Res.A.1155(32) PSC Procedure 2021 - IMO FORMAT (Main text only).txt

CHAPTER 1 GENERAL 1.1 PURPOSE This document is intended to provide basic guidance on the conduct of port State control inspections in support of the control provisions of relevant conventions and parts of the IMO Instruments Implementation Code (III Code) (resolution A.1070(28)) and afford consisten...

CHAPTER 1 GENERAL 1.1 PURPOSE This document is intended to provide basic guidance on the conduct of port State control inspections in support of the control provisions of relevant conventions and parts of the IMO Instruments Implementation Code (III Code) (resolution A.1070(28)) and afford consistency in the conduct of these inspections, the recognition of deficiencies of a ship, its equipment, or its crew, and the application of control procedures. 1.2 APPLICATION 1.2.1 These Procedures apply to ships falling under the provisions of: .1 the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended (SOLAS 1974); .2 the Protocol of 1988 relating to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended (SOLAS PROT 1988); .3 the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966, as amended (LL1966); .4 the Protocol of 1988 relating to the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966, as amended (LL PROT 1988); .5 the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the 1978 and 1997 Protocols, as amended (MARPOL); .6 the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended (STCW 1978); .7 the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969, as amended (TONNAGE 1969); .8 the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, 2001 (AFS 2001); .9 the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, as amended (COLREG 1972); .10 the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969 (CLC 1969); .11 the Protocol of 1992 to amend the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969, as amended (CLC PROT 1992); .12 the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001 (BUNKERS 2001); .13 the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004, as amended (BWM 2004); and .14 the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, 2007 (NAIROBI WRC 2007), hereafter referred to as the relevant conventions. 1.2.2 Ships of non-Parties should be given no more favourable treatment (see section 1.5). 1.2.3 For ships below convention size, Parties should apply the procedures in section 1.6. 1.2.4 When exercising port State control, Parties should only apply those provisions of the conventions which are in force and which they have accepted. 1.2.5 Where the provisions of the relevant conventions are not specific, the port State control officer (PSCO) should in principle accept the design arrangement approved by the flag State and when appropriate consult with the flag Administration. 1.2.6 The PSCO should be aware that the provisions of relevant conventions permit Administrations to grant exemptions, allow equivalents * and approve alternative design and arrangements (ADA). When an Exemption Certificate is issued in accordance with the relevant provisions of a convention, provided it includes the correct reference to the exemption provision and the requirement to which it relates, or the ship carries the approved ADA documentation (e.g. SOLAS 1974 regulation II-1/55.4.2), port State authorities should interpret this as meaning that the ship complies with the provisions of the convention. Port State authorities should check, whenever possible, with the Administration should there be any doubt whether an exemption, equivalence or ADA has been granted. 1.2.7 Notwithstanding paragraph 1.2.4, in relation to voluntary early implementation of amendments to SOLAS 1974 and related mandatory instruments, Parties should take into account the Guidelines on the voluntary early implementation of amendments to the 1974 SOLAS Convention and related mandatory instruments (MSC.1/Circ.1565). 1.2.8 If a port State exercises control based on: .1 the International Labour Organization (ILO) Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended (MLC 2006), guidance on the conduct of such inspections is given in the ILO publication Guidelines for port State control officers carrying out inspections under the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended; or .2 the ILO Convention No.147, Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976, or the Protocol of 1996 to the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976, guidance on the conduct of such inspections is given in the ILO publication Inspection of labour conditions on board ship: Guidelines for procedure. 1.3 INTRODUCTION 1.3.1 Under the provisions of the relevant conventions set out in section 1.2 above, the Administration (i.e. the Government of the flag State) is responsible for promulgating laws and regulations and for taking all other steps which may be necessary to give the relevant conventions full and complete effect so as to ensure that, from the point of view of safety of life and pollution prevention, a ship is fit for the service for which it is intended and seafarers are qualified and fit for their duties. Any Administration which allows, in substitution, a fitting, material, appliance or apparatus, or type thereof, or provision, shall communicate to the Organization particulars thereof together with a report on any trials made and the Organization shall circulate such particulars to other Contracting Governments for the information of their officers (e.g. SOLAS 1974, regulation I/5). 