|
Issuance of the Statement of Compliance under CAS
17.16 The Committee noted document MEPC 51/17/4 by the Marshall Islands which focused on the issues affecting flag Administration procedures when a change of flag occurs during the course of a CAS survey, or after the issue of a Statement of Compliance to an oil tanker.
17.17 The Marshall Islands indicated its concern with the level of documentation that the receiving flag Administration must require from the issuing flag Administration in cases where there is a change of flag during the CAS survey, or after the Statement of Compliance has been issued. In the view of the Marshall Islands, these issues needed to be discussed by the MEPC and MSC to further improve the provisions of CAS.
17.18 The Committee noted that the Marshall Islands did not provide a concrete wording for amending CAS paragraph 3.1, or for drafting a Unified Interpretation. The Committee, however, recognizing the need to clarify this matter and taking into account the Marshall Islands' recommendation, decided to refer the matter to the DE Sub-Committee for further discussion in the context of the revision of resolution A.744(18), and invited Member Governments and interested organizations to submit proposals to DE 48.
Unified Interpretations to MARPOL Annex I
17.19 The Committee considered two proposals to develop Unified Interpretations to MARPOL Annex I which were related to the phasing out of single-hull tankers under the revised regulation 13G and new regulation 13H adopted by MEPC 50.
17.20 In document MEPC 51/17/3, the Marshall Islands pointed out the issue of application of phasing-out provisions in revised regulation 13G to single-hull tankers that have undergone a "major conversion", as defined in regulation 1 of MARPOL Annex I, that has resulted in the replacement of the oil tanker's forebody including the entire cargo carrying section.
17.21 The Committee noted that, in the view of the Marshall Islands, the major conversion completion date of an oil tanker to which the forebody, including the entire cargo carrying section, has been replaced, should be deemed to be the delivery date as specified in the revised regulation 13G, to the effect that the vessel would be treated as a "new ship" as defined in regulation 1 of MARPOL Annex I. Although the literal reading of the revised regulation 13G specifies the "date of delivery", this should be interpreted to include the date of completion of a major conversion that entailed the substitution of the entire single-hull forebody by a new single-hull forebody.
17.22 The Committee recalled that this matter had been raised by the United States at MEPC 50 and that the Marshall Islands delegation undertook to submit a document to this session for consideration by the Committee (MEPC 50/3, paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2).
17.23 The Committee noted that the Marshall Islands proposed a Unified Interpretation as follows (MEPC 51/17/3, paragraph 8):
"For the purpose of implementation and application of regulation 13G and determining the phase out date of a single hull oil tanker as per the requirements of regulation 13G, where an oil tanker has undergone a major conversion as defined in MARPOL regulation 1 that has resulted in the replacement of the oil tanker's forebody, including the entire cargo carrying section, then the major conversion completion date of the oil tanker shall be deemed to be the delivery date as specified in regulation 13G."
17.24 In this connection, the Committee noted that the Marshall Islands referred to the major conversion of 13G tankers in general and did not make a distinction of Category 1 or Category 2 tankers under regulation 13G, which might cause misunderstanding.
17.25 After an exchange of views, the Committee requested the Marshall Islands to refine their proposal and to submit it to MEPC 52 for further consideration.
17.26 In document MEPC 51/17/7, INTERTANKO stated, inter alia, that the amendments to Form B of the Supplement to the IOPP Certificate agreed at MEPC 50 (annex 3 and annex 4 of resolution MEPC.111(50)) would indicate the due dates for the ship's compliance with various paragraphs of revised regulation 13G and new regulation 13H. Although it is assumed that an oil tanker will lose its IOPP Certificate when the ship has reached its due date for phasing out, it is not clear how this will be done.
17.27 The Committee noted that a few members of IACS had confirmed that they had received no instructions or guidelines from the various flag States on how to practically handle this issue.
17.28 The Committee further noted two possible solutions proposed by INTERTANKO to solve this question:
.1 on renewal of the IOPP Certificate, the classification society should align the end date in the IOPP Certificate to that of phase out (and not give a Certificate of five year duration); or
.2 a single-hull oil tanker without a valid CAS Certificate would indicate that the tanker should not carry Annex I cargoes.
17.29 Divergent views were expressed about the proposed solution by INTERTANKO. However, in view of the urgency of the matter, the Chairman of the Committee requested interested delegations to consult each other with a view to preparing a text for decision by the Committee.
17.30 With reference to the document presented by INTERTANKO, and having considered the recommendation of a small informal group, the Committee concluded that:
.1 it is possible for the flag State to limit the validity of the IOPP Certificate so that its expiry date can coincide with the cut-off day that is required by the Convention;
.2 the flag State might not limit the validity of the IOPP Certificate so that its expiry date can coincide with the cut-off day that is required by the Convention, because after the cut-off day the Certificate is not valid as the requirements of the Convention have been met and any ship that has a cut-off day will not be allowed to sail even if its IOPP Certificate is valid; and
.3 this is an issue to be left to the flag States to resolve in any way they deem fit and IMO is not required to decide on the matter.
17.31 During discussion of the matter, the Committee noted the following statement by Saudi Arabia:
"The current table of phase-outs is based on the anniversary date of a vessel's delivery from the builders to its first owner. This table requires ships built between 1989 and 1996 to have the same phase-out year (2015). However, because the phase-out date is the anniversary date of the delivery, ships delivered early in the year will last longer than ships built later in the year regardless of their year of delivery. For instance, ships delivered in December 1990 will have 11 months more trading time than ships delivered in January 1996. This seems inherently unfair because it requires a ship that is five years newer to be scrapped eleven months earlier.
