2.35 The delegation of the United States introduced proposals for Regulations A-1 and B-3 for a phased implementation of the ballast water standard (under Regulation E-2) by vessel types as suitable treatment technologies capable of meeting the standard are developed (MEPC-IBWWG 2/2/10). Several delegations gave an initial, positive response, but indicated that the implications would have to be considered in more detail. Based on these proposals the Working Group further developed the definitions of "New ship", "Existing ship", and "Constructed" in Regulation A-1.

　

2.36 It was agreed that the definition of "Major conversion" should be further developed in conjunction with these definitions and using definitions contained in the SOLAS Convention. A "placeholder" text was inserted for further development, as shown in annex 2 of this report. Delegations were invited to submit proposals to MEPC 49.

　

2.37 The Working Group noted that the definitions of "Ballast Water Discharge Control Area" and "Ballast Water Uptake Control Area", under Regulation A-1.5, had become redundant in light of further development of the Regulations under Section C (see paragraph 2.47 below).

　

　

2.38 The Working Group agreed to retain in Regulation A-3.4 the phrase "at the same location" and completed Regulation A-3, as shown in annex 2 to this report.

　

　

2.39 The Working Group reviewed Regulation A-4 resulting in a new text as shown in annex 2 to this report. Agreement could not yet be reached as to whether the discharge of unmanaged ballast water should be limited to single voyages, or single routes.

　

2.40 The Working Group rejected the proposal by Japan for a separate exemption of ships from carrying out Ballast Water Exchange on short voyages (MEPC-IBWWG 2/2/6) as this issue was covered by Regulation A-4 as formulated.

　

　

2.41 The Working Group developed a new Regulation A-5, based on the old Regulation A-4.2 and additional proposals by ISAF (MEPC-IBWWG 2/2/8). As no full agreement could be reached, this Regulation was retained in brackets. It was suggested that the definition of "pleasure yachts" could be included in the guidelines being developed under this Regulation.

　

　

2.42 The Working Group reached agreement on Regulation B-1 concerning the Ballast Water Management Plan, which each ship should have on board and implementing. With regard to the languages of the Ballast Water Management Plan, the text of this Regulation was made consistent with the provisions of the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS-Code) adopted in December 2002.

　

　

2.43 The Working Group completed Regulation B-2 concerning the Ballast Water Management Record Book; with the exception that use of an electronic record system, as an alternative to written records, has yet to be considered (B-2.1).

　

　

2.44 The Working Group further developed the text of Regulation B-3 concerning Ballast Water Management for Ships after consideration of proposals by Italy (MEPC-IBWWG 2/2/3), suggesting the establishment of enclosed or semi-enclosed seas (e.g., the Mediterranean Sea) as "Special Areas" for Ballast Water Management purposes as well as the inclusion of a minimum water depth for Ballast Water exchange, by Japan (MEPC-IBWWG 2/2/6) and also the United States (MEPC-IBWWG 2/2/10). Detailed discussions were held, but as no agreement could be reached, this Regulation was retained in brackets, as shown in annex 2 to this report. This Regulation should be further developed at MEPC 49, in particular:

　

　

　

2.45 The Working Group completed Regulation B-5 concerning Duties of Officers and Crew.

　

　

2.46 As instructed the Working Group focused on, and further reviewed, the compromise text of Regulation C-1, developed at MEPC 48, and taking into account proposals by the United States (MEPC 48/2/2), Italy (MEPC-IBWWG 2/2/3) and Japan (MEPC-IBWWG 2/2/6).

　

2.47 After intensive discussions, the Working Group agreed to present only the revised version of the compromise text of Regulation C-1, as shown in annex 2 to this report, for further consideration at MEPC 49. No agreement could yet be reached on the contents of the communication to be provided to the Organization, in the event that additional measures were established, and whether criteria for this communication should be retained in guidelines or a new Appendix III to the Annex.

　

2.48 The delegations of China and Japan expressed reservation for submitting only one text of Regulation C-1 to MEPC 49. These delegations preferred the texts of Regulations C-1 and C-2 as contained in document MEPC 48/21, annex 2 (option 1).

　

　

2.49 The Working Group completed the text of Regulation C-2, as shown in annex 2 to this report.

　

　

2.50 The Working Group agreed to include, in brackets, a new Regulation C-4, proposed by Italy, concerning co-operation between States regarding common measures for Ballast Water Management, for further consideration at MEPC 49.

