Exceptions, trial exemptions and equivalents under MARPOL Annex VI

Say an engine room fire damages the exhaust gas system and the ship exceeds a regulated emission value that day. A second ship wants to run its main engine on settings that depart from the rules in order to trial a new combustion technology. A third wants to fit equipment that performs as well as the equipment the rules call for, instead of that equipment.

All three depart from what Annex VI requires. What differs is how they depart. In one the provisions do not apply in the first place. In another the Administration issues an exemption. In the third the Administration recognizes something as equivalent. There are three doors, they are not the same width, and the party that opens each one is not the same either.

Emissions for safety and for saving life are outside the rules from the start

1 Regulations of this Annex shall not apply to: .1 any emission necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of a ship or saving life at sea; or

The text says shall not apply. This is not an exemption granted to you. There is nothing to apply for and no document to be issued.

In exchange the door is narrow. The emission has to be necessary for securing the safety of the ship or saving life at sea. An emission produced to save fuel or to keep to a schedule does not enter here. This door is decided on the facts of the day, not on paper.

Emissions from damage stay inside this door only if they clear two conditions

.2 any emission resulting from damage to a ship or its equipment: .2.1 provided that all reasonable precautions have been taken after the occurrence of the damage or discovery of the emission for the purpose of preventing or minimizing the emission; and .2.2 except if the owner or the master acted either with intent to cause damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result.

Damage on its own does not open the door. Two conditions attach.

The first is that all reasonable precautions to prevent or minimize the emission have been taken. The timing is written into the provision: after the damage occurred, or after the emission was discovered. So the time the damage was identified, what was done afterwards, and when it was done become the material for the judgement.

The second removes the case where the owner or the master acted with intent to cause damage, or recklessly and knowing damage would probably result. What is judged is not the company’s procedure but the acts of the owner and the master. The first condition asks about what was done after the fact, the second about intent before it.

The exemption for trials and research is issued by the Administration, and cylinder displacement splits the duration

2 The Administration of a Party may, in cooperation with other Administrations as appropriate, issue an exemption from specific provisions of this Annex for a ship to conduct trials for the development of ship emission reduction and control technologies and engine design programmes.

This door differs from the first two. Someone opens it. The Administration of a Party does, in cooperation with other Administrations as appropriate. The reason for opening it is fixed as well. The exemption is only provided where applying specific provisions of the Annex or of the revised NOx Technical Code could impede research into the technology or programme. The number of ships is held to the minimum necessary.

The duration splits on the per cylinder displacement of the engine.

Per cylinder displacement	Ceiling on the trial	What comes with it
Up to 30 L	18 months	Where more time is needed, one further 18 month renewal may be permitted
At or above 30 L	5 years	A progress review at each intermediate survey, renewable up to 5 years

The branch at or above 30 L carries a withdrawal condition as well. Where the testing has not adhered to the conditions of the permit, or the technology or programme is determined unlikely to produce effective results in reducing emissions, the permit may be withdrawn on the basis of that review. The longer the period runs, the more the provision builds in a mid-course check.

One place inside this exemption cannot be opened.

A permit issued under this regulation shall not exempt a ship from the reporting requirement under regulation 27 and shall not alter the type and scope of data required to be reported under regulation 27.

Holding a trial permit leaves the reporting duty under regulation 27 in place. The type and scope of the data to be reported do not change with the permit either. Fuel oil consumption data goes in on the same terms while the trial runs.

An equivalent is recognized only if it is at least as effective at reducing emissions

1 The Administration of a Party may allow any fitting, material, appliance or apparatus to be fitted in a ship or other procedures, alternative fuel oils, or compliance methods used as an alternative to those required by this Annex if such fitting, material, appliance or apparatus or other procedures, alternative fuel oils, or compliance methods are at least as effective in terms of emissions reductions as those required by this Annex, including any of the standards set forth in regulations 13 and 14.

What can be recognized is broad. Not only a fitting, material, appliance or apparatus, but also other procedures, alternative fuel oils and compliance methods. The test, on the other hand, is nailed to one thing. It has to be at least as effective in terms of emissions reductions. The provision says in so many words that the standards in regulations 13 and 14 are included.

An equivalent does not stay on board the ship that uses it.

2 The Administration of a Party that allows a fitting, material, appliance or apparatus or other procedures, alternative fuel oils, or compliance methods used as an alternative to those required by this Annex shall communicate to the Organization for circulation to the Parties particulars thereof, for their information and appropriate action, if any.

The Administration that allowed it communicates the particulars to IMO, and IMO circulates them to the Parties. So an equivalent is not an arrangement that ends between the flag State and the company. The other Parties come to know about it.

Regulation 4 mixes sentences of different strength. Communicating is shall. Taking the relevant guidelines developed by IMO into account is should. Not impairing or damaging the environment, human health, property or resources is shall endeavour. Inside one regulation the force of the duty changes from sentence to sentence.

One more set of doors opens on the nature of the activity, and another on the type of craft

Regulation 3 holds two further openings that rest on different grounds from the three above.

The first is seabed mineral resources. Emissions arising directly from exploration, exploitation and associated offshore processing are exempt from the Annex. That covers flaring of hydrocarbons, the burning of cuttings and muds, the release of gases and volatile compounds entrained in drilling fluids and cuttings, emissions associated solely and directly with the treatment, handling or storage of seabed minerals, and emissions from marine diesel engines dedicated solely to that activity. Where hydrocarbons are produced and then used on site as fuel, regulation 18 does not apply to them once the Administration approves.

The second is the unmanned non-self-propelled barge.

4 The Administration may exempt an unmanned non-self-propelled (UNSP) barge from the requirements of regulations 5.1 and 6.1 of this Annex by means of an International Air Pollution Prevention Exemption Certificate for Unmanned Non-self-propelled (UNSP) Barges, for a period not exceeding five years provided that the barge has undergone a survey to confirm that conditions referred to in regulations 2.1.32.1 to 2.1.32.3 of this Annex are met.

This door lifts the survey and certification duties themselves. Regulation 5.1 and regulation 6.1 are what it reaches. In exchange a dedicated exemption certificate has to be issued, the period cannot exceed 5 years, and a survey confirming the conditions comes first. Unlike the first two doors, this one leaves paper behind.

Worth confirming

The passages above come from regulations 3 and 4 of the revised MARPOL Annex VI adopted by resolution MEPC.328(76), printed pages 10 to 12.

What separates the three doors in practice is who makes the call.

• The safety door and the damage door are decided on the facts of the day. What is left behind is a record, not a permit.
• The trial exemption and the equivalent are opened by the Administration. The application form and the review procedure differ by flag State.
• How another Party, acting as port State, receives an equivalent is not settled by regulation 4. What the text fixes goes as far as the Administration’s duty to communicate.

Which IMO guidelines the Administration is to take into account and in which revision, the form of a trial exemption permit, and what survey confirms the conditions for an unmanned non-self-propelled barge all vary by flag State and by revision. The order of work is to settle which door the ship is actually standing at, then check the documents that door requires.