Port State Control in Australia

Reza Vind – Manager, Operations West

Ship Inspection … What to expect!
Australia prides itself on a firm but fair port
State control regime. This should not be
something to fear.
When an AMSA inspector attends a vessel
they are required to provide the master with
a letter spelling out the intent of the PSC
prior to the inspection commencing.
This includes a contact that the master or
operator can use if they have any concerns
about the conduct of the PSC.
Ship Inspection … What to expect!
Targeting of vessels is based on a
prioritisation system.
The attending inspector should;
• Provide a clear understanding of the
purpose of the inspection
• Be polite and courteous in their approach
• And provide clear communication both in
their hand writing and discussion on any
findings.
Ship Inspection … What to expect!
If a ship owner wishes to determine if their vessel for
fleet of vessels is performing below part there are a few
simple measures to use:
• Has a vessel (or vessels) been detained twice in the last
18 months?
• Is the fleet detention rate trending above the average
(currently running at about 5% as noted in the 2018
PSC report)?
• Is the fleet deficiency rate per inspection above the
average (currently 1.8)?
In such cases, rest assured, AMSA will be in contact!
Ship Inspection … What to expect!
Inspections will be conducted using a standard
checklist as a guide. To ensure transparency this
guide is available on the AMSA web site.
A PSC inspection should not be something to fear
where:
1. There is open dialog prior to the inspection and
the inspector is advised of any issues.
2. The crew are fully aware of their ship
3. The master makes use of the ability to questions
any findings to ensure the is a clear
understanding.
Ship Inspection … Right of Appeal!
AMSA also offers an internal informal appeal process in order that
detentions, and even individual deficiencies, can be re-examined
by the owner/operator, flag or recognised organization (where the
RO has been identified as being responsible).
The purpose of this process is to ensure that there is a cost
effective right of reply from effected parties in a cost effective
manner. This review is managed by the Manager, Ship Inspection
and Registration.
Use of this process does not prevent any party relying on
Australia’s official appeal process run by the Administrative
Appeals Tribunal.
PORT STATE CONTROL IN AUSTRALIA
Results for 2019
With some comparisons back to 2018
Arrivals by ship type – 2017 to 2019
2018 (29094)
2017 (28502)

2019 (20465)

Basically no real
change!!!
Vessel Arrival by the States/Territory
 Summary of 2019 and 2018 – Key Points
• The growth in foreign-flagged shipping activity remains geographically disparate. Port
Hedland remains the busiest Australian port for foreign ship visits, accounting for
10.4% of arrivals nationwide (10.2% of arrivals in 2018).
• The trend of visiting foreign ships increasing in size continued with average gross
tonnage increasing from 50,505 in 2016 to 51,808 in 2018.
• The average age of all foreign vessels arriving has increased slightly to 10 years in
2018.

Note: The increase port visits is slowing in 2019 and arrival will drop below 29000.
 Snapshot comparison to year 2018
2019 was a very good year from a PSC perspective.

This followed on from good results from 2015. 2017 saw the lowest
detention rate since 2006 and it remained low in 2018. In 2018
deficiencies per inspection were their lowest since 2004

2018 2019 Change from 2018 % Change

Arrivals Total arrivals 29,102 20250 -8852 -30.40%
While the number of arrivals down
by 31% from 2018, the rate of
inspection has actually marginally Individual ships 5,900 4,969 -931 -15.80%
higher. Ships eligible for PSC 5,765 4,767 -998 -17.30%
PSC Inspections Total PSC inspections 2,922 2,324 -598 -20.50%
Total deficiency numbers have Individual ships 2,617 2,213 -404 -15.40%
dropped by over 50% since 2016
which is a marked improvement Inspection rate 45.40% 46.40%
Deficiencies Total deficiencies 5,320 3,665 -1,655 -31.10%
Average deficiencies per inspection
continue to drop and this is the Detainable deficiencies 232 155 -77 -33.20%
lowest in over a decade. Rate per inspection 1.8 1.6
Significant improvement in Detentions Total detentions 161 115 -46 -28.60%
detention rate in 2019.
% of total detentions 5.51% 4.95%
 10 year summary of inspections, deficiencies
and detentions

