2.1 The Committee recalled that, in the wake of Prestige incident, the 15 Member States of the European Union and the European Commission submitted to MEPC 49 (14 to 18 July 2003) proposed amendments to MARPOL Annex I calling for further acceleration of the phase-out schedule for single-hull tankers, a ban on the carriage of heavy grades of oil by single-hull tankers and an extended application of the Condition Assessment Scheme.

　

2.2 The Committee further recalled that the proposed amendments had been circulated by the Secretary-General of the Organization, in accordance with article 16(2)(a) of the MARPOL Convention, under cover of Circular letter No. 2458 of 10 April 2003.

　

2.3 The Committee noted that MEPC 49 considered the proposed amendments (MEPC 49/16/1) and, after extensive discussion, it developed a revised draft text of amendments to regulation 13G and a draft new regulation 13H of MARPOL Annex I, which deal with the phase-out of existing single-hull tankers and requirements for tankers when carrying heavy grades of oil. The Committee also developed a draft text of consequential amendments to the Condition Assessment Scheme. The basic texts of the proposed amendments for consideration by MEPC 50 are reproduced in document MEPC 50/2.

　

2.4 The Committee had before it 14 documents: MEPC 50/2 (Secretariat), MEPC 50/2/1 (Japan et al.), MEPC 50/2/2 (India), MEPC 50/2/3 (Russian Federation), MEPC 50/2/4 (United Kingdom), MEPC 50/2/5 (Japan), MEPC 50/2/6 (Japan), MEPC 50/2/7 (Japan), MEPC 50/2/8 (Japan), MEPC 50/2/9 (IACS), MEPC 50/2/10 (Brazil), MEPC 50/2/11 (INTERTANKO), MEPC 50/INF.2 (Secretariat), MEPC 50/INF.3 (Brazil) and MEPC 50/INF.4 (Secretariat).

　

2.5 In accordance with the decision by MEPC 49, the Committee, while using document MEPC 50/2 as the basis of its consideration, took into account all the submissions and the second and third reports of the Expert Group on Impact Assessment of the Proposed Amendments.

　

2.6 The Committee, recognizing the short time available for discussions in plenary and the importance of the proposed amendments, agreed to focus its consideration on a number of key issues in the proposed amendments to MARPOL Annex I and the Condition Assessment Scheme as identified by the Chairman of the Committee (MEPC 50/WP.1), so that the Committee could take decisions on these keys issues within the short time available and to provide clear guidance to the Drafting Group to finalize the text of amendments.

　

2.7 The Committee also agreed to take into account a compromise proposal submitted by Japan (MEPC 50/WP.2) providing an alternative text for the proposed amendments to regulation 13G and the new regulation 13H.

　

2.8 The delegation of Japan stated that: (a) it in principle supports the proposals on the further acceleration of the phase-out of single hull tankers, a ban on the carriage of heavy grade oil by single hull tankers and an extended application of the Condition Assessment Scheme; (b) considers it necessary to take into account that an immediate ban on the carriage of heavy grade oil gives serious problems to the trade of heavy grade oil in some countries; and (c) strongly desires that all efforts should be made at IMO to achieve the solutions which are agreeable for all Member States.

　

2.9 The Committee decided to deal first with proposed amendments to regulation 13G, followed by the proposed new regulation 13H, and then consequential amendments to the Condition Assessment Scheme (CAS).

　

　

　

3.1 The Committee focused its debate on the following issues as identified in document MEPC 50/WP.1 (with reference to document MEPC 50/2, annex 1):

　

　

　

3.2 Following debate, the Committee:

　

　

　

3.3 The Committee focused its consideration on the following key issues as identified in document MEPC 50/WP.1 (with reference to MEPC 50/2, annex 1):

　

　

　

3.4 Several delegations expressed the view that a definition in terms of density for crude oils that qualify as HGO was not necessary unless the threshold value for that parameter be raised to 945 kg/m³, otherwise the setting up of a lower value would jeopardize their crude oil trades.

　

3.5 A number of delegations expressed the opinion that the matter could be dealt with by means of specific exemptions for specific trades, while others pointed out to the fact that the existing fleet of double-hull tankers could cope with the demand for those crude oils.

