consistent implementation of regulation 14.1.3 of …....1 develop draft guidelines for consistent...

I:\PPR\06\PPR 6-8.docx

E

SUB-COMMITTEE ON POLLUTION PREVENTION AND RESPONSE 6th session Agenda item 8

PPR 6/8

18 July 2018 Original: ENGLISH

CONSISTENT IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATION 14.1.3 OF MARPOL ANNEX VI

Report of the Intersessional Meeting on Consistent implementation

of regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI (ISWG-AP 1)

Note by the Secretariat

SUMMARY

Executive summary: This report of the Intersessional Meeting on Consistent implementation of regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI is submitted to PPR 6 for approval

Strategic direction, if applicable:

1

Output: 1.17

Action to be taken: Paragraph 76

Related documents: MEPC 73/5; PPR 5/24; MEPC 72/5/2, MEPC 72/5/7, MEPC 72/17 and all documents submitted to ISWG-AP 1

Introduction 1 The Intersessional Meeting on Consistent implementation of regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI (ISWG-AP 1) met from 9 to 13 July 2018, and was chaired by Mr. Wayne Lundy (United States). 2 The Intersessional Meeting was attended by delegates from the following Member Governments:

ARGENTINA AUSTRALIA BAHAMAS BELGIUM BRAZIL CANADA CHILE CHINA COOK ISLANDS CYPRUS DENMARK ESTONIA

FINLAND FRANCE GERMANY GHANA GREECE INDIA IRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF) ITALY JAPAN LIBERIA MALAYSIA MALTA

PPR 6/8


MARSHALL ISLANDS MEXICO NETHERLANDS NIGERIA NORWAY PANAMA PERU PHILIPPINES REPUBLIC OF KOREA RUSSIAN FEDERATION

SAUDI ARABIA SINGAPORE SOUTH AFRICA SPAIN SWEDEN SWITZERLAND TURKEY UNITED ARAB EMIRATES UNITED KINGDOM UNITED STATES

by a representative from the following Associate Member of IMO: HONG KONG, CHINA by a representative from the following United Nations and Specialized Agency:

THE REGIONAL MARINE POLLUTION EMERGENCY RESPONSE CENTRE FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA (REMPEC)

by an observer from the following intergovernmental organization:

EUROPEAN COMMISSION (EC) and by observers from the following non-governmental organizations in consultative status:

INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF SHIPPING (ICS) INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION (ISO) BIMCO INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES (IACS) OIL COMPANIES INTERNATIONAL MARINE FORUM (OCIMF) INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF MARINE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS (ICOMIA) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT TANKER OWNERS (INTERTANKO) COMMUNITY OF EUROPEAN SHIPYARDS' ASSOCIATIONS (CESA) SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL GAS TANKER AND TERMINAL OPERATORS LIMITED (SIGTTO) CRUISE LINES INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION (CLIA) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DRY CARGO SHIPOWNERS (INTERCARGO) IPIECA THE INSTITUTE OF MARINE ENGINEERING, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (IMAREST) INTERNATIONAL PARCEL TANKERS ASSOCIATION (IPTA) THE INTERNATIONAL MARINE CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION (IMCA) THE ROYAL INSTITUTION OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS (RINA) INTERNATIONAL BUNKER INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (IBIA) INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT WORKERS' FEDERATION (ITF) WORLD SHIPPING COUNCIL (WSC)

PPR 6/8


Terms of reference 3 The terms of reference for the Intersessional Meeting, as agreed by PPR 5, were as follows:

The Intersessional Meeting on Consistent implementation of regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI is instructed, taking into account the comments and decisions made at PPR 5, the work plan endorsed at PPR 5 and documents considered at PPR 5 under agenda items 12 and 13, and documents submitted to this Intersessional Meeting, to:

.1 develop draft Guidelines for consistent implementation of regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI, based on the outline of the draft Guidelines prepared at PPR 5, as set out in annex 5 to document PPR 5/WP.6;

.2 develop the following draft amendments to MARPOL Annex VI with an

expected entry into force in summer 2021:

.1 definition of "Sulphur content" (amendments to regulation 2); and

.2 testing and verification procedure of in-use fuel oil samples

(amendments to regulation 14 and associated consequential amendments to regulation 18 and appendix VI);

.3 develop draft amendments, as appropriate, to the following existing

Guidelines:

.1 2009 Guidelines for port State control under the revised MARPOL Annex VI (resolution MEPC.181(59));

.2 2010 Guidelines for monitoring the worldwide average

sulphur content of fuel oils supplied for use on board ships (resolution MEPC.192(61), as amended by resolution MEPC.273(69)); and

.3 Guidelines for onboard sampling for the verification of the

sulphur content of the fuel oil used on board ships (MEPC.1/Circ.864);

.4 with regard to the output of "Amendments to regulation 14 of MARPOL

Annex VI to require a dedicated sampling point for fuel oil": .1 develop draft amendments to regulation 14 of MARPOL

Annex VI, using document PPR 5/12 as a basis; and .2 consider the need to develop new guidelines or revise the

Guidelines for onboard sampling for the verification of the sulphur content of the fuel oil used on board ships (MEPC.1/Circ.864); and

.5 submit a report to PPR 6.

PPR 6/8


Opening of the meeting 4 The Assistant Secretary-General, Mr. Stefan Micallef, on behalf of the Secretary-General, welcomed the delegates and noted the importance of the meeting to the efforts of the Organization to address the effective implementation of the regulation. 5 In his introductory remarks, the Chair recalled that MEPC 70 had agreed to the date of 1 January 2020 as the effective date of implementation for ships to comply with the 0.50% m/m sulphur content of fuel oil requirement, as set out in regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI. Noting that this date will not change the Chair identified that this provision may bring a paradigm shift in the industry, therefore experts gathered in this Meeting were encouraged to do their best to facilitate consistent implementation by 1 January 2020. Adoption of the agenda 6 The Meeting adopted the agenda for the meeting (ISWG-AP 1/1) and agreed to be guided in its work by document ISWG-AP 1/1/2, containing annotations to the provisional agenda and the list of documents submitted to this session, and invited the Meeting to use it as a guide for the work ahead. Outcome of MEPC 72 7 The Meeting noted document ISWG-AP 1/1/1 (Secretariat), providing the outcome of MEPC 72 concerning the consistent implementation of regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI and that this document would be referred to when relevant items were considered during the meeting. Ship implementation planning for 2020 8 The Meeting recalled that MEPC 72, having considered the recommendation by PPR 5, had authorized the Intersessional Meeting to report its outcome concerning the development of guidance on ship implementation planning for 2020 to MEPC 73, for consideration and action, as appropriate (MEPC 72/17, paragraph 5.8). 9 The Meeting agreed that the development of the "ship implementation planning for 2020" should be finalized at this meeting for submission to MEPC 73 and, therefore, this consideration should be prioritized during this meeting. 10 The Meeting considered the proposed text for ship implementation planning for 2020 provided in documents ISWG-AP 1/2/7 (India) and ISWG-AP 1/2/8 (Norway et al.). 11 In the ensuing discussion the following comments, inter alia, were made:

.1 document ISWG-AP 1/2/8 can be taken as a basis but the guidance should not make any reference to the need for endorsement by a third party for review, verification or consideration;

.2 the ship implementation plan should not have to be endorsed by the

Administration. Rather than developing guidance on ship implementation planning for 2020, the Meeting could develop an "indicative example" of ship implementation plan;

.3 there is great value in early preparation for the ship implementation plan

however the plan should not be mandatory;

PPR 6/8


.4 consideration should be given by PSCOs to ships experiencing difficulties to comply with the new regulation. PSCOs should be invited to adopt a pragmatic and practical approach;

.5 the Meeting should bring to the attention of the Committee that, in the context

of port State control inspection, the reference to the term "pragmatic approach" used in MSC.1/Circ.1548 concerning SOLAS requirements for verified gross mass of packed containers was first made during PPR 5;

.6 the precedents previously mentioned were related to regulations that were

already into force, and for which it was recognized that PSC authorities faced difficulties whereas this is a totally different position, with a forthcoming effective date of implementation, so we would refrain from referring to "practical and pragmatic approach" and prefer to have a reference to the obligation for stakeholders to be ready on 1 January 2020;

.7 reference to "pragmatic approach" could be included in the draft Guidelines

for consistent implementation of regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI but not in the MEPC circular on the ship implementation plan;

.8 experience of the implementation of the ECA showed that Administrations

had taken a pragmatic approach; .9 the endorsement of the ship implementation plan by the Administration

should be kept as an option for the ship; .10 the period of three months should not be seen as a transition period but a

period for pragmatic enforcement. The industry is not advocating for a transition period after 1 January 2020. Setting a period of pragmatic enforcement would be a recognition that shipowners and operators face difficulties to be compliant by the applicable date; and

.11 it is up to the PSCOs' decision and responsibility whether and to what extent

the ship implementation plan should be taken into account during port State control.

12 Following discussion, the Meeting agreed to develop a draft MEPC circular on guidance on ship implementation planning for 2020, using the annex to document ISWG-AP 1/2/8 as a basis. 13 In the ensuing discussion the following comments, inter alia, were made:

.1 most parts of the draft MEPC circular proposed in document ISWG-AP 1/2/8 are relevant to Member States therefore it should be redrafted to be more focused on its use by shipowners and operators;

.2 the draft MEPC circular should be more focussed on the benefits the early

implementation would have for all stakeholders rather than on the challenges and difficulties. The guidance should emphasize the facilitation process undertaken to ensure consistent implementation of regulation 14.1.3;

.3 the title of the ship implementation plan template should refer to "0.50%" and

not "0.5%", and should not refer to "sulphur cap" but to "sulphur limit";

PPR 6/8


.4 the intent of the ship implementation plan is to recognize the significant challenge faced by owners and operators therefore it is intended to be a temporary plan and this needs to be reflected in the draft MEPC circular;

.5 the draft ship implementation plan includes actions to be taken before and

after 1 January 2020 therefore it could be divided into two parts, one relevant for actions to be taken prior to 1 January 2020 and one on relevant for continuing action after 1 January 2020;

.6 the status of the ship implementation plan should be clarified, especially if it

is supposed to be used as a guidance for PSCOs; .7 the ship implementation plan should also be used to show what the ship has

done to be compliant. Reference to EGCSs should be very limited since there are other existing instruments that provide for SOX compliance plans;

.8 documentary evidence should be addressed in the framework of the

ISM Code, and it should be for each company to decide how to manage documents on-board and the period of validity of the ship implementation plan;

.9 the MEPC circular should make explicit that the ship implementation plan is

relevant only for fuel-related methods of compliance and would apply only to ships not fitted with EGCS because they already have a SOX emission compliance plan (SECP);

.10 the ship implementation plan would need to be complemented with a record

of actions undertaken by the ship to be compliant by the applicable date; .11 the ship implementation plan could make reference to technical options as

identified in resolution MEPC.282(70) on the 2016 Guidelines for the development of a Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP);

.12 integration of the draft text for ships implementation planning proposed by

document ISWG-AP 1/2/7 could be discussed, but other parts of this document are out of the scope of the ship implementation plan and should be considered as part of the discussion on the guidelines;

.13 the guidance could make reference to the industry guidance on fuel blending

developed by the International Council on Combustion Engines (CIMAC); .14 the guidance should not give the impression that tank cleaning is a

prerequisite for compliance; .15 the guidance should recognize that there will be a wide variability among

compliant fuels; .16 the implementation of regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI should by no

means impede safety. Compliance will be by far more difficult than when ECAs for SOX emission control are implemented and document ISWG-AP 1/2/12 provides relevant information on safety implications associated with 2020 compliant fuel oils;

.17 it is of prime importance for the Meeting and for its parent bodies to identify

and resolve the safety issues raised in the documents;

PPR 6/8


.18 there is a relative unfamiliarity of ships' crew regarding blended fuels on-board, therefore training effort should be addressed in the guidelines;

.19 there is a concern that existing legislation does not provide any control of fuel

mixes that will be required to ensure compliance; .20 any safety issue should be reported directly to MEPC 73 rather than to

PPR 6 so that it can be discussed by MSC 100 in December 2018; .21 two different concerns have been raised during the discussion: the first is fuel

quality and the second is safety issues during the transitional period (tank cleaning, onboard blending, etc.). Those two different kind of issues should be clearly distinguished;

.22 tank heating aspects as described in document ISWG-AP 1/2/7 should be

included; .23 while it was understood that the ship implementation plan would be voluntary,

some wording in the proposed text could imply that it would be mandatory. This ambiguity should be removed. The plan should also include a reference to the fuel changeover between two incompatible fuel oils;

.24 reference to Fatty Acid Methyl Easter (FAME) should not be included in the

ship implementation plan as there are already existing requirements for these products carried as a cargo and reference to them in the plan could generate confusion;

.25 the ship implementation plan should not imply that use of off-spec blended

fuels would become a normal practice; .26 the intention of paragraph 6 of annex to document ISWG-AP 1/2/8 on PSC

inspections to focus on the ship implementation plan could be included at least in square brackets and left for the decision of the Committee;

.27 a date could be added to highlight that this plan should be temporary; .28 fuels supplied should be in line with ISO marine fuel specifications when it

comes to flash points, cat fines, etc. therefore it is suggested to consider the wording used by OCIMF, i.e. that fuel suppliers should be expected to deliver compliant fuels but due to supply issues, fuels may be closer to the specification limits, therefore shipowners and operators should be more alert;

.29 the ship implementation plan should not be a mandatory requirement but the

PSCOs, in exercising their professional judgement, may ask to see the plan if available;

.30 it should be left up to the shipowner to decide if the ship implementation plan

needs to be endorsed by the Administration or an organization recognized by it, since some shipowners may want to see the plan reviewed by a third party;

.31 the expiry date of the ship implementation plan should be

after 1 January 2020 for PSC purposes;

PPR 6/8


.32 "non-compliance" relates both to the sulphur content of fuel oil and to fuel quality issues; and

.33 it is understood that contamination issues after bunkering of

non-compliant fuels in clean tanks, would last only one bunkering session, therefore it remains unclear what the ship is expected to do in that situation.

14 Following consideration, the Meeting agreed that the ship implementation plan would not have a mandatory nature and would not need to be endorsed by the Administration. The Meeting could not agree on the inclusion of reference to "practical and pragmatic approach by port State control authorities" in the draft MEPC circular, and therefore invited MEPC 73 to consider this matter and decide as appropriate. 15 The Meeting noted that some aspects of the ship implementation plan could be also relevant for the discussion on the development of amendments to the 2009 Guidelines for port State control under the revised MARPOL Annex VI. 16 The representative of ISO delivered a statement as set out in annex 6. The Meeting noted in particular that 0.50% maximum sulphur fuel oils would be fully capable of being categorized within the existing ISO 8217 standard and that the publicly available specifications (PAS) under development expected to be published next year would provide guidance as to the application of the existing ISO 8217 standard to such fuel oils. 17 Several participants expressed the view that ISO should provide further guidance on how the ISO 8217 standard can be applied to 0.50% sulphur fuel oils. 18 Following consideration, the Meeting finalized the draft MEPC circular on Guidance on the development of a ship implementation plan for the consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI, as set out in annex 1. The Meeting invited MEPC 73 to decide the square brackets around paragraph 3 of the draft MEPC circular, and approve it. Identification of safety issues with regard to low-sulphur fuel oil 19 The Meeting recalled that MEPC 72 reiterated its decision at MEPC 71 that the PPR Sub-Committee should report to MSC any safety issues that might be identified with regard to low-sulphur fuel oil (MEPC 72/17, paragraph 5.7). 20 The Meeting noted that MSC 99 had noted that the outcome of the consideration of MEPC 73 of the report of this Meeting concerning safety issues that might be identified with regard to low-sulphur oil fuel would be reported to MSC 100, for its consideration (MSC 99/22, paragraph 2.3). 21 The Meeting acknowledged that the draft MEPC circular on Guidance on the development of a ship implementation plan for the consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI had addressed some safety issues identified with regard to low-sulphur fuel oil, in particular through the section on risk assessment (section 1) and additional guidances provided on impact on machinery systems and tank cleaning (appendix 1 and appendix 2, respectively). 22 In view of the above, the Meeting considered the identification of further potential safety implications based on the annex to document ISWG-AP 1/2/12 (Liberia et al.).

PPR 6/8


23 In the ensuing discussion the following comments, inter alia, were made:

.1 if crews are expected to undertake risk assessments as part of the ship implementation plan it is important that the necessary information on the compatibility of fuel oils is provided;

.2 OCIMF and IPIECA are preparing guidance to address the risks as part of a

multi-stakeholder exercise and this will bring together all matters that have been identified into one technical document. OCIMF and IPIECA invite experts from other organizations and Member States to join this effort. Furthermore, OCIMF and IPIECA intend to consider the development of training materials on the basis of the guidance;

.3 the significant issue is the "compatibility" of new blended fuel oils and,

importantly for ship safety, how the crews can test for it. Current "spot" test not considered adequate; for some ships it is physically not possible, due to lack of tankage, to segregate fuels to prevent commingling;

.4 a matrix identifying which new blended fuel oils are compatible with other

new blended fuel oils should be developed and disseminated; .5 the current compatibility test is potentially limited and work is going on to

develop a new test with the Energy Institute; .6 attention of the Meeting is brought to document MEPC 71/9/5 (Belgium et al.)

on experience gained from the introduction of new fuel blends compliant with the 0.10% sulphur limit in SECAs. Relevant guidance has been broadly circulated and is already available. We are confident that the ship implementation plan will help shipowners and operators and crew members to ensure consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur content limit;

.7 the safety challenges are not new, but it is noted that ships are having an

increasing amount of machinery e.g. EGCS; .8 it is possible that in the transition to newly formulated fuels there may be an

increased frequency of off-specification fuels delivered; .9 ISO has confirmed that ISO 8217 already covers the new blended fuels and

that whilst there may be an issue with the "spot" test it will provide a result that fuels that are compatible are shown to be "incompatible";

.10 issues highlighted are already safety concerns today, and the efforts to

develop industry guidance are supported. However, a lot of work has already been done on that matter to assist the sector, including through ISO who have already been requested by the Committee, and so care is required on what is sent to MSC; some test methods that can be done by the fuel oil testing services are not routinely tasked;

.11 it is a challenge for the industry as they do not know in detail which fuels will

be supplied for the market in 2020, however, reference to regulation 18 of MARPOL Annex VI is important as it identifies the obligations on the Parties; and

.12 a lot of hard work is going on and even if those issues are not new, they will

become more prevalent in 2020;

PPR 6/8


.13 the group cannot send a list of safety issues to MSC 100, therefore we need to frame the information to be forwarded to MSC and to provide some action suggestions;

.14 a report of the discussion in this Meeting to MSC should be enough together

with the highlight that IMO has already requested ISO to work on that topic; and

.15 shipowners and operators do not find answers to all their questions in the

existing ISO standards. 24 The delegation of the Netherlands supported by several other delegations made a statement as set out in annex 6. 25 Following consideration, the Meeting identified further potential safety implications as follows:

.1 stability of blended fuel oil; .2 compatibility, including new tests and metrics appropriate for future fuels; .3 cold flow properties; .4 acid number; .5 flash point; .6 ignition quality; and .7 cat fines.

