61 68 76 6.7 6.9 7.2Over 40 and up to 50 592 28 26 20 5.5 4.6 3.4Over 50 and up to 60 331 7 8 16 2.6 2.6 4.8Over 60 and up to 80 213 7 9 14 3.5 4.3 6.6Over 80 664 12 18 29 2.1 2.8 4.4

Total 7,620 431 437 447

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

164

89

63 61

28

7 7 12

147

97

64 68

26

8 918

137

100

55

76

20 16 1429

020406080

100120140160180

Up to 10 Over 10and up to

20

Over 20and up to

30

Over 30and up to

40

Over 40and up to

50

Over 50and up to

60

Over 60and up to

80

Over 80

D e t e n t i o n s 2011

2012

2013

x 1,000 GT

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

6.6

7.48.1

6.7

5.5

2.6

3.5

2.1

5.8

7.87.4

6.9

4.6

2.6

4.3

2.8

5.3

7.9

6

7.2

3.4

4.8

6.6

4.4

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.06.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Up to 10 Ov er 10and up to

20

Over 20and up to

30

Over 30and up to

40

Over 40and up to

50

Over 50and up to

60

Over 60and up to

80

Over 80

D e

t e n

t i o n

R a

t i o ( % )

2011

2012

2013

x 1,000 GT


24/69


15

2.2.5 Detent ions by Port St at e

Table 2.2.5Detentions by Port State (NK)

Port State 2011 2012 2013

China 117 120 141

Australia 83 77 79

Japan 40 31 27

U.S.A.(*1) 21 18 27

India 26 32 20

Republic of Korea 6 15 15

Indonesia 23 24 14

Canada 3 6 10

Russian Federation 12 14 9

Italy 5 2 9

Netherlands 9 8 7

United Kingdom 6 6 6

France 4 2 6

Iran 5 6 5

Egypt 1 6 5

Brazil 0 7 5

Viet Nam 9 8 4

Chile 4 4 4

Singapore 3 6 4

New Zealand 1 2 4

Turkey 0 5 4

Spain 10 11 3

Slovenia 2 0 3Gibraltar 1 0 3

Bulgaria 0 0 3

Others 40 27 30Total 431 437 447(*1) Including Puerto Rico

Detentions by members of the Tokyo MOU made approximately two thirds of the totalnumber of ships detained in 2013.

0

1

2

10

0

1

3

4

9

0

1

5

4

6

9

5

12

3

23

6

26

21

40

83

117

0

0

0

11

5

2

6

4

8

7

6

6

2

6

8

2

14

6

24

15

32

18

31

77

120

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

6

6

7

9

9

10

14

15

20

27

27

79

141

Bulgaria

Gibraltar

Slovenia

Spain

Turkey

New Zealand

Singapore

Chile

Viet Nam

Brazil

Egypt

Iran

France

United Kingdom

Netherlands

Italy

Russian Federation

Canada

Indonesia

Republic of Korea

India

U.S.A.(*1)

Japan

Australia

China

2013

2012

2011

Fig. 2.2.5 Detentions by Por t St ate (NK )


25/69


16

2.3 A na lys is o f Det a inable De f ic ienc ies2.3.1 Deta inable De f ic ienc ie s pe r Cat ego r yIn 2013, a total of 1,169 detainable deficiencies were reported relating to 447 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 arecategorized as shown in Figure 2.3.1 and categories in this figure are based on those ofthe Tokyo MOU. Deficiencies related to fire safety and life-saving appliances combinedaccounted for about one-third of the total in 2013.

Fig. 2.3.1 Deficiencies per Category (NK)

