Cummins ISM Cummins Southern Plains, Ltd.

Cummins ISM continues to lead the way for heavy-duty diesels in its class. Thoroughly tested and proven to meet Cummins rigorous durability standards, the ISM satisfies every emissions requirement without expensive aftertreatment or special fuels. ISM Engine Applications Transit/Shuttle Heavy Duty Trucks Emergency Vehicles RV Key Features Superior Performance. The ISM's improved performance is gained through its use of superior diesel engine technology. Best Fuel Economy. The ISM continues to have the best fuel economy in its class, even while meeting 2002 EPA certification. Low Maintenance Costs. Greater reliability with fewer parts. Performance The new Cummins technology now has over 1 billion mile of proven performance. We're so confident in the performance of this engine, we're giving an Uptime Guarantee. The ISM's Variable Geometry Turbocharger produces quicker throttle response with less turbo "lag." SmartTorque automatically adds up to 100 extra lb-ft of torque in the top two gears, for better fuel economy and fewer shifts. Exceptional Power-to-Weight-Ratio - With ratings up to 500 hp and 1550 lb-ft of peak torque. Improved compression braking with the fully integrated C Brake by Jacobs. Rear Engine Power Take-off (REPTO) is available for vehicles that need an engine to do double-duty. Fully integrated electronic controls using Cummins ECM provide increased performance from all subsystems. Fuel Economy Cummins ISM delivers excellent fuel economy, thanks to its electronically controlled fuel system with advanced air-handling technology. To achieve the best fuel economy with Cummins ISM, spec'ing one of our two SmartTorque ratings is a great option.

 Cummins PowerSpec, the online tool that describes each engine feature, gives recommended settings and lets you modify and optimize operation of your Cummins engines. Improve mpg even further, get RoadRelay 4, the in-cab monitor that helps drivers improve their own skill level. Cooled EGR low emission technology provides the best fuel economy alternative. Fuel economy is still driver dependent. LBSC (Load Based Speed Control) can provide up to a 1.5% fuel economy improvement. Gear-Down Protection (GDP) - Improves fuel economy by encouraging the driver to operate in the top two gears. Idle Control - Electronic features control idle speed, idle time, engine shutdown and PTO utilization. Road Speed Governor and Cruise Control - Settings optimize both fuel economy and performance. Articulated piston design featuring forged-steel crown and aluminum skirt allows for higher top ring piston, optimizing fuel efficiency. Onan's Comfort Guard System is a totally integrated two-cylinder diesel-powered Onan generator that powers all your auxiliary power needs. This adds up to a savings of 8.5% in fuel costs every year. Low Maintenance Costs Cummins ISM delivers outstanding fuel economy, thanks to its electronically controlled fuel system with advanced air-handling technology. Lower Operating Costs - Thanks to long maintenance intervals combined with a simplified design. Oil drain intervals of up to 50,000 miles are achieved throughout CENTINEL optimized lube system design using the latest in Fleetguard filtration technology. Self-tensioning belt drive system drives both fan and alternator for reduced maintenance and increased belt life. Mid-stop cylinder liner minimizes oil consumption and increases durability. Advanced Fleetguard ES System with StrataPore filters designed for use with the new CI-4 engine oils. QuickCheck III allows you see what your engine readings are so there are no more surprises. Water-in-fuel sensor alerts driver to contamination that could cause performance and durability problems.

International Safety Management Code

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The ISM Code provides an International standard for the safe management and operation of ships and for pollution prevention. The purpose of ISM Code is:

To ensure Safety at Sea To prevent human injury or loss of life To avoid damage to the environment and to the ship.

SOLAS adopted the ISM Code in 1994 and incorporated it into chapter IX. By 1998 much of the commercial shipping community was required to be in compliance with the ISM code. By 2002 almost all of the international shipping community was required to comply with the ISM Code. In order to comply with the ISM Code, each ship class must have a working Safety Management System (SMS). Each SMS consists of the following elements:

Commitment from top management A Top Tier Policy Manual A Procedures Manual that documents what is done on board the ship Procedures for conducting both internal and external audits to ensure the ship is doing what is documented in the Procedures Manual A Designated Person to serve as the link between the ships and shore staff A system for identifying where actual practices do not meet those that are documented and for implementing associated corrective action Regular management reviews

Another part of the ISM is the mandatory Planned Maintenance System which is used as a tool maintaining the vessel according to the specified maintenance intervals. Each ISM compliant ship is audited, first by the Company (internal audit) and then each 2.5 to 3 years by the Flag State Marine Administration to verify the fulfillment and effectiveness of their Safety Management System. Once SMS is verified and it is working and effectively implemented, the ship is issued with The Safety Management Certificate. Comments from the auditor and/or audit body and from the ship are incorporated into the SMS by headquarters. The ISM Code was created by IMO and Capt. Graham Botterill, Specialist Advisor to the House of Lords in the UK on ship safety, among others.

The International Safety Management Code

IMO Assembly Resolution A.741(18) - 1993

THE ASSEMBLY, RECALLING Article 15(j) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Assembly in relation to regulations and guidelines concerning maritime safety and the prevention and control of marine pollution from ships, RECALLING ALSO resolution A.680(17), by which it invited Member Governments to encourage those responsible for the management and operation of ships to take appropriate steps to develop, implement and assess safety and pollution prevention management in accordance with the IMO Guidelines on management for the safe operation of ships and for pollution prevention, RECALLING ALSO resolution A.596(15), by which it requested the Maritime Safety Committee to develop, as a matter of urgency, guidelines, wherever relevant, concerning shipboard and shore-based management and its decision to include in the work programme of the Maritime Safety Committee and the Marine Environment Protection Committee an item on shipboard and shore-based management for the safe operation of ships and for the prevention of marine pollution, respectively, RECALLING FURTHER resolution A.441(XI), by which it invited every State to take the necessary steps to ensure that the owner of a ship which flies the flag of that State provides such State with the current information necessary to enable it to identify and contact the person contracted or otherwise entrusted by the owner to discharge his responsibilities for that ship in regard to matters relating to maritime safety and the protection of the marine environment, FURTHER RECALLING resolution A.443(XI), by which it invited Governments to take the necessary steps to safeguard the shipmaster in the proper discharge of his responsibilities in regard to maritime safety and the protection of the marine environment, RECOGNIZING the need for appropriate organization of management to enable it to respond to the need of those on board ships to achieve and maintain high standards of safety and environmental protection, RECOGNIZING ALSO that the most important means of preventing maritime casualties and pollution of the sea from ships is to design, construct, equip and maintain ships and to operate them with properly trained crews in compliance with international conventions and standards relating to maritime safety and pollution prevention, NOTING that the Maritime Safety Committee is developing requirements for adoption by Contracting Governments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) 1974, which will make compliance with the Code referred to in operative paragraph 1 mandatory,

CONSIDERING that the early implementation of that Code would greatly assist in improving safety at sea and protection of the marine environment, NOTING FURTHER that the Maritime Safety Committee and the Marine Environment Protection Committee have reviewed resolution A.680(17) and the Guidelines annexed thereto in developing the Code, HAVING CONSIDERED the recommendations made by the Maritime Safety Committee at its sixty-second session and by the Marine Environment Protection Committee at its thirty-fourth session,
1. ADOPTS the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships

and for Pollution Prevention, (International Safety Management (ISM) Code), set out in the Annex to the present resolution;

2. STRONGLY URGES Governments to implement the ISM Code on a national basis,

giving priority to passenger ships, tankers, gas carriers, bulk carriers and mobile offshore units, which are flying their flags, as soon as possible but not later than 1 June 1998, pending development of the mandatory applications of the Code;

3. REQUESTS GOVERNMENTS to inform the Maritime Safety Committee and the

Marine Environment Protection Committee of the action they have taken in implementing the ISM Code;

4. REQUESTS the Maritime Safety Committee and the Marine Environment

Protection Committee to develop Guidelines for the implementation of the ISM Code;

5. REQUESTS ALSO the Maritime Safety Committee and the Marine Environment

Protection Committee to keep the Code and its associated Guidelines, under review and to amend them, as necessary;

6. REVOKES resolution A.680(17).

The International Safety Management (ISM) Code

Annex to IMO Assembly Resolution A.741(18) - 1993 PREAMBLE 1. The purpose of this Code is to provide an international standard for the safe management and operation of ships and for pollution prevention.

2. The Assembly adopted resolution A.443(XI) by which it invited all Governments to take the necessary steps to safeguard the shipmaster in the proper discharge of his responsibilities with regard to maritime safety and the protection of the marine environment.

3. The Assembly also adopted resolution A.680(17) by which it further recognized the need for appropriate organization of management to enable it to respond to the need of those on board ships to achieve and maintain high standards of safety and environmental protection.

4. Recognizing that no two shipping companies or shipowners are the same, and that ships operate under a wide range of different conditions, the Code is based on general principles and objectives.

5. The Code is expressed in broad terms so that it can have a widespread application. Clearly, different levels of management, whether shore-based or at sea, will require varying levels of knowledge and awareness of the items outlined.

6. The cornerstone of good safety management is commitment from the top. In matters of safety and pollution prevention it is the commitment, competence, attitudes and motivation of individuals at all levels that determines the end result. 1. GENERAL 1.1 Definitions 1.1.1 "International Safety Management (ISM) Code" means the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention as adopted by the Assembly, as may be amended by the Organization. 1.1.2 "Company" means the Owner of the ship or any other organization or person such as the Manager, or the Bareboat Charterer, who has assumed the responsibility for operation of the ship from the Shipowner and who on assuming such responsibility has agreed to take over all the duties and responsibility imposed by the Code. 1.1.3 "Administration" means the Government of the State whose flag the ship is entitled to fly. 1.2 Objectives 1.2.1 The objectives of the Code are to ensure safety at sea, prevention of human injury or loss of life, and avoidance of damage to the environment, in particular, to the marine environment, and to property. 1.2.2 Safety management objectives of the Company should, inter alia:

provide for safe practices in ship operation and a safe working environment;

establish safeguards against all identified risks; and

continuously improve safety management skills of personnel ashore and aboard ships, including preparing for emergencies related both to safety and environmental protection.

1.2.3 The safety and management system should ensure:

compliance with mandatory rules and regulations; and

that applicable codes, guidelines and standards recommended by the Organization, Administrations, classification societies and maritime industry organizations are taken into account.

1.3 Application The requirements of this Code may be applied to all ships. 1.4 Functional requirements for a Safety Management System (SMS) Every Company should develop, implement and maintain a Safety Management System (SMS) which includes the following functional requirements:

a safety and environmental protection policy;

instructions and procedures to ensure safe operation of ships and protection of the environment in compliance with relevant international and flag State legislation;

defined levels of authority and lines of communication between, and amongst, shore and shipboard personnel;

procedures for reporting accidents and non-conformities with the provisions of this Code;

procedures to prepare for and respond to emergency situations; and

procedures for internal audits and management reviews.

2. SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION POLICY 2.1 The Company should establish a safety and environmental protection policy which describes how the objectives, given in paragraph 1.2, will be achieved. 2.2 The Company should ensure that the policy is implemented and maintained at all levels of the organization both ship based as well as shore based. 3. COMPANY RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY 3.1 If the entity who is responsible for the operation of the ship is other than the owner, the owner must report the full name and details of such entity to the Administration. 3.2 The Company should define and document the responsibility, authority and interrelation of all personnel who manage, perform and verify work relating to and affecting safety and pollution prevention. 3.3 The Company is responsible for ensuring that adequate resources and shore based support are provided to enable the designated person or persons to carry out their functions. 4. DESIGNATED PERSON(S) To ensure the safe operation of each ship and to provide a link between the company and those on board, every company, as appropriate, should designate a person or persons ashore having direct access to the highest level of management. The responsibility and authority of the designated person or persons should include monitoring the safety and pollution prevention aspects of the operation of each ship and to ensure that adequate resources and shore based support are applied, as required. 5. MASTER'S RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY

5.1 The Company should clearly define and document the master's responsibility with regard to: implementing the safety and environmental protection policy of the Company;

motivating the crew in the observation of that policy;

issuing appropriate orders and instructions in a clear and simple manner;

verifying that specified requirements are observed; and

reviewing the SMS and reporting its deficiencies to the shore based management.

5.2 The Company should ensure that the SMS operating on board the ship contains a clear statement emphasizing the Master's authority. The Company should establish in the SMS that the master has the overriding authority and the responsibility to make decisions with respect to safety and pollution prevention and to request the Company's assistance as may be necessary. 6. RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL 6.1 The Company should ensure that the master is: properly qualified for command; fully conversant with the Company's SMS; and given the necessary support so that the Master's duties can be safely performed.

o o o

6.2 The Company should ensure that each ship is manned with qualified, certificated and medically fit seafarers in accordance with national and international requirements. 6.3 The Company should establish procedures to ensure that new personnel and personnel transferred to new assignments related to safety and protection of the environment are given proper familiarization with their duties. Instructions which are essential to be provided prior to sailing should be identified, documented and given. 6.4 The Company should ensure that all personnel involved in the Company's SMS have an adequate understanding of relevant rules, regulations, codes and guidelines. 6.5 The Company should establish and maintain procedures for identifying any training which may be required in support of the SMS and ensure that such training is provided for all personnel concerned. 6.6 The Company should establish procedures by which the ship's personnel receive relevant information on the SMS in a working language or languages understood by them. 6.7 The Company should ensure that the ship's personnel are able to communicate effectively in the execution of their duties related to the SMS. 7. DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS FOR SHIPBOARD OPERATIONS The Company should establish procedures for the preparation of plans and instructions for key shipboard operations concerning the safety of the ship and the prevention of pollution. The various tasks involved should be defined and assigned to qualified personnel. 8. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 8.1 The Company should establish procedures to identify, describe and respond to potential emergency shipboard situations. 8.2 The Company should establish programmes for drills and exercises to prepare for emergency actions. 8.3 The SMS should provide for measures ensuring that the Company's organization can respond at any time to hazards, accidents and emergency situations involving its ships.

9. REPORTS AND ANALYSIS OF NON-CONFORMITIES, ACCIDENTS AND HAZARDOUS OCCURRENCES 9.1 The SMS should include procedures ensuring that non-conformities, accidents and hazardous situations are reported to the Company, investigated and analyzed with the objective of improving safety and pollution prevention. 9.2 The Company should establish procedures for the implementation of corrective action. 10. MAINTENANCE OF THE SHIP AND EQUIPMENT 10.1 The Company should establish procedures to ensure that the ship is maintained in conformity with the provisions of the relevant rules and regulations and with any additional requirements which may be established by the Company. 10.2 In meeting these requirements the Company should ensure that:
o o o o

inspections are held at appropriate intervals; any non-conformity is reported with its possible cause, if known; appropriate corrective action is taken; and records of these activities are maintained.

10.3 The Company should establish procedures in SMS to identify equipment and technical systems the sudden operational failure of which may result in hazardous situations. The SMS should provide for specific measures aimed at promoting the reliability of such equipment or systems. These measures should include the regular testing of stand-by arrangements and equipment or technical systems that are not in continuous use. 10.4 The inspections mentioned in 10.2 as well as the measures referred to 10.3 should be integrated in the ship's operational maintenance routine. 11. DOCUMENTATION 11.1 The Company should establish and maintain procedures to control all documents and data which are relevant to the SMS. 11.2 The Company should ensure that:

o o o

valid documents are available at all relevant locations; changes to documents are reviewed and approved by authorized personnel; and obsolete documents are promptly removed.

11.3 The documents used to describe and implement the SMS may be referred to as the "Safety Management Manual". Documentation should be kept in a form that the Company considers most effective. Each ship should carry on board all documentation relevant to that ship. 12. COMPANY VERIFICATION, REVIEW AND EVALUATION 12.1 The Company should carry out internal safety audits to verify whether safety and pollution prevention activities comply with the SMS. 12.2 The Company should periodically evaluate the efficiency and when needed review the SMS in accordance with procedures established by the Company. 12.3 The audits and possible corrective actions should be carried out in accordance with documented procedures. 12.4 Personnel carrying out audits should be independent of the areas being audited unless this is impracticable due to the size and the nature of the Company. 12.5 The results of the audits and reviews should be brought to the attention of all personnel having responsibility in the area involved. 12.6 The management personnel responsible for the area involved should take timely corrective action on deficiencies found. 13. CERTIFICATION, VERIFICATION AND CONTROL 13.1 The ship should be operated by a Company which is issued a document of compliance relevant to that ship. 13.2 A document of compliance should be issued for every Company complying with the requirements of the ISM Code by the Administration, by an organization recognized by the Administration or by the Government of the country, acting on behalf of the Administration in which the Company has chosen to conduct its business. This document should be accepted as evidence that the Company is capable of complying with the requirements of the Code.

13.3 A copy of such a document should be placed on board in order that the Master, if so asked, may produce it for the verification of the Administration or organizations recognized by it. 13.4 A Certificate, called a Safety Management Certificate, should be issued to a ship by the Administration or organization recognized by the Administration. The Administration should, when issuing a certificate, verify that the Company and its shipboard management operate in accordance with the approved SMS. 13.5 The Administration or an organization recognized by the Administration should periodically verify the proper functioning of the ship's SMS as approved.

STCW
This website is presented, at no charge, as a source of information for mariners by a consortium of maritime trainers. What do we hope to accomplish? Well for starters, we want to explain exactly what STCW is, and how it affects mariners. We get questions about STCW regularly.People ask for STCW training . . . not really knowing what it is. . . just that they have to get it to keep their license or Z-card. Want to know the big picture about STCW (click here)? Or, just what you have to do (click here) to get your license or Z-card up to date? We also want to know what specific questions you may have (click here to email a question to us). The maritime is so diverse that new questions arise everyday. Send us your questions and we will answer them and then post the information (without using names, of course) for others to benefit from. Our STCW expertise is supplied by three retired US Coast Guard Commanders, all of whom served in Coast Guard licensing centers. If you want to see the questions most frequently asked by other mariners, click here, or look at a sample below. Q. Who does the STCW Code affect?? A. There are 133 IMO signatory countries in the world. Every country will issue a document showing the level of mariner certification and the capacity and limitations of each. All professional mariner certifications must be STCW 95 Compliant with the exception of U.S. mariners working exclusively on inland waters or domestic near coastal waters on vessels up to 200 gross tons waters, which are exempt from the STCW requirements. Q. What about unlicensed crewmembers? A. All professional mariners that have designated safety or pollution prevention duties (even if they are unlicensed/ non certificated) must have Basic Safety Training. This would include everyone listed on the emergency bill, also called the muster list or station bill.

Q. Which courses do I need to obtain STCW compliance? A. Please refer to the table section of this website for detailed information on the courses and sea service required to obtain STCW Compliant Licenses and Certificates of Competency. If you already hold a USCG license, but have not taken the training to obtain an STCW 95 Compliant Certificate, please contact the admissions office for a current required course list for your license level. Q. Why was the Code Revised? A. Flick through the pages of any of the leading industry magazines today and you will discover a wealth of technical innovation designed to make ships more efficient and safer. Everything from the propulsion systems, through the hull design to the navigation suite is the result of intense research and development activity. The only exception to this rule is, ironically, the one key component on which everything else so often depends the officers and crew. It is widely quoted that nearly 80 % of transport accidents are due to human error. It is the human element on board ship that can either provide the skills that may prevent a disaster, or the frailty or plain lack of competence that can cause one. And, while the capability, complexity and sheer power of technology seems to be accelerating exponentially, the human element remains a basic component with all its strengths and all its weaknesses. That is why the international maritime community has now evolved from an approach, which traditionally seeks technical solutions to safety-related problems and is focusing instead on the role of human factors in maritime safety. The 1995 STCW Convention is one of several key initiatives that underpin this new philosophy at IMO. It seeks to establish a baseline standard for the training and education of seafarers throughout the world and, by placing an emphasis on quality control and competence-based training, it establishes a structure that can ensure not only that the required standard is met, but that it is seen to be met. (Excerpted from the IMO website). Q. Why doesn't one size fit all with STCW? A. When STCW was revised in 1995 we all expected that the new standard would harmonize the training requirements and therefore allow mariners to complete their training in various parts of the world based on where they desired to go to school or based on where the vessel is based. Unfortunately, things just haven't worked out that way with many countries. This is especially difficult for mariners with multiple licenses issued by various administrations and for those who are certificated by one country and work on a vessel flagged in another country. The reason for this problem is that in order to be considered a "white list" or fully compliant country, the IMO requires each administration to guarantee that proper oversight has been and is continuously performed on each school issuing training certificates. It is impossible for the USCG to oversee schools in foreign countries and vice versa. That is why some schools in this country have applied to many different countries for recognition. This is a very costly process because it requires auditing by each country on a regular basis. In addition, some countries are not interested in approving schools outside their jurisdiction. This is why it is so important to ensure that the school a mariner attends for training is recognized by the country issuing the license and also that the Flag State of the vessel will accept a license/C of C issued by that country. Q. Why don't all STCW Certificates look the same, isn't this a standard? A. Each country (administration) is tasked by the IMO to incorporate a statement of compliance with the STCW Code into their Certificate of Competency (license). Most countries do not have any CoCs that are exempt from STCW and therefore have incorporated their statement of compliance right on the face of the CoC. Because of the US Inland and Great Lakes mariners being exempt from STCW, the USCG has to issue a separate certificate of STCW compliance only to those mariners who qualify. Therefore, a USCG licensed, STCW compliant mariner will have either two or three documents: Their license, their STCW Certificate from the USCG, and often a separate Z-Card which is the Merchant Mariners Document and lists unlicensed capacity.

