Lloyd's Register report on the 52 nd session of IMO Ship Design and Equipment Sub-Committee

Transcription

1 IMO DE 52 Report Lloyd's Register report on the 52 nd session of IMO Ship Design and Equipment Sub-Committee 26 th March 2009 Hot topics - Amendments to the Code for Alarms and Indicators (Section 2) - Amendments to the MODU code (Section 3) - Amendments to the SOLAS Chapter III and the LSA Code to prevent accidents of lifeboats (Section 4) - Amendments to the Guidelines for ships operating in ice covered Arctic Waters (Section 7) - Guidelines for maintenance and repair of protective coatings (Section 10) - Cargo oil tank coating and corrosion prevention (Section 12) - IACS Unified Interpretations (Section 15) - Draft MSC Circular on Guidelines for construction, installation, maintenance and inspection/survey of accommodation ladders and gangways (Section 18) - Alternative arrangements for bottom inspection requirements for passenger ships other than ro-ro passenger ships (Section 18)

2 Lloyd's Register, its affiliates and subsidiaries and their respective officers, employees or agents are, individually and collectively, referred to in this clause as the Lloyd's Register Group. The Lloyd's Register Group assumes no responsibility and shall not be liable to any person for any loss, damage or expense caused by reliance on the information or advice in this document or howsoever provided, unless that person has signed a contract with the relevant Lloyd's Register Group entity for the provision of this information or advice and in that case any responsibility or liability is exclusively on the terms and conditions set out in that contract. Lloyd s Register 2009 External Affairs 26/03/09 2 of 27

3 Contents 1. Amendments to resolution A.744 (18) (Agenda Item 3) (reporting to MSC 87) 6 2. Revision of the Code on Alarms and Indicators (Agenda Item 4) (reporting to MSC 86) 6 (Draft Assembly resolution on the code on alerts and indicators 2009) 6 3. Amendments to the MODU Code (Agenda Item 5) (reporting to MSC 86) 7 4. Measures to prevent accidents with lifeboats (Agenda Item 6) (reporting to MSC 86) 8 LIFEBOAT ON-LOAD RELEASE GEAR, IN PARTICULAR ON-LOAD RELEASE HOOKS 9 (Draft amendments to the LSA Code paragraph ) 9 (Draft amendments to the SOLAS Regulation III/1) 9 FALL PREVENTER DEVICES (FPDs) 10 (Draft MSC Circular on Guidelines for the fitting and use of fall preventer device) 10 AUTHORIZATION OF INDEPENDENT SERVICE PROVIDERS TO LIFEBOATS - AMENDMENTS TO MSC.1/CIRC DEFINITION OF UNFAVOURABLE CONDITIONS OF TRIM AND LIST 11 DRAFT MSC CIRCULAR ON THE INTERPRETATION OF SOLAS REGULATION III/ Compatibility of life-saving appliances (Agenda Item 7) (reporting to MSC 86 but not included as an urgent matter) 12 (Draft amendments to the LSA Code Section 4.2 and 4.3) 12 (Draft amendments to the Revised Recommendation on Testing of Life-Saving appliances (Resolution MSC.81 (70)) Test standards for extended service intervals of inflatable liferafts (Agenda Item 8) (Reporting to MSC 86 but not included as an urgent matter) 13 (Draft MSC Circular on the Guidelines for the approval of inflatable liferafts subject to extended service interval not exceeding 30 months) Amendments to the Guidelines for ships operating in Arctic ice-covered waters (Agenda Item 9) (reporting to MSC 87) 14 (Draft Assembly Resolution on Guidelines for Ships Operating in Polar Waters) 14 (New work programme for the development of a code for ships operating in polar waters) Revision of resolution A.760 (18) (Agenda Item 10) (reporting to MSC 87) Guidelines for uniform operating limitations of high-speed craft (Agenda Item 11) (reporting to MSC 86) 16 External Affairs 26/03/09 3 of 27

4 (Draft MSC Circular on Guidelines for uniform operating limitations of high-speed craft) Guidelines for maintenance and repair of protective coatings (Agenda Item 12) (reporting to MSC 86) 17 (Draft MSC Circular on the guideline for Maintenance and Repair of Protective Coatings) Performance standards for recovery systems (Agenda Item 13) (reporting to MSC 87) Cargo oil tank coating and corrosion protection (Agenda Item 14) (reporting to MSC 86) 18 (Draft SOLAS Regulation II-1/3-X Corrosion protection of cargo oil tank of crude oil tankers) 18 (Draft MSC Resolution on performance standard for protective coating for cargo oil tanks of crude oil tankers) Guidance to ensure consistent policy for determining the need for watertight doors to remain open during navigation (Agenda Item 15) (reporting to MSC 87) Development of a new framework of requirements for life-saving appliances (Agenda Item 16) (reporting to MSC 87) Consideration of IACS unified interpretations (Agenda Item 17) (reporting to MSC 87) 20 (IACS UI SC 223 Unified interpretation on the Performance Standard for Protective Coating) 21 (IACS UI SC IACS Unified Interpretations (UI) for the application of SOLAS regulations to conversions of single-hull tanker to double-hull tanker or bulk carrier/ore carrier) 21 (Draft MSC Circular on interpretation of SOLAS regulation II-1/27.5: Machinery Automatic shutoff arrangements) 21 (IACS UI SC 213 (Rev.1) - Arrangement for remotely located survival craft) 22 (Clarification to SOLAS regulation III/ Conditions applied to assess the capability of liferaft to float free) 22 (Effective dates for amendments to SOLAS chapter III, FSS Code and LSA Code) 22 (Application of the Performance standard for protective coatings (PSPC) to tanks that are not dedicated solely to the carriage of seawater ballast) Any other business (Agenda Item 20) 23 (Draft MSC Circular on Guidelines for construction, installation, maintenance and inspection/survey of accommodation ladders and gangways, as modified by the Drafting Group on Amendments to Mandatory Instruments at MSC 84) 23 (Alternative arrangements for bottom inspection requirements for passenger ships other than ro-ro passenger ships) 23 External Affairs 26/03/09 4 of 27

5 (Pilot transfer arrangement) 24 (Practicalities and a possible time scale for a proposed phase-out of pollution prevention equipment approved under resolutions MEPC.60 (33) and A.586 (14)) 24 (Reduction of volume of sludge by evaporation) 25 (2008 Edition of the HSC Code Unified interpretation of the 2008 HSC Code) 25 (MSC Napoli incident) Future sessions of the Sub-Committee Summary of the decision (list of the finalized instruments) 26 Draft Amendments to the SOLAS Convention 26 Draft Amendments to the LSA Code 26 Draft Assembly Resolution 26 Draft MSC Resolution 26 Draft MSC Circulars 26 External Affairs 26/03/09 5 of 27