26 The Meeting recalled that ISO had already been requested by the Committee to update the marine fuel oil standard including associated guidance, and expressed its highest appreciation for the initiative taken by, inter alia, ISO, OCIMF, IPIECA, CIMAC and the Energy Institute to develop industry guidance and possibly training materials for all interested stakeholders including seafarers. Report to MEPC 73 27 The Meeting requested the Secretariat to report to MEPC 73 the outcome on the development of draft MEPC circular on Guidance on the development of a ship implementation plan for the consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI and the related discussion on safety implications associated with the use of low-sulphur fuel oil (paragraphs 19 to 26). 28 The Meeting agreed to recommend MEPC 73 to invite MSC 100 to consider the outcome of this Meeting concerning the safety implications associated with the use of low-sulphur fuel oil, and take action as appropriate, noting the initiative of industry organizations to develop industry guidance and possibly training materials.

PPR 6/8


Development of draft Guidelines for consistent implementation of regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI 29 The Meeting recalled that PPR 5 had agreed to develop a single set of guidelines on "Consistent implementation of regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI" (PPR 5/24, paragraph 13.7) with the outline of the draft Guidelines set out in annex 5 to document PPR 5/WP.6. 30 The Meeting noted:

.1 that MEPC 72, having considered document MEPC 72/5/2 (Secretariat), providing information that has been received by the Secretariat from ISO on its work related to the consideration of the framework of ISO 8217, had forwarded the document to this Meeting for information (MEPC 72/17, paragraph 5.10); and

.2 document ISWG-AP 1/2 (Secretariat), providing indicative suggestions to

assist the Meeting in preparing draft Guidelines for consistent implementation of regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI, based on the outline of the Guidelines agreed by PPR 5, in order for Member States and international organizations to submit relevant proposed text of the Guidelines.

31 The Meeting had for its consideration the following documents:

.1 ISWG-AP 1/2/1 (India), providing text of "guidance and information sharing on fuel oil non-availability" and "standard format for reporting fuel oil non-availability";

.2 ISWG-AP 1/2/2 (Secretariat), providing information on the recent updates of

the GISIS MARPOL Annex VI module specifically concerning consistent implementation of regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI;

.3 ISWG-AP 1/2/3 (Republic of Korea), providing text of "preparation of steam

ships"; .4 ISWG-AP 1/2/4 (Panama et al.), highlighting the importance of

communication of fuel oil non-availability to the Organization during the implementation phase; and providing a draft standard format for reporting fuel oil non-availability that might be used to document if a ship is unable to obtain fuel oil compliant with the provisions stipulated in regulations 14.1.3, 14.4.3 and 18.3 of MARPOL Annex VI;

.5 ISWG-AP 1/2/5 (Japan), providing text of draft Guidelines for consistent

implementation of regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI in accordance with the outline agreed at PPR 5 and the indicative draft text provided in document ISWG-AP 1/2, stressing that the ship implementation plan should not be endorsed by the Administration or subject to inspection by Port State Control Officers;

.6 ISWG-AP 1/2/6 (Austria et al.), providing a draft standard format for Fuel Oil

Non-Availability Reports (FONARs) and proposing information sharing on FONARs;

PPR 6/8


.7 ISWG-AP 1/2/7 (India), providing draft text for section on "assessment of potential impact on machinery systems with the use of new fuel oils", "impact on fuel and machinery systems" and "guidance on the importance of fuel oil management on board";

.8 ISWG-AP 1/2/8 (Norway et al.), providing text for a draft MEPC circular

calling on Member States to encourage ships flying their flags to develop written implementation plans, together with a draft template for a ship specific implementation plan suggested to be valid for a period of three months after 1 January 2020;

.9 ISWG-AP 1/2/9 (IBIA), proposing to issue guidelines to promote a uniform

approach to fuel oil testing and reporting protocol for verification of compliance with MARPOL Annex VI sulphur limits, and to issue specific guidelines for the testing and verification procedure of in-use fuel oil samples ahead of proposed regulatory amendments which would not take effect until mid-2021;

.10 ISWG-AP 1/2/10 (OCIMF and IPIECA), highlighting fuel related aspects that

ships would need to consider when preparing for the implementation of regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI, with particular attention to potential safety implications and stressing that safety aspects should be addressed in the ship implementation plan;

.11 ISWG-AP 1/2/11 (IBIA), providing information on options available for

cleaning fuel oil tanks and systems which could be helpful when developing implementation plans for individual ships; and

.12 ISWG-AP 1/2/12 (Liberia et al.), providing technical information to ensure

that safety risks associated with the transition to 0.50% m/m sulphur fuel are properly considered; and suggesting to bring this issue to the attention of MSC 100.

32 In the ensuing discussion, the following general comments, inter alia, were made:

.1 the guidelines should be useful, not just for the implementation by 1 January 2020, but for achieving, maintaining compliance and supporting the work of the Parties. The guidance should avoid reiteration of regulatory text. The FONAR should focus on "0.50% fuel oils" rather than on "compliant fuel oils". Care should be given to ensure that a document that is not made mandatory by the Convention is not considered mandatory; and

.2 the text of the Guidelines should not include a comprehensive list of all

possible adverse impacts. 33 The Meeting considered the development of the draft Guidelines for consistent implementation of regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI, taking into account all documents submitted under this agenda item and relevant documents submitted to PPR 5. Title of the Guidelines 34 The Meeting recalled that MEPC 72 had approved draft amendments to regulation 14 of MARPOL Annex VI concerning the prohibition on the carriage of non-compliant fuel oil for combustion purposes for propulsion or operation on board a ship, with a view to adoption at MEPC 73. In the draft amendments, provision of current regulation 14.1.3 (0.50% m/m on and

PPR 6/8


after 1 January 2020) was incorporated into the draft revised regulation 14.1 and the existing regulation 14.1.3 was deleted, therefore "regulation 14.1.3" would no longer exist when the amendments enter into force. In this regard, the Meeting considered an appropriate title of the Guidelines and agreed to recommend the following title for consideration by the Sub-Committee: "Guidelines for consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI." Definitions 35 The Meeting, having considered suggestions from the Republic of Korea to add a section on "Definitions" in the Guidelines, together with several draft definitions, agreed to add a placeholder for definitions for further consideration. 36 In the ensuing discussion, the following comments, inter alia, were made:

.1 adding definitions, such as "HS-HFO", "LS-HFO" or "blended fuels" in the Guidelines would be helpful;

.2 the words "shall not exceed 0.50% limit" are used in MARPOL Annex VI

therefore the Guidelines should stick to that language; .3 the definition section should refer to "blended fuels" rather than "blending

fuels"; .4 reference should be made to the existing SOLAS regulation forbidding the

blending of cargo on board; and .5 whether the product has been blended before supply should not be an issue

for the shipowner or operator as long as it is stable, homogenous and follows ISO specifications.

Preparation of steam ships 37 The Meeting considered proposed text for preparation of steam ships as provided in document ISWG-AP 1/2/3. In the ensuing discussion the following comments, inter alia, were made:

.1 contents and provisions proposed are equally applicable to all boilers installed on board ships including boilers on VLCCs, therefore it is suggested to delete this paragraph; and

.2 everything is covered elsewhere in the Guidelines therefore this section

should be deleted. 38 Following consideration, the Meeting decided to remove this section from the draft Guidelines. Impact on fuel and machinery systems 39 The Meeting considered section 2 of the draft Guidelines addressing impact on fuel and machinery systems. In the ensuing discussion the following comments, inter alia, were made:

.1 it is suggested that proposed text for the use of non-petroleum fuels could be put in square brackets for further consideration;

PPR 6/8


.2 the current wording of regulation 18.3.2.2.2 precludes the development of non-petroleum marine fuels;

.3 there is a concern that current ISO standards don't address incompatibility

assessment; .4 shipowners should make sure not to take unstable fuels on board; .5 crew on board cannot make stability tests which are time consuming;

compatibility should be tested somewhere else, not on board ships; and commingling test should not be introduced on board as a normal practice but the crew could arrange for samples to be taken on board;

.6 the latest edition of ISO 8217 specifications addresses the case of renewable

marine fuels; and .7 much of this topic is sufficiently covered by industry guidance; the Guidelines

should make reference to experience gained from existing SECAs, but should not make any reference to fuel prices.

Verification issues and control mechanisms and actions 40 The Meeting recalled that MEPC 72 had re-established the Correspondence Group on Fuel oil quality and had instructed it to finalize the draft best practice for Member States/coastal States and submit a report to MEPC 73 (MEPC 72/17, paragraph 5.12). 41 The Meeting considered section 3 of the draft Guidelines addressing verification issues and control mechanisms and actions, taking into account the text proposed in document ISWG-AP 1/2/5. In the ensuing discussion the following comments, inter alia, were made:

.1 the added value of the Guidelines could be on the actions to be taken to prepare the transition and be ready for the effective date, after that date, it is expected that the Survey Guidelines under the Harmonized System of Survey and Certification (HSSC), 2017 (resolution A.1120(30)) could provide a sufficient framework; there are some concerns about how the paragraph is drafted as PSC and violations are very different matters;

.2 allowing PSCOs to require MARPOL samples to be analysed is not in

accordance with MARPOL Annex VI and therefore should be removed; .3 the terms "remote sensing" and "portable device" should be further

explained; .4 there needs to be consistency in the language used; e.g. "Party" and

"Administration"; .5 it is not for the port State to authorize the ship without compliant fuel oil to

sail towards next port to bunker, it is for the flag State to allow that; .6 ships are not made for a speedy de-bunkering and in some regions there

might be some ports that will not accept ships to de-bunker according to their practices and regulations;

PPR 6/8


.7 when addressing sampling methodologies, the Guidelines shouldn't keep two different methodologies (ISO 8754 and ISO 4259) but should only make reference to appendix VI of MARPOL Annex VI as amended;

.8 both authorizations of port State and flag State are required to permit the

voyage to next port, especially in the light of regulation 18; .9 as requested by regulation 18.10.1, PSC authorities should inform the State

under whose jurisdiction a BDN was issued of cases of delivery of non-compliant fuel oil with relevant information;

.10 fuel oil non-availability (regulation 18.2.4) should not be automatically linked

to non-compliance as observed by PSC authorities; .11 the ship is not required to confirm compliance but it has indications towards

compliance and this documentation should be made available to PSCOs. However, this information is often not shared with other stakeholders (fuel suppliers, flag States, etc.). In general the sharing of information could be improved;

.12 it is at least worth noting in the Guidelines that continuous emission

monitoring is available and used by a hundred or more ships; .13 the Guidelines could refer to existing IMO instruments on how to keep log of

fuel consumption on board; .14 the Guidelines could state that open-sea monitoring tools are a means to

control compliance of the fuel changeover from 0.10% to 0.50% fuel oils and a list of compliance tools would be appreciated;

.15 for some ships fitted with EGCS it might happen that not all engines on board

will be linked to the scrubbers; .16 any useful information should be kept in the draft Guidelines to make them

as comprehensive as possible; .17 the section on control on fuel oil suppliers should not be included; .18 the section on control on fuel oil suppliers should remain within the

Guidelines as there are already provisions for fuel oil suppliers in MARPOL Annex VI;

.19 most fuels will be supplied with products very close to the 0.50% limit,

therefore we need to send a clear and strong message to suppliers in this section;

.20 establishing a prohibition for fuel oil suppliers to supply non-compliant fuel oil

might exceed IMO's mandate; .21 preventive control on the fuel supplied is relevant as it supports consistent

implementation of the MARPOL regulation; .22 in the case of compliant fuel oil non-availability the language used in the

working document could prevent ships to be supplied and therefore to operate;

PPR 6/8


.23 ongoing work by the Correspondence Group on Fuel oil quality should be referred to in the report;

.24 inclusion of the 95% confidence limit reduces the stringency of regulation; .25 Guidelines cannot be used to override what is already in regulation 18 of

MARPOL Annex VI; and .26 port State should also take action in case non-compliance is detected based

on document inspection, not only based on analysis of MARPOL samples and in-use fuel samples.

Fuel oil non-availability 42 The Meeting considered the issue of fuel oil non-availability taking into account the text proposed in documents ISWG-AP 1/2/1 and ISWG-AP 1/2/5. The Secretariat provided information through a presentation on the MARPOL Annex VI GISIS module and its recent updates. 43 In the ensuing discussion the following comments, inter alia, were made:

.1 once compliant fuel oil is received on board, the ship should cease to use non-compliant fuel oil. The remaining non-compliant fuel oil onboard should be disposed to reception facilities at the first port where such reception facility is available. Proper documentation of the quantity of remaining non-compliant fuel oil retained until discharge to reception facility should be kept on board;

.2 there is a need to clarify the terms used when reference is made to the port

where non-availability is observed; guidance on de-bunkering procedures would also be needed for port States and flag States to deal with ships having remaining non-compliant fuel on board;

.3 wording used should be consistent along the Guidelines and rather than

using "Party" and "non-Party", it is suggested to use "flag States" and "port States";

.4 allowing the supplying of non-compliant fuel to ships not fitted with EGCS

would undermine consistent implementation of the requirements and it is important to maintain a level playing field;

.5 it is unclear how "wilful non-compliance" will be determined and "wilful

non-compliance" is not a PSC matter but a court prosecution judgement; .6 everybody accepts that there will be regional variability in compliant fuel

supply and that it needs to be appreciated in the Guidelines; and .7 the situation where a ship discovers later that it has

non-compliant fuel on board needs to be addressed, in particular the Meeting should determine if the FONAR form is relevant for that matter.

PPR 6/8


44 Several delegations noted that when the provisions prohibiting the carriage of non-compliant fuel oil enter into force there will be an issue of disposal of remaining non-compliant fuel on board. Furthermore this fuel oil could be considered as having a commercial value and so not treated as waste. The Meeting noted that there was a need for further guidance on this matter. Development of a standard format for reporting fuel oil non-availability (FONAR) 45 The Meeting considered the development of a standard format for reporting fuel oil non-availability (FONAR). 46 The Meeting agreed to use the template provided in annex to document ISWG-AP 1/2/6 as a basis for further discussion. In the ensuing discussion the following comments, inter alia, were made:

.1 the FONAR should not go beyond provisions of MARPOL Annex VI; .2 the experience of FONARs in the North American SECA showed that

explanatory notes at the beginning of the FONAR are useful; .3 the FONAR should be structured to serve both purposes: SECA-compliant

fuel oil non-availability and 0.50% fuel oil non-availability elsewhere. The FONAR should be equally applicable to ECAs and non-ECA situations of compliant fuel oil non-availability as the ship may not know if it will proceed inside an ECA;

.4 the aim of the FONAR is to report non-availability of compliant fuel in the last

port of call, therefore there is no reason to add the whole voyage history of the ship, especially since port history data could be misinterpreted, for long voyage availability data in the last port can change during the voyage;

.5 voyage history can provide relevant information on the availability of

compliant fuels but we have to find a balance in order to avoid excessive administrative burden;

.6 it should be identified that "compliance" in the FONAR relates to "sulphur

compliance" (regulation 18.2) and not to "fuel oil quality compliance" (regulation 18.3) and this is a fuel oil non-availability report, not a survey on availability worldwide;

.7 regulation 18.2.1.2 refers to "voyage plan" which covers more than the last

port; .8 existing practice of FONARs should be built on where further information on

the voyage history is only given by the ship on request of the PSC authorities; .9 the ship should show if it has exercised due diligence to find compliant fuel;

and .10 the six ECA-related questions proposed for inclusion in the FONAR are

required for the North American SECA therefore if this information is not provided in the FONAR we could risk ships to be required to provide a second form.

PPR 6/8


47 The Meeting agreed to refer to the language used in regulation 18.2.1.2 and to add provisions on ECAs in the standard format of the FONAR; and recognized that further work would be required by the Sub-Committee to finalize the standard format of the FONAR. 48 During consideration of the draft Guidelines, the Meeting recognized:

.1 that the issue of information sharing required further discussion; and .2 the need for further guidance on disposal of remaining non-compliant fuel on

board when the provisions prohibiting the carriage of non-compliant fuel oil enter into force.

Draft Guidelines for consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI 49 Following some consideration, the Meeting developed draft Guidelines for consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI, as set out in annex 2, for further consideration and finalization at PPR 6, with a view to submission to MEPC 74. Development of draft amendments to MARPOL Annex VI 50 The Meeting recalled that the agreed terms of reference for this meeting included development of the following draft amendments to MARPOL Annex VI with an expected entry into force in summer 2021:

.1 definition of "Sulphur content" (amendments to regulation 2); and .2 testing and verification procedure of in-use fuel oil samples (amendments to

regulation 14 and associated consequential amendments to regulation 18 and appendix VI).