Q. What is the IMO? A. The IMO (International Maritime Organization) located in London, is a part of the United Nations and has 133 signatory countries. The IMO is not a British Agency, just as the main United Nations building being located in New York does not make the UN an American Agency. Q. What are Port and Flag State Control? A. Port and Flag State Control are key elements in fulfilling the revisions of the STCW Code. Port State Control is the authority an administration has over vessels operating within their waters (jurisdiction) regardless of Flag. In a nutshell, Port State Control is the oversight and inspections conducted by the administration of the port on a vessel entering their port. Simply stated, in the United States, when the USCG boards a vessel and "checks it out", they are fulfilling part of their port state control authority. The revised Chapter I of STCW includes enhanced procedures concerning the exercise of port State to allow intervention in the case of deficiencies deemed to pose a danger to persons, property or the environment (regulation I/4). This can take place if certificates are not in order or if the ship is involved in a collision or grounding, if there is an illegal discharge of substances (causing pollution) or if the ship is maneuvered in an erratic or unsafe manner, etc. Flag State Control is the authority an administration has over vessels with their own registration (flag) regardless of where they are operating. Therefore, when the USCG conducts an inspection on a US flagged vessel, they are acting as Flag State Control. Q. What is the "White List"? A. The White List identifies the countries that have demonstrated a plan of full compliance with the STCW Convention and Code as revised in 1995. The White List was developed by an unbiased panel of "competent persons" at the IMO. The criteria used to develop the list included what system of certification (licensing) each administration would have, the process of revalidation for certificates, training center oversight, port state control, and flag state control. Q. What happens if a country is not on the "White List"? A. Since there is a white list, it would stand to reason that any country not on the white list could be considered "black listed". This is not the case. There is no actual black list although very often that is how non-compliant countries are described. Port State Control and Flag State Control both play a role in handling a non-white listed country. For instance, if a vessel is flagged by a non-white list country, when it desires to enter a white list port, it can be denied entry, detained or inspected vigorously. On the other hand, if a mariner has a Certificate of Competency (license) from a non-white list country, they will most likely be denied a Certificate of Equivalency, they will be rejected as a viable manning solution for white list flagged vessels, and their sea time and training may either be highly scrutinized or not accepted at all towards a Cof C from a white list country. Q. What was revised/amended in 1995 & how does it differ from the 1978 convention? A. The 1995 amendments represented a major revision of the Convention, in response to a recognized need to bring the Convention up to date and to respond to critics who pointed out the many vague phrases, such as "to the satisfaction of the Administration", which resulted in different interpretations being made. Others complained that the Convention was never uniformly applied and did not impose any strict obligations on Parties regarding implementation. The 1995 amendments entered into force on 1 February 1997. However, until 1 February 2002, parties were allowed to continue to issue, recognize and endorse certificates, which applied before that date in respect of seafarers who began training or seagoing service before 1 August 1998.

One of the major features of the revision was the division of the technical annex into regulations, divided into Chapters as before, and a new STCW Code, to which many technical regulations have been transferred. Part A of the Code is mandatory while Part B is recommended. Dividing the regulations up in this way makes administration easier and it also makes the task of revising and updating them more simple: for procedural and legal reasons there is no need to call a full conference to make changes to Codes. Some of the most important amendments adopted by the Conference concern Chapter I - General Provisions. They include the following: Ensuring compliance with the Convention Parties to the Convention are required to provide detailed information to IMO concerning administrative measures taken to ensure compliance with the Convention. This represented the first time that IMO had been called upon to act in relation to compliance and implementation - generally, implementation is down to the flag States, while port State control also acts to ensure compliance. Under Chapter I, regulation I/7 of the revised Convention, Parties are required to provide detailed information to IMO concerning administrative measures taken to ensure compliance with the Convention, education and training courses, certification procedures and other factors relevant to implementation. By the August 1st, 1998 deadline for submission of information (established in section A-I/7 of the STCW Code) 82 out of the 133 STCW Parties had communicated information on compliance with the requirements of the revised Convention. The 82 Parties which met the deadline represent well over 90% of the world's ships and seafarers. The information is reviewed by panels of competent persons, nominated by Parties to the STCW Convention, who report on their findings to the IMO Secretary- General, who, in turn, reports to the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) on the Parties which fully comply. The MSC then produces a list of Parties in compliance with the 1995 amendments. Q. Which countries are on the "White List"? A. Since this list does change, please refer to the STCW Code book for this information or email info@stcw.org and we will send you a copy.

STCW Codes: Comparison Chart

The codes for STCW compliant licenses or certificates are broken up in several ways. The easy way to think of them is by sections, departments and levels. The departments would include Deck, Engineering, etc. Generally there are three levels of service: Management (Masters, Chief Mates, and Chief Engineers), Operational (Mates & Assistant Engineers) and Support (Ratings). The following list may seem daunting at first, but if you consider the following "Codes" (which refer to the chapters of STCW) it will make it much easier for you to remember where you and your crew fit in. This information will also be listed on your license, certificate of competency or merchant mariners document. Your Safe Manning Documents may list the required crew and officers in the form of STCW Codes for the license level they must hold to satisfy Flag State manning regulations. This can be confusing sometimes when you are working with crew from various different countries. We have explained how the STCW Codes work and have given samples of the codes and corresponding license levels for both the USCG and the MCA. When a code is written the department is listed first followed by the level. When a code is written the department is listed first followed by the level. For example: II/2 Deck / Management Departments: Capacities II Deck III Engineering NOTE: STCW Codes that begin with numbers other than II/ or III/ do not designate the capacity a mariner can serve in. They would generally indicate training that had been accomplished, i.e. certificates that show compliance with VI/1 indicate completion of Basic Safety Training because that is the regulation that is defined by chapter VI of the STCW Code. Please refer to the STCW Code book published by the IMO for complete information or email info@stcw.org for assistance. STCW Levels: 1 2 3 4 Operational Management <500 tons or <3000kw or certain restricted certificates varying by administration Ratings (can be an engineering, deck or general yacht rating)

USCG Licenses & Corresponding STCW CODES

DECK USCG LICENSE Master Unlimited Tonnage Unlimited Near Coastal or Oceans Mates (OICNW) Unlimited Tonnage Chief Mate Unlimited Near Coastal or Oceans

STCW 95 REGULATION

LEVEL

A-II/2

Management

A-II/2

Management

Finally, we are providing links to sources of US Coast Guard (and other flag state authorities) approved STCW training and related services. STCW.org Email: info@stcw.org

2000 - 2010 stcw.org. All Rights Reserved. Site designed and hosted

STCW
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia STCW International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers Signed 7 July 1978 Locatio London, U.K. n Effectiv 28 April 1984 e 25 ratifications, the combined merchant fleets of which constitute Conditio not less than 50% of the gross n tonnage of the world's merchant shipping of ships of 100 gross tonnage or more Parties 155 Secretary-General of the InterDeposit Governmental Maritime Consultative ary Organization (IMCO) Langua English, French, Russian and Spanish ges

The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (or STCW), 1978 sets qualification standards for masters, officers and watch personnel on seagoing merchant ships. STCW was adopted in 1978 by conference at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in London, and entered into force in 1984. The Convention was significantly amended in 1995. The 1978 STCW Convention was the first to establish basic requirements on training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers on an international level. Previously the standards of training, certification and watchkeeping of officers and ratings were established by individual governments, usually without reference to practices in other countries. As a result standards and procedures varied widely, even though shipping is extremely international of nature. The Convention prescribes minimum standards relating to training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers which countries are obliged to meet or exceed. The Convention did not deal with manning levels: IMO provisions in this area are covered by regulation 14 of Chapter V of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974, whose requirements are backed up by resolution A.890(21) Principles of safe manning, adopted by the IMO Assembly in 1999, which replaced an earlier resolution A.481(XII) adopted in 1981. One especially important feature of the Convention is that it applies to ships of non-party States when visiting ports of States which are Parties to the Convention. Article X requires Parties to apply the control measures to ships of all flags to the extent necessary to ensure that no more favourable treatment is given to ships entitled to fly the flag of a State which is not a Party than is given to ships entitled to fly the flag of a State that is a Party. The difficulties which could arise for ships of States which are not Parties to the Convention is one reason why the Convention has received such wide acceptance. By 2011, the STCW Convention had 155 Parties, representing 98.9 percent of world shipping tonnage.

[edit] 1995 revision

On July 7, 1995 the IMO adopted a comprehensive revision of STCW. They also included a proposal to develop a new STCW Code, which would contain the technical details associated with provisions of the Convention. The amendments entered force on February 1, 1997. Full implementation was required by February 1, 2002. Mariners already holding licenses had the option to renew those licenses in accordance with the old rules of the 1978 Convention during the period ending on February 1, 2002. Mariners entering training programs after August 1, 1998 are required to meet the competency standards of the new 1995 Amendments. The most significant amendments concerned:

a) enhancement of port state control; b) communication of information to IMO to allow for mutual oversight and consistency in application of standards,

c) quality standards systems (QSS), oversight of training, assessment, and certification procedures, o The Amendments require that seafarers be provided with "familiarization training" and "basic safety training" which includes basic fire fighting, elementary first aid, personal survival techniques, and personal safety and social responsibility. This training is intended to ensure that seafarers are aware of the hazards of working on a vessel and can respond appropriately in an emergency. d) placement of responsibility on parties, including those issuing licenses, and flag states employing foreign nationals, to ensure seafarers meet objective standards of competence, and e) rest period requirements for watchkeeping personnel.

Training Requiements for Existing and New Mariners I have been a mariner for a while (since before Aug 1, 1998) AND I am NOT upgrading my existing license or document. (click here) I am a new mariner (my 1st shipboard day was after Aug 1, 1998) or I am an existing mariner who is upgrading. (click here) Existing Mariners - Getting an STCW 95 Certificate (Ref: USCG NVIC 4-00) This "gap closing" training provision disappears for US mariners on 1 February 2003. Deck Officers* whose first day of sea service was before Aug 1, 1998: 1. Basic Safety Training (BST) The STCW 95 Code requires that you take this 5-day course of instruction. BST is actually 4 courses Basic Firefighting, Personal Survival, Personal Safety and Social Responsibility, and Elementary First Aid. This course has to be renewed every 5 years, or under certain conditions, you have to show that you have at least 1 year of service on board vessels of 200 grt or more within the last 5 years.. 2. Bridge Resource Management (BRM) This is also called Bridge Teamwork Management. Normally a three day course of instruction. 3. Proficiency in Survival Craft and Rescue Boats (PSC) This course is only required of deck officers who do not have an AB Unlimited, AB- Limited, AB-Special (AB-OSV will not do it!), or Lifeboatman endorsement on their Z-card. The requirement is really for Lifeboatman, but this endorsement is embedded in all of the ABs except AB OSV. Engineering Officers* whose first day of sea service was before Aug 1, 1998: 1. Basic Safety Training (BST) Unless you have been on board a vessel that has a routine training and drill program (good only until Feb 1, 2002), you have to take this 5-day course of instruction. BST is actually 4 courses Basic Firefighting, Personal Survival, Personal Safety and Social Responsibility, and Elementary First Aid. This course has to be renewed every 5 years. 2. Proficiency in Survival Craft and Rescue Boats (PSC) This course is only required of engineering officers who do not have an AB Unlimited, AB- Limited, AB-Special (AB-OSV will not do it!), or Lifeboatman endorsement on their Z-card. The requirement is really for Lifeboatman, but this endorsement is embedded in all of the ABs except AB OSV.

