(1)

The Commission, in close cooperation with the Member States and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (‘Agency’) through the network of aviation safety analysts, developed a methodology for the classification of occurrences in terms of safety risk, by taking into account the need for compatibility with existing risk classification schemes. The common European risk classification scheme (‘ERCS’) was developed by 15 May 2017 in accordance with the target date set out in Article 7(5) of Regulation (EU) No 376/2014. The ERCS should be now set out in this Regulation.

(2)

It should support the competent authorities of the Member States and the Agency in their assessment of occurrences, its key purpose should be the identification and classification in a harmonised manner of the level of risk posed by each occurrence to aviation safety. Its purpose should not be the identification of the outcome of the occurrence.

(3)

The ERCS should also allow for the identification of rapid actions needed in reply to high-risk safety occurrences. It should also enable the identification of key risk areas from aggregated information and the identification and comparison of their risk levels.

(4)

The ERCS should facilitate an integrated and harmonised approach to risk management across the European aviation system and therefore enable the competent authorities of Member States and the Agency to focus on safety improvement efforts in a harmonised manner as part of the European Plan for Aviation Safety referred to in Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2).

(5)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317 (3) laying down a performance and charging scheme in the single European sky establishes the rate of runway incursions and separation minima infringement at Union level with a safety impact as the indicators to be monitored on an annual basis during the third reference period (RP3) that covers the calendar years 2020 to 2024 inclusive. This Regulation should be applied as of l January 2021 to align the use of the ERCS with the start of the RP3 second annual monitoring period and ensure the harmonised assessment of occurrences,

(1)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1352/2013 (2) establishes, in its Annex I, the form to be used to submit an application requesting that customs authorities take action with respect to goods suspected of infringing an intellectual property right, referred to in Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 (‘the application for action form’).

(2)

Since 1 February 2020, the United Kingdom has withdrawn from the European Union and has become a ‘third country’. The Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (Withdrawal Agreement) (3) provides for a transition period ending on 31 December 2020. Until that date, Union law in its entirety applies to and in the United Kingdom.

(3)

After the end of the transition period, the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland (‘IE/NI Protocol’), which forms an integral part of the Withdrawal Agreement, applies. The IE/NI Protocol makes certain provisions of Union law applicable under certain conditions also to and in the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland (4).

(4)

The IE/NI Protocol provides that the regulations listed in its Annex 2 under point 45 (Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5); Regulation (EU) 2019/787 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6); Regulation (EU) No 251/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7); Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8), Sections 2 and 3 of Chapter I of Title II of Part II and Regulation (EU) No 608/2013) apply to and in the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland.

(5)

Hence, a right holder should be able to request a customs action in a Member State for protection in Northern Ireland of those intellectual property rights, by submitting a Union application.

(6)

More specifically, a right holder should be able to request that the procedure for the destruction of goods in small consignments, set out in Article 26 Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 be used for goods whose geographical indication has been infringed, as these goods are included in the definition of counterfeit goods in point 5 of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 608/2013.

(7)

Therefore, the application for action form needs to be adapted by introducing in the box ‘6. Member State or, in the case of a Union application, Member States in which customs action is requested’ and in box ‘10. I request the use of the procedure of Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 (small consignments) in the following Member State(s) and, where requested by the customs authorities, agree to cover the costs related to the destruction of goods under this procedure’ a new tick box called ‘XI’ for Northern Ireland.

(8)

In the same fields, the tick box for UK should be deleted to reflect the end of the transition period provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement.

(9)

The notes on completion of Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1352/2013, which are set out in Annex III to that Regulation should be amended to clarify that action in Northern Ireland can only be asked for intellectual property rights which are protected in Northern Ireland by virtue of the IE/NI Protocol.

(10)

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1352/2013 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(11)

This Regulation should start applying on the day following that on which the transition period provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement is to end,

(1)

Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 (2) lays down the requirements that aircraft operators need to comply with as regards the recurrent operational training and checking of their pilots.

(2)

The European Plan for Aviation Safety adopted by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (‘the Agency’) pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139, identified that it is of key importance for aviation personnel to have the right competencies and that training methods need to be adapted to ensure that the personnel is able to cope with the new emerging technologies and the increasing complexity of the aviation system.

