I:\COMSAR\16\4.doc

E

SUB-COMMITTEE ON RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS AND SEARCH AND RESCUE 16th session Agenda item 4

COMSAR 16/430 September 2011 Original: ENGLISH

ITU MARITIME RADIOCOMMUNICATION MATTERS

Outcome of the seventh meeting of the Joint IMO/ITU Experts Group

on Maritime radiocommunication matters

Note by the Secretariat

SUMMARY

Executive summary: This document provides the outcome of the sixth meeting of the Joint IMO/ITU Experts Group on Maritime radiocommunication matters

Strategic direction: 1.1

High-level action: 1.1.2

Planned output: 1.1.2.10

Action to be taken: Paragraph 64

Related documents: COMSAR 15/16 and Circular letter No.3184

BACKGROUND 1 The COMSAR Sub-Committee, at its fifteenth session (7 to 11 March 2011), endorsed the holding of the seventh meeting of the Joint IMO/ITU Experts Group on maritime radiocommunication matters, along with the Terms of Reference. The Maritime Safety Committee, at its eighty-ninth session (11 to 20 May 2011), authorized the convening of the seventh meeting of the Joint IMO/ITU Experts Group, to be held at the Organization's London Headquarters, from 13 to 15 September 2011. GENERAL 2 The seventh meeting of the Joint IMO/ITU Experts Group on maritime radiocommunication matters (the Group) was held from 13 to 15 September 2011, at IMO Headquarters, under the chairmanship of Mr. K. Fisher (United Kingdom). The agenda for the meeting and the list of participants are set out in annexes 1 and 2, respectively.

COMSAR 16/4 Page 2

I:\COMSAR\16\4.doc

CONSIDERATION OF THE OUTCOME OF COMSAR 15, MSC 89, NAV 57 AND OTHER IMO BODIES, AS APPROPRIATE (Agenda item 2) 3 The Group noted the information provided by the Secretariat on the outcome of COMSAR 15, MSC 89 and NAV 57 with regard to issues of relevance to the Group (IMO/ITU EG 7/2). E-NAVIGATION Harmonization of the process of the Scoping exercise of the GMDSS and the development of e-navigation 4 The Group noted that COMSAR 15 had agreed that:

.1 if approved by MSC 90 in 2012, the review of the GMDSS would go ahead in parallel with the development of e-navigation;

.2 many of the identified needs for radiocommunication (voice and data) in

the framework of e-navigation could be categorized as Maritime Safety Information (MSI) and, therefore, formed part of the GMDSS. Other needs for radiocommunication could fall outside the scope of GMDSS, but should be considered by the COMSAR Sub-Committee in relation to the possible (1) use of GMDSS equipment for this type of communications and (2) need for changes to the ITU Radio Regulations at a future World Radiocommunication Conference, including the need for additional spectrum; and

.3 the radiocommunication needs, as well as ITU related matters with regard

to the use of the radio spectrum, related to e-navigation should be brought to the attention, and remained the sole responsibility, of the COMSAR Sub-Committee.

5 The Group further noted that COMSAR 15 had noted the view expressed by Norway that, whilst agreeing with the aforementioned views, more consideration was needed in the framework of several sub-committees and that, in particular, close cooperation between the COMSAR and NAV Sub-Committees was required. Report ITU-R M.2201 (11/2010) – Utilization of the 495-505 kHz band by the maritime mobile service for the digital broadcasting of safety and security related information from shore-to-ships 6 The Group noted that regarding the allocation of the frequency band of 495-505 kHz for e-navigation, NAV 57 had noted that its e-navigation Working Group, acknowledging the current difficulties for frequency allocation and taking into account the further expected needs of additional frequency spectrum, had recognized that the above-mentioned frequency band should be claimed for future uses of e-navigation. Extension of the target completion year to 2014 7 The Group further noted that NAV 57 had invited the Committee to approve the proposed joint plan of work for the COMSAR, NAV and STW Sub-Committees for the period 2012-2014 and extend the target completion year for the work programme item "Development of an e-navigation strategy implementation plan" to 2014.

COMSAR 16/4 Page 3

I:\COMSAR\16\4.doc

NUMBERING OF MMSI NUMBERS TO DSC HAND PORTABLE RADIOS OPERATING IN THE VHF BAND 8 The Group noted that COMSAR 15 had considered document COMSAR 15/3/6 (United Kingdom), outlining a proposal for the allocation and numbering of MMSI numbers to DSC hand portable radios operating in the VHF band, and a by its Technical Working Group developed associated draft liaison statement to ITU-R WP5B (COMSAR 15/WP.4, annex 1). The Sub-Committee decided that the matter needed further consideration, at its next session, and invited interested parties to submit suitable proposals to COMSAR 16. 9 However, the Group noted that ITU-R was proposing a revision to Recommendation ITU-R M.585-5 which was expected to cover the allocation of numbers to DSC hand portable radios and be approved before COMSAR 16 (paragraph 17 below refers). NEAR REAL-TIME EXCHANGE OF MARITIME DOMAIN INFORMATION 10 The Group noted that COMSAR 15 had approved the liaison statement to ITU-R WP 5B on Near real-time exchange of maritime domain information, which was distributed in ITU-R as Document 5B/627. DRAFT REVISION OF RECOMMENDATION ITU-R M.1371-4 11 The Group noted that NAV 57 had noted the debate which had taken place in its Technical Working Group on a possible future revision of the definitions of the Navigation Status parameter of AIS Messages 1, 2, and 3. Taking into account that ITU-R WP 5B would start considering a future revision of Recommendation ITU-R 1371-4 in 2012, it was agreed that it was too early to liaise with ITU on IMO's position on this matter and that further consideration was needed at the next session of the Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee agreed with its Technical Working Group's view to inform IALA of the following with regard to their proposal laid down in document NAV 57/5/2:

.1 although the proposed changes to the definitions of parameters 0, 3, 5 and 8 were of an editorial nature, these were changes to well established definitions which would be likely to cause confusion to the mariners;

.2 the proposed changes to the definitions of parameters 11 and 12 to

"power-driven vessel towing astern" and "power-driven vessel pushing ahead or towing alongside", were considered to be not an international requirement but a possible national or regional requirement. Consideration might be given to the use of these parameters for regional applications; and

.3 the proposed changes to the definition of parameter 13 to "requiring

assistance" were not supported because its use would probably not lead to the provision of the required assistance as there would be limited monitoring for the parameter. It should be noted that the GMDSS provided facilities to indicate the need for assistance.

CONSIDERATION OF THE OUTCOME OF ITU-R WP 4C, WP 5B AND MEETINGS OF OTHER RELEVANT STUDY GROUPS AND/OR WORKING PARTIES OF ITU (Agenda item 3) 12 The Group noted the information provided by the Secretariat on the outcome of the meeting of ITU-R WP 4C, which took place from 28 April to 4 May 2011, concerning the following matters:

COMSAR 16/4 Page 4

I:\COMSAR\16\4.doc

.1 the technical work with respect to Agenda item 1.7 had been continued and the focus was placed on developing a working document towards a preliminary draft new Report on methodology(ies) to calculate spectrum requirements to satisfy aeronautical mobile-satellite (route) service (AMS(R)S) access in 1.5/1.6 GHz band (annex 10 to Document 4C/595); and

.2 the revisions were initiated of Recommendations ITU-R M.1478-1 on

protection criteria for Cospas-Sarsat search and rescue instruments in the band 406-406.1 MHz, and ITU-R M.1731 on Protection criteria for Cospas-Sarsat local user terminals in the band 1544-1545 MHz. The proposed revisions consisted in the addition of new annexes, which would be used for the analysis of interference to Cospas-Sarsat user terminals that operated with the Electro-L and GLONASS satellites. The preliminary draft revision of the above mentioned Recommendations could be found in annexes 4 and 5 to Document 4C/595.

13 The Group further noted the information provided by the Secretariat on the outcome of the meeting of ITU-R WP 5B, which took place from 13 to 24 June 2011 (IMO/ITU EG 7/3). 14 The Group noted, in particular, that in relation to the preparation for WRC-12, WP 5B had prepared a:

.1 preliminary draft new Report ITU-R M.[SNAP] on the Current usage of RR appendix 18 of the Radio Regulations for the maritime mobile service to identify a possible solution of Agenda item 1.10 (Resolution 357 (WRC-07)) (annex 31 to Document 5B/727);

.2 preliminary draft new Recommendation ITU-R M.[500 kHz-16QAM] on

Characteristics of a digital system for broadcasting maritime safety and security related information from shore-to-ship in the 500 kHz band. It was noted that the Recommendation was based on a system using a 16 QAM modulation, though there was information on other possible systems identified in Report ITU-R M.2201 (11/2010) (annex 20 to Document 5B/727);

.3 preliminary draft new Report ITU-R M.[Channel compare for App 17]

concerning the Consideration on the alternatives of the frequency table in appendix 17 of the Radio Regulations for the introduction of new digital technologies for the maritime mobile service to identify a possible solution of Agenda item 1.9 (Resolution 351(WRC-07)) (annex 29 to Document 5B/727); and

.4 liaison statement to the International Association of Marine Aids to

Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities (IALA) on Spectrum requirements for e-navigation under WRC-12 Agenda item 1.10 and a future WRC Agenda item for e-navigation (annex 41 to Document 5B/727). It was noted that IALA had proposed two additional channels for IALA's planned expansion of AIS and WP 5B, in the liaison statement, had suggested to IALA to encourage its National Members to submit proposals to WRC-12 for AIS 5 and 6. The Group further noted that, if such a proposal was forwarded to WRC-12, the Conference should consider whether this request could be accommodated in a revised appendix 18. However, the

COMSAR 16/4 Page 5

I:\COMSAR\16\4.doc

participants of the meeting were not aware of any proposals to WRC-12 in this regard.