6 The 52 nd session of the IMO Ship Design and Equipment Sub-Committee was held from 16 th to 20 th March, 2009 in London, the United Kingdom. The outcome relevant to the work of Lloyd s Register is summarised below. Due to the close proximity between DE 52 and MSC 86 (scheduled from 27 May to 5 June 2009), only the following urgent matters will be forwarded to MSC 86 in principle. Outcome on the all remaining matters will be reviewed/approved at MSC 87 scheduled in May measures to prevent accidents with lifeboats (agenda item 6);.2 revision of the Code on Alarms and Indicators (agenda item 4);.3 amendments to the MODU Code (agenda item 5);.4 guidelines for uniform operating limitations of high-speed craft (agenda item 11);.5 guidelines for maintenance and repair of protective coatings (agenda item 12); and.6 cargo oil tank coating and corrosion protection (agenda item 14). There are some deviations from the above principles for some items. Such deviations are clearly stated in the respective sections of this report. 1. Amendments to resolution A.744 (18) (Agenda Item 3) (reporting to MSC 87) The Sub-Committee considered draft amendments to Assembly Resolution A.744 (18)) - Guidelines on the Enhanced Programme of Inspections During Surveys for Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers, as prepared by the correspondence group (DE 52/3) in order to harmonize the provisions for single-side skin and double-side skin bulk carriers, taking into account the IACS Z10 series, and to permit the master or a representative nominated by the master or company to attend the survey planning meeting. The Sub-Committee noted that the Correspondence Group was unable to complete the task. The Sub-Committee, having considered the interim outcome of the Correspondence Group, instructed the group to continue its work for the submission to a future session of the Sub-Committee. In this relation, the Sub-Committee was in agreement that IMO ESP Guideline (A.744 (18), should be aligned with those of IACS (UR Z series). Subsequently, it was agreed to request MSC to extend the target completion date to Revision of the Code on Alarms and Indicators (Agenda Item 4) (reporting to MSC 86) (Draft Assembly resolution on the code on alerts and indicators 2009) This is the comprehensive revision of the Assembly Resolution A.830 (19) - the Code on Alarms and Indicators, Using IACS document (DE 52/4/2) as a basis of its work and taking into account the various documents submitted and opinions expressed at this session, the Sub-Committee prepared the draft code for submission to MSC 86 (May External Affairs 26/03/09 6 of 27

7 2009) for approval and for concurrence by MEPC 59 (July 2009), and subsequent adoption at the 26 th session of the Assembly (November 2009). It should be noted that: - The title of the code was changed from Alarm and indicators to Alerts and Indicators. According to the draft code, the alerts are defined as announcing abnormal situation and conditions requiring attention. It is further classified as: - Emergency alarms - Alarm - Warning - Caution - The Sub-Committee did not concur the proposal made by one delegation in the Working Group to delete warning and caution from the list of definitions in paragraph 4.1 of the draft Code, despite the concern by the delegation that these terms may cause confusion as other industry standards define warning and caution as alerting to a higher level of threat than the Code. Although both terms are only once referenced in the Code the Sub-Committee believes that the definitions of these terms as drafted are in line with IMO s existing terminology. - The term Signal was also inserted in the code defining it as an audible indication, forming a counterpart to the exiting definition of indicator as a visual indication. - Passenger ship safety centre was inserted in the code. Implications: While this code is a stand alone non-mandatory instrument, in general, the code will be widely used for the design and approval of all shipborne controls. Therefore, manufacturers and builders should be aware of these developments and take into consideration when designing new equipment and system onboard. Application: to all shipboard alerts (alarms) and indicators which are required by the 1974 SOLAS Convention, as amended, including the Performance standards referred to, MARPOL 73/78 as amended and associated instruments (IBC, BCH, IGC, Gas Carrier, 2000 HSC, [20xx] MODU, Nuclear Merchant Ships, Diving, IMDG, FSS and LSA Codes; 1993 Torremolinos Protocol, Guidelines for IGS, Standards for VEC). 3. Amendments to the MODU Code (Agenda Item 5) (reporting to MSC 86) The Sub-Committee considered the consolidated text of the draft revised MODU Code, taking into account the outcome of COMSAR 12 and FP 53, and other document submitted at this session as well as comments expressed at this session, and finalized the text of the draft MODU code for submission to MSC 86 for approval with a view to adoption by the Assembly at its 26 th session (Nov 2009). The new code takes into account revisions made to other IMO instrument since adoption of the previous code. A proposal by an industry member stating that the code should be applicable to the units, the keels of which are laid or which are at a similar stage of construction two years following date of adoption, was agreed, subject to the concurrent of the MSC and External Affairs 26/03/09 7 of 27

8 the Assembly. Tentatively, a draft Assembly Resolution will contain effective date as [1 January 2012] subject to the final decision at the Assembly. It should be noted that the degree of the revision is very exhaustive. The revised Code has substantial impact on the design and construction of the MODUs, e.g., the requirements of PSPC (Performance Standard for Protective Coating). Implications: Builders: This will affect design of the MODU. E.g., - Reference to MSC.215 (82) Performance standard for protective coatings for dedicated seawater ballast tanks in all types of ships and double-side skin spaces of bulk carriers, will have significant impact in the fabrication process. - Reference to MSC.1/Circ Guidelines on alternative design and arrangements for SOLAS Chapter II-1 and III, will provide considerable freedom. Owners & Operators: The code also includes operational aspects, which affect MODU s SMS as per ISM Code. Flag Administration and its RO (Classification Society): As many flag Administrations incorporate the current MODU Code into their national legislation, this amendment will have impact on them. Application: to new MODUs, keels of which are laid on 1 January 2012 and thereafter, is suggested at present. 4. Measures to prevent accidents with lifeboats (Agenda Item 6) (reporting to MSC 86) (Background) In 1986, on-load release hooks for lifeboats and rescue boats were made mandatory by SOLAS in response to the Norway s worst offshore accident in March The Alexander Kielland platform in the North Sea Ekofisk field capsized killing 123 of the 212 persons on board. These new SOLAS requirements were considered an important step forward in a lifeboat design. Some deaths in this accident were attributed to the fact that the lifeboat had no means of release when the weight of the lifeboat was on the hook and falls. Therefore, onload release systems were seen to offer benefits. Since 1986 when the IMO requirements for all new ships to be fitted with on-load release systems came into place, there have been a number of serious accidents during drills and servicing. Many of these accidents were attributed to either lack of maintenance, poor design or inadequate training. Failures of equipment can result in the premature opening of the on-load hook mechanism causing the lifeboat to fall from the davits unexpectedly even with three safety interlocks provided for in the design. A number of current designs of on-load release hooks can be described as unstable, in that they are designed to open under the effect of the lifeboat s own weight and often need to be held closed by the operating mechanism. This means that any defects or faults in the operating mechanism, errors by the crew or incorrect resetting of the hook after being previously operated can result in premature release. External Affairs 26/03/09 8 of 27