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Inspections 2,994 3,127 3,002 3,179 3,342 3,742 4,050 3,675 3,128 2,922 2,324

Detentions 248 222 275 210 233 269 242 245 165 161 115

Deficiencies 9,059 7,487 8,410 7,775 8,186 10,892 9,484 8,940 7,084 5,320 3,665

Detention 8.30% 7.10% 9.20% 6.60% 7.00% 7.20% 6.00% 6.70% 5.30% 5.50% 5.00%
Percent

Deficiencies 3 2.4 2.8 2.4 2.4 2.9 2.3 2.4 2.3 1.8 1.6
Per
Inspection
Inspections 1,157 1,523 1,261 1,501 1,407 1,385 1,788 1,552 1,439 1,541 1,277
with no
deficiencies
 2019 – PSC Inspections by location
Inspection Port 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Inspection rate

Port Hedland, WA 358 247 311 441 488 21.00%

Fremantle, WA 284 448 416 410 295 12.70%

Sydney, NSW 152 282 205 190 189 8.10%

Brisbane, QLD 338 304 278 238 177 7.60%
Newcastle, NSW 424 401 316 212 164 7.10%

Dampier, WA 304 281 187 156 129 5.60%

Hay Point, QLD 247 255 180 155 113 4.90%

Melbourne, VIC 204 151 156 156 110 4.70%

Gladstone, QLD 290 251 206 181 107 4.60%

Darwin, NT 124 94 96 110 89 3.80%

Geraldton, WA 129 127 94 83 69 3.00%

Townsville, QLD 139 115 100 81 58 2.50%

Port Adelaide, SA 106 90 88 99 42 1.80%

Port Walcott, WA 55 60 48 45 33 1.40%

Bell Bay, TAS 34 40 43 41 32 1.40%

2019 – PSC Inspections/Detentions by ship type
2018 2019
Ship type Inspections Detentions Detention Rate Inspections Detentions Detention Rate
bulk carrier 1,585 93 5.90% 1,342 76 5.70%
chemical tanker 179 4 2.20% 141 6 4.30%
container ship 311 19 6.10% 225 14 6.20%
gas carrier 53 1 1.90% 46 0 0.00%
general cargo/multi-purpose 154 13 8.40% 91 8 8.80%
ship
heavy load carrier 30 5 16.70% 30 3 10.00%
livestock carrier 52 4 7.70% 41 2 4.90%
NLS tanker 25 2 8.00% 25 1 4.00%
offshore service vessel 19 0 0.00% 8 2 25.00%

oil tanker 155 6 3.90% 125 1 0.80%

other types of ship 14 0 0.00% 15 0 0.00%
passenger ship 55 2 3.60% 36 0 0.00%
refrigerated cargo vessel 3 1 33.30% 2 0 0.00%

ro-ro cargo ship 2 0 0.00% 6 0 0.00%

ro-ro passenger ship 1 0 0.00%

special purpose ship 7 0 0.00% 7 0 0.00%

tugboat 30 1 3.30% 18 0 0.00%

vehicle carrier 181 6 3.30% 123 1 0.80%
wood-chip carrier 66 4 6.10% 43 1 2.30%
Total 2,922 161 5.50% 2,324 115 4.90%
2018 Top 5 Detentions Rate by ship type
Container ships and general cargo ships in combination made
up over 20% of all arrivals in Australia in 2018 and 2017. The
continued Relatively poor performance of these vessel types
is of great concern.
 2015-18 Top 5 – Detainable Deficiencies

2015 2016 2017 2018

ISM – 29.7% ISM – 27.8% ISM - 29.2% ISM – 21.1%

Fire safety – 15.9% Fire safety – 13.9% Emergency Systems - 14.6% Fire safety – 16.4%

Pollution prevention – 11.2% Emergency systems – 12.5% Life-Saving Appliances - 11.9% Emergency Systems – 12.5%

Emergency systems – 9.8% Lifesaving appliances – 12.5% Fire Safety – 11.4% Pollution prevention – 12.0%

Pollution prevention – 7.1%

Lifesaving appliances – 8.6% Water/Weather-tight conditions – 9.1% Lifesaving appliances – 11.2%
Labour conditions – 7.1%

Labour conditions came in at number 6 in 2018 with 9.1% of detainable deficiencies.