15 The Group also noted that as regular work, to be finalized at the November 2011 meeting or to be carried over to the next Study Period, WP 5B had started the revision of 21 existing Recommendations dealing with maritime matters. For Recommendations ITU-R M.589-3, M.823-3 and M.824-3 no need for changes was identified. Fourteen other recommendations were proposed for change and the marked up documents were annexed to Working Party 5B Chairman's Report. Recommendations ITU-R M.586-1, M.587-1 and M.1178 were proposed for suppression. 16 With respect to Recommendation ITU-R M.493-13, WP 5B had agreed to create a work plan and milestones for future revision of this recommendation. A liaison statement was sent to IALA, IMO, CIRM and IEC TC80 seeking their comments on the work plan. 17 The Group noted the work on the preliminary draft revision to Recommendation ITU-R M.585-5 on the Assignment and use of maritime mobile service identities (annex 16 to Document 5B/727) for which there was strong support within WP 5B. The Group agreed that the new proposal for the revision of the recommendation would be acceptable to many Administrations. The Group also noted the view expressed that from a Search and Rescue perspective it was preferable to have such an exclusive identity, as currently proposed. The Group further noted the view that there were sufficient MID's available for the foreseeable future. It was also noted that WP 5B was aware that a new numbering scheme might be needed in future and would study this matter in future. It was concluded that WP 5B would finalize the revision of this recommendation at its next meeting with the aim to have the revised recommendation incorporated by reference by the upcoming WRC. This would overtake the ongoing work in the COMSAR Sub-Committee (paragraph 9 above refers). The Group also noted the observation expressed by the Radiocommunication Bureau that the proposal for the assignment of identities for handheld VHF transceivers with DSC and GNSS, namely 81M2I3D4X5X6X7X8X9, would block the future usage of the following MID series: 820-829, 830-839, 840-849, 850-859, 860-869, 870-879 which was in total 60 MIDs. The Group further noted the view expressed by the delegation of Norway, supported by others, that even so there were 525 MIDs available for future use. It was also noted that IMO had not changed its view, as was reflected in its liaison statement to ITU-R WP 5B (document COMSAR 14/17, annex 6 and Document 5B/434). 18 The view was expressed by the Netherlands that IALA was issuing a lot of information to WP 5B, but that due to the fact that they were not present at meetings they were not achieving their goals. IALA was also missed at this meeting of the Experts Group, to which it had submitted a document as well (paragraph 25 below refers). IMO POSITION ON WRC-12 AGENDA ITEMS CONCERNING MATTERS RELATING TO MARITIME SERVICES (Agenda item 4) 19 The Group noted that MSC 89 had approved the revised draft IMO position on WRC-12 Agenda items concerning matters relating to maritime services. The Committee

COMSAR 16/4 Page 6

I:\COMSAR\16\4.doc

had noted that this was the final approval of the IMO position for submission to the ITU World Radiocommunication Conference, which was scheduled to take place from 23 January to 17 February 2012. 20 The Group further noted that MSC 89 had authorized it to add, as appropriate, more non-contentious information in the background sections of the agenda items contained in the IMO position for WRC-12, as approved at that session of the Committee, in order to strengthen the arguments supporting the IMO position. The Secretariat was instructed to submit the IMO position, amended as appropriate, to ITU after the meeting of the Experts Group had taken place. 21 The Group considered document IMO/ITU EG 7/4 (Secretariat) and reviewed the background sections item by item. 22 In reviewing the background section for Agenda item 1.9, the Group considered document IMO/ITU EG 7/4/2 (CIRM) containing proposed revisions to the Background section for the IMO Position on WRC-12 Agenda item 1.9 emphasizing that there was significant interest in the use of the high-frequency bands by shipping in future. 23 The Group agreed to add as new paragraph 1 of the Background section for the IMO Position on WRC-12 Agenda item 1.9 the following text:

"There is significant interest in the use of the high-frequency bands by shipping.";

and to add at the end of the existing fourth paragraph the following text:

"Over 4,500 ships are known to use digital systems which automatically route messages to their destination producing a million messages a month. New, highly efficient technology is being developed which, in the next three years, is expected to double this use."

24 The Group further noted information provided by CIRM containing analysis of the utilization of the bandwidth in appendix 17, demonstrating that the historical allocations did not reflect current nor future needs. The Group agreed to make the analysis available for information to interested parties as annex 3 to this report of the Experts Group. 25 In reviewing the background section for Agenda items 1.10 and 8.2, the Group considered document IMO/ITU EG 7/4/1 (IALA) containing a liaison statement from IALA, concerning spectrum requirements for e-navigation. The Group further noted that IALA envisaged that most of the initial spectrum requirements for e-navigation could be fulfilled under WRC-12 (Agenda Item 1.10). However, IALA believed that a WRC-2016 agenda item would be necessary to meet the spectrum requirements that would continue to evolve for e navigation (including VTS operations) and modernization of the GMDSS. 26 The delegation of France expressed the view that, according to IALA, there were two separate issues for the next WRC. They agreed with IALA that the review of the GMDSS and its regulatory consequences, and the additional spectrum requirements for e-navigation, were two separate issues and would require two separate agenda items for the next WRC. The view of the United States was noted that it would already be difficult to get a maritime agenda item for WRC-16 and, therefore, it would be advisable to combine the two items into a proposal for one agenda item for the next WRC. The Group noted that it would be preferable to have, in this case, one agenda item with two separate resolutions inside.

COMSAR 16/4 Page 7

I:\COMSAR\16\4.doc

27 The delegation of France further expressed the view that the matter regarding the use around 500 kHz and the matter regarding the channelling arrangements in appendix 18 were supposed to be solved at WRC-12 under Agenda item 1.10. Mentioning these matters as possible issues to be considered by the next Conference might harm the consideration and finalization of these matters at WRC-12. In this regard, it was noted that with the established timescale for the review of the GMDSS (paragraph 43 below refers), it would be impossible to prepare for regulatory changes of the provisions of the Radio Regulations in time before 2016. Therefore, the general feeling of the Group was that the review of the GMDSS would better be listed as a possible Agenda item for the subsequent conference. To further clarify the IMO position, it was decided to add text in the Background section for Agenda item 8.2 as follows: add at the end of the Background section, dealing with the review of the GMDSS:

"..., although it is recognized that certain issues might already be concluded at WRC-12.";

to add at the end of the Background section, dealing with the Implementation of e-navigation: "..., taking into account the outcome of WRC-12."; and to add at the end of the complete Background section a new paragraph as follows:

"Timescales The timescales for these activities may result in the Agenda item being better listed as a possible Agenda item for the subsequent conference to WRC-16.".

