*** Questionnaire Results ***
(March 13, 2006)
Revision of MSC/Circ.650
Questionnaire #4
Instructions
Please complete the questionnaire below (only 1 per country / NGO) by providing your
input in the box below each action item. This completed questionnaire should be
returned to the SDS CG Co-ordinators no later than February 17, 2006.
Introduction
Based on the Revision of MSC/Circ.650 discussions and outcome from SLF 48 (SLF 48/21,
paragraph 17.4), the SDS CG was given the following terms of reference:
In considering document SLF 48/17, the Sub-Committee agreed to forward it to the
SDS Correspondence Group, instructing it to develop the revision of MSC/Circ.650.
The following modified sentence, proposed by the United Kingdom for inclusion in
MSC/Circ.650, was also forwarded for consideration: "In the context of this
circular, the term "existing cargo ships" applies to dry cargo ships not hitherto
subject to the probabilistic damage stability requirements of SOLAS Chapter II-1,
Part B-1."
There currently seem to be 3 general proposals on this issue as follows:
 SLF 48/17 (Republic of Korea) – In the context of this circular, the term “existing
ships” means the cargo ships which are not subject to SOLAS chapter II-1, Part B-1.
In no cases, ships built on or after 1 July 1998 should be considered as an existing
ship.
 SLF 48/21 (UK) – In the context of this circular, the term "existing cargo ships"
applies to dry cargo ships not hitherto subject to the probabilistic damage stability
requirements of SOLAS Chapter II-1, Part B-1.
 SLF 47/3/7 (Norway) – In the context of this circular, the term “existing ships” means
ships equal to or less than 100 m in length (Ls) constructed before 1 February 1992
and ships equal to or less than 80 m in length (Ls) constructed before 1 July 1998.
Note – a related item to consider is consistency with the new revised SOLAS Chapter II-1.
The content of MSC/Circ.650 was incorporated directly into the text of regulation 1.1.3.4
of the revised SOLAS Chapter II-1 (Resolution MSC.194(80)). In doing this the term
“existing cargo ship” was not used. As a result, cargo ships with keels laid after 1 January
2009 that are less than 80 m in length, will only have to meet an “A/R ratio” requirement if
they are later lengthened above 80 m. This treatment seems to be clear in the revised
SOLAS Chapter II-1, and not subject to interpretation. (see below for relevant text from
Resolution MSC.194(80))
Page 1 of 8
19 December 2005
Action: Please provide comments and proposals regarding the revision of MSC/Circ.650;
and the related consistency aspects with the new revised SOLAS Chapter II-1 (for
consideration by the SDS CG).
Bahamas:
The requirements for modified ships in the new harmonised SOLAS Chapter II-1 are
clearly specified in Regulation 1.1.3.4 and 1.3. It is therefore suggested that the last two
paragraphs of paragraph 1 of MSC/Circular.650 could be replaced with the same wording
as that shown in Regulation 1.3., in which case this Circular should be rescinded.
The interpretation shown in the Notes at the bottom of the Questionnaire concerning
vessels of 80m is not strictly agreed with. We are in favour of ‘all’ ships which undergo
modifications demonstrating the same degree of survivability as prior to modification.
This will also correspond with the introduction of smaller SPS and INF ships into the
harmonized regulations. For small ships a simple analysis could be carried out to
demonstrate compliance.
China:
China fully concur with the note made by the coordinators that the regulation 1.1.3.4 of
revised SOLAS Chapt. II-1( Resolution MSC.194(80)) has very clearly implied that any
cargo ships with keels laid on or after 1 January 2009 that are less than 80m in length,
will only have to demonstrate “A/R” ratio is not less than before modification if they are
lengthened above 80m later. So for purpose of revision of MSC/Circ.650, it need not to
interpret this. That is to say, MSC/Circ.650 shall only be revised to describe ships with
keel laying date before 1 January 2009. SLF 47/3/7 (Norway) is supported and similar
principle of regulation 1.1.3.4 of revised SOLAS Chapt. II-1 can be applied to ships with
keel laying date between 1 July 1998 and 1 January 2009.
Finland:
Support the proposal made by UK for inclusion in MSC/Circ. 650 describing the term
“existing cargo ships”.
Agree that incorporated text from MSC/Circ.650 into revised SOLAS Chapter II-1
without the term of “existing cargo ships” is clear enough and not subject to
interpretation.
General comment/request.
Alterations and modifications of a major character are clarified in revised SOLAS
Ch II-1 reg. 1.1.3.4 for cargo ships. Specially are described the character of the
construction which affects the level of subdivision of that ship (refer also MSC/Circ.650).
