|
Implementation of the revised Annex II and the revised IBC Code
5.46 Norway, in its submission (MEPC 52/5/4), addressed the issue of the practical problems that may arise in connection with the implementation of the requirements under the revised MARPOL Annex II and the revised IBC Code.
5.47 The Committee agreed to instruct BLG 9 to examine the practical problems raised by Norway and others that may be identified in connection with the practical implementation of the revised requirements. The Committee also agreed that in view of the deadline for the entry into force of the revised requirements, the BLG Sub-Committee should address these at its next session and report back to MEPC 53.
5.48 Norway drew to the attention of the Committee that the revised IBC Code included revised requirements for electrical equipment located within gas dangerous spaces and zones and that subject to the adoption by MSC it was expected that these new requirements would be applicable to chemical tankers whose keel would be laid on or after 1 January 2007.
5.49 Norway also drew to the attention of the Committee that the DE and BLG Sub-Committees had drafted similar parallel amendments for the electrical requirements of SOLAS for oil tankers and of the Gas Carrier Code for gas tankers and it would be unfortunate and confusing for industry if different entry into force dates should be given for the parallel revised electrical requirements of these three statutory instruments. This would be difficult in respect of SOLAS and the IBC Code as most chemical tankers were at the same time also certified under SOLAS as Oil Tankers.
5.50 The Committee concurred with the view expressed by Norway to request the Maritime Safety Committee that the utmost be done to ensure that 1 January 2007 was also made the effective date in respect of the SOLAS and Gas Carrier Code amendments. If the applicable amendments procedures did not allow this entry into force date, a recommendation by the Committee should be made to invite Administrations to implement the amendments as early as possible.
Establishment of the Drafting Group
5.51 The Committee, having considered all the above issues, established a Drafting Group with the following terms of reference:
.1 taking into account all the submissions and comments made at plenary, to review and finalize the texts of MARPOL Annex I (including consideration of MEPC 52/WP.14/Rev.1, MEPC 52/13/4 and possible amendments to CAS), Annex II and IBC Code, as well as the associated MEPC resolutions on their adoption; and
.2 to submit a written report to the plenary by Thursday, 14 October, for consideration and adoption of the amendments to MARPOL 73/78 and the consequential amendments to the IBC Code by the Committee.
5.52 In view of the complexity of issues relating to the MARPOL Annex II and IBC Code, and taking into account that the consideration of the Annex I was a different matter and adequate time was needed for Annex II and the IBC Code, the Committee decided to establish a Sub-Group exclusively tasked with the consideration of the revised MARPOL Annex I which would report directly to the plenary.
Adoption of the revised MARPOL Annex I and related issues
5.53 Having received the report of the Sub-Group (MEPC 52/WP.10), the Committee took decisions on the following issues prior to proceeding to the formal adoption of the revised Annex I:
.1 with regard to the submission by India (MEPC 52/13/4), the Committee clarified that its instruction to the Sub-Group had been to match the mandatory requirements for oil tankers of 150 gross tonnage and above, but less than 400 gross tonnage, in the revised Annex I to those now mandatory under the existing Annex I. The Sub-Group, consequently, took the only action of reinstating the Oil Record Book Part I as a mandatory requirement for the abovementioned tankers as the fitting of oil filtering equipment was considered as not mandatory for that category of tankers (MEPC 52/WP.10, paragraph 25). The Committee confirmed this decision in full. It was recognized, however, that Administrations may impose more stringent requirements on small oil tankers flying their flags as it is their prerogative to do so;
.2 in respect of regulation 17.1 of the draft revised MARPOL Annex I, as amended by the Sub-Group, the Committee, noting that the second sentence in that regulation was redundant as it was already inserted in regulation 36.1 on Oil Record Book Part II, agreed to its deletion;
.3 Following a proposal from the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Committee agreed that when providing co-ordinates for geographical points in the revised MARPOL Annex I, degrees of Longitude should be indicated with three digits. The Longitude points of the Special Area of the Oman area of the Arabian Sea would be done accordingly. The Committee instructed the Secretariat to amend Longitude positions to three-digit degrees wherever they were indicated in the draft revised Annex I and decided that the other Annexes of MARPOL 73/78 shall be amended in this respect when the occasion arises;
.4 the Committee noted that the Table of Contents was not part of the revised Annex I and had been included in the annex to MEPC 52/WP.10 as a reference only. Therefore it was not part of the text to be adopted; and
.5 the Committee noted that the Sub-Group had included the IMO Number as a new requirement in the Form of Oil Record Book Parts I and II. However, considering that this was not a requirement under the existing Annex I and that many Member States had in stock a considerable number of copies of the Oil Record Book without the IMO Number, the Committee agreed to delete this reference whilst recognizing that it would be useful to include it in a future amendment to the revised Annex I.
