• English




Report referenceDescription para. 22


"22.    The Safety Committee confirmed that the Contracting Parties could choose the recommended ADN classification societies that they agreed to recognize from the list referred to in, and were not obliged to recognize all of the societies."

ECE/TRANS/WP.15/AC.2/46 paras. 14, 71, 72 and 74


ECE/TRANS/WP.15/AC.2/44 paras. 56 and 57



"14.     The Safety Committee considered that, if a given substance is not listed in Table C, carriage in tank vessels can take place only with special authorization issued under the procedure in 1.5.2. On the other hand, if a substance is listed in Table C, its carriage by tank vessel cannot be subject to less strict conditions than those provided in the Regulations except under bilateral and multilateral agreements under 1.5.1. In that case there is no need to apply the procedure in 1.5.2.

71.       On paragraph 3 (d) of the report, the Safety Committee considered that it was for the classification societies, not the owner, to withdraw the list of substances authorized for carriage in the vessel when a change in the characteristics of substances leads to the prohibition of carriage of a substance in a specific vessel.

72.         The Safety Committee confirmed the interpretations proposed in paragraphs 6 (a) and (g), namely that a stability booklet can be issued for 3 or 4 different densities, otherwise a loading instrument has to be installed on board, and that regarding firefighting installations, non-return valves cannot be installed in service spaces, accommodation or engine rooms and shall be installed outside the protected area (9.3.X.40.1).

74.         It was pointed out that paragraph 6 (l) meant that the design characteristics of Type C tank vessels did not need to be taken into account when using a Type G vessel for carriage of a Type C product. On the contrary, all conditions of carriage, including equipment, should be observed."


"56.       EBU pointed to a problem of interpretation in which arose when substances that could be transported in Type N open tank vessels were transported instead in closed (Type C or N) tank vessels.

57.         The Safety Committee indicated that in the case in question the safe depressurization of the cargo tanks could be ensured by using the devices required by the third indent of (a) (for Type N closed tank vessels). However, it could also be achieved by opening the devices required under the first and second indents of (a) (for Type N closed tank vessels), as long as the same level of safety could be assured using the devices required under the third indent and that steps were taken to prevent an accumulation of water and its penetration into the cargo tanks."
paras. 16 and 18

"16.    The Safety Committee accepted the interpretation of the Netherlands concerning (vapour return pipes). It was also mentioned that the gas-freeing process should at the same time cover piping and shore facilities. The interpretation did not apply to vessels with gas-free certificates or open vessels."

"18.    The interpretation relating to the supervision of loading and unloading operations (8.6.3, question 10) was adopted as well. However, the Safety Committee considered that in that case there was no need to amend the Regulations. The amendment of in respect of supervision, proposed by Germany, was adopted (see annex I)." para. 12

The Safety Committee was of the opinion that a fire extinguishing system could be considered ready for operation if:
(a)    The hose assembly was connected;
(b)    The hose assembly was unwound on board the vessel;
(c)    The jet/spray nozzle was connected to the hose assembly;
(d)    The valves were open or closed, as decided by the boat master or the expert on board of the vessel, taking weather and safety considerations into account; and
(e)    The system controls could be activated at any time.

8.3.5ECE/TRANS/WP.15/AC.2/62 para. 13


"13.    The Safety Committee considered that the term “work on board” covered all the work carried out on the structure of the vessel and its equipment, including, for example, the propeller and the anchor chain."

ECE/TRANS/WP.15/AC.2/44 paras. 24 to 33

ECE/TRANS/WP.15/AC.2/56 paras. 22 and 23
Interpretations for stability and load calculations (At its fourteenth meeting (30 January 2015) the ADN Administrative Committee endorsed the interpretations submitted by the Recommended ADN Classification Societies as reflected in paragraphs 24 to 33 of ECE/TRANS/WP.15/AC.2/54). However, at its fifteenth meeting (28 August 2015) amendments to this document were endorsed by the ADN Administrative Committee as reflected in ECE/TRANS/WP.15/AC.2/56 paragraphs 22 and 23 of . A new version of the document with amendments in track-changes can be found here.

Other national interpretations not endorsed by the ADN Administrative Committee