1. Master Mariner’s Seminar April 2018
Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships: Canada’s Policy and Regulatory Context
Master Mariner’s Seminar
April 2018

2. overview What is an autonomous ship? International context Challenges
Interested organizations
International Maritime Organization
Canadian context
Who’s involved?
Way forward

3. Technological advances
All modes of transportation are experiencing a monumental technological shift
Increasingly higher levels of automation
Remote controlled and autonomous vehicles
These advancements will fundamentally change the transportation sector globally, including Canada
Regulators must adapt

4. What is an autonomous ship?
No internationally agreed upon definitions
Autonomous vs. unmanned
Different levels of autonomy
Proposals for definitions and frameworks
Technical frameworks of autonomy
Governance / legislative frameworks
Most relevant to the regulator
An autonomous vessel does not necessarily mean unmanned; an autonomous vessel may still carry crew. Or an unmanned ship could be remote controlled. It is important to make the distinction between autonomous and unmanned.
There are also different levels of autonomy, ranging from fully manual, to highly automated decision support to completely autonomous.
However, currently, there is no common vocabulary or terminology to describe varying levels of autonomy and manning. Proposals have emerged from various groups. For example, Lloyd’s Register has published their technical framework with seven levels of autonomy, based on the automotive industry’s approach. From the regulator’s perspective, the technical frameworks will likely be too detailed.

5. Possible Governance / Legislative Framework
Manual navigation with automated processes and decision support R
Remote-controlled vessel with crew on board RU
Remote-controlled vessel without crew on board A
Autonomous vessel
1. Danish Maritime Authority (RAMBOLL, CORE), Analysis Of Regulatory Barriers To The Use Of Autonomous Ships, Dec 2017
A governance or legislative framework – such as this one – will be more appropriate from a regulatory perspective.
This governance / legislative framework was proposed by Denmark, in their report “Analysis of Regulatory Barriers to the Use of Autonomous Ships.
It outlines the autonomy level with regards to the operator’s role.
“Most projects on autonomous ships are conditional upon the ships having been designed so that it is possible to change between the various autonomy of levels (manual steering, remotely controlled operation and fully autonomous operation). Consequently, reality is that the legal barriers will be dynamic and change depending on the autonomy level at which the ship is specifically operating. It is presumed that autonomous ships will (at least initially) operate via manual steering or remote control in connection with port calls and in densely trafficked areas, whereas the ship will switch over to autonomy level A in open waters.” Source: Danish Maritime Authority (RAMBOLL, CORE), Analysis Of Regulatory Barriers To The Use Of Autonomous Ships, Dec 2017
Background info – Descriptions of each autonomy level
Source: Danish Maritime Authority (RAMBOLL, CORE), Analysis Of Regulatory Barriers To The Use Of Autonomous Ships, Dec 2017
M: Manual navigation with automated processes and decision support
The operator (master) is on board controlling the ship which is manned as per current manning standards. Subject to sufficient technical support options and warning systems, the bridge may at times be unmanned with an officer on standby ready to take control and assume the navigational watch.
R: Remote-controlled vessel with crew on board
The vessel is controlled and operated from shore or from another vessel, but a person trained for navigational watch and manoeuvring of the ship will be on board on standby ready to receive control and assume the navigational watch, in which case the autonomy level shifts to level M.
RU: Remote-controlled vessel without crew on board
The vessel is controlled from shore or from another vessel and does not have any crew on board.
A: Autonomous vessel
The operating system of the vessel calculates consequences and risks. The system is able to make decisions and determine actions by itself. The operator on shore is only involved in decisions, if the system fails or prompts for human intervention, in which case the autonomy level will shift to level R or RU, depending on whether there is crew on board or not.”

