Revoked by MSC.454(100) on 1 January 2020.

 

RESOLUTION MSC.296(87)

 (adopted on 20 May 2010)

 

ADOPTION OF THE GUIDELINES FOR VERIFICATION OF CONFORMITY WITH GOAL-BASED SHIP CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR BULK CARRIERS AND OIL TANKERS

 

 

THE MARITIME SAFETY COMMITTEE,

 

RECALLING Article 28(b) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Committee,

 

HAVING ADOPTED, by resolution MSC.287(87), the International Goal-Based Ship Construction Standards for Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers (hereinafter referred to as "the Standards") and, by resolution MSC.290(87), SOLAS regulations II-1/2.28 and II-1/3-10 to make the Standards mandatory,

 

NOTING that section 6 of the Standards requires that the rules for the design and construction of bulk carriers and oil tankers of an organization which is recognized by an Administration in accordance with the provisions of SOLAS regulation XI-1/1, or national rules of an Administration used as an equivalent to the rules of a recognized organization according to SOLAS regulation II-1/3-1, shall be verified as conforming to the goals and functional requirements of the Standards, based on the guidelines developed by the Organization,

 

RECOGNIZING the need for guidelines on how to carry out such verification, so as to ensure uniformity of the verification process,

 

HAVING CONSIDERED, at its eighty-seventh session, the proposed Guidelines for verification of conformity with goal-based ship construction standards for bulk carriers and oil tankers,

 

1.         ADOPTS the Guidelines for verification of conformity with goal-based ship construction standards for bulk carriers and oil tankers, the text of which is set out in the Annex to the present resolution;

 

2.         REQUESTS Administrations and organizations recognized by Administrations in accordance with the provisions of SOLAS regulation XI-1/1 to utilize the Guidelines when applying for verification that their design and construction rules for bulk carriers and oil tankers conform to the Standards;

 

3.         RESOLVES to review these Guidelines, as necessary, in view of experience gained with their application.

 

 

ANNEX

 

GUIDELINES FOR VERIFICATION OF CONFORMITY WITH THE INTERNATIONAL GOAL-BASED SHIP CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR BULK CARRIERS AND OIL TANKERS

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

1          The Organization has adopted, by resolution MSC.287(87), the International goal-based ship construction standards for bulk carriers and oil tankers (hereinafter referred to as "the Standards"), specifying goals, functional requirements and verification of conformity to ensure that ships are constructed in such a manner that, when properly operated and maintained, they can remain safe for their design life, and that all parts of a ship can be easily accessed to permit proper inspection and ease of maintenance.

 

2          These Guidelines for verification of conformity with goal-based ship construction standards for bulk carriers and oil tankers (hereinafter referred to as "the Guidelines") provide the procedures necessary for demonstrating and verifying that the ship design and construction rules for bulk carriers and oil tankers of an Administration or its recognized organization conform to the Standards, including both the method and criteria to be applied during the verification process.

 

3          The Guidelines are composed of two parts:

 

.1        Part A establishes the procedures to be followed in order to verify that ship design and construction rules conform to the Standards. It includes sections on initial verification and maintenance of verification of the rules.

 

.2        Part B provides detailed documentation requirements and evaluation criteria that should be used to verify that the rules conform to the Standards.

 

Definitions

 

4          For the purpose of the Guidelines, the following definitions apply:

 

.1        Conformity means fulfilment of a requirement.

 

.2        Finding means an observation or a non-conformity.

 

.3        Non-conformity means non-fulfilment of a requirement.

 

.4        Objective evidence means quantitative or qualitative information, records or statement of fact which are based on observation, measurement or test and which can be verified.

 

.5        Observation means statements of fact or proposals made during an audit which are based on objective evidence but are not a non-conformity.

 

.6        Organization means the International Maritime Organization.

 

.7        Rules or rule set means regulations for hull design and construction of bulk carriers and/or oil tankers operating in unrestricted worldwide service.

 

.8        Secretary-General means the Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organization.