1.3.2 The nature of international shipping means that ships may not frequently call at ports in their flag State. It is therefore common to find that such flag States appoint the nominated surveyors at foreign ports and authorize recognized organizations (ROs) in accordance with the provisions of various conventions. 1.3.3 The following control procedures should be regarded as complementary to national measures taken by flag State Administrations in their countries and abroad and are intended to provide a common and consistent approach to the performance of port State control inspections and control measures taken as a consequence of the detection of serious deficiencies. These Procedures are also intended to provide assistance to flag State Administrations in securing compliance with convention provisions in safeguarding the safety of crew, passengers and ships, and ensuring the prevention of pollution. 1.4 PROVISION FOR PORT STATE CONTROL SOLAS 1974 regulations I/19, IX/6.2, XI-1/4 and XI-2/9 , as modified by SOLAS PROT 1988; article 21 of LL 1966, as modified by LL PROT 1988; articles 5 and 6, regulation 11 of Annex I, regulation 16.9 of Annex II, regulation 9 of Annex III, regulation 14 of Annex IV, regulation 9 of Annex V and regulation 10 of Annex VI of MARPOL; article X of STCW 1978; article 12 of TONNAGE 1969, article 11 of AFS 2001 and article 9 of BWM 2004 provide for control procedures to be followed by a Party to a relevant convention with regard to foreign ships visiting their ports. The authorities of port States should make effective use of these provisions for the purposes of identifying deficiencies, if any, in such ships which may render them substandard (see section 3.1) and ensuring that remedial measures are taken. 1.5 SHIPS OF NON-PARTIES 1.5.1 Article I(3) of SOLAS PROT 1988, article I(3) of LL PROT 1988, article 5(4) of MARPOL, article X(5) of STCW 1978, article 3(3) of AFS 2001 and article 3(3) of BWM 2004 provide that no more favourable treatment is to be given to the ships of countries which are not Party to the relevant convention. All Parties should, as a matter of principle, apply these Procedures to ships of non-Parties in order to ensure that equivalent surveys and inspections are conducted and an equivalent level of safety and protection of the marine environment is ensured. 1.5.2 As ships of non-Parties are not provided with SOLAS, Load Lines, MARPOL, AFS or BWM certificates, as applicable, or the crew members may not hold STCW certificates, the port State control officer (PSCO), taking into account the principles established in these Procedures, should be satisfied that the ship and crew do not present a danger to those on board or an unreasonable threat of harm to the marine environment. If the ship or crew has some form of certification other than that required by a convention, the PSCO may take the form and content of this documentation into account in the evaluation of that ship. The conditions of and on such a ship and its equipment and the certification of the crew and the flag State’s minimum manning standard should be compatible with the aims of the provisions of the conventions; otherwise, the ship should be subject to such restrictions as are necessary to obtain a comparable level of safety and protection of the marine environment. 1.6 SHIPS BELOW CONVENTION SIZE 1.6.1 In the exercise of their functions, PSCOs should be guided by any certificates and other documents issued by or on behalf of the flag State Administration. In such cases, the PSCOs should limit the scope of inspection to the verification of compliance with those certificates and documents. 1.6.2 To the extent a relevant instrument is not applicable to a ship below convention size, the PSCO’s task should be to assess whether the ship is of an acceptable standard in regard to safety and the environment. In making that assessment, the PSCO should take due account of such factors as the length and nature of the intended voyage or service, the size and type of the ship, the equipment provided and the nature of the cargo. 1.7 DEFINITIONS 1.7.1 Bulk carrier: While noting the definitions in SOLAS 1974, regulations IX/1.6 and XII/1.1 and resolution MSC.277(85), for the purposes of port State control, PSCOs should be guided by the ship’s type indicated in the ship’s certificates in determining whether a ship is a bulk carrier and recognize that a ship which is not designated as a bulk carrier as the ship type on the ship certificate may carry certain bulk cargo as provided for in the above instruments. 1.7.2 Clear grounds: Evidence that the ship, its equipment, or its crew do not correspond substantially with the requirements of the relevant conventions or that the master or crew members are not familiar with essential shipboard procedures relating to the safety of ships or the prevention of pollution. Examples of clear grounds are included in section 2.4. 