5

15

16

18

12

12

15

22

3

25

21

32

20

61

47

65

81

69

134

109

155

195

2

14

10

12

5

2

10

35

4

20

32

34

29

43

39

35

65

65

131

118

125

219

5

8

11

11

12

18

18

21

22

24

25

31

36

45

50

52

52

94

119

123

166

215

0 50 100 150 200 250

CARGO OPERATIONS INCLUDING EQUIPMENT

ALARMS

OTHER

CERTIFICATE AND DOCUMENTATION -DOCUMENTS

WORKING AND LIVING CONDITIONS - LIVING CONDITIONS

ISPS

POLLUTION PREVENTION - MARPOL ANNEX Ⅵ

POLLUTION PREVENTION - MARPOL ANNEX Ⅳ

POLLUTION PREVENTION - MARPOL ANNEX Ⅴ

WORKING AND LIVING CONDITIONS - WORKING CONDITIONS

CERTIFICATE AND DOCUMENTATION -CREW CERTIFICATE

STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS

CERTIFICATE AND DOCUMENTATION -SHIP CERTIFICATE

RADIO COMMUNICATIONS

PROPULSION AND AUXILIARY MACHINERY

WATER / WEATHERTIGHT CONDITIONS

POLLUTION PREVENTION - MARPOL ANNEX Ⅰ

SAFETY OF NAVIGATION

ISM

EMERGENCY SYSTEMS

LIFESAVING APPLIANCES

FIRE SAFETY

Deficiencies

2013

2012

2011


26/69


17

2.3.2 F re quent ly Reported De f icienciesFigure 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. Lifeboats, emergencyfire pumps, and fire-dampers continue to be the major items where most detainabledeficiencies were found. The items reported from 2011 to 2013 are explained in detail

in paragraphs (1) to (15) below.

Fig. 2.3.2 Deficiencies reported Frequentry (NK)

0

15

23

8

9

14

14

6

17

17

11

34

41

26

42

19

0

4

15

37

52

2

19

14

10

6

16

18

5

24

14

9

12

24

21

31

20

15

15

26

36

57

13

13

13

14

14

14

15

16

16

18

19

19

20

21

22

23

32

33

33

38

53

78

6852

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Embarkation arrangements survival craft

Means of control (opening, pumps ventilation, etc)

Operational readiness of lifesaving appliances

Fire fighting equipment and appliances

Covers (hatchway-, portable-, tarpaulins, etc.)

MF/HF radio installation

Fire detection

Propulsion main engine

Sewage treatment plan

Fire prevention

Launching arrangements for survival craft

Ventilators, air pipes, casings

Oil filtering equipment

Development of plans for shipboard operations

Maintenance of the ship and equipment

Charts

Emergency souce of power- Emergency Generator

ISM

Fixed fire extinguishing installation

Fire-dampers

Emergency Fire Pump

Lifeboats

Deficiencies

2013

2012

2011


27/69


18

(1) F ire Sa fet yMajor types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Fire Safety)” areshown in Table 2.3.2-(1) below.

Table 2.3.2-(1) Fire Safety

Item 11 12 13 Noted DeficienciesFire-dampers 37 36 38

Wasted and holed fire-dampersOperation failure of fire-dampers

Fixed fire extinguishing system 15 26 33Corroded and holed CO 2 linesOperation failure of fire extinguishing systems

Fire prevention 17 14 18Deteriorated non-combustible materials for cablepenetrations in A-class divisions

Fire detection 14 18 15 Inoperable fire detection units

Fire fighting equipment andappliances

8 10 14 Wasted and holed fire hoses

Quick closing valves, Remotecontrol devices 15 19 13 Inoperable quick closing valves

Jacketed piping system for highpressure fuel lines

14 8 12 Operation failure of F.O. leakage alarm

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

Ventilation 12 11 11Corroded and holed ventilator casingsMalfunction of mechanical ventilators

Doors within main vertical zone 12 10 11 Malfunction of self-closing devices

(2) Life Sav ing Appl iancesMajor types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Life Saving

Appliances” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(2) below.

Table 2.3.2-(2) Life Saving AppliancesItem 11 12 13 Noted Deficiencies

Lifeboats 68 52 78Lifeboat engine not startedPoor maintenance of rechargeable batteriesInadequate resetting of on-load release gears

Launching and recoveryarrangements for survival craft

11 9 19 Corroded boat falls

Operational readiness oflifesaving appliances

23 14 13Inoperable / Inadequate resetting of on-loadrelease gear

Embarkation arrangements oflifesaving appliances

0 2 13 Embarkation ladder heavily corroded and broken

Rescue boats 10 8 7 Rescue boat engine not started


28/69


19

(3) Eme rgency Syst emsMajor types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Emergency Systems”are shown in Table 2.3.2-(3) below.

