바로가기 메뉴
본문 바로가기
주메뉴 바로가기
PSC Regional MOUs
01.Tokyo MOU on Port State Control In Asia-Pacific Region
  • TOKYO MOU
    Participating Maritime Authorities & Associate Members Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Fiji, Hong Kong (China), Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, New Zealand, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, Singapore, Thailand, Vanuatu and Viet Nam; Mexico (cooperating member)
    Observers Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Macao (China), Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, United States Coast Guard, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the International Labour Organization (ILO), the Abuja MOU, the Black Sea MOU, the Caribbean MOU, the Indian Ocean MOU, the Paris MoU, the Riyadh MOU and the Viña del Mar Agreement
    Target Inspection Rate 80% annual regional inspection rate
    Relevant Instruments LL66 & LL PROT 88
    SOLAS 74
    SOLAS PROT 78 & 88
    MARPOL 73/78
    STCW 78
    COLREG 72
    TONNAGE 69
    ILO Convention No. 14
    MLC 2006
    AFS 2001
    CLC 1969
    BWM 2004
    Inspection Priorities ships which have been subject of report or notification by another Authority
    ships which have been the subject of a report or complaint by the master, a crew member, or any other person or organization with a legitimate interest in the safe operation of the ship, shipboard living and working conditions or the prevention of the pollution, unless the Authority concerned deems the report or complaint to be manifestly unfounded.
    ships which have been permitted to leave the port of a State, the Authority of which is a signatory to the Memorandum, on the condition that the deficiencies noted must be rectified within a specified period, upon expiry of such period
    ships which have been reported by pilots or port authorities as having deficiencies which may prejudice their safe navigation
    ships carrying dangerous or polluting goods, which have failed to report all relevant information concerning the ships’ particulars, the ships movements and concerning the dangerous or polluting goods being carried to the competent authority of the port and coastal State
    ships authorized to rectify deficiencies within agreed period proceeds to sea without complying with the conditions agreed to by the Authority of the port of inspection
    ships which are identified by Port State intentionally choosing a particular port for inspection in order to obtain a favourable inspection result to reduce the ships’ risk level and extend window of inspection
    category of ships identified by the Committee from time to time as warranting priority inspections
    Amendments entry into force Will take effect 60 days after acceptance or at the end of any different period determined by the representatives of the authorities in the Committee.
    Committee Composition A representative of each of the authorities
    Secretariat location Ascend Shimbashi 8F 6-19-19 Shimbashi Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-0004 Tokyo, Japan
    secretariat@tokyo-mou.org
    Official Languages English
02.Paris MOU on Port State Control
  • Paris MOU
    Participating Maritime Authorities & Associate 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.
    Relevant Instruments LL66 & LL PROT 88
    SOLAS 74
    SOLAS PROT 78 & 88
    MARPOL 73/78
    STCW 78
    COLREG 72
    TONNAGE 69
    ILO Convention No. 147
    MLC 2006
    CLC PROT 1992
    AFS 2001
    CLC 2001
    BWM 2004
    Selection Scheme Priority I :
    Ship must be inspected because either the time window has closed or there is an overriding factor
    The overriding factors listed below are considered sufficiently serious to trigger an additional inspection at Priority I:
    - Ships reported by another Member State or the secretariat excluding unexpected factors,
    - Ships involved in a collision, grounding or stranding on their way to port,
    - Ships accused of an alleged violation of the provisions on discharge of harmful substances or effluents,
    - Ships which have been maneuvered in an erratic or unsafe manner whereby routing measures, adopted by the IMO, or safe navigational practices and procedures have not been followed,
    - Ships which have been suspended or withdrawn from their Class for safety reasons after last PSC inspection,
    - Ships which cannot be identified in the database.
