.3 more equipment would be required to be carried on board ships in spite of the restricted number of crew members.
Japan was also concerned with operational aspects, i,e. how crew would be able to deal with the increased amounts of information and equipment. Hence, Japan was of the opinion that draft SOLAS regulation V/20 was excessive, particularly for small ships engaged in domestic voyages.
5.7 The Sub-Committee further noted that the Committee, following some discussion, (MSC 70/23, paragraphs 11.85 to 11.86) had decided to refer the Japanese proposal (MSC 70/11/7) to NAV 45, instructing the Sub-Committee to consider the proposal in the context of its work on the revision of SOLAS chapter V and to provide the Committee with a justification for such new requirements.
5.8 On the basis of submissions by Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom (NAV 45/5/4) and Japan (NAV 45/5/15), the Sub-Committee discussed in general the issue of justification for new requirements.
5.9 The following general conclusions were agreed to, and were used as basic guidance for further work on revision of SOLAS chapter V.
.1 In principle, it would not be feasible to give justification, in terms of cost/benefit or specific contribution to safety of navigation, for each separate new requirements at this stage of the revision of SOLAS chapter V.
.2 It was, however, generally accepted that at least some general assessment should be made of the added value of new requirements in terms of their contribution to safety of navigation.
.3 It was also accepted that such assessment should basically address the following questions:
.1 Is the requirement proportional to its actual contribution to safety of navigation, given the size and type of the vessel, and intended use?
.2 Does the requirement have any counter-productive effect on safety of navigation, for instance by creating an overload of information to the mariner?