Table 2.3.2-(3) Emergency Systems

Item 11 12 13 Noted DeficienciesEmergency Fire Pump and itspipes

52 57 53 Inoperable and unable to pressure the fire main

Emergency source of power-Emergency Generator

0 15 32 Emergency generator unable to start

Fire drills 14 21 11 Fire drill failed

Abandon ship drills 8 8 10 Abandon ship drill failed

(4) ISM Re lated De f icienciesMajor types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “ISM RelatedDeficiencies” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(4) below.

Table 2.3.2-(4) ISM Related DeficienciesItem 11 12 13 Noted Deficiencies

ISM 4 15 33 Implementation of SMS failed generally

Maintenance of ship andequipment

42 31 22Inadequate implementation of SMS by crewInadequate maintenance of ship’s equipment

Development of plans forshipboard operations 26 21 21

Charts management not followed SMS

Resources and personnel 15 22 12Ship’s crew not familiar with operation of ship’sequipment

(5) Sa fet y of Nav igat ionMajor types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Safety ofNavigation” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(5) below.

Table 2.3.2-(5) Safety of NavigationItem 11 12 13 Noted Deficiencies

Charts 19 20 23

Navigation charts not updated

Navigation charts for intended voyage notavailable

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

Alarm panel showing “system error”

Nautical publications 7 5 10Nautical publications (tide table, list of lights, listof radio signals, etc.) not updated

Lights, shapes, sound -signals 7 4 7Inoperable navigation lightsNavigation lights not supplied by batteries

Gyro compass 3 3 5 Not Operable


29/69


20

(6) M A RPOL A nne x IMajor types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “MARPOL Annex I”are shown in Table 2.3.2-(6) below.

Table 2.3.2-(6) MARPOL Annex I

Item 11 12 13 Noted Deficiencies

Oil filtering equipment(Oily-Water SeparatingEquipment)

41 24 20

Inoperable oily water separatorInoperable bilge pumpOily water inside overboard discharging lineShip’s crew not familiar with operation of oilfiltering equipment

15PPM alarm arrangements 10 9 12 Failure of 15PPM alarm

Control of discharge of oil 3 2 5Unapproved by-pass line fitting on oil filteringequipmentInoperable automatic stopping device

Oil discharge monitoring andcontrol system

3 5 4 Defective automatic stopping device

(7) Wate r/ Weathert ight c ond it ionsMajor types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Water/ Weathertightconditions” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(7) below.

Table 2.3.2-(7) Water/ Weathertight conditionsItem 11 12 13 Noted Deficiencies

Ventilators ,air pipes , casings 34 12 19Wasted/Holed ventilators and air pipesDamaged float of air pipe headsDamaged closing devices

Hatch covers 9 6 14Wasted / Holed hatch coversWasted hatch cover cleatsDeteriorated rubber packing

Cargo and other hatchways 8 4 5Wasted / Holed hatch coversWasted / cracked hatch coamings

Doors 9 5 3 Doors not closed tightly

(8) Propu lsion and au xilia ry mach ine ry

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Propulsion andauxiliary machinery” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(8) below.

Table 2.3.2-(8) Propulsion and auxiliary machineryItem 11 12 13 Noted Deficiencies

Propulsion main engine 6 5 16Defective oil mist detectorsLeakage of cooling water

Auxiliary engine 15 12 12 Inoperable Auxiliary engines

Other (machinery) 11 11 9Safety valve of auxiliary boiler seizedOil leakage around auxiliary engines

Operation of machinery 8 5 7 Ship’s Crew not familiar with simulation test ofover-speed trip of M/E


30/69


21

(9) Rad io Commu nicat ionsMajor types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “RadioCommunications” are shown in the Table 2.3.2-(9) below.

Table 2.3.2-(9) Radio CommunicationsItem 11 12 13 Noted Deficiencies

MF/HF radio installation 14 16 14Defective MF/HF radio apparatusNot operable by DC power

Reserve source of energy 22 12 10 GMDSS reserve source of energy failed

Operation / maintenance 1 0 3 Ship’s officer not familiar with operation of NBDP

(10) Sh ip Ce rti f icat eMajor types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Ship Certificate” areshown in the Table 2.3.2-(10) below.

Table 2.3.2-(10) Ship CertificateItem 11 12 13 Noted Deficiencies

Cargo Ship Safety Equipment 1 4 6Certificate expiredThe original certificate not onboardMandatory annual survey overdue

Cargo Ship Safety Radio 1 1 5Certificate expiredThe original certificate not onboardPeriodical survey overdue

Load Lines 1 2 4Certificate expiredThe original certificate not onboard

EIAPP 3 1 3 The original certificate not onboardTechnical files not onboard

(11) St ructu ra l Cond it ionsMajor types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “StructuralConditions” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(11) below.