 

.9        Self-assessment means the Submitter assesses its rules for the design and construction of bulk carriers and/or oil tankers for conformity with the goals and functional requirements as set out in the Standards.

 

.10      SOLAS means the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended.

 

.11      Standards means the International goal-based ship construction standards for bulk carriers and oil tankers, adopted by the Organization by resolution MSC.287(87).

 

.12      Submitter means any Administration or recognized organization that requests the Organization to verify that its ship design and construction rules for bulk carriers and/or oil tankers conform to the Standards.

 

.13      Verification (and any variation of the word verify) means the rules for the design and construction of bulk carriers and oil tankers have been compared to the Standards and have been found to be in conformity with or are consistent with the goals and functional requirements as set out in the Standards.

 

.14      Verification audit or audit means the process of evaluating the Submitter's rules, self-assessment and supporting documentation to ascertain the validity and reliability of information. The purpose of the audit is to assess the conformity of the submitted rules with the Standards based on work done on a sampling basis.

 

PART A
VERIFICATION PROCESS

 

Scope of verification

 

5          This part establishes the procedures to be followed in order to verify that design and construction rules for bulk carriers and/or oil tankers conform to the Standards. It includes sections on initial verification, maintenance of verification and establishment of a Goal-based Standards Audit Team (the Team). The verification process consists of two main elements: self-assessment of the rules by the Submitter and an audit of the rules, the self-assessment and the supporting documentation by the Organization.

 

Initial verification

 

Initiation

 

6          Any Administration or recognized organization wishing to have its rules verified as conforming to the Standards should initiate the process with a letter to the Secretary-General, requesting a verification audit of their rules. The letter should be accompanied by a complete technical documentation package (see paragraph 9) and a supporting letter from an Administration that has recognized the Submitter, if applicable.

 

7          The Secretary-General notifies the Submitter of his decision to accept or reject the request, and, if accepted, advises the expected date for establishment of the Team to audit the submission. If the request is rejected, the Secretary-General will include the reason for doing so.

 

8          The Submitter may withdraw the application at any time prior to consideration by the Maritime Safety Committee.

 

Submission

 

9          The Submitter should provide a technical documentation package for review in hard copy (one copy for each member of the Team and one for the Secretariat) and in electronic form in English, including:

 

.1        The rule set to be verified as conforming to the Standards.

 

.2        All items listed under information and documentation requirements in part B of these Guidelines which are not included in .1     above and are included in the internal quality management system or the rule development process as applicable.

 

.3        A self-assessment, addressing all items listed under information and documentation requirements and evaluation criteria in part B of these Guidelines.

 

.4        A clear indication of any instance where a functional requirement, or portions of it, are satisfied by IMO mandatory instruments that are not part of the submitted rules (e.g., SOLAS or MARPOL requirements).

 

.5        Any other documentation which, in the Submitter's opinion, supports their assessment that the rules conform to the Standards.

 

.6        A completed Submission Template (see appendix 1).

 

.7        A clear indication of any confidential and/or proprietary information submitted with the documentation package.

 

Audit process

 

10        The verification audit (audit) is an iterative process based on the following steps:

 

.1        the Secretary-General verifies that the submitted technical documentation package includes all of the elements specified in paragraph 9;

 

.2        the Secretary-General establishes the GBS Audit Team and forwards the request for audit and technical documentation package to the Team with the instructions given in paragraph 11;

 

.3        the Team reviews the information, confirms completeness of the documentation submitted, exchanges views and establishes an audit plan;

 

.4        the Team conducts the audit;

 

.5        the Team prepares an interim audit report for the Submitter that contains the preliminary findings of the audit, requests for additional information as needed, and possible non-conformities, using the report format specified in appendix 2. Where the Team has identified a possible non-conformity, they should explain the reasons for reaching that conclusion;

 

.6        upon receipt of the interim report, the Submitter may respond by submitting additional documentation to the Team to address the reported non-conformities and/or requests for additional information;

 

.7        the Team prepares a final audit report with a recommendation, using the report format specified in appendix 2, and provides it to the Secretary-General with a copy to the Submitter. Where the Team has identified an unresolved non-conformity, they should explain the reasons for reaching that conclusion; and

 

.8        the Team's observations on the audit process should be submitted in a separate report to the Secretary-General.