1.7.3 Deficiency: A condition found not to be in compliance with the requirements of the relevant convention. 1.7.4 Detention: Intervention action taken by the port State when the condition of the ship or its crew does not correspond substantially with the relevant conventions to ensure that the ship will not sail until it can proceed to sea without presenting a danger to the ship or persons on board, or without presenting an unreasonable threat of harm to the marine environment, whether or not such action will affect the normal schedule of the departure of the ship. 1.7.5 Initial inspection: A visit on board a ship to check the validity of the relevant certificates and other documents, the overall condition of the ship, its equipment and its crew (see also section 2.2). 1.7.6 More detailed inspection: An inspection conducted when there are “clear grounds”, as defined under paragraph 1.7.2. 1.7.7 Nearest appropriate and available repair yard: A port where follow-up action can be taken, and it is in, or closest to, the port of detention or the port where the ship is authorized to proceed taking into account the cargo on board. 1.7.8 Port State control officer (PSCO): A person duly authorized by the competent authority of a Party to a relevant convention to carry out port State control inspections, and responsible exclusively to that Party. 1.7.9 Recognized organization (RO): An organization which meets the relevant conditions set forth in the Code for Recognized Organizations (RO Code) (MSC.349(92) and MEPC.237(65)) and has been assessed and authorized by the flag State Administration in accordance with provisions of the RO Code to provide the necessary statutory services and certification to ships entitled to fly its flag. 1.7.10 Stoppage of an operation: Formal prohibition against a ship to continue an operation due to an identified deficiency or deficiencies which, singly or together, render the continuation of such operation hazardous. 1.7.11 Substandard ship: A ship whose hull, machinery, equipment or operational safety is substantially below the standards required by the relevant convention or whose crew is not in conformity with the safe manning document. 1.7.12 Valid certificates: A certificate that has been issued, electronically or on paper, directly by a Party to a relevant convention or on its behalf by an RO, contains accurate and effective dates, meets the provisions of the relevant convention and to which the particulars of the ship, its crew and its equipment correspond. 1.8 PROFESSIONAL PROFILE OF PSCOs 1.8.1 Port State control should be carried out only by qualified PSCOs who fulfil the qualifications and training specified in section 1.9. 1.8.2 When the required professional expertise cannot be provided by the PSCO, the PSCO may be assisted by any person with the required expertise, as acceptable to the port State. 1.8.3 PSCOs and persons assisting them should be free from any commercial, financial and other pressures and have no commercial interest in the port of inspection, the ships inspected, ship repair facilities or any support services in the port or elsewhere, nor should PSCOs be employed by or undertake work on behalf of ROs or classification societies. 1.8.4 A PSCO should carry a personal document in the form of an identity card issued by the port State and indicating that the PSCO is authorized to carry out the control. 1.9 QUALIFICATION AND TRAINING REQUIREMENTS OF PSCOs 1.9.1 The PSCO should be an experienced officer qualified as flag State surveyor. 1.9.2 The PSCO should be able to communicate in English with the key crew. 1.9.3 Training should be provided for PSCOs to give the necessary knowledge of the provisions of the relevant conventions which are relevant to the conduct of port State control, taking into account the latest IMO Model Courses for port State control. 1.9.4 In specifying the qualifications and training requirements for PSCOs, the Administration should take into account, as appropriate, which of the internationally agreed instruments are relevant for control by the port State and the variety of types of ships which may enter its ports. 1.9.5 PSCOs carrying out inspections of operational requirements should be qualified as a master or chief engineer and have appropriate seagoing experience, or have qualifications from an institution recognized by the Administration in a maritime-related field and have specialized training to ensure adequate competence and skill, or be a qualified officer of the Administration with an equivalent level of experience and training, for performing inspections of the relevant operational requirements. 1.9.6 Periodic seminars for PSCOs should be held in order to update their knowledge with respect to instruments related to port State control. CHAPTER 2 PORT STATE INSPECTIONS 2.1 GENERAL 2.1.1 In accordance with the provisions of the relevant conventions, Parties may conduct inspections by PSCOs of foreign ships in their ports. 