(3)

In 2013 the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) published the ‘Manual of evidence-based training’ (Doc 9995 AN/497), which contains a competency framework (‘core competencies’) necessary to operate safely, effectively and efficiently in a commercial air transport environment and the corresponding descriptions and related behavioural indicators to asses those competencies. The evidence-based training (‘EBT’) competencies, encompass what was previously known in pilot training as technical and non-technical knowledge, skills and attitudes (‘KSA’).

(4)

The objective of EBT is to improve safety and to enhance the competencies of flight crews to safely operate the aircraft in all flight regimes and to be able to identify and manage unexpected situations. The EBT concept is designed to maximise learning and limit formal checking.

(5)

Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 should therefore be amended in line with the ICAO Doc 9995 ‘Manual of evidence-based training’ in order to introduce requirements on the provision of training, checking and assessment of the EBT programme, and to allow authorities to approve the baseline EBT, which replaces previous checks, i.e. the Operator Proficiency Check (OPC) and the Licence Proficiency Check (LPC). This will allow a single approach to recurrent training at the operator.

(6)

The COVID-19 pandemic severely hampered the ability of Member States and the aviation industry to prepare for the application of a number of recently adopted Implementing Regulations in the field of aviation safety.

(7)

Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 requires that cockpit voice recorders (CVR with the capability of recording 25 hours) are installed and used as of 1 January 2021. To avoid disproportionate financial burden for aircraft operators and manufacturers of aeroplanes whose delivery to operators was scheduled before 1 January 2021 but subsequently disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the application of that requirement should be postponed.

(8)

The Agency has verified that the postponement of the application of the requirement referred to in recital 7 by a limited time is possible without having a detrimental effect on aviation safety.

(9)

The Agency has prepared draft implementing rules and submitted them with Opinion No 08/2019 (3) in accordance with points (b) and (c) of Article 75(2) and with Article 76(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139.

(10)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the committee established in accordance with Article 127 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139,

(1)

On 31 January 2019, the Commission imposed definitive safeguard measures on certain steel products (the ‘Definitive Safeguard Regulation’) (3).

(2)

The Commission amended the measures twice pursuant to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1590 (4) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/894 (5) respectively.

(3)

Pursuant to the Withdrawal Agreement (6) between the Union and the United Kingdom (‘UK’), as of 1 January 2021, the UK will no longer be part of the Union customs territory. Therefore, as of that date the territorial scope where safeguard measures are applicable will change. Since the level of the safeguard measures on certain steel products was established on the basis of the average imports into the Union of 28 Member States, i.e. including imports into the UK, during the reference period 2015-2017, the Commission finds it appropriate to adapt the volume of Tariff Rate Quotas (‘TRQs’) accordingly as well as the list of developing countries subject to the current safeguard measures.

(4)

On 30 October 2020, the Commission published a Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union (7) explaining the rationale of the proposal and the methodology it envisaged to apply, and invited interested parties to comment. The Notice also contained the volume of recalculated TRQs that would be in place for the period 1 January to 30 June 2021.

(5)

The Commission received nineteen submissions from interested parties within the deadline. The Commission also undertook consultations with nine third country governments.

(6)

The Commission addressed the comments received, concerning either specific product categories or general aspects of the adaptation, as follows:

(7)

Several interested parties submitted comments with regard to the volumes calculated for categories 4A and 4B (including automotive grades) and requested the Commission to review its calculation. In particular, during consultations with third country authorities, an interested party pointed to a clerical error in the calculation. Another interested party identified a specific calculation issue or proposed a slightly different allocation between the two product categories, which better reflects its situation with respect to the volumes concerning its country-specific TRQs, having regard to the counterfactual situation in this case, namely how TRQs would have been allocated had the UK not been part of the customs territory at the time the original safeguard measures were adopted. After assessing these claims the Commission found that they were warranted and revised the volumes included in the notice of 30 October accordingly.

(8)

It should be underlined that these adjustments only concern the distribution of the TRQs between sub-product categories 4A and 4B, but does not affect the level of the TRQs for the overall product category 4.

(9)

The updated volumes are reflected in the TRQ volumes in Annex I.

(10)

Some parties argued that the Commission should preserve the existing TRQ volumes and, in addition, either grant the UK its own country-specific TRQ or, where it falls under the residual TRQs, the volumes of these TRQs would need to be increased so as to include the UK’s traditional trade flows.

(11)

Some parties also argued that they would be negatively affected by the inclusion of the UK under the residual section of given TRQs, as it would increase the competition for a smaller TRQ volume.

