UNCLAS LONDON 000892

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

STATE PLEASE PASS TO IO/IOC FOR M. MORRISSEY

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: IMO ITU IMSO AORC ASEC UK
SUBJECT: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION (IMO): REPORT OF THE
ELEVENTH SESSION OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS AND
SEARCH AND RESCUE (COMSAR), LONDON, 16-23 FEBRUARY 2007.


1. SUMMARY: COMSAR 11 was attended by 70 administrations and 1
Associate Member, 2 Specialized Agencies, and 19 non-
governmental organizations. COMSAR considered the Global Maritime
Distress and Safety System (GMDSS), Review of the ITU radio
communications matters, Satellite Services (COSPAS-SARSAT and
Inmarsat), matters concerning
Search and rescue including those related to the
1979 SAR Conference, Developments in maritime radiocommunication
systems and technology, Revision of the International Maritime
Search and Rescue (IMSAR) Manual, Revision of the performance
standards for Search and Rescue Transponder (SART), Amendments to
the Collision Regulations (COLREGS) Annex IV relating to distress
signals, Guidelines on the control of ships in an emergency,
Replacements for use of Narrow Band Direct Printing (NBDP) for
maritime distress and safety communications in maritime MF/HF bands,
Guidelines for uniform operating limitations of high-speed craft,
Development of an e-navigation strategy, Work program and agenda for
COMSAR 12, Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman for 2008.
Captain Carlos Salgado of Chile was elected as Chairman of COMSAR 11
to replace Mr. Halberg of Sweden who stepped down. Mr. A. Olopoenia
of Nigeria was re-elected to serve as Vice Chairman. Subsequently,
both Captain Salgado and Mr. Olopoenia were both re-elected to serve
in their respective positions for COMSAR 12 which will be held in
April 2008. END SUMMARY.


2. GMDSS Navigational Area (NAVAREA) - As instructed by the GMDSS
Working Group, a Drafting Group was established under the
chairmanship of Mr. Peter Doherty (USA) and representative Mr. Keith
Alexander (USA) to consider matters concerning progress in the
implementation of GMDSS, namely provisions of maritime safety
information services. The Drafting Group considered COMSAR 11/3
(International Health Organization, IHO), 11/3/2 (Joint
IMO/IHO/WMO), COMSAR 11/3/3 (IHO), 11/3/4 (Norway) in relation to

the promulgation of Marine Safety Information (MSI) and the
extension of World-Wide National Warning Service (WWNWS) to Arctic
waters. With regard to COMSAR 11/3, the Chairman noted that the IHO
Commission on the Promulgation of Radio Navigational Warnings
(CPRNW) had received reports that there were occurrences of
SafetyNET "C" codes being used incorrectly, i.e. not in accordance
with the International SafetyNET Manual. Accordingly, the Drafting
Group discussed and analyzed the incorrect "C" codes promulgated via
the Enhanced Call Group (EGC) SafetyNET system, and as a measure to
improve its quality, generated a COMSAR Circular to be included as
an annex in the final report. Member Governments were invited to
bring this circular to the attention of all concerned for
information purposes and, in particular, to ensure that "C" codes
are used correctly.
With regard to COMSAR 11/3/3, the Chairman noted the revised list of
NAVAREA Coordinators. Accordingly, the Drafting Group discussed and
revised the list and recommended the issuance of a revision
circular. This circular replaces COMSAR/Circ.30. and was included as
an annex in the final report. Member Governments were invited to
bring the revised circular to the attention of all concerned for
information purposes.
With regard to COMSAR 11/3/2 and COMSAR 11/3/4, the Chairman
introduced the Report of the Joint IMO/IHO/WMO Correspondence Group
on Artic MSI Services and the Norwegian submission which identified
specific NAVAREA boundary limits. The Drafting Group, taking into
account resolution A.706(17) as amended by MSC/Circ.685 and
MSC/Circ.750, including the relevant decisions of COMSAR 10 and the
joint IMO/IHO/WMO Correspondence Group on Arctic MSI Services,
agreed to the following:
All new Arctic NAVAREAs should extend to 90 degrees North and be
responsible for the promulgation of maritime safety information
(MSI) in navigable waters;
Service shall be a 24/7 operation understanding that certain areas
will not be navigable during certain times of the year;
There shall be five (5) new Arctic NAVAREAs with the following
countries acting as NAVAREA Co-ordinators: Canada for NAVAREA XVII
and NAVAREA XVIII, Norway for NAVAREA XIX, and the Russian
Federation for NAVAREA XX and NAVAREA XXI;
Changes to the coverage areas under the WWNWS, to include the new
Arctic NAVAREAs and other existing coverage gaps, shall be