2.1.2 Such inspections may be undertaken: .1 on the initiative of the Party; .2 at the request of, or on the basis of information regarding a ship provided by, another Party; or .3 on the basis of information regarding a ship provided by a member of the crew, a professional body, an association, a trade union or any other individual with an interest in the safety of the ship, its crew and passengers, or the protection of the marine environment. 2.1.3 Whereas Parties may entrust surveys and inspections of ships entitled to fly their own flag either to inspectors nominated for this purpose or to ROs, they should be aware that, under the relevant conventions, foreign ships are subject to port State control, including boarding, inspection, remedial action and possible detention, only by officers duly authorized by the port State. This authorization of PSCOs may be a general grant of authority or may be specific on a case-by-case basis. 2.1.4 All possible efforts should be made to avoid a ship being unduly detained or delayed. If a ship is unduly detained or delayed, it should be entitled to compensation for any loss or damage suffered. 2.2 INITIAL INSPECTIONS 2.2.1 In the pursuance of control procedures under the relevant conventions, which, for instance, may arise from information given to a port State regarding a ship, a PSCO may proceed to the ship and, before boarding, gain, from its appearance in the water, an impression of its standard of maintenance from such items as the condition of its paintwork, corrosion or pitting or unrepaired damage. 2.2.2 At the earliest possible opportunity, the PSCO should ascertain the type of ship, year of build and size of the ship for the purpose of determining which provisions of the conventions are applicable. 2.2.3 On boarding and introduction to the master or the responsible ship’s officer, the PSCO should examine the ship’s relevant certificates and documents required by the relevant conventions, as listed in appendix 12, part A. PSCOs should note the following: .1 certificates may be in hard copy or electronic form; .2 where the ship relies upon electronic certificates: .1 the certificates and website used to access them should conform with the Guidelines for the use of electronic certificates (FAL.5/Circ.39/Rev.2 and Corr.1); .2 specific verification instructions are to be available on the ship; and .3 viewing such certificates on a computer is considered as meeting the requirement that certificates be “on board”; .3 when examining International Tonnage Certificates, the PSCO should be guided by appendix 10; and .4 when examining certificates or documentary evidence of seafarers issued in accordance with STCW 1978, the PSCO should be guided by appendix 11; the list of certificates or documentary evidence required under STCW 1978 is also found in table B-I/2 of the STCW Code. 2.2.4 After the certificate and document check, the PSCO should check the overall condition of the ship, including its equipment, navigational bridge, forecastle, cargo holds/areas, engine-room and pilot transfer arrangements and verify that any outstanding deficiency from the previous PSC inspection has been rectified. 2.2.5 If the certificates required by the relevant conventions are valid and the PSCO’s general impression and visual observations on board confirm a good standard of maintenance, the PSCO should generally confine the inspection to reported or observed deficiencies, if any. 2.2.6 In pursuance of control procedures under chapter IX of SOLAS 1974 in relation to the International Safety Management Code (ISM Code), the PSCO should utilize the guidelines in appendix 8. 2.2.7 If, however, the PSCO from general impressions or observations on board has clear grounds for believing that the ship, its equipment or its crew do not substantially meet the requirements, taking into account paragraph 1.2.6, the PSCO should proceed to a more detailed inspection, taking into consideration sections 2.4 and 2.5. In forming such an impression, the PSCO should utilize the guidelines in relevant appendices. 2.3 GENERAL PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES FOR PSCOs 2.3.1 The PSCO should observe the Code of good practice for port State control officers (MSC-MEPC.4/Circ.2), as shown in appendix 1, use professional judgement in carrying out all duties and consider consulting others as deemed appropriate. 2.3.2 When boarding a ship, the PSCO should present to the master or to the representative of the owner, if requested to do so, the PSCO identity card. This card should be accepted as documented evidence that the PSCO in question is duly authorized by the Administration to carry out port State control inspections. 2.3.3 If the PSCO has clear grounds for carrying out a more detailed inspection, the master should be immediately informed of these grounds and advised that, if so desired, the master may contact the Administration or, as appropriate, the RO responsible for issuing the certificate and invite their presence on board. 2.3.4 In the case that an inspection is initiated based on a report or complaint, especially if it is from a crew member, the source of the information should not be disclosed. 