    Selection Scheme Priority II :
    Ships may be inspected because they are within the time window or the port state considers an unexpected factor warrants an inspection
    Unexpected factors could indicate a serious threat to the safety of the ship and the crew or to the environment but the need to undertake an additional inspection is for the professional judgement of the Authority. These factors include:
    - Ships reported by pilots or relevant authorities which may include information from Vessel Traffic Services about ships’ navigation, - Ships which did not comply with the reporting obligations,
    - Ships reported with an outstanding ISM deficiency (3 months after issuing of the deficiency
    - Previously detained ships (3 months after the detention),
    - Ships which have been the subject of a report or complaint by the master, a seafarer, or any person or organization with a legitimate interest in the safe operation of the ship, ship on-board living and working conditions or the prevention of pollution, unless the Member State concerned deems the report or complaint to be manifestly unfounded,
    - Ships operated in a manner to pose a danger,
    - Ships reported with problems concerning their cargo, in particular noxious or dangerous cargo,
    - Ships where information from a reliable source became known, that their risk parameters differ from the recorded ones and the risk level is thereby increased,
    - Ships carrying certificates issued by a formerly Paris MoU recognized organization whose recognition has been withdrawn since the last inspection in the Paris MoU region
    Committee Composition A representative of each of the authorities
    Secretariat location Rijnstraat 8 P.O. Box 16191 2500 BD The Hague The Netherlands
    secretariat@parismou.org
    Official Languages English, French
03.United State Coast Guard(USCG)
      • Founded in the 1790's as part of the Department of Treasury, the United States Coast Guard is now part of the Department of Transportation, protecting U.S. interests at home and around the world. In peacetime and during war, the Coast Guard is at work around the clock, 365 days a year, patrolling shores, saving lives, protecting property and enhancing the flow of commerce. From helping the victims of floods and storms, to keeping millions of dollars worth of illegal drugs from flooding American communities, to teaching boating safety and cleaning up oil spills, the Coast Guard is, like its motto, Semper Paratus, Always Ready
      • In the past only in the most extreme or obvious cases did the U.S. Coast Guard intervene under the international conventions (e.g. SOLAS, MARPOL, Load line) to detain non-U.S. ships. The situation has changed radically.
      • In 1994, the U.S. Congress recognized that within the greater influx of non-U.S. ships there undoubtedly existed a number of substandard vessels which posed an unacceptable threat to the safety of ports, waterways, and marine environment of the country. Accordingly, the Congress directed the Coast Guard to develop a program to eliminate substandard vessels from the nation’s waters, and to submit annual reports on the status of this newly mandated program.
  • Exam Types
      • The updated PSC targeting program has three PSC exam types (PSC A, PSC B and PSC C) which prescribe the scope of the exam.
      • a. PSC A is a “more detailed” exam, in accordance with reference (c), with increased scope beyond a standard exam, to include operational tests of equipment and witnessing crew performance of drills.
      • b. PSC B is the standard exam, conducted in accordance with reference (c). It includes a document check with a deck and engine room walk to verify validity of the ship’s certificates. Limited operational tests of equipment and systems may also be conducted. However, the PSCO may expand the scope of the exam, to include additional equipment tests and/or witness drills.
      • c. PSC C: Vessels scoring PSC C are not targeted for a standard exam, but are still eligible for
        a random exam, or an exam based upon reports or credible information regarding potential non-compliance. If selected for a random exam, the Coast Guard unit may conduct either a PSC A or PSC B exam.
  • PSC Targeting
      • The targeting matrix is a screening tool that promotes systematic evaluation of several risk factors related to a vessel’s compliance or noncompliance with domestic or international maritime safety, environmental, and security standards. In addition to focusing Coast Guard resources and promoting nationwide consistency, the PSC targeting matrix serves to place the responsibility for maintaining vessels to accepted standards on those entities most responsible, including ship management, classification societies, and flag states. Linking targeting decisions to the performance records of the ship, the ship’s management, classification society, and flag state helps ensure accountability. The following criteria serve to inform the targeting matrix:
      • a. U.S. Exam History. Exam history (when the vessel was last examined) in U.S. ports is considered when determining whether a vessel is due for an exam.
