PSC20E

June 2021
Port State Control Annual Report

[English]
-- Introduction of ClassNK software for PSC measures --
PrimeShip-PSC Intelligence
Support system for the improvement of PSC performance and ship management system
＄ 0
Research on PSC trends of
ports and countries
AI technology makes it possible to research trends of
typical deficiencies, deficiency items or deficiency
categories. You can also confirm actual deficiencies
recorded by PSC and graphically illustrate trends.
Output of PSC checklists

Output a pinpoint checklist based on the PSC's past
records of selected ports or countries. The check
items recorded as detainable deficiencies are
displayed in red.
Graphic display function

Your fleet PSC performance and frequently reported
deficiency items on your fleet are shown graphically
to support with monitoring, measuring, analysis and
evaluation of the performance.
Free setting of KPIs and ship groups
Freely set KPIs and ship groups in order to monitor,

measure and evaluate them.
Reporting
Automatically create e-mails attaching PSC

rectification reports designated by the Panama
administration and Rightship and manage them.
Summary report
Output a summary report for PSC performance,
deficiency items frequently recorded on your fleet
and in the trends of frequently visited ports or
countries.
Regulation calendar
Display requirements of the IMO international

convention from our site and local regulations
informed by our technical information applied on
your managing ships in a calendar format.
Contact address: Ship Management Systems Dept. NIPPON KAIJI KYOKAI Administration Center
Email: [email protected], TEL:+81-3-5226-2173
Photographs of Deficiencies
Fire Safety
Fire hazard
due to oil leakage
in engine room
Leakage from fire main
Fire door packing

deteriorated
and detached
Fire Safety
Broken fire door frame
Elec. cables penetration

compound missing
Heavy corrosion
on CO2 pipes
Life Saving Appliances
Broken instruction plate

for inflatable liferaft
Inappropriate reset of
on-load release gear
Inappropriate painter securing
Deteriorated grab line

of lifebuoy
Load Line
Broken float disc of air pipe head
Improper freeboard marks
Wasted ventilator
Machinery Space
Temporary repair on piping

without reporting to PSC
Dirty condition in engine room
Dirty condition in engine room

MARPOL
Dirty condition
in oily bilge water
discharge line
Wasted and holed

on sewage
treatment plant
Others
Partly broken mooring rope
Missing toilet
ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control
Foreword
This Annual Report on Port State Control (PSC) summarizes deficiencies identified during PSC
inspections carried out in various countries around the world. This report is prepared with the objective of
building awareness of the present state of PSC and thereby improving future onboard maintenance and
inspections as well as Safety Management Systems.
The report consists of the following chapters.
Chapter 1: Status of Implementation and Recent Developments in PSC Worldwide

Chapter 2: Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships Registered with ClassNK
Chapter 3: Statistical Analysis of NK SMC Ships Detained by PSC (ISM Code)
Chapter 4: Statistical Analysis of NK MLC Ships Detained by PSC (MLC, 2006)
Chapter 5: Statistical Data from Tokyo MOU, Paris MoU and USCG
Port State Control has been recognized as a very direct and effective means to reduce the number of
substandard ships as well as to improve the safety of ships at sea and to prevent marine pollution. The
activity of PSC worldwide has significantly been strengthened along with the increasing number of
amendments to the relevant international Conventions.
Further to the above, in order to carry out the effective implementation of port state responsibilities, many
countries have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for regional cooperation among local
PSCs, and have agreed to establish a centralized & digitized database system and/or a harmonized
approach.
The scope of PSC inspection has been extended from the hardware aspect of the ship to the software
aspect such as onboard maintenance or operational procedures ever since the ISM Code was adopted and
applied to all ships and it is still expanding as more new concepts of regulations have been introduced by
the adoption of NOx Tier III regulation, 2020 global cap of sulphur content in fuel oils, Ship Recycling
Convention (the Hong Kong Convention), IMO DCS (EU MRV), etc.
In line with the above progress of PSC, ClassNK has been working hard and will work harder to increase
the transparency of information related to PSC and to eliminate substandard vessels.
June 2021
Note: Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information presented in this report. However, as
information is collected from a variety of sources, ClassNK cannot be held responsible for any erroneous data,
judgements or conclusions that may appear in this report, in cases where the information available should prove to
have been incomplete or incorrect in any respect.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1
Status of Implementation and Recent Developments in PSC Worldwide ····················1
1.1 Amendments to the relevant conventions ······························································· 1
1.1.1 Data collection system for fuel oil consumption of ships ········································ 1
1.1.2 EU Regulation on Ship Recycling ·································································· 1
1.1.3 2020 global cap of sulphur content in fuel oils ···················································· 2
1.1.4 Maintenance for lifeboats etc. ······································································· 2
1.1.5 Electronic record books ·············································································· 3
1.1.6 Application of Cyber Risk Management ··························································· 3
1.2 Recent global developments ·············································································· 4
1.2.1 MOUs around the world·············································································· 4
(1) European and North Atlantic region (Paris MoU) ············································· 4
(2) Asia-Pacific region (Tokyo MOU) ······························································ 5
(3) Latin-American region (Latin American Agreement) ········································ 5
(4) Caribbean region (Caribbean MOU) ···························································· 6
(5) Mediterranean region (Mediterranean MoU) ··················································· 6
(6) Indian Ocean region (Indian Ocean MOU) ····················································· 6
(7) Black Sea region (Black Sea MOU) ····························································· 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) ··················································· 7
1.3 Measures adopted by ClassNK ··········································································· 8
1.3.1 Handling of the Deficiencies Identified by PSC Inspections ···································· 8
(1) Cooperative assistance with PSC and treatment of the deficiencies ························· 8
(2) Treatment of inspection reports by PSC officers ··············································· 8
1.3.2 Minimizing the number of detained ships in order to reduce substandard ships ·············· 8
(1) Special training at several in-house meetings ·················································· 8
(2) Meetings and informal gatherings with management companies ···························· 8
1.3.3 Visits to PSC authorities·············································································10
Chapter 2
Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships Registered with ClassNK····························· 11
2.1 General ····································································································· 11
2.2 Data on Detentions ························································································ 11
2.2.1 Detentions per Flag State ············································································ 11
2.2.2 Detentions per Ship Type············································································13
2.2.3 Detentions per Ship’s Age ···········································································14
2.2.4 Detentions per Ship Size (Gross Tonnage) ························································15
2.2.5 Detentions per PSC Country ········································································16
2.2.6 Detentions per MOUs and USCG ··································································17
2.3 Analysis of Detainable Deficiencies ····································································18
2.3.1 Detainable Deficiencies per Category····························································18
2.3.2 Frequently Reported Deficiencies ································································19
2.4 Analysis of Detainable Deficiencies per PSC Country ···············································25

2.4.10 Australia ··························································································25
2.4.20 Russia ································································································26
2.4.30 Ukraine·······························································································26
2.4.40 Indonesia ·····························································································27
2.4.50 Belgium ····························································································27
2.4.60 Republic of Korea ··················································································28
2.4.70 United States ························································································28
2.4.80 Japan ·································································································29
2.4.90 Canada ·······························································································29
2.4.10 China ·································································································30
2.4.11 Saudi Arabia·························································································30
2.4.12 Germany ·····························································································31
2.4.13 Turkey································································································31
Chapter 3
Statistical Analysis of NK SMC Ships Detained by PSC (ISM Code) ······················ 32
3.1 General ····································································································32
3.2 Statistics of Detentions of NK SMC Ships ·····························································32
3.3 Analysis of ISM Detainable Deficiencies ······························································34
3.3.1 Australia ·······························································································35
3.3.2 Ukraine ································································································36
3.3.3 Belgium ·······························································································37
Chapter 4
Statistical Analysis of NK MLC Ships Detained by PSC (MLC, 2006) ····················· 38
4.1 General ·····································································································38
4.2 Statistics of Detentions of NK MLC Ships ·····························································38
4.3 Analysis of MLC Detainable Deficiencies ·····························································39
Chapter 5
Statistical Data from Tokyo MOU, Paris MoU and USCG ··································· 42
5.1 Tokyo MOU································································································43
5.1.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Authorities ·················································43
5.1.2 Black List of Flag States ············································································44
5.1.3 Recognized Organization Performance ····························································44
5.1.4 Deficiencies per Category ···········································································45
5.2 Paris MoU ··································································································46
5.2.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Authorities ·················································46
5.2.2 Black List of Flag States ············································································47
5.2.3 Recognized Organization Performance ····························································47
5.3 USCG ·······································································································48
5.3.1 USCG Statistics ······················································································48
5.3.2 Targeted Flag States (Safety) ·······································································48
5.3.3 Recognized Organization Performance (Safety) ·················································49
Chapter 1
Status of Implementation and Recent Developments

in PSC Worldwide
1.1 Amendments to the relevant conventions

Major amendments to international conventions and to the relevant regulations that came into effect
from 2019 through 2021 are summarized as below.
1.1.1 Data collection system for fuel oil consumption of ships

Entry into force: 1 March 2018
[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-1139, 1187, 1198]
Data collection system for fuel oil consumption of ships (IMO DCS) is applied to ships of 5,000
gross tonnage and above, for which the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) is
required to be retained on board. IMO DCS requires the companies to do the following in
accordance with methodology included in the SEEMP Part II.
A) To collect each ship's fuel consumption data and relevant parameters from the calendar year
2019
B) To aggregate the collected data, and report to the Administration or RO within three (3) months
after the end of each calendar year
C) In the event of the transfer of a ship from one Administration to another and/or a change from
one Company to another, to aggregate the collected data, and report to the Administration or RO
on the day of completion of the transfer or the change or as close as practical thereto
D) To provide Statement of Compliance (SOC) onboard the vessel
Further, EU regulation on monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon dioxide emissions (EU
MRV) is also applied to ships of 5,000 gross tonnage and above, which arrive at or depart from ports
under the jurisdiction of an EU member state. EU MRV requires the companies to develop the
Monitoring Plan and submit the Emission Report to the RO accredited by the national accreditation
body in EU, and provide a Document of Compliance (DOC) onboard the vessel.
A ship which has not carried out any EEA-related voyages during a whole reporting period (calendar
year X) will not be required to have a DOC of specific reporting period (year X) on board, when
calling at EEA ports between 30 June of year X+1 and 29 June of year X+2.
Meanwhile, it was reported that the reason for not having DOC might be confirmed from port
authority when calling at ports under the jurisdiction of an EU member state. Therefore, it is
recommended to be prepared to show past voyage records.
（FAQ of EU MRV: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/shipping_en#tab-0-3）
1.1.2 EU Regulation on Ship Recycling

Entry into force: 30 December 2013
[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-1170, -1185, -1224, -1225]
Development of inventory of hazardous materials (IHM) is required for EU flagged ships and non-
EU flagged ships by the following date. In addition, ship owners have to ensure that EU flagged
ships are recycled only at the recycling facilities included in the EU List, which list ship recycling
facilities authorized in accordance with the Regulation.
1
[Deadline for developing and having an IHM onboard]