Repairs, alterations and modifications of major character for all ships (including also
passenger ships) are described in regulation 1.3.
Is it needed more interpretation for clarification of major character for passenger ships?
Page 2 of 8
19 December 2005
France:
France considers that in the context of MSC/Circ 650, existing cargo ship may be any
cargo ship already built. If the ship already fulfils SOLAS Chapter II-1 part B-1, A/R
before modification is assumed to be >= 1, so ship will also have to fulfill requirements
of SOLAS Chapter II-1 part B-1 after modifications.
When amendments to Chapter II-1 to SOLAS will enter in force, same principle may be
applied. For cargo ships which fulfill present SOLAS Chapter II-1 part B-1, it is assumed
that A and R before modification are calculated according to present SOLAS and A and
R after modification are calculated according to future SOLAS.( A/R should be >= 1 in
both cases.). For ship of 100m and more constructed before 1992 and ships between 80m
and 100m constructed before 1998, A and R if not available should be calculated
according to future SOLAS.
For cargo ships paragraph 3 seems to specify that in case of modifications of major
character, requirements for ships constructed at the date of the modification which is in
contradiction with paragraph 1.3.4. It should be admitted that in case of modification
affecting the level of subdivision, application of requirements in paragraph 1.3.4 is
sufficient.
For passenger ships, it is not clear how to apply the future regulation 1. In case of
“Alteration and modifications of major character”, passenger ships will have to fulfill
regulation in force at the date of the modification, but “Alteration and modifications of
major character”, are only defined for cargo ships.
Germany:
We do not concur with all contents of the afore mentioned Co-ordinators Note: In our
view Part B applies to ships of 80 m in length and upwards as defined in Regulation 4.
Excluded are those shown to comply with damage stability regulations in other
instruments as listed with*. Listed are other conventions and codes such as MARPOL
etc. Alterations of a major character are not listed, therefore in our view Part B applies.
As a result, cargo ships with keels laid after 1 January 2009 that are less than 80 m in
length, will have to comply with requirements of Reg. 6; A>R if they are later lengthened
above 80 m. This should be clearly expressed by the explanatory notes to avoid
misunderstandings.
It would not be supported by Germany to go back to MSC to have vessels undergoing
major conversions exempted in reg. 6.
Also in the existing SOLAS, applicability is defined through keel laying date and length,
without exemptions for major conversions. In our view this was not changed and was not
intended to be changed (according to our recollection of the discussion) when the content
of MSC/Circ.650 was taken up in definitions of new SOLAS Part A Reg. 1. In our view
both SLF 48/21 and SLF 47/3/7 could be supported. SLF 48/17 could be supported in
part, however a vessel being lengthened i.e. from 60 m to 70 m should be treated as an
existing vessel even if built on or after 1 July 1998. If lengthened above 80 m, the
Page 3 of 8
19 December 2005
applicable SOLAS regulations according to keel laying date would govern the damage
stability standard.
Italy:
We share UK proposal i.e.:
SLF 48/21 (UK) – In the context of this circular, the term "existing cargo ships" applies
to dry cargo ships not hitherto subject to the probabilistic damage stability requirements
of SOLAS Chapter II-1, Part B-1.
Japan:
Japan agrees to the NOTE by Coordinator as below and does not feel any necessity for
revision of MSC/Circ.650.
------------Note - a related item to consider is consistency with the new revised SOLAS Chapter II-1
The content of MSC/Circ.650 was incorporated directly into the text of regulation 1 of
the revised SOLAS Chapter II-1 (Resolution MSC.194(80)). In doing this the term
"existing cargo ship" was not used. As a result, cargo ships with keels laid after 1 January
2009 that are less than 80 m in length, will only have to meet an "A/R ratio" requirement
if they are later lengthened above 80 m. This treatment seems to be clear in the revised
SOLAS Chapter II-1, and not subject to interpretation. (see below for relevant text from
Resolution MSC.194(80))
Marshall Islands:
The text proposed by Norway is both clear and definitive with respect to the term
‘existing ships’.
With regard to the related Note, comments agreed.
Norway:
There are three aspects which must be considered for existing ships, related to the
introduction dates of 1992, 1998 and 2009.
1) Modifications carried out on existing ships of length below 100 m/ 80 m not involving
any increase in ships length.
In such cases the principle established in MSC/Circ 609, of demonstrating the ships same
extent of compliance with the requirements applicable to new ships as before the
modification, shall be performed by the A/R exercise established in MSC/Circ.650.
Such modifications may be alterations in watertight bulkhead arrangements and draught
increase.
2) Modifications carried out on existing ships by means of increase in length from below
to above 100/ 80m.
