T O K Y O M O U S E C R E TA R I AT
Ascend Shimbashi 8F
6-19-19, Shimbashi, Minato-ku
Tokyo 105-0004
Japan

Tel: +81-3-3433-0621
Fax: +81-3-3433-0624
E-mail: secretariat@tokyo-mou.org
Web site: www.tokyo-mou.org

PRESS RELEASETOKYO MOU LAUNCHED GUIDANCE ON REMOTE PSC
INSPECTION
The COVID-19 pandemic had caused enormous impact on Tokyo MOU activities invarious aspects, including a notable decrease of the number of inspections due torestrictions of ship-shore interaction. Recognizing the necessity and importance ofmaintaining PSC activities under the pandemic circumstance, the Port State Control
Committee of the Tokyo MOU at its 31st meeting (virtual) decided to launch remote
PSC inspections as a practical alternative in the interim, where and when a normal
physical PSC inspection not feasible. Although a remote PSC inspection may not be
as fully effective as a physical PSC inspection, it would be the preferred option which
could minimize the risk for both PSCOs and crew onboard. In this context, a guidanceon remote PSC inspection has been developed and adopted in order to facilitate
member Authorities and PSCOs to carry out remote PSC inspections in the effectiveand harmonized manner.
Remote PSC inspection scheme will be implemented in accordance with the following
guiding principles and procedures:
Selection of a ship for a remote PSC inspection is at the discretion of the port
State Authority in accordance with the existing inspection regime but notdecided on requesting basis from the ship’s side. It would not be mandated for aship to receive a remote PSC inspection. A remote PSC inspection would becarried out upon mutual agreement between the port State Authority and theship.
Remote PSC inspections would be applied only for initial inspection in principle.
However, it does not preclude that a port State Authority may conduct moredetailed inspection and/or order detention during the remote PSC inspection inaccordance with their national legislation, the technical capabilities of the ship
and the port concerned and other relevant circumstances.
A ship would not be subject a repeated/consecutive remote PSC inspection
generally. Record/report of remote PSC inspection would be distinguished from
reports of normal physical inspection in the APCIS database.

Remote PSC inspection will be launched as from 1 April 2021.
9 March 2021

Contact

Tokyo MOU Secretariat
Ascend Shimbashi 8F
6-19-19, Shimbashi
Minato-ku, TokyoJapan 105-0004
Telephone: +81-3-3433 0621
Facsimile: +81-3-3433 0624
E-mail: secretariat@tokyo-mou.org
Web-site: www.tokyo-mou.org

Notes to editors:* The Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Asia-Pacific Region,
known as the Tokyo MOU, was signed among eighteen maritime Authorities in the region
on 1 December 1993 and came into operation on 1 April 1994. At present, Tokyo MOUconsists of 21 member Authorities: 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 adheres to the Tokyo MOU as a co-operating
member Authority. Cambodia, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Macao (China),Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, the United States Coast Guard, the International
Maritime Organization, the International Labour Organization and the Secretariats of theParis, the Indian Ocean, the Black Sea, the Riyadh, the Caribbean and the Abuja
Memoranda of Understanding on Port State Control and the Viña del Mar Agreement areassociated with the Tokyo MOU as observers.
The Secretariat of the Memorandum is located in Tokyo, Japan. The PSC databasesystem, the Asia-Pacific Computerized Information System (APCIS), was established. The
APCIS center is located in Moscow, under the auspices of the Ministry of Transport of theRussian Federation.
Port State Control (PSC) is a check on visiting foreign ships to verify their compliance withinternational rules on safety, security, marine environment protection and seafarers livingand working conditions. It is a means of enforcing compliance in cases where the ownerand flag State have failed in their responsibility to implement or ensure compliance. Theport State can require defects to be put right, and detain the ship for this purpose if
necessary. It is therefore also a port State’s defense against visiting substandard shippingand PSC is the second defense for ensuring safety, security, marine environment
protection and seafarers living and working conditions.

Circular letter 2021-1
1 March 2021

INTERIM GUIDANCE RELATING TO COVID-19 CIRCUMSTANCES

NoteThis guidance is only advisory/recommendatory for member Authorities andPSCOs should follow their national procedures taking account of this guidance.