The MEPC should form a working group to consider the phase-out requirements for ships that comply with CAS requirements, as amended, which should be changed from the ship's anniversary delivery date to December 31, 2015. With this change, the inherent unfairness we mentioned earlier will be removed."
17.32 In this connection, the Committee recalled that, when MEPC 50 adopted the proposed amendments to regulation 13G by resolution MEPC.111(50), it was aware of the issues raised by Saudi Arabia.
CAS for Category 1 tankers
17.33 The Committee agreed that Category 1 tankers that were due to complete CAS prior to 5 April 2005 under the current regulation 13G of MARPOL Annex I need not complete CAS as such tankers would be phased out on 5 April 2005 upon entry into force of the revised regulation 13G adopted by resolution MEPC 111(50) on 5 April 2005. The Committee also agreed to issue a circular to this effect.
Interpretation of paragraph 5.3.2 of CAS
17.34 The Committee had before it three documents addressing this issue. One by IACS and two more by Japan and INTERTANKO providing comments on the initial proposal by IACS.
17.35 In document MEPC 51/17/6, IACS reported a perceived ambiguity in new paragraph 5.3.2 of CAS introduced by MEPC 50, in that its wording may be interpreted to impose the first CAS survey concurrent with:
.1 the first scheduled intermediate or renewal survey after 5 April 2005; or
.2 the date when the ship reaches 15 years of age;
whichever occurs later.
17.36 The Committee noted IACS's view that this had not been the intention of MEPC 50 when adopting this requirement, and that there were two possible solutions for the Committee to decide:
● Option A: the first CAS survey shall be carried out concurrent with the first intermediate or renewal survey,
○ after 5 April 2005; or
○ due prior to the date when ship reaches 15 years,
whichever occurs later.
● Option B: the first CAS survey shall be carried out concurrent with the first intermediate or renewal survey,
○ after 5 April 2005,or
○ due after the date when ship reaches 15 years,
whichever occurs later.
17.37 In document MEPC 51/17/8, Japan indicated its opposition to the inclusion of the words "prior to" as this would be a far-fetched interpretation of paragraph 5.3.2, and indicated its preference for option B in IACS' document, i.e.: the first intermediate or renewal survey due after the date when the ship reaches 15 years of age.
17.38 In introducing document MEPC 51/17/9, INTERTANKO pointed out that, in its opinion, the intention and meaning of paragraph 5.3.2 was that the first CAS survey shall be carried out concurrent with the first scheduled intermediate or renewal survey after 5 April 2005, or by the due date of the third renewal survey of the ship, whichever occurs later.
17.39 After careful consideration, the Committee agreed with the following Unified Interpretation of paragraph 5.3.2 of the CAS (see annex 12):
"The first CAS survey shall be carried out concurrent with the first intermediate or renewal survey:
- after 5 April 2005, or
- after the date when the ship reaches 15 years of age,
whichever occurs later."
18 FUTURE ROLE OF FORMAL SAFETY ASSESSMENT AND HUMAN ELEMENT ISSUES
18.1 The Committee recalled that MEPC 49 considered the report of the previous session of the Joint MSC/MEPC Working Group on the Human Element and took action as set out in section 17 of document MEPC 49/22, and noted the outcome of MSC 77 with regard to the Role of the Human Element and Formal Safety Assessment and that the Joint MSC/MEPC Working Group will meet again during MSC 78 (12 to 21 May 2004).
18.2 The Committee noted that Assembly, at its twenty-third session, adopted resolution A.947(23) on Human Element Vision, Principles and Goals for the Organization.
18.3 The Committee noted that document MEPC 51/18 provided a status report on the Joint MSC/MEPC Working Group on the Human Element and Formal Safety Assessment.
18.4 The Committee, recalling that the human element issue is a high priority item in the Organization's agenda and long-term work plan that should be given full attention both from a maritime safety as well as a marine environment point of view, urged members to be represented also by experts on marine environment protection at the next meeting of the Joint MSC/MEPC Working Group.
18.5 The Committee was informed by the Chairman of the Correspondence Group on FSA (Japan) established by MSC 77 that the Correspondence Group had considered the item on the "need to develop a risk index relevant to the protection of the marine environment", which was added by MEPC 49 (MEPC 49/22, paragraph 17.9).
18.6 The Committee was further informed that the Correspondence Group concluded in its report to MSC 78 (MSC 78/19) that such an index is necessary to pursue FSA for environmental protection and that further development of such an index should be undertaken.
18.7 The Committee agreed to consider the work of the Correspondence Group on FSA at MEPC 52 after MSC 78.
19 APPLICATION OF THE COMMITTEES' GUIDELINES
19.1 The Committee recalled that, at MEPC 49, it had concurred with MSC 77 on the draft revised and rearranged Guidelines on the organization and method of work of the MSC and MEPC and its subsidiary bodies, and noted that the Secretariat had issued the revised Guidelines as MSC/Circ.1099-MEPC/Circ.405, which supersedes MSC/Circ.931-MEPC/Circ.366.
19.2 The Committee stressed the need and importance to observe the Guidelines in the conduct of its work.
|