2.3.5 When exercising control, all possible efforts should be made to avoid a ship being unduly detained or delayed. It should be borne in mind that the main purpose of port State control is to prevent a substandard ship proceeding to sea. The PSCO should exercise professional judgement to determine whether to detain a ship until the deficiencies are corrected or to allow it to sail with certain deficiencies, having regard to the particular circumstances of the intended voyage. 2.3.6 It should be recognized that all equipment is subject to failure and spares or replacement parts may not be readily available. In such cases, undue delay should not be caused if, in the opinion of the PSCO, safe alternative arrangements have been made. 2.3.7 Where the grounds for detention are the result of accidental damage suffered to a ship, no detention order should be issued, provided that: .1 due account has been given to the convention requirements regarding notification to the flag State Administration, the nominated surveyor or the RO responsible for issuing the relevant certificate; .2 prior to entering a port, the master or company has submitted to the port State authority details of the circumstances of the accident and the damage suffered and information about the required notification of the flag State Administration; .3 appropriate remedial action, to the satisfaction of the port State authority, is being taken by the ship; and .4 the port State authority has ensured, having been notified of the completion of the remedial action, that deficiencies which were clearly hazardous to safety, health or environment have been rectified. 2.3.8 Since detention of a ship is a serious matter involving many issues, it may be in the best interest of the PSCO to act together with other interested parties (see paragraph 4.1.3). For example, the officer may request the owner’s representatives to provide proposals for correcting the situation. The PSCO should also consider cooperating with the flag State Administration’s representatives or the RO responsible for issuing the relevant certificates, and consulting them regarding their acceptance of the owner’s proposals and their possible additional requirements. Without limiting the PSCO’s discretion in any way, the involvement of other parties could result in a safer ship, avoid subsequent arguments relating to the circumstances of the detention and prove advantageous in the case of litigation involving “undue delay”. 2.3.9 Where deficiencies cannot be remedied at the port of inspection, the PSCO may allow the ship to proceed to another port, subject to any appropriate conditions determined. In such circumstances, the PSCO should ensure that the competent authority of the next port of call and the flag State are notified. 2.3.10 Detention reports to the flag State should be in sufficient detail for an assessment to be made of the severity of the deficiencies giving rise to the detention. 2.3.11 The company or its representative have a right of appeal against a detention taken by the authority of a port State. The appeal should not cause the detention to be suspended. The PSCO should properly inform the master of the right of appeal. 2.3.12 To ensure consistent enforcement of port State control requirements, PSCOs should carry an extract of section 2.3 (General procedural guidelines for PSCOs) for ready reference when carrying out any port State control inspections. 2.3.13 PSCOs should also be familiar with the detailed guidelines given in the appendices to these Procedures. 2.4 CLEAR GROUNDS 2.4.1 When a PSCO inspects a foreign ship which is required to hold a convention certificate and which is in a port or an offshore terminal under the jurisdiction of the port State, any such inspection should be limited to verifying that there are on board valid certificates and other relevant documentation and the PSCO forming an impression of the overall condition of the ship, its equipment and its crew, unless there are “clear grounds” for believing that the condition of the ship or its equipment does not correspond substantially with the particulars of the certificates. 2.4.2 “Clear grounds” to conduct a more detailed inspection include but are not limited to: .1 the absence of principal equipment or arrangements required by the relevant conventions, taking into account paragraph 1.2.6; .2 evidence from a review of the ship’s certificates that a certificate or certificates are invalid; .3 evidence that certificates and documents required by the relevant conventions and listed in appendix 12, part A are not on board, incomplete, not maintained or are falsely maintained; .4 evidence from the PSCO’s general impressions and observations that serious hull or structural deterioration or deficiencies exist that may place at risk the structural, watertight or weathertight integrity of the ship; .5 evidence from the PSCO’s general impressions or observations that serious deficiencies exist in the safety, pollution prevention or navigational equipment; .6 information or evidence that the master or crew is not familiar with essential shipboard operations relating to the safety of ships or the prevention of pollution, or that such operations have not been carried out; .7 indications that key crew members may not be able to communicate with each other or with other persons on board; .8 the emission of false distress alerts not followed by proper cancellation procedures; and .9 receipt of a report or complaint containing information that a ship appears to be substandard. 