　

　

2.51 The Working Group agreed to delete the existing text of Regulation D-1 concerning "uptake, transfer and discharge practices" in light of further development of the Regulations under Section C.

　

2.52 With regard to the development of Regulation B-3, the Working Group agreed to include, for further consideration by MEPC 49, new Regulations in Section D concerning "Special Areas" for Ballast Water Management purposes based on proposals by Italy (MEPC-IBWWG 2/2/3) and Japan (MEPC-IBWWG 2/2/6). The Working Group noted that, if the concept of "Special Areas" were included in the Convention, a case should be presented for all sea areas to be assigned a "Special area" status. In this regard, the delegation of Italy undertook to submit a further proposal to MEPC 49.

　

　

2.53 The Working Group completed Regulation E-1 concerning the Ballast Water Exchange Standard. Regulation B-3.1.1 allowing existing ships to pump through three times the volume of each ballast water tank, in place of the standard of 95% volumetric exchange applicable for new ships was transferred to the new Regulation E-1.4.

　

2.54 The Working Group considered that the following explanations should accompany this standard, possibly as part of the Ballast Water Exchange Guidelines to be developed (see chapter 3 of this report):

　

　

　

2.55 The delegation of Japan introduced its proposal to use Dinophyceae as phytoplankton and Maxillopoda (Copepoda) as zooplankton for test purposes in the short-term Ballast Water Management Standard under Regulation E-2 (MEPC-IBWWG 2/2/5). The reasons and background for this selection were also given in this proposal.

　

2.56 In discussing these proposals several issues were raised, including:

　

　

2.57 In response, the delegation of Japan indicated that the two suggested species should be viewed only as a starting point and that more species, as well as bacteria, should be added at a later stage.

　

2.58 The Working Group agreed to take the proposals by Japan into account when further developing the Guidelines for Type Approval of Ballast Water Treatment Systems (see chapter 3 of this report).

　

2.59 The observer from IUCN introduced the conclusions and recommendations of the report entitled: "Evaluation of Ballast Water Treatment Strategies and Techniques" (MEPC-IBWWG 2/2/9). This report, published in November 2002, gave an inventory of existing evaluation methods and development of a framework for further evaluation of treated ballast water.

　

2.60 The delegation of the United States introduced a preliminary report of an international workshop held in the United States from 12 to 14 February 2003 on the development of ballast water treatment technologies (MEPC-IBWWG 2/2/11). The delegation announced that a full report of the workshop would be submitted to MEPC 49.

　

2.61 The Working Group took note of the recommendations contained in the above two submissions.

　

2.62 The Working Group replaced the current proposals for a short-term (E-2) and long-term (E-3) standard for Ballast Water Management with one Ballast Water Performance Standard, as shown in annex 2 to this report. It was agreed to retain this text in brackets for further consideration by MEPC 49.

　

2.63 The Working Group agreed as clarification that the bracketed numbers for zooplankton, i.e., no more than [25] viable individuals per litre, and for phytoplankton, i.e., no more than [200] viable cells per ml, should represent the overall total of all species and not of any one species.

　

2.64 Some concern was expressed that the bracketed values of concentrations and size for both phytoplankton and zooplankton in the proposed standard may not provide a meaningful protection.

　

2.65 The Working Group noted that the time and expertise had not been available at this meeting for further determination of the specific sizes and concentrations retained in brackets. In considering further steps towards reaching agreement on these values, the Working Group:

　

　

　

2.66 The Working Group completed the text of Regulation E-3 concerning additional criteria for Ballast Water Management systems, as shown in annex 2 to this report.

　

　

2.67 At the proposal of the United States, the Working Group fully revised the text of Regulation E-4 concerning existing equipment. This provision focused on how administrations should encourage the development, testing and evaluation of promising ballast water treatment technologies by establishing "incentive" programmes for this purpose.

　

2.68 The Working Group recognized that extensive testing of new treatment technologies on board different types of vessels and under different conditions would be necessary. Some technologies would fail in practice while others would succeed, but maybe only after further refinement. As this process might take several years, a 5-year exemption compared with the standard in Regulation E-2, seemed advisable.