Table 2.3.2-(11) Structural ConditionsItem 11 12 13 Noted Deficiencies

Electric equipment in general 3 1 5 Low insulation alarm malfunction

(12) Crew Cert if icat eMajor types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Crew Certificate”are shown in Table 2.3.2-(12) below.

Table 2.3.2-(12) Crew CertificateItem 11 12 13 Noted Deficiencies

Certificates for master andofficers

6 14 12Missing of endorsement on STCW certificatesby flag stateValid certificates expired


31/69


22

(13) Work ing Cond it ionsMajor types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Working Conditions”are shown in Table 2.3.2-(13) below.

Table 2.3.2-(13) Working Conditions

Item 11 12 13 Noted DeficienciesCleanliness of engine room 10 14 23

Dirty and oily engine room due to oil leakage etc. A large quantity of oily bilge in engine room

(14) M A RPOL A nnex VMajor types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “MARPOL Annex V”are shown in Table 2.3.2-(14) below.

Table 2.3.2-(14) MARPOL Annex VItem 11 12 13 Noted Deficiencies

Garbage 9 17 24 Inadequate entry in Garbage Record Book

(15) M A RPOL Annex I VMajor types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “MARPOL Annex IV”are shown in Table 2.3.2-(15) below.

Table 2.3.2-(15) MARPOL Annex IVItem 11 12 13 Noted Deficiencies

Sewage treatment plant 17 24 16 Not operable


32/69


23

2.4 A na lysis of Det ainable De f icienc ies by Po rt StateMost frequent detainable deficiencies per port state are shown in Tables 2.4.1 to 2.4.11according to number of detentions reported from 2011 to 2013.

2.4.1 Ch inaTable 2.4.1 China

Category of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013Fire Safety 69 88 67Lifesaving Appliances 46 44 58Emergency Systems 34 33 42Water/Weathertight conditions 19 11 24MARPOL Annex I 25 17 19ISM 16 24 18MARPOL Annex V 0 1 17

Radio Communications 22 9 15Ships Certificates and Documents 6 9 15Safety of Navigation 5 11 14Dangerous goods 3 1 12Structural Conditions 6 9 9MARPOL Annex VI 4 2 8MARPOL Annex IV 5 12 7Crew Certificates and Documents 4 7 7

Type of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013Lifeboats 29 19 36

Emergency Fire Pump and its pipes 15 24 22Ventilators, air pipes, casings 13 5 14Oil filtering equipment 19 10 11Fire-dampers 8 14 11Emergency source of power-Emergency Generator 0 3 11Embarkation arrangements survival craft 0 2 11Fire prevention 9 8 10Quick closing valves 8 10 8Ventilation 5 3 7Certificates for master and officers 0 5 7Maintenance of the ship and equipment 10 6 6

Jacketed high pressure lines 6 6 6Incinerator 2 0 6Charts 1 4 6Covers (hatchway-, portable-, tarpaulins, etc.) 1 2 6Means of escape 0 3 6Garbage 0 1 6

A total of 352 detainable deficiencies relating to 141 detentions were noted in 2013.(2.5 detainable deficiencies/detention)


33/69


24

2.4.2 Au st ra lia

Table 2.4.2 Australia

Category of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013ISM 45 36 24

Lifesaving Appliances 28 16 19Fire Safety 19 16 14Emergency Systems 6 6 14Water/Weathertight conditions 6 9 10Radio Communications 10 4 8MARPOL Annex IV 6 8 6Safety of Navigation 8 7 2

Type of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013Development of plans for shipboard operations 20 17 14Operational readiness of lifesaving appliances 22 13 11

Emergency Fire Pump and its pipes 5 3 9Fire-dampers 10 7 6Sewage treatment plant 6 7 6MF/HF radio installation 4 3 5Covers (hatchway-, portable-, tarpaulins, etc.) 2 2 5Fixed fire extinguishing system 0 1 5Other(ISM) 0 1 4Launching arrangements for survival craft 0 0 4


2.4.3 JapanTable 2.4.3 Japan

Category of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013ISM 9 11 10Fire Safety 15 11 9Emergency Systems 17 14 7Lifesaving Appliances 9 5 7Crew Certificates and Documents 2 3 4Safety of Navigation 2 0 3Water/Weathertight conditions 6 2 2

Other 1 1 2 Alarms 1 0 1Structural Conditions 0 0 1

Type of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013Fire drills 8 11 6Resources and personnel 6 6 6Lifeboats 2 2 5Fixed fire extinguishing system 1 0 4



34/69


25

2.4.4 U.S.A.

Table 2.4.4 U.S.A.

