IMO Archives - SHIP IP LTD

imo.jpg

LIST OF NATIONAL OPERATIONAL IMO CONTACT POINTS

  • Flag State contact points for PSC matters, Casualty investigation services and Ships’ inspection services (including Secretariats of Memoranda of Understanding on Port State Control)
  • List of national operational contact points responsible for the receipt, transmission and processing of urgent reports on incidents involving harmful substances, including oil from ships to coastal states (see annex under Related Documents) – From January 2018 onwards, the official version of the updated list will be issued electronically and uploaded here on a quarterly basis (quarterly dates: 31 January, 30 April, 31 July and 31 October)
For ship inspection purposes, the only official version of the List of national operational contact points responsible for the receipt, transmission and processing of urgent reports on incidents involving harmful substances including oil from ships to coastal States annex is the updated version, which is issued electronically on a quarterly basis. The quarterly date for this official version is specified at the top of each page of the above list.
From January 2018 onwards, the quarterly dates for the official version of the updated list will be as follows:
31 January, 30 April, 31 July and 31 October. It will be available on the IMO website and can
be downloaded as stated in paragraph 5. In this connection, the next circular under this title
(MSC-MEPC.6/Circ.17) will be issued on 31 January 2019.

LIST OF NATIONAL OPERATIONAL CONTACT POINTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RECEIPT, TRANSMISSION AND PROCESSING OF URGENT REPORTS ON INCIDENTS INVOLVING HARMFUL SUBSTANCES, INCLUDING OIL FROM SHIPS TO COASTAL STATES

Updates from 1 November 2019 to 31 January 2020

ALBANIA
ALGERIA
BAHRAIN
BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS (UNITED KINGDOM)
CHILE
COOK ISLANDS
CUBA
ECUADOR
FAROES, DENMARK
FIJI
GEORGIA
INDONESIA
ISLE OF MAN (UNITED KINGDOM)
KUWAIT
MADAGASCAR
MALDIVES
MYANMAR
PAKISTAN
PALAU
PANAMA
PHILIPPINES
SAINT LUCIA
SOUTH AFRICA
THAILAND
Note: This summary page will appear on the Internet whenever changes or amendments are received by the Secretariat before the printed copy of the list is re-issued.

 

  MSC-MEPC.6Circ.17 Annex (SOPEP) - 31 Jan 2020 (497.4 KiB, 187 hits)

  sopep contact 31 jan 2020 (510.2 KiB, 159 hits)

Updates from 1 August 2019 to 31 October 2019

BAHAMAS
EL SALVADOR
GAMBIA
GIBRALTAR (UNITED KINGDOM)
GUATEMALA
GUERNSEY (UNITED KINGDOM)
INDIA
ISLE OF MAN (UNITED KINGDOM)
ITALY
KENYA
MARSHALL ISLANDS
MYANMAR
NETHERLANDS
NIGERIA
OMAN
PALAU
PANAMA
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
QATAR
SOUTH AFRICA
TURKEY

  LIST OF NATIONAL OPERATIONAL CONTACT POINTS 31 oct 2019 (503.8 KiB, 251 hits)

Updates from 1 May 2019 to 31 July 2019

ALBANIA
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA
BELIZE
BERMUDA (UNITED KINGDOM)
BRAZIL
CAYMAN ISLANDS (UNITED KINGDOM)
CHILE
COLOMBIA
COOK ISLANDS
GIBRALTAR (UNITED KINGDOM)
QATAR
REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
ROMANIA
SAMOA
SAUDI ARABIA
SOLOMON ISLANDS
SPAIN
SURINAME
SWITZERLAND
TURKMENISTAN
UGANDA
UKRAINE
UNITED KINGDOM

IMO CONTACT POINTS

  MSC-MEPC.6Circ.17 Annex (SOPEP) - 31 July 2019 (512.1 KiB, 175 hits)


HAZOPS-1030x666.jpg

IMO 2020 Global Sulphur Limit

In order to effectively implement the IMO’s 2020 global sulphur limit, China Maritime Safety Administration (MSA) has issued the attached notice – a translation of which has been provided by the China Classification Society (CCS). The requirements are summarized in the tables below.