(1) EU flagged new ships: The date of delivery (the building contract on/after 31 December 2018)
(2) EU flagged existing ships: 31 December 2020 (If a ship is to be recycled before 31 December
2020, IHM shall be prepared prior to recycling)
(3) Non-EU flagged ships: 31 December 2020
For EU flagged ships, two hazardous materials (PFOS and HBCDD) are added to the Hong Kong
Convention. Among them, PFOS is compulsory to EU flagged existing ships (EU flagged new ships
are prohibited to carry PFOS). Therefore, even if an IHM complying with the Hong Kong
Convention is provided onboard the EU flagged existing ship, checking of PFOS is additionally
required to comply with the EU regulation.
On the other hand, considering the estimated disruptions that several thousand ships are likely to be
unable to comply with the IHM obligations and have the required certification by the deadline on 31
December 2020 due to COVID-19 restrictions, the EC has published a Commission Notice suggesting
EU member States apply a harmonized approach towards enforcement during ship inspections for a
limited period of 6 months from 31 December 2020 to 30 June 2021.
When a vessel not carrying a valid IHM and/or accompanying certificate on board calls at a port in an
EU member state after December 31 2020, the shipowner or the master should provide "a service
contract for sampling or a survey (quoted from the Commission Notice)” as evidence that all possible
steps have been taken to obtain an IHM (including a "semi-completed IHM") certification, and
documents showing why the semi-completed IHM could not be obtained.
（Information on Ship Recycling:
https://www.classnk.or.jp/hp/en/activities/statutory/shiprecycle/index.html）
1.1.3 2020 global cap of sulphur content in fuel oils

Entry into force: 1 January 2020
[Refer to ClassNK Technical Information TEC-1192]
In order to reduce emissions of Sulphur Oxides (SOx) and Particulate Matter (PM) from ships, the
limit of the sulphur content of any fuel oil used on board ships was tightened to 0.50% m/m outside
emission control areas (ECAs) from 1 January 2020. In case any equivalent means as long as the
reduction method is evaluated to be equivalent to the required reduction of SOx are not installed
onboard, the loading of non-compliant fuel oil is prohibited except for non-availability of compliant
fuel oil.
1.1.4 Maintenance for lifeboats etc.

Entry into force: 1 January 2020
On or after 1 January 2020, thorough examinations, operational tests, overhaul and repair of the
lifeboat etc. are to be conducted by certified personnel of either the manufacturer or an authorized
service provider in accordance with IMO Resolution MSC.402(96). In addition, personnel for the
work is to be certified for each manufacturer and type of equipment to be worked on.
2
1.1.5 Electronic record books

Entry into force: 1 October 2020
MARPOL Convention requires that ships are provided with several record books for the purpose of
management of pollution prevention. On and after 1 October 2020, approval of the electronic record
books is needed for these record books in accordance with Guidelines for the use of electronic
record books under MARPOL if the electronic record books are used in spite of paper ones.
1.1.6 Application of Cyber Risk Management

Entry into force: 27 October 2020
The USCG expects all companies with U.S. flagged vessels and foreign flagged vessels that call at ports
in the U.S. to ensure that cyber risk management is appropriately addressed in their SMS.
If objective evidence indicating that the foreign flagged vessel that calls at ports in the U.S. failed to
implement its SMS with respect to cyber risk management is identified, the following actions should be
directed by the PSCO:
(1) If cyber risk management has not been incorporated into the vessel's SMS by the company's first
annual verification of the DOC after 1 January 2021, a deficiency should be issued with action code
30 - Ship Detained.
(2) When objective evidence indicates that the vessel failed to implement its SMS with respect to cyber
risk management, a deficiency for both an operation and an ISM should be issued with an action code
17 - Rectify Prior to Departure or an action code 30 – Ship Detained depending on its seriousness.
New amendments to conventions are also introduced on the ClassNK Website in the section, ‘IMO
International Convention Calendar’.
(http://www.classnk.or.jp/hp/en/imo_conv_schedule/)
3
1.2 Recent global developments
1.2.1 MOUs around the world

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

Asia-Pacific region : Tokyo MOU (http://www.tokyo-mou.org/)
Latin American region : Latin American Agreement (http://www.acuerdolatino.int.ar/)
Caribbean region : Caribbean MOU (https://www.caribbeanmou.org/)
Mediterranean region : Mediterranean MoU (http://www.medmou.org/)
Indian Ocean region : Indian Ocean MOU (https://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 （https://www.riyadhmou.org/）
(1) European and North Atlantic region (Paris MoU)

Established: 1 July 1982
Members: Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands,
Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, the Russian Federation, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,
and the United Kingdom
-1. The Paris MoU consists of 27 participating maritime Administrations and covers the waters of
the European coastal States and the North Atlantic basin from North America to Europe. The
Paris MoU states that their aim is to eliminate the operation of sub-standard ships through a
harmonized system of PSC.
-2. Press releases have announced the recent activities of the Paris MoU as follows.
Press releases dated 26 March and 8 May 2020
- Temporary guidance for Member Authorities during the COVID-19 crisis has been
developed.
Press release dated 16 June 2020
- The CIC on “Stability in general” scheduled to be held from September to November
2020 have been postponed until 2021.
Press release dated 1 July 2020
- The Paris MoU announced new performance lists for flag and Recognized Organizations.
These lists take effect from 1 July 2020.
Press release dated 9 October 2020
- The Paris MoU held its 53rd Committee meeting by virtual means from 28 September to
2 October 2020.
- The Paris MoU held its 54th Committee meeting by virtual means from 17 to 21 May 2021.
- The Paris MoU announced new performance lists for flag and Recognized Organizations.
These lists take effect from 1 July 2021.
4
(2) Asia-Pacific region (Tokyo MOU)

Established: 1 December 1993
Members: Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Fiji, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea,
Malaysia, Marshall Islands, New Zealand, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru,
Philippines, the Russian Federation, Singapore, Thailand, Vanuatu, Vietnam
-1. The main objectives of the Memorandum have been announced
1. to establish an effective Port State Control regime in the Asia-Pacific region through the
co-operation of its members and the harmonization of their activities,
2. to eliminate substandard shipping so as to promote maritime safety,
3. to protect the marine environment, and
4. to safeguard working and living conditions onboard ships.
-2. Press releases announced the activities of the Tokyo MOU as follows:
Press release dated 2 March 2020
- The Tokyo MOU announced the preliminary results of the Concentrated Inspection
Campaign (CIC) on Emergency Systems and Procedures, which was conducted from 1
September to 30 November 2019.
- During the course of the campaign, Authorities carried out a total of 7,174 inspections of
target ships. Of this quantity, 55 ships were detained as a result of deficiencies found
during the CIC.
Press releases dated 12 March and 10 April 2020
- Temporary guidance for Member Authorities during the COVID-19 crisis has been
developed.
- The CIC on “Stability in general” scheduled to be held from September to November
2020 have been postponed until 2021.
Press release dated 26 January 2021
- The Tokyo MOU held its 31st meeting remotely via virtual means from 21 to 22 January
2021.
- The Committee unanimously agreed to grant observer status to Cambodia.
- The Committee took note of the amended schedule for future joint CICs due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, i.e., CIC on STCW in 2022, CIC on Fire Safety in 2023 and CIC
on Crew Wages and Seafarer Employment Agreement under MLC in 2024. The
Committee considered and agreed to accept the proposal by the Paris MoU to carry out a
CIC on Ballast Water Management (BWM) in 2025.
- Interim guidance relating to COVID-19 circumstances has been developed.
- The guidance on remote PSC inspection has been developed and Remote PSC inspection
has been launched from 1 April 2021.
(3) Latin-American region (Latin American Agreement)

Established: 5 November 1992
Members: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras,
Mexico, Panama, Peru, Republic of Dominica, Uruguay, and Venezuela
5
(4) Caribbean region (Caribbean MOU)

Established: 9 February 1996
Members: Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, the Cayman
Islands, Cuba, Curacao, France, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, the Netherlands, St. Kitts
and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Sint Maarten, Suriname, and
Trinidad and Tobago
(5) Mediterranean region (Mediterranean MoU)

Established: 11 July 1997
Members: Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Tunisia, and Turkey
(6) Indian Ocean region (Indian Ocean MOU)

Established: 5 June 1998
Members: Australia, Bangladesh, Comoros, Eritrea, France (La Reunion), India, Iran, Kenya,
Maldives, Mauritius, Madagascar, Mozambique, Myanmar, Seychelles, South Africa, Sri
Lanka, Sudan, Sultanate of Oman, Tanzania, and Yemen
-1. According to Annual Report 2020 of the Indian Ocean MOU, a total of 4,762 inspections were
carried out and 218 vessels were detained in 2020.
-2. Temporary guidance for Member Authorities during the COVID-19 crisis has been developed.
(7) Black Sea region (Black Sea MOU)

Established: 7 April 2000
Members: Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, the Russian Federation, Turkey, and Ukraine
According to Annual Report 2019 of the Black Sea MOU, a total of 6,036 inspections were carried
out and 212 vessels were detained in 2019.
(8) West and Central Africa region (Abuja MoU)

Established: 22 October 1999
Members: Angola, Benin, Cameroun, Cape Verde, Congo, Cote D’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of
Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau,
Liberia, Mauritania, Namibia, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Senegal,
South Africa, and Togo
According to Annual Report 2019 of the Abuja MoU, a total of 2,695 inspections were carried out
and 21 vessels were detained in 2019.
(9) Arab States of the Gulf (Riyadh MoU)

Established: 30 June 2004
Members: Kingdom of Bahrain, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, State of Kuwait, State of Qatar, State of
United Arab Emirates, and Sultanate of Oman
6
1.2.2 Port State Control in the United States (USCG)

(1) Activity
Although the United States Coast Guard (USCG) is not a member of any MOU, it is an observer at a
number of MOUs, and undertakes effective PSC in cooperation with other MOUs. In the 1970's, the
U.S. Coast Guard increased its emphasis on the examination of foreign vessels. Although this
emphasis was primarily driven by requirements to ensure compliance with the then new U.S.
pollution prevention and navigation safety regulations, boarding officers also exercised Port State
authority when instances of non-compliance with SOLAS and MARPOL were noted. In 1994, the
U.S. introduced risk-management methodologies into the Port State Control program in order to
allocate limited inspection resources to where they could do the most good, by identifying those
ships, ship owners, classification societies and Flag Administrations that were most often found
lacking in meeting their international Convention responsibilities. On 1 January 2001, the USCG
implemented an initiative to identify high-quality ships, called QUALSHIP 21, quality shipping for
the 21st century. This program has since proven to be very effective in recognizing well operated and
maintained ships of good quality and continues in use today. Further, on 1 July 2017, in addition to
QUALSHIP 21, the program of E-ZERO (Zero Environmental Deficiencies or Violations) began. E-
ZERO designation has been assigned with exemplary vessels that have consistently adhered to
environmental compliance.
(2) PSC Safety Targeting Matrix

The USCG uses the Port State Control Safety and Environmental Protection Compliance Targeting
Matrix which enables the Coast Guard to rationally and systematically determine the probable risk
posed by non-U.S. ships calling at U.S. ports. The matrix is used to decide which ships Port State
Control Officers should examine on any given day, in any given port. The numerical score, along with
other performance-based factors, determines a ship's priority for examination.
(3) Banning of foreign vessels

