Inte

rnat

iona

l Mar

itim

e O

rgan

izat

ion

IMO

Control Measures: Port State Control

PORT STATE CONTROLControl & Compliance

Measures –

A Case Study

7C-26

Inte

rnat

iona

l Mar

itim

e O

rgan

izat

ion

IMO

Control Measures: Port State Control

PORT STATE CONTROL

‘Sailor Boy’, a panamax-sized Bulk Carrier registered in

Atlantis is discharging a cargo of 50,000 tonnes of ammonium nitrate in Nirvana.

The master is a national of El Dorado and the officers and crew are nationals of Tirnaoge.

“Sailor Boy” is owned and operated by “Sailor Lines” based in Hibernia and is currently on charter to ‘PhosFarm Industries”, an agro chemical company based in Albion.

After loading the nitrates in Guana “Sailor Boy” took bunkers from a barge before departing for Nirvana.

An officer of the Port State (Nirvana) is onboard, conducting a routine visit in connection with the ISPS Code.

The ship is operating at Security Level 1.

No Declaration of Security (DOS) has been agreed.

7C-27

Inte

rnat

iona

l Mar

itim

e O

rgan

izat

ion

IMO

Control Measures: Port State Control

PORT STATE CONTROL

The officer asks the master to see the ISSC issued to the ship.

The master replies that the original certificate is ashore with the agent who is arranging for certified and notarised copies to be made.

He explains that, since the ISPS Code was made mandatory, many officials require such notarised copies of the certificate for their records.

The officer points out that there is no international requirement for the master to supply such copies. The master agrees, but points out that it is often easier to give the officials what they ask for, rather than argue whether it is a requirement or not.

The master gives the officer his last notarised copy of the ISSC. It was duly notarised 3 months ago by a notary public in Florida, USA. The intermediate verification and endorsement is not due until December of the next year.

 7C-28

Inte

rnat

iona

l Mar

itim

e O

rgan

izat

ion

IMO

Control Measures: Port State Control

PORT STATE CONTROL

The officer says that this is not acceptable.

He informs the master that he is going to impose the additional control measures contained in SOLAS Chapter Xl-2, Regulation 9.

The master is told to cease cargo operations immediately and to prepare for a full security inspection of his ship

 

Q1: Is the officer acting within his rights?

a. In not accepting the “copy”.

b. In stopping cargo operations.

Yes I No Reference:

 

7C-29

Inte

rnat

iona

l Mar

itim

e O

rgan

izat

ion

IMO

Control Measures: Port State Control

PORT STATE CONTROL

A1: Yes. SOLAS Chapter Xl-2, Regulation 9.1.1 “Normal Inspection”, Xl-2/9.1.2 .

 “Imposing Control Measures”, Xl-2/9.1.3 ‘Justification for inspection, delay and restricting operations” (pp 118-9).

 Is the certificate valid?

A copy is not a valid certificate. See the appendix to SOLAS on certificates to be carried - “all certificates to be the original”.

Note: The certified copy was not certified by the issuing authority. Do not confuse with the ISM DOC which can be a copy and does not need to be authenticated in any way.

 ISPS B/4.43 (pg 54) states that control measures should be proportionate, but the officer has ‘clear grounds” and is only restricting cargo operations till an inspection has been carried out

 

7C-30

Inte

rnat

iona

l Mar

itim

e O

rgan

izat

ion

IMO

Control Measures: Port State Control

PORT STATE CONTROL

While waiting for the inspection team to arrive, the agent returns with the original ISSC and 20 notarized copies.

The master offers the original to the officer who checks it and confirms it is indeed valid.

The master asks permission to resume cargo operations.

The officer refuses and says the full inspection of the ship will go ahead, despite there now being a valid ISSC onboard.

Q2: Is the officer acting within his rights?

7C-31

Inte

rnat

iona

l Mar

itim

e O

rgan

izat

ion

IMO

Control Measures: Port State Control

PORT STATE CONTROL

A2: If the only reason the officer imposed the control measure was because he was not shown the original of the ISSC then the control measure should be lifted – the deficiency has been rectified.

However, if the officer has other “clear grounds” for believing the “Sailor Boy” does not comply with SOLAS Chapter XI-2 or the ISPS Code, then he can continue to suspend operations on the ship (Part B, Paragraph 4.32 on page 50).

 

7C-32

Inte

rnat

iona

l Mar

itim

e O

rgan

izat

ion

IMO

PORT STATE CONTROL

During the inspection the officer asks who is allowed on the bridge when the ship is in port.

The master says he cannot tell him, as this would be disclosing confidential information.