Table 1 – Brief on fuel oil sulphur content(m/m) limit for international ships entering China waters

Effective date
Inland waterway ECA
Hainan waters within ECA
Other waters
1 January 2020
0.10%
0.50%
0.50%
1 January 2022
0.10%
Table 2 – Ban on carriage of non-compliant fuel oil and discharge of wash water from open-loop scrubbers
Effective date
Requirement
1 January 2020
ships are prohibited to discharge wash water from open-loop scrubbers in China emission control areas.
1 March 2020
international ships entering waters under the jurisdiction of China are prohibited to carry non-compliant fuel oil onboard.
In accordance with MEPC.1/Circ.881, from 1 March 2020 onward, a foreign ship carrying non-compliant fuel oil in the Chinese waters may be required to:
·  discharge the non-compliant fuel oil
·  if permitted by the MSA of calling port, to retain the non-compliant fuel oil on board with a commitment letter stating it will not be used in waters under the jurisdiction of China.
The circular mentions that the fuel oil sampling and testing may be taken by MSA for supervision and enforcement. Judgment on the testing result will be made in accordance with MEPC.1/Circ.882.
The circular also provides guidance for ships using or carrying non-compliant fuel oil due to the non-availability of compliant fuel oil and a template of Fuel Oil Non-Availability Report (FONAR).
MSA will carry out site inspection and review/examine the completeness and authenticity of the FONARs submitted by the ships. Penalty could be imposed on ships infringing this regulation or if the submitted FONAR is examined to be not compliant and true.
SOURCE STANDARD CLUB
IMO 2020 Global Sulphur Limit

scrubber.png

s&P Global Platts has started publishing time charter equivalent assessments based on 0.5% sulphur bunker fuel for scrubber and non-scrubber dry bulk carriers from November 1, this year, exactly two months ahead of the International Maritime Organization sulphur cap regulations

 

The new TCE assessments are calculated using daily 0.5% delivered bunker prices published by Platts. The vessel speed and consumption used in these TCE calculations were derived by extensive market survey and reflect market practice for vessels using low sulphur fuel.

The scrubber indices reflect the average of the difference between the TCE returns for scrubber-fitted and non-scrubber ships for respective routes under each vessel class.

Last month S&P Global Platts launched a capesize earnings index. The CapeT4 Index reflects ton-mile demand on four time charter equivalent (TCE) assessments.


AdobeStock_69734198-1280x720-1200x675.jpeg

The new IMO global sulphur cap requirements enter force on 1st January 2020 and a robust and consistent approach to compliance is expected by all Port State Control (PSC) regimes. PSC inspections will be carried out in accordance with the IMO PSC procedures, the 2019 guidelines for PSC under MARPOL Annex VI.

In order to establish whether a ship is in compliance, PSC inspectors will likely focus their attention on documents and procedures maintained on board. In certain jurisdictions PSC inspectors will carry portable sulphur testing kits and if the results of these tests are inconclusive or indicate potential non-compliance then additional sampling will take place for verification ashore.

It is important therefore that ships’ crews are aware and familiar with the new regulations, associated documentation and procedures and are able to confidently demonstrate this knowledge to a PSC inspector.

Bunker Delivery Notes (BDNs) and Fuel Sampling

Details of fuel delivered on board for combustion purposes should be recorded by means of a BDN. The BDN should be accompanied by a Representative Sample of the fuel delivered – the MARPOL Sample. Most ships will also take commercial samples in the normal way. The Representative Sample is to be sealed and signed by the supplier’s representative and the Master (or senior officer in charge of the bunker operation) on completion of bunker delivery and retained on board until the fuel has been substantially consumed, but in any case for a period of not less than twelve months from the time of delivery. BDNs and associated samples should be easily identifiable and filed properly on board. BDNs should be retained on board for at least three years after the fuel has been received on board.

There are two locations where fuel sampling might be required by PSC: (1) downstream of the fuel oil service tank and (2) the storage tanks, “in use” and “on-board” respectively. In accordance with ISO 4259-2: 2017, and allowing for a 95% confidence limit, the maximum amount of sulphur allowed in these samples is 0.11% m/m for ECA fuel and 0.53% m/m for global fuel.

In situations where the Commercial Samples (taken during bunkering) indicate a higher sulphur content than noted on the BDN then the flag administration and PSC at destination need to be notified in writing without delay. Note that the ship will have likely sailed by the time these test results are known. In the event of any further investigation by PSC, the Representative Sample (MARPOL sample) will be used by PSC for further verification procedures and the ship may be ordered to de-bunker the fuel at the next port.

