Anti-Trust/Competition Law Compliance Statement INTERTANKO’s policy is to be firmly committed to maintaining a fair and competitive environment in the world tanker trade, and to adhering to all applicable laws which regulate INTERTANKO’s and its members’ activities in these markets. These laws include the anti-trust/competition laws which the United States, the European Union and many nations of the world have adopted to preserve the free enterprise system, promote competition and protect the public from monopolistic and other restrictive trade practices. INTERTANKO’s activities will be conducted in compliance with its Anti- trust/Competition Law Guidelines.

UPDATE ON GOAL BASED STANDARDS ISTEC #34 DUBAI 19 January 2009

SOLAS AMENDMENT Applies to oil tankers & bulk carriers (L>150m) in unrestricted navigation (except ice if not specifically indicated by the design) Building contract 1 January 2015 Delivery 1 January 2019 Ships to be designed and constructed for a specific design life to be safe and environmntally-friendly, when properly operated and maintained under the specific operating and environmental condition, in intact and damage condition, throughout their life (TIER I – GOALS)

SOLAS AMENDMENT The requirements shall be achieved through satisfying applicable structural requirements of a RO or national standards complying with the GBS Functional Requirements Ship Construction File to be provided upon delivery with information on how GBS Functional Requirements have been applied in the design and construcion of the ship Ship Construction File to be: –kept onboard –updated throughout the ship’s service

TIER II – FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS - DESIGN Design life – 25 years Environmental conditions – North Atlantic & relevant long-term sea scatter diagrams Structural strength Fatigue life – not less than the desing life Residual strength Protection against corrosion - coating life & corrosion additions Structural redundancy Watertight & weathertight integrity Human element considerations - ergonomics Design transparency – due regard to IPR

TIER II – FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS CONSTRUCTION Construction quality procedures (e.g. IACS Rec. 47 Shipbuilding & Repair standards) Survey during construction IN-SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS Survey and maintenance Structural accessibility (e.g. IACS Rec. 90 – ship structure access manual) RECYCLING CONSIDERATIONS Recycling

II.3 – STRUCTURAL STRENGTH General design Deformation and failure modes Ultimate strength – calculations to include ultimate hull girder capacity and related ultimate strength of plates and stiffners; verification for long. bending moment defined for the North Atlantic Safety margins – designed for suitable safety margins.

III.3.4 – suitable SAFETY MARGINS withstand at net scantlings*, in intact condition, the environmental conditions anticipated for the ship’s design life & the loading conditions appropriate for them, which shall include full homogeneous & alternate loads, partial loads, multi-port & ballast voyage, and ballast management condition loads & occasional overruns/overloads during loading/ unloading conditions, as applicable...

III.3.4 – suitable SAFETY MARGINS appropriate for all design parameters whose calculation involves a degree of uncertainty, including loads, structural modelling, fatigue, corrosion, material imperfections, construction workmanship errors, buckling, residual & ultimate strength.

*NET SCANTLING The net scantling should provide the structural strength required to sustain the design loads, assuming the structure is in intact condition and without any corrosion margin. However, when assessing fatigue and global strength of hull girder and primary supporting structures, a portion of the total corrosion margin may be added to the net scantlings to reflect the material thickness that can reasonably be expected to exist over the design life.

NET SCANTLING Definition of net scantling uses terms, i.e. primary supporting structures which are not clearly defined by class or by IMO. This may allow various interpretations and various applications of CSR. CSR were supposed to eliminate competition through rule application. Alternative view: imposing a design life of 25 years calculated for the North Atlantic environmental condition provides additional and sufficient safety margin.

SHIP CONSTRUCTION FILE Information on how each Functional Requirement is met Information which shipbuilders expressed concern with are: –Structural strength & Fatigue – calculating conditions and results; calcualting assumptions –Coating protection – coating specification and selected anti corrosion measures; list of coated areas and other measures for corrosion protection –Watertight and weathertight integrity – key factors; calculating assumptions –Design transparency; Alternative methods – list of alternate methods used to demonstrate equivalency to the rules.

TIER III - VERIFICATION Not completed Suggestion (but no proposal) for an alternative verification process including a self-assessment by the rule submitter and a simpler verification by a Group of Experts Who pays the Group of Experts? Liabilities IMO correspondence group to complete the actvity

WHAT DOES GBS DO? GBS a ”rules for rules” regime BUT The SOLAS Regulations apply to ships BUT Verification is on the class rules only NO verification on the rule application NO verification on the construction standards NO monitoring whether the actual ship meets the goals set by the GBS Since the SOLAS rule applies to ships, are the Goals SET for class rules or for actual ships? Any responsibility/liability in case a relatively new ship experiences structural problems?