3
Procedural
Aspects Related to the Drafting of Amendments
3.1
Timing of entry into force
of amendments
The Maritime Safety Committee, at its ninety-third session,
approved MSC.1/Circ.1481 on Guidance
on entry into force of amendments to the 1974 SOLAS Convention
and related mandatory instruments
, which reinstated the four-year
cycle of entry into force of amendments to the Convention and related
mandatory instruments. In this respect, due attention should be paid
to the timeline agreed for the entry into force of amendments when
developing amendments to the Convention and related mandatory instruments.
3.2
Amendment control process
3.2.1
Process for amending
the Convention and related mandatory instruments (from proposal to
adoption)
3.2.1.1 At a proposal stage and in addition to
the information to be provided in proposals for planned and unplanned
outputs (see annex 1 to the Committee's Guidelines), where possible,
the following elements should be addressed when considering proposals
for a new work programme items (planned/unplanned output) that may
require the preparation of amendments to the Convention and/or related
mandatory instruments:
-
.1 ship type(s) to which the proposed amendment(s)
is/are expected to apply (e.g. scope, size, type, tonnage/length restriction;
service areas (international/non-international); activities (e.g.
supporting diving activities));
-
.2 the extent of application to existing ships,footnote along with any relevant safety measures that
may be applied to existing ships;
-
.3 the intended instrument(s) that should be amended
(the Convention, associated mandatory instruments, etc.); and
-
.4 the use of the check/monitoring sheet (refer
to paragraph 3.2.1.3.16 below).
3.2.1.2 During the consideration of new work programme
items and approval of new planned/unplanned outputs, and in addition
to the actions to be taken based on the Committee's Guidelines, the
Committee should consider the elements listed below and, in this respect,
should give clear instructions to the relevant technical subsidiary
body/bodies (i.e. sub-committees, including its working/drafting/intersessional
groups, as well as those reporting directly to the Committee), as
may be applicable:
-
.1 target completion date at the sub-committee
level;
-
.2 expected date(s) of entry-into-force and implementation/application
date(s) (e.g. possible phase-in arrangement) of the amendment(s) or
of the new requirement(s) to be developed;
-
.3 whether the proposal should be considered an
exceptional circumstance, as specified in MSC.1/Circ.1481; and
-
.4 scope of application of the proposed amendment(s)
or new requirement(s), along with the instrument(s) which would be
required to be amended/developed. In this regard, the following should
be taken into consideration:
-
.1 if a comprehensive revision to an instrument
is required, a decision should be taken whether to revise the existing
instrument or create a new version, which may co-exist with the existing
instrument (e.g. 1994 and 2000
HSC Code); and
-
.2 if the instrument to be amended has different
versions, a decision should be made whether older versions of the
instrument should also be revised, especially when considering amendments
to operational requirements which are likely to result in the revision
to all versions of the instrument.
3.2.1.3 At a subsequent processing stage, but
before the conclusion of the approval for adoption, each allocated
sub-committee should ensure that:
-
.1 at an initial engagement, sufficient time is
allocated for technical research and discussion before the target
completion date, especially, when the issue is needed to be addressed
by more than one sub-committee where timing of meetings of relevant
sub-committees and exchanges of the result of considerations need
to be carefully examined;
-
.2 the intended scope of application agreed by
the Committee (refer to paragraph 3.2.1.2 above) is not changed without
approval of the Committee, providing clear justification for such
change (e.g. in case of unintended omissions);
-
.3 the technical base document or draft amendment
addresses the proposal's issue(s) through the suggested instrument(s)
and, if not, an alternative method is offered to the Committee for
addressing the problem raised by the proposal;
-
.4 if application to existing ships is agreed
by the Committee under 3.2.1.1.2 above, due attention is paid to MSC/Circ.765-MEPC/Circ.315
on Interim guidelines for the systematic application of the
grandfather clauses;
-
.5 all references have been examined against the
text that would be valid if the proposed amendment enters into force
(refer to section 4.2.4 below);
-
.6 the location of the inserted or modified text
is correct with regard to the text that would be valid when the proposed
amendment enters into force on a four-year cycle of entry-into-force
date, as there may be other relevant amendments adopted that might
enter into force on the same date;
-
.7 there are no inconsistencies in the scope of
application between the technical regulation and the application statement
of the relevant chapter that may be given in regulation 1 or 2, and
application is specifically addressed for existing and/or new ships,
as necessary;
-
.8 if a new term is introduced in a regulation
and a clear definition is necessary, the definition is given in the
relevant article of the Convention or at the beginning of the chapter,
as appropriate;
-
.9 when any of the terms "fitted", "provided",
"installed" or "installation" are used, a clear understanding of the
intended meaning of the term is provided;
-
.10 all necessary related and consequential amendments
to other existing instruments, including non-mandatory instruments,
in particular, the forms of certificates and records of equipment
required in the instrument being amended, have been examined and included
as a part of the amendment(s);
-
.11 the forms of certificates and records of equipment
are harmonized, where appropriate, between the Convention and its
Protocols;footnote
-
.12 attention is paid with regard to the possible
application's criteria using building contract date, keel laying date
or delivery date, as and where appropriate, and to the possible impact
of that decision (refer to section 4.2.1). In making such a decision,
the following should be taken into consideration:
-
.1 in principle, the three-date system can be
used for a chapter governing design/construction of a ship, while
the keel laying date can be used for a chapter governing ship's equipment;
-
.2 the period to be established between events
in the three date system versus the actual timing needed in the shipbuilding
process;
-
.3 the period needed between adoption and entry
into force versus the time for design, manufacture and approval of
new equipment;
-