9 Having reviewed the report of the Correspondence Group and documents submitted to the Sub-Committee, the Sub-Committee decided as given hereunder. LIFEBOAT ON-LOAD RELEASE GEAR, IN PARTICULAR ON-LOAD RELEASE HOOKS The Sub-Committee, having considered the matter in the Working Group, agreed the criteria for judging hook of Poor and unstable design for new hooks and existing hooks separately, which are given in the draft amendments to the LSA Code. (Draft amendments to the LSA Code paragraph ) The Sub-Committee considered new criteria for safer lifeboat on-load release hooks, and agreed that existing hooks with poor and unstable design are to be replaced, but existing hooks which are of a safe design/have a good safety record may continue in service. The following criteria were agreed for poor and unstable design : 1. Hooks that transfer loads to the release cables; 2. Hooks that have locking devices that may turn open due to forces from the hook load; and 3. Hooks made of material requiring paint or galvanizing in the hook/hook attachment or the release mechanism. [Note it was agreed that only new hooks should be fully corrosion resistant, as the Sub-Committee recognized the practicable difficulty of implementing the replacement of the majority of existing hooks which would not meet this criterion.] In addition, the Sub-Committee agreed that in addition to the first two criteria above, the lack of automatic reset of hydrostatic interlock device (if fitted) should be added as an additional criterion for replacement or modification due to poor and unstable design. In addition to the above criteria, the Sub-Committee agreed new requirements for lifeboats on-load release mechanisms based on the following elements: durable corrosion resistant construction materials safe operation not reliant on maintenance of critical manufacturing tolerances; and Provided with means to enable release only at a safe height (on or immediately above the water). (Draft amendments to the SOLAS Regulation III/1) Draft amendments to SOLAS III/1 will require the lifeboat on-load release mechanisms of all ships to be replaced if they are assessed and identified as being of a poor and unstable design (as described above). These draft amendments will be submitted to MSC 86 for approval and subsequent adoption. Recognising that the evaluation, identification and replacement of existing poor and unstable design release mechanisms is a complex issue, the Sub-Committee agreed that suitable guidelines in the form on an MSC Circular should be developed at the next session, including sharing of information between Administrations by means of an envisioned central database. Implications: Shipowners & Ship managers: External Affairs 26/03/09 9 of 27

10 - Existing ships: Identify whether existing lifeboats on-load release mechanisms have been evaluated and identified as being of a safe design/have a good safety record. If not, replacement of release mechanisms will be required. - New ships: On-load release mechanisms on lifeboats installed on/after the entry into force of the amendments to the LSA Code will be required to comply with the new requirements in full. Manufacturers: Ensure that past and existing lifeboats on-load release mechanism designs have been evaluated as being a safe design/have a good safety record. If not then clients will require replacement mechanisms. New mechanisms will be required to comply with the new requirements of the LSA Code in full and be suitably type approved. Flag Administration and its RO (Classification Society): Ensure that past and existing lifeboat on-load release mechanism designs are evaluated to verify whether they are of a safe design/have a good safety record and share this information with other Administrations. Application: All ships whose lifeboats on-load release mechanisms are identified as not being of a safe design/have a good safety record (i.e. are considered as being of a poor and unstable design ) are to be replaced by equipment which meets the new requirements of the LSA Code, by the first scheduled dry-docking after a date yet to be specified. ( Off load type release gear required prior to the introduction of on load type release gear in 1986 are not required to meet the new criteria.) Retroactive requirements will be required to meet by the first dry-docking after the entry into force date. FALL PREVENTER DEVICES (FPDs) The Sub-Committee agreed that the Fall Prevention Devices (FPDs) are the interim measure until release hook is replaced with the appropriate ones. However, for this reason, there was a lengthy discussion whether approval would be required for FPDs. The Sub-Committee, after detailed consideration at the Working Group, developed a draft MSC Circular for submission to MSC 86 for its approval. (Draft MSC Circular on Guidelines for the fitting and use of fall preventer device) The following is the summary of the circular: - Use of locking pin is accepted but not to modify existing equipment by drilling a hole; - Use of FPDs should be clearly given in the ships SMS documentation required by the ISM Code; - As this is an interim measure, until the launching mechanism (hook) is re-assessed and replaced, if necessary, the type approval of FPD is not required. Although the type approval of FPD is not mandatory, it is expected that FPD will satisfy the design criteria as specified in the circular and may be issued by a company acceptable to an Administration. The circular also specified the requirement for inspection and testing. As this is an interim measure, until the launching mechanism (hook) is re-assessed and replaced, if necessary, the type approval of FPD is not required. - As an interim measure ISM auditors may be required to review the training documentation as it relates to the use of FPDs as it is expected that guidelines be External Affairs 26/03/09 10 of 27

11 incorporated in the ISM documentation with regards to the use of FPDs which as per the proposed MSC circular. Implications: Shipowners & Ship managers: Consider the temporary use of FPDs to prevent accidents, ensure any modifications to existing hooks are approved by the type approval authority and a Flag Administration. Train crew in the use of FPDs. Manufacturers: Consider the design of past/existing hooks for the fitting of FPDs, and where modifications are required seek approval from the type approval authority and Flag Administration. Flag Administration: Ensure that any modifications to existing hooks are approved as appropriate. Application: Lifeboats with on-load release mechanisms AUTHORIZATION OF INDEPENDENT SERVICE PROVIDERS TO LIFEBOATS - AMENDMENTS TO MSC.1/CIRC.1206 A draft MSC Circular is prepared to update MSC Circ taking into account various development since the approval of the circular. As the circular is given in the footnote of SOLAS Regulation III/20, the Sub-Committee agreed to keep the circular number and issue it as Rev.1, when it is approved by MSC 86. While the amendments to MSC Cir 1206 enabled the application of MSC Cir 1277, there was still a problem with the enforcement of requiring manufacturers to provide certain information to service agents. IACS specifically stated that in practice was difficult as they did not have the authority to require manufacturers to give up such information or equipment due to intellectual property rights and further questioned whether Administration could do the same. Implications: Shipowners & Ship managers: Revise procedures and training of staff regarding periodic servicing and maintenance of lifeboats, launching appliances and on-load release gear. Manufacturers: Ensure that periodic servicing and maintenance of lifeboats, launching appliances and on-load release gear is in accordance with revised guidelines Flag Administration: Ensure that periodic servicing and maintenance of lifeboats, launching appliances and on-load release gear is in accordance with revised guidelines Application: All ships to which SOLAS Chapter III applies (All passenger ships engaged on international voyages and cargo ships of 500 tons or above engaged on international voyages) DEFINITION OF UNFAVOURABLE CONDITIONS OF TRIM AND LIST It was noted that current requirements given in SOLAS, i.e., 20 degree list and 10 degree trim had not been put into practice by Administrations and Industries. The Sub-Committee, owing to the lack of time available during the session, agreed to defer the consideration until the next session. DRAFT MSC CIRCULAR ON THE INTERPRETATION OF SOLAS REGULATION III/ External Affairs 26/03/09 11 of 27