The same principle as for a non- lengthening applies, i.e. an A/R exercise is to
demonstrate the same extent of compliance with the requirements for new ships.
3) Modifications carried out on new ships by means of increase in length from below to
Page 4 of 8
19 December 2005
above 100/ 80m.
In Norway’s opinion, such ships shall comply with the requirements of present Chapter
II-1, Part B-1 in full.
Furthermore, we are of the opinion that this principle also shall apply in the new revised
Chapter II-1.
New Chapter II-1, Part A. Regulation 1.1.3.4 “defines” the term “modification of a major
character” without any reference to existing cargo ships. However, Regulation 1.3 ties the
term to the introduction of new amendments, i.e. the treatment of existing ships.
UK:
The Republic of Korea proposes clarification of MSC/Circ.650, suggesting that the
amendment introduced in SLF 47/3/7 by Norway appears to focus on the length aspect of
modification whereas the intention of the Circular was to include any modification which
altered the “level of subdivision”. The ambiguity that both proposals are trying to
overcome is that, given the interpretation adopted by some countries described in SLF
47/3/7, it would still be possible for an operator to build a new vessel just under 80
metres in length and then shortly after completion lengthen it well over the threshold
thereby avoiding compliance with the damage requirements.
The UK agrees that the Korean proposal is nearer to the wider intention of the original
circular but proposed a slight change:- “In the context of this circular, the term “existing
cargo ship” applies to dry cargo ships not hitherto subject to the probabilistic damage
stability requirements of SOLAS Chapter II-1, Part B-1.” The second sentence of the
Korean proposal could then probably be omitted altogether and the sentence would apply
equally in the new 2009 regulations as well as the current rules.
Background
MSC/Circ.650 was issued on 8 June 1994 to clarify the phrase “modification of a major
character” in SOLAS74 Chapter II-1 by defining it in terms of the effect on the level of
subdivision of the ship (see below for the precise wording). At that time dry cargo ships
of more than 100 metres in length constructed after 1 Feb 92 were subject to compliance
with the new probabilistic damage stability regulations in SOLAS Chapter II-1 Part B-1.
For dry cargo ships constructed prior to that date there were no damage stability
requirements, except bulk carriers (Regulation 27 of the 1966 LLC). If a dry cargo ship
of less than 100 metres length constructed before 1 Feb 92 was, after that date, subjected
to “major modification” (as defined by MSC/Circ.650 and necessarily including
lengthening over the 100 m threshold), it was required to comply with the new damage
regulations.
Confusion arose (ref SLF 47/3/7 para. 3) where, in the case of a ship being lengthened
(constituting a major modification), some authorities interpreted the ruling as meaning
that only ships built before 1 Feb 92 and lengthened after 1 Feb 92 above the 100 metre
threshold needed to comply with the new damage requirements. By implication, ships of
less than 100 metres length constructed after 1 Feb 92 and subsequently lengthened over
the 100 metre threshold still did not need to comply with any damage requirements. The
issue was further complicated when the length threshold was reduced to 80 metres for
Page 5 of 8
19 December 2005
ships constructed after 1 Jul 98.
Consistency with new revised SOLAS Chapter II-1. Seems to be quite clear. Just one
thing, however - the A/R ratio referred to could differ between the old and new
regulations even if the ship is not altered. Should we clarify, perhaps in the EN, that the
A/R ratio should be calculated using only the new rules before and after modification.
Results Summary
Please review the information provided in the comments submitted above.
Co-ordinators’ note: We were unable to identify or summarize any real conclusions from
these comments. We apologize that we may have contributed to this situation by
including the Questionnaire Note regarding the issue of “consistency with the new
revised SOLAS Chapter II-1” at the bottom of page 1. As MSC/Circular.650 is not
referenced / footnoted in the new revised SOLAS Chapter II-1, we now believe for this
task we should restrict our consideration to the clarification of its use in current SOLAS
regulation II-1/1.3.1 (i.e. for ships with keels laid before 1 Jan 2009). Any issues
regarding the treatment of “modifications of a major character” in relationship to damage
stability requirements in the new revised SOLAS Chapter II-1 will have to be considered
separately (as it would seem MSC/Circular.650 will not impact ships with keels laid on
or after 1 Jan 2009).
In our review of the comments we did note several general issues that we believe should
be addressed. These are as follows:

Passenger ships: the treatment of “modifications of a major character” on passenger
ships with keels laid before 1 Jan 2009 will become an issue after the new revised
SOLAS Chapter II-1 regulations become the current requirements on 1 Jan 2009.
The fundamental question is whether a passenger ship built to a deterministic damage
stability standard and later modified (after 1 Jan 2009), should be required to meet the
new probabilistic damage stability standard? It would seem this revision of
MSC/Circ.650 should address this item.

