By Tokyo MOU Secretariat

INTRODUCTION OFTOKYO MOU

YOU can find/get most of information/material/PSC datafrom our web‐site on internet: www.tokyo‐mou.org/

Organization Inspection & Detention Publications About Tokyo MOU FAQ Annual Report Text of the MOU On‐line detention list Press ReleaseOrganizational chart PSC database Deficiency codes Authorities’ addresses NIR What’s newOn‐line query form Under‐performing ships Code of Good Practice Appeal procedures Links to other site Detention review

Criteria for RO responsibility

Tokyo MOU Web‐site

Our visionTo eliminate substandard shipping in the Asia‐Pacific region.Our missionTo promote the effective implementation, and the universal and uniform application, of relevant IMO/ILO instruments on ships operating in the region.Our commitmentTokyo MOU strives to: develop and maintain effective and efficient PSC system in 

the region; enhance status and performance of the MOU; promote joint initiatives and co‐operation with other 

regional PSC regimes; and improve transparency, communication and relationship with 

the industry.

Australia

Canada

Chile

China

Fiji

Hong Kong, China

Indonesia

Japan

Korea, Rep. of

Malaysia

New Zealand

Papua New Guinea

Philippines

Russian Federation

Singapore

Thailand

Vanuatu

VietnamMarshall Islands

Peru

Co-operating Member

Solomon Islands

ILO, IMO Paris MOU, I-O MOU , Acuerdo Viña del Mar, Black Sea MOU

USAMacao, China

Korea, DPR

Observer

MEMBERSHIP

PSC Database

Tokyo MOU New Inspection Regime (NIR) – cont.Tokyo MOU New Inspection Regime (NIR) 

Parameters

Ship Risk ProfileHigh Risk Ship (HRS)

(When sum of weighting points >=4)Standard Risk Ship

(SRS)Low Risk Ship (LRS)

Criteria Weighting points Criteria Criteria

Type of Ship

Chemical tanker,Gas Carrier,Oil tanker,

Bulk carrier,Passenger ship

2

Neither LRSnor

HRS

-

Age of Ship All types > 12y 1 -

FlagBGW-list1) Black 1 WhiteVIMSAS2) - - Yes

Recognized Organization

RO of Tokyo MOU3) - - Yes

Performance4) LowVery Low

1 High

Company performance5) LowVery Low

2 High

Deficiencies

Number of deficiencies recorded in each inspection within previous 36 months

How many inspections were

there which recorded over 5

deficiencies?

No. of inspectionswhich recorded over 5

deficiencies

All inspections have 5 or less deficiencies (at

least one inspection within previous 36

months)

Detentions

Number of Detention within previous 36 months

3 or more detentions 1 No detention

Ship Risk Profile Time Window since previous inspection

Low Risk Ships 9 to 18 monthsStandard Risk Ships 5 to 8 monthsHigh Risk Ships 2 to 4 months

Months 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

HRS

PII PI

SRS

PII PI

LRS

PII PI

Priority I (PI): The ship should be inspected, time window for which has been closed.Priority II (PII): The ship could be inspected, which is within the time window.No Priority: Authority will seek to avoid inspecting the ship.Overriding priority: Regardless of NIR, ships referred to in 3.3.2 of the MOU will be inspected.

Tokyo MOU New Inspection Regime (NIR) – cont.

Tokyo MOU New Inspection Regime (NIR) – cont.Deficiency Index Deficiency ratio per inspection

Above average > 1 above Tokyo MOU average

Average Tokyo MOU average +/- 1Below average > 1 below Tokyo MOU average

Detention Index Detention ratioAbove average > 1% above Tokyo MOU averageAverage Tokyo MOU average +/- 1%Below average > 1% below Tokyo MOU average

Detention Index Deficiency Index Company PerformanceAbove average Above average Very LowAbove average Average

LowAbove average Below averageAverage Above averageBelow average Above averageAverage Average

MediumAverage Below averageBelow average AverageBelow average Below average High

No. of ISM deficiencies*5 + No. of non-ISM deficiencies*1

Deficiency ratio = ---------------------------------------------

No. of inspections

No. of detentionsDetention ratio = ----------------------------

No. of inspections

Measures on Under‐performing Ships

Criteria:  Ships detained 3 or more times during previous 12 months.

Measures on under‐performing ships:

List of under‐performing ships is published on the Tokyo MOU web‐site monthly.

