The three things port State control may do under STCW and the only grounds for detention (STCW Regulation I/4 and Section A-I/4)

What a port State control officer may do on board under STCW is set by article X of the Convention and Regulation I/4. The first operative word of Regulation I/4 is limited. It is not a provision that lists what the control officer can do. It restricts control to three things. Code section A-I/4 then narrows the third of them, the assessment of competence, further still.

Reading this structure backwards breaks two things. Treating a request for a competence assessment as something that must always be complied with misses the fact that an assessment without clear grounds can be declined. Assuming that only certificates and manning are checked misses the fact that after a collision or an illegal discharge a watchkeeper may be asked to demonstrate competence.

This article reads Regulation I/4 from STCW/CONF.2/33 and A-I/4 from STCW/CONF.2/34 in the order of the provisions.

Control is limited to three things and the first two are a paper comparison

1 Control exercised by a duly authorized control officer under article X shall be limited to the following: .1 verification in accordance with article X(1) that all seafarers serving on board who are required to be certificated in accordance with the Convention hold an appropriate certificate or a valid dispensation, or provide documentary proof that an application for an endorsement has been submitted to the Administration in accordance with regulation I/10, paragraph 5; .2 verification that the numbers and certificates of the seafarers serving on board are in conformity with the applicable safe manning requirements of the Administration; and

The first is certificate verification. It covers every seafarer who has to be certificated under the Convention. The control officer accepts three kinds of document. An appropriate certificate, a valid dispensation, or documentary proof that an application for an endorsement has been submitted to the Administration under Regulation I/10 paragraph 5. An officer with a foreign certificate who is serving while the endorsement is pending has that proof in place of the endorsement.

The second is the manning comparison. The number of seafarers on board and their certificates are checked against the safe manning requirements of the Administration. The yardstick is safe manning requirements of the Administration. The port State does not set the manning by its own standard. It compares against the document the flag State issued for that ship.

Both are a paper comparison. With the original certificates, dispensations, endorsement application proof and the safe manning document in one place, both items end there.

The third, assessment of competence, opens only on clear grounds

.3 assessment, in accordance with section A-I/4 of the STCW Code, of the ability of the seafarers of the ship to maintain watchkeeping and security standards, as appropriate, as required by the Convention if there are clear grounds for believing that such standards are not being maintained because any of the following have occurred: .3.1 the ship has been involved in a collision, grounding or stranding, or .3.2 there has been a discharge of substances from the ship when under way, at anchor or at berth which is illegal under any international convention, or .3.3 the ship has been manoeuvred in an erratic or unsafe manner whereby routeing measures adopted by the Organization or safe navigation practices and procedures have not been followed, or .3.4 the ship is otherwise being operated in such a manner as to pose a danger to persons, property, the environment, or a compromise to security.

The third is assessment. Whether the seafarers are able to maintain watchkeeping and security standards. A condition attaches. if there are clear grounds. And clear grounds are not any circumstance. They have to arise because one of the following four things has occurred.

Ground	What has occurred
.3.1	A collision, grounding or stranding
.3.2	A discharge while under way, at anchor or at berth that is illegal under an international convention
.3.3	Erratic or unsafe manoeuvring in which IMO routeing measures or safe navigation practices were not followed
.3.4	Any other operation in a manner that endangers persons, property or the environment, or compromises security

The first three are events. Whether there was a collision, whether there was a discharge, how the ship was manoeuvred, are matters of fact. Only the fourth is open-ended. otherwise being operated in such a manner catches a way of operating that is dangerous without a specific event. When this ground is used, the control officer has to be able to say which way of operating created which danger.

A deficiency in a certificate on its own is not one of the four. A certificate deficiency belongs to item .1 of paragraph 1 and goes to the list of deficiencies in paragraph 2. Only the four grounds open the door to a competence assessment.

The assessment is a verification of skills related to the occurrence and starts with the certificates

1 The assessment procedure provided for in regulation I/4, paragraph 1.3, resulting from any of the occurrences mentioned therein shall take the form of a verification that members of the crew who are required to be competent do in fact possess the necessary skills related to the occurrence.

2 It shall be borne in mind when making this assessment that onboard procedures are relevant to the International Safety Management (ISM) Code and that the provisions of this Convention are confined to the competence to safely execute those procedures.

3 Control procedures under this Convention shall be confined to the standards of competence of the individual seafarers on board and their skills related to watchkeeping as defined in part A of this Code. Onboard assessment of competency shall commence with verification of the certificates of the seafarers.

A-I/4 narrows the shape of the assessment in three ways. First, its object is the necessary skills related to the occurrence. After a grounding, navigational watchkeeping skills are looked at. After an illegal discharge, the skills related to that operation. A broad examination of abilities unrelated to the event is outside this provision.

Second, the onboard procedures themselves belong to the ISM Code. What STCW looks at is the individual’s competence to execute those procedures safely. Whether the procedures were adequate is not within the STCW control officer’s assessment. Third, the assessment is confined to the standards of competence of individual seafarers and their watchkeeping skills, and it has to start with verification of their certificates. Demanding a demonstration without looking at the certificates is not the order the provision sets.

