3.1.1 The Tailoring process considers non-compliance from the requirements prescribed in
the justified Rules, Codes or standards based on an appropriate justification where
full compliance cannot be achieved.
3.1.2 Tailoring is not intended to be applied to the Goal based requirements of the
Submarine Assurance Framework which, by definition, facilitate a range of different
solutions, but is intended to be applied at the Design Verification and Product
Verification level where specific requirements of the justified Rules, Codes and
standards cannot be satisfied.
3.1.3 Intended non-compliances with the requirements of Rules, Codes and standards are to
be categorised as to whether they are considered to provide an Equivalent solution,
an Alternative solution, or require an Exemption.
3.1.4 Any clarification in the applicability of an individual requirement within the Rules,
Codes and standards is defined as an Interpretation and, although not considered to
be a non-compliance, the requirement together with the interpretation and the
rationale for the interpretation are to be documented and agreed by LR.
3.1.5 Non-compliance with individual requirements within the Rules, Codes and standards,
which are considered to provide equivalence to the intent of the prescribed
requirements, are considered to provide an Equivalent solution.
3.1.6 Non-compliance with multiple related requirements within the Rules, Codes and
standards or from the Rules, Codes and standards themselves, which are considered to
provide for an alternative to those requirements, are considered to provide an
Alternative solution.
3.1.7 Equivalent and Alternative solutions are to be identified by the submarine designer
or builder and supported by a dedicated Engineering and Safety Justification.
3.1.8 The Engineering and Safety Justification is to provide a reasoned and compelling
argument supported by a suitable body of evidence that the Equivalent or Alternative
solution proposed is an acceptable equivalent or alternative to that prescribed by
the Rules, Codes and standards.
3.1.9 The Engineering and Safety Justification is to include details of the safety
implications associated with the Equivalent or Alternative solution and the control
measures to be implemented to mitigate any risks associated with the Equivalent or
Alternative solution.
3.1.10 The Engineering and Safety Justification is to consider the operating context,
including normal abnormal and emergency operating conditions.
3.1.11 Depending upon the potential impact of the non-compliance, the Engineering and Safety
Justification may be required to include a formal risk assessment.
3.1.12 All non-compliances are to be agreed by LR, the Owner and the Naval Administration.
Where LR does not agree that a deviation from the Rules, Codes or standards is
appropriate, LR will require the Board of the Naval Administration to provide a
written Exemption.
3.1.13 Agreed Alternative Solutions are to be included in the Standards Justification
process and verified as part of the Design Verification process and/or Product
Verification process as appropriate.