implemented at the same time;
Boundary limits for the five (5) new Arctic NAVAREAs were agreed
and will be forwarded to IHO CPRNW for final approval;
Provision of SAR information within these new NAVAREAs will
continue to be provided in accordance with currently agreed SAR
regions; and
All WWNWS guidance and other relevant documents will be updated as
part of the IHO WWNWS Guidance Document Review Correspondence
Group.
In discussions regarding Meteorological Area (METAREA) Issuing
Services, the WMO representative informed the Drafting Group of the
recent discussions that took place during the second session of the
JCOMM/ETMSS meeting in Brazil in January 2007. Though discussions on
the final identification of METAREAs Coordinators is still ongoing,
the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Environment Canada and the
Russian Federation have agreed in principle to assume those roles
and responsibilities within the Arctic METAREAs. The WMO
representative also informed the Drafting Group of the proposal to
prepare an IMO Resolution on Metocean services similar to A.706(17)
for navigational warnings.
The Drafting Group also issued a revised Terms of Reference for the
Joint IMO/IHO/WMO Correspondence Group on Arctic MSI Services with
the approval to continue to address the expansion of MSI services
and to progress the matter further through consideration of the
following salient issues: Who will act as METAREA issuing service?
How will warnings be transmitted, and can they be monitored as
required? Systems other than Inmarsat (such as High Frequency [HF],
Narrow Band Direct Printing [NBDP], NAVTEX and other satellite
service providers) need to be considered. How will Inmarsat system
definition manual and existing SafetyNET terminals be updated to
allow receipt of MSI within the new NAVAREAs? What required
training, assistance, and support from IHO/CPRNW is necessary to
support new NAVAREA co-ordinators and/or from JCOMM/ETMSS for
METAREA issuing services?


3. International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Maritime
Radiocommunication Matters - The group considered a liaison
statement from ITU-R WP.8B to IMO on aural listening watch on
distress calling frequencies and agreed that there was no need for
listing in the GMDSS Master Plan coast stations maintaining
listening watch on distress frequencies other than those used by
Digital Selective Calling. A list of these coast stations will be
sent to the ITU which will include the list in its relevant
publications.


4. Developments in Maritime Radiocommunication Systems and
Technology - The group agreed there was a need to develop a
standardized Extensible Markup Language (XML) format for maritime
services. The Group invited Member Governments and International
Organizations to submit examples of existing messages and proposals
to COMSAR 12.


5. Revision of Performance Standards for SART - The group agreed
that there is a need to ensure that definitions for Automatic
Identification System-Search and Rescue Transponder (AIS-SART) and
radar-SART were clear to avoid confusion. Performance standards for
both should be a separate resolution. The group recognized that SART
devices are not to be used for transmission of distress alerts. The
group agreed the NAV Sub-Committee should be invited to consider a
need for a presentation symbol for the SART. Furthermore, after the
performance standards have been adopted, the ITU should be advised
on the need for pre-configured text format for test purposes (SART
UNDER TEST) and active state (SART ACTIVE). With full support of the
United States delegation, the GMDSS Working Group supported the
recommendation to adopt a performance standard for an Automatic
Identification System Search and Rescue Transmitter (AIS SART) and
amend SOLAS to recognize both radar and AIS SART. AIS SART promises
to be more effective and farther reaching than radar transponder
SART.


