Circular Letter
MSC/Circ.1111
GUIDANCE RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SOLAS CHAPTER XI-2 AND THE ISPS CODE
(7 June 2004)
1.
The Conference of Contracting Governments to the International Convention for
the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974 (London, 9 to 12 December 2002),
adopted amendments to the Annex to the Convention, as amended, in particular
new chapter XI-2 on Special measures to enhance maritime security; and, the new
International Code for the Security of Ships and Port Facilities (ISPS Code).
2.
The Maritime Safety Committee, at its seventy-eighth session (12 to 21 May
2004), recognizing and considering the need for additional information to
assist Contracting Governments and the industry with the implementation of, and
compliance with new SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code, directed its Maritime
Security Working Group to examine and provide additional guidance on specific
aspects of the measures to enhance maritime security.
3.
The guidance relating to the implementation of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS
Code, as approved by the Committee, is given at annex 1.
4.
Reference is also made in this context to MSC/Circ.1097 on Guidance relating to
the implementation of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code.
5.
The Committee, at its seventy-eighth session (12 to 21 May 2004), also adopted
resolution MSC.159(78) on Interim guidance on control and compliance measures
to enhance maritime security which is given at annex 2.
6.
Member Governments and international organizations are invited to bring this
circular to the attention of national Designated Authorities, Administrations
and all parties concerned and responsible for the implementation of maritime
security measures.
ANNEX.
GUIDANCE RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SOLAS CHAPTER XI-2 AND THE ISPS CODE
1.
The ensuing paragraphs are lifted from the report of the Maritime Security
Working Group (MSC 78/WP.13 and Add.1) at MSC 78 and are considered
to be of valuable guidance for the implementation of SOLAS chapter XI-2 and the
ISPS Code on relevant topics.
SECURITY
MEASURES AND PROCEDURES TO BE APPLIED DURING SHIP/PORT INTERFACE WHEN EITHER
THE SHIP OR THE PORT FACILITY DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SOLAS
CHAPTER XI-2 AND OF THE ISPS CODE
2.
The Committee considered the security measures and procedures to be applied
during ship/port interface when either the ship or the port facility do not
comply with the requirements of chapter XI-2 and of the ISPS Code.
3.
The Committee recalled paragraph B/9.51 of the ISPS Code which recommends that
the ship security plan (SSP) should establish details of the procedures and
security measures the ship should apply when:
.1 it is at a
port of a State which is not a Contracting Government;
.2 it is
interfacing with a ship to which the ISPS Code does not apply*;
.3 it is
interfacing with a fixed or floating platform or a mobile drilling unit on
location; or
.4 it is
interfacing with a port or port facility which is not required to comply with
chapter XI-2 and part A of the ISPS Code;
and
thus considers that guidance, in this respect, is only required for those ships
which have not already included appropriate provisions to this end in the
approved SSP.
_______________
* Refer to further work by
the International Maritime Organization pertaining to Enhancement of maritime
security and to Establishment of appropriate measures to enhance the security
of ships, port facilities, mobile offshore drilling units on location and fixed
and floating platforms not covered by chapter XI-2 of the 1974 SOLAS
Convention, adopted by the 2002 SOLAS Conference on Maritime Security by
resolutions 3 and 7 respectively.
4.
The Committee decided to recommend that in such cases, if the ship’s approved
SSP does not already include provisions as recommended in paragraph B/9.51 of
the ISPS Code, the ship should attempt to conclude, if possible, a Declaration
of Security or to take the following action:
.1 record the
actions taken by the Company Security Officer (CSO) and/or Ship Security
Officer (SSO) to establish contact with the Port Facility Security Officer
(PFSO), and/or any other persons responsible for the security of the port, ship
or platform being interfaced;
.2 record the
security measures and procedures put in place by the ship, bearing in mind the
security level set by the Administration and any other available
security-related information; and complete and sign, on behalf of the ship
alone, a Declaration of Security;
.3 implement and
maintain the security measures and procedures set out in the Declaration of
Security throughout the duration of the interface;
.4 report the
actions taken to the CSO and through the CSO to the Administration; and
.5 request the
CSO to inform the authorities responsible for the exercise of control and
compliance measures (regulation XI-2/9) and the PFSO(s) at the next port(s) of
call of the difficulties the ship experienced and of the actions the ship
itself took.
5.
The Committee recognized that a ship should be able to address most of the ship
security activities required by section A/7 of the ISPS Code.
6.