51 The Meeting also recalled that MEPC 72 had forwarded document MEPC 72/5/7 (China), proposing the addition of a definition of "sulphur content" in regulation 2 of MARPOL Annex VI that would make ISO 8754:2003 or ISO 14596:2007 mandatory under MARPOL Annex VI, as the test method of sulphur content of fuel oil to this meeting for consideration. 52 The Meeting had for its consideration the following documents:

.1 ISWG-AP 1/3 (China), providing text of draft amendments to regulations 2 and 14, appendix V and appendix VI of MARPOL Annex VI to develop unified verification procedure and test methods for different kinds of fuel oil samples;

.2 ISWG-AP 1/3/1 (Japan), proposing amendments to appendix VI of MARPOL

Annex VI in order to develop uniform and reliable methodologies for sample analysis of fuel oils in accordance with ISO 8754 and ISO 4259;

.3 ISWG-AP 1/3/2 (Austria et al.), proposing amendments to appendix VI of

MARPOL Annex VI to include a new testing and verification procedure for the onboard in-use fuel oil samples in alignment with widespread and updated best practices by Administrations and industry; and

.4 ISWG-AP 1/3/3 (Panama et al.), proposing amendments to appendix VI of

MARPOL Annex VI to provide uniform verification procedures for both MARPOL samples and in-use fuel oil samples.

PPR 6/8


Definition of "Sulphur content" 53 The Meeting considered proposed definition of "sulphur content" proposed in document ISWG-AP 1/3 which contained direct reference of ISO 8754 and ISO 14596 therein. In the ensuing discussion, the following comments, inter alia, were made:

.1 a definition of "sulphur content" should be established in regulation 2 of MARPOL Annex VI;

.2 only one standard for the determination of sulphur content should be used in

order to avoid different reproducibility due to different ISO standards; .3 since ISO 8754 covers the test range of 0.03% to 5.00%, therefore it should

be used; .4 direct reference of an industry standard in a mandatory provision should be

avoided; .5 there are still questions to be solved on how to incorporate ISO standards in

IMO regulations; .6 only the accredited laboratories need to have access to the ISO standards

and so if the ISO standard is footnoted, there is no copyright issue; and

.7 concern was expressed regarding the use of a footnote for the definition to refer to the actual test method, given the non-binding status of such footnotes in IMO instruments.

54 Following discussion, the Meeting agreed to develop a draft definition of "sulphur content" referring to a specific version of ISO 8754 in a footnote. Testing and verification procedure for fuel oil sulphur content 55 The Meeting considered proposed text of a new regulation in regulation 14 of MARPOL Annex VI provided in documents ISWG-AP 1/3 and ISWG-AP 1/3/3; and proposed amendments to verification procedure for fuel oil sulphur content (appendix VI of MARPOL Annex VI) provided in documents ISWG-AP 1/3, ISWG-AP 1/3/1, ISWG-AP 1/3/2 and ISWG-AP 1/3/3. In the ensuing discussion, the following comments, inter alia, were made:

.1 the terms of reference for this Meeting agreed at PPR 5 were to develop amendments to MARPOL Annex VI regarding testing and verification procedure of in-use fuel samples only, therefore, amendments to fuel oil verification procedure of MARPOL samples should not be considered at this Meeting;

.2 the sulphur content testing and verification procedures in appendix VI of

MARPOL Annex VI, as currently stand, are not widely applied in practice; .3 provisions related to in-use fuel oil samples should be established in

regulation 14 and not in regulation 18; .4 methodology of the 0.59R (95% confidence interval provided in ISO 4259)

could be used for both MARPOL samples and in-use fuel oil samples; .5 methodology of the 0.59R should be used for in-use fuel oil samples only;

PPR 6/8


.6 the existing MARPOL sample verification procedure should be simplified; .7 such revision of regulation may be relevant to the carriage ban and the

testing of non-compliant fuel oil; .8 change of the nomenclature will imply revision of existing verification

procedures that refer to "MARPOL samples"; and .9 some delegations supported keeping the terminology "MARPOL sample" as

it is broadly used, while other delegations noted that it is used as a nickname, therefore, it may be time to remove a nickname from the regulation and use "in-use" and "delivered" samples.

56 The delegation of the United States provided a statement as set out in annex 6. 57 Following the initial discussion, the Meeting agreed:

.1 to develop draft amendments to regulation 14 of MARPOL Annex VI; .2 to develop draft amendments to appendix VI of MARPOL Annex VI, using

document ISWG-AP 1/3/2 as a basis for further consideration; .3 that the terms "MARPOL"/"delivered" fuel oil sample and "in-use"/"onboard"

fuel oil sample should be considered further at PPR 6; and .4 methodology of the 0.59R could be used for verification of in-use fuel oil

sample. Draft amendments to MARPOL Annex VI 58 Following consideration, the Meeting developed draft amendments to regulation 14 and appendix VI of MARPOL Annex VI, as set out in annex 3, for finalization at PPR 6, with a view to submission to MEPC 74. Development of draft amendments to the existing Guidelines 59 The Meeting recalled that the agreed terms of reference for this Meeting included development of draft amendments, as appropriate, to the following existing Guidelines:

.1 2009 Guidelines for port State control under the revised MARPOL Annex VI (resolution MEPC.181(59));

.2 2010 Guidelines for monitoring the worldwide average sulphur content of fuel

oils supplied for use on board ships (resolution MEPC.192(61), as amended by resolution MEPC.273(69)); and

.3 Guidelines for onboard sampling for the verification of the sulphur content of

the fuel oil used on board ships (MEPC.1/Circ.864).

PPR 6/8


2009 Guidelines for port State control under the revised MARPOL Annex VI (2009 PSC Guidelines) 60 The Meeting had for its consideration the following documents:

.1 ISWG-AP 1/4 (Japan), proposing amendments to the 2009 PSC Guidelines to reflect the proposed guidance under the draft Guidelines on consistent implementation of regulation 14.1.3 in document ISWG-AP 1/2/5 (Japan); and

.2 ISWG-AP 1/4/1 (Austria et al.), proposing amendments to the 2009 PSC

Guidelines to ensure uniform enforcement of regulation 14.1.3 in the port State control regime.

61 The Meeting, having recalled that PPR 5 had established a Correspondence Group on Exhaust gas cleaning systems and had instructed it to develop consequential amendments to the 2009 PSC Guidelines, agreed not to consider proposed draft amendments to the 2009 PSC Guidelines related to the exhaust gas cleaning systems at this Meeting. 62 In the ensuing discussion, the following comments, inter alia, were made:

.1 whilst not covered by the amendments being developed this time, accidental breakdown of exhaust gas cleaning system (ECGS) and which material to be incinerated needed to be included;

.2 it is noted in general in several clauses that "the written procedure is not

required to be in English". It is suggested that an English version is also to be made available in case the procedure is in any other language;

.3 other areas such as relating to NOX provisions should be reviewed and this

may already be part of a review of the PSC Guidelines by the III Sub-Committee;

.4 paragraph 2.1 of the 2009 PSC Guidelines should be deleted in entirety as it

sought to reflect relevant provisions of MARPOL Annex VI when those provisions were updated, paragraph 2.1 would become out of date;

.5 paragraph 2.1 of the 2009 PSC Guidelines should be retained as it provided

useful information to the PSCO and was the basis for training; .6 the level of detail provided in the guidelines needed to be further considered; .7 the structure needed to be further considered, for example, was guidance on

written fuel oil procedures required where ships do not operate outside an ECA;

.8 the quantity of fuel oil considered sufficient for the intended voyage in an

ECA was an operational issue and should not be included; and .9 port States do wish to check if the quantity of fuel oil is sufficient to operate

in an ECA but also if the ship will be leaving an ECA and then entering another.

PPR 6/8


63 Following some consideration, the Meeting developed draft amendments to the 2009 Guidelines for port State control under the revised MARPOL Annex VI (resolution MEPC.181(59)), as set out in annex 4, for further consideration and finalization at PPR 6, with a view to submission to MEPC 74. 2010 Guidelines for monitoring the worldwide average sulphur content of fuel oils supplied for use on board ships 64 The Meeting recalled that PPR 5 had considered document PPR 5/13/7 (Republic of Korea), proposing to consider adding the regional availability status for low sulphur fuel oil, when the results of sulphur monitoring is reported to the Committee every year. Noting that the worldwide average sulphur content of fuel oils has been conducted in accordance with the 2010 Guidelines for monitoring the worldwide average sulphur content of fuel oils supplied for use on board ships, amendments to these Guidelines were included in the terms of reference for this Meeting. 65 The Meeting, having noted that no document has been submitted to this Meeting related to this issue, agreed not to develop amendments to the 2010 Guidelines at this Meeting and to invite interested Member States and international organizations to submit relevant proposals to PPR 6. Guidelines for onboard sampling for the verification of the sulphur content of the fuel oil used on board ships 66 The Meeting recalled that document PPR 5/12/1 (IBIA), proposing to update the Guidelines for onboard sampling for the verification of the sulphur content of the fuel oil used on board ships to include the first stage of the verification procedure set forth in appendix VI of MARPOL Annex VI for verification of in-use fuel oil samples. 67 The Meeting, having recalled that "testing and verification procedure of in-use fuel oil samples" had been considered under agenda item 3, agreed to consider amendments to the Guidelines for onboard sampling for the verification of the sulphur content of the fuel oil used on board ships (MEPC.1/Circ.864) under agenda item 5. Amendments to regulation 14 of MARPOL Annex VI to require a dedicated sampling point for fuel oil 68 The Meeting recalled that:

.1 MEPC 70 had agreed to include a new output on "Amendments to regulation 14 of MARPOL Annex VI to require a dedicated sampling point for fuel oil" in the 2018-2019 biennial agenda of the PPR Sub-Committee, assigning the PPR Sub-Committee as the coordinator and SSE Sub-Committees as an associated organ; and

.2 PPR 5, having considered document PPR 5/12 (Norway), had invited

interested Member Governments and international organizations to provide further comments on the draft amendments to MARPOL Annex VI, and their views on whether the guidance contained in the Guidelines for onboard sampling for the verification of the sulphur content of the fuel oil used on board ships (MEPC.1/Circ.864) was adequate to this Intersessional Meeting (PPR 5/24, paragraph 12.5).

PPR 6/8


69 The Meeting considered document ISWG-AP 1/5 (Norway et al.), proposing amendments to regulation 14 of MARPOL Annex VI regarding sampling points for the purpose of taking representative samples of the fuel oil being used on board ships; and consequential draft amendments to regulations 2 and 18, the supplement to the IAPP Certificate and Guidelines for onboard sampling for the verification of the sulphur content of the fuel oil used on board ships (MEPC.1/Circ.864). 70 The Meeting, while noting that the title of the output makes reference to a "dedicated" sampling point, agreed that the sampling point would be instead "designated" and so amendments developed would refer to "designated sampling point". 71 With regard to the proposal on exemptions from fitting or designating sampling points only being provided for combustion machinery utilising low flashpoint fuels as defined in the IGF Code, the Meeting acknowledged that there may be a need to revisit the issue in the future in the event that new blends may have a low-flashpoint but a sulphur content higher than 0.50% m/m. 72 The Meeting recalled that the amendments under consideration relate to fuel oil used onboard (regulation 14), rather than fuel oil delivered to the ship (regulation 18), and so the draft amendments to regulation 18, proposed in document ISWG-AP 1/5, should be included under regulation 14 together with the other provisions relating to sampling of fuel oil used onboard. 73 The Meeting agreed that consequential amendments to MEPC.1/Circ.864 were required. In considering the draft amendments, the Meeting noted that the term "confirmed" needed to be clarified to understand whether Administrations should be required to approve/agree the location of the sampling points that have already been installed. 74 Following consideration, the Meeting developed draft amendments to regulations 2 and 14 and supplement to the IAPP Certificate, as set out in annex 3, and draft amendments to the Guidelines for onboard sampling for the verification of the sulphur content of the fuel oil used on board ships (MEPC.1/Circ.864), as set out in annex 5, for finalization by PPR 6. Any other business 75 The Meeting noted that no documents had been submitted under this agenda item. Action requested of the Sub-Committee 76 The Sub-Committee is invited to approve the report in general and, in particular, to:

.1 note that the Meeting invited MEPC 73 to consider and decide as appropriate as to whether reference to "practical and pragmatic approach by port State control authorities" should be included in the draft MEPC circular on Guidance on the development of a ship implementation plan for the consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI (paragraph 14, annex 1);

.2 note that the Meeting invited MEPC 73 to decide the square brackets around

paragraph 3 of the draft MEPC circular (paragraph 18, annex 1); .3 note the Meeting completed its work on the draft MEPC Circular on Guidance

on the development of a ship implementation plan for the consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI (paragraph 18, annex 1);

PPR 6/8


.4 note that the Meeting requested the Secretariat to report to MEPC 73 the outcome on the development of a draft MEPC Circular on Guidance on the development of a ship implementation plan for the consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI, and the related discussion on safety implications associated with the use of low-sulphur fuel oil (paragraph 27);

.5 note that the Meeting agreed to recommend MEPC 73 to invite MSC 100 to

consider the outcome of this meeting concerning the safety implications associated with the use of low-sulphur fuel oil and take action as appropriate, noting the initiative of industry organizations to develop industry guidance and possibly training material (paragraph 28);

.6 note that the Meeting expressed a need for further guidance on the issue of

disposal of remaining non-compliant fuel on board (paragraph 44); .7 note the progress on the development of draft Guidelines on consistent

implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI (paragraphs 29 to 49, annex 2);

.8 note the progress made on development of draft amendments to

regulation 14 and appendix VI of MARPOL Annex VI (paragraph 58, annex 3);

.9 note the progress made on development of draft amendments to the 2009

Guidelines for port State control under the revised MARPOL Annex VI (resolution MEPC.181(59)) (paragraph 64, annex 4);

.10 note that the Meeting agreed not to develop amendments to the 2010

Guidelines for monitoring the worldwide average sulphur content of fuel oils supplied for use on board ships (resolution MEPC.192(61), as amended by resolution MEPC.273(69)) at this meeting, and invited interested Member States and international organizations to submit relevant proposals to PPR 6 (paragraph 66);

.11 note the progress made on development of draft amendments to

regulations 2 and 14 and supplement to the IAPP Certificate for finalization by PPR 6 (paragraph 74, annex 3); and

.12 note the progress made on development of draft amendments to the

Guidelines for onboard sampling for the verification of the sulphur content of the fuel oil used on board ships (MEPC.1/Circ.864) (paragraph 74, annex 5).

***

PPR 6/8 Annex 1, page 1


ANNEX 1

DRAFT MEPC CIRCULAR

GUIDANCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SHIP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE CONSISTENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 0.50% SULPHUR LIMIT

UNDER MARPOL ANNEX VI 1 The Marine Environment Protection Committee, at its seventy-third session (22 to 26 October 2018), approved the Guidance on the development of a ship implementation plan for the consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI, as set out in the annex. 2 Member Governments are invited to bring the annexed Guidance to the attention of their Administration, industry, relevant shipping organizations, shipping companies and other stakeholders concerned. [3 This Guidance expires on 1 January 2020.]



ANNEX

GUIDANCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SHIP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE CONSISTENT IMPLEMENTATION OF

THE 0.50% SULPHUR LIMIT UNDER MARPOL ANNEX VI Introduction 1 MEPC 70 agreed to "1 January 2020" as the effective date of implementation for ships to comply with global 0.50% m/m sulphur content of fuel oil requirement and adopted resolution MEPC.280(70) on the Effective date of implementation of the fuel oil standard in regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI1. 2 In this context, MEPC 73 agreed that Administrations should encourage ships flying their flag to develop implementation plans, outlining how the ship may prepare in order to comply with the required sulphur content limit of 0.50% by 1 January 2020. The plan could be complemented with a record of actions taken by the ship in order to be compliant by the applicable date. 3 Regulation 18.2.3 of MARPOL Annex VI requires a Party to take into account all relevant circumstances and the evidence presented to determine the action to take, including not taking control measures. Administrations and port State control authorities may take into account the implementation plan when verifying compliance with the 0.50% sulphur limit requirement. 4 A ship implementation plan is not a mandatory requirement. A lack of a ship implementation plan or an incomplete ship implementation plan should not be considered as 'clear grounds' for a more detailed inspection. Ship implementation plan for the consistent implementation of 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI 5 The ship implementation plan for 2020 could cover various items relevant for the specific ship, including, as appropriate, but not limited to:

.1 risk assessment and mitigation plan (impact of new fuels); .2 fuel oil system modifications and tank cleaning (if needed); .3 fuel oil capacity and segregation capability; .4 procurement of compliant fuel; .5 fuel oil changeover plan (conventional residual fuel oils to 0.50% sulphur

compliant fuel oil); and .6 documentation and reporting.

1 Amendment of regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI has been approved by MEPC 72 and is expected to

be adopted at MEPC 73



Issues relating to use of sulphur compliant fuel oil 6 All fuel oil supplied to a ship shall comply with regulation 18.3 of MARPOL Annex VI and chapter II/2 of SOLAS. Furthermore ship operators could consider ordering fuel oil specified in accordance with the ISO 8217 marine fuel standard. The following potential fuel-related issues may need to be assessed and addressed by ships in preparation for and implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit requirement:

.1 technical capability of ships to handle different types of fuel (e.g. suitability of

fuel pumps to handle both higher and lower viscosity fuels, restrictions on fuels suitable for use in a ship's boilers, particularly the use of distillate fuels in large marine boilers);

.2 compatibility of different types of fuels e.g. when paraffinic and aromatic fuels

containing asphaltenes are commingled in bunkering or fuel oil changeover; .3 handling sulphur non-compliant fuels in the event of non-availability of

sulphur compliant fuels; and .4 crew preparedness including possible training with changeover procedures

during fuel switching from residual fuel oil to 0.50% compliant fuel oils. 7 The ship implementation plan could be used as the appropriate tool to identify any specific safety risks related to sulphur compliant fuel oil, as may be relevant to the ship, and to develop an appropriate action plan for the Company to address and mitigate the concerns identified. Examples should include:

.1 procedures to segregate different types of fuel and fuels from different sources;

.2 detailed procedures for compatibility testing and segregating fuels from

different sources until compatibility can be confirmed;

.3 procedures to changeover from one type of fuel to another or a fuel oil that is known to be incompatible with another fuel oil;

.4 plans to address any mechanical constraints with respect to handling specific

fuels, including ensuring that minimum/maximum characteristics of fuel oil as identified in ISO 8217 can be safely handled on board the ship; and

.5 procedures to verify machinery performance on fuel oil with characteristics

with which the ship does not have prior experience. 8 A ship implementation plan for the consistent implementation of 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI is recommended to be developed based on the indicative example as set out in appendix 1. 9 The plan could take into account the issues identified in:

.1 appendix 2: Additional guidance on development of ship implementation plan (impact on machinery systems); and

.2 appendix 3: Additional guidance on development of ship implementation plan

(tank cleaning).