Unlicensed ratings (O.S., ABs, QMEDs, deck hands, etc.) whose first day of sea service was before Aug 1, 1998: 1. Basic Safety Training (BST) Unless you have been on board a vessel that has a routine training and drill program (good only until Feb 1, 2002), you have to take this 5-day course of instruction. BST is actually 4 courses Basic Firefighting, Personal Survival, Personal Safety and Social Responsibility, and Elementary First Aid. This course has to be renewed every 5 years. New Mariner** - Getting an STCW 95 Certificate (Ref: USCG NVIC 4-00) First of all, lets clarify what a certificate is and what it is not! An STCW certificate is a piece of paper that is attached to your license or Z-card (US Merchant Mariners Document). It is separate and distinct. You can have a license or Z-card without getting the STCW certificate (although you can not get the certificate without first having the license or Z-card). So why would you want one? Because, the license or Z-card only allows you to work on inland waters. On the east and west coasts of the US, this means you cannot operate in the ocean. In the Gulf of Mexico the boundary line lies 12 miles offshore. And maybe most importantly, only the STCW certificate is recognized by foreign governments not your license or Z-card! O.K., so is there only one kind of these certificates? No! Mariners who had Z-cards and licenses when this new requirement was passed, were given 5 years to comply with the provisions. So, the first certificate that "existing" mariners got was an STCW 78 certificate. That means that their license or Z-card complied with the 1978 STCW Convention. These certificates are good until February 1, 2002. An existing mariner has until February 1, 2002 to do the extra things s/he needs to do in order to comply with the new provisions of the 1995 amendments to the STCW Convention. If they do not convert the STCW 78 certificates to STCW 95 certificates by that date, they will be treated as though they never had a license or Z-card. [Since originally writing this the USCG has extended the deadline on the use of STCW - 78 certificates being used IN DOMESTIC SERVICE ONLY until February 1, 2003.] However, new mariners have to complete a program (not a course) in order to get an STCW 95 Certificate. Additional requirements exist for the license. For new mates (Officers in Charge of a Navigation Watch in STCW speak) on vessels of 200 gross registered tons (500 g.t. ITC), as part of a USCG approved program: Have seagoing service of at least one year (360 days) which includes on-board training and is documented in an approved training record book, or otherwise have approved seagoing service of not less than three years; Have performed, during the seagoing service, bridge watch-keeping duties under the direct supervision (s/he is on the bridge with you) of the master, chief mate or a navigator for a period of not less than 6 months; Complete other specified training and education as part of the USCG approved program. For new assistant engineers (Officer in Charge of an Engineering Watch) on vessels with at least 1000 shaft horsepower (750kW) propulsion units, as part of a USCG approved program: Have completed at least 6 months seagoing service in the engine department; and Have completed approved education and training of at least 30 months which includes on-board training documented in an approved record book. For new ABs, Lifeboatman and Ordinary Seaman part of the navigation watch (All ABs and anyone else standing helm and lookout watches) on vessels of 200 gross registered tons (500

g.t. ITC), as part of a USCG approved program: Have completed at least 6 months training and experience; and Have completed special training, either pre-sea or on board ship, including an approved period of seagoing service which shall not be less than two months, plus the requirements in the regulations for AB. ** Licenses and STCW 95 certificates restricted to the Offshore Supply Vessel (OSV) service have different requirements. For OSV requirements, click here. (top) STCW.org Email: info@stcw.org

International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLA

Adoption: 1 November 1974; Entry into force: 25 May 1980

The SOLAS Convention in its successive forms is generally regarded as the most important of all international treaties concerni merchant ships. The first version was adopted in 1914, in response to the Titanic disaster, the second in 1929, the third in 1948, The 1974 version includes the tacit acceptance procedure - which provides that an amendment shall enter into force on a specifi that date, objections to the amendment are received from an agreed number of Parties.

As a result the 1974 Convention has been updated and amended on numerous occasions. The Convention in fo sometimes referred to as SOLAS, 1974, as amended.

Technical provisions The main objective of the SOLAS Convention is to specify minimum standards for the construction, equipment ships, compatible with their safety. Flag States are responsible for ensuring that ships under their flag comply w requirements, and a number of certificates are prescribed in the Convention as proof that this has been done. C also allow Contracting Governments to inspect ships of other Contracting States if there are clear grounds for b ship and its equipment do not substantially comply with the requirements of the Convention - this procedure is control.The current SOLAS Convention includes Articles setting out general obligations, amendment procedure by an Annex divided into 12 Chapters.

Chapter I - General Provisions Includes regulations concerning the survey of the various types of ships and the issuing of documents signifyin meets the requirements of the Convention. The Chapter also includes provisions for the control of ships in port Contracting Governments.

Chapter II-1 - Construction - Subdivision and stability, machinery and electrical installations The subdivision of passenger ships into watertight compartments must be such that after assumed damage to vessel will remain afloat and stable. Requirements for watertight integrity and bilge pumping arrangements for are also laid down as well as stability requirements for both passenger and cargo ships.

The degree of subdivision - measured by the maximum permissible distance between two adjacent bulkheads length and the service in which it is engaged. The highest degree of subdivision applies to passenger ships.

Requirements covering machinery and electrical installations are designed to ensure that services which are es safety of the ship, passengers and crew are maintained under various emergency conditions.

"Goal-based standards" for oil tankers and bulk carriers were adopted in 2010, requiring new ships to be desig for a specified design life and to be safe and environmentally friendly, in intact and specified damage condition life. Under the regulation, ships should have adequate strength, integrity and stability to minimize the risk of lo pollution to the marine environment due to structural failure, including collapse, resulting in flooding or loss of Chapter II-2 - Fire protection, fire detection and fire extinction Includes detailed fire safety provisions for all ships and specific measures for passenger ships, cargo ships and

They include the following principles: division of the ship into main and vertical zones by thermal and structura separation of accommodation spaces from the remainder of the ship by thermal and structural boundaries; res combustible materials; detection of any fire in the zone of origin; containment and extinction of any fire in the protection of the means of escape or of access for fire-fighting purposes; ready availability of fire-extinguishing minimization of the possibility of ignition of flammable cargo vapour.

Chapter III - Life-saving appliances and arrangements The Chapter includes requirements for life-saving appliances and arrangements, including requirements for life and life jackets according to type of ship. The International Life-Saving Appliance (LSA) Code gives specific tech for LSAs and is mandatory under Regulation 34, which states that all life-saving appliances and arrangements s applicable requirements of the LSA Code.

Chapter IV - Radiocommunications The Chapter incorporates the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS). All passenger ships and all gross tonnage and upwards on international voyages are required to carry equipment designed to improve the following an accident, including satellite emergency position indicating radio beacons (EPIRBs) and search and (SARTs) for the location of the ship or survival craft.

Regulations in Chapter IV cover undertakings by contracting governments to provide radiocommunciation serv requirements for carriage of radiocommunications equipment. The Chapter is closely linked to the Radio Regul International Telecommunication Union.

Chapter V - Safety of navigation Chapter V identifies certain navigation safety services which should be provided by Contracting Governments a provisions of an operational nature applicable in general to all ships on all voyages. This is in contrast to the Co whole, which only applies to certain classes of ship engaged on international voyages.

The subjects covered include the maintenance of meteorological services for ships; the ice patrol service; route the maintenance of search and rescue services.

This Chapter also includes a general obligation for masters to proceed to the assistance of those in distress and Governments to ensure that all ships shall be sufficiently and efficiently manned from a safety point of view.

The chapter makes mandatory the carriage of voyage data recorders (VDRs) and automatic ship identification

Chapter VI - Carriage of Cargoes The Chapter covers all types of cargo (except liquids and gases in bulk) "which, owing to their particular hazard persons on board, may require special precautions". The regulations include requirements for stowage and sec cargo units (such as containers). The Chapter requires cargo ships carrying grain to comply with the Internation

Chapter VII - Carriage of dangerous goods The regulations are contained in three parts:

Part A - Carriage of dangerous goods in packaged form - includes provisions for the classification, packing, mar placarding, documentation and stowage of dangerous goods. Contracting Governments are required to issue in national level and the Chapter makes mandatory the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code, de which is constantly updated to accommodate new dangerous goods and to supplement or revise existing provi

Part A-1 - Carriage of dangerous goods in solid form in bulk - covers the documentation, stowage and segregat these goods and requires reporting of incidents involving such goods.

Part B covers Construction and equipment of ships carrying dangerous liquid chemicals in bulk and requires ch comply with the International Bulk Chemical Code (IBC Code).

Part C covers Construction and equipment of ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk and gas carriers to comply w

requirements of the International Gas Carrier Code (IGC Code).

Part D includes special requirements for the carriage of packaged irradiated nuclear fuel, plutonium and high-le wastes on board ships and requires ships carrying such products to comply with the International Code for the Packaged Irradiated Nuclear Fuel, Plutonium and High-Level Radioactive Wastes on Board Ships (INF Code).

The chapter requires carriage of dangerous goods to be in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Intern Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG Code).

Chapter VIII - Nuclear ships Gives basic requirements for nuclear-powered ships and is particularly concerned with radiation hazards. It refe comprehensive Code of Safety for Nuclear Merchant Ships which was adopted by the IMO Assembly in 1981.

Chapter IX - Management for the Safe Operation of Ships The Chapter makes mandatory the International Safety Management (ISM) Code, which requires a safety mana be established by the shipowner or any person who has assumed responsibility for the ship (the "Company").

Chapter X - Safety measures for high-speed craft The Chapter makes mandatory the International Code of Safety for High-Speed Craft (HSC Code).

Chapter XI-1 - Special measures to enhance maritime safety The Chapter clarifies requirements relating to authorization of recognized organizations (responsible for carryin inspections on Administrations' behalves); enhanced surveys; ship identification number scheme; and port Stat operational requirements.

Chapter XI-2 - Special measures to enhance maritime security Regulation XI-2/3 of the chapter enshrines the International Ship and Port Facilities Security Code (ISPS Code). is mandatory and part B contains guidance as to how best to comply with the mandatory requirements. Regula the role of the Master in exercising his professional judgement over decisions necessary to maintain the securi he shall not be constrained by the Company, the charterer or any other person in this respect.

Regulation XI-2/5 requires all ships to be provided with a ship security alert system. ,Regulation XI-2/6 covers r facilities, providing among other things for Contracting Governments to ensure that port facility security assess out and that port facility security plans are developed, implemented and reviewed in accordance with the ISPS

regulations in this chapter cover the provision of information to IMO, the control of ships in port, (including mea delay, detention, restriction of operations including movement within the port, or expulsion of a ship from port) responsibility of Companies. Chapter XII - Additional safety measures for bulk carriers The Chapter includes structural requirements for bulk carriers over 150 metres in length.

Amendments The 1974 Convention has been amended many times to keep it up to date. Amendments adopted by the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) are listed in MSC Resolutions.
2011 International Maritime Organization (IMO) Disclaimer: IMO has endeavoured to make the info

What is Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)?

