5.1 The Committee recalled that MEPC 37 (11 to 15 September 1995) approved the Work Programme of the newly-established BLG Sub-Committee and agreed on the General Action Plan for the revision of Annexes I and II of MARPOL 73/78 and appropriate Terms of Reference. The Committee noted that since that date, nine years ago, the revision of both Annexes progressed until completion of the task at BLG 8 (24 to 28 March 2003) and subsequent submission to MEPC 49 for consideration and approval.

　

5.2 The Committee recalled further that, for MARPOL Annex II, the revision work actually started at MEPC 34 when it developed terms of reference for the revision of Annex II with a first target completion date of 1996. The target completion date was deferred to the year 2000 and finally set for 2003 with an expected entry into force date of 1 January 2007.

　

5.3 The Committee decided to discuss the revised MARPOL Annex I first, with two documents by the Secretariat (one of them a corrigendum) to which no comments had been made, focusing afterwards on the matters relating to MARPOL Annex II and the IBC Code.

　

　

5.4 The Committee recalled that MEPC 49 (14 to 18 July 2003) approved, in principle, the revised MARPOL Annex I and agreed to its circulation to IMO Members and Contracting Governments to the 1973 MARPOL Convention after final approval by MEPC 51, taking into account the developments expected at MEPC 50 regarding revised regulation 13G and new regulation 13H.

　

5.5 The Committee recalled also that MEPC 51 (29 March to 2 April 2004) had considered and approved new regulation 13I (pump-room bottom protection) and amendments to regulation 26 (prompt access to computerized stability and residual strength calculation programmes) of the existing MARPOL Annex I with a view to adoption at MEPC 52 together with the revised Annex I (MEPC 51/22, paragraph 10.19 and annex 9). MEPC 51 also agreed to instruct the Secretariat to incorporate the amended regulation 13G, new regulation 13H (both adopted by MEPC 50 in December 2003), new regulation 13I, amended regulation 26 and other consequential amendments into the text of the revised Annex I and requested the Secretary-General to circulate it with a view to adoption by MEPC 52 (MEPC 51/22, paragraph 12.3 and annex 11).

　

5.6 The Committee noted that the text of the revised Annex I was circulated by the Secretary-General of the Organization, in accordance with article 16(2)(a) of MARPOL 73/78, under cover of Circular letter No.2537 of 8 April 2004.

　

5.7 The Committee had before it document MEPC 52/5 by the Secretariat containing the text of the revised Annex I, and its appendices and Unified Interpretations, plus the covering MEPC resolution on its adoption.

　

5.8 The Committee noted document MEPC 52/5/Corr.1 by the Secretariat incorporating an amendment to the draft MEPC resolution on the adoption of MARPOL Annex I to the effect that operative paragraph 1 would read as follows:

　

5.9 The Committee recalled that, following the agreement at MEPC 51, the above paragraph had been modified so that it would enable the United States to consider becoming a Party to the revised Annex I with the exception of regulations 19, 20 and 21.

　

5.10 The Committee endorsed the modification in operative paragraph 1 of the draft MEPC resolution on adoption of the revised MARPOL Annex I.

　

5.11 The Committee confirmed that, following operative paragraph 3 of the draft MEPC resolution on the adoption of the revised Annex I, the date of entry into force would be 1 January 2007, as agreed by MEPC 49, in accordance with article 16(2)(g)(ii) of MARPOL 73/78.

　

5.12 Noting that MEPC 51 had agreed to establish a Drafting Group at the present session to finalize the texts of the proposed amendments to MARPOL 73/78 (MEPC 51/22, paragraph 20.9.4), the Committee agreed to set up a Sub-Group of the Drafting Group with the objective of finalizing the revised Annex I exclusively, leaving the matters related to Annex II and the IBC Code to the Drafting Group proper.

　

5.13 The Committee noted that there might be a need to amend the Condition Assessment Scheme (CAS) to correct the reference to regulation numbers in the current MARPOL Annex I (e.g. regulation 13G) as a result of the renumbering of regulations in the revised MARPOL Annex I. The Committee further noted that India, in its document MEPC 52/13/4, requested the Committee to consider the issue with regard to the requirement of oil filtering equipment for machinery spaces for oil tankers less than 400 GT and Oil Record Book Part I for oil tankers of 150 GT and above but less than 400 GT in the revised MARPOL Annex I. After a brief consideration, the Committee decided to refer the two issues to the Sub-Group on Annex I for consideration.

　

　

5.14 The Committee noted that document MEPC 52/WP.14/Rev.1 provided the confirmed co-ordinates for the Oman area of the Arabian Sea as a Special Area under MARPOL Annex I.

　

5.15 In this connection, the Committee recalled that MEPC 49, noting that proposed amendments to MARPOL Annex I had been approved at MEPC 48 and circulated by the Secretary-General of the Organization, in accordance with article 16(2)(a) of MARPOL 73/78 under cover of circular letter No.2434 of 25 November 2002, had intended to adopt the proposed amendments to make the Oman area of the Arabian Sea as a Special Area under MARPOL Annex I.