 

SOURCE : MARINE INSIGHT


Inventory-of-Hazardous-Material.jpg
Guidance on inspections of ships by the port States in accordance with Regulation (EU) 1257/2013 on ship recycling Inventory of hazardous materials Overview IHM

 

The purpose of Regulation (EU) No 1257/20131 on ship recycling (hereinafter the “SRR”) is to prevent, reduce, minimise and, to the extent practicable, eliminate accidents, injuries and other adverse effects on human health and the environment caused by ship recycling. The Regulation is also designed to enhance safety, the protection of human health and of the Union marine environment throughout a ship′s life-cycle; in particular to ensure that hazardous waste from such ship recycling is subject to environmentally sound management. The Regulation also lays down rules to ensure the proper management of hazardous materials on ships.

The aim of this EMSA guidance is to assist the Member States and their designated inspectors in their efforts to fulfil the requirements of SRR and PSC Directive, in relation to inspections covering the respective requirements of these two instruments. It is a reference document that provides both technical information and procedural guidance thus contributing to harmonised implementation and enforcement of the provisions of the SRR and the PSC Directive.

Inventory of hazardous materials Overview IHM

During each inspection of a ship initiated under the PSC Directive regime, the port State control inspector (PSCO), as a minimum, must check the inventory certificate s (IC) or a ready for recycling certificate (RfRC) or a statement of compliance (SoC) as applicable is kept on board and report this in THETIS.
The IC and RfRC formats, which have been established, respectively, under Commission Implementing Decisions (EU) 2016/2325 and 2016/2321 can be found in Annexes 4 and 5 of this guidance document. A model of a SoC that may be used for ships flying the flag of a third country is provided in Annex 3 of this guidance document.
It should be noted that, any initial check of the SR certificates or the PSCO’s observations of the ship may reveal clear grounds to imply that the ship is not in compliance with the SRR. In this case, the PSCO will continue the inspection under the SRR regime.

Before boarding, relevant information about the ships in port may be obtained from THETIS or THETIS-EU and other sources (e.g. from AIS, NGOs, port Authorities etc). This may include information on ship particulars, last and next port of call, arrival and departure times, port stay duration, possible intention to send the ship for recycling etc. Further information may directly be obtained through the port Authorities or the ship’s agent

The general application date of the SRR was 31 December 2018. From thereon, new EU ships6 have to carry a the inventory certificate (IC) and EU ships going for recycling have to carry a ready for recycling certificate (RfRC).
However, it should be noted that existing EU ships7 shall only carry a certificate on the inventory of hazardous materials (IC) from 31 December 2020.
Moreover, non-EU ships should only be requested to submit a statement of compliance (SoC), together with the inventory of hazardous materials, from 31 December 2020.

Inventory of hazardous materials Overview IHM

  INSPECTIONS FROM THE EU PORT STATES TO ENFORCE PROVISIONS OF THE SHIP RECYCLING REGULATION INVENTORY OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OVERVIEW IHM (2.8 MiB, 46 hits)


156681-1200x795.jpg

IMO 2020

Rome – On 1 January 2020, the date of entry into force of the new Global Sulfur Cap regime, it is a milestone of fundamental importance for international shipping. Last October 2016, the IMO MEPC 70, in accordance with Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention, established the application of the limit of 0.50% m / m sulfur content in marine fuels starting from this term in non-SECA areas. This legislation, based on the study published by DNV GL, will involve more than 70,000 ships, entailing considerable costs for shipowners and a large investment for the continuous search for new technologies.

As is known, at the moment, to achieve the result required by the new legislation, ship owners have the possibility to choose different options based on various factors, including the age of the ship. They are:
1. use of fuel with low sulfur content or fuel blends which comply with the limit of 0.50% sulfur content;
2. use of marine gas oil (MGO) or distillates instead of fuel with high sulfur content (HSFO); 3. modification of ships in operation in order to allow the use of alternative and sulfur-free fuels such as Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG); and
4. installation of waste gas scrubbing systems (scrubbers) capable of operating with HSFO.

However, this last option risks having huge additional costs for the owners. While some ports such as those in China, Singapore, Belgium and the UAE have already banned the use of open loop scrubbers, the Singapore Port Authority (MPA) has also established that exhaust gas cleaning residues , including those of scrubbers, must be considered as toxic industrial waste which must therefore be managed by companies with specific licenses and transported in packaged form or in tanks on trucks or on boats with a specific license issued by the MPA. All this leads to a significant increase in costs for shipping companies.