All foreign flagged vessels operating in U.S. waters are required to be maintained in compliance with
U.S. regulations, international conventions and other required standards. However, when a vessel has
been repeatedly detained by the USCG (totaling three detentions within a twelve-month period) and it
is determined that failure to effectively implement the SMS onboard may be a contributing factor for
the substandard conditions that led to the detentions, the USCG Headquarters (USCG-HQ) will issue
a Letter of Denial prohibiting the ship from further entering any U.S. port until such time as certain
actions have been taken to rectify the situation. However, even if a vessel has less than three
detentions in twelve months, a Letter of Denial may be issued to any vessel which, in the option of
the USCG;
1. may pose a significant risk to the safety of the vessel, crew or the marine environment; or
2. has a history of accidents, pollution incidents, or serious repair problems which creates reason to
believe that such a vessel may be unsafe or create a threat to the marine environment; or
3. has discharged oil or other hazardous material in violation of any law of the United States or in a
manner or quantities inconsistent with the provisions of any treaty to which the United States is a
party.
(Reference: http://www.uscg.mil)
7
1.3 Measures adopted by ClassNK
1.3.1 Handling of the Deficiencies Identified by PSC Inspections

(1) Cooperative assistance with PSC and treatment of deficiencies
When surveyors of the Society are notified of the detention of a ship classed with ClassNK, the
Society actively cooperates with the reporting PSC in a number of ways. The more direct of these
steps include the following.
- Surveyors liaise with PSC to ensure that they are called in as soon as appropriate when deficiencies
related to class and/or statutory matters are identified.
- Surveyors liaise with PSC officers to ensure uniformity of interpretation of class and statutory
requirements.
- Surveyors provide PSC officers with background information, extracts from reports pertinent to the
inspection, and details of conditions of class and statutory items whenever so requested by the PSC.
- Attending surveyors examine not only the condition of the deficiencies identified by the PSC
officers but also expand the scope of the survey for the general condition of the hull, machinery and
equipment, or carry out the general examination to the extent of an annual survey if necessary,
carefully considering the seriousness of any deficiencies when they attend ships that have been
subject to an intervention action by the PSC.
(2) Treatment of inspection reports by PSC officers

When a surveyor receives an inspection report from PSC, the report is sent to the ClassNK Head
Office. The report is immediately examined by the experienced staff to identify the causes of the
deficiencies. This examination is carried out for all ships for which such reports are received, and the
results are circulated to all sections concerned, as necessary. The results are also reflected in a
ClassNK PSC database that has been developed for the purpose of providing surveyors with PSC
related information electronically. The results of this examination are also submitted to the Flag State
Administration of the ship, as required. Further, visits may also be made to the management company
or others, when deemed appropriate, to advise them of the relevant deficiencies noted and to
encourage them to more proactively improve the routine maintenance of their ships and take other
measures as necessary to ensure the highest levels of safe and environmentally friendly operation.
In cases where the deficiencies pointed out by the PSC are determined to be related to previous
surveys conducted by surveyors of the Society, those surveys are treated as a non-conforming service,
and appropriate corrective and preventive actions are taken in accordance with the ClassNK quality
system.
1.3.2 Minimizing the number of detained ships in order to reduce substandard ships
(1) Special training at several in-house meetings
Special training on PSC related issues is conducted at several meetings held regularly for general
managers and managers, to ensure that surveyors carry out full and effective surveys with an
uncompromising attitude towards ensuring the quality and safety of the ships classed with the
Society.
Special re-training is also carried out under the supervision of the Head Office and regional managers,
as needed, for those surveyors who have conducted any surveys determined to be a non-conforming
service under the quality system of the Society.
(2) Meetings and informal gatherings with management companies
(a) Visiting Management Companies
When a ship classed with ClassNK is detained by PSC, if deemed necessary, a senior surveyor or
manager of the Society visits the company managing the ship to discuss what steps can be taken to
improve the routine maintenance of the ships in their fleet, so as to prevent both a recurrence of the
deficiencies noted and the occurrence of similar problems in the future.
8
(b) Meetings and seminars

PSC related issues are regularly discussed at informal gatherings and technical committee meetings
held with management companies. At such times, explanations are given and documents are
presented, with emphasis placed on the importance of proactively ensuring the proper maintenance
of ships and education of crew in order to prevent the detention of ships.
(c) Software
Software “PrimeShip-PSC Intelligence” and Mobile application “ARRIVAL CHECKLIST for
PSC” have been prepared in order to support an improvement of PSC performance and ship
management systems.
i) PrimeShip-PSC Intelligence (http://www.classnk.or.jp/hp/en/activities/portal/psc-
intelligence.html)
This system provides users with various functions to help improve fleet PSC performance and
ship management systems.
[Main Functions]
- Easy visual checking of trends of typical deficiencies, deficiency items or deficiency categories
at each port or country on world-map with AI technologies
- Output a pinpoint checklist based on the PSC's past records of selected ports or countries
- Analysis on the trend of deficiencies recorded on managing ships on a real-time basis through
the managing company’s input of PSC reports
- Freely set KPIs and ship groups in order to monitor, measure and evaluate them
- Output a summary report for PSC performance of managing ships
- Display requirements of the IMO international convention and local regulations applied on
managing ships in a calendar format
ii) ARRIVAL CHECKLIST for PSC (http://www.classnk.or.jp/hp/en/info_service/psc/)

A preparatory checklist mobile app to help minimize the risk of PSC detentions and deficiencies.
[Main Functions]
- The items frequently pointed out by PSCO can be checked in each area onboard
- Check results can be input in the system along with notes and photos
- Check results can be forwarded to companies easily
- The statistics and tendency of detentions in major ports can be confirmed
- Checklists and statistics are updated automatically as needed
(d) Publications
The “ClassNK Annual Report on Port State Control” and a checklist entitled “Good Maintenance
on board Ships”, which can be used by the ship’s crew for quick and easy inspection of a ship
before entering port, are distributed to all registered management companies or others in the
ClassNK fleet and also posted on NK website as below.
(http://www.classnk.or.jp/hp/en/info_service/psc/)
Twenty-two “ClassNK PSC Bulletin” were released as of June 2021. This bulletin provides timely
information on particularly notable deficiencies pointed out during PSC inspections of NK classed ships
and will be continuously provided to management companies.
9
1.3.3 Visits to PSC authorities

Designated persons from the ClassNK Head Office as well as local survey offices are assigned to visit the
headquarters or offices of various PSC authorities with the aim of introducing ClassNK and exchanging
views on matters of mutual concern. However, considering the circumstances due to the COVID-19
pandemic, ClassNK refrained from visiting PSC authorities in 2020.
10
Chapter 2
Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships Registered with ClassNK
2.1 General
The data in this chapter, on ships detained due to deficiencies identified during PSC inspections, is
based on the following sources:
(1) Notifications from Port States issued in accordance with IMO Resolution A.1138(31) “Procedure
for Port State Control, and
(2) Publications related to detained ships issued by the Tokyo MOU, the Paris MoU, and the USCG.
From January to December 2020, 250 PSC detentions were reported relating to 242 ships classed by
NK. This included cases of detention for reasons not related to class or to NK itself. The total number of
NK-registered ships (500 GT or over) was 8,546 at the end of December 2020. Therefore, detention
ratio (Detentions/Registered number in 2020) of the NK fleet in 2020 was about 2.9%.
2.2 Data on Detentions

2.2.1 Detentions per Flag State
Table 2.2.1 Detentions per Flag State

Number of
Number of
Registered Ships Detention Ratio (%)
Flag State Detentions
(500GT or over)
2018 2019 2020 2018 2019 2020 2018 2019 2020
Panama 3,053 3,058 3,052 183 211 127 6.0 6.9 4.2
Liberia 601 663 729 33 42 21 5.5 6.3 2.9
Marshall Islands 606 679 717 31 28 29 5.1 4.1 4.0
Malta 188 179 168 16 13 0 8.5 7.3 0.0
Hong Kong, China 439 422 427 15 12 19 3.4 2.8 4.4
Singapore 707 719 710 12 11 13 1.7 1.5 1.8
Belize 49 52 52 8 8 7 16.3 15.4 13.5
Bahamas 158 169 165 3 7 5 1.9 4.1 3.0
Viet Nam 89 90 91 5 7 1 5.6 7.8 1.1
Thailand 78 75 65 3 5 2 3.8 6.7 3.1
Cyprus 73 68 63 11 5 0 15.1 7.4 0.0
Japan 965 983 967 4 4 2 0.4 0.4 0.2
Indonesia 205 224 218 4 3 3 2.0 1.3 1.4
Malaysia 268 256 253 0 1 1 0.0 0.4 0.4
Cayman Islands 59 57 59 0 1 1 0.0 1.8 1.7
Others 827 807 810 56 36 19 4.7 6.2 2.3
Total 8,365 8,501 8,546 384 394 250 4.6 4.6 2.9
11
250
211 2018
200 2019
183
2020
No. of Detentions
150
127
100
56
50 42
33 36
31 28 29
21
16 13 15 1219 12 13 11
19
11 8 8 7
0 3 7 5 5 7 1 3 5 2 5
0 4 4 2 4 3 3 0 1 1 0 1 1
0
Fig. 2.2.1-1 No. of Detentions per Flag State
20.0
16.3 2018
15.4 15.1 2019
15.0
13.5
Detention Ratio (%)
2020
10.0
8.5
7.8
7.3 7.4
6.9 6.7
6.0 6.3 6.2
5.5 5.6
5.1 4.7
4.2 4.1 4.4 4.1
5.0 4.0 3.4 3.8
2.9 2.8 3.0 3.1
2.0 2.3
1.7 1.51.8 1.9 1.8 1.7
1.1 1.3 1.4
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
0.0
Fig. 2.2.1-2 Detention Ratio per Flag State (%)
12
2.2.2 Detentions per Ship Type
Table 2.2.2 Detentions per Ship Type

Number of
Number of
Ship Type Detentions
(500GT or over)
2018 2019 2020 2018 2019 2020 2018 2019 2020
Bulk Carrier 3,722 3,826 3,946 228 239 170 6.1 6.2 4.3
General Cargo 699 689 661 74 65 40 10.6 9.4 6.1
Container Carrier 609 605 607 29 30 9 4.8 5.0 1.5
Chip Carrier 119 118 117 4 3 4 3.4 2.5 3.4
Cement Carrier 124 125 123 1 1 1 0.8 0.8 0.8
Ro-Ro Ship 97 103 101 2 5 0 2.1 4.9 0.0
Reefer Carrier 115 109 108 12 6 0 10.4 5.5 0.0
Vehicles Carrier 345 337 316 9 11 7 2.6 3.3 2.2
Oil Tanker 718 707 696 4 7 1 0.6 1.0 0.1
Oil/Chemical Tanker 726 766 783 15 21 13 2.1 2.7 1.7
Gas Carrier 393 401 405 3 3 3 0.8 0.7 0.7
Others 698 715 683 3 3 2 0.4 0.4 0.3
Total 8,365 8,501 8,546 384 394 250
Among the dry cargo ships with large numbers, a detention ratio of General cargo ships was identified as
having a higher detention ratio than other ship types noted. (‘Detention ratio’ was determined by dividing
the number of detentions by the number of ships of each respective ship type in the NK fleet.)
300
239
250 228 2018
No. of Detentions
200 170
2019
150
74 2020
100 65
40 29 30 21
50 9 4 3 4 1 1 1 2 5 0 12 6 0 9 11 7 4 7 1 15 13 3 3 3 3 3 2
0
Fig. 2.2.2-1 No. of Detentions per Ship Type
15.0
2018
Detention Ratio (%)
10.6 10.4
9.4
10.0 2019
6.2 6.1
6.1 5.0 4.9 5.5 2020
4.3 4.8 3.3
5.0 3.4 3.4 2.7
1.5 2.5 2.1 2.6 2.2 2.1 1.7
0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7
0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.4
0.3
0.0
Fig. 2.2.2-2 Detention Ratio per Ship Type (%)