APPENDIX 1

INDICATIVE EXAMPLE FOR SHIP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE WITH THE 0.50% SULPHUR LIMIT ENTERING INTO FORCE

ON 1 JANUARY 2020 USING COMPLIANT FUEL OIL ONLY Particulars of ship

1. Name of ship:

2. Distinctive number or letters:

3. IMO Number: Planning and preparation (before 1 January 2020) 1 Risk assessment and mitigation plan

1.1 Risk assessment (impact of new fuels): YES/NO 1.2 Linked to onboard SMS YES/NO

2 Fuel oil system modifications and tank cleaning (if needed)

2.1 Schedule for meeting with manufacturers and/or classification societies:

2.2 Structural Modifications (installation of fuel oil systems/tankage) required:

YES/NO/NOT APPLICABLE

If YES, then:

2.2.1 Fuel oil storage system:

Description of modification:



Details of yard booking (as applicable), time schedules etc.:

Estimated date of completion of modification:

2.2.2 Fuel transfer, filtration and delivery systems:




2.2.3 Combustion equipment:






2.3 Tank cleaning required: YES/NO/NOT APPLICABLE If YES, then: Details of cleaning schedule (including, yard booking, time schedules etc., if applicable):

Estimated date of completion of cleaning:

3 Fuel oil capacity and segregation capability:

Following any required modifications as per Section 2: 3.1 Expected number of bunker tanks designated to store 0.50% sulphur

compliant fuel oil: 3.2 Expected total storage capacity (m3) for 0.50% sulphur compliant fuel oil:

3.3 Expected number of bunker tanks designated to store 0.10% sulphur

compliant fuel oil:

3.4 Expected total storage capacity (m3) for 0.10% sulphur compliant fuel oil:

3.5 Approximate total fuel oil content (m3) in the fuel oil transfer, purification and delivery systems:

4 Procurement of compliant fuel oil

4.1 Details of fuel purchasing procedure to source compliant fuels, including procedures in cases where compliant fuel oil is not readily available:

4.2 Estimated date for bunkering compliant fuel oil, not later than 24:00hrs

31 December 2019:

4.3 If fuel arranged by charterer, is there an intention to accept charter party contracts that do not have a specified obligation to provide compliant fuel oil after 1 June 2019 or other date to be identified: YES/NO



If YES, then: Details of alternate steps taken to ensure that the charter party provides timely delivery of compliant fuel:

4.4 Is there confirmation from bunker supplier(s) to provide compliant fuel oil on

the specified date: YES/NO If NO, then: Details of alternate steps taken to ensure timely availability of compliant fuel oil:

4.5 Details of arrangements (if any planned) to dispose of any remaining non-

compliant fuel oil:

5 Fuel oil changeover plan

5.1 Consider whether a ship-specific fuel changeover plan is to be made available. The plan should include measures to offload or consume any remaining non-compliant fuel oil. The plan should also demonstrate how the ship intends to ensure that all its combustion units will be using compliant fuel oil no later than 1 January 2020.

5.2 As per the ship-specific fuel changeover plan, the maximum time period

required to changeover the ship's fuel oil system to use compliant fuel oil at all combustion units:

5.3 Expected date and approximate time of completion of the above-mentioned

changeover procedure:

5.4 Consider availability of adequately trained officers and crew familiar with the ship's fuel system and fuel changeover procedures to carry out the fuel oil changeover procedure. If this cannot be confirmed, then consider whether there is a sufficient amount of time dedicated for ship-specific familiarization and training of new officers and crew.



6 Documentation and reporting

6.1 If there are modifications planned as per section 2, related documents including the shipboard fuel oil tank management plans and stability and trim booklets should be consequently updated.

6.2 The implementation plan could be kept on board and updated as applicable. 6.3 If when following the implementation plan the ship has to bunker and use

non-compliant fuel oil due to unavailability of compliant fuel oil safe for use on board the ship, steps to limit the impact of using non-compliant fuel oil could be:

6.4 The ship should have a procedure for Fuel Oil Non-Availability Reporting

(FONAR). The master and chief engineer should be conversant about when and how FONAR should be used and who it should be reported to.



APPENDIX 2 ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SHIP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

(IMPACT ON MACHINERY SYSTEMS) 1 Ships are advised to assess potential impact on machinery systems with the use of distillates and fuel oil blends and prepare ships in consultation with chief engineers, equipment manufacturers and suppliers. 2 The ship tank configuration and fuel system may require adjustments. A fully segregated fuel system for distillate fuels and blended fuels is recommended because they may require special attention. Ship tank configuration and segregated fuel system will also allow for better management of potentially incompatible fuels. Distillates 3 If distillates have been chosen as the option for compliance the following may be considered:

.1 a decrease in fuel oil viscosity may cause an increase in fuel oil leakage between the fuel pump plunger and barrel of diesel engines. Internal leakages in fuel injection system may result in reduced fuel pressure to the engine, which may have consequences for the engine performance (e.g. starting of the engine). Equipment makers' recommendations should be consulted, and adequate testing, maintenance and possible installation of coolers etc. may be performed;

.2 shipowners may also consider installing fuel pumps and injection nozzles,

suitable to fuel oil with low viscosity. Fuel oil with too low viscosity may lead to increased wear or seizure of fuel oil pumps. Engine and boilermakers should be consulted to ensure its safe and efficient operation. Implications for validity of NOX certification (EIAPP Certificate) should be considered; and

.3 in some locations, bunker suppliers may only be able to offer automotive

diesel fuel containing biodiesel (FAME) in accordance with the ISO 8217-2017 Standard which provides a marine biodiesel specification (DFA/DFB) with up to 7.0% by volume of FAME. CIMAC has provided a "Guideline for Ship Owners and Operators on Managing Distillate Fuels up to 7.0 % v/v Fame (Biodiesel)"2.

4 In view of paragraph 3.3 manufacturers of engines and equipment such as oily water separators, overboard discharge monitors, filters and coalescers etc. need to be consulted to confirm ability to handle biodiesel blends up to 7% v/v. 5 Also some parts of the fuel oil supply system, i.e. fuel pumps, pipefittings and gaskets may need to be overhauled to ensure integrity.

2

https://www.cimac.com/cms/upload/workinggroups/WG7/CIMAC_WG7_Guideline_for_Ship_Owners_and_Operators_on_Managing_Distillate_Fuels_May_2013.pdf



Blended residual fuels 6 New blended 0.50% sulphur fuel oil as and when offered could provide an alternative to conventional distillate fuel such as Marine Distillate Fuel. 7 When using such new blended sulphur fuel oils, the technical specification of such fuels are (a) either within the limits specified by ISO 8217 or are (b) issued with formal documentation indicating no objection to its use by the engine/boiler makers. 8 Before purchasing a new fuel oil product operators should carefully consider the specific technical and operational challenges as this type of fuel oil may have and where necessary, contact the fuel oil supplier or Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) for the considerations to be made to ensure safe operation. 9 Densities of these fuel oils are in general lower than conventional residual fuel oils. This may require adjustment of centrifuges to ensure adequate cleaning of the fuel oil. Cold flow 10 Since distillate fuels do not require heating (in fact, typically, heating is not recommended due to the low viscosity of these products), the fuel's cold flow properties become a potential handling/storage challenge, especially when operating in colder regions. 11 It is however possible to successfully manage cold flow properties through good fuel management, from procurement to technical operation by considering the following:

.1 where the ship will be operating; .2 where the risk is higher of getting fuels with poor cold flow properties; .3 can the required cold flow properties be specified in the fuel contract; .4 what is the actual low-temperature flow properties of the bunkered fuel; and .5 which actions have to be taken in order to safely consume the bunkered fuel

(e.g. tank and filter heating).



APPENDIX 3 ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SHIP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

(TANK CLEANING) Introduction 1 Most ships will have been using high viscosity high sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) based primarily on residual fuel oils. Such fuels tend to adhere to the inside of fuel tanks forming layers of semi-solid substances containing sediments and asphaltenic sludge; such residues will also typically have solidified and settled in various parts of the fuel oil service system including pipelines, settling and service tanks. 2 The ship operator may choose to clean the fuel oil tanks of these residues before loading compliant fuel prior to 1 January 2020 based on the following considerations; 3 Some of the fuels complying with the 0.50% sulphur limit are expected to be very paraffinic due to crude sources of blending components and also a high content of distillate components. If such fuels are loaded into HSFO fuel tanks that have not been cleaned, there is a possibility that they could dissolve and dislodge sediments and asphaltenic sludge in storage tanks, settling tanks and pipelines, potentially leading to purifier and filter operational issues and in extreme cases fuel starvation resulting in loss of power. 4 Alternatively, ships have been using ship specific changeover procedures to effectively and safely load on top of existing fuel oil and gradually flushing through the fuel system until the sulphur content in the fuel oil is at a compliant level. 5 Should the ship operator determine it is appropriate to clean the ship's fuel oil tanks and system, the following considerations may need to be taken into account when making arrangements for tank cleaning. Options for tank cleaning, approximate timelines and considerations 6 Fuel oil tanks are normally cleaned on a regular basis on ships to remove built-up sediments and sludge, usually during dry docking and whenever inspections of the fuel tanks are due. However, leading up to 1 January 2020, it would not be practicable for the majority of the global fleet that has been running on HSFO and decided to opt for tank cleaning, to undergo dry docking during a very short period. Hence other options for cleaning tanks and fuel oil systems during service may need to be considered. 7 The time and work involved in cleaning HSFO tanks cannot be defined precisely, as it will vary depending on how long it has been since the last time the tanks were cleaned, the condition of the tank coating and the effectiveness of the cleaning process itself. The estimates in this document may err on the side of caution as it is almost impossible to pinpoint at what stage the ship's fuel oil system is sufficiently clean to guarantee compliance. Manual cleaning during dry docking 8 Time required varies; it can be done in two to four days per tank. In addition to cleaning tanks, all of the pipework in the fuel oil service system needs to be flushed through. Overall it may take one to two weeks. 9 A ship that has had all its fuel oil tanks and fuel system cleaned can start loading compliant fuels and expect to be fully compliant right away.



10 However, if only the tanks have been cleaned in dry-dock, it could take two to five days to flush through the pipework in the fuel oil service system to ensure full compliance with the 0.50% sulphur limit. Manual cleaning during service 11 If tanks are to be cleaned manually during service, risk assessment and safety measures are paramount; refer to IMO resolution A.1050(27) on Revised recommendations for entering enclosed spaces aboard ships. 12 Time required will vary depending on tank size and the number of tanks, how long it has been since the last tank cleaning and the number of crew available to perform safe and complete tank cleaning operations. Tank cleaning can be performed by the ship's crew and/or by employing a riding crew for this purpose. It is always good practice to inspect the tank once cleaned to check its condition and to inspect heating coils, conduct pressure tests and undertake repairs as necessary. 13 If the cleaning is done by the ship's existing crew it would likely take a minimum of four days per tank. For an average tank, a week should be allowed. If employing a riding crew to clean the tanks, if working in shifts, it would likely take a minimum of two days to clean a tank, but four days per tank should be allowed. 14 Tanks need to be empty before they can be cleaned, hence the time needed to drain tanks needs to be taken into account when estimating the overall time required. 15 In addition to cleaning tanks, all of the pipework in the fuel oil service system needs to be flushed. Flushing the remaining pipework and fuel oil service system after all tanks have been cleaned could take another one to two days. 16 The residues from tank cleaning should be retained on board until they can be disposed of correctly or disposed to shore reception facilities. Cleaning tanks in service with specialized additives 17 As an alternative to manual cleaning, consideration can be given to gradually cleaning the sediments and asphaltenic sludge from HSFO tanks and fuel system by dosing additives. There are successful examples of this approach for ships that needed to reallocate HSFO tanks to fuels complying with the 0.10% sulphur limit that took effect in ECAs in 2015.

***



ANNEX 2

DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR CONSISTENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 0.50% SULPHUR LIMIT UNDER MARPOL ANNEX VI

[0 Introduction 0.1 Objective 0.1.1 MEPC 70 agreed to "1 January 2020" as the effective date of implementation for ships to comply with global 0.50% m/m sulphur content of fuel oil requirement and adopted resolution MEPC.280(70) on the Effective date of implementation of the fuel oil standard in regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI. 0.1.2 The purpose of these Guidelines is to ensure consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI. These Guidelines are intended for use by Administrations, port State, shipowners, shipbuilders and fuel oil providers, as appropriate. [0.2 Definitions 0.2.1 For the purpose of these Guidelines, the definitions in MARPOL Annex VI apply. 0.2.2 "HSFO" means high sulphur fuel oil where the sulphur content is above 0.50% m/m.] 1 Ship implementation planning for 2020 1.1 MEPC 70 agreed to "1 January 2020" as the effective date of implementation for ships to comply with global 0.50% m/m sulphur content of fuel oil requirement and adopted resolution MEPC.280(70) on the Effective date of implementation of the fuel oil standard in regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI1. 1.2 In this context, MEPC 73 agreed that Administrations should encourage ships flying their flag to develop implementation plans, outlining how the ship may prepare in order to comply with the required sulphur content limit of 0.50% by 1 January 2020. The plan should be complemented with a record of actions taken by the ships in order to be compliant by the applicable date. 1.3 MEPC 73, recognizing the need for guidance to support the consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI, approved MEPC.1/Circ.[…] on the Guidance the development of a ship implementation plan for the consistent implementation of the 0.50% sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI. 2 Impact on fuel and machinery systems 2.0.1 The experiences and lessons learned from the transition to the 0.10% m/m SOX-ECA indicated that current ship machinery operations should be sufficiently capable of addressing the concerns regarding combustion of the new 0.50% m/m fuel oils.

1 Amendment of regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI has been approved by MEPC 72 and is expected to

be adopted at MEPC 73



2.0.2 Currently most of the marine diesel engines and boilers on ships operating outside Emission Control Areas (ECAs) are optimized to operate on heavy fuel oil. With the implementation of 0.50% sulphur limit in fuel oil from 2020, most of these ships, unless using exhaust gas cleaning systems (EGCS), will use compliant fuel oils. 2.1 Distillate fuels 2.1.1 A major challenge with distillate fuels is low viscosity. Low viscosity may cause internal leakages in diesel engines, boilers and pumps. Internal leakages in fuel injection system may result in reduced fuel pressure to the engine, which may have consequences for the engine performance (e.g. starting of the engine). Equipment makers recommendations should be consulted, and adequate testing, maintenance and possible installation of coolers, etc., may be performed. 2.1.2 Cold Filter Plugging Points (CFPP) and Cloud Points (CP) as well as the Pour Point for distillate fuels need to be considered in light of the ship's intended operating area and ambient temperatures. 2.1.2.1 These issues are critical concerns as they can result in the formation of sludge, which can cause costly and avoidable maintenance. In the worst-case scenario, sediment can cause engine fuel starvation and power loss. 2.1.2.2 ISO 8217 limits the cold flow properties of a fuel through setting a limit on the Pour Point (PP). However, given that wax crystals form at temperatures above the PP, fuels that meet the specification in terms of PP can still be challenging to operations in colder operating regions, as the wax particles can rapidly block filters, potentially plugging them completely. 2.1.2.3 Since the residual fuels are usually heated and distillate fuels are not heated, particular attention needs to be given to the cold flow properties of distillates. 2.1.2.4 Fuel temperature should be kept approximately 10°C above the Pour Point in order to avoid any risk of solidification however this may not reduce the risk of filter blocking in case of high CFPP and CP. 2.1.2.5 It is good practice to review the possibilities of heating arrangements for distillate fuels on board. This is usually very limited, as it is not standard practice to have heating arrangements in distillate storage, settling or service tanks. Transfer arrangements may be adapted to pass through a residual fuel oil heat exchanger should the need arise. 2.1.2.6 Knowing the fuel properties as soon as possible after bunkering will assist in taking the necessary precautions where and when necessary. If the ship is heading towards colder climates and the cold flow properties are inferior, the fuel may be:

.1 either used before entering cold regions, or .2 used with suitable heating arrangement, as mentioned above.

2.1.2.7 If the approach of applying heat is being followed it should be ensured that the fuel is not overheated resulting in the viscosity dropping below the minimum recommendation of 2 cSt at any point in the fuel system, including the engine inlet. In order to reduce this risk, heating should be limited to max 40°C. 2.1.2.8 Reference may be made to CIMAC Guideline on Cold flow properties of marine fuel oils.