 

11        The Team is expected to conduct an audit to determine whether the submitted rules conform to each of the Tier II functional requirements, based on the criteria in Part B of the Guidelines. In undertaking this task, the Team should exercise their professional judgement in determining the depth of the audit.

 

12        Where the Submitter can clearly indicate that a functional requirement, or portions of it, are covered by IMO mandatory instruments (e.g., SOLAS or MARPOL requirements), but are not part of the submitted rules, the Team should accept this as part of the verification, provided that it does not affect other covered functional requirements. Mandatory IMO instruments used to satisfy functional requirements should be applied in a manner consistent with IMO interpretations.

 

Appeal

 

13        The Submitter, through their supporting Administration, can appeal a finding of the GBS Audit Team to the Secretary-General. Notification of intent to appeal must be made within 30 days after receiving the Team's final audit report. The appeal request should follow within six months of the notification with the documentation to support the appeal request. After the supporting documentation is received, the Secretary-General should establish an Appeal Board, independent of the original Team, to adjudicate the request. This Appeal Board should be comprised of three or five members and be selected by the Secretary-General from the same list of experts described in paragraph 22. These members should not have participated in the Team that conducted the audit that is being appealed.

 

Approval

 

14        The Secretary-General forwards the final audit report of the Team, supplemented by any appeal report, if applicable, to the Maritime Safety Committee for consideration and final decision.

 

15        Ships contracted to rules prior to the final decision of the MSC may be deemed to meet the Standards. Where non-conformities have been found, the rules should be revised and a new self-assessment submitted for audit. During this process ships contracted to the revised rules may be deemed to meet the Standards.

 

16        The Maritime Safety Committee considers the report prepared by the Team, supplemented by any appeal report, if applicable, with a view to confirming that the information provided by the Submitter demonstrates that the rules conform to the Standards.

 

17        Upon final decision by the Maritime Safety Committee, the Secretary-General notifies the relevant Administration and recognized organization as to whether the submitted rules conform to the Tier I goals and Tier II functional requirements of the Standards. In the case of non-conformity, the notification letter should include specific details to support the determination of non-conformity.

 

18        The Secretary-General circulates the results of successful verifications to Member Governments by appropriate means and maintains a list of all rule sets that have been verified for conformity as well as the original copy of the documentation package submitted.

 

Maintenance of verification

 

19        Changes to rules already verified as conforming to the Standards should be processed as follows:

 

.1        At least annually, each recognized organization whose rules have been verified as conforming to the Standards should notify and make available any rule changes, including any errata, corrigenda or clarifications, to the Secretary-General and to all Administrations that have recognized them. The notification should include a rule commentary, clearly indicating the impact of those changes on conformity with the Standards of those rules already verified, including, but not limited to:

 

.1          an explanation of why the changes were considered necessary, including a description of the issues under consideration;

 

.2          the extent to which the changes address the issues under consideration;

 

.3          an explanation of the way the rules were formulated/drafted;

 

.4          an indication of any impact on and/or contribution to safety, security or environmental protection; and

 

.5          an indication of any impact on net and gross scantlings.

 

.2        When an Administration considers a rule change described in .1 above to result in non-conformity with the Standards, it may request the Secretary-General to conduct a review of the change. The request should include supporting justification why such a review is necessary. The Secretary-General should establish a Team to assess the impact of the change(s) on conformity with the Standards. The findings of the Team should be forwarded to the Maritime Safety Committee by the Secretary-General, along with the request from the Administration and supporting documentation, for further consideration and final disposition.