6. possible Concept of operations
This figure is also taken from Denmark’s study. It overlays the technical framework proposed by Lloyd’s Register with seven levels of autonomy – with the governance framework depicted in the previous slide.
Denmark based their “analysis on the hypothesis that it is possible to subdivide the regulatory approach to autonomous ships as regards the four autonomy levels into:
Who makes the decision, represented by the Y-axis, and
Where the decision is made (i.e. on board the ship or somewhere else), represented by the X-axis
“The number of regulatory barriers increases as the autonomy level is increased.”
Source: Danish Maritime Authority (RAMBOLL, CORE), Analysis Of Regulatory Barriers To The Use Of Autonomous Ships, Dec 2017
Source: Danish Maritime Authority (RAMBOLL, CORE), Analysis Of Regulatory Barriers To The Use Of Autonomous Ships, Dec 2017

7. challenges Vessel Safety Cyber Security Traffic Management
Emergency Response
Liability
Ship/Shore Interface
Maritime Autonomous Vessels present a wide range of challenges to address, including: Vessel Safety
System Design, Emergency Management
Control Stations, Operators Qualifications
Cyber Security
Traffic Management
Integration with regular traffic
Response to VTS
Emergency Response
Accident, Collision
Pollution
Liability
Human – Owner, Master, Operator…
Product – Vessel/Equipment Manufacturer, Software Designer…

8. Interested international organizations
Intergovernmental Organizations
International Standards Organizations
United Nations (UN)
International Maritime Organization (IMO)
International Tele-communications Union (ITU)
International Labour Organization (ILO)
Intergovernmental organizations will develop the broad regulatory framework for maritime autonomous surface ships
International standards organizations will work on many of the technical details needed to allow maritime autonomous ships to operate safely, securely, effectively and in an environmentally sound manner.
United Nations – United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS)
There is some debate whether UNCLOS would preclude autonomous ships or not, and therefore whether amendments would be required.
International Maritime Organization (IMO) – as the regulatory of international shipping. Work at the IMO will be discussed in more detail momentarily.
Safety Conventions (SOLAS, STCW, COLREG)
Pollution Convention (MARPOL, BWMC)
Liability Conventions (CLC, LLMC, HNS)
International Labour Organization (ILO)
Maritime Labour Convention (MLC)
International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
Standards for Radio Spectrum, Satellite
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
Information technology
Ships and marine technology Automation systems and integration
Intelligent transport systems
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)
Standards for Electrical, Electronic -
Electrical installations of ships and of mobile and fixed offshore units
Maritime navigation and radiocommunication equipment and systems
International Association of Lighthouse Authority (IALA)
Recommendations & Guidelines:
Vessel Traffic Services, Aids to Navigation,
eNavigation
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
International Association of Lighthouse Authorities (IALA)
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)

9. Interested international organizations
Non-governmental Organizations, Industry
International Transport Worker’s Federation (ITF)
Comité Maritime International (CMI)
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST)
International Federation of Shipmasters’ Associations (IFSMA)
International Chamber of Shipping (ICS)
P & I Clubs
A non-exhaustive list of other international organizations with an interest in maritime autonomous ships. Many of these groups have contributed towards the IMO work in this area (via papers submitted to MSC).

10. IMO work Maritime Safety Committee (MSC)
New Work Item - Regulatory Scoping Exercise For The Use Of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS)
Begin May 2018; target completion 2020
Legal Committee (LEG)
Canada lead proposal for a regulatory scoping exercise and gap analysis to complement MSC work
To be considered April 2018.
Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC), Facilitation Committee (FAL)
No work initiated

11. IMO Regulatory scoping exercise
MSC 99 to begin work in May 2018
Working group to be established
Examine instruments under purview of the Committee
Identify IMO regulations that:
preclude unmanned operations;
do not preclude unmanned operations but may need to be amended
18 papers have been submitted
Key aspect: Developing common vocabulary
5 information papers, 13 papers

12. IMO: Possible options
The scoping exercise will not result in any amendments
Next step – develop strategy to introduce MASS to the IMO instruments
Range of potential options:
Amend every IMO instrument
Develop separate instrument or code
Mixed approach
Consideration for timeline: SOLAS amendment schedule
2024 earliest opportunity for amendments to enter into force