Aug 4, 2007

There is much discussion about SOLAS, so I did some research to find out what exactly it is. SOLAS describes two different regulations one is the "International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea", the other is the Public Law 89-777 from 1966, popular name: "Safety at Sea Act" or "Safety of Life at Sea Act". The international convention called SOLAS applies only to ships engaged on international voyages. That means, the Delta Queen is not directly effected by this. What effects the Delta Queen though is the Safety at Sea Act (P.L. 89-777). P.L. 89-777 includes that passenger vessels "having berth or stateroom accomodations for 50 or more passengers" have to be compliant with the SOLAS regulations of 1960 and some ammendments. (Thanks very much to the National Mississippi River Museum and Aquarium and Dubuque County Historical Society for sending us a copy of P.L. 89-777). The DQ was granted a twoyears delay in enactment in an amendment directly to this law, and again a two-years delay was issued in 1968. 1970 was the year of the first big "Save the Delta Queen" campaign. Despite all efforts (see steamboats.com for details) the campaign almost failed. Eventually the Delta Queen got a new 3-years exemption. After that an exemption was re-issued several times, including the exemption that is now expiring in November 2008. International Convention SOLAS The "International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea" exists already since 1914. This first version was passed in response to the Titanic disaster in 1912. Since then there had been several versions and since 1948 the International Maritime Organization (IMO) develops and maintains SOLAS. The relevant version for the Delta Queen was adopted in 1960 and entered into force in 1965. An amendment from 1966, which is referred to in the Safety at Sea Act P.L. 89-777, deals with

special fire safety measures. The actual version or SOLAS, dating back to 1974, came into effect in May 1980 (full text: www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1983/22.html). What seams to be important for the Delta Queen because shes not effected by that is that only since the 1974 SOLAS the convention is being extended and altered by amendments, but there are not completely new versions. A more detailed history of SOLAS can be found on the Metal Safe Sign Int. website. SOLAS 1974 is special because its regulations can become national law without ever passing the US Congress or the desk of the President. Its based on a so called "tacit acceptance" which means if a country doesnt contradict within a given time frame it comes into effect automatically. This is a very interesting procedure, being more and more used for international treaties to speed up the process as it forces countries to act instead of waiting decades until the last of the member countries parliament has taken care of a treaty to come into effect. Florida based maritime attorney Rod Sullivan is discussing this issue more in detail in his blog entry The IMO and the "Tacit Acceptance Procedure" . SOLAS 2010, effecting many of the older cruise ships, consists of some amendments made in 2006, going into effect on July 1, 2010. They contain new and stricter safety regulations especially for passenger vessels. (Revised passenger ship safety standards and others). 14 Comments
14 Responses to What is Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)? 1. Charles Greene Says:
October 15th, 2007 at 11:44 pm

What precisely is restricted use when referring to combustible materials? Nowhere do I see an explicit forbidding of the use of wood in a superstructure. Virtually anything is combustible under the right conditions. (e.g. 9-11) At some point common sense needs to put the bureaucrats in their place. Below is from SOLAS 1974 Chapter II-2 Fire protection, fire detection and fire extinction Includes detailed fire safety provisions for all ships and specific measures for passenger ships, cargo ships and tankers. They include the following principles: division of the ship into main and vertical zones by thermal and structural boundaries; separation of accommodation spaces from the remainder of the ship by thermal and structural boundaries; restricted use of combustible materials; detection of any fire in the zone of origin; containment and extinction of any fire in the space of origin; protection of the means of escape or of access for fire-fighting purposes; ready availability of fire-extinguishing appliances; minimization of the possibility of ignition of flammable cargo vapour.
2. john teska Says:
November 12th, 2007 at 11:27 pm

This is crap. I would love to take a trip on the delta queen next year. that demos for ya. KEEP OUR HISTORY ALIVE AND UNDER STEAM!!!!!
3. Update: no decision yet Says:
February 27th, 2008 at 4:31 pm

[...] read about the details of the Safety at Sea Act and SOLAS [...]
4. Rod Sullivan Says:
May 24th, 2008 at 4:53 am

The Florida based maritime attorney Rod Sullivandiscussing this issue more in detail actually was a marine engineer on the Delta Queens sister paddle-wheeler, the Mississippi Queen, way back in 1980 and 81.
5. This is why the Delta Queen is more than just an old boat Says:
August 28th, 2008 at 2:09 pm

[...] What is Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)? [...]

6. The Delta Queen at Maysville, Kentucky The Delta Queen Pano Blog Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 12:49 am

[...] These are a few images from what could be her last trip here to Maysville as her exempton to the SOLAS will expire on 10/31/08 unless granted another reprieve. Enjoy this short Pano Essay onboard the [...]
7. Bob Lantz Says:
November 1st, 2008 at 5:23 am

Not much discussion on the actual scope of whatever these changes that are required to bring the old gal up to code. Is this something that will kill all stern-wheeled ships because of their configuration, or is something unique about the DQ that makes the modifications so expensive that it would essentially be rebuilding it. Most codes and standards are actually the minimum required for safety. With safety being a somewhat relative term related to your tolerance for risk. Most people trust their own judgement and take far more risks than they allow others to take for them. If I were to be boarding a vessel of any type, if I knew it didnt met the current codes and standards, Id feel better knowing at least the general nature of the deviations so that I could decide for myself if I was comfortable with them. Something you sleep in not meeting fire codes doesnt have a good sound to it.
8. Franz Neumeier Says:
November 1st, 2008 at 10:44 am

Bob, the only thing that doesnt comply with the (1966) law is the fact that parts of the Delta Queens super structure is made from wood. To change this would mean

completely rebuilding the boats superstructure which very obviously is not an option. Check http://deltaqueen.wordpress.com/deltaqueensafety/ for the safety features on the Delta Queen that are meeting all the high, modern standards. The Delta Queen received exemptions from Congress for over 40 years because shes so safe despite the fact that her superstructure partially is from wood (structurally relevant parts have a hidden steel support structure!). The Delta Queen owners have improved safety standards over the years, always in compliance or on request of the Coast Guard who always issued Certificates of Inspection for the Delta Queen, and never was in doubt about the Delta Queens safety. This whole thing is not about safety. Its about a corrupt politician that plays dirty political games, taking revenge to the owners in the name of a Union. One more remark: Its part of the law that passengers are signing a waiver stating that theyre very well aware of the fact that the Delta Queens wooden superstructure doesnt comply with the law. So there is no donbt about the fact that the every single passenger knows about the risks and decides for himself. How many Americans are sleeping in woode houses every night? Have they ever signed a waiver that made them aware of the fire hazard of a wooden house? Shall we tear down all wooden houses because of their wooden structure? Thats what Rep. Oberstar is asking for with the Delta Queen. Just ridiculous, in my opinion.
9. Chicago Boyz Blog Archive Big Wheel Cease from Turnin Says:
August 4th, 2009 at 3:50 pm

[...] Delta Queen has long operated under an exemption to the Safety of Life at Sea convention, known as SOLAS. (Technically, SOLAS only applies to international voyages; however, the Safety at Sea Act (P.L. [...]
10.Rickyrab Says:
January 11th, 2010 at 7:47 pm

As for the Delta Queen, does it good sprinkler system? Are rescue systems able to save lives? Are there adequate lifeboats and life preservers and fire protection systems? If so, then the DQ should be safe.
11.admin Says:
January 11th, 2010 at 8:46 pm

@Rickyrab: Check out http://www.save-the-delta-queen.org/arguments-in-favor-of-thedelta-queen/ Yes, the Delta Queen has a great safety concept with all the bells and whistles you need to make her totally safe. Otherwise she won't have been able to get Coast Guard Certificates of Inspection again and again over so many years.
12.Beau Hampton Says:
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:26 am

As a crew member on over 50 cruise ships before working on the Mississippi and Delta Queens I can say from expierience that the safety and fire prevention measures on the

Delta Queen were greater than any ship I had been on. The training and operational precedures would more than satisfy any international inspection. I am a Merchant Marine and think it's sad that the crew of the Delta Queen should
13.LUCAS Says:
March 6th, 2010 at 2:53 pm

i will like to get a weekly information about SOLAS

14.ariane arciaga Says:
March 12th, 2010 at 10:32 am

what is the requirements to join the trainning SOLAS - The International Convention for the safety of life at sea
(This document is provided as-is in unformatted text-format. Page 1 of 2) Background Of all international conventions dealing with maritime safety, the most important is the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). It is also one of the oldest, the first version having been adopted at a conference held in London in 1914. Since then there have been four other SOLAS conventions: the second was adopted in 1929 and entered into force in 1933; the third was adopted in 1948 and entered into force in 1952; the fourth was adopted (under the auspices of IMO) in 1960 and entered into force in 1965; and the present version was adopted in 1974 and entered into force in 1980. The SOLAS conventions have all covered many aspects of safety at sea. The 1914 version, for example, included chapters on safety of navigation, construction, radiotelegraphy, lifesaving appliances and fire protection. These subjects are still dealt with in separate chapters in the 1974 version. The 1914 Convention was, as the title implies, concerned primarily with the safety of human life. The late 19th and early 20th centuries represented the golden age of passenger travel by sea: there were no aircraft, and emigration, from Europe to the Americas and other parts of the world, was still taking place on a massive scale. Passenger ships were therefore much more common than they are today and accidents frequently led to heavy casualties. The annual loss of life from British ships alone averaged between 700 and 800 during this period. The incident which led to the convening of the 1914 international SOLAS conference was the sinking of the White Star liner Titanic on her maiden voyage in April 1912. More than 1,500 passengers and crew died and the disaster raised so many questions about current standards that the United Kingdom Government proposed holding a conference to develop international regulations. The Conference was attended by representatives of 13 countries and the SOLAS Convention which resulted was adopted on 20 January 1914. It introduced new international requirements dealing with safety of navigation for all merchant ships; the provision of watertight and fire-resistant bulkheads; life-saving appliances and fire prevention and fire fighting appliances on passenger ships. Other requirements dealt with the carriage of radiotelegraph equipment for ships carrying more than 50 persons (had the Titanic's distress messages not been picked up by other ships the loss of life would probably have been even greater); the Conference also agreed on the establishment of a North Atlantic ice patrol. The Convention was to enter into force in July 1915, but by then war had broken