2.1.3 Distillate fuel with FAME content 2.1.3.1 Increased demand for Distillate fuels from the shipping sector from 2020 will likely have ramification across other industries and vice versa. We will see more land-based products making its way to marine supply pool with its attendant technical issues viz. Fatty Acid Methyl Easter (FAME) content. 2.1.3.2 ISO 8217: 2017 Standard includes FAME with 7% by volume maximum content for DFA/DFZ/DFB grades since some ports may offer automotive diesel fuel containing biodiesel (FAME) as the only fuel available. The maximum 7.0% (v/v) has been chosen as this aligns with the concentrations allowed in some of the countries applying environmental regulations. 2.1.3.3 There are various technical challenges associated with use of fuel having FAME content e.g. potential oxidation of biodiesel, its biodegradable nature etc. with adverse implications, limitations in storage life etc. It also needs to be tested for stability. 2.1.3.4 Manufacturers of engines and equipment like oily water separators, overboard discharge monitors, filters and coalscers etc. need to be consulted to confirm ability to handle biodiesel blends up to B7 (i.e. 7% v/v). 2.1.3.5 It is recommended to avoid using such biodiesel blend fuels for lifeboat engines, emergency generators/fire pumps etc. where it is stored in isolated individual unit fuel tanks and subjected to conditions for accelerated degradation. 2.1.3.6 Reference may be made to CIMAC Guideline for shipowners and operators on managing distillate fuels up to 7.0% v/v FAME (Biodiesel). 2.2 Blended residual fuels 2.2.1 Incompatibility 2.2.1.1 A wide range of blends of refined products will be used to make the new 0.5% sulphur fuels, and the stability and compatibility of the blends will be very important concerns for shipowners/operators. Unstable fuels can separate on their own and incompatible ones can do so when mixed in a single bunker tank, forming sludge that can block filters and ultimately cause engine failures. 2.2.1.2 Therefore, it will be extremely important to ensure that incompatible blended residual fuels are kept segregated and are tested for compatibility prior bunkering. 2.2.2 Catalytic fines 2.2.2.1 Cat fines are a by-product of refining and consist of small particles of metal that are deliberately introduced as catalysts to "crack" the fuel. Unless reduced by purification, cat fines will become embedded in engine parts and cause serious and rapid engine damage. 2.3 Key technical considerations for shipowners and Operators 2.3.1 Ship tank configuration and fuel system – the viscosity of most of these blended residual fuels is such that they cannot be used in distillate fuel-only systems and machinery, as they require heating for cleaning and combustion. A fully segregated fuel system for both distillate fuels and these new fuels is recommended. (Note: Tank cleaning is recommended when using a residual fuel tank for storing these new fuels. This is to prevent sludge that has built up in these tanks from entering the fuel system.)



2.3.2 Heating requirements – due to the cold flow properties of most of these new fuels, permanent heating of the fuel may be necessary to minimize the risk of wax formation, also in storage. This is especially important in colder regions. 2.3.3 Fuel treatment system – Some of these new fuels may contain cat fines and/or sediments and therefore need onboard cleaning. Separator temperature and settings should be adjusted to the fuels' viscosity and density. Please refer to recommendations from OEM and fuel supplier. (Note: Considering that many of these new fuels have lower viscosities compared to conventional residual fuels, care should be taken to ensure no overheating occurs.) 2.4 ISO Standard for blended fuels 2.4.1 The bunker market uses ISO 8217 specifications to ensure that the properties of the fuels it delivers conform to a standard that mean they comply with MARPOL Annex VI. 2.4.2 The existing ISO 8217 specification for marine fuels takes into consideration the diverse nature of marine fuels and incorporates a number of categories of distillate or residual fuels, even though not all categories may be available in every supply location it covers all marine petroleum fuel oils used today as well as the 0.50% Sulphur fuels of 2020. The General requirements as in ISO 8217:2017 specification for marine fuels and characteristics included in Table 1 and 2 of ISO 8217: 2017 mirror identified safety, performance and environmental concerns and further takes into consideration the onboard handling requirements, including storage, cleaning and combustion aspects of all fuel oils used today and the anticipated fuel blends of 2020, irrespective of the sulphur content of the fuel oils. 2.4.3 It is important that any new standards address and do not preclude the use of renewable and alternative non-fossil crude derived products, so long as they comply with the chemical properties specified for these fuel oils. 2.5 Cylinder lubrication 2.5.1 Choice of cylinder lubricating oils will often follow the fuel type in use. So, when changing to VLSFO operation from high-S fuel (HSFO) operation the choice of appropriate cylinder lubricating oil should be considered in accordance with the recommendations of the engine manufacturer. 3 Verification issues and control mechanism and actions 3.1 Survey and certification by Administrations 3.1.1 When undertaking a survey in accordance with regulation 5 of MARPOL Annex VI, the Administration should conduct a survey of a ship to verify that the ship complies with the provisions to implement the 0.50% sulphur limit. In particular, the Administration should check whether the ship carries compliant fuel oils for use, based on Bunker Delivery Note (BDN) onboard or any other document, as appropriate. If carriage of HSFOs for use is identified, the Administration should check whether regulation 3.2, regulation 4 or regulation 18.2.3 of MARPOL Annex VI are applied to the ship.



[3.1.1 The Administration confirms a ship's compliance with regulation 14 of MARPOL Annex VI during IAPP surveys, as described in HSSC Guidelines (A.1120(30)), and based on Bunker Delivery Notes and other relevant documents. ] [3.1.2 Where the Administration undertaking a survey finds a ship to be in non-compliance with regulations; in such case, the Administration should include reporting the information of the ship to the Global Integrated Shipping Information System (GISIS) MARPOL Annex VI module in accordance with paragraph 3.4 of these Guidelines, and may order debunkering of the HSFO either at the port of survey or the next port with an appropriate reception facility.] 3.1.3 According to regulation 11.4 of MARPOL Annex VI, the Administration shall investigate any report of an alleged violation and thereafter promptly inform the Party which made the report, as well as the Organization, of the action taken. When informing the Organization, the MARPOL Annex VI GISIS module should be used. 3.2 Control measures by port States Port States should take appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the 0.50% of sulphur limit under MARPOL Annex VI, in line with the regulation 10 of MARPOL Annex VI and the 2009 Guidelines for port State control under the revised MARPOL Annex VI (resolution MEPC.181(59)) (2009 PSC Guidelines). Specifically, the port State should conduct initial inspections based on documents and other possible materials, including remote sensing and portable devices. Given "clear grounds" to conduct a more detailed inspection, the port State may conduct sample analysis and other detailed inspections to verify compliance to the regulation, as appropriate. 3.2.1 Inspections based on documents and other possible targeting measurements 3.2.1.1 During the port State control and other enforcement activities, the port State should investigate whether a ship carries either compliant fuel oils or HSFOs for use, based on the documents listed in paragraph 2.1.1 of the 2009 PSC Guidelines. Results from remote sensing could be used to trigger inspections and portable devices could be used during the initial inspections, as appropriate. Remote sensing and portable devices are, however, of indicative nature and should not be regarded as the evidence of non-compliance. 3.2.1.2 If carriage of HSFOs for use was identified, the port State should further investigate whether regulation 3.2, regulation 4 or regulation 18.2.3 of MARPOL Annex VI are applied to the ship, based on the IAPP Certificate or a relevant document. 3.2.2 MARPOL samples and in-use fuel oil samples analysis 3.2.2.1 When the port State identifies clear grounds of non-compliance of a ship based on initial inspections, the port State may require samples of fuel oils to be analysed. The samples to be analysed may be either the representative samples provided with BDN in accordance with regulation 18.8.2 (MARPOL samples) or samples from designated sampling point in accordance with the Guidelines for on-board sampling for the verification of the sulphur content of the fuel oil used on board ships (MEPC.1/Circ.864) (in-use fuel oil samples). 3.2.2.2 In detecting non-compliance, the sample analysis, either on [MARPOL] [delivered] sample or [in-use] [onboard] fuel oil samples, should be conducted in a uniform and reliable manner in accordance with appendix VI of MARPOL Annex VI.



3.2.2.3 Notwithstanding the above process, all possible efforts should be made to avoid a ship being unduly detained or delayed. In particular, sample analysis of fuel oils should not unduly delay the operation, movement or departure of the ship. 3.2.2.4 If a non-compliance is established, the port State may not permit the ship to sail until the ship debunkers all HSFOs or takes any alternative measures. In addition, the port State should report the information of the non-compliant ship to the Administration of the ship and inform the Party or non-Party under whose jurisdiction a bunker delivery note was issued of cases of delivery of non- compliant fuel oil, giving all relevant information. Upon receiving the information, the Administration should report the information to the MARPOL Annex VI GISIS module in accordance with paragraph 3.4 of these Guidelines. 3.2.2.5 The Parties, however, may permit a single voyage for bunkering of compliant fuel oil for the ship, in accordance with regulation 18.2.4 of MARPOL Annex VI. The single voyage should be one way and minimum for bunkering, and the ship proceeds directly to the nearest bunkering facility appropriate to the ship. In the case that the port State permits a single voyage of a ship, the port State should inform the Administration of the information of the ship granted with permission for the single voyage with the certified record of analysis of the sample as the evidence. 3.2.3 Other enforcement practices dedicated to open-sea compliance monitoring:

.1 fuel oil changeover calculator; .2 data collection system for fuel oil consumption of ships (resolution

MEPC.278(70)); and .3 continuous SOX monitoring.

3.3 Control on fuel oil suppliers

3.3.1 In addition to control measures to ships, appropriate measures should also be taken to fuel oil suppliers, in accordance with regulation 18.9 of MARPOL Annex VI. In this context, the designated authorities should refer to paragraph 9 of appendix V of MARPOL Annex VI (BDN declaration). The designated authorities should also investigate the fuel oil supplier as appropriate, based on relevant information provided by port States, ships or any other relevant stakeholders. 3.3.2 If non-compliance, such as issuance of an incorrect BDN or a BDN without measurement of sulphur content, was found, the designated authorities should take appropriate corrective measures against the non-compliant supplier. In such case, the designated authorities should inform the Organization for transmission to the Member States of the non-compliant supplier, in accordance with the regulation 18.9.6 of MARPOL Annex VI and paragraph 3.4 of these Guidelines. 3.4 Information sharing related to non-compliances under MARPOL Annex VI 3.4.1 When a Party finds a non-compliance of a ship or a fuel oil supplier, the information of the non-compliance should be reported to the MARPOL Annex VI GISIS module (regulation 11.4). 3.4.2 Publication of information on non-compliant ships/companies or a reporting scheme to IMO to be registered on centralized information platforms are proposed as elements of an effective enforcement strategy. Various PSC regimes have successfully used the publishing of information related to substandard ships and companies as a deterrent to non-compliance.



Port States also need to report detentions of ships to IMO which may affect the future PSC targeting of the ship. The IMO GISIS database already makes available certain information related to non-compliances with the MARPOL Annex VI regulations. 4 Fuel oil non-availability 4.1 Guidance and information sharing on fuel oil non-availability 4.1.1 Regulation 18.2.1 of MARPOL Annex VI provides that in the event compliant fuel oil cannot be obtained, a Party to MARPOL Annex VI can request evidence outlining the attempts made to obtain the compliant fuel, including attempts made to local alternative sources. Regulations 18.2.4 and 18.2.5 then require that the ship notifies its Administration and the competent authority of the port of destination on the inability to obtain this fuel oil, with the Party to notify IMO of the non-availability. 4.1.2 Guidance on consistent evidence. Regulation 18.2.1.2 of MARPOL Annex VI requires that evidence be provided to support a claim that all efforts were made to obtain compliant fuel oil. In this regard, a Party may develop more detailed guidance for the consistent use and acceptance of these reports, including what evidence is needed to accompany a report to ensure that port States are applying the provisions under regulation 18.2.3, consistently. 4.1.3 Investigating non-availability. A Party may investigate the reports of non-availability. This process is important to ensure a consistent supply of compliant fuel to industry, as well as prevent incentives for ships to use ports where it is known that compliant fuel is not available on an ongoing basis. Critical to this process will be the sharing of information between Member States on reported compliant fuel oil supply issues. 4.1.4 In accordance with regulation 18.2.5 of MARPOL Annex VI, a Party to MARPOL Annex VI shall notify the Organization when a ship has presented evidence of the non-availability of compliant fuel oil. For this purpose, MARPOL Annex VI GISIS module provides the platform for Parties to upload such notifications. [4.1.5 It is expected that each Party shall take all reasonable steps to promote the availability of above compliant fuel oil and inform the Organization through MARPOL Annex VI GISIS module of the availability of compliant fuel oils in its ports and terminals.] 4.1.6 Should a vessel, despite its best effort to obtain compliant fuel oil, be unable to do so, the master/Company must:

.1 present a record of actions taken to attempt to bunker correct fuel oil and provide evidence of an attempt to purchase compliant fuel oil in accordance with its voyage plan and, if it was not made available where planned, that attempts were made to locate alternative sources for such fuel oil and that despite best efforts to obtain compliant fuel oil, no such fuel oil was made available for purchase; and

.2 best efforts to procure compliant fuel oil include, but are not limited to,

investigating alternate sources of fuel oil prior to commencing the voyage. If, despite best efforts, it was not possible to procure compliant fuel oil, the master/owner must immediately notify the port State Administration in the port of arrival and the flag Administration (regulation 18.2.4 of MARPOL Annex VI).



4.1.7 In order to minimize disruption to commerce and avoid delays, the master/Company should submit fuel oil non-availability report (FONAR) as soon as it is determined or becomes aware that it will not be able to procure and use compliant fuel oil. 4.1.8 Port State control authority may contact the submitter (and/or shipowner or operator) in the event of an incomplete submission, and request for additional information, or to pursue an enforcement action such as a Notice of Violation. 4.2 Standard format for reporting fuel oil non-availability 4.2.1 For ships which are unable to purchase fuel oil meeting the requirements of regulations 14.1 or 14.4 of MARPOL Annex VI, the standard format for reporting fuel oil non-availability is set out in the appendix to this document, in accordance with regulation 18.2.4 of MARPOL Annex VI. 5 Safety implications relating to the option of blending fuels in order to meet the

0.50% m/m sulphur limit 5.1 [No concrete text has been provided.] 6 Other useful guidance/information that assist Member States and stakeholders 6.1 Guidance addressing quality assurance and integrity of the supply chain 6.1.1 The diverse range of 0.50% m/m fuel formulations expected will further elevate the importance of assuring sulphur compliance of the supplied fuel oils. It is expected that these fuel oils to be blended close to or on the 0.50% m/m limit, driven by the economic considerations of blending. Ship operators should request additional assurances that fuels supplied are consistently compliant. 6.1.2 In view of this, there will be a greater expectation on suppliers having in place a robust and transparent supply chain assurance system, which adequately addresses all those factors that could affect the quality and sulphur content of the delivered fuel. This would, for example, be expected to include procedures such as ensuring: avoidance of the ingress of extraneous and potentially deleterious compounds into the supply chain, correct blending procedures being applied, the delivery meeting the ship ordering requirements and representative sampling of the bunkers supplied are taken (resolution MEPC.182(59)). 6.2 Guidance on the importance of fuel oil management on board [A very large number of different fuels will be available at the market, e.g. 0.5% sulphur distillate (VLSFO-DM), 0.1% sulphur distillate (ULSFO-DM), 0.5% sulphur blended residue (VLSFO RM), 0.1% sulphur blended residue (ULSFO-RM), DMA grade distillate with no biodiesel (DMA-0% FAME), DMA grade distillate with up to 7% biodiesel (DMA-7% FAME), DMZ/DMB grade distillate with no biodiesel (DMZ/DMB-0% FAME), DMZ/DMB grade distillate with up to 7% biodiesel (DMB/DMC -7% FAME), High sulphur fuel (HSFO), LNG and others. This is a significant change compared to today's market and not all fuel types can be mixed without consequences for the operation. Stability, compatibility, pour point, viscosity, and wax are issues that need to be managed and there will be a need for robust procedures for household, to avoid mixing and contamination on board the vessels as well as in the supply chain prior to delivery.



6.2.1 Distillate fuels 6.2.1.1 Cold flow 6.2.1.1.1 Since distillate fuels do not require heating (in fact, typically, heating is not recommended due to the low viscosity of these products), the fuel's cold flow properties become a potential handling/storage challenge, especially when operating in colder regions. 6.2.1.1.2 It is however possible to successfully manage cold flow properties through good fuel management, from procurement to technical operation by considering the following:

.1 where the ship will be operating; .2 where the risk is higher of getting fuels with poor cold flow properties; .3 can the required cold flow properties be specified in the fuel contract; .4 what is the actual low-temperature flow properties of the bunkered fuel; and .5 which actions have to be taken in order to safely consume the bunkered fuel

(e.g. tank and filter heating). 6.2.1.2 Limited shelf life 6.2.1.2.1 Low sulphur diesels tend to be more stable than high sulphur fuels as hydro treating typically destroys the precursors to insoluble organic particulates. However, along with lubricating compounds, hydro treating also eliminates naturally occurring antioxidants. It is why refineries treat distillate fuels with stabilizers to prevent deterioration and the formation of peroxides, the forerunners to soluble gums. Unfortunately, such stabilizers actually have a limited shelf life and once the storage period of the fuel exceeds the shelf life it is unprotected from deterioration. 6.2.1.2.2 Experiencing a change in colour along with gum and sediment formation, a distillate fuel that is undergoing degradation through reactions with oxygen will, if unchecked, tend to go on to form deposits, especially on the fuel injectors. The reason the deposits end up on the fuel injectors is that when a degrading fuel leaves the injector to be atomized it tends to coke on the nozzle. The coking starts to build and the spray pattern from the injection nozzle is affected reducing fuel economy and engine durability and actually increasing emissions. 6.2.1.2.3 Consideration may be given to use of additives to address deterioration of distillate fuels. 6.2.2 Blended residual fuels 6.2.2.1 Incompatibility 6.2.2.1.1 Onboard testing can provide engineers with an incompatibility warning when mixing or commingling new and existing fuels. 6.2.2.1.2 The simple-to-use spot test uses a blend composed of representative volumes of the sample fuels. A drop of the blend is placed on a test paper and heated to 100°C. After one hour, the resultant spot is examined for the presence of solids and rated for compatibility against a reference chart.



6.2.2.1.3 In addition to the compatibility spot test it is also possible for the crew to perform simple checks to assess a fuel's viscosity, water content, density and the presence of catalytic fines. 6.2.2.1.4 Main bunker tanks should be arranged to limit the need to mix newly bunkered fuel with fuel already on board. When mixing of fuel oil is necessary, a compatibility test should be performed prior to transfer. 6.2.2.2 Cat fines 6.2.2.2.1 As per most diesel engine makers the maximum amount of catalytic fines reaching the engine should be 10 ppm Al+Si and in some instances, this might rise to 15 ppm however, every attempt must be made to reduce the cat fines to the lowest possible levels. 6.2.2.2.2 Particle size has a significant influence on the capacity of the centrifugal separators to lower the level of catalyst fines in the fuel, with particles of 2 microns or less being particularly difficult to remove. The presence of particles of 2 microns size or lower may cause difficulties in achieving the 10 ppm limit. Engine manufacturer recommendations should also be referred to for any further system-specific recommendations. 6.2.2.2.3 Contributory changes that would help:

.1 sampling and testing of fuel before use; .2 improved fuel handling on board; .3 regular cleaning of filters, frequent drainage; .4 clean the settling and service tanks during dry dock; .5 check centrifuge capacity on specifications for new buildings; .6 ensuring optimized fuel system treatment; .7 introducing a new fuel cleaning system layout; .8 automatic control of the cleaning flow rate; and .9 intensified monitoring of the fuel treatment efficiency.

