Introduction

Marine Order 55 (Vessels carrying industrial personnel) 2024 (MO55). The proposed commencement date of MO55 is 1 July 2024.

In November 2022, at its 106^th session IMO Maritime Safety Committee (MSC 106) adopted resolutions MSC.521(106) and MSC.527(106) introducing a new SOLAS chapter XV and the International Code of Safety for Ships Carrying Industrial Personnel (IP Code) respectively. The new SOLAS chapter XV makes the IP Code mandatory.

After considering all options, it was decided that developing a new marine order will be the best option to give effect to the new IMO instruments and hence the new MO55 is being developed.

The key requirements of draft MO55 that were circulated for public consultation are:

• For carriage of more than 12 industrial personnel (IP), cargo vessels and high-speed cargo crafts of 500 GT and upwards will need to be designed, constructed, surveyed and issued with an IP Safety Certificate in accordance with the IP Code.
• These vessels must be certified as a cargo ship or a high-speed cargo craft in accordance with either chapter I or chapter VIII or chapter X of SOLAS, as applicable. This is a pre-requisite before an IP Safety Certificate can be issued to a vessel.
• Foreign-flagged vessels will need to comply with the requirements of Chapter XV of SOLAS and the IP Code as applicable to them.
• Industrial personnel will need to comply with the training requirements that apply before being transported.

Consultation approach

MO55 gives effect to SOLAS Chapter XV and the IP Code that address aspects of safety including stability, machinery and electrical installations, fire safety, life-saving appliances and arrangements, carriage of dangerous goods, training of industrial personnel and their transfer arrangements. The new SOLAS chapter XV and the mandatory IP Code will come into force internationally on 1 July 2024 and will apply to cargo vessels and high-speed cargo crafts (HSC) of 500 gross tonnage and upwards carrying more than 12 IP. The new requirements will mostly affect the shipowners, entities providing technicians to work in offshore energy sectors including wind farms and to some extent the classification societies in regard to implementation of the new requirements. Although the consultation covered the whole industry, it was ensured that shipowners and their peak bodies and relevant unions were included.

Public consultation

Overview

The public consultation on the proposed draft MO55 took place from 19 February 2024 to 14 April 2024 for a period of 8 weeks. A copy of the draft MO55 was placed on the AMSA website and social media including Facebook and Instagram for public comments. Notification of the public consultation was also emailed to around 165 stakeholders including shipowners, ship operating companies, training organisations, port authorities, seafarer representative organisations, relevant unions, classification societies, shipping industry peak bodies and interested government departments and agencies inviting them to comment.

AMSA received seven submissions during the public consultation period with some issues common to multiple submissions.

Key issues arising from feedback and AMSA’s response

During the process of reviewing the feedback from industry, AMSA identified twelve key issues, out of which four are considered as needing action and the draft MO55 has been amended as deemed appropriate based on comments raising those issues. The other issues either didn’t warrant any change in the draft MO55 or were essentially seeking clarifications. All issues are outlined below with AMSA responses.

Summary of submissions

Key issue 1: Basic Safety Training (BST) approved by the Global Wind Organisation (GWO) should be mentioned as a training course for the IP acceptable to AMSA and it should be mentioned that any training certificate held must be valid.

Response: GWO BST course is added as one of the training courses for the IP accepted by AMSA. However, section 7 of Marine Order 1 (Administration) 2013 already covers the issue about validity.

Key issue 2: Vessel familiarisation for the IP should only be required for the first time a person boards a vessel.

Response: The master will ensure IP are familiar with the vessel and decide what is appropriate in that regard. If someone boarded and was transported on the vessel previously, the master should be informed.

Key issue 3: MO55 is not clear on application of the IP Code on foreign flagged vessels operating in Australian waters between Australian ports and Australian shelf. It can be assumed that a foreign flagged vessel may not be allowed to carry IP within Australian waters.

Response: Foreign flagged vessels are subject to application of MO55 to the extent SOLAS chapter XV and the IP Code are applicable to them. There is nothing in the draft MO55 that may stop a foreign flagged vessel holding an IP Safety Certificate to carry more than 12 IP within Australian waters.

Key issue 4: Whether it is necessary to put grandfathering provisions for foreign flagged vessels in the marine order considering SOLAS chapter XV allows it. Also, why are existing foreign flagged vessels allowed for grandfathering but not Regulated Australian Vessels (RAVs)?

Response: SOLAS chapter XV allows partial grandfathering and that is also conditional. Therefore, it is necessary to detail the condition and extent of grandfathering for existing foreign flagged vessels. For RAVs, no existing vessel satisfies the pre-condition for grandfathering as AMSA has not authorised any vessel to carry more than 12 IP in accordance with IMO resolution MSC.418(97) prior to 1 July 2024 (no one has requested such authorisation).

Key issue 5: Definition of responsible person is cross referenced to Marine Order 32 (Cargo handling equipment) 2016 making it difficult and inconvenient for end users to find out the definition.

Response: Definition of responsible person is now spelled out making it appropriate for the marine order.

Key issue 6: Electronic version of statutory certificates and endorsements should be accepted by AMSA.

