PSCircular 97
15 SEPTEMBER 2020

TEMPORARY GUIDANCE RELATED TO COVID-19
FOR PORT STATE CONTROL AUTHORITIES (REV.4)
Introduction
1

MAB has considered and agreed that, noting the global impact of COVID-19, there
was a need to apply flexibility under these special circumstances. In Paris MoU
member States, national measures are implemented which are to a large extent
affecting the port State control regime. However, as the lock-down is being
progressively lifted it is important that a common approach is adopted to resumptionof inspection activities, not withstanding any possible national measures, and in viewof the continued effects of the COVID-19 crisis, as a general principle the following
guidelines should be applied on a case by case basis by the relevant port State
control authority.

2This guidance focusses on the effect of the COVID-19 crisis on the Paris MoU inrelation to:- preventive measure to halt the spread of COVID-19- ship certification issues and COVID-19- crew related issues and COVID-19

3

A summary of relevant publications can be found on a dedicated COVID-19 page of
the Paris MoU website:https://www.parismou.org/publications/covid-19/pmou-covid-19publications/paris-mou-covid-19-publications/paris-mou-covid-0

Preventive measure to halt the spread of COVID-19
4PSCOs should be guided by the preventive measures adopted by their Maritime
Administrations, including the use of appropriate personal protective equipment inorder to protect themselves as well as the ship’s crew. During the Covid-19 crisis MAB
has noted that some Paris MoU member States continued with PSC inspections andthat others have resumed or are planning to re-commence their inspections. During
this period a number of P1 (and P2) ships may not have been inspected. As a result ofthis some Port States may decide to focus on P1 overriding priority inspections and P1
inspections with outstanding deficiencies.

5Whether an inspection takes place remains the decision of the port State. A vessel canbe considered self-isolating only if there are no ship-shore interfaces.

Ship Certification Issues and COVID-19
61

In relation to the COVID-19 situation, it may occur that a ship cannot fulfill therequirements from the Relevant Instruments or the follow-up on inspection results aswould normally be required. As a basic principle the primary responsibility regarding
compliance with the Conventions remains with the owner and flag State. However inthe case where the owner and flag State have demonstrated to take that
responsibility, but due to the current situation cannot carry out those duties that
normally would be required, the Paris MoU should adopt a pragmatic approach andalso be flexible as this is a rapidly developing situation.
7

Interval of surveys and audits required by Conventions
In the event that a ship has not complied with the requirements of the surveys,
inspections and audits contained in the relevant convention requirements (e.g. SOLAS
Chapter I Regulation 7-10 and 14, etc.), the ship must provide evidence to the port
State that the flag State has agreed to an exceptional delay specific to COVID-19.
Further guidance regarding the extension of the interval of surveys and audits can befound in IMO Circular Letter No.4204/Add.19 – “Guidance for flag States regarding
surveys and renewals of certificates during the COVID-19 pandemic”.

8Duration of statutory certificates
Giving consideration that an exceptional extension of validity of certificates specific toCOVID-19 would be inevitable for certain ships, the flag State or RO, acting on behalfof the flag State, may extend the validity of certificates to an appropriate andproportional grace period specific to COVID-19. Further guidance regarding theextension of validity of certificates can be found in IMO Circular Letter
No.4204/Add.19.

9Installation of Ballast Water Management System
In the event that a ship cannot meet the requirements of Regulation B-3 of the Ballast
Water Management Convention (ballast water management instead of ballast waterexchange) due to delay of dry-docking caused by disruption from COVID-19, the port
State should seek confirmation that the flag State has agreed to an exceptional delay
specific to COVID-19. There should also be evidence that the ship has a plan thatcovers how the ship will comply with the requirements of Regulation B-3 of BWM.

10Where, under par. 7 to 9, the required evidence from the flag State is missing, theship should be treated in the normal manner as per the Paris MoU procedures. Thisalso applies to any vessel operating beyond any indicated grace period.

11The pragmatic relaxation of requirements, which may include the acceptance of copies
of certificates of which the validity can be verified, should be applied by port States onships which have not exceeded the requirements by the appropriate and proportional
grace period specific to COVID-19, unless it is evident that the COVID-19 pandemic isused as an excuse to breach the Convention requirements.