For cargo ships - procedure to calculate the A/R ratio: when the new revised SOLAS
Chapter II-1 enters into force on 1 Jan 2009, it is not clear whether the A/R ratios are
calculated using the new regulations or the old regulations, or a combination of both?

Cargo ships that are less than 80m in length after modification: in the context of the
various revision proposals being considered, it would seem we should be clear on
what is expected for cases where a less than 80m cargo ship is lengthened but is still
less than 80m after modification (i.e. a 69m cargo ship is lengthened to 79m), or cases
of internal watertight subdivision modifications on a cargo ship less than 80m, or a
greater than 80m cargo ship that is shortened to under 80m?
Page 6 of 8
19 December 2005
In an attempt to consolidate the proposals in SLF 47/3/7 and SLF 48/17 together with
various submitted comments, it seems that the following “general principles” proposal
could be suggested:
For purposes of determining an “existing cargo ship” in the context of MSC /Circ.650,
the damage stability regulations are considered to be fixed at the time of the ship’s keel
laying (i.e. no damage stability regulations for cargo ships built before 1 Feb 1992;
Part B-1 damage stability regulations for cargo ships >100m built between 1 Feb 1992
– 30 Jun 1998; Part B-1 damage stability regulations for cargo ships ≥80m built on or
after 1 Jul 1998). Then –
 If the “modification of a major character” puts the cargo ship into a damage
stability regulation category that didn’t exist when the ship was built, then the
ship is an existing cargo ship and must only comply with the A/R ratio.
 If the “modification of a major character” puts the cargo ship into a damage
stability regulation category that did exist when the ship was built, then the ship
is not an existing cargo ship and must fully comply with the current damage
stability regulations (i.e. the old SOLAS Chapter II-1 Part B-1 regulations if
prior to 1 Jan 2009 and the new revised SOLAS Chapter II-1 regulations on or
after 1 Jan 2009).
An alternative form of this “general principles” proposal (it should be the same):
 All cargo ships built before 1 Feb 1992 are “existing cargo ships” and must only
comply with the A/R ratio.
 All cargo ships built on or after 1 Jul 1998 are not “existing cargo ships” and must
fully comply with the current damage stability regulations (i.e. the old SOLAS
Chapter II-1 Part B-1 regulations if prior to 1 Jan 2009 and the new revised
SOLAS Chapter II-1 regulations on or after 1 Jan 2009).
 Any cargo ships ≤100m built between 1 Feb 1992 – 30 Jun 1998:

If the “modification of a major character” puts (or keeps) the cargo ship in
the ≥80m and ≤100m length range then it is an “existing cargo ship” and
must only comply with the A/R ratio.

If the “modification of a major character” puts the cargo ship in the
>100m length range then it is not an “existing cargo ship” and must fully
comply with the current damage stability regulations (i.e. the old SOLAS
Chapter II-1 Part B-1 regulations if prior to 1 Jan 2009 and the new
revised SOLAS Chapter II-1 regulations on or after 1 Jan 2009).
Next steps proposed by the Co-ordinators:
1. Develop a voting Questionnaire to determine the Group’s views / preferences
regarding the above items.
Page 7 of 8
19 December 2005
Excerpt from Resolution MSC.194(80)
Regulation 1 – Application
1.1
Unless expressly provided otherwise, this chapter shall apply to ships the keels of
which are laid or which are at a similar stage of construction on or after 1 January 2009.
1.3
For the purpose of this chapter:
.4
the expression alterations and modifications of a major character means,
in the context of cargo ship subdivision and stability, any modification to the
construction which affects the level of subdivision of that ship. Where a cargo
ship is subject to such modification, it shall be demonstrated that the A/R ratio
calculated for the ship after such modifications is not less than the A/R ratio
calculated for the ship before the modification. However, in those cases where
the ship’s A/R ratio before modification is equal to or greater than unity, it is only
necessary that the ship after modification has an A value which is not less than R,
calculated for the modified ship.
3
All ships which undergo repairs, alterations, modifications and outfitting related
thereto shall continue to comply with at least the requirements previously applicable to
these ships. Such ships, if constructed before the date on which any relevant amendments
enter into force, shall, as a rule, comply with the requirements for ships constructed on or
after that date to at least the same extent as they did before undergoing such repairs,
alterations, modifications or outfitting. Repairs, alterations and modifications of a major
character and outfitting related thereto shall meet the requirements for ships constructed
on or after the date on which any relevant amendments enter into force, in so far as the
Administration deems reasonable and practicable.
Page 8 of 8
19 December 2005