REPORT TO THE MARITIME SAFETY COMMITTEE Table of … · 9 UPDATING OF THE GMDSS MASTER PLAN AND...

I:\NCSR\05\NCSR 5-23.docx

E

SUB-COMMITTEE ON NAVIGATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND SEARCH AND RESCUE 5th session Agenda item 23

NCSR 5/23 9 March 2018

Original: ENGLISH

REPORT TO THE MARITIME SAFETY COMMITTEE

Table of contents Section Page No. 1 GENERAL

4

2 DECISIONS OF OTHER IMO BODIES

4

3 ROUTEING MEASURES AND MANDATORY SHIP REPORTING SYSTEMS

5

4 UPDATES TO THE LRIT SYSTEM

10

5 APPLICATION OF THE "INDIAN REGIONAL NAVIGATION SATELLITE SYSTEM (IRNSS)" IN THE MARITIME FIELD AND DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR SHIPBORNE IRNSS RECEIVER EQUIPMENT

14

6 GUIDELINES FOR THE HARMONIZED DISPLAY OF NAVIGATION INFORMATION RECEIVED VIA COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT

15

7 GUIDELINES ON STANDARDIZED MODES OF OPERATION, S-MODE

16

8 DEVELOP GUIDANCE ON DEFINITION AND HARMONIZATION OF THE FORMAT AND STRUCTURE OF MARITIME SERVICE PORTFOLIOS (MSPs)

18

9 UPDATING OF THE GMDSS MASTER PLAN AND GUIDELINES ON MSI (MARITIME SAFETY INFORMATION) PROVISIONS

22

10 CONSEQUENTIAL WORK RELATED TO THE NEW POLAR CODE

24

11 REVISION OF SOLAS CHAPTERS III AND IV FOR MODERNIZATION OF THE GLOBAL MARITIME DISTRESS AND SAFETY SYSTEM (GMDSS), INCLUDING RELATED AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO OTHER EXISTING INSTRUMENTS

25

NCSR 5/23 Page 2


12 RESPONSE TO MATTERS RELATED TO THE RADIOCOMMUNICATION ITU-R STUDY GROUP AND ITU WORLD RADIOCOMMUNICATION CONFERENCE

32

13 MEASURES TO PROTECT THE SAFETY OF PERSONS RESCUED AT SEA

34

14 DEVELOPMENTS IN GMDSS SATELLITE SERVICES

35

15 REVISED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR EPIRBS OPERATING ON 406 MHZ (RESOLUTION A.810(19)) TO INCLUDE COSPAS-SARSAT MEOSAR AND SECOND GENERATION BEACONS

45

16 FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROVISION OF GLOBAL MARITIME SAR SERVICES

47

17 GUIDELINES ON HARMONIZED AERONAUTICAL AND MARITIME SEARCH AND RESCUE PROCEDURES, INCLUDING SAR TRAINING MATTERS

49

18 AMENDMENTS TO THE IAMSAR MANUAL

51

19 UNIFIED INTERPRETATION OF PROVISIONS OF IMO SAFETY, SECURITY, AND ENVIRONMENT-RELATED CONVENTIONS

51

20 BIENNIAL STATUS REPORT AND PROVISIONAL AGENDA FOR NCSR 6

51

21 ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2019

55

22 ANY OTHER BUSINESS

55

23 ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COMMITTEE

61

NCSR 5/23 Page 3


LIST OF ANNEXES

ANNEX 1 NEW TRAFFIC SEPARATION SCHEMES AND ASSOCIATED MEASURES ANNEX 2 ROUTEING MEASURES OTHER THAN TRAFFIC SEPARATION SCHEME ANNEX 3 DRAFT AMENDMENT TO THE CONTINUITY OF THE SERVICE PLAN

FOR THE LRIT SYSTEM (MSC.1/Circ.1376/Rev.2) ANNEX 4 DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE LRIT TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION

(PARTS I and II) (MSC.1/Circ.1259/Rev.7 and MSC.1/Circ.1294/Rev.5) ANNEX 5 DRAFT MSC RESOLUTION – PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR

SHIPBORNE INDIAN REGIONAL NAVIGATION SATELLITE SYSTEM (IRNSS) RECEIVER EQUIPMENT

ANNEX 6 DRAFT MSC CIRCULAR – INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR THE

HARMONIZED DISPLAY OF NAVIGATION INFORMATION RECEIVED VIA COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT

ANNEX 7 DRAFT MSC RESOLUTION – STATEMENT OF RECOGNITION OF

MARITIME MOBILE SATELLITE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE INMARSAT GLOBAL LTD.

ANNEX 8 DRAFT MSC CIRCULAR – AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL

AERONAUTICAL AND MARITIME SEARCH AND RESCUE (IAMSAR) MANUAL*

ANNEX 9 BIENNIAL STATUS REPORT 2018-2019 ANNEX 10 PROPOSED PROVISIONAL AGENDA FOR NCSR 6 ANNEX 11 DRAFT MSC RESOLUTION – AMENDMENTS TO THE REVISED

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR INTEGRATED NAVIGATION SYSTEMS (INS) (RESOLUTION MSC.252(83))

ANNEX 12 DRAFT MSC CIRCULAR – E-NAVIGATION STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN – UPDATE 1

ANNEX 13 STATEMENTS BY DELEGATIONS

* This annex is contained in document NCSR 5/23/Add.1.

NCSR 5/23 Page 4


1 GENERAL 1.1 The Sub-Committee on Navigation, Communications and Search and Rescue (NCSR) held its fifth session from 19 to 23 February 2018 chaired by Mr. R. Lakeman (the Netherlands). The Vice-Chair, Mr. N. Clifford (New Zealand), was also present. 1.2 The session was attended by delegations from Members and Associate Members; by representatives from the United Nations Programmes, specialized agencies and other entities; by observers from intergovernmental organizations with agreements of cooperation; and by observers from non-governmental organizations in consultative status, as listed in document NCSR 5/INF.1. Opening address 1.3 The Secretary-General welcomed participants and delivered his opening address, the full text of which can be downloaded from the IMO website at the following link: http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/SecretaryGeneral/Secretary-GeneralsSpeechesToMeetings Chair's remarks 1.4 In responding, the Chair thanked the Secretary-General for his words of guidance and encouragement and assured him that his advice and requests would be given every consideration in the deliberations of the Sub-Committee. 1.5 The Sub-Committee noted that the Chair, as were many others, was saddened to learn of the passing in September 2017 of Captain Jan Lameijer, who was a true expert on the International Regulations for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea and the much respected co-author, along with late Captain Norman Cockcroft of the United Kingdom, of the authoritative text on the Collision Avoidance Rules. His contributions to the Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation were many, and they were always delivered with patience and grace. With Captain Lameijer's passing, the Sub-Committee has lost not only a much respected expert, but also a friend who will be missed and long remembered. Adoption of the agenda and related matters 1.6 The Sub-Committee adopted the agenda (NCSR 5/1) and agreed to be guided in its work, in general, by the annotations contained in document NCSR 5/1/1 (Secretariat) and the arrangements in document NCSR 5/1/2 (Secretariat). Establishment of working, experts and drafting groups 1.7 The Sub-Committee, in accordance with paragraph 5.19 of MSC-MEPC.1/Circ.5 on Organization and method of work of the Maritime Safety Committee and the Marine Environment Protection Committee and their subsidiary bodies, authorized the Communications and SAR Working Groups to start their deliberations on Monday morning, based on the provisional terms of reference, pending formal discussion of those terms of reference under the relevant agenda items. 2 DECISIONS OF OTHER IMO BODIES 2.1 The Sub-Committee noted the decisions and comments pertaining to its work made by FAL 41, MSC 98, MEPC 71, III 4 and A 30, as reported in documents NCSR 5/2 and NCSR 5/2/1, and took them into account in its deliberations when dealing with the relevant agenda items.

NCSR 5/23 Page 5


3 ROUTEING MEASURES AND MANDATORY SHIP REPORTING SYSTEMS Experts Group on Ships' Routeing 3.1 The Sub-Committee recalled that MSC 97, at the request of NCSR 3, had authorized the Sub-Committee to establish an experts group on ships' routeing at future sessions, as appropriate, taking into account the submissions received on navigation-related subjects. This was in addition to the Navigation Working Group normally established under this Sub-Committee and for the purpose of providing more time for the Navigation Working Group to consider navigation-related matters other than ships' routeing. 3.2 Taking into account the submissions received on navigation-related subjects, the Sub-Committee agreed to establish the Experts Group on Ships' Routeing at this session. Marine environmental aspects in ships' routeing measures 3.3 The Sub-Committee noted that MSC 98 had noted the view of NCSR 4 that the establishment of an appropriate procedure might be required to address the protection of marine environmental issues in ships' routeing measures, other than those related to the identification and designation of particular sensitive sea areas (PSSAs) (resolution A.982(24)). In this context, MSC 98 authorized the Sub-Committee to forward proposals, where the proposed routeing measures were primarily related to environmental protection, to the Marine Environment Protection Committee for advice with respect to marine environment aspects only, before considering those proposals further in detail (paragraphs 3.34 to 3.36 refer). Preliminary assessment of proposals 3.4 The Sub-Committee recalled that it was the usual practice that a preliminary assessment of ships' routeing proposals would be made by the Chair in consultation with the Secretariat and the Chair of the group dealing with the proposals, and disseminated as a working paper. In this context, the Sub-Committee noted document NCSR 5/WP.3, outlining a preliminary assessment of the ships' routeing and ship reporting system proposals. Initial review of proposals 3.5 The Sub-Committee, having noted that some proposals submitted in recent years were not in conformity with the criteria outlined, in particular in the General Provisions of Ships' Routeing and the associated Guidance Note (MSC.1/Circ.1060, as amended), as well as in the revised Guidelines and criteria for ship reporting systems (resolution MSC.433(98)), discussed the possible development of a procedure for future sessions which would allow the Secretariat ample time to review a draft proposal and to provide advice; and allow the proponent ample time to amend their proposal before the deadline of submission of documents. In this context, the Sub-Committee agreed, in principle, on a requirement for Member States to submit proposals under this output for initial review to the Secretariat no later than six months before the next session of the Sub-Committee. 3.6 With the aim to formalize this procedure, the Sub-Committee instructed the Secretariat to develop a draft MSC circular and present it to NCSR 6, with a view to approval by the Committee. The circular should include the requirement that proposals under this output should be submitted for initial review no later than six months before the session of the Sub-Committee. The circular should also include the instruction for the Secretariat that a submission should not be accepted when a proposal had not been submitted for initial review.

NCSR 5/23 Page 6


Ship Routeing Systems Amendment to the existing areas to be avoided "Off the coast of Ghana in the Atlantic Ocean"

3.7 The Sub-Committee considered the proposal by Ghana (NCSR 5/3) relating to an amendment to the existing areas to be avoided (ATBA) "Off the coast of Ghana in the Atlantic Ocean". The proposed amendment was intended to cover an extended development area of the oilfields known as the Offshore Cape Three Point oilfield deep water port. 3.8 In considering the proposal, the Sub-Committee recalled that, after questions were raised when a similar proposal had been considered, NAV 53 had discussed the need for IMO guidelines to address the safety zones larger than 500 m around offshore structures in an EEZ, supplementing resolution A.671(16) on Safety zones and safety of navigation around offshore installations and structures. Later, NAV 56 concluded, and MSC 88 subsequently approved, SN.1/Circ.295 on Guidelines for safety zones and safety of navigation around offshore installations and structures, providing guidance to Member States submitting a proposal on ships' routeing measures around offshore structures. At the same time NAV 56 concluded that there was no demonstrated need to establish safety zones larger than 500 m around artificial islands, installations and structures in the EEZ or to develop guidelines to do so. 3.9 Having noted additional information provided by Ghana, the Sub-Committee referred the proposal to the Experts Group for further consideration and finalization, as appropriate. Establishment of Dangan Channel traffic separation scheme (TSS) and associated measures in the Pearl River Estuary 3.10 The Sub-Committee considered proposals by China on the establishment of Dangan Channel TSS and associated measures in the Pearl River Estuary (NCSR 5/3/1) and on the establishment of recommended directions of traffic flow in the proposed Dangan Channel No.2 precautionary area of Dangan Channel TSS (NCSR 5/3/2). 3.11 Having noted that the limits of the proposed inshore traffic zone (ITZ) in document NCSR 5/3/1 had not been properly defined, China informed the Sub-Committee that it was withdrawing this part of the proposal. 3.12 After consideration, the Sub-Committee referred the proposals to the Experts Group for further consideration and finalization, as appropriate. Establishment of traffic separation schemes (TSSs) and other routeing measures in the vicinity of Kattegat between Denmark and Sweden 3.13 The Sub-Committee had for its consideration the following documents submitted by Denmark and Sweden: .1 a general overview for the establishment of TSSs and other routeing

measures in the vicinity of Kattegat between Denmark and Sweden (NCSR 5/3/3);

.2 a proposal to establish TSSs and associated routeing measures in the

vicinity of Kattegat (NCSR 5/3/4); .3 a proposal to establish deep-water routes, recommended routes and

precautionary area in the vicinity of Kattegat (NCSR 5/3/5); and

NCSR 5/23 Page 7


.4 accompanying information on the sea traffic and consequence analysis related to proposals for new routeing measures in the vicinity of Kattegat (NCSR 5/INF.3).

3.14 After consideration, the Sub-Committee referred the documents submitted to the Experts Group for detailed consideration and finalization of the proposal herein. Establishment of two-way routes and precautionary areas in the Bering Sea and Bering Strait 3.15 The Sub-Committee considered a joint proposal by the Russian Federation and the United States (NCSR 5/3/7) on the establishment of six two-way routes and six precautionary areas for all ships of 400 gross tonnage and above in the Bering Sea and Bering Strait off the coast of the Chukotskiy Peninsula and Alaska. 3.16 After consideration, the Sub-Committee referred the document to the Experts Group for detailed consideration and finalization of the proposal, as appropriate. Establishment of three new areas to be avoided in the Bering Sea 3.17 The Sub-Committee considered a proposal by the United States (NCSR 5/3/8) on the establishment of three areas to be avoided (ATBA) in the Bering Sea to improve safety of navigation, protect this fragile and unique environment, and facilitate the ability to respond to maritime emergencies. 3.18 The Sub-Committee noted that the proposed ATBAs, in particular the Saint Lawrence Island ATBA which expanded towards the south as far as 120 NM from the coastline covering roughly 56,760 km2, seemed challenging to consider and assess from the safety of navigation point of view. 3.19 After consideration, the Sub-Committee referred the proposals to the Experts Group for detailed consideration and finalization, as appropriate. Ship Reporting System Revised Guidelines and criteria for ship reporting systems (resolution MSC.433(98)) 3.20 The Sub-Committee encouraged Member States to observe the newly revised Guidelines and criteria for ship reporting systems (resolution MSC.433(98)), which had revoked resolution MSC.43(64), as amended. The Guidelines contained new responsibilities for Member States when proposing a ship reporting system or amendments thereto, in particular, to consider automated ship reporting by electronic means to reduce the ships' reporting burden. In this context, the Sub-Committee invited the Secretariat to revise the model template for proposals for ship reporting systems accordingly. Amendments to the existing mandatory Ship Reporting System "In the Torres Strait Region and the Inner Route of the Great Barrier Reef" (REEFREP) 3.21 The Sub-Committee considered a proposal by Australia and Papua New Guinea (NCSR 5/3/6) on amendments to the existing mandatory Ship Reporting System "In the Torres Strait Region and the Inner Route of the Great Barrier Reef" (REEFREP) (resolution MSC.52(66), as amended by resolutions MSC.161(78) and MSC.315(88)).

NCSR 5/23 Page 8


3.22 After consideration, the Sub-Committee referred the proposal to the Experts Group for detailed consideration and preparation of a draft MSC resolution containing consolidated text for the revised REEFREP, revoking the existing resolutions MSC.52(66), MSC.161(78) and MSC.315(88). Information documents submitted 3.23 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation the information provided in document NCSR 5/INF.5 (Norway) on ships' routeing in the EEZ for Norway. 3.24 The Sub-Committee also noted with appreciation the information provided by Indonesia in documents NCSR 5/INF.23 on routeing measures and mandatory ship reporting systems in Lombok Strait, Indonesia, and NCSR 5/INF.24 on routeing measures and mandatory ship reporting system in Sunda Strait, Indonesia. 3.25 The Sub-Committee expressed its appreciation to Norway and Indonesia for their intention to submit proposals to future sessions and invited interested parties to submit feedback on such draft proposals, intersessionally to the proponents as appropriate. Establishment of the Experts Group on Ships' Routeing 3.26 The Sub-Committee established the Experts Group on Ships' Routeing chaired by Mr. G. Detweiler (United States), and instructed it, taking into account decisions, comments and proposals made in plenary, to:

.1 consider documents NCSR 5/3, NCSR 5/3/1, NCSR 5/3/2, NCSR 5/3/3, NCSR 5/3/4, NCSR 5/3/5, NCSR 5/3/7 and NCSR 5/3/8, taking into account documents NCSR 5/INF.3 and NCSR 5/WP.3, and finalize ships' routeing measures, as appropriate, for approval by the Sub-Committee with a view to adoption by the Committee; and

.2 consider document NCSR 5/3/6, taking into account document

NCSR 5/WP.3 and existing resolutions MSC.52(66), MSC.161(78) and MSC.315(88), and prepare a draft MSC resolution containing consolidated text for the mandatory ship reporting system "In the Torres Strait Region and the Inner Route of the Great Barrier Reef" (REEFREP), for approval by the Sub-Committee with a view to adoption by the Committee.

Report of the Experts Group on Ships' Routeing 3.27 Having considered the Experts Group's report (NCSR 5/WP.7), the Sub-Committee approved it in general and took action as summarized in the ensuing paragraphs. TSS and associated measures 3.28 The Sub-Committee approved the establishment of the following new TSSs and associated measures:

.1 "In Dangan Channel"; and

.2 "In the vicinity of Kattegat",

as set out in annex 1, and invited the Committee to adopt them for dissemination by means of a COLREG circular.

NCSR 5/23 Page 9


Routeing measures other than TSS 3.29 The Sub-Committee approved the establishment of new and an amendment to the existing routeing measures other than TSS, as follows:

.1 amended areas to be avoided "Off the coast of Ghana in the Atlantic Ocean"; .2 precautionary area "Dangan Channel No.2" with the recommended

directions of traffic flow; .3 deep-water routes, recommended routes and precautionary area "In the

vicinity of Kattegat"; and .4 two-way routes, precautionary areas and areas to be avoided "In the Bering

Sea and Bering Strait",

as set out in annex 2, and invited the Committee to adopt them for dissemination by means of an SN circular. Date of implementation 3.30 The Sub-Committee agreed to recommend to the Committee that the ships routeing measures detailed in:

.1 paragraphs 3.28.1, 3.29.1, 3.29.2 and 3.29.4 should be implemented six months after their adoption; and

.2 paragraphs 3.28.2 and 3.29.3 should be implemented on 1 July 2020.

Mandatory ship reporting systems

3.31 The delegation of Australia withdrew the draft MSC resolution on Mandatory ship reporting system in the Torres Strait region and the Inner Route of the Great Barrier Reef (REEFREP) (NCSR 5/3/6).

3.32 The Sub-Committee invited Member States concerned to review the adopted mandatory ship reporting systems, as appropriate, for the purpose of reducing ships' reporting burden by utilizing automated ship reporting by electronic means, as specified in resolution MSC.433(98). Opinion and observation of the Experts Group

3.33 The Sub-Committee endorsed the opinion of the Experts Group with respect to the challenges it had met in the course of its work, and, in particular:

.1 invited Member States concerned to voluntarily submit, as appropriate, initial

proposals at least six months in advance of the next session of the Sub-Committee to the Secretariat for advice;

.2 encouraged organizations representing the interests of the international

shipping community to actively participate in the discussions of the Group which would impact the sea routes being used for international trade;

NCSR 5/23 Page 10


.3 urged Member States to adhere to the requirements and guidelines and provide necessary information in their submissions; and

.4 agreed that there was a need to take appropriate action to address the issue

of insufficient meeting facilities for future sessions. Marine environmental aspects in ships' routeing measures 3.34 The Sub-Committee noted that, as at previous sessions, proposals for routeing measures primarily related to environmental protection had been forwarded to the Experts Group. It was further noted that the competence of the Group had been extensively debated. 3.35 In this context, the Sub-Committee noted that the procedure agreed at NCSR 4, i.e. to forward proposals where the proposed routeing measures were primarily related to environmental protection to the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) for advice, had not worked out as expected. At this session, the Sub-Committee had not been able to agree on sending any of the proposals for routeing measures primarily related to environmental protection to MEPC. As a result, the Experts Group had to consider matters related to the marine environment and wildlife while it did not have the expertise in the Group. 3.36 After discussion, the Sub-Committee urged Member States, when considering submitting proposals primarily related to matters of the marine environment and wildlife, to consider approaching MEPC with a view to establishing PSSAs, and associated protective measures, as appropriate. 4 UPDATES TO THE LRIT SYSTEM Developments in relation to the operation of the LRIT system since NCSR 4 4.1 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation the information provided by the Secretariat (NCSR 5/4) on relevant developments on LRIT since NCSR 4, including the functioning and operation of the LRIT Data Distribution Plan (DDP) server and the Information Distribution Facility, the outcomes of the periodical meetings of the LRIT Operational Governance Body, the renewal of Public Key Infrastructure Certificates, the Second modification testing phase of the LRIT system and technical cooperation activities related to LRIT. Performance review and audit of the LRIT system 4.2 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation the information contained in the following documents submitted by IMSO:

.1 NCSR 5/4/1/Rev.1, providing information on the performance of the LRIT

system; recommendations by the LRIT Coordinator; and a proposed amendment to MSC.1/Circ.1376/Rev.2;

.2 NCSR 5/4/4, on audits of DCs and the IDE conducted by the LRIT

coordinator between 3 December 2016 and 17 November 2017, along with the summary audit reports which were made available through the DDP module of the Global Integrated Shipping Information System (GISIS); and

.3 NCSR 5/INF.14, on the scale of charges to be levied by the LRIT Coordinator during 2018.

NCSR 5/23 Page 11


4.3 In connection with the proposed amendment to MSC.1/Circ.1376/Rev.2, the Sub-Committee noted the views expressed by the delegation of China that the frequency of transmission of messages should also be considered. 4.4 Having considered a number of recommendations presented in document NCSR 5/4/1/Rev.1 (IMSO), the Sub-Committee encouraged SOLAS Contracting Governments to:

.1 join the LRIT system in order to enhance the global network, as well as safety at sea, maritime security and protection of the marine environment;

.2 cooperate and work with the LRIT Coordinator to address outstanding audits;

and .3 promote a more efficient and frequent use of the LRIT system.

4.5 The Sub-Committee also agreed to a draft amendment on Continuity of service plan for the LRIT system, MSC.1/Circ.1376/Rev.2, as set out in annex 3, and invited the Committee to approve it for issuance of a revision as MSC.1/Circ.1376/Rev.3. Status and operation of the International LRIT Data Exchange 4.6 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation the information provided by the European Commission (NCSR 5/INF.6) related to the status and operation of the International LRIT Data Exchange (IDE). IMSO LRIT seminar 4.7 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation the information provided by IMSO (NCSR 5/INF.21) related to the LRIT seminar on Effective implementation and management of the LRIT system, organized by IMSO at IMO Headquarters on 15 and 16 February 2018. The Sub-Committee further noted an oral update on the outcome of this seminar and that a report would be submitted to NCSR 6. Consideration of proposals for amendments to the LRIT-related documentation or new functionalities within the LRIT system Proposal for a new "Archived SURPIC request message" for coastal States 4.8 The Sub-Committee recalled that NCSR 4 had considered a proposal by Viet Nam (NCSR 4/4/4) to allow coastal States to request archived LRIT information using a surface picture (i.e. circle or rectangle) and that, after consideration, the Sub-Committee had invited interested Member States to submit further information to a future session for consideration. 4.9 The Sub-Committee considered document NCSR 5/4/2 (Viet Nam) providing complementary information to support the discussion on document NCSR 4/4/4, including the proposed amendments to the LRIT Technical specifications for communications within the LRIT system, the XML schemas and additional test cases and procedures for LRIT Data Centres (DCs), and presenting two different approaches for consideration:

.1 approach A: a request not exceeding 24 hours (the same as the request duration of a SAR/Coastal SURPIC request message); or

.2 approach B: a request not exceeding 72 hours (to cover greater areas).

NCSR 5/23 Page 12


4.10 Having noted general support for the proposal and, in particular, for approach B, the Sub-Committee forwarded document NCSR 5/4/2 to the Drafting Group on LRIT with a view to reviewing and finalizing the necessary amendments to the LRIT technical specifications, including test cases and procedures for modification testing and implementation, as appropriate, taking into account the cost implications for that approach. Editorial corrections MSC.1/Circ.1259/Rev.7 4.11 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation the information provided by China (NCSR 5/4/3) highlighting a number of necessary editorial corrections to MSC.1/Circ.1259/Rev.7 on Technical specifications for the LRIT system (Part I) and agreed to request the Secretariat to incorporate the editorial corrections in MSC.1/Circ.1259 when a new version of the circular was developed (paragraph 4.19 refers). Other issues Changes to the periodic rate of transmission of LRIT information 4.12 The Sub-Committee recalled that NCSR 3 and NCSR 4 had considered a proposal by Brazil (NCSR 3/7/2 and NCSR 4/4/2, respectively) together with the outcomes and recommendations of the LRIT Operational Governance Body (NCSR 4/4/1, paragraphs 10 to 15) related to the use of the periodic rate change message and that, following consideration, NCSR 4 had:

.1 authorized DCs to implement and test, on an interim basis, the changes presented in Option A, as described in document NCSR 4/4/1, and invited them to report their results back to a future session of the Sub-Committee for final consideration of the options presented, together with a cost/benefit analysis; and

.2 requested interested DCs to inform the Organization about their intentions to

implement the changes described in Option A, before any changes were implemented, for information of all data centres.

4.13 The Sub-Committee noted that no further information had been submitted on this matter and that the Secretariat had not received any communication in this respect. 4.14 In this context, the delegation of Brazil advised that:

.1 the Brazil Regional LRIT Data Centre (RDC) had conducted a series of tests based on Option A with satisfactory results;

.2 the response time for receiving the LRIT information requested was in

compliance with the LRIT Technical specifications; .3 although expressing preference for Option B as a more comprehensive

solution, the LRIT Technical specifications should be amended based on Option A to allow DCs to implement this option on a voluntary basis; and

.4 there would be no financial impact on DCs that decided not to participate.

NCSR 5/23 Page 13


Establishment of the Drafting Group on LRIT 4.15 The Sub-Committee established the Drafting Group on LRIT chaired by Mr. P-G. Taranti (Brazil) and instructed it, taking into account decisions, comments and proposals made in plenary, to review the proposal for a new "Archived SURPIC request message" for coastal States, as contained in document NCSR 5/4/2 (Viet Nam), on the basis of approach B, and:

.1 prepare draft amendments to MSC.1/Circ.1259/Rev.7 and MSC.1/Circ.1294/Rev.5 on LRIT Technical documentation (Parts I and II, respectively), including the XML schemas and additional test cases and procedures for DCs, as required;

.2 consider the cost implications and advice, as appropriate; and .3 consider if modification testing for DCs would be required and, if so, develop

the necessary guidance. Report of the Drafting Group on LRIT 4.16 Having considered the Drafting Group's report (NCSR 5/WP.8), the Sub-Committee approved it in general and took action as summarized in the ensuing paragraphs. 4.17 In considering the draft amendments to the LRIT Technical documentation (Parts I and II, respectively) (MSC.1/Circ.1259/Rev.7 and MSC.1/Circ.1294/Rev.5) the Sub-Committee, bearing in mind the possible operational usage of this new functionality as well as the impact on the processing functionalities of DCs:

.1 agreed to limit the timeframe for the request duration of the Archived SURPIC request message to a maximum of six months from the time the request was received; and

.2 recommended that LRIT data users should limit the number of Archived

SURPIC request messages to a maximum of three requests within any 24 hours.

4.18 The Sub-Committee noted that modification testing would be required for the implementation of the above-mentioned amendments and agreed to postpone implementation for a maximum period of two years, so as to be executed together with future proposed amendments in a new modification testing phase of the LRIT system, as appropriate. 4.19 After consideration, the Sub-Committee agreed to the draft amendments to the LRIT Technical documentation (Parts I and II, respectively) (MSC.1/Circ.1259/Rev.7 and MSC.1/Circ.1294/Rev.5), including additional amendments related to the actions described in paragraph 4.17 above, as set out in annex 4, and invited the Committee to approve them and requested the Secretariat to issue the corresponding revised versions of the circulars (i.e. MSC.1/Circ.1259/Rev.8 and MSC.1/Circ.1294/Rev.6) when the third modification testing phase had been conducted.

NCSR 5/23 Page 14


4.20 In doing so, the Sub-Committee:

.1 requested the Secretariat to review the proposed amendments to the XML schemas and to implement any necessary corrections that might be identified as a result of the proposed amendments to the LRIT Technical documentation;

.2 noted the discussions on cost implications of the implementation of this new

Archived SURPIC request message and that DCs should make careful use of this new feature, considering that it could have financial impact on operators; and

.3 agreed that the amendments to MSC.1/Circ.1259/Rev.7 and

MSC.1/Circ.1294/Rev.5 should be implemented within a maximum period of two years.

5 APPLICATION OF THE "INDIAN REGIONAL NAVIGATION SATELLITE SYSTEM

(IRNSS)" IN THE MARITIME FIELD AND DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR SHIPBORNE IRNSS RECEIVER EQUIPMENT

5.1 The Sub-Committee recalled that MSC 96 had agreed to include in the post-biennial agenda of the Committee an output on Application of the "Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS)" in the maritime field and development of performance standards for shipborne IRNSS receiver equipment, with two sessions needed to complete the item, assigning the NCSR Sub-Committee as the coordinating organ. Application of the 'Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS)' in the maritime field 5.2 The Sub-Committee considered document NCSR 5/5 (India) providing a brief introduction to the Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS), inviting the Sub-Committee to conduct a preliminary assessment of IRNSS and provide comments with regard to the information and data needed for the full evaluation of IRNSS. 5.3 Having noted the general support expressed, the Sub-Committee invited India to provide further information and detailed data to NCSR 6, as appropriate, to facilitate the Sub-Committee's evaluation. Development of performance standards for shipborne IRNSS receiver equipment 5.4 The Sub-Committee considered a proposal by India (NCSR 5/5/1) on a draft MSC resolution on performance standards for shipborne IRNSS receiver equipment and, after some consideration, agreed to it, as set out in annex 5, for approval, with a view to adoption by the Committee. 5.5 In doing so, the Sub-Committee invited IEC to consider the development of related test standards. Possible consolidation of performance standards for all satellite navigation systems 5.6 In this context, noting that the text for the draft performance standards, as presented in the annex to document NCSR 5/5/1, was, apart from some type-specific information, nearly identical to the text of the existing performance standards for the BeiDou system adopted by MSC 93 (resolution MSC.379(93)), the Sub-Committee considered the possibility of

NCSR 5/23 Page 15


consolidating performance standards for all stand-alone global and regional satellite navigation systems, addressing the functional requirements in a generic manner, and type-specific information, including the coverage details, of every recognized system in its annex.

5.7 Having noted general support for the consolidation of existing performance standards, the Sub-Committee invited interested Member States to submit proposals for a new output to the Committee, to consolidate all existing performance standards for satellite navigation systems into one performance standard. 6 GUIDELINES FOR THE HARMONIZED DISPLAY OF NAVIGATION

INFORMATION RECEIVED VIA COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT 6.1 The Sub-Committee recalled that NCSR 4 had agreed to establish the Correspondence Group on Development of Guidelines for the harmonized display of navigation information received via communications equipment, under the coordination of Norway. 6.2 The Sub-Committee considered document NCSR 5/6 (Norway) providing the report of the Correspondence Group and noted, in particular, the view of the Correspondence Group in respect to the overlap with other e-navigation related outputs. 6.3 The Sub-Committee agreed to discuss the Correspondence Group's advice on the matter of additional modules for the revised INS performance standards under agenda item 22 (paragraphs 22.6 to 22.10 refer). 6.4 During the ensuing discussions, the following views were expressed that:

.1 the output associated with this agenda item should be extended so as to take into consideration developments related to MSPs;

.2 it was essential to make progress on e-navigation and show results and,

thus, the guidelines should be finalized at this session as interim guidelines; and

.3 the Navigation Working Group should try to finalize the guidelines, leaving

the flexibility to recommend a different approach other than approving interim guidelines.

6.5 After consideration, the Sub-Committee referred document NCSR 5/6 to the Navigation Working Group for further development of the draft guidelines and for advice on whether to issue interim guidelines. 6.6 The Sub-Committee also considered a related proposal by Ukraine (NCSR 5/6/1) for conning displays to be capable of displaying VHF/MF/HF DSC information, which would require a connection to the VHF DSC controller and MF/HF DSC controller. 6.7 During the ensuing discussions, the following views were expressed:

.1 it was important to consider ways of reducing DSC false alerts; .2 the draft guidelines contained in document NCSR 5/6 were drafted with a

goal-based approach, which was different to the level of detail proposed in document NCSR 5/6/1;

NCSR 5/23 Page 16


.3 distress alerts should be displayed in graphical displays, but should be considered in general terms;

.4 the consideration of additional symbols for possible addition to

SN.1/Circ.243/Rev.1 would be outside the scope of the current output; and .5 IEC 61097-3:2017 Global maritime distress and safety system (GMDSS) –

Part 3: Digital selective calling (DSC) equipment – Operational and performance requirements, methods of testing and required test results, already addressed the issue raised in document NCSR 5/6/1.

6.8 After some discussion, the Sub-Committee agreed to refer document NCSR 5/6/1 to the Navigation Working Group for further consideration, taking into account the above comments. Establishment of the Navigation Working Group 6.9 The Sub-Committee established the Navigation Working Group, chaired by Mr. M. De Gracia (Panama), and instructed it, taking into account decisions, comments and proposals made in plenary and the outcome of the discussion under agenda items 7 and 8, to further develop the draft Guidelines for the harmonized display of navigation information received via communications equipment, using the annex to document NCSR 5/6 as the basis to work from, taking into account document NCSR 5/6/1, and advise, as appropriate. Report of the Navigation Working Group 6.10 Having considered the Working Group's report (NCSR 5/WP.4), the Sub-Committee approved it in general and took action as summarized in the ensuing paragraph. 6.11 The Sub-Committee, having noted the Group's discussion on the development of interim guidelines, agreed to the draft MSC circular on Interim guidelines for the harmonized display of navigation information received via communications equipment, as set out in annex 6, and invited the Committee to approve it. Completion of this output 6.12 Noting that the work on this output had been completed, the Sub-Committee invited the Committee to delete it from the Sub-Committee's biennial agenda (paragraph 20.2 refers). 7 GUIDELINES ON STANDARDIZED MODES OF OPERATION, S-MODE 7.1 The Sub-Committee recalled that MSC 95 had agreed to include, in the post-biennial agenda of the Committee, an output on Guidelines on standardized modes of operation, S-Mode (S-Mode Guidelines), with two sessions needed to complete the item, assigning the NCSR Sub-Committee as the coordinating organ. 7.2 The Sub-Committee recalled further that the primary purpose of the guidelines was to provide for more standardization and a reduction in the time needed for seafarers to become familiar with a variety of electronic navigation equipment, and that the development of those guidelines was included in the IMO e-navigation Strategy Implementation Plan (SIP) as Task number 4, sub-solution S1.4 (Improved harmonized and user friendly bridge design), as well as in table 7 of the SIP.

NCSR 5/23 Page 17


7.3 The Sub-Committee considered the proposal by Australia et al. (NCSR 5/7) providing a first draft of the S-Mode Guidelines intended to be applicable for electronic navigation equipment, specifically for Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS), Integrated Navigation System (INS) and radar.

7.4 During the ensuing discussions, the following views were expressed that:

.1 the draft guidelines were supported in general; .2 the aim of the guidelines should not be to limit or reduce the need for

familiarization with equipment; .3 the work on S-Mode would require consequential amendments to the

Performance standards for the presentation of navigation-related information on shipborne navigational displays (resolution MSC.191(79)) and would lead to a revision of the Guidelines for the presentation of navigational-related symbols, terms and abbreviations (SN.1/Circ.243/Rev.1);

.4 the future work on the draft Guidelines should take into consideration

developments in other e-navigation related outputs; and .5 a formal correspondence group should be established to continue the work

intersessionally. 7.5 After consideration, the Sub-Committee instructed the Navigation Working Group to progress the work on the S-Mode Guidelines, bearing in mind that their finalization was dependent on the user testing of the appendices to document NCSR 5/7, to be carried out by the Republic of Korea, CIRM and the Nautical Institute. 7.6 Noting the proposed establishment of an intersessional correspondence group to coordinate the further development, including testing, and finalization of a guideline on S-Mode, the Sub-Committee agreed that it would only be possible to establish one correspondence group on one single e-navigation related output, taking into account the amount of items on the agenda of the Sub-Committee. 7.7 After some discussion, the Sub-Committee instructed the Navigation Working Group to consider which e-navigation related output would most benefit from having a correspondence group in preparation for NCSR 6. 7.8 The Sub-Committee noted the information provided by:

.1 the Republic of Korea (NCSR 5/INF.13) providing the results of the S-Mode user preference test; and

.2 Australia (NCSR 5/INF.15) on the human cognitive processes in maritime

icon and display standardization and automated systems, which was agreed to be taken into account during the deliberations in the Navigation Working Group.

NCSR 5/23 Page 18


Instructions to the Navigation Working Group 7.9 The Sub-Committee instructed the Navigation Working Group, established under agenda item 6, taking into account decisions, comments and proposals made in plenary, to:

.1 consider document NCSR 5/7 and provide comments and advice, as appropriate; and

.2 consider which e-navigation related output would most benefit from having a correspondence group in preparation for NCSR 6, bearing in mind that only one correspondence group could be established on one single e-navigation related output, and advise the Sub-Committee, including draft terms of reference for this correspondence group, as appropriate.

Report of the Navigation Working Group 7.10 Having considered the relevant part of the Working Group's report (NCSR 5/WP.4), the Sub-Committee took action as summarized in the ensuing paragraphs. 7.11 The Sub-Committee noted the Group's discussion on the development of Guidelines on standardized modes of operation, S-Mode, and, in particular, that the completion of the S-mode guidelines would require a consequential revision of the Amended guidelines for the presentation of navigational-related symbols, terms and abbreviations (SN.1/Circ.243/Rev.1). 7.12 The Sub-Committee established a correspondence group on the development of the draft Guidelines on standardized modes of operation, S-Mode, under the coordination of Australia1, and approved its terms of reference, as set out in document NCSR 5/WP.4, paragraph 4.7. 8 DEVELOP GUIDANCE ON DEFINITION AND HARMONIZATION OF THE FORMAT

AND STRUCTURE OF MARITIME SERVICE PORTFOLIOS (MSPs) 8.1 The Sub-Committee recalled that MSC 96 had agreed to include in the post-biennial agenda of the Committee the output on "Develop guidance on definition and harmonization of the format and structure of Maritime Service Portfolios (MSPs)", with two sessions needed to complete the item, assigning the NCSR Sub-Committee as the coordinating organ.

1 Coordinator:

Mr. Nick Lemon Manager Systems Safety Standards Division Australian Maritime Safety Authority 82 Northbourne Avenue, Braddon ACT 2612 GPO BOX 2181, Canberra ACT 2601 Australia Tel: +61 2 6279 5656 (mobile: +61 417 297 415) Fax: +61 2 6279 5966 Email: [email protected]

NCSR 5/23 Page 19


IMO/IHO Harmonization Group on Data Modelling 8.2 The Sub-Committee recalled that MSC 98 had activated the IMO/IHO Harmonization Group on Data Modelling (HGDM) and approved the first meeting of the HGDM to be held from 16 to 20 October 2017, to work only on the output "Develop guidance on definition and harmonization of the format and structure of MSPs". 8.3 The Sub-Committee had for its consideration the report of the first meeting of the IMO/IHO Harmonization Group on Data Modelling (HGDM 1) (NCSR 5/8) containing the first draft of the Guidance on the definition and harmonization of the format and structure of maritime services within the MSP (the Guidance), including a high-level template for maritime services. 8.4 The Sub-Committee noted the information provided by: .1 IALA (NCSR 5/8/3) commenting on NCSR 5/8 (Secretariat) and providing a

short description of the IALA Guideline on Specification of e-navigation technical services; and

.2 IEC (NCSR 5/22/3, paragraphs 5 to 8) providing an update of the work of

IEC's WG17 in preparing standards for Common Maritime Data Structure (CMDS) in support of e-navigation.

8.5 The Sub-Committee considered the report of HGDM 1 and took action as summarized in the ensuing paragraphs. 8.6 During the general consideration of the report of the HGDM, the following views were expressed:

.1 the work of the HGDM was supported in general and was considered essential to promote e-navigation and associated services;

.2 the draft Guidance prepared by the HGDM provided a good framework for

the further development of MSPs; .3 it was important to provide a clear definition of maritime services in order to

further develop the Guidance effectively; .4 cooperation and interaction both within IMO bodies as with other

organizations on this subject was also important; and .5 before establishing another session of the HGDM, firm proposals and a clear

scope of the work of the group were required. 8.7 The Sub-Committee noted in general the first draft of the Guidance, including the template for maritime services, as set out in the annex to document NCSR 5/8, and, in particular:

.1 the need to harmonize data element identities for marine services as a key enabler to ensure inter-operability between services;

.2 the discussion on the technical aspects of maritime services; and

.3 the concerns in respect of the current terms of reference which limited the work to SOLAS-related maritime services.

NCSR 5/23 Page 20


8.8 The Sub-Committee considered the proposed revision of the definition of MSP, as presented in paragraph 6.1 of the draft Guidance, and, having noted general support by a number of delegations, referred further consideration on this proposed new definition to the Navigation Working Group. 8.9 With regard to the proposal to invite international organizations which were domain coordinating bodies to use the template for maritime services and to submit completed templates to the Organization, the Sub-Committee noted that:

.1 the proposal would place new responsibilities on the Organization and would have an impact on the workload of the Sub-Committee and the Secretariat;

.2 the additional work related to reviewing the templates could not be conducted

by the Secretariat, nor by the Sub-Committee under the current arrangements, given the staffing of the Secretariat and the heavy agenda of the Sub-Committee; and

.3 it was unlikely that the work on this output could be completed in time if it

was dependent on the submission and review of a sufficient number of submitted templates.

8.10 Bearing in mind the above, the Sub-Committee instructed the Navigation Working Group to consider the need for a template for maritime services, and to advise, as appropriate. 8.11 The Sub-Committee also instructed the Navigation Working Group to further develop the draft Guidance, with a view to finalization of the draft guidance by HGDM 2. 8.12 With regard to the HGDM's proposal to establish three levels of control and ownership, the Sub-Committee noted that the terms "ownership" and "leadership" were used randomly in the report of HGDM 1 and agreed that only the term "leadership" should be used. 8.13 In this context, the Sub-Committee instructed the Navigation Working Group to further consider the scope of the Organization's lead role on e-navigation, including what management and control functions the Organization should assume, and the consequences this would entail for the Organization. 8.14 During the consideration of the need to hold a next session of the HGDM, the following views were expressed:

.1 as indicated during the general consideration of the report of HGDM 1, firm proposals and a clear scope of the work of the Group were required before authorizing another session of the HGDM;

.2 the need for holding another session of the HDGM should be considered

after reviewing the draft Guidance and the possible terms of reference of the Group; and

.3 given the work done and the status of the draft Guidance, it was anticipated

that a new session of the HGDM would be needed and, thus, the Navigation Working Group should be instructed to prepare the necessary terms of reference.