In 2018, AMSA continued its ongoing work with flag States and ship owners to increase awareness
of areas of concern and to improve PSC performance. The significant reduction in the number of
detainable deficiencies and the low detention rate appear to validate this approach.
PORT STATE CONTROL IN AUSTRALIA
Flag performance
2019 – PSC Inspections by flag state
Inspections of the Top 12 flag states
Top 12 flag States
Figures in red are not in the top 12 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
states

PANAMA 1002 1045 942 763 622 492

MARSHALL ISLANDS 303 338 358 337 377 289
LIBERIA 350 372 360 304 340 276
HONG KONG, CHINA 430 482 426 311 306 287
SINGAPORE 375 427 368 326 292 208
MALTA 172 216 196 210 186 135
BAHAMAS 125 158 138 121 97 84
CYPRUS 86 89 87 73 63 46
GREECE 78 91 81 49 60 45
ISLE OF MAN 70 63 54 52 54 36
JAPAN 68 83 71 60 54 45
NORWAY 44 51 49 55 53 53

In 2018 the top 12 flags accounted for 2665 of the 3328 inspections
undertaken. That is 83.7% of the total (compared to 85.2% in 2017)
 Summary of 2018 – Inspections by flag state

Panama clearly make up the greatest proportion with

622 vessels inspected (942 in 2016 and 763 in 2017)

Marshall Islands flagged ships account for 377

vessels inspected (#5 at 358 in 2016 and #2 at 337 in
2017)

Liberian flagged ships account for 340 vessels

inspected (#4 at 360 in 2016 and 340 in 2017)

Hong Kong flag ships account for 306 vessels

inspected (#2 at 426 in 2016 and #5 with 311 in 2017)

Singaporean flag ships account for 292 vessels

inspected (#3 at 369 in 2016 and 328 in 2017)

Note: The same 5 flag states have been in the top 5 since 2014
As in 2017, in combination these 5 flags states
accounted for 65% of the total inspections in 2019
Flag Performance – 10 or more Inspections
AMSA assesses flag state
performance by detention rate
and the associated proportion
of detentions related to
inspections.

Essentially poor performance

is where if the detention share
is greater than the inspection
share.
 2019 Flag Detention Rate
Flag 2019
Inspections Detentions Detention Rate
CAYMAN ISLANDS 22 3 13.60%

ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA 24 3 12.50%

CYPRUS 46 5 10.90%

MALAYSIA 10 1 10.00%

GREECE 46 4 8.70%

NETHERLANDS 13 1 7.70%

PORTUGAL 27 2 7.40%
LUXEMBOURG 14 1 7.10%

ITALY 15 1 6.70%

PANAMA 492 31 6.30%

DENMARK 16 1 6.30%

LIBERIA 280 17 6.10%

ISLE OF MAN 36 2 5.60%

UNITED KINGDOM 18 1 5.60%

Note: this list only includes vessels above the average detention rate for the year in question
PORT STATE CONTROL IN AUSTRALIA
RO Performance
 2019 RO Performance by Main RO’s
Class Society Inspections Deficiencies Detentions Detention Detainable Class Class Society Inspections Inspections
Rate Deficiencies Society responsible with no with no
Responsible share of total deficiency deficiency %
Deficiencies detainable
deficiencies

American Bureau of Shipping 301 299 12 4.00% 13 1 7.70% 192 63.80%

(ABS)
Bureau Veritas (BV) 209 400 14 6.70% 19 0 0.00% 104 49.80%
China Classification Society 178 165 6 3.40% 7 0 0.00% 114 64.00%
(CCS)
CR Classification Society (CR) 3 3 0 0.00% 0 0 1 33.30%