With reference to the use of compliant purification devices, it should also be noted that, based on the MEPC 305 Resolution (73), from 1 March 2020, in the absence of the same, a ban on the transport of non-compliant fuel will be in force. purpose of combustion for propulsion or operation on board a ship, maintaining the possibility of transporting HSFO as a cargo. However, in the event of violation of this prohibition, the ship may be seized by the PSC without the need to determine the purpose of use of the fuel: a measure that leaves ample room for the action of the PSC and that has a strong preventive value. The amendment in question entails, inter alia, also a modification of the IAPP certificate such as to specify that, for a ship without a scrubber, the sulfur content of the fuel oil transported for use on board does not exceed 0.50% m / m, as documented by the delivery note of the bunker.

With regard to the use of distillates, it is instead appropriate to consider that a “safety issue” related to the distillation process is configured, which increases the risk of “catalytic fines” both on machinery and combustion plants. These particles can cause considerable damage resulting from the abrasion of the cylinders during the combustion process. It is therefore important to clean the tanks containing the fuel, the c.d. tank cleaning, or use alternative solutions such as the use of specific conversion procedures to be gradually discharged through the feeding system until obtaining the required sulfur content.

The complications arising from the change of fuel can be avoided through the preparation of guidelines and the training of crews, but above all thanks to the use by the shipping companies of a Ship Implementation Plan (SIP), specific for each ship. This plan, which is not mandatory, nor subject to the approval of the flag State or classification societies, should include, inter alia, risk assessment and a mitigation plan in relation to the fuel change, changes to the fuel system combustion and possible tank cleaning, information on capacity, segregation and supply of fuel oil, as well as the changeover plan decided for the vessel in question. According to Rule 18.2.3 of Annex VI of MARPOL, the PSC will be able to take into consideration the SIP during the inspection activities aimed at verifying the new limits of sulfur content imposed, without, however, being able to use the same as a basis for detecting ship deficiencies.

It is clear that, together with the above-mentioned technologies, there is also the need to have infrastructures able to support them and to plan an efficient bunkering strategy.

In this sense, the potential of Italian ports, in particular those of Augusta and Civitavecchia, in the supply of low sulfur fuel bunkering could significantly increase, thanks to their decisive position for traffic in the Mediterranean and to the investments that are being made to achieve this goal . Bunker Energy S.p.A. has already started a logistics plan to make the port of Augusta, already today the main Italian petrochemical port, adequately equipped with barges, storage facilities and a terminal capable of ensuring well before 1 January 2020 (possibly within the third semester) of the year) the regular availability and delivery of fuels in compliance with the new regime that will come from a refinery in Northern Italy. Pending the finalization of the new pumps that will avoid any risk of contamination deriving from HSFO, the applicable price structure is being defined. In the same way, the Company has launched a plan also in the Port of Civitavecchia where it expects even higher demand based on the large volume of ferry and cruise ship traffic.

The “consistent implementation” of Regulation 14 of Annex VI stands today as the main challenge for the Member States which, through the work of the subsequent MEPC and the PPR Sub Committee, must, inter alia, investigate the mechanisms for the enforcement of the new limits and verification of the conformity of naval units and fuel suppliers, with the consequent need to introduce specific procedures for checking the fuel in use in addition to those relating to the “Marpol sampling”.

The control measures of the PSC, in fact, will be based mainly on the control of the IAPP Certificate and Bunker Delivery Notes on board. However, in the presence of reasonable grounds, there will then be the possibility of conducting more detailed inspections including sampling.

In case of violation of the limit deriving from the use of non-compliant fuel or from not being able to prove the lack of availability of compliant fuel in the port of bunkering – in this sense we recall the presentation to the flag State of the Fuel Oil Non Availability Report (FONAR), pursuant to Rule 18 of Annex VI – Member States will have to put in place an adequate sanctioning system that will include fines, seizure of the ship and de-bunkering of the same, variable port-in-port measures.