The officer then asks to see a copy of the approved Ship Security Plan.

The master asks why the officer wants to see the plan.

The officer states he wants to confirm the assigned duties of the watchman who met him coming onboard so that he can assess if he acted in accordance with the plan.

In addition, he wants to gain confidence that, should the port go to Security Level 3, the ship has procedures in place to act on the instructions that would be issued by his Government.

7C-33

Inte

rnat

iona

l Mar

itim

e O

rgan

izat

ion

IMO

Control Measures: Port State Control

PORT STATE CONTROL

That is, he does not want to take a copy of the plan, he only

wants to see enough to confirm that people onboard are acting in accordance with their security duties and that the ship is able to act on instructions given during a security incident.

The master reluctantly refuses.

He says, if it were up to him, there would be no problem. Unfortunately, to do as requested would compromise the national security of Atlantis.

If the officer wishes to see these parts of the plan, he will need the permission of the Government of Atlantis.

 

Q3: Is the master acting within his rights regarding bridge access and the security plan?

 

 

7C-34

Inte

rnat

iona

l Mar

itim

e O

rgan

izat

ion

IMO

Control Measures: Port State Control

PORT STATE CONTROL

A3. Yes. The Master can refuse.

ISPS Part A, Section 9.8.1. (page 15) states that the master cannot divulge the “identification of restricted areas and measures for the prevention of access’.

The officer has not asked if the bridge is a restricted area or how access is controlled.

However, the officer has, in fact, asked for information –“ who has access to the bridge, not how access is controlled”; both are covered by ISPS Part A. Section 9.4.7 (duties of security personnel) and Section 9.4.5 (responding to security instructions) and are confidential under ISPS Part A, Section 9.8.1 (pages 13 to 15)

 

7C-35

Inte

rnat

iona

l Mar

itim

e O

rgan

izat

ion

IMO

Control Measures: Port State Control

PORT STATE CONTROL

The officer is examining the ships logbook and the records retained for the last 10 port visits.

He asks to see the Declaration of Security relating to the last bunkering operation carried out at anchor in Guana.

The master look puzzled and states that no Declaration of Security was required because the bunker barge was not subject to SOLAS therefore could not be expected to comply with ISPS requirements for a DOS.

The officer states that a DOS was required precisely because the barge was not subject to SOLAS.

7C-36

Inte

rnat

iona

l Mar

itim

e O

rgan

izat

ion

IMO

Control Measures: Port State Control

PORT STATE CONTROL

Furthermore, under the provisions of SOLAS Chapter Xl-2, Regulation 9.1 .3 he is expelling “Sailor Boy” from port.

Armed guards will be put in place to ensure no one leaves the vessel before departure.

The master is told to arrange tugs and to depart immediately.

The officer will advise the ships Administration and RSO of this action.

Coastal States in the area will be informed that “Sailor Boy” has been expelled from the Nirvana port for security reasons.

Q4: Was a Declaration of Security required?

If so, was the officer within his rights in expelling “Sailor Boy”?

Answer both parts even if you think a DOS was not required in this instance.

7C-37

Inte

rnat

iona

l Mar

itim

e O

rgan

izat

ion

IMO

Control Measures: Port State Control

PORT STATE CONTROL

A.4 No, a DoS cannot be demanded in these circumstances.

ISPS Part A, Section 5.2.5 (page 10) says the ship may request a DoS, however it cannot demand a DoS.

See also ISPS Part B, paragraph 4.38 (page 52) which infers that the bunker barge may have formed part of the port facility and so a DoS would not be required.

How would the officer know details of the extent of the PFSP for a previous port not under his jurisdiction.

A DoS from a previous port or ship to ship activity cannot be demanded as a condition of entry into port.

7C-38

Inte

rnat

iona

l Mar

itim

e O

rgan

izat

ion

IMO

Control Measures: Port State Control

PORT STATE CONTROL

The answer is also NO on the expulsion from port.

SOLAS Chapter XI-2, Regulation 9.3.3 (page 121) states that expulsion is only warranted if there are clear grounds to believe the ship poses an immediate threatimmediate threat to security and there are no other appropriate means to remove that threat.

The ISSC not being on board, the original was eventually provided, and a “missing” DoS, which was not required anyway, cannot be considered to constitute an “immediate threat” to the security of the port. (page 52, ISPS Part B: 4.38)

 

7C-39

Inte

rnat

iona

l Mar

itim

e O

rgan

izat

ion

IMO

Control Measures: Port State Control

PORT STATE CONTROL

END

7C-41

???

Inte

rnat

iona

l Mar

itim

e O

rgan

izat

ion

IMO