Consultation outcome

Consultation report: MGN 645 - Load Line Length policy clarification: hull form cut-outs, extensions and steps

Updated 17 May 2022

Section 1: Introduction

1.1 The MCA became aware of the practice of using ‘cut-outs’, removeable sections, bathing platforms and similar features when determining the load line length of vessels as a means of avoiding regulations that apply to vessels greater than 24m in length. As the use of these features is known to result in hydrodynamic characteristics that can impact on the safety of vessels, the MCA sought to introduce guidance on the determination of the load line length of vessels whose hull form include cut-outs, removeable sections, bathing platforms or similar features, in order to avoid rule breaking.

1.2 Marine Guidance Note 645 (MGN 645) was developed to provide such guidance to owners, builders designers, Masters, Assigning Authorities and Surveyors on how the load line length of such vessels should be determined and the relevant rules applied. The clarifications have been provided to avoid rule beating through manipulation of vessel design in order to circumvent the intent of the safety regulations.

1.3 The consultation on MGN 645 ran from 24th February 2021 until 23rd March 2021 and sought feedback from the public, builders of small commercial vessels, designers, Certifying Authorities and marine surveyors. Details of the consultation can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-load-line-length-lll-policy-clarification-hullform-cut-outs-extension-and-steps

1.4 We would like to thank all those that responded.

1.5 A total of 8 responses were received; 3 from individuals and 5 from Organisations. The organisations represented were Isle of Man Ship Registry, Cayman Islands Shipping Registry, Royal Yachting Association (RYA), Yacht Designers and Surveyors Association (YDSA) and Mecal Ltd.

Section 2: Key findings

The responses received offered useful insight into the practical application of the MGN and generally supported the need for the MGN and the policy clarification. Whilst supportive, the consultation did highlight areas where further clarification was needed; further details of the points raised and the MCA response can be found in section 3: Summary of Responses.