Together with the above-explained IMO regime, it is necessary to remember, for completeness of information, that at European level the Directive 2016/802 is also in force, c.d. Sulfur Directive, a further instrument aimed at reducing sulfur dioxide emissions deriving from the combustion of heavy fuel oil, gas oil, marine gas oil and marine diesel oil used in the EU. It is added to the IMO regulation, establishing stricter limits in EU waters. In fact, a maximum limit of 0.50% m / m of sulfur content in marine fuels is foreseen for ships of any flag present in European waters from 1 January 2020. Furthermore, the limit of 0.1% is established for ships moored in EU ports, unless they remain at berth with the engines turned off and are connected to an electrical ground system or their stop does not exceed two hours.

Finally, we point out that Italy, through the Ministry of the Environment and the Protection of the Territory and the Sea, in agreement with the Ministry of Transport, has made itself the proponent of the Barcelona Convention (1978), of a agreement of a political nature aimed at acquiring the consent of all Mediterranean countries for the creation, possibly by 2024, of a Sulfur Emission Control Area (SECA) in the Mediterranean Sea, characterized by a sulfur emissions limit of 0.10% m / m, even at sea. Also thanks to the solid foundations of the SAFEMED project managed by the European Maritime Safety Agency and aimed at harmonizing maritime legislation in the Mare Nostrum, the MATTM, in particular through the efforts of the Marine Environmental Department of the Harbor Corps Corps, is carrying out important negotiations with the countries of the Middle East and North Africa in order to achieve this ambitious goal.

IMO 2020

SOURCE : THE MEDI TELEGRAPH


Cleaner-Marine-Shipping-1200x800.jpg

GUIDANCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SHIP IMPLEMENTATION  PLAN FOR THE
CONSISTENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 0.50% SULPHUR LIMIT
UNDER MARPOL ANNEX VI

To facilitate compliance, the IMO has developed guidelines that include an indicative template for a Ship Implementation Plan (SIP) specific to each individual ship, which shipping companies are recommended to use.

The plan is not mandatory and is not subject to endorsement by the flag state or a recognized organization (RO).

However, PSC may consider the preparatory actions described in the SIP when verifying compliance.

The plan addresses issues related to the use of compliant fuel oil and how to identify any safety risks associated with such fuels.

Items covered by the plan can include, as appropriate, but are not limited to:

  • Risk assessment and mitigation plan (impact of new fuels)
  • Fuel oil system modifications and tank cleaning (if needed)
  • Fuel oil capacity and segregation capability
  • Procurement of compliant fuel
  • Fuel oil changeover plan (conventional residual fuel oils to 0.50% sulphur compliant fuel oil)
  • Documentation and reporting

Issues relating to use of sulphur compliant fuel oil

-All fuel oil supplied to a ship shall comply with regulation 18.3 of MARPOL Annex VI and chapter II/2 of SOLAS.
-Meanwhile, operators could consider ordering fuel oil specified in accordance with the ISO 8217 marine fuel standard.

SHIP IP LTD CAN ASSIST YOU AND DEVELOP YOUR PLAN IN WORD FORMAT CLICK THE LINK TO LEARN MORE

EURO 399 SHIP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN


IMO cyber crime.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is readying for the advent of automation in the shipping industry, with a major scoping exercise to safeguard against future disasters, including oil spills and collisions.

Speaking at the regional Spillcon event held in Perth, Australia, in May, Patricia Charlebois, deputy director, Implementation Marine Environment Division, stressed the oil spill response community would need to consider new risk scenarios.

Charlebois told SAS that the IMO had a key strategic direction to integrate new and advancing technologies into its regulatory framework.

“Of course, cyber-risk management is very important as more and more systems become automated,” she said. “Whether you’re talking about an oil tanker or a different kind of ship, cyber-risk management should [play] a part .”

The IMO is now looking at how existing regulations might apply to ships with varying degrees of automation through a regulatory scoping exercise on Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS).

The IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) agreed to examine how safe, secure, and environmentally sound operation of MASS could be introduced in IMO regulations in 2017 after a proposal by member states.

The scoping exercise includes a review of safety and maritime security (SOLAS); collision regulations (COLREG); loading and stability (Load Lines); training of seafarers and fishers (STCW, STCW-F) search and rescue (SAR); tonnage measurement (Tonnage Convention), and convention for safe containers (CSC).

IMO guidelines on maritime cyber-risk management set out procedures on how to safeguard shipping from current and emerging threats and vulnerabilities.

The guidelines, which cover digitisation, integration, and automation of processes and systems in shipping, identify bridge systems, propulsion and machinery management, power control, and communication systems among the most vulnerable to cyber attack.