28 In reviewing the Background section for Agenda item 1.14, the information provided by Germany was noted that the protection criteria for the maritime services needed to be reviewed by WP 5B. Participants to the upcoming WP 5B meeting in November 2011 were encouraged to monitor the outcome on this matter. 29 In reviewing the Background section for Agenda item 1.23, the information provided by Norway was noted that the radio amateur community had dropped their request for the allocation of spectrum in the core part of the band, 495-505 kHz, at the ITU-CPM meeting in February 2011. 30 The Group finally noted that, as instructed by MSC 89, the Secretariat would submit the IMO position to ITU. SCOPING EXERCISE TO ESTABLISH THE NEED FOR A REVIEW OF THE ELEMENTS AND PROCEDURES OF THE GMDSS (Agenda item 5) GENERAL 31 The Group noted that COMSAR 15 had authorized the establishment of a Correspondence Group on the Scoping exercise, under the coordination of the United States to continue the work further intersessionally between COMSAR 15 and COMSAR 16 with a view to finalization at COMSAR 16. It was further noted that the Correspondence Group was instructed to submit an interim report on the draft Work Plan to the Joint IMO/ITU Experts Group for its consideration. The Correspondence Group was further instructed to

COMSAR 16/4 Page 8

I:\COMSAR\16\4.doc

consider the incorporation of additional satellites systems into the GMDSS and how it might be achieved. The United Kingdom noted that, as part of the work of the Correspondence Group, the instruction in COMSAR 15/WP.5, sections 3.9 and 3.10, includes that the work plan and the overall work plan for the process of the review and modernization of the GMDSS could only be finalized following completion of the scoping exercise. 32 The Group considered document IMO/ITU EG 7/5 (United States) containing a draft Work Plan on review and modernization of the GMDSS and newly developed additional guidance for the addition of satellite service providers for the GMDSS. DRAFT WORK PLAN 33 The Group noted that the Correspondence Group had prepared a draft Work Plan in accordance with the instructions of COMSAR 15. The draft Work Plan was based on the draft from the sixth session of the Joint Experts Group (COMSAR 15/4, appendix 7 of the annex). It had been reorganized and certain elements had been added based on the recently adopted amendments to MSC-MEPC.1/Circ.2 on Guidelines on the organization and method of work of the MSC and the MEPC and their subsidiary bodies (MSC-MEPC.1/Circ.4 refers). Additional revisions were made as a result of contributions by Correspondence Group members. Human Element/Human Factor 34 In considering the draft Work Plan (annex 1 to document IMO/ITU EG 7/5), it was noted that there was a need to further clarify how the Human Element/Human Factor would be taken into account. Therefore, it was decided to advise the Correspondence Group to include reference to the Human Element in the caveat of the list of issues, as given in paragraph 3 of annex 1. 35 It was further noted that the "Checklist for considering Human Element issues by IMO bodies", as presented as an annex to annex 1 of document IMO/ITU EG 7/5, was requested by the Committee to be included in order to ensure that the Human Element had been taken into account throughout the full process. However, it was recognized that many questions from the checklist could not be answered at the beginning of the process. The Group advised the Correspondence Group to clarify the use of the checklist more in detail in paragraph 19 of annex 1. 36 The delegation of the Bahamas expressed the view that it might have merit to bring this matter to the attention of the Human Element Working Group and to ask for advice, as appropriate. List of issues 37 In considering the list of issues included in the review, as given in paragraph 3 of annex 1, the Group decided to advise the Correspondence Group to divide the list to reflect the two step review, the so called high level review and detailed review. The Group discussed all the issues and advised the Correspondence Group to revise the text of paragraph 3 as follows:

COMSAR 16/4 Page 9

I:\COMSAR\16\4.doc

"The review, with particular reference to the Human Element, will include: a high-level review, containing: .1 review of the existing 9 functional requirements, including

.1 the possible need for inclusion of security related communications

in the GMDSS; and .2 the consideration of the possible need to develop a clearer

definition of "General Communications", which is continuing to cause confusion and consider if this category should be included within the requirements of the GMDSS;

.2 the need for the current order of priorities in use for radiocommunications; .3 the future need for the four different areas of carriage requirements (sea

areas A1 to A4), and port State control procedures if sea areas are changed; .4 the future need to allow for differences for certain categories of ships,

including non-SOLAS ships; .5 whether distress communications should be separated from other types of

communications and in consequence whether the arrangements in chapters in SOLAS could be revised (note chapter II, (part D – Electrical installations), chapter III (part B in several instances), chapter V in various instances including e-navigation applications);

a detailed review, containing:

.6 the issue of training and performance of crews on board ships, considering

the certification and renewal of qualifications and also noting the possible reduction of technical knowledge and skills by operators;

.7 equipment carriage requirements for duplication, maintenance, equipment

interfacing, back up support systems and power supplies; .8 the possible inclusion of Automatic Identification System (AIS) functions; .9 the possible inclusion of Long Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT)

functions; .10 the possible inclusion of Ship Security and Alert System (SSAS) functions; .11 the role of Narrow Band Direct Printing (NBDP); .12 the role of MF/HF Digital Selective Calling (DSC) and the complexity of

some of the signalling functions; .13 problems which might arise due to a lack of HF stations in future; .14 the usage of satellite equipment as an alternative in sea area A2 currently

based around MF/HF DSC;

COMSAR 16/4 Page 10

I:\COMSAR\16\4.doc

.15 voice communications as an integral part of the GMDSS, benefiting search and rescue operations;