NCSR 5/23 Page 21


8.15 Bearing in mind the anticipated work for the HDGM, the Sub-Committee agreed to invite MSC 99 to authorize the holding of the second session of the HGDM, to be held from 29 October to 2 November 2018 at IMO Headquarters, and to instruct the Secretariat to take action, as appropriate. 8.16 The Sub-Committee, being aware that the second session of the HGDM was scheduled to take place after the first deadline for documents for NCSR 6, authorized the Secretariat, as an exceptional case, to submit the report of HGDM 2 to NCSR 6 three weeks beyond the deadline for bulky documents, i.e. by 9 November 2018, and invited the Committee to endorse this plan of action. 8.17 The Sub-Committee further considered a proposal by the Secretariat (NCSR 5/8/1), providing draft terms of reference for HGDM 2. While they were supported in general, a view was expressed to proceed with caution regarding the inclusion of future maritime services. After consideration, the Sub-Committee instructed the Navigation Working Group to review and finalize the draft terms of reference for HGDM 2. 8.18 The Sub-Committee considered a proposal by BIMCO (NCSR 5/8/2) on the establishment of a maritime register (database) containing data elements' identity (ID) for maritime services as part of the development of a harmonized e-navigation solution. 8.19 While considering the request from BIMCO, the Sub-Committee agreed that the establishment of a maritime data element register was not within the scope of the current output "Develop guidance on definition and harmonization of the format and structure of Maritime Service Portfolios (MSPs)". However, recalling the ongoing work at the FAL Committee in relation to the harmonization and standardization of data formats for data elements required by the FAL forms, and recognizing the benefits in establishing a maritime data element register to ensure inter-operability between services and to facilitate direct machine-to-machine communication, the Sub-Committee invited BIMCO and interested Member States to propose a new output to FAL 42 for the development of a data model and the establishment of a maritime registry, in close cooperation with MSC, MEPC and their subsidiary bodies, as appropriate. Instructions to the Navigation Working Group 8.20 The Sub-Committee instructed the Navigation Working Group, established under agenda item 6, taking into account decisions of, and comments and proposals made in plenary, to:

.1 further develop the draft Guidance on the definition and harmonization of the format and structure of maritime services within the Maritime Service Portfolio (MSP), as contained in the annex to document NCSR 5/8, taking into account documents NCSR 5/8/3 (IALA), NCSR 5/22/3 (IEC) and, as appropriate, the related IALA Guideline on the specification of e-navigation technical services, with a view to finalization of the draft guidance by HGDM 2;

.2 consider the need for the template for maritime services, and advise the

Sub-Committee, as appropriate;

.3 further consider the scope of the Organization's lead role on e-navigation, including what management and control functions the Organization should assume, and the consequences this would entail for the Organization; and

NCSR 5/23 Page 22


.4 consider the proposed draft terms of reference for the second meeting of the Harmonization Group on Data Modelling, using the text in the annex to document NCSR 5/8/1 as the basis to work from.

Report of the Navigation Working Group 8.21 Having considered the relevant part of the Working Group's report (NCSR 5/WP.4), the Sub-Committee took action as summarized in the ensuing paragraphs. 8.22 The Sub-Committee noted the progress made on the development of the draft Guidance on the definition and harmonization of the format and structure of maritime services within the Maritime Service Portfolio (MSP) and agreed to retain the template for maritime service descriptions as part of the draft Guidance. 8.23 The Sub-Committee noted that IHO would act as domain coordinating body for maritime service No. 5 (Maritime Safety Information Service (MSI)), on behalf of IMO. 8.24 The Sub-Committee approved the draft terms of reference for the second meeting of the HGDM (NCSR 5/WP.4, annex 5) and, noting the Group's deliberations on establishing a future robust process for the review of the templates for maritime services descriptions after the finalization of the Guidance, also instructed HGDM 2 to consider the development of a sustainable continuous review process, without substantive involvement of organs of the Organization. 8.25 The Sub-Committee invited domain coordinating bodies to submit the description of maritime services under their remit to HGDM 2, using the draft template, and noted that the description of the VTS services developed by IALA was a good example. In doing so, the Sub-Committee agreed to relax the deadline for submissions of descriptions of maritime services from domain coordinating bodies to 19 October 2018. 9 UPDATING OF THE GMDSS MASTER PLAN AND GUIDELINES ON MSI

(MARITIME SAFETY INFORMATION) PROVISIONS Updating of the GMDSS Master Plan 9.1 The Sub-Committee noted the information provided by the Secretariat on updates to the GMDSS Master Plan, as disseminated through GMDSS/Circ.21 on 31 May 2017. The Sub-Committee encouraged Member States to check their national data, contained in GMDSS/Circ.21, for accuracy, and to provide the Secretariat with any necessary amendments, as soon as possible. The Sub-Committee further noted that the new GISIS module on the GMDSS Master Plan was still under development. Update on the Worldwide Met-Ocean Information and Warning Service (WWMIWS) 9.2 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation the information provided by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) (NCSR 5/9/1) on a summary of updates, plans and activities undertaken by the newly formed Worldwide Met-Ocean Information and Warning Service (WWMIWS) Committee of the WMO/IOC Joint Technical Commission for Oceanography and Marine Meteorology (JCOMM) to coordinate the provision of MSI for the WWMIWS.

NCSR 5/23 Page 23


9.3 In this context, the Sub-Committee urged the use of the Joint IMO/IHO/WMO Manual on Maritime Safety Information (MSC.1/Circ.1310/Rev.1), and the Manual on Marine Meteorological Services, to ensure correct terminology and formats were used in MSI messages and encouraged Member States to provide feedback on met-ocean services through the relevant METAREA Coordinator.

9.4 The Sub-Committee noted that the list of METAREA Coordinators had been included in a new annex 2 to the COMSAR.1 circulars on the list of NAVAREA Coordinators. It was further noted that the circular had been renamed as List of NAVAREA and METAREA Coordinators, which was disseminated for the first time as COMSAR.1/Circ.58 on 9 June 2017. Outcome of the ninth session of the IHO World-Wide Navigational Warning Service Sub-Committee (WWNWS-SC) 9.5 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation the information provided by the Chair of the IHO WWNWS Sub-Committee, Mr. P. Doherty (United States) (NCSR 5/9), on the matters discussed and decisions taken at the ninth session of the IHO WWNWS Sub-Committee which was held in August 2017. Displaying distress alert relay information on shipboard navigation display systems 9.6 The Sub-Committee considered information provided by the United States (NCSR 5/9/4) on the consequence of the adoption of resolution MSC.434(98) on Performance standards for a ship earth station for use in the GMDSS, which required that GMDSS ship earth stations provided an interface to report a ship's identifier and location from a received distress alert relay to navigation display systems, and that this would affect IEC standards and the International SafetyNET Manual. 9.7 After some discussions, the Sub-Committee invited interested parties, including SAR experts, to actively participate in discussions in relevant forums, including possible groups to be established in the framework of the Organization. Promulgation of Maritime Safety Information – NAVTEX Service Annual report of the IMO NAVTEX Coordinating Panel 9.8 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation the information provided by the Chair of the IMO NAVTEX Coordinating Panel, Mr. W. Van Den Bergh (United Kingdom) (NCSR 5/9/2), highlighting a summary of the current issues being addressed by the Panel and its actions/activities since NCSR 4. In his introduction, the Chair of the Panel reminded those responsible for NAVTEX transmissions that NAVTEX broadcasts should not exceed 10 minutes to avoid interferences with other transmissions. NAVTEX service areas 9.9 The Sub-Committee noted documents NCSR 5/9/3 (Cyprus) and NCSR 5/9/5 (Turkey), on the delimitation of the NAVTEX service areas. 9.10 The delegations of Cyprus, Greece and Turkey made statements, as set out in annex 13. 9.11 The Sub-Committee invited the Chair of the IMO NAVTEX Coordinating Panel to take action, as deemed appropriate.

NCSR 5/23 Page 24


10 CONSEQUENTIAL WORK RELATED TO THE NEW POLAR CODE 10.1 The Sub-Committee recalled that:

.1 MSC 97 had instructed the SSE and NCSR Sub-Committees to review, adapt and/or develop the necessary requirements for the equipment and systems on board ships operating in polar waters;

.2 NCSR 4 had agreed that a work plan needed to be developed first, before

starting any work in detail; .3 NCSR 4 had established a Correspondence Group on consequential work

related to the Polar Code, under the coordination of Germany, to develop a work plan listing all performance standards and requirements in need of revision in this respect; and

.4 MSC 98 had extended the target completion year for this output to 2019.

10.2 The Sub-Committee considered document NCSR 5/10 (Germany) containing the report of the Correspondence Group providing a work plan on consequential work related to the new Polar Code, including alternative approaches to address the issue. 10.3 During the ensuing discussions, the following views were expressed:

.1 the work done by the Correspondence Group, as well as the further development of the General guidance for navigation and communication equipment intended for use on ships operating in polar waters, was supported in general;

.2 the approach in paragraph 5.3 of the report of the Correspondence Group

was supported; .3 any further developments should be supported by studies and tests; .4 existing approvals should not be impacted and the capability of the

equipment to fulfil the general guidance could be documented as an optional remark in the Polar Ship certificate; and

.5 the use of the general guidance should be voluntary.

NCSR 5/23 Page 25


10.4 After consideration and having noted support for the development of General guidance, the Sub-Committee re-established the Correspondence Group on consequential work related to the Polar Code under the coordination of Germany2, with the following terms of reference:

.1 prepare, on the basis of document NCSR 5/10, paragraph 5.3, draft general guidance for navigation and communication equipment intended for use on ships operating in polar waters, taking into account the table on Overview action items according to carriage requirements, as set out in the annex to document NCSR 5/10, and the outcome of the discussions at NCSR 5, MSC 99 and MSC 100, as appropriate; and

.2 submit a report to NCSR 6 for consideration. 11 REVISION OF SOLAS CHAPTERS III AND IV FOR MODERNIZATION OF THE

GLOBAL MARITIME DISTRESS AND SAFETY SYSTEM (GMDSS), INCLUDING RELATED AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO OTHER EXISTING INSTRUMENTS

11.1 The Sub-Committee noted that MSC 98 had agreed to include in the 2018-2019 biennial agenda of the NCSR Sub-Committee and the provisional agenda for NCSR 5, an output on "Revision of SOLAS chapters III and IV for modernization of the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS), including related and consequential amendments to other existing instruments", with a target completion year of 2021, in association with the HTW and SSE Sub-Committees, as and when requested by the NCSR Sub-Committee. 11.2 The Sub-Committee also noted that MSC 98 had agreed, in accordance with the Guidance on entry into force of amendments to the 1974 SOLAS Convention and related mandatory instruments (MSC.1/Circ.1481) and the Guidance on drafting of amendments to the 1974 SOLAS Convention and related mandatory instruments (MSC.1/Circ.1500), that:

.1 amendments to be developed should apply to all ships to which SOLAS chapter IV applies;

.2 the instrument to be amended was SOLAS, chapters III and IV; and

.3 amendments to be developed should enter into force on 1 January 2024, provided that they were adopted before 1 July 2022.

11.3 The Sub-Committee recalled that NCSR 4 had agreed on the need to progress this work in preparation for NCSR 5 and established a Correspondence Group on the Modernization of the GMDSS, under the coordination of the United States, instructing it to prepare a draft revision of SOLAS chapters III and IV and a draft work plan for the related and consequential amendments to other existing instruments, and to submit an interim report to the Joint IMO/ITU Experts Group for its consideration (NCSR 4/29, paragraphs 12.34 and 12.38, and NCSR 4/WP.8, annex 3). 2 Coordinator:

Mr. Tobias Ehlers Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency Bernhard-Nocht-Str. 78 20359 Hamburg Germany Tel : +49 (0) 40 3190-7331 Fax: +49 (0) 40 3190-5000 Email: [email protected] http://www.bsh.de

mailto:[email protected]

NCSR 5/23 Page 26


Report of the thirteenth meeting of the Joint IMO/ITU Experts Group 11.4 The Sub-Committee noted the outcome of the discussions which took place on the further development of the preliminary draft revision of SOLAS chapters III and IV at the thirteenth meeting of the Joint IMO/ITU Experts Group, based on the interim report submitted by the Correspondence Group on the Modernization of the GMDSS (NCSR 5/12, paragraphs 3.9 to 3.13, including paragraphs 59 to128 of the annex and appendices 3 and 4).

Report of the Correspondence Group on the Modernization of the GMDSS 11.5 The Sub-Committee considered the report of the Correspondence Group on the Modernization of the GMDSS, provided by the United States (NCSR 5/11), containing comments and suggested revisions on SOLAS chapters III and IV and the plan for revision of related instruments, as contained in appendices 3 and 4 of the annex to document NSCR 5/12. 11.6 The Sub-Committee had also for its consideration documents submitted by:

.1 the United States (NCSR 5/11/1), providing comments on the use of radar SART and AIS-SART;

.2 the United Kingdom (NCSR 5/11/2), providing comments on the definitions

of GMDSS identities, EPIRBs, General radiocommunications and other communications and positioning of equipment, as well as on alignment of terminology between SOLAS chapter IV and Performance Standards for radio equipment (SART and AIS-SART);

.3 Antigua and Barbuda et al. (NCSR 5/11/3), providing comments on the

proposal in NCSR 5/12, appendix 3 of the annex, to set a separate functional requirement in SOLAS regulation IV/4 related to "security-related communications"; and

.4 Antigua and Barbuda et al. (NCSR 5/11/4), proposing alternative draft

amendments to SOLAS regulations IV/2.1.11bis and IV/4 by considering simplification of the definition of "general communications" and by considering the provisions of the Radio Regulations.

11.7 The Sub-Committee also had for its consideration the outcome of discussions which took place on the review of the radar SART versus the AIS-SART at the twenty-fourth meeting of the ICAO/IMO Joint Working Group (NCSR 5/17, paragraph 2.11 and paragraphs 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 of the annex). 11.8 Using appendices 3 and 4 of the annex to document NSCR 5/12 as a basis for the discussions, the Sub-Committee took action as summarized in the ensuing paragraphs. 11.9 The Sub-Committee recalled that, during the adoption of the Agenda, the Communications Working Group had been authorized to start its work on Monday morning based on provisional terms of reference, pending formal discussion under the relevant agenda items (paragraph 1.6 refers).

NCSR 5/23 Page 27


Preliminary revision of SOLAS chapters III and IV Application Application of SOLAS chapter IV 11.10 In considering the proposed amendments to SOLAS regulation IV/1 (Application) and the related comments provided in document NCSR 5/11, the Sub-Committee noted the preliminary conclusion of the Communications Working Group to retain the existing text of regulation IV/1.1. Scope of application of the existing provisions of SOLAS regulation III/6.2 (Radio life-saving appliances) 11.11 The Sub-Committee considered the scope of application of the existing provisions of SOLAS regulation III/6.2 (Radio life-saving appliances) which were proposed to be relocated under new SOLAS regulations IV/7.1.9 and IV/7.1.10, taking into account the related comments provided in document NCSR 5/11, and noted the preliminary conclusion of the Communications Working Group that the application provisions of SOLAS regulation III/6.2 should be relocated under SOLAS chapter IV. 11.12 The Sub-Committee also noted a view expressed regarding the possible consequential relocation of the provisions of SOLAS regulation III/26.2.5 (related to search and rescue locating device for liferafts carried on ro-ro passenger ships) under SOLAS chapter IV and agreed to refer consideration of this issue to the Correspondence Group on the Modernization of the GMDSS, which was expected to be re-established. Terms and definitions and functional requirements, including urgency and safety communications, security-related communications and non-GMDSS functional requirements 11.13 The Sub-Committee considered the proposed amendments to SOLAS regulations IV/2 (Terms and definitions) and IV/4 (Functional requirements), taking into account the comments/proposals on terms and definitions contained in documents NCSR 5/11, NCSR 5/11/2, NCSR 5/11/3 and NCSR 5/11/4. 11.14 During the ensuing discussions, the following views were expressed:

.1 recalling the decisions of NCSR 1, security-related communications, including the Ship Security Alert System, were not considered to form part of the modernization of the GMDSS;

.2 security-related communications were already addressed properly under

SOLAS chapter XI-2; and .3 SOLAS chapter IV was not only about GMDSS, but about

radiocommunications in general, and thus should include security-related communications as well.

11.15 Having noted the different views, the Sub-Committee agreed to refer the proposed amendments to SOLAS regulations IV/2 (Terms and definitions) and IV/4 (Functional requirements) to the Communications Working Group for further consideration and advice, in particular with respect to the issue of security-related communications.

NCSR 5/23 Page 28


Radio installations – EPIRBs 11.16 The Sub-Committee considered the proposed amendments to SOLAS regulation IV/6 (Radio installations), in particular the issue related to remote activation of EPIRBs, taking into account the comments/proposals contained in document NCSR 5/11, and noted the preliminary conclusion of the Communications Working Group that remote activation of EPIRBs should be an option, as recommended in paragraph 17 of the annex to document NCSR 5/11. Radio equipment – Alignment of terminology and requirements for SARTs 11.17 The Sub-Committee considered the proposed amendments to SOLAS regulation IV/7 (Radio equipment), in particular the issues related to alternative methods to NAVTEX for receiving MSI; and the requirements for SART, taking into account the comments/proposals contained in documents NCSR 5/11, NCSR 5/11/1, NCSR 5/11/2 and NCSR 5/17. 11.18 During the ensuing discussions on the requirements for SART, the following views were expressed:

.1 radar SART should be phased out and replaced by AIS-SART; .2 AIS-SART was considered to be a good alternative to radar SART; however,

further consideration, studies and testing were required before removing the requirements for radar SARTs;

.3 before phasing out radar SART, consideration should be given to the

capabilities of conventional ships and rescue operation units when participating in SAR operations, as well as to the issue of false alerts;

.4 it was important that the current requirements were maintained and

improved; .5 to avoid restricting SAR operations, an alternative option could be a

combined radar/AIS-SART;

.6 it was important to start considering new technologies and how to phase out old technologies in general;

.7 the Joint IMO/ITU Experts Group could be instructed to consider this matter

further; and .8 the outcome of discussion at the last meeting of the ICAO/IMO Joint Working

Group should be taken into account when further considering this matter. 11.19 Having noted the above views, the Sub-Committee agreed to refer the issue to the Communications Working Group for further consideration and advice, as appropriate.

NCSR 5/23 Page 29


Radio equipment: Sea area A1 – Secondary ship-to-shore distress alert 11.20 The Sub-Committee considered the proposed amendments to SOLAS regulation IV/8 (Radio equipment: Sea area A1), taking into account the comments/proposals contained in document NCSR 5/11 related to secondary ship-to-shore distress alert, and noted the preliminary conclusion of the Communications Working Group to delete SOLAS regulation IV/8.1.1, as recommended in paragraph 20 of the annex to document NCSR 5/11. Related and consequential amendments to existing instruments other than SOLAS 11.21 The Sub-Committee considered the draft work plan for related and consequential amendments to existing instruments other than SOLAS (NCSR 5/12, annex, appendix 4), taking into account the comments/proposals contained in document NCSR 5/11, annex 2. 11.22 The Sub-Committee noted that, in accordance with MSC.1/Circ.1500, all necessary related and consequential amendments to other existing documents, including non-mandatory instruments, in particular the forms of certificates and records of equipment required in the instrument being amended, should be examined and included as a part of the set of amendments. 11.23 The Sub-Committee agreed to the need to organize this work in order to ensure that all consequential amendments would be completed for submission to the Committee for adoption or approval, as appropriate, together with the draft amendments to SOLAS chapters III and IV. It was also agreed that there was a need to develop guidance for the necessary revision work required to be undertaken under each instrument, and to consider the development of any necessary additional instruments, guidance, recommendations or performance standards related to the proposed amendments, in addition to the list of instruments identified so far in documents NCSR 5/11 and NCSR 5/12. 11.24 The Sub-Committee noted that the Communications Working Group had given preliminary consideration to this issue and that a number of Member States and international organizations had volunteered to prepare the necessary draft amendments to different related instruments. It was also noted that the Joint IMO/ITU Experts Group was expected to undertake a preliminary revision of most of the instruments, before presenting the proposed revised instruments to the Sub-Committee. Terms of reference for the Correspondence Group on the Modernization of the GMDSS 11.25 The Sub-Committee re-established the Correspondence Group on the Modernization of the GMDSS, under the coordination of the United States3, and instructed the Communications Working Group to prepare new terms of reference for the Correspondence Group.

3 Coordinator:

Mr. Robert L. Markle Markle Marine Safety Services 206 Johnston Farm Lane Woodstock, GA 30188 United States Tel./Text: +1 703 283-2266 Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

NCSR 5/23 Page 30


Establishment of the Communications Working Group 11.26 The Sub-Committee established the Communications Working Group chaired by Mr. A. Schwarz (Germany) and instructed it, taking into account decisions, comments and proposals made in plenary, to:

.1 using the draft work plan for related and consequential amendments to existing instruments other than SOLAS, as presented in appendix 4 of the annex to document NCSR 5/12, and complemented by NCSR 5/11 annex 2, as the basis:

.1 review and update the list of existing instruments, other than

SOLAS, that would require consequential amendments due to the proposed draft amendments to SOLAS chapters III and IV and develop guidance for the necessary revision work required to be undertaken under each instrument;

.2 consider the need to develop additional instruments, guidance,

recommendations or performance standards related to the amended provisions of SOLAS chapters III and IV;

.3 develop a plan of work on the development of amendments to

existing instruments, other than SOLAS, that would require consequential amendments, according to the timeline for completion of the draft amendments to SOLAS chapters III and IV; and

.4 further identify possible Member States, organizations or groups

that could undertake preliminary work;

.2 using the draft proposed amendments to SOLAS chapters III and IV, as presented in appendix 3 of document NCSR 5/12 as the basis, consider: .1 the application provisions of the draft revision of SOLAS chapter IV

under regulation 1 (Application), taking into account the relevant decisions of MSC 98 (MSC 98/23, paragraph 20.28) and the comments provided in document NCSR 5/11;

.2 the application statements of the existing provisions for Radio life-

saving appliances (SOLAS regulation III/6.2), which are proposed to be relocated under new SOLAS regulations IV/7.1.9 and IV/7.1.10, taking into account the comments provided in document NCSR 5/11;

.3 the proposed amendments to SOLAS regulation IV/6 (Radio

installations), taking into account the comments/proposals contained in document NCSR 5/11 related to remote activation of EPIRBs;


equipment: Sea area A1), taking into account the comments/proposals contained in document NCSR 5/11 related to secondary ship-to-shore distress alert;

NCSR 5/23 Page 31


.5 the proposed amendments to SOLAS regulation IV/2 (Terms and definitions), taking into account the comments/proposals on terms and definitions contained in documents NCSR 5/11, NCSR 5/11/2 and NCSR 5/11/4;

.6 the proposed amendments to SOLAS regulation IV/4 (Functional

requirements), taking into account the comments/proposals contained in documents NCSR 5/11, NCSR 5/11/3 and NCSR 5/11/4, and provide advice, in particular with respect to the issue of security-related communications; and


equipment), taking into account the comments/proposals contained in documents NCSR 5/11, NCSR 5/11/1, NCSR 5/11/2 and paragraph 7.3.2 of the annex of document NCSR 5/17, related to alignment of terminology and requirements for SART; and

.3 prepare draft terms of reference for the Correspondence Group on the

Modernization of the GMDSS for the intersessional work to be done between NCSR 5 and NCSR 6, as well as reporting to the fourteenth meeting of the Joint IMO/ITU Experts Group.

Report of the Communications Working Group 11.27 Having considered the relevant part of the Working Group's report (NCSR 5/WP.5), the Sub-Committee took action as summarized in the ensuing paragraphs. 11.28 The Sub-Committee noted the progress made on the review of related and consequential amendments to existing instruments other than SOLAS and approved the associated work plan (NCSR 5/WP.5, annex 1). 11.29 In this context, the Sub-Committee noted the need to consider the consequential amendments to relevant SOLAS certificates and records of equipment. 11.30 The Sub-Committee also noted the draft categorization of some existing instruments other than SOLAS (NCSR 5/WP.5, annex 2). 11.31 The Sub-Committee noted the progress on the discussions related to the revision of SOLAS chapters III and IV and that, due to the complexity of the matter and the lack of time, the Group had not been in the position to conduct further work on the remaining items and proposals contained in documents NCSR 5/11, NCSR 5/11/1, NCSR 5/11/2, NCSR 5/11/3 and NCSR 5/11/4. 11.32 The Sub-Committee approved the terms of reference for the Correspondence Group on the Modernization of the GMDSS, as set out in document NCSR 5/WP.5, annex 3.

NCSR 5/23 Page 32


12 RESPONSE TO MATTERS RELATED TO THE RADIOCOMMUNICATION ITU-R STUDY GROUP AND ITU WORLD RADIOCOMMUNICATION CONFERENCE

Report of the thirteenth meeting of the Joint IMO/ITU Experts Group on Maritime radiocommunication matters 12.1 The Sub-Committee noted the report of the thirteenth meeting of the Joint IMO/ITU Experts Group on Maritime radiocommunication matters (IMO/ITU EG), which took place from 10 to 14 July 2017, chaired by Mr. C. Rissone (France). Revision of recommendation ITU-R M.493-14 12.2 The Sub-Committee recalled that NCSR 4 had referred the liaison statement received from ITU on the revision of recommendation ITU-R M.493-14 (document NCSR 4/15/1) to the IMO/ITU EG for consideration, and noted its conclusion that no comments had to be liaised back to Working Party 5B (NCSR 5/12, paragraphs 7 and 8 of the annex). Autonomous maritime radio devices 12.3 The Sub-Committee further recalled that NCSR 4 had also referred the liaison statement received from ITU on the identification and categorization of autonomous maritime radio devices (document NCSR 4/15/2) to the IMO/ITU EG for consideration, and noted its conclusion that no comments had to be liaised back to Working Party 5B (NCSR 5/12, paragraph 12 of the annex). 12.4 The Sub-Committee also had for its consideration liaison statements from ITU's Working Party 5B on autonomous maritime radio devices, the first from its meeting last May, and the second from its meeting last November, as provided in the annexes of documents NCSR 5/12/1 and NCSR 5/12/3 (Secretariat). 12.5 After consideration, the Sub-Committee agreed to refer documents NCSR 5/12/1 and NCSR 5/12/3 to the Communications Working Group for comments and advice, as appropriate. Request for direct participation in the work of ITU 12.6 The Sub-Committee further noted the request by the IMO/ITU EG to encourage delegates to actively participate in the work of ITU so as to avoid the time-consuming process of exchanging liaison statements. Entering own ship MMSI in DSC equipped radios 12.7 The Sub-Committee noted the discussion of the IMO/ITU EG on the issue of placing restrictions on entering own ship MMSI in DSC equipped radios, in particular, the Group's conclusion that there was no consensus to change the current arrangements, and invited Administrations and the industry to consider possible solutions and forward proposals to NCSR 6. Draft IMO position on relevant WRC-19 agenda items 12.8 The Sub-Committee recalled that NCSR 4 had considered the development of the Preliminary draft IMO position on WRC-19 agenda items concerning matters relating to maritime services (NCSR 4/29, paragraph 16.3) and instructed the IMO/ITU EG to further develop the draft IMO position and report back to NCSR 5.

NCSR 5/23 Page 33


12.9 Having considered the updated draft IMO position (NCSR 5/12, appendix 2 of the annex), the Sub-Committee agreed to refer it to the Communications Working Group for comments and advice, as appropriate. 12.10 The Sub-Committee noted the discussion which took place on the further development of the draft IMO position in the IMO/ITU EG (NCSR 5/12, paragraphs 22 to 54 of the annex), and, in particular, the need to prepare submissions for ITU's Conference Preparatory Meeting (CPM) in February 2019, and for WRC-19 in November 2019. 12.11 Having further noted the timeline of meetings (NCSR 5/12, appendix 1 of the annex) and that at its fourteenth meeting the IMO/ITU EG should finalize the draft IMO position for approval by MSC 100 and consequential submission to the CPM, the Sub-Committee requested MSC 99 to authorize the Joint IMO/ITU Experts Group, at its fourteenth meeting from 3 to 7 September 2018, to submit an updated draft IMO position to MSC 100, for the Committee's approval of the position to be submitted to ITU's Conference Preparatory Meeting to be held in February 2019. The next meeting of the Joint IMO/ITU Experts Group 12.12 Having noted that MSC 98 had approved the intersessional meeting of the IMO/ITU EG to be held in 2018 (MSC 98/23, paragraph 20.53.7), and that the Council subsequently had endorsed it, the Sub-Committee agreed to the holding of the fourteenth meeting of the IMO/ITU EG, from 3 to 7 September 2018 at IMO Headquarters in London (NCSR 5/12, paragraph 3.14), and instructed the Communications Working Group to prepare the draft terms of reference for that meeting. Implementation of WRC-15 decisions relating to the future use of analogue/digital channels as stipulated in appendix 18 of the ITU Radio Regulations 12.13 In considering the information in document NCSR 5/12/2 (Netherlands), the Sub-Committee noted the Netherlands' national use of VHF channels 21, 22, 23, 80, 81, 82 and 83 following the implementation of WRC 15 decisions concerning arrangements contained in appendix 18 of the ITU Radio Regulations (RR) relating to the future use of analogue and digital channels. 12.14 The delegations who spoke on this issue supported the continuous use of the above-mentioned VHF channels for analogue modulation (voice communication) during the transition period (i.e. 1 January 2024). Development of matters under study in Radiocommunication ITU-R Study Groups 12.15 The Sub-Committee noted the information provided by the Secretariat (NCSR 5/12/4), reporting on the work undertaken in the ITU-R Study Groups in 2017 of relevance to the Sub-Committee. Prediction of NAVDAT coverage and related tests 12.16 The Sub-Committee also noted the information contained in document NCSR 5/INF.8 (China) on calculation and test of field strength and external noise factor, the prediction results of NAVDAT coverage, and considerations for technology optimization.

NCSR 5/23 Page 34


Revised Maritime Radio Communication Plan 12.17 The Sub-Committee further noted the information contained in document NCSR 5/INF.19 (IALA) on the latest review of the Maritime Radio Communications Plan (MRCP) by IALA. Instructions to the Communications Working Group 12.18 The Sub-Committee instructed the Communications Working Group, established under agenda item 11, taking into account decisions of, and comments and proposals made in plenary, to:

.1 consider and further develop the draft IMO position on WRC-19 agenda items, using appendix 2 of the annex to document NCSR 5/12 as the basis to work from, with the understanding that the IMO/ITU Experts Group would be instructed to update the document for approval by MSC 100 and consequential submission to the ITU's CPM;

.2 prepare draft terms of reference for the fourteenth meeting of the

Joint IMO/ITU Experts Group, scheduled to take place from 3 to 7 September 2018; and

.3 consider documents NCSR 5/12/1 and NCSR 5/12/3 containing liaison

statements from ITU-R WP 5B on autonomous maritime radio devices and provide comments and advice, and prepare a liaison statement back to WP 5B, as appropriate.

Report of the Communications Working Group 12.19 Having considered the relevant part of the Working Group's report (NCSR 5/WP.5), the Sub-Committee took action as summarized in the ensuing paragraphs. 12.20 The Sub-Committee noted the draft IMO position on relevant WRC-19 agenda items (NCSR 5/WP.5, annex 4) and invited Member States and international organizations to submit documents on new agenda items for future WRCs to the 14th meeting of the Joint IMO/ITU Experts Group. 12.21 The Sub-Committee approved the terms of reference for the 14th meeting of the Joint IMO/ITU Experts Group, as set out in document NCSR 5/WP.5, annex 5. In doing so, the Sub-Committee noted that there was a need to prioritize the work of Joint IMO/ITU Experts Group and that this would be discussed between the Chair and the IMO and ITU Secretariats. 12.22 The Sub-Committee approved the liaison statement to ITU-R WP 5B on autonomous maritime radio devices, as set out in document NCSR 5/WP.5, annex 6; instructed the Secretariat to convey it to ITU; and invited the Committee to endorse this action. 13 MEASURES TO PROTECT THE SAFETY OF PERSONS RESCUED AT SEA 13.1 The Sub-Committee recalled that NCSR 3 had noted the information provided by ICS on the second edition of "Large scale rescue operations at sea: Guidance on ensuring the safety and security of seafarers and rescued persons", and, in particular, that this Guidance should remain a live document for as long as required, promulgated and updated by the industry co-sponsors.

NCSR 5/23 Page 35


13.2 The Sub-Committee further recalled that FAL 40 had noted the information on the new inter-agency platform for information sharing on migrant smuggling by sea, and had encouraged Member States to provide timely and accurate information on migrant incidents and on suspected smugglers and vessels to the Organization via the facilitation module in GISIS. 13.3 The Sub-Committee also recalled that MSC 96 had approved the Interim measures for combating unsafe practices associated with the trafficking, smuggling or transport of migrants by sea (MSC.1/Circ.896/Rev.2). 13.4 The Sub-Committee further recalled that MSC 97, taking into account that the humanitarian crisis in the Mediterranean region was far from being resolved, had invited Member States and international organizations to submit documents to the next session, and encouraged Member States to report the incidents with the information included in the appendix of MSC.1/Circ.896/Rev.2 via the facilitation module in GISIS. 13.5 The Sub-Committee noted that FAL 41, taking into account that no documents had been submitted on this agenda item since FAL 37, and no significant progress had been achieved during these years, had agreed to include this output in the post-biennial agenda with the intention to revisit this decision during FAL 42, and to advise MSC 98 accordingly. 13.6 The Sub-Committee further noted that MSC 98, having considered document MSC 98/16 (ICS), which provided information on the increasing death toll of migrants attempting to reach Europe via the central Mediterranean region, and having noted that Member States and international organizations had affirmed their concern for the humanitarian situation and the loss of life, had decided that the way forward was to promote appropriate and effective action at the United Nations. 13.7 The Sub-Committee also noted that an inter-agency meeting with the maritime industry on mixed migration had been organized by IMO on 30 October 2017. Representatives of the following organizations had participated in the meeting: ITF, ICS, BIMCO, IFSMA, IOM, UNHCR, UNODC, OHCHR and EUNAVFOR. It was further noted that MSC 99 and FAL 42 would be invited to consider the outcome of this meeting under the output "IMO's contribution to addressing unsafe mixed migration by sea". 13.8 After consideration, the Sub-Committee deferred further discussion to its next session. 14 DEVELOPMENTS IN GMDSS SATELLITE SERVICES Status of the Cospas-Sarsat Programme 14.1 The Sub-Committee, having briefly considered the status report on the Cospas-Sarsat System provided by Cospas-Sarsat (NCSR 5/14/3), referred the document to the SAR Working Group for comments and advice, as appropriate. Establishment of the SAR Working Group 14.2 The Sub-Committee established the SAR Working Group chaired by Mr. N. Clifford (New Zealand) and instructed it, taking into account decisions, comments and proposals made in plenary, to consider document NCSR 5/14/3 on the Status of the Cospas-Sarsat Programme and provide comments and advice, as appropriate.

NCSR 5/23 Page 36


Report of the SAR Working Group 14.3 Having considered the Working Group's report (NCSR 5/WP.6), the Sub-Committee approved it in general and took action as summarized in the ensuing paragraphs. 14.4 The Sub-Committee noted the information provided on the status of the Cospas-Sarsat Programme and invited interested Member States and international organizations to provide further views and proposals to the Cospas-Sarsat Programme. 14.5 The Sub-Committee also invited Member States to upgrade their individual national beacon registration databases to accommodate the registration requirements for second generation beacons and the Return Link Service, as appropriate. Inmarsat Annual report on Inmarsat's public service obligations 14.6 The Sub-Committee considered IMSO's annual report on Inmarsat's public service obligations for the provision of recognized mobile satellite communication services in the GMDSS (NCSR 5/14), as overseen by IMSO, covering the period from 1 November 2016 to 31 October 2017. 14.7 The following views were expressed with respect to the issue of possible interferences with L-band maritime satellite communications:

.1 the issue highlighted in paragraphs 55 to 58 of the report related to the protection of L-band maritime satellite communications was very important as it could affect safety-related services;

.2 to avoid any possible interferences, restrictions should be applied to

Supplemental Downlink (SDL) base stations deployed near ports within Europe; and

.3 liaison statements on this issue should be sent to both ITU and the European

Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT). 14.8 After the discussion, the Sub-Committee instructed the Joint IMO/ITU Experts Group to prepare the necessary liaison statements on the possible interferences with L-band maritime satellite communications, and forward them directly to ITU-R WP 5B and CEPT, and invited the Committee to endorse the action taken. 14.9 After consideration, the Sub-Committee noted:

.1 that during the period covered by this report, Inmarsat Global Ltd. had continued to provide fully operational maritime mobile satellite distress and safety communication services for the GMDSS and fulfilled the company's public service obligation as stated in the Public Services Agreement (PSA);

.2 the closure of Inmarsat-B services on 11 January 2017; and .3 the intention to close the Inmarsat-F77 service by 1 December 2020.

NCSR 5/23 Page 37


Migration of the recognized GMDSS services from Inmarsat-3 to Inmarsat-4 satellites 14.10 The Sub-Committee considered the information provided by IMSO (NCSR 5/14/4) related to the planned migration of the recognized mobile satellite services from the Inmarsat-3 satellite constellation to the Inmarsat-4 satellite constellation. 14.11 During the ensuing discussions, concerns were expressed regarding the short notice and aggressive schedule for the migration of the recognized GMDSS services (i.e. Inmarsat C and Fleet 77) from the primary Inmarsat-3 satellites, with the exception of I3-F5, over to the Inmarsat-4 satellites. This would not provide sufficient time for the preparation of amendments to related instruments (i.e. SafetyNET Manual (MSC.1/Circ.1364/Rev.1), GMDSS Master Plan (GMDSS.1/Circ.21) and the IAMSAR Manual), the notification to mariners, Maritime Safety Information Providers (MSIPs), MRCCs and other stakeholders and the availability of information. 14.12 It was further indicated that the migration would include four stages with relocation of satellites under each stage, and that the transition would require a certification process. Some old generation shipboard terminals might not recognize the change of satellites and would require some consequential actions. In addition, many MSIPs had not yet completed the migration to SafetyNET 2 services. 14.13 The Sub-Committee noted that at the next meeting of the IHO Document Review Working Group a text for a "Notice to Mariners" would be prepared, including a step-by-step procedure, to be distributed among national Hydrographic Offices, explaining the impact and action to be taken on board ships when encountering challenges to make a connection with the I-4 satellites. 14.14 After consideration, the Sub-Committee:

.1 noted the proposed migration of Inmarsat C and Fleet 77 services from the primary Inmarsat-3 satellites, with the exception of I3-F5, over to the Inmarsat-4 satellites in 2018, which would then become the primary satellites for the recognized GMDSS services;

.2 invited the ICAO/IMO Joint Working Group and the Secretariat to consider

the need to develop consequential amendments to the IAMSAR Manual and the GMDSS Master Plan with respect to the new ocean region naming and coverage mapping for Inmarsat;

.3 invited the International SafetyNET Coordinating Panel to notify registered

users of the SafetyNET Service about the migration plan; and .4 requested Member States to bring this information to the attention of the

certified SafetyNET users, MSIPs and MRCC operators in their respective countries, through the promulgation of Notices to Mariners, for instance, and encourage them to contact Inmarsat and the International SafetyNET Panel for further assistance, as appropriate.

14.15 The Sub-Committee also noted that consequential amendments to the SafetyNET Manual would be prepared by the IHO Document Review Working Group for approval by WMO and IHO; and for endorsement by NCSR 6 and approval by MSC 101. In addition, the Sub-Committee noted that information for Administrations was expected to be prepared by IMSO, to be circulated by the Organization as soon as possible.

NCSR 5/23 Page 38


14.16 Finally, the Sub-Committee invited responsible parties involved in this process to consider at future occasions the impact of such substantial processes and bring them to the attention of interested parties at the earliest stage possible. Introduction of SafetyNET II 14.17 The Sub-Committee noted the information provided by IMSO (NCSR 5/14/5) in relation to the official launch of the SafetyNET II service by Inmarsat on 14 November 2017 to facilitate broadcast of Maritime Safety Information, including SAR communications to ships at sea. Recognition of the Inmarsat FleetBroadband Maritime Safety Data Service for use in the GMDSS 14.18 The Sub-Committee recalled that NCSR 4 had agreed that:

.1 the recognition of the Inmarsat FleetBroadband Maritime Safety Data Service for use in the GMDSS should be treated as a new application, noting that not all elements of the Criteria for the provision of mobile satellite communication systems in the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) (resolution A.1001(25)) would need to be reviewed in detail in this specific case and that it would be subject to IMSO's evaluation of these elements;

.2 the Sub-Committee should conduct an evaluation of the criteria set out in

resolution A.1001(25) comprising at least the capabilities for maritime distress and safety communications, priority access, pre-emption restoration and spare satellites, identification, information to be made available to SAR authorities, reception of distress alerts, control of maritime mobile terminals, test facilities, routeing of maritime distress alerts, data communication systems and facilities for broadcasting Maritime Safety Information; and

.3 IMSO should undertake the necessary technical and operational assessment

of the Inmarsat FleetBroadband Maritime Safety Data Service and provide a report for consideration by the NCSR Sub-Committee (NCSR 4/29, paragraph 18.14).

14.19 The Sub-Committee noted that MSC 98 had endorsed the above actions (MSC 98/23, paragraphs 11.31 and 11.32). 14.20 The Sub-Committee had for its consideration documents submitted by:

.1 IMSO (NCSR 5/14/1), providing the report on the technical and operational assessment of the Inmarsat FleetBroadband Maritime Safety Data Service, for recognition and use in the GMDSS; and

.2 the United Kingdom (NCSR 5/14/7), commenting on document

NCSR 5/14/1, proposing to use the name "Fleet Safety" for the Inmarsat FleetBroadband Maritime Safety Data Service and to recognize this service through a resolution following the guidance in resolution A.1001(25).

14.21 After consideration, the Sub-Committee instructed the Communications Working Group to develop the necessary draft resolution containing the statement of recognition.

NCSR 5/23 Page 39


Instructions to the Communications Working Group 14.22 The Sub-Committee instructed the Communications Working Group, established under agenda item 11, taking into account decisions of, and comments and proposals made in plenary, to consider document NCSR 5/14/1 containing the report on the technical and operational assessment of the Inmarsat FleetBroadband Maritime Safety Data Service, taking into account document NCSR 5/14/7, and develop, as appropriate, a draft resolution containing the statement of recognition. Report of the Communications Working Group 14.23 Having considered the relevant part of the Working Group's report (NCSR 5/WP.5), the Sub-Committee took action as summarized in the ensuing paragraphs. 14.24 The Sub-Committee agreed to the draft MSC resolution on Statement of Recognition of Maritime Satellite Services provided by the Inmarsat Global Ltd., as set out in annex 7, and invited the Committee to approve it, with a view to adoption. 14.25 In doing so, the Sub-Committee noted the concern expressed by the Chair of the International SafetyNET Coordinating Panel on the limited coverage of the new Fleet Safety Service and that seven NAVAREAs/METAREAs had only partial coverage. In this context, it was noted that Inmarsat had a secondary capability by also providing MSI through Inmarsat C and that, as such, the provision of MSI was anyhow covered. However, this regional approach could lead to an additional burden and misunderstanding for seafarers, in particular, when future regional services would be recognized which had no secondary capability for providing MSI. In general, it was noted that extra equipment might be needed to receive MSI promulgated in all NAVAREAs/METAREAs partially covered by a regional service. The Sub-Committee agreed to take those concerns into account while amending SOLAS chapter IV and during the future revision of resolution A.1001(25) and MSC.1/Circ.1414. Recognition of the Iridium mobile satellite system for use in the GMDSS 14.26 The Sub-Committee recalled that NCSR 3, having considered the report provided by IMSO on the technical and operational assessment of the application by the United States to recognize and use the Iridium mobile satellite system in the GMDSS (NCSR 3/11), had agreed that Iridium could be incorporated into the GMDSS subject to compliance with outstanding issues and endorsed a comprehensive list of conditions, as set out in document NCSR 3/WP.5, annex 1, which needed to be fulfilled before Iridium could be recommended for recognition (NCSR 3/29, paragraphs 11.6 and 11.14). 14.27 The Sub-Committee also recalled that MSC 96 had endorsed the view of the Sub-Committee that Iridium could be incorporated into the GMDSS subject to compliance with the outstanding issues, with the understanding that the Sub-Committee, based on the evaluation reports from IMSO, would advise the Committee in the future on recognition, when the issues identified had been complied with (MSC 96/25, paragraph 14.7). 14.28 The Sub-Committee recalled further that a progress report on this matter was submitted by IMSO to NCSR 4 (NCSR 4/18/2). 14.29 The Sub-Committee had for its consideration documents submitted by:

.1 IMSO (NCSR 5/14/2) providing the report on the technical and operational assessment of the remaining requirements identified by NCSR 3 related to the recognition of the Iridium mobile satellite system for use in the GMDSS; and

NCSR 5/23 Page 40


.2 the United States (NCSR 5/14/8) commenting on document NCSR 5/14/2 and inviting the Sub-Committee to approve a draft MSC resolution on Statement of recognition of maritime mobile satellite services provided by Iridium Communications, Inc.

