I:\MSC\83\9-5.DOC

For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copies.

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION

IMO

E

MARITIME SAFETY COMMITTEE 83rd session Agenda item 9

MSC 83/9/5 14 August 2007 Original: ENGLISH

SHIP DESIGN AND EQUIPMENT

MSC.1/Circ.1206 – Measures to prevent accidents with lifeboats

Submitted by the Bahamas, Dominica, Finland, BIMCO, CLIA, INTERCARGO,

INTERMANAGER, INTERTANKO, IPTA, OCIMF and SIGTTO

SUMMARY

Executive summary:

This document provides the Committee with proposals on suggested amendments to MSC.1/Circ.1206 to facilitate its effective implementation.

Action to be taken:

Paragraph 17

Related documents:

MSC.1/Circ.1206; MSC 81/25, paragraph 13.11; FSI 14/19, paragraphs 3.29 to 3.31; MSC 82/24; DE 50/27 and MSC 83/9

Introduction 1 This document is submitted in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 4.10.5 of the Guidelines on the organization and method of work (MSC-MEPC.1/Circ.1). Specifically this document is commenting on paragraph 27.1.11 of document DE 50/27. 2 MSC 82 recalled that MSC 81 had approved MSC.1/Circ.1206 on Measures to prevent accidents with lifeboats. MSC 81 further endorsed FP 50’s recommendation to refer matters related to the issue of whether the provisions of MSC.1/Circ.1206 should be made mandatory under the SOLAS Convention and/or the ISM Code to the FSI (FSI 14) and STW (STW 37) Sub-Committees for consideration and appropriate action. 3 Neither STW 37 nor FSI 14 could reach a firm decision on whether the circular should become mandatory in its entirety or which part should or should not be made mandatory and therefore invited Member States to submit to MSC 82 their recommendations on those areas of MSC.1/Circ.1206 which should or should not become mandatory under SOLAS. 4 MSC 82 recognized the existing difficulties in the implementation of the provisions contained in MSC.1/Circ.1206 and, while expressing support for the principle of making all or part of the above-mentioned provisions mandatory when the difficulties reported in the documents under consideration have been overcome, agreed to keep the circular non-mandatory at this stage. Concurrently, MSC 82 also agreed to refer the above-mentioned documents to DE 50 for detailed consideration and advice, in order that the final decision of the Committee on the matter becomes effective by 2010, at the latest (MSC 82/24, paragraph 10.6).

MSC 83/9/5 - 2 -

I:\MSC\83\9-5.DOC

5 DE 50 noted that consistent application of the provisions relating to training and certification of servicing personnel and organizations by the manufacturer and adequate geographical coverage of manufacturers’ representation are essential prerequisites for the rapid and mandatory implementation of MSC.1/Circ.1206. The Sub-Committee agreed that a correspondence group should develop guidance for qualification and certification of servicing personnel or organizations carrying out servicing and maintenance of lifeboats, launching appliances and on-load release gear, in line with the system described in the Recommendation on conditions for the approval of servicing stations for inflatable liferafts (resolution A.761(18)), particularly with regard to the approval of personnel and facilities in accordance with annex 1, paragraph 9 of the aforementioned circular, and report to DE 51 (DE 50/27, paragraphs 12.30 and 12.40). 6 Further, DE 50 noted that the group had agreed that ILAMA should report to DE 51 on progress in the establishment of servicing coverage worldwide, including co-ordination with non-ILAMA members, and further noted that, while a number of delegations were of the view that early implementation of MSC.1/Circ.1206 could be facilitated by amending it, as proposed by ICS et al in documents MSC 82/10/2, MSC 82/10/5, MSC 82/10/7, MSC 82/10/8, MSC 82/10/10 and MSC 82/10/11, the group, as a whole, had not supported amendments to MSC.1/Circ.1206 at this time, and had not further considered these documents (DE 50/27, paragraph 12.32). Discussion 7 The co-sponsors of this document support an effective inspection scheme for service and maintenance of lifeboats. However, because of difficulties experienced in the implementation of the provisions contained in annex 1 of MSC.1/Circ.1206, mainly related to the lack of world-wide servicing networks, it is considered premature and inappropriate to make MSC.1/Circ.1206 mandatory as currently written. 8 The co-sponsors of this document have experienced difficulties in complying with this circular and believe that the circular does not provide for transparency. These problems have raised a number of serious concerns, which include the lack of control over the original manufacturers, appropriate monitoring of service quality, unnecessary delays due to the unavailability of spare parts, lack of transparency of inspectors, potential distortion of market prices and possible creation of cartels. 9 With regard to these concerns, it has been noticed that there is a tendency among manufacturers not to approve independent service providers, although their competency and track records are excellent. This has resulted in a very limited number of approved service providers being made available worldwide which severely hampers the timely implementation of annual inspections intended to raise the level of safety for seafarers. The view of the co-sponsors is that there are very capable independent service providers around the world that can perform the inspections and maintenance of lifeboat functions without any degradation of safety to the ship’s crew. 10 On many occasions difficulties have been experienced in identifying an original manufacturer, as they have ceased to exist. On those occasions an independent service provider has been assigned to and carried out the work very satisfactorily. However, the existing original manufacturers’ hesitation to approve these independent service providers is making the circular, as now written, extremely limiting in providing the necessary services worldwide, and consequently even more difficult to mandate in the future. 11 Since the circular has been issued, vessels frequently have not been able to obtain an authorized manufacturer’s service representative to attend onboard to undertake the service in accordance with the circular, even after thorough advanced notification of the requirement has