In addition the Committee recognized that on certain occasions and, in
particular, when a ship is required to call at a port of a State which is not a
Contracting Government, the ship may be unable to identify the person
responsible for the security of that port or to conclude with such a person a
Declaration of Security.
7.
The Committee also considered the case where a ship has concerns about the
security of a port facility, which is supposed to operate in accordance with an
approved Port Facility Security Plan (PFSP).
8.
In this respect the Committee decided to draw the attention to the fact that
certain of the security measures may be of a covert nature and may not be
easily identified. Thus, the Committee recommended that the ship, as a first
step, should contact the PFSO and discuss the matter.
9.
The Committee recalled the provisions of paragraph B/4.16 of the ISPS Code and
recommends that the procedure referred therein should be followed. If no
remedial action is agreed between the Contracting Governments concerned, the
Committee recommends that the ship, in the absence of any specific provisions
to this end in the ship’s approved SSP, may either request a Declaration of
Security or should follow the steps outlined in paragraphs 3.1 to 3.4 above.
10.
The Committee recalled paragraph B/16.56 of the ISPS Code which recommends that
the PFSP should establish details of the procedures and security measures the
port facility should apply when:
.1 it is
interfacing with a ship which has been at a port of a State which is not a
Contracting Government;
.2 it is
interfacing with a ship to which the ISPS Code does not apply; and
.3 it is
interfacing with fixed or floating platforms or mobile offshore drilling units
on location;
and
thus considers that guidance, is only be required with respect to those port
facilities which have not already included appropriate provisions to this end
in the approved PFSP.
11.
The Committee decided to recommend that as soon as the PFSO becomes aware of
the intended arrival of a ship which is required to comply with the
requirements of chapter XI-2 and of part A of the ISPS Code, which has been in
a port of a non-Contracting Government, or of a ship which is flying the flag
of a State which is not a Contracting Government, he/she should contact the
authorities responsible for the exercise of control and compliance measure
(regulation XI-2/9) and the authorities which approved the PFSP and seek their
advice and guidance.
SHIP CONSTRUCTION, CONVERSION AND
REPAIR YARDS
12.
Ship construction, conversion and repair yards (shipyards) are not specifically
referred to in chapter XI-2 or the ISPS Code. However, they may be located
adjacent to port facilities and their activities may have an impact on the
security of such port facilities or on the security of ships using such port
facilities. Shipyards may also interface with ships, which may be required to
comply with the ISPS Code.
13.
The designation of shipyards as distinct port facilities is a matter to be
considered by the Contracting Government (or the Designated Authority) within
whose territory the shipyard is located. The designation may depend on local
circumstances and the result of the Port Facility Security Assessment (PFSA) of
the shipyard itself or of the PFSAs relating to adjacent port facilities. If a
shipyard is designated as a port facility a PFSO shall be appointed and the
Contracting Government (or the Designated Authority) shall approve the
shipyard’s PFSP.
14.
A ship under construction is not considered to be a ship, in the context of
chapter XI-2 and of part A of the ISPS Code, until the relevant statutory
certificates have been issued. This includes the preparation of the ship’s Ship
Security Assessment (SSA), the preparation and approval of the SSP, the
verification of the implementation of the ship’s security measures and
procedures and the issue of the ship’s International Ship Security Certificate
(ISSC), or alternatively the verification of the requirements leading to the
issue of an Interim ISSC.
15.
When a ship is under construction, the security of the ship is the
responsibility of the shipyard. Once the ship receives its ISSC (or Interim
ISSC) the ship will have to comply with the provisions of its [approved] SSP.
This may require the CSO and/or the SSO to discuss security measures and
procedures with the shipyard, irrespective of whether the shipyard has a PFSO
or not. This may lead to an agreement on the respective responsibilities for
security measures to protect the ship which in turn may involve the conclusion
of a Declaration of Security.
16.
The position of ships under conversion or repair will depend on the approach
the ship’s Administration takes regarding the suspension or revocation of the
certificates of the ship, including the ISSC, and, in practice, the extent to
which the ship’s personnel remains on board and retains the capability to
exercise their duties under the SSP. If the certificates of the ship, including
the ISSC, are suspended or revoked, responsibility for the security of the ship
would in practice rest with the shipyard and may require the conclusion of an
agreement between the owner and the shipyard. If the nature of the repairs
means that all, or part, of the shipboard personnel remains on board and the
certificates of the ship, including the ISSC, have not been suspended or
revoked, the sharing of security responsibilities between the ship and the
shipyard will have to be agreed and this may involve the conclusion of a
Declaration of Security.