13
2.2.3 Detentions per Ship’s Age
Table 2.2.3 Detentions per Ship’s Age

Number of
Number of
Ship’s Age Detentions
(500GT or over)
2018 2019 2020 2018 2019 2020 2018 2019 2020
Up to 5 years old 2,386 2,271 2,157 29 24 18 1.2 1.1 0.8
Over 5 and up to 10 2,554 2,515 2,476 94 95 65 3.7 3.8 2.6
Over 10 and up to 15 1,529 1,794 2,004 97 103 79 6.3 5.7 3.9
Over 15 and up to 20 914 870 877 56 66 42 6.1 7.6 4.8
Over 20 and up to 25 661 716 693 66 76 33 10.0 10.6 4.8
Over 25 321 335 339 42 30 13 13.1 9.0 3.8
Total 8,365 8,501 8,546 384 394 250
The detention ratio of aged ships tends to be higher.
120
103
95 97 2018
94
100
2019
79 76
No. of Detentions
80 2020
65 66 66
56
60
42 42
40 33 30
29
24
18
20 13
Ship's Age
Fig. 2.2.3-1 No. of Detentions per Ship’s Age
2018
2019
15.0 13.1
2020
Detention Ratio (%)
10.6
10.0
9.0
10.0 7.6
6.3 5.7 6.1
4.8 4.8
3.7 3.8 3.9 3.8
5.0 2.6
1.2 1.1 0.8
0.0
Ship's Age
Fig. 2.2.3-2 Detention Ratio per Ship’s Age (%)
14
2.2.4 Detentions per Ship Size (Gross Tonnage)
Table 2.2.4 Detentions per Ship Size (Gross Tonnage)

Number of Registered
Ships Number of Detentions Detention Ratio (%)
Gross Ton (x 1,000)
(500GT or over)
2018 2019 2020 2018 2019 2020 2018 2019 2020
Up to 10 2,649 2637 2556 98 94 53 3.7 3.6 2.1
Over 10 and up to 20 1,272 1283 1263 87 95 50 6.8 7.4 4.0
Over 20 and up to 30 1,084 1131 1150 69 68 42 6.4 6.0 3.7
Over 30 and up to 40 1,320 1358 1412 69 77 49 5.2 5.7 3.5
Over 40 and up to 50 798 822 884 23 23 26 2.9 2.8 2.9
Over 50 and up to 60 291 298 297 7 5 9 2.4 1.7 3.0
Over 60 and up to 80 207 200 199 3 3 0 1.4 1.5 0.0
Over 80 744 772 785 28 29 21 3.8 3.8 2.7
Total 8,365 8501 8546 384 394 250
A detention ratio of ships with GT up to 40,000 tends to be higher than that of vessels with GT over
40,000.
120
98 94 95 2018
100 87
77 2019
No. of Detentions
80 69 68 69
2020
53 50
60 49
42
40 28 29
23 23 26 21
20 7 5 9
3 3 0
0
(x 1,000) GT
Fig. 2.2.4-1 No. of Detentions per Ship Size (Gross Tonnage)
2018
7.4
8.0 6.8 2019
6.4
6.0
5.7
Detention Ratio (%)
6.0 5.2 2020
3.7 3.6 4.0 3.7 3.8 3.8

3.5
4.0 2.9 2.8 2.9 3.0
2.4 2.7
2.1
1.7 1.4 1.5
2.0
0.0
0.0
(x 1,000) GT
Fig. 2.2.4-2 Detention Ratio per Ship Size (Gross Tonnage) (%)
15
2.2.5 Detentions per PSC Country
Table 2.2.5 No. of Detentions per PSC Country

Country 2018 2019 2020
Australia 53 61 66 Australia
53
61
Russia 49 36 35 66
49
Russia 36
Ukraine 1 4 18 35
1
Indonesia 19 31 17 Ukraine 4
18
19
Belgium 11 6 11 Indonesia 31
17
Korea 10 6 11 11
Belgium 6
United States* 25 18 10 11
10
Korea 6
Japan 10 12 10 11
25
Canada 4 7 10 United States 18
10
China 90 120 9 Japan
10
12
10
Saudi Arabia 1 5 6 4
Canada 7
Germany 3 2 6 10
90
Turkey 15 8 4 China 120
9
Italy 6 7 3 Saudi Arabia
1
5
6
Greece 2 3 3 3
Germany 2 2018
France 9 2 3 6
15 2019
Ireland 2 3 2 Turkey 8
4
6 2020
Hong Kong, China 3 2 2 Italy 7
3
Viet Nam 1 1 2 Greece
2
3
Philippines 0 1 2 3
9
France 2
Jordan 2 0 2 3
2
United Kingdom 6 7 1 Ireland
2
3
New Zealand 3 4 1 Hong Kong, China 2

3
2
Romania 4 3 1 1
Viet Nam 1
Argentina 3 3 1 2
0
Others 52 42 14 Philippines 1
2
250 2
Total 384 394 Jordan 0
2
(*) Including Guam, Puerto Rico, and Pago Pago United Kingdom
6
7
1
3
New Zealand 4
1
4
Romania 3
1
3
Argentina 3
1
0 50 100 150
No. of Detentions
Fig. 2.2.5 No. of Detentions per PSC Country

.2.5 PSC
Number of ships detained in China in 2020 significantly decreased compared with that of 2019.
16
2.2.6 Detentions per MOUs and USCG
Table 2.2.6 No. of Detentions per MOUs and USCG

Region 2018 2019 2020
Tokyo MOU 218 265 142
Paris MoU 65 56 44
USCG 24 18 10
Others 77 55 54
Total 384 394 250
500
384 394
400
No. of Detentions
300 265 NK Total

250
218
Tokyo MOU
200 Paris MOU
142
USCG
100 65 56 44
25 18 10
0
2018 2019 2020
Fig. 2.2.6 No. of Detentions per MOUs and USCG
Compared with number of 2019, the number of detentions at Tokyo MoU, Paris MoU and USCG in
2020 all decreased.
17
2.3 Analysis of Detainable Deficiencies

2.3.1 Detainable Deficiencies per Category
In 2020 a total of 658 detainable deficiencies were reported relating to 250 detentions, i.e., deficiencies
which were serious enough to jeopardise the ship’s seaworthiness, safety of the crew onboard, or to
present a threat of harm to the environment and therefore warranted the detention of the ship. The
deficiencies are categorized as shown in Figure 2.3.1 and categories in this figure are based on those of
the Tokyo MOU. Deficiencies related to Fire safety, Life-saving appliances, and Emergency systems
combined accounted for about one-third of the total in 2020.
226
Fire safety 240
112
112
ISM 158
94
133
Life saving appliances 128
66
96
Emergency Systems 128
64
87
Safety of Navigation 71
45
20
Certificate & Documentation - Crew Certificates 23
33
38
Propulsion and auxiliary machinery 34
27
57
Pollution prevention - MARPOL Annex I 51
25
62
Water/Weathertight conditions 51
24
11
Labour Conditions - Minimum requirements for seafarers 16
24
29
Certificate & Documentation - Ship Certificates 20 2018
22
32 2019
Pollution prevention - MARPOL Annex IV 42
20 2020
Labour Conditions - Health protection, 12
13
medical care, social security 20
27
Structural Conditions 28
16
Labour Conditions - Accommodation, 25
15
recreational facilities,food and catering
13
29
Radio Communications 18
9
16
Alarms 11
9
9
Other 4
9
13
Pollution prevention - MARPOL Annex VI 11
6
9
Pollution prevention - MARPOL Annex V 11
6
4
ISPS 6
6
0 50 100 150 200 250
No. of Detainable Deficiencies
Fig. 2.3.1 No. of Detainable Deficiencies per Category

18
2.3.2 Detainable Deficiencies per Defective item

Figure 2.3.2 shows those items of detainable deficiencies that were reported frequently, in conjunction with
the actual detention of ships in the NK fleet. ISM, Emergency generators, and Emergency fire pumps
continue to be the major items where most detainable deficiencies were found. The items reported from 2018
to 2020 are explained in detail in paragraphs (1) to (15) below. (Regarding details of deficiencies related to
ISM and MLC, refer to Chapter 3 and Chapter 4.)
38
ISM 42
31
20
Other (ISM) 25
26
24
Emergency source of power - Emergency Generator 32
23
33
Emergency Fire Pump and its pipes 27
22
45
Lifeboats 45
21
9
Seafarer' employment agreement (SEA) 8
21
31
Sewage treatment plant 33
16
20
Fire detection and alarm system 19
16
5
Oil accumulation in engine room 12
16
34
Fire-dampers 40
15 24
Fire pumps and its pipes 23
12
3
Wages 13
11
18
Fixed fire extinguishing installation 29
10
38
Fire doors/openings in fire-resisting divisions 20
10
16
Rescue boats 16
10
21
Maintenance of the ship and equipment 38
9
21
Oil filtering equipment 24
9 2018
15
Charts 16
8 2019
4
Propulsion main engine 10 2020
8
2
Retention of oil on board 1
8
15
Emergency lighting, batteries and switches 20
7
13
Shipboard operations 20
7
16
Nautical publications 10
4 7
Operational readiness of lifesaving appliances 8
7
22
Ventilators, air pipes, casings 22
6
14
Auxiliary engine 14
6
8
Launching arrangements for survival craft 11
6
7
Calculation and payment of wages 2
6
1
Other (Conditions of employment) 0
6
0 10 20 30 40 50
No. of Detainable Deficiencies
Fig. 2.3.2 No. of Detainable Deficiencies per detective item
19
(1) Fire Safety

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Fire Safety” are shown in Table
2.3.2-(1) below.
Table 2.3.2-(1) Fire Safety
Item 2018 2019 2020 Noted Deficiencies
Fire detection and alarm
20 19 16 Inoperable
system
Oil accumulation in engine Fire hazard due to oil leakage from

5 12 16
room equipment in Engine Room
Fire-dampers 34 40 15 Wasted/Inoperable fire-dampers
Malfunction of fire pump (incl. for emergency)

Fire pumps and its pipes 24 23 12
Wasted and holed fire main line
Fire doors/openings in fire-

38 20 10 Poor closing condition of fire door
resisting divisions
Fixed fire extinguishing

18 29 10 Wasted and holed CO2 pipes
installation
(2) ISM related deficiencies

For details of deficiencies, refer to Chapter 3.
(3) Life Saving Appliances

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Life Saving Appliances” are shown
in Table 2.3.2-(3) below.
Table 2.3.2-(3) Life Saving Appliances
Lifeboat engine not started
Lifeboats 45 45 21 Poor maintenance of rechargeable batteries
Inoperable on-load release gears
Rescue boat engine not started