12 The Sub-Committee agreed to a draft MSC Circular Guidance on abandon ship drills clarifying the requirements of SOLAS Regulation III/ for submission to MSC 86 for approval. The circular will clarify the requirement that each lifeboat is to be manoeuvred in the water by its assigned operating crew but that lifeboat is not required to be launched with the assigned operating crew on board. Having crew on onboard during lifeboat launches would be left to the master s full discretion. Implications: Shipowners & Ship managers: To review abandon ship drill procedures. Flag Administration: To ensure that port state control officers no longer require crew to be on board lifeboats during abandon ship drills. Application: All ships to which SOLAS Chapter III applies (All passenger ships engaged on international voyages and cargo ships of 500 tons or above engaged on international voyages) 5. Compatibility of life-saving appliances (Agenda Item 7) (reporting to MSC 86 but not included as an urgent matter) At MSC 85, amendments made to the LSA Code by resolution MSC.270 (85) entering into force on 1 July 2010, and Recommendation on Testing of Life-Saving Appliances (Resolution MSC.81 (70)) by resolution MSC.274 (85)) regarding change of the assumed weight of an individual seafarer in a lifeboat from 75kg to 82.5kg. Corresponding changes were considered for liferaft at this session of the Sub-Committee. (Draft amendments to the LSA Code Section 4.2 and 4.3) As a consequence of the change of the weight of the individual from 75kg to 82.5kg, necessary amendments were proposed for the relevant sections. Although the design criteria were increased for all liferafts it was understood that increase in weight was more applicable to cargo ships than passenger ships. As such, the new design criteria will apply across all ship types. However for existing ships, they will only be required to replace existing equipment if they changed the equipment currently installed onboard. In the case of passenger ships this can become very confusing, noting that a number of liferafts are installed onboard and often are taken ashore annually in a large number for servicing during which time loaners are provided. It is hoped that the MSC circular when developed will address the fact that the loaners need not be to the new requirement as it is intended that upon completion of the annual servicing the previous rafts will be returned to the ship. The group further agreed that the launching appliances for liferafts onboard passenger ships need not be replaced. The group further considered that the new design criteria will not apply to MES systems as these were normally only fond onboard passenger ships. Further the group considered that HSC are normally passenger ships and as such the MSC Cir when developed will provide further guidance in this respect. (Draft amendments to the Revised Recommendation on Testing of Life-Saving appliances (Resolution MSC.81 (70)) External Affairs 26/03/09 12 of 27

13 Necessary changes have been proposed in section 5 and 6. Although this agenda item is not designated as an urgent matter, the Sub-Committee decided to forward the draft MSC Resolution to MSC 86, rather than MSC 87. Implications: Manufacturers: May need to develop new designs for the future liferafts and their launching appliances Owner & builder: may need to acquire system meeting new standards Flag Administrations and their ROs (Classification Societies): need to be ready for the implementation. Application: to liferafts and launching appliances required by SOLAS Chapter III & LSA Code used onboard cargo ships of 500 gt or over engaged on international voyages. 6. Test standards for extended service intervals of inflatable liferafts (Agenda Item 8) (Reporting to MSC 86 but not included as an urgent matter) SOLAS regulation III/ permits Administrations that approve new and novel inflatable liferaft arrangements to allow for extended service intervals. Such extended service intervals may be permitted if the new and novel liferaft arrangements have proved to maintain the same standard as required by testing procedure during extended service intervals. The Sub-Committee noted that the LSA Correspondence Group had considered: - relevant amendment to the SOLAS (Regulation III/20/8.1 extension of service interval of inflatable liferaft) - relevant draft amendments to the LSA Code (sections 1.1., extension of service interval of inflatable liferaft); - the revised recommendation on testing of life-saving appliances (resolution MSC.81(70)) (paragraph 5.25 Tests for inflatable liferafts intended for extended service internals) - the recommendation on conditions for the approval servicing stations for inflatable liferafts (resolution A.761(18)) (paragraph 1.10 and paragraph 6 & appendix 4) - draft MSC circular as guidance for Administrations when permitting extended service intervals of inflatable liferafts under the existing provisions of SOLAS chapter III. The Sub-Committee decided to consider the draft MSC Circular on the guidance for Administrations when permitting extended service intervals of inflatable liferafts under existing SOLAS Chapter III only at this session. The remaining items will be considered at the next session. (Draft MSC Circular on the Guidelines for the approval of inflatable liferafts subject to extended service interval not exceeding 30 months) The Sub-Committee prepared the text of the guideline for the approval. One of the key discussions at this session was the way to handle dated items stored in the containers. It was agreed that the dated item should have validity until the next servicing date. External Affairs 26/03/09 13 of 27

14 The Sub-Committee decided to forward the draft MSC Circular to MSC 86 even though the item is not selected as an urgent item. Implications: Manufacturers & service suppliers: the decision will affect servicing arrangements of the liferaft that is designed for extended service period. Shipowners and ship managers: to take into account when arranging maintenance/servicing of liferaft Flag Administrations and their ROs (Classification Societies): consider preparing instructions for surveyors. Application: liferafts with extended service period under SOLAS Reg. III/ Amendments to the Guidelines for ships operating in Arctic icecovered waters (Agenda Item 9) (reporting to MSC 87) (Draft Assembly Resolution on Guidelines for Ships Operating in Polar Waters) The Sub-Committee continued, based on the report of the Correspondence Group (DE 52/9/1) and taking into account the outcome of SLF 51 (DE 52/9), its consideration of the revision of the Guidelines for ships operating in Arctic ice-covered waters (MSC/Circ.1056 MEPC/Circ.399), for submission to the Committees for approval with a view to adoption by the 26 th session of the Assembly. However, the Correspondence Group had come up with a number of unsolved issues which the Sub-Committee had to agree prior to the final conclusion. The problem was partly associated with the expansion of the scope of the guideline, i.e., inclusion of the Antarctic Waters. Subsequently, operations of cruise ships in summer season in non-ice covered water became a substantial issue. Other issues, such as a definition of the remote area, alignment with the Ice Class notation assigned by IACS members were also considered at this session. Further, the status of the Guideline raised concerns, as one delegation was of the view that the guideline, even though it is a non-mandatory guideline, it could be virtually made mandatory through the operator licensing scheme imposed by the Antarctic Treaty. The key amendments include the following items: 1. Amendment of the title to Guidelines for Ship Operating in Polar Waters in recognition of additional challenges in Polar waters other than ice-coverage and to reflect the recommendatory nature of the provisions; 2. Amendments to the preamble to emphasise the need to consider the nature of the operations that are anticipated and provisions for environmental protection; 3. Amendments to the provisions to the propulsion power to include the icebreaking capability and risk of structural damage. In addition, the IACS URs for Polar Class ships were extensively discussed and the equivalency between other standards, taking into account the Russian experience of operating Arctic ships; 4. Amendments to the damage stability provisions to consider SOLAS chapter II-1; 5. Amendments to the life saving and fire fighting arrangements to take into account the temperatures during seasonal operation; External Affairs 26/03/09 14 of 27