6. Revisions to the Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) Code - The
group prepared revised draft text of amendments to SOLAS regulations
III/6.2.2, III/26.2.5 and IV/7.1.3 as set out in Annex 4. The


Sub-Committee endorsed the revised text with a view for approval by
the Committee at its 83rd session and adoption at its 84th session,
and recommended that the Sub-Committee instruct the DE Sub-Committee
to review amendments to the MODU Code and incorporate them when
revising the MODU code.


7. Replacements for the Use of NBDP (Radio Telex) for Maritime
Distress and Safety Communications in Maritime MF/HF Bands - The
group determined that while there might be a need to develop
performance standards as an equivalent of HF-NBDP used in the GMDSS,
it would be premature before the new recommendation from the ITU
came into force. In light of this, the group recommended that member
governments and international organizations consider the proposal by
the United States and submit comments to COMSAR 12. The group
prepared preliminary text of the draft MSC.1 circular Guidance on
ceasing requirements for NBDP on radio telex installations for
certain ships sailing in sea Area A3. Member Governments and
International Organizations were invited to submit comments to
COMSAR 12.


8. Matters Concerning Search and Rescue, including those related to
the 1979 SAR Conference and the implementation of the GMDSS - The
U.S. delegation, with support from the Australian, Swedish, and UK
delegations, submitted and had approved by the SAR Working Group for
submission to MSC, the circular Matters Concerning Search and
Rescue, Including Those Related to the 1979 SAR Conference and other
International Instruments, a document that reminds Member States of
their SAR obligations.
With the full support of the United States delegation, the SAR
Working Group reviewed and continued to endorse the International
Cospas-Sarsat Program's plan to phase-out the 121.5/243.0 MHz
signals set to occur on 01 February 2009. The United States
continues to be a key partner in the International Cospas-Sarsat
Program, along with Russia, Canada, France, and 36 other
participating nations.
The United States delegation submitted, and was fully supported by
the SAR Working Group, the paper SAR Services Issues Related to the
Implementation of the Long-Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT)
System, to encourage nations with both SAR and LRIT authorities to
consider SAR related issues as LRIT is further developed and
implemented internationally.
With the full support of the United States delegation, the SAR
Working Group supported the recommendation to continue the work of
the ICAO/IMO Joint Working Group for the Harmonization on SAR. The
United States Coast Guard has been selected to chair this body of
maritime and aeronautical SAR experts, whose next meeting is at La
Reunion, 11-14 September 2007.


9. E-Navigation and Long-Range Identification and Tracking of Ships
(LRIT) - The Sub-committee (S/C) considered documents COMSAR11/14,
11/14/1, 11/14/2, 11/14/3, 11/14/4, 11/14/5, 11/14/6 and 11/6/1 on
E-Navigation and LRIT. With regard to E-Navigation, the S/C
concluded that SAR, data communications, and GMSS were the potential
components of the proposed E-Navigation strategy and system
architecture that fell within its remit. The S/C decided that the
GMDSS infrastructure could support E-Navigation but that broadband
satellite technology would be necessary. The views of the S/C will
be forwarded to the NAV S/C.
With regard to LRIT, the S/C noted the Marshall Islands paper
regarding legacy shipborne equipment (i.e., certain older Inmarsat-C
equipment) not being able to meet LRIT performance standards, and
requested that this issue be brought to the attention of the
Committee.
The S/C forwarded a provisional matrix prepared by the Secretariat
of those agreements which may be required to establish the LRIT
system.
The S/C thanked the US for its offer to host, build, and operate the
International LRIT Data Center (IDC) on an interim basis, but did
not feel that this was the time to debate or discuss the offer. A
number of delegations encouraged the US to re-submit this offer for
consideration at MSC 83. The Russian Federation informed the S/C
that it intends to establish a National LRIT Data Center which could
become a Regional or even the International LRIT Data Center, or


