RO
New Performance (White, Gray & Black List) List by Paris MOU
At its 48th meeting last month, the Paris MoU Committee approved the 2014 inspection results and adopted new performance lists for flags and Recognized Organizations. These lists will take effect from 1 July 2015.
The “White, Grey and Black (WGB) List” presents the full spectrum, from quality flags to flags with a poor performance that are considered high or very high risk. It is based on the total number of inspections and detentions over a 3-year rolling period for flags with at least 30 inspections in the period.
On the “White, Grey and Black list” for 2014, a total number of 72 flags are listed: 43 on the “White List”, 19 on the “Grey List” and 10 on the “Black list”. In 2013 the number of flags listed totalled 75 flags, namely 46 on the “White List”, 19 on the “Grey List” and 10 on the “Black List”.
The “White List” represents quality flags with a consistently low detention record. Compared with 2013, the number of flags on the “White List” has decreased by 3 flags to a total number of 43 flags. New on the “White List” is India, which was on the “Grey List” last year.
France has been placed highest on the list in terms of performance for the third year in a row. The next in line of the best performing flags in 2014 are Hong Kong, Bahamas, Norway and Sweden.
Flags with an average performance are shown on the “Grey List”. Their appearance on this list may act as an incentive to improve and move to the “White List”. At the same time flags at the lower end of the “Grey List” should be careful not to neglect control over their ships and risk ending up on the “Black List” next year.
On this year’s “Grey List” a total number of 19 flags is recorded. Last year the “Grey List” also recorded 19 flags. New on the “Grey List” are Spain, Lithuania, Poland and Thailand, which last year were on the “White List”.
Belize has fallen from the “Grey List” to the “Black List”. The poorest performing flags are the United Republic of Tanzania, Republic of Moldova, Togo, Cook Islands and Dominica.
For several years the Committee has closely monitored the performance of classification societies acting as ROs or flags. To calculate the performance of the Recognized Organizations, the same formula to calculate the excess factor of the flags is used. A minimum number of 60 inspections per RO are needed before the performance is taken into account for the list. In 2014 37 ROs are recorded on the performance list.
Among the best performing Recognized Organizations were:
- DNV GL AS (DNVGL)
- Det Norske Veritas (DNV)
- Lloyd’s Register (LR)
- American Bureau of Shipping (ABS)
- China Classification Society (CCS)
The lowest performing Recognized Organizations were:
- INCLAMAR
- International Register of Shipping (IS)
- Bulgarian Register of Shipping (BRS)
Compared with last year’s performance level, a small shift in RO performance in 2014 can be noticed. This year fewer organisations have been placed in the very low and low performing parts of the list and more organisations have been placed in the medium part of the list.
On 1 July 2015 the performance lists will be used for calculating the ship risk profile and flags on the “Grey List” and “Black List” are subject to the more stringent banning measures in force since 1 January 2011. More information can be found in the 2014 Annual Report, which will be released in July 2015.
This time Paris MOU released a single list for Flag state and ROs.
Source: Paris MOU
India: Carriage of oil as cargo in offshore Supply / Support Vessels and applicability of the provisions of MARPOL Annex I -reg.
DG Shipping issued clarification on carriage of oil as cargo in OSVs which is Corrigendum 1 to Engineering Circular No. 4 of 2013. The circular was an attempt at streamlining the procedures and aimed at avoiding misinterpretation by the stake holders. However, since issuance of the aforesaid circular, the Directorate has received requests from the Ship-owners, Recognised Organisations (ROs), seeking further clarification on the applicability of Regulation 26.4, Annex I of MARPOL Convention and also for providing clarification on the use of fuel oil from the cargo tank for the OSVs own use as ships bunker.
A. As per Regulation 26.4 of Annex I of MARPOL Convention, length of a cargo tank should not exceed 10 m or the values derived as per Regulation 26.4.1, 26.4.2 and 26.4.3, whichever is the greater. It has been brought to the Directorate’s notice, that many of the existing Offshore Supply/Support Vessels have cargo oil tanks for carriage of fuel oil, whose length exceed the length permitted in the above stated regulations, and therefore these tanks cannot be designated as cargo tanks, whereas they can be used as fuel oil bunker tanks on such OSVs. Taking into consideration, that one of the activity of these vessels, is to supply fuel oil to the offshore installation and on receipt of recommendations from the Recognized Organizations and clarification with respect to non-feasibility for alteration of these tanks to meet the requirement of Regulation 26.4 on the existing OSVs, the Directorate issues the following guidelines to be followed for survey and issuance of International Oil Pollution Prevention (IOPP) Certificate. This arrangement, however, is only applicable for OSVs delivered before 1 August 2010 :
(1) The aggregate cargo carrying capacity of any such vessel shall not exceed 1000m3 .
(2) The limitation in the size of the cargo tank, as required by Regulation 26.4, shall be complied by limiting the actual volume of the cargo carried in such tanks to a value proportionate; so as, not to exceed the volume determined by the calculation stated in Regulation 26.4, Annex I of MARPOL.
(3) The Stability Booklet, Cargo Plan and the IOPP Form ‘B’ shall mention the corrected volume of the Cargo tank and the same need to be suitably approved by the RO. The compliance with this requirement shall be evidenced by the Oil Record Book entries and all such documents of declaration of the vessels cargo carrying capacity. B. The Directorate has also been requested to clarify, on the permissibility of using the fuel oil from the cargo tank for the OSVs own use as ships bunker. Taking into consideration that the OSV may be away from the base for extended period, the Directorate has ‘no objection’ to the transfer of fuel oil from the cargo tank to the OSVs bunker tank, provided the transfer is documented in the Oil Record Book, as per requirement; and other obligation for Oil pollution prevention, and conforming to the standards in terms of the fuel oil quality, as per Regulation 18, Annex VI of MARPOL are complied with. The Recognised Organisation undertaking the International Oil Pollution Prevention (IOPP) surveys shall verify the compliance of the above, in addition to that mentioned in the Engineering Circular 4 of 2013. The non-compliance of the above requirements may warrant suitable intervention from the Flag State or Port State, including the detention of the concerned ship.
Source: DG Shipping
www.maritimesutra.com 