　

3.6 Some delegations stated that the issue could be solved by a single definition for HGO in terms of density and/or kinematic viscosity that would encompass both crude and fuel oils.

　

3.7 The Committee could not resolve this issue on Monday, 1 December 2003, and agreed to refer this issue to the working group convened by the Chairman of the Committee.

　

　

3.8 In the discussion of this issue, a number of delegations stressed that whatever definition was agreed it should cover the cargoes carried by the tankers Nakhokda, Erika and Prestige as it had been proved that these incidents had been most damaging to the marine environment. In this respect it was noted that the Nakhokda fuel oil cargo had a density of 959 kg/m³ and a viscosity of 137 mm²/s, and it would not be included in the definition of HGO if the conjunction "and" was used.

　

3.9 The majority of delegations supported a definition of heavy fuel oil as that having a density higher than 900 kg/m³ at 15℃ or a kinematic viscosity at 50℃ higher than 180 mm²/s.

　

3.10 Some delegations could also accept these same values for a single definition on HGO in case the Committee should decide that a definition of heavy crude oil was not necessary, while others could support a definition on these same terms for fuel oil only, even if heavy crude oil was deleted.

　

3.11 The Committee could not resolve this issue on Monday, 1 December 2003 and agreed to refer this matter to the working group.

　

　

3.12 In the course of its deliberations, the Committee followed mainly document MEPC 50/WP.2 (Japan).

　

3.13 The Committee agreed on the implementation date in 2005 for oil tankers of 5,000 DWT and above, and 2008 for oil tankers of 600 tons DWT and above, but less than 5,000 DWT.

　

　

3.14 The Committee was unable to reach agreement on paragraph [(5)] of proposed new regulation 13H (MEPC 50/WP.2) proposing continued operation for ships fitted with double bottoms or double sides, or double hulls that do not comply in full with the provisions of regulation 13F.

　

3.15 After an extensive debate, the Committee could not reach agreement regarding the proposed continued operation for oil tankers of 5,000 DWT and above until 2015 or 25 years of age, whichever is the earlier date, subject to compliance with the Condition Assessment Scheme under paragraph (6)(a) of the proposed new regulation 13H in document MEPC 50/WP.2.

　

3.16 In the discussion of these issues a number of delegations stressed that the objective was to reach an agreement providing a global solution to a global problem and this could not be achieved by granting regional or domestic exemptions to a general regulation that would see its effective implementation limited to certain parts of the world only. In the same way, the right of denial of entry into ports or terminals for oil tankers that had been allowed continued operation under other provisions of regulation 13H was not seen as a proper solution for the problem.

　

3.17 The Committee considered the proposal by the Russian Federation in document MEPC 50/2/3 to include oil tankers of 600 DWT and above, but less than 5,000 DWT, engaged on domestic voyages, in the proposed exemption for vessels carrying HGO in port traffic. A number of issues relating to the definition of domestic voyages and status of flag, port and coastal States were discussed, including the need of seeking the consent of the port or coastal State for those cases where a foreign flag oil tanker is operating in the waters of another State.

　

　

3.18 The delegation of the United States informed the Committee that a preliminary legal determination indicated that the proposed new regulation 13H was not inconsistent with US domestic law. In view of this determination, the United States would be able to consider becoming a Party to that regulation provided the following procedural concerns were addressed:

　

　

3.19 The delegation of the United States stressed, however, that the removal of these procedural obstacles would not guarantee ratification per se, however it would ease the way for that eventuality.

　

　

3.20 The Committee noted document MEPC 50/2/6 (Japan) providing a draft text of consequential amendments to the IOPP Certificate Supplement (Form B) in the light of the proposed amendments to regulation 13G and new regulation 13H, and agreed to refer them to the Drafting Group.

　

　

3.21 The Committee also noted document MEPC 50/2/5 (Japan) proposing an MEPC resolution on smooth implementation of the proposed amendments to MARPOL Annex I with regard to ship recycling, given the fact that the accelerated phase-out of single-hull tankers would entail an appreciable increase in the number of tankers to be sent to the recycling yard. The Committee agreed to request the Drafting Group to finalize the text of the proposed MEPC resolution.