15 6. Amendments to incorporate greater flexibility in the provision of survival kits; 7. Amendments to specify totally enclosed or partial lifeboats depending on the anticipated operation; 8. Amendments to specify that the provisions for navigational equipment are applicable to all ships operating in Polar waters; 9. Amendments to the provisions for operational manuals for clarity and removal of provisions that may conflict with drill requirements contained in other IMO instruments; 10. Amendments to include provisions for environmental protection and damage control to take into account any applicable National and International rules and regulations and industry best practice; A proposal for a new work programme was made to consider the recasting of the Guidelines and extension of the scope of application, which would require the involvement of other sub-committees and consultation with MEPC. The draft of the guidelines covers the following Chapter 1 General PART A - CONSTRUCTION PROVISIONS Chapter 2 - Structures Chapter 3 - Subdivision and stability Chapter 4 - Accommodation and escape measures Chapter 5 - Directional control systems Chapter 6 - Anchoring and towing arrangements Chapter 7 - Main machinery Chapter 8 - Auxiliary machinery systems Chapter 9 - Electrical installations PART B - EQUIPMENT Chapter 10 - Fire safety Chapter 11 - Life-saving appliances and survival arrangements Chapter 12 - Navigational equipment PART C - OPERATIONAL Chapter 13 - Operational Arrangements Chapter 14 - Crewing Chapter 15 - Emergency equipment PART D - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND DAMAGE CONTROL Chapter 16 - Environmental protection and damage control Implications: Although this is a non-mandatory instrument, it may affect design and operation of ships operating in the polar region. The code includes a wide range of design/equipment related issues, such as damage stability, life-saving appliances etc. Application: Although these guidelines are voluntary they are intended for the ships constructed on or after 1 January There is no size limitation. It is intended to apply to ships operating in the Antarctic and the Arctic Waters (definition of these waters are given in the guidelines). Existing ships are encouraged to comply with the code as far as reasonable and practical. (New work programme for the development of a code for ships operating in polar waters) External Affairs 26/03/09 15 of 27

16 In order to conduct a review of the relevant IMO instruments with a view to preparing a comprehensive code for ships operating in Polar waters to enhance the existing voluntary measures related to maritime safety and environmental protection in Polar waters, a new work programme is proposed by the Sub-Committee. The Sub- Committee prepared justification for the submission to MSC 86. There were lengthy discussions whether in this new proposal is aimed to develop mandatory code or voluntary code. While some members supported the mandatory code, others did not. The Sub-Committee could not conclude on this point. While the Sub-Committee agreed to submit this proposal to MSC 86, owing to the procedure imposed for IMO meeting, the work programme could be reviewed at MSC Revision of resolution A.760 (18) (Agenda Item 10) (reporting to MSC 87) IMO Resolution A.760(18) - Symbols Related to Life-Saving Appliances and Arrangements - (amended by Resolution MSC.82(70) - provides standard symbols required by SOLAS Reg. III/ is under review. The Sub-Committee noted the progress in the ISO, and decided to consider the matter at the next session. 9. Guidelines for uniform operating limitations of high-speed craft (Agenda Item 11) (reporting to MSC 86) The text of the Code of Safety for High-Speed Craft incorporates various measures that determine the limits within which a high-speed craft is considered to be safe to operate. This new work item has been established in order to draft guidelines for Administrations so as to encourage the consistent determination of operational limitations. (Draft MSC Circular on Guidelines for uniform operating limitations of high-speed craft) The Sub-Committee based on the report of the Correspondence Group and approved it for submission to MSC 86. In approving the text, the Sub-Committee agreed to delete Appendix C - RISK ASSESSMENT IN RELATION TO WAKE WASH WAVES. Implications: to operational limitation which may result as a design change of the HSC to overcome the limitation. (e.g., to comply with SOLAS, rather than HSC Code, if the ship is intended to be used beyond these operation limits) Application: High Speed Craft as per SOLAS Chapter X if the flag Administration of the craft decided to implement it. External Affairs 26/03/09 16 of 27

17 10. Guidelines for maintenance and repair of protective coatings (Agenda Item 12) (reporting to MSC 86) (Draft MSC Circular on the guideline for Maintenance and Repair of Protective Coatings) The purpose of these Guidelines is to assist surveyors, shipowners, shipyards, flag Administrations and other interested parties involved in the survey, assessment and repair of protective coatings in ballast tanks. The Sub-Committee continued its consideration of Guidelines for maintenance and repair of protective coatings, taking into account the outcome of IACS work regarding areas under consideration, as appropriate. In this regard, the Sub-Committee agreed the proposed amalgamation of bulk carriers and ships other than tankers and bulk carriers. The following modification was made in this part at this session: - the simple block diagrams in the figures were removed - references to void spaces were removed - Figure 7, side tanks was replaced by a simpler diagram of a bulk carrier. Noting the guideline will be used in conjunction with the other instrument, e.g., Guidelines on the Enhanced Programme of Inspections during Surveys for Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers, agreed to propose to implement the draft circular from 1 January The following is the contents of the guidelines: 1 General 2 Application 3 Survey recommendation 4 Coating conditions 4.1 GOOD, FAIR, POOR 4.2 Areas under consideration 4.3 In-service condition monitoring 5 Coating maintenance 5.1 Process consideration for maintenance 5.2 Principles for maintenance 5.3 Recommended maintenance 6 Coating repairs 6.1 Process considerations for repairs 6.2 Principles for repairs 6.3 Recommended repair 7 Coating Technical File (CTF) 8 Reference Implications: Shipowners & ship managers: to note and to take into account the guidelines for onboard maintenance as a part of shipboard SMS. External Affairs 26/03/09 17 of 27

