2 

The MSWG was instructed to consider, as appropriate, the documents submitted under this agenda item, taking into account the in-principle decisions made in plenary, as set out in document MSC 75/J/6, and also taking into account human element aspects in all envisaged activities, to prepare in particular.

3 

The MSWG used document MSC 75/WP.7, a composite text of proposed draft amendments to SOLAS chapter XI and the draft text of Part A, renamed Part I, and Part B, renamed Part II, of the new International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code, as basic document for its consideration. Other relevant documents and submissions were also considered.

4 

The MSWG developed four alternative texts for amending regulation V/19.2.4, namely:

5 

The MSWG agreed on the change of title of chapter XI to "Special measures to enhance maritime safety and security" and the new sub-titles thereof for Part I as "Special measures to enhance maritime safety" and Part II as "Special measures to enhance maritime security".

6 

The delegation of the United States explained the background to the maritime security initiative and the objectives against which the new maritime security provision had been developed and drafted by the relevant administration in their country. This enabled the MSWG to better understand the reasons for some of the new texts proposed in the relevant United States submissions to this session.

7 

The MSWG accepted a proposal by Cyprus to circulate the statement by the United States and to use parts of it on the foreword to the ISPS Code.

8 

The ICFTU observer stressed that some of the terminology currently used in the draft ISPS Code needed to be considered carefully, as it could be construed as covering activities which could occur on board ship which it was not intended to apply to.

9 

The MSWG considered the definitions, as set out in draft regulation 5 and agreed to return to them once the different terms and their associated regulations were clearly developed and understood.

10 

In developing regulation 6 on requirements for ships and MODUs and regulation 7 on requirements for port facilities, the MSWG agreed to delete all references to fixed or floating platforms in the draft ISPS Code, recalling the corresponding decision by the Committee, not to apply the new regulations to these facilities.

11 

The MSWG, noting document MSC 75/17/39 (ICS, BIMCO, SIGTTO IPTA, OCIMF and WNTI) and MSC 75/INF.27 (Liberia), agreed that the information and proposals could be best used in the guidance Part B of the ISPS Code.

12 

The MSWG expanded the introductory paragraph of Part A of the draft ISPS Code and, in considering the objectives of the maritime security regulations, developed the new text in very general terms, addressing the interacting roles and responsibilities of the agencies and industries involved in maritime security activities.

13 

The MSWG, in considering SSP provisions in section 10, agreed on the three security levels proposed in the definitions in draft SOLAS regulation XI/5.10 to .12, and subsequently to the text in draft paragraph 10.1 of this section. It was recognized that the assessment of the appropriate security level was a matter for national administrations and the ship and port facility security plans should allow for change of level.

14 

In doing so the MSWG agreed to address the need for flexibility in responding to these security levels and when addressing the threat to different ports in different regions and countries of the world.

15 

In considering the contents of a SSP, the MSWG agreed to leave paragraphs 10.2.17 and .18, relating to the security alarm, in square brackets, awaiting the outcome of both NAV 48 and the Joint ICAO/IMO Working Group meeting on the issue of "means of raising a security alarm, which may be covert" and how to respond to it from a shore based facility.

16 

As to the question of copies of the SSP to be kept by the company, the MSWG assumed that companies were expected to follow the established procedures in keeping copies of all ships' papers/certificates/plans ashore, as already required in respect of other documentation, to prove compliance with the ISM Code requirements.

17 

The MSWG, noting that the ship security assessment was intended to be conducted by the company or the ship personnel to develop the ship security plan, responding to the level, as advised by the administration, for each ship or each class of ships as a prerequisite for the development of the SSP, agreed in principle to the need for a mandatory provisions in the draft ISPS Code. The detail of such a provision was discussed at length and the MSWG agreed to include more generic requirements in Part A of the ISPS Code.

18 

The MSWG, recognizing the adoption of resolution A.916(22) on Guidelines for the recording of events related to navigation, agreed in principle to the need for security records to be kept and to a corresponding requirement in Part A of the draft ISPS Code. It should be left to the competent authority of the country concerned to decide whether this should be entered in the ship's log-book or in a separate log-book.

19 

The MSWG agreed on the mandatory requirements for the CSO for inclusion in Part A of the ISPS Code.

20 

The MSWG, in considering the duties and responsibilities of the SSO, agreeing to follow the concept of the mandatory requirements to be as generic as possible and keeping the prescriptive provisions to a minimum with further guidance in Part B, prepared the draft text for this provision accordingly.