　

　

3.22 The Committee noted document MEPC 50/WP.6 (Canada, Cyprus and Denmark) proposing the adoption of an MEPC resolution requesting early and effective implementation of the proposed amendments to MARPOL Annex I prior to their entry into force on 5 April 2005.

　

3.23 The Committee agreed to refer the text of the draft MEPC resolution to the Drafting Group on the understanding that the decision on its eventual adoption would be taken in plenary on Thursday, 4 December 2003.

　

　

　

3.24 The Committee recalled that MEPC 49 accepted an offer by the United Kingdom to host an informal contact group in the intersessional period in order to progress the work in the limited time available before MEPC 50. The main issues identified in the report of the informal contact group (MEPC 50/2/4) are listed in document MEPC 50/WP.1, paragraphs 3.1 to 3.5.

　

3.25 The Committee noted that, since the submission of document MEPC 50/2/4, a number of comments and proposals on the draft CAS amendments had been raised and that in order to resolve these outstanding issues a drafting group was convened, under the auspices of the informal contact group, on 27 and 28 November 2003.

　

3.26 The Committee considered the report of the drafting group of the informal contact group, as contained in document MEPC 50/WP.3, and generally endorsed the revised text of amendments for further review by the drafting group.

　

　

3.27 The Committee, taking into account that in accordance with the proposed CAS amendments the CAS under regulation 13G(6) should be regarded as a normal survey requirement, similar to Enhanced Survey Programme (ESP) under SOLAS, rather than conditions for the life extension, agreed with the recommendation of the group that the text of regulation 13G(6) should be amended as proposed in paragraph 6 of document MEPC 50/WP.3.

　

　

3.28 The delegation of the Bahamas stated that in accordance with the present proposal for the extension of the application of CAS requirements, CAS could, in effect, amount to a repeated periodic survey, in contrast with the original CAS concept, which was originally developed as a "once in a lifetime" exercise. The Bahamas expressed the opinion that this extension introduces a change in the survey philosophy and that the CAS amendments proposed on this occasion were, in effect, a switch to a survey regime as a part of SOLAS. Therefore, it was proposed that the Committee should refer the proposed amendments to CAS to the Maritime Safety Committee for more detailed consideration, taking into account the need to avoid unnecessary duplication and inconsistencies in the survey regime.

　

3.29 The delegation of Panama, in supporting the views expressed by the Bahamas, was of the opinion that the proposed new CAS scheme could, in imposing heavy survey and administrative burdens, face difficulties due to shortage of human resources and related expertise. The delegation stressed the need to avoid the situation where requirements for the survey of the structural condition of the ship exist in two separate conventions and discussions for the same issue were held under two separate committees.

　

3.30 The Committee, having noted the above-mentioned concerns, recalled that the proposed amendments to CAS were consequential to the proposed amendments to regulation 13G and agreed that, in order to enable the CAS extended application from 2005 to Category 2 and Category 3 tankers of 15 years of age and above, the proposed amendments should be considered for adoption at this session.

　

3.31 Regarding the repercussions that the CAS amendments may have on the ESP, the Committee agreed that further work should be carried out aiming at the harmonization of the survey regime and, in that respect, the Committee recalled operative paragraph 5 of resolution MEPC.94(46) urging the Maritime Safety Committee to consider introducing and incorporating relevant elements and provisions of the Condition Assessment Scheme in the Guidelines on the Enhanced Programme of Inspections During Surveys of Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers, adopted by resolution A.744(18), as amended, when reviewing the Guidelines.

　

　

3.32 With regard to future work on CAS, the delegation of Japan stated that there was a need to further improve the provisions of the CAS in order to minimize or eliminate major hull failures of oil tankers due to poor maintenance and, to that effect, Japan informed the Committee of its intention to submit to MEPC 51 appropriate proposals, as outlined in document MEPC 50/2/8.

　

　

3.33 The Committee, having considered all the above issues, established a drafting group with the following terms of reference: