3 - More detailed inspection
3.1 Clear ground
3.1.1 A more detailed inspection may be carried out when there has been clear grounds to believe that the ship does not substantially meet the requirements of the AFS Convention. Clear grounds for a more detailed inspection may be when:
- the ship is from a flag of a non-Party to the Convention and there is no AFS documentation;
- the ship is from a flag of a Party to the Convention but there is no valid IAFS Certificate;
- the painting date shown on the IAFS Certificate does not match the dry-dock period of the ship;
- the ship's hull shows excessive patches of different paints; and
- the IAFS Certificate is not properly completed.
3.1.2 If the IAFS Certificate is not properly completed, the following questions may be pertinent:
- "When was the ship's anti-fouling system last applied?";
- "If the anti-fouling system is controlled under Annex 1 to the AFS Convention and was removed, what was the name of the facility and date of the work performed?";
- "If the anti-fouling system is controlled under Annex 1 of the AFS Convention and has been covered by a sealer coat, what was the name of the facility and date applied?";
- "What is the name of the anti-fouling/sealer products and the manufacturer or distributor for the existing anti-fouling system?"; and
- "If the current anti-fouling system was changed from the previous system, what was the type of anti-fouling system and name of the previous manufacturer or distributor?".
3.2.1 A more detailed inspection may include sampling and analysis of the ship's anti-fouling system, if necessary, to establish whether or not the ship complies with the AFS Convention. Such sampling and analysis may involve the use of laboratories and detailed scientific testing procedures.
3.2.2 If sampling is carried out, the time to process the samples cannot be used as a reason to delay the ship.
3.2.3 Any decision to carry out sampling should be subject to practical feasibility or to constraints relating to the safety of persons, the ship or the port (see appendix 1 for sampling procedures; an AFS Inspection Report template for sampling and analysis is attached to the Guidelines).
3.3 Action taken under the AFS Convention
3.3.1 The port State could decide to detain the ship following detection of deficiencies during an inspection on board.
3.3.2 Detention could be appropriate in any of the following cases:
- certification is invalid or missing;
- the ship admits it does not comply (thereby removing the need to prove by sampling); and
- sampling proves it is non-compliant within the ports jurisdiction.
3.3.3 Further action would depend on whether the problem is with the certification or the anti-fouling system itself.
3.3.4 If there are no facilities in the port of detention to bring the ship into compliance, the port State could allow the ship to sail to another port to bring the anti-fouling system into compliance. This would require an agreement of that port.
3.3.5 The port State could dismiss the ship, meaning that the port State demands that the ship leaves port – for example if the ship chooses not to bring the AFS into compliance but the port State is concerned that the ship is leaching tributyltin (TBTs) into its waters.
3.3.6 Dismissal could be appropriate if the ship admits it does not comply or sampling proves it is non-compliant while the ship is still in port. Since this would also be a detainable deficiency the PSCO can detain first and require rectification before release. However, there may not be available facilities for rectification in the port of detention. In this case the port State could allow the ship to sail to another port to bring the anti-fouling system into
compliance. This could require agreement of that port.
3.3.7 Dismissal could be appropriate in any of the following cases:
- certification is invalid or missing;
- the ship admits it does not comply (thereby removing the need to collect proof by sampling; and
- sampling proves that the ship is non-compliant within the ports jurisdiction.
3.3.8 In these cases the ship will probably already have been detained. However, detention does not force the ship to bring the AFS into compliance (only if it wants to depart). In such a situation the port State may be concerned that the ship is leaching TBTs while it remains in its waters.
3.3.9 The port State could decide to exclude the ship to prevent it entering its waters. Exclusion could be appropriate if sampling proves that the ship is non-compliant but the results have been obtained after it has sailed or after it has been dismissed.
3.3.10 Exclusion could be appropriate if sampling proves that the ship is non-compliant but the results have been obtained after it has sailed or after it has been dismissed. Article 11(3) of the AFS Convention only mentions that the "party carrying out the inspection" may take such steps. This means that, if a port State excludes a ship, the exclusion cannot be automatically applied by other port States.
3.3.11 In accordance with Procedures for Port State Control (resolution A.787(19), as amended), where deficiencies cannot be remedied at the port of inspection, the PSCO may allow the ship to proceed to another port, subject to any appropriate conditions determined. In such circumstances, the PSCO should ensure that the competent authority of the next port of call and the flag State are notified.
Reporting to flag State
3.3.12 Article 11(3) of the AFS Convention requires that when a ship is detained, dismissed or excluded from a port for violation of the Convention, the Party taking such action shall immediately inform the flag Administration of the ship and any Recognized Organization which has issued a relevant certificate.