5.54 Having resolved the above issues, the Committee, by consensus:
.1 adopted, by resolution MEPC.117(52), the revised MARPOL Annex I as set out at annex 2;
.2 approved the Unified Interpretations, including the Unified Interpretation to regulation 21.6.1 agreed at this session of the Committee, to the revised MARPOL Annex I as set out at annex 3;
.3 approved consequential amendments to the Condition Assessment Scheme, set out at annex 4, for circulation in accordance with article 16(2)(a) of the MARPOL Convention with a view to adoption by MEPC 53;
.4 approved the Unified Interpretation to regulation 13G(4) of the existing MARPOL Annex I, set out at annex 5, and instructed the Secretariat to insert it in the Unified Interpretations to the revised MARPOL Annex I;
.5 noted the views of the group in respect of document MEPC 52/13/4; and
.6 authorized the Secretariat if, during the preparation of the authentic texts of the revised MARPOL Annex I, any inadvertent errors are identified in the texts, to effect appropriate corrections accordingly.
5.55 The delegation of the United States supported the adoption of the revised MARPOL Annex I; however, it reserved its position on regulations 19, 20 and 21 of the revised Annex.
Adoption of the revised MARPOL Annex II and the consequential amendments to the IBC Code
5.56 Having considered the report of the Drafting Group (MEPC 52/WP.11), the Committee approved it in general and concurred with the Group's use of capitals for the phrases of Pollution Category, Ship Type and Noxious Liquid Substances in the texts of both instruments, as these were identified to be proper nouns and in some cases acronyms were derived from these nouns.
5.57 With regard to the text of revised MARPOL Annex II, the Committee:
.1 noted the inclusion of the definition of "chemical" and "NLS" tanker in regulation 1 - Definitions by the Group as the definition of tanker was considered useful;
.2 noted the re-numbering of the paragraphs in regulation 1 consequent to this addition;
.3 concurred with the view of the Group that although differences existed between the first four paragraphs which appeared in the NLS certificate in MARPOL Annex II and the Certificate of Fitness in the IBC Code, it was not necessary to harmonize the two.
5.58 With regard to the text of consequential amendments to the IBC Code, the Committee:
.1 agreed with the Group's proposal to add "2004" to the amendments to the IBC Code to facilitate the identification of these amendments in view of the other amendments that exist;
.2 noted that the Group had included those proposals which it considered of editorial nature whilst others of a substantive nature, in particular those specifying transitional limits of ships and modifications to fire protection references and provisions, were not included;
.3 agreed with the decision by the Group to retain paragraphs 15.5.2 and 15.15.3 dealing with "hydrogen peroxide solutions over 8% but not over 60% by mass" in view of the anticipated hazard profile that the GESAMP/EHS Working Group would provide in the near future and the subsequent re-entry of the product in chapter 17 of the Code;
.4 noted that the lists contained in chapters 17, 18 and 19 of document MEPC 52/WP.1 contained information on substances which were up to date as far as the information allowed and agreed that in view of the transfer of information to the IBC Code, an additional editorial and data check would be appropriate and useful before final adoption by MSC 79 in December 2004; and
.5 noted the update developed for the entry for liquid wastes.
5.59 Noting the need to harmonize the texts of MARPOL Annex I and Annex II in the use of SI units for viscosity, the Committee tasked the Secretariat to effect the appropriate changes to ensure consistency in both texts. Similarly, the Committee also tasked the Secretariat to harmonize the texts of the IOPP and NLS Certificates as may be feasible.
5.60 The Committee noted that, since the IBC Code would be considered for adoption at MSC 79, it urged delegates who were present at the MEPC Drafting Group to participate in MSC 79.
5.61 The Committee concurred with the view put forward by the Chairman of the Drafting Group that circulating an MEPC/MSC circular, after a final check, containing the three lists of substances with missing data which appear in annexes 4, 5 and 6 of MEPC 52/WP.1, will give industry the opportunity to provide the missing data to the GESAMP/EHS Working Group and, if this was done before December 2005, the substances might be included in the MEPC.2/Circ. series before 1 January 2007.
5.62 The Philippines informed the Committee that, with the new addition of paragraph 4.1.3 in the revised MARPOL Annex II, it had decided to withdraw its reservation made at MEPC 51.
5.63 Having taken the above decisions, the Committee:
.1 adopted, by resolution MEPC.118(52), the revised Annex II to MARPOL 73/78 as set out in annex 6;
.2 adopted, by resolution MEPC.119(52), the amendments to the IBC Code, as set out in annex 7, including chapters 17, 18 and 19 subject to changes to be brought to the attention of MSC 79 before final adoption by that Committee;
.3 adopted, by resolution MEPC.120(52), 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 as set out in annex 8;
.4 authorized the Secretariat if, during the preparations of the authentic texts of the amendments, any inadvertent errors are identified in the texts, to effect appropriate corrections accordingly and to harmonize the use of SI units for viscosity in both texts of MARPOL Annex I and Annex II as well as to harmonize the texts of the IOPP and NLS Certificates as may be feasible;
.5 agreed on the use of capitals for Pollution Category, Ship Type and Noxious Liquid Substances in the texts of the revised MARPOL Annex II and the consequential amendments to the IBC Code and to bring this to the attention of MSC 79 for the purpose of harmonization;
.6 agreed to forward those issues of a substantive nature related to the IBC Code raised by Japan and India to the BLG Sub-Committee for consideration; and
.7 agreed, subject to concurrent decision by MSC 79, to issue, after a final check, an MEPC/MSC circular containing the three lists of substances with missing data which appear in annexes 4, 5, and 6 to MEPC 52/WP.1.
|