Introduction
1
The Port State Control Committee has considered and agreed that, noting the
global impact of COVID-19, there is the practical need to apply flexibility under these
special circumstances. Within the Asia-Pacific region, national measures will be
implemented by government authorities and agencies which are, to a large extent
affecting the port State control regime. While COVID-19 remains an issue, it isimportant to adopt a common approach for implementing inspection activities,
notwithstanding any possible national measures. In view of the continued effects ofthe COVID-19 crisis, and ongoing impact of national measures, the following
guidelines should be applied on a case by case basis by member Authorities of theTokyo MOU.
2This guidance focusses on the effect of the COVID-19 crisis on the Tokyo MOU
in relation to:-preventive measure to halt the spread of COVID-19
ship certification issues and COVID-19
crew related issues and COVID-19

Preventive measure to halt the spread of COVID-19
3PSCOs should be guided by the preventive measures adopted by their own
Authorities, including the use of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) inorder to protect themselves as well as the ship’s crew. Reference should be made to
IMO Circular Letter No.4204/Add.15 “Coronavirus (COVID 19) - Personal protectiveequipment”.
4
When developing preventive measures, it is considered that the following
common aspects may be taken into account:-Health and hygiene instruction/recommendation (e.g. good hygiene
including hand washing, good social distancing practices, etc.)
Personal protective equipment (PPE) (e.g. masks, face shield, gloves,protective suits, etc.)
Page 1 of 5

5When member Authorities deciding which ships are to be subject to PSC
inspections, P1 ships and ships with overriding priority (as referred to in paragraph3.3.2 of the MOU) are expected to be selected as far as possible.
Ship Certification Issues and COVID-19
6In relation to the COVID-19 situation, it may occur that a ship cannot fulfill therequirements of the relevant Instruments or the follow-up on inspection results aswould normally be required. Although, as a basic principle, the primary responsibility
regarding compliance with the relevant instruments remains with the shipowner andflag State, in the case where the shipowner and flag State have demonstrated to takethat responsibility, but due to the current situation cannot carry out those duties that
normally would be required, the Tokyo MOU members should adopt a pragmatic
approach and also be flexible as this is a rapidly developing situation, while keeping in
mind the principles of elimination of substandard shipping.
Interval of surveys and audits required by Conventions
7In 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”.
Duration of statutory certificates
8Giving consideration that an exceptional extension of validity of certificatesspecific to COVID-19 would be inevitable for certain ships, the flag State or RO, acting
on behalf of 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.
Installation of Ballast Water Management System
9In the event that a ship cannot meet the requirements of Regulation B-3 of theBallast Water Management Convention (ballast water management instead of ballastwater exchange) due to delay of dry-docking caused by disruption from COVID-19, theport State Authority should seek confirmation that the flag State has agreed to anexceptional delay specific to COVID-19. There should also be evidence that the ship
has a plan that covers how the ship will comply with the requirements of Regulation B3 of BWM.
10Where, under paragraphs 7 to 9, the required evidence from the flag State ismissing, the ship should be treated in the normal manner. This also applies to any
vessel operating beyond any indicated grace period.
11
The pragmatic relaxation of requirements, which may include the acceptance ofcopies of certificates of which the validity can be verified, should be applied by port
States on ships which have not exceeded the requirements by the appropriate andPage 2 of 5

proportional grace period specific to COVID-19, unless it is evident that the COVID-19
pandemic is used as an excuse to breach the Convention requirements.
Crew related issues and COVID-19MLC 2006
12Following the outbreak of the pandemic, the Port State Control Committee
considered that there was a need to apply flexibility in the region under thecircumstances on the issue of extending periods of service on board ships. Given, thecurrent upsurge in COVID19 cases in some parts of the world, some national
authorities are finding it necessary to apply restrictive measures that consequently
limit this flexibility. Reports indicate almost 400,000 seafarers long overdue forrepatriation. As a result, issues of fatigue and mental health of seafarers, who havebeen onboard for extended periods, may have deteriorated to a point that they may
endanger health and safety. To alleviate this situation all member states have been
urged to take actions as identified in the joint statement by the ILO, IMO, UNHCR,FAO, ICAO, UNCTAD, UN Migration Agency and the UN Global Compact (publishedunder IMO Circular Letter No.4204/Add.30). Although local lockdowns in port States
could still be considered necessary by national authorities in specific cases, withrespect to MLC issues, specifically on overdue periods of service on board, the Tokyo
MOU will work towards more stringent adherence to the fundamental requirements ofMLC, 2006.
13With respect to the issue of the application of flexibility, with regard of theduration of service on board, the port State should be provided by the MLC shipowner
and/or the shipmaster with evidence that crew changes have been undertaken inaccordance with the national law of the flag State to ensure the seafarers leave andrepatriation rights are protected and the relevant crew members and relevant seafarerorganizations (if applicable) have been involved in the process. Furthermore, where
there are clear grounds to believe that crew members are suffering from fatigue orotherwise not fit for duty, the port State should require appropriate corrective action
and liaise with the flag State seeking their assistance in investigating the situation andto taking action to resolve the issue. The flag State will be responsible for working withthe relevant port State and will promptly instruct MLC ship owner to take action bring
the situation into compliance with the MLC requirements where non-compliance isfound.
14
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 3.0”, which isavailable at:https://www.ilo.org/global/standards/maritime-labour-convention/WCMS_741024/lang-en/index.htm.
15
The Information note does not specify a maximum extension of the period ofservice 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-casebasis and when strictly necessary to face the emergency situation created by thepandemic and only with the seafarer’s consent. Even though many ship-owners do notPage 3 of 5