14.30 The Sub-Committee noted that IMSO, based on the outcome of the assessment report, was satisfied that Iridium had complied with the remaining requirements for recognition identified in annex 1 to document NCSR 3/WP.5, in compliance with the criteria and requirements of resolution A.1001(25), to the extent applicable to non-geostationary satellite systems and to the extent demonstrable by a system not being part of the GMDSS. The Sub-Committee also noted:

.1 that Administrative requirements in paragraphs 2.2.2.1, 2.2.2.2 and 2.2.2.4 of resolution A.1001(25) largely fall under the responsibility of the sponsoring government and that these were satisfied through formal statements provided by Iridium to IMSO, which were confirmed independently by the United States, stating the company's commitment to comply with these requirements;

.2 the next steps recommended by IMSO, as outlined in paragraph 10 of

document NCSR 5/14/2; .3 the need to develop a generic or Iridium-specific MSI manual; .4 that Iridium should develop internal operational procedures for support of

GMDSS recognized services; .5 the need to provide input, or formalize the format of communicating calling

party and call priority information to RCCs and to specify or standardize the repetition of distress alerts messages to an MRCC;

.6 that a type-approved Iridium maritime mobile terminal would be made

available in due course; and .7 that provisions of paragraphs 1.3 (coverage area), 1.4 (availability) and 3.6.2

(contingency exercises) of resolution A.1001(25) in their present form were not comprehensive definitions, especially when applied to non-geostationary satellite systems.

14.31 The Sub-Committee further noted that IMSO had recommended, outside of the requirements of resolution A.1001(25):

.1 a trial period to allow MSI providers and MRCCs to use the Iridium system; .2 that IMO, together with IHO, WMO and IMSO, should also consider renaming

and transforming the International SafetyNET Coordinating Panel so as to accommodate additional mobile satellite communication systems recognized by IMO;

.3 that IMO, together with IHO and WMO, should consider making arrangements

to facilitate the broadcast of MSI messages via the Iridium system; and

NCSR 5/23 Page 41


.4 that IMO should consider reviewing resolution A.1001(25), in particular, with regard to the provisions that need to be applied to non-geostationary systems.

14.32 During the general consideration, the Sub-Committee noted support for the recognition of the Iridium mobile satellite system for use in the GMDSS and for granting a period of testing, in particular for distribution of MSI. But, at the same time, concerns were expressed regarding:

.1 the conclusions of the assessment conducted by IMSO in respect of

compliance with the requirements of resolution A.1001(25); .2 the process of recognition, in particular, the "Letter of Compliance" to be

issued by IMSO; .3 the current status of deployment of the Iridium satellite constellation; .4 uncertainty about satellite backup, the existence of only one Iridium Gateway

Control Centre and the consequential single point of failure; .5 non-availability of training operational procedures and type-approved Iridium

shipborne equipment; .6 potential interference of satellite frequencies; .7 interoperability of satellite systems and cost implications; and .8 other aspects which were outside the requirements of resolution A.1001(25).

14.33 Views were also expressed regarding the need to:

.1 revise resolution A.1001(25) to include non-geostationary satellite systems and other systems that could be recognized for use in the GMDSS;

.2 test the interoperability with existing systems; .3 protect the integrity of the frequencies and, in particular, the Iridium satellite

down link; and .4 incorporate a system in the GMDSS which could provide global coverage,

including the Polar areas, particularly after the adoption of the Polar Code.

14.34 Views were further expressed that:

.1 issues such as interoperability were not part of resolution A.1001(25) and would require further actions and coordination between both existing and new GMDSS satellite service providers;

.2 new GMDSS satellite service providers would provide a more competitive

market; and .3 the Organization should continue to work on issues related to

interoperability, MSI transmissions and interaction with MRCCs.

NCSR 5/23 Page 42


Three main topics 14.35 In considering the matter further, the Sub-Committee identified the following three main topics: .1 compliance with all the remaining requirements for recognition, of the criteria

for the provision of mobile-satellite services in the GMDSS, as provided in resolution A.1001(25);

.2 issues which needed to be solved outside the criteria set out in

resolution A.1001(25) before Iridium could become fully operational as new GMDSS satellite service provider; and

.3 recommendation of recognition of Iridium as a GMDSS mobile satellite

service provider, and the development of a draft MSC resolution containing the statement of recognition.

Compliance with all the remaining requirements for recognition 14.36 With respect to the compliance with the requirements of resolution A.1001(25) views were expressed that:

.1 the Iridium satellite constellation should be fully operational and should be tested before recognition;

.2 shore-to-ship broadcasting of MSI and distress alerts, relays and calls had

not been tested; and .3 the way the network availability was calculated was not very clear.

14.37 On the other hand, many delegations supported IMSO's conclusion that all requirements had been satisfied. 14.38 Regarding the concerns expressed during the general consideration, views were expressed that type approval and satellite backup were not part of the requirements of resolution A.1001(25) and that the majority of the issues were outside the control of Iridium. 14.39 In response to the above comments, it was expressed that:

.1 section 3.8 of the annex to document NCSR 5/14/2 provided information on facilities for broadcasting MSI; and

.2 the way the relevant requirements in resolution A.1001(25) were written was

in terms of geostationary satellites, thus requiring in some cases interpretation when applying the same requirements to non-geostationary satellites.

Issues which needed to be solved outside the criteria set out in resolution A.1001(25) 14.40 The Sub-Committee noted that IMSO had addressed a number of developments that needed to take place, and had identified items on which action needed to be taken, before Iridium could formally start its service in the GMDSS. It was further noted that these developments and items were not directly related to the criteria set out in resolution A.1001(25).

NCSR 5/23 Page 43


14.41 The Sub-Committee recalled that NCSR 2 and NCSR 3 had noted concerns regarding a number of issues related to the recognition of Iridium as a GMDSS service provider, which also were not directly related to the assessment of compliance with the criteria set out in resolution A.1001(25). 14.42 The Sub-Committee further recalled that, during several discussions, concerns had been expressed with respect to the absence of regulatory protection in the ITU Radio Regulations for the interference-free use of the frequencies in use by Iridium to provide their services, e.g. the absence of primary allocation of the space-to-Earth link. The Sub-Committee noted that, although the Organization was not directly responsible for allocating such primary status, the maritime community as a whole was responsible for safeguarding regulatory protection against interference for safety of life services, such as the GMDSS. In this context, it was noted that the ongoing work in ITU in preparation for WRC-19 was of utmost importance in order to get the required protection of the frequencies in use by Iridium. It was finally noted that as long as this work in ITU had not been satisfactory completed, Iridium could not become fully operational as a new GMDSS satellite service provider. 14.43 Views were expressed that it was of utmost importance to consider thoroughly which work still needed to be undertaken outside the criteria set out in resolution A.1001(25), in order to ensure a smooth implementation of Iridium as a GMDSS satellite service provider and to guarantee the integrity of the GMDSS. It was particularly noted that Iridium would have to provide a safety of life service and that any potential risk factor should be excluded. 14.44 The Sub-Committee considered the Chair's proposal to instruct the Communications Working Group to develop an overview of the issues to be solved outside the criteria set out in resolution A.1001(25), which would allow the Sub-Committee to consider the progress of the implementation at future sessions. The Chair further suggested that only when all implementation issues were solved and acknowledged by the Sub-Committee, could Iridium become fully operational as a GMDSS satellite service provider. To this end, the Sub-Committee should inform the Committee when all implementation issues were resolved and Iridium's specified services could be granted Full Operational Capability by the Committee, after which IMSO could issue a "Letter of Compliance" to mark the start of Iridium's service in the GMDSS and IMSO's oversight of those services. In this respect, IMSO could be invited again to monitor the progress on those issues and advise the Sub-Committee accordingly. 14.45 While the proposal was supported by some delegations, others indicated that the Committee had only tasked the Sub-Committee to consider compliance with the criteria set out in resolution A.1001(25) and that other outstanding issues should not be considered. 14.46 In this context, IMSO advised that if any further work was to be undertaken by IMSO, clear instructions should be provided. 14.47 During the discussion, the Sub-Committee noted the following issues, not directly related to the criteria set out in resolution A.1001(25), which needed to be resolved:

.1 availability of Iridium-specific guidance on the provision of Maritime Safety Information (MSI), including renaming and transforming the International SafetyNET Coordinating Panel to also accommodate new services;

.2 establishment of agreements with MSI providers, including operational

procedures and charging costs, to facilitate the broadcast of MSI messages through the Iridium service, with the involvement of Inmarsat;

NCSR 5/23 Page 44


.3 having satisfactorily addressed the issue of anticipated additional costs to MSI providers and RCCs to receive transmitted messages directly from the Iridium satellites;

.4 development of operational procedures with Rescue Coordination Centres

(RCCs); .5 development of internal operational procedures, as recommended by IMSO; .6 completed transition to the new satellite constellation (Iridium NEXT), after

which a trial period could start; .7 completed operational testing during the trial period of the operational

procedures with MSI providers and RCCs; and of type-approved ship earth stations for use in the GMDSS through the Iridium service;

.8 interoperability issues, to be satisfactorily addressed with the involvement of

Inmarsat; and .9 regulatory protection for the interference free use of the

spectrum/frequencies for the provision of GMDSS services through the Iridium, provided by ITU, by means of inclusion in the Radio Regulations and in accordance with ITU procedures.

Recommendation of recognition of Iridium as a GMDSS mobile satellite service provider 14.48 Referring to IMSO's recommendation in the assessment report, the United States, supported by others, expressed the view that the Sub-Committee should advise MSC 99 to recognize Iridium as a GMDSS mobile satellite service provider. In this context, the Sub-Committee noted a proposed draft MSC resolution in the annex to document NCSR 5/14/8. 14.49 Other views were expressed that Iridium, at this stage, should not be recognized as a GMDSS mobile satellite service provider. It was, in particular, noted that it had not been made clear which specific services provided by Iridium had to be recognized and that this information had to be specified in the statement of recognition in accordance with paragraph 2.3.2 of resolution A.1001(25). 14.50 In response the United States indicated that the services to be provided by Iridium were: (1) safety voice for distress calling, (2) short burst data for distress alerting, and (3) MSI broadcast for MSI information. 14.51 With respect to questions raised on the "Letter of compliance" to be issued by IMSO, it was noted that this was an IMSO document that was issued as part of the Public Service Agreement (PSA).

14.52 The Sub-Committee considered the proposal by the Chair to develop a draft resolution recognizing Iridium as a GMDSS mobile satellite service provider, including conditions outside the criteria set out in resolution A.1001(25) which needed to be fulfilled before Iridium could become fully operational as new GMDSS satellite service provider. However, no consensus could be reached to develop such a resolution. Strong views were expressed that the recommendation of recognition should not be conditional.

NCSR 5/23 Page 45


Conclusion 14.53 The Chair put forward a proposal to instruct the Communications Working Group to review IMSO's assessment and to consider whether Iridium had demonstrated that it met all the criteria for the provision of mobile-satellite services in the GMDSS, as provided in resolution A.1001(25). While the proposal was supported by some delegations, others indicated that this would be a time-consuming process and that the result of the assessment had already been presented by IMSO. In this context, it was noted that most delegations accepted the conclusions of IMSO's report, that Iridium had met the requirements of the Organization in accordance with resolution A.1001(25). 14.54 Noting the absence of consensus on referring matters to the Communications Working Group, the Chair, in view of the many concerns raised, suggested inviting interested Member States and, in particular IMSO, to provide further information to NCSR 6 for consideration. There was insufficient support for this proposal, as there was no consensus on which issues required further consideration. 14.55 Having noted the concerns expressed at this session, the Sub-Committee invited the Committee to note the discussion, as set out in paragraphs 14.26 to 14.54 above, and provide guidance to the Sub-Committee on the way forward. In this context, the Sub-Committee invited Member States and international organizations to submit proposals on this matter to the Committee, as appropriate. 14.56 The delegations of the United States and Norway made statements, as set out in annex 13. The delegation of the Marshall Islands expressed their agreement with the substance and contents of the statements made by the delegations of United States and Norway and supported, in particular, the statement by Norway. The delegation of Spain also agreed with the concerns expressed by the United States, Norway and the Marshall Islands. Potential future revision of resolution A.1001(25) 14.57 The Sub-Committee noted the observations provided by IMSO (NCSR 5/14/6) on applying the procedures of resolution A.1001(25) during the recent assessments of the Inmarsat FleetBroadband Maritime Safety Data Service and the Iridium mobile satellite service for their recognition and use in the GMDSS, and agreed that the information would need to be taken into account when resolution A.1001(25) and MSC.1/Circ.1414 were revised in future. 14.58 In doing so, the Sub-Committee noted the views expressed that a future revision of resolution A.1001(25) should accommodate future GMDSS satellite service providers, as well as issues related to interoperability of GMDSS satellite service providers, in particular for the effective distribution of MSI. 14.59 The Sub-Committee further recalled that the work on amendments to resolution A.1001(25) would require a new output. 15 REVISED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR EPIRBS OPERATING ON 406 MHZ

(RESOLUTION A.810(19)) TO INCLUDE COSPAS-SARSAT MEOSAR AND SECOND GENERATION BEACONS

15.1 The Sub-Committee recalled that MSC 95 had agreed to include in the 2016-2017 biennial agenda of the NCSR Sub-Committee and the provisional agenda for NCSR 3, an output on "Revised Performance Standards for EPIRBs operating on 406 MHz (resolution A.810(19)) to include Cospas-Sarsat MEOSAR and second generation beacons", with a target completion year of 2017.

NCSR 5/23 Page 46


15.2 The Sub-Committee also recalled that NCSR 3, after discussion, had invited interested parties to submit test results to the ICAO/IMO Joint Working Group, in order to allow this Group to study the matter and provide advice to the Sub-Committee, as appropriate, and to forward the characteristics of candidate locating signals, other than 121.5 MHz, to the Joint Working Group to facilitate the evaluation of the test results. 15.3 The Sub-Committee further recalled that NCSR 4, in considering the need for further operational testing results for EPIRBs operating on 406 Mhz before adoption of the revised performance standards, had encouraged Member States to undertake more operational tests and share the results with the ICAO/IMO Joint Working Group at its October 2017 meeting for its review and report to NCSR 5, and noted that, accordingly, MSC 98 had extended the target completion year of this output to 2018. 15.4 The Sub-Committee had for its consideration documents submitted by:

.1 the United States (NCSR 5/15) reporting on the work accomplished on the preparation of amendments to resolution A.810(19), including the proposal for an extension of the target completion year to 2019;

.2 the United Kingdom (NCSR 5/15/3) proposing additional amendments to the

draft update of resolution A.810(19), as set out in the annex to document NCSR 5/15; and

.3 the Secretariat (NCSR 5/17, paragraph 2.10, and paragraphs 7.1.27

to 7.1.34 of the annex) on the outcome of discussions which took place on the ongoing revision of resolution A.810(19) at the twenty-fourth meeting of the ICAO/IMO Joint Working Group (JWG 24).

15.5 With respect to the outcome of JWG 24, the Sub-Committee noted that no information had been received on operational tests of the proposed revised duty cycle for the 121.5 MHz signal and that JWG 24 had discussed and concluded on several issues in relation to this subject.

15.6 After some consideration, the Sub-Committee referred further consideration of documents NCSR 5/15, NCSR 5/15/3 and NCSR 5/17 (paragraph 2.10 and paragraphs 7.1.27 to 7.1.34 of the annex) to the SAR Working Group to provide comments and advice, as appropriate. EPIRB-AIS Dual ID Matching 15.7 The Sub-Committee considered a proposal by Japan (NCSR 5/15/1), providing information on the method to match the two IDs assigned to an EPIRB-AIS to facilitate SAR activities and agreed to forward matters related to the proposed revision of Recommendation ITU-R M.1371-5 to the next meeting of the IMO/ITU Experts Group for detailed consideration. The Sub-Committee authorized the Experts Group to prepare a liaison statement and submit it directly to the November meeting of ITU-R Working Party 5B, as appropriate, and invited the Committee to endorse the action taken.

NCSR 5/23 Page 47


Consequential updates to other documents 15.8 In considering a proposal by the United States (NCSR 5/15/2) on the potential consequential changes to other related IMO, ITU, and IEC documents to ensure alignment and consistency between those technical standards and the updated Performance Standards for EPIRBs operating on 406 MHz (resolution A.810(19)), the Sub-Committee agreed to forward document NCSR 5/15/2 to the next meeting of the IMO/ITU Experts Group for detailed consideration and advice to NCSR 6.

Instructions to the SAR Working Group

15.9 The Sub-Committee instructed the SAR Working Group, established under agenda item 14, taking into account decisions of, and comments and proposals made in plenary, to consider documents NCSR 5/15, NCSR 5/15/3 and NCSR 5/17, paragraphs 2.10 and paragraphs 7.1.27 to 7.1.34 of the annex, and provide comments and advice, as appropriate. Report of the SAR Working Group 15.10 Having considered the relevant part of the Working Group's report (NCSR 5/WP.6), the Sub-Committee took action as summarized in the ensuing paragraphs. 15.11 The Sub-Committee invited the Joint IMO/ITU Experts Group to consider the draft revised performance standard (resolution A.810(19)) and, in particular, the methodology presented in RTCM STANDARD 11000.4 for 406 MHz Satellite EPIRB, transmitting the EPIRB beacon ID as part of AIS message 14, and provide advice to NCSR 6. 15.12 The Sub-Committee encouraged Member States which were planning to conduct testing of the 121.5 MHz reduced duty cycle to complete their planned testing programmes and submit the results to the upcoming meeting of the ICAO/IMO JWG on SAR (JWG 25) for further consideration. 15.13 The Sub-Committee invited JWG 25 to consider the draft revised performance standard (resolution A.810(19)), as well as the results of testing of the 121.5 MHz reduced duty cycle, and provide advice to NCSR 6. Extension of the target completion year for this output 15.14 The Sub-Committee invited the Committee to extend the target completion year for this output to 2019 (paragraph 20.2 refers).

16 FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROVISION OF GLOBAL MARITIME SAR SERVICES

Global SAR Plan 16.1 The Sub-Committee noted the information provided by the Secretariat on the status of the Global SAR Plan as available in the Global Integrated Shipping Information System (GISIS). 16.2 The Sub-Committee also noted that the Global SAR Plan had been updated by several Member States during the time between NCSR 4 and this session of the Sub-Committee. It was further noted that the status of the availability of SAR services changed day by day and, therefore, providing updated information directly into GISIS was of utmost importance. Having updated information available would enable Rescue Coordination Centres to act promptly without losing precious time when they were dealing with a distress situation.

NCSR 5/23 Page 48


16.3 In this context, the Sub-Committee encouraged Member States to check the available information in GISIS on a regular basis and update the information immediately when changes had been notified to them. Method to insert information on Search and Rescue Regions in the Global SAR Plan module in GISIS 16.4 The Sub-Committee recalled the change of method to insert information on Search and Rescue Regions (SRRs) in the Global SAR Plan module in GISIS, as introduced in 2015 and circulated by means of Circular Letter No.3588, and that Member States were invited to resubmit the information related to geographical limits of their SRRs in the appropriate prescribed format. 16 .5 The Sub-Committee noted that the information to be provided in the SAR Module on SRRs in the section titled "Limits of the area for which the centre is responsible" had been reviewed and that, following this review, the module also allowed Member States to insert the geographical coordinates of SRRs in degrees and minutes, in addition to the option of uploading GML files. Area Search and Rescue Plans – Agreements and Arrangements 16.6 The Sub-Committee recalled that, in accordance with paragraphs 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 of the annex to the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 1979, as amended, Parties had the obligation to ensure that sufficient SRRs were established within each sea area and that these SRRs were established by agreement among Parties concerned. In case an agreement was not reached, Parties should endeavour to reach agreement upon appropriate arrangements. It was further recalled that the Secretary-General shall be notified of such agreements or arrangements, which, upon receipt, were currently disseminated by means of SAR.6 circulars. 16.7 The Sub-Committee noted that, in line with the decision of the Assembly at its twenty-eighth session (resolution A.1074(28) on Notification and circulation through GISIS), the Secretariat was preparing a modification of the Global SAR Plan module by adding the ability for Member States to notify any agreements or arrangements by directly uploading a copy of those documents. Once the necessary modifications were complete, Member States would be informed, accordingly. 16.8 In this context, the Chair encouraged Member States to:

.1 become a Party to the 1979 SAR Convention, if not already done so; .2 cooperate in search and rescue with neighbouring States; .3 conclude bilateral or multilateral agreements with neighbouring States on

SRRs; and .4 notify such agreements (or arrangements) to the Secretary-General.

Pacific Search and Rescue (PACSAR) regional update and the outcomes of the 7th Pacific Regional Search and Rescue workshop 16.9 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation the information provided by New Zealand (NCSR 5/INF.9) on a Pacific Search and Rescue (PACSAR) regional update and the outcomes of the 7th Pacific Regional Search and Rescue workshop.

NCSR 5/23 Page 49


Libyan Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre Project 16.10 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation the information provided by Italy (NCSR 5/INF.17) on the Libyan Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre Project. 17 GUIDELINES ON HARMONIZED AERONAUTICAL AND MARITIME SEARCH AND

RESCUE PROCEDURES, INCLUDING SAR TRAINING MATTERS Report of the twenty-fourth meeting of the ICAO/IMO Joint Working Group on Harmonization of Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue 17.1 The Sub-Committee noted that the twenty-fourth meeting of the ICAO/IMO Joint Working Group was held in Wellington, New Zealand, from 2 to 6 October 2017, chaired by Mr. D. Edwards (United States). 17.2 The Sub-Committee, having briefly considered document NCSR 5/17 (Secretariat), providing at annex the report of the twenty-fourth meeting of the ICAO/IMO Joint Working Group (JWG 24), referred the report to the SAR Working Group, in particular for detailed consideration of paragraph 2.13, and to advise the Sub-Committee, as appropriate. Next meeting of the ICAO/IMO Joint Working Group 17.3 Having noted that MSC 98 had approved the intersessional meeting of the JWG to take place in 2018 (MSC 98/23, paragraph 20.53.5), and the Council's endorsement (C 118/D, paragraph 9.3), the Sub-Committee agreed to the holding of JWG 25 in Seattle, United States, from 17 to 21 September 2018, and instructed the SAR Working Group to consider the provisional agenda for JWG 25, for approval by the Sub-Committee (NCSR 5/17, paragraphs 2.14 and 2.16, and appendix G of the annex). SAR aircraft flight management system (FMS) concerns 17.4 The Sub-Committee considered a proposal by the United States (NCSR 5/17/1) raising concerns with flight management systems (FMS) used on aircraft not complying completely with IAMSAR Manual principles and agreed terminology, and referred the document to the SAR Working Group for detailed consideration and advice. Report on the nineteenth Combined Antarctic Naval Patrol 2017-2018 17.5 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation the information provided by Argentina and Chile (NCSR 5/INF.22) on activities of the nineteenth combined Antarctic naval patrol, carried out by the submitting Governments, with the aim of enhancing maritime safety and environmental protection in the Antarctic continent. Revision of IMO model course 3.14 SAR Mission Coordinator (IAMSAR Manual volume II) 17.6 The Sub-Committee recalled that NCSR 4 had decided to revise model course 3.14 on SAR Mission Coordinator (IAMSAR Manual Volume II), identified the course developers, and established the Review Group (NCSR 4/29, paragraphs 27.25 to 27.32). The Sub-Committee noted that the Secretariat had received, from the course developers, the first draft of the revised model course 3.14, which would be forwarded to the Review Group by 30 April 2018, in accordance with the timeline agreed at NCSR 4, as outlined in annex 4 of document NCSR 4/WP.6.

NCSR 5/23 Page 50


17.7 Having noted that the deadline for bulky documents for NCSR 6 was expected to be 16 November 2018, the Sub-Committee agreed that the deadline for the Review Group coordinator to submit the report to the Secretariat, including the evaluation questionnaire as contained in annex 4 of MSC-MEPC.2/Circ.15, should be changed from 30 November 2018 to 26 October 2018. Instructions to the SAR Working Group 17.8 The Sub-Committee instructed the SAR Working Group, established under agenda item 14, taking into account decisions, comments and proposals made in plenary, to:

.1 consider document NCSR 5/17, containing the report of the twenty-fourth

meeting of the ICAO/IMO Joint Working Group, in particular paragraph 2.13, and provide comments and advice, as appropriate;

.2 finalize the provisional agenda for JWG 25 (NCSR 5/17, annex, appendix G),

for approval by the Sub-Committee; and .3 consider document NCSR 5/17/1 on SAR aircraft flight management system

(FMS) concerns, and provide comments and advice. Report of the SAR Working Group 17.9 Having considered the relevant part of the Working Group's report (NCSR 5/WP.6), the Sub-Committee took action as summarized in the ensuing paragraphs. 17.10 The Sub-Committee noted the report of the twenty-fourth meeting of the ICAO/IMO Joint Working Group (JWG 24) in general and, in particular, reminded Member States of the need to take regulatory action and to raise awareness, as appropriate, with respect to the safety hazard for SAR assets caused by Light Emitting Diode (LED) obstruction and hazard lighting, potentially not detectable on Night Vision Devices (NVD). 17.11 The Sub-Committee approved the provisional agenda for JWG 25, set out in document NCSR 5/WP.6, annex 1. 17.12 With respect to the matter of SAR aircraft flight management system (FMS) concerns (NCSR 5/17/1), the Sub-Committee invited interested Member States and international organizations to submit proposals on international standards necessary for software used for search patterns in aircraft flight management systems. 18 AMENDMENTS TO THE IAMSAR MANUAL 18.1 The Sub-Committee noted that, in accordance with the current practice of the three-year cycle for updating the IAMSAR Manual, at this session, it was expected to endorse the amendments prepared by the ICAO/IMO Joint Working Group in 2015, 2016 and 2017 for approval by MSC 99, to become applicable on 1 July 2019 and be published as the 2019 edition of the Manual. 18.2 The Sub-Committee considered the relevant part of document NCSR 5/17 (Secretariat), providing the report of the twenty-fourth session of the ICAO/IMO Joint Working Group, related to the proposed amendments to the IAMSAR Manual, and agreed to refer appendices C, D and E of the document to the SAR Working Group for finalization.

NCSR 5/23 Page 51


Instructions to the SAR Working Group 18.3 The Sub-Committee instructed the SAR Working Group, established under agenda item 14, taking into account decisions, comments and proposals made in Plenary, to finalize the draft proposed amendments to the IAMSAR Manual, as set out in document NCSR 5/17, appendices C, D and E, for endorsement by the Sub-Committee with a view to approval by MSC 99. Report of the SAR Working Group 18.4 Having received and considered the Working Group's report (NCSR 5/WP.6), and having noted ICAO's concurrence with the inclusion of the proposed amendments to the IAMSAR Manual, the Sub-Committee agreed on the draft MSC circular on amendments to the IAMSAR Manual, as set out in annex 8, for submission to the Committee for approval and subsequent inclusion in the 2019 edition of the Manual. 19 UNIFIED INTERPRETATION OF PROVISIONS OF IMO SAFETY, SECURITY AND

ENVIRONMENT-RELATED CONVENTIONS 19.1 The Sub-Committee recalled that this was a continuous item on the biennial agenda and that the Assembly, at its twenty-eighth session, had expanded the output to include all proposed unified interpretations of provisions of IMO safety, security and environment-related conventions, so that any newly developed or updated draft unified interpretation could be submitted for the consideration of the Sub-Committee, with a view to developing an appropriate IMO interpretation. 19.2 The Sub-Committee noted that no documents had been submitted under the agenda item to this session. 20 BIENNIAL STATUS REPORT AND PROVISIONAL AGENDA FOR NCSR 6 20.1 The Sub-Committee noted that the Assembly, at its thirtieth session, had adopted:

.1 resolution A.1110(30) on Strategic Plan for the Organization for the six-year period 2018-2023 providing a new format for the organization of outputs, which were renumbered under the approved strategic directions; and

.2 resolution A.1111(30) on Application of the Strategic Plan of the Organization

providing a uniform basis for the application of the Strategic Plan throughout the Organization.

Biennial status report for the 2018-2019 biennium 20.2 Taking into account the progress made at this session, the Sub-Committee prepared the biennial status report for the 2018-2019 biennium (NCSR 5/WP.2, annex 1), including outputs on the post-biennial agenda of the Committee assigned to the NCSR Sub-Committee, as set out in annex 9, for consideration by MSC 99. In this context, it was noted that at this session the work on output 2.16 (Guidelines for the harmonized display of navigation information received via communications equipment) had been completed.

NCSR 5/23 Page 52


Post-biennial agenda 20.3 The Sub-Committee noted that there would be only one output falling under the remit of the Sub-Committee left on the post-biennial agenda, i.e. output 42 on Review of the 2009 Code on Alerts and Indicators. In this context, the Sub-Committee further noted that: .1 the output on Revised General requirements for shipborne radio equipment

forming part of the GMDSS and for electronic navigational aids (resolution A.694(17)) relating to Built-In Integrity testing (BIIT) for navigation equipment had been included in the provisional agenda for NCSR 6; and

.2 under agenda item 22 (paragraph 22.9.2 refers) the Committee was invited

to delete the output on Additional module to the Revised Performance Standards for Integrated Navigation Systems (INS) (resolution MSC.252(83)) relating to the harmonization of bridge design and display of information from the post-biennial agenda.

Draft provisional agenda for NCSR 6 20.4 Taking into account the progress made at this session, the Sub-Committee agreed to the proposed provisional agenda for NCSR 6 (NCSR 5/WP.2, annex 2), as set out in annex 10, for consideration by MSC 99. Arrangements for the next session 20.5 The Sub-Committee agreed to establish at its next session working, experts and drafting groups on subjects to be selected from the following:

.1 routeing measures and mandatory ship reporting systems; .2 updates to the LRIT system; .3 application of the "Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS)" in

the maritime field and development of performance standards for shipborne IRNSS receiver equipment;

.4 guidelines on standardized modes of operation, S-mode; .5 developing guidance on definition and harmonization of the format and

structure of Maritime Service Portfolios (MSPs); .6 consequential work related to the new Polar Code; .7 revision of SOLAS chapters III and IV for Modernization of the Global

Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS), including related and consequential amendments to other existing instruments;

.8 ITU-related matters; .9 developments in GMDSS satellite services; .10 revised Performance Standards for EPIRBs operating on 406 MHz

(resolution A.810(19)) to include Cospas-Sarsat MEOSAR and second generation beacons;

NCSR 5/23 Page 53


.11 SAR matters;

.12 validation of model course 3.14 on SAR Mission Coordinator (IAMSAR Manual Volume II) by the Sub-Committee; and

.13 unified interpretation of provisions of IMO safety-, security- and environment-related Conventions,

whereby the Chair, taking into account the submissions received on the respective subjects, would advise the Sub-Committee well in time before NCSR 6 on the final selection of such groups.

Correspondence groups established at this session 20.6 The Sub-Committee established correspondence groups on the following subjects, due to report to NCSR 6:

.1 guidelines on standardized modes of operation, S-mode (paragraph 7.12 refers);

.2 consequential work related to the Polar Code (paragraph 10.4 refers); and .3 modernization of the GMDSS (paragraph 11.25 refers).

Review Group established at NCSR 4 20.7 The Sub-Committee recalled that NCSR 4 had established the Review Group to develop and update model course 3.14 on SAR Mission Coordinator (IAMSAR Manual Volume II), due to report to NCSR 6. Intersessional meetings 20.8 Having noted the intersessional meetings to take place in 2018, the Sub-Committee invited the Committee to authorize the holding of: .1 the fifteenth meeting of the Joint IMO/ITU Experts Group; and .2 the twenty-sixth session of the ICAO/IMO Joint Working Group, in 2019, and to request the Secretariat to take action, as appropriate. Date of the next session 20.9 The Sub-Committee noted that its sixth session had been tentatively scheduled to take place from 21 to 25 January 2019. Workload of the Sub-Committee 20.10 The Sub-Committee considered its workload, based on working experience and practices since the merging of the NAV and COMSAR Sub-Committees in 2014.

NCSR 5/23 Page 54


20.11 The Sub-Committee noted, in particular, its heavy workload, the number of items included in the agendas of subsequent sessions, the limitations for the establishment of working, experts and drafting groups and the impact on the efficiency of work, and the allocation of time for appropriate discussions. 20.12 During the ensuing discussions, the following views, inter alia, were expressed: .1 after a period of five years, there was a need to evaluate the restructuring of

the sub-committees and the Committee should be invited to ask the Council to undertake such an evaluation;

.2 there might be no need for a full evaluation, since the other sub-committees

had settled down and the only remaining issue was the heavy workload of the NCSR Sub-Committee;

.3 the main concern was the quality of the outcome of the Sub-Committee's

work, since there was not sufficient time to consider all items thoroughly; .4 referring to document NCSR 5/WP.2, annex 3, NCSR 6 would have 13

substantial items to consider in three working groups; .5 a possible option to address the problem was to divide the Sub-Committee

into two Sub-Committees; .6 the division of the Sub-Committee into two Sub-Committees was not seen as

a solution to the problem. When, for instance, a Sub-Committee would establish two working groups dealing with communication matters, delegations would not have the experts to attend both groups at the same time;

.7 overloading the Technical Working Group at sessions of the COMSAR

Sub-Committee, and the Communications Working Group at sessions of the NCSR Sub-Committee, had become a structural problem which needed to be addressed;

.8 a possible option to address this problem was to allow working groups more

time to consider items in detail, which could be done by:

.1 an extension of the meeting time of the Sub-Committee to eight days, similar to the concept used for MSC once a year; and/or

.2 allowing working groups to work intersessionally, similar to the

concept used for the CCC Sub-Committee and its Editorial and Technical (E&T) Group which meets twice a year;

.9 to achieve maximum benefit, the outcome of intersessional meetings should

be considered by the Sub-Committee in the same way as the outcome of working groups during sessions of the Sub-Committee; and

.10 providing more meeting time should not lead to the inclusion of more work,

but was only intended to address the current problem.

NCSR 5/23 Page 55


20.13 Following the discussion, the Sub-Committee requested the Secretariat, based on the outcome of discussions, to provide a detailed analysis of the matter, including possible options to solve the challenges identified, for consideration at MSC 99. Maximum amount of e-navigation related outputs to be included in provisional agendas 20.14 In this context, the Sub-Committee agreed that no more than three e-navigation related outputs should be included in the provisional agenda of sessions of the Sub- Committee. 21 ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2019 21.1 In accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Maritime Safety Committee, the Sub-Committee unanimously re-elected Mr. R. Lakeman (Netherlands) as Chair and Mr. N. Clifford (New Zealand) as Vice-Chair, both for 2019. 22 ANY OTHER BUSINESS Update of the IMO e-navigation Strategy Implementation Plan (SIP) 22.1 The Sub-Committee recalled that NCSR 4 had agreed to update, but not to revise, the e-navigation Strategy Implementation Plan (SIP) which should include and reflect the updated prioritization of the outputs and their reorganization to avoid duplication. 22.2 The Sub-Committee considered document NCSR 5/22/1 (Australia and Norway) proposing an update of the SIP and to identify potential new outputs to progress the work set out in the SIP. 22.3 Having considered the proposal, the Sub-Committee instructed the Navigation Working Group to finalize the draft updated SIP and to identify potential new outputs, including timelines, to progress the work on e-navigation. 22.4 On the question of the procedure for updating the SIP, in particular whether the Committee should be invited to approve it, a view was expressed that, although the idea was merely to update the SIP without generating extra work for the Sub-Committee, asking for approval of the updated SIP by the Committee would be appropriate. 22.5 The Sub-Committee agreed to await for the outcome of the Working Group before taking a decision on the procedure to be followed regarding re-approval of the updated SIP. Status of the output on additional modules for the Revised Performance Standards for INS relating to the harmonization of bridge design and display of information 22.6 The Sub-Committee recalled that NCSR 4 had approved draft amendments to the Revised Performance Standards for INS relating to the harmonization of bridge design and display of information (resolution MSC.252(83)), with a view to adoption by MSC 98. 22.7 The Sub-Committee noted that MSC 98, in order to avoid multiple amendments to the revised performance standards, had agreed to:

.1 postpone the adoption of the amendments until completion of the related work on the Guidelines for the harmonized display of navigation information received via communications equipment at NCSR 5; and

NCSR 5/23 Page 56


.2 keep output 5.2.6.1 on "Additional modules to the Revised performance standards for integrated navigation systems (INS) (resolution MSC.252(83)) relating to the harmonization of bridge design and display of information" in the post-biennial agenda of the Committee, in order to further consider the matter at the appropriate time.

22.8 The Sub-Committee considered document NCSR 5/22/10 (Secretariat) proposing a number of actions related to the status of the output on "Additional modules for the Revised Performance Standards for INS relating to the harmonization of bridge design and display of information" and noted, in particular, that:

.1 the draft amendments to resolution MSC.252(83) approved by NCSR 4 (NCSR 4/29, paragraph 5.4 and annex 4) were not related to e-navigation, but to the output on "Interconnection of NAVTEX and Inmarsat SafetyNet receivers and their display on Integrated Navigation Display systems";

.2 MSC 98's decision might have been linked to the expectation that the

outcome of the work on the Guidelines for the harmonized display of navigation information received via communications equipment would result in a proposal for an additional module for the INS performance standards, so that both sets of amendments could be adopted at the same time;

.3 despite the good progress made by the Correspondence Group on the

development of Guidelines for the harmonized display of navigation information received via communications equipment, the work had not resulted in concrete directions for the development of such a module. Instead, the Group had concluded that in order to support the display of information received via communications equipment, the distribution to displays of safety information needed its own guidance, for instance to be named Guidance on the efficient distribution of relevant navigation related information from communications equipment to navigation displays, and should not be limited to INS; and

.4 due to the decision taken by MSC 98, the proposed unrelated amendments

prepared under the output on the "Interconnection of NAVTEX and Inmarsat SafetyNet receivers and their display on Integrated Navigation Display systems" would be on hold for an unknown period of time.

22.9 After consideration, the Sub-Committee agreed to invite the Committee to:

.1 adopt the draft MSC resolution on Amendments to the Revised Performance standards for integrated navigation systems (INS) (resolution MSC.252(83)) relating to the harmonization of bridge design and display of information approved by NCSR 4, as set out in annex 11, noting the comments in paragraphs 22.6 to 22.8 above; and

.2 delete the output on "Additional module to the Revised Performance

Standards for Integrated Navigation Systems (INS) (resolution MSC.252(83)) relating to the harmonization of bridge design and display of information" from the post-biennial agenda.

22.10 The Sub-Committee noted that the maximum number of e-navigation related outputs in the provisional agenda of sessions of the Sub-Committee had been considered under agenda item 20 (paragraph 20.14 refers).

NCSR 5/23 Page 57


Instructions to the Navigation Working Group 22.11 The Sub-Committee instructed the Navigation Working Group, established under agenda item 6, taking into account decisions of, and comments and proposals made in plenary, to:

.1 finalize the update of the e-navigation Strategy Implementation Plan (SIP)

using the annex of document NCSR 5/22/1 as the basis to work from; and .2 identify potential new outputs, including timelines, to progress the work on

e-navigation, in line with the five (prioritized) e-navigation solutions.

Report of the Navigation Working Group 22.12 Having considered the relevant part of the Working Group's report (NCSR 5/WP.4), the Sub-Committee noted the Group's discussion on the prioritization of each e-navigation task in the updated e-navigation Strategy Implementation Plan (SIP); agreed to the draft MSC circular on e-navigation Strategy Implementation Plan – Update 1, as set out in annex 12; and invited the Committee to approve it. ECDIS issues Report on monitoring of ECDIS issues by IHO 22.13 The Sub-Committee noted document NCSR 5/22/5 (IHO) reporting on the outcome of the continuing monitoring by IHO of ECDIS issues related to the implementation of the carriage requirements in SOLAS regulations V/19.2.10 and V/19.2.11 and inviting the Sub-Committee to consider revising MSC.1/Circ.1503/Rev.1 on ECDIS – Guidance for good practice, in connection with the withdrawal of S-52 edition 3.4 and S-64. Updates of ECDIS – Outcome of III 4 22.14 The Sub-Committee recalled that NCSR 3, following an intervention by the IHO observer to keep the previous editions of the IHO display and testing standards S-52 and S-64 valid for another year, had agreed to extend the deadline to 31 August 2017 to enable shipowners and operators to update existing systems to meet the current editions, in accordance with the guidance concerning the maintenance of ECDIS software contained in MSC.1/Circ.1503 (NCSR 3/29, paragraph 28.3). 22.15 The Sub-Committee further recalled that NCSR 4, in considering the outcome of the continuing monitoring by IHO of ECDIS issues related to the implementation of the carriage requirements in SOLAS regulations V/19.2.10 and V/19.2.11, had noted that no new issues on anomalies had been identified (NCSR 4/29, paragraph 27.37). In this context, NCSR 4, having also noted that the development of corrections to the PSC Guidelines was already being considered by the III Sub-Committee, had decided not to take any further actions (NCSR 4/29, paragraphs 27.41 and 27.42). 22.16 The Sub-Committee noted the information contained in document NCSR 5/22 (Secretariat) on the work undertaken by III 4 to address the issue of non-compliant ECDIS using outdated editions of specifications from the PSC perspective. Having noted that some ECDIS manufacturers still needed to upgrade their systems, III 4 had agreed to issue III.2/Circ.2 on Action to be taken by port States on the required updates of ECDIS. In approving III.2/Circ.2, III 4 had recognized, given that the deadline of updates of ECDIS of 31 August 2017 had already been exceeded, that the circular, as an interim measure, would

NCSR 5/23 Page 58


require a date of revocation. However, III 4 had been unable to determine a date of revocation of this circular, due to the lack of information on when the required updating work of ECDIS would be completed. 22.17 In this context, the Sub-Committee was invited to advise III 5 on the date of revocation of III.2/Circ.2, taking into account technical and/or statistical information on the maturity of the existing ECDIS update, subject to endorsement by MSC 99. 22.18 The Sub-Committee had for its consideration the following documents: .1 NCSR 5/22/2 (CIRM) offering comments on document NCSR 5/22 with

respect to ECDIS maintenance requirements in general and the maturity of the existing ECDIS update to ensure compliance with revised IHO standards including the Presentation Library;

.2 NCSR 5/22/6 (IHO) providing comment on the outcome of the work

undertaken by III 4 to address the issue of non-compliant ECDIS using outdated editions of specifications from the port State control perspective, in particular the upgrading of the Presentation Library; and

.3 NCSR 5/22/11 (ICS) providing statistical information on the maturity of

ECDIS software updates following the request in document NCSR 5/22 (Secretariat) and comments on the date of revocation of III.2/Circ.2.