Category of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013Fire safety 7 7 15

ISPS 2 0 12ISM 10 4 4MARPOL Annex VI 0 0 3

Type of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013Fixed fire extinguishing system 0 0 10

Access control to ship 2 0 5Other(Maritime security) 0 0 4Electric equipment in general 0 1 2Sulphur oxides 0 0 2Ship security officer 0 0 2


2.4.5 Ind ia

Table 2.4.5 India

Category of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013Safety of Navigation 31 8 18Emergency Systems 5 13 13Fire Safety 23 16 9

Type of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013Emergency Fire Pump and its pipes 1 10 8Lifeboats 5 4 5Nautical publication 4 1 5Voyage data recorder(VDR) / S-VDR 7 2 4Safe means of access Deck/Hold/Tank, etc. 0 0 4


2.4.6 R epubl ic of Korea

Table 2.4.6 Republic of KoreaCategory of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013

Fire safety 4 8 9ISM 3 5 9Lifesaving Appliances 2 5 9

Type of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013Launching arrangements for survival craft 0 0 5Maintenance of the ship and equipment 2 4 4Lifeboats 1 2 3



35/69


26

2.4.7 Indone siaTable 2.4.7 Indonesia

Category of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013Fire Safety 19 17 11Radio Communications 7 12 5

MARPOL Annex I 2 6 5ISM 2 6 4

Type of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013Fire-dampers 4 5 4Lifeboats 1 3 3Fire detection 0 2 3


2.4.8 Ca nadaTable 2.4.8 Canada

Category of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013Emergency Systems 0 2 6Minimum requirements for seafarers 0 0 4Pollution prevention 0 0 3

Type of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013Emergency source of power-Emergency Generator 0 0 4Emergency Fire Pump and its pipes 0 2 2

A total of 15 detainable deficiencies relating to 10 detentions were noted in 2013.

(1.5 detainable deficiencies/detention)2.4.9 Ru ss ian Fe der at ion

Table 2.4.9 Russian Federation

Category of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013Lifesaving Appliances 5 4 8Safety of Navigation 2 3 6Fire Safety 1 6 5

Type of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013Lifeboats 4 4 6Fire detection 0 2 2Magnetic compass 0 1 2Voyage date recorder(VDR) / S-VDR 0 1 2



36/69


27

2.4.10 Ita lyTable 2.4.10 Italy

Category of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013Safety of Navigation 0 0 15Lifesaving Appliances 2 0 13

Fire Safety 4 1 12ISM 3 1 8

Type of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013ISM 1 1 6Charts 0 0 6Launching arrangements for survival craft 0 0 4

Auxiliary engine 0 0 4 A total of 82 detainable deficiencies relating to 9 detentions were noted in 2013.(9.1 detainable deficiencies/detention)

2.4.11 Nethe rl andsTable 2.4.11 Netherlands

Category of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013Lifesaving Appliances 3 4 7Fire Safety 3 0 7Emergency Systems 2 0 5

Type of Deficiency 2011 2012 2013ISM 0 1 3Lifeboats 2 1 2

Fire-dampers 2 0 2Emergency source of power-Emergency Generator 0 0 2 A total of 38 detainable deficiencies relating to 7 detentions were noted in 2013.(5.4 detainable deficiencies/detention)


37/69


28

Chapter 3

Stat istic s & A na lysis of ISM Def icienc ies ra ised to N K SMC Sh ips

This chapter is constructed based on the analysis result of Port State Control Inspection

Reports which were collected in 2013.The contents of the records are available as “Monthly PSC Information” in “SafetyManagement 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 with safety management system 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 NKSMCships that subjected to a PSC inspection is more meaningful. However, as the totalnumber of such NKSMC ships is unknown, the total number of the whole or a group ofNKSMC ships was used instead.