　

5.16 The Committee recalled further that the Sultanate of Oman, by an urgent fax to MEPC 49, had informed the Committee that the co-ordinates given in the text of the proposed amendments required further confirmation and that the Sultanate of Oman would take urgent action to confirm those co-ordinates and to submit them to the Committee at the earliest date. As requested by the Sultanate of Oman, MEPC 49 decided that the intended adoption of the proposed amendments to MARPOL Annex I would be postponed to a future session of the Committee and that the proposed amendments to MARPOL Annex I, as approved by MEPC 48 and circulated by the Secretary-General, would remain valid, except for confirmation of the

co-ordinates for the proposed Special Area.

　

5.17 The Committee agreed that the designation of the Oman area of the Arabian Sea as a Special Area under MARPOL Annex I was in order for adoption at the present session together with the revised Annex I. Consequently, the Committee instructed the Sub-Group on the revised Annex I to incorporate the proposed Special Area and its co-ordinates in regulation 1.11 of the revised Annex I.

　

　

5.18 The Committee recalled that MEPC 49 considered and approved the revised MARPOL Annex II. Furthermore it recalled that MEPC 50 noted that, since MARPOL Annex I and Annex II relate to each other, the revised Annex II should be circulated together with the revised Annex I after MEPC 51 with a view to simultaneous adoption at MEPC 52 in October 2004 and that MEPC 50 further concluded that the expected entry into force date of the revised Annex II should be set on 1 January 2007.

　

5.19 The Committee noted that the text of the revised Annex II was circulated by the Secretary-General of the Organization, in accordance with article 16(2)(a) of MARPOL 73/78, under cover of Circular letter No.2538 of 8 April 2004 and that the document MEPC 52/5/1 by the Secretariat contains the text of the revised Annex II and the MEPC resolution on its adoption.

　

5.20 The Committee noted further that following operative paragraph 3 of the draft MEPC resolution on the adoption of the revised Annex II, the date of entry into force would be 1 January 2007 in accordance with article 16(2)(g)(ii) of MARPOL 73/78.

　

5.21 The Committee considered document MEPC 52/5/1 containing the draft revised Annex II and the draft MEPC resolution on its adoption and referred it to the Drafting Group for finalization.

　

　

5.22 The Committee recalled that MEPC 51 considered and approved the revised IBC Code (MEPC 51/22, paragraph 11.56.8 and annex 10) and that the text of the revised IBC Code was circulated by the Secretary-General of the Organization, in accordance with article 16(2)(a) of MARPOL 73/78, under cover of Circular letter No.2539 of 8 April 2004 with a view to adoption at MEPC 52. It recalled further that MSC 78 (12 to 21 May 2004) considered the revised IBC Code from a safety point of view and approved further amendments to the IBC Code, which, inter alia, incorporated amendments to chapter 6 (Materials of construction) and to chapter 10 (Electrical installations). The IBC Code, as amended by MSC 78, was circulated by the Secretary-General of the Organization, in accordance with the provisions of the 1974 SOLAS Convention, under cover of Circular letter No.2556 of 28 May 2004 with a view to adoption at MSC 79.

　

5.23 The Committee noted that since it was highly desirable for the provisions of the IBC Code, which were mandatory under both MARPOL 73/78 and the 1974 SOLAS Convention as amended, to remain identical, the text of the revised IBC Code, as set out at annex to document MEPC 52/5/2 prepared by the Secretariat, was the text as amended by MSC 78.

　

5.24 The Committee also noted that in operative paragraph 3 of the draft MEPC resolution on the adoption of the revised IBC Code, the date of entry into force would be 1 January 2007, in accordance with article 16(2)(g)(ii) of MARPOL 73/78.

　

5.25 The Committee further noted that the text of the revised IBC Code included lists of products under chapters 17 and 18. However, when these lists were produced, they only included the revised Pollution Categories and Ship Types for each product as there was insufficient data and time to produce all of the other changes consequential to the revised Code. Following the outcome of ESPH 10 (30 August to 3 September 2004) additional changes had been made to chapters 17 and 18 of the IBC Code.

　

5.26 In this connection, the Committee noted that MEPC 52/WP.1(Secretariat) provided the following:

　

5.27 Having considered the information provided, the Committee agreed to the updated chapters 17 and 18 as part of the revised Code to be adopted. The Committee also agreed to the Index to chapters 17 and 18 as an annex to the Code.

　

5.28 During the discussions, the Committee encouraged stakeholders to either provide the data for those products with missing data or inform IMO that such products are no longer being shipped in bulk.

　

5.29 The Committee recalled that, in considering matters related to the outdated fire safety references and provisions contained in the draft revised IBC Code, MSC 78 agreed to instruct the Secretariat to update the cross-references to SOLAS chapter II-2 and remove the provisions related to halon fire-extinguishing systems, taking into account that these changes were essentially editorial in nature. MSC 78 also instructed the Secretariat to submit the proposed amendments to MEPC 52 and MSC 79 for consideration with a view to their inclusion in the final text of the amendments to the IBC Code to be adopted at MEPC 52 under the MARPOL Convention and the MSC 79 under the SOLAS Convention.