Warning letters are issued to the flag State and ISM company of under‐performing ships.

Under‐performing ships would be inspected at each and every port call within the region.

Measures on Under‐performing Ships – cont.Measures on Under‐performing Ships – cont.

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2011 2012 2013 2014

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total2011 39 37 36 29 32 31 38 44 43 41 39 39 4482012 36 29 31 30 29 23 24 22 27 28 28 26 3332013 27 33 37 30 24 28 32 35 32 30 28 30 3662014 29 31 29 26 19 19 16 20 189

Measures on Under‐performing Ships – cont.

91

77

70

51

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2011 2012 2013 2014

No. of individual ships involved

Measures on Under‐performing Ships – cont.

Type of ship 2011 2012 2013 2014

Bulk carrier 10 8 7 8

Chemical tanker 0 2 3 0

Container ship 0 1 2 1

Gas carrier 3 2 1 1

General cargo/multipurpose ship 67 57 52 38

High speed passenger craft 1 1 0 0

Livestock carrier 1 0 0 0

Oil tanker 1 0 1 0

Refrigerated cargo carrier 3 4 1 1

Ro‐Ro cargo ship 0 1 2 0

Ro‐Ro passenger ship 0 0 0 0

Vehicle carrier 1 0 0 2

Others 4 1 1 0

Total 91 77 70 51

Appeal Procedures 

Detention Review

PSC Data/Statistics

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

8.00%

9.00%

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000 Inspections and Detention (%)

No. of inspections Detention rate

Annual Report

Purpose 2011 – 2015 (revise every 5 years)

Training

General Training Course (GTC) (4 weeks, once/a year)

Specialized Training Course (STC) (1 week, twice/a year)

Expert Mission (EM) (1 ~ 2 weeks, 3 ~ 4 times/a year)

Harmonization PSCO Exchange (EX) (2 weeks, 9 exchanges/a year)

Update of knowledge Seminar (SEM) (4 days, once/a year)

Training Program

Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC)

CIC on the ISM Code compliance (Jul.~Sep. 1998) CIC on GMDSS requirements (Oct.~Dec. 1999) CIC on the ISM Code compliance (Jul.~Sep. 2002) CIC on Bulk Carrier Safety (Sep.~Nov. 2003) CIC on maritime security (Jul.~Sep. 2004) CIC on Operational Requirements (Sep.~Nov. 2005) CIC on MARPOL Annex I (Feb.~Apr. 2006) CIC on the ISM Code compliance (Sep.~Nov. 2007) CIC on Safety of Navigation (Sep.~Nov. 2008) CIC on Lifeboats (Sep.~Nov. 2009) CIC on Harmful Substances (Sep.~Nov. 2010) CIC on Structural Safety & Load Lines (Sep.~Nov. 2011) CIC on FSS Code (Sep.~Nov. 2012) CIC on Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery (2013)

CIC on STCW hours of rest (2014) Crew familiarization & Enclosed space entry (2015)

CIC on the ISM Code compliance (Jul.~Sep. 1998) CIC on GMDSS requirements (Oct.~Dec. 1999) CIC on the ISM Code compliance (Jul.~Sep. 2002) CIC on Bulk Carrier Safety (Sep.~Nov. 2003) CIC on maritime security (Jul.~Sep. 2004) CIC on Operational Requirements (Sep.~Nov. 2005) CIC on MARPOL Annex I (Feb.~Apr. 2006) CIC on the ISM Code compliance (Sep.~Nov. 2007) CIC on Safety of Navigation (Sep.~Nov. 2008) CIC on Lifeboats (Sep.~Nov. 2009) CIC on Harmful Substances (Sep.~Nov. 2010) CIC on Structural Safety & Load Lines (Sep.~Nov. 2011) CIC on FSS Code (Sep.~Nov. 2012) CIC on Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery (2013)

CIC on STCW hours of rest (2014) Crew familiarization & Enclosed space entry (2015)

Press Release

Our address:Tokyo MOU SecretariatAscend Shimbashi 8F6‐19‐19 ShimbashiMinato‐ku, Tokyo Japan 105‐0004Tel: +81‐3‐3433‐0621Fax: +81‐3‐3433‐0624E‐mail: secretariat@tokyo‐mou.org

Our staff:  Secretary Deputy Secretary Technical Officer Projects Officer

Tokyo MOU Secretariat

THANK YOU