3. 1 Stat ist ics of ISM de f iciency case s

3.1.1 Tota l numbe r a nd ave ra ge rate

The total number of ISM deficiency cases and the average ISM deficiency rates in thepast 4 years are shown in Table 3.1.1.1. Since year 2010, the rate has been on theincrease to 5.2% in year 2013.

Table 3.1.1.1 Total number and rate of ISM deficiency cases

Ye ar

ISMdef iciency

cases( A )

NKSMCsh ips

tota l No.B

ISMdef iciency

rate A /B

2010 169 4212 4.0

2011 202 4505 4.52012 237 4677 5.1

2013 251 4868 5.2

3.1.2 Statist ics of NK SMC Sh ips and ISM Def iciencies3.1.2.1 Per P rope rt y of Sh ip(a) Pe r T ype of Sh ipISM 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 decreased 1.1% in 2013. The ISM deficiency rate of the other cargo ship and oil tanker decreased 0.3% in 2013,respectively.

The ISM deficiency rate of chemical tanker decreased to the level of 2011. The ISM deficiency rate of Gas carrier has been decreased to one-fifth of 2012.


38/69


29

There has been no report of ISM deficiency of passenger & MODU since 2010.

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

ISM de f iciency r at e A /B Type of sh ip

No. of ISMdef iciency

case s2013 (A )

No. ofNK SMC

sh ips2013(B)

2010 2011 2012 2013

Bulk carrier 119 2062 4.2 5.3 4.7 5.8Other cargo ship 114 1783 4.8 5.1 6.7 6.4Oil tanker 15 759 2.3 2.0 2.3 2.0Chemical tanker** 1 27 8.3 3.8 12.0 3.7Gas carrier

2 232 1.8 2.6 4.5 0.9Passenger & MODU 0 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Tot al 251 4868 4.0 4.5 5.1 5.2

* Including oil/chemical tankers. ** Excluding oil/chemical tanker.

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

I S M

d e

f i c i e n c y r a

t e ( % )

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

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

2010

2011

2012

2013


39/69


30

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 ‐

2010

2011

2012

2013

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

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

Bulk carrier

Other cargo ship

Oil tanker

(b) Pe r A ge of sh ipThe numbers of ISM deficiency cases per age of ships in recent four years are shown inTable 3.1.2.1 (b) together with the number of NKSMC ships. Figure 3.1.2.1 (b)-1 showsISM deficiency rates. Figure 3.1.2.1(b)-2 shows ISM deficiency rate per type and age ofship in 2013.

Generally, the ship’s age and ISM deficiency rate are correlated. In 2013, the group ofthe age 20-24 shows the highest rate, that is the same tendency in 2012.In 2013, “Bulk Carrier” of Age 20-24 shows a significantly higher deficiency rate thanthose of other ship types.

Table 3.1.2.1 (b) No. of ISM deficiency cases per age of ship

No. of ISM de f iciency cases A No. of NKSMC sh ips B Age

2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 20130 - 4 31 52 46 47 1671 1803 1865 1849

5 - 9 32 37 50 70 940 1064 1211 139110 - 14 39 47 44 38 773 744 670 652

15 - 19 27 39 56 53 381 463 529 602

20 - 24 16 16 24 26 210 218 193 204

25 - 24 11 17 17 237 213 209 170

Tota l 169 202 237 251 4212 4505 4677 4868

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

I S M

d e

f i c i e n c y r a

t e ( A / B )

( % )

I S M

d e

f i c i e n c y r a

t e ( A / B ) ( % )


40/69


31

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 ‐

2010

20112012

2013

(c) Per Gross Tonna ge of sh ipThe numbers of ISM deficiency cases per ship’s gross-tonnage in recent four years areshown in Table 3.1.2.1(c) together with the number of NKSMC ships. Figure 1.2.1(c)shows ISM deficiency rate.

The ISM deficiency rate of ships with GT “less than 10,000”, “20,000-30,000” and

“60,000-80,000” has decreased in 2013 but other groups’ are increased.