.16 possible new requirements for lifeboats and liferafts, for instance to provide

long-range communications; .17 the expected evolution of satellite EPIRB systems, such as the Medium

Earth Orbit Search And Rescue system (MEOSAR); .18 the further evolution of Maritime Safety Information broadcast systems,

taking into account the ongoing work in IHO and WMO; .19 possible alignment between chapters III, IV, V and XI-2 of SOLAS, in

particular, with regard to type approval, secondary equipment and maintenance arrangements and their regulatory status (i.e. mandatory or discretionary);

.20 the need to indicate the facilities required for capacity-building; and .21 assess whether to increase the use of goal-based methodologies when

reviewing the regulations and regulatory framework for GMDSS in SOLAS chapters IV and V and the STW Convention, to provide flexibility to allow the GMDSS to adapt to new and evolving technologies without major revision of the SOLAS and STW Conventions in future.

The review should take place over a three-year period (2013-2015). The inclusion of time lines and an appreciation of work load would allow all to plan and participate." 38 The Group considered the need to provide more background information regarding the issues included in the list and discussed some ideas brought forward by the United Kingdom. The Group invited the United Kingdom to submit their ideas to the Correspondence Group. 39 The delegation of Liberia expressed its concern of the cost implications of the possible inclusion of Long Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT) functions. The delegation of Germany commented whether the Ship Security Alert System (SSAS) functions should be included in the GMDSS. The Group invited the United Kingdom to take these comments also into account. Compelling need 40 The Group considered paragraphs 6 to 9 containing the compelling need and suggested editorial changes to the text, which would be brought to the attention of the Correspondence Group. Alternative clause 10 (Analysis of the issue) 41 The Group discussed the proposed alternative clause 10, given on page 4 of annex 1 of document IMO/ITU EG 7/5, and advised that "the list of goals which should be achieved without a complete redesign of the communications regime" should be added to paragraph 10 dealing with the Analysis of the issue. Views were expressed that it would be of benefit to keep the diagram as given in paragraph 10.1 of the alternative clause 10 and the Group advised to move that diagram to a new annex to annex 1. It was considered that a reference to the annex containing the diagram should be made in paragraph 3. It was

COMSAR 16/4 Page 11

I:\COMSAR\16\4.doc

further advised that the text given in paragraph 10.2 of the alternative clause 10 was used to revise paragraph 3 and, therefore, did not needed to be included in the draft Work Plan. Analysis of the implications 42 In considering paragraph 12, dealing with cost implications, it was advised to make a reference to the implications in terms of capacity-building. Suggested editorial improvements 43 The Group had identified some more editorial improvements in paragraphs 13 to 18 which would be brought to the attention of the Correspondence Group. Timescale 44 The Group discussed the timescale needed for the IMO organ to complete the work, as given in paragraph 22 of annex 1 to document IMO/ITU EG 7/5. Noting that the review was planned to be completed by COMSAR 19 in 2015, the Group considered the relation with the request for an Agenda item for a future WRC (paragraph 27 above refers). It was noted that with such a timescale, it would be impossible to prepare for regulatory changes of the provisions of the Radio Regulations in time before 2016. Therefore, the general feeling of the Group was that the review of the GMDSS would better be listed as a possible Agenda item for the subsequent conference. 45 The Group discussed the proposed timescale, being a review stage starting in 2012 and to be finalized by 2015 and a modernization stage starting in 2015 and to be finalized in 2018. It was noted that the review would consist of 2 steps, the high-level review and detailed review (paragraph 37 above refers). 46 The Group discussed the deliverables for 2012, 2013 and 2014 leading to the finalization of the review in 2015 and advised the Correspondence Group to include these deliverables (in terms of planned output) in the document. ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE FOR THE ADDITION OF SATELLITE SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR THE GMDSS 47 The Group noted that IMSO had actively participated in the Scoping exercise process and had submitted valuable information to the Correspondence Group, in particular, in relation to the preparation of annex 2 to document IMO/ITU EG 7/5 on the process for approving additional GMDSS satellite service providers. 48 In considering annex 2 of document IMO/ITU EG 7/5, containing a discussion of the issues related to the acceptance of new GMDSS satellite service providers, the Group noted that evaluating and approving applications would be "learning by doing" when the Organization would start to deal with this. Therefore, it would be difficult to provide complete guidance at this initial stage. 49 The Group further noted that the Correspondence Group had no mandate to suggest amendments to resolution A.1001(25). In this regard, the view was expressed that the current text of resolution A.1001(25) was considered to be blocking new providers to apply for recognition.

COMSAR 16/4 Page 12

I:\COMSAR\16\4.doc

50 With regard to paragraph 3, regarding the submission of all necessary information, the Group considered that there was a need to upgrade the list to a more definitive list. The Correspondence Group was advised to work the list up to something more comprehensive. 51 In considering the suggestion received by the Correspondence Group that an application form might be needed, the Group noted that it would be consequential of the review of paragraph 3. 52 In discussing paragraph 4 of annex 2, the Group concurred with the statement that full global coverage should not be required. The Group advised that the final sentence be revised as follows: "In order to prevent an offer of only providing selected services by any approved