Crew related issues and COVID-19
12MLC 2006
MAB has considered that while there was a need to apply flexibility in the region underthe circumstances on the issue of extending periods of service on board ships, thissituation is currently normalizing towards the pre-pandemic situation (although local
lockdowns in port States could still be considered necessary by national authorities in
specific cases). As several months have passed since the start of the pandemic, issuesof fatigue and mental health of seafarers may have deteriorated to a point that they
may endanger health and safety.

13With respect to the issue of the application of flexibility, the port State should beprovided by the MLC shipowner of the ship with confirmation that the flag State, therelevant crew members and relevant seafarer organisations (if applicable) have been
involved in the process of extending contracts, as well as other issues that have animpact on the rights of seafarers as set out in the MLC. Furthermore, where there areclear grounds to believe that crew members are suffering from fatigue or otherwise2

not fit for duty, the port State should require appropriate corrective action andconsider to inform the flag State.
Further guidance regarding what the port State should look at in case of noncompliance with MLC due to COVID-19, could be found in ILO’s “Information note on
maritime labour issues and coronavirus (COVID-19) – revised version 2.0”:
https://www.parismou.org/system/files/ILO%20Covid.pdf.
The Information note does not specify a maximum extension of the period of service
on board, however highlights that the extension of the period of service on board
beyond the default 11 months should be authorized only on a case-by-case basis andwhen strictly necessary to face the emergency situation created by the pandemic andonly with the seafarer’s consent. It is recalled that a valid seafarers’ employment
agreement must remain in force until the seafarer is duly repatriated in accordancewith Regulation 2.5 of the MLC, 2006. If repatriation is not possible through scheduled
ports of call, the possibility to divert the ship to a port where repatriation is possible
should be taken into account. Circumstances rendering repatriation more difficult or
burdensome do not constitute a case of force majeure.
14Under the current pandemic situation, regular inspection routines are being resumed.
In view of the ILO reporting 150,000 to 200,000 seafarers that remain on board
because of measures to contain the pandemic, port States are urged to apply anenhanced focus on MLC issues and in particular SEAs, irrelevant of the inspection type.
If deviations are found, the port State should request a plan or process that covers
how variations to the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) requirements are being
managed as well as a plan regarding repatriation and/or crew rotations for any crew
who have been on board for longer than the period specified in their SEAs. Anycrewmember who has already spent more than the default 11 months on board should
be prioritised for repatriation. A vessel should be treated in the normal manner where
an SEA is expired.

15STCW Certification
MAB has considered cases where seafarers have faced issues with completingrefresher courses for the renewal of personal certification. This could be caused bycancelled courses, quarantine or travel bans. In such cases the maritime
administration may have extended the validity of such certificates and this should beaccepted as a case of force majeure. For foreign certificates if the flag administration
has granted an extension due to force majeure then this should be accepted assimilarly extending the endorsement of the flag state of the ship on which the seafarer
is serving.

16

Medical CertificatesIn cases where it has been difficult for seafarers to extend their medical certificate theflag administration may allow seafarers to remain on-board. PSCO should accept
documents produced by flag States which acknowledges seafarers extended stay on
board due to force majeure associated with COVID-19.

17

Rectification and follow-up on inspection reports
In relation to the rectification of recorded or outstanding deficiencies, guidance should
be taken from PSCC Instruction 50/2017/11 - Guidance on Detention and Action
Taken (including e.g. AT code 48 - as in the agreed flag State condition) and PSCC432010-11 - Flag State exemptions. In case a ship is detained on ISM, but no external
audit can be organised, despite best efforts by the company and flag State (whichmay include temporarily authorization of another RO), the ship may be allowed toproceed to the next port to carry out the external audit. In order to use AT code 48 incombination with ISM deficiency 15150, a ticket with a justification has to be send tothetis@emsa.europa.eu to activate the possibility in THETIS.
Consequently, the guidance regarding the use of AT code 48 should then be applied.

3

Review of the guidance
18This PSCircular will be reviewed, as appropriate, to keep aligned with developments of
the COVID-19 virus and future initiatives by relevant stakeholders.
***4