6.2.2.2.4 A lab can also carry out highly detailed analysis for issues such as cat fines and stability, which can provide additional peace of mind. 6.2.3 Audits It is recommended that once a new bunker has started to be used, a responsible person on board performs a fuel system audit, taking fuel samples from before and after the treatment plant and at the engine fuel rail. 6.2.4 IACS Recommendations 6.2.4.1 IACS Recommendation No.151 – Recommendation for petroleum fuel treatment systems for marine diesel engines.



6.2.4.2 IACS recommendation No.151 recognizes a disparity between the quality of fuel bunkered and delivered in accordance with ISO 8217 (latest revision), and the fuel quality requirements typically specified by marine diesel engine manufacturers. The performance of the system and equipment contained therein is fundamental to reducing the level of contaminants to within the oil fuelled machinery manufacturers specifications. Consideration may be given to use this document to ensure efficient functioning of fuel treatment system.] 6.3 Guidance on assuring availability of compliant fuel oil, including new fuel

blends [6.3.1 It is acknowledged that making available 0.50% m/m compliant fuels may provide a logistical challenge in some regions, areas and or ports during the initial implementation stage partly due to the timely availability of new fuel blends. It is therefore recommended that industry preparation for 2020 should be duly planned and started well ahead of the implementation date by all stakeholders. All relevant parties from refinery through to the user should play an active role to assist ships to be ready for the 1 January 2020 implementation date. To minimize occurrences of localized fuel unavailability and to address the possibility of any declarations of fuel unavailability; harmonization and standardization of processes deemed necessary by the Committee should be developed. 6.3.2 In order to facilitate the process of declaring non-availability and its expected acceptance a more detailed guide to declaring "Non-Availability" and associated questions and answers could further harmonize enforcement efforts, notwithstanding the discretion of the inspecting authority. In this context, consideration could be given to existing "best practice" for example by reviewing the current United States Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Oil Non-Availability Report2 (FONAR) as a basis.] 6.4 Guidance addressing fuel quality issues, particularly regarding new types of

fuels and blends 6.4.1 [No concrete text has been provided.] 6.5 Guidance on best practice for fuel oil purchasers/users for assuring the quality

of fuel oil used on board ships 6.5.1 MEPC 72 approved MEPC.1/Circ.875 on Guidance on best practice for fuel oil purchasers/users for assuring the quality of fuel oil used on board ships. These best practices are intended to assist fuel oil purchasers/users in assuring the quality of fuel oil delivered to, and used on board ships, with respect to both compliance with the MARPOL requirements and the safe and efficient operation of the ship. 6.5.2 These fuel oil purchaser/user best practices are recommended for all ships and should also be taken into account in those cases where fuel oil purchasing decisions are made by the ship charterer pursuant to a chartering agreement. Under such a charter agreement communication between the owner and the charterer is paramount. It is recommended that clear requirements on these communications should be included within the appropriate charter party clause.

2 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/fondinstructions.pdf

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/fondinstructions.pdf



6.6 Guidance on best practice for Member State/coastal State 6.6.1 [MEPC 71 re-established the Correspondence Group on Fuel oil quality and instructed it to finalize the draft best practice for Member State/coastal State and submit a report to MEPC 73.] 6.7 Guidance on best practice for fuel oil suppliers 6.7.1 [MEPC 72 concurred with the view that draft best practice for fuel oil suppliers as contained in document MEPC 72/INF.13 could form a basis for the development of IMO guidance and invited Member Governments and international organizations to submit comments on document MEPC 72/INF.13 to MEPC 73.]]



APPENDIX

FUEL OIL NON-AVAILABILITY REPORT (FONAR Report) [Note: 1 This report is to be sent to the flag Administration and to the competent authorities in the relevant port(s) of destination in accordance with regulation 18.2.4 of MARPOL Annex VI. The report shall be sent as soon as it is determined that the ship/operator will be unable to procure compliant fuel and preferably before the ship leaves the port/terminal where compliant fuel cannot be obtained. A copy of the FONAR should be kept on board for inspection for at least [12] months. 2 This report should be used to provide evidence if a ship is unable to obtain fuel oil compliant with the provisions stipulated in regulations 14.1 and 14.4. 3 Before filing a FONAR Report, the following should be observed by the ship/operator: 3.1 A fuel oil non-availability report is not an exemption. According to regulation 18.2 of MARPOL Annex VI, it is the responsibility of the Party through its competent authority to scrutinize the information provided, including on potential claims already filed during a period of [12] months, and decide what action to take. 3.2 In case of unduly and/or repeated claims of non-availability, the Party may require additional documentation and substantiation of fuel oil non-availability claims. The ship/operator may also be subject to more extensive inspections or examinations while in port. 3.3 Ships/operators are expected to account for logistical conditions and/or terminal/port policies when planning bunker delivery, including but not limited to having to change berth or anchor within a port or terminal in order to obtain compliant fuel. 3.4 Ships/operators are expected to prepare as far as reasonably possible to be able to operate on commercial available fuel oils meeting ISO 8217, included but not limited to fuels with differing viscosities, different sulphur content shall not exceed 0.50% (requiring different lube oils) as well as fuel requiring heating and/or other treatment on board. 1 Particulars of ship 1.1 Name of ship: _______________________________________________________ 1.2 IMO number: ________________________________________________________ 1.3 Flag: ______________________________________________________________ 2 Description of ship's voyage plan and information on entering an ECA 2.1 Description of ship's voyage plan 2.1.1 Provide a description of the ship's voyage plan in place at the time of entry into the port where compliant fuel oil was not available (attach copy of plan if available):

___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________

2.2 Information on entering an Emission Control Area (ECA) (as applicable)



2.3.1 If ship is to enter an Emissions Control Area (ECA) provide information as requested in items 1 to 6: 1 – Date ship first received notice that it would be transiting in the ECA:

___________________________________________________________________ 2 – Ship's location at the time of notice:

___________________________________________________________________ 3 – Date/time ship operator expects to enter ECA:

___________________________________________________________________ 4 – Date/time ship operator expects to exit ECA:

___________________________________________________________________ 5 – Projected days ship's main propulsion engines will be in operation within ECA:

___________________________________________________________________ 6 – Sulphur content of fuel oil in use when entering and operating in the ECA (BDN):

__________________________________________________________________ 3 Evidence of attempts to purchase compliant fuel oil 3.1 Description of all actions taken to attempt to achieve compliance, including attempts to locate alternative sources for compliant fuel oil __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ 3.2 Description of the reason why, despite best efforts, compliant fuel oil was not obtained: __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ 3.3 Name and addresses of suppliers contacted, date of contact __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Please attach copies of communication with suppliers (e.g. e-mails to and from suppliers) 4 Plans to obtain compliant fuel oil Describe availability of compliant fuel oil at the next port of call/bunker facility, and plans to obtain it: __________________________________________________________________________ If compliant fuel oil is not available at the port of call, list the lowest sulphur content of available fuel oil(s) or the lowest sulphur content of available fuel oil at the next port of call:



5 Special circumstances 5.1 Disruption in the supply of fuel oil In case of disruption in the fuel oil supply, this should be documented by copy of communication with the competent authorities of the State in question. Name of port at which vessel was scheduled to receive compliant fuel oil: _______________ Name of the fuel oil supplier that was scheduled to deliver: ___________________________ Contact details of the competent authority of the State in question: __________________________________________________________________________ 5.2 Operation constraints If non-compliant fuel has been bunkered due to concerns that the quality of the compliant fuel available would cause operational or safety problems on board the ships, the concerns should be thoroughly documented, preferably by a third party. Please describe, the steps the ship has taken, or is taking, to resolve these operational constraints, if applicable, that will allow ship to use commercially available fuel oils: __________________________________________________________________________ 6 Company information Name of Company (as named on ISM DOC): _____________________________________ Address (street, city, country, postal/zip code): ____________________________________ ISM Designated Person Ashore (DPA): __________________________________________ Telephone number/email: ____________________________________________________ Local agent(s) in the port of call(s): ______________________________________________ Print name: _______________________ Date (DD/MM/YYYY): _______________________ Signature of Master: _________________________ ]

***



ANNEX 3

DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO MARPOL ANNEX VI

(Definitions of "sulphur content" and "low flashpoint fuel", [in-use] [onboard] fuel oil sampling and testing and

verification procedures for a MARPOL Annex VI fuel oil sample) Regulation 2 Definitions 1 New paragraphs 51 and 52 are added as follows:

"51 Sulphur content means the concentration of sulphur in any fuel oil, measured in % m/m as tested in accordance with standard acceptable to the Organization1. 52 Low-flashpoint fuel means gaseous or liquid fuel having a flashpoint lower than otherwise permitted under paragraph 2.1.1 of SOLAS regulation II-2/4."

Regulation 14 Sulphur oxides (SOX) and particulate matter 2 "[In-use] [Onboard] fuel oil sampling and testing" and a new paragraph [A1] are added at the end of regulation 14 as follows:

"[In-use] [Onboard] fuel oil sampling and testing"

"[A1] If the competent authority of a Party requires the [in-use] [onboard] fuel oil sample to be analysed, it shall be done in accordance with the verification procedure set forth in appendix VI to determine whether the fuel oil being used on board meets the requirements in paragraph 1 or paragraph 4 of this regulation. The [in-use] [onboard] fuel oil sample shall be drawn taking into account the guidelines developed by the Organization.2"

3 "[In-use] [Onboard] fuel oil sampling point" and new paragraphs [A2, A3, A4 and A5] are added at the end of regulation 14 as follows:

"[In-use] [Onboard] fuel oil sampling point [A2] For each ship subject to regulations 5 and 6 of this Annex, one or more sampling points shall be fitted or designated for the purpose of taking representative samples of the fuel oil being used on board the ship taking into account guidelines developed by the Organization.3 [A3] For a ship constructed before [entry into force of these requirements], the sampling points referred to in paragraph [A2] shall be fitted or designated not later than the first renewal survey that occurs after [entry into force of these regulations].

1 Refer to ISO 8754: 2003 Petroleum products – Determination of sulfur content – Energy-dispersive X-ray

fluorescence spectrometry. 2 Refer to the Guidelines for onboard sampling for the verification of the sulphur content of the fuel oil on board

ships (MEPC.1/Circ.864) [as may be amended]. 3 Refer to the Guidelines for onboard sampling for the verification of the sulphur content of the fuel oil on board

ships (MEPC.1/Circ.864) [as may be amended].



[A4] Fuel oil service systems for low-flashpoint fuels for combustion purposes for propulsion or operation on board the ship are exempted from the requirements of paragraphs [A2] and [A3] above. [A5] The competent authority of a Party may utilize the sampling point(s) which is fitted or designated for the purpose of taking representative samples of the fuel oil being used on board in order to verify the fuel oil complies with this regulation. Taking fuel oil samples by the competent authority of the Party shall be performed as expeditiously as possible without causing the ship to be unduly delayed."

Appendix I Form of International Air Pollution Prevention (IAPP) Certificate (Regulation 8) Supplement to the International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate (IAPP Certificate) 5 New paragraphs 2.3.4 and 2.3.5 are added as follows:

"2.3.4 The ship is fitted with designated sampling point(s) in accordance with

regulation 14.[A2] or 14.[A3].....................................................................................□

[2.3.5 The requirement for fitting or designating sampling point(s) in accordance with regulation 14.[A2] or 14.[A3] is exempted for fuel oil service systems for low-flashpoint fuels for combustion purposes for propulsion or operation on board the

ship………………………….....................................................................................□]"

[Appendix VI Fuel verification procedure for MARPOL Annex VI fuel oil samples (Regulation 18.8.2) 6 Appendix VI is replaced with the following:

"Verification procedures for a MARPOL Annex VI fuel oil sample (regulation 18.8.2 or regulation 14.[A1]) The following relevant verification procedure shall be used to determine whether the fuel oil delivered to and used or carried for use onboard a ship is compliant with the applicable sulphur limits required by regulation 14 of Annex VI. This appendix refers to the following representative MARPOL Annex VI fuel oil samples:

Part 1 – sample of fuel oil delivered4 in accordance with 18.8.1 thereafter referred to as the ["MARPOL"] ["delivered"] sample. Part 2 – sample of fuel oil in use5, intended to be used or carried for use on board, hereafter referred to as the ["in-use"] ["onboard"] sample.

4 Samples taken in accordance with the 2009 Guidelines for the sampling of fuel oil for determination of

compliance with the revised MARPOL Annex VI (resolution MEPC.182(59)). 5 Samples taken in accordance with the Guidelines for onboard sampling for the verification of the sulphur

content of the fuel oil used on board ships (Circular MEPC.1/Circ.864) [as may be amended].



Part 1 – (Representative) [MARPOL] [delivered] fuel oil sample 1 General Requirements 1.1 The representative fuel oil sample, which is required by regulation 18.8.1 (the ["MARPOL"] ["delivered"] sample) shall be used to verify the sulphur content of the fuel oil delivered to a ship. 1.2 An Administration, through its competent authority, shall manage the verification procedure. 1.3 A laboratory undertaking the sulphur testing procedure set forth in this appendix is to have valid accreditation6 in respect of the test method to be used. 2 Verification procedure Part 1 2.1 The [MARPOL] [delivered] sample shall be brought by the competent authority to the laboratory. 2.2 The laboratory shall:

.1 record the details of the seal number and the sample label on the test record;

.2 record that the condition of the seal on the sample as received on

the test record; and .3 reject any sample where the seal has been broken prior to receipt

and record that rejection on the test record. 2.3 If the seal of the sample has not been broken, the laboratory shall proceed with the verification procedure and shall:

.1 unseal the sample; .2 ensure that the sample is thoroughly homogenized; .3 draw two sub-samples from the sample; and .4 reseal the sample and record the new reseal details on the test

record.

2.4 The two sub-samples shall be tested in succession, in accordance with the specified test method referred to in appendix V7. For the purposes of this verification procedure, the results of the test analysis shall be referred to as "A" and "B":

.1 results "A" and "B" shall be recorded on the test record in

accordance with the requirements of the test method;

6 Accreditation in accordance with ISO 17025:2005 or an equivalent standard. 7 Appendix V footnote: Fuel oil shall be tested in accordance with the ISO 8754:2003.



.2 if the results of "A" and "B" are within the repeatability (r)8 of the test method, the results shall be considered valid; and

.3 if the results of "A" and "B" are not within the repeatability (r) of the

test method, both results shall be rejected and two new sub-samples shall be taken by the laboratory and tested. The sample bottle shall be resealed in accordance with paragraph 2.3.4 above after the new sub-samples have been taken.

2.5 If the test results of "A" and "B" are valid, an average of these two results shall be calculated thus giving the result referred to as "X":

.1 if the result of "X" is equal to or falls below the applicable limit required by regulation 14, the fuel oil shall be considered to have met the requirement; and

.2 if the result of "X" is greater than the applicable limit required

by regulation 14, the fuel oil shall be considered to have not met the requirement.

Table 1: Summary of Part 1 [MARPOL] [delivered] fuel oil sample procedure

On the basis of appendix V test method

Applicable limit % m/m: V Result 2.5.1: X < V Result 2.5.2: V < X

0.10 Met the requirement Not met requirement 0.50

Result "X" reported to 2 decimal places

2.6 The results obtained from this verification procedure are final. Part 2 - The [in-use] [onboard] fuel oil sample 1 General Requirements 1.1 The [in-use] [onboard] fuel oil sample shall be used to verify the sulphur content of the fuel oil as represented by that sample fuel at the point of sampling. 1.2 An Administration, through its competent authority, shall manage the verification procedure. 1.3 A laboratory undertaking the sulphur testing procedure given by this appendix is to have valid accreditation in respect of the test method to be used. 2 Verification Procedure Part 2 2.1 The fuel oil sample shall be delivered by the competent authority to the laboratory.

8 Repeatability (r) calculation defined in the test method in accordance ISO 4259:2017-2.



2.2 The laboratory shall:

.1 record the details of the seal number and the sample label on the test record;

.2 record the condition of the seal on the sample as received on the test

record; and .3 reject any sample where the seal has been broken prior to receipt

and record that Rejection on the test record. 2.3 If the seal of the sample as received has not been broken, the laboratory shall proceed with the verification procedure and shall:

.1 unseal the sample; .2 ensure that the sample is thoroughly homogenized; .3 draw two sub-samples from the sample; and .4 reseal the sample and record the new reseal details on the test

record. 2.4 The two sub-samples shall be tested in succession, in accordance with the specified test method referred to in appendix V9. For the purposes of this verification procedure, the results obtained shall be referred to as "S1" and "S2":

.1 results "S1" and "S2" shall be recorded on the test record in accordance with requirements of the test method;

.2 if the results of "S1" and "S2" are within the repeatability (r) of the

test method, the results shall be considered valid; and

.3 if the results of "S1" and "S2" are not within the repeatability (r) of the test method, both results shall be rejected and two new sub-samples shall be taken by the laboratory and tested. The sample bottle shall be resealed in accordance with paragraph 2.3.4 above after the new sub-samples have been taken.

2.5 If the test results of "S1" and "S2" are valid, an average of these two results shall be calculated. That average value shall be referred to as "Save" and shall be recorded on the test record:

.1 if "Save" is equal to or less than the applicable limit required by regulation 14, the sulphur content of the onboard fuel oil as represented by the tested sample shall be considered to meet the requirement;

9 Appendix V footnote: Fuel oil shall be tested in accordance with the ISO 8754:2003.



.2 if "Save" is greater than the applicable limit required by regulation 14 but less than or equal to that applicable limit + 0.59R (where R is the reproducibility of the test method)10, the sulphur content of the onboard fuel oil as represented by the tested sample shall be considered to have met the requirement; and

.3 if "Save" is greater than the regulation 14 applicable limit value

+ 0.59R, the sulphur content of the onboard fuel oil as represented by the tested sample shall be considered to have not met the requirement.