18 Flag Administrations and their ROs (Classification Societies): to take into account the guidelines in conducting a survey of coatings of a seawater ballast tank of a ship. Application: This is designed as non-mandatory guidelines but will be of assistance for the maintenance, repair and survey of protective coating as required by SOLAS regulation II-1/3-2 and XII/ Performance standards for recovery systems (Agenda Item 13) (reporting to MSC 87) MSC 81, in the context of its considerations of passenger ship safety, bearing in mind concerns expressed regarding the difficulties in rescuing persons at sea, had agreed that the Sub-Committee should develop performance standards for recovery systems for all types of ships, with a view to preparing mandatory requirements for implementation by 1 July 2012 for all types of new and existing ships. The Sub-Committee continued, based on the report of the LSA Correspondence Group (DE 52/13), its consideration of relevant draft amendments to SOLAS and the LSA Code concerning recovery systems. Opinions were divided whether to require dedicated recovery system or develop functional requirements utilizing existing equipment. Many delegations supported the opinion that performance standards should be developed based on functional requirements for recovery. The Sub-Committee established a Correspondence Group to discuss the matter further at the next session of the Sub-Committee. 12. Cargo oil tank coating and corrosion protection (Agenda Item 14) (reporting to MSC 86) The Sub-Committee continued its consideration of draft SOLAS amendments to introduce mandatory coating of cargo oil tanks of new oil tankers and an associated performance standard for cargo oil tank coating, based on Part 2 of the report of the Working Group at DE 51 (DE 52/14). It came to the attention of the Sub-Committee that a test procedure for the coating material had not been developed yet. The current text is developed based upon the assumption of utilizing fit for the purpose statement produced by manufacturers. The Sub-Committee decided to finalize the draft SOLAS amendments without the performance standard for coating at this session and forward it for approval to MSC 86 and subsequent adoption at MSC 87. Meanwhile, the Sub-Committee intended to finalize the performance standards including the test procedure at DE 53 and adopt all instruments at MSC 87 as a total mandatory package. Following this decision, the Sub-Committee prepared the following. (Draft SOLAS Regulation II-1/3-X Corrosion protection of cargo oil tank of crude oil tankers) External Affairs 26/03/09 18 of 27

19 The Sub-Committee developed the draft SOLAS Regulation for submission to MSC 86 and subsequent adoption at a future session. It is intended that the SOLAS regulation and the mandatory performance standard would be adopted simultaneously as a package. This regulation makes the performance standard mandatory. The date of entry into force of this requirement is not yet decided at this stage. The following are the key points of the draft SOLAS Regulation: - It sets up entry into force date by building contract, keel lay date and delivery date (in the same manner current SOLAS Reg. II-1/3-2 defines); - It refers to mandatory coating standard, which is under development at present; - It accepts alternative measures i.e., use of the corrosion resistant steel, subject to compliance with the mandatory standard that will be developed by IMO. - The requirements do not apply to combination carriers and chemical tankers. (Draft MSC Resolution on performance standard for protective coating for cargo oil tanks of crude oil tankers) This is a mandatory performance standard for coating similar to MSC.215 (82). While MSC. 215 (82) was developed for the resistance for seawater, this performance standard is developed taking into account the unique environment of the crude oil tanks, while there are numbers of similarities between these two coating standards. The standard was not finalized at this session. It will be further considered at the next session of the Sub-Committee. This standard will be further developed by the Correspondence Group for finalization at the next session of the Sub-Committee. It should be noted that test procedure of the coating material will be included as a part of this mandatory resolution. Implications: Owner and builders: the coating standard will affect fabrication process of crude oil tanker and to some design, design itself. Builder would be required to have a qualified paint inspector for the job. Flag Administrations and their ROs (Classification Societies): to be ready for the appropriate implementation once this discussion is concluded in IMO. Application: To Crude oil tanker of 5000 dwt or above engaged on international voyages. 13. Guidance to ensure consistent policy for determining the need for watertight doors to remain open during navigation (Agenda Item 15) (reporting to MSC 87) The Sub-Committee continued, based on the report of the Correspondence Group (DE 52/15/1), its work on the development of guidance for Administrations to ensure a consistent policy for determining the need for watertight doors to remain open during navigation when it is determined essential to the safe and effective operation of the ship s machinery or to permit passengers normally unrestricted access throughout the passenger area, taking into account the SLF Sub-Committee s work on guidance on the impact of open watertight doors on existing and new ship survivability. External Affairs 26/03/09 19 of 27

20 The Sub-Committee noted that the Correspondence Group had not concluded the issue, in particular; - Treatment of exemptions already issued by Administrations; - Application to existing ships; and - Treatment of doors on older ships which have an operational necessity to being transited. While some views were exchanged at this session of the Sub-Committee, it was agreed that the matter need to be further discussed in detail by the Correspondence Group. The Sub-Committee agreed to re-establish the Correspondence Group, with clearer terms of references as follows: To develop the draft Guidance for Administrations to ensure a consistency policy for determining the need for, and circumstances wherein, watertight doors may remain open during navigation when it is considered essential to the safe and effective operation of the ship s machinery or permit passengers normally unrestricted access through the passenger area, in the context of the SLF Sub-Committee s work on guidance on the impact of open watertight doors on existing and new ships survivability. 14. Development of a new framework of requirements for life-saving appliances (Agenda Item 16) (reporting to MSC 87) The Sub-Committee commenced a review of the requirements for life-saving appliances in SOLAS chapter III and the LSA Code through a systematic approach, developing a comprehensive framework for requirements for LSA and a procedure for the review and subsequent relocation of present requirements in SOLAS. The issue is to review Tier 1 and Tier 2 applicability of the IMO GBS (Goal Based Standard) in chapter SOLAS Chapter III and the LSA Code. The Sub-Committee, while noting the merit of the approach proposed at this session, felt that further careful review would be required. It was agreed to consider this matter further by a Correspondence Group. 15. Consideration of IACS unified interpretations (Agenda Item 17) (reporting to MSC 87) The Sub-Committee considered IACS unified interpretations submitted to the session. They are: - IACS UI SC 223 (DE 52/17); - IACS UI SC 226 (DE 52/17/1); - IACS UI SC 228 (DE 52/17/2); - IACS UI SC 227 (DE 57/17/6). IACS members are asking some clarification on the following points: - prohibition of the use of the knotted rope (DE 52/17/3) as means of embarkation into the liferafts (IACS UI SC 213 Rev.1); - float free arrangement of liferafts (DE 52/17/4); External Affairs 26/03/09 20 of 27