2.5 MORE DETAILED INSPECTIONS 2.5.1 If the ship does not carry valid certificates, or if the PSCO, from general impressions or observations on board, has clear grounds for believing that the condition of the ship or its equipment does not correspond substantially with the particulars of the certificates or that the master or crew is not familiar with essential shipboard procedures, a more detailed inspection, as described in this chapter, should be carried out, utilizing relevant appendices. 2.5.2 Support during the more detailed inspection could be found in the documents mentioned in appendix 12, part B, where applicable. 2.5.3 It is not envisaged that all of the equipment and procedures outlined in this chapter would be checked during a single port State control inspection, unless the condition of the ship or the familiarity of the master or crew with essential shipboard procedures necessitates such a detailed inspection. In addition, these procedures are not intended to impose the seafarer certification programme of the port State on a ship entitled to fly the flag of another Party to STCW 1978 or to impose control procedures on foreign ships in excess of those imposed on ships of the port State. CHAPTER 3 CONTRAVENTION AND DETENTION 3.1 IDENTIFICATION OF A SUBSTANDARD SHIP 3.1.1 In general, a ship is regarded as substandard if the hull, machinery, equipment or operational safety and the protection of the environment is substantially below the standards required by the relevant conventions or if the crew is not in conformity with the safe manning document, owing to, inter alia: .1 the absence of principal equipment or arrangement required by the conventions, taking into account paragraph 1.2.6; .2 non-compliance of equipment or arrangement with relevant specifications of the conventions, taking into account paragraph 1.2.6; .3 substantial deterioration of the ship or its equipment; .4 insufficiency of operational proficiency, or unfamiliarity with essential operational procedures by the crew; and .5 insufficiency of manning or insufficiency of certification of seafarers. 3.1.2 If these evident factors as a whole or individually pose a danger to the ship or persons on board or present an unreasonable threat of harm to the marine environment if it were allowed to proceed to sea, it should be regarded as a substandard ship. The PSCO should also take into account the guidelines in appendix 2. 3.2 SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION CONCERNING DEFICIENCIES 3.2.1 Information that a ship appears to be substandard could be submitted to the appropriate authorities of the port State (see section 3.3) by a member of the crew, a professional body, an association, a trade union or any other individual with an interest in the safety of the ship, its crew and passengers, or the protection of the marine environment. 3.2.2 This information should be submitted in writing to permit proper documentation of the case and of the alleged deficiencies. If the information is passed verbally, the filing of a written report should be required, identifying, for the purposes of the port State’s records, the individual or body providing the information. The attending PSCO may collect this information and submit it as part of the PSCO’s report if the originator is unable to do so. 3.2.3 Information which may cause an investigation should be submitted as early as possible, giving adequate time to the authorities to act as necessary. 3.2.4 Each Party to the relevant convention should determine which authorities should receive information on substandard ships and initiate action. Measures should be taken to ensure that information submitted to the wrong department is promptly passed on by such department to the appropriate authority for action. 3.3 PORT STATE ACTION IN RESPONSE TO ALLEGED SUBSTANDARD SHIPS 3.3.1 On receipt of information about an alleged substandard ship or alleged pollution risk, the authorities should immediately investigate the matter and take the action required by the circumstances in accordance with the preceding sections. 3.3.2 Authorities which receive information about a substandard ship that could give rise to detention should forthwith notify any maritime, consular and/or diplomatic representatives of the flag State in the area of the ship and request them to initiate or cooperate with investigations. Likewise, the RO which has issued the relevant certificates on behalf of the flag State should be notified. These provisions will not, however, relieve the authorities of the port State, being a Party to a relevant convention, of the responsibility for taking appropriate action in accordance with its powers under the relevant conventions. 3.3.3 If the port State receiving information is unable to take action because there is insufficient time or no PSCOs can be made available before the ship sails, the information should be passed to the authorities of the country of the next appropriate port of call, to the flag State and also to the RO in that port, where appropriate. 