Rescue boats 16 16 10
Poor maintenance of rechargeable batteries
Operational readiness of
4 8 7 Inoperable on-load release gear
lifesaving appliances
Launching arrangements for

8 11 6 Inoperative davit
survival craft
Launching arrangements for

20 8 4 Inoperative davit
rescue boats
Immersion suits 3 1 4 Unsuitable size
20
(4) Emergency Systems

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Emergency Systems” are shown in
Table 2.3.2-(4) below.
Table 2.3.2-(4) Emergency Systems
Emergency generator unable to start
automatically or manually
Emergency source of power -
24 32 23 Emergency generator unable to
emergency generator
automatically connect Emergency
Switchboard
Emergency fire pump and its Inoperable
33 27 22
pipes Insufficient discharge pressure
Deficient batteries
Emergency lighting, batteries
15 20 7 Inoperable/wasted/damaged emergency
and switches
lights
(5) Safety of Navigation

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Safety of Navigation” are shown in
Table 2.3.2-(5) Safety of Navigation
Not updated
Charts 15 16 8 Navigation charts for intended voyage not
available
Nautical publications (Sailing Directions,

Nautical publications 16 10 7 Notice to Mariners, etc.) for intended voyage
not updated/not available
Voyage data recorder Malfunction

13 10 5
(VDR / S-VDR) Alarm panel showing “system error”
Electronic charts (ECDIS) 7 6 5 ENC not updated
Lights, shapes, sound- Navigation lights damaged (Glass cracked,

7 5 5
signals cover wasted, etc.)
Echo sounder 6 6 4 Malfunction
Voyage or passage plan 3 4 4 Not available
(6) Crew Certificate

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Crew Certificate” are shown in
Table 2.3.2-(6) Crew Certificates
Seafarers’ employment
9 8 21 Expired
agreement (SEA)
21
(7) Propulsion and auxiliary machinery

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Propulsion and auxiliary
machinery” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(7) below.
Table 2.3.2-(7) Propulsion and auxiliary machinery
Uncleanness due to oil/cooling water
Propulsion main engine 4 10 8
leakage
Inoperable Auxiliary engines

Auxiliary engine 14 14 6
Uncleanness due to oil leakage
Uncleanness due to oil/cooling water

Operation of machinery 0 2 3
leakage
Suction valve seized, Educator temporary

Bilge pumping arrangements 7 1 3
repaired
Gauges, thermometers, etc. 1 0 3 Numerous instruments inoperable
(8) MARPOL Annex I

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “MARPOL Annex I” are shown in
Table 2.3.2-(8) MARPOL Annex I
Inoperable
Oil filtering equipment 21 24 9
Ship’s crew not familiar with operation
Oily bilge tank/sludge tank full

Retention of oil on board 2 1 7 Oily bilge retained in cofferdam of E/R
Sludge oil stored in drum cans
(9) Water/Weathertight conditions

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Water/Weathertight conditions” are
shown in Table 2.3.2-(9) below.
Table 2.3.2-(9) Water/Weathertight conditions
Damaged/Seized ventilators and float of air
Ventilators, air pipes, casings 22 22 6
pipe heads
Wasted/Holed
Hatch covers 10 10 4 Wasted cleats and its spacers
Rubber packing missing
Weather-tightness not ensured

Cargo and other hatchways 8 5 4
Wasted hatch cover cleats and its spacers
22
(10) Labour Conditions －Minimum requirements for seafarers

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Labour Conditions －Minimum
requirements for seafarers” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(10) below.
Table 2.3.2-(10) Minimum requirements for seafarers
No payment
Wages 3 13 11
Monthly accounts of payments not provided
Calculation and payment of
7 2 6 Not fully paid wages
wages
Other (conditions of
1 0 6 SEA expired
employment)
(11) Ship Certificates

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Ship Certificates” are shown in the
Table 2.3.2-(11) Ship Certificates
Minimum safe manning
1 2 4 Inappropriate description
document
International sewage
pollution prevention 1 1 4 Inappropriate description
certificate
Cargo ship safety

construction (including 4 3 2 Expired
exemption)
Maritime labour certificate 2 2 2 Missing
(12) MARPOL Annex IV

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “MARPOL Annex IV” are shown in
Table 2.3.2-(12) MARPOL Annex IV
Sewage treatment plant 31 33 16 Inoperative (including holes or corrosion)
23
(13) Labour Conditions - Health protection, medical care, social security

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Labour Conditions - Health
protection, medical care, social security” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(13) below.
Table 2.3.2-(13) Labour Conditions - Health protection, medical care, social security
Steam pipes, pressure pipes,
1 1 4 Insulation on steam pipes missing/damaged
wires (insulation)
Cleanliness of engine room 0 5 3 Oil/water leakage from machinery
Leakage from hydraulic oil pipes

Winches and capstans 2 2 3
Mooring rollers cover corroded
(14) Structural Conditions

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Structural Conditions” are shown in
Table 2.3.2-(14) Structural Conditions

Emergency shut off valves of oil tanks
Ballast, fuel and other tanks 5 2 4
inoperative
Electrical installations
2 3 3 Batteries not secured
in general
Hull damage impairing

1 4 3 Hull structure dented/holed
seaworthiness
Steering gear 8 9 2 Malfunction
(15) Labour Conditions-Accommodation, recreational facilities, food and catering

Major types and details of deficiencies noted under the category of “Labour Conditions-
Accommodation, recreational facilities, food and catering” are shown in Table 2.3.2-(15) below.
Table 2.3.2-(15) Labour Conditions-Accommodation, recreational facilities, food and catering
Galley, handling room
2 2 2 Galley dirty
(maintenance)
Provisions quantity 1 1 2 Quantity not sufficient
24
2.4 Analysis of Detainable Deficiencies per PSC Country

Most frequent detainable deficiencies per PSC country are shown in Tables 2.4.1 to 2.4.13 according to
number of detentions reported from 2018 to 2020. (Regarding details of deficiencies related to ISM and
MLC, refer to Chapter 3 and Chapter 4.)
2.4.1 Australia
Table 2.4.1 Australia
Category of Detainable Deficiency 2018 2019 2020
(*)
ISM 14 20 24
Life saving appliances 11 15 20
Emergency systems 13 17 13
Fire safety 11 12 11
Water/weathertight conditions 7 4 9
Labour conditions - minimum requirements for
0 4 4
seafarers
Defective Items 2018 2019 2020

Other (ISM) 6 8 14
Emergency source of power - emergency generator 8 11 8
Lifeboats 17 6 8
Emergency fire pump and its pipes 5 5 5
Operational readiness of lifesaving appliances 1 5 5
Maintenance of the ship and equipment 14 3 5
Fire-dampers 7 11 4
Rescue boats 1 3 4
(*) In Australia, deficiency relating to Safety of Navigation is not directly judged as
detainable deficiency but as ISM detainable deficiency since it is regarded as ISM
related.
A total of 92 detainable deficiencies relating to 66 detentions were noted in 2020.

(1.4 detainable deficiencies/detention)
25
2.4.2 Russia
Table 2.4.2 Russia
Safety of navigation 11 23 19
Fire safety 9 25 13
ISM 1 20 8
Labour conditions - health protection, medical
0 2 8
care, social security

Other (ISM) 13 4 7
Emergency lighting, batteries and switches 11 6 5
Fire detection and alarm system 2 8 4
Charts 3 7 4
Nautical publications 7 4 4
2.4.3 Ukraine
Table 2.4.3 Ukraine
ISM 0 0 7
Certificate & documentation - ship certificates 0 0 7
Fire safety 0 0 3
Pollution prevention - MARPOL Annex I 0 0 3
ISPS 0 0 3

ISM 0 0 4
Minimum safe manning document 0 0 3
Access control to ship 0 0 3
International sewage pollution prevention certificate 0 0 2
Immersion suits 0 0 2
26
2.4.4 Indonesia
Table 2.4.4 Indonesia
ISM 1 6 8
Pollution prevention - MARPOL Annex IV 8 12 8
Fire safety 22 16 7
0 0 3
seafarers

Sewage treatment plant 8 10 6
Fire doors/openings in fire-resisting divisions 11 2 3
Reserve source of energy 1 1 2
Fire-dampers 6 11 2
Voyage or passage plan 0 0 2
Lifeboats 3 2 2
Launching arrangements for rescue boats 1 1 2
Masters responsibility and authority 0 0 2
Shipboard operations 0 0 2
2.4.5 Belgium
Table 2.4.5 Belgium
Fire safety 10 9 14
Certificate & documentation - crew certificates 6 5 10
ISM 9 5 8
Structural conditions 1 1 4
6 1 3
seafarers

Seafarers' employment agreement (SEA) 6 5 9
ISM 9 5 8
Fire detection and alarm system 0 1 4
Wages 1 2 3
27
2.4.6 Republic of Korea

Table 2.4.6 Republic of Korea
Fire safety 5 1 10
ISM 4 4 4
Pollution prevention - MARPOL Annex VI 0 0 2

Oil accumulation in engine room 1 2 4
Launching arrangements for survival craft 0 1 3
Covers (hatchway-, portable-, tarpaulins, etc.) 1 0 2
Fire-dampers 0 0 2
Stowage and provision of Lifeboats 0 0 2
Rescue boats 0 0 2
Oil filtering equipment 0 1 2
Other (ISM) 0 0 2
2.4.7 United States

Table 2.4.7 United States
Fire safety 11 12 17
ISM 6 21 7

Oil accumulation in engine room 1 3 11
Fixed fire extinguishing installation 2 1 3
Electrical installations in general 0 0 2
Shipboard operations 1 1 2
Safety and environmental policy 0 3 1
28
2.4.8 Japan
Table 2.4.8 Japan
0 2 3
seafarers
Fire safety 2 5 2

Other (conditions of employment) 0 0 2
2.4.9 Canada
Table 2.4.9 Canada
Propulsion and auxiliary machinery 0 2 4
ISM 0 2 3
Labour conditions - accommodation, recreational
2 1 2
facilities, food and catering

Lifeboats 0 0 2
Bilge pumping arrangements 0 0 2
ISM 0 2 2
29
2.4.10 China
Table 2.4.10 China
ISM 25 37 5
Fire safety 46 90 3
Alarms 3 4 3

Emergency preparedness 3 2 2
Other (ISM) 1 12 1
Steering gear alarm 0 2 1
Charts 3 1 1
2.4.11 Saudi Arabia

Table 2.4.11 Saudi Arabia

Rescue boats 0 1 1
30
2.4.12 Germany
Table 2.4.12 Germany
Fire safety 8 6 8
Labour conditions - accommodation, recreational
6 2 5
facilities, food and catering
Labour conditions - health protection, medical
1 2 5
care, social security
Pollution prevention - MARPOL Annex IV 2 0 4
0 0 4
seafarers
ISM 3 2 3

Division - decks, bulkheads and penetrations 0 0 3
Retention of oil on board 0 0 3
Sewage treatment plant 2 0 3
ISM 3 2 3
Propulsion main engine 0 0 2
Auxiliary engine 2 0 2
Wages 0 0 2
Calculation and payment of wages 0 0 2
Steam pipes, pressure pipes, wires (insulation) 1 0 2
2.4.13 Turkey
Table 2.4.13 Turkey
Fire safety 15 7 2