22.19 During the ensuing discussions, the following views were, inter alia, expressed:

.1 the primary issue was related to the type approval process, in particular for ships with complex systems, such as passenger ships;

.2 III.2/Circ.2 should be revoked not earlier than 1 July 2018 to provide sufficient

time to address the remaining issues; and .3 when implementing further updates, careful consideration should be given to

updating procedures, transitional periods and consequential hardware updates.

22.20 After consideration, the Sub-Committee agreed that III.2/Circ.2 should be revoked as from 1 July 2018 and, bearing in mind that III 5 was scheduled to meet from 24 to 28 September 2018, invited the Committee to revoke it as from this date. Standards for shipboard equipment Progress on standards development by the IEC 22.21 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation information provided by IEC (NCSR 5/22/3) on the preparation of standards by IEC TC80, which were to support the performance standards of the Organization.

NCSR 5/23 Page 59


Industry standard on software maintenance of shipboard equipment 22.22 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation information provided by BIMCO and CIRM (NCSR 5/22/4) on an industry standard recently published to address Software Maintenance of Shipboard Equipment, the aim of which was to improve the quality of software maintenance on board ships and, recognizing its importance, encourage wider use of the standard. New information sources to support implementation of the Polar Code marine mammal avoidance provisions 22.23 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation information provided by FOEI, WWF, Pacific Environment and CSC (NCSR 5/22/8) providing several new sources of information on polar marine mammal habitat, migration routes and a method of assisting mariner voyage planning through marine mammal areas to assist in the implementation of chapter 11 (Voyage planning) of the new Polar Code.

22.24 In this context, the Sub-Committee invited Member States to share relevant spatial marine mammal information. Background biological information for the Polar Code marine mammal avoidance provisions 22.25 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation information provided by FOEI, WWF, Pacific Environment and CSC (NCSR 5/INF.20) providing background biological information for the Polar Code marine mammal avoidance provisions. Aids to navigation on the Antarctic Continent 22.26 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation information provided by Argentina (NCSR 5/22/9) on the plan for installing automatic identification system aids to navigation (AIS AtoN) on the Antarctic Continent for the purpose of enhancing the safety of navigation and accordingly the safety of life at sea and the protection of the marine environment.

22.27 In this context, the Sub-Committee invited Member States to:

.1 inform mariners and operators of tourist cruises in the Antarctic of the availability of the AIS AtoN installed, as well as of those aids that were planned to be installed this austral summer; and

.2 request mariners to inform the NAVAREA VI Coordinator, at

[email protected], of any abnormalities they detect in the operation of those signals or of any other information they deem relevant for improving the service.

Conduct of search and rescue operations in certain maritime areas 22.28 The Sub-Committee noted information provided by Ukraine (NCSR 5/22/7), drawing its attention to the Russian Federation's unlawful unilateral actions in the temporarily occupied Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, Ukraine, and the implications of such unlawful actions for conducting search and rescue operations. 22.29 The Sub-Committee also noted information provided by the Russian Federation (NCSR 5/22/12) commenting on document NCSR 5/22/7 (Ukraine).

NCSR 5/23 Page 60


22.30 The Sub-Committee further noted statements made by the delegations of Ukraine, the Russian Federation and Estonia in this regard, as set out in annex 13. Use of the addressed short safety-related message capability of AIS – results of a trial 22.31 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation information provided by Australia (NCSR 5/INF.2) on the results of a trial on the use of the addressed short safety-related message capability of AIS.

Report of the 24th meeting of the Baltic/Barents Sea Regional Cooperation on matters relating to NCSR 22.32 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation information provided by Germany (NCSR 5/INF.4) on the Report of the 24th meeting of the Baltic/Barents Sea Regional Cooperation on matters relating to NCSR.

Development status and plan of the BeiDou Navigation Satellite System 22.33 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation information provided by China (NCSR 5/INF.7) on the development status and plan of the BeiDou Navigation Satellite System.

Questionnaire survey on the usability of navigational instruments for masters and deck officers 22.34 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation information provided by Japan (NCSR 5/INF.10) on a questionnaire survey on the usability of navigational instruments for masters and deck officers.

Coast Guard Global Summit 22.35 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation information provided by Japan (NCSR 5/INF.11) on the result of the Coast Guard Global Summit.

Amver programme 22.36 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation information provided by the United States (NCSR 5/INF.12) reporting on the activities of the Amver programme.

Report of the 14th Black Sea SAR Conference 22.37 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation information provided by Ukraine (NCSR 5/INF.16) on the report of the 14th Black Sea Conference on Maritime Search and Rescue.

Results of the ICS pilotage, towage and mooring survey 2016 22.38 The Sub-Committee noted with appreciation information provided by ICS (NCSR 5/INF.18) on the results of the ICS pilotage, towage and mooring survey 2016.

NCSR 5/23 Page 61


23 ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COMMITTEE

23.1 The Maritime Safety Committee, at its ninety-ninth session, is invited to:

.1 adopt, in accordance with resolution A.858(20), the establishment of new traffic separation schemes and associated measures, for dissemination by means of a COLREG circular, as follows:

.1 "In Dangan Channel " (paragraph 3.28.1 and annex 1); and .2 "In the vicinity of Kattegat" (paragraph 3.28.2 and annex 1); .2 adopt, in accordance with resolution A.858(20), the establishment of new and

an amendment to the existing routeing measures other than traffic separation schemes, for dissemination by means of an SN circular, as follows:

.1 amended areas to be avoided "Off the coast of Ghana in the Atlantic

Ocean" (paragraph 3.29.1 and annex 2); .2 the establishment of the precautionary area "Dangan Channel No.2"

with the recommended directions of traffic flow (paragraph 3.29.2 and annex 2);

.3 the establishment of deep-water routes, recommended routes and

precautionary area "In the vicinity of Kattegat" (paragraph 3.29.3 and annex 2); and

.4 the establishment of two-way routes, precautionary areas and areas

to be avoided "In the Bering Sea and Bering Strait" (paragraph 3.29.4 and annex 2);

.3 agree that the new routeing measures be implemented, as follows:

.1 routeing measures set out in paragraphs 3.28.1, 3.29.1, 3.29.2 and 3.29.4 be implemented six months after their adoption (paragraphs 3.30.1); and

.2 routeing measures set out in paragraphs 3.28.2 and 3.29.3 be

implemented on 1 July 2020 (paragraphs 3.30.2); .4 approve the draft amendment to MSC.1/Circ.1376/Rev.2 on Continuity of

service plan for the LRIT system (paragraph 4.5 and annex 3); .5 approve the draft amendments to the LRIT Technical documentation, parts I

and II (MSC.1/Circ.1259/Rev.7 and MSC.1/Circ.1294/Rev.5, respectively), and instruct the Secretariat to publish the corresponding revised versions of the circulars when the third modification testing phase is conducted (paragraph 4.19 and annex 4);

.6 adopt the draft MSC resolution on performance standards for shipborne

Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS) receiver equipment (paragraph 5.4 and annex 5);

NCSR 5/23 Page 62


.7 approve the draft MSC circular on Interim guidelines for the harmonized display of navigation information received via communications equipment (paragraph 6.11 and annex 6);

.8 authorize the holding of the second meeting of the IMO/IHO Harmonization

Group on Data Modelling (HGDM 2), to be held from 29 October to 2 November 2018 at IMO Headquarters, and instruct the Secretariat to take action, as appropriate (paragraph 8.15);

.9 endorse the action taken by the Sub-Committee, as an exceptional case, in

authorizing the Secretariat to submit the report of HGDM 2 to NCSR 6 three weeks beyond the deadline for bulky documents, i.e. by 9 November 2018 (paragraph 8.16);

.10 authorize the Joint IMO/ITU Experts Group, at its fourteenth meeting

from 3 to 7 September 2018, to submit an updated draft IMO position to MSC 100, for the Committee's approval of the position to be submitted to ITU's Conference Preparatory Meeting to be held in February 2019 (paragraph 12.11);

.11 endorse the action taken by the Sub-Committee in instructing the Secretariat

to convey the liaison statement on autonomous maritime radio devices to ITU-R Working Party 5B (paragraph 12.22);

.12 endorse the action taken by the Sub-Committee in instructing the Joint

IMO/ITU Experts Group to prepare the necessary liaison statements on the possible interferences with L-band maritime satellite communications, and forward them directly to ITU-R Working Party 5B and the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) (paragraph 14.8);

.13 adopt the draft MSC resolution on Statement of Recognition of Maritime

Satellite Services provided by the Inmarsat Global Ltd. (paragraph 14.24 and annex 7);

.14 note the discussion and provide guidance on the way forward with respect to

the recognition of the Iridium mobile satellite system for use in the GMDSS (paragraphs 14.26 to 14.56);

.15 endorse the action taken by the Sub-Committee in authorizing the Joint

IMO/ITU Experts Group to prepare a liaison statement on the proposed revision of Recommendation ITU-R M.1371-5 with respect to the method to match the two IDs assigned to an EPIRB-AIS, and forward it directly to ITU-R Working Party 5B (paragraph 15.7);

.16 approve the draft MSC circular on Amendments to the IAMSAR Manual,

taking into account ICAO's concurrence with the inclusion of the proposed amendments to the Manual, for inclusion in the 2019 edition of the Manual (paragraph 18.4 and annex 8);

.17 approve the biennial status report of the Sub-Committee (paragraph 20.2 and

annex 9);

NCSR 5/23 Page 63


.18 approve the proposed provisional agenda for NCSR 6 (paragraph 20.4 and annex 10);

.19 authorize the holding of the fifteenth meeting of the Joint IMO/ITU Experts

Group and the twenty-sixth meeting of the ICAO/IMO Joint Working Group in 2019, and request the Secretariat to take action, as appropriate (paragraph 20.8);

.20 consider possible options to solve the challenges identified in relation to the

workload of the Sub-Committee (paragraph 20.13); .21 adopt the draft MSC resolution on Amendments to the Revised Performance

standards for integrated navigation systems (INS) (resolution MSC.252(83)) relating to the harmonization of bridge design and display of information approved by NCSR 4 (paragraph 22.9.1 and annex 11);

.22 approve the draft MSC circular on e-navigation Strategy Implementation Plan

– Update 1 (paragraph 22.12 and annex 12); .23 revoke III.2/Circ.2 as from 1 July 2018 (paragraph 22.20); and .24 approve the report in general.

***

NCSR 5/23 Annex 1, page 1


ANNEX 1

NEW TRAFFIC SEPARATION SCHEMES AND ASSOCIATED MEASURES

"IN THE DANGAN CHANNEL" (Reference charts: Chinese charts 83001 and 84001, 2nd edition, 2015. Note: These charts are based on World Geodetic System 1984 datum (WGS 84).) Description of the traffic separation schemes Dangan Channel East (a) A separation zone, 0.5 nautical mile wide, is bounded by a line connecting the

following geographical positions:

(1) 22°07′.42N, 114°20′.55E (3) 22°07′.21N, 114°15′.31E (2) 22°07′.71N, 114°15′.31E (4) 22°06′.92N, 114°20′.55E

(b) A separation line connects the following geographical positions:

(5) 22°08′.02N, 114°20′.55E

(6) 22°08′.31N, 114°15′.31E

(c) A separation line connects the following geographical positions:

(7) 22°06′.60N, 114°15′.31E

(8) 22°06′.31N, 114°20′.55E

(d) A 0.6 nautical mile wide traffic lane for westbound traffic is established between the

separation zone in paragraph (a) and the separation line in paragraph (b). The main traffic direction is 273°(T).

(e) A 0.6 nautical mile wide traffic lane for eastbound traffic is established between the

separation zone in paragraph (a) and the separation line in paragraph (c). The main traffic direction is 093°(T).

Dangan Channel West (f) A separation zone, 0.5 nautical mile wide, is bounded by a line connecting the

following geographical positions: (9) 22°07′.90N, 114°11′.77E

(11) 22°07′.70N, 114°06′.45E

(10) 22°08′.20N, 114°06′.45E (12) 22°07′.40N, 114°11′.77E (g) A separation line connects the following geographical positions:

(13) 22°08′.51N, 114°11′.77E

(14) 22°08′.80N, 114°06′.45E

(h) A separation line connects the following geographical positions:

(15) 22°07′.09N, 114°06′.45E

(16) 22°06′.80N, 114°11′.77E



(i) A 0.6 nautical mile wide traffic lane for westbound traffic is established between the separation zone in paragraph (f) and the separation line in paragraph (g). The main traffic direction is 273°(T).

(j) A 0.6 nautical mile wide traffic lane for eastbound traffic is established between the

separation zone in paragraph (f) and the separation line in paragraph (h). The main traffic direction is 093°(T).

Precautionary area Dangan Channel No.1 (k) The precautionary area Dangan Channel No.1 is bounded by a line connecting the


(4) 22°06′.92N, 114°20′.55E

(5) 22°08′.02N, 114°20′.55E (8) 22°06′.31N, 114°20′.55E (1) 22°07′.42N, 114°20′.55E (17) 22°06′.19N, 114°22′.70E

Precautionary area Dangan Channel No.2 (l) The precautionary area Dangan Channel No.2 is bounded by a line connecting the


(12) 22°07′.40N, 114°11′.77E

(19) 22°08′.91N, 114°14′.16E (16) 22°06′.80N, 114°11′.77E (20) 22°08′.91N, 114°12′.04E (7) 22°06′.60N, 114°15′.31E (13) 22°08′.51N, 114°11′.77E (3) 22°07′.21N, 114°15′.31E (9) 22°07′.90N, 114°11′.77E (2) 22°07′.71N, 114°15′.31E

(m) The light vessel in precautionary area No.2 is located at the following geographical

position: (21) 22°07′.61N, 114°13′.54E

Note: Recommended directions of traffic flow in precautionary area Dangan Channel No.2

are established.



"IN THE VICINITY OF KATTEGAT"

(Reference chart: Danish paper chart No.100, edition 10, October 2017; Swedish paper chart No 92, edition 12, March 2015, issued by Hydrographic Offices of Denmark and Sweden. Note: These charts are based on World Geodetic System 1984 Datum (WGS 84).) Description of the traffic separation scheme "Skagen West" (a) A separation zone is bounded by a line connecting the following geographical

positions:

(1) 57°50′.47 N, 010°33′.32 E (3) 57°49′.50 N, 010°36′.66 E (2) 57°50′.47 N, 010°37′.06 E (4) 57°49′.50 N, 010°32′.92 E

(b) A separation zone is bounded by a line connecting the following geographical

positions:

(5) 57°47′.84 N, 010°32′.24 E (7) 57°47′.45 N, 010°35′.82 E (6) 57°47′.84 N, 010°35′.98 E (8) 57°47′.45 N, 010°32′.08 E

(c) A traffic lane for eastbound traffic is established between the separation zones

described in paragraphs (a) and (b). (d) A traffic lane for westbound traffic is established between the separation zone

described in paragraph (a) and a line connecting the following geographical positions:

(9) 57°52′.13 N, 010°34′.00 E (10) 57°52′.13 N, 010°37′.74 E Description of the traffic separation scheme "Skagen East" (e) A separation zone is bounded by a line connecting the following geographical

positions:

(11) 57°48′.39 N, 010°53′.49 E (13) 57°46′.58 N, 010°55′.35 E (12) 57°46′.93 N, 010°56′.03 E (14) 57°48′.05 N, 010°52′.81 E

(f) A separation zone is bounded by a line connecting the following geographical

positions:

(15) 57°46′.70 N, 010°50′.06 E (18) 57°46′.40 N, 010°49′.30 E (16) 57°45′.23 N, 010°52′.61 E (19) 57°46′.72 N, 010°49′.34 E (17) 57°44′.89 N, 010°51′.93 E

(g) A traffic lane for eastbound traffic is established between the separation zones

described in paragraphs (e) and (f). (h) A traffic lane for westbound traffic is established between the separation zone

described in paragraph (e) and a line connecting the following geographical positions:

(20) 57°49′.75 N, 010°56′.23 E (21) 57°48′.29 N, 010°58′.77 E



Description of the inshore traffic zone "at Skagen" (i) The area bounded by a line connecting the following geographical positions is

designated as an inshore traffic zone:

(27) 57°44′.06 N, 010°32′.08 E (23) 57°47′.64 N, 010°44′.10 E (8) 57°47′.45 N, 010°32′.08 E (24) 57°46′.83 N, 010°45′.50 E (7) 57°47′.45 N, 010°35′.82 E (25) 57°42′.24 N, 010°44′.92 E (22) 57°47′.66 N, 010°35′.90 E (26) 57°42′.23 N, 010°33′.11 E

Description of the precautionary area "off Skagen" (j) A precautionary area is established by a line connecting the following geographical

positions:

(10) 57°52′.13 N, 010°37′.74 E (24) 57°46′.83 N, 010°45′.50 E (28) 57°52′.13 N, 010°52′.07 E (23) 57°47′.64 N, 010°44′.10 E (20) 57°49′.75 N, 010°56′.23 E (22) 57°47′.66 N, 010°35′.90 E (15) 57°46′.70 N, 010°50′.06 E

Description of the traffic separation scheme "Fladen" (k) A separation zone is bounded by a line connecting the following geographical

positions:

(29) 57°14′.68 N, 011°51′.37 E (32) 57°13′.05 N, 011°53′.11 E (30) 57°13′.81 N, 011°52′.85 E (33) 57°13′.66 N, 011°52′.56 E (31) 57°13′.12 N, 011°53′.49 E (34) 57°14′.53 N, 011°51′.08 E

(l) A traffic lane for southbound traffic is established between the separation zone

described in paragraph (k) and a line connecting the following geographical positions:

(35) 57°13′.80 N, 011°49′.62 E (37) 57°12′.72 N, 011°51′.22 E (36) 57°12′.93 N, 011°51′.10 E

(m) A traffic lane for northbound traffic is established between the separation zone

described in paragraph (k) and a line connecting the following geographical positions:

(38) 57°15′.41 N, 011°52′.83 E (40) 57°13′.47 N, 011°55′.37 E (39) 57°14′.54 N, 011°54′.31 E

Description of the traffic separation scheme "Lilla Middelgrund" (n) A separation zone is bounded by a line connecting the following geographical

positions:

(41) 56°56′.40 N, 012°04′.49 E (43) 56°55′.04 N, 012°03′.99 E (42) 56°55′.27 N, 012°05′.20 E (44) 56°56′.17 N, 012°03′.28 E

(o) A traffic lane for southbound traffic is established between the separation zone described in paragraph (n) and a line connecting the following geographical positions:

(45) 56°55′.73 N, 012°01′.01 E (46) 56°54′.61 N, 012°01′.72 E



(p) A traffic lane for northbound traffic is established between the separation zone described in paragraph (n) and a line connecting the following geographical positions:

(47) 56°56′.83 N, 012°06′.77 E (48) 56°55′.71 N, 012°07′.45 E

Description of the traffic separation scheme "Entrance to the Sound"

(q) A separation zone is bounded by a line connecting the following geographical positions: (49) 56°10′.92 N, 012°24′.95 E (51) 56°09′.19 N, 012°27′.23 E (50) 56°09′.33 N, 012°27′.46 E (52) 56°10′.16 N, 012°25′.23 E

(r) A separation zone is bounded by a line connecting the following geographical

positions:

(53) 56°09′.93 N, 012°23′.20 E (55) 56°08′.40 N, 012°25′.86 E (54) 56°08′.54 N, 012°26′.11 E (56) 56°09′.78 N, 012°22′.94 E

(s) A separation zone is bounded by a line connecting the following geographical

positions:

(57) 56°11′.38 N, 012°27′.73 E (60) 56°09′.99 N, 012°28′.58 E (58) 56°10′.61 N, 012°28′.09 E (61) 56°10′.50 N, 012°27′.77 E (59) 56°10′.13 N, 012°28′.82 E (62) 56°11′.32 N, 012°27′.39 E

(t) A traffic lane for southbound traffic is established between the separation zones

described in paragraphs (q) and (r). (u) A traffic lane for northbound traffic is established between the separation zones

described in paragraphs (q) and (s). Description of the inshore traffic zone "Entrance to the Sound West"

(v) The area bounded by a line connecting the following geographical positions is designated as an inshore traffic zone:

(63) 56°07′.71 N, 012°16′.76 E (55) 56°08′.40 N, 012°25′.86 E (56) 56°09′.78 N, 012°22′.94 E (64) 56°06′.38 N, 012°22′.38 E

Description of the inshore traffic zone "Entrance to the Sound East"

(w) The area bounded by a line connecting the following geographical positions is designated as an inshore traffic zone:

(66) 56°11′.67 N, 012°33′.26 E (57) 56°11′.38 N, 012°27′.73 E (59) 56°10′.13 N, 012°28′.82 E (65) 56°13′.67 N, 012°32′.29 E (58) 56°10′.61 N, 012°28′.09 E

***



ANNEX 2

ROUTEING MEASURES OTHER THAN TRAFFIC SEPARATION SCHEME

AMENDED4 AREAS TO BE AVOIDED "OFF THE COAST OF GHANA IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN"

(ref. SN.1/Circ.333) (Reference charts: British Admiralty 595, edition 3; 1383, edition 4; and 3100, edition 1. Note: These charts are based on World Geodetic System 1984 Datum (WGS 84).) Description of the areas to be avoided Excepting ships authorized by the Ghana Maritime Authority, all ships should avoid following two areas within a radius of 5 nautical miles each centred on the following geographical positions:

04°32'.10 N, 002°54'.60 W;

04°35'.34 N, 003°08'.40 W; and

should avoid following area within a radius of 4 nautical miles centred on the following geographical position:

04°28'.16 N, 02°33'.20 W

NEW RECOMMENDED DIRECTIONS OF TRAFFIC FLOW WITHIN THE PRECAUTIONARY AREA "DANGAN CHANNEL NO.2"

(Reference charts: Chinese charts 83001 and 84001, 2nd edition, 2015. Note: These charts are based on World Geodetic System 1984 datum (WGS 84).) Description of the precautionary area with the recommended directions of traffic flow The precautionary area Dangan Channel No.2 with recommended directions of traffic flow counter-clockwise surrounding the light vessel located at (21) 22°07′.61N, 114°13′.54E is established in the Dangan Channel Traffic Separation Schemes, formed by a line connecting the following geographical positions:

(6) 22°08′.31N, 114°15′.31E (12) 22°07′.40N, 114°11′.77E (19) 22°08′.91N, 114°14′.16E (16) 22°06′.80N, 114°11′.77E (20) 22°08′.91N, 114°12′.04E (7) 22°06′.60N, 114°15′.31E (13) 22°08′.51N, 114°11′.77E (3) 22°07′.21N, 114°15′.31E (9) 22°07′.90N, 114°11′.77E (2) 22°07′.71N, 114°15′.31E

4 New insertions are grey shaded.



NEW DEEP-WATER ROUTES, RECOMMENDED ROUTES AND PRECAUTIONARY AREA

"IN THE VICINITY OF KATTEGAT"

(Reference chart: Danish paper chart No 100, edition 10, October 2017; Swedish paper chart No 92, edition 12, March 2015, issued by the Hydrographic Offices of Denmark and Sweden.

Note: These charts are based on World Geodetic System 1984 Datum (WGS 84).)

Description of the deep-water route "Kattegat North" (a) A deep-water route with a minimum depth of 19 metres, recommended for ships with

a draught of 10 metres or more, is bounded by a line connecting the following geographical positions:

(67) 57°11′.26 N, 011°38′.89 E

(69) 56°52′.96 N, 011°46′.96 E

(68) 56°53′.59 N, 011°50′.26 E (70) 57°10′.63 N, 011°35′.57 E Note: Northbound traffic not restricted by their draught are recommended to use the area east of the deep-water route. Southbound traffic not restricted by their draught are recommended to use the area west of the deep-water route.

Description of the deep-water route "Kattegat South" (b) A deep-water route with a minimum depth of 19 metres, recommended for ships with

a draught of 10 metres or more, is bounded by a line connecting the following geographical positions:

(71) 56°22′.10 N, 011°29′.14 E

(73) 56°17′.60 N, 011°23′.02 E

(72) 56°17′.26 N, 011°24′.12 E (74) 56°22′.44 N, 011°28′.05 E Note: Northbound traffic not restricted by their draught are recommended to use the area east of the deep-water route. Southbound traffic not restricted by their draught are recommended to use the area west of the deep-water route.

Description of the precautionary area "at Kummel Bank" (c) A precautionary area is established by a line connecting the following geographical

positions:

(75) 57°31'.77 N, 011°27'.42 E

(78) 57°27'.01 N, 011°23'.74 E (76) 57°27'.63 N, 011°34'.57 E (79) 57°28'.65 N, 011°20'.95 E (77) 57°24'.61 N, 011°25'.81 E

Description of the recommended route A (d) Recommended route A is established from the west coast of Denmark off Hanstholm

harbour to the traffic separation scheme "Skagen West" with a central line between the following geographical positions:

(80) 57°22′.57 N, 008°22′.32 E

(82) 57°49′.48 N, 010°16′.04 E

(81) 57°48′.32 N, 009°37′.18 E (83) 57°49′.99 N, 010°33′.12 E



Description of the recommended route B (e) Recommended route B is established from the west coast of Denmark off Hanstholm

harbour joining recommended route A described in paragraph (d) with a central line between the following geographical positions:

(84) 57°13′.26 N, 008°30′.99 E

(82) 57°49′.48 N, 010°16′.04 E

Description of the recommended route T (f) Recommended route T, the route between Skagen and the Great Belt and

recommended for:

a) all traffic between Skagen and the Great Belt; and

b) ships with a draught of 10 metres or more proceeding to and from the entrance to the Sound,

is established:

i between the traffic separation scheme "Skagen East" and the precautionary area "at Kummel Bank" described in paragraph (c) with a central line between the following geographical positions:

(85) 57°46′.76 N, 010°55′.70 E

(86) 57°30′.26 N, 011°24′.29 E

ii between the precautionary area "at Kummel Bank" described in paragraph

(c) and the deep-water route "Kattegat North" described in paragraph (a) with a central line between the following geographical positions:

(87) 57°25′.36 N, 011°27′.98 E

(88) 57°10′.95 N, 011°37′.23 E

iii between the deep-water routes "Kattegat North" described in paragraph (a)

and "Kattegat South" described in paragraph (b) with a central line between the following geographical positions:

(89) 56°53′.28 N, 011°48′.61 E

(91) 56°22′.27 N, 011°28′.59 E

(90) 56°43′.70 N, 011°54′.68 E

iv from the deep-water route "Kattegat South" described in paragraph (b) and joining the nationally implemented Route T north of the traffic separation scheme "at Hatter Barn" with a central line between the following geographical positions:

(92) 56°17′.45 N, 011°23′.52 E

(93) 56°10′.48 N, 011°16′.37 E



Description of the recommended route S (g) Recommended route S, the route between Skagen and the entrance to the Sound

and recommended for ships with a draught of 10 metres or less, is established:

i between the precautionary area "at Kummel Bank" described in paragraph (c) and the traffic separation scheme "Fladen" with a central line between the following geographical positions:

(94) 57°26′.39 N, 011°30′.98 E

(95) 57°14′.60 N, 011°51′.22 E

ii between the traffic separation schemes "Fladen" and "Lilla Middelgrund" with

a central line between the following geographical positions:

(96) 57°13′.09 N, 011°53′.30 E

(97) 56°56′.29 N, 012°03′.89 E

iii between the traffic separation schemes "Lilla Middelgrund" and "Entrance to the Sound" with a central line between the following geographical positions:

(98) 56°55′.16 N, 012°04′.59 E

(49) 56°10′.92 N, 012°24′.95 E

TWO-WAY ROUTES, PRECAUTIONARY AREAS AND AREAS TO BE AVOIDED "IN THE BERING SEA AND BERING STRAIT"

(Reference charts: See table below. Note: All geographical positions are based on World Geodetic System 1984 Datum (WGS 84).) Note: These routeing measures are recommended for ships of 400 gross tonnage and upwards. Description of the two-way routes and precautionary areas Six (6) recommendatory two-way routes and six (6) precautionary areas are established in the Bering Sea and Bering Strait. A list of the geographical coordinates of the two way routes and precautionary areas is provided below. (a) A precautionary area "A" is established, the waters contained within a circle of radius

4.00 miles centred at geographical position 58°45'.00 N, 167°27'.81 W.

(b) A two-way route, connecting with precautionary area "A" and precautionary area "B", is established between the following geographical positions: (1) 58°48'.91 N 167°26'.26 W (7) 64°55'.19 N 168° 27'.77 W (2) 60°10'.86 N 168°19'.58 W (8) 63°29'.57 N 167° 42'.57 W (3) 61°29'.47 N 167°35'.89 W (9) 62°25'.26 N 167° 11'.99 W (4) 62°25'.14 N 167°03'.13 W (10) 61°30'.52 N 167° 43'.95 W (5) 63°30'.44 N 167°33'.86 W (11) 60°10'.74 N 168° 27'.94 W (6) 64°56'.08 N 168°18'.60 W (12) 58°47'.65 N 167° 33'.56 W



(c) A precautionary area "B" is established, which is bounded by a line connecting the following geographical positions: (6) 64°56'.08 N 168°18'.60 W (16) 65°02'.60 N 168°37'.28 W (13) 64°59',22 N 168°20'.29 W (17) 64°58'.14 N 168°29'.36 W (14) 65°05'.00 N 168°20'.30 W (7) 64°55'.19 N 168°27'.77 W (15) 65°05'.00 N 168°29'.75 W

thence back to the point of beginning (6).

(d) A two-way route, connecting with precautionary area "B" and precautionary area "C",

is established between the following geographical positions: (14) 65°05'.00 N 168°20'.30 W (19) 66°26'.57 N 168°29'.75 W (18) 66°26'.57 N 168°20'.30 W (15) 65°05'.00 N 168°29'.75 W

(e) A precautionary area "C" is established, the waters contained within a circle of radius

4.00 miles centred at geographical position 66°30'.00 N, 168°25'.00 W.

(f) A two-way route, connecting with precautionary area "C" and precautionary area "D", is established between the following geographical positions:

(20) 66°30'.64 N 168°34'.79 W (22) 66° 20'.83 N 169°11'.21 W (21) 66°24'.59 N 169°14'.72 W (23) 66° 26'.90 N 168°31'.34 W

(g) A precautionary area "D" is established, the waters contained within a circle of radius

4.00 miles centred at geographical position 66°21'.50 N, 169°21'.00 W. (h) A two-way route, connecting with precautionary area "D" and precautionary area "E",

is established between the following geographical positions: (24) 66°18'.05 N 169°16'.11 W (26) 65°56'.20 N 169°25'.87 W (25) 66°18'.05 N 169°25'.87 W (27) 65°56'.20 N 169°16'.11 W

(i) A precautionary area "E" is established, which is bounded by a line connecting the

following geographical positions: (26) 65°56'.20 N 169°25'.87 W (29) 65°45'.52 N 169°25'.87 W (27) 65°56'.20 N 169°16'.11 W (30) 65°47'.69 N 169°34'.01 W (28) 65°45'.52 N 169°16'.11 W (31) 65°52'.82 N 169°25'.87 W

thence back to the point of beginning (26).

(j) A two-way route, connecting with precautionary area "E" and precautionary area "B",

is established between the following geographical positions: (28) 65°45'.52 N 169°16'.11 W (16) 65°02'.60 N 168°37'.28 W (29) 65°45'.52 N 169°25'.87 W (15) 65°05'.00 N 168°29'.75 W (32) 65°29'.65 N 169°25'.87 W (33) 65°30'.71 N 169°16'.11 W



(k) A two-way route, connecting with precautionary area "E" and precautionary area "F", is established between the following geographical positions: (29) 65°45'.52 N 169°25'.87 W (34) 64°28'.31 N 171°36'.35 W (30) 65°47'.69 N 169°34'.01 W (35) 64°26'.14 N 171°28'.60 W

(l) A precautionary area "F" is established, the waters contained within a circle of

radius 4.00 miles centred at geographical position 64°24'.36 N, 171°36'.61W. Description of the areas to be avoided Three (3) recommendatory areas to be avoided are established in the Bering Sea. (m) Nunivak Island

An area to be avoided is established bounded by a line connecting the following geographical positions:

(1) 60° 17'.05 N 167° 37'.80 W (4) 59° 32'.80 N 165° 28'.80 W (2) 59° 54'.89 N 167° 40'.98 W (5) 60° 39'.86 N 165° 41'.70 W (3) 59° 41'.44 N 166° 49'.08 W

thence back to point (1). (n) King Island

(6) 65° 03'.12 N 168° 19'.56 W (8) 64° 53'.54 N 167° 46'.98 W (7) 64° 51'.01 N 168° 14'.82 W (9) 65° 05'.53 N 167° 52'.92 W

thence back to point (6).

(o) St. Lawrence Island

(10) 63° 08'.57 N 173° 31'.02 W (14) 63° 17'.99 N 168° 12'.54 W (11) 62° 44'.38 N 168° 58'.32 W (15) 63° 59'.95 N 171° 06'.18 W (12) 62° 46'.14 N 168° 21'.24 W (16) 63° 54'.80 N 171° 50'.94 W (13) 63° 01'.78 N 168° 04'.38 W

thence back to point (10).



Reference charts (Names, numbers and edition)

Name Type Title Producer Nav. purpose (Scale)

Issue Date

RU2O9091 SENC Chukchi Sea and Bearing Sea Chukotskiy Peninsula Senyavin

Strait to Netten Point

DNO5 General 1:700000

3-12-2016

RU3O90B9 SENC Bering Sea - Chukotskiy Peninsula – Ulakhpen Point to

Penkigngey Bay

DNO Coastal 1:180000

26-2-2011

RU3OE090 SENC Bering Sea – Chukotskiy Peninsula Nygchigen Point to

Litke Point


28-5-2011

RU3OH0B0 SENC Chukchi Sea. Chukotskiy Peninsula. Dzhenretlen Point to

Dezhnyoy Point.


7-4-2007

RU4OH1S0 SENC Bering Sea- Bering Strait – Diomede Islands – Approaches

to Ratmanov Island

DNO Approach 1:22000

28-5-2011

US1BS03M SENC Bering Sea Northern Part NOS6 Overview 1:3500000

31-5-2017

US2AK92M SENC Cape Prince of Wales to Pt. Barrow

NOS General 1:700000

3-8-2017

US2AK95M SENC Bering Sea-eastern part NOS General 1:1534076

3-8-2017

US3AK80M SENC Norton Sound Golovnin Bay NOS Coastal 1:350000

30-5-2017

US3AK89M SENC Bering Sea St. Lawrence Island to Bering Strait

NOS Coastal 1:315350

30-5-2017

US4AK81M SENC Port Clarence and Approaches NOS Approach 1:100000

27-4-2016

US4AK8DM SENC Bering Strait North NOS Approach 1:100000

30-5-2017

***

5 Russian Head Department of Navigation & Oceanography. 6 United States Office of Coast Survey National Ocean Service. National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration.



ANNEX 3

(ENGLISH ONLY)

DRAFT AMENDMENT TO THE CONTINUITY OF THE SERVICE PLAN FOR THE LRIT SYSTEM

(MSC.1/Circ.1376/Rev.2) Paragraph 3.14 is amended as follows:

"3.14 If the IDE does not receive eight (8) consecutive System status messages from a specific DC or the DDP server, or receives eight (8) consecutive System status messages with SystemStatus value "1" (not able to provide functionality) or an incorrect DDP version number, or if the IDE cannot successfully send eight (8) consecutive System status messages to a specific DC or the DDP server due to problem at the receiving end, and there has been no scheduled or unscheduled notification or advisory notice posted on the IDE Administrative interface by the DC concerned or the DDP server, then the IDE operator should post an advisory notice to the IDE Administrative interface and follow the procedures specified in paragraph 3.12 above. Upon notification, the DC concerned or the DDP server should follow the procedures specified in paragraph 3.9 above."

***



ANNEX 4

(ENGLISH ONLY)

DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE LRIT TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION (PARTS I and II)

MSC.1/Circ.1259/Rev.7, annex, annex 3 1 In "Table 1: Summary of LRIT message", the row with entry "6" under column "Type" is amended as follows:

Type Name Description/Purpose

LRIT request messages

6 SURPIC request

Request by a Contracting Government or a SAR service for the provision of the most recent position reports or the archived position reports already in a DC's database, within a specific geographical area.

2 Paragraphs 2.2.4.4 and 2.2.4.12 are amended as follows:

"2.2.4.4 This message requests the most recent LRIT information and the archived LRIT information from the databases within the DCs. It is intended to provide Coastal and SAR LRIT Data users with the ability to obtain a picture of the ships in a given geographical area. Coastal LRIT Data users have the option to request LRIT information only from certain ships by indicating the type of ship and/or the LRIT ID of the Contracting Government the LRIT information is requested from. 2.2.4.12 The NumberOfPositions parameter defines how many of the most recent position reports were received by a DC during the past 24 h from ships within the requested geographical area being requested by the LRIT Data User. The NumberOfPositions is not a valid parameter when AccessType is 1 and RequestType is 7. The NumberOfPositions value must be from 1 to 4. Once a DC has received a SURPIC request message, it should check all position reports it has received during the past 24 h from every ship registered to that DC. If the timestamp associated with these position reports are within the past 24 h and the position reports are within the geographical area established by the SURPIC message, then the DC should send the last N position reports associated with the ship that are within the past 24-h window and in the geographical area. Thus all the position reports that are sent to the requesting DC should have timestamps that are within the past 24 h window as well as location coordinates that are within the geographical area."

3 The following paragraphs are added after existing paragraph 2.2.4.17:

"2.2.4.18 The RequestDuration parameter provides information on the start and stop time for tracking of a ship. If the RequestType is 7, then the RequestDuration is a valid parameter. The start and stop time must be specified. The start time should precede the stop time. The RequestDuration for an archived request should not exceed 72 hours.



2.2.4.19 The RequestType parameter should indicate whether the request is for: archived data or most recent position report. The RequestType is not a valid parameter when Access Type is 6. 2.2.4.20 The Start Time from the RequestDuration parameter should not exceed 180 days from the TimeStamp parameter. If the Start Time exceeds 180 days, then the DC should reply with a Receipt Message with Receipt Code 7. 2.2.4.21 In order to prevent any possible overload of the LRIT system, it is recommended that LRIT Data Users do not send more than three SURPIC requests with Request Type 7 within any 24 hours."

4 In "Table 4: Summary of SURPIC request (Message 6)", the row with entry "NumberOfPositions" under column "Parameter" is amended and two new rows are added as follows:

Parameter provided by

Parameter Value Description LRIT system communication segments (see figure 1)

Processed format (see paragraph 2.2.1.3)

NumberOfPositions

1, 2, 3, 4 The number of position reports received from ships within the area during the past 24 h that the LRIT Data User C, D wishes to receive. This parameter is not valid for Request Type "7" with Access Type "1".

C, D n

RequestDuration Start time and stop time

START refers to the time when LRIT position reports are requested to begin. STOP refers to the end time for receiving LRIT reports. This parameter is only valid for Request Type "7" with Access Type "1".

B, C, D xs:dateTime



RequestType 7, 9 Request type: 7 – Archived LRIT information request 9 – Most recent LRIT information request

B, C, D

n

5 MSC.1/Circ.1259/Rev.7, annex, annex 6 is amended as follows:

Annex 6 XML SCHEMAS

LRIT XML Resources ReadMe file =========================

Release version: 2.0 2.1 Release Date: 22 Oct 2014 20 Sep 2017

XSDs --------- File Version Date --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SURPICrequest.xsd 2.0 2.1 22 Oct 2014 20 Sep 2017

6 The following text is added under "Changelog" after the log for "22 Oct 2014 – Release Version 2.0":

"20 Sep 2017 – Release Version 2.1 ------------------------------------------ *Update to SURPICrequest.xsd to: - Add Request Duration element with start time and end time."

7 The SURPICRequest.xsd file is amended as follows:

SURPICRequest.xsd file  <xs:schema version="2.0" targetNamespace="http://gisis.imo.org/XML/LRIT/surpicRequest/2014" xmlns="http://gisis.imo.org/XML/LRIT/surpicRequest/2014" xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:lrit="http://gisis.imo.org/XML/LRIT/types/2008" elementFormDefault="qualified"> <xs:import namespace="http://gisis.imo.org/XML/LRIT/types/2008" schemaLocation="Types.xsd"/> <xs:simpleType name="messageTypeType"> <xs:restriction base="xs:integer"> <xs:enumeration value="6"/>



</xs:restriction> </xs:simpleType> <xs:simpleType name="accessTypeType"> <xs:restriction base="xs:integer"> <xs:enumeration value="1"/> <xs:enumeration value="6"/> </xs:restriction> </xs:simpleType> <xs:simpleType name="requestTypeType"> <xs:restriction base="xs:integer"> <xs:enumeration value="7"/> <xs:enumeration value="9"/> </xs:restriction> </xs:simpleType> <xs:complexType name="requestDurationType"> <xs:attribute name="startTime" type="xs:dateTime" use="optional"/> <xs:attribute name="stopTime" type="xs:dateTime" use="optional"/> </xs:complexType> <xs:simpleType name="circularAreaType"> <xs:restriction base="xs:string"> <xs:pattern value="()|((([0-8][0-9]\.[0-5][0-9]\.[nNsS])|(90\.00\.[nNsS])):(([0-1][0-7][0-9]\.[0-5][0-9]\.[eEwW])|([0][8-9][0-9]\.[0-5][0-9]\.[eEwW])|(180\.00\.[eEwW])):([0-9]{3}))"/> </xs:restriction> </xs:simpleType> <xs:simpleType name="rectangularAreaType"> <xs:restriction base="xs:string"> <xs:pattern value="()|(([0-8][0-9]\.[0-5][0-9]\.[nNsS])|(90\.00\.[nNsS])):(([0-1][0-7][0-9]\.[0-5][0-9]\.[eEwW])|([0][8-9][0-9]\.[0-5][0- 9]\.[eEwW])|(180\.00\.[eEwW])):(([0-8][0-9]\.[0-5][0-9]\.[nN])|(90\.00\.[nN])):(([0-1][0-7][0-9]\.[0-5][0-9]\.[eE])|([0][8-9][0-9]\.[0-5][0-9]\.[eE])|(180\.00\.[eE]))"/> </xs:restriction> </xs:simpleType> <xs:simpleType name="numberOfPositionsType"> <xs:restriction base="xs:integer"> <xs:minInclusive value="1"/> <xs:maxInclusive value="4"/> </xs:restriction> </xs:simpleType> <xs:element name="SURPICRequest"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="MessageType" type="messageTypeType"/> <xs:element name="MessageId" type="lrit:msgIDType"/> <xs:element name="AccessType"



type="accessTypeType"/> <xs:element name="DataUserProvider" type="lrit:lritIDType" minOccurs="0"/> <xs:choice> <xs:element name="CircularArea" type="circularAreaType"/> <xs:element name="RectangularArea" type="rectangularAreaType"/> </xs:choice> <xs:element name="ShipTypes" minOccurs="0"> <xs:simpleType> <xs:list itemType="lrit:shipTypeType"/> </xs:simpleType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="NumberOfPositions" type="numberOfPositionsType" minOccurs="0"/> <xs:element name="DataUserRequestor" type="lrit:lritIDType"/> <xs:element name="RequestType" type="requestTypeType" minOccurs="0"/> <xs:element name="RequestDuration" type="requestDurationType" minOccurs="0"/> <xs:element name="TimeStamp" type="xs:dateTime"/> <xs:element name="DDPVersionNum" type="lrit:ddpVersionNumType"/> </xs:sequence> <xs:attribute name="test" type="lrit:testType" use="optional" default="0"/> <xs:attribute name="schemaVersion" type="xs:decimal" use="required"/> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> </xs:schema>



MSC.1/Circ.1294/Rev.5, annex Appendix 2-C

LRIT DATA CENTRE TEST PROCEDURES AND CASES

Test procedures and cases for the third Modification testing

Test procedures DC-21.0

Test cases DC-21.1 to DC-21.5

Test REF Case Expect results Test type

Environment Required before

entering

Required during

Certification

Pass/ Fail

DC-21.1

PS:7.4 TS3:2.2.4 TS3:2.3.5

DC1 receives an Archived Coastal SURPIC Request Message with a specified geographical area and there are positions compliant with coastal entitlement within the specified duration inside the area.