21 - Entry into force dates (DE 52/17/5). Please note that IACS Unified Interpretations are available via its website ( (IACS UI SC 223 Unified interpretation on the Performance Standard for Protective Coating) The Sub-Committee, noting that there are still ongoing changes being made to the technical details of this interpretation, as well as the difference in the document style (terms used in IACS documents and IMO documents), effective date, referencing materials in the document, agreed to keep it as IACS Unified Interpretation, rather than approve it as an IMO Interpretation. Attention was paid to the phrase Assistant Inspector as it may misguide another set of qualification required for this assistant inspector. It was agreed that this should be assistance/assistant to the inspector who works under the supervision of the inspector. Other aspects, such as the use of roller, the coating manufacturer approval, paint property and infrared identification were also inquired during the discussion. (IACS UI SC IACS Unified Interpretations (UI) for the application of SOLAS regulations to conversions of single-hull tanker to double-hull tanker or bulk carrier/ore carrier) The Sub-Committee, noting that the review of the document in details would be required, agreed to defer its consideration until this item has been included in the provisional agenda of the Sub-Committee. (Draft MSC Circular on interpretation of SOLAS regulation II-1/27.5: Machinery Automatic shutoff arrangements) The Sub-Committee, having reviewed IACS UI SC 228, agreed to develop this interpretation as a draft MSC Circular for submission to MSC 87 (May 2010). This circular addresses the following: The OMD (Oil Mist Detector) arrangements (or engine bearing temperature monitors or equivalent devices) are part of the automatic shutoff arrangements required by SOLAS regulation II-1/27.5, in the case of medium and high speed diesel engines of 2,250 kw and above or having cylinders of more than 300 mm bore. For the case of low speed diesel engines of 2,250 kw and above or having cylinders of more than 300 mm bore, the OMD arrangements (or engine bearing temperature monitors or equivalent devices) are to initiate the alarm and slow down procedures. The consequences of overriding automatic shutoff arrangements are to be established and documented. Implication: Design & approval of engine control system will be affected owing to this interpretation. Application: IACS members will apply this interpretation to the machinery system subject to SOLAS Chapter II-1 from 1 January 2010 prior to the approval as IMO interpretation. External Affairs 26/03/09 21 of 27

22 (IACS UI SC 213 (Rev.1) - Arrangement for remotely located survival craft) Taking into account the decision at DE 51, IACS had revised its Unified Interpretation on arrangements for remotely located survival craft to prohibit the use of knotted rope from 1 July The Sub-Committee noted the action taken by IACS. (Clarification to SOLAS regulation III/ Conditions applied to assess the capability of liferaft to float free) The Sub-Committee shared concerns expressed by IACS on the possible interpretation of Float free arrangements for liferafts which are installed on the balconies of the passenger ships, i.e., whether Float Free arrangements should take into account the case where a ship is capsized or sinking with large heel. The Sub-Committee agreed the need for the further consideration of this matter under a new work programme. However, noting that IACS, as an NGO not allowed to make a proposal on the new work programme. It is now up to member governments to make a new proposal to the Maritime Safety Committee at its 87 th Session. (Effective dates for amendments to SOLAS chapter III, FSS Code and LSA Code) IACS submitted for the Sub-Committee s consideration draft understandings which are suggested to clarify the application of regulations contained in resolutions MSC.216 (82), MSC.217 (82), MSC.218 (82), MSC.201 (81) MSC.207 (81) and MSC.272 (85). The Sub-Committee supported the interpretation presented by IACS in general. However, not all members were fully concurred with the interpretation. For example, while IACS took its general approach as New requirements introduced by amendments to SOLAS are normally only applicable to ships the keels of which are laid on or after the date of coming into force of the respective amendments, unless specifically stated otherwise., one national delegation expressed a different view. Other national delegations, while they concurred in the IACS interpretations, they considered that such interpretations are left to national Administrations. The Sub-Committee agreed that there is a need to further address this issue in a generic manner in the future. Implication: As IMO decided not to endorse IACS interpretation as an IMO interpretation, each ambiguous point raised by IACS would have to be clarified by respective the flag Administration. (Application of the Performance standard for protective coatings (PSPC) to tanks that are not dedicated solely to the carriage of seawater ballast) The Sub-Committee reviewed IACS UI SC 227. While the interpretation was generally supported, some members expressed disagreement against the technical background of this interpretation. External Affairs 26/03/09 22 of 27

23 The Sub-Committee decided to leave it as an IACS Interpretation and not to make it as an IMO interpretation. Implication: As a matter of fact, the interpretation attempted by IACS was denied by IMO. Therefore, the interpretation is to be verified by each flag Administration of the ship. 16. Any other business (Agenda Item 20) The Sub-Committee considered various items that had been included in the work programme of the Sub-Committee but not selected as agenda of this session. (Draft MSC Circular on Guidelines for construction, installation, maintenance and inspection/survey of accommodation ladders and gangways, as modified by the Drafting Group on Amendments to Mandatory Instruments at MSC 84) The Sub-Committee recalled that MSC 84, in conjunction with the adoption of the new SOLAS Regulation II-1/3-9 -Means of embarkation on and disembarkation from ships, had instructed the Sub-Committee to finalize the guideline. The Sub-Committee, recognizing that the above regulation will enter into force on1 January 2010, finalized its consideration of the guideline at this session for submission to MSC 86 using the text submitted by Australia, Korea and IACS (DE 52/20/2) as a basis of its work. In the course of the discussion some modification is made to - Marking: delete plate visible to any person approaching ; - Maintenance record: not to limit to log book other methods of recording would be accepted. - Other editorial improvement. In addition, there was a lengthy discussion on the test load. Some delegations tried to introduce criteria for establishing minimum test load, rather than using the declared test load declared by the ship owner. The Sub-Committee, not being able to conclude on this point, invited the delegation to submit a document with a concrete proposed text to MSC 86 for consideration prior to the final approval. (Alternative arrangements for bottom inspection requirements for passenger ships other than ro-ro passenger ships) The Maritime Safety Committee, at its eighty-fourth session, instructed the DE Sub- Committee and the FSI Sub-Committee to develop guidelines for to ensure that sound technical judgement is exercised by Administrations which allow their passenger ships (other than ro-ro passenger ships) to have an inspection of the outside of the ship s bottom carried out in water, rather than in dry dock, and to ultimately amend the Survey Guidelines under the HSSC (resolution A.997 (25)). Despite of the instruction of the Maritime Safety Committee, delegations expressed their opinions were still not fully concurred with the in-water survey for passenger ships. Concerns raises were: External Affairs 26/03/09 23 of 27