Fire fighting equipment and appliances 4 1 1
Lifeboats 1 1 1
31
Chapter 3
Statistical Analysis of NK SMC Ships Detained by PSC (ISM Code)
3.1 General
This chapter presents statistical analysis from the viewpoints of ISM Code, on the ships holding a Safety
Management Certificate (hereafter, “SMC”) issued by the Society (hereafter, “NK SMC ships”) based
on PSC Inspection Reports NK has obtained.
Table 3.1 shows the registered number of the NK SMC ships. The NK class ships account for 90.4% of
the NK SMC ships.
Table 3.1 Number of NK SMC Ships (per Class)

Classification 2018 2019 2020
NK class 4,968 90.0% 5,116 90.0% 5,220 90.4%
Other class 549 10.0% 569 10.0% 554 9.6%
Total 5,517 5,685 5,774
Note: The numbers refer to ships engaged in international voyages including those under 500 gross tonnage
3.2 Statistics of Detentions of NK SMC Ships

In 2020, the total number of detentions of NK SMC ships was 181, which was 3.1% of all NK SMC
ships, or 5,774 (hereafter, “Detention Ratio”).
Tables 3.2.1 and Table 3.2.2 show the number of detentions and the Detention Ratio per flag and ship
type, respectively.
Table 3.2.1 Number of Detentions and Detention Ratio of NK SMC Ships per Flag
2018 2019 2020
Country
(I) (II) (III) (I) (II) (III) (I) (II) (III)
Panama 131 2,519 5.2% 135 2,548 5.3% 94 2,490 3.8%
Singapore 11 549 2.0% 8 590 1.4% 11 608 1.8%
Marshall Islands 21 494 4.3% 28 564 5.0% 22 595 3.7%
Hong Kong 14 393 3.6% 13 382 3.4% 18 374 4.8%
Liberia 24 400 6.0% 27 434 6.2% 15 471 3.2%
Japan 3 302 1.0% 4 320 1.3% 2 309 0.6%
Malta 13 163 8.0% 8 151 5.3% 2 152 1.3%
Bahamas 2 110 1.8% 4 116 3.4% 5 114 4.4%
Turkey 0 65 0.0% 1 57 1.8% 1 50 2.0%
Thailand 3 78 3.8% 3 75 4.0% 1 68 1.5%
Cyprus 10 66 15.2% 5 61 8.2% 0 61 0.0%
Malaysia 0 50 0.0% 0 54 0.0% 0 54 0.0%
Other Flag 27 328 8.2% 17 333 5.1% 10 428 2.3%
Total 259 5,517 4.7% 253 5,685 4.5% 181 5,774 3.1%
Note: ( I ): No. of Detentions, ( II ): No. of NK SMC Ships, ( III ): Detention Ratio = ( I ) / ( II ) %
32
Table 3.2.2 Number of Detentions and Detention Ratio

of NK SMC Ships per Ship Type (SOLAS IX)
2018 2019 2020
Type of Ship
Bulk Carrier 160 2,435 6.6% 162 2,500 6.5% 128 2,551 5.0%
Other Cargo Ship 88 1,980 4.4% 72 2,002 3.6% 42 1,995 2.1%
*Chemical Tanker 1 506 0.2% 12 544 2.2% 5 573 0.9%
Oil Tanker 8 346 2.3% 6 370 1.6% 3 372 0.8%
Gas Carrier 2 249 0.8% 1 268 0.4% 3 282 1.1%
MODU 0 1 0.0% 0 1 0.0% 0 1 0.0%
Passenger Ship 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%
High Speed Craft 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%
Total 259 5,517 4.7% 253 5,685 4.5% 181 5,774 3.1%
Note: 1. ( I ): No. of Detentions, ( II ): No. of NK SMC Ships, ( III ): Detention Ratio = ( I ) / ( II ) %
2. * Chemical Tanker includes Oil/ Chemical Tanker.
Table 3.2.3 shows the number of detentions and the number of ISM detention cases where ships were
detained due to detainable deficiencies related to ISM Code (hereafter “ISM detainable deficiency”).
Also, ISM detainable deficiencies ratio per PSC country is shown.
Table 3.2.3 Number of Detentions and Detention Ratio

of ISM Detention Cases per PSC Country
2018 2019 2020
Country
China 20 64 31.3% 23 70 32.9% 3 5 60.0%
Australia 13 47 27.7% 15 53 28.3% 25 62 40.3%
Russia 12 32 37.5% 6 21 28.6% 7 21 33.3%
Ukraine 0 0 0.0% 0 2 0.0% 8 14 57.1%
UK 2 3 66.7% 5 5 100% 1 1 100%
Belgium 6 7 85.7% 4 4 100% 7 8 87.5%
EU
Italy 4 4 100% 4 4 100% 2 2 100%
Other Members 10 19 52.6% 12 17 70.6% 10 14 71.4%
USA 5 16 31.3% 9 14 64.3% 5 7 71.4%
Other Countries 13 67 19.4% 18 63 28.6% 12 47 25.5%
Total 85 259 32.8% 96 253 37.9% 80 181 44.2%
Note: ( I ): No. of the ISM detention case
( II ): No. of detentions of NK SMC ships. (Notwithstanding the reason of detention)
( III ): ISM detainable deficiencies ratio = ( I ) / ( II ) %
33
3.3 Study of ISM Detainable Deficiencies

This clause introduces studies of ISM detainable deficiencies recorded in Australia, Ukraine and
Belgium which are the top 3 countries with the highest number of ISM detention cases in 2020 and a
part of objective evidences of the ISM detention by each country.
Deficiency Codes of ISM deficiencies specified by Tokyo MOU which Australia participates in are as
follows in table 3.3. Also, a deficiency code of ISM deficiencies specified by Black Sea MOU which
Ukraine participates in and Paris MOU which Belgium participates in is only “15150 - ISM”.
Table 3.3 Deficiency Code per ISM Code Element (Tokyo MOU)
Def. Code ISM Code Element Defective Item
15101 2 Safety and Environmental Policy
15102 3 Company Responsibility and Authority
15103 4 Designated Person(s)
15104 5 Masters Responsibility and Authority
15105 6 Resources and Personnel
15106 7 Shipboard Operations
15107 8 Emergency Preparedness
15108 9 Reports of Non-conf., accidents & hazardous occur.
15109 10 Maintenance of the ship and equipment
15110 11 Documentation- ISM
15111 12 Company Verification, Review and Evaluation
15112 13 Certification, Verification and Control
15199 - Other (ISM)
Deficiency Code per ISM Code Element (Paris MOU, Black Sea MOU)
Def. Code Defective Item
15150 ISM
34
3.3.1 Australia
Table 3.3.1(a) shows the number of ISM detainable deficiencies per Deficiency Code. Table 3.3.1(b)
shows the number of deficiencies regarded as the evidences of ISM detainable deficiencies per
Deficiency Code. In Australia, “15199 - Other (ISM)” was most frequently recorded as an ISM
detainable deficiency. For the case where plural ISM code elements corresponding to the objective
evidences of ISM detention were found, “15199 - Other (ISM)” was recorded. Typical objective
evidences of the ISM detainable deficiency are mainly as follows.
・ Oily sludge accumulated in galley exhaust duct

・ Malfunction of safety devices of generator engines
・ Damage and/or wastage of securing devices (cleats) or cleat crutches of cargo hatch covers
・ Standard compass error not determined once a watch
・ Malfunction of fire damper’s operations
・ Crew unfamiliar with operation of ECDIS
・ Not having the latest and/or corrected charts
Table 3.3.1(a) Number of ISM Detainable Deficiencies per Deficiency Code

Code DEF_ITEM 2018 2019 2020
15104 Masters responsibility and authority 0 0 1
15105 Resources and personnel 1 0 0
15106 Shipboard operations 5 4 3
15107 Emergency preparedness 1 5 1
15109 Maintenance of the ship and equipment 2 3 5
15199 Other (ISM) 8 8 17
Total 17 20 27
Table 3.3.1(b) Number of deficiencies regarded as objective evidences

of ISM Detainable Deficiencies per Deficiency Code
Code Item No. Remark
02108 Electrical installations in general 5
03105 Covers (hatchway-, portable-, etc.) 4
04102 Emergency Fire Pump and its pipes 5
07106 Fire detection and alarm system 5
07113 Fire pumps and its pipes 4
07115 Fire-dampers 5
Ex) Oily sludge accumulated in
07199 Other (fire safety) 10
galley exhaust duct
10105 Magnetic compass 4
10114 VDR/ S-VDR 4
10127 Voyage or passage plan 5
10133 Bridge operation 4
11101 Lifeboats 5
11104 Rescue boats 4
11131 On board training and instructions 5
13102 Auxiliary engine 8
Others 126
35
3.3.2 Ukraine
Table 3.3.2(a) shows the number of the ISM detainable deficiencies per Deficiency Code. Table 3.3.2(b)
shows the number of deficiencies regarded as objective evidences of ISM detainable deficiencies per
Deficiency Code. Typical objective evidences of the ISM detainable deficiency are mainly as follows.
・ Logbook not properly recorded

・ Malfunction of remote pump control system (F.P.T, bos’n store)
・ Crew unfamiliar with fire drills
・ Crew incapable of properly putting on immersion suits
・ Controls of access to ships not properly implemented
・ Crew unfamiliar with garbage collection and disposal procedure

Code Item 2018 2019 2020
15150 ISM 0 0 10
Table 3.3.2(b) Number of Deficiencies Regarded as the Evidences

of ISM Detainable Deficiencies per Deficiency Code
Code Item No. Remark
01305 Log-books / compulsory entries 8
Ex.) Malfunction of remote
02199 Other (Structure condition) 2 pump control system (F.P.T,
bos’n store)
04109 Fire drills 3
05115 Radio log (diary) 1
10105 Magnetic compass 1
10106 Compass correction log 1
11119 Immersion suits 3
11131 On board training and instructions 3
14501 Garbage 1
14503 Garbage management plan 1
16101 Ship security defects 3
16105 Access control to ship 2
Others 14
36
3.3.3 Belgium
Table 3.3.3(a) shows the number of ISM detainable deficiencies per Deficiency Code. Table 3.3.3(b)
shows the number of deficiencies regarded as the evidences of ISM detainable deficiencies per
Deficiency Code. Typical objective evidences of the ISM detainable deficiency are mainly as follows.
・ Invalid seafarers’ employment agreement

・ Damage to lighting fittings and/or electric cables
・ Malfunction of fuel oil shut-off valves
・ Damage to side ropes and/or steps of pilot ladder
・ Not having the latest nautical publications
・ Malfunction of self-igniting lights of lifebuoys
・ Inappropriate entries in ballast water record book
・ Crew not receiving full monthly wage in accordance with their employment agreements