DC1 sends all archived position reports within the specified duration for all ships that are located within the specified geographical area and compliant with the Coastal entitlement.

F Test Production

Yes N/A

Yes No

Internal N/A

DC-21.2

PS:7.4 TS3:2.2.4 TS3:2.3.5

DC1 receives an Archived Coastal SURPIC Request message and a specified geographical area outside the Coastal entitlement.

DC1 sends a Receipt Message (Message Type 7) with Receipt code 13 to the requestor.

F Test Production

Yes N/A

Yes No

Internal N/A

Test REF Test procedure Pass/Fail

DC-21.0 PS:7.4 TS3:2.2.4 TS3:2.3.5

DC1 receives an Archived Coastal SURPIC request sent by another DC. Communication paths specified in parentheses for each test case. All parameters associated with each message should be valid unless specified otherwise in a given test case.





entering

Required during

Certification

Pass/ Fail

DC-21.3

PS:7.4 TS3:2.2.4 TS3:2.3.5

DC1 receives an Archived Coastal SURPIC Request Message with a specified geographical area inside the Coastal entitlement and there are no positions within the specified duration inside the area.


F Test Production

Yes N/A

Yes No

Internal N/A

DC-21.4

PS:7.4 TS3:2.2.4 TS3:2.3.5

DC1 receives an Archived Coastal SURPIC Request Message, a specified geographical area part inside and part outside the Coastal entitlement and there are no positions within the specified duration inside the area that is within the Coastal entitlement.


F

F

Test Production

Yes N/A

Yes No

Internal N/A

DC-21.5

PS:7.4 TS3:2.2.4 TS3:2.3.5

DC1 receives an Archived Coastal SURPIC Request Message, filtering set to receive only ShipType=A and Flag=Z, a specified geographical area inside the Coastal entitlement (Flag Z is associated with DC1). Inside the area, there are ship positions of ShipType=A and ShipType=B of Flag=Z within the specified duration.

DC1 sends only the ship position of the ShipType=A and Flag=Z. These positions must be within the specified duration and all ships should be located within the specified geographical area and compliant with the Coastal entitlement.

F F

Test Production

Yes N/A

Yes No

Internal N/A



Test procedures DC-22.0


DC-22.0 PS: 7.4 TS3: 2.2.4 TS3:2.3.5

DC1 sends an Archived Coastal SURPIC Request to another DC(s) (D). Communication paths are specified in parentheses for each test case. All parameters associated with each message should be valid unless specified otherwise in a given test case.

Test cases DC-22.1 to DC-22.2



entering

Required during

Certification Pass/ Fail

DC-22.1

PS: 7.4 TS3: 2.2.4 TS3:2.3.5

DC1 sends an Archived Coastal SURPIC Request Message, filtering set to receive only ShipType=A and ShipType=B and DataUserProvider=M (Flag M is associated with DC2) for a geographical area inside the Coastal entitlement.

DC2 verifies that DC1 has sent an Archived Coastal SURPIC request message with valid parameters.

F Test Production

Yes N/A

Yes No

Internal N/A

DC-22.2

PS: 7.4 TS3: 2.2.4 TS3:2.3.5

DC1 sends an Archived Coastal SURPIC Request Message, filtering set to receive only ShipType=A with unspecified DataUserProvider for a geographical area inside the Coastal entitlement.

DC2 verifies that DC1 has sent an Archived Coastal SURPIC request message with valid parameters.

F Test Production

Yes N/A

Yes No

Internal N/A



Appendix 3-C

INTERNATIONAL LRIT DATA EXCHANGE TEST PROCEDURES AND CASES Test procedures and cases for the third Modification testing

Test procedures IDE-14.0


IDE-14.0 PS: 10.3.1 to PS: 10.3.4 PS: 10.3.7 to PS: 10.3.11 PS: 12.1 TS1: 2.1.1 TS1: 3.2.1 TS3: 2.1.2 TS3: 2.2.4 TS3: 2.3.1 TS3: 2.3.5

IDE receives an Archived Coastal SURPIC request from DC1 and routes the message, as appropriate. Communication paths are specified in parentheses for each test case. All parameters associated with each message should be valid unless specified otherwise in a given test case.

Test cases IDE-14.1 to IDE-14.3

Test REF Case Expected results Test type

Environment Required before entering

Required during

Certification

Pass/ Fail

IDE-14.1 PS: 10.3.1 to PS: 10.3.4 PS: 10.3.7 to PS: 10.3.11 PS: 12.1 TS1: 2.1.1 TS1: 3.2.1 TS3: 2.1.2 TS3: 2.2.4

IDE receives a valid Archived Coastal SURPIC request with DataUserProvider=M (Flag M is associated with DC2).

Message is stored in Journal, IDE routes position request to DC2.

F Test Production

No N/A

Yes No

External N/A



TS3: 2.3.1 TS3: 2.3.5


IDE receives a valid Archived Coastal SURPIC request and the Data User Provider is unspecified.

Message is stored in Journal, IDE routes position request to all DCs.

F Test Production

No N/A

Yes No

External N/A


IDE receives an Archived Coastal SURPIC with invalid Message parameter(s).

A SOAP Fault or Receipt Message with Receipt code 7 is sent with message text indicating the reason for rejection.

C Test Production

No N/A

Yes No

External N/A

***



ANNEX 5

DRAFT MSC RESOLUTION

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR SHIPBORNE INDIAN REGIONAL NAVIGATION SATELLITE SYSTEM (IRNSS)

RECEIVER EQUIPMENT

THE MARITIME SAFETY COMMITTEE, RECALLING Article 28(b) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Committee, RECALLING ALSO resolution A.886(21), by which the Assembly resolved that the function of adopting performance standards and technical specifications, as well as amendments thereto shall be performed by the Maritime Safety Committee and/or the Marine Environment Protection Committee, as appropriate, on behalf of the Organization, RECALLING FURTHER that, in accordance with resolution A.1046(27), containing the IMO policy for the recognition and acceptance of suitable radionavigation systems intended for international use, the Revised Report on the Study of a Worldwide Radionavigation System, the IRNSS satellite navigation system may be recognized as a possible component of the world-wide radionavigation system, NOTING that shipborne receiving equipment for the worldwide radionavigation system should be designed to satisfy the detailed requirements of the particular system concerned, RECOGNIZING the need to develop performance standards for shipborne IRNSS receiver equipment in order to ensure the operational reliability of such equipment and taking into account the technological progress and experience gained, HAVING CONSIDERED, at its [ninety-ninth session], the recommendation made by the Sub-Committee on Navigation, Communications and Search and Rescue, at its fifth session, 1 ADOPTS the performance standards for shipborne IRNSS receiver equipment, set out in the annex to the present resolution; 2 RECOMMENDS Governments to ensure that IRNSS receiver equipment installed on or after [1 July 2020] conforms to performance standards not inferior to those specified in the annex to the present resolution.



ANNEX

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR SHIPBORNE INDIAN REGIONAL NAVIGATION SATELLITE SYSTEM (IRNSS) RECEIVER EQUIPMENT

1 Introduction 1.1 IRNSS is a regional navigation satellite system compatible with other navigation satellite systems worldwide. The IRNSS is an independent regional system developed and operated by India which comprises of three major components: space segment, ground control segment and user terminals. The space segment is a constellation of seven satellites, of which four are geosynchronous earth orbit (GSO) satellites inclined at 29° to equatorial plane with longitude crossing as 55°E and 111.75°E (two satellites in each slot) and three are geostationary satellite orbit (GEO) satellites positioned at 32.5°E, 83°E, 129.5°E orbital slots. This geometry ensures that a minimum of five satellites are visible to users within service area with a position dilution of precision (PDOP) ≤ 6. Each satellite transmits standard positioning service signal on "L5" and "S" bands with carrier frequencies as 1176.45 MHz and 2492.028 MHz respectively. Standard positioning signals include ranging codes which could provide the open service. A navigation data message is superimposed on these codes. IRNSS satellites are identified by pseudo ranging noise (PRN) codes. 1.2 The IRNSS Standard Positioning Service (SPS) provides positioning, navigation and timing services, free of direct user charges. The IRNSS receiver equipment should be capable of receiving and processing the standard service signal. 1.3 IRNSS receiver equipment intended for navigation purposes on ships with a speed not exceeding 70 knots, in addition to the general requirements specified in resolution A.694(17)1, should comply with the following minimum performance requirements. 1.4 The standards cover the basic requirements of position fixing, determination of course over ground (COG), speed over ground (SOG) and timing, either for navigation purposes or as input to other functions. The standards do not cover other computational facilities which may be in the equipment nor cover the requirements for other systems that may take input from the IRNSS receiver. 1.5 It should be noted that this is the regional navigation satellite system being recognized as a future component of the World-Wide Radio Navigation System (WWRNS) and the service is limited to the following coverage area. Coverage area:

Area closed by 55°E Longitude, 50°N Latitude and 110°E Longitude, 5°S Latitude 2 IRNSS receiver equipment 2.1 The term "IRNSS receiver equipment" as used in the performance standards includes all the components and units necessary for the system to properly perform its intended functions. The IRNSS receiver equipment should include the following minimum facilities:

.1 antenna capable of receiving IRNSS signals;

1 Refer to publication IEC 60945.

If IRNSS forms part of an approved Integrated Navigation System (INS), requirements of 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.1.5 may be provided within the INS.



.2 IRNSS receiver and processor; .3 means of accessing the computed latitude/longitude position; .4 data control and interface; and .5 position display and, if required, other forms of output.

2.2 The antenna design should be suitable for fitting at a position on the ship which ensures a clear view of the satellite constellation, taking into consideration any obstructions that might exist on the ship. 3 Performance standards for IRNSS receiver equipment The IRNSS receiver equipment should:

.1 be capable of receiving and processing the IRNSS positioning and velocity, and timing signals, and should use the ionospheric model broadcast to the receiver by the constellation to generate ionospheric corrections;

.2 provide position information based upon WGS-84 coordinates and should be

in accordance with international standards2; .3 provide time referenced to universal time coordinated UTC; .4 be provided with at least two outputs from which position information, UTC,

course over ground (COG), speed over ground (SOG) and alarms can be supplied to other equipment. The output of UTC, course over ground (COG), speed over ground (SOG) and alarms should be consistent with the requirements of 3.16 and 3.18;

.5 have static accuracy such that the position of the antenna is determined to

be within 25 m horizontally (95%) and 30 m vertically (95%); .6 have dynamic accuracy equivalent to the static accuracy specified in 3.5

above under the normal sea states and motion experienced in ships3; .7 have position information in latitude and longitude in degrees, minutes and

thousandths of minutes with a position resolution equal to or better than 0.001 min of latitude and longitude;

.8 have timing accuracy such that time is determined within 100 ns of UTC; .9 be capable of selecting automatically the appropriate satellite-transmitted

signals to determine the ship's position and velocity, and time with the required accuracy and update rate;

.10 be capable of acquiring satellite signals with input signals having carrier

levels in the range of -137dBm to -127dBm. Once the satellite signals have been acquired, the equipment should continue to operate satisfactorily with satellite signals having carrier levels down to -140dBm;

2 Publication IEC 61162

3 Refer to resolution A.694 (17), publications IEC 6721-3-6 and IEC 60945



.11 be capable of operating satisfactorily under normal interference conditions consistent with the requirements of resolution A.694(17);

.12 be capable of acquiring position, velocity and time to the required accuracy

within 3 min where there is no valid almanac data; .13 be capable of acquiring position, velocity and time to the required accuracy

within 2 min where there is valid almanac data; .14 be capable of re-acquiring position, velocity and time to the required

accuracy within 1 min when there has been a service interruption of 60 s or less;

.15 generate and output to a display and digital interface4 a new position solution

at least once every 1 s for conventional craft and at least once every 0.5 s for high-speed craft;

.16 provide the COG, SOG and UTC outputs, with a validity mark aligned with

that on the position output. The accuracy requirements for COG and SOG should not be inferior to the relevant performance standards for heading5 and speed and distance measuring equipment (SDME)6 and the accuracy should be obtained under the various dynamic conditions that could be experienced on board ships;

.17 provide at least one normally closed contact, which should indicate failure of

the IRNSS receiver equipment; .18 have a bidirectional interface to facilitate communication so that alarms can

be transferred to external systems and so that audible alarms from the IRNSS receiver can be acknowledged from external systems; the interface should comply with the relevant international standards7; and

.19 have the facilities to process differential IRNSS (D-IRNSS) data fed to it in

accordance with the standards of ITU-R8 and the appropriate RTCM standard and provide indication of the reception of D-IRNSS signals and whether they are being applied to the ship's position. When an IRNSS receiver is equipped with a differential receiver, performance standards for static and dynamic accuracies (paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 above) should be 10 m (95%).

4 Integrity checking, failure warnings and status indications 4.1 The IRNSS receiver equipment should also indicate whether the performance of

IRNSS is outside the bounds of requirements for general navigation in the ocean, coastal, port approach and restricted waters, and inland waterway phases of the voyage as specified in either resolution A.1046(27) or appendix 2 to resolution A.915(22) and any subsequent amendments, as appropriate.

4 Conforming to the IEC 61162 series

5 Resolution A.424 (XI) for conventional craft and resolution A.821 (19) for high-speed craft 6 Resolution A.824(19) as amended by Resolution MSC 96(72) and MSC 334(90)

7 Publication IEC 61162

8 ITU-R Recommendations M.823



4.2 The IRNSS receiver equipment should, as a minimum: .1 provide a warning within 5 s of loss of position or if a new position based on

the information provided by the IRNSS constellation has not been calculated for more than 1 s for conventional craft and 0.5 s for high-speed craft. Under such conditions the last known position and the time of last valid fix, with the explicit indication of the state allowing for no ambiguity, should be output until normal operation is resumed;

.2 use receiver autonomous integrity monitoring (RAIM) to provide integrity

performance appropriate to the operation being undertaken; and .3 provide a self-test function.

5 Protection Precautions should be taken to ensure that no permanent damage can result from an accidental short circuit or grounding of the antenna or any of its input or output connections or any of the IRNSS receiver equipment inputs or outputs for a duration of five minutes.

***



ANNEX 6

DRAFT MSC CIRCULAR

INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR THE HARMONIZED DISPLAY OF NAVIGATION INFORMATION RECEIVED VIA COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT

1 The Maritime Safety Committee, at its [ninety-ninth session (MSC 99) (16 to 25 May 2018)], approved the Interim guidelines for the harmonized display of navigation information received via communication equipment, prepared by the Sub-Committee on Navigation, Communications and Search and Rescue at its fifth session (NCSR 5) (19 to 23 February 2018), as set out in the annex. 2 [MSC 99] noted the interrelated work on e-navigation currently undertaken by the NCSR Sub-Committee, particularly on the development of Guidance on the definition and harmonization of the format and structure of maritime services within the Maritime Service Portfolio (MSP) and the development of Guidance on the standard mode of operation, S-mode and confirms, in principle, on revising the annexed Interim Guidelines for the harmonized display of navigation information received via communication equipment once the aforementioned interrelated work has been completed. 3 Member Governments are invited to bring the Interim guidelines to the attention of all parties concerned.

***



ANNEX

INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR THE HARMONIZED DISPLAY OF NAVIGATION INFORMATION RECEIVED VIA COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT

1 Purpose 1.1 This document provides interim guidance on the display of navigation-related information received by communications equipment. It aims to ensure that information is displayed in an efficient, reliable and consistent format, in a manner that is easily interpreted to support decision-making. 1.2 These Guidelines supplement the Performance standards for the presentation of navigation- related information on shipborne navigational displays (resolution MSC.191(79)) in regard to the presentation of navigation information received via communication equipment. 1.3 The use of these Guidelines will ensure that navigation information received via communications equipment is displayed in a harmonized manner on the ships' navigational bridge. 2 Scope 2.1 The availability of electronic data that enhances the safe and efficient navigation of ships necessitates that shipborne systems capable of presenting this information to the user should do so in a harmonized and readily assimilated way. 2.2 This information will be presented to shipborne users through a combination of primary navigational displays, such as ECDIS, radar and INS, together with any additional display facilities that may be considered appropriate to assist the safe and efficient navigation of the ship. 2.3 Reception of Maritime Safety Information (MSI) by means of direct printing has always been an important part of the GMDSS. However, it is clear from user requirements, such as those gathered during the user needs analysis of e-navigation, that there is a need to portray such information in a harmonized way on appropriate navigation displays. 2.4 To ensure effective decision-making and safe navigation, the proper integration and presentation of information received via communication equipment is essential. 3 Application These Guidelines are applicable to the information obtained from, but not limited to, communications equipment defined in SOLAS. 4 General presentation requirements 4.1 Human-Centred Design (HCD)

.1 The type and volume of information displayed should be appropriate to the voyage phase and should not overload the user. Therefore, this Guideline should be read in conjunction with MSC.1/Circ.1512 in order to ensure that measures to prevent information overload take into account relevant human-centred design principles.



.2 The type and level of information displayed should complement the user's capabilities, and should take into consideration human factors principles as specified in section 5 (see MSC.1/Circ.1512, paragraph 6). Higher levels of integration mean that systems should be carefully evaluated to ensure that complexity and workload are compatible with the ability of the user (OOW).

.3 In designing systems and equipment that will incorporate navigation

information received via communications equipment, due consideration should be given for the ability of the operator to manage information. Any information received requires careful prioritization based on human-centred design principles.

.4 The receipt, display and use of navigation information received via

communications equipment should be tested by the user and incorporated into the HCD process.

.5 Navigation information received via communications equipment should be

manageable through the application of user preferences. The system should assist the user in reducing clutter and in enhancing situational awareness.

.6 The integration of navigation information received via communications

equipment should not distract from the user's primary task of maintaining the safe navigation of the ship.

4.2 Display of information

.1 Navigation information received via communications equipment should be displayed in a timely, unambiguous and harmonized manner.

.2 Navigation information received via communications equipment should be

displayed according to resolution MSC.191(79) and, if applicable, based on the relevant S-100 based Product Specification.

.3 Information should, where applicable, be geo-located and integrated with

other navigation and charted information. Where possible, the graphical geo-located display of areas, points, lines and other information received via communications equipment should assist the user in developing greater situational awareness.

.4 The additional display of information from communications equipment must

not degrade the primary information on a particular display but contribute to the overall navigational safety of the ship.

.5 Data should be appropriately filtered according to the selected scale/display

range of the display. Only critical information should be displayed at all ranges, if practicable.

.6 The source of the received information should be readily identifiable. .7 Where navigation information indicate a direct risk to the ship's planned route

and or movement, the information should be indicated as an alert. This may be determined based on the safety settings available within the electronic navigation equipment such as ECDIS, radar or INS.



5 Functional requirements for presentation of information 5.1 General Information that has been received by onboard communication equipment should include an integrity testing process. 5.2 Data routing

.1 The user should be able to route data to another display if fitted,

.2 There should be a clear indication of the routing of data in use.

.3 Routing should allow the user to route the data according to the navigational situation and task.

5.3 Selection and filtering

.1 Navigation information should be displayed in such a manner that information overload is prevented. Selectable functions should be included to allow for display of only the required information necessary for safe navigation and the task at hand.

.2 It should be possible to select and filter (categorize) of information and data

received on board in accordance with urgency and sea area. .3 Information relevant to planned route and situation should be identified using

adequate filtering processes. .4 Means should be available enabling the user to select the information

needed for the current operational task and situation. .5 There should be a clear indication of the selection and filtering parameters in

use. .6 It should be possible to manually select the information for automatic

presentation on the navigational displays. .7 Information that presents a danger to safe navigation and requires an alert

should be identified.

5.4 Prioritization It should be possible to prioritize information and data received on board. This should be prioritized in accordance with urgency and sea area. 5.5 Indication of new information An alert or indication should draw attention to the presence of new and/or relevant information related to the ship's movements or operating area.



6 Presentation of navigation-related information MSI or other geo-referenced locations impacting safety

.1 New information should be indicated on a route planning, route monitoring or collision avoidance display by an icon or symbol and an alert should be given.

.2 It should be possible to present additional information upon selection

(request) via pick-report functionality on ECDIS and radar displays or INS tasks route monitoring, route planning and collision avoidance.

7 Operational display 7.1 General

.1 Information received from communications equipment should not obscure the primary information of an operational display.

.2 The information received from communications equipment should be clearly

distinguishable as being additional information that has been added to the display.

7.2 Possible additional display – INS task "navigation status and data display" – or other

means

.1 The increasing amount of data received from communications equipment may require an additional display on board;

.2 Human-Machine-Interface (HMI) for displaying and evaluating received

information as well as for specifying filtering, routing, and presentation parameters (selection for presentation) should be considered.

.3 The user should be able to view information items and their filtering, routing,

and selection (presentation) properties. .4 The user should be able to edit the filtering, routing, and selection

(presentation) properties of information items.

***



ANNEX 7


STATEMENT OF RECOGNITION OF MARITIME MOBILE SATELLITE SERVICES PROVIDED BY INMARSAT GLOBAL LTD.

THE MARITIME SAFETY COMMITTEE, RECALLING Article 28(b) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Committee, RECALLING ALSO regulation IV/4-1 of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974, as amended, concerning Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) satellite providers, which requires that the Committee shall determine the criteria, procedures and arrangements for the evaluation, recognition, review and oversight of the provisions of mobile satellite communication services in the GMDSS pursuant to the provisions of SOLAS chapter IV, RECALLING IN PARTICULAR resolution A.1001(25) by which the Assembly adopted the criteria and requirements for mobile satellite communication services being designed for use in the GMDSS, RECALLING FURTHER MSC.1/Circ.1414 by which the Committee approved guidance to prospective GMDSS satellite service providers with respect to the provisions of resolution A.1001(25), NOTING that:

(a) the Inmarsat Fleet Safety service conforms with all the criteria specified in the annex to resolution A.1001(25),

(b) the charging policies and provisions of resolution A.707(17), as amended, on

Charges for distress, urgency and safety messages through the Inmarsat system, are complied with,

(c) there is a well-founded confidence that Inmarsat Global Ltd. will remain viable

for the foreseeable future and will remain in a position to deliver the required services over an extended period, in keeping with the expectations of the Organization and the maritime industry as to the continuity, durability and reliability of the service,

NOTING ALSO:

(a) the decision of the Committee, at its eighty-second session, that the oversight of future satellite service providers in the GMDSS should be undertaken by the International Mobile Satellite Organization (IMSO),

(b) that Inmarsat Global Ltd. is ready to submit its Fleet Safety service to oversight

by IMSO and sign the required Public Services Agreement (PSA) with that organization,



NOTING FURTHER that Inmarsat Global Ltd. is currently providing maritime mobile satellite services in the GMDSS (Inmarsat C, International SafetyNET Service and Inmarsat Fleet 77), RECOGNIZING that the requested recognition is currently limited to the coverage area under the Inmarsat-4 Middle East and Asia (MEAS) region satellite, as this is within the satellite coverage of which Inmarsat has I-4 satellite contingency, HAVING CONSIDERED, at its [ninety-ninth] session, the recommendation of the Sub-Committee on Navigation, Communications and Search and Rescue at its fifth session, 1 RECOGNIZES the maritime mobile satellite services provided by the Inmarsat Fleet Safety service, in the coverage area under the Inmarsat-4 Middle East and Asia (MEAS) region satellite as set out in the annex, for use in the GMDSS; 2 REQUESTS the Secretary-General to provide a copy of this statement to IMSO.



ANNEX

COVERAGE AREA UNDER THE INMARSAT-4 MIDDLE EAST AND ASIA (MEAS) REGION SATELLITE

The current coverage area for the Inmarsat Fleet Safety service as recognized for use in the GMDSS is the area of the I – 4 MEAS satellite that is overlapped by either the Alphasat satellite or I – 4 Asia – Pacific satellite. The service coverage is Sea Area A3 in accordance with SOLAS regulation IV/2.14 within the limits as illustrated in the drawing, and in accordance with the guidance in resolution A.801(19).

***



ANNEX 8

DRAFT MSC CIRCULAR

AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL AERONAUTICAL AND MARITIME SEARCH AND RESCUE (IAMSAR) MANUAL

This annex has been issued as an addendum (NCSR 5/23/Add.1) to this document.

***



ANNEX 9

BIENNIAL STATUS REPORT 2018-2019

Sub-Committee on Navigation, Communications and Search and Rescue (NCSR)

Reference to SD, if applicable

Output number

Description Target completion year

Parent organ(s)

Associated organ(s)

Coordinating organ

Status of output for Year 1


References

2. Integrate new and advancing technologies in the regulatory framework

2.1 Response to matters related to the Radiocommunication ITU-R Study Group and ITU World Radiocommunication Conference

Annual MSC NCSR Completed MSC 97/22, paragraph 7.6; NCSR 5/23, section 12


2.9 Application of the Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS) in the maritime field and development of performance standards for shipborne IRNSS receiver equipment

2019 MSC NCSR In progress MSC 96/25, paragraph 23.17; NCSR 5/23, section 5


2.10 Revision of SOLAS chapters III and IV for Modernization of the GMDSS, including related and consequential amendments to other existing instruments

2021 MSC HTW / SSE NCSR In progress NCSR 4/29, annex 12; MSC 98/23, paragraph 20.27; NCSR 5/23, section 11


2.11 Develop guidance on definition and harmonization of the format and structure of Maritime Service Portfolios (MSPs)

2019 MSC NCSR In progress MSC 96/25, paragraph 23.14; NCSR 5/23, section 8





Output number


Parent organ(s)

Associated organ(s)

Coordinating organ



References


2.12 Guidelines on standardized modes of operation, S mode

2019 MSC NCSR In progress MSC 95/22, paragraph 19.12.1; NCSR 5/23, section 7


2.15 Revised Performance Standards for EPIRBs operating on 406 MHz (resolution A.810(19)) to include Cospas-Sarsat MEOSAR and second generation beacons

2018 2019

MSC NCSR Extended NCSR 3/29, section 20; NCSR 4/29, section 19; NCSR 5/23, section 15

N.B. Recognizing that the work on the revision of those Performance Standards has not been completed and that further work is required, the Sub-Committee agreed to invite the Committee to extend the target completion year for this output to 2019.


2.16 Guidelines for the harmonized display of navigation information received via communications equipment

2018 MSC NCSR Completed

MSC 95/22, paragraph 19.12.5 ; NCSR 3/29, section 9; NCSR 4/29, section 8; NCSR 5/23, section 6

4. Engage in ocean governance

4.1 Designated Special Areas, Emission Control Areas and PSSAs and associated protective measures

Continuous MEPC NCSR Ongoing MEPC 68/21, paragraph 10.11; MSC 98/23, paragraph 11.6

6. Ensure regulatory effectiveness

6.1 Unified interpretation of provisions of IMO safety, security, and environment-related conventions

Continuous MSC / MEPC

III / PPR / CCC / SDC / SSE / NCSR

Ongoing NCSR 5/23, section 19





Output number


Parent organ(s)

Associated organ(s)

Coordinating organ



References

6. Ensure regulatory effectiveness

6.2 Developments in GMDSS satellite services

Continuous MSC NCSR Ongoing NCSR 5/23, section 14

OW. Other work OW 1 Amendments to the IAMSAR Manual


OW. Other work OW 4 Routeing measures and mandatory ship reporting systems

Continuous MSC NCSR Ongoing MSC 98/23, paragraphs 11.2 to 14.5; NCSR 5/23, section 3

OW. Other work OW 5 Updates to the LRIT system Continuous MSC NCSR Ongoing MSC 97/22, paragraph 7.3; NCSR 5/23, section 4

OW. Other work OW 6 Updating of the GMDSS Master Plan and guidelines on MSI (maritime safety information)


OW. Other work OW 10 Measures to harmonize port State control (PSC) activities and procedures worldwide

Continuous MSC / MEPC

HTW / PPR / NCSR

III Ongoing MSC 97/22, paragraph 9.6

OW. Other work OW 28 Further development of the provision of global maritime SAR services

2019 MSC NCSR In progress NCSR 5/23, section 16

OW. Other work OW 29 Guidelines on harmonized aeronautical and maritime search and rescue procedures, including SAR training matters

2019 MSC NCSR In progress NCSR 5/23, section 17

OW. Other work OW 30 Measures to protect the safety of persons rescued at sea

2019 MSC III NCSR In progress MSC 98/23, section 13





Output number


Parent organ(s)

Associated organ(s)

Coordinating organ



References

OW. Other work OW 43 Consequential work related to the new International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters

2019 MSC SDC / SSE / NCSR

In progress MSC 97/22, paragraph 19.14; NCSR 5/23, section 10



OUTPUTS ON THE COMMITTEE'S POST-BIENNIAL AGENDA THAT FALL UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE

SUB-COMMITTEE ON NAVIGATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND SEARCH AND RESCUE (NCSR)

ACCEPTED POST-BIENNIAL OUTPUTS

Parent organ(s)

Associated organ(s)

Coordinating organ

Timescale (sessions)

Reference Number Biennium

Reference to Strategic

Direction, if applicable

Description

42 2012-2013 SD 6 Ensure

regulatory effectiveness

Review of the 2009 Code on Alerts and Indicators

MSC NCSR SSE 2

MSC 89/25, paragraph 22.25; MSC 98/23/Add.2, annex 37

112 2014-2015 SD 1 Improve implementatio

n

Revised General requirements for shipborne radio equipment forming part of the GMDSS and for electronic navigational aids (resolution A.694(17)) relating to Built-In Integrity testing (BIIT) for navigation equipment

MSC NCSR 2 MSC 95/22, paragraph 19.12.4

151 2016-2017 Other work

Additional modules to the Revised Performance Standards for Integrated Navigation Systems (INS) (resolution MSC.252(83)) relating to the harmonization of bridge design and display of information

MSC NCSR 2 MSC 98/23, paragraphs 11.8 and 11.9

***



ANNEX 10

PROPOSED PROVISIONAL AGENDA FOR NCSR 6

Opening of the session 1 Adoption of the agenda 2 Decisions of other IMO bodies 3 Routeing measures and mandatory ship reporting systems (OW 4) 4 Updates to the LRIT system (OW 5) 5 Application of the "Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS)" in the

maritime field and development of performance standards for shipborne IRNSS receiver equipment (2.9)

6 Revised General requirements for shipborne radio equipment forming part of the

GMDSS and for electronic navigational aids (resolution A.694(17)) relating to Built-In Integrity testing (BIIT) for navigation equipment (TBD)

7 Guidelines on standardized modes of operation, S-mode (2.12) 8 Development of guidance on definition and harmonization of the format and structure

of Maritime Service Portfolios (MSPs) (2.11) 9 Updating of the GMDSS master plan and guidelines on MSI (maritime safety

information) provisions (OW 6) 10 Consequential work related to the Polar Code (OW 43) 11 Revision of SOLAS chapters III and IV for Modernization of the GMDSS, including

related and consequential amendments to other existing instruments (2021) (2.10) 12 Response to matters related to the Radiocommunication ITU R Study Group and ITU

World Radiocommunication Conference (2.1) 13 Measures to protect the safety of persons rescued at sea (OW 30) 14 Developments in GMDSS satellite services (6.2) 15 Revised Performance Standards for EPIRBs operating on 406 MHz

(resolution A.810(19)) to include Cospas-Sarsat MEOSAR and second generation beacons (2.15)

16 Further development of the provision of global maritime SAR services (OW 28) 17 Guidelines on harmonized aeronautical and maritime search and rescue procedures,

including SAR training matters (OW 29) 18 Amendments to the IAMSAR Manual (OW 1)



19 Unified interpretation of provisions of IMO safety, security, and environment-related Conventions (6.1)

20 Biennial status report and provisional agenda for NCSR 7 21 Election of Chair and Vice-Chair for 2020 22 Any other business 23 Report to the Maritime Safety Committee

***



ANNEX 11


AMENDMENTS TO THE REVISED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR INTEGRATED NAVIGATION SYSTEMS (INS) (RESOLUTION MSC.252(83))

THE MARITIME SAFETY COMMITTEE, RECALLING Article 28(b) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Committee, RECALLING ALSO resolution A.886(21) on Procedure for the adoption of, and amendments to, performance standards and technical specifications, by which the Assembly resolved that the function of adopting performance standards and technical specifications, as well as amendments thereto shall be performed by the Maritime Safety Committee, HAVING CONSIDERED, at its [ninety-ninth] session, the recommendation made by the Sub-Committee on Navigation, Communications and Search and Rescue at its fifth session, 1 ADOPTS amendments to the Revised Performance standards for integrated

navigation systems (INS) (resolution MSC.252(83)), set out in the annex to the present resolution;

2 RECOMMENDS Governments to ensure that INS equipment installed on or

after [1 July 2020] conforms to performance standards not inferior to those set out in the annex to resolution MSC.252(83), as amended by the annex to the present resolution.



ANNEX

AMENDMENTS TO REVISED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR INTEGRATED NAVIGATION SYSTEMS (INS) (RESOLUTION MSC.252(83))

3 Application of these performance standards 1 In paragraph 3.5, insert the following at the end of table 2:

"

Allow for accepting the INS in compliance with as

INS in compliance with

Tasks and functions (Para of this standard)

Applicable modules of specific equipment

standards as specified in the Appendices of the

document

… … … NAVTEX or other IMO-recognized equipment accommodating other providers of GMDSS terrestrially-based services

Meteorological warnings (7.2.3) Navigation and SAR warnings (7.3.2) Ice warnings (7.3.2)

MSC.148(77)

Inmarsat C EGC SafetyNET or other IMO-recognized equipment accommodating other providers of GMDSS satellite services

Meteorological warnings (7.2.3) Navigation and SAR warnings (7.3.2) Ice warnings (7.3.2)

A.807(19), as amended by MSC.68(68), annex 4 and MSC.306(87)

" 7 Task and functional requirements for an INS 2 In paragraph 7.3.2, insert the following after the bullet point " • AIS reports of AtoNs,":

" • Coastal and NAVAREA navigational warnings, • search and rescue (SAR) warnings, • Coastal and METAREA Meteorological warnings, • ice warnings, • maritime safety information overlay functions,"

3 In paragraph 7.3.3, replace bullet points with the following: "

• tracked radar targets and AIS targets • AIS binary and safety-related messages • initiation and monitoring of man-over-board and SAR manoeuvres

(search and rescue and man-over-board modes) • NAVTEX • tidal and current data • weather data • ice data, and • the operator may appropriately filter the display of Maritime Safety

Information messages."



4 In paragraph 7.5.2.1, replace the last bullet point with the following: "

• safety related messages e.g., AIS safety-related and binary messages, Navtex Maritime Safety Information messages."

5 In paragraph 7.7.1, replace the fourth bullet point with the following:

" • presentation of received safety related messages, such as AIS safety-

related and binary messages, Application Specific Messages (ASM), Navtex Maritime Safety Information messages"

Appendix 1

DEFINITIONS

6 Replace the definition of "External safety related messages" with the following:

External safety related messages Data received from outside of the ship concerning the safety of navigation, through equipment listed in SOLAS chapter V and/or NAVTEX maritime safety information messages.

***



ANNEX 12

DRAFT MSC CIRCULAR

E-NAVIGATION STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN – UPDATE 1 1 Having recognized the technological advancement in shipping, the Maritime Safety Committee, at its eighty-first session, agreed on the process of developing a regulatory framework for e-navigation. 2 The Maritime Safety Committee, at its ninety-fourth session, approved the e-navigation Strategy Implementation Plan (SIP), finalised by the Sub-Committee on Navigation, Communications and Search and Rescue, at its first session. 3 Recognizing the need to regularly update the e-navigation Strategy Implementation Plan (SIP), to allow for prioritized tasks to be included in the work programme of the Sub-Committee on Navigation, Communications and Search and Rescue, the Maritime Safety Committee, at its [ninety-ninth session], approved the e-navigation Strategy Implementation Plan – Update 1, prepared by the Sub-Committee on Navigation, Communications and Search and Rescue, at its fifth session, as set out in the annex. 4 Member States and international organizations are invited to bring the update to the attention of all parties concerned.



ANNEX

E-NAVIGATION STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN – UPDATE 1

Introduction 1 As shipping moves into the digital world, e-navigation is expected to provide digital information and infrastructure for the benefit of maritime safety, security and protection of the marine environment, reducing the administrative burden and increasing the efficiency of maritime trade and transport. 2 The Organization defines e-navigation as the harmonized collection, integration, exchange, presentation and analysis of marine information on board and ashore by electronic means to enhance berth to berth navigation and related services for safety and security at sea and protection of the marine environment (in: Strategy for the development and implementation of e-navigation (MSC 85/26/Add.1, annex 20)). E-navigation is intended to meet present and future user needs through harmonization of marine navigation systems and supporting shore services. Hence the implementation of e-navigation should be based on user needs and not be technology-driven. The user needs were agreed upon by the Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation1 at its fifty-sixth session (NAV 56/WP.5/Rev.1, annexes 2 to 4) and reproduced in annex 4 of this document. 3 The e-navigation Strategy (MSC 85/26/Add.1, annex 20) assigns the governance of the e-navigation concept to IMO as the organization responsible for establishing mandatory standards for enhancing the safety of life at sea, maritime security and protection of the marine environment, as well as having global remit. In accordance with the strategy, the implementation of e-navigation is a phased iterative process of continuous development taking into account the evolution of user needs and the lessons learned from the previous phase. 4 It is important to understand that e-navigation is not a static concept and that development of logical implementation phases will be ongoing as user requirements evolve and as technology develops, enabling more efficient and effective systems. If sufficient progress is made in the implementation, an e-navigation enabling Performance Standard may be envisaged (see also Sub-solution S4.1.10), providing a single-reference for e-navigation solutions. 5 The initial e-navigation Strategy Implementation Plan (SIP) was developed by the Correspondence Group on e-navigation and finalized by the Sub-Committee on Navigation, Communications and Search and Rescue, at its first session in 2014 (NCSR 1), and subsequently approved by the Maritime Safety Committee, at its ninety-fourth session (MSC 94). The SIP introduces a vision of e-navigation which is embedded in general expectations for the onboard, onshore and communications elements. 6 The main objective of the SIP is to implement the five e-navigation solutions, resulting from taking into account the IMO Formal Safety Assessment (FSA), from which identified a number of required tasks have been identified. These tasks should, when completed in the period 2015–2019, provide the industry with harmonized information, in order to start designing products and services to meet the e-navigation solutions.

1 The NAV Sub-Committee was amalgamated with the COMSAR Sub-Committee into the Sub-Committee on

Navigation, Communications and Search and Rescue (NCSR).



4 The present SIP identifies the list of tasks which would need to be performed during the coming years in order to achieve the five prioritized e-navigation solutions. 7 This implementation plan asks for periodic updates, as for example set out in paragraph 14 of the original SIP (NCSR 1/28, annex 7), which paragraph has been renumbered as paragraph 19 below. 8 The implementation strategy elements should, therefore, remain under review, and in light of recent technological developments, evolved user needs, new trends in the industry and progress made in the implementation of the SIP. NCSR 4 agreed to an update of the plan, including prioritization of the outputs and their reorganization so as to avoid duplication. 9 Consequently the work to update the SIP was undertaken and completed by NCSR 5 in February 2018 and the updated SIP approved by [MSC 99 in May 2018.] 10 It should be noted that, aAlthough the need to use existing equipment in a more holistic way was identified early on, some onboard equipment may need modifications to interfaces and controls. However, in the future, the need for new equipment for the deployment of future e-navigation solutions and applications cannot be disregarded. 11 Tasks listed in the SIP The tasks listed in Table 7 should be incorporated in the High-level Action Plan of the Organization as planned/unplanned outputs, taking into account the provisions of the Guidelines on the oOrganization and method of work of the Maritime Safety Committee and the Marine Environment Protection Committee and their subsidiary bodies, as set out in MSC-MEPC.1/Circ.5, as may be revised (Organization and method of work).

12 In line with the provisions of the Organization and method of work, any further e-

navigation-related work would require the Committee's approval and should be clearly incorporated as planned/unplanned output(s) in the High-level Action Plan of the Organization. Therefore, each one of the approved tasks would need to be approved at the same time as a planned/unplanned output, as appropriate, with clear indication of:

- IMO's objectives; - Analysis of the issue; - Analysis of implications; - Compelling need; - Benefits; - Industry standards; - The intended output; - Human element consideration; - Priority/urgency, including expected target completion year; and - Action required.

proposals to undertake e-navigation-related tasks by the Organization will need to be submitted to the Committee for approval and inclusion as output(s). 13 In line with the above, iInterested Member States may submit proposals to the Committee for the inclusion of new outputs in the High-level Action Plan of the Organization based on the identified tasks contained in this SIP. 14 Proposals for the further development of e-navigation solutions and tasks which are not listed in the SIP may also be submitted by Member States to the Committee for consideration; however priority should be given to the tasks identified in the SIP.



15 Member States willing to lead a specific task should ensure the timely delivery of the task by requesting the assistance of other Member States and/or relevant Organizations. Strategy Implementation Plan (SIP) for the five e-navigation solutions 16 The basis of the SIP are the following e-navigation solutions:2

S1: improved, harmonized and user-friendly bridge design; S2: means for standardized and automated reporting; S3: improved reliability, resilience and integrity of bridge equipment and

navigation information; S4: integration and presentation of available information in graphical displays

received via communication equipment; and S95: improved communication of VTS Service Portfolio (not limited to VTS

stations).

17 Solutions S2, S4 and S9 S5 focus on efficient transfer of maritime information and data between all appropriate users (ship-ship, ship-shore, shore-ship and shore-shore). Solutions S1 and S3 promote the workable and practical use of the information and data on board. 18 As part of each of the above e-navigation solutions, several sub-solutions were identified. These are listed in tables 1 to 5 below. 19 While the first steps involve implementing the five e-navigation solutions, it is important to recognize that the e-navigation development is a continuous process following user needs for additional functionalities of existing and possible future systems (e.g. implementation of onboard and/or ashore navigational decision support systems). As user needs evolve and new technology is introduced, other e-navigation solutions may be incorporated into the strategy, as appropriate. 20 During the FSA process, the following Risk Control Options (RCO) were identified in order to aid the assessment of the e-navigation solutions and some of the sub-solutions:

RCO 1: Integration of navigation information and equipment including improved software quality assurance (related to sub-solutions S1.6, S1.7, S3.1, S3.2, S3.3, S4.1.2, and S4.1.6);

RCO 2: Bridge alert management (related to sub-solution S1.5); RCO 3: Standardized mode(s) for navigation equipment (related to sub-solution

S1.4); RCO 4: Automated and standardized ship-shore reporting (related to sub-solutions

S2.1, S2.2, S2.3 and S2.4);

2 A total of nine e-navigation solutions were considered for the first SIP, contained in NAV 58/WP6/Rev.1,

annex 2, but NAV 59 endorsed just five prioritized potential e-navigation solutions. These five prioritized potential e-navigation solutions have been included here, but since only prioritized e-navigation solutions are listed in paragraph 11 in this updated SIP; the term "prioritized" has become redundant and therefore has been omitted.