notify their flag State of overdue crew, flag States remain responsible for enforcing
compliance with the MLC. Port States are therefore urged, in applying the ILO’sguidance, to require written evidence of the flag State’s authorization including thecorrective plan of action for any seafarer staying onboard beyond the default 11
months or approach to the flag State to confirm the above mentioned corrective plan.
It is recalled that a valid seafarers’ employment agreement must remain in force until
the seafarer is duly repatriated in accordance with Regulation 2.5 of the MLC, 2006.
16
If repatriation is not possible through scheduled ports of call, the possibility todivert the ship to a port where repatriation is possible should be taken into account.
Circumstances rendering repatriation more difficult or burdensome do not constitute acase of force majeure. Repatriation must still be arranged wherever it is possible. Thefact this may be a burden does not remove this responsibility. Extensions beyond the11 months default maximum should only be considered where there is no otherpractical option. The cooperation of other parties in facilitating crew changes may isalso be necessary for this to be achievable. Such action is required of member states
under article 1, paragraph 2 of the MLC.
17In view of the large number of seafarers long overdue for repatriation, port
States are urged to apply an enhanced focus on MLC issues and in particular SEAs,
irrelevant of the inspection type. If possible deviations are found, in particularregarding repatriation and/or crew rotations for any crew, port State control response
will take into account the following general principles:
1. Where contract extensions are necessary and fall within the eleven-monthdefault maximum, they should be undertaken in accordance with the nationallaw of the flag State.
2. Contract extensions beyond the eleven-month default maximum should be
avoided unless circumstances beyond the control of the ship owner or operator
prevent repatriation. In such cases, the ship owner or operators should
maintain evidence of actions taken to avoid extending the contracts and detailsof planned measures to repatriate the seafarers. This documentation should
include evidence that the flag State has been advised of the repatriation plan.
3. Port State control authorities should be aware of restrictions within their own
jurisdiction that may prevent crew changes, and take this into account when
considering port State control action.
4. Port State control authorities should pay particular attention to situations where
the eleven-month default maximum period of service has been or is likely to beexceeded. A pragmatic approach to port State control should be taken.
a. Where there is objective evidence that the shipowner or operator has
complied with the principles above, having done their best to repatriate
seafarers and continue to work on achieving this aim, but circumstances
beyond their control prevent this, port State control action should be aimed
at assisting in resolving the situation in accordance with paragraph 2 ofArticle 1 of MLC, 2006.
Page 4 of 5

b. Where there is objective evidence that the shipowner or operator has madeno, or inadequate, effort to repatriate the seafarers, then port State control
action should be taken prior to departure to bring the vessel intocompliance.
In addition, in such cases, the port State should notify the port State control authorities
in upcoming ports of call of the agreed plan and consider entering an appropriate shiprelated message in APCIS. Any crewmember who has already spent more than thedefault 11 months on board should be prioritized for repatriation. A vessel should betreated in the normal manner where an SEA is expired.
STCW Certification
18
The Port State Control Committee/MOU-SWG has considered cases whereseafarers have faced issues with completing refresher courses for the renewal ofpersonal certification. This could be caused by cancelled courses, quarantine or travelbans. In such cases the maritime administration may have extended the validity ofsuch certificates and this should be accepted as a case of force majeure. For foreign
certificates if the flag administration has granted an extension due to force majeurethen this should be accepted as similarly extending the endorsement of the flag stateof the ship on which the seafarer is serving.
Medical Certificates
19In cases where it has been difficult for seafarers to extend their medical
certificate the flag 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.
Review of the guidanceThis guidance will be reviewed, as appropriate, to keep aligned with developments of
the COVID-19 virus and future initiatives by relevant stakeholders.

Page 5 of 5