(12)

Other parties noted that for certain origins, the overall volume of TRQs calculated would be reduced, making the measure more restrictive.

(13)

Finally, certain exporting countries complained that under the Commission’s proposal, they would lose their country-specific TRQ for some specific product categories. These parties argued that the Commission should preserve their country-specific TRQ and that failing to do so would amount to making the measures more restrictive, thus breaching WTO rules.

(14)

The Commission disagreed that the proposed adjustment would make the safeguard measure stricter. As stated in the Notice of 30 October, the result of the adaptation, in very few cases, would lead to some countries losing their country-specific TRQs (and vice-versa) in certain product categories. However, the Commission does not consider that the adaptation, as such, results in a more restrictive measure. The Commission explained in the Notice of 30 October the rationale of the adaptation, namely to have a volume of TRQs (both globally as well as per product category) that is proportionate to the reduction of the geographical scope of the territory where the Union’s safeguard measure applies as of 1 January 2021. Furthermore, the Commission notes that the overall TRQ volumes resulting from the adaptation are 3 % higher than the ones currently in place, and that this cannot be seen as making the measure more restrictive.

(15)

Moreover the Commission wishes to emphasize that if it were to accept the claims from those countries that would lose a certain country-specific TRQ, it would be discriminating them vis-a-vis any other interested parties by departing from its basic principle of granting a country-specific TRQ only when a certain threshold (5 % share of imports), in a specific period, is met (8). It is the result from the application of the counterfactual that countries which had a country-specific TRQ no longer meet the objective criterion, whereas others do.

(16)

The unused volumes of quotas laid down in Annex II of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/894, of those countries that, as a result of this adaptation would lose their country-specific quotas in a product category, were allocated to the residual tariff-rate quotas in the relevant product categories.

(17)

Some interested parties argued that if the Union is adapting its measures, it must re-assess whether all the requirements to impose safeguard measures continue to be met under a EU-27 scenario. One interested party noted in particular that such approach would lead the Union to determine that for several product categories, there would not have been an increase in imports, and therefore these should be excluded from the measures.

(18)

The Commission observed in this respect that the conditions to impose a safeguard measure need to be met when a safeguard measure is imposed for the first time. In the case of this measure, the conditions were met as explained in detail in the Definitive Safeguard Regulation.

(19)

The Commission disagrees with the views expressed by some interested parties that in a situation like the one at hand requires carrying out a full reassessment. In fact, as explained in the Notice of 30 October, the current proceeding is limited to adapting the TRQ volumes to the change in scope of the territory where the Union’s safeguard measure applies. In this regard, the Commission insists that this proceeding by no means constitute a fully-fledged review of the measures, and therefore, it is under no legal obligation to carry out the analysis that some interested parties requested.

(20)

Some interested parties contested the Commission’s proposal to grant a country-specific TRQ to the UK in this product category on the grounds that there is allegedly no production of this product category in the UK. As a result, the volumes allocated to the UK would not be used. These companies also claimed that the reduction in TRQ volumes resulting from the adaptation did not have any justification and that the Commission should maintain the same level of TRQs as provided by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/894.

(21)

In this respect, the Commission had explained in its Notice of 30 October the methodology and rationale behind the adaptation and the implications it could entail. If there is a reduction in overall TRQ volumes in this category, it is because imports into the UK in the reference period were deducted from the TRQ volume. Furthermore, in its Notice of 30 October the Commission explained how it established the level of UK imports into EU-27 during the reference period. The claim with respect to the absence of production in the UK was not properly substantiated and does not correspond with the statistics used by the Commission. No interested party provided any data of whether imports into the UK were consumed, further processed or subsequently sold within the Union. In any event, the volume allocated to the UK could not be transferred to other origins because this would artificially inflate the TRQ volume. Therefore this claim is immaterial to users. The Commission also rejected the claim to preserve the current TRQ volumes as it would ignore the reduction in the geographical scope of the territory covered by the safeguard measure, and it would equally result in an artificially inflated TRQ volume. Accordingly, the Commission rejects these arguments.

(22)

Some interested parties noted that due to the Commission’s proposal, Vietnam would lose its country-specific TRQ in this product category. These parties warned the Commission that these volumes, which will accordingly belong to the ‘other countries’ section of the TRQ, would likely be quickly used, in particular, by a certain origin. Accordingly these parties requested the Commission to limit the volumes that any country could use under the residual TRQ in this category.

