Ports and Shipping Organisation of the Islamic Republic of Iran

1. Ports and Shipping Organisation of the Islamic Republic of Iran Long Range Identification & Tracking

2. LRIT is laying the foundations, probably for the first time in maritime history, for a fully integrated national maritime system that will allow on a legal basis national authorities to have a complete overview of their national fleet as well as activities in their ports and around their coastlines.

3. SOLAS V/19-1 Essentials Shore based infrastructure in place by December 2008 For ships entry into force is Dec-2008 or first radio survey thereafter (Jul-2009 for Sea Area A4). Applies to all passenger ships including HSC, cargo ships including HSC of > 300 gross tonnage, and MODU�s engaged on international voyages. However, it excludes ships operating exclusively in Area A1 (AIS regulation 19.2.4). Automatic position reports are required each 6 hours with the ability for any authorised user to increase the position reporting interval and/or obtain an on-demand �polled� position report.

5. Brief Assessment of LRIT World Market One open registry (Marshall Islands) appointed a Data Centre Administrator� only ship database � no connection to LRIT network Major open registries (Panama, Liberia, Bahamas etc.) still negotiating with suppliers EU still negotiating with suppliers � apparently to issue tender document soon- however fundamental differences between member states Independent countries variable as to interest As an independent state, I.R. Iran making good progress when compared to other IMO member states

7. The Global LRIT System comprises:- Ship borne LRIT transmitting equipment Communication Service Providers Application Service Providers LRIT Data Centres, plus any related Vessel Monitoring Systems The LRIT Data Distribution Plan The International LRIT Data Exchange

8. LRIT System

9. Key Issues for I.R. Iran/PSO Selection of LRIT provider Structure/location/security of National LRIT System National decisions on Data Distribution Plan Presentation of DDP to IMO Selection of ship communication channel Collection of ship terminal data National fleet compliance

10. ASP/Flag Contract Issues for LRIT Define scope of contract, partially governed by software employed ASP represents on behalf of flag -similar to class Administers/processes all the shore/ship interfaces Forwards post processed data to Flag/Administration/DC as directed Manage airtime Scope and quantity of reports to flag specified Procedures/problem solve non compliant ships All shipboard non-compliance issues are responsibility of Ship Operator � as advised by ASP Provision of simple one stop shopping contract for airtime and all management services

11. System Security ASP questioned reported no data cross-over of commercial tracking data since beginning of operation Server located in server farm provides high level of physical and I.T. protection Anti-hacking software ASP server should run SSL certificate Access to data is by user controlled log-in/password Employs cluster technology for redundancy Physical separation of main/back up servers Additional security can be offered by Client using SSL certificate � slower access, higher charges Separate racking of flag server � considerable increase in costs

12. Data Centre Software Attributes Store data (own ship and third party) Respond to request received from other data centres via the IDE Issue requests via IDE to third party data centre Host local copy of DDP Receive amendments to DDP Provide connection to national ports and SAR services Where flag state is also a coastal state provide required functionality Choice of outsourced or local hosting No DCs can be fully developed until DDP/other specifications finally agreed � should be confirmed at MSC84

13. Data Distribution Plan - Implementation Each flag state to submit �description� of DDP to IMO in textual format IMO will �encode� in accordance with XML schema to ensure consistency using XML for text and GML for graphics Data density of national polygons yet to be decided IMO will upload DDP via IDE at end of 2008 Subsequent amendments to national DDP direct access to GISIS server by individual flags DDP amendments will require fully skilled/trained operators

14. LRIT users FlagThe �Flag" state may track ships within its own fleet anywhere in the world. PortThe "Port" State may set its own requirements for ships that have indicated that they intend to call at its ports based on Notice of Arrival (NOA) Coastal"Coastal" States may obtain tracking information for ships navigating within a distance up to 1000 nautical miles off their coast (this applies to ships not intending to call and not flying that state's flag - in other words, ships on innocent passage). SafetyAdditionally Contracting Governments can request information on ships in an area where a Search and Rescue operation is underway.

15. LRIT Benefits to I.R. Iran Provides overview of national fleet globally Enhance efficiency and effectiveness as a flag � for both security and commercial planning As a Coastal State gives status of waters up to 1,000nm seawards of their shoreline Allows ports to plan further ahead and better manage their facilities � gains in efficiency and higher earnings � more efficient overall port management Provides the essential connection between deep sea and near coastal information (AIS, Radar Surveillance) Can be interfaced with data from other national resources � e.g. AIS networks, coastal surveillance, etc. Significantly enhances Safety awareness of available ships for safety of life at sea and environmental protection

16. Shipborne Transmitting Equipment

17. Key Decisions For Flag State Is data separation regarded as essential? Yes Simplest to implement Transparency for all including data security No Can create severe problems for ASP with major cost implications for Flag Allows data sharing and potential savings/cost recovery

18. Sat C DNID � Data Network IDentity DNID - number assigned by LES used to address a specific terminal or group of terminals Terminal may belong to more than one DNID group i.e. Flag and Ship Owner Up to maximum 255 terminals per group Terminals can be polled individually, by group or geographical area � function of ASP application Easy separation of data and costs based in DNID audit trail and unique terminal I/D

19. Data Delivery via Sat C

20. Sat C Issues Old terminals can be problematic Separate commercial and regulatory DNID keeps security track data separate from commercial data Data separation is transparent What end user sees easily controlled LRIT users (Flag, Port & Coastal States) are in full control of tracking and related data LES provides common user interface for any ASP ASPs can easily �share� terminal for LRIT and commercial tracking data Billing data from CSP is separated by DNID and linked to requesting ASP Ownership/registration of terminal is with ship owner Commercial tracking customers keep choice of provider/enjoyment of applications unaffected

21. Sat D+ Issues In isolation the D+ terminal complies with LRIT regulations, however Not recommended to use D+ SSAS for dual tracking (LRIT/Commercial) � ship owner tracking only Data separation achieved by differential programming within terminal Possible to re-engineered D+ programming to provide adequate separation of data, however Programming is proprietary and cannot be decoded by other ASP � unless by mutual agreement, not universal interface Separate ASP for commercial and LRIT tracking could therefore be problematic Billing separation (LRIT/commercial) required by ASP Change of flag/owner may be an issue Terminal is under control of ASP not ship owner Separate low cost D+ unit may be solution for problem Sat C terminals only where LRIT and commercial tracking is from same provider

22. Sat D+ with Different ASP

23. Sat D+ with common ASP

24. ASP Sat C Case Study � 25 ships x 1 month

25. Tracking Trial Observations Well run fleet � sample of 25 mixed flag ships from overall fleet of 125 � 4%, or 1 ship complied -120 reports 24%, or 6 ships transmitted between 110 - 119 reports. ASP intervention - No 32%, or 8 ships transmitted between 100 - 109 reports. ASP intervention - No 20%, or 5 ships transmitted between 25 � 99 reports. ASP intervention - Yes 20%, or 5 ships failed to respond at all to any tracking command. ASP intervention - Yes 40%, or 10 ships required frequent ASP intervention yet still failed to comply with LRIT regulations One failing ship fitted with Inmarsat D+ (customer request) and achieved immediate compliance after month 1 and continues to do so. ASP intervention - None

26. Integration of LRIT into National Monitoring Systems � Your Supplier Should Offer Ability to supply and integrate systems for coastal and offshore surveillance, waterside security, ISPS code compliance for port and offshore facilities with national LRIT system. A range of functions/interfaces with sensors and the system flexibility to deliver a highly efficient solution for the protection of ports and harbours, offshore platforms and guarded waterside facilities.

27. Track, Identify and Protect