Response: There are already arrangements in place with AMSA’s appointed Recognised Organisations (RO) for the issue of electronic certificates in accordance with IMO Convention procedures, with the appropriate controls for validation of their authenticity employed by the respective RO. Endorsement for annual and intermediate surveys are done electronically by most ROs after completion of surveys. Electronic record keeping is already in place and accepted by AMSA in accordance and compliance with IMO guidance as mentioned in various marine orders.

Key issue 7: To revoke a certificate on the basis that it is “likely” that a condition is to be breached is vague. The revocation of a certificate where a condition has not been breached could be seen as punitive and the consequences for an operator severe in terms of financial reputational damage. While it is unlikely that AMSA will utilise this capacity unless there is a high degree of suspicion, it is nevertheless not a requirement for the breach to actually occur.

Consider whether a suspension rather than revocation of the certificate may be more appropriate administrative action in such cases, if such a power is provided.

Response: The mechanism based on suspicion is designed to dovetail with other enforcement powers such as provided in section 248 of the Navigation Act 2012 (Power for AMSA to detain) which is used in other marine orders to detain a vessel. Subsection 14(c) of MO55 is using similar mechanism provided in section 248 of the Navigation Act 2012 in that the revocation of a certificate can be triggered by the belief of AMSA that there may be a breach. In particular, being able to revoke a certificate in the circumstance of suspicion would potentially enliven the detention option under 248(1)(d) of the Navigation Act 2012.

The use of this mechanism in MO55 is consistent with its use in other marine orders.

To date there does not appear to be any evidence that the mechanism has been used in any way to unfairly impact the livelihood of any operator. Because it is a mechanism that encourages compliance, the preference is to include it in MO55.

There is no power to suspend a safety certificate.

Key issue 8: There are three guidance documents referenced in relation to safe personnel transfer. It has been made mandatory by a penal provision to consider these guidance documents while planning safe personnel transfer. Non-mandatory guidance should not be made mandatory. While one submission is critical of one of those guidance documents and claims it has been surpassed by industry best practice another submission is very supportive of that particular guidance. International Marine Contractors Association (IMCA) guidance is not accessible for non-members.

Response: Guidance documents have been removed from substantial provision and included in a note under section 17 to ensure their non-mandatory status. IMCA guidance is not specifically referenced.

Key issue 9: MO55 doesn’t allow AMSA to consider and allow any exemption from the requirements of the IP Code based on alternative arrangements or design providing equivalent safety for carriage of IP.

Response: SOLAS chapter XV nor the IP Code have any provisions allowing any exemption or alternative design, this is unlike chapter XIV where regulation 4 allows alternative design and arrangements for ships operating in polar waters. It is a pre-condition that a vessel must be certified as a cargo ship under SOLAS or the HSC Code before it can be issued with an IP Safety Certificate. Therefore, cargo ship or cargo HSC certification is the base and IP safety certification is an add-on. While a vessel may be exempted from certain requirements of SOLAS based on regulations 4 and 5 of the chapter I for its certification as a cargo vessel, or a cargo HSC may be allowed equivalents based on the HSC Code, there is no provision for any alternative design and arrangements in chapter XV or the IP Code in regard to IP safety certification.

Key issue 10: While one submission suggests STCW CoST or OPITO BOSIET training are too onerous for IP, another submission suggests these are appropriate courses for the IP and supportive of them.

Response: GWO BST course is also added as an acceptable training to provide a wide range of options in order to meet the relevant functional requirements set out in the IP Code. In addition, AMSA may accept any other equivalent courses.

Key issue 11: For personnel transfer “walk to work” arrangement is the safest and should be mandated. Also, it is suggested certain personnel transfer equipment should be disallowed unless used under emergency situation.

Response: The IP Code is a goal-based code developed to be consistent with IMO objectives and policy. Goal based requirements avoid prescription as much as possible. Prescriptive requirements may restrain operation of vessels inadvertently. MO55 requires a wide range of considerations for planning safe personnel transfer arrangements and procedure including job safety analysis. There are considerations suggested and “walk to work” arrangement is mentioned specifically as a safe personnel transfer arrangement. No existing vessel is expected to be converted to comply with the IP Code as it would be cost prohibitive. It can be reasonably expected that a new vessel built to be IP Code compliant will have active motion-compensated personnel transfer gangway to facilitate walk to work, especially for wind turbine worksites.

Key issue 12: DCVs should not be allowed to carry IP as their crew are not trained or capable of conducting personnel transfer.

Response: No existing cargo DCV is compliant with the IP Code, and it is unlikely that any existing DCV will go through necessary conversion to be issued with an IP Safety Certificate. However, if a cargo DCV (after complying with all requirements to be a RAV) complies with the IP Code and holds the IP Safety Certificate, there is no power to stop it carrying IP. A passenger DCV may be compliant with the IP Code and, if so, there is no power to bar it from carrying IP who can be carried as passengers. However, safe IP transfer arrangements and procedure must be ensured. MO55 doesn’t apply to DCVs, and any such case will have to be dealt under the National Law and 500 series marine orders.

Further information

AMSA has provided all necessary reference materials to support the implementation of the reissued MO55. If you require further information, contact AMSA.