out in Europe and it did not do so, although many of its provisions were adopted by individual nations. In 1927, however, proposals were made for another conference which was held in London in 1929. This time 18 countries attended. The conference adopted a new SOLAS convention which followed basically the same format as the 1914 version but included several new regulations. It entered into force in 1933. One of the two annexes to the convention revised the international regulations for preventing collisions at sea (Collision Regulations). By 1948 the 1929 convention had been overtaken by technical developments and the United Kingdom again hosted an international conference which adopted the third SOLAS Convention. It followed the already established pattern but covered a wider range of ships and went into considerably greater detail. Important improvements were made in such matters as watertight subdivision in passenger ships; stability standards; the maintenance of essential services in emergencies; structural fire protection, including the introduction of three alternative methods of subdivision by means of fire resistant bulkheads, and the enclosure of main stairways. An international safety equipment certificate for cargo ships of 500 gross tons and above was introduced - an indication of the growing importance of cargo ships relative to passenger ships, which were already facing competition from aircraft. The Collision Regulations were also revised and regulations concerning the safety of navigation, meteorology and ice patrols were brought up to date. A separate chapter was included dealing with the carriage of grain and dangerous goods, including explosives. There had been considerable developments in radio since 1929 and the 1948 Convention took these into account (the title of the relevant chapter made specific reference to radiotelephony as well as radiotelegraphy). The year 1948 was particularly significant because a conference held in Geneva under the auspices of the United Nations adopted a convention establishing IMO - or the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO), as it was then known. The 1948 SOLAS Convention recognized that the creation of this new Organization would, for the first time, mean that there was a permanent international body capable of adopting legislation on all matters related to maritime safety. It was originally intended that the Convention would be kept up to date by periodic amendments adopted under the auspices of IMO but in the event it took so long to secure the ratifications required to bring the IMO Convention into force that the new Organization did not meet until 1959. It was then decided that rather than amend the 1948 Convention it would be better to adopt a completely new instrument - the fourth SOLAS Convention. The 1960 SOLAS Convention The 1960 SOLAS Conference, which was attended by delegates from 55 countries, 21 more than in 1948, was the first conference to be held by IMO. Although only twelve years had passed since the last SOLAS Convention was adopted, the pace of technical change was quickening and the 1960 SOLAS Convention incorporated numerous technical improvements. Like its predecessor, the new Convention incorporated control provisions including requirements for various surveys and certificates for cargo ships of 300 tons gross tonnage and above making international voyages and for a Government to investigate casualties when "it judges that such an investigation may assist in determining what changes in the present regulations might be desirable" and to supply IMO with pertinent information. Many safety measures which had once applied only to passenger ships were extended to cargo ships, notably those dealing with emergency power and lighting and fire protection. The radio requirements were again revised and in the chapter dealing with life-saving appliances provision was made for the carriage of liferafts, which had developed to such an extent that they could be regarded as a partial substitute for lifeboats in some cases. Regulations dealing with construction and fire protection were revised as were the rules dealing with the carriage of grain and dangerous goods. The final chapter contained outline requirements for nuclear- powered ships which in 1960 seemed likely to become important in the years to come. As in 1929 and 1948 revised Collision Regulations were annexed to the Convention. Finally, the Conference adopted some 56 resolutions, many of which called upon IMO to undertake studies, collect and disseminate information or take other action. These included, for

example, a request that IMO develop a unified international code dealing with the carriage of dangerous goods - a resolution which resulted in the adoption five years later of the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code. The 1960 SOLAS Conference was to determine much of IMO's technical work for the next few years. It was originally intended that the 1960 SOLAS Convention would be kept up to date by means of amendments adopted as and when it entered into force (which took place in 1965). The first set of amendments was adopted in 1966 and from then on amendments were introduced regularly. Their contents are summarized below: 1966: amendments to Chapter II, dealing with special fire safety measures for passenger ships. 1967: six amendments adopted, dealing with fire safety measures and arrangements for life-saving appliances on certain tankers and cargo ships; VHF radiotelephony in areas of high traffic density; novel types of craft; and the repair modification and outfitting of ships. 1968: new requirements introduced into Chapter V dealing with shipborne navigational equipment, the use of automatic pilot and the carriage of nautical publications. 1969: various amendments adopted, dealing with such matters as firemen's outfits and personal equipment in cargo ships; specifications for lifebuoys and lifejackets; radio installations and shipborne navigational equipment. 1971: regulations amended concerning radiotelegraphy and radiotelephony and routeing of ships. 1973: regulations concerning life-saving appliances; radiotelegraph watches; pilot ladders and hoists. The major amendment was a complete revision of Chapter VI which deals with the carriage of grain. Unfortunately, it became increasingly apparent as the years went by that these efforts to respond to the lessons learnt from major disasters and keep the SOLAS Convention in line with technical developments were doomed to failure - because of the nature of the amendment procedure adopted at the 1960 conference. This stipulated that amendments would enter into force twelve months after being accepted by two-thirds of Contracting Parties to the parent Convention. This procedure had been perfectly satisfactory in the past when most international treaties were ratified by a relatively small number of countries. But during the 1960s the membership of the United Nations and international organizations such as IMO was growing rapidly. More and more countries had secured their independence and many of them soon began to build up their merchant fleets. The number of Parties to the SOLAS Convention grew steadily. This meant that the number of ratifications required to meet the two- thirds target needed to secure entry into force of SOLAS amendments also increased. It became clear that it would take so long for these amendments to become international law that they would be out of date before they did so. As a result IMO decided to introduce a new SOLAS Convention which would not only incorporate all the amendments to the 1960 Convention so far adopted but would also include a new procedure which would enable future amendments to be brought into force within an acceptable period of time. The 1974 SOLAS Convention The 1974 SOLAS Conference was held in London from 21 October to 1 November and was attended by 71 countries. The Convention which was adopted is the version currently in force and it is unlikely to be replaced by a new instrument because of the new tacit amendment procedure which is included in Article VIII. Tacit acceptance As explained earlier, the amendment procedure incorporated in the 1960 Convention stipulated that an amendment would only enter into force when it had been accepted by two-thirds of Contracting Governments. It therefore required Contracting Governments to take positive action to accept the amendment. This usually meant that acceptance was delayed pending introduction of the necessary national legislation and this was not always given high priority by Governments, particularly as the pace of acceptance by other States was slow. The 1974 Convention endeavours to solve this problem by in effect reversing the process: it assumes that Governments are in favour of the amendment unless they take positive action to make their objection known. Article VIII states that amendments to the chapters (other than chapter I) of the Annex, which contain the Convention's technical provisions - shall be deemed to have been accepted within two years (or a different period fixed at the time of adoption) unless they are rejected within a

specified period by one-third of Contracting Governments or by Contracting Governments whose combined merchant fleets represent not less than 50 per cent of world gross tonnage. The article contains other provisions for entry into force of amendments including the explicit acceptance procedure but in practice the tacit acceptance procedure described above proves the most rapid and effective way of securing the entry into force of amendments to the technical annex (other than Chapter I) and is now invariably used. The Annex Chapter I: General provisions The most important of these concern the surveys required for various types of ships and the issuing of documents signifying that ships meet the requirements of the Convention. The survey requirements for passenger ships include a survey before the ship is put into service; a periodical survey (in most cases once every 12 months) and additional surveys as the occasion arises. In the case of cargo ships, after the initial survey, the ship is subject to a subsequent survey every two years in respect of lifesaving appliances and other equipment; once every year in respect of radio installation; and in respect of hull, machinery and equipment, at such intervals as the Administration may consider necessary to ensure that the ship's condition is in all respects satisfactory. Regulation 12 of Chapter I lists the various certificates which have to be issued by the flag State as proof that a ship has been inspected and found to be in compliance with the requirements of the Convention. The certificates cover Passenger Ship Safety, Cargo Ship Safety Construction, Cargo Ship Safety Equipment and Cargo Ship Safety Radio certificates. There is also an Exemption Certificate which is issued when an exemption from requirements is granted by the flag State. The control procedures laid down in Regulation 19 of this chapter are primarily designed to enable port State officers to ensure that foreign ships calling at their ports possess valid certificates. In most cases, possession of valid certificates is sufficient proof that the ship concerned complies with Convention requirements. The port State officer is empowered to take further action if there are clear grounds for believing that the condition of the ship or of its equipment does not correspond substantially with the particulars of any of the certificates. The officer can take steps to ensure that the ship does not sail until it can do so without endangering passengers, crew or the ship itself. If action of this type is taken, the flag State must be informed of the circumstances and the facts must also be reported to IMO. Chapters II-1 and II-2 This chapter includes a number of important changes from the 1960 version mainly in the area of fire safety and the 1974 Conference found it necessary to divide the chapter into two sections. The main points of the chapters are as follows: Chapter II-1: Construction subdivision and stability, machinery and electrical installations The subdivision of passenger ships into watertight compartments must be such that after assumed damage to the ship's hull the vessel will remain afloat in a stable position. Requirements for the watertight integrity and bilge pumping arrangements for passenger ships are also laid down. The degree of subdivision - measured by the maximum permissible distance between two adjacent bulkheads - varies with the ship's length and the service in which it is engaged. The highest degree of subdivision applies to ships of the greatest length primarily engaged in the carriage of passengers. The requirements for machinery and electrical installations are designed to ensure that services which are essential for the safety of the ship, passengers and crew are maintained under various emergency conditions. Chapter II-2: Construction - Fire protection, fire detection and fire extinction Casualties to passenger ships through fire in the early 1960s emphasized the need to improve the fire protection provisions of the 1960 Convention, and in 1966 and 1967 amendments were adopted by the IMO Assembly. These and other amendments, particularly detailed fire safety provisions for passenger ships, tankers and combination carriers, have been incorporated in this chapter, including requirements for inert gas systems in tankers. These provisions are based on the following principles: 1. Division of the ship into main and vertical zones by thermal and structural boundaries. 2. Separation of accommodation spaces from the remainder of the ship by thermal and structural boundaries. 3. Restricted use of combustible materials. 4. Detection of any fire in the zone

of origin. 5. Containment and extinction of any fire in the space of origin. 6. Protection of the means of escape or of access for fire- fighting purposes. 7. Ready availability of fireextinguishing appliances. 8. Minimization of the possibility of ignition of flammable cargo vapour. Chapter III: Life-saving appliances The original Chapter III was divided into three parts. Part A contained general requirements, which applied to all ships, described appliances by type, their equipment, construction specifications, methods of determining their capacity and provisions for maintenance and availability. It also described procedures for emergency and routine drills. Parts B and C contained additional requirements for passenger and cargo ships respectively. Chapter IV: Radiotelegraphy and radiotelephony The chapter is divided into four parts. Part A prescribes the type of radio installations to be carried and Part B the operational requirements for radio watchkeeping, while technical requirements are detailed in Part C. This latter part includes technical provisions for direction- finders and for motor lifeboat radiotelegraph installations, together with portable radio apparatus for survival craft. The radio officer's obligations regarding mandatory logbook entries are listed in Part D. The chapter is closely linked to the Radio Regulations of the International Telecommunication Union. Chapter V: Safety of navigation The provisions of this chapter are mainly of an operational nature and apply to all ships on all voyages. This is in contrast to the Convention as a whole, which only applies to ships of a certain size engaged on international voyages. The subjects covered include the maintenance of meteorological services for ships; the ice patrol service; routeing of ships; and the provision of search and rescue services; etc. The chapter also includes a general obligation for Contracting Governments to ensure that all ships are sufficiently and efficiently manned from a safety point of view. Requirements for the fitting of radar and other navigational aids are also contained in this chapter. Chapter VI: Carriage of grain Shifting is an inherent characteristic of grain, and its effect on a ship's stability can be disastrous. Consequently, the SOLAS Convention contains provisions concerning stowing, trimming and securing the cargo. In the 1974 Convention this chapter was radically amended, following extensive study and testing after the introduction of the 1960 version. This chapter was also adopted by the IMO Assembly as resolution A.264(VIII) in 1973 and Governments were urged to introduce its provisions as a replacement for the 1960 chapter. The 1974 Convention recognizes ships constructed specially for the transport of grain, and specifies a method for calculating the adverse heeling moment caused by shift of cargo in ships carrying bulk grain. Each ship must carry a document of authorization, grain loading stability data and associated plans of loading. Chapter VII: Carriage of dangerous goods This chapter prescribes the classification, packing, marking and stowage of dangerous substances in packaged form. The chapter does not apply to substances carried in bulk in purpose- built ships. The provisions on classification follow the method used by the UN for all modes of transport, although these provisions are more stringent. Contracting Governments are required to issue or cause to be issued detailed instructions concerning the carriage of dangerous goods, and for this purpose the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code was adopted by IMO in 1965. For many years it has been up-dated periodically to accommodate new substances and to supplement or revise existing provisions to keep pace with developments. Chapter VIII: Nuclear ships Only basic requirements are given, which were supplemented by various recommendations contained in an attachment to the Final Act of the 1974 SOLAS Conference. These recommendations have now been overtaken by the safety code for nuclear merchant ships and recommendations on the use of ports by nuclear merchant ships. The Collision Regulations One subject which was not discussed at the 1974 SOLAS Conference was the revision of the Collision Regulations, which had been on the agenda of all previous SOLAS conferences. The reason was the decision taken some years before that the Collision Regulations should no longer be appended to the SOLAS Convention but should become a separate international instrument. The Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea was adopted by an IMO conference in 1972 and entered into force in 1977. It is significant that this Convention,