- 3 - MSC 83/9/5

I:\MSC\83\9-5.DOC

been given to the manufacturer, the consequences of which are that the class society has not been able to endorse the Cargo Ship Safety Equipment Certificate. This is clearly the result of the lack of or non-existence of the original manufacturer’s service representative network. 12 On several occasions original manufacturers have required that their original spare parts be used before issuing an annual inspection certificate. This gives cause for concern with regard to the transparency of some inspectors and manufacturers. It is therefore believed that the lack of control over the original manufacturers must be addressed before the circular is made mandatory. 13 A number of ships are outfitted with equipment manufactured by different manufacturers. For example, the davit, the hook system and the lifeboat may all be independently manufactured. To comply with the circular as it is now written, these elements would have to be inspected independently by three different inspectors every year. There is the utmost confidence that certain independent service providers do have the competence to inspect, maintain and certify multiple pieces of equipment, and it would make sense for the flag Administration of a ship or a recognized organization acting on behalf of the flag Administration to be allowed to exercise its authority to authorize them to do so. Proposal 14 In view of the above, it is therefore suggested that the circular be amended to allow, in addition to the original manufacturer’s authorized servicing personnel and organizations, Administrations or their recognized organizations to authorize independent service providers to carry out the necessary inspections and maintenance without prior authorization from the original manufacturer. It is firmly believed that this amendment will provide the fundamental provisions necessary to safeguard that competition and competencies are maintained and made available to the industry. Such authorization should be based upon guidelines developed by the Organization. In this regard, the development work could be undertaken by the DE Sub-Committee through its correspondence group which is currently tasked with developing the qualifications and certification requirements for personnel carrying out inspection and maintenance of lifeboats, rescue boats, launching and release systems. This suggestion is believed to be in accordance with paragraph 3.45 of the Guidelines on the organization and method of work (MSC-MEPC.1/Circ.1). 15 The co-sponsors of this document recognize that this procedure is different than that used for the testing of liferafts. However, in order to enhance safety for seafarers who now are using equipment which may be dangerous, there is a need to ensure that annual inspections are undertaken as soon as possible, by competent personnel other than just those of the manufacturers. Further, flag Administrations or their recognized organizations should be considered fully capable of assessing and approving competent independent service providers for this purpose without the authorization of the original manufacturers, who may not even exist any more. 16 In addition, we propose that 2010 might be a reasonable juncture at which the Organization could re-consider its position on the status of this circular (either in whole or parts thereof), having allowed a reasonable transitional period to pass for the practical implementation of this scheme to be evaluated. Action requested of the Committee 17 The Committee is invited to consider the proposals in paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 and decide as appropriate.

___________