serve as a backup for the IDC.
The S/C considered various costing and billing options for LRIT.
Formulas were developed for the calculation of four different
overhead costs: LRIT Coordinator, International Data Center (IDC),
International Data Exchange (IDE), and SAR. Despite strong and
repeated interventions by Greece, supported by Panama, Bahamas, and
others, the MSC will be asked to note the S/C's opinion - led by a
US intervention - that Contracting Governments that have established
their own National, Regional, or Cooperative LRIT Data Centers
should have to pay for the initial setup and recurring costs for 4
reports per day for their respective flag ships. The S/C
recommended that Contracting Governments should be able to recover
their costs associated with LRIT, but not be able to profit.
The Ad Hoc WG on Engineering Aspects of LRIT met the week preceding
COMSAR 11 to further develop technical specifications and to discuss
costing and billing. The Ad Hoc WG developed a consensus response
(COMSAR 11/WP.4/Add.1 Annex 2) to 8 costing and billing policy
questions raised at MSC 82 to which CIRM and US submitted similar
proposed responses (COMSAR 11/14/2, 11/14/5). Based on those
discussions and the results of COMSAR 11, the Ad Hoc WG is expected
to provide MSC 83 with various cost recovery mechanisms. The US has
been asked by the Ad Hoc WG to host its next meeting, tentatively
8-10 May 2007, St. Petersburg Beach, FL, in conjunction with the
Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services (RTCM) Annual
Assembly.


10. Satellite services (COSPAS-SARSAT and Inmarsat)
Resolution A.888 and SOLAS IV Amendments - The group considered
amendments to Draft Resolution A.888 (21) recognition and oversight
of new GMDSS providers. The terms of reference were restricted to
making only those changes necessary to reflect decisions by MSC 82
that recognition and approval of new providers would be by MSC vice
International Mobile Satellite Organization (IMSO). IMSO retains
oversight. The group also proposed consequential amendments to SOLAS
IV. The group accepted the IMO Secretariat's proposed changes to
previously approved draft amended Resolution A.888 (21). To
accomplish this limited purpose, the group also recommended change
to SOLAS IV Regulation 4-1. This means that the MSC specifies the
criteria, procedures, and arrangements for the evaluation,
recognition, review, and oversight of the provision of mobile
satellite communications services in the GMDSS.


11. The U.S. Coast Guard Attachi to Malta, in concert with the
delegation from Malta, lobbied those IMO member states present from
Africa, the Mediterranean and the Middle East to send personnel from
their respective countries to attend the Armed Forces of Malta (AFM)
Search and Rescue Training Center (SARTC). This lobbying effort
included an information paper, a presentation and numerous sidebar
discussions. The AFM is able to offer full scholarships (including
travel and per diem) to 20 international students per year through
generous funding from the U.S. European Command. This lobbying
effort resulted in Algeria, Cyprus, Mauritania and Tunisia
committing to send two officers each to the March 2007 Search and
Rescue Mission Coordinator (SMC) course. Additionally, Nigeria,
Morocco and Greece expressed interest in sending representatives to
the June 2007 SMC class. The International Lifeboat Federation will
explore the possibility of having Kenya send students to attend
future SMC classes in Malta as a result of the recent opening of the
sub-regional Maritime Rescue Coordination Center in Mombassa,
Kenya.
Two of the SARTC goals are to increase regional SAR capabilities in
the Mediterranean and Africa, as well as assisting in the
development of personal relationships among those same regional SAR
authorities and personnel. The U.S. Coast Guard Attachi to Malta is
on the SARTC faculty and assists the AFM in teaching a four-week
long SMC course to international and Maltese students.

TUTTLE