RCO 5: Improved reliability and resilience of onboard PNT systems (related to sub-solution S3.4);

RCO 6: Improved shore-based services (related to sub-solution S4.1.3 and solution

S9 S5); and RCO 7: Bridge and workstation layout standardization (related to sub-solution S1.1).

21 A number of necessary actions and tasks have been identified in order to progress the development and implementation of the five e-navigation solutions. These are listed below under each respective solution and consolidated in table 7.

Table 1: Required regulatory framework and technical requirements for implementation (tasks)

for solution 1 (Improved, harmonized and user-friendly bridge design)

Sub-Solution

Description Task Action Task Identifier (Table 7)

S1.1 Ergonomically improved and harmonized bridge and workstation layout.

Guidelines on Human Centred Design (HCD) for e-navigation systems. Guidelines on Usability testing, Evaluation and Assessment (UTEA) for e-navigation systems. Resolutions A.694(17), A.997(25) and MSC.252(83) and MSC/Circ.982, SN.1/Circ.265, SN.1/Circ.274 and SN.1/Circ.288 are of relevance.

T1

T2

S1.2 Extended use of standardized and unified symbology for relevant bridge equipment.

Develop symbology for relevant equipment using as a reference resolution MSC.192(79)

T2

S1.3 Standardized manuals for operations and familiarization to be provided in electronic format for relevant equipment

Develop the concept of electronic manuals and harmonize the layout to provide Seafarer seafarers with an easy way of familiarization for relevant equipment

T3

S1.4 Standard default settings, save/recall settings, and S-mode functionalities on relevant equipment.

Performance or technical standards mandating the features on relevant equipment. Develop a testbed demonstrating the whole concept of standardized modes of operation including store and recall for various situations as well as S-mode functionality on relevant equipment.

T4

S1.5 All bridge equipment to follow IMO BAM (Bridge Alert Management) performance standard.

Ensure that all equipment is checked during type approval and that it meets the requirements of resolution

T5



Sub-Solution


MSC.302(87) on Bridge Alert Management, as may be updated.

S1.6 Information accuracy/reliability indication functionality for relevant equipment.

Develop a testbed demonstrating technically how accuracy and reliability of navigation equipment may be displayed.

T6

S1.6.1 Graphical or numerical presentation of levels of reliability together with the provided information.

From the above develop a harmonized display system indicating reliability levels.

T6

S1.7 Integrated bridge display system for improved access to shipboard information.

INS systems which integrate navigation equipment data already exist but are not mandatory carriage to (resolution MSC.252(83)). E-navigation relies on integration and without mandatory carriage of INS it would be difficult to achieve the solutions. The carriage of an INS or maybe something simpler performing integration should be investigated.

T7

S1.8 GMDSS equipment integration – one common interface.

Take into account resolution A.811(19) when integrating GMDSS into one common interface.

(Already in hand)




for solution 2 (Means for standardized and automated reporting)

Sub-Solution

Description Task Action Task

Identifier (Table 7)

Status

S2.1

Single-entry of reportable information in single-window solution.

Develop testbeds demonstrating the use of single window for reporting along with S2.4.

T8 T15

In progress

S2.2

Automated collection of internal ship data for reporting.

Much data is already collected in the by onboard navigation equipment – investigate the option of facilitating the use of this data transfer for automated reporting of ship navigational information to authorities.

T9 In

progress

S2.3

Automated or semi-automated digital distribution/communication of required reportable information, including both "static" and "dynamic" information.

Review the original AIS long-range port facility as well as the new long-range frequencies made available at WRC 2012 described in the latest revision of ITU-R M.1371-5, the revised IEC 61993-2, or the developments within VHF Data Exchange System (VDES) and see if the information could be used at no or low cost for automated or semi-automated reporting. The long-range port was not used during the development of LRIT due to the cost to shipowners of sending this information. Develop Guidelines for the efficient distribution of relevant navigation-related information from communications equipment to navigation displays (see NCSR 5/6, par.8)

T9 T15

In progress



Sub-Solution



Status

S2.4

All national reporting requirements to apply standardized digital reporting formats based on recognized internationally harmonized standards, such as IMO FAL Forms or SN.1/Circ.289.

Liaise with administrations and agree on standardized formats for ship reporting so as to enable "single window" worldwide. In this respect national and regional harmonization is the first step.

T8 In

progress


for solution 3 (Improved reliability, resilience and integrity of bridge equipment and navigation information)

Sub-Solution



Status

S3.1

Standardized self-check/built-in integrity test (BIIT) with interface for relevant equipment (e.g. bridge equipment).

Equipment should be developed with standardized BIIT built in. The general requirements in resolution A.694(17) as tested by IEC 60945 should be investigated reviewed to determine to see if additional definitions and testing is required.

T10 In progress

S3.2

Standard endurance, quality and integrity verification testing for relevant bridge equipment, including software.

Software quality assurance especially lifetime assurance methods need to be developed into draft guidelines. The type approval process needs to be developed further to ensure that the equipment used in e-navigation is robust in all aspects.

T11 Completed

S3.3

Perform information integrity tests based on integration of navigational equipment – application of INS integrity monitoring concept.

This task is very similar to that described for S1.6 and S1.6.1.

T6 In progress



Sub-Solution



Status

S3.4

Improved reliability and resilience of onboard PNT information and other critical navigation data by integration with, and backup of, external and internal systems.

MSC.1/Circ.1575 on Guidelines for shipborne position, navigation and timing data processing approved by MSC 98 IMO is already drafting performance standards for a multi system navigational receiver designed to use all available systems for an improved and more reliable PNT solution. There may be traditional methods and other terrestrial systems which should also be investigated as the external input.

Backup arrangements for critical foundation data, particularly in the event of interruption to cloud-based solutions should be investigated. Administrations need to indicate their support for terrestrial systems.

T12 Part-

completed

Table 4:

Required regulatory framework and technical requirements for implementation (tasks) for solution 4 (Integration and presentation of available information in graphical

displays received via communication equipment)

Sub-Solution


S4.1 Integration and presentation of available information on graphical displays (including MSI, AIS, nautical charts, radar, etc.) received via communication equipment.

The INS has a display that could be used for displaying this information. Work done by IALA et al. shows that additional information on existing displays such as ECDIS and radar might obliterate critical information on these displays. Investigate and demonstrate via a testbed the feasibility of the integration and portrayal of this information and develop associated draft guidelines on

T13

In progress



Sub-Solution


how it should be done in a harmonized way the harmonization of display. Resolution MSC.252(83) and SN.1/Circ.265 are related.

S4.1.1 Implement a Common Maritime Data Structure (CMDS) for Maritime Service Portfolios (MSP) and include parameters for priority, source, and ownership of information.

CMDS is at the heart of e-navigation. It has been already agreed to use the IHO S-100 data model. Develop both the shore-based data models and also the shipboard data models including firewalls, as necessary, and harmonize via the IMO-IHO Harmonization Group on Data Modelling (HGDM).

T14

S4.1.2 Standardized interfaces for data exchange should be developed to support transfer of information from communications equipment to navigational systems (INS).

Most equipment already complies with one of the IEC 61162 series interface standards, although IMO only refer to them by footnote. The testing standards for shipboard equipment developed by IEC refer to this standard. The interfaces should meet the S-100 principle although it may not be necessary to use this standard between simple equipment.

T14

S4.1.3 Provide mapping of specific services (information available) to specific regions (e.g. maritime service portfolios) with status and access requirements.

Ensure that the correct and up-to-date information for the area of operation are provided by the shore side and that the mariner seafarer receives the information for the area of operation. MSI could be viewed on relevant or defined displays, such as on ECDIS, radar or INS task displays.

T13



Sub-Solution


S4.1.4 Provision of a system for automatic source and channel management on board for the selection of most appropriate communication means (equipment) according to criteria such as bandwidth, content, integrity, costs.

Least cost routeing systems are available and could be demonstrated. The communication means should be transparent to the user. Available communications systems need to be identified, including how they can be used, based on range, bandwidth, etc. and what systems are currently being developed and will be in use when e-navigation is live is fully implemented. The task should look into short-range systems such as VHF, 4G and 5G. Develop Guidelines for the efficient distribution of relevant navigation-related information from communications equipment to navigation displays (see NCSR 5/6, par.8)

T15

S4.1.5 Routeing and filtering of information on board (weather, intended route, etc.).

Investigate the Review of the performance standards for INS with a view to determine how these facilities can be addressed in a revised INS performance standard implemented Develop Guidelines for the efficient distribution of relevant navigation-related information from communications equipment to navigation displays (see NCSR 5/6, par.8)

T7

S4.1.6 Provide A quality assurance process to be followed to ensure that all data is reliable and based on a consistent common reference system (CCRS) or converted to such before integration and display.

Ensure data quality and CCRS meets with new Quality Assurance, set out in MSC.1/Circ.1512.

T11

S4.1.7 Implement harmonized presentation concept of information exchanged via communications equipment including using standard symbology and text, taking into account human element and

Harmonize displays. T6 T13

In progress



Sub-Solution


ergonomics design principles to ensure useful presentation and prevent information overload.

S4.1.8 Develop a holistic presentation library as required to support accurate presentation across displays.

Harmonize displays. T6

S4.1.9 Provide alert functionality of INS concepts to information received by communications equipment and integrated into INS.

Ensure that all bridge equipment meets the Bridge Alert Management performance standards.

T7

S4.1.10 Harmonization of conventions and regulations for navigation and communication equipment.

The task to go through all the IMO performance standards may be very large. It would be advisable to consider drafting an "e-navigation enabling Performance Standard" which would identify the changes to interfaces, control symbology and other details which would be used as an add-on for approval adoption for use in e-navigation.

T16

Table 5: Required regulatory framework and technical requirements for implementation (tasks) for solution 9 5 (Improved communication of VTS service portfolio (not limited to VTS

stations))

Solution Description Task Actions Task Identifier (Table 7)

S5 Improved communication of VTS service portfolio (not limited to VTS stations)

Communications is a key factor in the e-navigation concept. This task needs to identify the possible communications methods that might be used and testbeds which need to be built to demonstrate which systems are best in different areas of operation. (e.g. deep sea, coastal and port). If the delivery of MSP was to be cloud based then this task should report on what is available and where and who is responsible for the cloud or clouds. Much of this work is appropriate to S4.1.4.

T15

T17



Maritime Services Portfolios (MSP) 22 As part of the improved provision of services to vessels through e-navigation, maritime services MSP have been identified as the means of providing electronic information in a harmonized way, which is part of solution 9 5. The proposed list of MSPs Maritime Services compromising a specific Portfolio is presented in table 6 below. The following definition is currently being reviewed under the e-navigation output on the harmonization of the format and structure of maritime services within a maritime service portfolio:

Maritime Service Portfolio (MSP) is a set of operational Maritime Services and associated technical services provided in digital format.

Further information about MSPs Maritime Services to be used in a MSP is set out in annex 2. The further development of the MSP is subject of task T17. 23 The following six areas have been identified for the delivery of MSP:

.1 port areas and approaches;

.2 coastal waters and confined or restricted areas;

.3 open sea and open areas;

.4 areas with offshore and/or infrastructure developments;

.5 Polar areas; and

.6 other remote areas.



Table 6:

List of proposed Maritime Services for use in MSP

Service No Identified services Domain coordinating body Identified responsible service provider

1 VTS Information Service (INS)

IALA VTS Authority

2 Navigational Assistance Service (NAS)

IALA VTS Authority National Competent VTS Authority/Coastal or Port Authority

3 Traffic Organization Service (TOS)

IALA VTS Authority National Competent VTS Authority/Coastal or Port Authority

4 Local Port Service (LPS) IHMA Local Port/Harbour Authority

5 Maritime Safety Information Service (MSI)

IHO National Competent Authority

6 Pilotage service IMPA Pilotage Authority/Pilot Organization

7 Tugs service TBD Tug Authority National Competent Authority; Local Port/Harbour Authority

8 Vessel Shore Reporting TBD National Competent Authority, Shipowner/Operator/Master and appointed service providers

9 Telemedical Assistance Service (TMAS)

TBD National health Organization/dedicated health Organization

10 Maritime Assistance Service (MAS)

TBD Coastal/Port Authority/Organization

11 Nautical Chart Service IHO National Hydrographic Authority/ Organization

12 Nautical Publications Service

IHO National Hydrographic Authority/ Organization



Service No Identified services Domain coordinating body Identified responsible service provider

13 Ice Navigation Service WMO National Competent Authority/Organization

14 Meteorological Information Service

WMO National Meteorological Authority/WMO/Public Institutions

15 Real-time hydrographic and environmental information Service

IHO National Hydrographic and Meteorological Authorities

16 Search and Rescue Service TBD SAR Authorities



Development of related guidelines 24 The combination of the five e-navigation solutions supported by the FSA, and the three guidelines, Guidelines on Human Centred Design (HCD) for e-navigation, Guidelines on Usability Testing, Evaluation and Assessment (U-TEA) for e-navigation systems and Guidelines for Software Quality Assurance (SQA) in e-navigation Guideline on Software Quality Assurance and Human-Centred Design for e-navigation (MSC.1/Circ.1512), propose an e-navigation implementation that facilitates a holistic approach to the interaction between shipboard and shore-based users. 25 The development of an e-navigation reference model for the five solutions, including possible proposed legal framework, governance structures and funding models for relevant infrastructures, could involve establishing a globally cooperating network of regional testbeds. 26 During the development of e-navigation As part of the development of e-navigation, the use of testbeds is crucial as they are pivotal to the progressive implementation of e-navigation solutions. It would be advisable that, Whenever feasible and appropriate there should be international cooperation in the establishment of testbeds as a vital component to ensure that e-navigation solutions can successfully operate on a global scale and to leverage the benefits of pooled resources and expertise. 27 Further testbeds may be used and evaluated, and it has been identified that guidelines on the reporting need to be drafted so that the results can be presented in a harmonized way. These guidelines have been added to the task list as task T18. in line with MSC.1/Circ.1494 on Guidelines on harmonization of testbed reporting which were developed under task T18 which is completed. Identification of tasks, deliverables and schedule 28 Table 7 outlines the identified tasks with a short definition including deliverables and transition arrangements, if considered necessary, and an indication of the prioritized implementation schedule.



Table 7

Tasks, expected deliverables, transition arrangements and implementation schedule

Task No

Task Expected Deliverable Transition

Arrangements

Prioritized Implementation

Schedule Status/Remark

T1 Development of draft Guidelines on Human Centred Design (HCD) for e-navigation systems.

Guidelines on Human Centred Design (HCD) for e-navigational systems.

None 2014/2015 Completed MSC.1/Circ.1512

17

T2 Development of draft Guidelines on Usability Testing, Evaluation and Assessment (UTEA) of e-navigation systems.

Guidelines on Usability Testing, Evaluation and Assessment (UTEA) of e-navigation systems.

None 2014/2015

Completed MSC.1/Circ.1512

T3 Develop the concept of electronic manuals and harmonize the layout to provide seafarers with an easy way of familiarization for relevant equipment.

Guidelines on electronic equipment manuals.

Provide existing manuals as .pdf

2019 Under

consideration

T4 Formulate the concept of standardized modes of operation, including store and recall for various situations, as well as S-mode functionality on relevant equipment.

Guidelines on S-mode. None 2017 2019

In progress

T5 Investigate whether an extension of existing Bridge Alert Management Performance Standards (PS) is necessary. Adapt all other alert relevant PSs to the to Bridge Alert Management PS.

(a) Guidelines on implementation of Bridge Alert Management. (b) Revised Performance Standards on BAM.

None None

2016 2019

Under consideration

17 NCSR 1 agreed to consolidate the draft Guidelines on Human Centred Design (HCD) for e-navigation systems, the draft Guidelines on Usability Testing, Evaluation and

Assessment (UTEA) for e-navigation systems, and the draft Guidelines on Software Quality Assurance (SQA) in e-navigation into a single guideline (MSC.1/Circ.1512).



Task No


Arrangements



T6 Develop Guidelines on the display of accuracy and reliability of navigation equipment. Develop a methodology of how accuracy and reliability of navigation equipment may be displayed. This includes a harmonized display system.

Guidelines on the display of accuracy and reliability of navigation equipment.

None 2017

In progress

T7 Investigate if an INS, as defined by resolution MSC.252(83), is the right integrator and display of navigation information for e-navigation and if so, what amendments are needed, including, inter alia, communication ports and a PNT module. Refer to resolution MSC.191(79) and SN/Circ.243/Rev.1.

(a) Report on the suitability of INS. (b) New or additional modules for the Performance Standards for INS.

None None

2016 2019

Completed

T8 Member States to agree on standardized format guideline for ship reporting so as to enable "single window" worldwide (SOLAS regulation V/28, resolution A.851(20) and SN.1/Circ.289)

Updated Guidelines on single-window reporting.

National/Regional Arrangements

2019

Under consideration

T9 Investigate the best way to automate the collection of internal ship data for reporting including static and dynamic information.

Technical report on the automated collection of internal ship data for reporting.

None 2016 In progress



Task No


Arrangements



T10 Investigate the general requirements in resolution A.694(17) and IEC 60945 to determine how Built In Integrity Testing (BIIT) can be incorporated.

(a) Revised resolution on the general requirements including Built In Integrity Testing. (b) Revised IEC Standard on General Requirements including Built In Integrity Testing.

None None

2017 2019

Under consideration

T11 Development of Guidelines for Software Quality Assurance (SQA) in e-navigation. This task should include an investigation into the type approval process to ensure that software lifetime assurance (software updates) can be carried out without major re-approval and consequential additional costs. Refer to SN.1/Circ.266/Rev.1 and MSC.1/Circ.1389.

Guidelines for Software Quality Assurance (SQA) in e-navigation.


T12 Develop guidelines on how to improve reliability and resilience of onboard PNT systems by integration with external systems. Liaise with Administrations to ensure that relevant shore-based systems will be available.

Guidelines on how to improve reliability and resilience of onboard PNT systems by integration with external systems.


T13 Develop guidelines showing how navigation information received by communications equipment can be displayed in a harmonized way and what equipment functionality is necessary.

Guidelines on the harmonized display of navigation information received from communications equipment.

None Interim To be finalized after completion of T4 and T17

2021 Interim

Guidelines completed



Task No


Arrangements



T14 Develop a Common Maritime Data Structure and include parameters for priority, source, and ownership of information based on the IHO S-100 data model. Harmonization will be required for both, use on shore and use on the ship, and the two must be coordinated (Two Domains).

(a) Guidelines on a Common Maritime Data Structure.

None

2017

(a) HGDM to consider

Support the further development of the standardized interfaces for data exchange used on board (IEC 61162 series) to support transfer of information from communication equipment to navigational systems (INS) including appropriate firewalls (IEC 61162- 450 and 460).

(b) support the further development of the IEC standards for data exchange used on board, including firewalls.

Use latest IEC standards

2019 (b) Completed



Task No


Arrangements



T15 Identify and draft guidelines on seamless integration of all currently available communications infrastructure and how they can be used (e.g. range, bandwidth, etc.) and what systems are being developed (e.g. maritime connectivity platform) and could be used for e-navigation. The task should look at short-range systems such as VHF, 4G and 5G as well as HF and satellite systems taking into account the 6 areas defined for the MSP. Develop Guidelines for the efficient distribution of relevant navigation-related information from communications equipment to navigation displays (see NCSR 5/6, par.8)

Guidelines on seamless integration of all currently available communications infrastructure and how they can be used and what future systems are being developed along with the revised GMDSS. Guidelines for the efficient distribution of relevant navigation-related information from communications equipment to navigation displays (see NCSR 5/6, par.8)

Use existing onboard communications infrastructure

2019

Under consideration

T16 Investigate how the Harmonization of conventions and regulations for navigation and communication equipment would be best carried out. Consideration should be given to an all-encompassing e-navigation performance standard containing all the changes necessary rather than revising over 30 existing performance standards.

Report on the Harmonization of conventions and regulations for navigation and communication equipment would be best carried out.

None 2017

Under consideration

T17 Further develop the MSP to refine services and responsibilities ahead of implementing transition arrangements.

Resolution on Maritime Services within a Maritime Service Portfolios.

National/Regional Arrangements

2019 In progress

T18 Development of Draft Guidelines for the Harmonization of testbeds reporting.

Guidelines for the Harmonization of testbeds reporting.

None Completed MSC.1/Circ.1494



29 Table 8 shows the timelines for each task and an indication of the schedule to clarify common understanding necessary for the implementation.

Table 8: Indication of the schedule to clarify common understanding necessary for the implementation

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

NCSR 4 NCSR 5 NCSR 6 NCSR 7 NCSR 8

12

Develop guidelines on how to improve reliability and resilience of onboard PNT systems

by integration with external systems.

Liaise with Administrations to ensure that relevant shore-based systems will be

available

completed

18 Development of Draft Guidelines for the Harmonization of testbeds reporting completed

completed

11

Development of draft Guidelines for Software Quality Assurance (SQA) in e-navigation.

This task should include an investigation into the type approval process to ensure that

software lifetime assurance (software updates) can be carried out without major re-

approval and consequential additional costs. Refer to SN/Circ/266/Rev.1 and

MSC.1/Circ.1389

completed

7b

Investigate if an INS, as defined in res. MSC.252(83), is the right integrator and display of

navigation information for e-navigation and identify the modifications it will need,

including a communications port and a PNT module. Refer to resolution MSC.191(79) and

SN/Circ.243.

(b) New or additional modules for the Performance Standards for INS

No Task RemarkPrioriti-

zation

7a

Investigate if an INS, as defined in res. MSC.252(83), is the right integrator and display of

navigation information for e-navigation and identify the modifications it will need,

including a communications port and a PNT module. Refer to resolution MSC.191(79) and

SN/Circ.243.

(a) Report on the suitability of INS.

completed

1Development of draft Guidelines on Human Centred Design (HCD)

for e-navigation systemscompleted

2Development of draft Guidelines on Usability Testing, Evaluation and Assessment

(UTEA) of e-navigation systems.completed



2017 2018 2019 2020 2021


8

Member States to agree on standardized format guideline for ship reporting so as to

enable "single window" worldwide (SOLAS regulation V/28, resolution A.851(20) and

SN.1/Circ.289)

Updated Guidelines on single window reporting

requires new

output

MED

IUM14

Develop a Common Maritime Data Structure and include parameters for priority, source,

and ownership of information based on the IHO S-100 data model. Harmonization will be

required for both use on shore and use on the ship and the two must be coordinated

(Two Domains).

Develop further the standardized interfaces for data exchange used on board (IEC 61162

series) to support transfer of information from communication equipment to

navigational systems (INS) including appropriate firewalls (IEC 61162- 450 and 460).

(a) Guidelines on a Common Maritime Data Structure.

requires new

output

15

Identify and draft guidelines on seamless integration of all currently available

communications infrastructure and how they can be used (e.g. range, bandwidth, etc.)

and what systems are being developed, along with the revised GMDSS (e.g. maritime

connectivity platform) and could be used for e-navigation.

The task should look at short range systems such as VHF, 4G and 5G as well as HF and

satellite systems taking into account the 6 areas defined for the MSPs.

Guidelines for the efficient distribution of relevant navigation-related information from

communications equipment to navigation displays (see NCSR 5/6, par.8)

requires new

output


zation

13

Develop Guidelines on the harmonized display of navigation information received from

communications equipment showing how navigation information received by

communications equipment can be displayed in a harmonized way and what equipment

functionality is necessary

Interim Guidelines

To be finalized

after completion of

T4 and T17

HIG

H

4Formulate the concept of standardized modes of operation, including store and recall for

various situations, as well as S-mode functionality on relevant equipment

Guidelines under

development

(2019)

17

Further develop the MSPs to refine services and responsibilities ahead of implementing

transition arrangements.

Resolution on Maritime Service Portfolios.

Guidelines under

development

(2019)



2017 2018 2019 2020 2021


requires new

output

9Investigate the best way to automate the collection of internal ship data for reporting

including static and dynamic information

requires new

output

16

Investigate how the Harmonization of conventions and regulations for navigation and

communication equipment would be best carried out. Consideration should be given to

an all-encompassing e-navigation performance standard containing all the changes

necessary rather than revising over 30 existing performance standards.

requires new

output

10a

Investigate the general requirements resolution A.694(17) and IEC 60945 to see how Built

In Integrity Testing (BIIT) can be incorporated

(a) Revised resolution on the general requirements including Built In Integrity Testing.

requires new

output

10b

Investigate the general requirements resolution A.694(17) and IEC 60945 to see how Built

In Integrity Testing (BIIT) can be incorporated

(b) Revised IEC Standard on General Requirements including Built In Integrity Testing

requires new

output


zation

3Develop the concept of electronic manuals and harmonize the layout to provide mariner

with an easy way of familiarization for relevant equipment

requires new

output

LOW

5a

Investigate whether and extension of existing Bridge Alert Management Performance

Standards (PS) is necessary. Adapt all other alert relevant PS to the to Bridge Alert

Management PS.

(a) Guidelines on implementation of Bridge Alert Management.

requires new

output

5b

Investigate whether and extension of existing Bridge Alert Management Performance

Standards (PS) is necessary. Adapt all other alert relevant PS to the to Bridge Alert

Management PS.

(b) Revised Performance Standards on BAM.

requires new

output

6

Develop a methodology of how accuracy and reliability of navigation equipment may be

displayed. This includes a harmonized display system Guidelines on the display of

accuracy and reliability of navigation equipment



Relevant key enablers for e-navigation 30 During the development of the SIP, a number of actions have been identified as key enablers for e-navigation. Some of them are listed below.

Table 9: Examples of key enablers of e-navigation

Key Enabler INITIAL ACTION status

Globally Standardized Data Exchange

Data providers to adapt to IMO recognized data standards such as IHO's S-100 data model

IMO/IHO Harmonization Group on Data Modelling (HGDM), activated at MSC 98

A harmonized data communication standard

International Organizations with industry; IALA is developing a standard for VHF data Exchange System (VDES) in collaboration with ITU

Ongoing

Maritime Service Portfolios

Further develop the proposed maritime services MSP as shown in table 6 and annex 2

See Task T17

Providers and onboard systems for resilient PNT

IMO is developing Performance standards for multi-system shipborne radionavigation receivers

Completed res.MSC.401(95), as amended by res.MSC.432(98)

Connect all relevant equipment and functionality

IEC is developing a family of standards including a firewall with the support of the industry

Ongoing

Software Quality Assurance

Guidelines to be developed Completed MSC.1/Circ.1512

Ensure that relevant e-navigation functions will be accepted as complying with the relevant IMO performance standards for shipborne navigational and radiocommunications equipment

NCSR Sub-Committee to undertake as need arises

See Task T16

Connect all relevant equipment and functionality for VTS

Member States to address individually. IALA and IEC may assist in developing standards

Ongoing

Coastal States to provide the required infrastructure

IALA, IHO and CIRM may assist in developing required infrastructure, including relevant standards

Ongoing

Establish Human Centred Design principles

Continue to refine INS and IBS performance standards and guidelines respectively

Ongoing Part-completed MSC.1/Circ.1512



Description of the ship and shore architecture for the solutions 31 Figure 1 shows the principle of an information/data flow in the e-navigation architecture. The figure shows the complete overarching e-navigation architecture, and defines two additional important features:

.1 the Common Maritime Data Structure (CMDS) that spans the whole of the horizontal axis; and

.2 the World Wide Radio Navigation System (WWRNS).

32 The architecture also:

.1 brings into focus the "operational service" level and the "Functional links used

by Technical services" and the "Physical links used by Technical services"; 2 highlights the fundamental distinction between information and data

domains, explaining the relationship between the user requested information items and introducing the concepts of Operational and Technical Services, as well as Functional and Physical Links into a hierarchical perspective;

.3 identifies the concept of "Maritime Service Portfolios"; and .4 unfolds the relationship of shore-to-shore data exchange.

33 The detailed shore and ship side architecture will be further developed in the light of the completion of some of the relevant tasks.

Figure 1 – Overarching e-navigation architecture

Shipboard environment Shore-based authority, such as IALA National Member

Shipboard user VTS Operator MRCC Operator Shore-based Operator X

etc

Shore-based

system

of different

stakeholder

Shore-based

system

of different

stakeholder

Ship-side Links Shore-Side

Info

rma

tio

n D

om

ain

Da

ta D

om

ain

Common technical

shore-based system

harmonized for e-Navigation(incl. its Human-Machine-Interfaces)

Shipboard technical

equipment supporting

e-Navigation(incl. its Human-Machine-Interfaces)

Data provided in

required format

Stated information

needs/

information items

requested

Data provided in

required format

Stated information needs /

information items

requested

Operational

services

Stated data

request

Data provided in

required format

Data provided

in required

format

Stated data

request

Machine-to-Machine-

Interfaces

Human-Machine-

Interface(s)

Human-Machine-

Interface(s)

World Wide Radionavigation System (WWRNS) of IMO (incl. GNSS, GNSS augmentation and terrestrial backup)

„common data structure“ =

proposed Common Maritime

Data Structure (CMDS)

Functional links

used by

Technical services

Physical links

used by

Technical services

Maritime

Service

Portfolio



Identification of communication systems for e-navigation 34 Communications are a key for e-navigation. Any communications systems used must be able to the deliver appropriate MSP in the 6 areas defined, as per S9 S5, as well as delivering reliable ship reporting as identified in S2. 35 Existing available communications can be broadly divided into those:

.1 used for distress and safety-related communications such as for the promulgation of maritime safety information (MSI), as is currently mandated under SOLAS; and

.2 commercially available systems, such as various satellite solutions

(e.g. Inmarsat, Iridium and VSAT) as well as terrestrial telephone and data networks, such as GSM / 3G /4G.

36 Future communication systems could include VHF data (VDES) and NAVDAT, and be developed for internet-based solutions, such as a maritime connectivity platform, facilitating system-wide information management solutions. 37 Existing and future communication links could be integrated via a maritime intranet, although each technical service will be limited by the capabilities of the available communication links. This infrastructure will primarily be based on IP communications links but will enable the utilization of free communication links for safety and mandatory reporting where appropriate, enabling a seamless integration and transition between available communications technologies. 38 The gap analysis, when considering effective and robust shipboard communications, identified that communications system should be developed in the future based on IP technology. 39 Relevant requirements for commercial communication links for e-navigation should have certain availability and latency criteria for the defined service area, and should provide a two-way data communication channel, enabling acknowledgement of information delivery. 40 This could enable automatic quality assurance of:

.1 service efficiency;

.2 availability and coverage of the communication service; and

.3 the shipborne communication installation and capability.

41 It is assumed that the communication for various MSP increases for a ship as it approaches the coast and, therefore, it is likely that more bandwidth/speed may be needed in these areas. 42 Task T15 addresses these issues and is critical to the implementation of e-navigation. The ability to send, receive and ensure the required quality the MSP depends on the availability of the right solution.



43 The possible further development of the existing LRIT shore-based infrastructure has the potential to provide a data link between authorities ashore using secure communications links, for use for certain MSP (as an example MSP16 (search and rescue)). This does not impact on the mandatory LRIT ship reporting system nor does it add to the ship to shore cost for an LRIT message. 44 The concept of the "Maritime Cloud" or named in this document as the "Maritime Connectivity Platform" should be further investigated, including its development and funding, operational and legal issues, including liability, quality and accessibility of information, and global functional operation. Proposals on enhancing public awareness of the e-navigation concept to key stakeholder and user groups 45 E-navigation is relevant and important to a broad range of stakeholders. The aim of the proposals on enhancing awareness of e-navigation is to improve the overall knowledge of the e-navigation concept among different stakeholders, and to enlist their cooperation and assistance in the implementation of e-navigation. 46 In this respect, five stakeholder groups have been identified as important and influential recipients, including key messages for each e-navigation solution. The key messages should be actively used to inform different stakeholders of the potential outcome and benefits of e-navigation, as well as the process of implementing e-navigation. 47 The development of an e-navigation website is also proposed in order to provide a coordinated and dynamic approach for distributing and sharing information related to the further development of e-navigation. 48 Regional/technical cooperation activities could be held in various parts of the world to promote and provide information on the status of the implementation of e-navigation initiatives. It would also provide a meeting arena for knowledge exchange on the process. 49 An e-navigation communication plan is provided in the SIP approved by MSC 94. Regulatory impact 50 The provision and further development of e-navigation should consider relevant international conventions, regulations and guidelines, national legislation and standards. The development and implementation of e-navigation should build upon the work of IMO.18 51 E-navigation is intended to be based on the use of the existing equipment, however any changes in carriage requirement for some of the elements needed to make the system work may have an impact on ship certification. 52 Certain elements in the e-navigation strategy plan have not yet been fully investigated as they depend on the outcome of some of the tasks.

18 Including, but not limited to, the requirements of the FAL, SOLAS, MARPOL and STCW Conventions.



Funding 53 Solution 2 (Means for standardized and automated reporting) and Solution 9 5 (improved communication of VTS service portfolio) both refer to improved shore-based facilities which may need funding for e-navigation to be successfully implemented for some stakeholders. 54 The funding may comprise two components: regional and international contributions. The former being normally provided by participating government agencies or national or regional grants, and the latter by donors operating under the support of institutions such as the World Bank or national agencies providing international development assistance. The funding can be grants, loans or important technical advisory services. 55 In addition, there are bilateral agreements between regions and countries which may contribute to successful funding of e-navigation solutions. 56 The identification of potential sources of funding for development and implementation, particularly in developing regions and countries and any actions to secure that funding, including resource management, could, as an example, usefully look at previous successfully funded international maritime projects. 57 According to World Bank statistics, in the case of the Marine Electronic Highway (MEH) in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, the budget was $17 million which was split as 51% regional (Littoral States and private) and 49% international (GEF/World Bank as grants for IMO and Indonesia).



ANNEX 1

BACKGROUND INFORMATION RELATED TO THE IDENTIFIED RISK CONTROL OPTIONS (RCOS)

1 Relevant background information related to the Risk Control Options (RCOs) identified during the Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) is provided in the following paragraphs. RCO 1: Integration of navigation information and equipment including improved software quality assurance 2 There is a potential for various navigational information to be available in an increasingly centralized way enabling presentation on relevant task-orientated workstations. This may reduces the workload of the navigating officer, master or pilot and otherwise ease the task of navigation. 3 Sophisticated bridge navigational systems are increasingly integrated with each other and with other kinds of systems on the ship. This, as well as the implicit ability of these systems to influence each other, increases complexity. As such it is of increasing importance that these systems are usable and available at all times in a reliable and resilient fashion. RCO 2: Bridge alert management 4 On a bridge with no centralized alert management system, problems in properly identifying alerts may arise. Additionally, alerts from various sources may not be prioritized by importance with regards to safe navigation. Potentially unnecessary distractions of the bridge team by redundant and superfluous audible and visual alarm announcements may occur, increasing the cognitive load on the bridge team on the operator. 5 The relevant performance standards in relation to for central alert management are specified in resolution MSC.252(83) on Adoption of the revised performance standards for Integrated Navigation Systems (INS) and resolution MSC.302(87) on Adoption of performance standards for Bridge Alert Management. RCO3: Standardized mode(s) for navigation equipment 6 In order to aid the navigator navigating officer, the navigation equipment manufacturers and suppliers are continuously developing their products to include a rapidly increasing number of sophisticated functionalities. As the different suppliers follow different generation and presentation philosophies, and in part different terminology, this introduces the risk of navigator the bridge team not being able to access or use all the available functions, not being able to produce a familiar setup of the equipment, and consequently not being able to obtain information required for navigational decision-making. 7 Safe navigation relies on the ability of key personnel of the bridge team to easily operate navigational equipment as well as to comprehend the information that is presented to them. Without proper familiarization, which can sometimes take a significant period of time due to the current differences between operating systems, this is not always the case when someone is new to a particular setup. Lack of familiarity with bridge equipment can result in slow or inappropriate responses due to not finding correct information, system, control function or alarm and is therefore adversely affecting the safe navigation of the ship.



8 Standard modes or default display configurations are envisaged for relevant navigational equipment. Such standard mode(s) should be selectable at the task station and would reset presentation and settings of information to provide a standardized and common display familiar to all users. The standard mode should be accessible by a simple operator action. The standard or default settings would act as a starting point for a user to build the optional settings appropriate for a particular task. Those optional settings could be then saved by the user and be recalled later by a single operator action. 9 Standardized information presentation, symbols and coding should be used according to resolution MSC.191(79) on Performance standards for the presentation of navigation-related information on shipborne navigational displays. There should be a standard or default user interface mode (accessible by a simple operator action) and associated display configuration for relevant navigational equipment. RCO 4: Automated and standardized ship-shore reporting 10 A potential for reducing workload due to filling out and delivering reportable information has been identified. Forms are usually manually filled out and sent individually to each authority requesting the information. Hence there is a significant potential for reduction of paper work and administration exists administrative burden. 11 Standardized ship-shore electronic reporting has been the subject of recent work done by the Facilitation Committee and by the European Commission.

RCO 5: Improved reliability and resilience of onboard PNT systems

12 The primary aim of position fixing is to ensure a ship is correctly following its passage plan. Systems such as Global Navigational Satellite Systems (GNSS) provide position, and timing information. Other information can be derived from multiple position fixes and timing such as, velocity or course and speed over the ground. Changes in velocity and course over time can also yield other information such as rate of turn. Together this set of information is commonly referred to as Position Navigation and Timing (PNT). Ensuring reliable and resilient PNT data is particularly important for safe navigation at sea.

13 Resilience is the ability of a system to detect and compensate for external and internal sources of disturbances, malfunction and breakdowns in parts of the system. Achieving resilient PNT does not imply any setting up of additional GNSS or terrestrial systems, but may use information from such systems, should they exist. Reliability is the probability that the PNT system, when it is available, performs a specified function without failure under given conditions for a specified time.

14 Provision of resilient PNT information can be achieved through a combination of existing space-based and terrestrial systems, modernized and future radio navigation systems, ship-based sensors and other services.

15 Caution must be exercised against the use of differing systems for PNT in different regions of the world. Such a move would potentially create circumstances resulting in new risks for navigation, as mariner seafarers will potentially need to change their practices when travelling between regions. Another issue is that ships could be optimized to navigate only in particular regions with certain types of PNT solutions. This also could impact upon achieving a uniform training regime for seafarers. The implementation of e-navigation should as much as possible employ a consistent approach to the provision of PNT for marine navigation worldwide.



16 In order to increase the reliability and resilience of PNT information on board, an appropriate functional, goal-based performance standard for a PNT data processing unit, might be drafted, which would operate using sensor fusion techniques. This performance standard should not be tied to particular technologies. 17 It is evident there are some good candidates Onboard equipment is available to assist with resilient PNT which that, alongside GNSS and some potential satellite-independent terrestrial systems regional systems, could provide resilient PNT. These are: 17 In addition to GNSS/regional satellite systems and potential satellite-independent terrestrial systems, the following could assist in ensuring resilient PNT.

.1 inertial navigation systems;

.2 signals of opportunity, such as radio, radar, sonar, echo sounder, etc.;

.3 electronically-enabled human-observed bearings and distances (i.e. modern electronic coastal navigation using an e-pelorus, radar and ECDIS);

.4 autonomous celestial navigation; and

.5 other possibilities that could arise from research, for example in the areas of defence and robotic vehicle navigation.

RCO 6: Improved shore-based services 18 VTS, ports and other shore-based stakeholders gather and hold a lot of various information regarding navigational warnings, incidents, operations, tide, AIS, traffic regulations, chart updates, meteorological conditions, ice conditions, etc., which is often referred to as the Maritime Services Portfolio. 19 Implementation of a system for automatic and digital distribution of shore support services would make information more available, updated and relevant for navigators navigation officers. 20 Firstly, Maritime Safety Information (MSI) received by the ship should be relevant to the ship's specific voyage. Today, broadcasted MSI are delivered as printed text from a NAVTEX receiver and must be considered for action. As the Officer of Watch (OOW) may potentially receive several MSI messages daily, of which a large portion of the messages may not be of concern to the voyage, there is the risk of missing vital MSI. Important MSI could easily be overlooked. The MSI should be displayed in relation to the information it relates to and is being used on the bridge in the correct place. 21 Secondly, Notices to Mariners, updates to ENC's and corrections to all nautical publications should be received electronically without any delays in the delivery. Distribution via post is time consuming and may introduce risks to the ships sailing in waters, for which the nautical charts are not up to date.



22 As e-navigation evolves, broadband communications needs to become more cost-effective and readily available. Changes that should be made to current regulatory regimes (e.g. performance standards) should be done in a structured way, so that new systems can be included. This will ensure their use is compliant with the various existing navigational equipment and services, while not limiting the possibilities for new approaches that could offer benefits such as reduced costs and improvements in efficiency and effectiveness. 23 The most appropriate platform to present MSI may be either the INS tasks route monitoring and status and data display (resolution MSC.252(83)) or the ECDIS unit and optionally on another shipborne navigational display. Notices to Mariners, updates and corrections to ENCs and all nautical publications should be able to be received electronically with minimal delay in delivery. Such updates and corrections should, in the future, fully integrated into the INS tasks route monitoring and status and data display (resolution MSC.252(83)) or the ECDIS unit and optionally on another navigational display. Thus, such updates and corrections should not be reliant on formats such as pdf or require the navigator navigation officer to manually transfer updates and corrections between source and navigation device. RCO 7: Bridge and workstation layout standardization 24 Cumbersome equipment layout on the bridge adversely influences the mariner's seafarer's ability to optimally perform navigational duties. Although some good bridge layout designs exist with respect to ergonomics, this is an area identified as insufficiently regulated so as to ensure a consistent acceptable level of functionality. 25 Reference should be made to SOLAS regulation V/15 on Principles relating to bridge design, design and arrangement of navigational systems and equipment and bridge procedures, MSC/Circ.982 on Guidelines on Ergonomic Criteria for Bridge Equipment and Layout, SN.1/Circ.265 on Guidelines on the Application of SOLAS regulation V/15 to INS, IBS and bridge design, SN.1/Circ.288 on Guidelines for bridge equipment and systems, their arrangement and integration (BES) and ISO8468 on Ships Bridge layout and associated equipment. 26 Document NAV 59/6/1 (Australia) related to "Design Usability Principles for e-navigation Solutions and Risk Control Options" is relevant to this RCO, along with the application of Human Centred Design (HCD) guidelines and the Usability (UTEA) guidelines. 26 The Guideline on Software Quality Assurance and Human-Centred Design for e-navigation (MSC.1/Circ.1512), already developed under the IMO e-Navigation Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP), is relevant to this RCO. 27 Seafarers may experience difficulties in accessing necessary information because of ergonomic problems, such as inappropriate physical bridge locations of navigational equipment. Ergonomic problems of navigation equipment also exist in the sense that there is a lack of intuitive human-machine interface for communication and navigation means. Bridge layouts, equipment and systems have not been consistently and sufficiently designed from an ergonomic and usability perspective. Lack of familiarity with bridge equipment and/or slow response due to not finding correct information/control/alarm is considered to adversely affect safe navigation.



ANNEX 2

A DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE PROPOSAL OF THE MARITIME SERVICES TO BE USED IN MARITIME SERVICE PORTFOLIOS

Maritime service

No

Identified services

Identified service provider

Short description

1 MSP1

VTS Information Service (INS)

VTS Authority The VTS Information Service (IS) (INS) is defined as "a service to ensure that essential information becomes available in time for onboard navigational decision making". Relevant information is broadcast at fixed times and intervals or provided when deemed necessary by the VTS or at the request of a vessel. A VTS IS INS involves maintaining a traffic image and allows interaction with traffic and response to developing traffic situations. An Information Service should provide essential and timely information to assist the onboard decision-making process, which may include but is not limited to:

the position, identity, intention and destination of vessels;

amendments and changes in promulgated information concerning the VTS area such as boundaries, procedures, radio frequencies, reporting points;

the mandatory reporting of vessel traffic movements;

meteorological and hydrological conditions, Notices to Mariners, status of aids to navigation;

manoeuvrability limitations of vessels in the VTS area that may impose restrictions on the navigation of other vessels, or any other potential hindrances; or

any information concerning the safe navigation of the vessel. The IS INS is designed to improve the safety and efficiency of vessel traffic and to protect the environment. Among others, such services include routeing, channel info, security level, berthing, anchorage, time slot, traffic monitoring and assessment, waterway conditions, weather, navigational hazards, any other factors that may influence the vessel's transit, reports on the position, identity and intentions of other traffic.