Det Norske Veritas (DNV) 3 1 0 0.00% 0 0 2 66.70%

DNV GL AS (DNVGL) 379 647 18 4.70% 28 5 17.90% 196 51.70%
Germanischer Lloyd (GL) 4 15 2 50.00% 2 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Korean Register of Shipping 109 189 5 4.60% 6 0 0.00% 60 55.00%
(KRS)
Lloyd's Register (LR) 310 458 11 3.50% 11 1 9.10% 168 54.20%
Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (NKK) 758 1332 40 5.30% 57 2 3.50% 409 54.00%
no class 4 19 1 25.00% 3 0 0.00% 1 25.00%
RINA Services SpA (RINA) 66 137 6 9.10% 9 0 0.00% 30 45.50%
Total: 2324 3665 115 4.90% 155 9 5.80% 1277 54.90%
PORT STATE CONTROL IN AUSTRALIA
Targeting and Risk
Ship arrivals by Risk Factor
 Risk Factors & Inspection target rates

Priority group Probability of detention Target inspection rate

(Risk factor)

Priority 1 More than 5% 80%

Priority 2 4% to 5% 60%

Priority 3 2% to 3% 40%

Priority 4 Less than 1% 20%

 Ship Inspection … 2019 results (to September)!

2019 has seen a continuation of the improvement in PSC outcomes seen since 2015.
The detention rate and deficiency rates are still trending downwards from 5.5% and
1.8 deficiencies per inspection respectively in 2018.
Effort is directed at high risk
vessels
Eligible Initial Inspection Detainable Detention Insp with no Insp with no
Risk Group Ship Visits Visit Share Defs Def per Insp Detained
Ships Inspection Rate Def rate def def %
55.5% of all ships had no
deficiencies, even for P1
vessels 38.6% had no 1 3,032 16.3 % 327 321 91.4 % 846 2.6 22 17 5.3 % 124 38.6 %
deficiencies
2 1,992 10.7 % 336 255 74.1 % 469 1.8 12 8 3.1 % 123 48.2 %
Detention rate down to 4.9%
3 4,808 25.8 % 1,271 632 48.9 % 985 1.6 48 36 5.7 % 340 53.8 %

Average deficiencies per

4 8,802 47.2 % 2,983 991 32.8 % 1,072 1.1 60 46 4.6 % 633 63.9 %
inspection down to 1.5

Low priority ships get inspected less than Not rated 2 3 1.5 0 0 0.0 % 1 50.0 %
other risk groups.
Total 18,634 4,917 2,201 43.7 % 3,375 1.5 142 107 4.9 % 1221 55.5 %
 Maritime Labour Convention

We all know what this is about …..

It is sufficient to say the AMSA strongly supports MLC and will respond as
necessary to ensure compliance. As part of this process we aim to cooperate
with flag States and where possible we will seek to have the flag State
involved.
Complaints Received
Breakdown of Complaints received by States/Territory
 MLC related deficiencies

Maritime Labour Convention 2015 - 2018

MLC related deficiencies 2015 2016 2017 2018

Number of MLC deficiencies issued 1443 1091 918 674

Percentage of total deficiencies 15.2% 12.0% 13.0% 12.7%

MLC deficiencies per inspection 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2

Number of detainable MLC deficiencies 26 28 19 23

Percentage of total detainable deficiencies 7.5% 8% 12% 9.9%

Vessels banned for repeated breaches of MLC
1 1 2 2
requirements

In summary ….
• A steady decrease in the number of MLC deficiencies since 2015
• MLC deficiencies per inspection down to 0.2
• A pleasing reduction in detainable deficiencies and proportion of detainable deficiencies.
Complaint Type
Conditions of employment break
down
Complaints received by source
 MARPOL Annex VI

Mandatory from 1 January 2020

Does the future present challenges?
We are all aware of the forthcoming
changes to the sulphur cap and
ongoing changes in regulation related
to protection of the environment.

To address these needs there has been a surge in

efforts to look at alternatives in relation to the
powering and operation of vessels. Many of these are novel and the technology
not well understood by most seafarers.

The pace of change presents a challenge and risks and will necessitate a long
term view from flags and operators.
MARPOL Annex VI – Where
are we at?