 

.3        The Organization should aim to audit 10% of the rule changes received per .1 on an annual basis. The Secretary-General should establish a GBS Audit Team accordingly and forward the compilation of annual changes received per .1 to it for consideration. The Team should conduct a preliminary review of the changes, exchange views and establish an audit plan. The Team should exercise their professional judgement in identifying the changes to be audited. The Team conducts the audit and prepares a maintenance of verification audit report with a recommendation and provides it to the Secretary-General. Where the Team has identified a non-conformity, they should explain the reasons for reaching that conclusion. The findings of the Team should be forwarded by the Secretary-General to the Maritime Safety Committee for further consideration and final disposition.

 

.4        Any Administration the rules of which have been verified as conforming to the Standards should submit rule changes as per .1 to .3 above, as applicable.

 

.5        Rules should be considered to be in conformity unless .2 or .3 above results in non-conformities. Where non-conformities have been found, the rules should be revised and a new self-assessment submitted for audit. During this process ships contracted to the revised rules may be deemed to meet the Standards.

 

20        The Maritime Safety Committee may request re-verification of rules if significant changes are made to the Standards or other IMO mandatory instruments or if there is a compelling need.

 

GBS Audit Team

 

21        A GBS Audit Team, established under the auspices of the Maritime Safety Committee, will conduct an audit of the Submitter's documentation package to verify whether the rules conform to the Standards. The Team will serve as an independent panel of technical experts which are not considered to be representing any Member State of the Organization or any organization in consultative status. The Team should consist of three (3) or five (5) members, depending on the complexity of the submission(s). A simple majority will be required to recommend a finding of non-conformity for a functional requirement. The voting of individual members will be kept confidential, with the resulting outcome considered as a decision of the Team. In any case, the view of the minority should be fully documented in the final audit report of the Team.

 

22        Administrations and non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Organization may nominate individuals for inclusion in a list of experts, maintained by the Secretary-General, from which the members of the Team will be selected. Nominations should be provided to the Secretary-General and should be accompanied by a curriculum vitae.

 

23        Nominees should have adequate knowledge of, and experience in, ship structural design and construction, the Standards and classification society rules and rule development and be able to correctly interpret the rules for correlation with relevant regulatory requirements. Additionally, nominees should satisfy at least some of the following requirements:

 

.1        engineering degree in naval architecture and/or structural engineering;

 

.2        scientific or engineering knowledge of technical subjects addressed in ship structural standards including strength of materials, structural analysis, fatigue analysis, hydrodynamics and load calculations, and structural reliability;

 

.3        design, construction or operating experience with the type of ship addressed by the ship rules being verified;

 

.4        knowledge of ship safety construction requirements, including SOLAS requirements and industry standards, guidelines and practices;

 

.5        knowledge of environmental protection requirements related to ship structures;

 

.6        knowledge and experience in survey, inspection and maintenance of ship structures;

 

.7        knowledge and experience in shipbuilding and ship construction practices;

 

.8        knowledge and experience in auditing; and

 

.9        research experience in any of the areas referred to in .1 to .7 above.

 

24        The members of the Team will be selected by the Secretary-General as needed from the list of experts, giving due consideration to the qualifications listed in paragraph 23 and ensuring appropriate and balanced representation and expertise for the specific rules being considered. Additionally, the Secretary-General will select one of the members of the Team to be responsible for overall coordination of the audit. Team members should not have any conflict of interest relating to the rules being verified.

 

25        Each member of the GBS Audit Team or of the Appeal Board should sign a confidentiality agreement with the Secretary-General, stating that they will not disclose any proprietary information that is provided to them for the purpose of verifying rules, with the exception of the documentation required for the interim or final reports.

 

26        The Team should consider the need for transparency throughout their deliberations. The Team should meet in person with the Submitter during the audit process at a mutually agreed location to address any questions and issues that may arise during the audit process, review any additional documentation needed to complete the audit, and to share their preliminary findings.

 

27        The Secretary-General will provide the GBS Audit Team with adequate administrative assistance to support the verification process, including a permanent secretary.

