Part B | 23.5
524 Part B Autonomous Ocean Vehicles, Subsystems and Control
hicle as a legal vessel subject to compliance with the
rules of the road. This conclusion is important because
it may be the determining factor in establishing admiralty [23.21] jurisdiction in settling any tort liability
claims. In American jurisprudence literature [23.22],
vessel interpretation includes: For the purpose of determining admiralty jurisdiction, the term vessel has been
interpreted liberally and broadly. (It indicates) any
structure used or capable of being used for transportation on water [23.23] and predominantly characterized
by movement, rather than fixity or permanence [23.24].
These interpretations also portend that UMVs will be
classified as vessels [23.25–27], demanding compliance
to code and equal treatment by other vessels. The legal
ramifications for the owners and operators associated
with these UMVs will include full liability for damages
to other persons and property, as though those same
individuals were directly involved in the on-board operation of the UMV. However, allowance is made for
vessels that are not fully capable. COLREGS rule 3(g)
provides for a vessel which is restricted in her ability
to maneuver defined as a vessel which from the nature
of her work is restricted in her ability to maneuver as
required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep
out of the way of another vessel [23.28].
Although the initial NAVSAC review held in 2011
reportedly demonstrated some doubt regarding classifying UMVs as vessels as defined by COLREGS rule 3(a),
they did propose that the US Coast Guard sponsor an
amendment to the RAM (restricted in her ability to maneuver) in rule 3(g) to add a self-propelled vessel while
unmanned and operating autonomously. This proposal
suggests that within the NAVSAC review panel there is
some level of acceptance that UMVs will be classified
as vessels within the COLREGS. By logical extension,
if accepted as RAM vessels, UMVs will be afforded
a privileged right over most manned vessels, due to their
inherent limitations in keeping out of another vessels’
way (in conditions where visibility is not restricted).
From the summary record of the NAVSAC Working
Group Report of the May 2011 meeting, the following
resolutions provide some insight to the present status
of this evolving topic. NAVSAC advised the US Coast
Guard to amend COLREGS so as to require vessel automatic identification system (AIS) transponders on all
unmanned underwater vehicles, if practicable, suggesting that the overall vessel length be used as the defining
characteristic, with 8 m in overall length and 1 m in
overall diameter used as the delineation for meeting
the AIS and lighting requirements. They also recommended an amendment to rule 23 (both inland and
COLREGS), which would require all inconspicuous,
partly submerged vessels or objects while unmanned
and operating autonomously to exhibit the lights specified in rule 24(g), again suggesting the 8 m length and
1 m diameter minima. For underwater vessels, they recommended amending rule 24(g), both inland and COLREGS, to require that these same vessels exhibit the
specified lights at night and by day. Similar suggestions
were proposed that affected unmanned surface vessels
requiring AIS where practicable, as well as specific
lights and day shapes, where practicable. In addition,
NAVSAC recommended that rule 3(g), both inland and
COLREGS, be modified to include language addressing
self-propelled vessels while unmanned and operating
autonomously. Further, NAVSAC recommended that
the lookout requirements in rule 5 be amended to include the term manned, thereby relieving unmanned
vessels from lookout responsibility. NAVSAC clearly
suggested that the US Coast Guard promulgate an interpretive rule under 33 CFR parts 82 and 90 to provide
that a vessel being operated remotely is considered to be
manned and must comply with the applicable navigation rules and annexes. At present, the NAVSAC Work
Group recommendations are being evaluated by industry experts, academia, US Coast Guard representatives,
and legal scholars. Should the proposed approach be
adopted, a proposal will be carried by the US Coast
Guard to IMO for further review and eventual adoption and inclusion into COLREGS. It should be pointed
out that while UMV may be relieved of the lookout requirement if the NAVSAC recommendations are
accepted by the US Coast Guard and eventually incorporated into the COLREGS, this will not relieve UMV
from obligations under COLREGS rule 7 (risk of collision) and rule 2 (responsibility).
23.5 Developing Standards
In parallel to the evolving COLREGS rules as proposed
by NAVSAC, the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) established a technical committee
(F41) that is responsible for developing standards for
UMVS (unmanned maritime vehicle!system) in 2005.