While noting that MEPC sat in mid May

2019 the reality is that the changes to the
Sulphur Cap will come into effect on 01
January 2020.
The PSC MoU’s are preparing to ensure
compliance with the sulphur cap as
indicated in press releases and the issue
of ‘letters of warning”
MARPOL Annex VI – Where are we at?

AMSA is not using the letter of warning but is

issuing an advisory letter to remind operators of
the need to start planning early.
The issue of the advisory letter will be recorded in
our system. If during subsequent inspections
AMSA find that action is not progressing operators
can expect AMSA will be following up.
MARPOL Annex VI – Easy or what?
Materially compliance with Annex VI is quite simple, either burn compliant fuel, fit
scrubbers or burn an alternate fuel (LNG?) …. how easy is that!!! The practicality is
a little more complex
• Guidance on how to verify scrubber operation is still very ‘general’ in nature;
• The process of changing from non-compliant fuel to complaint fuel can be quite
complex and time consuming (use of MEPC.1/Circ.878 is recommended) and the
disposal of large volumes of non compliant fuel may be challenge
• Advice on how contingency arrangements and fuel oil non-availability reports are
to be managed is still very general as well.
Vessels should already be changing to compliant fuel or fitting scrubbers by now
MARPOL Annex VI – Ship Implementation
Plans (SIP)
Owners and operators should expect that port State control
authorities will be scrutinising Ship Implementation Plans
(SIP). Such plans are not mandatory but are recommended.

MEPC.1/Circ.878* ‘encourages’ the development of SIP and

a record of action to facilitate compliance.
MEPC.1/Circ.878 - Guidance on the development of a ship implementation plan for the
consistent implementation of the 0.50% Sulphur limit under MARPOL ANNEX VI

* As referred to by Resolution MEPC.320(74)

MARPOL Annex VI – Ship Implementation
Plans (SIP)
From March 2019 AMSA has been asking ships masters about how the vessel
owner/operator intend implementing the 0.5% sulphur cap.
A SIP and record of actions are useful tools in that regard … however … AMSA
will not require a formal implementation plan but notes this would be very
beneficial.
AMSA will consider the guidance in MEPC.1/Circ.878 in considering the actions
being taken, this includes the supplemental guidance on tank cleaning and
impacts on machinery systems. However ….
the responsibility rests with the ship owner and operator.
 MARPOL Annex VI – Ship Implementation Plans (SIP)
If a vessel is planning to move to using compliant fuel, the change could take
some time. Owners/operators choosing to sort it out in November/December 2019
are likely to face practically insurmountable hurdles, particularly where a vessel is
moving from blended residual fuels to distillate fuels. In such cases a fully
segregated fuel system for both distillate fuels and blended fuels is recommended
by s.34 of MEPC.320(74).

To avoid issues it is strongly recommended

that planning starts early both from a safety
and compliance perspective. Failure to
properly plan is likely to result in PSC action
where the vessel does not comply.
MARPOL Annex VI – SIP and compliance Planning

Segregation of fuels systems is no small issue in new vessels as the

arrangement of tanks (noting the need to protect bunker tanks) means the
number of fuel tanks is generally fewer. The process has to be carefully
managed if contamination of compliant fuel is to be avoided.
For vessels on a long trades carrying large volumes of fuel the change over from
100% non-compliant, to 100% compliant fuel, could take 3 to 5 months to
achieve given the need to clean tanks and systems.
Failure to act in time does not mean the operator can rely on the contingency
arrangements.
MARPOL Annex VI – PSC
In line with 2019 Guidelines for consistent
implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under
MARPOL Annex VI* AMSA PSCO’s will conduct
inspections in line with normal port State control
practices. AMSA will rely on documentation (Bunker
delivery notes [BDN], oil record book, test results etc)
and ship board procedures for initial PSC inspections.
AMSA will not be sampling as a manner or practice. It
is suggested that ship operators await the results of
their own testing of oil fuel delivered to verify
provided is compliant … before it is used.
* As detailed in Resolution MEPC.320(74)
MARPOL Annex VI
PSC and implementation of 0.5%

Operators should be aware that AMSA Surveyors will consider ‘when’

compliant fuel was provided. It is reasonable to assume that a vessel
that has been bunkering compliant fuel for a number of months
before 01 January 2020 represents less of a risk.