　

2.69 With regard to the provision that under "incentive" programmes administrations shall allow participation only by the minimum number of ships necessary to effectively test such technologies (E-4.3(b)), some delegations indicated that this would not be operational and should be deleted. Other delegations indicated that the number of ships should be at the discretion of the administration, and that such programmes and the ships involved might differ with ship type.

　

2.70 With regard to the provision that an administration, having approved an "incentive" programme shall, prior to allowing participation by any ship, seek concurrence from any State whose ports the ship will enter (E-4.5), some delegations expressed the concern that in doing so the consequences of testing might be imposed on other countries. Other delegations indicated that it would depend on the agreement between administrations in this regard and that both the proposed texts under Regulation E-4.3(b) and E-4.5 should be seen as checks and balances for establishing and carrying out "incentive" programmes.

　

2.71 The Working Group agreed to retain the full text of Regulation E-4 in brackets, as shown in annex 2 to this report, for consideration at MEPC 49.

　

2.72 Furthermore, the Working Group noted the importance of standardization of testing protocols in comparing the performance of technologies and that ships taking part in "incentive" programmes should nonetheless be certified.

　

　

2.73 The Working Group further developed the text of Regulation E-5, concerning the review of standards by the Organization, in light of the development of Regulations E-2 and E-3 and of the proposals by Brazil (MEPC-IBWWG 2/2) and Italy (MEPC-IBWWG 2/2/2) (see paragraph 2.24 above). The text of Regulation E-5 is shown in annex 2 to this report with paragraphs 1 and 2 retained in brackets.

　

　

2.74 The Working Group adopted the system of surveys specified in Regulation F-1 and accepted that "intermediate" surveys should replace the "annual" surveys under the circumstances indicated in Regulation F-1.1.3 and F-1.1.4.

　

2.75 The Working Group agreed that fixed platforms would be exempt from surveys. However, no agreement could yet be reached as to whether this exemption should also apply to "floating" platforms, floating storage units (FSUs) and floating production storage and off-loading units (FPSOs). These elements were, therefore, retained in brackets for review at MEPC 49.

　

2.76 The Working Group adopted the text of Regulation F-1.10 and noted that this Regulation was consistent with the 1990 Harmonized System of Survey and Certification to Annexes I and II of MARPOL 73/78.

　

　

2.77 The delegation of Brazil proposed the inclusion of a new Section G to the Regulations containing a methodology for the establishment of criteria and standards, and particularly the methodology of "Multi-Criteria Decision-making Methodology (MCDM)", which the delegation had presented in document MEPC 48/2/3.

　

2.78 As this proposal received no support, and in light of the earlier rejection of an Article in the Convention concerning the establishment of a standing "Technical Group" (see paragraph 2.24 above), the Working Group agreed not to include a new Section G to the Regulations. Instead, a guidance mechanism should be developed to assist MEPC when it reviewed the Ballast Water Convention, after its adoption.

　

　

2.79 The Working Group noted that the "endorsement of survey(s)" in Appendix I to the Annex should be replaced by a text based on Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 Convention¹ and, thereby conforming to the changes agreed and made under Section F of the Regulations.

　

　

2.80 The Working Group developed an outline for a new Appendix III concerning information to be provided when establishing additional measures under Section C of the Regulations, as shown in annex 2 to this report. Appendix III should be developed further and delegations were invited to submit proposals to MEPC 49.

　

　

2.81 The Working Group developed a new consolidated and renumbered text of the draft International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, as set out in annex 2 to this report. It was agreed to use the phrase: harm to "the environment, human health, property, or resources" throughout the text of the draft Convention, as appropriate.

　

2.82 The Secretariat was instructed to submit in a separate document to MEPC 49 changes the Working Group had made to the text of the draft Convention, as compared with the text contained in document MEPC 48/21, annex 2.

　

2.83 The delegation of Brazil indicated it would not accept the rejection of its proposals presented in document MEPC-IBWWG 2/2, concerning Article 5X- "Application Criteria for the Acceptance of Ballast Water"; Article 5Y - "Global and Regional Requirements and Standards"; Article 5Z - "Proposals to Amend the Annex"; and Article 5W - "Technical Group". The delegation expressed its reservation and issued a statement that is reproduced in full in annex 3 to this report.