.4 that a single keel laying date implementation
criteria could require a series of ships under the same building contract
to apply different requirements (pre- and post- entry into force)
which may cause significant changes to the design; and
-
.5 with respect to application to existing ships,
the need to carefully word the three-date criteria implementation
scheme (e.g. application of certain "measures" of the Noise Code)
versus the more straight forward application of a single keel laying
criteria;
-
.13 draft amendments are presented for consideration,
as far as practically possible, as tracked changes within the context
of the relevant provisions to be amended (refer to section 3.2.3 below);
-
.14 due attention is paid to the "application"
and "definition" regulations of the chapter where these are likely
to affect or be affected by the proposed amendments;
-
.15 when preparing amendments to mandatory instruments,
the relationship between the Convention and the instrument is observed
(refer to section 4.1.5);
-
.16 the check/monitoring sheet given in annex
2 is observed and completed throughout the progress at each one of
the above stages. In this respect, it is intended that:
-
.1 parts I and II should be completed by the submitter
of a new work programme (planned/unplanned output), as far as possible,
as an annex to the submission document (refer to paragraph 3.2.1.1.4
above); and
-
.2 part III should be completed by the drafting
or working group that prepares the draft amendment(s);
-
.17 the final draft text of proposed amendments
to the Convention or any related mandatory instrument is reviewed
by either a drafting group or by a working group to properly address
the issues listed in part III of the check/monitoring sheet, as given
in paragraph 3.2.2.2 below;
-
.18 the check/monitoring sheet is presented along
with the draft amendments submitted for approval; and
-
.19 the record format given in annex 3 is completedfootnote by the drafting or working group that prepares
the draft amendment(s).
3.2.1.4 At the approval and adoption stages:
3.2.2
Drafting group arrangements
3.2.2.1 Drafting groups have a relevant role in
the amendment control process. Although drafting groups cannot change
the essence of the amendments, they should ensure that the drafting
of amendments is carried out in accordance with the present guidance.
Therefore, this guidance should be included as a standing reference
in the terms of reference of these groups, along with references for
completion of the check/monitoring sheet and record format, set out
in annexes 2 and 3, respectively.
3.2.2.2 The first stage of the engagement in the
control process of drafting works should be undertaken by a drafting
group or by a working group of the subsidiary body or by those reporting
directly to the Committee. In doing so, the check/monitoring sheet
set out in annex 2 should be observed and completed before submitting
the draft amendments for approval.
3.2.2.3 At the approval stage of amendments, the
Committee should carefully review the draft amendments submitted for
approval, along with the related check/monitoring sheet (refer to
paragraph 3.2.1.4.1.1).
3.2.2.4 Depending upon the findings in the check/monitoring
sheet, the Committee may consider tasking the drafting group established
for reviewing the amendments submitted for adoption (refer to paragraph
3.2.2.6 below) to review the draft amendments submitted for approval
and the related check/monitoring sheet, including the information
contained in the related record format.
3.2.2.5 After the approval of draft amendments
by the Committee, the Secretariat should review the approved draft
amendments from the drafting and editorial point of view. Any findings
by the Secretariat should be submitted to the session of the Committee
that would adopt the amendments as part of the working paper consolidating
the amendments, comments and proposals for modifications, which would
be prepared in advance by the Secretariat (see paragraph 3.2.1.4.2.3).
3.2.2.6 At the adoption stage, the above-mentioned
working paper should be used as the basis document for consideration
of the draft amendments by the expanded Committee and by the drafting
group that would conduct the final review of the draft amendments,
along with any comments provided in any of the documents submitted
to that session for consideration.
3.2.3
Use of tracked changes
3.2.3.1 The use of tracked changes during the
preparation, approval and adoption of draft amendments may facilitate
the consideration of proposed amendments. It may also assist the work
of translators and reduce the number of misinterpretations.
3.2.3.2 Tracked changes should mainly be used,
as far as practically possible, for draft amendments amending the
text of existing regulations, paragraphs or tables, in order to easily
identify the changes proposed with respect to the original text. In
this respect, only the relevant part(s) of the original text should
be reproduced.
3.2.3.3 For insertions of new regulations, paragraphs
or tables, or deletion of existing ones, the use of tracked changes
may not be required.
3.2.3.4 Tracked changes should be created using
"strikeout" for deleted text and "grey shading" to highlight all modifications
and new insertions, including deleted text (i.e. not using the track
changes function of Microsoft Word), in order to ensure that such
changes are not lost during further editorial work (e.g. cut and paste).
3.2.3.5 Tracked changes should be made against
the text that has already entered into force. However, subject to
section 3.3.1 below, if the draft amendments under development are
expected to be adopted after the entry-into-force date of other related
amendments, then the adopted amendments should be included using a
different colour and including a note indicating the number of the
resolution by which the amendments were adopted. The note should be
used as a drafting tool only and should not be considered as part
of the related draft amendments.
3.3
Points for attention in
preparing an amendment
3.3.1
An amendment to a pending
amendment
3.3.1.1 A further amendment to an already adopted
amendment which is still pending entry into force may be approved
by the Committee but should not be adopted until the previous adopted
amendment enters into force.
3.3.1.2 Other elements of the same regulation
which are not related to a previous adopted amendment which is still
pending entry into force may be amended accordingly, in accordance
with the procedures for amending the Convention.
3.3.2
Work of other bodies
of the Organization
3.3.2.1 In drafting an amendment, due attention
should be paid to any possible related amendments being prepared by
other bodies of the Organization based upon the information provided
by the Secretariat or as may be advised.
|