Table 2: Summary of [in-use] [onboard] fuel oil sample procedure11

On the basis of Appendix V test method

Applicable limit %m/m:

V

Test margin value:

W

Result 2.5.1: Save < V

Result 2.5.2:

V< Save < W

Result 2.5.3:

Save > W

0.10 0.11 Met the requirement

Met the requirement

Not met requirement 0.50 0.53

Result "Save" reported to 2 decimal places

2.6 The results obtained from this verification procedure are final. "]

***

10 Defined in the test method in accordance with ISO 4259:2017-2. 11 Results of testing undertaken by the ship or other parties are outside the MARPOL process and hence

should be consider within the given approach of the ISO 4259:2017-2 regarding recipient drawn samples.



ANNEX 4

DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE 2009 GUIDELINES FOR PORT STATE CONTROL UNDER THE REVISED MARPOL ANNEX VI (RESOLUTION MEPC.181(59))

(shown as additions/deletions)

(issues related to exhaust gas cleaning systems are shaded.) [Chapter 1 GENERAL 1.1 This document is intended to provide basic guidance on the conduct of port State control inspections for compliance with MARPOL Annex VI (hereinafter referred to as "the Annex") and afford consistency in the conduct of these inspections, the recognition of deficiencies and the application of control procedures. 1.2 The regulations of MARPOL Annex VI contain the following compliance provisions:

.1 an IAPP Certificate is required for all ships of 400 GT or above, and platforms and drilling rigs, engaged in international voyages. Administrations may establish alternative appropriate measures to demonstrate the necessary compliance in respect of ships under of less than 400 GT engaged in international voyages;

.2 new installations which contain ozone depleting substances, other than

hydro-chlorofluorocarbons, are prohibited on or after 19 May 2005. Each ship which has rechargeable systems that contain ozone depleting substances is required to maintain an Ozone Depleting Substances Record Book;

.3 in the case of the NOX controls, Tier I emission limits are applied to all

applicable marine diesel engines over 130 kW installed on ships constructed on or after 1 January 2000 and prior to 1 January 2011. Emission limits equivalent to Tier I may apply to marine diesel engines with a power output of more than 5,000 kW and a per cylinder displacement at or above 90 litres installed on a ship constructed on or after 1 January 1990 but prior to 1 January 2000 according to regulation VI/13.7. Tier II emission limits are applied to all applicable marine diesel engines over 130 kW installed on ships constructed on or after 1 January 2011 and prior to 1 January 2016 the effective date of an Emission Control Area (ECA). Subject to the review set forth in regulation 13.10, Tier III emission limits are applied to all applicable marine diesel engines over 130 kW installed on ships constructed on or after 1 January 2016. However, while these ships are

operating outside of an Emission Control Area established for NOX control, Tier II limits are applied. Marine diesel engines which are subject to major conversion are to be certified to the required Tier of control according to regulation VI/13.2;

As of DD/MM/YYYY, there is no area are two areas designated as Emission Control Areas under

regulation VI/13.



.4 In the case of SOX and particulate matter regulations control should be achieved by either:

.1 the sulphur content of any fuel oil used [or carried for use] on board

ships, subject to the provisions of regulation VI/18.2 VI/14, is required not to exceed the following limits: .1 4.50% m/m prior to 1 January 2012; [.2 3.50% m/m [on and after 1 January 2012]; and] .3 0.50% m/m [on and after 1 January 2020], subject to the

review set forth in regulations VI/14.8, VI/14.9 and VI/14.10.

However, while ships are operating within an Emission Control Area established for SOX [and particulate matter control], the sulphur content of fuel oil used on board ships is required not to exceed 0.10% m/m. the following limits:

.1 1.50% m/m prior to 1 July 2010; .2 1.00% m/m on and after 1 July 2010; and .3 0.10% m/m on and after 1 January 2015;

or, [.2 compliance with SOX emission control requirements shall be

achieved by an equivalent method as approved (regulation VI/4); For a ship fitted with an exhaust gas cleaning systems (EGCS), the record of measurement of SO2 (ppm)/CO2 (% v/v) of exhaust gas from the EGCS should not exceed the following ratio in accordance with the 2015 Guidelines for exhaust gas cleaning systems (MEPC.259(68)):

.1 for ships engaged in voyages within emission control

areas: SO2/CO2 ≦ 4.3; or

.2 for ships not engaged in voyages within emission control

areas: SO2/CO2 ≦ 21.7.]

.5 only those incinerators installed on or after 1 January 2000 are required to

comply with the associated requirements (appendix IV to the Annex), however, the restrictions as to which materials may be apply to all incinerators; and

.6 a tanker carrying crude oil is required to have on board and implement a

volatile organic compounds (VOC) management plan approved by the Administration. Tanker vapour emission control systems are only required where their fitting is specified by the relevant authority.



1.3 Chapters 1 (General), 4 (Contravention and detention), 5 (Reporting requirements) and 6 (Review procedures) of the Procedures for Port State Control adopted by resolution A.787(19), as amended by resolution A.882(21), also apply to these Guidelines. Chapter 2 INSPECTIONS OF SHIPS REQUIRED TO CARRY THE IAPP CERTIFICATE 2.1 Initial inspections 2.1.1 On boarding and introduction to the master or responsible ship's officer, the port State control officer (PSCO) should examine the following documents, where applicable:

.1 the International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate (IAPP Certificate) (regulation VI/6), including its Supplement*;

.2 the Engine International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate (EIAPP

Certificate) (paragraph 2.2 of the NOX Technical Code) including its Supplement, for each applicable marine diesel engine;

.3 the Technical File (paragraph 2.3.4 of the NOX Technical Code) for each

applicable marine diesel engine; .4 depending on the method used for demonstrating NOX compliance for each

applicable marine diesel engine:

.1 the Record Book of Engine Parameters for each marine diesel engine (paragraph 6.2.2.7 of the NOX Technical Code) demonstrating compliance with regulation VI/13 by means of the marine diesel engine parameter check method; or

.2 documentation relating to the simplified measurement method; or .3 documentation related to the direct measurement and monitoring

method;

.5 the Approved Method File (regulation VI/13.7); .6 the written procedures covering fuel oil change over operations (which is not

required to be in English) where separate fuel oils are used in order to achieve compliance (regulation VI/14.6);

.7 the approved documentation relating to any installed exhaust gas cleaning

systems (type approval certificate, SECP, (SECC), ETM, OMM and the nitrate discharge data and analysis certificate), or equivalent means, to reduce SOX emissions (regulation VI/4);

.8 the bunker delivery notes (BDNs) and associated samples or records thereof

(regulation VI/18), including:

the BDNs are required show the quantity and the sulphur content of the delivered marine fuel oils and state the name and IMO number of the

* Under regulation 6(2) of MARPOL Annex VI, a ship constructed before the date of entry into force of MARPOL

Annex VI shall be issued with an International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate no later than the first scheduled dry-docking after the date of such entry into force, but in no case later than three years after this date.



receiving ship; port (of delivery); date, address, and telephone number of marine fuel oil supplier; product name(s); quantity (metric tons); density at 15°C (kg/m³); sulphur content (% m/m) and include a declaration signed and certified by the fuel oil supplier's representative that the fuel oil supplied is in conformity with the regulations (regulation VI/14.1 or VI/.14.4 and VI/18.3) and that the sulphur content of the fuel oil supplied does not exceed the relevant limit if in combination with an equivalent means of compliance;

.9 the copy of the type approval certificate of any shipboard incinerator installed

on or after 1 January 2000 (for the incinerators with capacities up to 1,500 kW) (resolutions MEPC.76(40) and MEPC.93(45));

.10 the Ozone Depleting Substances Record Book (regulation VI/12.6); .11 the VOC Management Plan (regulation VI/15.6); and .12 any notification to the ship's flag Administration issued by the master or

officer in charge of the bunker operation together with any available commercial documentation relevant to non-compliant bunker delivery.

The PSCO should ascertain the date of ship construction and the date of installation of equipment on board which are subject to the provisions of the Annex, in order to confirm which regulations of the Annex are applicable. 2.1.2 As a preliminary check, the IAPP Certificate's validity should be confirmed by verifying that the Certificate is properly completed and signed and that required surveys have been performed. 2.1.3 Through examining the Supplement to the IAPP Certificate, the PSCO may establish how the ship is equipped for the prevention of air pollution. 2.1.4 If the certificates and documents are valid and appropriate, and the PSCO's general impressions and visual observations on board confirm a good standard of maintenance, the PSCO should generally confine the inspection to reported deficiencies, if any. 2.1.5 In the case where the bunker delivery note or the representative sample as required by regulation VI/18 presented to the ship are not in compliance with the relevant requirements (BDN given by appendix V of MARPOL Annex VI), the master or officer in charge of the bunker operation should have documented that through a Notification to the ship's flag Administration with copies to the port Authority under whose jurisdiction the ship did not receive the required documentation pursuant to the bunkering operation and to the bunker deliverer. A copy should be retained on board the ship, together with any available commercial documentation, for the subsequent scrutiny of port State control. 2.1.6 Initial inspection within an ECA When a ship is inspected in a port in ECA designated for SOX emission control, the PSCO will look at:

.1 evidence of fuel oil delivered to and used on board with a sulphur content of not more than 0.10% m/m through the BDNs and appropriate records in the Oil Record Book Part 1 (regulation VI/18.5 and VI/14.4). BDNs must be kept on board the ship in such a place as to be readily available for inspection at all reasonable times, and retained on board for a period of three years after the fuel oil has been delivered;



.2 evidence of a written procedure (which is not required to be in English) and records of changeover to fuel oil with a sulphur content of not more than 0.10% m/m before entering the ECA such that compliant fuel was being used while sailing in the in the entire ECA.

The volume of low sulphur fuel oils in each tank, as well as the date, time and position of the ship shall be recorded in a logbook (as prescribed by the Administration) at the time that the fuel-change-over operation has been completed prior to entering the ECA or is commenced after exit from such an area.

2.1.7 Initial inspection outside ECA designated for SOX emission control When a ship is inspected in a port outside ECA the PSCO will look to the same documentation and evidence as during inspections in ports inside the ECA. The PSCO will in particular look at:

.1 Evidence of fuel oil delivered to and used on board with a sulphur content of not more than [3.50% m/m (or] 0.50% m/m [as of 1 January 2020)] through the BDNs and appropriate records in the Oil Record Book Part 1; and

.2 Evidence of a written procedure (which is not required to be in English) and

records of changeover from fuel oil with a sulphur content of not more than 0.10% m/m after leaving the ECA such that compliant fuel was being used while sailing in the in the entire ECA.

[2.1.8 Initial inspection on ships equipped with equivalent means of SOX compliance On ships equipped with equivalent means, the PSCO will look at:

.1 Evidence that the ship has received an appropriate approval for any installed exhaust gas cleaning systems, or equivalent means (approved, under trial or being commissioned);

.2 Evidence that the ship is using the equivalent means for all fuel combustion

machinery on board. If this is not the case, the sulphur content of any fuel oil being used on the remaining combustion machinery does not exceed 0.10% m/m when in the ECA (or 0.50% m/m [as of 1 January 2020] outside the ECA);

.3 [As of 2019] Bunker delivery notes on board indicate that the fuel oil is

intended to be used in combination with an equivalent means of SOx compliance or the ship is subject to a relevant exemption to conduct trials for sulphur oxides emission reduction and control technology research; and

.4 Check of the correct function of data recording and processing device

(MARPOL log), including main parameters checks as appropriate. ]

2.1.9 If the certificates and documents are valid and appropriate and, after an inspection of the ship to check that the overall condition of the ship meets generally accepted international rules and standards, the PSCO's general impressions and observations on board confirm a good standard of maintenance, the inspection should be considered satisfactorily concluded.

2015 Guidelines for exhaust gas cleaning systems (Resolution MEPC.259(68)).



2.1.[6] [10] If, however, the PSCO's general impressions or observations on board give clear grounds (see paragraph 2.1.[7] [11]) for believing that the condition of the ship or its equipment do not correspond substantially with the particulars of the certificates or the documents, the PSCO should proceed to a more detailed inspection. 2.1.[7] [11] "Clear grounds" to conduct a more detailed inspection include:

.1 evidence that certificates required by the Annex are missing or clearly invalid; .2 evidence that documents required by the Annex are missing or clearly

invalid;

.3 the absence of principal equipment or arrangements specified in the certificates or documents;

.4 the presence of equipment or arrangements not specified in the certificates

or documents; .5 evidence from the PSCO's general impressions or observations that serious

deficiencies exist in the equipment or arrangements specified in the certificates or documents;

.6 information or evidence that the master or crew are not familiar with essential

shipboard operations relating to the prevention of air pollution, or that such operations have not been carried out;

[.7 evidence of inconsistency from an examination of the bunker delivery notes.

The BDN is not in line with the information in the certificate (e.g. BDNs indicating use of equivalent means whereas the IAPP Supplement indicates use of compliant fuel oil as per VI/14.3);]

.[7][8] evidence that the quality of fuel oil, delivered to and used on board the ship,

appears to be substandard [as defined in regulation VI/18.3]; [.9 evidence that the quantity of compliant fuel oil is insufficient for the intended

voyage in the ECA; or .[8][10] receipt of a report or complaint containing information that the ship appears

to be substandard (including but not limited to information from remote sensing surveillance of SOX emissions or portable fuel oil sulphur content measurement devices indicating that a ship appears to use non-compliant fuel while in operation/underway).



2.2 More detailed inspections 2.2.1 The PSCO should verify that:

.1 there are effectively implemented maintenance procedures for the equipment containing ozone-depleting substances; and

.2 there are no deliberate emissions of ozone-depleting substances.

2.2.2 In order to verify that each installed marine diesel engine with a power output of more than 130 kW is approved by the Administration in accordance with the NOX Technical Code and maintained appropriately, the PSCO should pay particular attention to the following:

.1 examine such marine diesel engines to be consistent with the EIAPP Certificate and its Supplement, Technical File and, if applicable, Record Book of Engine Parameters or Onboard Monitoring Manual and related data;

.2 examine marine diesel engines specified in the Technical Files to verify that no unapproved modifications, which may affect on NOX emission, have been made to the marine diesel engines;

.3 examine marine diesel engines with a power output of more than 5,000 kW and a per cylinder displacement at or above 90 litres installed on a ship constructed on or after 1 January 1990 but prior to 1 January 2000 to verify that they are certified, if so required, in accordance with regulation VI/13.7;

.4 in the case of ships constructed before 1 January 2000, verify that any marine diesel engine which has been subject to a major conversion, as defined in regulation VI/13, has been approved by the Administration; and

.5 emergency marine diesel engines intended to be used solely in case of emergency are still in use for this purpose.

2.2.3 The PSCO should check whether the quality of fuel oil used [or carried for use] on

board the ship conforms to complies with the provisions of regulations VI/14 and VI/18, taking into account amendments to appendix IV VI to the Annex [and the Guidelines to be developed by the Organization in relation to fuel oil non availability].

[Shortage or non-availability on board the ship of fuel oil with a sulphur content of not more than 0.10% m/m due to possible considerable changing of weather conditions during the time the ship operates in the ECA should not be accepted].

[2.2.4 Furthermore, t The PSCO should pay attention to the record required in regulation VI/14.6 in order to identify the sulphur content of fuel oil used while by the ship is within an Emission Control Area under regulation VI/14.3 depending on the area of trade, or that other equivalent approved means have been applied as required. The fuel oil consumed in and outside the ECA, and that there is enough fuel in compliance with VI/14 to reach the next port destination. The PSCO should also verify and cross check various documentation including BDN, navigation information from bridge's log books, engine data from the ship's statutory documents or engine room log book, oil record book, fuel change over records, fuel tanks capacity and content, etc.]

It should be noted that in the case where bunker delivery note or representative sample as required by

regulation VI/18 are not in compliance with the relevant requirements, the master or crew should have documented that fact. Where fuel oil supply was undertaken in a port under the jurisdiction of a Party to the 1997 Protocol, the PSCO should report that non-compliance to the appropriate authority responsible for the registration of fuel oil suppliers (regulation VI/18.10.1).



[2.2.5 In order to verify the fuel used by the ship or any other deficiencies found during the initial or more detailed inspection, the PSCO may obtain evidence through:

.1 sampling of the fuel in the ship's fuel lines or in the tanks, taking into account

the guidelines for onboard sampling; or .2 sampling and analysis of the representative samples of fuel delivered, as

appropriate.]

[2.2.6 If the ship is equipped with equivalent means of SOX compliance, the PSCO should verify that the system is properly functioning, is in operation, there are tamper-proof

continuous-monitoring systems,[ if applicable,] and applies to all fuel combustion machinery items on board. As part of the verification the following documents and records should be considered:

.1 any supporting documents from the ship's flag Administration referring to the approval of trial, if applicable;

.2 any documentation referring to the type of fuel and its sulphur content

allowed; [.3 values for PAH, pH and turbidity should be checked and not exceed the limits

given in paragraph 10.1 of the revised 2015 Guidelines for Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (resolution MEPC.259(68));]

.4 appropriate records in the ship's log books.]

2.2.[4][7] If the ship is a tanker, as defined in regulation VI/2.21, the PSCO should verify that the vapour collection system approved by the Administration, taking into account MSC/Circ.585, is installed, if required under regulation VI/15. 2.2.[5][8] If the ship is a tanker carrying crude oil, the PSCO should verify that there is on board an approved VOC Management Plan. 2.2.[6][9] The PSCO should verify that prohibited materials are not incinerated. 2.2.[7][10] The PSCO should verify that shipboard incineration of sewage sludge or sludge oil in boilers or marine power plants is not undertaken while the ship is inside ports, harbours or estuaries (regulation VI/16.4). 2.2.[8][11] The PSCO should verify that the shipboard incinerator, if required by regulation VI/16.6.1, is approved by the Administration. For these units, it should be verified that the incinerator is properly maintained, therefore the PSCO should examine whether:

.1 the shipboard incinerator is consistent with the certificate of shipboard incinerator;

.2 the operational manual, in order to operate the shipboard incinerator within

the limits provided in appendix IV to the Annex, is provided; and

IMO Guidelines for onboard sampling for the verification of the sulphur content of fuel oil used on board

ships (MEPC.1/Circ.864). 3 Equivalent emission values for emission abatement methods are 4.3 and 21.7 SO2 (ppm)/CO2 (% v/v) for

marine fuels with a sulphur content of 0.10 and 0.50 (% m/m) respectively.