Code Item 2018 2019 2020
15150 ISM 10 6 11
Table 3.3.3(b) Number of Deficiency Regarded as the Evidences

of ISM Detainable Deficiency per Deficiency Code
Code Item No. Remarks
01220 Seafarers' employment agreement (SEA) 16
02107 Ballast, fuel and other tanks 3
02108 Electrical installations in general 4
02128 Bulk carriers add. Safety measures 3
Remote Means of control (opening, pumps,
07114 4
ventilation, etc.) Machinery spaces
10101 Pilot ladders and hoist/pilot transfer arrangements 3
10116 Nautical publications 3
11117 Lifebuoys incl. provision and disposition 3
13104 Bilge pumping arrangements 3
14802 Ballast Water Record Book 4
18203 Wages 4
Others 84
37
Chapter 4
Statistical Analysis of NK MLC Ships Detained by PSC (MLC, 2006)
4.1 General
This chapter presents statistical analysis from the viewpoints of MLC, 2006 on the ships holding a
Maritime Labour Certificate issued by the Society (hereafter, “NK MLC ships”) based on the PSC
Inspection Reports obtained. Table 4.1 shows the registered number of the NK MLC ships. About 89%
of the NK MLC ships are classed with the Society.
Table 4.1 Number of NK MLC Ships (per Class)

Classification 2018 2019 2020
NK class 4,588 88.4% 4,847 88.6% 4,957 89.3%
Other class 603 11.6% 623 11.4% 596 10.7%
Total 5,191 5,470 5,553
4.2 Statistics of Detentions of NK MLC Ships

As of the end of April 2021, 97 countries have ratified MLC, 2006 and many countries have been
carrying out PSC inspections based on the convention. For detailed situations of the enforcement by the
countries, please refer to the following website of ILO.
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:11300:0::NO:11300:P11300_INSTRUMENT_ID:312331:NO
The table 4.2 shows the number of detention cases due to deficiencies related to MLC, 2006 (hereafter,
“MLC deficiencies”) for NK MLC ships in the last 3 years.
Table 4.2 Number of Detention Cases due to MLC Deficiencies (per PSC country)
Country 2018 2019 2020
Australia 2 4 6
Canada 2 1 3
Japan 0 0 3
Russia 2 2 3
Belgium 4 2 7
Germany 2 0 4
EU
Greece 0 0 2
Other Members 5 5 2
Other Countries 6 4 2
Total 23 18 32
38
4.3 Study of MLC Detainable Deficiencies

This clause introduces the studies of detainable deficiencies related to MLC, 2006 (hereafter, “MLC
detainable deficiencies”) and MLC deficiencies recorded as objective evidences of ISM detainable
deficiencies for NK MLC ships in 2020. In this Chapter, the deficiencies with Codes listed in Table
4.3.1 are defined as MLC deficiencies.
The number of MLC detainable deficiencies per the deficiency code is shown in Table 4.3.2. Also, top
10 MLC deficiencies regarded as objective evidences of ISM detainable deficiencies are shown in Table
4.3.3. As for the MLC detainable deficiencies, “01220 - Seafarers' employment agreement (SEA)” was
most frequently recorded on NK MLC ships in 2020. And “18203 - wages” followed it.
On the other hand, the top 3 deficiencies recorded as objective evidences of ISM detainable deficiencies
in MLC deficiencies are as follows.
・ Top.1: “01220 - Seafarers' employment agreement (SEA)” (11)

・ Top.1: “18420 - Cleanliness of engine room” (11)
・ Top.3: “01308 – Records of rest” (5)
Table 4.3.1 Deficiency Codes of MLC Deficiencies - Paris MOU and Tokyo MOU
Deficiency Code Category / Item (Description in the List of Tokyo MOU Def. Codes)
01xxx Certificates & Documentation
-- Crew Certificate
01218 Medical Certificate
012 01219 Training and Qualification MLC- Personal Safety Training
01220 Seafarers` Employment Agreement (SEA)
01221 Record of Employment
-- Document
Max. Hours of Work or Min, Hours of Rest
01307
(Table of Working Hours)
Records of Seafarers’ Daily Hours of Work or Rest
01308
(Records of Rest)
013 01330 Procedure for Complaint under MLC, 2006
01331 Collective Bargaining Agreement
Certificate or documentary evidence of financial security for
01336
repatriation
Certificate or documentary evidence of financial security relating
01337
to shipowners liability
18xxx MLC, 2006 (Labour Conditions)
Minimum Requirements to Work on a Ship
181 01-04 & 99
(Minimum Requirements for Seafarers)
182 01-05 & 99 Conditions of Employment
183 01-28 & 99 Accommodation, Recreational Facilities, Food and Catering
184 01-32 & 99 Health Protection, Medical Care, Social Security
39
Table 4.3.2 Number of MLC Detainable Deficiencies per Deficiency Code

Code Item No. Country (*ISO display)
BEL, CAN, DEU, EST,
GBR, JPN
01308 Records of rest 1 AUS
18xxx Labour Conditions (MLC, 2006)
AUS, BEL, DEU, PHL,
18203 Wages 9
RUS
18204 Calculation and payment of wages 3 BEL, DEU
18299 Other (Conditions of employment) 4 AUS, JPN, RUS
18305 Hospital accommodation (Sickbay) 1 CAN
18312 Galley, handling room (maintenance) 1 BEL
18313 Cleanliness 1 CAN
18317 Food personal hygiene 1 GRC
18324 Cold room, cold room cleanliness & temperature 1 BEL
18399 Other (Accommodation, recreational facilities) 1 AUS
18406 Medical care onboard or ashore free of charge 1 DEU
18408 Electrical 2 GRC, JOR
18416 Ropes and wires 1 GRC
18417 Anchoring devices 1 RUS
18418 Winches and capstans 2 DEU, RUS
18420 Cleanliness of engine room 1 GRC
18424 Steam pipes, pressure pipes, wires (insulation) 3 DEU, RUS
Total 51 -
*ISO description of the country
ISO des. Country ISO des. Country ISO des. Country
AUS Australia BEL Belgium CAN Canada
DEU Germany EST Estonia GBR UK
GRC Greece JOR Jordan JPN Japan
PHL Philippines RUS Russia
Table 4.3.3 Top 10 MLC Deficiencies Regarded as the Evidences
of ISM Detainable Deficiencies
Code Item No.
01308 Records of rest 5
- Other Deficiencies with 01xxx 4
18xxx Labour Conditions (MLC, 2006)
18203 Wages 4
18302 Sanitary facilities 4
18312 Galley, handling room (maintenance) 4
18408 Electrical 4
18416 Ropes and wires 4
18418 Winches and capstans 4
18420 Cleanliness of engine room 11
18499 Other (Health protection, medical care …) 4
- Other Deficiencies with 18xxx 28
Total 87
40
(Reference) PSC Inspections on Working and Living Conditions in Countries not ratifying
MLC, 2006
Regarding the matters of ILO, Tokyo MOU, Paris MOU and other MOUs had been carrying out PSC
inspections using the deficiency code 09000 series “Working and Living Conditions” since before
implementation of MLC, 2006. These codes are still used by the countries in which MLC, 2006 has not
yet come into force. Table 4.3.4 shows the number of detainable deficiencies with the Code pointed out
in 2020.
Table 4.3.4 Number of ILO Detainable Deficiencies (per Deficiency Code)

Code Item No.
092xx Working Conditions
09232 Cleanliness of engine room 1
Total 1
41
Chapter 5
Statistical Data from Tokyo MOU, Paris MoU and USCG
Several regional MOUs and Port States publicly announce their PSC data on their websites and publish
Annual Reports every year. Based on the public data available, this Chapter introduces abstracts of the
recent results of detentions by the Tokyo MOU, the Paris MoU and the USCG in 2020.
The full text of each respective Annual Report can be obtained from the following websites.
Tokyo MOU http://www.tokyo-mou.org

Paris MoU https://www.parismou.org/
USCG https://www.uscg.mil/
42
5.1 Tokyo MOU

In 2020, 19,415 inspections were carried out in the Tokyo MOU region, and 493 ships were detained
due to serious deficiencies found onboard.
5.1.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Authorities

Table 5.1.1 shows the numbers of Port State inspections carried out by each Port State from 2018
through 2020.
Table 5.1.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Port Authorities (Tokyo MOU)
No. of Inspection No. of Detentions Detention ratio (%)

Country
2018 2019 2020 2018 2019 2020 2018 2019 2020
Australia 1) 2,922 3,222 3,021 161 163 178 5.51 5.06 5.89
Canada 2) 511 703 583 3 12 19 0.59 1.71 3.26
Chile 831 759 533 12 7 8 1.44 0.92 1.50
China 7,549 7,756 787 360 434 56 4.77 5.60 7.12
Fiji 64 36 5 0 1 0 0 2.78 0
Hong Kong, China 716 710 256 24 20 6 3.35 2.82 2.34
Indonesia 1,803 1,766 1,949 60 73 47 3.33 4.13 2.41
Japan 5,173 5,023 2,323 100 93 43 1.93 1.85 1.85
Republic of Korea 1,925 1,950 1,601 67 59 63 3.48 3.03 3.94
Malaysia 1,567 1,413 738 13 11 2 0.83 0.78 0.27
Marshall Islands 21 11 0 3 2 0 14.29 18.18 0
New Zealand 288 228 146 16 6 3 5.56 2.63 2.05
Panama 3) 0 0 125 0 0 4 0 0 3.20
Papua New Guinea 154 187 75 5 3 0 3.25 1.60 0
Peru 544 462 189 4 1 0 0.74 0.22 0
Philippines 2,976 2,302 2,130 1 7 4 0.03 0.30 0.19
Russia Federation2) 1,162 1,171 1,410 90 65 48 7.75 5.55 3.40
Singapore 1,097 1,199 494 15 21 5 1.37 1.75 1.01
Thailand 669 760 935 0 0 1 0 0 0.11
Vanuatu 4 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vietnam 1,613 1,706 2,113 0 5 6 0 0.29 0.28
Total 31,589 31,372 19,415 934 983 493 2.96 3.13 2.54
1) Data is also provided to Indian Ocean MOU.
2) Data is only for the Pacific ports.
3) Data for Panama before 2019 is not provided in Tokyo MOU
43
5.1.2 Black List of Flag States

Table 5.1.2 shows the Black List of Flag State announced in the Tokyo MOU Annual Report.
Table 5.1.2 Black List of Flag States (Tokyo MOU)

No. of No. of
Black to
Flag State Inspections Detentions
Grey limit
2018-2020 2018-2020
Togo 973 128 82
Sierra Leone 999 105 84
Mongolia 243 29 24
Jamaica 62 9 8
Palau 185 21 19
Kiribati 118 14 13
Korea, Democratic People’s Republic 143 16 16
5.1.3 Recognized Organization Performance

Table 5.1.3 shows the detention data of IACS affiliated Recognized Organizations in the Tokyo MOU
Annual Report.
Table 5.1.3 Inspections and Detentions per Recognized Organization (Tokyo MOU) (*)
No. of No. of
Detention
Recognized Organization Inspections Detentions
ratio (%)
2018-2020 2018-2020
American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) 10,425 194 1.86
Bureau Veritas (BV) 10,824 344 3.18
China Classification Society (CCS) 6,769 71 1.05
Croatian Register of Shipping (CRS) 116 9 7.76
DNV GL AS (DNV GL) 20,370 453 2.22
Indian Register of Shipping (IRS) 203 12 5.91
Korean Register (KR) 7,926 132 1.67
Lloyd's Register (LR) 12,712 314 2.47
Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (NK) 29,430 711 2.42
Polish Register of Shipping (PRS) 159 6 3.77
RINA Services S.p.A. (RINA) 3,078 114 3.70
Russian Maritime Register of Shipping (RS) 1,095 42 3.84
(*) According to the Tokyo MOU annual report, in cases where a ship’s certificates were issued by more than one
recognized organization (RO), the number of inspections would be counted towards both organizations, while the
number of detentions would be counted only towards the RO that issued the certificate relating to the detainable
deficiency or deficiencies.
44
5.1.4 Deficiencies per Category