Section 3: Summary of responses

Question	Responses
1. As the MGN is primarily policy clarification and guidance, it is expected that the impacts will be negligible. Are you in agreement? If not please provide evidence of likely costs implications for your business. a) Two respondents agreed that the impact of the clarifications and guidance would be negligible. b) It was noted that the clarification could result in some vessels moving out of the Codes regulatory regime, which in turn would move the workload to different organisations resulting in a potential increase in costs in gaining certification for those impacted. c) A potential impact on the registration of Large Yachts as owners move towards more ‘understanding’ flags, potentially within the Red Ensign Group (REG) MCA Response - In response to point (b), the potential costs of this policy has been considered and as a result the policy does not include retrospective application in order to minimise costs to industry. There may be an increase in cost to builders or operators arising from the need to comply with different safety standards, however in this instance it is considered that the clarifications are required to ensure the safety of vessels. It is not believed that the policy will impact on the registration of Large Yachts, the policy has been discussed through the UK appropriate technical forums; however, confirmation of the position of REG members will be sought.	4/8
2. Does the proposed MGN clearly and effectively demonstrate how to properly calculate Load Line Length? If not, what further information could be added? a) Two responses confirmed they thought the MGN clearly demonstrated how to calculate load line length. b) A potential for confusion when considering the wording for Tonnage length and Load Line length was highlighted. c) A request for further clarification on potential bathing platforms designs was made. d) It was highlighted that many vessels do not have a ‘traditional’ curved sheer and it is therefore the MGN should consider this. MCA Response - The wording used when referring to Tonnage and Load Line Length will be reviewed and clarified. The text referring to bathing platforms will be reviewed; however it is not possible for the MGN to cover all potential designs or is the intention to provide too prescriptive approach to these measurements. It is recognised that there may be issues when determining least moulded depth. The MGN will be reviewed and further guidance provided.	4/8
3. Is the approached taken to Bathing Platforms and Low Decks proportionate? If not, why? a) Two respondents thought the approach outlined was proportionate. b) It was suggested that the guidance should:       a. refer to more examples of the items that that should be included           under the interpretation.       b. Consider more thoroughly the different shapes of bathing platforms            and transom hull forms c) Two respondents believed there is still scope for some designers to think of designs that escape the intention of the rules if they are not strictly defined. MCA Response – The MGN will be amended to include more examples of ‘basic items’ that are not to be taken into account when determining Load Line Length. However, an exhaustive list will not be provided as Assigning Authorities and Surveyors should be able to apply the interpretation to other items based on the examples given. Due to the variety, range and the innovative nature of ship design, it is not the intention of the MGN to be too prescriptive or provide the answers to every possible shape and design of bathing platform or transom. The aim of the MGN is to provide guidance on how to apply the UK interpretation. This fact will be strengthened within the document and a statement added that confirms that designs where the interpretation cannot be easily applied will be dealt with on a case by case basis. As the MGN seeks to reach a balance between improving safety and allowing innovation and design development, there will inevitably be designers who seek to circumvent rules. If new information and data becomes available to highlight such issues, the MGN will be further amended or updated to address such design features.	4/8
4. What are the key areas where costs and benefits may arise for your business? a) All respondents highlighted that the costs would be minimal. b) It was highlighted that the main change would be the shift of work between organisations which Codes or rules would apply to vessels, which in turn may have a monetary impact (positive and negative) MCA response - Noted.	4/8
5. How long do you expect familiarisation with the proposed MGN to take? The general consensus that familiarisation with the MGN should not take more than a couple of hours; however, it was highlighted that embedding the interpretations into everyday practice could take up to two years. MCA response – Noted.	4/8
6. Will any businesses be disproportionately affected? Respondents highlighted that builders and designers that utilise cut out sections may be impacted if they are building at the 24meter limit. The potential to impact the production of vessels accepted as under 24m Load Line Length with other Flags but which may be found to be over 24m using the UK interpretation was commented upon. As a result some owners and operators could face an increase in building and operating costs to meet Class requirements. MCA Response – Noted.	4/8
7. Are there likely to be any unintended consequences? The following unintended consequences were highlighted: a) Designers will come up with new designs that will raise similar interpretation issues. b) Determining whether a section adds buoyancy will be difficult to interpret if tonnage measurements are performed when the vessel is out of the water. c) This could push platforms and hull extensions out of the waterline as they will not impact on stability and handling when the calculations are done in static conditions. Testing conditions can often result in such features becoming immersed which then severely impacts the stability and handling. This could be addressed by including such features with volume in the calculation of length L,. A further proposal was received for determining whether an appendage should be included in L and whether it contributes to any of buoyancy or hydrodynamic efficiency or deck area. d) Potential loss of yachts 24-30m from the UK flag MCA response - a) The MGN is not designed to address every possible design or provide a design specific answer but will be drafted to provide the policy and the intention behind the policy in order to enable it to be applied in relevant situations. b) Changing the requirements regarding how tonnage measurements are made is outside of the scope of this MGN. The issue of determining buoyancy and tonnage has not been raised further as the MCA is confident that this is a factor that surveyors are already aware of and addressing ‘in the field’ and as such no further guidance is required. c) These proposals will be considered further when the MGN is re-drafted. d) There is no evidence to support that there will be a loss from the UK flag.	4/8
8. What impact do you think the proposed changes will have upon safety standards? It was generally felt that the guidance will help to underpin the safety standards that are already in place and as such should help to improve safety by preventing unsafe practices propagating through the industry. Although, minimal, those that responded stated that safety should be improved. MCA response - Noted.	4/8
9. Do you agree with the approach taken in this MGN, that the guidance issued is not applied retrospectively? a) The majority of respondents agreed the approach outlined within the MGN should not be applied retrospectively. One respondent disagreed. b) It was suggested that a new clause would ensure that modifications of vessels do not allow the fitting of rule breaking extensions. c) A text amendment to para 6.5 was suggested to ensure that any vessel is able to operate safely within an agreed ‘design envelope’. d) One respondent asked what would happen to vessels that had already been measured and whether they keep their tonnage measurement. MCA Response – a)The current position of not applying the interpretation retrospectively will remain. b) The MGN will be amended to make it clear that modifications of vessels should not allow the fitting of rule breaking extensions and that any vessel should be able to operate safely within the agreed design envelope (sea state, vessel speed) without the detachable section. c) Existing vessels will not need to be remeasured, unless they make further modifications.	6/8
Other comments received Linked to question 2, an additional diagram to determination of reverse sheer was provided. MCA Response - The diagram will be reviewed along with the existing figures in the MGN to ensure that they provide clarity.
The removal of the 1m limit to the appendages that appeared in an earlier version of the MGN was highlighted. MCA Response – The review of the MGN will consider the need for the 1m limit.
Paragraph 2.8 requires further clarifications including: a)Who can define intention on the part of the designer b) Are all boarding platforms included or just those that cut the waterline, c) Is it only to be included if they contribute to buoyancy? MCA Response – Further clarification will be provided in the redrafted MGN.
Number of editorial amendments were also made in response to comments raised during the consultation.

Section 4: MCA response and next steps

Having reviewed the responses, it is apparent that the MGN requires further work to ensure clarity and completeness. As such, the document will be reviewed, taking into consideration the comments made, and redrafted. Details of specific changes are highlighted in Section 3: Summary of Responses.

Further communication will be undertaken with the Red Ensign Group to confirm application of the interpretation. The MGN will be amended to communicate the extent of the application of the policy interpretation.

The MGN will be redrafted taking into account the comments made above and published as soon as possible.