Interpretations

"64. The  Safety  Committee  agreed  with  the  interpretation  of  the  term  “electrical equipment”  in  column  3,  sub-paragraph  (d)  of  the  transitional  provision,  as  stated  in section C, paragraphs 12 and 13, i.e.:
“The term “electrical equipment” is used in ADN 2019 as it was used in the version of the ADN applicable until 31 December2018. This is a reflection of the provisions which have been valid up until that date.
The same applies to the term “electrical equipment” in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of the paragraph applicable to on board vessels in service whose keels were laid before 1 January 1977.”
ECE/TRANS/WP.15/AC.2/70 para. 64

"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 1.15.2.3, and were not obliged to recognize all of the societies."
ECE/TRANS/WP.15/AC.2/62 para. 22

"14. The Safety Committee considered that the operator, as mentioned in section 1.16.0, is the party who has legal and economic responsibility for the vessel’s technical equipment. It can therefore only be a party operating a vessel in line with the bareboat charter procedure, and not a party who use a vessel under a time charter procedure. It also considered that other different contractual relationships should be taken into account when identifying the operator. 
15. The Safety Committee concluded that this interpretation only applied to the definition of operator within the scope of Chapter 1.16 and related references to this chapter in other parts of ADN."
ECE/TRANS/WP.15/AC.2/66
paras. 14 and 15

ECE/TRANS/WP.15/AC.2/46

"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."

ECE/TRANS/WP.15/AC.2/44

"56.       EBU pointed to a problem of interpretation in 7.2.4.16.9 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 9.3.2.22.4/9.3.3.22.4 (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 9.3.2.22.4/9.3.3.22.4 (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."

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

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

"16.    The Safety Committee accepted the interpretation of the Netherlands concerning 7.2.4.25.5 (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 1.4.3.3 in respect of supervision, proposed by Germany, was adopted (see annex I)."
ECE/TRANS/WP.15/AC.2/56
paras. 16 and 18

(a)    Ventilation systems do not strictly mean active systems, it is therefore not necessary to install fans;

(b)     The class rules require a ventilation pipe for void spaces (openings could no longer be used and must be replaced by ventilation systems);

(c)     An opened hatch cover is an undefined opening (situation) with respect to stability calculations and cannot be consider as appropriate solution for ventilation of void spaces;

(d)     Two appropriately positioned ventilation openings with regard to stability requirement (e.g. ventilation hoods) per room are appropriate “ventilation systems”;

(e)     A goose neck is an appropriate “ventilation system”;

(f)     It is not necessary to install flame arresters in the ventilation openings of tank vessels of type N open with flame arresters and type N closed.

ECE/TRANS/WP:15/AC.2/80 para. 18