　

5.30 The Committee considered the amendments set out in the annex to MEPC 52/5/3 with a view to their inclusion in the revised text of the IBC Code contained in document MEPC 52/5/2 for adoption in accordance with article 16(2)(b), (c) and (d) of MARPOL 73/78.

　

5.31 The Committee agreed that comments of a safety-related nature should be forwarded to MSC 79 and instructed the Secretariat accordingly. In this context, Japan mentioned that it also had some comments and proposed revisions to the fire protection references and provisions.

　

5.32 The Committee also considered the views provided by India in its submission MEPC 52/5/8 related to proposed amendments to the revised IBC Code, in particular those relating to the harmonization of phraseology with other IMO instruments.

　

5.33 The Committee considered document MEPC 52/5/2 containing the draft revised IBC Code and the draft MEPC resolution on its adoption and MEPC 52/WP.1 containing the updated chapters 17 and 18 and the Index to the Code and referred them to the Drafting Group for finalization. The Committee also instructed the Drafting Group to review the proposed amendments in MEPC 52/5/3, MEPC 52/5/8 and the proposals from Japan and to incorporate them, where appropriate, taking into consideration the comments by the delegates.

　

　

5.34 The Committee recalled that MEPC 51 approved, in principle, the resolution on the Guidelines for the transport of vegetable oils in deeptanks or in independent tanks specially designed for the carriage of such vegetable oils in general dry cargo ships (MEPC 51/11, annex 4) with a view to adoption at MEPC 52, and decided to leave the square brackets in operative paragraph 2 for further consideration at MEPC 52 (MEPC 51/22, paragraph 11.20).

　

5.35 The Committee considered document MEPC 52/5/7 containing the draft resolution allowing the derogations for the transport of vegetable oils in deeptanks and referred it to the Drafting Group for finalization.

　

　

5.36 In introducing document MEPC 52/5/5, Malaysia reiterated that while it was supportive of the MEPC's efforts to protect the marine environment, it cautioned that any implementation of stricter preventive regulatory measures should not cause undue disruption of trade. Malaysia then informed the Committee that based on actual palm oil shipment data and projections of the total vegetable oil export of 52.3 million tonnes in 2007, Malaysia was genuinely concerned on the potential shortages of Type 2 chemical tankers for the carriage of vegetable oils. Malaysia proposed that the implementation of the ship type requirements for the carriage of palm oil products in the revised IBC Code and MARPOL Annex II be deferred to 1 January 2010.

　

5.37 Malaysia also expressed its reservation on the reclassification of solidifying fats as persistent floaters for the previous classification of floaters by the GESAMP/EHS Working Group and pointed out that scientific data and information should be made available to all delegates in order to understand the reasons for this classification.

　

5.38 The Committee considered the proposal by the Netherlands, Panama and the United States regarding the carriage of vegetable oils in an environmentally protective manner (MEPC 52/5/6).

　

5.39 The Netherlands, on behalf of the co-sponsoring countries, recalled the reasons for the revisions of MARPOL Annex II which was first discussed during BCH 24 in September 1992. The Netherlands pointed out that studies undertaken during the process leading to the finalization of Annex II had shown the harmful effects on marine life in particular marine birds and coastal amenities from contact with vegetable oils and that representatives of the vegetable oil industry were engaged in the discussions from the start of the process.

　

5.40 The Netherlands recalled that MEPC 51 noted that single hull tankers for the carriage of mineral oil were soon to be phased out and that vegetable oils exhibit similar physical properties to mineral oil and are capable of causing as much harm to the marine environment. The Committee therefore had agreed that, on the understanding that phased out single hull tankers under Annex I would not be allowed to transport vegetable oils when the revised Annex II entered into force, regulation 4.1 might be invoked to ensure that there was adequate tonnage available.

　

5.41 After MEPC 51, the co-sponsoring countries evaluated the possibility for the practical implementation of regulation 4.1 on the basis of aim, use, need, process and the specific vegetable oil trade and concluded that the administrative procedures needed to employ regulation 4.1 would be out of balance with the intended objective.

　

5.42 In seeking to find a balance between the optimal protection of the marine environment, avoidance of potential disruption to the vegetable oil trade and reduction of administrative procedures, the co-sponsoring countries developed an alternative proposal based on the following basic fundamentals which were discussed at MEPC 51:

　

5.43 The alternative proposal was to include a new regulation 4.1.3 of the revised Annex II to MARPOL 73/78 (MEPC 52/5/1) with a consequential footnote in column e of Chapter 17 of the IBC Code to identify the vegetable oils concerned.

　

5.44 The delegation of the United States expressed the view that the proposal in MEPC 52/5/6 was a good compromise and informed the Committee that, should the proposal be accepted, it would no longer reserve its position on the matter.

　

5.45 The Committee, having considered all the above issues agreed that the proposal provided an acceptable solution and way forward for the carriage of vegetable oils in a sound environmental manner without disturbing the current trade.