like SOLAS, also incorporates a "tacit acceptance" procedure. The 1978 SOLAS Protocol The requirements for entry into force of the SOLAS Convention - acceptance by 25 States with at least 50 per cent of world gross tonnage of merchant shipping - meant that it would take several years before the Convention entered into force. It finally did so on 25 May 1980. In the meantime a series of accidents involving oil tankers in the winter of 1976- 77 led to increasing pressure for further international action. As a result early in 1978 IMO convened an international conference on tanker safety and pollution prevention which adopted a number of important modifications to SOLAS as well as to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), 1973. Since the 1974 SOLAS Convention had not entered into force it was impossible to amend the Convention. Instead the conference decided to adopt a Protocol which would enter into force six months after ratification by 15 States with 50 per cent of world tonnage of merchant ships (but not before the parent 1974 SOLAS Convention had entered into force). The Protocol entered into force on 1 May 1981. The main points of the Protocol are as follows: 1. New crude carriers and product carriers of 20,000 dwt and above are required to be fitted with an inert gas system (Chapter II-2). 2. An inert gas system is mandatory for existing crude oil carriers of 70,000 dwt as of 1 May 1983, and as of 1 May 1985 for ships of 20,000- 70,000 dwt (Chapter II- 2). 3. In the case of crude carriers of 20,000-40,000 dwt there is provision for exemption by flag States where it is considered unreasonable or impracticable to fit an inert gas system and high- capacity fixed washing machines are not used. But an inert gas system is always required when crude oil washing is operated (Chapter II-2). 4. An inert gas system is required on existing product carriers as from 1 May 1983 and as from 1 May 1985 for ships of 40,000-70,000 dwt and down to 20,000 dwt where ships are fitted with high capacity washing machines (Chapter II-2). 5. All ships of 1,600-10,000 tons gross tonnage are required to be fitted with radar, and ships of 10,000 gross tonnage and above must have two radars, each capable of operating independently. Requirements for operation and testing of steering gear were also introduced (Chapter V). 6. All tankers of 10,000 gross tonnage and above must have two remote steering gear control systems, each operable separately from the navigating bridge (Chapter II-1). 7. The main steering gear of new tankers of 10,000 gross tonnage and above must comprise two or more identical power units, and be capable of operating the rudder with one or more units (Chapter II-1). 8. A number of important regulations designed to improve the survey and certification of ships were also adopted. These include modifications to the provisions relating to the intervals of surveys and inspections and the introduction of intermediate surveys of life-saving appliances and other equipment of cargo ships and, in the case of hull, machinery and equipment, periodical surveys for cargo ships and intermediate surveys for tankers of ten years of age and over. Unscheduled inspections and mandatory annual surveys were also introduced. Furthermore the port State control provisions were rewritten (Chapter I). The 1981 Amendments As previously noted, the 1974 Convention basically consists of the 1960 version incorporating the amendments adopted between 1966 and 1973, together with the new "tacit acceptance" procedure. During the 1970s the Organization prepared a number of major changes to the Convention, some of which were incorporated in the 1978 Protocol. Others were included in amendments adopted in November 1981 and, under the tacit acceptance procedure, entered into force on 1 September 1984. The most important of these concern Chapter II-1 (Construction subdivision and stability, machinery and electrical installations) and Chapter II-2 (Construction - fire protection, fire detection and fire extinction). In both cases the chapters have virtually been rewritten and updated. The changes to Chapter II-1 include the provisions of resolution A.325(IX), which was adopted in 1975, on machinery and electrical requirements. They also include further modification to regulations 29 and 30 of the 1978 SOLAS Protocol on steering gear. The requirements introduce the concept of duplication of steering gear control systems in tankers and were developed to prevent a repetition of the defects which led to the grounding of the tanker Amoco Cadiz in 1978.

Other amendments to Chapter II-1 include collision bulkheads in cargo ships, passenger ships designed for the carriage of goods vehicles and accompanying personnel, and bilge pumping arrangements for cargo ships. The amendments to Chapter II-2 include the requirements of resolutions A.327(IX) and A.372(X), adopted in 1975 and 1977 respectively, provisions for halogenated hydrocarbon extinguishing systems and a new regulation 62 on inert gas systems. The extensive amendments which had to be incorporated made a complete rearrangement of that chapter necessary. Chapter III (Lifesaving appliances) was slightly amended to provide a cross- reference to the amendments to Chapter II-1 and minor amendments were made to several regulations in Chapter IV (Radiotelegraphy and radiotelephony). Important changes were made to Chapter V (Safety of navigation), including the addition of new requirements concerning the carriage of shipborne navigational equipment (Regulation 12). The revised requirements cover such matters as gyro and magnetic compasses; radar installations; automatic radar plotting aids; echo- sounders; devices to indicate speed and distance; rudder angle indicators; propeller revolution indicators; rate-of- turn indicators; radio direction-finding apparatus; and equipment for homing on the radiotelephone distress frequency. The application of Chapter VI (Carriage of grain) was extended to ships of less than 500 gross tonnage engaged on international voyages. The 1983 Amendments The second set of amendments to the SOLAS Convention was adopted in November 1983 and entered into force on 1 July 1986. They include a few editorial changes to Chapter II-1 and some further revisions of Chapter II-2, including several amendments to regulations which were changed in 1981. This was considered necessary by IMO's Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) because of their importance to the safety of bulk carriers and passenger ships in particular. One of the most important changes affects regulation 56 (Location and separation of spaces in tankers) which has been completely rewritten. One section of the new regulation applies specifically to combination carriers. The revised Chapter III has been increased from 38 regulations to 53 and retitled "Life-saving appliances and arrangements". The main changes are to ensure operational readiness of ships and the safe abandonment survival, detection and retrieval of survivors. The requirements of the revised chapter apply to new ships the keels of which were laid on or after 1 July 1986 (the date of entry into force of the 1983 amendments). A few requirements, mostly dealing with life-saving appliance operations and drills, also apply to existing ships as from 1 July 1986. Some requirements, including those for the carriage of additional liferafts, life-saving radio equipment, lifejacket lights and other aids to assist detection, immersion suits and thermal protective aids, applied to existing ships not later than 1 July 1991. The amendments are designed not only to take into account new developments but also to provide for the evaluation and introduction of novel life-saving appliances or arrangements. Like the original chapter, the new chapter contains three parts, but the arrangement is very different.

Oil Pollution Act Overview

Quickfinder

Border Programs CAMEO EPCRA Facility Response Plan Freshwater Spills Symposia Hurricanes LEPCs List of Lists Local Governments Reimbursement National Response System NCP Product Schedule Natural Disasters Regional Contacts Risk Management Plan RMP*eSubmit SERCs SPCC Rule Tier2 Submit More...

Overview Key provisions of Oil Pollution Act Full Text For More Information

Overview

The Oil Pollution Act (OPA) was signed into law in August 1990, largely in response to rising public concern following the Exxon Valdez incident. The OPA improved the nation's ability to prevent and respond to oil spills by establishing provisions that expand the federal government's ability, and provide the money and resources necessary, to respond to oil spills. The OPA also created the national Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which is available to provide up to one billion dollars per spill incident. In addition, the OPA provided new requirements for contingency planning both by government and industry. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) has been expanded in a three-tiered approach: the Federal government is required to direct all public and private response efforts for certain types of spill events; Area Committees -- composed of federal, state, and local government officials -- must develop detailed, location-specific Area Contingency Plans; and owners or operators of vessels and certain facilities that pose a serious threat to the environment must prepare their own Facility Response Plans.

Finally, the OPA increased penalties for regulatory noncompliance, broadened the response and enforcement authorities of the Federal government, and preserved State authority to establish law governing oil spill prevention and response.
Key Provisions of the Oil Pollution Act

1002(a) Provides that the responsible party for a vessel or facility from which oil is discharged, or which poses a substantial threat of a discharge, is liable for: (1) certain specified damages resulting from the discharged oil; and (2) removal costs incurred in a manner consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). 1002(c) Exceptions to the Clean Water Act (CWA) liability provisions include: (1) discharges of oil authorized by a permit under Federal, State, or local law; (2) discharges of oil from a public vessel; or (3) discharges of oil from onshore facilities covered by the liability provisions of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act. 1002(d) Provides that if a responsible party can establish that the removal costs and damages resulting from an incident were caused solely by an act or omission by a third party, the third party will be held liable for such costs and damages. 1004 The liability for tank vessels larger than 3,000 gross tons is increased to $1,200 per gross ton or $10 million, whichever is greater. Responsible parties at onshore facilities and deepwater ports are liable for up to $350 millon per spill; holders of leases or permits for offshore facilities, except deepwater ports, are liable for up to $75 million per spill, plus removal costs. The Federal government has the authority to adjust, by regulation, the $350 million liability limit established for onshore facilities. 1016 Offshore facilities are required to maintain evidence of financial responsibility of $150 million and vessels and deepwater ports must provide evidence of financial responsibility up to the maximum applicable liability amount. Claims for removal costs and damages may be asserted directly against the guarantor providing evidence of financial responsibility. 1018(a) The Clean Water Act does not preempt State Law. States may impose additional liability (including unlimited liability), funding mechanisms, requirements for removal actions, and fines and penalties for responsible parties. 1019 States have the authority to enforce, on the navigable waters of the State, OPA requirements for evidence of financial responsibility. States are also given access to Federal funds (up to $250,000 per incident) for immediate removal, mitigation, or prevention of a discharge, and may be reimbursed by the Trust fund for removal and monitoring costs incurred during oil spill response and cleanup efforts that are consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). 4202 Strengthens planning and prevention activities by: (1) providing for the establishment of spill contingency plans for all areas of the U.S. (2) mandating the development of response plans for individual tank vessels and certain facilities for responding to a worst case discharge or a

substantial threat of such a discharge; and (3) providing requirements for spill removal equipment and periodic inspections. 4301(a) and (c) The fine for failing to notify the appropriate Federal agency of a discharge is increased from a maximum of $10,000 to a maximum of $250,000 for an individual or $500,000 for an organization. The maximum prison term is also increased from one year to five years. The penalties for violations have a maximum of $250,000 and 15 years in prison. 4301(b) Civil penalties are authorized at $25,000 for each day of violation or $1,000 per barrel of oil discharged. Failure to comply with a Federal removal order can result in civil penalties of up to $25,000 for each day of violation. 9001(a) Amends the Internal Revenue Act of 1986 to consolidate funds established under other statutes and to increase permitted levels of expenditures. Penalties and funds established under several laws are consolidated, and the Trust Fund borrowing limit is increased from $500 million to $1 billion.