GMDSS satellite system operator, this requirement should be strictly maintained." 53 The Group noted that, as reflected in paragraph 8 of annex 2, the requirement that "there is a well-founded confidence that the company concerned will remain viable for the foreseeable future and will remain in a position to deliver the required services over an extended period" would pose particular difficulties. It would probably not be possible for Member Governments to provide such assurance to the Committee. The requirement could most likely be fulfilled by evaluating the past performance of the Company and to review whether the required contracts, such as the Public Service Agreement, were in place. The Correspondence Group was advised to refine the existing text of paragraph 8 by reflecting the discussion within the Group. 54 In considering paragraph 9, on how the COMSAR Sub-Committee would undertake its evaluation and produce an evaluation report, the Group noted that the Technical and Operational Assessment to be performed by IMSO would be of crucial interest. The Group noted the preparedness of IMSO to provide this service, if so requested by the Organization. It was further noted that IMSO intended to charge a fee for this service which would be entirely separate from any funding from Inmarsat. 55 The Group noted the given timescales in paragraph 10 and 11 and that it was meant to be illustrative. It was considered to be important that applicants should understand the potential timescales of the process in the Organization. However, it was noted that it was very difficult to predict how long the process would take, since it all depended on the information provided and the amount and level of additional information the COMSAR Sub-Committee and/or Committee might ask for. The Group further noted that in the column given in paragraph 10 for "Worst case" the word "Draft" should be removed. 56 A further issue was raised on paragraph 1.5. The Group was of the opinion that the Organization had accepted the principle of applications from GMDSS satellite service providers and, therefore, there was no ground for an objection, in principle. The Group advised the Correspondence Group to also clarify this issue. 57 In considering the suggestion received by the Correspondence Group that the required services should be delivered over an extended period in the event of an emergency (paragraph 2.2.2.3 of resolution A.1001(25)), the Group noted that the Technical Report required for the Committee included restoration procedures from an emergency. These would be developed on a case-by-case basis. It was further noted that this might be an issue for consideration if a review of resolution A.1001(25) would take place.

COMSAR 16/4 Page 13

I:\COMSAR\16\4.doc

Planning of further work 58 The coordinator of the Correspondence Group thanked the Group for the comments they had made and indicated that he would provide the final text of the input document to COMSAR 16 by 11 November 2011. ANY OTHER BUSINESS (Agenda item 6) ITU-R meeting schedule 59 The Group noted the dates for the upcoming meetings of ITU-R WP 5B, as follows:

- 8 to 18 November 2011; - 22 May to 1 June 2012; and - 5 to 16 November 2012.

60 The Group noted the dates for the meetings of ITU-R WP 4C for 2012, as follows:

- 23 to 29 May 2012; and - 12 to 19 September 2012.

It was further noted that the meeting schedule was available on the ITU website. IMO meeting schedule 61 The Group noted that:

.1 COMSAR 16 was scheduled to take place from 12 to 16 March 2012; and .2 NAV 58 from 2 to 6 July 2012.

Consideration of the need for an 8th meeting of the Group 62 The Group considered that there would be a need for a meeting of this Group in 2012, in order to: .1 start the preparation of an IMO position on maritime issues for WRC-16

and, in particular, to: .1 analyse the outcome of WRC-12 in line with the IMO position

submitted to the Conference; .2 analyse the Resolutions of WRC-12 in order to identify major areas

of interest for IMO; and .3 prepare initial advice on a draft IMO position to WRC-2016; and .2 facilitate the work in IMO and ITU in relation to the new work item, to be

approved by MSC 90, on the review of the GMDSS.

COMSAR 16/4 Page 14

I:\COMSAR\16\4.doc

63 The Group agreed to invite the COMSAR Sub-Committee to consider the need for holding a meeting of the Group in the week from [8 to 12 October] 2012, at IMO Headquarters in London, for an amount of days, as appropriate. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE 64 The Sub-Committee is invited to:

.1 note that ITU-R was proposing a revision to Recommendation ITU-R M.585-5 which was expected to cover the allocation of numbers to DSC hand portable radios and be approved before COMSAR 16 (paragraphs 9 and 17);

.2 note the amendments agreed by the Experts Group to the Background

sections of Agenda items 1.9 and 8.2 (paragraphs 23 and 27); .3 note the analysis of the utilization of the bandwidth in appendix 17

(paragraph 24 and annex 3); .4 note the advice prepared for the Correspondence Group on the Scoping

exercise in relation to the draft Work Plan (paragraphs 33 to 46); .5 to consider inviting the Committee to bring the Work Plan to the attention

of the Human Element Working Group for advice, as appropriate (paragraph 36);

.6 note the advice prepared for the Correspondence Group on the Scoping

exercise in relation to the issue of the process for approving additional GMDSS satellite service providers (paragraphs 47 to 57);

.7 consider the need for the holding of a meeting of the Group in the week

from [8 to 12 October] 2012, at IMO Headquarters in London, for an amount of days, as appropriate; and

.8 note the report in general.

ACTION REQUESTED OF ITU-R 65 ITU-R WP 5B is invited to:

.1 note the analysis of the utilization of the bandwidth in appendix 17 (paragraph 24 and annex 3); and

.2 note the report in general.