24 - if an in water survey is equivalent to the dry docking, why it would be allowed to passenger ships only (not including Ro-ro passenger ships) - similarly, why such in water survey would be allowed only for ships of less than 16 years of age - Generalizing this in-water survey to ALL passenger ships may require careful consideration, as small passenger ships are operating in a similar condition where Ro-ro passenger ships are. While there is a general support of the guidelines, and further technical comments for further improving the text, the Sub-Committee was unable to finish the task, primarily, owing to the fact that the matter was discussed in the plenary, rather than designated working group. For this reason, the Sub-Committee had to defer the further discussion to the next session of the Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee will inform MSC 86 and FSI 17 on this decision. The decision on the possible further amendments to the Survey Guidelines under the HSSC (A.997 (25)) at the twenty sixth sessions of the Assembly is left to FSI 17. It may be worth noting that no objection was expressed against the application of the guidelines to cruise ships. (Pilot transfer arrangement) The Sub-Committee considered interim report of the Correspondence Group established by the NAV Sub-Committee and offered the following comments which will be forwarded to the co-ordinator of the correspondence group established by the NAV Sub-Committee. (to draft revised text of SOLAS Reg. V/23) - Prohibition of the use of the mechanical hoist due consideration on the entry into force scheme would be required for existing ships; - Safety issues such as fixing lower end of a pilot ladder and use of rubbing bands; - Harmonization with the requirements for means of embarkation & disembarkation required by SOLAS reg. Ii-1/3-9 - Editorial comments for eliminating any ambiguities (to draft revised text of A.889 (21)) - Maximum angle of slope should be 55 degree, rather than 45, in order to harmonize with the Guidelines for construction, installation, maintenance and inspection/survey of accommodation ladders and gangways given above. - Consider any inconsistency against the above guidelines, including section 5 Access to deck. (Practicalities and a possible time scale for a proposed phase-out of pollution prevention equipment approved under resolutions MEPC.60 (33) and A.586 (14)) At MEPC 56, the Committee tasked the DE Sub-Committee to consider among other things the possible upgrading of existing equipment and the development of an appropriate standard for such an upgrade. External Affairs 26/03/09 24 of 27

25 The majority of those who expressed their opinions did not agree with a mandatory phase out of all existing equipment approved under resolution MEPC 60 (33), as that would impose an excessive burden to the industry and Administrations, when compelling need for such a phase-out had not been demonstrated. In the course of discussion, the following opinions were expressed: - A proposal on a simplified test procedure for add-on equipment capable of breaking up emulsions that could supplement existing MEPC. 60 (33) equipment might form the basis for a future mandatory upgrade of that equipment, however the work should be carried out and proper justification, after a thorough research, should be provided; - The issue of continuing illegal oily water discharge was more related to engineroom management than to oily water separator technology. In that aspect, the concept of the Integrated Bilge Water Treatment System (IBTS), incorporated in MEPC.1/Circ 642 should be promoted as a means to employ a holistic approach to address this matter. The Sub-Committee, while noting a general support for upgrading existing equipment, it also noted that in depth holistic discussion would be required. The Sub-Committee invited members to propose a new work programme for the DE Sub-Committee so that such discussion would take place at a future session. Under current circumstance, i.e., no specific work programme is designated for this topic, establishment of a Correspondence Group was ruled out. It was further agreed that proposal on Retrofitting existing pollution prevention equipment for compliance with MEPC.107(49) proposal for test standard for add-on emulsion breaking devices would be discussed once the work programme has been allocated. (Reduction of volume of sludge by evaporation) With regard to the question conveyed from the FP Sub-Committee, the DE Sub- Committee was of the view that maximum allowable percentage of sludge cannot be pre-determined as it is up to contents of the water in the sludge, volume of sludge and all other valuables. The Sub-Committee will report the above discussion to MEPC 59. (2008 Edition of the HSC Code Unified interpretation of the 2008 HSC Code) The Sub-Committee noted some problems of the 2008 edition of the HSC Code, especially regarding the application to the existing crafts. It was agreed to revise forward part of the publication, rather than the code itself. (MSC Napoli incident) With regard to the accident of the container ship MSC Napoli, IACS is requested to keep the IMO updated about the progress of the review of IACS Unified Requirement S11 Longitudinal strength standard. External Affairs 26/03/09 25 of 27

26 17. Future sessions of the Sub-Committee Two meetings of the Sub-Committee are allocated in 2010 within the budget of IMO. DE 53 from 22 to 26 February DE 54 from 25 to 29 October 18. Summary of the decision (list of the finalized instruments) Among items introduced in this report, considerations on the following items were completed at DE 52. These texts will be forwarded to MSC 86 (May - June 2009) or MSC 87 (May 2010) for appropriate actions. Draft Amendments to the SOLAS Convention Regulation Title Approval Adoption Entry into force Ref. (Section) III/1 Application MSC 86 MSC 87 TBD 4 II-1/3-xx Corrosion protection of cargo oil MSC 86 [MSC 87] TBD 12 tank of crude oil tankers Draft Amendments to the LSA Code Section Title/Content Approval Adoption Entry into force Ref. (Section) Inflatable liferafts - Construction of inflatable liferafts MSC 86 MSC 87 TBD Inflatable liferafts - Carrying capacity of inflatable liferafts MSC 86 MSC 87 TBD General requirements for lifeboats - Lifeboat fittings MSC 86 MSC 87 TBD 4 Draft Assembly Resolution Title Approval Adoption Effective date Ref. (Section) The code on alert and indicators 2009 MSC 86 A26 TBD 2 The MODU Code Jan MSC 86 A Guidelines for Ships Operating in Arctic 1 Jan MSC 86 A26 Ice-Covered Waters Draft MSC Resolution Title Revised Recommendation on Testing of Life-Saving appliances Approval Effective date Ref. (Section) MSC 86 TBD 5 Draft MSC Circulars Title Approval Effective date Ref. (Section) External Affairs 26/03/09 26 of 27

27 Guidelines for the fitting and use of fall preventer device Amendments to the Guidelines for periodic servicing and maintenance of lifeboats, launching appliances and on-load release gear (MSC.1/Circ.1206, annex 1) Interpretation of SOLAS Regulation III/19 Guidelines for the approval of inflatable liferafts subject to extended service interval not exceeding 30 months Guidelines for uniform operating limitations of highspeed craft Guideline for Maintenance and Repair of Protective Coatings interpretation of SOLAS regulation II-1/27.5: Machinery Automatic shutoff arrangements Guidelines for construction, installation, maintenance and inspection/survey of accommodation ladders and gangways MSC 86 MSC 86 MSC 86 MSC 86 immediate effect immediate effect immediate effect immediate effect MSC 86 TBD 9 MSC 86 1 Jan MSC 87 TBD 15 MSC 86 1 Jan External Affairs 26/03/09 27 of 27

28 For further information, please contact any of the following offices External Affairs Lloyd s Register 71 Fenchurch Street London EC3M 4BS, UK Lloyd s Register EMEA 71 Fenchurch Street London EC3M 4BS, UK Lloyd s Register Asia Suite 3501 China Merchants Tower Shun Tak Centre Connaught Road Central Hong Kong, SAR of PRC Lloyd s Register Americas, Inc Enclave Parkway, Suite 200 Houston, Texas, 77077, USA Tel: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) external-affairs@lr.org Lloyd s Register Tel: + 44 (0) Fax: + 44 (0) emea@lr.org Services are provided by members of the Lloyd s Register Group. Lloyd s Register is an exempt charity under the UK Charities Act Tel: Fax: asia@lr.org Tel: Fax: americas@lr.org External Affairs 26/03/09 28 of 27