(23)

The Commission noted that the request to limit the access to incumbent exporting countries under the residual TRQ (9) falls outside the scope of this adaptation exercise, as it would amount to modifying the functioning of the measures. In any event, the Commission recalled that the same claim was made in previous proceedings and it was rejected. Therefore, the Commission does not further address the merits of this claim.

(24)

The list of product categories originating in developing countries to which the definitive measures apply needs to be updated to reflect the territorial adaptation. The Commission based its calculation on the updated data concerning the year 2019 imports dataset (i.e the same period used in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/894, but excluding imports into the UK).

(25)

With respect to categories 4A and 4B, the Commission described in Section 4, paragraph 3 of the Notice of 30 October its provisional approach with respect to the treatment of UK imports for the purpose of the respective TRQs calculation. Following the assessment of the comments received and the consultations with third countries regarding this approach, the Commission decided to apply the same methodology for the purpose of updating the list of developing countries subject to measures in Annex II to this Regulation. In the absence of any other reliable information or documented alternative proposal by any interested party, the Commission assumed that UK imports in the year 2019 should be equally distributed between the two product categories.

(26)

The volumes of country-specific tariff-rate quotas allocated to developing countries that will be excluded from the safeguard measure laid down in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 upon the entry into force of this Regulation, were allocated to the residual tariff-rate quotas in the relevant product categories.

(27)

The changes to the list of developing countries subject to the measures is as follows:

(28)

No comments were made by any interested party on this adaptation.

(29)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Safeguards established under Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) 2015/478 and Article 22(3) of Regulation (EU) 2015/755 respectively,

(1)

On 29 March 2017, the United Kingdom submitted the notification of its intention to withdraw from the Union pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.

(2)

On 1 February 2020, the United Kingdom withdrew from the European Union and from the European Atomic Energy Community. Pursuant to Articles 126 and 127 of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (‘Withdrawal Agreement’), Union law is applicable to and in the United Kingdom during a transition period that is to end on 31 December 2020 (‘transition period’).

(3)

In accordance with Article 185 of the Withdrawal Agreement and with Article 5(3) of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, customs legislation as defined in point (2) of Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 is applicable to and in the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland (not including the territorial waters of the United Kingdom) after the end of the transition period.

(4)

After the end of the transition period, Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 ceases to apply to and in the United Kingdom, with the exception of Northern Ireland, and customs duties are to be applied to goods brought into the customs territory of the Union from the United Kingdom. In accordance with Article 71(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, the cost of transport up to the place where goods are brought into the customs territory of the Union is to be included in the customs value of the imported goods. The percentages of total air transport costs to be included in the customs value are set out in Annex 23-01 to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 (3). After the end of the transition period, the United Kingdom should be included in the appropriate list of third countries in that Annex.

(5)

The forms for guarantor’s undertakings are set out in Annexes 32-01, 32-02 and 32-03 and in Chapters VI and VII of Annex 72-04 to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447. Those forms list the Member States of the Union and the other Contracting Parties to the Convention on a common transit procedure (4), as amended by Decision No 1/2019 of the EU-CTC Joint Committee on common transit (5) (‘the Convention’). When Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 ceases to apply to and in the United Kingdom, with the exception of Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom should no longer be listed among the Member States in those forms. However, the United Kingdom has been invited and deposited its instrument of accession to accede to the Convention as a separate Contracting Party as of the end of the transition period. When the United Kingdom accedes to the Convention, it should be listed among the other Contracting Parties to the Convention in the forms for guarantor’s undertakings. In addition, as a consequence of the application of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, for Union transit operations Northern Ireland should be listed in a way that indicates that any guarantee that is valid in the Member States must also be valid in Northern Ireland.

(6)

Having regard to the imminent end of the transition period, this Regulation should enter into force as a matter of urgency. As the transition period ends on 31 December 2020, the provisions of this Regulation relating to the inclusion of the costs of air transport from the United Kingdom, with the exception of Northern Ireland, in the customs value and to the deletion of the references to the United Kingdom from the part of the forms for guarantor’s undertakings designated for the Member States should apply from 1 January 2021. The provisions relating to the inclusion of the references to the United Kingdom on the list of the other Contracting Parties to the Convention in the forms for guarantor’s undertakings should apply from the day the United Kingdom accedes to the Convention on a common transit procedure.

(7)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,