***

COMSAR 16/4 Annex 1, page 1

I:\COMSAR\16\4.doc

ANNEX 1

PROVISIONAL AGENDA

for the Joint IMO/ITU Experts Group on Maritime radiocommunication matters to be held at IMO Headquarters, 4 Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7SR,

from Tuesday, 13 to Thursday, 15 September 2011

The meeting will commence at 9.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 13 September 2011 1 Adoption of the agenda 2 Consideration of the outcome of COMSAR 15, MSC 89, NAV 57 and other

IMO bodies, as appropriate 3 Consideration of the outcome of ITU-R WP 4C, WP 5B and meetings of other

relevant Study Groups and/or Working Parties of ITU 4 IMO position on WRC-12 Agenda items concerning matters relating to maritime

services 5 Scoping exercise to establish the need for a review of the elements and procedures

of the GMDSS 6 Any other business

***

COMSAR 16/4 Annex 2, page 1

I:\COMSAR\16\4.doc

ANNEX 2

List of Participants

Name Member State/ Organization

Position Contact Details

Mr. Carvalho ANTÔNIO

Angola Ministry of Transport

antonio.kamuenho.carvalho@gmail.com

Mr. Tavares Manuel DA CONCEIÇÃO

Angola Ministry of Transport

kamutekel_00@hotmail.com

Matias Ezequiel VITASSE

Argentina Principal mvitasse@prefecturanaval.gov.ar

Mr. John AKHURST

Bahamas Assistant Director

jakhurst@bahamasmaritime.com

Dr. Phillip BELCHER

Bahamas Assistant Director

pbelcher@bahamasmaritime.com

Mr. Stefan DIMITROV

Bulgaria

Head of Department

st.dimitrov@bgports.bg

Mr. Russell RENAUD

Canada Radio and Navigational Technical Adviser

renaud@tc.gc.ca

Mr. Ari CASELIUS

Finland Inspector ari.caselius@ficora.fi

Mr. Christian RISSONE

France

Maritime Radio-communication Spectrum Engineer

rissone@anfr.fr

Mr. Alexander SCHWARZ

Germany Executive Officer alexander.schwarz@bmvbs.bund.de

Mr. Heinrich PETERS

Germany Executive Officer

heinrich.peters@bnetza.de heinrich.peters@ties.itu.int

Mr. Hans-Karl von ARNIM

Germany

Adviser hans-karl.arnim@bsh.de

Capt. Sahattua P. SIMATUPANG

Indonesia Transport Attaché

Mr. Masaki FURUKAWA

Japan Special Assistant to Director

furukawa-x45f8@kaiho.mlit.go.jp

Mr. Valdis REITERS

Latvia Expert, Radio Communication

valdis.reiters@lja.lv

Mr. Mulbah B. KPAYIELI

Liberia Maritime Technical Officer

mkpayieli@liberian.org.uk

Ms. Armena V. RICHARDS

Liberia IMO Coordination

arichards@liberianpm.org.uk

Capt. Ada Lorena Dimas RODRÍGUEZ

Mexico Agregada Técnica de Comunicaciones y Transportes

adimasro@sct.gob.mx

COMSAR 16/4 Annex 2, page 2

I:\COMSAR\16\4.doc

Name Member State/ Organization

Position Contact Details

Capt. Ibraheem A. OLUGBADE

Nigeria Alternate Permanent Representative

Eng. Michael Ade Aston ORUAMEN

Nigeria Assistant General Manager Utilities

Eng. Anas SULEIMAN

Nigeria Technical Adviser

Mr. Samuel Ngozi NWIGWE

Nigeria Radio Manager

Capt. Sylvester Emiewanlan OWOBU

Nigeria Manager Marine

Mr. Sigmund Andreas BREIVIK

Norway Chief Engineer, Senior Adviser

sigmund.breivik@sjofartsdir.dep.no

Mr. Rune Magne NILSEN

Norway Approval Engineer

rmn@sdir.no

Mr. John JOHANNESSEN

Norway Special Adviser john.johannessen@telenor.com

Mr. Aurelian Sorinel CALINCIUC

Romania Maritime Radio Communications Expert

Aurelian.calinciuc@ancom.org.ro

Mr. Nizar S.S. HALABI

Saudi Arabia Director

Maj. Khalid bin M. AL-HAMZI

Saudi Arabia Border Guard

Mr. Abdulaziz Abdullah ALHASAN

Saudi Arabia Ministry of Petroleum and Mining

Mr. Philip KEMPE

Sweden Swedish Transport Agency

philip.kempe@transportstyrelsen.se

Mr. Mats ANDERZÉN

Sweden Senior Administrative officer

mats.anderzen@transportstyrelsen.se

Mrs. Fatma SAJWANI United Arab Emirates (the)

Regulatory Officer/ Thuraya RMDSS Project Manager

marine@nta.gov.ae f_sajwani@thuraya.com

Mr. Stephen TALBOT

United Kingdom

International Policy Adviser

stephen.talbot@ofcom.org.uk

Mr. Steven ALEXANDER

United Kingdom

Maritime Policy Manager

steven.alexander@ofcom.org.uk

Mr. Steve AUSTIN

United Kingdom

Senior Policy Lead

COMSAR 16/4 Annex 2, page 3

I:\COMSAR\16\4.doc

Name Member State/ Organization

Position Contact Details

Mr. Kim FISHER

United Kingdom

Adviser

kpfisher@btinternet.com

Mr. Chris BLOCKLEY-WEBB

United Kingdom

Specialist Policy Coordinator

Chris.blockley-webb@mcga.gov.uk

Mr. John SHAW

United Kingdom

Consultant shawzone@usa.net

Mr. Desmond THOMPSON United Kingdom

Editor Admiralty List of Radio Signals – Volume 5 (GMDSS) United Kingdom Hydrographic Office

des.thompson@ukho.gov.uk

Mr. Alfredo MISTICHELLI

United States Senior Spectrum Engineer

alfredo.mistichelli@uscg.mil

Mr. Dante IBARRA

United States Senior Radio-communication Engineer

Dante.ibarra@fcc.gov

Mr. Robert MARKLE

United States President RTCM rmarkle@rtcm.org

Mr. Marshall E. GILBERT

United States President gilbinc@aol.com

Mr. Helder de J. CONTREIRAS

Maritime Organisation for West and Central Africa (MOWCA)