Oil Pollution Act/ILTA

Overview
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) was enacted following the Exxon Valdez oil spill to provide a comprehensive, unified system of oil spill liability and compensation. The law establishes liability for removal costs and damages in connection with the discharge of oil into navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or the exclusive economic zone. Responsibility for implementing OPA 90s provisions rests with the U.S. Coast Guard. The numerous provisions of OPA 90 further several important environmental goals, including:

Establishing civil and criminal penalties for oil spill violations Developing a national contingency plan for the effective clean-up of oil spills Establishing claims procedures for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund Setting certain construction specifications for oil tankers Setting financial responsibility and insurance requirements Establishing procedures for natural resource damage assessment and cleanup.

In addition, OPA 90 authorized use of the so-called the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF). The OSLTF is a billion-dollar fund established to pay for removal costs and damages to individuals harmed by oil spills. The OSLTF is administered by the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC), which is part of the Department of Homeland Security. Specifically, the OSLTF can be used to pay claims individuals for the following caused by the result of an oil spill:

Removal costs, which could be used (a) to pay cleanup contractors, (b) for equipment used in removal operations, (c) for chemical testing to identify the type and source of oil, (d) for disposal of recovered oil and oily debris, and (e) for preparation of associated cost documentation; Damages to real or personal property; Natural resource damages; Loss of profits or earning capacity; Loss of Federal, State, or Local government revenues; and Loss of subsistence use of natural resources.

If you have been adversely impacted by an oil spill, Bode & Grenier can help you get money from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, as the firm is very knowledgeable about NPFCs claim procedures. OPA 90 is integrated with other environmental statutes, such as the Clean Water Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, to provide a nationwide system for oil spill liability, removal and restoration, and compensation. OPA 90 also provides for the restoration of injured natural resources, along with liability for lost services. Designated federal, state, tribal, and foreign natural resource trustees are responsible for: (1) returning natural resources to their prespill condition; and (2) recovering compensation for interim losses of natural resources and services through restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has published guidance documents for the assessment of natural resource damages. The guidance documents divide the damage assessment process into three phases: (1) preassessment: where trustees evaluate injury and determine whether there is authority to pursue restoration; (2) restoration planning: where trustees evaluate and quantify potential injuries and determine appropriate restoration actions; and (3) restoration implementation: where trustees and/or responsible parties implement restoration, monitoring, and corrective actions. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established an oil program which includes requirements for reporting spills, preventing spills, and responding to spills. The oil program emphasizes five key areas: (1) prevention; (2) preparedness; (3) response; (4) liability and compensation; and (5) research and development. Provisions on prevention include requirements for crew training, as well as double hull requirements for newly constructed tankers and tank barges. Preparedness includes contingency plans, vessel response plans an exercises, as well as training on spill responses. Provisions on liability and compensation serve to deter pollution, as well as to provide funds for cleanup and compensation. Finally, research and development provisions include response techniques and hardware.

The Managing Partner of Bode & Grenier, L.L.P., William H. Bode, delivered a presentation on OPA 90 at the 24th Annual International Liquid Terminals Association International Operating Conference and Trade Show. Click here to read this presentation. In addition, Bode & Grenier, L.L.P. publishes The Oil Pollution Act: Case Digest and Sourcebook - a comprehensive guide to OPA 90, including analysis of OPA legal challenges, analysis of OPA consent decrees, information on reporting spills and submitting claims to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, as well as the text of the statute. To view the table of contents, click here: The Oil Pollution Act: Case Digest and Sourceboook. To purchase The Oil Pollution Act: Case Digest and Sourcebook for $95, click here.

International Ship and Port Facility Security Code

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ISPS Code being applied in Southampton, England, with signs prohibiting access to areas next to ships.

The cruise ship Sea Princess leaving Southampton harbor; fences are visible on the right, which prevent access to the ship under the ISPS Code.

The International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code is an amendment to the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention (1974/1988) on minimum security arrangements for ships, ports and government agencies. Having come into force in 2004, it prescribes responsibilities to governments, shipping companies, shipboard personnel, and port/facility personnel to "detect security threats and take preventative measures against security incidents affecting ships or port facilities used in international trade."[1]

Contents
[hide]

1 2 3 4

History Scope Requirements National implementation o 4.1 United States 5 See also 6 References 7 External links

[edit] History
The IMO states that "The International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS Code) is a comprehensive set of measures to enhance the security of ships and port facilities, developed in response to the perceived threats to ships and port facilities in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in the United States" (IMO).

Development and implementation were sped up drastically in reaction to the September 11, 2001 attacks and the bombing of the French oil tanker Limburg. The U.S. Coast Guard, as the lead agency in the United States delegation to the International Maritime Organization (IMO), advocated for the measure.[2] The Code was agreed at a meeting of the 108 signatories to the SOLAS convention in London in December 2002. The measures agreed under the Code were brought into force on July 1, 2004.

[edit] Scope
The ISPS Code is implemented through chapter XI-2 Special measures to enhance maritime security in the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS).[3] The Code is a two-part document describing minimum requirements for security of ships and ports. Part A provides mandatory requirements. Part B provides guidance for implementation. The ISPS Code applies to ships on international voyages (including passenger ships, cargo ships of 500 GT and upwards, and mobile offshore drilling units) and the port facilities serving such ships.[4] The main objectives of the ISPS Code are:

To detect security threats and implement security measures To establish roles and responsibilities concerning maritime security for governments, local administrations, ship and port industries at the national and international level To collate and promulgate security-related information To provide a methodology for security assessments so as to have in place plans and procedures to react to changing security levels

[edit] Requirements
The Code does not specify specific measures that each port and ship must take to ensure the safety of the facility against terrorism because of the many different types and sizes of these facilities. Instead it outlines "a standardized, consistent framework for evaluating risk, enabling governments to offset changes in threat with changes in vulnerability for ships and port facilities." For ships the framework includes requirements for:

Ship security plans Ship security officers Company security officers Certain onboard equipment love

For port facilities, the requirements include:

Port facility security plans

Port facility security officers Certain security equipment

In addition the requirements for ships and for port facilities include:

Monitoring and controlling access Monitoring the activities of people and cargo Ensuring security communications are readily available

[edit] National implementation

[edit] United States

The United States has issued regulations to enact the provisions of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 and to align domestic regulations with the maritime security standards of SOLAS and the ISPS Code. These regulations are found in Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 101 through 107. Part 104 contains vessel security regulations, including some provisions that apply to foreign ships in U.S. waters.

International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS Code)

Related Links International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS Code) IMO Circulars/Guidelines International Ship and Port Facility Security Code

Following on from the terrorism events on 11 September 2001, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) agreed to develop security measures applicable to ships and port facilities. These security measures have been included as amendments to the Safety of Life at Sea Convention, 1974 (SOLAS Convention) to which Australia is a party (Chapter XI-2). The ISPS code is associated with this new chapter. Part A of the Code is mandatory and Part B recommendatory. Contracting governments to the SOLAS Convention finalised the text of the preventative maritime security regime at a Diplomatic Conference held at the IMO's Headquarters in London from 9 to 13 December 2002. The Conference adopted the tacit acceptance procedures established in SOLAS to ensure that the maritime security measures would be accepted internationally by 1 January 2004, and in force six months later (by 1 July 2004).

Final Act of the Conference of Contracting Governments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 Conference resolution 1 and related amendments to the 1974 SOLAS Convention

Conference resolution 2 and related amendments to the 1974 SOLAS Convention and Conference resolutions 3 to 11 Consideration of Draft Amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, and draft resolutions, and other related matters

The IMO security regime in Chapter XI-2 is essentially preventive in nature, and it applies to ships and port facilities. In Australia, responses to maritime security incidents will be undertaken through its law enforcement agencies and under existing arrangements for responding to terrorist incidents generally (e.g. through the National Counter-Terrorism Plan). The objectives of the ISPS Code are to:

establish an international framework involving co-operation between contracting governments, government agencies, local administrations and the shipping and port industries to detect/assess security threats and take preventive measures against security incidents affecting ships or port facilities used in international trade; to establish the respective roles and responsibilities of all these parties concerned, at the national and international level, for ensuring maritime security; to ensure the early and efficient collation and exchange of security-related information; to provide a methodology for security assessments so as to have in place plans and procedures to react to changing security levels; and to ensure confidence that adequate and proportionate maritime security measures are in place.

The objectives are to be achieved by the designation of appropriate security officers/personnel on each ship, in each port facility and in each shipping company to prepare and to put into effect the security plans that will be approved for each ship and port facility.

Key Elements of the ISPS Code

The Codeprovides for considerable flexibility to allow for required security measures to be adjusted to meet the assessed risks facing particular ships or port facilities. It has two Parts:

Part A containing mandatory provisions covering the appointment of security officers for shipping companies, individual ships and port facilities. It also includes security matters to be covered in security plans to be prepared in respect of ships and port facilities; and Part B containing guidance and recommendations on preparing ship and port facility security plans.

The ISPS Code contains three security levels. The security level will be set by the Department of Infrastructure and Transport with the aid of Australian Government intelligence agencies.

The three levels are:

Security Level 1, normal; the level at which ships and port facilities normally operate.

In Australia this will mean that minimum protective security measures shall be maintained at all times.

Security Level 2, heightened; the level applying for as long as there is a heightened risk of a security incident.

In Australia this will mean that additional protective security measures shall be maintained for a period of time.

Security Level 3, exceptional; the level applying for the period of time when there is a probable or imminent risk of a security incident.

In Australia this will mean further specific protective security measures shall be maintained for a limited period of time when a security incident is probable or imminent, although it may not be possible to identify the specific target. Security Level 3 will imply that a port facility, and ships at that facility must await instructions from the Department, and follow them as required. Security Level 3 is likely to trigger responses under the National Counter-Terrorism Plan. At the international level the IMO is consulting and progressing work with the World Customs Organization (WCO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) in terms of security of cargo and seafarer identification. In Australia, regulatory arrangements covering the security of cargo are primarily the responsibility of the Australian Customs Service

International Maritime Organization Model Courses

The following IMO Model Courses are now available from IMO and through AMSA.

ISPS - Company Security Officer, 2003 edition This model course aims to provide knowledge to those who may be designated to perform the duties and responsibilities of a Company Security Officer (CSO). ISPS - Port Facility Security Officer, 2003 edition This model course aims to provide knowledge to those who may be designated to perform the duties and responsibilities of a Port Facility Security Officer (PFSO). ISPS - Ship Security Officer, 2003 edition This model course aims to provide knowledge to those who may be designated to perform the duties and responsibilities of a Ship Security Officer (SSO).

A list of approved training providers is available on the AMSA website.

IMO Circulars/Guidelines on Maritime Security