Table 3.1.2.1 (c) No. of ISM deficiency cases per ship’s GT

No. of ISM de f iciency cases A No. NK SMC sh ips (B)GT x 1,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013

- 10 62 67 90 70 1134 1106 1083 1096

10 - 20 31 43 46 62 757 815 804 850

20 - 30 18 24 31 31 474 515 567 605

30 - 40 24 34 31 38 578 672 695 731

40 - 50 8 17 14 22 389 438 491 50850 - 60 6 4 10 12 222 241 275 302

60 - 80 6 3 4 2 169 171 176 175

80 - 14 10 11 14 489 547 586 601

Tota l 169 202 237 251 4212 4505 4677 4868

Figure 3.1.2.1 (c) ISM deficiency rate per Ship’s GT GT ( x 1,000)

I S M

d e

f i c i e n c y r a

t e ( A / B ) ( % )


41/69


32

(d) Pe r Nationa lit y of sh ipISM deficiency rate per nationality of ship from 2010 to 2013 is shown in Table 3.1.2.1(d) together with the numbers of ISM deficiency cases.

ISM deficiency rate of Panamanian ships is increasing gradually since 2010.

ISM deficiency rate of Liberian increased in 2013. ISM deficiency rate of Japanese, Bahamas and Singaporean decreased in 2013.

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

2010 2011 2012 2013Fla g No. Rate No. Rat e No. Rate No. Rat eSt. Kitts andNevis

0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100.0

Philippines 3 6.8 4 9.1 4 8.5 5 11.9Turkey 5 6.9 4 5.3 1 1.2 9 11.0Thailand 5 9.4 5 8.8 5 7.8 7 10.0Greece 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 9.1

Antigua andBarbuda

0 0.0 0 0.0 1 11.1 1 7.7

Malta 8 6.5 7 5.8 8 6.7 9 6.6Liberia 4 2.1 11 5.1 7 3.1 14 6.2Panama 97 4.1 126 5.1 143 5.6 151 5.8H.K. (China) 9 3.9 9 3.6 13 5.0 14 4.9Marshall Islands 7 5.0 9 4.6 9 3.7 13 4.7

Cyprus 4 6.9 3 4.7 1 1.7 3 4.6Bahamas 2 1.8 1 0.9 5 4.2 4 3.5Singapore 15 3.1 16 3.1 21 4.0 14 2.5

Vanuatu 3 6.5 2 4.2 5 11.1 1 2.1Japan 4 2.3 3 1.6 9 4.4 3 1.4Malaysia 2 6.1 1 2.6 3 7.9 0 0.0St. Vincent andthe Grenadines

1 7.1 1 9.1 1 12.5 0 0.0

Cook Islands 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100.0 0 0.0Tota l/Avera ge 169 4.0 202 4.5 237 5.1 251 5.2


42/69


33

0.0

1.0

2.03.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

1‐ 5 6 ‐ 10 11 ‐ 15 16 ‐ 20 21 ‐ 30 31 ‐ 40 41 ‐ 50 51 ‐

3.1.2.2 Per F act ors re lated to Compa nyNote: The analysis presented in this section covers only NKSMC ships under themanagement of NKDOC Companies.

(a) Pe r Nu mbe r of Sh ips under mana gement by C ompan y

ISM deficiency rate per number of ships under a Company are shown in Table 3.1.2.2 (a)together with ISM deficiency rate.

The group of 1-5 ships shows the highest ISM deficiency rate 7.5%. There shows atendency - more ships, lower deficiency rate.

However, the ISM deficiency rate of the group of 41-50 ships shows 5.9%, that is anexception of the above tendency.

Table 3.1.2.2(a) ISM deficiency rate per No. of ships under management of Company

No. of sh ipsunder

mana gement

No. ofCompan ies

No. ofISM de f iciency

case s( A )

No. ofNK SMC sh ips

(B)

ISMdef iciency

rate( A /B)

1 - 5 445 76 1020 7.5

6 - 10 97 42 736 5.7

11 - 15 47 37 617 6.0

16 - 20 29 17 521 3.3

21 - 30 25 29 605 4.8

31 - 40 12 15 433 3.5

41 - 50 9 24 407 5.951 - 6 11 529 2.1

Tot al 670 251 4868 5.2

Figure 3.1.2.2(a) ISM deficiency rate per No. of ships under management of Company

No. of ships under management of Company

I S M

d e f i c

i e n c y r a

t e ( % )


43/69


34

(b) Pe r C ount ry/Region whe re C ompa ny is locatedISM deficiency rate per country/region where Company is located is shown in Table3.1.2.2 (b) (together with the numbers of ISM deficiency cases) and in Figure 3.1.2.2 (b).