Legal Adviser rep@mowcaimo.org.uk

Mr. Andy FULLER International Mobile Satellite Organization (IMSO)

Deputy Director General

andy_fuller@imso.org

Mr. Jaap STEENGE

European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT)

Adviser International Affairs

Jaap.steenge@agentschaptelecom.nl

Mr. Stephen WARD

International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

Analyst Stephen.ward@mmiconnect.com

Mr. Michael RAMBAUT

Comité International Radio-Maritime (CIRM)

Secretary-General

secgen@cirm.org

COMSAR 16/4 Annex 2, page 4

I:\COMSAR\16\4.doc

Name Member State/ Organization

Position Contact Details

Mr. Christopher SNOWDON

Comité International Radio-Maritime (CIRM)

Iridium Satellite LLC.

Donna.bethea-murphy@iridium.com chris@accesspartnership.com

Mr. Peter BLACKHURST

Comité International Radio-Maritime (CIRM)

Inmarsat Global Ltd. Head, Maritime Safety Services

peter_blackhurst@inmarsat.com

Mr. Chris WORTHAM

Comité International Radio Maritime (CIRM)

Inmarsat Global Ltd.

CHRIS_WORTHAM@INMARSAT.COM

Mrs. Deborah MACCORMAC

Comité International Radio-Maritime (CIRM)

Global Wireless deborah.maccormac@globewireless.com

Mr. Brian MULLAN

International Maritime Rescue Federation (IMRF)

Adviser brian@mullan.com

Revd. Canon Ken PETERS International Christian Maritime Association (ICMA)

Director of Justice and Welfare

justice@missiontoseafarers.org

Capt. Harry GALE The Nautical Institute

Technical Manager

hg@nautinst.org

Mr. Karlis BOGENS

ITU Radiocommunication Bureau

Radio-communication Engineer

karlis.bogens@itu.int

Mr. Anikath Mohan DAS

ITU Radio communication Bureau

Head, Service Publications Section

mohan.das@itu.int

Mr. Gurpreet SINGHOTA

IMO Secretariat Deputy Director/Head Operational Safety Section

gsinghota@imo.org

Mr. Hans VAN DER GRAAF

IMO Secretariat Secretary

hvanderg@imo.org

***

COMSAR 16/4 Annex 3, page 1

I:\COMSAR\16\4.doc

ANNEX 3

Informal Analysis of Maritime Mobile Services Bandwidth Allocation in appendix 17 provided by CIRM

This annex provides an informal analysis of the utilization of the bandwidth in appendix 17 and is intended to demonstrate that the historical allocations do not reflect current nor future needs. Item:

#1. 4542 kHz Total bandwidth allocated for Maritime Mobile Services in HF Bands (4-30 MHz.)

#2. 1295 kHz Total bandwidth allocated for Maritime "essential" services in HF bands;

e.g. DSC, Search & Rescue, NAVTEX and GMDSS. #3. 3247 kHz Total bandwidth allocated for general Maritime Mobile use. #4. 628 kHz Total bandwidth allocated for NBDP use (paired and non-paired channels)

= 19.3% of # 3 above – 3247 kHz. #5. 898 kHz Total bandwidth allocated for Morse = 28% of # 3 above – 3247 kHz. #6. 1526 kHz Total bandwidth available for digital transmissions per Footnote "p" in

appendix 17. (Sum of #4 and #5 above) This equals 508 – 3 kHz channels. #7. 1 Million Up to 1 million HF messages per month from Globe Customers.

Equals 1,970 digital messages per 3 kHz channel per month. #8. >2% Consistent findings from informal multi-week listening sessions on NBDP

channels (sponsored by Globe Wireless) over several years in different Regions of the world have detected NBDP transmissions less than 2% of the time.

#9. >1% In December 2010, a United States company currently engaged in selling

NBDP services to ships, indicated that they send an average of 1,200 messages per month on their NBDP licensed channels in the 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 18, 20, 22 MHz (8 bands).

Regardless of the number of NBDP channels being used, this equates to roughly

150 messages per month per band (1,200 messages over 8 bands 1200÷8 =150) If there are 628 kHz of bandwidth for NBDP in appendix 17, this equals 1256 –

0.5 kHz NBDP channels. Consequently, the bandwidth reserved for NBDP is utilized in the United States less

than 1% of the time. (1200÷1256 = .93%) or >1% This supports the findings of the informal listening indicated in #8 above.

COMSAR 16/4 Annex 3, page 2

I:\COMSAR\16\4.doc

#10. 65 kHz This is the amount of band space which could be reserved in the core NBDP channels to adequately accommodate the current and declining need for NBDP transmissions. 2% use of the available bandwidth indicated in #3 above 3247 kHz (3247 x .02 = 64.94 (rounded to 65 kHz of bandwidth) or 130 – 0.5kHz NBDP channels.

Summary: Digital transmissions average 1 million messages per month on the 508 – 3 kHz HF channels, currently available under Footnote "p" of appendix 17. In the United States, roughly 1,200 NBDP messages per month are sent on some portion of the 628 kHz of bandwidth allocated to NBDP (or 1256 – 0.5 kHz NDBP channels), licensed in the United States. NBDP transmissions worldwide, quite likely, amount to >2% utilization of the band space allocated for NBDP.

____________