Even with a certificate, a demonstration at the place of duty may be required, but only against Part A

4 Notwithstanding verification of the certificate, the assessment under regulation I/4, paragraph 1.3 can require the seafarer to demonstrate the related competency at the place of duty. Such demonstration may include verification that operational requirements in respect of watchkeeping standards have been met and that there is a proper response to emergency situations within the seafarer’s level of competence.

5 In the assessment, only the methods for demonstrating competence together with the criteria for its evaluation and the scope of the standards given in part A of this Code shall be used.

Paragraph 4 is the control officer’s side. Even where the certificate is valid, a demonstration of the related competence may be required at the place of duty. The demonstration may include whether the operational requirements of the watchkeeping standards are met and whether there is a proper response to an emergency. The sentence ends with within the seafarer's level of competence. A demonstration that asks a watch rating for an officer’s judgement does not fall within it.

Paragraph 5 is the ship’s side. The only things that may be used in the assessment are the methods for demonstrating competence, the criteria for evaluating it and the scope of the standards given in Part A. The control officer cannot bring a test of their own design. This paragraph is the basis for asking which table of Part A a particular demand corresponds to.

Side	Provision	Content
Control officer	A-I/4 paragraph 4	A demonstration of related competence at the place of duty may be required even with a certificate
Ship	A-I/4 paragraph 1	The demonstration is limited to skills related to the occurrence
Ship	A-I/4 paragraph 2	Adequacy of onboard procedures is for ISM, and STCW reaches only the competence to execute them
Ship	A-I/4 paragraph 5	Only the methods, criteria and scope of Part A may be used

The only grounds for detention are a failure to correct the deficiencies in paragraph 2

2 Deficiencies which may be deemed to pose a danger to persons, property or the environment include the following: .1 failure of seafarers to hold a certificate, to have an appropriate certificate, to have a valid dispensation or to provide documentary proof that an application for an endorsement has been submitted to the Administration in accordance with regulation I/10, paragraph 5; .2 failure to comply with the applicable safe manning requirements of the Administration; .3 failure of navigational or engineering watch arrangements to conform to the requirements specified for the ship by the Administration; .4 absence in a watch of a person qualified to operate equipment essential to safe navigation, safety radiocommunications or the prevention of marine pollution; and .5 inability to provide, for the first watch at the commencement of a voyage and for subsequent relieving watches, persons who are sufficiently rested and otherwise fit for duty.

3 Failure to correct any of the deficiencies referred to in paragraph 2, in so far as it has been determined by the Party carrying out the control that they pose a danger to persons, property or the environment, shall be the only grounds under article X on which a Party may detain a ship.

Paragraph 2 lists five deficiencies that may be deemed to pose a danger to persons, property or the environment. The first two mirror items .1 and .2 of paragraph 1. No certificate, dispensation or endorsement application proof, and non-compliance with the safe manning requirements. The third and fourth are about watch arrangements. Navigational or engineering watch arrangements that do not conform to what the Administration specified for the ship, or the absence from a watch of a person qualified to operate equipment essential to safe navigation, safety radiocommunications or pollution prevention. The fifth is rest. The inability to provide sufficiently rested and otherwise fit persons for the first watch of a voyage and for the relieving watches after it.

Paragraph 3 is the detention threshold. It says the only grounds. Two conditions have to coincide. A deficiency under paragraph 2 exists, and it is not corrected. On top of that, the Party carrying out the control has to have determined that the deficiency poses a danger. Finding a deficiency does not by itself produce a detention. Where there is a way to correct it before departure, the Failure to correct of paragraph 3 is not reached.

The fifth deficiency is not settled by paper. If the rest hour records cannot show that the departure watchkeepers are rested, this item is engaged even when every certificate is in order. That is why Regulation I/4 cannot be read as a certificate provision alone.

Security competence is assessed only on the clear grounds of SOLAS XI-2

6 Assessment of competency related to security shall be conducted for those seafarers with specific security duties only in case of clear grounds, as provided for in chapter XI/2 of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). In all other cases, it shall be confined to the verification of the certificates and/or endorsements of the seafarers.

Security has a door of its own. The competence of seafarers with designated security duties is assessed only where there are clear grounds as provided for in SOLAS chapter XI-2. In every other case it stops at verification of certificates and endorsements. Ground .3.4 in Regulation I/4 paragraph 1 includes a compromise to security, but to reach a demonstration of security competence the SOLAS grounds pointed to by A-I/4 paragraph 6 have to be in place as well.

Worth confirming

The passages above come from Regulation I/4 in STCW/CONF.2/33 and A-I/4 in STCW/CONF.2/34. The text of article X, the legal basis for control, and the procedure for notifying the flag State of the result of a control are outside this article. How the regional PSC agreements operate STCW control is not covered either.

Whether a paragraph 2 deficiency poses a danger is determined by the Party carrying out the control. Watch arrangement requirements and safe manning requirements are measured against the document the Administration issued for the ship, so that document has to be on board for the comparison to be made.

You can consult the cited source documents

These links lead to the official publishers of the documents discussed here. Match the edition and provisions cited in the article, and check subsequent amendments and flag-state implementation before applying them.

• IMO · STCW/CONF.2/33
• IMO · STCW/CONF.2/34

Continue with the related operational guidance

• Watch composition factors and the conditions that defer a handover (STCW Code A-VIII/2)
• The four grounds that open a detailed port State inspection and the detention threshold (MLC Regulation 5.2.1)