If (shortly after 01 January 2020) a surveyor notes vessel has only

taken one or two bunker stems, the surveyor will examine the oil
record book and fuel usage records, to verify that compliant fuel is
being used and to verify how the move from non-compliant to
compliant fuel was achieved
MARPOL Annex VI – Carriage of non-complaint fuel
The adoption of the changes to MARPOL accept
that some vessels may have non-complaint fuel
remaining in tanks after 01 January 2020.
The carriage of non-compliant fuel is permitted
until March 2020 …. but this does not mean fuel
can be used and PSCO’s will be looking for
information on what is to be done with the non-
compliant fuel.
PSCO’s may also verify that the non-complaint
fuel is not being used through an examination of
the oil record book, tanks soundings and other
relevant documentation.
MARPOL Annex VI – PSC and fuel testing?

While noting section 4.2.1 of MEPC.320(74)* mentions fuel

testing for PSC purposes, AMSA Surveyors will not be
sampling fuel as a matter of standard practice.

However, we may require testing to be carried out where

AMSA has evidence the fuel in use may be non-compliant.

MEPC.320(20) does permit sample analysis as part of a more

detailed inspection. This has cost and time implications.
AMSA is purchasing a sulphur content test unit to trial. The
intent is to ensure lab testing is not required unnecessarily.
* This includes the use of remote sensing and portable devices to determine if there is clear grounds
for a more detail inspection. Section 4.2.3.1 of MEPC.320(74) these mechanisms are only ‘indicative’
and are not evidence of non-compliance.
MARPOL Annex VI – PSC and fuel testing?

The trial will also allow AMSA to build some confidence in levels of compliance prior to 01
January 2020 as we may test samples from vessels using compliant fuel. This will build
confidence that compliant fuel is being provided and that the operators are effectively
transitioning to it.
MARPOL Annex VI
PSC and Monitoring

Is AMSA going to conduct emission monitoring?

At this point in time no.
But, monitoring may be under consideration by
other bodies such as state/territory EPA’s.

It is notable that world wide, a number of technologies are

being considered to monitor emissions, including suitably
equipped aircraft, drones and satellites.
This may feed into the PSC process in some countries.
MARPOL Annex VI – PSC and fuel testing accuracy

There was been much discussion at MEPC 74 regarding the margin of error in tests that may be
required under the amendments to regulation 14 of MARPOL Annex VI (14.8 to 14.13). This has
resulted in a compromise of sorts.
Where an ‘In-use sample’ (taken from the fuel lines) or an ‘on-board sample’ (taken from the bunker
tanks) is taken, the testing will apply a 95% confidence threshold. This means samples that return a
reading just above 0.5% (up to 0.53%) will not be deemed to be non-compliant.

There is currently no clear guidance on how to safely take a sample from a bunker tank. Although
draft procedures have been developed, they will be further considered at PPR 7. That meeting will
not take place until early 2020).
MARPOL Annex VI – PSC and scrubbers

Open loop or closed loop Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems

(EGCS), or more commonly referred to as scrubbers … there is
certainly controversy over this issue noting open loop scrubbers
discard a waste stream to the sea.

On the face of it these systems appear simple and cheap but we

note there appear to be:
1. Issues with corrosion and maintenance.
2. Difficulties in ascertaining if the system is working properly.
3. What exactly does “not in compliance with relevant
requirements for other than transitory periods and isolated
spikes” mean?
(see section 2.2.2 of the procedures for PSC in annex of MEPC 74/WP.8)
MARPOL Annex VI – PSC and scrubbers (EGCS)

EGCS corrosion issues have been identified during

routine inspections by classification societies, particularly
corrosion of the distance pieces in the overboard
discharge. Noting the nature of scrubbers it is likely other
issues will be noted with their use.

AMSA is certainly aware of these issues and

our surveyors will pay close attention to
advisories on this matter to be fully informed
during PSC inspections.
MARPOL Annex VI – PSC and scrubbers (EGCS)

Basically the unit has to work as designed. Owners and operators can expect that most port
State control officers will look at the records for the operation of the EGCS.