The average ISM deficiency rate of ships under the management of Companieslocated in Turkey, Greece, Korea and Hong Kong have increased from 7.7% (2012) to

9.4%, from 4.7 % to 8.4 %, from 6.4% to 7.2%, 2.7% to 3.3%, respectively. In Taiwan and mainland China, the rate have decreased from 12.3 (2012) to 9.4%,from 6.5 to 4.2 , respectively.

Table 3.1.2.2(b) ISM deficiency rate per country/region in which company are located

ISM def iciencyrate( A /B)

Count ry/Region No. ofCompan ies

No. ofISM de f iciency

case s(A )

No. ofNK SMC sh ips

(B)2012 2013

Norway 4 1 10 0.0 10.0Netherlands 4 2 21 6.3 9.5

Turkey 54 18 191 7.7 9.4

Taiwan 18 19 202 12.3 9.4

U. A. E. 8 1 11 0.0 9.1

Thailand 7 7 79 8.6 8.9Greece 110 30 359 4.7 8.4

Philippines 29 17 232 7.1 7.3

Korea 36 11 152 6.4 7.2Canada 2 1 14 0.0 7.1

Japan 182 96 1833 5.5 5.2

China 58 8 190 6.5 4.2Germany 7 2 55 0.0 3.6

H.K. (China) 16 11 334 2.7 3.3

Singapore 71 24 878 2.9 2.7

(Others) 64 3 307 2.3 1.0

Tota l 670 251 4868 5.1 5.2


44/69


35

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

N o r w a y

N e t h e r l a n

d s

T u r k e y

T a i w a n

U .

A . E .

T h a i l a n d

G r e e c e

P h i l i p p i n e s

K o r e a

C a n a

d a

J a p a n

C h i n a

G e r m a n y

H . K .

( C h i n a )

S i n g a p o r e

Figure 3.1.2.2 (b) Deficiency rate per country/region in which company are located

I S M

d e

f i c i e n c y r a

t e ( % )


45/69


36

3.1.2.3 Pe r Po rt Stat eThe number of ISM deficiency cases per port state is shown in Table 3.1.2.3.

The number of ISM deficiency cases in Japan, USA, Korea and Netherland hasdecreased in 2013.

The number of ISM deficiency cases in China, Indonesia, India, Germany and Russia

were similar to the ones in 2012. In the Paris MOU region, there shows a tendency of increasing. The number of ISMdeficiency cases in Italy, UK, Spain, France and Canada has increased in 2013.

Table 3.1.2.3 ISM deficiency case per Port StateNo. of ISM de f iciency cases Autho rity 2010 2011 2012 2013

Australia 50 63 53 55China 15 17 38 37Japan 26 36 34 29U.S.A. 11 22 23 20Korea 6 5 15 12Italy 3 4 3 11Indonesia 2 8 9 8U.K. 5 7 5 8Spain 6 6 4 7France 7 4 2 7India 1 5 7 6Germany 2 1 5 5Netherlands 2 3 7 4Russia 3 2 5 4

Canada 0 0 1 4New Zealand 2 0 0 4Singapore 0 1 5 3Belgium 4 2 1 3Poland 1 0 0 3Gibraltar 0 0 0 3Brazil 3 0 4 2Chile 1 2 2 2Bulgaria 0 1 0 2

Argentina 4 1 4 1Greece 0 1 2 1H.K. (China) 0 0 1 1

Viet Nam 2 3 0 1Turkey 1 0 0 1(Others) 12 8 7 7

Tot al 169 202 237 251


46/69


37

3.2 A na lysis of ISM De f iciencies3.2.1 Nu mbe r of ISM de f icienc ies so rted by re levant ISM Code requ irementThe total number of ISM deficiencies recorded in PSC reports from 2010 to 2013 and thenumbers sorted by the relevant ISM Code requirements (Section No.) are shown inTable 3.2.1.

Table 3.2.1 No. of ISM deficiencies sorted by relevant ISM Code requirementISM Code requ irements (Sect ion No.) Ye ar

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 99*Tota l

2010 0 6 14 1 12 26 46 23 10 87 11 4 3 1 244

2011 0 10 5 2 12 25 44 28 11 86 17 5 2 24 2