13. Canada / us context Canada is not yet seeing industry demand.
Interest in establishing the Great Lakes as a centre of excellence for autonomous vessels.
Conference of Great Lakes and St Lawrence Governors and Premiers signed resolution with the Norwegian Forum for Autonomous Ships and the Marine Autonomy Coalition in October 2017.
Proposed Lake Superior Testing Area
Regional Marine Autonomy Coalition proposing testing area near Houghton, Michigan
The autonomous vessels proposed would be small vessels (<20 m) that are below the pilotage threshold. not looking to replace bulk carriers operating on Great Lakes
The Resolution signed between the Conference of Great Lakes and St Lawrence Governors and Premiers signed resolution with the Norwegian Forum for Autonomous Ships and the Marine Autonomy Coalition included a clause welcoming policy advice to be provided to the Governors and Premiers of the Great Lakes and St Lawrence by October 2018.
The Regional Marine Autonomy Coalition is composed of the Michigan Office of the Great Lakes, Michigan Technological University, and partners. It is proposing to establish an autonomous vessel testing area – Lake Superior, 30 miles radius from Houghton, Michigan. The primary drivers behind this proposal are technological Transfer and development, Small Service Vessels (Subsea, Surface, Hydrographic & Research). Still pending approvals.

14. Canada: who’s involved?
Government of Canada
Other key players:
Transport Canada
Canadian Coast Guard
Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Canada Border Services
Canadian Hydrograhic Service
This is a list of a non-exhaustive list of key players in Canada that would be involved in the introduction of MASS in Canadian waters.
Transport Canada – the regulator
Canada Transportation Act
Canada Shipping Act 2001
Coasting Trade Act
Canada Marine Act
Department of Fisheries and Oceans - Canadian Coast Guard
Vessel Traffic Services
Search and Rescue
Pollution Response
Canada Border Service Agency
Vessels in International Services
Other key players include:
Pilotage Authorities (Atlantic, Laurentian, Great Lakes, Pacific)
Pilotage Authority Regulations
Compulsory Pilotage Areas
Pilot Certifications
St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation
Seaway Regulations
Seaway Practices and Procedures
Port Authorities
Port Authorities Operations Regulations
Ship/Port Interface
Cargo Handling
Pilotage Authorities
St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation
Port Authorities

15. Canada: Way forward
Canada will need to amend its existing regulations – and possibly develop new ones – to allow for the operation of autonomous ships in Canadian waters.
Will be informed by IMO work
Transport Canada held first workshop with federal partners to initiate discussions on approach to domestic legislative/regulatory framework
Potential Interim options:
Marine Technical Review Board: exemptions, equivalencies
Geographical restrictions
Canada’s legislative and regulatory approach will be informed by the work at the IMO. Canada will be an active participant in the IMO’s work in this area.
Earlier this month (April 17th), Transport Canada hosted a workshop to initiate discussions amongst federal partners on how to approach developing a Canadian legislative and regulatory framework.
There was participation across a broad range of interested government departments including Canadian Coast Guard; Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada; Canadian Hydrographic Service; Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada; and representation from across Transport Canada.
This was the first of two planned workshops. The second workshop is intended to include wider participation.
In the interim, there are a number of possibilities Transport Canada could consider to enable the operation of Maritime Autonomous Vessels in Canadian waters. One existing mechanism that could be potentially employed is the Marine Technical Review Board to grant exemptions or determine equivalencies. Another possibility is considering geographical restrictions. These are possible options; no formal framework has been developed yet and work is in preliminary stages.

16. Next steps IMO Legal Committee: April 2018
MSC scoping exercise: May 2018
Canada
Second TC-led workshop, wider participation
Questionnaire at National CMAC (May 1-3)
There will be a questionnaire available at the upcoming National CMAC in Ottawa (May 1-3) to gauge interest of potential stakeholders in this issue and in another workshop.

17. Questions?