3.4 RESPONSIBILITIES OF PORT STATE TO TAKE REMEDIAL ACTION If a PSCO determines that a ship can be regarded as substandard as specified in section 3.1 and appendix 2, the port State should immediately ensure that corrective action is taken to safeguard the safety of the ship and passengers and/or crew and eliminate any threat of harm to the marine environment before permitting the ship to sail. 3.5 GUIDANCE FOR THE DETENTION OF SHIPS Notwithstanding the fact that it is impracticable to define a ship as substandard solely by reference to a list of qualifying defects, guidance for the detention of ships is given in appendix 2. 3.6 SUSPENSION OF INSPECTION 3.6.1 In exceptional circumstances where, as a result of a more detailed inspection, the overall condition of a ship and its equipment, also taking into account the crew conditions, is found to be obviously substandard, the PSCO may suspend an inspection. 3.6.2 Prior to suspending an inspection, the PSCO should have recorded detainable deficiencies in the areas set out in appendix 2, as appropriate. 3.6.3 The suspension of the inspection may continue until the responsible parties have taken the steps necessary to ensure that the ship complies with the requirements of the relevant instruments. 3.6.4 In cases where the ship is detained and an inspection is suspended, the port State authority should notify the responsible parties without delay. The notification should include information about the detention, and state that the inspection is suspended until that authority has been informed that the ship complies with all relevant requirements. 3.7 PROCEDURES FOR RECTIFICATION OF DEFICIENCIES AND RELEASE 3.7.1 The PSCO should endeavour to secure the rectification of all deficiencies detected. 3.7.2 In the case of deficiencies which are clearly hazardous to safety or the environment, the PSCO should, except as provided in paragraph 3.7.3, ensure that the hazard is removed before the ship is allowed to proceed to sea. For this purpose, appropriate action should be taken, which may include detention or a formal prohibition of a ship to continue an operation due to established deficiencies which, individually or together, would render the continued operation hazardous. 3.7.3 Where deficiencies which caused a detention, as referred to in paragraph 3.7.2, cannot be remedied in the port of inspection, the port State authority may allow the ship concerned to proceed to the nearest appropriate repair yard available, as chosen by the master and agreed to by that authority, provided that the conditions agreed between the port State authority and the flag State are complied with. Such conditions will ensure that the ship should not sail until it can proceed without risk to the safety of the passengers or crew, or risk to other ships, or without presenting an unreasonable threat of harm to the marine environment. Such conditions may include confirmation from the flag State that remedial action has been taken on the ship in question. In such circumstances the port State authority should notify the authority of the ship’s next port of call, the parties mentioned in paragraph 4.1.4 and any other authority as appropriate. Notification to authorities should be made in the form shown in appendix 14. The authority receiving such notification should inform the notifying authority of action taken and may use the form shown in appendix 15. 3.7.4 On the condition that all possible efforts have been made to rectify all other deficiencies, except those referred to in paragraphs 3.7.2 and 3.7.3, the ship may be allowed to proceed to a port where any such deficiencies can be rectified. 3.7.5 If a ship referred to in paragraph 3.7.3 proceeds to sea without complying with the conditions agreed to by the authority of the port of inspection, that port State authority should immediately alert the next port, if known, the flag State and all other authorities it considers appropriate. 3.7.6 If a ship referred to in paragraph 3.7.3 does not call at the nominated repair port, the port State authority of the repair port should immediately alert the flag State and detaining port State, which may take appropriate action, and notify any other authority it considers appropriate. CHAPTER 4 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 4.1 PORT STATE REPORTING 4.1.1 Port State authorities should ensure that, at the conclusion of an inspection, the master of the ship is provided with a document showing the results of the inspection, details of any action taken by the PSCO, and a list of any corrective action to be initiated by the master and/or company. Such reports should be made in accordance with the format in appendix 13. 4.1.2 Where, in the exercise of port State control, a Party denies a foreign ship entry to the ports or offshore terminals under its jurisdiction, whether or not as a result of information about a substandard ship, it should forthwith provide the master and flag State with reasons for the denial of entry. 