 

PART B

INFORMATION/DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS
AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

 

 

Introduction

 

28        This part provides detailed information and documentation requirements and evaluation criteria to assist the Submitter to conduct a self-assessment that the rules conform to the Tier II functional requirements of the Standards, as outlined in part A. It includes a statement of intent, information and documentation requirements, and evaluation criteria for each Tier II functional requirement. Additionally, the information and documentation requirements and evaluation criteria serve as the audit standard for the GBS Audit Team.

 

29        The statement of intent links Tier II functional requirements to Tier III verification criteria by providing an overview of what the verification of the particular functional requirement should achieve.

 

30        The information and documentation requirements establish specific items that should be included and addressed in the submission supporting the verification.

 

31        The evaluation criteria should be considered as the basis for conducting the self-assessment and audit.

 

32        The rules, as referred to in this part, include the rule set, guidelines, interpretations, internal procedures, etc.

 

33        Justification means providing the supporting data, analysis or other study that demonstrates the adequacy of the methodology, process or requirement. It should include: (1) basis for the assumptions made; (2) description of the uncertainties associated with them; and (3) any sensitivity analyses carried out. It includes documented rationale on which the validity of the hypothesis or criteria used in the requirements or calculations are based. These may be the results of research work, historical data, statistics, etc. For example, justification of safety factors should describe how the many related assumptions and uncertainties, such as environmental conditions, loads, structural analysis methodology and strength criteria, are accounted for.

 

34        Where commentary or data are requested, it is sufficient for such information to be contained in a rule commentary or other supporting documentation.

 

35        Where the rules establish a process to evaluate and accept alternatives, the submission should clearly identify the process for determining that an equivalent level of safety is achieved.

 

36        Information and documentation requirements and evaluation criteria Design

 

1          Design life

 

1.1       Statement of intent

 

Confirm that the specified design life is at least 25 years and properly incorporated in the rules.

 

1.2       Information and documentation requirements

 

1.2.1    Statement of the design life in years used in developing the rules.

 

1.2.2    Description of the assumptions and methods used to incorporate design life into the rules. This should include, but not be limited to, consideration of extreme loads, design loads, fatigue and corrosion.

 

1.3       Evaluation criteria

 

1.3.1    Are structural strength, fatigue and corrosions additions, and any other design parameters used in the rules based upon the specified design life?

 

1.3.2    Has the design life been properly applied in sections of the rules where specified?

 

2          Environmental conditions

 

2.1       Statement of intent

 

Confirm that the wave data and associated ship motions and loads are developed on the basis of North Atlantic environmental conditions and the relevant long-term sea state scatter diagrams for the specified design life.

 

2.2       Information and documentation requirements

 

2.2.1    Source of sea state data (scatter diagrams, etc.) including method and date of data collection and geographical location represented by the data.

 

2.2.2    Justification that sea state data and predictions used to develop motions and loads are representative of North Atlantic environmental conditions.

 

2.2.3    Justification of the methodology used to develop ship motions and loads, including assumptions related to speed, distribution of headings, number of cycles of wave encounters, probability of exceedance of design values, sea states, wave spectral shapes, hull form and other relevant parameters. Clearly define limits of applicability, and provide guidance for assessment when outside this range.

 

2.2.4    Description of how the methodology used to develop ship motions and loads has been benchmarked with experimental or service history data.

 

2.3       Evaluation criteria

 

2.3.1    Does the wave data properly represent North Atlantic conditions and include the regions where the most severe conditions are expected?

 

2.3.2    Do the rules specify the wave spectrum and statistical analysis methods used to obtain the design extreme value, including its probability of exceedance?

 

2.3.3    Are the design extreme motions and loads based on appropriate number of cycles of wave encounters corresponding to at least a 25-year design life?

 

2.3.4    Are the ship speeds and headings used for assessment of ship motions and loads based upon speeds and headings that can be expected in the sea states under consideration?

 

2.3.5    Do the rules properly specify the range of applicability of ship motions and loads, and when further analysis, such as direct sea-keeping analysis or model testing, is required? Do the rules clearly state the assumptions used in the methodologies to develop ship motions and loads?