Annex 6 of MEPC 74/WP.8 provides advice on how to determine if the EGCS appears to be
operating properly using ‘interim’ indications (see section 9 to 11). This ‘guidance’ indicates
that malfunctions should be reported to the flag and port state if a malfunction lasts for more
than an hour, or there are repeated malfunctions.
From Australia’s perspective:
• Reporting should occur if the vessel is in the Australian EEZ not just when it is in port. The
report should include what is being done.
• We would expect the Recognised Organisation (RO) to be advised (noting it is likely they
have approved the EGCS on behalf of the Flag Administration)
• A report does not mean the vessel can keep emitting with impunity.
MARPOL Annex VI – PSC and scrubbers (EGCS)

It is worth noting that under Australian legislation ”unintentional’ damage to an

EGCS and its supporting infrastructure does not include:

(a) deterioration resulting from failure to maintain the ship or equipment; or

(b) defects that develop during the normal operation of the ship or equipment.
Basically if the failure is due to corrosion, degradation or poor maintenance it will not
be accepted as an excuse for non-compliance.
MARPOL Annex VI – FONAR and Contingency
At MEPC74 the guidance on contingency and the Fuel Oil Non Availability Report
(FONAR) has been amended. In AMSA’s view a ship submitting a FONAR should not
be seen as pass to use non-compliant fuel noting ICS are providing the same advice.
• A FONAR should normally be relied upon where a vessel has not been able to
source complaint fuel despite its best efforts* and a decision made before the
ship arrives the port. Repeated use of a FONAR will attract attention.
• Contingency arrangements should only be relied upon where a vessel
unexpectedly finds itself in a situation where it cannot comply.
* Best efforts should include effectively planning to source fuel before arrival in the intended
bunkering port. This includes determining if fuel ‘should’ be available.
MARPOL Annex VI – Is providing a FONAR enough

Noting the guidance* … it is not acceptable for a ship to arrive off an Australian
port and submit a FONAR at that point in time. A FONAR should be submitted
to the port State (and flag State) as soon as the master of the ship is aware
they have an issue. Basically that would be at the bunker port.
Equally it is not acceptable if the proposed solution is to pass through a number
of ports where compliant fuel can be provided to the ship …… the guidance is
very specific that cost is not a consideration in this case*.
It is clear in the guidance# that it is the port State which is required to determine
what is appropriate.

* See the Appendix to Annex 3 of MEPC 74.WP8 and Appendix 1 of Resolution MEPC.320(74)
# Section 3.1 of Appendix 1 of Resolution MEPC.320(74)
MARPOL Annex VI – Contingency arrangements

In AMSA’s view contingency arrangements apply in unforeseen circumstances

… such as the ship being given a non-compliant stem with a BDN indicating
compliance (not forgetting the ‘test before you burn’ advice). Annex 4 of
MEPC 74/WP.8 provides very little guidance on how to manage this.
In such cases AMSA is looking to:
• Work with the ship to resolve the issue and will not necessarily take control
action (unless the vessel has been remiss in what it has done)
• Require the involvement of the flag State in the process noting they are
ultimately responsible for the vessel under UNCLOS irrespective of the
guidance
MARPOL Annex VI – Contingency arrangements

• If for any reason the issue cannot be resolved in a particular port; work with
the (PSC/national) authority of the next port, to confirm that they are willing to
accept the vessel.
• Where necessary require rectification of the situation including the discharge
of fuel. Ships should not assume they will simply be allowed to burn the fuel
(same goes for a FONAR).
If a vessel arrives with non-compliant fuel off an Australian port it should not
automatically assume that access will be permitted. AMSA will determine
whether or not a vessel will be permitted access to a port based on the
information provided.
MARPOL Annex VI – PSC and operational requirements
Not understanding the requirements or processes for their implementation
cannot be used as an excuse for non-compliance with Annex VI, or errors in
how it is implemented.
Crew should be aware of relevant essential shipboard procedures and the
operational requirements provisions of regulation 10 of Annex VI …….
 Thank you

Will be happy to answer questions