1. Leading the way; making a difference NOx Tier III requirements 1. 1.The NOx Tier III enforcement date of 1 January 2016 is kept for already designated NECAs (i.e. the North American and US Caribbean NECAs). 2. 2.The enforcement date for future NECAs that may be submitted to the MEPC for approval would be the date of adoption of a new NECA. What does this mean? A. A.New ships considering trading to North American and Caribbean NECAs and have the keel laid on and after 1 January 2016 should be built to meet NOx Tier III emissions limits. New ships that do not consider trading to the current NECA will not need to be built to comply with the NOx Tier III emissions limits. B. B.In addition, each time a new NECA is to be approved, new ships with the keel laid on and after the date of adoption of a new NECA would need to be built to comply with NOx Tier III emissions limits to be able to trade in such new NECAs. C. C.There will be no retroactive application of the NOx Tier III requirements to ships whose keels are laid before 1 January 2016 trading in the North American or Caribbean NECAs or before the date of adoption of any new NECAs that are established in the future.” Report from IMO MEPC 66 – Air emissions

2. Leading the way; making a difference Sulphur in fuel Agreed to initiate a fuel availability study on availability of fuel with a sulphur content of maximum 0.50% in preparation for the 2020 application. To conclude by 2018. Correspondence group established to develop terms of reference for a group of experts which will be tasked to do the assessment; identify resources necessary, contracting with third parties that might provide assistance; how the group of experts should coordinate these activities Fuel quality INTERTANKO et al. submission supported Industry WG to propose ‘simple measure that could strengthen the enforcement of MARPOL Annex VI provisions by the parties to MARPOL Annex VI’ INTERTANKO will take the initiative to produce a concrete document and will work with Flags, IBIA, BIMCO, ICS, INTERCARGO and others Confidential Bunker Dispute Reporting Report from IMO MEPC 66 – Air emissions

3. Leading the way; making a difference Update from Bunker Sub-Committee Review of Bunker Contracts The INTERTANKO Documentary Committee and the INTERTANKO Bunker Sub-Committee agreed to jointly develop a practical guide for members with suggested clauses for the bunkering contracts with problems and limitations relating to: quality quantity time limits law and jurisdiction clauses Confidential Bunker Dispute Reporting Form Increased concern by Members on the quantity (short deliveries) Bunker Sub-Committee developed a Confidential Bunkering Dispute Reporting Form Members are encouraged to supply confidential information for: statistical purposes statistics to be used to illustrate the problem statistics to be used when INTERTANKO or Members address concrete bunker disputes, contracts, sampling or other similar matters

4. Leading the way; making a difference Purpose The purpose of this reporting form is to supply confidential information to INTERTANKO for statistical purposes which will allow the Technical, Safety & Environmental Committee (ISTEC), and the Bunker Sub-committee (BSC) to produce data that can be used by the Organisation when considering issues related to bunker disputes, contracts, sampling or other similar matters as determined by the BSC. Details of Bunkering Operation Name of Receiving Vessel IMO Number of Receiving Vessel Flag State of Receiving Vessel Owner / Technical Manager of Receiving Vessel Date and Time of Bunkering Bunkering Port Name of Bunker Supplier Name of Bunker Carrier (barge, tanker, truck, installation) Port Authority Port State Authority Were company procedures followed throughout bunkering operation? YesNo Was sampling carried out in line with IMO Guidelines? (Resolution MEPC.182(59)) YesNo Was an independent bunker surveyor employed?YesNo What other tests have been performed, such as GC-MS? What was the result?” Comments: Name of Independent Bunker Surveyor (if applicable) Were additional commercial bunker samples taken and sent for analysis? YesNo Name of Independent Analysis Company Was a Bunker Delivery Note (BDN) issued and signed by the supplier? YesNo Were any required Notice of Protest (NOP) issued?YesNo Were bunkers specified according to ISO 8217 Standard?YesNo Which ISO 8217 version was specified, e.g. 2005, 2010, 2012? Details of Dispute / Issue – IMO MARPOL VI Regulated Quantity of bunkers ordered:t Quantity of bunkers delivered per supplier measurements: t Quantity of bunkers received per vessel measurements: t Density of bunkers specified:kg/m3 Density of bunkers per BDN:kg/m3 Density of bunkers received per independent analysis: kg/m3 Sulphur content of bunkers specified:% Sulphur content of bunkers per BDN:% Sulphur content of bunkers received per independent analysis: % CONFIDENTIAL BUNKERING DISPUTE REPORTING Details of Dispute / Issue – Other Issues Per Independent Analysis Aluminium & Silicon (Cat Fines):mg/kg Flashpoint:degC Water:% Used lubricating oil (calcium/zinc or calcium/phosphorous): mg/kg Hydrogen sulphide:mg/kg Other: Follow-up Activity Was the dispute escalated?YesNo Comments: Was an agreement reached?YesNo Comments:

5. Leading the way; making a difference Other Reports from IMO Secondary Means of Venting – SOLAS II-2 & II-2/11 Separation of sludge and bilge systems - MARPOL I/12 Testing of Watertight Compartments Cargo Tank Pressure at Renewal Survey

6. Leading the way; making a difference GUIDELINES FOR CORRECT ENTRIES ON ORB PART I & PART II Part I & II as package1,728 Part I (3 rd edition) 1,487 Part II28