      • b. Flag State. Flag states (flag administrations) associated with U.S. detentions may affect the vessel’s exam type and frequency. The Office of Commercial Vessel Compliance, Port State Control Division (CG-CVC-2) calculates detention ratios by dividing the number of vessels detained in the U.S. by the number of vessels examined. Detention ratios are averaged over a three-year period to reduce the effects of single year anomalies. Flag states exceeding the average detention ratio are added to the Targeted Flag Administration List, located in the previous year’s PSC Annual Report, and available on the public CG-CVC-2 website. CG- CVC-2 removes a targeted flag state from the list when its annual detention ratio drops below the average detention ratio for all flag states, or when it is associated with less than two U.S. detentions within the past 36 months.
      • c. Ship Management (any owner, operator, charterer, or managing operator) of vessels detained in the U.S. more than once during the previous 12 months is added to the Targeted Ship Management List, also available on the public CG-CVC-2 website. CG-CVC-2 removes targeted ship management from the list when they become associated with less than two U.S. detentions within the previous 12 months. Association may affect the vessel’s exam type and frequency. An exception is made for vessels enrolled in the Large Fleet Designation Program, where registered ship management of at least 25 vessels visiting U.S. ports annually is not listed unless it accumulates three or more detentions within a 12-month period
      • d. Recognized Organization. CG-CVC-2 evaluates Recognized Organization (RO) and Recognized Security Organization (RSO) performance over a three-year period. ROs and RSOs with three-year detention ratios that exceed the fixed three-year detention ratio are targeted, and listed on the public CG-CVC-2 website.
      • e. History of Compliance. A vessel’s record of control actions, detentions, deficiencies, marine casualties and violations may subject it to additional PSC exams, or exams of increased scope.
        1) Major control actions in the U.S. Vessel was subject to a major Coast Guard control action, including detention, denial of entry, or expulsion from U.S. waters.
        2) Foreign detentions. A party to the Paris or Tokyo PSC Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) detained the vessel.
        3) U.S. deficiency history. Major deficiencies recorded in the U.S.
        4) COTP orders. Vessel was subject to any other form of operational control, including a COTP Order or Letter of Deviation.
        5) Reportable marine casualties and marine violations. Vessel was involved in a reportable marine casualty or issued a marine violation.
      • f. Ship Particulars. Vessel class (type of service) and age.
  • 04.Other MOU
    • 01. Vina del Mar Agreement
      Date of Signature 5th November 1992 (Chile Vina del Mar)
      Participating Maritime Authorities & Associate Members (15 Flags) Argentina, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
      • 02. Mediterranean MOU
        Date of Signature 11th July 1997
        Participating Maritime Authorities & Associate Members (10 Flags) Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey
        • 03. Black Sea MOU
          Date of Signature 7th April 2000
          Participating Maritime Authorities & Associate Members (6 Flags) Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine
          • 04. Caribbean MOU
            Date of Signature 9th February 1996
            Participating Maritime Authorities & Associate Members (17 Flags) Antigua and Barbuda, Anguilla (UK), Aruba (KNL), Bermuda (UK), Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, British Virgin Islands (UK), Cayman Islands (UK), Curaçao (KNL), Cuba, France, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Netherlands, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
            • 05. Indian Ocean MOU
              Date of Signature 5th June 1998
              Participating Maritime Authorities & Associate Members (15 Flags) Participating Maritime Authorities & Associate Members (21 Flags)
              • 06. Abuja MOU
                Date of Signature 22th October 1999
                Participating Maritime Authorities & Associate Members (22 Flags) Angola, Benin, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Congo, Côte 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, Togo
                • 07. Riyadh MOU
                  Date of Signature 30th June 2004
                  Participating Maritime Authorities & Associate Members (6 Flags) Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates
· Inquiry
  • Dept. Survey Team
  • TEL +82 70 8799 8212
  • FAX +82 70 8799 8219
  • E-mail psc@krs.co.kr