The IMO aims to complete the scoping exercise by 2020. Meanwhile interim guidelines for MASS trials were approved in June.

IMO cyber crime

SOURCE


Rotor-Sails-installation-final-800x600.jpg

Three cornerstones for effective Maritime cyber security

Maritime’s fragmented approach to digitalisation carries risk, especially when it comes to cyber security.

Speaking recently at Lloyd’s Register Asia Shipowners’ Forum, Wallem Group chief executive Frank Coles highlighted how operators can fail to update critical processes when embracing new onboard technologies. By overlooking the human elements of cyber security, he said, operators can undermine the potential benefits of acquiring a new technology – introducing risk instead capitalising on the rewards it can offer.

While cyber security risks posed to the shipping sector are real and pressing, they can be quantified and managed, if the right approach is taken.

Safeguarding critical assets in a fragmented digitalisation process and ensuring profitability in the years to come depends on three cornerstones:

Cornerstone 1: threat-intelligence assessment 

Maritime cyber security .

The cyber security landscape is rapidly changing and the insights gained as little as five years ago are of less and less value as threat actors adjust their approaches in response to advances made by security professionals and technical defenders. Regular threat intelligence and assessment activities allow an owner to view their organisation through the eyes of a potential attacker, to perceive their attack surface in detail, and to assess the real-world threats to their business.

Cornerstone 2: Crisis-management cyber attack simulation

With knowledge of the attack surface and adversaries already in hand, owners can take steps to safely, effectively and efficiently ensure they are prepared to respond to a cyber attack by using a simulated cyber attack known as a ‘red team’ exercise. Such exercises allow a company to define and simulate real-world attack scenarios using the same tactics, techniques, and procedures as a genuine threat actor. They also help determine the level of assurance and ability needed to effectively detect and respond to a genuine cyber attack and educate defence teams about effective responses within a controlled and forgiving environment.

Cornerstone 3: Define a cyber security strategy

An effective cyber security strategy completes the foundation of a secure technological and organisational infrastructure. Designing a cyber security strategy is a complex task for most firms as the strategy must be robust and responsive enough to address a dynamic operational environment. Security professionals can work to create a cyber security strategy to create operational efficiencies, maximum return on technology investments, and assured data and asset protection into the future.

Given the cost and reputational risks associated with a cyber attack – estimated at £11.7M (US$15.4M) per company according to a World Economic Forum 2017 study – there is no doubting the importance of taking a strategic approach to cyber security.

Ultimately, a truly cyber resilient shipping organisation is one that gains intelligence on evolving cyber threats to inform decisions and plans, going beyond the minimums needed to achieve compliance.

SOURCE https://www.marinemec.com


The Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) is meeting for its 101st session, with a busy agenda encompassing maritime autonomous surface ships, polar shipping, goal-based standards and other agenda items. A number of draft amendments will be adopted, including amendments to mandatory Codes covering the carriage of potentially hazardous cargoes:

the MSC is set to adopt the draft consolidated edition of the International Maritime Solid Bulk Cargoes Code (IMSBC Code), and a comprehensive set of draft amendments to the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (IBC Code).The MSC will be updated on the regulatory scoping exercise on maritime autonomous surface ships, taking into account different levels of autonomy.

 

On polar shipping, the MSC is expected to approve draft guidance for navigation and communication equipment intended for use on ships operating in polar waters and further consider how to move forward with developing requirements for ships operating in polar waters but not currently covered by the Polar Code.

A new agenda item will look at fuel oil safety. A range of guidance and guidelines will be approved, including those related to standardization and performance standards for navigational equipment, linked to the development of e-navigation.

The MSC was opened by IMO Secretary-General Kitack Lim and is being chaired by Mr. Brad Groves (Australia).

Source: IMO


Twitter

@AnyawbSales - 4 months

INDIA TO BAN SINGLE USE PLASTIC ON ALL CALLING SHIPS

@AnyawbSales - 1 year

SQEXpress maritime electronic sms forms platform just released

Photo Gallery

https://www.instagram.com/p/BatcssbnSgk/https://www.instagram.com/p/BJzdwtGgh4v/https://www.instagram.com/p/BGO4t61PyVg/https://www.instagram.com/p/BGG80Upvyfs/https://www.instagram.com/p/BGG8nnCvyfX/https://www.instagram.com/p/BGG8XW4vye2/https://www.instagram.com/p/BGG8QKPPyen/