Figure 5.1.4 shows the number of deficiencies by category for the three years from 2018 through 2020.
9,363
Life saving appliances 9,893
4,177
13,340
Fire safety measures 13,178
5,902
2,046
Stability, structure and related equipment 2,507
1,109
5,017
Load lines 5,472

2018
2,457
2019
2020
10,127
Safety of navigation 9,179
3,681
1,616
ISM related deficiencies 1,486
871
31,932
Others 31,678
16,727
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000

No. of Deficiencies
Fig. 5.1.4 Deficiencies per Category (Tokyo MOU)
45
5.2 Paris MoU

As the 2020 Annual Report has not been published yet, the data for 2019 is referred to in this annual
report (except for 5.2.2 and 5.2.3). As soon as the 2020 Annual Report is published, the report will be
updated and available on our website (http://www.classnk.or.jp/hp/en/info_service/psc/).
In 2019, 17,908 inspections were carried out in the Paris MoU region, and 526 ships were detained due to
serious deficiencies found onboard.
5.2.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Authorities

Table 5.2.1 shows the numbers of Port State Inspections carried out by each respective Port State from
2017 through 2019.
)
Table 5.2.1 Port State Inspections carried out by Authorities (Paris MoU)1
No. of Inspections No. of Detentions Detention ratio (%)

Country
2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019
Belgium 961 990 1,010 23 28 36 2.39 2.83 3.56
Bulgaria 288 329 342 9 16 12 3.13 4.86 3.51
Canada 1,150 1,022 1,237 21 19 25 1.83 1.86 2.02
Croatia 323 341 299 11 11 9 3.41 3.23 3.01
Cyprus 122 114 106 11 7 9 9.02 6.14 8.49
Denmark 471 493 491 0 6 4 0.00 1.22 0.81
Estonia 202 210 251 0 0 1 0.00 0.00 0.40
Finland 282 282 280 1 0 0 0.35 0.00 0.00
France 1,140 1,072 1,047 32 35 24 2.81 3.26 2.29
Germany 1,121 1,134 1,116 48 36 19 4.28 3.17 1.70
Greece 1,016 982 987 66 42 50 6.50 4.28 5.07
Iceland 60 63 64 2 1 1 3.33 1.59 1.56
Ireland 288 285 299 8 9 12 2.78 3.16 4.01
Italy 1,464 1,381 1,447 93 60 83 6.35 4.34 5.74
Latvia 290 303 309 4 3 3 1.38 0.99 0.97
Lithuania 239 231 253 2 0 0 0.84 0.00 0.00
Malta 211 196 181 5 6 8 2.37 3.06 4.42
Netherlands 1,264 1,278 1,287 32 28 22 2.53 2.19 1.71
Norway 557 569 555 6 8 14 1.08 1.41 2.52
Poland 502 507 492 18 26 19 3.59 5.13 3.86
Portugal 499 514 528 7 9 3 1.40 1.75 0.57
Romania 510 533 489 58 28 25 11.37 5.25 5.11
2)
Russia 1,337 1,360 1,177 126 103 57 9.42 7.57 4.84
Slovenia 132 136 140 2 1 1 1.52 0.74 0.71
Spain 1,562 1,557 1,517 39 33 43 2.50 2.12 2.83
Sweden 562 573 570 10 11 8 1.78 1.92 1.40
United Kingdom 1,363 1,499 1,434 51 40 38 3.74 2.67 2.65
Total 17,916 17,954 17,908 685 566 526 3.82 3.15 2.94
1) The report will be updated after the 2020 Annual Report is published.
2) Only movements to the Russian ports in the Baltic Azov, Caspian and Barents Sea are included.
46
5.2.2 Black List of Flag States

Table 5.2.2 shows the Black List of Flag States announced by the Paris MoU.
Table 5.2.2 Black List of Flag States (Paris MoU)

Inspections Detentions Black to
Flag State Risk
2018-2020 2018-2020 Grey Limit
Albania 74 17 High Risk 9
Cameroon 45 10 6
Medium to
Togo 430 60 39
High Risk
Comoros 336 45 32
Moldova, Republic of 350 41 33
Belize 283 31 27
Medium
Tanzania, United Republic of 276 30 27
Risk
Sierra Leone 312 33 30
Tuvalu 39 6 6
5.2.3 Recognized Organization Performance

Table 5.2.3 shows the PSC performance of IACS affiliated Recognized Organizations among those
announced by the Paris MoU for the three years from 2018 through 2020.
Table 5.2.3 Recognized Organization Performance Table (Paris MoU)

No. of No. of
Performance
Recognized Organization Inspections Detentions
Level
2018-2020 2018-2020
American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) 5,753 3
DNV GL AS (DNV GL) 17,859 14
Lloyd's Register (LR) 11,313 11
Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (NK) 7,811 13
Bureau Veritas (BV) 10,577 22
High
Russian Maritime Register of Shipping (RS) 2,434 4
RINA Services S.p.A. (RINA) 4,756 11
Korean Register (KR) 1,336 2
China Classification Society (CCS) 815 1
Polish Register of Shipping (PRS) 542 1
Croatian Register of Shipping (CRS) 142 0
Medium
Indian Register of Shipping (IRS) 197 4
47
5.3 USCG
In 2020, 7,383 PSC examinations were conducted by the USCG during the year, and 57 ships were
detained due to serious deficiencies found onboard.
.
5.3.1 USCG Statistics
Table 5.3.1 shows the number of safety related detentions for the three years from 2018 through 2020.
Table 5.3.1 Detentions by Year (Safety)

Annual 3-Year Average
No. of No. of
Year Detention Detention
Safety Exams Detentions
Ratio (%) Ratio (%)
2018 9,025 103 1.14 1.06
2019 8,622 95 1.10 1.07
2020 7,383 57 0.77 1.02
5.3.2 Targeted Flag States (Safety)

The USCG targets Flag Administrations for additional PSC examinations if their detention ratio scores
higher than the overall three-year rolling average detention ratio and if an Administration is associated
with more than one detention in the past three years. The following flag states having a detention ratio
higher than the overall average were listed as targeted flag states.
Table 5.3.2 USCG Targeted Flag States (Safety)

2018-2020
Flag State Detention Category
Ratio (%)
Barbados 4.95
Belgium 2.50
Bolivia* 15.38
Cook Islands 3.51
Israel 15.38
Mexico 5.57 High Risk
St. Kitts and Nevis 20.00
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 5.03
Tanzania 19.57
Togo 4.44
Turkey 3.28
Antigua and Barbuda 1.70
Cyprus* 1.60
Liberia 1.11
Malta 1.19
Medium Risk
Panama 1.03
Philippines 1.48
Portugal 1.45
Vanuatu 1.62
* Administration not targeted last year.
48
5.3.3 Recognized Organization Performance (Safety)

Table 5.3.3 shows the PSC performance of IACS affiliated Recognized Organizations among those
announced by the USCG.
Table 5.3.3 Recognized Organization Performance Table (USCG)

2018-2020 2018-2020
Detention
Recognized Organization Vessel RO-Related
Ratio (%)
Examinations Detentions
American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) 5408 0 0.00
Bureau Veritas (BV) 3382 4 0.11
China Classification Society (CCS) 620 1 0.16
Croatian Register of Shipping (CRS) 44 0 0.00
DNV GL AS (DNV GL) 9384 6 0.06
Indian Register of Shipping (IRS) 50 0 0.00
Korean Register (KR) 839 0 0.00
Lloyd's Register (LR) 7183 5 0.07
Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (NK) 6809 5 0.07
Polish Register of Shipping (PRS) 69 0 0.00
RINA Services S.p.A. (RINA) 1136 0 0.00
Russian Maritime Register of Shipping (RS) 103 1 1.09
Recognized Organizations are evaluated on their RO-related Detention Ratio on PSC over the
previous three years.
49
Port State Control Annual Report
[English]
Survey Department
3-3 Kioi-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-0094 Japan
Tel: +81-3-5226-2027, -2028
Fax: +81-3-5226-2029
E-mail: [email protected]
www.classnk.com June 2021

PSC20E

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PSC20E

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PSC20E

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

June 2021

Port State Control Annual Report

Output of PSC checklists

Graphic display function

Freely set KPIs and ship groups in order to monitor,

Automatically create e-mails attaching PSC

Display requirements of the IMO international

Leakage from fire main

Fire door packing

Broken fire door frame

Elec. cables penetration

Broken instruction plate

Inappropriate painter securing

Deteriorated grab line

Broken float disc of air pipe head

Improper freeboard marks

Temporary repair on piping

Dirty condition in engine room

Dirty condition in engine room

Wasted and holed

Partly broken mooring rope

Chapter 1: Status of Implementation and Recent Developments in PSC Worldwide

2.4 Analysis of Detainable Deficiencies per PSC Country ···············································25

Status of Implementation and Recent Developments

1.1 Amendments to the relevant conventions

1.1.1 Data collection system for fuel oil consumption of ships

1.1.2 EU Regulation on Ship Recycling

[Deadline for developing and having an IHM onboard]

1.1.3 2020 global cap of sulphur content in fuel oils

1.1.4 Maintenance for lifeboats etc.

1.1.5 Electronic record books

1.1.6 Application of Cyber Risk Management

1.2 Recent global developments

1.2.1 MOUs around the world

European and North Atlantic region : Paris MoU (https://www.parismou.org/)

(1) European and North Atlantic region (Paris MoU)

(2) Asia-Pacific region (Tokyo MOU)

(3) Latin-American region (Latin American Agreement)

(4) Caribbean region (Caribbean MOU)

(5) Mediterranean region (Mediterranean MoU)

(6) Indian Ocean region (Indian Ocean MOU)

(7) Black Sea region (Black Sea MOU)

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

(9) Arab States of the Gulf (Riyadh MoU)

1.2.2 Port State Control in the United States (USCG)

(2) PSC Safety Targeting Matrix

(3) Banning of foreign vessels

1.3 Measures adopted by ClassNK

1.3.1 Handling of the Deficiencies Identified by PSC Inspections

(2) Treatment of inspection reports by PSC officers

(b) Meetings and seminars

ii) ARRIVAL CHECKLIST for PSC (http://www.classnk.or.jp/hp/en/info_service/psc/)

1.3.3 Visits to PSC authorities

Statistical Analysis of Detained Ships Registered with ClassNK

2.2 Data on Detentions

Table 2.2.1 Detentions per Flag State

Fig. 2.2.1-1 No. of Detentions per Flag State

Fig. 2.2.1-2 Detention Ratio per Flag State (%)

2.2.2 Detentions per Ship Type

Table 2.2.2 Detentions per Ship Type