This committee includes subcommittees addressing autonomy and control (F41.01), maritime regulations
(F41.05), and unmanned surface vehicles (F41.90.01),
among others. Presently, the core (F41.01) autonomy
and control section is the furthest developed of this
set of standards. Through industry, academics, and user
group input, the ASTM committees continue to push
524 Part B Autonomous Ocean Vehicles, Subsystems and Control
hicle as a legal vessel subject to compliance with the
rules of the road. This conclusion is important because
it may be the determining factor in establishing admiralty [23.21] jurisdiction in settling any tort liability
claims. In American jurisprudence literature [23.22],
vessel interpretation includes: For the purpose of determining admiralty jurisdiction, the term vessel has been
interpreted liberally and broadly. (It indicates) any
structure used or capable of being used for transportation on water [23.23] and predominantly characterized
by movement, rather than fixity or permanence [23.24].
These interpretations also portend that UMVs will be
classified as vessels [23.25–27], demanding compliance
to code and equal treatment by other vessels. The legal
ramifications for the owners and operators associated
with these UMVs will include full liability for damages
to other persons and property, as though those same
individuals were directly involved in the on-board operation of the UMV. However, allowance is made for
vessels that are not fully capable. COLREGS rule 3(g)
provides for a vessel which is restricted in her ability
to maneuver defined as a vessel which from the nature
of her work is restricted in her ability to maneuver as
required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep
out of the way of another vessel [23.28].
Although the initial NAVSAC review held in 2011
reportedly demonstrated some doubt regarding classifying UMVs as vessels as defined by COLREGS rule 3(a),
they did propose that the US Coast Guard sponsor an
amendment to the RAM (restricted in her ability to maneuver) in rule 3(g) to add a self-propelled vessel while
unmanned and operating autonomously. This proposal
suggests that within the NAVSAC review panel there is
some level of acceptance that UMVs will be classified
as vessels within the COLREGS. By logical extension,
if accepted as RAM vessels, UMVs will be afforded
a privileged right over most manned vessels, due to their
inherent limitations in keeping out of another vessels’
way (in conditions where visibility is not restricted).
From the summary record of the NAVSAC Working
Group Report of the May 2011 meeting, the following
resolutions provide some insight to the present status
of this evolving topic. NAVSAC advised the US Coast
Guard to amend COLREGS so as to require vessel automatic identification system (AIS) transponders on all
unmanned underwater vehicles, if practicable, suggesting that the overall vessel length be used as the defining
characteristic, with 8 m in overall length and 1 m in
overall diameter used as the delineation for meeting
the AIS and lighting requirements. They also recommended an amendment to rule 23 (both inland and
COLREGS), which would require all inconspicuous,
partly submerged vessels or objects while unmanned
and operating autonomously to exhibit the lights specified in rule 24(g), again suggesting the 8 m length and
1 m diameter minima. For underwater vessels, they recommended amending rule 24(g), both inland and COLREGS, to require that these same vessels exhibit the
specified lights at night and by day. Similar suggestions
were proposed that affected unmanned surface vessels
requiring AIS where practicable, as well as specific
lights and day shapes, where practicable. In addition,
NAVSAC recommended that rule 3(g), both inland and
COLREGS, be modified to include language addressing
self-propelled vessels while unmanned and operating
autonomously. Further, NAVSAC recommended that
the lookout requirements in rule 5 be amended to include the term manned, thereby relieving unmanned
vessels from lookout responsibility. NAVSAC clearly
suggested that the US Coast Guard promulgate an interpretive rule under 33 CFR parts 82 and 90 to provide
that a vessel being operated remotely is considered to be
manned and must comply with the applicable navigation rules and annexes. At present, the NAVSAC Work
Group recommendations are being evaluated by industry experts, academia, US Coast Guard representatives,
and legal scholars. Should the proposed approach be
adopted, a proposal will be carried by the US Coast
Guard to IMO for further review and eventual adoption and inclusion into COLREGS. It should be pointed
out that while UMV may be relieved of the lookout requirement if the NAVSAC recommendations are
accepted by the US Coast Guard and eventually incorporated into the COLREGS, this will not relieve UMV
from obligations under COLREGS rule 7 (risk of collision) and rule 2 (responsibility).
23.5 Developing Standards
In parallel to the evolving COLREGS rules as proposed
by NAVSAC, the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) established a technical committee
(F41) that is responsible for developing standards for
UMVS (unmanned maritime vehicle!system) in 2005.
This committee includes subcommittees addressing autonomy and control (F41.01), maritime regulations
(F41.05), and unmanned surface vehicles (F41.90.01),
among others. Presently, the core (F41.01) autonomy
and control section is the furthest developed of this
set of standards. Through industry, academics, and user
group input, the ASTM committees continue to push