.3 the combustion chamber flue gas outlet temperature is monitored as required (regulation VI/16.9).

2.2.[9][12] If there are clear grounds as defined in paragraph 2.1.6, the PSCO may examine operational procedures by confirming that:

.1 the master or crew are familiar with the procedures to prevent emissions of ozone-depleting substances;

.2 the master or crew are familiar with the proper operation and maintenance

of marine diesel engines, in accordance with their Technical Files or Approved Method file, as applicable, and with due regard for Emission Control Areas for NOX control;

[.3 the master or crew are familiar with fuel or bulk lubricating oil bunkering procedures in connection to the respective bunker delivery notes, oil record book part I recordings and retained samples as required by regulation VI/18;]

.[3][4] the master or crew are familiar and have undertaken the necessary fuel oil changeover procedures, or equivalent, associated with demonstrating compliance within an Emission Control Area for SOX [and particulate matter control];

.[4][5] the master or crew are familiar with the garbage screening procedure to ensure that prohibited garbage is not incinerated;

.[5][6] the master or crew are familiar with the operation of the shipboard incinerator, as required by regulation VI/16.6, within the limits provided in appendix IV to the Annex, in accordance with its operational manual;

.[6][7] the master or crew are familiar with the regulation of emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), when the ship is in ports or terminals under the jurisdiction of a Party to the 1997 Protocol to MARPOL 73/78 in which VOCs emissions are to be regulated, and are familiar with the proper operation of a vapour collection system approved by the Administration (in case the ship is a tanker as defined in regulation VI/2.21); and

.[7][8] the master or crew are familiar with the application of the VOC Management Plan, if applicable.; and

[.8 the master or crew are familiar with bunker delivery procedures in respect of bunker delivery notes and retained samples as required by regulation VI/18.]



2.3 Detainable deficiencies

2.3.1 In exercising his/her functions, the PSCO should use professional judgment to determine whether to detain the ship until any noted deficiencies are corrected or to allow it to sail with certain deficiencies which do not pose an unreasonable threat of harm [under the scope of the Annex provided they will be timely addressed] [to the marine environment]. In doing this, the PSCO should be guided by the principle that the requirements contained in the Annex, with respect to the construction, equipment and operation of the ship, are essential for the protection of the marine environment, [the navigational safety or the human health] and that departure from these requirements could constitute an unreasonable threat of harm to [the mentioned protection aspects and should be avoided][marine environment].

2.3.2 In order to assist the PSCO in the use of these Guidelines, there follows a list of deficiencies, which are considered, taking into account the provisions of regulation VI/3, to be of such a serious nature that they may warrant the detention of the ship involved:

.1 absence of valid IAPP Certificate, EIAPP Certificates or Technical Files*; .2 a marine diesel engine, with a power output of more than 130 kW, which is

installed on board a ship constructed on or after 1 January 2000, or a marine diesel engine having undergone a major conversion on or after 1 January 2000, which does not comply with the NOx Technical Code or that does not comply with the relevant NOx emission limit;

.3 a marine diesel engine, with a power output of more than 5,000 kW and a

per cylinder displacement at or above 90 litres, which is installed on board a ship constructed on or after 1 January 1990 but prior to 1 January 2000, and an Approved Method for that engine has been certified by an Administration and was commercially available, for which an Approved Method is not installed after the first renewal survey specified in regulation VI/13.7.2;

.4 [depending on the method used for demonstrating SOX compliance][on ships

not equipped with equivalent means of SOX compliance], [based on the methodology of sample analysis in accordance with appendix VI of MARPOL Annex VI,] the sulphur content of any fuel oil [being] used [or carried for use] on board exceeds 4.5% m/m prior to 1 January 2012, [the applicable limit required by VI/14] [3.50% m/m on and after 1 January 2012 and] 0.50% m/m [on and after 1 January 2020]1, [or 0.10% m/m while in an ECA.] [If the master claims that is was not possible to bunker compliant fuel, the PSCO should takeing] taking into account the provisions of regulation VI/18.2 [and should use the Guidelines developed by the Organization referred to therein];

[.5 on ships equipped with equivalent means of SOX compliance, absence of an

appropriate approval for it, or that does not comply with the relevant SOX emission limit;]

* Under regulation 6.2 of MARPOL Annex VI, a ship constructed before the date of entry into force of MARPOL

Annex VI shall be issued with an International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate no later than the first scheduled dry-docking after the date of such entry into force, but in no case later than three years after this date.

1 Or 2025, depending on the results of the review of regulation VI/14.1.3, as described in regulation VI/14.8.



[.5bis on ships equipped with equivalent means of SOX compliance, absence of an appropriate approval for the equivalent means which applies to all fuel combustion machinery on board. In case of partial approval, the sulphur content of any fuel oil being used on the remaining combustion machinery items does not exceed the limits stipulated in regulation VI/14, taking into account the provisions of regulation VI/18.2 [and the Guidelines developed by the Organization referred to therein];

.[5][6] non-compliance with the relevant requirements while operating within an

Emission Control Area for SOX and particulate matter control; .[6][7] an incinerator installed on board the ship on or after 1 January 2000 does

not comply with requirements contained in appendix IV to the Annex, or the standard specifications for shipboard incinerators developed by the Organization (resolutions MEPC.76(40) and MEPC.93(45));

.[7][8] the master or crew are not familiar with essential procedures regarding the

operation of air pollution prevention equipment as defined in paragraph 2.2.[9][12] above.

Chapter 3 INSPECTIONS OF SHIPS OF NON-PARTIES TO THE ANNEX AND OTHER

SHIPS NOT REQUIRED TO CARRY THE IAPP CERTIFICATE 3.1 As this category of ships is not provided with the IAPP Certificate, the PSCO should judge whether the condition of the ship and its equipment satisfies the requirements set out in the Annex. In this respect, the PSCO should take into account that, in accordance with article 5(4) of the MARPOL Convention, no more favourable treatment is to be given to ships of non-Parties. 3.2 In all other respects the PSCO should be guided by the procedures for ships referred to in chapter 2 and should be satisfied that the ship and crew do not present a danger to those on board or an unreasonable threat of harm to the marine environment. 3.3 If the ship has a form of certification other than the IAPP Certificate, the PSCO may take such documentation into account in the evaluation of the ship.]

***



ANNEX 5

DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE GUIDELINES FOR ONBOARD SAMPLING FOR THE VERIFICATION OF THE SULPHUR CONTENT OF THE FUEL OIL USED ON BOARD

SHIPS (MEPC.1/CIRC.864)

(shown as additions/deletions) 1 Preface The objective of these Guidelines is to establish an agreed method for sampling to enable effective control and enforcement of liquid fuel oil being used on board ships under the provisions of MARPOL Annex VI. 2 Sampling location 2.1 The on-board representative sample or samples should be obtained from a designated sampling point or points as agreed by the Administration taking into account the criteria given in paragraphs 2.2.1 to 2.2.5 of these Guidelines. The number and location of designated fuel oil sampling points should be [confirmed]1 by the Administration following consideration of possible fuel cross-contamination and service tank arrangements. 2.2 In the absence of the sampling point or points referred to in paragraph 2.1, the fuel sampling point to be used should fulfil all of the following conditions: Fuel sampling points to be used should fulfil all of the following conditions:

.1 be easily and safely accessible; .2 take into account different fuel oil grades being used for the fuel oil

combustion machinery item; .3 be downstream of the in-use fuel oil service tank; .4 be as close to the fuel oil combustion machinery as safely feasible taking into

account the type of fuel oil, flow-rate, temperature, and pressure behind the selected sampling point;

.5 be clearly marked for easy identification and described in [the Oil Record

Book and all other] relevant documents; .56 the each sampling point should be located in a position shielded from any

heated surface or electrical equipment and the shielding device or construction should be sturdy enough to endure leaks, splashes or spray under design pressure of the fuel oil supply line so as to preclude impingement of fuel oil onto such surface or equipment; and

.6 be proposed by the ship's representative and accepted by the inspector; and .7 the sampling arrangement should be provided with suitable drainage to the

drain tank or other safe location.

1 Note: ISWG-AP 1 agreed that the Administration is not expected to give approval/agreement; the term

"confirmed" needs further discussion.



2.3 Fuel oil samples may be taken at more than one location in the fuel oil service system to determine whether there is a possible fuel cross-contamination in the absence of fully segregated fuel service systems, or in case of multiple service tank arrangements. 3 Sample handling The fuel oil sample should be taken when a steady flow is established in the fuel oil circulating

system. The sampling connection should be thoroughly flushed through with the fuel oil in use prior to drawing the sample. The sample or samples should be collected in a sampling container or containers and should be representative of the fuel oil being used. The sample bottles should be sealed by the inspector with a unique means of identification installed in the presence of the ship's representative. The ship should be given the option of retaining a sample. The label should include the following information:

.1 sampling point location where the sample was drawn; .2 date and port of sampling; .3 name and IMO number of the ship; .4 details of seal identification; and .5 signatures and names of the inspector and the ship's representative.

***

The sampling connection is the valve and associated pipework designated for sample collection which is

connected to the fuel oil service system.



ANNEX 6

STATEMENTS BY DELEGATIONS AND OBSERVERS

Statement by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) "Mr Chairman, Distinguished Delegates,

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) would like to thank those who drew up the three submissions: ISWG-AP 1/2/12 (Liberia et al.); ISWG-AP 1/2/7 (India) and ISWG-AP 1/2/10 (OCIMF and IPIECA) relating to the safety and operational implications associated with 2020 0.50% max Sulphur fuel oils and their respective challenges.

These papers importantly highlight key critical fuel characteristics that must be addressed for all fuel oils delivered, these being specifically: flash point (in accordance with SOLAS requirements), stability and cold flow properties. Notwithstanding the importance in meeting the limits of these characteristics as set down in the ordering specification given by the purchaser, which should reference the ISO 8217 specification and which when not met, may result in operational problems with possible safety implications in the severest of cases.

The ISO 8217 committee would like to clarify that the General requirements as in ISO 8217:2017 and all characteristics included in Table 1 and 2 of ISO 8217:2017 mirror safety, environmental concerns and further take into consideration the onboard handling requirements, including storage, cleaning and combustion aspects of all fuel oils used today and the anticipated fuel blends of 2020, irrespective of the sulphur content of the fuel oils.

A specific concern has been earlier expressed by the ISO 8217 committee on the fuel oil blends as modelled by CE Delft, containing H-oil bottoms and the potential risk of obtaining unstable fuels if they are not properly blended. It should be noted however that as with today's fuels, all marine fuels delivered to ships shall be stable and meet the ISO 8217 total sediment potential requirement of 0.10 % maximum, which provides the criteria to be met for fuel oil stability.

The consequences of fuel instability have been well documented in the submitted papers and therefore it is to be expected that fuel oil blenders and suppliers take careful note of these consequences ensuring this fuel characteristic is not overlooked.

The fuel oil blend formulations as modelled in the CE Delft study, vary widely across the regions, and ships will, as they do today, have to consider the risk of incompatibility when using consecutive fuels from different ports and regions. Compatibility between different fuels cannot be guaranteed by the suppliers and it falls on the competency of the crew to manage this. Recognising that some degree of mixing of different fuel oils onboard the ship cannot be avoided, many ships today have already procedures in place to minimize commingling of fuel oils with bunker segregation being always the first option. We would therefore encourage ship operators to evaluate further their segregation policy.

In response to the IMO request for the ISO 8217 committee to consider the framework of ISO 8217 with a view to ensuring consistency between the relevant ISO standards on marine fuel oils and the implementation of regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI, the ISO 8217 committee has initiated the development of a Publicly Available Specification (PAS) "Considerations for fuel suppliers and users regarding marine fuel quality in view of the implementation of maximum 0.50 % S in 2020". Given that these 0.50% max Sulphur fuel oils will be fully capable of being categorized within the existing ISO 8217 standard, the PAS will provide guidance as to the application of the existing ISO 8217 standard to such fuel oils. Furthermore, at this time we do not have any new characteristic which is currently being considered for inclusion.



Regarding the stability of fuel oils, ISO 8217 committee initiated a test program to investigate whether test methods currently not yet widely used for marine fuel stability testing, can provide further and consistent information on the stability and potential instability of a wide range of different fuel blend formulations that are anticipated to likely represent what will be available in the market from late 2019.

The ISO 8217 committee is also working closely with CIMAC and will contribute to the initiative taken by OCIMF and IPIECA to develop a guidance document to bring awareness to, and to assist crew and ship operators in the safe onboard handling of these future fuel oil blends, considering their potential impact on operational aspects.

Although concern has been raised that the max 0.50% sulphur fuels will be introduced later in 2019, it is clear from the fuel testing agency statistics that the share of 0.50% S fuels in the market is growing already now.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman."

Statement by the delegation of The Netherlands

"Thank you Mr Chairman,

We thank the co-sponsors of document ISWG AP 1/2/12.

This delegation gives the outmost importance to maritime safety issues in general. Also in relation to fuel operation, and matters of safety of the crews onboard.

Safety issues concerning the introduction of the 2020 sulphur limit cannot and should not be discussed in isolation to experiences of the industry to date, and consideration should be made with what are currently day to day fuel management challenges for shipping.

We would thus like to recall submission MEPC 71/9/5 concerning the European experience from the introduction and use of new fuel blends in SOX-Emission Control Areas (SECAs).

With regard to the experience of ship operators sailing from and to SECAs, the experience with these new sulphur fuel blends, of which Ultra Low Sulphur Heavy Fuel Oils, was generally positive. Fuel operators gained experience on handling the range of 0.10% fuels including new blends entering the market.

Sulphur Emission Control Area experiences have shown that through timely preparation the industry adapted successfully and safely during the past 13 years of sulphur limit changes. During the implementation of the past 13 years of sulphur limits changes, stakeholders provided guidance on addressing the variety of fuels which came on the market. Document MEPC 71/9/5 provides an overview of the guidance available.

The guidance has been clearly communicated through cross industry campaigns, with issuing best practices, well in advance of the implementation dates.

We specifically welcome the statement of ISO regarding the applicability of the ISO 8217 standards for the 2020 fuel formulations. We have been made aware that industry guidance produced outside of this meeting is available and appreciate more will be made available in due course, as we have heard from IPIECA, OCIMF, ISO and CIMAC.

Furthermore, we are confident the Shipping Implementation Plan will assist industry stakeholders managing safety issues and to ensure a timely implementation.

Thank you Mr. Chairman."



Statement by the delegation of the United States

"Thank you Chairman, good afternoon to all: Our comments are in reference to the use of ISO 4259 and the 95% confidence limit for fuel S verification. In reviewing the TORs from the sub-committee, this intercessional working group was directed to: Develop draft amendments to MARPOL Annex VI with an expected entry into force in summer 2021 that pertain to testing and verification procedure of in-use fuel oil samples (amendments to regulation 14 and associated consequential amendments to regulation 18 and appendix VI). It is very important to note that we are only directed to make changes to the testing and verification procedure for the in-use fuel oil sample, not the MARPOL sample. The proposals submitted to the sub-committee and this intercessional to modify the fuel S verification procedure in Appendix VI of MARPOL Annex to include the use of ISO 4259, and make it applicable to both the MARPOL and in-use samples, will significantly reduce the stringency of the Regulation 14 ECA and global fuel S standards. If you recall, the issue of S test method variability was first discussed at BLG-WGAP in Berlin in 2007. While a resolution was not reached at that time, subsequent discussion at the committee and sub-committee level resulted in the adoption of Appendix VI to MARPOL Annex VI at MEPC 58. That resulted in requiring that for a fuel S sample to be deemed compliant, the test results must be at or below the Regulation 14 limit period. Thus it does not take into account the lab-to-lab variability, or reproducibility to the fuel S test method. As such, the S in the fuel provided to the ship owner, must be far enough below the Regulation 14 limit to account for test method variability to ensure there is not a false failure. This means that the fuel purchaser must specify a fuel that is well enough below the Regulation 14 standard to account for the measurement variability; 0.09% for ECA compliant and 0.47% for global complaint fuels. The stringency of the standard and the fuel S test method go hand-in-hand and market practice should not dictate the stringency of IMO standards. The proposal to incorporate ISO 4259 into both the MARPOL and in-use fuel sample S analysis will decrease the stringency of both the ECA and global fuel sulfur standards because it will deem a fuel compliant if it exceeds the Regulation 14 S limit by 0.59 times the ISO 8754 measurement method reproducibility. Putting this in layman's terms, this means that an ECA or global compliant fuel would be deemed compliant if the test results are up to 10% greater than the standard, 0.11% for an ECA fuel and 0.53 % for a global fuel. While at first glance, the worst case increase in allowable fuel S content may not seem like much, the impact on human health and foregone benefits is. Using two epidemiological studies and keeping in mind that fuel S is a large contributor to PM2.5 emissions, the United States Environmental Protection Agency estimates that PM2.5 related premature deaths associated with a 10% increase in direct PM and SO2 emissions would increase in the range of 81 and 180 annually for the United States ECA alone. Further the United States would forgo between $660 million and $1.6 billion annually in PM2.5 related health benefits. These are significant impacts from a change in fuel S testing methodology.



We do not believe that decreasing the stringency of the ECA and global fuel sulfur standards was the intent of the sub-Committee when directing the intercessional working group to address testing and verification of the in-use sample. As such, the United States believes that Appendix VI of MARPOL Annex VI should remain unchanged as it applies to the MARPOL sample and should only be modified to make it applicable to the in-use sample as well, so that all fuel samples analysed are held to the same stringency. Further, Appendix VI of MARPOL Annex VI should not include the allowance to use ISO 4259. Thank you Chairman."

___________

consistent implementation of regulation 14.1.3 of …....1 develop draft guidelines for consistent...

Documents