Maritime service

No

Identified services


Short description

2 MSP2

Navigational Assistance Service (NAS)

VTS Authority National Competent VTS Authority/ Coastal or Port Authority

The NAS is defined as "a service to assist onboard navigational decision-making and to monitor its effects". NAS may be provided on request by a vessel in circumstances such as equipment failure or navigational unfamiliarity. Specific examples of developing situations where NAS may be provided by the VTS include: Risk of grounding; vessel deviating from the recommended track or sailing plan; vessel unsure of its position or unable to determine its position; vessel unsure of the route to its destination; assistance to a vessel to an anchoring position; vessel navigational or manoeuvring equipment casualty; inclement conditions (e.g. low visibility, high winds); potential collision between vessels; potential collision with a fixed object or hazard; assistance to a vessel to support the unexpected incapacity of a key member of the bridge team, on the request of the master.

3 MSP3

Traffic Organization Service (TOS)

VTS Authority National Competent VTS Authority/Coastal or Port Authority

The TOS is defined as "a service to prevent the development of dangerous maritime traffic situations and to provide for the safe and efficient movement of vessel traffic within the VTS area". The purpose of the TOS is to prevent hazardous situations from developing and to ensure safe and efficient navigation through the VTS area. TOS should be provided when the VTS is authorized to provide services, such as when:

vessel movements need to be planned or prioritized to prevent congestion or dangerous situations;

special transports or vessels with hazardous or polluting cargo may affect the flow of other traffic and need to be organized;

an operating system of traffic clearances or sailing plans, or both, has been established;

the allocation of space needs to be organized;

mandatory reporting of movements in the VTS area has been established;

special routes should be followed;

speed limits should be observed;

the VTS observes a developing situation and deems it necessary to interact and coordinate vessel traffic; and

nautical activities (e.g. sailing regattas) or marine works in-progress (such as dredging or submarine cable-laying) may interfere with the flow of vessel movement.



Maritime service

No

Identified services


Short description

4 MSP4

Local Port Service (LPS)

Local Port/Harbour Operator

LPS is applicable to those ports where it has been assessed that a VTS, as described above, is excessive or inappropriate.

The main difference arising from the provision of LPS is that it does not interact with traffic, nor is it required to have the ability and/or the resources to respond to developing traffic situations and there is no requirement for a vessel traffic image to be maintained. Provision of LPS is designed to improve port safety and coordination of port services within the port community by dissemination of port information to vessels and berth or terminal operators. It is mainly concerned with the management of the port, by the supply of information on berth and port conditions. Provision of LPS can also act as a medium for liaison between vessels and allied services, as well as providing a basis for implementing port emergency plans. Examples of LPS may include:

berthing information;

availability of port services;

shipping schedules; and

meteorological and hydrological data.

A number of web-based LPS services are being developed. An example is AVANTI, an initiative of the International Harbour Masters Association (IHMA).

5 MSP5

Maritime Safety Information Service (MSI)

National Competent Authority

The Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) as described in SOLAS chapter IV defines the seventh functional requirement as: "Every ship, while at sea, shall be capable of transmitting and receiving maritime safety information".

The MSI service is an internationally coordinated network of broadcasts of Maritime Safety Information from official information providers, such as:

National Hydrographic Offices, for navigational warnings and chart correction data;

National Meteorological Offices, for weather warnings and forecasts;

Rescue Co-ordination Centres (RCCs), for shore-to-ship distress alerts; and

the International Ice Patrol, for Oceanic ice hazards.



Maritime service

No

Identified services


Short description

Specific information on Aids to Navigation and restrictions on safe navigation are part of MSI services provided by national authorities. This can include but is not limited to, the following type of information to be available to mariners seafarers:

status of Aids to Navigation;

status of GPS and DGPS;

buoy tendering operation; and

restriction on safe navigation such as bridge/hydro cable air gap, new hazards, construction or dredging operations.

6 MSP6

Pilotage Service Pilotage Authority/ Pilot Organization

The aim of the pilotage service is to safeguard traffic at sea and protect the environment by ensuring that vessels operating in pilotage areas have pilots with adequate qualifications and local knowledge for safe navigation. Each pilotage area needs highly specialized experience and local knowledge on the part of the pilot.

Efficient pilotage depends, among other things, effectiveness of communications and information exchanges between the pilot and the master as well other bridge team members with the understanding that each has functions and duties related to each other.

The Pilot's Portable Unit (PPU) is a useful tool for safe navigation in clear and restricted visibility. Data accessible by the PPU should be made available in a structured, harmonized and reliable manner, and the interface for accessing such e-navigation information should be standardized.

Establishment of effective coordination between the pilot, the master and the bridge personnel, taking due account of the ship's systems and equipment available to the pilot, will aid a safe and expeditious passage (see resolution A.960(23)).

7 MSP7

Tugs Service National Competent Authority; Local Port/Harbour Authority

Efficient tug operations depend on, among other things, the effectiveness of the communications and information exchanges between relevant stakeholders. The aim of the tugs services is to safeguard traffic at sea and protect the environment by conducting operations such as:

transportation (personnel and staff from port to anchorage) operations;

ship assistance (i.e. mooring) operations;

salvage (grounded ships or structures) operations;



Maritime service

No

Identified services


Short description

shore operations;

towage (harbour/ocean) operations;

escort operations; and

oil spill response operations.

8 MSP8

Vessel Shore Reporting

National Competent Authority and appointed service providers

The aim of vessel shore reporting is to safeguard traffic at sea, ensure personnel safety and security, protection of the marine environment and increase the efficiency of maritime operations. Single-window is one of the most important solutions to reduce the seafarer's workload (amount of time spent on preparing and submitting reports to shore-based authorities). To achieve this, reports should be automatically generated as much as possible from onboard systems. Some other important possibilities for a vessel shore reporting system may include:

single-entry of reportable information in single-window solution;

automated collection of internal ship data for reporting;

all national reporting requirements to apply standardized digital reporting formats based on IMO FAL forms; and

automated or semi-automated digital distribution/communication of required reportable information.

9 MSP9

Telemedical Assistance Service (TMAS)

National health Organization/ dedicated health Organization

TMAS centres provide medical advice for seafarers 24 h/day, 365 days/year. TMAS are permanently staffed by physicians qualified in conducting remote consultations and who are well versed in the particular nature of treatment on board ship.

Within the maritime medicine the prevailing view has for a long time been that a standardization of the TMAS services is both necessary and wanted. This would firstly enhance the quality of the medical practice, and secondly, a standardization of reporting and registering of medical treatments provides the basis for advancement.

10 MSP10

Maritime Assistance Service (MAS)

Coastal/Port Authority/ Organization

The primary mission of MAS is to receive reports from ships in the event of an incident involving a ship and/or where a ship is in need of assistance.



Maritime service

No

Identified services


Short description

The MAS is operational on a 24-hour basis to organize rapid assistance and professional support for ships in connection with combating pollution, fire and explosions on board, collision, grounding, etc., but not requiring rescue of persons (see A.950(23))

The MAS is responsible only for receiving and transmitting communications and monitoring the situation. It serves as a point of contact between the master and the coastal State concerned if the ship's situation requires exchanges of information between the ship and the coastal State. Situations where the MAS apply are as follows:

ship involved in an incident (loss of cargo, accidental discharge of oil, etc.) that does impair its seakeeping ability but nevertheless has to be reported;

ship in need of assistance according to the master's assessment, but not in distress situation that requires the rescue of personnel on board; and

ship in distress situation and those on board have already been rescued, with the possible exception of those who have remained aboard or have been placed on board to attempt to deal with the ship's situation.

The MAS entails the implementation of procedures and instructions enabling the forward of any given information to the competent Organization and requiring the Organizations concerned to go through the MAS in order to make contact with the ship.

11 MSP11

Nautical Chart Service

National Hydrographic Authority/ Organization

The aim of the nautical chart service is to provide nautical chart information such as nature and form of the coast, water depth, tides table, obstructions and other dangers to navigation, location and type of aids to navigation. The Nautical Chart service also ensure the distribution, update and licensing of electronic chart to vessels and other maritime parties.

12 MSP12

Nautical Publications Service

National Hydrographic Authority/ Organization

The term nautical publications refers to the set of nautical information available for a particular sea area or port. It comprises nautical charts, information on ports, navigational aids ashore and at sea as well as contact information of authorities and services for a sea area or port, such as sailing directions, lists of lights, notices to mariners, tide tables and all other nautical publications necessary for the intended voyage (SOLAS reg.V/27).

The aim of the nautical publication service is to promote navigation awareness and safe navigation of ships. The nature of waterways described by any given nautical publication



Maritime service

No

Identified services


Short description

changes regularly, and a mariner navigating by use of an old or uncorrected publication is courting disaster. Nautical publications include:

tidal currents, aids to navigation system, buoys and fog signals, radio aids to marine navigation, chart symbols, terms and abbreviations, sailing directions; and

a Chart and Publication Correction Record Card system can be used to ensure that every publication is properly corrected prior use by mariners.

13 MSP13

Ice Navigation Service

National Competent Authority Organization

The ice navigation service is critical to safeguard the ship navigation in ice-infested waters, given how quickly the ice maps become outdated in the rapid changing conditions of the ice-covered navigational regions. Such services include:

ice condition information and operational recommendations/advice;

ice condition around a vessel;

vessel routeing;

vessel escort and ice breaking;

ice drift load and momentum; and

ice patrol.

14 MSP14

Meteorological Information Service

National Meteorological Authority/ Public Institutions

The meteorological service is essential to safeguard the traffic at sea by providing weather, climate digital forecasts and related information to seafarers who use these types of information to support their decision-making. Such information includes:

weather routeing, solar radiation and precipitation;

cold/hot durations and warnings;

air temperature, wind speed and direction; and

cloudiness and barometric pressure.

15 MSP15

Real-time hydrographic and environmental information service

National Hydrographic and Meteorological Authorities

The real-time hydrographic and environmental information service is essential to safeguard navigation at sea and protect the environment. The services provided include:

current wind speed and direction;

wave height;

marine habitat and bathymetry; and

sailing Directions (or pilots): detailed descriptions of areas of the sea, shipping routes, harbours, aids to navigation, regulations, etc.;



Maritime service

No

Identified services


Short description

lists of lights: descriptions of lighthouses and lightbuoys;

tide surge prediction tables and tidal stream atlases;

ephemerides and nautical almanacs for celestial navigation; and

Notices to Mariners: periodical (often weekly) updates and corrections for nautical charts and publications.

16 MSP16

Search and Rescue Service (SAR)

SAR Authorities The SAR service performs distress monitoring, communication, coordination and search and rescue functions, including provisions of medical advice, initial medical assistance, or medical evacuation, through the use of initial medical assistance. An MRCC provides reliable communication links to the system's network for efficient handling of shore-to-ship distress alert relays and distress traffic. In maintaining a state of full readiness the MRCC may perform the following rescue functions:

rescuing of survivors of any aircraft (not in an act of war) crashes or forced landings at sea;

rescuing of crew and passengers of vessels in distress; and

rescuing of survivors of maritime accidents or incidents.

The SAR services must also coordinate the evacuation of seriously injured or ill person from a vessel at sea when the person requires medical treatment sooner than the vessel would be able to get him or her to a suitable medical facility.

MRCCs may also be pro-actively involved in activities such as:

information collection, distribution and coordination;

monitoring towing operations;

monitoring and evaluating levels of risk from Maritime Safety Information (MSI) broadcasts to ensure an immediate response in case of life threatening situations developing;

monitoring vessels not under command; and

pollution reports and vessels aground.



Maritime service

No

Identified services


Short description

E-navigation can provide additional information such as number of persons on board, type of ship, port of destination, etc. and enable provision of additional information such as available SAR resources on board ships, etc.

Information on other vessels in the area can be crucial for an effective rescue.

Communication solutions used for e-navigation will be able to exchange information about SAR areas and allocate search patterns and provide facilities for MRCCs to set up a common information sharing log or chatroom for MRCCs, on-scene coordinator and other resources to share and update information during a SAR incident.



ANNEX 3

USER NEEDS AND PRIORITIES

Shipboard user needs and priorities

User need Justification Relation to IMO strategy

Priority in terms of work required

Issues to consider

Human Machine Interface Issues

Improved Ergonomics Mariners Seafarers have expressed a desire for bridge layouts, equipment and systems to be better designed from an ergonomic and user-friendly perspective.

Many ship bridges have been designed without much thought given to the effective layout of equipment or workstations. Mariners Seafarers have expressed that in an e-navigation era, work stations, navigation displays, communication devices, and other bridge equipment must be designed to improve effective bridge operation. Such layouts should take into account expanded bridge teams, including the pilot.

• Human-Machine Interface • Human-centred presentation needs

Harmonize and apply existing documentation Take note of: IMO documents: • Resolution MSC.252(83) (Adoption of the Revised performance standards for Integrated Navigation Systems (INS) – valid for equipment installed on or after 1 January 2011) • Resolution MSC.86(70), annex 3 (Performance standards for an Integrated Navigation System (INS) – valid for equipment installed on or after 1 January 2000 but before 1 January 2011 ) • MSC/Circ.982 (Guidelines on Ergonomic Criteria for Bridge Equipment and Layout) • NAV 55/4, annex 1 (Bridge Equipment, System Arrangements and Integration)

It should be noted that much work has been done in this area, however not widely applied. Consideration of more prescriptive bridge layout requirements. Consideration of more prescriptive work station requirements. Better application of centralized and effective dimming of screens. Innovations and new technology solutions; should concentrate on the needs and capabilities of the users.





Issues to consider

• Resolution MSC.191(79) (Performance standards for the presentation of navigation- related information on shipborne navigational displays Pres. of Nav-Related Info on NavDisplays) • Other industry standards.

Promotion of access to information at one place where appropriate (multi-functional workplaces). Methodology to consider usability of navigational equipment.



User need Justification Relation to IMO strategy Priority in terms of work

required Issues to consider

Standard Interface Mariners Seafarers expressed a desire for greater standardization of functionality for navigation displays (human-machine interface).

Navigation system functions, operations and presentation (including ECDIS, Radar, AIS, GPS, GMDSS, etc.) can vary widely between manufacturers and even between models by a single manufacturer. The differences include where certain information is displayed (i.e. Speed and Course), how it is displayed, menu functions and interface devices such as knobs or joysticks. This makes type specific training difficult, and leads to ineffective use of features particularly by those watchkeepers who are new to a ship.

Human-centred presentation needs

Human-Machine Interface

Analysis

Research should be conducted regarding the functionality of standard interfaces. Take note of: IMO documents • Resolution MSC.191(79) (Performance standards for the presentation of navigation-related information on shipborne navigational displays)

• Resolution MSC.252(83) (Adoption of Revised performance standards for Integrated Navigation Systems (INS))

-NAV 55/4, annex 1 (Bridge Equipment, System Arrangements and Integration) Other industry standards.

Design specification for current equipment. Note should be made of concept of S-Mode. Need to update and establish balance between standardization and innovation.

Familiarization Requirements Mariners Seafarers need all safety-related equipment to be provided with familiarization material specific to the model and installation.

Mariners Seafarers often join ships where non-standard equipment and functions exist. It was thought that if these pieces of equipment or systems could be provided with familiarization material or tutorials safety would improve.

Human-Machine Interface

Analysis

Implementation issues

Identify where familiarization material specifications need to be developed for existing and developing performance standards. Take note of: IMO document (SN.1/Circ.274) Guidelines for application of the modular concept to performance standards.

Consideration should be given to requiring such familiarization material to be provided by the manufacturer. Consider example using INS Performance Standards (Resolution MSC.252(83)).





Issues to consider

User-selectable presentation of information received via communication equipment

Mariners Seafarers expressed a desire to have the possibility to present user-selectable information received via communication equipment on the navigational displays (e.g. ship in distress, wind speed/ direction, AtoN status, restricted areas). They further requested the possibility to filter some transmitted data for presentation according to user-set parameters (e.g. only information from user-selected sea areas).

• Effective communication: • Human-centred presentation needs • Human-Machine Interface • Analysis

Research should be conducted regarding the type of information, equipment and systems involved and how to present and/or filter such information.

Availability of information in real-time with possible presentation on the shipborne navigational displays. Information overload needs to be prevented, therefore, presentation of information should be user-selectable to filter required information. Task-oriented presentation based on INS-tasks (Resolution MSC.252(83)).

Maritime Safety Information (MSI) Mariners Seafarers expressed a desire to sort and display MSI, such as NAVTEX, SafetyNET more effectively.

On most ships, NAVTEX information is displayed on a separate screen or printed on a scroll of paper. The Latitude and Longitude of the MSI must then be compared to that of the ship by the watchkeeper to identify whether the information is relevant and poses a risk. For example, notification of a new and dangerous wreck carries is not prioritized over a drifting buoy, possibly hundreds of miles away from the ship's intended route. This is a very time-consuming and distracting task, and susceptible to human error. Seafarers considered that presenting such safety information on the ship's navigation display would be far more effective and a clear benefit of e-navigation.

• Effective communication • Human-centred presentation needs • Human-Machine Interface • Analysis

Work with relevant stakeholders to address technical requirements for presenting MSI on shipborne navigation displays. Take note of Methodology for developing e-navigation user needs using a task-based approach (NAV 55/11/4).

Possible re-formatting of NAVTEX data and continuing with transmitting data on same frequencies. Transition from old to new format. Task-oriented presentation based on INS-tasks (Resolution MSC.252(83)).




required

Issues to consider

Alert Management Bridge alerts (emergency alarms, alarms, warnings and cautions) must be coordinated, weighted, and support decision-making without undue distraction.

It is not uncommon for the bridge of a ship to have in excess of 500 alarms pertaining to navigation, propulsion, cargo, and communication systems. These alarms are usually uncoordinated, physically located all over the bridge, and give little indication of severity without interrogation, which distracts the navigator. As systems become increasingly complex, all bridge alarms must be coordinated to avoid undue distraction.

• Human-centred presentation needs • Data and System Integrity • Analysis

Investigate possibility to apply existing IMO regulations to INS alert management and bridge alert management. Take note of: IMO documents • Resolution A.1021(26) on Code on Alerts and Indicators, 2009 • Resolution MSC.252(83) (INS) • NAV 55/4, annex 2 (BAM) • DE 52/4/2 (Code on Alerts and Indicators) Resolution MSC.302(87) on Performance standards for Bridge Alert Management

Indication of Reliability Mariners Seafarers have expressed a concern that on systems such as ECDIS, the vessel's ship's position is always indicated as an absolute, leaving mariners seafarers to rely on their understanding of technically complex systems to assess the accuracy of such indicated positions. Mariners Seafarers have expressed a desire for systems to automatically assess the accuracy and integrity of hydrographic data, position fixing data, radar, and other ship sensors to return a graphical indication of assessment.

• Human-centred presentation needs • Human-Machine Interface • Data and System Integrity • Analysis

Investigate effective ways to indicate levels of reliability using graphical representation. Take note of: • Resolution MSC.252(83) (INS) • Other industry/naval standards.

Consideration of using, e.g. ellipses of uncertainty to indicate expected accuracy. Consideration of using, e.g. colour or shading changes to indicate integrity of information.




required

Issues to consider

Operational Issues

Improved Reliability Before mariners seafarers are confident in e-navigation systems, they must prove far more reliable than many of the present systems.

Mariners Seafarers today often struggle with electronic equipment that fails or malfunctions in some respect. This may relate to poor performance from radar; electronic chart software faults; incorrect AIS data, GMDSS alerts or loss of position fixing systems. Even a 99% reliability rating, would result in a problem for one voyage in every 100. This has resulted in many mariners seafarers distrusting electronic systems, and now having grave doubts about relying on e-navigation. It must be recognized that there is little competence for fixing such systems on board, and obtaining the services of a qualified technician in some ports can be difficult.

• Effective and robust communications • Data and System Integrity

It will be necessary to carry out an assessment to quantify reliability parameters. To include specific assessment of reliability of electronic position fixing systems.

Design specification for current equipment. Type approval process. Competence of installation and repair technicians. Better control and visibility of software and hardware updates.

Standardized and automated reporting Mariners Seafarers have expressed a keen desire to reduce the amount of ship/shore reporting and to adopt the principle of single entry for any information into the system. They have further expressed a desire for globally standardized reporting procedures and forms to avoid repetition of reporting and to reduce workload.

A major frustration and distraction for mariners seafarers is the repeated reporting of static and dynamic information pertaining to the ship, cargo, crew, and voyage to shore authorities. A major benefit of e-navigation would be for ships' crew to enter such information into their system only once and for it to be shared by authorized authorities without further intervention by the ship.

• Common Maritime Information/Data Structure • Automated and Standardized Reporting Functions • Effective and Robust Communications

Investigate methods for global standardization of reporting procedures and technology. Investigate the legal aspects associated with access and sharing of information.

Possible increased use of AIS. Possible increased demands on communication means, i.e. spectrum and bandwidth.



Improved Target Detection Mariners Seafarers would be grateful if e-navigation could facilitate better detection of targets.

Mariners Seafarers are constantly concerned with identifying targets, including leisure and fishing craft, pirates, flotsam and jetsam, ice, etc. Better detection of small targets is considered a priority.

• Effective and robust communications • Human Centred Presentation Needs • Data and System Integrity • Analysis

Investigate technologies to assist with better detection of targets and risk of collision.

High resolution X-band NT radar has potential benefit in this area.

Guard Zones Mariners Seafarers expressed a desire to have more effective Guard Zones to notify watchkeepers of hazards pertaining to collisions and groundings.

As target detection become more effective, MSI becomes integrated, and passage plans are programmed in ECDIS, mariners seafarers feel that guard zones in three dimensions can be an effective way to warn watchkeepers of undetected hazards. This should include hazards of grounding taking into account UKC in a dynamic environment; air draft; and risk of collision. Warnings from this Guard Zone feature should be integrated into the bridge alert system.

• Human-centred presentation needs • Human-Machine Interface • Data and System Integrity • Analysis

Research effective means of implementing the use of Guard Zones or other means in order to avoid collisions and groundings.

It should be noted that the use of such Guard Zone facility will need to be intrinsic in the training syllabus. Use of Guard Zones must be taught as a decision support feature. Many ships have aspects of Guard Zones on present equipment but don't use them due to poor training with reference to their function and their value.

Reduction of administrative burden and increase use of electronic documentation

Seafarers expressed the need to reduce the amount of administrative work on board. They also expressed a desire to replace paper information and documentation by electronic means for easy location of information.

• Human-centred presentation needs • Data and system integrity

Investigate the best way to harmonize and present maritime documentation in an electronic format to improve efficiency and reduce administrative burden.

Electronic documents should support: - easy localization of information (e.g. with the help of a search function) - automatic updates (e.g. of Notices to Mariners) - Possible integration of information from multiple sources. -the integration of information in other systems on the bridge (e.g. ECDIS) electronic documents should be printable or be additionally provided as paper version. The need for traceability and ability to audit.




required

Issues to consider

Automated Updating of Baseline Data and Documents Mariners Seafarers expressed a desire for documents such as charts, and voyage planning publications to be automatically updated, with minimal shipboard intervention.

Mariners Seafarers are required to use a plethora of publications associated with voyage planning and monitoring. These include, but are not limited to, charts, lights list, lists of radio signals, sailing directions, port guides, etc. Currently, most of these are kept on board in a paper format and require a considerable amount of time to keep constantly updated. Mariners Seafarers believe that e-navigation can be of benefit if it ensures that all these sources of information are automatically maintained up-to-date, and all of this information is accessible from a centralized location. Mariners Seafarers have also expressed a desire for this information to be easy to access, sort and make sense of. This may be achieved by standard formats or —smart systems. Mariners Seafarers are very concerned that e-navigation may lead to more information being made available to them, leading to further overburdening. It is essential that the provision of information via e-navigation should be managed and presented effectively.

• Common Maritime Information/Data Structure • Effective and robust communications • Human-centred presentation needs • Analysis

Investigate and harmonize means for automated updating of baseline data and documents, including consideration of legal aspects communication costs.

Consideration should be given to a proper electronic format for the data rather than digital copies of existing paper publications. This would allow the presentation of relevant data in a succinct manner. The need for traceability and ability to audit.




required

Issues to consider

Effective and robust communications

A clear need was expressed for there to be an effective and robust means of communications for ship and shore users. Shore-based users require an effective means of communicating with vessels ships to facilitate safety, security and environmental protection and to provide operational information. To be effective, communication with and between vessels ships should make best use of audio/visual aids and standard phrases to minimize linguistic challenges and distractions to operators. Research has indicated that a high percentage of mariners seafarers regards language incompatibility and non-standard phrases a major problem. They also highlighted equipment failure and busy communication channels a concern that needs to be addressed.

Automated and standardized reporting functions. Effective and robust communications. Common Marine/Data Structure Data and System Integrity Human-centred presentation needs.

Research into how voice and digital communication can be made more effective. Plan for greater use of IMO SMCP (resolution A.918(22)). Identify reliability standards for communication technology. Identify communication capacity issues to ensure adequate bandwidth for essential communication needs.

Route exchange. Use of AIS application specific messages. Use of Wireless technology (Wi-Fi and Wi-MAX).



Shore-based user needs


required

Issues to consider

Collection of information Complete marine domain awareness is essential for the early identification of risks and effective response. The collection of information is necessary to build an enhanced domain awareness, to support safety, security, environment protection and efficiency. This allows for faster and more informed decisions. There are rules that require coastal States to maintain domain awareness. There is currently a gap between the information collected and information required. A change in the type of service offered by a VTS (i.e. Information Service, Navigational Assistance Service or a Traffic Organization Service) may change the functional requirements of the domain awareness system.

Common maritime information/ data structure. Automated and standardized reporting functions. Effective and robust communications. Data and system integrity. Analysis.

Identify the data that will be required. Identify the data sources that will be required. Identify the key data providers, the standards that apply, types of data they provide and any limitations. Identify the relationship between key data providers and users. Identify relevant legislation. Identify harmonization needs for standards, formats and protocols. Develop a system to allow the global exchange of ship and other maritime reporting data.

Such information may include both static and dynamic information including hydrographic, environmental, vessel data, AtoN information and known hazards. Take into account AIS and GMDSS standards Take into account the functionality of existing web-based systems. Take into account the development of Service Level Agreements with data providers. Take into account existing ship reporting systems. There are a multitude of communication methods that should be considered. Consideration will need to be given to legal and liability issues, specifically with regard to the handling of data. Take into account the lessons learnt from development of ECDIS.




required

Issues to consider

Management of information

Shore authorities need tools for managing increased levels of information pertaining to the maritime domain awareness. A harmonized and holistic approach to information management will enable shore authorities to manage resources more efficiently. The harmonized and enhanced presentation of domain awareness will

improve situational awareness for allied and other support services. Enhanced information management is required for improving logistics management and in support of safety, security and environment protection. Currently, there are major challenges to managing and sharing a diverse range of information from dissimilar systems. Current systems suffer without a harmonized approach to quality and structure.

Common maritime information/data structure. Automated and standardized reporting functions. Effective and robust communications. Human-centred presentation needs. Data and system integrity. Analysis.

Identify the sources and ownership of information to be managed. Identify communication methods/ variety of communication methods. Identify quality parameters for different types of information, including accuracy, reliability, latency, etc. Identify specific requirements for alerting for the loss of integrity or system failure. Identify the legal issues pertaining to capturing, storing and sharing data. Seek to harmonize policies for the security and use of data.

A gap analysis should be used to identify the capability of present information management systems to deal with an increasing amount of information in a timely manner. Take into account best practice for information management and examples from other industries, such as aviation. Take into account the benefits of open architecture systems.

Allied services are services actively involved in the safe and efficient passage of the vessel through the VTS area (IMO resolution A.857(20)).




required

Issues to consider

Provision of information to vessels ships

Shore authorities have an obligation to provide maritime information to vessels ships. There is a need to improve the delivery and presentation of such information to enhance onboard decision-making. Effective and harmonized communication should allow for the provision of such information in an operationally effective manner.

Common maritime information/ data structure. Automated and standardized reporting functions. Effective and robust communications. Human centred presentation needs. Data and system integrity. Analysis.

Identify the information necessary to be provided to vessels, taking into account the responsibility assigned to the shore-based provider. Identify the means of communicating the information to vessels.

Consider the efficient provision of relevant information pertaining to logistics and commercial activities. Consider how to provide information to the mariners seafarers efficiently and effectively. This pertains to traffic information, MSI, security-related information, updates to nautical publications, met-ocean information, etc.

Take into account the need for scalability.

Consider a facility for shore authorities to assess the real time status of shore systems and to disseminate this information as appropriate.

Take into account the use of AIS binary messages.

Quality assurance The shore authority needs to have confidence that the navigation systems being used on board are operating correctly.

Shore authorities need to be confident that the information which they receive from and send to the ship is correct.

Shore authorities have a need to be capable of establishing effective communication with bridge teams and other shore users.

Common maritime information/ data structure. Automated and standardized reporting functions. Effective and robust communications. Data and system integrity. Analysis.

It will be necessary to carry out an assessment to quantify reliability parameters, taking into account existing IEC standards/IMO Performance Standards for on board equipment. Investigate the technical and procedural capabilities for monitoring quality Consider how information can have a quality rating.

Consider how shore authorities are assured of the navigation system status on board ships in real time. And for system faults ashore to be brought to the attention of mariners seafarers as appropriate. Consider the effectiveness of communications in terms of technology and language. Consider legal and liability issues.




required

Issues to consider

Shore-to-shore information exchange

Shore authorities need an enhanced ability to share maritime information amongst authorized shore users to ensure consistency and reduce the reporting burden by ship personnel. More effective shore-to-shore information exchange will aid safety, security, the identification of risk, environmental protection and improve logistics management.

Common maritime information/ data structure. Automated and standardized reporting functions. Effective and robust communications. Human-centred presentation need. Data and system integrity. Analysis.

Identify and/or develop necessary protocols, formats and data structures Investigate methods for global data sharing Identify relevant legal and regulatory implications

Consider the need for data security and ownership issues. Consider work done in other relevant industries. Consider the use of standard data exchange protocols.

Effective and robust communications

A clear need was expressed for there to be an effective and robust means of communications for ship and shore users. Shore-based users require an effective means of communicating with vessels ships to facilitate safety, security and environmental protection and to provide operational information. To be effective, communication with and between vessels ships should make best use of audio/visual aids and standard phrases to minimize linguistic challenges and distractions to operators. Research has indicated that a high percentage of mariners seafarers regards language incompatibility and non-standard phrases a major problem. They also highlighted equipment failure and busy communication channels as concerns that needs to be addressed.

Automated and standardized reporting functions. Effective and robust communications.

Research into how voice and digital communication can be made more effective. Plan for greater use of IMO SMCP (resolution A.918(22)). Identify reliability standards for communication technology. Identify communication capacity issues to ensure adequate bandwidth for essential communication needs.



SAR authority user needs for e-navigation


required

Issues to consider

SAR should have access to relevant information contained within the e-nav domain.

SAR need a full range of information pertaining to ships and their domain to support the saving of lives.

Common Data Structure Automated reporting Robust Communications Data Integrity.

Effective Communication and information sharing.

SAR must be able to use the e-nav infrastructure to communicate and share information effectively with all parties involved in an incident.

Common Data Structure Automated reporting Robust Communications Data Integrity.

Priority for distress communications.

Within the e-nav domain, distress communications should take priority over all other communications.

Common Data Structure, Automated reporting, robust communications data integrity.

SAR Authorities need access to the details of all relevant onboard communication equipment and capabilities.

To maximize incident response, SAR need to be able to determine the best means for communications.



ANNEX 4

LIST OF STANDARDS THAT COULD BE EVALUATED FOR E-NAVIGATION Some of the IMO performance standards already have interfaces and displays which might be suitable for use in an e-navigation context. However, some existing equipment standards do not currently have all the appropriate interfaces or use the appropriate up-to-date display standards, but manufacturers may be providing them as an extra feature. For example, it is not currently an IMO requirement to be able to display AIS information on an ECDIS but some manufacturers' equipment has this facility. The following tables list the communications and navigation equipment currently required by SOLAS chapters III, IV and V. This equipment is mandatory depending on the configuration of the ship (tonnage, etc.) and GMDSS sea Area (A1, A2, A3 or A4). The INS has been added because, although it is not currently a carriage requirement, it might be an essential element of e-navigation. The fifth column of the tables indicates if the equipment might be used for e-navigation (i.e. has appropriate interfaces, etc.). E = may be used without modification to the existing standards F = future upgrade may be needed for interfacing M = standards may need to be modified for e-navigation P = presentation rules may apply Note: Some equipment standards are subject to clarification from circulars from MSC, NAV and COMSAR. Note: Until the Organizations' review of the GMDSS is complete, the communications devices in the table below are based on the current GMDSS. Note: Where the equipment is radio-based, the appropriate ITU recommendations are not cited as none have been identified yet that may need changing.



Table 1 – Communications equipment from SOLAS chapter IV (including those required by SOLAS chapter III life-saving appliances)

Item

designation SOLAS 74 where "type approval" is

required

Regulations of SOLAS 74 and the relevant resolutions and circulars of the IMO, as applicable

International Testing

standards

Suitability for e-navigation

VHF radio capable of transmitting and receiving DSC and radiotelephony

Reg. IV/14, — Reg. X/3, — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 14, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 14.

Reg. IV/7, — Reg. X/3, — IMO Res. A.385(X), — IMO Res. A.524(13), — IMO Res. A.694(17), — IMO Res. A.801(19), — IMO Res. A.803(19), — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 14, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 14, — IMO MSC/Circ.862, — IMO COMSAR Circ.32, —

IEC 61097-3 (1994), IEC 61097-7 (1996), IEC 61162 series, — IMO MSC/Circ.862.

E P

VHF DSC watchkeeping receiver


Reg. IV/7, — Reg. X/3, — IMO Res. A.694(17), — IMO Res. A.801(19), — IMO Res. A.803(19), — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 14, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 14, — IMO COMSAR Circ.32, —

IEC 60945 (2002), — IEC 61097-3 (1994), — IEC 61097-8 (1998).

E

Navtex receiver Reg. IV/14, — Reg. X/3, — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 14, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 14.

Reg. IV/7, — Reg. X/3, — IMO Res. A.694(17), — IMO Res. A.801(19), — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 14, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 14, — IMO Res. MSC.148(77), — IMO COMSAR Circ.32, —

IEC 60945 (2002), — IEC 61097-6 (2005-12).

M P

EGC receiver Reg. IV/14, — Reg. X/3, — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 14, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 14.

Reg. IV/7, — Reg. X/3, — IMO Res. A.570(14), — IMO Res. A.664(16), — IMO Res. A.694(17), — IMO Res. A.801(19), — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 14, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 14, — IMO COMSAR Circ.32.

IEC 60945 (2002), — IEC 61097-4 (1994).

M P



Item designation

SOLAS 74 where "type approval" is

required



standards


HF marine safety information (MSI) equipment (HF NBDP receiver)

Reg. IV/14, — Reg. X/3, — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 14, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 14

Reg. IV/7, — Reg. X/3, — IMO Res. A.694(17), — IMO Res. A.699(17), — IMO Res. A.700(17), — IMO Res. A.801(19), — IMO Res. A.806(19), — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 14, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 14, — IMO COMSAR Circ.32, —

ETSI ETS 300067 Ed.1 (1990-11), — ETSI ETS 300067/A1 Ed.1 (1993-10), — EN 60945 (2002), — EN 61162 Series.

M P

MF radio capable of transmitting and receiving DSC and radiotelephony


Reg. IV/9, — Reg. IV/10, — Reg. X/3, — IMO Res. A.694(17), — IMO Res. A.801(19), — IMO Res. A.804(19), — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 14, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 14, — IMO COMSAR Circ.32, —

IEC 60945 (2002), — IEC 61097-3 (1994), — IEC 61097-9 (1997), — IEC 61162 series, — IMO MSC/Circ.862.

M P

Inmarsat-C SES Reg. IV/14, — Reg. X/3, — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 14, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 14.

Reg. IV/10, — Reg. X/3, — IMO Res. A.570(14), — IMO Res. A.664 (16), (applicable only if the Inmarsat C SES comprises EGC functions), — IMO Res. A.694(17), — IMO Res. A.801(19), — IMO Res. A.807(19), — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 14, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 14, — IMO MSC/Circ.862, — IMO COMSAR Circ.32.

IEC 60945 (2002), — IEC 61097-4 (2007), — EN 61162 series, — IMO MSC/Circ.862.

E P

MF/HF radio capable of transmitting and receiving DSC, NBDP and radiotelephony


Reg. IV/10, — Reg. X/3, — IMO Res. A.694(17), — IMO Res. A.801(19), — IMO Res. A.806(19), — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 14, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 14, — IMO MSC/Circ.862, — IMO COMSAR Circ.32, —

IEC 60945 (2002), — IEC 61097-3 (1994), — IEC 61097-9 (1997), — IEC 61162 series, — IMO MSC/Circ.862.

M P



Item designation


required



standards


Inmarsat-F SES Reg. IV/14, — Reg. X/3, — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 14, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 14.

Reg. IV/10, — IMO Res. A.570 (14), — IMO Res. A.801(19), — IMO Res. A.808 (19), — IMO Res. A.694 (17), — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 14, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 14, — IMO MSC/Circ.862, — IMO COMSAR Circ.32.

IEC 60945 (2002), — IEC 61097-13 (2003), — IMO MSC/Circ.862.

E

Table 2 – Navigation equipment (Including those required by SOLAS CH III)

Item designation


required


Testing standards Suitability for e-navigation

Integrated Navigation System (INS)

Reg. V/18 Not currently a carriage requirement

Reg. V19 IMO Res.A.694(17) IMO Res. MSC.252(83)

IEC 60945(2002) IEC 61924 ed 2(tba)

M, P

Magnetic compass

Reg. V/18. Reg. V/19, — IMO Res. A.382(X), — IMO Res. A.694(17).

ISO 449 (1997), — ISO 694 (2000), — ISO 1069 (1973), — ISO 2269 (1992), — IEC 60945 (2002).

E

Transmitting heading device THD (magnetic method)

Reg. V/18, — Reg. V/19, — Reg. X/3, — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 13.

Reg. V/19, — IMO Res. A.694(17), — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.116(73).

IEC 60945 (2002), — IEC 61162 series. — ISO 22090-2 (2004), including Corrigendum 2005.

E F

Gyro compass Reg. V/18. ISO 8728 (1997), — IEC 60945 (2002), — IEC 61162 series, — IEC 62288 Ed.1.0(2008).

E F



Item designation


required



Echo Sounding Equipment

Reg. V/18, — Reg. X/3, — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 13.

Reg. V/19, — IMO Res. A.424(XI), — IMO Res. A.694(17), Reg. V/19, — IMO Res. A.224(VII), — IMO Res. A.694(17), — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.74(69) Annex 4, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.191(79).— IMO Res. MSC.191(79).

ISO 9875 (2000), — IEC 60945 (2002), — IEC 61162 series, — IEC 62288 Ed.1.0(2008).

E P F

Speed and Distance Measuring Equipment


Reg. V/19, — IMO Res. A.694(17), — IMO Res. A.824(19), — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.96(72), — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.191(79).

IEC 60945 (2002), — IEC 61023 (2007), — IEC 61162 series, — IEC 62288 Ed.1.0(2008)

E P F

Rate of Turn Indicator


Reg. V/19, — IMO Res. A.526(13), — IMO Res. A.694(17), — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.191(79).

IEC 60945 (2002), — IEC 61162 series, — ISO 20672 (2007), — IEC 62288 Ed.1.0(2008).

E P F

GPS equipment Reg. V/18, — Reg. X/3, — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 13.

Reg. V/19, — IMO Res. A.694(17), — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code), — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code), — IMO Res. MSC.112(73), — IMO Res. MSC.191(79).

IEC 60945 (2002), — IEC 61108-1 (2003), — IEC 61162 series, — IEC 62288 Ed.1.0(2008).

E F P

Glonass equipment


Reg. V/19, — IMO Res. A.694(17), — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.113(73), — IMO Res. MSC.191(79).

IEC 60945 (2002), — IEC 61108-2 (1998), — IEC 61162 series, — IEC 62288 Ed.1.0(2008).

E F P

Galileo Reg V/18 IMO res xxx

????? E F P



Item designation


required



Rudder angle indicator


Reg. V/19, — IMO Res. A.526(13), — IMO Res. A.694(17), — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.191(79).

IEC 60945 (2002), — ISO 20673 (2007), — IEC 62288 Ed.1.0(2008).

M F P

Propeller revolution indicator

Reg. V/18, Reg. V/19, — IMO Res. A.694(17), — IMO Res. MSC.191(79),

IEC 60945 (2002), — ISO 22554 (2007), — IEC 62288 Ed.1.0(2008).

M F P

Pitch indicator Reg. V/18, Reg. V/19, — IMO Res. A.694(17), — IMO Res. MSC.191(79).

IEC 60945 (2002), — ISO 22555 (2007), — IEC 62288 Ed.1.0(2008).

M F P

Voyage data recorder (VDR)

Reg. V/18, — Reg. V/20, — Reg. X/3, — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 13.

Reg. V/20, — IMO Res. A.694 (17), — IMO Res. A.861 (20), — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.214(81), — IMO Res. MSC.191(79).

IEC 60945 (2002), — IEC 61162 Series, — IEC 61996-1 (2007-11), — IEC 62288 Ed.1.0(2008).

M F

Electronic chart display and information system (ECDIS) with backup, and raster chart display system (RCDS)


Reg. V/19, — IMO Res. A.694(17), — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 13 — IMO Res. MSC.64(67), — IMO Res. MSC.86(70), — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.191(79), — IMO Res. MSC.232(82). [ECDIS back-up and RCDS are only applicable when this functionality is included in the ECDIS. The module B certificate shall indicate whether these options were tested.]

IEC 60945 (2002), — IEC 61162 Series, — IEC 61174 (2008), — IEC 62288 Ed.1.0(2008).

E F P

Gyro compass for high-speed craft

Reg. X/3, — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 13.

IMO Res. A.694(17), — IMO Res. A.821(19), — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.191(79).

ISO 16328 (2001), — IEC 60945 (2002), — EN 61162 Series, — IEC 62288 Ed.1.0(2008).

E F



Item designation


required



Universal automatic identification system equipment (AIS)


Reg. V/19, — IMO Res. A.694 (17), — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.74(69), — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.191(79), — ITU-R M. 1371-3(2007). Note: ITU-R M. 1371-3(2007) Annex 3 shall only be applicable in accordance with requirements of IMO Res. MSC.74(69).

IEC 60945 (2002), — IEC 61162 Series, — IEC 61993-2 (2001), — IEC 62288 Ed.1.0(2008).

E P F

Track control system (working at ship's speed from minimum manoeuvring speed up to 30 knots)

Reg. V/18. Reg. V/19, — IMO Res. A.694(17), — IMO Res. MSC.74(69).

IEC 60945 (2002), — IEC 61162 Series, — IEC 62065 (2002).

E F P

Radar equipment CAT 1

Reg. V/18. Reg. V/19. — IMO Res. A.278(VIII), — IMO Res. A.694(17), — IMO Res. A.823(19), — IMO Res. MSC.191(79), — IMO Res. MSC.192(79), — ITU-R M. 628-3(11/93), — ITU-R M. 1177-3(06/03).

IEC 60945 (2002), — IEC 61162 Series, — IEC 62288 Ed.1.0(2008), — IEC 62388 Ed.1.0(2007).