4.1.3 In the case of a detention, at least an initial notification should be made to the flag State Administration as soon as practicable (see paragraphs 2.3.8 and 3.3.2). If such notification is made verbally, it should be subsequently confirmed in writing. As a minimum, the notification should include details of the ship’s name, the IMO number, copies of Forms A and B as set out in appendix 13, time of detention and copies of any detention order. Likewise, the ROs which have issued the relevant certificates on behalf of the flag State should be notified, where appropriate. The parties above should also be notified in writing of the release of detention. As a minimum, this information should include the ship’s name, the IMO number, the date and time of release and a copy of Form B as set out in appendix 13. 4.1.4 If the ship has been allowed to sail with known deficiencies, the authorities of the port State should communicate all the facts to the authorities of the country of the next appropriate port of call, to the flag State, and to the RO, where appropriate. 4.1.5 Parties to a relevant convention, when they have exercised control giving rise to detention, should submit to the Organization reports in accordance with SOLAS 1974 regulation I/19, article 11 of MARPOL, or article X(3) of STCW 1978. Such deficiency reports should be made in accordance with the form given in appendices 13 or 16, as appropriate, or may be submitted electronically by the port State or a regional PSC regime. 4.1.6 Copies of such deficiency reports should, in addition to being forwarded to the Organization, be sent by the port State without delay to the authorities of the flag State and, where appropriate, to the RO which had issued the relevant certificate. Deficiencies found which are not related to the relevant conventions, or which involve ships of non-Parties or below convention size, should be submitted to flag States and/or to appropriate organizations but not to IMO. 4.1.7 Relevant telephone numbers and addresses of flag States’ headquarters to which reports should be sent as outlined above, as well as addresses of flag State offices which provide inspection services should be provided to the Organization. * 4.2 FLAG STATE REPORTING 4.2.1 On receiving a report on detention, the flag State and, where appropriate, the RO through the flag State Administration, should, as soon as possible, inform the Organization of remedial action taken in respect of the detention, which may be submitted electronically by the flag State to the Global Integrated Ship Information System (GISIS) or in a format shown in appendix 17. 4.2.2 Relevant telephone numbers and addresses of port State control offices, headquarters and those who provide inspection services should be provided to the Organization. 4.3 REPORTING OF ALLEGATIONS UNDER MARPOL 4.3.1 A report on alleged deficiencies or on alleged contravention of the discharge provisions relating to the provisions of MARPOL should be forwarded to the flag State as soon as possible, preferably no later than 60 days after the observation of the deficiencies or contravention. Such reports may be made in accordance with the format in appendices 13 or 16, as appropriate. If a contravention of the discharge provisions is suspected, then the information should be supplemented by evidence of violations which, as a minimum, should include the information specified in parts 2 and 3 of appendices 3 and 4 of these Procedures. 4.3.2 On receiving a report on alleged deficiencies or alleged contravention of the discharge provisions, the flag State and, where appropriate, the RO through the flag State Administration, should, as soon as possible, inform the Party submitting the report of immediate action taken in respect of the alleged deficiencies or contravention. That Party and the Organization should, Such addresses are available in MSC-MEPC.6/Circ.19 (National contact points for safety and pollution prevention and response), which may be amended, the IMO Internet home page and the GISIS module on contact points (http://gisis.imo.org/Public). upon completion of such action, be informed of the outcome and details, where appropriate, be included in the mandatory annual report to the Organization. CHAPTER 5 REVIEW PROCEDURES 5.1 REPORT OF COMMENTS 5.1.1 In the interest of making information regarding deficiencies and remedial measures generally available, a summary of such reports should be made by the Organization in a timely manner in order that the information can be disseminated in accordance with the Organization’s procedures to all Parties to the relevant conventions. In the summary of deficiency reports, an indication should be given of flag State action or whether a comment by the flag State concerned is outstanding. 5.1.2 The appropriate committee should periodically evaluate the summary of the deficiency reports in order to identify measures that may be necessary to ensure more consistent and effective application of IMO instruments, paying close attention to the difficulties reported by Parties to the relevant conventions, particularly in respect of developing countries in their capacity as port States. 5.1.3 Recommendations to address such difficulties, when recognized by the appropriate committee, should, where appropriate, be incorporated into the relevant IMO instrument and any modifications relating to the procedures and obligations should be made in the port State documentation.