E F P


Reg. V/18. Reg. V/19, — IMO Res. A.278(VIII), — IMO Res. A.694(17), — IMO Res. MSC.191(79), — IMO Res. MSC.192(79), — ITU-R M. 628-3(11/93), — ITU-R M. 1177-3(06/03).


E F P


Reg. V/18. Reg. V/19, — IMO Res. A.278(VIII), — IMO Res. A.694(17), — IMO Res. MSC.191(79), — IMO Res. MSC.192(79), — ITU-R M. 628-3(11/93), — ITU-R M. 1177-3(06/03).


E F P



Item designation


required



Radar equipment for high-speed craft applications (CAT 1H, CAT 2H and CAT 3H)


IMO Res. A.278(VIII), — IMO Res. A.694(17), — IMO Res. A.820(19), — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.191(79), — IMO Res. MSC.192(79), — ITU-R M. 628-3(11/93), — ITU-R M. 1177-3(06/03).


E F P

Radar equipment approved with a chart option (CAT 1HC, CAT 2HC and CAT 3HC)


IMO Res. A.278(VIII), — IMO Res. A.694(17), — IMO Res. A.820(19), — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.191(79), — IMO Res. MSC.192(79), — ITU-R M. 628-3(11/93), — ITU-R M. 1177-3(06/03).


E F P

Transmitting heading device THD (GNSS method)


Reg. V/19, — IMO Res. A.694(17), — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.116(73), — IMO Res. MSC.191(79).

ISO 22090-3 (2004), — IEC 60945 (2002), — IEC 61162 series, — IEC 62288 Ed.1.0(2008).

E F

Differential beacon receiver for DGPS and D Glonass equipment


Reg. V/19, — IMO Res. A.694 (17), — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.114(73).

IEC 60945 (2002), — IEC 61108-4 (2004), — IEC 61162 series.

E

Chart facilities for shipborne radar


Reg. V/19, — IMO Res. A.694(17), — IMO Res. A.817(19), — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.64(67), — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.191(79), — IMO Res. MSC.192(79).

IEC 60936-3 (2002), — IEC 60945 (2002), — IEC 61162 series, — IEC 62288 Ed.1.0(2008), — IEC 62388 Ed.1.0(2007).

?



Item designation


required



Transmitting heading device THD (gyroscopic method)

Reg. V/18. — Reg. X/3, — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 13.

Reg. V/19, — IMO Res. A.694 (17), — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.116(73).

ISO 22090-1 (2002) including Corr.1 (2005), — IEC 60945 (2002), — IEC 61162 series.

E F

DGPS equipment


Reg. V/19, — IMO Res. A.694 (17), — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.114(73), — IMO Res. MSC.191(79).

IEC 60945 (2002), — IEC 61108-1 (2003), — IEC 61108-4 (2004), — IEC 61162 series, — IEC 62288 Ed.1.0(2008).

E F P

D Glonass equipment


Reg. V/19, — IMO Res. A.694 (17), — IMO Res. MSC.36(63)-(1994 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.97(73)-(2000 HSC Code) 13, — IMO Res. MSC.114(73), — IMO Res. MSC.191(79).

IEC 60945 (2002), — IEC 61108-2 (1998), — IEC 61108-4 (2004), — IEC 61162 series, — IEC 62288 Ed.1.0(2008).

E F P



ANNEX 5

LIST OF REFERENCED DOCUMENTS IN THE SIP

Number Title Date of approval

/adoption Remark

A.694(17) General requirements for shipborne radio equipment forming part of the global maritime distress and safety system (GMDSS) and for electronic navigational aids

06/11/1991

A.811(19) Performance standards for a shipborne integrated radiocommunication system (IRCS) when used in the GMDSS

23/11/1995

A.851(20) General principles for ship reporting systems and ship reporting requirements, including guidelines for reporting incidents involving dangerous goods, harmful substances and/or marine pollutants

27/11/1997

A.950(23) Maritime Assistance Services (MAS) 05/12/2003

A.960(23) Recommendations on training and certification and operational procedures for maritime pilots other than deep-sea pilots

05/12/2003

A.1053997(2725) Survey guidelines under the harmonized system of survey and certification (HSSC), 2007

30/11/2011

MSC.191(79) Performance standards for the presentation of navigational related information on shipborne navigational displays

06/12/2004

MSC.192(79) Adoption of the Revised performance standards for radar equipment 06/12/2004

MSC.252(83) Revised performance standards for integrated navigation systems (INS) 08/10/2007

MSC.302(87) Performance standards for Bridge Alert Management (BAM) 17/05/2010



MSC.401(95), amended by MSC.432(98)

Performance standards for multi-system shipborne radionavigation receivers

08/06/2015 16/06/2017

IEC 60945 Maritime navigation and radiocommunication equipment and systems – general requirements – methods of testing and required test results

01/04/2008

IEC 61162 Maritime navigation and radiocommunication equipment and systems – Digital interfaces

2016

IEC 61993-2

Maritime navigation and radiocommunication equipment and systems – Automatic identification systems (AIS) – Part 2: Class A shipborne equipment of the automatic identification system (AIS) - Operational and performance requirements, methods of test and required test results

2012

ISO 8468 Ships and marine technology – Ship's bridge layout and associated equipment – Requirements and guidelines

2007

ITU-R M.1371-5 Technical characteristics for an automatic identification system using time division multiple access in the VHF maritime mobile frequency band

02/2014

MSC/Circ.982 Guidelines on ergonomic criteria for bridge equipment and layout 20/12/2000

MSC.1/Circ.1389 Guidance on procedures for updating shipborne navigation and communication equipment

07/12/2010

MSC.1/Circ.1503/Rev.1 ECDIS – Guidance for Good Practice 16/06/2017

MSC.1/Circ.1512 Guidelines on software quality assurance and human-centred design for e-navigation

13/07/2015

MSC.1/Circ.1575 Guidelines for shipborne position, navigation and timing (PNT) data processing

16/06/2017

SN.1/Circ.265 Guidelines on the Application of SOLAS Regulation V/15 to INS, IBS and Bridge Design

19/10/2007

SN.1/Circ.274 Guidelines for application of the modular concept to performance standards

10/12/2008

SN.1/Circ.288 Guidelines for bridge equipment and systems, their arrangement and integration (BES)

02/06/2010



SN.1/Circ.289 Guidance on the use of AIS application-specific messages 02/06/2010

SN.1/Circ./266/Rev.1 Maintenance of ECDIS software 07/12/2010

SN.1/Circ.243/Rev.1 Amended Guidelines for the Presentation of navigation-related symbols, terms and abbreviations

23/05/2014

***



ANNEX 13

STATEMENTS BY DELEGATIONS* AGENDA ITEM 9

1st statement by the delegation of Cyprus

Dear Mr. Chairman – Distinguished Delegates, Cyprus appreciates the work of the IMO in general and the Sub-Committee on NCSR in particular and believes that this group is discharging a very important task. Following the discussions at the 9th meeting of the IHO Sub-Committee on the Worldwide Navigational Warning Service (WWNWS) held in Cape Town from 28 August to 1 September 2017 and according to the final report, the Republic of Cyprus submitted its NAVTEX service area with the document NCSR 5/9/3. The NAVTEX service area of the Republic of Cyprus is defined as the Cyprus Search and Rescue Region (SRR) which coincides with the Nicosia Flight Information Region (FIR). As regards the daily operation of the international NAVTEX Service, unfortunately, and with regret we have to inform you that since not all NAVTEX Coordinators (namely Turkey) are communicating the MSI to Cyprus Radio or coordinating their activities with the NAVTEX Coordinator of the Republic of Cyprus, as per NAVTEX manual provisions, there is high risk probability of a potential maritime accident in the area. To make it clear, I would like to give some examples regarding the situation in the eastern Mediterranean Sea and the dangerous situation that has developed recently, because of this practice from a neighbouring state (namely Turkey). Specifically when Navigational Warnings issued from Cyprus Radio (as the NAVTEX Coordinator of the Republic of Cyprus), are in force, this state concurrently issues new ones overlapping the existing areas, so inevitably creates vulnerability, therefore risking safety: .1 The first incident concerns naval exercises on the 11th of September 2017 according

to NW NR 868/17 issued by neighbouring coastal state (namely Turkey), while in the same period the drilling Ship, West Capella, was conducting drilling operations according to NW - NR 257, 258, 265/17 that have been issued well in advance by Cyprus Radio. At the same time according to NW NR 711, 862/17 this country (namely Turkey) was conducting another survey and military training without any coordination with our national NAVTEX coordinator (ANNEX 1).

.2 The second one concerns military trainings on the 12th of January 2018 according to

NW NR 0061 - 0062/18 issued by the same state (namely Turkey), affecting the area of multinational SAR exercise that had been already issued by NW NR0024/18 well in advance. At the same time according to NW - NR1443/17 a seismic survey by R/V

Barbaros Hayreddin Pasa was taking place within the territorial waters of the Republic of Cyprus (ANNEX 2).

* Statements have been included in this annex as provided by delegations, sorted by agenda item, and in the

language of submission (including translation into any other language if such translation was provided). Statements are accessible in all official languages on audio file at http://docs.imo.org/meetings/media.aspx.

http://docs.imo.org/meetings/media.aspx



.3 And the third incident concerns military trainings and gunnery exercises of the 9th of February 2018 according to NW NR 198,213,217/18 (issued by Turkey), affecting the existing NW – NR054, 066, 069, 070/18 for the drilling operations by the ship SAIPEM 12000 (ANNEX 3). The NWs are still in force and unfortunately renewed yesterday (NR 258/18) until the 10th of March 2018 (ANNEX 4), affecting the freedom of navigation and preventing the drilling ship to move towards the well point in order to start drilling operations. Until now several passenger and cargo ships (more than 50) have been diverted, since the so called gunnery exercise is taking place from the 9th of February until the 10th of March 2018, in an illegally closed area of 1100 square nautical miles.

Unfortunately all these NWs were promulgated also by NAVAREA III, without any coordination with our national NAVTEX coordinator, since Cyprus is the coastal state. It should be highlighted that there were already NW in force for the same area that have been also issued by NAVAREA III beforehand. This situation undoubtedly causes vital problems to the safe and free navigation in the region. Now I would like to recall the Report of the 9th meeting of the IHO sub-committee on the world-wide navigational warning service (WWNWS) in Cape Town, from 28 August to 1 September 2017. When we presented this matter at this meeting (the lack of coordination in the region) and when asked by the Chair, Initially this neighbouring state refused twice to cooperate with the Republic of Cyprus but finally, according to the report, agreed to try and achieve a way to coordinate transmissions of NAVTEX information with other states to ensure conflicting messages and activities are not transmitted. According to the report The Chair noted the inappropriate use of NAVTEX services was a disservice to the mariners. The Chair suggested that the states (Cyprus and Turkey) individually provide information to the IMO to request and support the validation of their individual service areas for consideration and subsequent decision. The Republic of Cyprus provided this information to the IMO with the document NCSR 5/9/3 on the 15th of December 2017 and now is requesting support for the validation of this service area. According to the report the Chair subsequently consulted with the IMO Secretariat on this issue. The IMO Secretariat provided the following guidance:

.1 The coastal states should submit details of their claimed or proposed NAVTEX Service areas, along with all supporting/validating documentation, directly to NCSR5 for consideration and a subsequent decision. As I mentioned before the Republic of Cyprus provided this information to the IMO.

.2 If considered necessary, the advice of the Chair of the IMO NAVTEX

Coordinating Panel should be sought for clarification on any technical aspects.

Also according to the report, the Chair asked NAVAREA III to initiate bi-lateral discussions between the relevant coastal states on information provision, in order to ensure all broadcasts were coordinated, to guarantee conflicting messages were not promulgated and that they worked together to coordinate message traffic and ensure all were aware of activities impacting on each other and the mariners transiting the area. The Republic of Cyprus once again declares its readiness.



Consequently and in conclusion we are once again requesting that all Member States of the IMO, all coastal stations and national NAVTEX Coordinators coordinate their activities within the SRR of the Republic of Cyprus (FIR Nicosia) with Cyprus Radio in order to ensure the maximum safety of mariners which is after all of vital importance. Moreover we expect that the NAVAREA III Coordinator will contact Cyprus Radio, which operates on 24/7 basis and is the national NAVTEX Coordinator, for any future request concerning the issuances of a Navigational Warnings in the area of the responsibility of the Republic of Cyprus. After all we strongly believe that so far we have done everything possible of us, since Cyprus Radio is fulfilling successfully its demanding mission as the national Coordinator, in order to ensure the safety of mariners. Therefore we would like to ask this subcommittee to realize the severity of this matter and take the initiative through the IMO NAVTEX coordinating panel or other appropriate body, to support our efforts solving this issue. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would kindly request that this present statement and the Annexes by the Republic of Cyprus together with the Annexes 1, 2, 3, 4 concerning the above mentioned NAVTEX massages to be included in the report to be issued of this meeting. Thank you.

2nd statement by the delegation of Cyprus

Thank you Mr Chairman – Apologies for asking for the floor again. I am forced to exercise my delegation's right of reply to set the record straight regarding the unfounded and false claims made by one delegation. We are not the ones who inject political arguments in this technical Organization. What we did was to submit a document detailing the NAVTEX Service Area of the Republic of Cyprus. That is a sovereign country, Member State of this very Organization, the UN, the EU and a host of other Organizations. If one country out of 173 Members of the IMO does not recognize Cyprus, because of its own political agenda, that is not an issue that this Organization has to deal with. We didn't do anything more, or anything less, other than to exercise our sovereign right as a Member State of this Organization to submit our NAVTEX Service Area, as was, after all, requested by the 9th Meeting of the IHO Sub-Committee on the Worldwide Navigational Warning Service held in Cape Town in August 2017. There is absolutely nothing political about this. It is purely technical and falls within the mandate of this Committee. Unfortunately, in its NCSR Document 5/9/5 - and during the discussion today - one delegation decided, yet again, to abuse its right as a Member State of this Organization and use this body in an attempt to advance its political agenda and the agenda of a secessionist entity which has been declared as illegal by the international community and does not exist under international law. References in this document - and during the discussion today - to "agreements" between Turkey and the so-called "TRNC" regrettably serve no other purpose but to politicize this Organization. Such references are completely irrelevant to the issue of our discussion. They provide no value whatsoever to the specialized nature and work of a technical Organization such as ours. Regrettably, I am forced, Mr Chairman, to also refer to the comments made by the distinguished delegate of Turkey on the ongoing naval exercises in the Eastern Mediterranean, which, as they claim, are done for navigational safety. We would like to underline that the



NAVTEXES issued by Ankara purportedly for military training and gunnery exercises are far from serving navigational safety in the area. In fact, the statements and the rhetoric which accompany Turkey's NAVTEXES prove beyond any doubt that this country is only interested in physically obstructing a drilling platform from reaching its drilling area within the Exclusive Economic Zone of Cyprus and in creating a climate of intimidation for companies that operate in full accord with international law in our Exclusive Economic Zone. Quite to the contrary of promoting navigational safety, these NAVTEXES only create and escalate tensions and jeopardize maritime safety in the Eastern Mediterranean. I will refrain from answering in detail the rest of the political claims made by the Turkish delegation. I would, however, like to take this opportunity to simply state the obvious: According to international law and based on UN Security Council Resolutions, there are no two states in Cyprus. There is only one. That being the Republic of Cyprus, which is internationally recognized and covers the entire territory of the island. What the distinguished colleague from Turkey refers to as the co-called "TRNC" is simply the northern militarily occupied part of Cyprus. In particular, UN Security Council Resolutions 541 (1983) and 550 (1984) condemned the purported secession of the northern part of the Republic of Cyprus, consider the declaration of the illegal secessionist entity set up in the occupied areas of Cyprus as "legally invalid" and call upon all states "not to facilitate or in any way assist the aforesaid secessionist entity". In this framework, I would like to call on the delegation of Turkey to stop using the IMO to promote its political agenda and the agenda of a secessionist entity which does not exist in international law. This is not the forum. At the same time, allow me to also say that the IMO itself has a duty to uphold international law and legality. Therefore, it must ensure that it will not become a vehicle for the promotion of Turkey's political goals and objectives that have no relation whatsoever to the work of our Organization. Cyprus will not waste the time of this Organization and of its distinguished Member States about a legally non-existent secessionist entity. We are ready to embark upon an open and constructive dialogue with Turkey, in order to find a solution to an issue that puts into jeopardy the safety of navigation in the Eastern Mediterranean. We hope that Turkey can respond in kind and finally exhibit the same readiness to discuss with us within the framework of international law and taking into consideration that we have already submitted our NAVTEX Service Area. Mr Chairman, we would like to request you to include a copy of this statement to the report of the Sub-Committee. A copy will be provided. Thank you Mr Chairman.

Statement by the delegation of Greece

Greece would like to also draw the attention of all Member States to the practice recently inaugurated by a state, namely Turkey, to impede legal marine research activities already announced by Navigational Warnings, as well as to impede the exercise of freedom of navigation in high seas, by informing through NAVTEX system the conduct of Turkish exercises in the same area. It is to be noted that these military exercises eventually do not take place.



Greece condemns such practice, recorded both in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean, as it constitutes abuse of the NAVTEX system, it disrespects IMO regulations and it is contrary to basic rules of customary international law of the sea, as reflected in the UNCLOS. We would like the above intervention to be reflected in the final report of this session of the Sub-Committee. Comments on Document NCSR 5/9/5 Α. Greece is aware that the issues falling within the competence of the NCSR Sub-Committee are of a purely technical nature. However, as Turkey has put forward some political arguments in its document NCSR 5/9/5, regarding continental shelf issues, Greece is compelled to state that it has repeatedly rejected the Turkish contentions regarding the limits of Turkey's continental shelf as referred to in the above document by numerous Verbal Notes and letters addressed to the Secretary General of the UN1. B. Furthermore, Greece has repeatedly opposed Turkish assertions regarding its "SAR Region", which unlawfully includes areas of Greek sovereignty in contravention of the fundamental rules of international law, with numerous statements that have been incorporated in the reports of relevant IMO Sub-Committees and Committees. C. As far as the Cospas Sarsat Program is concerned, the Greek Mission Control Centre (GRMCC) was established and assumed operational capability in 2007. The Turkish reference to an "overlapping arrangement between TRMCC and ITMCC service areas" is misleading to the extent that no such overlapping arrangement is in force and could not be, since the GRMCC service area lies between the Turkish and the Italian MCC service areas, which have no common boundaries in the Aegean. D. Regarding the alleged "Turkish NAVTEX Service Areas" claimed to be declared in 2009, Greece would like to underline the following: Turkey submitted, in 2008 a proposal for amendment of the existing NAVTEX Service Areas limits in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Sea, thus reaffirming the existence of the Greek NAVTEX Service Areas in the region2. The proposed Turkish NAVTEX service areas overlapped parts of the Greek service areas, as well as Greek islands, including the island of Limnos where one of the Greek NAVTEX stations is located. This proposal was examined by the appropriate NAVTEX bodies, in accordance with IMO and IHO rules, guidelines and principles and was duly rejected by all neighbouring states, the NAVAREA III Coordinator3 and the NAVTEX Coordinating Panel4, in conformity with the procedures provided in the NAVTEX Manual. Turkey, in an unprecedented manner, formally refused to comply with the above decision and declared, with a Letter dated 11 May 2009, the intention to issuing NAVTEX messages in a unilaterally declared NAVTEX service area.

1 Greece's Note Verbale dated 24 February 2005 addressed to the Secretary General of the U.N. and Letters also

addressed to the Secretary General A/70/900-S/2016/474 of 25 May 2016, A/71/675-S/2016/1043 of 12 December 2016 and A/71/901-S/2017/416 of 17 May 2017.

2 Letter of the Turkish Undersecretariat for Maritime Affairs with reference 7502/3.3.2008, para 4: «Turkey believes

that the boundary of the Izmir NAVTEX Station in the Aegean Sea needs to be modified as the current boundary leaves very small portion of the Aegean Sea to the responsibility of the Izmir Station»

3 NAVAREA III Coordinator's Letter dated 10 March 2009.

4 Letter of the Chairman of the IMO NAVTEX Panel dated 26 March 2009.



It is obvious that such a "declaration", which was rejected by Greece5, is not foreseen in the NAVTEX Manual or relevant IMO and IHO Document and thus is devoid of any legal basis and cannot produce any legal effect. In this respect, Greece would like to underline that, as it is well known, the broadcasting of MSI does not constitute de facto establishment of NAVTEX Service Areas. Tο that end, the date that Turkey initiated its MSI broadcasts, as well as the coverage area of the Turkish NAVTEX Stations, announced in 1986, are totally irrelevant with the allocation of NAVTEX Service Areas. In light of the above, Greece denounces Turkey's constant efforts to present any overlapping coverage areas in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Sea as an issue that has to be resolved or that needs coordination among the neighbouring states. Overlapping NAVTEX coverage areas exist all over the world within the operation of NAVTEX system and no provision for cooperation in this regard is required by the NAVTEX manual. The Greek NAVTEX Stations in Limnos and Iraklion, with the transmitter identification character (B1), L and H respectively, along with their respective NAVTEX Service Areas, were duly established in 1986 in accordance with IMO and IHO regulations, with the approval of all participant States in the respective meetings of IMO, including Turkey, which did not raise any objection at the time. Since then, the Greek NAVTEX Stations have been operating successfully within their service areas and both IHO and IMO, as the competent International Organizations, have never noted any operational need that calls for a modification of those NAVTEX service areas, a fact which has been confirmed in 2006 IHO Monaco meeting as well as in the official correspondence exchanged thereafter. In view of the above, any revisionist claims raised by Turkey should be ignored by this Sub-Committee. Concerning the relevant item of the List of Actions of the 9th meeting of the IHO WWNWS Sub-Committee, Greece does not deem necessary to provide to the IMO NCSR Sub-Committee, any further information regarding the already approved and valid Service Areas of the effectively operating Greek NAVTEX Stations. We would like the above statement to be annexed in the final report of this session of the Sub-Committee.

1st statement by the delegation of Turkey

Mr. Chair, Since the Agenda Item 9 was left to the end of the plenary, we would like to kindly request the extension of the important service provided by the interpreters in order to be able to conclude the discussions on this agenda item. Before introducing the document NCSR 5/9/5 submitted by Turkey with a view to commenting on the document NCSR 5/9/3, this delegation would like to set the records straight in regard to the allegations raised by the Greek Cypriot delegation during its presentation of the document NCSR 5/9/3. To start with, neither this Committee nor the IMO are proper platforms to raise politically motivated issues.

5 Hellenic Navy Hydrographic Service's Letter dated 27 June 2009.



The allegations raised on the report of the WWNWS9, which took place in Cape Town, South Africa, between 28 August-1 September 2017, is totally groundless aiming at distorting the facts and fully misinterpreting the said document. Turkey has not agreed to take up the issue of delimitation of the NAVTEX service areas through any kind of bilateral discussion or negotiation with the Greek Cypriot Administration. We would like to remind once again the Greek Cypriot side that its counterpart is, and has always been the Turkish Cypriot side, not Turkey. Thus, the Greek Cypriot side should seek any kind of bilateral discussion on this matter on the island with their counterparts. Mr Chair, we would like to thank you for your efforts for the success of this meeting so far. This delegation clearly states that the allegations raised by the GC delegation regarding the Turkish naval activities in the Eastern Mediterranean and the related NAVTEX messages promulgated by the relevant Turkish authorities are totally groundless, fully distorting the facts. Turkey attaches utmost importance to the freedom of navigation on the high seas. Turkey's navigational warning messages have been appropriately and legitimately promulgated with regard to the naval exercises which are taking place on the high seas of the Mediterranean, but not within the foreign territorial waters as claimed by the GC delegation. Those naval activities are fully in compliance with the international law and the freedoms of the high seas. Navigational warning messages regarding those activities aim at ensuring safety of navigation and life at sea. Unilateral claims of an authority which is not recognised by Turkey regarding the so-called cancellation of such NAVTEX messages clearly jeopardize the safety of navigation, dangerously confusing the mariners in the area. This delegation would like to underline that it is well established that any decision on the boundaries of NAVTEX service areas should be taken with the consent of all relevant parties. Regarding the NAVTEX service areas in the Eastern Mediterranean, no such agreement exists. Therefore, there exists no agreed specific "country service area" currently in the region. Therefore, competent Turkish stations will continue to disseminate NAVTEX messages and interact with mariners navigating in the region corresponding to the Turkish NAVTEX Service Area which was previously registered at the IMO, as well as within the relevant maritime areas where appropriate with a view to ensuring navigational safety. Turkey will also continue to cooperate and coordinate with the Turkish Cypriot authorities, among others, with regard to these matters in the region. Mr. Chair, now this delegation would like to introduce the document NCSR 5/9/5, which comments on the document NCSR 5/9/3. Turkey's political stance with regard to the Cyprus issue, as reflected in the statement of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 1 May 2004, is very well known and remains unchanged, thus will not be repeated in this document of a technical nature with a view to protecting and supporting the efficient and proper functioning of this Sub-Committee. Furthermore, the map attached to document NCSR 5/9/3 aims at abusing this platform to further one-sided and groundless political claims of the Greek Cypriot Administration. It should be noted that IMO is not the proper organization to submit such maps, which contain unacceptable territorial or jurisdictional claims with no legal basis in terms of international law. Therefore, the said document and its attachment are null and void, and thus should be fully disregarded by this Sub-Committee. For further reference on this matter, it should be noted that the limits of Turkey's continental shelf in the Eastern Mediterranean that are west of longitude 32o16'18"E were defined in Turkish notes verbales to the United Nations No. 2004/Turkuno DT/4739, dated 2 March 2004, and No. 2013/14136816/22273, dated 12 March 2013.



Moreover, document NCSR 5/9/3 and the map submitted in the annex of the document do not reflect the reality with regard to NAVTEX service areas, the services of the NAVTEX stations, Search and Rescue Regions (SRRs) and services in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. The brief technical information regarding, NAVTEX service areas, the services of the NAVTEX stations, SRRs and services in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea is provided within the document NCSR 5/9/5.

2nd statement by the delegation of Turkey Mr. Chair, The statements made by the Greek and Greek Cypriot delegations made following the introduction of the document NCSR 5/9/5, have obliged this delegation to state the following with a view to setting the records straight. Our delegation fully rejects and thus disregards the allegations raised by the Greek delegation, in particular with regard to Turkey's continental shelf in the Eastern Mediterranean, as well as the NAVTEX Service Areas in the Aegean, Search and Rescue Region, Cospas-Sarsat service areas, and other services. First and foremost, Turkey's position regarding its continental shelf has already been registered at the UN on several occasions through verbal Notes. Therefore Greek allegations on this matter is fully rejected and disregarded by this delegation. Our delegation would like to reiterate once again that neither this Sub Committee, nor the IMO are proper platforms to raise these issues. Secondly, we would like to state that Greek side continues to falsely regard service-related areas of responsibilities as if they constitute territorial boundaries between States, in any manner such boundaries are non-existent in the Aegean, since there is no agreement reached on them. We reiterate that NAVTEX Service Areas cannot be predicated either on SRR, or FIRs, nor can they correspond to territorial and jurisdictional claims. Our delegation underscores that the Greek delegation's claims on the so-called agreed NAVTEX Service Areas are totally baseless. Turkey reiterates that no agreement has ever been reached regarding the delimitation of NAVTEX Service Areas, neither in the Aegean Sea, nor in the Eastern Mediterranean. Therefore, there exists no agreed specific "country service area" currently in the region. It should be noted that Turkey has been providing NAVTEX services without interruption since 1985, as confirmed at the document COM/31/5, dated 10 February 1986, annex of which submitted information regarding the coverage areas of the competent Turkish NAVTEX radio stations. There has never been any approval by the IMO/IHO regarding the so-called limits of the NAVTEX service areas in the region. The IMO document COM/Circ.99 is concerning the NAVTEX Services, but not the NAVTEX Service Areas, as baselessly claimed by the Greek delegation. Against this background of non-existing service area limits, Turkey, of course, did not ask or propose for a "modification" of NAVTEX service areas in the Aegean Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean. Turkey, acting with good faith and spirit of cooperation, has always sought a practical arrangement for coverage areas which will enable Turkey and Greece to coordinate their NAVTEX services in the Aegean, including a delineation of service limits for overlapping coverage areas through the offices of NAVAREA III and NAVTEX Panel, if at all possible. Turkey reiterates that no agreed service area has ever been approved by the IMO or IHO regarding the concerning maritime areas.



Turkey declared its national NAVTEX Service Areas, with the letter dated 11 May 2009 to the IMO NAVTEX Coordinating Panel Chairman and to the other relevant parties. Mr. Chair, With regard to the groundless claims raised by the GC delegation, this delegation has the honour to state the following. Mr. Chair, With regard to search and rescue (SAR) services, it should be noted that Turkey assumed SAR responsibilities in accordance with the 1979 Hamburg Convention, declared its SAR region and registered it in the relevant IMO documents, namely the IMO Global SAR Plan, in 1982. It should be further noted, particularly in the Eastern Mediterranean only Turkey has been providing effective search and rescue services thanks to its means and capabilities within its SAR region, in particular in the Eastern Mediterranean, as well as in an around the northern part of the island of Cyprus in cooperation with the Turkish Cypriot authorities. With regard to the so-called blocking of a drilling vessel by the Turkish naval elements in the Eastern Mediterranean, this delegation once again reiterates that there is no such blocking whatsoever in the region. Fully in compliance with the international law and the freedoms on the high seas, Turkish Navy has been conducting firing and training exercises in the area, navigational warning messages in regard to which have been appropriately and legitimately promulgated by competent Turkish authorities. So it should be further noted that Turkey, being a maritime country surrounded by sea on three sides, having permanent naval presence within far beyond the Mediterranean Sea, including for the purposes of fighting piracy and armed robbery at sea off the coasts of Somalia, attaches utmost importance to the freedom of navigation on the high seas. In this regard this delegation also reminds the relevant parties that Turkey has repeatedly issued warnings in the past to the Greek Cypriot side regarding the latter's unilateral hydrocarbon activities in the region. In this context, we stressed that we have also repeatedly warned foreign companies not to allow themselves be deceived by the Greek Cypriots. We warned that they could find themselves in the middle of a dispute. In the statement of the Turkish Foreign Ministry on 11 February, we underlined that the sole responsibility for any situation that could arise in the region falls on the Greek Cypriot side. Our statement also contained a message to companies from third countries. We urged them, yet again, not to support the Greek Cypriots' unconstructive attitude by cooperating with them in the area of hydrocarbons. The Greek Cypriots unilateral activities are a major obstacle to the settlement of the Cyprus issue. By working with the Greek Cypriots, foreign companies are making the situation even more complicated. In effect, such companies are helping the Greek Cypriots hinder a just and lasting settlement, whether they intend to or not. As for the GC side's baseless allegations regarding the Cyprus issue, reminding all that Turkey is not the counterpart of the GC side which is not a normal entity of the international system, our delegation states the following for the records of the meeting. It should be noted first and foremost that such allegations have no effect, whatsoever, on Turkey's stance on this issue. Turkey's stance on this issue, as also expressed in the statement of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs dated 1 May 2004, remains unchanged. Since December 1963, there has not been a joint authority or administration which is in law or in fact entitled to represent jointly the two people of Cyprus, namely the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots, and consequently Cyprus as a whole.



Turkey, along with the Turkish Cypriots, remains committed to finding a political settlement of the Cyprus issue. The Turkish side has repeatedly demonstrated its resolve in this regard, most recently during this year's Conference on Cyprus, which, unfortunately, closed without any result in July and thereby brought to an end the latest comprehensive settlement negotiations which had commenced in 2008. This failure to achieve a settlement despite the goodwill and constructive efforts of the Turkish side stemmed from the Greek Cypriot side's consistent refusal to acknowledge the Turkish Cypriots' political equality. Turkey will continue to support efforts towards achieving a negotiated settlement in Cyprus based on the inherent constitutive powers of the two peoples, their political equality and their co-ownership of the Island. Pending such a comprehensive negotiated settlement, however, the position of Turkey on Cyprus will remain unchanged. AGENDA ITEM 14

Statement by the delegation of the United States

Thank you Mr Chair This delegation wishes to make the following statement about the Sub-Committee's consideration of documents NCSR 5/14/2 from IMSO, and NCSR 5/14/8 submitted by this delegation. We ask that this statement be included in the report of the Sub-Committee to the Committee. The United States is deeply concerned about the lack of due process shown by the Sub-Committee in its consideration of documents submitted under Agenda Item 14 and the inconsistent application of procedure set out in Assembly Resolution A.1001(25). Document NCSR 5/14/2 recalled that at its third session, the Sub-Committee agreed that Iridium could be incorporated into the GMDSS subject to compliance with outstanding issues, and endorsed the comprehensive list of conditions, as set out in document NCSR 3/WP.5, annex 1, which needed to be fulfilled before Iridium could be recommended for recognition. The Sub-Committee invited the Committee to endorse this view, with the understanding that it, based on evaluation reports from IMSO, would advise the Committee on final recognition, when the list of conditions have been complied with. At its ninety-sixth session, the Committee endorsed this view. In document NCSR 5/14/2, IMSO stated that "IMSO, based on the outcome of the assessment report, is satisfied that Iridium has complied with the remaining requirements for recognition identified in document NCSR 3/WP.5, annex 1". Although the Sub-Committee did not reach consensus on recommending Iridium's recognition to the Committee, most delegations who spoke on this matter agreed that IMSO's report concluded that Iridium had met the requirements of the Organization, and that the Sub-Committee should advise the Committee of this, in accordance with resolution A.1001(25). The Sub-Committee has agreed to refer the matter to the Committee. We have heard the views of several delegations who raised concerns including frequency protection, type approval of terminals, the drafting of an MSI operational manual for the Iridium system, and "interoperability". These are not requirements of the Organization according to resolution A.1001(25), and were therefore outside the scope of IMSO's evaluation. They are however important elements in the broader framework of GMDSS service provision, and as such they have been discussed at earlier sessions of this Sub-Committee and Committee, and each are being addressed appropriately by the organizations within whose remit they fall.



The US remains committed to this process and will provide further information to the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. Kindly attach these comments to the record.

Statement by the delegation of Norway

Norway shares many of the concerns outlined in the statement from the US. Norway came here this week prepared to recognize Iridium based IMSO's report and to develop the resolution as proposed by the US. Like the US, Norway is disappointed by the lack of progress based on issues not covered by Res. A.1001(25). AGENDA ITEM 22

Statement by the delegation of Estonia

Almost four years on from the illegal annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol by the Russian Federation, the European Union remains firmly committed to Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The European Union reiterates that it does not recognise and continues to condemn this violation of international law. It remains a direct challenge to international security, with grave implications for the international legal order that protects the unity and sovereignty of all states. The European Union remains committed to fully implementing its non-recognition policy, including through restrictive measures. The EU calls again on UN Member States to consider similar non-recognition measures in line with the UNGA Resolution 68/262."

Statement by the delegation of Ukraine Thank you, Mr Chair. Distinguished delegates, Ukraine is pleased to introduce document NCSR 5/22/7. At the outset, I wish to recall that during 4th session of this Sub-Committee Ukraine presented document NCSR 4/INF.15 "Report on the implications for conduct of search and rescue operations in the Northern part of the Black Sea" and, accordingly, the Sub-Committee noted the information provided by Ukraine. This delegation is however compelled to state that Ukraine is still facing great challenges in carrying out its international obligations in the maritime areas appertaining to the Crimean Peninsula, including the provision of safety and security of navigation, and search and rescue. The continued illegal occupation by the Russian Federation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol turns the Black Sea region from the area of stability and peace into a "grey zone". The last incident deliberately instigated by the Russian Federation on 23 April 2017 when the Russian navy attempted to seize a Ukrainian rescue vessel clearly proves Russia's disregard of all norms and principles of international law. This unlawful act committed by the Russian Federation had occurred during Ukrainian SAR regular exercises in Ukraine's territorial waters and in Ukraine's search and rescue region established according to the Agreement on Co-operation Regarding Maritime Search and Rescue Services among Black Sea Coastal



States 1998 and the Agreement between the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and the Government of the Russian Federation on Cooperation in Maritime and Aviation Search and Rescue in the Black and Azov Seas 2010. This delegation would like to emphasize that protection of human lives at sea, ensuring security and safety of navigation are the responsibility of each coastal State under international law. Regrettably, unilateral actions of the Russian Federation are aimed at precluding Ukraine from conducting search and rescue operations in the Northern part of the Black Sea. In this connection, the Ukrainian Side demands from the Russian Federation to take all measures to prevent internationally wrongful acts in Ukraine's search and rescue region as well as to provide appropriate assurances and guarantees that they will not repeat it in the future. Mr. Chair, We would also like to draw the attention of distinguished delegates of this Sub-Committee to the Russian Federation's use of distorted data in document NCSR 5/22/12, which provides comments on Ukraine's document NCSR 5/22/7. Attempts of Russia to mislead Member States by claiming that its maritime transport system includes maritime rescue coordination sub-centres of another country, which Russian authorities allegedly decline to register in Global SAR Plan module of the GISIS, is not just worrying. The Russian Federation continues to challenge IMO principles by presenting distorted data in contradiction to information available in GISIS modules. In the same vein, the Russian Federation claims to manage the coastal GMDSS radio stations in the closed seaports of Sevastopol and Kerch that contradicts circular GMDSS.1/Circ.21 dated 31 March 2017. Let me use this opportunity to remind that the Russian Federation itself notified to IMO of its SAR region in the Black Sea as reflected in circular SAR.8/Circ.4, Annex 4, page 8. According to IMO's map of the worlds' Maritime Search and Rescue Regions, sea areas appertaining to the Crimean peninsula belong to the SAR region of Ukraine. The same information contains in the Global SAR Plan module of the GISIS. This delegation would like to reiterate that manipulation with information within IMO could have far-reaching consequences for the safety and security of navigation as well as for conduct of search and rescue operations in the Black Sea region as it leads to confusion and unjustified expectations on the part of international shipping. Such irresponsible and provocative attitude of the Russian Federation also undermines the Organization's high reputation worldwide. In view of the above, the Ukrainian Side is deeply concerned about the Russian Federation's use of distorted data in contradiction to information available in IMO GISIS modules and circulars. Confusion thereon can directly result in unsafe navigation conditions. Distinguished delegates. As you're well aware, in March 2014 the UN General Assembly adopted its resolution 68/262 "Territorial integrity of Ukraine" whereby it called, inter alia, on all specialized agencies, among them the IMO, not to recognize any alteration of the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and to refrain from any action that might be interpreted as recognizing any such altered status.



I would also like to point out that just recently, on 19 December 2017, the UN General Assembly has adopted another resolution 72/190 confirming once again the status of Crimea as part of the territory of Ukraine. The UN member states have overwhelmingly condemned the temporary occupation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and reaffirmed the non-recognition of this attempted annexation by the Russian Federation as the occupying State. Thus, the Russian occupation authorities have no legal grounds to implement IMO instruments in the temporarily occupied Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, Ukraine. Attempts of the Russian Federation to comply with IMO conventions on an occupied territory cannot be regarded as proper implementation of IMO instruments and do not bear the legal consequences. Therefore, in line with UN General Assembly resolutions 68/262 of 27 March 2014, 71/205 of 19 December 2016 and 72/190 of 19 December 2017, Ukraine calls upon all states and international organizations to denounce the Russian Federation's unlawful unilateral actions in the occupied Crimea, including its claim to implement IMO instruments. Ukraine further calls upon all states and international organizations to refrain from any action or dealing that might be interpreted as recognizing the Russian Federation's continued unauthorized unilateral actions that preclude Ukraine from carrying out its international obligations in the maritime area appertaining to the Crimean Peninsula. Finally, the Sub-Committee is invited to note the information provided and to comment as it may deem appropriate. Mr. Chair, we would appreciate if this statement is included in the report of this Sub-Committee. Thank you.

Statement by the delegation of the Russian Federation

Обращаемся к Подкомитету с просьбой принять к сведению следующую информацию. Обвинения, включенные в документ Украины, в частности о снижении возможности оперативного реагирования при поисково-спасательных операциях в акватории Крыма и превращении этого региона в "серую зону" для международного судоходства абсолютно несостоятельны. Российская Федерация неоднократно информировала государства-члены ИМО (последний раз - посредством циркулярного письма 3801 в декабре 2017 г.) о том, что безопасность мореплавания и охрана в акватории Крыма полностью гарантированы действием в этих районах российского законодательства в полной мере, а также применением российской стороной всех соответствующих международных правил и эффективными практическими мерами по выполнению этих правил. На всей территории Российской Федерации функционирует комплексная система обеспечения безопасности мореплавания и защиты морской среды, которая включает все необходимые элементы. Касательно якобы негативных последствий, перечисленных в п. 8 Украины, необходимо отметить следующее. Морские спасательные подцентры в Севастополе и в Керчи работают в круглосуточном режиме, предоставляя необходимую поддержку и координируя деятельность по поиску и спасанию. Российская Федерация информировала об этом членов ИМО на прошлой сессии Подкомитета. Для обеспечения устойчивой связи при проведении поисково-спасательных операций и в повседневной деятельности спасательные подцентры в Севастополе и Керчи используют береговые радиостанции ГМССБ морского района А1, которые работают в



бесперебойном режиме. Помимо радиостанций, упомянутых в подпункте 2 пункта 8 документа Украины в их число также входит береговая радиостанция ГМССБ района А1 порта Феодосия в Крыму. Эта стация была выведена из эксплуатации Украиной в декабре 2012 г, однако в 2016 г. Российская Федерация восстановила эксплуатационный режим этой станции. Базовые станции АИС в Крыму являются частью соответствующей информационной системы России. Эти станции функционируют должным образом, осуществляя обмен информации и поддержку местных СУДС. Мы оставляем без комментариев прочие заявления в документе Украины, включая подпункт 4 пункта 8, о якобы имевшей место попытке захвата российскими ВМС украинского спасательного судна в территориальных водах Украины, как не имеющие отношения к компетенции данного Подкомитета. Translation into English provided by the Russian Federation We are requesting the Sub-Committee to take note of the following information. The allegations contained in the document submitted by Ukraine, in particular with regard to reduced SAR capabilities in the maritime areas adjacent to Crimea and a "grey zone" for international shipping, are totally groundless. The Russian Federation has repeatedly notified IMO Member States (last notification by means of a Circular letter 3801 in December 2017) that maritime safety and security are completely ensured off the coast of Crimea due to full compliance of the Russian Federation with applicable national legislation and by effective implementation of international regulations and application of practical measures to implement those regulations throughout the Russian Federation's territory. Russian Federation maintains an integrated system to ensure maritime safety and protection of marine environment from pollution, which contains all necessary components. As concerns the allegedly negative implications listed in para. 8 of the Ukrainian document, the following should be noted. The marine rescue sub-centers in Sevastopol and Kerch operate 24/7 providing all necessary support and coordination for SAR activities. The Russian Federation has notified IMO Member States accordingly at the last session of the Sub-Committee. To provide robust communication during SAR operations and in daily routine operations the marine rescue sub-centers in Sevastopol and Kerch use the coastal GMDSS stations for the sea area A1 which work continuously. Apart from the stations mentioned in sub-para.2 of para.8 of the Ukrainian document those stations include the coastal GMDSS station in the port of Feodosiya, Crimea. That station was decommissioned by Ukraine in December 2012, however in 2016 Russian Federation re-commissioned the operation of that station. The base AIS stations are part of the relevant integrated information system of the Russian Federation. The stations operate appropriately, providing information exchange of AIS data and supporting the local VTSs. The Russian Federation would refrain from commenting on other allegations in the Ukrainian document, including the allegations in sub-para.4 of para.8 that refers to the alleged seizure by Russian navy of Ukrainian SAR vessel in Ukrainian territorial waters. The matter is irrelevant from competence of this Sub-Committee.

___________

Date post:	03-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times